How to Study the New Testament
Unknown Author
Table of Contents
How to Study the New Testament
Such is the title of Dean Alford's small book before me. The first volume is devoted to the gospels and the acts of the apostles. Experience shows how few can form a just estimate of what is written with a knowledge beyond that of most and in a style attractive to the multitude. I propose therefore to notice the work briefly, so as to convey a correct notion of its character and plan, and thus to check undue confidence on the one hand and unjust depreciation on the other. Active-minded the author always is; and this is shown in suggesting questions rather than in settling them.
The first chapter is introductory, which opens with the parable of a varied landscape presenting wholly different objects to those who really observe it, not to speak of such as pass on as heedlessly as the cattle on the hill-side. It appears to me, however, that if the Dean still adhere to his denial of a distinct divine design in each of the Gospels, he himself destroys the main key to an intelligent enjoyment and application of their stores, as well as the true solution of their apparent discrepancies.
We are told indeed of God's beneficent purpose in giving us not one indubitable, plain, historic Gospel, but four, differing as originally written, and yet more through thousands of various readings, and again through translation from the tongue of inspiration into the many languages of the earth (p. 9). But this is both superficial and confused: superficial, because if there be a difference of divine design in each of the Gospels, they must necessarily wear a diverse form flowing from the special object of the Spirit; confused, because variety of reading and version is only a question of man's infirmity, not of God's design. Things differing so widely and essentially ought not to be classed together.
So in page 10 the ignorance of the clergy and laity is not without reason rebuked. “The utmost that seems expected even from the clergy themselves is to be able to affirm that the scripture says so and so. But what scripture says it—with what intent—how far, in the words quoted, the context is duly had in regard—whether they do or do not rightly represent the sense of the original; these things not one clergyman in ten seems to take into account; still less those laymen who would be ashamed to quote in the same slovenly manner any of the well-known classical authors.” But it is evident that when the various readings and the true rendering are ever so settled, to overlook the design of the Spirit is fatal to anything like a full understanding of the Gospels, which like the rest of scripture differs in this respect from all the books of men. God never writes save with a worthy moral purpose: still less is it conceivable when He is unfolding to us the glorious person of the Word made flesh and dwelling among us. The accuracy of a critic carries him not beyond the letter: the denial of design is more fatal than all the faults of a sloven, bad as these are.
“If we could know exactly how any given event related in the Gospels happened” (p. 11), it were but a small part of the matter; nor is it true that with this “we should at once be able to account for the variations in the narratives and the separate truth of each would be shown.” It is a deeper question than one of “the exact details of any event thus narrated” or “of the position of the narrator with respect to it.” The Dean only skims over the surface. No such acquaintance with facts suffices to meet the case; for scripture is not a mere human book. The solution is far more profound; yet is it nigh at hand, in our mouth and in our heart, if we confess a divine author and believe in a purpose in each according to God. “Our plain duty in making a right use of the Gospels is, firmly and fearlessly to recognize these (i.e., the apparent discrepancies), and to leave them as fearlessly unsolved, if no honest solution can be found. A way may be opened by and by, in the process of human discovery and the toil of human thought; or the time for a solution may not come till the day when all things shall be known.” Our readers will see how all sinks to the level of man in the Dean's language; and consequently he rises no higher than the wit or labor of man. Is God duly in his thoughts? Can one write thus who believes in the presence, operation, and teaching of the Holy Spirit? He throws away the key, and then talks, with more or less despair, of the difficulty of opening the door. This is not the wisdom that descends from above, nor the faith that expects from the most bountiful Giver. It is honesty no doubt to confess our ignorance; but is there not One sent down to guide into all the truth? Distrust of Him is not good. It is to fail in faith, the first of requisites for the right use of the gospels, or of scripture in general, on the writer's own spewing.
