THE

NEW TESTAMENT. TRANSLATED FROM THE CRITICAL TEXT OP VON TISCHENDORF

;

WITH AN INTRODUCTION ON THE CRITICISM, TRANSLATION,

AND INTERPRETATION OF THE BOOK,

SAMUEL DAVIDSON,

D.D.

OF HALLE, AND LL.D.

Henry

S.

King &

Co.,

65 CORNHILL, AND 12 PaTERNOSTER RoW, LoNDON. 1875.

DEDICATION.

TO THE MEMORY OF

ANNE JANE, MY BELOVED COMPANION ON EARTH FOB THIRTY-SIX YEARS,

WHO SYMPATHISED

IN

ALL MY LABOURS AND SORROWS,

AIDING AND STRENGTHENING ME

WITH WISE COUNSELS IN ALL STRIVINGS TO FOLLOW

CONSCIENCE THROUGH BAD RKPORT AS WELL AS GOOD, WHOSE KINDNESS

NEVER FAILED, WHOSE LOVE GREW WITH TIME, I

THE

DEDICATE THIS VOLUME

COMMENCEMENT OF

WHICH

SHE

;

LIVED

TO

AND HASTED AWAY TO BE PERFECTED

UNDER HAPPIER INFLUENCES

IN

THE IMMEDIATE

PRESENCE OF GOD.

SEE,

THE NAMES AND ORDER OF ALL THE BOOKS or THE

NEW

TESTAMENT,

WITH THE NUMBER OF THEIR CHAPTERS.

The Gospel according to

St. St. St.

St.

The ACTS

of the

The Epistle

MATTHEW has mark LUKE JOHN

24

...

...

CORINTHIANS The Second Epistle to the CORINTHIANS The Epistle to the GALATIANS EPHESIANS „ „ The First Epistle

to the

...

„ „

„

PHILIPPIANS

„

COLOSSIANS

...

THESSALONIANS Second Epistle to the THESSALONIANS First Epistle to TIMOTHY Second Epistle to TIMOTHY

The First Epistle to the The The The

...

to

TITUS

„

PHILEMON

„

the

...

HEBREWS

of

...

The First Epistle of

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

13

1

5

3 5

...

...

...

'

...

a 3

1

...

1

...

TZ

I

•

...

5

...

...

..

the Divine

3

...

...

...

4 ...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

6

...

...

...

3

...

...

...

...

5

...

...

...

4 ...

...

...

...

4

...

...

...

...

JAMES PETER The Second Epistle of PETER The First Epistle of JOHN The Second Epistle of JOHN The Third Epistle of JOHN The Epistle of JUDE The REVELATION of St. JOHN

The Epistle

...

...

6

...

...

...

6

...

...

...

13 ...

...

...

...

The Epistle

...

...

16

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

16

...

...

...

28

...

...

...

...

21

...

...

...

...

ROMANS

CHAPTERS 28 ...

...

16

...

APOSTLES

to the

...

The

order of the books in the Greek edition

ancient MSS., Epistles

of

viz.

Matthew, Mark, Luke,

James, Peter, John, Jude, to

is

that of

John, Acts, the Romans,

Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, PhiKppians, Colossians, Thessalonians, Hebrews, Timothy, Titus, Philemon, and

the Revelation.

Instead of

this,

the usual order has been

followed, for the convenience of readers

small " Academic is

" edition,

;

as

it is

in the

where the text of the eighth by Mendelssohn at Leipzig.

repeated, published in 1873

;

INTEODUCTION,

The primary

object of a translation is to express the exact

original in corresponding words, so far as they can be found in English, with the least obscurity. It should be literal rather than paraphrastic, giving the sense intended by the author or authors simply and fully, in the best tei-ms which the English language supplies, A translation of the New Testament should be in effect a revision of the received one and the departures from the latter ought to be as few as the necessities of the case require. King James's version should be corrected and improved in such instances only as appear to call for change. The main purpose of a translation of the Bible is not that it may be read with pleasure, but rather that it may clearly express

meaning of the

;

the true sense.

The present version is founded upon the received one the deviations being caused by another Greek text and the

common

Besides adhering to a critical correct the mistakes of the English Testament, as well as to improve it by

bringing

it

desire of greater accuracy. text,

the translator had

to

closer to the original.

Various considerations

prompted his dej)artures from the venerable version but none was dictated by mere love of change. A desire to ;

express the original sense better lay at the root of elegant vereion

was not the

paraj)hrastic

or

object.

well said in the " Guesses at Truth

It

is

"

all.

A

translator's "

of the

a literal translation is better than a loose one, just as a cast from a fine statue is better than an iiiiitabrothers Hare,

INTRODUCTION.

^ tion of

it.

For

copies,

whether of words or things, must be

valuable in proportion to their exactness. In idioms alone, as a friend remarks to me, the literal rendering cannot be the right one." The translator has endeavoured to present

the English reader with a more correct text and translation. He gives a much better text than the usual one, and a Such are the two things revision of the received version.

he professes to have accomplished. They are worthy of labour in proportion to the importance attaching to writings which guide and strengthen man's spiritual life. It is a great advantage to a translator to have one text only before him and to reproduce it as well as he can in He can pursue one object without another language. If the text he has selected be that of a comdistraction. petent

scholar ,who

has spent

many

years in collating

and

comparing their readings, his he has but to follow his chosen responsibility is lessened guide. Little faith can be put in a diplomatic text. A man who has not studied the best manuscripts with care; who takes their readings merely from the collations of others, and whose chief business has not been textual criticism, may construct a text for himself; but it will not inspire ancient manuscripts

;

confidence nor

commend

The making up

itself to

the scholar.

of a text during

any

revision of the

received English version can result in nothing else than a

mixed production having no

distinctive character.

others comparatively modern, after

Some

some very old, a judgment which, how-

readings will be eastern, others western

;

ever good generally, will show traces of distraction or haste

when same

directed to textual criticism

and translation at the

This will happen the more frequently in proportion to the number of persons employed on one version, especially if the majority of them have been chosen, among other things, because they hold the creed belonging to most of the Churches, or represent the latter in one way or other. It is

now

time.

an unsatisfactory procedure to another

;

select

now one

to follow one critical edition

and another on a

different

reading,

on one occasion one, according to the views or

;

INTRODUCTION. tastes

which may chance

ating in this

way

to prevail.

will colour

any

xi

A

mixed text originand lessen its

translation,

how

can the kept in view in any revision of the English version claiming to be thorough or national is to entrust it to scholars of national repute and tried fairness, whatever be their theolofor if the basis be fluctuating,

distinctiveness;

superstructure be different

?

