I
/ er^ti.
^^ .^. , /^^
1
/
JOHN /. /8.
€KJ<A ICJ
NQYAercecu
p \ Ken wnO^rt-^
OMON OrCNHCYC
llONTa^fnfl:fKifl
NOCe>HrHCAT()^
J
mnLtC 'Belfast.
PRINCIPLES
OP
TEXTUAL CRITICISM,
WITH THEIR APPLICATION
TO THE
OLD AND NEW TESTAMENTS.
ILLUSTRATED WITH PLATES AND FAC-91MILES
OF BIBLICAL DOCUMENTS.
BY J. SCOTT PORTER,
PROFESSOB OF SACRED CRITICISM AND THEOLOGY TO THE ASSOCIATION OF
NON-SUnSCniBING PRESBYTERIANS IN IRELAND.
LONDON:
SIMMS AND M'INTYRE,
ALDINE CHAMBERS, PATERNOSTER ROW;
AND DONEGALL STREET, BELFAST.
1848.
BELFAST: PRINTEP BY SIMMS AND M INTYRE.
PREFACE
The object of the present work is to fiirnisli to the student of sacred
literature a hand-book of Textual Criticism, in a moderate compass and
at a moderate price, wherein the most important principles by which a
critic must be guided shall be briefly investigated — the main facts relating
to the Text both of the Old Testament and the New shall be accurately
stated — the mode of applying these fiicts and principles for the correction
or verification of the text, illustrated by a few interesting examples — and
reference given to the chief writers who have treated on the science, and
in whose works more complete information may bo procured.
Humble and unpretending as this volume is, a work upon a similar
plan would have been of essential service to me when I began to turn
my attention to the subject of which it treats. It woidd have removed
many a perplexing obstacle, saved much time and labour, and prevented
many disappointments. I am not without hopes that others, who may
have experienced similar difficulties in the outset of their critical studies,
may derive benefit from my humble industry: that many persons who
may wish for a concise view of what has been ascertained by the labours
of scholars and critics upon the biblical text, may find their desires
gratified by the perusal of the present volime: and that some may bo
induced, by the facilities which it will afford for the systematic study of
the science, to apply themselves to the earnest investigation of those
sacred records, which so many most laudable efforts are daily made to
disseminate, both in oiu' own country and in foreign lands, but which,
there is much reason to fear, are fiir too seldom made the subject of dili-
gent, thoughtful examination, such as their acknowledged importance to
the human race and to individuals would justify us in expecting.
IV PREFACE,
It will be perceived that the present volume is a mere initiatory com-
pend of the most important facts and principles in the science of Textual
Criticism. It is intended for the use of beginners only, and to theii"
wants it has been adapted. Hence it is of a simple and elementary
character. It is not designed for the use of those who are already
learned in the science of which it treats; nor is it adapted to their
requirements. Had I written for scholars and theologians only, many
principles would have been assumed, which in this work 1 have thought
it necessary to investigate, and many facts would have beeii appealed to
as ascertained truths, which I have here found it needful to establish by
proof. Usefulness to the class of readers for whom the book is intended
I have kept continually before me — to this I have sacrificed all higher
aims and pretensions — and by this principle I have been guided, alike in
the admission of certain statements which to some readers may appear
too obvious and too well known to require reiteration, and in the
exclusion of others, which, though of great importance, are not adapted
for the commencing stages of critical study.
But this consideration has not led me to give way to negligence respect-
ing the accuracy of the information which the volume is intended to afford :
on the contrary, it has been to me a cause of continual anxiety and watch-
fulness to prevent the admission of any eiTors respecting matters of fact,
by which the reader might be misled. Such minute care and vigilance
would be less needftd in a work designed for the eyes of the learned,
whose previous knowledge would enable them without difficulty to detect
the writer's mistakes, and would prevent them from producing any inju-
rious effect upon their minds ; but in a book intended as a manual or
introduction to the science, incorrectness in any important particular
might be of pernicious consequence, because, from the nature of the work,
it may, and probably will, fall into the hands of many persons who may
have access to no other sources, and who might, therefore, by such inac-
curacies, be permanently led astray.
I have not thought it needful to load my margin with copious references
to the writings of other authors who have discussed the subjects on which
I have found it necessary to touch. A numerous ai'ray of such references
to preceding authorities is by some looked upon as necessary to establish
the author's own diligence and learning. To me, however, and I believe
to many others in these kingdoms, it wears the air of an ostentatious
parade of extensive reading, which I could not, under any circumstances,
bring myself to make ; still less would it be becoming, when I feel that
I have no just pretensions to the character for extensive learning, which
PREFACE, V
I should thereby appear to assert. In order to make such references of
any real utility, they ought to be minute in specifying, in eveiy case, the
work, the volume, and the page, referred to ; and this would occasion
more trouble than T am willing to undertake, or than the object to be
gained appears to be worth; for I believe that an ample list of such
notes — appealing to a great number of various, and often heterogeneous,
authors — so far from being usefiil to the incipient critic, may tend to per-
plex and confuse his ideas, and may tempt him to a bewildering and
unprofitable course of inquiry. Moreover, if such i-cferences be exhibited
in any considerable number and variety, common justice requires that
each statement be assigned to the writer who first had the merit of dis-
covering the fact or principle in question; and this would in many cases
be matter of great difficulty; for f am sufficiently familiar with the
writings of several eminent critics to perceive that they have not scrupled
to boiTOw from each other — either without acknowledgment, or with
only a general one — such statements as they believed to be true, and
found suitable to their purpose. In many cases the original author could
not be discovered without an expenditure of time and labour which could
be much better, because more usefully, employed. I have therefore been
sparing in citations. In many cases I have dispensed with such references
altogether; in a few instances I have admitted them, but have always
made it a rule to introduce as few as possible, and these chiefly to works
which are accessible to persons acquainted with the English and Latin
languages merely. Those who have paid minute attention to the science
of Textual Criticism will, however, perceive that in all instances I have
availed myself of the latest and best investigations which have appeared :
that I have not servilely copied the airangement, nor adopted the senti-
ments of any preceding writer, but have endeavoured to exercise an
independent judgment on each case : that, although I can neither delude
myself nor my readers with the hope that I have been successful, at all
times, in my endeavours to avoid mistakes, I have yet taken much pains,
exercised many precautions, and employed all the helps within my reach,
to ensure accuracy as far as was possible: and, especially, that I have
been careful to distinguish fact from conjecture — established truth from
matter of opinion merely.
It is right that I should warn my readers that, with the languages
in which several among the Versions of Scripture mentioned in the
following pages, are composed, I am totally unacquainted; and am
therefore obliged to adopt the statements of other writers, whom I
believe to be competent and credible authorities. With the Greek
VI PREFACE.
aud Latin languages, I am necessarily, from the mode of life in which
I have been and am engaged, tolerably familiar : — with the Hebrew
and its kindred dialects, the Chaldee and Syriac, I possess a moderate
acqnalntance : — of the Arabic, I know no more than enables me to
translate it with the assistance of the usual books of reference: —
of all the other languages mentioned in this volume I am profoundly
ignorant; and in speaking of Versions composed in them, I can only be
understood as declaring that I have drawn my statements from the
sources which I regard as the purest. It would have been in every
point of view more desirable, had a scholar, well accomplished in these
branches of learning, assumed to himself the task which I have hero
attempted: but having waiccd for years in vain to see such a work as
the present from some abler pen, I have thought it better to offer my
own contribution to the science of theology, than to linger in the expec-
tation of seeing that performed by others which no other appeared
willing to undertake. I have done what I could to advance the
legitimate study and scientific knowledge of the sacred records of the
Christian faith ; and I trust that the unavoidable defects of the execution
will be pardoned in consideration of the motive by which I have been
influenced. One thing is to my mind quite certain, that all sound
Scriptural knowledge — all that I'eally deserves the name — must flow
from a critical acquaintance with the sacred text; and that with the
neglect of this science must come a con-esponding decline of religious
truth, in every department. To promote this vitally important branch
of science — to facilitate its acquirement, and to extend its study as
^videly as possible throughout all classes of society — is the object
which I have in view ; and whatever be the reception which my endea-
vours may experience, I shall never regret labom* devoted to such a
cause.
In looking over these sheets while passing through the press, it has
occurred to me that some readers may be ofiended by the complaining
and unsatisfied tone in which the remarks on the present state of some
particular branches of critical science are expressed. I can assure such
readers that it is not less painful to me to utter, than for them to peruse
the observations referred to ; but it is needful to state the truth on all
points as they arise ; and the pleasure of congratulating the world on the
completion of the task which sacred criticism has to perform, must be
reserved for the writers of a coming generation. At present it is the
duty of one who would deal faithfully by his subject to point out how
much yot remains' to be done. Still a great deal has been already
PREFACE. Vii
achieved iu various departments of the science. Many important truths
and principles have been discovered; many weighty obstacles have been
removed; the way to farther progress has been laid open. The value of
these labours, and the merit of those wlio have achieved them, I have
commended with no niggard praise ; and, Avhatevcr may be the tendency
of particular parts, I feel confident that the impression left by a perusal
of my volume, as a whole, will not be one of despondency or discon-
tent, but of cheerful hope.
In the preparation of the Plates and Illustrations, I have taken very
great pains, and have been well seconded by the careful and ingenious
artists in the employment of Messrs. Ward & Co. Belfast, by whom I
have been assisted. They give as faithful a representation of the MSS.
from which they are taken, as our joint efforts have enabled us to
produce; and I hope that, in point of correctness, they will not be found
deficient. Any person who has attempted such imitations of ancient
documents, will know how extremely difficult it is to give an exact idea
of the beautiful execution of the originals. I believe the copies given in
this book to be more exact, iu several instances, than any others which
I have seen taken from the same exemplars ; but I am not fully satisfied
with them all myself, and only offer them as approximations. It is due
to Sir Frederick Madden, and the other officers in the Manuscript
Department of the Library of the British Museum, to acknowledge the
veiy gi'eat com'tesy which I have uniformly received while prosecuting
my researches in that collection, and the facilities afforded me for pro-
cnring accurate representations of some of its most important and
interesting documents. In repeated visits to that excellent Institution, I
have availed myself to the utmost of these facilities, — I trust not without
advantage to the readers of my work.
I must add that the typogi'aphical execution is, in my opinion, highly
creditable to Messrs. Simms & M'Intyre, the prmters and publishers of
the work. They have spared neither trouble nor expense to bring it out
in a correct and useful style ; and in looking it over before publication, I
have not been able to discover a single erratum that can throw a difficulty
in the way of the reader. A few oversights, for which I alone am
answerable, are noted in the following page.
Belfast, August 1, 1848.
CORUIGEN D A.
Page 109,
line 30,
for
modern
„ 120,
„ 17,
,,
Targum
„ 153,
« 37,
„
these
„ 164,
1) ' )
„
Gen. i. 25
read ancient.
„ Talmud.
„ thee.
Gen. 1. 25.
„ 180, Cancel the note marked *, and substitute the following: —
* The Masoretic Amiotation is thus given by Jahii and various other
editors ; but in BuxtorfF's edition, the very contrary direction is given :
viz. "^ space to he left vacant in the middle of this verse,'''' wliich greatly
strengthens the reasoning above indicated.
Page 189, line 32, for from read four,
Deut. V. 18 „ Deut. V, 21.
Josh. xxii. 36 „ Josh. xxi. 36.
five „ fifty.
we can „ Hug tliinlis we can,
OC „ 0.
k tros unum ,, & '" tres unum.
„ 191,
,. 20,
„ 194,
» 1,
„ 200,
1, 15,
„ 243,
„ 21,
„ 484,
„ 21,
„ 502,
„ 25,
CONTENTS,
Introductiox, ox TiiK Okdkk 01- Scientific Scriptural Study i
BOOK I.
GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF TEXTUAL CRITICISM.
CHAPTER I.
OBJECT ASD NECESSITY OF THE SCIENCE.
Definition of the Science. Example showing its utility. Various Readings
exist in the Scriptures. Their existence acknowledged from an early period.
Not dangerous to Christianity. Unavoidable. Criticism endeavours to
ascertain the Genuine Text 9
CHAPTER II.
AIDS FOR ASCEBTAININO THE TEXT — EXTERNAL EVIDENCE.
Text of Scripture to be ascertained in the same manner as that of any other
ancient book. MSS., Versions, and Citations must be consulted. The
importance of the books will only be a motive for more patient and searching
inquiry
14
CHAPTER III.
VALUE AND >\'EIGHT OF EXTERNAL EVIDENCE.
The Weight of Testimonies depends on various considerations: such as their age,
their independence, and theii- prevailing character. WTiy Antiquity forms
an element in the calculation of the value of a document. What docu-
ments are really Independent ; and imdcr what circumstances Testimony is
valuable '^
X CONTENTS.
CHAPTER IV.
CAUSES AND CLASSES OF VARIOUS READINGS.
PlOB
Errors are of various kinds, and may be classified according to the causes which
produce them — I. Pure Inadvertence; which may occasion Additions,
Omissions, and Substitutions II. Misconception of the Text as given in
the Exemplar, may lead a transcriber to mistalte the proper division of words,
the meaning of an abbreviation, the intention of a marginal note, or the use
of a word written as a guide to the public reader. Defects in the Exemplar
might lead to errors of the same kind. — III. Wilful Departure from the
Exemplar for the purpose of correcting its supposed mistakes. — IV. Desire
to favour the sect to which the Copyist belonged. In this case the tran-
scriber's motives might possibly be pure and good. Example from John
Crellius, and from the Orthodox Copyists, as expressly recorded by
Epiphanius 23
CHAPTER V.
RULES OF INTEKNAL E^^DENCE.
The Principles stated in the preceding Chapter form our safe guide. A reading
is probably spurious which can be accounted for by the operation of known
causes of error ; and one which cannot be so explained genuine. Readings
of similar form — of similar sound. 'OfioioTeXevTo;/. Marginal scholium.
Lectio Durior. Pious Readings. Dogmatic Readings. Examples from
the Old and New Testaments. Lectio Brevior. Usage of the Writer.
The Reading which explains the origin of all others probably genuine 32
BOOK II.
TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF THE OLD TESTAMENT.
CHAPTER I.
HISTORY OP THE TEXT OF THE OLD TESTAMENT.
Materials for such a History scanty. The Sacred Writers were not in all cases
their own Amanuenses. Ancient Hebrew character, different from that in
use at present. Testimony of Julius Africanus, Jerome, Origen, and the
Talmudists. No important alterations in the Text. Fable respecting Ezra.
The Septuagint translation, n.c. 285. This version is referred to in the
Apocrypha, the New Testament, Philo, and Josephus. Greek Versions
CONTENTS. XI
Fiua
made in the second and third centuries of our aera. Origen, Jerome, Tlie
Talmud, Jerusalem, and Babylonish. Mikra Sopherim. Ittur Sopherim.
Krijin vclo Kthibin. Kthibin vclo Krijin. The Ma.sorets, and their labours.
Their endeavours to secure purity of the text incflectual. Eastern and
Western Readings. Recensions of Aaron Ben Asher and Jacob Ben Naph-
tali. Standard MSS. Codex of Hillel, of Sinai, of Sanbouki, of Jericho.
Printed Editions of Soncino, of Brescia, of Alcala; the two editions of
Bomberg at Venice. Disputes among Christians as to the state of the
Hebrew Text. Capellus. Blorinus. Walton's Polyglott. Father Simon,
Vanderhooght, Kcnnicott, De Rossi. Editions of Doederlein, Jahn, Booth-
royd, &c 43
CHAPTER II.
MANUSCRIPTS OF THE OLD TESTAMENT.
Sect. I Samaritan MSS. Oiigin of the Samaritans. Early Notices of their
Pentateuch. Copies of it procured by Morinus and Usher. Printed
in the Paris and London Polyglotts. Dr. Blayney's edition.
Value of the Samaritan Text : Inferior to the Masoretic, but pre-
serves some good readings. Its faults arise from a desire to
favour the Samaritan people and church, against the Jewish — to
exhibit copious readings — and to adhere to grammatical analogy 68
Sect. II. — Jewish MSS. Synagogue Rolls. Rules for the Scribes who copy
tliem. Tarn Character and Velshi Character. Sepher Torali at
Toledo, called Codex Azarte. MSS. of the Haphtaroth. Roll
Copies of the Book of Esther. MSS. intended for private study.
Pointed and unpointed; with or without the Masorah, Targum,
Comment, &c. Some copies appear to have been written by
Christians, probably converted Jews. MSS. of the Jews in the
East, Malabar Roll, the MSS. of the Jews in China, all are
conformable to the Masorah. Number of Hebrew MSS. very con-
siderable : many of them uncollated. Description of the most cele-
brated Hebrew MSS 72
CHAPTER III.
VERSIONS OF THE OLD TESTAMENT.
Sect. I. — The Septuagitit. Origin of this Version. Fabulous Account by the
Pseudo-Aristeas. Philo's Narrative. Josephus follows the pre-
tended Aristoas. Justin Martyr improves upon Philo. Epipha-
nius constructs a history so as to reconcile Aristeas with Philo and
Justin. Absurdity of these tales. Adopted by most of the
Christian Fathers. Jerome treats them with contempt. The
Version was made by the Jews of Alexandria, for their own use.
Proofs of its Eg3rptian origin. It was the work of several hands.
Characteristics of the different parts of the Translation : the Law,
Proverbs, Job, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, Samuel and Kings, Esther,
Chronicles, Psalms and Prophets, Ecclesiastes. The LXX. Version
xii CONTENTS.
PAGE
of the Book of Daniel rejected by the Christians since the time of
Jerome. General Character of the LXX. Version ; made from an
xmpointed copy ; often confoimds words of similar soimd ; and
mistakes the division of words. In some passages agrees with
the Samaritan Pentateuch. Transpositions of the Text in Exodus
and in Jeremiah. Interpolations and Omissions in Job. Di^•i3ion
of the Psalms. Additions to the Book of Esther. This Version
was m use botli among Jews and Christians. Corrupted by the
errors of transcribers. Efforts of Origen to amend these errors.
The Tetrapla; the Hexapla. Specimens of these works. The
works tliemselves now lost. aiSS. derived from the Hexapla.
Hexaplar Syriac Version. Value of the Hexaplar Text ; not so
great as the admirers of Origen have supposed. Recension of
the LXX. by Hesychius, by Lucian, and others. Principal
Modern Editions. Secondary Versions, derived from the LXX : —
(I) The Versio Itala ; (2) Copto-Memphitic : (3) Sahidic;
(4) Hexaplaro-Syi-iac; (5) ^thiopic; (6) Armenian; (7) Scla-
vonic; (8) Arabicof thePolyglott; (9) Gothic; (10) Georgian 83
Sect. II Other Greek Versions. Aquila; Theodotion; Symmachus. The
Fifth, Sixth, and Seventh Versions. The Versio Veneta 11-i
Skct. III. The Chaldee Versions or Targums. Origin of these works, and
probable date. Targum of Onkelos on the Pentateuch. Jona-
than Ben Uzziel on the Prophets. Rabbi Joseph the One-eyed.
Other Targiuns 117
Sect. IV Old Syriac Version or Peshito. Origin and date of this Translation.
Its use established among the Syrian Christians in the time of
Ephraim. This is a direct Version from the Hebrew, which it
faithfully represents. Printed Editions. Critical Aids for ascer-
taining the Text of the Peshito 122
Sect. V. The Samaritan and Samaritayio- Arabic Versions 128
Sect. VI The Latin Vulgate Version. The Old Latin Translation, or
Versio Itala, was taken from the LXX : partook of its defects,
and had others of its own. Damasus, Bishop of Rome, engaged
Jerome to revise this version. Jerome confined his efforts, at
first, to a correction of the Latin from the Greek Hexapla.
Afterwards made a New Version from the Hebrew, which was
finished about a.d. 407. His labours not favourably received
at first ; in time the New Version obtained repute ; it was approved
by Gregory the Great, and generally accepted in the West.
Copies of the Vulgate corrupted by transcribers. Efforts to restore
its Text, by Alcuinus, Lanfranc, Nicholas, and others. Decree of
the Council of Trent. Interpretation of this Law. Edition
of Louvain. Sixtus V. published an edition with a Bull prefixed.
Contents of the Bull. Defects of the edition. Suppressed by
Gregory XIV. Clementine Edition of 1592. Bellarmine's Pre-
face. Does not pretend to be immaculate. Readings of the
Text as indicated by the Vulgate 128
CONTENTS, xm
PAUr.
Sect. VIT. — Arahic Versions, made ilireclli/ from the Ihhrew. (1) The
Arabic Pentateuch in the I'olyglott, Ijv K. Saadiali Ilaggaon ;
and translation ol" Isaiah, by the same. (2) The Version of
Joshua in the Polyglott. (3) Tlie Arabic Pentateuch, pub-
lished by Erpenius. (4) The Version of Genesis, Psalms,
and Daniel, by Saadiah Ren Levi 139
SiXT. VIII The Persic Version of the Pentateuch, in the Polyglott, by Jacob
Ben Joseph Ta'wiis Ml
Sf.ct. IX. — Plan fnr a New Polyglott V).
CHAPTKK IV.
CIT.\TIONS KUOM TIIK OM) TKSTA.MKNT.
SiccT. I Citations in the Old Testament, from the earlier Portions if the
Canon. Laws sometimes twice recorded in the Pentateuch.
Cautions in applying such citations for the amendment of the
Text. Messages. Quotations embodied in subsequent Books.
Psalms, Narratives, Proverbs, &c 143
Sect. II Citations in the New Testament. Sometimes agree exactly with
the LXX. Sometimes agree with it in general, though not
exactly. Sometimes agree with the LXX. when the latter
departs from the Hebrew. Sometimes the citations in the
New Testament differ very widely from the LXX. ; and occa-
sionally these departures seem to be designed. In some instances
the Citations agree neither with the present Hebrew Text nor
with the LXX. Version \')0
Sect. III. — Citations in the Rabbinical Writings. The Mislma, the Gemara,
Jerusalem, and Babylonish Tahnuds. The Book Zohar, Midra-
shim, and Rabboth. The Book Cozri. Maimonides. The
I\Iasorah. The Happernshim 157
CHAPTER V.
CLASSIFICATION OF AUTHOKITIES.
The Jewish MSS. of the Old Testament belong only to one Family or Recension.
The Samaritan MSS- of the Pentateuch constitute a separate division. The
LXX. inclines io the Samaritan Text, though free from its more violent
interpolations. The Samaritan readings are often more copious than the
Jewish, more grammatical, and more free from historical difficulties ICl
CHAPTER YI.
COMrARATIVr; value of TEST1M0SIE.S.
The Masorctic Recension is, on the whole, the best. In some cases, however, it
requires emendation. Citations and jVncient Versions often lend us help in
such emergencies 171
51V CONTENTS.
CHAPTER VII.
CRITICAL EXAMINATION 01' TIIE TEXT IN PAUTICULAR PASSAGES.
PAOE
Section I. — Gen. i. 1 ; ii. 3 175
„ II Gen, ii. 24 178
„ III Gen. iii. 9 179
„ IV — Gen. iv. 8 ib.
„ V Gen. V. 1—32 '. 180
„ VI — Exod. xi. 1— 10 182
„ VII Exod. XX. 2— 17, and Deut. V. 6— 21 185
„ VIII Joshua xxi. 36, 37 194
IX ISam. vi. 19 199
„ X.— 1 Sam. xvii. 12—31 203
„ XI — 1 Sam. xvii. 55— 58 207
„ XII Psalm xvi. 10 208
„ XIII — Psalm XXV. 1—22 211
„ XIV — Psalm cxlv. 14, 21 214
XV.— Sam. ii. 16, 17 216
„ XVI.— Summary 217
BOOK III.
TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.
CHAPTER I.
lIISTOnV OF THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.
The Autographs of the New Testament Writings were lost at a very early period.
Those of the Epistles were probably worn out by constant use — of the
Historical Books there was no copy that could claim peculiar value as an
autograph. Supposed references to the sacred autograjjhs in Clement of
Rome, Ignatius, and Tertullian ; .shown to be inconclusive. Errors of tran-
scription soon crept into the Text. While the Books of the New Testament
circulated in separate documents, Scholia were required; some of which
might he taken in from the margin. Proofs of the mistakes of copyists.
C0NTJSNT8. XV
PJOB
afforded by the Old Latin and Syriac Versions, the citations of
Clement of Alexandria, Origcn, and otlicr early writers. Hug deno-
minates the Text of this period the koiitj ticSoo-ij, and supposes Origen
to have published a Recension or Revised Text The proof of
this fact defective. Lucian and Ilcsychius, in the fourth century,
exerted themselves in tliis task. Testimony of Jerome. Alexandrian
and Constantinopolitan Recensions. Hug thinks there is a third or
Palestinian Recension, which only extends to the Four Gospels.
The Received Text agrees in general with the Constantinopolitan
Recension. Printed Editions of Erasmus. The Complutensian
Polyglott. The Editions of Robert Stephens, Beza, the Elzevirs.
Imperfection of the materials in the hands of the early editors of the
New Testament. Walton's Polyglott. Critical Editions of Fell,
Mill, Bcngel, Wetstein, Matthsei, Alter, Birch, Griesbach, Scholz,
and Lachmann 223
CHAPTER n.
MANUSCRIPTS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.
Sect. I. Tests of the Antiquity of MSS. — General Principle of Reasoning appli-
cable to this Subject. Ilerculaneum Rolls. Imperial Dioscorides,
written for the Princess Juliana Anicia, a.d. 60G. Some MSS. of
tlie New Testament manifestly more ancient than this. General
description of these Documents. Divisions of the Text Kc/jaAcua
ixeC^ova. Ammonian Sections of the Gospels. Euthalian Sections
of the Epistles and Acts. Stichometry. Lectionaries. Gradual
Change in the form of the Greek Alphabet. Punctuation. Cursive
Character. Rules deduced from the preceding Statement 269
Sect. II. — Codex Vaticunus 276
III Codex Alexandriiius 280
IV Codex Ephremi 283
V Dublin Codex Rescriptus 286
VI Borgian Fragment 289
VII. — Cottonian Fragment 290
VIII. — Codex Carpentoractensis ib.
IX. — Codex Basiliano- Vaticanus 291
X. — Codex Cantabrigiensis ib.
XL — Codex Claromontanus 293
XII. — Coislinian Fragment ...., 29-t
XIII — Codex Laudianus III 295
XIV — Codex Ci/prius 296
XV Codex Regius LXII ib.
XVI — Codex Basileensis B. vi. 21 298
XVII — Codex Sangallensis 299
XVIII — Codex Sangermanensis 301
XIX. — Codex Boernerianus ib.
XX — Codex Augiensis 302
XXI — Codex faticanw 354 303
C
xvi CONTENTS.
PAOB
SiscT.XXII Des Camps MS. 303
„ XXIII Holi/ Si/nocTs Codex, Ev ib.
„ XXIV.— r/o/y Si/notTs Codex, Ep 304
„ XXV Cursive MS S. ib.
„ XXVI. — Lcctionaries ". 307
CHAPTER III.
VERSIONS OF THE NEW TKSTAMENT.
Sect. I. The Versio Itala Referred by Augustine to the earliest period of the
Church. Only one Latin Version known to TertuUian. Several
others seem to have made their appearance in the third century.
Confusion thence arising led to Jerome's Vulgate Re-sasion. MSS.
of the Old Version fell into disuse when Jerome's Vulgate was
adopted by the Western Church. Several copies of the Ancient
Latin Translation are known. Father Sabatier's Work. Bianchini's
Evangeliariiun Qiiadruplex 311
Sect. II. The Vulgate Latin, as revised by Jerome, A.D. 384. His method
described in his Epistle or Preface to Damasus. His Revised Edition
is that now used in the Church of Rome. Critical Aids for ascer-
taining the Text of the Vulgate. Supposed Influence of the Latin
Versions on the Greek Text. Statement of Erasmus respecting the
Foedas cum Grtecis. Extravagant Charge preferred by Wetstein
against the MSS. which he regarded as Latinizing. Refutation of
the Charge so far as it affects the MSS. included in it by Wetstein 319
Sect. III. The Old Si/riac or Peshito Date of this Version uncertain; not
earlier than the end of the second century, nor later than the begin-
ning of the fourth. It omits some books now included in the Canon,
and probably has always omitted them. The mode of translating is
good but free. Winer's Observations. It was made directly from
the Original; often retains Greek words, and sometimes falls into
mistakes by confounding words which are similar in that language.
Editions of Widmanstad, Tremellius, the Biblia Regia, the Paris
Polyglott, Walton's Polyglott, Gutbier, the Propaganda, Schaaf,
the Bible Society, and Bagster. MSS. brought from the East by
Mr. Rich and others. Secondary Versions made from the Peshito ;
viz. the Persic Gospels, Erpcnius' Arabic of the Acts and Epistles,
and other Arabic Versions in MSS. Jacobite and Nestorian Readings 329
Sect. IV. The Philoxenian Si/riac Was translated A.D. 508, and revised
by Thomas of Ilarkel, a.d. GIG. Statements of Gregory Bar
Hebrajus, commonly called Abulpharagius. This Version is literal
even to servility, and hence is of great service in Criticism. First
collated by Wetstein, and afterwards published by Professor White.
Does not contain the Apocalypse. An edition of the Book of Reve-
lation in Syriac, published by De Dieu, is supposed by some to be
the Philoxenian Version of that book 349
Sect. V. Sgriac Version of the Four Disputed Epistles, usually printed with
the Peshito, was first published by Pococke.' It forms no part
of the Old Syriac Version. Probably of Nestorian Origin , 351
CONTENTS. Xvii
PAOB
Sect. VI. TJie Jerusalem Si/riac Version. Exists only in one MS. which
contains Clnirch lessons from the Four Gospels, collated by Adlor,
who has published his observations. It seems to be as old as the
seventh century, and agrees in many readings with the Vatican
and Cambridge MSS .355
Sect. VII. The Armenian Version was made in the fifth century. Lacroze
and others affirm that it was altered in the thirteenth century Ijy
King Ilaitho. The story highly improbable. Unsupported by
proof. Contrary to observed facts. Uscan, the first editor, made
some alterations from the Vulgate. Critical edition of Zohrab,
founded upon MSS. Value of this Version 357
Skct-VIII. The ylrahic Versions very numerous. Gospels printed at Rome,
A.D. 1590. Edition of Erpcnius. Carshuni Edition. Acts and
Epistles as printed in the Polyglott, later than the seventh century.
The Apocalypse 3C1
Sect. IX. The JElhiopic Version, not earlier than the fourth century. Cha-
racter of the Version. Principal editions. Defects in the MSS.
used for them .■ 3G3
Sect. X. The Sahidic or Upper Egyptian Version, probably the earliest in the
language of Egypt. Woido prepared an edition of this version for
the press, since published by Ford 3C6
Sect. XI. The Bashimiric Version, only a few fragments yet discovered, w^hich
agree very closely with the Sahidic 368
Sect. XII. The Copto-Memphiiic Version, first collated for Fell's edition of the
Greek Testament, soon after published by Wilkins. New materials
discovered since his time. Character of the Text 309
Sect. XIII. The Ma:so- Gothic Version Codex Argcnteus. ' The Scriptures
translated into Gothic by Ulphilas. Other fragments of this
version have been discovered. Afllmties with the Codex Brixianus,
and with the Constantinopolitan Recension 371
Sect. XIV. The Sclavonic Version, made in the ninth century by C)Til and
JMethodius, and still used by the Russians, Poles, Bohemians, and
Ser\ians. Value of this translation 373
CHAPTER IV.
citations from tile new testament.
Sect. I. Preliminary Cautions Observations of Bishop Marsh respecting the
differences observed on comparing the Quotations of the Fathers
with the Textus Rescriptus. The early critics attributed such
diversities to careless citation. This explanation cannot always
be accepted. Copyists and editors of the Fathers have sometimes
altered Citations to make them agree with the Received Text.
It is needful to examine the circumstances of each Citation, to
ascertain whether exact Quotation was required. Earliest Fathers
only made vague references, not verbal quotations. Citations
brought forward in Controversy, and found in Commentaries, are
most to be relied upon. Omissions are to be noted as well as actual
Citations. Greek Fathers only are ilirect authorities as to the
Greek Text 375
XVm CONTENTS.
rAO£
Sect. II. Citations in Greek Writers. — Clemens Romanus. Ignatius. Justin
Martyr. Theophilus of Antioch. Clement of Alexandria. Origen.
Eusebius. Atbanasius. Dialogue against the Marcionites.
Macarius. Basil. Gregory of Nyssa. Gregory of Nazianziun.
Caesarius. Cyril of Jerusalem. Epiphanius. Chrj'sostom. Titus
of Bostra. Theodoret. Theophilus of Alexandria. Cyril of Alex-
andria. Isidore of Pelusium. Nonnus. Synopsis of Scripture.
Maximus. Damascenus. Photius. CEcumenius. Theophylact.
Euthymius 381
Sect. III. Citations in Latin Writers, only afford direct evidence of the Readings
of the Latin Version. Translation of Irenajus. TertuUian.
Cyprian. Novatian. Minutius Felix. Juvencus. Hilary.
Lucifer. Optatus. Ambrose. Hilary the Deacon. Jerome.
Augustine. Pelagius. Gregory 1 386
Sect. IV. Citations in Si/riac Writers, might be employed in criticising the
Text of the Old Syriac Version. Translation of the Works of
Theodore of Mopsuestia. Ephraim the Syrian. Collections of the
Asscmans 390
CHAPTER V.
CLASSIFICATION OF AUTHORITIES.
Sect. I. Recension Theories Griesbach not the first discoverer of Classifi-
cation in the MSS. Mill and Bengel had pre^^ously observed
the fact. Semler. Griesbach's System. Nolan's Theory. System
of Professor Hug. System of Dr. Scholz 391
Sect. II. Investigation of Recensions Method of Proceeding employed in this
Inquiry, exemplified in a Collation of Matt. xxv. 1 — 46. Results
of this Collation. Collation of Mark iv. 1 — 41. Inferences from
these two specimens. Classification of Documents in the Gospels.
Collation of Acts xvi. 1 — 40. Inferences following from this
statement. Collation of 2 Cor. ii. 1; iii. 18. Results from these
comparisons. Professor Norton's statements considered 404
Sect. III. Character and Value of the Different Classes of Documents, and
Critical Rules deduced from a Consideration of these points 436
CHAPTER VL
CRITICAL EX^VMINATION OF PARTICULAR PASSAGES.
Sect. I. — Matt. i. 1 — ii. 23 444
„ II.— Matt. vi. 13 450
„ III.— Matt. xix. 17 452
„ IV.— Matt, xxvii. 36 454
„ v.— Mark xvi. 9 — 20 455
„ VI. — Luke xxii. 43, 44 462
„ VII — Johnv. 3, 4 4G4
„ VIIL— John vii. 53 — viii. 14 466
„ IX. — Acts viii. 37 472
„ X. — Acts XX. 28 473
„ XI.— 1 Tim. iii. IG 482
„ XIL— 1 John v. 7 494
INTRODUCTION.
INTRODUCTION.
To persons who believe that the truths of their rehgion are
contained in certain books which are called the Scriptures, the
scientific study of these ^vritings must possess a deep and per-
manent interest ; nor can any pains which may be devoted to
that subject, by those who have capacity and leisure for such
investigations, be regarded as too great for its importance. In
tliis as in every other department of knowledge, the progress
of the student will be facilitated, and the risk of error dimi-
nished, by following a just plan and systematic arrangement
of the topics into which the main subject naturally divides itself
— and it therefore becomes a point of much interest to ascer-
tain what is the best method of study to be adopted, in order
to attain a critical acquaintance with the Sacred Volume. It
has been customary, in these countries, for the student to set
out with some dogmatic notions, respecting the Bible, strongly
impressed upon his mind ; — views which, if correct, can only
be derived from the testimony of the Bible itself ; — and which
therefore cannot be legitimately assumed until the credibility
of the books which form the Bible has been established, their
meaning ascertained, and their genuine text determined, with
at least an approach to certainty. It is evident that this me-
thod is illogical, and that it can lead to no results which can
be relied on. We must investigate the text, the interpretation,
the authenticity, and the credibility of the writings which are
proposed to us as the canon of our faith: — but each topic must
retain its OAvn appropriate place. It \Yould be useless and
absurd to attempt to prove the credibility of the \vriters to -h
whom the books of the canon are ascribed, until we have seen
4 INTRODUCTION.
cause for believing that they actually composed the works
wliich are assigned to them : — and the proof of this implies
that we have previously satisfied ourselves of two points : —
first, that we understand the meaning of the books ; and, se-
condly, that we have them, substantially, in the state in which
they were originally composed. Hence it would appear that
the order of scientific scriptural study ought to be nearly as
follows : — viz.
1. The Criticism of the Text : — including an inquiry into
its present state ; — the nature and the causes of the Various
Readings which are found in different copies of the Scriptures ;
— and the principles by which we must be guided in endeavour-
ing to establish a Text, as nearly correct as possible. This is
sometimes called the Lower Criticism.
2. The Interpretation of Scripture : — comprising an account
of the original languages of the Bible ; — ^the peculiarities of
style and idiom which are found in the Sacred Books ; —
the helps wliich we have for determining the correct transla-
tion of the text ; — and the method by which we can ascertain
the author's meaning, and determine what facts are asserted
or implied in the Bible, and what doctrines are therein de-
livered as sacred truths.
3. The Genuineness and Authenticity of the Books of Scrip-
ture : — comprehending a review of the arguments which may
be adduced in support of the position that such of these books
as bear the names of particular writers were really written by
the authors to whom they are attributed, and that such of them
as are anonymous, have come down to us accompanied by suf-
ficient attestations, as documents of good authority ; — a notice
of the principal objections which have been made to these
proofs ; — and the replies to these objections. This branch of
study is sometimes called the Higher Criticism.
4. The Credibility of the Scriptures: — containing the argu-
ments which go to prove that the statements made in these
books are worthy of our belief: with a consideration of objec-
tions.
The topics arranged in this order follow each other in a re-
gular train. Thus arranged, none of them requires facts or
INTRODUCTION. 5
principles to be assumed which belong to the divisions which
follow : but if the order of these topics as above suggested be
materially altered, we shall be obliged, at every step, to anti-
cipate what is afterwards to be proved ; and thus to reason in
a circle.
The foregoing outline of Biblical Theology, which has been
recommended, in substance, by several distinguished writers,
appears to follow the natural order of our thoughts, and to be
in several respects the most advantageous.
The present volume treats of the first branch into which the
whole subject has been above divided.
It consists of three Books. In the first, the General Prin-
ciples of Textual Criticism are stated, and briefly illustrated ; —
In the second, these Principles are treated of in connexion with
the Text of the Old Testament ; — and in the third, they are
considered with reference to that of the New.
In each of the latter two divisions, the method pursued is
as follows : (1,) an Outline of the History of the Text : (2,) an
Account of the MSS. Versions and other authorities available
for the verification or correction of the Text : and (3,) an Exa-
mination of the readings of some passages which, from their
nature or peculiar circumstances, possess an especial interest
in connexion wdth the object of this work.
BOOK I.
GENEraL PRINCirLES OF TEXTUAL CRITICISM.
BOOK I.
GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF TEXTUAL CRITICISM.
CHAPTER I.
OBJECT AND NECESSITY OF THE SCIENCE.
Textual Criticism is the name given to that branch of learning
which treats of the present state of the text of ancient writings, but
more especially of those which are contained in the Bible : of the
nature and causes of the Various Readings which are found on com-
paring together different copies of the Scriptures : of the moans
which may be applied for ascertaining the true text : and the prin-
ciples by which we must be guided in applying them. To this study
the term Criticism or Biblical Criticism has sometimes been appro-
priated ; but as these terms are also very frequently used in a wider
sense, as including the science of Interpretation also, it seems better
to give to our present subject a name more definitely expressing its
nature and object. We shall therefore call it Textual Criticism, or
the Criticism of the Text.
An example will show at once the object of this science and the
advantage of taking it up at the very commencement of our scriptu-
ral studies. It is notorious that a certain book exists, called the
Gospel of John. It is also well known to scholars that some copies
of this book contain, and others omit, a certain passage* in which
mention is made of the periodical descent of an ayyiXo; who troubled
the water in the pool of Bethesda at Jerusalem, and imparted to it
the power of healing, of whatever disease he had, the first person
who afterwards stepped in. This is enough to give ground for tho
• The passage referred to is John v. 4 : a detailed examination of which
will be found in the Third Book of this work.
10 PRINCIPLES OF TEXTUAL CRITICISy. [bOOK I.
inquiry, — did tliis book as originallj written contain this passage, or
did it not ? We here presuppose nothing as to the authorship of the
work : so far as the present question is concerned, it may have been
written by the Apostle John, or it may be a spurious writing circu-
lated under his name. We presuppose nothing as to the character
of its contents : they may have every claim upon our belief, or they
may have none. We presuppose no theory as to the explanation of
the passage itself : the ayysXoc of whom it speaks may liave been an
angel from heaven, or simply a messenger from the neighbouring
temple ; and the cures effected may have been produced by natural
or by supernatural causes. All these are questions of much interest ;
but there is another which precedes them in the proper order of in-
quiry,— namely, whether the narrative forms a genuine part of tlie
Gospel in which it is found. Until we can ascertain that we have
the work in the state in which it proceeded from the author's pen,
it is fruitless to concern ourselves with questions and difficulties re-
lating to its interpretation, its authenticity, or its credibility.
Such diversities, and indeed all diversities of whatsoever kind that
are found in the text of any book, are called Various Readings.
Michaelis draws a distinction between a Various Reading,* and an
erratum ; but the difference which he points out is not well marked ;
and the distinction itself is of no use. If an erratum be a variation
arising from mistake, it is highly probable that nearly all the diver-
sities of reading which exist in the sacred books were errata in the
beginning : and we have seldom or never the means of determining
which were so, and which were not. If the term erratum be used
to signify a minute or unimportant variation, as contrasted with
those which are of real consequence, we still have no exact line of
distinction : and probably different minds would estimate the impor-
tance of particular readings upon different principles : so that what
would appear of great consequence to one, would seem to another, of
little or none. It is admitted that the genuine reading of a passage
must be ascertained by the very same rules, whether the diversities
which may be found in the text are mere errata or various readings,
properly so called. We may therefore be allowed to dispense with
this distinction ; and whenever one copy of aiiy passage differs from
another, we shall call the text of each, with reference to that of the
other, a Various Reading.
Tlie application of Textual Criticism to the Sacred Writings, is
rendered necessary by the various readings which are found on a
* Introd. to N. T. vol. i. p. 2G0. (31arsh's Transl.)
CHAP. I.] OBJECT AND NECESSITY OK THE SCIENCE. 11
comparison of different copies and editions. That such various
readings exist, and in very considerable numbers, is a fact which
admits of no dispute ; nor is it a recent discovery ; it has been
noticed and commented on by Tcrtullian, Clement of Alexandria,
Origen, Euscbius, Jerome, and a great many other respectable
writers from the third century downwards. In modern times it has
been brought prominently into light by the researches of many
learned men who have devoted themselves to this branch of scriptu-
ral learning ; such as Stephens, Walton, Mill, Wetstein, Griesbach,
Scholz, Lachmann, Kennicott, Do Rossi, Holmes, <fec. &;c. These
writers have enumerated and published a vast number of various
readings upon the text of every different book in the canon. To
deny the existence of such diversities is to renounce faith in human
testimony and to recur to the principles of absolute scepticism.
The existence of various readings in the sacred text is therefore
an incontrovertible fact ; yet there are still many persons who either
are not aware of it, or think that the frank recognition of it would be
injurious to the interests of religion : — they seem to think that if
true, it is a dangerous truth, which ought not to bo made known to
the common mass of Christians ; — and some writers in the century
before last, especially Dr. Owen* and Dr. Whitbyt inveighed against
the science of Textual Criticism as a thing calculated to overturn
the very foundations of Christianity. To such persons we need only
say, " Use your own eyes. Compare together any two editions that
have ever been printed, whether of the Scriptures in the original or
in any version, and if you do it carefully you will find that they are
far from an exact agreement. If this be a task of too much labour,
cast your eyes upon Kennicott 's Hebrew Bible with its enormous
assemblage of various readings, collected from MSS. editions and
other sources ; and upon the huge appendix pubHshed by De Rossi,
containing many thousand more of the same description. Look to
Mill's Greek Testament with its variations, said to amount to 30,000 ;
augmented by more recent investigators to tlie number, probably of
100,000 !" A glance at a single page of these works will satisfy the
most doubting, that variations exist in the sacred text as set forth
in different copies : and no man can assert that the recognition of
* Considerations on the Prolecionuna and Appendic of the late Jiihlia
Poli/i/htta, London, 1G58, 8vo : to which Bishop Walton published a mas-
terly reply entitled " The Considerator Considered," Loudon, liio\), IGmo.
t Examen Variantium Lectioniim Joannis MilUi; London, 1710, 8vo :
answered by iJr. Bcntley, under the name of Phileleutherus Lipsiensis, in his
Koply to Anthony Collms's Discourse of Freethinkiny. Loudon, 1713, 8vo.
12 I'UINCIPLES OF TEXTUAL CRITICISM. [BOOK, I.
this plaiu fact is injurious to the interests of religion, without im-
plying that Christianity is irreconcilable with ascertained" truths :
which is the very worst that its enemies could allege.
Various readings, therefore, abound in the copies of the Sacred
Scriptures, and in fact are found in every book in the collection.
Indeed they could not have been avoided, unless copyists, correctors,
editors, and printers, had been kept continually under a miraculous
influence. Any person who has been employed in transcribing a
work of tolerable length, or in superintending its progress through
the press, is aware that notwithstanding all his pains, and even after
repeated revision, errors will remain. The celebrated printer, Ro-
bert Stephens, once published an edition of the Scriptures, in the
correction of which he took so much pains that in the preface he as-
serted it would be found perfectly free from mistakes : yet in this
very preface, he has printed pulres instead of plures, and several
errors have been found in the text itself of that edition. Mistakes
in copying are not to be avoided by any human care. The first copy
taken from any written work will always contain some errors : some
of these will be retained in transcripts made from it, and new ones
will in like manner be generated ; and thus a book which, like the
Bible, has been very often transcribed and printed, could not remain
free from various readings without a continued miracle.
The object of Textual Criticism is to ascertain which of the dif-
ferent readings of each passage in which variations occur, is the
genuine one, or that which proceeded from the pen of the original
author, or of his amanuensis. In this iuquiiy we must collect, com-
pare, and weigh, the testimonies in favour of each reading ; and
endeavour to ascertain the truth by tracing error to its source. A
conscientious student of Scripture will not be satisfied with merely
taking for his guide any particular edition that may be first put into
his hands, even although its editor may have been a learned and
impartial scholar : much less one of the common and trivial editions,
published, as so many have been, by a trading bookseller, for which
no editor makes his character responsible, which perhaps had no
editor, unless we dignify with this name the person who corrected
the proof-sheets, according to another edition of the same kind,
selected at random. He will employ whatever means of knowledge
are accessible to him ; he will endeavour to place himself in such
circumstances that he may be enabled to form an independent deci-
ion. For this purpose he will find it necessary to exercise patient
ndustry and impartial judgment in the investigation: — there is no
CHAP. I.] OBJECT AND NECESSITY OF THE SCIENCE. 13
other means of acquiring skill in Textual Criticism. Bengel, who
published a very creditable edition of the Greek Testament about a
century ago, did, indeed, lay claim to a kind of spiritual perception,
by which ho thought he was enabled to decide questions of reading
by his internal feelings alone, without ratiocination : — but no subse-
quent editor appears to have admitted the reahty of this internal
illumination ; — for none of them has followed Bengcl's decisions im-
plicitly : — and I am afraid that if we were to appeal to the inward
light for the scttloraent of such questions, it would lead different
minds to different conclusions : and thus, in many cases, prove only
"a light that leads astray." Our understandings, therefore, ex-
ercised with due diligence, fidelity, and impartiality, must be our
guide ; upon them we are compelled to rely in attempting to deter-
mine the genuine text of the sacred books : — and it is a subject of
thankfuhiess, that this is a branch of theology which has hitherto,
by the tacit consent of all tho churches of Christendom, been left
open to the investigation of tho student. Churches have in many
cases defined the scriptural Canon to which their members must
adhere ; but no church requires the adoption of any particular edi-
tion of tho text ; so that Textual Criticism as yet is free.
14 PRINCIPLES OF TEXTUAL CRITICISM. [bOOK I.
CHAPTER II.
CRITICAL AIDS FOR ASCERTAINING THE GENUINE TEXT: — EXTERNAL
EVIDENCE.
In endeavouring to ascertain, so far as it may now be possible, the
true text of the sacred Scriptures, we can take cognisance of no opi-
nion as to the alleged origin, or even the veracity of the books which
form the subject-matter of our inquiries. We must investigate the
genuine reading of the Gospel of John on the very same principles
which we should employ in criticising that of the Annals of Tacitus :
and the Epistles of Paul must be treated, in our present inquiry, in
precisely the same manner with the Epistles of Pliny. If then, we
wished to prepare a correct edition of any ancient author, it would
be our duty, in the first place, to collect aU the aids that are within
our reach. If we had access to the author's own copy, an appeal to
it, — supposing it to be sufficiently authenticated, — would remove
every doubt : but if the autograph were lost, it would be necessary
to have recourse to secondary evidence. If many copies were in
circulation, professing to be derived, more or less remotely, from the
lost autograph, it would be our duty to compare them together,
marking their variations, wherever they differed : or, which amounts
to the same thing, we should use the collations made by some other
pei'son. If the work had been translated, we ought to look into the
versions to see what was the text which was followed by the trans-
lators. If it had been largely quoted, we should examine the cita-
tions, for the same purpose. Nor ought we to neglect the light
afforded by printed editions ; nor even that which may be gathered
from the conjectures of learned men. In this manner we ought to
heap together all the various readings that are anywhere to be found ;
and arrange them so as to have before us, at one view, the whole
body of evidence in support of each. Much of this farrago, as it
may well be called, will, doubtless, on examination prove to be of
little or no value : — still it must be collected together. It is true
that only one reading of each passage can be genuine ; of necessity
ciiAr. II.] rniTiCAL AIDS : — external EvmKNCE. 15
a great proportion of those thus gathered together must be spurious ;
but until tliey are all gathered together, weighed and examined, we
cannot tell which are genuine and which spurious. If wo desist from
our search, we may pass over the very evidence which would have
established for us the true text. In endeavouring to disentangle the
genuine readings from the mass thus collected, no one can imagine
that we are to be influenced merely by the number of documents which
favour or oppose any lection. Testimonies are to be weighed, not
counted. The antiquity, the independence, the general fidelity, the
prevailing character of each witness are to be taken into account. It
is evident that the testimony of a hundred MSS. in support of a
particular reading, if it appears that they have all been copied
from one and the same MS. can add nothing to the authority of
the one MS. from which they have all been taken : and they are
no more to be regarded as distinct authorities, tlian each individual
copy of a printed edition, consisting perhaps of several thousands,
can claim to be so regarded. The independence, therefore, as well
as the character of the witnesses, their age, and general fidelity, must
be taken into consideration.
This is the manner in which we should proceed, were we engaged
in verifying the text of any classical author ; and the principles of
textual criticism as applied to the books of Scripture are precisely
the same. The value attached to the sacred writings will aiFord a
motive for additional care and diligence in the work ; but it can make
no difierence in the nature of the procedure. The reading of the
text of Xenophon or Thucydides, is in general, a matter of no real
importance either to the editor or to his readers : the utmost that
can be expected to flow from the labour of the critic upon their
works, is the gratification of taste, or the indulgence of historical
or antiquarian curiosity : but the case is very different when the
question relates to those venerable records which are regarded as
containing the oracles of God and the fountains of salvation. Here
all must be anxious to obtain, so far as human ability may enable
them, a true text ; for it must be equally opposed to the feelings of a
man of true piety, to reject from the text of Scripture, as spurious,
what is really genuine, and to retain, as genuine, what is really
spurious. The inquiry, in this case, is invested with a religious in-
terest and importance ; and ought to be prosecuted with suitable
care, faithfulness, and perseverance : but the manner of prosecuting
it in the case of the Scriptures must be precisely the same that is
employed in all other books, of whatever nature or description.
16 PRINCIPLES OF TEXTUAL CRITICISM. [bOOK I.
Hence the first step towards the emendation of the biblical text,
must be the collection of various readings and authorities from every
accessible quarter. The autographs of the sacred writings having
long since disappeared, and being, as there is every reason for be-
lieving, lost beyond recovery, we must content ourselves with such
secondary evidence as can be procured, which may be found in docu-
ments of the kinds following, viz. : —
1. Manuscripts, containing the whole or part of the sacred volume.
These, especially the more ancient, are our most valuable materials,
and ought to be examined and their readings noted with the greatest
care.
2. Versions of the Scriptures. There can be no doubt that the
/ Translators of the Bible wished, at least, faithfully to express the
V sense of the original : and their renderings may in general be held to
represent the text from which their versions were taken : but as the
ancient versions were themselves liable to alteration, care ought to
be taken to procure their text as nearly as possible in the state in
which it was originally published.
Among the Versions those which were adopted as Church Versions
or public documents possess a peculiar value : because they not only
give us the testimony of the Translator but the attestation of his
cotemporaries, to his fidelity. For the purposes of Textual Criti-
cism, however, the elegance of a translation is of no consequence : —
a servile adherence to the idiom of the original, which would destroy
all pretensions to the graces of style, may only render a version more
useful to a critic. Nor do mistakes in rendering always annihilate
its value : for as a good text might be carelessly ycopied and thus
become disfigured with errata, so it might be unskilfully trans-
lated, and yet much of the goodness of its readings shine through
all such mistakes.
3. Citations found in the works of succeeding writers. The Scrip-
tures having been regarded as the source of religious knowledge, they
have been commented on and explained by a great number of authors,
and there is scarcely any Jewish or Christian writer on religion, who
has not quoted largely from them. Sometimes these writers have
grounded their reasoning not merely on the general import, but even
on the exact phraseology of the Scripture ; in such cases their cita-
tions will show very accurately the words which they found in the
text before them. The same may be said of quotations brought for-
ward as proofs, in their elaborate works of controversy, when they
must have known that their arguments would be narrowly examined
CHAl'. II.] CRITICAL IIDS: — EXTERNAL EVIDENCE. If
hy keen sighted and able opponents : and when they would fool tho
importance of advancing nothing which they could not, if necessary,
defend and maintain. In such circumstances, also, their silence as
to particular texts and readings, which, if known to them, would
have lent them powerful help, may be regarded as a proof that tho
texts so omitted were unknown to them and to their contemporaries.
The silence of an ancient Father in ono of his works, may oven
throw suspicion upon an express citation found in another of his
writings ; for the latter might be introduced by a copyist long after
the author's death ; and there is reason to believe that the text of
some of the Fatliers has, in some instances, been thu.s tampered
with.
4. Printed Editions may be regarded as authorities, when tho
MSS. from which they were executed have been lost. In estimating
tho value of such testimony, we must have respect to the care, skill
and honesty of the editor ; especially in reference to the passages
that either make for or against the views which he felt himself called
on to support.
5. Critical Conjecture, though not to be appealed to as authority,
is not to be disregarded. It may suggest inquiry, and lead to more
accurate examination. Several corrections once proposed as mere
conjectures, have on farther investigation, been found to be supported
by good testimonies.
In collating authorities, and collecting various readings, it has
been found convenient to use a printed edition, not as tho standard
of correctness, but as the medium of comparison: in all cases, the
edition thus assumed as the basis of the collation ought to be specified,
and the documents from which various readings are extracted should
be fully and accurately described. In the infancy of criticism, this
rule was neglected, and in consequence the same MS. was occasion-
ally referred to, under two or more different titles ; and being known
to the learned world only by name, it was often quoted and appealed
to, as if there were as many MSS. as designations : this could not
have happened had it been accurately described at first. In noting
various readings it is necessary to record where, and to what extent,
any MS. may have been altered by a later hand : the first writing
is alone entitled to Be regarded as possessing whatever authority
belongs to the document, unless it can be shown that the alteration
was made by the original copyist, for the purpose of correcting
one of his own errata. The motives of one who alters an ancient
biblical MS. or who in any way tampers with its text, are liable to
c
18 PRINCIPLES OF TEXTUAL CRITICISM. [BOOK I.
suspicion ; or else his judgment must be so weak that a reading in-
troduced by him can have no authority. The usual pretext for such
conduct is that something must be done to prevent strokes and
letters, now faint but visible, from fading away altogether. But if
the traces, before being retouched, are visible, there is no necessity
for retouching them at all : — if they are invisible, to insert them is an
act of fraud. MSS. alone have not suffered from this cause : some
of the ancient versions have been, as it were, remodelled and recast
by later editors, as appears by the difference between the early and
the modern copies. The works of the Fathers have frequently been
tampered with in the same manner. In their writings the alteration
may sometimes be detected by the discrepancy observable between
the text of scripture as quoted, and the author's comment upon it ;
for the former might sometimes be altered, — or amended as the
copyist would suppose, — by one who was not learned or skilful
enough to adapt the old explanation to the new reading : in other
cases, the change is latent ; and can now only be discovered by
historical investigations, or not at all.
CHAP. III.] VALUE AND WEIGHT OF EXTERNAL EVIDENCE. 19
CHAPTER III.
VALUE AND WEIGHT OF EXTERNAL EVIDENCE.
When we have collected together all the external evidence that
can be discovered, and have placed the different readings so that
each can be referred to the MS. or other document in which it has
been found, we are next to consider the comparative weight of the
testimonies by which they are respectively supported. In doing this,
we must have respect to their age, their independence, and their
general trustworthiness.
1. The' age of a document, if it be of considerable antiquity, is
justly held to add to the value of its testimony, as it is fairly pre-
sumable, in most cases, that an old MS. or version, will bring us
nearer by some steps to the autograph, than a modern one. Each
copy gives us the testimony of the scx'ibe who wrote it, as to the
text which he found in his exemplar : in the like manner that exem-
plar afforded testimony as to the readings of a previous exemplar
from which it was transcribed : and so on till we come back to the
original author's own copy. Now, as there is a possibihty of both
inadvertence and fraud at each step, it is manifest that there are
many more chances of error in a MS. that has undergone ten re-
moves from the autograph, than is one that has undergone only
three or four : and it will not be denied that in the majority of cases,
the modern copy is to be regarded as probably removed by several
intervals farther from the autograph, than one which approaches more
nearly to the author's own times. Hence the value which in
Textual Criticism is attached to documents of an early date, such
as the most ancient MSS. the early Versions, and extracts from the
Scriptures found in the works of the most ancient writers and com-
mentators. This reasoning however is only founded upon probabihty,
and does not amount to an absolute certainty : for as a copy might
now be made from one of the oldest of existing MSS. and that, in
its tm"n, might have been copied from one much older than itself,
even from an immediate transcript of the autograph, it follows that
20 PRINCIPLES OF TEXTUAL CRITICISM. [bOOK I.
a very modem copy might bring us within three or four degrees of
the original : — and as, on the other hand, we have no certain proof
that there were not a great number of transcriptions intervening be-
tween the autograph and any existing ancient MS. that may be as-
sumed,— and the number of such intervening transcriptions may
have been in fact very great, — it is evidently possible, that a copy
made at the present day may bring us nearer to the original auto-
graph, than one of extreme antiquity. But, in the absence of direct
proof, we must decide according to the probability of the case ; and,
in such circumstances, the presumption unquestionably is, that the
more ancient document approaches nearer to the autograph than the
more modern one, and affords more direct and therefore stronger
evidence as to its contents.
The age of Citations found in the works of ecclesiastical writers,
can, of course, be easily ascertained fi'om Church History : and in
like manner the date of the principal Versions can without much
difficulty be determined : not indeed exactly ; but as nearly as the
subject requires. The age of MSS. is, in some instances, -known by
dates inserted in them, especially at the end ; but as such exact speci-
fications of time are seldom found in the more ancient biblical MSS.
and never a prima manu, we are often compelled to resort to reason-
ings founded upon the appearance of the document itself. The
substance on which a codex is written, the form of the letters, the
presence or absence of stops, accents, &c. the divisions in the text,
and many other circumstances of the same kind, come to our aid,
and enable us to pronounce, with an approach to certainty, the
comparative ages of Greek or Latin MSS. — Oriental documents still
present considerable difficulties; though some progress has been
made in the science of determining the antiquity of them also.
2. Having in this manner ascertained, as nearly as may be possible,
tlie age of the different documents fi-om which various readings have
been gathered, we must next endeavour to determine which of them
arc to be regarded as distinct and independent authorities. If, on
examining the various readings which we have amassed, we find that
there are a number of documents, which, however they may differ
from each other individually, still retain a prevailing general agree-
ment ; — which agree more frequently with one another than with
any of the others ; — which sometimes agree with one another when
they differ from all the rest, — then wo must assign them to the same
tribe, family, or class of documents ; and we are led to refer them
to a common origin, at some period, more or loss remote. The in-
CHAP. III.] VALUE AND WEIGHT OF EXTERNAL EVIDENCE. 21
dividual documents composing such a class or tribe are not to bo
regarded as distinct authorities for any readings in which they con-
cur. If wo can trace out, by means of our collection of various
readings, proofs of the existence of several such tribes or classes, wo
may regard each tribe or class, with reference to the other tribes or
classes, as a distinct and independent authority. The number
therefore of the testimonies in favour of any particular reading, will,
under the circumstances supposed, be determined, not by the num-
ber of individual MSS. Versions or church documents in which it is
found, but by the number of the distinct and separate classes or
tribes of MSS. &c. which agree in its support.
3. But the independence of the authorities, though an important,
is not the only, nor perhaps even the chief point for our considera-
tion. We must have regard to their comparative credibility or
trustworthiness, not only in general, but in each particular case upon
which their testimony is cited. For this purpose, we must study the
prevailing character and genius of each recension or class of docu-
ments : because on this depends the value of its evidence for or
against any reading of the text. Thus if there be a class of docu-
ments which abounds in full or copious readings, — which seems to
have preferred them habitually, and as it were on principle, — and
almost to have sought them wherever they were to be found, —
the testimony of that family or recension in favour of such readings
is very weak : because its prevailing habit renders it very probable
that the person who prepared the MS. from which the whole family
is derived, would have admitted such a reading on very slight au-
thority. But if, on the other hand, it be found, that the documents
of this very class, agree ui supporting a brief elliptical reading of any
particular passage, their testimony is peculiarly weighty and im-
portant ; because it then appears as if the original document of the
tribe had run counter to its own prevailing taste and inchnation :
and this would probably not have been done, had there not been, in
the opinion of the person who prepared it, a vast preponderance of
authority in favour of the lectio brevior. The principle is the same
with respect to a class that habitually avoids harsh and foreign
idioms, inelegant phrases, solecisms, &;c. &c. It is therefore abso-
lutely necessary to study the presiding genius and prevailing spirit
of each family, in order to know when its testimony is really valu-
able, and when it may bo disregarded as comparatively worthless.
The steps now pointed out will enable us to decide the question
as to the preponderance of external testimony for or against any
22 PRINCIPLES OF TEXTUAL CRITICISM. [bOOK I.
reading which may be the subject of inquiry. But in distinguishing
the genuine from the spurious, we are not to be guided by external
testimony alone : the nature of the different readings, considered in
themselves, apart from the question of authority, will often suggest
arguments of great importance in such investigations. In every
case, therefore, regard must be had both to the external and to the
internal evidence. On the one hand, no reading ought to be
adopted which is not supported by some good and respectable autho-
rities, unless in case of extreme necessity ; and on the other hand,
when such authorities disagree amongst themselves, or when the
greater part of them unite in favour of a reading which can by no
possibility have been the true and genuine one, — the argument from
the internal probabilities of the case must add great weight to the
scale into which it is thrown.
CHAP. IV.] CAUSES AND CLASSES OF VARIOUS HEADINGS. 23
CHAPTER IV.
CAUSES AND CLASSES OF VARIOUS READINGS.
Before laying down rules for estimating the internal evidence, it is
needful to investigate the causes of error to which various readings
may be traced.* It is self-evident that where there are different
readings of the same text, there must have been, on one side or
other, either an undesigned mistake or a wilful corruption : and we
cannot satisfactorily determine on which side the error probably lies
until we have considered the influences by which a transcriber might
be led astray, and have seen how these influences might give rise
to one or more of the various readings under consideration. Wo
shall, therefore, now enumerate and classify those causes of error
which operate most frequently in producing textual inaccuracies.
I. Pure Inadvertence on the part of the copyist may occasion
mistakes in his transcript, and of course give rise to a various reading
of the original: these mistakes may consist in Addition, Omission,
or Substitution.
1. Additions to the text may be occasioned by inadvertence. A
copyist sometimes repeats a word or passage already written, and
thus makes an addition to the text : or his memory may suggest an
additional member to the same sentence on which he is engaged,
from a different part of the same work or from another writer.
Such a mistake is very natural in books like the Old Testament or
the four Gospels, which, in many places, contain narratives of the
very same facts, though with more or less enlargement upon the
circumstances of the history, or variation of the phraseology.
2. Omission may take place from the same inattention. We
find it no unusual thing in writing to drop a letter, syllable, or word,
which we meant to have inserted : and there is especial danger of
falling into this mistake, when we are transcribing from an exemplar
• The substance of this Chapter is taken from Michaelis' Introd. to N.
T. Vol. i. ch. vi. Sec. 7 — 12 : together with Bishop Marsh's Notes.
24 PHINCIPLES OF TEXTUAL CRITICISM. [BOOK 1.
in which the same word or syllable is repeated after a short interval,
the eye passing insensibly over the whole intermediate passage, which
of course is omitted in the transcript. This is a very common cause
of the omission of passages ; so common that it has been found con-
venient to give it a distinct name, the error of hfiwntKiMrw. A re-
markable example of the omission of words on account of homceotel-
euton occurs in Dr. Blayney's 4to edition of the English Bible,
printed in 1769. In Rev. xviii. 22, the words here placed in
brackets, are omitted. " And the voice of harpers, and musicians,
and of pipers, and trumpeters, shall be heard no more [at all in thee ;
and no craftsman of whatever craft he be, shall be found any more]
in thee ; and the sound," sfec. It is to be observed that this edition
was prepared with very great care, and is remarkable for its general
correctness. We ought, therefore, to be the less surprised at similar
mistakes occurring in MSS. perhaps written in haste, and from ex-
emplars not very easily deciphered.
3. Substitution. — Copying from an exemplar placed before the
transcriber, is in general found to be an irksome task : the eye and
the hand soon became fatigued, and the mind more or less inatten-
tive to the work. Hence the copyist does not always look at each
single word before writing it down ; but contents himself with taking
in at a glance a whole phrase consisting of several words, or an en-
tire sentence. In writing down the passage thus committed to
memory, he may very easily exchange a letter, a syllable, or an
entire word, for another which resembles it in appearance, especially
if the term thus substituted corresponds in sense and grammar with
the remainder of the sentence. The same inattention may occasion
the substitution of one synonymous word for another : as e/ttoi/ for
'i>.syov, of which there are several examples in the MSS. of the New
Testament; or C3->nbN God, for nin^ Lord; or cd^^itn Lord,
which occurs very frequently in those of the Old. To the same cause
we may refer many examples of alterations in the order of words ;
which in fact are substitutions of one phrase for another of the same
meaning, and similar in its general appearance.
4. When a copyist wrote from dictation, all these accidental mis-
takes might be committed by the reader, when of course they
would be conveyed to the writer, and would consequently appear in
his transcript : but in this case there was the additional danger that
the writer might mistake the sound of the words as pronounced
by his reader, and thus insensibly substitute one word or phrase
for another of similar sound, especially if it appeared to harmonize
CIIAT. IV.] CAUSES AND CLASSES OF VARIOUS 11EAUI.\(J3. 2.')
well with the remainder of the sentence. There is no mistake
into which the reporters of proceedings in public meetings or
delil)erative assemblies more frequently fall.
II. Misco.vcErTioN OF THE Text as given in the exemplar may
l)roduce errata. These we may call deliberate mistakes : of whicli
there are several different kinds.
1. In transcribing from an ancient MS. in which all the words
were written continud serie, the copyist might easily mistake the
proper division of the words ; and by taking a letter or syllable
from one word, and adding it to that wliich precedes or follows, he
would give rise to a variou.-s reading. Thus in Psalm xlviii. 15,
(verse 14 in the Enghsh Translation,) we read words which signify
" He [that is, God,] tcill guide us unto death.'' But several of the
ancient versions render the passage, " Jle vnll guide us for ever."
It is evident that instead of nin-Sy unto death, they found in their
copies r-iinSy, which they have translated/or ever: and this reading
actually appears in several Hebrew manuscripts, and in a great
many of the earlier printed editions. There can be little doubt that
it is the genuine reading, for the other contradicts the object of the
psalmist : which is to express a pious and trustful spirit of obe-
dience. The whole difference is caused by dividing one word into
two. Thus also, in Acts xxiii. 5, instead of aey^ovra roij >.aoD coZ ouy.
igsT; Kaxug, " thou shalt not spealc evil of the ruler of thy people,'' a
MS. formerly the property of M. de Missy, reads a^yovra roD ?.aou ffoS
01) xsg£/5 xaxwc, " thou shalt not shave badly the ruler," &c. to the total
perversion of the sense. So in 1 Cor. vi. 20, which is sometimes read
do^ddars dri aoa n rov hov, "therefore glorify God," some MSS.
with Chrysostom and the Latin translator divided the words differ-
ently : bo'^doan bn a^ars rh kw: "therefore glorify [and] lift up
God ;" and there are many similar instances. Indeed the division
of words and sentences is now very properly considered as a question
of interpretation rather than of reading : and of course not to be
determined by authorities, but by the tenour of the context.
2. Ahhreviation was a frequent source of misconception. In the
Hebrew Bible there is reason for believing that from a very ancient
period, the names of numbers were sometimes at least expressed by
numeral letters ; and as these were necessarily liable to mistakes in
copying, arithmetical errors might occasionally be introduced into
the text ; the abbreviations, however, which are now spoken of are
of a different kind, being contractions employed to save time and
space in writing some words of very frequent occurrence. Such
D
26 PRlNCIP^iES OF TEXTUAL CRITICISM. [uOOK I.
contractious are not altogether unknown to the Hebrew MSS.
Thus the Codes, numbered 76 bj Dr. Kennicott, is stated to have
many abbreviations, several of which he particularises : and some
of them are such as might readily mislead a transcriber. In many
Jewish writings the sacred name of the Deity, nin> is denoted by a
mark '\ which seems to have been anciently employed in the copies
of the Scriptures in the original, and occasionally to have been mis-
JL~ taken for the suffix of the first personal singular : this was probably
the origin of the mistranslation of Jonah i. 9, in the Septuagint : in
which it is rendered (hvXoi xu^iov, " a servant of the Lord," instead
of 'E/Sca/bg, "a Hehrew." The translator apparently read '*• 12y for
n^iy ; 3- reading which is actually found in Cod. 173, Kennicott.
Contractions, however, occur much more frequently in the MS S. of the
New Testament. In the oldest documents of the Greek Scriptures,
we find ec fo^eeoc, ev for 0€Oy, eto for eeto. eisi
for e€ON^ KC for KYPIOC, KY for KYPIOY,KU) for
KYPItOJ<N for KYPION, ICforlHCOYC, IN for IHCOYN,
and so XN for XPICTON, HNA for HNCYMA, and some-
times CHP fo'^ CUJTHP. Contractions are also found in the
case of several other words, especially proper names. A scribe
misinterpreting one of these contractions, and writing the word at
full length, according to his erroneous idea, would give rise to a
various reading. Thus, in Rom, xii. 11, some MSS. and the
editions of Erasmus, Stephens, and Griesbach, instead of rw xu^iuj
dou7'.i{io'jrig, "serving the Lord," read rw xa/sw houXihovng, '^serving
the time:" the error, on which side soever it lies, probably arose
from a misinterpretation of the contraction KtO.
3. But the commonest of all errors of this class, arises from
mistaking a marginal note for a part of the text, and, consequently,
introducing it into the transcript. Words accidentally left out in
copying were frequently inserted in the margin, on the error being
j detected : and this was also a convenient place on which the owner
I of a book might write any parallel passage, gloss, or scholium,
I which seemed to illustrate the text opposite which it was placed.
A copyist using an exemplar furnished with marginal notes of both
these kinds, and observing in the margin several words which he
knew to bo necessary to textual accuracy, might suppose that
everything which he found there, ought to be taken into the body
of the work. This is the most common origin of additions to the
text. Examples of such introduced scholia will be found in great
abundance in the notes to any critical edition of the Greek Tes-
U|, ^>^- /
V
CHAP. IV. 1 CIIUSES AND CLASSES OF VARIOUS READINGS. 27
tament. Thus in 1 Cor. xii. 7, exadrw oj biborai ^ <pa\ii^uiai: rou
Tvs{j(j,aTog Tgoj ri (fu/Mip'soov, " and to each is given the manifestation of
the spirit to profit withal." Hero one MS. (70 Griesbach, Bpp.
PatiU.) after ?j 'pavs^uaig, " the manifestation," inserts ru ur,fj,iTa,
"the miracles." licjoncl all reasonable doubt, these words were
originally a marginal gloss explanatory of tlio phrase, >5 (pavsoojaig
rou rfvsvf^arog. So also, 1 Cor. xii. 31, 'in xaff b'^i^^oXriv hbhv v/mTv
bi/xvuf/,!, "I shoii-1 unto you a more excellent way," where one MS.
(114 Scholz, Epp. Faull.) reads odw tsur-^^lag, " loay of salvation,"
which is another scholium crept in from the margin.
4. To the same class of mistakes we may attribute the intro-
duction of some words which appear to have crept into the text
of the Now Testament from Evangelistaria and Lectionaria: that
is MSS. which contain the Church Lessons taken ft-om the Gospels,
or from the Acts and Epistles. In such MSS. it was common to
write a word or phrase at the beginning of each lesson, where it
was required to prevent abruptness ; for example, in the Gospels,
6 'iriSbvg sXiys, "Jesus said," or li-mv 6 •/.{j^iog, " the Lord said," &c. ;
and in the Epistles, absXpoi, "Brethren." But as the Church
Lessons were sometimes read not from Lectionaria, but from the
ordinary copies, tliese introductory words were sometimes inserted
in the margin opposite the place where the lesson commenced, to
assist the reader : and in a transcript from such a codex, these
supplements might be taken into the text. Thus it appears that
one of the lessons of the Greek Chui'ch began at Luke vii. 31,
which occurs in the middle of one of our Lord's discom-ses : here
all the common editions of the Greek Testament have the words,
sTm 8s 0 xCgiog, "and the Lord said," in the text: and Scholz
informs us that they are also found in some MSS. ; but they are
absent from all the ancient and valuable ones. The Evangelistaria
all commence the passage with iJmv 6 '■/.■j^tog, and these words are
found in the margin of several other copies. Wo are thus enabled
to trace the history of this interpolation : it was originally prefixed
to the lesson in the Evangelistaria, to prevent an abrupt commence-
ment : it was next written on the margin of some codices which
might occasionally be used in reading the lessons in churches ; —
thence it crept into the text of a very few modern MSS. and of
nearly all printed editions — the particle o;, " and," being subjoined
to iJ-rsv, to make the verse cohere with what precedes. In the same
manner the word a,a>]v, "Amen," has sometimes been introduced
from the close of the lessons, whore it was usually subjciued in tlio
Lectionaria and Evangelistaria.
28 PRINCIPLES OF TEXTUAL CRITICISM, [bOOK I.
5. Errors must sometimes have arisen from imperfections in the
transcriber's exemplar. If be wrote from a copy that was torn,
blotted, faded, or otherwise illegible, and had no other MS. at hand,
he would be obliged either to omit some words altogether, or to
insert them from memory or conjecture. In either case he would,
almost of necessity, occasion various readings. Erasmus informs,
us, that in printing his first edition of the Greek Testament, he had
only one MS. of the Apocalypse, and it was mutilated ; so that he
was obliged to translate several verses into Greek from the Latin
Vulgate ; hence many errors in his text of that book. What hap-
pened to Erasmus might easily happen to a copyist in the retirement
of a monastery, and probably did occur very frequently.
III. A third class of errors consists of those which transcribers
produced by departing from the text of their exemplar in order to
correct what they regarded as mistakes. Copyists, especially those
who transcribed Greek authors, formed a kind of connecting link
between scholars and mechanics. They generally had a certain
degree ~of learning and taste ; but seldom enough of either to render
them safe guides in criticism. They were frequently good judges
of style and grammar ; and when they met with a phrase which
deviated from classical correctness, they sometimes altered it a little,
to bring it into that more elegant form in which they probably ima-
gined it had been originally written ; thus a foreign word or idiom
was exchanged for another of purer Hebrew or Greek: a harsh,
uncouth, or ungrammatical phrase, was made to give place to one
which appeared more classical. So, also, when two pai-allel pas-
sages seemed to contradict each other in any of their circumstances,
one of them was altered so as to remove the opposition. In some
cases an obscure reading might be expelled to make room for one
more clear and explicit ; and anything that appeared contrary to
their notions of piety would, in like manner, be amended, so as to
avoid offence to pious ears. In all these cases, the copyist know-
ingly deviated from the exemplar before him ; but he did so for the
purpose of improving its readings, and doubtless he would persuade
himself that his emendations brought the text back to the state in
which it had been left by the original author. His alterations wore
of the nature of conjectural criticisms ; frequently mistaken, but
not proceeding from a corrupt motive.
The various readings from MSS. of the New Testament pub-
lished by Mill, Wetstein, Griesbach, and Scholz, afford copious
examples of alterations of this kind. We may, therefore, advert
CHAP. IV.] CAUSES AND CLASSES OF VARIOUS READINGS. 29
to a class of instances which occur several times in the Hebrew
Bible. There are in the Pentateuch several places in which the
masculine pronoun XIH is used instead of the feminine J<*ri. although
the antecedent is a noun feminine ; and this construction occurs
so frequently, that there is every reason for believing that it pro-
ceeded from the original author of the books. The construction is
anomalous, at least according to the modern usage of the language,
but probably was not so regarded in the time these documents were
written. The scribes, however, were not aware of this ; and conse-
quently some of them have attempted, in various ways, to improve
the grammatical cQjistruction of such passages. Thus, in Gcu.
xxiv. 44, ^C^^^$^ ^^1^. ?^< her he the wife, &c. the pronoun which
expresses her is iu the masculine form. Here all the Samaritan
MSS. and one Jewish, instead of XIH I'cad X*ri; a manifest attempt
to avoid a grammatical error. But perhaps there is no verse which
affords a more striking instance of this anomaly and of the efforts
of the scribes to remove it, than Gen. xx. 5, which is as follows : —
"JJid not he say to me, she is my sister; and she, did not she also say,
he is my hrotherV^ Here the pronoun XT! occurs once, and it is cor-
rectly used ; but XIH occurs four times, the first and fourth times
correctly, the second and third times incorrectly, according to the
modern Hebrew usage. To avoid this iri-egularity, two MSS. omit
the second XIH, and several, instead of it, exhibit XP ; while the
third X*in is wanting iu all tlio Samaritan and iu four Jewish MSS.
and iu a great many others is changed, as in the former instance,
into {i^^ri-* In the above passages, there could be no possible
motive for changing the text except the wish to avoid a gramma-
tical irregularity.
IV^. The foregoing causes have operated in producing textual
variations in every work which has come down to us from antiquity,
unless in cases where only one MS. has survived the ravages of
time ; but wo must now advert to a source of error which has
almost exclusively affected the sacred scriptures ; namely, a desire
to favour the sect or party in rchgiou to which the transcribers
might be attached, by promoting the reception of its peculiar doc-
trines, and weakening the evidence in support of the antagonist
tenets. There cannot be a doubt that particular copies of the New
* See Keimicott's Hebrew Bible, in loco, for the authorities : — he favours
the Samai'itiU) rejiding.
30 PRINCIPLES OF TEXTUAL CRITICISM. [bOOK I.
Testament have been tampered with, in particular passages, by men
who wished to evade the force of an opponent's argument, or to
gain a new one in support of their own opinions. We ought not,
in all cases of this kind that may come before us, to impute the
conduct of the copyist to the vilest motives, nor can we be sure
that changes thus introduced were, in every instance, purely wilful
corruptions : for prejudices often blind the judgment ; and probably
an over- zealous scribe, in conforming the text of the Apostles to his
own standard of opinion, might be firmly persuaded that he was
only restoring it to that purity of doctrine which accident or design
had for a time thrown into the shade. To mqn of such a stamp,
no reasoning will appear more sound than that which says — " such
a form of doctrine is true and divine, and therefore agreeably to
it the Apostles must have uniformly expressed themselves ; — such
another is false and heretical, and certainly the sacred writers would
never have written so as even apparently to lend it countenance."
We may advert to an example afforded by a writer who was a
learned and virtuous man — Samuel Crellius, grandson to the cele-
brated Joannes Crellius, whose works are contained in the Biblio-
theca Fratrum Polonorum. This Samuel Crellius published in
1727, under the name of Artemonius, a book on the proem of
John's Gospel, in which he strenuously contends that the true
reading of the last clause in the first verse, is not xa/ 6ihg tjv 6 Xoyog,
^^ and the word was God," but xa/ hou yjv 6 Xoyoc, *' and the word
ivas God's;" and although he admits that all MSS. versions, cita-
tions, and editions which were known of in the world were against
him, yet he seems to himself to have proved his point so con-
vincingly, that he talks of it as a thing demonstrated and no longer
open to dispute. Had Crellius been a copyist instead of a critic,
it is reasonable to suppose that he would have introduced into the
text of the Evangelist that reading which he regarded as undoubt-
edly genuine ; that is to say, he would have introduced a various
reading — and a palpably erroneous one — from blind but honest
prejudice.
Crellius was a Unitarian : but the copyists through whose hands
the scriptures of the New Testament have come down to us since
the fourth century, were not Unitarians, but Catholic and Orthodox
Christians ; and some of them have left in their transcripts very
evident marks of their zeal in favour of the Trinity. Thus there
is a MS. (X. Scholz,) of the tenth century, which, in Mark xiii.
32, omits the words, ohhi 6 viog, "neither the Son;" and Ambrose
affirms that in his day several copies loft out this clause. Can we
CIIAI". IV. 1 CAUSES AND CLASSES OF VARIOUS READINGS. 31
doubt that it was so omitted because of the use which had been
made of it during tho Arian controversy, and because of the support
whi('h it appeared to give to tho main dogma of the heterodox
party ? It is perhaps principally for tho same reason that tho
Evangelistaria of the Greek Church, I believe without exception,
omit* the two verses, Luke xxii. 43, 44, which speak of the ap-
pearance of an angel to the Saviour to strengtlien him in Gcth-
semane ; and that some other MSS. including tho Alexandrian
and the Vatican, do the same, while a few mark them with aste-
risks or obeli, to denote that they were looked upon with suspicion.
These verses were omitted in some copies so long ago as tho time
of Epiphanius, who candidly relates both tlio fact and its motive:
TisTrai, iv tw Tiara Aoi/xav iuayyeXlw, Iv roTg ddiopddjroig avTiygapoig '...
dBi}6do^oi 8i atpiiXovTo rb grjrhv <poj3rid'svTsg xa/ ysvofjbsvog Iv dyuvicff,
i.e. the words "and being in agony, are also found in the uncas-
tigated copies of tho Gospel according to Luke but the orthodox
being afraid have expunged the passage," &c. where the context
shows that he refers to this placej. There is little doubt that
heterodox scribes would have been just as much disposed to favour
their own opinions in the same manner ; but as all our existing
MSS. and versions have come to us through the hands of tho
orthodox, it is probable that heterodox corruptions of the text are,
to say the least, extremely rare. The Jews, who have been our
copyists in the Old Testament, have, in one or two instances, shown
a preference for such readings as appear unfavourable to the doc-
trines of their Christian opponents.
* That is to say, in their proper place in the Gospel of Luke : the same
Evangehstaria insert them in a lesson taken out of the Gospel according to
Matthew, to which they certainly do not belong. This circumstance leads
me to speak with much hesitation as to the motives of those who compiled
the Evangelistaria.
t Epiph in Ancorato, sec. 31,
X Such is the impartial judgment of Dr. Mill ; sec Proleg. in Nov. Testa-
ment, 71*7, 708. On these words Mr. Bloomfield observes, — " The causes for
their omission are obvious. They were thrown out as being too favourable
Ui the Aj'iaus." — Recensio Synopt. Annot. Sac. vol. ii. 517.
32 PRINCIPLES OF TEXTUAL CRITICISM. [bOOK I.
CHAPTER V.
INTERNAL EVIDENCE.
The principal causes which have given rise to various readings have
been enumerated in the preceding chapter. The observations made
upon that subject will lend us aid in estimating the comparative
probability of the genuineness of various readings, from internal
evidence. In this inquiry we proceed upon a general principle,
which is both obvious and just: — viz. that when there are various
modes of exhibiting the same passage, all those readings which can
be accounted for by the operation of known causes of error are to be
suspected ; and, if there be any one which cannot be so accounted
for, there is prima facie, a probability in its favour. It is not meant
that a reading is to be regarded, in all cases, as genuine, on the
ground of internal probability alone, in opposition to any mass of
authority, however weighty ; but merely that, in such instances as
those now alluded to, there is often such an inherent likelihood in
favour of a reading, as adds greatly to the force of those authorities
by which it is supported ; and, in some particular cases, this internal
testimony may be conceived as so strong, that it would outweigh
any assignable amount of external authority. The general principle
is so reasonable, that it is unnecessary to advance any argument in
its support. Assuming its justice, and applying it to the cases
considered in the preceding chapter, it will lead us to the following
Mules of Internal Evidence : —
1. A reading is to be suspected which can readily be supposed to
have arisen from the mistake of a letter, syllable, or word, from one
of similar form.
This rule is not of much practical use, since, if one reading re-
sembles another in appearance, the other must equally resemble it;
and the rule affords no test for determining which is genuine. It is
obvious, that in employing this principle we must have respect, not
merely to the present manner of printing and writing, but to those
CUA1\ V. 1 INTERNAL EVIDENCE. 33
modes wliicli prevailed at all periods, since the composition of
tlio books, the text of which we arc investigating. There arc indeed
many textual variations which can only be explained by reference to
the most ancient kind of writing.*
2. A reading is to bo suspected which appears to have arisen from
the mistake of a letter, syllable, or word, for one of similar sound.
There is reason to believe that many existing MSS. were cither
written from dictation, or copied from others which were written in
that manner: hence similarity of sound between different words
might be a frequent cause of error. This rule, however, like the
former, is ambiguous in itself; and it farther resembles its prede-
cessor in requiring an acquaintance with the usages of times long
since passed away. Of the primitive mode of pronouncing the
Hebrew and Chaldcc languages, in which tlio Old Testament is
composed, we can scarcely be said to know anything, and of the
Greek very little. It is probable that the Greek pronunciation varied
considerably at different periods, perhaps in different countries at
the same period ; and it is certain that it never bore any resemblance
to the mode which now prevails in England and Ireland. The
whole subject is one of difficulty, and can be best studied by com-
paring together those errata of diflferent MSS. which seem to have
arisen from this cause. t
3. A various reading is to be suspected, which apparently owes
its origin to the omission of some syllable, word, phrase, or sentence,
in consequence of a oiMionXi-orov.
This cause is the most frequent occasion of omissions: indeed it
requires care to avoid mistakes of this kind, even in copying our
own composition, especially if it be of considerable length. The
student who will take the trouble of examining the notes to any
critical edition of the Scriptures, or of any other ancient work,
will discover innumerable examples of this species of mistake : it is
* Some observations on the most ancient forms of writing the languages ot
Scripture will be introchiced hereafter, in the sketches of tlie History of the
Text of the Old and New Testament.
t The English ])ronuuciation of Greek bein^ completely out of the ques-
tion, two others remain to be considered, tlic Jbrasimau and the licuchUnian.
The former, Avhich is followed in Scotland, France, and ]mrts of Germany,
agrees very well with some classical allusions ; but the licuchUnian, which
was the mode adopted by the Greeks, who taught their native language in the
West at the period of the revival of letters, and which still prevails in modem
Greece, seems to be of great antiquity. The itacism, or confusion of the
sounds of n, i, v, and H; and of e, a/, and ''i, which is a peculiarity of
lleuchlin's system, has given rise to mistakes in some of the oldest Greek
MSS. extant.
34 PUINCIPLES OF TEXTUAL CRITICISM. [bOOK I.
probably the most frequent cause of errors of omission, and affords
the most obvious and decisive evidence of the fact.
4. A passage is suspicious which is omitted by some good autho-
rities, and which has the appearance of having been introduced into
those copies in which it is found, from a parallel place or from a
marginal note.
Additions of this kind are, in general, easily detected, and, of
course, deserve but little weight. Such a reading becomes still
more suspicious if it be found actually written as a gloss or scholium
on the margin of some MSS. ; especially if those in which it is so
wi'itten be more ancient than those which contain it in the text ; in
this case, we may have the means of tracing the history of the
introduction of a gloss, in chronological order.
5. A less elegant phrase is more likely to be genuine than another
reading of the same passage in which there is nothing that might
offend the eye or the ear.
This rule is founded on the fondness of the transcribers for such
readings as conformed to their own standard of taste. They were,
in almost all instances, studious of grammatical correctness, as well
as of force and purity of language ; and when they met with anything
that violated their canons of elegance, they were apt to change it for
another phrase taken from a parallel passage, from the margin, from
the comment of some standard writer, or from their own invention,
in which the impropriety was avoided or removed. Hence the harsh,
obscure, ambiguous, elliptical, uugrammatical, unusual, foreign, or
uncmphatical reading, is preferable to one in which no harshness or
difficulty occurs ; because, had the latter been found in the original,
no transcriber would have sought to alter it : but, if the incorrect or
inelegant reading were the more ancient, successive transcribers
would readily catch at any means of curing what they would
naturally consider a defect in their exemplar. The rule given above
is of especial use in those passages in which the lectio difficilior
et ohscurior conveys a good and apt sense, but one which, without a
minute acquaintance with languages, antiquities, &c. would either
appear to be unintelligible, or would seem to be heretical, profane,
or immoral. It is this rule which chiefly distinguishes the criticism
of the present age from that of the earlier school, and which has
given to the moderns a great part of whatever superiority they pos-
sess above their predecessors, in the science.
6. A reading is to be suspected which seems well calculated to
favour the observances of ascetic devotion, or which may have been
CHAP, v.] INTERNAL EVIDENCE. 35
introduced from a desire to avoid something that would have sounded
offensive in pious cars.
There can be little doubt that the men who devoted themselves to
the laborious task of preparing copies of the Sacred Scriptures were
devout, accoi'ding to their own idea of devotion ; many of them were
Jewish Rabbis or Christian monks ; some of the latter were anacho-
rets or hermits ; almost all of them were addicted to asceticism. Such
men might very naturally introduce, on slight authority, a reading
which accorded well with their own devotional feelings and habits ;
but it is not probable that they would have rejected such a reading
on insulRciont grounds. It is this consideration wliich lends the
strongest support to the passage respecting the Woman taken in
Adultery, Jolin viii. 1 — 11. Copyists who regarded chastity as the
first of human virtues, and voluntary celibacy as highly meritorious,
might readily omit what they would consider calculated to lead men
to regard adultery as a venial offence. This circumstance throws a
shade of suspicion upon those authorities which omit the narrative :
but, if the story were of a different nature, it would probably have
been condemned as spurious, on the mci'e comparison of authorities.*
7. Readings which favour the opinions of the transcriber, or of
the sect to which he belonged, or whicli seem calculated to advance
the honour of his party and to confound its adversaries, are
suspicious.
Copyists would not readily depart from their exemplar for the
purpose of introducing what was hostile to their own views of truth,
or to the credit or interest of their order or their sect ; but they
might, and probably would, have been easily persuaded to look with
partiality on such readings as promised to favour objects so dear to
their hearts. Hence, in the MSS. of the Old Testament, whicli
have come down to us through the hands of Jewish copyists, readings
which seem to countenance Jewish predilections, or which might
appear unfavourable to Christianity, are to be regarded with sus-
picion ; and, in those of the New Testament, which have descended
through an orthodox channel, readings which seem made, as it were,
on purpose to put down heresy, are to be suspected. Of course, in
the application of this, as of all the other rules for internal evidence,
it is assumed that there is conflicting testimony, and that some
respectable autliorities are to be found on each side.
It may be usefid to illustrate this rule at somewhat greater
* The authorities for the omission and insertion of this passage will bo
stated in the Third Book of this woik.
30 rUINCIPLES OF TEXTUAL CUITICISM. [bOOK I,
length than has been necessary in the case of those which precede,
and the simplest mode of doing so will be by a few examples. Thus,
in Judges xviii. 30, the Jews have, from a very early period, altered,
iu most of their copies, the word HSi^D. Moses, into n^^^>
Manasseh, which, however, is usually found written with the ^
suspended (nu;'j3), or enlarged (nu;^)D). We are at no diffi-
culty to divine the motive of this alteration ; it was considered as
discreditable to the Hebrew nation and to their religion to have it
recorded that the grandson of their great lawgiver exercised, together
with his sons, the priesthood of an idol in the city of Dan; and,
therefore, the name of Moses was changed into that of Manasseh, to
avoid the scandal. This corruption is very ancient, for Mavdasri is
found in the most ancient copies of the Septuagint ; but it is easily
detected by the diversity which prevails in writing the word ; by the
confession of the Talmudists, who affirm that the name was that of
Moses, but that it was written with the J, on account of the dis-
graceful conduct of his descendant; and from the marginal note
found in almost all the Hebrew MSS. which directs that the ^
shall not be inserted in the text, but suspended over it. Had the
Jewish copyists found T\^^^ simply, they would not have hesitated
to retain it without adding any extraordinary marks to excite sus-
picion. This error appears in the English version, but not in the
Vulgate nor in any of the translations derived from it.
It was, at one time, a very common opinion, that the Jews had
wilfully corrupted the text of their sacred books in many places, in
order to deprive Christians of the advantage wliich they might derive
from the arguments drawn from ancient prophecy; but recent
authors have almost entirely abandoned this charge. It is, indeed,
not to be denied that many of the passages formerly relied on as
proofs of the accusation are found, when minutely examined, to lend
it no support, the readings objected to as spurious being, in some
cases, manifestly and undoubtedly authentic; in others, well sup-
ported ; and in many not less favourable to the Christian doctrine
than those for which they were supposed to have been fraudulently
substituted. The charge of general corruption, therefore, must fall
to the ground: but there are yet manifest proofs that particular
passages have, iu some MSS. been tampered with; or at least that,
in them, readings have been systematically preferred which seemed
unfavourable to Christianity. Of this, Psalm xxii. 17 (Heb.) affords
an example. There is no doubt, from the testimony of the ancient
versions, as well as from the sense of the passage, that the true
CHAT. V.j INTERNAL EVIDENCE. 37'
reading of the last clause of tliis verso is l''yyy\ ^1^ 1"12 ; which
is rondo rod in our English version, " they pierced (i. o, tore or
wounded,) imj hands and mij feet ;'^ this reading is foundiu some iVISS.
as above given, and in several others with a slight change in tlio
first word, which is written ")'15<53, by the insertion of one of tho
matres Icctlonts. The vast majority, however, of tho Jewish MSS.
and editions read, instead of y^"^ or IIJO " thcij pierced," *'nX3 or
n^'liO "«s a lion,'''' which makes nonsense of the clause, and even
contradicts tho Masorah, the rule by which they profess to be guided ;
for that document directs, that in this place "1*1J»{3 shall bo inserted
in the text; *'1X3 in tho margin. It is impossible to avoid tho
suspicion that party zeal may have influenced these copyists. They
must have known that the Christians — whether correctly or not is
nothing to the present question — regarded this clause as propheti-
cally descriptive of the suffering Messiah ; and, no doubt, they were
prone to adopt any various reading by which tho force of their
opponents' argument could be effectually turned aside. In this
instance, therefore, wo prefer the reading ")*^^ or ")*1K3. "they
pierced," because it is supported by some respectable authorities,
and because it is least favourable to the party to which the trans-
cribers of the Hebrew MSS. belonged.
Nor need we hesitate to apply the same rule to some readings
which are found in particular copies of tho New Testament Scrip-
tures. Thus, in John viii. 44, where the true reading undoubtedly
is, iifMsTg sx rou 'xar^hg rov bia^okov lar's, "ye are of your [lit. the^
father, the devil:" a few MSS. read, IfjjiTg sx. rou diujSoXo'o bcts, ye are
of the devil;" leaving out rov rrar^og, " the father," a mistake wliich
may have arisen from tho oimiotsXsvtov, occasioned by the repetition
of the article ro'O, but which, more probably, was owing to tho desire
of tho coi)yists to deprive certain Gnostics of the argument which
they might build upon this text in support of their fundamental
position, that the God of the Jews, the Creator of the world and of
tlie human race, was an Evil Being. Had the external evidence in
favour of this reading been much more weighty than it is, we should
have I'ejected it without scruple, because it apparently owes its origin
to the sectarian zeal of the copyists.
For another example we may refer to Matt. i. 25 ; ioj; o5 sVtxs rh
•j'lov aWrig rov ■r^uroroxov " until she brought forfh Jwr first-horn son;"
but here four MSS. with two ancient versions and a few copies of tho
lid Tuitin version, read simply rhv y/w c.lrric, "her son," leaving out
38 PRINCIPLES OF TEXTUAL CRITICISM. [bOOK I.
riv 'TguTOToxov, " the first-horn.'' These words were, doubtless, omitted
because they seemed to call in question the perpetual virginity of
the mother of Christ, which it was considered both heresy and
blasphemy to impugn. We therefore prefer the common reading ;
and we should have preferred it though not merely four but forty
MSS. had opposed it; because we can account for their opposition
from the doctrinal views of the transcribers.
We may here refer to John iii. 6, which ends with the words,
" that lohich is lorn of the spirit is spirit:'' to this some Latin MSS.
and Fathers add, " quia Deus Spiritus est:" and three Latin MSS.
still further improve the cogency of the passage by reading : " quia
Deus Spiritus est, et de (vel ex) Deo natus est:" i.e. " because the
Spirit is God and is horn of God." Who can doubt that these
readings are interpolations, probably originating in a marginal scho-
lium, but which found a ready reception with the copyists of these
documents, from their appearing well calculated to refute the doc-
trines of the Arians and Macedonians, respecting the Spirit of God ?
Readings which can be traced to such feelings are of no authority
whatever.
This rule has been applied by Wetstein, Griesbach, and other
critics, to a number of passages in which the Received Text as
commonly printed is favourable to the • orthodox doctrine : but in
which several of the most valuable authorities exhibit a reading
that has no direct bearing upon controversy : such as Acts xx. 28 ;
1 Cor. X. 9; 1 Tim. iii. IG; 1 John v. 7; Jude, ver. 4; Rev. i. 8;
Rev. i. 11, &c. ; but as these texts will receive a separate examina-
tion hereafter, it is unnecessary and would be out of place to go
into them minutely at present. The examples already given are
such as will probably occasion no dispute : and they are amply
sufficient to explain and justify the rule.
8. In general a sliorter reading is to be preferred to a more
copious one.
Transcribers were desirous of making their copies as complete as
possible : it is probable that they never left out, on purpose, any-
thing which they found in their exemplar, except in cases where
their pccuhar prejudices were concerned : and several MSS. exhibit
blank spaces in particular parts ; showing that when the copyists
had heard of the existence of passages, though not in their own
exemplar, nor in any to which they had access, they nevertheless
wished to insert them, whenever an opportunity might occur for
doing so, and left room for the purpose. This rule, of course, does
CUAP. V.J INTERNAL EVIDENCE. 39
not apply to places in which either the l,ii(,ioTc'/.i\jrw or some other
known cause, might occasion an omission.
1). Civteris paribits a reading is to be preferred which best accords
with the usage of the writer in whoso works it is found.
Every author has his own peculiarities of style and phrase, from
which ho does not frequently deviate : wo ought not therefore,
without strong evidence, to attribute to him a reading which is
opposed to his usual mode of expression. This rule shews that
no one can be a sound critic who is not also a good scholar, and
especially versed in the writings upon which he proposes to exercise
his critical sagacity.
10. There is a strong probability in favour of any reading, which,
if assumed to have been the original one, will readily enable us to
account for all the other readings by the operation of some of the
known causes of error.
This rule, though occasionally referred to by preceding writers,
has been brought prominently into notice by Griesbach, who has
very happily applied it to the elucidation of several difficult pas-
sages. Its justice will not be disputed ; for we are in no case to
suppose more, or more important changes, than are necessary to
account for obseiTcd fact:;.
Griesbach, after enumerating the principles of internal evidence,
very nearly to the same effect with the rules which are given above,
adds, that " it is unnecessary to repeat again and again that those
readings which, viewed in themselves, we judge to be preferable,
are not to be actually adopted as the true text, unless they are
recommended by the testimony of some ancient authorities. Those
which are supported by no adequate testimony, but rely exclusively
on trivial and modern authorities, are not to be taken into account.
But the more conspicuous any reading is for its internal marks of
excellence, the fewer authorities are necessary to support it. And
thus it may occasionally happen, that a reading may display so
many and so clear indications of authenticity, as to be sufficiently
supported by two authorities, provided they belong to different
classes or families, or even by one." — Proleg. in N. T. Sec. iii.
p. 59, n.
To decide upon trivial and modern authorities, exclusively, is
neai'ly the same as to decide without any authority whatever, or
upon mere conjecture ; and although this is a practice which is
freely admitted in the case of the ancient classics, and must occa-
sionally be tolerated, from necessity, in the Old Testament, and
40 PRINCIPLES OP TEXTUAL CRITICISM. [liOOK I.
although sorao specious arguments might be advanced foi' pennit-
ting it to be employed in the New, — still it seems safest and best
to adhere in the criticism of the sacred text, — always in the New
Testament, — and in the Old, whenever it is possible, — to the maxim
laid down by Griesbach, and according to which he has constructed
his valuable edition, — ''Nil mutetur e conjecturd.'^ The reasons
for tolerating Critical Conjecture as a source of emendation in a
few passages of the Old Testament, will come before us in the
sequel. It must, however, be allowed that it is a dangerous remedy
in any hands but the most judicious and experienced: and its arbi-
trary use ought certainly to be discouraged.
BOOK II.
TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF THE OLD TESTAMENT.
BOOK II.
TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF THE OLD TESTAMENT.
CHAPTER I.
HISTORY OF THE TEXT OF THE OLD TESTAMENT.
In applying the principles already explained to tlio writings of the
Old Testament, we should bo greatly aided by an accui-ato history
of the transmission and of the criticism of the sacred books com-
posing that part of our religious canon : but unfortunately, in the
early and most important part of the narrative, the materials for
such a history are scanty, and the facts are seldom beyond the
reach of controversy.
We have very little information respecting the manner of com-
posing and pubhshing the sacred books of the Hebrews. On one
occasion we find the prophet Jeremiah employing Baruch as his
amanuensis, to write down, and afterwards as his spokesman, to
read in public a portion of his prophecies, (Jer. xxxvi. 4, 5, G.)
We cannot, however, affirm that this was the universal practice,
nor even that it was general. It is a more probable opinion that
most of the Biblical authors were their own amanuenses. In some
instances wo know that this was the case.
One thing seems certain, that the sacred text was not originally
written in the beautiful square character in which it is now ex-
hibited in the printed Hebrew Bibles and in all Jewish MSS.
Origen* in the third century, Julius Africanus, his cotemporary
yjvaou TiraXou roD uo^iiiiu; yiy^nrrrur xj^ios bi xai rovro Tag' " E>.>.>jff/v
44 TEXTUAL CKITICISM OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. [bOOK II.
and correspondent,* and Jeromet about the beginning of the fifth,
all of them, on such a point, competent and credible witnesses,
affirm, on the authority of their Jewish teachers, that the Hebrew
alphabet of their day,— which, so far as we can judge, appears to
have been substantially the same with our own, — was very different
from that in which the scriptures of the Old Testament had been
originally written : — the ancient character Africanus and Jerome
unhesitatingly identify with that which was then used by the Sama-
ritans, and Origen apparently inchnes to the same opinion. With
this tradition the leading Talmudists, both Jerusalem and Baby-
lonish, agree : they call the modern character rT'lS^i^ 2T\^> or the
AssyrianX writing, because, as they affirm, their ancestors, on their
return from captivity, had brought it with them from Mesopotamia,
'ixcpuvurar xai iv roTg a-/!.^i^o\j(Si tSjv dvTiy^a(poJv ' ElS^aixoTg y^a/z/^aff/ ys-
y^wTTrai, aXk' ohyj '""'5 ^'^^' P"*^' 7"? '^''^ "EtfSgav 'ki^oig y^griGao&at fj^ira
rriv ai^l^aXojSiav " There is also found iu them,"— i.e. in certain Greek
MSS. — "the sacred name consisting of four letters, which is never pro-
nounced"—(i.e. nin** which is now by Christians usually called Jehovah,)
— " which was inscribed upon the golden fi-ontlet of the High Priest ; in the
Greek Version it is expressed byl.he word Kug/og, Lord: and iu accurate
copies, it is written in the ancient Hebrew character, not in that which is
at present in use ; for it is asserted that Ezra after the captivity altered the
mode of writing." — Origen, as cited by Montfaucon, Hexapla, Vol. i. p. 80.
* To laijja^iiruv aoyraiorarov -/.at "^a^dxTriPcii bidXXarrov, 6 xai a'Kri&ig
ilvai -/Ml rr^SjTov 'E(3^a7oi KahfMjXoyovai. — " The Pentateuch of the Sama-
ritans, a most ancient document, differing in the form of its letters [from the
Jewish copy ; but] which the Jews themselves acknowledge to be the true
and primitive." — Julius Africanus, as cited by Syncellus. — This might be
understood as asserting that the Hebrews admitted the Samaritan Penta-
teuch to be the genuine and original text : but most probably it alludes
merely to the antiquity of the written character.
t Ccrtum est Esdram scribam legisque doctorem, post captam Jerosoly-
mam, et instaurationem templi sub Zorobabcl, alias literas I'eperisse, quibus
nunc utimur : cum ad illud usque tempus iidem Samaritanorum et Hebree-
orum characteres fuerint. — " It is certain that Ezra, the Scribe and Doctor
of the Law, after the capture of Jerusalem and the restoration of the Temple
under Zerubbabel, invented a new alphabet, which we use at present : tor
up to that time, the written characters of the Samaiitans and the Hebrews
were the same," — Hieronymus, Prologue Galeatus.
X Since Tychsen and some other writers interpret the terms H^'lSJ^i^ ^H^
as signifying not the " Assyrian" but the " elegant" or " upright" character,
it may be well to subjoin the following extracts from the Talmud, showing
the sense in which its authors used the words. " At first the Law was given
to Israel in the Hebrew character, ^l^y ISHDn^ afterwards it Avas given to
them in the days of Ezi-a, in the Assyrian character, p"''*)2J^{«^ ^HD^-
The Israelites then adopted the Assyrian character and the sacred language."
" What is the Hebrew character? Rabbi Chasda replied, the Samaritan :"
n''i1l7 ^T\^ (Bab. Talmud, Tr. Sanhedrim, Sec. 2, p. 21, col. 1.) In the
same Tract, c. 1. Jlabbi Jose, comparing Ezra with Moses, says that " al-
CHAP. I. j IIISTOIIY or THE TEXT, 45
— which was considered as a part of Assyria. The Babylonish
Tahnudists, with Jerome and Origen, attribute tlio change to Ezra :
but neither in the book of Ezra nor in Josephus do we find any
mention of such a transaction : and the story seems only a hypo-
thesis invented to account for the great difference which the Rabbis
observed, when they compared together the modern and ancient
copies of their scriptures. Finding tlie mode of writing to be dis-
similar, and thinking it needful to have an autlioritative sanction
for every change, it was natural for their thoughts to turn to the
great restorer of their civil and religious polity. It is much more
probable that the most ancient books of the Old Testament were
originally composed in the old Phoenician alphabet, of which ves-
tiges have been found in various parts of Western Asia and
Northern Africa : and which in some respects resembled the in-
scriptions upon the ancient coins of the Asmoneau princes.* That
alphabet is neither the same with the modern Samaritan, nor with
the present Hebrew : and no doubt both these have been derived
from it by that natural and gradual process of change to which all
writing is subject.! This primitive character was written in the
MSS, — as there is every reason to believe — in the same manner
as on the existing coins and monuments, continud serie, or at least
though the Law was not given by his hand, yet the character in which it is
written had been changed by his hand; wherefore its name is called H^'HtJ'J^
because it had come ivith the Jews from Assyria." — In the Jerusalem Tahnud
Tr. Megill, Sec. 1, we find it stated of the law, "its writing is ^"^^Xi
Assyrian, but not its language : its language is Hebrew, but not its WTiting,
They cliosc the Assyrian writing and the Hebrew language. AVhy is it
called AssjTian ^"l^Ji^? Is it because its character is excellent, "IJJ'IXD?
Rabbi Levi replied, JBecause it was brought by their hand from Assyria."
Here Tychsen's interpretation of the word is anticipated and expressly
rejected. It is proper to add, that some of the Talmudists ditler from the
views of R. Jose and R. Levi.
* These coins have been found in the regions which were under the sway
of the Asmonean dynasty, or in the adjoining tcmtories. About thirty
skekels and perhaps fifty half-skekels, all of silver, are in the various mu-
seums of Europe. All of them have been obtained for very little more than
their intrinsic worth, from the a\j'abs and others who have found them : so
that they certainly were not manufactured for the pui-poses of imposition.
In truth, at the time when they first became known to the learned, the
subject of the ancient Hebrew writing had not been studied, and conse-
quently the strange form of the characters found in their legends took away
from, instead of adding to, their market value. The modern Jews, however,
with few exceptions, misled by their unwillingness to detract from the anti-
quity of the square Hebrew character, look upon all these coins as forgeries.
There are forged Jewish coins in existence, some of which I have seen : but
they exhibit letters exactly resembhug the modern Hebrew type.
t In this opinion, Kcnnicott, Biancoui, Eickhorn, Bauer, C>eseniu9, Pe
\\'ette, and many other modern writers, concur.
46 TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. [UOOK II.
with little attontion to the division of words : it was destitute of
final letters, and of all kinds of vowel points, stops, accents, &c.
But although the alphabet underwent a very marked change,
before it assumed its present form, there is no reason to believe
that any important alterations were introduced into the text at that
period. The temple copy of the Pentateuch was discovered by
Hilkiah, in the reign of Josiah, (B.C. 623,) and brought into hght
from the obscurity in which it had long been buried, (2 Kings
xxii. 8,) a fact which must have contributed very greatly to restore
the uniformity of the MSS. that were in common use, and to
preserve from corruption future transcripts. The writings of the
Prophets, and some of the historical books, not being regarded by
the Jews as of equal importance with the law, were probably but
seldom transcribed : their text would thus be preserved in some
degree safe from corruption ; while some of the sacred books were
not composed till after the return from the captivity, about which
period the Jews began to be exceedingly scrupulous respecting the
preservation of the text of their scriptures. On this part of their
literary history, however, we are destitute of cotemporary authority :
and much of what has been recorded by the Rabbis of a later age,
though it commanded the assent of the learned in former times, can
only be looked upon as conjecture, or mere fable. We may adduce
as an example the tradition of the Jews, once so popular among the
Protestant divines, but now exploded by all Christian scholars, that
Ezra, by divine inspiration, published an edition of the sacred books,
exhibiting in every page and line, an infallibly correct and perfect
text*. There is no recoi'd of this miracle in any part of the scrip-
tures : and we may affirm, without fear of contradiction, that if
Ezi*a occupied himself with the emendation of the text, — which is
far from being an improbable supposition, — he proceeded according
to critical rules, not by miraculous guidance : and acted not as a
prophet but as an editor.
The ancient Greek Version of the Old Testament, commonly
called the Septuagint, or the Seventy, gives us some knowledge
of the state of the text in the third century before Christ. This
translation was probably commenced during tlie joint reign of
Ptolemy the son of Lagus and Ptolemy Philadelphus, i.e. B.C. 285
* This tradition had obtained footing iu tlie church so early as the days
of TertuUian, who iiitiinates that after all the ancient books of the Jewish
Canon had been lost, Ezra was enabled to reproduce them! — J}e CuUu
Fan. i. 3. p. 151, Ed. Rigaltii.
ClIAl'. I. I HISTOHY OF TIIK TEXT, 47
or 280. Wo shall hereafter give a sketch of its history and present
condition : in the mean time, it may suffice to state that an analysis
of its readings in some passages of the Pentateuch proves that the
text from which it was made approached more nearly to the present
Samaritan than to the present Jewish standard. There are in tlie
Septuagint some arithmetical mistakes, which have been explained
on the supposition that, in the copy from which it was translated,
numbers were usually, if not universally, expressed by numerical
letters, which miglit easily be misconceived. Errors arising from
a faulty division of words are not unfrequcnt, and seem to mark
the want of final letters in the exemplar ; and there are mistakes in
translating, which demonstrate that the text was not furnished,
at least generally, with vowels, or that these were incorrectly placed.
It is evident that when the Septuagint translation was made, the
present Hebrew character, or one closely resembling it, was in use :
for the translators have often fallen into mistakes from the similarity
of certain letters which arc alike in the square or Chaldee alphabet,
but very diflPerent in the Phoenician and that found on the Jewish
coins.
We cannot collect much direct information respecting the Hebrew
Text from the quotations and references to the Old Testament, in
the Apocrypha, and in the New Testament, nor from those of Philo
and Josephus : for in all these there is such a manifest reference to
the version of the LXX, that we cannot be absolutely certain
whether the citations, as they are given, agreed exactly with the
Hebrew Text as it then stood, or not : — if they did, that text must
have undergone many alterations during the eighteen centuries
which have since elapsed. From the words of our Saviour, in Matt.
V. 18, it may be inferred that the letter Jod had assumed its present
form ^ or some similar figure ; at all events that it was the smallest
letter in the Hebrew alphabet of the period : and that some of the
letters in common use were only to be distinguished from each
other by the shape of their corners, apices, &c. as at present*.
Some may be inclined to argue that the text of the Pentateuch was
even then written with those minute tips and flourishes over certain
letters, which are observable in the modern synagogue rolls ; but
this is an unnecessary and improbable supposition. The passage
* "One jot (Gr. lujra') or one tittle (Gr. xs^ala') shall in no wise pass
from the law, till all be fulfilled :" </. d. no one letter, however small, shall
be lost : no two letters, however similar, shall be confounded, (In the
Samai'itan alphabet the Jod is rather a lai-ge letter.)
48 TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF THE OLD TKSTAMKNT. [bOOK II.
undoubtedly viudicates, though in an indirect manner, the Jewish
people from the charge of gross neglect or wilful corruption of their
sacred 'oooks, down to the time of the manifestation of our Saviour.
In his day we find a body of men in existence, whose name yga/^-
iMaru;, Scribes, implies that they made the text of scripture their
care. Some moderns speak of the scribes as copyists, others regard
them as expounders of the law and the prophets : very probably
they united both these occupations : but whatever view may be
taken of their particul£i,r charge, the existence of such a body of
persons bespeaks considerable attention to the textual accuracy of
the sacred records.
Before the close of the second century after Christ, the Greek
versions of Aquila, Theodotion, Symmachus, and others appeared ;
there is reason to believe that the Peshito, or old Syriac version,
was not much more recent ; and some refer to this period the Tar-
gums, or Chaldee versions of Onkelos on the Pentateuch, and
Jonathan on the Prophets ; but the latter was probably more
modern, by a full century at the least. The Syriac and Chaldee
versions have been preserved, and fragments of the Greek ones :
and amidst considerable diversities from each other, they all afford
proofs that the texts from which they were made approached much
more closely to our present standard, than did the original text of
the Septuagint. They all differ occasionally from the modern
reading : but their variations are neither so numerous nor so
marked ; and none of them are of much importance.
The critical labours of Origen, who flourished about A.D. 230,
were directed exclusively to the emendation of the Septuagint ver-
sion. He never seems to have suspected the existence of various
readings in the copies of the Hebrew original : and therefore con-
tented himself with endeavouring to bring the authorised trans-
lation of the Greek churches into a more exact conformity with
the text of that Hebrew MS, which he took as the basis of his
labours.
Passing on to the beginning of the Fifth Century, we come to the
labours of Jerome, who, about that period, executed from the ori-
ginal Hebrew his Latin translation, the groundwork of the Vulgate
Version still used by the Church of Rome. The text of Jerome's
version approaches very nearly to that of our present Masoretic
copies ; but does not everywhere agree with it. From Jerome's ob-
servations upon the Hebrew text, which are to be gathered from his
commentaries, epistles, and other writings, it appears that the final
CITAP. r.] IIISTOUV OF THE TKXT. 49
letters had now been invented*, but that our mrxlorn vowel points
and accents wore, as yet, complctolj unknown, for ho never makes
the slightest allusion to them. Ho knows nothing oven of the
diacritic point of ly, or of Dagesh. Some words, he expressly says, are
ambiguous, because there was no means of determining their pro-
nunciation, which, if known, would have defined the senset. The
vowel sounds to bo used in reading other passages, he speaks of as
certain and determinate]:. In these instances, we must suppose,
either that his codex exhibited tlio letters ^1K, used as matrcs Icctionis,
or that he followed the traditionary reading of the Rabbis whom ho
consulted, for he never speaks of points of any kiiid as being used f(n'
tliat purpose. He observes that the word HDIp^ J" fr '"• xix. 33,
had a point placed over it to denote, as he thinks, that the circum-
stance there spoken of was, on natural principles, incredible and im-
possible ||. ]?oth the text, therefore, and the manner of writing it,
were, in the time of Jerome, making a very rapid approach to what
is now called the Masoretic Recension. His codex, however, was
not divided into verses§, nor does it appear to have had any critical
apparatus, such as the Kri and JCthib, &c.
So early as the Third Century, the Jewish Rabbis, who had
already formed themselves into schools and colleges for the pro-
secution of sacred literature, began to compile the Mishna^ or text
* Porro quinque litcric dupliccs apud Hebi'JBos sunt, Caph, Mem, Kuii,
Pe, Sade: aliter enim scribuntur ]icr has principia medictatesquc verboiuni,
aliter fines. Ilieron, Prologus Galeatus. — This, I believe, is tlie earliest
mention of these characters.
t See especially his comment on Hos. xi. 10; Ilos. xiii. 3; Ilab. iii. 3;
Hab. iii. 5 ; Jer. ix. 22 ; Isa. xxvi. 14 ; Isa. xxxi. 9 ; Zeph. iii. S, &<•.
I See Traditiones Ilebraicm, de nomine Ephron ; Jipist. 1 45 ; Epist. ad
Evaarium, de dfelchisedcck, &c.
II Traditiones Ilehraiccc in Gencsin. This point is still seen over the letter
*\ in the word H/b^D^ '• ^^^ ^^'''^^^ Jerome's reason was not the true one is
manifest from Gen. xix. 35, where the same M'ord is found in a parallel pas-
sage without the point, but ahio without the \ which is indeed superfluous.
Doubtless the dot was placed over it, in vcr. 33, to mark it as redundant.
§ Jerome had caused his version to be written in STiyj:i' of which he gives
this explanation: — "Nemo cum prophetas vcrsibus vidcrit esse descriptos,
metro cos existimet ajjud Hebrreos ligari et aliquid simile habere de Psalmis
et operibusSalomonis: sed quod in Demobiheiie ct Tullio solet fieri ut per
cola scribantur et commata, qui utrique prosa et non versibus cf>nscrip-
serunt, nos quoque utilitati letrentium providcntcs. interpretationcTn novam
novo scribeitdi genere distiuximus. " — Prafatio in Tmnsl. I.^aim. Had the
distinction of the text into verses been known, it would have been mentioned
here.
^ The Mishna was collected and arranged by the celebrated Rabbi Judah,
called Hakkadosh, or the Holy, v,-ho flourished, according to the Jewish
writers, in the latter part of the second or beginning of the third century of
our sera.
G
50 TEXTUAL CUITICISM OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. [flOOK It.
of the Talmud : to which, about the sixth century of our sera, two
bodies oi Gemara (i.e. Supplement) or Commentary were added;
the one containing the glosses and explications of the doctors who
flourished in JudoBa and Palestine, forming, with the Mishna, the Je-
rusalem Talmud ; the other comprising the notes and dissertations of
the Rabbis who taught in the remoter regions of the East, called the
Babylonish Talmud. Each of these works was progressive ; that
is, occupied a long time in its formation, and exhibits the observa-
tions of doctors who flourished in succession to each other at
different periods ; and the two works taken together are regarded
as containing a complete code of the customary laws and tradi-
tionary observances of tiie nation. In such a work, as it is natural
to expect, a vast number of citations from the scriptures are found,
involving in many cases a very minute reference to tlie exact words
of the text. These quotations have all been ransacked for various
readings, by Dr. Gill and others : upwards of a thousand deviations
from the common text have been collected and published* ; but
many of them are various readings only in appearance!, and of the
remainder scarcely one is of importance. In many parts of both
the Talmuds, we find that the Jews had already begun to compare
copies together, to note their various readings, and to pronounce a
judgment respecting their comparative evidence and value ; but the
same passages show that they had advanced no farther in their
critical studies than to decide according to the plurality of MS S.J
In the whole body of the Talmud, including both Text and Com-
ment, there is not, as Buxtorf himself admits, a single mention of
the points, or allusion to them, whether vowels or accents ; but
minute directions are given respecting the mode of writing those
* In the notes to Kennicott's Bible, under No. 650. .
t A common formula in the Talmud is p {^IpH 5^75^- -P ^?'^p^ 7K»
"Head not thus. ..hut tints..." yet a comparison of the places where this
formula occurs, shows that it is generally meant to introduce an inter-
pretation merely, not a new reading of the text.
I " R. Simeon ben Lakish said three copies were found in the Hall (of the
Temple) : the Codex Meoni, the Codex Zetutai, and the Codex Hi. In one
of these they found written ^J^yj^, Ileoni, and in two they found H^iy^.
Meonah ; they adopted the text of the two codices, and rejected that of the
one.'' (See Deat. xxxiii. 27,) &c. &c. See Keiinicott. I)is. Gen. p. Id.
The transaction is referred to the period when the temple was yet standing.
The tradition may be rejected : but the record of it shews the principles
followed by the Talmudists themselves. The passage is found nearly in the
same words in the Tract Taamth, fol. 68, 1, and in the book Sopherim, c. vi.
sec. iv. fol. \2, 1. It is very incorrectly cited by Bauer, Critica Sacra, I.
p. 206.
CIIAl'. 1.] HI8T0KY OF THE TEXT. jl /^
letters which arc similar in shape, as 3^, *1"|, Tl H. «fc«- whence
it is manifest that the alphabet which was then in use mnst have
been in almost all respects similar to that which is still employed.
It would appear from the silence of the Mishua, that the final letters
had not been yet invented, when it was composed : for it takes no
notice of them in places whore wo should have expected to find
them mentioned had they been known ; as, for example, when
treating of the similar letters (*|) -| n, (]) 1 \ (Q) D, (|*) ^^ y,
&c. ; but they are recognised repeatedly in the Gemara both of the
Jerusalem and Babylonisli Talmuds*.
It appears from the Talmud that even before that early period,
tlie Jews Jiad begun to apply their skill in criticism to the emenda-
tion and preservation of the biblical text; for vestiges of certain
ancient recensions are to bo traced in its pages. Thus it makes
mention of words and letters which bad points placed over them ;
fifteen of these words ai'O enumerated in the Talmud ; and they arc
still written in this manner in MSS. and printed in editions of the
Bible. There seems no reason to doubt that the critics who placed
these points over the words which have them, meant thereby to
indicate that the words so marked were omitted in some copies : —
and in fact there is scarcely one of them that is not omitted in the
Samaritan Pentateuch, in a parallel passage of the Old Testament,
in some of the ancient versions, or in some MSS. The Talmud
also mentions in various places, the results of the critical labours of
the scribes, of which the following passage* affords an example : —
" Kabbi Isaac said, the Lection of the Scribes, — and the Omission
of the Scribes, — and the Words to bo read but not written, — and
the Words to be written but not i*ead, are the appointment of Moses
from Mount Sinai." Here the " Lection of the Scribes," X1pX3
D**l31D. Mikra Sopherim, may perhaps denote some traditionary
mode of reading the scripture, pronouncing one word instead of
another, such as is pointed out by the marginal ITlDl ""^p.
Kri u- K'thib, in our modern bibles ; but it is more probable that
* Tims in the Tract Shabbath, fol. 103, 2, 1. 33 :— " And ye shall write so
that tlie writing may be perfect ; so that Alephs be not written as Ajins,
Ajius as Alephs, Beths as Kaphs, Kaphs as Beths, &c.... crooked letters,
(3. X iD. and ^^,) as straight, (i.e. in the final form h, V "^, t*,) or straight
ones as crooked : open letters as close, or close as open." The latter precept
refers to the distinction between the open Mem, ^^ and the close or final
form of the same letter, tID. See Ty,chsen Tentanmi dc Var'ns Codd. Hehb.
(ipncribiis, p. 347.
t From the Tract Nedarim, fol. 37, c. 2.
52 TEXTUAL CUITICISM OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. [BOOK II.
it signifies the same that is by other writers called D^"l£)"lD PpH*
TikJcun Sopherhn*, or the " Correction of the Scribes" : — a name
given to eighteen (or more correctly sixteen) passages in which a
different reading had been substituted for that which anciently stood
in text of the common copies. We may therefore understand both
these phrases as expressing what we should call the JRevisecl or Cor-
rected Text, or that which was then considered as such. The
" Omission of the Scribes," C^SID ^)t2)2, •^'f^wr Soplierim, is
clearly ascertained to denote an emendation of the same nature :
it relates to five passages in which the conjunction 1, and, had been
erased as superfluous. The "Words to be read but not written,"
called ia the Talmud pllTlD 5^7") P'''lp> Kerijin vela K'thibin,
are thirteen as marked in our present Hebrew Bibles, but eight
only are mentioned in the Talmud. The " Words to be written
but not read," — V''^p is7) VyT\^> K'thibin velo Kerijin, fare
according to the Talmud five, according to our modern copies eight :
these were also critical emendations : in the first class of instances,
the text was judged to be defective, and something was orally added
to complete it : in the second something was thought to be redun-
dant, and the reader was directed to pass it over. In these cases,
the written text was not altered, probably because the errors noticed
were too ancient and too widely spread, to admit of being easily
remedied by the help of the existing critical materials. All these
emendations relate to the letters, properly so called ; but none of
them is either of doctrinal or historical importance. They were at
one time regarded by Christian scholars as proofs that the Jews had
from a very early period altered and wilfully corrupted the text of
their sacred books ; but they are now more justly relied on as the
clearest evidence of the very great zeal and diligence of the Rabbis
to procure and px'eserve the true reading, so far as it was in their
power to do sof.
We may add to these indications of the state of the text, as
♦ This term is not used in the Talmud, but is found in the Masora and
the works of more recent Rabbis.
f We may observe in the extract given above, an instance of the proneness
ol'the Rabhis to refer everything of importance to the autliority of Moses,
Ezra, &c. Even the various readings of the scriptures, they assigned, in
many cases, to tlie original writer himself: a supposition against which it
would be a waste of time to argue. We must assign to their predecessors
the scribes, those corrections of the text which they, ignorantly or designedly,
attributed to their lawgiver and prophet. The very names of some of these
emendations, (Ittur Sopherim and Mikra Sopherim,) point to the scribes
as their authors. How, indeed, could Moses correct the text of the Pro-
phetical books, which were not written till after his death?
CIIAl' I.
IIISTOUY 01' HIE TEXT. 53
gathered from the Talmud, that it recognises the nVti''l£. I'ura-
shioth, or Synagogue Lessons in the Law, as a well-known division of
the text marked in the MSS. ; and even the distinction between the
open sections, or n*imn3. Pethuchoth, which always commence with
a new lino, and the close sections, HlttinD. Scthumoth, which always
begin after a blank space left in the middle of a line. " An open
Parsha thou shalt not make close, nor a close one open."* These
traditions and directions laid the foundation of that which was
afterwards called the Masorah,
Some time after the completion of the Talmud, the ancient Jewish
critics, called the Masorcts, commenced those labours which have
had so important an influence on the text of the Hebrew Scriptures,
even to the present day. It appears from the tradition of the Jews,
as recorded by intelligent writers of their own nation, and from other
sources of infoi-matiou, that they were a body, or rather as succession
of learned men, cliiefly connected with the celebrated school at
Tiberias in Calilee, who devoted themselves to the criticism and
exposition of the sacred books. They collated copies and corrected
the text where it appeared to be faulty ; they divided the books into
verses ; they invented, or perhaps they only increased tlic number of,
the vowel points, to mark the accurate pronunciation by which the
sense is, in many cases, determinedf ; they invented the system of
accentuation, and affixed to each word its accent, to mark what they
considered the proper modulation of the voice ; and they accurately
enumerated the verses, words, and letters, as well as the sections, of
the different books, noting the middle verse of each, and, in some
cases, the middle word. The document in which these critics re-
corded their observations they called the Masorah, n*11D/tD or H'^'lDD.
that is Tradition;], because each its authors noted in it what
he had received from his predecessors. This work was, at first,
written in a separate book ; afterwards, an abridgment of its princi-
pal observations was placed in the margin of the MSS. of the Scrip-
tures ; and, at length, it became usual to write it there in fuU, and
often in the fantastic forms of birds, quadrupeds, &c. at the top and
bottom of each page. This work was not completed till about the
* From the Tract Schahbath, fol. 103, c. 2, 1. 33, &c.
t I have ventured to assume as an cstabHshed fact, the recent origin of
the vowel points and accents : a fact which is conceded by Abeu-Ezra aud
Elias Levita among the Jews ; and which is ahnost universally recognised
by modern Clu-istiau scholai's.
I From the root '~\'Qf2 tradidit: which occurs in Num. ixxi. 5 and xxxi. 16.
►Some derive it from *^5J^, vinxit : otlicis from "^D*, e&rripuit, rastiijavit.
54 TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF THE OLD TESTAMtlNT. [bOOK II.
eleventh century of our era. Short extracts from it are given in all
the common editions of the Hebrew Bible, and it is printed at full
length in the Great Rabbinical Bibles of Bomberg, Buxtorf, and
Ben Simeon*.
We owe to the industry of the Masorets those corrections, if
we may so denominate them, called npl l^HD- ^^"^^""^ ti-Kcri,—
which we may translate, the Written and Oral Text, —which appear
in the margin of almost all editions of the Hebrew Bible, It is
hardly necessary to say, that in all cases where a note of KHUh
u-Keri occurs, the Masorets intended that one word, the KHIiih,
should preserve its place in the written text, but that it should
be read, pronounced, and understood, as another, which is called
the Keri, and is written in the margin : its points and accents,
however, being annexed to the ICtUh or textual word. The
design of these Kerijin seems to be various. In some instances
they are intended to correct what were considered as grammatical
mistakes : in some to substitute other words for those which were
regarded as dictu inhonesta : in some they give, as it were, interpre-
tations of words of rare occurrence, or used in an unfrequent sense :
but in many cases there is every reason to believe that they are
various readings, properly so called : which the Masorets found in
the text of certain MSS. and regarded as genuine ; but not thinking
them sufficiently supported by external evidence, they did not ven-
ture to introduce them into the written text. There are about a
thousand places in which the note of Keri ve-K'thih occurs ; and
it has been observed that they all relate to the proper letters, not
the mere vowel points and accents.
It is scarcely possible in a brief space to give even a general
notion of the varied contents of the Masorah. -Let it suffice to
mention that it relates to the Books, Sections, Verses, Words,
Letters, Diacritic Points, Vowel Points, Accents, and extraordinary
marks. It points out the places in which anything was supposed
to have been omitted, altered, or added : the words which were
written full, that is, with the quiescent letters inserted, and those
which were written defectively, that is, with the same letters omit-
ted : and also those words in which any anomaly occurred in the
* Bishop Marsh asserts, (Lectures on Criticism, jp. 65,) that the Masorah
became at length " as large as the Bible itself." Nor is this estimate much
exaggerated. The tiual Masorah occupies 122 pages in Buxtorf s Bible, and
the marginal, if all brought together, would probably fill an equal space.
Now a work of 240 or 250 folio pages, is not far from equalling the size of
the Bible ; that is, of the Hebrew Text alone.
CHAP. I.] HISTORY OF THE TEXT. /)5
iiso either of the vowel-points or accents. The Masorah indicates
the number of times that the same word is foimd in tlie beginninjr,
middle, or end of a verso ; what letters arc to bo pronounced, what
aro silent, what are to bo inverted, suspended, diminished*, or
enlarged ; where the final form of a letter is to bo used in the
middle of a word, and where the initial form is to bo employed
at the end. The Masorah to the Pentateuch informs us which is
the middle letter of the Lawt ; and the Masorah, at the end of
the Bible, is said to give the number of times that each letter of
tho alpliabet occurs from the beginning to tho end of the Old Tes-
tament |. The recollection of tlic numbers involved in these
computations is facilitated by the adoption of a to^D. *-6- orifMiTov, or
memorial vord for each fact ; the letters of which, considered as
numerals and added together, make up the specified sum.
The Masorah is distinguished into Marginal and Final : tho latter
is written at the end of the books or great divisions of tho sacred
volume : and it embraces a vast number of particulars besides tliose
above enumerated.
The object of the Masorets in devoting so much time and pains
to these minutke was doubtless tho very laudable one of forming
a correct and standard text of their religious code and of preserving
it, in perpetuum, pure from every corruption ; and in both these
respects their labours have been highly estimated by the great ma-
jority of their own nation. Hence tho Masorah has been called
" the fence of the Late," because it has been support to guard the
canon from all intrusion of unauthorised matter. Thus Elias Levita,
or Elijah ben- Levi, a learned German Jew, of the sixteenth century,
— although he rejects and refutes the common opinion of his coun-
trymen that the Masorah had been handed down in an unwritten
* There is reason to believe that these diminished letters sometimes conceal
a real various reading. Thus the Masorah directs that the X in the first
word of Leviticus sliall he written small ; and so we find it in M!^S. and Edd.
It is evident that the iMasorcts found in some copies Hti'^ /X X^lp**"!'
and in others, "nUu? Xlp"**! the sense of which is the same,— unable or
unwilling to decide which is genuine,— they marked the {i^ small, to shew
that it is doubtful. [The division of words and the Maccaph, we owe to the
Masorets themselves.]
t This is the letter •) in the word 'l)f^^ Lev. xi. 42, which, on this account,
the Masorah directs to be written larffe.
i This is stated by good authors: but I have looked through the Final
Masorah, as printed in Buxtorfs Bible, without being able to discover this
computation. Any one who wishes to sec the enumeration, will find it in
^\'alton's Prolegomena to the Polvglot. ch. viii. sec. s. It gives a sum total
.'f 815,280 letters in the Old Testament.
56 TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. [bOOK If.
foi-m from the days of Moses and Ezra, — and proves that it owed
its origin to tlie critics of a comparatively recent age, — yet entirely
assents to the prevailing opinion of its efficacy in guarding the
sacred text from contamination. In his work entitled Massoreth-
Ilammasoreth, he says, — " After the care which the Masorets era-
ployed, it is impossible that there ever should or could occur, any
alteration or corruption, by any means whatever, in any of the
sacred books : whence, not without reason, have our Rabbis of
blessed memory denominated the Masorah the hedge of the Law."
Other Jewish writers, however, have not hesitated to deride the
labour of the Masorets as vain, idle, and fruitless, and to speak of
the Masorah itself in the most contemptuous terms*. It is won-
derful that Elias, and others who have adopted the same view that
he has given in the foregoing extract, should not have perceived
how extremely improbable it was, that the efficacy ascribed to the
Masorah should ever have been attained : for in " the fence of the
lata" there were numberless gaps through which errors might still
creep in. In the first place, all the tedious computations of the
Masorets would be completely useless, unless in subsequent times
calculations equally tedious should be entered into, and repeated
in the case of every individual codex, in order to verify the accuracy
of each copy by the Masoretic tests. But who can suppose that
this was done with every one of the thousands of copies that were
afterwards made ? — who can believe that it was even done so much
as oncet ? Again, the Masoretic test, if applied to a MS. might
in some cases show that an error had been committed, and yet leave
the inquirer utterly unable to determine where the error lay. Thus
there is a mai'ginal note upon the word Ji^l'^, where it occurs the
second time in Lev. x. 16, directing that it shall be placed at the
beginning of a line, and stating that it is the middle word of the
Pentateuch. If, then, I take the trouble to count all the words
occurring in my copy before 2^*11, and all the words occurring
after it, and if I find that there is the difference of a unit between
them, I become aware that there is a mistake somewhere in ray
copy ; but where the error lies is to rae perfectly unknown. In
* The author of the book Cosri says, that " the work of the Masorets was
vain and superiluous, a laborious occupation on a useless thing." His com-
mentator adds that many of the Rabbis traduce, despise, and reprobate this
study ; and that the learned Aben-Ezra compares them to persons counting
the pages and lines of medical books, by which means no wound can ever be
cured.
t Bishop Walton says this had never been done, down to his day. — Prol.
viii. p, 48.
CHAP. I. I HISTORY OF THE TKXT. 57
tho third place, a very material error, or a great number of ma-
terial errors, might bo committed, of which the Masorah could
give no notice, for opposite errors might counterbalance ca(;li other.
For example, I might count over every letter in my Hebrew
Bible ; and if each were found occurring the proper number of
times, according to the enumeration in the Final Masorah, I might
bo led to conclude that tho whole codex was correct : and yet it
might contain thousands of gross mistakes ; for each letter might
be omitted many hundred times in places where it ought to be found,
and inserted just as often in places where it ought not to be found.
And, lastly, we might apply to the Masorah itself the very natural
question, Quis custodiet ipsos custodes ? Who shall preserse the
Masorah itself from corruption? What hedge shall we plant
around the fence of the Law? For the Masorah was a written
document, and like all other writings it was liable to errors in
transcription. In truth, R. Jacob ben-Chajim, who first printed
the Masorah in Bomberg's Rabbinical Bible, (4 vols. fol. Venice,
1525-6,) complains that he had the utmost difficulty m correcting
the manifest errors with which the written copies of it abounded :
the elder Buxtorf, who reprinted it in his Great Hebrew Bible,
(2 vols. fol. Basil, 1618-20,) says that, notwithstanding the dili-
gence of his predecessor, he found upwards of two hundred obvious
errata in the Masorah to the Pentateuch alone, and not less than
one hundred and eighty in the Final Masorah ; and he expresses
his conviction that many more remained unnoticed ; — and more
recently, the learned Jablonsky says, that the Masorah is "so
mutilated and perplexed — so obviously en-oneous in many places
— in others so suspicious, so contradictory to itself, and to the
MSS. of the scriptures — that it would require a Hercules to
cleanse that Augean stable."
The Masorah therefore failed, and could not but fail, of attaining
the praiseworthy object of its authors ; and errors, if we must apply
this harsh name to every departure from the text which the Ma-
sorets approved, were introduced and multiphed. Even from a
comparatively early period, variations were noted between the
Eastern and Western copies, although both classes professed to
follow and faithfully to represent the Masoretic recension : some
ancient critic made out a list of these discrepancies, which Felix
Pratensis procured* and printed in the first Venice edition of the
* Probably from a catalogue at the beginning or end of a critical MS.
Several existing codices contain a list of the various readings of Ben-Asher
n
58 TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. [bOOK II,
Hebrew Bible, A.D. 1518. There are only two hundred and twenty
various readings in the list ; all of them except two relate to the
letters, but none of them is of any importance. In the beginning
of the eleventh century of our sera, lived two illustrious Rabbis,
one of whom, Aaron ben-Asher, was principal of the Academy in
Tiberias, the other, Jacob ben-Naphtali, was chief of that in Ba-
bylon ; each of them exerted all his industry to produce a copy of
the scriptures that should be as nearly as possible correct and
immaculate ; and their codices became to their disciples standard
copies or exemplars according to which they corrected their MSS. ;
that of Ben-Asher being followed in Palestine, Egypt, and other
countries in the West, and that of Ben-Naphtali in Arabia, Persia,
and the East*. A catalogue of the variations between these cele-
brated copies was also published by F. Pratensis ; all the diversities
noted in this list, except one, relate to the points alone {vowels,
dagesh, <tc.), and are of no consequence whatever. In more recent
times we read of the Codex of Hillel, which was at one time kept
at Toledo, the Codex of Sinai, the Codex of Sanboxiki, and the
Jericho Pentateuch, which were employed as standard copies for
the correction of other MSS. ; these were aU punctuated copies ;
all of them are now lost or destroyed ; but the existence of so many
standard exemplars must have given rise to some diversities. Even
if it had been possible for the Jewish nation in their dispersed and
miserable condition to preserve and use one critical MS. or Cor-
rectorium, exhibiting in every part of its context the readings
approved by the Masorets, still errors must have crept in from the
influence of old copies, executed prior to the general recognition of
the Masorah, and from the unavoidable mistakes of transcribers.
In point of fact, the MSS. written during the middle ages and still
preserved, show every form and species of various reading ; although
it must be admitted that the far greater part of them are manifest
errata ; that of the remainder, scarce one in fifty aflPects the sense ;
and that there are not above a dozen which appear to bear upon
any question either of Jewish or of Christian doctrine. For all
important practical purposes, we may be said to have in the usual
aud Ben-Naphtali (see the works of Kcnnicott and De Rossi) ; and it is
pi'obable tlnit formerly some codices would be furnished with a list of the
variations in the Eastern and Western recensions.
* These facts we learn from the celebi'ated R. Moses beu-Maimon or
Mairaonides, who was almost cotemporaiy with Ben Asher and Ben N;ipli-
tali. He resided in Egypt, and says that "he made use of the codex of Ben
Asher. See his book Aliohah, section Sepher To^-ah.
riiAi\ 1.] msTOUY or the ti:xt. j9
editions of tho Hebrew Bcriptures, the genuine Masoretic Text : that
is, those readings whicli were adopted and panetioncd by tho critics
who compiled the Masorah ; but tlic accuracy of this recension itself,
or its conformity to the sacred autographs, is a question which must
bo decided by evidence of a different kind.
The first editions of the Hebrew Scriptures were published by Jews,
for the use of their own nation. Several parts of the Bible were
pi]juted separately ; but the fii'st complete edition was that of Soucino,
in *nall folio, A.D. 1488. It was soon succeeded by that of Brescia,
1494, which is only a reprint. The Gomplutensian Polyglott (6 vols,
fol. Io02 — 1j17) was superintended by some learned Jews who had
been converted to Christianity, and were employed on this great
work by Cardinal Ximeues, Bomberg's first edition (Venice, 1518)
was edited by Felix Pratensis, a converted Jew; and his second
(1525) by Kabbi Jacob beu-Chajim. Subsequent editors have done
little more thau repeat the text of one or other of these primary
editions, merely correcting the obvious errors of the press, and
bringing into conformity with the Masorah all those passages in which
the early editors had followed uon- Masoretic readings.
At the revival of learning in the west of Europe, a short time
before the aera of the Reformation, Christian scholars began to study
the scriptures of the Old Testament in the original languages,
which, from tho time of Jerome, had been ^to almost tho whole
church of Christ an unexplored mine. In learning the Hebrew
tongue, they were necessarily dependent, at first, on the assistance
of Jewish teachers ; and the persons whom they employed were not
always the most learned of their nation, nor the most free from its
peculiar prejudices. They seem either to have had or to have
affected the most uureasonablo opinions as to the infallible accuracy
with which their scriptures had been handed down ; they held that
every letter, vowel-point, and accent which was found in the modern
copies of the Old Testament was of divine authority ; and that not
a single thing, however minute, had been added, altered, or omitted,
since the time of the sacred writers*. These opinions were too
hastily assumed as true by most of their Christian pupils, — anxious,
perhaps, as men engaged in a new and difficult line of study might
naturally be, to magnify the importance of the subject which occu-
* It is proper to mention that the loarncd Jews, who commentod ujion the
scriptures, and who supcrinteudod the printing of the Text, in the earUer
editions, were quite free from this exti'avagant prejudice, and often complain
of the diversities of the copies, the incorrectness of many, and the uncertainty-
of the readings in various passages.
60 TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. [bOOK II.
pied their attention ; and hence, for some time after criticism had
begun to exert its skill in endeavours to amend the text of the New-
Testament, it was held superfluous and almost impious to employ
the very same kind of industry in attempting to restore that of the
Old Testament to its original purity*.
It is to be regretted that when this vain notion of the absolute
incorruption of the Hebrew text began to be impugned, it was not
always assailed from a just critical position but upon polemical
grounds : and the subject soon came to be regarded as a party
question between the Catholics and the Reformed. Cardinal Bel-
larmine, Melchior Canus, an eminent controversialist of the Romish
Church, Gordon Huntley, a learned Jesuit, and other strenuous
defenders of the old religion, attacked the supposed immaculate
purity of the Hebrew text in order to exalt the authority of the
Vulgate, which the Council of Trent had declared to be the " au-
thentic " version of the church. This was enough to cause the
greater part of the Protestant theologians to gather themselves into
a phalanx around the masoretic recension, and to defend its purity
with all their might, as the very foundation of their faitht. The
influence of these prejudices was handed down to their disciples and
successors ; insomuch that when the incorruptibility of the maso-
retic text was, at length, calmly and critically impugned, — and that
by scholars of their own persuasion among others, — the Reformed
divines generally, throughout Europe, were completely unprepared
to embrace the juster views which were placed before them. Hence
when Ludovicus Cappellus, Professor of Hebrew in the Protestant
Faculty of Theology at Saumur, published in 1624 his Arcanum
Punctationis Bevelatum, in which the modern origin both of the
vowel-points and accents was clearly demonstrated, — and when,
afterwards, his Critica Sacra appeared, in which he proved that
many readings of the printed Hebrew text are doubtful, and some
erroneous, and that such errors are to be corrected by the assistance
of MSS. versions, quotations, and other ancient authorities ; and
when Joannes Morinus, a Father of the Oratoire, had pubhcly
espoused the same sentiments and defended them, though with less
moderation and judgment, in his Exercitationes Biblicce, — the whole
* Pagninus, in the Preface to his Hebrew Grammar, Polanus, and others,
did not scruple to aflBrm that the copyists of the Jewish scriptures had never
once erred — "fie minimo quidem apice!"
t The Protestant theologians who wrote before the controversy had taken
this turn, as Luther, Zuinglius, Calvin, Mercer, &c. had much sounder views
on this point than their successors.
ClIAl'. I.] IIISTORV OF THE TEXT. 61
body of the continental Protestants, with a few exceptions, rose up
in arms to defend an opinion, which they doubtless believed to be
of the utmost importance*. Arnold Bootius, the two Buxtorfs,
(father and son,) CJlassius, Wasrauth, Loescher, and a number of
other writers, entered the field of controversy ; and the Reformed
churches of Switzerland, led on by the theologians of Geneva, who
were accounted the most learned hi their community, enacted a law
in 1678, that no person should be licensed to preach tlie Gospel in
their churches, unless he made a public profession of his belief that
the Hebrew text as it then stood, including both vowel-points and
accents, was authentic and divinet.
In England a more liberal spirit prevailed ; to the progress of
which the learning and character of Bishop Walton, and his coad-
jutors in the great work of the London Polyglot, contributed not a
little. This eminent scholar and divine, in his Prolegomena, de-
clared himself decidedly in favour of the principles advocated by
Cappellus, and greatly facilitated their application by the work
which has immortalized his name. In Walton's Polyglot, the
Hebrew text, as given by former editors, is reprinted, without alter-
ation, together with the Samaritan Hebrew Pentateuch and its
Samaritan Version, the Septuagint, the Chaldee Targums, the Old
Syriac Vei'sion, the Arabic, the ^Ethiopic Version of Psalms and
Canticles, — being all that could then be procured of the Old Testa-
ment in that language, — and the Latin Vulgate. In a work of
such vast extent, it could not be expected that all the portions
should be executed with equal care and skill, and some parts of it
are confessedly faulty ; yet still it is undoubtedly a great and most
important publication. In it some of the oriental versions were
printed for the first time, others with more care than had pre-
viously been bestowed upon them, and all of them are accompanied
by Latin translations, which, however, form the least valuable
• It is worthy of notice that the Protestants who had the control of the
press at Geneva, at Sedan, and at Leyden, refused to allow the publication
of Cappellus' Critica Sacra : in consequence of which it was suppressed for
ten year* ; and at length was printed at Paris by hcense from tne CathoUc
king 111' France.
t Isaac Vossius dissented widely from the opinions of his Reformed
brethren, maintaining that the Jews had, from an eai'ly period, so grossly
corrupted their copies of the scriptures that no reliance can be placed upon
the Hebrew text ; and that we must in all things adhere to the Septuagint
version, which he believed to have been inspired. This prejudice oi his was
no less unreasonable than that of his Judaizing opponents.
k
62 TEXTUAL CUITICISM OF THE OLll TESTAMENT. [bOOK IT,
portion of the work.* This most useful and important Polyglot
was published in 1657, in 6 vols. fol.
