" i | ; “a t ; ' a r a A : | | | ; tay ty r | to , ti > af ; 3 . ry ' " aes . : > ; rs . te . 4y = : > r he be i ; a 4 ; " e : Be ' a : mene bes a, ? ' “h rs : am Y rm 2 * . / » W , ; - ; i 4 > * i See Ritthe atid £ Phe senate





Poot ston, = ees y. 3h,












** Tta didici, fidem religionem constantiam in nullo negotio posse adhiberi nimiam: neque in his libris, quorum nullam litteram neglegi oportere sentio, velim quicquam meo arbitratu meoque iudicio definire, sed per omnia auctores sequi et antiquissimos et probatissimos.”—

Lachmann. N. T. Pref. ix.




MAY 28 1993











Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2006 with funding from Microsoft Corporation



Tus Account of the Printed Text of the Greek New Testament is intended to give a correct statement of facts and principles, brought down to the present time, for the use of Christian biblical students.

It is of great importance for such to be thoroughly and funda- mentally instructed in subjects of criticism, for this is a depart- ment of biblical learning which can never be safely neglected ; and if Holy Scripture is valued as being the revelation of God concerning his way of salvation through faith in the atonement of Christ, then whatever is needed for wisely maintaining its au- thority, even though at first sight it may seem only to bear on the subject indirectly, will be felt to be of real importance.

Forms of antagonism to the authority of Scripture have indeed varied. There have been those who, with tortuous ingenuity, charged the inspired writers with deception and dishonesty, and who first devised the term Bibliolatry,” as a contemptuous designation for those who maintained that it was indeed given forth by the Holy Ghost: these opponents might well have been


confuted by the contrast presented between what they were, and the uprightness and holiness inculcated by those writers of the Bible whom they despised. There have been argumentative sceptics, —men who could ingeniously reason on the Zodiac of Denderah, and other ancient monuments, as if they disproved the facts of Scripture: God has seen fit that such men should be answered by continuous discoveries, such as that of Dr. Young, by which the hieroglyphics of Denderah were read, so that the supposed argument only showed the vain confidence of those who had alleged it. The Rationalistic theory has endeavoured to re- solve all the Scripture narrations into honest but blind enthusiasm, and extreme credulity. The Mythic hypothesis has sought to nullify all real objective facts, and thus to leave the mind in a state of absolute Pyrrhonism,—in certainty as to nothing, except in the rejection of the person of Jesus of Nazareth, and of all that testifies to Him as the Messiah. And yet more recently, Spiritualism has advanced its claims, borrowing much from pre- ceding systems of doubt and negation, and taking its name and, in many points, its avowed principles, from those very Scriptures whose claims it will not admit. It would have a Christianity without Christ; it would bring man to God, but without blood of atonement; it would present man with divine teaching and guidance, while it denies the true divine teacher, the Holy Ghost, who, when He works on the heart, ever does it by glorifying Jesus ; it would adopt ethics from revelation, without admitting that they have been revealed ; and it would demand holiness, and that without the knowledge of God’s love, from which alone it can spring, without the apprehension of those hopes by which it can be sustained, and without owning that power from above by which alone it can have a reality. Such have been successive, or in part rival and mutually antagonistic, rulers of the Olympus of scepticism and infidelity ;—-systems which profess to be new, and


which seek to establish this claim by recklessly rejecting the basis of all known and long-cherished truth.

, 4 véot ‘yap olaxoydpot Ce Wier eb - kpatova Odvpzrou’ veoxpois de 87 vdpors 4 47 Ld Zevs aOerws Kparuvet’ A a5\ A U - dos - Ta mpl S€ meA@pia voy dicTot.

Asch. Prom. Vinct. 153 (Blomf.)

And even now, perhaps, that boasted cry of ‘“ progress,” so often heard, without regard to holiness and truth, and which is reiterated by those who seek to conceal, even from themselves, their own superficial pretensions, and to hinder others from knowing their utter want of principle,—may have raised up some yet newer claimant to dethrone preceding systems, in the vain thought of maintaining a triumphant rule.

ld ta A a rs) A véov véot Kpateire, kat Soxeire 07)

, > a , > > ? cal die Daan | vaiew amevOn mépyap’. ovk ek TOV eyo Seocovs rupdvvous exrecdvras noOdpny ;

, ‘A A a fol te 4, tpirov be Tov viv Kotpavodyr’ endiopat

aioxiora Kal radxtora.— Asch. Prom. Vinet. 991.

In one thing, and one only, have these forms of opposition been agreed: they have all of them re-echoed the serpent’s first whisper of doubt and lying, —‘‘ YEA, HATH GOD SAID?”

It behoves those who value the revelation of God in his word, both for their own sakes and on account of others, to be really grounded in biblical study: that which is merely superficial will not suflice; it would only be enough to enable the sharpness of the edge of sceptical objections to be felt, causing, perhaps, serious injury, without giving the ability needed to turn the weapon aside: while, on the other hand, fundamental acquaintance with the subject may, through God’s grace, enable us so to hold fast the


Scripture as a revelation of objective truth, as to be a safeguard both to ourselves and to others.

