In the third manuscript, noted G. 82., a quarto Latin volume, containing the plays of Plautus, and part of Seneca's Tragedies of Medea and Edipus, signor Mai discovered fragments of the Books of Kings, Ezra, and Nehemiah. This discovery is peculiarly valuable, as not the smallest portion of the Gothic version of the Old Testament was known to be in existence; and, fur-ters; on which account the alphabet has been called the Cyrillic, after his ther, as it furnishes a complete refutation of the idle tale repeated by Gibbon after preceding writers, viz. that Ulphilas prudently suppressed the four Books of Kings, as they might tend to irriVOL. I. 2 P ment.1 rarity and recent date of MSS. of the entire Sclavonic Bible | examples. Dr. Mill selected various lections from this vergreatly corroborated this hypothesis of Dr. Dobrowsky, re- sion: which, from the difference of style and inequalities specting the late execution of this version of the Old Testa-observable in its execution, he ascribes to several authors: Dr. Henderson has shown, by actual collation, that it is supposed to have been executed in the eighth century.7 the Sclavonic text of the Old Testament, in the editio prin- *On the application of ancient versions to the ascerceps of the Bible printed at Ostrog in 1581, was made with taining of various readings, see pp. 286, 287. infra.; and on the assistance of the Vulgate or some ancient Latin MSS. the benefit which may be derived from them in the interfound in the Bulgarian monasteries, or that it was at least pretration of the Scriptures, see Part II. Book I. Chap. II. revised and altered according to them; and he is of opinion Sect. I. § 2. of this volume. that, if this edition were carefully collated, it would yield a rich harvest of various readings, some of which might prove of essential service to a future editor of the Septuagint.2 According to Professor Hug, the Sclavonic version exhibits the text of the Constantinopolitan recension. Dr. Do SECTION IV. CONSIDERED AS A SOURCE OF THE TEXT OF THE OLD AND NEW THE first and fundamental editions, whether of the Old or of the New Testament, are of equal authority with the manuscript from which they were derived. Referring the reader to the Bibliographical Appendix to Vol. II. for a detailed account of the various editions of the Old and New Testament, we may here remark that almost all other editions of the OLD TESTAMENT owe their origin either to that of Soncino, printed in 1488, to that of Brescia in 1494, which was followed by the Complutensian Polyglott in 1517; or lastly, to the second Bomberg edition printed at Venice in 1525-26. Almost all editions of the Hebrew Bible are masoretical, that is, have the masoretic notes and vowel points, a few only excepted, in which corrections have been introduced from manuscripts. Among the latter, De Rossi reckons all those which preceded the second Bomberg edition, that of 1525-26. All the later editions he terms masoretic; the non-masoretic editions are the more valuable. browsky pronounces it to be a very literal translation from ON THE AUTHORITY OF ANCIENT EDITIONS OF THE scripture, the Greek, the Greek construction being very frequently retained, even where it is contrary to the genius of the Sclavonian language; and in general it resembles the most ancient manuscripts, with which it agrees, even where their united evidence is against the common printed reading. "It contains at least three fourths of the readings which Griesbach has adopted into his text" [in his critical edition of the New Testament]. "Where he has few authorities, the Sclavonic mostly corroborates the authority of the textus receptus; and, where a great agreement obtains among the ancient MSS. in favour of a reading, it joins them against the common editions. It varies from Theophylact as often as it agrees with him, and has neither been altered from him nor the Vulgate ;" and it possesses few or no lectiones singulares, or readings peculiar to itself. From an edition of this version, printed at Moscow in 1614, M. Alter selected the readings of the four Gospels, and from a manuscript in the imperial library, the readings of the Acts and Epistles, which are printed in his edition of the Greek New Testament. (Vienna, 1787, 2 vols. 8vo.) Dr. Dobrowsky states With respect to the NEW TESTAMENT, after a few detached that these various lections are given with great accuracy, portions had been separately printed, two Editiones Principes but that those which Matthai has selected from the Revela- of the entire New Testament (both derived from manuscripts tion are erroneous and useless. Griesbach has given a cata-alone) were published in the sixteenth century, viz. that of logue of the Sclavonic manuscripts collated for his edition Erasmus, and that in the Complutensian Polyglott, the editors of the New Testament, communicated to him by Dobrow- of which availed themselves of only a few critical aids in sky.5 arranging the Greek text. According to one or other of these IV. ANGLO-SAXON VERSION.