Father Richard Simon, of the Oratoire, at Paris, bj his Bis-
quisitiones Criticce, published anonymously in London, in 1684,
and his Ilistoire Critique du Vieux Testament; and the celebrated
Leclerc, professor of Theology among the Remonstrants at Am-
sterdam, by his Ars Critica, contributed to spread the same
sentiments, which daily gained ground among the leai*ned in every
direction, insomuch that even those who were most disposed to
favour the masoretic recension, and to countenance the Jewish
traditions as to its immaculate purity, were, in some measure,
carried along by the crowd, and compelled to swim with the
current. Thus, Van der Hooght, whose beautiful Hebrew Bible
(Amsterdam and Utrecht, 1705, two vols. 8vo, sometimes inter-
leaved and divided into four vols.) is regarded as the very standard
of the masoretic text, and who was himself a very strict adherent of
the Masorah, complied so far with the literary fashion of the times,
as to subjoin to his volumes an appendix containing a collection of
various readings selected from Bomberg's Bible of 1525-6 ; from
Plantin's, or the Antwerp Polyglot of 1569-73 ; and the edition of
Athias and Leusden, which appeared in Amsterdam, in 1667.
This critical apparatus is, indeed, very moderate, both in extent
and value ; but it admits an important principle ; for, why gather
together various readings at all, unless to assist in forming a correct
text? if I'eadings from printed editions are to be used for this
purpose, why not also readings selected from MSS. most of which
are far older than any printed copy? and if from Hebrew MSS.
why not also from the Versions and other authorities, which are, in
many instances, more ancient than any MSS. now existing, and
even than the Masorets themselves, whom all the existing MSS.
profess to follow?
It is needless to dwell on the labours of several of those who
exerted themselves in this field. Jablonsky, Opitz, J. H. Michaelis,
Houbigant, and others, published editions of the Hebrew Bible of
various degrees of merit ; but all of them containing various
readings, extracted from MSS. which they had collated. Their
ci'itical materials, however, were very scanty ; and of those which
* In this place I only mention that part of the Polyglot which relates to
the Old Testament ; the vol. containing the New Testament will be described
in the Third Book of this M'ork.
CHAP. l.J IIISTUHY Ol' THE TEXT. G3
thoy possessed they did not always make the most judicious use.
Iloubigant, especially, has been severely censured for the uncon-
trolled license which lie lias allowed himself, in suggesting alterations
in the text, on merely conjectural grounds, frequently in passages
whore the received text is, in every point of view, preferable to the
proposed emendation.
The most important accession to this branch of theology was made
by Dr. Kennicott, in his Hebrew Bible, with various readings
(Oxford, 2 vols. fol. 1776—1780). The text is that of Van der
Hooght, but printed without points. More than six hundred He-
brew MSS. and seventeen llebrneo- Samaritan MSS. of the Penta-
teuch, were collated or consulted for the purposes of this edition, the
various readings of which are given at the foot of each page. Dr.
Kennicott has also given a coUation of the most important editions
of the Hebrew Bible, and has noted the variations occurring in the
Talmud and other Rabbinical writings. Tlie different authorities
quoted are referred to by numerals from 1 to 692, of which an
cxj)lanation is given in the Disscrtatio (Jencralis, prefixed to the
2d volume. The learned editor has not introduced any alteration
in the text; but, in his notes, he frequently gives his opinion upon
the value of the various readings, some of which he judges preferable
to those of the text. It is to be regretted tliat this edition contains
no collation of the readings of the ancient versions, which would
have added greatly to its value. As former editors were disposed to
place too much reliance upon the common recension, Dr. Kennicott
seems to have run into the opposite extreme, and frequently to have
condemned its readings on insufficient grounds.
A valuable supplement to Kennicott 's Bible was published (in
four vols. 4to, 1784—1787) by Professor J. B. de Rossi, of Parma,
entitled Varice Lectiones Veteris Testamenti* which contains nu-
merous additions to Kennicott 's' collections, extracted botli from
MSS. and versions, and with them forms the most complete critical
apparatus for the emendation of the Hebrew Scriptures that has yet
been given to the world. The two works taken together exhibit
many hundred thousand, probably upwards of a million of various
readings ; but, of these, multitudes are perfectly insignificant, con-
sisting only of different modes of spelling or writing the same
word — the presence or absence of the quiescent letters *, and ),
* A fiftli or supplemental volume appeared in 17!»0. It ought to he stated
that Professor de Rossi did not collate his MSS. throughout, but merely
!• vaniined those passages in which Kennicott had observed some considerable
variation.
64 TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. [bOOK If.
and similar minutice, none of which affect the sense, and very few
even the sound. If we farther deduct those which are manifestly
the mere errata of copyists, or which, for other reasons, are of no
critical value, the discrepancies which remain will be confined within
a comparatively narrow compass. Dr. Kennicott has been blamed
for bringing forward such a mass of trivial and unimportant readings
as the notes to his Bible exhibit ; and the censure appUes with at
least equal force to his successor, M. de Rossi : but these critics
could only exhibit such readings as their materials afforded ; and if
their researches have shown that few deviations from the received
text, of any consequence, are to be derived from MSS, this result,
as all will admit, is neither trivial nor unimportant. It has been
stated by an eminent writer,* that Dr. Kennicott's collation has
contributed to establish the credit of the Masorah ; but this appears
to be a hasty judgment. The only MSS. to which either he or
M. de Rossi could have recourse, with the exception of a few
Samaritan MSS. of the Pentateuch, were masoretic documents —
they all belonged to one family ; they had all been carefully con-
formed to one standard; it is not wonderful, then, that they all
substantially agree with each other, and that in every important
particular they should exhibit that reading of the text which the
Masorets, the authors of their own recension, approved: but this
agreement affords no test whatever of the competency of the Maso-
rets, as critics; nor of the sufficiency of the critical materials to
which they had access ; nor of the soundness of the principles upon
which they constructed their standard Hebrew text. The collations
of these learned critics show that the Masorah had partially, and
only partially, succeeded in one of its objects, which was to keep the
text fixed and settled for the future ; but they do not prove that it
even approached to the attainment of what its authors would have
regarded as its most important use — namely, to reduce the text as
nearly as possible to the state in which the sacred writers left it.
The works of Kennicott and de Rossi, though most important, do
not come within the means of private students, in general ; but there
is a very good abridgment of their labours in a manual edition of the
Hebrew Bible, commenced by Doederlein and completed by Meisner
of Leipzig, where it was published in 1793. It contains all the more
important various readings, selected from both works, with the
numeral references to the authorities ; but as the documents are not
* Bishop Maxsh, Lectures on the Criticism and Interpretation of the
Bible, Ed. 1838, p. 222.
CIIAl". l.J lIISTOltY Ol- THE TKXT. (I.',
named nor dcscribod, (a serious want,) tlio student who wishes to
know the vaUio of those ciphers is obliged to refer to some other
source for information. The editors have neitlicr amended the text,
which is that of Van-der-IIooght, nor expressed any opinion as to
the relative value of the various readings whicli tlieir margin exhibits
so that the work is defective in many respects; but it is the cheapest
Bible that has yet been printed with a critical apparatus. It must
be confessed that, owing to the smallness of the type and badness of
the paper, it is also one of the most trying upon tljo eye-siglit. What
is called Knai)pe's Hebrew Bible is only a re-issue of the unsold
copies of this edition, with a new title-page and preface (Hallo, 1818.)
The edition of Professor Jahn (4 vols. 8vo, Vienna, 180G), thou<i-h
necessarily more expensive than that of Docdcrlcin, is much more
useful and satisfactory. It contains A'an-der-llooght's text from
which the editor states that he has departed only nine or ten times
in the whole work. The type is clear aiul legible ; the principal points
are given, but the less important among the accents are omitted.
Those various readings that are of peculiar critical importance
are subjoined to the text ; and these are not only extracted from
the Hebrew MSS. but from the versions, including, with those given
in the Polyglot, others which have been published since; especially
the remains of the versions of Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion,
printed by Montfauconin his llexaphrum Origenis quce supersunt, &c.
In some passages of especial moment the various readings of the
particular copies of the LXX are set forth ; and there is an appendix
to the last volume containing a full but concisely written catalogue
of tlie different authorities consulted. Tliis edition contains the best
critical apparatus that has hitherto been given in any compendious
Hebrew Bible.
The edition published by Dr. Boothroyd, at Pontefract (in 2 vols.
4to, 1810 and 1810), also deserves attention. The text is the same as
that of Kennicott ; but in those places where Dr. Boothroyd conceives
the received reading to be erroneous, he inserts a critical mark, which
refers to a note in the inner margin, where that which he regards as
the true reading is found, together with a short enumeration of the
authorities by which it is supported. Dr. Boothroyd's emendations,
however, are not always well supported. In the Pentateuch he seems
to attach far too much weight to the Samaritan copies where they
differ from the Jewish ; especially in those passages where there is
reason to suspect that the former have been altered in order to correct
grammatical errors or avoid historical' difficulties. This editor
I
66 TEXTUAL CIUTICISM OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. [bOOK II.
appeals to the ancient versions as -well as to the MSS. collated by
Kennicott and de Rossi ; but it is to be regretted, that in referring
to the latter he has only indicated the total number of those which
agree in the reading quoted. The student is thus prevented from
forming any judgment as to the value of each document ; and, con-
trary to one of the first rules of criticism, he is obliged not to weigh
but to number the testimonies. Copious English notes are given,
discussing various questions respecting the reading and interpretation
of the text.
It is not necessary to pursue this subject farther. Those who are
desirous of more extensive information respecting the editions of the
Old Testament, will find it in such works as Lelong's Bihliotheca Sacra,
especially the edition by Masch (Halle, 6 vols. 4to, 1778—1790),
or even more satisfactorily in the Bibliographical Appendix to the
2nd vol. of Mr. Home's Introduction to the Critical Study and
Knowledge of the Holy Scriptures (6th edition. London. 4 vols.
8vo, 1828).
From the outline above sketched, it appears that we have not as
yet any Hebrew Bible which exhibits a Critical Text, properly so
called. Materials have been collected and arranged ; learned editors
have, in various passages, shown that the text admits of improvement,
and have pointed out corrections which, in their judgment, it requires ;
but not one of them has ventured to print the Sacred Scripture in
what he himself regarded as its original and authentic form. They
have, one after another, repeated those errors of the early editions,
which are acknowledged as such by all competent scholars, and
against which they have themselves protested in their notes. No
one has attempted to do for the Old Testament what Bengel,
Matthai, Griesbach, Scholz, and Lachmann, have endeavoured to
accomplish for the New. A critical edition of the Hebrew text is
still a desideratum; and an editor of competent learning, diligence,
and judgment, who should prepare such an edition would deserve
well of all the lovers of the Sacred Volume.
At the same time, we must not expect too much from the labours
of critics. The Masoretic or received text is, on the lohole, the best
extant. In four cases out of every five in which any authority
deviates from it, judicious critics will probably agree that the Masorets
have decided rightly. If every alteration that has ever been sug-
gested since the invention of printing were implicitly adopted — and
many of them are such as no modern critic would ever think of
introducing, — still the main substance of the sacred books would
CHAl'. I.] HISTORY OF THE TEXT. 67
remain untouched. The innovations would not affect the essential
facts nor oven the important circumstances of the history, much
less the essential doctrines of religion ; but such matters as the turn
of a phrase, the force of a figure, or the parallelism of a sentence, or,
at most, the circumstances of a historical fact. Even these things,
however, although they may appear of no consequence to the heedless
or the indolent, and although they are of very little importance in
reference to our religious doctrines, will yet possess an interest to
him who is desirous of perusing the sacred books of his faith, in that
state, which, so far as we have the means of judging, approaches
most nearly to the condition in which they were left by the lioly men
who originally composed them. Our reverence for the Sacred Vo-
lume will cause us to desire the application of a sound and enlightened
criticism to its text. The more highly we venerate the Scriptures,
the more anxiously wo shall desire to see them restored to their
native purity.
68 TEXTUAL CRITICISIM OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. [bOOK II.
CHAPTER 11.
MANUSCRIPTS OF THE OLD TESTAMENT.
The existing manuscripts of the Hebrew Bible may be divided into
two distinct, but very unequal classes ; — those which have come to
us through the hands of the Samaritans and those for which we are
indebted to the Jews. The former class, being the less numerous,
shall be considered in the first place.
Section I. — Samaritan Manuscripts.
I. The Samaritans are descended from a mixture of the wretched
remnants of the Ten Tribes of Israel, with certain idolatrous people
who were sent as colonists by the king of Assyria, to possess the terri-
tory from which he had carried away the bulk of the inhabitants as
captives. They early adopted the worship of Jehovah, though in
connexion with that of their ancient idols (2 Kings, xvii. 24 — 41) ;
and this practice, no less than their origin, rendered them hateful in
the eyes of the Jews, who, after their return from captivity in Babylon,
appear to have heartily renounced all alliance with idolatry. Hence,
when the Samaritans offered their assistance in rebuilding the Temple
of Jerusalem, it was contemptuously refused. They then became
inflamed with hostility against those by whom they perceived them-
selves to be despised ; they erected a temple of their own upon
Mount Gerizim, distant about seven miles from the city of Samaria ;
and ever since the two races have been actuated by the bitterest
enmity against each other. Some remains of the Samaritan nation
still exist, though in a very abject condition, in the town of Naplous,
the ancient Shechem, and some other places in the same region.
The Samaritans seem to have gradually abandoned their idolatry,
probably in consequence of the establishment of Mosaic ritual in
the temple upon Mount Gerizim ; and with the worship of Jehovah
there naturally arose some degree of attention to the sacred code :
but as the greater part of the writings of the prophets were composed
after the separation of their ancestors from the kingdom of Judah,
rilAT. Il.| HAMAHITAN MANUSCRIl'TS. fiO
and but few copies of those which had boon written previously were
in circulation at that early period, they admitted no other books than
tlie Pentateuch or the Five Books of Moses into their canon. The
existence of the Samaritan Pentateuch was known to Origcn,*
Julius Africauus, Eusebius, Cyril of Alexandria, Procopius of Gaza,
Diodorus, Jerome, Syncellus, and others, among the fathers. Jerome
says, in his General IVcfaco to the Old Testament, " The Samari-
tans also write the Pentateuch of Moses in the same number of letters
[as the Jews], only differing in their forms and angles" — firjuris et
apicihus. This description is sufficiently accurate for the purpose
which Jerome had in view, and far too exact to have been founded
on mere conjecture ; yet the oblivion into which the subject of it had
fallen for nearly a thousand years caused some to doubt whether there
ever had been such a document ; but the leai'ucd Archbishop Usher
and Jo. Morinus, of Paris, about the same time, succeeded in ob-
taining some copies of it from the Samaritans of Naplous, and
Morinus printed it in the Parisian Polyglot of M. Lo Jay, 104.3.
It was re-published more accurately by Bishop Walton, in the London
Polyglot, 1G57. The various readings of seventeen MSS. of the
•Samaritan Pentateuch, and a revised and corrected edition of its
text, are given in Kennicott's Bible ; and the text has been pu1)lished
separately — and accurately — although in the square Jewish cha-
racter, by Dr. Blayney, Oxford, 1790, 8vo. The Samaritan I'enta-
teuch is not a version, but an edition of the original, in the proper
Hebrew language, differing from other Hebrew copies only in the
peculiar form of the letters in which it is written, iu some various
readings, and in some peculiarities of orthography.
A specimen of the Samaritan character, as it is found in the
modern copies of the Samaritan Pentateuch, is given in this work,
and some account of the manner in which that mode of writing took
its origin from the ancient Phoonician alphabet has been inserted iu
the last chapter.
The value of the text, however, is of much more consequence than
the form of the letters ; and here the learned have not been uuaui-
* Tychsen, wlio assigns a very recent origin to the Samaritan Pentateuch,
urges the silence of Origen as proof of its non-existence in the third century ;
but Montfaucou has pubHshed, among the fragments of the Hexapla of
Origcu, two notes, in which the Samaritan Pentateuch is expressly men-
tioned, and some of its various readings noticed. One of these, from the
Basil MS. of the LXX is to the following ellect : — " These things Moses
mentions iu the beginning of Deuteronomy ; which jiassage we have trans-
lated/roHi the Hebrew te.rt of the Samaritans, agreeably with the interpre-
tation of tlie LXX, &c.
70 TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. [bOOK II.
mous. Many have, a i^^iori, decided that its readings must
be wrong, wherever they differ from the Hebrew text ; others, as
Morinus, Boothroyd, &c. seem to regard the readings of the Sama-
ritan copies as far more valuable than those of any other MSS.
extant ; and, therefore, appear disposed to determine that in almost
every case in which the Samaritan and Jewish texts differ, the latter
must be corrected from the former. Neither of these opinions appears
to be just ; the latter is exceedingly unjust.*
The Samaritan Pentateuch undoubtedly preserves a small number
of genuine readings which are not to be found in the Jewish Masoretic
copies. Several of these present every internal mark of authenticity,
and are confirmed by the testimony of one or more of the ancient
versions, especially that of the Septuagint. In such instances
a critic need not hesitate to discard the common text and adopt that
of the Samaritans.
But these instances are rare : a vast number of its various readings
appear to be mere mistakes arising from the similarity of letters and
their sounds, accidental omission, transposition, &c. These are of no
value whatever. All the Samaritan MSS. which have been collated
appear to have been negligently written. In many places, the text
appears to have been altered with a view to amend the grammar, by
removing what the transcribers considered as errors in syntax. The
quiescent letters are almost every where supplied, and matres lectionis
very frequently. In not a few places we perceive indications of a wish
to remove from the text statements which might appear inconsistent
with the context, with parallel passages, or with chronology ; in all
these cases its testimony is of very little weight.
If this document, which is clearly ancient and quite independent of
Masoretic influences, had been handed down to us in any tolerable
state of preservation, it would have been of the utmost value. It
still is an object of great interest; but close attention to it has tended
very much to lessen its authority, by disclosing the careless and
uncritical treatment which it has experienced, t Hence, it is now
looked upon rather in the light of a literary curiosity than as a trust-
worthy help in the amendment of the text.
In one or two places, the Samaritans appear to have wilfully
corrupted the text in order to favour the interests of their own nation
* The modern critics, who have made the text of the Samaritan Penta-
teuch their especial study, are unanimous in ranking it as far inferior in
value to the Masoretic recension,
t See in pju-ticular Gesenius, De Pentateuchi Samantani Origine, Indole
et Auctwitate. Hal. 1815, 4to.
(JIIAP, II. J SAMARITAN MANUSCIIIPTS. 71
and religion. Thus, in Deut. xxvii. 4, thoy have made Moses com-
mand the Israelites to erect the stones on whicli the law was inscribed,
upon Mount Gerizim, on which their own temple was situated,
instead of Mount Ebal: and this corruption they have attempted to
support by two others, introducing into the text of the commandments
as given in Exod. xx. and in Deut. v. an eleventh precept in the
following words: — " And xchen the Lord thy God shall have brounht
thee into the land of the Canaanites toivards v:hich thou (jocst to possess
it, thou shalt raise unto thee two great stones, and thou shalt plaster
them with plaster, and thou shalt write upon the stones all the v-ords
of this laio: therefore, tvhen thou art passed over Jordan, thou shalt
set up these stones trhich I command you this day, upon Mount
Gerizim. And thou shalt build an altar to the Lord thy God, an
altar of stones: thou shalt not lift up an iron [tool] upon them," &c.*
Dr. Konnicott and several other critics have endeavoured to defend
the Samaritan reacUng of Deut. xxvii. 4, and to throw upon the
Jews the charge of having altered that text from hatred of the nci"-h-
bouring sect ; but no one has attempted to vindicate the additions to
the Decalogue, and recent writers seem, almost witliout exception, and
certainly with good reason, to reject the Samaritan reading of all
these passages.
In many passages the Samaritan reading is more copious than the
Hebrew text. The most extensive of the additions which it makes
to the latter are found in the Dook of Exodus : the words of the
Divine Messages announcing the plagues of Egypt being, in the
Samaritan Pentateuch, uniformly repeated twice ; — once when the
message is entrusted by Jehovah to Moses, and again when it is
delivered by the latter to Pharaoh. It cannot be denied that tlic
style of narration employed generally in the Books of Moses favours
the reading of the Samaritan, in these passages ; critics, however, are
not agreed whether we are to regard the Samaritan copy as havin"-
been interpolated, in order to preserve the analogy of the style, or
the other copies as having been abridged to save room and time to
the transcriber. The point is of very little intrinsic moment ; but
the former supposition appears to be the more probable (See Book I.
Ch. V. Sect. 4, 8). The versions made from the Samaritan Penta-
teuch will be enumerated in tlie fifth section of the next chapter.
* These words ai"c taken from Deut. xxvii. 2 — S. In Exod. xx. the inter-
polation includes as far as Deut. xxvii. 17, and ends with a geographical
description of Mount Gerizim, containing about the quantity of one verse
more ; in all about seventeen verses.
72 TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. [bOOK II.
Section II. — Jeivish Manuscripts.
II. The Jewish Manuscripts of the Pentateuch are of two kinds:
those intended for synagogue service and those made for private use.
A codex of the former kind is called rn)T\ "13D> Sepher Torah, i. e.
a Boole of the Laio : the others are never so entitled ; but ^^/t^H
ntJ^O "'tJ^/bin. Chemshi Chumshi Moshe, i.e. the Five Fifths of
[the Books of] Moses. These two classes of copies differ very much
in their outward appearance ; but all are written in the square
Hebrew character, such as is found in the printed Bibles.
1. The Synagogue MSS. are in the form of a long roll, fastened
at the ends to two cylinders of wood; the writing is disposed in
columns extending across the roll, so that one or more pages, as they
might be called, may be laid open by turning the cylinders. The
modern MSS. of this kind are made of parchment ; the more ancient
are chiefly on skins of soft leather, generally died brown or red.
The rabbinical rules relating to the preparation of these copies are
excessively strict, and show an extreme desire to secure textual
accuracy.* These rules, however, appear to have varied at different
times, and probably have never been enforced in the full rigour of
their letter.
In the synagogue rolls no vowel points or accents are admitted,
nor, indeed, points of any kind except the Soph-Pasuh (j), which
* Among these rules are the following : — A Se2)hcr Torah must be
transcribed from an ancient and approved MS. solely, with pure, black ink
(the manner of preparing the ink is prescribed,) upon the skin of a clean
animal, prepared expressly for the purpose, by a Jew ; and the sheets or skins
are to be fastened together with strings made of the sinews of a clean animal.
Each skin must contain a prescribed number of columns, of a limited length
and breadth; each column must contain a regulated number of lines and words;
and all except five must begin with the letter ). The scribe must not write
a single word from memory. He must attentively look upon each individual
word in his exemplar, and orally pronounce it, before writing it down. In
writing any of the Sacred Names of God, he is i-equired to solemnize his mind
by devotion and reverence ; and previously to writing any of them he must
A\-ash his pen ; (but some Rabbis lay down the very opposite rule ; namely,
that the scribe, before writing any of the Sacred Names, must not take fresh
ink into his pen :) before ivritinp the ineffable name ^^*l^^ he is to bathe his
whole person! The copy must be examined within thirty days after its
completion. Some authoi-s assert that the mistake of a single letter vitiates
the entire codex; others state that it is permitted to correct three such
errors in any one sheet ; if more are found, the copy is condemned as 7*|5^,
profane, or unfit for religious purposes. Such discarded copies, however, are
preserved for private use ; and, probably, the larger number of the synagogue
rolls, as they are called, which arc to be found in the libraries of Christians,
arc rejected copies. The greatei- part of the foregoing regulations are not
mentioned in the Talmud, although it treats of the question, what MSS.
are to be received and what rejected.
I
CIIAT II. J HEBREW MANUSCRIPTS. 73
marks tho end of each verso ; nor are anj Krijin or other marginal
notes allowed. Tho Parashioth, JlVk^'lS. or Weekly Synagogue
Lessons,* and tho smaller sections of tho text, both open and close,
are properly marked, and tho hymns occurring in l']xod, xv. and
Deut. xxxii. are divided into hemistichs. The letters which tho
Masorah directs to bo made smaller than tho rest aro so written ; as
tho n in DXI^n^, Gen. ii. 4; but those which the Masorah says
aro to bo enlarged — and which always are enlarged in the common
copies, or those for private use, — are, in the synagogue rolls, written
in the same size with tho other characters. Several MSS. of the
Pentateuch answering to this general description are to be found in
the public libraries of Europe, and a few in private collections: there
is reason, however, for believing that all of them, or at least by far
the greater part, are copies which have, on examination, been found
defective in some respects, and have been rejected as unfit to be used
in the service of the synagogue.
The European Jews divide these rolls into those written in the
Tarn and those written in the Velshi character: (I3n3 DH and
^n3 ^7)) specimens of which are subjoined: it. will be observed
that both exhibit, though in different forms, the Taggin, p^H.
apices, or tips on the seven letters, ViitO^ti'. which the Jews-^
believe that Moses received from God upon Mount Sinai. Tlio
copies of the Law used by the Jews in the remote East have none
of these peculiarities.
These however are mere trifles, unworthy of attention : the accu-
racy of the text is of much more importance. And here it cannot
be denied, that tho precautions enjoined by the Rabbis have had a
very favourable effect in preserving the standard Masoretic reading
of the Pentateuch nearly inviolate in the roll copies ; for tho colla-
tions of a considerable number of such MSS. by Kewiicott and
De Rossi, discover a very remarkable harmony in their text, which
is, almost everywhere, the same that is found in Athias', Van-der-
Hooght's, and other correct editions of the Masoretic recension.
The Jews of Toledo, in the middle ages, had in their synagogue a
Sepher- Torah, which some of the Rabbis call the Codex Ezrce,
(XITy *13D), others, the Codex Azarce (ni^V "ISD). and
which some believed to have been a MS. transcribed by Ezra him-
* The whole Pentateuch is divided into fifty-four Parashioth, or synagogue-
lessons, corresponding to the fifty- four Sabbaths of the Jewisii sacred year;
so that the law is publicly read over, from beginning to end, in the course of
the year.
K
74 TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. [BOOK 11.
self; others, to have been the copy of the law which had been depo-
sited for reference in the Azarah, or Hall of the Temple of Jerusalem,
and had been preserved from destruction at the siege and capture
of the city. The copy was so famous that it was usual for the
synagogues in other places to send their Roll MSS. of the Penta-
tateuch to Toledo to be compared with it. At the capture of Toledo
by the Black Prince in 1367, this codex came into his possession as
part of the booty, but was ransomed by the Jews for a large sum.
At a subsequent siege it was destroyed by fire, together with the
synagogue in which it was deposited. It is believed that none of
the MSS. which had been compared with the Oodex Azarce are
now extant ; but some copies are still to be found, which, from the
A, the inscriptions and certificates appended to them, appear to have
been compared with these transcripts. It will readily be perceived
how much the preservation, till so late a period, of a copy claiming
so venerable a character, must have tended to confirm the Jews in
their opinion of the infallible purity of the text in their synagogue
copies of the law, and how greatly it must have contributed to that
extraordinary uniformity which exists between them.*
II. As the Jews are accustomed to read, in the service of the
Synagogue on every Sabbath, a lesson from some of the prophets
as well as a section of the Law, manuscripts are in use among them,
containing the ni^^bSH* Haphtaroth, or selections employed for this
purpose. These copies are written in rolls, upon the same substances
that are used for the Synagogue copies of the Pentateuch, which in
all the particulars of outward form they exactly resemble; but
whether the preparation of them is placed under the same strict
laws, is not stated by the authors who treat upon this subject. The
Haphtaroth used by the Jews of Poland and Germany are not
exactly the same with those employed by the Spanish Jews ; some
of the lessons being taken from different books or chapters, and
others more or less extended, in the usage of the different syna-
gogues.! Synagogue rolls of the Book of Esther, which is publicly
read over during the feast of Purim once in each year, are also in
* I am indebted for these facts to the Rev. M. Raphall, Preacher of the
Jewish synagogue at Birmingham. The Codex Ezrcc is mentioned by R.
Menahem de Lonzano, in his work entitled Or Torah, i. e. the Light of the
Law, written in the middle of our 16th century.
t A table of the Haphtaroth for all the sabbaths of the Jewish year,
showing also the corresponding Parashioth, or sections of the law, with the
variations between the Germans and Spauiai'ds in this respect, is given in
Van-der-Hooght's Bible at the end of the Hagiographa.
CHAT. 11. 1 HEBREW MANUSCHll'TS. t •>
use; and are frequently met with: much more frctiueiitly than tlioso
either of the Law, or the Ilaphtaroth. It may give some idea of the
care which is taken in preparing the Roll MS. to state that, although
a copy of the Pentateuch, in a character not perceptibly larger than
that of an ordinary printed Hebrew Bible, and upon common parch-
ment, forms, when rolled upon a wooden cylinder of an inch thick,
a roll of about six or seven inches in diameter, and from sixteen to
twenty inches long ; yet some copies of the Law arc found whicli are
not larger than a pencil-case, and there are MSS. of the Book
of Esther which can be carried in the barrel of an ordinary quill.
Of course those MSS. can only be read witli the assistance of a
microscope, and for the purpose of study are nearly useless ; but the
pains which must have been employed in preparing the parchment
and writing in the text, shows the deep interest taken by the Jews
in all that relates to their sacred books.
IlL But the most common description of Hebrew MSS. consists
of those intended for common use, or private study. These are all
in square form, like a modern bound book ; and are of every size,
from that of a moderately large /o^/o, to that of a small duodecimo;
some written upon parchment, others upon paper. Very few con-
tain the entire Bible ; those of the Law are the most frequent ;
some contain the Prophets ; others, the Ilagiographa ;* others, one
or two particular books ; and some, in their present state, are mere
fragments. There is great diversity in the characters according to
the country in which each MS. was executed, and the skill or care
of the copyist : the Spanish character is the most elegant, resembling
the beautiful type employed in the best printed Bibles ; the German
is more rounded and loss regular ; the Italian holds an intermediate
rank. Some entire MSS. and the marginal notes in almost all of
those which contain any, are in the rabbinical character, which is a
cursive form of the Hebrew alphabet, adapted for the sake of expe-
dition in writing. The adjuncts to the text are as various as the
t The Jews divide their Scriptures into the Law, the Prophets, and the
Ketuhim, or Ilaaiographa. The Laiv comprises the Pentateuch ; the Haoi-
ographa, accoritiug^ to V'an-der- llooght, niclude. Psalms, Proverbs, Job,
Song of Solomon, Rutli, Lamentations, Ecclesiastcs, Esther, Daniel, Ezra,
Nehemiah, and Chronicles (but the Talmud assigns Ezra and Nehemiah to
the Prophets, and the Masorah refers to same class, Nehemiah and Chroni-
cles) ; tiie Prophets include the remainder of the Sacred Books. Five of the
Ketubim or Ilagiographa, viz, the Song of Solomon, Ruth, Jjamcntations,
Ecclesiastes, and Esthei-, ai'c called the Alcailloth, that is, the lioUs; and are
oommonlv placed in the bound MSS. and m the printed Bibles, next after
the Five l5ooks of Moses.
70 TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. [bOOK II.
forms of the letters in which it is written. Most of the square ma-
nuscripts contain, or were intended to contain, the Masorah ; almost
all of them have the points, the Krijin and ICthihin, and other
Masoretic notes. Not a few contain with the text a Targum, or
Chaldee version, which is sometimes written in a parallel column,
sometimes at the top and bottom of the pages, sometimes interlined,
and sometimes written in alternate verses. Some MSS. have a
Rabbinical Commentary annexed, which is usually placed in the
margin ; and a few copies have text, Masorah, Targum, and Com-
mentary all united together.
Dr. Kennicott was inclined to attach considerable weight to such
MSS. as were written originally without points, and without the
usual Masoretic notes in the margin ; but the former appears to have
been the case with all the MSS. when first executed; for the points
never were added until after the completion of the text, and when
inserted, they were almost always written in a different ink, and
frequently by a different hand. This appears from the inscriptions
appended to several of the MSS. which mention not only the name
of the scribe by whom the book was written, but that of the person by
whom the points wei'e inserted. The same seems to have been the
case with the Masorah ; hence some of those copies which Dr. Kenni-
cott highly esteemed, on account of the absence of the Masorah, are
found, on closer inspection, to deserve his approbation only by being
left incomplete ; for ruled lines are found at the top and bottom of
the page, in which it was intended that tlie Masorah should after-
wards be placed. In fact, we have no Jewish MS. in existence
which does not appear to have been under the influence of the
Masorah.
A few copies of particular books have a Latin Translation inter-
lined. Professor Tychsen assigns all these to the hands of Chris-
tian transcribers. It is more probable, however, that the Hebrew
MSS. in most cases of the kind had been written by Jews; and that
the Latin version was afterwards added by some other person who
was studying the Hebrew language, or at least for his use. — Tychsen
attributes to the same origin all Hebrew MSS. which have the
Masorah written upon them in the forms of Quadrupeds, Birds, and
Fishes, as is not uncommon : and is doubtful whether he should not
assign to Christians likewise, all those copies which have coloured
letters or ornaments, gilt capitals, &c. ; but his arguments in support
of these positions are weak, and are in many cases contradicted by
the history of the books in which such ornaments are found, and bv
CHAP. II.] IIEUREW MANUSCUirXS. 77
the copyist's own testimony at the end of the volume. 11. Jacob ben
Chajim, the original editor of tho Masorah, evidently did not con-
sider such MS8. as having been written by the enemies of his
nation and of his religion, for ho used them in tho preparation of his
edition, and speaks of tho incredible labour which ho had in deci-
phering the text of the Masorah, in consequence of the prevaleijcc of
this absurd manner of writing it in the Manuscripts.* A few copies,
however, bear evident marks of having been written by Christians,
probably converted Jews, t
The Jewish scribes have for many centuries adhered very closely
to the same general form of tho Hebrew alphabet. Tliis circum-
stance, though it facilitates the reading of the more ancient MSS.
yet deprives us of that aid which we find in judging of the compa-
rative antiquity of Greek and Latin codices from the style of writing ;
hence, unless the date of a MS. can be ascertained from an inscription,
we are obliged to employ very indefinite tests of ago : such as tho fine-
ness and colour of the parchment, the colour of the ink, &c. The in-
scriptions themselves are sometimes suspected as having been fraudu-
lently composed, in order to enhance the value of the codex by assigning
* As in the beautiful Codex, numbered 1 in the Royal Library in the
British Museum, from which I have taken a specimen ; it is a square
MS. in the Spanish character, written in double columns, and the text of
the poetical books in hemistichs. Portions of the Masorah are written in
particular places in the upper and lower margiu ; and lines are ruled for it
throughout. The subscription states that it was written by Jacob bar-
Joseph of Riphol, for the use of Rabbi Isaac bar-Judah of Tolosa,
A.M. 51-15, which coiresponds to the year 1385 of our sera. Some docu-
ments are pasted in the beginning of the volume showing that before it M-as
purchased ibr the King's Libraiy, it had been the property of a synagogue
m Jerusalem. It is therefore a strictly Jewish manuscript : and shows the
futility of Tychsen's conjectures. This copy was collated for Dr. Kennicott's
editiou, and is numbered 99 in his Dissertatio Generalis, and in his notes.
t The subscription to Cod. 93. Ivenn. shows it to have been written by a
Christian. It contains the Prophets and Hagiographa. Interutd marks
prove that Cod. 28 (containing Ezekiel), 71 (Samuel), 77 (Joshua, Judges,
Cant. Eccles.), 193 (Pent.), 313 TJeremiah, Lamentations, Ezekiel, Daniel),
514 (the entire Bible), and 049 (Psalms), were written by Clu-istians: — and
a few others may have had a similar origin. But the vast majority of those
collated for Keunicott, and all of those examined by De Rossi, so far as can
be judged from his desci'iptive catalogue, appear to have been written by
Jewish scribes. Bauer, who is inclined to deny in toto the existence of any
Hebrew MSS. written by Christians, has overlooked the subscription to
Cod. 193, K. when he affirms that all those which have subscriptions were
written by Jews, without any exception. Cod. 28 has the Lord's prayer
twi • ■ ■ - ■ ■ • - ^ , ^
These and similar tiicts prove the writers of these iMSS. to have been Chris-
tians by religion : but it is highly probable that they were Jews by birth and
educati(.>n.
78 TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. [bOOK II.
it to an eminent scribe or to a remote antiquity. The very tests on
which some writers rest as proofs of the recent origin of a MS. are
by others brought forward as the surest evidences of its antiquity ;
such as the beauty of its execution, the absence of enlarged or orna-
mented initial letters, its conformity in all things to the Masorah,
&c. : so that we are very seldom able to determine the age of a
Hebrew MSS. with any approach to certainty. Dr. Kennicott is of
opinion that nearly aU those which are known to exist, were written
between the years 1000 and 1457 of our sera.* The scarcity of old
copies, — for the most ancient date here allowed would be regarded as
comparatively modern among the MSS. of the New Testament, t
is owing to a pious but mistaken feeling on the part of the Jews :
who have for many ages been accustomed to bury first in a secret
spot, called nr^^j Ghenizah, and afterwards in their common burying-
ground, their sacred books and phylacteries, with their covers, when
worn out or mutilated, lest they should be put to some profane use,
and thereby the sacred names of God which they contain, be dis-
honoured. This practice is enjoined in the Talmud and still un-
happily prevails.
IV. As all the Hebrew MSS. found in the West of Europe appear to
belong to one family or recension, it was for a long time a favourite
project with biblical scholars, to procure some copies which might
have been written independently of the Masorah : and it was thought
that among the Jews settled in the distant countries of the East
such codices might be found : but this hope has proved to be
delusive. Among the MSS. brought from India by Dr. Buchanan,
and lodged in the Public Library of the University of Cambridge, is
a long roU of soft leather, containing the greater part of the Penta-
teuc/h, which was found in what he calls the record-chest, probably
the Ghenizah, of a synagogue of black Jews in Malayala in the
interior of Southern India : on collation it was found to differ- from
the Masoretic text only in forty readings, not one of which affected
* Kennicott conjectured, that at some period, not very remote, there had
been a general destruction of all the older MSS. by a public act of the
Jewish nation, lost their testimony should lessen the authority of the Maso-
retic copies, then highly esteemed : but no history records any such ti'ansac-
tion : and whether we consider the feelings of the Jewish people, or their
wide dispersion, we must regard Dr. Kennicott's supposition as an impossi-
bility.
t De Rossi thinks that his Codex 634, which contains a fragment of the
Pentateuch, in 4to, was written so early as the eighth century: in this
opinion he was possibly mistaken : yet even the date assigned by him would
not appear ancient in Oreek or Latm paleeography.
e.
ClUr. r.J HEBREW MANUSCRIPTS. 79
the sense, consisting only in different modes of spelling the same
words.* There are, or were until lately, Jews residing in the city
of Cai fong-fou in the north-eastern part of China, descendants of
seventy Jewish families who settled there a few years after tho
destruction of Jerusalem by Titus. Their MS8. have been inspected
by the Jesuit missionaries, and were found, so far as the examina-
tion proceeded, and as far as the learning of the collators enabled them
to judge, to agree with the Masoretic copies in all things except tliat
they had no Krijin or K'thibin; but these copies also appear to have
been derived from the Western recension : and are of no great
antiquity.! With the exception of the Samaritan Pentateuch,
there is no non-masoretic copy of the Scriptures in Hebrew in the
possession of the learned ; nor is thei'e the slightest reason to expect
that any such will be discovered.
The Masoretic text therefore is found to be that exhibited to us
in all the known manuscripts of the Hebrew Bible, with the excep-
tion above-stated : but we are not to assume that it is exliibited in
all copies with the same correctness, or with perfect accuracy in any
copy whatever; this we might a priori pronounce to be impossible;
and examination proves it not to be the fact. There is no MS.
that has been carefully collated, which does not exhibit various
readings: and many of the square copies of which we are now prin-
cipally treating, abound with errata. In addition to the ordinary
causes of error which existed in all written books, the Jewish
copyists added others by some absurd practices which they adopted.
They appear to have been exceedingly anxious that their codices
when completed, should have a fair and beautiful appearance ; hence
tliey left mistakes uncorrected and unnotified, lest any erasure should
* See Mr. "5^ates' Collation of an Indian Copy of the Pentateuch, iip. 2, 3,
&c. It appears to consist of fragments of three MSS. joiued togctner: its
former owners could give no satisfactory account of it ; some said it had
been brought from Arabia, others from Cashmire. Both statements may
have been partially true ; for part of the Codex is on brown skins like the
rolls brought from Arabia, and part on red, like those used in central Asia.
If so, the Malabar roll, though lound in India, may have come from regions
where the authority of the Masorah was acknowledged.
t The Jews of Cai-fong-fou stated to the missionaries that they had lost
all their ancient rolls of the Pentateuch by a lire, about six hundred years
ago : and the greater part of their other biblical MSS. by an inundation in
the year 1446. Their present copies of the Law are transcribed from one
which they purchased of a Mahommedan, who said he had procured it from
a Jew in Canton. It had probably been imported from Em-ope or the AV^est
of Asia : which would account for its agreement with the Masorah. See
Bauer, Critica Sacra, vol. i. pp. 404 — 7. Dr. Kennicott made an unsuccess-
ful attempt, through a friend in China, to procure one of these MSS. for the
purpose of collation. See Diss. Generalis, p. 65,4 '•''''•
80 TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF THE OLD TESTAMENT, [bOOK 11.
deform their workmanship, or perhaps detract from its price. In
many cases when they had written a word or part of a word wrong
and immediately perceived the mistake, they left it unaltered, and
wrote the word over again correctly : if they had begun to write a
word at the end of a line, and found there was not room for the
whole of it, they wrote as many letters as the line would contain,
and then commenced it anew on the next ; for in writing or printing
Hebrew, a word is never divided as is customary in the Western
languages : — for the same reason they frequently added to the end
of a line a letter or letters wholly without meaning, called custodes
linece to fill up a vacant space : and sometimes they entirely omitted
one or more letters for which they could not conveniently make
room, or wrote shorter letters for those which would take up more
space ; as, y for ^.* In all these cases, a subsequent transcriber
might very easily be led into error ; and indeed could scarcely avoid
it in transcribing a book so voluminous as the Hebrew Bible. In-
stead, therefore, of feeling surprise at the great number of various
readings collected by Kennicott and De Rossi, we might rather be
surprised that they are not still more numerous.
The number of MSS. collated is very considerable; those enu-
merated in Kennicott' s Dissertatio Generalis amount to about 650,
of which 258 were collated throughout, the remainder were only
inspected in some passages of peculiar importance. De Rossi has
collated 751 MSS.; of which 17 had been previously examined, at
least in part, for Kennicott's edition, leaving 734 which were in-
spected for the first time : thus, in these two works alone, we are
introduced to an acquaintance with the readings of not less than
1,400 Samaritan and Jewish Hebrew MSS. Many others still
remain uncollated. There is no reason to expect that any adequate
advantage would be gained by a minute examination of all the
existing documents, to compensate for the trouble and expense of
such an undertaking ; but it would be desirable that as many as
possible of the uncollated copies existing in Poland, Spain, Portugal,
the Levant,! Persia, Cabool, &c. of which it is probable there are
* Examples of all these practices are produced by Bahrdt, Observationes
Criticce circa Lectionem Coad.MSS. Hebr. pp. 19 — 28. Some instances have
occurred to myself in a cursory inspection of a few Hebrew MSS. which I
have had an opportunity of consulting.
t It would be of especial utility to obtain a collation of the MSS. existing
among the Jews in Constantinople, Thessalonica, Tunis, and other cities of
the Turkish Empire, to which the Jews of Spain fled for refuge when driven
from their own country by persecution. There is no doubt that they
CHAP. 11.) HEBREW MANUSCRIPTS. 81
thousands, should bo inspected in passages whore the more important
various readings occur.
When wo take into account tho small number of tho Jewish people
and their dispersed and oppressed condition at tho time when these
documents wero produced, we cannot but consider the existence of
so many biblical MSS. among them as a splendid monument of the
zeal for their sacred books, cherished, under most unfavourable cir-
cumstances, by that extraordinary nation.
The MSS. of tho Old Testament being so numerous, it will only
be possible here to mention a few of those which deserve especial
attention.
1. Tho Codex Cjesareds, in the Imperial Library at Vienna
(No. 590, Kennicott), consists of two folio volumes, containing the
Prophets and Ilagiographa, on vellum, written, if the subscription
be correct, in the year 1018 or 1019 of our sera: if this could be
established, it would bo the earliest known Hebrew MS. having a
determined date ; but the point has been doubted. From this copy
upwards of 200 important various readings have been selected.
2. The Codex Caklsruiiensis (No, 154, Kennicott), onco the
property of tho celebrated Capnio or Reuchliu, now in tho public
library at Carlsruhe, contains the Prophets, with tho Targum of
Jonathan, in square folio, and was written, according to the sub-
scription, in the year 1106 of tho Christian cera. Competent critics
regard this date as probably correct. If that of the Codex Ciosareus
be apocryphal, this MS. is the most ancient yet known tliat has a
certain date, A specimen of its character would be desirable, but
none such has been published.
3, M, de Rossi's Fragment (No. 634), containing from Levit,
xxi, 19 to Num. i, 50, on vellum, in 4to, was rescued from tho
destruction to which it was hastening in the Ghenizah of tho Jews at
Lucca, Its learned owner refers this fragment to the 8th century ;
but the accuracy of this conjecture may admit or question. It cer-
tainly is very ancient; at least, among Hebrew MSS. it must be so
regarded: but, being only a fragment, it necessarily is without a
subscription; and our knowledge of Hebrew paheography is too
imperfect to enable us to pronounce with certainty respecting its age,
4, Another Codex in the possession of the same author (No. 503,
in his enumeration), containing the Pentateuch, in vellum, 4to, was
found in the same Ghenizah with the preceding. It also wants a
caiTicd with them a great number of those ancient Spanish INISS. which
their learned men unanimously declare to be tho most accarato nnd valuable
copies of their s;i<tc<1 books.
L
82 rUlNClPLES OF TEXTUAL CIUTICISM. [liOOK IT,
subscription, but is refeiTod by M. de Rossi to the 9th or 10th
century.
5, 6. Of the MSS. preserved in the public libraries of England,
the Codex, No. 1, in the Royal Library in the British Museum, and
the Malabar Rolled MS. of the Pentateuch in the Public Library of
the University of Cambridge, have been already described. There
are several other MSS. of the whole, or parts of the Hebrew Scrip-
tures, in the Bi'itish Museum, including some valuable rolls, both of
the Pentateuch and the Haphtaroth, as also of the Book of Esther;
and as admission to the library of that excellent institution is easily
obtained, the student should not neglect the opportunity of exa-
mining them.
7. In the Library of H. R. H. the late Duke of Sussex, was a
rolled MS. of the Pentateuch, which Mr. Pettigrew, the author of
Bihliotheca Sussexiana, considers as probably the most ancient and
perfect synagogue copy in this country. It is written on 79 brown
African skins, measuring 144 feet in length by 23 inches in breadth,
and containing 263 columns, of 42 lines each. All the columns
except five begin with the letter ) : the exceptions are Gen. i. I, ^ ; —
Gen. xlix. 8, •»; — Exod. xiv. 29, Pl; — Exod. xxxiv. 11, ^■, — Num.
xxiv. 5, f2- These letters make the memorial words CD2J^ il''^;
to which adding the letter ) from Deut. xxxi. 28 (which, according
to rabbinical rules, must always, like the letters already mentioned,
begin a column in a Sepher Torah), we have ttie memorial words
)f2^ n^i. " -^»* his name Jah." This MS. was brought from Senna
in Arabia to Amsterdam, and was there employed, as an inscription
on the outside of the roll testifies, in a Jewish synagogue. No
collation of this codex has yet been published.
€^ 8. In the same collj,tion is a roll copy of the Book of Esther,
nearly eleven feet in length, on brown leather ; the letters are large
and well formed. This roll was written, as the inscription on the
outside states, in the City of Shushan, in the month Adar, of the
year 5026, which corresponds with A. D. 1266 ; by Abraham Ben-
Mordecai, of Zaphath.
The catalogues of Dr. Kennicott and M. de Rossi, and of various
public libraries in England and on the Continent, will afford iu
abundance farther information respecting the MSS, of the Hebrew
Scriptures. Those who have not access to the expensive works of
De Rossi and Kennicott will find the contents of their catalogues
accurately given, in a condensed form, in the appendix to the 4th vol. of
Jahu's Hebrew Bible, which has been already mentioned, (See the
1st Chapter of this Book, page 65.)
CIIAI'. III. I VEIISIONS or TIIK OLD TESTAMiONT. 83
CIIAl'TER III.
VERSIONS OF THE OLD TESTAMENT.
After the MS 8. our next aid in critici.sm is derived from ancient
versions, the most important of which shall bo enumerated in this
chapter.
Section I. — The Greek Version, called the Septuagint.
The Pseudo-Aristeas, Aristobulus, and after him Clement of
Alexandria,* and Eusobius.t have made mention of an old Greek
version of at least a part of the Hebrew Scriptures, which existed
before the Septuagint. It is very uncertain however, to say the
least, whether thoro ever really was such a translation ; at all events,
no fragments of it have descended to our times. Of all the existing
versions of the Bible, the Septuagint is the oldest.
Its origin is lost in fable. A writer who calls himself Aristeas,
and assumes the title of Captain of the Guard in the service of
Ptolemy Philadelphus, King of Egypt, and who professes to have
been an actor in the events wliich he relates, tells us, that Phila-
delphus having founded at a vast expense the great hbrary at
Alexandria, appointed the philosopher Demetrius Phalerajus to pre-
side over it as chief librarian, and, at his suggestion, resolved to
procure a copy of the law of the Jews, to be translated into Greek
and placed in the collection, which akeady contained the laws of a
great many other nations. Before sending an embassy to Jerusalem
to obtain the wishcd-for document, the king was prevailed on to con-
ciliate the favour of the Jewish nation by releasing all the Jews who
had been brought into Egypt as prisoners of war, and were detained
there as slaves. This preliminary entailed an expense of 6G0 talents.
The ambassadors — of whom Aristeas pretends that he himself was
one — were then despatched, bearing with them a letter from King
Ptolemy, and gifts and sacrifices for the temple of Jerusalem,
amounting in aU to 170 talents of silver and 300 of gold. The
* Stroni. lib. i. lib. v.
t Chronicon, p. 187. Prcep. Evang. lib. vii. cap. 13 ; lib. viii. cap. t* ; &c.
84 TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF TUE OI.U TESTAMENT. [cOOK II.
king's request was granted by the High Priest and the Sanhedrim,
and the ambassadors returned, bringing with them a copy of the law
written in letters of gold, and seventy-two learned men, six selected
out of each tribe, who were to translate it into Greek. The king
received these men graciously, feasted them sumptuously for seven
days, asked them seventy-two questions npon politics and govern-
ment, presented each of them with three talents of silver, and then
dismissed them to their task. For seventy-two days they were
occupied upon it in the isle of Pharos, near the mouth of the
harbour, having with them Demetrius Phalerseus as their secretary ;
who, as soon as the translators had agreed upon the rendering of
each passage, wrote it down from their dictation. The whole, when
completed, was read over in the king's presence and approved, by a
numerous assemblage of the great officers of state and the Jewish
priests and learned men resident at Alexandria, who decreed upon
the spot that no change should ever afterwards be made in it.
Ptolemy then presented each of the translators with two talents in
gold and a gold cup of a talent in weight, and sent them home to
Palestine. Aristeas recounts a number of other circumstances of
the same general description with those above stated.
The story is manifestly the fiction of some ignorant Jew, totally
unacquainted with the history, character, and feelings of the Greeks
of Alexandria, and anxious, above all things, to maintain the para-
mount dignity of the Hebrews of Palestine, their law, their temple,
their city, and their Sanhedrim. He makes Ptolemy, Demetrius,
Aristeas, and others, who were Greeks and idolaters, express them-
selves in language such as none but a Jew could have employed in
speaking of the Jewish nation, their religion, and their God. He
represents Demetrius as in great favour with Philadelphus ; whereas,
it is certain that no two men ever hated each other more cordially ; for
Demetrius had advised the king's father to cut him off from the
succession to the crown ; and Philadelphus, as soon as he mounted
the throne, threw Demetrius into prison, where he kept him till he
died.* He represents the king as sending an embassy to Jerusalem
to procure a copy of a book which could probably have been
obtained by any private person in Alexandria without difficulty;
and he makes the entire expense of procuring and translating this
one book, if we assume the talents mentioned in the narrative to
have been Attic talents, to have amounted to vei-y nearly £2,000,000
* Diogenes Laertius, De Vita Philosophwum, Lib. v. Sec. 78.
CIIAI'. III.] VERSIONS. THE SEPTUAUhNT. 85
sterling!* which was probably more than twenty times thu worth of
the whole library at its largest extent ; and all this for a volume
which could have had no particular value in the eyes of a heathen.
If the talents were Alexandrian, which the scene of the history
would naturally imply, the expense was exactly double.!
Philo, of Alexandria, commonly called Philo Judrcus, who was
cotemporary with our Saviour, gives an account of the Greek version
of the Scriptures, which agrees with that of the Pseudo- Aristcas in
stating that it was made from a copy, and by interpreters, sent down
from Jerusalem at the desire of Ptolemy Philadelphus, who wished
to have the work in his library. He adds, tliat the whole of tlie
translators agreed in tlieir version, rendering the Hebrew text not
only in the same sense, but in the very same words, without the
least variation : hence, he concludes that they must have been
inspired ; and he tells us that the Jews of Alexandria held a solemn
annual festival in honour of this great work, and in memory
of its completion. J It deserves notice, that Philo says nothing
of the MS. being written in letters of gold, nor does he
mention any of the persons introduced into the story of
Aristeas, nor does he allude to the enormous expense which the
other account makes the work to have cost. He either had never
heard of these circumstances, or if he had, ho know, as a citizen of
Alexandria, that they were fabulous, and would appear to his
reader3_utterly incredible.
* Computation of the sums expended by King Ptolemy in procuring the
LXX version of the hiw, according to the Pseudo- Aristeas : —
1 . Redemption of Captives ....
2. Sacrifices and presents to the Temple .
3. First Present to the Interpreters
4. Second Present to the Interpreters
Total
1046 Attic Talents of Silver at £206
616 „ „ Gold at £3300
Expense in British money. . . £1,918,537 10
t There was a great diversity in the value of the Egyptian talent at
different times ; but that, when the Septuagint was made, the Alexandrian
standard was exactly double of that used at Athens is plain from the version
itself, as will appear in the farther progress of this section. It is likewise
evident that to assign a small value to the talents mentioned in this docu-
ment would be inconsistent with the design of the writer, which was to set
forth the king's magnificence, and the importance of the M'ork, in the most
splendid colouring.
; Philo Jud. de Vita Mosis, lib. ii. p. 658.
Talents of
Talents of
Silver.
Gold.
. 660
no
300
. 216
216
. 1046
516
6 5s.
£ 215,'r37
10
0
£1,702,800
0
86 TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. [bOOK III.
Josepbus, the historian, who was a Jew of Palestine, and who
wrote about A. D. 76, had not the same critical sagacity with Philo :
he abridges and implicitly ailopts the narrative of the pretended
Aristeas : except that he falls into a few arithmetical blunders in his
calculation of the king's expenses.*
Justin Martyr, a Christian, who had previously been a Jew, and
who wrote about A. T>. 150, agrees in most things with Philo : but
adds some additional circumstances. He says that Ptolemy, king
of Egypt, — but which of the Ptolemies he does not state, — having
heard that certain ancient histories were preserved among the Jews
in the Hebrew language, sent to Jerusalem for seventy learned men,
competent to translate them into Greek. These were by his oi'der
shut up in as many separate cells in the Isle of Pharos : where each
made a distinct version of his own : on the completion of the work,
the seventy versions were found to agree, even to a word : so that
the king, not doubting that they had been guided by the Spirit of
God, sent the translators home loaded with presents, and placed their
work in his library, looking upon it as a divine book. Justin says
he had received this account from the Jews in Alexandria, where ho
was shown the ruins of the cells built for the interpreters by com-
mand of the king :t nor have we any reason to discredit his testi-
mony upon this point: for the story, as recorded by him, is
manifestly only an improved version of that related by Philo about a
century before. Justin therefore knew nothing of the story about a
copy of the law in golden letters, sent down from Jerusalem, or did
not believe it : for if his own account be true, there must have been
seventy distinct copies of the original ; he says nothing of an amanu-
ensis who wrote down from dictation, after the version had been
agreed upon by the interpreters ; on the contrary, he makes each
translator produce an independent version without assistance. In
another place Justin says that Ptolemy procured the books of the
Prophets from Herod, king of Judea:| but not only Ptolemy Phila-
delphus, but all the Ptolemies that ever reigned in Egypt were dead
before Herod was made king of the Jews.
Epiphanius, bishop of Salamis, A. D. 368, has manifestly fi-amed
his account of the origin of the Septuagiut with a view to reconcile,
as far as possible, the account of the pseudo- Aristeas, and Josephus,
* Josephus, de Antiquitatihus JudcEorwrn, lib. xii. c. 2.
t Justini M. Cohortatio ad Grcecos, p. 14. Ed. Colon. 1G86.
X Apologia Sec. pro Christianis, p. 72. Ed. Colon.
CHAT. III.) VERSIONS. — TIIK SEPTUAOINT. 87
with that of Philo and Justin Martyr. According to this writer,*
Ptolemy Philadelphus at the suggestion of Demetrius his hbrarian,
procured by means of an omliassy, from tlio High- Priest of the Jews,
a copy of each of the twenty-two books, into which they divided their
Scriptures : together with seventy-two apocryphal works : and, by a
second embassy lie obtained the assistance of seventy-two inter-
preters ; those interpreters wore shut up in thirty-six cells in the islo
of IMiaros, two in each cell ; cacli pair being furnished with one of
the sacred books in Hebrew, and with a scribe who wrote down tho
version as they dictated it to him. When they had translated tho
first book, it was taken from them, and another supplied ; that
wliich they had been engaged upon, was carried to the next cell :
where another pair of translators made a separate and independent
version of it : and thus in succession till each book had circulated
through tho whole thirty-six cells, and had been thirty-six times
rendered into Greek : the whole of these versions, when completed,
were compared together, and were found to agree without a word of
difference.
It would bo a waste of time to pursue this story farther, or to
expose its absurdity. All the modifications of this fable, but espe-
cially those presented to us by Philo, Justin, and Epiphanius, wero
manifestly calculated to procure authority for the Septuagint: which,
being represented as the fruit of inspiration, was thus put on a level
with the original Hebrew. Tho Jews of tho Hellenic dispersion who
had forgotten the language of Palestine, gladly availed themselves of
this tradition, which appeared to justify them in their constant use of a
version of tho Scriptures instead of the original, even in the service
of the synagogue : we find reason to believe that the LXXwas read
oven in some of the synagogues in Palestine: and most of the
Christian Fathers, being profoundly ignorant of the oriental tongues,
wore easily caught by the same bait. — Iren.eus.f Clement of Alex-
andria, J Hilary, § Eusebius,|| Augustine,^! Cyril of Jerusalem,** and
a whole host of Christian doctors, implicitly follow Justin Martyr
and his story of tho cells : of all the Fathers, Jerome is perhaps the
* Epiphanius cle Ponderibtis et Memuris, 0pp. page 161. This •writer
professes to follow Aristeas : Avith whose account, however, his own is irre-
concilably at variance.
t Irenseus, lib. iii. c. 20. J Clemens Alex. Stroinata, lib. i. p. 342.
'J' Comm. in Psalm, ii. || Preep. Ev. 1. viii. c. 2, 3, 4. 5.
1] De Civitate Dei, 1. xviii. c. ',:}. ** Catechis, vol. ii. p. o~.
88 TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. [bOOK III.
the only one who treats the narrative as a fable.* But since the
publication of the masterly inquiries of Hodyt and Prideaux,| no
writer of note has ventured to defend this incredible history : though
some authors, of whom better things might have been expected, have
shown a disposition to find fault with those who treat it as it
deserves.
Dismissing this fable, to which enough of space has been devoted,
we may assume as a point too obvious to require proof, that the
Septuagint Version was executed not by order of Ptolemy Phila-
delphus or of any other polytheist, but by and for a community of
Jews, who from long residence in countries where the Greek lan-
guage was spoken, had lost their acquaintance with Hebrew and
adopted the Greek as their native tongue.
There can be no reasonable doubt that Alexandria was the birth-
place of this translation. The fables which assert this as a fact are
on this point corroborated by the strongest ai'guments of probability.
Alexandria was essentially a Greek city : it contained, however, a
great many Jewish inhabitants who had been induced to settle there,
and had been favoured with many valuable privileges by Alexander
the Great and his successors, the Ptolemies ; they instituted syna-
gogues ; they became prosperous and rich ; and possessed in abun-
dance the means of procuring a version of the Scriptures, which they
would naturally wish to have, in the language with which they were
most familiar. A translation made for the private use of one or two
individuals might even by degrees creep into the service of the
synagogue, without putting the community to any expense farther
than that of causing a few additional copies to be written. There
is no other Greek city to which these remarks are equally applicable.
The internal character of the version favours the theory of its
origin in Alexandria. A fact which is itself decisive of the point, is
the intermixture of Coptic or native Egyptian words with the Greek:
a considerable number of such roots have been observed in the Sep-
tuagint : of which the following are examples : — *
* " Post septuaginta cellulas, quae vulgo sine auctore jactantur." — Prcef.
ad Paralip. " Nescio quis primus auctor septuaginta cellulas Alexandi-ise
mendacio suo extruxerit, quibus divisi eadem scriptitai'uut." Praef. ad Pent.
t De Bihliorum Textibus Originalibus, lib. i.
I Connexion, &c. vol. ii. page 27, &c.
<5 Being perfectly unacquainted with the Coptic. I have, in selecting these
examples, followed the consent of those who are generally regarded as the
most competent authorities.
niAl". 111.) VERSIONS. THE SE1'TDA(;1NT. 89
In Gen. xli. 2, the Hebrew IPItO is translated iv rw ayji and in
Isaiah xix. 2, HIIV ^^ rendered rh ayi H yXu^or The word ciyi,
achi, which is here employed is not Greek, and would have been
perfectly unintelligible in Athens or Corinth: but Jerome tells us
that he had been informed that it signified in the Egyptian lan-
guage, the tribe of plants which grow in marshy ground : with this
modern Coptic scholars agree : the word therefore is Coptic ; from
which the Hebrew inX ^^ itself probably derived.
So the Hebrew term JlS^X. an Ephah, is in several places trans-
lated o'i(pi: a Coptic word denoting a measure employed by the
Egyptians : and the Jewish I^H. a Homer, in Isaiah v. 10, is ren-
dered a^Ta(3ag e^, " six artabas.'' The Artaha is the native name for
an Egyptian measure, six of which were reckoned to be equivalent
to the Homer of the Jews. A Homer and Six Artabas would have
been equally unmeaning in Greece.
In Amos v. 26, |VD Kion, is translated by Vaifav, Fifuv, or Vi,'x(pdv :
Eaiphan, Itephan, or Remphan: the Septuagint vary as to the
spelling of this word ; but the variation is immaterial, as the root is
the same and the pronunciation was nearly the same in all. Rephan
is the Egyptian name for the planet Saturn, which ?V3 "^^^ here
understood to express.
To this head we may refer the correction, or attempted correction,
of a mistake in an Egyptian phrase contained in the Hebrew. In
Gen. xli. 45, Pharaoh is said to have given to Joseph the name of
niySrniS!^. Zaphiath-Pahneah, or as it may be read Zaphnath-
Phahnech; but this is expressed in the Septuagint YovOo/j.-ipav^y. i.e.
Psonthom-phanech : which in the Coptic language is said to signify
the ^'Discoverer of the Secret:'^ which was probably deemed the
correct version of the name. It is not likely that any cue out of
Egypt would have been able to make this emendation.*
A similar argument may be drawn from the interpretation of the
Hebrew 7p^, a shekel: which is translated in this version, in some
places didpayyxov, "a double drachma:'' which was its correct value
according to the Egyptian coinage of the Ptolemies. In any other
country, the Attic standard would have been referred to, and the
shekel would have been rendered rir^dd^ax/Mg. It is worthy of note
* This arjfument is not iiflected by any doubt that may be raised as to the
correctness of the etymology followed in the Septuagint: it seems to me
inore probable that the true explanation of the name may be found by
dividing tlie two words into three : Zaph-neth-Phahnech, i. e. " Zaph,''
(which I taJve to be a corruption of Joseph), " the Phenicion." The other
interpretation, however, manifestly proceeded from an Egyptian source.
M
90 TEXTUAL CRITICISM 01' THE OLD TESTAMENT. [bOOK II.
that in the version of Aquila (Exod. xxxviii. 26), and also in the
Palestinian Greek of the New Testament the word hib^ayj^ov occurs,
but not in its Alexandrian sense: it signifies half a shekel. — (See
Matt. xvii. 24, compared with Gen. xxiii. 15, 16, Exod. xxi.
32, and Exod. xxx. 13, 15, according to the Septuagint : see also
Exod. xxxviii. 26).*
The word &''hn. Thummim, which denoted the jewelled orna-
ment worn by the high-priest on his breast, is translated by the
Septuagint, 'AX'/jhia, Truth: a term which seems to have no close
connexion with Thummim : but the reason why this rendering was
chosen is manifest from a passage in ^lian and one in Diodorus
Siculus : who tell us that the Egyptian Supreme Judge, who was
always a priest, wore suspended to his ueck an ornament of sapphire
or other precious stones, which was called 'AXrjdna, Truth.
The name of Genesis savours of the Egypto-Grecian philosophy ;
for the writers of that school, instead of zriaic, the Creation, con-
stantly used the term ysvseig, the Origin.
The inference drawn from these facts is confirmed by the occur-
rence of certain dialectical variations which have scarcely ever been
found elsewhere, except in the Greek inscriptions discovered in
Egypt or in MSS. written in that country: the most remarkable of
these is the flexion of the 2nd Aorist of the verb, after the example
of the first : as r^X&an for ^Xdirs, 'i'Tnaav for i'Trssov and many others.
If this occurred but rarely, it might be attributed to the careless-
ness of Egyptian copyists : but as it is found very frequently and in
MSS. which were not written in Egypt, it undoubtedly belongs
to the translators themselves.
In brief it may be observed that every internal indication of
origin which the Septuagint contains, refers us to Egypt : and that
there is no opposing testimony. The fact therefore may be regarded
as beyond a doubt.
Nor can it be questioned that this version is the work of several
individuals : not indeed in the absurd manner stated by the fabulists
above referred to : but produced by several different translators ren-
dering into Greek as many distinct portions of the sacred books ;
and probably at different times. This would appear a priori to be
probable, and an examination of theversion renders it quite certain.
* As Exod. xxxviii. 26, may not be easily found in the Septuagint, owing to
the confusion and dislocation of the text in that part of the version, it may be
convenient to place here the words which correspond to the Hebrew of that verse.
Amy/Mri /x/'a rfj xifaXji, rh i^/jbiev rov /rrO.nv xara rov elxXov rh aym, &C.
CHAP. in. I VERSIONS. — thk septuaoint. 91
Thus on comparing together different portions of the 8eptuagint,
we find such diversities in stylo, and in the mode of rendering par-
ticular words which are of frequent occurrrence, and which are of
such a nature as not to admit of variety in signification, that we
perceive at once the clear evidence of many hands having been
engaged upon it, and of their having wrought independently of each
other. Di'. Hody has gathered together so many examples of this
kind that every attentive reader of his learned work will admit the
fact to have been demonstrably proved. The following instances are
extracted from his pages : —
The word DTlSi'/S* ^''<^ Philistines, is in the Pentateuch and
Joshua translated fxi7.iarkiijj. In the book of Judges it is three times
rendered, according to the Roman edition, (pu'/jari'in.* but much more
frequently dXXofuXoi, i.e. foreigners: in Isaiali it is twice given
dXXopuXot, foreigners, and once 'iXXrivsg, Greeks: — but in all the other
books it is uniformly rendered aXXvpuXor. that is, foreigners : often
to the total perversion of the sense.
TwHy the name of a tree, is in the Pentateuch, and in Joshua,
Judges,t and Isaiah (Rom. Ed.), translated ncs/xivdog, or np^ivdo;,
the terebinth, a species allied to the pine : but in 2 Samuel and
1 Chronicles, d^-jg, an oak.
ni^, in the Pentateuch, Judges, Samuel, Kings, J and elsewhere
is rendered x'sd^og, a cedar: but in Job aud Ezekiel -/.u^dpiaaog, a
cypress.
Cl5*S*)n» Teraphim, in Genesis is translated vid(»7.a, idols or
images: in Ezekiel, xivorafia,, monuments: in Ilosea, briXoi, conspi-
cuous oncs:^ and in Judges and the books of Samuel, it is given as a
proper name, ^s^ap/c, or di^afeiij..
|)^X in the Pentateuch, 1 Kings and Psalms, is translated y'imro,
so be it: in 1 Chron. and Nehemiah it is expressed in Greek letters,
a.fjt,^v, Amen.
riDS. tJ>^ passover, is in the Pentateuch, Joshua, 2 Kings, Isaiah,
* In two of these passages, however. Judges xiii. 1, and xiii. o, the Alex-
andrian MS. reads dXX6<p\jXoi. Having omitted to note the third instance
at the time when it occurred to me, I am unable to say whether it is not
similarly rendered in the Cod. Alex.
t In Judges vi. 11, the Alexandrian MS. reads dyjg- as also in 1 Sam. xvii.
19 : but the Vatican Codex omits all from verse 11 to verso 32 of that
chapter : and it undoubtedly formed no part of the original LXX version.
J Except 1 Kings v. 6, where it is rendeicd ^jaov, timber.
^ The noun understood was probably Xldoi, (jems : the Teraphim being
Supposed to resemble the Urim ; which is generally i-anslated 6^?.o/.
1)2 TEXTUAL CUITICISM OF THE OLU TESTAMENT. [UOUK 11.
Ezekiel, uniformly given 'xaayji' but in 2 Chron. it is universally
nj<, the demonstrative article of the accusative case, is usually
expressed in the other books as it ought to be, by some case of the
Greek article, or else omitted as the sense requires :* but the trans-
lator of Ecclesiastes has in several places rendered it by the prepo-
sition odv, with, even where it makes no sense, and totally destroys
the grammar : as, viii. 17, ou duvTiasrai civd^uTog rou su^eiv euv rh 'jroiriiMcc
70 'TTi'TTOirj/Mmv hwh Ton 'riXiov: ix. 15, oux s/Mvriadr} dvv too dvd^hg tov TsvrjTog
smivov : xi. 7, x-ct-i yXuxi) rh foog xai dyaShv roTg 6<p9aX/JioTg rov (SKsthv duv
rhv riXiov. In these examples other barbarisms will be observed
besides those arising from the improper use of the cvv : and more
will occur to those who read this book in the Septuagint version.
The hymn of David contained in 2 Samuel, chap. xxii. is in-
serted in the Psalter (Ps. xviii.), but any one who compares these
chapters in the Septuagint will at once perceive that they have been
translated by different hands.
This investigation might be pursued to a great length : the ex-
amples given will suffice to show the nature of the argument : those
who wish to follow it out may consult Hody, or the Septuagint itself
compared with the Hebrew text. The result of such a comparison
will leave no doubt that this version was the work of several distinct
translators.
The law of Moses being to the Jews the most important portion
of their canon, was probably the part that was first rendered into
Greek ; it appears to have been all translated by the same hand and
is the best executed portion of the Septuagint. It generally gives
the sense correctly : is sufficiently literal : and yet free from the
gross barbarisms of some of the other books. The fables may be
right in assigning it to the reign of Ptolemy Philadelphus.
The Book of Proverbs is also well rendered. The translator has
shown a good acquaintance both with the Hebrew and Greek lan-
guages ; in the latter he affects the use of poetical phrases as in
Frov. xxxix. 19, rgZ/Soi/g i/^jog vovro-^o^ouoTig' from Homer and Eu-
ripides, t
* In the Alexandrine MS. we read, 1 Kings xir. 8, xal £gfj)|a 6\»v to
^adiXiiov aTO tou o/xou Aauib' but the first twenty verses of this chapter are
wanting in the Vatican Codex : and do not belong to the Septuagint
version, properly so called, but to that of Theodotiou, from which they were
introduced into the Hexapla by Origen.
t II. H. 12 :— Hecub. 113, 445.
CUAl'. III. J VERSIONS. THE 8EPTUAG1NT, iKi
The translator of Job was also familiar with the Greek poets, and
has aimed at giving his version in a pure Greek style, nor alto-
gether without success ; but he was an indifferent Hebrew schoLar,
and often mistakes the sense of the original. He has also omitted
considerable portions : some think from ignorance of their meaning:
others suppose because he used a defective manuscript.
The book of Joshua could not have been translated until a consi-
derable time after the death of I'toleinj Philadelphus : the word
youaog, ga'sus, which is a Gallic term for a javelin, being found in the
version. The Gauls first became known in Greece, A.C. 278: and it
was not till some years afterwards that the kings of Egypt took a
body of them into their pay : after which period only could the word
have come into general use in Egypt.
Judges, Ruth, Samuel, and Kings appear to have been translated
by one and the same person : — who was neither very competent nor
very careful in the execution of his work.
The book of Esther labours under similar disadvantages, besides
being enormously interpolated.* A statement is contained in the
version of this book according to tlie LXX. which shows that part of
it (if not the whole) was translated about the year 179 before Christ,
in the 4th year of the reign of Ptolemy Philomctcr.
Nor is the version of the other historical books much better
executed: that of Chronicles is in some respects the worst of
them all.
The Psalms and the Prophets, with the exception of Ezekiel and \/
Amos, — which are well translated, — are even in a worse condition
than the historical books. The translators often give, instead of a
version, words which have no sense whatever, Isaiah, as has often
been remarked, fell to the lot of one every way unworthy of him.
The solecisms, which distinguish the version of J!lccksiastes
beyond all the other books in the Septuagint, show it to have
been the work of a person who had a very moderate acquaintance
with Greek; or else who held the rules of Greek grammar in
contempt.
The Septuagint version of the book of Daniel was so bad that, in
the time of Jerome, it was entirely discarded by the Christians,
who had substituted in its place the translation of that book by
* The additional matter in the Septuagint Version of this book, is nearly
equal to one-half of the whole of it as given in the Hebrew. These additions
are given in all the critical editions, but are omitted in several of the com-
mon ones.
94 TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. [bOOK II.
Theodotioii.* It was long supposed that the Septuagint version of
Daniel had been entirely lost ; but it was discovered in an ancient
MS. and printed at Rome in 1772. It abounds with every kind of
mistakes, and seems to have been rejected, with good reason.
As to the text from which the Septuagint version was made, it is
clear, in the first place, that it was written without points ; for the
translators have, in a great many instances, been misled by the am-
biguity of certain words, which, if furnished with vowels, would
have been no longer doubtful.
Thus, they have in various places confounded, contrary to the
plain sense and the authority of the points, as at present fixed,
D^, Ji^e placed, and CDtJ', « name; Psalm xl. 5.
I'^h, for ever, and "^^J^, for testimony ; Prov. xxix. 14.
7X1. «»^<^ ^o<^> ^^^ /^5^ <^nd not; Psalm vii. 12.
^^ not, and 75^, to, towards, unto; Prov. xii. 28.
Tjj^y, with thee, and TjJtSy. thy people; Psalm cix. 3.
A thousand examples of this kind will occur to the reader of the
Septuagint, who will take the trouble of inspecting the corresponding
parts of the original Hebrew as given in any edition with points.
Indeed, the most eager advocates for the antiquity of the vowel
points have conceded that, not only the Septuagint but all the other
ancient versions, were made, — as they assert, through haste, or care-
lessness, or the want of pecuniary means, — from copies destitute of
points.
There are also a great number of instances in which the trans-
lators have confounded together words written, not only with diflferent
points, but with diflferent letters ; especially those which, as there is
reason to believe, approached each other very closely in sound. Thus,
for nDD'''n*in^> your young men, they read ]Z5D"'*1p^. your cattle,
* Danielem prophetam juxta LXX interpretes Domini Salvatoris ecclesise
non legunt, utentes Theodotionis editione; et cur hoc acciderit nescio.
Sive enim quia sermo Chaldaicus est, et quibusdam proprietatibus a nostro
eloquio discrepat, nohierunt LXX interpretes easdem linguee lineas in
translatione servare, sive sub nomine eorum ab alio nescio quo non satis
Chaldeeam linguam sciente, editus est liber, sive aliud quid causae extiterit
ignorans, — hoc unum affirmare possum quod multum a veritate discordet,
et recto judicio repudiatus sit. — Praif. in Danielem.
CHAP III.] VERSIONS. — THE SEPTUAtilNT. 95
1 Sam. viii. IG: — for "•n/W. I espoused, thoy read "Tl/n!!. / ne-
glected, Jer. xxxi. 32 :* — for "inji^ M/iS, n-hat is his thought, they read
in^tJ^tt. '*«s anointed, Amos iv. 13 : — for C^lJ, strangers, tbcy read
C13. lambs, Isa. v. IG: — i^''^, a valley/, thoy read *y, or rT'y. «
heap, Isa. xxviii. 4 : thoy have rendered it ojo;, a mountain.
Several other instances might easily be produced. From the
number of them, Tychsen inferred that the Septuagint had been
translated, not from purely Hebrew MSS. but from copies containing
the Hebrew text written in Greek letters ; but the variations may be
accounted for by supposing that errors had crept into the copies
which the interpreters used, in consequence of their text having
been frequently written from dictation by careless or incompetent
scribes; or by the translators having written their version, while
other persons, perhaps not very competent to the duty, read aloud
to them the words of the original ; or which is very probable, the
translators themselves may not have been literary persons : perhaps
they had not so much a grammatical as a practical and traditionary
knowledge of the oriental languages, and thus easily confounded
words and phrases which differed little, as pronounced in ordinary
conversation.
It is farther to be observed on this point, that the LXX very
often mistake the proper division of words in the original, giving to
one word a letter or syllable which belongs to that which precedes
it, or vice versa. There would seem, therefore, to have been no
divisions marked in the MSS. which they used, and, probably, no
final letters. Thus, in 1 Kings, xx. 19, instead of IJ^V** H/XI (tnd
these icent out, they read iJi^^Tl /i^), and let them not go out, y.al ij,ri
i^iXdaruaccv, and similarly in various other places. Some of the
circumstances whicli have been noticed can scarcely be called
instances of various readings so much as of diverse interpretations
of the text ; but it is certain that their Hebrew copies contained a
great many variations from the modern text, in the strictest sense
of the words. The additions, the alterations, and the transpositions, /
which are found in the Septuagint, can be accounted for in no other
way.
In the Pentateuch, a close affinity has long been observed by
critics between the text of the Septuagint and that of the Samaritans.
The Greek version is, indeed, free from all the larger interpolations
* This chapter is numbered xxxviii. in the LXX version of Jeremiah;
but here and elsewhere 1 follow the divisions of the Hebrew text.
96 TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. [BOOK II.
and fraudulent alterations which deform the Samaritan text ; but in
most of the smaller deviations which are found in the latter it agrees.
Thus, in the book of Genesis, the Samaritan text differs from the
Jewish about 300 times in the addition or omission of the copulative
particle ), and; and, in almost every instance of the kind, the liXX
reading agrees with that of the Samaritans. Hence, some writers
have argued that this version was translated from Samaritan, not
from Jewish copies ; but it is incredible, that the Alexandrian Jews
would have had recourse to the text of the law as used bj the
bitterest enemies of their nation ; and not less incredible, that Jews
would have adopted a version made by Samaritans, as some suppose
the Septuagint to have been. We are, therefore, driven to the
conclusion, that in the third century before Christ, there were MSS.
of the Hebrew Pentateuch in use among the Jews, the text of which
differed from that now used by the Samaritans, less than the modern
Jewish copies do.
There are many transpositions in the book of Exodus, as given
in this version.*
The Septuagint version of the book of Jeremiah exhibits his
prophecies in a very different order from that in which they appear
in our present Hebrew copies. The arrangement of the LXX
deviates less openly from the chronological order, and perhaps the
translator may have used the liberty which the learned Dr. Blayney
has taken in his English version of the same book ; that of placing
the different predictions in the order in which it appeared to him,
from the notes of time contained in them, that they were probably
delivered. If this were not the case, they must have employed a
copy of the original which varied widely from any existing Hebrew
MS. There are also important omissions in this book.
In the book of Job, the LXX have either used a copy that was
grossly interpolated in the narrative parts at the beginning and end
of the book, and very deficient in the portion which contains the
dialogue, or else they have themselves added largely to the former
and curtailed the latter. It has been conjectured, that they omitted
many passages, because they did not know enough of Hebrew to
* The whole text from Exod. xxxvi. 8, to the end of chap, xxxix. is dis-
located. It is the more difficult to remedy this evil by re-arranging the
Greek text, as considerable portions of it are altogether wanting. The
Complutensian Editors have adapted the Greek translation to the Hebrew
text here, as elsewhere ; but evidently without manuscript authority. Grabe
gives the passage twice ; first, as found in the Codex Alex, and afterw^ards
in the proper order.
CIIAr. 111. J VERSIONS. — THE .SEPTU AGIiNT. 97
translate them ; certain it is that their version was very defective as
compared with the original in the time of Origen and Jerome : the
latter says, that between 700 and 800 lines were wanting in this
book of Job ; tlicse the former inserted in his copies of the Septuagint,
from Tlicodotion's translation.
In the MSS. and critical editions of the LXX, the book of Psalms
is not divided as in the Hebrew text. The 9th and 10th Psalms in
the Hebrew arrangement are numbered as one in the LXX ; and
the 114th and 115th are, in like manner, united together. On
the other hand, the 116th is divided into two, as also the 147th;
so that the total number of Psalms is 150, as in the Hebrew copies.
This division is followed in the Latin Vulgate, which, in the book
of Psalms, is only a translation of the Septuagint, not of the ori-
ginal Hebrew.
The Septuagint version of the book of Esther, as ali'eady inti-
mated, has six long passages, making in all about the quantity
of four or five chapters, which are not to be found in the Hebrew ;
and similar transpositions, omissions, additions, and alterations
(though none so conspicuous as these), are to be found in other
works. It is well known, indeed, that there are several entire works
in this translation, which are usually called the Apocryphal Books,
and which never were admitted by the Jews of Palestine into the
list of their sacred writings. The variations which have now been
enumerated are of no critical value ; but many of the minor readings
of the Septuagint, which differ from the modern Hebrew text, are
deserving of attention, and some are apparently genuine, as will be
shown in the proper place.
This version was made by Jews and for their use ; and it was
accordingly adopted as their authorized version of the Scriptures by
all the Jews who spoke the Greek language. This is sufficiently
manifest from the writings of the Pseudo-Aristeas, Philo, and
Josephus, which have been already in part referred to in this
chapter, and could bo farther corroborated by the testimonies of the
Talmudists,* and several of the ancient fathers of the Christian
* Lightfoot was mistaken when he asserted {ad. 1 Cor. c. 9) that the
Greek version of the LXX is never mentioned in the Talmud ; and he has
drawn the learned Dr. Frideaux into the same error ( Connection, vol. ii. p. 60).
In point of fact, it is mentioned at least four times in the Talmud. In the
Babylonish Talmud, Tr. Mepillah, the version is honourably spoken of as
''the work of King Ptoleinv," and stated to have been read in the syna-
gogues. In the Jerusalem Talmud, Alassecheth Sopherim, the history of its
origin is given to the same effect as the account of Justin Martyr, including
the fable of the 72 cells. In Tr. Sota, c. 7, it is said that the synagogue
N
98 TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. [bOOK II.
church. It was not till the second century of our sera that the
Jews, finding this version frequently appealed to by the Christians
in controvei'sy with them, began to disparage its authority, to deny
its accuracy, to appeal to the original Hebrew text as contradicting its
readings in many passages,* and even to substitute another version — at
first that of Aquila, — in its stead, t From the synagogue the Septua-
gint passed into the church. The evangelists and apostles almost
always refer to the Old Testament in such a manner as to show that
they had this version in their contemplation ; the Greek fathers of
the first two centuries knew the Old Testament only through this
medium, and regularly quote it in their works ; and it was publicly
read, commented on, and explained, in all the churches of Christ
using the Greek language throughout the world. No other Greek
version was recognised as a public document among Christians ; and
it is to this day read in the churches of Greece, the Greek Islands,
Thrace, and Asia Minor, though no longer understood by the people
at large.
From its having been at first thus universally employed both by
the Hellenistic Jews and the early Christians, the Septuagint version
was, of necessity, very frequently transcribed. Copies of it found a
ready sale ; and, therefore, it was not necessary for the transcribers
to be so scrupulous as they otherwise might have been in the cor-
rection of their MSS. ; hence, a multitude of errors crept into the
xo/i/j^ sxdoaig, or copies in common use, which, no doubt, detracted
greatly from the accuracy and value of the translation, and removed
it still farther from an accordance with the original Hebrew text.
Hence also, a vast difierence was found between the copies of the
LXX themselves, which could not fail to distract and disturb those
who studied the ancient Scriptures, through the medium of this
translation. In the beginning of the third century after Christ, the
lessons were read at Csesarea "in the Greek language, and that K. Jose
approved of the practice." In the Tr. Taanith, on the other hand, the
translation of the Scriptures into Greek is deplored as a calamity ; and the
6th day of the month Thebet is said to be observed as a day of mourning
and humiliation on that account.
* Justin Martyr is full of complaints against the Jews on this subject,
and is followed by succeeding writers. See in particular, Ireneeus, Adversus
Mceret, lib. iii. c. 25.
f There were quarrels among the Jews on this subject, even long after the
date mentioned above. The Empei'or Justinian published an edict {Novel.
146) permitting them to read the synagogue lessons in the original Hebrew,
the version of the LXX, that of Aquila, or any other that they might prefer :
a law which deserves to be borne in memory, as pei'haps the only act of his
long reign which favoured religious liberty. "
CHAP. 111. J VERSIONS. — TIUE LXX. — ORIOEN's TKTUArLA. {ID
rectification of these errors and diversities was undertaken by the
illustrious Origen, a man whoso name is never to bo mentioned by
the student of criticism without respect.
It appears that Oigen was induced to undertake his laborious
revision of the Soptuagint, not merely by a desire to remove the
inaccuracies which had crept into the text by the mistakes of the
transcribers, but also from an anxiety to amend the original defects
of the version itself; so that the Christians might no longer lie
under a disadvantage in their disputations with the Jews, who
turned aside the arguments of their opponents, by affii-ming that
they were taken from an impure and corrupted source.*
In his comment upon Matt, xix, 19, in which he judges the words
xa/ aya-jriasig rov m-Xriaiov eov ug aaurov, ''and thou shall love thy
neif/hhour as thyself," to be spurious, Origen thus notices his labours
upon the Septuagint : —
" It miglit appear invidious to pronounce these words an interpo-
lation, were it not that in many other cases there is found a differ-
once between the copies ; so that the MSS. of Matthew's Gospel
do not all agree together : and the same is the case with respect to
the other Evangelists The difference of MSS. is very groat
indeed ; whether occasioned by the inattention of transcribers, the
rashness of some [correctors, wearied] with the irksome emendation
of the copies, or by the conduct of others who, in the correction of
MSS. add or take away whatsoever they please. This discordance
we have been enabled, by the help of God, to remedy, in the MSS.
of the Old Testament AVe have marked with an obelus in the
LXX what is wanting in the original Hebrew, for we do not venture
to remove it entirely ;... other passages we have marked with an
aster isle, i he."
Origen here only speaks of his endeavours to amend the Septua-
gint Version : which was indeed the principal aim and object of his
labours : but Eusobius and Jerome give us a much more complete
view of his exertions. It appears from these authors, both of whom
had seen and critically studied the stupendous works which they de-
scribe, that Origen embodied in one magnum opus, not only a revised
copy of the Septuagint, but likewise three other Greek Versions of the
whole Old Testament; being all that then existed. This work resembled
a Polyglott Bible in appearance, J each page being divided into four
* Origenis Ep. ad Africanum, Opp. vol. i. p. 16.
t Origonis Opp. iii. p. G71. Ed. It. (Comm. in Mat. torn, xv).
t Such at least is tlie judgment of the most careful writers who have
100 TEXTDAL CRITICISM OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. [bOOK II.
columns ; the first was occupied by the translation of Aquila, the
second bj that of Symmachus, the third by that of the Seventy,
and the fourth by that of Theodotion : — thus these four translations,
being placed at once before the eye, their various renderings of any
passage that might be the subject of inquiry, could readily be com-
pared. The Septuagint version as given in this great work, was
corrected and amended, so as to bring it to a nearer conformity with
the Hebrew text, than it presented in the %oivn 'ixboatg, or vulgar
edition. Its redundancies were marked with an obelus, or -^, to
show that they were wanting in the original : its deficiences were
supplied from the other versions ; an asterisk, or *, being placed
before the words introduced, and the initial letter A, 2, or 0 being
added next to the asterisk, to show the translation from which the
additional or supplementary words were taken : and where Origen
found that the version of the LXX, though neither defective
nor redundant, had mistaken the meaning, he seems to have used
the lemniscus, ^ and hypolemniscus '^ : prefixing one of these
marks to the erroneous, the other to the corrected rendering :* for
he made it a rule to omit nothing which properly belonged to the
Septuagint. In all cases he marked by two full points (:) like the
Hebrew Soph-PasuJc, or the English colon, the end of the passage
to which the ci'itical mark referred. This work, from the four
columns of which it consisted, was called the Tetrapla, or sometimes
the Tetraselidon. When we consider that no other character than
the uncial, or capital letter, was then employed in Greek books, we
can form some idea of the bulk to which this work must have
swelled, and the labour which it must have cost.
But it did not exhaust the energy of Origen : who indeed obtained
the surname of Adamantius, or the Invincible, from the Herculean
tasks which he undertook and achieved, in Biblical Criticism. His
next and still more important work was called the Hexapla: because
considered the subject : but I am not satisfied that the mode of writing
books in the form of a square bound volume was invented in the time of
Origen. It seems to me more probable that the Tetrapla and Hexapla were
written on rolls of parchment : the columns being placed parallel to each
other, and either disposed so as to extend across the breadth of the roll, or,
which would be more convenient in such a work, lengthwise, fi-om end to
end. Probably each book in the Old Testament formed a separate roll or
volume.
' Ancient authors give us the names of the lemniscus and hypolemniscus,
but do not explain the use made of them in the Hexapla. In assigning
that which is mentioned in the text, I have followed partly what I regard as
probable conjecture, and partly the evidence furnished by the text of the
Hexaplar MSS.
CHAP. III.] VERSIONS. — THE LXX. — ORIOEN's HEXAPLA. 101
it exhibited no fewer than six complete copies of the Old Testament,
disposed in the same number of parallel columns. In the first he
placed the Original Hebrew text ; in the second, the same text, only
written in Greek letters, for the convenience of those who might not
be acquainted with the Hebrew alphabet ; in the third, the version
of Aquila; in the fourth, that of Symmachus; — in the fifth, the
Septuagint, corrected and completed, as in the Tetrapla, with the
same critical marks: and in the sixth, the version of Theodotion.
These six columns were continued throughout the entire work ;
whence, viewed as a whole, it obtained the name of Hexapla ; but
in some particular portions, — chiefly, as Jerome states,* the poetical
books, — two more columns were added, containing a fifth and sixth
Greek version, the authors of which were unknown ; in these por-
tions, the work was called the Octapla, as consisting of eight
distinct columns : and in the book of Psalms, and that of the minor
Prophets a ninth was added, in which was placed a seventh version
of that portion of Scripture ; in reference to the Psalms and minor
Prophets, therefore, we may call this work the Enneapla; although
I do not find that any ancient author used the term. At the com-
mencement of the column of each version, Origeu gave a preface
containing an account of its author, its history, and critical use ; and
the copious margins were filled with notes, glosses, scholia, &c.
compiled or composed by himself, t This immense undertaking
occupied its author for twenty-eight yeai's: during the whole of
which period he employed not only his own personal labour upon it,
but that of fourteen scribes, seven Ta-^^jygafpoi, or rapid writers, and
the same number of %aXKiygv.(poi, or fair copyists, all of whom were
paid, as is believed, by the liberality of his wealthy and generous
friend, Ambrosius. Some modern writers \ have persuaded them-
selves that the Tetrapla and the Hexapla were one and the same
work, ditferently viewed, as comprising four perfect versions, or as
exhibiting six columns which pervaded the whole Scripture ; but the
industrious Eusebius who was bishop of Csesarea where this work
was kept, and who pubUshed from the Hexapla the column containing
the Septuagint with all its critical marks, unequivocally asserts that
the Tetrapla and Hexapla were distiuct.§ Jerome, also, who had
* Comment. £p. ad Titum.
f It must be admitted that if the scholia of Origen, which aie given iu
Montfaucon's edition of the Kcmaius of the Hexapla, be fair specimeus of the
whole, few of them were valuable, and many erroneous.
I Eichhoni, Uinl. sec. 169.
-^ Eusebii. Hw. jBccles. I. vi. c. 16.
102 TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. [bOOK II.
personally collated Origen's work, while preparing his own Latin
version of tho Old Testament, speaks of them as separate :* and the
scholia to several existing MSS. of the Septuagint certify that they
had been collated with copies taken from both works, Epiphanius
even appears to assertt that the Octapla was a third work distinct
from the Tetrapla and the Hexapla : but if such be his meaning, he
is contradicted by all other authorities.
The following page gives some specimens showing the general
structure and arrangement of the columns in the great critical
works of Origen. They are taken from Montfaucon's Hexapla;
but the passage from Hosea xi. 1, is the only one that has been
found with all the columns given at full length in any ancient
document 4 the other examples are made up from the state-
ments of Eusebius, Jerome, and others, respecting the readings
of the different versions, and are liable to some uncertainty. That
taken from the Psalms is manifestly defective ; for it contains only
eight columns ; whereas, it is certain that in the book of Psalms,
Origen's great work exhibited nine ; and there is little doubt that in
Hosea it contained the same number. For this and other reasons, no
attempt has been made to imitate the ancient mode of writing Greek
and Hebrew, which would seem to claim for the specimens exhibited
a degree of exactness to which they have no just pretensions.
The labour and expense of copying so large a work, occupying
probably as much parchment as would make fifty or sixty folio
volumes, were so great that the Hexapla apparently never was
transcribed. § From Tyre, where its author left it, it was brought
to Csesarea by Pamphilus, when he founded a public library in that
city ; there it was seen by Eusebius, Jerome, and other writers
who have mentioned it : but as we meet with no account of it after
the irruption of the Saracens in A.D. 653, it is probable that it was
then destroyed, or that it perished soon after by neglect. The
• Compare Hieron. Prcefat. in Librum Paralip, and Comment, in Ep.
ad Titum.
f Epiphanius De Fondenbus et Mensuris, c. 18, 19.
I It was found written in the margin of an ancient Barberini MS. at
Rome, and was first printed by Bishop W alton, in the Polyglott, whence it
has been extracted by many succeeding wi-iters : but it is evidently of little
authority : for not only does it entirely omit the 5th, 6th, and 'Zth Versions,
but it assigns to the LAX a reading which has not been found in any other
copy of that work, and which does not agree with the Hebrew text to which
it is subjoined. I have introduced into it a hypolemniscus, and reference to
Symmachus, on my own authority.
^ Jerome appears to intimate that copies of the Hexapla were to be found
in various churches. " Aquila et iSymmachus ac Theodotion in i^ccrrXoTs
CHAP. III.] VERSIONS.— THE LXX.— ORIGEn's IIEXAPLA, ETC.
1U3
Co
w
"Co
3- S
."='
zods
8
X"
Ox
?, 8
«% 5v
8 8
X
1 1?
8- t^ uj
1 -2 "r.
8 N g-
• ^:*
8
• <r.'
X ?. S ^
g e c ^
"§ S 8 ^
g^"g "Oju'^
8. >- .
8 5 ir^
S S R
|4
•rv
3- r«
"00 e V
8 3 e-
>
>"| 1 sr
■"8 <^
^ o-
S 8.
X
XJD-I 8
""' g:
■HI
R
^
8 '^
a
1
"ft
?- X N '
i'W
c
g 8 8 O
R, ^ ^, 3
o
H
3- >5'W
-= &§ -8
"Co 5"^
^
X
>>
K
i- 8-
^^
o- -^Sj
1
8 8 2-
1
r
.-.i,«|
8
1
X x"
R a
8
L «
a a
8^
k
g
-fc o 1 >>
^
g
o
"S
o
o
o
>
>
en
P
B
c:
c: .
W.
^ i
c
8 ^ VwJ i1
^ >e S R
f
>
m
o
CO
;c «-i
fj
o
» R-
X S'
s 1
■>= o.
^ 2f-
o
©
5
C5
53^ 8 8 O
q
o
o
H
F' C4
o
f
^
S c- R- -
>
o
o
"00 O' fr)
1 15-
5V 1; m.
1 ^ s^.
■1 iJ*
o
g^ 8-^
tfl
o ^
8 -g £-
"& -^
ui a.
8 N
X x""
8 a
©
c
Is.!?
r r.r
-^< i'v' ^s
©
3
- 8^ o^ a
^ m 3 O
c- ** 8 _"
3
e
>'
e'
j: <r>
8
^ i-8«i^
^
^
F -^^'J,
F
s; >-
104 TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. [BOOK H.
column containing the Septuagint had, however, been previously
transcribed and published by Pamphilus and Eusebius, with all its
critical marks ; some Greek MSS. of this kind still subsist; occa-
sional extracts from the other columns are sometimes found among
the scholia in the margins of biblical MSS. ; and sometimes we find
a notice of the contents of the Hexapla among the observations of
ecclesiastical writers, especially in those of Jerome upon particular
passages. Part of a Syriac Version, made from the Hexaplar text,
and professing to retain all the critical marks of its original, has been
discovered and published :* and it is hoped that other portions of the
same version, or of others similarly executed, may yet be found.
From authorities of this kind, as far as they could be known in his
time, the leai'ned Father Montfaucon collected with great labour and
fidelity all the fragments of Origen's Hexapla which were then
accessible, and published them.f
The value of the Hexaplar Septuagint, if it could be recovered in
a pure state, would not be so great as critics have sometimes sup-
posed. Origen did not take the proper means for restoring the
Septuagint to its original and primitive form, by the correction of
those errors which had arisen from negligent transcription ; although
he expected that such would have been the result of his labours.
He assumed that his own Hebrew codex presented uniformly the
pure and genuine text : he next assumed that the text of the LXX
must originally have been the same : and all his industry was
exerted to bring his copy of the version to an agreement with his
copy of the Hebrew Bible. The Hexaplar Septuagint, therefore, if
restored, would exhibit to us the readings found by Origen in a
Hebi'ew MS. probably of respectable age and authority; but it
would not give us much help in fixing the primitive reading of the
version itself.
habentur apud ecclesias, et explanantnr ab ecclesiastic! s viris." — Prcef. in
Johum. But as Jerome himself, in order to obtain a sight of the Hexapla,
was under the necessity of travelling to Csesarea, I suspect an error in this
passage, which I would correct by inserting an et after habentur: under-
standing him to assert not that transcripts of the Hexapla were in the libraries
of the churches, but copies of the different versions named : some probably
having one, and some another ; some more and some fewer.
• See the account of the Hexaplaro - Syriac Version, appended to this
Section.
I Hexaplorum Originis quae supersunt. Ex MSS. et Lih-is Edd. emit
et Notts illustravit I>. Bernardus de Montfaucon. Paris, 1713,2 vols. fol.
a learned work ; which however is far from satisfying the expectations
raised by its title.
CIIAP. III.] VERSIONS. — THE LXX. — nESYCHirg AND LUCIAN. 105
llis labours, thougli so well designed, have on the whole rather
tended to increase the corruption of the Greek text. His revised
edition of the LXX having been extensively adopted, was frequently
transcribed ; and copyists first confounded, and then omitted the
critical marks, — the obelus, asterisk, lemniscus, and the terminal
points, initials, &;c.: so tliat oven in the time of Jerome, it was
impossible to know what belonged to the Septuagint, and wliat to
the other versions, without inspecting the llcxapla itself in the library
at Ca3sarea. After a time, the old MSS. of xoivri 'ixoosig would
naturally exercise a certain influence upon the revised text : the
readings of both would become intermixed : and neither Origen's
recension, nor that wliich had prevailed before his time, if the text
then deserved to bo called by that name, could be had in its
purity. That such was actually the case, we know from undoubted
authority.
In the beginning of the 4th century, two learned men at the same
time undertook a farther revision of tho Septuagint; ono of them
was Ilesychius, an Egyptian bishop : tho other was Lucian, a
Presbyter of Antioch, who perished in the Dioclesian persecution,
A.D. 311. We read of other editions, as those of Basil,* Apollina-
rius,t aud Joaimes Josephus :| but their recensions seem never to
have been generally received, and probably exercised but little
influence on the text. On the contrary, we learn from Jerome, that
the churches in Egypt adopted the revision of Hesychius : the
provinces of Asia, from Antioch to Constantinople, adopted Lucian 's
recension : and the intermediate provinces of Syria and Palestine
followed Origen's text as given in the copies of the Septuagint pub-
lished by Eusobius and Pamphilus. The whole world, he says, was
divided between the three editions. § It was impossible to prevent
confusion fi-om arising by the intermixture of readings taken from
all the different recensions.
The existing MSS. of the LXX are all derived from one or other
of these editions, or from xoivn izdooig' but it is very difficult to ascer-
tain tho class to which any particular MS. belongs : and the learned
* Georg, Syncellus, Chronogr. p. 203.
f Hieronym. Adv. Hujin. lib. ij. It is possible, however, that Jerome
only speaks of Apollinarius as a commentator.
I Theodoret. H. E.
^ Alexandria et yEgyptus in LXX suis, Ilesychium laudat auctorem.
Constantinopolis usque Antiochiam Luciani martyris exemplaria probat.
^lediso inter has provincijB Paleestinos codices legunt : quos ab Origcne
elaboratos, Eusebius et Pamphilus vulgaverunt ; totusque orbis hSc inter «e
ti-ifiu-ii varietate compuguat. Prtrfatio in Lib, Parnlip.
O
106 TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. [BOOK II.
have differed very much in the opinions they have expressed
on such questions. Thus Masius thinks that the Vatican MS.
follows Lucian's text : Morinus assigns it to Origen's edition ; and
Grabe to that of Hesychius.
There are four principal editions of the Septuagint printed in
modern times, from which all the others have been copied.
1. The Complutensian Edition, contained in the Polyglott Bible,
published at Alcala or Complutum, under the auspices of Cardinal
Ximenes, in the years 1514 — 17. The editors have remodelled the
text, so as to bring it to an agreement with the modern Hebrew,
by the side of which it is placed ; transposing, omitting, adding, and
altering, where it was necessary for this purpose. The Antwerp
Polyglott, or BibUa Regia, and the Paris Polyglott of M. le Jay,
follow the text of the Complutensian. These copies, therefore, are
of little critical value.
2. The Aldine Edition, Venice, fol. 1518, taken from MSS. is
much more faithful to the text of the LXX than the foraier : it has
not been reprinted since the beginning of the 17th century, having
been superseded by the
3. Roman Edition ; published by Cardinal Caraffa, in 1587,
fol. ; chiefly founded upon the celebrated Vatican MS. one of the
most ancient now existing, containing both the Old and New Testa-
ment in Greek, though with frequent chasms. — These the editors
supplied from other codices which seemed to them to exhibit a text
allied to that of their chief document. This Edition has been
followed in Walton's London Polyglott, 1657 : also by Bos, Holmes,
and most other editors.*
4. The Oxford Edition, published by Dr. J. E. Grabe, a learned
Prussian, from the Alexandrian MS. then in the Queen's Library,
now in the British Museum, in 4 vols. fol. 1707 — 20. It was re-
printed by Breitinger at Zurich, in 4 vols. 4to, with the various
readings of the Roman Edition of 1587.
But the edition which furnishes the most correct and ample
* The student must not trust implicitly to the title-pages of the common
editions which profess to follow the Roman Text ; many of them introduce
a vast number of important alterations of which no notice is given to the
reader. Thus, in the LXX, printed by Daniel, London, 1653, which pro-
fessed to be "juxta exemplar Vaticanum accuratissime et ad amxissim
recusum," all the transpositions of the text in Jeremiah, are conformed to
the Hebrew arrangement, while yet the Preface of the Roman Editor is
reprinted, which expressly admits the dislocation of the Greek text, as com-
pared with the Hebrew and the Vulgate. This example has been followed
in several recent editions.
CHAP. III. J VEHSIONS. — EDITIONS OF THE LXX. 107
supply of critical materials is that of Dr. 'Holmes, completed after
his death by Mr. Parsons, printed at Oxford, in 5 vols. fol.
1798 — 1827. In this edition the various readings of about 130
MSS. of the Septuagint are noted, of which cloven are in the
uncial, or antique Greek character : — also those of all the ancient
versions which were derived from the Septuagint : — the readings
found in the writings of the Greek Fathers : and those of the prin-
cipal printed editions. The text of this edition is that of the
Roman, without alteration : it therefore affords the 'means by which
future critics may correct the text of the LXX : but does not itself
introduce any amendment.
Learned men have been very much divided in their opinions as to
the ancient recensions of the text which the different modern
editions most nearly represent ; especially the Roman and the
Oxford editions. To mo it appears difficult to determine whether
the Vatican MS. from which the Roman text is chiefly taken, is to
bo regarded as a document of xoivri hdoai;, or of the recension of
Hesychius : the former seems most probable. The Alexandrian
MS. and the editions of which it is the basis, appear clearly to
belong to the llexaplar or Origenian text, written without the
critical marks, as Jerome tells us was frequently done in his time.
The MS. has almost aU the passages with which Origen interpolated
the Septuagint from the other versions, especially that of Theodo-
tion. The book of Psalms forms an exception : in this portion the
Codex appears to follow the -/.oivn 'iy-ooai;, or old uncorrected text.
The reason apparently for preferring the old text in this portion of
the MS. was, that the Psalms were in daily use, and had been set
to music, so that any alteration there would have given trouble and
caused offence. For a similar reason, an old and incorrect English
version of the Psalms is retained in the Book of Common Prayer.
It is not very easy to ascertain the text of Lucian, or Hesychius :
but that of the llexaplar edition can be identified with more certainty.
It is difficult to lay down any precise rule for estimating the critical
value of the Septuagint, as an aid for the correction of the Hebrew
text. In general terms it may be stated that where the copies of
this version vary among themselves, it is necessary to ascertain first
to what recension each document belongs : — the reading of each will
then represent to us the Hebrew MS. which the ancient critic,
whose text it follows, employed in revising the version. Where all
the copies agree, as they frequently do in readings of some interest
and importance, they carry us back to the age of the original trans-
108 TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. [bOOK II.
lators : and if it be clear that they rendered the original before them
with due accuracy, such readings must be regarded as very ancient;
which is one important element of critical authority.
Besides the MSS. of the Septuagint, there are other aids for
ascertaining the readings of that ancient version : the principal of
which are the Secondary Translations, of which it was the basis.
1. Of these the most ancient is the Old Latin Version of the
Old Testament, which was in use in the churches of the West
before the time' of Jerome. It is called by Jerome himself the
Versio Vulgata, and also the Versio Communis:* and by Gregory
the Versio Veins :-\[ and is to be carefully distinguished from the
present Vulgate Latin used in the Church of Rome, of which we
shall hereafter speak. Augustine intimates, in a very rhetorical
passage, that there had been in the early ages of the Christian
Church, a great many, he says innumerable, Latin Versions of the
Scriptures ; all, however, jas his words imply, made from the Greek: J
one of these he speaks of as worthy of peculiar respect, from its per-
spicuity and fidelity : he calls it the Versio Itala, or as the word
ought probably to be read, the Versio Usitata:^ and undoubtedly
this is the old anti-hieronymian Latin Version which has come
down to us in several MSS. which are preserved in various public
libraries. Father Sabatier published all that could be found of this
Version (at Rheims, 1743, 3 vols. fol. of which the first two contain
the O.T.): and Miiuter has made a valuable addition to his collection
by printing from a Codex Rescriptus of the 6th or 7th century,
* Comm. in Isa. xiv. 49. These temis imply the existence of other versions.
t S. Gregorii. Ep. Dedicat ad Leandr. c. 5.
1 Qui enim scripturas ex Hebrsea lingua in Grtecam verterunt, numerari
possunt : Latini autem interpretes nullo modo. IJt euini cuique primis
fidei temporibus in manus venit Codex Grcccus, et aliquantulum facultatis
sibi utriusque lingute habere videbatur, ausus est interpretari. Aitg. de Doctr.
Chris, lib. li. c. 11.
§ The passage as read in all the extant MSS. of Augustine, is as follows :
" In ipsis autem interpretationibus Itala prseferatur ; nam est verborum
tenacior, cum perspicuitate sententiee." Doctr. Chris, lib. ii. c. 15. But as no
other author has employed this term, it seems to be an erroneous reading ;
for which we ought to substitute the word Usitata, corresponding to the
Vulgata and Communis of Jerome. The substitution of the one word for the
other might readily be effected, as may be seen below : —
INIPSISAVTEMINTERPRETATIONIBVSVSITATAPRAEFERATVR
INIPSISAVTEMINTERPRETATIONIBVSITALAPRAEFERATVR
Though convinced of the propriety of this emendation, we shall continue
to call this translation the Versio Itala, as the name by which it is now
commonly designated, and because the correctness of the term has been
defended by Wiseman, Lachraann, and other learned men.
CUAP. 111.] VERSIONS MADE FROM THE LXX. 109
fragments of Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel and llosea. From the time
at which this Version was executed, it is manifestly a document of
the xo/vj^ hdoeic. It follows the text of the LXX with the most
Hteral scrupulosity, and is a valuable help for restoring its readings.
2. The Coptic, more properly called tho Memphitic Version, in
the language of lower Egypt, was also made from the Septuagint.
It is probable that the translation of tho Old Testament did not pre-
cede that of the New : and as the latter seems not to have been made
till about the 4th century, we may assign that date as tho earliest
at which the Coptic Old Testament can be fixed. It certainly is
not more modern than the 7th century, as several of its existing
MSS. belong to that period. This Version has not as yet been
published entire : the Pentateuch was printed in 1731 by Wilkins :
and the book of Psalms by the Congregation de Propaganda Fide in
1744 at Rome : but tliere are several MSS. of other parts of tho
Old Testament known to be in existence : and the learned Dr.
Tattam in 1842 returned to England from a voyage of research in
Egypt, with some most valuable additions to the former materials :
ho has lately published proposals for printing a complete edition of
the Coptic Old Testament, and it is greatly to be hoped that he will
meet with such encouragement as will enable him to bring his
labours to a successful result. If the date above assigned to this
version be correct, it will probably be found to follow throughout the
MSS. of the recension of the Septuagint by Ilesychius, as it appears
to do in the portions already printed.
3. There was a version of the Old Testament made from the
Septuagint into the Sahidic or language of Upper Egypt : of which
a few fragments have been discovered, and some specimens merely
have been printed. The Sahidic Version of the New Testament is
more modern than the Coptic, and follows a different recension of
the text : whether the case may be the same or different in the Old,
I am unable to say. This version and the Memphitic above
described are quite iudependent of each other. The specimens of
the Sahidic Old Testament, which have been printed, are the 9th
ch. of Daniel, published by Miinter, Rome, 178G ; and a fragment
of Jeremiah (ix. 17 to ch. xiii,), by Mingarclli. Bologna, 1785.
4. The Hexaplaro-Syriac Version, made from the Ilcxaplar
text of the LXX, and retaining all the critical marks of Origen, such
as the asterisk, obelus, lemniscus, d'c. Some ancient authorities
made mention of such a translation, as having been made by Paul of
Tela, about A.D. 617 ; but their statements attracted little attention:
110 TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. [bOOK II.
until the learned critic, Andreas Masius, who pubUshed a valuable
commentary upon the book of Joshua (Antwerp, 1574, fol. reprinted
in the Critici Sacri), mentioned that he had in his possession a
Syriac MS. containing the books of Joshua, Judges, Kings (which
probably includes the Books of Samuel, according to the custom of
the LXX), Chronicles, Ezra, and Esther, together with a part of
the Apocryphal book of Tobit, all translated, as the inscription
declared, from a Greek copy, corrected by the hand of Eusebius,*
according to the MS. of Origen in the library at Csesarea: and
exhibiting throughout the critical notes inserted by that Father in
the text of the Ilexapla. Masius testifies to the care and diligence
which the translator and his copyist appeared to have used in placing
these marks : and he has inserted several notices of the readings of
this MS. in his commentary. It is greatly regretted that he did not
publish this version : which would have prevented a loss now deeply
deplored by the learned world. The MS. came into the possession
of Jablonski, about the year 1719.t Jablonski designed to print
the Version from this MS. but he did not do so: the Codex
itself has never been heard of since, and probably is irrecoverably
lost. Another portion of the same version is preserved in a MS,
in the Ambrosian Library at Milan, which may perhaps have
been originally a second vol. of the codex, mentioned above. A
MS. in the Royal Library at Paris (No. 5), contains the 2d
book of Kings; and there appear to be other MSS. in existence,
from which Norberg printed the books of Jeremiah and Ezekiel in
1787: Bugati published the prophet Daniel, in 1788: and Middel-
dorpf, in 1831, published at Berlin, the books of Kings, and Chroni-
cles, Isaiah, Job, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, the
Twelve Minor Prophets, and the Lamentations of Jeremiah. The
Milan MS. would enable us to add to these the book of Psalms;
besides the apocryphal books of Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus. This ver-
sion is to be accurately distinguished from the Old Syriac Version or
Peshito, printed in the Polyglott Bible, and still used in the Syrian
Churches : which was made from the Original Hebrew ; and which
will be hereafter described. The Hexaplar Syriac, though only a
secondary version, would be of immense service, if it could be com-
pletely recovered, for the emendation of the LXX, as will readily be
* So Masius : mmiu Euschii : which however, I suspect is only a Hteral
rendering of the Syriasm, i i *~>, by Eusebius : i.e. by his order.
f See Proleg. to the 3d vol. of Grabe's Edition of the Septuagint, pub-
lished in that year : chap. iii. sec. 2.
CHAP. III.] VERSIONS MADE FROM THE I.XX. lit
perceived from the foregoing statement. Archdeacon Tattam made
the procuring of copies or fragments of it one of the objects of his
voyage to the East : but I am unable at present to say how far he
has been successful.*
5. The -^Ethiopic, or old Abyssinian Version of the Old Testa-
ment was translated from the Septuagint in the 4th or 5th century, t
In 1513 the Psalms and Song of Solomon were pubhshed at Rome
by Potken : and were several times reprinted, in Polyglotts and else-
where : the books of Ruth, Jonah, Joel, Malachi, and four chapters
of Genesis were afterwards printed at different times, and by various
editors : but no farther progress was made in pubhshing this version
until a MS. containing the first eight books of the Old Testament,
came into the possession of the Churcli Missionary Society. The
celebrated Abyssinian traveller, Mr. Bruce, brought home with him,
among other ^Ethiopic MSS. one containing the entire Old Testa-
ment, with the exception of the Psalms (which have been published
already) ; he also procured some copies of particular books : so that
means are in existence for giving a complete edition of this ancient
version. These MSS. having been offered for sale in May, 1842,
the principal one was purchased, it is to be hoped for publication, by
the Bible Society. From the age and native region of this Version,
we can readily explain how and why it has been found to follow the
readings of Ilesychius's recension of the LXX.
6. The Armenian Vei'sion was executed in the 5th century, by
Miesrob, from the LXX: probably from MSS. of Lucian's recension,
which was used by the Christians from Antioch to Constantinople,
at that period. It was, however, altered soon after it was made, to
make it conform more closely to the Peshito, or Old Syriac Version,
which was held in much repute in those regions : and Haitho, King of
Armenia, who caused his people to reconcile themselves to the Church
of Rome in the 13th century, is said X to have directed a farther
• An Arabic Translation was made from the Hexaplar Syriac Version, by
Hareth beu Senau, near the close of the 15th century. Fom- MSS. of this
tertiary version are in existence ; two in the Royal Library at Paris, and
two in tlie Bodleian at Oxford. They may give aid in criticising the text of
the Syriac, and thereby assist in restoring the readings of the LaX.
t If made by Christians, it could scarcely be more ancient : but as Bruce
affirms that it is employed by the Abyssinian Jews, some have conjectui-ed
that it may have been made by Jews ; in which case, it could not be more
recent than the 2d century of our eera. But this antiquity is q^uite in-ccou-
cilable with the admitted fact of its accordance with the text ot Hcsychius.
I By Lacroze and Michaelis : but Adler, Holmes, and De Wette are of a
contrary opinion. Several Armenian MSS. still exist, which were written
112 TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. [bOOK 11.
revision of the Church Version, to bring it to an agreement with the
Latin Vulgate. This translation was printed at Amsterdam, in the
jear 1666, under the superintendence of Uscan, Bishop of Erivan,
who travelled to Europe for the purpose of procuring an edition to
be publislied for the use of his countrymen. He is known to have
introduced some alterations into the text of the New Testament
contrary to the authority of all his MSS : and although I have not
observed any imputation upon his fidelity as Editor of the Old, yet,
as he was a warm admirer of the Church of Rome, it is probable
that the Armenian version owes to him its close conformity in some
things with the Vulgate ; several of the inscriptions of the different
books having been copied. Indeed, in Uscan 's edition, the Vulgate
is sometimes expressly quoted as the authority which induced the
Editor to deviate from his MS. It may be assumed at the very
least, that the readings of this Version, which differ from the
Peshito and the Vulgate, represent to us the Greek MSS. which
were used by the original translators.
7. The Sclavonic version of the New Testament was made by
Cyril and Methodius, who lived in the ninth century, and who con-
verted the Sclavonians, or a part, at least, of that great family of
nations to Christianity; and it is stiU used by the churches of
Russia, Poland, Moravia, and Dalmatia. The translation of the
Old Testament is, by some, ascribed to the same author: others
refer it to a more modern date. It follows Lucian's recension of
the LXX, and has been often printed, chiefly in Russia, although
the earhest edition was that issued at Prague, in 1519. This
edition being very scarce (no perfect copy of it is now known to
exist), that of Ostrog, 1581, is generally considered as the editio
princeps.
8. The Arabic version, printed in the London Polyglott, is taken
in the Old Testament from the LXX, with the exception of the
Pentateuch, the books of Joshua, Chronicles, and Job. The sub-
scription at the end of Malachi testifies that the version was made
by a celebrated and learned father, an accomplished divine of
Alexandria; and that the MS. exemplar was copied by a person
named Abdrabbih, in the year 1584. It is probably not older than
the tenth century, and its critical authority is not high.
9. The Gothic version of the Old Testament was made by Ulphilas,
before this alleged transaction, and they do not differ materially in their
readings from those which were executed afterwards.
(MIAl'. III. J VERSIONS MADE TUOM THE LXX, 1 1 Ij
in tlio latter part of tlio fourth century, from the (ireek, most
probably from tlio MSS. of Lucian's recension ; but it has not come
down to us entire ; and only a part of the book of Xehemiah has
been printed.
10. The Georgian version was made about the end of the sixtli,
or beginning of the seventh century, from MSS. procured in Con-
stantinople ; and probably from the same sort of text as the Gothic.
It was pubhshed at Moscow, in 1743; but, as is asserted, with alte-
rations intended to produce a nearer conformity with the Sclavonic.
The great use of these secondary versions in helping us to ascer-
tain the primitive readings of a translation which has come down to
us in so corrupt a condition as the Septuagint, and especially in
enabling us to trace out the different recensions or revisions which
the text of the Greek translation has undergone, must be obvious to
every reader.
A similar advantage may be derived from the quotations found in
tlie works of those authors who used this version of the Scriptures.
Among these, Philo and Josephus, together with Clement of Rome,
Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexandria, and other Christian writers,
who lived before the time of Origen, used of necessity the xo/vji
sxdoaii, or unrevised text. Origen himself, in his later works,
and his admirer Eusebius, follow the Hexaplar edition ; Athanasius,
Cyril of Alexandria, and the other church writers, who flourished
there, employed the edition of Ilesychius ; and John Chrysostom,
who was bishop, first of Antioch and afterwards of Constantinople,
with the other fathers who flourished in these regions, will represent
to us the text of Lucian's recension. The text of each writer is, in
this point of view, the more valuable the nearer he approaches in
time to the recension wliich he chiefly follows ; for, after a certain
period, the different texts, xoivri h.boaig, Hexaplar, Lucianic, and
llesychian, became so intermixed in the current MSS. that we
cannot always be certain of the origin of these readings which we
find quoted.
A good text of the Septuagint, distinguishing, whenever it is pos-
sible, the primitive readings of the version from those which were
introduced by the critical editors, and also their amendments from
each other, is a boon which theology has surely a right to expect
from the scholarship of the present age. Towards such an edition
the collections of Dr. Holmes furnish most valuable materials ; but
other helps are known to be in existence, and, it is hoped, will not
calways remain unemployed.
p
114 TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF THE OLU TESTAMENT. [bOOK II.
Section II. — The Greek Versions of Aquila, Theodotion,
Symmachus, &c.
A very brief mention of the versions of Aquila, Sjmmachus, and
Theodotion, and the other Greek translations, will suffice, as, with
the exception of Theodotion 's translation of Daniel (see ante, p. 93),
they have been long since lost, all but a few extracts preserved in
the commentaries of the ancient Greek fathers, or contained in
marginal scholia found in some MSS. of the Septuagint. The de-
fective parts of the LXX being supplied, in the Hexaplar MSS.
fi'om some of these versions, may also be taken as specimens of one
or other of them, according to the circumstances of each case.
1. The translation of Aquila is the eldest of the three ; its author
was a Jew or Jewish proselyte, of Sinope in Poutus, who executed
his version about the beginning of the second century : for it is re-
ferred to by Justin and quoted by Irengeus. Aquila published two
editions of his version, both very literal ; but the latter excessively
so. Jerome observes, that he endeavoured not merely to translate
words, but even their etymologies ; hence, as the same writer tells
us, in Deut. vii. 13, corn was rendered x^^!-^"-> '^effusion:'" to ex-
press the derivation of pi from H^l *o sioarm, or increase abun-
dantly. In the same verse, wine is translated o-rw^/cr/xog, "harvest-
ing ;" the original is SJ^TTl which he probably derived from "^'Ifl
the Chaldaic for an ox, an animal used in threshing the grain ; and
for oil we have (STiXTvor^g, "splendour," denoting the derivation of
in^*" from the Chaldee verb '^TV!^ io shine. The Hebrew particle
nX corresponding to the definite article of the accusative case,
he renders almost universally ai)v, and other minutite of a similar
kind were sedulously attended to. The Greek and Latin fathers,
most of whom were profoundly ignorant • of Hebrew, and who were
generally very free in imputing to opponents the worst possible
motives on every occasion, did not fail to rail at Aquila as a cor-
rupter of Scripture, on account of his having rendered one or two
passages in such a manner as to turn aside the force of certain argu-
ments which they had been in the habit of using, and which were
built upon the phraseology of the LXX. Thus, in particular, he is
censured by Justin,* by Irenseus.t by Epiphanius, J and by Eusebius.§
The principal fault of this kind which was urged against him was
* Dialog, c. Tiv^phone. c. 71. t -^dv. Hcereticos, lib. iii. c. 24.
X De Ponderibus et Mens. c. 14. § Demonstratio Evang. vii. 1.
CIIAl\ Ill.J VERSIONS. — AQUILA, THEODOTION, ETC. 115
his translation of Is. vii. 14, which ho rendered 'idoj n viavi; h yaarpi
s^sTui v/6v* *' Behold the young woman shall conceive," &c. instead
of r) rra^dsvo;, the virgin, as given in the ancient version : but this is
only a various rendering of the Hebrew terra, and does not neces-
sarily imply any corrupt design. Aquila is, indeed, acquitted of any
such malicious intention by Origen and Jerome, who, of all the
fathers, were the most competent to decide on such a question;
though here as elsewhere, Jerome is not consistent with himself, for
he sometimes joins in the very outcry which ho condemns. The
excessive strictness of adherence to the letter, which rendered the
translation barbarous and almost unintelligible to the Greeks, gave
it great value in the eyes of the Jews, who, when the translation of
the LXX incurred their dislike, from the use made of it by Ciiris-
tians, adopted that of Aquila in its stead; and it accordingly began
to be read in the Hellenistic synagogues. It appears, from one of
the Decrees of the Emperor Justinian,! that some dissensions had
been occasioned by this practice : that prince, therefore, decided
that the Jews should be at liberty to use either the Hebrew text
alone, or together witli it, the Greek version of the LXX or that of
Aquila, as they might themselves prefer. Soon after liis time the
Jews appear to have given up the practice of reading the Scriptures
in a foreign tongue ; the version of Aquila being no longer used by
them, and never having been popular among the Christians, ceased
to be transcribed, and in a short time its MSS. perished. Could it
now bo recovered in a perfect state, its servility would render it a
most valuable help to the knowledge of the text from which it was
taken.
2. Theodotion, the next who made a Greek version of the Old
Testament, was an Ebionite ; that is, a Jewish Christian who ob-
served the law of Moses in all its strictness : but some authorities
(Epiphanius,]: &c.) make him a convert to Judaism. His version
* Thus quoted by Irenseus ; but I suspect it should be read iv yaar^l s-^-i
xa! Ts^irai wov. Justin gives it iv yaar^i Xri-^srai, perhaps from Aquila'a
1st edition.
t Didicimus quosdam solam habentes vocem Hebrseam etiani ipsi uti
velle, in sacrorum Hbrorum lectione; alii vero Grsecam quoque cditionem
assumendam esse arbitrantur ; et jamdudum liAc de re inter se disputant.
Nos ip;itur, his auditis, meliores judicavimus eos esse qui GrcOcain qnoi^ue
versioneni ad librorum sacrorum volunt assumere, et quamcunquc liuguam
simplicitcr quam locus commodiorem et aptiorem audicutibus tacit, &c. &c.
Novella, llO. \
I Epiphanius says he was a native of Sinope, in Pontus, — was originally
an adherent of Marcion, and wrote in the reign of the Emperor Commod^ts
the Second! a prince of whose life and actions history is silent.
IIG TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. [bOOK II.
is quoted bj name by Irenseus, A. D. 176 ; hence it was probably
made about the middle of the second century or a little after, for it
seems to have been unknown to Justin. His translation was neither
so rigidly literal as that of Aquila, nor so paraphrastical as that of
Symmachus — he made large use of the old version in preparing
it — hence it approached very closely to the style of the LXX, on
which account Origen took the supplements which he introduced
into the text of the latter, in his Hexapla, chiefly from Theodotion.
He was, however, very imperfectly acquainted with Hebrew, and in
places where he could not derive assistance from the LXX, he often
retained the words of that language untranslated, because he did not
know how to render them properly into Greek ; and this even when
the meaning was not at all obscure: as, Levit. vii. 18, nTl"' 7"1^3
sJicdl be an abominatio7i, he translates, if it can be called a trans-
lation, (piyyvX hrai, instead of luaGiho. hrai, Is. Ixiv. 6, C*iy he
renders yiddii/M, instead of d--:To(3}'.7ifji,ara ; and so in various other
places. In one passage Jerome seems to imply that Theodotion
published two editions of his version ; but some suspect that there
is an error in the reading.
3. The translation of Symmachus was the last in order of these
three ; it was also made by an Ebionite, though Epiphanius and
others speak of Symmachus as a Samaritan. His version is not
mentioned by Justin or Ireneeus, and, therefore, was probably not
made many years before the time (about A. D. 230) when Origen
inserted it in the Tetrapla. The translation of Symmachus is
uniformly represented as having been more free, more neat, and
more elegant, than any former Greek version of the Scriptures,
but very few fragments of it now survive.
4. We naay class together the versions called the fifth, sixth, and
seventh, from the places which they occupied in the great work of
Origen. They are all anonymous, and were so even in the days of
the author of the Hexapla : the fifth version is said to have been
found at Nicopolis ; the sixth at Jericho ; of the seventh we have no
information. The fifth and sixth contained the Pentateuch, Psalms,
Canticles, and the twelve Minor Prophets; the seventh only the
Psalms and the Minor Prophets. The mode of i-endering followed
in these three versions was more free and elegant than that employed
by the LXX, Aquila, and Theodotion. It has been conjectured
that the sixth was translated by a Christian, because, in Hab. iii. 1 3,
he renders the words *rp''i:;f2 V^'h "|/2y V^h r\i<T '^n7'ki roD
cmai Th>^ Xaw co\j dia 'I?j(ToD rov ^gioroZ cou, " thou icentest forth to save
CHAP. III.] VERSIONS. — VERSIO VENIiTA. 117
thy people hy Jesus thine anointecV (lit. thy Christ); and the
seventh by a Jew, because he translates the same passage, dvtpdvri;
(Ti aci)Tr,plcf. Tou XaoD aov, '^beaeOai royj skXixtou; hov, " thou appearedst
for the saloation of thy people, to defend thy chosen ones;" but these
peculiarities may have arisen from a sliglit variation in tlio text of
the original: thus, if the last two words were read *Tn"'£J'/!3 yB^IH^^
even a Jew might render them did 'ijjffoD roD p^g/ffroD aou, referring tliera
to Joshua, the son of Nun, who is constantly called Jesus in Greek.
The translator of the seventh appears to have found in liis copy
TT'TT'CJ^tt in the plural; literally, "thine anointed ones," which he
paraphrased roug exXszrou; aou, " thy chosen ones;" the sense of which
is the same. Few extracts remain from these three versions.
5. The Versio Veneta, so called because it was discovered in a
MS. of the tenth century, in the Ubrary of St. Mark's Church, at
Venice, contains the Pentateuch, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Canticles,
Ruth, Lamentations, and Daniel. The pages are arranged like
those of a Hebrew Bible, although the writing reads from left to
right, as in all other Greek books. The translator had a good
knowledge of the Greek dialects, grammar, &c. ; but has injured his
version by affecting an extremely close adherence to the latter,
attempting to translate the proper names: thus niiT* Jehovah,
he renders ovTurrig or o-jgnJJri^g, essence or being; and so Gen. xxi. 22,
7!D^£) Phicol, he translates (Stoi/jo. 'xdvrog, " the mouth of every man"
i.e. the public orator or spokesman, &c. He seems to have used an
exemplar very closely conforming to tlie Masoretic standard, although
it was either unfurnished with points, or the translator neglected,
or perhaps did not understand them. He sometimes follows the
ICthib and sometimes the Kri or marginal reading. This version,
though apparently made by a private individual for his own use, is
clearly as valuable as any existing Hebrew MS. ; or even more so,
as it is more ancient than any that is now known : but its readings
are not conspicuous for any inherent excellence.
This version has been pubhshed: the Pentateuch by Ammou
(Erlangen, 1790-1); the other portions by Villoison (Strasburgh,
1784) ; both in 8vo.
Section III. — The Chaldee Versions or Targums.
The Chaldee is the Eastern, and the Syriac the Western dialect,
of the ancient Aramaic tongue, which was spoken throughout the
wide region called iu Scripture Aram, extending from the shores of
the Mediterranean Sea, through Syria and Mesopotamia, far to the
118 TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. [bOOK II,
east of the river Tigris. The Chaldee and Sjriac differ from each
other much less than any two dialects of the ancient Greek: in
truth, if we neglect the vowel points, which are a modern invention
in both these languages, Chaldee becomes Sjriac and Syriac Chal-
dee, by being transcribed from one alphabet into another, with the
exception of the 3 sing. m. of the verb, which is formed in Chaldee
by prefixing *, and in Syriao by prefixing J, The Chaldee is written
and printed in the square Hebrew character; the Syriac has an
alphabet or rather three alphabets of its own, but the number and
powers of the letters in both languages exactly correspond. A few
roots are found in the Syriac in senses which the corresponding
roots in Chaldee do not appear to bear, at least, in any books which
have come down to us ; but still the two dialects form essentially
one and the same tongue. This language became familiar to the
Jews during their captivity in Babylon, where it was spoken;
on their return to Judea it continued to be used, and, at length,
became the common language of the people ; the ancient language
of the nation, in which the greater part of the Old Testament is
composed being, however, still cultivated, but chiefly by the Rabbis,
Scribes, and Priests, as a learned tongue. The Syro-Chaldaic,
which is called Ilehreio in the New Testament, was the common
language of Palestine in the time of Christ, as appears from the
instances in which our Saviour's own exact words, or those of others,
are handed down to us by the Evangelists, of which the following
examples will suflBice : —
gaxa, Baca, Matt. v. 22.— J^p^'^, Chal. ]r55 Syr.
iffa&d, Epphatha, Mark vii. 34. — HnSHX. Chal. ^*oA^Z] Syr.
roKi^d KoviM, Talitha cumi, Mark v. 41. — '•J^Dlp NHv^. Chal.
j^QX) 1A^14 Syr. '
yoXyo^a, Golgotha, Mark xv. 22. — {^hS^Sx Chal. "jZ^l^Q^j... Syr.
aal3a^davl,Sabachthani,'MsixkxY. 34. — '•^np^SJ'j Chal. jjZ^mn* Syr.
axskdafid, Aceldama, Acts i. 19. — K/!31 7pn> Chal. ]LD5 ^\£Lkj Syr.
jt^fas, Cephas, John i. 42. — 5<SO» Chal. ]2:>]o Syr.
a/S/3a, Abba, Mark xiv. 36.— t<^J»{, Chal. ]^] Syr.
fittfiuva, Mamona, Matt. vi. 24. — {<i1^^, Chal. jjoiQlJD Syr.
/3ag, Bar, i.e. Son; as in the words j3d^-Juvag, fSa^-vafSccg, ^d^-lriaovg,
&c. n^, Chal. i^ Syr.
None of these forms of words occurs in the language of the Old
Testament, and some of them are from roots which it does not
employ. They are all, however, found in the Aramaic. The Sama-
CHAP. III.] VEU.SIONS. CIIALOEE TARd IMS. 119
ritan dialect is a branch of the same parent stem, but more closely
allied to the Hebrew, or rather a mixture of Hebrew and Aramaic;
and tlioro were other subordinate varieties.
This change in the vernacular language of tho Jews seems to have
been consummated before the time of Christ. When it was completed,
the common Jews no longer understood the lessons of the law and tho
prophets when they were read in the original ; and it was necessary
to subjoin a translation into the common dialect of the people, which
appears to have been done at first orally. Some critics find an
allusion to this practice in Neh. viii. 8, long before the institution of
the synagogue services, whore we read, that when Ezra brought the
book of the Law of Moses before the congregation, "the Levites
read in the book of the law of God distinctly, and gave the sense, and
caused the people to understand the reading. " This account applies to
the Palestinian Jews ; but a similar help would be at least equally ne-
cessary to their brethren who remained in Babylon. To assist in this
good work, and also, no doubt, to aid the pious iu their private studies,
versions of the Scriptures were, in process of time, made into the
Chaldee language; these arc now usually called the Targums, from the
Aramaic root Q^IH. -^^0'^ which signifies to translate or explain.
Ten of these Targums are extant in print ; and it is possible that some
more may yet be brought to light. The Jews claim for these books a
very high antiquity, some referring them to Chaldee interpretations,
delivered orally by Moses ; others to Ezra, or the age which imme-
diately succeeded ; but, as we find no mention of any such writings
in the New Testament, Philo, Josephus, Origen, the Mishna, the
Jerusalem Talmudists, or Jerome, — not even iu Justin Martyr, who
had spent his youth among the Jews, and afterwards wrote a book
for the purpose of refuting their Anti-Christian interpretations of the
Old Testament — we can hardly fix the composition even of tho
earliest among them much sooner than the commencement of the
fifth century ; at least, if we suppose them to have been made or
used by Jews of Palestine. A great number of writers, however,
place them in the second and third century ; and this date might be
admitted, if we refer their origin to Mesopotamia, where they might
have been employed and yet have remained unknown to the authors
above referred to. Some make them earlier than the time of our
Saviour, or, at the latest, cotemporary with him. "With these I
cannot agree ; but the subject is one of acknowledged difficulty.
There were, undoubtedly, a gi'eat number of Jews in tho neigh-
bourhood of Babylon : they may have used a Targura from a com-
120 TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF TIIK OLD TESTAMENT. [liOOK II.
parativelj early period, -which would naturally find its way into
Palestine in after times.*
1. The earUest of the Targumists or Chaldee Paraphrasts, as
they are sometimes called, was D"l7pi"li^ Onkelos, who translated
the Pentateuch, and whose version ranks deservedly high, not only
in the estimation of the Jews, but also of Christian scholars. Hi§
translation is in a pure Aramaic style, without barbarisms, unless
we count as such the occasional employment of Greek roots : it is
exceedingly literal, yet gives the sense in general very correctly, and
is free from the idle tales and ridiculous legends with which many
of the later Targums are disfigured. Onkelos takes considerable
pains to avoid the anthropomorphic ideas suggested by the original
Hebrew. As this version is mentioned in the Gemara of the Baby-
lonish Talmud, which was compiled in the fifth century, it is certain
that he could not have lived later than the beginning of that century,
and, as there is no allusion to his translation in the Jerusalem
Targum, it is probable that he resided in Babylon or some of the
Eastern regions. His Targum is, or rather was, an ante-masoretic
document ; but it appears to have been altered and re-modelled at
different times, with a view to bring it to a close conformity with
the Hebrew MSS. as corrected according to the Masorah: yet it still
exhibits various readings, among which are some good ones. The
Targum of Onkelos has always been highly esteemed by the Jews :
in some countries they were accustomed to read his version of the
Parasha for the day, in the synagogue, immediately after the lesson
had been read in Hebrew ; and a kind of Masorah has been con-
structed, for the purpose of preserving its text from alteration.
2. The Targum of Jonathan ben-Uzziel on the Prophets (which,
according to the Jewish division, includes all the books of the Old
Testament except the Law and the Hagiographa) is next to that of
Onkelos in age, in fidelity, and in value. His style, however, is less
pure, and his mode of translating more paraphrastical : he frequently
indulges himself in allegorical expositions of the text, and in other
flights of fancy : but very seldom intermixes silly fables and ground-
less traditions with the contents of the sacred books, in the manner
practised by some of the later Targumists. He adheres more closely
than Onkelos to the Masoretic text ; but yet some readings are found
* R. Jacob ben Ashei-, commonly called Baal Hatturim, who flom-ished
in the twelfth century, afiu-ms, that the practice of translating the Scriptures
m-ally remained at least in Palestine till the time of the Talmudists. This
would have been unnecessary had a Targum been in existence.
CIIAr. III. 1 VERSIONS. — CHALDEE TAROUMS. 121
in his version which diflfer from it, and those aro occasionally of a
good description. Like Onkelos, this writer is mentioned in the
Babylonish Talmud, but not in that of Jerusalem; and, as ho is
always careful to explain in another sense the proof passages relied
on by the early Christians,* it is evident that he must liavo written
at a time when the controversy between Jews and Christians liad
been agitated for a considerable period. There is such a difference
in tlie modo of translating the former and the later prophets, that it
might bo suspected that the Targum ascribed to Joiiathan was tlie
work of at least two distinct persons ; or, if of one, that parts of his
version of the latter prophets have suffered tremendously by the
arbitrary inter])olations of transcribers,
3. It may be regarded as certain that tho Targum upon the
Ilagiographa, which is called the Targum of R. Joseph, tho One-
eyed, is not the work of one person, but of three, or more probably,
four distinct individuals. liut, although each translator had some
peculiarities, all were unfit for tho tasks which they undertook ; and
their works are of no great use, either in the criticism or interpre-
tation of the text.
4. The same judgment may be passed upon the remaining Tar-
gums, which aro one upon the law, falsely claiming to bo the work
of Jonathan ben-Uzziel, who translated the prophets, but evidently
not written before the seventh century, and, therefore, now com-
monly called the Targum of the Pseudo- Jonathan ; the Jerusalem
Targum, also upon the Pentateuch ; an anonymous Targum on the
Megilloth (Ecclcsiastes, Song of Solomon, Lamentations, Ruth, and
Esther) ; three Targums on the Book ot" Esther alone, and one on
the Books of Chronicles. It would be useless to dwell on writings
which are declared, by competent authorities, to be in every respect
weak, frivolous, and unprofitable.
The Targums of Onkelos, Jonathan, and Joseph, have been often
printed ; not only separately, but in the Rabbinical Bibles of Bom-
berg (Venice, 1547-9, 2 vols, folio) and Buxtorf (Basle, 1618-20,
2 vols, folio), and in the Polyglotts. The most numerous array of
them that is to be found in any one work is that in Walton's Poly-
glott ; it contains all those enumerated above, except that upon tho
two books of Chronicles, which was not discovered till after the
* Gesenius denies that Jonathan evinces this tendency (see his work on
Isaiali, vol. i. p. (50) ; but his arguments only go to prove that the Christiana
were misttikeu in their application of many passages. That Jonathan op-
poses their interpretations is un<iuestioi)able.
Q
122 TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF THE OLD TESTAMENT, [BOOK II.
Polyglott was published. The best edition of this Targum is that
of Wilkins, Cambridge, 1717, 4to.
Section IV. — The Old Syriac Version, or Peshito.
The Western Aramaic dialect has also had, from an early date,
its version of the Old Testament ; which was adopted as their public
or received translation, by the Christians of Syria and the neigh-
bouring regions, in whose churches it is still used. Its name,
PesMto, however, might appear to savour of a Jewish origin, being
derived from the Hebrew root ^2^3, exuit, nudavit, spoliavit: hence
the passive participle ^'ISJ'S, pasJmt, signifies literally plundered,
stripped, or naked: and the terra was used by the Jewish doctors* to
denote a bare exposition of the literal meaning of any text, as con-
tradistinguished from the tJ^*Tl^> midrash, or allegorical interpre-
tation in which their imagination so much delighted. But the
Hebrew ^)^^, in the Chaldee form of the same participle, becomes
t3^K^S> peshit; or with the Aramean paragogue 5*5t3"'^3. j.^ i < ^,
PesMto: which accordingly denotes a simple literal translation, as
opposed to a mystical or allegorical paraphrase. In this sense of the
term it is very applicable to the Old Syriac version ; but in no
other : for the Peshito does not adhere servilely to the words of the
original in cases where such strictness would interfere with ease and
accuracy of style : — the translation, in fact, though giving the sense
of the Hebrew text with remarkable accuracy, preserves the fresh-
ness and free spirit of an original work. It is quite manifest
that it is the work of several translators, not of one. If this
version were made by Syrian Jews, as its name might appear to
intimate, though we have no account of its ever having been used
by persons of that faith, it may have been more ancient even than
the time of our Saviour. The supposition, however, is very im-
probable. Some have supposed that it was made by Judaizing
Christians, in which case it could not be later than the third
century : for after that period, the connexion between Judaism and
Christianity as the united profession of any considerable number of
persons, ceased almost entirely. If this version were made by
Christians of any kind, it could not be much earlier than the
beginning of the third century : for Christians would undoubtedly
* In this sense it is constantly employed by the HapperusMm, or literal
commentators, Aben-Ezra, D. Kimchi, &c. whose worlcs are given in the
Kabbinical Bibles.
ClUr. III. J VEll^ONS. — OLD SYUIAC OR I'EBUITO. 123
translate the Now Testament, as soon, at least, as the Old, probably
sooner ; and as the Syriac Pesliito Version of all the books of the
New Testament, was apparently executed by one and the same
person, it could not have been made before the period wlien the Xew
Testament canon began to assume a certain definite fonn : an event
which wo cannot place earlier than the latter part of the 2d century.
To this period, therefore, the close of the second, or first half of the
third century, we may refer the Poshito, or Old Syriac Version both of
the Old and New Testaments.! This supposition is confirmed by the
well-known fact that this version was known to Ephrem the Syrian,
a writer of the latter part of the 4th cei>tury (about A.D. 370), wlio
was acquainted with no language but the Hebrew and the Syriac : —
that ho quotes it largely, and expounds it in his voluminous com-
mentaries ; and uniformly speaks of it as the recognised and public
translation of the Scriptures, which was universally used and ac-
knowledged as such by his countrymen at large, of the Christian
• It may be convenient to state briefly the reasons which have induced
some learned writers to attribute the Peshito version of the Old Testament
to the Syrian Jews. Tlie first is the name Peshito. which is used in the
same sense as the corresponding Hebrew term, Pasiait, wliicli uudoubtedly
was in frequent use in the Jewish schools, and in their critical works. (But
it is no mcrcdible supposition, that the Christians may have borrowed this
tei'm from tiieir Jewish adversaries, among whom "they lived ; and may
have applied it to their own exact version of the sacred books, on purpose to
mark its superiority over the mystical and allegorical Midrashim wliich they
knew to be so popular with those opponents). — Anotlier reason which has
had some influence in giving rise to this opinion, is that Christians would
probably have ti'anslated from the LXX, and not from the Original Hebrew
Text. (To this we may answer that Latin Christians undoubtedly would
have done so, nay actually did so : because they were much better acquainted
with Greek than with Hebrew : but with the Syrian Christians, the case was
exactly the reverse: they spoke a language cognate to the Hebix'w, and
must have found it much easier to translate from the original than from the
Greek version, however popular the latter might be among their co-religion-
ists in other places. Besides, if we have fixed the date of tlie Peshito version
correctly, it was executed at a time when the Greek Christians began to be
sensible of the disadvantages under which they laboured from using a version
which the Jews afiinned not to be exactly conformable to the original
Hebrew, and when Origen was preparing his Hexapla, with a view to
remedy that inconvenience : this circumstance itself would naturally deter-
mine tlie Syrian Christians to have recourse at once to the fountain head.)
On the other side we may place the weighty facts, — that no record sjieaks of
the Peshito version as made by Jews, or in the hands of Jews ; that it is not
even mentioned in the Talmud ; that it betrays no sign of that mystical
mode of translation and inteq)retation, from which the Jews of that period
could hardly have altogether abstained : — and that it sometimes favours the
Christian mode of quoting and expounding the prophecies relating to tlie
Messiah in a manner whicli could scarcely be expected fi-om a Jew writing
before the promulgation of the Gospel ; and certiiinly not to be expected at
all from a Jew writing afterwards. In one passage (Ps. I v. 11), it nitikes a
distinct reference to the Lord's Supper.
124 TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. [iBOOK II.
persuasion. It is not probable that a version of later origin than
the third century could have become so popular and authoritative,
before the close of the fourth. Those facts point to a very high an-
tiquity. Mill, in the Prolegomena to his New Testament (sec. 1239),
infers from a scliolium* attributed to Melito of Sardis, who flou-
rished about A.D. 170, that this translation was known to that
Father : this, if admitted, would not be inconsistent witli the date
above fixed : but it is right to add that learned men have not been
satisfied as to the authenticity of the scholium in question, or its
application to this subject ; much weight therefore ought not to be
rested on its sole authority.
The part of this version which comprises the Old Testament was
manifestly made from the Hebrew Original, and not from any inter-
mediate version. It adheres, in general, closely and literally to the
text, and frequently preserves the same roots which are found in the
Hebrew : though not without deviating occasionally from the modern
or Masoretic reading. Many of these variations are owing to the
mistakes of the copyists, who have introduced errors, arising from
the similarity of words, either into the text from which the Peshito
was translated, or into that which we find in the modern Hebrew
MSS. ; — some deviations appear to be owing to the error of the
translator who has not always succeeded in transfusing the
sense of the original into his version : and some of them appear
to be owing to the authority of the Septuagint Version; which
may have induced the Syriac translators to depart in particular
places from the text of their exemplar, or may have led to an
interpolation of the Syriac translation, at a period subsequent
to its original composition. The Hexaplaro- Syriac Version! may
have been the means of introducing some corruptions into the
text of the Peshito. With all these admitted departures from
the present Hebx'ew text, it nevertheless merits, on the whole, the
praise of a close and faithful, as well as elegant version; and
although no one will contend that all its various lections are to be
* First printed in the Roman Edition of the Septuagint, Gen. xxii. 13 ;
and there ascribed to Melito. ' o Sugos 7mi 6 ' EjS^aTog -/.^ifid/Msvog (py}<Si, ug
(Safidrspov rvvovv rov araupov But the Peshito version does not here express
x^ifMUfJuivog but xaTs^6//.e)/oc ; which shows that it cannot be the work here
referred to : and o '2upog in the schoha ahnost always refers to a work of the
5th century. It is nearly certain, therefore, that the scholium in question
does not refer to the Syriac Version ; and highly probable that it is mach
more recent than the time of Melito.
t See pp. 109, 110.
