Page xxxv

mountain smoking.” Here the order of the clauses renders it impossible to supply any single word which would not increase the awkwardness of the sentence: the passage is accordingly left as it stands in the original. Not so the sharper language of the parallel place:

Deut. iv. 12. “Ye heard the voice of the words, but saw no similitude, only a voice.” After “only” insert with 1611 “ye heard.”

2 Kin. xi. 12 (so 2 Chr. xxiii. 11). “And he brought forth the king’s son, and put the crown upon him, and the testimony.” Insert “gave him” before “the testimony.”

Luke i. 64. “And his mouth was opened immediately, and his tongue,” add “loosed.”

1 Cor. xiv. 34. “It is not permitted unto them to speak, but to be under obedience.” After “but” insert “they are commanded.” So “and commanding” before “to abstain” in the exactly parallel passage, 1 Tim. iv. 3.

The following examples, taken from the Apocrypha, have been neglected by all editors up to the present date:

2 Esdr. ix. 24. “Taste no flesh, drink no wine, but eat flowers only.”

xii. 17. “As for the voice which thou heardest speak, and that thou sawest not to go out from the heads.” This rendering, taken from the Coverdale and Bishops’ Bibles, is possibly incorrect.

Ecclus. li. 3. “According to the multitude of thy mercies and greatness of thy name.”

(4) Akin to the preceding is the practice of inserting in the Authorized Version a word or two, in order to indicate that abrupt transition from the oblique to the direct form of speech, which is so familiar to most ancient languages, but so foreign to our own:

Gen. iv. 25. “And she bare a son, and called his name Seth: for God, said she, hath appointed me another seed instead of Abel.”

Ex. xviii. 4. “And the name of the other was Eliezer; for the God of my father, said he, was mine help.”

Our marginal references on the latter text supply several other instances of this construction. The inconvenience of a sudden change of person, unbroken by any such words supplied, may appear from Gen. xxxii. 30, “And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel: for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved.” Just as abrupt is the construction in Gen. xli. 52 (compare ver. 51); Tobit viii. 21. In 2 Macc. vi. 24 “said he” continued in Roman type till 1638.

(5) Another use of italics is to indicate that a word or clause is of doubtful authority as a matter of textual criticism. Of this in the Authorized Version we can produce only one unequivocal instance in the Canonical books, 1 John ii. 23 (see Appendix E, p. cii.); for it is not quite certain that the change of type in Judg. xvi. 2; xx. 9, employed to point out words borrowed from the Septuagint, intimates any suspicion of a lacuna in the text. In subsequent editions occur the following instances, most of them being due to the Cambridge edition of 1638, those that are not so having another date affixed to them:

Deut. xxvii. 26 (“all”). Josh. xxii. 34 (“Ed”). 1 Sam. ii. 16 (“Nay” 1629 Camb.)1. 2 Kin. xix. 31 (“of hosts”)2; xx. 13 (the second “all” appears in most Hebrew Bibles, and we have restored the Roman character). 2 Chr. v. 1 (“all”); xvii. 4 (“LORD”). Job x. 20 (“cease then, and,” 1611 inconsistently: we should read with 1638, “cease then, and,” or leave all in Roman as 1629 Camb., since both particles are found in Keri). Ps. xli. 2 (“And he shall be,” Chetiv, not Keri); lxix. 32 (“and be glad”). Prov. xx. 4 (therefore: but ו of Keri is in Symmachus and the Vulgate, so that we restore the type of 1611). Jer. xiii. 16 (“and make,” yet ו of Keri is in the Septuagint and Vulgate). Lam. v. 7 (“and are not;” “And have.” These two conjunctions are both wanting in Chetiv, present in Keri, yet 1769 italicises the first, not the second). Mark ix. 42 (see Appendix E, p. c.). John viii. 6 (1769: see Appendix E, p. c.). 1 John iii. 16 (see Appendix E, p. c.).

Thus in the Apocrypha 1629 italicises on me in Tobit xi. 15, με being wanting in the Complutensian, but we have decided to return to the Roman type. For similar cases examine Ecclus. iii. 22 (1629 and 1769); 1 Macc. iii. 18 (1638); x. 78 (1638); xi. 15 (1638, partim rectè); xiv. 4 (1638).

To these passages, which in the present volume have been italicised or the contrary, according to the circumstances in each case, we have added 2 Chr. xv. 8 “of Oded3,” to point out the doubt hanging over the reading or construction in that