The truth of God is as a rock assailed by waves; each in suc- cession may seem to overwhelm it, but the force of each is in measure spent on that which has preceded it, and modified by that which follows. Each wave may make wild havoc amongst the detached pebbles at its base, while the rock itself is unmoved and uninjured. It is as thus knowing our grounds of certainty, that we have to maintain the Scripture as God’s revealed truth.

Some have, indeed, looked at critical studies as though they were a comparatively unimportant part of biblical learning. This must have arisen from not seeing the connection between things which are essentially conjoined. These studies contain the elements of that which has to be used practically for the most important purposes. They are the basis on which the visible edifice must rest. The more we rightly regard Holy Scripture as the charter of that inheritance to which we look forward, and which we know as given at the price of the Saviour’s blood, the more shall we be able to estimate the importance of TEXTUAL CRITICISM, by | which we know, on grounds of ascertained certainty, the actual words and sentences of that charter in the true statement of its privileges, and in the terms in which the Holy Ghost gave it.

oie ane

Prymoutu, April 25, 1854.

*,* To prevent all possible misconception which could arise from what is said of Lachmann in page 111, the reader is requested to observe distinctly, that no conjec- tures were introduced into his text ; and those which he suggested in the preface to his second volume had to do with places into which he thought that transcriptural error had found its way, anterior to all existing documents.



The first printed Gr. Test., 1514. Neglect of Greek at the time of the invention of printing, 1.—The Latin Vulgate the only SS. of Western Europe, 2.— Preparations of Card. Ximenes for his edition, 2.— First printed portions of the Gr. Text, 2 note. University of Alcala, 3.— Delay of publication, and death of Ximenes (1517), 3.— Publication authorised by Leo X. (1520), 3.—The editors’ account of their MSS., from the Vatican, 4.— Moldenhawer’s search for Greek MSS. at Alcala; report that they were sold and burned, 5.— The late Dr. J. Thomson’s* investigations—no MSS. sold; all those of Ximenes still in the collection, 6.— No reason to doubt that the Greek MSS. were really sent from Rome, 7.—Whether by Leo X.? Bishop Marsh’s doubts, 7.— Character of the Complutensian Text, 8.— Unskilfulness of the editors, 8.— Their high estimate of the Latin Vulgate, 9.—1 John v. 7, supplied from the Latin, 9.— Peculiarity of the accentuation, 10; and types, 11.


The critical sources of the Complutensian Polyglot, 11, 12.— Dr. James Thomson’s letter to the Biblical Review, 12.— Extracts from Marsh’s Michaelis, 14; from Dr. (now Sir John) Bowring, 14, 15.— Catalogue of the Alcala MSS. (now at Ma- drid), 15.

§3.— THE MDITIONS OF: ERASMUS <2. ° 40 a er 9:

Proposal made to Erasmus (Apr. 17, 1515), 19.— Gr. Test. appears (Mar. 1, 1516), 20.—The MSS. used: defective in the Apocalypse, 21.— Non-insertion of 1 John v. 7, 21.— Attacks of Lee and Stunica, 21.— Vulgate sometimes used to amend the Greek, 23.— Aldine LXX. and Gr. Test. (1518), 24.— Erasmus’s second edition (1519), 24.

* While these sheets were in the press, Dr. James Thomson’s death occurred, Feb. 20th, 1854.


Number of copies in Erasmus’s two first editions, 25.— Erasmus’s Latin Version reprehended, 25, and nofe.— His third edition (1522), 25.—1 John v. 7, inserted from the Codex Britannicus, 26, and note.— The fourth edition (1527), 27.— The fifth edition (1535), 28.— Ancient testimony relied on, Acts xiii. 33, .. 28.


MS. authorities commonly neglected; edition of Colinseus, 30.— Stephens’ editions of 1546 and ’49, .. 30.—His large edition (1550), with various readings, 30.— Censured by the Sorbonne, 31.— Discussions on 1 John vy. 7,..32.—The only Greek MSS, which contain it, 32 note.—Stephens’s fourth edition (1551), 32.— Verse divisions, 33 note. Beza’s editions and MSS., 33.— Beza’s opinion of the spuriousness of John viii. 1-12, .. 34.— Elzevir editions, 34, 35.—“ Textus Receptus,” 35,


Various readings in Scripture, 37.— Collection in Walton’s Polyglot, 38.— Velezian readings, 38.— Curcelleeus’s edition (1658), 39.— Bp. Fell’s edition (1675), 40.—-- Bar- berini readings, 40.

§ 6.— MILLS GREEK TESTAMENT «2 4 (2. a “noe 74h

Dr. Bernard’s suggestion to Mill, 42.—Bp. Fell’s encouragement, 42.— Printing stopped in 1686 by Bishop Fell’s death, 42.— Mill’s critical judgment, 43.— Kiister’s reprint of Mill’s edition, 45.— Mill’s plan of publishing the text of MSS., 45.— Wells’s revised Greek Test., 46.— Whitby’s attack on Mill, 47.—Collins’s use of Whitby’s arguments, 48. Bentley’s reply to Collins, 48.