CIIAl'. III.] VERSIONS — OLD 8VEIAC Oil I'ESIilTO. 125
recoivod as the gonuiuo readings of the original, still it must bo
allowed that a great many of them aro well supported both by
internal and external evidence : and some aro decidedly to bo pre-
ferred to the existing Masoretic or modern Hebrew text of the same
passages.
The Peshito-Syriac Version of the New Testament was printed
in 1555 : but the part containing the Old Testament was not
published in Europe, till it appeared in tlio Paris Polyglott of M. lo
Jay, in 1G45. The person who superintended the printing of it in
that work, was Gabriel Sionita, a Maronite, that is, a Syinan
Roman Catholic, whose labours have not met with the approbation
of succeeding writers. It appears that he has added the vowel points
throughout the entire vei'sion : although in Syriac MSS. the points
are either entirely omitted or supplied only in particular words and
passages which might otherwise be ambiguous : hence it is probable
that the Peshito was originally sent forth by its authors, without
any punctuation ; the points are consequently of little or no
authority ; and ought not to be everywhere obtruded upon the
reader as if they were integral parts of the version. Subsequent
editors, however, have imitated the obscure but useless diligence of
Gabriel : and we have now no printed copies of the Syriac Old Tes-
tament which are not fully pointed. But Gabriel's edition laboured
under a more serious disadvantage : his MS. for he seems to have
had only one, was mutilated in several parts : and he was rash
enough to supply its deficiencies by translating into Syriac whole
passages from the Vulgate ; which may have led to the absurd accu-
sation that was made against him, that he had translated the whole
Old Testament from the Latin Version.
Bishop Walton republished this Version in his Polyglott Bible, but
much more accurately : having corrected many of the errata and sup-
plied all the deficiencies of the Paris editions, by the assistance of MisS.
The Apocryphal books are found inserted in the Syriac version in
this edition : being printed from a MS. belonging to the University
of Cambridge ; it appears probable, however, that these books did not
at first form part of the genuine Peshito text : inasmuch as many of
them were confessedly unknown to Ephrem the Syrian, who has
commented largely on the Old Testament ; and who flourished, as
has been stated above, between the middle and the latter end of the
4th century. This autlior has written copious annotations on the
book of Daniel, but has taken no notice whatever of the Song of the
Three Holy Children, or of the story of Susanna, or of that of Bel
126 TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. [bOOK II.
and the Dragon, which are incorporated with Daniel in the Septua-
gint and Vulgate : — in like manner he commented on the Lamenta-
tions of Jeremiah, but has made no mention of the book of Baruch
which is usually appended to them in books that contain the
Apocrypha: and he repeatedly calls Malachi the last of the pro-
phets. Bishop Walton could not make any remark on these
circumstances : for the Syriac works of Ephrem were not published
till considerably after his time : but they seem to show that the
Apocryphal Books do not properly belong to the Old Peshito Version :
and that they were not intermixed with it, or attached to it, for
some time after it was made. Whether these writings, or any of
them, are now received as Canonical or Deutero-canonical by the
Syrian Church, I am unable to say. Their total absence from
Gabriel's copies, would seem to imply that they are not : their
presence in the Cambridge MS. and the connexion which has been
formed between some sects of the Syrian Christians and the Church
of Rome would seem to infer the contrary at least as regards those
sects : but I have not been able to ascertain the point by direct tes-
timony as to the matter of fact.
About twenty years ago, the British and Foreign Bible Society
published an edition of this Version in 4to, printed under the super-
intendence of Mr. Lee, the Arabic Professor at Cambridge, for the
use of the churches of Syrian Christians, who are found on the
Malabar coast in India. The [Latin] Title of this Edition is, —
Vetus Testamentum Syriace: eos tantum Libros sistens qui in Canone
Hebraico habentur, Ordine vero quoad fieri potuit apud Syros usi-
tato. In Usum Ecclesice Syrorum Malaharensium, &c. Londini,
1823.* This title would seem to intimate that the Apocrypha are
now received by the Syrian Christians though excluded from this
edition.
As this Version is one of great interest and considerable impor-
tance, it may be useful to enumerate some of the critical aids which
may be employed for its farther emendation.
1. The Manuscripts, which exist in considerable numbers, in
various public libraries : and among the Syrian Christians both in
the neighbourhood of the Mediterranean, in Central Asia, and in
* This title is given by careful writers, and there need be no doubt that
some copies contained it : but my copy of this version, which was purchased
at the Depository of the Society in London, has no Latin title whatever :
but one in Syriac, partly in the Estrangelo, and partly in the Jacobite cha-
racter, to the same effect. The yart containing the Old Testament appears
to be correctly printed.
cnAr. III.] vEnsiONS — old SYniAC on i'e?<iiito. 127
India : and which it might not bo difficult to procure, wcro proper
exertions made for tho purpose,* ought to be collated. Among
those now in Europe, there is none which seems to merit more
attention than one brought by Dr. Buchanan from Travancoro, in
tlie East Indies ; it was discovered in a remote Syrian Church, near
tho mountains : and is written with great beauty and accuracy in
tho Estrangclo character on foho veUum. Mr. Ycates, who has
collated tho Pentateuch, is of opinion that it was written in the 7th
century : which would bring it to an equality with some Greek
codices, usually ranked in the very first class of antiquity. This
MS. has been used in preparing Mr. Lee's edition, abovemontioncd.
There are several other MSS. of this version both in England and
in Italy ; which ought not to bo overlooked.
2. There are Secondary Versions in Arabic made from the
Syriac Peshito, and which may be used in correcting its Text : but
most of them only exist in manuscript ; the only exception is the
book of Job and that of Chronicles, as printed in tlie Paris and
London Polyglotts, the Arabic version of which was evidently
translated from the Old Syriac : to which some add the versions of
Judges, Ruth, Samuel, and a part of 1 Kings. The Armenian
Version, though taken originally from the LXX, was aftei'wards
conformed to the Peshito : and if we could obtain copies of it taken
before it had undergone any farther alteration, they might lend
some assistance in establishing the Syriac text.
3. The Syrians have had a numerous succession of church
writers : whose citations might be employed for the same purpose.
Of these, Ephrem has been already mentioned ; who flourished in
the 4th century, about A.D. 370. Dionysius Bar-Saliba, Gregory
Bar-IIebrrcus, and Ebed-Jesu flourished much later : the last died
about A.D. 1318. The Syriac works of these authors have been
published : of the other writers of that nation wo have in print only
catalogues, or short extracts: for which wo are chiefly indebted to
t It would lead the reader too far from the design of this work, were I to
enter upon the subject of Syrian palseography: it may suffice to mention that
the oldest MSS. are written in the bold character entitled by the Syiians
themselves Estrangelo: a term which is usually derived from the Greek
ar^oyySKog, round: but as the epithet, thus explained, is exceedingly inap-
propriate, the Arabic derivation suggested by Adler, seems preferable :
as taken from satar-amfd, i.e. scriptura evangelii (See p. 4, n.) The Jaco-
bites now use a character similar to that found in pi-iuted books : that of tlie
Ncstoriaus is intermediate in its fonn between the Estrangelo and tho
Jacobite. — The learned reader will smile ou seeing, in some popular works
on Criticism, mention of an Estrangelo- Syriac Version of the Scriptures'.
128 TEXTUAL CIIITICISM OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. [bOOK II.
the industry of Asseraan; their principal writings either exist in MS.
and therefore are not generally accessible : or else have been alto-
gether lost.
Section V. — The Samaritan and Samaritano- Arabic Versions of
the Pentateuch.
The Samaritans, in addition to their copy of the Pentateuch in
the Hebrew language and Samaritan alphabet, have also a version
made from it into their own dialect of the Aramaic tongue. Its
date and author are alike unknown. This translation adheres so
closely to the Hebraeo- Samaritan text, that in Walton's Polyglott,
where both are printed, one Latin Version serves for the two ; with
a few notes, pointing out such occasional discrepancies as are found
between them. Of course this translation can only be used to throw
light upon the readings of the Hebrseo- Samaritan Pentateuch,
There is also an Arabic Version of the Pentateuch, made for the
use of the modern Samaritans, (all of whom now speak the Arabic
language), from their own copies of the original, which may be em-
ployed for the same purpose. It was made by Abu-Said, in the
year 1070 : some specimens of it have been printed at Rome and
eilsewhere : it was made not from the Samaritan Version, but from
the Plebraeo- Samaritan text: as is evident from the fact that it
sometimes follows a dififerent reading, and sometimes a different
interpretation of the original from that adopted by the Samaritan
translator. These two versions therefore constitute distinct autho-
rities, and may be appealed to as such in establishing the proper
Hebrseo- Samaritan text of the Pentateuch.
We may here briefly mention that there formerly existed a Greek
Version made from the Samaritan Pentateuch, for the use of those
members of the nation who used the Greek language. Some of
its various readings are incidentally quoted by the Old Fathers :
and their citations have been collected by Morinus, Hettinger, and
Montfaucon : but as a whole, the Samaritan Greek Version is irre-
coverably lost. It is referred to by the Fathers, and in scholia
upon the margin of MSS. under the title of rb ^aiia^itrmov
Section VI. — The Latin Vulgate Version.
It has been already stated (p. 108) that the ancient Latin version,
which was in use in the churches of Italy, Africa, and the West,
before the time of Jerome, and which is now usually called the
Versio Itala, was taken, in the Old Testament, not from the original
CUAF. 111.] VERSIONS. — TJIE VULUATi;. 129
Hebrew — with which few of the carlj Christians in tho.so regions
were acquainted — but from the Greek Septuagint, which, at the
time of the extensive spread of Christianity in those countries, was
held in the highest reverence both by the Jews and the disciples of
Christ. It was only tlio translation of a translation at the best ; it
appears to have been unskilfully made and carelessly copied ;* and
its manifest and manifold errors must have occasioned uneasiness to
every man who was capable of comparing it with the original, or
even with tlio Septuagint from which it was taken. These dis-
crepancies must have become more obvious after the period when
the labours of Origen, Lucian, and Hesychius, had, for a time,
restored some degree of order and certainty to the fluctuating text
of the old Greek version.
Towards the close of the fourth century, Damasus, Bishop of
Rome, engaged his friend Jerome to revise this translation, in order
to restore it to a conformity with the Greek, from which it had
widely deviated in many places. We may safely say, that there
lived no man in that age more competent to the task thus placed
before him than he into whose hands it fell: learned, eager, and
indefatigable, ho was exactly fitted for the accomplishment of a
work which would put all these qualities to the test; and if his
ardour led liim, as a controversialist, to defend error with obstinacy,
and to attack what he deemed heresy with scurrility, and sometimes
to promote and applaud the persecution of innocent men on account
of their religious opinions, this weakness could not so conspicuously
display itself in a work so di-y and sober as that of mere criticism
and interpretation. Jerome travelled to Cresarea to consult the
Hexapla of Origen, tlie text of which he made the ground-work of
his revised edition, preserving in the Latin version, thus amended,
the asterisks and obeli of the nexapla;t and, by dint of perseverance,
he completed his recension of the Old Testament about A.D. 390.
Of this recension the books of Job and the Psalms have alone
descended to our day ; and these, with Chronicles, Proverbs, Ec-
clesiastes, and the Song of Solomon, are all that were ever published ;
the results of his labour upon the remaining books of the Old Tes-
* Jerome says, that in his time every IMS. followed a different text : —
" Cum apud JLatinos tot sint exemplaria quot codices, et unusquisque pro
arbitrio auo vel addiderit vel sttbtraxerit quod ei visum est." — Jrrcef. in
Jos. &c.
t Hieronymi Pr<Bf. in Librum Job : — Alia ejttsdem Prcefatio.
130 TEXTUAL ClUTICISM OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. [bOOK IT.
tameut having been lost, as he himself says, by the dishonesty of a
person, whom, however, he does not name,*
This was unfortunate; but a disciple and admirer of Origenf
was not to be disheartened. Before this untoward circumstance
occurred, Jerome had commenced a new Latin Version from the
original Hebrew ; and, instead of confining his attention to the mere
revision of the Old Translation, he now resolved to devote all his
powers to the completion of this far more important undertaking,
from which, as he rightly judged, much more advantage would
redound to the Christian religion than could accrue from any
recension of a mere secondary version. To this task he accordingly
applied himself, and having engaged the assistance of some learned
Jews, with whom he became acquainted in Palestine, where he
resided during the'whole period of his occupation in this important
work,'he was at length enabled, after a large expenditure of time,
labour, and money, to present the Western Church with a translation
of the Old Testament, not drawn, as he declared, with very natural
self-congratulation, from any polluted stream, but from the pure and
sacred fountain of truth itself, the Divine Original. | The parts of
this version were published at different times as they were succes-
sively completed ; the last finished was the book of Esther, which
seems to have been published about A. D. 407 or 8.
In preparing this Improved Version, Jerome asserts that he paid
all the respect that was possible — consistently with a paramount
love of truth — to the authority of the Septuagint, the Ijatin Version
derived from it, and the other Greek Versions of the Hexapla : — he
did so avowedly for the purpose of avoiding the offence that would
be given by any violent departure from the language of translations
to which the ears of men were accustomed. § But his caution did
* Pleraque prioris laboris fraude cujusdam amisimus. Hieron. Epist. Ixiv.
ad Aug.
t Tliat Jerome was such at this period of his life is asserted by many un-
exceptioaable authorities ; although he afterwards became a most bitter
opponent of Origeu's principles, and a persecutor of his followers. He
seems, in one place, almost to admit that he had been an Origenist. " Si
mihi creditis, Origenista nunquam fui ; si non creditis, nunc esse cessavi." —
Epist. xli ; ad Pamm. et Ocean.
I Proef. in Eccles. (infra.)
\ Nullius auctoritatem secutus sum sed de Hebrseo transferens maxime
LXX consuetudini me coaptavi, in his duntaxat quae non multum ab
Hebraicis discrepabant. luterdum Aquilae quoque et Symmachi et Theo-
dotionis recordatus sum ; ut nee novitate nimia lectoris studium detercerem,
nee rursus contra conscientiam meam, fonte veritatis omisso, opinionera
rivulos consectarer. — Proef. in Eccles.
CHAP. III.] VERSIONS. — inE VULfiATE. 131
not prevent the odium and clamour of which he was, not without
reason, apprehensive. A host of obscure opponents exclaimed against
him as a profane and sacrilegious innovator, whose perverse labours
only served to corrupt the Word of God, to propagate Judaism, to
cause dissension in the church, and to upset the faith of Christians.*
Augustine himself was displeased with Jerome's well-intended la-
bour,! although ho aftei^wards changed his mind, and made honour-
able mention of it in his own most important work. J He tells
Jerome iu one of his letters, that an African bishop who favoured
the new version, having directed the section "on Jonah's gourd" (or,
as Jerome translates it, ivi/) to be read from it in the church, as the
lesson of the day, the people, when they perceived from the substitu-
tion of the word " hedera," fov " cucurbita," that a new translation had
been introduced, raised such a tumult that the bishop was compelled
to rescind the order which he had made in its favour, and to return
to the use of the old one.§ The most virulent assailant of Jerome
was one of his old friends, named Ruffinus, to whom, however,
he replied in such a style as very nearly balanced the account
on the score of abusiveness. These worthy men would both have
stood higher in the opinion of posterity, if they had known how to
keep their tempers better, at least on paper.
But, although the vast majority of his cotemporaries inveighed
bitterly against Jerome as a rash innovator and an enemy to the
truth, there must have been some among them who could perceive
that most of the alterations which he had introduced were real
improvements, and that, on the whole, his new version was incom-
parably superior to the old one. After the storms of men's passions
had passed away, these opinions would necessarily spread from the
learned and liberal to the less enlightened classes ; and thus, after a
short time, the translation of Jerome began to acquire a certain
share of respect and authority in the Latin Churches. Gregory I.
about the close of the sixth century, says that he had thought it
right, in his expositions of Scripture, to follow chiefly the translation
of Jerome, while yet he referred occasionally to the readings of the
• There is scarcely one of his Prefaces to the books of the Old Testament,
in which he does not defend himself and liis version against these unreason-
able clamours and invectives.
t This is evident fiom the epistles of both these eminent men.
I Nostris temporibus non defuit presbyter Hieronynius, homo doctissimus,
«t <imnium trium liuguarum peritus, qui non c Grseco sed ex Ilebraio in
Latinuni eloquium easdam scripturas couvertit. — Aug, de Civitatc Dei,
lib. xviii. c. 43.
■J A wj, Epi.it, X. ad Hieronymum.
132 TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. [bOOK II.
older Latin Version, since the church over which he presided received
both.* We observe in his works a decided leaning to the translation of
Jerome, and a preferable use of it on almost every occasion.! The
example and the declared opinion of this eminent man must have
given additional currency and authority to the new version, of which
he so manifestly approved ; and, accordingly, we find that from the
seventh century downwards, it completely superseded the Old Versio
Itala, both in public estimation and ecclesiastical use;:|: with the
exception of the book of Psalms, which, being already set to music
and daily chaunted in the service of the church, could not con-
veniently admit of alteration ; and also with the exception of some
of the apocryphal books, of which no Hebrew original was in
existence. The present Vulgate Version of the Old Testament, in
use in the Church of Rome, is founded upon Jerome's new trans-
lation from the original Hebrew, with the exception, as already men-
tioned, of the apocryphal works of Baruch, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus,
and Maccabees, which are taken from the old Latin Version, com-
monly called the Versio Itala; and the book of Psalms, which is
taken from the same version, corrected by Jerome according to
Origen's edition of the Septuagint. This enables us to explain how
it happens that in old MSS. the book of Psalms, which is most
frequently used by the Roman Catholics, § and which is termed the
the Psalterium Gallicanum, is found written with asterisks and
obeli. These marks were retained by Jerome from the Hexapla of
Origen, in the revised edition of the Versio Itala: and this Psalter
forms part of that revision.
It is proper to add, that even in those parts of the Vulgate which
are founded upon Jerome's new translation, the printed copies now
in circulation do not, in all cases, accurately represent his text. In
* Novam vero translationem edissero ; sed ut comprobationis causa exi-
git, nunc novam nunc veterem, per testimonia, assume; ut quia Sedes
Apostolica utnlque utitui-, mei quoque labor studii ex utraque mlciatm*. —
Epist. ad Leanar.
f He says, in one place, " translatio nova ex Ilebreeo nobis Ai'abicoque
eloquio cuncta verius transfudisse perbibetur atque idcii'co dignissima est,
cui fides in omnibus habeatur." — Moralia, lib. xx. c. 23 ; (where, however, for
Arabico I would suggest the reading Aramaico. )
X Thus, Isidore of Seville, A. D. G30, says, " Hieronymus cujus edi-
tione gencraliter omnes ecclesiee usquequaque utuntur pro eo quod veracior
sit in sentcutiis et clarior iu verbis." — 0/f. lib. i. c. 12.
§ By some churches in communion with the See of Home, including
some, at least, of those in tlie City of Rome itself, another Psalter called the
Psalterium Romanum is used in the Ckurch service, but not in the Bible.
This is the Old ^'ersio Itala, without any of Jerome's amendments.
CHAP. III.] VERSIONS. — THE VULGATE. 133
some in.stances tliej exhibit readings which Jerome has expressly
and empliatically condemned. Thus, in Gen. ii. 8, Jerome read,
•' Paradisitm in Eden;'" but the modern Vulgate has " Faradimm,
voluptatis." So, in Gen. iii. 15, Jerome undoubtedly gave " ipse
conteret caput tuum,'' "ho shall bruise thy head," as his version:
and thus the text is read ^rd^a^ in some M.SS.; but the printed
copies have "ipsa." Many similar observations will occur to the
reader who compares the Vulgate with Jerome's Hebrew Questions
upon Genesis and his other commentaries.
The general reception of this version in the West of Europe, and
the consequent miUtiplication of copies, gave occasion to the intro-
duction of errors by the usual inaccuracies of scribes ; which it was
the more difficult to avoid, as in some churches the readings of the
Old Translation still possessed a certain claim to respect : they were
occasionally cited by learned men, in their commentaries ; and wo
even find that some critics, as Cassiodorus, placed the two versions
in the same MSS. in parallel columns. We can easily understand
how, in consequence of this practice, and also from the habit of
appending marginal citations selected from one of the versions to the
text of the other, the readings of both would unavoidably become here
and there intermixed and confounded together. In the time of
Charlemagne, about A. D. 800, this evil had become so apparent
that that great man directed his preceptor, Alcuinus, to prepare a
corrected edition, which might remedy the uncertainty of the text
as it then stood. A MS. copy of this recension, said to have been
prepared under the direction of Alcuinus himself, for the Emperor's
own use, is now in the British Museum, and is justly regarded as a
very valuable document.*
But the process of transcription and consequently of depravation
still continued ; and, notwithstanding the pains taken by Alcuinus
in the latter part of the eighth century, by Lanfranc, Archbishop
of Canterbury, in the eleventh, and by Cardinal Nicholas and others,
in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, it is clearly ascertained, both
* This Codex is called by the officers of the Librai'v. Charkmapne's
JHihle; and is in one thick volume of folio size, bound iu black velvet with
gold ornaments, chased and embossed. The text is written on fine parch-
ment, in a neat hand, so regularly that it might almost pass for iirinting :
the headings and first lines of books, iu a fair uncial character. Ihere are
various illuminations, ornamental initials, &c. The MS. contains the Uld
and New Testaments, with Jerome's Prologues; the Canons of Eusobius
to the Gospels, &c. The Apocryphal Books are intermixed, and iu the
New Testament the [spuiious] Epistle to the Laodiceans follows that to the
Hebrews.
134 TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. [bOOK II.
by the testimony of writers of those times and by the actual in-
spection of the Correctoria, and the MSS. which were then executed,
that the copies of the Vulgate Version which were in use in the
middle ages, differed considerably from each other. Such being the
state of the MSS. the editions of the Vulgate, which began to be
published in great numbers soon after the invention of the art of
printing, could not be expected to present the text in a much better
condition ; and diversities and errors, to an amount which excited
alarm in some minds, were found in the diflferent editions of this
book. About the time of the Reformation also, several new trans-
lations of the whole, or part of the Bible, into Latin, were put forth
by various learned men.
In this aspect of affairs, the Council of Trent passed a decree
which has been the subject of much disputation. " The Holy
Synod, considering that no small advantage may accrue to the
Church of God, if it be declared which of the Latin versions of the
Sacred Books that are now in circulation is to be esteemed authentic,
enacts and declares, that the same Ancient and Vulgate Version
which has been approved by the long use of •so many centuries in
the church, shall be deemed authentic in aU public readings, dispu-
tations, sermons, and expositions; and that no one shall dare to
reject it, upon any pretext."* The council also decreed, "That
hereafter the Sacred Scriptures, but especially the aforesaid Ancient
and Vulgate Version, shaU be printed as accurately as possible."!
This decree was passed in A.D. 1546.
An impartial consideration of these decrees will probably lead to
the conclusion, that the first was intended simply to mark out to the
adherents of the Church of Rome what was the received and
authorized version of their church, and not to throw any suspicion
upon the integrity of the Hebrew or Greek text, or to prevent learned
men from studying the Scriptures in the original; — that it confined
the authoritative use of the Vulgate to public lectures, preachings,
disputations, and expositions, merely ; in their private studies Roman
Catholic scholars may and sometimes do employ other versions, as
* Sacro-sancta Synodus considerans non parum utilitatis accedere posse
Ecclesiee Dei, si ex omnibus Latinis editionibus quce circumferuntur sacrorum
librorum, qusenam pro authentica habenda sit inuotescat, statuit et declarat
ut heec ipsa Vetus et Vulgata Editio quEe longo tot seculorum usu in ipsa
ecclesia probata est, in publicis lectionibus, disputationibus, prcedicationibus,
et expositionibus pro authentica habeatur, et ut nemo earn rejicere quovis
prsetextu audeat. — Cone. Trid. Sess. iv. Decret. 2.
f Ut posthac Sacra Scriptura, potissimvim vero haec ipsa Yetus et Vul-
gata Eoitio, quam emcndatissime imprimatur.
CHAP. III.] VERSIONS. — THE VULGATE. 135
they see occasion; and even in their printed works they do not
hesitate to refer to and adopt occa.sionally renderings different from
tliose of the Vulgate, and liavo sometimes publislied new versions of
their own, of particular books, and of the entire Scripture ; — and
lastly, that the rejection of the Vulgate which the decree forbids, is
the rejection of the entire version, as a whole, not the emendation
of any passage or text, which a learned man may perceive to have
been incorrectly translated by Jerome, or his predecessors. Such
errors, when known to them, they are at liberty to notice and correct
in their public sermons or lectures, or elsewhere, as they may judge
expedient; and many of them have taken this liberty, without
offence. In fact, it seems that the Vulgate Latin Version has
obtained from this decree nearly the same degree of sanction in the
Church of Rome that the authorized English Version possesses in
the Church of England, since the passing of the Act of Uniformity.
The Lessons, Epistles, and Gospels, are required to bo read from it,
and no other translation can be substituted for it in the public ser-
vice of the church ; but in their private studies, and even iu their
public discourses, the clergy of both persuasions are at liberty to
amend any inaccuracies which they may discover. The phrase, used
in the second decree, " quam emenclatissime," — "as accurately as
possible," — clearly implies, that, in the Council's opinion, it would not
be possible to produce an edition which would give the text of the
Vulgate with infallible or undeviating exactness,*
The divines of Louvain — and especially Ilentenius — undertook the
preparation of an edition which should fulfil the terms of the decree
of the Council of Trent, and published one which they expected
would have been received as qudm cmeiuiatissima. They collated
about twenty ancient, or tolerably ancient MSS. and published
their edition in 1547 ; but the Holy See did not confirm their
labours, having reserved to itself this important task. Congre-
gations or Ecclesiastical Commissions were convoked, to whom the
care of it was entrusted ; and, at length, its completion was announced
* The explanations given in this paragraph are approved by Pallavicini,
Vega, Mariana, Bollarmine, Simon, Dupiu, Hug, Jalin, and other eminent
Roman Catholic divines, whose statements, however, it would occupy too
much space to insert. Melchior Canus, with Titelman, Salmeron, Morinus,
and others, profess to believe the Vulgate to be exempt from error, and
made by the nispiration of the Holy Spirit ! It is certain that Jerome hiin-
self had no idea of the kind ; for, iu his Comments, he often departs from his
own version ; acknowledges that he has been obliged to follow conjecture ;
confesses that he has made mistakes, and attributes them to his own un-
skilfulness {imperitia). See especially Comm. in Isa. c. six.
136 TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. [bOOK II.
by Sixtus V. in a Bull, dated March 1, 1589. The title-page of
the edition, however, bears date 1590. The Pope, in his Bull,
declared this to be indubitably the edition of the Authentic Vulgate
required by the Decree of the Council ; and, in order to give it all
the sanction in his power, he says: — "That the object might be
accomplished with the greater accuracy, we have ourselves corrected
the errors of the press with our own hand ;"* and truly his Holiness'
editors and printers seem to have left him occupation enough in this
service ; for, when the copies were issued to the public, they were
found to abound with errata. Some entire leaves had been cancelled
and others substituted ; some passages had shps of paper pasted over
the text, with printed corrections ; and some were rudely altered
with the pen. To make the matter worse, these emendations had
not been uniformly made in all the copies. The edition, in short,
was far more creditable to the zeal of tlie Pope than to his discretion,
or that of his assistants. We must not omit to mention that Sixtus,
in his Bull, declared, "in the full plenitude of his power," that
the edition tlius published was printed "quam emendatissime ;" that
it alone should be read in all the churches holding communion with
the See of Rome ; that no edition of the Vulgate should ever after-
wards be printed, which should not be exactly conformable to that
of his Holiness ; and that it should not even be lawful to place
various readings from other copies, in the margin of those which
might afterwards be printed from the text of his. The penalty, in
case of violating any of these injunctions, was declared to be the
greater excommunication, to be incurred ipso facto, and removable
only by the Pope himself. " And if any one shall presume to do
this designedly, let him know that he will thereby incur the indig-
nation of Almighty God, and of the holy Apostles, St. Peter and
St. Paul," This Bull, issued with the usual formalities, "under
the seal of the Fisherman," &c. was, unfortunately for the reputation
of Sixtus, and, in some degree, for that of the Holy See itself,
found iprefixed to those very copies which came forth to public view
in a state so ill calculated to bear the light of public inspection.
Such an edition published in such times was of dangerous ten-
dency to the interests of the Roman Church ; and on the death of
Sixtus, which happened immediately after the publication of it, his
successor, Gregory XIV. appointed a Congregation to prepare another
* Res quo magis incorrupte pei"ficeretur, nostra nos ipsi mauu correxi-
mus, si qua prselo vitia obrepserant.
CHAP. III.] VERSIONS. — THE VULGATE. 1.S7
edition, at tlio head of which he placed the celebrated (Jardinal
Bellarmine. This second edition wa.s much more carefully superin-
tended, and appeared in 1592, under the papacy of Clement VIII.
Bellarmine, in liis preface, throws the blame of the errors of the
Sixtine edition entirely on the printers. This is commonly regarded
as an ingenious device to rescue the Holy See from an unpleasant
dilemma ; for whicli, as some Roman Catholic divines themselves
do not hesitate to say, the Cardinal was afterwards made a saint.
This sarcasm, of course, implies that his liohuess, Pope Sixtus, had
corrected the proof-sheets of his edition while passing through the
press ; but, it is at least equally probable, that the corrections which
the Pope declares himself to have made were those which were
introduced after the work had been printed ; and this construction is
both the more charitable one, and the more consistent with likelihood.
The Clementine Vulgate differs in about two thousand places from
the Sixtine : most of the variations are trifling ; but several are of
some importance : — a discrepancy, of which the Protestant Theo-
logians of the time did not fail to avail themselves in their contro-
versies with the Church of Rome, and which still furnishes occa-
sionally a ground of attack upon the Roman Catholics.*
The Clementine edition is regarded as the standard text of
the Vulgate Version. In preparing it, the MSS. of Alcuinus'
recension seem to have been chiefly followed; the same class of
documents had been preferred by the Louvain editors ; hence there
is a general agreement between the Louvain and Clementine edi-
tions of the Vulgate. It is fair to add that the Clementine editors
make no pretensions to perfect accuracy. Bellarmine only says in
the Preface, — " Receive, then, Christian Reader, the Ancient Vulgate
Version of the Scriptures, corrected with all the diligence
that has been possible : which, although considering human infir-
mity, wo dare not venture to declare it absolutely faultless, is yet,
beyond all doubt, purer and more correct than any other that has
appeared down to the present time."t And afterwards : " As some
things have been dehbei'ately changed, so, also, some things that
" See especially Dr. James's Bellum Papale; sive Concwdia Discors
SLvti V. et dementis VIII. Lond. 1600, fol.
t Accipe, igitur, C. L. Veterem ac Vulgatam Scripturae Editionem,
quanta fieri potuit diligentia castigatam : quam quidem, sicut omnibus
numeris absolutam, pro humanS imbecillitate affinnare difficile est, ita
cseteris omnibus quae ad hunc usque diem prodierunt, emeudatiorem purio-
remque esse miuime dubitandum.
138 TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. [bOOK II.
seemed to require alteration have been deliberately left unchanged :
both because St. Jerome has more than once recommended this
course, in order to avoid public offence, and also, &.c."* In a letter
to Lucas Brugensis, written in 1603, Bellarmine says, — "I beg you
to understand that the Vulgate has not been corrected by us with
perfect accuracy : for we have on purpose passed over many things
which seemed to require emendation."! These statements are con-
firmed by Cardinal Baronius, another member of the Congrega-
tion, who says, " I own that some things still remain, which might
be altered for the better.":}: We may observe, in fine, that the term
authentic, as applied to the Vulgate Version, or to any edition of it,
is explained by Father Simon, by Dupin, Hug, Jahn, and other
learned Roman Catholic Doctors, as not by any means signifying
infallible, or as at all implying that it is to be exclusively appealed
to: but only as declaring, that the Version so designated is a
document admissible as evidence : one from which good and valid
testimony may be extracted : but without at all impeaching other
documents, — such as the text in the original languages of the Bible,
other Versions, ancient and modern, &c.: from which, also, good
and valid evidence may be derived.
The readings of the Vulgate Version, as might be anticipated
from the use which Jerome made of Jewish aid in preparing it,
approach much more nearly to those of our present Hebrew copies
than do those of any other ancient Translation : the principal
di£ferences arise from the want of vowel points in his MS. and his
consequent liberty of interpreting the text in any sense which the
Hebrew letters, viewed in themselves, would admit. He appears in
many cases to have found in the text those readings which are in
our masoretic copies, placed in the margin, and are called the
Krijin: and there are occasionally various readings which cannot
be thus accounted for: but not to any very great amount. The
Vulgate is, undoubtedly, a very valuable and important Version,
the best of all those that have come down to us from antiquity : and
after two centuries of opposition and party strife, which may be
said to have blinded the eyes of the disputants on both sides, the
real merits of this translation are beginning to be acknowledged by
• Sicut nonnulla consulto mutata, ita etiam alia quae mutanda videban-
tui" consulto immutata relicta sunt: turn quia ita faciendum esse ad offen-
Bionem populorum vitandam S. Hieronymus non semel admonuit, &c,
•^ Scias velim Vulgata non esse a nobis accuratissime castigata, multa
emm de industria pertransivimus quae correctione indigere videbantur.
X Fateor nonnulla adhuc superesse, quee in melius mutari possent.
CHAP. III.] VERSIONS. — THE ARABIC. 139
all competent scholars of every church, Protestant as well as Ca-
tholic. It is painful to read much that was written on this subject
in former times : it is however consoling to reflect that such things
are written no longer. The value of a version is a question of pure
criticism and interpretation ; tlio discussion of it ought not to be
governed by, but to govern, theological doctrines, and certainly
should bo free from that asperity which difference of theological
opinion has too often generated.
Tho Vulgate Version has been so often printed, that it would bo
tedious aud useless to attempt an enumeration of the editions
which have appeared. The text adopted in Bishop Walton's Poly-
glott, is that of the Clementine edition of 1592. It is not likely
that any critical revision of this version will now be attempted : but
it would nevertheless be a useful work to endeavour to ascertain
the genuine readings of Jerome's translation by the collation of his
own writings, and those of the Latin Fathers who employed it : as
well as by tho aid of MSS. and of tho Anglo-Saxon and other
Secondary Versions derived from the Vulgate. There was anciently
a (jlreek Version made from tho Latin of Jerome, by Sophronius,
who was Pati-iarch of Constantinople at tho close of the 4th century.
It is now lost ; but is supposed to be the work referred to in MSS. as
6 2yoo?. The Anglo-Saxon Versions of the Pentateuch, the books of
Joshua, Job, and Psalms, wliich have been published, are derived
from the Vulgate, though frequently assigned to the Old Latin, or
Versio Itala.
Section VII. — The Arabic Versions made directly from the
Ilehrew.
It has been ah-eady stated, that the Arabic Version of the book of
Job, Chronicles, and perhaps some other books, which is printed in
the Polyglotts of M. le Jay, and Bishop Walton, was made from
the Old Syriac, or Peshito Version: and that the Arabic Version
of most of the other books of the Old Testament which appears in
the same works, was made from the Greek Septuagint. The only
parts of the Arabic Translation as given in the Polyglotts which
were taken directly from the Hebrew text of the Old Testament,
are the Pentateuch and the book of Joshua.
1. Tho Arabic Version of tho Pentateuch, printed in the Paris
and London Polyglotts, forms part of a translation of tho entire
Old Testament, which was made from tho original Hebrew by the
Habbi Saadiah, called by his countrymen Gaon, that is, the Great.
140 TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. [BOOK II.
He was of the town of Pithom, in the district of Faioum in Egypt ;
was principal of the Jewish College in Babylon in the tenth century
of onr sera. His version of the Pentateuch was first printed at
Constantinople, in the year 1546 : in a folio volume, containing the
Pentateuch in Hebrew, Chaldee, Persian and Arabic, but all in the
Hebrew character : — the copy in Walton's Polyglott is in the proper
Arabic character: and is esteemed the most con-ect that has yet
been pubhshed. — The book of Isaiah as translated into Arabic by
R. Saadiah, has been published by Paulus (Erlangen, 8vo, 1790).
The book of Job exists in MS : other parts of this version are
believed to survive likewise in MS.: but have not yet been dis-
covered or pubhshed. The text which the translation follows, in
those parts that have been made public, adheres closely to the
Masoretic recension. The style of the Version is much admired
by competent judges : it is not scrupulously literal ; but gives the
sense of the original with much fidelity ; except that it softens
down the anthropomorphic and anthropopathic expressions of the
Hebrew, and modifies the harsher metaphors of the original.
2. The Arabic Version of the book of Joshua, contained in thO
Polyglott, appears to have been made directly from the Hebrew :
but the difference of style seems clearly to prove that it did not
proceed from the pen of R. Saadiah Gaon. Its author, if really
different from him, and its date are unknown.
3. There is an edition of the Pentateuch in Arabic, published by
Erpenius, from a MS. belonging to the University of Leyden, which
was written in Hebrew characters, probably by an African Jew.
This version is still used by the Jews in Barbary and Marocco : it
is apparently of modern date : and adheres with literal servility to
the Masoretic readings of the text. Its value is not great.
4. Of still less importance is the Arabic Version of Genesis, the
Psalms, and Daniel, made by Saadiah ben Levi Asnekot, a Jew of
Marocco, while resident in the city of Franecker in Gei*many, in the
beginning of the 17th century. This translation has never been
printed ; and probably never will be : as no advantage whatever can
be expected from its publication. It exists in the author's MS.
which is preserved in the British Museum.
It is useless to dwell on versions like these, which in a critical
point of view can never be expected to repay the diligence of the
student.
CHAP. III.] VERSIONS. — THE PERSIAN. 141
Section VIII. — The Persian Version of the Pentateuch.
The Persian Version of the books of Moses, contained in Bishop
Walton's Poljglott, was made from the Original Hebrew by a
Jewish translator, who is named Jacob ben Joseph Tawus : and who
is supposed to have lived about the 9th or 10th century. His
version is exceedingly literal, and adheres to the Masoretic text.
Bishop Walton took this ti'anslation from the Tetraglott Pentateuch
printed at Constantinople in 154G : it is uncertain whether Joseph
ever translated any other portion of the Scriptures. His version
of the Pentateuch, if corrected in some places, might be of use as
part of an edition of the Scriptures to bo disseminated in the East :
but is of slight weight as an authority in textual criticism.
Section IX. — Plan for a Polyglott Old Testament.
I may be allowed to subjoin to this brief account of the Ancient
Versions of the Old Testament, a plan for a new Polyglott edition, —
the publication of which, if executed by a person of competent
learning and industry, would confer a great benefit on private
students : whose means seldom admit of their purchasing the expen-
sive works of this nature which are already extant. A sketch in
some respects similar, has been drawn up by Father Simon :* this
learned writer proposes to give at full length only the Hebrew text,
the Septuagint and the Vulgate : but this would not be deemed
sufficient at the present day : — while on the other hand the re-
printing of all the Versions would be unnecessary.
It might be sufficient to give the Hebrew Text, together with those
ancient Versions which were taken immediately from the Hebrew,
and which wore made anterior to the formation of the Masoretic
recension. The various readings of all the secondary authorities
might be appended to the texts from which they were derived.
The different versions should be previously revised with the utmost
care, so as to ascertain their primitive readings, as far as possible.
The Latin translations usually aimexed to them should be omitted,
as useless and occasionally hurtful. A Polyglott Old Testament
formed on this plan would exhibit :
1. The Masoretic Jlchreic Text: to which should be subjoined in
the form of occasional notes the various readings found in the MSS.
and in the versions derived from tliat recension, or from a text
II
istoire Criliquc du Tcxte du Viau Testament, p. bSi, &c.
142 TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. [bOOK II.
approaching so closely to it, that it would be useless to print them
in full : as Versio Grceca Veneta, the Arabic Versions of R. Saadiah
Gaon, and of Erpenius's edition, the Persian of Joseph ben Jacob
Tawus, &c. : together with a selection of the principal Various
Readings found in Jewish MSS. and other authorities.
2. The Jlebrceo- Samaritan Text of the Pentateuch: with the
Various Readings of the MSS. the Samaritan and the Samaritano-
Arabic Versions.
3. The Septuagint, restored, as nearly as is now possible, to its
primitive state : but so exhibited as to show those readings which
are ascertained to belong to each of the three recensions of Origen,
Lucian, and Hesychius. The various lections of the Secondary
Versions derived from the LXX, such as the Versio Itala, the
Coptic, the Sahidic, the Hexaplaro-Syriac, the iEthiopic, the Ar-
menian, the Sclavonic, and the Grseco- Arabic, should be subjoined,
in notes: together with those found in the principal MSS. and
ancient writers.
4. The Chaldee Targums: omitting those passages in which some
of them have introduced lengthened comments and legendary tales,
instead of a literal translation : or rather, carefully sifting out and
preserving what is really translation from the mass of interpolated
matter. This would not be found in practijie so difficult as it might
at first sight appear : and would render the work more compendious
and infinitely more useful.
5. The Old Syriac Version, or Peshito: with reference to the
MSS. the Syriaco- Arabic Versions, «fec. which may be employed in
fixing its true text.
6. The Latin Vulgate: carefully distinguishing, whenever it may
be found possible, the readings of Jerome's Version from those
which have crept into the text, since his time. The latter might be
appended in the form of notes. The Various readings of the prin-
cipal MSS. and printed editions should also be noted,
A work printed in this manner would contain all that is of real
value in the most expensive Polyglott Bible : and as an extensive
sale might be calculated on, a large edition might be hazarded : so
that in place of a work in four or five volumes foho, the whole might
be comprised in one : which instead of costing from £30 to £40,
might perhaps be sold for £3 or £4.
CHAP. IV.] CITATIONS. 143
CHAPTER IV.
CITATIONS FROM THE OLD TESTAMENT.
References and Citations which aro contained in works written
by authors who used a translation of tho Scriptures, may be
of use in estabUshing the text of the Version which they employed :
but can give us no information as to the readings of the original :
we therefore confine ourselves to those who consulted the Jewish
Scriptures in Hebrew; and to tho writers of the New Testament.
It is necessary to bear in mind that our present inquiry relates to
the exact words of the Scripture, as they were at first written down
by the original author, or from his dictation : tlicse are what we
want to know : vague references, thereforn, and allusions, can be of
little use for this purpose. Before a citation can bo employed as a
means of correcting or confii-ming the text, we must have reason to
believe that the author who gives the quotation had access to tho
book or passage he professes to quote, — that he meant and designed
to give its exact words, — and that he took pains and care enough to
copy them accurately as they stood in his text. The nature of the
case, and the appearance of the whole passage will often enable us to
form a tolerably correct judgment upon this point. Casual, fanciful,
brief, and merely illustrative references are of no consequence, for in
such cases exact citation is not required, and in them a quotation
might be given memoriter, and therefore in some degree inaccurately:
or the passage might, to some trifling extent, be altered on purpose,
to adapt it more thoroughly to the subject which it was brought
forward to iUustrate. It is necessary, therefore, in all cases to con-
sider the purpose for which a scriptural citation is adduced by the
writer in whose works it is found : and thence to judge whether or
or how far the end in view rendered an exact repetition of the words
of the text needful and probable.
Section I. — Citations in the Old Testament.
The caution just given is of very great use in considering the
citations of the sacred text which are found in the Old Testament
144 TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF THE OLD TESTAMENT, [BOOK 11.
itself. It contains many passages copied from its own preceding
pages. Sometimes one of the writers of tlie Old Testament, repeats
sentences or paragraphs taken from his own previous compositions-
Thus Moses,* in the book of Deuteronomy, recites large portions of
the history contained in those of Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers :
the Decalogue affords a familiar example : it is found in Exod.
XX, 3 — 17, and again in Deut. v, 6 — 21 : the reasons annexed to the
fourth commandment in the two exemplars, are, however, totally
distinct ; and there are some trivial variations in the texts of the
other portions. Here we must not attempt to correct the reason of
the fourth commandment, as given in the one book, by incorporating
with it the reason given in the other : for it is obvious that these
reasons were not considered as properly parts of the Decalogue : the
reason was an explanation given by Moses of the divine command-
ment, and an argument used to enforce its observance : and such
explanation and comment might be varied as circumstances required.
It is quite conceivable that Moses might, in repeating the precepts
in the book of Deuteronomy, introducing such explanatory clauses
as "^jTl/J^ mn*' "^1^ *1^5^2 (" «s Jehovah thy God hath commanded
thee):''' which are read in Deut, v, 12, and v, IG, It would there-
fore be out of place to employ these words as a subject of criticism :
either introducing them into Exodus, or expunging them in Deute-
ronomy. The case is different with the Precepts themselves : they
were written with the finger of God on the tablets of stone : they
formed the very foundation of the whole Jewish Code : Moses
never claimed any right to alter them himself, nor professed to have
received any command from the Deity to change them in any
respect : this being the case, he would have been most unwilling to
scandalize the Jewish people, and bring indignation and disgrace
upon himself, by setting forth a second copy of these divinely dic-
tated precepts, varying in any degree, however trivial, from the
first ; hence any variations found, must be attributed to the copy-
ists. The two editions of the Commandments, therefore, properly
* The question whether Moses was the writer of the Pentateuch, or
whether it was written by some other person, and if so, whether it was com-
posed in his day or at an after period, does not belong to the lower, but to
the higher ciiticism. W ith it, therefore, the present work does not inter-
meddle. I have adhered to the common ideas and to the common phra-
seology, but if any reader objects to either, he may substitute for the word
Mosea, wherever it occurs, the Author of the Pentateuch, or any other form
of words which may please him better.
CHAP. IV.] CITATIONS IN THE OLD TESTA.Mn.NT. 145
SO called, found in Exodus and Deuteronomy, may be used with
great propriety in amending each other's text.* The precepts given
in the two books, ought to bo brought into a strict and verbal, nay
even a literal conformity ; for doubtless when these books were first
written, there was no variation in this part of their contents.
We are not, however, to apply this rule to every part in the four
last books of the Pentateuch in which laws are given on tlie same
subject with that of other laws previously recorded, and to the
same general purport with them, though with some variation : for
we should remember, what indeed is very apparent to the attentive
reader of these books, that sometimes after a law relating to civil or
ceremonial concerns had been first promulgated, it was found ex-
pedient to alter, modify, or define it : and tliis was doue by issuing
another edict, retaining as much as it was intended to preserve of
the original law, and inserting in their proper place the words which
were required in order to make it more efficient for the designed
end, or leaving out those which it was found necessary to omit. In
these instances, the verbal variation is not to be attributed to tran-
scribers, but to the autlior of the book : and of course neither of the
two passages, although in a loose sense they may be called parallel,
is to bo employed as an authority for amending the text of the other.
And so also in the case of messages: the words of which are
usually twice recorded ; once when the message is entrusted to him
who is to convey it, and again when his fulfilment of his commission
is reported. There is usually a very close adherence to the same form
of words in both cases : but as this is not necessary for the object of
the historian, which only requires him to show that the message
delivered agreed in substance with that which was sent, it would be
rash to attribute every verbal discrepancy to the inaccuracy of
copyists.
We must proceed wnth similar care in reference to the cases in
which a subsequent historian or prophet incorporates in his works
extracts taken substantially from the works of his predecessors. In
examples of this nature, the Hebrews, like other Orientals, were in
the habit of adopting almost verbatim the language of the author
whose statements they repeated : but not so scrupulously as to
abstain from the insertion, omission, or change of a particle, the
* The variations which exist between the Commandments iu Exodus and
Deuteronomy are merely verbal : they do not at all affect the sense as will
appear in the 7th chapter of this book.
T
146 TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. [bOOK II.
substitution of a synonymous word for that wliich the first writer
had employed, the alteration of the form of a sentence, the sup-
pression of one of the circumstances of the narrative, or the intro-
duction of an additional circumstance. Thus it is impossible to
read 1 Chron. i, 5 — 23, without perceiving that the compiler has
copied it from Genesis, ch. x. But Moses has introduced in Gen.
X. 5, 9, 10, 11, 12, 19, 20 and 21, some brief historical notices of
the more remarkable persons named in the list : these are entirely
omitted in 1 Chron. ch. i. Are we then to attribute this diversity
to the copyists of the Bible, and shall we proceed to correct the text
of Gen. X. by expunging these verses, on the authority of 1 Chron. i.
or that of 1 Chron. by inserting these verses, on the authority of
Gen. X.? It would be exceedingly rash and unwarrantable to do
either the one or the other. Moses and the compiler of 1 Chronicles,
were both historians : and although the latter has drawn in this
chapter his materials from the former, he exercised his right of
leaving out what he judged unsuitable to the object of his work.
The omissions in this passage are clearly referable to the author of
the book of Chronicles.
Even where the same historical events are recorded in two
different books of the Old Testament, but connected with names
that at first sight appear totally different, we are not justified in
referring the variation in all cases to a corruption of the text, in
either passage : for the same individual had frequently two names,
by which he was known indifferently : and each author might select
that to which his ear was most habituated. Thus Jacob and Israel,
Esau and Edom, Jethro and Raguel, Gideon and Jerubbaal, are
eight names, but yet are the names only of four men, each individual
having two. This remark reconciles 1 Chron. iii. 1, with 2 Sam.
iii. 3: and 1 Chron. vi. 2 and 18, with 1 Chron vi. 22. Not only
might the same person have two names, but it is possible that some
diversity might have been allowed in spelling the same name.
(See 1 Chron. iii. 5, compared with 2 Sam. v. 14, &c. &c). These
discrepancies are not necessarily to be attributed to the transcribers :
they probably proceeded from the original authors. We might as
well expect that the 2d book of Samuel, and the 1st book of
Chronicles, which treat of the same general subject, namely, the
life and reign of David, should harmonize in every fact, statement,
and sentence, as that they should not occasionally vary in such
matters as those referred to in this paragraph.
We find in 2 Sam. xxii. 2 — 51, a psalm or ode of thanksgiving
CHAP. IV.] CITATIONS IN THE OLD TESTAMENT, 147
composed by David on his deliverance from Saul and his other
enemies : and the same piece is inserted at full length, but with a
great many various readings, in the book of Psalms: (Ps. xviii.)
the Compiler of the book of Psalms without doubt obtained this ode
from the history in which it was first recorded : the two copies may
therefore bo used reciprocally to verify and correct each other's
text. But the case is different with Ps. xiv. and Ps. liii : which
may be called two different editions of the same poem, with altera-
tions : perhaps after the piece was first published, the original author
recast it in order to adapt it to some occasion or circumstance
which had occurred in the interval: or perhaps after his death a
subsequent writer took tlie liberty of remodelling it. It is manifest
that as both the odes are found in tlie same collection, the book of
Psalms, they must have been distinct and separate at the time when
that compilation was formed : the diversities therefore which exist
between them are not textual diversities. They are owing to tho
compilers, not the transcribers of the sacred books.
The account of tho attack upon Jerusalem by Rabshakeh, and
the destruction of the host of Sennacherib, &c. in 2 Kings xviii.
1 3 — XX. 3, comprising 64 verses, and tho history of the same tran-
sactions in Isaiah xxxvi. 1 — xxxviii. 3, liavo evidently been copied,
cither the one from the other, or both from some previous document:
and although it would be improper on this account to conclude that
an exact verbal agreement ought to be found between them (for the
later author may have intentionally varied a phrase, or omitted or
added a sentence here and there), yet if we find on comparison a
word employed in one of these narratives which makes no sense, or
none that is suitable to the connexion, and if we find that this
word, by a slight alteration in the mode of writing, such as might
easily occur fi-om tho similarity of letters to each other in form or
sound, passes into another word which makes an apt sense, and
which is actually found in the parallel passage ; — and especially if
we find that the ancient versions appear to have read the same word
in both places, and to have read it in that form which best agrees
with the context, — then we may fairly infer that the term was
originally the same in both of the parallel passages, and we may use
the text of that which makes sense for correcting that of the other
which makes none. And this has accordingly been done by Bishop
Lowth with good effect in his translation of Isaiah at tho part
referred to.
Some writers lay it down as a principle, that in all cases of
148 TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. [bOOKII.
readings that differ, where the passages are really parallel, we must
correct the later book or author bj the standard of the earlier. But
this rule is absurd. The later writer may have deliberately rejected
the expression of his predecessor, and adopted a different one : are
we then at liberty to insert in his text words which he had purposely
left out? Or in cases where we have reason to believe that the
reading was identically the same in the two books as originally pub-
lished, and that the diversity has been produced by the subsequent
errors of transcribers, — on what grounds are we to conclude that
such mistakes might not occur as readily and as frequently in
copying the older book, as in transcribing that which is more
recent? Yet this rule is sanctioned by the respectable name of
M. de Rossi !
As little can we approve of Father Houbigant's principles that in
all such cases we are to correct the language of the more concise
narrative, so as to make it conform to the expressions employed in
that which is more full and complete : and that we must systemati-
cally employ the passage which best harmonizes with other parts of
scripture, as a standard by which the text of its parallel or correla-
tive is to be amended. This is the very error of the copyists in the
middle ages, who were prone to remove every hermeneutic difficulty
by the help of parallel passages, in the mode pointed out by Houbi-
gant: — an error to which we owe a large proportion of all the
various readings and textual difficulties that are found both in the
Old and New Testaments. We need not be anxious to establish a
closer agreement between the sacred writers than they sought after
themselves. They seem to have had no scruple in using expressions
more or less at variance with those employed by others of their own
number : and we need have no scruple in leaving those expressions
as they were left by their authors.
It is difficult to lay down an exact rule for the application of
parallel passages as a critical aid : — the circumstances of each case
are to be taken into account. We must first satisfy ourselves that
the passages, as originally written in both books, really contained
exactly the same text : that is to say, that the discrepancies which
are found between them proceed from errors in transcription, not
from the pen of the sacred writers themselves. When, by a fair and
candid examination of the passage, we have satisfied ourselves that
such was actually the case, we are to prefer and adopt as the true
reading of both the passages compared, that text which is best sup-
ported by external testimony, and internal probability.
CHAP. IV.] CITATIONS IN THE OLD TESTAMENT. 149
It may be useful to append to this section a list founded upon
that given by Bauer (^Critica Sacra, vol. i. p. 236 — 8), of the Gene-
alogies,— Historical Narrations, — Laws, Poems, and Prophecies, —
and Sentences and Proverbs, which are found twice in the different
books of the Old Testament.
1. — GENEALOGIES.
Gen. V. 3—32,
compared
with
1 Chron. i.
1—4.
Gen. X. 2—29,
,,
1 Chron. i.
5—23.
Gen. xi. 10—26,
>>
1 Chron. i.
24—27.
Gen. XXV. 2—4,
)>
1 Chron. i.
32, 33.
Gen. XXV. 13—16,
>>
1 Chron. i.
29—32.
Gen. xxxvi. 10—43,
,,
1 Chron. i.
35 54.
2 Sam. xxiii. 8 — 39,
,,
1 Chron. xi.
10—41.
Ezra ii. 1 — 70,
>»
Nehem. vii.
6—73.
2. — HISTORICAL NARRATIONS.
So many passages in Chronicles are copied almost verbatim from
the books of Joshua, Samuel, and Kings, that it is needless to
construct a table of such parallelisms : — they can readily be found
by means of an English Bible with marginal references : and more
easily still by using Jahn's Edition of the Hebrew Bible, in which
the Sections of the Books of Chronicles are printed in parallel
column with those of the oilier Books which treat of the same
subject. There are also some things which are common both to
Ezra and Nehemiah ; and some which are found in the books of
Kings and Isaiah, which need not be here enumerated.
3. LAWS, POEMS, AND PROPHECIES.
Exod. XX. 2 — 17, compared with Deut. v. 0 — 21.
,, Deut. xiv. 4 — 18.
,, 2 Sam. xxii. 1 — 51.
1 Chron. xvi. 8—22.
,, 1 Chron. xvi. 23 — 33.
,, 1 Chron. xvi. 35 — 36.
,, -Psalm liii. 1 — 6.
,, Psalm Ixx. 1 — 5.
,, Psalm cviii. 1 — 5.
,, Psalm cviii. 6 — 13.
,, Psalm cxxxv. 15 — 18.
,, Micah iv. 1 — 3.
,, Jerem. xlviii. 5.
Lev. xi. 2—19,
Psalm xviii. 2 — 50,
Psalm cv. 1 — 15,
Psalm xcvi. 1 — 13,
Psalm cvi. 47,
Psalm xiv. 1 — 7,
Psalm xl. 13—17,
Psabnlvii. 7 — 11,
Psalm Ix. 5—12,
Psalm cxv. 4 — 8,
Isaiah ii. 2 — 4,
Isaiah xv. 5,
150 TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. [BOOK IL
Isaiah xvi, 6, 7, compared with Jerem. xlvii. 29 — 31.
Isaiah xxiv. 17, 18, ,, „ Jerem. xlviii. 43 — 44.
Isaiah lii. 7, ,, „ Nah. i. 15.
Jerem. x. 25, „ „ Psalm Ixxix. 6, 7.
Jerem. xxvi. 18, ,, ,, Micah iii. 12.
Jerem. xlix. 14 — 16, ,, ,, Obad. i. 4.
Jerem. xlix. 27, ,, „ Amos i. 4.
Habac. iii. 18, 19, ,, „ Psalm xviii. 33.
Zeph. ii. 15, ,, „ Isaiah xlvii. 8.
P«nlm Ittt S 7 1Q Thesame verse is thrice repeated, p. •• o i r ni oi
X-Sdim liXi. O, 4, ••^i', a^nja^gi^jiar repgtitjojj occurs in •^*' ^V"' °> ■'•^J ^i-t Ol.
4. DETACHED SENTENCES AND PROVERBS.
Several sententious sayings or proverbs, occur more than once in
the Old Testament : examples of this kind of repetition may be found
in the books of Isaiah and Jeremiah : the latter writer often copies
such dicta from his predecessor : and each has re-inserted some from
the previous parts of his own work. The marginal references in
any edition of the Bible will point out such coincidences ; they
are very numerous, and, generally, not of much importance.
Section II. — Citations in the New Testament.
It has been already remarked that the writers of the New
Testament, whenever they have occasion to refer to passages in the
Jewish Scriptures, usually cite them in such a manner as shows that
they had the version of the LXX in view, and drew their quotations
chiefly from that source. Very frequently their citations agree
exactly with the text of the Septuagint, without the least alteration :
— as in Acts iv. 24 — 26, where we read Ak^ora cu 6 Qsog
0 dia (STO/MocTog Aani'o 'jtaiboc gou shwuiy
" 'Ivari ifQua^av sSvrj'
Ua^sdrriSav o'l (SacSiXsTg rrig yr^g,
Kai o'l a^^ovTsg (Svv7i^6rjgav liri rh alro,
Kara, rod kv^iov xai xaTa rod ^^larov avrov. "
Well rendered in the Authorised English Version ; —
Lord thou art God who by the mouth of thy servant David hast said,
" AVhy did the heathen rage,
And the people imagine vain things !
The Kings of the earth stood up,
And the rulers were gathered together.
Against the Lord and against his anointed."
CHAP. IV.] CITATIONS IN THE NEW TESTAMENT. 151
Those last words are found without the change of a syllable in the
Septuagint Version of Psalm ii. 1, 2. This coincidence is too exact
to be accounted for by mere accident. There are many citations in
tlio New Testament in which this perfect adherence to the Septua-
gint is displayed.
There are also instances in which the references to the Septuagint
is equally manifest, although the passage, as quoted, differs from tho
words now found in the Version, by the insertion or omission of a
personal pronoun, the leaving out some trifling clause, unnecessary
to the object for which the citation is made, or the change of per-
son, tense, &c. which was required by the context into which the
quotation is introduced. Of this wo may take an example from the
same book, placing in a parallel column the Septuagint rendering of
the place referred to.
Acts vii. 2, 3.
'O Qilg...uj<pOri rw...'A/3gaa/x...
xai iJ-TS rr^hi avTOV "E^sXh sx rjjg
yrig aou Tcat ly. 7"/)j avyyiviiai ffou"
xal dsu^o sig yriv rjv ccv aoi del^u.
God.... appeared to. ...Abraham...
and said unto him. Go forth from
thy land and from thy kindred, and
[come] hither into a land which I
shall show thee.
Gen. xii. 1.
Kai ii-m xv^iog r^ " A/3ga/i"E^£>.(?2
s-/. Trig 755? tfoy "c^ ^Jt ^^S owyyiviiag
co-j, 7MI ly, Tov o'i'xov roxj vraroog 6o\j'
y,ai divpo sig rr^v y^v ^v civ aoi di'i^aj*
And the Lord said to Abraham,
Go forth from thy land and from
thy kindred and from the house of
tliy father ; and [come] hither into a
land which I shall show thee.
Here the variation is not greater than is often found in manu-
scnpt copies of the same book ; especially where the o,u,oioriXiuT6v so
readily accounts for tho omission of the words y.a! Ik tou o'i'mj too
-xar^og (Sou, which are left out. It is not necessary, however, to
account for their omission on that principle: they were probably
left out by Stephen or by his historian, as being sufficiently implied
in the context, and unnecessary to the object of the citation. It is
here obvious that the writer of the New Testament took the passage
from the LXX version of the Old ; unless we could believe that the
transcribers of the Septuagint had altered the text of that translation,
in order to bring it into close conformity with the reading of the
citation which they found in tlie book of Acts. But this supposition
• I give these passages as they stand in Griesbach's G. T. and the
Roman edition of the LXX; but, in Gen. xii. 1, the Alexamlriue MS.
omits y.a.1 diu^o and in Acts vii. 3, the Alexandi-ine, Vatican, Ephrcra, Cam-
bridge, Laudian, and several other MSS. read iig TH'N ynv, which, in my
opinion, is the true reading.
152 TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF THE OLD TESTAMENT, [bOOK II.
fails to account for the diversity which appears, on comparing the
two passages.
That the writers of the New Testament were accustomed to
make use of the LXX in their scriptural references is farther evi-
dent from the circumstance, that they sometimes adhere to that
version, even when it departs not only from the modern text, but
from what appears to have been the genuine and primitive reading
of the Hebrew Bible. Thus, in Heb. x. 5 —7, we find a tolerably
long citation from the book of Psalms (Ps. xl. 7 — 9, Heb.), which is
taken almost verbatim from the LXX; and which begins, Qva'iav
Kai irpoafo^av oDx r^^iXridag, dufia Bs xarri^rku jmoi. x. r. X. that is,
" Sacrifice and offering thou tcouldest not; hut a body thou hast
prepared me." But, instead of tfcI3/xa di yMn^erisca /mi, the Hebrew
text has now ^7 H^'^D ?"*i*'1TNt. "my ears thou hast bored;" which
would be in Greek, ra wr/a sr^v'Tryjadg /xor and this is probably the
true reading, as it is supported by all the other versions, and gives
a good sense : whereas, the translation of the Septuagint is unmeaning
and incongruous. In Exod. xxi. 6, we find that boring the ear was
the form by which a Hebrew servant voluntarily subjected himself
to perpetual servitude. To this the Psalmist refers : he intimates
that God had made no demand upon him for oflfering and sacrifice ;
but only for his personal obedience, which he had willingly promised.
There are many other instances in which the citations in the New
Testament adhere to the readings of the LXX, even when they
differ very widely from the Hebrew text ; and when there is every
reason to believe that the Greek translation has either mistaken the
sense of the original or followed an erroneous reading.
But this adherence is not uniform. We often find a departure
from the readings of the Septuagint; and it is the occurrence of
such instances which involves the subject of these quotations in so
much obscurity.
Sometimes we find the contents of the Old Testament referred to
in a manner which agrees neither with the pi-esent text of the LXX
nor with that of the original Hebrew. In most of these cases it is
natural to attribute the variation to the practice of citing the sacred
books memoriter. It would have been a very tedious and useless
labour in the Apostles to have unrolled a Greek or Hebrew MS.
every time they had occasion to refer to a text in the Old Testa-
ment ; it was, in general, quite sufficient, if they gave the sense and
scope of the passage alluded to: this, therefore, they appear fre-
quently to have done, partly in their own words and partly from
ClIAr. IV.] C1TATI0»S IN THE NEW TESTAMENT. 153
their recollection of those of the LXX, without troubling them-
selves with needless scruples as to the exact verbal accordance of
their citations, either with the Hebrew text or with the Greek trans-
lation. We may take, as an example of this diversity, Micah v. 2,
as rendered by the LXX and cited in the beginning of the Gospel
according to Matthew. The Hebrew now stands thus: —
rnin^ ^s^xn nm yv^
which may be thus translated : —
"And thou, Bethlohem-Ephrata,
Art tfwu too little to be among the thousands of Judah ?
From thee shall como forth unto me,
One who is to be ruler in Israel !"
This is rendered in the LXX, with sufficient accuracy as to the
general sense : —
Kai (Ti) BridXie/M, oix.og [rov^ ^F,<p^ada
'O^jyoarhg u tov livai sv yjXtdaiv 'lovda;
'Ex ffoD fioi s^sXsvasrai, [rjyoxj/Mevog,^
Tou i'lvai sig aoyovra roD 'itf^a^X.
(The words in brackets are found in the Codex Alexandrinus, but are
wanting in the Vatican.)
That is to say : —
" And thou, Bethlehem, house of Ephratha,
Art thou too small to be among the thousands of Judah ?
From thee shall come forth to me, [a leader, Alex.]
To be ruler of Israel."
But the evangelist gives the passage differently : — (Matt. ii. 6.)
Ka/ ffi) Br,dXis,'Jb, yrj 'louSa,
'Oudafiug sXap^/ffrrj sJ ev roTg ■i^yifMoaiv 'lovda,
'Ex (Toy ya^ i^sXsCasrai riyov/Msvog
"Oarig 'TroifiaveT rhv Xaov /mu rhv 'iff^a^X.
Thus, in English : —
" And thou, Bethlehem, land of Judah,
Art by no means the least among the leaders of Judah :
For out of these shall come forth a leader
"Who shall be the shepherd of my people Israel."
The negative here inserted is equivalent in meaning to the interrogation
which appears to be intended in the Hebrew and the Septuagint.
154 TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. [bOOK II.
There are several instances of this kind of citation : it is evident
that it would be rash in the extreme to alter the text of the Old
Testament upon their authority. The sacred wi'iters of the New
Testament have, in many such cases, given the sense and spirit of
the passage quoted without troubling themselves with minute atten-
tion to the letter.
There are other examples in which we find that the writers of the
New Testament, while evidently making use of the Septuagint
Version, have, so far as we can judge, deliberately departed from its
readings, where the version was erroneous, and when its mistakes
were of such a nature as would have frustrated the object for which
the quotation was brought forward ; or when, for some other reason,
it seemed necessary to express the true meaning of the original more
exactly than the established Greek Version had done. Such an
instance occurs in the citation of Isaiah xlii. 1 — 4, as given by the
evangelist Matthew. In the Hebrew Bible it stands thus : —
■ ^sj^ui nn^n n^nn
v^y ^nin ^nni
t«^V tD'')h ^^^J2
^^' ih) py^^ if?
ih)p ym vi'^ii^' iO)
i)^^\ ih p^n nip
" Behold my servant whom I will uphold.
My chosen, in whom my soul delighteth.
I have put my spirit upon him.
And he shall publish judgment to the nations.
He shall not cry aloud nor raise [a clamour,]
Nor cause his voice to be heard in the streets.
The bruised reed he shall not break.
And the smouldering flax he shall not quench.
He shall pubUsh judgment completely.'"
This the Septuagint translators have rendered very loosely : —
'laxujS 6 TaTg (/jOv, avrtXri-^ofj^at ahrou'
'la^arfK 6 sxXsxrog (JjOu, ir^odibe^aro avrlv t] -^u^ri flow
"'EduTia rh TwD/Aa fiov st' aMv,
K^idiv ToTg idvsaiv i^oiffii.
CHAP. IV.] CITATIONS IN THE NEW TESTAMENT. 155
'Ovds a-/.o\j66r,<SiTat s^oi 7] (puvri ahrov.
KdXafjiov nCXaa/jijivov ou ffi/vr^/'-vj/e/,
Kai Xivov xwrvi^ofiivov ov a^sasi,
'AXXa eig aXrjOiiav e^oieei xpisiv.
Which may be thus translated into English : —
" Jacob [is] my eervant, I will uphold him :
Israel [is] my elect, my soul hath accepted him ;
I have poured out my spmt upon him,
He sliall bring forth judgment to the nations.
He shall not ciy nor raise [a clamour,]
Nor shall his voice be heard without.
A bruised reed he shall not crush,
And smoking flax he shall not quench.
But shall bring forth judgment truly."
Here the insertion of the words laxco/S and 'la^a^jX, to which there
is nothing in the Hebrew original to correspond, and which are
manifestly mere glosses, would have rendered the passage totally
inapplicable to the purpose which the evangelist had in view : for he
lias quoted them as descriptive of our Lord Jesus Christ. Hence,
he has given a new and independent version of his own, which
agrees more closely with the Hebrew text of the Prophet: viz.
(Matt. xii. 18—21.)
'l3oi) 6 vocTg (i(i\j ov rjo'srida,
'O aya'XriToi; fiou iig &" ivdoxriosv i] -^vyri fj^ov'
&rjOu rh TveZ/Jid fji^ov W a\jTov,
Kai XPidiv roTg 'idviaiv d'rccyyO.ii',
'Ovx i^ian ohb\ xgauyaffs/,
'Ouds dxovdu Tig iv raTg TXarg/a/g rriv ^uv^iv cthrou.
KdXafiov svvTSToi/jjfjLsvov ou xaTid^ii,
Kai Xivov ru06fji,svov ov dfSiOii,
"Ewg av STijSdXri slg vTTiog rriv x^isiv.
The following literal translation will show how much this citation
varies from the text of the Septuagint : —
" Behold my servant whom I have chosen.
My beloved, in whom my soul hath been well pleased :
I will put my spirit upon him.
And he shall announce judgment to the nations.
I le ?hall not contend nor crv.
15G TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. [bOOK II.
Nor shall any one hear his voice in the streets.
A crushed reed he shall not break,
And smouldering flax he shall not quench,
Until he put forth judgment victoriously."
This is manifestly a diflferent version, not a variation of the same
version: and as the writer must have known that his translation
would be rigorously scrutinized by the Jewish opponents of the
Gospel, it affords abundant evidence that the Hebrew text of
Isaiah in the first century of our sera, contained no words corre-
sponding to the 'laxw/3 and 'Ic^ctrfk of the LXX. This remark
applies to several other citations of the same kind : they may
therefore be used for the purpose of confirming the modern Hebrew
text, when they agree with it, or as critical aid for amending it when
they differ from it.
It ought not to be concealed that there are some citations of the
Old Testament, which do not agree, at least verhally, either with
the Modern Hebrew Text, or with the ancient Greek Version : and
a few of these have the appearance of being deliberate quotations,
not mere allusions or citations from memory. In cases of this kind,
if it be certain that our present reading of the text in the Chris-
tian Scriptures has not been altered since the times of the Apostles,
it is necessary to admit that the writers of the New Testament
found various readings, — that is, readings which vary from our
present masoretic editions, — in their copies of the sacred books.
The value of these readings must be estimated according to the very
same principles by which we should be guided in determining the
weight of similar lections gathered from MSS. In fact, they
probably are, or rather were, the readings of the MSS. which the
Apostles used: and are entitled to all the authority which the
readings of documents of that early age can claim : and although
Christians might be disposed to grant to these MSS. a greater share
of pre-eminence, from the circumstance of their having been used by
the sacred writers of our faith, it is not to be expected that Jewish
critics, and others who do not acknowledge the Gospel, should go
farther. In the present stage of our inquiries, we cannot fairly
assume the infallibility of the Christian scriptures or their authors.
Mr. Home has given a very useful table of the citations from the
Old Testament found in the writings of the evangelists and Apostles.*
* Introdtiction to the Critical Study and Knowledge of the Holy Scrip-
tures, 6th Ed. vol. ii. p. 205—246.
CHAP. IV.] ItAblUNIfAL CITATIONS. 157
Ho places in throe parallel columns, first, tho Hebrew text of each
passage cited, according to tho masorotic text : secondly, tho Greek
Version of tho same, by tho LXX, from the Roman Edition: — and
thirdly, tho words of the citation, as found in the Textus Receptus
of the Now Testament. To each is subjoined a translation into
English ; those from tho Hebrew and the New Testament are taken
from tho authorized English Version : that of tlio Septuagint is
from a translation made from it by Mr. Thompson "of America."
But Mr. Thompson has so often deviated from the phraseology of
the Authorized English Version, that his translations are of little or
no use in pointing out to the unlearned reader tlio close verbal coin-
cidence which is often found between tho citations of tho New Tes-
tament, and the passages referred to, whether in tho Hebrew text or
tho Greek of tho Septuagint. It would have been better for Mr.
Home either to have given the extracts without a translation, or to
have translated them all upon ono uniform principle : so as to show
exactly how far the three texts differ, and how far tliey agree. Mr.
Thompson's rendering would lead a mere English reader to suppose
that there is a wide discrepancy between the LXX and tho New
Testament, in many passages where there is a close agreement.
The quotations given in this list amount to 181. Of those 75
agree exactly, or very nearly so, with tho Septuagint : 46 more aro
manifestly taken from the same version, though with some slight
and immaterial change : 32 agree with it in sense but not in words :
10 differ from the Septuagint, but agree with the present Hebrew
text: and 18 differ from both.
This subject is exceedingly interesting, and deserves a more care-
ful investigation than it has yet received from the theologians of our
country : but tho discussion of it is more fit for a separate treatise
than for an elementary work.
Section III. — Citations in the Rabbinical Writings.
The third class of citations which may be employed as autho-
rities for the criticism of tho Hebrew text of the Old Testament, aro
those found in the writings of tho Jews who have commented upon
tlicir sacred scriptures in the original language. The attention
which this remarkable people have, in all ages since the destruc-
tion of their city and temple, paid to the cultivation of their
religious literature, is ono of the most wonderful circumstances in
their unparalleled history. Many of their earlier writers have been
lost : but enough remains to attest the care with whii.h they pre-
158 TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. [bOOK II.
served, and the diligence with which they studied their sacred books,
although we cannot always approve of the methods of interpretation
which they have followed. It is, however, necessary to attend to
the distinction which has been already pointed out, between quota-
tions which were deliberately given, and which were intended to be
exact even to a word, — and those which are only allusions or adap-
tations,— such as might be drawn from memory, and might either
suffer casual alteration, or might be slightly altered on purpose, in
order to fit them more completely for the subject to be illustrated.
Citations of the former kind only are to be considered as critical
authorities. Our enumeration of Jewish works embraces those only
which are most frequently referred to by theologians.*
1. The Mishna, or Text of the Talmud, as has already been
mentioned, was composed or compiled by Rabbi Judah Hakkadosh,
or the Holy, about A.I), 180 or 190. It consists of six books, which
treat, 1st, of Agricultural Affairs, Trees, Fruits, Seeds, «fcc.; 2d, of
Festivals ; 3d, of Marriage and the Female Sex ; 4th, of Commerce,
Exchange, Loss, Restitution, &c.; 5th, of Sacred Things, Obla-
tions, Vows, &;c. : and 6th, of Things Clean and Unclean. As the
Mishna is partly founded on the written law of Moses, and is in all
its parts intended as a supplement to it, the quotations from the
Pentateuch are numerous and careful: they generally agree with
the present Hebrew text.
2. The Gemara of Jerusalem, or Commentary upon the Mishna
by the Rabbis of Palestine, could not have been completed much
sooner than the beginning of the 4th century of our sera, and pro-
bably is more modern by a hundred years. It is comprised in one
volume, folio : and also contains a great number of citations fi'om
the Old Testament.
3. The Babylonian Gemara in the edition of Amsterdam, which
is the best, consists of twelve folio volumes : and is the digest of
traditional law which is most highly esteemed by the modern Jews.
It appears to be more modei-n, as a whole, than the Gemara
of Jerusalem, by about two centuries. The readings both of the
Jerusalem and Babylonish Talmuds were collated and compared
with tho Hebrew Text, for the use of Dr. Kennicott's edition,
with immense labour, by the learned D. Gill : who however has
sometimes reckoned as various readings what are not such in
* A tolerably complete catologue of the Rabbinical writings which have
been published, is given by Genebrard. Sec Reland's Analecta Jiabbiniea,
p. 202—8.
I
CHAP. IV.] RAnniNICAL CITATIONS. 159
reality (see note to p. 50, ante): ho lias enumerated upwards of
a thousand discrepancies, which are exhibited in Kennicott's Bible,
under the number G50 : but very few of these are various readings,
properly so called, and still fewer are of any consequence.
4. The Book Zohar contains an allegorical or mystical commen-
tary upon tlie law of Moses : with many cabbalistic explications
intermixed. The Jews assign to this work an extreme antiquity :
but it is certainly more recent than the Talmud. Although the
interpretations derived from the Cabbala* are in most cases absurd
and ridiculous, they often show very clearly how the text was read :
and therefore may be of use in criticism.
5. The Midrashlm and Rabboth, are paraphrastic commentaries
on the diflferent books of Scripture, which the Jews believe to be
very ancient. They are usually named from the Hebrew titles of
the pai'ts of the sacred volume, which they profess to explain : as the
Breshith Babbah treats of the book of Genesis, and Midrash Tehil-
lim of the book of Psahns : their mode of interpretation is similar
to that of the book Zohar : and their utility no greater. Several of
these commentaries exist only in MS.
G. The Book Cocri contains a dialogue between the king of the
Cossars, or as some think, a Persian King of that name (probably
the Chosroes of the Greeks), and a Jew who wished to convert him
to Judaism. The modern Jews esteem this book to be a true
history ; but its author, R. Judah Hallevi, manifestly intended the
narrative part to be understood as a mere fiction, the vehicle for
convoying his own theological and philosophical sentiments.
7. Babbi Moses ben Maimon, commonly called by Christians
Maimonides, and by the Jews, from the initial letters of his name,
Bambam, was a learned and voluminous writer who lived in Egypt
• The Cabbala, from 7]3p, recepit, is the name given to a fanciful science
by which it was attempted 'to deduce important doctrines, not merely from
the words, but even from the letters, of the sacred volume. Thus some
Jews are of opinion that Adam, David, and the Messiah, are only different
incarnations of the same individual : because the name D*1X, Adam, con-
tains the initials of the whole tliree. We find some vestiges of the Cabbala
in tlie Epistle of Barnabas, and more in the Talmud : but they abound
most in the Midrashim and Rabboth. Most writers include in the' Cabbala,
what the Jewish authors call Gematria : which consists in affixing interpre-
tations to the names and words which occur in scinpture, according to the
numerical value of the letters which they contahi : thus, R. Chanina argued
that Menahem, CDnj/t3i i:e- Comfwter (Lam. i. 2), and Zcmach, nO^>
Branch (Zech. vi. 12), are both to be names of the Messiah, because the
letters of each name, taken as numbers, make up the same sum : (139). —
Echa Rabbeti, fol. 300, (S:c.
160 TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF THE OLD TE8TAMEKT. [bOOK II.
in the 10th century. Some of his works were composed in Arabic,
but translated into Hebrew under his own inspection. His principal
work is called Moreli Nevochim, or the " Teacher of the Perplexed"
containing an explanation of certain passages in the Old Testa-
ment, which the learned Rabbi considered difficult : in addition to
which he wrote the Porta Mosis, and treatises De Jure Pauperis,
De Sacrificiis, De Doctrina Legis, Be Poenitentia, De Juramentis,
&c. : all of which have been published. Maimonides was a verj
careful and able interpreter: although he appears to have been
occasionally biassed by his philosophical predilections : — hence he
explains many of the miracles upon natural principles ; and repre-
sents the appearances of angels, which are recorded in the Old Tes-
tament as having occurred in dreams, visions, &c.
8. The Masorah has been already described (See p. 62, &c).
9. The Happerushim, or Literal Commentators, whose works are
contained in the Rabbinical Bibles of Ben Chajim, Buxtorff, &c. may
be consulted with advantage, both in a critical and exegetical point
of view, though greatly prejudiced against Christianity. They are
M. Solomon Jarchi, hen Isaac, sometimes called B. Solomon Isaac,
or by abbreviation, Bashi: — B. Abraham ben Meir Ahen Ezra: —
B. David Kimchi, or BadaJc: — B. Levi hen Gerson, or Balhag: —
and B. Saadiah Haggaon.. All these writers lived in the 12th
century of our sera ; Rashi was a French Jew : the rest were
Spaniards, who enjoyed the protection of the Moors, then sovereigns
of their native country. These commentators have in general
endeavoured to elucidate the literal or grammatical sense of the
text : and Aben Ezra especially, the most sagacious and unpre-
judiced, perhaps, of all the Rabbins, has exposed the futility of
every other species of interpretation. His own commentaries are
highly esteemed both by Jews and Christians : as are also those of
Kimchi. Ben Gerson endeavours to explain the miracles by the
operation of physical causes.
The Jews have had several other distinguished commentators upon
the scriptures, such as B. Aaron hen Elihu, B. Solomon Ahenme-
lech, and especially Don Isaac Aharhanel: but all these flourished
since the invention of printing.
1
101
CHAPTER V.
CLASSIFICATION OF AUTHORITIES.
No attempt has hitherto been made to divide the different authorities
which are adduced in the criticism of the Old Testament into fami-
lies, classes, or recensions ; and from the statements already given,
it will appear that any such attempt must bo attended with extreme
difficiUty : perhaps we may even say that, in the present state of
criticism, the difficulties which lie in the way to an accurate classifi-
cation, such as would embrace all the documents, and assign to
each its proper place, are insurmountable.
But although exact knowledge has not been reached, something
has been ascertained.
It is certain, for instance, that the Jewish MSS. of the Hebrew
Bible belong only to one class, family, or recension : which is usu-
ally called the Masoretic. There was a standard text approved by
the Masorets, and recommended by their authority : this is a fact
which is historically known. This standard text was almost univer-
sally received by the Jews, as the best, and, indeed, as the only and
infallibly true text, of their sacred books : of this, also, there can be
no doubt from history. This Masoretic text is that which the
copyists, to whose labours we are indebted for all the existing MSS«
of the Hebrew Bible, wished and endeavoured to perpetuate in their
transcripts : as is proved by the honourable place which many of the
scribes have assigned to the Masorah itself, placing it even upon the
margin of their codices, beside the sacred text : — by the care with which
they almost all have endeavoured to comply with the instructions of
the Masorah as to the mode of writing the text, in particular places :
— and by the general agreement of the existing Jewish MSS. in
favour of the readings approved by the Masorah, even when the
ancient versions are unanimous, or nearly so, in supporting a diffe-
rent lection. It may also be considered as negatively established by
the admitted impossibility of classifying these documents into sub-
162 TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. [bOOK II,
genera: even if this were possible, it would not prove that the subor-
dinate tribes are more than members of a superior or more compre-
hensive genus : but when it has been found impracticable, we may with
full certainty conclude, that we have in the existing MSS. only one
family, tribe, or recension. The deviations from the true Masoretic
text are only accidental, or at least unintentional : they are owing to
the mistakes of copyists, to the unavoidable influence of documents,
older than the general reception of the Masorah : and to other causes
which have produced deviations from the standard recension, contrary
to the wish, and notwithstanding the most strenuous efforts, of the
transcribers.
Differing most widely from this Jewish or Masoretic recension of
the text, is that exhibited to us in the Samaritan MSS. of the
Pentateuch, and in the versions derived from the Samaritan text;
to which may be appended as a sub-genus the Old Greek translation
or Septuagint, This last authority is far from carrying its oppo-
sition to the Jewish recension to the same extent as the Samaritan
does ; but it concurs in many of those minor differences which the
latter exhibits. Of course, its testimony on either side is limited to
those variations which are perceptible in a translation ; and it has,
besides, many deviations of its own : but stiU its sympathy with the
Samaritan readings is almost everywhere apparent. These two
classes, therefore — the Masoretic on the one hand, and the Samari-
tano- Alexandrian on the other — are as well defined and as clearly
ascertained as any two families or tribes of authorities which have
been traced in the critical material of any ancient writing : nor can
there be any great difficulty in defining their general characteristics
and prevailing habits. Leaving entirely out of view the passages in
which national or sectarian feelings may have operated on the one
side or the other, and comparing the two recensions together merely
in a literary point of view, it will be found that there are certain
peculiarities in each, which present themselves in strong contrast,
and which may be antithetically expressed as follows : —
1. The Samaritan text usually follows the more copious reading;
the Masoretic the more concise.
2. The Samaritan text in general adheres closely to strict gram-
matical analogy and the ordinary usage of the Hebrew language ;
the Masoretic frequently exhibits grammatical anomalies and idoms
of rare occurrence.
3. The Samaritan reading is usually free from those historical
difficulties (ivc/cvno^uvnai or £vavrio(pdviiai, as they are sometimes
CHAl'. v.] CLASSIFICATION OF AUTHORITIES. I(j3
called), and seeming contradictions, which are found in the Jewish
recension.
I shall adduce some examples of these characteristic tendencies
of the two classes of documents ; but, hero and elsewhere, space only
permits mo to bring forward a few specimens of those classes of
facts, the united force of which can only bo estimated by a detailed
examination and comparison of the two texts at full length. The
examples given, however, will sufficiently show the nature of the
differences observable between the two recensions.
I. The following are among the instances in which the reading of
the Samaritan is more full than that of the Jewish or Masoretic
text. In this list, the reading of the Masoretic copies is put first ;
that of the Samaritan is subjoined, together with a reference to such
of the ancient versions, not derived from the Samaritan, as happen
to agree with it. The very general and remarkable coincidence
between the Samaritan and the Septuagint will thus be rendered
obvious to the eye : —
Gen. ii. 24, Vni *' And they shall he.'" The Samaritan reads
QT'iEJ^/tS rrril "and there shall he of them two.''' The LXX,
Syriac, and Vulgate, apparently read DrfJSJ^ Vni "and they tico
shall 6c."
Gen. XX. 13, '•^J^ n**^ " -^'*om the house of my father." The
Sam. reads ^HhSiD pX^I ^^N P^^^ "From the house of my
father and from the land of my birth."
Gen. XX. 14 j{^\; 'SS'/teep."— Sam. |K^1 t|D3 C]S{^ "« thousand
pieces of silver, and sheep." LXX.
Gen. xxi. 7, p ^HIa "^ ^'"^ brought forth a son." — Sam.
|23 "1 / TTI V " ^ have brought forth to him a son." Syr.
Gen. xxi. 8, ppt^^ n{< " Isaac."— Sam. ^^^ pH^^ HJ^ " ^saac
his son." LXX.
Gen. XXX. 36, 37. Between these two verses the Samaritan in-
serts a tolerably long passage, nearly equal to three verses in length,
and corresponding closely with that found in Gen. xxxi. 11, 12, 13, 14,
though with a few unimportant variations.
Gen. xi. 11, 13, 15, 17, 19, 21, 25. In each of these verses the
Samaritan inserts a clause not found in any of the Jewish copies nor
in any of the versions, of the length of nine or ten words. The
clause thus appended to verse 13 will serve as a specimen of the rest :
" And all the days of Arphaxad ivere four hundred and sixty-seven
years; and he died." The same kind of summary is subjoined to
164 TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. [bOOK II.
the mention of each of the patriarchs named in the other verses of
this chapter ; by which means the form of the narrative is brought
nearer to that observed in the account of the ante-deluvians, in
chapter v.
Gen. xlix. 26, n^l^C r\)yi'2 " The blessings of thj father."— The
Sam. and LXX add "l/tiXl "and of thy mother."
Gen. i. 25, " And ye shall bring up my bones from hence." — The
Samaritan copies, with the LXX, Syr. Vulg. Ar. Saad. and
Targ. of Oukelos, add tDDDJ^ " with you."
Exod. V. 13, D"*^fi< C^Jini "And the taskmasters urged."
— The Sam. adds Qy^ " urged on the people."
Exod. V. 13, pnn nVrQ " WUlst there loas straw." — Sam.
CDi? tni pnn nVni " WUlst there was straxo given unto you."
The LXX, Syr. Vulg. and T. Onkelos, here agree with the
Samaritan.
Exod. vi. 9. At the end of this verse the Sam. adds seventeen
words, which are the same as those found in chap. xiv. 12, " Let
us alone that toe may serve the Egyptians, for it is better for us to
serve the Egyptians than to die in the ivilderness."
Exod. vi. 20. " And she bore unto him Aaron and Moses." The
Samaritan, with the LXX and the Syriac Version, adds, "and
Miriam their sister."
Exod. X. 5. After the words "l^in"?X2 "from the hail," the
Masoretic text reads, Vyn/^'Hi^ /^ii) "and they shall eat up
every tree;" but the Sam. more copiously ^25^^] 73 H^^ 7D^^")
T*y ['•'13 7^ nXl Y^H "And they shall eat up every green herb
of the earth, and all the fruit of the trees."
Exod. X. 12. "All that remains." The Sam. and the LXX
read, "all the fruit of the trees which remains."
Exod. X. 24. " To Moses." The Samaritan, with the Septua-
gint, the Vulgate, and some copies of the Targum of Onkelos, adds,
"and to Aaron."
And, not to insist farther on these minuter deviations, the cata-
logue of which might be extended to a very great length, it may be
here noted, in general terms, that the words of the messages sent
by the Lord to Pharaoh through Moses and Aaron are, in the
Masoretic text, inserted only once ; — sometimes in the account of
the giving of the message to the ambassadors ; in other cases, in the
narrative of their fulfilment of the divine command: but, in the
Samaritan Pentateuch, these messages are all inserted twice, woi'd
CHAP, v.] CLASSIFICATION OF AUTHORITIES. 165
for word; once upon each occasion. These additions are found in
Exod. vii. 18 ; vii. 21) ; viii. 1 ; viii. 19 ; ix. 5 ; ix. 19 ; x, 2 ; and
xi. 2 ; but it would bo useless to insert them here, as they may easily
bo supplied from the context of the common Bibles.
These examples are taken from a few chapters in the first two
books of the Pentateuch, and are, by no means, all the additions
which are found in the chapters referred to ; but enough to serve as
a specimen. They do not include auy of the places in which national
feelings might have prompted an interpolation in the Samaritan
copies, or an omission in the Jewish. It is proper to add, that there
is not in these chapters — and that there is scarcely in the whole
Pentateuch — a single word of any consequence that is found in the
Jewish copies and omitted [in the Samaritan. It must, therefore,
be perfectly obvious, that, on tlie whole, the Samaritan reading of
the Pentateuch is considerably more copious than the2Masoretic
Hebrew recension.
II. We may now advert to a few of the passages in which the
Samaritan reading is more conformable to grammatical rules, and
to the ordinary usage of the Hebrew language. Reference to the
Versions is here impossible : the variations at present under review
not being discernible in a translation.
Gen. iii. 7. The Masoretic text is H^Xn n?'!^, "the leaves of the
fig-tree.'' — But this is expressed more grammatically in the Sama-
ritan copies : — niXH vj?- -A- similar variation occurs in Gen. viii.
11- rT'T TvT^y "the leaves of the olive/' being the reading of the
Jewish, n**! '•7^, that of the Samaritan recension.
Gen. V. 23 (and again in Gen. v. 31), the Masoretic text exhibits
the verb Ti% which is the usual form of the singular, but is here
apphed to a noun plural as its subject. — The Samaritan reads VIT'")
agreeably to the common Hebrew usage : of which we have examples
in this very chapter : see verses 4, 5, 8, 11, 14, 17, 20, 27.
Gen. xviii. 3. — " If noic I have found favour in thy sight, pass not
av:ay, I pray thee, from thy servant." Here the Samaritan uses
throughout the 2d person plural instead of the 2d person singular :
"in your eyes — pass j/e not away — from your servant." Three
persons being in company, it is apparently more agreeable to com-
mon usage to address them in the plural : — but there is no real
impropriety in the received reading : one of the party, who seemed
to be the leader, spoke and was spoken to as the representative of
the whole.
Gen. xviii. 19. " For 1 hiov: him that he v:iU command his
16G TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. [bOOK II.
children,^' &c. lu this sentence the Samaritan omits the affix of
the personal pi'onoun "him:" which is rather unusual, and seems
unnecessary : though it is really quite agreeable to the correct idiom
of the language.
Gen. xxxi. 39. The Jewish text reads niJ^p^n. ^^ the sense
" thou requirest it;'' which it fully admits : but not obviously: for
as above written, without points, it has the appearance of the
2d person plural, fem. of the future, though it is addressed to one
individual, and that a male : and relates to past time. The Sama-
ritan MSS. omit the word altogether. In the same verse the Maso-
rets give TOw ^H^iJl'l DV ^H^lilX ^' that which was stolen hy day,
and that ivhich was stolen hy night:'' but the * at the end of the noun
is rather an unusual paragoge, and at first sight would appear to con-
vert it into a verb of the first person singular. The Samaritans
have left it out entirely : so that in their copies, there is nothing here
which appears extraordinary or ungrammatical.
Gen. XXXV. 26. " These are the sons of Jacob, who tcere horn to
Mm, T!>'i?*' in Padan-Aram." The verb is here in the singular
number : in the Samaritan text it is 1'^7'' in the plural.
Gen. xxxvii. 17. " For I heard [them] say, Let us go," &c. The
Masorets read C*l)^Ji Tiy^^ ""D ' but this, according to common
usage, would signify, " I heard persons saying," which is not the
meaning of the verse. The Samaritan supplies the pronoun,
CnyXiSJ^ ""D. which obviates the irregularity : — "for I heard them
say."
Gen. xli. 43. "Andu^ caused him to ride and they onade
proclamation," &c. The Samaritans have both verbs in the singular :
which preserves the consistency of the structure. In the same verse
there is an anomaly in the Hebrew text in the use of ^Hi in the
sense, " he set or appointed:" the Samaritans read ?ni in the usual
form.
Gen. xli. 53. "And the seven years of plenteousness H^Pl "l^K.
ivhich was in the land of Egypt, were ended." This is good sense
and grammar ; understanding the noun y^^, plenteousness, as the
antecedent to the relative : but the construction would be less un-
usual, if the noun years were so considered : which would require
the verb following in the plural : — and accordingly the Samaritan
text has in this place Vn ^tiJ^K-
Many examples of this kind have been passed over in selecting the
foregoing, and many others of the same kind occur in the remaining
books of the Pentateuch : two more shall now be subjoined, which
CHAP, v.] CLASSIFICATION OF AUTIIOniTIES. 107
are of such frequent occurrence, that it would be needless to append
references to particular passages.
One of these is afforded bj the pronoun X*irt- In the modern
usage of the Hebrew, as found in the more recent books of tho
sacred canon, and in tho general idiom of tho Pentateuch itself, XIH
is the personal pronoun, of the 3d person singular, masc. and f^Tl
that of the 3d sing. fern. : — but frequent instances occur in tho books
of Moses, in which the former word is used with reference to a
femine antecedent — which is commonly looked upon as a gramma-
tical anomaly. But in every instance of this kind which is found in
the Pentateuch, the Samaritan copy, instead of XIH reads ^«>^'•^,
conformably to common usage.
The other instance relates to the noun 'y^^, which, in every part
of the Masoretic recension of the Pentateuch (except Dent. xxii. 10),
is used indifferently as a noun of tho common gender : — signifying
either a young man or tvoman, as the context and construction may
indicate. But in tho great majority — if not the whole — of tho
instances in which this word is used as a noun feminine, the Sama-
ritan text exhibits H^iyX i" the usual form of that gender.
These passages afford specimens of the distinguishing and charac-
teristic tendencies of the Masoretic and Samaritan recensions, in
respect to grammatical and ungraramatical readings, usual and
unusual idioms. It is indeed true that in all the instances hero
referred to, and probably in the greater part of all those cases in
which the Samaritan text adheres to the analogy of construction,
and to the customary usage of the Hebrew language, one or two, and
often several, of tho MSS. which generally follow the Masoretic
standard, desert to the opposite side, and concur with the Samaritan
reading. This is only what might have been expected from the
willingness of all transcribers — Jewish and Samaritan alike — to
remove what might appear to be mistakes in the exemplar from
which they copied. But notwithstanding these accidental deviations
of a few Masoretic copies, the fact is evident, that the Jewish recen-
sion retains a great number of anomalous and unusual I'eadings,
which the Samaritan has rejected: — while on the other hand, the
instances are few — if indeed there be any well authenticated instance
at all — in whicli the Samaritan retains an anomalous expression
which the Masoretic copies reject. So that this second point of
contrast between the two documents is clearly established.
III. The third point of critical contrast remains to be briefly
illustrated. It is founded on the tendency of tho Samaiitan recea-
168 TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. [bOOK II.
sion, to reject or modify such readings as appeared to involve state-
ments inconsistent with history, chronology, or the facts asserted in
other parts of the books of Moses ; — whatever, in short, presented
any historical difficulty to the mind of the reader. The examples
following have often been adduced as manifesting this disposition.
Gen. ii. 2. This is commonly read and translated, " And on the
seventh day God completed his work." This is manifestly inconsis-
tent with the statement in the previous chapter, and the following
verse of this one : but the contradiction is only apparent : for tho
verb 7^''1 ought to be rendered in the pluperfect tense : — God had
COMPLETED Ms worJc." But this force of the verb is not usual, and
did not occur to the Samaritan critics : who have sought to remedy
the supposed evil by reading, instead of '•y^tJ^n " t^^^ seventh,"
"•tJ^^n "*^^ sixth.^' The translators of the Septuagint and Syriac
Versions have followed the same reading.
Gen. V. This chapter contains the summary of the ages and
generations of the antediluvians from Adam to Noah : in which
Jared is represented as having been 162 years old, Methuselah 187,
and Lamech 182, when their respective eldest sons were born: — this
seems to have staggered the faith of the Samaritans : — and their
incredulity was probably the cause that in the Samaritan text, we
find 100 years taken from the age of Jared at the time of the birth
of his son Enoch, 120 from that of Methuselah at the time of the
birth of Lamech, and 130 from that of Lamech at the birth of
Noah. By this means the interval which elapsed between the
creation of Adam and the deluge is reduced from 1656 to 1307
years. The Samaritan text has moreover shortened the lives of the
first two of the abovementioned patriarchs after the birth of their
eldest sons: — so that the entire life of Jared is made 847 years
instead of 962 : and that of Methuselah 720 instead of 969. To the
same portion of the life of Lamech, on the contrary, five years have
been added : making the entire of his existence on this globe 653
years. These changes have been introduced so unskilfully, that,
according to this chronology, Lamech must have died in the very
year of the flood ; — which suggests the unhappy idea that the Patri-
arch Noah, " who was a just man and perfect in his generations,"
permitted his father to perish in the deluge. It is well known that
the Septuagint in this chapter acts on the very opposite principle.
It adds a century to the portion of each life before the birth of the
eldest son, whensoever the Masoretic text represents that event as
having happened before the age of 160 years ; it also adds six years
i
CHAr. v.] CLASSlFir.VTIOX OF .U'TIIOHITIl^S. 1 (j'J
to this part of Lamech's life, but takes off 20 from tliat of Mclliusc-
lali : by which moans tho deluge is placed in Anno Mundi, 2202.
It can liardly bo doubted that tlie persons who prepared both tho.«(5
documents were influenced l)y considerations of historical probabihtv.
The Samaritans regarded the late period in each biography assigned
for tho birth of tho eldest son, as physically incredible : the trans-
lators of tho Septuagint, accustomed to tho lengthened reras of tho
Egyptian clu'ouology, looked upon the sciiptural account of tho ago
of the world as not allowing sufficient space for the dissemination of
mankind, and for tho rise and consolidation of so many civilized
nations and ancient monarchies. Both sorts of critics stopped short
of tho point to which they ought to have proceeded, in fulfilment of
their own intentions. The Samaritan scribes removed one difficulty,
but they left a mn(;h greater one remaining, that of the lengthened
lives of the antediluvians and their immediate successors. The
Alexandrians seem to have forgotten that after tlie delugo the work
of populating and civilizing the world was to be commenced anew:
so that, by adding GOG years to the antediluvian period, their histo-
rical space remained as narrow as ever. There can be little (luestion
that hero the Masoretic text preserves the genuine reading of the
Pentateuch.
Exod. xii. 40. " Xoiv the sojourning of the children of Israel
who sojourned* in Egypt, teas four hundred and thirty years :
41, And it came to pass at the end of the four hundred and thirty
years, even the self-same day it came to pass, that all the hosts of the
Lord ivent out from the land of Egypt.'' A great difficulty has
always been felt in reconciling this statement with what is related in
Exod. Ti. IG — 20, according to which, it appears that Moses, one of
those who left Egypt at the time of tho Exodus, was the son of
Amram, who was the eldest son of Kohath, the second son of the
Patriarch Levi ; and it is as distinctly stated as anything can be, in
Gen. xlvi. 8, 11, 2G, that Kohath was born before Jacob and his
family removed from Canaan to Egypt, upon tho invitation of
Joseph. Various methods of interpretation by which this discre-
pancy may be reconciled, have been proposed by Jewish and Christian
scholars, which this is not the proper place for considering. Tlio
Samaritan transcribers appear to have been little satisfied with any
explanation which occurred to them of the words as they now stand ;
' " W/to sojourned.'' These words might also be translated, " tv/iich tlify
.«o;')MrH^<y," and in this sense they were certainly understood by the LXX,
and probably by the Suinaritans also.
V
170 TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. [bOOK II.
and, therefore, they had recourse to an alteration of the text, which
perhaps was originally a gloss or scholium written on the margin of
some MSS. or of some individual copy that was held in high esti-
mation among them. Their text reads as follows : — " Now the
sojourning of the children of Israel and of their fathers, who
sojourned in the land of Canaan and in the land of Egypt, was
four hundred and thirty years" The Alexandrian MS. of the
Septuagint adopts the same solution, though the translator evidently
had a different text before him ; for he renders the passage thus : —
" Now the sojourning of the children of Israel which they sojourned
in THE land of Egypt and in the land of Canaan, they and
THEIR fathers, icas four hundred and thirty years." This solution
gets rid of the difficulty; but it has been so manifestly adopted
into the text for the purpose of obviating the objection, that, as a
reading, it carries no authority.
It will not be supposed that all the various readings which can be
found on comparison of the Jewish and Samaritan texts of the Pen-
tateuch, can be reduced to one or other of these three classes. There
are many others which do not come under these heads ; but they
belong to classes which are found equally in both recensions —
sometimes in one, sometimes in the other — and, therefore, afford
no characteristic distinction of either. They are, in fact, the com-
mon mistakes of copyists, which are certainly much more numerous
in the Samaritan text than in the Jewish.
As the MSS. of the Pentateuch, which we owe to the industry of
the Jewish transcribers, present a great many variations one from
another, it might, at first sight, seem likely that they might be
divided into families or recensions, exhibiting points of agreement
by which they might be grouped and permanently distinguished.
It was a favourite object with me to discover some traces which
might lead to such a classification; but I have entirely failed in that
pursuit, and 1 am not aware that any other person has been more
successful. That the case is not essentially different with respect to
the ancient versions and the other sources of critical aid, is partly
manifest from what has been advanced in the preceding chapters of
this book, and will farther appear on a special examination of parti-
cular texts or sections.
CHAP. VI. 1 COMPARATIVE VALUE OK TESTIMONIES. 171
CHAPTER VI.
COMPARATIVE VALUE OF TESTIMONIES.
From tlic facts which have been stated and the principles which have
bcon investigated, we are now prepared to deduce some conclusions
respecting tho comparative value of the testimonies which are
available for the emendation or confirmation of tho text of tho Old
Testament.
1. It will probably appear to every reader as a point sufficiently
established to need no farther illustration, that of all the authorities
to which we can appeal as external evidence for or against any
various reading, the Masoretic Recension of the Text is tho most
faithful, the most trust-worthy, and the most important. Tho very
great care of the Jewish scribes in the transcription of the synagogue
copies and of those private MSS. which were intended for the use
of distinguished Rabbis and Scholars of their own nation, has been
attested by every person who has examined the subject, and is mani-
fested by the collations which have been published, although the
collators certainly had no design to exalt the character of the Jewish
copyists, nor any very strong expectation that their researches would,
on the whole, produce that effect. Hence, when the Master-docu-
ments of this recension agree together, as they generally do with a
remarkable harmony, we are bound to take their united testimony
as indicating to us with certainty the readings of which the early
critics, whom we denominate the Masorets, approved, and wliich
they adopted as genuine. These Master-documents are (I.) the
Masorah itself ; (2.) the Roll Manuscripts or Synagogue copies of
the Pentateuch, of tho Megilloth, and of the Ilaphtaroth, or
Sabbath sections of tho Prophets ; (3.) the square MSS. which were
prepared for the use of eminent men — written with particular ele-
gance and care — furnished with the Masorah — and, in all tho
external points, such as largo and small letters, suspended, pointed,
or otherwise peculiarly distinguished characters, — exactly conformed
to its requirements ; (4.) the citations found in the writings of tho
172 TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. [bOOK II.
eminent writers and commentators who used this edition of the text,
among whom R. David Kimchi, R. Abraham ben Meir, and R,
Saadiah Haggaon, hold the principal rank from their accurate
adherence to the Masoretic text ; and (5.) the printed editions,
which have been conformed, as closely as circumstances could admit,
to the same standard recension. These editions have been already
specified in a former part of this work. That of R. Jacob ben
Chajim, and that of Athias (1GG7), are preferred by the Jews.
Christian sciiolars, in genei'al, refer to tbat of Van-der-Hooght
(1705): but the differences between them are very immaterial.
When these four classes of authorities agree, there can be little
doubt that we possess, in their united testimony, the genuine
Masoretic text. And, as the fidehty of the Masorets themselves in
handing down that reading which, according to the evidence before
them, they believed to be genuine, is far above suspicion — as their
critical material was probably tolerably ample — and they were,
without doubt, fully as competent as any other persons in their day
to decide the critical questions which arose out of a comparison of
the readings found in their documents, it follows, that their judg-
ment carries with it very great weight. This conviction is much
strengthened when the Masoretic text, as a whole, is placed in com-
parison with that of any other ancient authority : nothing can be
more manifest than the superior scrupulousness and accuracy of the
Masorets, when their pei'formance is brought into comparison with
the general state of the text found in any other document, even the
best and most carefully executed. Perhaps it will only appear
reasonable for the present to except from this observation passages
in which the Masorets may have been misled, like other critics, by
their peculiar rehgious opinions and national prepossessions, reserving
such passages for future consideration, and neither condemning nor
approving, at this stage of our inquiry, what the Masorets have done
with respect to them. With this reservation, ad interim, we may
pronounce the Masoretic Text of the Old Testament, on the whole,
the best that we can anywhere discover; and even should be justified
in laying it down as a rule to depart from this text as seldom as
possible : only in cases wl\en the readings approved by the Masoi-ets
either give no sense at all or a sense which contradicts the writer's
manifest design, or when the consistency of the narrative and the
form of the work evidently require something different from that
which we find in the Masoretic text ; or, lastly, when there is such
a union and agioomcnt of other authoritios in favour of a reading
CHAP. VI.] COMI'AIIATIVE VALUE OF TESTIMONIES. 173
that is iutornally good, as bear down tho testimony of tlio Masorets,
all weighty and important as it is.
2. It must bo admitted, however, that there aro cases in which
critical principles justify, and even requii'o, a departure from the Maso-
retic Text: — and lienco it is in these cases needful to compare together
tho testimonies afforded by tho Vai'ious Headings of particular M8S.
whicli, though copied by scribes who wished in all things to conform
to tho rules of the Masorah, have yet, in some instances, presei'ved
readings that are inconsistent with its injunctions : by tho Ancient
Versions : and by the citations found in those authors who wrote
before tho aira of tho Masorets : not overlooking the evidence
afforded by the Samaritan Text and Versions of the Pentateuch,
thougli in themselves entitled but to little weight. And as these
authorities are far from agreeing among themselves, it is necessary
to consider their respective degrees of importance.
3. In point of antic^uity, which is one of the great elements of tho
value of a witness, none that has come down to us can compare with
the citations found in the Old Testament itself: and as these cita-
tions are found in a state, for the most part much purer than is the
present condition of any other document or class of documents, it
follows that these citations, or parallel passages, are of great weight
in the criticism of those places on which they can throw any light.
To them, therefore, so far as their testimony extends, we must
assign the very highest rank.
4. Next, in point of age, is the Septuagint ; but its value is much
diminished by the circumstances adverted to in treating of that
\^ersion. It has como down to us in a very corrupt state, so that
its genuine original text is not always easily ascertained. It was not
all executed at first with equal skill and care : and even where the
translation is least objectionable, the tendency to full readings, and
critical emendations of the text, is too manifest to make its authority
very important in any instance where it might have been under the
influence of such preferences. The translation seems to be best
executed in the Pentateuch and Proverbs : and the great literalness
of the translation of Ecclesiastes rendei's the 8eptuagint \'ersiou of
that book a very valuable critical document. In most of tho other
books of Scripture the Scptuagint is of little importance : in some of
tliem it can scarcely bo said to possess any importance at all.
5. The Version of Aquila, from its scrupulous fidelity to the
letter of tho text, and also its antiquity Slaving been made early in
the 2d century of our tera, is a most useful aid for the investigation
174 TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. [bOOK II,
of the text, whenever we are enabled to discover the readings which
it exhibited. Many of these have been traced out by Montfaucon
and others : and are among our most valuable material.
6. The Syriac Version, or Peshito, the Targum of Onkelos, the
other Greek Translations of the Hexapla, and the Latin Version of
Jerome, from which the present Vulgate is chiefly derived, as they
are not very far apart from each otlier in point of date, so they do
not differ much in value and in authority. The general fidelity of
the Syriac Version would perhaps justify us in assigning to it the
first place in this catalogue. Onkelos is also a weighty authority,
and follows in general a good text : — but an exception must always
be made with respect to the Divine Appearances, &c. which he
seems anxious to explain rather than to interpret. The value of the
Latin Vulgate is now almost universally admitted. From the use
which was made of Jewish sources in the preparation of these Ver-
sions, and that of Symmachus, their text in most places preserves
a considerable harmony : though in several places no such agreement
can be traced. The remaining Targums are usually reckoned as of
less authority, from the paraphrastic manner in which they have
been translated, and the carelessness with which they have been
transcribed. The caution abeady given cannot be repeated too
often, — that we are not to imagine a various reading in every case
in which the ancient versions appear to recede from our present
Masoretic text: in many cases, the difiference can be explained by
the different modes of pronouncing, or as we at present would term
it, pointing the same letters : from the various methods of dividing
the words ; or the different meanings, which in some cases may be '
affixed to particular words, even when the division and the voca-
lization are the same. All these circumstances should be considered
before it can be decidedly assumed that the Versions exhibit a Various
Reading of the text, properly so called, and not a special interpre-
tation. And when it clearly appears that the reading is really dis-
tinct, still it must be remembered that, except under the pressure
of weighty reasons, it is safest and best to remain satisfied with the
Masoretic text, whose general fidelity is unquestionable.
CnAP. VII.] CRITICAL EXAMINATION OF PAUTICULAR TEXTS. 175
CHAPTER VII.
CRITICAL EXAMINATION OF PARTICULAR TEXTS.
Before dismissing the criticism of the Old Testament, it will bo
useful to the young student to advert to a few passages in whicli
various readings ai'e found, stating the testimonies appealed to, and
subjoining such observations as may assist him in forming a judgment
of their critical value. It must not bo supposed that a selection of
this kind will bring forward every important passage, respecting the
reading of which some diiferences exist : nor that any investigation
of those that are to be discussed will bo ample enough to settle each
point beyond dispute. Accuracy of knowledge, and full certainty in
deciding, can only come from patient investigation, and long-con-
tinued experience in the work of criticism, exercised not in the
examination of a few detached passages, but entire books and docu-
ments. Those which are given here are only introductory to a more
minute and extended private study of the subject : in this point of
view they may have some use : beyond this it would be unreasonable
to claim for them any value.
Section I. — Gen. i. 1. — ii. 3.
The Narrative of the Six Days' Work of Creation, which is placed
at the beginning of Genesis, has evidently been preserved with re-
markable uniformity of text since the Pentateuch was composed:
yet there are one or two variations which are deservuig of notice.
In order to estimate correctly the force of the testimony on each
side, it is needful to bear in mind that this whole narrative is con-
structed upon a systematic plan, to which it generally adheres with
great precision. The author has, with one or two exceptions — if
they be really exceptions, and not erroneous readings — adhered to
the following order, in the history of each transaction: — 1. God
issues his command, "And God said,'" &lc. 2. — The command is
fulfilled; ''And it was so.'' 3. — The work performed is recapitu-
lated in detail. 4. — God names his work ; or rather the naming of
the work is here recorded in those instances in which God is roprc-
176 TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. [bOOK If.
sented as himself giving names to his creatures : but this clause
does not occur in every passage. 5. — The Maker surveys his work,
and pronounces judgment upon it: "And God saiv that it was
good/' — Such is the generally pursued arrangement ; but there are
cases in which the majority of authorities deviate from this plan,
while only a few documents, and these not always of the highest
credit, adhere to that method which we should a priori have ex-
pected. In these cases, the question for consideration is, — Whether
is it more likely that the writer of this narrative uniformly adhered
to his own habitual and deliberately adopted plan, and that the
deviations from it, which are now found in the majority of copies, are
the result of accident ; or, that he occasionally departed from that
methodical system which on most occasions he preferred, and that
the documents in which we find the general system universally fol-
lowed out, have been brought into their present form by the efforts
of critics and transcribers endeavouring to restore a uniformity
which they supposed to have been lost, but which in reality never
existed. The former alternative appears the more probable : — not
only because it is unlikely that a careful and systematic writer
would unnecessarily depart from his own chosen manner of narra-
ting (see chapter on Internal Evidence, Book i. ch. v. p. 39), but
also because the greater number of cases are such as would not ob-
viously suggest any emendation, and probably have been read over
hundreds of times, both by learned men and ordinary readers, with-
out exciting any suspicion of corruption, or any thought of the
necessity of change.
On this principle, the clause, " And it ivas so," should be trans-
ferred, as it is by the Septuagint, though in opposition to all other
authorities, from the end of verse 7 to the end of verse G : — seeing
that the execution of the Divine Decree is no other instance placed
after the recapitulation of the work, but immediately subjoined to
the decree itself, to indicate the facility and certainty with which
Omnipotence effects its objects.
For the same reason, and on the same authority, we should read
the beginning of the 8th verse as follows: "And God called the fir-
mament heaven: and god saw that it was good." — The latter
clause of the sentence is omitted by all MSS. and Versions, except
the LXX : but it pi'obably belongs to the genuine text : for it is not
likely that the writer would declare the divine approbation of all the
other departments of nature, and omit it in the case of the heavens,
the most striking and wonderful of them all.
I
CHAP, vn.] cniTiCAL examination of pauticular texts. 177
In tho 9th verso, tho Septuagint add.s tho following clause: —
" And the water under the heaven was gathered together into its place,
and the dry land appeared.'^ This or some similar clause probably
existed in tho text as originally written : the prevailing structure of
this narrative renders this highly probable: (see ver. 7, 12, IG, 21.
2."), 27.) ft must be admitted that in all these in.stances, the external
authority for tho alterations suggested in the common reading, is
extremely slight; — the Heptuagint, though the most ancient docu-
ment in our possession, not having come down to us in perfect
preservation, and its text having frequently been made to conform
to a presumed necessity for strict consistency, in facts and words, of
which tho sacred writers appear to have been but little studious.
When we come to ver. 14, 1.5, there is a considerable diversity of
reading. The common text, supported by almost all the MSS. and
versions, reads, — " And God said let there he lights in the firmament
of heaven, to divide the day from the night : and let them be for signs
and for seasons, and for days and for years: — and let them be for
lights in the firmament qf heaven to give light over the earth. And it
was so." — But this can hardly be tlie true reading, at least we do
not find in any other part of the narrative an example of a construc-
tion similar to what we here observe: " Let there be lights in the
firmament of heaven and let them bo for hghts in the firmament
of heaven." Yet our critical material docs not enable us to remedy
the corruption if such there be. The Samaritan Pentateuch, tho
Septuagint, and 1 MS. of those collated by Dr. Kennicott, read in
tlie 14:th verse, '* And God said, let there be lights in the firmament of
heaven to give light upon the earth,* to divide the day from the
night: and let them he for signs and for seasons and for days and for
years." — But these documents repeat the same words in ver. 15
along with the common text, and thus leave tho apparent error still
remaining. — There is considerable weight in Dr. Boothroyd's con-
jecture, that the Samaritan and Septuagint text in the 14th verse was
tho original reading: and that the 15th verse is an interpolation
arising from the mistake of a copyist who, having omitted a part
of ver. 14 in its proper place, placed it in the margin; whence it
was injudiciously taken in at the end of the verse, instead of tho
beginning. *
* The Alexandrian MS. of tho Septuagint here inserts "and to rule over
the day and over the nniht:'' but these words are evidently borrowed for the
sake of uniformity from ver. 18. — The existence of such alterations, detracts
greatly from the authority of tliose copies in which they are found.
178 TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. [bOOK II.
In ver. 20, the LXX add, " And it was so:'' — ^which is probably
genuine.
Verse 26. "And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea,
and over all the earth.''' — The design of the writer seems to
require that we should read with the Syriac version, " and over
every beast of the earth."
Verse 28. " And God blessed them: and God said unto them
have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the heaven,
and over every living thing tluxt moveth upon the earth." — Here the
Septuagint and the Syriac agree in reading thus: "And have
dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the heaven, and
over all the cattle and over all \the beasts of, Syr.) the earth, and
OVER ALL THE CREEPING THINGS that creep upon the earth." — But it
is very probable that the words added are taken into this verse from
ver. 26.
Chap. ii. ver. 2. "And on the seventh day God ended his work
which he had made." — Here the Samaritan copies, the Septuagint,
and the Syriac read " sixth " instead of seventh: but this is only a
critical alteration made to preserve the consistency of the history ;
and it is unnecessary ; for the text may well be translated, " And on
the seventh day God had ended," &c.
Several minor readings have been passed over without notice;
those above alluded to are the principal variations that are to be
found, and in the remarks made upon them, no superstitious ad-
herence to the received text has been manifested ; yet it must occur
to every reader, that for all the purposes contemplated by the author
of the narrative, we have his writing in the Masoretic text and the
common English version in a sufficiently pure state. The changes
suggested are mere literary improvements: some readers may regard
them as no improvements at all.
Section II. — Gen. ii. 24.
The Masoretic text gives in the last clause of this verse, "And
they shall be onefiesh." But the Samaritan text and version insert
the word "two" — "And of them two there shall be onefiesh:"
and with this reading agree in substance the Septuagint (followed
by the writers of the New Testament, see Matt. xix. 5 ; Mark x. 8 ;
1 Cor. vi. 16 ; Eph. v. 31), the Syriac, the Vulgate, and the Targum
of (the pretended) Jonathan. All these documents read, " And
they TWO shall be one fiesh." All the Jewish MSS. of the Bible,
and all the known copies of the Targum of Onkelos, omit the word
CHAP. VII.] CRITICAL EXAMINATION OF PARTICULAR TEXTS. 179
two; but tho latter document may have been altered by transcribers
to make it correspond with tho Masorctic Hebrew text: and there
is such a concurrence of ancient, respectable, and independent
authorities in favour of the insertion, that the propriety of taking
it into tho text can scarcely bo questioned. Kennicott and others
have put this text very prominently forward, as affording one of the
strongest proofs of the necessity of departing occasionally from tho
received text of the Old Testament in compliance with critical
authorities. It certainly affords a clear instance of a contradiction
between that text and the most ancient documents ; it is but fair to
add, that the variation is unimportant as regards the sense of the
passage, and that the omission of the word " tico " in the Jewish
copies, must have beeu purely accidental.
Section III. — Gen. iii, 9.
"And the Lord God called unto Adam and said unto him. Where?"
[i.e. Whore art thou?] Here the Syriac version and the Septuagint
read, ''Where art thou, Adamf The received text, however, is
preferable, not only because it is supported by the more numerous
authorities, but because it is the shorter reading, and because the
introduction of the words found in these two versions, was probably
occasioned by a desire to make the narrative more clear and empha-
tical. In this case the testimony of the Samaritan Pentateuch and
its version against tho disputed words, is weighty; because here
they oppose their usual preference for the fuller reading which is
also cxegetically more distinct.
Section IV. — Gen. iv. 8.
Tho common text reads, ^H^l VPtJ^ h^'H S^< Tp ^^^1
rnb'n DnVni; which is translated in the authorized English
version: "And Cain talked with Abel his brother; and it came to jxtss
while they were in the field," &c. But this rendering is not literally
exact; it ought to be " And Cain said unto Abel his brother: and it
came to pass," &,c. Here we at once perceive that something has fallen
out of tho text which is necessary to complete the sense, and could not
have been designedly left out by the original author of the book : and
the deficiency is actually supplied in the Samaritan Pentateuch, the
Samaritan version, the Septuagint, the Syriac version, the Talmud,
the Targum of the Pseudo-Jonathan, and the Jerusalem Targum : all
of which read, " And Gain said unto Abel his brother, Let us go
INTO THE field : and it came to pass," &c. The Vulgate has to the
180 TEXTUAL ClUTICISM OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. [uOOK 11.
same effect, Dixitque Cain ad Ahelfratrem suum, Egrediamur foras :
but this reading is certainly derived from the old Latin translation
of the Septuagint, not from Jerome's version; for he expressly
condemns and rejects it. All the Jewish MSS. reject the words
here printed in capital letters, as do the Targum of Oukelos, the
Greek versions of Sjmmachus and Theodotion, and both the Arabic
versions. But it is to be observed, that there must have been, from
an early period, Hebrew MSS. in which a space was here left vacant
to indicate that the reading of the text was defective ; for there is ^ a
marginal note appended to this verse by the Masorets, {<pDl5 5^7^.—
*' without a vacant space,'' — clearly intimating that they knew of the
existence of copies written ivith a vacant space.* The great majority
of the copies agree, as is to be expected, with the decision of the
Masorah; but a few — twenty-seven in all — leave a space vacant,
being probably derived, directly or remotely from those referred to
in the Masoretic note. De Rossi enumerates sixteen printed
editions, including that of Van-der-Hooght f in which such a space
is left. There can hardly be a doubt that the more copious reading
is here the genuine one. Even'uesenius, who so strenuously con-
tends against the integrity of the Samaritan Pentateuch, allows that
in this instance its text is right, and that of the Masoretic copies
defective.
Section V.— Gen. v. 1—32.
The fifth chapter of Genesis contains a genealogical table of the
antedeluvian patriarchs, entitled, in the original, Sepher Toldoth
Adam, " The Boole of the Generations of Adam,'' as it is rendered
in our English Version ; and it has aheady been intimated (p. 168),
that in this document very material discrepancies occur between the
Masoretic text, and the readings of the Samaritans and of the
Septuagint. It would be tedious to transcribe all these variations
at full length, as they consist only in the numerals denoting each
person's age at and after the birth of his son and successor, and the
total length of his life. It will be sufficient if we take a specimen
from the 28th, 30th, and 31st verses, according to the three forms
// . of the text ; and subjoin a table, showing their differences from each
other, throughout the chapter : —
0*41*-<^ * Kennicott in his Dissertation on the State of the Printed Hebrew Text,
^^^c-C-- P- ^^^y appears to imply that the Masorah here remarks ^^f^K^ i^pD£)
*5^plD3> i.e. "A space in the middle of this verse:" but Kennicott' cer-
. ft *v*^ /,,'tainly did not intend to convey this meaning, for he weU knew the contrary
I t lo Van~der-Hooght's Bible however the space left is a very small one,
, Zt If allbrding room only for two, or at the most, three letters.
-f j'^Ji' ■>•'"( f-^ru^ Ji.\^ t.t ^n^^'Z' '
L-ir^
4^*^y^^
ClUr. Vll.] CRITICAL EXAMINATION OF J'AUTICULAK TEXTS. 181
(jIex. V. 28 — 31. — Masoketic Text.
**And Lamech lived an hundred and elghty-txco years, and legal a
son And Lamech lived after he begat Noah, Jive hundred and
ninety-jive years, and begat sons and daughters. And all the days of
Lamech tcerc seven hundred and seventy-seven years, and he died"
Reading of the Samaritan.
"And Lamech lived fifty -two years, and begat a son And
Lamech lived after he begat Noah six hundred years, and begat sons
and daughters. And all the days of Lamech were six hundred and
fifty -three years, and he died.^'
Reading of the Septuagint.
*'And Lamech lived an hundred and eighty-eight years, and begat
a son And Lamech lived after he begat Noah five hundred and
sixty-five years, and begat sons and daughters. And all the days of
Lamech loere seven hundred and fifty three years, and he died."
The reasons for preferring the Masoretic reading, which is that
given in the Authorized English Version, have been stated above.
There seems little doubt that it exhibits the genuine text : that is,
the form in which the passage was left bj the original writer of the
document : and that the readings of the Samaritan copies and of the
Septuagint are only attempts to bring the statements of the Penta-
teuch into conformity with what were regarded as ascertained facts
in natural history and in chronology, with which the narrative
seemed to be at variance.
1
1
Xanios of the
Age
at the Birth
Years after the
Total length of 1
I'atriarcli.s.
of Successor.
Birth of Successor.
each Life.
Maso-
Sama- 1 Septu-
Maso-
Sama-
LXX.
Maso-
Sama-
.XX. 1
rets.
ritaii.
agint.
rets.
ritan.
rets.
ritan.
Adam
130
130
230
800
800
700
930
930
930
Seth
105
105
205
807
807
707
912
912
912
Ihio.sh
90
90
190
815
815
715
905
905
905 •]
Cainan
70
70
170
840
840
740
910
910
910
Mahalaled
G5
65
165
830
830
730
895
895
895
Jarecl
1(;2
62
162
800
785
800
962
847
962
Enoch
65
65
165
300
300
200
365
365
365
Metliuselali
187
67
187*
782
653
782t
969
720
969
Lamech
182
53
188
695
600
565
777
653
753
Noah (till deluge)
GOO
600
600
Years fioin Adam
till Deluge.
1056
1307
2262
• So read ui Cod. Alex. — Vat. h.-is 167.
t So read iu Cod. Alex — Vat. has 802.
182 TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. [bOOK II.
If the readings of the Vatican MS. of the Septuagint be adopted,
as showing the original text of that version more accurately than the
Alexandrian, the interval between the creation of Adam and the
deluge will be shortened by twenty years: it will still, however,
amount to 2242 years ; which is more, by 58G years, than the space
allowed by the chronology of the Hebrew Text. Many writers
make the time allowed in the Septuagint to be 2272 years : they
seem to have all copied from some previous author, in whose calcu-
lation 2272 had been printed by mistake for 2242, the amount of
the years given in the Vatican Copy, and from it in the Roman
Edition.
Section VI. — Exod. xi. 1 — 10.
The difference between the Jewish and the Samaritan readings of
the parts of Exodus, in which the divine vengeance is threatened
against Egypt and her ruler, has often been remarked ; the de-
nunciations being always recorded twice in the Samaritan Penta-
teuch ; — once when Moses is commissioned to convey them to
Pharaoh, and once when his fulfilment of his task is related ; but in
the Jewish copies, each transaction is set forth once only. As this
subject has already been discussed in that part of the present volume
which treats of the Samaritan Pentateuch, it will be sufficient here
to insert, as a specimen, the eleventh chapter of Exodus, in which
the parts printed in Italics are found in the Jewish MSS. and in
the ancient versions ; those in Roman type are found in the Sama-
ritan only. The translation here followed is that given by Dr.
Kennicott : —
1 A7id Jehovah said unto Moses, " Yet loill I bring one plague
more upon Pharaoh and upon Egypt, and afterward he will send
you out hence: when he shall send you away, he will drive you out
hence altogether.
2 " Speak noio in the ears of the people, and let every man ash of
his neighbour and every woman of her neighbour, vessels of silver
3 and vessels of gold : and raiment. And {'l"yfin%f,TtM^ people
favour in the sight of the Egyptians, so that they shall give them
what they ask.
a *' For about midnight I will go forth into the midst of the land of
[3 Egypt. And every first-born in the land of Egypt shall die ; from
the first-born of Pharaoh who sitteth on the throne, unto the first-
born of the maid-servant that is behind the mill, and even unto the
7 first-born of every beast. And there shall be a great cry throughout
ciur, VII.] cruTicAL examination of particlt.aii texts. 18.'J
tho land of Egypt, such that there hath boon none like it, nor shall
bo like it any more.
" But against any of the children of Israel shall not a dog move 6
his tongue, against man nor oven against boast ; that thou mayest
know that Jehovah doth put a difference between the Egyptians and
Israel. ^''T^uTho^ar'shau'L""'} greathj honoured in the land of
Eqypt, in the sif/ht of Pharaoh's servants and in the sight of the^<
■people.^'
Then Moses said unto Pharaoh, " Thus saith Jehovah : — Israel s
is my son, my first-born ; and I said unto thee ; Let my son go that
ho may serve me : but thou hast- refused to let him go : behold,
therefore, Jehovah slayeth thy son, thy first-born."
And Moses said, " Thus saith Jehovah : About midnight I will 4
go forth into the midst of the land of Egypt. And every first-horn 5
in the land of Egypt shall die; from the first-horn of Pharaoh, who
sitteth upon his throne, unto the first-born of the maid-servant that is
behind the mill; and even unto the first-horn of every beast. And c
there shall be a great cry throughout all the land of Egypt; such
that there hath been none lUce it, nor shall he like it any more.
"But against any of the children of Israel shall not a dog move 7
his tongue; against man, nor even against beast: that thou mayest
knoiv that Jehovah doth put a difference between the Egyptians and
Israel. And all these thy servants shall come down to me, and bow g
down themselves to me, saying, — Go forth, thou and all the people
that follow thee; and then I tcill go forth."
And he v;ent out from before Pharaoh in great indignation.
And Jehovah said unto Moses, " Pharaoh doth not hearken unto 9
you that my iconders may be multiplied in the land of Egypt."
And Moses and Aaron performed all these iconders before Pha-
raoh: but Jehovah hardened Pharaoh's heart so that he vould not
let the children of Israel go out of his land.
Thus in a chapter consisting altogether of ten verses, according to
tho Jewish text and the ancient versions, the Samaritan copies add
about as much as five verses more. Of this additional matter, the
first four verses (a — b incl.) are the same as verses 4, 5, 6, 7, of tho
common text of this chapter : that which is above marked = in tlio
margin, is tho same as what occurs in chapter iv. 21, 22 of Exodus.
Besides these large additions to the text, the two members of verse
3 receive in the Samaritan Pentateuch a new form and colouring ; in
the Jewish copies, they ai'e given as facts recorded by the historian ;
184 TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF THE OLD TESTAMENT, [bOOK II.
in the Samaritan they arc introduced as predictions uttered bj tho
mouth of God, embodied in his address to Moses, and as such only
recorded in this part of the narrative. It is proper to add, that the
only autliority which sanctions any part of the readings above noted
as Samaritan, is the Septuagint, and that its support only extends
to the one word, translated " and raiment," at the end of verse 2,
It cannot be denied that the Samaritan exhibition of the text best
accords with the consistency of the narrative, and best agi'ees with
what we should have expected from the historian of this occurrence.
Thus in Exod. iv. 21 — 23, Moses is commanded to make a certain
announcement to Pharaoh, which, in specific terms, ho is nowhere
recorded to have made, unless the Samaritan reading of this chapter
be true. Again, in the 4th — 8th verses of this chapter, Moses is
declared to have made a very solemn and important address to the
King of Egypt, for which he is not stated in any part of the history
to have had express authority, if we except the Samaritan text of
this section. And lastly, the statements in the two divisions of
verse 3rd undoubtedly have a much more natural and consistent
appearance in the Samaritan representation than in the Jewish.
But these considerations are not favourable to the genuineness of
the Samaritan reading : they are indeed very weighty against it ; for
the apt coherence of the whole passage as given by the Samaritan
text, is so great, and so obvious, that the Jewish copyists would
undoubtedly have been desirous of retaining that reading if they
had found it in their exemplars : no ofj^oiorsXiurov explains the omission
of these words, nor can any reason be given for it; and hence a
suspicion almost inevitably arises, that the Samaritan reading arose
from a desire to produce this mutual adaptation and perfect cohe-
rence. This suspicion might be overbalanced if any considerable
amount of authority could be brought in support of the additions to
the common text. But all the Jewish MSS. are against them: all
the ancient versions (with the exception of the one word which is
sanctioned by the Septuagint), are hostile — none of the Talmudists,
none of the Rabbis, seems to have had any notion of this manner of
reading the history. The only authority for this manner of exhibit-
ing the passage is the Samaritan Pentateuch, followed — we cannot
say supported — by the versions which depend on that recension;
and it is a document too much inclined to accept tlie full reading in
preference to the brief, too favoux-ably disposed to admit such lections
as vindicate the consistency and apparent veracity of the narrative.
ClUr. VII.] CRITICAL EXAMINATION OF PAUTICl'LAR TEXTS. 185
in tlio place of those which appear to bo at variance with the perfect
truthfulness of the historian, to permit us to place much reliance on
its unsupported testimony.
There are twelve other passages of tlio same kind and in this
connexion, in which similar additions are made by the Samaritan
l*entateuch to the Jewish or commonly received text: but the argu-
ments which apply to that now considered, are equally applicable to
them, and it is unnecessary to examine them in detail. What has
here been given will suffice for a specimen.
SectioxV VII.— Exod. XX. 2—17, Deut. v. G— 21.
In each of these places, the Ten Precepts which formed the foun-
dation of the Mosaic jurisprudence, and which are usually called the
Ten Commandments, are recited. A careful examination of the
original text in each, and a comparison of the readings found in
both, will satisfy the most sceptical, that the ten precepts, as given
in the two places, were originally tlie same, word for word. A mere
general accordance of meaning and of phraseology would not be
sufficient to support this conclusion ; but when we observe, with a
few and evidently accidental exceptions, which shall be hereafter
noticed, that, in the preceptive parts of these chapters, the same
ideas are expressed in the very same words ; when the same gram-
matical forms or modifications of the words that occur, are used
in both ; when the words are not only the same, and used in the
same grammatical forms, but succeed each other in exactly the same
order ; and when the nature of the case and cii'cumstances of the
narrative render it very unreasonable to suppose that the least verbal
discrepancy existed between the two records, as at first written and
published, wo seem to have every indication concurring that can be
required to support our inference. Hence in addition to the testi-
mony of the MSS. versions, and other authorities which can be
adduced for the verification of the text in these passages, — each may
be adduced as a testimony to verify or correct the reading of the
other. But we must be careful to confine the application of this
remark strictly to those parts of the context in which we have reason
to believe that this exact conformity was anciently found ; — that is,
to the Ten Precepts themselves, properly so called ; not to any illus-
trative or enforcing observations that may have been introduced, for
whatever cause, into the narrative in either place.
That illustrative and enforcing observations, not properly belonging
A A
186 TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. [BOOK tl.
to the precepts themselves, have been introduced by the historian
into the context, both in Exodus and in Deuteronomy, is manifest
from various considerations.
Thus, the Fourth Commandment is thus set forth in Deuteronomy
(v. 12), " Observe the Sabbath-day to keep it holy, as Jehovah thy
God hath commanded thee." It would be excessively absurd to
suppose the latter clause to be part of a precept delivered by Jehovah
himself, and of the very precept in which the law for the observance
of the Sabbath was, for the first time,* promulgated. Hence, critics
and commentators seem to be amply justified in understanding it as
a remark thrown in by Moses himself in the recital of the command-
ments, for the purpose of enforcing compliance with the duty
enjoined in the words preceding. This observation applies to
Deut. V. 16, where the same clause is introduced in reference to the
Fifth Commandment. " Honour thy father and thy mother, as
Jehovah thy God hath commanded thee." Here also we see an illus-
trative and enforcing clause thrown in by the speaker; for the
greater part of the Book of Deuteronomy is a speech, or succession
of speeches, pronounced by Moses to the Israelites, a short time
before their entry into the promised land ; and it was very natural
for a person circumstanced as that illustrious prophet then was, to
intermix with the recital of the divine laws which he had been instru-
mental in promulgating, such reflections as might remind his beloved
nation of the authority from which they emanated, and might
impress them with the necessity of obedience. Nor is this probability
confined to the case of oral speeches : it applies with equal force to
the case of an historian recording in writing — for the guidance of
posterity — those great principles of civil and religious polity by
which their whole constitution in church and state, and even the
conduct of their private life, was thenceforward to be regulated, and
which he had himself personally received for their instruction, by
revelation from the Most High. And that Moses actually exercised
this privilege in his capacity as an historian, not less than in his
character as a public speaker, is manifest from a comparison of the
reasons annexed to the Fourth Commandment in the two books of
Exodus and Deuteronomy.
* The Israelites are represented as having observed the Sabbath-day
before their arrival at Sinai ; but no divine command for the institution is
recorded, until the time mentioned in this context.
ClUr. VII.] CRITICAL EXAMINATION OF rAllTICULAR TEXTS.
187
EXOD. XX. 11.
" For in six days Jehovah made tlie
heavens, and the earth, and the sea,
and all that is in them, and rested
on the seventh day; wlierefore Je-
IIOVAU hlessed the « Sabbath-day
and sanctified it."
a Seventh. LXX. Syr.
Deut. v. 15.
" For remember that thou •wast a
servant in the land of Egypt, and
that Jehovah thy God brought thee
out thence, by a mighty hand and
by an outstretched arm : therefore
Jehovah thy God commanded thee
to keep the Sabbath-day."
These are not the variations of copyists, but of tho author ; and,
consequently, wo have no right to use the one context as a guide to the
reading of the other. It is plain that both statements are of the nature
of arguments introduced by the historian in tho one passage, by tho
speaker in the other, to show the propriety and necessity of obeying
the sabbatical law ; and, as various considerations may be urged at
diflferent times, to lead to compliance with the same precept, so we
find a variation in the motives by which submission to tho sabbatical
precept was enforced. And it may be observed, that a consideration
of the two kinds of arguments advanced on these two occasions
serves to corroborate what is on other grounds probable, viz. : that
the history contained in the commencing chapters of Exodus was
not written till after the delivery of the solemn address or series of
addresses recorded in Deuteronomy. In the latter, ho speaks to
those who had, by personal experience or the direct testimony of
others, a perfect and appalling knowledge of the evils of slavery:
and he appeals to their feelings of gratitude to Him who had, by the
power of his mighty hand and outstretched arm, delivered them
from the bondage of Egypt and redeemed them unto himself. But,
in tho history, he writes for the instruction of those who, in future
times, might have a less distinct impression of these local, temporary,
and national events, and, therefore, he appeals to the example and
the institution of the Creator ou the completion of the heavens and
the earth, which in all ages and at every moment of time declare his
gloi'y and show forth his handy-work.
As it is thus perfectly clear that both in Exodus and in Deute-
ronomy some sentences are intermingled with the Divine Precepts,
which form no part of the precepts themselves, and are not meant
to be understood as such in the record, it becomes a question of
some interest to the critic as well as to the divine, to separate the
commandments — properly and strictly so called — from those expla-
natory clauses or enforcing arguments by which they are, in each
context, accompanied: since, until this be done, it cannot be
188 TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. [bOOK II.
ascertained how far it is lawful to employ the text of the one copy
to amend the reading of the other. Nor is this so difficult a task as
might at first be supposed ; for the very substance of the narrative
itself furnishes us with a criterion short, simple, easy of application,
and scarcely admitting of mistake, by which the Commandments of
God can be distinguished from the comments of the historian. The
test is afforded by the statement which occurs in both of the books,
that the Precepts — strictly so called — were uttered by the mouth
of the Almighty himself, speaking in His own name and person, to
the Israelites assembled in Horeb. Accordingly, in each passage
we find the Lord, both in the preface and in the precepts, speaking
of himself in the first person singular. " I am Jehovah thy God,
who brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of
bondage;" "Thou shalt have no other Gods before me;" " /,
Jehovah thy God, am a jealous God," &,c. &c. Whereas, in the
passages which have been shown above to be illustrative of the Pre-
cepts and not parts of them, the Deity is universally mentioned in
the third person singular, not as one who speaks, but as one who is
spoken of. Thus, "as Jehovah thy God commanded thee;" —
" Jehovah made the heavens and the earth;" — "Jehovah blessed
the Sabbath-day;" — " Jehovah thy God brought thee out thence;"
&c. Hence arises this criterion ; wherever, in any statement sub-
joined to one of the Divine Precepts, the Deity is spoken of in the
third person, not in the first, the passages so constructed are not
meant to be understood as part of the original commandment. This
observation does not apply to the preceptive part of the context ; for
that, according to the narrative, must be understood as having been
uttered by the mouth of God: but the only actual exception is the
preceptive part of the Third Commandment, — " Thou shalt not take
the name of Jehovah thy God in vain," i.e. to a falsehood; and
perhaps even this exception may only arise from the early omission
of a single letter, the smallest in the Hebrew alphabet, and in a case
where such an omission would very naturally occur. If, instead of
we suppose the primitive, reading to have been
the meaning would be, — " Thou shalt not take the name of me,
Jehovah thy God, in vain;" an unusual construction, and for that
* I have used the mitial D and 22> and written the words continud serie,
because the alteration, if it occiuied at all, took place before the iuveution
of the iiual letters, or the scjniratiou of the words.
ciiAi', VII. J curricAL examination of pauticular texts. 180
reason the raoro likely to bo altered into the present form by trans-
ciibcrs, but still supported by a few examples. If this appear
inadmissible, wo might perhaps conceive tho phrase to have been at
first "^f^ nX " mij name," simply; tho two words which follow
may have been introduced from interpreting the * as a contraction
for nirr* "Jehovau," as has happened repeatedly in other places ;
and this word having been introduced, *|'*n75< " thy God'' would na-
turally follow, in imitation of tho language of the context. But
this is really of little moment ; for, as tlie preceptive part of tho
Commandment must, of necessity, be recognised as antecedent to
tho delivery of tho oration in Deuteronomy and tho composition of
the history in Exodus, we are only concerned at present with the
explanatory and illustrative clauses; and, with reference to them,
the test above stated appears to be fully applicable.
Having thus ascertained what are the portions of these two con-
texts which we have reason to believe were left in a state of perfect
verbal accordance by tho author of the Pentateuch, we are prepared
to criticise tho readings of each, using, in these portions, not only
the usual aid of MSS. Versions and ancient authorities, but likewise
the light which may bo thrown by the text of one passage upon that
of the other ; for there cannot be the slightest doubt, that the text
of these portions was originally the same in both copies of the
Decalogue.
In tho Proem to the Commandments, and in the First Precept —
according to the division usually followed by Protestants — there is
an exact verbal accordance between the text of Exodus and Deute-
ronomy; and tho various readings which are found in tho MSS. are
of no consequence. In the Second Precept, the copy in Deuteronomy
as it stands in our present Hebrew text (Deut. v. 8), reads, " thou
shalt not make unto thee a graven image of any likeness that is in the
heavens above,'' «fec. ; but this reading is contrary to the text of
Exod. XX. 4, as found in all authorities except from MSS. and to
,all tho Samaritan copies, thirty-four Hebrew MSS. the Septuagint,
the Syriac, the Vulgate, and the Arabic Versions of Deuteronomy
itself, which here read, "a graven image, nor any likeness," «fec. as
in Exodus, or words to the same effect. To these authorities must
bo added twenty-seven Hebrew MSS. not included in the number
already mentioned, which, as originally written, gave tho passage in
Deut. in conformity with that found in Exodus, but liavo been
altered by later hands. A similar variation occurs in Deut. v. 0, as
compared with Exod. xx. 5: in the lirst-namcd place we read " even
190 TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. [boOK II.
to the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;" but the
emphatic particle 1 even is wanting in the parallel passage, and is
omitted in the Septuagint, the Sjriac, the Vulgate Versions, as
well as in all the Chaldee Targums, and in forty-eight MSS. of the
Hebrew text, and nine others, as originally written.
The first word of the 4th Precept is differently recorded in the
two copies: in Exodus it is *1')3} "Eemeinher," in Deuteronomy it
is Tubs' "Observe;'' and, as there is a perfect agreement in all the
copies and versions in support of each reading in the place where it
now stands, it is not easy to determine which was the original;
neither is it of much importance, for the meaning is the same.
Probably, however, the word in Deut. is an ancient gloss upon the
more general and comprehensive term employed in Exodus. It has
been already remarked, that tlie words occurring in the very middle
of this Precept, as given in Deuteronomy — " as Jehovah thy God
hath commanded thee" — could not possibly have formed part of the
divine injunction ; they must be understood as a clause thrown in
by Moses in his recital of the law, in order to impress upon the
Israelites the necessity of obedience. The enumeration of the beings
to whom the repose of the Sabbath was to extend is differently pre-
sented in the two books. In Exodus it is thus stated: — "Thou
shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy
man-servant, nor thy maid-servant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger
who is within thy gates:" but, in Deut. it stands thus: — " Thou, nor
thy son, nor thy daughter, nor thy man-servant, nor thy maid-servant,
nor THINE ox, NOR THINE ASS, NOR ANY OF thy Cattle, nor thy stranger
that is ivithin thy gates."* The text, as it stands in Exodus, is pre-
ferable because it is the shorter reading, and because the words
added in Deuteronomy could so easily have been introduced to pre-
serve the same general formula in the enumeration of the domestic
animals that is observed in the Tenth Commandment. The reasons
annexed to this precept are quite different, and do not either confirm
or amend each other's text.
In the Fifth Commandment, properly so called, there is no varia-
tion; but, in the annexed reasons, a considerable diversity, which
is increased by the circumstance that the LXX differs from the
Hebrew text in both places : as usual, it endeavours to produce a
* The words which are here distinguished as added in the text of Deute-
ronomy arc also found in that of Exodus, as given in the Septuagint Ver-
sion ; being evidently introduced from its usual desire to i-econcile pai-allel
passages and to exhibit full readings.
I
CHAP. VII.] CniTICAL EXAMINATION OF rARTICULAIl TEXTK.
191
closer agroomerit between the parallel pa.s.sages, but does not go far
enough to effect its object perfectly.
In the Sixth, Seventh, and Eighth Precepts, there is a close agree-
ment between the two copies ; tho only difference is, that Moses in
Deuteronomy is represented as connecting them together by the
conjunction ^ ; which is a liberty allowable and almost necessary in
an oral address. In the Ninth there is a slight verbal discrepancy :
in Exodus it is expressed, " Thou shalt not hear ^p^ *7J? false
testimony ar/ainst thy neighbour;" in Deuteronomy, "thou shalt not
hear ^)^ ^)J "vain (i.e. groundless) testimony against thy neigh-
hour." The meaning is the same; but ^piy seems preferable,
because all tho ancient versions appear to have so read the pas-
sage, with seventeen Hebrew MSS. and perhaps nine others; and
because ^)^ might creep in from the third commandment.
In the Tenth Precept there are several variations between the text
of the two books as they stand in the Hebrew Pentateuch ; and the
deviations of the critical documents in each place are also numerous.
It may therefore bo convenient to exhibit both passages, with tho
principal various readings : —
Exodus xx. 10, 17.
" t Thou shalt not covet thy neigh-
bour's * house,"
'^ t- Thou shalt not covet thy neigh-
bour's '' wife,"
* + Nor his man-servant,"
Nor his maid-servant,
•f Nor" his ox, nor his ass,
s t Nor anything that is thy neigh-
bour's.
various readings.
a And. — Sam.
6 M'ife.— LXX.
c And. — G MSS. a primd mamc, and G others,
as altered.
d House.— LXX.
e Ilitfifld, his man-servant. — Sam.
Nor his fic'.d, nor his man-ser\-ant. — LXX.
Uh field, nor his man-servant (as in Deut.
V. 18), 5 Ileb. MSS.
His man-servant, 7 Heb. MSS.
/ = Sam.
g Nor any of hit cattle. — LXX.
Deuteronomy, v. 18.
" And" thou shalt not covet thy
neighbour's * wife,"
'^ Thou shalt not desire thy
neighbour's house,"
^ His field," nor his man-servant,
Nor his maid-servant,
* t His ox, nor his ass,
•^ ^ Nor anything that is thy neigh-
bour's.
vakious readings.
a = Sam. LXX. Syr. Vulg. some copies of
Onkelos, and some Heb. MSS.
b House. — Sam.
c Nor his house. — Vulg.
Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's bouse.
LXX. Syr. Onk.
Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife.
— Sam.
d JVorhisfield.— LXX. Vulg.
Nor his field, nor his virwyard Syr.
e Nor. — Sam. and many Heb. MSS.
/ Nor any (tf his cattle. — LXX.
[In the foregoing specimen tho mark f shows that something additional is
found in some of tiie critical authorities : the word or phrase so added is
inserted below in the subjoined list of various readings in Italics : in other
cases the double accent (") shows how far the variation, referred to by the
preceding letter of reference, extends ; i= denotes omission.]
192 TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. [BOOK II.
On analysing the various readings, we see that the Samaritan and
the Septuagint have been actuated by their usual desire to reconcile
the parallel passages and bring them into an exact agreement.
Each of them has laboured to this end, but each in its own way :
the translator of the LXX has assumed the text in Deuteronomy to
be the authentic copy, and has altered that of Exodus in conformity
with it : the Samaritan critic has, on the contrary, made the reading
of Exodus the standard to which he has compelled that of Deute-
ronomy to conform. Several of the various readings of the other
documents have been occasioned by similar feelings.
On a comparison of these two exhibitions of a text which must
originally have been one and the same, I think most persons will
agree that the copy in the book of Exodus is by far the more likely
to be genuine. The order in which the various descriptions of pro-
perty are enumerated agrees better with the spirit of the institutions
of those ancient times than does that in Deuteronomy. The
"house," representing the fixed property, is first mentioned ; then
the "wife," as the chief and most valued of that portion of the
husband's possessions which consisted in persons ; and after her, in
due subordination, the "man-servant" and "maid-servant;" next,
the live stock, represented by the "ox" and the "ass;" and, in the
last place, the comprehensive formula, including all articles not
already enumerated. Dr. Boothroyd, indeed, affirms that the
arrangement in Deuteronomy is the more natui'al, on account of its
placing the "wife" at the head of the list. It would, undoubtedly,
appear so to those who look on the question with the feelings of the
present age, and from an advanced stage of civilization ; but such
ideas would have been altogether out of place and out of character, if
addressed to a people in the condition indicated by the Mosaic code.
The promotion of the "wife" to the first place in the list I look
upon as a symptom of increasing refinement ; and, therefore, refer it
to a period long subsequent to the announcement of the law. The
addition of the "field" to the mention of the house seems to be
owing to the desire of the copyists to make the list more complete :
perhaps an occasion was afforded for the alteration, by the glosses
and expositions of those who made it their business to explain and
interpret the precepts of the law ; for it must have been perceived
very early that the objects specified in this commandment must be
understood as representing all other objects of similar classes and
kinds. The same desire and the same circumstance, doubtless,
influenced the Syriac translator, or the text which he followed to add
4
CHAP. VII. J CRITICAL EX A.MINATIOX OF PARTICULAR TEXTS. l!>.'}
tlio '• vineyard " to the "flcld;" and the LXX to subjoin to tho
mention of the "ox" and the "ass," "any of his cattle," an addi-
tion which is introduced into both copies of tho commandments in
that version.
It may perhaps appear to some readers tliat I have, in these
remarks, been too much influenced by a desire to promote a do.so
agreement between the reading of parallel texts, a feeling against
which I have cautioned the students of textual criticism, and which
is universally acknowledged to have led, in many instances, to the
corruption of the sacred text. In ordinary cases, I admit that such
a principle would be a most unsafe guide ; but tho present I regard
as an instance, sui generis, of which there is no other example in the
sacred books; and which properly forms an exception from the
application of tlie rule referred to, I have written under the con-
viction that originally the text in Exodus and in Deuteronomy was,
word for word and letter for letter, identically the same. Nor does
this conviction rest on any theory regarding the origin or authorship
of the Pentateuch ; of which, in tho inquiries which are treated of
in the present volume, we can take no cognizance. If Moses was
the author of the Pentateucli, he would have been most careful not
to exhibit two different copies of one and the same set of precepts,
which he professed to have received, in personal communication with
the Almighty, at the hand of God himself, written with his own
finger upon tables of stone. If some subsequent author composed
the books, either in the name of Moses or simply as a history of
those transactions in which Moses was engaged, as his object clearly
was to support the claims and to do honour to the character of tho
national lawgiver, he would have avoided most cautiously a dis-
crepancy so much calculated to cast suspicion upon his pretensions.
If Exodus and Deuteronomy were the work of different hands —
though I think tliere is not tho least ground for such an alle-
gation— still, as tlie second writer must have been acquainted with
the work of his predecessor, he would have been not less anxious to
produce an exact conformity, in the present statement, between his
own work and his ; not only from tho influence of the motives already
alluded to, but because on the existence of such uniformity here, he
must have known that the reception of his book as an authentic
document would, in a great measure, depend. Tho reasoning fol-
lowed in this section is quite independent of any theory respecting
the authorship or character of the Pentateuch.
Bu
194 TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. [bOOK IT.
Section VIII. — JosnuA xxii. 36, 37.
The Authorized English Version of the Scriptures has, in this
place, the following two verses, containing an account of certain
cities which were assigned to the Levites of the family or house of
Merari, viz: —
^' And out of the tribe of Iteiiben, Bezer with her siiburh, and
Jehazah with her suburb, Kedcmoth with her suburb, and Mephaath
with her suburb: four cities.*^
This passage, however, is not in any of the common editions of
the Hebrew text. It is left out in the Rabbinical Bibles of Ben
Chajim, Buxtorf, and Ben Simeon, in the edition printed under the
joint superintendence of Joseph Athias and Leusden, in 16G7 ;
in that of Van-der-Hooght, and in the numerous republications of
the last named editor's text, with which the book-shops are now
almost exclusively supplied. Nevertheless, we shall see that it is,
beyond all question, a genuine portion of the text. It may be con-
venient to consider, in the first place, the reasons which are com-
monly assigned for the omission of them.
Rabbi Jacob ben Chajim and those who have followed him in this
instance, appeal to the Masorah; here we are to understand the
final Masorah at the end of the book, which gives G56 as the total
number of the verses in the Book. On summing up the verses in
the different chapters it will be found that if these two verses be
inserted, the total number would amount to 658. The authority,
therefore, of the Masorah is rightly stated to be against the re-
ception of these verses.
Again, the testimony of R. David Kimchi is referred to as con-
demning the passage as an interpolation. It could scarcely be ex-
pected that in the brief Hebrew note placed by Van-der-Hooght in
his margin, a full account should be given of the statement made
by the learned Rabbi in his commentary ; and it was the less neces-
sary for Buxtorf and the other Rabbinical editors to do so in theirs,
as they give the Commentary of Kimclii in full in a neighbouring
column ; but the truth is, that R. David Kimchi states that some
copies contained these two verses v:hich he quotes in full: he says,
however, that he had not found them in any old and correct (or
corrected '1'*''11to) copy; he adds, that a question had been proposed
to Rabbi Haji, "of blessed memory," on this point, and that he
intimated it as liis opinion that they had been introduced from the
parallel passage in 1st Chronicles. We shall hereafter examine the
CHAP. VII.] CRITICAL EXAMINATION OF PAHTICULAR TEXTS. I'Jj
correctness of this surmise. In the moan time, the statement clearly
sliows that not only in the time of Kimchi but in the days of U.
llaji, his predecessor, the copies varied, and the true reading was
open to doubt.
Lastly, all tlie Rabbinical editors and Van-der-IIooght refer to
the authority of the Hebrew manuscripts. Ben Chajim so closely
follows the exact words of Kimchi, that it is nearly certain he took
tho statement from him: Buxtorf and Ben Simeon merely copy
Bon Chajim. Van-der-IIooght is more definite, he says, " and thus
it was found in three ancient and correct manuscript copies:" — i.e.
the verses were omitted in them. The collations of Keunicott and
Do Rossi have shown that considerably more than three MSS. omit
these verses, though no more were known to Van-der-Hooght.
But on tho other side are testimonies far more important and
numei'ous than these.
1. The great majority of the MSS. of the Book of Joshua contain
these verses. The whole of the collated copies of this book amount
to about 23-i; of these IG4 have the versos, and not more than G8
are known to omit them. Of those which contain the passage, there
are several which exhibit tho Masoretic note excluding them from
the computation, and some which have the commentary of Kimchi,
in which it is asserted that tliey had not been found in any correct
book. It is clear, therefore, that the transcribers must have found
them in their exemplars, else they would not have dared to introduce
them in the face of so authoritative a condemnation.
2. To tho testimony of the MSS. wo may add that of the early
editions, as that of Soncino, of Brescia, of Venice 1518, in fact of
every edition which preceded that of R. Jacob ben Chajim, who
first expunged them from tho printed text. In this omission he has
been followed, as already mentioned, by a great many succeeding
editors; but some have adhered to the reading of the old editions,
among whom was Joseph Athias in his first edition of 1662: though
in his second of 1667, he was prevailed upon probably by his col-
league Leusden, to imitate the example of Ben Chajim in complying
witli the Masorah. Jahn has inserted these verses, and has given
a very satisfactoi'y note showing their genuineness.
3. The context requires, and manifestly presumes, the existence
of these verses. Tims in the 7th verse of this chapter, it is said,
" the children of Merari, by their families had out of tho tribe of
Reuben, and out of tho tribe of Gad, and out of tho tribe of Zebulun,
twelve cities." But if these versos ba left out, the children of
196 TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. [bOOK II,
Merari would be represented as having received no city from tho
Reubenites, and only eight cities altogether instead of twelve. And
so again in verse 40, it is repeated that ' ' aU the cities of the
children of Merai'i were twelve cities;" — and in verse 41. " all
the cities of the Levites were forty and eight cities," But both
these computations exceed the proper sum by the number four,
unless the four cities mentioned in verses 36, 37, be taken into
the account. It is strange that the Masorah, though it condemns
verses 36 and 37, as spurious, leaves verses 7, 40, and 41 untouched;
one of the many instances in which it contradicts itself and the MSS.
of the Scriptures.
4, The parallel passage in 1 Chron. vi. 63, 64.* conforms the
genuineness of that found in this place. It reads, " And on the
other side Jordan, by Jericho, on the east side of Jordan, [were
given them] out of tribe of Reuben, Bezer in the wilderness and
her suburbs, and Jahzah and her suburbs, and Kedemoth and her
suburbs, and Mephaath and her suburb.s." No reader who compares
the text in Joshua with that in Chronicles, can fail to observe that
the author of the latter book has borrowed all his statements on this
part of the history from the preceding writer ; he must therefore
have found these verses in the copy of the book of Joshua which he
used. This observation disposes of the objection that has been
relied upon by the supporters of the Masoretic reading ; — that the
two verses have been introduced by the copyists into those MSS.
and versions of Joshua which contain them, from the parallel passage
in Chronicles; for it shows that they never could have been in
Chronicles had they not been in Joshua first. Besides, if the tran-
scribers had introduced the verses from the parallel passage, they
would have copied literally, and the two texts would show a complete
verbal agreement. But such is not the case. The situation of
Bezer is described in Clu-onicles, not in Joshua : and the noun which
our translators have rendered " suburb " or '• suburbs," is singular
in the one book, and plural in the other.
5. The ancient versions are unanimous in supporting the genuine-
ness of these two verses in the main. It is true that they all deviate,
in some degree, from the reading found in the Hebrew MSS. which
contain them, but the variations are such as may be accounted for
by the usual liberties or accidents of transcribers: it is however
* According to the HebrcM" division. In the EngUsh rersion it stands as
1 Clu-on. vi. 78, 70.
(;IIA1\ VU.] CIUTICAL KXAMINATION OK rAUTICULAIl TKXTS. 107
important to observe tliat they all confirm, in a remarkable manner,
the statement made above, that tlie introduction of tlio verses into
Joshua id not owing to the imitation of a parallel passage, for there
is not ono of them which has not some clear indications that the
translators had before them a Hebrew text in both Joshua and
Chronicles, and that they translated it carefully, though in some
instances they could not prevent future transcribers from introducing
various readings. Thus any one who compares tho Septuagint
version of these verses in Joshua with that of the corresponding ones
in Chronicles, will perceive that the ono cannot liavo been copied
from the other, though it is evident that tho place in Josliua lias
been sadly tempered with. The same is still more evident in the
Syriac,* for not only does the translator follow a totally different
text in tho two places, but he translates rt^tJ^l^tt. " her suburbs,''
in Joshua cnA,Cfl5cL.| but in Chronicles CTUi-JQ; ^D. Similarly in
tho Vulgate we have in Joshua, "De tribu Ruben, ultra Jordanem,
contra Jericho, Bosor in solitudinc Misor, et Jaser, et Jethson, et
Mcphaath, Civitatcs quatuor cum suburbanis suis;" but in Chronicles,
" Trans Jordanem quoque, ex adverso Jericho, contra Orientem Jor-
danis, de tribu Ruben, Bosor in solitudine cwn suburbanis stiis, et
Jassa cum suburbanis suis; Cademoth quoque et suburbana ejus, et
Mephaat cum suburbanis suis." There is no copying here. More-
over the names in tho two passages do not correspond. These are
not the variations of the copyists, but of the translator ; they show
that he had a text before him in each passage, and that he rendered
it from the Hebrew into his own language as it lay before him.
That the Chaldco Targum of Jonathan, as printed in the Polyglotts
and in tho Rabbinical Bibles, has not the verses now under con-
sideration, is true ; but too much stress ought not to be laid upon
this circumstance, for there are in existence good MSS. of that
version of respectable antiquity, in which they aro inserted in their
proper place and a prima manu: others aro found in which they
were originally, but have boon erased ; and the tendency of tho
later Jews to expunge everything that contradicted the Masorah,
is too well known to require proof. The Arabic version of the book
of Joshua given in the Polyglotts is a primary version made dii'ectly
from the Hebrew, it is therefore an independent testimony ; and it
* The edition of tiie Peshito here referred to, is that printed by the Bible
Society under the superintendence of Dr. Lee, which professes to follow MS.
authorities. In the Syriac, as printed in the Polyglotts, the tAvo verses ai'c
left out.
198 TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. [bOOK IL
testifies, as we may add, every other ancient version does, in favour
of the two disputed verses.
6. These testimonies are the more weighty, inasmuch as an obvious
cause can be assigned for the omission of the passage in those MSS.
on which the computation of the Masorets was founded. In the
35th verse we read, that unto the families of the children of Merari
were assigned out of the tribe of Zebulun, " Johieam with her
suburb, Kartdh xoith her suburb, Dimnah xvith her suburb, Nalialal
loith her suburb; four cities." Then comes the disputed passage,
ending with the same words, " four cities." The whole variation is
a mere mistake arising from the hiuionXivTov the eye of the copyist
glanced insensibly from the former "four cities" to the place where
the same words occur after a short interval: he thus left out the
intervening lines, and this error, committed perhaps in only one or
two MSS. having been found in the copy made use of by the person
who enumerated the verses of the book of Joshua for the use of the
Masorets, has been adopted by them, and being sanctioned by their
authority, has been repeated in the small number of Hebrew MSS.
in which the two verses are left out, and from them has crept into
the text of the great majority of the editions of the Bible in tho
original.
This passage therefore affords a clear proof of two points ; first,
that the Masorets sometimes grounded their computations upon
erroneous manuscripts, and were themselves mistaken ; and secondly,
that their authority was the means of misleading, in after times, the
commentators, editors, and printers of their nation, and those
Christian scholars who have laid it down to tliemselves as a principle
to adhere to the Masoretic text. Van-der-Hooght, for instance, after
showing that the sum of the verses in Joshua as given in the Masorah,
excludes these two verses from the Canon, thus infers, "Mecte itaque
. . .omittuntur duo versus ... cap. xxi. 3G:" whereas the proper conclu-
sion would have been the very contrary. "Perperam igitur legerunt,
perperam textum tradiderunt Masoretce."
Before leaving this passage, it is proper to observe, that the LXX.
and the Vulgate versions, supported by some of the MSS. which
contain the passage, read the 36th verse thus: — "And out of the
tribe of Reuben as a city of refuge for the slayer, Bezer in the loil-
derness, with her suburb," &c. The Syriac puts the 36th and 37th
versos before those which in other documents stand as the 34th and
35 th.
CHAP. VII. J CIUTIC'AL EXAMINATION OF PARTICULAR TEXTS. 199
Section IX. — 1 Sam. vi. 19.
After giving an account of the manner in which tlie Philistines,
into whoso hands the Ark of God had fallen, restored it to tho
Israelites, and of its sojourning for a time at Beth-shemesh, under
the custody of the Levites who dwelt there, tho Hebrew text con-
tinues,—
** And he smote of the men of Beth-shemesh because they looTcedinto
the Ark of Jehovah : yea he smote of the people seventy men, fifty
thousand men: and the people mourned because Jehovah had smitten
of the people vith a great slatighter."
This account appears to make the number of persons slain on this
occasion to amount to 50,070 men, — an enormous, and, indeed,
totally incredible sum ; for Beth-shemesh, in which the slaughter
occurred, was a mere Levitical town ; at no time in the Jewish his-
tory was it a place of much wealth or importance, nor apparently of
any great size. A slaughter of 50,070 men would imply a popula-
tion of at least 200,000 souls, supposing every adult male iu tho
place to have been killed, which does not seem to be intimated.
Accordingly, learned men have anxiously sought for some means of
removing the difficulty; but the external testimony of MSS. ver-
sions, &.C. gives but little aid.
Tho ancient versions plainly read the text substantially as it
stands at present: the Septuaginti the Vulgate, and the Chaldee
Targumists all make the statement more positive, by inserting tho
word ^' and" before ^' fifty thousand men.'' The Syriac Peshito
reads "five thousand and seventy men." This can scarcely be said to
lessen the difficulty ; for even this diminished number is far beyond
the limits of possibility in the case of a mortality occurring in a
place so insignificant as Beth-shemesh, which probably never at any
period of its history contained more than 5,070 inhabitants alto-
gether. The manuscripts also are tolerably unanimous. One among
them (145, Kennicott), had the same number as the Syriac now
exhibits, when it was originally written, but had been altered into
conformity with tho common reading; and three codices (84, 210,
418, Kenn.) omit tho suspicious words "fifty thousand men" alto-
gether. So also does Josephus in his Jewish Antiquities, book v.
chap. 5 ; but that writer is so much in the habit of softening down
the extraordinary events recorded in the Scriptures to suit tlic taste
of his readers — sceptical Greeks and contemptuous Romans — that
we can attach no weight to his authority in a case of this kind. We
200 TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. [bOOK 11.
cannot presume that tlie words were wanting in his copy of the
Bible ; for it is nearly certain, from the character of the writer, that
though he had found them there, he would silently have passed them
over in his history. All the other manuscripts, and all other writers
who have touched upon the passage, exhibit it to us as we find it in
the present Masoretic editions of the text.
The external testimony being so clearly in favour of the genuine-
ness of the passage, critics have appealed to arguments of internal
probabiUty. Kennicott has, in a Dissertation* upon this text, la-
boured to show that the present reading originated in the misinter-
pretation of a numeral letter, or rather of two letters, which he sup-
poses to have been mistaken for numerals ; but his reasonings are
very far fetched, and have not, apparently, given satisfaction to any
subsequent critic. liassencamp has sought to evade the difficulty by
dividing the words ^^^{ Pj7^{ Ck^^DH — ''five thousand men," dif-
ferently, so as to read t5''•^^ t]7K23 *^^n. which he understands as
signifving " the fifth man from each family. ^^ But it, does not seem
to me that he has been able to prove that the word &|75«{ ever signi-
fies a family; and, even if it be allowed that in one or two places it
may admit this meaning, still that is of no use in explaining the
present passage where the phrase is not &7^ simply, but ly^ fp^
— a frequently occurring and weU understood formula, which in no
other passage can be interpreted otherwise than as in our English
version, a thousand men. Besides, to say that the fifth man of each
family was smitten, would imply that each family of the seventy
contained at least five men, a very unlikely circumstance. Interpre-
tation, therefore, is as far from helping us in our difficulty, as the
external testimony of manuscripts and versions.
In this emergency two courses are open before us. Either we
must admit that the writer of this book insei'ted in it, as a fact, a
statement which no reflecting and candid man can receive as true ;
or else we must allow that the text suffered an alteration, from acci-
dent or design, at a period of time so very remote, that it lies beyond
the reach of our critical material, either to detect or remedy the
evil. The former supposition seems to me so very improbable, that
scarcely anything can be said in its favour; for the writer of the
narrative in 1 Samuel evidently lived either during or immediately
after the events he describes — far too near the time and the region
* Observations on the First Book of Samuel, chap. vi. ver. 19. — Oxford,
1760, 8vo.
CHAP. VII.] CRITICAL EXAMINATION OF rAUTlClLAR TICXT.'^. 201
hero described, to be nnawaro of tlio utter incredibility that would
attach to au account of the death of 50,070 men, as a portion of tlic
inhabitants of ono fiCvitical village in Jiulea ; and he was far too
much eoncerued for the honour of the ark and of Jehovah, to repre-
sent either — untruly it must have been — unnecessarily for the object
of his history — and to the injury of his own character as a writer — as
having been the cause of a destruction so sweeping and so lament-
able. The other branch of the alternative seems to me far prefer-
able ; and there are not wanting some indications wliich seem to mark
out the words "Jiffy thousand men'''' as a gloss which has crept into
the text. These are (1) the unusual position of the numbers : the
smaller, " seventy,'''' being placed first, and the larger, "fifty thou-
sand,'''' after it : there are examples of this construction, but they
are rare, and, I believe, in all such cases the larger number has
the conjunction ^ " and'''' prefixed, which here is wanting in the lie-
brew manuscripts, except eight or ten ; — (2) the repetition of the
word tJ'^K. ".»"c»," which, in similar circumstances, is almost with-
out example ; — and (3) the singular and suspicious particularity of
the sum. The writers of the Old Testament, and this -writer espe-
cially, when a sum amounts to tens of thousands, never descend
from the statement of round numbers to tho enumeration of a few
tens or units ; nor can any good reason be shown for such particula-
rity in this instance above all others. The author's style, therefore,
affords an argument against the purity of the text in this passage.
In cases of this kind, it seems to me safest and best to decide ac-
cording to the internal probability, and reject what I suppose no one
will seriously contend is to be received as a portion of the sacred
text. This is certainly admitting the application of critical conjec-
ture to the readings of the Old Testament ; but here it seems our
only remedy. I may add, that although this conjectural emendation
has the effect of removing a considerable difficulty from the narra-
tive, it has not been adopted, by me at least, for that reason ; but
simply because, after thoughtfully weighing the question, I cannot
persuade myself that the historian himself wrote 50,070 in this verse,
whereas, various influences might combine to cause the insertion of
such a statement by succeeding copyists. Among these was the
prevalence among the Jews of that mystical, figurative, and hy-
perbolical style, both of narrative and interpretation, which their
learned men call Midrash. Of this method of involving facts in hy-
perboles, which to our miuds appear quite opposed to the spirit of
history, Reland gives from the writings of the Rabbis several ex-
C c
202 TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. [bOOK II.
amples:* thus, to express the great wealth of Korah, it is stated that
300 asses were scarcely able to carry the keys of his stores ; to inti-
mate that R. Judah Hakkadosh was rich, it is stated that the per-
son whom he employed to take care of his stalls was a more wealthy
man than the king of the Persians ; to express the learning of the
men of the Great Synagogue, it is stated that each of them was
acquainted with seventy languages ; and so it is stated that David
at one shot from his bow wounded eight hundred men. This last
example shows that the i^JbSi^U or hyperbole was freely admitted in
the interpretation of the sacred history, as well as in the recording of
facts first related by the Rabbis themselves ; and what is more impor-
tant even, with reference to the first book of Samuel. And what is
still more to the present purpose, Tychsen has produced a passage
from the Talmud itself, in which the common reading of this very
verse is explained ^'y^f2 "ITI 71?. that is by way of Midrash, or of
allegorical explanation. " Babhi Abihusaid there %cere seventy men,
and each one teas equivalent to fifty thousand.''^ It is very cre-
dible that from a hyperbolical comment of this kind, written upon the
margin of an early manuscript, the number "fifty thousand'''' may
have crept into the text ; and being propagated by the scribes in an
uncritical age, it may at last have got entire possession of all the ex-
isting copies, except a very few from which it appears to have been
forcibly expelled. But whether this particular mode of accounting
for the origin of the reading be approved or not, most judicious per-
sons will probably agree with Dathe, who says, — " If I must avow
my own judgment, whatever weight may be attached to it, I confess
that to me the opinion of those who regard the smaller number (70)
as the true reading, and who suppose that the larger number
(50,000) has been taken into the text from a marginal note, what-
ever may have been the origin of the latter, appears by far the most
probable." I may add, though not referring to the text, but to the
exegesis, that, in my judgment, even the smaller number, seventy,
was not meant to be taken as the exact amount of the slain upon
this occasion ; for whoever reads with attention the writings of the
Jews, even those contained in the Bible, must be well aware that
the number " seven" and its multiples "seventy," " seventy times
seven," &c. were mystical or proverbial numbers, and often used
with no more intention of conveying an accurate idea of the exact
* Analecta Rabbinica, Prol. pp. 10 — 13.
t Tychsen, Tentamende Variis Codd. Hebrr. MSS. p. 212. The passage
in the Talmud to which he refers is Sotafol. 35. 2. lin. 3.
ClUr. VII.] CRITICAL EXAMINATION OF PARTICULAR TKXTS. 203
sum, than wo have ourselves, when wo speak, according to a similar
idiom, of so many dozen or so many score.
Section X.— 1 Sam. xvii. 12—31.
There is here a long and exceedingly graphic description of one of
the most interesting events in the life of David. It consists of
nineteen verses, in which an account is given of the parentage, kin-
dred, and native place of David ; of the departure of his three elder
brothers to join tlie army under Saul, then encamped in the valley
of Elah, where the host was daily defied by the Philistine champion,
Goliath, of Gath ; of David's being despatched by his aged father to
make inquiry concerning the welfare of his brothers ; of the interest
which he showed on hearing from certain of the troops the splendid
rewards promised by Saul to the man who should slay the insulting
challenger ; of the indignation shown by his elder brother Eliab, when
he found David in the army, and learned the nature of his conversa-*
tion ; of the report made to Saul respecting the questions put to the
soldiers by the young stranger ; and of his being, in consequence of
these reports, sent for by the king. The nature of these occurrences
is so much akin to the other incidents recorded in this book respecting
the early history of David, tlie style of the narrative so similar, and
the whole harmonizes so well with the general object of the writer,
which was to give full particulars of the various steps by which,
under a divine and special providence, David was raised from the
humble rank of a peasant's son to the throne of a powerful empire,
that no objection can be urged to the narrative considered in itself;
but its genuineness is, nevertheless, liable to great doubt, and has
been strongly impugned by Michselis, Kennicott, Dathe, Iloubigant,
Jahn, Boothroyd, and a great many otlier critics, who cannot bo
accused of any disposition to lay rude or violent hands on the sacred
text. Dr. Boothroyd, in his note upon this passage, calls it "a
strange and incoherent narrative, which, so far from deserving to be
regarded as a part of sacred writ, scarcely merits the notice of a
common legend."* It is not without great regret that I consent to
sacrifice so interesting a narrative; and the probabilities are so
nearly balanced, that a degree of hesitation must be felt in coming
to a decision on either side ; but, on the whole, I agree with the
learned writers above referred to, in regarding it as an interpolation
* Biblia Heb. vol. i. p. 2G3.
204 TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. [bOOK It.
of an early date, though not of so remote an age as that pointed out
in the preceding section.
This narrative formed no part of the Septuagint Version, as ori-
ginally published. It is not found in the Vatican Codex, nor, of
course, in any edition taken from it, and is wanting in several
other MSS. which are not of the same family or recension with the
Vatican. Several of the MSS. of this version which contain the
passage have asterisks in the margin ; and one has not only asterisks
prefixed, but also the letters 0, A (i, e. Qioboriuv, AofTrol, Theodotion,
the other translators), showing the source from which it was
derived. The Alexandrian MS. has the passage, but commences it
in a very peculiar manner — Kai sIts Aauld, "And David said."
These words are clearly out of place: they belong to the 32nd verse ;
hence. Dr. Kenuicott seems to be justified in asserting that the
Codex Alexandrinus was copied from an exemplar in which the
nineteen disputed verses did not occur. After these three words had
'been written down, the scribe bethought him of the supposed
deficiency in the text which he was copying, and having procured
another MS. in which the chasm was supplied, he proceeded to copy
down the missing paragraph, without erasing the words previously
wi'itten. Either this must have happened to the Alexandrian
Manuscript itself, or it must have been derived from an exemplar
which had experienced this treatment. From the state of the text
of the Septuagint all modern critics, without exception, agree that
this whole paragraph was undoubtedly wanting in the Manuscripts
from which that version was translated, and was introduced into its
text by Origen, from the version of Theodotion and the other trans-
lations contained in the Hexapla. This circumstance, however,
proves that it was found in the Hebrew text collated by Origen in
the beginning of the third century of our sera ; and this is farther
confirmed by the testimony of the Peshito, the Targum of Jonathan,
the Vulgate, the Jewish Rabbis, and the Hebrew Manuscripts,
which show that the section has been read in all the copies of the
Book of Samuel used by the authors of these documents, ever since
that period, with undeviating uniformity.
The Septuagint, however, did not know of this narrative, and it
is our most ancient authority ; but, in cases of this kind, something
more is required than mere antiquity. We must therefore examine
the internal evidence to see whether the reading of the Septuagint
is confirmed by probable arguments. And here, in the first place,
it is evident that the LXX. could not have been influenced by their
CHAP. VII.] CHITICAL EXAMINATION 01' rAUTICULAll TEXTS. 205
usual predilections in rejecting such a passage as this, had it been
known to them. They had no objection to minute and particular
narratives, nor to full readings ; and no o/xo/orsXeyroi' accounts for
their omission. Indeed the passage is far too long to have been
passed over by accident in transcription. It must, therefore, have
been omitted by the translators cither because they had it not in
their exemplars, or because they were influenced by some feelings
which led them deliberately to reject it ; but it is not easy to divine
what the feeling could be which would have led such men as they
were to expunge an interesting narrative like this, if really found
in the text which they were translating ; for it is not vei'y likely that
they would have perceived, or would have paid much attention to,
those historical considerations which have presented difficulties in
this passage to the minds of so many modern critics.
These difficulties are certainly somewhat embarrassing to those
who look upon these nineteen verses as having proceeded from the
same writer who composed the other portions of this book. In the
preceding chapter (1 Sam. xvi. 14 — 23) we find David introduced
to Saul as a skilful player on the harp, who was also "a man of
war, and prudent in counsel:" we find that Saul was pleased by his
performances, and won by his engaging manners; that the king
appointed him his armour-bearer; sent a message to Jesse his
father, stating that his son had found favour in his eyes, and that
he intended to retain him as one of his personal attendants; and,
accordingly, we find that David remained in the royal household,
and whenever " the spirit of God" was upon Saul, he was at hand
to soothe his disturbed mind by the exercise of his minstrel art.
Yet, after this, Ave find David, in this section, once more a mere
boy, a shepherd on the mountains of Judah, tending a few sheep in
the wilderness, unknown to the king himself, and to the captain of
the host, although he had been the royal armour-bearer, utterly
unknown to fame, and rebuked by his brother for boldness and
presumption, in merely coming to the army for a season in the hope
of "seeing" a battle, although he had been, previously to that time,
known as " a ma)i of war, and prudent in counsel." It is not likely
that any author of common sense would have placed in immediate
conjunction statements so discordant and incompatible.
As the account here given is inconsistent with the context which
l)recedes, so it does not agree well with statements which follow.
We read in this section that in answer to David's inquiries respecting
the reward for slaying the Philistine champion, the soldiers informed
206 TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. [bOOK II.
him that Saul, among other things, had promised his daughter in
marriage to him who should succeed in this enterprise. But when
David had come forth victorious from the battle with Goliath, we
hear nothing of the fulfilment of this promise. On a subsequent
occasion, Saul promised him his daughter Merab in marriage, not
for the slaying of Goliath, but for his general services of skill and
valour against the enemy; and when this promise was broken,
David seems to have felt the injury which was done him. Had he
experienced the same treatment before, it would doubtless have been
referred to in the history. At length, Saul did actually bestow upon
David the hand of the princess Michal, not for his courage on this
occasion, but as the stipulated rewai-d of his valour and success in
the performance of a particular service of great danger.
It does not appear to me that so much weight is to be placed on
some other objections which have been urged against this section ;
such as the improbability that the mere inquiries of an unknown
stripling would be carried to the king ; that he should send for a
youth who had manifested no feeling but curiosity respecting a
subject that must have oppressed the spirits of the whole army with
deep anxiety; and that the king and his counsellors should have
consented to peril the liberty of the whole nation on the success of
a peasant boy, in a conflict apparently so desperately unequal. It
is evident that other things may have occurred which are not
recorded, but which would sufficiently explain these circumstances,
and the whole being represented as a special appointment of the
Deity, the writer was the less bound to detail the connecting links
of the different events. Were there no greater objections than these
to urge, the whole could, I think, be easily explained; but the
inconsistencies already pointed out are such as in my opinion could
not have proceeded from the original writer. I look upon it, there-
fore, in the light of a traditionary legend, not proceeding from the
author of the books of Samuel, but from some other source, probably
long subsequent to him ; which may have been committed to wri-
ting, at first separately, and afterwards placed on the margin of this
book, and which was ultimately taken into the text, but so unskil-
fully that the interpolation betrays itself by its inconsistency both
with the preceding and following context. The testimony of the
LXX. shows that the section was absent from the text at an early
period ; so that we are not driven to the hypothesis which might
otherwise be framed, that this part of the Book of Samuel is not so
much a composition as a compilation, in which various historical
CHAP. VII. J CRITICAL EXAMIN.VTIO.N OF I'AUTHLLAU TEXTS. 207
documents are introduced and intermixed, without regard to their
mutual coherency, each being left to depend on its own intrinsic
evidence. It may servo to strengthen the conclusion at which we
have arrived, to observe that the Targum of Jonathan in this place
contains several amplifications of the same general character with
that found in fliis section, showing that the Jewish mind was accus-
tomed to find gratification in fictions respecting the life and character
of the great hero of the Israchtish nation and church ; and that it
was deemed no profanenoss to intermix these narratives with the
contents of the sacred volume. In concluding these remarks, I must
disclaim altogether the influence of any uncritical bias, in rejecting
this section, I liave been led to pronounce against its genuineness,
not because it appears to mo unworthy of the author of the books of
Samuel to write, but because it seems to me almost impossible, from
the facts and evidence, that he could have written it. The external
testimonies, however, in favour of its authenticity, are far more
numerous than those which oppose it ; and great diflFerence of opinion
in the decision of such a question is (^uite natural and to be expected.
Section XI. — 1 Sam. xvii. 55 — 58.
After the account of David's victory over Goliath, and the death
of the latter, we read as follows : —
"And ichen Saul saio David go forth to meet the Philistine, he
said unto Ahner, the captain of the host, ' Whose son is this youth,
Abner V And Ahner said, ' As thy soid liveth, 0 King, I know not.'
And the King said, ' Inquire thou whose son the stripling is.' And
as David retw'ned from the slaughter of the Philistine, Ahner took
him and hrought him hefore Said, and the head of the Philistine [was]
in his hand. And Said said unto him, ' Whose son art thou, 0
youth V And David said, ' The son of thy servant Jesse, theBethle-
hemite.' "
These verses are wanting, or are marked with signs of interpola-
tion, in the same copies of the Septuagint, which are referred to in
the preceding section ; and, as they evidently form part of the same
legend, and are liable to the same historical objections with the pas-
sage therein discussed, they will, of course, be rejected or retained,
as the evidence for or against the genuineness of 1 Sam. xvii. 12 —
31 may appear to each mind to preponderate. A detailed investi-
gation would merely be a repetition of what has been already stated
at sufficient length.
208 TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. [bOOK II.
Section* XII. — Psalm xvi. 10.
This Psalm, which is wi'itten in the first person, is, on that account,
understood bj the Jews, and by many Christians, as expressing tho
feelings and hopes of its author, who, according to the inscription,
was King David. Among those who have thus interpreted this
Psalm were the Translators of the Authorized English Version, who
have given the following as a summary of its contents. " David, in
distrust of merit and hatred of idolatry , jleetli to God for preservation.
He showeth the hope of his calling, of the resurrection and of life ever-
lasting.^^ But many other Christian writers, finding that a portion
of the Psalm was quoted by the Apostle Peter in his speech to the
Jews on the day of Pentecost, as prophetically descriptive of the
Messiah (Acts ii. 25, 26, 27, 28), have felt themselves constrained
to interpret the whole ode as either mediately or immediately writ-
ten with personal reference to our Lord Jesus Christ. Hence the
reading of the whole Psalm, but especially of the part so adduced,
becomes a subject of considerable interest. We must not, however,
forget that no theological or polemical feelings should influence our
decision of a purely critical question. Our critical decisions must,
of necessity, in some degree guide our theological opinions ; but we
must not permit our theology to guide our criticism.
It so happens that in this Psalm, in the portion of it cited by the
Apostle Peter, and in the very word, and the very letter of the word
on which the whole of his reasoning turns, there is a variation in the
copies ; and that our common printed Hebrew Bible — the Textus Re-
ceptus of the Old Testament — exhibits a reading which turns aside
the force of the Apostle's argument. St. Peter cites, as the lan-
guage of the Psalm, " Thou wilt not leave my soid in Hades, neither
wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.'^ (Acts ii. 27.)
But the Hebrew text of the passage (Psalm xvi. 10), instead of
^T'DH. " *% Holy One,'''' reads in the plural number TT'^'T'Dn. " ihy
holy ones;'''' or, as it is almost universally rendered in our English
Version, " thy saints.'''' Thus the verse would read, " Thou wilt not
leave my soul in SheoV {or Hades), " neither wilt thou suffer thy
saints to see corruption^'' — a fonn of expression which, though it may
include the Messiah, cannot by any possibility be adduced as per-
sonally designating one particular individual. From these remarks
it will be seen that this is a point on which the feelings of different
partisans are likely to be warmly interested ; and that it is the more
CHAP. Vir,] CRITtCAL EXAMINATION OF PAHTICDLAU TEXTS. 209
needful for every one who is truly desirous of ascertaining what was
the genuine expression used by the Psalmist, to be on his guard
against prepossessions which may bias his judgment. Nothing can
excuse the passion manifested in the language of a learned and emi-
nent writer, who says that the persons who retain the reading " thij
saints," do in effect " accuse the Apostles that they are found false
witnesses of God ; because they have testified of David that he pro-
phesied of the resurrection of Christ in particular, which, however,
lie prophesied not of, if so be that he spoke of the saints in general."
This language is neither expressed with critical calmness nor with
justice in the matter of fact; for the utmost that can be implied or
asserted by the advocates of this reading is, that St. Peter used a
copy of the Psalms in which an erroneous reading of one particular
word — consisting merely in the omission of a single letter, the
smallest one in the Hebrew alphabet — had found a place. There is
no charge of falsehood against the Apostle, and it is absurd as well
as unfair to accuse any one of making it.
There is the less occasion for employing strong language on this
passage, as the facts and arguments are strong enough without it to
convince any reasonable person that the disputed word was originally
written, and ought still to bo printed, in the singular number, not in
the plural. I find it stated by good authorities that all the ancient
editions of the Hebrew Text exhibited the word in this form. Jahii
specifies the Psalter printed in 1477 ; the Neapolitan Ilagiographa,
iu 1487 ; the Hebrew Bible printed at Soncino, in 1488 ; the edi-
tion of Brescia, 1494 ; another very ancient edition without place or
date on the title-page ; that of Pesaro, of 1517 ; the Complutensian,
1514; two editions at Venice, 1518, and one at the same place in
1521. The first, indeed, who printed the word in the plural was
R. Jacob ben Chajim, who superintended Bombcrg's Rabbinical
Bible, Venice, 1525. He has been followed by the great majority of
editors since, including Buxtorft', Walton in the Polyglott, Athias,
heusdeu, and Vau-der-IIooght. But this was not done without some
marks of hesitation, even on the part of Ben Chajim himself, for he
has printed a Masoretic note in the margin "IV ^T\'' — i-e , " the *> is
redundant." It seems, therefore, that for some reason the Masorets
put the plural noun in the text ; but they at the same time had the
candour to state that the letter which makes the difference was su-
perfluous ; that it is, in fact, an interpolation, and should bo omitted
in reading, and not taken into account in the interpretation of the
text. Whatever we may think of the wisdom of their decision, this
D D
210 TEXTUAL CUITICISM OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. [bOOK II.
candour sufficiently vindicates their motives. The note will be seen
in the margin of almost all the Masoretic editions, and, conformably
to it, the text is printed with the vowel points which belong to the
singular foim of the noun.
When we come to examine the state of the external evidence, we
see that the Masorets did no more than their duty in thus condemn-
ing the reading which they found in their own MSS. and therefore re-
tained in the text, but which they evidently believed to be spurious not-
withstanding. For of the MSS. examined by Dr. Kenuicott, no fewer
than 180 either have "TI'T'Dn, " <% Holy One,'''' in their text, or had it
originally there ; and 96 of Professor De Rossi's MSS. are in the same
condition. Jahn correctly sums up the testimony of the MSS. when
he says that 265 have this reading in the text, eight had it originally,
and three have it a secundd manu ; thus it is agreed, on all hands,
that this is the reading which is supported by the vast majority of
the MSS. written before the invention of printing, and which have
come down to us through the hands of the Jews. All the ancient
versions, without exception, favour this reading. The LXX. the
Syriac, the Vulgate are unanimous in supporting it ; and as we find,
neither in Justin, Irenseus, Epiphanius, Eusebius, nor, above all, in
Jerome, any intimation of a different reading being found in any
of the other Greek versions, I have little hesitation in claiming for it
the accordant testimony of Aquila, Theodotion, Symmachus, and
the other three translators of the Book of Psalms, whose versions
were given in the Great Work of Origen. Had there been any dif-
ference among them on a passage of so much importance as this,
notice would surely have been taken of it in some of these authors.
Even the Targum of R. Joseph the Blind, as printed in Ben Cha-
jim's edition, and every other copy of it that is known to exist, whe-
ther in print or in manuscript, gives the noun in the singular ; and
thus it was read in the Babylonish Talmud, the Midrash Tehillim,
the Jalkut Ilashemeoni (an ancient Rabbinical Commentary on the
entire Old Testament), and in many other Jewish writings which it
is unnecessary to specify.
Thus the preponderance of the external evidence is quite over-
whelming, nor is the balance of internal probability less decisive in
favour of the singular noun. No one who reads the Psalm with
attention, can fail to discern that the introduction of the plural word,
" thy saints," breaks and dislocates the whole ode, and renders the
connexion of the ideas incapable of being traced.
It may appear to some, that I have dwelt on this passage with
CHAP. VII. 1 CUITICAL EXAMINATION OF i'AUTIClILAU TEXT.S. 211
unnecessary and tedious minuteness. But when it is remembered
that there are yet many learned persons who object to the slightest
interference with the Textus Iteccptns of the Hebrew Bible, it
becomes a duty on the part of those who are convinced that it stands
in need of the correction which would result from a careful critical
revision, to point out such instances as prove beyond the possibility
of dispute, that Masorets, copyists, and editors have sometimes gone
astray, whether from inadvertence, or a more censurable cause ; and
that they have sometimes introduced and perpetuated errors which
have, more or less directly, reference to matters of high import.
The translators of our authorized English version have in this, as in
several similar instances, abandoned the Masoretic reading, and
followed, as I conceive, a purer text.
Section XIII. — Psalm xxv.
Few persons require to be informed that the 119th Psalm is a
poem that may properly be called an acrostic; it is divided into 22
paragraphs or sections, each consisting of eight verses ; every verse
in each section begins with the same letter of the alphabet, and tho
paragraphs succeed each other in the order of the twenty-two letters
of the Hebrew language. It is however well known to every person
who has read the Psalms in the original, that there are four other of
alphabetical odes in the collection. Of these the 25th is one;
but as it now exists in our Hebrew Bibles, it wants several of its
members, or rather has them arranged under letters which do not
suit the intention of the author, who has manifestly shown that he
designed to adhere to the alphabetical order. But the true text is
easily restored by the help of the alphabetical structure, and of the
principle of parallelism so clearly illustrated by Bishop Lowth.
The first two verses in the printed text with which all the versions
and all the MSS. agree, read as follows: —
: XK^x ^B^Si mn^ "^I^Sx 1.
1. Unto thee Jehovah ! will I lift up my soul.
2. My God 1 in thee have I trusted :
I shall not be put to shame,
Mine enemies shall not ti-iumph over me.
It is plain from the nature of Hebrew poetry that a parallelism of
212 TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. [bOOK II.
/
the ideas ought to be preserved ; and from the structure of this ode,
that each verse should consist of two members, and also, that each
should begin with one of the letters of the alphabet according to its
situation : but here the first verse has only one member ; the second
has three ; and there is no verse beginning with the second letter of
the alphabet. Several critics have proposed means of solving the
difliculty which occurs in this passage. With deference I would
submit the following method as affording a remedy of the manifest
injuries which the text has here suffered.
It appears to me, that the third hemistich, as given above, has
been transposed from its proper place, and that it ought to come
second in order ; the first and second words of the second line as
above printed, I believe to have been accidentally transposed.
Restoring the words and clauses to what I thus conceive to be their
proper order, the whole wiU read thus :
N*2r« ^^3:1 nin^ yh^ i-
And the meaning will be as follows :
1. To thee Jehovah ! will I lift up my soul ;
1 shall not be put to shame.
2. In thee, my God ! have I tiusted :
Mine enemies shall not triumph over me.
It will probably be objected that this is a mere conjectural criti-
cism. I admit that it is no more. But what can a critic do in a
case like the present, except adopt the most probable conjecture that
presents itself to his mind? The text, beyond all reasonable doubt,
is corrupted, and has been so from an early period : every one who
looks at it, perceives that it violates the law which the author laid
down for himself in composing his ode ; and all who have paid any
attention to the sacred poetry of the Hebrews, perceive at once, that
such lines as we find in the printed text, never could have proceeded
from any of their illustrious bards. Yet neither MSS. nor versions,
nor citations afford us any assistance ; the corruption had taken
place, and taken root before the earliest MS. was written, or the
oldest of the versions was composed. We must in such a case, either
give up the matter as desperate, and confess that the establishment
of the true text is beyond our hopes, or else we must use the sense
CHAP. VII. J CRITICAL EXAMINATION OF PARTICULAR TEXTS. 213
and understanding which God has given us for this among other
benevolent purposes, and remove the manifest evil in that way which
we think, under all tho circumstances, enables us best to arrive at
tho original text and genuine meaning of the author. Nor let this
be imputed to irreverence : it is reverently done. It is done with all
reverence for the authors and for the contents of the sacred volume.
But whatever respect I feel for these, I do not conceive tliat I am
bound to reverence the manifest errors of transcribers and copyists,
who have here and elsewhere left palpable proofs of their carelessness
or incompetence.
The Gth verse should in due course commence with the letter ) ;
but that verse has apparently been expunged from the Psalm, yet
not really ; for a third hemistich has been assigned by the Masorets
to the verse beginning with Jl, the preceding letter ; and this clause,
though it now wants tho initial "|, yet was read with it by all the
ancient versions except the Targum. If this letter be restored, we
shall have a verse beginning with the proper letter ; but only con-
taining one hemistich, which is inconsistent with the structure of
the poem. On the other hand the verse beginning with pl has three
clauses, which is equally inadmissible. I suspect that one of them
"According to thy mercy do thou remember me !"
belongs to this verse; by restoring it to its proper position, each
verse in the Psalm will have its proper quantity, and the plan of
the author in this respect will be fully carried out. The sixth verse
will then stand thus,
" And unto thee do I look all the day :
According to thy mercy do thou remember me."
There is, however, another error still in this Psalm ; for the verse
which should begin with p begins with '^, the next letter of tho
alphabet; and what makes tho mistake the more palpable is that
the verso following also begins with *1, so that this letter has two
verses for its portion, and p has none. The verse which properly
begins with ^ commences with the word nX*1 ; and this word also
stands at the head of tho verse that should begin with p: this
Michaelis thinks should be read TXlp, Dimock Xi Hp, a friend of
Dr. Boothroyd's would read the first two words "•jy^ Xip. " I am
calling in my affiictions\' but this would require a farther insertion
of the prefix ^ before the following noun. Other solutions have been
proposed, but some of thorn would make no sense. The ancient
214 TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. [bOOK II,
versions lend us no help, they all read with the present text n5<1.
which cannot possibly be right. On the whole, it is certain that an
error has been committed, but vei'y difficult to say how it is to bo
corrected. The conjectui'e of Dimock seems to me as probable as
any; according to it the sense of the verse would be "take thou
away my afflictions and my pains." I was at one time disposed to
read HVpi "Bring thou my afflictions and 'pain to an end." The
verb '^^fp "shorten," would also give a good sense.
To this psalm is subjoined a verse wliich does not come into
the alphabetical series, and is on this account as well as its want of
connexion with the subject looked upon as spurious by Lowth and a
great many other critics. A similar addition is made to Psalm
xxxiv. which is also alphabetical and probably for the same reason,
to keep up the number of 22 verses in correspondence with that of
the letters of the alphabet, after one verse had been dropped by
accident. We may perceive from these observations, that not even
the artificial arrangement of these poems could preserve their text
from serious detriment, although it would appear as if contrived on
purpose to prevent any omission or transposition. We may add,
that these accidents must have happened before tlie most ancient of
the versions was composed — probably before the Psalms were col-
lected into a book or into volumes : hence it is more easy for us to
discover the injury than to apply a remedy. In cases where the
text has been merely dislocated, the principle of parallelism will
often enable us to discover the true reading ; but in those of omission
or substitution, our conjectures must be very doubtful.
Section XIV. — Psalm cxlv. 14, 21.
This is another of the alphabetical Psalms, and it resembles the
25th and 34th in this respect, that, as given in our printed Hebrew
Bibles, it is deficient in one of its members ; that which ought to
begin with the letter J begins with D; and there seems to be no
good reason for this break in the series. It can hardly be supposed,
that the author, whom the inscription asserts to have been David,
would deviate from the artificial arrangement which he had pre-
scribed to himself. This would deprive his poem of whatever merit
it could claim on account of its peculiar construction, and would also
prevent it from lending that assistance to the memory which the
arrangement of the verses was doubtless intended to afford. There
is however no printed copy of the Hebrew text in which this defect
is supphed; and of all the MSS. of the book of Psalms that have
CITAP. VIT.] ClUTICAt. EXAMINATION OF rARTIf'l'L AU TEXTS. 215
been collected by Kennicott and Do Rossi, amounting to upwards of
300, only one (142. K.) a MS. of the Psalter in a small size, written
about the middle of the 14th century, contains any verso belonging
to this place. It is evident, therefore, that the whole body of tho
Jewish critics — Scribes, Masorets, and Copyists — with the solitary
and trivial exception above mentioned, have suffered an entire verso
to drop out of the text, in a psalm ascribed to no less important a
person than King David, and composed with a peculiarity of form
and arrangement which would seem of all others that can be con-
ceived the best calculated to prevent the occurrence of such a mis-
take. This extreme negligence — for there could be no fraudulent
design in the case — but ill accords with the extravagant eulogies
which the learned men of their own nation, and in imitation of them,
the great majority of Christian scholars have pronounced in the
care, skill, and almost unfailing vigilance and success of the tran-
scribers through whose hands the MSS. of the Old Testament have
come down to us. Happily in the present case, we are enabled by
the help of the ancient versions to remedy the wrong that has been
done to the sacred text. The Septuagint, the Syriac, the Vulgate,
and tho Arabic versions have all preserved and handed down to us
averse which in English would read, " J euov xn is faithful in all
his tcords, and merciful* in all his icorks." — This would be in
Hebrew, .
vnrn ^di mn^ \^:
Which precisely suits the context, and supphes that which is defi-
cient in the Hebrew MSS. and editions. The whole passage will
stand thus : —
10. All thy works shall praise thee, 0 Jehovah,
And thy saints .shall bless thee.
1 1 . They shall speak of the glory of thy kingdom.
And talk of thy power ;
12. To make known to the sons of men thy mighty acts,
And the glorious majesty of thy kingdom.
13. Thy kingdom is an everlasting kingdom,
And thy dominion endureth throughout all generations.
* Jehovah is faithful in all his words.
And merciful in all his works.
14. Jehovah upholdeth them that fall,
And raiseth up all those that be bowed down, &c.
* The Vulgate has sanctus; the LXX off"?" the Syriac, *Q-»?1: the He-
brew 1*Dn has all these meanings.
216 TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. [bOOK II.
[In the 12th verse I have inserted the pronoun thy, which is found in the
LXX. the Syriac, and the Vulgate, and which the context requires; the
Hebrew Text and the Chaldee Targum read his in both places.]
As all the Jewish transcribers, with the single exception of the
copyist of Cod. 142 K, have omitted a verse which clearly belongs to
this Psalm, so some of them have appended to it, at the close of the
ode, one which undoubtedly formed no part of it : —
And we shall bless Jehovah
From this time forth and for ever.
Praise ye Jehovah !
This addition is found in twelve or fifteen MSS. of the Book of
Psalms ; in many of the Jewish Prayer-books, in which this Psalm
is almost always introduced ; and in the earliest printed Hebrew
Bible — that of Soncino, 1488. But it is justly condemned as spu-
rious, because it is wanting in the oldest and best manuscripts, and
in the ancient versions, without exception. It seems to have been
borrowed from the formularies occurring in the Prayer-books, and
to have found the more ready acceptance, because it completed the
number of twenty-two verses, which, after omission of that beginning
with i, was necessary to make the sum of them equal to that of the
alphabet. These acrostic Psalms deserve more attention than they
have yet received. The study of them would greatly assist, not
merely the criticism but the interpretation of the text of the Poetical
Parts of the Old Testament.
Section XV. — Lamentations ii. 16, 17, &c.
The Book of Lamentations consists of only five chapters, the first
four of which are alphabetical. In the first and second, each verse
consists of three clauses or members, the first of which commences
with the letter that marks the number of the stanza in the series ;
in the third chapter, the first letter of each of the three lines that
form the stanza is always the same ; and in the fourth, the verse or
stanza consists of two hemistichs. The fifth chapter has twenty-two
verses, according to the number of the Hebrew alphabet ; but the
initial letters do not follow any orderly arrangement.
It is somewhat remarkable that the same arrangement of the al-
CHAP. VII. j CRITICAL EXAMINATION OF rARTICL'LAR TEXTS. 217
phabet is not adhered to in the four acrostic chapters, at least as
thoj meet us in the Masoretic Hebrew text, and in the great ma-
jority of the MSS. In the first cliapter, the initial letters are ar-
ranged in the usual order of the alphabet ; but in the 2nd, 3rd, and
4tli chapters, tho verses which begin with fi are placed before those
which begin with y, in by far the greater number of the codices and
versions. In all cases tho Peshito translator has adhered to the
proper order of the letters, and in each chapter a few of the Hebrew
manuscripts do the same; but none of these MSS. adheres to this
principle throughout; and it is very likely that where they have
adhered to tho alphabetical order, thoy have done so, not in con-
formity to the exemplars from which they were transcribed, but to
tlio judgment of the transcribers. The same may have been the
case with the Syriac version. AVo cannot rest much weight on the
authority of these documents considered in tho light of testimonies ;
but we may yet agree in the opinion which their various readings
indicate, that tho Hebrew alphabet retained tho same arrangement
during the time that tho Book of Lamentations was in process of
being composed ; and, as it is very unlikely that the same author
would arrange the written characters of the language that he spoko
and wrote, in two different methods, it follows either that in tho
first chapter there is an error in placing y before 3, or that in 2nd,
3rd, and 4th there is a mistake committed in putting fi before y ;
the latter alternative is tho more probable.
Section XVI. — Summary/.
In several of the passages which have been under review, we have
seen good reason for believing that the sacred text has suffered se-
verely at tho hands of copyists ; that some of the errors which their
negligence has produced have made their way into the printed text,
and, in one or two instances, into all the existing manuscripts, ver-
sions, and editions. But the reader must not suppose that passages
of the latter description afford, by any means, a fair specimen of tho
average state of tho text in the Old Testament. These instances have
been brought forward in order to show the necessity and introduco
some specimens of conjectural criticism — a process which I believe to
be allowable when it is unavoidable — that is, when all other resources
fail in applying a remedy to an injury which tho text has visibly and
undeniably suffered. It is evident that instances of this kind must
form the exception, not the rule. Those which have been adduced
are sufficient to prove that we cannot place implicit reli.ince on the
218 TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. {cOOK 11.
infallibility of the scribes ; and tliat we can have no assurance of
possessing, nor probability even of procuring, a sound text of this
part of the Bible, except in consequence of criticism, and as the re-
sult of the united labours of candid and impartial scholars in this
important department of theology.
It is not easy to give any correct idea of the general state of the
text from detached observations on particular passages, more espe-
cially in a work like the present, the object of which is not to lay
before the reader a Critical Commentary on any part of the sacred
volume ; but to give to those who may not have paid much attention
to the subject some notion of the kind of topics upon which Textual
Criticism treats, of the aids which it employs, of the processes of
reasoning which it pursues, and of the weakness or force of the con-
clusions at which it arrives. To do moi-e than this is impossible in
an elementary work; to attempt more would be to ensure disap-
pointment. There are many cases in every page of the Old Testa-
ment in which some circumstance, either in the text itself or in the
testimonies which relate to it, will call the attention of the careful
reader to the principles and to the procedure of criticism, by which
an erroneous reading may be detected and expunged, or a genuine
one recognised and confirmed. But comparatively few of these are
of the same magnitude or marked by the same strong chai'acteristics
of truth on the one side, or error on the other, as those which have
been considered in this chapter. In general, it makes little difference
to one who reads the Scriptures for the purpose of edification, or even
for doctrinal instruction, whicli of the various readings that are found
in the documents may be adopted as genuine. The Jewish scribes
were not infallible, but they were honest in the main. They have
seldom shown any disposition to tamper with the text on sectarian
grounds ; and in the very few passages in which some of them have
probably been influenced by an anti- Christian feeling, the testimony
of others of their own number has left us the means of remodying
the evil without difficulty or hazard. The charge of wilful corrup-
tion was advanced against the Jews, at first, by men who did not
understand the Plebrew language, and who, on such a question, had
not the means of forming any opinion that deserves the slightest re-
gard ; and it has been continued, and is ever and anon revived, by
persons of whom we must in charity believe that they know not the
consequences to which their principle would lead.
In concluding this book, I would remark that the object of Textual
Criticism is not to produce a new Bible, but to restore, illustrate.
rilAl'. VII. 1 CUITICAL EXAMINATION OT I'ARTK ILAll TEXTS. 21!)
and contirm the old ono, that is, the oldest of all. It seeks out the
ancient and primitive readings wherever they may lie hid, and adopts
them whenever they can be found. It would, indeed, remove from
the common copies of the Scriptures, any readings which are clearly
proved to bo errors or corruptions ; and who is there that would not
wish such readings to bo taken away ? — but it would with the same
caution, the same sincerity, and the same zeal, defend and maintain
Whatever readings appear to bo genuine, against the hand of rash
innovation, or reckless violence, that would seek to thrust them forth
from their rightful dwelling-place. And for one verse in which
Criticism would substitute a different reading instead of that which
appears in our common editions, it would in five hundred defend
the existing text. It is therefore a safe, a useful, and a necessary
science ; and theology cannot dispense with it without proclaiming,
in effect, that her own foundations are unsound.
BOOK III.
TEXTUAL ClUTICISM OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.
BOOK III.
TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.
CHAPTER I.
IIISTOUy OF THE TEXT OF THE NEW TEST.V^IENT.*
Although we are not able iu all cases to fix the precise date of the
composition of the different writings which are comprised in our
New Testament Canon, wo may assume it as a point suflficicntlj
ascertained, that its earliest portions were epistolary : and that tlio
historical books are among the latest of its contents. This circum-
stance is of some use in enabling us to account for the speedy and
total disappearance of the sacred autographs.
Most of the epistles were written in the infancy of the Christian
religion, when the disciples were but few; and a necessity for exten-
sively publishing them, did not immediately arise. When, tlierefore,
any of the brethren wished to refresh their spirit by perusing the
words of an apostle, they had recourse to the original document
itself, and no doubt individuals among them would from time to
time cause copies to be made from it for their own future use.
The autographs of the apostolic writings were probably transmitted
from church to church in the manner indicated by St. Paul in
Col. iv. 16 — '*Ancl when this epistle is read amonci you, cause that
it he read also in the church of the Laodiceans, and that ye lilceioise
* In compiling this chapter, I have availed myself of the labours of several
preceding writers, but to the Introduction to the New Testament, by Dr.
Leonard Hug, mv obligations are so great that it would be unpardonable
not to acknowledge them, yet so many that it would be very tedious to
s]iecify them in detail. I gratefully own'Griesbach and Hug, as my masters
in the art of Criticism, and in dissenting occasionally from their views,
would wish to express my own with deference.
224 TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF THE NEW TESTAMENT, [bOOK III.
read the epistle from Laodicea." — We can easily understand how
from such usage, a document written on a substance so brittle and
perishable as the %a^r>)s or charta, prepared from the inner bark
of the Egyptian papyrus,* then in common use for letter-writing,
would soon become mutilated and in part illegible. When the
original epistle had been thus injured, a copy made from it with
care, at some previous period, and on a more durable substance,
{'parclmient for example, see 2 Tim. iv. 13), would be substituted in
its place in the services of the church, and the original being laid
aside from use, would the more speedily hasten to decay. There is
no reason for believing that the epistles sent by the apostles to the
churches, with which they corresponded, were all strictly speaking,
autographs: we know that in some instances they were not; for
Tertius the amanuensis who wrote St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans,
has mentioned himself in that capacity (Rom. svi. 22). And that
apostle frequently refers to his peculiar method of writing his
salutation with his own hand, in such a manner as shows that the
salutation was the only part so written (1 Cor. xvi. 21; Col. iv. 18;
2 Thess. iii. 17). But a portion at least of the Epistle to the
Galatians was written by St. Paul's own hand (Gal. vi. 2).t This
being a circular addressed to a great number of churches (Gal. i. 2)
would almost of necessity be destroyed in a little time. In other
cases, the primary copy would have nothing to recommend it in the
estimation of the disciples beyond a faithful transcript taken from
it while it was yet unimpaired. When injured therefore, it would
be withdi'awn from use and from sight, and in a little time neglect
would complete the destruction which too frequent and too earnest
perusal had begun.
Of the historical books it is probable there never was a copy whidi
could be distinguished as the author's own copy or the autograph.
Historians usually either dictated their works to amanuenses, or
wrote them on a wax-covered tablet witli a stylus : the passages so
composed were copied upon cJuirta by a person employed for the
purpose, usually a slave. The whole work being thus committed to
paper, was corrected by the author, and then handed over to a
* This substance, and even the thinnest and most perishable kind of it,
was in ahnost universal use for letter-writing in the time of the Apostles. —
(Pliny. Nat. Hist. Book xiii. chap. xxii. xxiii. xxxiv.) On this material the
2 Epistle of John was written : 2 John 12.
j"ldiTi 'TTYikr/Mg vfxiTv y^aij-fLueiv 'iy^a-^a tyI Sfj!,fi y^ii^i' — "See in what
large letters I have uritten to you imth 7ny own hand:" — probably alluding to
his inelegant method of forming the Greek characters.
CHAP. 1.] msTOKY OF Tin: TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 225
xdKKiy^a<po; or fair copyist, who made from it a neat transcript. This
was usually read over in presence of the writer's friends, and if
approved, was put into the hands of a Bibhopola, whose profession
consisted in the multiplication of books. lie would cause as many
copies to be made for sale as were thought likely to supply the
demand. The exemplar which he had used could not be distin-
guished from any of these transcripts ; nor would its value be greater
than theirs: it was probably sold among the rest, unknown and
unregrettcd. The copy corrected by the author was probably written
in a cursive and degenerate character adopted merely for speed, like
that of which wo have some specimens in the Greek writings found
in unrolling Egyptian mummies of the age of the Ptolemies. AVhen
a fair transcript had been made, this would as a matter of course be
destroyed, like the rough proof of a book passing through the press.
The transcripts issued to the public were written in the full round
uncial character like our capital letters, of which we have cotempo-
raneous specimens in the Greek books found at Ilcrculaneura. The
books were in the roll form, and the writing continud serie, without
accents, and either with no punctuation or pauses unfrequently and
irregularly marked. Such was the usual method of publishing
historical works among the Greeks and Romans in the New Testa-
ment times ; and doubtless the same plan or some similar one was
followed by our sacred historians: thus we can easily account for
the fact, that before the close of the second century, all trace of the
autographs of the Gospels and Acts, as well as of the Epistles,
appears to have been lost. The earliest writers in the Christian
Church after the times of the Apostles, seem to have knoAvn nothing
of those documents, which in our eyes would be of inestimable
value.
There is indeed a passage in the 1st Epistle of Clemens Romanus
(thought by Lardner to liave been written A.D. 96), which ma.j pos-
sibly refer to the primitive copy of one of St. Paul's Epistles. Ad-
dressing the Corinthian Christians, he says, •' Take into your hands
the epistle of the blessed Paul, the Apostle: what did he at the first
write to you in the beginning of the Gospel? Verily he did ad-
monish you spiritually concerning himself and Cephas and Apollos."*
' Ava},u(3iTS rtiv eTiaToXriv tou /Maxa^iou IlaiiXou roS drrosroXou. x. r. /..
This may be understood as an allusion to the autograph, so to speak,
of 1 Corinthians. But it may also be understood just as readily and
* Clem. Koni. Up. 1. c. xlvii. Coteleru Patres Apostolici. Vol. 1. p. \1o.
F F
226 TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. [BOUK ITlr
quite as naturally with reference to a derived copy. Such expres-
sions are used with regard to the Scriptures, even at the present day,
and have been common in every age since the time of Clement.
Some have supposed that Ignatius the Martyr intimates the exist-
ence of the autographs of the Gospels in his day (A.D. 107), by an
expression in his Epistle to the Philadelphians. " I have heard some
who say unless I find it thus in the primitive [writings], I do not be-
lieve the Gospel. And when I answered to them that [thus] it is
written, they replied to me that [the former] are preferable."* The
meaning is somewhat obscure ; but from the context it appears that
the author is here arguing against Judaizers ; the "primitive" writ-
ings to which such persons would refer, certainly were not New
Testament writings of any kind ; we must therefore understand thera
and St. Ignatius as speaking not of the autographs of our canonical
Gospels, but of the books of the Old Testament.!
As little can we find any allusion to the autographs in a passage
of TertuUian, A.D. 200, in which he advises those who are desirous
of exercising diligent research upon the work of their salvation, to
visit the churches founded by the Apostles, " in which their own au-
thentic epistles are read." j It is not unusual with TertuUian to call
* 'Ets/ ^'xoutfa Tivuv XsyovTUV, on lav /j.ri h roTg d^^aioig sO^u, iv rui
shayyikiu) oh TKSrrow ytai Xsyovrog fjuou auToTg on y'sy^a'jrrai, a'XBX^idrjgdv
(lot, on v^oxiirai. Ignat. ad Philadelph. sec. 8. I have followed the inter-
pretation of 'TT^oxitrai given by Hug ; for a different rendering see Griesbach,
Opuscula, vol. ii. p. 68. Lardner reads ou rr^ox-sirai , ii. p. 90. For a^yuioig
Cotelerius conjectures that we should read dgyyiotg, archives, and so trans-
lates it. Patres Apostoll. vol. ii. p. 32. The passage in the larger edition of
these Epistles, is given idv fi^ h ro7c doy^sioig eufw to ivayyiXiov, oh 'rianiiu,
on the authority of one MS. ; but another reads d^yaioig, and so it is trans-
lated in the Ancient Latin Version ; " si non invenero Evangelium in anti-
quis," &c. Patres Apostoll. ii. p. 80.
f It must be added that few wiitings have come down to us from anti-
quity with more doubtful proofs of their own authenticity than these Epistles
of Ignatius ; that most of those who look upon them as genuine in the main
admit that their text is in a very impure state ; and that in the context of
this passage there are several things which appear to interrupt the current
of the author's thoughts, and certainly savour of the controversies of a later
age. Still the reference to the inroads of Judaizing teachers carries us back
to a very remote period of Christian antiquity.
J Age jam qui voles curiositatem melius exercere in negotio salutis tuse,
percurre Ecclesias Apostolicas, apud quas ipsee adhuc cathediee AjDostolorum
suis locis prsesident, apud quas ipsee authenticee literee eorum recitantur,
sonantes vocem et repreesentantes faciem uniuscuj usque. Proxima est tibi
Achaia ? habes Corinthum. Si non longe es a Macedonia, habes Philippos,
habes Thessalouicenses, &c. &c. De Prcescripiione Hcefreticorum, cap. xxxvi.
{Opera, p. 216. a.)
C«AP. 1.] HISTORY OF THE TKXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 227
a document authentic which is in a pure, uncorrupted state ; and that
he here speaks not of autograph copies, but of the genuine writings of
the Apostles, as opposed to spurious works and to mutilated or inter-
polated MSS.is evident from all his writings against the heretics of the
day, but especially his book against Marcion, in which, though ho la-
bours from beginning to end to convict that writer of corrupting the
Gospel of Luke and the Epistles of Paul, he never once appeals to the
autographs of these documents, which, if they had been in existence,
would have settled the point in a word.*
Those are the only expressions used by the Christian Fathers of
the earliest ages of the Church in which it has been supposed that
any reference to the autographs could bo traced. It would be a
waste of labour to show that the writers of subsequent times had no
access to these precious documents, nor knew of their existence.
Their complaints of the corruptions of the text, of the carelessness of
the copyists, and of the various readings in the MSS. of the New
Testament — and the pains which several among them took in reme-
dying these evils — sufficiently show that there were no such preven-
tive means at hand as would have been aflforded by a copy in the
handwriting of the author, or guaranteed by his sanction. The
claims which have been put forth by churches and libraries in later
times to the possession of such treasures as autographs of some of the
Apostolical writings, are manifestly fraudulent and absurd.
The early disappearance of the autographs being thus ascertained,
we can readily perceive that errors of transcription, which tlieir eX"
istence and general recognition could not have altogether prevented,
must have made their way into the text of the New Testament, as
into that of every other work, copies of which were multiplied by
handwriting. "Whether any, and if so, what kind of critical care
was exercised upon the MSS. in this age, we have no means of de-
termining otherwise than from conjecture. There is no reason to
think that the early Christians were inferior to their contemporaries
in then- attention to the text of documents on which for so many
• In various pai-ts of the Treatise De Prcescriptione Hcereticorum above
quoted, lie complains (e.g. pp. 208, 210) of the corruption of the New Testa-
ment Scriptures made by tlie heretics ; but although he denounces it bitterly,
he does not challenge its supporters to an inspection of the autographs. Hia
appeal to the Apostolic churches is only for the pui-pose of tixiug the doctrines
wnich they had received from their founders. " Si autem Italife adjaces,
habes Romam Ista quam felLx ecclesia I cui totam doctrinam Apostoli
cum sanguine suo profuderunt Videamus quid didicerit, quid docueritf
quid cum Africayns quoijue eccUsiis contesserarit," &c. 0pp. p. 215.
228 TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. [bOOK III,
reasons they would set a high value. We must recollect, however,
that the age was not critical, and that the use which was then made
of the Apostolic writings, and the methods of interpretation which
then prevailed, were not of a kind that would call the attention, even
of writers, to the subject of minute textual accuracy, or would im-
press the Christian world with a sense of its importance.
Justin Martyr (A.D. 140), though he does not expressly mention
by name any book of the New Testament, yet shows himself to have
been well acquainted with the four Gospels, and to have known se-
vei'al other of the sacred books. He says* that ChristJRns in the
public service of the Church were accustomed to read the " Memoirs"
or Commentaries " of the Apostles ;" these, he expressly says,t were
called " Gospels ;" and I think his manner of speaking intimates that
they were collected together into one volume, though he does not dis-
tinctly state this as a fact. Melito of Sardis (A.D. 177) speaks of
" the books of the Old Testament "\ — a phrase which seems to imply
the existence of another collection called the New Testament. At aU
events it is certain that soon afterwards two collections were in use
among Christians — one called " the Gospel," containing the four
canonical books which we receive under that name ; the other called
" the Apostle," including the Book of Acts, and those Epistles which
were universally known and acknowledged. § It would be natural
for the persons who took upon themselves the task of forming these
collections, to endeavour to procure the best and most accurate copies
of the sacred writings which had hitherto been circulated in a de-
tached form, but which were henceforth to be transmitted in a united
and compact state. But several circumstances must have contri-
buted to the introduction of erroneous readings, even at this early
date. The most obvious kind of such depravation arose from the
fact that the books and the epistles had been, up to that period, so
many detached and separate treatises. Books were scarce and dear ;
and probably there were few Christians who had more than one or
two of the writings of the New Testament in their possession. These
* Apologia ad Antonin. Pium, 0pp. p. 98, d. Ed. Col. 1686.
f Apologia ad Antonin. Pium, 0pp. p. 98, b.
I Ta TYii 'Kokaiac, hia&Yixrig ^ijSXia- Eusehius, Hist. Eccl. lib. iv. c. 26.
p. 149, (Ed. Paris, 1659.)
§ The date of these collections cannot be exactly determined. The " Gos-
pel," however, was in common use in the time of Justin Martyr, and the
" Apostle" in the days of Irengeus, Clement of Alexandria, and Tertullian,
Of course they must have been compiled at a still earlier period. Compare
Mill, Prol. in N. T. § 193—200. Griesbach, Opuseula, vol. ii. p. 86—91,
where the authorities are cited and discussed.
CHAP. I.] HISTORY OF THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 229
works wcro composed in a stylo which was perspicuous enough to
(ircek-speaking: Jews, and to otliers who were well accjuaintcd witli
the idiom of the Septuagint, and to the Jewish manner of expressing
religious ideas in the Greek language; they were, therefore, per-
fectly intelligible to the persons for whose immediate instruction they
were written ; but they must have presented many difficulties to tho
descendants of converts belonging to the pure Greek stock, accus-
tomed to the classical idiom and usage of their native tongue. When
we consider how great assistance we derive, in the study of the New
Testament, from references to parallel passages, from Concordances,
and other helps which imply tho possession and comparison of all the
different books, not only of the New but of tho Old Testament, wo
must perceive that the Christian student who had access to only one
or two of the Apostolical writings must have prosecuted his in-
quiries under very great disadvantages. Hence it was natural for
the possessor of a MS. of one of the Gospels or Epistles to fill its
margin witli glosses, scholia, interpretations, passages taken from the
other writings of the Apostles, and sayings of Christ noted down
from the testimony of aged disciples who had heard them from the
Apostles, or who had received them from oral tradition ; and these
scholia would, in some degree, influence the text of future transcripts.
For the same reason, as the general style of the Apostle Paul, for
example, which can only be gathered from a comparison of all his
different writings, could not be familiarly known to a person who had
only one of his Epistles to consult, he might very naturally suppose
that any harsh Hebraism or foreign idiom which he met with in liis
copy was an error of the transcriber ; and, correcting it accoi'ding
to his own notion of what a pure style required, he would produce a
various reading. It is likely that many errors of this kind were ex-
punged, and many others, arising from the introduction of marginal
notes into the text, were corrected, at the time when the collections of
the Apostolical writings were formed. But no care could prevent
some of these erroi's from being continued, even in the first exemplars
of the collected edition, or hinder others from being introduced, un-
der the influence of similar causes, still operating in some degree, or
preclude the revival of some of those which had been deliberately re-
jected. In certain cases the discarded readings would make their
appearance again, owing to the influence of the old copies of the de-
tached books, which, after a time, would begin to be valued in pro-
portion to their antiquity. The attempts of Marcion and others to
lay violent hands upon the text of the Gospel of Luke and the Epis-
230 TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. [BOOK III.
ties of Paiil, and the outcry which was in consequence raised against
all the heretical and philosophising Christians, as corrupters of the
sacred hooks, must have produced a reaction in favour of those an-
cient MSS. which had been long in the custody of aged Christians,
or their owners' ancestors, or the churches to which they belonged,
and which, therefore, could not have been tampered with by heretics.
And the favour with which the Biatessaron or Harmonic Edition of
the Four Gospels, published by Tatian, apparently between the years
165 and 172 of our era, was received by the Christians in gene-
ral,* must have contributed to the intermixture of readings from
each of the Evangelists with the text of the others. But whatever
may have been the particular occasion of such alterations, it is cer-
tain that in the writings of the Fathers, and in the Translations of
the New Testament which have come down to us from the third
century and the latter part of the second, we find abundant proofs
that considerable errors, of the kinds above indicated, had even then
been introduced into particular copies.
The citations of the New Testament found in the writings of
Justin, if we suppose them to have been accurately cited from his
MSS. show a very unsettled and disorderly state of the text: but it
is possible that he quoted chiefly from memory, and this is the more
probable, as we sometimes find him referring to the same passage in
not fewer than three different forms in so many different parts of his
own works. It has even been contended that his manifold and fre-
quent deviations from the text of the Gospels, as found in all exist-
ing copies, prove that the " Memoirs of the Apostles" which he used
were not our canonical Gospels, but a different work, founded upon
them, and embodying the facts of the evangelic history, but partak-
ing of the nature of a Harmony. For these reasons, it is not neces-
sary to adduce examples from his writings to prove the injury which
had been done to particular passages, nor would the force of such
arguments be conclusive.
But the old Latin version of the New Testament, of which we
have copious remains in the ancient Latin translation of the works
of Irenseus, in the writings of Tertullian, and in the works of
Cyprian, and which has come down to us in several MSS. all, it is
true, of a later period, but yet undoubtedly exhibiting a translation
of the Scriptures that was in general use in the churches of the west
* Ihisebius, Hist. EccL 1. iv. c. 29, p. 160 — 1. See si.&i Lardner, vol. ii.
p. U9.
CHAP. I.] III3T0R\ OF THE TEXT 01' THE NEW TESTAMENT. 2.31
at this time, gives us many examples of the free handling which the
original text had undergone at the time when it was made. A
similar inference may be drawn from the Peshito or old Syriac
version of the Christian Scriptures, which we have good ground for
referring to the close of the second or beginning of the third century ;
although its textual peculiarities are by no means so striking as
tliose of the cotemporary document. And the citations found in the
writings of Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and other Greek Fathers
of the time, and also in the spurious works of the second and third
centuries, are evident proofs that the evil was widely spread. We
have already produced from Origen, a passage in wliich he complains
of the diversity existing between the copies, the disagreement of the
MSS. respecting the text of Matthew and the other evangelists,
and the very great diversities occasioned by the carelessness and
arbitrary conduct of transcribers (see p. 99) ; and a comparison of
the authorities above enumerated, or the citations from them, found
in the usual critical editions of the New Testament, will confirm
Origen 's statement, and justify his complaint.
We may take a specimen of these variations from a passage
selected at random from the tenth and eleventh chapters of the
Gospel by St. Matthew ; showing how differently the text was read
by writers and translators who lived in various parts of the world,
but all so nearly at the same time, that they may be viewed as
cotemporary authorities ; and for the sake of greater distinctness, we
shall confine our selections to tlie Versio Itala, the Old Syriac,
Clement, and Origen.
In Matt. X. 2G, the Vcrsjio Itala and the Syriac read, '• For there
is nothing covered which shall not be revealed, nor hidden which shall
not be known:" — Ovd'-v yu,» ean xsxaXu/x.asvoc o oux d'xoxaXv<pdr,asTai
xal x^u'xrov o ou yvmdr,ai-ai. — But Clement of Alexandria, and
Origen, cite the passage in a different form. «' There is nothing
hidden whicli shall not be made manifest, nor covered which shall
not be revealed:" — Ohhh x^wzHv o ov (pavi^udriasrai oudi (xa! oOoJv
Orig.) xixaXufiiXBvov 0 o'jx arroxaKvtpdrieirai.
Matt. X. 29. — The Italic and Syriac versions read, "Are not two
sparrows sold for a farthing, and one of them shall not fall upon the
ground "...stt/ t^v yrtv. Origen cites this passage sevei-al times and
with some variety of reading, but five times he quotes it, " doth
not (or shall not), fall into the snare "...e/5 rr,v cray/oa.
In the same verse, the Syriac reads the last clause " without your
father :" dvij r&S 'xar^h? vfMuv. The Italic, not only as found in the
232 TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. [bOOK III.
MSS. but as quoted by Tertullian, by the translator of Irenseus, by
Cyprian, and by Novatian, has "without the v:ill of your father:"
uvi\) TYjg jSov'Arig rov rtar^og -ouZiv. But Origan repeatedly cites it
" without </i<?," (in one passage he gives it, my) " father "who is in
heaven :'' avro rou Targo; [/jt-oi^] 7o\J iv roTg olt^avoTg. The words
"who is in heaven" are also found in several copies of the Italic
version.
Matt. X. 35. — The Syriac reads, "To set a man (civd^wrov) at
variance with his father." But the Itala reads " a son,'' xj'm. And
so the text is found in TertuUian and the translation of Irenseus.
Matt. X. 39. — The Syriac translator and Origen i-ead, " And he
that loseth his life for my sake shall find it:" %ai o d-joXigag rnv
■^uyvv auTov hiziv s'JjoZ slprjcn aiiryiv. To this sentence the Versio Itala
adds, "shall find it unto eternal life:" "in vitam caternam:" i.e.
sig t,m\i aiumv. But Clement gives the passage in another shape :
" And he that loseth his oicn life shall save it:" xai '6 ditdhkaag rrjv
■y^uyriv T'/jv savrov auissi aurrjv.
Matt. X. 42. — The Syriac reads elliptically, " And whosoever shall
give to drink to one of these little ones, a cup of cold" 'xorrj^wv
•v^u;)^goO* the noun " water'''' being understood. But in Clement it is
expressed — "a cup of cold water:" ^'u^goD ubarog. It is also ex-
pressed in the Italic version and by Origen, but is placed before the
adjective, '-oharog ■^•oxi"'^- In this example however, it may be
questioned whether the noun is not supplied by Origen himself to
complete the sense, for the rest of the citation is not exact.
In the same verse the latter clause is given by the Syriac, —
" shall not lose his reward:" oh jj^t] d'joXisyj rh fj^iadhv abrov. But the
ItaUc followed by Cyprian reads, as does also Clement, " his reward
shall not be lost:" ov /J-n dToXyirai o iMC&hg ahrov.
Matt. xi. 2. — The Syriac and Italic versions read, " Now John
having heard in the prison the works of Christ:" rd \ya rou Xg/tfroD.
But the latter expression is given by Origen, " the things concerning
Jesus:" rd crsg/ rou 'ir/aoZ.
In the same verse, both the above-named versions read, " having
sent by means of his disciples," did ruv /j^aOriroJv abrov. But Origen
read " two of his disciples," bvo r. fb. d. and some copies of the Italic
give as their reading, " having sent his disciples," which corresponds
to rojg fjjadrirdg abrou.
Matt. xi. 19. — The Itala and Origen read this text, " wisdom is
justified of her children:" d'zo ruv rixvuv abrrig. But the Syriac ver-
sion reads, (JUrnl. ,_Lc, which some critics regard as representing
CHAT. I.J HISTORY OF THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 233
drrh ruiv nyvuv avrr^g. others as equivalent a.~h tujv hy^ airr,: : it means
*' hi/ her actiotis.''
Matt. xi. 20. — The Itala reads, " Then began he to upbraid," &.c.;
but the Syriac, more copiouslj, " Then began Jesus to upbraid, "«S:c.
Matt. xi. 21. — The Italic and Syriac versions read, " in sackcloth
and ashes :" but Origen, more fully, " sitting in sackcloth and ashes :"
iv adxxtf) xai azodfi xctdrifievoi.
It is needless to pursue this comparison farther. Any one who
will take tlie trouble to inspect the list of various readings found
below the text in the Greek Testaments of Griesbach, Scholz, or
Lachmann and Buttmann, will find similar variations existing be-
tween these authorities in every page in which they are cited.* It
is not pretended that the diftcreuces which have been pointed out, or
the greater part of those which are found in other parts of the Xew
Testament, are of any peculiar importance as regards faith or duty ;
but they are certainly numerous : they prove that, at the end of tlio
second century and the beginning of the third, there were copies of
the Greek text of the Xew Testament in existence, and in good re-
pute iu their respective localities, which differed considerably from
each other; and it follows, by necessary consequence, that some,
and most probably all of these had suffered, in a great many places,
from the usual inaccuracies of transcribers. A survey of these vari-
ations will show that errors had been introduced, by the accidental
transposition or omission or words and clauses ; by adopting into
tlie text explanations of words employed in an unusual sense as
tpavs^udrjcirai for yva)ai)r,6s-ui, which was understood as here signifying
" shall be made known," not "shall be known," in its ordinary ac-
ceptation; by inserting definite and picturesque interpretations of
vague and, therefore, unimpressive terms as "into the snare," in-
stead of "upon the ground;" by theological paraphrases of tho
popular language of the New Testament, as "without the will (or
counsel) of your father," instead of " without your father;" by adopt-
ing a terse aud antithetical terra from a parallel passage instead of
one more general iu its nature, as "to set a son at vaiuance with his
* In the Critical Editions which preceded that of Griesbach, the readings
of Clement aud Origeu were very imperfectly given. Griesbach made a
careful collation of Origeu's citations, which he publishetl in the 2d vol. of
his Si/mbol(e Critica'. But it is still necessary to appeal to the original
sources, because Griesbach there acknowledges the imperfection of his colla-
tion of Clemens Alexaudriuus — (Hug has brought forward several readings
from this father of which Griesbach takes no notice) — and the statements m
his New Testament (which are copied by Scholz) are often at vaiiauce with
those iu the SymOvUe.
G G
234 TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. [bOOK 111.
father," instead of " a man' — see Luke ix. 53 ; by exchanging a harsh
idiom for a smooth one, as when the expression " shall /nc? his life"
is transformed into " shall save it," the last term being also sug-
gested by the parallel texts, Mark viii. 35, Luke ix. 24 ; by supply-
ing the Evangelists' ellipsis, as when vbarog is inserted before or
after -^vxiov ; by the substitution of synonymes to denote the same
action or the same person, as the name "Jesus "instead of " Christ ;^^
by mistakes arising from the similarity of letters and words, as
T€XNU)N, " arts,'' for T€KN WN, " children''' (which moreover
appeared to render clear and intelligible an expression that has been
acknowledged to be obscure by all commentators, ancient and mo-
dern) ; and even as it would appear by the introduction of words
originally placed in the margin for the guidance of the officiating
minister when a passage beginning abruptly was to be read or ex-
pounded— as, when for "then began he to upbraid," the Old Syriac
Version reads, " then began Jesus to upbraid." Indeed there is no
kind or description of Various Reading of which copious examples
might not be selected from the documents which have come down to
us from these early times. We are enabled to speak upon this point
with full knowledge of the fact ; for not only have we the two ancient
versions, so frequently referred to in the preceding list, and the occa-
sional citations of Clement, Origen, and the early Latin Fathers,
but also the assistance of some ancient Greek MSS. which represent
to us the text as it existed, at least in some regions of Christendom,
at the time of which we are now treating. Not that any MS. now
existing can claim a degree of antiquity approaching to the second
or even the third century ; but that, from their agreement with many
of the otherwise singular readings found in the fathers of that age —
from their having, in connexion with the Greek Text, the Old Latin
Version of the Western Church, in alternate pages or parallel co-
lumns, and from the close correspondence between the whole com-
plexion of their readings and that of the other authorities of the time
— there can be scarcely a doubt that these codices were copied from
other MSS. in which a text — for we cannot say the text — of that
period was preserved. These MSS. are the Cambridge Codex in the
Four Gospels ; the same, together with the Laudian MS. in the Acts
of the Apostles ; and the Clermont, the St. Germain's, the Augian,
and the Boernerian MSS. of the Epistles of St. Paul. In the other
portions of the Greek Testament we are — so, at least, it appears to
me — destitute of the aid of MSS. which can be taken as a specimen
of the condition of the text in the times of which we treat.
CIIAl". I.J HISTORY OF Till; TEXT 01' THE NEW TESTAMENT. 235
Wc cannot properly call the text as it then existed, a recension,
for it was presented in a great many different forms, according to tlio
tastes or arbitrary caprices of the copyists, or of tlio persons who had
possession of the MSS. which they used as exemplars. It was ra-
ther characterised by tho absence of all that denotes a recension —
tliat is, critical skill and industry exerting themselves for tlie re-
moval of erroneous readings, and tho restoration of the Scriptures to
their primitive purity. Its condition was analagous to the Septua-
gint during the prevalence of what was called the -/.oivri h.boaig ; and
by this name Hug designates the text of tlie New Testament at this
period;* nor can there be any objection to the use of the term, if it
be constantly borne in mind that, though the phrase xo/n^ hbosig be
ancient, its application to the text of the New Testament is modern.
The existence of these manifold irregularities in the readings of
the sacred books of tho Christian Scriptures, could scarcely fail to
attract the attention of Christians and scholars, and doubtless many
efforts were made for their amendment in the existing copies and
prevention in future transcripts ; but, notwithstanding^the labours of
Mill, of Griesbach, and of Hug, all of whom have given minute at-
tention to the subject, it is exceedingly difficult to trace, through all
its stages, the progress of the improvement which subsequently took
place, or to refer each of the recensions which are now ascertained to
have been made, to its respective author.
Hug has spoken in the most decisive terms of Origen as tho au-
thor of one of these recensions,! and has even placed before us in de-
tail a list of tho MSS. versions, &,c. which belong to and represent
the text as settled by that illustrious critic. It was, indeed, a work
worthy of the genius and of the perseverance of tho Invincible Man ;
but the proofs that he ever undertook or ever accomplished such a
task, are very few and feeble. Tho only one which is of any weight
at all is the expression of Jerome in his Commentary upon Matthew
xxiv. 3G. " In some copies we find added, 'neither the son;' but in
the Greek copies, and especially those of Adamantius" (that is of
Origen), '* and Pierius, this addition is not found. "J A similar refer-
ence to the copies of Origen is made by the same writer in his note
on Gal, iii. 1. But the language of Jerome might very well be used
with reference to the Commentaries of Origen, from which it might
• Introduction to the "Writings of the New Testament, chap, iv, sec. 23.
t Introd, to N, T, sec. 36,
i In quibusdam Codicibus, additum est, iieqiie filiiis ; cum in Grsecis et
maxime Adatnantii et Pierii Codicibus, hoc non habcatur ascriptum.
236 TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. [bOOK III.
and doubtless did appear to Jerome that he must have read the text
in a particular manner, exactly as Griesbach has in his Syniboloe
Criticce placed before us the lections of the New Testament which
he believes to have been found in the MSS. used by Origen, and as
Professor Hug himself has set forth at large many of those which
Clement of Alexandria met with in the MSS. which he employed.
It strengthens this observation when we find the name of Pierius,
who is known to us in church history as a commentator, but not as
a critic of the text, associated with that of Origen. In the passage
cited from Origen himself (p. 99, supra), while Origen mentions and
deplores the diversities of the MSS. of the New Testament, and re-
fers to the efforts which he had made to remedy the similar evils
existing in the copies of the established Greek version of the Old
Testament, he never once alludes to any exertions made by him to
restore the text of the Gospels and Epistles to a pure state ; nor does
he refer to such a direction of his studies in any part of his writings
which has been preserved. What is more, his friend and admirer,
Eusebius, while he minutely and carefully details to us the whole
history of the critical labours of Origen on the Old Testament, says
not a word of any attempts made by him to correct the text of tlie
New ; nor does Jerome. In fact, no one seems ever to have heard of
such a work having been accomplished by Origen, till we come to the
days of Professor Hug ; and he admits that Origen has made no use,
in all his surviving writings, of his own recension of the text ; for
which he accounts by supposing that it was the last of his mortal la-
bours, finished in extreme old age, and long after his other writings
had been composed and published. If such a work were effected by
Origen, it must indeed have been late in life, for the Commentary
on Matthew was written shortly before his death, and in it he takes
no notice of even an intention to undertake a revision of the New
Testament. But it is useless to frame one hypothesis to obviate the
defects of another, which like itself is totally destitute of proof.
Yet I would not be understood as denying that the labours of
Origen produced a great and beneficial effect on the state of the
text of the New Testament, and greatly contributed to the improve-
ment of the MSS. His open proclamation of the existence of
corruptions in the MSS. was itself a great step towards their amend-
ment. The pains wliicli he took in amending the copies of the
Septuagint version, so as to bring tliem into nearer conformity with
the Hebrew original and with each other, showed the vast impor-
tance which he attached to labours of this description, and must
CIIAl'. I.] HISTORY 01- THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 237
liavo served as a,ii example, and at the same time a stimulus to his
successors, to engage in similar labours upon the other portion of
the sacred volume. The disadvantage which the Christians had
experienced in controversy with the Jews from their want of an
accurate transcript of the Jewish Scriptures in a language with
which they wore acquainted, proved the necessity and usefulness of
continued attention to the text ; and the method of exegesis which
Origen employed, and which was implicitly followed by succeeding
interpreters, served still farther to impress this principle on the minds
of all. It is true that Origen, by his example, served to confirm and
perpetuate the allegorical mode of interpreting the (Scriptures, which
the Jews had learned from the Platonic philosophers, and the early
Christians from the Jews. No mau carried this sort of exegesis to
a greater length than Origen, as his remaining works sufficiently
attest. But he deserves the praise of having drawn the attention of
the Christian doctors to the relation which subsists between the
literal or historical sense, and the allegorical or mystical interpre-
tation, and of having contributed greatly to disseminate among them
the conviction that the allegorical, mystical, or spiritual interpreta-
tion must bo built on the literal as its only foundation. Origen
displays his allegorizing propensity not less conspicuously in his
explanations of the Old Testament than in those of the New ; yet
we find that this did not prevent him from devoting twenty-eight
years of labour to the amendment of the Septuagint version of the
Jewish Scriptures. In hkc manner, his mystical method of inter-
preting the language of the Gospels and Epistles, was, on the
whole, so constituted and so defined as to keep the attention still
fixed on the words of the sacred text itself. The same result must
have followed from his defence of Christianity against the attack of
Celsus, quite different in form as well as in occasion from the
Apologies of Justin, Athenagoras, and other pi-ecediug writers.
Since the text of the New Testament was then made, as it is in our
own day, the point of attack, it was necessary to make it also the
ground of defence ; it thenceforth became the battlefield on which
the great war between the religion of Jesus and the heathen philoso-
phy was waged ; and even in the conti'oversies between the Catholics
and the heretical sects, it acquired a large share of that weight and
importance which had hitherto been tacitly granted, though not
exclusively, to prescription, the traditional memory of the facts and
doctrines proclaimed by the founders of the churches, and the faith
embodied in their baptismal formulas. The laboui's therefore of
238 TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. [bOOK III.
Origen as a critic, an interpreter, an apologist, and a polemic, had a
great though indirect influence in promoting the Textual Criticism
of the New Testament. From the citations found in the works of
succeeding scholars, it may be clearly seen that among the Greeks
greater care was thenceforth exercised in the preparation of MSS.:
the exemplars were probably selected with more discrimination and
caution ; the text was gradually purified from its more important
errors and variations, by the comparison of different copies, and the
employment of such other aids as were available ; and the transcripts
when completed, were probably revised with greater care, and the
errors of transcription removed more diligently. History however
has not preserved to us the name of any divine or father of the
church, for some time after the time of Origen, as having executed
a revision or recension of the New Testament : and it is probable
that the general improvement which then took place was owing to
the efforts of the more learned and eminent among the copyists
themselves, the care of the bishops in particular churches, and the
efforts of learned and conscientious men labouring for this end, in a
private manner, but with praiseworthy zeal.
When we arrive at the beginning of the Fourth Century, we
become acquainted with the fact that two illustrious men whoso
names have already been honourably mentioned, on account of their
efforts to amend the condition of the established Greek version of
the ancient Scriptures, employed their industry in like manner in
giving to the world more correct recensions of the New Testament.
The accounts, however, which we have of their efforts to this end,
have come down to us through the writers of the west,* where their
labours did not meet with acceptance, nor find admirers ; for the
Christians of Italy, Gaul, Spain, and the Province of Africa, ad-
hering to their old Latin version which belonged to the uncritical
age which we have denominated that of the xoivri 'hdogig, and slow to
admit innovation, looked with great suspicion upon any systematic
attempt to alter the readings found in those MSS. from which their
established translation had been made. Hence the notice of the
recensions of Hesychius and Lucian of which we are now to speak, is
accompanied with disparagement, which their unquestionably good
* The Greek Fathers who mention Lucian, all speak of him as eminent
for his knowledge of the Scriptures, but they do not allude to his critical
labours on the text of the New Testament, nor even of the Old ; see Lardner,
vol. iii. p. 202, scq. where the ancient testimonies concerning Lucian are
collected. Js'o Greek writer seems to have mentioned the critical labours of
Hesychius.
CHAP. I.J HISTORY OF THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 239
intentions towards tlio .Scriptures, the Christian religion, and the
church, might, we aro apt to suppose, liavo averted.
Ilesychius the critic is generally believed to bo tho same
Hesychius whom Eusebius* mentions as one of the bishops in Egypt
who obtained the crown of martyrdom in Dioclesian's persecution,
but tho time is not exactly known, and is variously placed in A.D.
310, 311, and 312. There is little mention of this critic in tho
Greek Fathers. Of Lucian on the contrary wo have copious par-
ticulars in Eusebius, Chrysostom, Sozomenus, and Philostorgius,
as well as in Jerome, Kuffiims, and others among the Latins, llo
was, as has been stated already, a Presbyter of the Church at
Autioch, and suffered martyrdom at Nicomedia, where as Eusebius t
says, " in the presence of the emperor, ho first apologized for the
heavenly kingdom of Christ in words, and afterwards farther
recommended it by deeds."
In his Catalogue of Illustrious Men, j Jerome speaks of Lucian as
" a most eloquent man, and so laborious in the study of the Scrip-
tures, that to this day, some copies of the Scriptures are called
Lucian's." This eulogium is general in its form, though perhaps
Jerome wished it to be understood in reference mex'ely to Lucian's
recension of the Septuagint, of which in our history of that trans-
lation wo have seen that he speaks favourably, as he does also of
the emendation of Ilesychius (see p. 105, ante). But in his Preface
to the Four Gospels, the Latin translation of which he had revised,
though with a sparing and a tender hand, he speaks with great
severity of the endeavours of Lucian and Ilesychius to improve tho
text both of the Old and New Testaments. " I throw out of con-
sideration the MSS. named after Ilesychius and Lucian, which the
perverse contentiousness of a few individuals upholds. These
critics had it not in their power to introduce any emendations into
the whole Old Testament, owing to the Version of the LXX. and in
the New Testament their emendations are of no avail, since the
Scripture previously translated into the languages of many nations,
shows that their additions to the Greek text are spurious. "§ In
• Ilist. Eccl. lib. viii. chap. xiii. p. 308, c.
t Hist. Eccles. uhi supra : ad init. cap.
I De T7r/s III. cap. Ixxvii.
§ As I have trausluted this passage pai'aphrastically, I give Jerome's
words : " I'ra'tcrmitto eos codices, quos a Luciano et Hesychio nuncupates,
paucorum lioniinum asserit perversa contentio; quibus utifjuc nee in toto
v'eteri Instrumento, post Septuaginta Interpretes emendare quid licuit, nee
in Novo profuit eineudasse ; ciim multiu'uui gentium iinguis fcjcriptura ante
240 TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF THE NEW TESTAMENT, [bOOK III.
this passage, if Jerome's words have been faithfully handed down,
he distinctly accuses as interpolators both of the Old Testament and
the New, the two martyrs, both of whom he has elsewhere commen-
ded— an inconsistency not unusual in the writings of that great
man. The authority of Jerome's name, and the continuance of the
reasons by which he was influenced, were probably the causes why
in a council of seventy bishops held at Rome about A.D. 496, under
Gelasius, bishop of that see, a decree was issued, declaring that
the " Gospels which Lucian and Hesychius have falsified are
apocryphal."* This decree at least proves that Jerome was mis-
taken in declaring the recensions of Lucian and Hesychius to be
confined to " a few " individuals: had such been the case, the decree
would have been unnecessary and would not have been issued. But
it is possible that Jerome only spoke of the reception which their
labours met with in the west of Europe, and was led to denounce
them in such harsh terms, from the pertinacity with which some
few of his cotemporaries urged the reformation of the Latin version
upon the model of the revised editions of the Greek text. He easily
saw that the whole genius and spirit of the old Latin version refused
such an amalgamation ; he probably knew that the western churches
would not relish so sweeping a change, as a measure of that kind
would requii'e ; and he therefore at once and peremptorily rejected
the proposal. How far the recensions of Lucian and Hesychius were
approved and adopted among their own countrymen we have no
direct testimony. We have seen that Egypt adopted Hesychius'
edition of the LXX. and that the provinces from Antioch to Con-
stantinople approved of that of Lucian ; but whether their editions of
the New Testament shared in this approbation, we are not specially
informed, and it is a point upon which the learned in modern times
have expressed the most contradictory opinions. Hug strenuously
maintains the affirmative position,! but his arguments are at best
only plausible and ingenious conjectures.
translata, doceat falsa quae addita sunt." — In Evangelistas, ad Damasum
JPrcef. If, however, instead of "sunt" we read "sint," Jerome's meaning
would be that the versions sufficiently proved the spuriousness of such pas-
sages as Hesychius and Lucian had removed on the ground of interpolation.
But as the whole passage is unfavourable to the two critics, the present
reading is preferable.
* Evangelia quee falsavit Lucianus, apocrypha. Evangelia qua) falsavit
Hesychius, apocrypha. — Labbe, Concilia, vol. iv. p. 1204.
t It will be seen hereafter that the main fact for which Hu^ contends,
namely, the existence of three fonns of revised text, rests on a solid founda-
tion : it is, in my opinion, injudicious in that great critic to connect this fact
J
ClUr. I. 1 lIIflTOUY OF THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 241
But whether the labours of llesychius and Lucian upon the
criticism of the text of the New Testament Scriptures, met with
acceptance among the churches of Greece, Syria, and Egypt, or
not, there is full proof that about this period a revised text, or rather
a number of recensions or critical editions of the text, came into
general use among the Christians who used the Scriptures of the
New Testament in the original language.
One of tlicso proofs is the testimony of Jerome who has already
been so often quoted, and from whom we derive almost all that we
know directly of the history of the text at this period. Speaking of
the process which he employed in preparing his improved edition of
the Latin version, he says :* " The present preface promises the
Four Gospels only (of which the order is, Matthew, Mark, Luke,
and John), corrected and amended by the collation of Greek MSS.
but only of ancient ones: and lest the Gospels in this edition should
vary too much from the customary Latin text, I have restrained my
pen so as to allow other things to remain as they had been, only
changing those which seemed to alter the sense." This statement
clearly shows that the MSS. which were then in circulation among
the Greeks contained a text to which the Old Latin Translation
could not at all, or at least not easily be adapted. In order to find
Greek MSS. which would be available for his purpose, Jerome was
obliged to go back to the ancient codices, that is to unrevised copies
which had ceased to bo transcribed, and probably were seldom used
by the Greeks themselves — a fact which marks the introduction of
a revision or recension of the original, which was supposed to be
more critically correct, and had therefore superseded the old and
uncritical copies which had formerly been in circulation.
This testimony, though decisive, is very brief and barren of de-
tails. We are, however, able to corroborate and enlarge it by
reference to the documents from which a more minute knowledge of
the readings of the original, as it was exhibited at this period, may
so closely as he does with the names of three men whose share in the prepa-
ration ot these recensions cannot be historically proved. By attacking this
weak but non-essential point, some writers have seemed to themselves and
others to have overturned a theory, whose important principles remain
untouched.
* Igitur htec prsesens prjefatiuncula pollicetur quatuor tantum evangelia,
quorum ordo est iste, Matthajus, Marcus, Lucus, Joannes, codicum Gra;-
corum emendata collatione, sed vet4irum : qua3 ne multuui a Lectionis Latinse
consuetudine discreparent, ita calamo temperavimus, ut his tantum quae
sensum videbantur mutare corrcctis, reliqua manere pateremur ut fuerant.
Hieron. in Evanqelistas, ad Damasum I'rcrfatio.
Hh
242 TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. [bOOK HI.
be gathered. Here, as with respect to the more ancient period of
the history, we can refer to the writers of the church whose works
have survived the ravages of time, to the versions which were pre-
pared for the use of the churches, and to the MSS. which have come
down to us, if not exactly from this very ancient date, yet from
times sufficiently near to it to show the kind of text which then
prevailed.* On a careful comparison of the information dei'ived
from these sources, it will be found that one edition or recension of
the New Testament text was in general use in the churches of
Egypt ; the ecclesiastical writers and fathers of Alexandria generally
adhere to it, and so does the Coptic Version of the New Testament,
which we shall hereafter see was executed about the time when this
revised text was in fuU possession of its authority. It is observable
that this Alexandrine or Egyptian recension preserves a certaia
degree of affinity with the readings of Clement and of Origen, and
even with those of the Versio Itala, and other documents of this
class. When these agree together, the Alexandrine Fathers of the
period of which we are now treating, usually concur with them, or
do not widely differ ; and when they do, we can easily discern the
ground upon which the critic who prepared the Egyptian recension
had been led to adopt a different reading. This connexion between
the two classes of text is easily explained. The Alexandrian critic
prepared his edition from the ancient MSS. of the unrevised text
which were in circulation in his own neighbourhood; from such
documents in short as Clement and Origen had employed in their
writings, and such as the west of Europe had been supplied with,
at a time when Alexandria was the great seat of Greek learning
and the emporium of the book-trade. The critic compared these
documents together ; he retrenched the redundancies found in some
of them ; he restored to each evangelist the portions of his work
which had been improperly transferred to the other writers; he
corrected, as well as his materials enabled him, the alterations and
omissions which were found in the text of particular copies. But in
all this, he acted as a censor or reviser merely ; hence his text must
still have preserved its general similarity and accordance with the
xoiv'/i sxdoGig of Alexandria, and doubtless while many errors of that
uncritical text were corrected, many others remain untouched,
* Jerome's Preface may be dated at the termination of the fourth cen-
tury; it will hereafter appear that we have several Greek MSS. of the New
Testament which may have been written in the course of the lifth century,
and can scarcely be placed lower than the sixtli.
CHAP. I.] HISTORY OF THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 243
because thoy were too ancient and too widely spread to be detected
and amended by the help of the accessible documents.
There was another form of the text which prevailed in the pro-
vinces of Greece, Thrace, Asia, and Syria, and which maintains a
similar affinity witli the unrevised text as it is found in the Old
Syriac Version, and doubtless for the same reason. This recension
was probably executed in Antioch, or at least in some place in the
neighbourhood of Syria ; it was founded upon the -/.oivr] 'iy.boaic of that
region, to which the Old Syriac Version belongs, and it retains a
general resemblance to the parent stock from which it sprung.
Griesbach appears to have been surprised and disappointed by tlio
too near affinity which his collation manifested between the Peshito
Translation of the New Testament and the readings of the Constan-
tinopolitan Family or Class of MSS.; and he supposed the former
to have been at various times remodelled and critically altered, so as
to bring it into conformity with the existing Greek MSS. and these
of different classes or families ;* but the hypothesis is unnecessary,
for the agreement between the two sorts of text, though distinctly
traceable, is not greater than, under the circumstances, we should
have expected to find it.
There is another family or class of documents in which we can
distinguish a third recension or revision of the text, but it only ex-
tends as far as the four Gospels. We shall hereafter find a more ap-
propriate place for setting forth in detail the proofs of the existence
of these three critical editions of the text, and comparing them to-
gether, with a view to ascertain the peculiar genius and prevailing
characteristics of each. In the mean time it is necessary to state that
when one of these is called Alexandrine and the other Constantino-
politan, these terms must not be understood so strictly as to imply
that all the church writers who flourished at Alexandria adhered
uniformly to tho former, and all who flourished at Constantinople
implicitly adopted the latter. It would be strange if individual minds
did not occasionally discover preferences for such readings or such
forms of the text as best accorded with their peculiar tastes or mental
habitudes. We find such deviations, and sometimes where we should
least have expected them. Thus, Cyril of Alexandria, though on the
whole he is found to use the revised text which was in use in the
Church over which he presided, sometimes quotes readings which
appear evidently to belong to tho interpolations that his recension
* Prolegomena in N. T. p. Ixix.
244 TEXTUAL ClUTIC'ISM OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. [bOOK III.
had rejected ; and so John Chrysostom, who was successively bishop
of Antioch and of Constantinople, does not uniformly adhere to tho
text of the recension which prevailed in those regions. But this
anomaly can be explained. These were men of erudition and re-
search. It is probable that they did not content themselves with the
MSS. which were in common use among their cotemporaries, and
which, belonging to the revised forms of the text, must have been
modern ; they probably referred, at least occasionally, to other and
older MSS. and thus, insensibly perhaps, and unconsciously, cited
and sanctioned some readings which had been deliberately expunged
in the later copies — exactly as Gregory the Great has stated that
although he chiefly employed the New Latin Translation, he fre-
quently quoted from the Old, and as it has been stated that the cita-
tions from the Scriptures which are found in some English writers
who flourished since the introduction of the present Authorized
Version, are taken sometimes from it, sometimes from the older
translations ; and sometimes do not exactly agree with either, being
apparently compounded of the readings of both.
The facts developed in the preceding parts of this work will have
prepared the reader for the admission that these recensions have not
come down to us in a pure state in aU tho MSS. and other docu-
ments of each family, and probably that none of them is to, be found
in a perfect condition in any one document. The revised text, when
prepared with the utmost care and pains, was thenceforth at the
mercy of transcribers and dw^darar it was liable to the same accidents,
and experienced in many respects the same treatment as before.
The Manusci'ipts, therefore, and Versions belonging to each re-
vision are found to differ in many readings from each other : their
agreement is chiefly to be traced in those striking and peculiar or
characteristic readings, in which the influence of the presiding mind
of a critic may be clearly discerned ; and even in these the harmony
of tho documents is not universal ; it is only a prevailing agreement ;
but so real, that amidst all the individual diversities which are to be
found, no man who has patiently investigated the subject, free from
the influence of a preconceived theory, has doubted or questioned the
fact.
The early suppression of the Greek churches in Egypt, Palestine,
and other regions of tho oast, where the Alexandrine text, and that
which Hug has denominated the Palestinian were employed, enables
us readily to account for the fact that only a few documents belong-
ing to these families or classes have come down to our times, and
CHAP. I.J HISTORY or THE TE.TT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 245
these chiefly of great antiquity. The case waa different in Thrace,
Macedonia, and Greece. In these regions the Cross long maintained
its ascendancy over the Crescent ; and even when the Christians
yielded to the Moslem yoke, thougli overcome tliey were not exter-
minated ; they had still permission to exercise their worship ; they
had churches, monasteries, and convents; they still had occasion
for sacred books, both for public use and private study ; and numbers
of industrious pens were busily at work in supplying these demands.
It has been estimated that nearly one-third of the Greek Manuscripts
which are now to be found in the public and private libraries of
Europe were written in the middle ages, in the cells of the fourteen
monasteries of Mount Athos : and of the remainder a large proportion
was furnished by those of Constantinople, and other places in the
same patriarchate. Hence the MSS. in which the Constantinopolitan
text is found far exceed in number those of the other two recensions
united ; and hence, also, they are chiefly modern. There seems to
bo some probability in the conjecture of Scholz,* that the most
ancient MSS. of this class, having been retained in continual use
in the churches and monasteries, were gradually worn out, and so
perished, the fragments of the parchment on wliich they were
written being often applied to other purposes.
It was chiefly from modern MSS. of this class that the earlier
printed editions of the New Testament were taken ; hence the gene-
ral agreement between what is called the Textus Iteceptus and the
documents of the Constantinopolitan family. The Manuscripts em-
ployed by the ancient printers were few, and not always the best of
their class. This was in some degree unavoidable ; for although, in
the beginning of the sixteenth century, there were probably several
MSS. in existence which have since perished irrecoverably, they
were widely dispersed in public and private libraries — many of them
were probably in the hands of persons who were unacquainted with
their value, and even with their existence. The imperfect means of
communication between distant countries offered no facilities for the
transmission of extracts and collations ; perhaps the number and
amount of the various readings was then unsuspected ; and the eager
haste with which the editions were hurried through the press, in
order to supply the demand for copies, and the anxiety of rival
editors to anticipate each other's pubhcatious by dint of main speed,
prevented those sources of information which were known and were
* I'roUijomena in Kov. Test. p. xix,
246 TEXTUAL ClUTICISiM OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. [bOOK III.
accessible from being so carefully consulted as tliej ought to have
been. It is owing to these circumstances that our present Received
Text of the New Testament was formed upon the authority of a very
few MSS. and these by no means of the first rank in point of anti-
quity and value.
Erasmus had the honour of being the first man who gave to the
world a printed New Testament in the original language. His first
edition appeared at Basil, in the year 15 IG, in folio.* With the
Greek text it contains an amended copy of the Latin Vulgate, with
Latin notes by the editor. The whole of this edition, text, version,
and commentary, was prepared for the press, printed and published,
in the incredibly short space of five months ! Erasmus himself says
it was " tumbled out rather than edited," " prcecipitatum potius quam
editum.'' He complains, iii a letter to Budseus, that he was under
the necessity of preparing a sheet for the press every day ; he had not
only to correct the Greek copy from which the printers were to work,
but to amend the Vulgate translation, to compose the notes, and to
revise the proof-sheets — for two persons whom he had engaged to do
that duty proved incompetent. All this time, he was busied in the
same manner upon his edition of the works of Jerome, which was
passing through the press simultaneously ; and he compares his la-
bour to that of a slave at the mill. He concludes by saying, " Con-
sidering the time and my state of health, I have done as much as I
could. Some things I passed over on pui-pose ; with respect to many
others, which I well knew, I was overcome with drov/siness ; and in
regard to these, as soon as the edition was pubhshed, I changed my
mind. On these accounts" — (what follows he expressed in Greek)
— " I am getting ready a second edition.... This I beg you will keep
to yourself, my good friend Budeeus, lest the multitude should get
scent of it, and so the books might stay at home with the printer."!
The same intimation he conveys in a letter written about the same
time to his friend Latimer, then in England, |
Erasmus states, that in preparing his first edition, he had access
to four manuscripts ; in his second he had five ; in his third he had,
* Novum Instrumentu Omne, diligenter a Desiderio Erasmo Roterodamo
recognitum et emendatum, Greece et Latine. Basilese, fol. 1516.
t Pro temporis modo, proque valetudine, pra3stiti quod potui. NonnuUa
prudens etiam prseterii : ad multa sciens connivcbam, in quibus mox ab edi-
tioiie a me ipso dissensi. Proinde rriv diuri^av "ragaaxsua^w sxdodiv.... Iliad
unum (pvXd^sig ci (SsXridrs Boudan, ne id suboleat roTg -TToXXoTg 'ha /Mri ra,
(Si^Xia o'ix,oi fj^smoi rSJ IvrwrruTfj. Erasmi JEpistola: Ep. 251.
I JErasmi Epistolcc. Ep. 254.
CHAP. l.J IIISTOUY OF TIIK TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 247
besides these aids, the edition of Aldus (which, however, is a mere
reprint of his own first) ; in his fourth, ho had, in addition to all
these, the Complutensian edition, of which we shall speak presently ;
and, moreover, a few extracts from MS 8. to which ho had not personal
access, sent him by his friends. But not one of his MSS. contained
the whole new Testament : two of tliem included the Gospels, Acts,
and Epistles ; ono the Acts and Epistles ; and one the Apocalypse
only, but mutilated ; so that, in order to make up the appearance of
a complete copy in Greek, he had to translate whole passages from
tho Vulgate. One of his MSS. of the Gospels, Acts, and Epistles
exhibits several good readings, but Erasmus made little use of it.
The rest are modern, and of small value.
In his first and second editions, Erasmus omitted the celebrated
verse, I John v. 7. A man named Lous violently assaulted him on
this account, and one of the Complutensian editors, named Stunica,
joined in the censure. Erasmus replied to both the assailants ; and,
knowing the force of prejudice which the omission of a verse so im-
portant, and at that time universally acknowledged as part of the
Vulgate Version, and, consequently, as a real part of the sacred
text, would excite against him and his editions, he promised, in his
answer to Leus, to insert the passage if it could be found in any
Greek Manuscript whatsoever. Soon after, one of his friends sent
him an extract from a manuscript then in England, and no other-
wise described than as " Codex Britamiicns,'' in which the verse was
read ; and Erasmus, faithful to his engagement, inserted it in his
third edition of 1522. lie published a fourth edition in 1527, and a
fifth in 1535 ; but the changes made in the text were neither nume-
rous nor important.
The Complutensian Edition was not published till the year 1522,
owing to a delay in obtaining the Pope's license ; but the part con-
taining the New Testament was finished on the 10th January, 1514;
it was therefore printed off, but had not been oiFered for sale at the
time when Erasmus commenced the preparation of his edition ; and
this circumstance was one of those which occasioned both him and
his printer, Frobenius, to be in such haste to have their copies hur-
ried through the press. This edition is called the Complutensian,
from the name of the place where it was printed, Alcala, anciently
Complutum, and forms the fifth volume of the Polyglott Bible which
was published uudcr the auspices and at the expense of Cardinal
Ximenes.*
* Ijiblia Sacra Polyglotta, oomplectentia Vetus Testamentuin Hebraico
248 TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. [bOOK III.
The editors employed by his Eminence speak in very high terms
of the antiquity and value of the MSS. which they used, but no
description of them is given, their number is not mentioned, nor
any means afforded by which they could be now identified if they still
were in existence, so that we can only conjecture how far the en-
comium was just. The dedication to the Pope would seem to imply
that all the Greek MSS. which they employed had been furnished
to them from his Holiness 's library ; but if so, it is certain that the
celebrated Vatican MS. 1209 was not among them or was not used ;
for this edition exhibits not one of those readings which are peculiar
to that venerable codex. The Greek types in which the text is
printed, seem to be cut in imitation of the MSS. of the 12th century ;
the readings preferred are almost universally those of the modern
as distinguished from the ancient copies : and Mill affirms that all
its readings have been discovered in six or eight MSS. collated for
his edition, so that probably tlieir copies were few as well as modern.
Notwithstanding the complimentary expressions in the dedication,
Stunica and the other editors elsewhere speak of MSS. in their own
possession and that of the Cardinal, and it was long believed that
they were deposited in the University Library at Alcala ; but when
Moldenhauer and Tyschen repaired thither in 1782 to inspect them,
they were informed that a librarian, wanting room for some new
books, had sold them to a rocket-maker in 1749 as materials for
making rockets. Bishop Marsh observes that this fact proves the
MSS. to have been made of our common paper, and therefore
modern ; for sky-rockets are not made of vellum.*
The Complutensian editors have inserted the text of the Heavenly
Witnesses, but not in the form in which it appears in the editions of
Greece et Latino Idiomate ; Novum Testamentum Grfecum et Latinum : et
Vocabularium Hebraicum et Chaldaicum Veteris Testamenti, cum Gram-
matica Hebraica, nec-non Dictionario Grseco. Studio, Opera et Impensis
Cardinalis Francisci Ximenes de Cisneros : Industria Arnaldi Gulielmi de
Bracario, Artis Impressoi'ie Magistri. Compluti, 1514 — lolT. 6 vols. fol.
* See Micheelis, Introduction to New Testament, vol. ii. pages 440, 853.
Dr. Bowring has declared {Monthly Repository for 1827, p. 572) the whole
story of the destruction of these MSS. to be a very idle fable, and affirms
that he had himself a few years previously handled the " seven which Gomez,
who wrote in the sixteenth century, refers to as the seven Hebrew manu-
scripts which were used by the Cardinal." But as the MSS. seen and
handled by Dr. Bowring appear to have been Hebrew ones, they could not
be copies of the New Testament; and the tale told to Moldenhauer and
Tyschen respecting the fate of the Greek ones, may have been quite true.
That this tale was told to these learned men, in answer to their inquiries, is
unquestionable ; and it is difficult to divine why it should have been told to
any one, if it be altogether false.
I
CHAP. I.] IIISTOKY OF THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. L'4li
Erasmus and in the llccoivcd Text. Thoro is no longer any doubt
that they translated it from the Latin Vulgato.
The next editor whoso labours demand notice in this brief history,
is Robert .Stepliens, Printer to the King of Franco. IIo was a
learned man as well as an enterprising bookseller, and brought out
many useful works in various languages, lie published manual
editions of tho Greek Testament in 1546 and 1540; but tliat which
is always understood when tho edition of Stephens is mentioned, is
tho third or folio edition with various readings, printed in 1550;
this edition contains tho Greek text only, and is far superior in
beauty of execution to any of its predecessors.
Stephens has prefixed to this edition a preface, which he gives
first in Greek and then in Latin, containing some account of his
ci'itical materials, and of tho method which he had followed in
marking the divisions of tho text and other things of a like nature.
It may servo to show the loose way of speaking upon subjects
requiring the utmost precision and accuracy, wlfich prevailed in tho
infancy of criticism, to mention that tlie very first sentence of this
preface, in the Greek, differs in a very important point from tho same
as given in tho Latin translation ; and that, in both languages, it
contradicts an explicit and definite statement contained in the same
preface a few lines farther down. In tho first sentence of the Greek
preface, Stephens affirms that he had collated the text with sixteen
most ancient co^nes (jzaXaiordroii iKxaidixa avriyod(poig'') ; but in tho
Latin he says, these were all manuscript copies: " cum vetustissimis
sedecim scriptis exemplaribus :" and a few lines farther down he
states that the first of these sixteen "most ancient manuscripts,"
was the 2n-inted edition of Alcala which had been printed less than
forty years previously, and published within tho last thirty years.
Of course there could bo no wish to mislead in this case ; it is an
error of inadvertence merely. Stephens thought the exact ago and
character of his documents a matter of little importance, and took
no pains to express the fact correctly : however tho error shows that
wo ought not implicitly to rely on the accuracy of an editor who
calls a printed book a manuscript, and who describes a co])y of less
than forty years old, as ** a most ancient one." As some questions
of very great interest in tho criticism of the text are connected with
tho care and diligence of Stephens in the preparation of this edition,
it has become a matter of great importance to identify, wherever it
may be possible, tho MSS. which he used, and to ascertain by
actual collation tho manner in which ho employed them. The late
I I
250 TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. [bOOK III.
Bishop Marsh brought the powers of his vigorous mind to bear upon
one portion of this inquiry, and has, I think, set it to rest in his
admirable Letters to Travis.*
The account given of the documents by Stephens is very vague
and unsatisfactory. He merely states that he has inserted in the
margin the various readings of his MSS. with references to them by
the Greek numerals from 1 to 16. The first, or «, is the Complu-
tensian edition ; (3, or No. 2, a very ancient copy collated in Italy
by some friends of his ; it is now identified with the Cambridge MS.
or Codex Beza?: y, d, s, g, ^, ri, /, and /s, (3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, and 15)
were MSS. obtained from the King of France's library ; the rest he
had borrowed wherever he could: — " ccetera sunt ea quce undique
corrogare licuit.'" He has not mentioned what books of the New
Testament each MS. contained, nor in short given any farther
description of them than has been above extracted. The only way
in which it can be determined how many of his MSS. contained any
particular book, is fo examine the margin, and see what documents
are quoted upon that portion of Scripture.
Although Stephens possessed so large a stock of critical material,
large in comparison with that employed by any previous editor, he
did not make much use of it for the correction of the text. In his
margin he has expressly noted upwards of one hundred places in
which all his MSS. differed from the reading that he has placed in
the text. In truth his text is neither more nor less than that of
the fifth edition of Erasmus, with the exception of the Apocalypse,
in which he chiefly follows the Complutensian. In the Gospels,
Acts, and Epistles, he does not vary from Erasmus in more than
twenty readings.
The MSS. were collated, and their readings noted, by Henry
Stephens, son of Robert, then a youth of eighteen. His extracts
may have been incorrect at first; they have certainly been very
incorrectly printed; for Henry's papers were afterwards put into
the hands of Beza, who has quoted from them many readings of
which no notice can be found in the margin of Stephens. The
great inaccuracy of the references there inserted can be easily shown.
The Complutensian text (St. a.), differs from that of Stephens,
according to Mill, in thirteen hundred readings ; but Stephens has
* Letters to Mr. Archdeacon Travis in Vindication of one of the Trans-
lator's I^otes to Michcelis' Introduction, &c. Leipzig, 8vo, 1795. Although
this work only professes to identify one of Stephens's MSS. it really deter-
mines the most important questions respecting them all.
CHAr. I.] HISTORY OF THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 251
noted only five hundred and seventy-eight, and of these there are
forty-eight which aro not to be found in it at all. Hence more than
one half of the references which ought to have been inserted, are
omitted ; and of those that are given, every twelfth one is a blunder.
If such inaccuracy is found in quotations from a printed book, it is
reasonable to suppose that in his reference to MSS. errors aro much
more abundant.
But this is no longer a more matter of inference ; for subsequent
critics have been able to identify, beyond all reasonable doubt,
several of the MSS. used by Stephens. To pass over six MSS.
which Lclong thought, (but as Marsh has shown, on insufficient
grounds,) that he had identified with six which are now in the Royal
Library at Paris, the following have been proved to be among tho
number of Stephens' authorities, by Wetstein, Griesbach, and
Marsh: — St. |3 is tho Cambridge Codex; ri is an uncial MSS. in
the Royal Library at Paris, where it is now numbered G2 ; t) is the
Codex Coislinianus, 200; // is now in the University Library of
Cambridge, where it is marked Kk. 6.4 ; lo is the Codex Victorinus,
774 ; and n is one in the Royal Library, now numbered 237. Now
the re-collation of these MSS. has demonstrated the " supina et
pcene incredibilis negligentia " of Stephens. His mistakes are of
every kind, and almost innumerable ; so that those who depended
on his margin for their stock of critical materials, must have been
frequently and grossly deceived.
In this edition the disputed clause, 1 John v. 7, is given without
alteration as printed by Erasmus. In his margin the editor has
noted that all his MSS. omit some of the words which are inserted
in the text ; and on looking into the text, we find that the words thus
stated to be omitted are, sv T<p oboavi^. Nothing can be more certain
than that all the MSS. of this Epistle which Stephens had in his
possession omit the entire verse ; and it has been conjectured by Sir
Isaac Newton that the printer may, by mistake, have placed the
semicircle after h-j:av'Z instead of after h rf, yf,.
Such was the celebrated edition of Robert Stephens, which, not-
withstanding its many inaccuracies, obtained and still retains a
remarkable influence among the Reformed Churches. This was
owing in a great measure to religious partizanship ; for Stephens
having been obliged to flee from France, took up his residence in
Geneva, and announced himself as a convert to tho Reformation.
He became intimate with Calvin and Beza, and was revered there
as a martyr to the Protestant cause.
252 TEXTUAL CIUTICISM OF THE NEW TESTAMENT, [iJOOK III.
The ^^^^^ edition of Beza was published in 1582, and reprinted in
] 589, at Geneva ; and from it the Authorized English Version of
the New Testament was translated. Beza had in his possession the
two most ancient and valuable MSS. the Cambridge and Clermont;
and had access to the Syriac version then lately published ; but he
made little or no critical use of these materials, using them chiefly
for theological purposes in his notes. He differs from Stephens in
only fifty places, not one of which is of any importance ; and in most
of these he differs chiefly on conjectural grounds.
The next edition of the New Testament which it is necessary to
notice, is that which appeared at Leyden in 1624, in 1 vol. 12mo,
from the press of Elzevir. The same text was several times re-
printed from the same press, and others also, both in Holland and
elsewhere. In his second edition, (1033,) Elzevir announced his
text to the world as universally approved, and perfectly immaculate.
" Textum ergo habes ah omnibus receptum ; in quo nihil immutatum
aut corruptum damns." This assertion was believed, and so wrought
its own fulfilment : for the readings of this edition constitute what
is to this day called the Received Text.
Yet its claims to this distinction are of the slightest possible de-
scription. The name of the editor is unknown. He does not appear
to have possessed or to have consulted a single Greek MSS. In
his selection of readings he has followed Beza most servilely, except
in a few instances where he has taken the text of Stephens, or of
some of the MSS. which appeared in Stephens's margin ; nor can it
be ascertained that in selecting these various readings, he followed
any fixed rule or principle of preference ; being apparently only in-
fluenced by caprice, or by the supposed necessity of introducing some
alteration, without well knowing what passages it was necessary to
change.
Thus the Textus Beceptus is that of Elzevir's edition of 1624;
which follows Beza in most places. Beza again reprints Stephens
with a few alterations, chiefly from conjecture : and Stephens does
little more than republish Erasmus's Text of 1535. Erasmus had
just five MSS. of the various portions of the Now Testament ; and on
the character of these five the received text ultimately depends, for
on their testimony it was composed, in every important particular.
Such were the sources and such is the critical value of this edition :
yet so superstitiously has it been revered, that to this very hour
there are many who look upon it as little less than sacrilege to amend
any of its numerous errors, on the faith of a critical apparatus not
CHAP. 1. 1 iiisTOitY or the text of the new testament. 253
less tlian one Inuulrod and fifty times more extensive than that on
which it was founded, and an acquaintance with critical principles, —
the fruit of experience, discussion, and controversy, — which increases
the value of tlioso materials a thousand-fold.
I am far from undervaluing tho labours, or attempting to depre-
ciate the characters, of tho early editors of tho New Testament. Of
Erasmus especially it is impossible to speak without respect. Per-
haps it is not too much to affirm tliat he was the ablest man who
ever superintended an edition of the Xew Testament. But he and
his immediate successors laboured under disadvantages for which no
human abihty could compensate. Their critical material was scanty.
Tho MSS. they possessed were few ; add together the five of Eras-
mus, the fifteen of Stephens, tho two possessed by Beza, and allow
ton for tlie Complutonsian, there were only thirty-two in all ; but in
tho edition of Scholz alone, reference is made to D21 MSS. contain-
ing the whole or part of tho New Testament.* These thirty-two
MSS. on which everything depended, if they had all been used,
whicli tliey were not, — were neither carefully collated, nor correctly
described ; thoir age and relative value were almost entirely unknown ;
their distinction into families, classes and recensions, had never been
suspected, nor tho nature and character of each investigated : yet
this is a fact which lies at the root of sound textual criticism. Of
the versions, tho only one to which the early editors had access was
the Vulgate ; and in the case of Beza, the Syriac : and the copies of
tho Vulgate then in circulation were in many places interpolated and
corrupted. The works of tho Fathers were not all published at the
time, nor had those which wore in print been ransacked for scriptural
quotations : indeed, it would havo been a most laborious task ; for
tho editions then in use were not provided with tliose convenient in-
dexes, which enable us at present to turn with comparative facility
to any passage that we wish to consult.! To suppose that under
these circumstances the text could possibly approach to a pure
standard, is to suppose tho editors to have been inspired. Tho
highest sagacity of human beings would not have sufficed to produce
such an effect.
• It is not pretended that the whole of these irSS. have been collated
throup;hout : but they are known and accessible to the learned ; they are all
accurately euumcrated and described ; and most of them have.been inspected
and collated in passa^jes of special importance : and it is not probable, that
tliose in tho hands of the cai-ly editors were more minutely examined than
the greater i)art of these have been.
f it must be euufessed that iu some even of the best editions of the Fathers,
tho indexes of scriptural citations are defective.
254 TEXTUAL CIIITICISM OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. [bOOK III.
But the very highest human sagacity stands in need of the dis-
cipline of experience ; and until it has been matured by such dis-
cipline, is frequently led astray. Thus, even in that department
in which natural sagacity might be expected to be of the greatest
avail, — namely, in estimating the internal probability of various
readings, — the early editors proceeded entirely on erroneous grounds.
Several of them did not scruple to avow their selection of particular
readings which they admitted into the text, on theological grounds ;
although it is manifest that doctrinal theology is to be governed by,
and not govern, the criticism of the text. And no rule was more
fully recognised among them than that of preferring elegant, clear
and easily understood readings, to those which seemed harsh, obscure,
or difficult ; — although the true principle of selection is directly the
reverse.
After Elzevir had, by a fortunate boldness, announced his Text
as that universally received, and free from error, the printers in
Holland and Germany for a long time contented themselves with re-
publishing the immaculate edition. In England, the care of the
sacred text happily passed into the hands of scholars, who proceeded
on a better system. The following works deserve to be remembered
as having contributed to the progress of criticism.
Walton's, or the London, Polyglott — a work of great utility, of
which the portion containing the Old Testament has been already
described: seep, 61. The fifth volume contains the New Testa-
ment, in which appear the Greek Text, with an interlinear Latin
translation, the Syriac, the Persic, the Vulgate, the Arabic, and the
^thiopic Versions; each with a collateral translation into Latin.
The Greek text is that of Stephens ; to which his collection of
various readings is appended, together with a collation of sixteen
Greek MSS. which Stephens had never consulted.;
In 1675 Dr. Fell pubhshed a Greek Testament in 1 vol. 8vo. In
the text he made no innovations ; but added, in the form of notes,
all the various readings given by Walton, together with others col-
lected from twelve MSS. in the Bodleian Library, four Dublin, and
two Paris MSS. ; and a collation of twenty-two Barberini MSS. ex-
tracted by Caryophilus at the request of P. Urban VIII. for an
edition of the Greek Testament, projected but never executed. In
this edition were likewise given several readings from the Coptic and
Gothic Versions. Fell's Greek Testament contains readings more
or less accurately compiled from about seventy MSS.
Dr. Fell was far from supposing that his own labours had exhausted
CHAr. I.j HISTORY OF THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 255
the subject of textual criticism. On the contrary, he earnestly re-
commended the preparation of a new and more complete edition to
his friend Dr. John Mill, who, as a younger man than himself, might
more reasonably bo expected to live to see it published. No selec-
tion could have been more judicious. Mill undertook tlic task, on
wliich lie laboured zealously and incessantly for thirty years. It is
painful to add that ho survived the publication of his immortal work
only a few days.
This im])ortant work, from which the manhood of textual criticism
is dated, was published in 1707 iu one vol. folio. The text is that
of Stephens, splendidly and accurately printed. Beneath it are
placed the various readings of all the M8S. quoted by Bishop Fell,
most of which were collated anew; and Mill collated or procured
collations of ninety-eight others, never before examined, lie has
noted the various readings of Erasmus, the Compluteusians and
Elzevir, where they differ fi-om the text of Stephens ; augmented the
extracts of Fell from the Coptic and Gothic Versions ; and recoi'^Jed
the principal various readings in the Vulgate, the Syriac, the Arabic,
the Persic, and the iEthiopic, as given in the Polyglott. It is true
that owing to his imperfect acquaintance with the Oriental languages.
Mill took his extracts from the Latin translations given in that work,
and has in consequence fallen into some mistakes : but still he opened
up a mine of most valuable material, which has not even yet been
thoroughly explored. To all these aids, ho made a valuable addition
in a large selection of readings from the more ancient Creek and
Latin Fathers. In liis copious and leai'ned Prolegomena, he has
minutely described the sources whence he drew liis materials ; giving
an account of the place, appearance, and probable age of every MSS.
which he has consulted. No previous editor had devoted himself
so diligently to these interesting and important inquiries.
In 1710 this edition was reprinted by Kuster at Rotterdam, with
a collation of twelve MSS. some of which had never been collated
before, and some only imperfectly : among which there is one (the
Ephrem MS.) of great value, from which extracts were now given
for the first time. Mill's Prolegomena have been repubhshcd in a
sepai'ate form, and deserve an attentive perusal; for as MichreHs
truly observes, there are many things in them which are not noticed
in those of Wetstein ; and of the matters discussed in both works,
some — especially the history of the Text and Canon — are better ex-
plained by Mill than by him.
Almost every year added strength and vigour to textual criticism.
256 TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. [boOK IU.
Among the labourers in this field, Bcngel deserves to be especially
recorded as the first person who ventured, though timidly, to desert
the text of the early printers and editors. In 1734 he pubhshed a
Greek Testament with a corrected text, and a copious critical appara-
tus. Ho follows no other edition; giving the preference to those
readings which he judged to be the best supported : but with a curious
qualification, — to admit none that had not appeared in the text of
some one or other of the former editors : a condition which he ob-
served through fear of subjecting himself to the charge of innovation.
When he found a reading which he regarded as genuine, but which
had not been admitted into any of the previous editions, he placed it
at the foot of the page, with a mark denoting his opinion of its
value. In the Apocalypse alone, he printed some readings which no
preceding editor had exhibited : a liberty which he thought himself
warranted in assuming, as the early editors had used comparatively
few MSS. in that book.
More important and valuable than any of the preceding, is the
edition of John James Wetstcin, published at Amsterdam in 1751
and 1752 in 2 vols, folio. The work is divided into four parts, cor-
responding with the usual divisions of the MSS.: — 1, the Gospels;
2, the Epistles of Paul ; 3. the Acts and Catholic Epistles ; and 4,
the Apocalypse. Each part has its own Prolegomena, specifying the
authorities which are quoted in that division ; and General Prolego-
mena are prefixed to the whole, giving a clear account of the materials
and principles of textual criticism employed in this edition. The
Prolegomena had been printed separately in 1730 in 4to : but in the
interval, Wetstein, as might be expected, had found many things to
be added, and some which he judged it necessary to alter: — in
respect to the principles of Textual Criticism, his changes are far
from being improvements. When he first published his Prolegomena,
lie was disposed to attribute to MSS. an authority proportioned to
their antiquity. But in 1751, when the entire work appeared, he
had altogether changed his opinion, denouncing some of the most
ancient and valuable MSS. as altered and corrupted from the Latin
Version, and as possessing no higher authority, and lending no
farther sanction to those readings in which they agree with the Latin,
than the Latin would have conferred without their assistance. Both
these principles are erroneous, as has already been seen in part, and
hereafter will more clearly appear : but of the two, the latter is in-
comparably the worse. It is, indeed, the fundamental mistake of
Wetstein's theory of Criticism : in practice ho did not consistently
CHAP. I.J HISTORY OF THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 257
or uniformly adhere to it; but the principle, being recommended by
his authority, required all the learning and talent of Semler, Gries-
bach, and Michrelis to remove it. Wetstein took much pains in
preparing this edition, having repeatedly visited France, England,
Holland, and Germany, to collate MSS. and Versions, besides
making diligent use of materials found in his native Bale. Wet-
stein was the first wlio introduced the practice of referring to the
uncial MSS. by the letters A, B, C, D, &c. ; and those in the
cursive character by the numerals 1, 2, 3, (fee; in which he has
been followed by all succeeding critics.
The text of this edition is that of Elzevir; for though Wetstein,
in his notes, proposed several emendations, he did not venture to
introduce thera himself; 'and the changes which he has recom-
mended have, in almost every instance, been approved by the best
of succeeding critics. He has indeed been accused by Michaelis
(Introd. ii. 476, «fec.) of having allowed himself to be biassed
respecting the readings which he preferred in certain passages, by
his theological tendencies; but the charge is disproved, as to the
passages which this writer has alleged in support of it, by his own
translator and commentator, Bishop Marsh, (Notes to Michcelis, ii.
Part 2, p. 867.) This learned prelate has repeated his testimony
in favour of Wetstein's impartiality, in his Lectures on the Criti-
cism of the Bible, 2d ed. p. 133, published in 1824:
"The charge, therefore, which has been laid to Wetstein, of
proposing (not making) alterations in the text for the mere pur-
pose of obtaining support to a particular creed, is without founda-
tion I have been long in the habit of using Wetstein's
Greek Testament. I have at least endeavoured to weigh carefully
the evidence for the readings which I have had occasion to examine ;
yet I have always found that the alterations proposed by Wetstein
were supported by respectable authority, and, in general, by much
better authority than the correspondent readings of the text
His merits as a critic undoubtedly surpass the merits of his prede-
cessors. He alone contributed more to advance the criticism of the
Greek Testament than all who had gone before him."
Wetstein has corrected many of the errata in the citations of
Mill and Bengel, and has greatly enlarged the stock of materials,
chiefly from MSS. which he personally collated, and from versions
which had appeared since the date of Mill's publication. In his
collection he appears to have been diligent, careful, and impartial ;
and even Michselis allows that, "of all the editions of the New
Kk
258 TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. [bOOK III.
Testament, this is the most important and necessary to those who
are engaged in the work of sacred criticism" (Introd. ii. p. 470):
a most honourable testimony ; which, however, must not be under-
stood as placing Wetstein above those editors whose works had not
appeared when this opinion was recorded.
The edition of Wetstein, in addition to the light which it throws
on the criticism of the text, is furnished with copious and learned
Notes, discussing a vast number of questions relating to the Inter-
pretation of the New Testament. In the Appendix are three
Tracts. — I. Animadversiones et Cautiones ad Examen Variantiiim
Lectionum N. T. Necessarice; II. De Interpretatione Novi Testa-
menti; III. De Interpretatione Libri Apocalypseos : and to the
whole are subjoined two Syriac Epistles, professing to have been
written by Clemens Romanus, which Wetstein found at the end of
a MS. of the Peshito version of the New Testament sent to him
from the East, and which he believed to be genuine, but which Lard-
ner has demonstrated to be spurious. (Works, vol. x. p. 186 — 212.)
Matthsei, Professor of Greek, first at Moscow and afterwards at
Wittemberg, published an edition of the Greek Testament at Riga,
in 12 vols. 8vo, in various years from 1782 till 1788. Having been
invited to Russia by the Empress Catherine, his attention was
turned to sacred criticism by the number of biblical MSS. which
he found in the public libraries of Moscow. Of these he made a
careful collation, which he printed along with the text, corrected
according to their testimony. The Moscow MSS. however, were
the only ones which he consulted, not having access at the time to
the editions of Mill or Wetstein; so that his materials were not very
ample ; and his edition is chiefly valuable for the collation of the
forty-four MSS. which it contains. Matthsei certainly acted
rashly in attempting to amend the text on the faith of so small a
number of MSS., the more especially as he was aware of the
existence of Mill's edition and Wetstein's, although he had no
copy of them at hand ; and still more is he to be condemned for his
efforts to depreciate those sources of information which were not
open to himself at the commencement of his labours — giving to a
class of documents to which some MSS. of venerable antiquity
belong the name of ' ' editio scurrilis. ' ' But although he thus laboured
to undervalue the works of Mill, and wrote with considerable asperity
against Gi'iesbach and Semler,* yet his own collations have, on the
* Of Wetstein Matthsei expressed himself, in his second edition, with
much respect. Wetstein had deUvered an unfavourable judgment upon
CHAP. I.) HISTORY OF THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 259
whole, tended to confirm the judgment of those illustrious critics.
Several of his MSS. are of good antiquity, though far from reaching
the first rank in point of age.
In 178G and 1787, Alter published, at Vienna, a Greek Testa-
ment, the text of which is that of the Larabecian Codex, No. 1, in
the Imperial Library at Vienna ; to which he has appended the vari-
ous readings of several other M8S. in the same collection. To this
edition the same objection lies that has been made to the preceding
one ; but, like it, it has its merit and use as a repertory of colla-
tions.
About the same time. Birch and Adler were travelling in Italy,
at the expense of the King of Denmark, who employed them to
collate the MSS. in the Vatican, the Florentine and Venetian
Libraries; while Moldenhauer and Tyscheu were employed on a
similar mission in Spain. It was intended that the result of their
researches should be embodied in an edition of the New Testament ;
but the first volume only was publislied, containing the Gospels.
The appearance of the second was prevented by a fire which con-
sumed the printing-house in the King's palace at Copenhagen;
but the collations intended for it were published separately at
Copenhagen in 1798. This edition and the Supplement contained
an accession of very valuable critical material, especially Bii'ch's
collation of the celebrated Codex Vaticanus, with about 120
others.
Such was the state of textual criticism, when Dr. John James
Griesbach undertook the preparation of his celebrated second
edition,* wliich has conferred an incalculable benefit on theology.
This indefatigable man travelled into France and England to
inspect the MSS. in the libraries of Paris, London, Cambridge,
and Oxford. Some of the codices which had been known to former
critics he re-examined throughout ; others of them he inspected in
particular passages; many MSS. hitherto uncoUated he minutely
compared with the received text from beginning to end : he care-
fully extracted from the works of Origen his reading of every
the ancient MSS. and versions, which, in some degree, excused Matthsei's
neglect of thom.
* It is this second edition which appeared at Halle and London, in 2 vols.
8vo, 1700 and 18i)0 (beautifully reprinted at London in 1818), which is
always to be understood when Griesbach's text is mentioned. His previ-
ous edition, thougii of fjreat utility in its day, is now entirely superseded.
In 1806, Griesbach published, at Leipzig, a smaller edition, containing the
text and principal variants of his larger opy, but without the critical refe-
rences.
260 TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. [bOOK 111.
text, therein quoted from the New Testament ; he performed a
similar task, though, as he expressly states, in a more cursory
manner, upon the writings of Clement of Alexandria ; he diligently
collated several Latin MSS. containing the old ante-Hieronymian
version, and made or procured collations of the Armenian, the
Sclavonic, the Sahidic, the Philoxenian Syriac, and the Jerusalem
Syriac versions, some of which had only been published a short time
before his work appeared. It cannot, therefore, be denied that he
exercised all due care and diligence in the collection and comparison
of testimonies.
Griesbach excelled all his predecessors in the sagacity with which
he applied to the criticism of the text a fact which had been
observed by others, but which he first brought prominently into
notice — viz. the distribution of the MSS. and other documents into
certain classes, or, as he called them, recensions. Bengel had long
before announced that existing MSS. may be divided into various
families; but Griesbach first perceived the importance of the
observation, which, established on irrefragable evidence, must hence-
forth form the foundation of all sound textual criticism.
The edition of Griesbach is in two vols. 8vo. In the prolegomena
the editor has given a concise account of the materials which he has
employed, and the rules of textual criticism which he has followed.
The text he has, in all cases, conformed to the authority of the
MSS. versions, &c. ; but has minutely pointed out to the eye of
the reader, by difference of type, every alteration which he has
introduced. In the inner margin, or space immediately below the
text, he has placed all the readings of the Textus Receptus which
he has discarded, together with such other various readings as seem
worthy of especial attention, from their internal probability or the
weight of the testimonies in their favour. In the notes he gives his
authority for the changes he has made, and a tolerably copious
selection of variants, from which the genius and value of the
principal MSS. and of each recension may easily be deduced.
It is marvellous, that notwithstanding the almost innumerable
causes of error existing in a work containing references to upwards
of five hundred MSS., fifteen versions, and sixty-three of the
Fathers, very few mistakes have been detected in these notes;
and the most competent judges have, with scarce an exception,
borne a willing testimony, not only to his candour, but to his
general correctness in preparing his text.
A republication of this valuable edition was undertaken by Dr.
CHAP. 1.] HISTORY OF TlIK TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 261
Schulz, of Berlin. Tho first volume appeared in 1827, in 8vo, but
no second volume has hitherto been published.
Tho next critical edition of tho New Testament is that of Dr.
Scholz, published at Berlin, in two vols. 4:to, 1830 and 1836.
Scholz is tho pupil and friend of Professor Hug, whose Introduc-
tion to the New Testament has been so frequently referred to in
these pages ; and first distinguished himself by some remarks pub-
lished at Heidelberg, in 1820, on the classification of the Greek
MSS. of the Gospels. Discarding the system proposed by Gries-
bach and modified by Hug, he thought that he had discovered and
.was able to prove the existence of five recensions of tho text — two
Egyptian and two Asiatic, with a Cyprian recension, formed, as the
nature of its readings seemed to indicate, from the comparison of
one of the Egyptian with one of the Asiatic editions. Three years
afterwards Dr. Scholz published his Biblico-Critical Travels in
Europe and the Levant, in which he threw aside his own system,
though but recently advanced with every mark of confidence, and
proposed what he seemed to consider as a new system of recensions
or editions of the text, although it is nothing more than the old hy-
pothesis of Matthaji, presented in a new dress : it goes upon the idea
that there are only two editions of the text, properly so called, viz. —
the Constantinopolitan, which is preserved to us in the documents
written within the limits of the Patriarchate of Constantinople, and
the Alexandrine, which is contained in certain MSS. that were
written in France, Sicily, Egypt, and elsewhere. The last-mentioned
codices, he affirms, were never intended for church use, but only to
preserve the text of some particular copies ; and hence they were
written, as he tells us, very negligently, and upon parchment of
different sizes and qualities. The inaccuracy of this last assertion
must be obvious to every one who has once looked upon the Alexan-
drian, the Cambridge, the Vatican, tho Clermont, and other MSS.
which Dr. Scholz includes in this class : they are manifestly written
with very great care, and upon parchment of unequalled fineness,
beauty, and regularity. The former position is not less conclusively
refuted by the agreement of the versions used by the ancient
churches in various parts of the world, and the citations found in
the writings of the Fathers, with those very documents which ho
says were never intended for public use. In his prolegomena to the
New Testament, Scholz does not repeat this assertion : it is, in fact,
withdrawn ; for there Dr. Scholz admits that the citations of that
text which he calls Alexandrine, found in the writings of a great
262 TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. [bOOK III,
number and variety of Fathers, living in different regions, show
that this recension was very widely diffused .; but he still maintains
the paramount authority of the Constantinopolitan family of MSS.
