Chapter XXVI: Appendix: B. Additional Bohairic Manuscripts in Egypt (1893) (3)

197 “Considerations on the Biblia Polyglotta,” 1659: to which Walton
rejoined, sharply enough, in “The Considerator considered,” also in
1659.

198 Dr. Hort says that “his comprehensive examination of individual
documents, seldom rising above the wilderness of multitudinous
details, [is] yet full of sagacious observations” (Introd. p. 180).

199 As Mill’s text is sometimes reprinted in England as if it were quite
identical with that commonly received, it is right to note the
following passages wherein it does not coincide with Stephen’s of
1550, besides that it corrects his typographical errors: Matt. xx.
15; 22; xxiv. 15; Mark ix. 16; xi. 22; xv. 29; Luke vii. 12 _bis_;
x. 6; xvii. 1; John viii. 4; 25; xiii. 30-31; xix. 7; Acts ii. 36;
vii. 17; xiv. 8; Rom. xvi. 11; 1 Cor. iii. 15; x. 10; xv. 28; 2 Cor.
vi. 16; Eph. iv. 25; Tit. ii. 10; 1 Pet. iii. 11; 21; iv. 8; 2 Pet.
ii. 12; Apoc. ii. 5; xx. 4. Reuss (p. 149) tells us that Kuster’s
edition recalls the Stephanic readings in Matt. xxiv. 15; Apoc. ii.
5.

200 Ellis, Bentleii Critica Sacra, Introductory Preface, p. xv.

201 Ellis, _ubi supra_, pp. xvii-xix. These _Proposals_ were also very
properly reprinted by Tischendorf (N. T., Proleg. lxxxvii-xcvi, 7th
edition), together with the specimen chapter (Apoc. xxii). The full
title was to have been: “Ἡ ΚΑΙΝΗ ΔΙΑΘΗΚΗ Graece. Novum Testamentum
Versionis Vulgatae, per stum Hieryonymum ad vetusta exemplaria
Graeca castigatae et exactae. Utrumque ex antiquissimis Codd. MSS.,
cum Graecis tum Latinis, edidit Richardus Bentleius.”

202 This is all the more lamentable, inasmuch as Bentley was not
accurate enough as a collator to make it unnecessary to follow him
over the same ground. Dr. Westcott confirms my own experience in
this respect when in a MS. note inserted by him on a blank leaf of
Trin. Coll. B. XVII. 14, he states that “Bentley’s testimony, when
he quotes a reading, may always be taken as true; but it is not so
when he notes no variation in particular. On an average he omits
_one-third_ of the variations of the MSS., without following, as far
as I can discover, any law in the selection of readings.”

203 Bp. John Wordsworth would vindicate both Bentley and Walker from the
suspicion of lightly taking up and lightly dropping so important a
task. Walker, whom Bentley, as is said, called “Clarissimus Walker,”
died on Nov. 9, 1741, at the age of forty-eight.—Wordsworth, Old
Biblical Texts, I. xxv. p. 65. And for the Latin and Greek Texts
collated by him wholly or partially, _see_ pp. 55-63.

204 He continued this work till after 1735. _See_ paper found by Dr.
Ince at Christ Church, quoted by Bp. J. Wordsworth, Old Latin
Biblical Texts, I. xxv. note 2.

205 Mr. Jebb (Life of Bentley, p. 164) imputes the failure of Bentley’s
grand scheme partly to the worry of litigation which harassed him
from 1729 to 1738; partly to a growing sense of complexity in the
problem of the text, especially after he became better acquainted
with the Vatican readings, i.e. about 1720 and 1729. Reuss (p. 172)
ought never to have conditioned the ultimate success of such a man
by the proviso “si consilio par fuerit perseverantia.”

206 “This thought has now so engaged me, and in a manner inslaved me,
that _vae mihi_ unless I do it. Nothing but sickness (by the
blessing of God) shall hinder me from prosecuting it to the end”
(Bentley to Archbp. Wake, 1716: Ellis, _ubi supra_, p. xvi). A short
article in the _Edinburgh Review_ for July, 1860, apparently from
the pen of Tregelles, draws attention to “Nicolai Toinardi Harmonia
Graeco-Latina,” Paris, 1707, fol. (“liber rarissimus,” Reuss, p.
167), who so far anticipates Bentley’s labours, that he forms a new
Greek text by the aid of two Roman manuscripts (Cod. B being one of
them) and of the Latin version.

207 Dr. Gregory says that though Mace’s edition had no accents or soft
breathing, he anticipates most of the changes accepted by some
critics of the present day.

208 I cannot help borrowing the language of Donaldson, used with
reference to an entirely different department of study, in the
opening of one of his earliest and by far his most enduring work:
“It may be stated as a fact worthy of observation in the literary
history of modern Europe, that generally, when one of our countrymen
has made the first advance in any branch of knowledge, we have
acquiesced in what he has done, and have left the further
improvement of the subject to our neighbours on the continent. The
man of genius always finds an utterance, for he is urged on by an
irresistible impulse—a conviction that it is his duty and vocation
to speak: but we too often want those who shall follow in his steps,
clear up what he has left obscure, and complete his unfinished
labours” (New Cratylus, p. 1). Dr. Gregory quotes against Dr.
Scrivener, Mace (1729), Bowyer, a follower of Wetstein (1763),
Harwood (1776), besides Whitby, Middleton, and Twells: but Dr. S.
looked for greater names, and till Middleton, a more advancing
study.

209 The full title is “’Ἡ καινὴ διαθήκη. Novum Testamentum Graecum ita
adornatum ut Textus probatarum editionum medullam, Margo variantium
lectionum in suas classes distributarum locorumque parellelorum
delectum, Apparatus subjunctus criseos sacrae Millianae praesertim
compendium limam supplementum ac fructum exhibeat, inserviente J. A.
B.”

210 They consist of seven Augsburg codices (_Aug._ 1 = Evan. 83; _Aug._
2 = Evan. 84; _Aug._ 3 = Evan. 85; _Aug._ 4 = Evst. 24; _Aug._ 5 =
Paul. 54; _Aug._ 6 = Act. 46; _Aug._ 7 = Apoc. 80); _Poson._ = Evan.
86; extracts sent by Isel from three Basle copies (_Bas._ α = Evan.
E; _Bas._ β = Evan. 2; _Bas._ γ = Evan. 1); _Hirsaug._ = Evan. 97;
_Mosc._ = Evan. V; extracts sent by F. C. Gross. To these add
Uffenbach’s three, _Uffen._ 2 or 1 = Paul. M; _Uffen._ 1 or 2 = Act.
45; _Uffen._ 3 = Evan. 101.

