Section VI.

On the references to parallel texts of Scripture which are set in the margin.

A large proportion of the time and labour bestowed on the present volume has been spent upon the references to parallel texts which are set in the margin. The Authorized Version only followed the example of earlier English translations in providing these materials for the exact study of Holy Scripture by means of comparing one portion of it with others. In fact, more than half the references contained in the edition of 1611 are derived from manuscript and printed copies of the Vulgate Latin Bible, and thus present to us the fruits of the researches of mediæval scholars and the traditional expositions of the Western Church. The references found in the standard of 1611, however, scarcely amount to a seventh part of those printed in modern Bibles, and have been computed not to exceed nine thousand6; the whole of which, inasmuch as they must be regarded as an integral portion of the Translators’ work, have been scrupulously retained in this volume; except only a few where the reference is hopelessly wrong. Such are Chap. xvi. 15 in the margin of 2 Sam. xix. 19: Eccles. v. 12 in that of Job xx. 19: Judg. xiii. 21 in that of Ps. cvi. 2: Judg. vii. 19 in that of Ps. cvi. 6. Sometimes they appear to have mistaken the drift or meaning of the passage; e.g. 1 Chron. ix. set over against Neh. xii. 23, where our existing books of the Chronicles are scarcely meant at all: Prov. xv. 30 as parallel to Eccles. vii. 1: Ps. cxxxii. 6 as parallel to Jer. vii. 14: and 2 Macc. iii. 4 referred to in Ecclus. l. 1, although quite a different person is meant: the last two have disappeared from modern Bibles. Occasionally, indeed, the original reference has been preserved by us, where it would hardly have been accepted on its own merits: such is the case of Ex. xxxiv. 6 in the margin of Neh. ix. 32: Deut. vii. 1, (2) in that of Ps. cxlix. 9: Ps. l. 9 in that of Prov. xxi. 27: Isai. liii. 3 in that of Wisd. ii. 15: 2 Cor. iii. 17 in that of John iv. 24: Matt. xxviii. 19 in that of John xv. 16: Mark ix. 12 (from the Vulgate) in Isai. liii. 3: Rom. vii. 9 in 1 Thess. iii. 87. The doubtful appropriateness of these references is occasionally indicated by annexing to them the note of interrogation (?). As we cannot praise very highly the typographical correctness of the Bibles of 1611 in other particulars (see p. xii.), so it must be stated that no other portion of the work is so carelessly printed as these parallel texts, each issue having a few errors peculiar to itself1, but few leaves indeed being exempt from some gross fault common to them both. The references to the Psalms direct us constantly to the wrong verse; namely, that of the Latin Vulgate from which they were first derived, not to that of the English Bible on whose pages they stand. The marks of reference from the text to the margin are so often misplaced, that it would be endless to enumerate glaring errors in regard to them which have long since been removed.

One of the main services rendered by the revisers of the Cambridge folios of 1629 and 1638 was the setting right these vexatious inaccuracies of the earlier books, which toilsome duty they performed very thoroughly, leaving to their successors the more congenial employment of adding largely to the original texts, a liberty which seems to have been taken by almost every one who prepared a special edition. Whensoever a reference had once found its way into the margin, there it was allowed to remain, unchallenged and even unexamined, however frivolous or mistaken it might be. Moreover, in recent Bibles that do not contain the Apocryphal books, all references drawn from them by our Translators have been summarily rejected, through the same unwarrantable licence which led later editors to expunge altogether the marginal note in 1 Chr. vii. 28 (see Appendix A, pp. lxxxii. note 1, lxxxiii. note 2), and to mutilate that on Acts xiii. 18 by striking out the reference to 2 Macc. vii. 27. All such Apocryphal texts, together with a few others dropped through apparent inadvertence, have in the present volume been restored to their rightful places. The parallel references in the Apocrypha itself have been largely increased, as well for other purposes, as with a view to illustrate the style of the Greek New Testament.