Extract from Bentley’s reply to Collins, 49.— Mill’s labours objected to by Whitby, 50.— Use of various readings, 50, 51.— Comparison of profane authors,—Velleius Paterculus, Hesychius, Terence, 51.—Tibullus, Plautus, Manilius, 52.—Stephens’s Gr. Test., 53.— Reading of Acts xxvii. 14, ..53.— The wind Furo-aquilo, 54.—Texts not rendered precarious by various readings, 56.— Text not preserved by miracle, 57.

§:6.—BENTEE YS: PROPOSED EDITION <3. 2. 4: “<6 5%

Hare’s appeal to Bentley, 58.— Wetstein’s communication, 58.— Bentley’s letter to Abp. Wake, 59.—‘“‘ Comparative criticism,” 59 note.— Testimony of Greek and Latin MSS., 59.— Greek and Latin texts as edited, 60.— Bentley’s plan, 60.— Frus- trated, 61.—1 John v. 7, .. 61.—Walker sent to Paris, 61.— Bentley’s Proposals, 61, 62. Middleton’s attack and Bentley’s reply, 63. Patristic citations, 64.— Collation of the Vatican MS., 65.— Mace’s Gr. and Eng. Test., 65.— Bentley’s death, 66.— The non-appearance of his edition a loss, 67.— All account of it omitted in Marsh’s Michaelis, 68 nofe.


§ 7.—BENGEL’S GREEK TESTAMENT . . . . . 68

Bengel’s early studies and questionings, 69.— Procures collations, 70.—His Gr. Test. published, 1734, and its plan, 70.— Families of MSS., 71.— Misrepresentations and opposition, 71.


Commencement of his critical studies, 73.— Visits Paris and England, 72, 73.— Proposal to publish various readings, 74.— A critical text suggested, 74.— Quarrel with Frey, 74.— Wetstein leaves Basle, 75.— His Prolegomena appear in 1730, .. 75. —His changes of plan, 75.— Publication of his edition, 1751-2, ..76.— Character of his edition, 77.— His own labours, 77.— His theories, 77, 78. All ancient Gr. MSS. charged with Latinising, 78.— Animadversiones et cautiones, 79, 80.—Semler’s re- print of Wetstein’s Prolegomena, 81.— Lotze’s proposed new edition, 81, 82.


New Testament criticism as left by Wetstein, 83.—Griesbach’s first edition, (1774-7,) 88.—Theory of recensions, 84.— His value for ancient evidence, 85. Mat- thei’s editions, 85, 86.— Alter’s edition, 86.—Collations of Birch, etc., 86, 87.— Texts of MSS. printed, 87.— Griesbach’s second edition (1796-1806), 88. His prin- ciples of criticism, 88, 89.— His manual edition, 89. Hug’s system of recensions, 90. Importance of Griesbach’s labours, 91.

§ 1.—SCHOLZ’S GREEK TESTAMENT . . . . .~) 92

Two-fold division of MSS., etc., 92, 93. His travels and collations, 94. His reli- ance on numbers, 95.— Uniformity of later Greek MSS., 95.— Not correct in fact, 96.

$1) LACH MANNS DITIONS) 529 i ee a ae. an) 7,

His first edition, 1831, 97.— His brief statement of its plan, 98.— Long misunder- stood, 98.— Plan of Lachmann’s first edition: authority relied on, and the received text wholly cast aside, 99.— Things wanting to complete’ Lachmann’s plan, 100.— His larger edition, vol. i., 1842, 100.— Points of resemblance to Bentley, 101.—Old Latin version, 102.— Lachmann’s estimate of degrees of evidence, 103.— Authorities admitted, 104.— Mode of dealing with ancient errors, 104.— Lachmann’s principles might have been extended, 105.— Misrepresentations as to his range of authorities, 105.— Reading discussed of Matt. xxi. 28-31, .. 106.— Rev. xviii. 3, . . 108. Acts xiii. 33,..109.— Delay as to Lachmann’s second volume, 111.— His conjectures, 111.— Acts xiii. 32,..112.— Attacks on Lachmann, 113.— Lachmann’s Latin Text, 114.— Punctuation, 114.

Reasons for giving a clear account of Lachmann’s edition. Unserupulous mode in which he was assailed. Even-handed justice. Quotation from Bentley. Gram- matical reviewers: subjunctive futures. Lachmann’s own claims, 115 seq. note.



His first edition (1841), 116.— Paris editions of 1842, 118.— His second Leipsic edition, 1849, 118.— Selection of various readings, 119.— Adoption of ancient evi- dence, 119.— Early variations, Rev. xiii. 18, . . 120. Critical rules, 120, Examples, 121.— Mark ii. 22,.. 121.— Matt. xxv. 16,.. 122. Matt. xxiii. 4,.. 123. Matt. xxiv. 38, .. 124. Mar. viii. 26, .. 124. Alexandrian forms, 125.—-avrotd and avrov, 126.— Recensions, 127.— Tischendorf’s collations, 128.


