The last six verses were wanting, and these Erasmus supplied by translating them into Greek from the Latin of the Vulgate. The work too was hastily done. The proposal to undertake it was made to Erasmus April 17th, 1515, so that less than ten months were given to the preparation of the volume, and this, too, at a time when Erasmus was busied with other engagements; an unseemly haste that we may probably ascribe to the publishers’ eager desire to get the start of the Complutensian. Revised editions were published in 1519 and 1522, in the preparation of which the aid of a few additional manuscripts was obtained. These, again, were further revised by the aid of the Complutensian, which then became available, in an edition which Erasmus published in 1527. The next stage in the history of the printed text of the Greek New Testament is marked by the publication at Paris, in 1550, of the handsome folio of the celebrated and learned printer, Robert Stephen.[88] He tells us in his preface that in the preparation of this edition he made use of the Complutensian and of fifteen manuscripts. Two of these were ancient, one that is now known as Beza’s Codex, which had been collated for him by a friend in Italy, and another, a manuscript in the National Library of Paris, written in the eighth or ninth century, and containing the four Gospels;[89] the rest were modern, and all were but imperfectly collated.[90] After the death of Robert Stephen (1559)[91] the work of revision was carried on by Theodore Beza, who, like the former, had embraced the Protestant cause, and like him also had found a home in Geneva. His first edition was published in this city in 1565, a second in 1582, a third in 1589, and a fourth in 1598. In the preparation of these he had in his possession the collations made for Robert Stephen, and, in addition, the ancient manuscript of the Gospels and Acts which now bears his name; and for the Pauline Epistles, the equally ancient Claromontane. Beza’s strength, however, lay rather in the interpretation, than in the criticism, of the text, and he made but a slight use of the materials within his reach. It will thus be seen how small, comparatively, was the manuscript authority for the text used by King James’s translators. In the main they follow the text of Beza; sometimes, however, they give the preference to Stephen’s; in some few places they differ from both. By what principles they were guided in their choice we do not know. They do not appear to have set on foot any independent examination of authorities, and when they forsake their two guides they commonly follow in the wake of some of the earlier English versions.