the books of the New Testament does not rest upon the same evidence, while some are involved in an uncertainty which does not attach to the others,' the genuineness of the collection as a whole is better established than that of any book or collection of books or ancient times-better than that of Homer in Greek, Virgil in Latin, or Shakespeare in English literature.

II. THE INTERNAL AND SPIRITUAL EVIDENCE of the canonicity of the New Testament books consists in a simple comparison of those books with those which are now universally regarded as apocryphal and spurious. The limitations of my space forbid me from giving such a comparison, nor is it necessary. The contrast is so marked that no school, Protestant, Papal, or Rationalistic, attaches any value to the Apocryphal New Testament, and the contrast would be valuable only because it would indicate the nature of those mythical Gospels and spurious Epistles which really were the production of the subapostolic age, and with which modern skepticism desires to confound those of our New Testament. The reader who desires to trace the argument, the nature of which I here merely indicate, will find the material in The Apocryphal New Testament, or, less perfectly, in the articles Epistles Spurious, and Gospels Spurious, in McClintock and Strong's Cyclopedia.

VI. The Text.-The books of the New Testament were originally written on papyrus paper, with pens made of reeds, and ink composed of lamp-black or burnt ivory. The material was not such as could be expected to survive a century of use, and in the first centuries there were no adequate libraries or archives where they could be preserved. They were probably written and used in the early churches, as the Old Testament Scriptures still are in the Jewish synagogues, in the form of scrolls; but the form in which the most ancient manuscripts of the New Testament now extant are found is that of the modern book, generally folios or quartos. The earliest manuscripts now extant were written on parchment, i. e., the skins of sheep and goats, or vellum, i. e., the skins of abortive or at least sucking calves. The famous Sinaitic manuscript was manufactured of the skins of antelopes. It was not until the tenth century that paper came into use, manufactured from cotton rags; and not till the twelfth century that paper was made from linen rags. The monks in the middle ages devoted much of their time to copying the books of the Old and New Testament, oftentimes with elaborate and rich illuminations. The libraries of the monasteries afforded a safe repository for these sacred treasures of art and literature, in an age when only superstitious reverence could have preserved them from vandalism. Thus there are now scattered throughout Europe these manuscript copies of the Scriptures, a few complete, more copies of single books, or of incomplete collections of books. There are said to be preserved now more than 2,000 of these manuscripts, bearing date from the fourth to the fifteenth century, and the ablest scholars have devoted their best energies to a careful comparison of them, for the purpose of ascertaining what is the original reading. Among scholars whose judgments are generally regarded as most trustworthy are Griesbach, Lachmann, Tregelles, and Tischendorf; to their opinions on questions of text the reader will find constant references in this Commentary. For the American scholar there is no better method of ascertaining the correct text than that which is afforded by Dean Alford's "Greek Testament." This contains the text which he himself regards as the correct one, with an accompanying statement of the different readings afforded by the various manuscripts of recognized critical value.

The difficulty of determining the original reading is of two kinds. There is first a difficulty in deciphering the manuscript. The more ancient and therefore the more valuable manuscripts, are written not only without division into chapters and verses, but without accents, or breathings, or punctuation, or any indication of the separation between

The canonicity of each book will be considered separately in the introduction to it.

the words. The introduction of chapters and verses dates from about the fifth century; they were employed probably for convenience of public service, and also for reference. The introduction of punctuation bears about the same date. That the reader may apprehend the difficulty of deciphering a manuscript without these divisions of a later date, we place side by side an ancient manuscript version of John 1: 1, 2, with the Greek version from Bagster's Greek Testament:

The accompanying reproduction in English of a style and combination of letters answering to the ancient Greek manuscript, will give the English reader a partial idea of its character and the difficulty of deciphering it, enhanced as it is by variations in the form of the letters and obscurity in the manuscripts:

