YALE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY THE LIBRARY OF THE DIVINITY SCHOOL THE REVISION ENGLISH VEESION HOLY SCRIPTURES BY CO-OPERATIVE COMMITTEES OF BRITISH AND AMERICAN SCHOLARS OF DIFFEEENT DENOMINATIONS. PHILIP SCHAFF, D.D., LL.D., PEOFESeOE IN THE TTNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY, NEW TOEK, rRESIDENT OF THE AMEEICAN REVISION OOMMllTEE. THIRD EDITION. NEW YORK: IIAEPEE & BEOTIIEES, PUBLISHEES, FRANKLIN SQUARE. 18 77. CFS>6 ScV>\4 ?77 Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1872, by Harper & Brothers, In the Office of the Librarian of Congress, at Washington, t PREFACE TO THK THIRD EDITION". It is generally known that two co-operative Committees of biblical scholars in Great Britain and the United States are engaged in a thorough and conservative revision of the Eng lish version of the Holy Scriptures, which shall adaipt it to the present state of the English language and biblical learn ing, without disturbing its idiom and vocabulary, hallowed by long use and sacred associations. The American revisers hold regular monthly meetings, and devote much time and labor, without compensation, to this responsible work. Their necessary expenses for traveling, printing, etc., are met by donations of liberal friends. The present pamphlet was written before the American Committee went into active operation, as an introduction to three essays by eminent English divines.* It is therefore not final, but oxxly preparatory and suggestive. The work of both Committees so far has been confidential and provisional, and all reports concerning changes actually decided on are premature and unauthorized. It is uncertain whether they will publish any part of their work before the whole is com pleted. The American Committee publishes this essay separately for the friends of revision, as an explanatory statement of the preliminary history and the principles on which the re vision is conducted. I New York, 42 Bible House, November, 1876. tS' * ' The Eevision of the English Version of the New Testament. By J. B. ^_Lightfoot, D.D., Canon of St. Paul's, and Hulsean Professor of Divinity, i_ Cambridge ; Eichakd Chenevix Trench, D.D., Archbishop of Dublin; > _ C. J. Ellicott, D.D., Bishop of Gloucester and Bristol. With an Intro- Si duction by Philip Schafp, D.D., Union Theological Seminary, New York.' ' -^ These essays wei-e republished by Messrs. Harper & Brothers, with the kind ., _ consent and latest improvements of the authors. /^ MEMBERS OF THE AMERICAN REVISION COMMITTEE. GENEEAL OFFICEES OF THE COMMITTEE : Philip Soiiaff, D.I)., LL.D., President. Gkoeqe B. Day, D.D., Secretary. OLD TESTAMENT COMPANY: Prof. W.V. Henry Green, D.D., Princeton, N. J., Chairman. " Geoeue B. Day, D.D., New Haven, Conn., Secretary. Prof. Charles A. Aikex, D.D., Princeton, N.J. Eev. T. W. Chambers, D.D., New York. Prof. Thomas J. Conant, D.D., Brooklyn, N.Y. " John De Witt, D.D., New Bruns wick, N. J. " Groege Emlen Hare, D.D., Phila delphia. " CuAHi.EB p. Keauth, D.D., LL.D., Philadelphia. " Taylf.r Lewis, LL.D., Schenectady, N.Y. Prof. Charles M. Mead, D.D., Andover, Mass. " Howard Osgood, D.D., Eochester, N.Y. " Joseph Paokaeu, D.D., Alexandria, Va. " Calvin E. Stowe, D.D., Hartford, Conn. " James Strong, S.T.D., Madison,, N.J. " C. V. A. Van Dyok, M.D., Beirut, Syria. NEW TESTAMENT COMPANY: Ex-Pres. T. D. Woolsky, D.D., LL.D., New Haven, Conn., Chairman. Prof. Chaeles Shoet, LL.D., New York, > v^rrpfnrips " J. Heney Thayee, D.D., Andover, Mass.,/ ^^^^™^- Prof. EzEA AimOT, D.D., LL.D., Cam bridge, Mass. Eev. J. K. Bdee, D.D., Madison, N. J. Prof. Thomas Chase, M.A., Haverford College, Pa. Chancellor Howard Ceobby, D.D.,LL.D., New York. Prof. Timothy Dwight, D.D., New Haven, Conn. " Horatio B. Haokett,* D.D., LL.D., Eochester, N. Y. * Deceased. Prof. Chaele8Hodge,D.D., LL.D.,Priuce- tun,N.J. ,• , " A. C. Kendeiok, D.D., EJJchester, N.Y. Eight Eev. Alfred Lee, D.D., Wilming ton, Del. Prof. Matthew B. Eiddle, D.D., Hart ford, Conn. PniLTP SoHAEF, D.D., LL.D., New York. Eev. E. A. Washburn, D.D., New York. MEMBERS OF THE FINANCE COMMITTEE CO-OPEEATING WITH THE BIBLE EEVISION COMMITTEE. Hon. Nathan Bishop, LL.D., Chairman. Rev. William Adams, B.D., LL.B. Rev. Henry C. Pottke, B.B., LL.D. James M. Brown, Esq. John C. Havemeyer, Esq. William A. Cadlpwell, Esq. Hon. Wm. E. DoiiGE. Hon. E. L. Fanoiier, LL.D. A. S. Barnes, Esq. John Elliot, Esq. Morris K. JESSDP^Esq. Rev. RioHARD S. Stores, D.D., LL.B. Rev. H. Dyke, D.D. F. S. Winston, Esq. Elliot F. Sheparp, Esq. Charles Traoy, Esq. Jno. B. Trevor, Esq.; Norman White, Esqi Rev. Thomas D. Anderson, B.D. Howard Potter, Esq. Alex. Van Rensselaer, Esq. Andeew L. Tatloe, Esq., Treasurer, Contributions should be sent to the Treasurer, at No. C Bible House, New York. LIST OF DONORS. The following contributions have been made for the American Bible Eevision Committee, from the beginning of the work in October, 18T2, to Nov. 2S, 1870 : A Friend, Nov. 1876 $100 00 Anonymous, $2S, $12, $10 4T 00 A. S. Barnes, Esq., New York, Feb. 1874, $20 ; May, 1S76, $20 ; May, 1876, $20 ; Nov. 1876, $20 80 00 Hon. Charles Benedict, Waterbnry, Conn., April, 1875 100 00 John Bohlen, Esq., Philadelphia, Feb. 1873 100 00 Hon. N. Bishop, LL.D., New York, Aug. 1875, SlOU; Nov. 1876, *100. . 200 00 Eobert Bonner, New York, Nov. 1876 100 00 James Brown, Esq., New York, March, 1873, $100 ; Dec. 1874, $100 ; May, 1816, $100 300 00 Stewart Brown, Esq., March, 1873, $100 ; April, 1875, $100 200 00 Hon. Felix Brunot, Pittsburgh, Pa., Mav, 1874, $25 ; May, 1876,- $25. . . 50 00 Mrs. ilary C. Canfleld, Princeton, N. J., March, 1373, $200 ; May, 1876, $100 300 00 Wm. A. Canldwell, Esq., New York, April, 1876 100 00 Prof. Eiie Charlier, New York, May, 1ST4, $50 ; Oct. 1875, $50 ; Nov.]S76,$50 150 00 Prof. Blisee Charlier, New York, May, 1875 25 00 Eev. A. H. Clapp, D.D., New York, March, 1876 50 00 Messrs. Jay Cooke & Co., New York, July, 1873 100 00 M. C. Cope, Esq., Philadelphia, Jan. 1875 25 00 Hector Craig, Esq., New York, Aug. 1875 50 00 Mrs. Eebekab Cook, New York, Jan. 1876 50 00 Central Church, New Haven, Conn., Oct. 1S74 40 00 D. Clark, D.D., Boston, Oct. 1874. . 10 00 II. G. De Forest, Esq., New York, Oct. 1874 100 00 Hon. Wm. B. Dodge, New York, March, 1873, $200; June, 1876, .$60. 260 00 Austin Dunham, Esq., Hartford, Conn., Sept. 1873 100 00 Henry Day, Esq., New York, Feb. 1876 50 00 Walter Edwards, Esq., New York, March, 1873, $100; Feb. 1876, $100 200 00 John Elliott, Esq., New York, March, 1873, $25 ; Oct. 187.5, $-25 . . 50 00 Z. Stiles Ely, Esq., New York, May, 1875 25 00 Geo. B. Emerson, LL.D., Boston, Jan. 1875 $50 00 Mrs. Elizabeth H. Faruum, Phila delphia, Jan. 1S76 20 00 Cyrus W. Field, Esq., New York, Nov. 1874 100 00 Hon. Wm. Fitch, New Haven, Conn., March, 1873, $100 ; Oct. 1874, $100 200 00 Hon.WaldoPIint,Boston,May,lS75 10 00 Mrs. Jane Bleecker Fox, New York, April, 1876 100 00 Messrs. Francis & Loutrel, New York, March, 1876 21 00 John C. Green, Esq., New York, March, 1373 100 00 Dr. J. M. Barlow, New York, July, 1878 50 00 Geo. S. Harrison, Esq., Philadel phia, May, 1873 100 00 Hon. Henry P. Haven, New Lon- .don, Conn., April, 1875 100 00 Eev. E. L. Heermance, March, 1873. 100 00 H. H. Hunnewell, Esq., Boston, May, 1873 20 00 John W. Hammersley, Esq., New York, Oct. 1875 25 00 Mrs. Hannah Ireland, New York, March, 1873, $150; March, 1876, $100 250 00 James O. James, Esq., Philadel phia, Nov. 1874 50 00 Morris K. Jesup, Esq., New York, May, 1873, $50 ; Dec. 1873, $25 ... . 75 00 John Taylor Johnston, Esq., New York, March, 1873, $100; Dec. 1874, $100 200 00 Jacob P. Jones, Esq., Philadelphia, Jan. 1875, $100 ; Oct. 1870, $100. . . 200 CO John Lambert, Esq., Philadelphia, Feb. 1873 100 00 Charles B. Lansing, Esq., Albany, N. Y., May, 1873 100 00 Amos A. Lawrence, Esq., Brook- line, Mass., April, 1873, $100; May, 1876, $100 200 00 Dr. Wm. E. Lawrence, Brookline, Mass., April, 1873, $100; Oct. 1875, $50 150 00 James Lenox, Esq., New York, March, 1874, $250; Nov. 1874, $100 ; May, 1876, $100 450 00 John T. Lewis, Esq., Philadelphia, March, 1873, $100; Nov. 18T5, $100. 200 00 Wm. Libbey, Esq., New York, March, 1873 100 00 Mrs. Wui. Libbey, New York, Oct. 1875, $200 ; Nov. 1870, $100 300 00 IV LIST OF DONORS. Edwin C. Litchfield, Esq., Brook lyn, N. Y., April, 1873 $100 00 Frederick Marquand, Esq., New York, March, 1873, $100; Nov. 1876, $50 150 00 Eoland Mather, Esq., Hartford, Conn., May, 1874 100 00 Hugh McBiruey, Esq., Cincinnati, Ohio, March, 1373, $60; April, 1876,$26 75 00 Messrs. C. B. & J. F. Mitchell, New York, March, 1873 50 00 ChailesMerriam, Esq., Springfield, Mass., Jan. 1875 10 00 W. H. H. Moore, Esq., New York, April, 1873 100 00 Israel Morris, Esq., Philadelphia, May, 1873, $60 ; Oct. 1874, $50. . . . 100 00 Wistar Morris, Esq., Overbrook, Pa., Feb. 1875 100 00 John E. Parsons, Esq., New York, March, 1873 100 00 S. S. Porter, Esq., Eochester, N. Y., July, 1873 25 00 Howard Potter, Esq., New York, March, 1873 100 00 Thos. H. Powers, Esq., Philadel phia, Nov. 1873, $100; March, 187S, $100 200 00 John F. Plnmmer, Esq., New York, June,lS75 25 00 Dr. Willard Parker, New York, Feb. 1876 50 00 Marshall O. Eoberts, Esq., New York, May, 1S76 100 00 Messrs. A. D. F. Eandolph & Co., NewYork 10 00 Prof. E. Salisbury, New Haven, Conn., March, 1873 50 00 Messrs. A. & E. C. Sampson, New York,Feb.lS75 $50 00 W. W. Scarborough, Esq., Cincin nati, Ohio, March, 1873 200 00 S. B. Schieffelin, Esq., New York, May, 1873, $25; October, 1876, $30 45 00 J. F. Sheafe, Esq., New York, May, 1875 100 00 John Shillito, Esq., Cincinnati, Ohio, March, 1873 60 00 Messrs. W. & J. Sloane, NewYork, Nov. 1873 113 00 A. V. Stout, Esq., New York, March, 1873 100 00 Hon. G. M. Stroud, Philadelphia, Feb. 1873 100 00 T. G. Sellew, Esq., New York, Dec 1375 1000 Messrs. E. L. & A. Stuart, New York, June, 1875 200 00 Hon. Geo. H. Stuart, Philadelphia, May, 1R75 25 00 Elliott F. Shepard, Esq., New York, June, 1875 25 00 Wm. Thaw, Esq., Pittsburgh, Pa., April, 1873, $100 ; May, 1876, $100 200 00 John B. Trevor, Esq., New York, April, 1376 100 00 Mrs. S. D. Warren, Boston, Oct. 1374, $60 ; May, 1876, $60 100 00 Miss C. L. Wol fe. New York, March, 1873, $200 ; May, 1874, $300 ; April, 1376, $200 700 00 Messrs. E. D. Wood & Co., Phila delphia, Mav, 1873 100 00 Mrs. J. E. Wood, Philadelphia, March, 1876 100 00 Additional donations made by any of the foregoing subscribers will be, from time to time, placed opposite their names. Other donors, who from time to time make contributions, will be added to this list CONTENTS. Trench, Ellicott, and Lightfoot on Eevision Page vii The British Eevision Committee ix Bules of the British Committee x American Co-operation xv List of American Eevisers xvi First Meeting of the American Eevisers xvii Constitution xviii Character of the English Version— the Work proposed xx Improvements : The Text xxiv Errors xxx Inaccuracies xxxiv Inconsistencies xxxix Archaisms xliii Proper Names xliv Accessories xlr Arrangement xlvi Conclusion xlviii INTRODUCTION. BY THE EDITOR. TKENCH, ELLICOTT, AND LIGHTFOOT ON EEVISION. As the question of revising for public use the English Vereion of the Holy Scriptures has at last assumed a defi nite practical shape in Great Britain, and must before long claim the serious attention of all churches which use the same version, it occurred to me that this important subject could not be better introduced to American scholars than by a republication of the recent treatises of Archbishop Trench, Bishop Ellicott, and Professor Lightfoot, on the principles and mode of revision. Some friends, whose judgment I value, agreed with me in this opinion. Ac cordingly, I asked the consent of the esteemed authors, which was promptly and cheerfully given. The eminent divines, whose works are united in this volume, are above all others qualified to speak with au thority on the subject of revision. They bring to its dis cussion ample learning in classical. Biblical, and English Uterature, a high order of exegetical skill and tact, sound judgment, long experience, conservative tact, profound rev erence for the Word of God, and a warm affection for the Authorized Yersion. They are also well acquainted with the labors of German divines, Avho have made large and valuable contributions to every department of Biblical sci ence. They adorn high places of honor and influence in the Church of England, which gave us the present version, and has a hereditary right and duty to take the lead in its viii INTRODUCTION. improvement. They are active members of the British Committee on Eevision, and fairly represent its ruling spirit and tendency. Going over the same ground, these authors can hardly avoid repetition. They independently agree on the funda mental principles and chief improvements. At the same time, they represent the progressive stages through which the revision movement has passed within the last twelve years. Archbishop Trench wrote his work in 1859, before the Eevision Committee was organized, with the intention not so much either to advocate or to oppose revision, as to prepare the way for it by a calm, cautious, and judicious examination of the strength and weakness, the merits and faults of the Authorized Version, and arrived at the con clusion that revision will come, and ought to come, though it has come sooner than he at that time anticipated or de sired.* Eleven years later (1870), soon after the Convocation of Canterbury had taken the first step toward an organized effort of revision. Bishop Ellicott followed with his treatise, presenting the principles and aims of the present revision movement, and his own experiences when acting as one of five Anglican clergymen in a previous attempt to revise some portions of the English New Testament. He re views the recent labors in the department of textual criti cism, refutes the popular objections, and gives judicious recommendations, and a few samples of revision, selecting the Sermon on the Mount from Matthew, and fom* of the most difficult chapters of the Epistle to the Eomans. Professor Lightfoot, of Cambridge, whose name recalls another of England's greatest and most useful Biblical * The first edition was reprinted in New York, 1858, but was superseded by the gi'eatly improved edition of 1 859. INTBODUCTION. jx scholars, prepared his work in 1871, after the Eevision Companies had begun their sessions in the Deanery of Westminster. He therefore represents the actual work of revision, and discusses it with such learning and ability, and in so catholic a spirit, as to inspire confidence in its ultimate success. It seems proper that I should add to these prefatory re marks some account of the revision movement, and its pres ent prospects in the United States. The British Revision Committee. The present organized effort to revise the Authorized English Yersion of the Holy Scriptures originated, after long previous discussions, in the Convocation of Canter bury. This body, at its session May 6, 1870, took the fol lowing action, proposed by a committee which consisted of eight bishops, the late Dean Alford, Dean Stanley, and sev eral other dignitaries : 1 . That it is desirable that a revision of the Authorized Version of the Holy Scriptures be undertaken. 