211 It is worth while to quote at length Bengel’s terse and vigorous
statement of his principle: “Posset variarum lectionum ortus, per
singulos codices, per paria codicum, per syzygias minores
majoresque, per familias, tribus, nationesque illorum, investigari
et repraesentari; et inde propinquitates discessionesque codicum ad
schematismos quosdam reduci, et schematismorum aliquae concordantiae
fieri; atque ita res tota per tabulam quandam quasi genealogicam
oculis subjici, ad quam tabulam quaelibet varietas insignior cum
agmine suorum codicum, ad convincendos etiam tardissimos dubitatores
exigeretur. Magnam conjectanea nostra sylvam habent: sed manum de
tabulâ, ne risuum periculo exponatur veritas. Bene est, quod
praetergredi montem hunc, et planiore via pervenire datur ad codices
discriminandos. Datur autem per hanc regulam aequissimam: Quo
saepius non modo singuli codices, sed etiam syzygiae minores eorum
vel majores, in aberrationes manifestas tendunt; eo levius ferunt
testimonium in discrepantiis difficilioribus, eoque magis lectio ab
eis deserta, tanquam genuina retineri debet” (N. T., Apparat. Crit.,
p. 387).

212 See a eulogistic yet discriminating discussion upon Bengel in
_Bengel als Gelehrter, ein Bild für unsere Tage_, from the eminent
pen of Dr. Nestle, which has been courteously sent to the editor
through the Rev. H. J. White.

213 The opposition of Frey and his other adversaries delayed that _opus
magnum_ for twenty years (N. T., Proleg., vol. i. p. 218).

214 We here reckon separately, as we believe is both usual and
convenient, every distinct portion of the N. T. contained in a
manuscript. Thus Codd. C and 69 Evan. will each count for four.

215 Errors of Wetstein’s text will be found in John xi. 31; Acts i. 26;
xiii. 29 ἐτέλησαν, from the Oxford N. T. 1675, though Wetstein
himself remarks this. He corrects a few obvious misprints of Elzevir
1633, but his note shows that he does not _intend_ to read τῷ in
Mark vi. 29. The following seem to be deliberate variations from the
Elzevir text: Matt. xiii. 15; xxi. 41; Mark xiv. 54; Luke ii. 22;
xi. 12; xiii. 19; 1 Cor. i. 29; v. 11; xii. 23; xiv. 15; Phil. iii.
5; 1 Tim. iii. 2, 11 (yet not Tit. ii. 2); Philem. 7; 1 Pet. i. 3;
iii. 7. All these deliberate variations are found in Von Mastricht’s
edition of 1735, which seems to have been used by Wetstein as the
basis of his text; and in all of them (except Matt. xxi. 41; Luke
xi. 12, and Phil. iii. 5) Fell’s text agrees with Wetstein’s. In
Matt. xiii. 15; Mark xiv. 54; 1 Cor. i. 29; v. 11; xii. 23; xiv. 15;
Phil. iii. 5; 1 Pet. iii. 7, the Elzevir editions vary. (American
Additions and Corrections, p. 51.) He spells ναζαρέτ uniformly,
except in John i. 46, 47. Reuss (p. 183) adds nine changes made by
Wetstein in the text for critical reasons: Matt. viii. 28; Luke xi.
2; John vii. 53-viii. 11; Acts v. 36; xx. 28; 1 Tim. iii. 16 (δ);
Apoc. iii. 2; x. 4; xviii. 17.

216 One other specimen of Matthaei’s critical skill will suffice: he is
speaking of his Cod. H, which is our Evst. 50. “Hic Codex scriptus
est literis quadratis, estque eorum omnium, qui adhuc in Europa
innotuerunt et vetustissimus et praestantissimus. Insanus quidem
fuerit, qui cum hoc aut Cod. V [p. 144] comparare, aut aequiparare
voluerit Codd. Alexandr. Clar. Germ. Boern. Cant. [Evan. AD, Paul.
ADEG], qui sine ullo dubio pessimè ex scholiis et Versione Latinâ
Vulgatâ interpolati sunt” (N. T., Tom. ix. p. 254).

217 In using Matthaei’s N. T. the following index of manuscripts first
collated by him will be found useful: a = Evan. 259, Act. 98 (a 1),
Paul. 113 (a or a 2), Apost. 82 (a 3): B = Evst. 47: b = Apost. 13:
c = Act. 99, Paul. 114, Evst. 48: d = Evan. 237, Act. 100, Paul.
115: e = Evan. 238, Apost. 14: f = Act. 101, Paul. 116, Evst. 49: g
= Evan. 239, Act. 102, Paul. 117: H = Evst. 50: h = Act. 103, Paul.
118: i = Evan. 240, Paul. 119: k = Evan. 241, Act. 104, Paul. 120,
Apoc. 47: l = Evan. 242, Act. 105, Paul. 121, Apoc. 48: m = Evan.
243, Act. 106, Paul. 122: n = Evan. 244, Paul. 123: o = Evan. 245,
Apoc. 49: p = Evan. 246, Apoc. 50: q = Evan. 247, Paul. 124: r =
Evan. 248, also Apoc. 502, Apoc. 90: s = Evan. 249, Paul. 76: t =
Apoc. 32, Evst. 51: tz = Apost. 15: V = V: v = Evan. 250, Apost. 5:
x = Evan. 251, Act. 69, Paul. 74, Apoc. 30 (from Knittel); z = Evan.
252: 10 = Evan. 253: 11 = Evan. 254: 12 = Evan. 255: 14 = Evan. 256:
15 = O, 16 = Evst. 56, Apost. 20: 17 = Evan. 258: 18 = Evan. 99: 19
= Evst. 57: 20 = Evan. 89: ξ = Evst. 52, Apost. 16: χ = Evst. 53,
Apost. 17: ψ = Evst. 54, Apost. 18: ω = Evst. 55, Apost. 19: Frag.
Vet. = part of H: Gpaul. It should be noted, that in several of
these cases different MSS. are included under one letter: e.g. c =
Evst. 48 is a different MS. from c = Act. 99.

218 The copies of Chrysostom’s homilies on the Gospels freshly collated
by this editor are noted 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 13, α, β, γ, δ,
ε, ζ, η, θ, λ, μ, π, ρ, φ: those on St. Paul’s Epistles are noted 1,
2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, α, β.

219 Reuss (p. 207) calculates that, besides misprints, Matthaei’s second
and very inferior edition differs in text from his first in but
twenty-four places, none of them being in the Gospels.

220 “Textui ad Millianum expresso” says Reuss (p. 151), which is not
quite the same thing: _see_ p. 203, note 2.

221 “Conscius sum mihi, me omnem et diligentiam et intentionem
adhibuisse, ut haec editio quam emendatissima in manus eruditorum
perveniret, utque in hoc opere, in quo ingenio non fuit locus, curae
testimonium promererem; nulla tamen mihi est fiducia, me omnia, quae
exigi possint, peregisse. Vix enim potest esse ulla tam perpetua
legentis intentio, quae non obtutu continuo fatigetur, praesertim in
tali genere, quod tam multis, saepe parvis, observationibus
constat.” (Lecturis Editor, p. v. 1788.) Well could I testify to the
truth of these last words!

222 “Symbolae Criticae ad supplendas et corrigendas variarum N. T.
lectionum Collectiones. Accedit multorum N. T. Codicum Graecorum
descriptio et examen.”

223 Yet Tischendorf (N. T., Proleg., p. xcvii, 7th ed.) states that he
only added two readings (Mark vi. 2, 4) to those given by Wetstein
for Cod. C. From Cod. D too he seems to have taken only one reading,
and that erroneously, επηγειραν, Acts xiv. 2.

