TEXT, VERSIONS, LANGUAGES OF OT

the place that David had appointed' is not a legitimate rendering of the words correctly rendered in RV marg.). Both AV and RV insert (in italics) ' the Loud ' : this probably stood in the original text, still stands in the Greek version, but is not even suggested in the Hebrew text. In 2 Ch 22^ RV (rightly) adopts in its text the reading of the parallel passage in Kings for the first part of the ver.; but retains in the second part of the ver. the obviously wrong reading of the Hebrew text— Az;ariah(Greek version and 2 K.-Ahaziah). In Job 37' AV gives what probably approximates to the original sense, though it is not a translation of the Hebrew text. RV correctly renders the Hebrew text as now divided; otherwise divided (cf. above, § 37), it would mean 'that all men may know he hath done it.' In Ezk 46^" AV tacitly adopts aslight emendation (YZNfor YZNW); RV retains the Hebrew text so far as the verb is concerned, but in order to make some sense illegitimately inserts (in italics) 'together' — illegitimately because 'together' is as little suggested by the Hebrew as it would be by the English. In Am 5» AV has been led astray by the LXX; RV (text) is nearer the original sense. In Hag 1^, as in Ezk 46^°, the Revisers, to avoid placing in their text the exceedingly probable reading which stands on their margin,have inserted words (in italics) which are not even remotely suggested in the Hebrew, and have in another respect translated questionably.

From the foregoing examples it will appear that in some cases the AV in effect approximates more closely to the original text and sense than the RV text, though the RV generally, perhaps always, in its margin gives the rendering of AV (or an equivalent rendering). It is Interesting to add that in some cases Wyclif 's, though (and indeed because) a secondary version, follows a more satisfactory text than either AV or RV (so, e.g., in 1 S 14", where it has the words that have accidentally fallen out of the present Hebrew text: see § 24). The instances in which the RV gives a translation that is either entirely indefensible or questionable or improbable, to save the appearance of abandoning the Hebrew text, might be greatly multiplied. Such mistranslation, or questionable translation, was indeed necessarily in-volved in the carrying out of the principles adopted. For, owing to the state in which the Hebrew text has come down to us, a translator is not infrequently shut up to one of these four options: (1) he may leave the doubtful words of the Hebrew text untranslated; (2) he may translate from the Hebrew text as emended by the help of the versions or conjecture; (3) he may render unintelligible words in Hebrew by equally unintelligible words in English; or (4) he may mis-translate the Hebrew. If he adopts the third option he obviously will not reproduce the original writer's meaning; if the fourth, he will probably not do so, and if he does, it will be by accident; if he adopts the second, he no doubt runs a risk, and sometimes a considerable risk, of still failing to recover the original sense; the first option alone is safe, and in certain cases would best promote the fullest possible understanding of an entire passage. The Revisers have occasionally adopted the third, but generally the fourth, of these options.

Between the age of the AVand that of the RV, Biblical scholarship advanced particularly in two directions: (1) in the critical study of the Hebrew text; (2) in the understanding of the principles and vocabulary of the Hebrew language. For example, in the light of the comparative study of language, meanings of many words which Hebrew tradition had lost became clear. The RV made full use (in its margins, if not in its text) of the results due to the second line of advance, and is in consequence greatly superior to the AV. At the same time, in order to utilize this first knowledge, it was compelled to abandon Hebrew tradition, and in some cases even that tradition as embodied in the Hebrew vowels. In consequence the RV is a version of rather mixed character; it is a less faithful rendering Into English of the Hebrew traditional understanding of the OT than the AV; on the other hand, for reasons already explained, it represents the original meaning of the OT writers only very partially and much less

916

TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT

completely than is possible. In sum, then, the English reader, if he wishes to read in the OT the meaning attached to it by Jewish tradition, should use the AV and not the RV; if he wishes to understand the meaning of the original writers of the OT, the RV will bring him much nearer his desire than the AV, especially if he makes wise use of the margins (cf. Driver, Book of Job, Introduction, p. xxiv. ff.); but it is only by making use of such translations as have been referred to at end of certain articles of this work (see Psalms; Isaiah [Bk. of]; Rosea [Bk. op]; Micah [Bk. of]) that he will be able to avail himself of such means as exist for the English reader of passing, so far as is possible, beyond tradition to the word of Scripture itself.

Any full treatment of the subject of this article naturally involves a knowledge of Hebrew. Of works on the text, in addition to the relevant articles in the larger dictionaries, it may suffice to refer here to Buhl, Canon and TextoftheOT (T. & T. Clark) ; Driver, Notes on the Hebrew Text of the Books of Samuel, Introduction. Critical editions of the Massoretic text have been mentioned above, § 10. A critical edition of the Hebrew text of the entire OT remains a desideratum. So far as published it is met by Haupt's Sacred Books of ike OT. Meantime, the best Hebrew Bible for use is Kittel's, which prints the Massoretic text, but within small compass presente in the footnotes a large mass of well-selected variants suggested by the versions or con jecture. Some of the poin ta briefly dealt with in the foregoing article are more fully discussed in other articles in the present work; see in par-ticular Gbeek Veksionb, VnLQATE, Enolish Versions, Wkitino. G. B. Gray.

TEXT OP THE NEW TESTAMENT.— 1. The text of the NT as read in ordinary copies of the Or. Testa-ment, and as translated in the AVof 1611, is substantially identical with that printed by Stephanus (Robert Estienne) in 1550, and by the Elzevirs in their popular edition of 1624. To this text the Elzevirs in their next edition (1633) applied the phrase 'Textum ergo habes nunc ab omnibus receptum'; and by the name of Textus Receptus (TR) or Received Text, it has since been generally known. The edition of Stephanus was based upon the two earliest printed texts of the NT, that of Erasmus (published in 1516), and that of the Complutensian Polyglot (printed in 1514, but not published until 1522); and he also made use of 15MSS, mostly at Paris. Two of these (Codd. D and L, see below, § 7) were of early date, but not much use was made of them; the others were minuscules (see § 5) of relatively late date. The principal editor of the Complutensian Polyglot, Lopez de Stunica, used MSS borrowed from the Vatican; they have not been identified, but appear to have been late, and ordinary in character. Erasmus, working to a publisher's order, with the object of antici-pating the Complutensian, depended principally upon a single 12th cent. MS for the Gospels, upon one of the 13th or 14th tor the Epistles, and upon one of the 12th for the Apocalypse. All of these were at Basle, and were merely those which chanced to be most accessible.

The TR is consequently derived from (at most) some 20 or 25 MSS, dating from the last few centuries before the invention of printing, and not selected on any estimate of merit, but merely as being ready to the editor's hands. 'They may be taken as fairly repre-sentative of the great mass of Gr. Test. MSS of the late Middle Ages, but no more. At the present time we have over 3000 Greek MSS of the NT, or of parts of it, and they range back in age to the 4th cent., or even, in the case of a few small fragments, to the 3rd. The history of Textual Criticism during the past two cen-turies and a half has been the history of the accumula-tion of all this material (and of the further masses of evidence provided by ancient translations), and of its application to the discovery of the true text of the N'T; and it is not surprising that such huge accessions of evidence, going back in age a thousand years or more behind the date of Erasmus' principal witnesses, should have necessitated a considerable number of alterations in the details of the TB. The plan of the present article