the new covenant

Introduction

The author of this Version of the New Testament had long desired to see a more accurate translation of the Christian Scriptures than the Established Version, and when the Revision was projected he anticipated a realization of his hopes; but his expectations were not met by the work of the Revisionists, and at the earnest suggestion of a number of his friends, he resolved to undertake the task—in the midst of a busy editorial lite—of preparing an exact rendering of the sense of the original Greek in

_plain and idiomatic English, that should avoid atic defects of both the Established and Revised Versions. Perhaps he cannot better indicate the reasons that induced him to attempt the labor than by referring to afew of the merits and defects of the two Yersions.

The defects of King James’s Version are many.

1. It was not rendered directly from the original Greek of the New Testament, but was really collated from several English versions, most of which were themselves translations from the Latin. It therefore necessarily misses the finer shades of meaning in the Greek, for it has been.well said that “the Greek can draw a clear line where other languages can only make a blot.” It would be impossible for a translation of a translation to be a faithful rendering. Professedly translated from the same Greek text as Luther’s, it was mostly from a recension collated by Erasmus in 1516, and Robert Stephens in 1550, from manuscripts no older than the tenth century, and was mainly a revision of several older English versions nearly all from the Latin Vulgate, or Beza’s Latin version. We have closely examined a version of S. Tomson, dated 1587, twenty-five years before King James's saw the light, and find the two to be almost word for word.

2. But even if the Established Version had been a faithful translation of the Greek manuscripts of the New Testament then accessible, it would have been defective, for there were then but eight known and available, none of which were older than the tenth century, and not one of superior critical value. The book of Revelation had but one, and that an incomplete MS., and the aa il THE NEW COVENANT.

missing portions had to be supplied from the Latin Vulgate. Since then the number of known MSS. has been increased to more than 1,700, besides versions in Latin, Syriac, Coptic and Gothic, dating from two to four centuries after Christ, which contain 150,000 variations from each other. This fact alone should call for a translation from a text made after the most careful and critical collation.

3. Had King James’s translators desired to give a faithful rendering of such materials. as they had, they must have failed in consequence of the royal commands, which were to conform to the existing versions of Wickliffe, Tyndale, the Geneva, and especially the Bishop’s Bible. Macknight declares: “It was | made a little too complaisant to the king, in favoring his notions of predestination, election, witchcraft, familiar spirits, and kingly rights, etc.”

4. It was done by a single sect at a time when the exercise of the spirit of a true and generous scholarship was difficult, if not impossible.

5. A theological bias impelled the authors to incorporate words into their version that have no warrant in the Greek. Hades, Gehenna, waion, aionios, improperly rendered “hell,” “world,” “eternal,” and “everlasting,” have wrought incalculable mischief by inculeating ideas not contained in the original; while “damnation” and kindred terms convey thoughts never intended by the sacred writers. Says Canon Farrar: “Where would be the popular teachings about ‘hell’ if we calmly and deliberately erased from our English Bibles the three words ‘damnation’ ‘hell’ and ‘everlasting’? Yet I say unhesitatingly that not one of these words ought to stand any longer in the English Bible.” These are glaring instances that Topi essay a multitude of similar defects.

6. Great liberties wete taken that pervert the meaning of the authors of the Bible. In1 Cor. xv: 26, we read, “The last en-» emy that shall be destroyed is death.” implying that there may be others not destroyed,after death. But strike out the words that the translators had the grace to print in Italics to show that they are not in the Greek, “that” and “is,” and it reads very differently, “The last enemy shall be destroyed, death.” This unpardonable instance représents a class. ;

7. Archaisms and obsolete words and expressions, of course, abound. Once understood, they now mislead or are obscure. “Let,” for hinder.“ worship,” for respect, “room,” for seat,“ quick,”

THE NEW COVENANT. li for living, “conversation,” for conduct, “usury,” for interest, “by and by,” for immediately, “thought,” for anxiety, “carriage,” for baggage, are only a few of the words frequently found in a book that should not contain a dubious word.

8. Inaccuracies of various kinds. abound: the wrong use -of the definite article; which is omitted where it should occur, and inserted in passages from which it should be absent. 2 Thess. ii: 3, “The falling away and the man of sin,” is rendered, “ A falling away, and that man of sin.” 1 Tim. vi: 10, “A root of evil,” is translated “The root of evil.” John vi: 48, “the bread” is “that bread.” There are many instances of this inaccurate use of the definite article.

