spective of modern readings, various translators have undertaken a new version, or a revision of the commonly received English translation. These works it is not necessary to criticise at present. They are too numerous; some of them too insignificant. By selecting three of the best as the subject of a few remarks, it will be seen that the work of revision is still incomplete.

That the text translated by Dean Alford does not possess great value is clear to all who are familiar with the criticism of the New Testament. Besides being liable to the objections which a diplomatic text incurs, it bears evidence of haste, ignorance, and incorrectness. The author was generally inclined to the oldest readings. So far he followed a right direction. But he did not give sufficient attention to the considerations that modify the element of antiquity-to internal and other evidences that correct or limit it. This excessive attachment to readings best attested perhaps by external evidence, has given rise to unintelligible renderings, as in Hebrews iv. 2, where the text adopted yields no proper sense. He has produced out of it the words, "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 readings are subjoined, but on no clear principle. The 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 all. Any intermediate plan is all but useless, as far as the instructing of ordinary readers is concerned. Thus, in Mark i. 1 the words "the Son of God" are omitted on sufficient authority by Von Tischendorf. Alford, however, has no notice of the true reading. In John ix. 35, "Dost thou believe in the Son of God?" Von Tischendorf's text

*The New Testament of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, after the authorized version, newly compared with the original Greek, and revised by Henry Alford, D.D., Dean of Canterbury. 1869.

с

is "Dost thou believe in the Son of man? but the latter is unnoticed. Luke xxiv. 40 is omitted by Tischendorf, yet Alford gives it without note or comment. In Mark viii. 26 the words "nor tell it to any in the village" are properly omitted by Von Tischendorf, but Alford inserts them without remark. In John xxi. 23 the last words of the verse," what is that to thee?" omitted by Von Tischendorf, are unnoticed. In Luke xxiv. 51, 52, the words "and carried up into heaven, and they worshipped him," which are more than suspicious, are inserted without remark. The same is true of Acts x. 6, "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 Trogyllium,' which should be omitted; of Acts xxi. 8, "we that were of Paul's 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 the Father has given me is greater than all."

These are but a few cases in which readings well attested and usually received by Von Tischendorf are ignored by the Dean in his notes. His silence would not be censurable in regard to them did he not in many cases note such as are of much inferior importance or trifling, as "and" in Galatians iii. 29; Colossians iii. 17; Revelation ix. 11, xxii. 12, 17; "amen" in 1 Timothy vi. 21; "Christ Jesus" instead of "the Lord Jesus Christ" in 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 readers. Nor are such remarks as "the testimony of the ancient MSS. is divided," "these words 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" so-and-so, of any practical benefit to the persons for whom his revision was intended. Besides, the notes cannot be relied on implicitly, because they are not always correct. The author has been hasty, or imperfectly acquainted with the evidences on which readings rest, Thus in Ephesians 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 Sinaitic and Alexandrine, do not. In the same epistle (v. 28) the word "also" is said to be the reading of the oldest MSS., whereas it is not of the Sinaitic. In Revelation iv. 11 the Sinaitic reading is erroneously given. It is not "O Lord who art. 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 later Vatican. The omission is sanctioned only by one old MS., the Alexandrine. A note on Matthew xvii. 21 states that the verse is found in the other ancient MSS., versions, and Fathers, except our two oldest MSS. This needs limitation, for it is in the Curetonian Syriac, a version older than any known MS. The note on Galatians v. 16 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 among the ancient MSS. The note is meaningless or misleading.

Regarding 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 use among English-speaking people. The Dean has done good service, and deserves commendation for it. His revised version, however, is not satisfactory. Perhaps he undertook a work for which he had not the necessary qualifications. His knowledge of Greek was not sufficiently comprehensive or exact. It seems too that he worked rapidly, performing tasks perfunctorily which required more time and labour then 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 "weighed to him."

The version of Colossians ii. 3, "wherein are all the hidden treasures of wisdom and knowledge" is erroneous; for the adjective hidden is the predicate.

Hebrews vi. 1 is rendered "therefore leaving discourse concerning the beginning of Christ," etc., which gives a meaning foreign to the original.

In Luke viii. 29 πodλois xpóvoiç is translated "often times," a meaning obviously wrong. The phrase can only mean "for a long time."

In Acts xxiv. 14 aipeσiç 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 intend. The preposition by at the beginning of the twentieth verse perverts the sense; and the true rendering

a new and living way," etc., shows that this language characterizes the εἴσοδον or access" of the nineteenth verse.

1 Timothy vi. 10, "For the root of all evils is the love of money." This should be, "the love of money is a root of all the evils."

Hebrews i. 9, "therefore God, even thy God, anointed thee," etc. This should be, "therefore, O God, thy God anointed thee," etc.

Hebrews x. 27, “But a certain fearful receiving of judgment," etc. The alteration of the received version is wrong. The word here translated receiving means nothing but a looking for or expectation.

Hebrews xii. 26, 27, an adverb is rendered once more which means once, and nothing else.

Acts xii. 5, "without ceasing" 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 bound 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 Távrη does not bear. It signifies in every way. πάντη

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 " will not represent us to God."

It would be easy to multiply 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.