The great matter

to be

not to the selected of a clerical body or committee whose bias can hardly fail to appear throughout the work they undertake, though the individual members may

gical opinions

;

be most honourable.

Von Tischendorf is confessedly one that has respect throughout to the Sinaitic MS. the only one also that has benefited by the true readings of the Vatican MS. which are presented in the " Novum Testamentum Vaticanum, etc., 18G7," and the fac-simile edition of Vercellone, published at Rome in 1868 The

latest critical text of

It is the only

the best.*

;

;

instead of following the imperfect collations of Mico, Rulotta, Bartolocci,

which fuller,

is

and Birch. Not

more accurate, more

the copious materials

dorf s principle viz. to

to

speak of

its critical

apparatus,

decidedly superior to that of any other, being

is

is

impartial, the text founded

Von

nearer the original.

su1>stantially that of Bentlcyand

upon

Tischen-

Lachmann,

seek the most ancient text in the oldest MSS., versions,

and Fathers, and to reproduce it as accurately as possible. For this purpose he has relied on Alexandrine and Latin, rather than Asiatic and Byzantine materials first of all on the two oldest MSS. s* and B, with the Curetonian Syriac and the MSS. of the old Latin having an uurevised text besides Origen and Tcrtullian next on A, C, D, the Vulgate, Peshito, and others. The main stress is laid upon antiquity. But this is subject to limitations. Wlicrc ;

;

the oldest authorities are discordant, various considerations * The

title is

"

Novum Tcstamentam

Gracco.

Ad

antiqui.ssimo.s lostoa

denno rccensait, apparatum criticum omni Htudiu pcrfoctum apposuit, coiiimontationom isagrgicarn prantcxuit Constantiiiii.s Tisclicndorf. Kilitiu octava." It appeared in Lieferunycn or parts, the firat being issued iii 1SG4, the eleventh and last in 1872.

INTRODUCTION.

Xll

to, such as, whether a reading be peculiar whether it seems to have proceeded from a learned man, or whether it is the mistake of a copyist. In these cases suspicion is strong against it while the reading which mayhave most easily given rise to the others, which is consonant with the Greek usage proper to the N. T. writers, and in the manner of an individual author, claims the preference. Within this department of probability and beyond it there are many things which bear upon critical decisions. Antiquity may therefore be modified to a considerable extent, for the true reading may be in younger MSS. or

must be attended to a MS.,

;

He that follows antiquity absolutely or incaumay miss the best readings at certain times. It is possible that a reading may be best attested, without being

versions.

tiously

Von

orio-inal.

Tischendorf,

himself to be carried sees the

however,

away by mere

paramount value

not allowed

has

antiquity, though he

of the Vatican

and Sinaitic MSS.,

as well as that of the old Latin in a, b, c, d-, i, m, n, etc. has allowed other considerations their due influence.

experience had

made him

cautious in textual criticism.

He Long That

he does not necessarily follow readings best attested may be seen from the Epistle to the Hebrews iv. 2, where (TvjKeKtpaafiivovg is in A, B, C, D, and the singular crvvKBKipacTfjiivog in N. Tlie plural is therefore sanctioned by a preponderance of

Yet he has the singular in the text and the sense seems to demand it. In like manner the reading 6 /uovoyt vrjc QtoQ, the only-hegotten God, in John i. 18, has the weight of ancient authority in its favour n, B, C, etc., but internal considerations overrule this and speak for the received, the onlj-herjotten son, which Von Tiscliendorf u^jholds. Perhaps he might have carried the limitation of ancient testimony farther in some cases, as in Luke xxii. 19, 20, "This is my authority.

;

is given for you: this do in remembrance of Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the New Testament in my blood, which is shed for you"]; where the words bracketed are liardly original. We shall now adduce a few readings which Von Tischendorf has adopted, though none of the recent critical editors

body (which me.

;

INTRODUCTION.

xiii

has done so. He omits the last verse of John's Gospel, on the authority of the Sinaitic MS. aided by interaal reasons. He also omits "Son of God " after Jesiis Christ in Mark i. 1 the last i)ai't of Mark viii. 26, "nor tell it to any in the town " the conclusion of Mark ix. 49, " and every sacrifice ;

with salt " the words " and canied up into heaven, and they worshipped him," in Luke xxiv. 51, 52. He reads, " I stood," not " he stood," in Revelation xii. 18. In Matthew xiii. 35 he reads, " Isaiah the prophet " in John vi. 51, " the bread which I will give for the life of the world, is my flesh " and in John xiiL 10, " he that has bathed has no need to wash himself," etc. In these he appears to be right. But it is not our purpose to characterise the text of this scholar in every feature. An impartial estimate of its value vnW place it above all others. Were we disposed to search out defects or to differ in judgment from so distinguished a critic, we might say that he should have omitted the last clause of Mark ix. 38, " because he followeth not us " and have retained tiAo-yovvTig in the text of Luke xxiv. 53, rather than alvovvTiq. In Colossians ii. 2 the word y/^^piaTov after tou Qtov seems to be a gloss not pro" The mystery of God, even perly belonging to the text. Christ" does not commend itself as a Pauline expression. Luke xxii. 43, 44 might also have been rejected, or at least bracketed as doubtful, for the verses are not in A and B, though N and D have them. With respect to punctuation, we have seldom departed from that of Von Tischendorf In this particular he is usually exact and accurate. Thus in Romans ix. 5 he puts a full stop after aapKa, beginning a sentence with, " God who is over all be blessed," etc. This is required by Pauline usage, which does not apply Qiog to Christ, as the fourth gospel with its Alexandrian theology does at the commencement, much less 6 wv tirl naiTOJv Qibg, " God who is over all." In like manner, he puts a comma rightly after KnraAn/Sw shall be salted

;

;

;

;

in Phili])pians iii. 12, as Lachmann docs in his smaller etlit ion, not in the larger. He docs not follow Lachniann in placing Romans ix. 3-5 in a jiarenthesis nor does he put i]v\ofn}v ;

INTRODUCTION.

xiv .

.

Tov yjnoTov only in a parenthesis, as if the apostle

.

alluded to a past wish, which

Hebrews

20,

xii.

example of Lachmann. yap HQ TOV aUova .

.

.

in a parenthesis

is

Luke

evidently wrong.

But Hebrews is

SO

marked.

vii. 29,

Nor

is

in a parenthesis after the

21 enclosed

vii.

20, 21, ot

filv

Lachmann has put words of Christ

30, as if the

not recommended by the context. Von Tischendorf has nothing to break the thread of discourse, and he is right. In 1 Corinthians xiv. 34 Lachmann places a comma after tKKXriaiaig, connecting rwv ayiiov with

were interrupted.

at

yvvaiKeg

;

This

is

but this innovation

is

not followed by

The reading of the former

Tischendorf

gives, "

As

Von

in all

the churches, let the wives of the saints be silent in the churches."