I cannot admire the comparison of spots in the sun apparent to the telescope (p. 13). We must not confound original perfectness as given of God through inspired men; and providential preservation in man's hands, spite of his feebleness and unfaithfulness in detail. Nor do I like the suggestion that one only supreme record, instead of four inspired records, “might have been perilous for a dispensation and a Church which was to regard not the letter but the spirit, and to walk not by sight but by faith” (p. 17). How evident the ruinous results of overlooking specialty of design. Admit this, and the true answer is plain: the fullness of Christ could not be adequately shown out but by the four Gospels.
As little does the aim of pp. 18-20 commend itself to my mind. Granted the variety of readings in the five hundred and more manuscripts of the Gospels; granted also that the most ancient MSS. least sanction the tendency to that assimilation of the Gospels which is found in the more modern copies. The distinct forms are of the greatest moment as the expression of distinct purpose, while every gospel is of course thoroughly true. In short, it is not the poor thought of merely trusting the Gospels, but of appreciating the higher truth of their various presentations of Christ.
The Dean proceeds next to compare the original with our Authorized English Version, which he says “abounds with errors and inadequate renderings.” (p. 22.) This is true; yet I question whether any critical text yet offered would not lead to errors quite as great, and whether his own translation does not abound in renderings quite as inadequate. No doubt many mistakes in the Received Text are corrected by the results of critical labor; but who does not know the too many errors adopted so strangely by Griesbach, Scholz, Lachmann, Tischendorf, &c., by one or more, from which the faulty common text is free ? Nor has Dean Alford himself kept clear of this perverse taste.
The chapter closes with the setting forth of two qualities indispensable for this holy study—honesty and charity. Are they really understood?
Is it real honesty to be ever exaggerating the apparent discrepancies of the gospels Is it honesty at all to yield this point or that to the free handling of adversaries, when a spirit of unbelief has deprived one of the true God-given means of vindicating His word? Certainly there is no reason to be afraid of any truth; but why fear the lies or sneers of the enemy? Compromise of the truth will not conciliate cavilers; and we are bound to resist such as firmly as we would disclaim all compromise with falsehood. I have proved that many alleged facts among the critics are no facts at all; and there are many more which are in no way the fruit of God's will, but of man's weakness or worse, who has failed in respect of transmitting His word as decidedly as in every other sphere and function.
It it real charity to write softly of those who corrupt or undermine the scripture? Human amiability is not divine love which abhors evil as decidedly and uncompromisingly as it cleaves to what is good.
“For this is the love of God that we keep his commandments.” Forbearance is all well in matters of conscience: of grace in enduring personal slights or wrongs there cannot be too much; but there is nothing like true love for resenting a dishonor done to Christ or to God's word. It is sheer weakness, if not an utterly faithless heart, which bears patiently infidel inroads on scripture, and which claims credit for honesty when, half-rash, half-timorous, it surrenders fragments of divinely-inspired truth to the pertinacious efforts of the unbeliever.
MARK
is the subject of the second chapter. Here the same painful humanitarian spirit prevails. The Dean dwells much on the eye-witnesses. “Their oral narratives had been for the most part nearly in the same strain, especially as regarded those sacred words of the Lord. But in different parts of the Christian world, according as the living voice of this or that apostle was present, the great narrative took different shapes and arrangements. Truth they all told—truth of a more precise and higher order than narratives founded on human accuracy can usually (!) attain; but each, from the very circumstance of his having been himself present at the occurrence of the facts, gave them as they impressed his own character and were reproduced by his own feelings. One loved to describe to his hearers the very look and gesture of the Lord as He spoke comfort or warning; another seems ever given to contemplate Him as the King and Lord of Israel announced in Old Testament prophecy, to retain in faithful memory the long connection of His wonderful discourses, and to enounce with reverent recollection their stately periods; while another, or more than one, in different fields of Gentile labor might love to dwell on those of His sayings and acted parables which had world-wide reference—might love to look on Him as the light of the Gentiles as well as the glory of His people Israel. And so various narratives grew up here and there, all showing in the main form the common testimony which all the apostles bore before they parted from Jerusalem, but differently deflected from that common narrative in things indifferent.”
