home
***
CD-ROM
|
disk
|
FTP
|
other
***
search
/
BibleWare
/
BibWare.bin
/
bibtrans
/
darby.exe
/
DBY.DOC
< prev
next >
Wrap
Text File
|
1996-06-12
|
74KB
|
1,378 lines
THE
'HOLY SCRIPTURES'
A NEW TRANSLATION
FROM THE
ORIGINAL LANGUAGES
BY
J. N. DARBY
KINGSTON BIBLE TRUST
Rear of WEMBLEY AVENUE,
LANCING, SUSSEX, BN15 9LX,
ENGLAND.
BIBLE TRUTH PUBLISHERS
PO Box 649
Addison, IL. 60101
USA.
PRINTED IN GREAT BRITAIN BY OFFSET LITHOGRAPHY BY
BILLING AND SONS LTD., GUILDFORD AND LONDON
INTRODUCTORY NOTICE TO
THE 1961 EDITION
The text of this edition of the Holy Scriptures is a reprint
of the first edition of the complete 'New Translation'
Bible published by Morrish in 1890, and subsequently (with
condensed footnotes) by Stow Hill Bible and Tract Depot in
1939, save for the fact that a very few needed adjustments,
particularly in the use of capital letters, have been made.
No change has been made in the wording of the text.
The footnotes to this edition have been critically examined
to make sure that the sense of the fuller notes in the 1890
edition has been accurately and adequately conveyed despite
the rewording of many of them in the 1939 edition following
the decision then to omit the references to original Hebrew
and Greek manuscripts.
The opportunity has been taken to bring into this edition
certain further notes from Mr. Darby's French Bible and
from the editions of his German Bible published during his
lifetime. A few notes have also been added derived from Mr.
Darby's collected writings. Many of the notes added in the
1939 edition were in the form of cross-references, and, in
the main, these have been retained as of value. Other notes
added at that time have been scrutinized and confirmation
from Mr. Darby's writings sought. Any notes which were
judged to be of sufficient value to retain, but which could not
be positively identified as being Mr. Darby's (apart from
those which are capable of easy verification by reference to
a concordance) have been marked by an asterisk.
The transliteration of Hebrew and Greek letters in the
notes has been retained as being more convenient to the
English reader. Such words are printed in italics. The use of
italics _in the text_ indicates emphasis.
LXX in the footnotes refers to the Septuagint, the Greek
version of the Old Testament.
_Keri_ signifies the marginal note of the Massorites, indicat-
ing their idea of how the text should be _read_. _Chetiv_ is the
Hebrew text as it is _written_. Cf. stands for 'compare'; Lit. for
'Literally'.
Square brackets in the text indicate (a) words added to
iv INTRODUCTORY NOTICE 1961
complete the sense in English similar to those shown in
italics in the Authorised Version; or (b), words as to which
there are variations in the original manuscripts.
In order to give the reader of this edition as reliable an
account as possible of the origin of the texts of both the Old
and New Testaments, part of the Introductory Notice to the
1890 edition of the Old Testament, and Mr. Darby's own
Revised Preface to the Second Edition (1871) of the New
Testament are reprinted on the following pages.
EXTRACT FROM INTRODUCTORY
NOTICE TO THE 1890 EDITION OF
THE OLD TESTAMENT
This translation of the Old Testament has been derived
from a study of the common Hebrew text, and represents
at the same time a collation of the late J. N. Darby's German
and French Versions, he having himself revised the first few
books within a short time of his decease.
The completion by Mr. Darby of the French translation,
which gives his matured views of the meaning of the Hebrew,
was felt by many to be a legacy to the Church of Christ
through the labours of His servant that could not be allowed
to remain only in the language in which it was written. Those
who use this English translation may accordingly expect to
find incorporated with it whatever is of special value in the
above-mentioned Versions, particularly the French, where
the common English Bible is defective.
Much of Mr. Darby's Preface to his German version applies
equally to the present Work, as where it is said: 'In the issue
of this translation, the purpose is not to offer to the man of
letters a learned work, but rather to provide the simple and
unlearned reader with as exact a translation as possible. To
this end however all available helps have been used, different
versions and commentaries having been laid under contribu-
tion. All who have laboured in this field know that in many
passages even the most learned men are embarrassed; since
a language so ancient, quite different in construction and in
form of thought from any modern one, must of course present
difficulties in translation. But in these cases, as indeed
altogether, we can conscientiously say we have worked care-
fully and prayerfully. In such passages, especially where able
Hebraists have erred, and respecting which differences of
opinion always continue to assert themselves, we do not
pretend to have rendered the original text without fault; but
we hope we can present the whole to the simple reader in a
form both exact and intelligible. That is our object. Our
work is not a revision of the Bible in common use' -- although
the reader of the English translation will constantly meet with
vi FROM 1890 INTRODUCTORY NOTICE
familiar words and phrases -- 'because, as we think, the object
sought would not so be attained.' The reader may also be
referred to Mr. Darby's remarks upon this subject in the
Preface to the second edition of his English New Testament.
(This is printed hereafter in this edition -- Ed.).
The style of our own excellent so-called Authorised Version,
happily familiar, is here preserved, as far as seems consistent
with the exactness sought to be attained; the purpose being
ever kept in view of putting the English reader in possession
of labours of Mr. Darby which were undertaken in the
interest of Christians abroad. The older forms of words are
kept for the higher style, suited to the immediate utterances
of God and strictly poetical parts.
Our English idiom has been studied, but the difficulty of
presenting all in suitable English dress has often been felt,
though our resource has been the vocabulary of the Authorised
Version, which, from its remarkable richness, almost exhausts
the phraseology of the language applicable to sacred subjects.
When the common Bible afforded no help in this respect,
aid has occasionally been sought from other English Bibles
of repute, both ancient and modern. But a certain roughness,
derived from close adherence to either the German or the
French, will doubtless sometimes be apparent.
Poetical parts are distinguished from the rest by a metrical
arrangement to which those are accustomed who use Para-
graph Bibles. In some of the books however which have
almost wholly this character, especially the Prophets, where the
poetical form is often complicated, it has been thought wise to
abandon the metrical arrangement, in order to render the para-
graphs more easily discoverable and in this way facilitate the
study of the text. So too in Proverbs, for the introductory
chapters; whilst the rest of the book, like Job and the Psalms,
is arranged in verses, as in ordinary Bibles. In these cases,
the paragraphs are indicated by a star at the beginning.
Another star * marks the grouping of the chapters which
form a whole, more or less complete in itself. Attention is
called to these especially in the Book of Psalms.
In the Song of Songs, the paragraphs are arranged, as far
as possible, to indicate the successive speakers. In this Book,
the stars *, rather than the chapters, mark the main divisions
of the subject.
The notes are taken partly from the German, often from
vii FROM 1890 INTRODUCTORY NOTICE
the French, while several are added from unpublished
comments of Mr. Darby, which he supplied for the purpose,
and others are occasionally introduced with the view of
securing either greater uniformity or greater clearness.
The names of God have been preserved as far as possible
according to the original, either in the text or by help of the
notes, and are distinguished as follows: --
_Elohim_ is 'God.'
_Eloah_ is '+God.'
_El_ is '∙God.'
In the Authorised Version of the English Bible 'GOD' is used
as well as 'LORD' for _Jehovah_, and the form 'LORD' represents
both _Jehovah_ and _Jah_. This inconvenience is obviated by
the use of the Hebrew words anglicised, that is 'Jehovah,' and
'Jah,' where they respectively occur, and by rendering _Adonai_
regularly 'Lord.' In the later Psalms the form _Hallelujah_,
'Praise ye Jah,' has been maintained wherever the sense allowed
it. It is a sort of heading to many Psalms. An exception may
be noted in Psalm 147.1. For '_Jehovah Elohim,_' see the note
at Genesis 1.1. It will be noticed how characteristic is _Adonai
Jehovah_, 'the Lord Jehovah,' of the Books of Ezekiel and
Amos. [The English reader may compare the forms, 'the Lord
GOD' and 'the LORD thy God,' in Isaiah 7.7,11.]