2. That the revision be so conducted as to comprise both marginal render ings and such emendations as it may be found necessary to insert in the text of the Authorized Version. 3. That in' the above resolutions we do not contemplate any new transla tion of the Bible, or any alteration of the language, except where, in the judg ment of the most competent scholars, such change is necessary. 4. That in such necessary changes, the style of the language cmploj-ed in the existing version be closely followed. .5. That it is desirable that Convocation should nominate a body of its own members to tmdertake the work of revision, who shall be at liberty to invite the co-operation of any eminent for scholarship, to whatever nation or relig ious body they may belong. The report was accepted unanimously by the Upper House and by a great majority of the Lower House. A committee was also appointed, consisting of eight bishops and eight presbyters, to take the necessary steps for carry ing out the resolutions. X INTBODUCTION. The Convocation of York, owing mainly to the influ ence of the excellent Archbishop Thomson, did not fall in with the movement, and is therefore not represented in the Committee on Eevision. But a favorable change is gradually taking place, and some of the most influential members of the Convocation, as Dean Howson, of Chester, ai'e hearty supporters of revision. Rules of the British Committee. The Committee of bishops and presbyters appointed by the Convocation of Canterbury, at its first meeting, the Bishop of Winchester (Dr. Samuel Wilberforce) presiding, adopted the following resolutions and rules as the funda mental principle on which the revision is to be conducted ; 'Eesolved, — 'I. That the committee, appointed by the Convocation of Canterbury at its last session, separate itself into two companies, the one for tlie revision of the Authorized Version of the Old Testament, the other for the revision of the Authorized Version of the New Testament. ' II. That the company for the revision of the Authorized Version of the Old Testament consist of the Bishops of St. Davids, Llandaff, Ely, and Bath and Wells, and of the following members from the Lower House — Archdea con Kose, Canon Selwyn, Dr. Jebb, and Dr. Kay. ' III. That the company for the revision of the Authorized Version of the New Testament consist of the Bishops of Winchester, Gloucester and Bristol, and Salisbury, and of the following members from the Lower House, the Prolocutor, the Deans of Canterbuiy and Westminster, and Cansn Blakesley. ' IV. That the first portion of the work to be undertaken by the Old Testa ment Company be the revision of the Authorized Version of the Pentateuch. ' V. That the first portion of the work to be undertaken by the New Testa ment Company be the revision of the Auth. Vers, of the Synoptical Gospels. ' VI. That the following scholars and divines be invited to join the Old Tes tament Company : .-^.LBSANDER, Dr.W. L. Cheneet, Professor Cook, Canon Davidson, Professor A. B Davies, Dr. B. Faibbaien, Professor Field, Eev. F. Peeowke, Professor J. H. Plumptbr, Professor Pcset, Canon [declined] Weight, Dr. (British Muse um) Weight, W.A. (Cambridge).* GlNBBUEG, Dr. GoTOB, Dr. Haeihson, Archdeacon Leathes, Professor M 'Gill, Professor [deceaa'd] Payne Smith, Canon [now Dean of Canterbury] ' VII. That the following scholars and divines be invited to join the New Testament Company : * Dr. Douglas and Dr. Weir, of Glasgow (Presbyterians), and J. D. Geden (Wesleyan), were subsequently added to the Old Testament Company. INTRODUCTION. ^i Angus, Dr. Brown, Dr. David Dublin, Archbishop of Eadie, Dr. HoET, Eev. F. J. A. Humphry, Eev.W. G. Kennedy, Canon Smith, Eev. G, Vance Soott, Dr. (Balliol Coll.) SOEIVENER, Eev. F. H. St.Ahdrew's, Bishop of Tregelles, Dr. • Vauqhan, Dr. Westoott, Canon. Lee, Archdeacon Lightfoot, Dr. MiLLioAN, Professor Moulton, Professor Newman, Dr. J. H. [declined] ' Newth, Professor EoBEETs, Dr.A. ' VIII. That the general principles to be followed by both companies be as follows : ' ] . To introduce as few alterations as possible in the text of the Authorized Version consistently with faithfulness. ' 2. To limit, as far as possible, the expression of such alterations to the lan guage of the Authorized and earlier English versions. ' 3. Each company to go twice over the portion to be revised, once prorision- ally, the second time finally, and on principles of voting as hereinafter is pro vided. ' 4. That the text to be adopted be that for which the evidence is decidedly preponderating ; and that when the text so adopted differs from that from which the Authorized Version was made, the alteration be indicated in the margin. ' 5. To make or retain no change in the text on the second final revision by each company except two thirds of those present approve of tlie same, but on the first revision to decide by simple majorities. ' 6. In every case of proposed alteration that may have given rise to discus sion, to defer the voting thereupon till the next meeting whensoever the same shall be required by one third of those present at the meeting, such in tended vote to be announced in the notice for the next meeting. ' 7. To revise the headings of chapters, pages, paragraphs, italics, and punc tuation. ' 8. To refer, on the part of each company, when considered desirable, to di vines, scholars, and literary men, whether at home or abroad, for their opin ions. ' IX. That the work of each company be communicated to the other as it is completed, in order that there may be as little deviation from uniformity in language as possible. ' X. That the special or by-rules for each company be as follows : ' 1 . To make all corrections in writing previous to the meeting. ' 2. To place all the corrections due to textual considerations on the left- hand margin, and all other corrections on the right-hand margin. ' 3. To transmit to the chairman, in case of being unable to attend, the cor rections proposed in the portion agreed upon for consideration. ' May 25th, 1870. S. Winton. Chairman.'* From this list of names, it will be seen that the Commit tee, in enlarging its membership, has shown good judgment and eminent impartiality and catholicity. Under the fifth resolution of the Convocation of Canterbury, it was cm- * Samuel Wilberforce, Bishop of Winchester. xii INTRODUCTION. powered 'to invite the co-operation of any eminent for scholarship, to whatever nation or religious body they may belong: The Committee accordingly solicited the co-oper- ation of the most distinguished Biblical scholars, not only from all schools and parties of the Church of England, but also from Presbyterians, Independents, Baptists, Wesley- ans, and other Christian denominations. With two or three exceptions, the invitation was accepted by all. Dean Alford, one of the most active promoters of the revision movement, died prematurely (January, 1871), but his works remain to aid the cause. Dr. Tregelles is prevented by feeble health from taking an active part ; but he is pres ent in spirit by his critical edition of the Greek Testament, to which he has devoted the best years of his life. The two companies hold sessions four days every month in the venerable Deanery of Westminster. One company occu pies the historic Jerusalem Chamber, where the Westmin ster Assembly met, and where the Convocation of Canter bury holds its sessions. The Committee includes a large portion of the ripest and soundest Biblical scholarship of Great Britain. I do not hesitate to say that in ability, learning, tact, and experience it is superior to any previous combination for a similar pur pose, not excepting the forty-seven revisers of King James, most of whom are now forgotten. Trench, Ellicott, Light foot, Stanley, and the late Dean Alford stand first among the modern exegetes of the Church of England, and Alex ander, Angus, Brown, Eadie, Fairbairn, Milligan, Moul ton, hold a similar rank among the other denominations. There are no textual critics now living superior to Tre gelles, Scrivener, Westcott, and Hort (except Tischendorf in Germany, who stands first in reputation and in the extent of his labors and resources). It was my privilege, during. a visit to England in 1871, INTBODUCTION. xiii to attend, by special invitation, the sessions of the two companies in the Deanery of Westminster, and to observe their mode of operation. I was very favorably impressed with the scholarly ability, the conscientious accuracy and thoroughness, the reverent spirit and truly Christian har mony which characterize the labors of the revisers. Every question of textual criticism and exegesis receives careful attention, and every word and its best rendering are mi nutely discussed. The revisers come thoroughly prepared to each session, the several parts of the task, as readings, marginal references, being assigned to sub-committees. In this way they finish, on an average, about forty verses a day. Such an amount of work bestowed on the Book of books can not be in vain. It may take seven or ten years till the revision is finished, but it will be all the better for it. There is no need of haste in so important and responsible an un dertaking. The revisers have the power in their hands ; they can supply their vacancies, add to their number, and prolong their labors as the case may require. Their serv ices are gratuitous. The two Universities, in consideration of the copyright of the revised edition, have undertaken to pay the cost of printing and other expenses. But, until the whole is completed, no parts will be published except for the strictly private use of the revisers. This is no doubt a wise course, and will prevent much premature and un necessary criticism. I add a full list of the members of the British Commit tee as it was furnished to me in England, excluding those who declined or died, and including those who are members ex officio, or who have been added since the organization. (1.) OLD TESTAMENT REVISION COMPANY. The Eight Eev. the Bishop of Bath and Wells, Palace, Wells, Somerset. The Eight Eev. the Bishop of Elt, Palace, Ely. xiv INTBODUCTION. The Eight Eev. the Bishop of Llandaff, Bishop's Court, Llandaff. The Eight Eev. the Bishop of St. David's {Chairman'), Abergwili Palace, Carmarthen. The Very Eev. the Dean of Canterbury, Deanery, Canterbury. The Ven. Archdeacon Harrison, Canterbury. The Ven. Archdeacon Eose, Houghton Conquest, Ampthill. The Eev. Canon Selwyn, Trumpington Eoad, Cambridge. The Eev. Dr. Kay, Great Leighs, Chelmsford. The Eev. Dr. Alexander, Pinkieburn, Musselburgh, Edinburgh. E. L. Bensly, Esq. , University Library, Cambiidge. Professor Chenery, Eeform Club, S.W. The Eev. Professor Davidson, 10 Eillbank Terrace, Edinburgh. The Eev. Dr. Davies, Baptist College, Eegent's Park, N.W. The Eev. Dr. Douglas, 10 Eitzroy Place, Glasgow. The Eev. Principal Eairbairn, 13 Elmbank Crescent, Glasgow. The Eev. F. Field, 2 Carlton Terrace, Heigham, Norwich. The Eev. J. D. Geden, Wesleyan College, Didsbury, Manchester. The Eev. Dr. Ginsburg, Holm Lea, Binfield, Bracknell, Berks. The Eev. Dr. Gotch, Baptist College, Bristol. The Rev. Professor Leathes, King's College, London, 47 Priory Eoad. The Eev. Canon Perowne, Trinity College, Cambridge. The Eev. Professor Plumptke, Pluckley, Ashford. The Eev. Professor Weir, University, Glasgow. Yf. Aldis Wright, Esq. {Secretary), Trinity College, Cambridge. (2.) NEW TESTAMENT REVISION COMPANY. The Eight Eev. the Bishop of Winchester, Winchester House, S.W. The Eight Eev. the Bishop of Gloucester and Bristol {Chairman), Palace, Gloucester. The Eight Eev. the Bishop of Salisbury, Palace, Salisbury. The Very Eev. the Dean of Westminster, Deanery,Westminster, S.W. The Very Eev. Dr. Scott, Dean of Eochester, Eochester. The Ven. the Prolocutor, The Prebendal, Aylesbuiy. The Eev. Canon Blakesley, Vicarage, Ware. The Most Eev. the Archbishop of Dublin, Palace, Dublin. The Eight Eev. the Bishop of St Andrew's, The Feu House, Perth. The Eev. Dr. Angus, Baptist College, Eegent's Park, N.W. The Eev. Dr. David Brown, Free Church College, Aberdeen. The Eev. Professor Eadie, G Thornville Terrace, Glasgow. The Eev. P. J. A. Hort, 6 St. Peter's Terrace, Cambridge. The Eev. W. G. Humphry, Vicarage, St. Martin's-in-the-Fields, W.C. The Eev. Canon Kennedy, The Elms, Cambridge. The Ven. Archdeacon Lee, Dublin. The Eev. Canon Lightfoot, Trinity College, Cambridge. The Eev. Professor Milligan, University, Aberdeen. INTBODUCTION. XV The Eev. Professor Moulton, Wesleyan College, Bichmond, Surrey. The Eev. Professor Newth, 25 Clifton Eoad, N.W. The Eev. Professor Egberts, St. Andrew's. The Eev. Dr. G. Vance Smith, York. The Eev. Dr. Scrivener, Gerrans, Grampound. Dr. Tregelles, 6 Portland Square, Plymouth. The Eev. Dr. Vaughan, Master of the Temple, The Temple, London. The Eev. Canon Westcott, Precincts, Peterborough. The Eev. J. Troutbeck {Secretary), 4 Dean's Yard, Westminster. American Co-ojperation. The British Committee is fully competent, without for eign aid, to do justice to the work committed to its care. Yet, in view of its practical aim to furnish a revision not for scholars, but for the churches, it is of great importance to secure, at the outset, the sympathy and co-operation of Biblical scholars in the United States, where the Author ized Version is as widely used and as highly respected as in Great Britain. Kival revisions would only add new fuel to sectarian divisions already too numerous among Protest ants. Let us hold fast by all means to the strongest bond of interdenominational and international union which we have in a common Bible. The new revision, when com pleted, should appear with the imprimatur of the united Biblical scholarship of English-speaking Christendom. In August, 1870, Dr. Joseph Angus, President of Ee gent's Park College, London, and one of the British re visers, arrived in New York, with a letter from Bishop El licott, chairman of the New Testament Company, author izing him to open negotiations for the formation of an American Committee of Eevision. At his request, I pre pared a draft of rules for co-operation, and a list of names of Biblical scholars who would probably best represent the different denominations and literary institutions in this movement. The suggestions were submitted to the Brit ish Committee and substantially approved. Then followed B xvi INTBODUCTION. an interesting ofiicial correspondence, conducted, on behalf of the British Committee, by the Bishop of Winchester, the Dean of Westminster, the Bishop of Gloucester and Bris tol, and Dr. Angus. I was empowered by the British Com mittee to select and invite scholars from noii-I!lpiscopal Churches ; the nomination of members from the American Episcopal Church was, for obvious reasons, placed in tlie liands of some of its Bishops ; but, as they declined to take action, I was requested to fill out the list. It is not neces sary, in this place, to enter into details. I will only state the result of the negotiations. List of American Revisers. THE OLD TESTAMENT COMPANY. Prof. Thomas J. Conant, D.D Brooklyn, N. Y. " George E. Day-, D.D New Haven, Conn. " John De Witt, D.D New Brunswiok, N. J. " AViLLiAM Henry Green, D.D Princeton, N. J. " George Emlen Hare, D.D Philadelphia, Pa. " Charles P.Krauth,D.D Philadelphia, Pa. " Joseph Packard, D.D Fairfax, Va. ' ' Calvin E. Stowe, D.D Cambridge, Mass. " James Strong, S.T.D Madison, N. J. " C. V. A. Van Dyck, M.D.