Skip to main content

Full text of "Six lectures on the text of the New Testament and the ancient manuscripts which contain it : chiefly addressed to those who do not read Greek"

See other formats




"As man is formed by nature with an incredible appetite for 
Truth ; so his strongest pleasure, in the enjoyment, arises from the 
actual communication of it to others. Without this, it would be a 
cold purchase, would abstract, ideal, solitary Truth, and poorly repay 
the labour and fatigue of the pursuit." 

WARBURTON, Dedication to the Divine Legation. 







3 ( 



Cambridge: DEIGI1TON, BELL, AND CO. 



Cambrtorjc : 








.Yc.iY/K&iT 2, 187 i. 





T1IE SUBJECT ... ... ... ... 1 

1. Study of Textual criticism neither difficult iior unfruitful. 
2. Holy Scripture, like all other ancient books, preserved to 
our times by means of manuscripts, 3. which, in the course 
of ages, necessarily came to differ from each other. 4. Extent 
of these differences roughly estimated. 5. Purpose of this 
science hence inferred. The sacred autographs utterly lost. 
6. Sources of information open to us for the centuries before 
our oldest extant manuscripts existed, by moans of versions 
and ecclesiastical writers. 7. Vast number of known copies 
of the New Testament. 8. Necessity for collating them, and 
mention of certain collators. 9. Modes of discriminating the 
date of manuscripts. 10. Shape and material of the oldest of 
them : palimpsest denned. 11. Styles of writing described : 
uncial distinguished from cursive. 12. How to detect false 
or supposititious documents. A visit of adventure to the- 
Bodleian Library. 



TESTAMENT ... ... ... ... 25 

Mi thod of notation employed for UNCIAL manuscript*. 
Codex Vaticanas (13) described : its history, character, date, 



and collators. Cod. Sinaiticus (X) similarly described. His 
tory of Constantino Simonides, who claimed to be the writer 
of it. Codd. B and N compared, their special excellencies 
and defects. Danger of resting on ancient authorities alone 
illustrated from Addison, and from examples of tln-ir own 
readings. Cod. Alexaudrinus (A) described, its history, date, 
character, and collators. Specimens in English (and Greek) 
of each of the three great codices, B, N and A, with observa 




Codex Ephraemi (C), Cod. Bezro (D), Cod. Claromontanus 
(D of S. Paul), Cod. Sangermanensis (E of S. Paul), and Cod. 
Laudianus (E of Acts) described and illustrated by specimens 
in English (and Greek). The sister manuscripts of S. Paul, 
Cod. Augiensis (F) and Cod. Boernerianus (G : being Cod. A 
of the Gospels) described and compared. Cod. Regius (L) of 
the Gospels, with certain palimpsest and other fragments, 
briefly noticed (for these see Index I). Their needless dis 
persion complained of. A few chief CURSIVE manuscripts 
described (for these see Index I). The notation adopted 
for them. Remarks on mediicval scribes. 




1. Principal use of ancient versions and ecclesiastical 
writers resumed from Lect. i. 6. The case illustrated from 
Acts xiii. 18. 2. The chief ancient versions introduced with 
a caution. 3. Peshito Syriac described. 4. Curetouian Syriac 
with a specimen. 5. Philoxeuian or Harclean Syriac. 6. 
Jerusalem Syriac. 7, 8. Egyptian versions, Memphitic and 
Thebaic. 9. Latin versions derive their origin from Africa. 


I M.i: 

; inal Wi.-t iuan a inYMtigfctioiu, 10, 11. The Old Latin 
Jlil)lc und its extant manuscripts (for tin-si ,<<r In.lrx I). 12. 
lli>t.>ry of tin Latin Yuk atr ; l:i. its chief manuscripts and 
1 apal editions. II. Slid -t .notices of the l>nt hie, Armenian, 
.Kthiopic, (li or-iaii. l i r-ic, Arabic, Slavonic, Frankish, and 
Aii/lo-Saxou versions (for these tee Index I). 15. Critical 
ad\ untunes and defects of ancient trannlatious of Scripture; 
l(i. as also of ecclesiastical writers. Suhject illustrated from 
Matt. i. 18, 17. and from Luke xv. 21. 18. Great Fathers 
whose works are most avuilahle for critical purposes : Justin 
Martyr, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, 19. Euso- 
bius, Jerome and the Latins, Chrysostom and John Dama 
scene in their oldest manuscripts, Cyril of Alexandria and 
his Homilies in Syriac. 20. Internal distinguished from ex 
ternal evidence. Subjective impressions, why they must not 
be excluded from view. 21. Occasions for the lawful use of 
internal evidence. Five Canons proposed and illustrated by 
examples. Cautions requisite in applying them. 



Comparative purity of the sacred text : Bentley s state 
ment. Passages selected for special examination. (1) Matt. 
v. 22. (2) ib. vi. 13. (3) ib. xi. 19. (4) ib. xvi. 2, 3. (6) ib. 
xvii. 21. (0) ib. xvii. 20. (7) ib. xix. 16, 17. (8) ib. xxvii. 
35. (9) Mark vi. 20. (10) ib. vii. 19. (11) ib. ix. 29. (12) 
ib. xv. 28. (13) ib. xvi. 920. (14) Luke ii. 14. (15) ib. 
vi. 1. (16) ib. x.42. (17) ib. xi. 2, 4. (18) ib. xiv. 5. (19) 
16. xxii. 43, 44. (20) ib. xxiii. 34. (21) John i. 18. (22) ib. 
in. 13. (23) ib. v. 1. (24) ib. v. 3, 4. (25) ib. vii. 8. (26) 
ib. vii. 53 viii. 11. 




Explanation. Passages selected for special examination. 
(1) Acts xi. 20. (2) 16. xiii. 32, 33, (3) ib. xiii. 33. (4) ib. 



\\. :JJ. (5) ib. x\i. 7- ( r >) //). \x. 2rt. (7) //;. xxvii. . 17. (8) 
Bom. v. 1. (9) ifc. xiii. <>. (Id) ib. xvi. 5. (11) ifc. xvi. 25 27. 
(12) 1 Cor. xi. 24. (13) ib. xv. 4!>. <1!) ib. xv. 51. (!.",) iii. 3. (1C) Col. ii. 2. (17) 1 Tim. iii. 1(5. (18) Heb. ii. 7. 

(19) i&. ii. 9. (20) ib. iv. 2. (21) ib. ix. 1. (22) ib. 7.1. 13. 
(23) James ii. 18. (24) 1 Pet. iii. 15. (i>5) 1 John ii. ^.j. 

(20) i&. v. 7, 8. (27) liev. xvi. 7. General conclusion. 








I AM much afraid that some of those to whom I am 
about to address a course of Lectures on the Sacred 
Text, and especially on the ancient manuscripts, of 
the New Testament, will think that I might easily 
have chosen a more popular and interesting subject, 
however highly they may be disposed to estimate its 
importance as a branch of theological study. Nor am 
I much encouraged by the representations of a pious 
and learned person who has recently laboured, not 
quite unsuccessfully, over a new version of the inspired 
writings, and who frankly uses the following language 
in describing his own impressions respecting this kind 
of work: "In the translation I could feel delight it 
gave me the word and mind of God more accurately : 
in the critical details there is much labour and little 
food " (J . N. Darby, N. T., Preface). Much labour and lit 
tle fruit is no very cheering prospect for any one, and 
I should utterly despair of gaining the attention of my 
heart- rs alter so plain an intimation of what they have 
to expect, unless the experience of a life-time had 
assured me that this good man s op : nion is the very 

S. L. 1 


reverse of the truth. Is it a small reward for any toil 
we may have spent upon the investigation to discover 
the process by which the Scriptures have been handed 
down to us through threescore generations and more, 
or the grounds of our assurance that in their present 
condition the copies which are now preserved are, in 
the main, not unfair representations of the originals 
as they left the hands of the holy penmen ? Is it 
nothing to possess an intelligent, even though it be but 
a general knowledge, of the critical principles whereby, 
in doubtful cases, the genuine words of the Apostles 
and Evangelists can be discriminated from the accre 
tions of later times, often and in nearly all capital 
instances to a moral certainty, always with a degree 
of probability adequate for practical purposes ? Nor 
need the labour be excessive, or the strain on the 
attention unduly prolonged. The science of verbal or 
Textual criticism (for by this name, perhaps, it is best 
known) has nothing in its nature which ought to be 
thought hard or abstruse, or even remarkably dry and 
uninviting. It is conversant with varied and curious 
researches, which have given a certain serious pleasure 
to many accomplished minds: it is a department of 
knowledge in which it is peculiarly easy to learn a 
little well, and to apply what is learnt to immediate- 
use. The more industry is brought to bear upon it, 
the larger the stores of materials accumulated, so much 
the more trustworthy the results have usually proved, 
although beyond question the full and true application 
both of its facts and principles calls for discretion, keen 
ness of intellect, innate tact ripened by constant use, a 
sound and impartial judgment. No man ever attained 


to eminence in this, or in any other worthy pursuit, 
without much trouble and some natural aptitude for it: 
but the criticism of the New Testament is a field which 
the humblest student of Holy Writ may cultivate with 
profit to himself and others; it is capable of affording 
those who have not much time to bestow upon working 
it, both an early and an abundant reward for their 
pains. Such is the testimony which more than thirty 
years happy devotion to these studies might have given 
me some right to bear, were not this a matter upon 
which every person will inevitably judge for himself. To 
your verdict the appeal must ultimately be made, and 
I have a cheerful hope that it will be a favourable 
one, for the divine science whose claims upon your 
regard I am thus earnestly pressing. I make with you 
but a single condition, that I shall be fortunate enough 
to win your attention to a few simple preliminary con 
siderations, the plain and indeed necessary consequence 
of which may not hitherto have been duly weighed, 
even by some who are no strangers to the bare facts of 
the cas. . 

2. The several writings of the New Testament 
were published to the world at various times during 
the latter part of the first century of the Christian era; 
the art of printing was first practised in some German 
city in the middle of the fifteenth century: the first 
fruit of typography, the beautiful Latin Bible known 
as Cardinal Mazarin s, of which we have a copy in the 
British Museum, appeared at Mentz scarcely before 
A.D. 1455. During that long period of fourteen hun 
dred years, through the fading light of the decline of 
ancient literature, through the deep gloom of the middle 



ages, even till the dawn of better days had almost 
brightened into the morning sunshine of the revival of 
learning, Holy Scripture was preserved and its study 
kept alive in the same way as were the classical writings 
of Greece and Rome, by means of manuscript copies 
made from time to time as occasion required, some 
times by private students, more often by professional 
scribes called calligrapliers or fair-hand writers, who 
were chiefly though by no means exclusively members 
of religious orders, priests or monks, carrying on their 
honourable and most useful occupation in the scripto 
rium or writing-chamber of their convents. And here 
I must say in passing, that whensoever the mind shall 
attempt to strike a balance between the good and ill 
effects of the monastic system during the thousand 
years and more which separated the Council of Nice 
from the dayspring of the Reformation, this one great 
service rendered by ecclesiastical communities ought to 
be thankfully remembered, that to their wise diligence 
we owe, under Providence, all or nearly all that we 
know not of the Bible only, but of those precious 
remains of profane literature, which so powerfully tend 
to illustrate our study of the sacred volume, and to 
enhance, even by way of contrast, its priceless value. 

3. Thus then it appears that the several books of 
the New Testament come down to us through the mid 
dle ages by means of manuscript copies. Hence arises 
a grave and important enquiry, on the correct solution 
of which our whole subject depends. Whensoever a 
book issues forth from the printing-press, all exemplars 
of the same edition resemble each other in the minu 
test particulars, except in the rare instances in which 


chain: > have been deliberately introduced as the work 
goes on; when once that work is printed off, it remains 
unaltered us though it had been graven with an iron pen 
upon the rock for ever. On the contrary, in t ran scrib 
ing with tin- hand from another document no such per 
fect similarity between the copy and the original can 
be depended upon, nor, in the vast majority of in 
stances, does it actually exist. No transcript of any 
considerable length can well be found which does not 
differ from its prototype in some small points, and that 
in spite of all the care and skill which may bave been 
iged in producing it. Some of the original words 
or letters will have been mistaken by the copyist, or 
his eye may have wandered from one line to another, 
or he may have omitted or repeated whole sentences, 
or have fallen into some other hallucination for which 
he would find it hard to account even to his own mind. 
Human imperfection will be sure to mar the most 
highly-finished performance, and to leave its mark on 
the most elaborate efforts after accuracy. Now it is 
obvious that the pernicious effects of this natural fault 
will propagate themselves rapidly, when several tran 
scripts have to be taken from the same original by dif 
ferent persons, or by the same person at different pe 
riods; and that when the original shall have disappeared, 
and these several copies shall have become the parents 
of other copies made independently of each other, the 
process of deterioration may be carried on for many 
generations, each separate transcript having its charac 
teristic failings, until two several manuscripts, which 
sprang t rnm the same progenitor a thousand years be 
fore, may come to differ from each other very materially, 


and that without any other blame to be imputed to the 
many scribes who have been employed upon them, 
save that they were not exempt from the common fail 
ings of humanity. It is thus that variations between 
different copies of the classical authors have arisen 
various readings they are usually called which some 
times affect the writer s general sense but little, and 
may safely be disregarded by the majority of readers, 
while occasionally, as in the dramas of the Greek trage 
dian ^Eschylus, they prove a serious drawback to our 
enjoyment of the most sublime passages of a prince 
among poets. 

4. And now comes a still closer and more search 
ing question. These natural blemishes and imperfec 
tions which prevail in all extant copies of all other 
works of antiquity, do they extend their baneful influ 
ence to manuscripts of Holy Scripture also ? We must, 
of course, confess that, respect being had to the vast im 
portance of preserving a pure text of the sacred writers, 
the answer might well be looked for in the negative, 
if we closed our senses to existing facts. God might, 
beyond a doubt, have so guided the hand or fixed the 
devout attention of successive races of copyists, that 
no jot or tittle should have been changed in the Bible of 
all that was first written therein. But this result 
could have been brought about only in one way, so far 
as we can perceive, by nothing short of a continuous, 
unceasing miracle : by making fallible men, nay, many 
such in every generation, for one purpose absolutely in 
fallible. That the Supreme Being should have thus far 
interfered with the course of His Providential arrange 
ments, seems, prior to experience, very improbable, not 


at all in accordance with the analogy of His ordinary 
dealings with inankiiul, while actual experience amply 
demonstrates that lie has not chosen thus to act. If 
we look, however slightly, into the manuscript copies 
of the New Testament which abound in every public 
library in Christendom, we shall find them differing 
not a little from each other in age and correctness and 
purity of text, yet the oldest and the very best of them 
full of variations, such as we must at once impute 
to the fault of the scribe, together with certain here 
and there of a graver and more perplexing nature, 
regarding which we can form no safe judgment with 
out calling to our aid the resources of critical learning. 
As in the case of the classical writings, so with those of 
the sacred penmen, the great mass of these various 
readings are in themselves quite insignificant, and 
scarcely affect the sense at all ; while some to which 
your special attention will be directed hereafter, are of 
a widely different complexion. But important or not, 
the more numerous and venerable the documents within 
our reach, the more extensive is our view of them. 
Our great Oxford critic, Dr John Mill, computed them 
at thirty thousand for the New Testament alone a hun 
dred and seventy years ago: those noted up to the pre 
sent epoch amount to at least fourfold that quantity. 

5. You will, I trust, ere this, have come to under 
stand the nature and conditions of the problem which 
Textual criticism sets itself to solve. It is no less than 
this: how best to clear all existing copies of Scripture, 
whether in manuscript or printed, from the errors and 
corruptions of later times, and to restore it if possible 
to the condition in which it first left the hands of the 


original authors. If an autograph of S. John s Gospel> 
for example, or of S. Paul s epistle to the Romans, as it 
came from his secretary Tertius (Rom. xvi. 22), were 
yet in existence, criticism would have no function to 
perform with regard to those inspired productions, 
except to compare modern reprints with the precious 
originals. But, in spite of vague rumours in a contrary 
sense, it can hardly be doubted that the sacred auto 
graphs perished in the very infancy of Christian history. 
The early Church, which was privileged to enjoy the oral 
teaching of Apostles and Apostolic men, attached no 
peculiar sanctity to their written compositions. Add to 
this the circumstance that the " paper," or prepared leaf 
of the papyrus, spoken of by S. John (2 John 12), which 
was the usual material employed by scribes at that 
period, is of so frail and brittle a quality that almost no 
specimens of it have been preserved, save those that have 
lain long buried in Egyptian tombs, and other like safe 
receptacles. Vellum, the manufactured skin of young 
calves or antelopes, on which all our best manuscripts 
were subsequently written, was in S. Paul s age reserved 
for documents or records of exceptional value ; " bring 
with thee," he writes to Timothy, " the books" (of the 
biblu-s or papyrus plant), "but especially the parchments" 
(2 Tim. iv. 13). And the self-same fate which befell the 
autograph books of the New Testament was that also 
of the earliest copies derived from them, though for a 
different reason. In the last and most cruel of the per 
secutions to which believers were subjected throughout 
the Roman empire, I mean that of Diocletian, during a 
shameful period of ten years at the beginning of the 
fourth century of our era (A.D. 303 312), the tyrant, 

A.\/> (;EXI:RAL r/A ir OF THE SUBJECT. 9 

being resolved, so far as in him lay, to root out the 
Christian Faith, with a true instinct directed his efforts 
to tin- destruction of the Christian Scriptures. They 
were everywhere sought out and burnt; those who pos 
sessed them were bidden to give them up, and that on 
pain of death. The timid brethren who so far com 
plied with the Imperial decrees composed a class nume 
rous enough to be designated by a special name of dis 
honour : they were called "deliverers up," traditores, of 
which term our English traitor is the suitable represent 
ative. The result was deplorable enough, though in 
God s mercy the worst effects of the enemy s malice 
were frustrated. When the Church had rest again, the 
volumes of Holy Scripture that could be got together 
were comparatively few. But these were made the 
archetypes of a host of others, some of them now sur 
viving, whose date may be assigned with certainty to 
the fourth and fifth centuries. The orderly succession 
of copy after copy was never broken, although it may 
be fairly doubted whether any, and certainly but a few 
inconsiderable fragments of the New Testament still 
extant, are older than the fiery reign of Diocletian. 

G. We are thus compelled by the force of truth to 
admit that a wide space of little less than three centu 
ries separates the lost autographs of Apostles and Evan 
gelists from the earliest manuscripts of their works in 
full yet remaining to us. A vital question is yet to 
be answered, how this yawning gulf is to be bridged 
over, and the continuity restored between what they 
wrote and what we receive ? We are thankful to know 
th;it our reply to this reasonable enquiry is at once 
brief, simple, and wholly satisfactory. We have two 


other distinct sources of information, besides the evi 
dence of Greek manuscripts, whereby the condition of 
the inspired text during the first three centuries can be 
readily ascertained, not indeed in complete detail, as 
manuscripts would have enabled us to do, but to an ex 
tent amply sufficient for all practical ends, quite enough 
to assure us of their general integrity, and of the reve 
rence in which they were held in the first ages of the 
Faith: and these are primitive versions of their text, 
and quotations made from them by ecclesiastical wri 
ters whose productions yet remain with us. The pre 
cise character of the proof afforded us from these sources 
will most conveniently be dwelt upon in another Lec 
ture ; all I now seek is to impress upon your minds 
their exceeding value for illustrating the literary his 
tory of those remote ages, for which direct documentary 
evidence has failed us. Nor is the great general ser 
vice they render us in this respect materially impaired 
by certain peculiarities to be detailed hereafter, which 
render it peculiarly necessary to sift their testimony 
before implicitly receiving it on every point : still less 
by the fact that manuscripts of the translations of 
Scripture into Syriac, Coptic, Latin and other ancient 
tongues, like those of the original Greek and of the Fa 
thers of the Church, themselves bear no higher date 
than the fourth century, and in the great majority of 
cases are considerably later. It is enough to know that 
their evidence is entirely independent of the later Greek 
copies, and has never been assimilated to them since 
each primitive version was first made or each Patristic 
work first published. Hence it arises that manuscripts 
of the Old Latin or Syriac, though themselves of the 


fourth r fifth century, express and unmistakeable quo 
tations made liy IiviuiMis in the second, by Origen in 
tin- third reiitury, piv>ent us tor the passages actually 
before us with a representation of the readings kno\\n 
to them, as reliable as if the Greek text which they 
used had survived to this day. 