The Greek MSS., of which the text has been published, 129.--Those prior to Tischendorf, 129.— Those edited by Tischendorf, 130.—- His continued research for MSS., 1381.


“Comparative Criticism” defined, 132.— Preliminary list of MSS., 132.— Readings of Matt. xix. 17, ..133.— Mr. Scrivener’s remarks, 134, 135.— Observations on them, 136.— Source of the common reading of this passage, 187.— Value of MSS. in spite of incorrect readings (D), 187 note. Small comparative value of the mass of MSS., 138. Matt. xv. 8,.. 139. Matt. xx. 22,..140.— Matt. xviii. 35, Mar. iii. 29,.. 141. Mar. iv. 12, 24, x. 21, xii. 4, 28, xiii. 14, Luke viii. 9, 20, 28, 54, ix. 7, 54, xi. 2,.. 142. Luke xi. 29 (dis), 44, xii. 31, xiii. 24, John iv. 48, v. 16, vi. 22, . . 143.—John vi. 39, 40, 51, 69, viii. 59, ix. 8,11 (d¢s), 25, 26, x. 12, 18,14, . . 144.—John x. 26, 33, xi. 41, Acts i. 14, 15, 11. 7, 23, 30, 31, 47, etc., ii. 22, xv. 24, 38, Rom. i. 16, . . 145.— Rom. iii 22, v.1, Vi. 12, viii. 1, x. 15, xi. 6, xiv. 6, 9, xv. 24, 29, xvi. 5, 25-27, .... 146.—1 Cor ii. 4, iii. 4, vi. 20, vii. 5, Gal. iii. 1, Eph. iii. 14, . . 147.— Results of Comparative Criticism, 148. Value of the most ancient MSS., 149.


Authorities as cited by Griesbach and Scholz, 151.—Scholz’s Alexandrian read- ings, 152. Witnesses against his text, 152.— Edition proposed, to rest wholly on authorities, 152. Specimen prepared (1838) Col. ii., 153.— Gr. and Eng. Rev. (1844), 154.— Plan of Collations, 155.—F (Epp.), 155.— Disappointment as to Codex Vati- canus, 156.—B (Apoc.), 156.—Codex Passionei, 157.— Codex Amiatinus, 157. Codex Mutinensis, 158.—U (Evv.), 158, Postscribed Iota, 158 note.—X (Evv.), 158.— E (Evv.), 159.—1 (Evv.), 159.—G (Evv.), 159.— Fragments of G and H, 159, 160.— Eng. Revelation published (1848), 160.— Curetonian Syriac version, 160.— D. (Epp.), 161.— Bartolocci’s collation of B, 161.—K (Evv.), 161.—83 (Evv.), 161, 162.—M (Evv.), 162.—D (Epp.), 162.—H (Evv.), 163.— Uffenbach fragment, 163.— Lach- mann’s Latin collations, 164.— Collations compared with Tischendorf’s, 164.— Ox readings in D (Epp.), 164 note. G (Epp.), 165.— Reading of 1 Tim. iii. 16, 165 note. Fragments P and Q, 165.—F (Evv.), 166.— Cod. Leicest., 166.— Dublin palimpsest Z, and its chymical restoration, 166-169.— MSS. recompared at Basle, Munich, and


Venice, 169.— Cod. Amiatinus and Tischendorf’s edition, 169, 170.— Correction of mistakes, 170 note.—The ancient versions, 170.— Mr. Rieu’s collation of the Arme- nian, and Mr. Prevost’s of the Aithiopic, 171.— Ancient MSS. published and unpub- lished, 172. Results, 173.


Object, and opposite modes of seeking to attain it, 174.— Numbers against autho- rity, 175.— Proofs that readings are ancient, 175, 176.— Character of all the most ancient documents, 177.— Analogy of ancient and modern Latin MSS., 179.— Non- accordance of the later Greek MSS., 180.— The later copyists, 182.— Charges of innovation, 183.— Porson on interpolations, 184 note.— An ancient text of the LXX. displaces the Aldine, 185.— Judgment on evidence,— prayer, 186.— Express early statements as to readings; Matt. xix. 17, ..187.— Matt. v. 4, 5, .. 187. Matt. i. 18, . .188.— Matt. xxiv. 36, .. 190. —1 Cor. xv. 51, . .19].—1 Cor. xiii. 3, . . 191.— Matt. viii. 28, Mar. v. 1, and Luke viii. 26, . . 192.— Matt. xxvii. 16,17, .. 194.—2 Tim. iv. 1, . .196.— Luke xiv. 5, . .197.— Conjecture in the Edin. Rev., 199 note.— New theory of Latinising, 201.— Mar. xi.8, Mar.i.41, ..203.—1 Cor. xi. 29, ..203.— Col. ii.18,.. 204.—Aids as to ancient evidence, Ammonian Sections and Eusebian Canons, 205.—Luke xxii. 43, 44, Matt. xvi. 2, 3, .. 205.—Proved errata in MSS. Matt. xxvii. 28, . - 205.—Heb. xi. 35,.. 206.—Matt. xxvii. 49, . . 206, 207.—Proper names, 207.—David, Amos, 207.— Asaph, Siloam, Capharnaum, Nazareth, 208.— MaO@aios, 209. vd éped- kvotixov, 209. AauBévw, 209.— Peculiar flexions, 209.— Interchange of vowels, 210. —Iota subscript, 210.— Terminations -w and -o., 1 Pet. iii. 7,.°. 211. —-e. and -y, Fut. subj., 211.— Punctuation, 212.— John i. 3, 4, Rom. ix. 5, .. 214, 215.—1 Cor. xv. 29, .. 216.— Parenthesis, 217.—1 Pet. iii. 21, 2 Pet. i. 19, ..217.— Rom. viii. 20, . . 218. Rom. ix. 1,.. 219. Conflict of evidence, 220.—Ascetic spirit, 1 Cor. vii. 5, Acts x. 20, Rom. xii. 13, .. 222. Rom. xiv. 17, . . 223. Luke viii. 17, .. 223. Matt. i. 25, .. 224. Acts xv. 22, .. 225.