-Although Christianity was fundamental editions, many other editions were printed in the planted in Britain in the first century, it does not appear that course of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Among the Britons had any translation of the Scriptures in their the editions printed about the middle of the sixteenth century language earlier than the eighth century. About the year those of Robert Stephens10 claim a special notice, from his 706, Adhelm, the first bishop of Sherborn, translated the having collated many manuscripts which had not before been Psalter into Saxon; and at his earnest persuasion, Egbert consulted. The text of Stephens's editions was reprinted or Eadfrid, bishop of Lindisfarne, or Holy Island, soon after several times. Theodore Beza, however, was the first who executed a Saxon version of the Four Gospels. Not many undertook a new revision of the text of the New Testament, years after this, the learned and venerable Bede (who died with the aid of a more copious critical apparatus than his A. D. 735) translated the entire Bible into that language. predecessors had enjoyed. Beza's text, which was first There were other Saxon versions, either of the whole or of published in 1582, became the basis of numerous minor edidetached portions of the Scriptures, of a later date. A trans- tions, until the publication of the editions printed by the lation of the book of Psalms was undertaken by the illus- Elzevirs at Leyden, in 1624 and 1633, the text of which is trious King Alfred, who died A. D. 900, when it was about formed partly after that of Beza and of Stephens; and which, half finished; and Elfric, who was archbishop of Canterbury from its general adoption in the majority of subsequent ediin 995, translated the Pentateuch, Joshua, Job, Judith, part tions, has received the appellation of the textus receptus. of the book of Kings, Esther, and Maccabees. The entire Anglo-Saxon version of the Bible has never been printed: King Alfred's translation of the Psalms, with the interlineary Latin text, was edited by John Spelman, 4to. London, 1640; and there is another Saxon interlineary translation of the Psalter, deposited in the Archiepiscopal Library at Lambeth. Of the Four Gospels, there have been three editions printed; an account of which will be found in the BIBLIOGRAPHICAL APPENDIX to VOL. II., PART I. CHAP. I. SECT. V. § 4. [iv.] The Anglo-Saxon version being evidently translated from the Old Latin, Michaelis is of opinion that it may be of use in determining the readings of that version; and Semler has remarked, that it contains many readings which vary both from the Greek and Latin texts, of which he has given some SECTION V. ON THE QUOTATIONS FROM THE NEW TESTAMENT IN THE WORKS A FOURTH Source of the text of Scripture is the Quotations made from the Old and New Testaments in the writings of the FATHERS and other ECCLESIASTICAL WRITERS. Johnson's Hist. Account of English Translations of the Bible, in Bishop Watson's Collections of Theological Tracts, vol. iii. pp. 61-63. Bp. Marsh's Michaelis, vol. ii. pp. 158. 637. Kortholt, pp. 351-353. Semler, Apparatus ad Lib. Novi Test. Interp. pp. 72, 73. 8 See Bibliogr. App. to Vol. II. Part I. Chap. I. Sect. I. for an account of the editions of the Old Testament; and Sect. III. for an account of the editions of the New Testament. The earliest portion of the New Testament, printed in Greek, is the hymns of Mary and of Zacharias in Luke i. 46-55. 68-80. They are found in the appendix to an edition of the Book of Psalms in Greek. Venice, 1486, in quarto. These portions were followed by the first six chapters of Saint John's Gospel in the appendix to the Aldine edition of Gregory Nazi 1 Dr. Henderson's Biblical Researches and Travels in Russia, pp. 73, 74. 2 Ibid. p. 88. 3 Ibid. pp. 89, 90. • Dr. Henderson corroborates this account of Dr. Dobrowsky, and states that this version "may be considered as one of the most verbal ever exe. cuted. Not only is every word and particle scrupulously expressed, and made, in general, to occupy the same place in the translation that it does in the original, but the derivation and compounds, as well as the gram-anzen's poems, translated into Latin. Venice, 1504. 4to. Verses 1—14. of matical forms, are all successfully imitated." (Ibid. pp. 91, 92.) the first chapter of Saint John's Gospel appeared at Tubingen in 1514; and • Michaelis, vol. ii. pp. 153–158, 636, 637. Griesbach, Prolegomena, vol. in 1520 Melancthon edited Saint Paul's Epistle to the Romans at Wittemi. pp. cxxvii.-exxxii. Beck, Monogrammata Hermeneutices Novi Testa-berg, in 8vo. The little demand for the original text of the New Testament, menti, pp. 108, 109. Hug, vol. i. pp. 513-517. at that period, has been attributed to the universal acquiescence in the use of the Latin Vulgate version, of which there were numerous editions printed at the close of the fifteenth and at the commencement of the sixteenth century. Schott, Isagoge ad Libros Novi Fœderis, p. 632. 