7. It is time to return from a necessary digression to 
ribe the manuscript copies of the Greek New Testa 
ment itself, which will claim our attention for the re 
mainder of the present, and in the two next ensuing Lec- 
tuivs. After all, antiquity has bequeathed to us nothing 
el>e that can be compared with them for interest and 
intrinsic worth : they have been called by some one 
" the title deeds of our Christian inheritance," and 
\\rll do they deserve the name. Now it is very 
memorable that written copies of the Greek Scriptures, 
including those of the Septuagint translation of the 
Old Testament, far exceed in age and number those 
of all the classical writings of antiquity put together. 
Homer may be supposed to have flourished at least 
eight hundred years before Christ, yet we have no 
complete copy of his two great poems prior to the 
thirteenth century, although some considerable frag 
ments of the Iliad have been recently brought to 
light, which may plausibly be assigned to the fifth or 
sixtli : while more than one work of deserved and 
high repute has been preserved to our times only in 
a single transcript. The case of the Hebrew Scriptures 
is yet more remarkable. Careful as the Jews have 
been, at least from the period that their Masoretic notes 
were formed, and probably long before, to secure minute 
accuracy in the act of transcribing their sacred books, 


none of their extant manuscripts can be regarded as 
older than the eleventh century, and only a few are 
so old : the apparent reason for this unexpected fact 
being partly found in a Talmudical law which ordains 
that synagogue rolls which were faulty, torn, or injured 
through age, should be at once destroyed. Of the 
Christian Scriptures, on the contrary, we have several 
copies which may fairly be attributed to the fourth 
century, at least two with complete certainty ; not a few 
must be assigned to the fifth and sixth centuries, after 
which time their number increased so prodigiously, 
down to the epoch of the invention of printing and a 
little beyond it, that those known at present to exist in 
public and private libraries throughout Christendom 
can hardly be less than from eighteen hundred to two 
thousand. With regard to manuscripts more recent 
than the tenth century it may truly be said that, the 
more they are sought for, the more come to light. 
The accumulated stores buried in the monasteries of 
Mount Athos, though they have been largely drawn 
upon in modern times, even after the sweeping raid 
made by that ardent collector, the late Lord do la Zouche, 
better known as the Hon. Robert Curzon, are no doubt 
very far from exhausted. I have been recently informed 
on excellent authority that in Roumania, the houses of 
the noble families whose ancestors fled from Constanti 
nople before the last agony of the Imperial city are full 
M works both Biblical and theological which they brought 
f ere jhem to the land of their exile. From quite a dif- 
Epirus iar ^ ^ *ke Greek peninsula, from Janina in 
collection Baroness Burdett-Coutts has just imported a 
". Greek volumes dating from the ninth to 


the seventeenth century, whereof between thirty and 
forty, being about a third part of the whole, relat<- 
to th. Nr\v Trstament. Their soiled and mutilated 
condition tells too plainly their recent history, as being 
poor reliques snatched from the sack of some Christian 
convent during the troubles which closed AH Pasha s 
rule (A. D. 18-2-2). 

8. It will of course have occurred to you that the 
very abundance of these materials for sacred criticism 
in; iy easily become a source of embarrassment to the 
Biblical student. " The real text of the sacred writers," 
to cite very well-known words of Richard Bentley, the 
greatest scholar England has produced, " does not now 
(since the originals have been so long lost) lie in any 
inaimx ript or edition, but is dispersed in them all." 
Yet to collate the whole mass, that is to compare their 
mutual variations with some common standard (usually 
a printed edition) which has been previously agreed 
upon, would be indeed an herculean task, to which 
not one life but many must needs be devoted, and 
which, even when completed, might not be very fruitful 
of important results. The plan that has been adopted 
thus far is to expend great pains and labour upon a 
comparatively small number of manuscripts the most 
venerable for age, or which otherwise promise to afford 
more help than the average for the correction of the 
text. Hence have originated those elaborate facsimile 
editions of the chief codices (codex, you will be aware, 
is the Latin word whereby a manuscript is called) 
by which Tischcndorf and other critics have conferred 
on us signal benefit. Every line, every word, every 
error, every correction of the original scribe and his 


successors, is carefully reproduced, so that the reader at 
a distance may be put as nearly as possible into the 
condition of the editor who is working with the manu 
script before him. But it obviously would not do to 
stop here, or to leave the great mass of copies wholly 
unexamined. Conclusions arrived at by the deliberate 
shutting out of a large, indeed by far the larger portion 
of available evidence, must be eminently untrustworthy, 
and could not stand the test of time and impartial 
enquiry. Hence have several persons in successive 
generations undertaken to collate many of those docu 
ments of secondary value which it was not easy or 
perhaps desirable to publish in full In this quiet and 
humble labour the pious Archbishop Ussher employed 
the doleful leisure of his later years, when reduced to 
silence in the evil days of the Great Rebellion. Our 
countryman Mill, Wetstein and Matthaei on the conti 
nent, to say nothing of the Dane Andrew Birch and other 
lesser names, willingly gave up ten, twenty, or thirty 
years together to this task. In our own time it has fired 
and prematurely worn out the energy of one never 
to be named but with respect and gratitude, Dr 
Samuel Prideaux Tregelles. I have striven hard myself 
to contribute what I have been able, not all I have 
desired and once hoped for, to the same good cause of 
sacred learning, and if life and health be granted me, I 
aspire to accomplish yet a little more. In their selection 
of manuscripts on which to work from the mass which 
still lie disregarded and virtually unknown, collators 
have naturally given the preference to such as seemed 
to them for some cause or other to possess special 
claims on their attention : yet as this motive would 


operate but to a limited extent, I doubt not tliat mv 
pr. <\< i . ssors have mostly followed the same plan as 
invsi-lt , and have studied those copies first which lay 
nearest at hand, or to which they could obtain most 
ivady access. In this way, at any rate, if we have 
sometimes taken up a manuscript of little interest 
or intrinsic value, we have presented to the reader only 
the more faithful specimen of what would result from a 
complete collation of the whole mass. 

9. It now remains to shew the manner of dis 
criminating really ancient codices, written in the fourth 
and two succeeding centuries, from others of com 
paratively recent date ; and this matter is the more 
important, inasmuch as the older the manuscript, the 
fewer, in all probability, the successive transcripts 
between the sacred autograph and the document before 
us. Indeed we can do little towards forming any con 
sistent notion of the history of the text until we shall 
have made some progress in fixing the age of the 
principal witnesses which attest to it. Not a few 
manuscripts have the year of the Greek era, and some 
times the proper Indiction of that year, appended by 
the original scribe in the colophon or subscription of 
the volume, and thus they form instructive guides for 
settling the epoch of others which more or less resemble 
them in style of writing. This advantage however does 
not attach to codices earlier than the ninth century, 
ami we must dispense with its aid as we best can. 

10. Our attention, therefore, should be directed 
in the first place to the shape and material of the 
document under investigation. There can be little 
doubt, as we said before, that the autographs of the 



Apostles were written on the cheap and plentiful 
Egyptian papyrus, which was employed for most pur 
poses in their day. Since this material was manufac 
tured in slips which could seldom exceed four inches in 
breadth and a very few in length, it was the usual 
practice to join the short and narrow columns laterally, 
so that each piece might be parallel to each other piece 

throughout the book, which was read by gradually 
unrolling the volume at one end and rolling it up at 
the other, just as the book of the Law is arranged to 
this day in the Jewish synagogues. In this manner, 
the open volume would afford the appearance of 
several parallel columns exhibited to the eye at once, 
as may be seen to this day in the Museum at 
Naples, in the case of the papyrus fragments rescued 
from the ruins of Herculaneum. As the more durable 
fine vellum of our oldest extant codices came gradu- 

AX i) (;/;.\J-:I;AL VIEW OF Tin: snvECT. 17 

ally to take the place of the perishable papyrus in 
transcribing works so important as tin- Holy Scriptures, 
this practice of writing in parallel columns, which 
when thr papyrus was used was a pure necessity, seems 
to have been for some time retained through mere 


habit, so that on vellum pages of the fourth century 
v>e still see three, and in one instance, four columns on 
a single page, or six and eight on the open leaf. This 
peculiarity, wheresoever it appears, is very striking, and 
lends to the document which exhibits it a genuine sem 
blance of high antiquity. 

Regard should be had also to the material, as well as 
to the shape of the volume under examination. As a 
general rule, the older the document, the more white, 
thin, and transparent is the vellum: we shall hereafter 
have to notice two or three books whose skins are 
conspicuous for their delicate beauty. As we come 
lower down in the scale of time, the fine vellum de 
generates, until in the middle ages it is often no better 
than coarse parchment made from sheep s skins. Then 
again, about the ninth century, a rough, brown, un 
sightly paper, made of cotton rags, and sometimes called 
Damascene from the place where it was invented, crept 
gradually into use. For this, about the twelfth cen 
tury, linen paper came to be substituted, which was 
at once stouter, more white and crisp, than that pre 
pared from cotton : when glazed and well- wrought it 
is especially elegant, and by an unpractised eye can 
scarcely be distinguished from vellum. 

Once more, we may fairly infer the high antiquity 
>t a document, if it be what is called a jxilintpsest, that 
is, when for th- sake of putting so precious a material 
S. L. 2 


us vellum to the utmost use, the older writing which 
it contained has been washed out (a process all the 
more easy inasmuch as the ancient ink was purely 
vegetable, without any metallic base), and later matte, 
put over it in its room. In course of time the earlier 
writing, which had never been entirely obliterated, will 
come again to the surface, and can thus be read 
beneath the more modern letters, and may be traced 
by an attentive and diligent student with more or !>.> 
facility. Few employments call for so much patience, 
or task the eyesight and skill of a collator so much a> 
this, but as it almost always happens that the older 
writing is by far the more valuable, he is pretty sure 
to find his labour rewarded in the end. In one or two 
known instances this habit of washing out the first 
written letters has been twice repeated, and to decipher 
a double palimpsest (as it is then termed) calls for the 
masterhood of a Tischendorf. When attempts have 
been made to revive the faded characters by means of 
such washes as prussiate of potash, the experiment has 
succeeded for a while, but the palimpsest has too often 
been rendered illegible ever after. 

11. Another and more comprehensive method of 
approximating to the date of a manuscript is by scru 
tinizing the style of its writing. The oldest extant 
codices of formal works exhibit the whole text in 
capital or uncial letters, that name being derived 
from the Latin uncia, an inch, to which size some of 
them come very near. These uncial letters were 
originally written without stops or even breaks between 
the words, and look the more strange inasmuch as the 
words themselves are divided at the end of the neces- 

j.v/> (;/:y/:r.iL VIEW OF THE SUBJECT. 19 

sarily narrow lines without much regard to the 
syllables which compose them. Let us take for our 
example tin- opening of S. Luke s Gospel, wherein the 
sentence at first sight hardly looks like English. 

and so on. Our earliest extant model of writing of 
this kind has been preserved by means of that awful 
catastrophe which the genius of Lytton-Bulwer has 
made so familiar to us, the burial of the Campanian 
town of Herculaneum beneath a stream of lava, A. D. 
79. The liberality of the kings of Naples (let us speak 
one good word for a dynasty at any rate not worse 
than that which has displaced it) has presented to 
scholars exact, facsimiles of papyri, which, scorched and 
shrivelled as they are, and unfortunately comprising 
treatises of small interest in themselves, are the only 
undoubted volumes of the first century which have 
survived the wreck of time. Certain dissertations of 
the Epicurean Philodemus which they contain may be 
used the more conveniently, inasmuch as he was a 
contemporary of Cicero, and must have written about 
a century before the fatal event. After n\aking due 
allowance for the papyrus having shrunk from the 
heat, these uncials attract the eye for their minuteness 
as well as for the elegance of their shape. They are 
authentic specimens of a fashion which prevailed in 
the first century of our era, the letters square, upright, 
simple, graceful, singularly clear, none being larger 
than the rest, or intruding into the margin, without 



breatliings or accents, the stops very rare and only a 
single point at the utmost, the clauses and sentences 
being separated from each other either by a very small 
space or not at all. Between these exquisite relics 
of the past and the earliest known manuscripts of 
Scripture little less than three centuries must have 
elapsed, yet we find that those Biblical codices which 
most resemble the Herculanean papyri are precisely 
such as for other reasons we should be led to judge the 
most ancient. In later ages, letters larger than the rest 
came gradually into use to serve the same purpose as 
our capitals at the beginning of sentences; subsequent 
ly they encroached upon the margin, and grew more 
conspicuous for size and illuminations ; then the shape 
of the ordinary letters became more and more ornate, 
the words being separated from each other either by 
points or by blank spaces, as in modern writing. Then 
again, as time went on, punctuation became more 
heavy, and quite as complicated as what we now 
employ ; breathings and accents were added, at first 
very irregularly, afterwards with as much uniformity 
and correctness as in a printed Greek book ; and at 
length, about the ninth century, the letters themselves 
became no more upright but leaning, like our own 
handwriting, sometimes to the left, more frequently 
to the right. This was the last stage of uncial cal 
ligraphy, which, about the beginning of the tenth 
century or a few j ears before, gave way to the cursive 
or running hand, which had been employed all along 
for ordinary purposes, and was now deemed not unfit 
to be introduced into copies of Holy Scripture, even 
those which were most splendidly written on the finest 

.t.v/> <;I:.\I:I;AL VIEW OF THE SUMKCT. 21 

vellum, and were the inns , sumptuously furnished with 
pictures and arabesque scrolls set off in rich purple, 
vermilion and gold. The cursive style also had its 
Mages and local fashions, nt indeed so strongly marked 
M in the uncial, but well known to adepts; though it 
is not necessary for our present purpose to speak much 
about manuscripts which date as late as from the tenth 
century downwards. 

12. I feel quite sure that, before I have done, 
some of my hearers will press upon me the awkward 
question whether we ought to be so very positive about 
the authenticity of these venerable monuments of re 
mote antiquity, especially in an ingenious age, wherein 
some public and most private Museums are half full of 
pictures of "the Old Masters" executed by living hands, 
of spurious medals, and of flint implements made to 
order. Now on this point I should like to speak ex 
plicitly. I believe it to be quite feasible to pass off 
the forgeries of some clever and intelligent scribe, who 
may have devised means to imitate so closely the 
decaying vellum, the fading ink, the precise shape and 
fashion of primitive writings, as to deceive those who 
ought to be the best, as they are the most experienced, 
judges. Such a fraud is difficult, but is not impossible 
to be carried out ; and if I am not mistaken, the 
archives of the British Museum itself contain some 
codices, bought at a high price, which never will 
appear in the Catalogue, or be submitted to public 
inspection. But while I freely grant that the outward 
semblance of ancient documents may be assumed bv 
skilful manipulation, I am sure that their internal 
character will always defy imposture. Over and over 


ajain it has been found that manuscripts which from 
their general appearance have been accepted without 
scruple, have been found at once to be spurious the 
moment their contents came to be scrutinized by com 
petent scholars. Such was the case with the Egyptian 
History of Uranius the son of Anaximenes a purely 
imaginary person palmed upon the wise men of 
Berlin (one likes the Germans to be taken in some 
times) about twenty years ago by the notorious Con- 
stantine Simonides, a native of the Greek isle of Syme. 
As a work of the calligraphic art it is perfect, but the 
careful study of the subject-matter but for a few 
pages sufficed to shew its true nature. With respect 
to Biblical manuscripts in particular, we may con 
fidently assert that there are fifty persons at least 
now in England, who on internal grounds alone, from 
their intimate knowledge of what a genuine record 
ought to and must contain, would at once detect 
with perfect ease any the most highly finished imita 
tion that dishonest skill could execute, provided the 
document extended beyond the length of a very few 

Scholars too there are, especially if propitious 
fortune has cast their lot in the midst of those ma 
gazines of literary wealth, the chief public libraries, 
to whom ripe experience has imparted a kind of 
intuition, an instinctive faculty of discerning the true 
from the false at a moment s glance, for which they 
can scarcely assign a cause even to themselves : the 
eye in this case outstrips the slower conclusions of 
reason and of science. Some of you may be hearing 
for the first time of the single visit paid to Oxford 


by that Constantino Simonides of whom \v<- have 
already spoken. He had just then beguiled two 
celebrated Pundits indeed; Professor Lepsius of Berlin, 
and Sir Frederick Madden of the British Museum, 
when one morning, unintroduced and then unknown 
to fame, he presented himself at the Bodleian to Mr 
H. O. Coxe, now most worthily placed at the head of 
that magnificent library, as the bearer of certain Greek 
manuscripts which he seemed willing to sell. He 
produced two or three, unquestionably genuine, but 
not at all remarkable either for age or character, and 
readily agreed with the librarian in assigning them 
verally to the tenth, twelfth, or thirteenth centuries. 
He then proceeded to unroll, with much show of 
anxiety and care, some fragments of vellum, redolent 
of high antiquity, and covered with uncial writing 
of the most venerable form. Our wary critic nar 
rowly inspected the crumbling leaves ; smelt them, 
if haply they might have been subjected to some 
chemical process: then quietly handed them back to 
their vendor with the simple comment that these, he 
thought, might date from about the middle of the 
nineteenth century. The baffled Greek forthwith ga 
thered up his wares, walked straight to the railway 
station, and bent his course to a well-known country- 
house in Worcestershire, whose accomplished owner 
became their happy purchaser. Under his hospitable 
roof I inspected those treasures a few weeks later, 
and must confess that, regarded as mere specimens of 
calligraphy, they were worth any moderate sum they 
may have cost him. There was Anacreon writ small 
so as to fit into a nutshell ; portions of Hesiod in 


zigzag fashion as the ox ploughs ; and other curiosities 
more marvellous still, respecting whose price I could 
get no other answer than this from my courteous host, 
"I gave little enough for them if they are what I 
took them to be, a great deal too much if your sus 
picions are true." 

The present Lecture has of necessity been devoted 
to the consideration of abstract principles or of broad 
and general facts. If you think that I have not yet 
proved against my will the melancholy allegation that 
my subject promises " much labour and little food," 
I will next ask leave to introduce to your notice a few 
of the precious manuscripts of the Greek Scriptures 
which are the pride and honour of the great libraries 
of Europe. 



OUR subject now leads me to present to you a ge 
neral description of the principal Greek manuscripts of 
the New Testament. You are already aware that these 
documents are of the very highest value and importance 
\vlu.> n we come to examine the text of Holy Scripture. 
Hence, in the case of a few of them that hold the 
first rank, it will be necessary to enter into some details 
respecting their literary history, as well as the date and 
internal character of each, so far as these latter points 
can be made intelligible to a general company ; pre 
mising that the uncial or elder codices are commonly 
distinguished from each other by the several letters of 
the alphabet, A, B, C, &c. Since what is called Codex A 
is inferior to two others both in age and intrinsic worth 
we will place it but third in our list and begin with the 

CODEX B, the glory of the Vatican library at 
Rome, where its class mark is 1209. Whence it came 
thither, who were its previous owners, in what coun 
try it was written, are alike unknown to us, except 
that, from certain peculiarities in the spelling, Alex- 


audria has been conjecturally assigned as its native 
place. All that can be said amounts to this, that the 
Vatican library was founded in 1448 by that eminent 
scholar and vigorous statesman Pope Nicolas V., and 
that this manuscript appears in the earliest extant 
catalogue, compiled in 1475. Until within the last 
fifteen years it was without a rival in the world, and 
Tischendorf s great discovery, the Codex Sinaiticus, 
which will be spoken of next in order, has not much 
disturbed its supremacy in the judgment of any one, 
unless we except that illustrious German Professor 
himself. Codex B is comprised in a single quarto 
volume containing 759 thin and delicate vellum leaves, 
and is so jealously guarded by the Papal authorities 
that ordinary visitors see nothing of it but the red 
morocco binding. We should not grudge the suspicious 
care of its custodians, knowing as we do full well the 
unique preciousness of their treasure, if they had not 
also withdrawn it from the use of persons the most 
competent to study it aright. The precautions taken 
against such a man as Tregelles, who, armed with a 
letter from Cardinal Wiseman, went to Rome in 1845 
for the express purpose of consulting it, would be 
ludicrous if they were less discreditable. " They would 
not let me open the volume," he writes, " without 
searching my pockets, and depriving me of pen ink and 
paper." The two prelati, or dignified clergymen, who 
had been told off to watch him, would talk and laugh 
aloud in order to distract his attention, and if he looked 
at a passage too long, would abruptly snatch the book 
out of his hand. Dean Alford, who in 1861 must have 
been pretty well known even to Roman ecclesiastics, 


Mates in a letter recently published by his uidow in 
IHT pleasant Life of him, that having extorted from the 
minister Cardinal Antonelli a special order " per veri- 
ficare," to verify passages, he found his license inter 
preted by the librarian to mean that he was to see the 
book, but not to use it. With these hindrances to 
contend against, aggravated by the fact that library 
hours in the Vatican are only three daily, and that its 
attendants devoutly keep all Italian Church holidays, 
\ve need not wonder if our acquaintance with this noble 
monument of extreme antiquity has long been superfi 
cial and imperfect, and to this hour is far from complete. 
It contains, as do the next three manuscripts we shall 
have to describe, the Old Testament in the Greek 
Septuagint translation as well as the original of the 
New, but the ravages of time have deprived us of the 
book of Genesis down to ch. xlvi. 48, of Psalms cv. 
cxxxvii., and in the New Testament of the Epistle to 
tin- Hebrews from ch. ix. 14 to the end, of the four 
Pastoral Epistles as they are called (1, 2 Timothy, 
Titus, Philemon), which, in this and in the next three 
copies, were placed after that to the Hebrews, and 
finally of the Book of the Revelation ; all these last 
portions being supplied in quite a modern hand of the 
fifteenth century. Every open leaf presents to the eye 
six narrow columns of simple, elegant and distinct 
uncial letters, three columns standing on each pa^<>, 
as we see in a fragment of the historian Dio Cassius 
also preserved in the Vatican, and in a very few 
other documents, mostly but not all of the same re 
mote date ; a date which, judging not only from the 
form of the volume, but also from the purity of the 