Besides these errors the wrong tenses are of frequent occurrence. The aorist and perfect are habitually confounded, and other tenses are disregarded, and grammatical errors of various ‘kinds are frequent. The defects and errors named, and others, are offset by the great merit of being in the main accurate, and of being couched in a magnificent diction that places it at the head of English literature. It is a “well of English undefiled.” But this great merit does not cancel its deficiencies as a source ot truth. Its defects have so vehemently pleaded for correction that the Revision was the almost universal demand of Englishspeaking Christendom.

The history of the Revision is well known. A company of English scholars invited several eminent American scholars to join them in revising the Established Version. The Revisign is their work. Many suggestions of the American committee, rejected by their English co-laborers but printed as notes, have practicaily become a part of the text, for it is evident to all scholars not warped by a conservative spirit, that an unbiased scholarship would have adopted them. Some of the defects of the Revision may be named without attempting to enumerate them all:

1. The Revisers were trammeled by their instructions always to adhere strictly to the language of King James’s Version unless absolutely compelled to depart from it. Instead of this it goes without saying that their only purpose should have been to produce a faithful equivalent of the sacred original in all cases, regardless of all other considerations.

2. Itis, in many instances, as “Bibliotheca Sacra” observes, “a manifest compromise between the Anglican and American committees.” Any one of the dozen principal scholars engaged iv THE NEW COVENANT.

in the work, untrammeled and unrestricted, would have made a more faithful rendering.

3. Often, when no more faithful than the Established Version, the meaning is put into inferior English, so much so as to evoke this criticism from so eminent an authority as the “Bdinburgh Reyiew:” “Every phase of New Testament scholarship was represented in the New Testament company, but the niceties of idiomatic English appear to have found no champion.” —Ed. Rev. No. 315.

4. It abounds in inconsistencies. Why should Hades be transplanted and Gehenna translated? Both are proper names, but while the latter is the name of a well-known locality, the former is of an imaginary place. There is tenfold more propriety in retaining Gehenna than Hades. The Revisionists virtually concede at least their misgivings, when they place Gehenna in the margin. Had they placed it in the text they would have removed a hurtful prejudice from the mind of the average reader, and relieved the sacred text from a serious incumbrance. And if our Master brought the word from the Hebrew, and set it in the Greek without translation—-if he spoke Greek—or if the evangelist thus transplanted it, why should not an English translator follow the example?

Again, if aion denotes “age,” as is admitted in the margin (see Matt. xxiv, 3), or if it means “world,” why should the plural . be rendered “forever,” and the adjective “everlasting?” Is it not manifest that any word should carry substantially the same meaning in all its modifications? To render the noun “world” in the text, and “age” in the margin, “forever and ever” in the text and “ages of ages” in the margin, and the adjective, “eternal” and “everlasting,” is to proceed arbitrarily.and not to translate legitimately. Nothing but a theological proclivity can explain the inconsistency.

So, too, in,the Lord’s Prayer, the interjection of “one” after “evil” seems a deliberate attempt to sustain the doctrine of a personal devil, regardless of the language of our Lord. By printing the word “one” in Italics the Revisers have acknowledged that it is not in the original, but by printing it at all they have demonstrated that the Revision needs revising. These are but a few specimens of the inconsistencies with which the work abounds. ;

5. Archaisms, and obsolete and obsolescent words and phrases that should have been discarded, are numerous: “On

THE NEW COVENANT. Vv this wise,” “wroth,” “verily,” “twain,” “for to see,” “doest,” “hale,” “wot,” etc. Some of the defenders of the Revision claim that it was better, on account of the sacred associations, to retain certain archaic phrases and words, which they call “innocent archaisms.” But there are no “innocent archaisms” in a book intended to teach men the great truths of religion. Every word should be a transparent medium through which the unlettered reader can see the meaning ot the inspired.author. The young and illiterate cannot fail to be misled or confused when “quick” and “quicken” appear where “alive” and “make alive” should be, and when meeting words that have changed or lost their former meaning.