We shall hereafter see that what he calls the Alexandrine family
really includes more than one recension ; but this question need not
be discussed at present.
Dr. Scholz has been a most enterprising collater, having expended
a large amount of time, and no doubt of money, in ransacking the
•libraries of Italy, Greece, the Greek Islands, and Palestine, in quest
of manuscript treasure. Besides availing himself of some publica-
tions (as Dr. Barrett's Codex Bescriptus, of Dublin College), which
had appeared since the publication of Griesbach, he has himself
examined and collated, in whole or in part, about three hundred
and fifty MSS. never referred to before in any critical edition ; but
his accuracy in exhibiting their various readings is matter of ques-
tion, upon which serious doubts are felt.
What has occasioned and strengthened these doubts is the almost
incredible negligence of Scholz in representing the information
afforded by his predecessors, especially by Griesbach. No one can
compare his notes with those of Griesbach without perceiving that
nine-tenths of the whole are simply copied from the edition of the
latter ; and no one can compare the two editions together attentively
without perceiving that Scholz has displayed a degree of careless-
ness, as to the accuracy of his transcript, that could scarcely have
been believed to be possible. By omissions, by misquotations, by
misplaced signs, he has totally changed the character of the state-
ments which it was his duty to reproduce, and in instances innu-
merable has misled the persons who rely upon his accuracy. In
fact, such is his negligence that nothing but rashness equal to his
own would induce any person who has examined his work to employ
his citations as material for the verification or amendment of the
text, unless when corroborated by other authorities, or under very
peculiar circumstances.
As this edition of Dr. Scholz has been highly lauded in quarters
where a more just appreciation of its value might have been expected,
the following specimen of his manner of dealing with the evidence is
subjoined, taken from six verses of Matthew, selected ad aperturam
libri. Most of the errors which occur arise from the omission or
misplacement of the critical marks in the text, margin, and notes ;
but it is only by means of them that a critical editor speaks to his
readers, and mistakes in them are of vast importance.
CHAP. I.J HISTORY OF THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 263
Matthew iv. 4 — 10.
Matt. iv. 4. Among the authorities for iuserting 6 before av^gwcro;,
Griesbach cites Matthtci's Codices V. and a. Tliey are omitted by
Scholz.
Matt. iv. 4. Griesbach cites Mt. m. as reading iv instead of srrl.
It is omitted by Scholz.
Matt. iv. 4. Griesbach notes that the words exTog£i/o,ascw bia gt6-
fiarog are omitted in Codex D, the Jerusalem- Syriac Version, the
Latin version in the Cambridge, Verona, and two St. Germains
MSS. as also by the author of the Opus Imperfectum upon Mat-
thew, by Hilary and Druthmar. Scholz takes no notice of the
three last named authorities ; and by misplacing, the double accent
in his text, which shows how far the omission extends, he makes
it appear that the other documents omit the whole clause Jxto-
^imfMiv<f) oia (STofiaro; diou, which is erroneous.
Matt. iv. 5. Griesbach informs us that for 'iari^iiiv, B, C, D, 1,
33, 47, Mt. i. some editions of the Greek Testament and the
Sahidic Version read iarrtaiv. Scholz takes no notice of Matthaji's
Codex i. and he affirms that the other documents, with Z (the
Dublin Codex Rescriptus), not only read 'ierriGi instead of 'iarriSiv,
but omit a-jrov, which follows : this is quite incorrect. This error
also arises from the careless misplacement of a double accent.
Matt. iv. 7. Griesbach states that the word -rrdXiv is omitted in
Mt. B and the Sahidic Version. Scholz also has a note upon
this word, in which it appears that these documents are appealed
to; but whether for altering or omitting the word, or for adding
something to it, the reader of his New Testament cannot tell,
because he has forgotten to put in the mark =:, which would have
explained the meaning of these references.
Matt. iv. 9. Griesbach states that the Codex 33 (which he had
accurately collated in this chapter, see Symholce Critical, i. 1G8)
reads ooi rrdwa instead of rravra aoi. Scholz omits the reference
to 33, but assigns no reason. He evidently forgot to transcribe it.
Matt. iv. 10. Among the authorities for inserting orrlau /xou in the
text, Griesbach enumerates the MSS. 225, Mt. B, H, a, d, g, k, 1^ ;
all of which Scholz leaves out. Griesbach states that Mt. V, P,
omit these words, but this statement also Scholz passes over in
silence. Matthrei's Codex g. Scholz might have passed over for
a good critical reason, and, in fact, I suspect that the mention of
it in this place by Mattha3i is a mistake ; but, from what I have
here and elsewhere observed, I have little doubt that all these
264 TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. [bOOK III.
references to the MSS. collated by Matthaei are omitted by Scholz
for the mere purpose of saving himself the trouble of searching
out the new designations by which he has denoted them in his
Catalogue.
This passage aflPords a fair specimen of Scholz's extraordinary
remissness in adducing the testimonies which have been brought
forward by other critics. Having compared several passages in
different parts of the work, in this manner, I am enabled to affirm
that similar inaccuracies are found in almost every part and book
in the New Testament, and that the man who trusts to Scholz's
statements will be often and signally misled. One example more
may be added, in proof of this, from the note on 1 John v. 7. In a
passage so celebrated and so well known, we should have expected
particular care and corresponding accuracy; but it begins with a
gross blunder. Scholz thus commences the enumeration of autho-
rities for omitting the disputed words in that verse : — " Codices
Grseci qui Epistolas Catholicas habent fere omnes ; videlicet, A, B,
(hiat. iv. 3. — 2 Jo. 3) G, H," &c. ; which asserts that in the
Alexandrine and Vatican MS. (or in the latter, at least) there is a
hiatus here which prevents us from knowing how they read the verse.
This is totally untrue ; for both these MSS. contain this epistle, and
both want the contested clause. The fact is, Scholz has copied
Griesbach, but copied him so negligently that he has left out the
letter C, which occurs in the beginning of the parenthesis. In
Griesbach the list reads correctly "A, B (C hiat. iv. 3 — 2 Jo. 3),"
&c. ; that is, " the Alexandrine and Vatican MSS. omit the clause.
The Ephrem MS. is mutilated from 1 John iv. 3 to 2 John verse 3,"
so that its reading cannot be ascertained ; which is perfectly correct.
There are, besides, a great many gross mistakes in this edition of
Scholz which do not require the aid of any other edition to detect
them, although they caimot all be corrected without the help of
other authorities. Of this kind are the numerous instances in which
the various readings placed in his inner margin are referred to the
wrong words in the text, by means of misplaced note-marks. Thus : —
In vol. i. p. 11, we have, in the inner margin, "t) rec. + roTg
a^ynnioig;'' implying that these two words are added by the Elze-
vir edition, in the part of the text where the letter t is given as
a note-mark; that is, at the word * sV^aro/', in Matt. v. 25.
But this is quite wrong : no document inserts these words in that
place; and, in fact, the reference should have been to u, coming
after the word i^^edv, in verse 27.
CHAT. I.J III.STOKY OF TIIR TKXT OK THE NEW TESTAMENT. 205
So, in p. 12, wo find, in the inner margin, "u) Alex. /Miyjvdrivai ;"
intimating that a certain class of authorities, which the editor call.s
Alexandrine, i*ead /j.oiy^iudr,vai, in place of the words marked with
the letter u in the text; that is, of "xai 05 iav d'zoXi}.u,'Msvr,v ya/j^ric/i" ,
in Matt, v, 32 ; but this is altogether incorrect. The authorities
referred to read fioiy^ivdi^vai, instead of (MtyaG^ai, before which the
letter of reference should have been placed.
In p. 19, we have, in the inner margin, "r) rec. 6V/," which
asserts that the received text has 6V/ in place of the worjf marked CL
r in the text: that is ^ i]aioyJ)ii%m' , in Matt. vii. 13. This is absurd:
the reference should have been to tT/", in verse 14.
And not to fatigue the reader with a more detailed enumeration,
any one who pleases to take the trouble will find similar errors com-
mitted in the inner margin of p. 25, at the reference marked t; in
p. 27, X); in the same page, z; in p. 28, g; and, indeed, in almost
every third or fourth page in which such references are given. They
are not found on every page, and do not average more than two or
three on each page where thoy are found; so that nearly every tenth
one throughout involves a misstatement. Many of the errors thus
produced are of the most absurd description. The example last
referred to afi'ords an instance : in it Scholz informs his readers that
some documents expunge the name of James the son of Zehedee
from the list of the twelve apostles, and introduce in its stead that
of a disciple named Cananceus! But who, except the readers of
Scholz, ever heard of the apostle Cananceus?
It has been often and justly remarked, that Dr. Scholz repeatedly
(•opies Griesbach's notes without any alteration, even when his argu-
ments go to prove the spuriousness of the very readings which
Scholz has taken into the text. The note b, on Matt. iv. 10, already
appealed to, afibrds an example. He there copies from Griesbach,
among the authorities for inserting o-isoj /xou, " Codices e quibus
interpolatus fuit Lucas." But, on turning to the parallel passage
in Luke iv. 8, we find that he there gives, as part of the true text,
the words which he here declares to be an interpolation ! In his
note on 1 Tim. iii. 16, Scholz gives, among the list of authorities
in favour of 05, " Cyrillus Alex, qui sjepe quidem habet ds6; in
Operum Editionibus, sedperperam, utidocuimus in SymboHs Criticis,
vol. i. p. 43:" thus, through mere negligence, directly claiming as
his own the Symbols Criticce, a work of which everybody knows
that he never wrote a line. He copies from Griesbach, word for
word, references to that critic's own writings and all, indiscriminately.
L L
266 TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. [bOOK HI.
After these examples of headlong haste and almost incredible
carelessness, it will surprise no one to be informed that in cases
where his predecessors have made erroneous statements, Dr. Scholz
has not taken the trouble to correct them, even when the means of
doing so lay ready at hand. Having, in perusing the Old Syriac
Version, been struck by the occurrence of several readings which I
did not recollect to have seen quoted from it, I compared whole
passages in that document with the notes given in the Critical
Editions ; and I found, with very few exceptions, so far as my colla-
tion extended, that wherever Mill, Wetstein, and Griesbach were
correct in their citations, Scholz is also right, unless where he happens
to misplace his note-marks : wherever they are wrong, he faithfully
copies their mistakes. Thus, in 1 John ii. 23, he gives %ai rhv 'xars^a.
'iyii as the reading^of both the Syriac Versions ; but the Peshito has,
instead of £%£/, I'CliD, i.e. h(mXoyii, as in the preceding clause. For
o/xoXoys/'Dr. Scholz produces some authorities, but omits this, the most
important of them all. So, in the preceding verse, the Old Syriac
reads xa/ rov \)Tm a^vsTrai; but of this, also, Scholz, following his pre-
decessors, takes no notice. In verse 24, the same version transposes
viuj and 'xar^i. Scholz quotes other documents as sanctioning this
change, but omits the Syriac. In 1 John iii. 1 , Scholz reads 'Idsrs,
&c. ; the Syriac reads xai'ihn, which he does not notice. Again,
in 1 John iii. 7, where the received text is xa^wg sKsmg hixawg eonv,
Scholz notices some documents which omit these words, but passes
over in silence the reading of the Syriac, which gives xa^ws xai 6
^^isrhg bhaiog ssriv — a variation which is surely worth recording. To
all this it must be added that in his Prolegomena Dr. Scholz sug-
gests some just and proper cautions to be observed in selecting
various readings from the ancient versions in general, but parti-
cularly from the Old Syriac, and enumerates a great many passages
in which the deviation of the Peshito from the common text is only
apparent, not real ; yet, in his notes on many of these passages, he
appeals to this version as testifying in favour of those very readings
which he had previously affirmed it does not support. Compare
Proleg. vol. i. p. 120, with the Notes on Acts xxiv. 10; Acts i.
8, 12; Acts ii. 24, 42; Acts iii. 17, 21; and so in a great many other
places. In fact, he neglects his own caution in far more than one-
half of the passages which he has himself selected as examples of its
usefulness.
In those instances, therefore, in which we have the means of
tracing his footsteps, we find that Dr. Scholz goes often and
CIlAP. I.] mSTOUY OF THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 267
very far astray: tlirougli heedlessness and inattention, wo admit;
for no motive can be assigned which could induce him to wish to
mislead his readers on these points. His errors probably arise from
thatdasliing, off-haud manner of writing theology which unfortunately
has become so prevalent in Germany, and which, in other depart-
ments of the science, has produced such lamentable results. Whether
Dr. Scholz has been more careful in noting down, and more exact
in copying, the readings of those MSS. which ho has for the first
time collated, it is quite impossible to affirm as matter of fact. But,
seeing that sucli is his negligence in making use of the materials
existing in print, I do not think it would be safe to rely implicitly
on his sole authority.
Ilis system of recensions will hereafter be examined in a more
suitable place, and the principles by which he has been guided in
the selection of textual readings will be discussed. In the mean
time, the reader of his edition will discover innumerable instances in
which he has himself rejected the readings of the Constantinopolitan
family of documents, which he declares, in his Prolegomena, to be
the only genuine and pure sources ; and has preferred the readings
of the Alexandrine class, which he there affirms to be corrupt and
spurious. But a detailed examination of these points will find a
more fitting oc(;asion in another part of this book.
The edition of Lachmann and Buttman may be expected to be
described in this place ; but, as it is yet incomplete, a binef notice
will suffice. Tho former editor published, some years ago, a small
edition of the New Testament, with a revised text, but without
various readings, from the press of Tauchnitz, at Leipzig, in the
preface to which he avowed that he had been guided, in the selection
of his text, by the preponderance of Oriental as distinguished from
Western authority. This principle was forthwith adopted as tho
dictate of profound wisdom by many learned men, and was upon
the point of being elevated into an article of critical faith, when,
luckily, its author stepped in to save them from this absurdity, by
propounding a new principle, the vei'y opposite of the former:
namely, that the testimony of the Latin Version, the Fathers
who used it, tho ancient Greek MSS. which most frequently
agree with it, and tho ancient Greek writers who found a similar
text in their MSS. is alone to be consulted in ascertaining tho
genuine readings of the New Testament. On this principle the
edition of Lachmann and Buttman, of which the first volume
appcai-ed at Berlin, 8vo, 1842, is compiled. It gives the Greek text
268 TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. [bOOK III.
at the top of the page, and the Latin Vulgate at the bottom. In the
middle are placed vai'ious readings from twelve Greek and thirteen
Latin MSS, and five Fathers — Irenjeus, Origen, Cyprian, Hilary,
and Lucifer — which are the only authorities consulted in this edition.
All the other manuscripts, to the number of about nine hundred —
the versions, including the three Syriac ones, the Armenian, the
Arabic, and the Persian, though unquestionably Oriental, and the
Eastern fathers, Ephrem Syrus, Cyril of Jerusalem, Chrysostom,
and the two Eusebii — are unceremoniously dismissed as unworthy of
notice. Yet the text in the Gospels, which are all that have been
published of this edition, is not so bad as might have been expected
from this wholesale rejection of valuable material. The censorious
tone and spirit of Lachmann's Preface are altogether unworthy of
the sacred subject, and even of the present age.
It is painful, but necessary, to conclude this outline of the History
of the Text of the New Testament by declaring, what the attentive
reader of the preceding pages will scarcely have failed to remark,
that criticism has yet an important work to do with respect to this
part of our Biblical Code. Materials have been discovered, but we
can scarcely say that many of the most valuable among them have
been employed. Versions of prime antiquity and faithfulness have
been imperfectly collated ; manuscripts of first-rate character have
been cursorily inspected; the published transcripts of some which have
been given to the world in print (as the Ephrem MS. and the Sau-
Gallensis) have not been consulted by any critical editor, or made
use of in any critical edition. At least one MS. of the entire New
Testament, belonging to the very first rank in point of antiquity,
and several others of a very early though more recent date, are known
to exist, and to be accessible, which yet have never been published
or collated, or even inspected. These materials must be carefully
examined, and the testimonies which may be elicited from them
impartially weighed and discussed, before the text of the New
Testament can be considered as settled on a thoroughly critical
basis. This must be the work of time ; but every year is adding
something to our stock of knowledge ; much has already been made
available, and much is in the process of coming forth to light; a
few years will make a great difference in the state of this matter,
and it is worth while to wait a little when an object so important is
in view.
CIIAl'. II. J MANUSCRH'TS 01' THE NEW TESTAMENT. 269
CHAPTER 11.
MANUSCRIPTS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.
Agreeably to the method stated iu the Introduction to this work,
and followed in the Second Book, we proceed, after an Outline of
the History of the Text, to give some account of the helps which
may be employed for its verification or correction. Of these the
Greek Manuscripts containing the whole or part of the New Testa-
ment form a most important portion, and with them we shall begin
the subject. But as something in all cases, and in some cases
very much, of the value of a MS. depends upon its antiquity, it
seems expedient to commence this chapter with a few observations
ou the method of ascertaining the age of such documents.
Section I. — Tests of the Antiquity of MSS.
This is a difficult inquii-y, for the most ancient MSS. seldom
have any subscription or note of time by which their exact age may
be ascertained. In this case we can follow the guidance of two
general principles: — 1. There is a general conformity in the mode
of writing which prevails in any country, at any particular period.
MSS. therefore, which have a certain date, will guide us to the
date of those whose age is otherwise uncertain, if there be a striking
similarity in the style of the handwriting, and other circumstances
affecting their outward form. 2. Clianges in the style of writing
are gradually introduced, and go on progressively, not per saltum.
If, therefore, there are two MSS. the dates of which are both known,
and of which one is considerably older than the other; and if a
third be found to occupy an intermediate place in point of form
character and mode of writing, so that from the older of the dated
MSS. to the younger there appears a gradual transition through
the undated copy, we are authorised, in the absence of direct
proofs, to consider this undated copy as intermediate to the others
in point of time.
In addition to these general principles, which apply to all MSS.
whatsoever, we have in the Greek MSS. of the New Testament a
270 TEXTUAL CRITICISM OP THE NEW TESTAMENT. [bOOK III,
peculiar help, arising from our knowledge of the time when certain
changes were admitted in the division of the text ; when certain of
the Fathers flourished to whose works the MSS. occasionally con-
tain references; and when certain ecclesiastical customs were intro-
duced, to which the MSS. were sometimes adapted.
All these points I shall endeavour to interweave in a short
chronological statement, referring the student to the works of
Montfaucon (especially the Palceographia Grceca), Mill, Hug, and
others, in which he wiU find the various particulars largely discussed.
Montfaucon is the most satisfactory, because he has illustrated the
whole subject with an ample series oi facsimiles — an aid with which
I am necessarily obliged to dispense.
The earliest specimens of Greek writing executed since the
Christian era, and still extant, are the books found among the ruins
of Herculaueum and Pompeii. As these cities were destroyed by
an eruption of Mount Vesuvius, A.D. 79, these MSS. must date
from this or a still earlier period. Their form is universally that of
a roll, consisting of a number of sheets of papyrus, cemented
together. The writing is disposed in columns, which extend across
the volume, and is, in all cases, in plain full capitals, without
division of words, sentences, or paragraphs ; with very few pause-
marks, and no accents or spirits, and totally devoid of ornament.
It is needless to go farther into the description of these papyri, as
there is no MS. of any part of the New Testament in this form or
of this date. In documents of a later age, convenience suggested
an alteration in the form of books from the roll shape to that of a
bound volume, consisting of a number of distinct sheets, compacted
together in the manner which is now universal.
There is still extant in the Imperial Library at Vienna a copy of
Dioscorides m^i jSoravuiv •/,. r. X. which, as appears from the book
itself, was made at the instance of Juliana Anicia, daughter of Fl.
Anicius Olybrius, who was Emperor of Constantinople, A.D. 472.
This princess founded a church and convent, t-^s Qsotokou, in the
year 505, for the use of which this Dioscorides seems to have been
intended. It may therefore be assumed to have been written A.D.
506 or 507 : certainly in the very beginning of the sixth century.
On comparing the appearance of this Codex with that of various
existing MSS. of the New Testament, it appears that some of them
have every appearance of greater antiquity than the Dioscorides of
the Princess JuUaua, and may, therefore, with the strongest degree
of probability, be referred to the fifth century of the Christian era.
CHAP. II.] MANUSCRIPTS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 271
These venerable documeuts are all written on parclimcnt, and
in the uncial character,* resembling that of the sculptured inscrip-
tions of the same period, except in a few rainutire. The letters
are full-formed, round or square, as the sliape of each may
require, — not compressed, nor prolonged above or below the line.
The first letter of each book or division is usually larger than tlie
rest, and sometimes stands out of the vertical line ; but all are
plain and unornamented — perfectly upright, and distinct from each
other. There are no intervals between words; the letters follow
each other as if they all formed part of the same word. The con-
tractions are few and simple ; few stops, and no accents or spirits
discernible, at least d prima manu; and the horizontal lines of
certain letters (as T7, T, «fec.) are free from curvature.
As to the divisions of the text, long chapters, called sometimes
xs(pdXaia, and at others rrs^rKo-Trai, or Church Lessons (of which
there were fifty-six in the Gospels, and as many in the rest of the
New Testament), are mentioned by writers in the third century;
but these do not occur in any existing MSS. Soon after, but we
know not how soon, a division into •/.s(pdXaia iMii'Cpva, otherwise
called rirXoi, was invented ; and, in the fourth century, a division
into shorter sections, which had been originally introduced by
Ammonius, a harmonist, and were named from him the Ammonian
Sections, or r.sfaXa/a, was common in the Gospels. This was the
only division known to Csesarius, who was brother to the celebrated
Gregory of Xazianzum. To these sections Eusebius adapted his
canons, or tables of hanmonic references, which afterwards became
common in the MSS. In the year 360, Chrysostom alludes to the
practice of writing biblical MSS. on the finest parchment, in letters
of silver and gold, as already introduced by some who were more
particular as to the appearance than the contents of their copies.
It will be readily understood that innovations such as these would
not be introduced into every MS. written at that period. Most of
them, it is probable, made their way very gradually; and in point
of fact we know that some copies were written after or about this
time — certainly not sooner than the end of the fourth century — in
which there is no gilding, nor divisions into sections, nor reference
to the Eusebian canons. But the presence of one or all of these is
consistent with a very high antiquity.
* This is an improper use of the term, foundod on a misconception of a
passage in Jerome; uut, as it is in general use, 1 think it unnecessary to
change it.
272 TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. [uOOK III.
In the year 458 B.C.JEuthalius, afterwards Bishop of Sulca in
Egypt, published an edition of the Epistles of Paul, in which he
gave, with the text, the contents of the chapters into which he says
it had been divided by "a pious Father" of the church, so early as
A.D. 396. Euthalius, however, brought this division first into
public note, for it appears to have been comparatively unknown
till his time: perhaps it had never been copied into any MS.
but that of the person who invented the division, and which pro-
bably had come into the hands of Euthalius after his death. About
the year 490, he published an edition of the Acts and Catholic
Epistles, divided into short chapters or sections by himself; so that
the whole New Testament was now divided into short portions,
according to the sense and connexion. Euthalius was the inventor
of what is called Stichometry. The continuous mode of writing,
without any intervals, which made a whole page resemble one word,
was found inconvenient for reading in public assemblies. He there-
fore introduced the method of writing -/.ara criyjjxjg, or line by line —
placing just so many words in one line as the reader might be able
to pronounce uninterruptedly, then commencing again on a new one,
and so on. This must have rendered the duty of the public reader
much easier, and it was, in after times, extensively adopted ; for we
have stichometrical MSS. of almost every country, of an age subse-
quent to this. The following lines from the Clermont MS. will give
an idea of this arrangement : —
AIATHNACe€NIAN
THCCAPKOCYMWN
U)Cn€PrAPnAP€CTHCAT€
TAM€AHYMU)N
AOYAATHAKAeAPCIA
KAITHANOMIA6ICTHNANOMIAN
OYTWNYNnAPACTHCAT€
which may be imitated in English —
ONACCOUNTOFTHEINFIRMITY
OFYOURFLESH
FORASYEHAVEYIELDED
YOURMEMBERS
SERVANTSTOUNCLEANNESS
ANDTOINIQUITYUNTOINIQUITY
SONOWYIELDTHEM &c.
CHAl'. U.] MANUSCRIPTS OK THE NEW TESTAMENT. 273
Tliis method of arranging the words gave rise to several other
changes, which shall bo hereafter duly noticed in their proper order.
Meanwhile we should boar in mind that Euthalius, as he expressly
states, caused his codices to be written xara moauolav, i.e. with
accents; so that the occurrence of accents, especially in a stichome-
trical MS. of an early date, need not excite our surprise; but they
were at fir.?t very sparingly interspersed, and were ircnorally
neglected by copyists tiU the seventh or eighth century. Euthalius
also affixed to the various books the subscriptions which are found
in all tlie modern MSS. and are translated in our English version,
stating the places at which they wore respectively composed, and
some historical circumstances. At first the subscriptions had been
mere repetitions of the titles at the beginning of the different books ;
and both had been as short and simple as possible: — e.g. csig pm-
//.aiou:' 'z^o; xopv'^iovg d' T^k titov. In some MS8. these brief
appendices had been a little enlarged before his time ; but he com-
posed those which afterwards came into general use. These
changes, gradually extending to the MSS. of different countries,
afford indications of their comparative antiquity.
The class of MSS. called Lectionaries, containing the portions
of scripture selected for reading in the service of the church, seem
not to have been used generally among the Greeks till after the
commencement of the seventh century. Some writers, however,
contend that they were employed at a much earlier period ; but only
three or four have come down to us which are of a remoter date
than the eighth century.
About the same time also the uncial cliaracter began visibly to
change its form. The letters, instead of being perfectly upright,
were sometimes written with a slight inclination, and the spirits
and accents became more common than before. The round letters
began to be slightly compressed in order to save room, and A and
M affected, in some instances, a new appearance ; yet the change
was at first so slight as scarcely to strike the eye of any one who
does not pay particular attention to the point; and often in MSS.
in which the body of the text is written in the more modern uncial
character, the title-pages and fii-st lines of the different sections are
copied in imitation of the ancient forms. In such cases, however,
the constrained manner of forming the strokes sufficiently indicates
that the transcriber was not accustomed to the antique style of
writing ; so that no one who has given any attention to palaeography
can for a moment be misled by the resemblance.
Mm
274 TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. [bOOK III.
In the eighth century, the desire of saving time, space, and parch-
ment, induced some copyists, instead of writing their MSS. xara
eri-)(pu(;, to place a dot where the eriyj^g terminated, and thence to
write on as before ; and this seems to have been the origin of the
present pause-marks. At all events, in this century, punctuation
was for the JSirst time introduced, though imperfectly and irregu-
larly; no two copyists agreeing in their mode of marking and
placing the stops. About the same time commenced the practice
of uniformly writing I and Y with a double dot (I and Y), when
uncombined in diphthongs. Such dots are found over these letters
in very ancient MSS. but only at the beginning of words. Orna-
mental letters, containing various devices, some of them exceedingly
appropriate and beautiful, began to be placed at the beginning of
the different books and epistles. The uncial character in this cen-
tury underwent a very perceptible change, being still more com-
pressed than it had been in the seventh.
In the ninth, the note of interrogation and the comma were added
to the other points now in common use. The letters C € O 0
were very much compressed; 2 H X were prolonged below the line,
and other changes made, which prepared the way for the cursive
character, with many contractions and complicated connexions of
the different letters, which came into use in the tenth century;
resembling, in some degree, the small type of our printed books,
but still more those which were published two centuries ago.
Yet even after the cursive hand had become common, the an-
cient mode of writing was retained for some time in copies of the
scriptm-es, as appears from some uncial MSS. which were fur-
nished, a prima manu, with scholia and division marks in the
cursive character. We also find in some MSS. the first line of
each division written in a more ancient style than the rest of the
text : just as, in books published in the seventeenth century, it was
not unusual to print the first word or two in old English, the rest
in the common type.
In the ninth century, the practice of dating the MSS. became
common; and we need no farther pursue this subject, except to
state that, in the eleventh, cotton rag paper was first used in
MSS, of the New Testament — that, in the twelfth century, our
present chapters, otherwise called the Latin chapters, were invented
by the Cardinal Hugo de Sancto Caro (but they never were
adopted by the Greeks in their own country) — that in that and the
following century, the practice of erasing old MSS. was carried to
CHAP. II. J MANUSCRIPTS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 275
such a pitch as to destroy many of the most valuable tomes of
ancient genius and learning, leaving us in their place whole
libraries of scholastic metaphysics and monkish theology.
From the foregoing statements it is evident —
1. That a MS. with our present chapters, however written,
cannot be more ancient than the twelfth century.
2. A MS. on cotton paper cannot be older than the eleventh
century.
3. A cursive MS. cannot be older than the tenth century.
4. A MS. in compressed and elongated uncial character cannot
be more ancient than the ninth century; neither can one, however
written, which exhibits the comma and note of interrogation, a
prima manu.
5. A MS. with a double dot over the I and Y, when uncombined
in diphthongs, or containing a systematic punctuation, a prima
maiiu, or even marking the termination of each (•rl^o; by a point,
or having the initial letters illuminated or ornamented, can scarcely
be more ancient than the eighth century.
6. A MS. in uncial character, inclined or slightly compressed, or
an Bvangelistarium or Lectionarium, however written, cannot be
more ancient than the seventh century.
7. A MS. though in full, upright, round, and square uncial
character, yet written xam ariyjj-oc, or with accents, or with the
Euthalian sections, titles, and subscriptions in the Acts and Epistles,
cannot possibly be more ancient than the latter part of the fifth
century, inasmuch as Euthalius, the author of these improvements,
flourished from A.D. 458 till A.D. 490 (Lardner). Of course,
such a MS. may be considerably more recent.
8. A MS. exhibiting the Harmonic Canons to the four gospels,
or references to them, though without any of the Euthalian improve-
ments, must be posterior to the time of Eusebius, who flourished in
the former part of the fourth century (from A.D. 315 till A.D. 340 :
Lardner); and a MS. without either the Ammonian sections or the
Canons of Eusebius may yet have been written long subsequently
to his time, as there is no reason to suppose that such changes in
the mode of wi-iting MSS. would at once be adopted, by every
copyist, from the time of their first invention.
Beyond this point it is not necessary to proceed, as no existing
biblical MS. can possibly be assigned to an earlier period than the
fourth century — if, indeed, there be any so ancient. Some writers
have, in their ardent zeal for the authority of particular manu-
276 TEXTUAL CRITICISM OP THE NEW TESTAMENT, [bOOK III.
scripts, referred them to this remote date, but, as we shall see, on
insufficient grounds.
Section II. — The Codex Vaticanus.
In the Library of the Vatican there is an immense number of
MSS, ; but that which is always understood when the Codex Vati-
canus is spoken of without farther addition, is the one that is there
numbered 1209, By critics since the time of Wetstein it is quoted
by the letter B. As this has always been regarded as one of the
most important documents in the whole range of our critical
material, many discussions have taken place with respect to it,
which the brevity of this work renders it necessary to pass over:
we shall confine ourselves chiefly to the testimony of those who
have personally examined the codex,
I have not been able to find any satisfactory account of its early
history. Borabasius, in the year 1521, wrote to Erasmus from
Rome — " I have, at length, found in the Vatican Library the First
Epistle of John, written in the most ancient characters, in which
the first four lines of the fourth chapter are as follows also of the
fifth chapter thus..," The specimen included the much disputed
passage of that epistle; and from its agreement with the text of the
present codex, 1209, seems evidently to have been taken from it.
Erasmus several times speaks of the MS, in the Pope's library,
" majuscidis descriptum Uteris;" but he never saw it, and is very
inconsistent in the accounts which he gives of its value and impor-
tance. The editors who, under the direction of Cardinal Caraffa,
published the LXX, chiefly from the Vatican Codex, in 1587,
might be expected to be moi-e particular; but their account is
very defective. They merely say that "the MS. as far as may
be conjectured from the form of the characters, being written in
the larger letters, which are correctly termed antique, seems to
have been written 1200 years ago — that is, before the time of
Jerome, and not since;"* and then merely mention what books
of the Old Testament are contained in it, wherein their arrange-
ment differs from the usual order, and where the principal chasms
in them occur. Their preface would never suggest to the reader
that the book which was so described contained any part of the
New Testament. Zacagui, in the preface to his Collecta Monu-
* It will be seen that this estimate, though probably too high, is bj- no
means extravagantly so.
CUAP. II.] MANUSCRIPTS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 277
nicnta, published about the year 1700, thus describes the part con-
taining the New Testament : — " The gospels have neither rlr'/.oi nor
the Ammonian sections, but certain numerals in red ink upon the
margin, which indicate a kind of division in the text. Of these
numbers Matthew has 1,50,* Mark, 62; Luke, 152; John, 80; the
Acts, 09 ; Epistle of James, 9; 1 Peter, 8; 1 John, 11; Judo, 2. But
the Epistles of Paul, though written separate from each other, yet
have no individual enumeration: the numerals on their margins run
on in uninterrupted series, as if the whole of the Epistles of Paul
formed but one book. The existing sections in them amount to 93,
the numerals being so arranged that number 59 is placed at the end
of the Epistle to the Galatians; then comes the Epistle to the
Ephesians, at the beginning of which we find number 70 : but the
ten missing numbers are upon the margin of the Epistle to the
Hebrews, which in this codex is placed after the Second Thessa-
lonians. Yet all of the Epistle to the Hebrews, from the words
a/xo),aov tu> ^>£w, in chap. ix. ver. 14, to the end, and the whole of the
epistles to Timothy, Titus, and Philemon, and the whole book of
Revelation, are wanting — several sheets having perished by time,
on which account it is impossible to tell exactly how many of
these sections wore marked in the Epistles of Paul, or whether
the Apocalypse, if originally contained in the MS. was similarly
divided." From this account any one would conclude that the
Codex Vaticanus does not contain the Second Epistle of Peter,
2 John, or 3 John: it seems hardly possible to derive any other
inference from Zacagni's statement — and some have positively
affirmed it as a fact — yet the manuscript contains them all, and its
various readings in the text of each are given by Birch. Zacagni,
at the request of Dr. Grabe, prepared and sent to him a fac-simile
of a tolerably long passage from the Book of Ezekiel, as given in
this codex. It has been published by Mr. Home in his Critical
Introduction; and, if it be correctly made, the MS. was at that
time (1704) destitute of accents and spirits. Montfaucon, who
was at Rome and in the Vatican Library, and who repeatedly
mentions this ancient document, uniformly speaks of it as having
neither accents nor breathings, and as written without division of
words.! Bianchini has also given a fac-simile of a passage from
the Codex Vaticanus, in which neither breathings nor accents
* Hug says the cliapters in Matthew amount t«> 170, and Mark 72.
t PalaxHjraphia Crjwca, p. 186 ; Bibliotheca Bibliothecarum, T. i. p. 3.
278 TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. [bOOK III.
appear; yet Birch and Hug assure us that it now contains both,
and in every part of the New Testament. Birch too declares with-
out hesitation, that these are a prima manu; but Hug proves that
he was mistaken in this opinion;* and from the facts above stated
it is evident that so far from having been as old as the MS. they
must have been inserted within the last hundred and fifty years.
Renaudot appears to have been the first who communicated the
important circumstance, since confirmed by other obsei-vers, that
this codex has been, in various places, altered by a more recent
hand. It was collated throughout for Bentley, who had projected
a critical edition of the New Testament, which was never pub-
lished.! It was afterwards collated by Birch, but apparently with
great haste, for he has given an erroneous account of many things
relating to it in his Prolegomena to the New Testament, and has
candidly stated, what would otherwise be almost incredible, that
after looking over his papers of extracts, he could not teU what is
the reading of this codex in the much contested passage, Acts xx.
28 ! Our best authority is Professor Hug, to whom the manuscript
was lent by order of the late Emperor of the French, from the
Imperial Library at Paris, to which, along with many other literary
treasures, it had been transferred during the period of French
ascendancy in Italy. This celebrated critic examined it with great
care, and published the result of his observations, first in an Essay
upon this Manuscript,! and afterwards in his Introduction to the
New Testament. From him I borrow most of the following par-
ticulax's.
The Codex Vaticanus contains in one volume the Old and New
Testaments, with the exception of the Epistles to Titus, Timothy,
and Philemon, and the Apocalypse. The MS. is written on the
finest parchment, and in a beautiful uncial character, very similar
to those found in the treatise of Philodemus -rsg/ f/jouaix.rig, the first of
the unfolded rolls at Herculaneum, and apparently of an earlier age
than those of the Imperial Dioscorides, written A.D. 50G. There
is no division between the words: in places where a narrative or
* What proves Hug to be right is, that here and there the copyist
inserted the same word, or sometimes an entire clause, twice ; the retoucher
thought it unnecessary to lose time in reviving words which he had already
freshened: such repeated words, therefore, remain as originally written,
and in no case have they either breathings or accents.
f The whole of this collation has been i)rinted by Woide, in the Appendix
to the Codex Alexandrinus.
X De Antiquitate Codicis Vatican! Commentatio: auctore J. L, Hug,
S.T.P.— Friburgi, 4to, 1809.
CHAP. II. J MANUSCRIPTS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 279
discourse is completed, a space of about the breadth of one letter is
usually left vacant. This device is also adopted in some of the
Ilerculanean MSS. The initial letters even of tho different books
are of the same size and form as the rest: large initial letters
(though perfectly unadorned) have been added in a later hand, but
that they were an aftcrthouglit is manifest from the existence of tivo
initial letters — one small in the column of the text, the other large
by its side. The MS. has three columns on each page, so that
when opened the book presents six columns to the eye: its width is
also greater than its height, which occasions it, though a bound
book, to exhibit almost the appearance of a roll when opened. A
later hand has carefully retouched the fading characters in many
places; in some a still more modern one has retouched these second
strokes, when themselves about to disappear. These circumstances
point to a high antiquity.
The book is divided, in the manner described by Zacagni, into
chapters of its own, such as have been found in no other MS. It
has neither the Euthalian sections nor the arl^ot, nor even the
Ammouiau sections, which were tolerably common in the middle of
the fourth century. The spirits and accents have been added in
some places by a later hand ; and tho same is the case with the
stops, which, however, are inserted very sparingly. The original
subscriptions were mere repetitions of the inscriptions, and neither
could be more simple. What has been added to them is not con-
formable to the dictates of Euthalius, though probably written some
time after the completion of the MS. Thus, the original subscrip-
tion to the First Epistle to the Corinthians was, T^k xo^ivClov; d,
a later hand has added ^y^dfir, aero sipsaou, but the Euthalian subscrip-
tion has iyod(pn uTo (piXi-r'TMv. These indications compel us to refer
the Vatican Codex to the very beginning of the fifth century, and
might, perhaps, justify us in carrying it back to the middle of the
fourth. We shall, however, as I conceive, be perfectly safe in
placing it about A.D. 400. That the MS. was written in Egypt is
manifest from the various Egyptian forms of words which are found
in it: as si'Xav, iTsaav, ri}Jav, dislXaro, r,XaTO, «fcc. ; X^/i-vj/StfJg, 6v>.Xri,'j,ipdri,
XrififOsvra, &c. The whole has been rather hastily, as it would
seem, collated by Birch, with the exception of the Gospels of Luke
and John, of which lie used the collation made for Bentley about a
century ago. Although access to this MS. for the purpose of
inspecting a passage or two, is not difficult to be procured, yet a
complete collation of it would not be permitted without special
280 TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. [bOOK III.
leave; which increases our regret that no scholar or theologian
seems to have thought of examining and noting its readings
accurately while it remained, as it did for upwards of ten years, in
the Imperial Library, as it was then called, at Paris, during the
reign of the late Emperor of the French. Even Professor Hug, to
whom the manuscript was lent by Napoleon, retui-ned it without
availing himself of the opportunity to collate it throughout. An
edition of this venerable codex, engraved on copper plates, in fac-
simile, is now in progress, having been begun under the auspices of
the late Pope : its publication is anxiously awaited.
Section III. — The Codex Alexandrinus.
The Albxandhine MS. (A), in the Library of the British
Museum in London, contains the Old and New Testaments,
together with the Apocrypha and two Epistles of Clemens Romanus,
in four vols, of a size which we may call small folio or large 4to.
In the text of the New Testament there are some chasms, the
greatest of which occm's at the beginning of Matthew, all being lost
as far as the words s^£^%srf^g Big d'xdvTriGiv in Matthew xxv. 6. The
different books are in the same order as in the Vatican: viz. —
Gospels, Acts, Catholic Epistles, Epistles of Paul (in which the
Epistle to the Hebrews comes next to Second Thessalonians), and
finally the Apocalypse. The letters are uncial, full-shaped, and
upright, somewhat larger than those in the Vatican MS., equi-
distant from each other, and the words undivided ; but the initial
letters, not only of the several books, but of the different sections
into which it is divided, are larger than the rest, and stand out
upon the margin of the column, yet plain and unornamented.
There are two columns in each page. The sections are very
numerous, being nearly equal on the average to two or three of our
modern verses. Similar sections are seen in several other very
ancient manuscripts.
The Gospels have the Ammonian Sections, the Canons of Euse-
bius, and the xs<pdXaia //.s/^ova; and all evidently a prima manu,
because the rirXoi describing the contents of the latter are prefixed
to each book. The Book of Acts is divided into five unequal por-
tions, separated by a little cross ; but the divisions do not corres-
pond with those of Euthalius. The Epistles have no chapters
whatsoever. There are no accents nor spirits in the entire volume.
In some passages a simple point is used as a pause-mark ; but no
CHAP. 11. J MANUSCRIPTS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 281
nearer approach is made to a grammatical punctuation: the | very
often, and Y sometimes, have a double dot placed over them when
they begin words, but never in other situations.* The inscriptions
of the books are simple, yet not so brief as those of the Vatican.
and the subscriptions still more extended ; yet these are not from
Euthalius, as the statements in some of them are contradictory to
his. There is no vestige of stichometry. From these data we may
assign this codex to the middle, or perhaps even to the earlier part,
of the fifth century; which date is the more probable, as both
tradition and internal evidence trace its origin to Egypt, where
Euthalius laboured under the patronage of the metropolitan of that
country. Now, as he flourished from A.D. 458 to A.D. 490, it is
not likely that a MS. written subsequently to the middle of that
century should liave adopted none whatever of his numerous inno-
vations; all of which were regarded as improvements, and really
were so at the time.
Grabe and Woide have laboured to prove that this codex was
written before the end of the fourth century: earlier it cannot
possibly be; for it contains an Epistle of Athanasius to Marcelhnus
as a pi'efaco to the Book of Psalms. This seems too early a date :
on the other hand, Oudiu is ridiculously wrong in placing it so low
as the tenth century.
To the extreme antiquity assigned to this book by Grabe, Wet-
stein brought forward an objection founded on the use of the term
' A5;^/£t/(txo-toj, which is given to Athanasius in the title of his epistle
prefi.xed to the Psalms; and that of &ior6xog, that is, " Af other of
God," which is given to the Virgin Mary, in the title of a hymn
taken from Luke i. 47 — 55, and commonly called the " Magnificat,"
which, with some other scriptural hymns, is subjoined to the same
book. But'Mr. Baber, who edited the fac-simile edition of the Old
Testament from this manuscript, refers to the works of Suicer,
Grabe, Asseman, and Woide, who, he says, have shown that these
terras were repeatedly (^sexcenties) used by Fathers of the fourth,
and even of the third century: there can be no doubt at all that they
were in common use in the fifth, beyond which I am not disposed
to carry the antiquity of this manuscript. That it cannot be much
more recent may be inferred from the facts, that the sTi^uvrj/Mo, entitled
the T^iedyiov is not added to the hymn of the angels, 6o^a iv b-^ldToig,
" Gloria in excelsis," though it was very commonly added even in
' I have remarked the same peculiarity in the Dublin Codex Rescriptus :
perhaps it may afford some test of the age of MSS.
Nn
282 TEXTUAL ClllTICISM OF THE NEW TESTAMENT, [bOOK III.
the middle of the fifth century, at least in some churches; and that,
after that time, the Epistles of Clement of Rome, which are
appended to this MS. ceased to be read in the ecclesiastical service:
an argument which is the more forcible, as the codex was manifestly
written for the use of a church or community, and therefore may be
presumed to have followed strictly the form of service in common
use at the time when it was written.
The Egyptian form of the second aorist (s/Vav, s^7)XdarB, avsiXav,
&c.) occurs sometimes, though rarely; but the copyist has been
less scrupulous in excluding other peculiarities of his native dialect,
for "kTjfi-^ovrai, Xrj/j^-^ich, avriXrifJb'^sug, Xtj/m-^sus, avax'jfi-^ai, &c. are
frequently found. This codex has been often collated, and the
whole New Testament has been published from it in fac-simile by
Dr. Woide, in types cast for the purpose. Having compared this
edition with the codex in several passages, I am enabled to add my
testimony to that of other writers, in favour of its accuracy. It is
greatly to be desired that all the most important MSS. of the New
Testament should be published in a similar manner, before the
increasing ravages of time may render passages invisible which at
present can be easily deciphered, as well as many which it is even
now difficult to read. The part containing the Old Testament has
recently been printed in the same manner by Mr. Baber.
In the Old Testament is a canon or table by which the whole
Book of Psalms is divided into hourly lessons, containing a portion
for each hour both of the day and night; whence it is believed the
codex was written for the use of a community of monks, who
relieved each other in turn at their devotions, so that in their
convents divine service was uninterruptedly going on at all times.
This has been thought to be a proof of a more modern date than
that above designed, but it is really consistent with it ; for such a
practice existed in several monasteries in Egypt even as early as
the fourth century.*
This MS. was presented to King Charles I. of England, through
Sir Thomas Rowe, his ambassador at the Porte, by Cyril Lucar,
then Patriarch of Constantinople, but who had formerly filled the
same office in the Greek church at Alexandria, whence he states that
he had brought it : from this circumstance it has obtained its name,
Codex Alexandrinus. But as an Arabic inscription, though of a
comparatively recent date, mentions a tradition, that it was written
* Baber, Prolegomena, who refers to Dietelmaier, Diss, de Cod. Alex.
sec. 26. Woide, JPrcefat. in N. T. sec. 60, 61.
I
CHAP. II.] MANU8CKIPT8 OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 283
by the hand of Thecla, a martyress, it is sometimes called Codex
Theclce. Having several times carefully examined this venerable
MS. in the Library of the British Museum, I have thought it
miglit be interesting to the readers of this work to lay before them
a specimen representing, as accurately as has been found practicable,
the condition and present appearance of the document. The ink, as
will be obsei'ved in the specimen, is turned of a yellowish hue:
almost every page, when held between the eye and the light, presents
the appearance of a sieve, owing to the small holes occasioned by
the ink having corroded the parchment in various places ; and some
leaves, more especially those which contain the two Epistles of
Clement, are covered with brown stains. Tliis is said to have been
caused by a wash, probably tincture of galls, applied by Patrick
Young to the MS. in order to revive the fading strokes, that he
might the more easily decipher the text when he was preparing his
edition of Clemens Romanus. I believe the Epistles of Clement
have not hitherto been found in any other manuscript.
Section IV. — The Codex Ephrcemi.
The Ephrem MS. in the King's Library at Paris, where it is at
present noted No. 9 (C), is a Codex Rescriptus or Palimpsest,
containing, under a Greek translation of some of the works of
Ephrem Syrus (whence its name), a few passages of the Old
Testament, and, with the exception of several chasms, the whole of
the New: it was written in a full, upright, and beautiful uncial
character, rather larger than those of either the Vatican or Alex-
andrine copies. The text is not divided into columns. The books
are placed in the same order as in the two preceding MSS. Mont-
faucon gives a fac-simile of a few verses (see Pala'ofjrapliia, p. 214),
which I have copied, and from which, as well as from the specimen
published by Tischendorf, I observe that the smaller strokes of A
and M assume a rounded form, which is an indication of declining
calligraphy.
The Gospels have the xspaXa/a /xs/^ova, the Ammonian sections,
and the canons of Eusebius. In the Acts and Epistles are some
divisions, but not the Euthalian; neither is the text broken uito
(jT/'p^o/ ; but throughout the whole book it is divided into short por-
tions, averaging about the length of two of our modern verses ; and
the initial letters of these, as well as the Ammonian sections, are
larger than the rest, though in other respects exactly similar to
284 TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. [bOOK III.
them. There were originally neither accents nor spirits — they have
been added by a succeeding hand, but in some places are covered
by the still more recent writing of the works of Ephrera. The rudi-
ments of a punctuation can be distinguished. As affixed a prima
manu, it consists only of a single dot, placed usually near the
middle of the letter after which it occurs: a second, or more pro-
bably a third hand (for not less than two have retouched, and in
some places remodelled, this manuscript), has changed this into a
small cross when it indicates the close of the sentence, and placed a
little cross over it when it represents the intermediate pause or
colon. The inscriptions at the beginning of the books, and sub-
scriptions at the close of them, are perfectly simple: e.g. crgos
fw/^a/ous, 'X^og xo^tvdloug a, and these continue in their primitive brevity.
The simphcity of these, and the simplicity and comparative infre-
quency of the stops, would favour the supposition, that this codex is
more ancient than the Alexandrine; but the characters, especially
the A, B, and A, are of a somewhat more modern cast, and the
disposition of the writing, in long lines across the page, marks a
more recent date. According to Tischeudorf, the first hand has
seldom corrected or altered its own writing; the second hand has cor-
rected the whole New Testament; the third, those parts which were
adapted to the use of the church. The first wrote in elegantly
formed characters, inserted no accents or spirits, and with the
exception of some Egyptian peculiarities, and some others which
are common in all ancient documents, has adhered to the laws of
correct orthography. The second drew lines over certain letters and
words, in order to expunge them; placed the passages which were
substituted for these between the lines or in the margin — often
committing gross mistakes in orthography, even in words of com-
mon occurrence — and inserted the accents and spiritus asper, which
is the only breathing that appears to have been in use at the time.
To the third we owe certain letters and arbitrary marks, which are
ascertained to be of the natui-e of musical notes, to regulate the
chant with which the words were pronounced in the church service.
Tischeudorf considers the person who inserted these to have been a
Constantinopolitan of the ninth century or thereabouts.
The ancient writing was first observed in this MS. and ascertained
to be a copy of the scriptures of a very ancient date, by Dr. AUix.
Boivin collated it here and there with the printed text, and first
made it generally known; hence he has been regarded by many as
the original discoverer. His extracts were printed by Kuster in his
CHAP. II. J MANUSCRIl'TS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 285
republication of Mill's Greek Testament. Wetstein collated this
MS. with extreme care and woftderful success, considering that no
chemical application had been then employed to darken the fading
strokes. Griesbach, who carefully inspected the codex after him,
bears a willing testimony to his extraordinary zeal, industry, and
accuracy; and Tischendorf repeats the commendation, although,
having himself collated the MS. under more favourable circum-
stances, ho finds, as might have been expected, many deficiencies
in Wetstein's account of its contents. Thus, he has omitted to
mention in what places the codex is illegible, or where it agrees
with the Textus Receptus. Many various readings escaped his
powers of observation: ho did not sufficiently distinguisli the writ-
ings of the different hands; confounded the second and third as if
they had been the same, gave their writing to the first, or passed it
over in silence. In some passages he has clearly mistaken the text
altogether. Notwithstanding these imperfections, which were un-
avoidable, Tischendorf praises Wetstein's diligence and fidelity in
the highest terms.
He states that Florons Fleck in 1834 induced the trustees of
the lloyal Library to consent to the application of chemical sub-
stances which might revive the fading strokes: Giobertine tincture
was accordingly applied by M. Simonin, who, between the 28th of
January and 15th February, thus washed about one hundred leaves
of the two hundred and nine of which the codex consists. Fleck
examined fifteen of these pages, and published * the result of his
observations upon them; but Tischendorf affirms that nothing can
be more inaccurate than his statements. He refers the notes for
ecclesiastical use to the first hand instead of the third; he says the
MS. is stichometrically written; confounds the punctuation of the
different hands; makes strange errors in noting the various readings;
continually takes the corrections of the third hand for the original
writing; and asserts passages to be illegible which Tischendorf
himself has read and printed. The whole MS. has since been
washed with the chemical preparation, and is now as legible as it
can ever be expected to be.
It was therefore well and wisely done of Tischendorf to print the
text of this truly interesting document entire, showing where it is
defective, where it has been altered, and how far the citations of
previous critics are to be relied upon. It is manifest that, in a
* Kritiken und Studien, heixiiisgeben von Uilmann und Umbreit. Jalu'-
gang, 1841. Pp. 126—152.
286 TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. [bOOK III.
codex so injured by time, and by the perverse industry of the person
who laboured to erase the ancient writing of the scriptures in order
to cover the parchment with the lucubrations of the Syrian theolo-
gian, the silence of a collator is not to be taken for proof that the text
of the codex agrees with that commonly received. Future critics
will be worthy of censure if they refer to the readings of the Ephrem
MS. without consulting the edition of Tischendorf. It is very
elegantly printed, on excellent paper, in Greek capital letters, not
pretending to imitate the characters of the MS. but showing their
arrangement and collocation. At the end is given a fac-simile of
an entire page, exhibiting the ancient and the modern writing
exactly as they are now traceable. The page selected for that pur-
pose is that on which the celebrated passage, 1 Tim. iii. 16, is found.
On this passage the editor expressly treats in his Prolegomena, and
corroborates the statements of Wetstein and Griesbach respecting
the reading of the MS. in that place. The title of this work is,
"Codex Ephroemi Syri Bescriptus: sive Fragmenta Novi Testa-
menti e Codice Grceco Parisiensi Celeberrimo, quinti, ut videtur,
post Christum, JSeculi, emit atque edidit Constantinus Tischendorf.
Lipsiae, 1843," 4to. From this book I take the principal materials
of this section, believing it to be the best, as it is the most recent,
authority.
Section V. — The Dublin Codex Bescriptus.
About the year 1787, the late Dr. Barrett, then Fellow of Trinity
College, Dublin, discovered in the library of that institution a manu-
script of the thirteenth century upon vellum, containing some works
of Chrysostom, Theodorus Abucaras, Epiphanius, Basil, Eusebius,
Nicephorus, and Hippolytus of Thebes, under which the remains of
an ancient writing were discoverable, which had either faded by
time or had been removed by art before the more modern codex
was written. By close attention. Dr. Barrett ascertained that the
ancient document consisted of three fragments — one a part of the
Book of Isaiah in Greek; the second, the Gospel of Matthew; and
the third, certain orations of Gregory of Nazianzum. The fragment
of Matthew he resolved to publish with the utmost care and accuracy,
and accordingly gave it to the world in fac-simile, elegantly engraved
on sixty-four copper-plates, with a transcript corresponding with the
engravings, page for page and line for line, but printed in the modern
Greek characters ; as also a Preface and Appendix containing various
CHAr. II. 1 MANCSCRIPTS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 287
useful and curious information. Dr. Barrett has subjoined to each
page of this publication a minute collation of the MS, with the
text of Wotsteiii, showing its agreement or dissent with the Vatican,
Alexandrine, Ephrcm, Cambridge, and other M8S. and with the
principal ancient versions.
In beauty of writing, the Dublin Codex llescriptus yields to none
of tliese ; but the characters are of a more modern cast in some
respects. The C, €, 0, and O, are full and round, as in the most
ancient documents ; and the square letters, H, N, H, «fcc. preserve
their just proportions ; — but the inclined letters, A, A, Y, X, have
their tops very much cui*ved ; and A and M have a shape which
resembles that of the corresponding letters iu the Coptic alphabet,
and only became common in the seventh century.* The I and Y
also have double dots, but only at the beginning of words. The
same is the case in the Codex Alexandrinus, as I observed in a
minute examination of several of its pages ; but on the whole, the
style of writing savours of a somewhat later date than that of the
Alexandrine or Ephrem manuscripts. However, it has neither
accents nor spirits, and the only attempt at punctuation is a simple
dot, which serves equally for comma, colon, and period. In two
places I have observed a mark like an apostrophe, intended to point
out the separation of words where it might otherwise be uncertain :
Matt, xvii. 17, U € 0' Y U W N, to distinguish /is^' lij^m from
lj,i 6u/jLuv; and Matt, xx, 23, A'OIC (the two previous letters are
now invisible) to distinguish aXX' oJc from oKKotg.
The writing is placed in lines which extend across the entire page ;
the number of lines in each is usually twenty-one ; a few pages have
a lino or two more, but none more than twenty-three.
The text is broken into short sections or paragraphs, several of
which are shorter than our modern verses, though generally they
are somewhat longer. The initial letters of these sections are placed
in the margin of the column, and are much larger than the others,
though quite plain and unornamented : in many places, however,
they have disappeared, in consequence of the injuries received by
the manuscript,
• Throughout Dr, Barrett's fac-simile, the ^ almost exactly resembles
an inverted n, e.g. U; hut having been permitted to look at one page of
the original MS. as it lies open in a desk with a glazed lid, in the hbrary
of Trinity College, I am enabled to state that in that page the lower strokes
both of the /\ and ^ arc curved as I have described them.
288 TEXTUAL CRITICISM OP THE NEW TESTAMENT. [bOOK III.
In two places (xiv. 3 aud xviii. 1) the numbers denoting the
Ammonian sections,* and in the latter of these the number referring
to the x£f aXa/a i^iiZova, are inserted in the margin ; and in four places,
the rirXot descriptive of the latter are written at the top of the page ;
but all of these I consider to be the work of a later hand.f Se-
veral of the letters as N, fl, K afe far more widely spread out,
in these additions, and the €, O, and C, far more compressed than we
find them in the text. When the original copyist was very much
in want of room, and has in consequence written a letter or letters,
at the end of a line, much smaller than the rest (as he has done
very frequently), he seems not to have known of the expedient of
altering their form by compression : his omicron, for example, though
small, remains a perfect circle ; but this method of saving room was
quite familiar to the person who wrote the t'it'Koi, and he has freely
employed it. His A and Y are also of a different form.
In the orthography the itacism is frequent: as re^srs for rs^srai,
i. 21 (but in verse 23 it is properly spelled); and on the contrary
dsXirai for dsXsTS, xi. 14. So 'ladet for 'JcOi, ii. 13; fa^etdaiuv for
(pa^taaluv, xxii. 41; ^a&ikri for %a&iari, xix. 28: on the other hand,
X^'"-^ for X?^'""' ^^- ^ Qo^^ rightly spelled in xxi. 2); htplXei for 6<psiXei,
in xxiii. 16 (which, however, is correctly written in the next verse
but one) ; and o^/X^/zara and 6<piKsraig, in vi. 13, for oipaX^^ara and
o^mXsraig.
I observe the following Egyptian forms of words: — Xtj/M'^ovtui,
XX. 10; X-zj/jj-^BTcci, X. 41 (end of the verse; and it seems, from the space
left vacant, to have been the same in the preceding clause, but the
letters are now illegible); 'Tz^oas'Trsaav, vii. 27; s^nXdan, xi. 7, xi, 8,
xi. 9. To the same region we ought probably to refer BjjSpay^ for
Brid(payoj, xxi. 1. The codex was therefore written in some part of
Egypt, probably in Alexandria.
Although this MS. has come down to us in a very mutilated state
— many entire chapters being wanting, and not a single page, and
comparatively only a few of the lines which remain, being perfect —
it is yet very valuable, from its undoubted antiquity — for it cannot
fairly be assigned to a later period than the sixth century — from its
agreement with other documents of a very important class, and from
* There are no references to the Canons of Eusebius, which indeed would
have been useless in a book containing only one of the four Gospels.
t Dr. Barrett discovered traces of a retouching of vanishing strokes in
the text {Prol. p. 9). Perhaps the word 0£w in xxii. 21, has been added by
a second hand ; if so, the titXoi are probably the work of a third.
CUAP, 11. J MANUSCHirrS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 289
tho scarcity of ancient MSS. containing tho text of Matthew; the
Alexandrine being so mutilated as to contain only tho last four
chapters, and tho Vatican not adhering strictly, in this book, to tho
recension which it usually supports.
Section VI. — The Borgian Grceco- Sahidic Fragment.
Cardinal Borgia, who was most honourably distinguished among
the literati of tho eighteenth century, by tho diligence with which
he collected the scattered fragments of tho Egyptian biblical litera-
ture, and by tho liberality with which ho threw open his accumulated
treasures to the researches of learned men, procured for his library
at Veletri a MS. called by critics T, the fragment evidently of a
larger one, containing, by the side of tho Greek text, the Sahidic or
Upper Egyptian version of a part of the Gospel of John. The
codex at present consists of only thirteen leaves, and comprises two
passages, John vi. 21 — 59, and vi. 68 — viii. 23. Tho readings of
the text and version often disagree, showing that the Greek, in some
at least of the Egypto- Grecian MSS. was not unduly influenced by
tho translation at the side of which it was placed. Both texts of
this fragment have been published by Father Georgi,* who, after a
minute and extended discussion of all the indications of age, does
not hesitate to refer tho codex to the fourth century of the Christian
era. This, however, is tho very earliest assignable date, and tho
manuscript is probably more recent by a century : it is referred by
Scholz to iha fifth, and this seems to be its real age, as nearly as
can at present be determined. Even if it be assigned to 'this more
recent period, it yields to few of our existing MSS. in antiquity;
and indeed it manifests the proofs of an age as remote as that of any
existing biblical codex, except perhaps the Codex Vaticanus ; which
makes us regret the more deeply the fate which has overtaken the
rest of the book from which it was torn.
Tho second fragment contains, as has been stated, tho seventh
and part of the eighth chapters of John, and it omits the history of
the adulteress, which is placed by those MSS. that contain it in that
part of the Gospel.
* Fragmentum Evangelii S. Johannis, Grseco-Copto-Thebaicum Steculi
IV. Ex Veliteruo Musrco Borgijino. Opera et Studio F. Aug. Ant,
Gcorgii, Erem. Augustiniaui. Rom. 1789. 4to.
Oo
290 TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. [bOOK III,
Section VII. — The Cottonian Fragment.
The beautiful fragment in the Cottonian collection of the British
Museum, where it is marked Titus, C. 15, which seems somewhat
more recent, contains all that now survives of what must at first
have been a more splendid MS. of the Four Gospels. At present it
only exhibits two passages of the Gospel of Matthew, and two of
that of John, written in letters which originally were of silver, but
are now so tarnished as to have become quite black, on parchment
at first of a fine purple, now much faded. The words |C, {'^(Joug,)
QC, ^so's, YC» ^'ioi, and CWTHP, aojr^, are m letters of gold, and
these have retained almost all their primeval brightness. There are
large but unornamented initial letters, but neither stops, spirits, nor
accents. A small curve at the top of a letter indicates the separation
of words where the reader might be in doubt. In the caUigraphy,
it will be observed, from the fac-simile given in this book, that the
line denoting abbreviation, as well as the top line of fl and T, and
the lower line of A, are slightly curved. In other respects they very
much resemble those of the copyist who wrote the titlepage of the
copy of Dioscorides made for the Princess Juliana, A.D. 505, now
in the Imperial Library at Vienna. The Cottonian MS. is certainly
of not more modern date.
These six MSS. — viz. the Vatican, Alexandrine, and Ephrem MSS,
the Dublin Palimpsest, and the Borgian and Cottonian Fragments —
belong to a period prior to the general introduction of the divisions
and style, of writing, first invented by Euthalius, I may be mis-
taken in placing the more ancient among £liem so high as the first
half of the fifth century ; but it appears to me that they cannot,
with any show of probability, be brought lower than the commence-
ment of the sixth. Even this is no contemptible antiquity, as it
will make them now upwards of 1300 years old.
Of the MSS, to which we next proceed, there are several which it
would not be easy to distinguish by the mere handwriting from the
foregoing, so as to assign them to a different age; yet, as they
have Euthaliau marks, or other proofs of later origin, they must be
placed subsequent in order.
Section VIII, — Codex Carpentoractensis.
Of this codex all that I have been able to learn is comprised in
the following sentence in Professor Scholz's catalogue of the MSS,
CHAP. II.] MANUSCRIPTS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 291
which aro cither uncoUated or have onlj been incidentally men-
tioned by learned men: — "A Manuscript belonging to the Library
of Charpentras, on parchment in quarto size, in the uncial character,
and ^vritten in the sixth century, contains the Neio Testament in
Greek." It is extraordinary that a document of such a venerable
age, and in a place so accessible, should have remained till this time
uncoUated, especially by Dr. Scholz himself, who knew of its
existence, and who, in quest of MSS. of far inferior age and probable
authority, did not hesitate to undertake a biblico-critical voyage into
Italy, Greece, the Greek Islands, &c. &c. The manuscript is here
mentioned in the hope that this notice of it may fall into the hands
of some person who will have time, ability, and zeal, to collate its
readings with the printed text; or, which would be much better,
and not much more difficult, to make an exact transcript of it on
tracing paper, which might afterwards be published in lithograph.
Section IX. — The Basiliano- Vatican Codex of the Apocalypse.
This is an uncial manuscript of the seventh century, according to
Bianchini, Wotstein, and Scholz, which formerly belonged to the
convent of the monks of St. Basil in the city of Rome, but is now
deposited in the library of the Vatican. It contains the book of
Revelation, together with some homilies of Basil the Great and
Gregory of Nyssa; and was collated for Wetstein, under the
direction of Cardinal Quirinius. A specimen of it had been pre-
viously published by Bianchini, in the Evangeliarium Quadruplex,
p. 525. It has accents, which appear to have been inserted a prima
manu. If this be the case, they may be thought by some to militate
against the antiquity ascribed to the book; but that they do not
necessarily imply a more modern date has already been shown.
Section X. — The Codex Gantabrigiensis.
The Cambridge MS. or Codex Bez^ (D. in the Gospels and
Acts), was, A.D. 1581, presented to that learned university by
Beza, the colleague and successor of John Calvin at Geneva. The
previous history of this MS. has given rise to much disputation:*
* Wetstcin's Prolegomena, pp. 23 — 38. Michselis, Introd. vol. ii. jip.
228—242: with Marsh's Notes, pp. 679—721, and the authorities there
c-itod.
292 TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. [bOOK III.
Beza has thrice stated that he obtaiued it about the year 1526 from
the monastery of St. Irenseus at Lyons, where, he says, it had
long lain in neglect and dust. But in 1598, which was seventeen
years after he had given it away, and when he was in his own
seventy-ninth year, he twice calls it Glaromontanus, probably con-
founding it with another MS. so denominated, which had likewise
been in his possession. It contains the four Gospels and the Acts
in Greek, accompanied with one of the Latin versions which were
in use before the time of Jerome, on opposite pages, so disposed
that text and version always correspond to each other line for line,
the Greek occupying the left hand, the Latin the right.
The Gospels are arranged in the order which was pretty general
in the West: viz. — Matthew, John, Luke, Mark; and the whole
was evidently designed for the use of a Latin community. There
are, however, a great number of words expressed in Egyptian forms;
more than in any other MS.: so that it undoubtedly was either
written in Egypt or copied with scrupulous fidelity from a MS.
written in that country.* The divisions of the text are pecuHar.
In the Gospels there are numerous sections, which do not in general
coincide with those of Ammonius. A later hand has marked the
end of each Ammonian section with two points ( : ) in the text, and
inserted the numbers and headings of the Ammonian xsipdXaia in the
margin, though still without any reference to the Eusebian canons.
In the Acts, the writer's divisions are more numerous than those of
Euthalius, but yet are consistent with them. They are, in fact, the
Euthalian sections subdivided. It has no accents nor spix-its, but the
upper stroke of the T is very much curved, as is that of the F,
and the P has a very peculiar form to which also the Latin
P is assimilated; and, what affords the most certain test, it is
stichometrically written throughout: so that, as it must have been
written after Euthalius, and before the conquest of Egypt by tho
Arabs in 640, it may be assigned to tho latter part of the fifth or
beginning of the sixth century; but this is the earliest possible date,
and it probably is more recent by a century or more — say written at
the beginning, or even towards the middle, of the seventh.
This work as originally written is no longer complete, several
♦ As this MS. contains a Latin translation, it is evident that it must
have been written for the use of a person or a community belonging to the
Western world; but the copyist seems to have been more famihar with
the Greek than with Roman letters, and not to have been well versed in
cither of the two langucujes. He pi'obably was a native Copt of Alexan-
dria, who practised transcription as a mere trade.
CUAP. II.] MANCSCUiriS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 293
chasms being found in it, some of which have been supphed by a
later hand; probably, as Hug tliinks, of the twelfth century.
It has been often collated. There is every reason to believe that
it was the identical M8. which Stephens has quoted in his margin
by the mark jS, and which he says had been collated for him by
some friends in Italy. Mill and Wetstein extracted its more im-
portant readings more accurately; and in 1793 it was pubhshed at
the expense of the University, by Dr. Kipling, in two splendid folio
volumes, containing ample and satisfactory Prolegomena.
As many critics have endeavoured to prove that almost all tho
ancient MSS. and especially the Codices Grreco-Latini, have been
corrupted from tho Latin, it may be useful to observe, that, as
regards the minor readings, the contrary is evident so far as this
codex is concerned, — the Latin version being, in such passages, every-
where accommodated to the Greek, often contrary to aU the rules of
syntax, with a childlike sciiipulosity. From internal evidence it
has been suspected that some entire paragraphs, as that relating
to the adulteress, were translated from the Latin, not, probably by
tho transcriber himself, but by the person under whose direction ho
laboured; but this conjecture is probably erroneous.
The text of this codex preserves some passages quoted by early
writers, which are found in no other MS. now existing. It abounds
however, in alterations and interpolations of various kinds.
Section XL — The Codex Claromontanus.
The Clermont MS, in the King's Library at Paris (D. in the
Epistles of Paul), is a Groeco-Latin stichometrical codex, contaiuin"'
the Epistles of Paul; and was long supposed, but erroneously, to
have been the second part of the Cambridge Codex — which, how-
ever, it very much resembles, so that it may safely be referred to
the same age. The principal point in which it differs is in that of
having accents and spirits in some places, a prima manu — a circum-
stance which seems to have perplexed Montfaucon, in a MS. of such
an early age, whence he persuaded himself that these had been
subsequently added; but in many places there is no reason to sus-
pect that any later hand has inserted them; and as Euthalius, tho
inventor of stichometry, tells us that he also wrote his MSS. xara
T^oGuidlav, the occurrence of accents in a stichometrical MS. is only
what might have been expected. The Latin version is one of thoso
which were in circulation before Jerome, and is written in charac-
294 TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. [bOOK III.
ters which betray a more modern date than the Greek alone would
warrant us in assigning.
Though stichometricallj written, and furnished with accents, it
has not the Euthalian sections, nor the enumeration of tfr/;^^o/, nor
the subscriptions. A later hand has inserted the number of cri^oi;
and various owners at different times have covered it with marginal
readings, scholia, and textual emendations of all kinds; so that in
some places it is not easy to make out the original text amidst the
mass of interpolated matter. It has not been published; but Wet-
stein collated the whole of it carefully, and Griesbach, who re-ex-
amined it, but without suggesting any important corrections, must
be understood as certifying the accuracy of his extracts.
Section XII. — The Coislinian Fragment.
A venerable manuscript, formerly the property of the Bishop
Coislin of Mentz, now in the King's Library at Paris, once contained
a complete copy of the Epistles of Paul, but now only eleven frag-
ments remain, comprising in all about seventy of our modern
verses. It is in a large uncial character, stichometrically written,
originally without accents or breathings, which have been added
by the same person probably who has throughout retouched the
fading strokes. The subscription at the end testifies that it was
collated, in the library at Cassarea, with the codex of Pamphilus,
written by his own hand, consequently before the middle of the
seventh century; for then the library and city of Csesarea were both
destroyed by the invading Saracens. The Euthalian titles of the
chapters are inserted; and the transcriber apologises for the liberty
he had taken in writing the text zara arl^ovg, showing that in his
day the practice was not general. These indications carry us back
to a very remote date. In the middle ages this MS. was deposited
in the Monastery of St. Athanasius, on Mount Athos; in the year
1218 the leaves were torn asunder and used as old parchment for
covering other books; several of these books having been purchased
by Seguier, Chancellor of France, the value of their binding was
detected by the learned Montfaucon, who was preparing his cata-
logue of that great man's library. The fragments have been care-
fully collated by Wetstein and Griesbach, but the remainder of
the MS. to which they belonged has, there is too much reason to
fear, irrecoverably perished.
CHAP. II. J MANUSCRIPTS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 295
Section XIII. — The Codex Laudianus, No. III.
The Codex Laudianus III. (E. in tho Acts), in the Bodleian
Library at Oxford, to which it was presented by Archbishop Laud,
contains only the Acts of tho Apostles. It is Graeco- Latin, the
Latin version being ante-IIieronymian; both written in the uncial
character of the sixth or seventh century, and arranged in a manner
of which no other example has been found — not so much stichome-
trically as epometrically, the Greek and Latin being disposed in
columns, seldom of greater breadth than that of two short words, and
often only of one, so that the two copies correspond to each other,
word for word; and we might suppose the book to have been written
for the use of a person who was learning one of these languages
through the medium of the other. It has the chapters of Euthahus
pointed out by means of initial letters, larger than the rest, and
advanced beyond the line, but no spirits nor accents.
This codex has an edict relating to some religious or public
matter, issued by Flavius Pancratius, A&i^ Saso/w'a;, Dux SardinUe,
written in at the end of tho book; which will probably, if examined,
lead to a more accurate knowledge of the antiquity of the MS. As
only a few lines of this document have been published as a specimen,
we can merely say that Dukes of Sardinia were established by the
Emperor Justinian, A.D, 534, and that this form of administration
ceased entirely A.D. 749, before which, of course, the edict must
have been written; and tho MS. itself would appear, from the
characters and other marks, to be still more ancient. Mill, who
collated it carefully, remarked a very striking accordance between
its text and that which tho Venerable Bede had found in a Greek
MS. which he employed. Wetstein, who examined this point with
his characteristic zeal and ingenuity, was thoroughly convinced that
this was the identical MS. that had been used by that venerable
man; and Woide* has pi'oduced forty striking examples of coinci-
dence between them, and entirely assents to Wetstein's opinion.
The principal fact which weighs on the other side is, that Bede does
not mention his MS. as having a Latin translation, and even speaks
doubtfully on the question whether any of his peculiar readings
could be found in any copies of the Latin version. It was first col-
lated for Bishop Walton, afterwards more minutely by MiU; and
was in 1715 published complete by Mr. Hearne, being the first of
* Prolegomena to the Coder Alexandrinus, sec. 3s.
296 TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. [bOOK III.
the published biblical MSS. Its appearance contributed much to
mitigate the prejudice against Gteeco- Latin MSS. as having been
altered in the text from the version.
Section XIV. — The Codex Cyprius.
The Codex Cyprius (K. Wet. and Gries.), in the King's Library
at Paris, is a manuscript of the Gospels, written in a degenerate
uncial character, assigned by Montfaucon to the eighth century,
but probably not more ancient than the ninth; has accents and
spirits a 'prima manu, and a point occurs in the text where each
tfT/;i^og formerly terminated; so that it was probably copied from a
stichometrical exemplar, and marks the transition from stichometry
to punctuation. Its text harmonizes in a remarkable manner with
that of the Gospels in the Codex Alexandrinus, and with the Des
Camps MS. hereafter to be described; and together with them
and some other MSS. written in a cui-sive character, and of a more
recent date, it forms one of the classes or families into which the
documents referring to this portion of the sacred text may be
divided.
Section XV. — The Codex Begins, No. LXII.
The Uncial Codex, No. 62, (formerly 2861), in the King's
Library at Paris (L. in the Gospels), contains the four Gospels,
written in a very compressed uncial character. The letters 0 € O C
are greatly elongated and terminate in angles instead of curves,
above and below, and Z. H' and X. are continued below the
line. It is in double column, with accents and breathings, irregu-
larly and unskilfully placed, but a prima manu; the words are
undivided; the xs^aXa/a fiiilpva, the Ammonian sections, and canons
of Eusebius are marked, and other divisions still more minute than
the Ammonian. All these sections and divisions, written in red
letters, and in various elegant forms, stand out upon the margin.
The codex has also a punctuation, the longest pause being marked
by a kind of flattened cross of singular device, and the shorter and
intermediate ones by points somewhat like our comma and semi-
colon. It has innumerable examples of Egyptian orthography,
Xriijj-^oiiat and its conjugates being always written for X^^o/^a/, and
very often ilirav for ilirov; sometimes also ^'kOav and "aav, and other
similar forms. This codex cannot be older than the eighth cen-
CHAP. II.] MANUSCniPTS OF TflE NEW TESTAMKNT. 297
turj, probably it is not more ancient tl)an the ninth, to whicli
period it is assigned l)oth by Gricsbach and Ilug. From certain
marks indicating the beginning and the close of church lessons, and
from notes on the margin, specifying the days on which certain
passages were to be read, it appears to have been written for the
use of a Christian church.
This manuscript has been more than once collated. From the
coincidence between its readings and those which Stephens has
cited in his margin by the letter jj, that is Xo. 8, there is reason to
believe that tliis is one of the manuscripts which he liad borrowed
from the King of France's Library, and collated for his third edition
of the Greek Testament (Paris, laoO, fol.). It is true that the
coincidence is not everywhere exact, but not less so than the usual
inaccuracy of Stephens might lead us to expect. Wetstein after-
wards examined it, and has taken a great many variants from it,
which may be seen in his inner margin; but he also proceeded too
hastily, and has attributed to this codex about a hundred readings
which it does not contain. Griesbach, to whom we are indebted for
the correction of these errors, says he had re-examined many MSS.
which Wetstein had collated before him, and usually had occasion
to commend his dihgence and fidelity, but with respect to Codex
L. he affirms that no other MS. of all those examined by Wetstein
appears to have been collated so carelessly,* Griesbach himself
did not disdain the labour of most minutely collating the whole
codiix anew, with the exception of ten chapters, Matt. viii. to xviii.
1 0, which ho also inspected only in a cursory manner ; the result he
lias given in his Symholce Criticce, vol. i. and in his Notes to the
New Testament. He attached great importance to this document,
and justly; for with the exception of certain passages in which the
transcriber, who appears to have been an ignorant man, seems to have
introduced readings from various copies, or from the margin of his
exemplar, some of which make perfect nonsense of the passages
where they are found, the Codex L. has a remarkable affinity with
the text of the Vatican MS. the Codex Ephra3mi, the Coptic Ver-
sion, and other documents which represent to us the recension which
was approved and used in the churches of Fgypt, during what may
be called the critical period.
• SymMae Cridar, torn. i. p. 73.
Pp
298 TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. [bOOK III.
Section XVI. — The Codex Basileensis, B. VI. 21.
This MS. likewise contains the four Gospels, but is mutilated in
several places; some of which have been supplied by a later hand.
It is marked in critical editions with the letter E.
The writing in this manuscript is not in columns but in lines
extending the whole breadth of the page, without any divisions of
words, and in a full round uncial character, except where the
copyist was pressed for space at the end of a line, in which case he
has used a compressed character to save room. The words are
almost everywhere furnished with accents, and there is a regular
systematic punctuation throughout the entire codex. The text,
like that of the Alexandrine, the Ephrem, the Dublin, and other
ancient manuscripts, is broken into short divisions or subsections,
and each of these has its initial letter upon the margin, large but
quite plain. These indications point to the eighth century; and we
are the less inclined to hesitate in assigning this date to the codex,
as it appears to have been employed, during the ninth century, in
the service of a church at Constantinople, and has various additions,
directions to the officiating ministers, &c. at the commencement
and close of the lessons, in the handwriting of that period. Now a
manuscript which was treated in this manner in the ninth century
was probably tolerably ancient at the time. Additions of this kind
are not often put upon a new book; because when it is first produced
it is furnished a prima manu with all things necessary for the pur-
pose for which it is designed : it is only when it is become an old
copy, and is applied to a use for which it was not at first specially
adapted, that it becomes necessary to supply such adjuncts.
This is one of the most ancient documents from which we derive
our knowledge of the text which prevailed at Constantinople; it is,
if not the most ancient, certainly one of the most ancient codices of
that recension, and highly valuable for fixing its primitive readings.
As the present manuscript was bequeathed to the monastery of
the Preaching Friars at Basil, by Cardinal Ragusio, in the fif-
teenth century, and remained in that establishment till it was
transferred to the public library of the city in 1559, — it certainly
was in the immediate neighbourhood of Erasmus while he was pre-
paring his editions of the New Testament ; but he never used it,
never saw it, nor apparently ever heard of it; probably the brethren
of the monastery where it was kept, were unaware of its existence.
CHAP. II.] MANUSCRIPTS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 299
It agrees however in many points with the text of Erasmus, because
the codex which he principally followed was of the same recension,
though far more recent. It has been carefully collated by Wet-
stein.
Section XVII. — The Codex Sangallensis.
This is a very interesting document preserved in the library of
the monastery of St. Gallon in Switzerland. It was never seen by
the illustrious critics who have immortalized themselves by their
labours on the text of scripture, nor are its readings given in any
edition of the New Testament; but it was transcribed a few years
since by Rettig, and having been by him prepared for publication,
was given to the world, after his too early death, by his brother.
The first eight leaves of the book contain the canons of Eusebius,
and some other prefatory matters; they seem to have been taken
from a Latin MS. of the tenth century, and prefixed to the present
one for the sake of reference. The codex itself Rettig refers to the
ninth century, which probably is its true date.
It is Grreco- Latin; the Latin version being ante-Hieronymian,
and interlined; each Latin word being written above the Greek one
with which it corresponds. The Greek is in a character which we
may no longer call uncial, for the letters are not larger than those
of the type which printers call pica, but they approach the ancient
forms, and are made by separate strokes, not connected with each
other. The words also are separated by well-marked intervals;
and wherever the division might have been doubtful before that
method of writing was adopted, a dot is inserted in the text; it
appears, therefore, to have been copied from an exemplar written
continua serie, in which guiding marks of that description had been
inserted to prevent misconception; and as we may clearly infer from
the number of Egyptian forms (i/Jdru occurs in the Lord's Prayer,
Matt. vi. 10, and such examples are frequent), the exemplar must
have come from Alexandria, that great emporium of the book trade.
The beginning of each arl^o; is marked by an initial letter much
larger than the rest, in some cases three times as large, and in a few
places attempts are made to introduce the accents, but with such
frequent mistakes, that it is quite evident they were only beginning
to be employed when the book was written.
The Latin writing is of the kind called in diplomatics, An<ilo-
300 TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. [bOOK HI,
Saxon;* and in some of the additional matter which has been
placed in the margin, Scottish or Irish characters have been traced;
but as Rettig truly observes, this affords no proof that the MS.
ever was in Ireland — it may have been written and remained all its
years in St. Gall; for, as he asks, "Did not Irishmen instruct Ger-
many long before the time of Charlemagne? (See Pertz, Monum.
vol. ii. p. 333.) May not the Irish teachers, invited over in the
time of Charlemagne, be supposed to have disseminated the usage
of their native land in Germany, Gaul, and Allemaine? They are
very far mistaken (maximo in errore versantur), who think that
only individual Irishmen came over as teachers into Gaul, Germany,
and Allemaine; for, from the sixth century downwards, troops of
them inundated, as it were, the regions of the continent." In proof
of this he refers to Walafrid Strabo, and an epistle of Ericus to
Charlemagne, written before the year 780. He continues — "But,
above all, the Irish usage and ritual seem to have obtained in the
monastery of St. Gall: that community gloried in an Irishman as
its founder and patron. They very frequently had Irishmen among
them;" (he gives the names of several), "which is evident from the
fact that, throughout the entire ninth and tenth centuries, no monas-
tery, no school can be named in Germany, in which Greek learning
was cultivated, that of St. Gall alone excepted."
What strikingly confirms Rettig's reasoning is, the great simi-
larity which will be found on comparing the Greek characters of
this codex with the specimen given by Montfaucon, Palwographia
Grceca, p. 237, from a Greek Psalter, written, as the subscription
testified, by the hand of Sedulius, a learned Irishman of the ninth
century, whose commentaries on the scripture have been published,
and of whom Hepidamus, a monk of St. Gall, in his Brief Annals,
which have been edited by Duchesne, says, under the year 818,
"Sedulius the Irishman is in high repute" — Sedulius Scotus clarus
habetur. One could almost believe that Sedulius and the writer of
this MS. had been taught to write Greek by the same master.
In the margin are several notes and references, but almost all in
a more recent hand. The name of Gotteschalcus is twice intro-
duced: at Luke xiii. 24, and John xii. 4; these are passages which
Gotteschalcus would be very likely to quote in support of his
* This character might, with equal propriety, have been called Irish : it
is found in many MSS. that were written in Ireland, aud even in the Ii-ish
language. That which diplomatists call Scottish or Irish is only a modi-
lication of the preceding.
CHAP. II.] MANUSCRinS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 301
opinions; whence it would seem that the owners of this book, at one
])eriod of its liistory, were not disinchned to his peculiar views, for
which ho suffered so much and so patiently. There is reference
also to Agano, Bishop of Carnota, who wrote a set of rules for the
monastery of St. Pierre eu Vallee; and the notes seem to be in
favour of the strict ascetic discipline which he prescribed. Some
notes refer to Martianus and Felix Capella, who wrote a work in
prose and verse ou the seven sciences — it must therefore have been
at one time used in a school.
Scholz includes this MS. in his catalogue under the letter A, but
says he could not obtain a collation of it (^Prohfj. p. 44): this is
the more remarkable as the brothers of tlic monastery afforded
Rettig, though a Protestant, every facility for copying the whole of
it on tracing paper, with a view to publication.
Section XVIII. — The Codex Sangermanensis.
In the epistles of Paul, which is the only part of the New Testa-
ment that tliis codex contains, it is called by critics E. It was
formerly in possession of the abbey of St. Germain dts Pros at
Paris : a few years ago it was lost, and it was quite uncertain what
had become of it, but it has since made its appearance iu the Imperial
Library of St. Petersburg ; having probably been appropriated by
some Russian ofl&cer or soldier — a chaplaiu perhaps — during the
visit of the Muscovites to Paris, on the downfall of Xapoleon. The
manuscript was scarcely worth stealing ; for it is a mere transcript
taken from the Codex Claromontanus after its text had undergone
several alterations and interpolations: so long as the ai'chetype
remains, it can be of very little value ; and if the Claromontanus were
published — as it ought to be — and as it speedily would be, if the
keepers of the Royal Library consulted the literary renown of the
French nation, the Sangermanensis would be of no value at all. In
criticism, as in law, a copy cannot be produced in evidence while
the original document is accessible.
Section XIX. — The Codex Boemerianus.
This is a manuscript containing thirteen of the Epistles of Paid,
being all that are usually ascribed to him, except the Epistle to the
Hebrews. It is called G, iu the critical editions, and is now deposited
in the public library at Berlin, but was formerly the property of
302 TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. [bOOK III.
Professor Boerner at Leipzig, whose name it still retains. It has
several chasms.
This Codex is in an uncial character of small size, with an ante-
Hieronymian Latin version interlined; the Greek has the words
separately written, and the text broken into divisions, borrowed from
the ancient eriy^oi, each of which has a large initial letter ; and the
writing in both languages is so like to that of the Codex San-
gallensis of the Gospels, not only in the text and version, but the
marginal additions, that the two manuscripts might readily be taken
for different parts of one and the same codex, which however is not
the case. It is nevertheless manifestly of the same age and similar
origin. It has been published entire by Matthsei, in common type,
but with 2i facsimile of one passage as a specimen of the character.
It was probably written in Germany, but the Anglo-Saxon, i. e,
Irish style of the writing both in the Greek and Latin, shows it to
have been transcribed either by an Irishman, or one who had studied
under an Irish instructor.
Section XX. — The Codex Augiensis.
The monastery- of Reichenau, or Augia Major, situated on an
island in the lake about a mile from Constance, was formerly in
possession of a codex, in many respects closely allied to that just
described, and which has hence been denominated the Codex
Atigiensis; it is marked by critics with the letter F in the Epistles
of Paul, This manuscript was collated by Wetsteiii, at Heidelberg,
where it was then in possession of a clergyman named Mieg ; it was
soon after sold to Bentley, and with his other MSS. was deposited
in the library of Trinity College, Cambridge, in 1787, where it still
remains. It contains the thirteen epistles of Paul, which were
universally acknowledged in the ancient church, both in Greek and
Latin: the text and version in parallel columns, so disposed that
the Greek always occupies the outside, and the Latin the interior
margin of the page. The Epistle to the Hebrews is found in the
Latin translation only. In this respect, it is more complete than
the Boernerian, which wants that epistle altogether, but in the
general conformation of its text, it bears so close an affinity to it,
that it is the prevailing opinion among critics that the one must
have been copied from the other, or both from some preceding
document. The words are not wi'itten continud serie; on the con-
trary there is a dot at the end of each, and the Latin version is in
CHAP. 11.] MANrsCRIPTS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT, 303
the cursive Irish, or as it is commonly called, Anglo-Saxon character
of the middle ages. At the end it has, a prima manu, a passage in
Latin which Wetstein copied and printed in his Prolegomena to the
second part of his New Testament, p. 9 ; Semler pointed out that the
extract is taken from Rhabanus Maurus ; so that the codex cannot
be more ancient than the ninth century and may be more recent by
a hundred years.
Section XXI. — The Codex Vaticanus, Xo. 354.
A beautiful manuscript of the Gospels in the library of the Vatican,
called S by the critics, was first collated by Birch. It is elegantly
written in the compressed and elongated uncial character, and
was transcribed, according to the subscription, in the year 9-49. It
may serve to confirm our faith in the principles by which we have
been guided in the preceding parts of this chapter, to know, that the
middle of the teuth century is almost the precise period to which
our tests would have led us to refer this codex, had no date been
aflSxed. It is farther valuable as one of the most ancient MSS.
in which we find the Constantinopohtan recension of the text.
Section XXII. — The Des-Camps Codex.
This codex, formerly the property of the Abbe Des Camps, is
now in the Royal Library at Paris, and is quoted in the critical
editions by the letter M. It is in a laboured uncial character, with
accents and stops ; and several notes in the cursive hand appear to
be a prima manu, so that it is probably not more ancient than the
eleventh century, but some writers refer it to the tenth. Its text
in the four Gospels, which are the only books that it contains,
presents a considerable resemblance to that of the Alexandrine MS.
and the Codex Cyprius.
Section XXIII. — The Holy Synod's Uncial Codex of the Gospels.
We are indebted to Matthiei for our knowledge of this valuable
MS. the property of the Holy Synod of the Russian Church, and
kept in its library at Moscow. It is called by critics, V. It is
written in two different hands ; the earlier portion, which reaches as
far as the seventh chapter of John, is of the ninth century; the
remainder is of the eleventh or twelftli. The codex contains only the
304 TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. [bOOK III.
Gospels, and is regarded by Matthai as the oldest MS. of any part
of the New Testament in Moseow : he even thought it the oldest in
Europe; but the anxiety of an editor to enhance the value of a
document which he first collated aud first discovered, though it may
well be pardoned, ought not to mislead those who are free from such
influences.
Section XXIV. — The Uoly Synod's Uncial MS. of the Epistles.
This MS. is about a century more recent than the preceding one.
It contains all the Epistles, and is called by Matthrei, G. The text
of these two MSS. adheres to the Constantinopolitan family or
recensions and seems to have preserved its readings with remark-
able purity.
Section XXV. — Cursive MSS.
Although for various reasons it is not expedient to attempt any-
thing like a complete enumeration of the codices of the New Testa-
ment in the cursive character, nor to give a particular account of
those which are to be noticed, yet some mention of a few, including
those which are most frequently referred to in the criticism of the
New Testament, is required. We shall place them in the order of
the numbers by which they are referred to in the critical edition of
Scholz.
1. — A MS. in the Basil Library (B. vi. 27), on parchment,
written in the tenth century. It contains the Gospels, Acts, and
Epistles ; but the text in the two latter divisions, follows a different
recension from that found in the Gospels. This MS. was consulted
by Erasmus, and carefully collated by Wetstein. (It is number 1
in the Acts and Catholic Epistles, aud the same in the Epistles of
Paul.)
13. — In the Royal Library at Paris, now numbered 50, formerly
2244 h, on parchment in 4to size, apparently of the twelfth century.
It contains the four Gospels, with some chasms — collated first by
Kuster, afterwards by Wetstein, and much more carefully by
Griesbach.
17. — In the Royal Library at Paris, No. 5o (formerly numbered
2083, and afterwards 2244), on parchment, in folio, written by the
hand of George Hermonymus of Sparta, the instructor of Budaeus
and Capnio in Greek, therefore of the beginning of the sixteenth
CHAP. II. ) MANUSCRIPTS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 305
century. It contains the Gospels in Greek, with tlie Latin ^'ulgate
version.
33. — A MS. in the same library, now numbered 14 (formerly
1871), on parchment, in folio, of the eleventh century. This codex
contains a part of the Prophets from the Septuagint — the Acts,
Kpistles, and Gospels of the New Testament; tlie extremities of
almost every leaf are mutilated, and the leaves confusedly arranged
in the binding. It has been carefully collated by Griesbach, who
has given its readings at full length in the Symholce Criticce, and
in the notes to his New Testament. (No. 13 in the Acts and Cath.
Ep. ; No. 17 in the Epistles of Paul.)
40. — The Coislin Codex 22, formerly numbered 375, on parch-
ment, in 4to, of the eleventh century. It contains the four Gospels
with commentaries.
G9. — A manuscript in the Public Library at Leicester, written in
the fourteenth century, partly on parchment, partly on paper. It
contained the whole New Testament, but is now mutilated in some
places. It was collated by Mr. Jackson, whose extracts have been
copied by Wetstein and other editors. (No. 31 in the Acts and
Catholic Epistles ; No. 37 in the Epistles of Paul ; and No. 14 in
the Apocalypse.)
lOG. — A manuscript of the tenth century, on parchment, belong-
ing to the Earl of Winchelsea, and collated by Jackson. It contains
the four Gospels only.
114. — A manuscript, 5540 of the llarleian collection in the
British Museum, in 12mo, on parchment, and of the twelfth century,
collated by Griesbardi, but not minutely. It contains the four
Gospels with marginal notes.
116. — In the same collection, No. 5567, of the same age as the
preceding one, and containing the same books.
124, — A codex in the Imperial Library at Vienna (Lambecian
Catalogue, 31), on parchment, in 4to, of the twelfth century. It
contains the four Gospels with scholia. It was collated first by
Alter, and afterwards by Birch.
131. — The Vatican codex 3G0, on parchment, in 4to, of the
eleventh century, contains the Gospels, Acts, and Epistles. It was
formerly the property of Aldus Manutius, the printer. (No. 70 in
the Acts and Catliolic Epistles ; No. 77 in the Epistles of Paul;
No. 0 ui the Apocalypse.)
142. — The Vatican codex 1210, on parchment, in 12mo, of the
Q<4
306 TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. [bOOK III.
eleventh century, contains the Gospels, Acts, and Epistles, together
■with the Psalms. Collated by Birch and Scholz. (No. 76 in the
Acts and Catholic Epistles ; No. 87 in the Epistles of Paul.)
241. — A Dresden MS. formerly the property of Matth^ei, and by
him collated and noted k. It is beautifully written on parchment,
in 8vo, in the eleventh century. (No. 104 in the Acts and
Catholic Epistles ; No. 120 in the Epistles of Paul ; No. 47 in the
Apocalypse.)
242. — A manuscript of the Holy Synod at Moscow, on parchment,
in 8vo, written in the twelfth century. It contains the whole New
Testament. It was collated by Matthsei, and by him noted I.
(No. 105 in the Acts and Catholic Epistles; No. 121 in the Epistles
of Paul ; No. 48 in the Apocalypse.)
253. — A codex belonging to Nicephorus, Archbishop of Cherson,
collated by Matthsei, and referred to in his edition as No. 10. It
is written on parchment, in folio, of the eleventh century, and
contains the Gospels with scholia.
In the Acts and Catholic Epistles, some of the foregoing MSS.
are again quoted, to which are added several that do not contain the
Gospels: among these are —
36. — A MS. belonging to the library of New College, Oxford, of
the thirteenth century. It contains only the Acts and Catholic
Epistles.
40. — A MS. in the collection which formerly belonged to Queen
Christina of Sweden, but which was purchased and presented to the
Vatican Library, by Pope Alexander VIII. and thence is called
Alexandrine- Vatican, numbered 179. It contains the Acts, Epistles,
and Apocalypse, written in the eleventh century. The last-mentioned
book and the Epistle to Philemon are more modern than the rest.
(No 46 in the Epistles of Paul ; No. 12 in the Apocalypse.)
73. — The Vatican codex 367, of the eleventh century, containing
the Acts and Epistles. (No. 80 in the Epistles of Paul.)
78. — Alexandrine- Vatican, No. 29, of the twelfth century, contains
the Acts and Catholic Epistles, with a few fragments of the Epistles
of Paul. (No. 89 in the Epistles of Paul.)
101. — A codex of the Holy Synod at Moscow (No. 333), contain-
ing the Acts and Epistles, written in the thirteenth century; collated
by Matthsei, who has noted it/. (No. 116 in the Epistles of Paul.)
In the Epistles of Paul, we have none of special importance not
included in the preceding enumeration.
ClUr. II.] MANUSCRIPTS OP THE NEW TESTAMENT, 307
In tho Apocalypse, the following deserve notice : —
20. — Ilarlcian, in the British Museum, No. 5G13, on paper, in
quarto, written, as the subscription shows, in the year 1407.
38. — Vatican, No. 57*J, on cotton paper, in 8vo, of the thirteenth
century. It has various readings on the margin and notes of dif-
ferent kinds, which might easily have misled any subsequent tran-
scriber ; but its own text is tolerably pure.
It may be expected that some information should bo given as to
the number of manuscripts which are referred to, in the different
divisions of the New Testament. Taking the numbers as they
stand in Professor Scholz's edition, we have enumerated —
In tho four Gospels, twenty-seven uncial, and four hundred and
sixty-nine cursive manuscripts.
In the Acts and Catholic Epistles, eight uncial, and one hundred
and ninety-two cursive.
In the Epistles of Paul, nine uncial, and two himdred and forty-
six cursive.
In the Apocalypse, three uncial, and eighty-eight cursive.
Many codices have not yet been collated, nor even inspected by any
critic : nothing more is known respecting them than that they exist.
Section XXVI. — Lectionaries.
The nature of these books has been already briefly intimated; but
it may bo useful here to repeat what has been stated, and to accom-
pany it with a few additional particulars.
As the Jews, from an early period, divided the Pentateuch of
Moses into fifty-four Parashioth or Sabbath lessons, so that the
whole was read over in the synagogues in the course of each year,
the Christians, in imitation of this practice, divided the Gospels
into fifty-six Pericopcv or x.s<pdXaia — for the terms were used indis-
criminately by the writers of the earliest period — of which it has been
conjectured, with great probability, by Professor Hug, one was read
over on each Lord's Day, and one on each of the three principal
festivals, which he supposes to have been Christmas, Easter, and
Whitsuntide. The Acts, the Catholic Epistles, and the Epistles of
Paul, were also divided into the same number of crsg/xo-s-a/, and for
the same purpose: hence each section must have been tolerably
long; and in fact a single pcricope often included as much as three,
sometimes as much as four of our modern chapters. While this
usage continued, lesson-books were needless for the whole text
308 TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. [BOOK III.
was read over in orderly course ; and no hesitation could occur as
to the place in the scriptures where the proper lesson for each day
could be found.
But in process of time, from causes which must be sought in
works on church histoiy, the feasts and festivals of the church
became considerably more numerous, and its ritual or form of ser-
vice was greatly lengthened. It also became more complicated. It
was then impossible to read over the long passages for which for-
merly ample time had been allowed; it became necessary to use
shorter lessons; and this suggested the plan of making selections —
not reading any one Gospel or one Epistle through from beginning
to end, but taking a passage from one book in one service, a
passage from another book, or a different passage from the same,
for the next, and so on as might be found convenient. And as the
sacred year became mapped and portioned off among the different
festivals commemorative of the facts recorded in Gospel history, it
was natural to endeavour to select for each some portion of the
Gospels, or of the apostolic writings, which contained special relation
or applicability to the occasion of the day. Canons or tables of the
passages fit to be used as lessons on each Lord's Day and festival
were accordingly constructed, and to these the officiating ministers
were required to conform. The commencement and close of each
lesson were probably marked on the margin of the scriptural manu-
scripts. But this involved a very intricate and difficult task for the
reader, who had to search perhaps through three or four different
volumes before he could find the passage marked as the proper
lesson of the day on which he was to officiate ; for he could not be
expected to carry the whole catalogue in his memory at once.
Hence, about the middle of the seventh century, we find mention
made of lesson-books, constructed for the especial use of the public
reader, in which the passage appropriate to each day was placed in
its proper order, according to the arrangement of the days and fes-
tivals in the calendar. Two such works were compiled: one from
the Gospels, denominated by the Greeks 'EuayyiXiard^iov, Evangelis-
tarium; the other, because taken from the Acts and Epistles, was
denominated n^a^acrotfroXog' or sometimes, though improperly, 'A^roff-
ToXog simply. To this latter collection modern writers confine the
meaning of the word Lectionary, though anciently it included the
compilations of each kind.
But though many such books were written and used in the
churches in the seventh century, only one of so early a date has
CHAP. II.] MANUSCRIPTS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT, 309
descended to our times, and that very much damaged. It is a
Codex ltescri])tu!f, mentioned by 8cholz in his Prolegomena, p. 109,
and by him referred to the sixth century: it may, perhaps, bo a
littlo more recent; but it is quite possible such MSS. may have been
used in the sixth century, though only mentioned in the authors of
the seventh. A church book is liable to injury of a peculiar kind,
from the nature of the building in which it is kept; the warm
moisture generated in the air by a crowded assemblage, when con-
densed by the chilly coldness of the deserted aisles, settles in damp
upon the leaves, softens and discolours the parchment, discharges
the ink, and soon renders it unfit for use. Hence all the ancient
Lectionaries, which were strictly church documents, have perished.
But several survive which are ascertained to have been written
in the tenth century, some which we must assign to that which
preceded, and one or two belonging to the eighth. The text of
these books generally adheres to the Constantinopolitan family;
and in the scarcity of ancient documents belonging to that class,
they are valuable in fixing its primitive readings. But few of them
have been collated with sufficient care, and some not at all.
It is true that the compilers of the Lectionaries usually allowed
themselves the liberty of prefixing an introductoi'y formula, consist-
ing of a word or two, to each lesson, and of closing it with a doxology
or the word Amen; but these additions are easily distinguished,
and can occasion no perplexity. I cannot bring myself to think
that, either in the Greek or Latin church, the text of the body of
the lesson was wilfully tampered with. In writing so sacred a book
intended for a use so holy, I am persuaded the scribes — uninten-
tional mistakes always excepted — faithfully copied the text which
was esteemed the most exact.
The subscriptions often prove that these books were written as
votive offerings, presented by the transcribers to the churches and
monasteries for the use of which they were intended; perhaps the same
was the case in other instances: if so, we can explain the uncommon
beauty which the writing and ornaments of many Lectionaries display.
A specimen is given from a splendid Evangelistarium in the British
Museum (^Ilarleianus, 5598), which appears never to have been
collated, though a specimen of its characters has been given by
Woide and repeated by Mr. Home, so that it could scarcely have
been altogether unknown to Griesbach and his successors.* The
* I have selected the same passage that has already been engraved by
Woide and Homo, but have attempted to convey some idea of the colour-
310 TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. [BOOK III.
subscription to this codex states it to have been written in the year
995; it is therefore about half a century more recent than the codex
S. (Vat. 354, sec. xviii. supra), which in many respects it very
much resembles.
One hundred and seventy-eight Evangelistaria, and forty-eight
Praxapostoli or Books of Lessons from the Acts and Epistles, are
enumerated by Scholz. Of the former, one (135) is by him
referred to the sixth century ; two only, viz. 47 and 48 in his list
(the codices denominated B. and H. by Matthsei), to the eighth;
eleven are assigned to the ninth century, viz. Nos. 2, 33, 46, 63, 64,
65, 72, 111, 127, 130, 173; and twenty-two to the tenth, viz. 3, 4,
5, 6, 18, 24, 34, 35, 36, 40, 41, 42, 45, 49, 61, 116, 123, 139,
151, 155, 174, 175. One Evangelistarium he describes (No. 172)
in the following manner: — "In the Convent Library of the Isle of
Patmos, on parchment, in folio, of the fourth century, written in the
uncial character/' If it be of the fourth century, it may well be of
the uncial character, seeing that no other kind of book writing was
in use then or for four hundred years afterwards ; in that case it is
the oldest Greek book in the world, except the Herculaneum rolls;
but I rather suspect, from the aspect of the case, that "sec. iv." is a
mistake for "sec. ix." a much more probable date for a manuscript
of this kind. The others in the list are of various dates — eleventh,
twelfth and thirteenth, fourteenth, fifteenth, and even the sixteenth
century. One MS. bears the date of 1533, nearly a hundred years
after the invention of printing. Among the "MSS.frst employed
by himself," Scholz reckons one (156), which he says was described
by Bianchini in the Evangeliarium Quadruplex; and adds, "Ubi
nunc sit, ignore." If Bianchini described it before him, how could
Scholz be the first to employ it? If he does not know where it is,
how could he employ it at all?
ing as well as the shape of the characters. The former representations
are, so far as I could judge upon comparison, perfectly accm'ate in respect
of the form and outline of the letters, but depict them, and the other strokes
and signs, as all of one uniform bright black tint, which is very different
from the appearance of the manuscrii)t. It will be observed that, in the
first line, the letters 0 € O C are of the full circular shape, like those of
the most ancient MS. ; in the succeeding lines they are compressed, and
even angular, especially at the lower end.
CHAP. HI.) VERSIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 311
CHAPTER III.
VERSIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.
In treating of tho Old Testament, some account has been given of
several versions which contain both portions of our sacred code. It
will not bo necessary hero to repeat what has been already stated
at sufficient length : we shall therefore confine ourselves to such points
as relate especially to the translation of the books of the New Testa-
ment, referring for other matters to the statements made in the previ-
ous parts of this volume. This can occasion no serious inconvenience,
and will greatly shorten our labour. The different versions which
wo are now to describe shall be arranged in the following geo-
graphical order: — 1, Latin Versions; 2, Syriac, and those of the
regions adjoining Syria; 3, Egyptian, and those of the regions
bordering upon Egypt; 4, Versions in the languages of the North.
The secondary versions shall bo mentioned in connexion with tho
primary ones from which they were derived.
Section I. — The Versio Itala.
The time when the scriptures of the New Testament were trans-
lated into Latin cannot be exactly ascertained, because no writer
has given us any specific account of the author or date of any of the
early versions in that language ; and wlien we try to determine tho
point by a comparison of probabilities, we find it complicated by so
many peculiar circumstances, affecting particular countries and pro-
vinces in the west, that it is not easy to arrive at any satisfactory
conclusion. We may indeed assume that such a work would be under-
taken as soon as means existed for executing it, and a necessity for
it was felt. Means for executing the work would be afforded by the
formation of tho collections of the Gospels, and of the Acts and
Epistles already spoken of under the names of rb i-jayysXiov and
6 d'xoGToXog — about that time the canon of the New Testament began
to assume some definite form, and the want of a more convenient
and frequent reference to the sacred writings was more generally
felt than it had been previously. But the Greeks do not appear to
312 TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. [bOOK III.
have employed these compilations until the middle and latter part
of the second century: not sooner than this time, therefore, can we
place a Latin translation of the New Testament, because until
then there was no New Testament, in our sense of the term, to
translate. But, as the books which are comprised in the sacred
code so denominated were previously circulating in the form of
detached and separate writings, it would have been possible to
translate any one of them separately into Latin, or any two or more
of them, whenever a motive for doing so might arise ; and it is
conceivable that such separate versions might, at an after period, be
grouped together into collections, formed in imitation of the Greek
ones, and on similar principles. But this stiU affords us no specific
data on which to assign any exact time for the execution of these
translations, because a necessity for them would not arise in all
places at the same time, and we know not, except by conjecture, in
what regions the first Latin versions had their origin.
Augustine, as has been seen, refers the Latin translations of the
entire Bible to the earliest period of the church — " primis fidei tem-
•porihus ;''"' * but here the Bishop of Hippo may be supposed to speak
with reference only to the introduction of Christianity into the pro-
vince of Africa. There a translation of the Greek documents of the
faith would have been required from the first moment when the
gospel was preached; but the case was different in Italy, at least
in Rome, from which Christianity — as TertuUian and Augustine
state,! in perfect accordance with the probabilities of history —
made its way into Africa. Had a Greek writing been unintelligi-
ble to the primitive society of believers at Rome, the Apostle Paul
would not have addressed to them an epistle in that language, or
would at least have taken means to procure a translation of it to be
made for their use, under his own direction; a circumstance which
neither sacred history nor church tradition of any kind records. It
is evident from the book of Acts, and from the Epistle to the
Romans, that the earliest body of Christians in the Imperial City
were capable of using the Greek scriptures in the original. The
time when the spread of the gospel and the influx of purely native
converts into the Roman church occasioned the Greek language to
be less generally understood among them than it had been before,
* See the passage quoted in p. 108, Note %.
t Tertul. De frcescriptione Mereticorum, cap. xxxvi. p. 217, b. The pas-
sage in Augustine is in the work against Faustus the Manichee, and will be
given in this section, infra.
CHAP. III.j VERSIONS 01' THE NEW TESTAMENT. ."'t 1 .'5
can hardly be fixed earlier than the middle of the second century.
Plausible arguments have been advanced, tending to show that it
did not occur so soon. Wo may, however, take it as a point suffi-
ciently established, that, before the close of the second century, the
western churches generally were in such circumstances that a trans-
lation of the scriptures into 'Latin could no longer bo dispensed with.
There is sufficient evidence that, before the commencement of the
tliird, there existed a Latin version of the New Testament, which
had come into general use, and was recognised as the established
one; insomuch that a learned man, commenting in the Latin
language upon the scriptures, felt himself under the necessity of
specifically stating his dissent from the received translation of the
church, and of pointing out whore and how far it differed from the
original. The proof is in TertuUian, who, in ono of his works,
having occasion to touch upon 1 Cor. vii. 39, says — " Let us under-
stand that in the Greek original the sense is quite different from that
given by the artful or ignorant eversion of two .syllables now estab-
lished by cu-stora among us — 'But if her husband shall sleep,'' &c. as
if it were spoken in the future tense."* The same writer says, with
reference to John i. 1, "God is also rational, and reason was in him
first of all, and so all things ai-e from him. Which reason is his own
consciousness. This reason the Greeks call logos, by which term we
also express speech. Thus it is now customary with our fellow-
countrymen, through the erroneous rendering of our translation, to
say that speocli was in the beginning with God."t And with
reference to Gal. iv. 24 — "Which things are allegorical, that is, are
typical of another subject; these are the two testaments, or the two
manifestations, as ve find it translated.'' X These expressions
clearly signify to us that in the time of Tertullian there was a Latin
version generally received and established in public use among the
* Sciamus pUmc non sic esse in Graeco authentico quomodo in usum
exiit per duarum syUabarum aut callidam aut simplicem cvcrsionem, n
autem dormierit vir ejus, quasi de future sonet, De Monogamid, CcXp. xi.
( llo plays here as often elsewhere upon the sound of a word; a mistranslation
he calls, not a version, but an eversion.)
t Rationalis enim Deus, et ratio in ipso prius, et ita ab ipso omnia. Qua;
ratio sensus ipsius est. Ilanc Grseci Xo'yov dicunt, quo vocabulo etiam scr-
monem appeliamus. Ideo(iuo jam in usu est nostrorum, per simplicitatem
inteniretationis, sormonem dicerc in primordio apud Deum fuisse. — Adver
sus Praxeam, cap. v.
X Quae sunt allcgorica; id est aliud portendentia; hjcc sunt duo testa
uieuta, sivo duaj ostcnsiones, sicut invenimus interpretatum. — Adversus
Marci<y^icm, lib. v. cap. iv.
Rr
314 TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. [bOOK III,
Christians for whom he wrote; that is to say, in the churches of
Africa, and probably in those of Italy and Gaul; except, perhaps,
in a few towns and societies of Greek origin, where the original lan-
guage of the New Testament still prevailed so much as to render the
use of a Latin book more inconvenient. But only one such version
was known to TertuUian. Had there been a plurality of transla-
tions, this writer would not have failed to point out to us the fact,
by pressing now one and now another into his service, as he might
have found it needful, in order to evade the force of his opponents'
arguments, countenanced, as he sometimes admits they were, by the
mistakes of the one in common use. We must therefore understand
Augustine's expression declaring the existence of a great number of
Latin versions, "in the earliest period of the faith," as a rhetorical
exaggeration even with reference to the province of Africa. Down to
the period of TertuUian there was but one in that province; at least
only one was known to him, and he was one of the most learned
men in Carthage.
Yet there were, though perhaps not till the middle or close of the
third century, several distinct versions of the New Testament in
Latin. Augustine's affirmation is a sufficient proof of their existence
in his own time ; and the quotations of the Latin Fathers are in
many respects so different from each other, in their citations of the
very same passages, that we see the evident traces of a multitude of
hands, which had laboured, with different degrees of merit and
success, to transfer the scriptures of the New Testament into Latin.
To this multiplicity of versions we may trace the enormous amount
of those discrepancies which existed in the MSS. even of that
which was best preserved, in the time of Damasus ; for the Latin
versions of this period were all obscure. Several of them, it is
probable, were made in Africa, where the language was not spoken
in its purity ; exegetical difficulties occasioned the usual attempts of
transcribers to avoid them, and of scholiasts to explain them. For
both purposes, the rendering of a different translator, who might
appear to have been more successful in clearing up an obscurity or
removing a difficulty, would be eagerly caught at; and thus the
readings of several versions gradually forced their way, by dint of
successive interpolations, into the text of that which was in use in
the Church of Rome, and which we may also presume was the
Versio Usitata, or, as the words are commonly read, Versio Itala,
spoken of by Augustine ; for he more than once professes his defer-
CHAP. Ill.j VEKSIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 315
ence to the codices which wore employed in the region whence the
Christian doctrine itself had been imported into Africa;* that is,
to those of Italy. The corruption of this ancient document, the
mixture of many translations in its text, the arbitrary attempts of
copyists to improve it, to explain it, to amend it in conformity with
some particular Greek MSS. assumed at random, the inconsistency
and inequality of these attempts, and the discrepancies thence pro-
duced, gave occasion to that work of Jerome which has contributed
so much to the disappearance of the ancient version from public
view; whence arises the difficulty which is now felt by any one
who would endeavour, even in a comparatively short and simple
context, to ascertain its true readings. Jerome complains of one
kind of corruption which he says had become inveterate in the Latin
codices, arising from the intermixture of the readings of the different
evangelists with the text of each other. Hence he affirms that all
the gospels were confusedly mixed up together — expressions from
Matthew and Luke being foisted into the text of Mark, others from
John and Mark into that of Matthew ; every copyist endeavouring
to make his transcript complete, by filling up what appeared to be
defects, and explaining what might seem obscure, by the help of
parallel passages.!
After the promulgation of Jerome's revised and improved edition,
the copies of the old uncorrected text for some time held their
ground in the face of their younger rival, which was not yet coun-
tenanced by public favour, nor sanctioned by ecclesiastical authority :
they even imparted some of their own peculiar qualities to the more
recent translation ; and probably some of them adopted a few of its
peculiarities in their turn. But after the end of the seventh century,
the MSS. of the old translation ceased to be transcribed, at least for
ecclesiastical or popular use: they were now and then copied, with
a view, no doubt, to assist the student of the ancient Latin Fathers
* Ita si de fide exemplarium quajstio vci'terctur, sicut in nonnullis, qua;
piiucsD sunt et sacrarum lltcraruin notissimce seutoutiarum vai'ietates, vel
ex aliarum rcgionum codicibus unde ipsa doctrina commeavit nostra dubi-
tatio dijudicaretur: vel si hi ipsi quoque codices vai-iarent, plures pauciori-
bus, vetustiorcs receutioribus prajteiTeutui-: et si adliuc esset iuccrta varietas,
praecedcns lingua unde illud iuterpietatum est consuleretui-. — Contra
Faustum Manicheum, 1. xi. c. 2.
t Magnus siquidem hie in uostris codicibus error inolevit, duin quod iu
eadem re alius Evangelista plus dixit, in alio, quia minus putaverint,
addiderunt. Vol dum eundem seiisum alius alitor expressit, ille <iui uuuui
c quatuor primum legerat, ad ejus exemplum ca-teros quoque cxistiniavcrit
emendaudos. Unde accidit ut apud nos mixta sint omnia, et in Marco
plura Lucae atquo Matthcei, &.(■.— JiJf. ad Dariiastdii.
31G TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF THE NEW TESTAMENT, [bOOK Ilh
who might be perplexed by the very great diversity which he would
remark between the readings quoted by these writers, as testimonies
of Scripture, and those of the same passages found in the common
MSS. of the day. There was certainly no ecclesiastical supervision
of these transcripts ; the transcribers were left very much to their
own skill and fidelity : no public edition was ever set forth, no im-
perial or papal mandate directed the attention of competent scholars
to the work of preparing accurate copies, and of handing down to
posterity a pure text of this most ancient translation of the New
Testament.
Many manuscripts nevertheless have come down to us, in each of
which is preserved the whole, or some part of a Latin translation
made before the time of Jerome ; but their variations from each
other are so frequent and important, that it is matter of dispute
whether these manuscripts are all to be regarded as copies of a
version which was originally one and the same, or whether they, or
at least many of them, exhibit a great number of distinct and
separate versions, which the successive generations of copyists had
for a long time been engaged in altering and amending in different
ways, so as to bring them all at last to some degree of uniformity,
or at least to some degree of likeness to each other. Nor would
it be easy to decide this question by an appeal to the readings of the
documents themselves ; but as it cannot be denied that there is a
considerable resemblance in the general text exhibited in all these
manuscripts and in the manner of translating it, and as experience
shows that the result of arbitrary and capricious innovations by the
hands of copyists is to produce greater diversity, not any approach
to uniformity, 1 am disposed to agree with those who look upon the
different ante-Hieronymian MSS. as so many copies of the one
version which was in use in the Church of Rome and its sister
churches in the West until superseded by the present Vulgate. The
great diversities of these MSS. corroborate Jerome's assertions
respecting the variations of the codices in his time — in fact, his words
are still descriptive of them: — " There are as many different texts
as copies ;" or rather, perhaps, the evil has become greater by the
treatment which they have undergone since his day.
Griesbach has cited the readings of twenty-four of these ante-
Ilieronymian MSS. by name in his edition of the Greek Testament;
but he has given no account of the age, appearance, or general
character of any among them ; Scholz has added five others to the
list, and has given short descriptions of them all ; but far from com-
ClIAl'. 111.] VEKSIONS or THE NEW TESTAMENT. 317
plote is the enumeration in either work : in particular, tliis version
seems to have kept its ground in Ireland long after it liad lost its
iiiiluence in other lands ; lience many copies of it arc to bo found in the
libraries of Trinity College, Dublin, of the Royal Irish Academy,
and of private individuals, which well deserve to be collated and
described, and some of them would perhaps even be worthy of pub-
lication— a task, however, of much labour and little reputation, which
it is to be feared no one will be encouraged to undertake.
Father Sabatier's work, which has already been mentioned (p, 108),
includes the entire Bible according to this version ; the third volume
contains the New Testament.* The editor chiefly consulted the
Gra3C0- Latin MSS.; and as many of these have chasms, he filled up
the deficiencies from the Vulgate, and has in various places added
notes, showing the readings of the Latin Fathers who used the old
translation of the Scriptures. The edition displays care and is
certainly valuable, but might bo made much more satisfactory if
I'epublished with the aid and information that are now accessible.
Bianchini has proceeded upon a different plan from Father Sabatier.
lie has not attempted to interweave the readings of the MSS.
which ho has made the basis of his work into one context ; he easily
saw that the effort would be in some cases impossible, in others
unsatisfactory: he has therefore given at full length, in parallel
columns, the entire text of each one of the five copies of the Gospels
which he undertook to publish. This method is necessarily more
expensive than that of amalgamating the whole into one text, with
the various readings below the page or by its side ; and the work of
Bianchini has been rendered unnecessarily expensive by the costly
manner in which it was brought out; but it is the most satisfactory
method that can be adopted, and hence the MSS. printed by
Bianchini are more quoted, and their value is more correctly known,
than could otherwise have been possible.
The MSS. published by Bianchini are (I) the Codex Vercellensis,
said to follow the recension and to have been written by the hand of
St. Eusebius of Vercelli, a town in Piedmont, on which account it
is preserved along with his other relics, in the church at that place;
(2) the Codex Veronensis, an ancient and very beautiful MS.
preserved in the place from which it has obtained its name ; (3)
• Bibliorum Sacrorum Latincc Versioncs Antiqucc, sen Vetiis Jtalica,
et Catera qncccunque in Codicibus MSS. et Antiquorum Lihris reperiri
potiierunt: ouce cum Vul</atd Latino, et cum Tc.vtu Graxo comparantur.
Accedunt Pra-fationes, dr. Opera ct Studio 1*. iSabatici-. Kemis. 1743-1*.
li vols. fol.
318 TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF THE NEW TESTAMENT, [bOOK III.
the Codex Corheiensis, a MS. belonging the celebrated abbey of
Corbey, in France ; (4) the Codex Brixianus, a beautiful manuscript
of an early date, containing the four Gospels in Latin, in silver
letters, on purple parchment ; the initial words of each Gospel being
in letters of gold, parts of which are still brilliant, though the silver,
as is usual in similar manuscripts, is almost everywhere turned quite
black with tarnish ; and (5) the Codex Foro-juliensis, or Friuli MS.
which is imperfect, the part containing the Gospel of Mark being
torn out, yet the defective portion still exists and in safe custody:
the greater part of it in the library of St. Mark's at Venice, and the
remainder in the Church Library at Prague. This codex, however,
is not strictly speaking a copy of the Versio Itala, but of Jerome's ;
it is, in fact, the present Vulgate, with here and there some readings
intermixed which have been taken from the ancient translations.
The editor has spared no pains in illustrating his work by fac-similes
and other engravings, and his Prolegomena are very interesting and
useful.*
The Latin texts of the Boernerian, the Laudian, the Cambridge,
and St. Gall MSS. which have also been published in full, are
documents of the same class, and afford very valuable materials for
the criticism of this version; but as the copyists, or those under
whose direction they laboured, were very careful to bring the Latin
text into conformity with the Greek beside which it was placed, they
are not in the whole so useful as the MSS. which are merely Latin.
The text of the Versio Itala, in all the copies which have become
hitherto known to critics, partakes of those characteristics which
we expect to find in documents of the age at which it was made.
In several places, large passages are added, which have every
appearance of interpolations; parallel statements are brought into a
minute conformity, alterations are made for the purpose of avoiding
difficulties of interpretation, or of preserving historical consistency.
In these respects it sympathizes with the readings of Clement of
Alexandria, and the other writers of the uncritical period, and
affords clear manifestations of its great antiquity by its numerous
irregularities.
* Evangeliarium Quadruplcx Latince Versionis Antiqua', sen Veteris
Italicce, editum ex Codicibus Manuscriptis, Aureis, Argenteis, Purpureis,
cdiisque plusquam Millenarice Antiquitatis: a Josepho Blanchino. Ilomse,
1740. 2 vols. fol.
CHAT. III. J VERSIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. '.iVJ
Section II. — The Vulgate Latin.
To the Gospels, in the manuscripts of the Vulgate, is usually pre-
fixed, by way of preface, Jerome's dedicatory epistle to his friend
and patron Damasus, bishop of Rome, by whom he had been urged
to undertake the responsible task of correcting the version of the
scriptures then used in that church. This dedication fixes, within
a year or two, the date of the Vulgate tran.slation or revi.«ion of the
New Testament. The work was commenced after Jerome's return
to Rome from the East, which occurred A.D. 382. The first part of
it was certainly published during the life of Damasus, who died in
A.D. 384; and the remainder, if not completed before the death of
Damasus, certainly was finished in the following year; for in A.D.
385 Jerome left Rome for Palestine, before which time the work
had been published. It is seldom that criticism is able to fix the
date of any of its documents by historical proofs so precise.
The Vulgate, in the New Testament, is only a revised edition of
the Versio Itala, not an original translation. Jerome explains the
nature of the task which he undertook in his dedication to Damasus.
He says,* that he had been obliged by his eminent friend "to make
a new work out of an old one ; so that he was to sit in judgment
upon the copies of the scriptures dispersed throughout the world,
* Novum opus me facere cogia ex veteri; ut post excmplaria scriptura-
rum toto orbc dispcrsa, quasi quidam arbiter sedeam: ct quia inter se
variant, quaj sint ilia quaj cum Grreca consentiant veritato, decemam
Cur non ad Grtecam originem rovertcntes ea quaj vcl a vitiosis interpretibus
male reddita, vcl a prajsumptoribus impcritis cmendata perversiiis, vel a
librariis dormitantibus aut audita sunt, aut mutata corrigimus? De
Novo nunc loquor Tcstamonto, quod Grtecum esse non dubiumest
Hoc certo cum iu nostro sermone discordat, et in diversos rivulorum trami-
tes ducit, uno de fonte quserendum est. Prretermitto eos codices quos a
Luciano et Hesychio nuncupates paucorum hominum asserit perversa con-
tentio, quibus utique nee m toto Veteri Instrumento post Septuaginta
Interpretes cmendarc quid licuit, nee in Nova profuit emendasse; cum
multarum gentium Unguis scriptura ante translata, doceat falsa quse addita
sunt Igitur hrec prajsens prsefatiuncula pollicetur quatuor tantum Evan-
gelia codicum Grascorum cmendata collatione, sed vcterum: quae ne
multum a lectionis Latinaj consuetudine discreparent, ita calamo tempera-
vimus, ut his tantum quae sensum videbantur mutare correctis, reliqna
manere pateremur ut fuerant. — Epistola ad Damasum, sive in Evaiui< Ua
Prcefatio. Professor Hug has often quoted this last sentence. In Part I.
sec. 28, of his Introduction, he gives the text of Jerome correctly, but mis-
translates it, "such ancient Greek 31 SS. as did not deviate ividely from the
common text of the Latin." In sec. 1 18 he gives the same sense, and supports
it by changing (juai ne into nee qui without notice, and without authority. 1
observe, however, that in Chevallon's edition of the works of Jerome, Paris,
1533, fol. the reading is nee quce. (Tom. ix. p. 2, col. 1.) Again, in section
39 (Fosdyke's Tr. p. 136), he quotes the passage "qui non multum,^' &c.
320 TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF THE NEW TESTAME^^T. [bOOK III.
and since thej vary one from another, to decide which are in accord-
ance toith the authentic Greek.^^ He intimates that by "returning
to the Greek original," he had "corrected those parts which either
had been badly translated by unskilful interpreters, or had been
improperly expunged by ignorant and presumptuous critics, or had
been added or altered by careless copyists." "I speak at present,"
he adds, "of the New Testament, tohich teas undoubtedly written in
Greek Yet since it differs in different copies in our language,
and leads to separate streams and rills, we must have recourse to the
common fountain I pass unnoticed the MSS. named after
Lucian and Hesychius, which the perverse contentiousness of a few
individuals maintains therefore the present dedication promises
only the four Gospels, corrected by collation ivith Greek MSS. — but
only with ancient ones; and lest these books should vary too much
from the usage of the Latin text, I have so restrained my pen, that,
having merely corrected those things which seemed to alter the
sense, I allowed the rest to remain as it was."
The plan which Jerome followed in this revision is clearly indi-
cated in these passages. He employed Greek MSS. as the standard
of reference and appeal,* and these not the copies amended by the
critical science of Lucian and Hesychius, but documents of the
ancient class, such as had been in use before their day, and similar
to those from which the primitive Latin version must have been
made. With these he compared the translation then in public use
in the West: where it mistook the sense, he altered the version; whei-e
it was grossly ungrammatical or unintelligible, he improved the
phraseology; where it followed what he looked upon as an erroneous
reading, he corrected its text; and, in the progress of the work, he
restored to each evangelist the passages belonging to him which had
been incorporated with other gospels, and expunged those interpola-
tions which had been introduced by the uncritical zeal of the Latin
transcribers. This meritorious and most useful work shai'ed the
fate of the Latin version of the Old Testament which Jerome pub-
lished in the course of the succeeding twenty years. (See p. 131 —
139). It was decried by the envious and the ignorant, but approved
by the learned; it gradually acquired sanction and influence, and at
* It is needful to urge this point, because some persons, contrary to pro-
bability as well as to the recorded testimony of Jerome and his contempo-
raries, have maintained that the revision which originated the Vulgate was
effected by the comparison of Latin MSS. alone. It will have been seen
that he repeatedly, and we might even say ostentatiously, declares that he
had followed Greek authority. Many other passages might be produced.
CHAP. III.] VERSIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. .'321
last was received as the authorized Vulgate version of the whole
Western world. It shared in the corruption wliich gradually crept
into the other portions of Jerome's version, and in the efforts of
Alcuinus and others, in the middle ages, to remove such imperfec-
tions; and it partook of the authority conferred on the Vulgate in
general by the decree of the Council of Trent. The rash energy of
Pope Sixtus V, and the judicious zeal of Clement VIII. have
equally signalized themselves by efforts to hand it down in a pure
state to posterity. But these are points which have already been
treated at sufficient length, — (See pp. 128 — 139, ante.)
As some persons have affected to doubt whether the present Vul-
gate in use in the Church of Rome be really the revised translation
executed by Jerome, it may be sufficient to append the following
extract from a table constructed by Professor Hug,* showing the
variations which are foUnd in comparing the twelfth chapter of
Matthew, as it stands in the Clementine edition of the Vulgate,
with the readings found in Jerome's Commentary on that book,
where he explains and sometimes justifies the text of his own
version.
Vulgate.
1. Per sata sabbato.
2. Licet fa«ere.
4. Ei odere.
26. Divisum contra se.
31. Blasphemia.
44. Earn vacantem.
Jerome.
Sabbato per sata.*
Licet ei facero.
Ei comedere.
In se divisum.
Bhisphemia).*
Vacantem,
[The recension of Alcuinus agrees with the text of Jerome in the readings marked with a
star; in the others he concurs with the printed Vulgate.]
Hug pursues the collation through three chapters of Matthew,
and three of the Epistle to the Galatians; but it is unnecessary to
transcribe the rest, for the specimen above given is a* fair example
of the whole. It is evident that both the manuscripts of Alcuinus
and the Clementine edition of the Vulgate are, in substance, repre-
• Hug's Introduction, Part L sec. 123 (p. 274, Fosdyk's translation).
I have copied the examples from the learned professor's table, but not
without some doubts as to its correctness in all points; for although the
readings which are here given as Jerome's are found in the text which
accompanies the Commentaries of that Father, yet in the only edition
which I have an opportunity of examining, I only find the first and last of
them embodied in the exposition. In verse 4 the comment seems to read
"quibus non licebat vesci." The edition referred to is Chovallon's, Paris,
1-534, fol. (See T. ix. sec IG, p. 2.)
Ss
322 TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. [BOOK III.
sentations of the Latin version as amended by Jerome. The dif-
ferences between them — consisting merely in the alteration of the
order of the words, the insertion or omission of a pronoun unneces-
sary for the sense, the use of a simple for a compound verb of the
same meaning, or of a singular noun for the plui-al when the
signification is nearly the same — are only such as are sure to be
introduced by copyists from various causes; and when only the six
variations above specified have been found in a chapter consisting of
fifty verses, on almost eveiy one of which Jerome has commented
more or less minutely, we may consider that in the printed Vulgate
we have the text of Jerome in a remarkably pure state, though
certainly not perfect. It would yet be very desirable that a critical
edition of the Vulgate should be prepared and published, towards
which not merely the writings of Jerome, but the MSS. and the
secondary versions derived from it, would 'furnish useful helps.
Among the latter the Anglo-Saxon translations of the Four
Gospels has been published: it was probably made by Alfric, Arch-
bishop of Canterbury, in the ninth century.
An Arabic version was made from the Vulgate by John, Bishop
of Seville, in the seventh century, for the use of the Spaniards, then
under the dominion of the Arabs, and compelled to use their lan-
guage. Copies of it are found in manuscript in various libraries
in Spain ; but it certainly ought to be published, as from its high
antiquity it may be expected to be valuable, and certainly would be
interesting to the critic.
It may be proper to add to this section a few remarks on the
influence which the Latin versions have been supposed by some
critics to have exercised upon the readings of the Greek manuscripts,
even the most ancient that have descended to our times. That
these venerable documents in many instances agree with the Latin
translations in readings not found either in the text of the modern
Greek manuscripts or in the common editions, is unquestionable;
and this agreement can only be accounted for by one or other of
two suppositions: either the readings in which this sympathy is
observable are very ancient — that is, were found in Greek manu-
scripts before the Latin version was made, and have been handed
down to us in the Greek copies which contain them by transcription
merely — or they were at first introduced into the Latin version,
and afterwards, owing to the authority and influence of the Roman
Church, in which that translation was employed, they were thence
transferred into the text of those Greek MSS. in which they now
CHAP. HI.] VEIISI0N8 OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 323
appear. In this case the testimony of the manuscripts can add
nothing to that of the Latin version if it stood alone; and this
inference is accordingly drawn.
I believe it was Erasmus who first gave currency to a suspicion
tliat the Greeks had been induced to alter their manuscripts of the
New Testament iu order to adapt them to the text of the Latin
vex'sion sanctioned by the Church of Rome. It is a very singular
circumstance that Erasmus himself is open to the very charge which
he urges against others, having taken into the Greek text, from the
Vulgate, several readings, some of which continue still in the com-
mon editions, which have never been found in any Greek MS. A
familiar example is sugoi/ for uhov, Matt. ii. 11. IIo unhesitatingly
asserts that at the time when the Greeks were pressed by the
victorious Turks, so that the Eastern empire was almost limited to
the walls of the city of Constantinople ; when they were reduced to
implore the assistance of the Christians of the West, from whom
national pride and a religious schism had kept tliem for ages distinct;
and when, iu order to procure even the promise of aid, their ambas-
sadors were compelled to renounce, in their name, all the peculiar
doctrines and rites for which they had hitherto contended, as for the
essentials of the faith, against the Latins, it was made one of the
stipulations of the treaty theu agreed upon — which Erasmus calls
the Foedus cum Greeds — that the Greeks should alter their copies
of the scriptures so as to produce an exact confonnity with the
Latin Vulgate.* Whether any preceding writer asserted this, or
what authority Erasmus had for the statement, I cannot tell: no
history that I have seen of the transactions of the period referred to
makes any mention of such a stipulation; and I believe it to be a
mere conjecture of Erasmus, advanced with confidence as an ascer-
tained fact, as was not unusual with many writers of his time. As
a supposition it is not devoid of plausibility. We can readily conceive
that, during the continuance of the hollow peace between the parties,
the Greeks, now included in the adherents of the Roman Church,
would probably wish to adhere as closely as possible to the Latin text.
We find that a few Greek manuscripts written about that time have
* Hie obiter illud incidit admonendum, esse Grrecorum quosdam N. T.
codices, ad Latiuorum exemplaria enieudatos. Id factum est iu fuedere
Greocorum cum Romaua ecclesia, quod fcedus testatur Bulla qua* dicitur
aui'ca. — Capita Anjuinentorum contra Morosos quosdam et Indoctos. Ed.
5tae N. T . pra'fuva. — The Golden Bull, however, says uothing about any such
agreement, nor is there any mention of it in the Acts of the Council of
Florence, at which the hollow uni«>u took place.
3^4 TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. [bOOK III.
the Latin chapters, a fact which marks a wish to approach to the
Latin standard, at least in the outward form of the text. But this
Foediis cum Grascis will not serve the purpose of those who impugn
the ancient Greek MSS. as altered and corrected from the Latin;
because from the circumstances of the case it can only apply to
those MSS. which were written during or after the period of the
negotiations between the Greek and Latin churches — that is, after
the middle of the fourteenth century. This period only includes
the most recent and unimportant of all the manuscripts we have;
but the discussion which has been raised by modern critics relates
to the codices of the very foremost rank in point of antiquity and
worth.
That the extent of the accusation may be understood, I refer the
reader to the following passages of Wetstein's Prolegomena, pre-
fixed to his edition of the New Testament. I only refer to this one
writer because he has repeated the charge a great many times, and
has done more than all others to give it currency.
The Codex Alexandrinus he affirms to have been interpolated
from the Versio Itala. He brings forward five pages of examples to
prove this charge ; many of them only show an agreement between
the Codex and the Vulgate; and he quotes with approbation the
statement of Hardouin, that this MS. has been entirely compiled
out of the Vulgate. (Tom. i. pp. 12 — 18.) — The Codex Vaticanus
he declares to have been produced at the same mint with the
Alexandrine, and, like it, interpolated from the Versio Itala. (Prol.
p. 26.) — The Codex Bphrcemi agrees so often with the Alexandrine,
that he has no doubt they are both of the same age and origin : that
is, both interpolated from the Versio Itala. (Prol. p. 28.) — The
Codex Cantabrigiensis, he says, has translated many passages from
the Latin, or Versio Itala, into Greek ; and he quotes with approval
Lucas Brugensis, who had a weighty suspicion that it was conformed
to the Latin text. {Prol. p. 32.) — The Codex Cyprius, like the
preceding four, he regards as having been interpolated from the
Latin version. {Prol. p. 41.) — The Codex Begins, No. 62, commonly
called Codex L, he states has been almost everywhere interpolated
from the Versio Itala. {Prol. p. 41.) — The copyist who wrote the
Codex Claromontanus has very frequently corrupted the Greek text
from the Latin or Versio Itala. {Prol. tom. ii. p. 5.) — The Greek
text of the Codex Augiensis has, in places innumerable, been
remodelled and distorted into an accordance with the Latin. (P. 9.)
— A similar judgment is implied respecting the Codex Boernerianus,
CHAP. 111.] VERSIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 325
which is closely allied to the preceding. — In the Codex Laudianus,
the Greek has been most preposterously altered to make it conform
to the Latin. (Prol. in Actus App. p. 451.)
Thus, with very few exceptions, Wetstein condemns all the Greek
MSS. written before the tenth century, with which he was acquaint-
ed, under the charge of Latiniz'mfj.
The great services of Wetstein to the cause of critical science, I
have in various parts of this book acknowledged, and would ever
gratefully remember ; but not even the sanction of his mighty name
can blind me to the absurdity of the hypothesis above described.
If the agreement of these manuscripts with certain readings of
the Versio Itala or the Vulgate proves their text to have been
interpolated or altered from the Latin, the same or like circum-
stances would prove the versions of the ancient churches to have
been in like manner corrupted from the same source. It cannot be
denied that the Old Syriac, the Coptic, the /Ethiopic, the Armenian,
the Sahidic, and the Jerusalem- Syriac versions exhibit to the full
as great and as striking a coincidence with the Latin translations
as the manuscripts which Wetstein has condemned under this
charge. But who can believe that not merely the Greek scribes of
the fifth, sixth, and seventh centuries would desert the true and
ancient Greek text of the Scriptures in order to follow the devious
course of a Latin translation ; but that the learned men, the critics
and pubhc ofiicers of all the churches in Christendom — agreeing
together to desert the sacred original — would have done the same in
wide-spread regions, and in various ages from the fourth century
downwards? What influence could have brought about this singular
coincidence? How could versions, constructed on such a faulty
principle, have held their ground in churches which were for ages,
and are still, separated from the Church of Rome, whose adherents
they regard as schismatics and heretics ?
In handling this argument, Wetstein has entirely overlooked the
diversities which exist between the Latin versions and the manu-
scripts which he accuses of having been altered from it. It is easy,
by drawing out the points of coincidence between two critical
documents, and presenting them in a tabular form — as Wetstein has
done with the Vulgate and Itala on the one hand, and the Codex
Alexandrinus on the other — to offer an imposing array, and induce
the reader who looks no farther than the table to yield a ready
assent to the statement, that there is so great and evident a uniformity
that nothing but the derivation of the one document from the other
326 TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. [BOOK III.
will account for it. But we must look beyond the table. We must
compare not only the readings which are drawn out for our inspec-
tion, but those which are thrust into the background, and are kept
studiously out of sight. That there are many and signal points of
agreement between the Latin versions and some of the MSS. above
enumerated, and some others which very frequently concur with
them, but which were unknown to Wetstein, is perfectly true ; but
if we except the Grasco- Latin MSS. — to which considerations of a
peculiar kind apply, which shall be presently brought forward — they
have one and all their points of divergence, in which they entirely
abandon the readings supported by the Latin version, and testify in
favour of a totally different text. Of this Wetstein must have been
perfectly aware ; his own collations are sufficient to establish the
fact ; and it seems quite irreconcileable with the designed and wilful
alteration of the text of either document in order to bring it into a
state of agreement with the other. Had such a falsification been
attempted, the falsifiers would surely not have stopped short of the
end in view ; had they wished to produce a forced conformity, the
conformity would have been complete and universal, not partial as
we find it.
The Graeco- Latin MSS. are so far from countenancing the charge
of Latinizing preferred against the ancient codices, that they afford
indubitable proofs of the very opposite ; they show a constant and
untiring endeavour on the part of the copyists to bring the Latin
version into an exact accordance with the Greek text by the side of
which it is placed. This might have been doubtful in the days of
Wetstein, in whose time only one of these MSS. the shortest, and for
that reason the most unsatisfactory of them all, had been publislied.
I refer to the Laudian Codex of the Book of Acts, printed by Hearne
in 1715. But now that the Cambridge MS. of the Gospels and
Acts, the Boernerian MS. of the Epistles of Paul, and the St. Gall
MS. of the Gospels, have been published, and when the proceedings
of the scribes can be brought under observation in our studies, where
we can compare the Greek and Latin texts of these documents at
leisure, the man must be blinded by prejudice, who will affirm that
he sees in them any proof of a general corruption of the Greek from
the Latin. That in a few readings in each of these documents, the
Latin text has had an undue influence upon the Greek is quite
manifest; but the general effect of the desire for uniformity has
been to produce changes of the directly contrary kind.
It is strange that Wetstein, who allows to the Alexandrine, the
CIIAl'. III.l VERSIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 327
Vatican, and tlio Ephrem MSS, an antiquity reaching back to the
sixth century, and who assigns a still earlier date to the Cambridge
Codex — though as it seems to me on very mistaken grounds — did
not perceive the inconsistency of these dates with the alleged com-
pulsory alteration of the Greek text out of compliment to the Latin
version. Tiie readings which he stigmatizes as borrowed from the
Versio Itala exist in almost every instance, so far as regards the
Codices A, C, and D, a prima manu: they therefore carry with
them the full antiquity of the manuscripts iu which they occur.
But in the fifth and sixth centuries, the Roman Church was in no
condition to enforce the adoption of its version, or of the text which
its version followed, upon the Greek diocese. The learned men of
Alexandria, and the bishops of Syria, Palestine, and other places
whore the Greek scriptures were in use, had in those days no idea
of seeking for their critical canons from the regions of the west;
nor had the western Christians any wish or any thought of forcing
their text of tho New Testament upon their brethren in tlio eastern
province of the empire. I must add, that I have seen little proof
of any such desire on the part of the Roman Catholic Church, even
in more modern times. It is well known, that while decreeing the
Vulgate version to bo "authentic," the Council of Trent abstained
from pronouncing any decision in favour of any form or modification
of the original text ; there is no law which binds a Roman Catholic
theologian to adhere to one reading of the Greek more than to
another ; and we may cite as a case in point the edition of the New
Testament put forth by the Roman Catholic professor of theology,
Dr. Scholz, which departs as widely from the text of the Vulgate as any
other modern edition. The Maronites, or Syrian Roman Catholics,
have been left in quiet possession of their own Peshito, the text of
which there has been no effort to interpolate or alter, at least none
by the Roman authorities; and thus likewise the -Ethiopia and
Armenian versions remain in the hands of the adherents of the
Church of Rome, who inhabit the regions where they have long been
iu use: and no clear proof, or rather no proof at all, has ever been
brought forward, that they were either required or commanded to
alter them in conformity with the Latin Vulgate. Such being the
freedom allowed upon this point, in those comparatively recent
times when church authority had become more stringent than it
ever was in the early ages, who can believe that the Roman Church
of the fourth, fifth, and sixth centuries either would expect or could
compel the Greek nation, a widely scattered and independent com-
328 TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. [bOOK III.
munity, to discard the original text of the sacred records of the
faith, in order to introduce a whole generation of new readings
supported by no authority but that of the Versio Itala, certainly one
of the least critical and least correct that ever was executed?
The last observation I would urge in reply to this hypothesis of
Wetstein is, that the Western Christians never had any such over-
weening sense of the importance of their Church version, as would
have induced a wisli to enforce conformity to its readings on their
fellow-believers. We have seen already how little respect Tertullian
showed for the Latin translation which was in estabUshed use in the
churches when he wrote, and which was the only one that he knew
of: he calls one of its renderings, not a version, but "an artful or
else a silly eversion " of the original, and appeals from it to " the
authentic Greek text.'' Victorinus says of Matthew vi. 11, "In the
Greek it is otherwise, but the Latins did not understand or could
not express it."* Hilary of Poictiers repeatedly owns the defects of
the Latin translation.! As to Augustine, he never once dreamed of
setting up the Latin version as superior in authority to the Greek
original. "As to the books of the New Testament," he says, "if
any uncertainty be occasioned by variations in the Latin copies,
there is no doubt at all that it is our duty to defer to the Greek MSS.
especially those which are found in possession of the more learned
and careful churches. "J At the same period of history, Damasus,
who presided over the see of Rome, requested Jerome to correct the
errors of the common Latin translation by amending it, " according
to the Greek:'' a plain avowal of the defects of the version, and of
the proper means of remedying them. Such an emendation was
accordingly effected by that eminent man, whose Prologue to the
Gospels, in the form of a letter to Damasus, fully explained the
mode of his procedure and the cause of it, so that neither could
thenceforth be unknown to the persons who were in the habit of
using the Latin version. Thus the Latins themselves, at the close
of the fourth century and beginning of the fifth, unanimously pro-
claimed their acceptance of the very evident proposition — that the
merit of a version consisted in its accordance with the original — that
their own version of the New Testament rested its claim to respect
* Contra Arianos, I. ii. c. 8.
f Be Trinitate, 1. xi. c. IT.— Tract, in JPs. 128, al.
X Libros autem Novi Testament!, si quid, in Latinis, varietatibus titubat,
Graecis ccdere opportere dubium non est: et maxime qui apud ecclesias
doctiores et diligentiores reperiuntur. — De Doctrind Christiana, 1. ii. c. 16.
See also chapters xi. and xiv.
CHAP. III. J VERSIONS OF THE NEW TESTA.MENT. .'^29
on that ground ; and that whenever a variation was discovered, it
was a clear case that tho Latin translation must give way to tho
<.Trcek original. It was in the fifth or sixth conturie.s, wliilo tlie.so
declarations were still resounding in the ears of Western Christendom,
that tho Vatican, the Ephrcm, the Alexandrine, tho Dublin Codex
Uoscriptus, and perhaps also tho Cambi-idge and Clermont MSS.
were written ; and yet Wetsteia assures us that these were all
written with a Greek text systematically altered to make it agree
with the readings of the Latin version ! If this were so, tho Greeks
of Alexandria where these codices were transcribed, paid to the
Latin version which they never quoted and never used, a respectful
homage which was denied to it in its native land where it was read
in all the churches and expounded by all commentators. But who
can believe that Greek scribes, who probably understood not a word
of Latin, writing out MSS, for the use of churches and communities
where not a word of Latin was spoken, conformed their copies of the
original to the standard of a translation only used in the distant
regions of the West? The whole theory is a visionary dream, with-
out a particle of support from history or probability.
Section III. — The Old Syriac or Peshito.