\vllum, from the faded condition of the ink where 
soever the letters have not been retouched, from the 
primitive shape of those letters themselves, from th" 
complete lack of capitals and from the extreme paucity 
of the stops, in all which particulars it has very few 
compeers, and in the whole put together none what 
ever except the Herculanean papyri of the first cen 
tury whereof we spoke before (p. 19), cannot be placed 
later than the first half of the fourth century. Indeed, 
Tregellefl, a consummate and experienced authority on 
such matters, was so deeply impressed with the general 
appearance of Codex B, as being far more venerable 
than anything else he had ever seen, that he once 
told me, what I do not observe that he has ever pub 
lished, that while he felt quite sure that it was already 
written at the time of the council of Nice (A. D. 325), 
he did not like to say how much earlier it might very 
well be. Throughout the New Testament it exhibits 
a division of the text into chapters or paragraphs (in 
the Acts and Epistles into two separate series) to which 
we have hardly anything corresponding elsewhere, and 
which in the Gospels became quite obsolete after the 
adoption of the sections and canons of Eusebius about 
A. D. 340, the year when that celebrated ecclesiastical 
writer and critic died. The mistaken diligence whereby 
the original writing has been retraced by a scribe who 
lived not earlier than the eighth or later than the 
eleventh century, and who added those breathings and 
accents and elaborate capitals which now deform the 
document, has rendered an accurate acquaintance with 
its true readings a matter of unusual difficulty, de 
manding and promising to reward the utmost care and 


skill df. -in experienced collator. The work of the first 
hand ran lcst be judged of in those places which tin- 
later pen has left untouched, as being or presumed to 
IK errors of the pen, but the cases are probably very 
few wherein leisurely examination by a thorough scholar 
would leave any considerable doubt as to testimony of 
the original manuscript. The misfortune is that oppor 
tunities for such an exhaustive study of its contents 
have of late years been granted only to those who were 
quite incompetent to make the best use of them. We 
need not here repeat the curious history of the several 
attempts that have been made to collate the Vatican 
Codex, from the time that the Papal Librarian Paul 
Bombasius sent some account of it to the great Erasmus 
in 1521, down to the abortive Roman editions which 
vainly struggled for existence after the death of another 
Papal Librarian, Cardinal Mai, in 1854. That dis 
tinguished person, whose services rendered both to 
Classical and ecclesiastical learning are justly re 
nowned throughout Europe, devoted his scanty spare 
hours for ten whole years in carrying through thu 
press five quarto volumes, professing to represent the 
contents of our manuscript both in the Old and New 
Testament. He subsequently added a reprint of the 
New Testament portion in a cheap octavo form. Yet 
although his main work, to which the interest of 
Christendom had been invited by many a puff pre 
liminary, had been completed as early as ls:s, it was 
not published till three years after the Cardinal s death, 
and it was then perceived at once by those who had 
any knowledge of the subject, that it never would have 
appeared so long as he lived. If Angelo Mai had neither 


the patience nor the special skill to accomplish well 
his self-imposed task, he was far too good a scholar 
not to know that he had done it very ill : so ill in fact 
that it would be hard to account for his numberless 
blunders and glaring incompetency did we not re 
member that Biblical criticism, by reason of the rigid 
impartiality and exactness that it calls for, is so alien 
to the taste and mental habits fostered by the theology 
of the Church of Home, that examples are rare indeed 
wherein it has been cultivated in her communion with 
even moderate success : from among living names, 
Ceriani, curator of the Ambrosian library at Milan, 
occurs to the memory as a solitary exception. The 
untrustworthy character of Mai s attempt was manifest 
from the first, yet it was not till nine years after, in 
18G6, that the dauntless Tischendorf resolved to re 
present its demerits to Pius IX. in person, and to 
seek from him permission to undertake a fresh and 
more satisfactory edition, at least of the New Testa 
ment. The Pope could not deny the substantial truth 
of his impeachment, but evaded the heretic s request 
by declaring that he reserved a better edition as a work 
for himself to carry out, while yet he gracefully allowed 
Tischendorf to consult the manuscript in such pas 
sages and they are pretty many as present any 
special difficulty, or respecting which previous collators 
had been at variance. For eight days our critic 
freely enjoyed this valued privilege, but in the course 
of his task he could not refrain few of us perhaps 
could have refrained from copying at length sixteen 
of these precious pages. Such a licence being not 
unnaturally regarded as a breach of covenant, the 

MA N V SCRIPTS OF Til E T A W TESTA .!/ A .V 7 . 3 1 

manuscript was then taken from him, but on appealing 
to the generosity of Vercellone, to whom the Pope 
had entrusted the care of the projected work, he was 
permitted to resume his labours for six days more, 
the Italian being always present at this latter period, 
and receiving instruction for the preparation of his 
own volumes by watching the processes of a master 
workman. In spite of all his disadvantages, these 
fourteen days of just three hours each, used zealously 
and intelligently, enabled Tischendorf to put forth a 
representation of Codex B far superior to any that pre 
ceded it. Five superb volumes of the Roman edition 
Lav* since appeared, whereof the genial and learned 
Vercellone lived long enough to superintend two, that 
containing the New Testament happily being one. Tin- 
rest have fallen into other and obviously less skilful 
hands. The concluding volume, which may perhaps 
be looked for in the course of the present year, will 
be that which is at once the most important, and will 
test most decisively the capacity of the editors ; it 
is that which will attempt to discriminate the ori 
ginal readings of the manuscript from the corrections 
of later scribes. If we trace in this department of 
their labours anything approaching to critical discern 
ment we may rest content for the present, and await 
that unrestrained access to the document which future 
and hardly distant events will not fail to gain for 
Biblical students. It is not very pleasant to reflect 
that, during the most brilliant period of the first 
French Empire, this great treasure was deposited for 
years in the Royal Library at Paris, unexamined and 
uncared for save by one who proved hardly able 


to do its merits complete justice, the Roman Catholic 
J. L. Hug, whose treatise on the "Antiquity of the 
Vatican Manuscript," which appeared in 1810, first 
attracted general attention to its remote date and 
paramount importance, although Tischendorf pithily 
observes that he adopts its conclusions "non propter 
Hugium sed cum Hugio," in Hug s company, though 
not for the reasons assigned by him. But the internal 
characteristics of Codex B will be more conveniently 
discussed together with those of its most considerable 
rival, which stands next on our list, namely 

CODEX SINAITICUS, at St Petersburg, rather awk 
wardly designated as Aleph (X), the first letter of the 
Hebrew alphabet. This manuscript was happily lighted 
upon by Tischendorf in the Convent of St Catharine 
on Mount Sinai only fifteen years ago. The history 
of its discovery is so romantic as to have seemed at 
first almost incredible, but there is no reason to doubt 
that the first accounts that reached the public ear 
were in the main correct. When ti avelling in 1844 
under the patronage of his own sovereign, Frederick 
Augustus of Saxony, a bountiful friend of learning and 
of learned men, Tischendorf states that he picked out of 
a basket full of papers destined to light the Convent 
oven, some forty-three leaves of the Greek Septuagint 
translation of the Old Testament, whose high antiquity 
he recognised at a glance, and which he published in 
1846 under the name of the Codex Friderico-Augustanus. 
These leaves he got at once for the asking, but findingthat 
further portions of the same manuscript still survived, 
he rescued them from their probable fate by giving the 
monks some notion of their value. He repeated his 


visit to Sinai in !*">. >, Imping that he might be allowed 
to purchase the whole volume; but his hints had alarmed 
the brotherhood, and he could gather no further in 
formation about it. He even seems to have concluded 
that his pri/.e had been secured by some more fortunate 
collector and had already been carried away into Europe. 
Returning to the Convent once more early in 1859, 
no longer as an obscure private traveller, but as an 
accredited agent of the Emperor of Russia, the gracious 
protector of the Eastern Church, the treasure which he 
had twice missed was, on the occasion of some chance 
conversation, spontaneously laid before him. Mutilated 
as the Codex then was, it still consisted of more than 
300 large leaves of the finest vellum, with four columns 
on every page and eight on the open leaf, containing, 
besides certain portions of the Septuagint version, the 
whole New Testament, followed by the Epistle of 
Barnabas and a considerable fragment of the Shepherd of 
Hernias, two works of the Apostolic age or of that which 
immediately followed it, which were read in the Church 
Service as Scripture up to the latter part of the fourth 
century. Tischendorf touchingly describes his surprise, 
his joy, his midnight studies over the priceless book 
for indeed it seemed a sin to sleep on that memorable 
4th of February 1859. The rest was easy; he was 
allowed to transfer his prize to Cairo, to copy it there, 
and ultimately to take it to Russia, as a tribute of 
duty and gratitude to Alexander II. The Russian 
Emperor s munificence enabled him in 18G2 to publish 
a costly edition of the manuscript, partly in facsimile, 
with an elaborate Introduction and critical notes. 

The remote locality of its present resting-place, 
s.L. 3 


and some little difficulty in obtaining access expe 
rienced by visitors at St Petersburg, have rendered 
us largely dependent on Tischendorf s own representa- 
iions for our knowledge of the Codex Sinaiticus. Yet 
Tregelles and other very competent judges examined 
it carefully when it was for a while at Leipsic in 
Tischendorf s possession, and never entertained a doubt 
that it was a genuine relic of the fourth century, 
though not, as its discoverer seemed to imagine, more 
ancient than its competitor at the Vatican. Almost 
every mark of extreme age which we noticed in the 
latter, may be seen also in the copy at St Petersburg : 
the papyrus-like arrangement of several columns on 
the open leaf; the singular fineness of the material, 
which consists of the skins of young antelopes; the 
extreme simplicity of the characters employed; the 
total absence of capitals (although in both an initial 
letter occasionally stands a little out of the line after 
a break in the sense), of breathings and accents ; the 
rare occurrence even of the single stop. While the 
presence of those venerable uncanonical books of 
Barnabas (whose Greek text is here read complete 
for the first time these thousand years) and of Hernias 
Shepherd might seem to indicate a prior date for the 
Sinaitic, yet, on the other hand, the peculiar chapters 
of the Vatican book have now made room for the 
Eusebian sections and canons, which are placed in 
the margin of the Gospels in their accustomed ver 
milion ink, if not by the original writer (for the 
rubricator was seldom the same person as the scribe), 
yet certainly by a contemporary. The age of Codex 
Aleph is thus brought down to the middle of the 

J/.LVr.s< A7/ 7 A OF THE M }\ r TESTAMENT. 

fourth century, though it is not at all ii ., or 

indeed reasonable, to refer it to a later generation 
than that in which Eusebius flourished. 

Tlit- strangest part of this remarkable story has yet to 
In- tol<l. You remember Constantino Simonides, of Syme, 
his History of Uranius the son of Anaximenes, and his 
bootless visit to the Bodleian. Certain of his earlier mis- 
adventurea had brought him into collision with Tischen- 
dorf, to whose researches he had first rendered some real 
aid, and whom he subsequently but in vain endea 
voured to deceive. No sooner had the German issued 
in 1SGO his earliest facsimiles of Codex Sinaiticus 
than Simonides at once declared that venerable monu 
ment of early Christianity to be the work of his own 
hands ; making merry, as you may suppose, with those 
self-called critics, who after rejecting the old manu 
scripts in his possession as modern forgeries, had 
proved ignorant enough to receive as genuine remains 
of extreme antiquity a book innocently copied by a 
youth who neither wished to mislead, nor had imagined 
that its true character could be mistaken by any one. 
Like the gay old beadsman in Scott s Antiquary Simo 
nides "minded the bigging" of this marvellous relic of 
long-past ages, and was in truth himself the builder. 
Among the many accomplishments of his pregnant wit, 
h alleged that, he was gifted with exquisite skill as a 
calligraphcr, and on this point at any rate there can be no 
mistake. Hence he was naturally selected by his uncle 
J5 iiedictjhead of themonastery of Panteleemon ("the All- 
merciful") on Mount Athos, whom he went to visit in 
November, 1839, to make in manuscript, from a printed 
Moscow Bible, a copy of the whole Scriptures,which might 



be worthy of the acceptance of the Russian Emperor 
Nicolas, in dutiful acknowledgment of benefits he had 
conferred on that house. The letters were uncial, the 
material vellum, the style antique. He had gone 
through both the Old and New Testament, the Epistle 
of Barnabas and the first part of Hermas, and would 
have added the whole of the Apostolic Fathers, but 
that in August 1840 his materials failed and his uncle 
died. He therefore broke off his task by simply writ 
ing an inscription purporting that "the whole was 
the work of Simonides," and though he retained the 
dedication to the Emperor in the beginning of the 
volume, he found another patron in Constantius, ex- 
Patriarch of Constantinople and Archbishop of Sinai, 
who in 184-1 accepted the gift in a fatherly letter, 
with which he sent his benediction and 25,000 piastres, 
some 250 sterling. In 1844 Simonides heard from 
the lips of Constantius himself that he had long since 
sent the Codex to St Catharine s on Mount Sinai, 
where the scribe saw his own work in 1844 and again 
in 1852. 

It is humiliating to recall the circumstances of the 
controversy which ensued in England, where our Greek 
was then sojourning, for elsewhere the fable was re 
ceived with blank and absolute incredulity. One of 
our so-called religious periodicals, which we will name, 
if you please, " The Illiterate Churchman," without 
absolutely committing itself to the correctness of Simo 
nides statement, persisted to the last in regarding it as 
a matter demanding the gravest investigation. That 
love of Biblical study, which is the glory of our nation, 
leads many to take a deep interest in this class of 

M.\.\T. i;irTS OF Till- Xi:\\ Ti:sT. \.MK.\T. 37 

subjects \vlio have received no such special training 
a-; would enable them unasM ted to form :i true 
intimate of the facts of a CM6 like this : not to mention 
the honest prejudice excited, as the controversy went 
on, in favour of a stranger who \vaa single-handed and 
ohviously over-matched. It soon appeared, however, 
that living witnesses on his behalf he could produce 
none. Constantius the ex-Patriarch, whose evidence 
would have been unexceptionable, had died only the 
year before (185J)) : a prelate so liberal in rewarding the 
labours of a poor student was plainly not long for this 
world. The monks at Mount Sinai, including him who 
had been librarian from 1841 to 1858, protested that 
they had seen or heard of no such person as Simonides ; 
and declared that the manuscript had been duly en 
tered in the ancient catalogues. For anything that 
appears to the contrary, it might have been brought 
thither at the foundation of the monastery by the Em 
peror Justinian, about A.D. 530, though by what means 
those precious leaves which comprise the Codex Fride- 
rico-Augustauus came into the place where Tischendorf 
found them is as perplexing as ever to account for. 
\Yhen the story of Simonides came to be more closely 
examined, and its internal probabilities minutely scruti 
nized, nothing came to light which could compensate 
for its lack of external support. In the first place it 
was observed that at the period when he undertook, in 
November, 1839, what must certainly be regarded as a 
considerable task, he could only have been fifteen years 
old, since it is stated in his Life written by one Mr 
Steuart but circulated by himself that he was born 
"about the hour of sunrise, Nov. 11, 18^4." This date, 


however, was soon explained to be an error: it was, he 
alleged, the birthday of his brother Photius, his own 
being four years earlier, on "Nov. 5, 1820, the sixth 
hour before noon," and he supports this suspicious 
correction by publishing a letter he wrote to Mr Steu- 
art, pointing out the mistake, dated in January 18GO, 
before he laid claim to the authorship of Codex Sinni- 
ticus. Another difficulty, started at the time, which 
does not involve the credibility of a second person, you 
will form your own judgment about. It is easy to 
reckon that our manuscript, when complete, must have 
consisted of no less than 700 leaves or 1400 pages of con 
siderable size, and that to have finished it as Simonides 
declares he did within the space of eight or nine 
months, he must have written at least twenty thousand 
large and separate iincial letters every day. AY hen 
this fact was represented to him, the Greek frankly 
acknowledged it, and offered to execute the same task 
again for the modest stake of 10,000. Wagers, we 
know, are not wise men s arguments, and no one 
found weak enough to close with his proposal; yet 
before we pronounce his success impossible, we should 
bear in mind the wonderful exploit of a certain " Nico- 
demus the stranger," who records in a manuscript 
containing both the Old and New Testament, recently 
seen at Ferrara by Mr Burgon, that beginning his work 
(certainly in the cursive or running hand, not in 
uncials) on the 8th day of June, he ended it on the 
15th day of July 1334, "working very hard" he adds, 
which beyond question he must have done. Could 
Briarcus the hundred-handed have achieved more ? 
But in truth it is useless to waste words about 

M. I y I .sv RTPTS OF THE NEW TEST. I .Ml- XT. 39 

the mere accessories of tlio case, when tin- main i 
is SO plain and nnniNtakrabh 1 . It is absolutely im 
possible that tlic host scholar in Humpc to say nothing 
of a lad of fifteen or nineteen, could have drawn from 
a mode i-ii Moscow Bible, or from any other source at 
that time open, the sort of text which is exhibited in 
tlic Codex Sinaiticus. In many respects that text is 
questionable enough, but it is evidently very ancient 
and unique in its faults no less than in its excellencies. 
In not a few places we find a few words left out, whose 
omission reduces the passage to mere nonsense, but 
which would just fill up a line in an old papyrus, the 
error being palpably due to the shifting of the copyist s 
eye from one line to the next : accidents like these 
making it clear that the scribe had before him for his 
model no printed book, but a roll answering to the 
manuscript line for line. Then again, Codex tf is 
full of itacisms, that is, of instances of false spelling, 
especially through the substitution of one vowel or 
diphthong for another which in process of time had 
grown to resemble it in sound. In this respect it 
us more or less with every other genuine Greek 
manuscript known to us, especially those of very remote 
date, but then these orthographical blunders have no 
place in printed works, and no sane copyist would have 
introduced them save for the purpose of deception, 
whereas the charge of fraud is here excluded by the 
nature of the case. Simonides assures us that he had 
no thought of misleading any one : it is through mere 
ignorance and stupidity on the part of Tischendorf and 
the rest of us who call ourselves scholars or critics that 
his exercise in penmanship has been mistaken for a 


real relic of antiquity ! But it cannot be necessary 
to pursue this enquiry into further detail, and it shall 
be dismissed with one word about the person whose 
strange history has detained you so long. Those of 
us who had pressed him the hardest were rather 
shocked to learn in 1867 that Constantino Simonides 
had just perished at Alexandria of the cruel disease 
of leprosy : he had died and given no sign ! Pro- 
portionably great was our relief about two years after 
to be told on the authority of the Rev. Donald Owen 
of St Petersburg that he had turned up again under 
a feigned name in that capital, where we will gladly 
leave him in the hope that, like Psalmanazar, he has 
found grace and time to amend his ways. You will 
all know something of George Psalmanazar, who ap 
peared in London as a foreigner above a century ago, and 
proved quite as clever and rather more successful than 
our Simonides. The poor man pretended to be a 
native of the Chinese island of Formosa, and published 
a most plausible description of that country, its re 
ligion, customs, and manners : he even devised a new 
alphabet and a new language, and translated the Creed 
and the Lord s Prayer into Formosan. Very few doubted 
his integrity, and to those few he triumphantly replied 
in the Preface to a second edition "answering every 
thing that had been objected against the author and 
the book." At length came remorse, then contrition, 
then reparation as its meet fruit. Who and whence 
he was have never been clearly ascertained, nor ought 
we to be curious about what he had a right to conceal 
if he pleased. But his fraud was publicly recanted : 
henceforth he earned his bread by honest labours of 

.!/.[. vr.sVA7/ 7 .v OF TIII-: M-:\V TI:*TA.MI:.\T. 41 

his pen, ami long before his cK ath in I7<io liis meek 
and simple piety had power to edify even Dr Johnson, 
\\lio hat il a lie as lie hated tlu- father of lies. 