6. Uncouth and infelicitous words and phrases abound. Matt. vii: 4,5: “Cast out * * the mote out.” Mark iv: 31, 32, the mustard seed is called “less than all the seeds,” and therefore less than itself; “[other]” should be added. Mark v: 42 Luke ii: 42, “Twelve years old”.instead of “of age;” old cannot be applied to a young person. Mark xv: 44: “If he were,” instead of “whether he was.” Luke i: 7, “Now well stricken” instead of “then.” Luke v: 21, vi, 4, “alone” should be “only.” Luke vii: 44, John ii: 17, “thine” should be “thy;” Luke ix: 53, “though he were” should be “if he was;” xix: 26; “From him, * * * shall-be taken away from him.” John viii: 24. “except” should be “unless,” ete. So they employ “chiefest,” 2 Cor. xi: 5, xii: 11; “agreed together,” Acts, v: 9; “each one,” Acts, ii: 3; “either” instead of each, John xix: 18, ete. Acts xix: 16, 2 Pet. iii: 1, “both of them;” Heb., xi: 12, “as good as dead? so many as the stars,” etc.; 2 Cor. xi: 18, 21, “I will glory also,” instead of, “I also will glory;” and similar errors disfigure a large part of the revision.

One of the most indefensible errors is the phrase “forever and ever.” If “forever” means endlessly, the addition of “and ever” is superfluous; if “forever” does not carry that meaning, “and ever” cannot impart it. But inasmuch as the phrase contains two plural nouns, it should be thus translated: “seons of seons,” or “ages of ages.” “Forever and ever” is a rendering that cannot be defended on philological grounds. It is a theological invention.

7. Grammaticalinaccuracies. Matt. vi: 14, “For thine és the kingdom and the power; vi: 19, “Moth and rust doth;” ix: 30, “See that no man know it;” xiii: 55, Is not his brethren;” xvi: 17, “Flesh and blood hath;” xxii: 40, “On these two hangeth:” xxvii: 56, “Among whom was Mary Magdalene and Mary;” Mark iii: 33, vi ' THE NEW COVENANT.

“Who is my mother and my brethren?” Luke xvi: 15, “They that justify yourselves,” instead of “themselves;” John vii: 17,“Whether it be;” xix: 18, “either” should be “each;” Acts xvii: 34, “Among whom also was Dionysius, the Areopagite, and a woman named Damaris, and others;” Rom. ix: 4, “Whose is the adoption and the glory, and the covenants,” etc.; Eph. iii: 18, “What is the length, and breadth, and heighth, and depth.

Again, 1 Cor. xiii: 13, “And now abideth faith, hope, and love, these three;” 1 Tim., i: 20, ,0f whom is Hymeneus and Alexander;” “Heb. ix: 3, 4, “Wherein was a golden pot holding the manna, and Aaron’s rod that budded, and the tables of the covenant,” etc., meaning to say that these three articles were there. The Revisers actually do say that the golden pot held the manna, Aaron’s rod and the tables;” Rev. xx: 13, “Hvery man according to their works;” Rom. i: 13, “Oftentimes I purposed to come to you.” The same error in Matt. xiv: 29, and elsewhere, and similar errors many times more. In spite of these and other less prominent defects, all which are inexcusable, the Revision is a very considerable improvement on the Established Version.

1. Itis rendered from the best Greek text the world ever saw. The work of scholars during the last century, such as Tregelles, Alford, Tischendorf, and many others, and the large number of manuscripts that have been collated, have developed a Greek text incomparably superior to any other—Westcott and Hort’s Greek Testament. While the Revision is not a direct translation of this great work, as it might and should have been, it passed through the press simultaneously with it, and the Revisionists had the work of Westcott and Hort constantly before them, and availed themselves of its aid. Many of the suggestions of the American committee are derived from Westcott and Hort, and are placed in the margin, and there is scarcely a suggestion of theirs that an unprejudiced scholar would not have incorporated into the text. Prof. Schaff, in his Introduction to the American edition of Westcott and Hort, says: “The text of the Revisers corresponds to. the secondary readings of Westcott and Hort, and the text of Westcott and Hort with the marginal readings of the revisers, so that the two texts are virtually the same.” English conservatism seems to have kept obvious improvements out of the Revision. Still, while the Established Version surpasses the Revision in its vernacular, idiomatic English, the

THE NEW COVENANT. Vii

Revision is a far closer rendering of a far better Greek text-—a better text than ever before was accessible.