10 Paris, 1516, 1549, 1550, 1568. Geneva, 1551. The inanuscript of this translation is now deposited in the Cottonian Library in the British Museum (Nero, D. iv.): Mr. Astle has given a specimen of it in plate xiv. of his "Origin and Progress of Writing," and has described it in pp. 100, 101. Among the ancient Fathers of the church, those are particularly worthy of attention and collation who wrote in the Greek language; because they spoke, and read, and wrote that very language in which the sacred writings of the New Testament were originally composed. The phrase and diction of those writings were, therefore, familiar to them; they naturally expressed themselves in the Scripture style and language. When they referred to any texts of Scripture, or discoursed more at large upon them, they would of course be guided by the original Greek of the New Testament,' and not by any version which had been made, and which might possibly vary from it: whereas the Latin fathers being accustomed only to the Latin version, it is as much to be expected that they should conform their language, quotations, and comments to it; though, perhaps, upon some occasions, and according to their ability, taking notice also of the Greek original. A Latin father will be an evidence for the Latin version, where he takes no express notice of the Greek; and according to the clearness and fulness of that evidence, we may argue, that the Latin version, or some copy or copies of it, had that reading in his time, which is cited by him. And this may deserve to be attended to with regard to any omissions in the Greek MSS. which the Latin may be thought to have supplied; but still the testimony of the Latin father in this case will prove nothing more than the reading of a Latin version by what authority that version is supported is a matter of further inquiry. Indeed where it can be shown that a Latin father followed no particular version, but translated directly for himself (as Tertullian and Cyprian have frequently done); this brings us somewhat nearer to some manuscript in the original language, and may be considered, according as it shall happen to be circumstantiated, as a distinct testimony for the reading of some Greek manuscript in particular. The Greek fathers generally quote the Old Testament from the Septuagint version. Origen and Jerome are the only fathers who certainly made use of Hebrew manuscripts; and their evidence is equivalent to that of manuscripts of their age. Upwards of one hundred and eighty fathers and other ecclesiastical writers, besides Catene (or expositions of portions of Scripture compiled from collections out of several authors), are enumerated by Professor Scholz, as having cited the New Testament, either from the original Greek, or from the ancient Ante-Hieronymian Latin, and from the Syriac versions. (Those fathers who confined themselves exclusively to the use of the Latin Vulgate are designedly omitted.) Among the ancient writers, the critical testimonies of the following are justly valued, viz. :—in the second century, Irenæus and Clemens Alexandrinus; in the third century, Origen; in the fourth century, Gregory bishop of Nyssa, Gregory bishop of Nazianzum, and Chrysostom bishop of Constantinople; in the fifth century, Cyril of Alexandria, Theodoret, and Isidore of Pelusium; in the eleventh century, Theophylact; and in the twelfth century, Euthymius Zigabenus. As the criteria laid down by Michaelis and other eminent critics, for determining the text of Scripture from quotations of it in the writings of the FATHERS, more properly belong to the subject of Various Readings (see pp. 288, 289. infra), the following remarks on the relative value of the testimonies contained in the works of the writers just enumerated, may be found worthy of attention : 1. IRENEUS.-It is to be regretted that so few fragments of this father's writings are now extant in the original Greek. What has been transmitted to us has been found only in an ancient Latin version, the author of which appears to have inserted the quotations made by Irenæus from some ancient Latin translation of the Scriptures, or has rendered them inaccurately. It is evident, however, from those passages which are cited in the original Greek, that this father made use of different manuscripts; and though he sometimes coincides with the Alexandrine recension, yet he most frequently agrees with the Constantinopolitan recension. 2. CLEMENS ALEXANDRINUS mostly cites the New Testament from memory; but those passages which he has given accurately agree with the manuscripts of the Alexandrine family. Griesbach has given a collection of the passages quoted by Clemens and Origen, collated with the common or vulgate Greek text, in the second volume of his Symbolæ Critica, pp. 227-620. 