In the second book of this work it was shown that the Peshito
version of tho Old Testament existed and was the recognised trans-
lation of tho Syrian church in the time of Ephrem, a little after the
middle of the fourth century. The part containing the New Testa-
ment had at that time obtained an equal currency. It is therefore
quite clear that both the portions of the sacred volume had been
translated into Syriac at least as early as the beginning of the
fourth century, probably even earlier; and as the New Testament
could not have been translated until after the sacred books had
been collected, if not into one codex, at least into the two which
were anciently denominated the Evangelium and the Apostolus — an
event which cannot bo placed sooner than the latter part of the
second century — we must assign to this version an origin at some
point lying between these extremes. The precise time I confess
myself unable exactly to ascertain. I cannot find any historical
record of the date; for the tradition of the Syrians that their church
version was executed by the Apostle Thaddeus is too absurd to
deserve notice, and I have searched the translation in vain for any
internal indication of the time when it was made. On the latter
T T
33U TEXTUAL CKITICISM OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. [bOOK III.
point all I can at present say is, that the version contains the
Epistle to the Hebrews and the Catholic Epistle of James, which I
take to be a proof that it was not executed until some time after the
collection termed the Apostolus was formed; for I am of opinion
that the work so denominated did not, as originally published, con-
tain these documents.* I may further remark that had the Peshito
been translated after the Council of Nice, it would have admitted
into the canon not only the Epistle to the Hebrews and that of
James, but the Epistle of Jude, the Second of Peter, the Second
and Third of John ; all of which, together with the Apocalypse, it
excludes.!
The Peshito version, properly so called, contains only the four
Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles, the Epistles of Paul (including
that to the Hebrews), the Epistle of James, the First Epistle of
Peter, and the First of John. In the recently printed editions of
this version, translations of the Second Epistle of Peter, the Second
and Third of John, the Epistle of Jude, and the book of Revelation,
are inserted, and even intermixed with the portions which properly
belong to the Peshito; but this is quite erroneous: these translations
never were admitted into the canon of the Syrian church, nor formed
any part of its authorized version; and if printed along with it in
any form, they ought only to be subjoined in the shape of an Appen-
dix, clearly marking them out as distinct from the body of the
work. The mode of interpretation which is followed in these
additional books is indeed so different from that which we observe
in the genuine portions of the Peshito, that no one who reads them
"with the slightest attention can for one moment believe them to
have been executed by the same hand. There is reason to believe
that the translations thus added are very modern, and belong to
quite a different work. Neither the translation of the added
Epistles nor that of the Apocalypse has ever had any public
sanction or church authority among the Syrians. Hug, who con-
tends strenuously that the Peshito must formerly have included the
* This I look upou as one of the causes which led several writers of
antiquity to class these works among the books concerning whose authority
there was some degree of uncertainty. The full investigation of this point,
however, would lead me too far away from the design of this treatise.
t Of course it is not meant to be implied that the Council passed any
decree respecting the sacred canon; but after it was held, we find a very
general agreement among the church writers, in receiving as genuine the
epistles above named, which, before that convocation was assembled, were,
as Eusebius informs us, doubted of by some, received and acknowledged
by others.
CHAP, in.] VERSIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMElfT. 331
Apocalypse, the Epistle of Jude, tlie Second Epistle of Peter, and
the Second Epistle of John, nevertheless admits that the Syriao
translations of these documents, now printed along with the Peshito,
are much more recent than the version into which they have beea
admitted, and that the ancient Peshito version of them is probably
lost beyond recovery. His only proof that they ever were included
in the Peshito is, that Ephrera, in the fourth century, "frequently
refers to the Apocalypse, even naming John as its author;" and
that he also quotes the Epistles above named; but when the learned
professor's references are analysed and compared, it will be found
tliat the Apocalypse is only referred to twice in tlie Greek edition
of the works of Ephrem (a third reference is given to the Syriac
edition, to which I have not access, and cannot tlierefore say posi-
tively whether it be distinct from the other two), and that there is
one reference to each of the disputed Epistles. Now, as it is
admitted that Ephrem travelled among the Greek Christians and
was intimate with their learned men; that he had the assistance of
an interpreter who understood Greek, and who accompanied him on
his travels; and that he was even acquainted with the doctrines of
the philosophers, and the tenets of the heretics who wrote in Greek,
it is very intelligible that he may have, by the same means, acquired
some knowledge of the contents of these books; and it is far more likely
that this was really the case, than that works, which were originally
portions of the ancient church version of the Syrians, were after-
wards discarded and suffei'ed to perish. Who can believe that at a
time when other churches, holding the same form of doctrine, were
enlarging their bibles, by acknowledging as canonical some works which
formerly were held to bo of doubtful authority, the Syrians were cur-
tailing theirs ? Who can believe that a change so important and so
likely to excite odium against its authors should have been attempted
and effected without offence, and even without remark, at the very
period when the Syrian church was rent to its foundations by the
disputes between the Nestorians, the Monophysites, and the Catho-
lics, respecting the Incarnation ? For my own part, I find no suffi-
cient reason to believe that tlie Peshito version ever included these
portions of the New Testament. Dionysius Bar Salibi, a Syriac
writer of the twelfth century, says that "the Second Epistle of
Peter was not translated with the other scriptures which were
anciently rendered into the Syriac, and is to be found only in the
version of Thomas of Harkel," which shall be afterwards described.
Dionysius, therefore, know nothing of these Epistles having been
332 TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF THE NEW TESTAMENT, [bOOK III.
oiice included in the Peshito and afterwards rejected. Still earlier,
that is in the sixth century, Cosmas Indicopleustes, a Greek writer
of Alexandria, mentions that "of the Catholic Epistles, only the
Epistle of James, the First of Peter, and the First of John, were
foun;l among the Syrians." He knew as little as Dionysius of any
change having been made in the Syrian canon, nor in short does
any history record the fact. I am of opinion that no such alteration
ever took place.
As to the place where this version was made, we have no histori-
cal information; but learned men who have examined into the point
are now generally of opinion that it was made either in the city of
Edessa, which was situated in Mesopotamia, where the Christian
religion largely developed itself at an early period, or at some place
in the neighbouring province. The language and style of the work,
in their opinion, favour this inference, and the growth of a Syriac
literature in that region seems also to render it probable. A detail
of their arguments would however occupy more space than I can
devote to a conjectural discussion on a point of little intrinsic
importance.
Of much greater interest to us is the character of the translation
itself; and here it is admitted by all, that, as a version, it stands in
the very foremost rank of those which are distinguished both for
elegance and accuracy: in these respects there are but few transla-
tions of the New Testament which can be placed on a level with
the Peshito. It resembles the old Syriac translation of the Old
Testament in its freedom, in the purity of its own style, and in its
felicitous manner of expressing the idioms of the original in the
Syriac language. So free and spirited is its style, and so happily
does it convey the simple dignity of the New Testament writers,
that it very seldom presents anything which reminds the reader
that he is perusing a translation from a foreign tongue, totally
different in idiom and construction from that of the work before
him. These high qualities are not compatible with minute and
servile adherence to the letter, and hence the old Syriac version is
not literal — none is less so; but this is a merit which we must be
well content to spare, when we see its place supplied by so many
more valuable qualities. It is necessary to bear this constantly in
mind in examining the readings of the text which are supported by
the authority of the Peshito, else we shall sometimes be in danger
of setting down as a various reading what is nothing more than a
free rendering of the original, in conformity with the translator's
CHAP. 111.] VERSIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. .'J33
peculiar habitudes and the genius of the Sjriac language. On this
subject the observations of Winer, in his Dissertation", upon the
Critical Use of the Peshito,* aro peculiarly important. ]3j a satis-
factory analysis, and a citation of passages sufficiently ample, he
explains tlie principal peculiarities of this version — those at least
which are of more frequent recurrence. These are — (1) The habitual
addition of the adjunct corresponding to the Greek ;5,awv, wherever,
with reference to our Saviour, the term xxj^io; occurs in the original;
(2) The repetition of the proper name of the person referred to,
instead of the pronoun adros or its conjugates; (3) The omission of
words which may be regarded as expletives, or, at all events, as
adding littlo to the sense, as e/Va, roVs, ihoh, Xiyw, u.'rroK^ikig, &c. ;
(4) The arbitrary insertion or omission of tS; and its conjugates,
when the noun is taken in an absolute or general sense; and, (5) The
suppression of adverbs of comparison, ws, ofMolug, &,c. The critical
editors have not followed any uniform system in noticing or suppress-
ing the ajyparent, but not real, variations in the text of the Peshito.
In some places they have passed them by without any observation,
in others they have given them a place among the various readings,
and it is not easy to distinguish any intelligible principle by which
they have been guided in either case. It seems to me that the more
recent have, with a few amendments here and there, transcribed the
notes of their predecessors, and that the first collators of this version
proceeded in the execution of their task with too much haste; so
that in many places, where real differences of reading exist between
the Peshito aud the common editions of the Greek Testament, there
is no notice of the fact given by Mill, Wetstein, Grie.sbach, or Scholz;
while on the other hand we find among the various readings of the
Syriac version, as noted by them, several things which are the mere
peculiarities of the translator. The following are some examples of
omission. Except as characteristic of the version, they are of little
importance, but in this point of view everything is of value. In
Matthew i. 2-i, the common text reads TragsAa/Sg rrtv y^\a7y.a a-oroij-
**took unto him his loife." The Syriac reads OlZu]J cn^^jo :
'^andtoolc her as hisxoife:" q. 1. x.ai --a^sXa'^i avTr,v y vvaTKa avroj,
In Matthew ii. 11, the common Greek text has y^puabv xai XltSam
Ttcci a>j.-jovav, ''rjoJd, and frankincense, and myrrh.''' The Peshito
|AjOn\o poSoo iooij : "gold, and myrrh, and frankincense;''
haviug manifestly read the woi'ds in a different order. In Matthew
* Commtntatio de Versionis Aovi Testanienti Sj/riac(e Usu Critico caute
instituendo: cd. Geo. B. Winer. Erhmg, 1323, 4to.
334 TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. [bOOK HI.
iv. 1, the Greek MSS, all have -j-tto toZ rrvsufMarog- "6y the Spirit."
The Syriac has ^»5CLD ].k»o3 ,_Lc : "by the Holy Spirit;'''' having
probably read >t6 dyio-o rrvsv/Marog. This is uo unimportant addition,
for it determines a question which led to discussion in ancient as in
modern times : viz. whether the temptation was produced bj divine
or by diabolical power. In Matthew iv. 21, all the Greek MSS.
appear to read xai ixaXscsv auroC;' the Syriac as printed has xa/
haXsasv auTo-jg 6 'irjooug. But the Cod. Vat. Syr. xii. and Cod.
Guelpherbytanus omit v&n m .. This example, however, comes with-
in the principle, though not within the letter, of Winer's second
observation. In Matthew vi. 24, the Greek copies all have oO b-ovaadi
^2w bd'oXihiiv xai ^a/xwi/a; "ye cannot serve God and Mammon;" but
the old Syriac inserts the pronoun which is only implied in the
Greek : v?^l ^ m.^^ n «V) jj : q. 1. ou duvaah u/j,s7g: " neither are
ye able," &c.; the expression being thus rendered more terse and
antithetical. None of these readings is quoted from the Syriac
version in Mill's edition, nor in that of Wetstein, nor in Griesbach's,
nor in that of Scholz, and of course not in that of Buttmann and
Lachmann, which excludes the Peshito from the list of authorities
appealed to for the settlement of the text ; yet they all seem to be
real textual variations, not arising from the habits of the translator,
but from the exemplar which he took as the groundwork of his
labours. Though not of much intrinsic importance, they are cer-
tainly fully as weighty as several various readings which the critical
editors have cited from the Peshito in the same context; and as I
can perceive no good reason for the omission of them, I think it very
probable that they have been passed over through mere inadvert-
ence. I have found similar omissions in various other parts of the
New Testament; and am decidedly of opinion that this very ancient
and valuable version of the Ne.v Testament has never yet been col-
lated with that care and accuracy which its importance demands.
A ridiculous notion had at one time acquired prevalence, that the
old Syriac version was not made from the Greek at all, but from
some Latin translation. The great argument in support of this
hypothesis was built upon the agreement between the Syriac and
certain Latin documents, in some readings of rather a striking
character and of considerable theological interest. But it seems
never to have occurred to those who had recourse to this very absurd
supposition, that if the Syriac agrees in some places with the Latin,
it diflfers from it in others of equal interest and consequence ; there-
foi'e it cannot have been translated from the Latin. The notion
CHAP. III. J VERSIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 335
that the Syrians, instead of translating the scriptures from the
original, wouli send to a distant region for a version, from which
they might make a tran.<lation of a translation for the use of their
churches, when they had the original much nearer home, is altogether
incredible. We have seen that the learned men in the West were
not very much in love with the versions of the scriptures which the
churches in their own region were under the necessity of employing :
to suppose that the inhabitants of the distant East took it for their
guide to the contents of the writings of the Apostles and Evangelists,
is as destitute of probability as it is of proof. Besides, the translator
of the Peshito has left evident traces of his having had recourse to
the Greek original in the New Testament. He has in many places
retained the terms of the Greek original, even when the Syriac
language afforded words that would have enabled him to express the
same ideas in the native Aramsean vocabulary, and in many cases
wherein no Latin translator, so far as can now be ascertained, used
the Greek terms. Of these classes, we have Matt. vi. 16, rjoffw-Tov.
— Matt. vi. 19, (sr;; — Matt. vii. 6, .aajyas/Vaj and many others in
the Gospels. Hug has pointed out the following which occur in the
twenty-seventh chapter of Matthew alone: — Verse 6, rifir,- 7, dyso;*
^£vo;' 11, 12, riyi'MUi' 19, (3^/xa" 27, eraariuirai, g-sTpw 28, y/.aiji,{ji'
30, TsoG'jj-ov 38, Kr,ara'r 48, cTT&yyoj. These words could not have
come into the Peshito from any other version, for none other retains
them. The same fact is still more evident, if it be possible, from
the nature of many of the mistakes in the Peshito, which have arisen
from confounding together Greek words that have some similarity
when written in the old uncial character, but which present not the
slightest resemblance when viewed in the Latin or in any other
translation. Of this the well-known error in Acts xviii. 7 affords
a familiar example. The Syriac version there reads, " by name
Titus, icho icas a worshipper of God" instead of " 6y name Justus,
a icorshipper of God." These readings are not so dissimilar in
Greek but that the one might be mistaken for the other : e.g. —
ONOMATIIOYCTOYC€BOM€NOY
ONOMATITOYTOYC€BOM€NOY
The latter line, ovo,aa T/Voy toj ffs,3o,a£you, might readily arise from
the former, and so give occasion to the Syriac rendering ; but in the
Latin, the two sentences, as they stand in the older copies of the
Itahc version, cannot be made to resemble each other, write them
how we may.
336 TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. [BOOK lU.
NOiVIINEIVSTICOLENTISDEVIVI
NOMINETITICOLENTISDEVM
In the later copies of the Versio Itala, and in the Vulgate, a
reading is found, which, as it is compounded of both these, is mani-
festly later than either of them : " Nomine Titi Justi, colentis Deum.'"
If, therefore, we are under the necessity of concluding that the text
of one of these versions has been influenced by that of the other,
this example might be brought as proof that the Latin versions had
been made, or at least altered, from the old Syriac version, not the
Syriac from the Latin. But in truth there is no ground for either
supposition. Both the versions followed exactly the Greek text
from which they were translated. The errors which appear both in
the Latin and the Syriac had previously found their way into the
Greek MSS. which the translators used; and the variations which
we find them exhibiting at present are only the variations of those
exemplars which they have faithfully handed down ; and there are
stiU Greek MSS. which exhibit these readings in their text, as well
as other versions which agree with each. So far is the Syriac
version from being derived from the Latin, that it cannot even have
been materially influenced by it ; for notwithstanding some occasional
coincidences, the two documents, in general, do not harmonize in
their readings. They seem to have followed two quite difi'erent
kinds of text, and to belong to very distinct classes. The Latin
version is a document of what Hug would call the Western or
Alexandrian -/.oivri 'ixbocig. The Syriac belongs to the unrevised text
of the eastern regions. Hence the former largely sympathizes with
the Alexandrian recension, the latter with that which we find in the
Constantinopolitan family of MSS.; and the more ancient the codices
of the last named class, the more distinctly is this harmony to be
traced.
There have been many editions of this version, of which some
account may be expected in this place; but the more important only
can be specifically described: the others shall be merely indicated.
1. The first printed edition of the Peshito or old Syriac New
Testament was that of Widmanstad. In the year 1552, Ignatius
the Jacobite Patriarch of Antioch, despatched Moses of Mardin to
Europe as a commissioner, with instructions to acknowledge in the
name of the Syrian Church the supremacy of the Pope, and to
procure the publication of the Syriac version of the New Testament.
The efforts of Moses to effect the latter object at Rome and Venice
CHAP. III. J VERSI0N8 OF THE NEW TESTAMENT, 337
were unavailing ; but at Vienna he succeeded in obtaining the pa-
tronage of John Albert Widmanstad, Chancellor of Austria, under
the Emperor Ferdinand I. who prevailed on liis Imperial Majesty to
undertake the expense of the edition. It was superintended through
the press by Widmanstad, who was acquainted with the Syriac
language previously, and by Moses ; and was printed from two
manuscripts brought by the latter from the East. One of these
documents is still in the Imperial Library at Vienna, where it is noted
Codex Lamhecii, 258: it contains the four Gospels only; the other
MS. probably contained the Acts of the Apostles and the Epistles.
This edition contains only those parts of the New Testament
which are admitted into the Syrian canon ; of course the Second
Epistle of Peter, the Second and Third of John, the Epistle of Jude,
and the Apocalypse, are omitted. It is in quarto size, exceedingly
well printed, with vowel points only in particular words and passages
where the sense would otherwise be ambiguous. The first title is in
Syriac, in the Estrangelo character; the second is in Latin.*
There are separate titles to the Acts, the Epistles of Paul, and the
Catholic Epistles ; and each of these divisions has its pages numbered
in separate series. There being no date on these title-pages, the
year of its publication was frequently misstated : there can, however,
bo no question that it was printed in 1555, for that date is four
times repeated in the course of the work. In the year 15G2, the
copies still on hand were disposed of to Cymmerman, the printer,
who then inserted his own arms with the date 1562 on the reverse
of the title ; but several copies, having been issued before that year,
want this appendage. Widmanstad's edition is now exceedingly
scarce ; it brings in consequence a very high price, which is better
deserved in this case thau in that of many other bibliographical
rarities ; for the editio princeps of the Syriac New Testament is also
the best ever published: it is indeed almost the only one that
presents a purely Syriac text, all those which have since appeared
having undergone various alterations, not in conformity with MSS.
but with the critical judgment of the editors, and frequently of a
highly reprehensible kind. We must still remember that its principal
* "Liber Sacrosancti Evangelii de Jesu Christo, Domino et Deo nostro.
Reliqua hoc Codice comprehensa, Pagina proxima indicabit. Div. Ferdi-
nandi Rom. Imperatoris designati Jussu ct Liberalitate, charactcribus et
lingua Syrii, Jesu Christo veniacula, Divino ipsius ore consecrata, et a
Job. Evangelists Hebraica dicta, Scriptorio Prelo diligenter expressa."
Then comes a line in Syriac, and beneath it, " Principium Sapientife Timor
Domini."
U u
338 TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. [bOOK III.
editor, Moses of Mardia, was a Jacobite, or Monophjsite Christian;
and that his documents were MSS. prepared by and for persons of
the same faith. Hence we need not be sm-prised at finding the text
in some places altered so as to favour the dogmas of that sect, as in
Heb. ii. 9, where this edition reads (TiZarD.^4^ lcn_^ ^ju^. OOi
' '/or God himself by his grace tasted death for all men. ' ' This edition
is divided into sections of church lessons, accommodated to the eccle-
siastical usage of the Jacobites. Adler says it was based upon Nes-
torian MSS. but the foregoing passage is a proof to the contrary,
and the fact itself is incredible, considering the history of the work.
2. The next edition was that of Tremellius, prepared by him for
the press at Heidelberg,* but printed at Geneva in the year 1569. t
This edition is in folio ; it contains the Greek text of the New
Testament With Beza's Latin version : the old Syriac version and a
Latin translation made from it by Tremellius, which is said to be
exceedingly literal. These four texts are printed in parallel columns,
so that they resemble a Polyglott New Testament in appearance.
The Peshito is printed by Tremellius, not in the Syriac but in
the Hebrew type; it is pointed in confoi'mity with the Chaldee
usage, and the prefix of the 3 pers. sing. mas. of the future of the
verb is universally ^ instead of i, so that it might more properly be
called a Chaldee than a Syriac New Testament. In preparing it for
the press, the editor made use of Widmanstad's edition, and also
of a Syriac MS. then at Heidelberg, to which he makes continual
reference in almost all the books of the New Testament, as his
authority for departing from some of the readings of the editio
princeps. This codex appears to have been a Nestorian document ;
for in Heb. ii. 9, Tremellius, instead of Widmanstad's reading, has
(OT.-^ ^^^ r^SD 't-*-iA 001 i.e. "for he, apart from God, tasted death
for all men:" which is decidedly Nestorian in its character, and
has only been found in the MSS. of that party. But Tremellius
made several very important alterations in the text, for which he
had no Syriac authority whatsoever : in particular he has introduced
into it, in the following passages, readings which were not given in
* The dedication to EUzabeth Queen of England, is dated, Heidelberg,
1st March, 15G8.
\ "'li Karjrj Aia07ix,n. Testamentum Novum. NmH i^DTT'T Est
uatem Interpretatio Syriaca N. T. Hebrseis Typis descripta, plerisque etiam
locis emendata. Eadem Latino Sermone reddita. Auctore Immanuele
Tiemellio, Theol. Doctore et Professore in Schola Heidelbergensi: cujus
etiam Grammatica Chaldaica et Syra calci operis adjecta est. — Excu-
debat Hen. Stephanus, Anno MDLX'lX."
ClIAP. III. J VERSIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 339
Widmanstad's edition, which have never been found in any Sjriac
MS. written before the year 15G9, and which there is no doubt that
he translated into Syriac himself from the Latin or the Greek: viz.
Matt. X. 8; Matt, xxvii. 35; Luke xxii. 17, 18; Acts xv. 34. The
story of tlio adulteress, John vii. 53 to viii. 11, is not inserted; but
a space is left vacant in the Syriac column, in which appears the
following note: — "Vacat hcec pagina quod historia de adulterd in
Interpretatione Syriacd non extat." There is also a vacant space
opposite to the disputed passage in 1 John v. 7; and a note is sub-
joined, " Totum Versiculum septimum Syrum Testamentum omittit,
siciit etiam multi Grwci codices ; qui ita restitui posset." Tremellius
then gives a Syriac translation of this verse made by himself, which
we shall see has been by subsequent editors taken into the text, and
is still obtruded on the incautious reader as a genuine portion of the
Peshito version. The edition of Tremellius is very rare, and its
importance is not great, except as marking the first stage in the
gradual process of corruption which this venerable translation has
undergone in the hands of European theologians and printers.
3. The old Syriac was printed twice in the Antwerp Polyglott,
or Bihlia Regia, which was published 1571, once in the Syriac and
once in the Hebrew character, with a Latin translation, by Guide
Fabricius Boderianus, and with some various readings taken from
a Syriac manuscript which Postell brought from the East. In this
edition the books and passages which form no part of the Peshito
were faithf idly omitted. The same text was several times reprinted
in a separate form from the press of Plantin, the famous printer of
Antwerp; for example, in 8vo without a title, in 157-4; in IGmo,
1575: both these editions are in the Hebrew character, but the
Syriac orthography is retained. The same text was republished in
the Triglott New Testament of Benenatus, Paris 1584, and in other
works which it is needless to enumerate.
4. The Syriac version of the New Testament in the Paris Poly-
glott, like that of the Old Testament in the same great work, was
superintended by Gabriel Sionita, who mado some alterations in
the text, apparently from conjecture, and has pointed the Syriac
throughout according to a strict analogy. There is no Syriac
manuscript pointed in this manner: in the manuscripts only par-
ticular words, the meaning of which might otherwise be doubtful,
are furnished with points to determine the sense ; it is certain,
therefore, that Gabriel invented this systematic punctuation, which
not being properly any part of the version, ought not to be every-
340 TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. [bOOK III.
where obtruded on the reader. But subsequent editors have imi-
tated this obscure and useless diligence, and we have now scarcely
a single Syriac New Testament that is not fully pointed throughout.
A much greater and far more important innovation was made in
this edition, by introducing the four Catholic Epistles which are
not included in the Syrian canon, and also the Apocalypse: the
former Gabriel copied from an edition lately published by Pocoke,
the latter from that of Ludovicus de Dieu; both these works are
translated in a manner and style as different as possible from that
of the Peshito ; yet they have been admitted into the text of every
subsequent edition of this version, with which, it will be seen here-
after, they have no connexion whatsoever. This wholesale interpo-
lation of an entire book and several epistles does not tend to impress
us with a high sense of the critical judgment of those who have
assumed the superintendence of the printing of the Syriac New
Testament. If translations which form no part of this version are
to be published along with it, they ought at least to be thrown into
an Appendix, distinctly marked off, and separated from the genuine
Peshito; and given, not as portions of it, but as what they really
are — entirely distinct, of authority quite inferior, and of a much
more recent date.
5. In the London Polyglott, or Bishop Walton's, the text is
given very nearly in the same state as that in which it had previ-
ously appeared in the Parisian edition; with all the innovations both
in the canon and the orthography introduced by Gabriel Sionita.
A farther corruption was caused by the interpolation of the story of
the adulteress (John vii. 53 to John viii. 11), which was copied, as
the editors state, from a MS. belonging to Archbishop Usher. The
MS. is now lost; but the publication of the Philoxenian Syriac ver-
sion has enabled us to perceive that it was a copy of that translation,
and not of the Peshito ; yet this paragraph still retains its place in
the old Syriac text as printed. What makes the history of this
passage still more curious is, that it is not even a genuine portion of
the Philoxenian version; it was only added to some of the later
copies of it as a marginal scholium: the translation being ascribed
in one MS. to Mar Abba, in another to Paul, a monk.
6. Gutbier's edition, Hamburg, 1664, completed the interpolation
of the Peshito, by printing, as part of the text, the Syriac transla-
tion of 1 John V. 7, made by TremeUius, which had hitherto
appeared only as a note. Thus the common editions of the Syriac
New Testament consist partly of the Peshito version, properly so
CHAP. III.] VERSIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT, 341
called; partly of extracts from the interpolated copies of the Philo-
xenian; partly of books and epistles rendered into Syriac by an
anonymous translator ; partly of passages translated from tho Greek
or liatin editions by Tremellius ; and partly of various alterations,
interpolations, and corrections made by different editors, at various
times, on such authorities as they had at hand, in the infancy of
criticism, or from conjecture alone.
7. In 1703 tho Congregation de Propaganda Fide, at Rome,
published an edition of the New Testament in Syriac and Arabic,
the two versions being placed in tho parallel columns, both in the
Syriac alphabet — in this respect resembling what are called the
Carshuni MSS. It professes to be taken from MSS. and docu-
ments in the library of Maronites at Rome, transmitted from the
Patriarch of Autiocli; but this statement must bo understood with
a little latitude; for the two verses, Luke xxii. 17, 18, and the story
of the adulteress, are admitted, though marked with asterisks. The
disputed epistles and tho Apocalypse are given as in the editions of
Pococke and De Dieu; in all other respects it agrees with the
Syriac MSS. and Widmanstad, and is certainly less interpolated
tlian several other editions of this version.
8. Tho editions of Schaaf (Leyden 1709 and 1717), are praised
by MichaeUs as the very best that had appeared up to his time. It
docs not appear, however, that he made any very important im-
provement in the text, as previously in circulation; and Michtelis
admits that he not only continued the interpolated passages from
Gutbier's, but introduced other unauthorized changes himself.
This edition is now exceedingly scarce. I have inspected it in
public libraries, with reference to one or two passages, but I have
never had it long enough in my possession to be able to speak very
distinctly of its merits. In general it seems to agree with that of
Gutbier.
9. The edition of the British and Foreign Bible Society was
corrected for tho press, as far as the Acts of the Apostles, by Dr.
Buchanan, and, after his death, was completed by Mr. Lee, the
Arabic Professor in the University of Cambridge. It was published
at London, in quarto, in the year 1810: my copy has the date
1826 on the titlepage ; but whether this be an error of the press, or
whether the work has been reprinted, or whether the new date has only
been affixed to a re-issue of copies remaining over from those printed
in the former year, the person who sold it to me, at the Society's Depo-
342 TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. [bOOK UI.
sitory, could not inform me.* This edition was undertaken for the
use of certain Syrian churches in Southern India ; not, as has been
erroneously stated, the Christians of St. Thomas, as they are called
in that country, for they belong to the Nestorian branch of the Syrian
church; whereas Professor Lee, in a letter to Dr. Wait, the trans-
lator of Hug's Introduction — part of which is printed as a note in
the first volume of that work, pp. 368-370 — says that the edition
was "undertaken expressly for the Jacobites." In the same letter
Mr. Lee enumerates the Syrian MSS. which were used in the pre-
paration of the text. They were — (1) A MS. brought by Dr.
Buchanan from the Syrian church in Travancore, now in the
public library of the University of Cambridge, and bearing the
class-marks 00, 1. 2. ; (2) A MS. also in the public library
marked Ff, 2. 15, noticed in Ridley's Disseriatio de Syriacarum
Novi Foederis Versionum Indole, &c. p. 46 ; (3) The collations of
two very ancient MSS. of the Syriac Gospels, published by Jones,
at Oxford, in 1805 ; (4) The collations found in the work of Ridley,
just noticed; as also those of Wetstein and Schaaf; (5) The cita-
tions found in the works of Ephrem Syrus, and also those of a
Syriac Lectionary lent to the editor by Dr. Adam Clarke. " With
the aid of these MSS. &c. continual reference being made to the
other ancient versions, the Greek M&'S. &c. those readings only
were admitted which appeared to have an undoubted claim to
preference." In conformity with this intimation we find the Greek
text appealed to, in the Critical Notes appended to Matt, xxvii. 35,
and Acts xviii. 6. And in the letter above referred to, Mr. Lee
justifies the reading which has been followed in Heb. ii. 9, by the
authority "of the Greek," as well as that of the MSS. which he
had collated. From these indications we perceive that the editor's
aim was not to give such an edition of the Peshito version as would
* To this edition is prefixed a Bastard Title in the common Syriac
chai-acter, " The New Testament." Then follows, ou another leaf, the full
Syriac title, in Estrangelo — " The New Testament, or Book of the Gospel of
our Lord and God, Jesus Christ." At the foot of the page are five lines in
the common Syriac character. " Frinted at London, a city strengthened by
the help of God, which is the metropolis of the land of Lngland, and at the
expense of men believing in Jesus Christ, associated f&r pi-inting and jmblish-
ing the Holy Scriptures among themselves, and also in foreign parts. And
this Holy Book has been printed for the use of the Oriental /Syrians believing
in Jesus Christ, and has been corrected according to some ancient Syriac
MSS. in the year 1826 of the Christian Era." It appeal's that some copies
were issued with a Latin title, but these have probably been all sold off'
some time bIdcc. Here there is no mention of the Greek MSS. &c.
CHAT. III. I VERSIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 1343
be valuable to a critic; for this purpose it is necessary to reprint
tlic Syriac text, if possible, just as it stood when the translation
was made, without alteration and without improvement; and the
critical value of such an edition consists in the testimony which it
gives as to the readings of the Greek copy which the translator
employed. In preparing such an edition no appeal can be made to
the Greek for the purpose of correcting or amending the version;
the use of the version is to assist us in finding out what was the
genuine reading of the Greek. But this is not what the editor had
in view. His object was a very pious and benevolent one ; namely,
to give to the Syrians who might use his edition, a translation in
Syriac of what he regarded as the true original text of the New
Testament; for this purpose it was quite allowable and right in
him to avail himself of the help which the Greek Text affords for
amending the errox-s of the version, or supplying its defects; but
such an edition can confer no weight on the readings which it
exhibits in the textual criticism of the New Testament. Besides
the notes on Matt, xxvii. 35, and Acts xviii. G, there are four others
in the volume, pointing out various readings ; viz. Acts viii. 37 —
XV. 35 — XX. 28, and 1 Cor. v. 8. The two verses, Luke xx. 17, 18,
are placed in a parenthesis ; the narrative of the adulteress, in the
Gospel of John, is given at full length, as in Walton's Polyglott,
with the title — " The Lesson coiiceiviing the Sinful I Toman ichich is
not in the Peshito;" and a black line or rule, as it is called, is placed
before and another after it, a method of division which is not found
in any other part of the book. But besides these passages there
are a great many in which the reading differs from what has hitherto
been regarded as the standard text of the Peshito version, without
any intimation being given to the reader.* A collation of the MSS.
employed in preparing this edition has been long promised, but has
not yet been published.
To render this copy more acceptable to the Jacobites, the text is
divided into sections or chapters according to their usage, and at
the head of most of them the feast t or Lord's day on which it is
* In the absence of the collations we cannot be positive as to the source
from which these new readings were drawn; but there seems some pro-
babiUty that they have been derived, at least in part, from Griesbach's
edition of the Greek text. They certainly harmonize witli it in many
places where the JSyriac, as formerly given, dissented.
t In these headings there is no mention of any of the saints' days. Of
course Joseph, Mary, Peter, Paul, &c. are named in the subjects of the
chapters.
344 TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. [bOOK III.
appointed to be read in their churches, is mentioned. In the num-
bers and titles prefixed to these divisions an incredible number of
errors has been committed, which, in my copy, have been rectified
by printed bits of paper pasted on over the erroneous reading.
This gives to the work a slovenly and inaccurate appearance, which
its general execution does not deserve. The western chapters are
also marked in the text, and the numbers of the verses are noted in
the margin.
In one passage, which has a bearing upon controversy, a reading
has been inserted which is new to the Syriac as printed, and which
G-riesbach's Greek text does not sanction: viz. — in Acts xx. 28,
where this edition reads loi-^j OlZ, s\ ^CLLjZj "that ye feed
the church of God:'" to which is appended a note, stating —
"/w other copies there is here \*^ \ nV)? i.e. of Christ." In his
letter to Dr. Wait, Professor Lee thus explains his reasons for this
important alteration: — " The reading ' Church of God' occurs in the
Travancore MS. already mentioned; also in a MS. collated by
Adler, (See Versiones Syr. p. 17);* and I had the good fortune to
find it in another in the Bodleian Library at Oxford, marked Dawk,
23. The Vatican copy was written in the eleventh century; the
Travancore is perhaps 500 years old ; and the Oxford copy appears
to be much older. This edition, too, was undertaken expressly for
the Jacobites, who, it would seem, prefer this reading. It was, on
these accounts, introduced into the text." If the object in view
was merely to please the Jacobites the editor may possibly have
succeeded ; although the Jacobite Moses of Mardin did not think it
necessary or justifiable to introduce this reading in order to gratify
his co-religionists. But the manuscript authority alleged for the
change is certainly very slight. On the other hand the editor
agrees with Widmanstad's edition, the Syriac MSS. and the Greek
text of Griesbach, in omitting the verse respecting the Three
Heavenly Witnesses in 1 John v. 7; nor has he thought it necessary
to point out this emendation by a note. The disputed epistles and
the Apocalypse are given as in the preceding editions.
10. The most elegant, and, perhaps, on the whole, the most use-
* The MS. there described by Adler, the only one in which he found this
reading, is not a MS. of the New Testament, nor even a Lectionary, pro-
perly so called, but a liturgical book, written in a style of character closely
resembling the modern handwriting, and containing the Prayers to be said
on each Saint's Festival, throughout the year, according to the usage
of the Patriarchal church of Antioch, with Lessons from the Acts and the
Epistles of Paul intermixed.
CHAP. III.] VERSIONS or THE NEW TESTAMRNT. 345
ful Sjriao New Testament that has lately appeared is that published
by Mr. Bagster, under the superintendence of Mr. Greenfield.*
In a short Syriac preface tlie editor notices tlie antiquity of the
Peshito version of the New Testament ; the publication of the first
printed edition by Widmanstad and Moses of Mardin ; that of the
Revelation of John, "according to the edition of Thomas, Bisliop of
liarkel," by L. De Dieu; and of the Four Catholic Epistles which
were wanting in the Peshito, by Pocoke; the publication of the
Polyglott of 1045, and of the Bible Society's edition of 181G. He
then continues: — "This edition has been printed from the scriptures
of the New Testament, which were published in Syriac by Wid-
manstad, De Dieu, and Pocoke ; but the portions which were
wanting in these editions have been supplied from tlie London
edition of 1810. From a collation with this edition many various
readings have been obtained, which are placed in a table at the end
of the volume ; but wherever it was necessary to present the various
readings to tlie eye, or the number of the verses was very great, they
have been inserted [in the text], inclosed in brackets. These marks
are also found in the places which were defective in the exemplars
of the Catholic Epistles or in the Apocalypse, but were supplied by
Pococke and De Dieu." Tlie text, therefore, in the part containing
the Peshito, is that of Widmanstad, but with several pa.ssages inter-
polated from other editions, yet distinguished by being placed within
bracket-hooks. The editor has not exactly adhered to the statement
in his preface ; for example, he has not given in his text, in Matt.
X. 8, the two words vix^oug sysi^srs which are in the Bible Society's
text, though in a parenthesis. In Acts xv. 35 he has inserted in
brackets, in his text, a clause which the Bible Society has only
placed in a note : the same is the case with an entire verse, Acts
viii. 37, under precisely similar circumstances ; and another in Acts
xxviii. 29. While a clause in Acts xviii. 0, which, like those just
mentioned, is given in a foot-note in the Bible Society's edition,
* It is in 12mo size, and has only a Syriac title — " The New Testament,
or Book of the Holy Gonpel of our Lord and God, Jesus Christ.'^ This is in
Estranfjelo; then follows in the cofiimon character — "Languages are many
upon earth, but one only in heaven;'''' witli the impress — ■"Printed in London,
a citi; strengthened by the help of God, xrhich is the metropolis of the land of
England, and published by a man believing in Jesus Christ, ichose name is
/Samuel Jiagstrr, in the Street which is called Paternoster Row, in the year
1.^2S of the Christian Era." At the end of the book it is stated to Rave
bei!n "printed by Samuel Bajjster, son of Samuel Bas:ster, and by Peter
Pen-ino; Thomas, in Bartholomew Close, in the city f)f London;" but without
any of those titles appended, which, thoui^h they may be customary in the
East, are, in the eves of l^>irf>poans, ri<licnlous or otfcnsive.
Xx
34:G TEXTUAL CUITICISM OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. [bOOK III.
is not inserted at all; and 1 John v. 7 is inserted in brackets,
though it is not in Widmaustad's text, and is not found in the
edition of the Bible Society, either in the text or in the notes. But
notwithstanding these inconsistencies and irregularities, Mr. Green-
field has enabled his reader to perceive at a glance what does and
what does not belong to the Editio Princeps of the Syriac New
Testament ; the only one tliat has ever been founded exclusively on
manuscript authority. Of course the punctuation must always be
excepted. The table of various readings at the end consists of
seventeen pages and a half, and appears to have been executed with
very great care.
Thus it wiU be perceived that criticism has a useful work yet to
perform upon and for the old Syriac translation. It is little credit-
able to the literati of Europe that, from the time when this version
came into their hands, it has only experienced one corruption after
another. But symptoms of a desire for something better have
begun to show themselves. It is evident that no farther un-
authorized tampering with this valuable document will be attempted.
But this is not enough. Something ought to be done, if not to
produce a truly critical edition of the Peshito, at least to prepare
the way for it. The materials are abundant. Many critical docu-
ments of various kinds are now accessible to the learned ; as many
as can be reasonably expected to be available for the purpose at any
future time. The East has been ransacked for MSS. which are
now accumulated in the public and private libraries of Europe ;
accident may destroy portions of these collections at any moment ;
time itself may render some of them illegible and useless ; and surely
it were a shameful neglect to allow any of them to perish unem-
ployed. In the two ancient Universities of England, and in the
British Museum there were, at the beginning of this century, con-
siderable numbers of Syriac manuscripts ; to these the collections of
the late Mr, Rich, which have been deposited in the last-mentioned
institution, have made a very large addition ; and the number has
been still farther increased by the acquisitions of Archdeacon Tat-
tam and other travellers. There are several Syriac MSS. in the
Royal Library at Paris; many in Rome, Florence, Vienna, Wolfen-
buttel, and other cities on the continent. If a strenuous effort were
made to collate these documents, and to scrutinize the writings of
the Syrian ecclesiastics who used this version, much light might be
thrown upon its readings, and the text, even of the best edition that
has been published, might be considerably improved.
CHAP. UU] VERSIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 347
The secondary versions which were made from the Syriac, would
be of use in such an xuidcrtaking.
1. One of these is the Persian Version of the Gospels, printed in
Walton's Polyglott. As a close ecclesiastical connexion subsisted
between the Nestorians in Persia and their brethren in Mesopotamia,
the great school at Edessa being resorted to from all quarters by the
adherents of the sect, and the Persians in particular looking to that
city as the metropolis of their faith, it is only what we should have
expected to find, that the ritual, the liturgy, and the versions cm-
ployed by the Persians of that persuasion, were derived from those
used by the mother church. Such was in fact the case ; but of the
translation of the scriptures thus formed, only the four Gospels Iiave
been published — perhaps no other portions have been preserved.
This translation bears undubitable marks of its Syrian origin, al-
though it frequently introduces glosses and paraphrases which are
not found in the document from which it was taken.
2. The Arabic Version of the Acts, the Epistles of Paul, the
Epistle of James, the First Epistle of Peter, and the First Epistle of
John, which is contained in the Arabic New Testament printed by
Thomas Erpcnius at Leydcn in IGIG, is also taken from the Peshito,
and from Nestoriau MSS. The other books contained in that
edition were derived from a different source.
3. An Arabic Version of certain Lessons from the Epistles of Paul,
also made from the Syriac and subjoined in alternate columns to
the Poshito text of the passages, exists in a MS. in the Pope's
library. (Codex Vaticano- Syriacus, xxiu.) which Ims been described
by Adler,* who has also given two specimens (1 Cor. v. 7 — 17, and
xi. 23, 30), with a Latin translation. It is very paraphrastical and
abounds in theological interpretations, favouring the doctrines and
practices of the Nestoriau sect.
Manuscripts called Carshuni are not uncommon among the Syrians,
both of the Jacobite and Nestoriau class ; these contain the text of
the Peshito, with an Arabic translation in parallel columns or in
alternate pages, the Arabic being written not in its own proper
character but in the Syriac. In these books we might expect to
find a Syriaco- Arabic version of the Gospels ; but it is universally
that which has been printed by Erpeuius. It is probable tliat of tliat
part of the New Testament there never was an Arabic translation
taken from the Syriac.
* Versiones Syriacce Denuo Examinata; p. 27 — 29.
348 TKXTUAL CRITICISM OF THE NKW TESTAMENT. [bOOK III.
As the distinction between the Jacobite and Nestorian MSS. has
been noticed, it is proper to add that it does not affect the character
of the version as a whole, but only a very few readings, perhaps not
more than a dozen in the whole New Testament. Learned men
who have observed these discrepancies have endeavoured to make
the most of them. In a few passages which relate or are supposed
to relate to the doctrine of the Incarnation, each party seems to
prefer that reading which most favours its own views. But these
passages are not numerous ; and the readings in others which are
counted Nestorian by one critic, are sometimes set down as Mono-
physite by another. A curious instance of this discrepancy may be
obsei'ved in 1 Cor. v. 8, where the Greek copies read, " Let us keep
the feast with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth."
But here Widmanstad reads instead of "the unleavened bread,^'
\; » V) KK^D i.e. "ivith the leaven of sincerity and truth." The Bible
Society's edition retains this reading in the text, but puts in a note,
" In some copies it is here (: • ^'=^'^ " i.e. with the unleavened bread.
This note Hug adduces as a proof that Nestorian MSS. were used
in preparing that impression, for which he gives two reasons: the
first is that Adler found 1; » |\'=^'^ "in MSS. which according to
the inscription were Nestorian," but this is untrue ; for he states the
very reverse twice — viz. in p. 36 and p. 40 of his book;* the second
reason is, that the Nestorians are accustomed to use leavened bread in
the administration of the Lord's Supper, which is true, but would be
a ridiculous reason for supposing them to prefer the reading •' un-
leavened bread " in this passage. On the other hand, Mr. Lee, in
his notice of this observation, makes just as unfounded a reply, that
the preference given to ]: > ^ - - *^ "with the leaven,^' by putting
it in the text, shows that Jacobite MSS. had been used. The fact
is that both the Nestorians and the Jacobites, with the Greeks, the
Copts, and all the oriental churches, I believe without exception, use
leavened bread in the eucharist ; so that the reading, though it may
favour all of them against the Roman Catholics, cannot possibly be
said to help any one of these sects against the other.
* In both places Adler expresses himself more strongly than the facts
warrant. "Nostri soli habent" — \}. 36 — "Quam lectiouem in nullis nisi
Nestor ian&rwn codicibus adhuc repertam fuisse, supra animadverti." But it
is evident that he gives this on the authority of others ; for he has pubhshed
a list of all the Monopliysite MSS. inspected by himself^ — and they are
MSS. of the Gospels only, with the exception of one, which contains portions,
but not the whole, of the Pauline Epistles, and which he does not profess
to have collated, except in one or two passages ; and ia these, 1 Cor. x. 8, is
not included.
CHAP. III.] VERSIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 349
Section IV. — The Philoxenian Syriac.
Besides the ancient version which is in use in all the churches of
the Syrians, a second translation comprising all the books of the
New Testament was made bj the Monophysites in the beginning of
the sixth century. It was executed under the direction and patron-
age of Mar Xenaias, or Philoxenus, the Monophysite bishop of
Mabug, otherwise Manbeg, called by Greek writers Ilicrapolis, in
the neighbourhood of Antioch, by Polycarp, one of his rural bishops
or chorcpiscopi, and is hence usually termed the Philoxenian Syriac
version. Tlie inscription which is found prefixed to several of the
MSS. and which, from its general uniformity in all the copies that
contain it, is probably ancient, fixes the year 819 from the a3ra of
Alexander, that is A.D. 508, as the time when it was first published,
and this date agrees perfectly with that which church history assigns
to Philoxenus. There need therefore be no doubt of its correctness.
The change which had taken place in the character of the Greek
text in the third and fourth centuries, caused the irregularities of
the Peshito readings in some passages to be displeasing to the minds
of the learned Syrians, M'ho were capable of comparing it with the
original. Th(f methods of interpretation which had become preva-
lent about the same period, rendered them dissatisfied with the free
style of the ancient translation ; and the enlargement of the canon
by the general recognition of several works which had been unknown
or were held in doubtful repute when the old version was executed,
and had tlierefore been omitted in it, occasioned a desire for a trans-
lation which sliould include the whole New Testament. These I
cfiusider to have been the motives which led to the undertaking of
the Philoxenian, or as it might be called, the Polycarpian version.
In conformity with these ideas, we find that it follows a revised
Greek text; that it is literal even to servility, endeavouring to
express not merely the sense but the very etymology of the Greek
words, quite regardless of elegance or even of purity in tlie Syriac
language ; and that it certainly at one time contained, and possibly
still contains, the whole of the books of the New Testament. There
is some uncertainty whether the Apocalypse, as rendered by Poly-
carp still survives. Hug and others are of opinion that it exists,
and that it is no other than the copy ])ublished by De Dieu, which
is now printed in all the common editions of the old Syriac version
350 TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. [bOOK III.
as part of the Peshito. If this be not the Philoxenian Apocalypse,
it is probably lost.
The Philoxenian version, from its close adherence to the original
text, is a very valuable help in criticism; and it would be still more
so, if it had been permitted to remain as it was at first composed.
But the only printed edition of the Gospels, Acts, and Epistles, is
taken from a text that had undergone a critical emendation ; and it
may be doubted whether any MS. now sumves which is free from
the changes and corruptions thus produced.
The recension of the Philoxenian text was performed with well-
meant zeal, but with a most pernicious effect upon the purity of the
version, by Thomas of Heraclea, or, as the place is called in the
Syriac MSS., of Harkel; who having been, in the year 616,
expelled by violence from Mabug, of which he was bishop, with-
drew to "the monastery of the Antonians," in the Antonia, which
seems to have been the name of a suburb or quarter "in the great
city of Alexandria." While there he employed himself in critical
studies. He collated the text of the Gospels in the Philoxenian
Syriac version, with two, or, as some copies of the inscription from
which we derive our information state, with three ancient Greek
manuscripts belonging to the monastery in which he resided. The
Acts and Catholic Epistles he collated with one Greek copy, the
Epistles of Paul with two; no note or inscription informs us whether
he collated the Apocalypse at all, or with how many manuscripts.
The various readings of these copies, and, in some instances, those
of the Peshito also, he has noted in the margin; those taken from
the Greek being expressed sometimes in the Syriac, sometimes in
the original language; which, in such cases, has suffered tremen-
dously in the hands of copyists who did not understand a syllable of
what they were writing. Had Thomas been content with th^s
mechanical labour, we might have profited by his marginal notes,
and thanked him for his useful industry; but he went farther. His
own remarks show that in many places he altered the Philoxenian
text ; and there is reason to apprehend that he has done so in places
where no observation has been appended to give notice of the
fact. It is thought by many that he was the person who introduced
the obeli, the asterisks, and other critical signs which are found
at present in every manuscript of this version, though in a very
confused and corrupt state, for no two copies agree in exhibiting
them with an approach to uniformity ; but others, among whom are
Adler and Hug, conceive that they were in the Philoxenian text
CHAP. HI.] VERSIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 351
from the beginning, and that Thomas only rearranged them and
increased their number. It may perhaps bo thought an argument
in favour of the former opinion, that Thomas was contemporary
with Paul of Tola, who translated the Old Testament into 8yriac
from the Greek text of the Septuagint, as given in tho Hexapla,
retaining tho critical marks with which the edition of Origen was
furnished. The example of Paul may have stimulated Thomas of
TIarkel to adorn the most literal translation of the New Testament
which then existed in his native language with a similar apparatus,
enabling the reader to have an accurate knowledge, not only of the
text which tho translator had followed, but of the principal varia-
tions which he found in the documents that he had consulted.
The two versions, the Peshito and the Philoxenian, were the
only two Syriac translations which were known to Dionysius Bar-
Saliba, as is manifest from the extract already given (p. 331). At
an earlier period, Gregory Bar-IIebr?eus, commonly called Abul-
pharagius, knew of no other. In the preface to his Commentary on
the Scriptures, which is entitled "The Store-house of Mysteries,"
he says — "Concerning the vSyriac version there are three opinions:
first, that it was published in the times of the Kings Solomon and
Iliram ; secondly, that Assa the priest, when tho Assyrian sent him
to Samaria, made it ; thirdly, that it was published in the days of
the Apostle Thaddrcus, and of Abgar, King of Edessa, at which
time they added tho New Testament also. The latter was secondly
more accurately translated from the Greek, in the city of Mabug,
in tho days of the holy Philoxenus ; and thii-dly, it was collated in
Alexandria, by the holy Thomas of Harkel, in tho sacred monastery
of the Antonians. And Paul, bishop of Tela, of Mozul, translated
from Greek into Syriac the Old Testament, according to tho
LXX."* With the account of Bar-Hebrajus the inscription found
at the beginning of several MSS. of the Philoxenian version per-
fectly accords. There is some variation in the copies, but not
material: I translate that which Adler has given from a MS. which
he collated at Rome, and which was then in possession of Asseman,
as being the shortest that has been published: — "This is the Book
of tho Four Holy Evangelists, which was translated from Greek
into Syriac, with much accuracy and great labour, in the city of
Mabug, in tho year 819 of Alexander of Macedon" (A.D. 508),
"in the days of the holy Philoxenus, the confessor, bishop of that
* See Adler, Versmies Syriaccr, &c. p. 42. He has copied the passage
from a MS. of Gregory, in the Laurentian Libraiy at Florence.
^2 TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. [bOOK III.
city ; and it was afterwards collated, with much diligence, by me,
poor Thomas, with itro" (in the margin is written three) "highly
esteemed and very correct Greek copies, in the Antonia of Alex-
andria, in the sacred monastery of the Antonians. It was thus
re-transcribed and collated in the place aforesaid, in the year of
Alexander 927" (A.D. 616), "in the fourth indiction. How much
anxiety and trouble I have had with it and its companions" (the
other books of the New Testament, probably), "the Lord alone
knows, who will reward every one according to his works, in his
just and righteous judgment ; and in it may we be found worthy
according to his mercy. Amen!"*
It would occupy more space than we can well spare to enumerate
in detail the various peculiarities of this translation. Its distinguish-
ing feature is a servile adherence to the letter of the Greek text.
Hence it spells in the Greek manner the Oriental proper names
which occur in the New Testament, although as expressed in Greek
they are mere corruptions of the original designations ; and it even
preserves the termination of the cases of Greek nouns, as well as of
those of oriental origin, whenever it is possible ; it endeavours, in a
manner totally at variance with the spirit of the Semitic dialects, to
express the etymology of Greek verbs, compounded with preposi-
tions— a class of terms which the Syriac, in common with other
languages of the same stock, does not admit ; it even descends to
the ridiculous scrupulosity of re-translating into Syriac from the
Greek those Syriac terms which are given in the original Gospels —
as " Talitha Kumi," &c. It belongs to this minuteness of the
translator's care, that he renders svss^-ia (piety or godliness) by
terms which signify "the beauty of fear," or "the beauty of the
fear of God ;" because the Greek word is compounded of a particle
which commonly implies goodness, and a verb which signifies to
revere. Hence its very literalness often makes it uninteUigible ; in
point of perspicuity it is far inferior to the Peshito, and in many
cases where its meaning is quite clear it has palpably mistaken the
sense.
This version was first collated by Wetstein. That eminent critic
had made an unsuccessful attempt to procure a copy of it from the
East: having afterwards learned that a MS. of it had come into
the possession of the Rev. Gloucester Ridley, then incumbent of
* Four copies of this incription have been published: three by Adler,
p. 45-6; and one by Wetstein, Ridley, and VVhite, from the Codex Hera-
cleensis, whence the whole version has been printed.
CIIAT. III.] VER8I0X.S OF THE NEW TESTAMENT, 353
Poplar, near London, ho took occasion, on one of his visits to
England, to request tho use of the document, and was permitted to
have it for a fortnight in his custody, during which time ho collated
it from beginning to end, with an accuracy which is really wonderful
considering the shortness of tho time. Soon afterwards Mr. Ridley
himself published a Dissertation on tho Syriac Versions,* in which
he gave a comparison of the Peshito with his own copies of tho
Philoxenian, and corrected some mistakes of former writers. In
1772, Storr, having examined a MS. of the Gospels in the Philoxe-
nian translation at Paris, published a useful essay t on the subject;
and in 1778, Mr, White, Laudian Professor of Arabic at Oxford,
commenced tho publication of the version, from the two MSS.
which had been the property of Mr. Ridley, and which had been
presented to the Library of New College, Oxford. J This edition
has since been completed. Adlcr's treatise comprises much useful
information respecting the MSS. of this version, which he inspected
in the great libraries at Rome and Florence. No copy of this ver-
sion except that contained in Ridley's Codex Heracleensis, as it
is called, contains, as far as hitherto appears, any books except the
four Gospels; and there is no MS. of tho Philoxenian version of the
Apocalypse known to the learned world, unless the copy which De
Dieu used in publishing his edition of that book, was a portion of
the Philoxenian translation.
That MS. was the property of the celebrated Scaliger; it is now
in the University Library at Leyden ; but the present directors of
that once famous seat of learning have been content to allow critics
to remain in a state of uncertainty regarding a point of so much
interest to tho lovers of sacred literature, when they could at once
dispel all doubts, or turn conjectures into knowledge, by an exact
edition, or even a careful collation and description of the MS. which
slumbers in their custody. It is to be hoped it will not always
slumber.
To judge from the text as printed by De Dieu and republished iu
the Polyglotts, and in tlie modern editions of the Peshito, we should
say that it contains a version of the Apocalypse, which, in many
* Disscrtatio dc Syriacarum Novi Foederis Versionum Indole atque
Usu; Pliiloxcnianain cum Siinplici e duobus porvotustis Codd. MSS. ab
Amida transmissis conforeute Glocestrio Ridh^y. — Londini, 8vo, 1761.
t Observationes super Novi Testamenti Versiouibus Syriacis, Auctore
Gottlob C. Storr. — Stuttgardise, 8vo, 1772.
I The first vol. of this edition appeared in 177>*, the first part of the
second vol. in 1799, aud the coucluding part in 1803, all in 4to.
Y V
354 TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. [bOOK III.
respects, resembles the Philoxenian, yet is not the work of Poly-
carp. We perceive in it the same affectation of close adherence to
the Greek etymology and phrase, and the same incorrectness in
giving the sense. On the other hand, Oriental terms are not
retranslated ; several Greek words are rendered in a different man-
ner from that which Polycarp adopted: the Greek article is not
expressed, and there is no apparatus of various readings in the
margin and of critical marks in the text. Adler, to whom, in a
question of this kind, much deference is due, points out several
examples in which the same words and phrases are differently
rendered in the Philoxenian version and the translation of the
Apocalypse; and is quite clear that they are totally distinct and
separate works. Hug is of a different opinion.
Section V. — Syriac Version of the Four Disputed Epistles, usually
printed with the Peshito.
These epistles were first printed by the learned Edward Pococke,
from a Syriac MS. in the Bodleian Library, which contained the
Acts and the three Catholic Epistles, which are universally acknow-
ledged, according to the Peshito. His edition appeared at Leyden
in the year 1630, in the Hebrew character. From it these epistles
were transfex-red by Gabriel Sionita to the Paris Polyglott of 1645,
where they appeared in the proper Syriac type, with some alterations
from his own conjecture or carelessness, and thence to Walton's
Polyglott, and every subsequent edition of the old Syriac version.
They certainly do not belong to the ancient translation. Dionysius
Bar-Saliba knew nothing of them: Gregory Bar-Hebrseus was
equally unacquainted with them. Even Ebed-jesu had no knowledge
of any such translation. The manner of translating differs toto coelo
from that followed in the genuine parts of the Peshito. The render-
ing is superstitiously literal; the author shows no great skill in
interpreting the meaning of the original; and in endeavouring to
represent it, he sacrifices without scruple all pretence to freedom,
elegance, and even correctness in the use of the Syriac language.
In these respects, he approaches to the characteristics of Polycarp,
but the version is, notwithstanding, distinct from the Philoxenian.
It sometimes follows a different text, sometimes a different inter-
pretation of the original, and in cases where the same text is read,
and the same sense expressed, the words employed are often different.
Yet in other passages the translator seems to have had the Philoxe-
nian version before him, and to have made use of it without feeling
CIIAl'. III.) VERSIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 355
liimself bound to a minute and exact adherence. It is possible, there-
fore, that the Philoxeuian translation may have given rise to this
one. The fonner was altogether the property of the Monophysites ;
Philoxenus, Polycarp, Thomas of Ilarkel were all of that persuasion,
and by the members of their sect it was employed. Some Nestorians
were probably desirous of not being behind the rival sect in the
completeness of their New Testament; and for their use we may
suppose this translation to have been made, and annexed to the
Peshito ; for the Nestorians never employed any other version of the
portions of scripture which it contained. They were probably un-
willing to be under an obligation to the adverse party for the use of
any part of a version which had been made by and for it exclusively:
perhaps their own learned men had written disparagingly of the
Philoxenian, and they could not without inconsistency adopt any part
of it ; and we can readily believe they really were afraid of dangers to
their religious faith, if they should employ and sanction a translation
which came to them through the hands of those whom they deemed
heretics. However this may be, the version certainly is recent, and
not of a high character in any point of view.
Plausible arguments might be advanced in support of the position
that the Syriac translation of the Apocalypse belongs to this anony-
mous version, not to the Philoxenian.
Section VI. — The Jerusalem Syriac Version.
This translation has never been published ; only one manuscript
of it is known to exist, and that comprises not a complete copy of
the New Testament, nor even of the four Gospels; it is only an
Evangelistarium containing lessons from the Gospels for every
Sunday and principal holiday throughout the year. This interesting
codex was first discovered by Asseman in the Vatican Library, that
rich repository of biblical treasures; it is there numbered as the
19th among the Syriac MSS. — It was afterwards more minutely
examined, collated, and described by Adler, who has given a par-
ticular account of its contents, the language in which it is written,
the style of the translation, and the character of the text, accompa-
nied by a careful enumeration of all the readings which it exhibits,
different from those of the common text, with specimens and fac-
similes.* Nothing could be more satisfactory except the publication
of the codex.
* Versiones Syriacce demtb Examinatcc. Lib. iii. p. 137, adfinem.
356 TEXTUAL CIIITICISM OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. [boOK III.
The language has so many points of coincidence with the Chaldaic
dialect which was spoken in Palestine, and in particular with that
of the Jerusalem Targum on the Pentateuch, tliat Adler and Michre-
lis, and after them Griesbach and others, have given to it the title
of the Jerusalem- Syriac version, by which it is now commonly
known. Hug prefers to call it the Palsestiuo-Syriac, looking upon it
as a specimen of the language spoken in the northern parts of the
Holy Laud, rather than in the neighbourhood of Jerusalem. The
difference is not so material that on account of it we should desii-e
to disturb a term that is in common use.
The inscription of the codex states that it was written by Elias,
a Presbyter of Abydos, in the monastery of the abbot Moses, in
the city of Antioch, A.D. 1030. It is, however, manifestly a mere
transcript ; the errors which exist in it, and which could not have
proceeded from a translator, sufficiently prove this : the version is
therefore more ancient than the codex, but what may be its precise
age is not very easily determined. It is certainly anterior to the
invasion of the Saracens ; for the translator renders soldiers by a
term denoting Romans ( i SOOJ, and the Greek a-TnT^a, a cohort, he
expresses by j^cn O, i.e. castra, the Latin for a camp, figuratively
used to denote -a body of troops. He had no knowledge of any
other army than that of Rome, and did not even dream of employ-
ing the terms which his native tongue afforded, to express military
ideas. The translation therefore cannot be more recent than the
seventh century. It may appear that this date is irreconcilable
with the silence of Bar-Saliba, Bar-Hebrseus, and Ebed-Jesu; it
may be thought that had such a version existed in the seventh
century, they would have made some mention of it where they speak
of the various Syriac translations. But this objection would prove
too much ; it would prove — if we allow it any force — that this version
did not exist in their times at all, although they all lived subsequent
to the year 1030 in which the codex that contains it was written.
It is probable that the use of this translation was confined to a com-
paratively small and illiterate part of the great Aramean family ;
in elegance it was far surpassed by the Peshito ; in closeness of ad-
herence to the original by the Philoxenian ; it never made its way
into general acceptance; it might be employed in a few remote
chui'ches in the mountains of Libauus or Galilee, or in one or two
distant monasteries without being known to these writers; or if
known, they may havo regarded it as too insignificant to be worthy
of notice. Perhaps also, they were the less willing to speak of it as
CHAP. III.] VERSIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 357
it was in tho hands of an opposing sect. The style of the text is
ancient, it concurs more frequently with the Vatican and Cambridge
MSS. than with any others: the points of coincidence with the
Vatican are rather more numerous than with the Cambridge in the
proportion of 8.5 to 79 ; nevertheless it concurs with the Cambridge
alone cloven times, and with the Vatican alone, only thrice ; and
the readings in which it agrees with the former, and with authorities
of the same class, are generally more striking and characteristic than
those in which it agrees with tho Vatican. It may therefore be
ranked as a document belonging to the mivyj sxdoaig or unrevised text.
No complete copy of the C4ospels has yet been found ; it is neces-
sary therefore, in considering its testimony, where it is not expressly
quoted, to consult the table of sections contained in the Lectionary
given by Adler, p. 157-8.
This Syriac version contains the passage relating to the adulteress
(John viii. 1 — 12), which is wanting in the Peshito and in the
l*hiloxcnian.
Section VII. — The Armenian Version.
It has been mentioned in treating of the versions of the Old
Testament, that the Armenian translation of the scriptures was
made in the fifth century from the Greek. To the particulars there
given it is needful to add a few more with reference to the use of
this document in the criticism of the New Testament.
A cotemporary Armenian historian,* for our knowledge of whose
works we are indebted to the sons of the pious and excellent William
Whiston, informs us that Miesrob, or Mesrob, was the inventor of
the Armenian alphabet: before his time the Armenians used the
Syrian letters and apparently the Syrian language in their liturgy
and church documents of every kind. The patriarch Isaac approved
of Mesrob 's discovery, and employed it in effecting a translation of
the scriptures from the Syriac ; but two of the pupils of Mesrob who
had been deputed to the council of Ephesus, A.D. 431, having
brought with them on their return, an accurate MS. iu Greek, the
version from the Syriac was laid aside, and a new one was com-
menced from the recently acquired copy. Isaac and Mesrob, how-
* Mosis Chorenensis Historise Armeuise, Libri III. Armeniace ediderunt.
Latino verteniut, notisnue illustarunt, Guiliolmua et Gcorgius, Guiliclmi
Whistoiii Filii: Aulas Olarousis in Acadomiii Cuntabrigicnsi quoudam
aUimui. Loudini, 1730, 4to,
358 TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. [uOOK III.
ever, soon found that they were not sufficiently acquainted with the
Greek to prosecute the work with advantage : they sent two of their
alumni, Joseph and Ezuac, to Alexandria to perfect themselves in
the Greek language, and on their return, the work was commenced
for the third time, and brought to a successful conclusion. The
historian Moses Chorenensis states that he himself was engaged in
the undertaking.
A Syrian writer, Gregory Bar Hebrteus, otherwise called Abul-
pharagius, tells us that when the version was completed, it was
revised by Isaac and Mesrob, who altered it so as to make it agree
more completely with the Syriac. If the account given by Moses be
authentic, the statement of Bar Hebrseus can hardly be true. Hug
agrees with respect to the New Testament in the statement first put
forth by Lacroze in reference to the Armenian version of the entire
Bible ; that it was altered in the thirteenth century into a close
conformity with the Vulgate, under the influence of King Haitho,
or Haithom, who was a zealous partisan of the Church of Rome,
and who even resigned his crown to become a monk of the order of
St. Francis. This is a point, on which being entirely ignorant of
Armenian, I speak with much hesitation ; but the arguments urged
in proof of the alleged change seem to me quite unsatisfactory. In
the first place, the Armenian is by no means a close follower of the
Vulgate, if we may put any confidence in the citations wliich are
given in the editions of Griesbach, or in that of Scholz, which is
deserving here of especial regard, because he afiirms that he pro-
cured this version to be carefully recoUated from the critical edition
of Zohrab, by Cirbied, professor of the Armenian language at Paris,
and by the monks of the Armenian convent at Vienna. Any person
who will attentively examine a few consecutive chapters in any of
the Gospels, wiU soon perceive that if there are some readings here
and there in which the abbreviations Arm. and Vulg. appear con-
jointly, there are just as many, and those equally characteristic, in
which the one is found without the other, and in which we are thus
informed that the versions take opposite sides. Now such a dis-
crepancy is fatal to the idea of a designed and systematical alteration
with an express view to produce conformity. Moreover, the only
example which Hug adduces of such an alteration in the text,
disproves the fact. He says that Gregory, Bishop of Sis, and
Patriarch of Armenia, addressed a letter to King Haitho, advising
him to call a council of the National Church in order to effect a
union with Rome, which letter is extant in the Great Collection of
CHAr. III.] VEH8I0NS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. ;}.59
the Councils published by Labbe (ed. Mansi. vol. xxv. p. 145); that
in this epistle, the patriarch not only appeals to the authority of
Jerome, Boda, and other Latin Fathers, but expressly quotes
1 John V. 7, in fjivour of the use of water in the mass ; and that the
same language was expressly used again by a council held at Sis,
in the year 1307, which could not have happened unless it was
authorized by many copies. " This chanrje of the Armenian text in
conformity with the Latin can hardly have been the only one," he
adds. Not the only one certainly ; for this change itself was never
made. The learned Dr. Zohrab has expressly declared that this
text is unsupported by so much as a single Armenian MS. ancient
or modern ; and what seems somewhat singular, Professor Hug
himself, a few lines farther down,* has referred to and recorded this
statement. Now these facts, instead of proving the corruption of
the Armenian from the Latin translation, disprove it, and besides
raise a suspicion that the Epistle of Gregory and the Acts of the
Council of Sis, may themselves have been tampered with. With
much more plausibility it might be contended that the Armenian
is borrowed from the old Syriac version, for they agree in many
very remarkable readings ; yet it must have had another source, for
the former contains the books which the latter wants and always
wanted.
But although I see no proof that this ancient version was sub-
jected to any such uncritical treatment in its native region, it was
not so fortunate as to escape some degree of contamination in
the West. Uscan, Bishop of Erivan, who superintended the first
printed editions of the Armenian translation,! was so little desirous
of concealing the fact of his having altered several passages on the
sole authority of the Vulgate, that he has unequivocally avowed it
in his preface. It is to him, not to King Haitho, that the Arme-
nians are indebted for the introduction of the passage above referred
to. One of his MSS. was seen by Sandius, and it wanted the
verse. J We have no proof that Uscan had more than one, and if
he had, they must all — according to the testimony of Zohrab, now
for more than fifty years before the world and never yet contradicted
— have been, like it, destitute of this important passage. There is,
• See Hug's Introduction to the New Testament, p. 232, FosdicFs Trans.
t Old and New Testaments, Amsterdam, 1666, 4to. New Testament
separately, ibid. 1668, 8vo.
I Codex prtetcrea Armeniacus, ante 400 annos exaratus, quem vidi apud
Episcopum ecclesice Armeniacie, quee Amstelodami colligitur, locum ilium
non logit. — Interpretationes Faradoxcc, p. 3Y6.
360 TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. [noOK III.
indeed, no doubt that Uscau translated it from the Latin Vulgate,
in the printed text of which it has uniformlj been found.
There was an edition of the Armenian version published at Con-
stantinople in the year 1705, which was looked upon as much superior
to those of Uscan; but it seems to be agreed that the best editions are
those of Dr. Zohrab, of the Armenian convent at Venice ; and that
of these the best is that of the entire Bible, Venice, 1805, in one vol.
which Hug calls a large 4to, Scholz a folio, and at the same place
and time in four vols. 8vo. For this edition Hug and Scholz state
that twenty Armenian manuscripts of the New Testament were
used ; but Mr. Home, who seems to have made accurate inquiry,
states* that there were fifty-four — thirty-two of the Gospels, and
fourteen of the Acts and Epistles, besides eight others, which con-
tained the entire Bible. " In this edition," adds Mr. Home, "Dr.
Zohrab has expunged 1 John v. 7, it being unsupported by any of
the MSS. which he had collated." He had previously stated the
same thing in conversation with Professor Alter at Vienna, as the
latter informs us in the preface to his edition of the Iliad, p. 85 : —
" Plurimum Reverendus Bibliothecarius Meghitarensium, in insula
S. Lazari Venetiis, P. Joannes Zohrab, Armenus, Vienna3 nunc
(scil. 1790), negotia agens, mihi affirmavit, se in nullo codice manu-
scripto Novi Testamenti, quos tamen multos et varios in Conventiis
Bibliothecd habent, 1 Johan. v. 7, reperisse, illumque in nullo adhuc
codice Armeno repertum fuisse.^^ For this extract I am indebted
to Bishop Marsh, (Notes to Michcelis, vol. ii. p. 616).
From the notices above given of the manner in which the Arme-
nian version was constructed, we need not be surprised at the high
admiration it is held in by all competent judges, as well as by the
Armenian nation at large ; for it was a work most studiously and
carefully executed, and in point of translation was doubtless made
as accurate as was possible. But the same facts prepare us for
discovering that it does not adhere undeviatingly to any form or
recension of the text. The Syriac version, the Ephesian codex,
and the MSS. which Joseph and Eznac would, as a matter of
course, bring with them from Alexandria and employ, have all left
traces of their influence upon its readings. Some of these appear
to belong to the uncorrected text of the second and third centuries ;
for which we may account by supposing the more ancient Greek
copies to have been at least occasionally preferred to those which,
* Introduction to the Critical Study of the Scriptures, vol. ii. part ii.
p. 44.
CHAP. HI. J VERSIOiNS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 3G1
in tho middle of the fifth century, were regarded as modern, and
which, in the cjes of persons unacquainted with critical investiga-
tions, would appear to be on that account of less authority.
Section VIII. — The Arabic Versions.
In tho New Testament, as in tho Old, the Arabic versions are so
numerous, and the editions which have been published are so very
diflferent, that it is not easy to present any account of them which
shall at the same time be brief, correct, and intelligible. It has
already been mentioned that the Arabic translation of tho Acts, the
Epistles of Paul, the Epistle of James, the First Epistle of Peter,
and tho First Epistle of John, which is given in the edition of
Erpenius, has been derived from the Peshito. With such secondary
versions we have now no concern, our object here being those
translations which were derived immediately from the Greek.
Several editions of tho Gospels in the Arabic language have been
published : the first appears to be that issued at Rome in tlie year
1590 or 1591; the former date is given in tho titlepage, tho latter
at the end of the book. It was sent forth in the form of a folio
volume, and in the same year was re-issued, with an interlineary
translation in Latin, altered from the Vulgate. This text was
reprinted in the Paris Polyglott of 1645, and thence was transferred
to Walton's in 1657. The MSS. from which it was taken are at
present unknown. In the Arabic New Testament, printed by
Erpenius at Leyden in 1616, the Gospels of course are contained.
He used as liis exemplar, according to his own account, "a most
beautiful manuscript, written in tho monastery of St. John, in the
desert of the Thebais, in Upper Egypt, in the year of the Christian
era 1342." Erpenius has given a Latin translation of the sub-
scription at the end of this codex, which is not so definite as might
be wished. It is to the following effect: — "The copying of this
book was finished on the 16th day of the month Bauna (June), in
tho 988th year of the righteous martyrs," referring to a massacre
in Egypt in the Dioclesian persecution, about A.D. 304; this would
give for the dato A.D. 1292, not 1342 as calculated by Erpenius.
The subscription proceeds: — "This book was transcribed from a
very correct copy, the writer of which says that he had copied from
another correct codex written by the hand of John, Bishop of Coph-
tita; which John affirms that he had transcribed his from a very
correct copy, published by Nojulamam, the son of Azalkefat."
Z z
362 TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. [bOOK III,
The researches of the learned have failed to discover any farther
notice of the last mentioned person ; and some uncertainty is felt
whether he was translator, or merely a reviser and editor of this
version: the latter is the more probable and the more common
opinion. He was certainly a Copt.
There is another edition of the Gospels in Ai-abic, in the Car-
shuni edition of the New Testament, printed at Rome in 1703, by
the Congregation De Propaganda Fide, and already described in
treating of the editions of the Peshito. It is the seventh in my
enumeration of them. (See p. 341, ante.)
These three editions vary from each other very much in particular
places; and yet it is not difficult to perceive that one primitive
Arabic translation formed the groundwork of the whole. It was
originally taken from the Greek, as several of its mistakes and
errors clearly prove, but was adapted to the use of two different
classes of persons — the Copts, or native Egyptians, and the Syrians.
By the former it was altered to make it agree with their church
version, the Coptic: perhaps it was in this endeavour that Nejula-
mam signalized himself, as stated in the subscription to the Leyden
manuscript which Erpenius has published. The Syrians, on the
other hand, who have placed it, in their Carshuni manuscripts, be-
side the Peshito, made, as might be expected, such changes as have
produced a general agreement between their two translations. This
recension is exhibited in the edition of the Propaganda of 1703.
The earlier Roman text of 1591, reprinted in the Polyglotts, fol-
lows sometimes the one, sometimes the other, adhering strictly to
neither. It seems to have been prepared from several MSS. which
probably included some belonging to different recensions. By
Griesbach and Scholz the readings of the primary and Polyglott
editions are separately quoted, whenever they disagree.
The Arabic version of the Acts of the Apostles, the Catholic
Epistles, and the Epistles of Paul, contained in the Polyglotts,
was taken by Gabriel Sionita from a manuscript which had been
brought from Aleppo. The translation itself was made from the
Greek, and seemingly in the region of Cyrene; for as Hug has
observed, in the second chapter of Acts, where the historian, in
enumerating the different countries from which persons had come to
Jerusalem at the season of Pentecost, mentions "the parts of Libya
about Cyrene," this version translates the expression thus — " The
reqion of Africa in which our country is situated.'''' If this be a
genuine part of the version, and not a gloss, as some have supposed,
CHAP. in. J VERSIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 363
it could not have been made till after the Mahommedan conquests,
in the seventh century, had carried the Arabian language into
lauds where it was formerly altogether unknown. In Acts xviii. 2,
it adds by way of gloss to the word Italy, Al Frangia — i.e. ''the
country of the Franks" — a designation of the Western Europeans,
which did not come into general use till the time of the crusades ;
but some suspect this verse, as well as the former, of having been
altered or interpolated after the version was made. This translation
clearly belongs to the Constantinopolitan family or recension.
So also does the Arabic translation of the Apocalypse, which is
given in the Paris and London Polyglotts. It seems to bo by a
different hand, and is of inferior merit, but cannot be denied the
praise of general fidelity. The Apocalypse of Erpenius is a different
version from this, yet not entirely independent of it : it would seem
as if the translator of the one edition had seen and used, without
servilely copying, the work of his predecessor. The translation of
Second Peter, Second and Third John, and the Epistle of Jude, in
the edition of Erpenius, cannot have been taken from the Peshito,
for it did not contain them. Hug thinks it was not made directly
from the Greek, and that it was probably taken from some Syriac
version of these epistles now lost or undiscovered.
There are other versions extant in the Ai-abic language which
appear to have been taken from the Greek ; but, for the most part,
they exist only in MS. A few readings have been extracted from
them by way of specimen ; but in the present state of our know-
ledge we cannot turn them to good account in the criticism of the
text.
Section IX.— The jEthiopic Version.
Our information respecting the origin of the ^thiopic version is
very slender ; all that wo can with certainty affirm is, that as the
Abyssinian church was not founded till the days of Constantino the
Great, the version of the scriptures intended for its use cannot be
more ancient. Frumeutius, the missionary and first bishop of
the ^Ethiopians, is mentioned by Athanasius as his contemporary;
but his name is not connected with any reference to a translation of
the scriptures. Chrysostom affirms that there was an ^Ethiopic
version in his day ; but the statement occurs in a passage so full
of rhetorical exaggeration that it would be unsafe to build upon it
as on historical ground. "Yea," he says, "the Syrians, and the
364 TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. [BOOK III.
Egyptians, and the Indians, and the Persians, and the Ethiopians,
and ten thousand nations besides, by translations in their own
language, have learned, barbarians though they be, to investigate
the doctrines that have been introduced on this subject."* By
professing to give evidence respecting "ten thousand nations,"
Chrysostom has left us in doubt how far we can trust his testimony
concerning any one. Job Ludolf, or Leutholf, to whose Ilistoria
jEthiopica, and his own comments upon it, we are indebted for
almost all that we know of Abyssinian literature, informs us that
the nation reveres, as the author of its version of the scriptures, an
early preacher of Christianity, whose memory is preserved in its
churches under the name of Abu Salama; but the force of the tradi-
tion is weakened by coming down accompanied by the assertion that
he translated the sacred books into the Ethiopic from the Arabic.
Of the Ethiopic version which is found in the MSS. and printed
editions, and which is quoted by critics, this is palpably untrue:
no translation can bear more evident marks of its derivation imme-
diately from the Greek than does this. It is best at once to confess
that we know nothing certainly either of the author or date of the
translation, and leave the question of origin to be discussed by
those who shall have better means of information than we now
possess. But this uncertainty does not prevent us from investiga-
ting the internal character of the version itself.
The Ethiopic New Testament, according to Ludolf, t is divided
into four parts: — 1, The Four Gospels; 2, The Acts of the
Apostles; 3, The Fourteen Epistles of Paul; 4, The Seven
Catholic Epistles. The Apocalypse is added separately, by way
of appendix — an arrangement which would seem to imply that it
was not considered as an integral part of the translation. If
Ludolf be correct in this statement, the translation is probably of
an early date : a late period would have brought to the Abyssiuians
a more complete canon.
The version is composed in the ancient dialect of Axum, or
Axuma — once the refined and courtly language of the nation, but
which has, for many centuries, been compelled to yield precedency
to the Amharic. It cannot, therefore, be a modern work, as Scali-
* 'AXXa -/.ai "Eu^oi y.ai ' AiylfTrrioi yMi "Ivdoi xa/ Hs^aai xal ' AiQiomg
xai (U-up/a snoa Uvrj sig rriv avrSjv /urajSaXXovrsg yXurrav m ts^I toCtov
doyfji.arcc iiOiva^d'evTa s/Mccdov avd^wxoi /3ag/3a^o/ p/AOffops/i/' — Chrysostomi
0pp. vol. viii. p. 10.
t Hist, ^thiop. lib. iii. c. iv. n. 21.
CHAP. III.] VERSIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. .305
ger and others after him supposed. Indeed, that great man has
shown himself lamentably deficient in his knowledge of the history
of the Christian religion and church among the Abyssinians.
Readings of various periods and of very different recensions of
the text appear to have been mixed up in the documents from which
this translation was executed. It several times combines together
the text of two different tribes of Greek MSS. Perhaps the trans-
lators did not use one codex merely, but collated a number ; more
probably they found various readings on the margin of their exem-
plar, which they here and there took into the text. In the Epistles
of Paul, however, they adhere pretty closely to the Alexandrian
recension.
This version has not been often published. The first edition was
that printed at Rome in 1584 and 1585, in 4to, The whole seems
not to have been reprinted till it appeared again in Walton's Poly-
glott, and never since. The Roman edition was objected to as
incorrect. Walton's editor, besides the Roman text, used a manu-
script, faulty, and in many places illegible : Ludolf says he retained
old errors and introduced new ones. His Latin translation is also
condemned: nevertheless, not understanding a word of the origi-
nal, I have been obliged to depend upon it, and upon the citations
given in the critical editions of the Greek Testament, in endeavour-
ing to form a judgment of the Ethiopia text; and may perhaps
have been misled, like several of my predecessors, in such inquiries.
Bishop Marsh mentions that a more accurate Latin translation of
the ^Ethiopic version was published by Professor Bode at Bruns-
wick, in two vols. 4to, 1752, 1755 ; but this I have never seen. It
should be added that a postscript to the A(;ts of the Apostles, in the
Roman edition, acknowledges that the greater part of that book as
there given had been translated into /Ethiopic at Rome, on account
of the chasms occurring in the exemplar, and requests the reader to
pardon and correct any errors which he may discover. This is
candid and proper, and only leaves us to regret that the passages
thus supplied have not been specified.*
An edition of the Four Gospels in yEthiopic, founded on MS.
authority, has been published in London, with the title — Evangelia
Sancta jEthiopica, ad Codd. MSS.fidem edidit T. P. Piatt, A.M.
Lond'mi, 1826, 4to. My total ignorance of the language prevents
me from giving any account, however brief, of this edition.
* Bishop Marsh, Notes to JMichselis, vol. ii. p. G12.
366 TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. [bOOK III.
Section X. — The Sahidic Version.
The conquest of Egypt by Alexander — the erection of a magnifi-
cent capital inhabited chiefly by Greeks — the establishment of a
dynasty of Grecian sovereigns who ruled over the whole country for
three hundred years — the influence of a court and government all
whose officers were of Greek extraction, and under whose direction
even the administration of the law, the enregistering of deeds affect-
ing property, and other civil acts,* were required to be performed at
least partly-in the Greek language — and the constant influx of a
Greek-speaking population for the purposes of commerce, into a
region which was the great emporium of the eastern trade- — enable
us easily to conceive, that a little before the time when Christianity
was preached in Egypt, the ancient language of the counti-y had
been in some degree driven back before that of the conquerors. Yet
it was never overcome ; and when the Greek dynasty yielded to that
of Rome, it began to rear its head once more. But the Egyptian
language was no longer what it had been in the days of the Pharaohs.
A multitude of new words had been borrowed from the Greek, once
so prevalent as to have been almost everywhere understood ; many
points of construction were imitated from the same tongue; and
when the Egyptian became a written language, the Greek alphabet
was adopted with such modifications as enabled it to express the
sounds of the Egyptian speech. We may perhaps claim for the
Christian religion the merit of having, in that as in many other
lands, given the first occasion and the first impulse to the formation
of a native literature. At all events, the earliest writings of which
we have any knowledge that were composed in the Egyptian language,
and which deserve the name of a literature, treated upon ecclesias-
tical subjects. Two versions at least, of the New Testament were
composed in different dialects of the Egyptian, and fragments have
been discovered which seem to point to the existence of a third.
Of these the version composed in the language as spoken in the
Thebaid, or upper province of Egypt, and usually called Sahidic,
seems to be the most ancient. Various considerations warrant us
in assigning the first rank in respect of antiquity to this translation.
In the first place, it follows a more ancient text than its rival, fre-
quently coinciding with readings which were current before the
* This is evident from the Grseco-demotic papyri found in several of the
unrolled mummies of the age of the Ptolemies.
CHAP. III.] VERSIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT, 367
critical period, and not seldom presenting others, similar to them in
their character, for which wo search elsewhere in vain. In tlio
second place, it retains a far larger proportion of Greek words,
showing that it was composed at a time when the Greek language,
thougli not universallj understood, still retained a considerable
footing in the country. In tlie third place, it has come down to us
in the form of fragments only, proving that it was not a recent and
improved version, which had superseded an older document, and
taken its place in public estimation, but one which had itself been
superseded, and was in consequence seldom transcribed.* And
lastly, it was in the Tliebaid, remote from the capital, and from the
influences which kept the Greek language in use in the neighbour-
hood of Alexandria much longer than elsewhere, that an Egyptian
translation would soonest be required ; and for the use of that region
of course a version would first be provided. The illustration of
these points would occupy more space than can at present be afforded ;
they are left therefore to the reader's consideration.
Woide relies upon another argument, as proving that this version
was in use in the second century. He found in two Sahidic MSS.
translations of certain works which he looks upon as genuine writings
of Valontinus and other Gnostics of the second century; and he
observed that the scriptural citations in them agree accurately with
the Sahidic text. Hence he thinks it follows that the latter was in
common use in the second century. If this were the case, it would
be the most ancient of all the versions of the scriptures now existing.
But we do not know at what time the Sahidic translation of these
Gnostic treatises was made ; and it is evident that, at ichatever
period this took place, the translator, as a matter of course, would
avail himself of the help afforded by the Sahidic version of the
scriptures. If indeed the Gnostic works had been originally written
in the Egyptian language, or if they had been rendered into Sahidic
as soon as they first appeared, the case would be quite clear, but as
the fact now stands, it proves nothing.
Woide first conceived tlie idea of collecting together, arranging
and publishing the detached fragments of this ancient version, many
of which he had himself discovered in various MSS. in the Bodleian
Library, that of the British Museum, the Royal Collection at Paris,
and elsewhere. Miugarelli, Georgi, and Miinter, in their publica-
* Compare the cases of the Versio Itala and the Vulgate: the early
German translations and Martin Luther's: or Tyndal's and the Authorized
English version.
368 TEXTUAL ClUTIC'ISM OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. [bOOK III.
tions, added some passages of importance ; and Adler communicated
to Woide a transcript of others existing in the Italian collections ; so
that at length, by dint of great and long continued exertions, Dr.
Woide was enabled to prepare for the press a Sahidic New Testa-
ment, though with many and wide chasms, some of which, however,
could even now be filled up from materials which have come to light
since his day. Dr. Woide having died before the work was com-
pleted, it has been with great ability carried to a conclusion by
Henry Ford, who has been enabled to add to the collections of his
predecessor, as well as to correct some of those mistakes which are
inseparable from such a task when first undertaken. This impor-
tant and valuable work was published as an appendix to Woide 's
fac-simile of the Codex Alexandrinus. In appealing to tliis version,
it is needful to consult the table of contents, showing where it is
defective: in such passages, of course, no inference can be drawn
from the silence of collators.
Section XI. — The Bashmuric Version.
A few fragments have been discovered of another Egyptian version,
which was composed in a dialect that appears to be intermediate
between that of Upper and Lower Egypt, on which account it has
been pronounced by Champollion to be in the dialect of Faioum :
but it is commonly called the Bashmuric, a term given by Arabic
writers to the people and the language of the eastern part of the
Delta. The fragments which have been published, we owe to the
researches of Georgi and Miinter, Zoega and Engelbreth. The
version itself, as well as the language in which it is written, seems
to have a close affinity with the Sahidic, insomuch that Hug, who
has examined both versions with care, says: — '• But here 1 cannot
help doubting, whether this be really a distinct translation. It
follows the Thebaic version step by step, and word for word, in such
a manner that it would seem as if the latter were thankfully adopted
as it was, and only transcribed into the third idiom. Wherever the
Thebaic retains the Greek expression, this does so too ; where the
Thebaic adopts a peculiar phraseology, so does this Where it
deviates a moment from the Thebaic reading, it is either an error
of the copyist or a gloss." Under such circumstances, it would not
be fair to quote the Sahidic and Bashmuric as separate authorities
in favour of any reading in which they agree. On the other hand,
any fragment of the Bashmuric which may be discovered, containing
cnAP, in. I vrusiONS of tife new te.siamhnt. .")(;!)
a rondoring of any passages that are at present wanting in the
Sahidic, might bo allowed, provisionally, to fill up the chasm.
Section XII. — The Memphitic Version.
The tran.slation of the Now Testament, in the dialect which was
spoken in Lower Egypt, has come down to us in a much more com-
plete and perfect form tlian cither of the foregoing. Many manu-
scripts have been preserved, several of which have been written with
the greatest elegance and evidently with much care ; they are to be
found in almost all the public libraries of Europe, and in several
private collections, and by them we have good means of identifying
the readings of this ancient and valuable translation. When this
version first became known to the learned it was called the Coptic,
a term probably derived from Coptos, one of the inland cities of
Egypt, which was apparently the principal seat of the ancient lan-
guage of the country during the period of the Greek supremacy.
This epithet would, consequently, denote the language of ancient
Egypt generally, not any of its dialects in particular ; and the use
of it occasioned no ambiguity so long as no other dialect and no
otlier version were known to exist ; but now that no less than threo
Egyptian translations, in the same numl)er of dialects, have come
to light, it is needful to distinguish farther: hence there seems at
present a wiUingness to give to this translation some more definite
title, such as tlie Copto-Memphitic, or Memphitic simply — a name
which, as it is borrowed from that of the ancient capital of Lower
Egypt, under the Pharaohs, appears to be sufficiently descriptive
both of the language and its locality.
Some of the MSS. of this version were examined and their read-
ings extracted for the use of Bishop Fell, when he was preparing
his edition of the Greek Testament. A more extensive and more
accurate search was made preparatory to the publication of Mill ;
but the collations found in both these works are now superseded by
the publication of the version itself, which has enabled Wetstein,
Griesbach, and Scliolz to present many striking and characteristic
readings, of which former editors had not themselves received, and
could not communicate, any information. It was David Wilkins, a
native of Memel, who performed this useful service to criticism.
Having previously made himself acquainted with the Coptic lan-
guage, and acquired some knowledge of the places in which the
principal stores of Coptic literature were to be found, he repaired
A A a
370 TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. [bOOK III.
to England, which he made the principal seat of his inquiries —
although he extended them to Paris, and even to more remote
cities, when opportuuitj served — and after some years spent in
research, and in arranging the results of his examinations, he
brought out a complete edition of the whole New Testament in the
Copto-Memphitic dialect, or language of Lower Egypt. It is true
that some learned men have not been satisfied with the competency
of the editor for the duty which he undertook, nor with the manner
in which he has fulfilled it. He has been accused of misprinting
several passages so as to render them nearly unintelligible. It
seems to be admitted that his collations were either very imperfect,
or that he was not endowed with sagacity enough to select, at all
times, the genuine reading from the midst of the mass of variants
in which it was to be found : and almost all who are competent to
form an opinion on the point appear to be agreed that his Latin
translation from the Coptic text is in many places faulty, in some
ambiguous, and in others erroneous. But it is invidious to dwell
on such imperfections. Rather let us gratefully acknowledge the
service which the first editor of the Copto-Memphitic version has
done to critical science ; let us endeavour to profit by his labours ;
and let us hope that, when the time is ripe for an improved edition,
another scholar will step forward who will have skill sufficient to
avail himself of Wilkins's industry without imitating his errors, and
who will give to us what all students of the Bible would receive as
a most valuable boon — a carefully prepared critical edition of this
truly important translation. The task is worthy of the learning
and enterprise of Archdeacon Tattam, who cannot fail to be aware
of its importance, and who, of all living men, is perhaps the best
qualified for undertaking it with success.
In the mean time we are under the necessity of using the text as
given by Wilkins, with such occasional corrections as Coptic scholars
have, from time to time, suggested in their published writings, or
through the literary journals ; and the extracts given by the more
recent editors of the New Testament in their collections of various
readings. The collation of this excellent version discloses a
remarkable harmony between its text and that of the MSS. con-
stituting what Griesbach denominates the Alexandrine, Hug the
Hesychian, recension. The Codex Vaticanus, the Codex Ephremi,
the Dublin Codex Rescriptus of Matthew, the Codex No. LXIL in
the Royal Library at Paris, in the Gospels, — and in the Epistles,
the Vatican, the Alexandrine, and the Ephrem MSS. seldom agree
CHAP. 111.] VERSIONS OF TIIK NKW TESTAMKNT. 371
together in any reading of importance without carrying the Copto-
Memphitic version along with tliem ; and when it deviates, on any
occasion, from the majority of these, it is generally found that it is
accompanied by some one or other among them, and by several
other documents belonging to the same recension. For this we can
easily account, when wo consider that this translation was probably
executed in the neighbourhood of Alexandria, about the fourth or
fifth century, when the recension or revised edition of the Greek
text had recently been published there, and was still in a tolerable
state of purity and the height of its popularity. This close adhe-
rence to the standard of its ti-ibo makes it a far more satisfactory
and safe guide on critical points than one which follows readings
selected from a number of different editions. It must be borne in
mind, however, that the Coptic version, as well as the Greek origi-
nal, was liable to mistakes in transcription, and to the endeavours
of conscientious men to correct such errors as they thought them-
selves to be enabled to detect ; and as they may, in such labours,
have used Greek MSS. of a dilFerent family from that of tlie
document itself, various readings may have been introduced, and
in some places new ones may have completely superseded those of
the version as it stood when it was first composed.
In criticising the text of the Copto-Memphitic vei-siou, it would be
very desirable to make use of the Arabic translations which have
been made for the use of the native Egyptians, to whom, for several
generations, the Coptic, in all its forms, has been a dead language —
used in their churches, but no longer understood by the bulk of their
people. Several such translations, of different parts of the New
Testament, exist in manuscript. It might not be expedient to
print them all, but they could easily be collated for the purpose of
ascertaining their readings.
Section XIII. — The Moeso-Gothic Version.
A beautiful manuscript, written on purple parchment in letters
of silver, and thence called the Codex Argentcus, was taken posses-
sion of by the Swedes, toward the close of the Thirty Years' War,
among the spoils of Prague, and was carried to Stockholm. On
examination it was found to contain a version of the Gospels in a
language no longer spoken, but evidently a branch of the great
Germanic family of tongues. For some time the opinions of the
learned were divided, some pronouncing tlie manuscript to be
372 TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. [bOOK III,
written in the Gothic, others in tlie ancient Prankish tongue; but it
is now ascertained beyond all reasonable doubt that the tongue is
Gothic, and that the version itself forms part of that translation of
the scriptures which was made for the use of his countrymen then
dwelling in Mresia, on the banks of the Lower Danube, by Ulphilas,
the bishop, or metropolitan, as he is sometimes called, of the Visi-
goths, in the reign of the Emperor Valens. The Codex Argenteus
seems to have been presented to Vossius by Queen Christina of
Sweden ; by him it was given to Franciscus Junius his imcle, who
published it. It afterwards was purchased by the Count De la
Gardie, and is now deposited in the University Library at Upsal.
Several editions of the version which it contains have appeared;
the last and best is that of Zahn, printed at Weissenfels in 1805.
About the middle of the last century, Knittel discovered in the
Wolfeubuttel collection a Codex Rescriptus, containing, under the
works of Isidore of Seville, some fragments of a Latino-Gothic MS,
of the Epistles of Paul. By dint of great care he was enabled to
transcribe and publish about forty verses of the Epistle to the
Romans, which ho published. More recently, the Cardinal Angelo
Maio observed certain characters half-erased, under the text of the
Homilies of Gregory the Great, which, on examination, were found
to exhibit the samo language and alphabet as the Codex Argenteus.
A more scrutinizing search revealed to him that he had disentombed
some most important fragments of the Gothic translation of the
Epistles of Paul. A second manuscript of the same kind afforded
another copy of the same portion of scripture, supplying some of the
chasms of its predecessor ; a third gave two passages of Matthew,
peculiarly interesting, as filling up two chasms in the Codex Argen-
teus ; and a fourth document contributed its help, though of less
extensive usefulness. These discoveries were made by the Cardinal
while he was at the head of the Ambrosian Library at Milan ; his
removal soon afterwards to the Vatican interrupted the prosecution
of these researches, but it is to be hoped will not prevent the results
already attained from being given to the world.
The Mceso-Gothic version was clearly made from the Greek, but
yet has in a few places evidently been altered to^make it conform
with the Latin version. The Gospels are arranged in an order
which is never found in any but Western documents — viz. Matthew,
John, Luke, Mark. It has been remarked that the text in many
characteristic readings agrees with that of the Latin Codex Brixi-
anus or Brescian MS. published by Bianchini, and there is a very
CHAP. III.] VERSIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT, 373
great similarity likewise between their outward form and the stylo
of their execution. They are probably of the same age and country,
both liaving been written in Italy, and apparently about the begin-
ning of tho sixth century. The Goths at that time had moved
from their temporary dwelling-place on the Danube, and had
possession of tho sovereignty of Italy. If we except some readings,
which tho version of Ulphilas may have derived at this period from
the Latin translation, we perceive that in general it coincides with
the Constantinopolitan recension. It is also to be borne in mind
that tho Codex Brixianus itself does not present to us the ancient
Latin version as it existed in its primitive state ; it exhibits a text
which has evidently been revised and remodelled, as many critics
have observed, so as to be brought into a very close conformity with
the Greek MSS. of the Constantinopolitan family.
Section XIV. — The Sclavonic Version.
This translation, which is still used in the churches of Russia,
and in those parts of ancient Poland in which the supremacy of
Rome was not acknowledged, was made in tho ninth century by
Cyril and Methodius, two Greek missionaries, for the use of the
Moravians, thou recently converted to Christianity. The language
in which it is composed is no longer spoken by any of tho divisions
of the Sclavonic family of nations ; but it has a close affinity with
the Russian, Polish, Bohemian, and Servian tongues, so as to
be on the whole tolerably intelligible to all of them when read,
though not employed by any as their vernacular speech. The
version was prepared from Greek manuscripts which they brought
from Constantinople, and, consequently, follows pretty closely the
text which was there used; but in a few passages their codices
appear to have contained readings which belong to a different
recension. Though not a very ancient version, the Sclavonic is
regarded by those who are acquainted with it as a very valuable
one, and is said to give the meaning of the Greek text with very
great correctness ; yet Dobrowsky, who collated for Griesbach this
version, not only as commonly printed, but as found in several
editions and MSS. observes that it has been revised and, in some
parts, remodelled more than once ; and the alterations made have
affected not merely the language of the translation, but the text. It
is very satisfactory to derive our citations and extracts from a
374 TEXTUAL CUITICISM OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. [bOOK III.
person so competent in all respects for affording exact and trust-
worthy information.
I avail myself of this opportunity to correct an error into which
I fell in my account of the Sclavonic version of the Old Testament,
in p. 112 of this work. I have there said that the eclitio princeps
of the translation was printed at Prague, in the year 1519. For
this statement I had the authority of almost every preceding writer
who has touched upon the subject; nevertheless it is certainly
erroneous; for Mr. Henderson* — with whose excellent "Biblical
Researches in Russia" 1 have since become acquainted, and who
manifestly is fully informed upon the question — mentions that the
edition which was printed at Prague in the year 1519 was not a
copy of the Sclavonian version at all, but the whole or part of a
new translation of the scriptures, made at that time by Skorina, a
physician, in the Polish-Russian dialect, which is commonly spoken
by the inhabitants of the provinces usually called White Russia.
From the same authority I find that the Sclavonic Gospels were
printed at Ugrovallachia in 1512; that several editions of these and
other parts of the New Testament appeared there and elsewhere in
various years ; but that the first complete New Testament in Scla-
vonic was printed at Ostrog in the year 1580. It was succeeded, in
the following year, by the entire Bible from the same press. These
editions were both published under the patronage and at the expense
of Constantine, Duke of Ostrog; who, in preparing for the work,
caused a great number of Greek and Sclavonian MSS. to be col-
lated, and also copies of the scriptures in various other languages, t
It is not impossible that the printed Sclavonian text owes to this
careful preparation some of those readings by which it recedes from
its primitive recension ; nevertheless, as a version the work was con-
siderably improved, for it seems to be allowed that many errata and
defects which exist in the Sclavonian MSS. are removed from the
printed copies.
* Biblical Researches in Russia, p. 103-4.
t Biblical Researches in Russia, p. 81-82. The whole of this chapter (iv.)
deserves to be carefully studied.
CHAP. IV. 1 CITATIONS FROM THE NEW TE.STAMENT. .'i75
CHAPTER IV.
CITATIONS FROM THE NEW TESTAMENT,
Section I. — Preliminary Cautions.
The following remarks by Bishop Marsh, on tho Citations from
tho New Testament found in tho works of tho Fathers of tlio Church
and other ancient authors, seem to embrace all that can bo advanced
upon the subject, and are so brief that my readers will feel gratified
by my transferring them to these pages : —
" Tho Quotations from the Greek Testament, found in the works
of ecclesiastical writers, have been the subject of long and serious
controversy. Whilo the Elzevir text was considered as perfect,
every deviation from that text was consequently regarded as a de-
viation from the truth. Whenever it was observed, therefore, that
a Greek Father quoted tho Greek Testament in words which were
not precisely the same as tho Elzevir text, it was inferred that in
those quotations there was something wrong. And since it is not
probable that the manuscripts used by the Greek Fathers in tho
second, third, and fourth centuries should be less conformable than
modern manuscripts with the autographs of the sacred writers, the
differences between those quotations and the Elzevir text were
ascribed to the carelessness of tho Fathers in quoting from their
manuscripts. But, as it is no longer believed that the common
reading may alicays be defended, the supposition adopted to
account for the deviations in question has lost its chief support.
Examples of inaccuracy may indeed be discovered in every writer,
whether ancient or modern. But we are only concerned with the
general practice of the Fathers ; we only want to know whether we
may, in general or upon the whole, conclude from their quotations
to what was contained in tho manuscripts from which they quoted.
When we meet with quotations fi'om an English Bible in tho
writings of English divines, we, in general, consider their quotations
as fair representations of our English text, though examples of
inaccuracy might be easily produced, arising cither from their being
incorrectly remembered or incorrectly transcribed. In like manner,
37G TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. [bOOK III.
when we meet with quotations from the Greek Bible, whether of
the Old or New Testament, in the writings of the Greek Fathers,
there appears to be no reason for our refusing to consider those
quotations as fair representations of their copies of the Greek text,
unless particular circumstances in particular examples interfere to
warrant our making an exception. We must likewise recoUect that
the Greek Fathers were frequently engaged in controversy, which
rendered accuracy in quotation peculiarly necessary ; for neglect on
this point, which could not fail to be detected, would immediately
have put arms into the hands of their adversaries. If Justin Martyr,
in his Dialogue with Trypho, a work written to convince the Jews
that Jesus was the Messiah, had been careless in his quotations
from the Greek Bible, the detection of their inaccuracy would have
defeated the very object he had in view. Again, if Origen, in his
Answer to Celsus, or Cyril of Alexandria, in his Reply to Julian the
Apostate, had been incorrect in their quotations from the Greek
Testament, what greater triumph could the enemies of Christianity
in those ages have desired than the exposure of such mistakes?"*
To this it is only necessary to add that the observed difference
between the text of the scriptural citations in the works of the
Fathers, and that of some modern copy or edition which was pre-
sumed to be everywhere correct, frequently gave rise to another
conjecture — namely, that the passage quoted had been correctly
given in the manuscript which the author employed, and was by
him correctly quoted (which of course meant that it was set forth
exactly as it is found in the modern exemplar, presumed to be
accurate in all its readings); but that the copyists — through whose
hands the writings of the ancient Fathers have come down to us —
had been very careless and negligent ; and that they, by their inat-
tention to the exemplar from which they were transcribing, produced
that diversity which at first sight appeared so perplexing. This
conjecture has often been acted upon as matter of certain knowledge
by editors of the works of the Fathers. Presuming upon the prin-
ciples which it involves as infallibly true, they have often altered the
text of such scriptural citations as different from the readings of
the received text of the New Testament, and so produced a confor-
mity between them, in their printed copies, where the manuscripts
exhibited a diversity. Nor was this feehng confined to editors and
correctors of the press ; it has often influenced the transcribers in
* Lectures on the Criticism and Interpretation of the Bible. Lect. vii.
p. m-6.
CHAP. IV.] CITATIONS FROM THE NEW TESTAMENT. 377
the middle ages, the raoro modern of whom have, in various places,
altered the patristical quotations from scripture which they ought
simply to have reproduced, so as to make them agree in every im-
portant particular with the MSS. of the Bible which they them-
selves used, and in which they did not suspect any inaccuracy.
Not only have these mistaken opinions led to an improper handling
of the text of the Fathers, but in some places there is reason to
suspect that passages have been introduced, as scriptural citations,
by the copyists of the Fathers, which the transcribers deemed to
bo genuine scripture, and which appeared to them to be necessary
in order to complete the writer's argument, but which the author
had not quoted, cither because he knew nothing of them, or because
he thought them irrelevant to his purpose. And in many cases
writings have been ascribed to some of the moi'C distinguished
among the Fathers, and even appear in their printed works, which
contain internal proofs of a later date, and which the authors
to whom they are attributed could not possibly have composed.
On those accounts critical editions of the writings of the Fathers
ought to be consulted, and a sound discrimination should, in every
passage, be exercised in separating the genuine from the spurious.
Caution must also be used in examining the circumstances of each
quotation, in order to ascertain whether the object of the writer
made it necessary for him to cite the exact words of scripture;
whether he appears to have taken time and trouble to verify the
accuracy of his transcript by referring to his manuscript and
deliberately transcribing the passage which he has adduced;
whether he affirms that the passage stands in the scripture, or
at least in his own codex, in the very words which he cites;
whether he notices any variation in the reading of the text, and
gives a preference to one over another, and on what grounds;
whether he urges a word or phrase, argues upon it, makes it the
foundation of his reasoning, and builds upon it any doctrine or
fact ; or whether the circumstances are such as show that his pur-
pose would liave been sufficiently answered by a mere allusion,
without any verbal exactness, and would have permitted the addi-
tion, omission, or substitution of a phi'ase, to adapt the text more
completely to the subject of his discourse. On this point we
cannot be too particular. Keeping this distinction between vague
references and deliberate citations in view, it will be found that the
Fathers of the first- and second generation after the times of the
B B b
378 TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF THE NEW TESTAMENT, [bOOK III.
Apostles can lend us but little aid in the textual criticism of the
New Testament. Some of them, as for example Clemens Roma-
nus in his first epistle, and Justin Martyr in his Dialogue with
Trypho, have brought forward passages from the Old Testament,
which, from their length and other circumstances, appear to be
cited witli deliberation, and probably were written down carefully
from the text as it stood in their manuscripts of the LXX. But
the subjects of which they treated did not apparently require from
them — so at least they seem to have thought — the same minuteness
in citing the writings of the Evangelists and Apostles ; and, accord-
ingly, we find in the writings of the Fathers who lived before the
close of the second century chiefly vague and indefinite references
to that part of the sacred volume ; and sometimes where we think
we can see traces of a more careful method of citation, we soon find
that we have been mistaken in our surmise, for not unfrequently
the same passage is brought forward by the same writer in another
part of his works in a different form. It is not until we come to
the times of Irenteus and Clement of Alexandria that we begin to
perceive the proofs of some care and consistency in the production
of scriptural testimonies from the New Testament. Thenceforward
such citations were used as proofs in controversy, which, after that
period, unhappily became very common among Christians ; and in
such instances we may be sure they received a sufficient degree of
attention. We may also rely with some confidence on the citations
of the text, which we find embodied in systematic commentaries or
homilies on particular passages; for in works of that kind it is
reasonable to suppose that the writer would keep his Bible open
before him and refer constantly to the text on which he was
engaged. But even in such compositions the same degree of
certainty does not attend a brief and casual reference to another
passage, say in a different book or author, introduced by way of
illustration. Griesbach has given a specimen of the manner in
which every one of the Fathers ought to be collated, in his Tract
entitled, Novi Testamenti Loci ah Origene et Clemente Alex, in
Scriptis eorum quce Greece supersunt allegati, printed in the second
volume of his Symbolce Criticw. The collation of Origen in this
essay is complete and satisfactory; that of Clement he does not
pretend to give with the same particularity ; and in truth I have
observed not a few citations in his works which Griesbach has not
noticed; yet this investigation of Clement, imperfect though it be.
CHAP. IV. J CITATIONS FROM THE NEW TESTAMENT. 379
is tlio best that wo have anywhere extant; and that of Origen
stands alone, not only unrivalled but unimitatcd, by any similar
research upon any one of the ancient Fathers.
It is sometimes not less important to ascertain whether there bo
any ptissagcs which an ancient writer does not quote than to dis-
cover how ho reads those which he does. The Church Fathers
whose works have come down to us from antiquity were in general
very industrious writers. They seldom took a subject in hand
without saying everything that suggested itself to them, which
they deemed true, and conducive to the end which they had in
view; and tliis was especially the mode in which they conducted
controversy. Hence, if there bo any passage in the New Testament,
or which some authorities attribute to the New Testament, which
would liave lent to any of the Church Fathers effectual aid — would
have enabled him easily to assail the positions of an adverse system,
or to defend some weak point of his own, but which he has never
employed, even on occasions when it would have been of the utmost
use, we may in general conclude with certainty that he was un-
acquainted with the text in question. And if it appears that he
recognised the book of scripture in which it is found as genuine,
and has adduced other passages from it to prove certain doctrines,
and more especially if it be found that he lias cited words from the
adjoining context to establish a point which would have been more
directly and more forcibly proved by the text in question liad he
known of it ; under such circumstances as these we are fully autho-
rised to determine that the passage was not in his manuscript, nor
in any other with which ho was acquainted or to which he had
access. I have already stated that the silence of an ancient writer
respecting such a text in one of his works may more than counter-
balance a direct citation of it found in another of them; for the
latter might have been inserted by a copyist from the writings of
some other author in good repute, long after the time when the
original document in which it now stands was written; or it might
creep in from the margin. For the same reason if the MSS. of the
same work ditFer, some containing and some omitting a quotation or
argument of this kind, it is generally safest to regard the shorter
reading as genuine. This is no one-sided or partial rule ; it applies
equally to the advocates of all sides on every question tliat was agitated
ill the ancient church — to the Montanists, the Donatists, the Orige-
uists, the Arians, the Eutychians, the Pelagians, and the Catholics
alike. The writings of Eusebius and of Athanasius, of Pclagius and
380 TEXTUAL CRITICISM OP THE NEW TESTAMENT. [BOOK III.
of Augustine, are to be viewed in the same impartial light, and to be
weighed in the same equitable balance. The critic, as such, has no
concern with the opinions which these eminent men maintained,
except to determine whether any passages which would have sup-
ported those opinions — whether they be true or false — is cited or
omitted in those works, in which, had it been known to the author,
some mention of it would have been found.
Another caution which it is necessary to observe is, that none
but the Fathers who wrote in the Greek language, or who at least
understood it, and were in the habit of consulting the scriptures of
the New Testament in the original, can give direct testimony as to
the Greek text. Here again I cannot do better than adduce the
clear and pertinent remarks of Bishop Marsh, He intimates that
there is a "difference in the degrees of evidence afforded by the
Fathers, according to the language in which they wrote ; and it is
the more necessary to notice this as there are several writers,
especially in England, who have not perceived the difference.
Direct testimony as to the authenticity of readings in the Greek
Testament is afforded only by the Greeh Fathers, who alone quoted
the words of the original. The quotations of the Latin Fathers
were taken from the Latin version, and, consequently, bear imme-
diate evidence to this version, or to its readings as contained in their
copies of it. If therefore we have reason, in any particular place,
to believe that this version has been altered or interpolated, the
circumstance that Latin writers may be found who agree with it in
that place in opposition to the Greek manuscripts, is evidence of no
value whatsoever; for it is evident that wherever a version is
corrupt, the reading produced from it cannot be genuine."* Of
course this canon must always be understood as not applying to
those instances in which one of the Fathers, who commonly cites
the scriptures through the medium of a translation, expressly
appeals to the readings of the original, and afl^rms that the Greek
manuscripts read the text in a particular way. And if, as is some-
times the case, such a writer expressly points out a discrepancy
between his version and the original, and more especially if he
presses the authority of the one as superior to that of the other, his
testimony is twofold : it applies to the reading of the version, and
to that of the Greek MSS. which he employed. In both cases we
are bound to receive his evidence, if he be a writer of unsuspected
veracity as to the matter of fact, that such as he affirms them to
* Lectures on the Criticism and Interpretation of the Bible, pp. 178, 9.
CHAP. IV. J CITATIONS FROM THE NEW TESTAMENT. 381
have been wore the readings of his copies of the version and of the
original; but we are not in all cases bound to adopt liis judgment
as to the genuineness or spuriousness of the readings exhibited in
either. It is no disrespect to the memory of the Fathers to aftirra
that in matters of this kind they were liable to be mistaken: in
fact, many of them must have been frequently deceived upon such
points ; for very often we find the very same text cited by dififerent
Fathers in as many different forms as there ai'e authoi'S who quote
it. Such discrepancies are found in tlie works even of the most
learned among them : in cases of this kind not more than one of
the conflicting citations can possibly bo right, while on the con-
trary it is conceivable that every one of them may bo wrong ; and
as we never have the means of determining with demonstrative
certainty the quarter in which the trutli or error lies, we are driven
to the practical conclusion that it is not safe to adopt any one of
them as an infallible guide in matters of textual criticism.
Section II. — Citations in Greek Writers.
From causes into which this is not a fit place for inquiring, the
direct citations from the Greek Testament found in the writings of
the earliest Christian Fathers are very few, and generally of little
use in the criticism of the text. We observe in their works some-
times the words of the Apostles cited with an expression or foimula,
such as, " It is wi'itten," showing that they were taken from a book ;
but in few instances is the book or author named. More frequently
the words of the New Testament are set forth without any mark
of (quotation ; and most frequently of all, the sense or substance of
scriptural passages is alleged, but not in the exact words of the
sacred writers, nor is it given as a citation. We cannot attach
much weight to such testimonies, when our wish is to determine tlie
exact words employed by the writers of the New Testament. It is
not until we arrive at the middle of the second century that we find,
in any of the cluirch writers, quotations sufficiently express, frequent,
and careful, to make them usefid to us in these inquiries. It may
bo doubted whether several of the persons whose names are about
to bo enumerated were accurate enough in their manner of appeal-
ing to the writings of the New Testament to render their authority
of much value; but with respect to these, and indeed to tho Fathers
ill general, it is to be observed that they are not always quoted by
critics as deciding even the fact of the existence, in the MSS. of
382 TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. [bOOK III.
apostolic scriptures, of the readings which they exhibit. It is
enough for us that we have little doubt upon our minds that they
really used and cited the same books which constitute our New
Testament: their care, their fidelity, their trustworthiness, are to
be judged of by the same tests that are applicable to the testimony
of other persons in similar cases. In truth, some among them so
often adduce the same passage in two or more different shapes, that
it is clear they did not always consult their MSS. before writing
down their scriptural citations. It is the duty of a critical editor
to point out these variations whenever they occur, and of the reader
to draw from them that inference respecting the weight to be
assigned to the writer's testimony which he thinks they warrant.
The following among the Greek Fathers are most frequently
cited : —
1. Clemens Romanus wrote, in the name of the Church of
Rome, an epistle to that of Corinth, in which the First Epistle of
Paul to the Corinthians is expressly quoted, and several other
books of the New Testament are evidently referred to. Many
other works are extant attributed to this writer, but all of them are
now commonly looked upon as spurious. The genuine epistle was
written about A.D. 96.
2. Ignatius of Antioch, who suffered martyrdom about A.D. 107,
wrote seven epistles, which have come down to us in two different
forms — both of them in all likelihood interpolated — one apparently
by an Arian, the other by a Catholic of the fifth century. There
are many references and allusions to the scriptures of the New
Testament in those compositions, but no direct citations. Several
other epistles professing to have been written by Ignatius are now
universally believed to be spurious.
3. Justin Martyr wrote about A.D. 140. His two Apologies,
and Dialogue with Trypho the Jew, are generally acknowledged
as genuine; other works ascribed to him are of very doubtful
authority ; and it is evident from the text of the citations from the
Old Testament found in the latter part of the Dialogue that they
have been recast since the writer's time; for they follow tlio
Hexaplar recension of the Septuagint, which was not executed
till long after his death. Justin several times quotes, from the
"Memoirs of the Apostles,'' passages which are manifestly derived
from our Four Gospels, but yet do not iu general agree exactly
with any edition of the text; and in some instances he pro-
duces the same passage in difterent forms, which may be explained
ClUr. IV. I CITATIONS PROM THE NEW TESTAMENT. 383
from his quoting from memory, or freely altering the words to
accommodato them to the object in view. There are a few expre.s-
sious which soom to bo borrowed from the Epistles, but they are
obscure; they are unaccompanied with any marks of citation, and
depart still more widely from the text ; so that for the amendment
or confiiTnation of tho reading they are of very little service,
4. Theophilus of Antioch, who wrote, about A.D, 180, five books
in defence of tho Christian religion, addressed to Autolycus, a
lieathcn, has quotations and references which, like those found in
preceding writers, arc of much interest as showing tho antiquity and
genuineness both of the historical and epistolary parts of tlic Xew
Testament ; but he does not confine himself to the exact words of
his authors, nor can we employ his citations for critical purposes
with much advantage.
5. Clement of Alexandria seems to have written about the year
194: of our era: many of his works have come down to us, and
although ho also cites the scriptures very frequently memoritcr, and
in other cases appears to have found readings in his MSS. which
aro quite different from those in any copies that have come down to
us, yet his works are more serviceable in textual criticism than
those of all tho preceding writers put together. The best edition of
tho works of Clement is that of Potter, Oxford, 1715, fol.: the best
collation is that of Griesbach {Symbolce Criticce, vol. ii. and Notes
to his Greek Testament); who, however, has candidly stated that lio
merely compiled it from Potter's Index of Scriptural Passages. It
is defective in several places.
6. Origen, who studied under Clement, and who flourished between
A.D. 220 and 253, is still more useful, from tho accuracy witli which
he usually brings forward his quotations, and the frequency with
which he argues upon the very words of tho sacred text. Tho best
edition of his works is that of the ]3enedictines, edited by De la Rue,
Paris, 1733-1759, 4 vols, fol.: and the best collation of the scriptural
citations in them, or perhaps in the writings of any of the Fathers,
is that of Gricsbach. (Symbolce Criticce, vol. ii. pp. 320-G20.)
7. Eusobius of Ca?sarea, in his voluminous writings, has many
extracts from the New Testament, which appear to be carefuUy
copied. lie flourished in the beginning of the fourth century, having
been present at the Council of Nice in A.D, 325, and taken an
active part in its delibei*ations.
8. Athanasius became bishop of Alexandria in the year 32G, and
died in A.D. 373. His works likewise abound in citations, which
384: TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. [bOOK III.
from their nature and object must be regarded as testimonies to the
state of the text in his day.
9. A dialogue against the Marcionites appears to have been in-
tended to pass under the name of Origen; but it is placed by
Lardner in the year 330. It quotes largely from the Gospels.
10. Macarius, an Egyptian monk of the fourth century, wrote
several homilies and other works which have been preserved and
published ; but the editors are thought to have altered the scriptural
citations so as to make them conform to modern MSS. and printed
editions, a few places excepted, in which, as Wetstein conjectures, the
person who made the alterations did not know that scripture was
quoted.
11. Basil the Great, bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia, is placed
by Lardner in the year 370. His genuine writings (for many at-
tributed to him are spurious) abound with scriptural citations. The
best edition is that of the Benedictines, edited by Father Gamier at
Paris, in 3 vols. fol. 1721-1730.
12. Gregory of Nyssa, brother to the foregoing, was also a volu-
minous writer. He was a diligent expositor of scripture, and has
occasionally noticed various readings found in different copies of
the text.
13. Gregory of Nazianzum, contemporary of the two preceding,
wrote largely, in prose and verse, on the Christian doctrine, and on
subjects of edification. His quotations are not always exact, nor is
this to be expected in such compositions ; yet they often show that
certain readings were unknown to him, and sometimes they have
every appearance of care and deliberation,
14. Csesarius, the brother of Gregory of Nazianzum, wrote a
work entitled " Questions and Answers," which is published in the
Bibliotheca Patrum.
15. Cyril of Jerusalem flourished about the same period.
16. Epiphanius, bishop of Salamis (others call it Constantia) in
Cyprus. His works have been published by the celebrated Jesuit
F. Petavius, Paris, 1722 ; but many suspect that grievous alterations
have been made in the text by the transcribers. It is certainly not
easy to reconcile the facts for which Epiphanius appears to vouch
with the truth of history ; but whether this be owing to himself or
to his transcribers, may admit of question. Jerome says he was
alive in A.D. 392, when he wrote his Catalogue of Illustrious Men.
17. John Chrysostom, as he is now generally called, was made
bishop or patriarch of Constantinople, A.D. 398. His works are
CHAP. IV.] CITATIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 385
very extensive, and abound in <iuotatious, some of wliicli appear to
be exact and careful; in others, it is suspected by Griesbach and
insinuated by Wetstein that he contented himself with copying tho
observations of other learned men who had preceded him as com-
mentators on the scriptures. The best editions of his works arc
those of Saville and Montfaucon.
17. Titus, bishop of Bostra, in Arabia, was of the same period.
Many observations of his, or at least attributed to him, are found
in tlie Catcnce Patrum, both published and in MS.
18. The works falsely ascribed to Dionysius the Areopagite, were
probably written about the end of the fourth or the beginning of the
fifth century.
19. Theodoret, bishop of Cyrus, flourished in the beginning of the
fifth century. His works, which include an exposition of the Epistles
of Paul, have been published at Paris, by Sirmond and Gamier, in
five vols. fol. 1642-1685.
20. Theophilus, bishop of Alexandria, wrote largely against the
doctrines of Origen ; but few of his works now survive in the original :
his Paschal Epistles have been translated into Latin by Jerome, and
are found in the collection of his works.
21. Cyril succeeded Theophilus in the patriarchal see. His works
occupy six volumes folio; they are almost all controversial, and
display much ability and learning, with not a little polemical vehe-
mence. His citations are useful, but he does not always adhere to
one recension of the text.
22. Isidore of Pelusium wrote a number of epistles, from which
the scholiasts in the Greek MSS. have largely borrowed; they have
been published in four books which fill a folio volume: the best
edition is that of Father Scott, Paris, 1638.
23. Nonnus, also in the fifth century, wrote a metrical paraphrase
on the Gospel according to John, which has been published, though
fi-om an imperfect exemplar.
24. A Synopsis of Sacred Scripture, printed in the collection of
the works of Athanasiu^, but not mentioned by any of the ancients,
and judged by his editors to be spurious, was probably written about
the same period. The author of it is supposed to have been a second
Athanasius, nephew to Cyril of Alexandria, and some think he was
the person of that name who became bishop of Alexandria about
A.D. 500.
25. The monk Maximus was a laborious and zealous, but violent
coatroversialist. He also wrote several works in illustration of the
C c c
386 TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. [BOOK III.
Holy Scriptures, which have come down to us, and have been pub-
lished by Combefis, Paris, 1G75. He flourished in the seventh
century.
26. John of Damascus, usually called Damascenus simply, wrote
in the eighth century a very useful work, containing a digest of the
commentaries of Chrysostom, Theodoret, and Cyril, on the Epistles
of Paul, and various other books. They were printed at Paris in
1712 ; but Wetstein affirms that Lo Quien, the editor, or the correc-
tor of the press, has in several passages departed from the text of
the MSS.
27. Photius, patriarch of Constantinople in the ninth century,
wrote several works which have been published separately; but no
collected edition has yet appeared.
28. J^cumenius in the tenth century wrote a Commentary on the
Acts and Epistles of the New Testament, which has been pubUshed.
29. Theophylact, bishop of Bulgaria, not only abridged the com-
mentaries of Chrysostom, but wrote an exposition of the Gospels and
of the Epistles of Paul: the former was printed at Rome, 1542 — the
latter at London, 1636. He wrote in the eleventh century.
30. Euthymius Zygabenus in the twelfth century not only com-
posed a commentary on the Gospels and Epistles, but likewise a
work entitled " A Doctrinal Panoply." Some of his writings, how-
ever, only exist in manuscript. He was a monk of Constantinople.
It would be useless to continue this list so as to embrace writers
of a later period.
Section III. — Citations in Latin Writers.
The observation of Bishop Marsh has already been quoted, that
the citations from the New Testament found in the works of Latin
writers are direct evidence only of the readings of the Latin version
which those writers used, and can give none but indirect testimony
respecting the text of the original. This i^ a very important dis-
tinction, and ought always to be borne in mind. The use of citations
found in the Western Fathers is merely to point out to us, or to
make us sure that we have, the genuine text of the translation which
they employed : they can add nothing, under ordinary circumstances,
to the testimony of that vex-sion. But this principle does not apply
to cases in which a Latin writer professes to have examined the
original Greek ; to have found one particular reading there ; to have
ClIAP. IV.] CITATIONS 01" THE NEW TESTAMENT. 387
discovered a diversity in the copies of the Greek text, or to have
observed that his own church version did not accurately express the
sense of the original. Such observations afford direct testimony
respecting tlie contents of the Greek manuscripts to which these
writers had access, and are of weight in proportion to the learning,
care, and fidelity of the writer in whoso pages they occur, and of the
moans of information on such points which he is known to have
possessed. We now pass on to a brief catalogue of the Latin writers
whose names are found most frequently in works of criticism.
1. Irenreus, or rather his translator, may bo placed at the head of
the list. Irenasus wrote, about A.D. 185, five books against Heresies,
which, though composed in Greek, have only come down to us in an
ancient Latin version, except a few fragments which Eusebius and
other writers have quoted in the original language. It is reasonable
to suppose that the Latin translation of Irenrous is somewhat more
recent than his own day; but Mill thinks that his works were known
to TertuUian in their Latin dress. The version is undoubtedly very
old; by some it is dated at the commencement of the third cen-
tury, others place it at the middle or end of the fourth.
2. TertuUian himself occupies the second place. He began to
write about A.D. 200, and continued to publish at intervals till his
death, which is placed in the year 220 by some, and by others in 245.
Ho wrote both in Greek and Latin ; some of his works in the former
language are mentioned by himself, but they are all lost now, and
many of his Latin ones also. Although some of the works of
TertuUian, especially his books against Marcion, must have turned
his attention to textual criticism, and his knowledge of Gi'eek must
have given him some advantages, he yet employed a Latin MS. of
the Gospel of Luke, which was grossly interpolated and corrupted ;
and frequently rails against his antagonist for having wilfully ex-
punged readings which certainly were not in the text as written by
the evangelist. In the other books of scripture likewise, it contained
many erroneous readings which its owner seems never to have sus-
pected. In Kigault's edition of TertuUian (Paris, 1044, fol.) there
is a careful index of scriptural citations in which every passage
quoted is set forth at full length. (P. 577 — 628.)
3. Cyprian became bishop of the Christians at Carthage in A.D.
248, and suffered martyrdom by being beheaded in the year 257.
His treatises and epistles which have come down to us, and have
been frequently published, contain many references to the scriptures
of the New Testament, and many express quotations from them.
388 TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. [bOOK III.
Some works attributed to him, and found in the printed editions, are
doubted bj learned men, especially the book of Testimonies against
the Jews, which appears to be more modern than Cyprian's time ;
but the Epistle De Spectaculis, that entitled De Disciplind et Bono
Pudicitiw, the book De Laude Martyrii, the treatise Ad Novatianum
Hcereticuni, and that De Behaptismate, are certainly ancient, aud
of the age of Cyprian himself, though it may be questioned whether
he was the author of them.
4. Novatian of Rome was a cotemporary of Cyprian. His book
upon the Trinity is printed at the end of Rigault's edition of Ter-
tullian: some of his letters are intermixed with those of Cyprian,
and a complete edition of his works was published by the learned
Mr. Jackson.
5. Minutius Felix (A.D. 210), Arnobius (A.D. 305), Lactanctius
(A.D. 312), wrote in defence of the Christian religion against gain-
saj^ers aud persecutors; but their subject did not lead them to cite
largely from the scriptures of the New Testament. Lactantius
censures Cyprian for adducing testimonies of scripture to confute
those persons who did not admit its authority, and could only be
silenced by argumentative reasoning. Hence their writings afford
little or no help to the critic.
6. Juveucus, who lived in the reign of Constantino, has inter-
woven into one continuous poetical narrative the events of our
Lord's life recorded in the Gospels. The work is useful in those
parts of scripture where interpolations are suspected. The narrator
adheres closely to the text.
7. Hilary of Poictiers flourished about the middle of the fourth
century. His works which have been published consist chiefly of
commentaries, one of which is upon the Gospel of Matthew ; the
rest are upon the Old Testament. He also wrote twelve books on
the Trinity against the Ariaus. He is commonly believed to have
made much use of Origeu's commentaries in compiling his own.
8. Lucifer of Cagliari was cotemporary with Hilary: he wrote
upon the dissensions by which the church was unhappily distracted
in the fourth century; but his writings, being chiefly composed of
passages from the scriptures, are more useful in criticism than works
of controversy are in general. He has quoted largely from the Acts
of the Apostles, as also from the Epistle to the Hebrews ; and he
has cited almost the whole of the second Epistle of John and that of
Jude.
9. Optatus of Milevi in Nuraidia was somewhat more recent.
CHAP. IV.] CITATIOXS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 389
Ilis work against the Donatists has been referred by Lardner to
A.D. 370; it preserves some readings of the ancient Latin version
which are not found in the Vulgate, and of which some appear to
belong to the genuine text.
10. Ambrose, bishop of Milan, wrote about the same period, and
long afterwards; for Jerome in his Catalogue says, that he was
writing still, while he was composing that book. His works in the
Benedictine edition consist of two folio volumes, and comprise an
exposition of Luke's Gospel, and many incidental quotations and
elucidations of various parts of the New Testament.
11. Hilary the Deacon, A.D. 380, is commonly believed to have
been the author of a Commentary on the thirteen Epistles of Paul,
(all except that to the Hebrews), which is usually joined with the
works of Ambrose, though certainly not his composition. As the
authorship is somewhat uncertain, critics commonly cite his work by
the conventional name of Ambrosiaster. He did not receive the
Epistle to the Hebrews as a composition of St. Paul.
12. Jerome has been so frequently mentioned that it is unneces-
sary to specify his works. In the earlier portion of them he
employs the ancient Latin version which he found in general use ;
but in his commentary upon Matthew, and other more recent
compositions, he adheres to his own amended edition, which forms
the basis of the present Vulgate. He often appeals to the original
Greek, and sometimes notices discrepancies both in the Greek and
Latin MSS.
13. Augustine, the cotemporary and friend of Jerome, everywhere
employs the old translation, though he had read and has com-
mended the new one. Some have insisted that he translated from
the Greek certain passages in which we find remarkable readings ;
but this is not likely, as he confesses that he knew next to nothing
of the language.
14. Pelagius, the heresiarch, wrote, in the beginning of the fifth
century, a commentary on the thirteen universally acknowledged
Epistles of Paul, which is commonly found in the printed editions
of the works of Jerome. He follows likewise the ancient version.
15. Gregory I. bishop of Rome, employed the Latin vei'sion
revised by Jerome, and is one of the fii'st among the writers of the
West who has paid to it that respect ; but his example has been fol-
lowed by a host of writers since. It is, however, not necessary to
carry our enumeration lower down, as there is not in general the
same difficulty in deciding as to the readings of the Vulgate that
390 TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. [bOOK III.
there is with respect to those of the Versio Itala, the former having
been on the whole much better preserved than the latter, although
its text undoubtedly labours under occasional blemishes.
Section IV. — Citations in Syriac Writers.
As the quotations from scripture, in the works of the more care-
ful and accurate of the Greek Fathers, give us a knowledge of the
manner in which the Greek text of the passages cited was exhibited
in the manuscripts which thej respectively employed, and as the
extracts found in the writings of the Latin Fathers show us how
the Latin translation which they employed read the passages on
which they have commented, or which they have brought forward
as proofs of, their positions, we should derive a similar assistance in
criticising the Syriac text from the works of the Syrian writers, or
from the Syriac translations of the works of Greek writers — as
those of Theodore of Mopsuestia, which are said to be extant in
Syriac among the Nestorians. Ephraim the Syrian, however, is
the only ancient writer in that language whose works have been
published: they contain much more fi-equent extracts from the
Old Testament than from the New, but are very serviceable in the
criticism of both. Although we owe to the industry and zeal of the
Assemans a largo catalogue of Syrian church writers, with a list
and occasional extracts from their works, we have no edition of any
of the ancient authors of that nation, with the exception above
stated, and can only make use of such occasional citations and
testimonies respecting their readings of particular passages as we
find in the disquisitions of learned men who have examined the
works of those authors in manuscript. Of these, Adler and Storr
deserve notice ; but the principal repertory of such information is
found in the works of the Assemans, a Syrian family which settled
in Rome, and for three generations was distinguished for eminence,
not in this only but in almost every department of ecclesiastical
learning. Their pubhcations are so voluminous and expensive that
they are seldom found in private collections, or indeed in any public
libraries but the largest.
OIUP. v.] CLASSIFICATION OK AUTHOIIITIES. Ml
CHAPTER V.
CI- ASSU'ICATION OF AUTII OKI TIES.
Section I. — Recension Theories.
Griesbacit is frc(iuentlj spoken of as the discoverer of tlie fact,
that the MSS. and other documents to which critics must appeal
in endeavouring to settle the text of the Xew Testament upon
a historical basis may bo distributed into various classes or
recensions, each of which is distinguished by marked peculiarities
of reading, and manifests a prevailing affinity or adherence to one
uniform exhibition of the text. This is a praise, however, which he
never claimed, and to which he is not entitled. In various parts of
his Prolegomena, Mill has shown himself to have had a perception
of the fact, and has even pointed out the reasonings by which it is
established. Bengel more distinctly speaks of the manuscripts as
consisting of several distinct ''families," the members of which
generally adhere closely to each other. Wetstein so far accepted
this principle as to lay it down as a rule tliat all the MSS. which
usually or frequently agree with the Latin version, in opposition to
the common herd of documents, had been derived from a text
which at some period, early or remote, had been modelled upon the
Latin translation, and brought into a forcible union with it. A
principle essentially the same was adopted by Alatthrei, who even
calls the documents whose authority he undervalued by the term
edition, " editio scurriUs" — a name not implying any favourable
judgment of its merits, nor very flattering to its author, but still,
by necessary implication, and very distinctly, admitting the fact,
that there is a general agreement among the manuscripts and ver-
sions of which it consists; and even farther admitting that the
agreement found among them is not a mere casual or fortuitous
agreement, but is the result of care and deliberation — in short, of
editorial superintendence. Semler, whose critical merits are yet
but imperfectly acknowledged either in this country or among his
compatriots, saw farther or more clearly than any of his prede-
cessors. He perceived that the editions, or recensions, as he termed
392 TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. [bOOK III.
them, were more numerous than Matthsei or Bengal had suspected,
' and he intimated very plainly the use that must be made of the
existence of such affinities in the criticism of the text. Griesbach,
however, deserves the merit of having brought the fact prominently
into notice ; he clearly explained that, if the fact be satisfactorily
established, it must constitute the basis of all sound criticism ; he
endeavoured by an inductive process, which, however, he did not
carry out as far as would be desirable, to demonstrate the existence
of recensions which he believed to be traceable in the documents
collated by himself and his predecessors; and j5rst reduced the
speculation to practice by amending the text of the New Testament
in conformity with critical rules, in which this recension-theory was
recognised and embodied.
Griesbach's system was essentially a deduction from observation
and comparison ; hence it underwent some modification as observa-
tions multiplied and the comparison of authorities became more
exact. In its latest form it is presented to us in the Prolegomena
to the second edition of the New Testament, viewed in connexion
with the Meleteinata de Vetustis Textus Novi Testamenti Recen-
sionibus, prefixed to the second part of his Commentarius Criticus in
Textum Grcecum Novi Testamenti. The substance of the state-
ments made in these works upon this point may be thus expressed,
in words almost translated from the author.
The origin of the recensions of the text of the New Testament
cannot be historically ascertained, and it is needless to attempt to
supply the deficiency of testimony by conjecture ; but that two
such recensions existed at the very beginning of the third century,
is evident from a comparison of the readings found in Origen and
Clement of Alexandria with the citations of Tertullian and Cyprian.
These writers exhibit a text diflfering in its whole texture and com-
plexion from that employed by the former two. The quotations of
Tertullian and Cyprian generally agree with the text of the Grseco-
Latin MSS. the copies of the Versio Itala, the Vatican Codex in
the Gospel of Matthew, and the cursive MSS.* numbered 1, 13,
69, 118, 124, 131, 157, and the Sahidic and Jerusalem- Syriac
versions: the text employed by Origen, on the contrary, agrees with
* The MSS. spoken of are designated by the letters and numbers by
which they are respectively denoted in critical works. Several of them
have been already described in the second chapter of this book, but for
facility of reference a complete list is given in an Appendix at the end of
the volume.
CHAP, v.] CLASSIFICATION OF AUTITOHITIES. 393
the manuscripts noted in the Gospels C, L, 33, 102, 100, and the
Vatican MS. in the latter chapters of Matthew, and in the Gospels
of Mark, Luke, and Jfihn; together with the Coptic, Armenian,
Philoxenian Syriac versions, and the citations of Eusebius, Athana-
sius, Cyril of Alexandria, Isidore of Pelusium, and others. This
latter text, having been employed by so many authors connected
with Alexandria, may be aptly termed the Alexandn^ie recension.
The other, from its being followed by the African, Italian, and
Gallic writers, may be conveniently called the Occidental or Western
recension, although the use of it was by no means confined to the
West, as appears from the frequent, though not perpetual, consent
of the Jerusalem- Syriac and Sahidic versions. From both of these
most ancient recensions in the Gospels — of wliich alone the present
statement is to be understood — differs the text of the Codex A;
at times agreeing with the Alexandrine documents, at others with
the Western, sometimes with both, and sometimes dissenting from
both, and coming somewhat closer to the modern textus receptiis.
Akin to this codex are E, F, G, II, S ; but deformed with many
junior readings and approaching much nearer to the common Greek
text than codex A. The whole of these MSS. agree, as far as can
be judged from the imperfect collations of the Fathers, with the
readings of those church writers who flourished in the latter part
of the fourth century, and during the fifth and sixth, in Greece,
Asia Minor, and the neighbouring provinces, and constitute the
recension which may hence be named the Byeantine or Constanti-
nopoliian, which was principally diffused in that patriarchate, and
was afterwards transferred into the Slavonic version, the MSS. of
which, however, frequently differ among themselves. The Syriac
version, as printed, is neither perfectly like nor quite unlike to any
of these recensions. In many points it agrees with the Alexandrine,
in more with the Western, in some with the Constantinopolitan,
although it rejects most of the modern alterations which have been
introduced into the latter. Griesbach therefore judges it to have
been at various times i-emodelled according to Greek MSS. of
different families, by which means a heterogeneous character was
given to its text. The citations of Chrysostom are similar, in this
respect, to the readings of the Peshito; for which Griesbach
accounts by supposing that in composing his own commentaries
that learned writer had made copious use of the works of previous
authors, who had employed MSS. belonging to different recensions;
and he affirms that every reader must perceive that Chrysostom
n D d
394 TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. [bOOK III.
frequently cites the text of scripture in a free style, more according
to the sense than the words. Griesbach adds that the codices P, Q,
T, exhibit in like manner a text composed, of different families or
recensions, sometimes agreeing with the Alexandrine, sometimes
with the Western copies ; and admits that some of those which he
has referred to one or other of these editions, such as 1, 13, 33, 69,
106, 118, 124, 131, 157, with the ^thiopic, Armenian, Sahidic,
and Jerusalem- Syriac versions, and the marginal readings of the
Philoxenian Syriac, may possibly be included in the same classifica-
tion; and he states that there are some MSS. in which, on the
whole, the Coustantinopolitan text prevails, yet with Alexandrine
or Western readings interspersed. These codices, though not all
possessed of equal weight, yet are not to be ranked with th.e com-
mon mass of ordinary copies. In this sub-genus he includes K, M,
10, 11, 17, 22, 28, 36, 40, 57, 61, 63, 64, 72, 91, 108, 127, 142,
209, 229, 235; and among the Evangelistaria, 18, 19, 24, 30. In
the Meletemata already referred to, Griesbach endeavours to prove
that two of these recensions must have existed as early as the time
of Origen ; and that when writing his comment upon Matthew he
used a Western copy of the Gospel of Mark, and in his work upon
John, a MS. of the same evangelist, which in the commencement
of the book contained the Alexandrine text, but in the last few
chapters the Western. In the same publication he explains that he
had not used the term recension in reference to the Western text
with any design to express or to imply that it had been critically
revised and corrected : in fact, he conceives that it owes its origin
to the detached copies of the various books and epistles of the New
Testament which were in circulation before the compilation of the
'AmaroXog and the 'Evay/'sXiov, and from the uncritical treatment
which the MSS. underwent while in that form. The term recension
he only used for the sake of convenience in reference to this family
of documents; and it is but justice to this great critic to state that
this idea was not adopted late in life, to obviate objections made to
his theory, but had been very plainly stated in his Gurce in Histo-
riam Textus Grceci Epistolarum Paulinarum,* which was almost
the first of his critical publications. The word thus understood
does not differ, when applied to the Western recension of Griesbach,
from the phrase Mivri 'ixdooig of Hug. The Alexandrine family of
MSS. he regards as a recension strictly so called; and although he
* See p. 60, 69, TO, &c. of the original edition, Jena, l^TY, "ito; or in the
Opuscula Academica, vol. ii. p. 82, 95, &c.
CHAP, v.] CLASSIFICATION OF AUTIIOUITIES. 3J)5
does Hot profess to bo able to point out historically the person by
whom it was made, nor tho time when it was completed, he is dis-
posed to conjecture that wo owe this valuable text in tlio gospels to
the person by whom the collection, called in ancient times rh ihay-
y'sXiov was formed, and in tho Acts and Epistles to the compiler of
the aTotfroAoc. The Constantinopolitan recension he refers to a
later period.
The theory proposed by Mr. Nolan in his Inquiry into the Integiity
of the Greek Vulgate (London, 1815, 8vo), was at one time ex-
ceedingly popular in this country, but is now seldom spoken of, and
seems to have few adherents. It was apparently occasioned by a
misconception of Griesbach's system; which Mr. Nolan supposed to
involve tho genuineness of every reading that is supported by the
authority of Origen, especially if countenanced by the Oriental
Versions, unless very peculiar arguments can be urged in objection.
This would indeed lead to much confusion and to many errors ; but
I cannot iind that Griesbach has anywhere enunciated or acted upon
such a principle. Mr. Nolan goes into the contrary extreme. He
affirms, that at the time when the Oriental Versions were made, a
Greek text was prevalent, which had been established under the
influence of Eusebius of Ccesarea ; that the ancient MSS. and Eastern
Versions bear upon them the proofs of the influence of Eusebius, by
their containing the Eusebian canons in the Gospels, and constantly
omitting those passages wherein tho textus receptus is opposed to the
peculiar opinions of Eusebius. Although this assertion would seem
to bo calculated to throw much doubt upon the integrity of the text
of the New Testament, it is but justice to state that it certainly was
not so intended by Mr. Nolan, who does not appear to have been
aware that such an inference could bo drawn from his premises. In
the farther prosecution of his plan, Mr, Nolan, after a brief examina-
tion of tho scriptural citations of the Fathers, and the readings of
the Eastern Versions, comes to tho conclusion, that no safe and sure
guide exists for ascertaining the genuine text of the New Testament
except the Latin version ; and as this has come down to us in several
different forms, which he conceives to bo exhibited to us by the Codex
Vercellensis, Jerome's Vulgate, and the Codex Brixianus, he assumes
these three Latin documents as the basis of his classification ; re-
garding each as representing to us a diffbrent recension of tho Greek
text. Ilis next object is to find out what Greek MSS. agree witli
each of these Latin ones; and he thinks he has proved, that "in a
word, the Greek manuscripts are capable of being divided into three
396 TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. [bOOK III.
principal classes, one of which agrees with the Italic translation
contained in the Brescia MS.; another with that contained in the
Vercelli MS.; and a third with that contained in the Vulgate."
Mr. Nolan gives several " specimens of the nature and closeness of
tlie coincidence " of the readings found in the documents of each of
these three classes : it is only fair to insert a few of these specimens,
and I take the same four examples which have been selected by Mr.
Home, who admires and applauds Mr. Nolan's theory. To each he
has prefixed the received text and authorized version of the passage,
" in order to evince their coincidence with that text to which the
preference appears to be due, on account of its conformity to the
Italic translation contained in the Codex Brixianus."
Matt. V. 38. xa/ odovra dvrl odovrog. Rec.
— and a tooth for a tooth. Auth.
hbowa dvri obovrog. — Cant. dentem pro dente. — Ver.
■/.ai odovra dvri obovrog. — Vat. et dentem pro dente. — Vul.
■Aai obovra dvri obovrog. — Mosc. et dentem pro dente, — Brix.
41. ifTTays fjtjir aurou bvo. — Rec.
— go with him twain. — Auth.
mayi ihzr avrov 'in dXXa bvo. Cant, vade cum illo adhuc alia duo. Ver.
vTuyi fjLsr avrou bvo. — Vat. vade cum illo et alia duo. — Vul.
'xiiiayi fjjir aurou buo. — Mosc. vade cum illo duo. — Brix.
4l4:. suXoyiTn roug -/.ara^oj/Msvoug i//j!,aj. — Rec.
— bless them that curse you. — Auth.
.OXoygm roug jcarasc.,u.mug Omitted.- Verc.
ujjjag. — iJant.
Omitted. — VatI Omitted. — Vulg.
iuXoysTn roug xara^u/Mvoug benedicite maledicentibus vos. —
v{j.ag. — Mosc. Brix.
44. 'TT^oaiuyioh uTgg ruv i-TTri^iaZovruiv bfiMg
xai biuxovruv ufiag. — Rec.
— pray for them who de spitefully use you
and persecute you. — Auth.
irgopuyiak Wsg ruv lirri^zatovrm orate pro calumniantibus et perse-
xai diuMvruv ufjjag. — Cant. quentibus vos. — Verc.
rigoSiuyi^h i(T£g rm biuxovruv orate pro persequentibus et calum-
vfjt^ag. — Vat. niantibus vos. — Vtdg.
'^r^oasuyi.ek v'tts^ ruv i'7rri^ioiZ,6vruv orate pro calumniantibus vobis et
vfjuag Kai biuKovruv u/j,a;. — Mosc. persequentibus vos. — Brix.
To me it appears, that these four examples, selected to show the
CHAP, v.] CLASSIFICATION OF AUTHORITIES. 397
" nature and closeness of the coincidence " existing between the
documents which are thus classed together, would, if viewed in them-
selves alone, prove that there is no such coincidence as is required for
the formation of a recension. The first example, taken from Matt.
V. 38, is the only one in which the classification holds good. In the
second, the Vatican codex and Vulgate Version, which are classed
together, disagree. In the third, tlie Cambridge MS. and the Codex
Vei'cellensis, which are placed in the same class, clifer in reading.