1 John v. 7: reasons for not formally discussing the passage, 226.—1 Tim. iii. 16: authorities which support es, 227; those which support a relative, 227.— True readings of Cyril and Chrysostom, 227 note. Correction of the MSS. A and C., 228, The fathers who read és, 229.— The passage altered by Macedonius, 229 and note. —A relative the best-supported reading, 230.—és supported by the Greek autho- rities, 230.— Translation of the passage, 231.— Acts xx. 28, . . 231.— Authorities in favour of cod, 231.— Reading of B, 231 note.— Chrysostom doubtful, 232 and note. Cyril, 232.— Authorities for xvpiov, 232; for xupiov kai Geod, 232.— Results, 233. Readings absolutely supported by critical research, 234.— Passages of dogmatic value restored, 234.— John i.18: testimonies in favour of povoyevis Oeds, 234.—1 Pet. iii. 15: corrected reading, and result of comparison with Old Test., 235.—The LXX. version: independence of the New Test. citations, when needful, 236.

§ 16.—NOTES ON JOHN VII. 53—VIII. 11; JOHN V. 3, 4; AND MARK XVI.9—20 . . 286,

John vii. 58-viii. 11, of well-known doubtfulness: documents in its favour, 236.— How introduced in Cod. 1, 237 note.— Augustine’s conjecture, 237.— Documents


opposed to the passage, 238. Unknown to Tertullian, 239 and note; also Cyprian, Origen, etc., 239. Doubts of Erasmus, Calvin, Beza, 240. -— Difficulties, 241. Truth of the narration, 242.— Papias, 242.— Dr. Routh’s judgment, 243.

John y. 3, 4: authorities for and against the last clause of verse 3, . . 248.— Those against verse 4,.. 243; for it, 244.— Bp. Marsh’s judgment, 244.— Origin in scholia, 245. Results in favour of the shorter form, 246.

Mar. xyi. 9-20. Propositions to be established, 246.— Testimonies that these verses do not belong to St. Mark, 247.— Proofs that this Gospel has had these verses from the second century, 251.— Evidence of existing monuments, that St. Mark did not himself write these verses, 253.— Documents which contain them, 254.— Inter- nal arguments, style, etc., 256.— Conclusions from the whole, 258.— Authority of Scripture, even when anonymous, 259.— Butler and Warburton quoted, 260 note.— Testimony of John the Presbyter to St. Mark’s Gospel, 260 and note.


Present opposition to critical studies, 261.— Facts denied, 262 and note.— Recent assertions as to the modern Greek text, 264.— Mischievous inventions, 265 and note. Bible circulation and non-intelligent translations, 267.— Texts still wrongly read: 1 John v. 7, . . 268.— Acts viii. 37, ix. 31, . . 269.— Acts xiii. 19, 20, . . 269.—1 John vy. 13, Rey. xvii. 8, .. 270. Present state and requirements of biblical study, 271.



MATTHEW. i. itches Oy 4 - 25 v. 4,5 Vili. 28 A XV. 8 Xvi. 2,3 eb Ogu Wy Gane Xvili. 35 XX: oon xxi. 28-3) XXili; <4; xxiv. 36 38 xxv. 16 Xxvii. 16, 17 28 49 A MARK i 41 ll 22 qt.. 329 Le eel gens 24 Vv. ] Vili. 26 Xe. eel! xi... °s xl, 4 23 xiii. 14 xvl. 9-20 LUKE. vill. 9 7 ;



Vili. 26 28 54

1x, 7 54

Xi, amar 29 44

Si 3)

xi, 24

xiv. 5

XXli. 43, 44


i 18

Iv. 43

Vv 3, 4 IG;

Vi 22 Be) oe 40 51 69 ;

Vii. 53- viii. 12

Vill. 59

5. eeameto| iBL 25 Oss

x LP 13 14 26 33

xi, 4]

° . 34, 236 seq.



