transcriber was alarmed lest the doctrine of the Incarnation might be imperilled by such language— an alarm not entertained by the Evangelist himself, whose own narrative directly precluded any false inference, and who therefore could use the popular language without fear of misapprehension. And again the mention of 'fasting' in connexion with praying in not less than four passages (Matt. xvii. 21, Mark ix. 29, Acts x. 30, I Cor. vii. 5), in all of which it is rejected by one or more of the best editors, shows an ascetic bias; though indeed there is ample sanction elsewhere in the New Testament for the practice which it was thus sought to enforce more strongly. Again, allowance must be made for the influence of liturgical usage in such passages as the doxology to the Lord's prayer, Matt. vi. 13; and a similar explanation may be given of the insertion of the eunuch's confession of faith preparatory to baptism, Acts viii. 37. when a historical difficulty is avoided by a various reading, this should be taken into account, as in Mark i. 1, where indeed the substitution of ev tậ Ησαΐᾳ τῷ προφήτῃ for the common reading ἐν τοῖς πро¶nταis would introduce a difficulty the same in kind but less in magnitude than already exists in the received text of Matt. xxvii. 9. Or lastly, the desire to bring out the presence of a supernatural agency 3

L. R.

And again,

may have had its influence in procuring the insertion of the words describing the descent of the angel in John v. 3, 4. On the other hand, in some cases these considerations of internal probability favour the existing text, where external evidence taken alone might lead to a different result, as in 1 Cor. xv. 51, where the received reading πάντες οὐ κοιμηθησόμεθα, πάντες δὲ ἀλλαγησόμεθα, is so recommended against πάντες κοιμηθησόμεθα, οὐ πάντες δὲ ἀλλαγησόμεθα.

are more numerous.

I believe that I have not only indicated (so far as my space allows) the really important classes of various readings, but given the most prominent illustrations in each instance. The whole number of such readings indeed is small, and only a very few remain after the examples already brought forward. On the other hand, variations of a subordinate kind These occur more frequently in the Gospels than elsewhere, arising out of the attempt to supplement one Evangelical narrative by the insertion of a word or a clause from another, or to bring the one into literal conformity with the other by substitution or correction; but no considerations of moment are involved in the rectification of such passages. It is very rarely indeed that a various reading of this class rises to the interest of Matt. xix. 17 τί με ἐρωτᾷς περὶ τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ (compared with Mark x. 18, Luke xviii. 19); and for the most part

they are wholly unimportant as regards any doctrinal or practical bearing.

The same motive which operates so powerfully in the Gospels will also influence, though in a far less degree, the text of those Epistles which are closely allied to each other, as for instance the Romans and Galatians, or the Ephesians and Colossians, and will be felt moreover in isolated parallel passages elsewhere; but for the most part the corruptions in the Epistles are due to the carelessness. of scribes, or to their officiousness exercised on the grammar or the style. The restoration of the best supported reading is in almost every instance a gain, either as establishing a more satisfactory connexion of sentences, or as substituting a more forcible expression for a less forcible (e.g. παραβολευσάμενος for Tapaẞovλevoáμevos, Phil. ii. 30), or in other ways giving point to the expression and bringing out a better and clearer sense (e.g. Rom. iv. 19 KаTEVÓNσEV τὸ ἑαυτοῦ σῶμα...εἰς δὲ τὴν ἐπαγγελίαν τοῦ Θεοῦ οὐ διεκρίθη, for οὐ κατενόησεν κ. τ. λ., where the point is that Abraham did fully recognise his own condition. and notwithstanding was not staggered; or 2 Cor. i. 20 ἐν αὐτῷ τὸ ναὶ, διὸ καὶ δι' αὐτοῦ τὸ ἀμὴν κ. τ. λ., where val denotes the fulfilment of the promise on the part of God, and aunv the recognition and thanksgiving on the part of the Church, a distinction which

is obliterated by the received reading ev avτ Tò vaì καὶ ἐν αὐτῷ τὸ ἀμήν; or 2 Cor. xii. 1 καυχᾶσθαι δεῖ, οὐ συμφέρον μέν, ἐλεύσομαι δὲ κ. τ. λ., where the common text καυχᾶσθαι δὴ οὐ συμφέρει μοι, ἐλεύσομαι yap K. T. X. is feeble in comparison). It is this very fact, that the reading of the older authorities almost always exhibits some improvement in the sense (even though the change may be unimportant in itself) which gives us the strongest assurance of their trustworthiness as against the superior numbers of the more recent copies.

Altogether it may be safely affirmed that the permanent value of the new revision will depend in a great degree on the courage and fidelity with which it deals with questions of readings. If the signs of the times may be trusted, the course which is most truthful will also be most politic. To be conservative, it will be necessary to be adequate: for no revision which fails to deal fairly with these textual problems, can be lasting. Here also the example of S. Jerome is full of encouragement.

§ 2.

From errors in the Greek text which our translators used, we may pass on to faults of actual translation. And here I will commence with one class

which is not unimportant in itself, and which claims to be considered first, because the translators have dwelt at some length on the matter and attempted to justify their mode of proceeding. I refer to the various renderings of the same word or words, by which artificial distinctions are introduced in the translation, which have no place in the original. This is perhaps the only point in which they proceed deliberately on a wrong principle. We have not tied ourselves,' they say in the preface. 'to an uniformity of phrasing or to an identity of words.' They plead that such a course would savour 'more of curiosity than wisdom,' and they allege the quaint reason, that they might be charged (by scoffers) with some unequal dealing towards a great number of English words,' if they adopted one to the exclusion of another, as a rendering of the same Greek equivalent. Now, if they had restricted themselves within proper limits in the use of this liberty, no fault could have been found with this vindication. But, when the translation of the same word is capriciously varied in the same paragraph, and even in the same verse, a false effect is inevitably produced, and the connexion will in some cases be severed, or the reader more or less seriously misled in other ways. To what extent they have thus attempted to improve upon the original by introducing variety, the following examples, though