YALE UNIVERSITY
LIBRARY

THE LIBRARY OF THE
DIVINITY SCHOOL

THE WOEDS

THE NEW TESTAMENT.

EDINBURGH : PRINTED BY MUIR AND PATERSON
FOR
T. AND T. CLARK.
LONDON, . HAMILTON, ADAMS, AND CO.
DUBLIN, . JOHN ROBERTSON AND CO.
NEW YORK, . . SCRIBNER, WELP0RD, AND ARMSTRONG.

THE WO EDS

THE NEW TESTAMENT,

AS ALTERED BY TRANSMISSION AND ASCERTAINED
BY MODERN CRITICISM.

FOR POPULAR USE.

EEV. WILLIAM MILLIGAN, D.D.,
PROFESSOR OF DIVTNITT AND BIBLICAL CRITICISM, ABERDEEN;
/

EEV. ALEX. EOBEETS, D.D.,
PROFESSOR OF HUMANITY, ST. ANDREWS.

EDISBUEG.H:
T. AND T. CLAKJ^*^©f)-eJE^E STEEET.

PKEFACE.

The following pages aie meant to supply what the
writers believe to be a strongly felt want. While many
useful manuals exist, fitted to convey to general readers
an acquaintance with the outlines of such sciences as
Astronomy, Geology, or Botany, scarcely anything of
the kind has been attempted in connexion with the
science of Biblical Criticism. Not a few valuable
treatises have indeed been issued on the subject; but
these are of by far too technical a character to meet the
wants of the public at large. They appeal only to pro
cessed scholars or to those who are supposed to have
' already a considerable Amount of information. The
3 consequence is that multitudes of highly intelligent
men who are well versed in the leading principles and
^results of other sciences, know very little of the objects,
'methods, or achievements of sacred criticism. It is to
;meet the wants of such that the present volume has

vi Preface.
been prepared; and the writers trust that what they
have been enabled to state will be felt to be both in
teresting and important, without the use of language
unsuited to the general reader.
The prospect which the British public have of soon
obtaining a revised version of the Sacred Scriptures is
naturally attracting more than ordinary attention to the
topics handled in this work. Many of the changes of
the Authorized Version made in that revision must be
founded on previous changes of the Greek text. It
seems desirable that the great body of educated persons-
who are watching with so lively an interest the pro
ceedings of the New Testament Eevision Company,
now sitting at Westminster, but who have neither
the necessary time nor acquirements for entering
deeply into the studies of the Biblical critic, should
yet be able to form to themselves an intelligent idea of
the need of a revision of the text, of the principles on
which it should be conducted, and of the results that
may be expected from it. They will thus be in a better
position than they can be at present for judging of the
merits of the revision when it appears.
It is not indeed to be supposed that a correct impres
sion of what the revised translation will contain can be
gathered from anything here said. Even the readings

Preface. vii
for which the writers have expressed a preference will
doubtless differ in numerous mstances from those
adopted by the Eevision Company; while that Com
pany must certainly introduce into the text many
more changes than those spoken of by them. The
writers of this book must be understood to deal only
with the principles of textual criticism that appear to
themselves to be correct ; and for the opinions indicated
they alone are responsible.
It may be proper to add that the first part of this
work has been written by Professor Eoberts, the second
by Professor Milligan. The third part is a joint pro
duction ; Professor Milligan treating the texts referred
to in the Gospels and Acts of the Apostles, Professor
Eoberts those in the other books of the New Testament.
1st May 1873.

CONTENTS.

PAET EIEST.
THE FACTS OF THE CASE.
3HAP. PAGE
I. Causes of Various Eeadings in tbe New Testament, . 3
II. Nature and Amount of tbe Various Eeadings, . . 18
III. Existing Manuscripts of tbe New Testament, . . 26
IV. Ancient Versions of tbe New Testament, ... 47
V. Quotations from tbe Books of tbe New Testament by
Ancient "Writers,  60
VI. Sketch of tbe History of Modern Biblical Criticism, . 67
PAET SECOND.
MODE OF DEAlING WITH THE FACTS.
I. Introductory,  83
II. First Step in Classification  89
III. Second Step in Classification,  95
IV. Third Step in Classification.— Part I.  101
V. Third Step in Classification.— Part II  109

x Contents.
CHAP. VI. General Eesult of Classification,
VII. The Principle of Grouping,
VIII. Determination of the Text. — Part I.,
IX. Determination of the Text. — Part II.,
X. General Summary,

PAGE 116121
129138148

PAET THIED.
EESULTS.
I. Effect produced by Textual Criticism upon important
Texts of the New Testament, ..... 155
II. Effect produced by Textual Criticism upon tbe Text of
the New Testament in its Successive Books, . . 173

PAET FIHST.
THE FACTS OF THE CASE.

PART FIRST.
THE FACTS OF THE CASE.

CHAPTEE I.
CAUSES OF VARIOUS EEADINGS IN THE NEW TESTAMENT.
|HE autographs of the sacred writers have
long since disappeared or perished.
This being so, there is, of necessity, scope
for critical researches in connection with the
text of the New Testament. Unless God had continued
from age to age to exercise a miraculous care over the
original text — a thing totally out of harmony with the
usual course of His Providence — nothing could be more
certain than that slight alterations and errors would
creep into it with the lapse of time. Even at the
present day it is a matter of extreme difficulty to get
a work printed with absolute accuracy. Probably, in
spite of all the care which has been taken, .there never
yet was an edition of the Scriptures published in any
language which did not contain some errors. The
curious misprints which have occurred in some of the
most carefully Watched editions are well known to all

4 Causes of Various Eeadings in the New Testament.
that have devoted any attention to this subject, and
serve to prove how difficult, if not impossible, it is to
secure unblemished correctness in passing the Scriptures
through the press.
Now, if this is the case even in the days of printing,
much more must the liability to error have existed
when copies of the New Testament could be multiplied
only by transcription. Every one who has much , copy
ing work to do feels how very difficult it is, for any
considerable time, to preserve perfect accuracy. The
mind can scarcely be drilled into fulfilling that merely
mechanical process which is all that, in such circum
stances, it is called to accomplish. It will exercise
itself about the subject before it; and thus, instead of
rigidly copying the document under transcription, it is
apt, every now and then, to allow its own thoughts or
fancies to find a place upon the page. Suppose, for
instance, that one is transcribing a sentence which ends
with the words " twenty centuries." The first part of
the sentence is perhaps copied with literal accuracy;
but, while the fact stated at the close of the period is
retained in the memory, a change in the mode of
expressing it has been unconsciously effected in the
mind of the transcriber, so that, instead of writing
"twenty centuries," he sets down "two thousand years."
In this way the very intelligence of a copyist will
sometimes betray him into mistakes. He may substi
tute one synonymous word for another, or exchange a
name which occurs in the document before him for
another . name by which the individual referred to is

Causes of Various Readings in the New Testament. 5
equally well known in history. Thus, instead of
"king "he may write "sovereign" or "monarch;" for
" Hildebrand" he may substitute " Gregory VII. ; " in place
of "Lord Bacon" he may be led to say "Lord Verulam,"
and so on, — the danger of falling into such mistakes
being all the greater the farther a transcriber rises
above the character of a mere copying-machine and
is himself possessed of knowledge and intelligence.
This general remark will, of itself, account for not a
few of those variations which are found in Manuscripts
of the New Testament. Again and again has a word or
phrase been slipped in by the transcriber which had
no existence in his copy, but which was due to the
working of his own mind on the subject before him.
On this ground we easily explain, for example, the
frequent introduction of our Lord's name into the text
where a simple pronoun existed in the original copy,
or where the nominative was left to be supplied from
the context. Thus, at Mark viii. J, John vi. 14, and
in a vast number of other passages, we find Jesus where
He is the correct reading. On the same ground we
account for those differences in the order of words
which are often to be found in the manuscripts. One
will read " Jesus Christ," and another " Christ Jesus,"
just as the names happened to present themselves to
the minds of transcribers. And there are other readings
of considerably greater interest which are probably to
be traced to the same cause. We may refer to Matt.
xxv. 6 for an example. The true reading there is,
"Behold the bridegroom;" the reading which has crept

6 Causes of Various Readings in the New Testament.
into the text is, "Behold the bridegroom cometh;" and
we may, without much risk of mistake, ascribe this
addition simply to the working of the mind of a copyist
on the passage before him. So, at Luke i. 29, the in
sertion of "when she saw him " will be naturally enough
accounted for on the same ground ; while we feel that
it would be scarcely possible to transcribe Eom. viii. 26
without interpolating the words "for us," which are
nevertheless destitute of any adequate authority. These
illustrations may suffice to show how various readings
would, in many cases, arise, not from any intention on
the part of transcribers, but simply from the exercise
of their own minds on the subject which happened for
the time to engage their consideration.
But, in multitudes of other cases, the various readings
must be ascribed to intention on the part of transcribers.
Several motives may be detected as having influenced
them in the alterations which they introduced into the
text of the New Testament.
For one thing, many passages which presented difficult
constructions have been changed to the more usual
forms. In such cases, the copyist has either naturally
glided into the style of expression with which he was
familiar, or has supposed that his predecessor in the
work of transcription had made a mistake which it was
his duty to correct. This has been a very fertile source
of various readings ; and, in dealing with cases of the
kind referred to, Biblical critics have laid down the rule
that an obscure expression, or a harsh and ungrammati-

Causes of Various Readings in the New Testament. 7
cal construction, is generally to be chosen as probably
the correct reading, rather than another which is clear,
or familiar and correct. It may seem strange at first
that such a principle should be adopted — that a reading
which it i% almost impossible to construe or interpret
should be preferred to one which presents no difficulty.
But the reason is obvious. A transcriber was much more
likely to supplant an obscure or unintelligible expres
sion by one that was usual and easy than to follow the
opposite course. He was far mpre strongly tempted to
consider the rugged idiom or the unaccustomed phrase
before him an error which had crept into the manuscript
from which he copied, than to change what was common
and intelligible into what was unusual and incompre
hensible. Of course occasions might occur on which,
from carelessness or oversight, a transcriber would render
a sentence obscure or ungrammatical which was clear
and correct in his exemplar ; but it is manifest that, so
far as intentional alteration was concerned, the tempta
tion all lay in the opposite direction.
A familiar illustration of the manner in which various
readings would originate, as just indicated, may be found
in a reference to the text of Shakespeare. Again and
again have words or phrases which were not understood
by editors been changed into forms with which they were
familiar, and which they regarded as yielding a satis
factory sense. The text of our great dramatist has thus
been loaded with numerous expressions which we are
perfectly certain he never wrote. It is only through
much labour, and by means of a thorough study ofi

8 Causes of Various Readings in the New Testament.
the contemporary Elizabethan literature, that Shakes
pearian critics are gradually succeeding in extruding
those erroneous readings which have, for the sake of
apparently greater clearness, been foisted into the text
of their author, and in restoring, with tolerable certainty,
the genuine text. We can easily conceive that, while
this process of rectification is pursued, it should some
times happen, in regard to the works of Shakespeare, as
in the case of the New Testament, that readings have to
be sacrificed with which one is loath to part. Suppose,
for instance, our highest critical authorities should com
bine against Theobald's famous emendation in Scene 3,
Act II. of King Henry V. They might insist that
evidence is decidedly in favour of the old folio reading
of the passage. In that case, we could not resign with
out regret what has been deemed such an exquisite
touch of nature, when we are told of the dying Falstaff •
that " he babbled of green fields." Yet, if it became the
settled judgment of critics that the phrase referred to is
simply a happy guess, and was never written by Shakes
peare, every reasonable man would give it up, however
prosaic or unintelligible might be the words substituted
in its place. So it may be matter of regret to have to
accept at 1 Pet. iii. 8 the somewhat commonplace
exhortation "Be humble" for the beautiful precept
" Be courteous," which stands in our present Authorized
Version. But still, if authority so determine, we must
not hesitate. There may often be an artificial beauty
about error, but there is always an inestimable precious-
ness in truth.

Causes of Various Readings in the New Testament. 9
The following examples may be given of the way in
which various readings have arisen in the text of the
New Testament, from a desire on the part of the copyists
to remove or lessen difficulties. At Matt. xvi. 11 the
true reading is, " How is it that ye do not understand
that I spake not to you concerning bread ? But beware
of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees." The
imperative in the second clause of this verse being either
not liked or not understood, the passage has, in defiance
of all authority, been made to run as follows — " How is
it that ye do not understand that I spake it not to you
concerning bread, that ye should beware of the leaven of
the Pharisees and of the Sadducees V At Mark vii. 31
the true reading is, "And again, going from the borders -
of Tyre, He came through Sidon unto the Sea of Galilee,
through the midst of the borders of Decapolis." But, in
order to escape the fancied difficulty involved in the
long circuit which these words describe as having been
made by Christ, the verse has been altered to read as
follows : — " And again, departing from the coasts of Tyre
and Sidon, He came unto the Sea of Galilee, through the
midst of the coasts of Decapolis." At Luke xiv. 5 the
true reading in all probability is, " And He said unto
them, Which of you shall have a son or an ox fallen
into a well, and will not straightway draw him out on
the sabbath day ?" Here, however, the word "son" was
deemed unsuitable, as' not being consistent with the
supposed argument from the less to the greater, and was
therefore changed into " ass " (which is found at chap.
xiii. 15), so that the verse runs thus — " Which of you

10 Causes of Various Readings in the New Testament.
shall have an ass or an ox fallen into a pit, and will not
straightway pull him out on the sabbath day ?"
Under the same head may properly be ranked some
of those additions which have been made to the true text
of the New Testament. An example occurs at Eom.
viii. 1. The genuine reading in that passage is simply,
"There is therefore now no condemnation to them
which are in Christ Jesus." The longer this statement
is considered the more it will be felt an admirably satis
factory conclusion to the previous reasoning of the
Apostle. But many copyists seem to have been dissatis
fied with its brevity and simplicity. They desiderated
the introduction of the personal and practical element,
and therefore (although the argument of the Apostle is
thus anticipated and obscured) inserted from verse 4 the
words, "who walk not after the flesh, but after the
spirit."' To the same desire on the part of transcribers to
correct and improve the text before them are unquestion
ably to be ascribed many of those various readings which
occur in the Book of Eevelation. As is well known to
all acquainted with the original, that portion of the New
Testament is remarkable for the number of ungram
matical expressions which it contains. There is no
great difficulty in suggesting satisfactory reasons, his
torical and psychological, why this should be the case.
But it is evident what a temptation to correct was thus
presented to transcribers. The very respect and affection
which may be entertained for a writer will lead to the
wish that as few blemishes as possible should appear in

Causes of Various Readings in the New Testament. 11
his works. These blemishes will be made the subject
of earnest regret, and will, if opportunity is offered, be
carefully removed. Who can doubt, for instance, the
pain which Bishop Hurd felt in pointing out obscurities
and inelegancies in the text of his favourite Addison ?
Never did editor more love or esteem his author than
did the worthy bishop. He dilates with his whole
heart, and most justly, on. the "purity and grace of
expression" displayed by Addison. Yet every now and
then a word or a whole sentence occurs which offends
the taste of the bishop, and which he wishes had been
different from what it is. Now, this same feeling existed
in the minds of transcribers towards the sacred writers,
and led them in many cases to replace an inaccurate
form of expression by another which was correct. Hence
alterations for the sake of grammar have been introduced
into the Greek text at Eev. ii. 20, iv. 1, &c. ; but such
changes are without effect upon the English Version.
There must also be noticed under this head the
numerous cases in which parallel passages have been
made verbally to correspond with one another. These
cases are, of course, most frequent in the Gospels. Thus
the true reading both at Matt. ix. 13 and Mark ii. 17
is, " I came not to call- the righteous, but sinners." Both
passages, however, have been conformed to the text of
Luke v. 32, so that in all three Gospels we read, "I
came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance."
Such cases of harmonizing, though far more common,
as was to have been expected, in the Gospels, may also
be found in the Epistles. Thus 1 Tim. i. 17 has been

12 Causes of Various Readings in the New Testament.
made to conform to Eom. xvi. 27 by the insertion of the
word " wise." As the epithet " only " occurs before God
in both passages, the two doxologies have been harmon
ized by the interpolation of the missing " wise " in the
passage in Timothy, which ought to be read, " Unto the
King eternal [or, " of the ages "], the incorruptible, the
invisible, the only God, be honour and glory for ever and
ever. Amen." The reason of such changes in the text
is happily so evident that corruptions of the kind referred
to cause little trouble to Biblical critics.
There is still another cause of various readings
which falls under the head of intention on the part of
transcribers; but it is of so grave a character as to
demand special and separate consideration. We refer
to the changes which, it is supposed, have in some
cases been made on the text from doctrinal views or
predilections.. We rejoice to believe that there is no necessity for
ascribing many of the various readings in the New
Testament to this cause. The ancient copyists seem
to have done their work with the utmost sincerity.
Perhaps every one of the readings which have some
times been attributed to doctrinal bias admits of beins
explained on grounds which imply no suspicion of bad
faith on the part of the transcribers. Still, there are
certain passages in which the variation which exists
may possibly have been due to the dogmatic opinions
held by various transcribers, and to some of the chief
of these we shall now briefly direct attention.

Causes of Various Readings in the New Testament. 13
It need not be said how often a single word carries
in its bosom an important doctrine ; and, bearing this
in mind, we shall easily understand how strong, accord
ing to the bias of the copyist, may have been the
temptation to tamper with the text. Thus, the whole
controversy between the Church Catholic and the
Arians or the Socinians may be said to be involved in
the reading which is to be adopted at Acts xx. 28. If
we are to read that verse as it stands in our Authorized
English Version, '' Peed the Church of God which He
hath purchased with His own blood," there can no
longer be the slightest doubt as to the supreme divinity
of our Eedeemer. But then ancient authority is greatly
divided on the point as to whether or not God is here
the correct expression; and many modern critics prefer
to read the verse thus — "Peed the Church of the Lord
which He hath purchased with His own blood;" a
statement which cannot be held decisive, one way or
another, of the controversy in question.1
The same remarks apply to the alternative readings
found at John i. 18. Some copies read that verse as in
our common Version — " No man hath seen God at any
time: the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of
the Father, He hath declared Him." But many others
have the verse as follows — "No man hath seen God at
any time : the only begotten God, which is in the bosom
of the Father, He hath declared Him." The important
1 This passage and those that follow are referred to at present
simply for the sake of illustration ; they will be found discussed
afterwards in Parts Second and Third.

14 Causes of Various Readings in the New- Testament.
doctrinal inference to be derived from the latter reading
is too obvious to require remark.
Again, it is evident how the famous passage, around
which such controversy has raged, 1 John v. 7, 8 (" in
heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost; and
these three are one. And there are three that bear
witness in earth"), may have been introduced into the
text without authority, in order to give a fancied
support to the doctrine of the Trinity. On the other
hand, it has been urged that the Arians may have
designedly omitted the passage, from their dislike to the
truth which it seems so manifestly to set forth.
As a specimen of the less celebrated passages in
which, doctrinal considerations are thought to have
affected readings, we may refer to Heb. i. 3. .The
latter part of that verse is read by modern critics as
follows — "When He had made a purification of sins,
He sat down on the right hand of Majesty on high."
And it is thought that the insertion of "our" before
" sins " was due to a desire on the part of some
transcribers to show that the sins for which He suffered
were not His own.
There only remains to be noticed, as another cause of
various readings in the New Testament, the occurrence
of oversight or mistake on the part of transcribers."
This may be illustrated by a reference to several par
ticulars. A very frequent cause of error was found in those
words of like ending which occurred in the manuscripts.

Causes of Various Readings in the New Testament. 15
Suppose, for the sake of illustration, that a transcriber
is copying a passage in which the word " disciples " is
read at the end of two successive verses. He tran
scribes the first verse, and then, looking up from his
work to the copy before him, his eye unfortunately
lights .upon the end of the second verse, no part of
which has yet been written. He sees the word
"disciples" which his pen has just traced; and, not
perceiving that the second verse in which it occurs still
remains untranscribed, he proceeds with his work, and
leaves out that verse altogether. This has been a very
fruitful source of error in manuscripts of the New
Testament. For- an example we may refer to Matt.
xii. 46. That verse is entirely omitted in some excel
lent manuscripts. And, for- a very obvious reason. It
ends in the Greek with exactly the same word as the
preceding verse, and has thus, in some cases, been
altogether overlooked by transcribers. Similar mistakes
abound in the manuscripts.
Again,, one word was often mistaken for another
which strongly resembled it. This error frequently
occurs even in printed books at the present 'day. We
have seen "humour" substituted for "human," and
" antimonies " standing where " antinomies " was in
tended. Now, in Greek there is only the difference of
a single letter between the word meaning " edification "
and the word meaning "dispensation." Hence, at
1 Tim. i. 4 we find in the Authorized Version "godly
edifying which is in faith," instead of the true reading,
" God's dispensation which is in faith." Copyists have

16 Causes of Various Readings in the New Testament.
also sometimes confounded the Greek for " they took"
with the Greek for "they cast," the two words con
sisting of exactly the same letters with a very slight
difference of arrangement.
Errors have also arisen from the style of writing
characteristic of the most ancient manuscripts. These
are written throughout in uncial or capital letters, without
division or interpunction. Hence a different sense
from the true one might sometimes be attached by
copyists to the words. The following illustration may
be given: — If we write NOWHEEE without any
separation between the letters, either "now here" or
" no where " may be understood to be the words in
tended. In like manner, some various readings have
arisen in the New Testament from the possibility which
exists in several passages of dividing the Greek in
different ways, and from one of these being preferred
by one transcriber and another by another.
Lastly, some important various readings have arisen
from transcribers admitting glosses and marginal notes
into the text. Examples of this kind are furnished in
the insertion of these words at John v. 3, 4, "waiting
for the moving of the water. For an angel went down
at a certain season into the pool, and troubled the
water : whosoever then first, after the troubling of the
water, stepped in, was made whole of whatsoever disease
he had;" and in the insertion of Acts viii. 37, "And
Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou
mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that
Jesus Christ is the Son of God." The first of these

Causes of Various Readings in the New Testament. 17
passages was probably a marginal gloss explanatory of
the popular belief on the subject referred to, and the
second a regular baptismal formula — both in course of
time finding their way into the text. Doxologies too
were apt to creep in from the constant use made of them
in the services of the Church ; and various particulars,
having once obtained a place on the margin of the
manuscripts, by and by sucaeeded in intruding them
selves into the text. This fact has led Biblical
critics to adopt as another great general principle by
which they are influenced in seeking to restore the
genuine words of the New Testament — that, in most
cases, the shorter reading is to be preferred to the
longer, as having been, in all probability, the form
which the text exhibited in the autograph of the
sacred writers.

CHAPTEE II.
NATURE AND AMOUNT OF THE VARIOUS EEADINGS.
S the result of those causes enumerated and
explained in the preceding Chapter, and
perhaps of some other minor influences, the
amount of variation- existing in manuscripts
of the New Testament is very great. It is not a little
startling at first to be told, as Biblical critics do tell us,
that there are no fewer than 150,000 various readings
within the compass of the New Testament, This fact
has, of course, been laid hold of by the enemies of divine
revelation, and has at times caused no small alarm to its '
friends. Like geology in our own day, Biblical criti
cism was formerly appealed to by one class as destructive
of the authority of the New Testament, and was feared
and discountenanced by another class as being really
hostile to the interests of sacred truth.
As a specimen of the one class, we may refer to
Collins, one of the English Deists of the last century.
In his book entitled Discourse of Freethinking, pub
lished in 1713, he endeavoured to throw discredit'

Nature and Amount of the Various Readings. 19
upon the New Testament from the great variety of read
ings which existed in its text. Uncertainty as to the
doctrines which it taught was represented as being the
necessary result. Freethinkers, as Collins alleged, were
thus absolved from the duty of paying any regard to the
claims of revelation. They might safely, according to
him, ignore the very existence of the New Testament,
until its friends agreed among themselves as to the
genume text. The same line of argument has been
followed by some sceptical writers in more recent times,
though, for very sufficient reasons, which will soon be
brought forward, it is rarely adopted by any intelligent
reasoners at the present day.
As specimens of the other class referred to, we may
mention the names of Drs. Owen and Whitby. It forms
a grievous blot on the memory of 'the former that he
assailed the very learned Brian Walton and his friends
in such language of vituperation for having employed
their " unwilling leisure," after being deprived of their
livings under the Commonwealth, in cultivating the
science of sacred criticism, and bringing to light the
discrepancies which existed among *the manuscripts of
the New Testament. In venturing to deal with this.
subject, the great Puritan only displayed his own ignor-
ance.and narrowness of comprehension. The same may
be said regarding Whitby in the assault which he made
on the New Testament of Dr. John Mill. This learned
work appeared in 1707, and was distinguished from all
the editions which had preceded it by the number of
various readings which it contained. On this ground it

20 Nature and Amount of the Various Readings.
was attacked by Dr. Whitby, and its author was accused
of having rendered the text of Scripture precarious.
The obvious fact was overlooked that Mill had not
invented the variations, but simply revealed them ; and,
instead of the honour which should have been paid to
that illustrious scholar for his painstaking labour of
thirty years on the sacred text, a most unworthy attempt .
was made to load his memory with obloquy, and to
represent his life-long work as having tended to the
weakening instead of the support of the cause of
divine revelation.
Drs. Owen and Whitby, in their sincere and zealous
but unintelligent attempts to defend Scripture against a
fancied danger to which it was exposed, have, unfortun
ately, proved the types of not a few equally earnest but
short-sighted friends of the Bible. There have been
those, even down to our own day, who have been
ever ready to tremble for the Word of God when con
fronted with the discoveries of science. Such persons
forget that it is high treason to the truth to doubt that
it will survive every assault which can be made against
it ; while, in their ardent but narrow-minded zeal, they
have sometimes had recourse to abuse instead of argu
ment, and have thus given an advantage to their
opponents, which no discovery, critical, philosophical, or
scientific, could ever have furnished.
When we come to examine the matter, we find that
the vast array of various readings which has been men
tioned, and which appears at first sight so formidable,
loses all power to discompose the Christian, and even

Nature and Amount of the Various Readings. 2t
becomes to him a source of congratulation and rejoicing.
At least nine out of every ten of these readings are of
no practical importance whatsoever. They involve the
mere substitution of one synonymous word for another;
or the use of a compound instead of a simple term ; or
a change of the order in which different words or clauses
are to be read ; and have thus scarcely any perceptible
influence on the meaning of the text. Sometimes, for
example, in one manuscript, one Greek word is used for
the copulative conjunction and, while in a second a
different, but perfectly synonymous, particle is employed,
and in a third the word may be wanting altogether.
Sometimes our Lord is in one manuscript referred to
under the name of Jesus ; while in a second He is spoken
of at the same place as Christ; in a third He may be
styled Jesus Christ ; and in a fourth He may be men
tioned as Christ Jesus. These are specimens of by far
the greater number of the various readings, and are
enough to show how unimportant they are in general
to our faith as Christians, and how little reason there is
either for the unbeliever to boast, or the believer to fear,
on account of the mere number of them which have been
collected. We may here cite the words of one of the greatest
scholars and critics that England ever produced. The
illustrious Eichard Bentley thus writes in his reply to
the work of Collins above mentioned : — " The real text
of the sacred writers does not now (since the originals
have been so long lost) lie in any manuscript or edition,
but is dispersed in them all. 'Tis competently exact

22 Nature and Amount of the Various Readings.
indeed in the worst manuscript now extant; nor is
one article of faith or moral precept either perverted or
lost in them — choose as awkwardly as you will, choose
the worst by design, out of the whole lump of readings."
And again : — " Make your 30,000 (various readings) as
many more, if number of copies can ever reach that
sum : all the better to a knowing and a serious
reader, who is thereby more richly furnished to select
what he sees genuine. But even put them into the
hands of a knave or a fool, and yet, with the most
sinistrous and absurd choice, he shall not extin
guish the light of any one chapter, nor so disguise
Christianity, but that every feature of it will still
be the same."1
The truth of the matter is, as has, been hinted, that it .
constitutes the security, of our faith as Christians, that
such a vast collection of various readings could possibly
have been formed. Unless God had deemed it proper
to exert a miraculous power over the New Testament, so
as to preserve it from all risk of change and error, the
only way in which He could bestow upon us the means
of discovering the true text' was by furnishing us in His
Providence with many different sources to which we
might repair in seeking to ascertain it. As in other
cases, He has left room here for human industry ; and
in the many manuscripts of the New Testament still
extant (all of course more ancient than the date of the
general employment of printing) we are presented with
1 Remarks upon a late Discourse of Freethinking, in a Letter ¦ to
F. H., D.D., by Phileleutherus Idpsiensis, Part i. § 32.

Nature and Amount of the Various Readings. 23
the field on which our diligence is to be exercised in
seeking to recover the very words of evangelists and
apostles. The multitude of manuscripts of necessity
increases the number of various readings, but in that
very number is found the assurance that our labour in
seeking after the original text shall not be in vain.
This point will be made abundantly plain by the follow
ing illustrations.
There are some of the classical writers in the printed
editions of whose works not a single various reading is
to be found. And do scholars rejoice on that account,
or is the text therefore to be regarded as free from
corruption? Nay: the very opposite is the case.
With respect, for instance, to the Eoman historian
Velleius Paterculus, we are told that only one manu
script of his work has ever been discovered. Accord
ingly, no varieties of reading are to be found in the
published editions of Paterculus, except what conjecture
may have introduced. But the consequence is that
the text of his narrative is in a state of the most
hopeless confusion. Many parts of it are totally
unintelligible, and, simply for want of additional
manuscripts to furnish different readings, no means
whatever exist of letting in any light upon the obscu
rities which abound.
Again, only one ancient manuscript is known to
scholars which contains the last six books (xi.-xvi.) of
the Annals of Tacitus. The result is that the text of
these books remains in the most corrupt and mutilated
state. The only way of repairing and restoring it is by

24 Nature and Amount of the Various Readings.
the exercise of conjectural criticism. Abundant scope
for this is still found, and every fresh editor indulges in
some attempts at emendation, just as his judgment or
fancy suggests. Now, let it be carefully noted that
conjectural criticism is entirely banished from the field
of the New Testament. And why ? Simply because
all sober critics feel that there is no need for it. The
wealth at their command in the multitude of copies of
the sacred text still extant is so enormous, and the means
of ascertaining, by painstaking effort, the genuine read
ings, is so ample and satisfactory, that no one would
have a chance of being listened to at the present day
who should propose to introduce any conjectural emen
dation into the Scriptures. It matters not how ingenious
or plausible any such conjecture might appear. There
is neither room nor need for it in dealing with the text
of the New Testament. So deeply fixed is this principle
in the minds of Biblical critics, that were any one
simply to suggest, in connection with a single word of
Scripture, that the region of fact should be left and the
realm of imagination entered, he would, by so doing, be
felt and declared to have excluded himself frorn among
the number of those who have a right to be heard upon
the subject.
It will be seen, then, that the very fact of our possess
ing so many varieties of reading in the books of the
New Testament, implies the vast resources which we
have at command for ascertaining the true text, and is
itself a reason for gratitude to that gracious Providence

Nature and Amount of the Various Readings. 25
which has thus preserved to us the means of discover
ing, through diligent inquiry, what were the exact
words which "holy men of old" employed, when
they spoke and wrote "as they were moved by the
Holy Ghost."

CHAPTEE III.
EXISTING MANUSCRIPTS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.
^"^jaHE three great sources whence various read-
ffl ffla ings are derived, and to which we must
§93| repair in seeking to fix the genuine text
of Scripture, are : (1) the manuscripts of the
New Testament still known to exist; (2) the ancient
versions which have come down to us ; and (3) those
quotations from the sacred books which occur in the
works of ancient writers. No one of these guides to a
knowledge of the original text can be implicitly trusted.
Even the most valuable manuscripts contain important
and obvious errors. The best versions also have at
times mistaken the sense of the original, and are there
fore to be used with care and discrimination. And
very many, of those quotations of Scripture which occur
in the writings of the Fathers have been loosely made,
memory having been trusted to for giving the substance
of the passage quoted, while the exact words of the
sacred text were not sought to be preserved. Illustra
tions of the various kinds of errors thus indicated will
be given in the sequel.

Existing Manuscripts of the New Testament. 27
The most direct and important source of textual
criticism is, of course, that furnished in still existing
and available manuscripts. To a description of the
most valuable of these the present Chapter will be
devoted. The manuscripts of the New Testament have been
divided into two classes, which are known as Uncials
and Cursives, according to the manner in which they
are written. The Uncials are so called because they
are written throughout in Greek capital letters. The Cur
sives, again, correspond more with the mode of writing'
in common use among ourselves, having capitals only at
the beginning of sentences or paragraphs, and being
otherwise written in small characters. The Uncials are
more ancient, and, of course, much less numerous than
the Cursives. The line between the two may be drawn
about the tenth century; and while existing manuscripts
of the New Testament anterior to that date can be
counted only by tens, those belonging to the period
extending from the tenth to the sixteenth century are
to be reckoned by hundreds.
As we rise to an antiquity beyond the tenth century,
the number of manuscripts to which we can make
appeal becomes rapidly diminished. In addition to
some precious fragments, there are only five manuscripts
of the New Testament having any pretension to com
pleteness that can be assigned to so ancient a date as
.between the fourth and the sixth century. To a brief
account of these most interesting and valuable transcripts

28 Existing Manuscripts of the New Testament.
of the New Testament what remains of the present
Chapter will be given.
And who could let his eye rest upon the yellow
parchments in which the sacred words of our Lord and
His disciples have been preserved in these ancient
documents, without having emotions of no ordinary
kind excited within him ? Long have the hands which
traced these antique characters mouldered into dust.
Before the darkness of the mediaeval ages had obscured
the glory of ancient literature and civilisation were
some of them written. Beyond all the struggles of
modern times — beyond all the changes flowing, in suc
cession, from the breaking up of the Eoman Empire, the
domination of ecclesiastical Eome, the religious and
intellectual emancipation of individuals and nations
effected by the Beformation — are we carried by the
inspection of any one of these witnesses to our faith as
Christians. While thrones have been overturned, and
empires have been founded; while learning has died
and been buried, and again enjoyed a happy resurrec
tion ; while the tide of conquest has surged from shore
to shore, and one nation after another become the
leading people upon earth, — it has pleased God to
preserve in these perishable pages the record of His love
to man, and of the provision which He has made for
the salvation of sinners. It is with a kind of reverence
that we gaze upon these faded yet still legible transcripts
of the word of God. We find in them the very same
counsels, instructions, and promises, as are contained in
those printed copies of the Bible with which we are all

Existing Manuscripts of the Nevj Testament. 29
familiar ; but there seems a solemnity about their utter
ances which can belong to no modern volume. It is
almost felt, while lingering over their contents, as if we
actually listened to the voice of 'John, or Peter, or Paul ;
and, far removed from the stormy contentions of those
rival sects which have risen up in the modern Christian
world, were privileged to hear, as within the solemn
silence of some vast cathedral, or under the quietude of
a starlit sky, the words of eternal life. We draw near,
therefore, with a kind of awe as well as interest, to
inspect those treasures of this kind which time has
spared, if, on any occasion, such a privilege is afforded
us. And if, as must be the case with most, we never
have an opportunity of actually looking with our own
eyes on these precious documents, we cannot but be
glad to have them, as it were, brought before us
through the descriptions of them which have been
given by the faithful and diligent pens of textual
critics. It is usual among Biblical scholars to distinguish the
ancient manuscripts of the New Testament by the use
of the letters of the alphabet. ¦ The designations thus
given them have been accepted throughout Christendom,
and furnish an easy as well as concise means of
reference. A, or the Alexandrian Codex.
This manuscript is preserved in the British Museum,
and constitutes one of the most precious literary
treasures belonging to our country. As in the case

30 Existing Manuscripts of the New Testament.
of the other ancient manuscripts, very little is known
of its history. It has been in this. country since the
year 1628, having been sent, in that year, through the
English ambassador in Turkey, as a present to Charles I.
from Cyril, then Patriarch of Constantinople. A short
account of the previous history of the manuscript was
also transmitted by Cyril, and is still prefixed to its
first volume. We learn from this notice that the
manuscript was written by one named Thecla, who is
described as having suffered martyrdom, but when or
Where is utterly unknown. It has been supposed, from
some peculiarities in the orthography, that Egypt was
the country in which the manuscript was written, but
this is a point exceedingly doubtful. There need be no
question, however, that it was brought by Cyril from
Alexandria; and, on this account, it is generally
spoken of as the Codex Alexandrinus, or Alexandrian
Manuscript. Several considerations lead us to the conclusion that
this manuscript is not less than 1400 years old, belong
ing to a date about the middle of the fifth century.
As already stated, it is written throughout in capital
letters, and this of itself is a mark of high antiquity.
The letters are in general of uniform size, the excep
tions being at the commencement of a new section,
where a larger character is used, and in places, chiefly
at the end of lines, in which the transcriber, being
pressed for space, has made use of smaller letters.
Another indication of the very ancient date of the
manuscript is found in the fact that no division occurs

Existing Manuscripts of the New Testament. 31
between the words ; and that, except at the close of the
sentences or paragraphs, no punctuation exists. This
peculiarity, common to all the most ancient manuscripts,
causes at first no small difficulty to the reader. Every
one will understand this by glancing at the following
familiar verse, given in English in imitation of the
fashion followed in Greek by the early uncial manuscripts.
INTHEBEGINNINGWASTHEWOEDANDTHE
WOEDWASWITHGODANDTHEWOEDWASGOD.
John i. 1.
The eye, it will be felt, requires considerable practice
before it is able readily to separate words which all
seem to run together in the writing, and which are only
to be distinguished by a familiar acquaintance with the
language and by the sense of the passage.
In addition to these marks of great antiquity, there
are other features presented by the Alexandrian manu
script which lead us to assign it to the date that has
been above suggested. One of these is that it does not
contain those divisions of the Acts and Epistles —
generally ascribed to Euthalius, Bishop of Sulce, and
corresponding in effect to our modern chapters, which
came into common use about the middle of , the fifth
century. This fact pretty plainly indicates that the
manuscript must have been written before the date
just mentioned. On the other hand, as the manuscript
does contain both the Ammonian sections and the
Eusebian canons — earlier modes of dividing the sacred
text, which date respectively from the third and fourth

32 Existing Manuscripts of the New Testament.
centuries — we are thus precluded from claiming for it any
considerably higher age than that which has been stated.
Another mark of the antiquity of the Alexandrian
manuscript is, that it comprises the Epistle of Clement
among the canonical books. This Clement, who is
referred to by the Apostle Paul in his Epistle to the
Philippians (chap. iv. 4) in terms of high commen
dation, wrote, about the end of the first century, an
epistle to the Corinthians, which was, for a considerable
time, held by many churches as of canonical authority.
It is a very beautiful composition, breathing throughout
a spirit of Gospel love and holiness, but disfigured by
some fantastical interpretations of Scripture, and admit
ting some superstitious and erroneous notions. Com
pared with the inspired writings, it is feeble and
unimpressive, and it makes no claim to speak with the
authority pertaining to the word of God. But from
the high position occupied by its author, as one of the
most esteemed friends of St. Paul, and as Bishop of
Eome, it secured for a time great respect, and was,
during the first few centuries, read in many churches as
part of the New Testament Canon. This fact accounts ,
for its being found in the Alexandrian Codex (which we
may remark in passing contains the sole copy of the
Epistle known to exist), and confirms the opinion,
formed on other grounds, as to the antiquity of that
manuscript. All considerations indeed — whether those arising from
the form of the letters, the method of writing, the
marginal references, the order in which the books are

Existing Manuscripts of the New Testament. 33
arranged, or the contents of the manuscript — lead us to
the conclusion stated above, that in this precious docu
ment we have a copy of the New Testament written
about the time of the fall of the Eoman Empire of the
West ; and that thus, more lasting than the sovereignty
established by Eomulus, which, dating from the foundation
of Eome 753 B.C. to the subversion of the Empire towards
the end of the fifth century, had survived about 1200
years, this monument of our faith has already braved
the ravages of time for nearly a millennium and a half:
while we are sure that now, under the watchful care of the
librarians of the British Museum, it will be preserved as
far* as possible from further alteration or injury, and will
be handed down for the gratification and delight of
succeeding generations.
The manuscript just described is, upon the whole, very
complete. It is preserved in four quarto volumes, the
first three of which contain the Septuagint Version of
the Old Testament nearly entire. The fourth volume, em
bracing the New Testament, has unfortunately suffered
more. St. Matthew's Gospel begins with the Greek for
"Go ye out," in chap. xxv. 6, all that precedes having been
lost. In St. John's Gospel, two leaves have perished,
which had included the text from the words " that a
man," chap. vi. 50, to the words " thou sayest," chap.
viii. 52. Again, three leaves have disappeared from the
second Epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians, embracing
the text from these words, " I believed," chap. iv. 13, to
the words " of me," chap. xii. 6. With these exceptions,
the text of the New Testament is complete.