In the Prophets, brackets have been preserved at 'am' in the
expression 'I [am] Jehovah,' &c., so often occurring, especially
in Ezekiel, as they will help the reader the more readily to
distinguish the character and use of the various names of God,
as compared with 'I AM,' Exod. 3.14. In 'I,' Heb. _ani_ (the
pronoun without the verb), may be expressed the conscious will
of existence which in a divine Being is associated with the
existence in itself. Compare also 'I [am] HE,' Isa. 41.4, &c.
Considerable difficulty has been experienced as to brackets,
in which even the Authorised Version with its corresponding
italics is often inconsistent. Such words as 'it' have not been
bracketed when merely abstract, or when felt to be logically
necessary; and so when a pronoun replaces a noun governed
in Hebrew by two verbs: this cannot be considered a word
added to the text. An exception has been made in the case
of there being a legitimate doubt as to the propriety of the
word supplied, in order to allow the reader the opportunity
of replacing it by one he might consider more appropriate.
EXTRACTS FROM INTRODUCTORY
NOTICE TO THE 1884 EDITION OF
THE NEW TESTAMENT
The edition of the New Testament now put into the reader's
hand is printed from a corrected copy of the second edition
(1871), entirely completed by the translator before his death,
and revised while going through the press, as carefully as
circumstances would permit, from his own notes.
The text varies but little from that of the last edition; a few
needed corrections have been made, and certain modifications
and various readings, indicated formerly in the notes, have
been occasionally introduced into the text, and a few fresh
notes added.
The chief feature of novelty in the present edition is the
indication in the notes of many of the sources from which the
text and the various readings, as found in modern critical
editions, are drawn -- as has been already explained in the
preface to the second edition, to which the reader is referred
for the translator's opinion of the comparative value of the
Uncial MSS.
A few additional explanatory remarks are here offered in
order to warn the reader against being unduly influenced by
what is called _diplomatic_ evidence, whether the concurrent
testimony of the mass of the authorities, or the preponderat-
ing importance of a few very ancient witnesses. The modern
editors of the text often furnish proof that conscientious
adherence to their systems of comparative criticism may lead
to singular mistakes. The latest editions are by no means the
most trustworthy; and the reader should be at least cautious
against too readily accepting their decisions. Cf. _Revised Ver-
sion of the first three Gospels considered_, by Cook, and in
particular Burgon's _Revision Revised_.
Though of course in many respects an older MS is entitled
to greater weight, yet too many sources of corruption and
error had already crept in to render admissible the principles
laid down by Lachmann and Tregelles, and practically
acquiesced in by Tischendorf, without at least a very serious
and patient examination being accorded to the many later
witnesses, which have often of recent years been too lightly
ix FROM 1884 INTRODUCTORY NOTICE
set aside. A few examples, taken from many given by Burgon
and others, will serve for illustration. Scrivener says in his
_Introduction_ (3rd ed. p.511): 'It is no less true to fact than
paradoxical in sound that the worst corruptions to which the
New Testament has ever been subjected, originated within a
hundred years after it was composed; that Ireneus and the
African Fathers and the whole Western, with a portion of the
Syrian Church, had far inferior manuscripts to those employed
by Stunica, or Erasmus, or Stephens, thirteen centuries later,
when moulding the Textus Receptus.'
Admitting the general soundness of this conclusion, we are
no longer surprised to find that {aleph} and B, as well as C L U {gamma},
all interpolate in Matthew xxvii. 49 some words which are in
part borrowed, though changed, from John xix. 34, but which
have been shewn by Burgon in his _Last Twelve Verses_ to be
really derived from the heretical Tatian's Diatessaron or Har-
mony of the Gospels, composed in the second century. What
is surprising is to find that Westcott & Hort have introduced
it in brackets into their text and the Revisers into their
margin. Tischendorf and Tregelles have rejected it. Never-
theless it was in the copies used by Chrysostom and Cyril of
Alexandria.
In Luke ii. 14, however, all these editors follow the corrupt
testimony of {aleph} B D, besides quoting A for it, though in
another part of A, in the hymn at the end of the Psalms, the
correct reading is given; and {aleph} and B have both been corrected
by later hands. This reading, which originated probably in a
mere clerical error, is found in some old versions also: 'in the
men of good pleasure.' The Fathers all reject this, as Burgon
has proved; and every spiritual mind instructed in Scripture
must resent such an expression, which, as being very anoma-
lous Greek, has given rise to explanations that condemn them-
selves. Yet the Revisers have introduced it into their text,
forcing the translation in an unjustifiable way, and have placed
the better text in the margin.
Tischendorf in his 8th edition, influenced no doubt by his
favourite {aleph}, supported also by B, 124, and some versions, has
in Matthew xi. 19 substituted 'works' for 'children', against
all other authority and the evident teaching of scripture. The
same corrupted reading has been adopted by Tregelles and
the Revisers.
All these follow {aleph} B C D and others in admitting 'holy' into
x FROM 1884 INTRODUCTORY NOTICE
the text before 'spirit' in Luke x. 21, an interpolation which
may be ascribed to over-zealous piety, or, as it has been sug-
gested, to the misplaced desire to distinguish the word from
'spirits' used in another sense in the previous verse.
The extraordinary text given in Matthew xxi. 31 by Lach.,
Treg. and W. & H. on the authority, and that only partially,
of B, with which they make the priests and elders answer 'The
last', instead of 'The first', has been commented on by
Scrivener and Burgon. Tregelles attempts an explanation in
his _Account of the Printed Text_, p.107.
In Luke vi. 1 the Revisers leave out the important word
'second-first', misled perhaps by Treg. and W. & H. on the
precarious authority of {aleph} B L 1 33 69 and some versions. The
word was evidently omitted by scribes who did not under-
stand it. Tischendorf rightly inserts it. For another instance
of this kind of modification of the text, see 1 John ii. 13 and
the note, and Rev. xxii. 14.
The omission in 1 Cor. ix. 20 of 'not being myself under
law' in K and a few cursive MSS and versions, probably
arose from the same cause. But here the Editors and the
Revisers insert the words, following the great mass of MS
authority.
In John i. 18, {aleph} B C L, almost unsupported except by a few
versions, and, as to be expected, by many ecclesiastical
writers, have the astonishing reading of 'God' for 'Son' after
'only begotten'. It is scarcely conceivable that Treg. and
W. & H. should have followed so manifest a corruption, and
the Revisers have given it a place in their margin. Tisch.
rejects it. But he has not been equally firm in John ix. 35;
for he has introduced into his 8th edition 'Son of man,'
instead of 'Son of God,' on the testimony of {aleph} B D. So have
W. & H. and the Revisers in their margin.
The addition of 'yet' in John vii. 8, found in B and many
others, is evidently an intentional change of _ouk_ into _oupw_,
from the desire to explain a text not understood.
Treg. and W. & H. agree with Tisch. in putting the impera-
tive in I Cor. xv. 49; though the latter had it right in his 7th
edition, he now reads 'let us bear'. See the note at this passage.
The Revisers have it right in text, but have given the false
reading a place in their margin.
But the list might be almost indefinitely prolonged; so
numerous and often extraordinary are the corruptions found
xi FROM 1884 INTRODUCTORY NOTICE
in these venerable documents: witness the substitution of
'found' or 'discovered' (cf. 1 Sam. xx. 15 (16) in the LXX,
_Cod. Vatic_.), for 'burned up' in 2 Pet. iii. 10, by {aleph} B K P,
acquiesced in by Treg. and by W. & H.