224 In the London edition of 1809 ἄλλοι is printed for the first οὗτοί,
Mark iv. 18. Griesbach also omits καί in 2 Pet. i. 15: no manuscript
except Cod. 182 (ascr) is known to do so.

225 “Dissertatio critica de Codicibus quatuor Evangeliorum Origenianis,”
Halae, 1771: “Curae in historiam textus Graeci epistolarum
Paulinarum,” Jenae, 1777.

226 “Commentarius Criticus in textum Gr. N. T.,” Part i. 1798; Part ii.
1811.

227 The following specimen of a reading, _possessing no internal
excellence_, preferred or favoured by Griesbach on the slightest
evidence, will serve to illustrate the dangerous tendency of his
system, had it been consistently acted upon throughout. In Matt.
xxvii. 4 for ἀθῶον he indicates the mere gloss δίκαιον as equal or
preferable (though in his _later_ manual edition of 1805 he marks it
as an inferior reading), on the authority of the _later_ margin of
Cod. B, of Cod. L, the Sahidic Armenian, and Latin versions and
Fathers, and Origen in four places (ἀθῶον once). He adds the Syriac,
but this is an error as regards the Peshitto or Harkleian; the
Jerusalem may countenance him; though in such a case the testimony
of versions is precarious on either side. Here, however, Griesbach
defends δίκαιον against all likelihood, because BL and Origen are
Alexandrian, the Latin versions Western.

228 Reuss (p. 198) calculates that in his second edition out of Reuss’
thousand chosen passages Griesbach stands with the Elzevir text in
648, sides with other editions in 293, has fifty-nine peculiar to
himself. The second differs from the first edition (1774-5) in about
fifty places only.

229 Laurence, in the Appendix to his “Remarks,” shows that while Cod. A
agrees with Origen against the received text in 154 places, and
disagrees with the two united in 140, it sides with the received
text against Origen in no less than 444 passages.

230 David Schulz published at Berlin, 1827, 8vo, a third and much
improved edition of his N. T., vol. i (Gospels), containing also
collations of certain additional manuscripts, unknown to Griesbach.

231 One of Porter’s examples is almost amusing. It was Scholz’s constant
habit to copy Griesbach’s lists of critical authorities (errors,
misprints, and all) without giving the reader any warning that they
were not the fruit of his own labours. The note he borrowed from
Griesbach on 1 Tim. iii. 16, contains the words “uti docuimus in
Symbolis Criticis:” this too Scholz appropriates (Tom. ii. p. 334,
col. 2) so as to claim the “Symbolae Criticae” of the Halle
Professor as his own! See also p. 217, Evan. 365; p. 253, Act. 86,
and Tischendorf’s notes on Acts xix. 25; 2 Pet. i. 15 (N. T., eighth
edition). His very text must have been set up by Griesbach’s. Thus,
since the latter, by a mere press error, omitted με in 2 Cor. ii.
13, Scholz not only follows him in the omission, but cites in his
note a few cursives in which he had met with με, a word really
absent from no known copy. In Heb. ix. 5 again, both editors in
error prefix τῆς to δόξης. Scholz’s inaccuracy in the description of
manuscripts which he must have had before him when he was writing is
most wearisome to those who have had to trace his steps, and to
verify, or rather to falsify, his statements. He has half filled our
catalogues with duplicates and codices which are not Greek or are
not Biblical at all. After correcting not a few of his
misrepresentations of books in the libraries at Florence, Burgon
breaks out at last: “What else but calamitous is it to any branch of
study that it should have been prosecuted by such an incorrigible
blunderer, a man so abominably careless as this?” (_Guardian_, Aug.
27, 1873.)

232 Some of these statements are discussed in Scrivener’s “Collation of
the Greek Manuscripts of the Holy Gospels,” Introd. pp. lxix-lxxi.

233 The following is the _whole_ of this notice, which we reprint after
Tregelles’ example: “De ratione et consilio hujus editionis loco
commodiore expositum est (Theol. Studien und Kritiken, 1830, pp.
817-845). Hic satis erit dixisse, editorem nusquam judicium suum,
sed consuetudinem antiquissimarum orientis ecclesiarum secutum esse.
Hanc quoties minus constantem fuisse animadvertit, quantum fieri
potuit quae Italorum et Afrorum consensu comprobarentur praetulit:
ubi pervagatam omnium auctorum discrepantiam deprehendit, partim
uncis partim in marginibus indicavit. Quo factum est ut vulgatae et
his proximis duobus saeculis _receptae lectionis_ ratio haberi non
posset. Haec diversitas hic in fine libri adjecta est, quoniam ea
res doctis judicibus necessaria esse videbatur.” Here we have one of
Lachmann’s leading peculiarities—his absolute disregard of the
received readings—hinted at in an incidental manner: the influence
he was disposed to accord to the Latin versions when his chief
authorities were at variance is pretty clearly indicated: but no one
would guess that by the “custom of the oldest Churches of the East”
he intends the few very ancient codices comprising Griesbach’s
Alexandrian class, and not the great mass of authorities, gathered
from the Churches of Syria, Asia Minor, and Constantinople, of which
that critic’s Byzantine family was made up.

234 These are _d_ for Cod. Bezae, _e_ for Cod. Laud. 35, _f_ being
Lachmann’s notation for Paul. Cod. D, as _ff_ is for Paul. Cod. E
(whose Latin translation is cited independently), _g_ for Paul. Cod.
G.

235 We must now except the seventh century corrector of Cod. א called by
Tischendorf Ca, who actually changes the original reading εκδ. into
ενδ., to be himself set right by a later hand Cb. This is one out of
many proofs of something more than an accidental connexion between
Codd. א and B at a remote period. _See_ vol. i. p. 96, and note.

236 In dedicating the third volume of his “Monumenta sacra inedita” in
1860 to the Theological Faculty at Leyden, Tischendorf states that
he took to these studies twenty-three years before, that is, at
about twenty-two years of age.

237 Tischendorf left almost no papers behind him. Hence the task of
writing Prolegomena to his eighth edition, gallantly undertaken by
two American scholars, Dr. Caspar René Gregory of Leipzig, and Dr.
Ezra Abbot of Cambridge, U. S., but for their own independent
researches, might seem to resemble that of making bricks without
straw.

238 Through his haste to publish Cod. E of the Acts, in which design he
feared to be forestalled by a certain Englishman, Tischendorf
postponed to it vols. vii and viii, which he did not live to resume.
Oscar von Gebhardt, now of Berlin, will complete vol. vii; Caspar
René Gregory hopes to do what is possible for vol. viii.

239 For further information respecting this indefatigable scholar and
his labours we may refer to a work published at Leipzig in 1862,
“Constantin Tischendorf in seiner fünfundzwanzigjährigen
schriftstellerischen wirksamkeit. Literar-historische skizze von Dr.
Joh. Ernst Volbeding.” I have also seen, by Dr. Ezra Abbot’s
courtesy, his paper in the _Unitarian Review_, March, 1875.