34 Existing Manuscripts of the New Testament.
It only remains to be noticed further with respect to
the Alexandrian manuscript, that a facsimile edition of
the New Testament portion of it was published in 1799
by Dr. Woide, and that the Old Testament was issued
in like manner in 1816-28 under the care of Mr. Baber.
These truly magnificent works may be consulted at any
time by those having access to the reading-room of the
Museum, and furnish, upon the whole, a very fair
representation of the original. The manuscript itself '
is, of course, jealously guarded ; but a volume of it is to
be seen under glass on any of the days on which the
Museum is open to the public, and may worthily attract
the attention of all that have, at any time, an oppor
tunity of inspecting the literary treasures belonging to
that great national institution.
B, or the Vatican Codex.
The manuscript known as B is still more interesting
and precious than that which has already been described.
It is preserved in the Vatican Library at Eome, and is,
on that account, generally referred to as the Codex Vati
canus, or Vatican Manuscript. Scarcely . anything is
known of its external history. We are sure that for the
last four hundred years it has belonged to the Papal
library ; but how it was procured, or whence it came, no
one has been able to determine. It is written on very
fine parchment, in capital letters, which bear a remark
able resemblance to those in some of the manuscripts dis
covered at Herculaneum. This one fact is enough to
suggest its high antiquity, and all the other phenomena

Existing Manuscripts of the New Testament. 35
which it presents are in favour of this conclusion. It
is probably at least a century older than the Alexandrian
manuscript; and it has, until lately, been deemed
altogether without a rival, in point both of age and
value, among existing manuscripts of the New Testament.
The intrinsic interest attaching to this precious docu
ment has been not a little increased by the strange
history which has attended it. There is an element of
romance in Biblical criticism as in other sciences, and
this comes out very strongly in connection with the
Vatican manuscript. It has been kept very close in its
prison at Eome. The greatest difficulty has been
experienced by scholars in getting even a look of it.
Once indeed, or rather twice, it seemed likely to escape
for ever from its cage, and to be fully displayed to the
eager eyes -of Biblical critics. Among many other
treasures, literary and artistic, it was carried by Napoleon
to Paris during his career of triumph ; and some friends
of sacred science had then an opportunity of inspecting
and describing it. But, on the downfall of the great
conqueror, it was restored to the Pope; and, without
having been examined by any thoroughly competent
critic, it fell once more under the jealous guardianship
of the authorities at Eome. An edition of it was often
promised, but the hopes thus excited were, from time to
time, disappointed.
Amid the revolutionary troubles of 1848, when the
Pope was compelled to flee from Eome, expectation was
again raised to a high pitch that this precious manu
script would become more accessible to the learned

36 Existing Manuscripts of the New Testament.
world than it had ever been before. But fortune was
once more adverse. His Holiness was speedily restored,
and, with his return, hope was again extinguished.
At length, in 1857, Biblical scholars throughout
Christendom were excited by the intelligence that a
transcript of the Vatican manuscript was immediately
to be published. Cardinal Wiseman, in his work entitled
" Eecollections of the last Four Popes," took occasion to
refer to this matter, and announced the edition — pre
pared by the late Cardinal Mai and revised by others
whom the Papal government had appointed after his
death — as being ready for immediate publication.
It came : but deep was the disappointment which its
character immediately caused. Instead of that accurate
transcript which had been promised, it was found that
the work was full of errors. The most uncritical pro
cesses had been followed in its preparation. Numerous
passages had even been inserted without the least
authority from the manuscript. The publication was
little more than what some scholars in the bitterness of
their disappointment styled it — a copy of the Bible
according to Rome. So, after all the efforts which had
been made, all the labour which had been expended,
and all the expectations which had been cherished,
students of the sacred text were still left without a
reliable copy of the queen of all the manuscripts of the
New Testament.
After the date of Mai's edition, several scholars were
successful in obtaining a look of the Vatican manuscript.
But in most cases, they scarcely obtained more than

Existing Manuscripts of the New Testament. 37
a glimpse. Sometimes they were permitted to glance
at the manuscript, but not examine it; and at other
times they had scarcely begun the work of collation,
when liberty of access to the manuscript was withdrawn.
Tischendorf, however, was somewhat more fortunate
in this matter than other scholars. It seemed indeed, at
one time, as if we should obtain a full collation of the
manuscript through his labours in connection with it.
But disappointment yet again was experienced. Instead
' of unlimited access to the manuscript, which seemed
at first to have been granted him in February 1866,
it turned out that he was allowed to use it only for
some forty hours. Admirably was the time employed.
Within the brief period named, he examined all the
passages in the New Testament in which the readings of
the manuscript were still doubtful ; he made a full colla
tion of nearly the whole of the first three Gospels : and he
copied in facsimile some twenty pages of the manuscript.
Subsequent events have explained and perhaps
justified the arrest thus put upon the labours of Tischen
dorf. The Pope assured him at the time that a fac
simile edition of the manuscript was just about to
be published. And, in accordance with this promise,
the work did come out in 1868 from the Papal press at
Eome. Pleasing is it to be able to add that this edition
seems to leave nothing more to be desired. It is in five
large volumes, the first four containing the Septuagint Ver
sion of the Old Testament, and the last comprising what
remains of the New Testament. The ideal aimed at in
Pio Nono's edition, as this one may be called, was very

38 Existing Manuscripts of the New Testament.
different from that adopted by Cardinal Mai, being
nothing less than to reproduce the very "form, lines,
letters, strokes, marks " of the manuscript itself. This
high standard appears to have been scrupulously ad
hered to throughout. The editors were two eminent
Biblical scholars, Vercellone and Cozza ; and they seem
to have done all that human care and erudition could
effect to present to the world a faithful representation of
the famous Vatican manuscript.
It will not be the least of the glories of Pio
Nono's pontificate, that, under his auspices, a facsimile
edition of this precious docum'ent has at length been
presented to the world. And, considering how nobly the
assurance given to Tischendorf has been fulfilled, we
readily forgive the hindrances which were placed in the
way of that indefatigable explorer, when he sought
to copy page after page of the manuscript. It was
right that the ¦ honour of giving it to the world should
belong to the Papal court. We hail with gratitude the
boon conferred on textual criticism by the splendid and
apparently most satisfactory edition of 1868; and we
rejoice that critics will no longer be thwarted or
tantalized in their efforts to obtain an accurate acquaint
ance with the contents of one of the most valuable
witnesses to the genuine text of the New Testament.
C, oe the Codex of Ephraem.
We find in this manuscript some features of interest
peculiarly its own. It is a palimpsest, that is, a
manuscript containing two different wprks, the one

Existing Manuscripts of the New Testament. 39
written over the other. Owing to the scarcity and high
price of parchment, it was not unusual for writers of the
Middle Ages to have recourse to such an expedient.
Often in this way did they sacrifice some valuable work,
in order to find material on which to inscribe a monkish
legend or an ecclesiastical writing of very secondary
importance. Some of the masterpieces of ancient
eloquence have been discovered under the literary
lumber thus superinduced upon them. A strange per
versity of taste seems to have seized these mediaeval
transcribers, when they buried such works as those of
Cicero beneath the barbarous jargon of some subtle dis
putant, or the mystical speculations of some reputed saint.
In regard to the manuscript under consideration, it
is one of the writings of the Syrian hymnologist and
theologian Ephraem that had been chosen to overlay
the text of the New Testament. On this account,
the manuscript is generally spoken of as the Codex
Ephraemi, when not referred to simply under the desig
nation of C. It is preserved in the National Library
in Paris. We know that it was brought into France
by Catherine de Medici, and that it previously be
longed to Cardinal Eidolfi, nephew of Pope Leo X.
Its history cannot be traced with any certainty to a
more remote date. But Tischendorf has conjectured,
with great probability, that it is one of the manuscripts
which were obtained by Andrew Lascaris, who, on
the taking of Constantinople by the' Turks, was sent
into the East by Lorenzo de Medici to collect any such
ancient writings as had escaped their ravages.

40 Existing Manuscripts, of the New Testament.
A lengthened period elapsed before the true value of
this manuscript was discovered. Not until near the end
of the seventeenth century did any one observe the sacred
text under the more recent transcript of the treatise of
Ephraem. But when the discovery was at last made by
Allix, scholars soon recognised the vast importance .of the
treasure thus unveiled. Every effort was made to restore
the ancient writing, and at length, by the aid of a
chemical preparation, this was done with great success.
In the year 1834 a particular tincture was applied to
the parchment, which has had the effect of greatly dis
colouring it, but has, at the same time, rendered much
of the original writing legible, which could not be de
ciphered before. Nearly two-thirds of the New Testa
ment, along with portions of the Greek translation of
the Old Testament, are preserved, in this manuscript.
So far as it goes, C is a most valuable aid to the textual
critic. It had evidently been written with great care,
comparing favourably in this respect with the Alex
andrian or even the Vatican manuscript ; and it un
doubtedly belongs to a date not much, if anything, below
the early part of the fifth century.
D, or the Codex of Beza.
There is yet another Biblical manuscript of the first
class which it is the honour of our country to possess —
that known as D, or the Codex Bezce, preserved in the
University of Cambridge. As its name indicates, this
manuscript was formerly the property of the celebrated
Eeformer Beza. It was presented by him in the year

Existing Manuscripts of the New Testament. 41
1581 to the Academic body who still possess it. Before
that date, it had been in the hands of Beza about twenty
years, and was obtained by him, as he himself tells
us, during the French civil wars of the sixteenth century,
having then been found in the Monastery of St. Irenaeus
at Lyons. We cannot trace its history farther back, but
the palasographic and other internal indications which it
presents have led scholars pretty generally to ascribe it
to the sixth century. It is the least valuable of all the
manuscripts yet noticed. Only the Gospels and Acts in
Greek and Latin are preserved in it. There are also
many manifest corruptions and interpolations which
have been introduced into its text. Still, from the un
doubted antiquity of the manuscript, it has strong
claims on the careful consideration of Biblical critics.
It was published in facsimile at the expense of the
University of Cambridge in 1793 ; and in accordance
with the liberal spirit of the body who possess it, the
manuscript has often been examined and employed by
critical editors of the New Testament.
N, or the Codex Sinaiticus.
Until very recently, the four manuscripts now de
scribed were all the very ancient copies of any consider
able portion of the New Testament known to exist.
But some years ago the learned world received the
very unexpected but most agreeable intelligence that
a manuscript had been found supposed to be as ancient
as the Codex Vaticanus, and more complete than any
one previously known. The story of its discovery is

42 Existing Manuscripts of the New Testament.
curious, and may, in some particulars, be regarded as
romantic. First of all, forty-three leaves of the manuscript were ob
tained in 1844. Professor Tischendorf was travelling in
the East during that year in quest of ancient manuscripts.
While at the convent of St. Catharine on Mount Sinai,
his eye was one day caught by a number of vellum
leaves intended to be used in lighting the stove. He
picked these out from a heap of other papers destined
for the same purpose, and soon perceived that they con
tained portions of the Septuagint Version of the Old
Testament. It did not require much examination from
his practised eyes to convince him of the great antiquity
of the fragments ; and he lost no time in securing them.
But though the monks had been easily induced to part
with these stray leaves in utter ignorance of their value,
they resolutely refused to let him see any more of the
work to which they belonged, now that he had told
them that it was probably as ancient as the fourth cen
tury. Accordingly, on his return to Europe, he pub
lished the portion he had procured (embracing the
entire books of Esther and Nehemiah, with some portions
of 1 Chronicles and Jeremiah) under the title of Codex
Frederico-Augustanus, that designation being adopted
because he had obtained these fragments while travel
ling under the auspices of his own monarch, Frederick
Augustus of Saxony.
Tischendorf was once more at the same monastery in
1853, and did not forget to inquire after the precious
manuscript of which he had discovered some traces in

Existing Manuscripts of the New Testament. 43
1844. But he could learn nothing regarding it. As
was afterwards found, it had been seen by two visitors
in the interval ; but Tischendorf, knowing nothing of
this, concluded that, in some way or other, it had dis
appeared, and abandoned all hope of ever hearing more
respecting it.
But he was, for the third time, at the convent of St.
Catharine in the early part of the year 1859. And there,
on the 4th of February, his grand discovery was made.
He had put into his hands by the steward of the con
vent a manuscript which he at once recognised as the
. long-sought treasure. The communication in which
Professor Tischendorf conveyed the intelligence of this
inestimable discovery to Biblical scholars in Europe,
bore evidence of the emotion which it had excited in his
own heart, and of the devout eagerness with which he
set himself to examine its contents. Having glanced
over the work, he immediately took pen in hand, and,
insensible to fatigue, he, that very night, copied out of
it the Epistle of Barnabas in full — an apocryphal writing
belonging to the early part of the second century, the
first portion of which had not till then been known in
the original Greek to modern scholars. Soon afterwards,
Tischendorf succeeded in obtaining permission to copy
the whole manuscript, while, better still, he by and by
persuaded the brethren of St. Catharine to present the
precious document as a fitting and dutiful offering to
their great head and patron the Emperor of Eussia. Ac
cordingly, it was without delay transmitted to Alexander
II., and is now preserved in the Imperial Library at St.

44 Existing Manuscripts of the New Testament.
Petersburg. A splendid edition of it, consisting of 300
copies, was published in 1862, as a suitable memorial
of the thousandth anniversary of the empire of the Czars ;
and these, with other less expensive and smaller copies,
are now in the possession of various learned men and
public bodies throughout the world.
Every internal mark presented by the Sinaitic manu
script points, in the estimation of the most eminent
palaeographers, to the fourth, or at latest the fifth, century,
as the time when it was written. It is thus perhaps as
old as the Vatican manuscript, and has even been sup
posed, on some not improbable grounds, to be one of the
fifty copies of Scripture which Eusebius, Bishop of
Caesarea, prepared in a.d. 331, by order of the Emperor
Constantine, forthe use of hisnew capital, Constantinople.
Be this as it may, the Sinaitic manuscript has one great
and undoubted advantage over all the other, ancient
manuscripts, in containing the New Testament complete.
The Alexandrian manuscript is defective throughout the
greater part of St. Matthew's Gospel, and also in several
other places. The Vatican manuscript wants the Epistle
to Philemon, the Pastoral Epistles, the latter part of the
Epistle to the Hebrews, and the Apocalypse. The Codex
of Ephraem is still more defective ; while, as has been
already noticed, the Codex of Beza contains only the
Gospels and Acts in the original Greek, along with a
Latin translation. But the Sinaitic Codex comprises
the whole of the New Testament without a sino-le omis
sion, as well as the Epistle of Barnabas, and a part of
the Greek text of the writings of Hermas (also belonging

Existing Manuscripts of the New Testament. 45
to the second century) — works which, up to the discovery
of this unspeakably precious manuscript, had been known
as. a whole only through an early Latin version.
It is unnecessary for our present purpose to give a
detailed account of any of the other manuscripts of the
New Testament. The number of them yet discovered
has been computed as follows : —
Uncials (4th to 10th century) . . 127
Cursives (10th to 15th century) . . 1456

1583
Such is the manuscript wealth as yet available to
scholars for determining the true text of the New Testa
ment. It is a deeply interesting question whether or
not there is reason to hope that other discoveries similar
to that of Tischendorf still remain to be made. For our
own part, we cannot help believing that such may be
the case. When it is remembered that a great part of
Herculaneum is yet unexplored, and that there may be
preserved in its hidden chambers not only some works
of the classical writers, which scholars have long mourned
as lost, but perhaps copies of the Sacred Scriptures them
selves dating almost from the apostolic age : when it is
remembered also, that there are supposed still to be in
existence at Constantinople vast multitudes of manu
scripts, which have never been examined since the over
throw of the Eastern Empire by the Turks in 1453 :
when it is remembered further that, scattered through
the Oriental monasteries, there may yet be treasures the

46 Existing Manuscripts of the New Testament.
existence of which no scholar has hitherto suspected —
it does not seem unreasonable to believe that Providence
may still have in store for us discoveries that will at once
fill our minds with astonishment and our hearts with
delight, while they tend more and more to purify the
text, and confirm the _ authority, of that "Word which
liveth and abideth for ever." 1
1 See, in connection with the hope above expressed, De Quincey's
Works, art. on Richard Bentley (note), and Sir Henry Holland's
Recollections of Past Life, p. 123.

CHAPTEE IV.
ancient versions of the new testament.
IN this chapter we are to glance at the second
source of textual criticism formerly men
tioned — the ancient versions of the New
Testament which have come down to
our own day.
It must be evident at once that valuable aid will often
be available from this source for determining the true
text of the New Testament. Some of the versions were
made at a date considerably more ancient than can be
assigned to any manuscript at present known to exist.
They thus furnish proof regarding the prevailing text of
Scripture at a very early period of our era.1
But unfortunately there are several considerations
which detract from the value which might be justly
claimed for the versions, if their antiquity only were
regarded. For one thing, it is clear that they, no less
than the Greek New Testament itself, were liable to
corruption with the lapse of time. False readings might
1 The comparative value of versions as testimonies to the text will
be found again referred to in Part Second, Chap. II.

48 Ancient Versions of the New Testament.
creep into translations as easily as into the original ;
so that, in order to feel any confidence while using
them for the purpose of textual criticism, we must
have good reason to believe that they are still in
our hands in the genuine form which they at first
possessed. Moreover, as the idioms or natural characters of dif
ferent languages vary so much, it would obviously be
very often precarious, and sometimes certainly erroneous,
to infer from a version the exact words which stood in
the original. With regard, however, to the genuineness
or the spuriousness of clauses, verses, and paragraphs,
versions may justly be regarded (so far as unrevised
and unaccommodated to later texts) as furnishing most
valuable evidence.
Again, it is obvious that even the best versions may
sometimes have mistaken the meaning of the Greek,
and thus may tend only to mislead unless used with
due discrimination. Errors of the kind referred to are
to be found in every translation, and would, if they
escaped notice, lead the textual critic entirely astray.
Suppose, in illustration, that a doubt were to arise as to
one particular Greek phrase used in Acts iii. 19, and
that the present authorized English version were
appealed to for evidence on the point. We there find
these words ascribed to the Apostle — " Eepent ye there
fore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted
out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the
presence of the Lord." Now this rendering would
suggest a totally false idea of the original. No scholar

Ancient Versions of the New Testament. 49
would ever dream of any such equivalent for the English
word "when" as here stands in the original. The
passage furnishes a case of sheer mistranslation. It
should be rendered — " Eepent ye therefore, and be con
verted, that your sins may be blotted out, in order that
times of refreshing may come from the presence of the
Lord, and that He may send Jesus, the Christ, which
before was appointed for you," the regimen of the phrase
translated " in order that" being continued into the fol
lowing verse. The passage as it stands in our English
Version would thus be a hindrance, instead of a help, to
the discovery of the original text. This example will
perhaps be sufficient to show that, whatever may be
the antiquity and general merits of a translation of the
New Testament, it must be used with caution in the
service of textual criticism.
But there is still another and more serious drawback
on the value of the ancient versions as now considered.
There is reason to believe that some of the best of them
have not come down to us in their original state, but
have been, more or less, conformed to later texts which
had obtained ascendancy in the Church. They can
thus only be regarded as bearing testimony to the text
which was prevalent at the time when the revision took
place, although the version itself may be much more
ancient. Of course, the farther that critics can go in
the way of restoring the original text of the translation,
the greater does its value become as a witness to the
sacred text. With these preliminary remarks, we now
proceed to give a brief account of those versions of the

50 Ancient Versions of the New Testament.
New Testament which are of most importance in the
department of textual criticism.
Syriac Versions.
A Syriac version of the New Testament, and probably
also of the Old, existed in the second century. Eusebius
expresses himself in a way which seems clearly to imply
this, and the fact is generaUy admitted by modern
scholars. The most important of the Syriac versions is that
known as the Peshito, or Simple. As a translation it
may claim high rank, being generaUy very exact in its
renderings — equaUy free from slavish UteraUty on the one
side and loose paraphrase on the other.
As an authority for the text of the Greek New Testa
ment, the Peshito would be possessed of transcendent
importance were we warranted in regarding it in its
present state as truly representative of the Syriac text
of the second century. But there is too good ground for
beheving that such is not the case. The version appears
to have undergone revision in the course of the fourth cen
tury, and to have been conformed to the text which had
by that time become generaUy prevalent in the Church.
This suspicion, or rather certainty, prevents us from
urging its authority with confidence in the settlement of
disputed readings. It contains, for example, the doxo
logy to the Lord's Prayer, which is wanting in so many
ancient authorities ; and could we be sure that the ver
sion possessed that clause from the beginning, a most
weighty testimony would be obtained in favour of the

Ancient Versions of the New Testament. 51
genuineness of the words. But no more authority can
with certainty be claimed for it, so far as our present
knowledge of the version extends, than belongs to a
witness of the fourth century. One of the greatest services
which any Biblical scholar could render to the cause of
textual criticism in our day would be to prepare a criti
cal and trustworthy edition of the Peshito. It is under
stood that manuscripts of the version are available in
numbers amply sufficient for this purpose ; and we can
not but deeply regret that such an edition was not
brought out before the Eevision of our Authorized
Version, at present in progress, was commenced.
A second Syriac version is that known as the Phi-
loxenian. It was produced at the'instance of PhUoxenus,
who was Bishop of Mabug or HierapoUs in Eastern
Syria from a.d. 488 to A.D. 518. This version was
revised in A.D. 616 by Thomas of Harkel, also Bishop
of HierapoUs. Hence it is also known as the Harclean.
It is in this latter form that the work is almost exclusively
known to us. As a translation, it is of a very wretched
character, being marked by a servile adherence to the
Greek, which is totally destructive of the Syriac idiom.
. But this very circumstance constitutes its value as an
auxiliary to the textual critic. By its close and even
absurd adherence to the Greek we can infer exactly the
readings of that text which the translator had before
him. It also possesses various readings from older
Greek manuscripts in the margin — a fact which adds
much to its value. We learn from it very clearly how
great was the "amount of deflection from the text of the

52 Ancient Versions of the New Testament.
New Testament ,as presented in the most ancient
authorities which had taken place at the time when it
was formed.
Two other recensions of the sacred text are sometimes
cited by critics as independent Syriac versions — named
respectively the Jerusalem-Syriac and the Karkaphen^
sian. They are of comparatively little importance.
Some fragments of a Syriac version of the Gospels,
differing from those already described, were discovered
by Dr. Cureton among the Syrian manuscripts brought
by Archdeacon Tattam from the Nitrian monasteries,
and now in the British Museum. This fragmentary
version was published in 1858, and is known as the
Curetonian. Its text is undoubtedly ancient, and on
that account interesting and valuable. As a translation
it ranks low, having often, in the grossest way, mis
taken the meaning of the original Greek.
Latin Versions.
It is generally agreed by scholars at the present day
that the first Latin version of the New Testament
was made, not in Italy, but in Africa. This statement
may naturally surprise those who are not famihar with
the linguistic condition of Italy in the generations
immediately following the first promulgation of the
Gospel. They might conclude, as a matter of course,
that it would be felt necessary to translate the^jricred
books into Latin for the use of the inhabitants of^ Mly.
But we have the amplest evidence that no such neces
sity did in reaUty exist. Greek was then a famihar

Ancient Versions of the New Testament. 53
language throughout that country. Such facts as the
foUowing abundantly prove that such was the case.
The Apostle Paul (a.d. 58) wrote to the Eomans in
Greek. Clement of Eome (a.d. 97) wrote in the same
language. Ignatius (a.d. 107), Uke Paul, addressed the
Eoman Christians in Greek. Justin Martyr (about A.D.
150), although long resident in Eome, composed his two
Apologies to the Emperor in Greek. From these, and
many simUar facts which might be quoted,1 we conclude
that no need would be felt in the earliest times for
a translation of the New Testament into Latin in order
to meet the necessities of the inhabitants of Italy.
' Accordingly, the version known as the Vetus Latina,
or " Old Latin," had its origin in Northern Africa. Its
history is altogether unknown. But we find it used by
the Latin translator of Irenseus towards the close of the
second century, and by TertuUian a little later. Several
good manuscripts of this version stiU exist, dating from
the fourth onwards to the eleventh century.
This old Latin version was revised by Jerome, one of
the most learned of the Fathers, towards the close of the
fourth century. His principal object was to conform the
translation more accurately to the text of the best Greek
copies. But he also sought to improve the character of
the version. He replaced many barbarisms by ex
pressions more in accordance with classical usage, and
in multitudes of passages gave a closer and more satis
factory rendering of the original.
1 See Roberts' Discussions on the Gospels, part i., chap. ii. ; and Max
Miiller's Lectures on Language, First Series, pp. 90-100.

54 Ancient Versions of the New Testament.
As is always the case with a new revision of Scrip
ture, it was only by slow degrees that the work of
Jerome took the place of the Old Latin. Two centuries
elapsed before this result was accompUshed. PartiaUty
for the old familiar words, and prejudice against the
new, thus for a long peribd prevented the general
acceptance- of the improved translation. But, as cannot
but happen at last, superior exceUence at length pre-
vaUed. , From about the end of the sixth century, the
version of Jerome became the acknowledged Latin Vul
gate, and substantiaUy remains so at the present day.
Just as Tyndale's translation of the Bible into EngUsh
wiU continue the basis of every version of the Scriptures
into our language tiU the end of time, whatever may be
the changes and improvements which are introduced, so
the work of Jerome stiU constitutes the substance of the
Latin Bible, notwithstanding 'the revisions to which
it has been subjected. Many errors, of course, crept
into the text in the course of the Middle Ages, and when
the art of printing came into general.use, the necessity
of having some trustworthy edition prepared was
strongly felt. One was accordingly brought out under
the auspices of Pope Sixtus V. in 1590, and to it
the title " Authentic " was assigned. But this edition ¦
was soon discovered to be very incorrect, and another
was issued by Clement VIII. in 1592. The Sixtine
and Clementine editions of the Vulgate differ widely
between themselves, but neither can be regarded as
furnishing a satisfactory text. It is much to be re
gretted that such a valuable manuscript as the Codex

Ancient Versions of the New Testament. 55
Amiatinus, which dates from about the year A.D. 541,
and presents an admirable transcript of the text of
Jerome, was not made use of in the preparation of
either of the Papal editions.
These early Latin versions of the New Testament are
of much value in the determination of the text. They
in general adhere with great closeness to the Greek,
the very order of the words in the original being, as far
as possible, retained. They thus bear testimony, where
stiU in their primitive condition, to the text of the New
Testament as it existed in a very remote antiquity.
Egyptian Versions.
There are two complete Egyptian versions of the
New Testament avaUable for the purposes of textual
criticism. These are known respectively as the Mem-
phitic and the Thebaic. There are also some fragments
which pass under the name of the Basmuric.
We are in utter ignorance as to the history of the
Egyptian versions. But it is certain that the two are
whoUy independent of each other. Before this fact was
known, BibUcal scholars were accustomed to speak of
the Coptic as the version of aU Egypt — a name derived
from Coptos, an ancient city in Upper Egypt. But as it
has been proved that the translations current in Lower
and Upper Egypt are totaUy distinct, the versions are
now distinguished as above.
It is weU ascertained that two dialects prevaUed
in Egypt in the centuries which immediately foUowed
the general promulgation of the Gospel One of these

56 Ancient Versions of the New Testament.
was in use in Lower Egypt, and was caUed, from the
capital of the country, the Memphitic. The other was
employed in Upper Egypt, and was in like manner
denominated from the chief town of the district the
Thebaic. Versions of the New Testament in these dialects un
questionably existed in the fourth century, and probably
long before. No doubt Egypt, Uke the .rest of the
civUized world, was thoroughly Heilenized at the com
mencement of our era, so that the Greek Testament
would be generally understood in the original, in Lower
Egypt at least, and no need would be felt for a translation.
But this state of things did not continue; and we have
every reason to beUeve that the Thebaic version of the
New Testament, prevalent in Upper Egypt, was formed
not later than the third century, and was followed by
the Memphitic at no distant date. These versions have
been as yet too little studied to be greatly avaUable for
the purposes of textual criticism. Doubtless, as scholar
ship extends its triumphs, good use of them wiU yet be
made. The Basmuric fragments present a text evidently
moulded upon the Thebaic. They are valuable only as
supplying evidence as to the text in some small portions
in which the Thebaic no longer exists.
The Gothic Version.
This is a very interesting and not unimportant version
of the New Testament, though, unfortunately, it has not
yet been found in a complete state. It was made by

Ancient Versions of the New Testament. 57
Ulplnias, who became Bishop of the Goths in a.d. 348.
He had adopted Arianism, and died whUe on a visit to
Constantinople (a.d. 388), whither he had gone to
defend his creed. But no trace of his doctrinal views
appears in his great work, except at PhUip. ii. 6, where
he substitutes likeness to God for equality with God.
The most celebrated manuscript of this version is the
Codex Argenteus, or " Silver Manuscript," preserved in
the University of Upsala. This manuscript derives its
name from the fact that its large uncial letters are
written in sUver throughout, except those at the
beginning of sections, which are in gold. It was sent to
Stockholm from Prague when this latter city surrendered
to the Swedes in 1648. The date of the manuscript is
probably about the beginning of the sixth century. It
now contains only fragments of the Gospels in the
following order (common to it with Manuscript D and
some others) — Matthew, John, Luke, Mark.
As the Gothic version dates from the fourth century,
it is another witness to the text then prevalent in the
Church. There can be no doubt that it was formed
directly from the Greek, as is indicated by pecuhar con
structions, and by the very mistakes which it contains.
Its readings are of great weight in passages where it
supports those of the more ancient authorities.
The Aemenian Version.
The Armenian Christians seem, for a considerable
period, to have had no Bible which could be caUed dis
tinctively their own. Up to the fifth century, they

58 Ancient- Versions of the New Testament.
appear to have been dependent on the Syriac version.
At length, in A.D. 431, two native scholars, who had
been present at the CouucU of Ephesus, brought back
with them a copy of the Scriptures in Greek; and
from that a translation was made into the Armenian
language. As was to be expected, the Syriac Peshito
had an influence which is in some places very per
ceptible over this version. In its more modern form, as
published by Uscan in 1666, it has also been suspected
of having been conformed to the Latin, but there seems
no good ground for this supposition. As Dr. TregeUes
has remarked, " Coincidence of reading does not prove
Latinizing to be a well-founded charge."
Textual criticism has not as yet made much use of
the Armenian version ; and both its date and character
prevent us from regarding it as of much importance.
The .ZEthiopic Version.
iEthiopic was formerly the language of Abyssinia, but
has now been superseded by a more modern dialect
called the Amharic. It is connected with the Syriac,
Arabic, and other members of the Semitic famUy of
languages. The Abyssinians were converted to Chris
tianity by Frumentius in the fourth century, but no ver
sion of the sacred writings seems to have been made
into their language tiU a considerably later date — per
haps in the sixth or seventh century.
The iEthiopic version of. the New Testament was
evidently formed from the Greek, but by one who had
no very accurate acquaintance with that language.

Ancient Versions of the New Testament. 59
TiU a more exact edition has been issued than we yet
possess, Uttle use can be made of the ^Ethiopic in the
service of textual criticism ; and even were such an
edition produced, the version itself was formed too late
to possess anything more than secondary importance.
The remaining ancient versions of the New Testa
ment have too Uttle critical weight to caU for detaUed
remark We simply note their supposed dates as
foUows, — Georgian Version (sixth century) : Arabic Ver
sions (most ancient, eighth century) : Slavonic Version
(ninth century) : Anglo-Saxon versions (from the Latin,
eighth to eleventh century) : Persic Versions (from the
Syriac and Greek, fourteenth century). Other versions,
Uke the EngUsh, though possessing great merit as
translations, and though derived immediately from the
Greek, are by far too modern to possess any authority
in the settlement of the original text.

GHAPTEE V.
QUOTATIONS FROM THE BOOKS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT BY
ANCIENT WRITERS.
VEEY copious Christian literature has de
scended to us from the early centuries of our
era ; and nothing is more characteristic of
that literature than the frequency and ful
ness with which passages of the Sacred Scriptures are
cited. It has been said with truth that, had the New
Testament as a volume perished, the substance of it
could easUy have been recovered from the quotations
which lie imbedded in the writings of authors who Uved
before the date of the Nicene or first General Council,
in a.d. 325.
The evidence as to the original text of Scripture
which may thus be collected from the extant works of
the first Christian Fathers is, so far as it goes, more
ancient than can be derived from either manuscripts or
versions. Our most venerable manuscripts of the New
Testament cannot, as we have seen, be dated farther
back than the fourth century, whUe the earUest versions
are to be ascribed probably to the middle of the second.

Quotations from the Books of the New Testament. 61
But in those writers who are known as the " ApostoUc
Fathers," we possess witnesses to the text of the New
Testament (so far as they can be shown to quote it) at
a period which borders upon, if it does not even touch,
the apostolic age itself.
There are, however, several considerations which de
tract seriously from the value which might thus at first
seem to belong to patristic citations in the determina
tion of the primitive text of the New Testament. The
chief of these may be briefly stated as follows.1
The text of such early writers is itself not unfre-
quently doubtful. Those manuscripts of their works
which have come down to us are of a comparatively
modern date. Few of them reach higher than the tenth
century; and in some cases not more than a single
copy of a particular author is known to exist. We are
thus at times very uncertain as to the genuine readings
of the original ; and there is not unfrequently cause to
suspect that, in the course of ages, the text has suffered
from changes, intentional or unintentional, introduced
by transcribers.
Again, as was natural, ere the written word assumed
that paramount importance which was by and by re
cognised as of right belonging to it, the quotations made
from the New Testament by the early Christian writers
are often far from verbaUy accurate. At times some of
them seem to be mingled with the oral form in which
1 This part of the subject will be found more fully noticed when the
comparative value of quotations as testimonies to tbe text is spoken
of in Part Second, Chap. II.

62 Quotations from the Books of the
they had been transmitted. They are often given in a
loose and confused way just as memory suggested, or
have a special turn assigned them according as the
argument of the writer for the moment required. It
must be remembered in regard to this whole subject,
that these ancient authors had no such faciUties of
reference as are furnished by our modern Bibles divided
into chapters and verses. To verify a quotation would,
in their case, often have implied lengthened search and
irksome labour. They were thus very strongly tempted
to trust for the most part to their general knowledge of
Scripture in making their citations.
Moreover, in multitudes of cases, slight verbal changes
would become current in famiUar quotations of the New
Testament, without giving rise to the shghtest suspicion
of their being erroneous. The way in which our own
English Bible is often misquoted might supply us with
many an iUustration. Perhaps there are few preachers,
though farmliar during a long course of years with that
book, but have fallen into the habit of less or more
altering, adding to, or deducting from, particular texts
in their citations. In such a passage as, " If we confess
our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our
sins, and to cleanse us from aU unrighteousness," one may
be in the habit of substituting iniquity for unrighteous
ness, and never dream that he is in error. AU are fami
liar with the addition so commonly made to our Lord's
prbmise — " Where two or three are gathered together in
my name, there am I in the midst of them" — when, as
its fulfilment is pleaded for in prayer, the words are

New Testament by Ancient Writers. 63
appended " to bless us and to do us good." Nothing is
more common than to hear the declaration quoted,
" The blood of Jesus Christ cleanseth from all sin,"
instead of the " cleanseth us" of the original ; and every
one must have heard 2 Tim. i. 12 quoted as, " I know
in whom I have beUeved," &c, although the passage
reaUy stands thus — " I know whom I have believed, and
am.persuaded that He is able to keep that which I have
committed to Him against that day."
For various reasons, then, there is good ground for
acquiescing in the judgment of Dr. Scrivener on the
point in question, when he says : " On the whole, scrip
tural quotations from ecclesiastical writers are of so
much less consideration than ancient translations, that
where they are single and unsupported they. may safely
be disregarded altogether. An express citation, however,
by a really careful Father of the first four or five cen
turies (as Origen for example), if supported by manu
script authority, and countenanced by the best versions,
claims our respectful attention, and powerfully vindicates
the reading which it favours." 1
It may be interesting and useful if we subjoin a list
of the principal writers whose works are avaUable for
the textual criticism of the New Testament, with .the
approximate dates at which they composed their writ
ings, and the names of their most important works stiU
extant. Clement of Rome. — He wrote an epistle to the Corin
thians about a.d. 97. This epistle has come down to
1 Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament, p. 284.

64 Quotations from the Books of the
us in a single manuscript only. It is contained in the
Alexandrian manuscript of the New Testament.
Ignatius of Antioch. — He is supposed to have written
a number of short epistles in a.d. 107.
Barnabas. — An epistle of very early date bears the
name of Barnabas. It was probably written about
a.d. 130.
Polycarp of Smyrna. — He wrote a short epistle, stiU
extant, about A.D. 150.
Justin Martyr. — Justin wrote two " Apologies" for
the Christians, which were severaUy addressed to the
emperors Antoninus Pius and AureUus. He also wrote
a " Dialogue with Trypho a Jew." Some other writings
are doubtfully ascribed to him. a.d. 150.
Tatian.- — He wrote a number of works, but only one,
his "Discourse to the Greeks," is extant. a.d. 166.
Athenagoras. — This elegant writer has left us two
short works — an "Apology," and a "Treatise on the
Eesurrection." a.d. 170.
Iren^us. — One of the most important works of Chris
tian antiquity is the long treatise of Irenaeus, " Against
Heresies." A.D. 189.
Clement of Alexandria. — His chief works extant are,
"Hortatory Address to the Greeks," the "Teacher,"
and the " Miscellanies." a.d. 200.
Tertullian. — A very voluminous author. His prin
cipal works extant are an "Apology," and a treatise
"Against Marcion." He quotes from the Old Latin.
A.D. 210.
Hippolytus.— Only fragments of his works are extant:

New Testament by Ancient Writers. 65
the most important is his " Eefutation of aU Heresies."
a.d. 230.
Origen. — By far the most learned of the Ante-Nicene
Fathers. Many works from his pen, in whole or in part,
stiU exist, and afe very valuable for the purposes of
textual criticism. We may name his " Homilies,"
" Commentaries," and treatise " Against Celsus." A.D.
240. Gregory Thaumaturgus. — His " Panegyric on Origen,"
" Paraphrase of Ecclesiastes," and some other short
works, have come down to us. A.D. 250.
Cyprian. — A very important writer. His extant
works are his "Epistles" and "Treatises" — all most
valuable for the Ught they shed on early ecclesiastical
history, as weU as for the aid they give in textual
criticism. A.D. 252.
Methodius. — He wrote a large work "Against Por
phyry," now lost. We stiU possess his " Feast of the
Ten Virgins," and some other remains. A.D. 260.
Arnobius. — His treatise "Against the Gentiles" has
come down to us. A.D. 300.
Lactantius — " The Christian Cicero." His principal
extant work is the "Divine Institutions." a.d. 310.
Eusebius of Caesarea — " The Father of ecclesiastical
history." Besides his " History," several works of his
stiU exist. a.d. 330.
Athanasius. — The famous opponent of Arianism.
His works consist of treatises, letters, and speeches.
a.d. 370.
Ephraem Syrus. — Syrian theologian and hymnologist.

66 Quotations from the Books of the New Testament.
His works, consisting of homUies, commentaries, &c,
are specially useful in the criticism of the Syriac ver
sions. a.d. 370.
Epiphanius of Cyprus. — His chief works are " Against
Heresies," and a treatise expounding the doctrine of the
Trinity, a.d. 400.
Chrysostom of Antioch. — By far the most eloquent
of the Fathers. His works consist of sermons, commen
taries, letters, and treatises, a.d. 405.
Jerome, or Hieeonymus. — A very learned writer.
His extant works consist of commentaries, epistles, and
treatises. a.d. 410.
Augustine. — The best known of aU the Fathers. His
extant works are very numerous. We may name his
" Confessions," " City of God," " Eetractations," Com
mentary on the Psalms, and treatises on the Pelagian
> controversy. A.D. 420.
It is hardly worth whUe, for our present purpose, to
name any later writers.