The omissions in these old MSS are constant, often doubt-
less mere errors of the scribe, whose eye unconsciously passed
from one line to the second or third below it, especially if he
was betrayed by similarity of ending or beginning in two or
more consecutive lines, a constant source of error called
_homoeoteleuton_. It was no easy matter to avoid it in copying
MSS that have no division of words: it requires considerable
practice even to read them, and the eye gets no rest in its
fatiguing task.
The two oldest MSS, {aleph} and B, omit the end of Mark xvi.,
against all other authority whatsoever, as Burgon has shewn
with great pains; but in B, the fact that the scribe has here
left a column blank -- the only one in the whole New Testa-
ment -- is strong presumptive evidence that if he did not find
the passage in the MS he was copying from, he was aware of
an omission. Such defects as these tend to throw discredit on
these ancient MSS, as witnesses to the primitive integrity of
the text. On the other hand, they are free from the bold inter-
polations of D (Codex Beza), and are constantly additional
and valuable evidence against these. But none of the oldest
MSS, not even several together, can be of themselves con-
clusive testimony as to the absolute correctness of a reading,
although many facts tend to shew that, as a general rule, the
so-called Alexandrian readings come nearest to the primitive
text. They need to be controlled however by other evidence,
as that of the Cursive MSS, versions, and, in many cases, by
patristic citations. Every passage has to be examined apart on
its own merits, in presence of the whole array of witnesses,
and in dependence upon God's gracious guidance, special
regard being paid to the context and the general teaching of
scripture, which ecclesiastical corruption impaired.
REVISED PREFACE TO SECOND
EDITION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
(1871) /1
The original edition, in which each of the several books
was published by itself (or two epistles together if there
were two to the same assembly), and the reprints of several,
which seem to have attracted more attention than others,
being exhausted, I publish a new edition of this translation
of the New Testament, as a whole, in a more convenient form.
It has been in no way my object to produce a learned work;
but, as I had access to books, and various sources of informa-
tion, to which of course the great mass of readers, to whom
the word of God was equally precious, had not, I desired to
furnish them as far as I was able with the fruit of my own
study, and of all I could gather from those sources, that they
might have the word of God in English, in as perfect a
representation of it in that language as possible.
In the first edition I had made use of a German work
professing to give the Textus Receptus, with a collection of
the various readings adopted by all or any of the editors of
most repute, Griesbach, Lachmann, Scholz, Tischendorf,
and some others. But the Textus Receptus was itself often
changed in the text of the work, and I found that several of
these changes had escaped my notice. My plan was, where
the chief editors agreed, to adopt their reading, not to attempt
to make a text of my own. My object was a more correct
_translation_: only there was no use in translating what all
intelligent critics held to be a mistake in the copy. For, as is
known, the Textus Receptus had no real authority, nor was
indeed the English Version taken from it, -- it was an earlier
work by some years. With some variations, which critics have
more or less carefully counted, the Textus Receptus was a
reprint of earlier editions. Of these Stephanus 1550 is the
one of most note: there were besides this Erasmus and Beza.
Erasmus was the first published; the Complutensian Polyglott
the first printed: then Stephanus; and then Beza. The
Elzevirs were not till the next century; and the expression in
/1 The letters and signs used in this Preface are the recognised symbols by which
the various manuscripts are identified.
xiii REVISED PREFACE TO SECOND EDITION
their preface of _textus ab omnibus receptus_ led to the expression
of 'textus receptus', or received text. The Authorised Version
was mainly taken from Stephanus, or Beza. The reader who
is curious as to these things may see a full account in Scrivener's
_Introduction_ or other similar Introductions. After this came,
beginning with Fell at Oxford, various critical editions:
Mill, Bengel, Wetstein (who greatly enlarged the field of
criticism), then Griesbach, Matthei (the last giving the
Russian Codices, which are Constantinopolitan so called),
Lachmann, Scholz, Tischendorf, and quite recently Tregelles.
I name only those of critical celebrity. We possess besides,
in connection with commentaries, Meyer, De Wette, and
Alford.
In my first edition my translation was formed on the con-
current voice of Griesbach, Lachmann, Scholz, and Tischen-
dorf: the first of soberer judgment and critical acumen and
discernment; the next with a narrower system of taking only
the very earliest MSS., so that sometimes he might have only
one or two; the third excessively carelessly printed, but
taking the mass of Constantinopolitan MSS. as a rule; the
last of first-rate competency and diligence of research, at
first somewhat rash in changing, but in subsequent editions
returning more soberly to what he had despised. Still, if they
agreed, one might be pretty sure that what they all rejected
was a mere mistake in copying. Scholz, in a lecture in Eng-
land, gave up his system, and stated that in another edition
he should adopt the Alexandrian readings he had rejected.
That is the general tendency since: Tregelles laying it down
strictly as a fixed rule.
Meanwhile, since my first edition, founded on the con-
current judgment of the four great modern editors, following
the received text unchanged where the true reading was a
disputed point among them, the Sinaitic MS. has been
discovered; the Vatican published; Porphyry's of Acts and
Paul's Epistles and most of the Catholic Epistles and the
Apocalypse, and others, in the _Monumenta Sacra Inedita_ of
Tischendorf, as well as his seventh edition. These, with
Alford and Meyer's (not yet consulted for the text), and
De Wette, furnished a mass of new materials. Tregelles' too
was published as a whole since my present edition was
finished, though not printed.
All this called for further labour. I had to leave Scholz
xiv REVISED PREFACE TO SECOND EDITION
pretty much aside; (his work cannot be called a careful one,
and he had left himself aside;) and take in Tischendorf's
7th ed., Alford, Meyer, De Wette. I have further, in every
questioned reading, compared the Sinaitic, Vatican, Dublin,
Alexandrian, Codex Beza, Codex Ephraemi, St. Gall,
Claromontanus, Hearne's Laud in the Acts, Porphyry in
great part, the Vulgate, the old Latin in Sabatier and
Bianchini. The Syriac I had from others; it was only as to
words and passages left out or inserted I used the book
itself; not being a Syriac scholar, I could not use it for myself.
The Zacynthius of Luke I have consulted; with occasional
reference to the fathers; Stephanus, Beza, Erasmus. The
labour involved in such a work those only know who have
gone through it by personal reference to the copies them-
selves.
In the translation itself there is little changed. A few
passages made clearer; small inaccuracies corrected, which
had crept in by human infirmity; occasional uniformity in
words and phrases produced where the Greek was just the
same. In the translation I could feel delight -- it gave me the
word and mind of God more accurately: in the critical details
there is much labour and little food. I can only trust that the
Christian may find the fruit of it in increased accuracy.
As the editors I have named had not the Sinaitic nor
Porphyrian MSS., I have occasionally had to judge for
myself where these authorities affected the question much,
or have occasionally put the matter as questionable in a note,
where I could not decide for myself.
I will now say a few words as to these authorities. As to
the general certainty of the text, all these researches have
only proved it. The meddling of ecclesiastics has been one
chief source of questionable readings; partly wilful, partly
innocently: the attempt to assimilate the Gospels, which
was wilful; and then, more innocently, arising from the
passages read in ecclesiastical services, such changes as 'Jesus'
put for 'He' where it was needed, as in these services 'He' at
the beginning referred to nothing; and 'Jesus' was then
introduced by copyists into the text. The attempt to make the
Lord's prayer in Luke like that in Matthew is another
instance; so, if we are to believe Alford and most other
editors, the leaving out 'first-born' in the Sinaitic and Vatican
and some others, (which I note because it affects the oldest
xv REVISED PREFACE TO SECOND EDITION
MSS.,) because it looked as if the mother of our Lord had
other children; and such like instances. But these do not
make any very great difficulty. Other MSS. and versions
(which are earlier than all MSS.), with a little care, make the
real state of the case plain; but no MSS. are early enough to
escape these handlings. So that the system which takes
merely the oldest MSS. as authorities in themselves, without
adequate comparison and weighing internal evidence, neces-
sarily fails in result. Conjectures are not to be trusted, but
weighing the evidence as to facts is not conjecture.