* Beyrut, Syria. " U'ayler Lewis, LL.D Schenectady, N. Y. the kew tI'Stament company. Eight Eev. Alfred Lee, D.D Wilmington, Delaware. Prof. Ezra Abbot, D.D., LL.D Cambridge, Mass. Eev. G. E. Crooks, D.D New York. Prof. H. B. Hackett, D.D., LL.D Eochester, N. Y. " James Hadley, LL.D.f New Haven, Conn. " Charles Hodge, D.D., LL.D Princeton, N. J. " A. C. Kendriok, D.D Eochester, N.Y. " Matthew B. Eiddle, D.D Hartford, Conn. " Charles Short, LL.D New York. " Henry B. Smith, D.D., LL.D New York. " J. Henry Thayer, D.D Andover, Mass. " W. F. Warren, D.D Boston, Mass. * Dr. Van Dyck, the distinguished translator of the Arabic Bible can not be expected to attend the meetings, but may be occasionally consulted on .questions involving a thorough kncwledge of Shemilic languages. t Deceased, Nov., 1872. INTRODUCTION. Xvii Rev. Edward A. Washburn, D.D New York. " Theo. D.Woolsey, D.D., LL.D New Haven, Conn. I'rof. Philip Schafp, D.D New York. In the delicate task of selection, reference was had, first of all, to ability, experience, and reputation in Biblical learn ing and criticism ; next, to denominational connection and standing, so as to have a fair representation of the leading Churches and theological institutions ; and last, to local con venience, in order to secure regular attendance. Some dis tinguished scholars were necessarily omitted, but may be added hereafter by the committee itself. So far as I know, the selection has given general sat isfaction. A few gentlemen (not included in the above list) declined the invitation for personal reasons, but not from any hostility to the pending revision. One of these, a learned Bishop of the Protestant Episcopal Church, wrote to me : ' Let me assure you, it is from no feeling that a re vision is not needed, nor yet from any unwillingness to in voke aid in making it from others than members of the Church of England, that I have been led to this view of my duty.' Another wrote : ' Eespecting the success of the enterprise I have little doubt. The result of the best schol arship of the Church in England and America will com mand assent, and the opposition will speedily subside.' First Meeting of the American Revisers. On the 7th of December, 1871, a number of American revisei-s convened in New York for the purpose of effect ing a temporary organization and adopting a Constitution. The meeting was very pleasant and harmonious. The fol lowing extract from the Minutes .contains the items of pub lic interest : 'At a meeting of gentlemen invited by Eev. Philip Schaif, D.D., to meet this day at his study, No. 40 Bible House, New York, for the pui-pose of forming an organization to co-operate with the British Committee in the re- xviii INTBODUCTION. vision of the Authorized English Version of the Scriptures, the following per sons were present, viz. : ' Prof. Philip Schaff', D.D. , New York ; Prof. Henry B. Smith, D.D., New York ; Prof. Wm. Henry Green, D.D., Princeton, N. J. ; Prof. George Em len Hare, D.D., PhUadelphia, Pa. ; Prof. Charies P. Krauth,D.D., Philadel phia; Eev. Thomas J. Conant, D.D., Brooklyn, N.Y. ; Prof. George E. Day, D.D., New Haven, Conn. ; Ezra Abbot, LL.D., Cambridge, Mass. ; Eev. Ed ward A. Washburn, D.D. , New York. ' Dr. Howson, Dean of Chester, was also present by special invitation, and took part in the deliberations. ' Ex-President Woolsey, Prof. Hackett, Prof. Strong, Prof. Stowe, and oth ers, were prevented from attending, but expressed by letter their hearty inter est in the proposed work, and their readiness to co-operate. ' The meeting was organized by the appointment of Prof Henry B. Smith as Chairman, and Prof. George E. Day as Secretary. ****** Constitution. ' I. The American Committee, invited by the British Committee engaged in the revision of the Authorized English Version of the Holy Scriptures to co-operate with them, shall be composed of Biblical scholars and divines in the United States. ' IL This Committee shall have the power to elect its ofiicers, to add to its number, and to fill its own vacancies. ' III. The officers shall consist of a President, a Corresponding Secretary, and a Treasurer. The President shall conduct the ofiicial correspondence with the British revisers. The Secretary shall conduct the home correspond ence. ' IV. New members of the Committee, and corresponding members, must be nominated at a previous meeting, and elected unanimously by ballot. ' V. The American Committee shall co-operate with the British Compa nies on the basis of the principles and rules of revision adopted by the British Committee. ' VI. The American Committee shall consist of two companies, the one for the revision of the Authorized Version of the Old Testament, the other for the revision of the Authorized Version of the New Testament. 'VII. Each Company shall elect its own Chairman and Eecording Secretary. 'VIII. The British Companies will submit to the American Companies, from time to time, such portions of their work as have passed the first re vision, and the American Companies will transmit their criticisms and sug gestions to the British Companies before the second revision. ' IX. A joint meeting of the American and British Companies shall be held, if possible, in London, before final action. ' X. The American Committee to pay their own expenses, and to have the ownership and control of the copyright of the Eevised Version in the United States of America. (See Minutes, p. 5.) ' A communication from Bishop Ellicott, D.D., to Dr. Schaff', dated Oct. 23, 1871, was read, containing the following resolution of the British Committee : INTBODUCTION. ^.j^ ' "Resolution — That the Bishop of Gloucester and Bristol be requested to communicate with Dr. Schaff' to the eff'ect that the work of the New Testa ment revisers is at present only tentative and provisional, and that it may be considerably altered at the second revision ; but that, upon the assurance of Dr. Schaff' that the work, so far as it is at present advanced, will be con sidered as strictly confidential, the company will send a sufficient number of copies for Dr. Schaff and his brother revisers, for their own private use, the copies to be in no way made public beyond themselves. ' "For this pui-pose that Dr. Schaff' be requested to send the names and addresses of the scholars associated with him in this matter so soon as the company is completely formed."' ***** On the evening of the same day the movement was pub- licly inaugurated by a meeting in Calvary Church, Fourth Avenue, New York, at which Dr. Washburn, Dean Howson, D.D., and the writer made addresses on the subject of Bible Eevision before a very large and intelligent audience, in cluding many clergymen from different denominations. Full reports of the meeting were published in the Chris tian Intelligencer, the Protestant Churchman, and other papers. The organization of the American Committee was duly reported. Certain difiiculties which stood in the way of co-operation were removed by farther correspondence and personal conference of the writer with the British revisers on a visit to England. The British N. T. Company, at its meeting July 17, 1872, took the following action : ' Dr. Schaff having communicated to the Bishop of Gloucester and Bristol the following as the names of the American revisers, .... it was resolved that so many copies of the revised version of the first three Gospels be in trusted to Dr. SchaflF for the use of the above named, with the request that they be regarded as private and confidential, and with the intimation that the work itself is provisional and tentative, and likely to undergo considerable modification.' The copies promised in the above resolution were duly received. The Old Testament Company took similar ac tion, and intrusted me with eleven proof copies of the re vised version of the books of Genesis^ Exodus, and Levit icus for the use of the eleven members of the American XX INTBODUCTION. Company of Old Testament revisers. Other portions of the revised version will be forwarded as soon as they are finished. The American companies will hold their first meeting for active work October 4, 1872. The result of their de liberations will in due time be forwarded to the British Committee for consideration before the second revision. When the whole work shall be completed, it will go to the English-speaking churches for their adoption or rejec tion. By its own merits it will stand or fall. We firmly believe that it will gradually take the place of the Author ized Yersion. Character of the English Version. The WorJc jpro^osed. In presenting briefiy my own views on the subject of revision, I have no authority to speak in behalf of the American revisers, who have not yet fairly begun their work ; but I apprehend no material difiiculty with the British Committee. I have reason to believe that there is a general disposition among us to retain the idiom, gram mar, and vocabulary of the Authorized Version so far as is consistent with faithfulness to the Greek and Hebrew Scriptures, and with justice to the present stage of the English language. The popular English Bible is the greatest blessing which the Eeformation of the sixteenth century bestowed upon the Anglo-Saxon race. It is, upon the whole, the best trans lation ever made, not excepting even Jerome's Yulgate and Luther's Yersion. It is not the production of a single mind, but of a large number of wise and good men, rep resenting three generations in the most eventful and pro ductive period of modern church history. It is ' the pure well of English undefiled.' It has formed the style and taste of the English classics. It has a hold upon the pop- INTBODUCTION. Xxi ular heart which it can never lose. Its vocabulary and phrases, its happy blending of Saxon force and Latin dig nity, its uniform chasteness, earnestness, and solemnity, its thoroughly idiomatic tone, its rhythmic fiow, its more than poetic beauty and harmony, have secured the admiration of scholars and the affection of whole churches and nations in which it is used. Even in the Eomisli communion, a distinguished English apostate from Protestantism could not forget its marvellous beauty and heavenly music* . * The remarkable judgment of the late Dr. F. William Faber (often falsely attributed to Dr. John Henry Newman) is well worth quoting in full : ' Who will say that the uncommon beauty and marvellous English of the Protestant Bible is not one of the great strongholds of heresy in this country ? • It lives on the ear like a music that can never be forgotten, like the sound of church bells, which the convert hardly knows how he can forego. Its felicities often seem to be almost things rather than mere words. It is part of the national mind, and the anchor of national seriousness. Nay, it is worshipped with a positive idolatry, in extenuation of whose grotesque fanaticism its intrinsic beauty pleads availingly with the man of letters and the scholar. The mem ory of the dead passes into it. The potent traditions of childhood are stereo typed in its verses. The power of all the griefs and trials of a man is hidden beneath its words. It is the representative of his best moments, and all that there has been about him of soft, and gentle, and pure, and penitent, and good, speaks to him for ever out of his English Bible. It is his sacred thing, which doubt has never dimmed, and controversy never soiled. It has been to him all along as the silent, but oh ! how intelligible voice of his guardian angel , and in the length and breadth of the land there is not a Protestant, with one spark of religiousness about him, whose spiritual biography is not in his Saxon Bible. And all this is an unhallowed power!'