But we

from Von Tischenand to agree with jmov with what follows

incline to depart

dorf 's punctuation in Galatians

iv. 19,

Lachmann. Instead of joining rcicva and making the words begin a new sentence, it is better to connect them with the preceding context, so that the translation would be, " when I am present with you, my children, with whom I am travailing again till Christ be formed in you. But I could have wished to be present with you now," etc. Here the 8t after ijOsXov has its proper force. But a translator cannot follow closely the punctuation of the original, because the English language differs so

much

from Greek, He must conform to the genius of the tongue Here he lias considerinto which he transfuses the Greek. able latitude, and many opportunities of bringing out the minuter lines of interpretation. Thus it is desirable, if not necessary, to place a comma after the word slain in Revelation xiii. 8, " whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain, from the foundation of the world," since the last clause belongs to written (written from the foundation of the world).

In Hebrews

ii.

9 a

comma must

be

i)ut after

any case, the words " on account of the suffering of death crowned with glory and lionour " should be divided by no comma, because they arc closely united in sense. A point of any angels, if the received version be retained

;

kind after death disturbs the true meaning.

or in

In Ephesians

;

INTRODUCTION. V.

2G,

which

is

XV

incorrectly rendered in the received version,

we put a comma beifore "by the word," separating it from what immediately precedes in order to connect it with the verb " sanctify."

"

That he miglit sanctify it, after cleansing with the laver of the water, by the word." De Wette indeed objects to this but the awkwardness of taking both tv pi]naTi and Xovrpto with Kuiktpiaac: is apparent; and all the versions that do so read strangely, whether they have " cleansing her by the laver of the water in the w^ord " or, " having cleansed it by the bathing of water in the word " or, " having cleansed it by the bath of the water in the word." In 1 Peter i. 11 there should be no comma after ivhat, else a wrong sense will be convej'-ed. Yet there is one in the received version, and Alford faithfully follows. The Tiva {what) refers to the noun season or time (Kaipov) as well as TToTov " what time or what manner of time." Parentheses must be sparingly introduced. They are sometimes needed, but many have used them unnecessarily and incorrectly. Thus it is right to enclose in brackets "then were the days of unleavened bread" in Acts xii. 3 and " which becomes women professing godliness " in But Hebrews iii. 7-11, all after ^i6 to 1 Timothy ii. 10. Karairavrnv fxov is not a parenthesis. In Romans ii. 13-15 a parenthesis appears to be necessary, though it is difficult It should probably include the to determine its limits. fourteenth and fifteenth verses, as Laclimann has judged; not the thirteenth also, as Winer supposes, though he reit

;

;

;

;

marks acutely that Kpivn

in the sixteenth verse glances

back

at KpiOnaovTcu in the twelfth.

Since the

introduction

of

Bentley

and Lachmann's words

principle in the formation of a text, viz. to edit the

transmitted to us by the spective of

too

at ])resent.

insignificant.

These works

They

By

is still

arc too

selecting

subject of a few remarks, revision

ii-re-

readings, various translators have underversion, or a revision of the connnuuly received

taken a new English translation. critici.se

most ancient documents,

modern

it

will

it

is

not necessary to

numerous

some of thcui three of the best as the ;

be seen that the work of

incomplete. b

INTRODUCTION.

XVI

That the text translated by Dean Alford does not possess is clear to all ^vho are familiar with the

great value*

New

criticism of the

Testament.

Besides being liable to

the objections which a diplomatic text incurs,

was generally inclined

So

to the oldest readings.

But he did not give

followed a right direction.

it

bears

The author

evidence of haste, ignorance, and incorrectness.

far

he

sufficient

attention to the considerations that modify the element of

antiquity limit

— to

and other evidences that correct or excessive attachment to readings best

internal

This

it.

perhaps by external evidence, has given rise to

attested

unintelligible renderings, as in

Hebrews

He

text adopted yields no proper sense. of

the words,

it

"

iv.

where the

2,

has produced out

But the word of hearing did not

profit

them, unmingled as they were in faith with those that

heard

it."

For the benefit of English readers notices of different The readings arc subjoined, but on no clear principle. statements are arbitrary, because important variations are unnoticed, while trifling ones are given. The author has

adduced varieties of the text pretty much at haphazard. The chief variations should have been stated, or none at Any intermediate plan is all but useless, as far as all. the instructing of ordinary readers

Mark

i.

1 the

words

" the

is

concerned.

Son of God

" are

Thus, in

omitted on

by Von Tischendorf Alford, however, In John ix. 35, " Dost thou believe in the Son of God?" Von Tischendorf s text is " Dost thou believe in the Son of man ? " but the latter Luke xxiv. 40 is omitted by Tischendorf, yet is unnoticed. In Mark viii. 2G Alford gives it without note or comment. the words " nor tell it to any in the village " are properly omitted Ijy Von Tischendorf, but Alford inserts them In John xxi. 23 the last words of the without remark. sufficient authority

has no notice of the time reading.

* The

New Testament

of our

Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, after tho

authorized vcr.sion, newly compared with tho original Greek, and revised by Henry Alford, D.D., Dean of Canterbury. 18G9.

INTRODUCTION.

Xyii

that to thee ?" omitted by Von Tischendorf, In Luke xxiv. 51, 52 the words "and canied up into heaven, and they worshipped him," which are more than suspicious, are inserted without remark. The same is true of Acts x. G, " he shall tell thee what thou oughtest to do," omitted by Von Tischendorf; of Colossians i, 2, " and the Lord Jesus Christ " of 2 Timothy iv. 22, " Jesus Christ," which should also be omitted of Hebrews x. 30, where " says the Lord " is left out by Von Tischendorf of 1 Peter i. 22, " through the Spirit," which is spurious, though unnoticed; of Acts xvi. 13, where there is a different reading from that rendered by Alford; of Acts xiii. 20, 21, where an important reading adopted by Von Tischendorf runs "gave their land as an inheritance about 450 years. And after these things he gave judges, until Samuel the prophet;" of Acts XX. 4, " as far as Asia," which Von Tischendorf's text leaves out; of Acts xx, 15, "and tarried at Trogy Ilium," which should be omitted of Acts xxi. 8, " we that were of verse, " wli.at

is

are unnoticed.

;

;

;

;

;

company " of Luke xxiii. 23, " and of the chief priests " of Luke viii. 45, " and sayest thou who touched me " of John x. 29, where another reading is, " that which Paul's

;

;

the Father has given

me

is gi'cater

These are but a few cases

than in

all."

which readings well

and usually received by Von Tischendorf are Dean in his notes. His silence would not be censurable in regard to them did he not in many cases note attested

ignored by the

such as are of "

and

ix.