The three greatest questions are 1 Timothy iii. 16, the
beginning of John viii, and the last verses of Mark xvi.
In the first I pronounce no judgment, as full dissertations
have been written on it by many critics. As to John viii, I do
not doubt its genuineness. Augustine tells us it was left out
in some untrustworthy MSS. because it was thought injurious
to morality: and not only so, but in my examination of the
text I found that in one of the best MSS. of the old Latin,
two pages had been torn out because it was there, carrying
away part of the text preceding and following. As to the end
of Mark and its apparently independent form, I would
remark that we have two distinct closes to the Lord's life in
the Gospels: his appearance to his disciples in Galilee,
related in Matthew without any account of his ascension,
which indeed answers to the whole character of that Gospel;
and at Bethany, where his ascension took place, which is the
part related in Luke, answering to the character of his Gospel:
one, with the remnant of the Jews owned, and sending the
message out on earth to Gentiles, the other from heaven to
all the world, beginning with Jerusalem itself; one Messianic,
so to speak, the other heavenly. Now Mark, up to the end of
verse eight, gives the Matthew close; from verse nine a
summary of the Bethany and ascension scene, and facts
related in Luke and John. It is a distinct part, a kind of
appendix, so to speak.
I have always stated the Textus Receptus in the margin
where it is departed from, except in the Revelation, Erasmus
having translated that from one poor and imperfect MS.,
which being accompanied by a commentary had to be
separated by a transcriber; and even so Erasmus corrected
what he had from the Vulgate, or guessed what he had not.
There was not much use in quoting this.
xvi REVISED PREFACE TO SECOND EDITION
But it does not seem to me that any critics have really
accounted for the phenomena of MSS. We have now a vast
mass of them, some few very old, and a great many more
comparatively modern. But it seems to me the oldest, as
Sinaitic and Vatican, bear the marks of having been in
ecclesiastical hands. I do not mean that the result is seriously
affected by it, for their work is pretty easily detected and
corrected, and thus is not of any great consequence; but, as
it is easily detected, proved to be there. After all research, it
cannot be denied, I think, that there are two great schools of
readings. The same MS. may vary as to the school it follows
in different parts. Thus Griesbach says A was Constantino-
politan in the Gospels and Alexandrian in the Epistles, to use
conventional names. So Porphyrius (marked P), which I
found in six or eight chapters of Acts so uniformly to go with
the Textus Receptus, that I consulted it scarcely at all after-
wards, does not do so in Paul's Epistles. Still there are the
two schools. Of the one, Sinaitic, Vatican, and Dublin
({aleph} B Z) are the most perfect examples. For that in the main
they are of this school, though with individual peculiarities,
cannot, it seems to me, be questioned a moment. Of these,
Dublin, marked Z, is by far the most correct copy: I remarked
but one blunder in copying. The Vatican, as a copy, is far
superior to Sinaiticus, which is by no means a correct one,
in the Revelation quite the contrary, however valuable as
giving us the whole New Testament and being the oldest
copy perhaps we have. But we must remember that we have
none until after the empire was Christian, and that Diocletian
had destroyed all the copies he could get at. This Alexandrian
text, so called, is the oldest we have in existing Greek MSS.
The Alexandrian MS. (marked A) is not uniformly Alexan-
drian in text. But, if Scrivener is to be trusted, the Peschito
Syriac agrees much more with A than with B; yet it is the
oldest version that exists, nearly two hundred years older
than any MS. we have, made at the end of the first or the
beginning of the second century. This is not the case with
the old Latin. It cannot be said to be Alexandrian, but
approaches nearer to it. But then even here is a singular
phenomenon: one ancient MS. of it, Brixianus, is uniformly
the Textus Receptus. I think I only found one exception.
Where did this come from? The Vulgate is a good deal
corrected from the Alexandrian text, though not always
xvii REVISED PREFACE TO SECOND EDITION
following it. Thus we may class them: {aleph}, B, Z, L, which
last follows B very constantly; then we have A and a long
list of uncials going with it, not so ancient or much thought
of; so that in Alford you will find 'A, &c.' There is another
class of about the sixth century, to which date Z also is
attributed, C which is independent, and P which in the
epistles chiefly follows the Alexandrian but not unfrequently
tends to T. R. and A. In the Acts it is, as far as I have
examined it, T. R. {delta}, or St. Gall, is often T. R., though in
many respects an independent witness. If in the Gospels
A and B go together, we may be tolerably confident of the
reading, of course weighing other testimony. D, it is known,
is peculiar, though characteristically Alexandrian. The result
to me is that, while about the text as a whole there is nothing
uncertain at all, though in very few instances questions may
be raised, the history of it is not really ascertained. I avow
my arriving at no conclusion, and I think I can say no one
can give that history: the phenomena are unsolved.
I have said thus much on the criticism of the text, and the
MSS., that persons not versed in the matter may not hazard
themselves in forming conclusions without any real knowledge
of the questions. Such a book as Tischendorf's English
Testament I think mischievous. You have the English Version
questioned continually, and {aleph}, B, A, given at the bottom
of the page, for persons who know nothing about them to
doubt about the text, and that is all. Thus, to say no more,
the readings of A in the Epistles have a totally different
degree of importance from that of its readings in the Gospels.
And all becomes uncertain. In most of these cases the true
reading is not doubted a moment by Tischendorf himself,
yet it only makes people doubt about all. I have followed a
collation of the best authorities, but where, though for
trifling differences, you have {aleph}, B, L, or B, L, on one side,
and A, &c., on the other, I confess I have no entire certainty
that B, L, are right.
In the next place the reader has not a revision of the
Authorised Version, but a translation from the best Greek
text I could attain to any certain knowledge of. I do not
doubt a moment that numbers of phrases of the Authorised
Version will be found in the translation. Filled as the mind is
with it from constant use, it suggested itself naturally to the
mind. I had no wish to reject it. But a revision of the
xviii REVISED PREFACE TO SECOND EDITION
Authorised Version, if desirable for ecclesiastical use, is not
(I think) in itself a wise attempt. I rather doubt the justness
of the taste which attempts to revise the Authorised Version.
The new bit does not suit the old, and is the more distasteful
from its juxtaposition. Imitation is seldom good taste, seldom
undetected; it wants nature, and in these things nature is
good taste, and attracts.
I have freely used every help I could. I do not mention
Grammars and Dictionaries, as they are applicable to all
books, and known; but I have used Meyer, whose continu-
ators are very inferior, and from whom a large part of Alford
is taken; but I have consulted Alford too, and De Wette.
Ellicott is excellent in what he has done; Kypke most useful
in what he affords. I have used them for the exegesis of the
text as Greek, not for any doctrine in any case. Fritzsche,
who is grammatically very full; Bleek, who very much
exhausts learning in his book on the Hebrews. Delitzsch
and others I have occasionally referred to; there is Kuinoel
on the historical books; but I did not find many of them
of very great value, Calvin of less than I should have sup-
posed. There are Bengel, Hammond, Elsley; Wolff and
other German writers; and Stanley, Jowett, Eadie, &c.
But I confess reference to the latter did not lead me to
repeat it much. What I sought was the thorough study of
the text; opinions were of little moment. Poole's Synopsis
and Bloomfield have been at hand for older commenta-
tors.
Of translations, Diodati's Italian is the best of the old
ones, then the Dutch, then the English. Bengel's German is
a very good one, and there is, though tainted by their doctrine
occasionally, a very literal one called Berleburger. Other
translations are Kistemaker, Gossner, Van Ess, which are
Roman Catholic; a corrected one of Luther by Meyer; the
Swiss one by Piscator, far better than Luther's. These,
though I referred to them in a translation made into German,
I used comparatively little now or not at all. Of the French,
Diodati's is literal, but hardly French; Martin and Ostervald,
little to be trusted; and Arnaud's, I may say, not at all.