240 A pamphlet of thirty-six pages appeared late in 1860, “Additions to
the Fourth Volume of the Introduction to the Holy Scriptures,” &c.,
by S. P. T. Most of this industrious writer’s other publications are
not sufficiently connected with the subject of the present volume to
be noticed here, but as throwing light upon the literary history of
Scripture we may mention his edition of the “Canon Muratorianus,”
liberally printed for him in 1867 by the Delegates of the Oxford
University Press. Burgon, however, on comparing Tregelles’ book with
the document itself at Milan, cannot overmuch laud his minute
correctness (_Guardian_, Feb. 5, 1873). Isaac H. Hall made the same
comparison at Milan and confirms Burgon’s judgement. The custodian
of the Ambrosian Library at Milan, the famous Ceriani, had nothing
to do with the work or with the lithograph facsimile.

241 As a whole it may be pronounced very accurate as well as beautiful,
with the conspicuous drawback that the Greek accents are so ill
represented as to show either strange ignorance or utter
indifference about them on the part of the person who revised the
sheets for the press.

242 He gave the same assurance to A. Earle, D.D., Bishop of Marlborough,
assigning as his reason the results of the study of the Greek N. T.

243 Dr. Hort (Introd. p. 277) hardly goes so far as this: “Those,” he
says, “who propose remedies which cannot possibly avail are not
thereby shown to have been wrong in the supposition that remedies
were needed; and a few have been perhaps too quickly forgotten.”

244 I hope that the change made in the wording of the above sentence
from what stood in the first edition will satisfy my learned and
acute critic, Mr. Linwood (Remarks on Conjectural Emendations as
applied to the New Testament, 1873, p. 9, note); although I fear
that the difference between us is in substance as wide as ever. At
the same time I would hardly rest the main stress of the argument
where Dr. Roberts does when he says that “conjectural criticism is
entirely banished from the field, &c., simply because all sober
critics feel that there is no need for it” (Words of the N. T., p.
24). There are texts, no doubt, some of those for example which Dr.
Westcott and Dr. Hort have branded with a marginal [+] in their
edition; e.g. Acts vii. 46; xiii. 32; xix. 40; xxvi. 28; Rom. viii.
2; 1 Cor. xii. 2 (where Eph. ii. 11 might suggest ὅτι ποτέ); 1 Tim.
vi. 7, and especially in the kindred Epistles, 2 Pet. iii. 10; 12;
Jude 5; 22, 23, wherein, whether from internal difficulties or from
the actual state of the external evidence, we should be very glad of
more light than our existing authorities will lend us. What I most
urge is the plain fact, that the conjectures, even of able and
accomplished men, have never been such as to approve themselves to
any but their authors, much less to commend themselves to the
judgement of scholars as intuitively true.

245 Bentley, the last great critic who paid much regard to conjectural
emendations, promised in his Prospectus of 1720 that “If the author
has anything to suggest towards a change of the text, not supported
by any copies now extant, he will offer it separate in his
Prolegomena.” It is really worth while to turn over Wm. Bowyer’s
“Critical Conjectures and Observations on the N. T.,” or the summary
of them contained in Knappe’s N. T. of 1797, if only to see the
utter fruitlessness of the attempt to illustrate Scripture by
ingenious exercise of the imagination. The best (_e.g._
συναλιζομένοις Acts i. 4; πορκείας for πορνείας _ibid._ xv. 20, 29),
no less than the most tasteless and stupid (_e.g._ νηνεμίαν for
νηστείαν Acts xxvii. 9), in the whole collection, are hopelessly
condemned by the deep silence of a host of authorities which have
since come to light. Nor are Mr. Linwood’s additions to the
over-copious list likely to fare much better. Who but himself will
think πρώτη in Luke ii. 2 corrupted through the intermediate πρώτει
from πρώτω ἔτει (_ubi supra_ p. 5); or that τὰ πολλά in Rom. xv. 22
ought to be ἐτη πολλά (p. 13)? Add to this, that he gives up
existing readings much too easily, even where his emendations are
more plausible than the foregoing, as when he would adopt ὅς ἄν for
ὅταν in John viii. 44 (p. 6); and this is perhaps his best attempt.
His worst surely is ΟΣ for _ΘΣ_ (θεός) Rom. ix. 5, which could not
be endured unless ἐστιν followed ὅς, as it does in the very passage
(Rom. i. 25) which he cites in illustration (p. 13).

246 “VII. Inter duas variantes lectiones, si quae est εὐφωνότερος aut
planior aut Graecantior, alteri non protinus praeferenda est, sed
contra saepius. VIII. Lectio exhibens locutionem minus usitatam, sed
alioqui subjectae materiae convenientem, praeferenda est alteri,
quae, cum aeque conveniens sit, tamen phrasim habet minus
insolentem, usuque magis tritam.” Wetstein’s whole tract,
“Animadversiones et Cautiones ad examen variarum lectionum N. T.
necessariae” (N. T., vol. ii. pp. 851-874) deserves attentive study.
See also the 43 Canones Critici and their Confirmatio in N. T. of G.
D. T. M. D.

247 So even Dr. Roberts, whose sympathies on the whole would not be the
same as the Bishop of Lincoln’s: “Of course occasions might occur on
which, from carelessness or oversight, a transcriber would render a
sentence obscure or ungrammatical which was clear and correct in his
exemplar; but it is manifest that, so far as intentional alteration
was concerned, the temptation all lay in the opposite direction”
(“Words of the New Testament,” p. 7). So again speaks E. G. Punchard
on James iii. 3 in Bp. Ellicott’s Commentary, “The supporters of
such curious corrections argue that the less likely is the more so;
and thus every slip of a copyist, either in grammar or spelling,
becomes more sacred in their eyes than is the Received text with
believers in verbal inspiration.” Sir Edmund Beckett (“Should the
Revised New Testament be Authorised?” 1882) writes in so scornful a
spirit as to neutralize the effects on a reader’s mind of his native
acuteness and common sense, but he deals well with the argument
“that an improbable reading is more likely right, because nobody
would have invented it.” “I suppose,” he rejoins, “an accidental
piece of carelessness can produce an improbable and absurd error in
copying as well as a probable one.” (p. 7.)

248 In his seventh edition, not in his eighth.

249 One other example to illustrate this rule, so difficult in its
practical use, may be added from Alford on Mark ii. 22, where the
reading καὶ ὁ οἶνος ἀπόλλυται καὶ οἱ ἀσκοί (whether the verse end or
not in these words) appears to have been the original form, since
“it fully explains all the others, either as emendations of
construction, or corrections from parallel places.” The reader may
apply this canon, if he pleases, to Aristotle, Ethic. iv. 9, in
selecting between the three different readings ὀκνηροί or νωθροί or
νοεροί to close the sentence οὐ μὴν ἠλίθιοί γε οἱ τοιοῦτοι δοκοῦσιν
εἶναι, ἀλλα μᾶλλον ... having careful reference to the context in
which it stands: or to the easier case of καίτοιγε and its
variations in Acts xvii. 27: or to Rom. viii. 24, where the first
hand of B and the margin of Cod. 47 (very expressly), by omitting τί
καί, appear to present the original text.