CHAPTEB VI.
SKETCH OF THE HISTORY OF MODERN BIBLICAL CRITICISM.

[HEBE are few epochs in the history of the
world more memorable than that which
marks the printing and pubUshing of the
first Greek New Testament. As long as the
Word of God was confined to manuscripts, it could come
into the hands only of a few, and might be explained
very much as traditional prejudice had fixed. Very
profound was the ignorance of the Scriptures which per
vaded aU ranks previous to the great inteUectual and
spiritual revolution which took place about the beginning
of the sixteenth century. Many of the clergy had never
seen a copy of the whole Bible ; and the great majority
of them could not read a word of the original languages.
The extracts which were read in the Breviary day by.
day were generaUy regarded by the priests as constitut
ing the entire Word of God ; and even these were, in
many cases, repeated without being understood — with
out conveying the slightest glimmering of Gospel-truth
to the understanding, or producing the least impression
on the conscience or the heart.

68 Sketch of the History of Modern Biblical Criticism.
While this was the condition of the professed
teachers of the people, it is needless to say how dense
was the ignorance which prevailed among the people
themselves. Indeed, when we glance at the state of
Christendom towards the close of the Middle Ages, it
seems almost miraculous that so great a change speedily
passed over it. Looking at Europe for a century pre
vious to the appearing of Luther, we gaze upon a scene
similar to that which the prophet witnessed, when he
was set down in the midst of the vaUey which was fuU
of bones, and when, as he declares, " there were very
many in the open vaUey, and lo ! they were very dry."
Judging by mere human probabihty, the speedy awaken
ing and disenthralment of Christendom seemed then as
hopeless as to the natural eye must have appeared the
resuscitation of these mournful relics of once Uving men.
Only a spirit of faith living in the heart of EzeMel pre
vented him from at once replying in the negative, when
the startling question feU upon his ears from heaven —
" Son of man, can these bones Uve ? " And only a similar
spirit could have led any one about the close of the
fourteenth century to anticipate that marveUous mental
and spiritual awakening which, ere little more than a
hundred years had elapsed, was to take place through
out the whole Christian world.
But when the set time for the accomplishment of
His purposes has come, God often effects great results
within a very Umited period. Soon did a mighty
change pass over that scene of desolation and death on
which the prophet looked. The profound stillness^ was

Sketch of the History of Modern Biblical Criticism. 69
broken; and sound and movement — the harbingers of
the great transformation about to occur — were perceived;
until at length, in striking contrast to the scene which
at first lay before the view of the seer, there started up
from that valley of death a vast multitude of living
men ; " the breath," says Ezekiel, " came' into them,
and they Uved, and stood up on their feet, an exceeding
great army."
Now, such also appears the mightiness of the change
which passed over the Christian world within the period
that has been mentioned. And when we inquire into
the causes which, under God, led to this great and
blessed revolution, we find, as is often the case in the
accompUshment of Heaven's designs, that there was a
wonderful working together of various agencies and
means in order to give rise to the desired result. Chief
of aU, we note the invention of the art of printing,
and then, as a necessary effect of this, the publication of
the great Uterary treasures which had descended from
antiquity. It was impossible that these works could be
sent forth to the world, without rousing the human
mind from that state of stagnation in which it had so
long been sunk But whUe the dissemination of the
classical remains of antiquity would, of itself, have
given birth to a mental activity which must have been,
in a large degree, fatal to the claims of superstition, and
must' have led many to throw off those intellectual
fetters in which the human soul had so long been bound,
something' more' was needed to initiate that great
revival of spiritual Ufe which is the most characteristic

,70 SIcetch bffhe History of Modem Biblical Criticism.
feature of the Beformation. The heathen writers might
be sufficient to destroy, but it required the sacred writers
to construct. Superstition might faU, yet Christianity,
in its apostoUc form, might not be estabhshed. A
blank scepticism might take the place of a long-dominant
credulity. The fear of Erasmus that, " with the study
of ancient hterature, ancient paganism would reappear,"
might be realized ; and, as has happened in other cases,
men might then rush from the slavish acceptance of
groveUing superstitions to a bold and impious denial of
the most certain and sacred scriptural truths.
From this danger Christendom was saved, as it only
could be saved, by the general circulation of the inspired
Word of God. Without this the Eeformation, in its
best and highest sense, would have been impossible.
The Scriptures alone could form a foundation on which
the fabric of primitive Christianity might anew be
raised ; and hence there attaches the deepest interest to
the printing and pubUshing of the first Greek New
Testament — the issue through the press of that precious
volume which was to bear fresh life and peace, instruc
tion and salvation, to the world.
The first portions of the Greek Testament ever
printed were the songs of the Virgin Mary and
Zacharias, from the opening chapter of St. Luke's
Gospel. These were appended to a Greek edition of
the Psalms which appeared at Venice in the year 1486.
A considerable period elapsed before any attempt was
made to print and pubhsh the whole New Testament.
It was not till 1516 — a year so memorable on other

Sketch of the History of Modem Biblical Criticism. 71
accounts — that Erasmus gave his first edition to the
world, and thus did more to faciUtate the triumph of
Luther in his arduous struggle than could, in any other
way, have been accompUshed.
Although,. however, the New Testament of Erasmus
was the first one actually published, there was another
printed, some few years previously, under strictly, Eomish
influences. It is somewhat remarkable that Spain, so
intolerant until recent years of the free circulation
of the Bible, has the honour of being the country in
which an edition of the Sacred Scriptures was first
printed. About the beginning of the sixteenth century,
the able and accompUshed Cardinal Ximenes began
to prepare a Polyglott Bible ; and the work was finished,
so far as regards the printing of the New Testament,
before Erasmus had even begun to make any prepara
tions for his edition. Some years, however, were allowed
to pass before this great work of Ximenes was authorized
to be published. It is known as the Complutensian
edition, from the place at which it appeared — Com-
plutum being the Latin name of Alcala in Spain. There
are now hardly any means of ascertaining what were
the manuscripts used in the preparation of this New
Testament. They seem to have been of no great value,
for its readings rarely agree, in controverted passages,
with those of the most ancient authorities formerly de
scribed. Moreover, it has been strongly contended by
some, though as stoutly denied by others, that the
Complutensian editors allowed an undue influence in
their work to the Latin Vulgate, which has always been

72 Sketch of the History of Modern Biblical Criticism.
so highly esteemed by the Church of Eome. Some
countenance, certainly, seems to be given to this
suspicion, by a curious remark and comparison which
they make in their preface to the Old Testament. Their
plan was to print the Latin in the central column as the
place of honour, and to surround it on either side by the
Septuagint Greek and the original Hebrew. Eeferring
to this, they compare the Vulgate to Christ crucified be
tween the two thieves (!) — -the one thief being the Greek
Church, which was denounced as being heretical, and the
other thief -being .the nation of the Jews, whom they
accused of having corrupted the Hebrew as often as
it differed from the Latin.
The Complutensian text, although the first ever
printed, has had' but smaU influence on subsequent
editions of the New Testament. It possesses therefore
comparatively little interest at the present day, and wiU
probably never again be reprinted.
Very different has it proved with the edition pubUshed
by Erasmus. That has been the basis of aU the ordinary
editions of the Scriptures which have since been
published, from generation to generation. From it has
been derived in substance our own Authorized English
Testament. It is, therefore, a point of the deepest
interest to us to ascertain on what critical authority the
edition of Erasmus rests. And on investigating this
matter, we are led both to acknowledge the gracious
working of Divine Providence in the past, and tov see
what is our own manifest duty at the present day.
When we remember that our Authorized Vess^n was

Sketch of the History of Modem Biblical Criticism. 73
formed more than 250 years ago, and that then not one
of those ancient and precious manuscripts which have
been described was avaUable for the purposes of
criticism, we might weU entertain the fear lest the
Bible known to us from infancy should prove to be
seriously misleading, as having been formed from a very
erroneous text. And when we ask what were the
manuscripts which Erasmus employed at first, and what
those were which the editors immediately foUowing him
used, tiU what is known, as the "Eeceived Text" was
produced, we find that our apprehensions seem to have
but too good foundation. It was not for long that the
ample materials which we now possess for fixing
accurately the true readings of Scripture came into the
hands of BibUcal scholars. Erasmus, and his foUowers
for a century, had but a few modern manuscripts which
they could consult in preparing their editions of the
New Testament. They were such as happened to be
within their reach; and these were of a character on
which no great rehance could be placed. To show how
meagre were the resources of Erasmus, it may be
mentioned that he had only a single manuscript of the
Apocalypse, and that even the one which he possessed
was not complete., A part of the New Testament
would thus have been altogether wanting in his first
edition had he not ventured to supply it by transla
tion from the Latin. He took the Vulgate, and con-
jecturaUy retranslated it into Greek. It thus happens
that, in the ordinary editions of the Greek New Testa
ment, there are words stiU existing, which so far

74 Sketch of the History of Modern Biblical Criticism.
from resting on any manuscript authority, or having
any claim to be regarded as inspired, were plainly
and confessedly inserted in the text from mere con
jecture. Yet, notwithstanding this, and all the more on account
of it, the common text of the Greek New Testament
excites our deepest wonder and admiration. We cannot .
but regard it as a kind of Providential miracle. Although
so much has been done since it was formed to throw
Ught upon the true text of Scripture, that which was at
first adopted remains, for almost all practical purposes,
totally unaffected. God has never interfered with
human liberty, yet it is impossible to look. back upon
the history of the Bible, and especially on the point now
under consideration, without being struck with the
manner in which He has continuaUy watched over His
own holy Word. We may truly and thankfully say that
He led Erasmus and his followers "in a way which they
knew not," so as to secure a substantial accuracy in those
transcripts of the New Testament which they presented
to the world. Many have come after them, and devoted •
their lives to the discovery and publication of sacred
manuscripts ; but largely as the stores of Biblical
criticism have been increased since their day, the New
Testament remains practicaUy almost the same as it was
in the first editions. Changes have indeed been made :
doubts respecting numerous passages have been started :
fluctuations have taken place in the opinions of scholars
as to the true reading in a few important texts ; but, upon
the whole, criticism, even in its most rigorous exercise, has

Sketch of the History of Modem Biblical Criticism. 75
not demanded any great or material alterations in the
text. This is a very comforting and satisfactory thought to
aU the friends of Scripture, yet it is surely not one which
should lead them to undervalue the labours of those
who devote their time and strength to critical pursuits.
The object of such students is to discover and present
to the Christian world, in as pure a form as possible,
that message which our Heavenly Father has addressed
to His chUdren upon earth. The more loyal and loving
our hearts are towards Him, the more wUl we feel it our
incumbent duty to encourage, in every way we can, those
scholarly studies which have for their end the noble
purpose of freeing the Scriptures from every taint of
error that may, through human infirmity, have crept into
their text, and restoring that text to the form which
it exhibited in the autographs of the sacred writers.
Let it be remembered also, that to such investigations
is due the confidence which we may justly place in our
Bibles, as they have been familiar to us all our days ;
and that, however little the labours of sacred critics may
be heard of by the Christian world at large, yet it is to
these that the faith and comfort of all believers are to
be ascribed. By these there is a waU of defence drawn
around the Bible of the humblest worshipper. By these
the enemies of divine truth are prevented from making
that assault upon the hopes of the Christian community,
which they would not defer for a moment had they the
least chance of being successful. By the labour of some
scholar whose name perhaps few have ever heard — who

76 Sketch of the History of Modem Biblical Criticism.
sits buried among books and manuscripts which most
men would think repellent and unedifying. and whose
life is spent in pursuits which many in their haste might
stigmatize as useless — by his labours, Christians in
general are protected from the assertion or insinuation
that the passage' of Scripture which may have cheered
their hearts has no valid claim to be regarded as the
Word of God. Honour then to those who are wearing
health and strength away in the noble work of ascer
taining and elucidating the true text of Scripture! As
much as the missionary who leaves home and kindred
to bear the glad tidings of salvation to the heathen : as
truly as the martyr who seals with his blood the testi
mony he has borne for Christ — are these men doing the
the work of God, and earning the reward which wiU at
last be given to all His good and faithful servants. But
for them, the message which the missionary bears might
be scoffed at as a fable; but for them, the faith for
which the martyr dies might be ridiculed as a delu
sion; but for them, the Gospel which the minister
preaches might be laughed at as the offspring of human
credulity or imposture ; and therefore to them be given
that honour which is their due, and let those services be
acknowledged and appreciated which are rendered by
them, not to a sect, a church, or a nation merely, but to
mankind at large, and by which not only the present,
but aU future ages, are laid under most deep and true
and lasting obligations.
On looking back upon the history of sacred criticism

Sketch of the History of Modern Biblical Criticism. 77
since the days of Erasmus, it is pleasing to discover that
some of the very first and most eminent men who
devoted themselves to such studies belonged to our own
country. After Beza's editions of the New Testament,
which appeared towards the close of the sixteenth cen
tury, Uttle was done in textual criticism till the publica
tion of Walton's Polyglott in the year 1657. This great
work contained a coUection of various readings from
numerous important manuscripts, though it still adhered
to that text which had now acquired a kind of prescrip
tive right, and which, in the opinion of many, it was
sacrUegious to touch. Ignorance is often as irritable
as it is clamorous ; and learning must, not unfre-
quently, sustain a severe conflict before its conclusions
are accepted. Thus it proved in the case now before us.
If there is any duty plainly incumbent on Christians, it
is surely to see that they possess the Word of God in as
pure a form as Providence has placed within their power.
And when new manuscripts were brought to light, of a
far higher value than those which had been used in the
first printed editions of the New Testament, it might
have been expected that some gratitude would be dis
played to those scholars who had discovered them, and
who sought by their aid to present to the Christian
world a closer approximation to the genuine text of
Scripture. But as. has happened in many similar cases,
and as wUl doubtless happen again, very different was
the result. Men allowed their own notions of expe
diency to outweigh aU considerations of truth and duty.
The estabhshed text with all its corruptions was clung

78 Sketch of the History of Modem Biblical Criticism.
to, in preference to that which had so greatly superior
claims to acceptance ; and those scholars who ventured
to call attention to the various readings furnished by
newly-discovered manuscripts, instead of being thanked
for their pains, were (as we formerly saw) branded
as the enemies of revelation. Future ages, however,
have acknowledged the value of those labours which
were at first so much decried; and the names of
Walton, Mill, and Bentley wiU ever be names of
which England will be proud in connection with the
pursuit of sacred learning and the advancement of
textual criticism.
After this period, the glory of devotedness to Biblical
science passed away from Britain, and rested on a
country to which the whole Christian world is now under
the deepest obligation. However mu'ch we may deplore
some of the phases which both faith and unbehef have
assumed in Germany, it is but fair that we should also
acknowledge the incalculable service which German
scholarship has rendered to the cause of divine truth.
In regard, more especiaUy, to the text of Scripture, the
names of Bengel and Griesbach need only to be men
tioned in order to suggest how much we owe to the
former labours of Continental critics. Nor have German
scholars ceased to toil in our behalf at the present day.
Not to weary the reader with a long list of names, we may
simply mention that of Tischendorf, who has had the hon
our of finding more manuscripts of the New Testament
than any other labourer in this field, and whose previous
discoveries have (as formerly described) all been sur-

Sketch of the History of Modem Biblical Criticism. 79
passed and crowned by his bringing to Ught a manu
script which carries us back at least to the days of
Augustine and Jerome, and whose worth it is scarcely
possible to overestimate.
It is gratifying to be able to add that our own country
has recently been reoccupying the honourable position
which she formerly held in the department of textual
criticism. No labourers in this field have ever surpassed
Dr. TregeUes and Dr. Scrivener in the zeal, dUigence,
and painstaking accuracy with which they have devoted
their Uves to this study. Others also, like the late
lamented Dean AUord, have done much to give a stimu
lus to such pursuits. There are not a few cheering evi
dences that a taste for the study of textual criticism is
reviving in our country ; and if this taste is duly fostered
and properly directed, we may augur from it the happiest
results. The New Testament ltevision Company, now sitting
periodicaUy at Westminster, of necessity give their
most careful attention to the settlement of the true text.
This is the very first duty which they have to discharge.
It would be vain to make an improved translation, how
ever exceUent, if that were founded on a corrupt or
uncertain text. The primary aim therefore of the Com
pany is, by the most patient, and even anxious, weighing
of aU available evidence, to make as near an approach
to certainty as can be made with respect to the genuine
text of the New Testament. If EngUsh readers of the
new version feel startled at first by finding words or
clauses omitted to which they have been long accustomed,

80 SIcetch of the History of Modem Biblical Criticism.
and changes of translation introduced owing to a change
of reading which has been adopted in the Greek, they
may rest assured that not a single alteration has been
adopted without the most serious deliberation, or from
any other motive than the earnest desire of making the
nearest possible approach to the primitive form of that
inspired Word which God has given us to be " a lamp
unto our feet, and a light unto our path."

PAET SECOND.
MODE OF DEALING WITH THE FACTS.

PAET SECOND.
MODE OF DEALING WITH THE EACTS.

CHAPTEE I.

INTRODUCTORY.

IHE facts of the case are now before us, and
we are next met by the inquiry, What are
we to do with them ? What are the principles
that are to guide us in selecting from the
great mass of various readings in existence those which .
we may have best reason to suppose were the original
words of the inspired penmen 1
It is too generally imagined that we have no prin
ciples at aU. Even inteUigent persons are frequently
under the impression that the science of textual criti- •
cism is a mere coUection of undigested facts, that the
textual critic has no fixed laws to regulate his procedure,
that he works at random, and that the text eventually
constructed by him is the result of arbitrary hypothesis
or unregulated caprice. It wiU be our effort to show
that this is not the case ; and that, whatever uncertainty
may stiU rest upon some parts of our subject, enough is

84 Introductory.
known to make it strictly a science. We shall en
deavour so to look at the task we have in hand as
gradually to draw a line with ever-increasing closeness
around the correct readings of which we are in search.
It has been already stated that there are three sources
from which these readings are to be derived, manuscripts,
versions, and citations from Scripture in the writings of
the early Fathers of the Church. Had we reason tp
believe that all these authorities were of equal value
our course would be a simple one. Looking at them as
so many witnesses, each entitled to the same degree of
credit, we should simply reckon up the number upon
opposing sides of the point at issue, and pronounce our
verdict according to the numerical majority. Such a
state of things, however, is never exhibited in a court of
justice. The value of evidence there given by different
witnesses very materiaUy differs. Some have had better
opportunities of observation than others. Some have
made a better use of opportunities in themselves equaUy
good. One is better able than another to give his evi
dence in a clear, distinct, and intelligible manner. The
statements made by one accord better than those made
by others with circumstances already known to us. AU
these things affect the value of evidence. It is the duty
of a judge to attend to them, and he may often have to
decide the case before him by the evidence of the few
instead of the many. Hence the legal maxim, than
which there is none more thoroughly established, that
testimonies are to be weighed, not numbered.
The same principle comes into operation in the

Introductory. 85
inquiry with which we are engaged. One of the first
things that strikes the student of the text of the New
Testament is the degree to which the many witnesses
that have something to say regarding it differ from one
another in the points now mentioned. They have not
had the same opportunities of observation, for one
belongs to a period much nearer that at which the
Apostles wrote than another ; and this, though, when
taken by itself, by no means conclusive as to the higher
value of his evidence, is yet at first sight something in
its favour. They have not made the same use of oppor
tunities equally good ; for one of two who lived in the
same age may have obtained his information from sources
manifestly inferior to those that were employed by his
contemporary. The same pains have not been taken by
them to ascertain the facts ; for one may show that he
has yielded without further inquiry to a first impression,
while another has looked into the matter, viewed it
from different sides, argued it with himself, and made
up his mind after careful and anxious deliberation.
Finally, they may not give evidence with the same direct
bearing on the point at issue ; for one may speak to us
in the original language of the New Testament, another
through the more uncertain medium of a translation.
It is clear then that merely to number our witnesses
wUl not do. We must distinguish between their
separate values. We must arrange and classify them.
Before proceeding further it may be well to illustrate
what has now been said by an example. We take two
interesting various readings in the first few verses of

86 Introductory.
the sixth chapter of the Gospel .of St. Matthew. In our
English version of the first verse of that chapter we
read, " Take heed that ye do not your alms before men,
to be seen of them," and again at the close of the fourth,
the sixth, and the eighteenth verses, we find the clause,
" And thy Father, which seeth in secret, shall reward
thee openly." In aU these cases the words of the Eng
lish Bible are a faithful rendering of the standard Greek
text. Many manuscripts and other authorities, how
ever, read in v. 1, " Take heed that ye do not your
righteousness before men," and at the close of each of
the three other verses referred to they omit the word
" openly." Which is correct ? Of which have we most
reason to think that it gives the form of the sentences
as originally spoken by our Lord and written by the
Evangelist ? Were we to be guided by the number of
witnesses on either side, we should at once have to
determine in favour of the received text. The number
giving evidence on its behalf vastly preponderates.
The number in favour of the other readings is compara
tively small. Yet it is conceivable that, if justice is to
be done, the smaUer number may be entitled to more
consideration than the larger, and that the verdict
should be with it. In point of fact it really proves to
be so. All editors of note come to this conclusion ; and
English readers who have Alford's New Testament in
their hands will see, on turning up the passage, that he
reads without remark in v. 1, " But take heed that ye
do not your righteousness before men," and that at the
close of verses 4 and 6 he brackets the " openly," whUe at

Introductory. 87
the end of v. 18 he omits it. It is too soon to explain
the grounds df this judgment. We advert to it only as
a fact ; but to confirm its correctness- it may 'be said,
that the force and meaning of these verses are brought
by it into a much clearer light. The word " alms" in
v. 1 confines our attention to the first illustration of the
outward and hypocritical spirit spoken of by our Lord,
almsgiving. The word "righteousness" 'extends to aU
the three, almsgiving, prayer, and fasting ; and the first
verse of the chapter becomes a general precept, finding
its iUustration not in one only but in each of these.
The omission of the word " openly" is of even greater
importance. Its insertion spoils the whole meaning of
the passage, leading us to think that the promise of the
Saviour is that, if we serve God in secret, that is
sincerely, without pretence or show, for His own sake
and not for the sake of human applause, then God wiU
reward us even in this world, in the very sight and pre
sence of those who gave us no credit for piety, who per
haps condemned us for the want of it. No such lesson
is intended; our Saviour designing only to teach us
that, however men may despise the spirit of humble
piety and honour ostentation, there is Another and a
Higher who wiU judge us justly, even that Father in
heaven who seeth in secret. Men may condemn, He
will "requite" or rather "recompense" us. No selfish
thought of earthly triumph over foes is thus aUowed to
mingle with our hope of reward. In purity and un
selfishness of spirit we anticipate only the approbation
of our Father in heaven.

88 Introductory.
These examples may suffice to show how much a de
cision in favour of a minority of witnesses may after
wards commend itself to the spiritually enlightened
judgment. If so, they answer the end for which they
are at present quoted. They wiU confirm to our minds
the necessity of such a classification of our witnesses
as that to which reference has been made. To this
classification we now proceed.

CHAPTEE II.
FIRST STEP IN CLASSIFICATION.
|,T has been said that the three classes of
witnesses to which we have to appeal for
the determination of the true text of the
New Testament, are manuscripts of the
Greek text, translations into other languages made from
that text, and citations in the Fathers of the Church.
We have first to make a comparative estimate of these
three classes.
Of the three it will appear that we must look first
and chiefly to manuscripts of the Greek text. For,
1. As to citations in the writings of the Fathers,
these labour in many respects under the same and even
greater defects than those that have to be contended
with in the case of manuscripts. The works of the
Fathers, like the Sacred Writings themselves, were com
posed centuries before the art of printing was known.
The autographs have long since perished. It cannot be
doubted that, in their transcription, all the liabilities to
error which affected the transcription of the inspired
autographs would not only exist, but would exist in

90 First Step in Classification.
even greater force. No such profound reverence was
entertained for them as for Scripture. It was no such
labour of earnest and loving zeal to copy them, with all
those marks of interest which still testify to the anxiety
manifested by the copyists of the Sacred Books to do their
work faithfully and well. No such scruples would be
felt by a copyist in altering the text that was beneath
his eye. Nay, there is every reason to think that he
would often be tempted by his very reverence for Scrip
ture to alter what he read. A quotation given by a
Father, let us suppose, was different from what the tran
scriber found in the manuscripts he was himself accus
tomed to reverence as divine. How natural the supposi
tion that the Father had quoted wrong, and that justice,
both to the Bible and to him, required that the error
should be corrected. Add to this that, in the case of the
Fathers, we possess, with one or two exceptions, no
manuscripts reaching so near the time when their books
were written as in the case of the New Testament, and
that even the whole amount of our manuscripts of their
writings is but small, and it will be at once observed
that, if it be difficult to determine the text of Scripture,
it must often be still more difficult to determine that of
those Fathers, the early era of whose life renders their
testimony in this matter of peculiar value.
This however is not all. Even supposing that we
could determine exactly what an early Christian Father
gave as a citation from Scripture, the question would
still remain, Has Scripture in that citation been ade
quately represented ? In very many cases it would be

First Step in Classification. 9
impossible to affirm this with confidence. The Fathers
were not unfrequently extremely loose in their quota
tions from Scripture. Whether it was that they pos
sessed little critical skill and so were careless ; or that
they found it difficult to turn up the passage they were
quoting in the roUs which were then in use ; or that,
depending largely on a still living tradition, they were
less particular about written words than we are; what
ever may have been the cause — and probably all the
causes now mentioned tended more or less to the result
— they were often satisfied if they gave the meaning of
a passage without seeming to concern themselves
whether or not they quoted with literal exactness. Nay,
the same Father is found to quote the same text in dif
ferent ways in different parts of his writings. Numerous
examples of this may be met with in any critical edition
of the New Testament. We refer only to one. It is a
question of very great importance whether in Mark i. 2
we should read "as it is written in the prophets," or
" as it is written in Isaiah the prophet," and the evidence
of Irenaeus, a writer of the second half of the second
century, would be here of pecuhar value. That Father
quotes the text at one time in the one form, at another
in the other.
The value of patristic citations is indeed sometimes
very high. It may happen that New Testament passages
are cited with the express intention of giving the words
of the original, that the whole course of the writer's
argument may be dependent on the fact that he found a
particular word in the text before him, or that he may

92 First Step in Classification.
even discuss the merits of different readings, and de
liberately give the preference to one. In such cases the
value of citations is so great that they become to a large
degree, in a manner to be afterwards considered by
us, tests of the value of those manuscripts in which
similar or different readings occur. But this is not their
general character. Neither ought it to be forgotten that
they may often be useful as corroborative authorities.
The weight which they have not of themselves they may
receive from their agreement with other witnesses ; and,
agreeing with them, they may confirm their evidence.
It must be obvious, however, from aU that has been said,
that the highest position that can be assigned to cita
tions in general is that of being subsidiary aids, in
fixing the true reading of disputed passages. First
authorities they are not. Our circle is narrower than
it was. 2. As to versions, or translations of the Greek text
into other languages, their value in bearing testimony to
the general purity and integrity of the form in which
the New Testament has come down to us cannot be too
highly spoken of; nor is it possible to admire too much
the providential arrangement which led to the Bible's
being early translated into many different tongues, so
that its corruption, to any large extent, became almost, if
not altogether, an impossibUity. That, however, is not
the point with which we are at present dealing. We
desire to know what is the relation of versions to
manuscripts in fixing particular words or clauses of the
Greek text. It cannot be doubted for a moment that,

First Step in Classification. 93
just as in the case of citations, their position is sub
ordinate. At once the old difficulty meets us. What is the true
text of the version itself? Exposed in its early con
dition to all the mischances that befell the sacred text,
the recovery of the original text of the one may be a
problem hardly less difficult of solution than the re
covery of the original text of the other ; while, in
addition to a deterioration arising from the unavoidable
infirmities of copyists,, we are exposed to the highly
probable danger that the transcriber of a version would
often be tempted to correct it by the authority of the
Greek text that he possessed. Again, even supposing
that we have the version in its original condition, it
may be that it is in a language widely different in its
genius from the Greek ; that a translator was anxious
to be elegant rather than accurate ; that, even if desirous
to be accurate, he mistook the sense of the words that
he translated.
On the other hand, it must not be forgotten that there
are some points in regard to which the evidence of
versions is entitled to the greatest weight. The pre
sence or absence of whole clauses, for example, is a
point to which they can clearly testify. It not un-
frequently happened that they were made with such an
excessive literalness that, disregarding the idiom of their
own tongue, they followed the order and construction of
the words in their original, or simply transferred Greek
words to their own page in the letters used by them
selves. In such cases their bearing on any question at

94 First Step in Classification.
issue is direct. We have versions too belonging to parts
of the world widely removed from one another, so that
collusion of testimony was impossible. FinaUy, it
greatly heightens our sense of their importance, when we
remember that some of them were made at an age long
anterior to the date of our oldest manuscripts. Not
withstanding this, however, it must be evident that the
use of versions in the critical emendation of the text is
encompassed with difficulties peculiarly its own. Ver
sions may preserve a true reading long before it has
been discovered in any Greek manuscript, as the
Vulgate preserved the fine reading of Luke U. 14, " Glory-
to God in the highest, and on earth peace among men of
His -good pleasure," that is, among men whom He hath
loved. They may be a powerful aid in settling dis
puted texts ; but they cannot be depended on as first
authorities. Our circle has again been narrowed.
We are thus for first authorities thrown back upon
manuscripts of the Greek text itself, upon documents
professing to give us directly that text as it stood in
the infancy of the Christian Church. Other readings
than those presented there we may find in patristic
citations, or we may infer from versions; but the
instances must be rare indeed, if they are even in any
case to be regarded as legitimate, when we draw a read
ing from any other source than a Greek manuscript.

CHAPTEE III.
SECOND STEP IN CLASSIFICATION.
IT the point now reached we have only
manuscripts before us as the primal source
whence the readings of the Greek New
Testament are to be drawn. Not that we
have laid citations and versions entirely aside. We
shaU have by and by to return to them when the
whole evidence in any particular case is to be taken
into account. But, in the meantime, while engaged in
classifying our witnesses, we have seen reason to
believe that they do not occupy the first rank. Greek
manuscripts alone do that. These, however, are ex
tremely numerous, and it is quite possible that they
may not all be of the same value. Can anything be
done then towards classifying them ?
In endeavouring to answer this question, it is of
importance to bear distinctly in mind what it is that
we are in search of. It is the original, and therefore the
most ancient text. It might seem, therefore, at first
sight that the nearer any manuscripts approach to it
in date, the more valuable wiU they be; and that,

96 Second Step in Classification.
inasmuch as the uncial manuscripts, whose distinction
from the cursive is already known to our readers, are
our oldest group, we should be justified in at once
placing our dependence mainly upon them. Here,
however, we are met by the important fact that there is
a very great difference between the oldness of a manu
script and the oldness of its text. The mechanical act
of writing, and the substance of what is written, may
belong to very different dates. It would not be so were
we dealing only with original compositions. An ori
ginal book belongs in substance as well as form to the
exact period at which its author lived and wrote. If we
know the date of the form, we know also that of the
substance. But we are now occupied, not with originals
but with copies, and other considerations play their part.
A cursive manuscript written, for example, in the
eleventh century, may quite weU present to us a text
belonging to the fourth, or perhaps even an earlier cen
tury. It might be one of the manuscripts of that
centurjr, now lost, from which it was copied. Whether
it was so is to be determined by considerations of which
we have not yet spoken ; but if there be good ground
for believing that it was so, it is clear that it is not to
have its value diminished by the unimportant circum
stance that it is written in cursive, not in uncial, letters.
No doubt if a witness present himself to us in uncial
clothing, we have for the most part, though not even
then always, reason to believe both that he is old and
that his text is old; whereas, in the case of one who
appears in cursive clothing, it is a matter for inquiry

Second Step in Classification. 97
whether, though the fashion of his garb be modern, the
substance of the garb, in other words the text itself,
may not be as old as in the former case. StiU the out
ward appearance of the witness is not decisive. We
must dismiss the idea that the style in which a manu
script is written is conclusive either as to its value or
its worthlessness.
Have we then any means of classifying our witnesses
upon the principle of more or less ancientness of text ?
A Uttle consideration of the matter wUl show us that we
have ; and, when we have done it, a second step in
classification wiU have been gained.
In the first place, we can separate our most ancient
uncial manuscripts from the rest, and determine
from them the general character of an ancient text.
What is in them testifies to the state of the text in
their day, and must be old simply because they are old.
We can then institute a comparison between this text
and that of our more modern manuscripts. If, in doing
so, it can be shown that there is a very great resem
blance, and that the various readings presented, not
withstanding this resemblance, by the moderns, can
only be accounted for by the supposition that they ex
isted in the Church at a very early period, and that they
have no connection with the mere flux of time and its
changes, we at once pronounce these modern manuscripts
to be old in text though not in lettering. If, on the
other hand, the differences are obviously produced, not
by the faithful handing down of other ancient readings,
but by that gradual process of change, sometimes more
G

98 Second Step in Classification.
sometimes less conscious, which is inseparable from re
peated copyings, especially where the copyists differ in
training and taste, we must regard the manuscripts con
taining these differences as modern, not only in form but
in text. Now it is often possible to trace differences of
this latter class. We can almost see the process of
change going on, alterations finding their way into the
text, roughnesses softened down, difficulties cleared
away, anomalous turns of language removed, the whole
character of the text becoming different from what it
was. Wherever this can' be done, we have gained the
line of demarcation we are in search of. We are en
titled to say that manuscripts upon which such changes
have been produced are not so worthy of reUance as
those by which the changes have been escaped.
In the second place, we can go even further than has
now been said, and can determine with stiU greater pre
cision whether the text of any manuscript before us, be
it uncial or cursive, is ancient or not. We know from
entirely independent 'testimony, of a kind to be more
fuUy spoken of when we reach our next point, how
certain passages of Scripture were read in ancient times.
By these we can test our witnesses. One comes before
us with all the appearance of antiquity. We ask him,
How do you read such and such passages? If he answer
us as, by the supposition, we know that they were read
in ancient times ; weU. It is so far at least a proof that
he is what he claims to be. But if he answer us as we
know that they were read only in modern not in ancient
times, we at once say, You do not sustain your profes-

Second Step in Classification. 99
sion; you look as if you belonged to the Fathers; in
reality, you are one of their late descendants. Again,
one comes before us with all the appearance of being a
modern. We apply the same test. He may show that,
so far as' our main purpose is concerned, he belongs to a
remote antiquity.
In the third place, such a separation as that of which
we have been speaking has actually been made in
certain cases with the consent of aU. Inquirers differ
as to the value they attach to the classes thus separated
from each other. They do not deny that the classes
exist. There are modern manuscripts which aU aUow
to possess an ancient text, and to be in this respect dis
tinguished from the great mass of their fellows.
It is no doubt possible that even manuscripts, not
exhibiting what may be caUed an ancient text upon the
whole, may occasionally preserve an apostolic word or
phrase that somehow or other has dropped out of their
more ancient companions. That they have preserved
much that is apostoUc is obvious, for in much all our
witnesses agree, and that must be apostolic. They may
therefore have preserved more. The difficulty is to
make sure that they have done so. No agreement
among themselves can be sufficient to convince us, for
they may have been led astray by some common cause.
No mere number witnessing the same thing can be of
the least avaU. Unless we are satisfied that each indi
vidual of the number would be a good witness though
he stood alone, the mere bringing them together as a
multitude may disturb, but cannot convince. They

100 Second Step in Classification.
must prove their title to be heard ; and appearances
being certainly against them, inasmuch as they differ
from our older witnesses, we are entitled to ask that the
proof they offer us shaU be unambiguous and weighty.
Thus then we have taken another step, and one most
fruitful of results. It is a demonstrated fact, that the
great mass of manuscripts belonging to the later centuries
of the Christian Church cannot stand the tests of which
we have been speaking. We shall not say that they
are therefore to be put wholly aside, but certainly they
are not primary authorities. Our circle has again been
greatly narrowed.