This long extract (pp. 29, 30) will suffice to show the possession which this very low theory has got of the author's mind mainly flowing from the error already noticed; as if the differences were accidental infirmities, instead of being designed of God as a part of His wonderful method for giving us the truth fully and perfectly.
Again, it is another error, common alike to the traditional and to the rationalist parties, that Mark was Peter's interpreter and took to writing down the good tidings as usually delivered by that apostle. There is hardly more solidity in another tradition, that while Peter and Paul were founding the church at Rome (!), Matthew wrote his gospel. Of course, tradition makes Luke stand similarly related to Paul as Mark to Peter. Dean Alford rightly rejects the idea of each evangelist supplementing the account of his predecessor, but be makes them “three forms of the oral apostolic testimony, committed to writing, under the direction and inspiration of God's Holy Spirit, independently of one another.” Yet inspiration, according to him, does not preclude mistake. He carries his Arminianism even into his notion of the inspired word. He then gives a sample of Mark's minute touches, as well as additional details not given elsewhere, which refute the otherwise unworthy notion that his gospel is an abridgment of Matthew's or Luke's. The chapter is closed with two useful lists—one of the more remarkable differences from the received text, the other of the chief differences from the Authorized Version in matters of translation.
His first list consists of course chiefly of corrections in the text common to the best editors, such as chapter 1:2 (“Esaias the prophet” for “the prophets” which is an evident accommodation to the circumstances, and “before thee” omitted at the end); chapter 2:17, “to repentance” (brought in from Luke) omitted; so also chapter 3:5, “whole as the other” (from Matthew); verse 29, “sin” for “damnation” or judgment. I have passed over his second instance, which seems to me altogether precarious. Chapter 1:4, “John the Baptist was in the wilderness preaching.” That is, he inserts the article and omits the conjunction, contrary to the judgment of Griesbach, Scholz, and even Lachmann. Bengel does not even notice the various readings. Tischendorf in his second and third editions of Leipsic (1849) reads as Alford now does; but in his seventh he went back to his first impressions, though now in his eighth edition, which is excessively modified by the Sinai MS., he adopts the article, but retains Kai which is wanting only in the Vatican and three cursives. It seems rash indeed to present this at least doubtful question as one of the more remarkable places where our present text in this gospel is not that of the more eminent authorities. He omits “that hear” in chapter iv. 24, and from “verily” to the end of chapter 6:14 (“most probably"), as also “about” in verse 44. In chapters 9:31, 10:34 he reads “after three days;” in chapter 11:8 not “off the trees” but “out of the fields;” in chapter 12:32, “thou hast truly said that he is one;” in chapter 13:4 “when these things are about to be all fulfilled” (omitting “spoken of by Daniel the prophet”); in chapter 14:22, he omits “eat” rightly; verse 24, with Tischendorf and Tregelles “new,” also “because of me this night;” and verses 27 and 70, “and thy speech agreeth thereto.” In chapter 15 verse 28 is omitted by recent critics save Lachmann.
I utterly reject the criticism which makes the gospel of Mark end with verse 8, because the Vatican and Sinai MSS. agree with some other slight confirmation, more particularly as there appears to be a space left at the end of the Vatican MS. The motive of the scribes for stopping there may be a question; but there is no sufficient reason to conclude that the gospel really terminated so abruptly. Nor does the difference of style, or rather the employment here of words and expressions not used elsewhere in the gospel, justify the inference that it was not written by Mark. Possibly it may have been added later by the same hand; for certainly the last verse indicates a date considerably later than that which is usually assigned to the publication of this gospel. Language can be easily imitated in so short a fragment; whereas writers would freely describe new facts with new expressions, while underneath the surface lie, in my opinion, the most indelible traces of connection with the character and aim stamped on this evangelist by the Holy Spirit. Would this organic link have been kept up, had apostolic men, during apostolic times, added the general compendium of the events of the resurrection with which the present gospel concludes?