250 “Though the theory of explanatory interpolations of marginal glosses
into the text of the N. T. has been sometimes carried too far (e.g.
by _Wassenberg_ in ‘Valcken.’ Schol. in N. T., Tom. i), yet probably
this has been the most fertile source of error in some MSS. of the
Sacred Volume.” (Bp. Chr. Wordsworth, N. T., on 2 Cor. iii. 3.) Yes,
in _some_ MSS.

251 On this passage Canon Liddon justly says, “The question may still
perhaps be asked ... whether here, as elsewhere, the presumption
that copyists were always anxious to alter the text of the New
Testament in theological interests, is not pressed somewhat
excessively” (Bampton Lectures, 1866, p. 467, note).

252 Griesbach’s “etiam manifestò falsas” can allude only to 1 John v. 7,
8; yet it is a strong point against the authenticity of that passage
that it is _not_ cited by Greek writers, who did not find it in
their copies, but only by the Latins who did.

253 The clause might have been derived from Gen. ii. 23, yet the
evidence against it is strong and varied (אAB, 17, 67, Bohair.,
&c.).

254 Alford’s only _definite_ example (and that derived from Wetstein, N.
T., vol. ii. p. 11) is found but in a single cursive (4) in Rom.
xiv. 17, οὐ γάρ ἐστιν ἡ βασιλεία τοῦ Θεοῦ βρῶσις καὶ πόσις, ἀλλὰ
δικαιοσύνη _καὶ ἄσκησις_ καὶ εἰρήνη. Tregelles (An Account of
Printed Text, p. 222) adds 1 Cor. vii. 5; Act. x. 30; Rom. xii. 13
(!) More to their purpose, perhaps, if we desired to help them on,
would be the suspected addition of καὶ νηστείᾳ in Mark ix. 29, and
of the whole verse in the parallel place Matt. xvii. 21; the former
being brought into doubt on the very insufficient authority of Codd.
א (by the first hand) Β, of the beautiful Latin copy _k_ from
Bobbio, and by reason of the silence of Clement of Alexandria: the
latter on the evidence of the same Greek manuscripts (_k_ being
defective) with Cod. 33, both (?) Egyptian, the Curetonian and
Jerusalem Syriac, the Latin _e_ _ff_1, some forms of the Ethiopic
version, and from the absence of the Eusebian canon, which ought to
have referred us to the parallel place in St. Mark, whereas that
verse is assigned to the _tenth_ canon. In the face of such readings
of אΒ it is hard to understand the grounds of Mr. Darby’s vague
suspicion that they “bear the marks of having been in ecclesiastical
hands.” (N. T., Preface, p. 3.)

255 See (6), (7), (17), (18). The uncial characters most liable to be
confounded by scribes (p. 10) are ΑΔΛ, ΕΣ, ΟΘ, ΝΠ, and less probably
ΓΙΤ. An article in a foreign classical periodical, written by
Professor Cobet, the co-editor of the Leyden reprint of the N. T.
portion of Cod. B, unless regarded as a mere _jeu d’esprit_, would
serve to prove that the race of conjectural emendators is not so
completely extinct as (before Mr. Linwood’s pamphlet) I had
supposed. By a dexterous interchange of letters of nearly the same
form (Δ for Α, Ε for Σ, Ι for Τ, Σ for Ε, κ for ΙΣ, Τ for Ι) this
modern Bentley—and he well deserves the name—suggests for ΑΣΤΕΙΟΣ τῷ
θεῷ Act. vii. 20 [compare Heb. xi. 23] the common-place ΔΕΚΤΟΣ τῷ
θεῷ, from Act. x. 35. Each one of the _six_ necessary changes Cobet
profusely illustrates by examples, and even the reverse substitution
of δεκτός for ἀστεῖος from Alciphron: but in the absence of all
manuscript authority for the very smallest of these several
permutations in Act. vii. 20, he excites in us no other feeling than
a sort of grudging admiration of his misplaced ingenuity. In the
same spirit he suggests ΗΔΕΙΟΝΑ for ΠΛΕΙΟΝΑ, Heb. xi. 4; while in 1
Cor. ii. 4 for ἐν πειθοῖς σοφίας λόγοις he simply reads ἐν πειθοῖ
σοφίας, the σ which begins σοφίας having become accidentally doubled
and λόγοις subsequently added to explain πειθοῖς, which he holds to
be no Greek word at all: it seems indeed to be met with nowhere
else. Dr. Hort’s comment on this learned trifling is instructive:
“Though it cannot be said that recent attempts in Holland to revive
conjectural criticism for the N. T. have shown much felicity of
suggestion, they cannot be justly condemned on the ground of
principle” (Introd., p. 277).

256 Thus Canon I of this chapter includes (12), (19): Canon III includes
(2), (3), (4), (8), (9), (10); while (13) comes under Canon IV; (20)
under Canon VI.

257 “Canon Criticus” xxiv, N. T., by G. D. T. M. D., p. 12, 1735.

258 Dean Burgon cites (Revision Revised, pp. 359, 360) “no less than
thirty ancient witnesses.”

259 ’The precept, if we omit the phrase, is in striking harmony with the
at first sight sharp, extreme, almost paradoxical character of
various other precepts of the “Sermon on the Mount.” Milligan, Words
of the N. T., p. 111.

260 Very similar in point of moral feeling is the variation between
ὀλιγοπιστίαν, the gentler, intrinsically perhaps the more probable,
and ἀπιστίαν, the more emphatic term, in Matt. xvii. 20. Both must
have been current in the second century, the former having the
support of Codd. אB, 13, 22, 33, 124, 346 [_hiat_ 69], the
Curetonian Syriac (and that too against Cod. D), both Egyptian, the
Armenian and Ethiopic versions, Origen, Chrysostom (very expressly,
although his manuscripts vary), John Damascene, but of the Latins
Hilary alone. All the rest, including Codd. CD, the Peshitto Syriac,
and the Latins among first class witnesses, maintain ἀπιστίαν of the
common text.

261 Perhaps I may refer to my “Textual Guide,” p. 120. The utmost
caution should be employed in the use of this kind of evidence:
perhaps nowhere else do authorities differ so much.—ED.

262 E.g. Irenaeus, Contra Haereses, v. 30. 1, for which see below, p.
261: the early date renders this testimony most weighty.

263 In deference to Lardner and others, who have supposed that Ignatius
refers to the sacred autographs, we subjoin the sentence in dispute.
Ἐπεὶ ἤκουσά τινων λεγόντων, ὅτι ἐὰν μὴ ἐν τοῖς ἀρχαίοις εὕρω, ἐν τῷ
εὐαγγελίῳ οὐ πιστεύω; καὶ λέγοντός μου αὐτοῖς, ὅτι γέγραπται,
ἀπεκρίθησάν μοι, ὅτι πρόκειται. Ἐμοὶ δὲ ἀρχεῖά ἐστιν Ἰησοῦς Χριστός
κ.τ.λ. (Ad Philadelph. c. 8.) On account of ἀρχεῖα in the succeeding
clause, ἀρχείοις has been suggested as a substitute for the
manuscript reading ἀρχαίοις, and so the interpolators of the genuine
Epistle have actually written. But without denying that a play on
the words was designed between ἀρχαίοις and ἀρχεῖα, both copies of
the Old Latin version maintain the distinction made in the Medicean
Greek (“si non in veteribus invenio” and “Mihi autem principium est
Jesus Christus”), and any difficulty as to the sense lies not in
ἀρχαίοις but in πρόκειται. Chevallier’s translation of the passage
is perfectly intelligible, “Because I have heard some say, Unless I
find it in the ancient writings, I will not believe in the Gospel.
And when I said to them, ‘It is written [in the Gospel],’ they
answered me, ‘It is found written before [in the Law].’ ” Gainsayers
set the first covenant in opposition to the second and better one.