KV ee

XX: 28 xxvu. 14

ROMANS. Lule 111,22 Vi) a vi. 12 Vili. 1 Ke 5 Zi 6 xii. 13 xiv. 6 9

Xv. 24 29

9 Se ae eo-eh.


u 4 i 4





iii. 1

EPHESIANS. iii. 14

COLOSSIANS. ii. 18 .

lL TIMOTHY. iil, 16

2 TIMOTHY. 17,-1


1 PETER. ry ae 15

1 JOHN. ew

it ee

REVELATION. xiii. 18 xvi. 8 Xviil. 3

227 seq. 165 note,


Copex Amiatinus. In p. 170, note, [have given a list of the places in which Tischendorf has not followed my collation of this MS., but in which I find, from Signor del Furia, that my collation really is right, As Tischendorf has re-issued his impression of the Codex Amiatinus with a list of a few errata, noticed since it first’ appeared, they are here specified for the information of the reader. Mat. xx. 4, dele meam. xxiv. 15, lege Danihelo. Mar. xiv. 40, lege rngravati. Luke viii. 12, hi deest, a prima manu. Acts viii. 17, lege rnponebant. xili. 46, lege reppulistis. Xvili. 12, lege Achaiae. 1 Cor. ili, 12, lege superaedificat supra. xiv. 18, dele meo. 2 Cor. iv. 4, lege quae est. Eph. iv. 25, lege in invicem. vi. 13, dele in (2°). 1 Pet. iii. 6, lege oboedivit. 1 Joh. ii. 4, lege non (pro “nos”). Rey. viii. 5, dele magnus.

These passages could not be inserted in the former list, as Tischendorf had not marked them amongst the places in which he had not followed my colla- tion: they are simply errata in his edition.

He also corrects in the canons and Ammonian Sections at Mat. iv. 21 (22,2); Mat. x. 42 (100,6); Luke xiii. 14 (165,2). Also, he says, that Abbate del Furia informs him, that at John xviii. 37, the MS. has (by mis- take, he considers) the notation (180,4). In the Epistle to the Hebrews, sec- tion 4 begins at ii. 11.

Tiscuenporr’s MSS., p. 131. The MSS. described in the letter addressed to me are now in the hands of Messrs. Williams and Norgate, Henrietta-street, Covent-garden, for sale, for Prof. Tischendorf. The Palimpsest fragments possess, even if it were only on account of their antiquity, a real value in textual criticism. The two other uncial MSS. of part of the Gospels belong probably to about the age assigned them by Tischendorf. I have examined the whole collection ; and I shall be permitted to collate them for critical pur- poses. In one of them I found very soon four occurrences of Lota postscribed :


so rare in Biblical MSS. in Uncial Letters (see p. 158). It should be added, that Tischendorf has announced that the Palimpsest fragments will be in- cluded in a new volume of Monumenta Sacra now in the press.

To the MSS. examined by me (mentioned p. 155—168), I may now add the Palimpsest fragments of St. Luke amongst the Nitrian MSS. in the British Museum. They consist of forty-five leaves (of the sixth century, as seems to 'me), in which Severus of Antioch against Grammaticus has been written in Syriac over the Greek. The older writing is in parts very difficult to read; but by pains I can in a strong light discern almost every letter : this is, however, a great strain on the eye of a collator.

Besides these precious leaves, there is also in the same collection a very ancient Palimpsest fragment of St. John’s Gospel, and a few morsels of other parts of the New Testament.

P. 171. Mr. Prevost’s comparison of the Aithiopic would have been more exactly described as a collation of the text in Walton’s Polyglot, from which Bode’s Latin version was made, with Mr. Platt’s text.

To the note, p. 165, might be added, that “perhaps the line in question was used in 1 Tim. iii. 16, and some other places, simply to fill up the Latin text which lies over the Greek.”

In p. 248, note, Hesychius of Jerusalem is called the contemporary of Gre- gory of Nyssa. This has been done advisedly ; for if these homilies do be- long to such a Hesychius, there are good reasons for not regarding him as the Bishop of Jerusalem of that name in the sixth century, but as an earlier Presbyter. Cave, I think, says that it would need an oracle to distinguish the persons bearing the name of Hesychius of Jerusalem.

Let me request any who may wish to understand the principles of textual criticism which I believe to be true, to read what I have stated in the section, On an estimate of MS. authorities in accordance with comparative criticism” ; so that they may not repeat the assertion that I regard the accidental age of a MS., irrespective of its character, and apart from the evidence of ancient versions and early citations.

It ought to be needless for me to have to repeat again and again, that the testimony of very ancient MSS. is proved to be good on grounds of evidence (not mere assertion); and that the distinction is not between ancient MSS. on the one hand, and all other witnesses on the other,—but between the united evidence of the most ancient documents—MSS., versions, and early citations— together with that of the few more recent copies that accord with them, on the one hand, and the mass of modern MSS. on the other. To which class shall we look as including within itself the readings which have the best claim on our attention as those which really belong to the holy word of God ?