* * * * ANDTHEWORDWAS

WITHGD'ANDGDWASTHEWORD

HEWASINTHEBEGINNING WITHGD

ALLWEREMADEBYHIMANDWITH

OUTHIMWASMADENOTONETHING•

THATWASMADEINHIMLIFEWAS'

ANDTHELIFEWASTHELIGHTOFMN
ANDTHELIGHTINDARKNESSSHIN

ETHANDTHEDARKNESSDIDNOTITCOMPRE

HEND' THEREWASAMNSE
NTFROMGOD WHOSENAME WAS

JOHN THISPERSONCAME

ASAWITNESSTHATHEMIGHTTESTI

FYCONCERNINGTHELIGHTTHATA

LLMIGHTBELIEVETHROUGHHIM'

These

The difficulty of deciphering is not, however, the only nor the principal one. various manuscripts present varieties of readings. A few of these varieties consist in what was probably a deliberate addition or a mutilation of the text for doctrinal reasons; in other instances an addition which one copyist has made, perhaps in the margin, perhaps parenthetically, in order to explain the original text, has been by subsequent copyists incorporated in it. The great majority of variations, however, are insignificant and unimportant, and are the result, simply, of a natural error in transcribing. Of the first kind of alteration 1 John 5: 7 is an illustration: "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, and these three are one." This is now known to be an interpolation, added to the Greek text as late as the sixteenth century. Of the second, the statement in John 5 : 4 is an example: "For an angel went down at a certain season into the pool," etc. This was probably added by the copyist for the purpose of explaining why the impotent folk gathered about the pool of Bethesda. So, in some of the ancient manuscripts, Barabbas is called Jesus Barabbas, the name Jesus

Such

having been perhaps omitted by subsequent copyists from a sentiment of reverence. modifications are, however, very rare. Out of nearly one hundred and twenty thousand variations' very few affect the sense, and fewer still have any bearing on the doctrinal and practical teachings of the Bible. Nearly all are merely differences in orthography (as in the English, favor and favour), or, in the order of words (as, then went there out to meet him, and then there went out to meet him), or in the names of the same person (as Cephas and Peter), or similar variations incident to manual transcription.

In ascertaining which of various readings is the correct one, resource is had to two kinds of evidences, external and internal. The external evidence is derived from an examination of the manuscripts themselves. Where the more ancient manuscripts are uniform in their reading, their testimony is generally considered conclusive; where they are not so, recourse is had to internal evidences, that is, to a consideration of the question which reading is inherently most probable. For example: John 5: 4 is wanting in some of the best manuscripts and is found in others; thus the external evidence is somewhat conflicting. But it is easy to understand how a copyist might have inserted this verse as an explanation of the account, while it is not easy to understand how it should have become expunged from the record if it was originally there, since the angelic interference thus described would not seem strange to the writers of the first centuries. Thus internal evidence is against the genuineness of the passage.

The manuscripts differ not only in the matter of which they are composed, but also in the form of the letters. In the Uncial manuscripts, which are the oldest, the letters are all capitals; in the Cursive manuscripts, which seem to have come into existence in the tenth century, the letters run together, often with no capitals except in the case of initial letters. Sometimes the original writing has been almost or altogether obliterated, and the parchment has been used for other writing. This has been subsequently removed and the original restored. Such manuscripts are called palimpsest manuscripts; that is, manuscripts re-written. When the text is accompanied by a version, the manuscripts are termed codices bilingues or double-tongued. The age of the manuscript can be determined with substantial accuracy by the materials of which it is composed, the form of the letters and words, the presence or absence of punctuation, and other marks of division. The following are the most important Uncial manuscripts. For convenience of reference they are lettered by scholars as here, though in the notes I refer to them by name and not by letter.

A. Alexandrine Manuscript (Codex Alexandrinus), now in the British Museum. It is on parchment, in four volumes, three of which contain the Old and one the New Testament. The first twenty-four chapters of Matthew are wanting. It is now generally agreed that it was written in Alexandria, and during the fifth century.