"

11, xxii. 12,

Jesus

"

much

in Galatians

17;

instead of

iii.

inferior

29

;

"amen" "

importance or

Colossians in 1

iii.

17

Timothy

vi.

the Lord Jesus Christ

trifling,

as

Revelation

;

21

" in

" ;

Christ

Titus

i.

4.

In view of such treatment it is impossible to consider it other than arbitrary. It may be questioned if these critical notes about MSS.

and versions can be useful to the general reader. They are very brief, and will often suggest no intelligible idea to the minds of those who are not scholars. The Vatican, the Alexandrine, the Sinaitic, the later Vatican, the Parisian, the Clermont MSS., need not be paraded before

common

;

INTRODUCTION.

Xyiii

Nor ancient MSS.

readers.

are such remarks as " the testimony of the is

divided," "these Avords are not found in

several of the most ancient MSS., but are contained in others," " the ancient authorities are divided," " several of

the oldest

MSS. read "

the persons for

whom

any practical was intended.

so-and-so, of his revision

benefit to

Besides,

the notes cannot be relied on implicitly, because they are not always correct. The author has been hasty, or imper-

with the evidences on which readings rest. v. 22 the short reading, " Ye wives unto your own husbands as unto the Lord " is said to be supported by " the oldest MSS. " whereas of the three oldest, only the Vatican reads so the other two, the Sinai tic and In the same epistle (v. 28) the word Alcxandi-inc, do not. " also " is said to be the reading of the oldest MSS., whereas In Revelation iv. 11 the Sinai tic it is not of the Sinai tic. Lord who art reading is erroneously given. It is not " our Lord and end," but " O Lord who art our Lord and God." In Revelation xviii. 3 "the wine of" is not omitted by all the most ancient MSS. It is in the Sinaitic and the The omission is sanctioned only by one old later Vatican. MS., the Alexandrine. A note on Matthew xvii. 21 states that the verse is found in the other ancient MSS., versions, This needs and Fathers, except our two oldest MSS. limitation, for it is in the Curetonian Syriac, a version older than any known MS. The note on Galatians v. 10 has no meaning. " Walk by the Spirit and ye shall not fulfil," etc., is said to be the reading of the most ancient MSS., but the received version is taken from the very same text as the revised one here presented, and there is no various reading fectly acquainted

Thus in Ephesians

;

;

among

the ancient

MSS.

The note

is

meaningless or mis-

leading.

Rercarding the translation offered by the Dean, it is undoubtedly an improvement upon the received one. Where it departs from the latter, the deviations commonly express the sense more accurately. Not only is the original text represented by the translation better than the usual one the translation itself

is

superior to

that so long in

uj-e

;

INTRODUCTION.

lix

The Dean has done good people. and deserves commendation for it. His revised Perhaps he undertook version, however, is not satisfactory. a work for which he had not the necessary qualifications. His knowledge of Greek was not sufficiently comprehensive It seems too that he worked rapidly, performing or exact. tasks perfunctorily which required more time and labour than he expended on them. In support of these remarks it is only needful to produce a few examples of blundering. In Matthew xxvi. 15 the incorrect rendering of the verb is retained, "covenanted with him," instead of "iveighed to

among English-speaking service,

him." ii. 3, " wherein are all the and knowledge " is erroneous hidden treasures of wisdom predicate. kklden is the for the adjective

The version

Hebrews

of Colossians

vi. 1

is

rendered

" therefore

leaving discourse

which gives a meaning foreign to the original. In Luke viii. 29 iroWoig xpovoig is translated "oftenThe phrase can only times," a meaning obviously wrong.

concerning the beginning of Christ,"

mean

etc.,

"for a long time."

a'iptaig is wrongly rendered heresy. The word means a schismatical party or sect. There is also a mistranslation and misapprehension of the original in Hebrews x. 20, " by a new and living way, which he inaugurated," etc. These words following immediately " by the blood of Jesus," in the nineteenth verse, suggest a meaning which the writer of the epistle did not The preposition hy at the beginning of the twenintend. and the true rendering, tieth verse perverts the sense "a new and living way," etc., shows that this language

In Acts xxiv. 14

;

characterizes the 1

Timothy

of money." all

tYo-oSoi'

vi. 10, "

or " access

"

of the nineteenth verse.

For the root of

This should be,

"

all evils

the love of

money

is

the love

is

a root of

the evils."

Hebrews thee," etc.

i.

"

0,

therefore God, even thy God, anointed

This should

anointed thee,"

etc.

be, "therefore,

O

God, thy

God

'

INTRODUCTION.

XX

Hebrews ment/'

etc.

x. 27, "

The

But a

certain fearful receiving of judg-

alteration of the received version

is

wrong.

The word here translated receiving means nothing but a looking for or expectation.

Hebrews which means Acts

xii.

xii. 5, "

an adverb and nothing else.

2G, 27,

once,

without ceasing

is

rendered once more

" is erroneous.

It should be earnestly or urgently. Acts xxii. 25, " And as they bound him down with the thongs," etc. Here the verb cannot mean hound down, but stretched out ; and the true rendering is, " they stretched him

out for the cords," or

lash.

In Acts xxiv. 3 " always " is a meaning which the adverb iravTr] does not bear. It signifies in every way. In Acts xiii. 48, " as many as were disposed to eternal life believed " is not the right sense, for the verb can only mean "as many as had been appointed or ordained to eternal life," etc. The divine purpose lies in it. In 1 Corinthians viii. 8, " meat shall not be reckoned to us before God " is in every respect an erroneous rendering. It should be " meat will not present us before God," or " wiU not represent us to God." It would be easy to multii)ly examples of incorrect tenses, as in John vi. 44-, "I raise him^up," where the present should be a future Luke xxi. 8, " The time draweth "near," where it should be " the time is at hand " 2 Corinthians iv. 4, "hath blinded" for "blinded;" 2 Corinthians xiii. 10, " the Lord hath given me " for " gave me " Galatians iii. 1, "who hath bewitched you" for "bewitched you;" 1 Corinthians xvi. 15, "have set themselves" for "set themselves." In Romans xi. 34, 35 three tenses are wrongly rendered. Nor has the use of the article been properly attended to, as is evident from Matthew x. 24, where tlte disciple and the servant should not be. In like manner, in Galatians iv. 4, 5 " the law " should be " law ; " " the resurrection " in Acts xvii. 32 "a resurrection;" "the church" in 1 Corinthians xiv. 4 " a church." The omission of representatives of Greek words in the ;

;

;

INTRODUCTION.

xxi

translation also mars its accuracy, as appears from xvii. 25, "

knew

righteous Father, the world

Here the conjunction

knew

the world

is

neglected, "

thee not

The

!

