PUBLISHERS' PREFACE. THE King James Version of the Bible has been used by all Englishspeaking people for two hundred and seventy years, and until ten years ago no attempt had been made, by any representative body of Christians, to correct that Version. In 1870 the Convocation of Canterbury inaugurated a movement for a revised translation, to be made by many of the most eminent scholars of England and the United States. An Executive Committee was appointed, who organized in England two Revision Committees, one for the Old Testament and the other for the New Testament. By invitation of the English revisers, two similar Committees, composed of distinguished scholars of all denominations, were organized in America to co-operate with them. The Committees laboured diligently to complete the work, and gave their services without compensation. The Christian world rightly regarded this enterprise as the great event of the nineteenth century, and the people of America, in common with those of England, have waited with great anxiety and interest for the result. To search the many MSS. brought to light since A. D. 1611, to gather the results of the biblical learning of centuries, and to give them to the people in the Revised Version of the New Testament now before us, was a vast undertaking and a most praiseworthy enterprise. The Revision Committee, aided by the best editorial talent in the world, have presented the Revised New Testament in a most attractive and readable form. They have adopted the paragraph style in place of dividing up the subject-matter into verses of short sentences, thus rendering the Scriptures more easily understood and enabling the work to be printed in a much larger type and in a more compact and readable form for study. The New Testament Committee, through their chairman, the Rt. Rev. Dr. Ellicott, bishop of Gloucester and Bristol, have reported to the Convocation of Canterbury the completion of their labours. In presenting the report he alluded to the great value of the assistance rendered by the American Committee, and suggested that a vote of thanks be sent to the presiding bishop of the United States, with the request that he would communicate it to all the other members of the Committee. The English press have recognized the importance of the part borne in the work by the American revisers, and have intimated that it would have been well had more of their suggestions been adopted. Those Readings and Renderings of the American Committee which were rejected by the majority of the revisers appear in the Appendix to this volume. The type for this edition was set from the authorized standard English editions; the proof was very carefully read by many expert and competent proof-readers, and received a final revision from the Rev. John B. Falkner, D. D., of this city. We think that the text is absolutely free from errors, which cannot be said of several of the chcap English editions and hurried American reprints. We take pleasure in presenting this cdition of the Revised New Testament to the public, believing that much good will result from the circulation and reading of this more perfect Version of the New Testament of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. PHILADELPHIA, June, 1881. PREFACE. THE English Version of the New Testament here presented to the reader is a Revision of the Translation published in the year of Our Lord 1611, and commonly known by the name of the Authorised Version. That Translation was the work of many hands and of several generations. The foundation was laid by William Tyndale. His translation of the New Testament was the true primary Version. The Versions that followed were either substantially reproductions of Tyndale's translation in its final shape, or revisions of Versions that had been themselves almost entirely based on it. Three successive stages may be recognised in this continuous work of authoritative revision: first, the publication of the Great Bible of 1539-41 in the reign of Henry VIII; next, the publication of the Bishops' Bible of 1568 and 1572 in the reign of Elizabeth; and lastly, the publication of the King's Bible of 1611 in the reign of James I. Besides these, the Genevan Version of 1560, itself founded on Tyndale's translation, must here be named; which, though not put forth by authority, was widely circulated in this country, and largely used by King James' Translators. Thus the form in which the English New Testament has now been read for 270 years was the result of various revisions made between 1525 and 1611; and the present Revision is an attempt, after a long interval, to follow the example set by a succession of honoured predecessors. I. Of the many points of interest connected with the Translation of 1611, two require special notice; first, the Greek Text which it appears to have represented; and secondly, the character of the Translation itself. 1. With regard to the Greek Text, it would appear that, if to some extent the Translators exercised an independent judgement, it was mainly in choosing amongst readings contained in the principal editions of the Greek Text that had appeared in the sixteenth century. Wherever they seem to have followed a reading which is not found in any of those editions, their rendering may probably be traced to the Latin Vulgate. Their chief guides appear to have been the later editions of Stephanus and of Beza, and also, to a certain extent, the Complutensian Polyglott. All these were founded for the most part on manuscripts of late date, few in number, and used with little critical skill. But in those days it could hardly have been otherwise. Nearly all the more ancient of the documentary authorities have become known only within the last two centuries; some of the most important of them, indeed, within the last few years. Their publication has called forth not only improved editions of the Greek Text, but a succession of instructive discussions on the variations which have been brought to light, and on the best modes of distinguishing original readings from changes introduced in the course of transcription. While therefore it has long been the opinion of all scholars that the commonly received text needed thorough revision, it is but recently that materials have been acquired for executing such a work with even approximate completeness. 2. The character of the Translation itself will be best estimated by considering the leading rules under which it was made, and the extent to which these rules appear to have been observed. The primary and fundamental rule was expressed in the following terms:'The ordinary Bible read in the Church, commonly called the Bishops' Bible, to be followed, and as little altered as the truth of the original will permit.' There was, however, this subsequent provision:-'These Translations to be used, when they agree better with the text than the Bishops' Bible: Tyndale's, Matthew's, Coverdale's, Whitchurch's, Geneva.' The first of these rules, which was substantially the same as that laid down at the revision of the Great Bible in the reign of Elizabeth, was strictly observed. The other rule was but partially followed. The Translators made much use of the Genevan Version. They do not however appear to have frequently returned to the renderings of the other Versions named in the rule, where those Versions differed from the Bishops' Bible. On the other hand, their work shews evident traces of the influence of a Version not specified in the rules, the Rhemish, made from the Latin Vulgate, but by scholars conversant with the Greek original. : Another rule, on which it is stated that those in authority laid great stress, related to the rendering of words that admitted of different interpretations. It was as follows:-'When a word hath divers significations, that to be kept which hath been most commonly used by the most of the ancient fathers, being agreeable to the propriety of the place and the analogy of the faith.' With this rule was associated the following, on which equal stress appears to have been laid - The old ecclesiastical words to be kept, viz. the word Church not to be translated Congregation, &c.' This latter rule was for the most part carefully observed; but it may be doubted whether, in the case of words that admitted of different meanings, the instructions were at all closely followed. In dealing with the more difficult words of this class, the Translators appear to have paid much regard to traditional interpretations, and especially to the authority of the Vulgate; but, as to the large residue of words which might properly fall under the rule, they used considerable freedom. Moreover they profess in their Preface to have studiously adopted a variety of expression which would now be deemed hardly consistent with the requirements of faithful translation. They seem to have been guided by the feeling that their Version would secure for the words they used a lasting place in the language; and they express a fear lest they should be charged (by scoffers) with some unequal dealing towards a great number of good English words,' which, without |