The textual references which have been gradually accumulating in the margins of our modern Bibles have here been received or expunged solely on their own merits: they have no such general reception to plead in their favour as those in the standard of 1611. Many of them are excellent, and help much for the right understanding of Scripture: these, after having been verified more than once, as well in the original tongues as in the Authorized Version, have of course been retained. Of the rest, a larger portion than might have been anticipated have been judged irrelevant, questionable, or even untrue. No editions are more open to criticism in this particular than those of Dr Paris (1762) and of Dr Blayney (1769), who between them added at least half as many references as they found already existing. The worst errors, because unlearned readers cannot discover or so much as suspect them, relate to parallelisms which are true in the English, false in the Hebrew or Greek. Such are Judg. ix. 27 cited at Judg. xvi. 25 (1769): 1 Chr. v. 26 cited at 1 Kin. xi. 14 (1769): 1 Sam. xii. 21 (1762) and Isai. xli. 29 (1769) cited at 1 Kin. xvi. 13: 1 Sam. ix. 9 cited at 1 Chr. xxi. 9 (1762): Ruth i. 21 cited at Job x. 17 (1769): Hos. xi. 12 cited at Ps. cxxxii. 16 (1762): Ex. xxviii. 36; xxix. 6; Lev. viii. 9 cited at Zech. vi. 11 (1769): John xix. 40 cited at Acts v. 6 and vice versâ (1762). Even in the Bible of 1611 we have Gen. iv. 4 made to illustrate Num. xvi. 15, although the resemblance is far less exact than the English might make it appear. References objectionable on more general grounds, some few being scarcely intelligible, are Num. ii. 3, 10, 18, 25 to illustrate Ezek. i. 10 (1762): the marvellous comment implied by citing John i. 14; Col. ii. 9 in Rev. xiii. 6, and 2 Kin. xx. 7 in Rev. xiii. 14 (both due to 1762): the allusions to the Great day of Atonement in Jer. xxxvi. 6 (1762 and 1769), whereas some special fast is obviously meant (ver. 9): the hopeless confusion arising from connecting Acts xx. 1, 3 with 1 Tim. i. 3 (1762): the tasteless quotation of 1 Sam. xxiv. 3 in Jonah i. 5 (1762). Hardly less false are John x. 23 cited at 1 Kin. vii. 12 (1762) and Acts iii. 11 (1762): 1 Chr. xxiv. 10 and Luke i. 5 made parallel to Neh. xii. 4, 17 (1762): Josh. xiv. 10 to Matt. iii. 1 (1762): while Ex. xxiii. 2 employed to explain Job xxxi. 34 (1769); Esther vii. 8 compared with Prov. x. 6 (1769); 1 Kin. v. 17, 18 with Prov. xxiv. 27 (1769); Ps. lxviii. 4 with Isai. xl. 3 (1762); Dan. iv. 27 with Ecclus. xxxv. 3 (1762), will be regarded as but slender helps to the student of Scripture. In 2 Macc. ii. 8 the allusion surely is to Ex. xl. 38, not (as in 1762) to Ex. xxxiv. 5. Finally, the note of interrogation is annexed in these pages to some overbold, though not impossible, suggestions of the more recent editors, as when in Ps. cxxxiii. 3 the reference to Deut. iv. 48 (1762) would identify צִיּוֹן with שִׂיאֹן.

We can only conjecture that the “Scotch edition” of which Dr Blayney speaks so vaguely in his Report to the Delegates (see Appendix D, p. xcix.) was that of Brown of Haddington, then just published. The parallel texts of Canne (1664, 1682), though often surprisingly wide of the mark, are said by those who have patiently used them to be at times very suggestive, and to contain more truth than might appear on the surface1. The editor of Bagster’s Miniature Quarto Bible 1846, while “admitting without examination the references of Blayney, Scott [1822], Clarke [1810, &c.] and the English Version of Bagster’s Polyglot, from their acknowledged accuracy,” held himself obliged “to verify all that were found in Canne, Brown, and Wilson [i.e. Crutwell, 1785, p. xcix., note 2]; the aggregate number, it is believed, being nearly half a million” (Preface, p. i.). It is plain that so numerous a host can prove little else than an encumbrance to the private Christian, by positively discouraging him from resorting to the margin at all, and even earnest students will often be sensible of the danger incurred by such burdensome and minute commentaries, lest, “after all, the design and scope of the whole may not be understood, while the reader’s mind stays so long in the several parts” (Bp. Patrick, Dedication to Paraphrase of Job). Bagster’s publications have been so perpetually consulted in cases of difficulty for the purposes of the present volume, that the editor may fairly express his regret that what is intrinsically valuable in them should be buried under a heap of irrelevant matter. Less full, but on the whole more profitable for study, is the collection of texts in the Religious Tract Society’s “Annotated Paragraph Bible” of 1861, but here too, as in Bagster’s books, nearly all the old matter is adopted without any attempt at revision, or apparent consciousness of the need of it. That the additions made in the present work to the store of already existing references will by many be deemed too copious, their compiler is painfully aware. He can only plead in self-defence that he has aimed at brevity throughout; that no single text has been accepted as parallel which did not seem to him really illustrative either of the sense or language of Scripture; and that all the materials, whether new or old, have been digested into such a shape as, it is hoped, will prove convenient for practical use; while the form in which they are given will afford some indication as to their respective characters and relative values. With this last end in view, the reader’s attention is directed to the following simple rules, on which the collection of textual references in the margin of this volume has been constructed and arranged.