Our digression fairly ended, we come at length to 
the Vatican and Sinaitic manuscripts, each of 
productions of the fourth century of the Christian 
(i a, in reference as well to the resemblances as to the 
contrasts exhibited by their text. In both respects they 
are very peculiar, and will call for and (as I hope) be 
found to repay our best attention. Codex {$, as was 
manifest on our first acquaintance with it, is very 
roughly written, being full of gross transcriptural blun 
ders of the pen, of the eye, and of the mind : the habit 
I mentioned just now, that of leaving out whole lines of 
the original whence it was derived, is but one specimen 
of an over numerous class. It was long supposed that 
Codex B was singularly free from slips of this kind, 
:md inferences were freely drawn from its presumed 
accuracy which will no longer be pressed. It is cer 
tainly less faulty than its compeer, but the labours 
of Tischendorf and Vercellone have brought to light 
much of this sort, that was hitherto unsuspected. It 

-pecially prone to the kind of error we recently 
tmii J an itacism, that of confounding similar vowel 
sounds to the ruin of the sense, especially in the 
instance of the Greek pronouns, personal or possessive, 
of the first and second persons plural, in which case 
it- evidence is worth almost nothing. We will tako 
just one example by way of specimen, the rather as 
ivrtain critics of great eminence have perceived a certain 
subtil excellence in a variation which to us appears 
utterly void of meaning : it is our Lord s question in 


Luke xvi. 12, "If yc have not been faithful in that 
which is another s, who will give unto you that which 
is your own ?" Codex B, supported by one other uncial 
manuscript and by scarcely any other authority, chang 
ing a single letter in the Greek, as in the English, would 
have us read "who will give unto you that which is 
our own ?" Here, of course, the itacism is patent to 
every one who is not ready to admit the principle that 
when the Vatican has spoken, the world has only to 
believe in silence ; or who has not come to regard the 
very defects of that document as beauties, just like the 
lover in Horace did those of his mistress. No less 
improbable is an addition found a few chapters later, 
which is countenanced by Codex B and the self-same 
uncial (Cod. L of the eighth or ninth century) and by 
hardly any other evidence. In Luke xxi. 24, where 
our Lord declares that "Jerusalem shall be trodden 
down by the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles 
be fulfilled," these authorities add "and they shall be," 
without any tolerable significance, so far as we can 
perceive, the words "and they shall be," with which 
the next verse begins, being here repeated out of their 
proper order. Nay, even such a glaring blunder as 
the corruption of the Greek letter K into N in Mattli. 
xxvii. 28 has not been without its apologists ; yet there, 
in the room of " And they stripped him," Codex B and 
a very few witnesses of real importance would have 
us substitute "And they clothed him," thus rendering 
the verse completely unintelligible. One or two otlirr 
instances of the same nature shall be added, and that 
from no wish to disparage the Codex Vaticanus or to 
depose it from its rightful place at the head of all our 

OF Tin- .v/vjr TKXTA.MKXT. c > 

ial authorities, l)iit to shew that, like its 
distinguished compeers, it is liable to err and 
committed errors of the most palpable character. At 
the mil of the eleventh chapter of the Acts, Barnabas 
and Saul arc represented as going up from Antioch 
to Juda a, carrying with them to the Church there 

contributions of the Syrian disciples for its relief. 
Then follows, evidently in the order of time, that 
interesting narrative respecting the deliverance of 
IVter from prison by the angel, the death of the 
!> rsecutor Herod, and the growth and prosperity of 
the infant Church. The concluding verse of the 
twelfth chapter, in perfect consistency with the whole 
narrative, accordingly runs on thus : " And Barnabas 
and Saul returned from Jerusalem, when they had 
fulfilled their ministry," or service. Instead of "from 
Jerusalem" the impossible variation "to Jerusalem" 
appears in Codex B and its familiar associate L, and 
cot in them only in this case, but also in the Codex 
Sinaiticus, and indeed in so many other considerable 
authorities that we ought not to refuse to accept their 

mony, if any testimony could suffice to convince us 
of the truth of a moral impossibility. The same three 
manuscripts Codd. tf, B, L, with two other uncials of 
great value (D and. A, which we shall describe here 
after) and two cursive copies of some importance, by 
the simple change of two letters, thus transforming the 
feminine pronoun into the masculine, in Mark vi. 22, both 
set at defiance contemporary history and violate every 
dictate of reason an.l natural feeling. You remember 
the shocking details of the murder of John the 
Baptist. Heruilias, as we learn from Josephus, who 


knew the facts well and was living at the time, 
married to her uncle Herod Philip and had by him 
a daughter named Salome, " after whose birth Herodias 
took upon her to confound the laws of her country, and 
divorcing herself from her husband, went through the 
form of a marriage with another Herod, tetrarch of 
Galilee, her husband s brother on the father s side" 
(Jewish Antiquities, Book xviil. Chap. v. 4). In 
her wicked resolution to avenge herself on the Baptist, 
who was ever rebuking the tetrarch for their common 
sin, she even allowed her daughter to dance before 
Herod and his nobles on his birth-day : " the daughter 
of the said Herodias came in, and danced, and pleased 
Herod," as our common Bibles have it. The Vatican 
manuscript, however, upheld by the six others we have 
enumerated, would read "his daughter Herodias came 
in," &c., thus at once displaying ignorance of the 
poor girl s lamentable history, changing her name from 
Salome into Herodias, and imputing to the tetrarch 
feelings which not even a Herod would have been base 
enough to cherish in the case of his own child, for no 
European can conceive the infamy implied when a 
royal maiden took part in the abominable dances which 
defile an Eastern festival. Here we have the teachings 
of history set at nought by these weighty critical authori 
ties. In the very next chapter (Mark vii. 31) geography 
would fare just as ill if the selfsame five uncial copies, 
two cursives and even a version or two, sufficed to 
persuade us that the Lord, on leaving the borders of 
Tyre, where he had just healed the Syrophocnician 
woman s daughter, "came through Sidon to the sc.-i 
of Galilee," a progress which may fairly be compared 

J/J.vr,srA7/ 7-.v OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. !." 

t<> that <>f a traveller v\ho leaving London should pass 
through Oxford to Dover. The ordinary text, as you 
Hi i d not be told, is prrt rctly consistent in representing 
the Saviour s course: "and again, departing from the 
coasts of Tyre and Sidon, he came unto the sea of 

In emergencies of this kind, when evidence, which 
in itself would be irresistible, draws us one way and 
common sense another, the old-fashioned admirer of 
classical English may call to mind that paper in the 
tat&r (No. 470), wherein the delicate humour of 
Addison amuses itself by a parody on the performances 
of textual scholars of his day, the giant Bentley, it 
may be presumed, being chiefly in his view. The 
pretty verses on which he tries his hand are unfortu 
nately a little out of keeping with the passages of 
Scripture we have been discussing; but his mirth is 
harmless, his illustration very happy, and scarcely an 
exaggeration of the spirit of such criticism as we have 
just been concerned with. We will read first the text, 
then Addison s commentary. 

My love was fickle once and changing, 

Nor e er would settle in my heart ; 
From beauty still to beauty ranging, 

In every face I found a dart. 

Twas first a charming shape enslav d me, 

An eye then gave the fatal stroke : 
Till by her wit Comma sav d me, 

And all my former fetters broke. 

But now a long and lasting anguish 

For Belvidera I endure; 
Hourly I sigh, and hourly languish, 

Nor hope to find the wonted cure. 


For here the false unconstant !<>v< r, 

After a thousand beauties shown, 
Does new surprising charms discover, 

And finds variety in one. 

Most of the ancient manuscripts have in the last line "and finds 
variety in two." Indeed so many of them concur in this last reading, 
that I am very much in doubt whether it ought not to take place. 
There are but two reasons which incline me to the reading as I have 
published it: first, because the rhyme; and secondly, because the 
sense is preserved by it. It might likewise proceed from the osci- 
taucy of transcribers, who, to despatch their work the sooner, use.l to 
write all numbers in cipher, and seeing the figure I followed by a 
little dash of the pen, as is customary in old manuscripts, they per 
haps mistook the dash for a second figure, and by casting up both 
together, composed out of them the figure II. But this I shall leave 
to the learned, without determining any thing in a matter of so great 

The solitary variations of the Codex Vaticanus from 
the ordinary Greek text are now and then so happy, that 
were it possible in common prudence to accept read 
ings thus slenderly supported, we should be almost 
inclined to accept them for true. So much cannot be 
said for those vouched for by Codex Sinaiticus alone, 
though some of these too are very suggestive. Let us take 
for instance 1 Peter v. 13, which our Authorized Bibles 
render, "The Church that is at Babylon, elected to 
gether with you, saluteth you," the word "Church" 
being printed in what is called italic type (not indeed 
in the original edition of 1G11, but in those published 
twenty or thirty years later), to intimate that it is 
not found in the Greek. Thus the passage might very 
well be translated "She that is in Babylon," &e., 
whether "she" refer to the Church, or (as some 
moderns have thought more likely) to Peter s wife, who 


certaLjily seems to have attended him on his missionary 
journeys (1 Cor. ix. 5). In this dilemma Codex Sinai- 
tieus, ly receiving the word "Church "into the text, 
supplies us with what is at least a very early exposition 
of it, \\hieh deserves the more regard inasmuch as our 
best ancient versions, the Latin Vulgate and the elder 
Svriar, as well as an inferior OHC, the Armenian, inter 
polate the selfsame word. Some of the variations hitherto 
known to exist in this copy and in no other deserve 
small consideration, and are probably mere lapses of a 
can -less pen. Such are "Coesarea" for "Samaria" in 
3 viii. 5; "Evangelists" for "Hellenists," that is 
"Grecian Jews," Acts xi. 20; "not" inserted in Acts 
xiv. 9 before "heard"; "harvests" instead of "distri 
butions" (the marginal rendering) in Heb. ii. 4, this 
la>t being a change of but one letter in the Greek. 
In Luke i. 20 Nazareth is called "a city of Judaea," 
with only one cursive copy favouring the mistake. 
Occasionally a terse expression of the true text is 
diluted into a weak paraphrase, as in John ii. 3, where 
in the place of the ordinary reading "And when they 
wanted wine," or "And when wine failed," Codex tf, 
inly with some support from Old Latin and some 
inferior versions, would have us substitute "And they 
had no wine, because the wine of the marriage feast 
inishcd." Now and then too we come on what must 
;ed as the worst fault a copy of Holy Scripture 
have, an attempt at wilful correction to evade 
iiiing difficulty. Such is the omission of 
th- perplexing "son of Barachiah" after "blood of 
Zachariah, " in Matt, xxiii. 35, the person referred to 
to all appearance the son of Jehoiada, whose fate 

48 ON Tin: rnrxciPAL GREEK 

and dying words are recorded in 2 Chron. xxiv. 20 22. 
In this instance, since the appendage " son of Bnra- 
chiah " is absent from the parallel passage Luke xi. 51, 
we might have looked for much support of Codex N s 
ready solution ; but in fact we find scarcely any, and 
a later hand, of about the seventh or eighth century 
(facsimile 2, Plate 1),. annexes the missing words in 
the great uncial itself. And here it may be observed 
once for all, that every known manuscript of high 
antiquity is thus altered by later scribes, usually for 
the purpose of amending manifest faults, or of con 
forming the reading to the one in vogue at a more 
recent date. In Codex B we trace two or three such 
revisers; in Codex tf at least ten, some of whom spread 
their work systematically over every page, others 
made only occasional corrections, or were limited to 
separate portions of the manuscript; some again being 
nearly if not quite contemporaneous with the original 
document, but far the greater part belonging either to 
the sixth or seventh century, a few being as recent as 
the twelfth. It is obvious to remark that these several 
classes of emendations, widely differing from each other 
in style, shape of letters, and colour of the ink, could 
have had no place in a modern manuscript such as 
Simonides describes if fraud was not intended, and 
must have been very hard to carry out, if gratui 
tously introduced by a clever impostor. 

We will enumerate only one more instance of deli 
berate and wilful correction which may be imputed to 
Codex Sinaiticus, and is too remarkable to be over 
looked. In Mark xiv. 30, 68, 72 we have before us a 
set of passages which bear clear marks of designed and 


critical revision, thoroughly carried out in Codex X, 
partially so in Codex B and some of its allies, the. 
object being so far to assimilate the narrative of Peter s 
tliivt- tlrnials \\ith that of the other Evangelists, as to 
suppress the fact, vouched for by S. Mark only, that 
the cock crew twice. This end was effected by boldly 
expunging "twice" in verse 30, "and the cock crew" in 
verse 08, " the second time " and " twice " in verse 72. 
In these four separate changes one Old Latin copy 
designated c alone goes the whole way with Codex tf : 
Cod. B is with it once only, Cod. C (of which we 
shall have to speak ere long) twice, our old acquaint 
ance Cod. L also twice: it meets with some slight 
countenance from other quarters, but is beyond ques 
tion to be set aside as a false witness, and so far 
as a vicious harmoniser of the Gospel histories. No 
charge so damaging can be substantiated against the 
Codex Vaticanus, and however jealous we may be of 
admitting any variation into the text on its solitary 
evidence, we shall meet with not a few cases where 
in, seconded by the Sinai copy and by that copy 
almost alone, the intrinsic goodness of the reading it 
exhibits will hardly lead us to hesitate to receive it 
as true. 

CODEX ALEXANDRINUS, or Codex A of the critics, 
prefers the next claim on our interest, as the earliest 
that was thoroughly applied to the recension of the 
text, and the third in point of merit and antiquity. 
It is now deposited in the Manuscript Room of the 
British Museum, where the open volume of the New 
Testament may be seen every public day secured in 
a glass case which stands in the middle of that room. 

S. L, 4 



All that is known of its history may soon be told. 
It came into the Museum on the formation of the 

Library in 1753, having previously formed a part of 
the sovereign s private collection. Sir Thomas Roe, 
our Ambassador in Turkey, received it in 1628 as a 
truly royal gift to Charles I. from Cyril Lucar, then 
Patriarch of Constantinople, the rash and hapless re 
former of the Eastern Church. Cyril had brought 
the book from Alexandria, where he had before been 
Patriarch, and had himself inserted and subscribed 
in it a note importing that he had learnt from tra 
dition that it was written by the hand of Thecla, 


a noble lady of Egypt, thirteen hundred years before, 
a link- later than the Council of Nice, A.D. 3 2~>. This 
information he seems to have obtained from an Arabic 
inscription on the reverse of the first leaf of the manu 
script, also ascribing it to Thecla the martyr, while a 
recent Latin note on a fly-leaf declares that it was 
-iveu to the Patriarchal Chamber (at Alexandria, as 
is stated in a much older and obscure scrawl in Moorish 
Arabic) in the year of the Martyrs 814, which is 
A.I). 1098. Thus it appears certain, in spite of some 
doubts that have been expressed, that Codex A came 
to us from Alexandria, which was probably its native 
place. Its connection with Thecla is less easy to be 
accounted for. A holy lady of that name was an early 
martyr for our faith, far too early indeed to be the 
writer of the book, and a namesake of hers, a friend 
of the great Gregory of Nazianzus in the fourth century, 
whom the probable date of the writing might suit, is 
not known to have been a martyr. Hence one is 
inclined to acquiesce in the acute conjecture of Dr 
Tregelles, that whereas the New Testament portion 
of Codex A begins at Matt. xxv. 6, which in the Greek 
Church forms a part of the proper lesson for the festival 
of that wise virgin S. Thecla, her name once stood in 
its usual place on that first page high in the upper 
margin, which has since been ruthlessly cut down, 
and thus led the writer of the Arabic inscription, from 
which Cyril derived his "tradition," to assume that she 
was the actual scribe. 

This celebrated manuscript, by far the best de 
posited in England, is now bound in four volumes, 
whereof three contain the Septuagint Greek version of 


the Old Testament, with the complete loss of only ten 

leaves ; the fourth volume the New Testament with 

several lamentable defects. It begins, as we have just 

stated, with Matt. xxv. G ; two leaves are lost from 

John vi. 50 to viii. 52 ; three more from 2 Cor. iv. 13 

to xii. G. After the book of the Revelation, and in the 

same hand with the latter part of the New Testament, 

we meet with a treasure indeed in the only extant copy 

of that most precious work of the earliest of the 

Apostolic Fathers, the Epistle of S. Clement of Rome 

to the Corinthians, followed by a fragment of a second 

Epistle of less undoubted authenticity. The book is in 

quarto, and now consists of 773 leaves (whereof G39 

comprise the Old Testament), each page being divided 

(as may be observed in the wood- cut, p. 50) into two 

columns of fifty lines each, having about twenty letters 

or more in each line. The vellum has fallen into holes 

in many places, and since the ink paels off for very age 

whensoever a leaf is touched a little roughly, no one 

is allowed to handle the manuscript except for good 

reasons. The characters are uncial in form, of elegant 

shape, but a little less simple than those in Codd. X and 

B. The punctuation is more frequent, yet still consists 

of a single stop, usually on a level with the top of the 

preceding letter, while a vacant space, proportionate to 

the break in the sense, follows the end of a paragraph. 

Codex Alexandrinus is the earliest in which we find 

capital letters, strictly so called. They abound at the 

beginning of books and sections, some being larger 

than others, but they are written in common ink by 

the original scribe, not painted as in later copies. At 

the end of each book we notice pretty arabesque orna- 


iiunts in ink by the first hand: that in our wood-cut 
occurs at the conclusion of Deuteronomy. 

Vermilion is freely used in the initial lines of the 
several books, and has stood the test of time better 
than the black ink, which has long since turned 
into a yellowish-brown. Another note of somewhat 
lower date than the two preceding codices is to be 
found in the presence of numerals indicating the larger 
Greek chapters throughout the Gospels, in addition 
to the so-called Ammonian sections and the Euse- 
bian canons which occur in Codex Sinaiticus. It 
should be kept in mind that the larger oriental 
chapters bear no resemblance to those in our modern 
Bibles, which were first adopted in the west of Europe 
about the middle of the thirteenth century. The 
Greeks divide the text very unequally : S. Matthew 
into 08 portions, S. Mark into 48, S. Luke into 
83, S. John into 18. A list of titles describing their 


contents stands before each of the last three Gospels 
(those of S. Matthew being wanting), and fragments of 
the titles repeated may be traced at the head of the 
several pages in their proper places, wheresoever the 
binder has withheld his cruel shears. In the Acts and 
Epistles we h nd no such chapter divisions, nor indeed 
did these, whose authorship is ascribed to Euthalius 
Bishop of Sulci, come into vogue before the middle of 
the fifth century. Since, besides the Eusebian canons, 
Codex Alexandrinus contains the Epistle of the great 
S. Athanasius on the Psalms to Marcellinus, it cannot 
well be considered earlier than A.D. 373, the year when 
that great champion of the Faith was lost to the 
Church. The presence of the Epistle of Clement, 
which was once read in Churches like the works of 
Barnabas and Hernias contained in Cod. tf, recalls us 
to a period when the canon of Scripture was in some 
particulars not quite settled, that is, about the time 
of the Councils of Laodicea (364) and of Carthage (397). 
Codex A was certainly written a generation after Codd. 
N and B, but it may still belong to the fourth century ; 
it cannot be later than the beginning of the fifth. 

When Codex A arrived in England, it came into 
the custody of a very good scholar, Patrick Young, 
librarian to Charles I. He at once saw its value, and 
collated the New Testament after the loose fashion of 
the times. Alexander Huish, Prebendary of Wells 
(one loves to revive the memory of men who have 
faithfully laboured before us and are now at rest), 
examined it afresh for the use of Walton s Polyglott. 
Bentley s collation, made in 1716, is yet in manuscript 
at Trinity College, Cambridge. J. E. Grabe had sent 


forth an edition of the Old Testament portion some 
\vurs before ; but exact representations of this manu 
script in a semi-facsimile uncial type were completed 
for tin- N> v Testament by Charles Godfrey Woide, a 
German, and assistant librarian in the British Museum, 
by public subscription in 1786; for the Old Testament, 
but at the national expense, by H. H. Baber, who held 
a similar office to Woide, between the years 1816 and 
1828. Both publications are sufficiently accurate for 
practical purposes, though Woide s bears the higher 
reputation of the two. The Epistles of Clement were 
edited from this manuscript first by Patrick Young in 
1633, and recently by Bishop Jacobson, Tischendorf, and 
Canon Lightfoot. Codex Alexandrinus has been judged 
to be carelessly written, but that is the case to some 
degree with nearly all the old copies, with the Sinaitic, 
as we have seen, most of all. Besides other corrections 
by later hands there are not a few instances in which 
the original scribe altered what he had first written, 
and these changes are to the full as weighty as the 
primitive readings which they amend. Of the character 
of its text we shall only say at present that it ap 
proximates much more closely to that found in later 
copies, especially in the Gospels, than any other ap 
proaching it in respect of antiquity. Hence it is per 
petually at variance with Codd. tf and B in their 
characteristic and more conspicuous various readings, 
and being thus shewn to have had an origin perfectly 
independent of these cognate copies, its agreement with 
either or both of them supplies great strength of 
probability to any reading thus favoured. Its testi 
mony, when it stands nearly or quite alone among 


ancient authorities, may be safely disregarded, save in 
a few cases wherein it is sustained by the pressure of 
internal evidence. 

