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.