"

no representatives in Greek

Matthew

xxvi.

" blessed

26,

is

John

thee not."

righteous Father, and

insertion of words having

equally

it,"

prejudicial,

which

gives

as

in

a wrong

meaning.

While the

author has contributed to

uniformity of

word

or phrase into

rendering, often translating the same the same English wherever

same Greek word

And

the next. Galatians

Again, in

i.

11

it

occurs,

Thus

the principle far enough.

he has not carried out

in Revelation

ii.

14, 15 the

tcachimj in one verse and doctrine in

is

the same verb in 1 Corinthians xv. 1 and imike knoivn and certify, without reason.

is

Romans

18 and Philippians

i. 10 the same words approvest the things that are in the one place, and " discern the things

ii.

are differently rendered

;

"

more excellent " that are more excellent" in the other. Why also should the same verb in the same verse be differently translated release and let (JO in John xix. 12? Conversely, it is wrong to render two different words in the same manner, unless there be a necessity, which does not exist, as in James i. 15, " bringeth forth;" in Revelation xvii. 17, where " ful£Q " stands for different Greek verbs in the same verse. The Dean's work, notwithstanding its many defects, has been useful in showing the need of a fresh revision of the Englisli New Testament. Whatever may be thought of his capacity or knowledge in matters of textual criticism and Greek translation, his services deserve recognition. It is also creditable to him that he tried to be impartial, without allowing theological prepossessions to override the knowledge In a very few cases perhaps his leanings of the scholar.

may

be detected; but

impartial.

it is almost impossible to be ab.solutoly His judgment indeed was not of tliu highest

That it lacked fineness of discerniiK-nt is jilain enough from the proposed version of riiilippians ii. (!, where "deemed not his equality with God a thing to grasp at" introduces something like an absurdity. "lie dLrnicd

order.

INTRODUCTION.

Xxii

not what the

little

lie

had a thing

-word his

is

!

to grasp at "

The

insertion of

unwarranted, and mars the

totally

right version of the words.

Another revision of the common English version was undertaken by a company called " The American Bible Union," and the result of their labour was published in 1872, in different forms.* Here a diplomatic text has been taken, but one much nearer the received than that of Alford. We cannot praise it, for it is unsatisfactory, having good and bad readings in almost equal proportions. On the whole it does not incline to the most ancient with sufficient prominence. A few notes are given, both respecting

Dean

other readings and renderings.

Some

are expository.

So

many

important variations are unnoticed that the few given are of little use. As far as w:e can see, the editors followed

no fixed principle in selecting various readings for notice. Thus at Matthew xxiv. 42 it is remarked that many ancient copies read " in what hour," for " in what day " but the well-attested "only-begotten God" for " only-begotten Son" in John i. 18 is unnoticed. In 2 Peter iii. 9 a note states that some ancient copies have " toward you " for " toward ;

" but Mark xv. 28 stands in the text without remark, though undoubtedly spurious. In 2 Peter iii. IG the various reading in the relative pronoun is unnoticed and in Galatians iv. 25 the right reading is also unnoticed. So in Ephesians v. 30. In 1 Timothy iii. IG, " God was manifested

us

;

;

in the flesh,"

etc., is

ancient copies have

the textual version

"who was

;

a note stating that

manifested, or which

was

manifested."

The

critical

notes contain

little

information, and are

sometimes misleading. Thus at Revelation v. 10 it is remarked that some ancient copies omit " unto our God;" tiie fact Ix'ing that only tlie Alexandrine omits the words. At Matthew xxvii. 34 the received reading is followed; *

Tho

New

Testament of our Lord and Saviour Jesus by the final couiiuitLcc of

C'limnion English version, corrected Ijible

Union.

Second

revision.

Now

York,

lb7ii.

The American

Christ. tlio

INTRODUCTION.

xxiii

a note saying that loine insteadof vinegar

is

in

some ancient

This does not fairly represent the case. The two oldest MSS., besides the Cambridge one, have it, and it is 80 well attested otherwise as to claim superiority to the common reading " vinegar." copies.

The translation possesses considerable merit. Much attention has been given to the tenses and the article, less The editors have done good service in by bringing the English nearer the

to the prepositions.

then- revision labours,

Greek. Their translation presents many improvements upon the received one. With all its excellencies, however, it is marred by serious defects, some of which will cause its rejection by the majority of readers. Thus the word baptize is always reftdered immerse; and John the Baptist is "John the immersery Good taste alone would counsel no change of this kind a change which proclaims at once the peculiar

—

views of the authors. It is undesirable to protrude Baptist views in this way into a translation of the Now Testament. There are many errors in the version. A few only can be here noticed. In John xi. 25 " though he be dead " is retained, instead of " though he die " in Mark iv. 29, " when the fruit permits " is contrary to the Greek verb Luke xiv. " should be " when he had 1, "as he went into the house ;

;

come

into the house

Spirit of the "

Lord

"

;

"

2

Corinthians

mistakes the sense

;

iii.

18, " as

by the

2 Corinthians

iv. 4,

that they should not discern the light of the gospel,"

etc.,

turns an intransitive verb into a transitive one, and gives

it

a meaning it has not Romans vii. 2, " the husband while he lives " should be " the living husband " Hebrews iii. 4, ;

;

"

He who

God " stands for " It is God who Luke xvii. 21, " the kingdom of God is

built all things

built all tilings

you"

;

"

is

among you

"

Ephesiaus ii. 1, "dead in by trespasses," etc. 2 Corinthians ii. 14, "causes us to triumph" instead of "leads us in trium[)h." Sometimes a wrong translation is in the text and the right in a note, as in 2 Timothy iii. 10, "All Scripture is inspired by God, and is profitable," etc.; 1 Peter 17, " call him Father," etc.

witlihi

trespasses

i'or

"

and sins"

for "

;

;

i.

INTRODUCTION.

Xxiv

The tenses are ment of accuracy.

occasionally mistranslated to the detri-

22, "I would also have wished to hear the man;" Galatians iv. 20, "I could wish" for "I could have wished;" John iii. 33, "has set his seal," for "set his seal," etc.; Ephesians ii. 5, 8, "By grace ye are saved" for " have been saved " Matthew xxi. 23, " when he had come

hear the man,"

Thus in Acts xxv.

etc.,

for " I could

;

into the temple," instead of " came," etc.

sometimes neglected, producing an incor" iv. 6, " in any matter instead of "the matter;" Revelation xvii. i, "upon many waters" for "the many waters;" Matthew xxi. 12, "sold doves" for "the doves;" John xii. 13, "took branches"

The

article is

rect version, as in 1 Thessalonians

for " the branches."