Luther's is the most inaccurate I know. Besides this, there
are in Latin the Vulgate and Beza. De Wette's German is
elegant, but from excessive leaving out the auxiliary verbs,
which is allowed in German, affected; and in the Old
xix REVISED PREFACE TO SECOND EDITION
Testament, though a good Hebraist, not to be trusted, from
rationalistic principles. His Isaiah is Gesenius's.
I have used all helps I could, but the translation is borrowed
in no way from any; it is my own translation, but I have
used every check I could to secure exactness. I believe the
scriptures to be the inspired word of God, received by the
Holy Ghost and communicated by His power, though, thank
God, through mortal men: what is divine made withal
thoroughly human, as the blessed Lord Himself whom it
reveals, though never ceasing to be divine. And this is its
unspeakable value: thoroughly and entirely divine, 'words
which the Holy Ghost teacheth', yet perfectly and divinely
adapted to man as being by man. My endeavour has been
to present to the merely English reader the original as closely
as possible. Those who make a version for public use must
of course adapt their course to the public. Such has not
been my object or thought, but to give the student of
scripture, who cannot read the original, as close a translation
as possible.
There are some remarks I would desire to make on the
English Authorised Version, which would debar me from
attempting to correct it, which indeed would be a more
ambitious task. Its value and beauty are known, and I need
not dilate upon. I have lived upon it, though of course
studying the Greek myself; I have no wish to underrate it.
But now that everything is inquired and searched into, there
are some points to be remarked which make it desirable that
the English reader should have something more exact. --
There is one principle which the translators avow themselves,
which is a very great and serious mistake. Where a word
occurs in Greek several times in the same passage or even
sentence, they render it, as far as they possibly can, by
different words in English. In some cases the effect is very
serious; in all the connection is lost. Thus in John v we have
'judgment' committed to the Son; shall not come into
'condemnation;' the resurrection of 'damnation.' The word
is the same in Greek, and every one can see that 'not coming
into judgment' is a very different thing from 'not coming
into condemnation.' The whole force of the passage depends
on this word, and its contrast with life. Here the sense is
wholly changed. In another the connexion is lost -- Romans
XV. I2, I3: 'In him shall the Gentiles trust;' 'now the God
xx REVISED PREFACE TO SECOND EDITION
of hope.' 'Trust' is the same word as 'hope,' only a verb.
'The Gentiles hope;' 'the God of hope.' I only mention these
as examples.
In some cases, as 'elders,' 'the Lord's coming,' 'the law,'
theological views have biassed the translators. Thus in Acts i
we have 'ordained' put in where there is no word at all.
All there is in Greek is 'must one be a witness.' So in Acts
xiv. 23, 'They ordained them elders :' it is simply 'they chose
elders for them,' _cheirotoneo_. I am well aware that in ecclesias-
tical Greek, borrowed from this passage doubtless, and their
new ideas attached to it, the word came to mean this ecclesias-
tically. But it is not its own meaning. It is 'to choose,' as 2
Corinthians viii. 19; Acts x. 41. -- As to the Lord's coming,
Acts iii. 19, there is no excuse for translating _hopos an_ 'when.'
It is an attempt to give it a sense. Again, in 2 Thessalonians
ii. 2, 'as that the day of Christ is at hand:' the word translated
'is at hand' is 'present' or 'come.' It is twice used (once in
Romans viii. 38 and once in 1 Corinthians iii. 22) for 'present'
in contrast with 'to come.' It alters evidently the whole sense,
and the true meaning gives the key to the whole passage.
Their imagination being wrought on by these false teachers,
they thought that the day was come in the tribulation in
which they were suffering; whereas the Lord's coming would
be rest to them and trouble to their persecutors.
But a more serious mistake is in the words in 1 John iii. 4,
'Sin is the transgression of the law.' A definition of sin is a
serious thing, but this is not what is said. The word used is
that which adverbially is employed in Romans ii for 'sinning
without law,' and is so translated in contrast with 'sinning
under law.' If sin were the transgression of the law, it could
not be said 'until the law sin was in the world;' it could not
be said 'sin by the commandment became exceeding sinful,'
for there would have been no sin till the commandment came.
But it is not so. It is 'sin is lawlessness.' It is the wicked will
of man; if law comes, then it transgresses it; but it is sin
without it, because I ought to have no will of my own, but
be in obedience. Hence the reasoning of the apostle: 'Death
reigned from Adam to Moses over those who had not sinned
after the similitude of Adam's transgression.' This is a
quotation from Hosea vi. 7: 'They, like Adam, have trans-
gressed the covenant.' Adam had a law, Israel had one; they
transgressed alike: but death reigned over those from Adam
xxi REVISED PREFACE TO SECOND EDITION
to Moses, over those who had not: sin was there, for death
was there. I have enlarged a little more on this because the
definition of sin is a serious thing, and theology will not
hear of such an alteration. Let God be true and every man a
liar. It is so translated where doctrine was not in question,
not only in Romans ii but in 1 Timothy i. 9 -- 'lawless and
disobedient.' It is never translated 'transgression of the law'
but here, generally 'iniquity:' _anomos_ is twice translated
'transgressor;' but it is never said, in any form of the word,
to be 'transgression of the law' but here.
As regards details of translation I have a few remarks to
make. I have sought in some instances to render the particles
more distinctly; but, rich as English is, no care will make the
shades and colourings of thought in one language answer to
another. It is oftener more a question of metaphysics, or
metaphysical philology, than of grammar, and grammarians
do not always command my assent in these matters, though
I am glad to learn from them. In our own tongue few remark
these shades of meaning, though they exist, as 'indeed,'
'truly,' 'surely,' 'forsooth.' Custom and individual habit form
the mind in such cases. See the use of _eutheos_ in Mark. In
St. John's writings I have to remark that the personal
pronoun, generally emphatic where inserted, is used so
constantly that it can hardly be considered such. I had
marked each instance in the first edition, but it arrested the
eye inconveniently for the general sense. The same character
of style is seen in his constant use of _ekeinos_. Another
peculiarity is to be noticed in John, the constant use of
_hina_ for _hoti_. In Luke we have _kai_ for _hoti_.
I have further to remark on the aorist, as to which a great
fuss has been made lately, that English is not Greek. The
large use of auxiliary verbs in English, and very sparing use
of them in Greek, modifies the whole bearing of tenses in the
two languages. The past participle with a present auxiliary
is not a simple Greek perfect, not actual continuance in
effect of a past action; a past action morally estimated as
present, or in force at present, is just as often its force. The
real practical question in English is: is it an historical state-
ment or a fact viewed as such morally, i.e. without reference
to time? 'Christ died for us:' That is historical. 'Christ has
died for us:' that is a moral fact always true. The question
which to use is often a very nice one, and we have to notice
xxii REVISED PREFACE TO SECOND EDITION
the difference of our point of view and that of the time of the
passage. The only simple tenses in English are both aorist;
one signifying accomplishing an act, the other an accomplished
act. /1 And as the latter becomes historic, the use of it in many
cases for the Greek aorist falsifies the sense. Thus -- a case in
which no one, I believe, denies it -- _egrapsa_. If I say 'I wrote',
it is in another letter (unless specified otherwise); 'I have
written to you' is a past act made present by 'have,' and it is
(unless specified to be in a letter gone but not received) the
letter he is occupied with. And the mere doctrine of the aorist
in Greek in no way meets the case. 'I wrote to you not to do
it' is a past letter supposed to be received. 'I have written to
you:' he has done it, but it is supposed to be not yet received.