The correction of renderings is generally right. Thus chapter 1:10, “cleft asunder” and verse 14 “delivered up;” in chapter 2:18 “were fasting,” and verse 27, “on account of,” twice; in chapter 3:14, “appointed” (not “ordained") (chapter 4:11, the omission of “to know” ought to be in the former list); in chapter 4:22, for “abroad,” “to light;” in verse 2:37, for “full,” “filling;” in verse 38, the pillow (or boat-cushion), and in verse 41, “who then is this?” In chapter 5:30 for “virtue,” “power;” in verse 36, “overheard,” instead of “heard.” In chapter 6:20, “kept him safe,” for “observed him;” in verse 21, “chief men;” in verse 49, an apparition;” and in verse 56, “market-place.” In chapter 7, he puts Corban in the regular place of a predicate; in verse 28, “for even” (instead of “yet"); in verse 31,” borders” (as also in chap. 10:1). In chapter 8:36, 37, he would say “life,” instead of “soul,” as in verse 35—a very questionable change, if it be not worse. In chapter 9:12, he would make the latter part a question. In chapter 10:52, “saved.” In chapter 11:17, “for all the nations.” In chapter 12:26, “in the history concerning the bush, how;” and in 39, “chief places.” In chapter 13:12, “shall put them to death.” (Is not this a change for the worse?) In verse 28, “now learn the parable from the fig tree: when now her branch becometh tender;” in verse 32, “none,” and “not even.” In chapter 14:2, “during the feast;” in verse 18, “even he that eateth;” verse 31, “must die;” verse 38, “willing” verse 68, “I neither knew him, nor;” and in verse 69, “the maid,". omitting “again.” In chapter 15:5, “made him no further answer.” In verses 31, 32, there must be an error. It ought not to stand, “himself he cannot save, the Christ, the King of Israel. Let him descend now.” In verses 37, 39, “breathed his last.” In chapter 16:2, when the sun was risen;” in verse 8, “for trembling and amazement had possession of them;” in verse 12, “was manifested;” verse 14, “the eleven themselves;” in verse 15, “the whole creation;” and in verse 20, “the signs that followed.”
Most of these are known. But some are doubtful, others I believe wrong. Space forbids discussion, even if other reasons did not weigh.
How to Study the New Testament
IT is pleasant to observe an improvement in tone as to the writer of this Gospel, and that the Dean no longer labors under the indecision of the earliest issue of his larger work, as if there could be any doubt that Matthew and Levi are but two names of the same person. He who had been a publican till called to follow Jesus, was just the man, if the Spirit inspired him, to write the account of the Messiah rejected of the Jew, and then God's salvation to the ends of the earth. Here of course the failure to seize the design enfeebles the view of this Gospel. Nevertheless, it was impossible to overlook the fact that THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN—a phrase found here only—is a characteristic theme of this Evangelist; as also his presentation of the longer discourses of the Lord in His general ministry, as well as his fuller parabolic and prophetic teaching.
The Messianic character of the Gospel is, spite of theory, briefly described in the pages that follow. But is it correct to say that by the “Forerunner, the Elias of the new dispensation, it is necessary that the Messiah be anointed” (pp. 57, 58), seeing that the manifest fact is that to anoint others with the Spirit was the peculiar distinctive privilege of the Lord, in express contrast with John the Baptist (John 1, Acts 1), and that God, not man, anointed Jesus Himself as man? Nor is there the least warrant for treating His victory in the temptation or His ministry with its miraculous seals as the king going forth “to his work of saving his people from their sins.” This may be poetic, but is certainly vague and loose.