In the fourth, the Vatican and the Vulgate again disagree, though
assigned to the same recension. Thus, in one half of the four
selected specimens, the Vatican and the Vulgate differ; and the
second of the tlu'ee families agrees only three times out of four.*
There is an equal want of conclusiveness in another specimen given
by Mr. Home from Matt. v. I — 6. In the first vei'se, the Codex
Vercellensis inserts the word, " Jesus,'' which the Cambridge MS.
omits in the Greek: the same word is omitted in the Vatican MS.
but inserted in the Vulgate, though not as the latter is printed hy
Mr. Home in this table; and verses 4 and 5, though given by the
Vatican Codex in the usual order, are transposed in the Vulgate, a
disarrangement which Mr. H. has in this instance omitted to point
out. These are the only variations of any note in the six verses ; and
they appear rather to disprove than to strengthen the theory which
they are brought forwai'd to illustrate and confirm. It is also im-
portant to remark, that the Codex Brixianus and the Moscow MSS.
which Mr. Nolan supposes to be documents of the pure biblical text
of the Gospels, contain those harmonic canons which he regards as
proofs that other ancient MSS. were derived from a text propagated
by the influence of Eusebius, and modelled so as to suit his peculiar
doctrinal views ;t while, on the other hand, the Vatican and Cam-
bridge MSS. which he regards as flowing from this corrupt fountain,
really icant those proofs of a perverse origin. Mr. Nolan's theory,
as it appears to me, faUs to the ground by the force of its own
improbability; for surely nothing can be more unlikely than that
* It is not meant to deny that there is a very striking affinity between
the Cambridge codex and the Vercellensis — Semlcr and Griesbach had long
before demonstrated this — nor between the Moscow MSS. and the Brixia-
nus; no one who has analysed the text of that codex, ever doubted it; but
the above examples are not sufficient to prove it ; while they would disprove,
so far as they have any force, the connexion which Mr. Nolan asserts to
exist between the Vatican and the Vulgate.
f For the proof of this, see Matthpei's description of the Moscow MSS.
and Biauchini's Vindicke Canonicamm Scnptnarum, &c. p. 381.
398 TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF TUB NEW TESTAMENT. [bOOK III.
we are to look for our tests of the affinities and mutual relationship
of Greek manuscripts, exclusively among documents written in an-
other language, with which the Greek scribes were unacquainted,
and to which it does not appear that their learned men had recourse
except in a very few instances.
Were it necessary to pursue this argument farther, it might be
asked how we are to proceed in our classification, when the Codex
Vercellensis and the Codex Brixianus desert us, as they do at the
end of the Gospels? In the remaining part of his essay, Mr. Nolan
pursues a more scientific method. He takes up the readings of the
MSS. versions, and Fathers, as given to us by the learned men who
have collated and published them ; he finds in them proofs of the
existence of three recensions of the text corresponding with the three
Latin documents on which he rests so much weight : he accordingly
divides them into three families pretty much in the same manner
that Griesbach had done, only that what Griesbach calls the Western
recension, Mr. Nolan denominates the Egyptian; what Griesbach
calls the Alexandrine, he names the Palestinian ; the Byzantine or
Constantinopolitan text retains its name in both systems. The chief
difference is that Griesbach regarded his Western as the most
ancient recension of the text, while Mr. Nolan places the Egyptian
second, and assigns the place of honour and of age to the Constantino-
politan family. Although, therefore, he sets out on principles totally
different from those of Griesbach, he arrives at a conclusion which
only differs from his in two points : first, in the names given to the
three recensions which both systems equally recognise ; and secondly,
in the priority and pre-eminence assigned by Mr. Nolan to the
Constantinopolitan recension, which Griesbach considers as the most
recent and the least trustworthy of the three. And it must appear
as a strong objection to the importance which this system assigns to
the Brescian MS. and to the Greek codices which agree with it,
that no other class of documents, whether in the Greek or in the
Latin language differs so widely from the text followed by the earliest
Latin Fathers, whose works have come down to us. The Brescian
MS. itself is not more ancient than the beginning of the sixth cen-
tury; and it differs in many remarkable readings from the most
ancient monuments of the old Latin version. Indeed, no person
who has given any attention to textual criticism, can suppose for
one moment, that the Constantinopolitan recension of the text as
contradistinguished from that of the other families, is supported by
CHAP, v.] CLASSIFICATION OF AUTHORITIES. 399
ancient Latin authority. Dr. Scholz, its warmest advocate iu modern
times, is not slow to admit that all the ancient writers in the West,
and the authors of the earliest Latin versions followed a totally
different text.
The leading points of the recension theory of Professor Hug have
been already adverted to in the first chapter of this book (see pp.
235 — 244), yet it may be convenient to present it to view in a
condensed form, disengaged from those discussions on extraneous
topics with which it was tliere necessarily connected. This learned
writer thinks that the existing documents, MSS. versions, &c. may
be divided into two grand classes: — (1) Documents of y.or^rj h.botii
or the unrevised text ; and (2) Documents of the Revised Text or
recensions, properly so called. The documents of the first class
present to us the vestiges which now remain of the text such as it
existed and was in circulation in the second century and beginning
of the third, when the manuscripts were deformed with many and
various additions and alterations of a very arbitrary character, and
in many respects conflicting with one another. The ancient Latin
version was made at this period : it represents to us the Mivr, iy.doaii
of the West ; which had a close affinity with that which prevailed
in Alexandria, whence Italy, Gaul, and the province of Africa
derived their supply of biblical manuscripts. The Sahidic version
shows to us the xomr) s/c^orf/; of Egypt ; and the old Syriac may be
taken as a specimen of the unrevised text which was current in the
eastern provinces of Syria and Mesopotamia, at the time when it
was translated. The quotations of Clement and Origen give to us
some knowledge of the readings which were prevalent in Alexandi'ia
at the same period. From the nature of the case it is evident that,
although an analogy may be traced between the variations which
are foimd in the documents of this class, no close uniformity of
reading can be discovered in their text; they are rather distin-
guished by the total want of all regularity and method, and by the
free handling which they have manifestly undergone. Li this class
Hug places the codices B, (in the beginning of Matthew,) D, and 1,
13, 69, 124, in the Gospels; D, E, and the MSS. collated by Thomas
of Harkel, and noted in the margin of the Philoxenian Syriac ver-
sion, in the Acts of the Apostles ; D, E, F, G, and others in the
Epistles of Paul. — No existing MS. in Hug's opinion, preserves the
Koivii h.8osig of the Catholic Epistles, nor of the Apocalypse.
The Second Class of Documents, which exhibits to us a text
purified from the more striking corruptions of the y.onr, h.hoci;, is
400 TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. [bOOK III.
subdivided by this critic into three great families or recensions,
which he designates by the names of the three illustrious men
whom he supposes to have laboured in comparing MSS. removing
their irregularities, retrenching their interpolations, and supplying
their deficiencies, and thus performing, so far as circumstances
enabled them, the duties of critical editors. He conceives that these
three individuals undertook this laborious task, nearly about the
same period, and wrought upon it independently of each other.
Of these Origen was the first. His recension of the Old Testa-
ment was received in Palestine, and Hug supposes his codex of the
New Testament to have met with acceptance in the same province.
As his edition of the LXX. was characterised by its asterisks, obeli,
and other critical marks, Hug assumes that his recension of the
New Testament must have exhibited similar indications of his
labour ; and as the Philoxenian version contains an array of such
notifications, he felt himself justified in assuming it as a specimen
of the Origenian text, which he believed to have been prevalent in
the country, and at the time when that translation was executed.
The MSS. of the Gospels, which, from their general afiinity to that
version, he regarded as conveying down to us the same recension,
are, in the Gospels, A, K, M, 42, 106, 114, 116, and 253 (called
by Matthsei cod. 10). In the other parts of the New Testament,
the Philoxenian is attended by no similar retinue of MSS. ; and in
these portions, therefore. Hug conceives that the Greek text of
Origen's recension cannot now be ascertained.
Somewhat later than the time of Origen, yet not much more
recent, was the recension of Hesychius, which this author looks
upon as the revision of the text that was approved and adopted in
Alexandria and Egypt at large. That he executed such a work is
historically certain ; and Hug conceives that vestiges of it are to be
found in the Memphitic version, and in the citations contained in
the writings of the Alexandrine Fathers of the fourth, fifth, and
sixth centuries. Assuming these as the medium of comparison, he
determines that the Hesychian recension is exhibited in the text of
B, C, L, X, in the Four Gospels ; of A, B, C, 40, 73 (or Urbino-
Vatican 367), and 105 (or Mt. I), in the Acts ; and the same with
the exception of No. 105 in the Catholic Epistles ; of A, B, C, and
17 in the Epistles of Paul; and of A and C, with a few MSS. of
less note in the Apocalypse.
Lucian's recension, which Hug looks upon as the third and last
great division of the revised text, corresponding with Griesbach's
CHAP. V.J CLASSIFICATION OF AUTHORITIES. 401
Byzantine edition i.s exhibited to us, he thinks, in tlie Four Gospels,
hy E, F, G, II, S, V; several valuable Evangehstaria, and a great
many cursive MSS. especially these collated by Matthyei at Mos-
cow; in the Acts by G3, 67, 78, 101, and many otlier codices, all
of which, however, are modern ; in the Catholic and Pauline
Epistles, by the codex of the Holy Synod, called by Matthsei G,
(102, 117, Scholz), Mt. I (105 and 121), the Alexandrine- Vatican
MS. Xo. 29 (78 and 89 Scholz), and a great many others of the
same general character. There are several MSS. which contain
the text of the Apocalypse according to Lucian's recension, but
none of them is remarkable for age or for peculiar value.
Professor Hug does not conceive that we have, in any codex or
in any version that has come down to us, the text either of Origen,
Hesychius, or Lucian, in its purity. Every document, the copies
of which were multiplied by transcription, was subject to alterations ;
and such has been the fate of all our biblical documents in a greater
or less degi'ce ; but he nevertheless believes that where the docu-
ments exist it is possible, by careful comparison and reflection, to
ascertain the genuine reading approved by each of the ancient
critics, and, consequently, to assign to each MS. and version its
proper weight in the scale of evidence. In the Mcletemata, already
referred to, Griesbach did not fail to point out that this theory
agrees essentially with his own, since it recognises the three great
classes into which he had distributed the documents, only calling
them by other names ; and if it constitutes a fourth recension, he
had already stated that the principal codices which are included
in it form, in some respects, a class by themselves. He dwelt also
upon the want of proof that Origen ever engaged in the textual
criticism of the New Testament, and the improbability of the fact,
considering the silence of Eusebius on the subject. He showed
that the asterisks and obeli, in the Philoxenian Version, on which
Hug laid so much stress, as ti-aces of Origen 's critical hand, appear
evidently to have been intended to mark those readings in which it
differs from the Peshito, not to denote any critical collation of
Greek copies ; and he dwelt with especial force on the proofs which
he thought he had discovered of the existence of two recensions —
the Western and Alexandrine — in the days of Origen himself, and,
consequently, long before the dates assigned by Hug either to the
Origenian or Hesychian revision of the text. He and Pi'ofcssor
Hug have so explained and modified some portions of their respec-
tive theories as to leave little more than a nominal difference
E E e
402 TEXTUAL CUITICISM OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. [bOOK Ilf.
between them. These two great men have expressed themselves
with the utmost respect and courtesy in criticising each other's
writings.
Pi'ofessor Scholz, as is well known, has been led to a conclusion
as different as possible from tliat to which these eminent critics
have arrived. He asserts that an accurate examination and diligent
comparison of the documents employed in criticism, manifestly proves
that they consist of two classes only; one which, for the most
part, agrees with the Textus Receptus ; the other which differs
from it almost in every line, both in particular words and entire
sentences. But this distinction is founded, not upon individual words
or phrases, but upon the universal condition of the text, or rather
upon a certain continuity and connexion of testimonies.* The
distinction between the two classes is easy. The documents of the
first class seldom differ among themselves, but every codex of the
second has many readings peculiar to itself, yet their general con-
dition is the same ; they appejti" to have originated in the same
region, and they have many or most of their readings in common ;
for these reasons he considers that they must be ranked in the
same class.
To the first class belong almost the whole of the MSS. which
have been written within the last eight centuries, and all the printed
editions. When these documents agree in any reading we generally
find the same in a few MSS. of the eighth and ninth centuries — the
Philoxenian Syriac, the Gothic, Georgian, and Sclavonic Versions,
and the Fathers and chu.rch writers who inhabited Asia and the
Eastern part of Europe, if the passage be quoted at all in any of
their surviving works. The MSS. of this class are proved by their
subscriptions, by the notes occasionally found upon their margins,
by the paintings which some of them contain, by the Menologies or
list of lessons appropriated to the commemoration of certain saints,
by the nature of their writing, or by the Versions and Fathers with
which they usually agree, to have been written either in Asia or in
the east of Europe ; and having been employed at all times in the
Patriarchate of Constantinople, they may properly be designated
the Constantinopolitan or Byzantine family. This class or family
of documents he regards as presenting to us the true text of the
New Testament.
The MSS. of the second class arc proved by the same or similar
* Ex perpetuitate qnadam et ncxu testimoniorum. JProZ. in N. T.
p. XV.
CHAP, v.] CLASSIFICATION OF AUTHORITIES. 403
tests to have boon written in Egypt, or in the western regions of
Europe. They abound in orthographical errors and other mistakes,
and diifor very much among themselves. Manuscripts of this class
wore undoubtedly very witloly diffused in ancient times, as is sliown
by the occurrence of the readings peculiar to it in so many writers
both of Alexandria and the Western Church ; but partly in conse-
(juonco of accidents, ill-treatment, the efforts of persecutors, and the
malice of conflicting sects — partly in consequence of the fewness of
those persons in the West who either wrote or could read Greek
MSS. — very few of them have come down to our day. The Alex-
andrine family of Scholz embraces all those documents which
Gricsbach includes in his Western and Alexandrine recensions, and
which constitute the -/.oivri h.hoci; and Hesychian recension of Hug ;
together with most of those which the last-named writer compre-
hends in his list of the documents of the Origenian text.
Such is the theory of Professor Scholz, as it is presented to us in
its latest form, after mature reflection, in the Prolegomena to his
New Testament. It is not needful to examine his previous classi-
cations, or to call under review statements and opinions which their
author himself has deliberately renounced. Nor is it any disgrace
to a critic to have retracted what, on farther consideration, he had
found to be erroneous in his former views, but highly to his credit :
such candour and openness to conviction are at all times most
creditable; but the approbation which we feel for these qualities
does not exempt us from the necessity and duty of examining the
foundation of his present opinions, as he has himself examined that
of his former principles. We must admit that he is perfectly
correct in ranking by far the greater part of our present critical
material among the documents of the Byzantine text. We must
farther allow that there is among the more rec.>nt MSS. of this
class a uniformity of reading, from whatever cause this may have
arisen, for which we look in vain among any other tribe of docu-
ments : and if it be laid down as a principle, that all our material
is to bo distributed into two great divisions — tlic first including
those which agree with the Constantiuopolitan recension, and the
second all the remainder, whatever be their character or relation to
each other, wo have no longer any option but to adopt the distribu-
tion made by Professor Scholz. But this is a principle which can-
not be justified by sound reasoning; for if we are compelled to
separate the Byzantine documents into a class distinct from all the
rest, on account of tlicir agreement with earh other, and theiv
404 TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. [bOOK III.
frequent dissent from those which this critic denominates Alexan-
drian, the same reason will require us to examine whether among
the residuary group, as we may call it, there are not also some, which
on the very same grounds must be separated from its other members
so as to form a class, or two or more classes by themselves. And
this is an inquiry which Scholz not only has not settled, but which
he has not in any part of his writings even professed to discuss.
Section II. — Investigation of Recensions.
In attempting to investigate the number and character of the recen-
sions which may be traced among the documents from which we
derive our evidence of the text, we ought to be biassed by no theory,
and to approach the subject with a mind free from all preconception
and prejudice. The attainment of truth can only be the result of a
large and patient induction. We ought to examine the various
readings which are given to us by observers on whose accuracy we
can rely ; we should note the prevailing agreement or disagreement
of the documents; we should separate into distinct groups those
which appear, on the whole, and in the general complexion of their
text, to be distinguished by certain peculiarities, and group together
those which generally agree. This process we should pursue, not
piecemeal, by taking a few verses here and a few there, but through-
out entire chapters, and even several chapters — not devoting our
attention exclusively to those minutise of orthography and diction,
in which transcribers generally followed their own taste ; nor even
to those accidental variations to which every copyist was liable ; nor,
on the other hand, overlooking these things, for they may give
useful hints and lead to practical results ; but directing our cliief
concern to the important and characteristic readings in which the
care, skill, and critical judgment of an editor would be most likely
to display themselves. We should only perplex ourselves, and
labour in a fruitless field, were we to take into account, as tests of
a recension, and necessary conditions of its existence, those peculiari-
ties of reading in which the fancy of each copyist has been indulged,
or to which the individual circumstances of each manuscript or
version have given occasion.
In the prosecution of this object, we are compelled to proceed by
way of trial. We might, indeed, sum up the total number of those
various readings which wo consider important enough to rank as
indications of a recension ; we might then ascertain how often, in the
CHAP, v.] CLASSIFICATION OF AUTHORITIES. 405
course of all these passages, each document that has been collated
agrees with each of the rest; and thus we should infallibly perceive
the harmony or discord which subsists between them. But this
would bo a very tedious process ; it may bo doubted whether tho life
of any individual would bo equal to the task of providing materials
for such a calculation. It is therefore almost a matter of necessity
to adopt tho less mathematical but more expeditious method of
experiment. We select a passage of sufficient length ; we draw out,
in a tabular statement, a synopsis of the variations which it contains ;
we arrange, in connexion with each passage, the names or other
designations of those documents which we are desirous of comparing,
in such a manner as to show at a glance how far and how often
they agree with each other, and when and in wliat manner they
differ. We can thus soon ascertain what are the classes or families
into which the external evidence would bo divided, were this passage
alone to be taken into consideration. These groups being thus provi-
sionally established, we proceed in like manner to another context.
It may be necessary on the conclusion of the process here, to modify
in some degree our first classification. Upon a third experiment,
perhaps a few additional corrections may be requii-ed, and perhaps it
may be needful to replace in the situations first assigned to them,
some documents, in which the second trial appeared to contradict tlie
first. But in general it will be found that the prosecution of the
experiment will remove doubts which at first were perplexing, and at
last there will remain upon the mind a calm and settled conviction,
that certain facts have been ascertained, and some affinities proved to
exist, which, while they will not indispose the mind to the farther
investigation of the subject, but rather stimulate and encourage such
research, yet will at the same time render the mind continually less
apprehensive or less hopeful of meeting with facts that will overturn
its former conclusions. These points being premised, the following
tables are submitted, as a specimen of the manner in which such an
inquiry ought to be conducted. It is not meant to be insinuated,
that in these tables no errors are likely to be found ; the facts are in
general assumed to be as they are indicated in the critical editions
of the New Testament, especially those of Griesbach and iScholz ;
and the imperfection of the collations of many of the MSS. which
are there quoted, is too well known to allow the hope to be enter-
tained that the readings here assigned to the different codices are
in all cases exactly those which they respectively exhibit. Never-
theless, those MSS. have been selected for comparison which have
406 TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. [bOOK III.
been published separately, and those others which appear to have
been collated with the greatest care : reference has been made to
such original sources as are accessible, and it is hoped that no
material error is admitted. The versions and the codices A C D Z A
having been published, their readings are here presented as given by
their respective editors. The MSS. denoted B, E, K, L, S, V, have
been so carefully, and some of them so repeatedly collated, that we
may in general assume the silence of the collator as proof that no
reading has been found in them different from the received text.
But as this is not the case with the cursive ones, they are only quoted
here when an express citation has been found in some critical edition
of the New Testament. Several variations are omitted which can
lend us no aid in classification.
If, notwithstanding all the care that has been taken to avoid errors,
some mistakes be found in our list, it should be remembered that our
present object is not so much to perform the processes described, as
to explain the manner in which they may be performed, and for this
purpose minute accuracy is not essential.
The first specimen here presented is a collation of the 25th chapter
of the Gospel of St. Matthew, exhibiting every various reading which
can be deemed of the slightest value in determining the affinities of
the documents here referred to. To shorten our labour and avoid
confusion, we have selected for examination the manuscripts A, B,
C, D, E, K, L, S, V, Z, A, 1, 33, 102, 124, 209, 235, 237, 253, 433,
and 435 ;* and of the Versions, the Itala, the Vulgate, the Old
Syriac, the Philoxenian Syriac, the Jerusalem- Syriac, the Coptic,
tlie Sahidic, the Armenian, the ^thiopic, and the Sclavonic.
Collation of Matthew xxv. 1 — 46.
[The readings marked* are those of the received Text.]
. * roD yjfji,<pm.—B E K L S V Z A. Copt. Sahid. .Eth. Syr. h.
Sclav.
Tl^ WfJli<plw. C.
Tov v\)fjj(pm xal t^c vufj.<p^g' — D. 1, 124, 209. It, Vulg. Syr.
Syr. p. Arm.
* An explanation of these letters and ciphers will bo found in the Appendix
at the end of the volume.
CHAl'. v.] CLASSIFICATIOX OF AUTHORITIES. 407
2. £g aWm fiaar—^ C D L Z A. 1, 102, 121.
* riaav e^ auTuv — E K S V.
ib. /Jbu^ai xai rrivn ipsovi/xor — B C D L Z. 1, 33, 102, 209. It.
Vulg. Syr. h. Copt. Arm. ^Etli.
/Mu^ai xai a'l t'svts f^ovi/ior — E. 435.
* pPMiiioi xai a'l 'jsvn /xoisa/* — K S V A. Syr. Syr. p. Sclav.
3. a'l ovv fiu^ai Xa/SoDrfa/' — D.
a'l ya^ fiu^ai Xa/SoDffa/' — B C L 33, Copt.
a'l b- iMu^ai Xa(3ou6ar — Z.
a'l d\ Tsvri /MM^ai Xa/SoDtfa/" — It. Vulg.
Xa/3oDtfa/ be a'l iMOioai' — 1, 209.
xa/ a'l (lu^ai XajSovaai' — Syr. Syr. p. iEth.
* a'irivig fxu^ai KajSovcar — E K S V A. Syr. h. Sahid. Arm. Sclav.
4. iv ToTg ayymic,- — B D L Z. 1, 102, 124. Syr. Arm.
* h roT; ayyiioi; wjrm' — C E K S V A. It. Vulg. Syr. p. Syr. h.
Copt. Sahid. .Eth. Sclav.
\h. Xa/iTccowv — C Z. It. Vulg.
* X* KL/raii/ or eaoTwi/' — B D E K L S V A. Syr. Syr. li. Syr. p.
Sahid. /Eth. Sclav.
G. ;aoi) 6 vviM(p!o;-—B C D L Z. 102. Copt. Sahid.
* '■ ^' "* '^fZ^''"'' — E 1^ S ^^ •^- ^u^g- Sy- P- ^yi'- 1^- Arm. JEth,
Sclav.
9. 'TOPsviaOs bl—C E L Z. 1, 33, 102, 124, 209, 237, 253, 435.
'Syr. Syr. p. Syr. h. Copt. Sahid. .Eth. Sclav.
* rro^s{jsadi-—A B D K S V A. It. Vulg. Arm.
13. rr.v oigar— A B C D L A. 1, 33, 102, 253, 433. It. Vulg.
Syr. Syr. p. Syr. h. Copt. Sahid. ^Eth. Arm.
* r' u' Bv fi 6 v'log rou dv6^u<Tou 'i^yiraf — E K S V. Sclav.
16. iyCighm^'—B C D L. 1, 33, 124. It. Vulg. Copt. Arm. .Eth.
* emirjdir — A E K S V A. Syr. Syr. p. Syr. h. Sahid. Sclav.
ih. ciXKa o-sm-— B L. 1, 33, 102, 124. It. Vulg. Syr. Syr. h.
Copt. Sahid. Arm.
* a- rr. raXavra'—A C D E K S V A. Syr. p. .Eth. Sclav.
408 TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. [bOOK III.
17. r« dvo Xa/3wv— 235. It. Vulg.
ra bvo rdXavra X" — D, ^Etli.
* Tu a-jo-— A BCEKLSVa. Syr. Syr. p. Syr. b. Copt.
Sahid. Arm. Sclav.
ih. hiobnd'.-—B-C L. 33, 102. It. Vulg. Syr. Copt. Sahid. ^th.
Arm.
x,ai avTog ixsgdrias' — D.
* ixi^B^as -/.ai avrog' — A E K S V A. Syr. p. Syr. h. Sclav.
18. yrir—B C L. 33. ^th.
* Bv rfi yf- A D E K S V A. It. Vulg. Syr. Syr. p. Syr. h.
Copt. Saliid. Arm. Sclav.
ih. h^v^s-—A B C D L. 33.
* d'!rv/,^v^s-—'E K S V A.
19. -^oXvv p^go^oi/-— B C D L. 1, 33, 124. It. Vulg. ^th.
* v^om mX-jv — A E K S V A. Syr. Syr. p. Syr. h. Copt. Sahid.
Arm. Sclav.
ih. -Koyov iMST avTojr—B C D L. 1, 33, 124, 235, 433. It. Vulg.
JEth.
* fisr' avTuv \6yov — A E K S V A. Syr. Syr. p. Syr. h. Copt.
Sahid. Arm. Sclav.
20. M?hnsa-—B L. 33, 102, 124. Copt. ^th.
i'Trv/i^hriSa- — D. It. Vulg.
* r/ighriaa W avroTg- — A C K S V A. Syr. Syr. p. Syr. h. Sahid.
Arm. Sclav.
i%soh'/\Ga h ahroTg' — E.
21. £>)5-— B C D E K L. 33, 102, 124, 237, 253, 433. It. Vulg.
Syr. Arm.
* yp^ as-— A S V A. Syr. p. Syr. h. Copt. Sahid. ^th. Sclav.
22. 6 rd dvo rciXavra-— A B C L A. 1, 102, 124. Syr. Syr. p.
* a T- a- T- Xa^^v—B E K S V. It. Vulg. Syr. h. Copt. Sahid.
Arm. -^th. Sclav.
ih. Jx£ga»)(ra, «fec. — See above at ver. 20 ; the variations and the
authorities for them are the same.
CITAP. v.] CLASSIFICATION OF AUTHORITIES. 409
24. lyvuv — D. It. Vulw. Arm,
* sykwv (fi- — All tlie other MSS. and Versions.
ib. oVoic — 1). It. Vulg.
* oOiv — All the other authorities.
25. dTny.Oo^ xa/'-— D, It. Vulg. .Eth.
* arrOJuf — All the Other authorities.
20. ^oOXe rrovri^s. — A. It. Vulg. Syr.
* rrovi^ei doZXs' — All the other authorities.
27. Uu «i oJv— B C. 33.
* 'ihi oh ffr— A D E K L 8 V A. It. Vulg.
29. rou ar— B D L. 1, 33, 102, 124. It. Vulg. Sjr. Copt. yEth.
* aTTo b\ roZ-—A C E K S V A. Sjr. p. Sjr. h. Sahid. Arm.
Sclav.
ih. * ix^r—A B C D E K S V. Syr. Sjr. h. Copt. Sahid. Arm.
^th.
doxsTexiir—L A. 33, 237, 253, 433. It. Vulg. Syr. p. Sclav.
31. oi cliyysXor—B D L. 1, 33, 102, 124, 237. It. Vulg. Syr. h.
Copt. iEth. Arm.
* 0/ ayioi ayyi'/.or — A E K S V A. Syr. Syr. p. Sahid. Sclav.
32. 6vvaxdri<iovrai'—B D K L. 33, 124, 237, 433, 435.
* guvaxJ^Tjairai' — A E S V A.
39. d66mvvTa-—B D. 124, 237.
* dsdivrr — All the other MSS.
41. 0 r,TOjfMaaiv 6 rraTyjs jj^ou' — D. 1. It.
* TO riToi'MaaiMvor — All the other authorities.
In this collation, no mention is made of the versions when there
is reason to believe that the variations of reading would Iiave been
neglected by the translator, or could not properly be expressed in
the version. It is also to be observed, that such of the cursive MSS.
as are not expressly quoted in opposition to the reading of the
F F f
410 TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. [bOOK HI.
received text, are to be* presumed to agree with it ; and although
this presumption may in particular instances prove to be erroneous,
it is probable that still more frequently it is in accordance with the
fact.
In drawing conclusions from the preceding statement, it is neces-
sary to bear in mind that the first six verses of this chapter are
wanting in Codex A; all after the 11th verse in Codex Z; and all
after the 30th verse in Codex C: these venei-able MSS. being un-
fortunately mutilated.
On comparing the list of readings given above, it will be seen that,
according to the specimen presented in this passage, the documents
are divisible into two principal groups or grand divisions.
The first group consists of the Uncial MSS, B C D L Z; the
cursive MSS. 1, 33, 102, 124, 209 ; and the Italic, Vulgate, Coptic,
Sahidic, Jerusalem- Syriac, and -^Ethiopic versions. Where various
readings occur, we seldom find an instance in which there is not a
great majority of these documents — or of such among them as are
able to aflPord testimony — arranged upon one side. But the degrees
of coherence are not equal in relation to all these authorities.
We find a veiy strong affinity and a general coincidence of reading,
between B, C, L, Z, 33, and the Coptic version. These, therefore,
constitute a distinct and well-defined class, having many readings
in common, and distinguished by the same critical characteristics.
The manuscripts D, 1, 102, 124, and 209, and the Italic, Vulgate,
Jerusalem- Syriac, Sahidic, and Armenian versions, adhere far less
firmly to the preceding division and to each other. There is indeed
a certain degree of mutual relationship in these authorities; but the
text of each among them appears to have experienced an arbitrary
treatment, or rather to have been frequently left to follow its own
free course, unsubjected to any controlling supervision.
The second group consists of the remaining documents — namely,
A, E, K, S, V, A, 235, 237, 253, 433, 435 ; and the Peshito or
Old Syriac, the Philoxenian Syriac, the Armenian, and the Sclavonic
versions. Between the members of this grand division, likewise,
there are peculiar affinities or relationships to be traced, which
indicate that it may be possible still farther to subdivide this class
into two sub-genera ; but for this purpose the facts presented in one
short specimen are not sufficient. All that can be affirmed is, that
the mutual relationship of E, S, V, 237, 253, 433, 435, and the
Sclavonic version, appears to be more close and intimate than that
of the other authorities ; for when E deviates, as is sometimes the
CHAP, v.] CLASSll'ICAlION' OF AI'TIIUUITIES. II 1
case from the majority of these, it usually follows a similar readiug,
which may easily have been derived from theirs by the common
accidents of transcription ; and there is reason to believe that the
occasional aberrations of the cursive MSS. are only apparent, being
caused by the negligence of the collators, who have omitted to
notice various readings actually existing in them, which, if known,
would restore them to an accordance with the others. We may
therefore place these documents for the present in a provisional
sub-genus.
After this preliminary trial, we proceed to examine with the same
minuteness another part of the New Testament, in order to reconsider,
and, if needful, remodel, the classification above suggested; and for
this purpose we select the -ith chapter of Mark.
The MSS. referred to are, A, B, C, D, E, K, L, S, V,* and A,
together with 1, 13, 28, 33, 69, 118, 124, 131, 209, 235, 346, 433,
and 435, t and the same versions that were referred to in the former
specimen, with the exception of the Sahidic and the Jerusalem-
Syriac, neither of which contains this chapter. The documents of
the two sub-genera already provisionally established are thrown
together into parentheses ; those not classed, and any of the former
which dissent from the majority of their usual associates, are sepa-
rately exhibited : thus it will be easy to divide them into their proper
groups and families. As before, the readings of the received text
arc marked with asterisks.
Collation of Mark iv. 1 — 41.
1. auvdyirar—(B C L.) A. 13, 28, 69, 124.
<S\jvriy^dr,<ia\t' — A. 235.
* (ivvr;xdrr—(E S V. Sclav.) D K. It. Vulg.
ib. o;^Xo5 'jXiToTo;' — (B C L.) A.
* o;jiXos croXir— (E S V. Sclav.) A K. It. Vulg.
* Z only contains the Gospel of Matthew.
f Some of the cursive M8.S. refcired to in the fonuor chapter are scarcely
duotcd at all in the 4th of Mark, and seem to have been very superficially
examined on this passage; for which reason they aro hero omitted.
412 TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. [BOOK 111.
ib. iig TrXoTov (or slg rh it\o7ov) e(ij3dvTa, xadl^adai' — (B C L. 33.) D A.
It. Vulg. Arm.
if/,^dvTa %a&ri(S&at iig rh tXcTov' — 13, 69, 124, 346. Syr.
* ifjj^dvTo. iig 'TtXoi'ov (or e/'s ro crXo/bf) xadrioQai — (E S V. Sclav.) A
K. Syr. p. Copt. ^th.
ib. iiri rrig yrig rjdav — (B C L 33) A. jEth.
riV — D.
* It/ r^b yni n^ — (E S V Sclav.) A K. It. Vulg.
6. xai on dviTuXiv 6 riXiog. — (B C L. Copt.) D A. It. Vulg.
* TjXiou ds avaniXavrog' — (E S V.) A K.
8. o^xxa-— (B C L. 33. Copt.) 28, 124.
* (2XXo.— (E S V. Sclav.) A D K A. It. Vulg. Syr. Syr. p.
Arm. ^th.
ib. av^avofj^ivov — (B L.) ADA.
*augcc^ovra._(E S V.) C K.
ib. iig (or s/g) rpdxovra x. r. >.■ — (B C L.) A.
* Iv (or sV) rg/axoi/ra %, r. X' — (E S V.) A D K.
9. og 'iyii wra" — (B C L.) D A.
* 0 'iyjjiv wra-— (E S V.) A K.
ih. Codex D, and several copies of the Italic version, add to this
verse — xa/ 6 cuwwi/ ffuwarw This addition was also found in the Greek
MSS. collated by Thomas of Heraclea, and referred to in his note
upon the margin of the Philoxeuian Syriac Version.
10. xa/ o«.— (B C L. Copt.) D A. It. Vulg. iEth.
* In ar_(E S V. Sclav.) A K. Syr. Syr. p. Arm.
%b, ^^utojv — (B C L. 33.) A A.
i'TTrj^UiTUV D.
i'Trrigurriaav. — 13, 69, 124, 346.
* ^gwr^jcai/' — (E S V.) K.
CHAP, v.] CLASSIFICATION OF AUTHORITIES. 413
ib. 0} fiadriTai auToZ'—D. 13, 28, 69, 124, 346. It.
0/ Oov ToTg du)B:X,a' — Tj, jKth.
01 'Xi^i aurhv — Vulg. in MS.
* 0/ T£g/ aMv auv roTg dutdixa' — (B C. Copt.) A K A. Sy. Syr. p.
Arm. (E S V. Sclav.)
ih. rui rra^a^oXd;' — (B C L. Copt.) A.
r/'s ^ rra^ajSoXi] a'jrrj' — D. 13, 28, 69, 124, 346. It.
TYiv '!ra^a(3oXriv ravrriV — Syr.
* rfjv rra^ajSoXriv — (E S V. Sclav.) A K. Syr. p. iEth. Arm.
11. -j/mTv rh fivdrrigtov dsdorai' — (B C L. Copt.)
ufiTv dsdorai rh iMusrri^ioV — A K.
* {jfiiv hiborai yi/wi/a; rh /M-jdrrj^ioV — (E S V. Sclav.) D A. It.
Vulg. Syr. Syr. p. ^th. Arm.
12. dpedf, avTorg'—{B C L. Copt.) 1, 118, 209. Ann.
d<pidr]6irai ahroTg rd ttjaagr^'xaT'a' — A K. Syr. p.
d<ptdr]6o[ioi.i d' T' d' — D. It.
* d<pi6fi d- r- «•— (E S V. Sclav.) a. Vulg. Syr. ^th.
15. 075— D. It. Syr.
* oTou- — All the other authorities.
ih. t-jdvg- — (B C L.) A.
* iideug- — All the other MSS.
ib. Bv auToTg' — (C L. Copt.) A.
sig avTovg-—B. 1, 13, 28, 69, 118, 209.
ccTO r^g xa^diag avrcuv — A. ^•Eth.
* sv raTg xa^diaig avrw' — (E S V. Sclav.) D K. It. Vulg. Syr.
Syr. p. Arm.
16. olroi ihiK—D. 1, 13, 28, 69, 118, 131, 209, 435. It. Syr. Arm.
ouro/ ofioiug tJaiv — (B C L. Copt.) A. JEth.
* ovroi iJoiv ofxolojg- — (E S V. Sclav.) A. K. Vulg. Syr. p.
ib. Xoyov furd ya-^g' — D. 1, 28, 346. It. Copt.
Xo'yoi/ ih^xjg ,<a. y^ — (B C L.) A. 13.
* Xoyov tu^jwc /*• yj — (E S V. Sclav.) A K. Syr. p. Arm.
414 TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. [bOOK III.
ib. Xa/a,/3avou(T/v.— 13, 28, 69, 124, 131. Arm.
* >.• auTov. — All the other documents,
17. iv6vg.—(B C L.) A.
* £u^£w;-— (E S Y.) A D K.
18. xa/ 0/-— 1, 13, 28, 118, 124, 209, 346. Syr. Arm.
xa! aXXoi sJoiv or — (B C L. Copt.) D K A. It. Vulg,
* xa/ ouToi ihiv o'l. — (E S V. Sclav.) A. Syr. p. -^th.
ib. 0/ rhv X6yov—(E S V. Sclav.) A K. 131, 235. Copt. Syr. p.
* ovroi uGiv o'l 7- X-— (B C L.) D A. It. Vulg. Syr. Arm. ^^th.
ib. axoutfams-— (B C L.) D A. 13, 69, 124, 346.
* dxovovTig' — (E S V.) A K.
19. roD /3/oD-— D. It.
Tov atuvog' — (B C L.) A. 1, 118. Vulg. Arm.
* Tou aiuvog to-jtov — (E S V. Sclav.) A K. Syr. Syr. p. Copt.
^th.
lb. a'l cs^i ra Xoi'xa s'ffidvfilar — These words are found in the great
majority of the documents, but are omitted in Codex D, 1, 28,
118, 131, 209, the Armenian, and several MSS. of the Italic
version.
20. xa/ sxiTvoi ilair — (B C L. Copt.) A.
* xa; oZto, ih,v—{^ S V. Sclav.) A D K. It. Vulg.
21. 'Ihn fM7irr—l3, 28, 69, 124, 346.
on /J^yin' — (B L.)
* fj,y,ri-—(E S V.) A C D K A.
ib. avrsrat o Xu^i/og* — D. It.
xahrai 6 X' — 13, 69, 124, 346. Sclav.
£g;^£7a/ 6 X-_(B C L. 33. Copt.) A. 1, 131, 209. Vulg.
Syr.
* 6 X- E^;)/£ra/-— (E S V.) A K.
ib. 'rj •lm-—28, 124, 209, 346.
*iVa-— All the other MSS.
CHAP. V. I CLASSIFICATION OF AUTHOniTIES. 415
ib. r(df,—(B C L.) D K A. 13, 28, G9, 124, 235.
*ecr,'redfi-—(ESX.) A.
22. xovrrrhv—B D K. 1, 13, 28, G9, 124, 131, 209, 340.
* r/" xsucrrir— (E S V.) A A. (C L.)
it jccf /^r,-— (C L. 33. Copt.) A K. 209,340.
iav fj^ri ha. — B A.
i; /jLYi iW— 1, 13, 28, 09, 131.
a/.X' 'I'va' — D. It.
* 6 eav ,ar,- — (E S V. Sclav.) Vulg.
ib. ii (i^ iva' — 1, 13, 28, 118 (in the 2nd clause).
* aXX ;i/a-_AIl the other MSS.
ib. sXdji iig ipoLViph' — (C L.) D A.
(pavtiudf,' — B.
* e/'s ^avifov sXdfj- — (E S V.) A K.
24, 25.— In D, 13, 09, 340, and certain MSS. collated (Init not
described) by some of the earlier critics, this passage reads as
follows : — Ka/' 's}.iyi\i (ai/ro/; D.) ^Xs--7i~i ri axovin' xai rr^oa-idriairai
{j[j,7v roTg axououff/v o; i^si yag bodrjStrai aWQ' xcci og oiix s;^?/, xai 6
iyii d^driSiTai cct' u-jtou' ev w /zsr^'xi fMsrsiTn fiirpr,6yjf!iTar v/j,7v y.ai
T^odridriasrai uilTv. — " And he said (unto them, D), Take heed what
ye hear; and it shall be added unto you that hear; for he that
hath, to him shall be given; and he that hath not, even that tchich
he hath shall be taken away from him; with lohat measure ye
mete, it shall be measured unto you, and added unto you."
Compare this with the I'eceived text.
24. 'z^o(Sri6r,Girai i/,'/,/i.* — (B C L. Copt. as read in the MSS.) A.
Vulg. ^Eth.
* 'XoriareOyidirai b,UjTv roTg dy.o-MUGn' — (E S V. Sclav.) A K. SjT.
Syr. p. Arm.
25. sxir—(B C L.) K A. 131, 4;]5.
* h/j,—(E S V.) A.
416 TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. [bOOK lit.
26. wr— (B L. 33.) D A. 118.
ug av — C, probahly.
ojg orav. — 1, 131, 235.
£3rf^gg-_13, 28, 69, 124, 346.
* ^g «<ir— (E S V.) A K.
26. /SaXAs/-— 28, 69, 118, 131, 235.
* /3aX»5-— All the other MSS.
ih. (Tffog6V— D. 13, 28, 69, 124, 346.
* rhv ffTogoc— All the other MSS.
27. x-adsudii' — 33.
xadivoii %ai lyiioirar — E. 131, 346.
* yMOivd-fi -/.at sysionraf — All the other MSS.
ih. /3Xa<TTa-— (B C L.) D A.
-* (3Xa<STdrfi-—(E S V.) A K.
(3Xasrdnr—l24:, 235, 433.
28. avro/j.drri'—(B C L. Copt.) A. Sjr. p.
0 Ti avrofx^drrj' — D.
* auro/j^drn yag-— (E S V. Sclav.) K A. It. Vulg. Arm.
auruj ydg' — Syr.
%a\- — iEth.
29. su^Os — (B C L. 33.) a. 13, 28, 69, 346.
* fWswr— (E S V.) A D K.
30. ffSis-— (B C L. 33. Copt.) a. 13, 28, 69, 346.
* r/V/'— (E S V. Sclav.) A D K. It. Vulg. Svr. Sjr. p. Arm.
M\\\.
ih. h rm-— (B C L.) A. 1, 13, 28, 69, 118, 131, 209, 346. It.
* i, ^o/«-— (E S V.) AD K.
ih.a\jr7\v va^aiSokT] &MiiiV', — (B C L.) A. 28. ^th.
rrapa^okyi aurrjv 6ojfJi,iv ; Ta^ajSdXufMV avryjV — 13, 69, 346.
6/M0iif)/Ma/n va^a^dXufMv axjr^v ; — 1, 118, 131, 209.
* 'zapa^o'Kp 'Tra^a^dXM/Msv wjtjjv ; — (E S V. Sclav.) A D K. It.
Vulg. Syr. Syr. p. Copt. Arm.
CHAP, v.] OLASSIFICATIOX OF AUTHORITIES. 417
31. TciiTiji/ ru)v amo/jbdrojv tuiv erri ri^g y^;' — (13 L.) A,
earl -x' r- ffT" r' £t- r' y — D. 235.
* T' r- ffo" ieu r- ir" r' y — (E S V.) C K.
T" r" err' t- «'T" r' y earr — A.
32. fLiiZuv (or imYCov C L) rrdvruv ruv 'KayaL\iZjv' — (B C L. 33. Copt.)
D A. 28, 131, 235. It. Vulg. Syr. yEth. Arm.
* T- r- X- /i=/^wv (/i,=r^ov A V) — (E S V. Sclav.) A K. Syr. p.
34. ro/j /5/'o/; ,aa(J?;ra7;" — (B C L.) A.
ToTg /jt.aOrjTai'f airov' — (E S V.) A D K.
36. xa/ aXXa -rXo/a-— (B C L. Copt.) A. 433. It. Vulg. Syr.
xal roc aXka ra ovra (J^ir avTou -TrXoTa. — 1, 28, 118, 131, 209. Arm.
aWai h\ crXo/iz/ 'XoWai r,(Sav ,asr' aliroZ' — D.
xa; aXKa ds rrXoia'—A. K. 13, 33, 69, 346, 435. Syr. p.
* xa/ aXXa b\ ■z}Md§ia,' — (E S V. Sclav.)
37. dv;{j,ou /liyaXoW — C.
/iBydXr, dve/JLOV'—(B L.) D A. 1, 13, 28, 69, 118, 131, 209,
346. It. Vulg. Syr.
* uviixov iJ^iyakri' — (E S V.) A K.
ih. TLctl rci-— (B C. Copt.) D A. 13, 28, 69, 131. It. Vulg.
* rd 5=-— (E S V.) A K L.
i'b.ribn.yi[iili<sdai rh rrXoror — (B C L. Copt.) D A. ^th.
ys/A' rh tX* — It. Vulg.
auri nh ^vdiPisdar—V, 33, 118, 131, 209.
* oMTh n^Yi yiixi^iddar — (E S V. Sclav.) A K. Syr. Syr. p.
38. axjTog ^v— (B C L.) A.
* h aur65— (E S V.) AD K.
tb. iv— (B C L.) AD A. 1, 13, 69, 118, 124, 131, 209, 346.
* «7r;-— (E S V.) K.
40. r/ hiiXoi gtfrr— (B L. Copt.) D A. It. Vulg. .^th.
* r/ 8- i- o'Jrw (or oUrw,-)— (E S V. Sclav.) A C K. Syr.
Syr. p. Arm.
Gog
418 TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. [flOOK III.
ib. ou'roy—(B L. 33. Copt.) D ^. 1, 13, 69, 131, 209, 346.
It. Vulg. Arm. and iEth. prohahly.
* crSl; oOx-— (E S V. Sclav.) A C K. Syr. Syr. p.
On a careful examination of the foregoing table, compared with
that given in p. 406-9, the first thing which strikes the mind is, that
it confirms, in a remarkable manner, the provisional arrangement
of the classes of documents suggested by the collation of the 25th
chapter of Matthew.
The leading documents of our first provisional class or family, viz.
B, C, L, 33, and the Coptic Version, continue still to act in harmony,
and manifest all the peculiarities by which a recension may be dis-
tinguished. To these we are now justified in adding the Codex A
(a MS. unknown to Griesbach and Hug, and even to Dr. Scholz,
and whose readings are here given for the first time in any English
work on criticism), to which the result of our former trial assigned a
different position.* These constitute the Alexandrine recension of
Griesbach, the Hesychian of Professor Hug, and are justly regarded
by both these eminetit men as a most important and interesting class
of authorities. It is true that Codex 33 sometimes deviates, in a
very marked manner, from the general reading of its tribe, and often
is silent when we expect to hear its voice ; but this is undoubtedly
owing, in a great many instances, to the careless manner in which
it was collated by Larroque, whose extracts were printed by Mill,
and have been copied by every succeeding editor.!
The Codices D, 1, 13, 28, 69, 118, 124, 131, and 346, as also the
Italic, the Vulgate, the Sahidic, the Jerusalem- Syriac, and the
jEthiopic versions, agree in a great many characteristic readings
with the Alexandrine family; but in not a few equally striking
passages, the majority of them dissent from its authority, and hold
an independent course. They also differ very frequently and very
widely among themselves, so that it would be improper to designate
* We thus become acquainted with the important fact, that the same
MS. does not always adhere to that family or recension which it supports
in one book or passage. In Matthew, a coincided with the documents of
the second group; here it Manifestly agrees with those of the first.
f Perquam negligenter codicem hunc contulit Larroquius cujus excerptis
usus est Millius. Equidem denuo excussi xviii. capita Mattheei, atque ex his
coUegi 300 circiter lectiones ab illo preetermissas, Preeterea ex epistolis
decerpsi etiam nonnuUas; sed de his suo loco deinceps dicetur, ubi ad episto-
larum codices perventum erit. Utinam vir doctus cui aditus ad Bibliothe-
cam Regiam patet reliquas etiam codicis egregii partes, denuo et accurate
conferat. — Griesbach, Si/?nbol. Criticce, i. 69.
CHAP, v.] CLASSIFICATION OF ADTIIUIUTIES. 419
tliom as documents derived from a common recension of tho text ;
they far more nearly correspond with the description given of the
state of the text during tho period when MSS. of the xo<v55 h.'doaii
were in circulation ; and from the affinities which they so frequently
manifest for tho readings of the Alexandrine recension, we may
regard them as preserving to criticism, in different states and
degrees of purity, specimens of tho uurevised text, which, prior to
tho critical era of the New Testament, was current in tho capital of
Egypt, and which, from the influence of teachers who emanated from
that school of learning, and also from tho frequent resort of purchasers
to the great mart of Alexandria, so long the emporium of the book-
trade, extended itself into the regions of Syria and Abyssinia, of
Italy, Africa, and the West. Griesbach was accustomed to call
these MSS. and versions the Occidental or Western Recension — a
singularly infelicitous name, since most of the documents which
contain this kind of text were executed in Egypt, or to the east of
it: the name is liable to a still more serious objection, from its
bestowing the term recension on a class of authorities which he
himself, in his latest critical work, admitted to be derived from no
editorial supervision.* In fact, without adopting the name of xoivfi
ixdoaic, so frequently employed by Professor Hug, Griesbach practi-
cally agreed with his account of the manner iu which those MSS.
and versions, or rather the text which they exhibit, had its origin.
Tho arbitrary maimer iu which the text is treated in the whole of
these documents is eminently favourable to the opinion of Hug ; but
the degrees of violence which it has experienced are not the same
in all. D has some various readings which arc peculiar to itself
alone : in some places, it carries with it only the Versio Itala, which
is related to it by a very close affinity ; indeed, there are very few
passages in which some copy or copies of the Versio Itala will not
be found supporting tlic text of Codex D. Next to the Italic version,
its most fre<iuent allies, in readings of a peculiar kind, are 1, 13, 28,
CO, 124, and 346 ; but it often differs from the whole of these, and
from all the documents with which it is here classed, including the
Vulgate, Jerusalem- Syriac, the Sahidic, and the JEthiopic Versions.
Such deviations are what we might expect in a manuscript of the
sort now under our consideration. One thing is plain: if those
documents constitute a real recension or critical emendation of the
text of the Gospels, Codex D can with no justice be designated, as
• Melctemata de Velustis Te^rtiis liecensionibiu:, ii. p. 16.
420 TEXTUAL CKITICISM OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. [bOOK III.
it was by Griesbach, "the very leader of the baud;" for no other
MS. more frequently deserts the rest of the members, even when
they are perfectly unanimous or nearly so among themselves.
The manuscripts E, S, V, and the Sclavonic Version, manifest
the same affinity for each other which they formerly displayed ; and
giving credit to Mattha3i, by whom the codices numbered 433 and
435 were collated, for ordinary care and diligence, we must believe
that they also are faithful to their class. We need not hesitate to
designate this tribe or family by the name of a recension, seeing that
the readings which are supported by its authority are usually of such
a kind as clearly manifest the prevalence of a peculiar critical
judgment and mental habitude. This, in fact, is the class of docu-
ments which Griesbach included under the title of the Byzantine or
Constantiuopolitan Recension, and which Hug denominated the
Recension of Lucian. It is not needful to discuss the propriety of
these designations, but the existence of a recension such as they are
intended to describe is a fact unquestionable.
Closely related to this recension, but more closely still to each
other, are the Codices A and K, the Peshito and the Philoxenian
Syriac Versions. Each of these documents manifests a prevailing
tendency to adopt the readings supported by the Lucianic or Byzantine
recension, or by whatever other name it may be called ; yet each of
them differs from it in not a few passages, and in cases, too, where
we should expect the vestiges of a recension, properly s.o called, to
be discoverable. They also differ from each other repeatedly, and
under similar circumstances, except that the Philoxenian Version
usually concurs with A and K when they agree together, and almost
always has one or other of these MSS. by its side. These facts
seem to imply that these are cognate documents, and yet to exclude
the idea that they constitute a recension in the strict sense of the
term. That they maintain a certain relationship to the Byzantine
or Lucianic text is unquestionable, yet it is almost equally manifest
that they do not simply exhibit its readings to us. On these grounds
I am disposed to regard them as documents which preserve to us a
Koivfi 'Uboaig, or common reading of the Gospels, as it existed in early
times before critics had endeavoured to restore regularity and order
to the MSS. and more particularly as that kind of xoivri l^boaig which
was found in the regions in which the Byzantine or Lucianic
recension had its origin at a later period. It appears to me that if
we take the Codices A and K, the Peshito and the Philoxenian
Syriac ; if we expunge from the text of any among them those
CHAP, v.] CLASSIFICATION OF AUTHORITIES. 421
readings from which the others dissent, and which arc also opposed
to the genius and spirit of the Constantinopolitan recension, we shall
in most cases obtain the text of E, S, V, 433, 435, and the Sclavonic
version. This indeed is not only admitted, but is strenuously
maintained, by Professor Hug, with regard to the Old Syriac Version,
and for I'casons very similar to those above stated: by parity of
argument we may apply the doctrine to the remainder of the docu-
ments, to which it appears equally applicable. Not such, however,
is the opinion of that learned and accurate scholar : he regards the
manuscripts A, K, and M, with the Philoxenian Syriac Version, as
containing a special recension of the text; and he even conceives
that he has identified it with that made by Origen. As to Codex
M, it is evident that in those two chapters the extracts given from
it in the usual critical editions are too few and too incorrect to be
employed in the support of any theory, for which reason I have not
given any reference to that document in the foregoing collations;
and of the correctness of the views maintained on either side with
respect to the others, the reader who will draw out for himself in a
tabular form the various readings upon ten or a dozen chapters
selected from different parts of the four Gospels, will be able to form
an independent judgment for himself, more especially if he has respect
not merely to the assent or disagreement of the documents quoted,
but to the description of passages and readings in which the agree-
ment or disagreement may be displayed. By the result of such an
examination the true critic will gladly abide.
The Armenian Version, by its capricious and arbitrary transitions
from the text of one of these classes to that of another, bears evident
traces of the frequent remodelling and revision to which it was
subjected at the time when it was originally composed.
Without pursuing farther this dry and uninteresting, though really
important, investigation, I may be allowed to expi-ess my belief,
founded on a considerable number of trials and computations, that
a twofold division and a sub-division will be found to hold, in refer-
ence to the text of the MSS. and versions of the four Gospels; and
that the state of the case accords very well — that is, as minutely as
can be expected in such a case — with the supposition that we have,
1st, two families or tribes of documents, exhibiting to us specimens
of the xoivr, iTidogi; or unrevised text, as it circulated in two different
localities ; and, 2dly, two revisions or recensions of the sacred text,
derived from these two different kinds or classes of y.omi h.ooai;, each
recension being, founded on a separate class of authorities, and
422 TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. [bOOK III.
preserving their general testimony, or what was conceived to be so,
by the critic by whom it was superintended at the time of its first
promulgation. And I am disposed to extend to both these recensions
the conjecture of Griesbach with reference to wiat he calls the
Occidental and the Alexandrine recension, or, as we prefer to call
them, the Alexandrine xoivri ixdosig, and revised text, — namely, that
the former sprang from the copies of the different books of the New
Testament, as they circulated in a detached form, as separate
writings, before the collections which were afterwards termed the
ivayyiXiov and the a'nddro'kdi were formed ; and that the latter, that
is, the revised text, was remodelled and purged of many of its im-
purities by the persons who compiled these works. I know of no
fact which is inconsistent with the beHef that two different persons
— perhaps unaware of each other's existence — may have made such
compilations, in two different places; one perhaps at Alexandria,
and one at Autioch ; or one at Csesarea, and one at some other place.
A revision of the text would naturally form part of such a task.
When we pass to the Acts of the Apostles, we at once become
sensible of a great diminution in that portion of our critical material
which consists in ancient MSS.; for the Codices hitherto referred to
under the letters E, K, L, S, V, and A, contain the Gospels only.
Three other MSS. however, of good antiquity, which in this part of
the New Testament are called E, G, and H, come to our aid, and
in some measure supply their place. We have therefore in this
book the uncial MSS. A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H. Along with these
we place the readings of the cursive Codices, I'd, 15, 18, 40, 98, 99,
100, 101, 104, 105, 106, and 180. A, C, D, and B, having been
published, we can easily verify their readings. B has been collated
by Birch, who assures us he has exercised the more minute and
careful diligence : to the same effect are the declarations of Scholz
respecting G and H, and of Matthsei respecting 98, 99, 100, 101,
104, 105, and 106, collated by themselves for their respective editions
of the New Testament. We therefore have no hesitation in exhibiting
their testimony on each passage, whether we find them expressly
quoted or not; but 13, 15, 18, 40, and 180, we only mention when
we find them expressly cited, as no similar assurance has been given
us by their collators. The versions here cited are the same that
were referred to in the passage from the Gospel of St. Mark. The
following table exhibits the principal variations occurring in the
16th chapter of the Acts of the Apostles ; and the two recensions
CHAP, v.] CLASSIFICATION OF AUTHOIIITIES, 423
being hero so well defined as to strike the mind of every attentive
reader, it lias been thought allowable, in transcribing them for the
press, to mark them separately, as in the former example, by means
of parentheses.
Collation of Acts xvi. 1 — 40,
\.* y.aTr,vrngib--—(Gll. 98,09,100,101,104,100. Sclav.) C.
105. It. Vulg. 8yr. Sahid. .Eth. Arm.
xarjjvrjjtfg 8s xa/' — (A 13. 40. Copt.) Syr. p.
disXdijv Si ra 'iOvri raxjra y.aTrjVTricn' — D; and a Greek MS. referred
to in the margin of the Philoxenian Syriac Version.
ih. '/o^a/xor— (A B C. 18, 40, 105, 180. Copt.) D E. Vulg.
Syr. p. ^Eth. Arm.
* yjmixo; rmg-—(G II. 98, 99, 100, 101, 104, 106. Sclav.)
Syr. Sahid.
'A. or/ "EXXriv 6 rrarr^g axjTbv 'oTii^^iv' — (A B C. 13, 15, 18, 40, 105.)
Vulg. Sahid. ^th.
* 70V crarjga avrou oti "EXXrjv h<::rigyiV — (G H. 98, 99, 100, 101,
104, 106. Sclav.) D E. It. Syr. Syr. p. Copt. Arm.
4. The Common Text, which is supported by almost all the critical
authorities, here reads: — *' And as they went through the cities,
tliey delivered to them the decrees to keep, that had been ordained
by the apostles and elders icho were at Jerusalem." But
Codex D gives, instead of this, the following passage, in Greek
and Latin: — ^' And going through the cities, they preached and
delivered unto them, with all boldness, the Lord Jesus Christ;
at the same time delivering also the commandments of the
apostles and elders icho %oere at Jerusalem." A Greek MS.
cited in the margin of the Philoxenian Syriac Version gave
the verse a similar turn ; reading, — ''And as they went through
the cities, they delivered to them the decrees to keep, and
preached, ivith all boldness, the Lord Jesus Christ."
ib. 7rg£(r/3uT£gwv_(A B C. 105.) D.
* Tuv <rj£<r/3-_(G H, 98, 99, 100, 101, 104, 106.) E.
424 TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. [BOOK HI.
6. 6,riXdor—(X B C. 13, 15, 18, 40, 105, 180. Copt.) D E.
It. Syr. ^th. Arm.
s^sXdovng' — Sahid.
*- a^sX^oms— (G H. 98, 99, 100, 101, 104, lOG. Sclav.) Vulg.
Syr. p.
ih. yaXccrr/criV yoj^av — (A B C. 13.) D.
* r^v yak- p^wgav— (G H. 98, 99. 100, 101, 104, 106.) E. 105.
ih. rhv Xoyov roZ dsov' — D. Vulg. Syr. Copt.
* rov Xoyor — All the other documents.
7. yivofjjivoi h\' — D.
l-K&ovTii as-— (A B C. 15, 18, 40, 105, 180. Copt.) E. It.
Vulg. Syr. Syr. p. Sahid. iEth, Arm.
*IX^oms— (G H. 98, 99, 101, 104, 106. Sclav.)
il.ihrn^Bi&mar—{kQ. 15,18,40,105,180. Copt.) D E. It.
Vulg. Svr, Syr. p. Sahid. Arm. Sclav.
* xar« r^^ B/V— (G H. 98, 99, 100, 104, 106.) B.
ih. rh TTViufia 'Tri(!ov-~-{A B C. 15, 40. Copt.) D E. It. Vulg.
Syr. Syr. p. ^th. Arm. (rou 'li^aou- 105.)
* rh TvsZ/Ma.—iG H. 98, 99, 100, 101, 104, 106. Sclav.)
Sahid.
9. avJ5g fig ijjaxihm' — E. It. Arm. ^th.
mil ai/^g 7ig jiax' — D. Syr. Sahid.
av^l lha%- Tig ^v— (B C. 13. Copt.) Vulg.
* c6v% r/5 ^^ /y.ax-— (G H. 98, 99, 100, 101, 104, 106. Sclav.)
A. 105.
ih. Ur^g x«;-— (A C. 13. 15, 18, 40, 105, 180. Copt.) E. It.
Vulg. Syr. ^th.
* Urihg'—{Q H. 98, 99, 100, 101, 104, 106. Sclav.) B. Arm.
i<S7ug jcara "TTgotfwcrov auroD" — D. Syr. p. Sahid.
10. hiyiP&ih O'^i' hriynGaro to o^a/xa rj/jbTv — D. Sahid.
* ug Se Th o^a/ji,a iJdsv — All other authorities.
CHAP, v.] CLASSIFICATION OF AnTIIORlTIES. 425
ih. 6 i)'M-—(A. B C. 13, 15, 18, 40, 105, 180. Copt.) E. Vulg.
^th.
*ox6g/os— (G II. 98, 99, 100, 101, 104, 106. Sclav.) D.
Syr. Syr. p. Sahid. Arm.
12. xqJxsWsi/-— (A B C. 13, 105, 180.) D E.
*£X£/^£i/ «•— (H. 98, 99, 100, 101, 104, 106.)
lxi7&iV hi' G.
13. Trie, ffuX^js'— (A B C. 13, 40, 105. Copt.) D. It. Vulg.
Sahid.
* r^5 -^roXjws-— (G II. 08, 99, 100, 101, 104, 106. Sclav.) E.
Syr. p. iEth. Arm.
Trig "TuX^e Trig nrokiug' — Syr.
ih. mfji,l^ofMBV—(A B C. 13, 40. Copt.) ^Etli.
* m,a!^iro-—(G II. 98, 99, 100, 101, 104, 106. Sclav.) E.
105. It. Vulg. Syr. Syr. p. Sahid. Arm.
bBoxh' D.
ih. '7^ogiux,riv—(A B C. 13, 15, 40. Copt.) ^th.
* ^^o6ivxn'—(G H. 98, 100, 101, 104, 106. Sclav.) D E.
105. It. Vulg. Syr. Syr. p. Sahid. Arm.
i-'JX^' — 99.
15. sj^ccrrriedrj aurri' — E. 180. Syr. Sahid. Arm.
* i^wrrlaOri' — All other authorities.
ih. Tag 6 oJxog' — D. Copt.
* 6 ohog' — All other authorities.
16. ilg rnv TgoffEu^i^v— (A B C. 13, 18, 40, 105, 180.) E.
* iJg crgoffEux'!"'— (Cr H. 98, 99, 100, 101, 104, 106.) D.
ih. ^u^wi/a-_(A B C.) D. It. Vulg. Sahid.
* vi&ojvog'—iG II. 98, 99, 100, 101, 104, 106. Sclav.) E.
105. Syr. Syr. p. Copt. /Eth. Arm.
17. *vix,Tv—(U. 98, 99, 100, 101, 104, 106.) B D E. It. Vulg.
Syr. Syr. p. Sahid. Ai'm.
ri/xTv—(A. C. 18, 105. Copt.) G. ^th. Sclav.
II II h
426 TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. [bOOK HI.
24. Xa/3^r— (A B C. 13, 15, 18, 40, 105, 180.) D E.
* i}Xr,<pijg-—{G H. 98, 99, 100, 101, 104, 106.)
26. dvBu,x6yi<!av de-—{A B. 13, 15, 18, 40, 105.) B E.
* dvs'u,xSnadv rr— (G H. 98, 99, 100, 101, 104, 106.) C.
32. aov 7ra<j/-— (A B C. 13, 15, 18, 40, 105, 180.) D. It. Vulg.
* zai *c6(t;-— (a H. 98, 99, 100, 101, 104, 106. Sclav.) E.
Sjr. Syr. p. Copt. Sahid. Arm.
caff/- — ^th.
34. rhv o7xov—{B C. 40, 180.) 100.
* rhv olxov auroD-— (G H. 98, 99, 101, 104, 106. Sclav.) A D E.
It. Vulg. Copt. Sahid. ^th. Arm.
35. The Received Text, with all the ancient versions, and a vast
majority of the MSS. reads, — "And ichen it was day, the
magistrates sent,^^ &c.; for which words, Codex J) with the
Greek MS. the I'eadings of which are noted in the margin of
the Philoxenian Syriac Version, read, — " And vjhen it was day,
the magistrates came together in the place of assembly, and
being informed of the earthquake ichich had taken place, they
were afraid, and sent," &c.
37. The Common Text reads, — "And the sergeants told unto the
magistrates these words ; and they feared tvhen they heard that
they were Romans. And they came and besought them, and
brought them out, and desired them to depart out of the city."
But D gives as follows: — "And the se.~geants told these words
that were spoken mito the magistrates. And they having heard
that they were Romans were afraid: and having come with
many friends into the prison, they besought them to go out,
saying. We knew not the things concerning you, that ye are
just men. And having led them out, they besought them, saying.
Depart out of this city, lest those that cry out against you may
return unto us." No other document hitherto collated con-
tains the whole of the additional matter here found; but
Codex 137 has a portion of it: — "We kneio not the things
concerning you, that ye are just men; and now depart out of the
city, lest haply those ivho cried out against you turn again."
CHAP. V,] CLASSIFICATION OF AUTirOUITlES, 427
40. T^hr—(A B. 13, 15. 18, 40, 105, 180.) D E G. 98, 100.
*£/';•— (II. 99, 101, 104, 106.)
ih. Where the Received Text, with all the Versions, and all the
MSS. but one, reads, " Thcij comforted them." 1) gives, —
" They related what things the Lord had done unto them, having
comforted them.^^
In this collation, as in those which have previonslj been submitted,
several various readings have been designedly passed over, because
they are so circumstanced that they can lead to no inferences avail-
able for our present object, whicli is the classification of the docu-
ments. A few of this description have been introduced, in order to
show the peculiar and characteristic nature of many readings which
are found in Codex D ; but even those given above are merely a
specimen from a number which might have been selected.
On perusing the foregoing tabular statement, and comparing
together the results which it exhibits, every attentive reader will draw
from it the same conclusion to which we were led by the collation of
two chapters in the Gospels of Matthew and Mark: viz. that in our
present critical material we have two recensions or revised editions
of the sacred text, together with several authorities not properly
belonging to either, yet bearing such a relation to them both, that
we shall probably not be far from the truth in considering them as
portions or reliques of a -/.oivr, ixooai; from which each of the revised
editions derived its being. The first of the revised editions or
recensions of the text manifestly comprehends the manuscripts A,
B, C, 13, 15, 18, 40, 105, and 180, with the Coptic Version; this
corresponds to the Alexandrine Recension of Griesbach and the
Ilesychiau of Professor Hug. It is true, that some of the cursive
manuscripts are not cited where we should expect to have their
testimony ; this probably arises from the imperfection of the collations,
for whenever they utter their voice, they agree with the documents
of their class : and even if this be an erroneous supposition, it would
only prove that we have wrongly assigned them, or some of them, to
this recension, not that such a recension does not exist. Codex D,
with the Sahidic, the Italic, the A'ulgate, and the vEthiopic Versions,
would appear to belong to the xoivi) hdcKSig out of which this recension
sprung. The Uncial MSS. G and II, with the Moscow Codices
m, 90, 100, 101, 104, and 106— if any faitli can be placed in the
assertions of the critics by whom they have been collated — manifestly
428 TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. [bOOK III.
belong to a different family of documents, and, together with the
Sclavonic Version, constitute the Byzantine or Constantinopolitan
Recension of the Acts of the Apostles, to which the Received Text
very closely though not undeviatingly adheres. To this edition,
the Peshito and Philoxeniau Syriac Versions bear such a relation as
seems to indicate a derivation from a common source, being probably
translated from the documents of the oriental koivt} 'Ubosig out of
which the Byzantine Recension grew. The Armenian Version agrees
so closely with this Recension of the text, that it may almost be said
to constitute one of its members.
I shall conclude this Section with a passage from the Epistles of
Paul, passing over the Catholic Epistles and the Apocalypse. This
will shorten our labour without greatly interfering with our main
design ; for the critical material in the Catholic Epistles is in general
the same as that already discussed in the Book of Acts ; and in the
Book of Revelation it is so scanty, that it is not easy to settle the
mutual relation of the documents, especially as many of them appear
to have been read and others to have been written with but little
attention. I have selected for examination the second and third
chapters of the 2nd Epistle to the Corinthians. The MSS. referred
to are A, B, C, which have been already quoted under the same
designations ; D, G, which however are not the codices denoted by
these letters in the Gospels and Acts,* together with another uncial
Codex, I, the Cursive MSS. 17, 31, 37, 46, 73, 80, 113, 115, 116,
120, 121, and the versions already quoted. The MSS. A, C, and G,
have been published ; B has been carefully collated by Birch, T> by
Wetstein, and after him by Griesbach; I by Dr. Scholz, and 113,
115, 116, 120, and 121, by Professor Matthaei: the other cursive
MSS. we only quote when we find them specially mentioned,
holding it unsafe to infer from the silence of their collators that their
readings in all such cases agree with the Received Text.
Collation of 2 Corinthians ii. 1. — iii. 18.
II. 1. h Kwjfi -Trfog u/jbag IX6uv — (A B C. 80.) I. 113.
iv XvTrfi ikkTv irghg \j[x,ag' — D G. 120. It. Vulg. Syr. Arm.
* ikkTv Iv Xvn-p 'TT^og hfiag- — (115, 116, 121. Sclav. Syr. p.) ^Eth.
Copt.
* I think it unnecessary to encumber the page with the readings of the
MSS. noted E and F, as they are mere transcripts of D and G.
CHAT. V. ] CLASSIFICATION OF AUTIIOUITIES. 429
2. r/5-— (A B C. Copt.) Syr. yEth.
* Tie iar,v—(l. IL'J, 115, 116, 120, 121. Sclav. Syr. p.) D Ci.
It. Vulg. Arm.
3. syga-\|/a rouTo' — A.
'iy§' toVto ahrh' — (B C. 17. Copt.) Arm.
"^'iy^- uij.hr' a-— (l. 113, 115, IIG, 120, 121. Sclav. Syr. p.)
Syr. ^
toZto a- ey^' \jfuv — D G. It. Vulg. xEth.
ih. * Xu^nv lyjj^ (or -K- 6yj^-)—{K B C. Copt.) (I. 113, 115, 110,
121. Sclav.) Syr. ^Eth. Arm.
A- £T/ XuTJii/ (or XuTTJj) 'iyja' — D G. 31, 72, 120. It. Vulg.
Syr. p.
7. uiiag' — A B. Syr, ^Eth.
IJjaXkov — Vulg.
vfLag fjjoXkov' — D G.
*(aaXXoi/u/xa5— (I. 113, 115, IIG, 120, 121. Sclav. Syr. p.)
C. Copt. Arm.
10. 0 xB^d^ia/Mai £/' ri xsy^d^iafiar — (A B C. 46.) G. It. Vulg.
(f) X£^" s7 Tl %iyj D.
* c7 ri xix V ^'X'—(^- 113, 115, 116, 120, 121. Sclav. Syr. p.)
Arm.
0 xsp^' xs^d^ia/Mai' — Syr. Copt.
12, il; rh imyysXm-— (A B C. Copt.) I. 113, 115, 116, 120,
121. Sclav. Syr. p.) Syr. ^Etli. Arm.
did T- Ivay—D G. It. Vulg.
\CK*6gfMn'^amro-j....6afMri ^urig-—(l. 113, 115, 116, 120, 121.
Sclav. Syr. p.) D G. It. Vulg. Syr. Arm.
o<ffx,rt ixdav .... oa/xn h. ^"— (A B C. 17, 31, 37, 80. Copt.)
iEth.
17. >.o/To/-— (I. 113, 116, and many other MSS. Sclav. Syr. p.)
D G. It. Syr. Arm.
* rro>.}.o!-—(\ B C. Copt.) Vulg. vEth.
430 TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. [bOOK III.
ib. ■/MrsvavTr—(A B C. 17, 37.)
* xarsvwCToi/-— (I. 113, 115, 116, 120, 121.) D G.
ib. deov'—(A B C. 17, 37, 46, 73, 80.) D.
* rov d'.ou-—(l. 113,115,116,120,121.) G.
III. 1. *s)/M^-—(A B.) (I. 113, 115, IIG, 120, 121, and many
other MSS. Syr. p.) Arm.
n fMi,-—C D G. It. Vulg. Syr. Copt. Sclav.
ib. J| Vwi/.— (A B C. 17, 80. Copt.) It. Vulg. Arm.
* s^ bfMS;>v 6u6Tar,xSjr—(I. 113,115,116,120,121. Sclav.) D.
Syr.
i^ vfi^ojv iTT/crroXwc 6vaT' — G. Syr. p.
5. d(p' savrSjv ixavol sofxiv Xoyioao&a'i ti' — (B*C. 37, 73. Copt.)
Arm.
* ixavoi safjbsv d<p savrojv Xoyidaadai rr — (I. 113, 115, 116, 120, 121.
Sclav. Syr. p.)
'ixavoi idf/jiv XoyldaGdai ri' — Syr.
i/f la/ji,' Xoy" TI dp' lauTOJv' — A D G. It. Vulg.
7. X/^o/5— (A B C. 17, 73, 80.) D G.
*iv x;^o/s-— (I. 113, 115, 116, 120, 121.)
8. rfi 6/axowa-— (A C. 17, 31, 73, 80.) D G. It. Syr. Syr. p.
' ^th.
*75 a/axoi'/a-— (I. 113,115,116,120,121. Sclav.) B. Vulg.
Copt. ^th.
ih. bo^a soTiv — D G. It. Syr.
Iv do^p kriv (or rjv) — Vulg. Arm.
*ao|a-— (AB C. 17. Copt.) (I. 113, 115, 116, 120, 121.
Sclav. Syr. p.)
ib. (At the end of the verse.)
aof?5--(A B C. 17, 80.)
*h Sof,r— (I. 113, 115, 116, 120, 121.) D G.
* B omits the word n.
ClfAl'. v.] CLASSIFICATION OF AUTHORITIES. 431
11. * TAi ohi>^ioov—{\. 113, 115, IIG, 120, 121. Sclav. Syr. p.)
r- fl^,a- v^e^aj— (A B C. 17, 31, 37, 4G, 73. Copt.) D G.
It. Vulg.
ih. h-—\) G. It. Vulg. Sclav.
*fa-/-_(A 13 C. Copt.) (I. 113, 115, IIG, 120, 121. Syr. p.)
Syr. Arm.
15. ^ma a^-— (A B C. 17, 31.)
* riv',y.a'—{l. 113, 115, 116, 120, 121.) D G.
ih. avayivuiaxriTar — (A B C. 17, 31, 37.) D.
* avay,vu>GM7ar—{l, 113, 115, 116, 120, 121.) G.
17. iXiu6i{,a-—{X B C. 17.) D. Syr.
*UusX^^JO^—{l. 113,115,116,120,121. Sclav. Syr. p.) It.
"Vulg. Arm. ^Eth.
This table, assuming the collations upon which it is in part founded
to have been executed with even moderate care, displays to view a
division of the testimonies into two grand classes, each of which
contains a recension of the text, and some related documents, pro-
bably derived from the same -/Mvrt 'Ubooi;, and still maintaining a
prevailing conformity to the revised text, though with many devia-
tions. The MSS. A, B, and C, with the Coptic Version, are
included in the first recension, which has been called by Griesbach
the Alexandi'ine ; by Hug, the Hesychian edition of the text. With
these documents, the cursive MSS. 17, 31, 37, 46, 73, and 80,
appear in general to coincide, so far as we can judge from the
imperfect extracts which have hitherto been published. Thus much
we may affirm, that when their readings are expressly quoted, they
arc seldom found to differ fi-om the majority of the other documents
with which I have united them. The xEthiopic Version is rendered
so freely that it is not easy in some places to say how the translator
read the text; yet he appears very frequently to agree with this
recension, although in some, very striking passages he takes a
decidedly opposite course. On the other hand, the MSS. I, 113,
115, 116, 120, and 121, with the Sclavonic Version, and in this
part of the Xow Testament the Philoxenian Version, evidently
belong to a different recension, with which the Syriac Peshito and
the Armenian Versions frequently agree, yet do not exactly coincide.
432 TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. [uOOK III.
Tlio Codices D and G and the Latin Versions sometimes agree with
one and sometimes with the other of these editions ; sometimes they
have readings peculiar to themselves, in which they all agree ; at
other times they differ from each other, and in a manner so marked,
that we cannot concur with Griesbach, who esteemed them to be
members of one and the same recension of the text, which he deno-
minated the Occidental or Western, In our opinion, the judgment
of Hug, who looks upon them as derived, without any critical
superintendence, from the documents of the xotvri hdosi; or unrevised
text, corresponds much more closely with their present condition ;
and, as has akeady been observed, the matured opinion of Griesbach
himself did not essentially differ from this view of their origin and
character.* One thing will be conceded, that if the term Recension
be used with any reference to critical superintendence, and if the
Cambridge MS. (which is denoted by the letter D in the collations
of the Gospels and Acts) be what Griesbach calls it — " Occidentalium
facile princeps/' the acknowledged leader of the Westerns — there is
no such thing as a Western Recension at all, or else it consists of
that single Codex ; for it has innumerable readings, some of them
verv remarkable and characteristic, in which no other document
concurs. But this is a point which, after that eminent man's candid
concessions, it would be superfluous to argue at length ; the more
especially as the tendency of some modern writers seems to be, to
abandon altogether the distinction between the documents placed in
this class and those which Griesbach and Hug agree in referring to
the Alexandrian or Egyptian Recension, properly so called. I am
of opinion, however, that no person who minutely examines the
readings of the manuscripts denoted by the letters B, C, L, and A,
* In his Commentarius Criticus, Particula Ilda. p. xxxxiiii — xxxxvi.
the following expressions occur: — "As to the Occidental Recension or
xoivr\ 'iy.doeig we are sufficiently agreed." — Of its dispersion into distant
regions: — "I readily grant that an explanation can be given on Hug's
hypothesis very easily — ^perhaps more easily than on my own." — " I never
supposed that its original formation was the work of any learned man,
revising a particular copy, and constructing a text according to his own
judgment, on a comparison of several MSS. I rather supposed that it was
derived from the old transcripts of particular books of the New Testament,
or defective and imperfect collections which were in circulation before the
ivay/sXiov and ocTrosroXog were pubhshed." He states that he used the term
Recension in this connexion partly for brevity, and partly because he thought
that the text of the Cambridge MS. which he regards as the leader of the
class, had been formed by a critical revision.
CHAP, v.] CLASSIFICATION OP ACTnORlTIES. 433
and of the Coptic Version, in the Gospels of Mark, Luke, and John,
and of A, B, C, and the same Version, in the ICpistles of Paul, will
hesitate to affirm that thoj present such a prevailing agreement in
characteristic readings as cannot be the result of mere chance : they
must have been derived directly or indirectly from one and the same
document; and whether the exemplar to which they owe their origin
was prepared by a learned critic, or was duo to the comparatively
humble and obscure labours of some diligent copyist, whose transcripts
became known for the care with which they were executed, and so
obtained acceptance and circulation without earning for their author
literary fame, makes no difference in the matter of fact. I add that
a comparison of this text with that more ancient one which is
preserved to us in the Latin, the Jerusalem- Syriac, and the Sahidic
Versions, as also with the Scriptural quotations found in Clement
and Origen, clearly proves that the person who prepared this corrected
copy proceeded not in an arbitrary manner, but according to certain
fixed rules and principles, and therefore that his work deserves to be
denominated a Recension — that is, a critically revised text.
Professor Norton, in the first additional note to the first volume
of his Evidences of the Genuineness of the Gospels, has a long and
able statement, intended to show "the great exti'avagance of the
language which has been used by Griesbach and others, concerning
the diversities of the text in different copies of the Xew Testament ;"
and in order to do this more effectually, he discusses the system of
classifying those copies, which has been connected with and has
principally given occasion to the language referred to. Many of
the expressions which this learned writer censures are perhaps too
strong; though it ought to be remembered that they have been
employed by Griesbach at least, not in a theological, but in a critical
point of view, and that what will appear of no consequence at all to
a man who wishes merely to derive from the Xew Testament a
knowledge of the true principles of the Christian faith, will yet have
considerable interest and importance in the eyes of another, whose
object is to restore the sacred books to the exact state in which their
authors left them. For this circumstance Mr. Norton has not made
sufficient allowance. And it seems to me that while nominally
objecting to the division of the MSS. into classes or recensions, he
really concedes all that is of the least importance in the statement
which he controverts. lie expressly allows that there is " a Byzan-
tine text, capable of being discriminated from any other" (p. xxx.),
and sets forth in detail the "extraordinary causes which were," in
Iii
434 TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. [bOOK III.
the tenth and eleventh centuries, "and had been long before, in
operation, to form and perpetuate" such a text. Among these he
reckons the concentration of Grecian literature in Constantinople
and its neighbourhood under the pressure of barbarian invasions.
" But few Greek MSS. were written except within the walls of that
citj or in the monasteries of Mount Athos, or others subject to the
jurisdiction of its patriarch. Transcribers in the near neighbourhood
of each other may be supposed to have used in common exemplars
having the same text, or to have compared their respective texts
together, and to have adjusted the one to the other. They were
principally ecclesiastics, and, it is reasonable to suppose, wrote under
ecclesiastical supervision. The eleventh and twelfth centuries were
distinguished for verbal critics, scholiasts, and commentators. The
spirit of the age was likely to cause attention to be given to the
minutise of various readings in the New Testament, and would lead
therefore to the forming and preserving of a uniform text. We are,
therefore, without supposing any Byzantine recension, properly so
called, able to account for the peculiarities of their text, and their
great resemblance to each other — characteristics, it is to be observed,
which belong only to a majority of modern manuscripts, and are far
from being common to all."
Of course this last remark is founded on the testimony of critics
and collators as to the matter of fact. I affirm that the same
testimony enables us to distinguish an Alexandrian class or family
of documents, whose text, though not handed down to us in the same
state of preservation in all of them, yet has its characteristics, by
which, in the great majority of passages, it also is " capable of being
discriminated from any other;" and I am surprised that it should
have escaped the attention of so acute a reasoner as Professor Norton,
that the very same facts by which he accounts for the formation of
the Byzantine text, might be used to explain the origin of the
Egyptian. If the Constantinopolitan family of MSS. was produced
in the same region, so was the Alexandrian : there is no doubt what-
ever that the Codices A, B, C, and Z, were written in Egypt, and
most probably in Alexandria ; and if L and A were written in other
regions, the peculiai'ities of spelling which they preserve show that
they were copied from Egyptian exemplars. The four former, which
are the most important, were not merely approximate in place, but
also in time. They were all written about the fifth century. At
this period Alexandria was the chief, we might even say the only seat
of Grecian literature: it was the resort of "verbal critics, scholiasts.
CHAP, v.] CLASSIFICATION OF AUTHORITIES. 435
and commentators; and tlio spirit of tlio ago," which remembered
the labom's of Origon in the emendation of tlio Septuagint and in
the construction of the Ilcxapla — which had witnessed the critical
efforts of Lucian and Hcsychius upon the Greek translation of the
Old Testament — which had before its ejes the pains-taking Euthalius,
wlio had done so mucli to facilitate the comparison of copies, by
breaking up the whole text of the Now Testament into criyjji, or short
lines divided according to the sense — which had beheld the churches
of the Egyptian Christians, who spoke the native language of the
country, discard the Old or Sahidic Egyptian Version, and adopt
the New or Copto-Memphitic — which was acquainted with the efforts
of Jeromo to reform and amend the Latin translation in use among
the churches of the West, and which preceded but by a few years
the effort of certain of tho Syrian Christians to procure au improved
version in their native tongue, faithfully representing not merely the
sense, but the very etymology, of the words in the original ; — the
spirit of such an ago was surely as likely as any other " to cause
attention to be given to the minutia) of various readings in the New
Testament, and would lead therefore to the forming," at least, " of
a uniform text." Nor was ecclesiastical supervision wanting; for
Athauasius informs us that when the emperor wished for a number
of copies of the Now Testament for the use of his subjects, it was to
himself as bishop of the see of Alexandria that the application was
made, and by him they were supplied. Wo can hardly doubt that
copies made by order of the prelate would also bo made under his
direction. The unhappy circumstances in which the churches of
Egypt were soon afterwards involved, from internal discord and the
Saracen conquests, enable us, without difficulty, to explain how it
happens that but few transcripts of the Alexandrine text have been
preserved to our day — and among these, probably not one that was
of any special value or importance at the time when it was written.
But whether these reasonings be judged to carry with them any
probability or not, tho distinction between the Alexandrine family of
documents and those which Griesbach denominates — iu my opinion,
unhappily and improperly — the Western Recension, is a matter of
fact, to be decided by tlie evidence of testimony, and not to be denied
by any one who will examine the published statements and collations
made by critics. That there is au affinity between them is indeed
• apparent; that there is also a recognisable distinction, is, in my
judgment, not loss manifest.
Mr. Norton thinks, tliat from Ins previous stateraents "it is
436 TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. [bOOK III,
evident that the peculiarities of the Byzantine text may be explained
without recourse to the supposition of a recension." With so con-
summate a master of language, I would not willingly dispute about
a word, but would only mention, that to me the term recension seems
very applicable to the process which he has above described in
accounting for the formation and perpetuation of the Byzantine text :
but undoubtedly, if any one objects to use it, he is at perfect liberty
to substitute the term/ami/^/ or class, which involves no theory, and
sufficiently expresses the matter of fact ; and whatsoever name be
given to the documents of tlie Byzantine text, the same ought to be
applied to the Alexandi'iue.
I may add, that the brief specimens of the various readings given
in this section seem to intimate, what is probably the fact, that we
have before us three different stages of the Constantinopolitan or
Byzantine text: 1st, the -/MMr) ixdosig consisting of the Codices A, K,
M, in the Gospels, and the Armenian, and the Old Syriac Versions
throughout the whole New Testament ; 2nd, the Older Recension,
or Revised edition, consisting of the more ancient Evangelistaria,
the Codices E, S, V, the Sclavonic and Gothic Versions, and that
revision of the Old Latin translation which is contained in the
Codex Brixianus, published by Bianchini; and, 3dly, the Later
Recension contained in modern MSS. written in the cursive character
at Constantinople and on Mount Athos; such are most of those
collated with so much industry by Matthsei at Moscow, which exhibit
a text of the New Testament very similar to that of our common
editions.
Section III. — Character and Value of the Different Classes
of Documents.
On looking over the specimens given in the last section, and, still
more, on examining critical editions containing copious selections of
various readings, we perceive that the text of that very ancient
period to which the early versions belongs was disfigured by numerous
blemishes. The very same errors do not appear in all the documents ;
but there are entire classes and descriptions of corruptions which are
common to all the MSS. and other authorities which preserve to us
the readings that were current at that remote time. Most of these
errors arose from efforts to remove exegetical difficulties. Passages *
or words were introduced at first, perhaps, into the margin, after-
wards into the text, from the previous or subsequent context, from
CTIAP. v.] CLASSIFICATION OF AUTIIORITIRS, 437
tho parallel statement of some other of tlio sacred writers, or even
from expositions of Scripture which were approved of at tho time,
with a view to prevent misconception, or to obviate what would
appear contradictory, absurd, or heretical. Many of tho peculiar
readings of tho documents to wliich we now refer arose from a
desire to explain obscure allusions or ambiguous expressions, and
some few were designed to amend what seemed faulty in grammar
or deficient in elegance and force ; but as, in tho earlier period of tlie
church, mere elegance of language was little understood and less
regarded by the majority of Christians, while tho defence of the
faith was matter of constant and pressing necessity, alterations
intended to serve the latter object were much more frequent than
those designed to promote the former. It is probable that many of
the corruptions of both kinds crept into the text of the MSS. from
the margins, on which notes were frequently written for the pui'pose
of explaining difficulties and obviating objections. We may add,
that as the churches of the East were, in the first, second, and third
centuries, less exposed to the evils of controversy than those of
Alexandria, contrivances to obviate such evils were less pressingly
required; and to this cause we may attribute the comparatively
pure state in which the Eastern y.oirri ixdoai; has come down to us.
In the Recensions or revised editions both of Alexandria and
Constantinople, on the other hand, it is easy to see that considerable
attention was given to the removal of those exegetical alterations
which formed tho greatest blemish of the unreformed documents.
In many cases, interpolations, whether derived from commentaries
or from parallel passages, were expunged ; altered readings, made
with a view to suit the context, and to bring the nai'rative or argu-
ment into more complete, or at least more manifest harmony, were
restored to their primitive condition, and glosses or explanatory
phrases were rejected. It was not possible indeed for any critic to
perform such a task with absolute success ; his stock of materials
was necessarily limited, and he could not or would not venture to
make any restorations which were not warranted by the documents
before him ; and accordingly, in both the Recensions we see some
harmonized and expository readings which appear to have been
retained when many others of a similar description were abandoned ;
but still it is manifest from the collations and extracts, as published
in works of authority, tliat the necessity for some effort in this
direction was felt, and that an endeavour was made to free the
I^iblical Codices from errors of this description. Hut with regard to
438 TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF THE NEW TESTxVWENT. [bOOK III.
the other species of corruptions which existed in many of the copies
of the -/.oivri hdodig, — that, namely, which consists in changes made for
the purpose of removing grammatical errors and inelegant phrases —
we perceive that both the Alexandrian and Byzantine editors were
far less upon their guard and far less scrupulous than they ought to
have been. Both of these editions manifest a decided preference for
pure, grammatical, forcible, and picturesque expressions ; and that
of Constantinople especially seems to have been formed under the
prevailing notion, that nothing Hebraistic, nothing savouring of
solecism, nothing for which a more elegant phrase could be substituted,
should be permitted to deform the sacred text.
It must always be remembered that the text of the Recensions
was liable to be interpolated or altered by the copyists in the same
manner as that of the primitive exemplars had been; and that
particular MSS. though following the revised edition in the main,
were sometimes disfigured by their transcribers introducing here and
there readings which had been deliberately expunged. Hence we
need not wonder at seeing the same errors reappearing occasionally
in very modern transcripts, and sometimes in MSS. which, on the
whole, are very faithful to the recension to which they belong.
Although I am aware that to most readers the elucidation of
these points must seem excessively tedious, I deem it needful, before
investigating the rules of practical criticism which follow from these
statements, to illustrate them by examples. I select a few from the
14th chapter of Matthew: —
1, 2. "At that time, Herod the Tetrarch heard the fame of Jesus,
and said unto his servants, This is John the Baptist.'^ Here some
copies of the Tioivr) sxBoatg (Codex D, and several MSS. of the Versio
Itala) insert the words, — "whom I beheaded." But they are
omitted in other documents of the same class, and are rejected by
both the Recensions, being, indeed, unquestionably interpolated into
this passage from Mark vi. 16.
3. " For Herod, having sei;:^ed John, hound him [and put him] in
prison.'' The same documents, with the addition of the Vulgate,
omit the words, "and put him," which are not found in the parallel
passage, and were probably left out because some persons in very
ancient times had put a mark opposite these words, to denote that
they were absent from the text of Mark ; the sign, being misunder-
stood, caused the phrase to bo left out in some transcripts, but thoy
are retained as genuine in the revised editions.
6. "The daughter of Herodias danced in the midst." Some
CIIAr. v.] CLASSIFICATION OF AUTHORITIES. 439
ancient Eastern copies explained this very indefinite phrase by sub-
joining, '^ of those that sat at meat:" this addition is found in the Old
Syriac and Armenian Versions, and doubtless expresses tlio meaning
of the evangelist; but it is rejected both by the Alexandrian and
Byzantine recensions, and is manifestly a gloss.
12. The MSS. B and D (both of which, in this part of tho Gospel
of Matthew, are to bo regarded as documents of the xoivn 'iy.dooig),
with several others belonging to tho same class, instead of rb aSJ/j^a,
the body, read to rrrSjfjba, the corpse; and this reading, though
apparently taken from Mark vi. 29, was approved by the author of
the Alexandrian recension, as is seen by tho consent of C, L, and
other MSS. belonging to that editiou. But the Byzantine edition
reads aSj/xa with great unanimity.
24. "And the vessel was now in the midst of the sea." This
seemed susceptible of two meanings, one of which was indeed too
absurd to be seriously assigned to tho writer ; yet to guard against it,
tlie reading was moulded in the same copies into a different form : —
''And the vessel was noio mamj furlongs distant from the land."
That tho passage was thus read at an ancient period in many widely
separated lands, is evident from its being found not only in B and
several other MSS. but in tho Peshito and Jerusalem Syriac Versions,
as also in the Persic, the Arabic, and the Armenian. It even
occurs in the Coptic, although the Alexandrine recension, to which
that translation commonly adheres, condemns it, as does also the
Byzantine.
Matthew was not the only Evangelist whose text was thus tam-
pered with in its unrevised form, at least in some copies; nor was
the y.oivn hdodig of the oriental provinces altogether free from blemishes
similar to those which occurred in that of Egypt and tho West.
Thus, in Mark vi. 11, the Peshito and Philoxenian Syriac Versions,
with the MSS. A, K, M, and many other documents of the unrevised
text of tlie Eastern regions, after the words, "Shake off the dust
under your feet for a testimony unto them," add, " Verily I say unto
you, it shall be more tolerable for Sodom or Gomorrah in the day of
judgment than for that city." That this reading did not pervade the
whole of the East, appears from its not being found in the Armenian
Version ; yet it was retained in the Byzantine edition, and hence it
appears in E, 11, S, V, as well as in the Moscow MSS.; in the
Gothic, Sclavonic, and Georgian Versions ; and in tho Latin Codex
Brixianus, which generally follows the same readings witli this class
of autliorities. It is, however, an interpolation taken from the
440 TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. [bOOK III.
parallel passage in Matt. x. 15, and as such it is rejected not merely
by the Alexandrian recension, but by the unrevised copies of the
text as it was current in Egypt and the West, so far as we can judge
from the almost unanimous consent of the documents which have
reached us.
I conclude this enumeration by a passage of a similar kind from
the Gospel of Luke. In our common copies we find in Luke xvii.
36, the following: — "Txoo men shall he in the field, the one shall he
taken and the other shall he left." This was found in several copies
of the Egyptian xoivri 'ixboeig, as appears from the consent of the
MSS. D, 13, 69, 106, 124, 218; the Versio Itala, as it is read not
merely in the manuscripts, but in the quotations and commentaries
of Victorinus, Ambrose, Augustine, and Venerable Bede. It is
also found in the Vulgate. Neither was it confined to Egypt and
the West alone, for we find the same reading in the Old Syriac
Version, the Persic, the Arabic, and the Armenian. Yet it was
only an addition to the text of Luke from Matt. xxiv. 40, the tense
of the verbs merely being altered to adapt them to the formula
occurring in the context into which they are introduced ; and on this
account they are rejected by both the Alexandrian and Byzantine
recensions : as we read the former in B, L, A (,C is mutilated here),
and the Coptic Version, and the latter as it is found in E, H, S, V,
with the Gothic, Sclavonic, and Georgian Versions. The harmo-
nized reading, however, reappears in several of the very modern
copies of this recension, from which it made its way into the early
printed editions, and became a portion of the received text — an
honour which it still retains.
A few examples may now be produced to show the manner in
which the revised editions corrected supposed grammatical mistakes,
and improved the verbal construction occurring in the xo/vrt iTidocig.
Luke xi. 1. — "And it came to pass lohilst he loas in a certain place
praying, when he ceased,'* &c. — xa/ Bvavsaro' This Hebraistic usage
of the copulative xai is avoided in B, C, L, 33, which read w;*
Luke xii. 8. — "As much as he needeth." — ooov Xifi^^'' ^> ^^- ^^^S-
with Origen and other Fathers ; but B, C, 33, have oauv which is
the more usual construction.
Luke xii. 20. — "Then whose shall these things he which thou hast
prepared?'' — Many copies of the unrevised text read rlvog hrai; so
D, It. Vulg. ; but B, L, 33, have more elegantly rhi hrai.
Luke xii. 38. — "And if he come in the second watch, and [i/] he
come in the third xcatch, and find [them,] so, hJessed are those
CHAP, v.] CLASSIFICATION OF AUTHORITIES. 441
servants." — This is given in different forms in the xaivri hdoei;. In D,
thus: xai iuv ihOrt rf, iO'Ti^ivfi tp[j}.ay.fi zai sviTjan ojru;, rroirjasi' -/.al lav
ev rfj diuTe^a xai ri) r^irri, {Maxd^ioi %' r' X* But we find the awkward-
ness avoided in B, L, 33: %t{.v h rfj Oivre^ci, -/Jiv iv rfj r^kr^ (puXaxfj
ikSri, xai ij^/^ o'-jru, //.axapioi x' r' X'
These remarks are of much use in estimating the comparative
value of the testimonies on each side of a disputed or doubtful
reading.
Having ascertained wliat authorities are capable of giving us
testimony, and what is the testimony which they respectively afford,
we must, in the first place, separate those belonging to the recensions
or revised editions of the text from those documents which belong
only to the xotvn hdoai; — and the latter we must arrange under the
two heads of Eastern and Alexandrian, or by whatever other names
it may seem proper to distinguish the text which chiefly circulated
in Syria, Armenia, and the neighbouring regions, from that which
was current in Egypt, Italy, and the West. It is next necessary to
distinguish the documents belonging to the two different recensions
into separate groups. This being done, we proceed to ascertain
what was the genuine and primitive reading of each recension.
When all the MSS. and Versions of each class are unanimous, or
nearly so, in any one reading, this task is easy, for the work is done
ready to our hand ; but when the leading authorities, which usually
agree together in such peculiar and striking readings, are at variance
among themselves, the work is rather more difficult. In this case,
however, we may receive aid from the documents of the xonri 'ixdoei; :
for as the recensions must have derived their text from that of the
unrevised copies, that reading — if such there be — which is found
in the MSS. and Versions of the xoivri h.boeig, or in the majoiity of
them, is to be regarded as prohahly the reading of the recension,
rather than one which is not so found. And this probability is
very greatly strengthened, if it appears that the latter reading may
have crept into those copies in which it is found from some one or
two documents of the xoivii 'ixdoffii of its own region, or from the
other recension, or from the xoivn txdoeig on which the latter was
constructed. It is allowed by all critics that no document presents
to us a perfectly pure copy of any form or description of the sacred
text : an interchange of readings in some passages was unavoidable
in transcripts ; we must loarn to recognize such occurrences when
they present themselves to our notice, and not permit them to
mislead us as to the primitive text of that recension which we are
K Kk
442 TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF THE KEW TESTAMENT. [uOOK III.
at the time considering, much less to shake our confidence in
those general laws and facts which we have ascertained by a com-
prehensive induction. It must bo allowed, indeed, that the whole
process is but a calculation of probabilities, and therefore we may
not be able to determine every question that arises with perfect and
absolute correctness. We have before us only a fragment of the
evidence which would be necessary for complete certainty in our
conclusions ; there must have been documents of -/Mvri 'hboaig in
ancient times containing readings which are not now to be found in
any MS. or Version of that class ; for we sometimes find the recen-
sions supporting, with remarkable distinctness, modes of reading the
text for which we search in vain in the uurevised copies that have
come down to us. The ancient critics, therefore, must have had
copies that were unknown to us, and these they have in such instances
followed. But these instances are comparatively rare ; and it will
not be disputed that, as a general rule, it is safest, when the usual
documents of any recension are divided in their testimony, to assume
the primitive reading of the recension to have been that which the
KoivYj sTidoGig of the region appears decidedly to support.
The various forms of the -/.oivri hdoaig and the genuine text of the
different recensions being thus ascertained, it next becomes necessary
to determine the comparative weight of the testimonies afforded by
these classes of documents respectively. And here it follows from
what has already been advanced in this chapter, that any reading in
which both the recensions concur is to be regarded as having the
preponderating weight of external evidence in its favour. Of course
it is not meant that such readings are to be received as genuine
portions of the sacred text: to decide that question, the internal
grounds of probability must be carefully examined ; but it is evident
that the testimony of the two recensions is the strongest support
which can be produced where there is any difference of reading ;
because, in that case, the variation can only be found in copies of
Miv^ ixdoaig, or in copies of a very recent date. If, in the former, the
probability is, that it was examined and deliberately rejected by the
critics who formed the recensions ; and that it was so rejected because,
among other reasons, tlie majority of documents then existing lent
it no sanction: and if it be found only in the latter, it needs no
argument to prove that the testimony of modern copies is of little
weight or value when contradicted by all ancient documents of every
class and description.
But this statement must be understood with an important limita-
CHAP, v.] CLASSIFICATION 01' AUTHOIUTIES. 443
tiou, grounded on the genius and nature of the recensions themselves.
^Vo liave seen that it was evidently tho desire of the ancient censors
of tho text to remove from it Hebraistic, solecistical, and inelegant
expressions. If, therefore, wo find in tlio xoivn h.ooGii a general
concurrence in favour of some such word or phrase, while in tho
revised copies it is omitted or replaced by a different expression, in
which the harshness is avoided, wo can have no hesitation in
attributing more weight to tho testimony of the unreformed text
than to that of tho recension. And as tho critics of ancient days
manifestly desired to expunge interpolations, or what appeared to be
such, especially when they seemed calculated to serve an exegetical
object, so their testimony in favour of the lectio hrevior is certainly
deprived of a portion of its weight, although the shorter reading
itself may be preferable on internal grounds.
But cases are not of unfrequeut occurrence in which the two
recensions are directly opposed to each other, the one unanimously
supporting one reading, and the other a different one ; and this may
happen under two different contingencies.
One recension and its -/mv^ hdostg may be in good hannony among
themselves, while the other recension may dissent from its own -/.oivr,
'izoo6ig. In this case, the preponderant testimony is clearly opposed
to the reading of the last-named recension.
Or each recension may be opposed to, or may be supported by, its
own Koivri h.doai;. In this case, as the number of the witnesses is
exactly the same, we are compelled to investigate the genius and
character of each. The Byzantine edition is more anxious than tho
Alexandrian to adhere to pure grammar and elegant construction ;
therefore its testimony in favour of a pure and elegant reading is
slight, but when it supports an inelegant and ungrammatical one, is
very weighty and important. So the Alexandrian readings are in
general more brief than the Byzantine ; hence, when the Byzantine
supports the shorter readings, its authority is great. And if none
of these considerations be applicable, we must have recourse to the
principles of internal probability, of which indeed, in the business of
textual criticism, we must never for a moment lose sight.
444 TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. [BOOK HI.
CHAPTER VL
CllITICAL EXAMINATION OF PARTICULAR PASSAGES.
Agreeably to the method pursued in the former part of this work,
we now proceed to examine critically the principal portions of the
New Testament in which various readings occur, or of which the
genuineness has been called in question. On many of these, so much
has been written that it is impossible in the present work to give even
a summary of the conflicting arguments that have been advanced : all
that will be attempted in general will be a statement of the testimony
afforded by MSS. Versions and ancient citations, with such remarks
on the internal evidence as may appear calculated to assist the
student in forming a correct and independent judgment for himself.
The author's opinion is only offered because his readers will perhaps
conceive themselves entitled to know to which side it leans, that they
may make the necessary allowances for any bias under which he
may be supposed to write.
Section I. — Matt. i. 1. — ii. 23.
As these two chapters are found in every Greek MS. of the New
Testament, ancient and modern, with the exception of a few which
are torn and mutilated at the beginning — as also in every Version
that has come down to us from antiquity — and as they have been
read, commented upon, and explained by a vast number of ecclesias-
tical writers since the very middle of the second century, it might
be expected that they would be universally acknowledged as genuine
portions of the Gospel of St. Matthew ; but their authenticity has
nevertheless been impugned by Mr. Williams,* Dr. Priestley,!
Mr. Norton, J and others. The editor of The Neia Testament in an
Improved Version upon the basis of Archbishop Newcomers Neio
* Free Inquiri; into the Authenticity of the First and Second Chapters of
iSt- Mattheiv's (rospel. London, 1*789.
•f History of Early Opinions concerning Jesus Christ, vol. iv. book iii.
chap. XX. sec. 3, 4, 5, pp. 56 — 99.
I Evidences of the Genuineness of the Gospels, vol. i. Additional Note,
No. 1, sec. 5, pp. 53—62.
CHAP. VI.J CniTICAL EXAMINATION 01' I'ARTICL'LAU TASSAGES. 445
Translation, London, 1808, acknowledges the first sixteen verses of
tho first chapter (which contain the genealogy of our Lord from
Abraham), as undoubtedly genuine; the remainder of the first
chapter and tho whole of the second lie prints in Italics, " as an
intimation that they arc of doubtful authority;" and he places them
within brackets, to show that they are passages "which, in the
judgment of Griesbach, should probably, though not certainly ho
expunged;" — an assertion, the incorrectness of which is truly sur-
prising ; for it is well known that in the judgment of Griesbach,
clearly and explicitly stated, there is no ground at all for expunging
these chapters.*
Tho editor of the Improved Version having concisely summed up
the arguments in favour of his own view, in the note upon the passage,
it will be convenient to consider them briefly in their order. He
says we are assured " by Epiphanius and Jeromo" that tho parts
which he has marked in Italics " were wanting in the copies used by
the Nazarenes and Ebionites, — that is, by the ancient Hebrew
Christians, for wliose instruction probably the Gospel of St, Matthew
was originally written," But this is not accurate. It is asserted by
Papiast and others, that the Gospel of Matthew was originally
published in Hebrew, that is, in the language of Palestine: and
subsequent writers inform us, that among the Jewish Christians of
their own time there was a (;ertain document preserved in that
tongue, which is variously denominated The Gospel according to the
Ticelve Apostles, the Gospel according to the Ilebrcivs, the Gospel
according to the Ebionites, and sometimes the Ilehrew Gospel accord-
ing to St. Matthew, or even simply the Gospel according to Mattheic,
because tho Hebrew Christians who used it affirmed that it was the
authentic work composed by that Evangelist. But this document
seems to have existed in two different forms, as it was found in the
hands of two distinct sects, at least in the time of Epiphanius and
Jerome. One copy was in the hands of the Ebionites; and this
Epiphanius distinctly affirms tcanted the genealogies as well as all
tho rest of these two chapters ; for he says, j — " The beginning of their
Gospel is as follows : — ' It came to pass in the days of Herod the
* See his New Testament, in loc; see also his Diatribe on these chapters
in his Commentarius Criticus, Fartic. II. pp. 17— 6-i,
t Apud Eiisebium, Hist. Eccles. fib. iii. cap. xxxix. Papiaa wrote about
A.D. 110.
\ Epiphanius de Uivresibus, H. xxx. sec. I'J.
446 TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. [bOOK TIL
King of Judcea,* that John came administering the baptism of repen-
tance in the river Jordan, v;ho was said to he of the lineage of Aaron
the priest, the son of Zacharias and Elizabeth; and all men came out
unto him.' " (Compare with this. Matt. iii. 1 — 6.) Of the Nazarenes
he says, that "thej have among them the Gospel according to
Matthew in Hebrew, and in a very ample form" (rrXrjPsaTarov);
"but" — he adds, — "I do not know whether they have expunged
the genealogy of Christ from Abraham." And in fact he gives no
testimony whatever as to the manner in which the document of the
Nazarenes commenced. Certainly he nowhere affirms that it did
not contain the history of the conception and nativity of Christ.
Jerome tells us that the Gospel used by these two sects was sub-
stantially the same : he caUs it the " Gospel according to the Ifehreics,"
but he intimates that others called it the " Gospel according to the
Apostles," and that its most generally accepted name was the
"Gospel according to Matthew;'' that it was to be found in the
library at Csesarea, that he had himself obtained permission to copy
it from the Nazarenes at Beroea, and had translated it both into
Latin and Greek, t Nothing apparently can be more authentic
than this information. In various parts of his writings he gives
extracts from this document, and several others are found in Ignatius,
Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Eusebius, and Epiphanius;J those
in the last-named writer, of course, being taken from the Ebionitish
copy : of all which it may be affirmed, that they are quite different
from anything found in our canonical Gospel, and that the work
which contained them could not possibly be the original of the Greek
book, the text of which we are now considering. Its variations are
of such a nature, that neither its additions nor its omissions can be
* This expression shows the document to have been veiy modern, for no
Jew of the Apostolic age would have represented John as baptizing " in the
days of Herod the king of Judcea,^' who died twenty-nine or thirty years
before the public appearance of the Baptist. Nor is the objection removed
by Mr. Norton's (conjectural) omission of the words in Italics; for "in the
days of Herod" would unquestionably signify the very same.
t I cannot find that Jerome anywhere asserts that the Gospel according
to the Hebrews wanted the introauctory chapters. Dupin seems to think
that he even quotes it as containing the citations from the Old Testament
now found in Matt. ii. 15, and ii. 23; and Dr. Priestley is of the same opinion:
this would of course imply the existence of the whole disputed passage in
that copy; but I think both these wi-iters mistook their author's meaning.
He seems to me to speak of our Gospel.
I The passages containing these extracts are collected by Grabo, Spice-
legium, SS. Patmm ut et Hccreticorum , sec. i. ii. iii. vol. i. p. 25 — 30; to
which I beg to refer.
CHAP. VI. J CRITICAL EXAMINATION OF PAUTICULAIl PASSAGES. 447
of the least use in pcttling the text of our canonical Gospel. Thus
much of the Gospel according to the Ilebrcwg. Tlio copy of it in
tlio hands of tlie Ebioiiites, we know from Epiphanius, omitted tJic
ijeneahgy, which the editor of the Improved Version retains without
any mark of doubt or hesitation; and neither from Jerome nor
Epiphanius can we learn in what manner the Nazarenc copy com-
menced. Moreover, the book which both these writers describe was
clearly not the original from which our Greek Canonical Gospel of
Matthew was translated, but a totally different work.
The editor continues: — " If it be true, as Luke relates, chapter iii.
23, that Jesus was entering upon his thii'tieth year (see Wakefield's
translation) in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius, he must
have been born two years at least after the death of Herod, a circum-
stance which alone invalidates the whole story. See Lardners Worlcs,
vol. i. p. 432." But Lardner, in the passage referred to, argues very
fully and strenuously in opposition to this view; he has a whole
chapter to show that the date and age assigned by Luke are perfectly
consistent with the notes of time contained in the introductory
sections of Matthew. On this inquiry, however, I shall not enter,
satisfying myself witli observing that it has nothing to do with the
criticism of the text, the object of which is, not to investigate the
truth or falsehood of the narrative, the consistency or inconsistency
of the events related in this or any other passage, but merely whether
this passage belongs to the book in which it is found ; and those who
support the negative are bound to show that this Gospel was, at some
period or other, known to exist without these two chapters. The
same considerations apply to the remaining arguments advanced by
the learned editor ; which arc, briefly, that on the supposition of the
facts here mentioned being true, " it is exceedingly improbable that
no notice should have been taken of these extraordinary events by
any cotemporary writer, that no expectation should have been excited
by them, and that no allusion should have been made to them in
any other passage of the sacred writings;" that " some of the facts
have a fabulous appearance, and the reasoning from the prophecies
of the Old Testament is inconclusive ; also, that if this account be
true, the proper name of Jesus, according to the universal custom of
the Jews, would have been Jesus of Bethlehem, not Jesus of
Nazareth ;" and that " our Lord in the Gospels is repeatedly spoken
of as the son of Joseph, without any intimation on the part of the
historian that this language is incorrect." Some of these statements
are very open to question ; but allowing them all to be perfectly true,
448 TEXTUAL CRITICISM OP THE NEW TESTAMENT. [bOOK HI.
they would not prove that these chapters are not authentic portions
of the book in which they are found, but that the book in which they
are found states some things that are erroneous in point of fact, and
urges some arguments which are inconclusive. These matters are
of much higher importance than the mere authenticity of the section
before us ; but certainly they are not of such a kind as to lend us
any assistance in the criticism of the text ; and to employ them for
that purpose is to reason in a vicious circle, as has been explained
in a previous part of this work. (See Introduction, pp. 3, 4, 5; see
also pp. 9 — 10, &c.)
On the whole, I entirely concur with the judgment of Griesbach,
that such disquisitions belong to another species of criticism, regulated
by different laws. (See Comment. Critic. II. p. 46.)
In addition to what has been said, the following facts may be
urged in support of the genuineness of these entire chapters :
(1.) The language harmonizes perfectly both with the style and
phraseology found in other parts of the Gospel, nor has any objector
pointed out a discrepancy.
(2.) The manner of quoting and applying the citations fi'om the
Old Testament is exactly the same that is found in the remainder of
the book.
(3.) The passage in question was known to Justin Martyr about
A.D. 140, that is, probably not more than eighty years after the book
was written ; for he recapitulates the principal facts here recorded,
introducing the same quotations from the Old Testament, in the
very same order, and with the very same deviations from the LXX.*
In another place he refei's to Matt. i. 20, 21, in conjunction with
Luke i. 31, and says expressly that he drew his statements from
"those who have written the history of all things concerning our
Lord Jesus Christ," and adds, "and we believe them;"t showing
that the writings so referred to were works of authority. Dr. Priestley,
with his usual candour, admits that it is "almost certain" that this
narrative was in the Gospel of Matthew so early as in the time of
Justin Martyr. (See History of Early Opinions, vol. iv. p. 62.)
(4.) The passage was known to Celsus, who wrote against
Christianity some time in the second century ; for he alludes to the
circumstance of two genealogies of Christ being given by the sacred
writers, and to the appearance of the star in the East, which is
mentioned in no other passage but this ; and Origeu in his reply
* Dial, cum Tryplione, pp. 86, 87.
f Ajwloaia Prima, p. T5.
CHAP. VI.] CUITICAI, EXAMINATION OF PAIlTICnLAR PASSAGES. 449
does not question the genuineness of the section. It ought to be
roraembored tliat ho was well acquainted with the Gospel according
to the llobrows, and repeatedly (luotcd its contents.
(a.) Ircn;cus, A.I). 178, recapitulates the whole series of facts hero
described, expressly naming Matthew as his source.*
(6.) Julius Africanus, who wrote about A.D. 220, in a letter to
Aristides, of which the principal part is preserved by Eusebius,t has
a laboured theory to reconcile the two genealogies of Luke and
Matthew : he tells us that many had occupied themselves with the
same task before his time, all of tlicm, as ho thinks, unsuccessfully ; but
he says not a word of any person having questioned the genuineness
of either document. After the period when this letter was written,
tlie allusions to these chapters in church writers become so numerous
that it is unnecessary to refer to any in particular. It is seldom
that any passage in an ancient book can be authenticated by so long
and so harmonious a series of testimonies.
To this consideration I would add one which has great weight
with me. The difficulty of reconciUng not merely the genealogy of
Christ, but the whole history of the nativity as given in these two
chapters of ^Matthew, with the pedigree and the narrative of the
same event contained in the Gospel of Luke, is so far from leading
us to suspect the genuineness of either, that it rather furnishes a
strong confirmation of the authenticity of both. The scribes must
have felt this difficulty as much as we do at present ; the testimouy
of Julius Africanus shows that it had not passed unnoticed in very
early times. If the copyists had found any warrant for leaving out
cither of the two accounts, some of them would have been sure to do
so. The transcriber of the Cambridge MS. or Codex Bez?e, in hi.^
anxiety to harmonize the two histories, has taken it upon himself,
in Luke iii. 24 — 38, to substitute for the pedigree traced by that
Evangelist the genealogy here given by Matthew: this shows how
willing such persons were to remove apparent contradictions ; but no
transcriber and no translator has thrown the least suspicion upon
the first two chapters of this Gospel. In short, to use tlie words of
Griesbach, " No ancient testimonies whatever can be brought forward
to impugn their genuineness;" and "since there is little force in
the arguments advanced against their authenticity, we judge them
• De Hceresibus, lib. iii. cap. ix.
t Ilistoria Ecclesiastica, lib. i. cap. vi.
L l1
450 TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. [bOOK III.
genuine, and have no doubt at all that from the first, that is, from the
very time of the publication of Matthew's Gospel, they formed part
of it, and therefore were extant in the primary copy or autograph."
Section II. — Matt. vi. 13,
"Or/ aov iCTiv r; ^uaiXiia x,at ri dvva/juii zal t] bo^a tig roug aiSivag'
'Afji,rjv.
For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, Amen.
The doxology at the end of the Lord's prayer is regarded as
spurious by Erasmus, Grotius, Mill, Bengel, Wetstein, Griesbach,
Scholz, and Lachmann.
In stating the external testimony, it is to be observed that the
Alexandrine and Ephrem MSS. are mutilated, so that their readings
cannot be ascertained.
The Vatican MS. B, — the Cambridge, D, — and the Dublin Codex
Rescriptus, Z,* — leave out the doxology and the word Amen. To
these are to be added the cursive MSS. 1, 17 (which however, insert
the word Amen), 118, 130, 209, and those very ancient MSS. of
Matthew out of which the copyists interpolated the prayer given in
Luke X. 2 — 4; for while they introduced a good many words from
Matthew, in order to make the two passages correspond, none of them
appears to have introduced a doxology — a proof that there was none in
this Gospel, at least none in any copy known to them. Wetstein,
Matthsei, Birch, and Scholz, assure us that they have found in
several MSS. the following scholium: — " the words, 'For thine, &c.
as far as Amen,' are not found in some copies." The scholiast in
Codex 36, observes that " Luke concludes the Lord's prayer with the
word 'temptation,' and that Matthew adds, 'But deliver us from
evil.' " He evidently knew of no additional matter. Some MSS.
which contain the doxology contain a note, stating that " it is not to
be found in ancient copies ;" others have it only in red ink, or written
on the margin. The Coptic Version, the Arabic, as given in the
Roman edition and in the Polyglott, the Vulgate, and the great
majority of the collated copies of the Versio Itala, also omit the
doxology. Several of the Greek Fathers have minutely explained the
Lord's prayer, and commented upon its several parts without
* See the facsimile given from this MS. in Plate VI. which contains the
passage here referred to.
CHAP. VI.) CRITICAL EXAMINATION OF rAUTIfTLAIl PASSAGES. 451
touching upon this clause, among wliom aro Origon, Cyril of Jeru-
salem, Maximus the Monk, Gregory of Nyssa, who, it is true,
concludes his exposition with these words, — "By the grace of Christ;
for his is the jwwer and the (jlory, together with the Father and the
Holy Spirit, noio and always, and for ever and ever. Amen:'' — but
does not seem to give this as a part of the Sacred Scripture. In
the same manner, Csesarius introduces the following doxology: —
" Thine is the might, and the kingdom, and the pover, and the glory,
of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, noio and
always, and for ever and ever:" but he gives this expressly as a
portion of the liturgy of the church. To the same effect is the
reproof administered by Enthymius to certain persons who omitted
the invocation ''added" ('x^odTiOsv) to the Lord's Prayer "by the
Fathers:" namely, — "For thine is the kingdom and the glory of the
Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit." None of the
Latin Fathers who comment upon the Lord's Prayer, takes any
notice of the doxology ; among these are Tertullian (who has twice
expounded the prayer), Cyprian, Juvencus, Chromatins, Ambrose,
Sedulius, Fulgcntius, and Jerome.
The doxology, however, is found in far more copies than those in
which it is omitted ; and of those which contain it, some aro ancient
and good, as the Basil MS. E, the Codex Cyprius K, the Royal
MS. No. G2, L, the Des Camps MS. M, the Vatican Codex 354, S,
and the Codex Sangallensis A. It is contained iu each of the three
Syriac Versions, in the ^Ethiopic, the Armenian, the Georgian,
the Gothic, and the Sclavonic. It is also found in the Sahidic, and
on the margin of some copies of the Copto-Memphitic. Isidore of
Pelusium scans to have found it in the text several times ; but as
he does not explain it, some suspect that the copyists of his works
have interpolated this passage with which they were well acquainted,
and which they might suppose to have been accidentally omitted.
13ut the copies whi(;h contain the doxology differ very much among
themselves, some having a form even more brief than that which is
given by the Received Text, and others various formulae similar to
those already quoted from the Fathers.
The passage is most probably spurious ; for the preponderance of
ancient testimony is clearly against its autljenticity. No good reason
can be assigned for the omission of the doxology in those copies
which leave it out, while it can readily be believed that such a
formida might creep into the Gospel from the liturgies of the churches,
in which an addition like this would necessarily be made to the
452 TEXTUAL CKITICI^M OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. [bOOK III.
prayer to adapt it to use in public worship. It may indeed be con-
tended that the copyists of Matthew who have omitted it, did so out
of respect to the authority of Luke ; but as persons of their descrip-
tion were far more prone to add than to leave out, the preponderance
of the internal evidence lies on tlie other side.
Section III. — Matt. xix. 17.
Here the common text reads, '^ But he said unto him, ri fis Xsyug
aya66v ; ovBsig dyadog si (mt^ ug 6 6i6g, — Why callest thou me good ?
None is good hut one, [that is] God." But Dr. Griesbach gives our
Lord's answer in a different form: rZ/xs s^c^rag '7re£i rov dyadow ; iJg
i6Ttv 0 dya&og' — " Why askest thou me concerning that which is good?
He that is good is one. But if thou wilt enter into life," &c.
As the testimonies in respect to the two clauses here presented for
consideration are not exactly the same, it may be convenient to
separate our remarks into two paragraphs, and to exhibit the autho-
rities separately.
(1.) We are first to compare together the two readings, "Why
callest thou me good," and " Why askest thou me concerning that
ivhich is good."
On behalf of the former reading, which is that of the common
text, we have the Manuscripts C, E, K, S, V, A, and, as Scholz
affirms, all those of the Constantinopolitan family without exception.
On the same side we have the Peshito and the Philoxenian Syriac
Versions, the Arabic as found in all the editions of it which have
been published, the Persic, and the Sclavonic. We have also the
Codex Brixianus, a Latin MS. of the Versio Itala of the 6th or 7th
century. In this form likewise the text was read by Justin Martyr,
Cyril of Alexandria occasionally, Chrysostom, Euthymius, and
Theophylact ; and also by one or two Latin writers, including Hilary.
The other lection is supported by B, D, L, 1, 22, 251 (Mt. a^,
in which this verse is written twice, once in the common and once
in the second form), and some other MSS., the names of which are
not given — by the Sahidic, Coptic, Armenian, and Vulgate Versions,
and by all the known MSS. of the Versio Itala, except the Codex
Brixianus ; it is also placed as a various reading in the margin of
the Philoxenian Syriac Version. Origen expressly affirms this to
be the true reading ; he points out the difference between Mark's
text and Matthew's, explains the latter word for word, and quotes
the passage thus no less than four times ; and thus likewise it was
CHAP. VI.] CIUTIC.U. EXAMINATION OP PARTICULAR PASSAGES. 453
road by Eu.scbiu.s, by Cyril of Alexandria in some places, though
in others he adheres to the Keccived Text ; by Diouysius tlie
Arcopagito, so called, a writer of the 3rd century ; and Antiochus
of Ptolcmais, of the 5th. Several Latin Fathers agree with this
reading: among others, Novatian, Jerome, Augustine, and Juvencus.
(2.) We have next to state the evidence in reference to the
difYerent forms of the last clause.
The Received Text, " None is (jood hut one [that is\ God," is
supported by C, E, K, 8, V, A, and the cursive MSS. of the Con-
stantinopolitan Recension ; by the Peshito and Philoxeniau Syriac,
the Arabic, the Persic, the iEthiopic, the Sahidic, the Gothic,
Georgian, and Sclavonic Versions ; and by the citations of Chry-
sostom, the writer of a dialogue concerning the Trinity, a work of
the 5th century, and others of the Fathers.
Griesbach's reading, " lie that is good is one,'' is maintained by
B, D, L, 1, 22; by the Armenian and Jerusalem Syriac Versions,
and some copies of the Versio Itala ; as likewise by Justin Martyr
(who, however, exhibits the passage in various forms); and by
Origen, who thrice quotes it, and each time as here given.
Another reading, sig ianv ayado;, !> 0s6g, *' One is rjood, that is God,"
is found in the Coptic and Vulgate Versions, and the great majority
of the MSS. of the Versio Itala.
There are a few more various readings of this clause, but they
are so feebly supported that they may bo safely thrown aside.
In both clauses, Griesbach's reading appears to be preferable to
that of the Received Text: 1st, because it is supported by ancient
and respectable authorities, belonging to different classes; 2ndly,
because it is the more obscure and difficult reading in itself; and
3rdly, because the received reading probably arose from the desire
of the copyists to explain and simplify the text by the aid of the
parallel passages in Mark x. 18, and Luke xviii. 19, which are be-
yond all question genuine. It may indeed be urged on the other
side, that the common reading is preferable on the ground of its ap-
pearing less favourable to the orthodox faith, of which the scribes
were generally sincere votaries ; but as they have made no attempt
to tamper with the parallel passages, I conceive that we have no
reason to suspect them of any undue bias in the case before us.
In the last clause the third reading is suspicious, as apparently
compounded of the other two.
The commou reading of this passage has sometimes been quoted
ill the Trinitarian controversy, and urged as carrying with it the
454 TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. [bOOK III.
authority of our Lord Jesus Christ ; but no one who is aware of the
doubt, to say the least, wliich hangs over its authenticity, can do so
without guilt, unless he expressly mentions the various readings, and
gives his reasons for preferring the common text. This remark,
however, does not apply to the passages in Mark and Luke.
Section IV. — Matt, xxvii. 36.
In all the common editions of the Greek Testament, and in all
modern translations of the Scripture, we here read as follows: —
" That it might he fulfilled icJiich was spoJcen hy the prophets : ' They
parted my garments among them, and upon my raiment they cast lots.'"
But this verse is wanting in the MSS. A, B (C is mutilated
here), D, E, F, G, H, K, L, M, S, U, V (Z is mutilated), together
with 160 or 170 MSS. in the cursive character, among which are
3, 33, 40, 102, 157, 235, 433, 435, and others that are good, though
modern. It is also omitted by the Old Syriac Version, as we find
it in the MSS. in Widmanstad's Edition, and in Walton's Poly-
glott; but as Widmanstad and Moses of Mardin, in the editio prin-
ceps of the Syriac New Testament, unfortunately placed this and
some other omitted readings to which they wished to direct attention
in the same list with the typographical errata, it has, by some
editors, been taken into the text. In the Bible Society's edition it
is placed at the foot of the page, with a note stating that it is found
in some Gi-eek copies. That it does not belong to the Old Syriac
Version is manifest from the note in the margin of the Philoxenian
translation — " This prophetic oracle (xi^'^'O was not found in two
Greek copies" — (so the note is given in White's Edition; but in
two MSS. collated by Adler he found it written in three Greek
copies) — "nor in the Old Syi-iac." It is likewise wanting in the
Sahidic and Coptic Versions ; the ^thiopic, the Arabic, and Persic,
as printed in the Polyglott, and in the Sclavonic ; also in most
copies of the Versio Itala, and in some MSS. and in the Sixtine
edition of the Latin Vulgate. Chrysostom, Titus of Bostra,
Euthymius, Theophylact, Origen, Hilary, Augustine, and Juvencus
comment upon this section, but take no notice of this verse.
On the other hand, it is found in A, 1, 17, 61, 69, 118, 124, 262,
300, and many other MSS. ; in some MSS. of the Versio Itala and
some of the Vulgate, as likewise in the Clementine edition ; in the
Philoxenian Syriac ; in the Jerusalem Syriac, if we may judge from
CHAP. VI.] CRITICAL EXAMINATION OF I'ARTICCLAR I'ASSAGES. 455
the silence of Adler,* who takes no note of any various reading ; in
the Armenian ; in the Arabic, as given by the Roman editors and
Erpenius ; and in Whclock's edition of the Persic. The Gothic
Version is mutilated.
The preponderance of the testimony, both in point of antitjuity
and critical authority, is against the genuineness of the clause,
and the internal evidence is also adverse ; for altliough, in one or
two copies, the verse might have been omitted on account of the
6/jboioTiXeurhv, the preceding verso and this both ending witli the word
xX^ooi/, it is very unusual to find a mere mistake of that kind so widely
propagated ; .and it is far more probable that the sentence has been
introduced, whether through the margin or otherwise, from the
parallel passage in John xix. 24.
Section V. — Mark xvi. 9 — 20.
Concerning the genuineness of the last twelve verses of the Gospel
of Mark, including all that is read from the words i^oiSouvro yao,
"for they icere afraid," in ver. 8, to the end of the book, doubts
have been expressed both in ancient and modern times ; and the
testimony is so conflicting that few critics will undertake to decide
the question with absolute certainty.
It is proper, however, to add, that no one supposes Mark to have
intended to close his Gospel with the words "for they v-ere afraid.''
This would have been a most abrupt conclusion, and directly con-
trary to the Evangelist's manifest design ; for it would only have
sei-ved to throw doubt upon the fact of the resurrection, Griesbach,
who marks this entire passage with a double minus (=) in his New
Testament, as a note of grave suspicion, and argues against its
authenticity in his Commentarius Criticus, suggests that Mark may
have written another conclusion to his history, which, having been
lost either in a very early transcript or in the autograph, by some
accident, some subsequent copyist or editor appended the section
now before us to prevent the woi'k from terminating too abruptly.
Perhaps it may be thought a more plausible conjecture, that the
Evangelist having been prevented by death from carrying his history
farther than verse 8, some one at a very early period added the last
twelve verses to render the narrative complete within itself. Hug
* If I rightly interpret Adler's notice, Versiones Syriacce denuo Exam.
p. 157, this verse occurs twice in the AIS. of the Jer. Syr. Version; which
is, as is well known, an ETaagelistaiium.
456 TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. [bOOK III.
has another theory. He holds (following some ancient authorities)
that Mark wrote his Gospel by the assistance, almost at the dictation,
of the Apostle Peter; he supposes the work to have reached the
words s<po(3ouvTo ya-i, when Peter was cut off by martyrdom; that
some copies of it got into circulation in this unfinished state ; but
that the Evangelist himself, at a later period of his life, added the
closing section to prevent the abrupt and unsuitable conclusion. In
this manner he accounts for the unusual conciseness of the narrative
and the departure from the common phraseology and style of Mark's
Gospel,
The section is omitted only in one MS., the Codex Vaticanus,
B ; and in one version, the Armenian.* It is found in all other
MSS., including A, C, D, E, F, G, H, K, L, M, S, U, V, A, and
probably not less than 200 cursive ones; besides all the ancient
versions which contain this chapter, except the Armenian. It was
quoted and evidently acknowledged as genuine by Irenseus, and
probably by Clemens Alexandrinus, in the 2d century; by Cyril of
Jerusalem, in the fourth; by Nestorius; and the author of the
Synopsis of Sacred Scripture, found among the works of Athanasius,
in the fifth. It was read among the Latins by Ambrose, Augustine,
Gregory, and others. It is true, however, that many of these
authorities express more or less of hesitation, so that they cannot be
said to support the common reading unreservedly.
Thus the manuscripts marked L (in the text), and 274 (in the
margin), and the Philoxenian Syriac Version (also in the margin),
present the following note, immediately after the eighth verse — " In
some copies we find the following words — 'And they related all the
things delivered unto them, briefly to those with Peter ; and after
these things Jesus himself sent forth by means of them, from the East
even to the West, the sacred and immortal proclamation of everlasting
salvation.'"' Codex L then continues: — "The following is also
found after s<pol3ovvTo yag — *And having arisen,' " &c. — exactly as in
the common editions, to the end.
Codices 20 and 300 have a scholium at the end of verse 8 : — " From
this to the end is not read in some copies ; but in the ancient ones
all is found without omission, " Codex 22, after itpo^ovvro ya§, inserts
the word rsXog — (Finis, the End) — and then subjoins in red ink :
* It is found in Uscan's edition and that of Constantinople ; but Dr.
Zohrab, in his critical edition (Venice 1805), expunged it from the text, as
not being found in tlie Armenian MSS,; he places it, however, in the margin
below the text.'
CnAP. VI. J CRITICAL EXAMINATION OF PARTfrULAK PASSAfiKS. 4r>7
" 111 somo cnpie.? the (rospel termiiiatos here, but ia raany the fol-
lowing is also found;" after which the closing verses are inserted, in
the common form. In the Codices 23, 34, 30, and 41, an extract
from Sovorus of Antioch is given by way of scholium: — " In the
more accurate copies, the Gospel of Mark ends with the words ' for
they loere a/raid;' but in some there is also added, ' And having
risen early on the first day of the iveek, he appeared first to Mary
Magdalene, out of whom he had cast seven demons ;' but this seems
to be rather contradictory to the previous statements,' " &c., «&c. In
the MSS. numbered 24 and 374, the scholium says — "In most
copies, this passage is not found in the present Gospel, the trans-
cribers having thought it spurious ; but we, having found it in the
greater number of the accurate copies, and especially in the Pales-
tinian Gospel of Mark, in its genuine form, have inserted here the
history of the resurrection of our Lord contained in it, '' &c. In the
Codices 1, 206, and 209, it is observed: — "In somo copies the
Gospel closes here, and thus far Eusebius constructed his canons;
but in others those words are added — 'And having arisen,'" &c.
And remarks to the same effect are found in the MSS. numbered
3G, 37, 38, 40, 108, 129, 137, 138, 143, 181. 186, 195, 199, 210.
221, 222, and 374. That this passage was wanting in several
manuscripts, though foimd in others, is asserted by Dionysius of
Alexandria ; by Severus ; by Eusebius,* who says, in his epistle to
Marinus, that it was wanting in almost all copies, including all
the most accurate ones ; by Gregory of Nyssa (or Hesychius of
Jerusalem, or whoever was the writer of the 2nd Oration upon the
Kesurrection, found among the works of the former); and by certain
commentators mentioned by Euthymius. It has been observed that,
in the Catence Fatrum upon the Gospel of Mark, no explication of
this passage is quoted or referred to, though certainly it contains
several points well deserving of comment; and that, in the MSS.
A, 127, 129, 132, 133, 134, 137, 169, 186, 188, 195, 371, and
many others of good note, the numbers of the Ammonian Sections
and the references to the canons of Eusebius, do not extend beyond
the eighth verse of this chapter. Jerome says.t that almost all the
* Matthsei has printed a scholium, attributed to Eusebius, which affirms
that " Christ is never said, in the Gospel of Mark, to have been seen by
the disciples after his resurrection." If this be his, he must have denied
the genuineness of this paragraph which expressly states that Christ
appeared " to the eleven." See ver. 14.
t Ad. Hedibiam, Qu. iii. — Scholz affirms that, in his work Adversus
Pelagiano9, Dial ii. cap. 2, Jerome contradicts the foregoing statement ;
M H m
458 TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF THE NEW TESTAMENT, [bOOK III.
Greek MSS. wanted this concluding chapter, though it was to be
found in a few.
It has been maintained tliat Clemens Romanus, Justin Martyr,
and Celsus recognised this paragraph. In my opinion, the parts of
their writings which are quoted to prove this, are not sufficient for
the purpose. They refer to facts as known and believed, which are
indeed mentioned here, but may have been learned from another
source.
In support of the genuineness of the section it is urged, in the
first place, that without it the Gospel would close with an incredible
degree of abruptness : it cannot be supposed that any writer would
break off his narrative at so interesting a point, leaving the reader's
mind in perfect suspense as to the main fact of the history, for
which he had made careful a.nd ample preparation beforehand, so as
to lead him to expect some remarkable catastrophe. To this it may
be answered, that no impugner of this paragraph supposes Mark to
have intended to break off his narrative at sfolSouvro yao. They all
admit, and when necessary argue, that the closing of the work at
verse 8 was in some way or other accidental, not designed. Besides,
they contend that the very abruptness so manifest in the termina-
tion at that verse — if we suppose the work ever to have ended there,
as we know that it did in some copies at least, and at a very early
elate would have facilitated the introduction of this section; for
the book so ending would have been seen at once to be mutilated
and imperfect, and copyists and ecclesiastical writers would have
been led to frame a close for it, in apparent consistency with the
writer's purpose. Such a conclusion, though for a time it might bo
given as an appendix by another hand, would, in a short time, come
to be written and regarded as a part of the text ; and as different
writers might compose different conclusions to the same work, we
can thus easily explain the occurrence of the two paragraphs, one of
which is found in the common text, the other in L, 274, and tho
margin of the Philoxenian Version.
In the second place, it is argued in support of the authenticity of
this closing section, that the copyists who have omitted it, or marked
it with signs of doubt, or seemed to put another formula on a level
with it or above it in authority, were probably induced to do so by
the seeming contradiction between the narrative here given and that
but Mr. Norton has pointed out that this is a mistake. Jerome there
speaks of a different clause, which he says was found in some copies.
CHAP. VI.] CRITICAL EXAMINATION OF lAli I H I I. All I'AaSAUKa. 450
ill tlie Gospel of Matthew, especially between Mark's expression,
Tgw/ rr^corfj (safStSdrou — "early ou tlio first day of tlio week;" and
Matthew's o-sj/s 6s aa^^druv — " on the evening of the Sabbath."*
(Matt, xxviii. 1.) They understood this passage to assert that Jesus
rose in the morning of the first day of the week, and regarded this
as inconsistent witli Matthew, who affirms that "in the evening of
the Sabbath" the two Maries had come to the sepulchre, and found
it empty. Mr. Norton meets this argument by showing that there
is uo real discrepancy ; because, in tlie first place, the words of this
section, "early on the first day of the week," are prohahly to bo
connected, not with the words ^' And having arisen,'^ which go before,
but with those which follow, viz. — "/te appeared first to Mary Mag-
dalene;" and because, in the second place, by the expression &4'5
aa(3l3uTm, Matthew could not possibly have meant "in the evening
of the Sabbath,'' for ho immediately explains it himself as equivalent
to rfi e'ffipuax.overi iii fMiav ca^jSdrojv — ' ' as it began to dawn toicard the
first day of the iceek." But this is not sufficient ; for the transcribers
may have perceived the difficulty which lies upon the surface, and
not discovered the explanation which requires some reflection and
attention. And in fact the scholium, from Seveiiis, which is read
in tho MSS. 23, 34, 39, and 41, shows that the copyists were pressed
by this apparent contradiction. A better answer is that suggested
by Griesbach. The transcribers ueed not have branded as doubtful
or spurious a whole series of twelve verses, on account of a difficulty
existing only in the first line, and which could easily have been got
rid of by expunging three u-ords. They never seem to have wished
to leave out such a passage as this, except when compelled to do it
by some overpowering necessity.
Thirdly, it has been maintained that this conclusion must be
genuine ; because, if it had been spurious, the interpolator would
have studiously avoided the apparent contradiction between this
addition and the narrative in Matthew : — an ingenious and profound
observation, which can only be mot by remarking that, as the inter-
polation, if such it be, took place before the middle of the second
century, and for this Irena?us is our guarantee — and as it may have
* The argument which I am stating requires the phrase to bo thus
translated: — but that such is not the meaniugof tho Evangelist is mani-
fest from the M'ords immediately subjoiued — "«5 it beijan to dawn toward
the firat day of the wei'k." Our English tranL-Iators 'were fully jusstifiod
in their version — '* In the end of the Saf>bath, as it bepan," fee. It might
<!veu be rendered, in perfect accoidauce with tho sense — " A little n-nik
after the ''^ohbath, as it beyan to da^i'n," &r.
4G0 TKSTUAL CRITICISM OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. [bOOK III.
beeu'made even earlier — its author may have written from tradi-
tionary or other sufficient sources of knowledge, independently of
tlie Gospel of Matthew. At all events, he wrote before the time
when the Christian began to be solicitous about the consistency and
harmony of the evangelists.
In opposition to the authenticity of this section, it is contended,
first, that the phraseology which we find in it is quite different from
that which we meet with in the other portions of Mark's Gospel ; it
is not merely that we find new words, but new words to express old
ideas — ideas which Mark is in the constant habit elsewhere of
expressing by different words. I think it cannot be denied that
many such phrases are met with here, and that they cast a suspicion
of spuriousness on the context which contains them. I place the
principal examples in a note.* To this objection it may be replied,
that a man's style and phraseology are very much influenced by his
personal habits, the persons with whom he associates, and the
authors whom he chiefly reads; and as these circumstances may
* The following expressions are new to ilark: — In verse 9, cr^Cfjrfi
aa^jSarov' he elsewhere uses a diflferent phrase (see Averse 3, ri^g fiiag
(Ta/3/3arou") — ib. df ^g s%l3il3Xy]x.ir Mark elsewhere uses the preposition
sji in this connexion. (See vii. 26, compare also v. 8.)— 10, s^isir/j ; 11, hsTvor
This pronoun is here used in a manner in which Mark employs it nowhere
else ; in similar examples, he most frequently uses ode^ and sometimes allows
the verb to stand without any expressed nominative. — 10, 'Tro^ivdsTaa' 12,
■To^suof/iSvoig' 15. To^ivSivrsg' Mark nowhere else uses the vei'b 'Tto^roof/jai,
although he frequently has occasion to express the same idea; but he always
employs another word: this is the more remarkable, as the verb rro^iUfiai
occurs in Matthew twenty-seven times, and in Luke forty -five times. — 1 1,
sSiddrj. 14. dsaaafj^svoig' This verb also is new to Mark, though it occurs
several times in the other Gospels; in the parallel passages to which Mark
uses other words. — 14. syrjys^iJ.svor Mark has never before used this verb
in the perfect iense. — 18. i-Tri d^'oojeroug %£/fas i-inQntSovoi' This use of the
preposition st/ is new to Mark ; he elsewhere employs the phrase i'^idsTvai
'/(figf^i in construction with the dative of the person, without a preposition:
see in particulai-, v. 23; vi. 5; vii. 32; viii. 23.— 19. o iiiv oh xi^/og* 20. roZ
Kv^iou dvvi^yoZvTog' In no other place does Mark, when he speaks in his
own person, call Christ o xu^iog, "the Lord." — The phrases '^odf/^ov a-xai/ra,
■zdgTj 77] KTidii, riTiarrjaav, diriGTrjSag, ira^axoXoxj^i^cn, Savdciimv, xaXug
i^ovdi, (SsfSaiouvrog, s-TraxokodovvrCfjv, have been objected to as foreign to the
style of St. Mark, but unjustly; for although the words are new to him, the
ideas expressed by them are also new: sf 5"^ ho'iaTi and i(pavi^u)9i^ have
also been found fault with ; but the former phrase is found three times in
other parts of this Gospel, according to the Received Text and many MSS.;
and the latter word occurs in iv. 22.
CHAT. VI.] CKITHAL KXAMINATIOX OF I'AUTICL'LAK I'ASSACIES. 461
alter much even while a short work is in progress, a corresponding
(lifFerenco may bo traceable in its commencing and concluding
portions.
A second argument against this section is drawn from the mode
of narrating the events, which is singularly short and dry, barren of
details — what we may call uncircumstantial ; and in this respect
totally opposed to Mark's usual style of writing our Lord's history ;
for ho delights in giving those minute facts and occurrences which
add to the living interest of the scene, and enable the reader to
present it to his mind as a moving picture. Of all the parts of his
(rospcl, the interviews between the risen Saviour and his followers
are those in which the historian would have most delighted to pour
out the treasures of his knowledge, and in which the reader would
most willingly linger to listen to his statements, and drink in his
communications. Yet here is the only place where the historian is
brief, barren, and unsatisfying. There is much weight in this
objection. It is for the reader to consider whether it be altogether
obviated by Hug's hypothesis, that the Evangelist was unable to
indulge his usual propensity for minute narration, owing to the death
of his friend and informant, on whom ho depended for his knowledge
of the details which he was so ready to introduce. If this theory
be rejected, I know of none more satisfactory.
A third objection to the genuineness of these twelve verses, and
the most material of all, is, that it does not cohere aptly with the
part of the Gospel which immediately precedes, and which is
undoubtedly genuine. In Mark xiv. 28, the Evangelist records a
prophecy and promise of Christ, that after rising from the dead
ho would go before the disciples into Galilee. In verse 7 of this
chapter, the same promise is repeated in a message addressed to
the eleven disciples, by the angel whom the Maries and Salome
found seated in the sepulchre. These women, indeed, are stated in
verse 8 to have " told nothing to any man," owing to their conster-
nation ; but surely it may be presumed, that when they had recovered
their presence of mind they would mention the announcement which
they had been charged to make. At all events, Mark had become
acquainted M'ith it somehow or other, before he wrote these verses.
The reader now naturally expects to hear of the fulfilment of a
prediction so important, so solemnly repeated ; but, to his amazement
and disappointment, no such event is once mentioned in the history
as having ever taken place ; and he closes the book with the sad
impression on his mind — an impression which is imavoidable, if this
462 TEXTUAL CRITICISM OV THE NEW TESTAMENT. [bOOIC III.
Gospel be regarded as a complete and fiuished work, but quite
unjustifiable, if it be looked upon as one that was left imperfect by
its author, or as one of which the original conclusion has been lost
— that Mark represents our Lord as having made a solemn promise,
which the historian was unable to say had ever been fulfilled. This
could only serve to cast doubt upon the fact of our Lord's resurrec-
tion, and upon the whole system of facts which it is the manifest
design of the work to establish and confirm — a doubt the more
unaccountable and gratuitous, as we are assured by Matthew (xxviii.
16 — 20), and by John (xxi. I — 25), that the pi-omised interview
actually took place. Can any reasoning man suppose that Mark
knowingly and purposely left his history in this unhappy condition?
Influenced by these considerations, I am led to conclude that these
twelve verses do not contain the termination with which the writer
of this Gospel intended to wind up his history, and that in truth
they did not proceed from his pen. But against such a great and
manifest preponderance of the external testimony in favour of their
genuineness, I would not wish to pronounce a decision dogmatically,
and shall not be surprised if few of my readers concur in the opinions
which I have here expressed.
Section VI. — LuJce xxii. 43, 44.
"And there appeared an angel unto him from heaven strengthening
him. And being in an agony he prayed more earnestly; and his sweat
was as it were great drops of blood falling doxon to the ground.^'
These words are contained in the Received Text, and in a great
majority of the MSS. and Versions; nevertheless, they are omitted
or inserted with tokens of hesitation in some ancient and respectable
authorities, so that a short investigation of the evidence will not be
inopportune.
They are omitted in the MSS. denoted A, B, 13, GO, 124. But
in Codex 13 they are supplied by a more recent hand ; and in 69,
though wanting in this part of Luke's Gospel, they are inserted at
tlie end of Matt. xxvi. 39, where they are generally introduced in
the Evangelistaria. This, on the whole, strengthens the testimony
against the passage, as it shows that the transcriber of Codex 69,
would have inserted them in laikc if he had found them in his
exemplar. The Evangelistaria, or MSS. containing the Church
Lessons for the different Sundays and TTolvdavs througliout the
CltAr. VI. I CaiTtCAL EXAMINATION OF rARTICULAR PASSAGES. 403
yi;ar, uniformly omit tliose two verses in tho lesson which begins at
liuko XX. 3!), and extends to Luke xxiii. 1; but tbo .«amo MSS.
liavo thorn in another les.sou taken from Matt, xxvi.; in which, after
tho 20th verso of that chapter, sixteen verses from tho Gospel of John
(xiii. .3 — 17) are introduced, and after the 39th verso, those two
from liUko. No one, however, has maintained that this passage
belongs in any sonso to tho Gospel of Matthew. Tho verses are also
omitted by tho Sahidic Version, and by tho Latin Codex Brixianus ;
nor are they quoted by Tertullian, although they would have been
of much use to him in his treatise against Praxeas and other
writings. I do not find that Origen lias anywhere noticed them.
These two vorses are found, but marked with asterisks, in E, S,
V, A, 24, 3G, IGl, 166, 274; and with obeli in 123, 344.
They are given withoiit any mark of doubt or hesitation by D, E,
G, K, L, M, X, and, as Scholz affirms, by all other MSS. and all
other Versions except those above named. Justin Martyr alludes
to this passage in conjunction with Matt. xxvi. 39, when ho says,*
" In the commentaries which wei'o composed by the Apostles and
their attendants, it is written that his (Christ's) sweat fell like drops
of blood as he prayed, 'If it he possible,' saying, 'let this cup pass
from mc' " Ircna^us urges the text against those heretics who
denied tho reality of the Saviour's body; and in later times, llip-
polytus, CiL'sarius, Chrysostom, and a whole host of other writers,
appeal to it as genuine. In the Monophysite and other controversies
relating to the incarnation of Christ, this text was frequently relied
on to prove that Christ possessed a human nature as well as a
divine one.