There are two or three more manuscripts of the 
first rank yet to be considered, the description whereof 
will be more conveniently postponed until the next 
Lecture. We will now endeavour to convey to one 
unacquainted with Greek some general notion of each 
of the documents we have already passed under review, 
by giving line for line an over-literal translation of 
the facsimiles of the original on the opposite page ; 
selecting for this purpose important passages of the 
New Testament to which we shall have to look back 
hereafter, on account of the various readings which are 
contained in them. We begin with Mark xvi. G (part) 
8 from the Codex Vaticanus (facsimile, No. 1) : 



o TO n oc 6 n o ye H K A 

AA A A Y riJc re "rr 

K i TX> 



neiyf M IN KJ 
c A, i e <fc>x ro NJ n crroy 

M N H^ll 6 I O Y, l X N P>| 

Ay TA c T j^> KI o c K AJ 5 

T A,K^nOM^<p 
:: T7 orAX f : v<> ^ 



TCD yA AT i M o N ON 






"fro I Ki t-J I CO e M <JL> V ^> XC"T~On-rts|JCro 

xr i o M e o e -roeiTi c KOTTOYC- 

"TX)V i<V n t^T~r P i eTTOi M e 


The subscription " After Mark " is by a later hand, 
as the shape of the letter M compared with those 
in the text abundantly proves. We have no stops 
at all in the body of the passage, but : and the follow 
ing > >- seem to be original, although the arabesque 
(which, as well as the subscription, is touched with 
vermilion) was subsequently added. Like all other 
good copies, Cod. B omits "quickly" in ver. 8. Al 
though Codex Vaticanus ends S. Mark s Gospel with 
ver. 8, at the 31st line of the second column of a page 
(its columns, when full, containing 42 lines), it leaves 
the third column entirely blank, this being the only 
instance of a vacant column throughout the whole 

To illustrate Codex Sinaiticus we employ another 
passage of the deepest interest (facsimile, No. 3), 1 John 
v. G (part) 9 (part) : 















There is no vestige in Codex Sinaiticus, nor indeed 
in any other manuscript worth naming, of the famous 
interpolation of what are called the Three Heavenly 
Witnesses in vers. 7, 8, which yet deforms our Authorised 
translation, and will call for our special attention here 
after: but we here observe an instance of correction by 
a later hand of about the seventh century, amending 
one of the original scribe s countless blunders, caused 
by his eye having wandered two lines down the papy 
rus he was copying (p. 39), which led him to write 
"God" for "men." Here again we perceive no marks 
of punctuation, but ought to notice a peculiarity, com 
mon to all Biblical manuscripts though seen least in 
the earliest, of abridging the names of the Divine 
Persons after a fashion we should think a little 
irreverent. We shall meet with other examples in 
Codex Alexandrinus, from which we select the single 
verse Acts xx. 28 (facsimile, No. 4). 



" The Lord " in the room of " God " we shall here 
after see cause to reject as a false variation from the 
Received text. Here, however, in the compass of a 
few lines, we meet with as many as three stops, two 
of them over against the middle of the letters, and 
apparently of less power than the final one which is 


set higher up. As a further mark of lower date we 
should notice the initial capital, about double the size 
of the rest, and standing out in the margin by itself. 

The lines in our translation could not, of course, be 
made as nearly of the same length as in the Greek, 
where the letters are often written smaller at the end 
of a line, and in less ancient documents than these 
are compressed in shape. Speaking generally, the cha 
racters in Codex B are somewhat less in size than 
those of Codex A, considerably smaller than those 
in Cod. X, though they all vary a little in this respect 
in different parts. Finally, the Sinaitic manuscript 
is written with four columns on a page (p. 17), each 
rather more than two inches broad, with from 12 to 14 
letters in each. Although the Vatican manuscript has 
but three columns on a page (p. 27), yet the volume 
being somewhat smaller, the breadth of each column is 
about the same as those of its rival, though the letters 
vary from 16 to 18. The columns of Codex Alexan- 
drinus are but two on a page, and, having an average 
breadth of 3 inches, allow room for twenty letters and 
upwards in each. The attempt to keep up a resem 
blance to the style of the old writing on papyrus (p. 1C) 
was by this time given over 1 : in fact the poetical books 
of the Old Testament are necessarily arranged in pages 
of two columns even in Codices B and K. 

1 The Utrecht Latin Psalter, which contains the Athanasian Creed, 
And has been assigned by some to the sixth, by others to the ninth 
or tenth century, is also written in three columns, but bears marks 
of having been transcribed from an archetype which had but two 
columns on a page. It would seem probable indeed that the tlm . - 
column arrangement is less a presumption of great antiquity in Latin 
manuscripts than in Greek. 


TESTAMENT : Continued. 

THE next great manuscript of the Holy Bible which 
calls for our attention is the CODEX OF EPHRAEM, or 
Codex C of our critical notation, now No. 9 in the 
Greek department of the National Library at Paris, 
having been brought into France from Florence, to 
gether with several other copies of less value, by 
Queen Catharine de Medici, of evil memory. It was 
imported from the East by Andrew John Lascar, a 
learned Greek patronised by Lorenzo de Medici, and 
for a while belonged to Cardinal Nicolas Ridolphi of the 
same illustrious house. This document is a palimpsest, 
such as has been described to you before (pp. 17, 18), 
and the primitive writing (which dates from the fifth 
century) being first washed out as far as might be, the 
vellum received in about the twelfth century some 
Greek works of the celebrated Syrian Father S. 
Ephraem, from which it derives its distinctive name. 
The portions of the Old Testament in the Septuagint 
version which yet survive cover only G4 leaves. Far 
more precious are 145 leaves of fragments of every 
part of the New Testament, although more than one- 


tliird of the volume has utterly perished, comprising 
some 37 chapters of the Gospels, 10 of the Acts, 42 of 
the Epistles (2 John and 2 Thessalonians are entirely 
lost), and 8 of the Apocalypse. Even of what remains 
much the greater part is barely legible under the 
modern writing. I had this document chiefly in view, 
though the remark would apply to at least one other, 
when I complained of attempts to revive the nearly ob 
literated characters by means of chemical washes (p. 18). 
Fleck tried the experiment on it in 1834, and has 
defaced it with dark stains of various colours, from 
green or blue to brown or black. The older writing 
was first noticed by Peter Allix two centuries ago ; 
various readings extracted from it were communicated 
by Boivin to Kuster, who published them in 1710 
in his edition of Mill s Greek Testament. As their 
high value was readily perceived by our great Bentley, 
he employed Wetstein, then young in spirit and 
in eye-sight, to collate the New Testament fully in 
1716. To Wetstein s manuscript report now pre 
served with Bentley s other books in the Library of 
Trinity College, Cambridge, is affixed in the Master s 
hand-writing the grumbling note, "this collation cost 
me 50." It might very well have done so and yet 
have been worth the money, since it often takes two 
hours or more to read a single page. Complete editions 
of the New Testament from this manuscript in lsl-:>. 
of the Old in 1845, were among the earliest and best 
of Tischendorf s labours, and leave biblical scholars not 
much more to desire in regard to it. 

From the four-column arrangement of Codex Sinai - 
ticus, the three columns of Codex Vaticanus, and the 


two of Codex Alexandrinus, we come to the single 
column in a page of the Codex Ephraem, which, with 
but few exceptions, was the fashion adopted in Greek 
Biblical manuscripts in later times, save that Lection- 
aries or Church lesson-books were mostly written in 
two columns down to the period that printing was 
invented. In shape Codex C is about the same size 
as Cod. A, but the vellum, though sufficiently good, 
is hardly so fine as that of its predecessors. The 
characters too are a little larger than those of B or A, 
and somewhat more elaborate, the latter circumstance 
always being a token of somewhat lower date. Our 
facsimile (No. 5) is chosen from another famous passage 
to which we must return by and by, being portions of 
1 Timothy iii. 15, 16. The writing in dark ink and 
double columns in the cursive or running hand belongs 
to Ephraem s treatise, and affects us nothing. 



We have left a vacant space in the third line where 
the primitive reading is quite uncertain: the word of 
two letters may either have been WHO (OC) or GD 
i. e. GOD (0C), the difference in sense being evidently 
a considerable one. Here again we observe the capital 
letter in the margin, as in Cod. A, and two middle 
stops in the last line : the double stop before the para 
graph break in the first line may be of later date, as 
the Greek breathings and accents certainly are. The 
strange marks under 6C in the Greek compose a 

c x x 

N M TTs* ***-> oor- 

N u> c> 



Q ^VtT<j6A> K^kJ^ \Qjtr oorroVfe^ 0^1 nrl -roTg ^ 

^xT tra(\tj^y\ {h <CT* ^ V J ^F * TX ~ XJ ^ J \LA\ 

oo a>"^iV^yxurrQ 



J, e 



^ -rottr^U-Vo crluto -0-6^ XCLAU 



musical note, inserted by some one who understood 
the word to be GD. Codex C should be regarded as 
slightly junior to Codex A, and may be referred to the 
first half of the fifth century. An ancient reviser, who 
,\vi at through the manuscript about a hundred years 
after it was written, has preserved readings which are 
sometimes hardly inferior to those of the first hand, 
but two or three later correctors deserve little con 
sideration for their labours. Here again, as in Cod. A, 
there are no traces of chapter divisions in the Acts, 
Epistles, or Apocalypse ; but titles (p. 53), or tables of 
the contents of the larger Greek chapters are prefixed to 
the several Gospels, the Ammonian sections being set in 
the margin without the Eusebian canons, which latter, 
being usually written in vermilion paint, may have 
been washed out by the rough process to which this 
palimpsest has been subjected. The critical value of 
Cod. C, where its evidence is to be had, is very highly 
prized. It stands in respect of text about midway 
between A and B, and is evidently quite independent 
of both, to an extent which could not be asserted of 
Cod. K in reference to B ; so that the support, whether 
of A or C, or better still, of the two united, lends an 
authority to the readings of B, which it is not easy 
to gainsay or set aside. 

CODEX BEZ^E or Cod. D, that copy of the Gospels and 
Acts in Greek and Latin arranged in parallel columns, 
which was presented in 1581 by the French Protestant 
lender Theodore Beza to the University of Cambridge, 
is the last of the great uncial copies we shall consider 
in detail. The open volume stands under a glass case 
in the New Library, and is probably worth all the 


other manuscripts there deposited put together: for 
Cambridge, though rich in grateful sons, is less for 
tunate than Oxford in one respect, that she found no 
Bodley or Laud or Selden to make collections for her, 
at a period when the wreck of English monastic- 
libraries could be picked up almost for the asking. 
Codex Bezae has been twice edited ; in 1793 by Thomas 
Kipling, afterwards Dean of Peterborough, in two folio 
volumes and in type imitating the style of the primi 
tive writing, in 18G4 by myself in a less costly, but 
not, I hope, a less useful form. The manuscript is now 
splendidly bound and forms a quarto of 400 original 
and nine later vellum leaves: about 128 leaves have 
been lost, containing portions of the Gospels of S. 
Matthew and S. John, and no inconsiderable part of 
the Acts of the Apostles, some of the missing passages 
being supplied on the more recent leaves in a hand 
more modern by at least 300 years. 

A Latin fragment of the third epistle of S. John, 
from ver. 11 to the end, stands on the first page of 
a leaf on the reverse of which the Acts commence, 
so that the Catholic Epistles or some of them must 
have preceded that book when the Codex was yet 
perfect. The order also in which the Gospels stand 
is uncommon, though not unexampled in the West, 
those of the two apostles S. Matthew and S. John 
taking precedence of the writings of the Apostolic men 
S. Luke and S. Mark. Three of the best codices of 
the Old Latin versions exhibit the same arrangement, 
to us a very strange one, Matthew, John, Luke, 

In Codex Beza3, as our facsimile (No. G) will shew, 


the Greek t.-xt stands on the left page of each open 
Irat , th- Latin translation on the right, opposite to it, 
and corresponding with it line for line; the whole 
hi ing distributed into metrical lines of not very un 
equal length, which in the venerable archetype from 
which it was derived doubtless suited the sense closer 
than it does at present. There are thirty-three such 
lines on every page, that in our specimen being taken 
from John xxi. 21, 22. 





The insertion of THUS in the third line enables us 
to trace a little of the history of this remarkable 
manuscript before it fell into Beza s hands. William 
a Prato, Bishop of Clermont in the Auvergne, is known 
to have produced to the Council of Trent in 1546 
"a very ancient Greek codex," which confirmed the 
reading of the Latin Vulgate " Thus I wish" instead 
of " If I wish." Since Cod. D is the only known Greek 
which even seems to do so (as it reads both "if" and 
"thus" with some other Latin authorities), the inference 
is a natural one that a Prato had brought it to Trent 
from his own country. In or about the same year 
l.VKJ, Henry Stephens collated what cannot but be the 
self-same copy " in Italy," for the use of his father 
Robert Stephens celebrated Greek Testament of 1550. 
All else we know about the book is told by Beza in 
his letter to the University of Cambridge which ac 
companied his noble gift, and in an autograph note of 
s. L. 5 


his still to be seen in it, whose statements are yet. 
more explicit. Hence we learn that he obtained this 
precious treasure from the monastery of S. Irenseus in 
Lyons, at the first breaking out of the French religious 
wars in 15G2; and since we learn from the annals of 
those miserable times that Lyons was sacked and the 
monastery desecrated by the Huguenots that very year, 
we need not go far to conjecture how it came into the 
possession of Beza, who was serving as chaplain general 
of the Reformed army during that very campaign. He 
adds indeed that it had long lain there buried in the 
dust, which might be true enough in the main, for 
Beza is little likely to have heard of the loan made 
to the Bishop of the neighbouring Clermont sixteen 
years before. Nothing is more likely than that this 
most venerable document, a relic of the end of the 
fifth or the beginning of the sixth century, was a 
native of the country in which it was found. The 
Latin version bespeaks its western origin ; its style 
and diction are exactly suitable to a province like Gaul, 
where the classical language was fast breaking up into 
the vernacular dialect from which the modern French 
derives its origin, to whose usage indeed a few of its 
words and phrases approximate in a manner which can 
not well be accidental. For it will be observed that 
the Latin version of Cod. D has less affinity to the 
Vulgate than any other yet known. It seems to have 
been made either from the existing Greek text of the 
manuscript, or from a yet earlier form very closely 
allied with it. 

But for the character of its parallel Latin trans 
lation, the Codex Beza3 might have been dated a little 


earlier than we have ventured to place it. Its uncials 
are firm, simple, and elegant; the punctuation consists 
mainly of a single point over against the middle of the 
letters ; the capitals are not much larger than the other 
letters, though they sometimes occur in the middle of a 
line, a practice we have not had to notice before. The 
text has none of the usual divisions into chapters or 
sections, but is distributed into paragraphs peculiar 
to this copy, indicated by the initial fetters running 
slightly into the margin. In some parts this manu 
script is quite fresh, the red ink especially being as 
bright as if it were new : in others it is barely legible. 
It has suffered many emendations by numerous hands, 
some of which have dealt with it very violently. The 
Ammonian sections were placed in the margin by a 
scribe of about the ninth century. 

The chief interest attached to Codex Beza? arises 
from the very peculiar character of its Greek text, 
which departs much further from that of the common 
editions than does that of any other manuscript. No 
known copy contains so many bold and extensive in 
terpolations, either absolutely unsupported, or counte 
nanced only by some Old Latin manuscript or Syriac 
version. In the Acts of the Apostles we seem in many 
places to be reading a kind of running commentary on 
the narrative as given by other authorities, rather than 
S. Luke s history itself, and some of its additions are 
very interesting, from whatever source they were de- 
rivi-d, though we must not venture to regard them as 
authentic. Such, for example, is the touching circum 
stance preserved by Cod. D and the margin of a late 
Syriac version, and by these alone, that Simon Magus, 



after his earnest request for S. Peter s intercession that 
his sin might be forgiven him (Acts viii. 24), ceased not 
to shed many a bitter tear. But the most remarkable 
passage in this manuscript, in regard to which it stands 
quite alone, is that which follows Luke vi. 4, on the 
leaf which is usually kept open at Cambridge for the 
inspection of visitors. It runs thus : 

" On the same day he beheld a certain man work 
ing on the saVbath, and said unto him, Man, blessed 
art thou if thou knowest what thou doest ; but if thou 
knowest not, thou art cursed and a transgressor of the 

I was present when this passage was shewn at 
Cambridge to a learned Greek Archimandrite, Philippos 
Schulati of Kustandje. He had never heard either of 
it or of the manuscript before, but after a moment s 
thought his comment was ready : " This cannot be : 
the Lord cursed no man." 

CODEX CLAROMONTANUS, or Cod. D of S. Paul s 
Epistles, now No. 107 in the National Library at Paris, 
bears a strange resemblance to Cod. D of the Gospels 
and Acts in regard to its country, its history, its 
date, genius, and general appearance. This copy also 
was brought to light by Beza, who first mentions it in 
1582, the year after he had sent its fellow to Cam 
bridge. He had obtained it, he says not how, at the 
other Clermont near Beauvais, and from him it passed 
into the hands of those distinguished scholars, Claude 
Dupuy, Councillor of Paris, and his sons Jacques and 
Pierre. Jacques, who was the king s librarian, sold it 
in 165G to Louis XIV, to form part of the great collec 
tion which it still adorns. In 1707 John Aymont, an 


apostate priest, stole 35 of its 533 leaves, of the thinnest 
and finest vellum known to exist. One leaf, which he 
disposed of in Holland, was restored in 1720 by its pos- 
r Sin>i -h ; the rest were sold to the bibliomanist 
Harley, Earl of Oxford, Queen Anne s Lord Treasurer, 
but were sent back to Paris in 1729 by his son, who 
had learnt their shameful story. This noble volume, 
like the other Cod. D, is in two languages, the Greek 
and Latin being on different pages in parallel lines, the 
Greek on the left side of the open leaf. It contains 
all S. Paul s Epistles except a few missing leaves, that 
to the Hebrews standing last as in our modern Bibles, 
rather than as in Codd. KABC (p. 27). Each page is 
covered with about 21 lines of uncial writing, the words 
being continuous both in Greek and Latin, the letters 
square, regular and beautiful, perhaps a little simpler 
than those in Codex Bezae. Our facsimile (No. 7) 
contains 1 Cor. xiii. 5, G : 







Here again, but more correctly and clearly than in 
Codex Bezae, we have an example of what is technically 
called stichometry, that is, the division of prose sentences 
into lines of about equal length corresponding as nearly 
as possible to the sense. This elegant but artificial 
arrangement, though not unknown in the third and 
fourth centuries, was first formally applied to S. Paul s 


writings by Euthalius the deacon, A. D. 458. The pre 
cious fragment Cod. H of S. Paul, once belonging to 
Coislin, Bishop of Metz, and now also in the National 
Library at Paris, is similarly divided to Cod. D, and 
the two must be referred to the same period, the early 
part of the sixth century, a date which will suit well 
enough the Latin version in the parallel column, as it 
did that of Codex Bezae (p. GG). There are few stops 
in this copy, the breathings and accents are by a hand 
two or three centuries later. The letters at the begin 
ning of words and sections are plain, and not much 
larger than the rest. The Greek text is far purer than 
that of Cod. Bezae, and inferior in value only to that of 
its four great predecessors, Codd. XABC : the Latin 
version is more independent of the parallel Greek, and 
of higher critical worth. This manuscript also was 
excellently edited in 1852 by the indefatigable Tischen- 
dorf, who found his task all the more difficult by reason 
of the changes the text had successively undergone 
at the hands of no less than nine different correctors, 
ancient and modem. 

In connection with the Codex Claromontanus we 
are bound to name another Greek and Latin copy, 
CODEX SANGERMANENSIS or Cod. E of S. Paul, if only 
to point out its utter uselessness. In the worst d;iys 
of the first French Revolution the Abbey of S. Ger 
main des Prez by Paris, which had been turned into a 
saltpetre manufactory, was burnt down, and many of its 
books were lost in the act of removal. Out of their 
number Cod. E and two leaves of Cod. H of S. Paul, 
which we just now referred to, have turned up, together 
with others, in the Imperial Library at St Petersburg, 


that common receptacle of literary property which 
has <n>m> astray. We may wish the Russians joy of a 
purchase which is of no value to any one. Cod. E is a 
large volume, written in coarse uncial letters f>f about 
the tenth century, with breathings and accents by the 
first hand, the two languages standing on the same 
page, but the Greek still on the left hand. In respect 
to the Greek column, it is demonstrably nothing but a 
servile transcript from Cod. D made by a very ignorant 
scribe after Cod. D had suffered its more violent correc 
tions, which are incorporated with the text of Cod. E in 
as blundering a fashion as can be conceived. The Latin 
too is derived from that of Cod. D, but is a little more 
mixed with the new or Vulgate Latin, and may be 
of some service in criticism, whereas the Greek cannot 
possibly be of any. 

