uncertainty as to the beginning of a verse, in which case the doubt should have been removed by a little mark of separation. For one who wishes to give himself to the continuous reading of the Greek text with the least possible distraction, this edition has no rival. Harper & Brothers have rendered a great service to students of the New Testament by their republication of it, from duplicate plates, at a moderate price. In a second issue the few misprintssuch as u for uv at the end of line three on page 23, and (probably) "Posteriority" for "Priority," page 567, in the titles of the subsections to Section I. of Chapter II.-will doubtless be corrected.

But no intelligent scholar, even though he may have other editions which will supply some of the deficiencies that have been mentioned, will be fully contented with the first volume alone. The second volume is really the basis of the first, and its necessary explanation; it is that by which the value of the editors' work must be measured. is therefore earnestly to be hoped that the enterprising American publishers will issue it as soon as possible in the same style as the first. It is no ephemeral production.

It

A few words on Dr. Schaff's Introduction. After a brief but highly commendatory notice of the edition and the editors, we have, presented in a lively, popular style, an introduction, not so much to this particular edition as to the elements of textual criticism. It describes, in an interesting manner, the chief authorities for settling the text,the most important ancient MSS., the principal ancient versions, and the quotations by the early Christian Fathers; treats of the various readings, their origin, number, importance, and the principles of criticism; and gives a good account of the most important printed editions of the Greek text, ranged under three "periods." The ancient MSS. are illustrated by five fac-similes. In general, the information given is well brought down to the present time, and many minor errors of Scrivener and other writers are corrected. The account of ancient MSS., versions, etc., will not greatly facilitate the use of this volume, as these documents are

never cited in it for or against any particular reading. casional oversights may be found; for example, on page xlviii., Bernhardt's edition of the Gothic version is said to be "provided," like that of Gabelentz and Loebe, "with a complete apparatus." That is emphatically true of the latter; but the former lacks the important accompaniments of a grammar and lexicon. On the same page, in speaking of the edition of the Gospel of Mark in Gothic, with a grammatical commentary by Dr. R. Müller and Dr. H. Hoeppe (1881), "Müller" is misprinted "Miller." It should be added that the little work referred to is not only inaccurately printed, but that the grammatical notes are disfigured by extraordinary mistakes. In treating of the Peshito or Peshitto Syriac, it would have been well, perhaps, to have mentioned the edition of Leusden and Schaaf, since, with all its faults, it is so helpful to the student through the copious Lexicon (almost Concordance) which accompanies it, and its Latin translation.

X.

THE NEW TESTAMENT GREEK TEXT.

[Originally printed in the "Bible Revision Number" of the Sunday School World for October, 1878.]

IT is an unquestionable fact that the Greek text of the New Testament from which our common English version was made contains many hundreds of errors which have affected the translation; and that in some cases whole verses, or even longer passages, in the common English Bible, are spurious. This fact alone is sufficient to justify the demand for such a revision of the common version as shall remove these corruptions. Why, when so much pains is taken to obtain as correct a text as possible of ancient classical authors, of Homer, Plato, or Thucydides,- should we be content with a text of the New Testament formed from a few modern MSS. in the infancy of criticism, when our means of improving it are now increased a hundred-fold? Why should the mere mistakes of transcribers still be imposed upon unlearned readers as the words of evangelists and apostles, or even of our Lord himself?

The statements that have just been made require illustration and explanation, in order that the importance of these errors of the Received Text may not be exaggerated on the one hand or underestimated on the other. We will consider, then :

1. The nature and extent of the differences of text in the Greck MSS. of the New Testament. The MSS. of the New Testament, like those of all other ancient writings, differ from one another in some readings of considerable interest and importance, and in a multitude of unimportant particulars, such as the spelling of certain words; the order of the words; the addition or omission of particles not

affecting, or only slightly affecting, the sense; the insertion of words that would otherwise be understood; the substitution of a word or phrase for another synonymous with it; the use of different tenses of the same verb, or different cases of the same noun, where the variation is immaterial; and other points of no more consequence. The various readings which are comparatively important as affecting the sense consist for the most part: (1) of the substitution of one word for another that closely resembles it in spelling or in pronunciation; (2) the omission of a clause or longer passage from homæoteleuton,- that is, the fact that it ends. with the same word or the same series of syllables as the one preceding it; and (3) the addition to the text of words. which were originally written as a marginal note or gloss, or are supplied from a parallel passage. Ancient scribes, like modern printers, when very knowing, have often made mistakes while they thought they were correcting them; but there is little or no ground for believing that the text of the New Testament has suffered in any place from wilful corruption.

The state of the case will be made plainer by specific examples. The great majority of questions about the readings, so far as they affect the translation, are such as these whether we should read "Jesus Christ" or "Christ Jesus"; "the disciples" or "his disciples"; "and" for "but" or "now," and vice versa; "Jesus said" or "he said"; "he said" or "he saith" or "he answered and said"; whether we should add or omit "and" or "but" or "for" or "therefore," the sense not being affected; whether we should read "God" or "Lord" or "Christ," in such phrases as "the word of God," or "of the Lord," or "of Christ," these three words differing, as abbreviated in the Greek MSS., by only a single letter. Of the more important various readings, much the larger part consists of spurious additions to the text, not fraudulent, but originally written as marginal or interlinear notes, and afterwards taken into the text by a very common and natural mistake. Most of these occur in the Gospels. For instance, "bless them that

curse you, do good to them that hate you," is probably not genuine in Matt. v. 44, but was borrowed from the parallel passage in Luke vi. 27, 28. So the words "to repentance" are wanting in the best MSS. in Matt. ix. 13 and Mark ii. 17, but were introduced into later copies from Luke v. 32. For an example of omission from homeoteleuton, we may refer to I John ii. 23, where in our English Bibles the last clause of the verse is printed in italics as of doubtful genuineness. It is unquestionably genuine; how it was acci dentally omitted in some MSS. will be seen if we understand that in the original the order of the words is as follows: "he that acknowledgeth the Son hath also the Father," the ending being the same as that of the preceding clause. The copyist, glancing at the ending of the second clause, supposed he had written it, when in fact he had only written the first. For an example of the substitution of a word for another resembling it in spelling, we may take Rev. i. 5, where for "washed us" (hooavr) the best MSS. read "loosed" or "released us" (car). For another, see the margin of the common version, Acts xiii. 18.

I will now give as full an account as is possible within moderate limits of the more important and remarkable various readings, that every one may see for himself to how much they amount.

The longer passages of which the genuineness is more or less questionable are the doxology in the Lord's Prayer, Matt. vi. 13; Matt. xvi. 2, 3, from "when" to "times" (most critics retain the words); xvii. 21; xviii. 11; xx. 16, last part (genuine in xxii. 14); xxi. 44; xxiii. 14; xxvii. 35 (from "that it might be fulfilled" to "lots"); Mark vi. 11, last sentence; vii. 16; ix. 44, 46; xi. 26; xv. 28; xvi. 9-20 (a peculiar and rather difficult question); Luke ix. 55, 56, from "and said" to "save them"; xvii. 36; xxii. 43, 44 (most critics retain the passage); xxiii. 17, 34, first sentence (most critics retain it); xxiv. 12, 40; John v. 3, 4, from "waiting" to "he had" (most critics reject this); vii. 53 to viii. II (also rejected by most critics); xxi. 25 (retained by most critics); Acts viii. 37; ix. 5, 6, from "it is hard”