Epiphanius, Hilary, and Jerome, may be set down as neutral upon
this question ; for though they knew this reading and approved of it,
they intimate that it was not found in all the copies of tho New
Testament.
Epiphanius tolls us "that the words, 'and being in an agony,' »tc.
are found in tho uucastigated copies of the Gospel according to Luke ;
and the holy Irena'us, in his work against heresies, brings it as a
proof to confute those who denied the real body of Christ ; but the
Orthodox, being afraid, and not understanding the meaning and
power of the passage, have expunged it." t
Hilary of Poictiors says, " Nor truly ought wo to be ignorant,
that in a great many copies (codicibus complaribtts), both Greek and
* Justini Opera, p. S.Tl, c.d.
t Epiph. Ancorat. sec. 31.
464 TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. [bOOK III.
Latin, nothing is found respecting either the advent of the angel or
the bloody sweat." *
Jerome, arguing against the Pelagians, who maintained that man
is competent to will what is good without the help of divine grace,
urges the case of Christ as sufficient to confute them. " In some
copies, both Greek and Latin, we find that there appeared unto him
an angel from heaven strengthening him ; and being in an agony,
he prayed more fervently," &c.t
The question to be solved is simply this, — Which is the more
admissible hypothesis — that this passage was originally part of the
Gospel of Luke, and was omitted in some copies, from whatever
cause we may suppose such omission to have proceeded ; or, that the
passage was not in the Gospel by Luke as published by its author,
but was afterwards introduced, from some motive or other, into the
text of some, but not of all copies? And considering that no parallel
passage could give rise to any interpolation, and farther, that the
motive assigned by Epiphanius was very likely to influence the
Scribes in the fourth century, and thereby to occasion that diversity
of reading which the Fathers of that and the succeeding age have
remarked, I am inchned to the former altei-native ; in which position
I find myself arrayed on the same side with Mill, Bengel, Wetstein,
Griesbach, Scholz, Lachmann, Bloomfield, and many eminent critics.
Section VIL — John v. 3, 4.
For the sake of convenient reference, I here place the first nine
verses of this chapter, inserting in brackets the questionable passage.
"After these things there tvas a feast of the Jeios, and Jesus went
up to Jerusalem. And there is in Jerusalem, by the sheep-gaie, a pool,
which is called in Hebrew Bethesda, having five porches. In these
lay a great multitude of infirm persons, blind, lame, withered [wait-
ing for the troubling of the ivater. For an angel ivent down always
at a set time into the pool and troubled the water; then the first person
who entered the pool after the troubling of the water loas made ivell,
with what disease soever he was affiicted.] And there loas a certain
man there who had been infirm thirty and eight years. Jesus, seeing
him lying, and knowing that he had been a long time in that state,
asked him. Art thou tvilling to be made tvell? The infirm man
* De Trinitate, lib. ix. sec. 41, 1062.
f Adv. Pelagianos, lib. ii.
CHAP. VI,] CRITICAL EXAMINATION OF PARTICULAR PASSAGES. iQj
answered him, Lord, I have no person to jyut me into the pool vhen
the vxiter is troubled, hut whilst I am coming, another goeth doicn
before me. Jesus saith unto him. Arise, take up thy bed and vjolk.
And immediatehj the man became icell, and took up his bed, and
walked. And on that day teas the sabbath."
The words, "waiting for the troubling of the loater," at tho
beginning of tho passage above marked as doubtful, are wanting in
A, L, and 18. Those manuscripts, however, contain all the rest of
the disputed verses.
The MSS. B, C, 157, 31-i, with the Coptic Version (as read in
the MSS.) and the Sahidic Version, omit the whole of the matter
placed within brackets. It is also omitted in the metrical paraphrase
of Xonnus. This writer sajs not a word of the angel ; on the con-
trary, he describes the water as " dancing with spontaneous bounds,"
akiLaaiv aurofidroirtiv o^y^ov/j^s'jov.*
The manuscripts D and 33 contain the clause, '^ waiting for the
troubling of the water," but leave out all tho rest of the passage to
the end of the ith vci'se ; and it is marked with asterisks or obeli in
S, 14, 21, 24, 32, 30, 145, 161, 106, 230, 262, 269, 299, 348, 408.
It is also omitted by most of the MSS, of the Armenian Version,
and by the Codex Brixianus and some other Latin MSS.
All other MSS. and Versions, so far as has yet been ascertained,
appear to contain the passage either entire or nearly so, and without
any tokens of doubt or uncertainty ; among which are A, E, G, II,
K, L, M, V, A ; with the two Latin and the three Syriac Versions,
the iEthiopic, Gothic, and Sclavonic; and Cyril of Alexandria,
Chrysostom, Euthymius, and Theophylact have commented upon
it in their explanations of this part of John's Gospel,
Thus, most of the critical documents clearly testify in favour
of the authenticity of these verses. But as the text, though some-
what obscure, gives a very good and consistent sense without them ;
and obvious reasons can be assigned for the introduction of this
narrative, supposing it to be an interpolation, but none, or no sufficient
one, for its being left out in so many ancient copies, on the supposi-
tion of its having been originally written by St. John, I conceive the
internal argument to decide tho question against its authenticity.
• It has, however, been added to Codex C in the margin, by a more
recent baud than that of the original transcriber of the MS. Tischendorf
says it was the second corrector who wrote it in; his work is distinguished
for the horrible manner in which he mis-spells the Greek; yet, judging from
the fac-simile of this section given from the Ephrem MS, by Montfaucon, in
the Pahronrapliia Gnvca, I should judge the writing to be ancient — not
more modern than the ninth century.
X .\ u
4G6 TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF THE NEW TESTAMKNT. [bOOK III.
I borrow the following extract from a writer equally remarkable
for learning, acuteness, and candour.*
" The pool spoken of in the passage appears to have been fed by
an intermitting medicinal spring. The story of the descent of the
angel was founded on the superstition of the Jews, who, in common
with the Heathens, were accustomed to ascribe any remarkable
natural phenomenon to supernatural agency. What the former
accounted for by the descent of an angel, the latter might have
explained by some mythological fable. The circumstances of the
case altogether preclude the supposition, that in giving this solution
there was any pretence that the descent of the angel was visible.
" In the simple narrative, which alone I conceive is to be ascribed
to St. John, something, as is not uncommon with the Evangelists,
is left unexplained, — namely, what is meant by the moving of the
waters, and why it was supposed that then only they had a sanative
power. This, I presume, led some early possessor or transcriber of
a manuscript of his Gospel to write the popular account in its
margin, whence it was assumed into the text of others. But for its
omission, or the marks of doubt with which it is inserted, no satis-
factory account can be given, supposing it to have been originally
written by St. John."
Section VIII. — Johny'n. 53 — viii. 11.
The paragraph containing the narrative of the Adulterous Woman
has attracted a great deal of attention ; and, more perhaps than
any other passage in the Gospels, has been instrumental in turning
the thoughts of many to textual criticism, who, but for some such
exciting cause, would never have spent a thought upon the subject.
The narrative is found in its usual form and without observation
in the Codices G, H, K, M, U, and about 277 of those written in
the cursive character ; among which are those marked 28, 118, 209,
235, 433, and 435 ; in the Versio Itala, the Vulgate, the ^thiopic,
the Jerusalem Syriac, the Sclavonic, and the Persic, and likewise
in the Arabic, as given in Walton's Polyglott, It was read and
acknowledged by the compiler of the Apostolical Constitutions, a
work apparently of the fourth century ; and Euthymius Zigabenus
* Norton on the Gospels, vol i. App. p. Ixxxv.
CHAP. VI. 1 CRITICAL EXAMINATION OF PARTICULAK PASSAGES. 467
recognises it as genuine ; though ho admits that the silence of
Chrysostom is an argument of its being spurious. The author of the
Synopsis of Sacred Scripture, conmionly printed among the works
of Athauasius, also alludes to it as found in this (jlospel; but ho
places it after John viii. 20. Jerome says — "It is found in many
MSS. both Greek and Latin." Augustine was acquainted with it,
and considered it to be genuine; but admitted that tliere were copies
in which it was not to be found. Ambrose, Sedulius, and other
Latin writers also quote it.
The following authorities omit the paragraph : — A,* B, C,t L,J
T, X, A§, with 51 other MSS. including 33, 131, and 253, and
32 Evangelistaria. Seven manuscripts, as written a prima manu,
omit the paragraph, but have had it inserted, generally in the margin,
by a succeeding hand. Many of the most ancient versions omit this
narrative. It forms no part of the Old Syriac Version ; for although
it appears in almost all the editions that have appeared since tho
time of Bishop Walton (who first printed the interpolation in the
Polyglott|l), it never has been found in any one MS. of tlie Peshito,
and is absent from all the older editions. Nor does it belong to tho
Philoxenian Syriac ; for although it is written in the margin of one
or two MSS. of that version, it is accompanied by an intimation
that the paragraph was neither found in the Peshito nor in the
Philoxenian Translation, and that it had been turned into Syriac,
according to one copy by Mar Abba, according to another by a monk
• In Codox A (the Alexandrine), the loaf which contained the close of
the 7th and beginning of the 8th chapttr of John hae been Ic&t; but J)i-.
^V'oide, by counting the number of lettei s on the two adjoining leaves and
those in the dehcieut part of the text, ascertained that thero was eaactfy
room for the verses which have been torn out, on one leaf, — if tlie nafvative
of the adulteress be omitted. It is most certain, therefore, that Codex A did
not contain that narrative. ISee Woide's l^rohyomena.
f In Codex C. two leaves have been lost ; but Boivin and Tischendorf
by a similar computation, (which any one can now repeat, aiwi which I have
repeated), have made it mathematically certain that the Codex wanted
this paragraph, at least a prima manu; or else some other passages of tho
same extent — a supposition which is utterly impossible. See Tischendorf 3
I^roleaotuena, p. 31.
f The ^ISS. L and A leave a vacant space, which iu the latter would,
but in the former would not, be sufficient to contain the paragraph.
§ It should be observed, that the transcriber of Cod. A at the close of vii.
52, and in the very same line, wrote down the commencement of viii. lii;
" Then Jesus spoke unto them again, sauinff" — but immediately drew hi8p< u
across the line, leaving the remainder of that page and the first two lines
of the next page vacant, at the end of which ho re-wntes the words of vcr.
1 2 which he had formerly written and cancelled.
II See the account given of the 0\d Syriac \'cr8i«)n, p. 'iiO, supra.
468 TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. [bOOK III.
named Paul. The Sahidic Version omits it altogether, as do the
MSS. of the Copto-Memphitic, except a very few, though Wilkins
has given it a place in the printed text. It was printed by Uscan,
and after him by other editors, as part of the Armenian Version,
but is not contained in the MSS., and therefore has been expunged
by Dr. Zohrab in his critical edition; in which, however, it is placed
as an appendix at the end of the Gospel.* The Gothic of Ulphilas
omits the narrative; and some Latin MSS., among which are the
Codex Vercellensis and the Codex Brixianus, are in the same con-
dition.
The Cambridge MS. (D) is in a pecuUar state in reference to
this passage ; it cannot be said to omit it, for it has the narrative,
detailing the same history, step by step, but expressed in words so
different from those found in all other authorities, that its text can-
not possibly have been derived from the same Greeh source. Either,
therefore, there must have been txoo copies of this narrative from the
beginning, or the person for whose use Codex D was written must
have procured it to be translated from some foreign language — pro-
bably from the Latin. Both suppositions are unfavom*able to its
authenticity.
Codices E, S, and 52 others, contain the narrative, but marked
with obeli or asterisks; and 13 MSS. including 1 and 102, insert it,
not in its usual place, but at the end of the Gospel. One of these
(No. 1) adds the following scholium: — "I have expunged, in the
customary place, the chapter concerning the Adulteress in the Gospel
according to John, as not being found in most copies, nor mentioned
by the holy fathers who have expounded the Scriptures — I allude
especially to John Chrysostom, Cyril of Alexandria, and Theodore
of Mopsuestia; but it reads as follows, a little after the commence-
ment of the 96th [Ammonian] chapter," «fec. Two other MSS.
(105 and 301) have a similar remark: — "Another paragraph is
found in old copies, which we have thought proper to write in at the
end of the same Evangelist, as follows," ifec. Four MSS., viz.,
13, 69, 124, and 346, place the paragraph, not in the Gospel of John,
but in that of Luke, inserting it at the end of Luke xxi. ; and one
copyist at least (115), after John vii. 52, writes down viii. 12 ; but
* The manner in which these versions have been here tampered with is
but a specimen of the treatment which has been experienced by the docu-
ments of every kind in several passages of pecuHar interest and importance.
This circumstance renders such passages comparatively unavailing to the
critic in any attempt to establish a system of recensions.
CriAP. VI.] rniTICAI. EXAMIXATION OF PAnTICULAR PASSAGES. 469
goes back immediately to vii. 53, and inserts the whole narrative, at
the end of which he repeats viii. 12 over again.
The scholiast of Codex 1 was quite correct in assorting that this
passage has not been expounded by any ancient Greek commentator.
To those whom ho has named wo may add Origcn,* ApoUinarius.f
Basil, Cosmas Indicopleustes, Nonnus in his metrical paraphrase
of this Gospel, and Theophylact.J Among the Latins, TertuUian,
Cyprian, and Juvcncus never once touch upon it ; and when we
consider how largely the two former have written upon all manner
of topics connected with marriage, celibacy, virginity, and the re-
lation between the sexes, and the vast importance which they
assigned to such subjects, we can hardly avoid coming to the con-
clusion that their silence arose only from their being unacquainted
with its existence.
From this brief statement of the external evidence it appears —
(1.) That the preponderance of the ancient, as contradistinguished
from the modern testimonies, is decidedly unfavourable to the
genuineness of this narrative. The oldest MS 8. the oldest versions,
the oldest church writers, all agree, with a very few exceptions, in
rejecting it as spurious.
(2.) That these testimonies belong to various classes and recen-
sions. The Alexandrian and the Antiochian -/.oivai hMcig are both
liostile to its reception ; the Alexandrian recension (B, C, L, A, 33
Copt.) is unanimous in condemning it; and although tlie majority
of the documents of the Constantinopolitan recension acknowledge
the narrative, yet so many of them accompany the recognition with
marks of doubt, hesitation, and uncertainty, either as to its authen-
ticity or the place where it ought to be inserted, that the weight of
their testimony is very much impaired.
(3.) Taking into account the fondness of the transcribers for those
readings which appeared to make their text full and ample, we arc
* Comment, in Johan. (ed. Paris, 1733), 4299. No notice of the passage
here, nor in any other part of his works.
t So the scholiast asserts, whose note is given in the Codices 20 and 215.
+ It is necessary to put the reader on his guard against an extracrdinary
mis-statement of Adler, Versmtes iSynac<v, &c., p. I'.U. [Historia do
Adultera] "ex Evangelio sec. Hebrpeos arcessita, et nostro assuta est a
Papia, teste Eusebio, His. Eccl. 1. iii. c. ult." But Eusebius merely tells
us that Papias "relates a story of a woman who was accused of many
sins before our Lord, which is contained in the Gospel according: to the
Hebrews." Whether the story was the same that is found iu this section
is extremely doubtful ; at all events, Eusebius says nothiiijr ot" its being
added to the Uospel of John by I'apias, or by any one (]<(>. nor i.f any
such story being in our Gospel at all.
470 TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. [bOOK III.
led to decide against the genuiueuess of this narrative. It is far
more probable that it has been added to the Gospel of John since
the time when it was first published, than that it was originally in
the text, and was afterwards left out by the copyists. On the sup-
position that this narrative is an authentic portion of the Gospel, it
is very hard to account for its omission, not only in so many MSS.,
but in the versions employed in so many of the ancient churches
and in regions so distant from each other. The anecdote probably
circulated at first as a detached piece, which the Christians were
willing to preserve, as containing an honourable mention and pious
recollection of their Saviour ; for this purpose it was perhaps written
at the end of the vjayyi'Kwv, of course immediately after the close of
the fourth Gospel ; hence it came to be considered by some as a
portion of that book omitted in its proper place, and was introduced
by the scribes in the part of the history which they regarded as its
most fitting and convenient context. We can thus explain the cir-
cumstance of its being found in so many different situations — viz.,
at the end of the 22d chapter of Luke, after John vii. 36, after John
vii. 52, after John viii. 20, and at the end of the Gospel. It is not
found in the Lectionaries, with the exception of a few modern ones ;
because the Evangelistarium of the Greek churches was compiled
before the time when the story of the Adulteress began to be re-
garded as canonical scripture.
(4.) It has been thought, indeed, that copyists omitted this nar-
rative because they were startled by the historical improbability of
the fact here recorded ; regarding it as incredible that the scribes
and pharisees should make their compliance with the express pro-
visions of the law of Moses contingent on the view of the case taken
by one whom they regarded as an unauthorised teacher. I see no
weight in this objection. The law for putting adulterous persons to
death* was surely not intended to be carried into effect until the fact
of their criminality had been judicially established, which evidently
had not been done in this case ; and our Saviour's appeal to the
accusers' consciences might have the effect of preventing them from
appearing before the proper court as prosecutors ; for I am not aware
of any provision by which individuals were obliged to come forward
either as accusers or witnesses in such a case. So little force do 1
see in these and some other legal and historical objections, and so
entirely do I recognise the identity of character between Christ as
* Lev. XX. 10. Deut. xxii. 22.
CnAT. VI.] fRTTICAL EXAMINATION OF PARTICULAR PASSAGES. 471
depicted here and as desorihcd in the CJospols, that I have little
doubt tho fact is substantially true, though I do not believe it to have
been recorded by the Apostle John. But these reasonings arc alto-
gether beside tho question, which is not whether tlie incident be
credilile in itself or not, but whether it would have appeared in-
credible to the copyists ; and I see no reason to attribute to them
such a sceptical spirit on matters of sacred history as to suppose
that, under the influence of any such considerations, they would
have loft out, or marked with signs of suspicion, a context like this,
if it had come down to them without any such indications in tho
exemplars from which they transcribed, and the text of which it
was their business to hand down faithfully and exactly.
(5.) A much stronger argument in support of the authenticity of
the story is drawn from the unwillingness of the copyists to perpe-
tuate a section which appeared to them to inculcate a lesson at
variance with moral purity, and especially calculated to lead Chris-
tians to undervalue the virtue of chastity, which they regarded as
the very first and most important of all Christian graces and of all
good works. Tliis argument is as old as the time of Augustine,
who says* — " It has come to pass that some men of weak faith, or
rather enemies of tlie true faith, fearing lest impunity in sin mi^ht
be granted to their own wives (mulieribus suis), took away from their
MSS. the act of our Lord in forgiving the Adulteress, as if he had
granted free license to sin by saying, Go, sin no more.'' But although
this seems plausible, it is not well supported by facts; for the copyists
have shown no unwillingness to insert this clause. The transcribers
of the MSS. L and A had it not in their exemplars, but knew of its
existence, and left a blank space for the purpose of putting it in as
soon as they could get a copy of it.t The copyist or compiler of
Codex D was so anxious to get it in, that not being able to find a
Greek MS. which contained it, he took a translation of the narrative
from some foreign language, or perhaps caused one to be made on
purpose. The scholia which state the objections of the transcribers
• JDe C'onj. Adult, cap. ii. sec. 2.
f Dr. J^avidson, in his lecture on this section, says — " the writers of MSS.
that have left here an open space, although it may be too small to contain
the section, show by this circumstance that they were acquainted with the
passage, and found it in some copies, though they thought tit to reject it."
— Lectures on JBib. Crit., p. 1C4:. In my opinion their conduct shows the
very reverse; and the fact of the space left being too small (as in L), proves
that the transcriber could not possibly have had an exemplar which con-
tained the passage. These copyists had heard of it, they were anxious to
get it, and would have inserted it had it been in their power.
472 TEXTUAL CllITICISM OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. [bOOK III.
to its authenticity do not proceed on ethical but on purely critical
grounds ; they state that " it is not found in the majority of MSS.,"
that "it is omitted in the oldest copies," that "it has not been
touched upon by ancient commentators," &c. I conceive that, had
it not been for such objections as these, they would have admitted it
without scruple. I therefoi-e adhere to the opinion already intimated,
that this narrative, though probably true in point of fact, forms no
part of the Gospel of St. John.
Section IX. — Acts. viii. 37.
" And Philip said — If thou helievest tvith all thine heart, thou
mayest. And he ansicering said — / believe that Jesus Christ is the
Son of God.''
This verse forms part of the narrative of the conversion and
baptism of the royal chamberlain of Ethiopia, as given in the re-
ceived text of the New Testament ; and, taken in connexion with its
context, has often been urged as an argument, in a most important
theological controversy, that respecting the creeds or professions of
faith to be required of Christians in order to their admission to the
ordinances and fellowship of the church. It is however rejected
from the sacred text by Griesbach and Scholz, and is almost beyond
a doubt spurious.
The authorities for retaining it are E, 13, 100, 105, 106, and six
other MSS. cited by name, with many not named; — the Italic,
the Vulgate, the Sclavonic, and Armenian Versions; and the Arabic,
as printed in the Polyglott. The Philoxenian Syriac has the verse,
but marks it with a star. This is supposed by some to express
doubt ; more probably it merely signifies that the verse was not in
the Peshito. Irenseus and Cypriau, Jerome, Augustine and Bede, all
of them, it may be observed. Western authors, quote it as genuine.
It is wanting in A, B, C, 40, 98, 99, 101, 104, 180, and 35 others
cited by name ; but Scholz and Griesbach both affirm that it is absent
from a great many more, the names of which are not given. The
Sahidic, Coptic, ^Ethiopic, and Old Syriac Versions, with the Arabic
as published by Erpenius (which indeed seldom deviates from the
Old Syriac), also omit the passage. Chrysostom twice expounds
the context without taking any notice of the verse; and other ancient
writers are referred to as omitting it in the same manner. Bede
says it was wanting in the Latin, though found in the Greek ; and a
few Latin MSS. read the chapter without this verse.
CHAP. VI.] CRITICAL EXAMINATION OF PARTICULAR PASSAGES, 473
Tho Codicos D and F arc both mutilated here, so that we cannot
have tho benefit of their testimony.
It ought to be added that tho documents which support tho verse
exhibit it in several different forms ; but it is unnecessary to enume-
rato all tho variations, as tho whole is evidently a mere gloss or
scholium which has crept into the text of a few ancient and a small
number of modern copies from the margin ; where it was, no doubt,
originally placed to explain more fully tho probable circumstances of
a transaction, which, as narrated by St. Luke, appeared to some
readers rather abrupt, and perhaps somewhat obscure. No copyist
would have willingly left it out had it been in the text of the book
of Acts from the beginning.
Section X. — Acts xx. 28.
The common text of the New Testament, with which the Autho-
rised English Version here and in most other places coincides, reads
as follows : —
" Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and unto all the flock over
which the Holy Spirit hath placed you as overseers, to tend the church
of God ichich he Jiath purchased with his oicn blood.^'
Critics are very much divided as to the genuine reading of this
verse ; and the point has been debated with much zeal, because the
text has been regarded as directly bearing on one of the most im-
portant doctrinal controversies that have ever agitated the Christian
Church — that, namely, relating to what is called in theological
language, the Person of Christ. I shall endeavour to give a plain
but concise statement of the critical questions at issue, and of the
evidence and arguments on each side, not suppressing my private
opinion, but leaving the reader to form his own.
The principal question at issue is, whether we should read " the
church OF God," — "the church of our Lord and God," — or " the
church OF the Lord."
Beza, Hammond, Mill, Bengel, Home, Michaelis, Bloomfield, and
Scholz adhere to the reading of the received text, r^v eKKXr^aiav roS
6soiJ, "the church of God." Venema, Ernesti, Valckenaer, Wassen-
burg, Matthioe, and Vater, support rrjv exxXrjalav roO xusloj xai dsoO,
"the church of our Lord and God.'' Grotius, Wetstein, Griesbach,
Bishop Marsh, Dr. J. Pye Smith, Dr. Davidson, and others prefer
Ooo
474 TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF THE NEW TESTAMENT, [BOOK III.
rrtv IxxkYiGiav rou xu^iou, " the church of the Lord." The documeuts
are even more divided than the critics. They read as follows.
1. Qsov- — This is the reading of Codex B (the celebrated Vatican
MS.*), and of ten cursive manuscripts which are expressly quoted,
with nine more about which we cannot be certain,! though it is
probable that they thus read, because their collators have not men-
tioned any variation here from the received text. A few Lectionaries,
the Vulgate Version, J the Philoxenian Syriac § in the text, and two
* Until the fac-simile edition of Codex B, which is said to be in progress,
shall have been given to the world, I hold it right to adhere to the state-
ment, that it reads 6iou in Acts xx. 28; because such was the information
communicated by the librarian of the Vatican to the editor of the London
reprint of Griesbach's Testament. — (See Alofiitum, vol. i. p. 3, ed. 1818.)
But there is still some doubt upon the point, because Birch and Hug have
both declared that the text of the MS. has been retouched and altered in
various places; and respectable authorities have asserted that the original
reading of the Codex here was KT (xug/ou), which a later hand has changed
into 0T (6iou), leaving, however, traces of the obliterated K still visible. —
(See Dr. J. P. Smith's Scripture Testimony, &c., vol. iii. p. 64, who refers to
Heinrichs Acta Apostolorwn, vol. ii. p. 400 ; G-abler, Neues Theologische
Journal, vol. iv. p. 409 ; and Kuinoel, Libri Historici N. T. &c., in loc.)
Dr. Davidson asserts {Lectures, &c. p. 175), that Griesbach affirmed that
the Codex Vaticanus reads zu^iow but after a careful perusal of every-
thing that Griesbach published, I cannot find any such statement from his
pen. He mentions indeed — as he was bound to do — that Birch, after
giving 6sou as the reading of the Vatican MS., subsequently retracted that
statement, declaring that, on looking over his original paper of extracts
from that Codex, he found no memorandum whatever of its reading in
Acts XX. 28, and could not venture to pronounce positively how it reads
the text ; and although he thinks it very unlikely that any considerable
variation in so remarkable a passage could have escaped his observation,
he vrishes his former reference to B, in support of dsou, to be expunged as
an error of the press or of the pen, he is uncertain which. All this
Griesbach faithfully and exactly reprints ; but he nowhere takes it upon
him to assert that the Codex Vaticanus reads xu^lou in Acts xx. 28.
t In the whole nineteen there is not a single MS. of note or value.
X All the copies of the Vulgate that have fallen under my notice, whether
printed or MS. — and I have inspected several of both kinds — read Dl or
JDei, without any exception. — ( See the specimen of the Codex Caroli Magni
^iven in the ninth plate of this work. ) This, however, could scarcely have
been the primitive text of the Version ; because Jerome, its author, re-
peatedly and explicitly reads Domini in his own writings. Di is supposed
by some to have crept into the MSS. of the Vulgate, by mistake, for Dai.
Dr. J. Pye Smith states that " some of the more ancient MSS. of this
version have Lord" — an assertion so highly probable in itself that it ought
not to be passed over unnoticed ; but I do not understand Dr. Smith as
affirming that he had himself seen any such MS. ; and I know not on what
authority he has made the statement. — (See Scrip. Test. iii. p. 64.) He
may have been misled by Griesbach's expression, " antiquiores libri latini;"
but this refers to copies of the Versio Itala, not of the Vulgate.
§ The Philoxenian Syriac has dsoO in the text, but ku^Iou in the margin.
It should be remembered that the^ former reading would seem very
CHAP. VI.] CRITICAL E.XAMINATION OF I'AUTICULAU 1'ASSA(;ES. 475
M8S. of the old Syriac Version, with a Syriac Liturgy, also in
MS. and of modern date,* support the same reading. Of the Greek
Fathers, l<]piplianius, Antiochus of Ptolemais, and (Ecumenius, un-
doubtedly read Oioij. Athanasius, Basil, Chrysostom, Thcopliylact,
and Ibas, are also appealed to as sanctioning this form of the text ;
but, whether they did so, is uncertain. t Among the Latin Fathers,
Celestine, Cassiodorus, Ferrandus, Beda, Etherius, unquestionably
read Oiov- perhaps also Ambrose and Fulgentius.| Several of the
early writers of the church use the expression " Hood of God," but
without giving it as a quotation from Scripture ; thus, Ignatius, in
the s/ior<er edition of his epistles, says to the Ephesiaus — "Be yo
imitators of God, being revived by the blood of God;''' (but the
larger edition, instead of Ij a/',aar/ Oiu\iy has sv a'iiJMn ^^laroii- and the
context does not determine in favour of either. §) And so Ter-
tullian — "With what price have we been purchased? With the
favourable to the monophysito doctrine ; and that this version was made
at iirst, was aiterwards revised, and has been handed down to us, ex-
clusively by persons of that persuasion.
* Upon these MSS. and the Liturgical Book, found by Adler in the
Vatican, I refer to what 1 have already said in my account of Dr. Lee's
edition of the Syriac New Testament, p. 314 ante.
I^t Athanasius, for example, is said to exhibit this reading in his Epistle
to Scrapion, which begins Ta y^a,a/j!,ara, &c. ; but Le Clerc affirais, and
Scholz admits, that one MS. of Athanasius here reads y.vpiov, and several
others ^^lOrou. He is also said to have read, in the same manner, in the
Testimonies Concerning the Trinity; but that work is not his. He does not
quote it against the Arians. Basil is represented as having this lection in
one passage of his writings — {Ethica sive Moralia, reg. 80, sec. 10) — and
so he has in the printed copy ; but Wetstein and others doubt whether ho
has been correctly edited ; for, in the abridgment, the word employed is
^^lOTou, Chiysostom seems to give Osov no less than three times as the
reading of this text, in his commentary upon it ; but the comment itself,
as Mill observes, manifestly requires %-Jiiov, and such, unquestionably, is
the reading which he gives when he refers to it in his remarks upon
Eph. iv. 12. Theophylact, in one edition of his commentary, has the
common reading t'eoiJ, but in another it is given xupiov, and in a third
xng/oy y.a! OsoZ. Ibas, in his Epistle to Marinus, inserted in the^Acts of
tlie Council of Chalcedon {Mansi Concilia, vol. iv. p. 1578), has OioxJ in tho
Greek text ; but the Latin Translation has Domini. No reliance can be
placed on such testimonies.
I Bengel, who is a decided advocate for the received readuag of this
verso, says in his note upon it — " Utrumvis" (i.e. koZ et^.v^lm), " e.vtat
apud Ambrosium, ac Latini librarii sa^pe permutant di et dni." Fulgentius
has £>(i in one of his works, and Christi ui another.
§ See Janata Epp. Ep. ad Ephesios, sec, I. Compare tho two editions of
Ignatius, in Cotelerius, Fatres Apostoll. vol. ii. pp. 12 and 43.
476 TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. [bOOK 111.
blood of God."* But other writers find fault with this language,
and say it is nowhere used in the Scriptures. t
2. Kv^lov is read in A, C, J D, E, 13, 15, 18, 40, 180, and nine other
cursive MSS. explicitly quoted, with some more not named. It is
supported by the Versio Itala, the Sahidic, Coptic, and Armenian
Versions, and the marginal reading of the Philoxenian Syriac.
Among the Fathers, Ammonius (third century), as quoted in a
Catena Patrum, read the text in this manner; as did Eusebius (in his
remarks on Isaiah xxxv. 9), Maximus, Chrysostom, (on Eph. iv. 12,
explicitly, and also on this text in Dr. Mill's judgment), and the
author of the Apostolical Constitutions (fifth century). Whether
Athanasius, Ibas, and Theophylact support this reading is doubtful.
Didymus on the Holy Spirit, reads Domini, i.e. xu^lou; but this work
has only come down to us in Jerome's Latin translation. Jerome
* Ad Uxorem, lib. ii. c. 3, Opera, &c. p. 168.
t Wetstein, in his critical note upon this text, has collected a good many
extracts of this kind, which I have not space to copy, out of Origen,
Chrysostom, Nestorius, Theodoret, Isidore, Asterius, and Gregory of
Nyssa. I take a sentence from the last-named writer. In reply to
Apollinaris, who had said — " from all which it is manifest that God died,"
he says — " This, as evidently absurd, I may pass over without explanation;
for every man in his senses will be able to perceive the impiety and silliness
of one who openly asserts that God himself died." — Antirrhcta, 52. Wetstein
includes in this list the name of Athanasius, and gives an extract from
him in a very incorrect form, which has subjected both himself and others
who have copied from him to very severe censure. Wetstein quotes, as
from Athanasius, a sentence which reads in English thus — " The Scriptures,
as we understand them, have nowhere made mention of the blood of God.
Such expressions are the audacious inventions of Arians." But what
Athanasius really says in the place referred to is very different from this.
" The Scriptures have nowhere made mention of the blood of God apart
from the flesh, or of God apart from the flesh, (di^a Ga^xoc, not ha),
as having suffered and risen again. Such expressions are the audacious
inventions of Arians. But the sacred Scriptures, when they speak of God
in the flesh, and of the flesh of God incarnate, do mention the blood and
Bufferings and resurrection of the body of God." This seems very explicit;
and after reading it we expect to find Athanasius quoting, in support of
his position, Acts xx. 28, with the reading koZ- but instead of this, he
appeals to other texts and arguments. This silence of his, with reference
to such a text, so apposite to his argument, had he read it as we now have
it in the common editions, seems to me the strongest reason for believing
that he read ixxXriGiav xv^lov or, if otherwise, certainly not dsov.
X That KT is the proper and genuine reading of Codex C is beyond all
dispute; but Tischendorf informs us, that after that word, a third hand has
inserted (probably between the Unes, for he does not state where), KAI0T
(xai 6sov-), this illustrates in some degree, the introduction of the compound
reading hereafter to be considered. A still more recent hand has put in the
margin rriv hx.Xri(Sia,v rod Ku^iou, to mark that such was the original text
of the MS. See Tischendorf, Codex Ephra;mi Syri. p. 338.
CHAP. VI.] CRITICAL EXAMINATION OF PARTICULAR PASSAGES. 477
himself twice quotes it in the same form, as do also Lucifer of
Cagliari, Augustiuo, Sedulius, and many other Latin \n-iters who
employed the old version of the Scriptures which was in use before
the Vulgate.
3. Kv^iov OioiJ is supported by two codices, of which only one (No. 3),
has this reading a 2^*'"«« manu: the other (No, 95), has been brought
into this form by alteration. The Arabic Version in the Polyglott
expresses the same text.
4. Ku^/ou roD kou is the reading of the Georgian Version.
5. Qiou xa/ Kv^iou is found in Codex 47.
6. Kug/ou xa/ ^iou is found in Codex C, as revised and altered by a
Constantinopolitan of the ninth century; also in G, II, 98, 99, 100,
101, 104, lOG; and in 84 other MSS. expressly cited, together with
avast xwxmhQX (alii plurimi) not specified; and G Lectionaries — that
is to say, in the great majority of all the Greek manuscripts that
have been collated upon this text; also in the Sclavonic Version.
One edition of the words of Theophylact gives this as his reading of
the passage.
7. 'S.^iarov is the reading of the Old Syriac,* the Arabic Version,
published by Erpenius; and, as it now appears, of the iEthiopic.t
Origen twice quotes the text in this form ; perhaps also Athanasius,
Basil, and a few writers of modern date and little importance.
We have now to consider the weight of the evidence in favour of
these several readings.
And although Xe/tyroD is supported by ancient and respectable
authorities, they are very few, and so entirely destitute of sanction
from the Greek manuscripts, that we cannot attribute to them much
weight, more particularly as the reading is internally bad. XsiaroZ
might bo a gloss upon the more indefinite word y.u^m' ; for as the
• In the Latin translation annexed to the Syriac Version in Walton's
Polyglott, the word Domino is an erroneous rendering. The Syriac, as
printed there and in every other edition, except Professor Lee's, reads
ji^g/ffrou. Some have supposed that the Syriac translator may have found
xug/ou in his Greek MS. and merely put in Christ as a free rendering — but
this 1 conceive to be quite inadmissible.
t In the earlier editions of the -i^Ethiopic, a word is here employed which
Griesbach asserted was used indifferently to express either Q^o-j or y.'J^io-j,
but this assertion of his Wakefield pronounced to be " infamously false."
However this may be, the recent edition published by the Bible Society,
from perfect MSS. (the one MS. employed for the Roman edition, which is
copied by the Polyglott, was sadly mutilated, and the editors had often to
eke out the text by the help of the Vulgate), reads Xsiarou, in accordance
with the Syriac. For this information, I have to acknowledge my obliga-
tions to Dr. Henderson of Highbury College.
478 TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. [bOOK III.
tenn "Lord" in the New Testament sometimes denotes our Saviour,
and sometimes the Father Almighty, it would be very natural for
the possessor of a MS. having Ku^lcv in this place to explain the
sense in which it was there used, by writing x^iotov in the margin ;
and thence it would naturally make its way into the text of future
transcripts. But no man in his senses would dream of explaining
the clear and definite expression Xparov by inserting either Kug/ou or
&10V.
Kvgi'ou l)sou, — xu^iou rov dsou, — hou zai zu^lrjVy — and xu^io{j -/.a! I'joD, are
objectionable on another principle. It is true, indeed, that the last
of these readings is supported by the great majority of the collated
MSS.; but these all belong to one class or family, the Later
ConstantinopoUtan Becension; there is not a single one among them
of the first rank either in antiquity or value ; and among the Versions
this reading is found only in the Sclavonic, a work of the ninth
century, beyond which period this reading cannot be traced. Not
a single Greek Father seems ever to have read the text, or heard of
its being read by others in this manner ; for even if that copy of
Theophylact which gives -av^Iou xai 6sou be pure, as it is probably
corrupt, a bishop of Bulgaria in the eleventh century can scarcely
be regarded as a Father of the Greek church, and certainly can lend
but little force to the reading which he supports. All the readings
which are grouped together at the head of this paragraph are clearly
compounded readings, and therefore more modern than the simple
readings from which they were derived. Some copies had diov, some
had Ku^m- the transcribers to make sure of accuracy and complete-
ness in their copies inserted the one in the text, the other in the
margin ; we find them so placed in the Philoxenian Version ; and
subsequent copyists took both into the text, putting in some cases
dsou before zv^iou, in others xv^lov before hov, and so giving rise to the
diversity of arrangement and expression which we witness in this
instance. But if both words had been in the verse from the begin-
ning, no copyist would have dared to expunge either: much less
could it have happened that the primitive reading, with the two
nouns, should have been found in so many modern MSS. while the
most ancient MSS. Versions, and Fathers should, without any
exception, give us only the modern readings, formed by the expulsion
of one or other of the two nouns which had been in the text origin-
aUy.
The main question, therefore, to be decided, lies between diou,
the reading of the Received Text, and kv^'iov, that adopted by
CHA1-. VI.] CRITICAL EXAMINATION OF PARTICULAR PASSAGES. 479
Gricsbach ; and to mo it appears very evident that tlio latter is tlio
authentic reading of the passage, because, as appears from the above
statement, it is supported by most ancient testimonies of every sort,
MSS., Versions, and Citations — because those testimonies belong
to different localities, classes, and recensions — because the reading
in question is the one loss favourable to tlie doctrinal opinions of the
transcribers — and because on the supposition of its genuineness, tlie
other readings can easily bo accounted for and explained.
1. It cannot be denied that the MSS. A, C, D, and E, which
favour xv^io-j, are of much higher average antiquity than those which
support t'soD, among which there is only ono of good, or even tolerable
antiquity; that the Italic, Sahidic, Coptic, and Armenian Versions,
are each of them more ancient than the Vulgato and the Philoxe-
nian Syriac, and that Ammonius, Maximus, and Eusebius, with
Lucifer, Augustine, aud Jerome, to say nothing of doubtful citations
on either side, are earlier than Epiphanius, Antiochus, and CEcu-
menius. I am far from inferring tho genuineness of a reading from
its antiquity alone, unless we had the means of carrying our researches
back to the very days of tho Apostles : but it is one element in our
calculation, aud in many places, as here, an important one ; for we
should remember that the Italic and Sahidic Versions were made
before the Arian controversy had begun ; that the Coptic and
Armenian were translated while it was yet raging; and that the
Ephrem and Alexandrian MSS. were written before it had subsided.
When, therefore, they with so many Fathers, both Greek and
Latin, including several acute and strenuous opponents of Arianism,
present us witli a reading which says nothing either for or against
tho disputed doctrine, their testimony is by far more weighty than
that of any other documents — even of the same period — could such
be produced, in favour of the common reading.
2. These testimonies cover a wide extent of the whole surface of
tho Christian world at the time when they were given. Egypt,
Africa, Italy, Syria, Greece, and Armenia, all appear to have known
of no otlier reading than xy^/ou in Acts xx. 28, in the beginning of
tho fifth century ; or if they knew of any other, they had deliberately
rejected it; and that in order to adopt one from which their own
most deeply cherished doctrines could derive no support. Tho testi-
monies in favour of xus/ou belong to different classes and recensions.
According to tho view which I have given, and as I conceive in part
justified, of the classification of the documents, — A, C, 13, 15, 18, 40,
108, and the Coptic Version, represent the Alexandrian Recension ;
480 TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. [bOOK III.
D, E, the Italic and Sahidic Versions, with the citations of the
Latin Fathers, give us specimens of the noivri s-/,dooig from which that
recension was derived ; John Chrysostom, the Armenian Version,
and the margin of the Philoxenian Sjriac, are documents of another
xoivri ixdoaig out of which the Constantinopolitan revision grew. I am
not desirous of pressing this nomenclature on any person who may
doubt its correctness ; but no man can doubt that these various and
widely spread testimonies belong to distinct classes of authorities,
however he may consider it right that the classes should be denomi-
nated.
3. That these MSS. Versions, and Citations, have come down to
us through the hands of Orthodox scribes and copyists, is unques-
tionable ; a circumstance which detracts very much from the weight
of the evidence in favour of hou, slight as it is, but confirms in the
same degree the authority of that which supports -/.u^iov. The
transcribers never would have struck out a word which would seem
to them to have been written on purpose to confound the heretics
and confute their heresy, in order to put in a phrase which deprived
their own highly valued views of a strong argument and powerful
confirmation. They might feel much less reluctance in slipping in
from the margin or from memory, one which would appear very
useful and valuable as a weapon of controversy.
4. And lastly, if -/.u^lov be genuine, we are able readily and naturally
to explain the occurrence of the other readings. In the first place,
the word Lord seemed indefinite ; it might appear to require to be
explained ; and one copyist might conceive he had explained it by
placing the word God in the margin ; another, by putting Christ in
the same position. From these scholia, the present text, and also
the compound readings would naturally arise. But no scholiast
could ever dream of explaining the simple and definite term God, by
the vague and general expression Lord. This seems to be admitted
by a strenuous advocate for 6sou, who says, — " If Luke wrote Qiou
we cannot easily account for the readings Kv^iou or Xg/ffroD*"* although
he immediately after qualifies the concession. In the second place,
the expression hy.Xrjoia y.v^iou was to the scribes of the New Testament,
an unusual one ; it occurs indeed very frequently in the LXX. but
nowhere else in the Christian Scriptures. On the other hand, the
church of God occurs several times in the writings of St. Paul ; and
the phrase, familiar to the eye and ear of the copyist, might naturally
* Bloomfield, Recensio Synoptica, vol. v, p. 29. I have sometimes suspected
that cannot is a mistake for can.
CHAP. VI.] CRITICAL EXAMINATION OF PARTICULAR PASSAGES. 481
find its way into the transcripts instead of ono to which they wcro
not equally accustomed. This very fact, indeed, has been urged in
favour of I'eoS, namely, that it is more agreeable to tho usual style of
St. Paul, who is hero speaking, and therefore more probably genuine.
But it should bo remembered that tho speech hero recorded, though
spoken by Paul, was written by Luke, who uses his own stylo and
idiom ; and ho never writes " the church of God;'' he usually employs
"the church," alone without any adjunct, as Griesbach has truly
observed. And if we are to appeal to style at all, as this writer
remarks, xu^/ou must be genuine ; for in tho report of this very speccli,
wherever the Father is spoken of, he is called 6sb;, wherever tho
Son is mentioned, it is by the title y.-jsiog' and this imiformly. It
has been argued that ■/.uolou crept in from the Greek translation of
the Old Testament; but as the copyists were much more familiar
with the Xew, it is far more probable that they borrowed ()=oD from
St. Paul or from the parallel passage in 1 Peter v. 2, in which tho
phraseology employed is very similar to that found in this place.
And it deserves to be remarked, that in the Epistle of Peter, somo
copies, instead of rov ^soS (which is undoubtedly genuine), read ro\J
x'jBio-j, the text being corrupted from Acts xx. 28.*
It has been maintained that the reading of the common text is to
be preferred as a harsh and offensive one, for that no copyist would
give a willing admission to a phrase which speaks directly of " the blood
of God,'' thus attributing death and suffering to the Impassible and
Immortal. Wo find, however, that several of the Fathers employed
this language. Athanasius, as we have seen, formally vindicates it,
though he does not appeal to this text as sanctioning its use. Xor
can I suppose that the learned and able men who have used their
best industry to establish this reading as a genuine part of the
Sacred Scriptures, find in it anything harsh or offensive ; on the
contrary, it is often appealed to as a most powerful prop of the
Received and Orthodox Faith. I can see no reason to believe that
the scribes were at aU more scrupulous on this subject than the
Fathers who went before, or the divines and critics who followed
after them. I rather think that men of their description were likely
to be pleased with piquant and pungent expressions of this sort ; and
* I place these parallels in conjunction: —
' 1 Peter v. 2. — Iloz/xas/ars rh ;v ■jij.Tti Tcjifj^viov ro\J Qiou,
s'ZKSxo'TOX) vng.
Acts XX. 28. — Tw TioiiMvi'ji ev u i/J-a; rh Tvsu/xa ro ayicv
i^iTO i'ms'/.o^roug, rroii/jaivin Tr,v lx.70.r,i!ia\i rou Kj^1o\j,
Ppp
V
482 TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. [BOOK Ul.
held the use of them to be an indubitable test of soundness in the
faith.
It must appear to all as a weighty objection to the phrase IxySknaiav
Tov diou, that it is not supported by the authority of any class or
recension of documents, No matter what or whose arrangement be
adopted — Griesbach's, Hug's, Scholz's, or mine — no class or family
bears testimony in favour of hou. It is only supported by straggling
documents which are overborne and confuted by the other MSS.
and versions of their own classes or families.
And what seems to me decisive as to its spuriousness is, that it
remained unnoticed and unused during the fourth century, while the
controversy was raging between the Orthodox and the Arians ; and
in the fifth, while so many disputes were handled, and with so much
heat, on the subject of the Incarnation. Athanasius never urges it
against the followers of Arius, nor Cyril against those of Nestorius ;
nor does any one of the many learned and zealous men who drew
their pens in support of the Catholic doctrine once appeal to Acts
XX. 28 ; a clear proof that however the present reading may have
originated, it must have originated since those times. A text like
this, as we have it in our Bibles, could not have remained unknown
to all the disputants, had it been found in theirs.
Section XI. — 1 Tim. iii. IG.
"And ivitJiout controversy great is the mystery of godliness : God
was manifested in the flesh, justified in the spirit, seen of angels,
preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received tip into
glory. ^'
The first word of the second clause in this verse is variously read.
1. f!dg i(pa,vs^oj6'^- — " God was manifested." This is the reading
of the Received Text, approved by Mill, Bengel, Berriman, Woide,
Henderson, Scholz, Davidson, and many other eminent critics.
2. "O5 epavsgw^jj- — "Who was manifested." This reading Gries-
bach has taken into the text of the New Testament, and it is
supported by Carpenter and Belsham ; and also Dr. J, Pye Smith,
though with some hesitation.
3. " O i<pavs^u)9rj- — "Which was manifested," — referring to the
mystery mentioned immediately before. Grotius, Sir Isaac Newton,
Wetstein, Wakefield, Norton, and several other writers, prefer this
reading.
CIIAP. VI.] CIUTICAL EXAMINATIOX OF PARTICULAR PASSAGES. 483
I proceed now to state the evidence for these different forms iu
the text,* premising that in the most ancient manner of writing
(ireek, they are all verj much ahke in outward appearance, namely,
eC, OC and O. It will be convenient to begin with the last-
mentioned reading.
The neuter pronoun O, i.e. o, luhich, is the reading of only two
Greek M8S, D and G, so far as I can discover, of all those that
have been collated upon this passage ; and in both of these the
original writing has been altered by another hand.t The manuscript
* So much has been published on this celebrated text, that I have not
aimed at moro than to present, as briefly as possible, the results of the
discussions which it lias undergone, especially of those in wliich Newton,
Mill, NVetsteiu, J_>cirinian, Griesbauh, Henderson, and recently Tischendorf^
have borne a part; and to remove some prevalent errors.
t The readin<j of Codex D (the Clermont MS. formerly the property of
Beza, now in the lloyal Library at I'aris), lias been vehemently contested.
All who have seen it, agree that at present it reads ec, i e. O20;. JDut
Morinus (to whom Mill assents), Wetstein, and Griesbach, assure us that
tlie reading a prima manu was O; which letter being in the beginning of
a line, the corrector, if we may call him so, scraped out a portion of the
circle, so as to convert it into a C, prefixed a 0, and drew over the two
letters a stroke resembling the usual mark of contraction. "NVoide, who
had seen the MS. at Paris, dissented from this statement, and a fneudly
discussion having t.iken place between him and Griesbach, the latter wrote
to M. Villoison, and the former to two learned friends, requesting them
carefully to re-examine the place, and give a correct account of it. It does
not appear that any of these gentlemen was aware of the others having been
applied to; but their answers, which have been published (See GriesbachU
Symbolcc Critiae, vol. ii. pp. 5G — 77), are iu exact accordance upon the
main questions raised in the correspondence. It is certain that the marks
of the scraping are still visible in the parchment where the O was altered
into a C; that the C thus produced, is not of the same shape with the
other sitjmas in the MS. tiie ends of the hooks coming much closer together
than is usual: that the 0 and superincumbent line are of much fresher and
darker ink than the original writing of the Codex; that the 0 projects
beyond the proper edge of the column by the full breadth of itself, that the
Latin translation on the opposite side of the MS. reads QUOi), i.e. O,
wliich, and has not been altered; and that this word quod is in its proper
place in the column, showing that it was not regarded as the commence-
ment of a section, in which case, but not otherwise, its initial letter would
have been placed as the 0 now is iu the Greek. From these facts, we are
compelled to conclude that the reading of the Codex Claromontanus
originally was 0, vldch.
U is the Codex Boernerianus, published by Matthrci, and containing the
Epistles of Paul in Greek, with a Latin Version interlined. It was formerly
the property of Trofessor Francius at Amsterdam; and after the sale of
his library, came into the possession of Boerner at Leipzig. Of it Le Clerc
speaks in his Epistle to Optimianus, prefixed to Kuster's reprint of jMill'a
Greek Testament: — Codicem vidi qui ftiit in Bibliothecd Franciand in hoc
urhe anno MDCCV. venditd in quo erat O {nempe in 1 Tim. iii. 6): sed ab
alia manu, additum sigma. Codex est in quo Latina interpretatio Grcecoe
superimposita est: qud hie quoque habet QuoD." — In this Codex the altera-
tion is betrayed, not merely by the fresh colour of the ink, and by the word
484 TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. [bOOK III.
evidence, thei'efore, in support of cl is extremely slight, but it derives
powerful help from the versions, being supported by the Versio Itala
and the Vulgate,* the Sahidic and Coptic, the Peshito and Philoxe-
nian Syriac, the /Ethiopic and Armenian Versions. Griesbach,
indeed, who has been on this point copied by Scholz, affirms that
some of the oriental versions read 05, the remainder a pronoun which
may be rendered either clg or 0 ; but his statements are manifestly
unfounded with regard to some of them, and I believe them to be
incorrect in reference to them all.f Among the Fathers, Clement
of Alexandria clearly read the text with the neuter relative, referring
to the mystery, which he understood as signifying Christ: he says,
" the angels saw the mystery among us, that is, Christ." X And so in
after times, Cyril of the same place: — " Ye err, not knowing the
"Quod" placed immediately above the altered word, but by the difference
in the size of the letters — for the corrector not having room for a fuU sized
C, has stuck a small one up in the corner between the 0 and the letter €
which follows, thus, O*^. Dr. Griesbach could hardly fail to be aware of
this, yet he quotes Gr without any remark, as supporting the reading "O5,
not ' O. The Codex F (Augiensis), was copied from Gr, after it had been
thus altered.
Bishop Fell in his New Testament (Oxford, 16Y5) quotes og as from a
MS. belonging to Lincoln College, the oldest of all the Oxford MSS. of the
Epistles; but this is now found to be a mistake, and Mill and subsequent
editors omit the citation.
* I cannot account for the extraordinary statement of Scholz, that the
Italic and Vulgate both read og. This assertion every person who has
examined a Latin Bible of either version, must know to be untrue.
t What Griesbach says is, that " the Coptic, Sahidic, and Philoxenian
Syriac (in the margin), read vs, qui; the Vulgate and Itala, 0, quod; the
Peshito Syriac, the Philoxenian Syriac (m the text), the iEthiopic, the
Arabic, as edited by Erpenius, and Armenian, either pronoun qui or quod,
indifferently." But any one who is moderately acquainted with the oriental
languages, can perceive by inspection of the Peshito, the Philoxenian Syriac,
both in text and margin, and the Arabic of Erpenius, that although the
pronouns used have no distinction of gender, and therefore may in particular
situations express either qui or quod, the order and collocation of the words
in this sentence, renders it impossible to refer them to any other antecedent
than f/j\j6rri^m, consistently with the syntax and usual construction of the
language. The same, I have been informed by good authority, is the case
in the /Ethiopic, Coptic, and Sahidic Versions. Of the last-mentioned,
a fac-simile from a good MS. is given in Plate XL which will enable the
learned reader to decide the point for himself. Archbishop Lawrence
affirms [Kemarhs on Griesbach, &c. pp. '71 — 83), that the Armenian Version
here expresses khg; but as Cirbied, and the Armenian monks of Vienna,
who recollated the critical text of Zohrab's edition for the use of Scholz,
do not confirm this statement, I presume the Archbishop (or his informant)
must have been misled by trusting to some less accurate copy. In all other
respects, I concur in his Grace's statements.
\ So quoted by (Ecumenius, in his Commentary on this passage.
CITAP. VI.] CRITICAL EXAMINATION OF PARTICULAR PASSAGES, 485
Scriptures, nor even tho great mystery of godliness, that is Christ,
who was manifested in tho flesh, justified in the spirit," &c. And
in another section of the same work, — " I think tho mystery of
godliness can bo nothing else in our judgment than tho very Logos
proceeding from tho Fatlier, who was manifested in the flosli, for ho
was born of tho Holy Virgin, Mother of God, having taken upon
him tho fonn of a servant."* Tho writer of a discourse, printed
with the works of Chrysostom, but believed to be spurious, says,
" Without controversy, great is the mystery of godliness ; it (or he)
was seen of angels, believed on in the world .... to him bo glory."t
Gregory of Nyssa, says, — " Tho Apostle adds, ' the mystery icas
manifested in the flesh ;^ and he has well said; this is our doctrine." J
All tho Latin Fathers, with the exception of Jerome (who in one
passage reads qui, probably from having copied some Greek com-
mentator), exhibit quod in conformity with the Old Latin Version
which they used ; yet they all understood the mystery (or sacrament,
as it is there translated), as a designation of Christ; thus Hilary,
Augustine, Pclagius, Fulgentius, Idacius Clarus (or perhaps
Vigilius under his name), Hilary the deacon (or whoever was tho
author of a commentary on the Epistles of Paul, found among the
works of Ambrose), Leo the Great, Marius Victorinus, Cassian (a
pupil of the great Chrysostom), Gregory the Great, Bode, and a
host of others ; for this was a favourite passage with them all.
"O; is supported by the MSS. A, C, F ; and by G, as altered about
the ninth century; also by the Codices 17, 73, and 17L§
* De Fide ad Imperat. sec. 7, ."5.
t Joannis Chrysostomi Opera, vol. x. p. 7C4.
I Antirrheta adv. Apollin. p. 13S.
■^ Where evei-y point has been contested, a writer may not only be per-
mitted, but required to justify his statements at greater length than would
under other circumstances bo allowable. I therefore subjoin some remarks
on the three uncial MSS. above quoted, but in the form ot a note, to prevent
the statement of the evidence from being unnecessarily interrupted.
1. F is tho Codex Augiensis, now in the library of Trinity College,
Cambridge; and is a mere transcript from the Boemerian or G, of which 1
have already spoken: it was made after the exemplar had been altered so
as to read O^' instead of O, as is evident from the circumstance of both
letters being here of the full size O C ; but the Latin Version annexed to
the Greek text, still reads quod, as in the Boemerian. Its authority,
therefore, is precisely the same that belongs to the corrector to whom we
owe tho alteration in Codox G: it proves, however, the alteration to have
been made as early as tho ninth or tenth cenlui-y.
2. The reading of the Codex A ( Alexandrinus), in the British Museum
has given rise to so much discussion that I have thought it right to place
before my readers an imitation of this passage as it now stands in the MS.
486 TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. [bOOK III.
No version that is now known to the learned can be decisively
shown to have read 05 in the original ; but it has been alleged that
as exact as I have found it possible to produce, with the assistance of a
very intelligent lithographer. (See Plate IV.) It Mill at once be seen that
the present reading is distinctly ©c, i.e. 6io;, God ; but that the two strokes,
one in the first letter, and one over both, which make the difference between
OC, i.e. OS u'ho. and ^so? God, are clearly very modern, differing not merely
in the colour of the ink, but iu the shape, size, and execution, from any
Btrokes employed by the original transcriber in similar situations. This is
admitted by all those who maintain that the Codex reads Gsog- only they
assert that under the fresh ink of these modern strokes, there were formerly
— though there be not now — traces of ancient lines still discernible, written
by the same hand which wrote the rest of the text, and over which the
modern ink has been drawn, probably for the purpose of freshening and
deepening them, so as to prevent them from fading away altogether from
view. — "This," says Dr. Davidson, "is certified by Young, Junius. Huish,
Mill, Wotton, Croyk, Fell, Grabe, Hidley, Gibson, Hewitt, Pilkington,
Berriman, Walton, Woide, and others. These eminent scholars inspected
it, and they all concur in the same testimony." But in some parts of this
statement, Di'. Davidson has fallen into serious errors. Thus Young and
Junius are only difierent names for the same man who was called in
English, by himself and others, Patrick Young, but subscribed hinpself
Patricius Junius in Latin; and his testimony must be greatly weakened if
it be true, as is asserted by Wotton ( Clem. Itom. Not. in cap. vi. p. 27), that
he was the person, who, having obtained the custody of this MS. for a time,
took it upon him to insert the black strokes now seen in this text. Had
the ancient strokes been visible, he would have been very sorry to cover
them up with fresh ink, so as to bury them out of the sight of all future
inspectors, except sueh as might be able to see through his thickly daubed
pigment. Again, Walton is quoted as distinct from Huish; but their
testimony is one and the same; for Walton merely printed in the Polyglott
the various readings of the Alexandrine MS, as furnished by Huish", who
collated the codex for his great Mork. I cannot find either iu the Prolego-
mena, Notes, and Appendix to the Polyglott, or in the Considerate^'
Considered, anything which leads me to think that Walton himself had
ever examined this text in the manuscript. Nor does the testimony of
Huish amount to anything more than this, — that he has not given in his
Variants any notice of a difierence here from the common text: in which
he might feel himseH' justified by the fact that «c was the reading of the
MS. as it stood in his day, just as it is still the present reading of the Codex.
In the eai"ly times of criticism, the importance of distinguishing the text, as
given a prima maim, from that introduced by subsequent hands, was not
at all understood — at least the distinction itself was seldom attended to. —
Bishop Fell merely reprinted the readings of the Alexandrine MS, as given
iu the Polyglott. Of the testimony borne by Croyk and Grabe, 1 cannot
speak particularly, not knowing where it is to be found. JSlill, however,
Berriman, with his two friends Gibson and Ridley, and Dr. Woide, do
distinctly affirm that the traces of the early lines were visible under the
recent blotches with which they had been partially covered. I translate the
testimony of Mill, who, as the earliest of these witnesses, may be supposed
to have seen the Codex while the strokes were at least as distinct as they
can be supposed to have been when viewed by his successors. " In our own
Alexandrine MS. the transverse line (of the 0) is so thin and so extremely
faint, that at the first sight I had myself no doubt that it had been Avritten
OC, which I immediately inserted among the Various Readings (chiefly
because I had detected the hand of some bold, and if it must be said,
Orthodox person, who, because he had not observed that fine stroJce, took care
CHAP. VI.] CRITICAL EXAMINATION OF PAttTICULAR PASSAGES. 487
the Saliidic and Coptic, the Peshito and Philoxenian Syriac, the
^thiopic, tlio Armenian and Arabic of Erpenius, either require or
that it should over aftor bo read accnrdins: to his omcndation, w?;, hy drawing
another broader line across the middle of the letter, and thickening a little
with ink tho upper stroke). But afterwards, having examined the place
more attentively, I detected Bomo traces and sufliciently clear vesti'jjos of
the small line which had escaped my eyesiprht at lirst, especially where it
touches the circle on tho left side, and should have found much more distinct
ones if the recent blotch drawn over that line had not stood in the way."
Not. in loc. Thus Mill; but Wotton says there was no difficulty at all in
discerninjj the ancient touches: — "In this MS. beyond all doubt, «c
e<pavso'Jji)/j was always read, which will rea<lily bo perceived by any one who
examines it with attentive eyes; althoujrh in that place, and not a few more,
Junius, with a dilisrence not to be commanded, has retraced each line with
a more recent pen." — {Clem. Horn. ed. Wotton, p. 27) On the other hand,
Wetstein could not discover these traces, and thinks Mill ;ind others had
been misled by seeing through the thin parchment, the middle stroke of an
€, which happens to lie directly opposite to the O on the other side of the
same leaf; AVoido denied that there is any stroke so situated; it is now,
however, put beyond dispute that there is — for some person has made a hole
with a pin, at the termination of the transverse line on the right side of
the 0. and it comes out on the other side, exactly in such a position as to
produce the effect described by Wetstein. This pin-hole and the situation
of the lines as ascertained by its means, I observed when T examined the
Alexandrine MS. about five years ago, in company with Mr. Ogilby, the
secretarv of the Zoological Society, and pointed out the circumstance to
Sir F. Madden, keeper of the manuscripts in the Museum, who was present
at the time, but who had not noticed it before. Griesbach makes a strange
assertion, that in turning over this Codex, he found the part of the leaf
containing this verse, " so worn by the hands of vainly curious persons, that
no human being can now discern anything clearly." He says, "they seem
to have used not merely their eyes but their fingers, endeavouring as it were,
to dig up and scrape up the original reading." ( Spmlx>l. Criticcv, vol. i. p. 10.)
" But yet," he adds, "I venture confdentli/ to pronounce that those who have
affirmed that oj is the genuine reading of this Codex, a prima manu, have
told the truth." A. bold confidence this, if the facts l>e as ho declares;
but they are far otherwise; for although a portion of the page below this
text is certainly much rubbed and worn — apparently by persons, who, using
a lens for the purpose of more accurate observation, incautiously rested the
hand which hold it upon the parchment lower down the book — there is no
part of tho context which cannot easily be read, except a few strokes at
the beginning of some of the lines. Person, who spent two days over this
passage, " pronounced decidedly, that the text had been, beyond all doubt,
written oz s<pa.v!S(Ld/'i a prima manu (a nianu prima fuisse diserte scriptum,
certo pronunciavit." — Tracts and Mii^cellancous Criticisms, p. 290.) Tis-
chendorf also, the most eminent of living men in such inquiries, delivers the
same judgment in the most decided terms. {Prolenomcna in Cod. Ephr.
Siiri. li€.«cr. p. 42. not. Ifi.) I may add, that on repeated inspection of this
place at different times, and under every variety of lischt, assisted by power-
ful lenses, I could discern nothing like the remains of ancient strokes under
the modern lines in or above the letters; though by raising the leaf a little
up from contact with the one below, the middle line of the € on the reverse,
became very distinctly visible on each side of the blaek spot in the middle
of the O. It is plain that the book must have read OC when the modem
touches were put in. It has been uniformly under Orthodox custody; none
but an Orthodox person, therefore, could have introduced the present
strokes ; this is admitted by Mill, and asserted by Wotton, who accuses
488 TEXTUAL CRITICISM OV THE NEW TESTAMENT. [bOOK III.
admit this interpretation.* 1 have akeady expressed my opinion
that this allegation is not correct. From the Greek Fathers,
Griesbach, who defends this reading, has not been able to produce
explicit testimony in its favour from any one but Epiphanius, who
twice quotes it in this form. He mentions, indeed, several other
writers, but his own quotations prove that they either read & in the
passages cited, — or if they are edited with dg in some places, where
Patrick Young as the author of the evil. But who can believe that Patrick
Young, or any other Orthodox man, would have taken so much pains to
hide tJie ancient writing, which was favourable to his own view — if such
there had been — and to deprive posterity, as far as he could, of a passage
which Beza had already pronounced to be one of " the clearest and most
cogent arguments for the Divinity of Christ." — (See Bczcc N. T. in he.)
3. As to Codex C — although the opinion of Wetstein and Griesbach, who
considered OC to be its genuine reading, was liable to question, and was
questioned by Woide, Weber, and others, while the Codex remained in its
former condition — and although it was then very difficult to decide all the
points which were raised in the discussion, there can be no doubt at present,
that the first named critics were perfectly correct; because the application
of Giobertine tincture has freshened the ink, and enabled Tischendorf to
give an accurate fac- simile of the page on which the verse occurs: this I
nave faithfully copied in the 5th Plate inserted in this work. The strokes
which are thus brought clearly into view, are rather thicker than others of
the same sort made a prima, manu, and both of them slope upwards towards
the right — a circumstance which is peculiar to the third hand, that of the
second corrector who has altered the Codex, and whose date is referred by
Tischendorf to the ninth century. The same person probably inserted the
two little hooks or musical notes, which are seen beneath the principal word;
and the accents and breathings which are scattered over those parts of the
text in which he introduced his corrections, but in no others. I refer the
curious reader to Tischendorf's Excursus on this text, in his Prolegomena,
above cited, pp. 39 — 42.
* It is not easy in even mentioning such a topic to avoid philological
disquisitions which are unsuitable to the nature of an elementary work.
Without entering upon such disquisitions, I would merely remark that
there are in the Peshito or Old Syriac Version, several hundred places in
which the relative pronoun comes immediately after a noun, which the
sense of the passage admits of our construing as its grammatical ante-
cedent; and in every such case that has come under my observation, a
comparison with the Greek assures us that the relative pronoun is to be
understood as representing that noun. This is, therefore, to be regarded as
the established idiom of the language; and to construe the words differently
in the case before us, would be to depart unnecessarily and unwarrantably
from the usus loquendi of the version. The same is the case in the other
oriental tongues. AVe cannot make them read qui oc, mthout violating the
rules of sound grammar and the customary course of the versions themselves.
If dg be understood as referi'ing to an antecedent not expressed, in the sense,
"He who," as the Latin, " Qui manifestatus est," might be rendered, this is
still more opposed to the genius ot the Syriac and Arabic Versions. I
doubt whether an example of this construction can be shown in any of these
three; and the same, I believe, holds in all the rest. For these reasons,
I am of opinion that the two Syriac Versions, the Arabic of Erpenius, the
Coptic, Sahidic, ^thiopic, and Armenian, do not read og but o, quod,
" tuhich," as do the Vulgate and the Versio Itala. This is the fundamental
error of Griesbach's elaborate note on 1 Tim. iii. 16.
ClUr. VI.] CUITICAL EXAMINATION OF rAnTIPII.AH rASSA^ES. 489
the sense would ailmit either pronoun, they are found from other
decisive passages in their writings to have read not tlie masculine
but the neuter word; or if in some editions they appear to read og,
the same works, as found in other editions, or in good M8.S. exhibit
0 and not o:. We can hardly consider as Greek authority, a Latin
translation of a part of a woik of Theodore of Mopsuestia, inserted
in the Acts of the Second Council of Constantinople, in which the
text is (juoted Qui manifestatus est in came; and in tlie same form
it is quoted by Jerome in his comment upon Isaiah liii. Two Latin
writers, Libcratus the Archdeacon of Carthage, in the sixth century,
and oil his authority as it seems to me, llincmarus of Klieims in
the ninth, assert that Alacedonius* the Patriarch of Constantinople,
was deposed and banished under the Emperor Anastasius, A.D. 50G,
for falsifying the Gospels, and for corrupting this sentence of St. Paul,
by reading 0C, Deus manifestatus est in came, Sec. — " God was
manifested in the flesh," &c. instead of OC, qui manifestatus est, —
"Who was manifested." On this account, they tell us he was
expelled and deposed as guilty of Nestorianism! The story is
absurd, for by introducing the word dth; here, Macedonius would
have provided a most direct and powerful argument against the
peculiar tenet of Nestorius. But the mention of it in this way
proves clearly enough that the historians who relate it considered og
to be the proper readhuj of the Greek MSS. and looked upon Odg as
a recent and corrupt one. Beyond this I am not inclined to rely on
Liberatus and llincmarus. Macedonius, condemned, deposed, and
banished, could have no means of introducing this or any other
reading to which he might be partial, into the MSS. used in the
churches from which ho had been expelled as a heretic ; but if ho
was really inclined to Nestorianism, or suspected of being so, as
undoubtedly he was, the reading dsb; might owe a portion of the
favour which it experienced, and of the extent to which it spread, to
the zeal of the Emperor, the clergy, the monks, and the people,
against him personally, and the doctrine which he was accused of
maintaining.
Qih;, the reading of the received text is supported by A, as altered
in the seventeenth century ; C, as altered in the ninth ; and D, as
altered at an uncertain period ; also by Codex I, a MS. of the tenth
century, formerly the property of Cardinal Passionei, now in the
* Of course this Macedonius is to be distinguished from another bishop
of Constantinople of the same name, who was condemned as a Scmi-Arian
in the fourth century, and has bequeathed his name to the Macedonian
heresy.
490 rEXTUAL CllITICISM OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. [bOOK III.
library of St. Angelo, at Rome, and by eighty-five cursive MSS., ex-
pressly enumerated by Scholz ; to which must be added a great many
others in various libraries, which have been inspected in this and a few
other passages, but not collated throughout. The Axabic Version,
as printed in the Polyglott, exhibits the same text; and also tho
Sclavonic. The earlier Greek Fathers are also quoted as confirming
the common text, but it is exceedingly uncertain how they read it,
or rather it is quite certain that they did not read hbg, God, in this
verse ; for although very many of them apply the terms which are
here employed by the Apostle to the person of Christ, they do so by
interpreting the word mystery as a designation of him, exactly in
the same manner that the Latin fathers do who read Quod; and
it is probable that they had in their copies of the Scriptures the
corresponding term o. Scholz refers to Chrysostom, Theodoret,
Didymus upon the Trinity, Euthalius, Gregory of Nyssa, Mace-
donius, Damascenus, (Ecumenius, and Theophylact, as having read
khg ; but, if we deduct from this list — Damascenus, a monk of the
eighth century, (Ecumenius of the tenth, and Theophylact of the
twelfth (writers who used the later Constantinopolitan text, such as
we find in the modern MSS. above enumerated), — Gregory of Nyssa,
whom Scholz himself admits to have read o; in one passage, ex-
plicitly and unmistakably, and whom I believe to have o wherever
he referred to this text, as he has frequently done — Didymus, a blind
man, who, as Dr. Scholz states, must have employed the help of an
amanuensis in composition, and hence has fallen into frequent mis-
takes in his citations of Scripture, even quoting as from tho Epistle
to the Romans a passage which is really taken from 1 Corinthians ;
also Macedonius of the sixth century, of whom we have not a line
remaining, and whose name can only be introduced here in deference
to the very apocryphal story of Liberatus and Hincmar ; the cata-
logue will be reduced to Chrysostom (latter end of the fourth cen-
tury), and Theodoret and Euthalius (latter end of the fifth). Now
the testimony of Euthalius consists in nothing more than the hare
title, which he inscribed over this section in Paul's Epistle, like the
headings of chapters in our English bibles ;* and it consists of three
words, Tl^i 9iioi,g aa^nuaiug, " Concerning the Divine Incarnation,"
which he might very well say, if, in common with the vast majority
of his predecessors, he understood the "mystery" as a designation
of Christ, whether he read diog in the text or not. And although in
* See the account of Euthalius and his labours, p. 2T2, at^e.
CHAT. VI.] CRITICAL EXAMINATION OK I'AUTICULAU PASSAGES. 491
Chrysostom's citation, as given in his printed commentary, the
words of tlie Apostle are read expressly ©eoj IpaxiPutOri h au^yJ, " God
ti.-as manifested in the fiesh," yet tlie comment itself is hardly con-
sistent with tliat reading; for he understands tlie Apostle as speaking
distinctively and emphatically of Christ in his human nature and
not in his divine. I translate the passage — " God loas manifested
in the flesh; that is, the Demiurge,* was seen a sinless man — as MAX,
was taken up, and preached in the world — with us the angels saw
him," &c. This would appear a most unwarrantable contradiction
of the text instead of an exposition ; but if we read it with a relative
pronoun instead of the word God, the indecency is avoided. The
same remark applies to Thoodorct.
Mill quotes, in favour of hh;, a passage in the 4th Epistle of
Athanasius to Serapion (vol. ii. p. 700), and one in the Treatise on
the Incarnation of the AVord, ascribed to him. But the former
passage, the Benedictine editors state, that they had found only in
one Manuscript of all those which they had consulted, and in it only
in the margin, that tliey consider it rather as a gloss of some other
person than as the words of Athanasius himself, and therefore have
inclosed it in hooks. As to the Treatise on the Incarnation, Cave
and most other moderns look upon it not as a work of Athanasius,
nor even of any orthodox writer, but either of some Eutychian, or
of ApoUinaris himself; to whose opinions such a method of reading
1 Tim. iii. 10, would be very apposite.
Expressions which bear a resemblance to this text are found in
very early writings, but are not given as quotations ; much less can
they bo said to be exact quotations, on which alone textual criticism
can be built. I allude to such expressions as those of Ignatius —
^Ecj" u.vOpoi'Kivug (pavi^ou/Mswj — "God being manifested in a human
form." — (Eph.c. 19.) Clement of Alexandria — "the Divine Logos,
he that is truly most manifest God (6 favssuiTarc/g ovru; dice), he that
was made equal to the Sovereign of the universe, because he was his
son : ' ' — and various others. If in such passages there be any reference
at all to this text, it is a free allusion, and manifestly adapted to the
current of the writer's own thoughts. From such expressions no
argument can be derived as to the reading of the text.
I conclude this summary statement with an extract from Dr.
Mill's note. " The ruadinjrs t; and o have been introduced into the
* Were I to paraphrase this untranslatable term — ?/.. ^t'luinlin'ifc
Creator — appears to mc to express its approximate sense.
492 TKXTITAL CRITICISM OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. [dOOK III,
place of the true rccading kdc. But as I judge, not bj the Arians
nor any other heretics, for I know not whether you could find these
words of the Apostle cited by any of them. Nay, what is very
wonderful, even of the Catholic fathers, whose main labour it was
to support the deity of Christ by passages of sacred Scripture
gathered wherever they could find them — not one, so far as I can
learn, before the year 380 (except Justin* and Athanasius On the
Incarnation of the Word,-\ against Paul of Samosata), ever pro-
duced this text." But who can believe that a text like this would
have slumbered in oblivion during the whole proti-acted Arian con-
troversy, if it had been read then as we now have it in our Bibles?
Bishop Burgess admits that this text was not quoted, — meaning,
of course, in its present form, — by any Father of the first four
centuries. § Strange that no Catholic bishop, presbyter, catechist, or
monk, — no father, critic, scholar, copyist, even — no man or woman,
should have once stumbled upon this passage, which Beza calls "one
of the brightest and strongest arguments in favour of the divinity of
Christ," and which, on that very account, he says the Devil, and
Erasmus together had been busy in defacing! Did the ancients never
read the New Testament? Nay, was not this very passage read, com-
mented on, and explained in homilies ? How is it that nobody, as
Mill admits, ever dreamed of using it as a weapon, when they were
most anxious to put down the rampant heresy? And by whom was
it first drawn forth, as Mill thinks, A.D, 380? By Gregory of
Nyssa! who, as I have shown above, undoubtedly road o, not t)soj, in
one of his works, and most probably in every instance when he
quotes the text. How happens it that Cyril does not attempt to
justify his favourite expression — "the Mother of God" — against
Nestorius, by showing that the Scriptures speak expressly of God
being "manifested in flesh, justified, seen, and taken up in glory?"
How happens it that he never once appeals to 1 Tim. iii. IG, in his
reply to the Emperor Julian, who had asserted that Christ is never
called koi, God, by the Apostle Paul? Such silence, under such
circumstances, proves to demonstration that the present reading was
unknown in the fourth and in the beginning of the fifth centuries;
* The work referred to is the Epistle to Diognetus, which is not Justin's
at all ; and tlie woi'ds appealed to are, "//e sent his Logos that he might
appear unto the world: who being dishonoured by the people and 2)reached by
the apostles was believed by the nations;" a passage which, even if genuine,
proves nothing as to the reading of the text before us.
t A work now allowed to bo spurious. — See above.
^ Vindication of 1 John v. 7, <S:c.; 2d Ed. p. 35.
CIIAI'. VI.] CRITICAL EXAMINATION OF PARTICULAR PASSAGES. 493
that it lias been introduced since that time into those copies iu
which it is found ; and consequently is of no autliority.
In my judgment the true reading is o, tchuh. 1st — Because it
is better supported than the other readings by the ancient versions,
whicli are stronger testimonies here than the Greek M88., since
they were not e(|ually liable to accidental or wilful alteration ; for
tho words corresponding to O or OC and 0C, (which so closely
resemble each other in Greek,) are (juite unlike each other in
translations. 2ndly — Because, while it yields a very excellent
sense,* when interpreted in conformity with many other parts of
St. Paul's writings, it is yet the more obscure reading, and in fact
has, I think, been misunderstood by all those fathers who read the
neuter pronoun, yet explained tho passage as referring to Christ.
3dly — Because the masculine pronoun '(]; might easily arise from that
mistaken interpretation; for the Greek transcril)ers, understanding
ro 'xvarrjPiov as a personal designation of Christ, and being accustomed
to find neuter nouns, when used as designations of persons, followed
by masculine relatives, easily adopted the same idiom here, ""o?
non TO iriTov sed rh 6rjij,amfMvov resincit,^^ as Person has observed, of
this reading;! familiarity with the idiom thus unfolded, I think,
gave rise to the masculine pronoun. From I; again rose ©205, in
the manner indicated in our remarks upon the Alexandrine and
]*]phrem MSS. combined with the respect shown by the copyists
to the interpretations put upon this verse by many of the Fathers,
which they misconceived, as others have done since, as exhibiting
their reading of the text. And lastly, — Because the authorities in
favour of 0 are not only ancient, but derived from various regions
and recensions of the text. If it be not the genuine reading, it will
be difficult to explain how it overran all the versions used by the
churches of Christ, both in the Fast and West, from the earliest period
when such documents were composed ; and not them alone, but also
the writings of so many "among the Fathers, who were in their
day the bulwarks of the Catholic faith."
* I concur here with Grotius — " Sensum bonum facU illud 0 JpavsowJjj."
But the illustration of this point would carry me into another field.
t I may liere observe that Person agreed with the Fathers in interpreting
TO (jj-j6TriPiov as a designation of Christ, and of course, disapproved of
translating og Bfa.vi»uii)r,, as some have done, " Jle who was manifested" — a
construction of which there is no example in the New Testament, and very
few in any Greek authors. " De saisu panim aitt nihil rcfcrt," (num 0;
vd 0 leffamus,) " nam cum personam circumlocutione siijnijicant Graci, 'juam
citissime ad ipsam personam revertuntiir."
494 TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. [bOOK III,
Section XII. — 1 Jolm v. 7 — 8.
"Or; T^iTg i/aiv 0/ /xa^rvsouvrsg [sv rw ov^avoj 6 rrarri^, 6 Xoyog,
xai TO ajiov '7rviV(xa, xa/ o'jtoi 0} r^sTg sv lidi. Kal rpsTg
iiaiv 01 fMtt^rv^ouvrsg iv rfi yfi,] to Tvj^aa xai to vBuo zai rh
aifjbix' zai 0/ r^sTg zlg rh h u(Sir — Textus Receptus.
Quoniam tres sunt qui testimonium dant [in ccelo, Pater,
Verhum et Spiritus Sanctus ; et hi tres unum sunt. Et tres sunt
qui testimonium dant in terra,'] spiritus et aqua et sanguis; et hi
tres unum sunt. — Bihlia Vulgata, Ed. Clem. VIII.
" For there are three that bear witness \in heaven, the Father, the
Word, and the Holy Ghost ; and these three are one. And there
are three that hear witness in earth,] the spirit, and the water, and
the blood; and these three agree in one." — Authorised English
Version, altered.
Most critics are now agreed in rejecting, as an interpolation, the
words which I have placed within brackets ; but as this is a remark-
able text in the history of criticism, the present work would be
incomplete without some account of the controversies to which it
has given rise.
In the first and second pubUshed editions of the Greek Testament
— those, namely, of Erasmus which appeared at Basil in 1516 and
1519 — the clause which has been so much disputed since was not
read; but as it was contained in the Latin bibles then in common
use, the omission excited against Erasmus the indignation of an
English divine named Leus* (Edward Ley, or Lee, afterwards
made Archbishop of York), who attacked him in a violent book.
To this he replied in an Apology, declaring that he had merely
undertaken to print and to translate, not to defend, the text of the
New Testament as it stood in the Greek manuscripts ; that he had
found the passage, in more than seven manuscripts, exactly as he had
given it in the printed edition ; that he had no objection to the clause
in the Vulgate Version, respecting the three Heavenly Witnesses;
and that if he had met with even one Greek manuscript containing
it, he would have inserted it in the text.f In the same year
Stunica, who had been engaged in the preparation of the Complu-
* Ed. Lei Notationes Novas in Erasmi Annott. &c. 1519. — The 25th Note
treats of this passage.
t Quod si mihi contigisset unum exemplar in quo fuisset quod nos legi-
mus, nimirum illinc adjecissem quod in ceteris ahergit.— E^-asmi Apolxria
qua respondet Duabus Invcctivis Ed. Lei, dto, 1520.
cn.vr. VI.] caiTiCAi, examination of rAiiTiCL'LAii rASSAor.s. 4iJ5
tensian Polyirlott, wliicli head been then for several years in print,
Imt lay unpublished in the warehouse, awaiting tho sanction of tho
Pope, sent forth a book against Erasmus, severely criticising tho
edition which appeared likely to interfere with the sale of tho work
on which tho writer had been employed. Among many other
passages with whi(;h Stunica finds fault, ho briefly and cautiously
censures tlio omission of tho testimony of tho Three Witnesses in
Heaven. To this book also Erasmus replied in a second Apology,
wherein he mentions some things that make against the genuineness
and importance of tho clause ; l)ut adds that, as it had lately been
found in a MS. in England (which he calls simply Codex Britannicus,
giving no farther information about it), ho had inserted it in tho
text.* Accordingly, it appears in tho third edition of Erasmus,
which was published about the same time with the reply to Stunica,
viz., in 1522. In the same year the Complutensiau Polyglott came
forth, which also gives the clause, though in a form somewhat
different from that in which it was printed by Erasmus from the
Codex Britannicus. In the subsequent editions of Erasmus the
passage is always inserted ; but with a few verbal corrections, in-
tended to make the phraseology more agreeable to the Greek idiom.
From Erasmus it was copied by Stephens in his folio edition of
laaO; thence by Beza; and afterwards by the Elzevirs in 1024,
1G33, and in all other editions of the received text. But it never
was admitted without hesitation by the learned world ; on tho
* Besides the notes, or rather di.s8ertations, on this text in the editions of
Erasmus, Mill, Bengal, Wetstein, and Griesbach, all of which have been
drawn up witti very great care, and are particularly worthy of attention,
information respecting this controversy will be found in the following
■works: — Lei {Ed.) Notationes Novaj in Erasmi Annotationos, &c. 1519.
Erasmi Apologia qu3, rcspondet duabus Invectivis Ed. Lei, 1520. Stuniccc
{Jac. Eflvis) Annotationum advorsus Erasmum Liber Unus, 1520 (reprinted
in the Critici Sacri, vol. ix). Erasmi Apologia respondens ad ea qufe in
N. Test, taxaverat Jac. L. Stunica, 1522 (also repriuted in the same volume
of the Critici Sacri). Selden (Jo.), de Synedriis, 1G50. Sandii (Christoph.)
Interpretationes Paradoxa3 IV. Evang. Append. 1G70. Simon (P. liichard),
Ilistoire Critique du Texte du Nouveau Test. 1G89. Dupin {\^), Dissertation
Preliminaire, ou Prolegomenes sur la Bible, 1701. Kettncr Historia Dicti
Joannei (1 Joh. v. 7), de SS. Trinitate; Eju.idem Vindiciaj Loci, 1 Job.
v. 7, &c. 1713. llixier. Deux Dissertations, 1715. Einhni (T.), Full Inquiry
into the Original Authority of the Text, 1 John v. 7, <S:c. 1715. Answer to
Mr. Martin's Critical Dissertation, &c. 1718. Reply to Mr. Martin's
Examination of the Answer, &c. 1720. Martin{Y).), Dissertation Critique,
Bur 1 Jean v. 7, &c, 1710. Exameu de la Reponse de M. Emlyn, &c. 1718,
La Verite du Texte, 1 Jean v. 7, Demontr6e, &;c. 1722. Calami/ (Edm.),
Thirteen Sermons concerning the Doctrine of the Trinity, with a \'indica-
tion of that celebrated text, 1 John v. 7, 1722. Ntivtmi (Sir Isaac),
Historical Account of Two Notable Corruptions of Scripture, &c. (first
40") TRXTTAL CRITICISM OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. [bOOK III.
contrary, it has been a matter of controversy at various times, from
the first appearance of the Greek Testament in print down to the
present day. Its genuineness having been so often attacked and
defended by learned and ingenious men, we enjoy the usual benefit
arising from literary controversy ; there are few points in criticism,
with reference to which the facts are now more clearly or more
satisfactorily settled ; although, with respect to the conclusions to
be drawn from them, there is the usual diversity of judgment
among those who approach the subject from opposite points of view
and contemplate it in different lights.
It is now necessary to consider the external testimony for and
against the disputed clause.
T. There are only five uncial MSS. known which contain the
Catholic Epistles; of these one (Codex C) is mutilated here; the
other four, viz., A, B, G, H, omit the clause. It is also omitted
by 174 cursive MSS., being all that have been collated upon this
passage, except the following : —
1. The Codex llamanus at Berlin, which is a mere forgery, being
written since the middle of the sixteenth century, and copied from
the Complutensian Polyglott, and the third edition of Stephens.*
(Compare the extract from it with that from the Complutensian, in
Plate XIII.)
published in 1734). Dorhout, Animadversiones in Loca Selecta Vet. Test.
Annexee sunt Dissertationes de Loco Celeb, 1 Job. v. 7, &c. 1765. Semhr
(J. S.), Historische Samlungen ueber die Beweistellen der Dogmatik;
2 Stuecke, 1764-8. Goetz (S.) published a Reply to Semler, which the
latter answers by a long Appendix in the second part of the Samlungen,
but he nowhere names the work; and never having seen it, I cannot even
give its title. Michcelis, Introduction to the New Testament, translated
by Bishop Marsh, vol. iv. (fourth edition), 1823, Knittel, (F. A.) New
Criticisms on the Celebrated Text, 1 John v, 7, &c. (1785), translated by
Mr. Evanson, 1829. Pappelbaum, Codicis Raviani Examen, 1796. Travis,
{Archdeacon) Letters to Edward Gibbon, Esq. on 1 John v. 7, third edition,
1794. Porson (R.), Letters to Mr. Archdeacon Travis, in Answer to his
Defence on the Three Heavenly Witnesses, &c. 1790, Marsh (Bishop),
Letters to Mr, Archdeacon Travis, in Vindication of one of the Translator's
Notes to Michselis, &c. 1795. Burgess (Bishop), A Vindication of 1 John v. 7,
from the Objections of M, Grriesbach: second edition, with Preface and
Postscript, 1823. Quarterly Review of Bishop Burgess' Tract, 1822.
Home (T. H.), Introduction to the Critical Study of the Scriptures, vol, iv,
fourth edition, 1828, Seiler, Biblical Hermeaeutics, translated by Dr. Wright,
Translator's Appendix on 1 John v. 7, tSic. 1835. Davidson (S.), Lectures
on Biblical Criticism, 1839, Middleton (Bishop), on the Greek Article,
edition 1833, Articles in the Electic Jievicw, vol. vi. Christian Observer,
vol, vi. Congregational Magazine, for 1829; and various other periodical
works, — The foregoing list is by no means complete.
* See Pappelbaum, Codicis MSti N. T. Grceci liaviani Eocamen. 179C,
CHAP. VI.] CRITICAL EXAMINATION OF PARTICULAR PASSAGES. 497
2. Codex Ckielphcrhijtanns C, — as it is called by Knittel, wlio
collated it — written in the thirteenth century, contains the disputed
text, but only "in the margin, and in a much more recent hand ;"*
copied, no doubt, from a printed edition. This proves nothing: or
rather, as Knittel himself alio us, it adds one more to the list of the
M88. which omit 1 John v. 7.
3. Another M.S. at Wolfenbuttle contains the text; but Knittel
admits it was written in the 17th century, and it cannot be earlier;
for it contains tlio various readings of the Vulgate and Syrian;
Versions, and of Erasmus's, Vatablus's, Castalio's, and Bcza's
Latin Translations, all inserted a prima laanu.
4. The Codex Montfortianus in Dublin College Library (noted
thirty-four by Wetstein, Griesbach, and »Scholz), has the verse in
the text a prima manu. (See Plate XIII.) This MS. is certainly
not more ancient than the latter part of the fifteenth or beginning
of the sixteenth century; it contains the Latin chapters (which
were never used by the Greeks), and has a great many readings
that are confined to itself and the Vulgate ; and as, in this passage,
the article is six times omitted, in conformity to the Latin, but in
utter violation of the Greek syntax, while in verse 6 it reads, with
the Vulgate, %»'<Tro; instead of rh ci-sD/xa ; and in verse 8 omits, with
most of the MSS. of the Vulgate, the clause xai oi r^iTg vg rh h
iiGiv, there can be no doubt at all that the text of the Heavenly
Witnesses in this MS. is only a translation from the Latin Version
of the Church of Rome. It is highly probable that this is the
identical Codex Britannicus from which Erasmus inserted the dis-
puted passage in his third edition of 1522. t
* See Knittel, New Criticisms, &c., p. 86.
t What in this case increases the uncertainty that must always attend
upon attempts at the identification of a AIS. when only one reading is
quoted and no description of the codex given, is the extraordinary incon-
sistency of the statements made at ditlereut times, and oven at the same
time, by Erasmus, as to the reading of this text in the Codex Britannicus.
In his reply to Stuuica he professes to give a copy of the extract as sent to
him from the Codex; it omits dyiov after TfsD/xa in vor. 7, and o'l before
fiagTU^oijvTii in ver. 8 ; but in the text of his printed edition of t/ie same
year, professing still to follow the same authority, he inserts both; and, to
make the confusion worse, repeats below the text, in the very note in which
he says that he follows the Codex Britannicus — the extract as given in his
reply — omittinfi them once more; thus asserting, in the very same page,
that the Codex has these words, and that it has them not! Is or is thid all.
He says in that note, as it is given in his fourth edition, what he had
already said to Stunica — " I know not whether it be owing to accident th;.t
in this Coiiex the words xai oi roug slg ro h iiaiv, which are in my own
Greek MSS., are not repeated here" — that is, at the end of ver. 8, in the
R K r
498 TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. [BOOK III.
5. The Codex Ottohonianus 298 in the Vatican Library, collated
by Scholz, and by him noted 162 in his list of MSS., was written
in the fifteenth century, and contains the Greek text of the Acts,
the Catholic Epistles, and the Epistles of Paul, with the Vulgate
Version. In his note upon 1 John v. 7, Scholz inserts the name of
this Codex in the list of those which omit the text, and also in that
of those which contain it ; the latter statement is true, as appears
not only from his Biblisch- Kritische Beise, p. 105,* but also from
the much more exact account of Dr. AViseman, published by Mr.
Home in the last edition of his Introduction. Scholz affirms that
this MS. has innumerable transpositions and alterations from the
Latin Version. In this place the text of the three Heavenly
Witnesses is, doubtless, derived from the Vulgate, by the side of
which it is placed ; but it is not literally translated, nor does its
reading agree with any other copy of the verse that has been dis-
covered iu print or in manuscript, if the following be not an ex-
ception.
6. A MS. of the Bourbon Library at Naples, numbered by
Scholz, who collated it, 173. In his list of MSS. he refers it to
the eleventh century ; but in his note on 1 John v. 7, he ascribes
it to the fifteenth or sixteenth. In the same note he brings it
forward, as he does the MS. last described, as an authority both for
the omission and the insertion of the disputed clause. Hoping to
find some more satisfactory statement, or at least to learn the words
in which it expresses the passage — if it contains it — I turned to the
Biblisch- Kritische Beise, p. 135 — 140, in which he professes to give
an account of the MSS. in the Bourbon Library; but nothing is
said of any MS. whatever in reference to 1 John v. 7 ; indeed the
greater part of what he has there inserted is a Dissertation upon
Codex Britannicus; and yet, a little farther down, he says — "the Codex
Britannicus also adds to the testimony upon earth, the words xa/ o'l r^iTg
iig rh h iiciv, which were not added in the Complutensian!" This in-
credible carelessness about a text which had cost him so much trouble,
renders it easy for any one who is so disposed, to find plausible pretexts
for denying the identity of the Codex Montfortianus witn the Britannicus
of Erasmus ; but as the latter, if it be not the Montfortianus, must be lost,
and so important a document would surely have been deemed worth pre-
serving, I am of opinion that the two names designate one and the same
Codex, though I admit it is impossible to prove it.
* In this place Scholz professes to copy from the MS. both the Greek
and Latin text of this passage; in the Greek he omits a small but im-
portant word; in the Latin he omits the most important clause in the
sentence — "et hi tres unum sunt" — after the Witnesses in Heaven. — See
Dr. Wiseman's Facsimile.
CHAP. VI.] CRITICAL EXAMINATION OF rARTICULAR PASSAGES. 499
Stichometry. Lame and contradictory as this statement is, I am
not able to give a better.
The advocates for the authenticity of 1 John v. 7 have contended
that there were formerly, and even since the fourteenth century,
MSS. in existence which contained the verso, but which are now
lost. Among the rest they contend that Laurentius Valla, who
compared the Vulgate liatin with Greek MSS. and noted tlio prin-
cipal variations, found it in his copies. Upon the first fifteen verses
of this chapter he has only one brief note — " Et hi ires unum sunt.]
Gr. Et hi tres in imwn sunt — il: rh h i'lai." But as the words " Et
hi tres unum sunt" are found in the Vulgate, both at the end of ver.
7 and of ver. 8, the note probably refers to the latter, not to the
former. It may seem strange that Valla did not remark the absence
of the 7th verse from the Greek copies; but there are Latin MSS.
also which want that text, and if Valla used one of them, there
would be no variation to record. At all events, he could hardly fail
to be aware that some Latin copies wanted the passage ; and as his
object was merely to point out where the Latin Version, as a tchole,
was erroneous, he might very properly consider as not coming within
his province, those texts in which particular copies of it disagreed
among themselves.
It has been argued that the Complutensian editors must have
found the text of the three Heavenly Witnesses in their Greek MSS.;
but Stunica, one of their number, cuts the ground away from be-
neath this assertion by the manner in which he expresses himself
in his attack upon Erasmus. In that Annotation he gives, first,
the whole passage as it stands in the Vulgate ; next, the Greek text
of it, from Erasmus's first edition; then, the Latin translation of it
by Erasmus, conformable to his own Greek text ; and fourthly, the
beginning of Erasmus's note on the passage — " In pay Greek MS.
I only find this concerning the threefold testimony," «fec. Stunica
then goes on: — " It is to be observed that the MSS. of the Greeks
are notoriously corrupted in this place; but that our own" (that is,
the Latin ones) ' ' contain the truth itself, as they have been handed
down from the very beginning , ichich manifestly appears from the
Prologue of St. Jerome upon the Canonical Epistles; for he says"
«fcc. Here, then, Stunica is so far from appealing to Greek MSS.
that he very emphatically appeals from them and against them, to
the Latin MSS. and the supposed authority of Jerome. This
is the more remarkable, as in the Annotation which precedes and
the one which follows this he appeals against Erasmus to the Codex
500 TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. [bOOK III.
Rhodieusis — "a Greek MS. of the Apostolic Epistles brought from
the island of Rhodes, and placed in the pubhc library of the
University of Alcala."* This copy he affirms read rou &eou iu
1 John iii. 16, and rov aXrjSivov Qihv, the true God, in 1 John v. 20.
It is plain, therefore, that neither it nor any other with which
Stunica was acquainted read the Heavenly Witnesses in 1 John v. 7.
This is, indeed, allowed by Bengel,t and by all candid defenders of
the passage since his time.
It has been thought by many that the seven MSS. of the Catholic
Epistles, employed by Stephens in preparing his edition of 1550,
must have contained the passage, with the exception of the words
sv TM ovgavSj alone ; because he has placed a little hook resembling
an apostrophe at the end of that phrase, and a small line marking
omission at the beginning, with a reference to his MSS. in the
margin ; but it has now been demonstrated that the little hook was
misplaced by Stephens, by fraud or accident, and that it should
have been set at the word yfi in ver. 8 — for his MSS. are still in
existence; notwithstanding his imperfect description and imperfect
collation of them, they have been identified beyond the shadow of
a reasonable doubt ;| and they, one and all, want not the words
sv Tw oh^av'JJ alone, but the whole of the passage in dispute. Indeed
the reading which, by the false position of his semicircle, Stephens
assigns to the whole of his seven Greek MSS., is a reading that
never has been found in a single MS., or version, or citation, by
any collator, before or since.
It was at one time thought that the Marquis of Velez, who
compiled a number of various readings, afterwards published by De
la Cerda, and who makes no mention of any difference from the
common text in 1 John v. 7, must have found that passage in the
Greek MSS. which he consulted. But Bishop Marsh has proved,
in the third Appendix to his Letters to Travis, that these readings
were not taken from MSS. at all, but from the Latin Vulgate as
printed by Stephens in 1540. Wherever that edition differed from
the Greek text of Stephens, as published in 1550, the Marquis either
turned the Latin into Greek, or took, from the margin of the Greek
* See Stuniccc Annotationes, &c., (Jac. i. 22.)
t Apparatus Critkus ad calcem, N. T., p. 745. "Huncversum Editio
Complutensis non ex Grfecis habet MSS.'* Bengel subjoins a very full
proof of this proposition.
I The reasoning by which this conclusion has been reached scarcely
admits of abridgment. I therefore refer to Bishop Marsh's Letters to Mr.
Archdeacon Travis, and the first Appendix to the same.
CHAP. VI.] CRITICAL EXAMINATION OF TAIITICULAR PASSAGES. 501
Testament, a reading which expressed the Latin text, if such could
be found. Now as the Greek text of the edition of 1550, and tlie
Latin text of 1540 agree in their reading of this passage, Veioz
had no ocnasion to note any discrepancy.
It thus appears manifest that there neither are in existence now,
nor ever were known to be in existence, since the revival of learning,
any Greek MSS. containing the three Heavenly Witnesses, but the
six above enumerated and described.
II. This text is repudiated by the versions used in their public
services by the Churches of Christ from tlie early ages, and in
many distant regions. The Sahidic and the Copto-Mcmphitic,
employed by the native Christians of Egypt ; the ^Ethiopic, em-
ployed by the Abyssinians; the Peshito and the Philoxenian
versions, employed by the Syrians ; the Latin Vulgate, employed
by the Christians of the West ; the Arabic translation, as publislied
in the Polyglott of Walton, and in the edition of Erpenius; tlie
Armenian Version, and the Sclavonic, — all want this disputed clause.
It is true that the Old Syriac, the Armenian, and some editions of
tlie Sclavonic* have been printed with it ; but they all, until altered
by recent editors and printers, omitted the passage. It is affirmed
that the Latin Vulgate supports its authenticity ; but this is only a
popular error. All tlie printed copies, and the greater number — but
by no means the whole — of the modern MSS. of the Vulgate contain
it; hut the ancient copies, loithout exception, xvant it; it has not been
found a prima manu in any MS. older than the ninth century; in
some ancient copies it has been added in the margin by a more
modern hand ; as we come down to recent times it begins to appear
in the text, but in different situations, sometimes before and some-
times after the 8th verse — sometimes with, but more frequently
without, the repetition of the clause et hi tres unum sunt after each
set of witnesses. t When it is added to this statement that Jerome
himself, who revised the Latin Vulgate, is acknowledged by the
* " It i3 already known to the learned, that the controverted passage,
1 John V. 7, is omitted in this edition" — (the editio princeps of the Sclavonic
Bible, printed at Ostrog, in 1581.) " In all probability it never formed a
part of any MS. of the Sclavonic Version." — Henderson's Biblical Re-
searches in Russia, p. 01. On the reading of the Old Syriac and the
Arnieni.vn, I refer to the account of these versions, supra, pp. 336 — 340,
and p. 3G0.
t As Bengel (relying upon the authority of Ttvells, Part II. p. 133, 153)
quotes the Bihlia C'aroli JIaani jussu per Alcunium et alios recotfnita, and -1^
asserts that it contains 1 .Joim v. 7, I may be pcrmittt-d to mention that,
on the 2d of July, \^H'>, 1 took a copy of a large part of this chapter from
502 TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. [bOOK III.
Benedictines who edited his works, by Father Sabatier, and by
Bengel, all of them well acquainted with his writings, and decided
advocates for the genuineness of this text, to have never once
mentioned it in the course of his voluminous works, nor given the
least ground for beUeving that he was acquainted with its existence,
I conceive that nothing more can be required to convince us that
the Latin Vulgate is to be added to the other versions which omit
the Biblia Caroli Magni, which is now in the British Museum ; the following
is an extract. — " Hie est qui uenit per aqua et sanguine ihs xps non in aqua
solii sed in aqua {sic) et sanguine, (sic.) et sps est qui testificatur qnm xps
est ueritas, qnm tres sunt qui testimoniu, dant sps aqua et sanguis, et tres
unii sunt; si testimoniii," &c., the three Heavenly Witnesses being altogether
omitted. This is stated to be the identical copy that was prepared under
the direction of Alcuinus, for Charlemagne's own use. In the same
library I inspected another very beautiful Latin MS. seemingly of the same
age, that is, of the ninth century; it is in two vols, folio, and is called, in
the catalogue, Regius I. E. vii. and viii. It had manifestly had the same
text orginally with the Biblia Caroli Magni, except that it reads quia for
quoniam; but the word spiritus, which had been written in full, has been
scraped out, and in tra sps put in its place, and then the rest of the clause
written partly in a blank at the end of a paragraph, and partly on the outer
margin, thus —
Quia tres sunt
qui testimonium dant in tra sps aqua et sanguis
& tres unura sunt, <£• tres st' q^ testimonium dant in celo
(thus far in the same line with the rest of the column; the remainder is on
the outer margin, and reads as follows),
ptr d^fiW & sps scs et hi
tres unum sunt.
The added words are in a different hand and ink, and evidently an after-
thought; but the hand is tolerably ancient, and the ink very brown — more
so than in the part written a prima manu. The learned reader will not
fail to perceive that the Heavenly Witnesses are here brought in after the
earthly ones. Very similar is the case with the Harleian MS. 7551, 2,
apparently of the same date, which has been altered in like manner; only
that the Heavenly Witnesses are brought in first, by means of a mark of
reference afl&xed to the word dant, directing to the margin in which the
interpolation is written. The Harleian MS. 7551, 1, of the same age, or
perhaps a little earlier, has the text unaltered, and reads exactly as the
Biblia Caroli Magni. In the same library I inspected a beautiful little
MS., containing the whole Bible in Latin, of the size of a small 8vo,
written on vellum, in a Gothic or Old English character, which I should
suppose to be of the thirteenth or fourteenth century; it reads as follows —
" Et sps -7- qui testificatur qui xps ■— urtas ; qui tres sunt qui testim
dant in tra {sic) sps, aqua et sanguis^_ Et tres unii sunt. Et tres sunt
qui testim dant in celo, pr. ubii et sps scs et hi tres unii s'. Si testim houra
accipim'." &c. Here, also, the Earthly Witnesses come in before the
Heavenly. Yet a great majority of the Latin MSS. in that collection
contain the verse: I found it in not less than twenty, but exclusively in the
CnAP. VI.] CRITICAL EXAMINATION OF PAUTICtJLAR PASSAGES. 503
tho disputed clause. Thus all the ancient versions which have
como down to ns, without any exception, testify against tlio genuine-
ness of tliis contested verse.
III. There is no mention of tho three heavenly witnesses in
any ono of the ancient Greek Fathers — not even in their works of
controversy against tho Arians, tho Noetians, tho Macedonians,
and other sectaries, who either denied tho doctrine of tho Trinity,
the distinct personality of the Father, the Divine Logos and the
Holy Spirit, or tho Deity of tho Holy .Spirit in particular; in which
they rake together, to support their own doctrines, all manner of
arguments (some of them very absurd), founded on passages both
of tho Old and New Testament ; and sometimes quote the eighth
verso — "for there are three that hear record, the Spirit, the water,
and the blood, and these three agree in one" — to prove, by a
mystical interpretation, the Trinity in Unity, which would have
been much more easily and much more powerfully supported by
the seventh, had they known it ; more than ono among them quote
tho Gth, 8th, and 9th verses in defence of the orthodox tenet, but
take no notice whatever of the seventh! This topic has been very
fully and satisfactorily treated by Mill and Bengel — botli of thera
advocates for the authenticity of the text. I translate a passage
from the former. — " Irenceus, B. iii. c. 18, when ho proves Christ to
be Lord and God, and quotes this epistle more than once, and
even the fifth chapter of it, does not touch upon these words,
although the passage would have been most of all to his purpose.
Clement of Alexandria, in his Adumbrationes,* as translated into
Latin by Cassiodorus, does not quote this text. Dionysius of
Alexandria, or whoever was the author of the Epistle to Paul of
Samosata — in which tho writer quotes the eighth verse frequently,
but never the seventh, although, throughout the entire piece, ho
treats of the Deity of Christ and the Trinity. Athanasius, in his
genuine works, oven those in which he defends the Deity of the Son
and of the Holy Spirit, and the doctrine of the Trinity itself against
modem ones; frequently without the clause et hi tres unum sunt after tho
8th verse ; and occasionally with the 8th verse put before the 7th. In some
cases the MSS. omitting the three Heavenly Witnesses contained tho
Prologue to the Seven Canonical or Catholic Epistles, falsely ascribed to
Jerome, the writer of which complains of the Latin translators for leaving
the passage out ; this is the case particularly with the Biblia Caroli Magni
and the Codex I. E. vii. and viii.
* It is doubtful whether Clement were the author of this work ; the
writer appears to have been a Greek of Alexandria, and of an early age —
the original is lost.
504 TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. [bOOK III.
the Arians, by passages of Scripture collected from all quarters.
The author of the Synopsis of Sacred Scripture, as appears from
the argument prefixed to this epistle. The Fathers of the Council
of Sardica, in their Synodical Epistle preserved by Theodoret,
Hist. Eccl. B. ii. c. 8, in which, though they prove the unity of
persons in the Trinity from John x. 30, and some other passages,
they do not touch at all on this text, though very opportune.
Epiphanius, upon the 57th and 62d Heresies, when he confirms
the doctrine of the Trinity by many testimonies from Sacred
Scripture, does not produce this passage ; nor in the G5th Heresy,
when he says that the Scriptures speak accurately on this article of
faith, and on that account cites several texts ; nor in the 69th and
74th Heresies, where he defends the Catholic faith by other testi-
monies from the sacred books, against the Arians and the impugners
of the Holy Spirit, — stiU observing a profound silence respecting
this clause : and so in the Heresy of the Anomceans, in which he
discourses prolixly upon the Trinity. Basil the Great, in his books
upon the Holy Spirit, and others on similar subjects, in which this
passage would have been very useful. Alexander, Bishop of Alexan-
dria, in a certain Epistle of his preserved by Theodoret, book i.
chap. iv. in which he has a laboured defence of the Deity of the Son,
and his Unity with the Father, by several passages of Scripture
raked together for the purpose. Gregory of Nyssa, in his thirteen
books against Eunomius, and his book on the Trinity and the Deity
of the Spirit, where this passage could have been brought forward
very much to the purpose. Gregory of Nazianzum, in his Oration
to the Arians, his book upon the Nicene Faith, and even in his Fifth
Oration upon the Deity of the Word, in which, as proof that the
Holy Spirit is God, and ought to be worshipped, he brings forward
the quotation, — " For there are three that hear witness, the Spirit,
and the Blood, and the Water. ^' Didymus, in his 1st book upon the
Holy Spii'it, in which he discourses at length upon the Unity in
Trinity. Chrysostom, in his Homilies against the Anomceans, in
which he says a great many things upon the Deity of Christ ; his
Discourse on the Deity of Christ ; the Treatise on the Holy and Con-
substantial Trinity ascribed to him ; and his Homilies upon John, in
which he reasons copiously on the unity of the Son with the Father,
and the equality of the Holy Spirit with both. Cyril of Alexandria,
in his Treasury of Proofs (Assert. 34, p. 363), in which he quotes
the 6th, 8th, and 9th verses, leaving out the 7th, and infers that the
Holy Spirit is God, not from the words, "these three are one," in
cn.vr. VI. I ciuTiCAr, rxAMiXAxroN or PAUTict-i.An tassace:?. 505
verse 7;* but from what follows, — ''Jfwe receive the testhnony of men, .
the testimony of God is greater;'' which he refers to tho Spirit, of
whom mention is made previously. The same writer omits this
7th verso, in his Dialogue upon the Holy Spirit, and his book upon
tho Right Faith in God. Tlio author of tho Eaposition of the
Orthodox Faith, printed with tho works of Justin Martyr, which
seems to have been written about tho year 470, who, whilst ho proves
that tho Son and tho Holy Spirit aro enumerated in the same series
(with tho Father), from Matt, xxviii. 19, and some other texts, and
infers from this collocation (avvra^i;), that the essence of the Father,
Son, and Spirit, is the same, does not touch upon this passage in
which tho Tlu'ee Persons aro so manifestly conjoined." Similar
observations the learned writer makes upon Ccesarius, Proclus, the
Council of Nice, and in particular, Leontius, one of its members,
who is said to have made in its name a reply to a certain philosopher
who impugned the Deity of tho Spirit, in which he quoted the 6th
verse, "The Spirit beareth witness, for the Spirit is truth," — but
said not a word of the 7th, t
IV. Mill is equally explicit with regard to many of the Fathers
of the ancient Latin Church ; for example, he admits that the fol-
lowing knew nothing of tho three Heavenly Witnesses: — the Author
of the Treatise on the Baptism of Heretics, usually printed with tho
works of Cyprian; Novatian, in his book upon the Trinity; Hilary,
who iu his Twelve Books upon the Trinity, and other treatises
against the Arians, accumulates together a great many quotations
out of tho sacred books, often less suitable to his purpose, but keeps
a deep silence upon this text; Lucifer of Cagliari, in his book
against Intercourse with Heretics ; Phcehadius, in his book against
the Arians; Ambrose, iu his manifold writings against Ai'ianism, in
• I have taken the liberty of correcting what seems to me an oversight
in this citation. Mill gives it o'l rsiTg s/'j rh h liot, "these three agree in onef
but these are not the words of the 7th verse as commonly printed, nor would
they have been at all applicable to Cyril's argument, which required a proof
not of unity of testimony, but unity of substance.
t It is the grand fallacy of Knittcl's ingenious, learned, and on tho wholo
candid defence of 1 John v. 7, that he represents the te.xt as having been
quoted wherever Gregory of Nazianzum, Basil, ^[a^ropu9, Euthymius, or
any other writer of the Greek church happens to use such a phrase as,
^' th^se three are one God,''' ra rsia t); 6t6g' "the three are one,'^ sv to. rsia,
TO. TPia EV " the one is three,'' "rh h tpiu, &c. although there be no reference
to Scripture, and the expression bo manifestly employed to convey tho
doctrine of the individual and of the church. One might as well argue that
the Athauasian Creed is a quotation from the Epistle of John.
S 8 s
506 TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. [bOOK lIT,
which he quotes the 6th and 8th verses at full length, but omits the
7th altogether; Jerome, who in his acknowledged works, never
makes any mention of this clause. It is indeed insinuated that this
passage was to be found in all the Greek MSS. though absent from
all the Latin ones, in a Prologue to tlie Catholic Epistles, which
pretends to have been written by Jerome ; but Mill,* Bengel, and
others confess this prologue to be a forgery. Faustiniis takes no
notice of the text in his work upon the Trinity against the Arians ;
Augustine, in his book against Maximin the Arian, turns every stone
to find arguments from the Scriptures to prove that the Spirit is God,
and that the Three Persons are the same in substance, but does not
adduce this text ; nay, clearly shows that he knew nothing of it, for
he repeatedly employs the 8th verse, f and says, that by the Spirit,
the Blood, and the Water — the persons of the Father, Son, and
Holy Spirit, are signified (see Contr. Maxim, cap. xxii.); Eucherius
of Lyons, in his Questions on the New Testament, repeats the same
mystical explanation ; Facundus of Ilermiana, gives a similar gloss,
* "To speak my mind freely," says Mill, " to attempt to support the
authority of the verse by means of this testimony, I conceive to be nothing
else than to confirm the truth by means of a lie; for this Preface seems to be
the work neither of Jerome nor any one else who knew the condition of
Biblical literature in the times of which he treats." — N. T. p. 682, col. 2.
He goes on at full length to justify his views. The opinion of Bengel is
equally decided against the genuineness of the Prologue; and it is condemned
by the Benedictines in their (standard) edition of the works of Jerome.
The author of this Prologue, who unquestionably assumed the character
of Jerome, and wished it to be received as his, after speaking of having
displaced the Epistles of Peter from the beginning of the collection of the
Catholic Epistles as of an important achievement, goes on to say: — " Quae
ei, sicut ab eis (Apostolis nempe), digestee sunt, ita quoque ab interpretibua
fideliter in Latin um verterentur eloquium, nee ambiguitatem legentibus
facerent, nee sermonum sese varietates impugnarent, illo picecipue loco, ubi
de unitate trinitatis in prima Joannis epistola positum legimus. In qua
etiam ab ivfidelibus translatoribus inultum, erratum esse a fidei verifate com-
perimus, trium tantummodo vocabula, hoc est aquce sanguinis et spiritus in ipsa
sua editione ponentibus, et Fatris Verbique et Spiritus Sancti testimonium
omittentibus: in quo maxime et fides Catholica roboratur, et Patris ac Filii
ac Spiritus Sancti una divinitatis substantia comprobatur," &c. This
Prologue has been i-ejected as spurious by the editors of the Clementine
Vulgate, by Mill, Bengel, the Benedictine editors, Bianchini, Knittel,
Bishop Burgess, and 1 believe by every other competent critic who has
examined the question of its authenticity; it was however known and
received by some in the ninth century, and perhaps had been composed as
early as the eighth. It therefore affords good proof that at that age, the
text of the Three Heavenly Witnesses was not usual in the Latin Version;
tor it charges the omission of it upon the "unfaithful translators," not upon
unskilful copyists. The writer implies, though he does not assert, that the
text was read in the Greek MSS. but the point is far too important and
too doubtful to be taken on the credit of a notorious falsifier,
t Mill says the 7th, but this is a mere oversight.
CHAP. VI. J CRITICAL EXAMINATION OF rARTICULAH I'ASSAUES. 507
and says the passage was so understood by Cyprian ; Leo the Great,
Jimilius, CcreaJis, and Bcde, pass the 7th verse unmcntioned.
On the other hand, the advocates of 1 John v. 7, appeal to tho
testimony of TcrtuUian who, they are of opinion, quoted it in the
very beginning of the third century. His words are [Christ and the
disciples] " continue to converse in the same language and style by
M'hich tho Father and the Son are distinguished in their individuality;
[Christ] repeatedly promises that when he should liave ascended to
his Father, he would pray tho Father for another Comforter, and
would send him: and truly, another; but we have already explained
in what sense he is another. But, he says, he xcill receice of mine,
as I have rcceieed of my Father s.* Thus the intimate union of the
Father with the Son, and the Sou with the Comforter, makes three
[persons] cohering one to another, which three are one:" (iinuni,
the adjective being here expressed in the neuter gender), "not
one [person];" (units, in the masc.) "as it has been said / and the
Father are one," (anuni, in the neuter), "to express unity of sub-
stance, not singleness of number."! Tertullian is arguing against
Praxeas who denied that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit were dis-
tinct persons ; he expresses his own doctrine in his own words, "qui
tres unum sunt;'' and feeling that the difference between this phrase
and that which his opponent would have used, "qui tres imus sunt,"
was too important to be allowed to remain unsanctioned by the
authority of Scripture, he justifies and supports it by the example
of our Lord's language in John x. 30, Fgo ct Pater cnum sumus;
the very word being employed to express the unity of the Father
and the Son, which Tertullian himself uses to express the unity of
the whole Trinity of the Divine persons. I see here no ground for
believing, but very strong reason for disbelieving, that the phrase
"tres unum sunt" is a quotation from Scripture at all ; but if it be, it
was probably taken from 1 John v. 8, not from 1 John v. 7, for the
Latin Version reads, and always has read tres unum sunt, at the end
of verse 8, though the clause be omitted in some modern MSS.
* In this form Tertulhan quotes John xvi. 14.
t This translation being necessarily paraphrastic, I place the original
here. — " Perseverant in eodem genere sermoms, quo pater et Filius in sua
proprietate distinguuntur; Paracletum quoque a Patre se postulaturum,
quum ascendisset ad Patrem.et miasuruin repromitiit: et quidem alium; sed
jam praemisiinus quomodo alium. Ccterum dc ineo fn.net, inquit, sicat ipse
de Fatris. Ita counexus Patris in Filio et Filii in Paracleio, tres efficit,
cohoerentes alterum ex altero: qui tres unum sunt, non uuus: quomodo dic-
tum est. Ego et Pater unum sumus, ad substantia^ iniitatem, non ad numeri
singularitatem." — Contra Praxeam, cap. xxv. p. 515.
508 TliXTlTAL CRITICISM OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. [bOOK HI.
Tho same remark is applicable to a sentence of Cyprian in his
Epistle to Jubajanus, which I place in a note ;* but there is one in
his Treatise on the Unitj of the Church, which it would be improper
to pass over so hastily. " The Lord says, / and my Father are one:
and again it hath been written concerning the Father, and the Son,
and the Holy Spirit, And the three are one: and does any man
believe that this unity founded upon the divine immutability, and
cemented by heavenly emblems, can be rent asunder in the church,
or disjoined by the separation of contending parties?"! Here there
is undoubtedly an express quotation from Scripture, but whether the
words are taken, from the 7th verse of this chapter, or from the 8th,
modern critics are not agreed ; nor is the diversity of opinion recent,
for Fulgentius, in the sixth century, who undoubtedly had the seventh
verse in his Codes, though possibly only in the margin, understood
Cyprian as having quoted it; while Facundus, who clearly knew
nothing of the disputed text, though he wrote somewhat later than
Fulgentius, interpreted the words of the martyr as founded upon a
mystical interpretation of the 8th. And to me this seems the more
probable ; because if Cyprian had taken his quotation from the
present reading of verse 7, it would have been natural for him to
have said. Be Patre, Verbo, et Spiritu Sancto, instead of Filio;
and mainly because no Greek or Latin writer for two hundred years
after the time of Cyprian, appears to have had any knowledge of
the text.:]:
V. The text of the Three Heavenly Witnesses is openly cited in
a Confession of Faith, contained in the History of the Vandalic
Persecution in Africa by Victor Vitensis, and there said to have
been presented to Hunneric and his Clergy by Eugenius, Bishop of
Carthage, and the other Orthodox bishops of the province, A.D. 484.
* Si temphim Dei factus est, quaero cuju3 Dei? Si Creatoris; non potuit,
qui in euni nou credidit. Si Christi; nee ejus fieri potuit tempi um qui negat
Domiuum C'liristuin. Si Spiritus Saucti; quum tres uuum sint, quoniodo
placatus ei esse potuit, qui aut Patris aut Filii iuimicus est? ''If [the
baptized heretic] lias been made the temple of God, 1 ask, of what God?
Of the Creator i He who lias not believed on Him cannot have been made
His temple. — Of Christ ? Neither can he who denies Christ to be the Lord,
have been made the temple of Christ. — Of the Holy Spiritl Since the
three are one, how can he who is the enemy of the Father and the Son,
have been reconciled to Him?"
t Dicit Dominus, JEao ct Pater unum sumus: et iterum de Patre et FiHo
et Spiritu Sancio scriptum est, Et tres {end. et hi tres), ui\um sunt. Et
quisquam ciedit hanc unitatem de divina firniitate venientem, sacramentLs
caj'.estibus cohoerentein, scindi in ecclesia posse, et voluntateni collidentium
dirortio separari?
I It is now admitted that Euchcrius of Lyons was ignorant of this passapfe.
CHAP. VI.] CKITICAL EXAMINATION OK PAUTICULAK PASSAGES. 509
The Confession is the work of an unknown author ; it is represented
1)}' Gennadius as having been drawn up by Eugenius, but the histo-
rian is a writer of small credit ; and many others as well as Bengcl,
have thought tliey have discovered in the document traces of the
hand of Vigilius Tajjsensis, whose name appears in the list of those
present when it was handed in. This writer lived at the very close
of the fiftli century; he was possessed of talents and wrote a great
many works, most of which, however, he ushered into the world
under false names, as of Athanasius, Idacius Clarus, and others ; in
several of them, especially the book written under the name of Idacius
Clarus against Varimadus, he appeals to this text, though not in the
form in which it now appears in any MS. or edition of the Scriptures.
From it 1 take the following quotation :— " John the Evangelist, in
his Epistle to the Parthians (i.e. his 1st Epistle), says there are three
who afford testimony on earth, the Water, the Blood, and the Flesh,
and these three are in us; and there are three who aflford testimony
in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Spirit, and these three
ard one."* The Earthly Witnesses are here put first; the Flesh is
])ut among them instead of the Spirit, and there are other notable
diversities. Nor, indeed, is Vigilius very consistent with liimself in
his manner of quoting the text; for example, in the 1st Book to
Theophihis, published under the name of Athanasius, he gives the
seventh verso thus: — "There are three who utter testimony in
heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Spirit, and in Christ Jesus
they are one." From the Books of Vigilius, the text obtained some
notoriety. Fulgentius and other writers made use of it occasionally;
it occurs in a MS. of the seventh century preserved in the Monastery
della Santa Croce at Rome, which contains a work. Be SiJeculo,
attributed to St. Augustine, but rejected as spurious by his Bene-
dictine editors ; it probably began to make its M'ay into the text of
the MSS.; it was now and then cited by Popes and Councils, which
was enough to give it circulation and authority in the West ; in the
Greek translation of the Acts of these Councils, it became known to
the Greeks ; it was occasionally quoted by some Greek monks and
-others attached to the see of Rome, from the thirteenth century
downwards, such as Manuel Calecas, Josepli Bryennius, and others :
and of course it would be adopted by the Greek exiles, who on the
• Joannes Evangelista ad Parthos, Tres sunt, inquit. i}ui testimonium
perhibent in terra, aqua santfuis et caro: et tres in nobis ."lunt: et (res sunt qui
testimonium pcrhibcut in c<v[o, Pater, Verbum et Spiritus: ct hi tres unum
sunt.
510 TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. [bOOK III.
downfall of Constantinople in the middle of the fifteenth century,
sought for refuge and protection against the Turks, in the dominions
subject to the Roman church. Thus we can easily explain its intro-
duction into the two, or at most three modern MSS. of the Greek
Testament, in which alone it is found, I apprehend that no reflecting
reader will have the least doubt upon his mind that this verse is an
interpolation, which had its origin in the mystical interpretation of
the 8th verse, as referring to the three persons of the Trinity. At first
it was placed as a scholium on the margin of some copies ; thence
not sooner than the end of the fifth century it crept into the text of a
few MSS. in the province of Africa; by degrees it made its way into
almost all the modern MSS. of the Latin Vulgate; and from the
attachment to that version felt by the Complutensian editors, and
their respect for the supposed authority of Jerome, to whom they
assigned the Prologue to the Catholic Epistles — from the timidity
of Erasmus, who feared for his character as an Orthodox son of the
church — the carelessness or caution of Robert Stephens, who, perhaps,
was not desii'ous of discovering an erratum that greatly advanced
the acceptance and the sale of his work — and the zeal of many
theologians, editors, and critics, who could not easily be induced to
abandon a text which they regarded as a main pillar of divine truth,
— it made its way from the Vulgate into the Greek, from the Greek
into the Syriac, the Armenian, and the Sclavonic Versions, as well
as into every translation that has been made or circulated, by public
authority, in the languages of modern Europe. Its spuriousness,
however, is now generally acknowledged ; and it is to be hoped the
time will soon come when those who have the charge of preparing
editions of the Bible for general circulation, will be ashamed of
sending forth a known interpolation as a portion of the sacred text.
It may be useful to subjoin for convenient reference, the principal
forms in which the 7th and 8th verses have appeared both in Greek
and Latin.
I. — Vatican, Alexandrine, and 176 other Greek MSS.
"Oti rgs/s iitsiv o'l (/jagrjoouvng, to 'Trvsvfia, -/.ai to liSwg, %ai to ajixa' xai o'l
T^sTg ilg Th h ueiv.
2. — Codex Montfortianus.
On T^iic, iiaiv o'l ^agrugoDnj «v rw ohoavw, <:raTr\^, Xoyog, zai itnZii.a dym'
xal oiiToi o'l T^iTg h liar xa/ T^ug ilstv o'l ijMor-jooZvTig h rri y?j, Trvivfia,'
CHAP. VI.] CRITICAL EXAMINATION OF PARTICL'LAU PAS.SAOKS. .511
3. — Third Edition of Erasmus, 1522.
"Or/ T^iT; ilaiv o'l ,'j,a»Tv^ouvTig iv ruj ousavSI, rrccTr,}, y.f,yog, xal wsZfxa dyioV
'/.at olroi 0/ TBug sv iiar y.ai TPtTg slaiv o'l /MaoTv^ouvng iv rr, yfj, rrviOfia,
xai 'i/du^, x,al oci/ia' nal 0/ r^ug iig rh h uai,
4. — Complutensian Edition, published 1522; and Codex Bamanus.
"On TPug iiaiv o'l fxasrvsouvng ev rw olsavip, 6 rrarrio, xai 6 Xoyog, xui rh
dyiov rrviu/Jt/CC' xai o'l roug iig rh h ilai' xal T^ug iioiv 0/ fxa»ruPovvTig irrl
rrig yr^g' rh rrnuiMa, y.ai rh '•Jbojo, xai rh a//xa'
5. — Fifth Edition of Erasmus, 1535 ; Third Edition of Stephens,
1550; Textus lieceptus, 1624, <f*c.
"Or/ r^iTg sldiv 01 fj^a^rv^ovvrsg iv roj ou^avjj, 6 'rrar^o, 6 Xoyog, xai rh uyiov
'!niv(ia' xai oxtroi 01 rgiTg h tiai' y.ai r^sTg tiaiv 0} i/^aorvgouvng sv rfi yfi,
rh <!rviiJfJi>a, xai rh vBc/jp, xai rh a'l/Jba' '/.ai o'l r^sTg iig rh sv siar
G. — Codex Ottohonianus, 298.
On r^sTg siaiv 01 fjja^rv^oZvrsg ccTi rou ou^avov, 'rrarris, "koyog, xai rrvsu'j.a
ciyiov xai oi rgsTg sig rh sv sisr xai r^sTg sTaiv 0/ /j,a§rv^oiJvrtg a<7rh rr^g yrjg,
rh Wivfia, rh U5wg, xai rh aJfj^a.
7. — Manuel Calecas, Fourteenth Century (verse 7).
"On r^sTg sid/v 01 /xa^ruoouvrsg, 6 rrarr^o, 0 Xoyog, xai rh crvsu/xa rh dyiov.
8. — Joseph Bryennius, Fifteenth Century.
" Ori rosTg sieiv oi fxaorupouvrig iv rw oysai/w, 6 rrarr,^, 6 7.6yog, xai rh Tvsuf/M
rh ayiov xai ovroi 0/ r^sTg sv siai' xai r^sTg sioiv 0/ (jjagrv^ouvrsg sv rf\ yrj,
rh osu/xa, rh USw^, xai rh ai/xa.
9. — Vulgate Version, as read in the Codex Caroli Magni, and other
ancient MS S.
Quoniam tres sunt qui testimonium dant, spiritus, aqua, et sanguis ;
et trcs unum sunt.
10. — Vulgate Version, as read in many modern MSS.
Quia trcs sunt qui testimonium dant in terrd, spiritus, aqua et
sanguis ; et tres unum sunt : et tres sunt qui testimonium dant in
CEclo, Pater, Verbum et Spiritus Sanctus ; et hi tres unum sunt.
[Note, that many MSS. exhibit the testimonies in a different
order, and several omit the words, " et tres unu7n su7it," at the end
of yerse 8,]
51:2 TEXTUIL CKITlCI3.\r OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. [bOOK llf,
11. — Vulfjate Version, as read in the Complutensian Edition, 1514.
Quia tres sunt qui testimonium dant in cselo, Pater, Verbum et
Spiritus Sanctus; et hi tres unum sunt. Et tres sunt qui testi-,
monium dant in terra, spiritus, aqua et sanguis.
12. — Vulgate Version, as given in the edition of Pope Clement VIII.
Quoniam tres sunt qui testimonium dant in cselo, Patei', Verbum
et Spiritus Sanctus; et hi tres unum sunt. Et tres sunt qui
testimonium dant in terra, spiritus, aqua, et sanguis ; et hi tres
unum sunt.
13. — Confession of the African Bishops, addressed to Hunneric, King
of the Vandals, A.D. 484 (verse 7).
Tres sunt qui testimonium perhibent in cselo. Pater, Verbum et
Spiritus Sanctus : et hi tres unum sunt.
14. — Idacius Clarus (or Vigilius of Tapsus), in the Book against
Varimadus the Arian. Close of the Fifth Century.
Tres sunt qui testimonium perhibent in terra, aqua, sanguis et caro :
et tres in nobis sunt : et tres sunt qui testimonium perhibent in
cselo, Pater, Verbum et Spiritus ; et hi tres unum sunt.
15. — Athanasius (or Vigilius of Tapsus), in the Book upon the
Trinity addressed to Theophilus (verse 7).
Tres sunt qui testimonium dicunt in cselo, Pater et Verbum et
Spiritus ; et in Christo Jesu unum sunt.
IQ.—Ftdgentius, Sixth Century (verse 7).
Tres sunt qui testimonium perhibent in cselo. Pater, Verbum et
Spiritus ; et tres unum sunt.
17. — Etherius of Axuma, Eighth Century.
Quia tres sunt qui testimonium dant in terris, aqua, sanguis et
caro: et tria hsec unum sunt: et tres sunt qui testimonium dant
in cselo. Pater, Verbum et Spiritus: et hsec tria unum sunt in
Christo Jesu.
APPENDIX.
Explanation of the References to Versions and 2ISS. of the
New Testament, in Book III. Chap. v. and vi.
I._VERSIONS,
JEth. — .^Lthiopic ; see p. 363.
Ar. — .:Vrabic ; see p. 361.
Ar. r. — ^\j-abic as given in the Roman
Edition.
Ar. p. — Arabic as printed in the Poly-
glott.
Ar. Erp. — Arabic in the Edition of Erpe-
nius.
Arm. — Armenian ; see p. 357.
Copt — Copto-Memphitic ; see p. 369.
Goth. —Gothic of Dlphilas ; see p. 371.
It. — Versio Itala; see p. 311.
Pers. — Persic as given in the Polyglott ;
see p. 3-17.
Sahid. — Sahidic ; see p. 366.
Sclav. — Sclavonic; see p. 373.
Syr. — Old Syriac or Peshito ; see
p. 329.
Syr. h. — Jerusalem- SjTiac ; see p. 355.
SvT. p. — Philoxenian-Syriac ; see p. 349.
Vulg. — "Vulgate; see p. 319.
II._M AN U SCRIPTS.
(1) OP THE GOSPELS.
A. — Alexandrinus ; see p. 280.
B. — ^Vaticanns, 1209 ; see p. 276.
C, — Ephremi Rescriptns ; see p. 283.
D. — Cantabrigiensis ; see p. 291.
E. — Basileensis, B. vi. 21 ; see p. 298.
F. — Boreelanus.
G.— Harleianus, 5684 (Olim Seidelii).
Eleventh cent.
H.— Wolfianus B. (Olim Seidelii.) Ele-
venth cent.
K. — Cyprius; see p. 296.
L. — Regius, 62 ; see p. 296.
M. — Des Camps; see p. 296.
P. — Guelpherbytanus A. Reacriptus.
Sixth cent.
Q. — Guelpherbytanus B. Rescriptus.
Sixth cent.
S. — Vaticanus, 354 ; see p. 303.
T. — Borgianus, 1; see p. 289.
U. — Venetianus Tenth cent.
X. — Landshutensis (olim Ingolstadiensis)
Tenth cent.
Z. — Dublinensis Rescriptus ; see p. 286.
A. — Sangallensis; see p. 299.
TTt
514
APPENDIX.
1. Basileensis B, vi. 27 — Tentli cent.
3. Csesareus, Forlor, 15. — Twelfth
cent.
10. Regius, 91. — Twelfth cent.
11. Regius, 121, 122 — Twelfth cent,
13. Regius, 50. — Twelfth cent.
14. Regius, 70.— Tenth cent.
17. Regius, 55. — Sixteenth cent.
20. Regius, 188.— Twelfth cent.
21. Regius, 68. — Tenth cent.
22. Regius, 72. — Eleventh cent.
23. Regius, 77. — Eleventh cent.
24. Regius, 178. — Eleventh cent.
28. Regius, 379.— Eleventh cent.
32. Regius, 116.— Twelfth cent.
S3. Regius, 14. — Eleventh cent.
34. Coislinianus, 195. — Eleventh cent.
36. Coislinianus, 20. — Eleventh cent.
37. Coislinianus, 21. — Twelfth cent.
38. Coislinianus, 20 (Steph. e). — Four-
teenth cent.
39. Coislinianus, 23. — Eleventh cent.
40. Coislinianus, 22 — Eleventh cent.
41. Coislinianus, 24. — Eleventh cent.
57. Collegii Magdalenensis Oxon. 1. —
Eleventh cent.
61. Montfortianus (Coll. Dublin. G.97).
Fifteenth or Sixteenth cent.
63. CoUeg. Dubl. D. 20.
64. CoUeg. Dubl. F. 1.
69. Leicestriensis. — Fourteenth cent.
72. Harleianus, 5647. — Eleventh cent.
91. Cardinalis Perronii Tenth cent.
102. Medicceus.
105. Bodleianus Twelfth cent.
106. Comitis de Winchelsea. — Tenth
cent.
108. Caesareus, Fori. 5 — Eleventh cent.
114. Harleianus, 5540 — Twelfth cent.
115. Harleianus, 5559 — Twelfth cent,
116. Harleianus, 5567 — Twelfth cent.
118. Bodleianus, Marshii24. — Thirteenth
cent.
123. Caesareus, Nessel. 240. — Eleventh
cent.
124. Caesareus, Nessel. 188 — Twelfth
cent,
127. Vaticanus, 349. — ^Eleventh cent.
129, Vaticanus,' 358 Twelfth cent.
130, "Vaticanus, 359 Thirteenth cent.
131. Vaticanus, 360. — Eleventh cent.
132, Vaticanus, 361. — Eleventh cent.
133. Vaticanus, 363. — Eleventh cent.
134. Vaticanus, 364. — Eleventh cent.
137. Vaticanus, 756, — Eleventh cent.
138, Vaticanus, 757. — Twelfth cent,
J 42, Vaticanus, 1210 Eleventh cent.
143. Vaticanus, 1229 Eleventh cent.
145. Vaticanus, 1548. — Thirteenth cent.
157. Urbino-Vaticanus, 2 Twelfth
cent.
161. Barberinianus, 8 Eleventh cent.
166. Barberinianus, 115. — Thirteenth
cent.
169. Biblioth. S. Maria; in Valicella. B.
133 Eleventh cent.
181. Card. F. Xaverii. — Eleventh cent.
186. Lauren tianus vi. 18. — Eleventh
cent.
188. Laurentianus vi. 25 Eleventh
cent.
195. Laurentianus vi. 34. — Eleventh
cent.
199. Monast. Benedictini S. Slarise 5. —
Twelfth cent.
206. Venetianus, 6. — Fifteenth cent.
209. Venetianus, 10. — Fifteenth cent.
210. Venetianus, 27 Tenth cent.
218. Cffisareus, 23. — Thirteenth cent.
221. Cffisareus, cxvii. 2 9 . — Eleventh cent.
222. Caesareus Nessel, 180. — Fourteenth
cent.
229. Escurialensis, x. iv. 21 Twelfth
cent.
230. Escurialensis, <f,. iii. 5 Twelfth
cent.
235. Havniensis, 2. — Fourteenth cent.
237. Mosquensis, S. Syn. 42 (Mt. d).
Tenth cent.
241. Dresdensis (Mt. k). — Eleventh cent.
242. Mosquensis, S. Syn. (Mt, 1). —
Twelfth cent.
251. Mosquensis, Tab. Imp, (Mt, x,) —
Eleventh cent.
253. Chersonensis (Mt. 10), — Eleventh
cent.
262. Regius, 53. — Tenth cent.
269. Regius, 74. — Eleventh cent.
274. Regius, 79a_ — Tenth cent.
299. Regius, 177. — Eleventh cent,
300. Regius, 186.— Eleventh cent.
301. Regius, 187. — Eleventh cent.
314. Regius, 209. — Twelfth cent.
344. Ambrosianus, 16. — Twelfth cent.
346, Ambrosianus, 23, — Twelfth cent.
348, Ambrosianus, B, 56, — Eleventh
cent,
371, Vaticanus, 1159. — Tenth cent.
374. Vaticanus, 1445. — Twelfth cent.
408. Venetianus, S. Marc i. 14 Twelfth
cent.
433. Berolinensis, — Twelfth cent.
435, Lugdunensis (Bat,), 131.
APPENDIX.
515
EVANGELIST ARIA.
18. Bodleianiui, Laud. D. 121— Thir-
teenth cent.
1 9. Bodleianus, 3048.— Thirteenth cent.
21. Monacensis, 383, Uncial. — Tentli
cent.
36. Vaticanus, 1007, Uncial. — Tenth
cent.
(2) ACTS AND CATHOLIC EPISTLES.
A. — Alexandrinus; see p. 280.
B. — V.aticanus, 1209; see p. 270.
C. — Ephremi Rescriptus; sec p. 283.
D. — Cantahrigiensis; see p. 291.
E. — Laudianus 3; see p. 205.
G. — Angelicanus, A. ii. 15. — Ninth or
Tenth cent.
II. — Mutinensis, 196. — Ninth cent.
13. Regius, 14. — Eleventh cent.
15. Coislinianus 25. — Eleventh cent.
18. Coislinianus, 202. — Eleventh and
Thirteenth cent.
36. Novi Collegii, Oxon. — Thirteenth
cent.
40. Alexandrine- Vaticanus, 179. — Ele-
venth cent.
03. Ca;sareus, Lambec. 35. — Fourteenth
cent.
07. Cajsareus Lambec. 37. — Fourteenth
cent.
73. Vaticanus, 367. — Eleventh cent.
78. Alexandrine- Vaticanus, 29
Twelfth cent.
98. Jeremia3 Patriarchae (Mt. a).
Eleventh cent.
90. Mosquensis, S. Syn. 5 (Mt. c). —
Fifteenth cent.
100. Mosquensis, S. Syn. 334 (Mt. d).—
l£leventli cent.
101. Mosquensis, S. Syn. 333 (Mt. f ).—
Thirteenth cent.
102. Mosquensis, S. Syn. 98 (Mt. g.) —
Ninth cent.
104. Dresdensis (Mt. k).
105. Mosquensis, S. Sjti. 380 (Mt. 1).
106. Mosquensis, S. Syn. 328 (Mt. m.)
180. Argentoracensis.
(3) EPISTLES OF PAUL.
A. — Alexandrinus ; see p. 280.
B. — Vaticanus, 1209 ; see p. 270.
C. — Ephremi Rescriptus; see p. 283.
D. — Claromontanus; see p. 203.
E. — Sangermanensis; see p. 301.
F. — Augiensis; see p. 302.
G. — Boernerianus ; see p. 301.
I. — Angelicanus, A. ii. 15. — Ninth or
Tenth cent.
17. Regius, 14. — Eleventh cent.
31. Harleianus, 5537. — Eleventh cent.
37. Leicestriensis. — Fourteenth cent.
40. Alexandrino- Vaticanus, 179. — Ele-
venth cent.
The Codices Casarei are in the Imperial Library at Vienna ; Laurentiani, in the
Ducal [library at Florence; Ambrosianl, in the Public Library at Milan; Angelicani,
in the library of the Augustine Monastery at Rome; Bodleiani, in the Public Library
of the University of Oxford; Harleiani, in the library of the British Museum,
London; Coidiniani and i?e^ii, in the National Library at Paris, formerly the library
of the King of France. The other terms in the foregoing list will sufficiently explain
themselves.
73. Upsaliensis, 42. — Eleventh cent.
80. Vaticanus, 367. — Eleventh cent.
89.Alexandrino-Vaticanus,29. — Twelfth
cent.
113. Jeremiae Patriarcha; (Mt. a). — Ele-
venth cent,
115. Mosquensis, S. Sj-n. 334 (Mt. d). —
Eleventh cent
110. Mosquensis, S. Syn. 333 (Mt. f ).—
Thirteenth cent.
117. Mosquensis, S. Syn. 98 (Mt. g), —
Ninth cent.
120. Dresdensis (Mt. k). — Eleventh cent.
121. Mosquensis, S. Syn. 380 (Mt. 1). —
Twelfth cent.
THE END.
nEI.FAST: PRISTED nV SIMMS AND M'INTYRR.
I LM I C I
010 PHCEM/CM/r ALFM/lfffr
^^^t)5 W^^ Vi^K i^ ^^ n^i>P) "o^^h
^/fse/zif/Cjti c^A/?4crf/f.
PLATE II
isaiith . I . /. ;' ._ Tf-t'/// ti llfbrfiuMunuscriiU,
I'resentedto the British. AI us ru// 1 hit hhio (h'ort^t- J\\
^ -irrprn* TU^ q;^v i7]*t V ^^""^ aScp-^^*^
Z^ an^ T^D^n^ v^V^j b^i:} nai ^rSji* '3
. lf/Kin/^t''fi^''>s/.
:#
/''//m ri A'///.ffJ'. f^' /'//jhv/rwi/s fU A'Ju////fr/l,/yMrrfff'rm/y i/f'
KA ( K o C/-AO YTTA PACK e r
c I N orAA H NH ^Ae I creTiArj
TA'r o H B I o H e I CTK '^^y^ M
KATATJOeC0Ai\ ' .A^xe
^IOCKOypiA>0>(
AN xz^pBecuc
TrepiBOTANCUN
MerAhO^YX/'»<cj>pONHc/c Gyx^Pfcr^A
TTO OocTMccojiiAcKT/croy
PLATE IV.
y
./ /
KAi err) gmc ei iXc
T'onrvpA r xc eyf^^c'iHc
JOHATXUl.M.
y M (A) irr ( )'^-c rr oa Vco k<^
K A lO.MAAt K A AOC
"^^/^^
ROM. IV. 4^.
MIC ooc oy \Oi I 7 eTA J
I : A y ^V X Af I M A \ A ^ K AT V
(> 4> t? I V H M A
lTIM.m.I6.
ioeiAc KA(« 'Movoioy
t r ^^ e PA e C ^ ; jj^v a Y c e
"^ ^ • ' J • G A O » C t K I I P ^ X" : - - M e ^
t^
'.^
^
^
• WW ^ -/^ ~f*C VJ \ '|i a» V .te
W
c^-^^
0 -^
^^^
o
0
Z
.Cl.
^ - ^' 0 < c ^
H
^ ^ O rs ^ - '^
12 ;; ^ c^a. ^
■u
U/
i3
\
\
.^
V
4
\
<<
i^2
- ^
c92
s^ ^ -^
< -
7 «•
re I AYxci>r
AlTTTTOC KG
:^ C) N H M I rs
rrpAK Al ApK
Ml N
V in A AN
■.o/r.^Yjf/.r ii/ <yr/^/jfWy ajvpranifirY // M/
%,
\v\ Ci Ay rcjjcl),
>nrTTO(: ai
5 O N H M I M TcT
KAIApKCI
hMI N
mOM THM aWliX ANGB.YTEUS,
fl7/f/aj/ujh^ ^£^ (^a^/- tirs/^/fj cftA^ K^spr/s , Li/A^'ZfM^17.
AM6N i\\^\ ivCVlS. SX6I Nl
ANANiMiip v|/inAA.NrAK«\9A
rjiVpS SVe 15AKN. Nl CIMIV|^
/ yA
'M/.r /f/7/r/rp7rsrjrlrt/i£'ToreJe7i/7 /7fipeamjt/z ^<^ MSS)
PLATE Xi.
fTrM.llUb'.
NO ATTETTJLnrC'rtt
eixTT7TrN<L'AAcor
OtTU;JLUUi)ir3Nfr
eT-fi-NDC dLT-rJLM
•^oYTq^xJC^^K:oc
, »/ Mny.l.tt'" neifa.fl
PLATE XII.
y.
"^/V// ///' 0^>/:rCh^^^^ //^^/^^
In /;'.v//v/////^7<" . /AV i'ff/h/'t'.slti/4' lrrsi/>//.
^ ^od\
C\
^CV)\
^r\A:7A ""tAjt ,
PLATE XIII.
/'h'f>Airiif: P^{y//:/'^ ^hn'fa////e^ .tr /lt-:jaj.\.
(. I JOHN /. 7. S.
>l:>s Hoci lo aytoy' Luytu^Licx- koci oi
Tozxs t\s lo £y 8i(5i Koci lp£is £:ic?iu
Ol JLtt5C^~ruy30u|^T£5 £m IkS VK^^ lo
6i Iny uocprijoiay
FROM Till': Ur///ir ( '^^ny//fr'////////A>. rmrnLLy.
/JOH/f V.-/.9 .
-^y ■> '^ J ^ r -.\ V I -- I ( S" -r-
poou^ ik 7^ OdAyCc^Tcupj AqIoT) nou.77va. OLUoy >
I / > r t ^^ ^' J .. 1^ • >- / ' f
Kouc <?cy706 e?i ^J^ £^ cy^ . ncu -w*^-^ '^^'^ °' ^^Z' ^
r J- > - ^ ^ '-J ^ ' y ■ , '
^4.af>li' Ptav 7i<yf ojytAjy Xct.jA-(i>Q.yoy.£y , h uMx.pZo piot Tov
/JOHN V.7.8.
''on '.'J'ptic;'' ei *
c5'ip'Oi^uapTupoupTe<;*"£ii^Tco"oupapoo./o" wa-
THp''KO(i'o''Xoyo<;'*HapTo''dyioy'iAjp£ujuLa . "Kai
/oi'Tpei<;''£i5^To-^£ji"£i(^i.*Kai''Tp£i^*£icrip/oi'uap
T\/poujjT£q*£CDi/7H^i^yH<^./To*'uj^£v/xta'Kai'7o ''\>
-^cop * KC(i/To"*a»'jaa."£i/ THji^AxapTVpiajj/
MWard^C'JBey'asL
Date Due
—
fA£j.'! T^
r
1
-SBS^ifi^
m
,' ^ _
4m^^
^jtrnff"*"^
A^ '
flffljij^MI
m
PRINTED
IN U. S. A.