The first feature which strikes a reader will be the use immerse for haiitize, which grates harshly at times on the ear, especially in such passages as Matthew xxviii. 19, " immersing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit," where the preposition should be

of

In addition to

into.

this,

the text translated does not

represent either the most ancient or the best one, and

is

even to Alford's. In the year 18G9 there appeared at Boston, United States, a translation of the New Testament by Dr. Noyes, Had this been taken from the of Harvard University.* eighth critical edition througliout, it might have superseded the necessity of anotlier. But it does not represent the

inferior

latest

and

final

judgment of the German

critic as

to the

merely a version of the eighth edition as far From that verse to the end of John's 9. as Luke it was made/rom the second edition of the " Synopsis Gospel Evangelica " the remainder from the seventh critical

text.

It is

xvii.

;

We liave therefore a patchwork whijh differs and materially from the mature opinions of Von Tischendorf. No justice is done liini by such a procedure, and he is presented unfairly to the English reader, since the

edition.

often

*

The New

Test anient, translated

Georgo R. Nojcb, D.H.

from the Cfrcck text of Tiechcndorf by

"

INTRODUCTION.

XXV

eighth edition does not agree with the seventh, and is much This is evident from such a passage as Revelation better. i.

5,

"

;

washed us from our

last edition 'reading

Even the

blood."

Matthew

sins in his owti blood " the

own

loosed us from our sins in his

text

professedly

translated

not in

is

2C, "

viii.

should be " the

The

"

rebuked the winds and the waves winds and the sea."

Noyes

translation of Dr.

possesses

much

merit,

" it

;

and

from the received version very often, and is paraphrastic. Perhaps it is too free. Literality is sacrificed unnecessarily, as in Colossians iii. 15, " over all these things put on the robe of love ;" in Philippians iii. 20, " the country of which we are citizens is heaven." And the author's knowledge of Greek seems not to have It departs

reads well.

been accurate.

He

Matthew

the

has

made

word

glaring mistakes.

Thus

in

"bride-chamber" is rendered " bridegroom " " companions of the bridegroom " for " sons " of the bride-chamber." In Matthew x. 4, " Simon of Cana is incorrect. The word has no reference to place, but is an Aramaean form or rendering for the Greek of " zealot Simon the zealot In Luke viii. 29, "he was about to command " cannot be the sense of the imperfect. It is rather, "he was commanding." In Matthew xxviii. 1, "the sabl^ath being over" does not express the original. In 14<

ix.

for

;

;

John

viii.

25, the

version,

"In the

that which I speak to you" sanctions

John

is

first place, I

erroneous, though

wrong,

am

just

Erasmus

"

but ye will behold me, because I live, and ye will live." Romans iii. 8, " and why do you not say, as some slaiiderously charge us with saying," etc., misapprehends the meaning of the it.

xiv.

19

is

also

apostle, as does also " in a

manner somewhat bold on some Romans xv. 15. In 1 Corinthians xv. 1, " I declare anew" renders the verb incorrectly, as does "qpntent yourselves," Romans xii. IG. Nor can the loose para})hrase for Kai a\nfiaTi tvftiOtuj wc avO/atuTrof, "and in what apper-

subjects,"

tained to liim

appearing as a

be

a

considered

John

iii.

man

3 the translation

is "

(Philij)pians

"

fair representative

unless a

of

ii.

the original.

man

7)

In

be born aijain,"

INTRODUCTION.

Xxvi

a note stating, rendering

"

certain about

is

from above." The textual and that which the writer seems un-

Possibly, horn

wroncj,

is

the right one, as the use of avwOev in the

New

Testament shows. It must be due to carelessness that the sinirular noun without the article in Matthew xi. 7 is

translated " the reeds."

The as

tenses are usually observed^ though not so exactly

in the

John

Thus in American Bible Union's Testament. and the perfect are rendered erronehave glorified thee, etc., thou gavest me," etc.,

xvii. 4, the aorist

ously, " I

of, " I

thou hast given me," etc. In he hath done " should be, " he did." In Matthew xviii. 17 the article is twice overlooked, " the Gentile and the publican." In Luke xxiii. 2, " saying that he himself is the Christ, the King," puts the article where it should not be. And though the note gives two other instead

Colossians

glorified thee,

25, "

iii.

renderings, all are incorrect.

On

the whole, the

marks of inexactness and looseness

;

though

work shows

it

is

respect-

ably executed.

The notes

chiefly consist of references to the passages

quoted from the Old Testament, to parallels in the gospels and other renderings. The remarks about other readings Sometimes they are expository. It is probably are few. best to leave the cxegetical department to such as treat of it professedly since a few remarks, and those not always ;

important, are of

little use.

The controversies once carried on about the right reading They should not have been conin John v. 7 are now past. ducted in the spirit that often prompted them. Griesbach's dissertation on the passage in the second volume of his edition of the Greek Testament published in 180G, may be said tu

have

set aside the claims of the contested

place in the epistle, though the words never had

authority in their favour.

words to a any proper

Admirably too did Professor

Ponson in his letters to Archdeacon Travis discuss the three heavenly witnesses and jjrove the spuriousness (A' the place where they are. This he did before Griesbach's dissertation appeared, for his letters were collected and enlarged in

INTRODUCTION.

XXV ii

1790.

His summing up deserves to be quoted.

"

if this

verse be really genuine, notwithstanding

its

In short, absence

one of which from the Latin, and the notwithstanding other transcribes it from a printed book and its absence from all the versions except the A^ulgate even from many of the best and oldest MSS. of the Vulgate notwithstanding the deep and dead silence of all the Greek writers down to the thirteenth and most of the Latins down to the middle of the eighth century if, in spite of all these objections, it be still rjenidne, no part of scripture whatsoever can be proved either spurious or genuine and

from

all

MSS. except two

the visible Greek

awkwardly

;

translates the verse

;

;

;

;

;

Satan has been permitted for

many

to banish the finest passage in the

eyes and memories of almost

centuries, miraculously

New

all

Testament from the

the Christian authors,

But a cardinal proof in and transcribers." favour of the doctrine of the Trinity could not be easily surrendered, and therefore the defenders of it fought pertranslators,

sistently in the face of testimony

whelm them

which could not but over-

Burgess, Hales, and their coad-

in the end.

jutors continued to write in favour of its authenticity, as if " faith in

the Holy Trinity

Now

clause.

"

depended on the disputed

that the spuriousness of the passage

knowledged by

all,

we

waste of time and labour over spirit exhibited

by looking back and observing the

are saddened

by some

it,

is

ac-

at the bitter

of the champions in the cause of

truth.