He says rightly, however, that in several of his groupings Matthew does not regard historic sequence; and this is as true of some discourses as of facts brought together for a special end. But it is untrue that this is a question of laxity; or that one who thus arranges for a dispensational object like Matthew or for a moral design like Luke departs from the strictest truth any more than Mark, who adheres to the mere succession of time. Both plans are excellent and both are given of God, which is the best of all, though obviously the style of “chronological annals” is the more elementary, and that of groupings the profounder of the two. In neither case is a Christian to be “a slave of letter” (p. 60); in every case both the words and the spirit are of God and addressed to the faith of man.
There is nothing in the sketch of Matthew which follows that calls particularly for praise or blame, save to notice that the closing scene of the prophecy on Mount Olivet (chap. 25.) is quite misunderstood. The gathering of the nations before the Son of man is not “the great final judgment!” It is the judgment of the quick, not of the dead—of a part of mankind, namely all the Gentiles, but not the Jews, and on a single issue suited to a single generation, not an appraisal of works in general. The question was, Did they (the Gentiles) honor the King in the person of His messengers who bore witness of His coming kingdom (the “gospel of the kingdom” —chap. 24:14)? Hence “THE KING” is as suitable here as it would be out of place in the great white throne judgment of the dead (Rev. 20:11-15), where none but wicked appear, whether Jews or Gentiles, and are all alike judged according of their works, and all alike consigned to the lake of fire, for no blessed are there spoken of but only the lost.
The following is his list of correct readings in this Gospel, though I am far from accepting them all—
In chapter 1:25, “a son” instead of “her firstborn son.” In chapter 5:22 “without cause” probably to be omitted; verse 27, omit “by them of old time;” in verse 44 omit “bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you,” and the words, “despitefully use you and” to be omitted; and in verse 47 for “publicans so” read “Gentiles the same.” In chapter 6:1 “alms” should be “righteousness;” in verse 12 “we have forgiven;” in verse 13 the prayer should end with “evil;” in verse 18 omit “openly.” In chapter 8. 15 it should be “unto him;” in verse 28 most probably “Gadarenes.” In chapter 9:13 omit “to repentance;” in verse 36 for “fainted” read “were harassed.” In chapter 10:4 for “Canaanite” read “Cananean,” i.e., a zealot. In chapter xi. 2 for “two” read “by means of.” In chapter 12:6 for “one greater” read “that which is greater.” In chapter 13:55 for “Joses,” read “Joseph” (some read “John"). In chapter 17:4 read “I will make.” In chapter 19:17 read “Why askest thou me concerning good? There is One good;” in verse 20 “from my youth up” should in all probability be left out. In chapter 20:7 omit “and whatsoever is right, that shall ye receive,” as also “and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with” (inserted from Mark). In chapter 21:13 read “are making.” In chapter 22:7 read, “but the king was wroth;” in verse 23 for “which say” read “saying.” Verse 14 of chapter 23. to be omitted (inserted from Mark and Luke). In chapter 24:7 omit “and pestilence;” in verse 42 for “hour” read “day.” In chapter 25:3 read “for the foolish, when they took their lamps, took” In chapter 26:3 omit “and the scribes;” in verse 42 read, “if this may not pass away except I drink it;” in verse 60, “but found none; even though many false witnesses came.” In chapter 27:64, “by night” should disappear. In chapter 28:9, “as they went to tell his disciples” should be probably omitted.