CHAPTEE IV.
THIRD STEP IN CLASSIFICATION. — PART I.
SjY the process of classification hitherto pursued
we have been enabled to diminish greatly
the number of our primary witnesses to the
Greek text of the New Testament. We
have also been able to secure that aU those to whose
evidence we are chiefly to attend have an ancient text,
a text at least ancient in its general character. It may
be thought that this should be enough for us ; but it
must be borne in mind that the oldest of our manuscripts
does not go back to a point of time older than the first
half of the fourth century, and that the texts therefore
hitherto mainly used by us take us only to that date, a
date three centuries later than that at which the sacred
autographs were written. This indeed would be a
matter of no consequence if two conditions affecting the
question before us could be fulfilled. First, had we
reason to beUeve that, up to the period to which our
oldest manuscripts belong, the text of the New Testa
ment had remained pure and free from error, then those
witnesses, bearing testimony to its condition in their

102 Third Step in Classification.
own day, would at the same time testify to what it was
in the days of the Apostles. Secondly, were our wit
nesses agreed in their testimony, we should at once and
without further difficulty be able to determine the pre
cise words that were read by them as Scripture, and a
very strong presumption would be given in their behalf.
Unfortunately neither of these two conditions is com
plied with.
As to the first, we know that the text of the New
Testament, so far from having continued pure during
the first three centuries of its existence, had faUen into
a state of remarkable confusion long before that period
expired. Several circumstances combine to show this.
The differences among our ancient witnesses themselves,
a point as yet only alluded to, and to be immediately
spoken of more fully, are a clear proof of the fact. Had
the text been preserved in its original condition they
could not aU at once have exhibited the diversity that
we actually meet with. It was one at the first; it
would have been one then. Again, although we have
no manuscripts older than the early part of the fourth
century, we have translations of the New Testament
made into other languages nearly two centuries earher,
together with quotations from it embodied in writings
of the Fathers belonging to as remote an age ; and these
translations and quotations leave no doubt that, when
they were made, very many passages were read in their
particular districts quite otherwise than we find them in
our oldest manuscripts. StiU further, we can see from
the works of the early Fathers of the Church that they

Third Step in Classification. 103
were often greatly perplexed by the variety of readings
that came under their notice. They speak of it con
tinually, and often in tones of much hesitation and
doubt. They refer to manuscripts even then older than
others. They describe some manuscripts as being more
accurate than others. They blame opponents for wU-
fully falsifying the text. They discuss the probabilities
of different claims. In short, they find themselves
largely compelled to pursue the same course of argu
ment pursued by Biblical critics at the present day.
FinaUy, we have the express testimony of some of the
most learned of their number, of some who devoted
much pains to the study of the text upon this very
point. We shaU refer only to two, the most learned, the
most critical of them all, one of whom flourished in the
third century, the other in the fourth. The first, Origen,
commenting upon Matt. xix. 19, where words occur
falsely thought by him to be corrupt, says, " It might
appear madness in me to consider these words as an
addition to the text, were there not also in many other
things such a variety in the copies of the Gospels, that
neither do those of Matthew correspond with one
another nor with those of the other Evangehsts. But
now the diversity of copies is become truly great,
whether through the carelessness of the copyists or
through the wifful daring of those who are occupied in
correcting what is copied, or through those again who
venture to make improvements upon their own judg
ment, sometimes adding, and at other times blotting
out." The second, Jerome, says, in his epistle to Pope

104 Third Step in Classification.
Damasus, " If confidence is to be placed in the Latin
texts, let them teU us in which ; for-the texts are almost
as numerous as the copies." It is true that Jerome is
here speaking of the Latin texts, but the simple fact
that they were thus corrupt is evidence enough that the
variations in different manuscripts of the original must
have been great.
To what causes this corruption of the text about the
beginning of the fourth century is to be ascribed it
would be extremely difficult to say. The natural, the
inevitable causes spoken of in the former part of this
work, undoubtedly contributed to it, but they are not of
themselves, by any means, a sufficient explanation. The
fact, however, without going into this, is sufficient for
our present purpose. It evidently presents a very
serious difficulty when we would proceed to estimate
the merits of our ancient witnesses who belong to that
age. The second difficulty alluded to is not less great.
When we examine our ancient witnesses, we find that
they are very far indeed from being unanimous in the
testimony given by them. They are constantly at
variance with one another. We take one or two of
them that seem to approach most closely; and for a
time, as we travel with them, we find nothing but a
deUghtful harmony of statement. AU at once they
diverge. First the one and then the other joins a
different group. But attachment to the new companions
does not continue long. Divergence from them speedily
appears. And so they go on in ever-varying combina-

Third Step in Classification. 105
tions, tiU the impression is apt to be produced on us
that anything like a weU-grounded verdict on our part
is impossible.And so it would be, were aU our ancient authorities
regarded by us as equaUy worthy of reUance. But
there cannot be a greater mistake than to think so.
Two manuscripts of the fourth century may differ from
each other in worth quite as much as two of the
sixteenth. AU the main causes that operate in bringing
about a distinction in the latter operate also in the
former case. The old were copies like the young. They
may have been copied from bad originals. They may
have been carelessly copied. Age alone cannot be
accepted as decisive of their value. It wiU thus be seen
that we are brought back to the point from which we
started in this chapter. The two conditions that would
have saved us from any effort to discriminate between
our ancient witnesses cannot be complied with. Nothing
remains but that we make up our minds as to their
relative value, and the weight to be attached to them.
Here one of the most interesting and important pro
blems connected with our inquiry opens on our view.
How shaU we decide between the conflicting claims
of manuscripts aU presenting so far at least an ancient
text ? We shaU explain the principle of the process to
be resorted to, and shaU then confirm and illustrate it in
a separate chapter by one or two examples.
The great fact to be borne in mind is this, that we
have in early versions of the New Testament, and
especiaUy in early quotations from it in the writings of

106 Third Step in Classification.
the Church Fathers, evidence as to the manner in which
a large number of important texts were read at a date
much more remote than that of the oldest of our exist
ing manuscripts. It is true that this evidence is not
free from the influences that have weakened the effect
of the evidence of our manuscripts themselves. The
text of translations and of quotations has been affected
by time as weU as their text. The editions of them
that have been published are not unfrequently far from
being so critical and correct as to entitle them to be
confidently relied on. We may often be as uncertain as
to the readings they presented at the time when the
manuscripts containing them appeared, for they too
were once known only in that form, as we are with
regard to the readings we would deduce from the
manuscripts of the New Testament itself. StiU, after
making all allowance for these chances of error, a
sufficient amount of certainty remains to enable us to
come to a definite conclusion as to the manner in which
a large number of important texts were read, at a
date long anterior to that from which any manuscript
evidence has come down to us. But we are not confined
to the sources now referred to for the certainty of which
we speak. Other considerations come also into play.
Arguments as to the original reading of the texts we are
selecting may be drawn from the general verdict of
manuscript authority regarding them; for although that
authority is later than the evidence of early versions
and quotations, it may often carry us back, by way
of confirmation, to what these testify. Internal evidence

Third Step in Classification. ' 107
too, springing from such things as the context of the
passage, the style of the writer, or the analogy of Scrip
ture, may be taken into account. Each of these has some
weight, and forms a legitimate part of the proof by
which we settle with ourselves the manner in which the
texts we have fixed on were read in the first or second
century, if not at the very first. We establish these
readings then ; and pursuing the same course as that
already indicated in the last chapter, only now with
much greater minuteness and particularity than were
then necessary, we test by means of them the value of
each of the ancient manuscripts in our hands. If it
contain them in the form we expect it is a proof that it
is good. If it do not contain them in that form we con
clude that it is of inferior value.
It wiU be at once seen that the principle now ad
vocated is thoroughly sound, and that, not only in so
far'as it applies to the reading of the particular texts
that have been under examination, but in relation to the
general value of each of our manuscripts as a whole.
Upon the first of these two points there can be no
doubt. We used all available evidence in settling the
reading of our characteristic texts, and the judgment
of the single manuscript we are examining wiU, if it
dissent from that evidence, not disturb, if it agree with
it, wiU confirm our conclusion. But the second point
is equaUy indisputable ; for surely it will not be denied
that proved value in regard to a number of texts, and
these characteristic and important ones, is a fair test of
the value of a manuscript in general. Proved veracity

108 Third Step in Classification.
in a witness upon many points is a reason why we
should not only believe him upon these points, but why
we should accept him as a generaUy credible witness.
Let us refuse to acknowledge this, and a fundamental
law of evidence is overthrown.

CHAP TEE V.
THIRD STEP IN CLASSIFICATION. — PART II.

E have explained the principle by which the
relative value of ancient manuscripts, all
possessing great claims on our regard, is to
be tested, and we proceed now to give one
or two iUustrations of the process.
Let us take first a test to which reference has been
already made, Matt. vi. 4, " And thy Father, which seeth
in secret, shaU reward thee openly." The word "openly"
is found in several ancient manuscripts, but it is
omitted in three of the most ancient. It is evidently
necessary that we should know whether the former or
the latter are most worthy of our confidence before we
venture to decide between them. Now in connection
with 'this text it happens that we have the means of
doing so. One of the most celebrated of the Fathers
directed his particular attention to the question whether
the word " openly " should stand in the text or not, and at
last excluded it on the ground that, though found in
many Latin translations of his day, it was not found in
the Greek manuscripts, which were earlier in date.

110 Third Step in Classification.
This testimony is very strong. We turn to the most
ancient Greek manuscripts that have come down to us,
and the word is not found in them. It is also w/to*»- i
in two or three important translations, and in Stations
of the text given by several' of the Fathers. Farther, as
already pointed out in a previous chapter, the insertion
of the word mars the sense of the passage, and le&ds to
a different idea from that which our Lord evidently
intended to convey. In these circumstances it is an
easy conclusion from the evidence that " openly " ought
to be omitted. That, however, is not what we have
at present in view. We rather lay aside one of the
ancient manuscripts testifying to the omission. Our
verdict on this point wiU not be affected. There is abun
dant evidence without it. We determine fuUy that the
omission should be made. We then take up the old
manuscript laid aside, and as yet supposed to be unex
amined. , Has it, or has it not, the word ? It wants it.
Thus we have a proof so far, though one text wiU of
course go but a Uttle way in such an inquiry, that that
manuscript is right, and more worthy of being rehed on
than any manuscript, even though an ancient one, in
which the word occurs.
Again, we take another very interesting text, Matt.
v. 22. The reading of our' EngUsh Bibles is, "But I
say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother
without a cause shaU be in danger of the judgment."
Now we know from the express testimony of the two
most celebrated critical Fathers of the Early Church,
that the words " without a cause" were not found in the

Third Step in Classification. Ill
best manuscripts then existing, and that in their opinion,
therefore, they ought to be excluded. " In some manu
scripts," says one of them, " 'without a cause' is added ;
but, in the true ones, the sentence is made quite ex
clusive, and anger is completely taken away. 'Without
a cause,' therefore, ought to be banished from the text."
"But some think," says the other, "that we may be
angry reasonably, improperly adding 'without a cause'
to what we find in the Gospel, according as it is said,
'whosoever is angry with his brother shall be in danger
of the judgment,' for some read ' whosoever is angry
with his brother without a cause.'" As before, this
testimony that the phrase should be omitted is very
strong. With aU their varied. learning and great oppor
tunities, these Fathers had considered the matter, and
come to a clear and unhesitating decision. The phrase
is also wanting in two of our oldest manuscripts, in
several valuable translations, and in others of the
Fathers besides the two now cited. Internal evidence is
also against it. So soon as we have reason to doubt the
propriety of its presence, we see that it has aU the
appearance of a word inserted to avoid the apparent
harshness of the precept without it ; while, if it was an
original portion of Scripture, it is very difficult to give
satisfactory reasons for the removal, the difficulty of the
passage being thereby unquestionably increased. On
the other hand, the precept, if we omit the phrase, is in
striking harmony with the at first sight sharp, extremes
almost paradoxical character of various other precepts of
the Sermon on the Mount, Although, therefore, we do

112 Third Step in Classification.
find the phrase in a good many uncials, including in
this case one of the oldest, in the great mass of cursives,
in several versions and Fathers, it is not difficult to
decidei that it ought to go out of the text. As before,
^however, that is not what we have at present in view.
We rather lay aside one of the ancient manuscripts
testifying to the omission, if possible, and it is here pos
sible, the same one as before. Our verdict on the point of
omission will not be affected. There is abundant evi
dence without it. We determine fuUy that the omission
should be made. We then take up the old manuscript
laid aside, and as yet supposed to be unexamined, has it,
or has it not, the words (one word in Greek) ? It wants
them. Thus we have again so far a proof that that
manuscript is right, and worthy of being reUed on.
We take still another text from the Gospel of St. Mat
thew, xxviii. 9, " And as they went to teU His disciples,
behold, Jesus met them, saying, AU haU. And they came
and held Him by the feet, and worshipped Him." The
words here, " as they went to tell His disciples," are found
in some uncial manuscripts, but not in others. We desire
to know upon which of these we may most rely. We
pursue therefore exactly the same process as before.
Several of the Fathers bear distinct witness to the fact
that these words should not be there, and so do two of
our most ancient manuscripts (the one that we are
testing being in the meanwhUe laid aside), together with
many other important authorities. So far therefore as
that point is concerned we can without difficulty come
to a conclusion. The words have no right to their

Third Step in Classification. 113
position in the text. We turn up the manuscript under
examination. Does it have, or does it want, them ? It
wants them. The conclusion as to its trustworthiness
drawn in the two previous instances must be drawn
again. Once more, we take a very interesting passage from
the Gospel of St. John, vi. 11. It occurs in the account
given by that Apostle of the multiplying of the bread,
" And Jesus took the loaves ; and when He had given
thanks, He distributed to the disciples, and the disciples
to them that were set down." Such is the reading of
some of our authorities ; but others, omitting a portion
of the sentence, read, " And Jesus took the loaves, and
when He had given thanks, He distributed to them that
were set down." The difference, it wiU be observed, is
that, according to the latter reading, Jesus directly dis
tributes the bread Himself; that, according to the former,
He does it by means of His disciples. Now we find that
aU the most important versions, and all the most trust
worthy Fathers who aUude to the verse, so decidedly
support the first of these two views, that we can have
no hesitation in adopting it. The verse ought to read,
" He distributed to them that were set down." We
return to the particular manuscript we are testing.
How does the case stand with it ? It wants the words';
and we have fresh confirmation of its value.
One other example taken from the Epistles may fitly
close this list. We take 1 Cor. vi. 20, " Therefore glorify
God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's."
We can estabUsh without the use of the manuscript
H

114 Third Step in Classification.
with which we are deaUng, that aU the words here met
with after " body " have no right to a place in the text,
which ought to read simply, " therefore glorify God in
your body." We turn to our manuscript as before. It
wants the words, and we are strengthened in our old
conclusion. The same process' has to be applied to each of our
ancient manuscripts in succession, testing each by the
mode in which it reads texts whose true reading we have
been able to ascertain without it. In proportion as it>
agrees with them its value is enhanced ; in proportion
as it differs from them it is diminished. In the five
texts now selected one manuscript was found to stand
the test of each. It is certainly more valuable, so far as
five texts can help us to a conclusion, than one that could
stand the test only twice, or thrice, or not at all.
The Ulustrations now given ought sufficiently to ex
plain the general nature of the method resorted to for
the purpose of determining the point that we have had
before us, How we are to arrange and classify those an
cient manuscripts that unfortunately so often differ from
one another. Our iUustrations convey of course no idea
of the very large number of texts to which the process must
be applied, or of the compUcations that have often to be
met before a final decision can be come to. Yet enough
ought to have been said to show that, when critics of the
text of Scripture make an alteration in the standard text
they do not make it at random. They know what they are
about. By long, laborious, anxious study they have been
able to estabUsh certain principles by which they can

• Third Step in Classification. 115
decide as to the character of the witnesses before them;
and they are thus prepared for giving their verdict upon
the whole case in the calm judicial spirit of a judge upon
the bench.
The effect also of the procedure now advocated upon
the mass of our materials for judging of the true text of
the New Testament wiU be at once apparent. It is a
fact admitting of no contradiction, that the number even
of our ancient manuscripts capable of standing well the
test of which we have been speaking is but small. We
have to add to them indeed those of our modern manu
scripts that pass with equal credit through the trial, for
we have already seen that in such an event the modern
manuscript is, as having an ancient text, to be ranked
for our purpose alqng with the ancients themselves.
Again, however, this number is not great. Both ancients
and moderns together, able to vindicate their right to
occupy the highest place in the Ust of tested manuscripts,
are but few in number. Our circle of primary authorities
has been still more narrowed.

CHAPTEE VI.
GENERAL RESULT OF CLASSIFICATION.
f EFOBE proceeding further, it wiU be weU for
us to pause for a moment, and to consider
the result that we have reached. We have
been endeavouring so to classify our wit
nesses to the text of the New Testament that we may
distinguish their various merits, not putting any of them
absolutely aside, but arranging them according to what
seem their different degrees of credibihty. We have
been doing this too with the view of narrowing, if pos
sible, our circle of primary authorities, so that we
may not lose ourselves in what would otherwise be a
labyrinth of confusion, through whose windings we have
no clue to guide us. We have seen that versions and
quotations are less valuable than manuscripts of the text;
that manuscripts possessing an ancient text have a
greater claim on our attention than those whose text is
comparatively modern ; although if a modern manu
script possess, as some of them actually do, an ancient
type of text, the mere fact of its being modern in form
does not detract from its value. For the purpose that

General Result of Classification. 117
we have in hand it is really ancient, and must take its
place along with those that are so both in form and in
substance. We have also seen that we are in possession
of a principle by which we can determine that certain
even of the ancients are better witnesses than others,
because they have preserved for us readings that we
have independent authority for believing to have existed
at the nearest date to the time of the Apostles, as to
which we have any evidence at aU.
The result of the principles now advocated is so
important, and at the same time so unexpected, that it is
necessary to pause over it for a moment, and to see
whether, in the presence of that result, we are prepared
to abide by our conclusion. The result is that, notwith
standing the enormous mass of evidence that we have in
our hands as to the text of the New Testament, our
primary authorities are reduced to a very smaU number.
It is an admitted fact, in particular with regard to
manuscripts on which, as we have seen, our dependence
is mainly to be placed, that by far the larger part of them
do present a text differing to no inconsiderable degree
from that found in the few to which we have urged that
a decided preference should be given.
Formidable objection is therefore taken to this result.
It is pleaded that the resolution to follow it up in the
actual construction of the text is unfair to the great
numerical preponderance of witnesses on the other side.
It is conceded that character, not number, should prevail ;
but the number against our few is, in the present instance,
so very considerable that it is supposed to require a

118 General Result of Classification.
certain modification of a principle usuaUy sound. There
is against us a unanimity so extensive and so long
continued that, when it is described even in language
against which no charge of exaggeration can be brought,
it is apt to leave an almost ineffaceable impression on
many a mind that we ought to defer to it more than we
have done.
If we reflect upon the matter for an instant we shaU
see that the idea thus entertained is distinctly to be
repudiated. It is true that our witnesses stand by
hundreds on the one side ; by tens, or rather units, on
the other. If then we have reason to- beUeve that the
former are as good as the latter, their evidence wiU
probably be, as surely it ought to be, conclusive.
Numbers, in such a case, it would be entirely out of the
question to disregard. But it can hardly be said that
the presence of numbers, however great, makes us
independent of investigating quality. In no inquiry
that we can engage in is the character of a witness
exposed to so many deteriorating influences as here.
We must satisfy ourselves therefore whether each, as he
comes before us, has suffered in this way or not. The
mere assertion of any individual among them taken by
itself is nothing, and multiply nothing by hundreds we
have still nothing.
It may be urged indeed that we are entitled to speak
in this way only on condition that we can show that
this majority of our witnesses have no independent
character, that they gathered their information from the
few, that they corrupted it in the process, and that we

General Result of Classification. 119
can learn aU we wish to know from the lips of those to
whom they in the first instance deferred. No obligation
lies on us to show anything of the kind. We are by no
means caUed upon to prove that these witnesses, who
come to us in crowds, derived their information from the
smaU number to whom we are disposed to attach
supreme importance. Their value as witnesses may
have been affected by many other circumstances besides
that. There may have been collusion among them.
Without deliberate coUusion they may have been led,
under the pressure of the same powerful authority, to
the same utterances. They may have aU sprung from
some one region of the world in which, owing to peculiar
circumstances, some one, and that an imperfect, form of
the text had gained supremacy. These things are at least
possible. Whether they have actuaUy happened or not
demands inquiry. We are entitled to say that the credi-
hUity of aU our witnesses must* be tried by tests which
every judge appUes. If they stand the test they must be
listened to, but escape it they cannot.
It is a matter of no weight whatever then in the present
question that it so happens that, by the process we have
been pursuing, the great majority of our manuscripts
have ultimately to rank lower than the few. The textual
critic is not to blame that it should be so. When he
begins his labours he has no preference for an ancient
over a modern, or for one ancient over another. His
first impression would probably be rather in favour of
the great majority of modern manuscripts. He has
been accustomed to the readings which they supply.

120 General Result of Classification.
He finds them easier, smoother, less perplexing in the
forms and constructions of their words. But the
determination of the text of the New Testament is far
too important, far too sacred a thing, to permit him to
rest in what is .famihar and easy. He must ascertain to
the best of his abUity what is true. Therefore it is that
he is bound to test the value of every witness who
comes before him, of aU the evidence that is offered
him. Whatever his own predilections might be he
must foUow the course suggested by reason and
experience as legitimate, knowing weU that, though the
result may not be what he himself would wish, " the
foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness
of God is stronger than men."

CHAPTEE VII.
THE PEINCIPLE OF GEOUPING.
j|P to the point now reached by us we have
been speaking almost whoUy of manuscripts
of the Greek New Testament, those witnesses
to which we saw, at the outset of our in
quiries, that we must mainly defer. We have found that
we can classify them, and that we can thus introduce
order where at first there seemed to be nothing but' con
fusion. Have we then now simply to arrange these
manuscripts upon the plan laid down, and to take from
the best of them the text that they contain ? It would
be so were they the only authorities with which we have
to deal, and did the path by which they lead us carry
us back as far as the time when the sacred autographs
were penned. But neither of these is the case. We
have already seen that we have translations of the New
Testament and quotations from it in the writings of the
Fathers more ancient than any manuscript possessed by
us ; and we have seen also that at the point at which
our manuscripts stop we are not only three centuries
from the age of the Apostles, but that between us and

122 The Principle of Grouping.
them there lies a period when there was no smaU con
fusion of the text.- Nothing remains for us, therefore,
except to recall our other witnesses, that we may hear
what they also have to say; for, although it is true
that they are not primary authorities, they may not be
neglected. Is not this, however, to re-introduce, at leas't
to a large extent, the old confusion which we persuaded
ourselves we had escaped? At first sight it almost
seems as if it were so. But the phenomenon is far too
interesting, far too important, to permit us to be easUy
discouraged ; and we look about to see if there is nothing
else to help us in estimating the value of our evidence
when it is presented to us, not in one of its parts only,
but in all its parts.
We turn, then, again to the differences of readings that
we have before us about the beginning of the fourth
century, and we are met by the fact that groups of these
differences appear to have been prevalent in some parts
of the Christian world more than in others. There is
by no means unmingled confusion, a total want of order
in the varieties that exist ; but there is a certain
method according to which the differences distribute
themselves. Thus, for example, it is found that in
Gaul, Italy, and Africa there is a type of variation
seemingly different from that which prevaUs at Alex
andria or Constantinople; that at Constantinople there
is a type of text bearing a marked resemblance to what
was read by the Fathers who flourished at Antioch in
Syria. The question immediately arises, Do the facts
bear out the correctness of this impression ? If they

The Principle of Grouping. 123
do, it can hardly faU to have an important bearing on
our inquiry, because it is clear that, given two contend
ing readings of a text, the one having the best claim on
our acceptance wiU be the one which has maintained its
place in the greatest number of districts, notwithstand
ing the tendency of these districts to introduce changes
of their own. Its permanence amidst so much around
it that was shifting shows its vitahty and power ; and
even if it has not been accepted everywhere, the more
widespread the diffusion, in other words, the greater the
permanence, the greater the power. We must look
then at this matter somewhat more closely. It may be
described as the principle of grouping.
Had the copies of the sacred autographs been con
fined to- one district there would probably have been no
scope for this, and no need to make any such attempt.
The materials and the need of grouping both arise
when these copies are taken into' other lands, are tran
scribed there, and are dispersed,, partly it may be in the
original, but mainly in translations. The inhabitants of
one country differ from those of another in thought, in
taste, in manner of expression, in occasional choice of
words, even when their language is the same. These
differences are strengthened when a different language
is spoken. The words of one tongue often fail to cover
exactly the same field of thought as those of another ;
and when we have to reason backwards from a Syriac,
an Egyptian, or a Latin translation to a Greek sentence,
it may well happen that we shaU not always be led to
precisely the same result.

124 The Principle of Grouping.
This, however, is not aU. The circumstances amidst
which the work of transcription is undertaken in dif
ferent countries also differ. In one there may be but
a small demand, and the work may be gone about
leisurely, slowly, and in a scholarly spirit. In another
the demand may be much larger, and there may be
greater haste and imperfection in its supply. There
may be no bad faith. AU may be done in the strictest
honour, and with the most sincere desire to produce
faithful copies or accurate translations of the original.
The influences leading to change may work quite uncon
sciously in the minds of the transcribers or translators.
The important fact is that they are there ; and that it is
as impossible to be altogether free from them as it is for
a succession of scribes in the same country to exhibit a
perfect immunity from those errors of transcription, due
to human fraUty, that were formerly taken notice of and
illustrated. The effect is obvious. In different districts
of the world different groups of errors will become pre
valent, and the manuscripts, versions, or quotations con
taining the texts erroneously copied wiU present a cer
tain family resemblance to one another. Thus, for
example, in John ii. 3, in the account of the miracle at
Cana of GaUlee, we read, " And when they wanted wine,"
or, as it might be more simply and UteraUy translated,
" And when wine faUed, the mother of Jesus saith unto
him, They have no wine." In several of our important
authorities we find, instead of these words, the foUowing,
" And they had no wine, because the wine of the mar
riage feast was finished. Then the mother of Jesus saith

The Principle of Grouping. 125
unto him, They have no wine." We do not so much
ask at present which of these two readings deserves the
preference. We observe rather that the authority for
the latter is, with the exception of one Greek manuscript,
whoUy Latin. It was mainly confined to those parts of
the world where the Latin tongue was spoken. It had
no hold either of the Syriac or the Greek East.
It is not indeed to be thought that the grouping now
referred to can be strictly carried through all our
authorities as to the text of Scripture. We cannot
definitely assign them all to particular famUies. Neither
manuscripts nor translations were confined to any one
region of the Church. They passed from country to
country and from city to city through that interchange
of letters, books, and visits which forms one of the
most interesting characteristics of the early Christians.
Mixed manuscripts thus came into existence — manu
scripts showing traces of different districts, and bridging
over the gulf that would otherwise have separated them.
Yet in very many cases the lines of demarcation are
sufficiently distinct to entitle the critic to speak of dif
ferent styles of text corresponding to • different regions
of the Church.
Let us proceed to the bearing of what has now been
said. It is highly important in the following respects.
1. In the first place, mere number of manuscripts
belonging to any group is of comparatively Uttle moment;
because, whatever the number of such manuscripts, they
mainly testify to the one manuscript the head of the
local family from which they sprang, and that head of

126 The Principle of Grouping.
the famUy can only count as one. Wherever, therefore,
we have reason to think that we have a group of authori
ties, that group must count as one stream of evidence,
without reference to the number of individuals of which
it is composed.
2. In the second place, the greater the number of
streams of evidence flowing from different quarters of
the world and testifying to the same reading, the more
Ukely is that reading to be correct. This is something
entirely different from the number of individual manu
scripts, of which one stream may exhibit many more
than another. The evidence of aU flowing in each stream
is taken as a whole ; and then the more streams we have
of the same character the greater the confidence with
which we infer that the reading floating on their surface
comes from the head fountain of the waters. It is clear
that it must be so. How do we know that any reading
is absolutely correct ? By the confluence of all our
streams. "In the beginning was the Word, and the
Word was with God, and the Word was God." What
is it that assures us that this sublime opening of the
Gospel of St. John reaUy came from the pen of the be
loved disciple ? That it was everywhere and at aU
times read. In every region of the earth to which a
manuscript of the Gospel was taken these words were
copied from it exactly as they stand. Gaul, Italy,
Africa, Alexandria, Palestine, Syria, Constantinople, all
read them as we read them now. Many another text in
the same Gospel underwent great and different changes.
These words underwent none ; and the only possible ex-

The Principle of Grouping. 127
planation is, that they existed in the Apostle's auto
graph. The same principle leads to the just preference
of two agreeing streams of evidence to one, for that
agreement is a testimony to the fact that, at a date an
terior to the decay and corruption of the text, the reading
given was more widely spread abroad than any other
with which it has to contend. The only probable explan
ation again of this diffusion is that the reading came
from the original, and possessed sufficient power to resist
the influences that were producing change.
Let us illustrate what has been said by a reading in
John i. 51. There we find the Saviour saying, in our
EngUsh version, "Verily, verily, I say unto you, Here
after," or rather, From henceforth "ye shaU see heaven
opened, and the angels of God ascending and descending
upon the Son of Man." The words " From henceforth "
are found in one of the leading Greek manuscripts, in,
several other uncials, in the whole famUy of manuscripts
of a later date, whose headquarters were the Byzantine
Empire, in two Latin versions of a later type than the
earliest, in the Syriac, and in two or three of the later
Fathers. At the best,' therefore, if read at aU in early
times, they were read only in Syria, and in Constanti
nople, which was dependent upon it. On the other hand,
the words are omitted in three of the oldest and most
valuable Greek manuscripts, in aU the best Latin ver
sions, in the version of Lower Egypt, in the Armenian
and iEthiopic versions, and in some of the most valuable
patristic writings that we possess. We have thus one
region of the Church alone against aU the rest, and that

128 The Principle of Grouping.
the region where we know from other evidence that
manuscripts underwent most change in the hands of
hasty, if not imperfectly informed scribes. There can be
no doubt that the reading of the verse without them is
the true reading of what the Saviour said ; although, if
number of individual manuscripts were to be considered,
the majority in their favour would be overwhelming. It
is worth while to observe that, in this case, we can dis
cover without- much difficulty how the words in ques
tion got their way into the text. The scribe had in his
mind the language of Jesus in Matt. xxvi. 64, "Jesus
saith unto him, Thou hast said : nevertheless, I say unto
you, Hereafter," or as it should be, From henceforth "ye
shaU see the Son of Man sitting on the right hand of
power, and coming in the clouds of heaven." The two
verses have a great simUarity Of tone. "From hence
forth" was met with in the last and most famiUar one ; it
easUy slipped into the first and less famUiar.
We add only, in conclusion, upon this point, that it
does not matter, though, as in the example now given,
aU the individuals in each of the groups which har
monize upon the whole do not bear witness to what we
accept as true. That so many of them do agree has to
be accounted for, and the only explanation being that
in each case they had drawn the reading from some
common progenitor, the fact that these progenitors in
different regions of the world had, at a much earlier date,
borne the same testimony, is a presumption of the
strongest kind that they correctly represent the one
original.

CHAPTEE VIII.
DETERMINATION OF THE TEXT. — PART I.

jUE witnesses are now classified and grouped,
and we have to turn to the interesting and
important task, to which all that has been
hitherto said has been preparatory, — the
hearing of the evidence, and the determination, by means
of it, of those words in which we are to find the light
of life.
At the point at which we stand it is to be observed,
that we suppose ourselves to be absolutely ignorant of
the words of the New Testament. We are not in the
position of one who has that volume in his hands, and
who, having heard that the reading of some of its pas
sages is disputed, is about to examine a number of
witnesses as to what they have to say upon that point.
For more than two centuries after the Beformation,
indeed down to the third decade of the present century,
this was the position of successive editors of the New
Testament. The "Eeceived Text," as it was called, had
acquired such authority, that the utmost they ventured
to attempt was to make such emendations upon it as

130 Determination of the Text.
seemed to be required by the ever-increasing knowledge
of manuscripts and other sources of evidence. The
greatest advance made by any of them was to ask, Is
there reason to depart from the ordinary reading, and, if
there was, to make that departure without hesitation ?
At the date, however, of which we have spoken, one of
the most distinguished of the noble band of scholars
who have devoted themselves to inquiries connected
with our present subject, Professor Lachmann of BerUn,
took another and decisive step. He started with the
question, Is there any reason to depart, not from the
Eeceived Text, but from the readings that are best
established ? His predecessors might have shown their
modesty by adopting no new reading they were unable
to defend. It escaped their notice, according to him,
that it was unreasonable to admit any reading at all into
the text, evidence of whose value they had not ob
tained. They, in short, had made the "Eeceived Text"
their point of departure. He threw it whoUy aside.
He would gather his whole New Testament text from
the original witnesses, and from them alone.
This principle, undoubtedly just, is now universaUy
accepted, and hence the interest and importance of the
point that we have reached. From the witnesses whom
we suppose to be before us, the whole text of our New
Testament is to be gathered.
In estimating the value of their evidence certain
principles or rules of judging must be taken into account.
They may be conveniently divided into External and
Internal

Determination of the Text. 131
I. Principles of External Evidence.
1. The first and simplest principle by which we are
to be guided is, that, where all our authorities agree, the
.evidence must be accepted as conclusive. It is needless
to enlarge upon this principle, which can admit of no
dispute. Depending upon these authorities alone for
our text, we have obviously no alternative but to accept
what they with one voice proclaim to be correct. So
much of the New Testament is guaranteed to us upon
this principle that the disputed parts form only an ex
ceedingly smaU portion of the whole.
2. Witnesses thoroughly tested in the manner pre
viously explained are entitled to a hearing in every case
equaUy respectful It may be true that an ancient
manuscript possesses a certain advantage over a modern
one in that, having been less frequently copied, it has
probably escaped some of the changes which the mere
act of copying is certain to introduce. Wherever, there
fore, the departure of a recent manuscript from the read
ing of the older appears to be owing to frequency of
transcription, the latter ought to be deferred to. But
when the difference seems to have no connection with
this source of error, when the variation is so distinct
that it must be held to have belonged to the manuscript
from which the more recent one was copied, it is impos
sible to aUow that the greater age of an opponent shaU
alone decide the controversy in its favour. We have
tested the one as weU as the other by the tests with
which we started as the best and most trustworthy that

132 ¦ Determination of the Text.
could be devised. The one as well as the other has
stood the test, and is therefore not to be undervalued
because it may be written in cursive rather than uncial
letters, or may be marked by numerals rather than the
capital letters of the alphabet. The principle of the rule
is evidently indisputable, but it is not unnecessary to
point out that it ought to be adhered tp. Any one con
sulting the critical apparatus, the Usts of authorities,
found in a critical edition of the New Testament, wiU
soon learn that he is in constant danger of ascribing
undue weight to manuscripts that have only a higher
antiquity or a more imposing notation than that of
many others to commend them.
3. In manuscripts thus tested the element of number
is an important consideration. For it will be observed
that we have not now number versus authority, the
multitude against the " fit though few." By the sup
position all have been proved credible witnesses, and
although even then there wUl be many minute circum
stances leading us to think one more credible than
another, yet to put number out of view altogether were
to neglect the principles of evidence upon which judicial
questions are settled every day. But,
4. Mere number of the witnesses in general, without
regard to the fact of their being or not being tested, is of
no weight whatever. We have already seen that the
coming forward of many in their numbers and with their
unanimity may be the very best reason for rejecting them
aU without compunction.
5. The relative weight of manuscripts, versions, and

Determination of the Text. 133
citations must be duly observed. However true it may be
that by the latter two branches of evidence we test in
no small degree the value of the first, it is not the less
true that as a general branch of evidence the first is,
when attested, entitled to the preference even over those
by which it has been tried. The circumstance, however,
that it is tried by them shows that there are certain
cases in which they may claim to bear away the palm.
Such cases must be carefully adverted to, and errors
must be distinguished into their different classes, as for
example of addition or omission, when we" would know'
the special value attaching to each of our three great
classes of authorities.
6. In judging of the balance of evidence, great impor
tance is to be attached to the meeting of different streams
of evidence, to the concurrence, that is, of authorities
from different quarters of the world, to the combination
in favour of the same reading of such groups as were
previously described.
7. It is not to be forgotten that if any of these groups
combine in favour of what we have reason to suppose
to be the more ancient text, their verdict must be accepted
as conclusive. We have already seen that the simple
fact that a reading is ancient does not prove it to be
good. It may be a presumption in its favour, but that
is all But when, being thus ancient, it is supported by
authorities from different quarters of the world ; in other
words, when a group of authorities unite in favour of
what we can otherwise prove to be ancient, we have
exactly the consideration added that was wanting to

134 Determination of the Text.
prove that it was not only ancient but correct. The
wide diffusion of the ancient reading is estabhshed;
that diffusion was owing to its vitaUty; and vitaUty
is best explained by the supposition of originality and
truth. We have now pointed out what seem to us the most
important principles of external evidence. Other writers
have sometimes given others, or have arranged them in
a different order. Indeed most critics who endeavour to
edit a text of the New Testament have to some extent
at least rules or principles of their own.
Before passing on it may be weU to illustrate in a few
sentences the apphcation, in part at least, of the rides
now laid down.
We take a strong case first, the famous text regarding
the three heavenly witnesses in' 1 John v. 7, 8. As read
in our English Version we find these words, a portion of
which we shaU enclose in brackets, "For there are three
that bear record [in heaven, the Father, the Word, and
the Holy Ghost ; and these three are one. And there
are three that bear witness in earth], the spirit, and the
water, and the. blood; and these three agree in one."
The question is, Whether the words enclosed by us in
brackets are genuine, or whether the text ought not
rather simply to read, "For there are three that bear
record, the spirit, the water, and the blood, and these
three agree in one."
With" the exception of two manuscripts, the one
belonging to the fifteenth, and the other to the sixteenth
century, the whole body of Greek manuscript evidence

Determination of the Text. 135
rejects the bracketed words in the above verses. These
two manuscripts also do not stand the tests by which
alone they can be shown to be worthy of much regard.
Manuscript evidence could not be more decisive. We
turn to versions. The suspicious words are wanting in
every version except the Vulgate, nearly aU the manu
scripts of which exhibit them, those faiUng to do so
being however generally recognized as the oldest and
best. Even where given, too, they are given with very
considerable variations ; and such variations are always
a proof of the doubtfulness of the authorities whence
the words were taken. The evidence of versions is here
as decided as that of Greek manuscripts. Lastly, we
look at citations from the Fathers. No Greek Father is
known to quote the passage, while several of the most
important, in arguing on the subject of the Trinity, -to
which it has so direct a relation, refer both to what
precedes and to what foUows, but do not make the
shghtest allusion to the disputed words. Nothing could
more clearly show that they were unacquainted with
them. The most ancient and eminent Latin Fathers
have likewise no knowledge of the words, and it is only
in some of the later and more unimportant that they
are discovered. The evidence of citations clearly ac
companies that of manuscripts and versions.
In a case such as this it is obvious too, from what has
been said, that all our streams of evidence combine,
and that even in point of numbers the vast majority of
the witnesses, including every one proved and tested, are
on one side. The apphcation of every rule or principle

136 Determination of the Text.
of External Evidence leads to the exclusion of the dis
puted words.
We take another case, Acts viii. 37. In our EngUsh
Version we read, "And PhUip said, If thou believest
with aU thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered
and said, I believe that Jesus is the Son of God." The
question is, Whether these words ought to stand in the
text, or to be excluded from it 1
They are wanting in four out of the five chief witnesses
described in the earlier part of this book : of the fifth
nothing can be said, that portion of the manuscript
having been unfortunately lost. They are wanting also
in a large number of other manuscripts. They are
found in one uncial manuscript alone, although in a
considerable number of cursives. The case is by no
means so decided as the last ; but our principles hardly
admit of any other conclusion than one unfavourable to
the presence of the words. We turn to versions. The
verse is wanting in the best codices of the Vulgate, in
two Syriac versions, in the versions of both Upper and
Lower Egypt, and in the ^Ethiopia It is found in a
codex of the Vulgate as weU as in its printed text, in
one of the Syriac versions, though there marked with an
asterisk, and in the Armenian. Our first conclusion
unfavourable to the verse is thus so' far confirmed.
Lastly, we look at citations from the Fathers. The
verse was known to one or two of the Latin Fathers,
but we have positive assurance -that -it was not re
cognized in any of the writings of Greek Fathers
that have reached us, until we come to one whq

Determination of the Text. 137
flourished in the eleventh, and another who belongs to
the twelfth century. ' That it should appear in the
writings of the former need not surprise us, when we
remember that the Latin versions are the chief authority
for the words. That it should be wanting in the writ
ings of the latter is strong confirmatory evidence that it
was unknown in "Greek. Here again, therefore, the
evidence of citations leads to the same conclusion as
that of manuscripts and versions.
The argument however is not in the present instance
quite so strong as in the last. We ask therefore with
more interest than then, What is the teaching of our
groups of witnesses ? In one district of the world only
does the verse appear to have been read, and that a
district where we know from other evidence that there
was a strong tendency to interpolate. Our groups there
fore dehver the same sentence as our individual witnesses.
FinaUy, the number of tested witnesses against the
Words is greater than that upon their side. ,We sum
up the evidence as a whole, and there can be no doubt
that the verdict ought to be for the exclusion of the verse.

CHAPTEE IX.
DETERMINATION OF THE TEXT. — PART H.
HAVING considered those principles of Ex
ternal Evidence by which the various read
ings of Scripture are to be judged, it remains
for us to turn our thoughts to those prin
ciples of Internal Evidence which are neither less neces
sary nor important.
II. Principles of Internal Evidence.
Were the External Evidence on behalf of a parti
cular reading in every case complete and satisfactory, we
should have little occasion to depend on anything but
it. The contest would at once be settled by an over
whelming balance of testimony, either on the one side or
on the other. It is rare, however, to find this in any dis
puted reading of much interest or importance. There is
then almost always a decided difference of testimony.
Weighty arguments on their right to have a place in
the text are urged by different claimants, and the
balance of external authority is not unfrequently nearly
equal. The application of Internal Evidence thus
becomes indispensable.