Indeed, in place of only eight manuscripts, none older than the tenth century, the sole sources accessible in the days of King James, subsequent discoveries, and the investigation of scholars, have produced an authentic record of the original Gospels. Every new codex discovered has added to the “various readings” until 150,000 variations have been discovered. But most of them are very slight, and very few of them affect any important event, doctrine or principle. An accidental change of a letter or word in copying, the addition or omission of a word, letter or sentence, to perfect what the copyist thought to be the meaning, or a copyist’S carelessness, explains most of the variations. Very few, if any of them are believed to be the result of design. It is indeed one of the remarkable facts in the history of the Bible manuscripts that seldom was the pious fraud of foisting supports of favorite doctrines into the Christian Scriptures ever attempted, though the exigencies of theological controversy must often have pressented the temptation. Only ‘about four hundred variations really affecting the sense have been discovered. Most of the errors in the later MSS. were first written in the margin as glosses, and subsequently crept into the text. But the microscopical eyes of critics have detected them, and it is now certain that we have a nearly perfect recension.

The three great sources of an accurate Greek text are the Sinaitic, Vatican and Alexandrian codices, whose value is in the order named.

The Sinaitic was found by Constantine Tischendorf, in 1844, and 1859, in a convent on Mt. Sinai, and it contains the Bible, complete. Its discovery is one of the most singular of all literary events. Its date is between A. D., 300, and A. D., 400, and it is at least six centuries older than any manuscript known when the Authorized Version was made. It is probably one of the fifty copies that the Emperor Constantine ordered made, A. D. 331.

The Vatican is next, if not equal to the Sinaitic codex. It was first catalogued A. D. 1475, but how long it had been in the Vatican library, where it had long been kept with jealous care, is unknown. It is incomplete from the middle of verse 14 in Hebrews ix. It closely agrees with the Sinaitic, and is of about the same age.

The Alexandrian was brought from Alexandria, by the Patri-

Vill THE NEW COVENANT.

arch of Constantinople, and presented to King Charles I, in 1628. It is now in the British Museum. It does not contain Matthew before xxv: 6, or John, from vi: 50 to viii: 52, or 2d Corinthians from iv: 13 to xii: 6. It is about one century more recent than S.and V., and is of less critical value than either of them.

These three codices are more valuable as sources of an accurate Greek text of the New Testament, than all other known MSS. They agree with the translations and Christian writers that antedate them, and are proved to be faithful copies of still older documents, which, written on the tender papyrus then in use, perished soon after they were written, as did all contemporaneous writings not preserved in mummies or under lava.

The great labor of critically examining the fountains of the Christian Scriptures was extended through more than a generation of years, and was performed by two of the most eminent English scholars—Brooke Foss Westcott, D. D., and Fenton John Anthony Hort, D. D. The great result of their labors was given to the world in 1881, simultaneously with the Revision. It is the most valuable addition to Biblical literature in modern times, and is worth more than all other Greek Testaments—is in fact the only one approximating perfection. This volume is primarily

A Translation. It aims to present, in plain, idiomatic

English, the exact sense of the Greek original, avoiding archaisms, and obsolete and obsolescent words, and reproducing the meaning of the language of inspiration, as nearly as possible. Had the book been intended for public use, or to take the place of the two Versions, certain words, rendered sacred by association,might have been preserved, but as itis designed for study,and comparison with them, and to convey the precise meaning of the New Testament to those not familiar with the original, the author has in all cases tried to convey the sense in the words that best convey the meaning, regardless of association or any other consideration. Whether Jesus and his apostles spoke in Aramaic or Greek, their language must have been quite colloquial, and in order to reproduce their meaning in English, certainly the Gospels, Acts, James’s and John’s epistles should be couched in common phraseology. The nearer a version succeeds in employing everyday speech, the closer it will be to the spirit of the New Testament.