— From Faber's Essay on The Interest and Characteristics of the Lives of the Saints, p. 116, prefixed to a Life of St. Francis of Assisi (1853), which forms vol. xxv. of the Oratory series of the Lives of Modern Saints. I took the quotation from an anony mous reviewer of Conybeare and Howson's Life and Epistles of St. Paul, in the Dublin Review for June, IS.'iS, p. 466. The Eoman Catholic reviewer admits (p. 465 sq.) that the ' Douay version, composed as it was under heavy difficulties and the greatest disadvantages, is, upon the whole, surprisingly accurate and exact [?], though confessedly fer from scholar-like as a literary performance, and as deficient in pure English idiom as the Protestant version is excellent in that particular ; ' but then he goes on to charge the latter with doctrinal unfairness, instancing the well-known passages 1 Cor. xi. 27, where >; {Trivy to Trorlipiov) — often used by Eomanists as an argument for the com munion sub una specie — is rendered and; Matt. xix. 11, oi ttavrtq x'^pouiri, ' all men can not receive the word ;' Gal. i. 18, \aTopr\aai Uerpov, ' to see Pe ter.' xxii INTRODUCTION. The power and influence of this version can not be esti mated. Being from the very start a truly national work for the British Isles, it has gradually assumed, with the En glish language itself, an almost cosmopolitan character and importance, and is now used more than any translation in all parts of the globe. Tlie British and Foreign Bible So ciety, or the American Bible Society, probably send forth more copies of the English Scriptures than are printed in all other languages combined. Eternity alone can reveal how many millions have been made wise unto salvation through the instrumentality of this version. To substitute a new popular version for such a work would be almost a sacrilege, certainly an ungrateful task and inevitable failure. But this is not at all the question. The present move ment contemplates no new version, but simply a scholarly and conscientious revision, in the spirit, and, as far as pos sible, in the very language, of the old. The object is to make a good translation still better, more accurate and self-consistent, and to bring it up to the present standard of Biblical scholarship. The abstract right of revision can not be disputed. It is the duty of the Church, especially the Protestant, to give the Bible to the people in the best possible form, and to adapt existing translations, from time to time, to the prog ress in Scripture learning and the 'inevitable changes of a living language. Without this right and duty. King James's Yersion of 1611 would not exist at all, for it is it self the result of several revisions, going back — through the Bishops' Bible (1568), the Geneva Bible (1557, completed 1560), Cranmer's Bible (1539), Matthew's (or Eogers's) Bi ble (1537), Coverdale's Bible (1535 and 1537)— to the New Testament (with parts of the Old Testament) of Tyndale INTBODUCTION. xxiii (1525-1535),* who is the real author, as well as martyr, of tlie English version,-]- and, in the former respect, the En glish Luther.:j; The need and desirableness of a new revision are now al most generally admitted, at least by those who are best ac quainted with the Bible in its original languages. The most ardent admirers of King James's Yersion do not claim for it perfection and infallibility. It has a very consider able number of errors, defects, and obscurities. It was the best translation which could be made in the beginning of the seventeenth century, but it can be greatly improved with the enlarged facilities of the present age. The only debatable question, then, is as to the proper time and best mode of undertaking this important and de sirable work. A few years ago many of the most judi cious friends of revision would have said that the pear is not ripe yet, although fast ripening ; but the recent move ment in Great Britain settles the question. It combines all the needful scholarship, ability, authority, and co-op eration. It. presents the most favorable juncture which can be desired, and it must be turned to the best account. The greatest difficulty was in our sectarian divisions : it has been removed by the Spirit of God, who alone can so move the hearts of men as to bring Churchmen and Dissent ers, Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Independents, Methodists, Baptists, and others, together in brotherly harmony and co operation. To miss the glorious opportunity now is indef initely to postpone the great work, or to risk the multipli- * For details, see the excellent History of the English Bible, by Professor Westcott (one of the British Committee of Eevision), London, 1868. t Wicliffe's translation was not made from the original Greek and Hebrew, but from the Latin Vulgate, and was little used, if used at all, by Tyndale. X Westcott, 1. c. , p. 66, pays him the following just tribute : ' Not one self ish thought mixed with his magnificent devotion. No treacherous intrigues ever shook his loyalty to his king ; no intensity of distress ever obscured his faith in Christ.' xxiv INTBODUCTION. cation of sectarian versions — as there are already a Baptist and a Unitarian New Testament. Let us by. all means have an oecumenical revision now when we can have it, which shall be a new and stronger bond of union among tlie many branches of Anglo-Saxon Christendom, and make the good old Bible clearer and dearer to the people. Improvements. The improvements which can be made, without in the least impairing the idiom and beauty, or disturbing the sacred associations, of the Authorized Yersion, may be con sidered under the following heads, as needing revision : the Text ; Errors ; Inaccuracies ; Inconsistencies ; Ai'chaisms ; Proper Names ; Accessories ; Arrangement. 1. The Text. To restore, from the best critical resources now made accessible, an older and purer text in the place of the com paratively late and corrupt textus receptus. In other words, to substitute, in the New Testament, an ante-Nicene for a mediaeval text. The Hebrew text, having been settled long ago by the Masorets, presents very little difficulty. It is stated that there are only 1314 various readings of importance in the Old Testament, and that only 147 of them aff^ect the sense. With critical conjectures (such as proposed by Hitzig, Merx, etc.) a popular version has nothing to do. When the Authorized Version follows the Septuagint and the Vulgate against the Hebrew, the Hebrew text must of course have the preference. The case is very different in the New Testament. The Authorized Ver sion, like all other Protestant versions, is made from the 'received text,' so called, which dates from the first printed edition of the Greek Testament by Erasmus (1516), especially his fourth edition (1527, which contains some emendations in the Apocalypse, derived from the Complutensian Polvglot), and includes a few improvements made by Stephens, of Paris, and then by Beza, of Geneva. It was boldly proclaimed to bo the ' textus ab omnibus re- ceptus' by the enterprising publishers, Elzevir, of Leyden (in their second edi tion, 1633). This text has ruled, almost undisputed, as a part of Protestant orthodoxy (as the Latin Vulgate as a part of Eomish orthodoxy), until, after Bentley and Bengel had shaken confidence in it, it was set aside by Lachmann INTRODUCTION. xxv (1831) and his followers, to make room for an older and better text since brought to light.'* The 'received text' was hastily derived, in the infant period of the printed Bible, from a few and faulty cursive MSS., when the best uncial MSS. and the oldest versions (except a coiTupt text of the Vulgate) were not yet known, before the patristic quotations were examined, and before even the first prin ciples of textual criticism were understood, f Since that time an immense material for textual criticism has been gath ered, compared, weighed, and sifted by the indefatigable labors of Mill, Ben- gel, Wetstein, Griesbach, Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, and others. We have now as complete an apparatus as is necessary to settle the text in all its essential features, and there is no prospect that any new discoveries (even as important as that of the Codex Sinaiticus in 1859) will materially alter the result, unless some future Tischendorf should be so fortunate as to find the apostolic autographs ; but this, in view of the perishable nature of papyrus, on which they were written, is next to impossible. Over 1500 MSS. of the Greek Testament have been more or less compared,t and from 100,000 to 120,000 various readings have been accumulated from all textual sources to the present day. Fortunately, these variations do not unsettle a single article of Christian faith and duty; they only establish the essential integrity of the apostolic text, and increase the facilities of determining, approximately, the original reading, without resorting (as is the case with classical authors) to precarious subjective conjectures. On the most important variations which affect the sense, and which alone deserve consideration in a. popular Ye.t&xon, the leading critics of the day are now quite or nearly agreed. From the un cial MSS. (especially the two oldest, the Sinaitic and the Vatican, or !>« and B, both made accessible now to all by the quasi fac-simile editions of Tischen- * Tyndale used the edition of Erasmus, the Geneva revisers the Latin ver sion of Beza (first ed. 1 557). Comp. Westcott, Hist, of the Eng. Bible, p. 288. On the precise Greek text from which King James's revision is derived, see the Note below. On the Continent, the first Elzevir or Leyden edition of 1624 (from which the second edition of 1633 diff'ers very slightly) is understood to be the ' received text ;' while in England the term is more frequently applied to the third edition of Eobert Stephens, which appeared in 1550, called the ' royal edition.' The Greek text in both is substantially the same. Including minute variations in orthography, they differ in 287 places (Scrivener, N. T, Criticism, 1861 ; Westcott, in Smith's Bibl. Diet. iii. 2132, Am. ed.). Where the Elzera edition diff'ers from Stephens, it generally agrees with Beza. + Beza had, it is true, two uncial codd., viz.. Codex D or Bezae, of the Gospels and Acts, and Cod. D Claromontanus, of the Epistles, and knew also the Peshito and Arabic versions, but he made very little use of them, being more concerned for his Latin translation and notes. His immediate success ors neglected even these important sources of criticism. 1 Mr. Scrivener {Introd. to Bibl. Crit., p. 22,5) states the total number of manuscripts of the Greek Testament known and used to be 1583, of which 127 are uncial, 1456 cursive, but most of the uncial and many of the cursive MSS. are incomplete, and 67 must be deducted for being counted double. xxvi INTBODUCTION. dorf and Vercellone), the earliest versions (especially the Itala, Vulgate, and Peshito), and the quotations of the Nicene and ante-Nicene fathers (Origen, Tertullian, Irenseus, etc.), we are now able to reconstruct, with a tolerable de gree of certainty, the oldest attainable text, which is, upon the whole, much simpler and stronger than'the post-Nicene and medieval textus receplus, and free from liturgical and other glosses. This ante-Nicene text should be made the basis of the revision, at least in all such cases where, as Ellicott says, ' critical evidence and the consent of the best editors point out the necessity of the change.' This canon must, of course, exclude the spurious passage of the three wit nesses, 1 John V. 7, which was omitted also at first by Erasmus, Luther, and Tyndale.'* In 1 Tim. iii. 16, Seoc must yield to of, which is probably a quotation from a primitive hymn to Christ. The doxology of the Lord's Prayer, Matt, vi., will be less easily surrendered. Sections which seem to be part of primitive apostolic tradition, though not of apostolic composition, as the pericope, John vii. 53, to viii. 11, may be retained in brackets or in italics. In debatable readings, where the witnesses are equally or almost equally divided — as between fiovoytvfig Sttie and fiovoytvrje vide, John i. 18 ; between tK/cXijiria rou Ssou and tKKKriaia too Kvpiov;\ between ix(^liiv (whicli is better supported by external evidence) and ixo/iiv (which is preferable for intrinsic reasons) in Eom. v. 1 — the reading of the textus receptus should be retained, but the variation marked on the margin. Sometimes old readings throw a new light on the meaning, as in Mark iii. 29, ' guilty of eternal sin' {afiaprrinarog), instead of punishment. The genuineness of the Epistle to the Ephesians receives new support from the Sinaitic MS. by its omission of the words ' in Ephesus' in the address (i. 1), as it corroborates the view that it was a circular letter, and therefore free from those personal allusions and salutations which we would otherwise expect. The text of the Apocalypse, of which we have fewer sources than of any other book of the N. T., has been cleared up in several important passages by the Codices Alexandrinus (A), Ephrtemi Syri rescriptus (C), Sinaiticus (X), Vaticanus No. 2066, a manuscript of the seventh or eighth century, called B cf the Apocalypse (the great Cod. B Vaticanus does not contain the Apoca lypse), the uncial palimpsest (P) discovered and made legible by Tischendorf in 1862,1 and published in the sixth volume of his Monumenia sacra inedita (1 869), and the rediscovery by Prof. Delitzsch of Eeuchlin's Codex§ — the only one for the Apocalypse which Erasmus used for his first edition, and used with * Tyndale's edition of 1534, as given in Bagster's English IIexapla,}xas the disputed passage in italics. t Tischendorf, in his 8th crit. ed., gives the preference to Kvpioil, on the authority of A, C", D, E, Irenseus (Lat. interpr.), etc. X When Tischendorf applied his chemical process to the palimpsest, the Greek Archimandrite (now Bishop) Porfiri Uspenski, who had brought this and other MSS. from his Oriental travels, exclaimed ' Ecce Lazarus e se- pulchro redux !' § See Delitzsch, Handschriftliche Funde, 1861 and 1862. Tregelles has also examined this Codex, which was found in the library of the Prince of OSttingen-Wallerstein. INTBODUCTION. xxvii great haste. I will mention a few examples. In ch. i. 9, ' who am also your brother,' the improper 'also' rests on a mere misunderstanding of Eras mus's copyist. In ch. i. 11, the words ' which are in Asia' are an interpola tion of Erasmus from the Vulgate : quae sunt in Asia. Similar additions of Erasmus from the Latin, which have no support in the Greek text, are found in ch. ii. 3 (' and hast not fainted,' ' et non defecisti'), in ii. 20 (' a few things,' 'pauca'), in ii. 24 (the disturbing 'and'), and in several other passages. In ch. V. 10, the Greek reads ' thou hast made them {avTov£, i. e. the four and twenty elders) kings (a kingdom) and priests unto our God,' and ' they' (the elders) ' shall rule {jiaaiKtvaovaw) upon the earth ;' but the A. V. turns ' them' into ' us,' and ' they into ' we,' because Erasmus followed here the lat er cormpted text of the Vulgate in opposition to Eeuchlin's Greek MS. In xvi. 14, 'the kings of the earth and of the whole world,' the superfluous words ' of the earth and' are to be traced to a mistake of the transcriber, as the Greek reads simply tovq ^aaCKiiQ TrJQ olicovnivrig oXrig. In ch. xvii. 8, the perplexing translation, ' the beast that was, and is not, and yet is' (from the false reading Kaiirtp tan), must now be corrected into ' the beast that was and is not, and yet shall come' (the best authorities reading kuI Trdpearat Cod. Sin. Kal vaXiv irapiaTat, shall come again. Compare fiiWei ava^ai- viiv is rrjQ ajivaaov, in the preceding clause).'