He does not enter into the discussion of the peculiarities of the various writers of the New Testament; he leaves the subject to be considered with the attention which it deserves. A New Testament grammar would be needed to discuss all these points fully. To his remarks on the Alexandrian dialect, he adds an announcement of an edition of the LXX, which he proposes to publish in a few months.

To the remarks of Tischendorf on the subject of Alexandrian forms, we would briefly add, that here too we must be guided simply by evidence; we do not expect that there was in the original autographs of the New Testament precise uniformity in the use of dialectic distinctions; and therefore while we fully acquiesce in the principle of the admission of these forms, we consider that in each occurrence of such a form, the evidence must be weighed which belongs to that particular case.

We have now stated the critical principles which Tischendorf has laid down as those on which his text is formed, and we have considered the principal passages which he has cited in elucidation of these principles. Our readers will, we believe, gather from what we have said, how far we accord with this learned and laborious critic, and how far we do not. We should use his general principle yet more widely than he does: we should seek for the true text in the most ancient MSS., using the collateral aid of versions and early citations, and we should subject all modifying rules to the claims of absolute evidence. We should restrict the application of such modifying rules to passages in which the real conflict of evidence is great. We should also consider that in many cases we could do no more than state the balance of probabilities; so that besides the reading given in the text, other readings should be mentioned as possessing a strong claim to attention. We propose, before we conclude this notice, to consider the manner in which Tischendorf has applied his principles to particular pas

sages.

We do not wish our remarks to be at all misunderstood: we therefore state distinctly that in this learned editor's critical principles we find far more with which we agree than the contrary, and that the principles and illustrations alike deserve to be considered attentively.

On the subject of Recensions of the text, Tischendorf first gives an account (from his own former Leipsig edition) of the systems proposed by others, and then he briefly expresses his own.

Bengel is first here spoken of as bringing forward distinctions of MSS. into two classes. We may however mention, that pretty

plain intimations of the same thing had been previously given by Bentley.

After an allusion to Semler, Tischendorf speaks of Griesbach and his system; then of the modifications proposed by Hug and Eichhorn the supposed recension undertaken by Origen is rightly described as a mere creation of Hug's imagination.

:

The actual documents which we possess must be divided, we think, if any classification be attempted, into two primary families: those which contain the ancient text, and those which follow the more modern. The former of these classes (although differing among themselves in many particulars) possess features of general agreement, and these are in general also found in the more ancient versions and in the citations. The later MSS. agree amongst themselves more exactly than the most ancient do, and the more recent versions accord with these MSS. The Greek MSS. from the 12th century and onward present a marked agreement, and this is the most recent form of the text.

These are the facts of the case, and on these Tischendorf proposes his classification, applicable especially (he says) to the Gospels, least of all to the Apocalypse, and more so to the Acts and Pauline Epistles than to the Catholic Epistles. These classes he thinks might be called Alexandrian and Latin, Asiatic and Byzantine, not as being four separate classes, but rather two pairs: the first pair would comprehend the more ancient documents, the latter the more recent. He then explains what MSS. he would place under each denomination; while at the same time he fully allows that all attempts at defining the origin of each class is beset with difficulties.

It may, we believe, be questioned how far an actual classification of MSS. is practicable beyond the distinction of the ancient and the more recent; subdivisions no doubt exist, and thus there are general truths on which Tischendorf's arrangement is based. Thus, in St. Paul's Epistles, ABC belong to one division, D (with E) F G to another of the same general class; while J K on the one hand, and the MSS. later than the 12th century on the other, may be regarded as divisions of the other class. We cannot here carry on the subject farther: its principal importance is, we consider, in connection with the history of the modernization of the text if the term recension be used at all, it ought, we think, to be applied only to those attempts to correct the ancient text out of which the modern text has arisen.

The next subject of which Tischendorf treats is the order of the books in the New Testament; he then considers the orthography of some of the proper names in the New Testament; he

then

then gives a few brief remarks on accents and breathings, subjects however which he leaves to be discussed elsewhere, as well as the more important topic of punctuation.

But although the subject of punctuation is not discussed by Tischendorf in his Prolegomena, there is a passage in his text to which we wish to call attention with regard to this point. Rom. ix. 5. καὶ ἐξ ὧν ὁ Χριστὸς τὸ κατὰ σάρκα, ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων θεὸς εὐλογητὸς εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας. Αμήν. Such is the common punctuation; but Tischendorf, in his first Leipsig edition, has imitated some other modern editors in putting a full stop after água. In his Paris edition (the Protestant one dedicated to M. Guizot, we mean) the common punctuation of this verse is followed; but in the new Leipsig edition, which we have now under consideration, the point is again placed at oάgna. Such a change as this ought to be supported by very strong evidence. Now the testimony of Fathers must be at least allowed this negative value, that if they with remarkable unanimity take words in a particular connection, it shows that the words may be so taken without violating grammar or context. Now that the Fathers do take these words in the connection to which we are accustomed is a fact; there are no less than eighteen writers within the first four centuries who are proofs of this: nor are there any that can be cited in opposition (in spite of the very erroneous statements of Wetstein); and thus it is manifest that the onus probandi rests on any who would divide the sentence by inserting a period at sagxa. The versions too confirm the common division.