The author does not claim to have produced that impossible thing, a perfect: translation, but he trusts he has rendered the

“ts

THE NEW COVENANT. ix exact thought of the inspired record in plain, simple, accurate English. )There is an occasional departure from the grammatical construction of the original, as where a plural and singular, or a past and present are found in the same sentence; in such instances grammatical consistency is produced. In all other respects as literal a rendering has been made as the difference in the two idioms allows. The translator has taken for his rule an adapted alteration and application of the ancient oracle: “Be literal, be literal, be not too literal.” The book is

A Harmony, The four Evangels are independent records of the words and works of our Lord, each relating as much of his life and teachings as the author had received, and differing in minute details, but essentially harmonious with the others. Matthew and Mark closely resemble each other, the former giving fuller details, and accounts not elsewhere found. Luke is quite parallel at the beginning and end of his account, with Matthew and Mark, while Mark and John relate much that is not in either of the other two, except the solemn events accompanying our Lord’s passion. Each is part of a perfect whole. Mark and John seem to have pursued an even chronological course, while Matthew and Luke are more fragmentary and irregular, and wrote as they recalled the language of our Lord and the incidents of his life. The four currents of narrative pursue varying channels, uniting in one broad stream. ;

Much of the interest of the average reader of the New Testament is lost in consequence of his failure to read the book as a connected story. By arranging all that the different evangelists relate of any event in one connection, the reader is able to see at a glance all that can be known of it. Our Harmony does this. The book is also

A Chronology. The fragmentary manner in which the Gospels were compiled, and the arbitrary way in which the other books appear in the New Testament, prevent the common reader from reading the book as a connected narration. This Version is chronologically arranged, so that the Gospels present the scenes in the Blessed Life, as they occurred, and the other books are arranged according to the dates on which they were written. It is also

A Cammentary. The notes accompanying the text are designed to shed such light on the language as will enable the reader to see what the inspired authors meant, chiefly on matters of eschatology. He has not attempted a full commentary, but x THE NEW COVENANT.

has only endeavored to assist the reader to see the teachings of the Book of books, concerning the destiny of the human family.

The reader of this Version should always remember that the Greek from which it is translated is not the “koine ekdosis,” “textus receptus,” or received Greek text from which our Received Version was rendered, but a Greek derived from older manuscripts than any that were available at the time our Received Version was made. [See pp. vi-vii of this Introduction.] No criticism concerning the accuracy of the rendering is just, unlessit is based on a knowledge of that better Greek, contained in the recension of Westcott and Hort; as modified by the S. or VY., or both. Ifany language should seem objectionable because different from that of the E. V. or R. V., it should be judged solely on the ground of its accuracy, and not at all from association, or because it disturbs the ear accustomed to other phraseology.

In many places the same Greek is rendered in different English phraseology, where there seems little or no choice, and yet, as tastes may differ, equally accurate, though different renderings are given.

Most of the points of difference from R. V. and E. V. result from following S. or V., or both, in omitting trivial words. Other variations, following 8. or V., or both, are printed in Italics. The oldest manuscripts are distinguished for their brevity. Nearly all the corruptions are additions,and are chiefly such words as “and,” “but,” “then,” “now,” “to them,” “to ‘him,”and the like. These omissions are many, but they in no case affect the sense, and so are not specified. A comparison with the R. V., will identify them by their presence there, and their absence from this book. Other changes have been made on the score of accuracy—Kapharnaum, instead of Capernaum; Beelzebul, instead of Beelzebub; Gethsemani, instead of Gethsemane, etc. Space has not been occupied in explanations or defenses of these changes, but their propriety will be acknowledged.

When to render and when toignore the definite article in translating New Testament Greek into English is a continual problem. It is often found in Greek where the English omits it, and omitted where the English employs it. It is impossible always to translate it where it appears, or omit to insert it where it is absent, in almost every chapter. Thus, Luke xii: 8, “Whoever may acknowledge me in presence of the men, the Son of the Man will also acknowledge him in presence of the angels of the God.” Our idiom requires the article before “presence,”

THE NEW COVENANT. xi

2 6

_ and its suppression before “men,” “man,” and “God,”—one addition and three omissions in one verse, and this is no more than a specimen verse. Where we have found it necessary to insert it, when it is not in the Greek, it is enclosed in brackets, but where it is omitted from places in which it occurs, no indication is given.

The name of the Apostle James has been changed to Jacob, that being the accurate form—Latin Jacobus, Greek Iacobos. The translator knows no good reason for employing the word James.