264 Thus Dr. Westcott understands the term, citing from Tertullian, De
Monogamia, xi: “sciamus planè non sic esse in Graeco authentico.”
Dean Burgon refers us to Routh’s “Opuscula,” vol. i. pp. 151 and
206.

265 Compare too Jerome’s expression “ipsa authentica” (Comment. in
Epist. ad Titum), when speaking of the autographs of Origen’s
Hexapla: below, p. 263.

266 The view I take is Coleridge’s (Table Talk, p. 89, 2nd ed.). “I beg
Tertullian’s pardon; but among his many _bravuras_, he says
something about St. Paul’s autograph. Origen expressly declares the
reverse;” referring, I suppose, to the passage cited below, p. 263.
Bp. Kaye, the very excellence of whose character almost unfitted him
for entering into the spirit of Tertullian, observes: “Since the
whole passage is evidently nothing more than a declamatory mode of
stating the weight which he attached to the authority of the
Apostolic Churches; to infer from it that the very chairs in which
the Apostles sat, or that the very Epistles which they wrote, then
actually existed at Corinth, Ephesus, Rome, &c., would be only to
betray a total ignorance of Tertullian’s style” (Kaye’s
“Ecclesiastical History ... illustrated from the writings of
Tertullian,” p. 313, 2nd ed.). Just so: the autographs were no more
in those cities than the chairs were: but it suited the purpose of
the moment to suppose that they were extant; and, _knowing nothing
to the contrary_, he boldly sends the reader in search of them.

267 I do not observe, as some have thought, that Eusebius (Hist. Eccl.
v. 10) intimates that the copy of St. Matthew’s Gospel in Hebrew
letters, left by St. Bartholomew in India, was the Evangelist’s
autograph; and the fancy that St. Mark wrote with his own hand the
Latin fragments now at Venice (_for._) is worthy of serious notice.
The statement twice made in the “Chronicon Paschale,” of Alexandria,
compiled in the seventh century, _but full of ancient fragments_,
that ὡσεὶ τριτὴ was the true reading of John xix. 14 “καθὼς τὰ
ἀκριβῆ βιβλία περιέχει, αὐτό τε τὸ ἰδιόχειρον τοῦ εὐαγγελιστοῦ ὅπερ
μέχρι τοῦ νῦν πεφύλακται χάριτι Θεοῦ ἐν τῇ ἐφεσίων ἁγιωτάτῃ ἐκκλησίᾳ
καὶ ὑπὸ τῶν πιστῶν ἐκεῖσε προσκυνεῖται” (Dindorf, Chron. Pasch., pp.
11 and 411), is simply incredible. Isaac Casaubon, however, a most
unimpeachable witness, says that this passage, and another which he
cites, were found by himself in a fine fragment of the Paschal
treatise of “Peter Bp. of Alexandria and martyr” [d. 311], which he
got from Andrew Damarius, a Greek merchant or calligrapher
(Pattison, Life of Is. Casaubon, p. 38). Casaubon adds to the
assertion of Peter “Hec ille. Ego non ignoro quid adversus hanc
sententiam possit disputari: de quo judicium esto eruditorum”
(Exercit. in Annal. Eccles. pp. 464, 670, London, 1614).

268 “I have no doubt,” says Tischendorf, “that in the very earliest ages
after our Holy Scriptures were written, and before the authority of
the Church protected them, wilful alterations, and especially
additions, were made in them,” English N. T., 1869, Introd. p. xv.

269 Caius (175-200) in Routh’s “Reliquiae,” ii. 125, quoted in Burgon’s
“Revision Revised,” p. 323.

270 “Necdum quoque Marcion Ponticus de Ponto emersisset, cujus magister
Cerdon sub Hygino tunc episcopo, qui in Urbe nonus fuit, Romam
venit: quem Marcion secutus...” Cyprian., Epist. 74. Cf. Euseb.,
Eccl. Hist., iv. 10, 11.

271 Dean Burgon attributes more importance to Marcion’s mutilations.
_See_ e.g. “The Revision Revised,” pp. 34-35.

272 In 1 Cor. x. 9 Marcion seems to uphold the true reading against the
judgement of Epiphanius: ὁ δὲ μαρκίων ἀντὶ τοῦ _κν_ _χν_ ἐποίησεν.
Consult also Bp. Lightfoot’s note (Epistle to the Colossians, p.
336, n. 1) on Heracleon’s variation of πέντε for ἓξ in John ii. 20.
“There is no reason to think,” he says, “that Heracleon falsified
the text here; he appears to have found this various reading already
in his copy.”

_ 273 See_ Chap. XI on Acts xxvii. 37.

274 Irenaeus’ anxiety that his own works should be kept free from
corruption, and the value attached by him to the labours of the
corrector, are plainly seen in a remarkable subscription preserved
by Eusebius (Eccl. Hist. v. 20), which illustrates what has been
said above, Ὁρκίζω σε τὸν μεταγραψόμενον τὸ βίβλιον τοῦτο, κατὰ τοῦ
κυρίου ἡμῶν ἰησοῦ χριστοῦ, καὶ κατὰ τῆς ἐνδόξου παρουσίας αὐτοῦ, ἧς
ἔρχεται κρῖναι ζῶντας καὶ νεκρούς, ἵνα ἀντιβάλλῃς ὃ μετεγράψω, καὶ
κατορθώσῃς αὐτὸ πρὸς τὸ ἀντίγραφον τοῦτο, ὅθεν μετεγράψω ἐπιμελῶς,
καὶ τὸν ὅρκον τοῦτον ὁμοίως μεταγράψῃς, καὶ θήσεις ἐν τῷ ἀντιγράφῳ.
Here the copyist (ὁ μεταγραφόμενος) is assumed to be the same person
as the reviser or corrector. Mr. Linwood also (_ubi supra_, p. 11)
illustrates from Martial (Lib. vii. Epigram. x) the reader’s natural
wish to possess an author’s original manuscript rather than a less
perfect copy: _Qui vis_ archetypas _habere nugas_. A still stronger
illustration of the passage in Irenaeus (v. 30) is Linwood’s
citation of a well-known passage in Aulus Gellius, a contemporary of
that Father, wherein he discusses with Higinus the corrupt variation
_amaro_ for _amaror_ in Virgil, Geor. ii. 247 (Noctes Atticae, Lib.
i. cap. 21).