3. ORIGEN used the Alexandrine text, of which he had 1 Dr. Berriman's Dissertation on 1 Tim. iii. 16. pp. 28, 29. many manuscripts. His readings are known from the references made by subsequent ecclesiastical writers to his copies of the Scriptures, as well as from his own quotations, and also from fragments inserted in the Greek Catenæ, and ascribed to him. 4, 5. The quotations which are to be found in the writings of GREGORY bishop of Nyssa, and GREGORY bishop of Nazianzuin, chiefly agree with the Constantinopolitan recension. Scholz states that these authors have so interwoven passages of Scripture in their works, that they cannot be easily detached; consequently but few various readings, and those not very important, are to be gleaned from them. 6. Great caution is requisite in making use of the quotations of CHRYSOSTOM, bishop of Constantinople; for though in his admirable commentaries on the New Testament, he very frequently adduces the very words of the sacred writers, yet, distracted by the multiplicity of business in which he was engaged, or borne away by his ardour in writing, he has cited a great number of passages from memory. Consequently, he has confounded together similar passages of the same author or of different writers: in some instances he has changed a text which he had just before quoted correctly, and very often he follows Origen. The text, therefore, which is found in Chrysostom's works, sometimes agrees with the Constantinopolitan, and sometimes with the Alexandrine recension. The entire writings of this father were collated by Matthæi; and select passages by Scholz. 7. CYRIL of Alexandria faithfully follows the Alexandrine text. 8. THEODORET, bishop of Cyra in Syria, in his commentaries for the most part agrees with the received text, though he has sometimes rashly followed either Origen or Chrysostom. 9. ISIDORE of Pelusium agrees with the manuscripts of the Alexandrine family. 10. THEOPHYLACT, archbishop of Bulgaria, in his commentaries on the Gospels, Acts, and Epistles, mostly agrees with the received text, but he also has many Alexandrine readings. 11. Lastly, EUTHYMIUS Zigabenus for the most part agrees with the Constantinopolitan text in his commentaries on the Gospels, which are chiefly collected from the writings of Basil, Gregory of Nazianzum, and Chrysostom.2 I. SECTION VI. ON THE VARIOUS READINGS OCCURRING IN THE OLD AND NEW TESTAMENTS. 1. ON THE CAUSES OF VARIOUS READINGS. The Christian faith not affected by what are called various readings.—II. Nature of various readings.—Difference between them and mere errata.-III. Notice of the principal collations and collections of various readings.-IV. Causes of various readings:-1. The negligence or mistakes of transcribers ;-2. Errors or imperfections in the manuscript copied ;-3. Critical conjecture;-4. Wilful corruptions of a manuscript from party-motives. I. THE Old and New Testaments, in common with all other ancient writings, being preserved and diffused by transcription, the admission of mistakes was unavoidable; which increasing with the multitude of copies, necessarily produced a great variety of different readings. Hence the labours of learned men have been directed to the collation of manuscripts, with a view to ascertain the genuine reading; and the result of their researches has shown, that these variations are not such as to affect our faith or practice in any thing material: they are mostly of a minute, and sometimes of a trifling, nature. "The real text of the sacred writers does not now (since the originals have been so long lost) lie in any single manuscript or edition, but is dispersed in them all. It is competently exact indeed, even in the worst manuscript now extant; nor is one article of faith or moral precept either perverted or lost in them." It is therefore a very ungrounded 2 Schott, Isagoge in Nov. Test. pp. 630, 631. Scholz, Nov. Test. Prolegom. pp. cxlv. exlii. exlvii. el. exlvi. cli Enchiridion Theologicum, vol. v. p. 163.) The various readings that affect a Dr. Bentley's Remarks on Free-thinking, rem. xxxii. (Bp. Randolph's doctrines, and require caution, are extremely few, and easily distinguished by critical rules; and where they do affect a doctrine, other passages con. firm and establish it. See examples of this observation in Michaelis, vol. i. p. 266., and Dr. Nares's Strictr es on the Unitarian Version of the New Tes tament, pp. 219–221. text.2 II. However plain the meaning of the term "Various Reading" may be, considerable difference has existed among learned men concerning its nature. Some have allowed the name only to such readings as may possibly have proceeded from the author; but this restriction is improper. Michaelis's distinction between mere errata and various readings appears to be the true one. "Among two or more different readings, one only can be the true reading; and the rest must be either wilful corruptions or mistakes of the copyist." It is often difficult to distinguish the genuine from