B. Vatican Manuscript (Codex Vaticanus), in the Vatican Library at Rome. It is on vellum, contains the Old and New Testaments, but Timothy, Titus, Philemon, the Book of Revelation, and Hebrews 9: 14 to the end are wanting. It is thought to have been written in Egypt during the fourth century. No really satisfactory edition of this manuscript has ever been published.

C. The Ephraem Manuscript (Codex Ephraemi), in the Imperial Library at Paris. It is a palimpsest manuscript consisting of the works of Ephraem, the Syrian, written over fragments of manuscripts of the Old and New Testaments. It is believed to have been written in Alexandria in the fifth century. It contains only portions of the New Testament.

D. Cambridge Manuscript (Codex Cambridgiensis), called also Codex Beza, because presented by Beza in 1581. It is in the University Library at Cambridge, is on parch

1 The estimates are very various; in the whole Bible they have been estimated as high as 800,000.

ment, and contains the four Gospels, the Acts, and a fragment of the Catholic Epistles, together with a Latin version. Its origin is uncertain, and its value is a matter of dispute ; it is now generally attributed to the fifth or sixth century.

N. Sinaitic Manuscript (Codex Sinaiticus) in the Imperial Library at St. Petersburg. It derives its name from the fact that it was discovered by a singular accident by Tischendorf in 1859 in the convent of Mt. Sinai. His first hint of its existence was afforded by the fact that fragments of it were brought to him (in 1844) by the ignorant monks in a basket of rubbish with which to kindle his fire! It contains part of the Old Testament and the whole of the New. It is one of the oldest and the most valued of the manuscripts. Tischendorf attributes it to the fourth century.

There are Uncial Manuscripts and a great number of cursive manuscripts. Some of them of considerable value. The English reader will find a good account of them in Kitto's Cyclopedia, article Manuscripts. See also Alford's Greek Testament and Bissell's Historic Origin of the Bible. Our English New Testament is translated from a Greek text printed from very late Greek manuscripts, in the sixteenth century. This text, since it is the basis of our English version, is known as the Received Text or Textus Receptus.1 The discovery of ancient manuscripts since that time, the careful and critical collation and comparison of them, and the development of critical scholarship, by this very process, has led to the discovery of errors in the Received Text, and to the elucidation of a text which probably much more nearly conforms to the originals of the sacred writers. In this Commentary I have generally followed the text of Alford's Greek Testament wherever any variation in the reading affects the sense. In all such cases I have indicated the variation in the notes, and wherever there is any material question respecting the reading I have also indicated that fact, with a brief reference both to the different manuscripts and to the opinions of the leading critical scholars.

These differences in the text, the reader must not forget, are for the most part of very minor importance. There are a few passages of some significance, as John 8: 1-11, and Mark 16: 9-20, the genuineness of which is involved in doubt. But for the most part the variations are verbal and trivial. "So great, in fact," says Mr. Bissell," "is the harmony of teaching in all these documents, though we compare the earliest with the latest, that while three of the most important Uncials had not been discovered when our present English translation was made, and one that was known to exist was inaccessible (the Vatican), and only a single specimen of the less valuable of these most ancient witnesses was used (the Cambridge Manuscript), yet no person would hazard the opinion that in our English Bibles we have not, for substance, the teaching of the best documents brought to light during the last two hundred and fifty years." The slight variations in the readings, and the careful and critical examination to which they have given rise, enhance our assurance, that in all substantial respects we have the text of the original documents, whose character is testified to by so many and so independent witnesses.

VII. Our English Version:-From a very early time the endeavor has been made by the church to supply the Bible in the vernacular tongue. A Greek version of the Old Testament Scriptures was in popular use in Palestine in the days of Christ, and the quotations from the Old Testament by Christ and the Apostles are generally from this version. It is known as the Septuagint, a word meaning seventy; the name is derived

1 The "Received Greek Text” (Textus Receptus) on the continent of Europe, is that of the Elzevir edition of 16:3 and 1634. In England and America the "Received Text" is Mill's reprint, with a few typographical errors corrected, of Stephen's edition of 1550, often differing from the Elzevir edition. The groundlessness of its pretensions to be accepted as the Received Text of the New Testament, is shown by a writer in the Edinburgh Review for July, 1851.-Dr. T. I. Conant, in Abbott's Religious Dictionary.

