Scottish Text Society publications > Old series > New Testament in Scots > Volume 1, 1901

INTRODUCTION.
XXill
word not in the Latin and underscores it to show that
he has done so, Nisbet, ignoring the underscoring, copies
the word as part of the text. He follows Purvey’s acci¬
dental mistakes and omissions. It may be doubted if
Nisbet had a copy of the Vulgate by his side to serve
as a check upon the English version. At least the
deviations from the accepted text of Purvey are so rare
that they may be rather set down to the peculiar read¬
ings of the particular copy of Purvey’s version which
Nisbet had in use. That, unfortunately, cannot be re¬
covered. Yet some of these apparent departures from
Purvey’s readings or renderings deserve notice. Nisbet
correctly substitutes ‘ glorie ’ for ‘ ioye ’ in the strange
reading found in every known copy of Purvey’s version
in Mt. iv. 8 : ‘ All the rewmes of the world and the
ioye of hem.’ On the other hand, in Mt. xii. 20, he
incorrectly substitutes ‘brand,’ found in no existing MS.
of either Purvey or Wycliffe, for ‘flax’; and he inter¬
polates, in Mt. ix. 25, the words, ‘ and said, Rise,
damycele,’ which is found in the margin only of a
single MS., and that of the earlier version. He some¬
times surprises us with a difference of translation, such
as ‘be dronnkin ’ for inebriari, where the existing MSS.
of the English versions read apparently without variation
‘ be fillid (or fulfillid) ouer mesure ’ (Luke xii. 45) ; or again,
‘ I sal refresch you ’ for Purvey’s ‘ Y schal fulfille }ou ’
(Mt. xi. 28); but here Wycliffe had ‘ I shal refreshe, or
fulfille jou.’ It indeed frequently happens that a de¬
parture of this sort from Purvey is in the direction of
Wycliffe, so as to suggest that Nisbet’s copy of Purvey
was one that had been in parts mixed with or corrected
by the earlier version.
VOL. I.
c