the spurious; and whenever the smallest doubt can be entertained, they all receive the name of VARIOUS READINGS; but in cases where the transcriber has evidently written falsely, they receive the name of errata. fear that the number of various readings, particularly in the from the fathers,-nowhere contradict the sense of the evanNew Testament, may diminish the certainty of the Christian gelist; nor do they produce any material alteration in the religion. The probability, Michaelis remarks, of restoring the genuine text of any author, increases with the increase of the copies; and the most inaccurate and mutilated editions of ancient writers are precisely those, of whose works the fewest manuscripts remain. Above all, in the New Testament, the various readings show that there could have been no collusion; but that the manuscripts were written independently of each other, by persons separated by distance of time, remoteness of place, and diversity of opinions. This extensive independency of manuscripts on each other is the effectual check of wilful alteration; which must have ever been immediately corrected by the agreement of copies from various and distant regions out of the reach of the interpolator. By far the greatest number of various readings relate to trifles, many of which cannot be made apparent in a translation; and, of the rest, very few produce any alteration in the meaning of a sentence, still less in the purport of a whole paragraph. Thus we have Ad for Aud; Exquarra for Zouava; na for de; xa for (& for and 1); arra for mov; Kupes for Θες; λαλωσιν for λαλησωσιν ; Μωσης for Μαυσης; and γινεσθω for v; all which in most cases may be used indifferently. In order to illustrate the preceding remarks, and to convey an idea of their full force to the reader, the various readings of the first ten verses of St. John's Gospel are annexed in Greek and English;-and they are particularly chosen because they contain one of the most decisive proofs of the divinity of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. nus. Authorities. of Griesbach's notation; III. Human life is too short to allow of a thorough exami nation of all those monuments which are indispensably necessary to sacred criticism, in addition to the many other subjects which are equally worthy of attention. But, as many learned men have from time to time investigated different documents, extensive collections of various feadings have gradually been formed, of which the critic should avail himself. With regard to the OLD TESTAMENT, some beginnings were made by those ancient Jews to whom we owe the rejections and corrections of the scribes, and other observations, already noticed in pp. 201, 202, 203. of this volume. More recently the rabbis Todrosi, Menahem, and Norzi, collected a larger apparatus. Sebastian Munster was the first Christian editor, who in 1536 added some various readings. Not many more are found in Vander Hooght's edition, printed in 1705; but Clemens Alexandri in the subsequent editions of John Henry Michaelis, in 1720, and of Houbigant in 1753, the critical collation of various readings was very considerably enlarged. At length, after The MSS. 47. and 64. many years of unremitting toil, Dr. Kennicott produced his edition of the Hebrew Bible, printed at Oxford in 1776—80, which contained various readings collected throughout Europe, from six hundred and fifteen manuscripts, from fiftytwo editions, and from both the Talmuds. From this apparatus De Rossi selected the more important readings; and after collating seven hundred and thirty-one other manuscripts and three hundred editions, and examining fully the ancient versions and books of the rabbins, even in manuscript, he published all the various readings he had observed, in four volumes, quarto, in 1784-88, at Parma, to which he added a supplement or scholia, in 1798. As the price of their publication necessarily places them out of the reach of very many biblical students, the reader, who is desirous of availing himself of the results of their laborious and learned researches, will find a compendious abstract of them in Mr. Hamilton's" Codex Criticus." (London, 1821, 8vo.) The Codex Beza, Origen, Augustine, Hilary, and other fathers. The fragment of Bt. Aldus, Clemens Alexan- B. The Codex Vaticanus. B. The Codex Vaticanus, the MSS. 13. and 114. of Griesbach, three other MSS. of less note, and Theodotus. The MS. 235. of Gries bach, the Aldine Frag. The Vulgate and Italic (or old Ante-Hierony- other fathers. The MSS. of the old Latin Versions, denominated the Codices Veronensis, Vercellensis, ensis, edited by Blanchi ni and Sabatier; Irenæ us, Cyprian, Ambrose, once, Augustine, repeatedly. Brixiensis, and Corbei For the SEPTUAGINT VERSION, the principal collation of various readings will be found in the edition commenced by Dr. Holmes, and completed by the Rev. Dr. Parsons, at Oxford, in 1798–1827, in six volumes, folio. For the NEW TESTAMENT, the