Determination of the Text. 139
It is so in that ordinary administration of law, the
processes of which, as we have seen, afford the best
analogy to the course which the BibUcal critic has to
pursue. A judge can rarely, if ever, settle a dispute
between two parties by external evidence alone. It is
the mind that sees, and not the eye. It is the mind
that hears, and not the ear ; and according to the Ught
in which different assertions present themselves to the
judge's mind wUl be the judgment that he forms. The
probabiUties of the case, and the internal coherence of
the narrative, must always influence his decision ; and
his verdict is to be viewed as the hypothesis that takes
up and explains aU the phenomena connected with the
dispute. It is true that this necessity of reasoning on
probabUities may often degenerate into mere subjec
tivity or wilfulness, and that a judge may carry out
some theory of his own in such a manner as to set
at naught well-estabUshed facts ; but therein lies the
highest trial of the judge's skiU. Therein judicial tact,
abiUty, genius prove their infinite superiority to mere
mechanical administration. For ten men who can learn
rules, and apply them with accuracy to a case before
them, we may be thankful to find one who, not acting
apart from rule, can yet stand superior to rule, and can
mould, in the fire of his own genius, both the external
facts. and the internal probabiUties into one harmonious
whole. It is the same in the criticism of the text of
Scripture. External evidence is not only valuable ; it
forms the very ground of our proceedings ; it sets before
us the facts of which we are to judge. But then we

140 Determination of the Text.
must judge. The danger to which we are exposed of
giving way to prepossessions, to subjective feeUngs,
must be met ; and in the establishing of sound general
principles, in the cultivation of a sound mind, Ues the
critic's power. This much at least is certain, that no
editor of the Greek text of the New Testament, except
one, who gave it distinctly to be understood that his
aim was special and provisional in its character, has
attempted to construct his text upon grounds of external
authority alone. Over and above such grounds, the
resort to internal evidence has been always found to be
necessary. To these principles of Internal Evidence then we
now proceed. The more important are the following: —
1. That reading is to be preferred which seems to
have suggested the others, or out of which it is most
easy to suppose that the others would arise. The
reason of the rule is obvious. By the supposition we
have two or three different readings of a passage, with
external evidence not sufficiently precise to remove aU
doubt as to which the preference is due. Our first
object must evidently be to determine as far as we
can their history, in other words, to ask how they
severally arose. In doing so it is reasonable to conclude
that the reading by whose existence the origin of the
others is most easUy explained is the correct one. .Thus,
for example—
In John i. 37 we have three readings consisting in
three different arrangements of the same words. One of
these gives the translation of our English Version,

Determination of the Text. 141
" And the two disciples heard " Him speak, and they
followed Jesus." Another gives the translation, " And
His two disciples heard Him speak, and they foUowed
Jesus." The third puts the pronoun in such a position
in the Greek that the meaning is ambiguous ; it might
be either of the two just mentioned. Which of the
three may be best regarded as the parent of the other
two ? Not the first ; for there was nothing to make a
scribe naturally shp into the second, whUe the ambiguity
of the third is precisely what he would avoid. Not the
second, for with it before him a scribe would be under
no temptation to change it to the first, and as before, the
ambiguity of the third would prevent his thinking of it.
The third, however, at once meets the necessities of the
case. It is ambiguous. One scribe therefore, who
viewed it in the first light, put down the words- in the
order there given. Another, who viewed it in the
second light, made the order correspond to his im
pression of the sense. The third (then is most probably
the true reading.
Another iUustration of this rule is taken by Dr.
Davidson from the celebrated text in 1 Tim. iii. 16, and
it is so suitable to the purpose that we shall again use
it here. Three readings meet us in the first clause of
that verse, that of our English version, " Great is the
mystery of godliness, God was manifest in the flesh," or
rather, " was manifested in flesh ;" " who was manifested
in flesh ; " " which was manifested in flesh." The
external evidence in favour of one of these rather than
the others is no doubt strong, but it is not so over-

142 Determination of the Text.
whelming as to make us independent of the probabiUties
of the case. We ask then, How does our present rule
apply? Let us suppose that "God" was the original.
reading. It is difficult to imagine how, with a reading
the sense of which ' is in strict conformity with the
teaching of the New Testament, a scribe should think of
substituting " who," which, it wiU be observed, is then
a relative without an antecedent. It is stUl more
difficult to imagine how the important word " God "
could pass into the neuter relative " which." The word
"mystery"' no doubt supphes an antecedent in this latter
case, but the change is too great to have been made inad
vertently. Again, let us suppose that "which" was the
original, it could neither pass easUy into "who" without
an antecedent while itself has one, nor into " God," which
involves a change of the greatest magnitude. FinaUy,
let us suppose that the original reading was " who." We
see at once, even without taking into account some parti
culars connected with the style of writing which greatly
strengthen the inference, how it could pass into " God."
"God manifest in flesh" was known to be "the great
mystery of godliness." It was most natural to express it.
In the hands of another scribe "who" might pass with
equal ease into "which." The change of one letter only was
involved, the sense was not altered, an antecedent was
obtained where the want of one could not faU to be felt.
"Who" therefore, as giving rise most simply to the other
two, is the. true reading. It is interesting to observe in
connection with this case, that, after long and keen dis
cussions, scholars are now generaUy agreed that even

Determination of the Text. 143
external evidence, when at least we depend mainly on
those authorities whose high importance we have advo
cated in these pages, leads to the same conclusion. We
have thus our confidence in the soundness of what has
been said both as to them and as to our present rule
much strengthened.
2. A second most important and universaUy recognized
rule of InternalEvidence is that the more difficult reading
is to be preferred to the more easy. The critic, (Bengel),
not less distinguished for his piety than his talents, who
first suggested this rule, has himself said that he regards
it as but one application of the far wider principle, that
good is difficult and evil easy of attainment. The reason
of the rule is obvious. A scribe, was far more likely
to substitute an easy for a -difficult than a difficult for an
easy reading. In speaking in the earlier part of this
volume of the causes of various readings, aUusion was
made to the point now before us. But if, as then ex
plained, a scribe was apt in copying a manuscript to
substitute a simple for a hard expression, the converse
must hold good that, in restoring the true text in cases of
dispute, the hard is entitled to the preference. Let us
Ulustrate what "has been said by. one or two simple
examples of different classes belonging . to the one
general principle.
(1) A reading at first sight obscure is to be preferred
to one that is plain and easUy understood. Thus, in
John vu. 39, we read in our English Version, " For the
Holy Ghost was not yet given, because that Jesus was
not yet glorified." It will be observed that the word

144 Determination of the Text.
"given" is in italic letters, showing that it did not exist
in the Greek text from which our version was taken, and
many most, important authorities present this as the
true reading. Many others however add the Greek
word for "given," and we have to decide between them.
Our present rule comes to our aid. When' we read without
the "given" the text is much more difficult to under
stand than when we read with it. A scribe, therefore,
was. less likely to omit it if he found it in the text before
him than to insert it if it was not there. The conclusion
is that in the original it probably did not exist.
(2) A reading presenting a historical difficulty is to be
preferred to one from which the difficulty is removed.
Thus, in Mark ii. 26, we read in our EngUsh Bibles of
David, "how he entered into the house of God in the
days of Abiathar the high-priest." Various important
authorities, however, omit these last words altogether,
while others, retaining them, substitute the word "priest"
for " high-priest." , Both changes obviate the serious
difficulty arising from a comparison of this passage with
1 Samuel xxi. 1, where the incident in David's Ufe here
referred to is related in the words, "Then came David
to Nob,- to Ahimelech the priest." Precisely on that
ground, however, are these authorities to be suspected.
A scribe knowing the difficulty would be much, more
ready to omit them if they had a place in his text than
to insert them if they had not.
(3) A reading in one Gospel which seems to convey
a sense different from that of a paraUel passage in
another Gospel is to be preferred to one which makes

Determination of the Text. 145
the two Gospels strictly harmonize. Thus in Matt. ix.
13 we read, " For I am not come to caU the righteous, but
sinners to repentance." The last two words, however,
" to repentance," are frequently omitted. Shall we read
them, or shall we not? Looking at the question for the
present only in the light of Internal Evidence, we have
to consider that the words are found in the parallel
passage, Luke v. 37, where they are certainly genuine.
The probabUity is, that from that text they found their
way into St. Matthew.
We notice only one additional rule of Internal Evi
dence. 3. The style of writing characteristic of particulai'
writers, or what we know of their modes of thought, is to
be taken into account in judging of the various readings
of their text. Thus in John xhi. 24 we read in our
Authorized Version, " Simon Peter therefore beckoned to
him that he should ask who it should be of whom He
spake." But there is much authority for Greek words
that give us the translation, "Simon Peter therefore
beckoneth to him, and saith to him, TeU us who it is of
whom He speaketh." The former reading requires the
verb "should be" to be in the Greek optative mood; but
St. John never uses the optative. It is not Ukely there
fore that he would depart on the present occasion from
his usual practice: and the last of the two readings
mentioned thus finds corroborative evidence in its
support. Or, let us take an example in which mode of thought
rather than merely literary style becomes- the object of

146 Determination of the Text.
consideration. John vi. 11, formerly considered in
another aspect, wiU supply an iUustration. The question
there, it will be remembered, is as to the omission of
certain words, the effect of omitting which is to represent
Jesus Himself as distributing, the bread to the multitude,
while the common reading brings in the intervention of
the disciples. It is disputed which of these two readings
is the right one. Let us bear in mind that the great
object of S. John's Gospel is to set forth the glory of the
Bedeemer, to present Him to us in His single and
unapproachable majesty as the Giver of aU good, and we
are at once led to conclude that the reading which
favours this idea is most Ukely to be correct. It is
needless to do more than say that either reading is
equally consistent with the facts of the case. There is
simply a slight difference in the point of view from
which the writer speaks.
Other rules of Internal Evidence are given by
different writers additional to those now mentioned.
But even were they of more value than they are, we have
said enough to convey to our readers an impression of
the character of that part of the New Testament critic's
work that is now before us.
It has only to be observed, in conclusion, regarding
these rules, that each may easily be pushed too far, and
may be used by the critic to reach his conclusion with
too great rapidity. It may weU happen in many a case
that the reading which seems most naturally to present
itself to us as the parent of the others is not really so ;
that the plain reading may have been, by the ignorance of

Determination of the Text. 147
some scribe, transformed into the obscure instead of the
obscure into the plain ; that from the same cause a his
torical difficulty may have found its way into a copy when
there was none in the original ; that parallel passages
which reaUy correspond may have been brought to differ,
instead of parallels that differ having been brought to
correspond ; that a writer may at times use a method of
expression different from his common one. All these
things are possible, and the too rigid appUcation of any
one rule might thus easily betray us. The lesson to be
learned is one of caution, and that probabiUties must be
balanced one against another if we would hope to reach
a conclusion on aU sides capable of defence.
FinaUy, it has to. be noted that rules such as those we
have been considering must never be so applied as to
overbear External Evidence. They are not guides in all
cases, but helps in cases of difficulty. They aid in
determining our scales to one side rather than another,
when, but for them, the balance would be too equaUy
poised or too uncertain. Even when not absolutely
needed, they often confirm the verdict drawn forth by
External Evidence alone; and, in doing so, leave no
doubt upon our minds that we have the very words
before us in which the Almighty revealed His will to
man.

CHAPTEE X.

GENERAL SUMMARY.

IN the two previous chapters we have con
sidered the leading principles or rules by
which we are to be guided in estimating the
weight due to the evidence laid before us,
with respect to disputed readings of the New Testa
ment. One or two general remarks may fitly close the
subject. 1. Such definite principles as those that have been
laid down are absolutely essential to the right prose
cution of the task of which we have been speaking.
No task can be named in which there is greater danger
of hasty or haphazard judgments, of judgments founded
upon prejudice or determined by inclination. And cer
tainly none can be named in which we are more bound
to avoid with the utmost care every influence of the
kind, and to come to our conclusion only by steps, every
one of which has been taken with the utmost delibera
tion, and in a way that we feel ourselves able to defend.
Our rules are a valuable aid in enabling us to do so.
They are not arbitrary. They are founded upon a wide

General Summary. 149
induction of particulars. They shape themselves ac
cording to reason and the nature of the case. The
knowledge of them thus directs us to a higher and more
correct exercise of our powers than we could have made
without them. We are taught to avoid many mistakes
into which we might otherwise faU. We gain the
feeUng of security that belongs not to instinct but to
inteUigence ; and even where our rules are insufficient
of themselves to lead us to our verdict, they indicate
certain principles which the verdict, when we reach it,
must not contravene.
2. They are not to be thought of only as individual
rules, to be applied, one at one time and another at
another, in an outward and formal manner. It may
often happen, no doubt, that one is sufficient for our
purpose. But the instances are far more frequent where
many or even aU of them must be applied. They must
be held therefore in combination. They must thoroughly
penetrate and pervade the mind, so as to exercise a
modifying and restraining influence upon each other,
and to be ready for use, either singly or in ever-varying
combinations, according to the nature of each particular
case. Nothing indeed wiU force itself more upon the mind
of the textual critic of the New Testament, as he
pursues his labours, than the impossibUity of coming to
a satisfactory conclusion in innumerable cases of dispute
by the mere reckoning up of witnesses, or such mere
calculations of probabihty as formal rules supply. The
evidence is so large in quantity, the witnesses that agree

150 General Summary.
as to one text so often differ as to another, the internal
considerations that must be taken into account strike
different minds, and even the same mind at different
times, in such a different way, that anything like a fixed
mechanical appUcation of rules wiU be found in practice
to be impossible. Every particular case needs to be
considered in itself. Every witness needs to be weighed
not simply as a whole but in the particular book in
which the text under examination occurs. Every sug
gestion arising from internal probabiUties needs to be
balanced by its opposite. The history of aU the changes
that have taken place on the original reading must as far
as possible be discovered, so that that original reading,
when decided on, shall contain in itself a solution of the
problem, How what was one at the first came to assume
so many varying forms in different countries and at the
hands of successive scribes.
All this, it is evident, demands extensive knowledge,
great calmness and impartiality of judgment, and the tact
which, when not a happy natural endowment, can be
gained only by long practical experience. In point of
fact, accordingly, successful editors of the text of the
New Testament have been very few in number. Had
the work been one of formal rule they would have been
many; but the demands which it makes are so great that
a comparatively small number have attempted it, and
of these only one or two have gained a lasting fame.
3. Yet it does not follow that the ordinary minister
of the Gospel, the student of divinity, or even the cul-
, tivated private Christian, ought to leave the whole

General Summary. 151
matter of deciding on the text of the New Testament in
the hands of the few who can devote to it the whole
labour of their Uves, and feel that even that is too little
to accompUsh what they undertake. Where we cannot
discover we may yet foUow with deUght the discoveries
of others. Where we cannot make original suggestions
we can in a great degree estimate the value of sugges
tions that are made to us. Where we cannot combine
the steps of an intricate proposition, we can judge of the
accuracy of the combination set before us. We can
analyze where we cannot create, and verify where we
cannot produce. In so doing, we share at least some
part of the pleasure experienced by creative* minds ; we
enter into feUowship with them ; we learn to know the
principles upon which they work; and we catchj
although it may be afar off, some of the gleams of their
"inspiration. Nor is our imperfect knowledge without
even a wholesome influence upon them. It is a check
to what might otherwise be their onesidedness. It
spurs them to exertion and rewards their toU.
No mistake therefore can be greater than to think
that, because the private Christian cannot do aU in the
work of textual criticism, he should do nothing. If,
by studying its resources, its aims, and its principles, he
gain no more than the, conviction that it is really a
science, the gain wUl be of the highest advantage both
to himself and to the Church of Christ. With this
confidence we now proceed to the third and last division
of our subject.

PAET THIED.
RESULTS.

PAET THIED.
RESULTS.

CHAPTEE I.
EFFECT PRODUCED BY TEXTUAL CRITICISM UPON IMPORTANT
TEXTS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.

1AVING examined the principles upon which
the text of the New Testament is to be

determined, it may be h satisfactory to our
readers if we set before them the most im
portant results which flow from an appUcation of these
principles. For this purpose, we shall, in the first place,
direct attention to a few texts pecuUarly interesting on
doctrinal or other grounds, and shaU briefly discuss the
readings which in these cases seem to have the best claim
to be accepted. , To this the present chapter wUl be de
voted. We shaU then, in the chapter which foUows, pass
successively through the books of the New Testament,
and note in each chapter, without entering into argument,
aU the changes of any importance which, require to be
made in the received text. Our readers wiU thus have
before them the leading " results " of textual criticism.

156 Effect produced by Textual Criticism upon
Matthew xi. 19.
In the last clauseof this verse we read in the received
text, " But Wisdom is justified of her chUdren," and this
is the undoubted reading in the paraUel passage in Luke
vii. 35, except that the word " aU " is inserted there,
" But Wisdom is justified of aU her chUdren." In the
passage before us, however, a very important variation
claims attention, " But Wisdom is justified of " or " by
her works." The evidence in favour of the receiyed
reading is strong — B as corrected by a later hand, aU
uncial manuscripts except two, nearly aU later manu
scripts, most of the old Latin versions, the Vulgate, the
Curetonian Syriac, the Gothic, and the Armenian as
edited. Two or three Fathers also bear similar testi
mony, although in the case of the two most ancient it is
doubtful whether their quotations may not be taken from
the Gospel of St. Luke. On the other side we have
two uncial manuscripts, and these the most ancient
and valuable possessed by us N and B, one cursive
manuscript, together with the testimony of Jerome that
" works " was found in some of the Gospels in his day,
the Coptic, Syriac, Armenian in its codices, ^Ethiopic,
and Persic versions. The mass of evidence may therefore
be said to be in favour of the common text. But various
important considerations have to be taken into account.
(1.) Constant experience shows that a reading sup
ported by N and B together is not to be set aside,
except on very strong grounds.
(2.) The point before us is one to which versions can

Important Texts of the New Testament. 157
bear valuable testimony, and the balance of
evidence from this source is in favour of "works."
(3.) The reading of the iEthiopic codices is pecuUarly
interesting. It combines the two, "of her works
and of her chUdren," evidently in the circum
stances a composite reading of which the first
part is most probably the foundation.
(4.) The weU-established. rule, that a. reading in one
Gospel different from that of the parallel passage
in another Gospel is more Ukely to be correct
than one exactly similar, is in favour of " works." 1
(5.) The equally weU-estabUshed rule that the more
difficult is to be preferred to the more easy
reading leads to the same conclusion. If
" children " were the original reading, it is not
easy to account for a change to " works." If
" works " were the original, the substitution of
" children " can at once be understood.2
(6.) In the sense thus afforded there is nothing ob
jectionable. Those who see here a doctrine
simUar to that of a sinner's justification by works,
faU to notice that it is not a sinner but heavenly
wisdom that is spoken of, as well as the fact that
the Greek verb to justify is never used in its
theological sense with the Greek preposition
found in this verse. On the other hand, to say
that " Wisdom is justified of her works " is in
striking harmony with the whole tone of the
passage. The Ufe of Jesus and the life of John
1 Comp. p. 144. '* Comp. p. 143.

158 Effect produced by Textual Criticism upon ,
are both among the works of Wisdom acting
differently in different circumstances; and by
both is Wisdom justified, commended to every
open eye, vindicated as being what she really is.
(7.) What has been last said is strengthened, if we
observe that the correct translation of the Greek
verb is " was" not " is justified," carrying us back
in thought to the moment when Wisdom's works
were planned, and not leading us to think only
of the present instant, when the chUdren of God
approve what the chUdren of the world cannot
comprehend.
We decide therefore in favour of the reading, —
" But Wisdom was justified of her works."
Mark iii. 29.
We take next a text from the Gospel of St. Mark.
In Ui. 29, we read in the received version, " But he that
shaU blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never for
giveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation." The
reading "damnation" or rather "judgment" here is
supported by A and by a corrector of C, by several
other uncials, by the mass of cursives, by the Syriac, and
by two valuable manuscripts representing, or nearly so,
the Latin as revised by Jerome. On the other hand the
word " sin" is read instead of "judgment" by N, B, by
one or two other uncials, and cursives with an ancient
text, by the old Latin versions except one, by the Vul
gate, and manuscripts representing Jerome's revision of
it except one, by the Coptic, Armenian, and Gothic, and

Important Texts of the New Testament. 159
by one or two Fathers both in the East and in the West.
The evidence seems at first sight more equaUy divided
than in our last example. But again, as there, several
considerations have to be taken into account.
(1.) We have the same important conjunction of N
and B as met us in the last case, but backed .
here by a larger number of uncials.
(2.) Another word for " sin," applying to sin in its
more general character rather than as a particular
offence, is found in C (as- appears), D, and two or
three cursives, thus showing that the reading " sin"
was both weU known and felt to be difficult.
(3.) The evidence of versions, both numerous and
widespread, is in favour of " sin."
(4.) The difficulty of the reading "sin" is unques
tionably greater than that of the reading " judg
ment;" so much so, that we seem to see the
gradation by which it passed out of the text;
first, the more general word for " sin" being sub
stituted for that denoting a specific act of sin,
and then "judgment" coming in as easier still.
This consideration lends strong probabiUty to
the reading " sin." 1
(5.) It may be asked, What is the meaning of an
eternal sin ? , The answer most probably is, a sin
never to be blotted out, and a sense — not, let it
be observed, actual words — is thus given coming
much more near that of the parallel passage . in
Matt. xii. 32 than we should otherwise possess.
1 Comp. p. 148.

160 Effect produced by Textual Criticism upon
We decide therefore in favour of the reading, —
" But he that shaU blaspheme against the Holy Ghost
hath never forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin."
Luke ii. 14.
We take next a text in the Gospel of St. Luke. The
song of the heavenly host at the birth of Jesus is given
by that Evangelist in ii. 14, in the foUowing words;
" Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good
wiU towards men." But there is another reading which
greatly changes the aspect of the verse. It is difficult to
render it in English, but UteraUy rendered, and we con
tent ourselves with such a rendering for the present, it
will run — " Glory to God in the highest, and on earth
peace among men of good pleasure" or. "good will."
The evidence in favour of the received reading is several
uncial manuscripts, among which are readings introduced
into Itf and B by later correctors, as it would seem aU
cursive manuscripts, the Coptic, Syriac, Armenian, and
iEthiopic versions, and a considerable number of the
Greek Fathers. On the other side we have four of the
most important uncials, N, B, A, D, the first two, though
afterwards corrected, having so read in their original
form, the old Latin, the Vulgate, and the Gothic
versions, together with at least two very ancient and
important Fathers, one belonging to the West the other
to the East. Such is the evidence; how shaU we
decide ?
(1.) Our two most important manuscripts are here
supported by other ancient authority; and so

Important Texts of the New Testament. 161
much greater, therefore, is the weight due to
them. On the other hand,
(2.) The evidence of versions is in favour of the read
ing commonly received.
(3.) The important fact meets us that the most learned
and critical Greek Father of early Christianity
not only knew the reading not received, but that
he argues from it, and depends upon it, in
estabUshing a point he has in view.
(4.) The long rejected reading is by much the more
difficult of the two. We can see at once how a
transcriber of the Greek should have substituted
the one now famihar to us for the other. How
the contrary course should have been taken by
any it is most difficult to conceive.
These considerations lead to the conclusion that the
received reading is to be rejected and the other put into
its place. It may be said, Is not the paraUeUsm thus
destroyed? We answer, No. It is preserved. The
Greek has only two members, not three. There is' no
copula between the two which are generaUy considered
to be the second and the third members of the group.
The word "and" divides the whole sentence into its
parts, and unless what follows that word can be gathered
into one clause the paraUeUsm is broken. The new
reading enables us to do so ; and, bearing in mind that
"good will" or "good pleasure" here is not a human
virtue, but the Divine benevolence or love, the merciful
purpose of God towards His people, the passage as a
whole wiU run : — L

162 Effect produced by Textual Criticism upon
"Glory to God, in the highest,
and
On earth peace, in men whom in His good pleasure
He hath chosen." John i. 1 8.
From the Gospel of St. John we select the very
important text, i. 18. There we read in our English
Bible, " No man hath seen God at any time ; the only
begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, He
hath declared Him." Another reading, however, presents
itself to our notice in the substitution of the word
" God " for the word " Son," together with the dropping
of the definite article before " only begotten," thus giving
us the text in the form, " No man hath seen God at any
time; an (or the) only begotten God which is in the
bosom of the Father hath declared Him."
For the' received text we have the authority of A,
a late corrector of C, and several other uncials, almost
all cursives, several of the old Latin versions, the Vul
gate, the Curetonian, the Philoxenian, and the Jerusalem
Syriac, the Armenian, and one edition of the iEthiopic,
the old Latin interpreter of Irenaeus, Origen, and several
other Greek and Latin Fathers. For the reading " God "
we have the authority of N, B, the original hand of C,
another highly important uncial not spoken of in our
previous pages, one cursive with an ancient text, the
Coptic version, the common Syriac version as edited by
two different scholars, one edition of the iEthiopic, the
Latin interpreter of Irenaeus in other passages than

Important Texts of the New Testament. 163
those referred to under the previous head, Origen also
in other passages than those spoken of, and several,
especiaUy Greek, Fathers, among whom we find Arius
and writers of the Valentinian school.
In reviewing this evidence it is to be observed —
(1.) That the weight of manuscript authority is de
cidedly in favour of the reading " God."
(2.) That versions testify to a wider range of this
reading than of the other in the early Church.
(3.) . That the Fathers cannot be implicitly reUed on,
as the more important of them may be quoted
on both sides.
(4) That, notwithstanding this, there is a degree of
distinctness and precision in their references to
" God," as the reading, that we do not find in
their references to " Son."
(5.) Besides this, it was quite natural that they should
often speak of " the only begotten Son," for the
term " Son" was that commonly used of Jesus.
It was not so natural that they should speak of
" the only begotten God," for the language is not
only strange in itself, but the term " God" was
commonly used of the Father. It is impossible
therefore to account for their use of this latter
expression at all unless they were thoroughly
satisfied that it was the true reading. "Son"
was to them the appropriate designation of Jesus,
and their argument is, that this " Son" is called
" God" in the passage of St. John now before us.
(6.) This argument is strengthened by the fact that

164 Effect produced by Textual Criticism upon
the Valentinian heretics read " God," a circum
stance which would tend to make the Church
suspicious of it unless convinced that the read
ing was correct.
(7.) It is to be noticed that there were other variations ,
of the reading known besides that which we are
considering, such as " the only begotten Son of
God," "the only begotten Son God," "the only be
gotten." These variations unquestionably point
to " God" as the original and fundamental reading,
that out of which, and the difficulties connected
with which, they would most naturally arise.1
(8.) " God" is by much the more difficult of the
two readings. ' We can at once understand how
"Son" should be substituted for it. It is almost
impossible to conceive how the contrary substi
tution could take place. Or, if it be thought that
the variation began in the margin and from
thence passed into the text, we see without diffi
culty how "God" being supposed to be in the
latter, "Son" should be placed in the former as
an explanatory gloss, but not how " God" should
be put into the margin if " Son" were originaUy
in the text.
(9.) Lastly, the internal evidence is very strongly in
favour of reading " God." It is the constant
tendency of St. John to return at intervals to
what he had placed at the beginning of a section
or passage, or to what had been the leading
thought upon which he had been dwelling. The
1 Comp. p. 140.

Important Texts of the New Testament. 165
18th verse of the first chapter closes the prelude
to his Gospel, and is exactly the place, therefore,
where we might expect to meet with such a
summary. But in that prelude he had had his
mind fixed on two points, that in Jesus we have
that Word of God which is God, and that Jesus
is the only begotten of the Father. Now, then,
as he draws aU the sublime statements of this
prelude to his Gospel to a close, he sums them
up in the words, " No man hath seen God at
any time ; the only begotten God which is in
the bosom of the Father hath declared Him."
We accept this as the true reading of this most
important verse. Acts xx. 28.
Having examined a text from each of the Gospels, we
shall now take one from the Acts of the Apostles, and
thereafter note one or two more from the other books of
the New Testament. We take Acts xx. 28, the words
.of St. Paul at Miletus, when he urges the elders of
Ephesus " to feed the Church of God, which He hath
purchased with His own blood." Instead of " God,"
however, not a few authorities read " the Lord," and
the foUowing is the evidence.
For the reading " the Lord " three important ancient
manuscripts, one additional uncial, a good many
cursives, the Egyptian, and one of the Syriac versions,
the Armenian version, and a considerable number of
Fathers. For the reading " God " our two most important

166 Effect produced by Textual Criticism upon
uncials N and B, and several cursives, the Vulgate, the
best codices testifying to the Vulgate as revised by
Jerome, the Philoxenian Syriac, and a considerable
number of Fathers. It is to be noticed also that varia
tions such as the following meet us: "The Lord and
God;" " God and the Lord," " the Lord God," " Christ,"
and in one Latin version " Jesus Christ." This state of
the evidence seems to warrant the remarks : —
(1.) That the most valuable manuscript evidence is
undoubtedly in favour of the reading " God."
(2.) Evidence from versions is about equally divided;
for if on the one side we have the Egyptian
versions, on the other we have the Latin as
revised by Jerome.
(3.) The evidence of Fathers is also about equally
divided, although it leans to the support of
" God."
We have here evidently a case in which, considering
the number of variations that have arisen, much weight
is due to the rule explained, p. 140, that the reading
which is most probably the parent of aU the others
is also most probably the true one. We add, therefore,
(4.) -That all the variations noted by us are much
more likely to have sprung from " God " than
from "the Lord." Supposing "the Lord" to
have been the. original reading we cannot under
stand how " and God " should have been added.
If " God " were the original we can easUy under
stand how changes should have been introduced
to soften such an expression as " God, who

Important Texts of the New Testament. 167
purchased with His own blood." In proof of
this we find that a Latin interpreter of the Greek
Ignatius changes an expression of the latter,
" the blood of God " into " the blood of Christ
God ; " and further, that the Latin translator of
Irenaeus makes use of the reading "the Lord,"
whUe the course of his argument leads to the
inference that he had " God " before him in his
Greek.
(5.) The expression- " the Church of God " is one
common in St. Paul's Epistles, but he never
speaks of " the Church of the Lord."
(6.) The reading " God " is a much more difficult one
than " the Lord," when we look at the words
immediately following.
These considerations lead to the adoption of the read
ing— " The Church of God, which He hath purchased with
His own blood."
Eom. v. 1.
By the change of a single letter in the Greek, we here
read " let us have," instead of " we have," in the Author
ized Version. The evidence stands as follows : For " let
us have" A, B, C, D, M, etc., the earliest versions,
Augustine, Chrysostom, Theodoret, and many others of
the Fathers. For "we have" two or three second-rate
uncials, some inferior versions, and a few of the Fathers.
The preponderance of authority is therefore distinctly in
favour of the former reading, and the verse should run
as foUows : —

168 Effect produced by Textual Criticism upon
" Therefore, being justified by faith, let us have peace
with God through our Lord Jesus Christ."
Eom. vm. 1.
It has been previously observed that the last clause
of this verse is an interpolation. For it there are some
inferior uncials, a few Fathers, and one or two late
versions. Against it there are B, C, D, N, etc., Augustine,
Cyril, Athanasius, and others of the Fathers, with some
versions. The evidence is thus clearly against the
clause, and the verse should read thus: —
"There is therefore now no condemnation to them
which are in Christ Jesus." Eph. i. 1.
The question here is, whether or not the words "in
Ephesus" are genuine. It is no easy matter to decide.
On the one hand, the great mass of authorities of aU kinds
is in favour of the words : on the other hand, B and
N, the two most ancient manuscripts, are against them.
Basil the Great, who lived in the fourth century, declares
that they were wanting in ancient copies of the New
Testament in his day. There are some other statements
of the Fathers to the same effect, so that we can form,
in the present state of the evidence, no very decided
judgment on either side. It is certainly somewhat diffi
cult to understand how St. Paul could have written an
epistle specially addressed to the church at Ephesus,
and yet make not a single personal allusion to any in
the place where he had lived and laboured so long. If

Important Texts of the New Testament. 169
the epistle be regarded as encyclical — that is, as intended
to circulate among the several churches of Asia' Minor,
that difficulty wiU be removed, and the opening verse
will read thus : —
" Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ, by the will of God,
to those that are saints, and to the faithful in Christ
Jesus." Heb. ii. 9.
A singular various reading occurs in this verse. In
stead of the words " by the grace of God" some manu
scripts and a number of the early Fathers read "without"
or " apart from God." Origen, in the third century, knew
both readings, but the latter seems to have been the
dominant one, as he expounds it, and says that " by the
grace of God" was found only "in some copies." Theo
doret, in the fifth century, knew of no other reading
than " without God," and the same is true of others of
the Fathers. StUl, although patristic evidence is here
strong, there seem good reasons, both external and in
ternal, for adhering to the common text. AU the manu
scripts and versions of most weight are in favour of " by
the grace of God," and this expression is in analogy
with the rest of Scripture, whereas " apart from God "
rests on but weak manuscript authority, and seems
totally unUke any statement to be met with elsewhere
in Scripture.
This verse therefore wiU stand as in the received
text.

170 , Effect produced by Textual Criticism upon
I.Pet. hi. 15.
A very interesting and important various reading
occurs in this verse, viz., the substitution of Christ for
God. In favour of the text as it stands there are a few
uncials, and one or two Fathers, but in support of the
reading Christ we have A, B, C, N, etc., the best versions,
and several of the Fathers. There can be no doubt,
therefore, that a change should here be made in the
text. And that change is of the greatest importance,
for, as the Apostle here applies to Christ language
which in the Old Testament is made use of with refer
ence to Jehovah (see Isa. viii. 13), he clearly suggests
the supreme Godhead of our Eedeemer. The clause
then, will stand thus : —
" But sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts."
1 John ii. 23.
This verse stands in the Authorized Version as follows:
"Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the
Father: [but] he that acknowledgeth. the Son hath the
Father also.'' By the use of italics in the second clause
it is suggested that the words rest on doubtful or insuffi
cient authority. But (with the exception of the initial
but) textual criticism has fully demonstrated their gen
uineness. They are omitted in some uncial manuscripts,
but are found in A, B, C, N, in the versions, and in
Clement, Origen, and others of the Fathers. The verse
then should, without any hesitation, be read as foUows: —
" Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the

Important Texts of the New Testament. 171
":
also."

Father : he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father

1 John hi. 1.
A remarkable addition should be made to the text in
this verse. Against the addition " and we are " there
are two or three uncials, the Coptic version, and one or
two Fathers. But in favour of the addition there are
A, B, C, N, with Augustine and others of the Fathers.
The addition therefore should, on all sound critical
principles, certainly be made, and the verse will accord
ingly stand thus —
" Behold, what manner of love the Father hath
bestowed upon us, that we should be caUed chUdren of
God ; and we are [such] : therefore the world knoweth
us not, because it knew Him not."
1 John v. 13.
This verse reads very strangely in the common text :
" These things have I written unto you that believe on
the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye
have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name
of the Son of God." Eeaders of the epistle are thus
declared to do in the first clause what they are exhorted
to do in the last. But the balance of authority seems
against the verse as it stands. For it there are one or
two uncials and a few Fathers ; against it there are B, N,
the Syriac versions, and some of the Fathers. A is here
pecuhar. It omits the clause " that believe on the name
of the Son of God." But, in accordance with the evi-

172 Effect produced by Textual Criticism.
dence just stated, we should probably read the verse
thus, —
" These things have I written unto you, that ye may
know that ye have eternal life, ye who beheve on the
name of the Son of God." Eev. xvii. 8.
The two last clauses of this verse seem flatly to contra
dict each other in the common text. " The beast that
thou sawest was, and is not ; and shall ascend out of
the bottomless pit, and go into perdition : and they that
dweU on the earth shall wonder, whose names were not
written in the book of life from the foundation of the
world, when they behold the beast that was, and is not,
and yet is." There is hardly any evidence whatever for
this paradoxical reading. A and N combine against it,
and support the following, which is also confirmed by
patristic authority : —
"The beast that thou sawest was, and is not; and
shall ascend out of the bottomless pit, and goeth into
perdition ; and they that dweU on the earth shall wonder,
whose names are not written in the book of hfe from
the foundation of the world, when they behold the beast,
that he was, and is not, and shall [again] be."

CHAPTEB II.
EFFECT PRODUCED BY TEXTUAL CRITICISM UPON THE TEXT
OF THE NEW TESTAMENT IN ITS SUCCESSIVE BOOKS.
HAVING pointed out the manner in which the
principles of textual criticism explained in
the earlier chapters of this book are to be
appUed to a few of the more important texts
of the New Testament, we shaU now endeavour to con
vey to our readers some impression of the general effect
to be expected- from the appUcation of these principles
to the New Testament as a whole. It wiU be impossible
to note every change of text that ought legitimately to
foUow from our premisses, and many of them are so
trifling that the EngUsh reader, especially on first making
acquaintance with the subject, cannot be expected to
take much interest in them. We shaU confine ourselves
therefore to such changes as reaUy affect the meaning of
the original.
Gospel of St. Matthew.
Chap. i. The only change of interest in this chapter
v. 25. is in v. 25, where, speaking of the mother of our

174 Effect produced by Textual Criticism upon the
Lord, the Evangelist ought to be made to say
" till she brought forth a son," not " tiU she
brought forth her first-born son."
Chap. ii. The second chapter in like manner affords
only one change needing to be noted, for in
v. 18. v. 18 the words " lamentation and " ought to
be omitted, and the text, thus making a nearer
approach to the language of the prophet,
should read, "In Eama was there a voice
heard, weeping and great mourning."
Chap. in. The changes of the third chapter do not caU
for notice.
Chap. iv. And the same remark applies to those of
the fourth.
Chap. v. In the fifth chapter we ought to read v.
v. 22. 22, omitting " without cause," " whosoever is
angry with his brother shaU be in danger of the
v. 27. judgment." 1 In v. 27 the words " by them of
v. 32. old time " ought to be omitted. In v. 32,
where our present text gives us " causeth her
to commit adultery," we should find, " causeth
adultery to be committed ' upon her," or
" causeth her to suffer adultery," that is, treat-
eth her as though she were an adulteress. In
v. 44. v. 44 several clauses are to be omitted, and
the reading ought to be, " but I say unto you,
Love your enemies, and pray for them which
v. 47. persecute you." In v. 47, for the words " do
not even the publicans," we ought to read. " do
not even the heathen the same ? " And, finally,
1 Comp. p. no.

Text of the New Testament in its successive Books. 175
v. 48. in v. 48 we ought to be instructed to be perfect,
not as our " Father which is in heaven," but
as our " heavenly Father is perfect."
Chap. vi. In the sixth chapter the first change that
v. 1. meets us is that of v. 1, " Take heed that ye do
not your righteousness " instead of " your alms
v. 4, 6, before men." Next, at the end of v. 4, 6, 18;
18, we have to omit the word " openly." 1 Then, in
v. 12. the fifth petition of the Lord's prayer in v. 12,
we must read "as we have forgiven," not "as
we forgive our debtors ; " while the doxology of
v. 13. the prayer in v. 13, " for Thine is the kingdom,
and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen,"
must be left out. The only other change in
v. 33. this chapter caUing for notice is that of v. 33,
where, when we read the verse, as we ought to
do, in immediate connection with the preceding
one, the true reading is much more beautiful
than that of our English Version, " But seek ye
'first His kingdom and His righteousness."
Chap. vii. In the seventh chapter only one change of
importance meets us. It occurs in the last
v. 29. verse of the chapter, which wiU run, " For He
taught them as one having authority, and not
as their scribes."
Chap. viii. In the eighth chapter the reading of v. 10
v. 10. becomes much more emphatic than as it stands,
'' Verily, I say unto you, With no man in Israel
have I found so great faith." The grateful
.feelings of St. Peter's mother-in-law are more
1 Comp. pp. 86, 109.

176 Effect produced by Textual Criticism upon the
fully brought out when we read, as we ought
v. 15. to do, in v. 15, that " she ministered unto Him,"
v. 25. instead of " them." In v. 25 the true reading,
omitting " us," sets' before us much more
graphically the quick alarmed cry of the dis-
v. 31. ciples, "Lord, save; we perish." ¦ And in v. 31
the subjection of the devUs to our Lord is
more pointed when we find them saying, as
the true text requires, not " suffer us to go
away," but " send us' away into the herd of
swine."
Chap. ix. In the ninth chapter the foUowing changes
v. 8. may be noted as worthy of regard. In v. 8
for the " marvelling" of the multitudes we
v. 13. ought to read " they were afraid." , In v. 13
the words of our Lord are simply, " for I came
not to call the righteous, but sinners."1 In
v. 35. v. 35 the words "among the people," which
might Umit our Lord's miracles of mercy to
the theocratic nation, have no right to claim
v. 36. their place. And in v. 36 the reading "be
cause they fainted" wUl give way to one
more suitable to the circumstances of the case,
" because they were distressed."
Chap. x. In the tenth chapter, v. 4 ought to present
v. 4. the reading, " Simon the zealot" not " Simon
v. 23. the Canaanite." In v. 23 the true reading is
not " flee ye into another," but " flee ye into
the next," thus bringing out tbe mode in
which the persecuted disciples were in their
1 Comp. p. 144.