This is the list of wrong renderings corrected—
In chapter 2:16, “borders” for “coasts” (and so in chapters 15:21, 22; 19:1). In chapter 3:7 “generation” should be “offspring” (as in chapters 12:34; 23:33). In chapter 4:5, “the pinnacle;” in verse 12 “delivered up.” In chapter 5:9 and 45, “sons.” In chapter 6:23, “how dark is the darkness;” in verses 25, 27, 28, 31, 34 (and 10:19), “thought” should be “anxious thought.” In chapter 8:12 “sons” (and so chapter 9:15, 12:27, 13:38, and 23:15, 31); in verse 16 “a word;” and in verse 24 “was being covered.” In chapter 10:39 read “hath found,” and “hath lost.” In chapter 11:7 “see” should be “gaze upon” (not the same as “see” in verses 8 and 9); in verse 14, “shall come;” in verse 19 “was justified;” and in verse 27 “will (or ‘is minded to') reveal him.” In chapter 12:21, “hope;” verse 24, “this man” (so in chapters 26:67, 27:47); in verse 31, “of the Spirit;” in verse 41, 42, “more than,” twice. In chapter 13:19 “this is he which was sown by the wayside;” in verse 20, “be that was sown upon the stony places; in verse 22, 23, “was sown upon” or “among.” In chapter 14:26, “apparition.” In chapter 15:5, “that wherein thou mightest have been benefited by me is a gift [to God]; [he is free] and shall not honor his father or his mother;” in verse 27 “yet” should be “forever;” in verse 32, “will not,” “am not willing to.” In chapter 16:22, “God be gracious to thee;” in verse 26, “soul” twice is taken as “life.” In chapter 18:12, “Both he not leave the ninety and nine upon the mountain and goeth and seeketh.” In chapter 19:10, “expedient;” in verse 23, “with difficulty.” In chapter 20:14, “it is my will to give.” In chapter 21:33, “left his house,” (as in chap. 25:14 also). In chapter 23:6 “uppermost place;” in verse 10, “neither be ye called leaders; for one is your leader;” in verse 24, “straining out the gnat and swallowing the camel;” in verse 26, “the inside of.” In chapter 24:12, 13, “because iniquity hath abounded, the love of the many shall wax cold. But he that endured,” &c.; in verse 32, “Now learn the parable from the fig-tree; when now his branch becometh tender;” in verse 36, “none.” In chapter 25:8, “going out;” in verse 46, both “everlasting.” In chapter 26:5, “during the feast;” in verse 35, “though I must die;” in verse 64, “henceforth.” In chapter 27:9, “set a price on;” in verse 10, “commanded me;” in verse 44, “cast the same in his teeth” has nothing corresponding in the original, but “reviled him;” in verse 45, “all the earth;” in verse 50, “yielded up his spirit;” in verse 56,” the sons of Zebedee;” in verse 66, “sealing the stone, besides posting the guard.” In 28:3, “appearance;” in verse 19, “make disciples of;” and in verse 20, “all the days.”
Most of these are familiarly known and just. Some in both lists are questionable. It not my purpose to discuss minutiae now, but only to add that the Dean of Canterbury confounds, as do most, the relation of Christ to the Church with that in which He stands toward Israel. It is unscriptural to say, “the King and Head over all to His Church.” (p. 77.) So to the soul individually, in the following page, “Seek ever this thy King and Savior.” For never does God's word so speak. It is to Judaize unwittingly. He is my Savior and Lord; He is Head to the Church; but He is King of Israel. There is no error more widely and profoundly injurious to the Christian than this, trifling as the ignorant might account it.