Another manuscript in which the prose text of the 
Acts of the Apostles is broken up into stichoinetry was 
given to the Bodleian Library by its great Chancellor 
and benefactor, Archbishop Laud It is designated 
Cod. E of the Acts, which book alone it contains, 
though with a serious gap of the 73 verses between 
ch. xxvi. 29 and ch. xxviii. 2G. This copy also is in Greek 
and Latin, or more properly in Latin and Greek, for 
here the two languages are found in parallel columns 
on the same page (not on different pages as in the two 
Codd. D), the Latin in the post of honour on the left, 
in which particular it is almost unique among Biblical 
manuscripts. It was, therefore, manifestly written in 
the West of Europe. An edict of Flavius Pancratius, 
Duke of Sardinia, which with the Apostles Creed in 
Latin is annexed to it, shews that it must have been 


in that island not earlier than the sixth century. The 
very peculiar readings which he cites from it suffi 
ciently prove that it was in the possession of our Vener 
able B<*le, who died A.D. 735, and the conjecture is a 
probable one that it is one of the Greek books brought 
from Rome to England A.D. 668 by our great Arch 
bishop of Canterbury, Theodore of Tarsus, the fellow- 
countryman of S. Paul. The style of this manuscript 
shews that its date is somewhat lower than those we 
have yet considered (except of course the S. Germain s 
transcript of Codex Claromontanus), perhaps early in 
the seventh century or late in the sixth. The charac 
ters are large and somewhat rude, the vellum thick 
and coarse, the 220 extant leaves have from 23 to 26 
lines each, every line containing one or two words only, 
so that the stichometrical arrangement is rather one 
of name than of fact. Capital letters, running into 
the margin, occur after a break in the sense, but there 
are no formal paragraphs or indications of chapter 
divisions. Our facsimile (No. 8) comprises a portion 
of Acts xx. 28, with the same various reading as we 
noted above (p. 58) in Cod. A. 




The Laudian manuscript (E) has been twice edited, by 
Thomas Hearne the antiquarian in 1715, by Tischen- 
dorf in 1870. Its text exhibits numberless rare and 
bold variations from that of ordinary copies, and in 
places is near akin to that of Cod. Bezae (D), but 
has a yet stronger affinity than the latter to the Greek 

,7, A K K TEST A Ml- XT: CONTIMT.I*. 73 

ni;irgiii of the later Syriac version. One cursive manu- 
MTipt of the eleventh century in the Ambrosian Library 
at Milan (137 of Scholz s notation) resembles it so 
closely. in the latter part of the Acts, that it may 
almost serve as a substitute for D or E, where either of 
them is mutilated. Cod. E is our earliest and chief 
Greek authority for the interesting verse Acts viii. 37, 
"And Philip said, If thou believest from all thine heart, 
thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe 
that Jesus Christ is the Son of God." This verse is 
familiar to the English reader from having been brought 
into the Received Greek text by its first editor Eras 
mus, who frankly confesses that he found it not in his 
Greek copies, save in the margin of a single one. 
Hence its authenticity cannot be maintained, although 
Irenseus, who wrote in Gaul in the second century, 
recognised it without hesitation, as did Cyprian in the 
third century, Jerome and Augustine in the fourth. 
Many forms qf the Latin version also contain the verse, 
which at any rate vouches for the undoubted practice 
of the early Church, of requiring a profession of 
faith, whether in person or by proxy, as ordinarily an 
essential preliminary to Baptism. 

Two other considerable Greek-Latin manuscripts, 
which contain S. Paul s Epistles, merit a brief and passing 
notice, although they are neither of them prior to the 
latter part of the ninth century ; namely, the Codex 
Augiensis (F), once Richard Bentley s, and bequeathed 
by his nephew to Trinity College, Cambridge, and the 
Codex Boernerianus (G) in the Royal Library at Dres 
den. Tlie former member of this pair I had the pleasure 
of editing in 1839, the latter was published by the 


great critic Matthaei as far back as 1791. Cod. Augi- 
ensis derives its name from the monastery of Augia 
Dives, Reichenau, the rich meadow, on a fertile island 
in the lower part of the Lake of Constance, to which it 
long appertained, and where it may even have been 
written about a thousand years ago. The origin of 
Cod. Bocrnerianus (so named from a former owner, and 
Professor at Leipsic, C. F. Boerner) is yet better ascer 
tained, inasmuch as what is demonstrably the earlier 
portion of it, comprising the four Gospels, was disco 
vered at the great monastery of S. Gall, and published 
in 1836 by Rettig, being known as the very curious and 
weighty Cod. A (delta, p. 43) of the Gospels. On a leaf 
now at Dresden were found a stanza or two of Irish verse, 
doubtless written by one of the students of that nation 
who crowded to S. Gall in the middle ages, which, as 
translated by Dr Reeves, the eminent Celtic scholar, 
may suggest that his countrymen had hardly yet be 
come the blind slaves of the Papal court that unhappy 
circumstances have made them since. 

To go to Rome, to go to Rome, 

Much trouble, little good, 

The King thou seekest there 

To find, thou must bring -with thee. 

The connection between the Greek text as exhibited 
by Cod. F and that of Cod. G is of the most intimate 
character. That of Augia has all the defects of the 
sister copy and two peculiar to itself, since its first 
seven leaves are completely lost ; both break off at 
Philemon ver. 20, thus omitting the Epistle to the 
Hebrews, although Cod. F affixes the Vulgate Latin 
version of that letter, while Cod. G has at the end of 

GREEK TESTAMKXT: ro.V77.VT /:/). 7. 

Philemon the title "Here beginneth the Epistle to 
the I/iodiivans," which, had it been preserved, would 
have been very interesting. Since the Epistle to the 
Colossians had already been given in its proper place, 
it could not have been that letter under another 

But the Greek text in both copies is chiefly to be 
noticed. On comparing Matthaei s edition of G with 
the original of F, I could count only 1982 places wherein 
they differ, whereof only 200 were true various readings, 
the rest being mere blunders of the respective scribes, 
slips of the pen, or interchanges of vowels by reason of 
itacisms (pp. $9, 41). This affinity between the two has 
but one parallel, and that a less complete one, in this 
branch of literature, for Cod. E of S. Paul is only an 
unskilful transcript of Cod. D after it had suffered ex 
tensive corrections (p. 71). The truth is, that they were 
both taken from the same archetype by scribes who were 
miserably ignorant of Greek, and in that archetype the 
words must have been written continuously as in Codd. 
NABC, the two Codd. D, and E of the Acts. But a habit 
had long been growing which in the ninth century be- 
c .unc confirmed, of setting a space between the words, 
and to this habit the scribes of both copies wished to 
conform, and even put a single point or stop at the end 
of each word (see p. 20), as if to shew that the practice 
\\.i- not yet familiar. Now the thing to be noticed is 
this ; while in their almost complete darkness as to the 
meaning of the Greek they both made most ludicrous 
errors in the process of separating the words, the blun 
ders of the one are by no means identical witli those of 
the other, though just as gross and absurd. Hence it 


follows that both F and G were transcribed Separately 
from the same older codex, and, except in the places 
where they differ from each other, must be regarded 
not as two witnesses but one. The text thus pre 
served is both ancient and valuable, marked by many 
peculiarities of its own, and not to be rejected, if re 
jected at all, without much thought and some hesi 

In respect to their Latin versions the two are quite 
independent. Cod. F has a pure form of the Latin 
Vulgate, as current at the period, in parallel columns on 
the same page with the Greek, but so arranged that 
the two Latin should always stand in the outward 
columns of each open leaf, the two Greek inside, and 
next to each other. In Cod. G the Latin is of an older 
type, set over the Greek and much conformed to 
it. Cod. G also preserves, by means of capital letters 
in the middle of the lines, the stichometrical arrange 
ment of the archetype from which it was taken. 

It would be too much to tire your patience by de 
scribing other uncial manuscripts of lower date and less 
eminent merit. For their age, history, and character 
istics I must be content to refer you to works which 
have been specially devoted to the subject, among which 
the second edition of my " Plain Introduction to the 
Criticism of the New Testament," whatever be its other 
merits, is at least the most recent. Suffice it to say that 
the palimpsest fragments (p. 17) Codd. P and Q at Wolf- 
enbuttel, Cod. R (Nitriensis, see p. 90) of S. Luke in 
the British Museum, Cod. Z of S. Matthew at Trinity 
College, Dublin, must be assigned to the sixth century, 
or the opening of the seventh, and, so far as they carry 


us, are only less weighty than Codd. tfABCD. But 
the cm -\ -phaeus of these lesser authorities, though not 
earlier than the eighth century, is Codex L, or No. G2 
in the National Library at Paris, of which we have had 
occasion to speak in connection with Codex B (pp. 42, 
43, 49). In number the uncials amount to fifty-six in 
the Gospels, far the greater part of which are fragments, 
and many of them inconsiderable fragments ; in the Acts 
and Catholic Epistles to six ; in the Pauline Epistles to 
fifteen, chiefly fragments ; in the Apocalypse to only 
five ; to eighty-two in all. We do not here include 
Church lesson-books or Lectionaries, of which about 
sixty-eight survive in uncial characters; inasmuch as 
this style of writing, which became obsolete in other 
books towards the end of the ninth century, was in 
volumes used for reading in Churches, for motives of 
obvious convenience, kept up about two hundred years 

I have just said that much of our elder and uncial 
wilting is merely fragmentary. This arises in part 
from the nature of the case. A few leaves, or per 
haps a single leaf, of precious Biblical vellum, had been 
barbarously mangled to make up the binding of some 
comparatively modern book. Thus a portion of the 
beautiful Codex Ruber or Cod. M of S. Paul has been 
made up into fly-leaves for a volume of small value in 
comparison, among the Harleian manuscripts in the 
British Museum : Griesbach identified it at a glance as 
belonging to a fragment at Hamburg, by the exquisite 
sriiiiruisivc- writing and the bright red ink. Again, that 
intei-i sting leaf of S. Mark s Gospel (W d ) which is now 
arranged on glass at Trinity College, Cambridge, consists 


of 27 several shreds, picked out of the binding of a 
volume of Gregory Nazianzen in 1862 by the University 
Librarian, Mr Bradshaw. Too often, however, the scat 
tering of various parts of the same manuscript is the 
work of mere fraud or greed. Of what was once a very 
fine copy of the Gospels written late in the sixth cen 
tury on thin purple-dyed vellum in letters of silver and 
gold, four leaves are among the Cotton manuscripts in 
the British Museum, six are in the Vatican, two in the 
Imperial Library at Vienna. Thirty-three more leaves 
of the self-same codex (known as N of the Gospels) 
have lately been discovered at the monastery of S. 
John at Patmos, whence the other twelve were no 
doubt stolen, then divided for the purpose of getting a 
higher price for them from three several purchasers 
than from one. One would be sorry indeed to utter a 
word of disparagement about a person who has done so 
much for Biblical learning as Tischendorf, yet it is hard 
to acquit him of blame for having dispersed needlessly 
the several portions of certain documents he has brought 
to light. The case of Codex Sinaiticus seems to have 
admitted of no alternative. H*e was glad to get posses 
sion of its separate parts when and how he could. Yet 
the effect abides, that the 43 leaves which go by the 
name of the Codex Friderico-Augustanus (p. 32) are 
now at Leipsic, the remainder of the manuscript at St 
Petersburg. But it is hard to account in this way for 
his procedure in another matter. In 1855 he sold to the 
University of Oxford for the Bodleian, at a good price, 
two uncial codices of some importance, probably written 
in the ninth century, and each containing about half of 
the Gospels. They are known as Codd. T (gamma] and A 

:/: TESTAMENT: < <>. \TINUED. 79 

(lambda), and were stated by him to have been found in 
Si uue eastern monastery he is in the habit of describ 
ing in this Amoral way the original locality of treasures 
which he met with on his various journeys. Four years 
later, on his return from the expedition during which he 
lighted on Codex Sinaiticus, he took to St Petersburg 
the remaining half of each of these documents, which 
are thus separated from their other portions by the 
breadth of Europe, and that without giving Oxford a 
chance of acquiring tne whole, so far at least as we are 
aware. Without doubt the course which Tischendorf 
adopted was the more advantageous to himself, but to 
the Biblical student it is vexatiously inconvenient. 

Little can here be said about manuscripts written 
in the cursive or running hand, which style from the 
tenth century downwards (p. 20) was almost exclusively 
employed in copying manuscripts of the New Testa 
ment. They are very numerous sixteen hundred at 
least having been entered in formal Catalogues, whereof 
hardly a hundred have been collated or even examined 
as they ought but they will not enter largely into 
discussion when we come to apply our materials to the 
solution of critical difficulties. A very brief account of 
a few of them is all we shall find time for. As the 
uncials are designated by letters of the alphabet, so are 
the cursives for the most part by the Arabic numerals. 
Cod. 1 contains the Gospels, Acts, and all the Epistles, 
written in an elegant and minute hand, and on account 
of certain beautiful miniatures which have now been 
abstracted from it was assigned to the tenth century: 
the handwriting might lead us to think that it is a little 
more recent. Our facsimile (No. 9, Plate 1) represents 


the title and first words of S. Luke s Gospel, and the 
graceful illuminations are set off by bright colours and 
gilding. It is deposited in the Public Library of Basle, 
in which city it was used, only too slightly, by Erasmus, 
when he was preparing the first published edition of 
the Greek New Testament, 1516. 

The Apocalypse, or Book of the Revelation, is not 
often contained in the same volume as the Gospels ; so 
that Cod. 1 of the Apocalypse is quite a different manu 
script, of less value and antiquity, and being the only 
one to which Erasmus had access when forming his 
Greek text, its manifold errors and its defect in the 
six concluding verses rendered his text of this book the 
least satisfactory portion of his great work. This Cod. 1 
then belonged to John Reuchlin (or Capnio, as he was 
called, after the fanciful humour of his times), the 
famous scholar whose death in 1522 was bewailed by 
his loving friend Erasmus in one of the most exquisite 
of his Colloquies. It was subsequently lost, but was 
happily re-discovered by Professor Delitzsch in 18G1, 
in the library of the Prince of Oettingen-Wallerstein, 
to the great gain of sacred literature. 

Cod. 33 of the Gospels, Acts, and Epistles, although 
much less beautiful than the Basle Cod. 1, is in respect 
of its contents far more valuable. For its store of 
excellent various readings, and its textual resemblance 
to the most venerable uncials, it has been justly styled 
" Queen of the cursives." It once belonged to the great 
French minister Colbert, and is now in the National 
Library at Paris, No. 14. It is written in a fine round 
hand of the eleventh century, with 52 long lines on 
each page (see facsimile No. 10, Luke i. 8 11), but has 


been shamefully misused in former times. By reason 
of the damp, the ink has in many places left its proper 
page lilank, so that, to the dismay of Tregelles, who 
pi Tsistently collated it anew in 1850, the writing can 
only be read as set off on the opposite page. 

The next copy we shall speak of, Cod. 69 of the 
Gospels, is one of the comparatively few cursives 
some twenty-five in all which embrace the whole 
New Testament, although with numerous defects. It 
is a folio volume, peculiar for having been written, 
apparently with a reed, on inferior vellum and coarse 
paper, arranged in the proportion of two parchment to 
three paper leaves, recurring at regular intervals : the 
handwriting is a wretched scrawl, always tiresome and 
sometimes difficult to decipher. OUT facsimile (No. 11) 
contains 1 Tim. iii. 15 16, selected for the sake of a 
reading to which we have previously made reference, 
and shall have occasion to speak more about hereafter. 
Its wide variations from the Received text have drawn 
much attention to this document, which was presented 
to the Town Council of Leicester in 1640 by a neigh 
bouring clergyman, Thomas Hayne. Its present owners 
allowed both Tregelles and myself to take it home with 
us for the laborious task of complete collation, but it is 
ordinarily kept with reverent care in the Town Library 
by those who take an honest pride in their treasure. 
A few years since some friends of mine were in 
specting it with strangers curiosity, while the old lady 
appointed to exhibit it expatiated loudly on its merits. 
It was, of course, in her oration, one of the wonders 
of the world, a precious relic coming down to us from 
the fourth century of the Christian era. Then sud- 
s. L. 6 


denly changing countenance, and sharpening the tones 
of her voice, she proceeded, to the lively amusement of 
her audience, " And yet that famous Doctor Scrivener 
pretends that it is no older than the fourteenth cen 
tury : much he knows about it !" If you will glance 
again at our facsimile, and compare it with others that 
I have laid before you, it may probably occur to you 
that the date I venture to assign to it is not far wrong ; 
but it might have comforted the zealous guardian of 
the Leicester manuscript, had she been told that mere 
age is but one element in assigning to a document its 
proper value. This very copy has recently been demon 
strated by the late Professor Ferrar, of Trinity College, 
Dublin, and his colleague there, Mr. T. K. Abbott, to 
have so close a connection with three others of the 
twelfth century, one being now at Paris, another at 
Vienna, the third at Milan 1 , that the four must have 
been transcribed, either directly or perhaps at second 
hand, from some archetype of very remote antiquity, 
which in Mr Abbott s judgment may have equalled 
Codex Bezse in age, while it exceeded it in the purity 
of its text. One point of resemblance between the four 
is a very startling one. These manuscripts, and these 
alone, coincide in removing the history of the woman 
taken in adultery, which we shall have to discuss 
hereafter, from the beginning of the eighth chapter of 
S. John s Gospel to the end of the twenty-first chapter 
of S. Luke. 

Two other very important copies of the Gospels 
are Cod. 157 in the Vatican, which is next in weight 

1 The other three copies are, Cod. 13 of the Gospels, Paris No. 50; 
Cod. 124, Vienna, Lambecc. 31 ; Cod. 34G, Milan, Ambros. S. 23 sup. 


among the cursives to Cod. 33, and from its miniatures 
iu colours and gold is seen to belong to the early part 
of the twelfth century; and a Church lesson-book, dated 
A.D. 1319, abounding with readings found elsewhere 
only in Cod. B and the best uncials, which has been 
named by others Scrivener s y, because I was fortunate 
enough to light upon it nearly thirty years ago among 
the Burney manuscripts in the British Museum. In 
the same great library is deposited another cursive, as 
remarkable as any in existence, Cod. Gl of the Acts of 
the Apostles only, but with 297 verses missing. This 
also is dated (A.D. 1044), and seems once to have con 
tained the Catholic Epistles, since a table of the chap 
ters in S. James yet remains. Tischendorf discovered 
it in Egypt in 1853, and sold it to the Trustees of the 
British Museum. In consideration of its singular cri 
tical value in a book whose readings are at times much 
disturbed, independent collations have been made of it 
by Tischendorf, Tregelles, and myself. 

The last cursive we shall mention at present is one 
of about the twelfth century, Cod. 95 of the Apocalypse, 
manuscripts of which book are much scarcer than those 
of any other portion of the New Testament. The late 
Lord do la Zouche, then Mr Curzon, found it in 1837 
on the library floor at the monastery of Caracalla, on 
Mount Atlios, and begged it of the Abbot, who sug 
gested that the vellum leaves would be of use to cover 
pickle-jars. This "special treasure," as Tregelles justly 
culls it, contains also, between the portions of its pre 
cious text, an epitome of Arethas commentary on the 
Apocalypse, and breaks off at ch. xx. 11. This copy, 
and one less valuable from the same place (Cod. 9(1}, 

G 2 


Mr Curzon allowed me to collate in 1855 at his seat, 
Parham Park in Sussex. 

Manuscripts of every kind and date will often be 
found to contain very interesting matter respecting 
their scribes and the times when they were written. 
Many of them are adorned with pictures in miniature 
or of full size, as also with arabesque and other illu 
minations, in paint of blue or purple, green or ver 
milion or gold, both beautiful in themselves, and 
illustrative of the history of art. But these things ap 
pertain rather to the antiquarian than to the Biblical 
critic, and must not detain us now. A pretty little 
notice of the Scriptorium, or writing-room in monas 
teries (see p. 4), of its tenants and its furniture, may be 
seen in so unlikely a place as the Appendix to the 
"Golden Legend" of the American poet Longfellow, 
who fairly quotes the authorities whence his informa 
tion is taken. In two writers of manuscripts, who have 
repeatedly crossed my path, I cannot help feeling a 
special interest : one is Theodore of Hagios Petros in 
the Morea, which little town even yet furnishes pupils 
to the German Universities, in whose firm bold hand 
no less than six manuscripts still survive, bearing date 
between A.D. 1278 and 1301: the other is Angelus Ver- 
gecius, a professional scribe of the sixteenth century, 
on whose elegant style was modelled the Greek type 
cast for the Royal Printing Office at Paris, and to 
whose excellence in his art is due the oddly-sounding 
proverb, " he writes like an angel." The colophon 01 
concluding note to an extensive work is sometimes 
very touching in its quaint simplicity, whether it be 
a burst of thankfulness that the toil is ended ; or a 


rv<iurst fur tin- reader s prayers in behalf of the sinful 
]n iiiaan; or a description of his personal peculiarities, 
such as "the one-eyed Cyprian;" or some obvious 
moral reflection, which hardly reads like a common 
place, now that it is verified before our eyes. Take, 
for example, the following distich, extracted from a 
manuscript in the collection of the Baroness Burdett- 
Coutts (11. 10) : 

TJ nlv \lp TI ypd\l/a<ra. Olfrtnu rdtpy, 

The hand that wrote doth moulder in the tomb, 
The Book abideth till the day of doom. 