(1) When the parallel between the passage in the text and that in the margin, whether it be verbal or relate to the general sense, is as exact as the subject allows, the marginal text stands with no prefix: e.g. 2 Cor. iv. 6 cited in the margin of Gen. i. 3.

(2) If “So” stand before the marginal text, it indicates that the parallel, although real, is less complete, or that the language is more or less varied in the two places: e.g. 2 Chr. xiii. 9 “sno gods” being exactly like Jer. v. 7, but less closely akin to Deut. xxxii. 21, the marginal note is thus expressed “sJer. 5. 7. So Deut. 32. 21.” Again, Job. xi. 10 “lshut up,” being precisely identical with Lev. xiii. 4, while in Job xii. 14 the Hebrew verb is of a different conjugation, the margin runs “lLev. 13. 4, &c. So ch. 12. 141.”

(3) If instead of “So,” the word “Compare” or “Comp.” be prefixed, it is intimated that the resemblance is slighter and less direct, or even that there is a seeming inconsistency between the two places: e.g. 2 Kin. ii. 11 in the margin of Gen. v. 24, where the events recorded are not in all respects analogous. So also “fComp. 2 Kin. 8. 26. and ch. 21. 20” annexed to 2 Chr. xxii. 2, to draw attention to the numerical difficulty. Such phrases as “Supplied from” in the margin of 2 Sam. xxi. 19; “Expressed in” Ex. xxiii. 2; “Expressed” Judg. vii. 18, will be understood at once by consulting the passages alleged.

(4) Much space has been economised and the constant repetition of a body of texts, all bearing on the same point, avoided, by setting them down once for all in full, and elsewhere referring the reader to that place by means of the word “See.” Thus “See 1 Chr. 29. 14” in the margin of 2 Chr. ii. 6, directs the reader to a place where all extant examples of a certain idiom had already been brought together. In Num. ix. 15, “See Ex. 13. 21” shews that the latter place contains a collection of the texts relating to the pillars of cloud and fire. This method has been much employed in regard to Proper names both of places and persons. It should also be stated that where passages of the New Testament are noticed as “Cited from” the Old, it has been judged needless to repeat the textual references previously set down in the corresponding places from which the citation is made: e.g. Matt. xxii. 37, 39, 44.

(5) When the parallelism extends to a whole paragraph, or indeed to any portion of the sacred text exceeding a single verse, the fact is carefully indicated by a peculiar notation. Thus in the margin of Ex. xxi. 1, “To ver. 17, Deut. 5. 6–21” (the name of the book being printed in italic type) intimates that Ex. xx. 1–17 is in substance identical with Deut. v. 6–21. Such instances occur very frequently, especially in the books of Samuel and Kings compared with Chronicles, and in the first three or Synoptic Gospels. Here again it has not been thought advisable to repeat in a later passage the textual references already given in an earlier passage in great measure resembling it. Such as are found in the second passage either belong to it alone, or are intended to direct attention to its divergencies from the first one: e.g. “Compare 2 Sam. 10. 18” in the margin of 1 Chr. xix. 18.

(6) The parallel is frequently a real one in the original tongues, although it appears faintly or not at all in the Authorized Version. In this case (Heb.), (Chald.), or (Gk.), as the case may be, is annexed to the citation, to give notice of the fact: e.g. Lev. xi. 17. Where several texts are cited, and this is true of two or more of them, the expresion is varied to “in the Heb.”, “in the Gk.“: e.g. Deut. xxxiii. 27, where the notation happens to relate to all the three places in the Psalms. Whensoever, in the margin of the New Testament, (Gk.) is set after a quotation from the Old, it is intimated that the Septuagint version agrees with the New Testament: e.g. Matt. xxvi. 12. In a few instances, and for special reasons, the word (Septuagint) has been printed at length.