* Note on the Greek Text op the English Version. — ^It is a question of some interest and importance to ascertain what edition of the Greek text was chiefly used by King James's translators. They left us no direct infor mation ; they paid little or no attention to textual criticism, which was then in its infancy, but we know what resources were then available. As they finished their work (1611) thirteen years before the first Elzevir edition (1624) appeared, they must have used the later editions of Stephens and heza, which had then superseded the editions of Erasmus. The third edition of Eobert Stephens, called editio regia, was printed in Paris, and the fourth at Geneva, 1551 ; the latter, with the exception of a few passages, is a mere reprint, in inferior style, but it is the first which con tains our versicular division. The text of Stephens (1550) has often been reproduced in England, most recently by F. H. Scrivener (1860 and 1872), who gives also the readings of Beza (professedly of 1565 ; but see the letter of Prof. Abbot below), of the Elzevirs (1624), Tischendorf, Lachmann, and Tregelles. From Beza there appeared, before his death (1603), four folio editions of the Greek Testament, including the Vulgate, his new Latin translation, and exegetical notes, printed by Henry Stephens at Geneva.t and dedicated to * Comp. an art. of Dr. Conant on the Greeh Text of the Apocalypse, in the Baptist Quarterly, vol. iv. No. 2, and Tregelles's Apocalypse, edit. 1844, and now his last edition, concluding his Greek Testament, 1872. Tischendorf has not yet completed the second volume of his eighth edition, which will contain the Apocalypse. t We have from Beza also several small editions, which omit the Vulgate (except in the 3d ed.), and give marginal glosses extracted from his com mentary. They are dedicated to Prince Conde'. Eeuss {Geschichte des N. xxviii INTBODUCTION. Queen Elizabeth, viz. edit. i. (called ii.*), A.D. 1565, which is based upon the fourth edition of Stephens; ed. ii. (iii.), 1582, much improved by the readings of the important Codices Bezse (D Gosp.) and Claromontanus (D Epp.), and the comparison of the Peshito and Arabic versions ; ed. iii. (iv.), 1589 (also under the date 1588), chiefly a reprint of the third; ed. iv. (!'.), 1698, which diff'ers but little from the third, is less accurate, and was re printed at Cambridge, 1642.t It is almost certain, at the outset, that the last editions of Beza were the main basis of the A. V. , not only because they were the latest and best, but also because Beza, the surviving patriarch of the reformers, exerted, by his Latin version and exegetical notes, a marked influence upon our translators ;t even his explanatory or harmonistic interpolations in Apoc. xi. 1 {kuI 6 ayyt- XoQ uarriKH); Matt. i. 11 ; John xix. 13, found a place in the text, or at least in the margin of the A. V. A closer examination confirms this supposition ; but there is as yet no agreement as to the precise extent to which the A. V. depends upon Beza, or sides with Stephens, or dissents from both. Scrivener {A Supplement to the Authorized Version, pp. 7, 8), Westcott (art. New Test, in Smith's Bible Diet. iii. 2132, note. Am. ed.), and Ellicott {Revision of the N. T. ch. ii.) main tain that the A. V. is derived from Beza's third (1582) or fourth (1589) edi tion, and from Stephens's third (1550) or fourth (1551), and that in some 60 places it sides with Beza against Stephens, in some 28 with Stephens against Beza, while it differs from both in less than half a dozen places. But ac cording to Hudson {Critical Greek and English Concordance of the N. T. p. xiii.), who takes Beza's fifth edition (1598) as the basis, the A.V. agrees with Beza versus Stephens's third in about 80 places, with Stephens versus Beza in about 40, and departs from both in about a dozen places. Prof. Abbot, of Harvard University, who has access to all the editions of Beza (except the third, 1582) and Stephens, and who, of all American scholars, is best qualified to ascertain the facts in the case, has at my request carefully investigated this point, and kindly furnished me with another statement, which, though not professing to be absolutely exhaustive, is more complete and accurate than any that has hitherto been published, to the effect that ' the Authorized Version agrees with Beza's text of 1589 against Stephens's of 1550 in about 90 places ; with Stephens against Beza in about 40 ; and in from 30 to 40 places, in most of which the variations are of a trivial character, it diff'ers T.) says that they vary in the text, and were printed in Geneva, though often erroneously assigned to Paris. * Beza counts his Latin edition of 1557 (the title-page gives 1556, the last page 1557) as editio prima ; but, as it does not give the Greek text, it ought not to be counted. t Tregelles, Scrivener, Westcott, and Bleek {Einleitung in d. N. T. p. 776), following Mill and Michaelis, speak also of an edition of 1576. But there is no place for such an edition in either series of Beza's texts. Wetstein {Pro- leg, p. 146) and Eeuss {Geschichte des N. T. p. 411) give the correct account. t As he had done before upon the Genevan version (1557 and 1560). See the examples in Westcott's History of the English Bible, p. 294 scq. INTBODUCTION. Xxix from both.' With his permission, I will give the specifications from a letter to me, dated Cambridge, Mass., Sept. 23, 1872, for which he deserves the thanks of Biblical scholars : 'I. The A.V. agrees with Beza against Stephens in Matt. xxi. 7; xxiii. 1 3, 14. Mark vi. 29 ; viii. 14, 24 ; ix. 40 ; xii. 20 ; xiii. 28. Luke i. 35 ; ii. 22 ; iii. 23, 35 (vi. 0, trans, and note); viii. 29 (not trans.); x. 6 (not trans.), 22; XV. 26; xvii. 36; xx. 47. John viii. 25; xii. 17; xiii. 31; xvi. 33; xviii. 24. Acts (v. 24, trans, and note) ix. 35 ; xv. 32 (?) ; xvii. 25 ; xxii. 25 ; xxiv. 13, 14 (?), 18, 19 ; xxv. 5 ; xxvi. 3, 18 ; xxvii. 12, 13. Eom. vii. 6 ; viii. 11 ; xii. 11 ; xvi. 20, 27 (?). 1 Cor. v. 11 ; xv. 31. 2 Cor. iii. 1 ; V. 4 ; vi. ] 5 ; vii. 1 2, 1 6 ; x. 10 ; xi. 1 0 ; xiii. 4. Eph. vi. 7. Col. i. 2, 24 ; ii. 13. 1 Thess. (ii. 13, trans, and note) ii. 15. 2 Thess. ii. 4. 1 Tim. i. 4. Tit. ii. 1 0. Heb. ix. 1 , 2 ; x. 10 ; xii. 22, 23, punct. James ii. 18 ; iv. 13% 13'';v.I2. 1 Pet. i. 4; ii. 21; iii. 11, 21 CO. 2 Pet. iii. 7. ljohni.4; ii. 23 (A.V. in italics); iii. 16. 2 John 3. 3 John 7. Jude 19, 24. Eev. ii. 14; iii. 1 ; v. 1 1 ; vii. 3, 10 ; viii. 11; xi. 1 , 2, 14 ; xiii. 3 ; xiv. 18 ; xvi. 5, 14. In Dr. Westcott's list, in Smith's Diet, of the Bible [art. New Test."], Acts xxi. 8 ; Eev. vii. 2, 14 ; xvii. 4, and in Scrivener's list {Supplement to the Auth. Version, p. 8), Eev. xix. 14, seem to be erroneously placed here. Matt. ix. 33 ; Acts i. 4, are uncertain. 'II. The A.V. agrees with Stephens, in preference to Beza's text of 1589, in Matt. i. 23 (vi. 1 , Beza's trans, and note ; his text is Stephens's). Mark i. 21 ; xvi. 14 (?), 20. Luke vii. 45 ; ix. 15. John iv. 5 ; xviii. 20. Acts ii. 36; iv. 25, 27, 36; vii. 16; xvi. 7, 17; xxi. 11 ; xxv. 6; xxvi, 8, punct. Eom. i. 29 ; v. 17; viii. 21, punct. ; xi. 28. 1 Cor. vii. 29 , xi. 22, punct. ; XV. 55. 2 Cor. i. 6 ; iii. 14 (?) ; viii. 24. Gal. iv. 1 7. Phil. i. 23 ; ii. 24 ; iii. 20. Col. i. 2. 1 Tim. vi. 15. 2 Tim. ii. 22. Tit. ii. 7. Heb. ix. 28 ; X. 2. James iii. 6. 1 Pet. v. 10. 2 Pet. i. 1 {auirijpoe iifiiav). Eev. vi. 12 ; ix. 19 (but Beza's trans, and note agree with Stephens). In Dr. Westcott's list, 1 Pet. ii. 21 ; iii. 21 ; 2 Pet. ii. 12 ; Eev. ix. 5 ; xii. 14 : xiv. 2 ; xviii. 6 ; xix. 1, are wrongly placed here. 1 Cor. iii. 3 ; x. 28, adduced by Scriv ener, appear to be merely cases of typographical error in Beza's text. Matt. XX. 15 ; 1 Cor. xi. 1 ; Eev. iv. 10, are not decisive. ' III. The A.V. follows a reading found neither in Stephens (1 550) or Beza (1589), in Matt. ii. 11 ; x. 10. Mark iv. 18 ; vi. 4 (?) ; xiv. 43. Luke iii. 31 ; vi. 37 (Vulg.) ; viii. 31 ; xvii. 35 ; xx. 31, 32 ; xxii. 45 (?). John v. 5 ; vii. 9, 12 ; viii. 6, 42 ; ix. 25 ; xii. 13, 26, 34 (?) ; xvi. 25 (A.V. ed. 1611) ; xviii. 1 (?), 15 (?). Acts iii. 3 ; vi. 3 (?) ; vii. 44 (Vulg.) ; viii. 13 ; xix. 20 (Vulg.) ; xxi. 8 (Beza's trans, and note) ; xxvi. 6 (?) ; xxvii. 29. Eom. vi. 3 (mere oversight ?). Eph. vi. 24 (A.V. ed. 1611). Phil. iv. 12. 1 Thess. v. 4 (Vulg.). Philem. 7. James iv. 15. 2 Pet. i. 1 (Si'/tw)', and rj/iuij' omitted after Otov) ; ii. 9. Eev. vii. 2 (?) ; xvii. 4. 'A collation of Beza's fifth edition (1598) is given in Bagster's Critical New Testament, Greek and English (1 842). That edition is not accurately print ed, but the intentional changes from the text of 1589 are few. ' It is necessary to observe that the collation of Beza's edition of 1 565, given by Scrivener in liis Introduction (pp. 304-311) and in his Greek Testament, is not to be trusted. It agrees neither with the octavo nor the folio edition published by Beza in 1565. It is impossible that he should have used the text of either of those editions in making the collation which he has given. He has mistaken a copy of some other edition (perhaps wanting the title- page, or with a false title-page supplied) for the real Beza of 1565. The readings ascribed, in his Introduction^ to Beza, 1565, diff'er from Beza's folio edition of that year in 1 1 1 places, but in only about 15 places from his octavo editions of 1580 and 1590. They do not agree so well with the edition of 1567. That of 1604 I have not seen. xxx INTBODUCTION. ' The erroneous references of Dr. Westcott pointed out above were appar. ently derived from Scrivener's collation ; and in a note in the American edi tion of Smith's Bible Dictionary (p. 2132), misled by Scrivener, I wrongly re- ferred them to Beza's text of 1565.' 2. Errors. To correct acknowledged errors, whether of typography, or English Grammar, or translation. (a.) Misprints. Examples : ' Strain at a gnat,' for ' strain owf,' Matt, xxiii. 24 {dmXiZovree rtiv KdivuTra);* — ' broidered' (the ed. of 1611 and other early edd. : ' broid- ed'), for 'braided {plaited) hair,' 1 Tim. ii. 9;— 'and she went into the city,' for 'he,' Euth iii. 15 (see the Hebrew) ;— ' awake my love, till he please,' for 'she,' Cant. ii. 7 (in the Hebrew). Many other typographical errors of the edition of 1611 , which was far from being correct, have long since been silently removed by subsequent editions, in England and in America, yet not so as to secure uniformity ; e. g. : 'hoops of the pillars,' for 'hooks' (Exod. xxxviii. 11); 'plaine,' for 'plague' (Lev. xiii. 56); 'fet' the roll,' for 'fetch' (Jer. xxxvi. 21), 'shewed them by the proph ets,' for ' hewed' {Hos. vi. 5); 'rejected verses,' for 'recited' (Ecclus. xliv. 5); 'approved to death,' for 'appointed' (1 Cor. xii. 28); 'helps in governments,' for 'helps, governments' (1 Cor. xii. 28); 'vinegar,' for 'vineyard' (Luke xiii. 7, in the so-called ' vinegar edition' of Oxford, 1717).t The variations of the second edition, 1613, from the first, 1611, amount to about 375; in Dr. Blay- ney's edition of 1769, which is regarded as the standard edition, 116 errors were detected by the editors of the Eyre and Strahan edition, 1813. The committee appointed by the American Bible Society in 1848 found many er rors and inconsistencies in the best English editions. J * Dean Alford, in his Commentary, defends the Authorized Version by the strained explanation: 'strain (out the wine) at (the occurrence of) a gnat,' but in his English version of the Greek Testament (1869) he adopts out for at. All the other English versions (except that of Eheims) read ' strain out.' Bishop Lowth remarks : ' The impropriety of the preposition has wholly de stroyed the meaning of the phrase, ' which refers to the use of a strainer. See my annotations to Lange on Matthew, p. 408, note 16, p. 413. t In a copy of the second issue of the edition of 16 1 1 (in possession of Dr. Eadie, at Glasgow) I saw even .Tudas for Jesus in Matt. xxvi. 36. In the first issue, twenty-one words of Exod. xiv. 10 are printed twice. In an edi tion of 1613, the word not is omitted in Lev. xix. 10 ; 1 Cor. xi. 17 ; and 2 Tim. iv. 16. X See the Report of the History and Recent Collation of the English Ver sion of the Bible : presented by the Committee on Versions to the Board of Managers of the American Bible Society, and adopted May 1, 1851, p. 11 seq. The Committee on Versions (including such scholars as Drs. Edward Eobinson, Samuel H. Turner, and John M'Clintock) spent three years of labor and pains in correcting misprints, and improving the orthography, cap- INTBODUCTION. j,^,.j The words 'ware of (Acts xiv. 6 ; Matt. xxiv. 50 ; Neh. x. 31), for ' aware of (Cant. vi. 12 ; Jer. 1. 24 ; Luke xi. 44) ; 'horse bridles,' for 'horses' bri dles' (so the Greek), Eev. xiv. 20; comp. 'horse heels,' Gen. xlix. 17, and ' horse hoofs, ' Judges v, 22 ; and ' throughly, ' for ' thoroughly, ' which have been corrected in some editions, are not misprints, but archaisms. The same is true of ' John Baptist,' for ' John the Baptist' (comp. Matt. xiv. 8 • xvi. 14 ¦ xvii. 13 ; Mark vi. 24, 25 ; viii. 28 ; Luke vii. 20, 28, 33, in Tyndale, Cran- mer, the Genevan, and the Bishops' Bible) ; 'diddest,' for 'didst' (in Acts vii. 28, found also in Tyndale, Cranmer, the Genevan, and the Bishops' Bible), 'sometimes,' for 'some time' (i. e. once, formerly, Eph. v. 8). But these ar chaisms should all be removed, and they have been corrected in many editions. {b. ) Errors of English Grammar (which is not as good as the vocabulary of the Authorized Version). Examples : C^er«5tms (confusion of Heb. with Eng. plural), for cherubim or cherubs; as also seraphims, Nethinims, Anakims (Gen. iii. 24; Isa. vi. 2, 6; Heb. ix. 5, etc.).— 'Whom say ye that I am,' for Who (Matt. xvi. 15 ; Mark viii. 27, 2^).— His (archaic), for t^s (Matt. v. 13, Mark ix. 50; Luke xiv. 34, etc.). — 'This people who knoweth not,' for 'know not' (John vii. 49).— 'Ye should have hearkened unto me . . . and to have gained,' etc., for 'and {so) have gained,' etc. (Acts xxvii. 21). (c.) Mistranslations. Matt. V. 21, 27, 33, 'by them of old time,' instead of 'to them' (roTc ap- XaioiQ, to the ancients, is taken as dative by all the English versions except the Authorized, which followed Beza ; the ablative use is very rare and ques tionable). Matt. X. 4, and Mark iii. 18, ' Simon the Canaanite,' instead of ' Simon of Cana' (the village in Galilee, which, however, would require KavirTis rather than Kavavirric), or, better, ' the Zealot' {=Zr]\wrt]s), compare Luke vi. 15 ; Acts i. 13; Numb. xxv. 11. The American Bible Society's edition of 1852 had substituted Cananite, which was afterward changed back to Canaanite. Matt. xiv. 8, ' And she being before instructed (from the Vulgate praemo- nita) of her mother, ' instead of ' instigated (or led on, induced, aufgestachelt, angest'iftet, irpoliijiaaBtXaa) by. her mother.' Matt, xxviii. 