275 Μακάριοι, φησίν, οἱ δεδιωγμένοι ἕνεκεν δικαιοσύνης, ὅτι αὐτοὶ υἱοὶ
Θεοῦ κληθήσονται; ἤ, ὥς τινες τῶν μετατιθέντων τὰ Εὐαγγέλια,
Μακάριοι, φησίν, οἱ δεδιωγμένοι ὑπὸ τῆς δικαιοσύνης, ὅτι αὐτοὶ
ἔσονται τέλειοι; καί, μακάριοι οἱ δεδιωγμένοι ἕνεκα ἐμοῦ, ὅτι ἔξουσι
τόπον ὅπου οὐ διωχθήσονται (Stromata, iv. 6). Tregelles (Horne, p.
39, note 2) pertinently remarks that Clement, in the very act of
censuring others, subjoins the close of Matt. v. 9 to v. 10, and
elsewhere himself ventures on liberties no less extravagant, as when
he thus quotes Matt. xix. 24 (or Luke xviii. 25): πειστέον οὖν πολλῷ
μᾶλλον τῇ γραφῇ λεγούσῃ, Θᾶττον κάμηλον διὰ τρυπήματος βελόνης
διελεύσεσθαι, ἢ πλούσιον φιλοσοφεῖν (Stromata, ii. 5).

276 In this place (contrary to what might have been inferred from the
language of Irenaeus, cited above, p. 262, note 2) the copyist
(γραφεύς) is clearly distinct from the corrector (διορθωτής), who
either alters the words that stand in the text, or adds to and
subtracts from them. In Cobet’s masterly Preface to his own and
Kuenen’s “N. T. ad fidem Cod. Vaticani,” Leyden, 1860, pp.
xxvii-xxxiv, will be found most of the passages we have used that
bear on the subject, with the following from classical writers,
“Nota est Strabonis querela xiii. p. 609 de bibliopolis, qui libros
edebant γραφεῦσι φαύλοις χρώμενοι, καὶ οὐκ ἀντιβάλλοντες... Sic in
Demosthenis Codice Monacensi ad finem Orationis xi annotatum est
Διωρθώθη πρὸς δύο Ἀττικιανά, id est, _correctus est_ (hic liber) _ex
duobus codicibus ab Attico_ (nobili calligrapho) _descriptis_.” Just
as at the end of each of Terence’s plays the manuscripts read
“Calliopius recensui.”

277 No doubt certain that are quite or almost peculiar to Cod. D would
deserve consideration if they were not destitute of adequate
support. Some may be inclined to think the words cited above in vol.
I. p. 8 not unworthy of Him to whom they are ascribed. The margin of
the Harkleian Syriac alone countenances D in that touching appendage
to Acts viii. 24, which every one must wish to be genuine, ος πολλα
κλαιων ου διελυ[ι]μπανεν. Several minute facts are also inserted by
D in the latter part of the same book, which are more likely to rest
on traditional knowledge than to be mere exercises of an idle fancy.
Such are απο ωρας ε εως δεκατης annexed to the end of Acts xix. 9:
και Μυρα to Acts xxi. 1; the former of which is also found in Cod.
137 and the Harkleian margin; the latter in the Sahidic and one or
two Latin copies.

278 Considering that Cod. D and the Latin manuscripts contain the
variation in Luke iii. 22, but not in Matt. iii. 17, we ought not to
doubt that Justin Martyr (p. 331 B, ed. Paris, 1636) and Clement (p.
113, ed. Potter) refer to the former. Hence Bp. Kaye (Account of the
Writings of Clement, p. 410) should not have produced this passage
among others to show (what in itself is quite true) that “Clement
frequently quotes from memory.”

279 This point is exceedingly well stated by Canon Cook (Revised Version
of the first three Gospels, p. 176): “I will not dwell upon
indications of Arian tendencies. They are not such as we should be
entitled to rely upon.... Eusebius was certainly above the suspicion
of consciously introducing false statements or of obliterating true
statements. As was the case with many supporters of the high Arian
party, which came nearest to the sound orthodox faith, Eusebius was
familiar with all scriptural texts which distinctly ascribe to our
Lord the divine attributes and the divine name, and was far more
likely to adopt an explanation which coincided with his own system,
than to incur the risk of exposure and disgrace by obliterating or
modifying them in manuscripts which would be always open to public
inspection.”

280 “This is possible, though there is no proof of it,” is Professor
Abbot’s comment (_ubi supra_, p. 190, but _see_ above, vol. i. p.
118, note 2).

281 In the “Notitia Editionis Cod. Sin.,” 1860. They are Matt. xxvii.
64-xxviii. 20; Mark i. 1-35; Luke xxiv. 24-53; John xxi. 1-25. Other
like calculations, with much the same result, are given in
Scrivener’s “Cod. Sin.,” Introd. pp. xlii, xliii.

282 And that too hardly to the credit of either of them. “Ought it not,”
asks Dean Burgon, “sensibly to detract from our opinion of the value
of their evidence to discover that _it is easier to find two
consecutive verses in which the two MSS. differ, the one from the
other, than two consecutive verses in which they entirely agree_?...
On every such occasion only one of them can possibly be speaking the
truth. Shall I be thought unreasonable if I confess that these
perpetual inconsistencies between Codd. B and 8—grave
inconsistencies, and occasionally even gross ones—altogether destroy
my confidence in either?” (Last Twelve Verses of St. Mark, pp.
77-8.)

283 Magnus siquidem hic in nostris codicibus error inolevit, dum quod in
eadem re alius Evangelista plus dixit, in alio, quia minus
putaverint, addiderunt. Vel dum eundem sensum alius aliter
expressit, ille qui unum e quatuor primum legerat, ad ejus exemplum
ceteros quoque existimaverit emendandos. _Unde accidit ut apud nos
mixta sint omnia_ (Praef. ad Damasum).

284 The precise references may be seen in Tischendorf’s, and for the
most part more exactly in Tregelles’ N. T. That on Matt. xxiv. 36 is
Tom. vii. p. 199, or vi. p. 54; on Galat. iii. 1 is Tom. vii. pp.
418, 487.

285 See our note on Luke xxii. 44 below in Chap. XI. This same writer
testifies to a practice already partially employed, of using
breathings, accents, and stops in copies of Holy Scripture. Ἐπειδὴ
δέ τινες κατὰ προσῳδίαν ἔστιζαν τὰς γραφὰς καὶ περὶ τῶν προσῳδῶν
τάδε: ὀξεῖα ᾽, δασεῖα ᾽, βαρεῖα ᾽, ψιλὴ ᾽, περισπωμένη ᾽, ἀπόστροφος
᾽, μακρὰ —, ὑφὲν ᾽, βραχεῖα ᾽, ὑποδιαστολή, Ὡσαύτως καὶ περὶ τῶν
λοιπῶν σημείων κ.τ.λ. (Epiphan., De Mensur., c. 2, Tom. iii. p. 237
Migne). This passage may tend to confirm the statements made above,
Vol. I. pp. 45-8, respecting the presence of such marks in very
ancient codices, though on the whole we may not quite vouch for Sir
F. Madden’s opinion as regards Cod. A.