'I have written to you in the letter' is the present one. Now
what is true of _egrapsa_ is true of many others. When I want to
give the present, not an accomplishing aorist, I say, not 'I
write,' but 'am writing;' because 'writing' is the act, 'am,'
absolutely present; but on the other hand I say, 'I write five
letters every day in the year.' 'I wrote a long letter to him'
is an historical fact; 'I have written a long letter to him' is a
moral assertion to which I attach present value. 'Have,' with
the past participle, is used however for the perfect. But to
aorize in English all the Greek aorists is, I judge, simply a
blunder. When the aorist is historic, the simple preterite
tense may well answer to it in English. I cannot say I have
always succeeded in rightly distinguishing the cases: there
are cases as to which I have myself doubted.
I have occasionally left old forms where they are more
reverential, as 'saith' for 'says,' 'unto' for 'to,' &c. I have
left 'ye' for the nominative of 'you.' It is the Dutch _gij_ and _u_,
which last in familiar spoken Dutch is used for _gij_, and is
now become usual in English. Both languages have the Platt-
Deutsch for their origin. To these things I attach no great
importance; to reverence I do.
And this leads me to the use of the words 'do homage'
instead of 'worship,' which I do only for the sake of other
people's minds not used to such questions. I have not a
doubt of the justness of the change, and just because in
_modern_ English 'worship' is used for what is rendered to
God only: when the English translation was made it was not,
/1 For this reason there are only two tenses in English at all; the future, so
called, is the present intention; for an accomplishing or accomplished act is not
future.
xxiii REVISED PREFACE TO SECOND EDITION
and the use of it now falsifies the sense in three-quarters of
the passages it is used in. It is quite certain that in the vast
majority of instances of persons coming to the Lord they
had not the least idea of owning Him as God. And it falsifies
the sense in a material point to use the word now. That we
worship Christ who do know He is God is another matter.
In the English Bible it is, or at least was, all right, because
worship did not mean what it does now. The man when he
is married says, 'With my body I thee worship.' It is said in
1 Chronicles xxix. 20, They 'worshipped Jehovah and the
king,' which is simple blasphemy, if it be used in the modern
sense. If the reader is curious, he may look at Wetstein,
Matthew ii. 2; Minucius Felix, end of chapter ii; and compare
Job xxxi. 27; and Herodotus i. 134 for the customs of Persia.
It would not have been worth mentioning but for simple
souls.
The use of a large or small 's' is of extreme difficulty in
the case of the word Spirit; not in giving it when the Holy
Spirit is simply spoken of personally. There it is simple
enough. But as dwelling in us, our state by it, and the Holy
Spirit itself, are so blended as to make it then very difficult;
because it is spoken of as our state, and then as the Holy
Ghost. If it be put large, we lose the first; if small, the Spirit
personally. I can only leave it with this warning, calling the
attention of the reader to it. It is a blessed thought that it is
so blended in power that our state is so spoken of; but if
we lose the divine Person, that blessing itself is lost. The
reader may see, not the difficulty, for it does not exist there,
but the blending of the effect and the person in Romans viii.
27.
All the instances in which the article is wanting before
_Kurios_ are not marked by brackets; but I give here all the
passages in which _Kurios_, which the LXX employ for
Jehovah, thence transferred to the New Testament, is used
as a proper name; that is, has the sense of 'Jehovah.' It is
also used in the New Testament for a title of Christ, who
as man has the place of Lordship over all things. 'God,' says
Peter, 'hath made him, whom ye have crucified, both Lord
and Christ.' I have put a mark of interrogation after those
that are doubtful.
Matt. i. 20, 22, 24; ii. 13, 15, 19; iii. 3; iv. 7, 10; v. 33;
xxi. 3 (?), 9, 42; xxii. 37, 44; xxiii. 39; xxvii. 1O; xxviii. 2.
xxiv REVISED PREFACE TO SECOND EDITION
Mark i. 3; xi. 3 (?), 9; xii. 11, 29 _bis_, 30, 36; xiii. 20; xvi.
20 (?).
Luke i. 6, 9, 11, 15, 16, 17, 25, 28, 32, 38, 45, 46, 58, 66,
68, 76; ii. 9 _bis_, 15, 22, 23 _bis_, 24, 26, 38, 39; iii. 4; iv. 8, 12,
18, 19; v. 17; x. 27; xiii. 35; xix. 31 (?), 38; xx. 37, 42.
John i. 23; xii. 13, 38 _bis_.
Acts i. 24 (?); ii. 20, 21, 25, 34, 39, 47 (?); iii. 19, 22; iv.
26, 29 (?); v. 9, 19; vii. 31, 33, 37, 49; viii. 25 (?), 26, 39 (?);
ix. 3I (?); x. 4 (?), 14 (?); xi. 8 (?); xii. 7, 11 (?), 17 (?), 23;
xv. 17 _bis_.
Rom. iv. 8; ix. 28, 29; x. 9, 12, 13, 16; xi. 3, 34; xii. 19;
xiv. 11; xv. 11.
1 Cor. i. 31; ii. 16; iii. 20; x. 26; xiv. 21.
2 Cor. iii. 17, 18 (peculiar character); vi. 17, 18; x. 17.
Heb. i. 10; vii. 21; viii. 2, 8, 9, 10, 11; x. 16, 30 _bis_; xii.
5, 6; xiii. 6.
James iv. 10; v. 4, 10, 11 _bis_.
1 Peter i. 25; iii. 12 _bis_, 15.
2 Peter ii. 9 (?), 11; iii. 8, 9, 10.
Jude 5, 9.
Rev. iv. 8; xi. 15, 17; xv. 3, 4; xvi. 7; xviii. 8; xix. 6;
xxi. 22; xxii. 5, 6.
In the Acts the word is used in an absolute and general
way, and applied to Christ. It is usually the same in the
Epistles; see 1 Cor. viii. 5, 6.
It may perhaps be useful to some of my readers to give the
chronological order of the Epistles: and first those that are
certain: 1 and 2 Thessalonians; 1 and 2 Corinthians; Romans,
Ephesians, Colossians, Philippians, and Philemon; the last
four Paul wrote when a prisoner. Galatians was written from
fourteen to twenty years after the apostle was first called,
and after he had laboured for some time in Asia Minor,
perhaps while he was at Ephesus, as it was not a very long
time after their conversion: 1 Timothy, on occasion of the
apostle's leaving Ephesus, -- when exactly is not clear.
2 Timothy was written at the close of his life when about to
be martyred. It is questioned if Paul ever got out of prison:
if he did, 2 Timothy was written when he was seized the
second time. Titus refers to a journey of Paul's to Crete; it
is not said when; perhaps, it has been thought, when he
resided so long at Ephesus. It is morally synchronous with
1 Timothy. It has not been the purpose of God to give us
xxv REVISED PREFACE TO SECOND EDITION
chronological dates for them, and in divine wisdom. The
moral order is clear. The way in which 2 Timothy refers to
the ruin of what 1 Timothy builds the order of, is plain
enough. Hebrews was written late, in view of the approaching
judgment of Jerusalem, and calls on christian Jews to separate
themselves from what God was about to judge. The Epistle
of James was written when this separation had in no way
taken place. Jewish Christians are still seen as forming part
of the Israel not yet finally cast out, only owning Jesus to be
the Lord of glory. But, as all the Catholic Epistles, it was
written toward the close of the apostolic history, when
Christianity had been widely received by the tribes of Israel,
and the Jewish history was now closing in judgment. In
1 Peter we see that the gospel had widely spread among the
Jews: it was written to the christian Jews of the dispersion.
The second of course is later, at the close when he was about
to put off his tabernacle and would leave them in writing the
warnings apostolic care would soon no longer furnish. Hence,
like Jude, it contemplates grievous departure from the path
of godliness on the part of those who had received the faith,
and a mocking of the testimony that the Lord was coming.