But it is surprising that any should adopt this new punctuation; for it leaves a clause of a sentence such as is altogether opposed to the principles of Greek collocation. We suppose that it is intended that the words should be understood as a doxology, God who is over all [be] blessed for ever!' Had a doxology been intended the collocation must have been entirely different: Evλoyntos must have introduced the sentence. And this Socinus himself admitted. This is evident to any one who will compare the doxologies in other parts of the New Testament and the LXX. Thus, whether we look at the passage in connection with authority or philology, the division of the sentence at opnaa is equally opposed. In fact the division was originally suggested by some in opposition to the application of ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων θεός to Christ, and others may have adopted it without due consideration. (On the whole passage, see Biblical Notes and Critical Dissertations,' by J. J. Gurney, pp. 423-456.) Those who would make

a We are well aware that in the Codex Ephraemi (C) there is a point after oάρка; but this is no indication of such a stop as a period. A similar point occurs just before after énayyeλía, where no one could introduce such a break.

the

the concluding words of this sentence a doxology are by no means agreed where to place the stop. We have seen where it is introduced by Tischendorf: the late Dr. De Wette, however, translates thus:- -und aus welchen Christus stammet nach dem Fleische, der über alle ist. Gott sie gepriesen in Ewigkeit! Amen.

A new punctuation is here not only needless but it is inadmissible; the only connection of the words which will bear the test of criticism is the one commonly received; the climax of what the Apostle has to say of the privileges conferred on Israel-' of whom, as concerning the flesh, Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.'

In speaking of editions of the New Testament, Tischendorf first mentions the Elzevir. A list of 115 places in which this text differs from that of Stephens 1550, had been given in Tischendorf's former Leipsig edition; to those he added twelve more in his Paris edition, and now he gives a list of eighteen others, eight of which are in the Apocalypse (all of which had been pointed out in the Introduction to Tregelles's' Greek and English Revelation,' p. xxxiv.): these variations of the Stephanic and the Elzevir text are indicated at the bottom of the page; the importance of this consists in the fact that MSS. in general have been collated with one or the other of the two texts, and thus the places in which they differ demand particular attention.

The number of differences between these two texts as given by Tischendorf is, then, one hundred and forty-five; in collating them together we have noticed one hundred and fifty-two. In 1 Pet. i. 3, Tischendorf omits the discrepancy of the two texts. Stephens has ἀναγεννήσας ἡμᾶς, but the Elzevir reads ὑμᾶς ; and in the next verse he follows Griesbach in giving us as the reading of Stephens, and uas as that of Elzevir; the fact, however, is that both read nuas, so this should be omitted from his list. So too in 1 Pet. iii. 7, where he also follows Griesbach in giving ovyxλnpovóμois as the Elzevir reading; whereas that text really coincides with that of Stephens in the reading συγκληρονόμοι. Also in Luke xiii. 8, nonpiav is given as the 'received' reading, when in fact it is merely that of Stephens; the Elzevir has xogía (sic), differing only in the accent from that adopted by Griesbach and Tischendorf.

We have in such comparisons found it needful to use the original editions of Stephens and the Elzevirs, and not any reprints. We believe that most of the discrepancies of this kind have arisen from the use of reprints which do not accurately follow the text on which they are based.

After

After a brief notice of the labours and merits of Griesbach as a textual critic, Tischendorf mentions Scholz, to whom all who prize such studies are indebted for his labours in pointing out where MSS. exist and increasing thus our knowledge of materials. He speaks of Scholz having first drawn attention to the uncial MSS. WXYг. With regard to X, this is a mistake, for Griesbach mentions this MS. as being then in the public library of Ingolstadt, and he received some of its readings in Luke and John from Dobrowsky. The Text of Scholz is severely criticised by Tischendorf, both as to its critical principles and as to its inaccuracies; these errors have also been noticed by others; we have pointed out some of the more remarkable to Scholz himself. His real merit in connection with New Testament criticism lies in his diligence in exploring libraries and giving information as to what MSS. had been previously unexamined.

Tischendorf next speaks of his own Paris editions, although in chronological order Lachmann's smaller edition would have preceded. We will, however, follow his order and mention in this place the editions which he published anterior to the one now under our consideration. The first was his Leipsig edition of 1841, with Prolegomena and Critical Apparatus: this was executed prior to his own important labours of collation. At Paris in 1842, he published three editions; one with the Latin Vulgate in a parallel column, and having the Greek text conformed to the Clementine Latin, wherever any MS. authority whatever would at all support it. At the end, a table is given of the variations of Stephens' third edition and Griesbach's second from this peculiar recension of the Greek text. There was also (though not noticed by Tischendorf in the Prolegomena before us) a smaller edition of this Greek text in conformity with the Latin Vulgate, printed in the same year, but without the Latin and without the various readings at the end. Both of these editions were addressed in the same dedication to the late Archbishop Affre of Paris.

Besides these, there was an edition which generally followed that which had appeared in the preceding year at Leipsig; it has no critical apparatus, but the variations of the editions of Stephens, Elzevir, and Griesbach are subjoined at the end. This edition is dedicated to M. Guizot.b Tischendorf now states that

he

b The dedications to these Paris editions are curious memorials of the mutability of all things human. That to M. Guizot,quem Lutetia doctum et perfectum admiratur oratorem, quem gloriæ suæ Francia colit custodem ac defensorem,' concludes thus: Quod reliquum est, vir summe, vale! Vale ut semper TUAM illustres patriam, ut gentium conserves pacem, ut augeas bonas artes, ut sacris faveas litteris." That to Archbishop Affre winds up thus :-Quod restat, Deum T. O. M. precor

ut