Text of the New Testament in its successive Books. 177
flight not so much to seek safety for them
selves, as rather new and successive fields of
labour, that they might thus go over as many
as possible of the cities of Israel before the
v. 25. - Son of Man should come. In v. 25 the true
reading is not " if they have called/' but " if
they have surnamed the master of the house
Beelzebub."
Chap. xi. In the eleventh chapter the mention of
v. 2. "two" of John's disciples in v. 2 ought to be
omitted, for we are only told that John sent
v. 19. "by his disciples." In v. 19 the statement
of the true text is, not that " Wisdom is justi
fied of her children," but that "Wisdom is
v. 23. justified by her works;"1 and in v. 23 the
graphic force of the Saviour's appeal is greatly
heightened if we read, with what appears to be
the best authenticated text, interrogatively,
"And thou, Capernaum, shalt thou be exalted to
heaven ? Thou shalt be brought down to heU."
Chap. xii. In the twelfth chapter Uttle change of im-
v. 6. portance is necessary. We note only in v. 6
the substitution of the neuter for the mascu
line, not " in this place is one greater than
the temple," but " that which is greater than
v. 8. the temple is here ;" in v. 8 the omission of
v. 35. '' even ; " and in v. 35 the substitution of
'' out of his good treasure" for " out of the
good treasure of the heart," a change by which
1 Comp. p. 156.
M

178 Effect produced by textual Criticism upon the
the contrast between the good and the evU
man is more distinctly brought to view.
Chap. xiii. In the thirteenth chapter also Uttle change
is needed. The words " to hear" are to be
v. 9. omitted in v. 9, and the verse ought to read
v. 22. " He that hath ears let him hear." In v. 22 ,
" the care of this world" ought to give way to
v. 34. "the care of the world." In v. 34 "and with
out a parable spake He not unto them" ought
to be read " and without a parable spake He
v. 43. nothing unto them." In v. 43 the same change
has to be made as in v. 9; and lastly, for -
v. 55. " Joses" in v. 55 we ought to read "Joseph;"
a reading of no smaU interest in connection
with an inquiry that cannot be entered upon
here, as to the personaUty of James the
writer of the Epistle of James in our New
Testament canon.
Chap. xiv. In the fourteenth chapter two slight changes
v. 12. meet us in v. 12, where " the corpse " ought to
be substituted for " the body," and " buried
v. 25. him " for " buried it." In v. 25 " Jesus came
unto them " is better vouched for than " Jesus
v. 30. went unto them ; " and in v. 30 the word
" boisterous " ought to be omitted.
Chap. xv. In the fifteenth chapter a sUght change of
v. 1. , reading ought to be made in v. 1, giving us,
instead of " Then came to Jesus scribes and
Pharisees, which were of Jerusalem," " Then
come to Jesus from Jerusalem, Pharisees and

Text of the New Testament in its successive Books. 179
v. 6. scribes." The omission of some words in v. 6
supplies the reading " He shaU not honour his
father," instead of " And honour not his father
or his mother, he shall be free;" and again in
v. 8. v. 8 another omission of some words gives us
simply " This people honoureth me with their
v. 14. Ups, but their heart is far from me." In v. 14
we ought to read "they be bhnd leaders,"
rather than "they be bUnd leaders of the
v. 17. blind;" and in v. 17 "not" faUs to be sub
stituted for " not yet."
Chap, xvi In the sixteenth chapter the words " 0 ye
v. 3. hypocrites " of v. 3 have properly no place in
the text, nor the description of Jonah as " the
vv. 4, 8. prophet " in v. 4. In v. 8 we ought to read
" because ye have no bread," and not " because
v. 13. ye have brought no bread." In v. 13, for
" Whom do men say that I the Son of Man
am ?" the true text gives us, " Who do men say
v. 20. that the Son of Man is ? " In v. 20 the word
v. 26. "Jesus" ought to be omitted; and in v. 26,
"for what shall a man be profited ?" is better
established than " for what is a man profited ?"
Chap. xvn. In the seventeenth chapter the words of
v. 4. Peter in v. 4 are much more characteristic
when we adopt the true text — not "let us make
here," but " I wiU make here three tabernacles."
v. 11. In v. 11 thq word "first" ought to go out.
v. 20. In v. 20 we are to 'read " because of your Uttle
faith" rather than " because of your unbelief ; "

180 Effect produced by Textual Criticism upon the
v. 21. and the whole of v. 21, "Howbeit this kind
goeth not out but by prayer and fasting," is to
be omitted.
Chap. xvni. In the eighteenth chapter the whole of
to. 11,15. v. 11 ought to disappear; and in v. 15 the
precept of our Lord receives far greater breadth
by the omission of the words " against thee,"
an omission demanded by the evidence. In
v. 29. v. 29 we ought also to omit " at his feet;" and
v. 35. v. 35 ought to close with the word " brother,"
" if ye forgive not every one his brother."
Chap. xix. In the nineteenth chapter the first change
v. 17. of importance that meets us is at v. 17, which
ought to be read, " Why askest thou me con
cerning that which is good ? There is one
that is good. But if thou wouldest enter into
v. 20. Ufe keep the commandments." In v. 20 the
words "from my youth up" ought to be
v. 29. omitted ; and in v. 29 the words " or wife."
Chap. xx. In the twentieth chapter the last clause of
v. 7. v. 7 ought to have no place in the text, "and
whatsoever is right, that shaU ye receive;"
and the same observation applies to the last
v. 16. ' clause of v. 16, " for many be caUed, but few
v. 19. chosen." In v. 19 the true reading supphes
the words "and the third- day He shaU be
raised up," rather than "and the third day
v. 22. He shaU rise again." In v. 22 we ought to
omit the words " and to be baptized with the
baptism that I am baptized with," a remark

Text of the New Testament in its successive Books. 181
v. 23. applying also to the simUar clause in v. 23.
vv. 26, 27. In vv. 26, 27 the imperative form " let him be"
ought to be changed for the future form
v. 34. " shaU be ;" and in v. 34, instead of reading of
, the bhnd men just healed that " their eyes
received sight," we ought to read " they re
ceived their sight."
Chap. xxi. In the twenty-first chapter one change only
v. 38. need be noted, where in v. 38 the husbandmen
are made to exclaim, " Come, let us kill him,
and let us keep his inheritance."
Chap. xxn. In the twenty-second chapter we ought to
v. 13. read in v. 13, with the omission of a few words
from the present text, " Bind him hand and
v. 23. foot, and cast him," etc. In v. 23 we are not
told of "Sadducees which say," as if the pur
pose were to describe the tenets of the sect,
but of " Sadducees saying," the remark being
confined to the particular persons introduced
v. 40. to us. In v. 40 the true text gives, " on these
two commandments hangeth the whole law
v. 44. and the prophets;" and in v. 44 the words
given as a quotation from the 110th Psalm are,
" tiU I put thine enemies under thy feet."
Chap. xxiu. In the twenty-third chapter the word "for"
v. 5. ought to be inserted in v. 5 before "they make
v. 7. broad their phylacteries." In v. 7 "Eabbi"
v. 8. ought to be read only once ; and in v. 8 the
words "even Christ" have to be omitted. The
vv. 14, 17. whole of v. 14 ought to go out. In v. 17 we

182 Effect produced by Textual Criticism upon the
ought to read not of the temple " which sanc
tifieth," but of the temple " which hath sancti-
v. 19. fied the gold;" and lastly, in v. 19 the words
" ye fools" have no claim to be in the text.
Chap. xxiv. In the twenty-fourth chapter the words
v. 7. " and pestUences " in v. 7 have to be left out.
v. 17. In v. 17 we ought to read, not of taking "any
thing," but of taking " the things " out of the
v. 28. house. At the beginning of v. 28 "for" must
v. 36. be omitted ; and the latter part of v. 36 ought
to read, " no, not the angels of heaven, neither
the Son, but the Father only."
. Chap. xxv. In the twenty-fifth chapter the word " for "
v. 3. ought to be inserted at the beginning of v. 3.
v. 6. In v. 6 the word " cometh " has to be Omitted
after " bridegroom,"1 and the same remark has
v". 13. to be made of the last words of v. 13, which
properly closes with the word " hour." In v.
v. 31. 31 we ought to read simply of " angels," not
v. 41. " holy angels ;" and the words of v. ,41 are not
"depart from me, ye cursed," but "depart from
me, accursed."
Chap. xxvi. In the twenty-sixth chapter there is no
v. 3. mention of "the scribes" in v. 3. In v. 26 we
v. 26. ought to read that Jesus took a " loaf," not
v. 27. "bread;" in v. 27 that He took "a cup," not
v. 28. " the cup ; " and in v. 28 that He spoke only
of the "testament," or rather covenant, "in His
blood," without describing it as "new." In
1 Comp. p. 5.

Text of the New Testament in its successive Books. 183
v. 43. v. 43 the change to be made is important, as
throwing Ught on the feeUngs of the disciples
at the solemn moment referred to, for we ought
to read that Jesus "came again and found them
asleep," not that He " came and found them
asleep again ; " their sleep had most probably
v. 55. continued from the first. In v. 55 the words
v. 59. " with you" have to be omitted; and in v. 59
v. 65. the words " and elders." In v. 65 the horror
of the high priest comes out more forcibly
when we notice that the last clause of the verse
ought to read, "behold, now ye have heard
the," rather than "His, blasphemy;" and in v.
v. 74. 74 the true reading teUs us not that St. Peter
began to " curse," but that he " began to bind
himself under a curse," or "to affirm upon oath."
Chap, xxvii. In the twenty-seventh chapter the name
v. 2. "Pontius" prefixed in v. 2 to "PUate" has to
v. 5. be dropped. In v. 5 an important emendation
of the text is found in the change of " in the
temple" into "into the temple." The part of
the temple here aUuded to is the Holy place,
into which none but the priests might enter.
Judas therefore could not be within "the
temple," but in his remorse and despair he
rushed to the entrance and cast into the sacred
inclosure his iU-gotten gains, the price of his
v. 23. Eed'eemer's' blood. In v. 23 "he" ought to be
v. 34. . substituted for " the governor ;" and in v. 34
v. 35. "wine" for "vinegar." The whole of v. 35,

184 Effect produced by Textual Criticism upon the
after " casting lots," has to be omitted ; and in
v. 42. v. 42 the scornful cry of the people is enhanced
by the true reading, not " if He be the King of
Israel," but simply "He is the King of Israel."
v. 64. Finally, in v. 64 the words "by night" have
no proper place.
Chap, xxviii. In the twenty-eighth chapter the changes
to which attention need be caUed are few. In
v. 2. v. 2 the words " from the door " are to be left
v. 9. out ; in v. 9 the words " as they went to teU
v. 20. His disciples;"1 and in v. 20 the word "Amen."
Gospel of St. Mark.
Chap. i. In the first chapter of this Gospel we must
v. 2. read in v. 2 for " as it is written in the pro
phets " the words "as it is written in Isaiah the
prophet," while the two last words of the verse,
tt 11. "before Thee," must be omitted. In v. 11
" in Thee I am weU pleased," takes the place of
v. 14. " in whom I am weU pleased." In v. 14 we
find the interesting expression " the Gospel of
God," instead of " the Gospel of the kingdom
v. 24. of God." In v. 24 the first words of the man
with the unclean spirit, " Let us alone," have
v. 27. no proper place in the text ; and in v. 27 the
changes to - be made on the original lend a
power and vividness to the description not
otherwise possessed by it, when the people in
their amazement are represented as exclaim-
1 Comp. p. 112.

Text of the New Testament in its successive Books. 185
ing, " What is this ? A new teaching ! With
authority commandeth He even the unclean
spirits, and they do obey him."
Chap. u. In the second chapter a graphicness similar
v. 7. to that spoken of in i. 27 is lent to v. 7, when
we read, as required by the evidence, " Why
doth this man thus speak ? He blasphemeth."
tt 16. In v. 16 we ought to find the singular expres
sion, throwing fresh light upon the different
parties then existing in Jerusalem, " and when
the scribes of the Pharisees saw him eat," etc.
tt 17. In v. 17 the two last words, " to repentance,"
tt 20. must be left out. In v. 20 our Lord's words
receive new emphasis by the true reading, " in
that day " instead of " in those days ; " and the
same remark is applicable to the best authen-
v. 22. ticated text of v. 22, where we ought' to read,
not " and the wine is spiUed, and the bottles
wUl be marred," but " and the wine perisheth,
tt 26. and the bottles." FinaUy, v. 26 is rendered
more definite by the correct reading, " in the
days when Abiathar was high priest." 1
Chap. Ui. In the third chapter little change is needed.
tt 15. We note only that in v. 15 the power of cast
ing out devils is alone spoken of in the true
v. 18. text ; that in v. 18 we are told of " Simon the
zealot," not of "Simon the Canaanite;" and that
v. 29. in v. 29 our Lord's words are not, that he who
blasphemeth against the Holy Ghost is "in
1 Comp. p. 144.

186 Effect produced by Textual Criticism upon the.
danger of eternal damnation," but that he is
" guilty of an eternal sin." 1
Chap. iv. In the fourth chapter we are told in v. 1 not
tt 1. onlyof "agreafbutof "avery great multitude."
v. 10. In v. 10 the true reading is valuable in its bear
ing upon the fragmentary nature of our Gospels,
" asked of Him the parables," not "the parable."
tt 12. In v. 12 we ought to read, not "lest at any time
they should be converted, and their sins should
be forgiven them," but, with a special reference
to the point immediately in hand, " lest at any
time they should be converted, and it should
tt 40. be forgiven them." In v. 40 we ought to read,
not "How is it that ye have no faith?" but,
" Have ye not yet faith ?"
Chap. v. In the fifth chapter the changes that require
to be made are few and unimportant. We
v. 18. mention only that, at v. 18, the Evangehst tells
us that the man just cured came to our Lord not
so much " when He was come into," as " when
He was entering into the ship ;" and that at
v. 36. v. 36 the relation of all the parties spoken of
to one another is better brought out by attend
ing to what appears to have been the original
statement of the EvangeUst, " but Jesus,
heeding not the word that was spoken, saith
unto the ruler," etc.
Chap, vi, In the. sixth chapter a true reading in v. 2
tt 2. brings out more clearly that effect of our
1 Comp. p. 158.

Text of the New Testament in its successive Books. 187
Lord's words on the people, upon which it is
characteristic in St. Mark to dwell with a pecu
har emphasis, not " many hearing," but " the
many hearing Him were astonished." In v.
tt 11. 11 the latter half, from " verily I say unto you,"
tt 15. ought to be omitted. The difficulty of v. 15
is at once removed by reading with the correct
text, " It is a prophet as one of the prophets ;"
and the stUl greater difficulty of- the second
tt 20. last clause of v. 20 is equaUy removed, while the
strangely mingled elements in the character of
Herod are at the same time powerfully brought
out, when we read, not " and when he heard
Him. he did many things," but, as we ought to
read, " and when he heard Him he was greatly
v. 38. perplexed." In v. 38 the love of graphic delin
eation so characteristic of St. Mark, receives
fresh iUustration by the omission falhng to be
made of the copula between "go " and " see,"
not " go and see," but " go, see."
Chap. vn. In the seventh chapter the close of v. 4
v. 4. ought to read simply " as the washing of cups,
and pots, and brasen vessels," aU mention of
" tables " being omitted. The latter half of v.
v. 8. 8 ought Ukewise to be omitted, the verse clos
ing with "the tradition of men." At the
tt 12. beginning of v. 12 the word "and" has no
claim to be in the text, and it wUl be observed
that, by omitting it, v. 12 wiU so connect itself
with v. 11 as to render the long clause in ita-

188 Effect produced by Textual Criticism upon the
lies at the close of the latter verse unnecessary.
tt 16. The whole of v. 16 wants authority ; and in
tt 19. v. 19 our Lord's words end with the word
" draught," after which the Evangehst makes
the striking and beautiful comment upon what
he has recorded, " this He said, making all
meats clean."
Chap. viii. In the eighth chapter any changes required
are few and unimportant. The chief are as
v. 2.1. foUows. In v. 21 the question of our Lord
ought to have the simpler form, " Do ye not
v. 26. yet understand ? " In v. 26 the last clause faUs
to be omitted, and the charge of Jesus to the
man whom he had cured is only " do not even
v. 37. go into the town ;" whUe v. 37, connected with
the preceding verse by " for " instead of " or,"
assigns a reason why the whole world should,
as compared with the soul, be spoken of as
valueless, "For what shall a man give in
exchange for his soul ?" '
Chap. ix. In the ninth chapter the first change re
quired is one that may justly be regretted,
depriving us as it does of one of those expres
sions of St. Mark by which the graphicness of
his style of narrative is Ulustrated. It occurs
v. 3. in v. 3, where the words " as snow " must be
omitted, and the loss is only partially compen
sated for by the fact that the word " so " ought
to be inserted before white, " so as no fuUer on
tt 19. earth can so white them." In v. 19 the words

Text of the New Testament in its successive Books. 189
of our Lord ought to appear as an answer not
only to the father of the chUd but to the whole
assemblage, " He answereth them," not " him,
v. 20. and saith." In v. 20 the proper reading re
quires a stronger word than " tare ;" we must
v. 23. read " tare him greatly." In v. 23 we gain by
noting the correct words even more than we
lost in v. 3. • The word " believe " goes out,
and " if thou canst " is not the direct language
of Jesus ; it is the taking up on the part of
Jesus of the father's " if thou canst " in the
preceding verse. The father says, v. 22, "if
thou canst do anything ;" then Jesus rephes,
" If thou canst ! aU things are possible unto
v. 24. him that believeth." In v. 24, however, we
again lose something by the loss of "with
tt 26. tears ',' and " Lord." In v. 26 we ought to
v. 29. read " the many" instead of " many ;" in v. 29
tt 42. to omit " and fasting ;" in v. 42 to insert
tt 44. " great" before " miUstone." Two verses, v. 44
vv. 46, 47. and v. 46, go out whoUy ; and in v. 47 the
last word of the verse, " fire," must be omitted.
Chap. x. In the tenth chapter only one or two changes
tt 21. need be noted. In v. 21 the words " take
tt 29. up the cross " are to be left out. In v. 29 the
correct reading presents us with a slightly
different order in the mention of the relatives
there spoken of, whUe one of them, " or wife,"
tt 50. has to be altogether omitted. In v. 50 we
ought to find ' St. Mark's more graphic touch

190 Effect produced by Textual Criticism upon the
in the words, " and he, casting away his gar
ment, leapt up, and came to Jesus."
Chap. xi. In the eleventh chapter the word " fields "
u 8. requires to be substituted in v. 8 for " trees,"
and thus its true rendering can be given to
the Greek word translated in our version
" branches." That word properly apphes to
leaves, and its true sense is much more suitable
to the act described. To have thrown down
branches in the path of the ass on which our
Lord was riding could only have checked its
tt 10. progress. In v. 10 we ought to read without
the words " in the name of the Lord." In v.
tt 24. 24 it is not " beheve that ye receive," but
tt 26. " beheve that ye received them ;" and v. 26
ought to be omitted.
Chap. xii. In the twelfth chapter the true reading of v.
tt 4. 4 is simpler than in our text, " and him they
wounded on the head and handled shamefully."
tt 22. So also in v. 22, " and the seven left no seed."
tt 23. In v. 23 the tautology is removed by the cor
rect reading, which omits " when they shaU
tt 27. rise ;" and in v. 27 the increased terseness of
the true text at once commends itself, "ye
tt 31. greatly err." In v. 31 a certain amount of
embarrassment is removed by omitting, as we
ought to do, any mention of likeness between
the two commandments spoken of, and by
reading only " and the second is this." In v.
v. 33. 33 the words " and with all the soul " go out;

Text of the New Testament in its successive Books. 191
tt 43. and in v. 43 the vividness of the picture1 is
preserved by our finding in the best authenti
cated text, not " aU they which have cast," but
" aU they which are casting into the treasury."
Chap. xiii. In the thirteenth chapter a slight change in
tt 3. the reading of v. 3 affords a fresh iUustration
of the character of St. Peter. It is not " Peter,
and James, and John, and Andrew asked him
privately," but "Peter asked him privately,
tt 8. and James, and John, and Andrew." In v. 8
the copulas ought to be omitted, together with
the words " and troubles," the true reading of
the verse giving us in English, " For nation
shaU rise against nation, kingdom against
kingdom ; there shaU be earthquakes in divers
tt 11. places ; there shall be famines." In v. 11 the
abuse so often made of the precept of Jesus
contained there, is greatly obviated by the
omission which should be made of " neither do
tt 14. ye premeditate." In v. 14 the words " spoken
of by Daniel the prophet" are to be left out ;
tt 18. and in v. 18 there is'no mention of " flight " in
what appears to be the true text, " and pray ye
that it be not in the winter."
Chap. xiv. In the fourteenth chapter the word "for" is
to be substituted for " but" at the beginning of
vv. 2, 9. v. 2, and in v. 9 "the," not "this," ought to pre-
v. 22. cede the word " gospel." In v. 22 " Take " is to
tt 23. be read instead of "Take, eat;" in v. 23 "a cup"
tt 24. is to be substituted for " the cup ;" and in v. 24

192 Effect produced by Textual Criticism upon the
tt 27. the word " new" is to be omitted. In v. 27 we
are to omit " because of me this night." In v.
tt 40. 40 the correct reading has the same importance
in its bearing upon the conduct of the disciples
as that already noticed at Matt. xxvi. 43, not
" He found them asleep again," but " He again
found them sleeping ; " and the reason given
is not merely that " their eyes were heavy," but
tt 51. that they were " very heavy." In v. 51 we
are to read " and they laid hold on him," instead
of " and the young men laid hold on him ; "
tt 70. and in v. 70 the words of the bystanders to St.
Peter dose with " Galilean," the remainder of
the verse, " and thy speech agreeth thereto,"
having no sufficient authority.
Chap. xv. In the fifteenth chapter, the words of PUate
v. 4. in v. 4 are not " behold how many things they
witness against Thee." but " how many things
tt 8. they accuse Thee of." In v. 8 the multitude
is not represented as " crying aloud " but as
" going up," in all probabUity to the tribunal
tt 14. upon which PUate sat. In v. 14 " the more"
is to be left out before " exceedingly ;" and the
vv. 28, 30. whole of v. 28 is to be omitted. In v. 30 we
ought to read "save Thyself, coming down from
tt 45. the cross ; " and in v. 45 we are told of " the
corpse " instead of " the body."
Chap. xvi. In the sixteenth chapter the word " quickly"
tt 8. is to be omitted in v. 8. The whole of the
vv. 9-20. following passage from v. 9 to the end of the

Text of the Nevj Testament in its successive Books. 193
chapter, can hardly be regarded as a part of
the original Gospel of St. Mark. It is rather
an addition that had been made to it at a very
early age, but whether in the lifetime of the
Evangelist or not, it is impossible to say.
Although, however, not from the pen of .St.
Mark himself, it was so soon and so generally
recognised by the Church as possessed of can^
onical authority, that no hesitation need be
felt at allowing it to stand. When we have it
where it is, the changes produced on it by the
application of the principles of textual criticism
are not sufficiently important to require notice.
Before leaving this Gospel we have only to
add, that it contains many narrative passages
in which the present ought to be substituted
for the past tense ; and that the word " straight
way " or " immediately" has several times been
lost sight of in the text received by us. Correc
tion of the text oh these two points is important,
as increasing the vividness of the narration, and
as Ulustrating the peculiarities of St. Mark.
Gospel of St. Luke.
Chap. i. In the first chapter of this Gospel the clos-
tt 28. ing words of v. 28, " blessed art thou among
tt 29. women," have to be omitted, and in v. 29 " when
42. she saw him," as formerly noticed,1 In v. 42
Elisabeth is represented as speaking out with "a
1 See p. 6.
N

\

194 Effect produced by Textual Criticism upon the
loud cry," rather than with "a loud voice."
tt 66. , In v. 66 the last words ought to be connected
with those going immediately before by the
substitution of " for indeed " for " and ;" and in
v. 75. ' v. 75 the true expression is simpler than that
of the English version, " all our days " instead
of " all the days of our Ufe:"
Chap. ii. In the second chapter we ought to read in
v. 5. v. 5 of Mary "his betrothed" rather than of
Mary " his espoused wife." The angels' song
tt 14. in v. 14 takes the interesting form, " Glory to
God in the highest, and on earth peace among
men of his good pleasure," i.e. among men
¦v. 33. whom He hath loved.1 In v. 33 the Evange
list's statement is not that "Joseph and his
mother," but that " his father and mother rnar-
veUed at those things which were spoken of
v. 38. him." In v. 38 " God " ought to be substi
tuted for " the Lord," and " the redemption of
Jerusalem '' for " redemption in Jerusalem."
v. 40. In v. 40 the words " in spirit " have to
tt 43. be omitted ; and in v. 43 a correction simUar
to that in v. 33 has to be made, " his parents ''
being substituted for " Joseph and his mother."
Chap. iii. In the third chapter little- change need be
vi'. 10,12, noted. In v. 10, 12, and 14 we ought to read
14. " what must we do " for " what shall we do."
v. 17. In v. 17 the object of the "fan" is described
when we read with the best authenticated
1 Comp. pp. 94, 160.

Text of the New Testament in its successive Books. 195
text, " whose fan is in His hand, thoroughly to
o. 19. purge His floor ;" and in v. 19 " his brother's
wife " is better estabhshed than " his brother
PhUip's wife."
Chap. iv. In the fourth chapter it is better to read in
tt 1. v. 1 "in the wilderness," than "into the wil-
v. 2. derness," and in v. 2 to omit " afterward." In
tt 4. v. 4 our Lord's- reply to Satan is simply " that
man shall not live by bread alone," the words
that foUow having no claim to their place in
the text. No mention of a " high mountain "
v. 5. belongs to v. 5, the simple statement being
that " the devil led him up and showed him
v. 8. all the kingdoms," etc. In v. 8 we must omit
v. 18. " Get thee behind me, Satan, for ;" in v. 18 " to
tt 41. heal the broken-hearted;" and in v. 41 the
tt 43. , word " Christ." In v. 43 the correct reading
gives us, " for therefore was I sent " rather
than " for therefore am I sent."
CJiap. v. In the fifth chapter the words " by him" in
vv. 15,17. v. 15 are to be omitted ; and in v. 17 we ought
to read " the power of the Lord was present to
his healing them." The opening words of v.
tt 30. 30 are " But the Pharisees and their scribes ;"
•y. 33. and in v. 33 by omitting " why do " we have a
statement made, not a question asked. In v.
v. 36. 36 the changes requiring to be made lend a
fresh light altogether to the verse, " and he
spake also a parable unto them ; No man rend-
eth a piece from a new garment and putteth it

196 Effect produced by Textual Criticism upon the
upon an old, else he wiU both rend- the new,
and the piece from the new wiU not agree
with the old." A double mischief, it will be
observed, is thus spoken of by our Lord. The
unnatural mixture destroys both the old and
the new, just as, in the next verse, the new
wine is spilled and the old bottles perish. • In
tt 38. v. 38 the words " and both are preserved,"
are tb be omitted, and in Uke manner the
v. 39. word " straightway " in v. 39. Finally, in
this last verse " good " ought to be read for
" better."
Chap. vi. In the sixth chapter the difficult expression
tt 1. of v. 1, " on the second sabbath after the first,"
must yield to the more inteUigible "on a sabbath
tt 10. day." In v. 10 we ought to leave out "whole
tt 17. as the other." In v. 17 we have to substitute
" a great company" for "the company" of His
v. 25. disciples. In v. 25 the word " now" has to be
v. 36. inserted before " full." In v. 36 the two
words " therefore " and " also " have to be
tt 42. omitted, and in v. 42 the word " either." In
tt 48. v. 48 we must substitute in the last clause,
" it was well built " for " it was founded upon
a rock."
Chap. vii. In the seventh chapter the last words of
tt 10. v. 10, " that had been sick," must be omitted.
tt 11. In v. 11 we ought to read "His disciples"
tt 19. for "many of His disciples." In v. 19 "to the
Lord" ought to be substituted for " to Jesus,"

Text of the New Testament in its successive Books. 197
v. 22. and in v. 22 for "Jesus " we should read " He."
v. 28. In v. 28 " for " at the beginning of the verse
goes out, and the words that follow, " I say
- unto you," are, " among those that are born of
women there is not a greater than John." In
y. 38. v. 38 the true text makes the meaning clearer,
" and stood behind at His feet, weeping." In
tt 42. v. 42 the words " Tell me " must be omitted ;
v. 4A. and in v. 44 the correct text gives us only
" with her hair " instead of " with the hairs of
her head."
Chap. viii. In the eighth chapter "unto them" ought to
vv. 3, 12. be read for " unto him" in v. 3, and in v. 12
"they that'have heard" for " they that hear."
tt 24. In v. 24 " then he awoke " is to be read for
vv. 26,37. "then he arose." In w. 26 and 37 "Gerasenes"
is to be substituted for " Gadarenes," and in
v. 27. v. 27 " for a long while had worn no clothes "
v. 45. for " and ware no clothes." In v. 45 the last
clause, " and sayest thou, Who touched me ? "
v. 48. has to be omitted, and in v. 48 the. words " be
w. 52. of good comfort." In v. 52 "for" ought to be
tt 54. inserted after " Weep not ;" and in v. 54 the
clause relating to Christ's putting them all out
has to be removed, for we read only, " and He
took her by the hand and caUed, saying, Maid,
arise."
Chap. ix. In the ninth chapter we ought to read in
vv. 1, 3. v. 1 " He called the twelve together." In v. 3
" a staff" is to be substituted for " staves." In

198 Effect produced by Textual Criticism upon the
v. 7. v. 7 the words "by him" are to be omitted.
v. 10. In v. 10 the true reading of the last half of
the verse is only " and he took them, and
went aside privately into a city called Beth-
v. 11. saida." In v. 11 we are told, not that Jesus
"received," but that he "welcomed" them.
tt 35. In v. 35 the words spoken out of the cloud
v. 48. are, " This is my chosen Son." In ' v. 48 the
last words are, the same " is," not " shaU be,"
tt 49. great. In v. 49 the words of John imply not
so much that he succeeded in forbidding as
that he made the effort to forbid, "and we'
v. 50. were forbidding him." In v. 50 " you" is to
be twice substituted for "us" in the last clause ;
and in v. 57 the word " Lord" is to be left out.
In the tenth chapter " to our feet " is to be
substituted for " on us " in v. 11. In v. 15 we
have the same change to make as that already
made on>Matt. xi. 23, "And thou, Capernaum,
shalt thou be exalted to heaven ? Thou shalt
be thrust down to hell." In v. 19 we ought to
read '' I have given" for "I give ;" in v. 20 to
omit " rather" before " rejoice ;" and in v. 21 to
substitute " in the Holy Spirit" for "in spirit."
In v. 35 the words " when he departed" have
no claim to be in the text ; and in vv. 39 and
41 " the Lord's " and " the Lord " ought to
take the place of "Jesus'" and "Jesus."
Chap. xi. In the eleventh chapter, the form of the
Lord's prayer must undergo considerable mo-

tt

57.

Chap. x.

v.

11.

v.

15.

».

19.

v.

20.

w.

21.

V.

35.

V.

39.

tt

41.

Text of the New Testament in its successive Books. 199
dification, for several clauses ought to be
tt 2. .omitted — in v. 2, " which art in heaven," to
gether with the first word " our," and the third
petition, " Thy wiU be done, as in heaven, so in
v. 4. earth;" whUe we must again omit in v. 4
v. 29. " but deliver us from evil." In v. 29 we ought
to read " this generation is an evil generation,"
and to omit "the prophet" after Jonas. In v.
v. 34. 34 " thine eye " has to be substituted for " the
tt 44. eye ; " and in v. 44 " scribes and Pharisees,
hypocrites," must be omitted. The words of
tt 48. Jesus in v. 48 are simply " and ye build," not
" and ye build their sepulchres." The opening
v. 53. words of verse 53 ought to be, " And when He
was come out from thence ;" and all that truly
v. 54. belongs to v. 54 is " laying wait for Him, to
catch something out of His mouth."
Chap. xU. In the twelfth chapter we ought to read
only " fear not " instead of "-.fear not therefore"
vv. 7, 15. in v. 7 ; and in v. 15 to insert " all" before
v. 29. " covetousness." In v. 29 " And what ye shall
drink " takes the place of " or what ye shall
tt 31. drink." In v. 31 " His kingdom" is to be sub
stituted for " the kingdom of God," and " aU "
before "these things" is to be omitted. In
v. 54. v. 54 we ought to read " in the west" for "out
of the west ;" and the question of our Lord in
tt 56. v. 56 is " How is it that ye do not know how
to discern this time ?"
Chap. xiii. In the thirteenth chapter we ought to read

200 Effect produced by Textual Criticism upon the
tt 3. in v. 3 "in like manner" for "likewise;" in
tt 15. v. 15 " ye hypocrites" for " thou hypocrite ;" in
tt 24. v. 24 " door" for "gate," a reading by which
the connection between that and the foUowing
verse is much more clearly brought out than
tt 25. it would otherwise be. In v. 25 " Lord" ought
tt 31. only to be read once. In v. 31 the word
" hour" is to be substituted for " day ;" and in
v. 35. v. 35 we are to read "your house is left unto
you " without the addition of " desolate."
Chap. xiv. In the fourteenth chapter few changes
worthy of notice have to be made. At the
tt 3. end of v. 3 " or not" ought to be inserted in
the question of Jesus there recorded. The
tt 5. change of "ass" into "son" in v. 5 has been
tt 10. already noticed.1 In v. 10 "all" has to be
¦v. 17. inserted before " them;" whUe in v. 17 it has to
be omitted before "things." Lastly, increased
tt 27. force is given to v. 27, when we read that the
foUower of Jesus must bear, not " his " cross
merely, but "his own" cross.
Chap. xv. In the fifteenth chapter also few changes
tt 17. are needed. In v. 17 we ought to read in the
last clause, " and I perish here with hunger ?"
w. 22. In v. 22 the word "quickly" ought to be added
tt 32. to "bring forth ;" and in v. 32 " again" after
" alive" is to be omitted.
Chap. xvi. The sixteenth chapter also calls for little
change. The most important is probably that
1 Comp. page 9.

Text of the New Testament in its successive Books. 201
v. 9. faUing to be made in v. 9, where we ought to
read not, " that when ye faU," but " that when
v. 18. it faUs." In v. 18 "he that" ought to be sub-
tt 21. stituted for " whosoever." In v. 21 we are told
not of " the crumbs" but of " the things which
v. 26. fell from the rich man's table ;" and in v. 26
the last clause of the verse must be read, " and
that none may pass from thence to us."
Chap. xvii. In the seventeenth chapter " against thee"
v. 3. is to be omitted in v. 3 ; " in a day" after the
tt 4. second "seven times" in v. 4; and "him ? I
tt 9. trow not" after " commanded " in v. 9, whUe
in this last' verse "that servant" is also to be
v. 21. changed into " his servant." In v. 21 the
tt 23. second "lo" has to be omitted; and v. 23
ought to have the simpler reading, " see
there 'or here," instead of " see here ; or see
v. 33. there." In v. 33 we are to read not "to
save" but " to gain his life."
Chap, xviii In the eighteenth chapter we shaU notice
only two changes, but both important; the
first as making intelligible what has little
or no meaning as it stands, the second as add
ing interesting emphasis to the words. The
tt 7. first is in v. 7, where for the last clause, "though
He bear long with them," we ought to read
" and is He long suffering in their case ?" The
v. 28. second is in v. 28, where Peter's words run,
" Lo, we have left our own and followed thee."
Chap. xix. In the nineteenth chapter we ought to

202 Effect produced by Textual Criticism upon the
tt 5. omit " and saw him" in v. 5 ; to read " the
tt 20. other" for "another" in y. 20; "if these
tt 40. shaU" for " if these should" in v. 40 ; and
"in this day" instead of "in this thy day"
vv. 42, 45. in v. 42. In v. 45 we are to read only " and
He went into the temple, and began to cast
out them that sold."
Chap. xx. In the twentieth chapter " a thing" is to be
tt 3. substituted for " one thing" in v. 3. The
tt 13. last words of v. 13, "when they see him," are
to be left out. The same thing is to be done
v. 14. with " come " in v. 14 ; with " Why tempt
tt 23. ye me ?" in v. 23 ; and with the greater por-
v. 30. tion of v. 30, which wUl then only read, " and
tt 40. ¦ the second." Lastly, in v. 40 the " and" at
the beginning of the verse ought to give place
to "for."
Chap. xxi. In the twenty-first chapter the word "here"
tt 6. ought to be inserted after "left" in y. 6;
tt 8. while " therefore" in the last clause of v. 8
tt 25. ought to be omitted. The latter part of v. 25
will run, when the necessary textual correc
tion has been made, " distress of nations in
perplexity at the roaring of sea and waves;"
tt 36. and in v. 36 we shall have to replace "that
ye may be accounted worthy" by "that ye
may prevail."
Chap. xxii. In the twenty-second chapter we are to
v. 14. omit the word " twelve" in v. 14 ; and in v.
tt- 18. 18 to insert "from henceforth'' after "drink."

Text of the New Testament in its successive Books. 203
tt 30. In v. 30 " and sit" will give way to " and ye
tt 31. shall sit." In v. 31 we are to omit " and the
tt 57. Lord said." In v. 57, when amended, we
must read " and he denied, saying, I know
tt 60. him not, woman ; " in v. 60 " a cock" for
tt 62. "the cock;" and in v. 62 "he" for "Peter."
tt 64. Finally, in v. 64 we ought, omitting several
words, to read " and when they had blindfolded
tt 68. Him, they asked Him," etc.; and in v. 68 only
" and if I also ask you, ye wiU not answer."
Chap, xxiii In the twenty-third chapter, in v. 2, the
tt 2. best authenticated text sets before us the
accusation against our Lord in a much more.
forcible manner than is otherwise the case, for
we ought to read "our nation" for "the nation,"
and to insert " and " before the last clause,
" and saying that He Himself is Christ a King."
In v. 6 we ought to read " it " for " Galilee ; "
in v. 8 to omit " many things ; " in v. 15 to
substitute " for he sent him back to us " for
"for I sent you to him ; " in v. 23 to omit "and
of the chief priests ; " in v. 35 to omit " with
them ;" and to reduce v. 38 to the form, " And
a superscription also was over Him, This is the
King of the Jews." In v. 42 we have to omit
"Lord; " and in v. 51 " also Himself."
•Chap. xxiv. In the twenty-fourth chapter the last
v. 1. . clause of v. 1, " and certain others with them,"
tt 17. is to be omitted. In v. 17 our Lord's question
ends with the words " as ye walk," and then

tt

6.

tt

8.

V.

15.

v.

23.

tt

35.

V.

38.

v.

42.

v.-

51.

204 Effect produced by Textual Criticism upon the
the Evangelist adds "and they stood sad." In
tt 42. v. 42 the words " and of an honeycomb " have
tt 44. no just claim to be in the text. In v. 44 the
Saviour says, "These are my words," etc.; and
tt 46. in v. 46 he says, " Thus it is written that
tt 49. Christ should suffer," etc. In v. 49 we ought
tt 50. to omit "of Jerusalem;" in v. 50 to read
" towards Bethany " for " to Bethany ; " and in
v. 53. v. 53 to omit " Amen."
Gospel of St. John.
Chap. i. In the first chapter of this Gospel we have to
tt 16. change "and" at tlie beginning of v. 16 into
v. 18. " for." The great change in v. 18 of " the only
begotten Son " into " the only begotten God "
v. 19. has already been discussed.1 In v. 19 we ought
to read " sent unto Him from Jerusalem priests
tt 24. and Levites." In v. 24 the true reading, one emi
nently characteristic of St. John's tendency to
return back on the beginning of his statements,
seems to give Us, "And they had been sent
v. 27. from the Pharisees." In v. 27 we are to read,
" even He that cometh after me, whose shoe's
tt 28. latchet I am not worthy to unloose." In v. 28
"Bethany" must take the place of "Betbabara;"
tt 39. in v. 39 "ye shaU see" of "see;" whUe the
omission of " for " at the beginning of the last
clause of this verse, is an illustration of a
change needing to be often made in this Gospel,
1 Comp. page 162.

Text of the New Testament in its successive Books. 205
the suppression of the copula, when a short
statement is added to what went before. In
r. 41. v. 41 we ought to read, "Christ" instead of "the
r. 42. Christ ;" in v. 42 " John " instead of " Jona ; "
tt 51. and in v. 51 to omit "hereafter." l
Chap, ii In the second chapter one change only need
« be noted, that of "hath eaten me up" into
!?. 17. " shaU eat me up " in v. 17.
Chap. iii. In the third chapter a very important change
f. 13. has to be made in y. 13, where the last words
of the verse, " which is in heaven," ought to be
tt 16. omitted. In v. 16 we ought to read, not "His,"
r. 17. but "the" only begotten Son;" and in v. 17 in
Uke manner "the Son" takes the place of "his
v. 25. Son." In v. 25 we are told not of a question
between some of John's disciples and "the
Jews," .but of one between them and " a Jew."
Chap. iv. In the fourth chapter two changes only may
be mentioned, but both of them important. The
v. 35. first occurs at v. 35, where the word "already"
ought to be transferred to the next verse,
bringing out far more beautifully the real force
of our Lord's words, which will then run, a
sUght change being made in the form of the
Enghsh present tense, " Lift up your eyes and
look on the fields, that they are white unto
harvest ; already he that reapeth is receiving
wages and gathering fruit unto Ufe eternal."
v. 42. The second change is at v. 42, where, dropping
1 Comp. p. 127.