286 “Evangelia quae falsavit Lucianus, apocrypha.” “Evangelia quae
falsavit Esitius [_alii_ Hesychius _vel_ Isicius], apocrypha,” occur
separately in the course of a long list of spurious books (such as
the Gospels of Thaddaeus, Matthias, Peter, James, that “nomine
Thomae quo utuntur Manichaei,” &c.) in Appendix iii to Gelasius’
works in Migne’s Patrologia, Tom. lix. p. 162 [A.D. 494]. But the
authenticity of those decrees is far from certain, and since we hear
of these falsified Gospels nowhere else, Gelasius’ knowledge of them
might have been derived from what he had read in Jerome’s “Praef. ad
Damasum.”

287 Griesbach rejoices to have Hug’s assent “in eo, in quo disputationis
de veteribus N. T. recensionibus cardo vertitur; nempe extitisse,
inde a secundo et tertio saeculo, plures sacri textûs recensiones,
quarum una, si Evangelia spectes, supersit in Codice D, altera in
Codd. BCL, alia in Codd. EFGHS et quae sunt reliqua” (Meletemata, p.
lxviii, prefixed to “Commentarius Criticus,” Pars ii, 1811). I
suppose that Tregelles must have overlooked this decisive passage
(probably the last its author wrote for the public eye) when he
states that Griesbach now “virtually gave up his system” as regards
the possibility of “drawing an actual line of distinction between
his Alexandrian and Western recensions” (An Account of the Printed
Text, p. 91). He certainly showed, throughout his “Commentarius
Criticus,” that Origen does not lend him the support he had once
anticipated; but he still held that the theory of a triple recension
was the very _hinge_ on which the whole question turned, and clung
to that theory as tenaciously as ever. THIRD EDITION. Dr. Hort (N.
T., Introd. p. 186) has since confirmed our opinion that Griesbach
was faithful to the last to the essential characteristics of his
theory, adding that “the Meletemata of 1811 ... reiterate
Griesbach’s familiar statements in precise language, while they show
a growing perception of mixture which might have led him to further
results if he had not died in the following spring.”

288 It should be also observed that ΦΣ containing SS. Matthew and Mark
are probably older than D.

289 E.g. Matt. i. 18; Acts viii. 37 for Irenaeus: Acts xiii. 33 for
Origen. It is rare indeed that the express testimony of a Father is
so fully confirmed by the oldest copies as in John i. 28, where
Βηθανίᾳ, said by Origen to be σχεδὸν ἐν πᾶσι τοῖς ἀντιγράφοις,
actually appears in א*ABC*.

290 This view is controverted in Burgon’s “Remains.”

291 Mr. A. A. Vansittart, Journal of Philology, vol. ii. No. 3, p. 35. I
suppose too that Mr. Hammond means much the same thing when he says,
“It seems almost superfluous to affirm that _every element of
evidence must be allowed its full weight_; but it is a principle
that must not be forgotten.” (Outlines of Textual Criticism, p. 93,
2nd edition.) Truly it is not superfluous to insist on this
principle when we so perpetually find the study of the cursive
manuscripts disparaged by the use of what we may venture to call the
Caliph Omar’s argument, that if they agree with the older
authorities their evidence is superfluous, if they contradict them,
it is necessarily false.

292 The evidence of Evan. R, which contains only the decisive letters
ΝΗΡΟΥ, is the more valuable, inasmuch as it has been alleged to
support the readings of documents of the other class (which no doubt
it often does) and thus to afford a confirmation of their authority;
it cannot help them much when its vote is against them. On analyzing
the 908 readings for which R is cited in Tischendorf’s eighth
edition, I find that it sides with A, the representative of the one
class, 356 times; with its better reputed rival B 157 times, where A
and B are at variance. It is with A alone of the great uncials 101
times, with B alone four, with א alone five, with C alone (but C is
lost in 473 places out of the 908) six; with D alone twenty-four.
Some of its other combinations are instructive. It is with AC
forty-two times and with ACL sixteen; with AD fifty-one and with ADL
eighteen; with אB eleven and with אBL twenty-nine; with אL nine
times; with AL nineteen; with BL fifteen; with CL never; with DL
twice. Cod. R stands unsupported by any of the preceding eighty-nine
times, seldom without some countenance (but see Luke xi. 24 ἐκ),
such as the Memphitic version, or later codices. In the places where
its fragments coincide with those of Cod. Ξ (which is much more
friendly to B) they agree 127 times, differ 105.

293 Dean Burgon avers that he is thoroughly convinced that “no reading
can be of real importance—I mean has a chance of being _true_—which
is witnessed to exclusively by a very few copies, whether uncial or
cursive.... Nothing else are such extraordinary readings, _wherever
they may happen to be found_, but fragments of primitive error,
repudiated by the Church (‘a witness and keeper of Holy Writ’) in
her corporate capacity.” (Letter in the _Guardian_, July 12, 1882.)
I cannot go quite so far as this. [Dean Burgon has left his reply.]

294 Not that we can in any way assent to the notions of Canon T. R.
Birks (Essay on the right estimation of manuscript evidence in the
text of the N. T., 1878), whose proposition that “Constant increase
of error is no certain and inevitable result of repeated
transcription” (p. 33) is true enough in itself, though we cannot
follow him when he adds that “Errors, after they have found
entrance, may be removed as well as increased in later copies. A
careful scribe may not only make fewer mistakes of his own, but he
may correct manifest faults of the manuscript from which he copies,
and avail himself of the testimony of others, so as to revise and
improve the text of that on which he chiefly relies.” Only such a
scribe would no longer be a witness for the state of the text as
extant in his generation, but a critical editor, working on
principles of his own, whether good or bad alike unknown to us.

295 Very pertinent to this matter is a striking extract from J. G.
Reiche (a critic “remarkable for extent and accuracy of learning,
and for soundness and sobriety of judgement,” as Canon Cook vouches,
Revised Version, p. 4), given in Bloomfield’s “Critical Annotations
on the Sacred Text,” p. 5, note: “In multis sanè N. T. locis
lectionis variae, iisque gravissimi argumenti, de verâ scripturâ
judicium firmum et absolutum, quo acquiescere possis, ferri nequit,
nisi omnium subsidiorum nostrorum alicujus auctoritatis suffragia,
et interna veri falsique indicia, diligenter explorata, justâ lance
expendantur.... Quod in causâ est, ut re non satis omni ex parte
circumspectâ, non solum critici tantopere inter se dissentiant, sed
etiam singuli sententiam suam toties retractent atque commutent.” In
the same spirit Lagarde, speaking of the more recent manuscripts of
the Septuagint, thus protests: “Certum est eos non a somniis
monachorum undecimi vel alius cujusquam saeculi natos, sed ex
archetypis uncialibus aut ipsos aut intercedentibus aliis derivatos.
Unde elucet criticum acuto judicio et doctrinâ probabili instructum
codicibus recentioribus collectis effecturum esse (?) quid in
communi plurium aliquorum archetypo scriptum fuerit” (Genesis, p.
19). Compare also Canon Cook, Revised Version of the First Three
Gospels, p. 5.