(7) If, on the contrary, the resemblance between two or more passages belong only to the English, and have no respect to the original, (Eng.) or (English) is added to the quotation. Such notices are designed to gather in one view words nearly obsolete, or otherwise to throw light upon the phraseology of the Authorized Version: e.g. Gen. xlv. 6; 1 Sam. ix. 5; 1 Kin. xx. 11; 2 Chr. xxvi. 14; Dan. vi. 3; 2 Esdr. xvi. 49; Tobit iv. 14; vi. 12; Matt. x. 10; xiii. 20; xiv. 8; xvii. 12, 25; xx. 11; xxiv. 48; xxvi. 67; xxvii. 39; Mark x. 44; Luke i. 54; vi. 32; vii. 4; viii. 23; xiv. 32; 1 Tim. ii. 9. Compare Judg. xii. 14.

(8) Lastly, as a note of interrogation (?) has been used to bring into question the references both of the standard of 1611 (p. lv.), and of preceding editors (p. lvii.), so it has been occasionally employed for the same purpose with certain that appear in the present volume either alone, or with little countenance elsewhere: e.g. “1 Chr. 27. 21” cited for “Iddo” in 1 Kin. iv. 14. Names of places and persons are frequently so marked, if the orthography be somewhat varied: e.g. “Ramah,” Josh. xviii. 24. In Judg. xviii. 30, by illustrating “Gershom” from “Ex. 2. 22? & 18. 3?” attention is directed to the proposed substitution of “Moses” instead of “Manasseh,” a reading both probable in itself, and supported by weighty and varied authorities. In the same spirit, an attempt has frequently been made to convey some notion of the relative value of the marginal renderings (see Section II.) as compared with those in the text, by means of passages cited by us to illustrate one or both of them: e.g. Esther vi. 1; Ps. vi. 6.

Advantage has also been taken of the present opportunity to insert in the margin a great number of passages tending to illustrate the internal connection and relative dates of the several books of the Old Testament, which have been the most subjected in modern times to criticism more or less sober and profound. Such references as are made to the Pentateuch in Judg. xix. 7, 8; 2 Sam. xiv. 7, are so many additional proofs that the diction of the oldest books of the Bible clave to the memory, and was wrought into the literary style even of the earliest surviving writers after the conquest of Canaan. Nothing short of actual collation of parallel texts, undertaken by the student for himself, can cause him to realize the extent to which the peculiar language of the book of Job has influenced those which followed it, or can do justice to its claim to the most venerable antiquity. Thus too the resemblances between Zech. i.–viii. and ix.–xiv. have been diligently recorded: while in regard to the prophecies of Isaiah it may be confidently affirmed that no unprejudiced scholar, who shall but faithfully examine the numberless coincidences both in thought and expression between the first thirty-nine and last twenty-seven chapters of his book (coincidences which are all the more instructive by reason of their often being so minute and sometimes lying below the surface), will ever again admit into his mind the faintest doubt, whether the two several portions of that inspired volume are the production of one author or of more.

The compilation of this virtually new body of textual references has been greatly aided by Wetstein’s only too copious collections from the Septuagint in the notes to his Greek Testament (1751–2), and yet more by two laborious volumes, to which the editor has been more largely indebted than he knows how to express;—Canon Wilson’s accurate and exhaustive English, Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon and Concordance (Second edition 1866), especially valuable for the attention paid therein to the marginal notes; and Wigram’s Hebraist’s Vade Mecum (1867), which, answering as it does many of the purposes of that great desideratum of sacred literature, a real Hebrew Concordance, has been his hourly companion ever since it was published. He has also enjoyed the benefit of using for the Poetical and Prophetic books, that glory of the Clarendon Press, the Origenis Hexaplorum quœ supersunt (1867–1871) of Mr Field; whose Latin version of the Hebrew passages cited throughout the work, by reason of its elegance and precision no less than from an almost instinctive perception of the true sense of the original in cases of difficulty, leaves us nothing to regret save its fragmentary character, and begets in the student an earnest longing for a continuous translation, at least of these harder portions of the Old Testament, from the same able and accomplished hand.