206 Effect produced by Textual Criticism upon the
the words " the Christ," the Samaritans only
say that they know that " this is indeed the
Saviour of the world."
Chap. v. In the fifth chapter important changes have
also to be made. Of the first of these, the
tt 3. omission of the last words of v. 3 and of the
tt 4. whole of v. 4, we have already spoken.1 The
tt 16. next is the omission in v. 16 of " and sought to
tt 30. slay him." ' Then in v. 30 we are to read " Him"
tt 44. instead of " the Father;" and, lastly, in v. 44,
" from God only " at the close of the verse
ought rather to be " from the only One."
Chap. vi. In the sixth chapter the interesting change
tt 11. to be made on V. 11 has been already noticed.2
The confusion at present reigning in the pas-
¦w. 22-24. sage, vv. 22-24, is dispeUed by one or two slight
emendations of the text, leading to the omission
of " when " in v. 22 and of " also " in v. 24. Let
us make these, put out the brackets of v. 23,
and note that the "shipping" of v. 24 refers to the
" other boats " of v. 23, and aU is clear. At
tt 40. the beginning of v. 40 " for " should be intro
duced instead of " and," thus binding this verse
v. 47. to that immediately preceding. In v. 47 the
words " on me " have to be omitted, as also in
tt 51. v. 51 the words " which I wUl sive " comins
tt 58. after the word flesh. In v. 58 we ought to
read " the fathers " for " your fathers ;" and in
tt 65. v. 65 " the Father " instead of " my Father."
1 Comp. page 16. 2 Comp. pages 113, 146.

Text of the New Testament in its successive Books. 207
tt> 69. The confession of v. 69 should run, " and we
beheve and are sure that thou art the Holy
One of God."
Chap. vii. In the seventh chapter the word " very "
tt 26. before " Christ " in v. 26 has to be omitted, as
v. 53. weU as the whole of v. 53, which forms the
opening verse of the story of the woman taken
in adultery.
Chap. vm. In the eighth chapter by far the most inter
esting and important change to be made is the
exclusion from the text of St. John of the story
of the woman taken in adultery, extending from
vv. 1-11. the first to the eleventh verse of the chapter.
It would be foreign to the object now in hand
to argue the question, and it is enough to say
that this conclusion is at length adopted by all
textual critics. At the same time there is so
much reason to beheve that the narrative is
historical, and its beauty is so great, that it
might with all propriety be given in a note.
tt 14. In v. 14 the last words of the verse ought to
be read, " but ye know not whence I come, or
tt 46. whither I go." In v. 46 the " and " before the
last half of the verse is to be omitted ; and in
o. 59. v. 59 the same has to be said of the concluding
words, " going through the midst of them, and
so passed by."
Chap. ix. In the ninth chapter the emendation of the
v. 4. text by the best authorities gives us in v. 4
words beautifully pointing out the identifica-

208 Effect produced by Textual Criticism upon the
tion of the Eedeemer with His people, " We
must work" instead of " I must work the
tt 8. works of Him that sent me." In v. '8 we have
to substitute " a beggar" for " blind ; " and
tt 11. in v. 11 to read simply " Go to Siloam" for
" Go to the pool of Siloam." Lastly, the im-
tt 35. portant emendation has to be made in v. 35,
" Dost thou believe on the Son of Man ? " for
" Dost thou believe on the Son of God ? "
Chap. x. In the tenth chapter " when he putteth
?;. 4. forth all his own" has to be read in v. 4 for
" when he putteth forth his own sheep." In
tt 14. v. 14, " and know my sheep, and am known of
mine," must give way to "and know my sheep,
tt 26. and my sheep know me." In v. 26 " as I said
unto you" at the end of the verse has to be
». 38. omitted. In v. 38 "understand" is to be
substituted for " believe ; " and " I in the
Father " for " I in Him."
Chap. xi. In the eleventh chapter not much change
need be noted. " But T know that even now"
tt 22. in v. 22 ought to be changed into " and now
tt 31. I know." In v. 31 "saying, she goeth"
gives place to " supposing that she goeth ; "
tt 41. and in v. 41 the words " from the place where
the dead was laid " are to be omitted.
Chap. xii. In the twelfth chapter the words " which
tt 1. had been dead" in v. 1 ought to be left out.
r. 7. The language of our Lord in v. 7 is not " against
the day of my burying hath she kept this,"

Text of the New Testament in its successive Books. 209
but " that she may keep this against the day
of my burying." In the words of the Evange-
tt 41. Ust in v. 41 " because" is to be substituted for
tt 47. " when ; " and v. 47 ought to read " if any man
hear my sayings, and keep them not," instead of
" if any man hear my words, and believe not."
Chap. xiU. In the thirteenth chapter an important
tt 2. emendation occurs in v. 2, where we have to
read, not " and supper being ended," but
tt 24. " supper having begun." In v. 24 the state
ment of the Evangehst is more graphic than
in our EngUsh text. It is that Simon Peter
beckoned to John, " and saith unto him, Tell
us who it is of whom He speaketh."1 The
answer of Jesus to the beloved disciple in v. ,
tt 26. 26 gains also by the true reading in graphic
power, " He it is for whom I shaU dip the sop,
and shaU give it to him."
Chap. xiv. In the fourteenth chapter the word " for "
ought to be inserted before the last clause of
vv. 2, 4. v. 2 ; and v. 4 ought to read, " And whither I
tt 12. go, ye know the way." In v. 12, as in other
passages too numerous to mention, "the
Father " takes the place of " my Father ; " and
tt 16. in v. 16 the verb " be " is to be substituted for
tt 28. "abide." In v. 28 "because I go unto the
Father " ought to be read for " because I said,
v. 30. - I go unto the Father;" and in v. 30 we are
told of " the prince of the world " rather than
of " the prince of this world."
1 Comp. p. 145.

210 Effect produced by Textual Criticism upon the
Chap. xv. In the fifteenth chapter " be " is to be sub-
tt 11. stituted for " remain " in v. 11, and no other
change in this chapter need be noted.
Chap. xvi. In. the sixteenth chapter we ought to read
tt 16. in v. 16 "A Uttle whUe and ye see me no
more " for " a little whUe and ye shaU not see
me," and the last words of the verse, " because
v. 23. I go to the Father," are to be omitted. In v. 23
the change called for is important, for we
ought to read "And in that day ye shall
ask me nothing. . Verily, verUy, I say unto you,
Whatsoever ye shall ask the Father, He wiU
give it you in my name."
Chap. xvii. In the seventeenth chapter the last clause
tt 4. of v. 4 is to be read not with its verb in a
narrative tense, but in a participle, "having
finished the, work which Thou gavest me to
v. 11. do." In V. 11 an important change in the
connection of "name" has to be introduced,
'' Holy Father, keep them in Thy name which
Thou hast given me," "name " belonging' to the
words that foUow, not to those that precede ;
tt 12. and the same remark applies to v. 12, " WhUe
I was with them" (omitting "in the world"),
" I kept them in Thy name which Thou hast
tt 20. given me." In v. 20 the present tense "believe "
is to be substituted for the future "shah
tt 21. believe;" and in v. 21 how wonderfully is
the meaning of our Lord enhanced, and the
thought of the spiritual nature of His kingdom
deepened in us, when we find Him praying

Text of the New Testament in its successive Books. 211
for His disciples, as the condition of the
world's conviction, not " that they also may be
one in us," but " that they also may be in us,
that the world may beheve that Thou hast
sent me."'
Chap. xvhi. In the eighteenth chapter we mention
only two changes that are demanded by the
evidence, but how rryich the text is improved
by them wUl be at once manifest to every
tt 11. reader. In v. 11 we ought to find not " Put
up thy sword into the sheath," but " Put up
v. 20. the sword into the sheath ; " and in v. 20 we
ought to read, not " in the temple, whither the
Jews always resort," but "in the temple,
whither aU the Jews resort."
Chap. xix. In the nineteenth chapter the words " by
the law" are to be substituted for "by our
vv. 7, 17. law" in v. 7; and in v. 17 the true reading
gives us, " And He bearing His cross for Him-
v. 20. self, went forth," etc. In v. 20, instead of words
leading to the rendering of our Enghsh version,
the best authenticated text supplies words that
ought to be translated " for the place of the
city where Jesus was crucified was nigh."
Chap. xx. In the twentieth chapter there is little
tt 16. change calhng for notice to be made. In v. 16
"Eabboni" is said to be "in the Hebrew
tt 19. tongue;" and in v. 19 the word "assembled"
has to go out.
Chap. xxi. In the twenty-first chapter " immediately "

212 Effect produced by Textual Criticism upon the
tt 3. ought -to be omitted in v. 3; "John" to be
vv. 15,17. substituted for " Jonas " in vv. 15 and 17; and
v. 25. the word " Amen " in v. 25 has no claim to be
in the text.
The Acts of the Apostles.
Chap. i. In the first chapter of this book the word
tt 8. "my" ought to be substituted in v. 8 for " unto
tt 14. me," thus giving us "my witnesses." In v. 14 the
words " and suppUcation " are to be omitted ;
tt 15. and in v. 15 "brethren" is to be substituted
for " disciples."
Chap. ii. In the second chapter the words " one to
tt 7. another " are to be omitted in v. 7 ; the word
ot.22,23. " also " in v. 22 ; and in v. 23 "by the hand
of the wicked " is to be substituted for " by
tt 30. wicked hands." In v. 30 we are to read,
" Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that
God had sworn with an oath to him, that
of the fruit of his loins should sit on his
tt 40. throne." In v. 40 " them " ought to be added
tt 41. after "exhort;" and in v. 41 "gladly" is to be
omitted.
Chap. iii. In the third chapter the shorter reading
tt 11. " he" is to be adopted in v. 11 for " the lame
tt 18. man which was healed ; " and in v. 18 we are
to read " had showed by the mouth of aU the
prophets that His Christ should suffer." In
tt 20. v. 20 "appointed" is to be substituted for
tt 21. "preached." In v. 21 "ah" is to be omitted.

Text of the New Testament in its successive Books. 213
v. 22. In v. 22 the first clause ought to read simply
tt 26. " Moses truly said ; " and in v. 26 we are to
leave out the word " Jesus."
Chap. iv. In the fourth chapter we ought to read in
v. 8. v. 8 simply of " elders," not of " elders of
tt 17. Israel." In v. 17 " straitly " is to be omitted.
v. 24. In v. 24 the first words of the prayer there
given are " Lord, Thou which hast made ; " its
tt 25. words in v. 25 have to be changed into " who
by the mouth of our father thy servant David
tt 27. by the Holy Ghost hast said;" and in v. 27, " in
this city " is to be inserted after " of a truth."
tt 36. Lastly, " Joses " in v. 36 is to be changed into
" Joseph."
Chap. v. In the fifth chapter " these things " in v. 5 is
tt 5. to be omitted. The beginning of v. 16 ought
tt 16. to run, " There came also the multitude from
tt 23. the cities round about Jerusalem." In v. 23
the words " truly " and " without" have no good
claim to be in the text ; and the same remark
apphes to the mention of " the high priest " in
vv. 24, 34. v. 24. In v. 34 " men " is to be substituted
for " apostles ; " " overthrow them " for " over-
tt 39. throw it " in v. 39 ; and " the name " for " His
v. 41. name " in v. 41.
Chap, vi In the sixth chapter two changes only need
v. 8. be noted, that in v. 8 Stephen is said to have
been fuU of " grace and power " rather than of
tt 13. " faith and power ; " and that in v. 13 the word
" blasphemous " has no proper place.

214 Effect produced by Textual Criticism upon the.
Chap. vii. In the seventh chapter we ought to read
tt 16. in v. 16 "Emmor in Sychem" rather than
tt 18. "Emmor, the father of Sychem;" in v. 18 to
tt 22. add "over Egypt" after "arose;" in v. 22
to insert " his " before " words and deeds ; " in
tt 30. v. 30 to omit " of the Lord " after " angel ; " in
tt 37. v. 37 to omit the last words pf the verse, " him
tt 48. shall ye hear ; " and in v. 48 to read that the
Most High dweUeth not "in what is made
with hands " rather than " in temples made
with hands."
Chap, vui In the eighth chapter the words in v. 10 of
v. 10. those who gave heed to Simon are not, " This
man is the great power of God," but "This
manis what is caUedthe great power of God."
tt 12. In v. 12 " the things " after " preaching " ought
to be omitted. For "the Holy Ghost" in
tt 18. v. 18 we are to read "the Spirit;" for "pray
tt 22. God" in y. 22 "pray the Lord;" and the
tt 37. whole of v. 37 is to be omitted.1
Chap. ix. In the ninth chapter the last words of v. 5
vv. 5, 6. together with the first part of v. 6 are to be
left out, so that we shaU read "I am Jesus
whom thou persecutest; but arise," etc. In
tt 8. v. 8 " nothing " is to be substituted for " no
tt 20. man;" in v. 20 "Jesus" for "Christ;" and
tt 31. in v. 31 "the church" for "the churches,"
together with the corresponding change from
the plural to the singular in the verbs " edified "
and " multiplied." 1 Comp. pp. 16, 136.

Text of the New Testament in its successive Books. 215
Chap. x. In the tenth chapter the last clause of v. 6,
tt 6. " he shall teU thee what thou oughtest to do,"
tt 11. is to be left out. In v. 11 we ought to read
" and saw heaven opened, and a certain vessel
descending as a great sheet, by four corners let
v. 12. down upon the earth;" and in v. 12 the vessel
is described as containing " aU manner of four-
footed beasts, and creeping things of the earth,
v. 30. and fowls of heaven." In v. 30 we must read
" Four days ago until this hour I was at the
tt 33. ninth hour praying," etc. In v. 33 " of the
Lord" is to be substituted for " of God ; "
v. 48. and in v. 48 " of Jesus Christ" for " of the
Lord."
Chap. xi. In the eleventh chapter the changes to be
made are hardly of a kind demanding special
notice for our present purpose.
Chap. xii. In the twelfth chapter one change only need
be noted, that of "to Jerusalem" for "from
tt 25. Jerusalem" in v. 25.
Chap. xiU. In the thirteenth chapter an interesting
change, though the evidence is somewhat in-
tt 18. conclusive, should probably be made in v. 18
by the substitution of " he bore them about as
a nurse" for " suffered he their manners."
vv. 19, 20. In Vv. 19 and 20 the changes to be made lead
to a rendering considerably different from that
of the authorized text, " and when he had
destroyed seven nations in Canaan, he gave
them their land as an inheritance for about

216 Effect produced by Textual Criticism upon the
four hundred and fifty years ; and after these
things he gave them judges untU Samuel the
tt 26. prophet." In v. 26 " us" is to be substituted
tt 42. for " you" in the last clause. In v. 42 we
ought to read " And when they were going
tt 45. out they besought," etc.; and in v. 45 "con
tradicting and" has to be omitted.
Chap. xiv. In the fourteenth chapter " you" is to be
substituted for "us" and "your" for "our"
tt 17. in v. 17. Any other changes requiring to be
made in this chapter are unimportant.
Chap. xv. In the fifteenth chapter "you" is to be
tt 7. substituted for "us" in v. 7; and "them" in
vv. 8, 11. v. 8 is to be omitted. In v. 11 we ought to
read simply " the Lord Jesus" without the
ml7,18. addition of " Christ." In v. 17 and 18 we are
to read from the close of the former verse,
"saith the Lord, Who made these things
tt 23. known from the beginning." In v. 23 the
letter of the CouucU begins " the apostles and
the elders, (who are) brethren, send greeting."
v. 24. In v. 24 we have first to omit " which went
out" after "certain," and then to read the
latter part, " subverting your souls, to whom
v. 33. we gave no commission." In v. 33 we ought
to read "those who had sent them" instead of
tt 34. " the apostles ; " and v. 34 is to be omitted. In
tt 37. v. 37 we are told that " Barnabas wished," not
that he " determined to take with thein John;"
tt 40. and in v. 40 it is "the grace of the Lord"

Text of the New Testament in its successive Books. 217
rather than "the grace of God" to which
Paul is recommended.
Chap. xvi. In the sixteenth chapter an interesting
tt 7. change has to be made in v. 7, where we are
to read in the last clause, " but the spirit of"
tt 13. Jesus suffered them not." In v. 13 the writer
of the narrative tells us of the place by the
river side to which they went out, that it was
one "where we supposed that there was a
place of prayer." The damsel possessed with
tt 17. the spirit of divination cries in v. 17 that
Paul and his companions show unto "you,"
not unto "us," the way of salvation; and in
tt 31. v. 31 the language of Paul and Silas to the
jaUer is "believe on the Lord Jesus," rather
than " beheve on the Lord Jesus Christ."
Chap. xvU. In the seventeenth chapter we are to omit
tt 5. in v. 5 the words " which beUeved not " after
tt 26. " Jews." In v. 26 two important changes have
to be made, by the omission first of the word
"blood" after "one," and then of "before" after
tt 27. "times." In v. 27 "God" is to be substituted
for "the Lord."
Chap. xvhi. In the eighteenth chapter an important
emendation of the text has to be introduced in
tt 5. v. 5, where we are told, not that Paul was
"pressed in the spirit," but that he was
tt 21. " earnestly occupied with the word." In v. 21
the words " must by all means keep this feast
that cometh at Jerusalem, but" are to be left out.

218 Effect produced by Textual Criticism upon the
Chap. xix. In the nineteenth chapter, in v. 4, we are to
tt 4. read, " on Jesus " rather than " on Christ
tt 33. Jesus;" in v. 33 "they thrust," not "they drew,
tt 37. Alexander out of the multitude ;" and in v. 37
the town-clerk speaks of Diana not as " your "
but as "our" goddess.
Chap. xx. In the twentieth chapter the words " into
tt 4. Asia " are to be omitted in v. 4. In v. 7 the
word " we " is to be substituted for " the dis-
v. 8. ciples ;" and again for " they " in v. 8. In v.
15 the evidence seems to require the omission
of a clause, for whose introduction into the
text it is extremely difficult to account,
"and tarried at TrogyUium."
Chap. xxi. In the twenty -first chapter we are to omit
tt 8. " that were of Paul's company" in v. 8 ; in
tt 20. v. 20 to read, "they glorified God" for "they
v. 25. glorified the Lord;" and in v. 25 to omit
"that, they observe no such thing, save only."
Chap. xxii. In the twenty-second chapter we ought to
0. 9. omit "and were afraid" in v. 9; as also "unto
ot.20,30. his death" in v. 20. In v. 30 we ought to read,
"all the councU" for "all their council."
Chap, xxiii. In the twenty-third chapter an interesting
tt 6. change has to be made in v. 6, " the son of
Pharisees" for "the son of a Pharisee." At the
tt 9. end of v. 9 we miss, in the received text, the
graphic and abrupt termination belonging to
the best authenticated text, in which the
words " let us not fight against God" do not

Text of the New Testament in its successive Books. 219
occur, the cry of the scribes being only " We
find no evU in this man : but if a spirit or an
tt 12. angel hath spoken by him — ." In v. 12 we are
told that "the Jews," not "certain of the
Jews," banded together.
Chap. xxiv. In the twenty-fourth chapter the latter
vv. 6, 7. part of v. 6, the whole of v. 7, and the first part
tt 8. of v. 8, ought to be left out, so that we pass at
once from "whom we took" in v. 6 to "by
tt 10. examining of whom " in v. 8. In v. 10 "the
more" before "cheerfully" is also to be left out;
tt 24. and in v. 24, the word " Jesus " is to be added
to "Christ."
Chap. xxv. In the twenty-fifth chapter we are told not
of "the high priest," but of "the high priests"
vv. 2, 6. in v. 2 ; and in v. 6, not of "ten," but of "eight
or ten days."
Chap. xxvi. In the twenty-sixth chapter we ought to
tt 7. read in v. 7, "accused of Jews" rather than
tt 17. "accused of the Jews ;" in v. 17 to omit "now;"
v. 21. and in v. 21 to omit, as was done in v. 7, the
definite article before "Jews."
-Chap, xxvii In the twenty-seventh chapter the words
tt 2. of v. 2 have to undergo some change, " and
entering into a ship of Adramyttium, which
was about to saU to the coasts of Asia, we
tt 19. launched." In v. 19 "they" has to be substi-
tt 34 tuted for "we;" and in v. 34 "perish" for
"fall."
Chap, xxviii. In the twenty-eighth chapter " we " has

220 Effect produced by Textual Criticism upon the
tt 1. to take the place of " they " in v. 1 ; and the
tt 29. whole of v. 29 has to be left out.
The Epistle to the Eomans.
Chap, i The only changes worth noticing in this
tt 16. chapter are that in v. 16 we should read "For
I am not ashamed of the gospel" instead of "For
I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ;" and
tt 31. that in v. 31, "implacable" should be omitted.
Chap. ii. Instead of the words "Behold, thou art
caUed a Jew," in v. 17, we should read " But
if thou art caUed a Jew." No other change of
importance is required.
Chap. hi. We should read " But if the truth" instead
v. 7. of "For if the truth" in v. 7; and the words "and
«. 22. upon all" in v. 22 should probably be omitted.
Chap. iv. A remarkable various reading occurs in this
chapter. A, B, C, N, with some other ancient
authorities, omit "not" in v. 19, so that we
should probably read " he considered his own
body, now become dead," instead of " he con
sidered not," etc.
Chap. v. Except the important change already noticed
tt 1. as required in v. 1, no alteration of consequence
is caUed for in this chapter.1
Chap. vi. In this chapter we have simply to notice
v. 11. that " our Lord" should be omitted in v. 11 ;
and that instead of "obey it in the lusts
tt 12. thereof" in v. 12, we should read "obey the
lusts thereof." 1 Comp. p. 167.

Text of the New Testament in its successive Boohs. 221
Chap. vii. A somewhat interesting change is required
tt 6. at v. 6. Instead of " that being dead wherein
we were held" the words should run "we
having died to that wherein we were held."
tt 18. V. 18 should read thus, "For I know that
there dwelleth not in me, that is, in my flesh,
any good ; for to wiU is present -with me, but
to perform that which is good is not."
Chap. viii. The correct reading of v. 1 has been already
spoken of.1 We should read "helpeth our
tt 26. infirmity" instead of "infirmities" in v. 26,
and, as formerly noticed " for us" in the same
verse should be omitted." 2
Chap. ix. No change calUng for notice is required in
this chapter.
Chap. x. We should read " for them " instead of " for '
tt 1. Israel " in v. 1 ; and instead of the common
tt 15. text in v. 15 there should be read, " How
beautiful are the feet of them that bring glad
tidings of peace, that bring glad tidings of
good things ! " It is somewhat doubtful whether
we should substitute "word of Christ" for
v. 17. "word of God" in v. 17.
Chap. xi. So, again, it is doubtful whether these words
tt 6. in v. 6, " but if it is of works, it is no more
grace: otherwise work is no more work"
tt 22. should not be omitted. At v. 22, for
" toward thee, goodness" read "toward thee,
God's goodness."
1 Comp. p. 168. 2 Comp. p. 6.

222 Effect produced by Textual Criticism upon the
Chap. xii. The only thing caning for notice in this
chapter is that we should probably read "But"
tt 20. or "Nay rather," for "therefore" in v. 20,—
" Nay rather, if thine enemy hunger, feed him."
Chap. xiii. Instead of " the powers that be " read
tt 1. " those that be " in v. 1, and omit the clause
v. 9. " thou shalt not bear false witness " in v. 9.
Chap. xiv. Instead of the words " For to this end Christ
both died, and rose, and revived, that He might
v. 9. be Lord both of the dead and living " in v. 9,
read simply " For to this end Christ died and
lived, that He might be Lord both of the dead
tt 10. and of the hving." In v. 10, for "judgment-
seat of Christ" read "judgment-seat of God."
Chap. xv. For " as Christ also received us " read " as
tt 7. Christ also received you " in v. 7. In'stead of
tt 8. " Now " read " For " at the beginning of v. 8 :
vv. 23,24 and read as foUows in vv. 23, 24, "But now
having no longer place in these parts, and
having had these many years a longing to
come to you, whenever I take my journey into
tt 29. Spain ; for I hope to see you," etc. In v. 29, for
" fulness of the blessing of the gospel of Christ"
read simply "fulness of the blessing of Christ."
Chap. xvi. Instead of " first-fruits of Achaia " read
tt 5. " first-fruits of Asia " in v. 5. For " the churches
of Christ " read " aU the churches of Christ "
». 16. inv. 16. Instead of the words "our Lord Jesus
tt 18. Christ read "our Lord Christ" inv. 18: and
v. 24. probably omit v. 24 altogether.

Text of the New Testament in its successive Books. 223
The First Epistle to the Corinthians.
Chap. i. In this chapter, for " that I had baptized in
tt 15. my own name " in v. 15 read " that ye were
tt 20. baptized in my name;" in v.- 20, for "the wis
dom of this world " read " the wisdom of the
world;" for "require a sign" read "require
tt 22. signs " in v. 22 ; for " unto the Greeks " read
tt 23. " unto the Gentiles " in v. 23 ; for " in His
tt 29. presence" read "before God " in v. 29.
Chap. U. Instead of "by His Spirit" read'" by the
tt 10. Spirit" in v. 10; for "the Holy Ghost" read
v. 13. " the Spirit " in v. 13.
Chap. hi. For " who then is Paid, and who is ApoUos ?"
tt 5. in v. 5, read " what then is Paul ? and what
is Apollos ?"
Chap. iv. In v. 2 insert " here " so as to read " More-
tt 2. over, it is required in stewards here (i.e.~ on
tt 6. earth) that a man be found faithful;" in v. 6,
instead of " that ye might learn in us not to
think of men above that which is written,"
read " that in us ye may learn this, not to go
beyond what is written."
Chap. v. In v. 1, for "as not so much as named among
tt 1. the GentUes " read " as is not even among the
tt 7. GentUes;" in v. 7 omit "therefore;" and in
stead of the words " For even Christ our pass-
over is sacrificed for us " read " For our pass-
over, even Christ, was sacrificed for us;" omit
tt 12. " also" in v. 12 ; and likewise omit " therefore"
v. 13. in v. 13.

224 Effect produced by Textual Criticism upon the
Chap. vi. Insert " Or" at the beginning of v. 2, and
tt 2. read, " Or do ye not know ;" and omit entirely
v. 20. in v. 20 the words " and in your spirit, which
are God's," reading the verse thus — " For ye
were bought with a price ; therefore glorify God
in your body." x
Chap. vii. Instead of the words "due benevolence" in
tt 3. v. 3 read "her due;" for "that ye may give
yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come
v. 5. together again" in v. 5 read, " that ye may be
free for prayer, and may be together again ;"
instead of "for" read "but" at the beginning
tt 7. of v. 7; for the words " the unbelieving wife is
tt 14. sanctified by the husband" read in v. 14
"the unbeheving wife is sanctified in the
(beheving) brother ;" for " the wife is bound by
tt 39. the law" in v. 39 read simply " a wife is bound."
Chap. viii. In v. 2, for "think that he knoweth anything,
tt 2. he knoweth nothing yet" read " think that he
knoweth anything, he knoweth it not yet ;" in
tt 4. v. 4, for " none other God but one," read " no
v. 7. God but one," in v. 7, for "some with con
science of the idol," read, " some through cus
tom with the idol," as the text supported by
the oldest authorities.
Chap. ix. In v. 1 read, " Am I not free ? am I not an
vv. 1, 20. apostle ?" in v. 20, insert " not being myself
under the law," and read " to them that are
under the law, as under the law, not being
1 Comp. p. 113.

Text of the New Testament in its successive BooJcs. 225
tt 23. myself under the law;" in v. 23, for "And
this " read " And all things."
Chap. x. In v. 10 omit " also " and read, " as some
to. 10,11. of them murmured ;" in v. 11, instead of "for
ensamples," read "by way of figure:" in v.
tt 23. 23 omit " for me," and read " aU things are
tt 24. lawful ;" in v. 24 .omit " every man," and read
the verse thus: "Let no man seek his own,
tt 28. but his neighbour's good ;" in v. 28, omit the
words repeated from v. 26, " for the earth is
the Lord's, and the fulness thereof."
Chap. xi. We give at length the solemn account of the
Lord's Supper contained in this chapter, as it
should stand in the corrected text. The pas-
w. 23-29. sage w. 23-29 wiU run as foUows: "For I
received from the Lord that which I also deli
vered unto you, that the Lord Jesus, in the
night in which He was betrayed, took bread ;
and when He had given thanks, He brake it,
and said, This is my body which is for you: this
do in remembrance of me. After the same man
ner the cup also, after they had supped, saying,
This cup is the new covenant in my blood: this
do, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.
For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink
the cup, ye shew forth the Lord's death tiU He
come. Wherefore, whosoever eateth the bread,
or drinketh the cup of the Lord, unworthUy,
shaU be guilty of the body and the blood of
the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and
p

226 Effect produced by Textual Criticism upon the
sp let him eat of the bread, and drink of the
cup. For he that eateth and drinketh, eateth
and drinketh judgment to himself, should he
discern not the body."
Chap. xU. In v. 2 insert " when," and read " Ye know
vv.2, 12. that when ye were GentUes;" in v. 12 omit
"one," and read "aU the members of the
body."
Chap, xni In v. 3, instead of the words " though I give
tt 3. my body to be burned," the oldest manuscripts
read "though I give my body that . I may
boast," which some prefer. There is just a
difference of one letter in the Greek.
Chap. xiv. In v. 18 omit "my," and read simply "I
vv. 18, 25. thank God ;" in v. 25 omit " and thus " at
v. 35. the beginning ; in v. 35 instead of " for
women " read " for a woman."
Chap. xv. In v. 20, omit "and become," and read
tt 20. " risen from the dead, the first-fruits ;" in v.
tt 44. 44, instead of the words "There is a natu
ral body, and there is a spiritual body" read
" If there is a natural body, there is also a
v. 47. spiritual ;" in v. 47 omit the words " the Lord,"
and read " the second man is from heaven ;"
tt 55. in v. 55 substitute "0 death" for " 0 grave,"
and read the verse thus — " 0 death, where is
thy sting ? 0 death, where is thy victory ?"
Chap. xvi. In v. 7, instead of " but I trust," read " for
vv. 7, 22. I trust;" inv. 22 omit the words "Jesus
Christ," and read " If any man love not the
Lord, let him be," etc.

Text of the New Testament in its successive Books. 227
The Second Epistle to the Corinthians.
Chap. i. In v. 12 for " simplicity and godly sincerity"
vv. 12,18. read "holiness and godly sincerity;" v. 18
should be read as foUows — " But God is faith
ful, that our word to you is not yea and nay;''
tt 20. v. 20 is to be read thus — "For how many
soever be the promises of God, in Him is the
Yea : wherefore also by him is the Amen, for
glory unto God by us."
Chap. U. In v. 10 read as foUows — "to whom ye
tt 10. forgive anything, I forgive also; for indeed
what I have forgiven, if I have forgiven any
thing, for your sakes did I forgive it in the
person of Christ."
Chap. hi. Instead of the words " not in tables of stone,
but in fleshly tables of the heart," read " not
on tables of stone, but on fleshy tables, on
hearts."
Chap. iv. Omit the words "unto them" in v. 4, and
tt 4. read, "that the Ught should not shine forth;"
w. 6. instead of the words in v. 6, " For God, who
commanded the light to shine out of darkness,
hath shined in our hearts," read " For it is God
who said, The Ught shaU shine out of darkness,
that shined in our hearts."
Chap. v. In v. 5 omit "also," and read "who gave
vv. 5, 12. unto us the earnest of the Spirit;" in v. 12
omit " For," and read " we are not recommend-
v. 17. ing;" in v. 17 omit "aU," and read "behold

228 Effect produced by Textual Criticism upon the
v. 21. they are become new:" in v. 21 omit "For,"
and read " Him who knew not sin He made,"
etc.
Chap. vi. Instead of "and" read "or" in v. 14, "or
tt 14. what communion." No further change worthy
of notice is required in this chapter.
Chap. vii. Instead of the words " but that our care for
you in the sight of God might appear unto
v. 12. you" in v. 12, read " but that your zeal for us
might be made manifest unto you in the sight
of God;" for the words "Therefore we are
comforted in your comfort : yea, and exceed
ingly the more joyed we for the joy of Titus,"
v. 13. in y. 13, read " For this cause we are comforted,
but in our comfort we joyed the more exceed
ingly for the joy of Titus."
Chap. viu. Instead of the words " praying us with much
tt 4. entreaty that we would receive the gift, and
take upon us the feUowship of the ministering
to the saints" in v. 4, read " Praying of us
with much entreaty the grace and the partici
pation in the ministering to the saints ; " in v.
tt 12. 12 omit the words " a man," and read " that
». 19. which it hath ;" in v. 19, instead of, the words
" which is administered by us to the glory of
the same Lord, and declaration of your ready
mind," read "which is administered by us to
the glory of the Lord, and to further our zeal."
Chap. ix. Omit the words " confident boasting" in v. 4,
v. 4. and read " in this confidence ;" instead of " both

Text of the New Testament in its successive Books. 229
f. 10. minister and multiply" in v. 10, read " shaU
minister and multiply."
Chap. x. Omit the word " Christ's" at the end of v. 7,
tt 7. and read " even so are we." No further change
is required in this chapter.
Chap. xi. Insert " the holiness" in v. 3, and read " from
tt 3. the simphcity and the holiness that are towards
Christ ; " for the words " no man shall stop me
of this boasting in the regions of Achaia," in
tt 10. v. 10, read " this boasting shall not be shut
against me in the regions of Achaia."
Chap. xn. Omit " my" in v. 9, and read " My grace is
tt 9. sufficient for thee, for strength is made perfect
tt 11. in weakness;" omit "in glorying" in v. 11,
and read " I am become a fool ; " for the words
"Again, think ye that we excuse ourselves
tt 19. unto you?" in v. 19, read "Of a long time
have ye been thinking that we excuse ourselves
unto you."
Cliap. xUi Instead of the words "though He was
tt 4. crucified through weakness" in v. 4, read "for
indeed He was crucified through weakness ; "
tt 7. in v. 7, for the words " Now I pray to God,"
read " Now we pray to God."
The Epistle to the Galatians.
Chap. i. Omit "for" in v. 10, and read "if I yet
v. 10. pleased men ; " instead of the words " to see
tt 18. Peter "inv. 18, read "to become acquainted
with Cephas."

230 Effect produced by Textual Criticism upon the
Chap. ii. Instead of " But when Peter was come in,"
tt 11. v. 11, read " But when Cephas was come; " for
the words " I said unto Peter before them aU,
If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner
of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why com-
peUest thou the GentUes to Uve as do the
v. 14. Jews ? " in v. 14, read " I said unto Cephas
before them all, If thou being a Jew, Uvest
after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the
Jews, how is it that thou compeUest the
GentUes to Uve as do the Jews ? "
Chap, hi Omit the words " that you should not obey
v. 1. the truth," and " among you " in v. 1, and read
the verse as foUows — " 0 foolish Galatians,
who hath bewitched you, before whose eyes
Jesus Christ was evidently set forth crucified?"
instead of the words "the man that doeth
tt 12. them " in v. 12, read " he that hath done
tt 17. them;" omit the words "in Christ" in v. 17,
and read " the covenant already confirmed by
tt 29. God : " omit " and " in v. 29, and read " And if
ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed,
heirs according to the promise."
Chap. iv. Instead of "your hearts" read " our hearts "
tt 6. in v. 6 ; omit the words " through Christ " in
tt 7, v. 7, and read " and if a son, also an heir
through God;" instead of the words, "And
my temptation which was in my flesh ye
tt 14. despised not" in v. 14, read "And your
temptation which was in my flesh ye despised

Text of the New Testament in its successive Books. 231
tt 24. not ; " omit " the '' in v. 24, and read " these
women are two covenants : " omit the words
tt 26. "of us all" in v. 26, and read "But Jerusalem
which is above is free, which is our mother."
Chap. v. In v. 1 read " For liberty Christ hath made
tt 1. us free : stand fast therefore, and be not en
tangled again in the yoke of bondage ; " for
tt 16. " Walk in the Spirit " in v. 16, read " Walk
by the Spirit ; " omit the word " adultery" in
tt 19. v. 19.
' Chap, vi Instead of the words " neither circumcision
tt 15. availeth anything" in v. 15, read "neither
circumcision is anything."
The Epistle to the Ephesians.
Qhap. i The reading in v. 1 was formerly noticed : 1
instead of the words " wherein He hath made
tt 6. us accepted in the Beloved" in v. 6, read
"which He freely bestowed upon us in the
Beloved;" for "the eyes of your understand-
tt 18. ing" in v. 18, read "the eyes of your heart,"
and omit " and " before " what " in the same
verse.
Chap. n. Instead of " Himself " read " Him" in v. 15 :
tt 15. insert " ye are " before " fellow-citizens " in
tt 19. v. 19.
Chap. Ui. Instead of the words " How that by revela
tion He made known unto me the mystery" in
v. 3. v. 3, read " that by revelation the mystery was
1 Comp. page 168.

232 Effect produced by Textual Criticism upon the
made known to me ; " for " preach among the
tt 8. Gentiles " in v. 8, read " preach unto the
Gentiles;" instead of " feUowship of the mys-
tt 9. tery" in v. 9, read " dispensation of the
mystery," and omit the words "by Jesus
Christ" in the end of the verse ; omit"" of our
tt 14. Lord Jesus Christ" in v. 14, and read simply
"For this cause I bow my knees unto the
Father ; " instead of " Unto Him" be glory in
v. 21. the church by Christ Jesus " in v. 21, read
" Unto Him be the glory in the church and in
Ghrist Jesus."
Chap. iv. Instead of "in you all" in v. 6, read sim-
tt 6. ply "in all;" omit "first" inv. 9, and read
simply "descended into;" omit "other" in
v. 17,- and read " as the Gentiles walk."
Instead of " hath loved us" in v. 2, read
"hath loved you;" insert "being aware" in
v. 5, and read " For this know, being aware ;"
for "Spirit" substitute "light" in v. 9, and
read "For the fruit of the light is;" for
"understanding" in v. 17, read "understand;"
for "fear of God" in v. 21, read "fear of
Christ;" omit the word "submitting" in v.
v. 22. 22, and read " wives to their own husbands,
as unto the Lord ;" instead of the words " and
tt 23. he is the Saviour of the body" in v. 23, read
"Himself the Saviour of the body;" instead
of "that He might present it to Himself a
tt 27. glorious church," in v. 27, read " that He might

V.

9.

tt

17.

Chap. v.

tt

2.

tt

5.

V.

9.

V.

17.

V.

21.