How to Study the New Testament
The Dean appears to seize the bearing of this third gospel more distinctly than that of the first two. Pages 79-95 are a fair account of his leading characteristics in sketching the general course of the gospel. One of the few notices which must be excepted is the use made of the Pharisee and the publican, in chapter 18, where he still teaches, as in his larger work, that the latter “went down to his house justified.” “How sweet an echo there is here of the doctrine of justification by grace through faith, for which Luke's great companion, himself in his own estimation ‘the chief of sinners,' argued and toiled.” (p. 83.) This, as an exact interpretation and not a mere accommodation for evangelical purposes, is quite unfounded. It ought to have been left to the late Mr. J. Walker, in whose “Remains” the idea is given. There are many reasons for rejecting the notion. One is the very point of the parable, that though so deeply overwhelmed by his sins, he went down to his house justified rather than (exceeding) the other; for such is the regular force of παρὰ with the accusative. Here it could be nothing else. But this excludes justification (in the doctrinal sense of the Apostle Paul), which does not admit of comparison or degree. “By him all who believe are justified.” Besides, if this were meant, the participle ought to be δικαιωθεὶς, and not δεδικυιωμένος. The perfect is only used by the apostle to express, not justification by faith, by which we have peace with God, but justification from sin—the state in which the believer is set as knowing himself dead to the old man, which has been crucified with Christ. This, clearly, is in no way intended in the parable, as it is unfolded in Rom. 6 and not chapter v. And this lands the Dean, in his earlier work, in the mischievous conclusion that “he who would seek justification before God must seek it by humility and not by self-righteousness.” It is very sure that every converted man is broken down; but is it sound doctrine that the soul must seek justification by humility? What confusion results from jumbling together the meanings of a word in God's book!
The Dean's first list suggests the omission (with and B.) in chapter 1:28, of “blessed art thou among women;” verse 29, of “when she saw him;” and verse 35, “of thee.” In chapter ii. 14, “Peace among men of good pleasure” (i. e., God's elect); verse 22, “their (for her) purification;” verse 35, “his father and mother;” and verse 40, omit “in spirit.” In chapter 4:4, omit “but by every word of God;” verse 5, read “And taking him up, he showed him;” verse 8, omit “get thee behind me, Satan; for;” and verse 18, “to heal the broken-hearted.” Omit “Christ” in verse 41; and for “Galilee,” in verse 44, read “Judaea.” In chapter 5:33, omit “why do;” verse 38, “and both are preserved;” 39, “straightway,” and for “better,” read “good.” I need not say that some of these changes seem precarious. But the omission of the “second-first” (or second after the first") in chapter 6:1, though not given by some of the most ancient copies, is due to the difficulty of the phrase. The Dean thinks it has never been satisfactorily explained. It really means the first sabbath after the first sheaf was waved before the Lord; not the first sabbath of the paschal week, which was a high day, and followed by the day of waving the first-fruits. The next sabbath was this “second-first,” the earliest sabbath when a pious Israelite would venture to eat from a cornfield. In verse 25, read “full now;” verse 36, omit “therefore;” and verse 48, “for it was founded upon a rock,” should be “because it was well-built.” In chapter 7:19, “the Lord,” for “Jesus;” and verse 31, omit “and the Lord said.” In chapter 8:3, “him” should be “them;” verse 37, “the country round about the Gadarenes;” verse 48, omit “be of good comfort;” and verse 54, “put them all out,” &e. In chapter 9:1, “the twelve;” verse 7, omit “by him;” verse 10, “to a city called Bethsaida;” verse 35, “chosen” for “beloved;” verse 48, “is” for “shall be;” verse 54, omit “even as Elias did.” He admits the omission of MSS. in verses 55, 56 (from “and said save them") is contrary to the evidence of the oldest versions and very ancient writers, and so the question is doubtful. In chapter 10:15, read “And thou, Capernaum, shalt thou be exalted to heaven? thou,” &c.; verse 19, “have given;” verse 20, omit “rather;” verse 21, read “in the Holy Spirit;” and verse 39, “the Lord's feet.” In chapter 11:2-4, “Father, hallowed be thy name; thy kingdom come; give us day by day our daily bread; and forgive us our sins, for we also forgive every one that is indebted to us. And lead us not into temptation.” In verse 44, omit “Scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites;” and verse 48, “their sepulchers;” verse 53, read “when he was gone out;” and omit “seeking” with last clause in verse 54. In chapter 12:15, insert “all” before “covetousness;” and in verse 31, omit “all.” In chapter 13:15, “ye hypocrites;” verse 24, “the narrow door;” verse 31, “in that hour;” and verse 35, omit “desolate” and “verily.” In chapter 14:3, add “or not;” verse 5, should be “a son(!) or an ox;” verse 34, “salt therefore is good; but if even the salt,” &c. In chapter 15:22, add “quickly.” In chapter 16:9, “it fails;” verse 25, “he is comforted here, and,” &c. In chapter 17:3, “if thy brother sin;” verse 9, omit “I trow not;” and verse 36 altogether. In chapter 19:45, omit “and them that bought.” In chapter 20:30, omit “took her to wife, and died childless.” In chapter 21:4, omit “of God;” and verse 8, “therefore;” verse 25, “distress of nations, in despair at the roaring of the sea and the waves;” and verse 36, “may be able.” In chapter 22:64, omit “struck him on the face.” In chapter 23:8, omit “many things;” (verse 17, doubtful;) verse 35, “the Christ of God, the chosen,” or “the chosen Christ of God;” verse 39, “art thou not the Christ?” verse 42, “Jesus, remember me;” and verse 51, omit “also himself.” In chapter 24:1, omit “and certain others with them;” and perhaps 42, “and of an honeycomb;” verse 46, read “Thus it is written that Christ should suffer and should rise,” &c.; verse 49, omit “of Jerusalem.”