The dispute about ajjainst the readinjx "

Since

only

it

was

1 Timothy iii. IG has also terminated God was manifested in the flesh," etc.

clearly ascertained that 6c

of the Alexatndrian

Ephraem

(s*

and C)

;

MS., but

since both

is

in the text not

of the

Sinaitic

and

Lachmann and Tischendorf

have editt'd it in tlieir texts, the point has been settled. Here again the critical sagacity of Griesbach led him to the true reading, which he established with his usual ability in the Synlbola^ Critica', and subsequently in the noU' to the passage in the second edition of his Greek Testament. Abused as he was by Dr. Hales and others, he adhered to

INTRODUCTION.

XXyiii

judgment, with the consciousness of having truth It mattered not that Dr. John Jones " engaged to show his incompetence as a critic and his want of fidelity " that he pronounced the as a coHator of the ancient copies new reading "neither good sense nor good Greek," it was impossible to stop the progress of sound ciiticism by unfounded assertions or pointed suspicions. We ourselves can

his first

on his

si(ie.

;

remember some of the combats waged over the word the republication of Sir Isaac Newton's observations upon it, ;

and the rejoinder it called forth under the title, "Sir Isaac Newton and the Socinians foiled in the attempt to prove a corruption in the text, 1 Timothy iii. IG." Happily this kind of warfare is also past. When orthodoxy and hetero-

doxy come

into close collision, calm reasoning necessarily

.suffers.

Other passages have now been eliminated from the genuine text, such as John vii. 53 viii. 11, containing the story of the woman taken in adultery John v. 3, 4, about the angel troubling the pool the doxology of the Lord's

—

;

;

Prayer in Matthew vi. 13 the three clauses of the same prayer in Lukxj xi. 2-4, viz. " who art in heaven," " thy will be done as in heaven so in earth," "but deliver us from evil " the statement of Peter to the eunuch and the latter's These confession of faith before baptism in Acts viii. 37. will return no more to form an integral part of any critical ;

;

text.

Others are scarcely settled as yet, as

Mark

xvi. 9-20,

though general opinion inclines to the rejection of this passage, and Von Tischendorf asserts that it was not written by Mark, after giving the evidence for and against it fully. But as Irenreus already knew it, the opponents of its authenticity admit that it was an early appendix to the gospel. Tliey hold it to be canonical, i.e. pronounced such by Not only so, but the authority of the universal Church. it "genuine and call orthodox impugners of the passage

an addition that ought as much to bo received as part of our second gospel, as tlie last part of Deuteronomy is received as the right and proper conclusion of the books of Moses " and say that it " has ever been regarded as possess-

inspired,

;

,

INTRODUCTION.

X^ix

ing the same canonical authority with the three gospels." If this language be taken in its natural sense, the section

has the same authority and value as the rest of the gospel, though it was not written by Mark. But was the whole gospel with this exception written by that evangelist ? Are

we

much

not as

in the

dark about

its

authorship, as far as

the present character and form of the gospel are concerned, as

we

are about the section in question

has been called

" inspired,"

"the Holy Ghost was "

that

the

its

which

author

;"

Book of Mark," with

is

?

The appendix

explained as meaning,

but there

is

no evidence

or without the

section,

was received as authoritative l)y the Apostolic Church." As to the text, Acts xx. 28, " Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over which the Holy Ghost hath m^de you overseers, to feed the church of God, which "

he hath purchased with his own blood," it may be considered all but settled among Biblical critics that the reading " feed the church of the Lord," which both Lachmann and Tischendorf edit, is the original one. It is not indeed in the Vatican and Sinaitic MSS., yet other con" The siderations outweigh these valuable authorities. blood of God" could hardly have emanated from the author of the Acts, much less from Paul himself; thoujrh it would not have created sui'prise at a later time of the Church. Von Tischendorf's note on the diversities of reading here is an excellent example of critical fulness and fairness, contrasting very favourably with the reasonings of Dean Alford in his Greek Testament, which are weak and "perverted. The reading "church of God" (tov Otov) is rejected not merely by Lachmann and Tischendorf, but by De Wette and Meyer. Though it is a Pauline phrase, and " church of the Lord " an un-Pauline one, the circumstance

is

favourable

to

the supposition that

unusual was altered into the usual form. in which blood is associated with God,

common and

reading.

By

it

an idea

is

But the

the

context,

is adverse to the presented too strong

gross. It

has been often remarked that our

Enirli.sh trui.slutors

"

INTEODUCTION.

XXX

were negligent in their treatment of the

article, inserting

or omitting its English equivalent arbitrarily.

important to observe and mark

its use.

that the sacred writers employed

it

We

Yet

it

is

do not suppose

according to definite

the precision of Attic Greeks. They had regard to perspicuity and distinctness. In other cases they were influenced by prevailing habit or their ovm. pleasure. rules, or Avith

But whatever may be

their usage,

it is

desirable to reproduce

two languages will and the exact sense requires. The importance of the article might be illustrated by the use made of it by Mr. Sharp, whose positions, as explained by Bishop Middleton, have been supposed to be settled. The rules in question affect the doctrine of Christ's divinity, which the article employed in certain ways with Oeog, Kvpiog, Sfo-Trorrj^ is thought to imply, and therefore the received version has been altered. But it is undesirable to enter upon such a Strivings about words and grammatical subtletopic here. ties are not the best weapons in defending cardinal docAnd the observations of Mr. Winstanley, with the trines. readings, have shaken the positions laid down critical best though the latter were held by respectable Sharp, Mr. by Theological, should be kept apart scholars like Mr. Rose. from linguistic, considerations. Believing that the translators were generally right, we have followed them in the passages in question, such as Titus ii. 13, where they do not render "that blessed hope and the glorious appearing of our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ," as Middleton recommends, but, " the glorious appearing of the great God and it

in English, as far as the idioms of the

allow,

A comma after the "great God we have put, as it is in the edition

our Saviour Jesus Christ."

makes

all plain,

and

this

of IGll.

The in

translators of the received version are often incorrect

regard to the artick-, as in

Romans

xiii. 19,

"the wrath,"

a phrase distinctive and often used in the New Testament; John vii. 51, "judge the man." In these and a multitude of other instances the article was not rendered. cases it has been inserted without authority

In other from the

:

•

original, as in

Acts

INTRODUCTION.

xvii. 23, " to the

unknown God

of " an

Xxxi

unknown God

"

instead

"

Paul the aged " for " Paul, an aged man." The expression 6 vlbg tov Qtov or v'lix; Tov Qiov is difficult, because much depends on the speaker who uses it. In some places we must translate " the Son of God " even where ix'oc wants the article but this does not apply to the majority of examples, such as Matthew xxvii. 54, where we translate " This was a Son of God " or " God's Son " nor to Matthew iv. 3, " if thou art God's Son." The article with voftoq, law, in the epistles to the ;"

Philemon

9,

;

;

Romans and Galatians because

its

especially, requires

presence or absence indicates

much

what

is

attention,

meant by

the term; either law generally, every revelation forming a rule of life ; or the Mosaic law in particular. Where the

meaning, the

mostly prefixed where But the exceptions are not few. Thus in Romans iii. 19, 20, " We know that what thinofs soever the law says, it speaks to them who are in the law that every mouth may be stopped and all the world may become guilty before God. Because by works of law shall no flesh be justified in his sight for through law comes a full knowledge of sin." Meyer does not adequately explain the last verse, because it refers to abstract law. So too Galatians iii. 10, "As many as are of works of law are under a latter is the

the fonner,

it is

article is

;

usually absent.