July 25, 1854.






THE first printed edition of the Greek New Testament was that which formed a part of the Complutensian Polyglot; the volume in which the New Testament in Greek and Latin is contained was completed Jan. 10, 1514.

It may seem a cause for surprise, that while the sacred Hebrew originals of the Old Testament had been multiplied much earlier by means of the press, the case was so different with regard to the Scriptures of the New Testament in the original tongue. For this difference many reasons may be assigned. ‘The Jews applied the invention of printing at a comparatively early period to the multiplication of the Old Testament in Hebrew: they were a numerous and prosperous body in many parts of Europe, and thus they were able to command both the skill and the pecuniary means needed to that end; besides this, there was a demand amongst them for Hebrew books.

The case with regard to the Greeks was wholly different. The capture of Constantinople by the Turkish Sultan (1453), and the bondage or exile of the Greek population, was an event which was almost synchronous with the invention of printing; and thus, although the dispersion of the Greeks led to the knowledge of their language and literature being acquired by many in Western Europe, yet it effectually hindered efforts on their own part to



print, and thus to multiply, copies of their Scriptures. Indeed, so many Greeks earned in their exile a scanty living by copying books in their own tongue, that they had a positive interest in not using the newly-invented art of printing.

Besides, the early attempts at printing Greek were so awkward and unpleasant to the eye, that few books were multiplied through the press in that tongue until greater skill had been manifested in the formation of the type. And so habituated were Greek scho- lars in that day to read Greek abounding with contractions, many of which were deemed by copyists to be feats of calligraphy, that the endeavours to print Greek with separate types were despised and undervalued.

In Western Europe, the Latin Vulgate was the form in which Holy Scripture was known and received : so that even on the part of theologians there was no desire for the original text; indeed, the feeling was rather that every departure from the version of Jerome, such as it was after it had suffered from the hands of transcribers for more than a thousand years, would be a rash and dangerous innovation. The Old Testament in Hebrew was regarded as a book for the Jews simply, and no part of Holy Scripture was thought to be suitable for the edification of Chris- tians in any tongue except the Latin.

The preparations made by the celebrated Spanish cardinal, Francis* XIMENES de CISNEROS, Archbishop of Toledo, for the publication of the first Polyglot Bible, commenced in the year 1502; the work was intended to celebrate the birth of the heir to the throne of Castile, afterwards the Emperor Charles V.

* The baptismal name of this remarkable man was Gonzalo: this he exchanged for Francisco, when he entered the Franciscan order. Cardinal Ximenes was arch- bishop of Toledo, regent of Castile, and a Spanish general, while also executing other functions.

+ It should be observed, that the Complutensian New Testament was not the first portion of original Greek which was printed. “The first part of the Greek Testa- ment which was printed consisted of the thanksgiving hymns of Mary and Zacharias (Luke i. 42-56, 68-80), appended to a Greek Psalter published in 1486. The next con- sisted of the first six chapters of the Gospel by John, edited by Aldus Manutius, at Venice, 1504, 4to."—Dr. Davidson's “Biblical Criticism,” ii. p. 106. “The fourteen Sirst verses of the Gospel of John. Tubingen 1514: in the Library at Stuttgart, an edition which has been incorrectly stated to be the whole Gospel of St. John, in Masch’s Le Long, 3. iii. 624, and Marsh’s remarks on Michaelis, i. p. 415.” [Eng. ed. ii. 845.] Hichhorn’s Einleitung, v. 249.


It receives its name, the Complutensian Polyglot, from Com- PLUTUM, the Latin name of ALCALA, in Spain, where it was printed, and where the cardinal had founded an university. The editors of the part containing the New Testament were Atlus Antonius Nebrissensis, Demetrius Cretensis, Ferdinandus Pitia- nus, and especially Lopez de Stunica: in fact, this last-mentioned editor seems to have been the person who undertook the respon- sibility of preparing the Greek text under the cardinal’s direction, and at his expense.

Although the fifth volume of the Polyglot, which contains the New Testament in Greek and Latin, was completed (as has been said) Jan. 10, 1514, the Old Testament was as yet unfinished; for the subscription to the fourth volume is dated July 10, 1517.*

The publication of the work, however, was delayed. There can be but little doubt, that some at least felt alarm at the inno- vation which would be introduced from the church taking for its instructor in Holy Scripture any language except the Latin: it is however worthy of remark, that the whole of this Polyglot edition was finished in the same year in which Martin Luther gave a stern shock to the corrupt theology which was then held and taught, by fixing to the door of the electoral chapel at Wit- tenberg his theses against the Romish doctrine of indulgences.

Before the publication of this work, on which the labour of so many years had been bestowed, Cardinal Ximenes had died;f and Pope Leo X., to whom it was dedicated, sent an authorization for its publication to his executors: this document is dated March 22, 1520. There was, however, some delay even after this; so that the work did not get into general circulation before the year 1522.