1 John insists on its being 'the last time.' Apostates were
already manifested, apostates from the truth of Christianity
denying the Father and the Son, as well as with Jewish
unbelief denying that Jesus was the Christ. Jude comes
morally before John. These false brethren had crept in
unawares, but the evil is pursued to the final rebellion and
judgment. It differs from 2 Peter in viewing the evil not
simply as wickedness, but departure from first estate.
Revelation completes this picture by shewing Christ judging
in the midst of the candlesticks; the first having left its first
love, and threatened, if it did not repent and return to its
original estate, to have the candlestick removed: the final
judgment being in Thyatira, and in Laodicea; and then it
shews the judgment of the world and the return of the Lord,
the kingdom and heavenly city and eternal state. This general
character of departure and failure, stamped on all the last
books from Hebrews to Revelation, is very striking: Paul's
epistles, save 2 Timothy, which gives individual direction in
the midst of ruin, though prophesying of this state of things,
express the labour and the care of the wise master-builder.
The interest of their date is in connection with his history
xxvi REVISED PREFACE TO SECOND EDITION
in the Acts; but Hebrews, and the Catholic Epistles, and
Revelation, all shew predicted departure already set in (for
even 1 Peter, which is least so, tells us the time was come for
judgment to begin at the house of God), and so the judgment
of the professing church, and then prophetically of the world
risen up against God. This closing character of the Catholic
Epistles is very striking and instructive.
The contents of the books of the New Testament must be
sought elsewhere: I can only give here some very general
thoughts upon them. It will be remarked at once that the
character of the first three Gospels is different from that of
John. The principle of this difference is this: the first three
present Christ, though in different characters, to man to be
received, and shew His rejection by man. John begins with
this as the starting-point of his Gospel, being the display of
the divine nature, and what man and the Jew was in presence
of. He was in the world, and the world was made by Him,
and the world knew Him not. He came to His own, and His
own received Him not. Hence we have sovereign grace,
election; man must be born again, wholly anew; and the
Jews are all through treated as reprobate; the divine and
incarnate Person of the Lord as the foundation of all blessing,
and a work of atonement which is the basis even of the sinless
condition of the new heavens and the new earth wherein
dwelleth righteousness, together with, at the close, the gift
of the Comforter, form the subject of the Gospel, in contrast
with Judaism. Instead of tracing the Lord to the Abrahams
and Davids, the roots of promise, or to Adam, to bring in as
Son of man blessing to man, or giving the account of His
service in ministry as the great Prophet that was to come,
it brings a divine Person, the Word made flesh, into the
world. What I have just said stamps their character on the
four Gospels. Matthew is the fulfilment of promise and
prophecy, Emmanuel among the Jews, rejected by them,
stumbling thus on the stone of stumbling, and shewn to be
really a sower; fruit-seeking was in vain; and then the Church
and the Kingdom substituted for Israel blessed by promises,
which they refused in His Person; but after judgment, when
they owned Him, to be owned under mercy. The ascension
is not found in Matthew, I believe, for this very reason:
Galilee in Matthew, not Jerusalem, is the scene of His
interview with the disciples after His resurrection. He is with
xxvii REVISED PREFACE TO SECOND EDITION
the poor of the flock, who owned the word of the Lord, where
the light had sprung up to the people sitting in darkness.
The commission to baptise goes forth hence and applies to
Gentiles. Mark gives the servant-prophet, Son of God: Luke,
the Son of man, the first two chapters affording a lovely
picture of the remnant in Israel: John, a divine Person
come into the world, the foundation (redemption being
accomplished) of the new creation; the object and pattern
of faith, revealing the Father; with the promise of the
Comforter while away. Paul and John reveal our being in a
wholly new place in Christ. But John is mainly occupied
with revealing the Father in the Son to us, and thus life by
the Son in us: Paul with presenting us to God, and His
counsels in grace. If we confine ourselves to the Epistles, the
latter only speaks of the Church, save 1 Peter ii, the building
of living stones, but Paul only speaks of the Body. The Acts
shew the founding of the Church by the Holy Ghost come
down from heaven, and then the Jerusalem or Palestinian
labours of the apostles, and other free labourers, especially
the work of Peter, and then that of Paul. With the history of
the rejection of his Gospel by the Jews of the dispersion the
history of scripture closes.
CHRONOLOGICAL TABLE
OF THE KINGS AND PROPHETS OF JUDAH AND ISRAEL,
subsequent to the reigns of SAUL, DAVID, and SOLOMON,
which were of 40 years each (B.C. 1O95-975)
PROPHETS PROPHETS
OF JUDAH KINGS OF JUDAH KINGS OF ISRAEL OF ISRAEL
Reigned B.C. 1 Kings B.C. Reigned
Shemaiah Rehoboam [17 years] 975 14.20,21 975 Jeroboam [22years] The man of
Iddo Abijam [3 years] 958 15.1 God from
Azariah, Asa [41 years] 955 -- 9 Judah
son of Ahijah
Oded -- 25 954 Nadab [2 years]
Hanani -- 33 953 Baasha [24 years]
16.8 930 Elah [2 years]
-- 10 929 Zimri [7 days]
-- 16 929 Omri [12 years] Elijah
Jehu, son -- 29 918 Ahab [22 years] Micah, son
of Hanani Jehoshaphat [25years] 914 22.41 of Imlah
-- 52 897 Ahaziah [2 years] Elisha
Jahaziel, 2 Kings
the Levite 3.1 896 Joram [12 years]
Eliezer, Jehoram [8 years] 892 8.16
son of Ahaziah [1 year] 885 -- 25
Dodavah Athaliah 884 10.36 884 Jehu [28 years]
Zechariah Jehoash [40 years] 878 12.1
son of 13.1 856 Jehoahaz[17 years] Jonah
Jehoiada -- 10 841 Jehoash [16 years]
Un-named Amaziah [29 years] 839 14.1
prophet -- 23 825 Jeroboam [41 years] Hosea
(2 Chron. 784 _Interregnum_ [11 years] Amos
25.15) 773 Zachariah
Zechariah Uzziah, or [52 years] 810 -- 21 [6 months]
(2 Chron. Azariah 15.8 772 Shallum [1 month]
26.5) -- 13 772 Menahem [10 Years]
-- 17 761 Pekahiah [2 years]
-- 23 759 Pekah [20 years]
Isaiah -- 27 Oded
Micah Jotham [16 years] 758 -- 32 739 (Anarchy of 9 Years) (2Chron.
Ahaz [16 years] 742 16.1 730 Hoshea [9 years] 28.9)
Nahum Hezekiah [29 years] 727 18.1 721 Shalmaneser, king of Assyria. Puts
an end to the kingdom of Israel by
Joel Manasseh [55 years] 698 21.1 taking Samaria, in the ninth year of
Amon [2 years] 643 -- 19 Hoshea, and carries away the people
Jeremiah Josiah [31 years] 641 22.1 to Assyria.
------------------------
Habakkuk Jehoahaz [3 months] 610 23.31 THE CAPTIVITY
Zephaniah Jehoiakim [11 years] 610 -- 36 606 Nebuchadnezzar reigns, at first con-
Ezekiel Jehoiachin, or Jeconiah jointly with Nabopolassar -- and
Daniel [3 months, 10 days] 599 24.8 carries away the Jews to Babylon.
Obadiah -- 1 The 'times of the Gentiles' com-
Zedekiah [11 Years] 599 -- 18 mence. Beginning of the 70 years' cap-
tivity in Babylon.
Jerusalem taken; de- 588 25. 604 Nebuchadnezzar reigns alone.
struction of the temple 588 Nebuchadnezzar completely destroys
Jerusalem, city and temple.
-----------------------
GOVERNORS OF JERUSALEM 538 Cyrus, King of Persia. captures Bab-
AFTER THE CAPTIVITY ylon: Reign of Darius the Mede.
Dan. 5.31.