principal collations are those of Erasmus, the editors of the Complutensian and London Polyglotts, Bishop Fell, Dr. Mill, Kuster, Bengel, Wetstein, Griesbach, Matthaei, and Scholz. The collations of three hundred and fifty-five manuscripts, besides ancient versions and quotations from the fathers, were given in Dr. Griesbach's edition; and in that of Dr. Scholz we have the collations of six hundred and seventy-four manuscripts, viz. three hundred and forty-three, which were collated by his predecessors, and three hundred and thirty-one, which for the first time were collated by himself. IV. As all manuscripts were either dictated to copyists or transcribed by them, and as these persons were not supernadifferent readOn the whole, these various readings, though not selected turally guarded against the possibility of error, from any single manuscript, but from all that have been col-ings would naturally be produced:-1. By the negligence or lated, together with the ancient versions and the quotations mistakes of the transcribers; to which we may add, 2. The existence of errors or imperfections in the manuscripts copied; 3. Critical emendations of the text; and, 4. Wilful corruptions made to serve the purposes of a party. Mistakes thus produced in one copy would of course be propagated 1 Michaelis's Introduction to the New Testament, vol. i. pp. 263-268. "In profane authors," says Dr. Bentley, "(as they are called), whereof one manuscript only had the luck to be preserved, -as Velleius Paterculus among the Latins, and Hesychius among the Greeks, the faults of the scribes are found so numerous, and the defects so beyond all redress, that notwithstanding the pains of the learnedest and acutest critics for two whole centuries, those books still are, and are likely to continue, a mere heap of errors. On the contrary, where the copies of any author are numerous, though the various readings always increase in proportion, there the text, by an accurate collation of them made by skilful and judicious hands, is ever the more correct, and comes nearer to the true words of the author." Remarks on Free-thinking, in Enchirid. Theol. vol. y. p. 158. ⚫ Christian Observer for 1807, vol, vi. p. 221. Novum Testamentum, a Scholz, tom. i. p. 345. An account of their labours is given by Dr. Kennicott in his Dissertatio Generalis, pp. 111-131., and by De Rossi, in his Variæ Lectiones, pp. 39-43. Detailed accounts of the critical editions of the Old and New Testa ments, above mentioned, will be found in the BIBLIOGRAPHICAL APPENDIX to Vol. II. Part I. Chap. I. Sect. L. and III. through all succeeding copies made from it, each of which might likewise have peculiar faults of its own; so that various readings would thus be increased, in proportion to the number of transcripts that were made. 1. Various readings have been occasioned by the NEGLIGENCE or MISTAKES OF THE TRANSCRIBERS. (1.) When a manuscript is dictated, whether to one or to several copyists, the party dictating might not speak with sufficient clearness; he might read carelessly, and even utter words that were not in his manuscript; he might pronounce different words in the same manner. The copyist, therefore, who should follow such dictation, would necessarily produce different readings. One or two examples will illustrate this remark. In Eph. iv. 19. St. Paul, speaking of the Gentiles, while without the Gospel, says, that being past feeling, they gave themselves over to lascivious. ness. For y past feeling (which the context shows to be the genuine reading), several manuscripts, versions, and fathers read a ROTES, being without hope. Dr. Mill is of opinion, that this lection proceeded from some ignorant copyist who had in his mind Saint Paul's account of the Gentiles in Eph. ii. 12. where he said that they had no hope, sia un IX. But for this opinion there is no foundation whatever. The ancient copyists were not in general men of such subtile genius. It is therefore most probable that the word as crept in, from a mis-pronunciation on the part of the persons dictating. The same remark will account for the reading of vario, young children, instead of, gentle, in 1 Thess. ii. 7., which occurs in many manuscripts, and also in several versions and fathers. But the scope and context of this passage prove that cannot be the original reading. It is the Thessalonians, whom the apostle considers as young children, and himself and fellow-labourers as the nurse. He could not therefore with any propriety say that he was among them as a little child, while he himself professed to be their nurse. (2.) Further, as many Hebrew and Greek letters are similar both in sound and in form, a negligent or illiterate copyist might, and the collation of manuscripts has shown that such transcribers did, occasion various readings by substituting one word or letter for another. As the permutation, or interchanging, of vowel points, letters, and even entire words, which are to be found in Hebrew manuscripts, are copiously treated by Muntinghe, the following instance will suffice to show how easily various readings may thus be produced: Judg. viii. 16. He taught the men of Succoth.