A somewhat radical feature of this Version will be found in the words into which the zonian phraseology is rendered. Undoubtedly “age” is the best word to represent the Greek aton, but “age-lasting,” though usually an accurate equivalent for the adjective aionion, is not euphonious, and where, as is sometimes the case, mere duration is not so much meant as quality, it is inadequate. “Pertaining to the age,” or “partaking of the quality of the age,” is sometimes the meaning. For this reason’ it was de-

‘cided best to transliterate the eonian words rather than trans- Jate them, and they are rendered “eon” and ‘‘eonian.” Thus the English reader sees these much-disputed terms as nearly as possible as they are in the original, and has the same facilities for understanding their exact meaning as has the Greek scholar.

The important omissions from the Four Gospels of passages contained in the Established Version, are compelled by the fact that they are not found in the oldest Greek MSS., nor in the earliest authorities. Most of them are referred to in the Notes. They are as follows:

Matthew v: 44,45. Seepage 81.

Wi: 13. 84.

Xeacoy i 138. xii: 44. sf 250.

Seal Ais f : “And one said to him, ‘Behold thy mother and thy brethren stand outside seeking to speak to thee.” Om.5. V. | Matthew xvi: 1, 3. See page 162.

Xavaldicnpodes 170.

Sayan I Uile, * 74, Xxili: 14. + 259.

XXIV: 3d. ‘ 277.

xii "THE NEW COVENANT. j

Mark vi: 11. “It shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah.”

Mark xi: 26. See page 246.

Gay MY 342.

Luke i: 28, re 5. iv: 18. i “To heal the

broken-hearted.” '

Luke viii: 16. Y 119.

Bair, 24: leew sy

KVM oos fe: 224,

XXL be S 324,

John’ v: 3,4. See page 148. viii: 53 to vjii: 11. 186.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS.

The author takes pleasure in acknowledging his indebtedness to the accurate and critical knowledge of Rev. Jacob Merrifield, under whose eye his manuscript and proofs have passed, and to Rev. O. D. Miller, 8S. T. D., Rev. T. B. Thayer, D. D., and Rey. G. L. Demarest, D. D., some of whom have inspected all, and all of whom have inspected some of his proofs, and who have made valuable suggestions for which he and his readers are under obligations. : ;

EXPLANATION.

“Om.” signifies omitted; “E.V.,” Established, or King James’s Version; “R. V.,” the Revision by the Canterbury Convocation; “S.,” the Sinaitic Codex, or MS.; “V.,” the Vatican; “A, be Alexandrian.

The words in brackets are supplied by the translator, to give what he deems to be the full sense. The words in Italics are found in either the Sinaitic, or Vatican, or both, and are not in the Greek of Westcott and Hort.

A Chronology of Jesus the Christ's Ministry.

From the Fourth Gospel, corrected by the Synoptics.

October,

December, April, April 17, May,

Aug. 29, September, October,

December,

April 2, April 3, April 10,

April 14,

April 15, April 16,

April 17,

September, |i:

November, |i

Augustus Kaisar died; the first year of Tiberius.

New Year’s Day; the second year of Tiberius, who had been ten days on the throne.

Beginning of the fifteenth year of Tiberius; John baptizes (Luke iii:1).

John baptizes in Bethany, beyond the Jordan: Jesus is with him.

He isin Kana, in Galilee.

He is in Kapharnaum.

He drives the brokers out of the temple (the first time).

He Feoe ie Judea to the Feast of Tabernacles (iv: 45).

. |John baptizes at Ajnon.

He returns to Galilee, through Samaria.

He is in Samaria four months before the harvest (barley in April, wheat in May).

In Galilee, on his return from the Feast.

He goes to Jerusalem to the Feast of Dedication.

He goes to the east side of the Lake of Galilee.

The Passover is near; he does not go. to Jerusalem. :

He crosses the Lake to Kapharnaum.

He is in Galilee when the corn is ripe(Matt. xii:1).

The sixteenth year of Tiberius begins, the year

of the crucifixion (Clement of Alexandria).

He isin Galilee; the Feast of Tabernacles is at

hand.

He follows his brothers to the Feast,going on the

east side of the Jordan (Matt. xix: 1).

He is in Jerusalem, atthe Feast of Dedication.

He is beyond the Jordan; where John first bap-