1. I TRIED to explain in the course of my first 
Lecture (pp. 9 11) the important service rendered to 
sacred criticism by the primitive versions of Holy Scrip 
ture and by the express citations from it preserved in 
early ecclesiastical writers ; inasmuch as these help to 
bridge over the space of nearly three centuries which 
separates the lost autographs of the Apostles and Evan 
gelists from the most venerable of those manuscripts 
which my second and third Lectures were designed to 
render familiar to you. In plain truth, the versions and 
the Fathers of the second and third century stand in 
the place of copies of the New Testament which were 
then in common use, but have long since utterly disap 
peared beyond all hope of discovery: and, speaking 
generally, they fill up the vacant room, if not at all 
times so completely as we might wish, yet in a way 
abundantly sufficient for all practical purposes. A sin 
gle example shall illustrate my meaning, and it shall be 
taken in preference from one of the few passages (they 
are only twenty-five through the New Testament) 


w herein the translators of our Authorized Bible notice 
in their margin a difference of reading. In Acts xiii. 18 
our ordinary text runs "And about the time of forty 
years suffered he their manners in the wilderness," 
where the margin, instead of " suffered he their man 
ners," intimates as a possible alternative "bore them 
as a nurse beareth or feedeth her child," supplying 
for once to the English reader both the Greek words 
crpoTTo^prjcrev and Tpo<f)o<f)6p7]crv, which differ only in 
a single letter, pi or phi. When we come to examine 
our best manuscripts we find them not unequally di 
vided. For pi of our English text are Codd. KB, the 
very ancient second hand of C (p. G3), the Greek of 
D against its own parallel Latin version, the great cur 
sive Gl (p. 83), three lesser uncials and most cursives. 
For phi of our margin stand Codd. AC (by the first 
hand), E or Bede s copy, the Latin of D (p. 6G), that 
admirable cursive numbered as 33 in the Gospels (p. 80) 
and several others of a superior class. In this state of 
perplexity, since either reading would give us a fair 
sense, we naturally desire to know which of them was 
extant in ages prior to the fourth century, the date of 
our earliest codices X and B. Now several translations 
which yet survive were made at an early period, and 
this is just such a case as versions would have peculiar 
weight in deciding, because in no other language save 
Greek would two words so widely apart in meaning be 
so close to each other in form. We notice therefore 
that the elder Syriac of the second century, the two 
Egyptian of the third, conspire in representing phi, the 
form upheld in our margin, and these facts would go 
far to decide the question, which happens to be one 


rather curious than very important, but that we observe 
both readings in the works of the celebrated Greek 
critic and theologian Origen, who died in the middle of 
the third century. Both readings, therefore, were well 
known and supported long before Codd. NB existed, 
and the parallel in Deut. i. 31, to which our translators 
make a seasonable reference, and which in the Hebrew 
admits of no ambiguity, will probably incline us to 
prefer phi of the Authorized margin to pi of the text. 

2. I have dwelt the longer on the foregoing pas 
sage, that you may see distinctly how prominent a part 
the primitive versions and Fathers must always bear 
in the Textual criticism of the New Testament. My 
hearers, therefore, will not suppose that I am exhaust 
ing their attention to no purpose, if I now seek to 
trace these fruitful sources of information with some 
fains and care, before entering upon the practical ap 
plication of the principles we shall have established to 
an examination of certain leading passages of the New 
Testament itself, which examination will form the sub 
ject-matter of our fifth and sixth, or concluding Lec 
tures. In regard to versions one thing ought to be 
well borne in mind, that we here employ them in the 
service of the criticism of Holy Scripture, not as guides 
to its right interpretation. We endeavour to discover 
the general character and precise readings of the lost 
manuscripts of the original which the translators had 
before them, and are concerned with nothing more. 
Hence a very wretched version like the ^Ethiopic or one 
form of the later Syriac may afford us considerable 
aid, whereas an excellent one, such as our English 
Authorized Bible, inasmuch as it is derived from a 


modern and well-known text, will prove for our present 
end of no use at all. The chief ancient versions we 
shall describe are those in the Syriac, Egyptian, and 
Latin tongues. 

3. The Arama3an or Syriac, employed to this day 
in the public service of several Eastern Churches, is a 
branch of the great Semitic family of languages, and 
as early as Jacob s age was distinct from the Hebrew: 
Laban the Syrian called the stony heap of witness 
" Jegar-sahadutha," but Jacob called it "Galeed" (Gen. 
xxxi. 47). As we now find it in books, it was spoken 
in the north of Syria and in Upper Mesopotamia, about 
Edessa, the native country of the patriarch Abraham. 
It is, compared with the Hebrew, which ceased to be 
vernacular six centuries before Christ, at the time of 
the Captivity to Babylon, a copious, flexible, and elegant 
lan^ua^e. It is so near akin to the Chaldee as spoken 

O O A 

in Babylon, and brought back by the Jews into Pales 
tine, that the latter was popularly known by its name 
(2 Kings xviii. 26; Isai. xxxvi. 11; Dan. ii. 4). Hence 
the Syriac of literature, though long since passed away 
from common use, very nearly represents the dialect 
spoken by our Lord during his earthly ministry, and 
by those who then lived in the Holy Land ; and was 
on that account regarded with the deeper interest 
by Albert Widmanstadt, Chancellor to the Emperor 
Ferdinand I., and by its other first students in modern 
times. The oldest Syriac version, distinguished from 
those that followed it by the name of the " Peshito " 
or " Simple," comprised both the Old and New Testa 
ments, except the second Epistle of S. Peter, the second 
and third of S. John and the Apocalypse, and seems 


to have been executed (at least in some portions) as 
early as the end of the first or the beginning of the 
second century, from manuscripts which have of course 
long ago perished : it is cited under the familiar ap 
pellation of "the Syrian" by Melito about A.D. 170. 
Christianity, as we know, spread early from Antioch, 
the Greek capital (Acts xi. 19 27; xiii. 1, &c.), into the 
native interior of Syria, where the Apostle Thaddaeus 
is alleged to have preached the Gospel to Abgarus, 
toparch of Edessa. The Peshito would be readily 
conceded to be by far the chief of all versions of 
Scripture, but for certain appearances of revision under 
gone by its text in ancient times, which slightly impair 
its critical value ; although we have copies of it which 
bear date in the sixth century, and, even as it stands, 
in weight and authority it is exceeded by none, while 
for perspicuity of style, for ease and freedom combined 
with precision and correctness but these qualities make 
little for our immediate purpose it is quite without a 
rival. The first printed edition of the New Testament, 
out of many that succeeded, was put forth at Vienna 
in 1555 by Widmanstadt, at the expense of his Imperial 
master; the Old Testament was first published in 
1645 by the Maronite Gabriel Sionita, in the magni 
ficent Paris Polyglott. 

4. A strong light was thrown upon the history of 
the Syriac versions by the happy discovery made by 
the late Canon Cureton, then an officer in the Manu 
script Department of the British Museum, while en 
gaged upon the task of examining and arranging the 
Syriac and other manuscripts (see p. 76) brought to 
England by the late Archdeacon Tattam about 1847 


from the convent of S. Mary the Mother of God in the 
Nitrian Desert, seventy miles N.W. of Cairo. It con 
sists of the single known copy of a version of the 
Gospels, neither itself the Peshito nor yet independent 
of it, which after ten years delay was published by 
Cureton in 1858, with a translation and copious notes. 
The original manuscript has been reasonably assigned 
to the fifth century. It is a fragment, containing on 
fine vellum leaves, written with two columns on a 
page, large portions of the other Gospels, but only one 
precious passage of S. Mark (ch. xvi. 17 20), so 
arranged that S. John immediately follows it and pre 
cedes S. Luke. Beyond question the Curetoniau Syriac 
is a document of high importance in criticism, often 
lending powerful support to the very best of our other 
authorities; although, considered as a translation, where 
it quits the footsteps of the Peshito, it is often loose, 
careless, paraphrastic, or wholly erroneous. Its text bears 
so strong a resemblance in many places to that of Codex 
Bezai and the older forms of the Latin version, which 
we shall soon have to speak about, that they must 
doubtless be referred to some common origin, as far 
back as the second century, and thus afford us a plain 
proof that readings may be very ancient without being 
in the least degree good or even probable. Take for 
instance the following palpable interpolation, mani 
festly grounded on Luke xiv. 8 10, which the Cure- 
tonian Syriac (as it is usually called), in company with 
Codex Bezae, some Old Latin Manuscripts and writers, 
and one other witness, annexes to Matt. xx. 28. The 
rendering (which is somewhat rugged) is Cureton s, not 


But you, seek ye that from little things ye may become great, and 
not from great things may become little. Whenever ye are invited to 
the house of a supper, be not sitting down in the honoured place, 
lest should come he that is more honoured than thou, and to thee 
the Lord of the supper should say, Come near below, and thou be 
ashamed in the eyes of the guests. But if thou sit down in the little 
place, and he that is less than thee should come, and to thee the 
Lord of the supper shall say, Come near, and come up and sit down, 
thou also shalt have more glory in the eyes of the guests. 

5. The Peshito and Curetonian Syriac versions, in 
whatever relation they may stand to each other (for 
this point must be regarded as still unsettled), carry us 
back to a text of the second century, not by any means 
necessarily the purest, yet claiming special attention on 
the score of its mere antiquity. About four other 
translations of Scripture into Syriac, but of a later date, 
are extant, either complete or in a fragmentary shape, 
two of which have considerable worth as instruments 
of criticism. The Philoxenian or Harclean Syriac is 
the principal, and includes the whole New Testament. 
At the end of the manuscript from which the printed 
text is derived (and we find independent testimony to 
the fact in another quarter), a colophon or subscription 
by the first hand declares that the translation was 
made A. D. 508 (by one Polycarp, a Rural or Suffragan 
Bishop, as we learn elsewhere) for Xenaias or Philoxe- 
nus, Bishop of Mabug or Hierapolis, of the Monophysite 
communion, the chief of those semi-heretical sects into 
which the Syrian Church has been divided from the 
fifth century to this day. The subscription goes on to 
state that this version was collated by the writer, 
Thomas of Harkel, A.D. 616 (who subsequently became 
himself Monophysite Bishop of Mabug), by the help of 


two approved Greek manuscripts (perhaps of three, 
for tin- rrading varies), belonging to the convent of 
Antonia, in Alexandria. We have here, therefore, 
a version of the sixth century, diligently corrected a 
hundred years later by venerable Greek copies found in 
Egypt, whose variations are set in the margin. It is 
this margin which renders the Philoxenian version 
as valuable as it is to textual critics, for the body of 
the work consists of a servile accommodation of the 
noble and free Peshito, the vernacular Bible of all 
Syria, to the very letter of the Greek. A note in the 
Philoxenian margin is the solitary witness we have not 
yet spoken of as vouching for the paragraph affixed to 
Matt. xx. 28 (p. 91) ; it much resembles Cod. L in its 
more characteristic variations, and in the Acts is the 
almost constant associate of Codd. DE. 137 (see p. 73), 
whether each singly or all together. Certain passages in 
the Philoxenian text are distinguished by asterisks and 
obeli, which may be due to Thomas of Harkel, although 
their precise purpose is a little uncertain, unless it be 
to indicate suspicion of the possible spuriousness of 
the passages to which they are attached. Two manu 
scripts of the Philoxenian translation were sent to 
England from Diarbekr in 1730, and made known by 
:i tract published by Dr. Gloucester Ridley in I7(il. 
He bequeathed them to New College, Oxford, whose 
library they now adorn, and several other copies of the 
Gospels only have been since discovered elsewhere. 
The version was published at Oxford by Professor 
Joseph White in 17881803. 

6. The only other Syriac version we shall notice was 
found in a single Vatican manuscript, dated A. D. 1030, 


by the great Danish scholar Adler, and was published 
in full by the Count F. Miniscalchi Erezzo in 1861 4. 
It is distinguished as the Jerusalem Syriac, because 
the dialect in which it is written seems to be rather 
that of Southern than of Northern Syria. It appears to 
be made immediately from the Greek, not grounded on 
the Peshito, like the Philoxenian. Although the copy 
we possess is so recent, it must have been derived from 
a pure source, and is the more valuable from its obvious 
independence of our other critical materials : it often 
sides with Codd. BD against the mass of authorities. 
Being only a Church lesson-book of the Gospels, it often 
fails us wh ere we should most desire its help, but is 
very interesting as enabling us to compare the Lec- 
tionary of the Syrian Church with that of the Greek. 
The general features are common to both, with many 
characteristic variations, as well in the passages chosen 
for public reading, as in the lesser Festivals and Saints 
days appointed to be kept holy. 

7. Next to Syria in geographical position stands 
Egypt, once a Christian land, though now given up, 
by the mysterious ordinance of an allwise Providence, 
to the false creed of the impostor Mohammed. The 
handful of native Egyptians who still abide in the 
faith of Christ comprises a poor, down-trodden, scat 
tered and divided remnant, discriminated from its 
conquerors the Arabs by the appellation of Copts, a 
term whose origin is uncertain : every one knows that 
the Old Testament name of the people was Mitzri. By 
the Coptic versions of the Bible, therefore, we mean 
those made for the use of the primitive Christians of 
Egypt, possibly as early as the second century, when 


the Gospel had already spread from Alexandria far into 
the interior ; certainly before the middle of the third, 
when the Christian population had grown very nume 
rous, whereas even their chief rulers, eminent abbots 
and bishops celebrated as mighty in the Scriptures, 
knew no language except their own. 

By comparing our existing translations of the Bible 
with all we know of the ancient language of Egypt, it is 
evident that their diction does not differ materially from 
the demotic, or vulgar speech of the nation a few cen 
turies before the Christian era ; and that the demotic 
a^ain is but a modernized form of the elder or sacred 
tongue, from which it varied to employ the illustration 
of Canon Lightfoot, who has devoted much labour to the 
investigation of the whole subject much as the Italian 
does from the Latin. The three in fact, the sacred, the 
demotic, and the Coptic, represent three successive 
singes of a language fundamentally the same, only that 
the demotic in some degree, and the Coptic to a far 
greater extent, have been enriched or corrupted, as the 
case may be, by a large admixture of Greek words, 
derived from the Greek colonies, of which Alexandria 
was by far the most considerable. The Coptic, again, 
must be subdivided into two principal dialects, one 
being in use in Lower Egypt two or three centuries 
after Christ, and hence called the Memphitic from the 
old northern capital of Memphis; the other in Upper 
Egypt, called the Thebaic, from the hundred-gated 
Thebes, the metropolis of the south. These two dialects 
are sometimes designated respectively as the Bahiric 
and the Sahidic, from Arabic names of the north and 
south provinces, but it is an error to apply the general 


term Coptic to either of them exclusively, as it some 
times is applied to the Memphitic or Bahiric alone. 
The Memphitic and Thebaic dialects, in each of which 
a perfectly independent version of the New Testament 
is extant, are well-defined and separate from each other. 
The small fragments of a translation of both Testaments 
in a third dialect, the Bashmuric, which seems to have 
been vernacular either in the Oasis of Ammon in the 
west, or among certain rude tribes in the Delta of the 
Nile, are of the less importance, inasmuch as they 
belong only to a secondary version grounded upon the 

8. The other two versions, however, the Mem 
phitic and the Thebaic, have now established their 
claim to be regarded among the very first of the 
aids to sacred criticism, subsidiary to manuscripts of 
the original : I say subsidiary, inasmuch as it is a 
principle universally acknowledged, that no reading, 
vouched for by versions alone, can be safely regarded as 
genuine. It may easily have arisen from the licence 
assumed by translators, or may have been the result of 
subsequent and ill-advised corrections. The Egyptian 
versions are for the end of the second and the beginning 
of the third century guides as faithful and trustworthy 
as the Syriac versions for a period earlier by eighty or 
a hundred years. The Memphitic bears some marks of 
being the prior in date, but it is under the heavy disad 
vantage of being known to us only through codices 
comparatively recent ; many of them are dated after 
the Coptic notation of the era of the Martyrs who fell in 
Diocletian s persecution, A. D. 284. Out of upwards of 
fifty which Canon Lightfoot has catalogued and for the 


most part examined, only a few fragments in the British 
.Museum (Additional Mtf. 11,710 A) can be earlier than 
the tenth century, and far the greater number are a 
good deal later. Manuscripts of the Thebaic, on the 
other hand, which was always rough and unpolished, 
and has long since become obsolete as a language, are 
usually of venerable antiquity, though so few and 
fragmentary that a complete version of the New Testa- 
mi lit cannot be made up from all of them put together. 
They were chiefly found in the museum of Cardinal 
Borgia, at Velletri, the contents of which are now re 
moved to the College of the Propaganda at Rome, and 
were made known piecemeal by scholars whose obscure 
diligence well deserves our grateful praise, namely, by 
R.Tuki, Roman Bishop of Arsinoe, in 1778, by Mingarelli 
in 1785, by the Augustinian eremite Giorgi in 1789, 
and in a posthumous work by Woide, who edited for 
us the New Testament portion of Codex A (p. 55). 
The Memphitic version stands in pressing need of a 
critical reviser, who will find abundant materials ready 
for him. The first edition, published in 171C by David 
Wilkins, a Prussian by birth, by adoption an Oxonian, 
faulty as it is, has not been superseded by the recent 
one of Schwartze (1846) and Boetticher (1852), much 

by inferior reprints for native use. The support 
iriMjuently accorded by the Memphitic to Codd. NB 
jointly, by the Thebaic to Codd. B D, or to one of the two, 
in their characteristic readings, cannot fail to be of 
\\ci-ht, as well in maintaining the evidence of these 
great manuscripts when supported by the Egyptian 
versions, as in throwing suspicion upon it where Coptic 
testimony goes the contrary way. 

s. L. 7 


9. The Latin versions of Holy Scripture demand 
and will reward our special attention. Although we 
know that a branch of the Christian Church existed 
at Rome "many years" before S. Paul s first visit to 
the city (Rom. xv. 23), and already flourished there 
in the first century, it probably was not for the use 
of converts in the capital that the earliest Latin trans 
lation was made. To them S. Paul wrote his noble 
Epistle in Greek ; the earliest Bishops of that Church 
were mostly Greek : even Clement their first or one 
of their first Bishops, and Caius the presbyter at a 
later period, whose names intimate a pure Roman origin, 
yet chose to write in Greek, a language more or less 
familiar even to the lowest classes in that great centre 
of the civilized world. In the provinces, especially at 
a distance from the chief seats of commerce, Latin was 
the only language generally spoken, and in such places 
the necessity must have first arisen of rendering at 
least the New Testament into a tongue to be " under- 
standed of the people." The name of Cardinal Wise 
man must, I fear, be handed down in English history 
as that of an ecclesiastic, whose rashness and vanity 
sorely damaged the cause which his heart was set upon 
serving: by Biblical students he will be commemor 
ated, like a far greater Cardinal whom in some respects 
he resembled, as being, almost "from his cradle a 
scholar, and a ripe and good one." The Latin version 
has naturally a deep interest for members of his com 
munion, and indeed, for obvious reasons, it has hardly 
been treated in this country with the consideration it 
deserves. It was Cardinal Wiseman s merit to de 
monstrate, some forty years since, what had been faintly 


conjectured by Eiclihorn and others, that the Old Latin 
Bibk , MI iar as \ve can restore it to its primitive shape 
by the help of materials yet surviving, had its origin 
not in Jtuly at all, but in northern Africa, and in that 
province of Roman Africa where Tertullian declaimed 
latr in the second century, where Cyprian Bishop of 
Carthage became a martyr in the third, where Augus 
tine, Bishop of Hippo, compiled his huge tomes of 
dogmatic theology and devotional lore about the end 
of the fourth. To this conclusion the Cardinal was led 
by the style of the Old Latin version itself, which 
abounds in words and grammatical constructions that had 
long ago grown obsolete at Rome, but can be illustrated 
from African writers, such as the heathen Appuleius 
of the second century, the Christians Arnobius and 
Lactantius of the fourth. Rude and unclassical as 
the Old Latin translation no doubt is, the palpable 
lack of polish is not ill atoned for by a certain terseness 
and vigour which characterise this whole school of 
writers, but never degenerate into vulgarity or absolute 

10. But while it must be admitted, on grounds 
simply philological, that Africa was the parent of the 
Old Latin Bible, it is a remarkable fact that nearly all 
its chief manuscripts have been discovered in a different 
quarter, within quite a limited region in the north of 
Italy. Tims the most ancient and best of them, the 
Codex Vercellensis, called in our critical notation the 
italic a (a.), was brought to light at Vercelli in 172G 
by that illustrious labourer in this department of study, 
Joseph Bianchiui (latinized into Blanch inus), when 
Canon of Verona. This copy of the Gospels, unfortu- 



nately much mutilated, may date from the fourth 
century, that is, it is not more recent than Cod. A, 
nearly contemporary with Codd. KB. In his own city 
Bianchiui met with Cod. Veronensis (b. of the critics), 
which is hardly less ancient or valuable than its com 
peer. Another more modernized in regard to text (fy, 
yet still of the sixth century, was found by Bianchini 
at Brescia. Another very beautiful copy (7c.), com 
prising the latter half of S. Mark followed by portions of 
S. Matthew, full of precious readings much resembling 
those of Codd. NB, as early in date as b., has since 
been discovered among the books a fine collection 
indeed brought from Bobbio to Turin. Only two years 
back a fresh manuscript, Cod. Sarzannensis (j.*), in the 
Church of Sarezzano near Tortona, was published by 
Guerrino Amelli, of the Ambrosian Library at Milan. 
This also belongs to the fifth century, and, like Cod. N. 
of the Greek (p. 78), codd. a. b. f. and some others, is 
written on purple vellum, in letters of silver and gold. 
The locality of all these copies might seem to indicate 
that they belonged to the Italic recension of the text, 
a modification which Augustine, though by nation an 
African, in a passage which has been tampered with by 
Bentley for no adequate reason, pronounces to be pre 
ferable to the other forms of the Latin, as being at 
once "closer to the words of the original, and more 
perspicuous in expressing the meaning." The Latin 
version of Cod. Claromontanus (d. of S. Paul, see 
p. 70) may be referred to the African recension. 