2 Historic Origin of the Bible.

from an ancient though now discredited account of its origin. According to this legend, the Septuagint was prepared under the authority of Ptolemy Philadelphus (B.C. 309–247), by seventy-two scholars, who were commissioned for the purpose by Eleazar, the highpriest at Jerusalem, and were by the king shut up in the island of Pharos at Alexandria, till their task, which required just seventy-two days, was completed. That the translation was made in the third century before Christ, and at Alexandria, is probable; the rest of the story is apocryphal. The Septuagint is rejected by the Jews and regarded by Christian scholars as imperfect. But, notwithstanding its errors, it is of inestimable value, not only in the study and interpretation of the Old Testament, but also in throwing light upon the proper rendering of the Greek of the New Testament.

Next in importance to the Septuagint, which contains, of course, only the Old Testa tament, is the Vulgate, an ancient Latin version of both Old and New Testaments. This translation was prepared by Jerome, A.D. 385-405, and since the seventh century has been adopted in the Romish Church as the authentic text of Scripture. By the Council of Trent it was ordained that this version alone should be esteemed as the authorized text, and that no one should dare to reject it under any pretence whatever. There are two principal editions of this version, called respectively, from the popes under whom they were prepared, the Sixtine and the Clementine. The latter is the standard in the Romish Church at the present day, and is the basis of the Roman Catholic English version of the Bible. This is commonly known as the Douay Version, from the fact that the Old Testament translation was prepared in the sixteenth century at Douay, in France. The New Testament translation was first published at Rheims, and is known as the Rhemish version. The translation is not from the original Greek and Hebrew, but from the Vulgate. It thus perpetuates the errors which the imperfect scholarship of the fifth century had not discovered and corrected; while the literalness of the translation renders it sometimes quite unintelligible. The best Roman Catholic scholars concede the imperfections of the Douay and Rhemish versions, and the superiority of the Authorized or King James' version.1

The history of this version 2 carries us back to the beginnings of English history. An attempt was made to translate portions of the Bible into the English, or rather AngloSaxon, as early as the seventh century, by the venerable Bede; and another, in the ninth century, by Alfred the Great; but all these attempts were fragmentary and imperfect. They were, for the most part, loose paraphrases-poems founded on Bible narratives, or abridgments; and down to the year 1360, the Psalter was the only book of the Scriptures literally translated into the English language. About this time Wyckliffe, lamenting the degeneracy of the Church and the irreligion of the people, commenced and completed a translation of the New Testament from the Vulgate or Latin version. For this offence he was cited to appear before the Court of Rome, and probably nothing saved him from condemnation except his failing health and early death in 1324. Although before the days of printing, his translation seems to have been extensively circulated; one hundred and seventy manuscript copies, more or less, are still extant, some of them bearing the names of their royal owners. It is said that the yeomen were so anxious to obtain the word of God, that they often gave a load of hay for a few chapters. One and a half centuries later, William Tyndale published the first part of the Holy Scriptures ever printed in the

1 In Smith's Bible Dictionary, article Versions Authorized, the reader will find a list of passages indicating the nature of the imperfections in this translation. They are chiefly of three kinds: (1) A few that are due to theological bias, such as the substitution of "do penance "" for "" repentance: " (2) Some that are due to the use of obsolete or un-English words, as "azymes," pasche," "longanimity; (3) Some that are due to the avowed principle that the Scriptures were not intended for the common people--a principle which manifests itself occasionally in a translation that is absolutely unmeaning, as in the rendition of Ephes. 6: 12," Against the spirituals of wickedness in the celestials.”

2 The following epitome is taken chiefly from my Dictionary of Religious Knowledge.