Text of the New Testament in its successive Books. 233
Himself present to Himself the church glori-
v. 29. ous ;" for " the Lord" in v. 29, read " Christ ;"
omit the words " of His flesh and of His bones"
v. 30. in v. 30, and read simply, "because we are
members of His body."
Chap. vi. Instead of the words " knowing that your
tt 9. Master also is in heaven," in v. 9, read " know
ing that both their Master and yours is in
heaven;" for the words "against the rulers
tt 12. of the darkness of this world" in v. 12, read
" against the rulers of this darkness."
The Epistle to the Philippians.'
Chap. i. Instead of "with the fruits" in v. 11, read
tt 11. " with the fruit ;" insert " of God" in v. 14,
tt 14. and read " to speak the word of God ;" trans-
to.16, 17. pose w. 16, 17, and read "the one from love,
knowing that' I am set for the defence of the
Gospel; the other preach Christ, from con
tentiousness, not sincerely, thinking to raise
up affliction to my bonds ;" instead of " but
tt 28. to you of salvation" in v. 28, read " but of
your salvation."
Chap. U. Insert " also" in v. 4, and read " on the
tt 4. things of others also;" for "let this mind be
v. 5. in you" in v. 5, read " all of you have this
mind in you."
Chap. hi. Instead of the words " which worship God
v. 3. in the spirit" in v. 3, read " which worship
in (or "by") the Spirit of God;" instead of

234 Effect produced by Textual Criticism upon the
tt 11. the words "of the dead" in v. 11, read " from
the dead;" instead of the words, "neverthe
less, whereto we have already attained, let us
walk by the same rule, let us mind the same
tt 16. thing " in v. 16, read " nevertheless, whereto
we have attained, let us walk by the same
[course]."
Chap. iv. Instead of the words " through Christ which
tt 13. strengtheneth me" in v. 13, read "through
Him which strengtheneth me ; " for " be with
tt 23. you aU" in v. 23, read " be with your spirit."
The Epistle to the Colossians.
Chap, i Omit " and," and read as follows in v. 6,
v. 6. "which is present with you, as in all the world;
it is bringing forth fruit and increasing even
tt 7. as in you since," etc. ; omit " also" in v. 7,
and read "as ye learned;" and in the same
verse, instead of " who is for you," read " who
is for us ; " omit " through His blood " in v.
v. 14. 14, and read " In whom we have the redemp
tion, the remission of sins ; " for " in. my
v. 24. sufferings " in v. 24, read " in sufferings ; " for
-tt 28. " perfect in Christ Jesus " in v. 28, read
" perfect in Christ."
Chap. ii. Omit "of the sins" in v. 11, and read "in
tt 11. the putting off of the body of the flesh;" in
stead of "having forgiven you all trespasses"
tt 13. in v. 13, read "having forgiven us all our tres
passes;" instead of the words " intruding into

. Text of the New Testament in its successive Books. 235
v. 18. those things which he hath not seen" inv. 18,
read "dweUing on (insisting on) the things
which he hath seen."
Chap. Ui. Instead of " let the peace of God rule in
tt 12. your hearts" in v. 12, read "let the peace of
Christ rule in your hearts ; " omit " and " in
v. 17, and read " giving thanks to God the
Father by him ; " omit "own" in v. 18, and
read " submit yourselves to your husbands ; "
instead of " this is weU pleasing to the Lord"
in v. 20, read "this is weU pleasing, in the
Lord ; " instead of " fearing God" in v. 22,
read "fearing the Lord;" omit "and" in v.
23, and read "whatsoever ye do;" omit "for"
in v. 24, and read "ye serve (or " serve ye")
the Lord Christ;" instead of "But he that
doeth" in v. 25, read " For he that doeth."
Instead of the words " that ye may stand
perfect and complete in aU the wUl of God" in
tt 12. v. 12, read ".that ye may stand perfect and
fuUy assured in all the will of God;" for "that
v. 13. he hath a great zeal for you " in v. 13, " that
he hath much labour for you."
The First Epistle to the Thessalonians.
Chap. i. Omit the words " of you" in v. 2, and read
v. 2. simply "making mention in our prayers."
No other change caUs for notice in this
chapter.
Chap. ii. Insert "And" in v. 13, so as to read "And

V.

17.

tt

18.

tt

20.

tt

22.

tt

23.

tt

24.

tt

25.

Chap. iv.

236 Effect produced by Textual Criticism upon the
tt 13. for this cause;" omit "Christ" in' v. 19, and
v. 19. read "our Lord Jesus."
Chap. iii. Omit again "Christ" in v. 11, and read
v. 11. simply "our Lord Jesus ;" inhke manneT, omit
tt 13. "Christ" in v. 13, and read simply "the coming
of our Lord Jesus."
Chap. iv. Insert "as ye also are walking" in v. 1, and
tt 1. read "to please God, as ye also are walking, ye
would abound yet more ;" for " But I wouH'
v. 13. not" in v. 13, read "But we would not\"
Chap. v. Insert " For" in v. 5, and read " For ye are
tt 5. all." Nothing else requires notice in this
chapter.
The Second Epistle to the Thessalonians.
Chap. i. Instead of the words " in all them that be-
tt 1 0. Ueve " in v. 1 0, read " in all them that beheved ; "
tt 12. omit " Christ" in v. 12, and read simply "that
the name of our Lord Jesus may be."
Chap. ii. For " the day of Christ " in v. 2, read " the
tt 2. day of the Lord ;" omit the words "as God" in
v. 4. v. 4, and read, "so that he sitteth;" instead of
tt 8. "the Lord" in v. 8, read "the Lord Jesus;"
tt 11, for "God shall send them" in v. 11, read "God
sendeth them."
Chap. iU. For " by our Lord Jesus Christ " in v. 12,
tt 12. read "in the Lord Jesus Christ ;" omit "and"
v. 14. in v. 14, and read " note that man, have no
company with him."

Text of the New Testament in its successive Books. 237
The First Epistle to Timothy.
Chap, i For "God our Father" in v. 2, read " God
v. 2. the Father;" no other change caUs for remark
except those formerly mentioned.
Chap. U. Nothing requires to be noticed in this
chapter.
Chap. Ui. Omit the words, "not greedy of filthy lucre"
tt 3. in v. 3, and read "no striker, but patient;" no
other change requires notice except the very
important one in v. 16, formerly considered.1
Chap. iv. Instead of "Jesus Christ" in v. 6, read
tt 6. "Christ Jesus ; " omit the words "in spirit" in
v. 12. v. 12, and read "in charity, in faith," etc.
Chap. v. Omit the words " good and " in v. 5, and
tt 5. read simply " this is acceptable before God ; "
tt 16. probably omit " man or " in v. 16, and read
" If any woman that believeth have widows ; "
tt 21. instead of "Jesus Christ" in v. 21, read
" Christ Jesus."
Chap. vi. Omit the words " from such withdraw thy-
tt 5. self " in v. 5, and end the verse with "gain,"
("supposing that godliness is a means of gain;")
tt 12. omit "also" in y. 12, and read simply "where-
unto thou wast caUed ;" omit the words " the
v. 17. Uving" in v. 17, and read simply "but in God;"
tt 19. instead of " lay hold of eternal hfe" in v. 19,
read "lay hold of the true life."
1 Comp. p. 141.

238 Effect produced by Textual Criticism upon the
The Second Epistle to Timothy.
Chap, i Instead of "Jesus Christ" in v. 1, read
tt 1. " Christ Jesus," and make the same change in
v. 10. v. 10.
Chap. n. Instead of the words " Thou therefore en
dure hardness, as a good soldier of Jesus
tt 3. Christ " in v. 3, read " Endure afflictions with
me as a good soldier of Christ Jesus ;" for "the
v. 7. Lord give thee understanding" in v. 7, read
"the Lord shall give thee understanding;" for
tt 11. "if we deny him " in v. 11, read " if we shaU
tt 13. deny him ; " insert " for " in v. 13, and read
"for he cannot deny himseU0;" instead of
tt 19. "the name of Christ" in v. 19, read "the
tt 21. name of the Lord;" omit "and" in v. 21, and
read " sanctified, meet for the master's use."
Chap. iii. No change requires to be noted in this
chapter.
Chap. iv. Omit " therefore " in v. 1, and read as fol-
v. 1. lows, " I charge thee before God and Christ
Jesus (instead of ' the Lord Jesus Christ '),
who shall judge the quick and the dead, and
by His appearing and His kingdom " (instead
of " at His appearing "). For " the Lord re-
v. 14. ward him," in v. 14, read " the Lord shall
reward him." Omit " and " at the beginning
v. 18. of v. 18, and read " the Lord."

Text of the New Testament in its successive Books. 239
The Epistle to Titus.
Chap. i. . Instead of " the Lord Jesus Christ," in v. 4,
v. 4. read " Christ Jesus." Nothing more requires
to be noted in this chapter.
Chap. U. Omit " sincerity " in v. 7, and end the verse
vv. 7, 8. with " gravity;" for "to say of you," in v. 8,
read " to say of us ;" instead of " our Saviour
tt 13. Jesus Christ," in v. 1 3, read " our Saviour
Christ Jesus."
Chap. hi. No change required in this chapter.
The Epistle to Philemon.
Instead of the words " and to our beloved
tt 2. Apphia," in v. 2, read " and to Apphia our sis-
tt 7. ter." For the words " For we have " in v. 7,
read " For I had." Instead of the second " in
v. 20. the Lord," in v. 20, read " in Christ."
The Epistle to the Hebrews.
Chap. i. ¦ Instead of the words " a sceptre of right
eousness is the sceptre of Thy kingdom," in v.
to. 8, 3. 8, read " the sceptre," etc. V. 3 of this chapter
was formerly noticed, and nothing else demands
our attention.1
Chap. U. Omit (probably) the words " and didst set
tt 7. Him over the works of Thy hands," in v. 7.
tt 9. The remarkable various reading in v. 9 was
formerly considered.2 For the words "par-
1 Comp. p. 14. 2 Comp. p. 169.

240 Effect produced by Textual Criticism upon the
v. 15. takers of flesh and blood," in v. 15, read " par
takers of blood and flesh."
Chap. Ui. Omit the word " Christ " in v. 1, and read
tt 1. simply " the Apostle and High Priest of our
profession, Jesus." Omit (perhaps) " firm unto
tt 6. the end," in v. 6, and close the verse with
" hope." Instead of the words, " your fathers
v. 9. tempted me, proved me," in v. 9, read " your
fathers tempted by proving (me)."
Chap. iv. In this chapter a very remarkable various
reading occurs. Instead of the common text,
v. 2. " but the word preached did not profit them,
not being mixed with faith in them that heard
it," in v. 2, we are compelled by greatly pre
ponderating evidence to read, " but the word
of hearing did not profit them, since they were
not mingled by faith with those that heard it."
Chap. v. Instead of the words " but he that is caUed
v. 4. of God," in v. 4, read "but being called of
God." Nothing more caUs for notice in this
chapter.
Chap. vi. Omit the words " and labour of," in v. 10,
v. 10. and read " your work, and the love." No other
change is required.
Chap. vii. Instead of the words "concerning priest-
tt 14. hood," in v. 14, read " concerning priests."
v. 21. Omit (probably) the words " after the order of
Melchizedek," in v. 21, and end the verse with
v. 26. " for ever." Insert " also " in v. 26, and read
" For such an high priest also became us."

Text of the New Testament in its successive Books. 241
Chap. vui. Omit " and " in v. 2, and read " the Lord
v. 2. pitched, not man." Instead of the words " For
tt 4. if he were on earth," in v. 4, read, " If, there
fore, he were on earth ;" in the same verse omit
the word " priests," and read " there are those
that offer." Instead of the words " teach
tt 11. every man his neighbour," in v. 11, read "teach
every man his feUow-citizen." Omit the words
tt 12. " and their iniquities," in v. 12, and read sim
ply " their sins wiU I remember no more."
Chap. ix. Insert " also " in v. 28, and read " so also
v. 28. the Christ." Nothing else caUs for notice.
Chap. x. Instead of " sacrifice and offering " in v. 8,
v. 8. .read "sacrifices and offerings." Omit the words
tt 9. " 0 God," in v. 9, and read simply "to do Thy
tt 15. will." Omit " before " in v. 15, and read sim
ply " after he had said." For the words, " and
tt 16. in their minds," in v. 16, read- "and in their
mind." Instead of " ye had compassion of me
tt 34. in my bonds," in v. 34, read " ye had compas
sion of those in bonds ;" in the same verse omit
the words "in heaven," and read, "knowing that
ye yourselves have a better and an enduring
substance." Instead of the words " Now the
tt 38. just shall hve by faith," in v. 38, read " Now
my just one shall live by faith."
Chap. xi. Instead of the words "-so that things which
v. 3. are seen were not made" in v. 3, read " so that
that which is seen was not made ;" instead of
" For he looked for a city which hath founda-

242 Effect produced by Textual Criticism upon the
v. 10. tions" in v. 10, read " For he looked for the
city which hath the foundations ; " omit the
tt 11. words " and was dehvered of a child" in v. 11,
and read simply " received strength to conceive
seed, even when," etc. ; omit the words " and
tt 13. were persuaded of them" in v. 13, and read
simply "having seen them from afar, and
greeted them ; " for " treasures in Egypt" in
tt 26. v. 26, read " treasures of Egypt."
Chap. xii. Instead of the words " If ye endure chasten-
v. 7. ing," in v. 7, read "It is for chastisement
that ye are enduring;" omit the words "or
tt 20. thrust through with a dart" in v. 20, and end
the verse with " stoned."
Chap. xiii. Instead of the words " Be not carried about"
tt 9. in v. 9, read "Be not carried away;" omit
v. 11. the words " for sin" in v. 11, and read simply
" by the high priest."
The Epistle of James.
Chap, i Instead of the words " which the Lord hath
tt 12. promised" in v. 12, read " which He pro
mised." A very remarkable reading occurs
tt 19. in this chapter at - v. 19. Instead of the
" wherefore " of the common text, evidence
compels us to adopt another word which in
the Greek differs only by a single letter, but
which requires in English some such version
as the foUowing, "Know, my beloved brethren,
and let every one," etc. ; omit the words

Text of the New Testament in its successive Books. 243
v. 26. " among you" in v. 26, and read simply " If
any one thinks."
Chap, ii Omit the words " unto him" in v. 3, and ,
v. 3. read, simply " and say ; " instead pf " the poor
v. 5. of this world" in v. 5, read " the poor of the
tt 13. world;" omit "and" in v. 13, and read
" mercy rejoiceth against judgment;" omit
tt 18. the word "thy" in v. 18, before "works" and
" my" before " faith," and read simply " shew
me thy faith without works ; and I wiU show
thee faith by my works ;" omit the word
tt 24. "then" in v. 24, and read simply "ye see
that."
Chap. Ui. Instead of tbe words " Behold how great a
tt 5. matter a. Uttle fire kindleth !" in v. 5, read
" Behold how great a forest a httle fire kin-
tt 6. dleth ! " omit the word " so " in v. 6, and read
" and the tongue is a fire, that world of ini
quity! The tongue is the one among our
members which defileth the whole body,"
etc. ; instead of the words " it is an unruly
tt 8. evU" in v. 8, read " it is a restless evU ; " for
the words " so can no fountain both yield
tt 12. salt water and fresh," in v. 12, read " neither
can salt water bring forth fresh ; " insert the
tt 16. word " also" in v. 16, and read " there also is
tt 17. confusion ;" omit the word " and" in y. 17,
and read simply " without partiality, without
hypocrisy."
Chap. iv. Omit the word " yet " in v. 2, and read

244 Effect produced by Textual Criticism upon the
tt 2. simply, " ye have not ; " omit the words
v. 4. " adulterers and " in v. 4, and read simply
" ye adulteresses ; " insert the word " but " in
tt 7. v. 7, and read " submit yourselves therefore to
tt 11. God, but resist;" instead of "and" in v. 11
insert " or," and read " or judgeth his bro
ther ; " instead of " There is one lawgiver, who
is able to save and to destroy ; who art thou
tt 12. that judgest another ?" in v. 12, read "There
is one lawgiver and judge, he who is able to
save and to destroy ; but thou, who art thou
that judgest. thy neighbour ? "
Omit " as " in v. 5, and read simply " ye
nourished your hearts in a day of slaughter ; "
instead of " lest ye be condemned " - in v. 9,
read " lest ye be judged ; " instead of " which
endure" in v. 11 read "which have endured;"
for " lest ye fall into condemnation " in v. 12,
read "lest ye faU into judgment;" insert "there
fore " in v. 16, and read " confess therefore ; "
insert " my " in v. 19, and read "my brethren."
The First Epistle of Peter.
Instead of "honour and glory," in ver. 7,
read "glory and honour." Instead of "but
unto us," in v. 12, read " but unto you." In
stead of " Be ye holy," in v. 16, read " Ye
shall be holy." Instead of the words " who by
tt 21. Him do believe in God," in v. 21, read " who
through Him are believers in (or faithful

Chap. v.

tt 5.

tt 9.

tt 11.

tt 32.

tt 16.

«.19.

Chap, i

tt7.

tt .12.

tt 16.

Text of the New Testament in its successive Books. 245
towards) God." Omit the word " pure," in v.
tt 22. 22, and read " love one another from the heart
¦ fervently." Omit the words " for ever " in
tt 23. v. 23, and read simply " which liveth and
abideth." Instead of aU the glory of man,"
tt 24. in v. 24, read " all the glory thereof."
Chap. U. Insert the words " unto salvation " in v. 2,
tt 2. and read " that ye may grow thereby unto sal
vation." Instead of the words " Christ also
suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye
tt 21. should foUow His steps," in v. 21 , read " Christ
also suffered for you, leaving you an example,
that ye should foUow His steps." Instead of
tt 25. " For ye were as sheep going astray," in v. 25,
read " For ye were going astray as sheep."
Chap, ui Instead of the words " be courteous," in v. 8,
vv. 8, 9. read " be humble." Omit " knowing " in v. 9,
and read " contrariwise blessing, because ye
are." Instead of "if ye be foUowers of," in
tt 13. v. 13, read "if ye be zealous of." As formerly
tt 15. noticed, instead- of " the Lord God," in v. 15,
read "the Lord Christ;" 1 in the same verse omit
" and " before " be ready," and read simply
"being ready;" in the same verse insert "but"
after " in you," and read " but with meekness
tt 20. and fear." Omit " once " in v. 20, and read
simply " when the longsuffering of God was
waiting."
Chap. iv. Omit the words " of our life," in v. 3, and
v. 3. read simply " For the time past." Omit the
1 Comp. page 170.

246 Effect produced by Textual Criticism upon the
words " on their part he is evU spoken of, but
v. 14. on your part he is glorified" in v. 14, and end
the verse with the words " resteth upon you."
tt 16. For the words " on this behalf" in v. 16, read
tt 19. "in this name." Omit "as" in v. 19, and
read simply " unto a faithful Creator."
Chap. v. Insert " therefore " in v. 1, and read " The
tt 1. elders therefore." Omit the words "taking
tt 2. the oversight thereof" in v. 2, and read simply
" Feed the flock of God which is among you,
not by constraint," etc. Omit the words " be
tt 5. subject" in v. 5, and read "Likewise, ye
younger, submit yourselves unto the elder, yea,
v. 8. all one to another." Omit " because " in v. 8,
and read simply " Be sober, be vigUant : your
tt 10. adversary." Instead of "us" inv. 10, insert
" you," and read the verse as foUows—" But
the God of aU grace, who called you into His
eternal glory in Christ Jesus, after ye have
suffered a Uttle whUe, shall himself make you
perfect, stabhsh, strengthen (settle) you." •
The Second Epistle of Peter.
Chap, i Instead of the words " hath caUed us to
tt 3. glory and virtue " in v. 3, read " called us by
His own glory and virtue." Instead of
v. 12. " Wherefore I wUl not be negligent " in v. 12,
read " Wherefore I wUl take care to."
Chap. U. Instead of the words " And many shaU fol-
tt 2. low their pernicious ways" in 'v. 2, read

Text of the New Testament in its successive Books. 247
" And many shall follow their licentious ways."
tt 12. Instead of " shaU utterly perish " in v. 12, read
" shall even perish." Instead of " covetous
tt 14. practices " in v. 14, read " covetous practice."
Instead of the words " clouds that are carried
tt 17. with a tempest " in v. 17, read " mists - driven
by a tempest :" probably omit " for ever " in
the same verse, and end with " is reserved."
tt 21. Insert "back" in. v. 21, and read "to turn
tt 22. back from." Omit the word "But " in v. 22,
and read simply, " It is happened."
Chap, iii Instead of the words " and of the command
ment of us the apostles of the Lord and
v. 2. Saviour" in v. 2, read " and of the command
ment of the Lord and Saviour by your
apostles." Insert the words "in scoffing" in
tt 3. v. 3, and read "scoffers in [their] scoffing."
tt 9. Instead of "us-ward" inv. 9, read "you- ward."
tt 10. Omit the words "in the night" in v. 10, and
read simply " wiU come as a thief." Instead
tt 16. of " in which are" in v. 16, insert for the sake
of clearness " in which Epistles," as the read
ing of the most ancient authorities requires.
The First Epistle of John. •
Chap, i Insert " also " in v. 3, and read " that which
tt 3. we have seen and heard declare we unto you
tt 4. also ; " omit " unto you " in v. 4, and read
simply^ "these things write we, that," etc.
Chap. U. Instead of " brethren" in v. 7 read " be-

248 Effect produced by Textual Criticism upon the
tt 7. loved ; " in the same verse omit the second
"from the beginning," and end with " heard ;"
instead of " I write unto you, Uttle chUdren"
tt 13. in v. 13, read " I have written unto you, chil-
tt 23. dren ; " v. 23 was previously noticed j1 omit
tt 24. " therefore " in v. 24, and read simply " let
that abide ; " instead of the words, " ye shall
tt 27. abide in him" in v. 27, read " abide in him."
Chap. iii. V 1 was formerly noticed ;2 omit " but " in
vv. 1, 2. v. 2, and read " what we shaU be, we know
tt 13. that," etc. ; omit " my " in v. 13, and read
" marvel not, brethren ; " omit " his brother " "
v. 14. in v. 14, and read simply " He that loveth not
abideth in death ; " instead of " we know " in
'tt 19. v. 19, read " we shall know."
Chap. iv. No change calling for notice requires to be
made in this chapter, except the omission of
tt 19. " him" in v. 19.
Chap. v. The important text vv. 7,„8 was formerly dis-
to. 7, 8. cussed : 3 instead of the words " for this is the
witness of God which he hath testified of his
tt 9. Son" in v. 9 read " for this is the witness of
God, that he hath borne witness respecting his
v. 13. Son ; " v. 13 was formerly considered.4
The Second Epistle of John.
Instead of " are entered into the world" in
tt 7. v. 7, read " are gone out into the world ; " for
the words "that we lose not those things
1 Comp. p. 170. s Comp. p. 171. 3 Comp. p. 134. 4 Comp. p. 171.

Text of the New Testament in its successive Books. 249
which we have wrought, but that we receive a
tt 8. fuU reward" in v. 8, read " that ye lose not
the things which ye have wrought, but that
ye receive a full reward ; " instead of " whoso-
tt 9. ever transgresseth " in v. 9, read " whosoever
goeth forward ; " in the same verse omit the
words " of Christ," and read simply " in the
doctrine, he hath both," etc.
The Third Epistle of John.
Instead of the words " whatsoever „ thou
tt 5. t doest to the brethren, and to strangers" in v. 5,
read " whatsoever thou doest to the brethren,
and that though they are strangers ; " instead
tt 7. of "for his name's sake" in v. 7, read "for
the Name's sake ; " insert the word " some-
tt 9. thing" in v. 9, and read " I wrote something
to the church;" omit the second "but" in v.
tt 11. 11, and read simply " is of God, he that," etc. ;
tt 12. instead of " ye know " in v. 12, read " thou
tt 13. knowest ; " insert " unto thee " in v. 13, and
read " to write unto thee."
The Epistle of Jude.
tt 1. Instead of " sanctified by God the. Father,"
read " beloved by God the Father ; " for " of
tt 3. the common salvation" in v. 3, read " of our
common salvation ; " for " denying the only
tt 4. Lord God" in v. 4, read " denying the only
Master;" instead of "how that the Lord,

250 Effect produced by Textual Criticism upon the
tt 5. having saved" in v. 5, read " how that Jesus,
having saved;" and probably in the same
verse for " knew this " read " knew aU ; "
tt 12. for " carried about " in v. 12, read " carried
away ; " omit the words " among them " in
tt 15. v. 15, and read simply " aU that are ungodly
of aU their ungodly deeds ;" omit the word
tt 25. " wise" in v. 25, and insert the words
"through Jesus Christ our Lord," so as to
read the verse thus, " to the only God our
Saviour, through Jesus Christ our Lord, be
glory, majesty, dominion, and power;" and
instead of the words " both now and ever,"
read " before aU,time, and now, and for ever.
Amen." The Book of Eevelation.
Chap. i. Instead of " aU things that he saw " in v. 2,
v. 2. read " whatsoever things he saw ; " instead
vv. 5, 6. of the words in vv. 5, 6, " Unto him that loved
us, and washed us from our sins in his own
. ,blood, and hath made us kings and priests
unto God and his Father ; to him be glory and
dominion for ever and ever. Amen," read
'' Unto him that loveth us, and washed us
from our sins in his own blood, and hath
made us a kingdom, priests unto God and his
Father, to him be the glory and the dominion
for ever and ever. Amen;" omit the words
v. 8., " the beginning and the ending" in v. 8, and

Text of the New Testament in its successive Books. 251
in the same verse for "saith the Lord", sub
stitute " saith the Lord God," so as to read
thus, " I am the Alpha, saith the Lord God ;"
tt 9. omit "also" in v. 9 ; omit' "in the;" for
"Jesus Christ" read simply "Jesus;" omit
" for " and " Christ," so as to read the verse
thus, " I John, your brother, and companion
in the tribulation and kingdom and patient
endurance in Jesus, was in the isle that is
caUed Patmos, on account of the word of God,
and the testimony of Jesus ; '' omit the words,
" I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the
v. 11. last" in v. 11; omit also the words "which
are in Asia," and read thus, "saying, What
thou seest write in a book, and send to the
-seven churches; to Ephesus," etc.; omit "unto
tt 17. me" in v. 17, and read simply "he laid his
right hand upon me, saying, Fear not ; " omit
tt 18. the word "Amen" in v. 18, and read simply
" evermore, and have ; " instead of the words
"keys of heU and of death" in the same
verse, read " the keys of death and of Hades ; "
tt 19,> insert " therefore " in v. 19, and read " write
therefore ; " omit the words " which thou
tt 20. sawest " in v. 20, and read " the seven candle
sticks are," etc.
Chap. U. Instead of the words " the church of Ephesus "
tt 1. in v. 1, read " the church in Ephesus ;" instead
of "And hast borne, and hast patience, and
v. 3. for my name's sake hast laboured " in v. 3,

252 Effect produced by Textual Criticism upon the
read " And Thou hast patience, and didst bear
for my name's sake ; " omit the word " quickly "
tt 5. in v. 5, and read simply, " I will come unto
v. 7. thee ; " omit the words " the midst of " in v. 7,
and read simply, " which is in the paradise of
tt 10. God;" instead of "Fear none of" in v. 10,
read, "Fear not;" omit the words "which
tt 15. thing I hate " in v. 15, and read " the Nicolai-
tanes, in like manner ; " insert the word
tt 16. " therefore " in v. 16, and read " Eepent there-
v. 17. fore; " omit the words "to eat " in v. 17, and
read simply " wiU I give of the hidden manna;"
instead of " I have a few things against thee "
tt 20. in v. 20, read " I have against thee ; " instead
of "to teach and seduce " in -the same verse,
read " and she teacheth and seduceth ; " instead
v. 21. of " and she repented not " in v. 21, read "and
she wUl not repent," reading the whole verse
thus — " And I gave her time that she might
repent ; and she will not repent of her forni-
tt 24. cation;" omit "and" inv. 24, and read simply
"But unto you I say, unto the rest;" omit
" and " in the same verse before " which."
Chap. iii. Instead of " are ready to die " in v. 2, read
tt 2. "were ready to die;" in the same verse, for
" before God," read " before my God ; " insert
tt 4. " But " in v. 4, and read " But thou hast ; " in
the same verse, omit " even," and read simply
"in Sardis;" for "He that overcometh, the
tt 5. same" in v. 5, read "He that overcometh

Text of the New Testament in its successive Books. 253
tt 7. thus ; " for " no man shutteth " in v. 7, read
"no man shaU shut;" omit "Behold" in v.
tt 11. 11, and read simply, "I come quickly;" in
stead of "the church of the Laodiceans" in
tt 14. v. 14, read " the church in Laodicea."
Chap. iv. Omit "immediately" in v. 2, and read simply
tt 2. " I was in the spirit ; " omit " they had " in
v. 4. v. 4, and read simply, " and on their heads
crowns of gold." Some remarkable varieties of
v. 8. reading occur in v. 8 ; N reads as follows : —
" Holy, holy, holy, holy, holy, holy, holy, holy,
Lord God Almighty ; " in B the word " holy "
is repeated nine times ; in other manuscripts
it is found twice, six times; and in A, with
most others, it occurs three times, which is
probably correct ; instead of the words " they
v. 11. are and were created " in v. 11, read " they
were, and were created."
Chap. v. Instead of the words " to read the book " in
tt 4. v. 4, read " to open the book ; " for " took the
tt 7. book out of" in v. 7, read simply "took it out
of;" instead of "having every one of them
tt 8. harps " in v. 8, read " each having a harp ; "
instead of the words " made us unto our God
kings and priests ; and we shall reign on the
tt 10. earth " in v. 10, read " made them unto our
God a kingdom and priests, and they [shaU]
reign on the earth ; " for " And the four and
twenty elders feU down and worshipped Him
tt 14. that liveth for ever and ever" in v. 14, read

254 Effect produced by Textual Criticism upon the
simply, "And the elders feU down and wor
shipped."
Chap. vi. Insert " seven " in v. 1, and read " opened
v. 1. one of the seven seals ; " omit probably " and
see " in the same verse, and read simply
" Come ; " in like manner, omit " and see " in
v. 3. v. 3, and read as before " Come ; " so again, in
v. 5. v. 5, omit " and see," and read " Come ; " and
tt 7. once more, omit the same words in v. 7, and
read simply " Come ; " instead of " white
v. 11. robes " in v. 11, read " a white robe; " insert
v. 12. " whole " in v. 12, and read " the whole moon."
Chap. vii. For " after these things " in v. 1, read " after
v. 1. this ; " omit the words " were sealed " after
tt 5. "Eeuben" in v. '5, and read simply "Of the
tribe of Eeuben, twelve thousand ; " and so
throughout the passage ; for " And cried " in
'tt 10. v. 10, read "And they cry ; " instead of " Uving
tt 17. fountains of waters " in v. 17, read "fountains
of the waters of Ufe."
Chap. vUi. Instead of the words, " The first angel
tt 7. sounded" in v. 7, read "And the first
sounded ; " insert the words " and the third
part of the earth was burnt up " in the same
verse before " and the third part of trees ; " for ¦
tt 13. "heard an angel" in v. 13, read "heard an
eagle."
Chap. ix. Omit the word " only " in v. 4, and read
tt 4. simply "but those men;" for "taUs like
unto scorpions, and there were stings in their

Text of the New Testament in its successive Books. 255
v. 10. tails " in v. 10, read " tails like unto scorpions,
and [also] stings ; and in their taUs was their
tt 11. power;" omit "And" in v. 11, and read
" They have ;•" omit " and " after " thousand "
tt 16. in v. 16, and read simply " I heard ; " insert
v. 18. "plagues" in v. 18, and read " By these three
plagues ; " for "their power is in their mouth "
tt 19. in v. 19, read " the power of the horses is in
their mouth ; " for " nor of their fornication "
tt 21. in v. 21, read probably " nor of their wicked
ness."
Chap. x. For " he had in his hand " in v. 2, read
v. 2. " having in his hand ;" omit " their voices " in
tt 4. v. 4, and- read " when the seven thunders spoke ; "
omit also " unto me " in the same verse, and
read simply "saying;" instead of "the mystery
tt 7. of God should be finished " in v. 7, read "the
mystery of God was finished ; " instead of the
v. 11. % words " And he said unto me " in v. 11, read
" And they say unto me."
Chap. xi. Omit the words "and 'the angel stood" in
tt 1. v. 1, and read simply " saying " after " rod ; "
tt 4. instead _ of "before the God" in v. 4, read
"before the Lord;" for "shah see their dead
bodies " in v. 9, read " look upon their dead
body;" for " and shall not suffer " in the same
verse, read " and suffer not ; " instead of "they
that dweU upon the earth shaU rejoice over
v. 10. them, and make merry" in v. 10, read "they
that dweU upon the earth rejoice over them,

256 Effect produced by Textual Criticism upon the
and make merry;" for the kingdoms of this
v. 15. world " in v. 15, read " The kingdom of this
world ;'' omit the words " and art to come " in
tt 17. v. 17, and read simply " which art, and wast."
Chap. xii. Instead of " woe to the inhabiters of the
v. 12. earth and of the sea " in v. 12, read simply
"woe to the'earth and the sea;" omit "Christ"
tt 17. in v. 17, and read simply " the testimony of
Jesus."
Chap. xhi. Instead of the words " And I stood upon
tt 7. the sand of the sea, and saw " in v. 7, read
" And he stood upon the sand of the sea ; and
I saw;" for "having seven heads and ten
horns" in the same verse, read "having ten
horns and seven heads;" instead of "which gave
v. 4. power unto the beast " in v. 4, read " because
he gave the power to the beast;" for "in blas-
v. 6. phemy" in v. 6, read "in blasphemies;" omit
"and" in the same verse, and read simply "his
tabernacle, those that;" insert " and peoples "
tt 7. in v. 7, and read "over aU, kindreds, and
tt 16. peoples;" instead of "their foreheads" in v. 16,
read " their forehead."
Chap. xiv. Instead of " And I looked, and lo, a Lamb"
tt 1. in v. 1, read " And I looked, and lo, the Lamb;"
for "having his Father's name written in
their foreheads," in the same verse, read
" having his name and the name of his Father
written in their foreheads ; " for " I heard the
voice of harpers harping with their harps" in

Text of the New Testament in its successive Books. 257
v. 2. v. 2, read " the voice which I heard was as
that of harpers harping with their harps ; "
for " And in their mouth was found no guile;
for they are without fault before the throne
tt 5. of God" in v. 5, read simply "And in their
mouth was found no falsehood ; for they are
tt 8. blameless ; " insert " a second " in v, 8, and
read " And there foUowed another, a second
tt 9. angel;" in hke manner read in v. 9 "And
there foUowed them another, a third angel ; "
instead of " Here is the patience of the saints ;
tt 12. here are they that keep" in v. 12, read " Here
is the patience of the saints that keep ; " omit
tt 13. ' "unto me" in v.. 13, and read simply "say
ing, Write ; " instead of " and their works "
in the same verse, read " for their works ; "
v. 15. omit the words " for thee " in v. 15, and read
simply " the time is come to reap."
Chap. xv. Omit the words " and over his mark" in v.
tt 2. 2, and read simply " and over his image, and
over the number," etc. ; instead of " thou King
tt 3. of saints " in v. 3, read "thou King of the na-
tt 5. tions;" omit "behold" in v. 5, and read simply
" I looked, and the temple."
Chap.' -Kyi. Insert "seven" in v. 1 and read "pour out
tt 1. the seven vials." For "upon the earth" in v.
tt 2. 2 read " unto the earth." Omit " angel " in v.
«.3. 3, and read simply "And the second;" so
to. 3, 4, again in vv. 3, 4, etc. throughout ; omit the
tt 5. words "0 Lord" in v. 5, and read simply
R

258 Effect produced by Textual Criticism upon the
"Thou art righteous." In the latter part of
this verse, the common text is a mere fabrica
tion, and instead of " which- art, and wast, and
shalt be, because," etc. we should read " which
art and wast the Holy One, because," etc.;
v. 6. omit " for " in v. 6, and read simply " they
are worthy." Instead of the words " And I
tt 7. heard another out of the altar say" in v. 7, read
"And I heard the altar saying;" omit the
v. 14. words "the earth and of" in. v. 14, and read
simply "kings of the whole world." For
tt 17. " into the air" in v. 17 read " upon the air."
Chap. xvii. Omit " unto me " in v. 1, and read simply
tt 2. "saying;" for the word "filthiness" inv. 2,
read "impurities;" the reading to be adopted
tt 8. in v. 8 was formerly noticed.1 Omit " And "
v. 9. in v. 9, and read simply " Here is the mind."
tt 10. Omit " and" after faUen in v. 10, and read
simply " five are fallen, one is." Instead of
v. 13. the words "and shaU give" in v. 13, read "and
give." Instead of " And the ten horns which
v. -16. thou sawest upon the beast" in v. 16, read "and
the ten horns which thou sawest and the beast."
Chap. xviU. Omit " and" in v. 1, and read simply
tt 1. " after these things;" omit " mightily" in v. 2,
tt 2. and read " he cried with a strong voice." In
stead of " her sins have reached unto heaven"
tt 5. in v. 5, read "her sins have cleaved together
tt 6. even unto heaven." Omit " you" in v. 6, and
1 Comp. p. 172.

Text of the New Testament in its successive Books. 259
read simply, " Eepay her even as she repaid."
Instead of the words "who judgeth her"
tt 8. in v. 8," read " who hath judged her." Insert
tt 13. the word "spice" in v.. 13, and read "and
cinnamon, and spice, and odours." Instead of
tt 14. the second " are departed from thee " in v. 14,
read " are perished from thee." In the same
verse, for "thou shalt find them no more," read
" men shaU find them no more." Instead of
tt 17. " aU the company in ships " in v. 17, read
" every one that sails to any place." Instead
of " thou heaven, and ye holy apostles and
tt 20. prophets " in v. 20, read " thou heaven, and
ye saints, and apostles, and prophets." Omit
the words "of whatsoever craft he be" in
tt 22. v. 22, and read simply " no craftsman shall
be found."
Chap, xix, Omit "and" in v. 1, and read "after these
tt 1. things." In the same verse insert the words
" as it were," and read " I heard as it were a
great voice." In the same verse omit the
word " honour," and read the " salvation, and
the glory, and the power are our God's." In-
tt 15. stead of "the fierceness and wrath" in v. 15,
read " the fierceness of the wrath." Instead
of " gather yourselves together unto the' supper
tt 17. of God " in v. 17, read " gather yourselves
together with the great supper of God."
Chap. xx. Omit "and" before "after" in v. 3, and
v. 3. read simply " after that." Instead of " and I

260 Effect produced by Textual Criticism upon the
saw the dead, smaU and great, stand before
v. 12. God" in v. 12, read "and I saw the dead,
great and small, standing before the throne ;"
tt 14. insert the words "the lake of fire" inv. 14,
and read the verse thus — " And death and
Hades were cast into the lake of fire. This
is the second death, the lake of fire."
Chap. xxi. Omit the word " John " in v. 2, and read
tt 2. ' simply " and I saw the - holy city :" for " a
tt 3. great voice out of heaven " in v. 3, read " a
great voice out of the throne ; " instead of
tt 5. " true and faithful " in v. 5, read " faithful and
tt 7. true ;" for " shaU inherit all things " in v." 7,
read " shaU inherit these things ; " omit the
tt 9. words " unto me " . in v. 9, and read simply
" and there came one of the seven angels ;"
tt 11. omit "and" before "her" inv. 11, and read
simply " having the glory of God : her hght ;"
v. 13. insert " and " three times in v. 13, and read
" On the east three gates, and on the north
three gates, and on the south three gates, and
on the west three gates ; " insert the word
tt 14. "twelve" in v. 14, and read "the twelve
names of the twelve apostles ; " instead of
tt 15. " had a golden reed to measure " in v. 15, read
" had for a measure a golden reed to measure ; "
v. 23. instead of " shine in it " in v. 23, read •" shine
on it ; " omit the words " of them which are
tt 24. saved " in v. 24, and read simply " And the
, nations shaU walk by the light of it ; " in the

Text of the New Testament in its successive Books. 261
same verse omit the words " and honour," and
read simply " bring their glory into it."
Chap. xxU. Omit the word "pure" in v. 1, and read
v. 1. simply " And he shewed me a river ; " instead
of "And there shall be no night there,"
tt 5. in v. 5, read " And there shall be no more
night." Instead of " and the Lord God of the
tt 6. holy prophets " in v. 6, read " the Lord God
of the spirits of the prophets." Insert "and"
tt 7. in v. 7, and read " and behold." Omit "for "
tt 9. in v. 9, and read simply " I am thy feUow-ser-
vant." A very important correction falls to be
v. 11. made in v. 11, where, instead of " he that is
righteous, let him be righteous still," read " he
that is righteous, let him do righteousness still."
tt-12. Omit " and" in v. 12, and read simply "Behold,
I come quickly ;" in the same verse, for " accord
ing as his work shaU be," read " according as
his work is." Instead of " the beginning and
tt 13. the end, the first and the last" in v. 13, read
"first and last, the beginning and the end."
Another very important correction requires to
tt 14. be made in v. 14, where, for " Blessed are they
that do His commandments," read " Blessed
are they that wash their robes." Omit " for "
tt 15. inv. 15, and read^imply "without are." Omit
tt 17. "and" before "whosoever wiU" in v. 17.
tt 18. Omit "for " in v. 18, and read simply "Itestify;"
in the same verse, for " shaU , add unto these
things," read " shall add unto them ;" for " God

262 Effect produced by Textual Criticism.
shall take away his part out of the book of life,
and out of the holy city, and from the things
tt 19. which are written in this book " in v. 19, read
" God shaU take away his part from the tree
of life and from the holy city, which are
written in this book." Omit the words " Even
v. 20 so " in v. 20, and read simply, " Amen : come,
Lord Jesus." Instead of "the grace of our
Lord Jesus Christ be with you all Amen"
tt 21. in v. 21, read " the grace of the Lord Jesus be
with the saints. Amen."

MUIE AND PATERSON, PRINTERS, EDINBURGH.