Haggai Zerubbabel 536 Ezra 1.11
Zechariah Ezra 468 -- 7.1 536 Cyrus reigns there, and in the first
Malachi Nehemiah 455 Neh. 1.1 year of his reign decrees a party un-
der Zerubbabel to go and rebuild the
temple at Jerusalem. (End of cap-
tivity of 70 years.) Ezra 1.8-10.
Birth of the MESSIAH 5
529 Cambyses (son of cyrus) (called Ahasuerus). Ezra 4.6.
522 Smerdis (called Artaxerxes). Ezra 4.7.
521 Darius Hystaspes (called Darius). Ezra 4.24; Hag. 1.1; Zech. 1.1.
485 Xerxes (son of Darius Hystaspes) (called Ahasuerus). Esther 1.1.
474 Artaxerxes I, Longimanus (son of Xerxes) (called Artaxerxes). Ezra 7; Neh 2.
468 Return of Ezra from Babylon.
455 This twentieth year of Artaxerxes I (Longimanus) when the order was given through Nehemiah
to rebuild the city of Jerusalem, is the starting-point of the 'seventy weeks' of Dan. 9. Neh. 2.1.
NOTE ON THE CHRONOLOGICAL
DATES
(Translated from the French)
The dates follow generally accepted chronology, and are
based sometimes upon detailed information given by
various passages of Scripture, and sometimes upon verses
such as Ex. 12. 40, 41; Judges 11. 26; 1 Kings 6. 1; which
cover a lengthy period of time. Only two or three of these
passages require comment. For the reigns of the kings of
Judah and Israel the duration of which is clearly stated, the
reader is referred to the table on opposite page.
In order to determine the scope of the expression 'the
residence of the children of Israel' (Ex. 12. 40), it must be
borne in mind that the promise of God to Abram (Gen. 15.
13, 16) mentions 'four hundred years', and then the assurance
that the patriarch's descendants would return in the fourth
generation to the land of Canaan. It follows therefore that
the time of the sojourn or pilgrimage of the elect family
must be reckoned from the days of Abraham, and presumably
from his entrance into the land of Canaan. Compare also
Acts 7. 17.
The period of '450 years', mentioned in Acts 13. 20,
appears to be an approximate figure covering the time which
elapsed between the entry into the wilderness and the end of
the reign of Saul, verse 21 being a parenthesis intended to
fix the attention on the period the apostle had in mind,
namely, the reign of David to whom the promise of Saviour-
King had been made. We must remember that the Judges
often exercised their authority over a part of the people only.
Thus Ehud and Shamgar wrought amongst the tribes in the
south, whereas Deborah and Barak brought about deliverance
in the north. The reference to Ehud rather than Shamgar
(Judges 4. 1), would prove that the 'rest' mentioned in
Judges 5. 31 must form part of the 'rest' spoken of in ch. 3.
30, especially referring to the tribes in the south. Jephthah's
reply to the Ammonites shows that the children of Israel,
at this period, had been only three centuries in possession
of Heshbon and Aroer -- all the country lying between the
Arnon and the Jabbok having been won not from the
xxx NOTE ON THE CHRONOLOGICAL DATES
Ammonites but from the Amorites (Num. 21. 24-26).
Finally, it was during a part of the 'forty years' of Philistine
oppression that Samson judged Israel (Judges 13. 1; 15. 20);
this period came to an end with the victory of Samuel
(1 Sam. 7. 13).
For the chronology of the lapse of time between the Old
Testament and the New, we have to consider the '70 weeks'
of Dan. 9. 24. As one of these 'weeks' of years refers to the
future, there remain 69 'weeks', that is to say 483 years,
reckoning 'from the going forth of the word to restore and
to build' not the temple but the city of 'Jerusalem'. Per-
mission to do this was given to Nehemiah by Artaxerxes I
in the twentieth year of his reign; the state of desolation in
which Nehemiah found the city on his arrival is given in
considerable detail. Verse 26 of Dan. 9 shows that the
sixty-nine weeks do not end before the manifestation of the
Messiah to Israel (John 1. 31), perhaps not even before His
death. It would therefore be necessary to deduct 33 years to
arrive at the date of His birth, which would have been 450
years after permission was given to rebuild the city, or 530
years after the return of the first captives from Babylon.
These considerations enable us to arrive at the following
summary:
Years
From the creation to the flood, when Noah was 600 years
old (Gen. 5. 3 -- 29; 7. 11) 1,656
From the flood to the birth of Terah (Gen. 11. 10-25) 222
When his father died at the age of 205 years, Abraham was
75 130
-----
Which fixes his birth, from the creation of the world 2,008
His entrance into the land of Canaan took place 75 years
later (Gen. 12. 4) 75
Up to the exodus from Egypt (Gen. 15. 13, 16; Ex. 12. 40) 430
Up to the building of the temple 480 years later 480
Length of Solomon's reign, less three years already past
(1 Kings 6. 1) 37
Kings of Israel and Judah, up to the Babylonish captivity 370
Length of the captivity 70 years, and up to Nehemiah 80
years 150
Sixty-nine 'weeks' less 33 years (Dan. 9. 26) 450
-----
From the creation to the birth of the Messiah 4,000
=====
xxxi NOTE ON THE CHRONOLOGICAL DATES
For the facts related in the New Testament, we have no
chronological dates of the same kind as those in the Old
Testament. It was of the greatest importance to be able to
indicate accurately the time of the coming into the world
of the promised Messiah, not however according to human
calculation, but according to the principles of prophecy.
The same divine wisdom which fixes our attention on what
has already been fulfilled requires that our hearts should be
alert during the whole period which elapses before the last
'week' of Daniel. The Lord said 'a little while and ye do not
behold me; and again a little while and ye shall see me,
because I go away to the Father'. It is sufficient to recall as
a well-established historical fact, that the destruction of
Jerusalem by the Romans took place forty years after the
Saviour's death (Luke 19. 41-44; 21. 20-24; 23. 28, 29).
THE BOOKS OF
THE OLD AND NEW TESTAMENT
WITH THE NUMBER OF THEIR CHAPTERS
The Books of the Old Testament
PAGE CHAPS. PAGE CHAPS.
GENESIS 1 50 Ecclesiastes 820 12
Exodus 70 40 Song of Songs 831 8
Leviticus 127 27 Isaiah 837 66
Numbers 170 36 Jeremiah 906 52
Deuteronomy 229 34 Lamentations 984 5
Joshua 281 24 Ezekiel 991 48
Judges 315 21 Daniel 1062 12
Ruth 350 4 Hosea 1084 14
1 Samuel 354 31 Joel 1094 3
2 Samuel 399 24 Amos 1098 9
1 Kings 436 22 Obadiah 1106 1
2 Kings 479 25 Jonah 1108 4
1 Chronicles 520 29 Micah 1110 7
2 Chronicles 559 36 Nahum 1116 3
Ezra 606 10 Habakkuk 1119 3
Nehemiah 620 13 Zephaniah 1122 3
Esther 640 10 Haggai 1125 2
Job 651 42 Zechariah 1127 14
Psalms 689 150 Malachi 1139 4
Proverbs 788 31
The Books of the New Testament
PAGE CHAPS. PAGE CHAPS.
MATTHEW 1145 28 2 Thessalonians 1431 3
Mark 1190 16 1 Timothy 1433 6
Luke 1218 24 2 Timothy 1439 4
John 1265 21 Titus 1443 3
The Acts 1301 28 Philemon 1445 1
Epistle to the Hebrews 1446 13
Romans 1347 16 Epistle of James 1463 5
1 Corinthians 1369 16 1 Peter 1468 5
2 Corinthians 1389 13 2 Peter 1474 3
Galatians 1403 6 1 John 1478 5
Ephesians 1410 6 2 John 1484 1
Philippians 1417 4 3 John 1484 1
Colossians 1422 4 Jude 1485 1
1 Thessalonians 1427 5 Revelation 1487 22