-Instead of y he taught, Houbigant reads he tore: and this reading is not only agreeable to what Gideon had threatened in the seventh verse, but is also supported by the Septuagint, Chaldee, Syriac, Vulgate, and Arabic versions. The He brew text might have been easily corrupted in this place by the change of (shin) into y (ain); letters which are very similar to each other. Of the permutations in Greek MSS. the Codex Cottonianus of the book of Genesis presents many very striking examples. (3.) In like manner the transcribers might have mistaken the line on which the copy before them was written, for part of a letter; or they might have mistaken the lower stroke of a letter for the line; or they might have mistaken the true sense of the original, and thus have altered the reading; at the same time they were unwilling to correct such mistakes as they detected, lest their pages should appear blotted or defaced, and thus they sacrificed the correctness of their copy to the beauty of its appearance. This is particularly observable in Hebrew manuscripts. (4.) A person having written one or more words from a wrong place, and not observing it, or not choosing to erase it, might return to the right line, and thus produce an improper insertion of a word or a clause. Of this we have a striking instance in John vii. 26.-Do the rulers know INDEED (5), that this is the VERY Christ (eλntus ó Xpisos, TRULY the Christ) The second is wanting in the Codices Vaticanus, Cantabrigiensis (or Codex Beza), Cyprius, Stephani, or Regius 62, Nanianus, and Ingolstadiensis, in numbers 1, 13, 28, 40, 63, 69, 116, 118, and 124, of Griesbach's notation, and nine other manuscripts of less note, which are not specified by him; it is also wanting in the manuscripts noted by Matthæi with the letters a, 1, s, and 10, in all the editions of the Arabic version, in Wheeloc's edition of the Persian version, in the Coptic, Armenian, Sclavonic, and Vulgate versions; and in all the copies of the Old Italic version, except that of Brescia. Origen, Epiphanius, Cyril, Isidore of Pelusium, Chry sostom, and Nonnus, among the ancient fathers; and Grotius, Mill, Bengel, Bishop Pearce, and Griesbach, among the modern writers, are all unanimous in rejecting the word . The sentence in 1 Cor. x. 28. Tov yap Kupon xus тo #λпρuμ νтиs, The earth is the Lord's and the fulness thereof, is wanting in the Codices Alexandrinus, Vaticanus, Cantabrigiensis, Basileensis, Boreeli, Harleianus No. 5861, and Seidelii, and in Nos. 10, 17, 28, 46, 71, 73, and 80, of Griesbach's notation; it is also wanting in the Syriac version, in Erpenius's edition of the Arabic version, in the Coptic, Sahidic, Ethiopic, Armenian, Vulgate, and Old Italic versions, and in the quotations of the fathers, Johannes Damascenus, Ambrosiaster, Augustine, Isidore of Pelusium, and Bede. Griesbach has left it out of the text, as a clause that ought most undoubtedly to be erased. There is, in fact, scarcely any authority to support it; and the clause is superfluous; in all probability it was inserted from the twenty-sixth verse, which is word for word the same. (5.) When a transcriber had made an omission, and afterwards observed it, he then subjoined what he had omitted, and thus produced a transposition.5 Thus, Matt. v. 4. is subjoined to 5. in the Codex Bezæ, in the Vulgate ver sion, and in the quotation of Jerome. Luke xxiii. 17. is omitted in the Codices Alexandrinus, Vaticanus Cyprius, and Stephani, in the Coptic and Sahidic versions, and in the Codex Vercellensis of the Old Italic version; and it is subjoined to the nineteenth verse in the Codex Beza. In like manner, Rom. i. 29. is very different in different copies. In the Textus Receptus or common editions, we read, dixix, #OPVEIN, TOUNDIN, TALOVEŽI, xanız,—unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness. In the Codex Alexandrinus and Ethiopic version, we read, axix, wormpix, XXNIR, WASOVIŽIZ,—unrighteousness, wickedness, maliciousness, covetous In the Codex Claromontanus, we read, dixi, xuxin, wрovein, wλEOVIŽIM,— In the Vulgate version, we read, iniquitate, malitiâ, fornicatione, avari tiâ, nequitia, whence it is evident that the authors of that translation read, αδίκια, πονηρία, πορνεία, πλεονεξία, κακία. And ness. The order of the words in the Syriac version shows that its authors read, dixin, mopsia, mounρix, xuxia, soviĘ,—unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, maliciousness, covetousness. Thus, B and M are interchanged in Gen. xliii. 11. Tapsov is written for Topsov and K, as yuvayes for xungos, x. 9.; and è contrax for φαλιγ, xi. 16. -Γ and N, as συγκόψουσιν for συκκόψουσιν, xxxiv. 30. --Γ and X, as pixμτ for saμт, xxxvii. 6.--A and A as Kivious for KidVOUS, XV. 19.; and è contra Aidaμ for Aiλwu, xxxvi. 