As to the second list of better translations, there are given the following:-In chapter 1:1, “narrative concerning;” verse 3, “traced down accurately;” verse 4, “those sayings wherein thou wert instructed;” verse 48, “shall congratulate me,” or “account me happy;” and verse 59, “were calling.” In chapter 2:1, 2, 3, 5, “enrolled” and “enrollment;” verse 10, “all the people;” verse 12, “a babe;” verse 19, “kept all these words, pondering them;” verse 33, “concerning him;” verse 35, “that reasonings out of many hearts may be revealed;” verse 38, “she coming in at the same hour;” verse 40, “becoming filled;” verse 43, “boy” or “lad;” verse 49, “among my Father's matters.” In chapter 3:7, “He said therefore” and “offspring;” verse 23, “was about thirty years of age when he began (his ministry).” In chapter 4:9, “the pinnacle.” In chapter 5:6, “were bursting;” verse 22, “reasonings;” verse 34, “sons” (and in chapter 6:35; 16:8, twice). In chapter 6:11, “folly;” verse 15, “son” is not expressed (nor “brother,” nor sister, nor mother chapter 24:10); verse 17, “upon a level place.... number of the people;” verse 19, “power” (also ver. 46); verse 20, for “be” read “are;” verse 48, “he is like a man building an house, who digged and went deep.” In chapter 7:5, “and himself built us our synagogue;” verse 24, “multitudes,” as in Matt. 11:7, and “gaze upon;” verse 30, “towards.” In chapter viii. 4, “coming;” verse 19, “multitude;” verse 29, “was commanding,” and “demon” (as 9:42); verse 33, “precipice;” verse 40, omit “gladly,” and verse 44, “hem,” as in Matt. 9:32. In chapter ix. 32, “but having kept awake;” verse 43, “majesty;” verse 45, “that they might not perceive it;” and verse 51, “And it came to pass, as the days of his receiving up were being accomplished, he himself,” &c. In chapter s. 22, “is pleased to reveal.” In chapter 11:8, “shamelessness;” verse 12, “give;” verse 13, “the Father from heaven;” verses 31, 32, “more than,” twice; verse 34, “candle,” as in verse 33. In chapter xii. 15, “For not because a man hath abundance, doth his life consist in the things which he possesseth;” verses 18, 19, “good things;” verses 22, 25, 26, “anxious thoughts;” verse 37, “their lord;” and verse 49, “what will I? would that it were already kindled.” Those from chapter 13 to the end are of no great moment. Nor do these given here call for particular remark.
Courtesy of BibleTruthPublishers.com. Most likely this text has not been proofread. Any suggestions for spelling or punctuation corrections would be warmly received. Please email them to: BTPmail@bibletruthpublishers.com.