19, ' Baptizing them in the name of the Father, ' etc. , instead of ' into the name' (t i q to iivo/ia, not tv Tif ovofiari), i. e. into the covenant relationship and communion with the triune God. So also 1 Cor. i. 13, ' baptized in the name of Paul,' for 'into' {ele to ovojia XlaiXov) ; Acts viii. ital letters, words in italics, punctuation, and headings of columns and chap ters, but the American Bible Society was induced by a majority of its man agers to cancel the revised edition thus prepared (1852), on the ground of alleged want of constitutional authority, and popular dissatisfaction with a number of the changes made, especially in the headings of chapters (as sub stituting Messiah and Sion, in the O. T., for Christ and Church). Some fruits of their labor, however, remain, and many inconsistencies in the spelling of proper names, in the use of the vocative 0 and the optative oh, and of the in definite article (now a house, a hill, a holy, now an house, etc.), are rectified in the editions of the American Bible Society since 1860. See the Report of the Committee on Versions, appointed in 1858. xxxii INTRODUCTION. 15 ; xix. 5. The false rendering of the English and other versions arises from the Vulgate {in nomine; Tertullian had it correctly in nomen) ; but in other passages on baptism the English Version renders the preposition tie correctlj', viz. Eom. vi. 3, 4 ; 1 Cor. x. 2 ; xii. 13 ; Gal. iii. 27; Acts xix. 3.* Luke xxiii. 15, ' nothing worthy of death is done unto him' (i {quadrans), farthing {Heller), are both translated alike, although the latter is only one fourth part of the former. 'Measure' is used for xo'>"S (about a quart), adrov, a satum or scab, jSaroc, the bath or ephah, and Kopoc, a cor or homer (equal to 15 bushels English), though the adrov is one third of the parog, and pdrog one tenth of the Kopog. 3. Inaccuracies. To rectify inexact and imperfect renderings, M-hich ob scure, or weaken, or modify tlie sense intended by the sa cred writer. These cases are far more numerous than positive errors, though often scarcely less injurious. They may be classified under the following heads : (a.) Omission of the article. Matt. iv. 5,-' a pinnacle,' for 'the pinnacle {to Trripvytov) of the Temple.' Matt. V. 1, and other places, ' a- mountain,' instead of ' the mountain' {to ijpog). Matt. xii. 41, 'rise up in judgment, 'for 'in Me j.' (comp. ver. 42, where the article is correctly retained in the A. V.). Matt. xxiv. 12, ' the love of many shall wax (gi'ow) cold,' instead of ' the love of the many' {twv iroXXuiv), i. e. the vast majority of the disciples. John vi. 4, ' the Passover, a feast of the Jews,' instead of ' the (great) feast' {if ioprii Tuiv 'lovSaiwv). John xii. 13, ' They took branches of palm-trees,' where the original reads ' the branches of the palm-trees' (of the Mount of Olives). John xviii. 3, 'a band of men,' instead of 'tlie band of soldiers' {tt'iv airu- pav), i. e., the well-known Eoman garrison of Fort Antonia (Matt, xxvii. 27 ; Acts xxi. 31). Eom. V. 15, 17, 18, 19, 'one' and 'many' (opposed to few), for 'the one,' o sXg (i. e. Adam the one transgressor on one hand, and Christ the one restorer on the other), and ' the many,' oi iroXXoi (i. e. the mass, the whole race, irdvrtg av&pwTrot, ver.,12). The omission of the article in this important passage weakens the antithesis and obscures the idea of the suflSciency and universal intent of Christ's redemption. .Eom. V. 9, 'saved from wrath,' instead of 'the wrath' to come {dirb rijc ipyrjg). Correct in 1 Thess. ii. 16. 1 Cor. ix. 5, 'as well as other apostles,' instead of 'the other apostles' {oi XoiTToi dTroaroXoi). Col. i. 19, 'all fulness,' instead of 'the whole fulness' (Trai- -o nXiipiopa), i. e. the plenitude or totality of divine powers. 2 Thess. ii. 3, 'except a falling away,' for 'the falling away,' i. e. the great apostasy {r) drroaraaia). 1 Tim. vi. 12, 13, 'a good profession,' for 'the good profession.' 2 Tim. iv. 7, 8, 'fought a good fight .... mi/ course .... a crown of INTRODUCTION. XXXV righteousness, 'for 'Me good fight Recourse Me crown of righteousness. ' Heb. xi. 10, 'he looked for a city which hath foundations,' instead of 'he was looking (ilt^Exfro, imperf.) for the (heavenly) city which has the founda tions' {Ti]V Tovg Sc/uXiovg txovaav nuXiv); comp. xii. 22; Eev. xxi. 14,19, 30. Eev. vii. 14, 'they which come out of great tribulation,' for 'the great trib ulation' (ek rrjg SXiiptwg rijg fisydXrig) ; comp. Matt. xxiv. 22,29; Dan. xii. 1 . The article is often neglected before j/o/joe in the Eomans and Galatians, where it designates the written Mosaic law, in distinction from v6pog,the un written, abstract, and universal law ; and in theGospels before Christ, 6 Xpiarog^ the long-expected Messiah of the Jews (e. g. Matt. ii. 4 ; xi. 2 ; xvi. 16 ; xxiv. 5 ; Luke xxiii. 35, 39). Although the English idiom does not always admit the article where it is in the Greek,* yet it is generally safe to render it whenever it is emphatic, or when it appears after a preposition, though there are exceptions, e. g. Matt. iii. 13 {dirb rrjg TaXiXaiag iirl rov'lopddvrjv irpug rbv 'liodvvfiv). King James's revisers seem to have followed too often the Latin Vei'sion, where the article disappears. (i.) Insertion of the definite article where there is none in the Greek. Matt, xxvii. 54, 'the Son of God,' for 'a Son of God' (comp. the parallel passage, Luke xxiii. 47, ' a righteous man'). John iv. 27, 'with the woman,' as if the impropriety was in Christ's speak ing with this particular woman of Samaria, while the disciples, without know ing her character, took offense at his talking with a woman {fitrd yvvaixog), i. e. with any woman, contrary to the rabbinical rule. Acts xxvi. 2, 'accused of the Jews' (as if all were included). Eom. ii. 14, ' When the Gentiles which have not the law observe by nature,' etc., instead of ' When Gentiles;' ibvri, i. e. some, not all. 1 Thess. iv. 17, 'caught up together with them in the clouds,' instead of 'in clouds' {iv vsfiXaig). 1 Tim. vi. 10, ' the love of money is the root of all evil ;' as if it was the only one, while the apostle calls it simply ' a root' (pi'?a) among other fruitful roots, as pride, hatred, idolatiy, intemperance, from which every form of moral evil may spring. (c.) Neglect op prepositions. The prepositions iv {in, signifying rest) and elg {into,, signifying motion), the Sid with the genitive (instrumental, through, by means of, etc.) and Sid with the accusative (indicating the moving cause, because of, on account of), ix {=ex. out of.from, origin, motion out of}, dTro {¦=ab,from, remoter than tic) and inro with genitive {from under, by), are very often confounded, to the serious injury of the sense. , Luke xvi. 8, ' unto their generation' {iig) for in. Luke xxiii. 42, the Greek requires 'comest in thy kingdom' {'regno jam acquisito ; ' comp. Matt, xxv. 31), instead of 'into thy kingdom.' * Where the Greek article generalizes, as in Matt. vii. 6, roig Kvai, riiv vopiiiv; Eom. v. 12,// duapria, 6 SidraTog, the English idiom requires the omission of the article. xxxvi INTBODUCTION. Eom. xi. 2, 'iv 'UXlif, 'in (the history of) Elijah,' not 'o/Elias.' Phil. ii. 10, iv Tifi cv6p.aTi 'lriaov,'in the name of Jesus,' instead of 'at the name. ' In 2 Pet. i. 5-7 the omission of the preposition {iv ry marii — iv rg yviiiaii, K.T.X.) tends to turn the organic development of the Christian graces and their causal dependence one upon another into a mechanical accumulation. In 1 Pet. ii. 12 and iii. 16 we have ' lohereas,' instead of 'wherein {iv if). 'Ev is often wrongly translated by or through, where it signifies the life-ele ment, as in the important Pauline phrases 'in Christ, "in the Lord, "in the Spirit,' e. g. Eom. vi. 1 1 ; xiv. 14 ; xv. 16 ; 1 Cor. xii. 3, 9 ; while Eom. viii. 1,2; ix.l;xii.5; xiv.lT; xvi. 2, 3, 7, 10, 11, 12, 13 ; 1 Cor. i. 2, etc., it is correctly rendered in. {d.) Neglect of particles. Every careful reader of the Greek Testament, and of such commentators as Meyer, Fritzsche, Ellicott, knows how much the full force of Paul's argument depends upon a correct understanding and translation of the logical and ar gumentative particles, especially the illative apa, dpayf, dpa ovv, the contin- uative and retrospective ovv (most frequent in John), the adversative dXXd, etc. It is quite impossible, hoivever, in the English language, to do full justice to tlie wealth of particles in wliich the Greek excels. Examples : Gal. v. 11, 'then after all' {dpa), for 'then;' vi. 10, 'Accord ingly then, as we have opportunity' {dpa ovv), for ' therefore,' etc. ; iii. 5, ' He then who is bestowing' {oijv, resumptive), for 'therefore;' so John xi. 6 ; and John vi. 60, 'now many of his disciples' {ovv, continuative), for 'many there fore,' etc. ; so xi. 33 ; xii. 9 ; Eom. vii. 7, 'but I had not known sin' (dXXa), for 'nay,' etc. ; Gal. iii. 22, 'but, on the contrary' {dXXd), for 'but ;' Gal. v. 16, 'now I say' {Si), for 'This I say then;' 1 Tim. i. 8, 'now we know' {Si), for 'but;' Gal. iii. 17, 'this, however,! say,' {Si), for 'and.' (e.) Non-oesertance or tenses, moods, and voices. Aorists are very often confounded h ith perfects, perfects with aorists ; im perfects are rendered as aorists and perfects ; the changes of moods and voices are less frequent. A few examples must suflSce. The impeifect should be represented, Luke i. 59, 'they were calling' (kd- Xovv), for 'called;' Luke v. 6, 'their net was breaking,' or 'began to break' {SuppriyvvTo), for 'brake;' Luke xiv. 7, 'were choosing out' {i^iXiyovTo), for 'chose out ;' Acts iii. 1, 'were going up' {dvipaivov), for 'went up;' Mark ii. 18, 'were fasting' {naav vijaTivovrsg), for 'used to fast ;' Gal. i. 13, 'was de stroying,' or 'wasting' {impBovv), for ' wasted;' and ver. 23, ' which once he was destroying' {iiropBii), for 'destroyed.' The aorist should be rendered, Matt, xxvii. 4, rj/iapTov rrapaSovg aifxa dSiu- ov, ' I sinned in betraying innocent blood' (which is in better keeping with the concise earnestness of the Greek and the desperate state of Judas than ' I have sinned in that I have betrayed the innocent blood') ; Luke i. 19 d-KiaTa- Xt]v, ' I was sent,' instead of ' I am sent' {aTriaraXfiai) ; Mark xvi. 2, dvarfi- XavTog Toii jj'Xi'ou, 'when the sun icas men,' instead of 'at the rising;' Eom. v. 12, 'sinned' {'n/iapTov, ' omnes peccarunt peccante Adamo'), for 'have sinned;' John xviii. 24, 'sent him' (dTrcortiXtj' oiji'), for 'had sent,' which is inconsist ent with the aor. and the ovv, and suggested by harmonistic considerations. INTBODUCTION. xxxvii The present should be restored in Heb. ii. 16, imXa/ilSdvsrai, ' he delivereth not angels, but he delivereth the seed of Abraham,' instead of ' he took not on him the nature of angels, but he took on him the seed of Abraham.' The perfect should be given in Luke xiii. 2, ' they have suffered' (in the past, irinovBaaiv) such things, for ' they suffered. ' The passive should be restored, 2 Cor. v. 10, 'we must all be made mani fest {^avepuiBijvai, exhibited as we are^ before the judgment seat of Christ,' instead of 'appear.' (/.) Non-observance of the genitive, especially the genitive of QUALITY, which IS OFTEN WEAKENED BY THE SCESTITUTION OF AN AD JECTIVE. Eom. viii. 6, to fp6v7]pia rijg aapK6g,'the mind of the flesh,' to fpuvrjfia toU ¦KViviiarog, ' the mind of the Spirit' — stronger than ' to he carnally minded,' ' to be spiritually minded. ' Eom. viii. 21, rnv IXevBtplav rrjg So^r/g riLv tikvidv tov ^toP, 'the liberty of the glory of the children of God,'for 'the glorious liberty.' Phil. iii. 21 , ro atopa rrjg raTriivwaeug t'l/xuv, ' the body of our humiliation,' and TO aui/ia rijg So^ijg aiiTov, ' the body of his glory,' are weakened by the translation ' our vile body' and ' his glorious body. ' 1 Tim. i. 11, ro evayyiXiov Ttjg So^r/g, 'the gospel of the glory,' instead of 'the glorious gospel.' {g.) Inadequate and insufficient renderings of words and phrases. Matt.vi.2,6, dfft'xouffi should be rendered 'they have all,' or 'have in full,' {haben dahin), i. e. they can expect no more. The A.V. treats it like the simple t;n;o«(«. Matt. xxi. 40, KOKoiig KaKiiig {=pessimos pessime) diroXkaa, is a paronoma sia of the purest Greek, bringing out the agreement of character with the punishment, and may be reproduced in English by ' he will miserably destroy those miserable men,' or 'he will wretchedly destroy those u»'etehes' (as in German by Elenden elendiglich, or schlimm and Schlimmen, or iibel and Uebel- thater),hat the A.V. destroys it by ' miserably — those wicked men.' Matt, xxvii. 32, ' him (Simon of Cyrene) they compelled (for impressed) to bear his cross,' which makes the act appear as an arbitrary assumption of power, while dyyaptitiv is the technical term for pressing men or horses into public service by authority. Matt, xxvii. 44, 'Cast the same in his teeth," for 'reproached him in like manner' {rb aiirb .... uivtiSii^ov aiirif). Matt, xxvii. 49, 'Let be' (a rebuke), for the hortatory ' Come, let us see,' or simply 'Lei us see.' 'Apig iSw/itv is a shortened popular form of expression for dipeg 'ivti i^w/itj/, like a^tg iK^dXin in Matt. vii. 4 and Luke vi. 42. (See Buttmann's Gram. d. N.T. Sprache, p. 181 seq., and Moulton's note to his excellent translation of Winer, p. 356, note ^ ) The elliptical or concise form of expression is like diXtig t'liruiftev ; ri StXtrt iroirjaot ; and the familiar omis sion of M* in Latin after volo, sino, etc. Luke ii. 49, 'about my Father's business;' better, 'in my Father's house,' i. e. the temple. John i. Ii,' dwelled sxtnong us,' where tabernacled, or pitchedhis tent (Mey- xxxviii INTBODUCTION. er and Ewald, zeltete ; Godet, a dressi sa tente), would better render the ob vious allusion of the verb iaKhvwat to the atcrjvfi, or Shekinah (from "plO), and its typical appearance in the tabernacle and the temple of old, now actualized in the essential and permanent indwelling of the Divine Su^a in the person of the incarnate Logos. Comp. Apoc. vii. 15 ; xxi. 3.* John i. 43 (in the English Bible, ver. 44 in the Greek), 'he would go,' for 'intended to go' {ridtXriatv). The force of BiXtiv is very often neglected. See Diet. Eom. V. 18, 'righteousness,' for 'righteous act,' SiKaioijxa (not SiKaioavvrj). In the same chapter, ver. 16, the word is translated 'justification' (which would require SiKaiuiaig), while it means either righteous act, as in ver. 18, or righteous sentence {Rechtsspruch).