2-A and N, as N-unrighteousness, maliciousness, covetousness. Spay for Nesped, x. 9.--A and T, as Arar for Arad, x. 10., &c.-Z and 2, as Xaras for Xacad, xxii. 22.; and Manapscovery for xxxpicovov, xxx. 13.-Θ and X, Οχοζ=x for Ox αθ, χχνί. 26.-Θ and T, αποτραφήτε for αποςρα. , xvi. 9.--K and X, as Kaλax for Xanax, x. 11.; and oux for ovx, xili. 9.Il and, as vos for upт, xxxix. 9. Sometimes consonants are added to the end of the words apparently for the sake of euphony; as Χαβαλ for Χαβα, χίν. 15.-γυναικων for γυναίκα, xi. 13.--Ενίλατ for Ενίλα, x. 7.-M is generally retained in the different flexions of the verb Azμbavo, 6, xviii. 4. And also in the word pans, xix. 17. This also in the future nouzi, nori, xiv. 23, 24, &c. and in the aorist, Anuscripts referable to this head, is the addition of letters to the is common in the Codex Vaticanus. Sometimes a double consonant is expressed by a single one, and vice versa: for instance, VT for vvs. κοντα, ν. 9., and Συνναπp for Σενααρ, x. 10. ; Ψελία for ψελλία, χχίν. 47, &c. The VOWELS are often interchanged; for instance, A and E, as Tiσσip. ROUT* for T150XPERT, vii. 4., avas for av, xxi. 14-A and H, as aviv for nožev, viii. 6., maxxipe for μxxxpx, xxvii. 40.-E and H, as a for 1941, xxv. 29, nuvian for union, xxviii. 12.—H and I, as KITICI for Karin, X. 4. Xx for x, xlix. 11.-H and I, as x for x, vi. 17.--Pinus for Pivax, xxi. 24.---0 and T, as epub for Sopo, vi. 17.--0 and, as Po69 for Powe, x. 11.--The Vowels are often interchanged with the Diphthongs; for instance, AI and E, as virzi for mixsis, xix. 2., xviviyxai for avoveyxs, xxii. 2., dio for 80v, XXXV. 27., **** for TET, xlii. 38.--E and A, as yup for yp, xv. 15.-EI and E, as vix for evex, xviii. 5.-EI and H, as and ..., xviii. 19.-El and I, as is for 5, xviii. 8., yuvix for yuvixx, xviii. 11., quis for use, xxxi. 41., xprov for xpiov, xv. 9, &c.—O1 and H, as for Aas, xxxi. 50.-OT and H, as Aps for Anpous, xxvii. 27.; and, lastly, ΟΥ and di, as καταρουμενους for καταρωμένους, xii. 13.3 The manuscripts of the New Testament abound with similar instances of Derinutations. Thus we meet with Auvad for Auvadaß, in Matt. i. 4. As for Az, in Matt i. 14.; Six Twμ for de Tv Tv, in Matt. xi. 2; Maray for Marar, in Luke iii. 24.; μxpavn for μopa", in Luke xiv. 34. ; TOTO for TUTV, in John xx. 25. ; xxp for xup, in Rom. xii. 11.; Axus for A 13.5, in Matt. i. 1., and in many other passages. The reader will find numerous other examples in the elder Michaelis's Dissertation on various readings. Permutations of this kind are very frequent in ancient manuscripts, and also in inscriptions on coins, medals, stones, pillars, and other monuments of antiquity. 1 Brevis Expositio Critices Veteris Fœderis, pp. 87-108. Dr. A. Clarke, on Judg. viii. 16. Dr. Holmes's Edition to the Septuagint, vol. i. Præf. cap. ii. $i. D. Christiani Benedicti Michaelis Tractatio Critica de Variis Lectionibus Novi Testamenti, pp. 8-10. Hala Magdeburgicæ, 1749, 4to. (6.) Another cause of various lections in Hebrew manulast word in the lines in order to preserve their symmetry ; and in Greek manuscripts omissions are frequently occasioned by what is called iμarr (homoeoteleuton), or when a word after a short interval occurs a second time in a passage. Here, the transcriber having written the word at the beginning of the passage, on looking at the book again from which he copies, his eye catches the same word at the end of the passage, and continuing to write what immediately follows, he of course omits intermediate words. This fact will account for the omission of the concluding sentence of Matt. v. 19., and the whole of verse 30., in the Codex Bezæ, and also 1 John ii. 23. Again, in Matt. xxviii. 9. the words YRA TOIS μHTS TO (to tell his disciples), are omitted from the same cause, in the Codices Vaticanus and Beza, in the MSS. by Griesbach numbered 10, 33, 49, 59, 60, 69, 119, 142*, 225, 227, the Evangelisteria numbered 1, 13, 15, 17, 32, in the second of the Barberini MSS., and in those noted d. and q. by Matthæi; as well as in the Syriac, Arabic (as printed in the London Polyglott), Persic, Coptic, Armeof Brescia), and by the fathers Origen, Chrysostom, Jerome, and Augus nian, Vulgate Latin, Saxon, and Old Italic Versions (except the inanuscript tine. And Mark ix. 26. is omitted in the Codices Vaticanus 1209, Stephani 157, in Matthæi's 17, in the Coptic Version, the Codex Sangermanensis 2 , Vaticanus 354, and the MSS. by Griesbach numbered 2, 27, 63, 64, 121, of the Italic Version, in the printed editions of Aldus and Frobenius, and by Theophylact. (7.) As all the most ancient manuscripts were written in capital letters, and without any spaces between words, or even sentences, syllables are frequently omitted or repeated. So, careless or ignorant transcribers have very often mistaken the notes of abbreviation, which are of frequent occurrence in • Dr. Gerard's Institutes of Biblical Criticism, p. 238. |