to the final result . . . Many places still remain in which, for the present, it would not be safe to accept one reading to the absolute exclusion of others. In these cases we have given alternative readings in the margin, wherever they seem to be of sufficient importance or interest to deserve notice. In the introductory formula, the phrases "many ancient authorities," "some ancient authorities," are used with some latitude to denote a greater or lesser proportion of those authorities which have a distinctive right to be called ancient. These ancient authorities comprise not only Greek manuscripts, some of which were written in the fourth or fifth centuries, but versions of a still earlier date in different languages, and also quotations by Christian writers of the second and following centuries.

In order to explain and illustrate the preceding weighty passage to those not familiar with its subject matter, two examples, one from the Gospels and one from the Epistles, are here given. The first is Matth. vi. 13, which reads in the Authorized Version: "For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, forever. Amen," but is omitted from the text of the New Version, and transferred to the margin with the introductory formula: "Many authorities, some ancient, but with variations, add For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, forever. Amen."

Whatever text underlay the Authorized Version in this place, it was not one in any way entitled to respect, for it deviates from the most ancient manuscripts. The omitted clause is wanting in Codex Sinaiticus (Aleph, 4th century) Codex Vaticanus (B., 4th cent.), Codex Bezæ (D., 6th cent.), and Codex Pal. Dublin (Z., 6th cent.); likewise in the cursive MSS., Nos. 1, 17, 118, 130, and 209. The Codex Alexandrinus (A., 5th cent.), and Codex Ephræmi Rescr. (C., 5th cent.), being mutilated in this place are, of course, useless for the purpose of our inquiry. On the other hand, many of the MSS., which contain the clause, supply it in red ink to distinguish it from the text, while others give it in the margin. It is also in the newly-discovered Codex Rossanensis, ascribed to the close of the sixth century or the begin

ning of the seventh, the text of which, however, is considered to be inferior in purity to that of the MSS. before mentioned. Turning from the Greek MSS. to the ancient versions, the clause is wanting in the Old Latin, Vulgate, and Memphitic, but found in the Ethiopic, Armenian, Gothic, and Syriac versions; but as there is considerable doubt as to the genuineness of the last-named version, the presence of the clause in it is not as decisive, as it would be without such doubt. The clause is likewise unnoticed in the ancient expositions of the Lord's Prayer by Origen (died 254), Tertullian (200-220), and Cyprian (248–258), although it is found in Chrysostom (397-407). It has been traced back to 1 Chron. xxix. II, and 2 Tim. iv. 18 is considered to be the germ of this liturgical addition to the text, which crept into it probably about the beginning of the fourth century. These textual considerations left the Revisers no choice, and compelled them to deny it a place in the sacred text, while their marginal annotation is a marvel of comprehensive accuracy.

Our second example is given in parallel columns with the changes in italics in both versions.

1611.

I TIM. III. 16.

And without controuersie, great is the mysterie of godlinesse: God was manifest in the flesh, iustified in the Spirit, seene of Angels, preached vnto the Gentiles, beleeued on in the world, receiued vp into glory.

1881.

And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness; *He who was manifested in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached among the nations, believed on in the world; received up in glory.

This very important passage unfolds very clearly the perplexities of textual criticism. Let the reader understand that the difference between the reading God, represented in Greek characters by C, and the reading He who, represented in

* Margin: The word God in place of He who, rests on no sufficient ancient evidence. Some ancient authorities read which.

Greek by OC, turns upon the presence of the horizontal bar over the two Greek letters, and the genuineness of the line in the centre of; the difference between who, Greek OC, and which, Greek O, on the presence or absence of the C.

Now in the famous Cod. Sin. we have the reading who corrected by a hand of the twelfth century into God, and in the Cod. Alex. critics are undecided, in the present worn condition of the respective leaf, whether it be OC or C. Those who saw the MS. soon after it came to England (1628) pronounce almost unanimously in favor of C. On the other hand, the Codd. Sin. and Ephr., the Memphitic and Thebaic versions, Origen, and the critical editions of the New Testament by Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Ellicott, and Westcott and Hort, pronounce in favor of OC; the weight of evidence, therefore, as well as the fact that it is the more difficult reading, compelled the Revisers to adopt it.

The reading which against who, is supported by the Codex Claromontanus, the Old Latin, Vulgate and Peshito versions, and this explains the marginal note.

So careful a scholar as bishop Ellicott decides "indisputably after minute personal inspection "* for the reading adopted in the New Version.

And concerning the whole passage, Winer, Wiesinger, De Wette, Ellicott, Westcott and Hort, and other competent scholars hold that it formed part of a well known ancient hymn or confession of faith in praise of "The Living God," or "The mystery of godliness," arranged thus:

Who was manifested in the flesh,
Justified in the Spirit,

Seen of Angels,

Preached among the nations,

Believed on in the world,

Received up in glory.

See Commentary on the passage.

The other changes in this passage, not textual, need not be discussed here.

On the all-important subject of the text, impartial criticism must pronounce it the purest text of any version extant, conforming as far as scrupulous, laborious, and conscientious scholarship of the most competent textualists now living could make it conform, to the purest text of the most authentic and weighty ancient manuscripts, supported by the earliest and truest versions, and the testimony of the earliest and most learned Christian writers.

The Preface continues:

2. We pass now from the Text to the Translation. The character of the Revision was determined for us from the outset by the first rule, "to introduce as few alterations as possible, consistently with faithfulness." Our task was revision, not re-translation.*

In the application however of this principle to the many and intricate details of our work, we have found ourselves constrained by faithfulness to introduce changes which might not at first sight appear to be included under the rule.

The alterations which we have made in the Authorized Version may be roughly grouped in five principal classes.

First, alterations positively required by change of reading in the Greek Text.

Secondly, alterations made where the Authorized Version appeared either to be incorrect, or to have chosen the less probable of two possible renderings.

Thirdly, alterations of obscure or ambiguous renderings, into such as are clear and express in their import . . . .

....

Fourthly, alterations of the Authorized Version in cases where it was inconsistent with itself in the rendering of two or more passages confessedly alike or parallel.

*The term "revision" seems to have been construed very liberally; for strictly speaking the Revised Version is a new translation on the basis of the Authorized Version. The Revision is a new translation from the original with reference to the old; whatever in the old was found to be faithfully rendered was allowed to stand, but wherever in the judgment of the Revisers a change was necessary it was made, so that as a matter of fact the Revision is really a new translation.

Fifthly, alterations rendered necessary by consequence, that is, arising out of changes already made, though not in themselves required by the general rule of faithfulness.

These different classes of alterations will now be examined and illustrated.

I. Alterations positively required by change of reading in the Greek

Text.

In addition to the two examples already given, a few others are supplied without note or comment, the juxtaposition of the two versions being deemed sufficient.