^ Eom. vii. 23, 'another law,' for a 'different law' (trtpoe, not dXXog), and Gal. i. 6, 'another gospel,' for a 'different gospel.' In both cases 'irtpog {di- XJersus) is used, which means different in kind, while dXXog {alius) means an other of the same kind. 1 Cor. xiii. 1, 2, 3, 4, 8, 13, 'charity' (from ' caritas'), which is now used in a restricted sense, for the more comprehensive love {dydrrr]) to God and man. Gal. i. 6, ' Ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel,' instead of ' so soon changing over {fitTariOt- a9t, middle, not passive) from him that called you in (or by, iv, not elg) the grace of Christ, unto a different gospel.' Gal. i. 14, 'And profited in the Jews' religion above many my equals;' bet ter, 'And surpassed in Judaism many of my age' {avvriXimiiiTag). Verse 15, ' who separated me,' for ' set me apart.' Gal. i. 18,' to see Peter,' for 'to make the acquaintance' {laToprjaat, which is more than I'^tii') of Cephas' (the correct reading, as in ii. 9, 11, 14). Gal. ii. 6, ' those who seemed to be somewhat' (the pillar apostles), for ' who were deemed somewhat,' or 'who are of reputation.' Gal. ii. 11 , ' he was to be blamed' (from the rejirehensibilis of the Vulgate), for ' was condemned' {Kartyvwapivog fjv). Eph. iv. S,' endeavoring' (which, as now used, implies the possibility or prob ability of failure) ' to keep the unity of the Spirit, ' etc. , instead of the stron ger 'giving all diligence,' ' striving earnestly' {aTovSal^ovrtg). Col. i. 15, TTpioTOTOKog Trdarig Kriacwg should be rendered 'begotten before every creature,' or 'before the whole creation,' which is required by the con text ; for Christ is said to he before all things, and all things were made by him (ver. 16). The A. V. ,' the first-bom of every creature, ' mistakes the gen itive of comparison, or of the point of view (the genitive depends on TrpaJror, as TrpujTog iiov, John i. 1 5, 30) for a partitive genitive, and might furnish an argument to Arianism, which regards Christ as the first creature {K-iapa). But there is an important distinction between TrpujT6TOKog= TrpuiTuy ovog, and wptoTOKTiarog, or Tr/jwroTrXatrrog.J The translation ' God forbid,' for firj ykvoiro (Eom. iii. 4, 6), and ' I would * See Lange on John, p. 71, textual note ', and 73. t Comp. on this difficult word, Eothe on Romans v. 12-21, and my edition of Lange on Romans, p. 1 84 seq. X See the remarks of Meyer, Ellicott, and Braune — Eiddle, in loc. INTBODUCTION. xxxix to God,' for o^tXov (1 Cor. iv. 8), though strong and expressive (too much so), sounds profane to a modern ear, and ought to be changed. 4. Inconsistencies. To introduce consistency and uniformity in the trans lation of words and phrases. The defects under this head are closely allied to those under the preceding head, and are discussed with much care by Prof. Lightfoot.* Wherever the variation does not affect the sense or weaken the emphasis, we would allow considerable freedom and retain the traditional rendering. A mechanical uniformity would often mar the beauty or the rhythmical flow of diction, and do great injustice to the genius of the English language and its wealth in bilingual duplicates, which is one of its characteristic advantages and ele ments of power.t But the A.V. goes to an extremein two opposite directions, * Dr. Lightfoot is no doubt right in principle, notwithstanding the strict ures of Mr. Erie in 'TKe'Xjiuardian' for September 20, 1871, and January 10, 1872, and of an able reviewer in 'The London Quart. Review' for July, 1872. The application of the principle is often a matter of taste and expediency. t As 'act and deed,' 'head and chief,' 'might and power,' 'justice and righteousness,' 'royal and kingly,' 'sacerdotal and priestly,' 'mature and ripe,' ' omnipotent and almighty,' ' timely and early,' 'desire andwish,' 'sanc tify and hallow,' 'conceal and hide,' 'constitute and make,' 'baptize (Greek, Latin) and christen (Greek, Saxon-). There is, however, mostly a shade of difference between the Saxon and the corresponding Norman-Latin terms, as between 'Zoue,' the affection of the heart toward God and man, and 'charity,' love in active exercise toward our neighbor ; 'freedom,' the inherent power, and 'liberty,' in opposition to previous servitude or restraint; 'readable, which refers to the matter, and ' legible,' which refers to the form or hand writing; between 'ox,' 'calf 'sheep,' 'rfeer,' which signify the animals in their natural state, and 'beef,' 'veal,' 'mutton^' 'uenison,' which are used of the meat of these animals as prepared for the table of the Norman lord. The framers of the original portions of the Anglican Common Prayer-book, probably from a desire to reach the hearts of all classes of the people at a time when the condition of the language was not yet perfectly settled, made very frequent use of bilingual duplicates, as acknowledge and confess, dis semble and cloak, humble and lowly, goodness and mercy, assemble and meet together, requisite and necessary, pray and beseech, remission and forgiveness, loving and amiable. The Saxon is the democratic, the Norman the aristo cratic element in the English language ; the former gives it strength, the latter dignity ; the Saxon supplies the vocabulary of common, every-day life, the Norman the vocabulary of rank and fashion ; the one we need at home, the other in the courts of law, on the chase, and in polished society. The Saxon is the language in which we live and die, and express our deepest thoughts and feelings. It therefore very properly predominates in the Prot estant versions of the English Bible since Tyndale, who excelled in the purest and most vigorous Saxon. What can be finer than such truly Saxon passages as 'My heart is smitten and withered like grass ;' or, 'If heart and xl INTBODUCTION. by creating false distinctions not intended by the sacred writers, and by 06- literating real distinctions which are more or less important. A glance into the 'Englishman s Greek Concordance of the New Testament' will furnish an abundance of examples.* The variation occurs often in the same context and even the same verse, where the repetition would be as beautiful and forcible as the repetition of Blessed are in the Sermon on the Mount. The revisers laid down, in their preface, the false and mischievous rule ' not to tie themselves to a uniformity of phrasing or to an identity of words,' lest they be charged 'with some unequal deahng toward a great number of English words.' Perhaps the transition state of the English language, and the desire to melt the Latin and Saxon elements, may have had something to do with this rule. (a.) Needless or injurious variations. a i (j V 1 0 J, in the important passage Matt. xxv. 46, is used in both clauses ; and yet the A.V. has there 'everlasting punishment' and 'life eternal' d-jroxdXvTpigis rendered by revelation, Eom, n. 5 (and in most other pas sages); manifestation, viii. 19 ; coming, 1 Cor. i. 7; appearing, 1 Pet. i. 7. E X t ^ 0- a I and riXirjaa, in the same verse. Matt, xviii. 33, have had com passion and had pity. ivtpytiv, in the same verse, ivorketh and to do, Phil. ii. 13 ('God uorketh to will and to work'). iiriaKOTTog is uniformly translated (or transferred rather) bishop (Phil. i. 1 ; 1 Tim. iii. 2; Tit. i. 7; 1 Pet. ii. 25), ercept in Acts xx. 28, where it is Anglicized into overseers, and thus one of the best arguments for the identity flesh fail, thou art the strength of my heart and my portion {lot) for ever;' or the version of the twenty-third Psalm ? In the Lord's Prayer some fifty- four words are Saxon, and the remaining six, which are of Latin origin {trespasses, trespass, temptation, deliver, power, glory), could easily be re placed by corresponding Saxon terms {sins, sin, trial, free, might, brightness). The Douay Bible has retained from the Vulgate ' supersubstantial bread' for ' daily bread ! ' The A.V. , however, being the work of forty-seven scholars, is not uniform in the preponderance of Saxon, and the difference is quite marked. Comp. e. g. the concluding sentence of the Sermon on the Mount, as given by Matthew and Luke, and there can be not a moment's hesitation as to the superiority of the more Saxon rendering of Matthew. Luke vi. 49. Against which the sti-eam did beat vehemently, and immediately it fell ; and the ruin of that house was great. ' Matt. vii. 27. 'And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house ; and it fell, and great was the fall of it. ' * Fifth ed. , London, 1868. This is a most useful book for the proper esti mate of the Authorized Version, as it gives the passages in Enghsh, while re taining (from Bruder) the alphabetical order of the Greek words of the N. T. The same is true of 'The Englishman's Hebrew and CImldee Concordance of the Old Testament,' third ed., London, 1866, 2 vols. It is more convenient for purposes of revision than Buxtorf and Furst. Hudson's Critical Greek and English Concordance of the New Testament, 2d ed.., Boston, 1871 (revised by Dr. E. Abbot), is also of special value for the work of revision. INTRODUCTION. xli of apostolic and primitive bishops and presbyters (comp. rovg Trpia^vripovg, the elders, ver. 1 7, who are the same persons with the itriaicoTroi, ver. 28) is lost to the English reader.* ^povog is throne, Eev. i. 4 ; iii. 21 ; iv. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and many other pas sages, when used of God and of Christ, but the Srpovoi of the twenty-four eld ers who reign with Christ in heaven are lowered into 'seats,' iv. 4, and the Srpovag of Satan, ii. 13, as well as that of the beast from the abyss, xvi. 10, is likewise changed into a 'seat,' and thus the intended antithetical correspond ence between the infernal counterfeit and the heavenly original is destroyed. Xoyijo/jat, in the sense to impute, a very important word in Paul's doc trine of declaratory or forensic justification, is rendered by three verbs in the same chapter, and in the same connection with Siicaioavvri,yiz. to count, Eom. iv. 3, 5 ; to reckon, iv. 5, 9, 10 ; to impute, iv, 6, 8, 11, 22, 23, 24. KaraXXayri, atonement, Eom. v.' 11 ; reconciling, xi. 15 ; reconciliation, 2 Cor. T. 18, 19. The last is the proper translation : it is a change from en mity to friendship. Atonement is etymologically coiTect, but not theologic ally, since we use it now in the sense of expiation and propitiation (iXaa^iog). -irapaKXriTog, when used of th^ Holy Spirit, is rendered (with Wicliffe, Luther) Comforter (John xiv. 16, 26; xv. 26 ; xvi. 7) ; when used, in the same sense, of Christ, it is more correctly rendered (with the Vulgate) A dvocate (I John ii. 1). Grammatically, irapdifXr/T-oc, being passive in form (one who is called in, or summoned to aid, a cojinsel for defense), can not well have the active meaning of Consolator, Comforter (which would require TrapaicXijTup), but the ^miliar Comforter, in old English, agreeably to its derivation from the Latin con>fortari,)mphed the idea of Sfrengthener, Supporter, Helper, which cpmes nearer the meaning of Advocatcfand expresses an important office of the.'Holy Spirit, so that it had better be retained, either in the text with Ad vocate or Helper in the margin, or vice versa, f Xoyog is represented in the A.V. by no less than twenty-eight different terms, viz, cause, communication, saying, word, account, thing, talk, matter, question, fame, treatise, speaker (Acts xiv. ,12), ijiouth (xv. 27), reason, speech, work, utterance, to say, tidings, etc. KarapykiD opcurs twenty-seven times in the N. T., and is rendered by sev enteen different verbs, to cumber, to make void, to make of none effect, to do away, to put down, etc. "EXXriv, now Greek, now Gentile. Kavxdo/iai is rendered to make boast, to glory, to boast, and to rejoice. * In this case one feels tempted to suspect King James's revisers of Epis copal bias, since most of them probably agreed with him in the false principle, ¦No bishop, no king.' The primitive identity of bishops and presbyters in the N. T. is now admitted by the best scholars of the Church of England. See Alford on Acts xx. 1 7, and Lightfoot's Excurs. in Comm. on Philippians. t This' question is fully discussed by Archdeacon Hare in his Mission of the Comforter, and by myself in Lange on John, pp. 440-442. Lightfoot (p. 55 Engl, ed.) strongly pleads for Advocate in all the passages. But it has too much of a technical legal sense. No word in the English language can express the full meaning of irapaKXriTog. The German Beistand comes near est to it. xlii INTRODUCTION. Kjjpilffffw, mostly to preach,hM several times to publish, and once to pro claim (Eev. V. 2). fiaprvptw,io charge, to give, to record, to witness, and by other verbs. TrapaxaXewis rendered ^o com/br<, to beseech, to desire, to entreat, to exhort. irpoaKoii/ia, offence, stumbling, stumbling-block, stumbling-stone. vpoaiairov, appearance, before, countenance, face, fashion, men's persons, outward appearance, person, presence. rrpo^aaig, which occurs but seven times, is rendered /*re, irpoaayoptiiopai, ¦KpoaicaXfopai, alriui, /vfra/caXlo/joi, ptrairipTTit), irapa- KaXiu), ¦KpoaKaXiopai, ipuiviu). INTRODUCTION. xliii child for Pp'tfog, vr)mog, iraiSdpiov, vaiSlov, vaXg, riicvov, uiiij. choose for aipiopiai, aiptni^u), ixXiyoiJiai, iiriXiyopai, ¦TrpoxtipiZofiai, x^'po- Toviw. conversation for dvaarpofr), rpoirog, iroXirtv/ia. devil for SidfioXog, Saifiiov, and Saipoviov. gift for dvdBiJiia, Sopa, Soatg, Swptd, Siiiprifia, Sujpov, ptpia/iog, x^P'Si X°-~ piafia. worship for tiiatjikiD, SfpaTrcini, Xarpcvo), TrpoaKwiu, atpdZo/iai, aifiojiai. come stands for no less than 32 Greek verbs, command for 8, consider for 1 1 , continue for 13, declare for 14, desire for 13, depart for 21, dwell for 5, ea< for 6, except for 7, finish for 7, fulfil for 7, jii'c for 14, ^'o for 16, /enow for 7, ma/ce for 13, mighty for 7, raiment for 5, perceive for 11, receive for 18, servant for 7, sAame for 6, tate for 21 , Min/i; for 12, yef for 10 different Greek words. 5. Archaisms. To remove obsolete archaisms, and to substitute intelli gible words and phrases. There is a diff'erence between antique and antiquated words and phrases. The former should be retained, the latter be removed. Archaisms which, though seldom or never used in modern English, are still intelligible, may even enhance the solemnity and pungency of the Bible diction, which ought to soar above the vulgarity and familiarity of common speech. Here belong such words as 'list,' 'travail,' 'twain,' 'forasmuch,' 'howbeit;' the ending ' eth' for ' s' in the third person singular of the verb ; the old preterites ' clave, ' ' brake,' ' sware ;' such phrases as ' well stricken in years,'* ' threescore years and ten.' Antiquated archaisms are : (ffl.) Words which have gone more or less out of use, and are NOT understood BY THE PEOPLE : toches, ouches, knops, neesings, daysman (in the O. T.), all to (for altogether, in Judges ix. 53, 'and all to brake his skull,' with no corresponding word in Hebrew), goodman (for householder. Matt. xxi. 11 ; comp. ver. 1), Jewry (for .Tudaia, John vii. 1 ; Luke xxiii. 