;

curse

Cursed is every one that continues the things written in the book of the law to do

for it is written.

;

not in

all

them."

In some cases a decision as to the proper rendering of a may be somewhat doubtful, as in the case of Hebrews i. 3, where we are inclined to put substantive without the article "

an effulgence of the glory and an express image of his suband similarly in Colossians i. 15, "an image of the

stance,"

invisible God," etc., notwithstanding Middleton's rule about the substantive verb necessarily causing the omission of the

Greek

article in the predicate

Matthew

xvi. IG

and

;

a rule which

The

is

violated in

not materially affected whether the indefinite or definite article be used in these examples, for the former need not imply a j)lurality. in xxvii. 11.

sense

is

c

INTEODUCTION.

xxxii

We

have endeavoured to follow the tenses as nearly as possible, even where the literal rendering of them appears

somewhat awkward usage

peculiar

to

They

in English.

the

are a part of the

writers,

original

and show

their

method of expressing time, especially in the epistles, the fourth gospel, and the Apocalypse for the synoptical gospels ;

have been written over more than once, and each is a In the received version the aorist and perfect gi-owth. i. 1, "many liwve taken in " "thou hast been instructed So also the imperfect is rendered like for "wevt instructed." a perfect in Luke ii. 48, " have sought thee." The true sense

are often confounded, as in

hand"

is

Luke

hand;" and

for "took in

i.

3,

by erroneous renderings

often impaired

of the tenses, as

though he were dead " instead of "though he die ;" Romans v. 15, " if through the offence of one many be dead " instead of " if by the trespass of the one the many Different writers employ occasionally different died." tenses in describing the same thing, as in Matthew xxi. 20 and Mark xi. 21, where the fomaerhas the aorist, "withered," the latter the perfect, ".has withered," or " is withered." Such minute particulars should not be neglected. A harmonizing tendency has sometimes been prejudicial here, as in Matthew in

John

xiv. 3, fect,

xi. 25, "

where the

aorist

"had

laid hold

24,

where the

xviii.

"had sent him," version

"

etc.

is

erroneously rendered by a pluper-

on John and bound,"

In Matthew of several

sun xiii.

parables

;

and John

is

at the rising of the sun

tense, " after the

etc.

rendered by the pluperfect, So Mark xvi. 2 has in the received

aorist

"

contrary to the aorist

rose."

24, xviii. 23, xxii. 2, at tlie

we have

retained the

beginning

proper aorist

ufxoiwOn, " was likened," where the English present, "is likened;" supposing that tlie the has version narration of tlie parables before previous a implies tense forms and places. In John xv. 6 present their assumed they " if any one the aorist is singular along with tlie present,

meaning of

abide not in me, he was cast out," etc. but it may be justified, perliai)s, by the explanation of Winer, the not ;

ahidiwj has

Ih'in

as the instantaneous consequence.

It is

INTRODUCTION.

XXxiii

undesirable to use the past here, as the sense sufficiently well

by

nate with abide.

is

expressed

the En/(Ta in Matthew iii. 17 and elsewhere. The connection and the sense control the translation in these and other respects, the

in

tKftaXXti

context,

causing departure from

The

rules.

subject of uniformity

is

one on which

much might

It is certainly desirable to translate the same be written. word or phrase in the same manner as far as possible.

Capricious alterations of the same word in the same verse,

paragraph, or writer should be avoided. The English translators often transgressed in this matter, and that purposely,

"we have not an uniformity of phrasing, or to an identity The importance of aiming at such uniformity is of words." obvious. We have kept it in view throughout tlie entire work. Many departures from the received version have originated this endeavour, where there was no other Perhaps it will be thought that the reason for change. attempt has been carried too far in some cases. But it is worth the labour involved. To render the same word or phrase in exactly the same manner throughout the whole of the New Testament is a desirable thing. Yet there are

according to their preface, where they say, tied ourselves to

m

many

limitations.

Words have various translated

by

and therefore they cannot be Thus tto/c denotes both son is sometimes uncertain which is meant, G, 8, etc., where Strauss, followed by senses,

identical terms.

and servant ; and it as in Matthew viii.

Alford, understands son or hoy rather than servant, though

the latter

is

far

of Israel or

tlie

times which

is

restrict

it

more probable.

So

yT]

signifies

earth generally, rendering intended, as in

Matthew

the

land

it

doubtful at

v. 4,

where some

to the promised land, in conformity with the

Jewish conception of the Messianic kingdom

while others suppose that Christ generalizes as well as spiritualizes the idea, so that earth agrees better with His teaching. So ;

INTRODUCTION.

XXxiv in

Matthew

xxvii. 45, the

same word

is

differently under-

stood, over all the land, or over all the earth; the former

adopted by Olshausen, and the received version the latter, which seems to us the right sense, by De Wette and the Dutch New Testament.* Another modification of unifonnity is caused by the variety of writers in the New Testament volume, each having his own style and diction. The Apostle Paul, for example, has his characteristic modes of thought and vocabulary John has another in the Revelation. The fourth ;

;

gospel has also

its abstract,

Thus we

ology.

symbolic, philosophical phrase-

find in the latter that the devil is called

the ruler of this ivorld (xii. 31, xiv. 30, xvi. 11), a phrase

not

used in the Synoptists, where the devil or the evil one occurs; while Paul speaks of " the god of this world," and the Ephesian writer of " the ruler of the power of the air." The fourth gospel applies to Christ 6 /novojiviig vlog, the onlybegotten

Son ;

Paul, TrpwroroKog

of every creature

;

Troo-rjc KTirrtwg,

the

jirst-bom

the former more metaphysical than the

and conveying a higher idea. The fourth gospel has in the name ; whereas the Synoptists use stti The verbs T(^ ovofiOTi, ii'pon the name, more frequently. tu}pnKa and OtacrOai are not in the Apocalypse, though

latter,

IV Taviiav avTov, K. T. X. appears instead of Km ti)v tTri