As this was the first printed Greek New Testament (although not the first published), it is natural that inquiry should have been

* Cardinal Ximenes says, in his dedication to Pope Leo X., that the New Testa- ment was finished first. “Imprimis Novum Testamentum Greco Latinoque sermone excudendum curavimus simul cum Lexico Greecarum omnium dictionum: qué pos- sunt in eo legentibus occurrere: ut his quoque qui non integram lingusze cognitionem adepti sunt pro viribus consuleremus. Deinde vero antequam Vetus Testamentum agerederemur : dictionarium premisimus Hebraicorum Chaldaicorumque totius Ve- teris Instrumenti vocabulorum.”

+ Cardinal Ximenes did not survive its completion more than a few months. He died Nov. 8, 1517, at the age of eighty-one, in the twenty-third year of his primacy.



made for the MSS. on which the text is based. _ It need excite no surprise, that the editors have not themselves described the MSS. which they used: such a proceeding was not then customary; indeed, until some attention had been paid to textual criticism, few editors of works, whether biblical, classical, or patristic, seem to have thought of mentioning what copies they followed, any more than this would have been done by the transcriber of such a work, before printing had been invented: the archetype might be mentioned, or it might not; just as in the case of an edition of Milton or Bunyan, it is not common to state, in a reprint, what edition has been followed.

The Complutensian editors, however, though they do not de- scribe their MSS., give us some information with regard to them. In their preface to the New Testament, they say, that “‘ ordinary copies were not the archetypes for this impression, but very an- cient and correct ones; and of such antiquity, that it would be utterly wrong not to own their authority; which the supreme pontiff Leo X., our most holy father in Christ and lord, desiring to favour this undertaking, sent from the apostolical library to the most reverend lord the cardinal of Spain, by whose authority and commandment we have had this work printed.” *

In this we may distinguish the fact which the editors record, from the opinion which they express. They must have known whether or not they used MSS. from the Vatican, and they were fully competent to record the fact; as to the antiquity of the MSS. or their value, they could not be supposed to give any judgement which lay beyond the horizon of their critical know- ledge. .

Cardinal Ximenes also bears a similar testimony as to the place from which he obtained the Greek MSS. He says, in his dedica- tion to Pope Leo X., after mentioning the pains which he had taken to procure Latin, Greek, and Hebrew MSS., For Greek copies indeed we are indebted to your Holiness, who sent us most

* “Non queevis exemplaria impressioni huic archetypa fuisse: sed antiquissima emendatissimaque: ac tants preeterea vetustatis ut fidem eis abrogare nefas videatur. Quee sanctissimus in Christo pater et dominus noster Leo decimus pontifex maximus huic instituto favere cupiens ex apostolica bibliotheca educta misit ad reverendissi- mum dominum Cardinalem Hispanie ; de cujus authoritate et mandato hoc opus

imprimi fecimus.” & #


kindly from the apostolic library very ancient codices, both of the Old and the New Testament; which have aided us very much in this undertaking.” *

When critical attention was paid to the text of the Greek New Testament, and to the MSS. from which the first printed edition was supposed to be derived, it was too hastily concluded from the editors’ having mentioned that they had the use of very ancient MSS. from the papal library, that the celebrated Codex Vaticanus was amongst the number; and as the actual readings of that valuable document were then almost entirely unknown, the Complutensian text was relied on by some, as if it could be taken as the representative of the Codex Vaticanus.

Afterwards, when Greek MSS. were more extensively investi- gated, it was thought that those of the Complutensian Greek New Testament were probably still preserved at Alcala; and thus when the Danish professor Moldenhawer was in Spain for the purpose of examining Greek MSS., he visited Alcala in 1784, in hopes of finding them in the university library. He could find none there of the Greek New Testament; and he imagined that, for some reason of suspicion, they were kept secret from him. At last he was told that, about the year 1749, they had been sold to a rocket-maker, as useless parchments. Michaelis, in mention- ing the result of these inquiries, says, ‘‘ This prodigy of parbarism I would not venture to relate, till Professor Tychsen, who accom- panied Moldenhawer, had given me fresh assurances of its truth.”

This account was for many years repeated and believed, until, in 1821, Dr. Bowring cast some doubt on it: he did not however fully clear up the story, or explain how it originated. But we can now go farther, and say that the inquiry of Moldenhawer, and the reply which it received, were alike grounded on mistake. Dr. James Thomson made careful inquiries as to the MSS. be- longing to the university of Alcala, and the result (ancluding an

* Atque ex ipsis quidem Greeca Sanctitati tusee debemus: qui ex ista apostolica bibliotheca antiquissimos tum Veteris tum Novi Testamenti codices perquam humane ad nos misisti: qui nobis in hoc negocio maximo fuerunt adjumento.”

The editors also say the same thing, in their preface to the reader, as to the Greek MSS. They add however, “Quibus etiam adjunximus alia non pauca: quorum parte ex Bessarionis castigatissimo codice summa diligentia transcriptam illustris Veneto- rum senatus ad nos misit,” etc.

> > » *