5). (b.) Words which are still used, but have changed their mean ing : to prevent, in the sense of prtevenire, to come before, to anticipate (Matt. xvii. 25, Trpoefeaaiv) ; to let, in the sense to hinder (2 Thess. ii. 7) ; charger (now mostly used for a horse in battle), in the sense of platter (Matt. xiv. 8); carriages, for baggage (Acts xxi. 15); robbers of c/»«'cAes, for robbers of (heathen) temples QtpoauXoi, Acts xix. 37) ; nephews, for grandchildren or de- s-endants {tKyova, 1 Tim. v. 4) ; to offend, for cause to stumble {aicavSaXiKio, often); and of ence, for stumbling-block, scandal, cawse of sinning or ruin {aMaXov, Matt, xviii. 7, etc.) ; 'generation of vipers,' for brood, offspring {ytvia); devotions, for idols or objects of devotion {at^dap-ara. Acts xvii. 23) ; 'not slothful in business; for diligence (Rom. xii. 11, r^ airovSy p.i) bKvnpoi; comp. ver. 8); conversation, in the sense of deportment, moral conduct (Phil. i. 27 for mXiTtviaOe, let your conversation be; Phil, iii. 20, for noXircvfia, * David Hume, in his brief autobiography, uses this phrase of himself. xliv INTRODUCTION. which is mistaken for dvaarpopi], also by Luther, but means either country, commonwealth, or citizenship); 'take no thought for your life,' for anxious thought, or be not troubled about {jii) ptpipLvdrt, Matt. vi. 2."), 31, 34) ; ' occu py till I come,' for trade ye {¦irpaypartvaaa9t,Z,ake xix. 13 ; comp. ver. 15) ; coast, frequently fur border or region ; quarrel, for complaint {querela. Col. iii. 13) ; dishonesty, for shame (2 Cor. iv. 2) ; instantly, in the sense of ur gently (Luke vii. 4) ; ' I know nothing by myself (perhaps a mistranslation), for 'against myself (1 Cor. iv. 4, ovSiv ipavriji avvoiSa) ; 'do to wit' (2 Cor. viii. 1), for 'make known ;' 'careful' (Phil. iv. 6), for 'anxious.' 'To yield up the ghost' should give way, in Matt. xvii. 50, to 'yielded up his spirit; as the former is now used in a low or less serious sense. As to the famihar which for who when referring to persons, the majority of American revisers would probably prefer the change, as it has become quite familiar in the use of the Lord's Prayer (in all American, editions of the Com mon Prayer-Book). It is unwise to bring the language of the Church into conflict w'ith the language of the school. But the English feeling will prob ably retain this and a number of other archaic forms ; and concessions on such points should be readily made by the American revisers. 6. Rroper Names. To introduce uniformity in the spelling of proper names of persons and places, retaining, as a rule, the Hebrew forms for Hebrew names, the Greek forms for Greek, except where a foreign name has been thoroughly natural ized and unalterably fixed in English usage, as in the fa miliar names Jesus (the Saviour) for Joshua (the leader of Israel), Mary for Miriam, James for Jacob, John for Johannes, Matthew for Matthseus, Andrew for Andreas, Paul for Paulus, Peter for Petrus, Stephen for Stephanus, Jerusalem for Yerushalaim or Hierosolyma, Athens, Rome, and a few more. (a.) Hebrew and Greek forms: (1.) Persons: Hagar (in the 0. T.) and Agar (Gal. iv. 24, 25). Elijah (in the O. T.) and Elias (in the N.). Elisha and Eliseus. Isaiah, Esaias, and Esay. Jer emiah (in the O. T.) and Jeremias (Matt. xvi. 14), also Jeremy (twice in Matt. ii. 1 7 ; xvii. 9). Hosea and Osee (Eom. ix. 25). Jonah and Jonas. Obadiah and Abdias. Zechariah and Zacharias. Korah and Core (Jude 1 1). Noah (3 times in the N. T.) and Noe (5 times in the N. T.). Eahab and Eachab. Judah and Judas, also Jude. Joshua, and Jesus. The substitu tion of .Tesus for .Toshua in Acts vii. 45 (' brought in with .lesus into the pos session of the Gentiles'), and in Heb. iv. 8 {'If Jesus had given them rest'), is especially mischievous, imd should by all means be corrected. INTRODUCTION. xlv (2.) Places: Asshur and Assyria. Cush and Ethiopia. Phrat and Euphrates. Edom and Idumea. Koresh and Cyras. Sodom (generally) and Sodoma (Eom. ix. 29). (4.) Double Hebrew or Greek forms : Balac and Balak. Enoch and Henoch. Enos and Enosh. Cainan and Kenan. Gedeon and Gideon. Jephthae and Jephthah. Judah and Juda. Jared and Jered. Jonah and Jona. Melchisedec and Melchizedek. Seth- and Sheth. Canaan and Kanaan. Gomorrha and Gomorrah. Sina (in Acts) and Si nai (Gal. iv. 24, 25). (c.) Latin (or Hebrew, or Greek) and English terminations : Lucas and Luke (Col. iv. 1 4 ; Philem. 24). Marcus (three times, Col. iv. 1 0 ; Philem. 24 ; 1 Pet. v. 13) and Mark (four times in Acts, and once in the Epp. 2 Tim. iv. 1 1 ). Judas and Jude. Timotheus and Timothy (even in the same chapter, 2 Cor. i. 1, 19). Jacob {'laKiifi, used of the patriarch) and James ('IdKw/3off, of James the elder, James of Alpheus, and James the brother of the Lord). Jeremiah and Jeremy (retained in English names, as that of Bishop Jeremy Taylor). Miriam (of the sister of Moses) and Mary (to be retained for the mother of Jesus). Urbanus and Urbane (or Urban). Grecia and Greece. Judsea and Jewry (the latter only in Dan, v. 13 ; John vii. 1 ; Luke xxiii. 5). Tyrus and Tyre. (Miletus, Acts xx. 15, 17, and Miletum, 2 Tim. iv. 20,) Cretes and Cretians (Cretans is better than ei ther). Areopagus and Mars '-hill (in the same chapter, Acts xvii. 19, 22). Calvary and 'A place of a skull.'* 7. Accessories. To revise the orthography, the punctuation, the use of capitals (as in Spirit, Father, Son, Redeem.er, Scriptures, etc.), the words in italics,! the marginal references, the chronology (of tJssher), and the headings of chapters and columns, all in conformity with the style of translation, the most approved standards, and present scholarship and usage. * Our Calvary, which is used only in Luke xxii. 33, for icpaviov (a diminu tive of Kpdvov), a skull, is derived from the Vulgate, which renders the He brew Golgotha by caloaria (fem. i. e. skull) in three other passages (Matt. xxvii. 33, Mark xv. 22, and John xix. 17). It is too deeply imbedded in Christian poetry and devotion to he given up. The popular expression 'Mount Calvary' has no Scripture foundation, and is probably of monastic origin, i The Evangelists describe Golgotha simply as rmog; a. place,' or 'the Place of Skull.' It was probably only a small, round, and barren elevation in the shape of a skull, and derived its name from its globular form. See my text ual notes in Lange, Matthew xxvii. 33, p. 519, and ,Tohn xix. 1 7, p. 582. t The E. V. uses italics too freely to supplement the original, and ofien weakens it, c. g., Ecdes, xii. 13 ; 1 Ccr. xv. 41, etc. xlyi INTRODUCTION. These accessory matters, not being represented in the original text, belong to the boundary-line between translation and interpretation, and more free dom should be allowed here to the revisers than in the translation proper. The careful labors of the American Bible Society, as laid down in the edition of 1852, which was set aside again by a subsequent standard edition of I860, more nearly conformed to the older editions, might be made available to good purpose. 8. Arrangement. Finally, to combine with the received division into chap ters and verses an arrangement of the prose in paragraphs, and a metrical arrangement of poetry, according to the laws of Hebrew parallelism. The division into chapters, which dates from Cardinal Hugo de Santo Caro in the 13th century (d. 1263), and the division into verses,* first introduced in the Old Testament by Pagninus, in his edition of 1528, then completely by Eobert Stephens, 1555, in his edition of the Vulgate, and 1551, in his (4th) edi tion of the Greek Testament, though very defective,t must, of course, for the sake of convenience, be retained, but should by all means be supplemented by ii more reasonable and appropriate arrangement according to sections, stan zas, and verses. Much of the beauty of the Bible is lost to the common reader by the uniform printing of poetry and prose. If we have our hymn- books printed like poetry, why not also the inspired hymn-book, the Psalter ? This improvement, in which scholars and educated men are more interest ed than the mass of Bible readers, will probably be strenuously opposed ; for since it strikes the eye, it would create the impression that the revised version is a different version from the familiar old Bible.J But this difficulty can * Not to be confounded with the older versus or artxoi. f Thus the very first chapter of Genesis ought by all means to include the first three verses of the second chapter, which are an indispensablepart of the first account of creation. The first chapter of Matthew ought to contain only the genealogy of Jesus till ver. 17, and the first chapter of John the Prologue to ver. 18. The versicular division which the learned printer Stephens (Eti- enne) is said to have made on a horseback journey {inter equitandum) from Paris to Lyons (see Bleek, Einleitung in das N. T., p. 693), is entirely out of place in the narrative sections of the Bible, and very often breaks the connec tion. The judgment of Eeuss, in his Geschichte des Neuen Testaments (p. 390, 4th ed.), is hardly too severe: 'Die Eintheilung {in Verse) ist an sich unsinnig, unzahlige Male fehlerhaft und selbst ini besten Falle entbehrlich fur das Verstdndniss, das sie eher hindern als fSrdern kann.' At the same time, for purposes of quotation, the division is very convenient, and has, no doubt, contributed much to the comparative study of the Bible. Compare on the whole subject Dr. William Wright, art. Verse, in Kitto's Cycl. of Bibl. Lit.,, where numerous errors of preceding writers are corrected. X The way is prepared, however, by several editions of the A.V. in this style, especially '77ie Cambridge Paragraph Bible; edited by the Eev. F. H. INTBODUCTION. xlvii easily be removed by issuing two editions, one of which should be conformed to the usual Bibles, in which the paragraphs should be marked by signs. The metrical arrangement should be earned out in the Psalms, the Book of Job (except the narrative prologue and epilogue), the Proverbs, the Song of Songs, Lamentations, and the poetic portions of the Prophets ; also in the Ij'ric and prophetic parts of the historical books, as the Song of Lamech (Gen. iv.), the Prediction of Noah (Gen. ix.), the Blessing of Jacob (Gen. xlix.), the Song of Moses (Ex. xv.), the Prophecy of Balaam (Numb, xxiv.), the Song of Deborah (Judg. v.), the Elegy of David, on Jonathan (2 Sam. i.) ; and as to the New Testament, in the Benedictus of Zachariah, the Magnifi cat of the Virgin Mary, the Parting Song of Simeon, the poetic citations scat tered through the Gospels and Epistles (e. g. 1 Tim. iii. 1 6), and the anthems of the Apocalypse. A few examples must suffice. THE SONG OF LAMECH. Gen. iv. 23, 24. This proud, defiant song of blood-revenge, or " sword-song' (as Herder calls it), which commemorates the invention of weapons of brass and iron by La- mech's son Tubal-Cain, and the invention of musical instruments by his son Jubal (=Harper), and which marks the origin of worldly poetry and music among the descendants of Cain, has already all the characteristics of Hebrew poetry : parallelism, rhythm, and assonance. 'Adah and Zillah ! hear my voice, Ye wives of Lamech, hearken unto my speech : For a man have I slain* for wounding me. Even a young man for hurting me. Truly, Cain shall be avenged seven-fold. But Lamech seventy-and-sevenfold.' THE SONG OF THE VIRGIN MARY. Lukc i. 46-55. And Mary said : *' My soul doth magnify the Lord, *' And my Spirit rejoicedt in God my Saviour, *" Because he looked upon the low estate of his handmaid. For, behold, from henceforth all generations will call me blessed. Scrivener, for the syndics of the University Press, Cambridge and London, 1870. * The perfect, 7 /laue slain C'ri?'?!^, Sept. aTrt/crt iva, Vulg. occid{),is prob ably used in the spirit of arrogant boasting, to express the future with all the certainty of an accomplished fact. Chrysostom, Theodoret, Jerome, Eashi, set Lamech down as a murderer (of Cain), confessing his deed to ease his conscience ; but Aben-Ezra, Calvin, Herder, Ewald, Delitzsch, take the verb as a threat : ' I will slay any man who wounds me. ' 1 1 have throughout substituted the Greek aorists, ^yaXXiafftj', liri^Xiijjtv, liroinaiv, K.T.X., for the perfects of the A.V. ; but as the Magnificat is incor porated into the Anglican Liturgy, such changes will scarcely be made. xlviii I^TR OD UCTION. " For the Mighty One did great things for me ; And holy is His name, °° And His mercy is from generation to generation Upon them that fear Him. " He wrought strength with his arm : Ee scattered the proud in the imagination of their hearts. ''"' He put down princes from thrones, And raised up them of low degree. " The hungry he filled with good things ; And the rich he sent away empty. '* He gave help to Israel, His servant, In remembrance of His mercy '^ (As he spake to our fathers) To Abraham* and his seed forever. Conclusion. In the preceding discussion I have barely touched upon the Old Testament, which would require a separate treat ise. Tn some respects a revision of the English translation of the Hebrew Scriptures, especially the Book of Job and the Prophets, is even more needed than that of the Greek Testament. Shemitic scholai-ship is not so abundant in England and America as classical learning ; but it is far more critical and accurate in the nineteenth century than it was in the sixteenth and seventeenth. Important addi tions to the Old Testament exegesis are now made almost every year. But if we are to wait for perfection, we shall have to ¦wait forever. Let us make our work as perfect as we can, and let future generations make it still more perfect. The revision must be chiefly a work of Biblical scholar ship. But its success will depend by no means on scholar ship alone. The most thorough knowledge of Hebrew and Greek would, after all, only enable us to understand the letter and the historical relations of the Scripture, but not * 'Iif 'Appai'ip must be connected with littjaSijvai 'tXiovg, not with iXdXritrev, Rs in the Authorized Version. INTRODUCTION. xlix its soul, which lives in the body of the letter. The Bible is a divine as well as a human book, and reflects the tliean- thropic character of the incarnate Logos. To understand, to translate, and to interpret the Word of God, we must be in sympathy with its spirit, which is the Holy Spirit. Pro found sympathy with the ideas of the Bible, religious en thusiasm, a reverent and devout spirit, breathe through the Yulgate, Luther's German, and the authorized English ver sions, and gave them such enduring power ; and only the same qualities, united with superior scholarship, can com mend the proposed revision to the acceptance of our Churches. No. 40 Bible House, New Yoik, October 4, 1872. YALE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY 3 9002 05047 6606 -'5 >'. It M -t ( -" ^ i ;