11. Besides the afore-named manuscripts, found 
almost in a heap in Lombardy and Piedmont, we shall 
name in passing a few others hardly inferior to them 


in date or intrinsic worth. At Paris is cod. c., edited bv 
Sal Kit KT (1713 9), the text being quite remarkable, 
though the writing is no older than the eleventh century. 
Two are at Vienna, cod. e. of the fourth or fifth century, 
whose style is very rugged and antique, and cod. i. of 
a century later, a fragment in purple and gold. Codd. 
ff 1 ., jf 8 ., Avere once in the Abbey of Corbey in Picardy, 
where Martianay edited the former in 1G95. Like 
some other French manuscripts (p. 70), ff 1 . lias found 
its Avay to S. Petersburg, but its fellow is still safe at 
Paris. Two others, formerly in the Abbey of S. Ger 
main des Prez (y 1 ., #".), have disappeared altogether, 
unless they too are at S. Petersburg : their contents are 
partially known by readings extracted by Martianay, 
then by Sabatier ami Bianchmi. Since truth obliged us 
to speak slightingly of Cardinal Mai Avhen he tried 
his prentice hand on the famous Cod. B (p. 30), AVC should 
be the more forward to acknowledge his services Avith 
reference to the Latin version, Avherein he possessed 
the skill and knoAvledge of a master. To him AVC OAVC 
not only Cod. h. in the Vatican, of which Sabatier had 
n some specimens, but what is one of the most 
valuable and interesting of all documents of this class, 
a Speculum or Book of Quotations, from almost ev TV 
part of the New Testament (being all the more prized, 
inasmuch as our main Old Latin authorities contain 
the Gospels alone;), edited in 1843 from a manuscript 
of the sixth century (cod. m. of our critical notation) 
in the monastery of S. Croce at Rome, and conspicuous 
for being the earliest in Avhich the clause about the 
Three Heavenly Witnesses (1 John v. 7, S) is con 
tained : it is here found in two different places. 


12. The various copies which we have just enume 
rated, as well as some others of hardly less importance, 
exhibit to us a text substantially one, though with 
countless variations peculiar to each single copy. They 
must have sprung from a common source, inasmuch as 
the general form, both in respect to words and con 
struction, is the same in all : occasional divergency, 
however extensive, cannot weaken the impression pro 
duced by resemblance, if that be too close or too con 
stant to be attributed to chance. Yet the very amount 
of these variations suffices to prove at how early a 
period they took their rise, and it can hardly be ques 
tioned that the readings preserved in codd. o. b. e. and 
a few others, were already current before the close of 
the second century, and thus, to our instruction and 
infinite satisfaction, represent to us the contents of 
Greek manuscripts centuries older than themselves. 
The critical value of such documents can scarcely be 
estimated too highly, yet, by the time the end of the 
fourth century was reached, the lack of uniformity 
between the several types of the Old Latin version 
became s, practical inconvenience which was no longer 
tolerable. "There are almost as many models as there 
are copies," exclaims S. Jerome to Pope Damasus in 
A.D, 384 ; and for once the facts of the case left no 
room for Jerome s characteristic habit of exaggeration. 
To him, as to the chief Biblical scholar then living, the 
Pope had entrusted the grave office of revising the 
older translation by the help of ancient Greek manu 
scripts, and of thus producing a translation which might 
become the standard as well for public as for private 
reading. Such is the origin of the New Latin, the 


Common, or (as it is usually designated) the Vulgate 
\.-r>ion of the New Testament, which Jerome com 
pleted about A.D. 385, substantially, though by no 
means precisely, in the form that it is now known, as 
the "authentic" translation of the Church of Rome. 
Jerome did not put it forth as a new translation made 
from the Greek, as he did twenty years later that of 
the Old Testament taken from the Hebrew ; but he 
retained, so far as faithfulness to the sacred original 
permitted, the diction, the idiom, the general tone of 
the elder Latin, which was endeared to Christians by 
long and familiar use. Even with all this caution to 
avoid offence, his work at first encountered vigorous 
opposition, and came into ordinary use only by slow and 
painful degrees. As an interpretation his Vulgate far 
surpasses its prototype ; as an instrument of criticism 
it is decidedly inferior, where the evidence of the Old 
Latin may be had : for it does not, like its predeces 
sor, bring before us the testimony, good or bad, of 
documents of the second century, but only that of 
manuscripts which Jerome deemed correct and ancient 
at the end of the fourth. 

13. The literary history of the Vulgate is a vast 
study by itself, on which we have fortunately no need 
to enter now. In its purest form that version appears 
in the Codex Amiatinus, a noble copy of the whole 
Bible, stichometrically written (p. G9) by the hand of 
the Abbot Servandus, A. D. 54-1. It was brought from the 
great Cistercian monastery of Monte Amiatino into the 
Laurentian Library at Florence, and has been edited 
more than once. Only five years younger is the Codex 
Fuldensis, in the famous Abbey of Fulda in Hesse 


Cassel, first applied to the recension of the text by 
Lachmann in 1839. Since the Vulgate was the sole 
Bible of Western Europe for above one thousand 
years, it is not surprising that more copies of it exist 
in public libraries than of almost all other books put 
together ; many of them being of much use for eluci 
dating Jerome s text, but the greater part more remark 
able for the illuminations and embellishments which 
have been lavished upon them by skilful or pious 
hands. The noble volume exhibited open in the Manu 
script Room of the British Museum as Charlemagne s 
Bible, is probably some fifty years later than his reign, 
although it may possibly contain certain corrections made 
about A.D. 797 at his request by our learned country 
man Alcuin. The first printed book, as we had occa 
sion to mention before (p. 3), was the Latin Bible of 
the Vulgate version ; and after the Council of Trent in 
154G had stamped this translation with its sanction, 
in terms however ambiguous, it became the obvious 
duty of the Church of Rome to provide an authorized 
standard for general use. Sixtus V. in 1590, and after 
him Clement VIII. in 1592, put forth separate edi 
tions, each executed with anxious care, yet the former 
at least so full of errors both textual and typographical, 
as to have exposed the Popes and their confident yet 
purblind criticism to the derision of zealous polemical 
writers (such as Dr Th. James in his Belluin Papule, sive 
Concordia Discors, 1600), who could not let slip what 
appeared to them a suitable occasion for vexing the 
enemies they had failed to convince. We profess no 
sort of sympathy with this gibing spirit, especially when 
exercised upon topics so sacred ; yet it is only right to 


that neither Sixtus nor Clement s Bible, the latter 
of which is adopted for "authentic" in the Roman 
oniiinimiuii, can be relied upon in the least for critical 
purposes. They are constructed in a loose and unin 
telligent fashion, on manuscripts too recent to be trust 
worthy. If Codex Amiatinus was consulted for Pope 
Sixtus, as has been stated, it had little or no influence 
in forming the text. The true readings must still be 
sought for in the older copies among which it is para 

14. The Syriac, the Coptic and the Latin : these 
are the principal versions, the rest being quite sub 
sidiary or of slight consideration. To us of the Teutonic 
stock the Gothic is the most interesting, although more 
so on linguistic than critical grounds. It was made by 
Ulphilas, a Cappadocian, about B.C. 350, while the Goths 
still inhabited Moasia, now called Bulgaria, and its 
dialect is marvellously akin to that of modern Germany. 
Besides some fragments from Bobbio discovered by 
Mai in 1817, and others in the "Wolfenbiittel library in 
the same volume as the fragments Codd. PQ of the 
Gospels (p. 7G), there is extant the superb but incom 
plete Codex Argenteus in the University of Upsal, on 
purple vellum with silver and gold letters. It was 
taken by the Swedes at the siege of Prague in 1G4-8, 
and has been several times edited. Ten leaves, stolen 
about 1821, were given up by the penitent thief, more 
gracious than Aymont (p. G8), on his death-bed, to 
Uppstrom, who published them in 1857. The remain 
ing versions might do us better service, if we knew 
better how to use them. The Armenian and ^Ethiopic, 
composed, in or about the fifth century, in langu, 


known to few, labour under the suspicion of having 
been conformed in later times to the Latin Vulgate, and, 
considered as versions, they have been alleged to possess 
little merit. The Georgian, which is said to date from 
the sixth century, pertains to the Armenians of the 
orthodox faith, and we know of no one in England who 
can read it, except Prebendary Malan of Broadwindsor. 
The Georgian is even stated to have been corrupted 
from the Slavonic, the version of the sister communion 
in Russia, made from the Greek as late as the ninth 
century. A secondary translation, not made from the 
Greek at all, can be applied only to the criticism of its 
own primary. Such are the Frankish and the Anglo- 
Saxon or Old English, various modifications of which 
are derived from what were considered the best copies 
of the Vulgate between the eighth and eleventh cen 
turies ; such too are the Persic in Walton s Polyglott 
and several Arabic versions, which are translated from 
the Peshito Syriac. Another Persic version, edited by 
Wheelocke (1653-7), and perhaps some out of the 
many Arabic versions extant (especially the Gospels in 
the excellent one published by Erpenius in 1616 and 
called from Fayum, a province in Egypt), were rendered 
from Greek manuscripts too modern to be of much 

15. The advantage we derive from versions such 
as most of those we have been describing, as making 
known to us the contents of manuscripts of the 
original older than any at present existing, is too 
great not to be held in constant remembrance. In 
other respects important deductions must be made 
before we apply their evidence to the criticism of the 


sacred books. It may prove as difficult to arrive at 
the primitive text of the version as of the Greek itself: 
the variations subsisting in the copies are sometimes 
quite as considerable, and suspicions of subsequent 
correction from other sources are easily raised and hard 
to refute. Even so late a version as the Fayyumiyeli 
of Erpeuius has been thought to be revised from the 
Coptic. Then again, if we take into our reckoning 
the genius of the language into which the Greek is 
turned, the skill, the care, the peculiar habits of the 
translator, and our own defective knowledge of the 
special dialect of the version, we shall perhaps never 
feel so secure in the application of this kind of testi 
mony as when we come to determine the genuineness 
of whole sentences or clauses inserted in some Greek 
copies and omitted in others. " Scripture, by being 
translated into the tongues of many nations, assures us 
of the falsehood of additions," as Jerome writes to 
Pope Damasus in his Preface to the Vulgate Gospels. 
This is even now the surest benefit which versions can 
render to the critic. 

16. Still more precarious, in the majority of 
cases, is the aid to be looked for from ecclesiastical 
writers of the early ages. These venerable persons 
frequently quoted Scripture loosely from memory, and 
usually no more of its words than suited their imme 
diate purpose. What they actually wrote has proved 
peculiarly liable to change at the hand of careless 
scribes, who followed mechanically the readings of the 
New Testament they were most familiar with, instead 
of those set down in the model which they were tran 
scribing. Hence it arises that, both in ordinary maim- 


scripts and in printed editions, the same author is 
perpetually found to cite the self-same text in two or 
three various forms, whether in different places or on 
the same page of his work. Yet there are occasions 
when the testimony of the Fathers is so direct and full 
that it is absolutely conclusive as to the true reading 
of the copy of Scripture which lay before their eyes. 
Witness the representation of Matt. i. 18, as given by 
S. Ireneeuft, the light of the Church of Gaul towards 
the close of the second century, the disciple too of 
Polycarp who had conversed with the Evangelist S. 
John. The five books of Irena3us against Heresies, 
though extant chiefly in a bald Latin translation, com 
pose, the man and his circumstances considered, one of 
the most precious reliques of Christian antiquity. The 
common reading of S. Matthew s words is " Now the 
birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise ;" but the 
Curetonian Syriac, the Old Latin copies a. 6. c. f. ff \, 
and d. the Latin version of Codex Bezae (the corre 
sponding Greek being lost), with the Vulgate or New 
Latin, its satellites the Frank ish and Anglo-Saxon, and 
"Whcelocke s Persic, omit the word " Jesus." All this 
would signify little, inasmuch as every extant Greek 
manuscript has either " Jesus Christ " or " Christ 
Jesus," if the grave authority of Irenseus were not 
thrown into the opposite scale. That profound theo 
logian, in the course of his demonstration that Jesus 
and Christ are the same Person (a doctrine which 
certain heretics had denied), presses the fact that 
whereas the Evangelist might very well have stated, 
"Now the birth of Jesus was on this wise," the 
Holy Spirit, foreseeing and guarding against the 

FOli THE C JUT 1C ISM OF Till- CREEK Tf.XT. 100 

fraud of depravers, saith through Matthew, "Now 
tin- birth of Christ was on this wise." We say 
nothing for the logical validity of this writer s inference, 
or for the probability of the reading he vouches for, 
but here at any rate is a suggestive variation from the 
common text adopted as if it were beyond question by 
such a man as Irenaius, within little more than a 
century after the Gospel of S. Matthew was published. 

17. One more example of the value of express 
citation by an eminent Father shall suffice, and here 
it confirms the common text instead of tending to 
disturb it. In Luke xv. 18, 19 the prodigal, resolving 
to go back to his Father, frames to himself a speech 
fitting to the emergency, " Father, I have sinned against 
heaven and before thee ; I am no more worthy to be 
called thy son : make me as one of thy hired servants." 
When he carries his determination into happy effect iu 
ver. 21, he addresses to his gracious Father the rest of 
his prepared speech, but drops the last clause, " make 
me as one of thy hired servants." S. Augustine, whose 
intellect was probably the most keen that ever yielded 
up its best powers to the exact study of the Bible, fails 
not to point out that delicate touch of true nature, in 
that the son, after he had once enjoyed his parent s 
forgiving kiss, disdains the ignoble condition of servi 
tude which once he deemed almost too good to hope 
for. Yet this very clause is thrust into the text by 
great codices usually of the highest authority (X BD. 

md a few others), whose tasteless interpolation is 
thus rebuked by one who knew the mind of the Spirit 
as few indeed in any age have been privileged to 


18. It would serve no good purpose to lay before 
you a mere list of the ecclesiastical writers who are 
more or less available as instruments of criticism. 
Among the Greeks, the fragments of the Apostolic 
Fathers and their immediate followers are too scanty 
to supply us with much detailed information, though 
they afford us priceless evidence that the several books 
of the New Testament were familiar to the writers. 
Justin Martyr, who died for the faith about A.D. 149, 
the earliest Christian of whom any considerable re 
mains survive the wreck of time, has a habit of rather 
referring to than quoting the " Memorials composed by 
the Apostles and their immediate followers," which he 
elsewhere calls " Gospels ; " so that although his re 
ferences are often very close and even verbally exact, 
an opinion, very unreasonable I must be allowed to 
call it, has grown up among certain in recent times, 
that he had before him some other compositions rather 
than those that now bear that holy name. Irenaeus 
we have spoken of before. The first mention we have 
of various readings in Scripture occurs in his fifth book 
against Heresies, where he discusses the question whether 
the true number is 6GG or 616 in Rev. xiii. 18, and ex 
pressly imputes the Apocalypse to S. John the Apostle, 
as Justin Martyr had done before him. Clement of 
Alexandria brings us into the third century, and his 
volumes abound with citations from Scripture, more 
or less precise. But the greatest name among the 
ancients in this branch of sacred learning is Origen, 
his pupil, the son of a martyr, himself a sufferer for 
the name of Christ (d. 254). Seldom have such 
warmth of fancy and so bold a grasp of mind been 


iatnl with the life-long patient industry which 
procured for Origen the honourable appellation of 
Atloinantius. His copious works (some of them now 
extant only in a poor Latin version) have been ran 
sacked, especially by the celebrated German critic 
Griesbach, for the quotations or allusions to Scripture 
which cover every page. Often enough the results 
have proved merely negative. Origen may be alleged 
in the same disputed passage, twice or thrice on either 
side ; or his citation is but a passing one, and no great 
stress can be laid on the actual words he uses. Fre 
quently, however, the case is otherwise. Either the 
context proves beyond a doubt which reading he 
adopted, or else he formally discusses the variations 
which he found in his copies, and expresses a definite 
judgment upon their relative merits. .In instances of 
this latter description there is no authority to compare 
with his for fulness of knowledge and discriminating 

19. Coming down to the fourth century, we now 
have Eusebius and Jerome, both of them in regard to 
criticism disciples of Origen, and inclined to defer 
rather too much to his arbitrary decisions. The labour 
of Eusebius in compiling his Canons of Harmony of tin- 
Gospels (p. 34), and those of Jerome in regard to the 
Latin Vulgate (p. 102), we have spoken of before. 
Since Jerome made habitual use of Greek codices for 
his work of revision, he is to be regarded as a witness 
for the original text, not, like his western predecessor^ 
Tertullian or Cyprian or their lesser contemporaries, 
for their native Old Latin translation only. Of the 
rest, Chrysostom s expositions frequently render it cer- 


tain what readings he follows, and since his Homilies 
on S. Matthew are at Wolfenbuttel in a codex of the 
sixth century, we are so far better protected than usual 
from the subsequent corruption of his text (see p. 107). 
The same advantage belongs to those works of John 
Damascene of the eighth century, which are preserved 
at Paris in a manuscript apparently contemporaneous : 
while the Homilies on S. Luke by Cyril of Alexandria, 
of the fifth century, whose critical worth is greater 
than his age might lead us to expect, have been lately 
published from a Syriac version by Dr Payne Smith, 
the Dean of Canterbury, in such a shape that we may 
use them with confidence, as virtually unchanged during 
the lapse of so many centuries. But these instances 
of good fortune are exceptional and rare. 

20. These, therefore, are the main sources of in 
formation : manuscripts of the original, versions, and 
Fathers. Our materials, abundant upon the whole, though 
in some directions still partial and incomplete, have 
been slowly accumulated by the diligence of successive 
generations of scholars, the principal of whom we have 
already enumerated (p. 14). To apply these materials 
wisely and soberly to the task of constructing afresh 
the text of the New Testament calls for critical dis 
cernment and acuteness, such as fall to the lot of few. 
This happy faculty has proved very deficient in the 
case of some that have toiled patiently and successfully 
at the work of collation : on the other hand, it has 
been bestowed in a high degree on men who as colla 
tors have accomplished comparatively little, as on 
Bentley, Bengel, Griesbach, and (if I may venture to 
refer to an elaborate edition of the New Testament 

/ "/, 7V//; C7.7 77 7N.]/ uF Till- liUKKK TEXT. 11.; 

not y.-t given to the public) on the joint counsellor.-. 
Canon \Vesteott and Mr Hort. For, in fact, the result - 
ni all the external evidence that can be brought together 
to support any particular various reading are seldom so 
conclusive on one side or the other, as to enable us to 
dispense with considerations drawn from internal evi- 

e : where by internal evidence we mean that exer 
cise of the reason upon the matter submitted to it ? 
which will often prompt us, almost by instinct, to reject 
one alternative and to embrace another. Nor have we 
much cause to fear that we shall thus come to substitute 
our own impressions, our own subjective impressions, 
if one must use that rather affected but convenient 
term in the room of the conclusions which mere 
written records would dictate. Whether we will or 
not, we unconsciously adopt that one out of two oppo 
site statements, in themselves not unequally attested 
to, which we judge the better suited to recognised phe 
nomena, and to the common course of things. Were 
we to try ever so much to do so, we should not find it 
easy to dispense with the dictates of discretion and 
good sense: nature would prove too strong for the 
dogmas of a wayward theory. Some things indeed 
may be very powerfully maintained, which we would 
not receive upon any testimony that could be produced 
(pp. 41 G) : but the appeal to internal probabilities 
will be chiefly made where external evidence is evenly, 
or at any rate not very unevenly, balanced. 

-1. This just and rational use of internal testi 
mony lie is the best critic who most judiciously em 
ploys. Wo can say little more than this as a guide t 
the thoughtful student. What degree of preponderance 
s. L. -S 


in favour of one out of several forms of reading (all of 
them affording a tolerable sense) shall entitle it to 
reception as a matter of right ; to what extent rules of 
subjective criticism may be allowed to eke out the 
scantiness of documentary authority, are points that 
cannot well be denned with strict accuracy. Men s 
decisions respecting them will always vary according 
to their temperament and intellectual habits; the 
judgment of the same person will fluctuate from time 
to time as to the same evidence brought to bear on the 
self-same case. All we can hope to do is to set forth 
two or three general principles, or canons as they are 
called, which of course are only so far true as they are 
grounded on reason or taught by experience, the appli 
cation of which, in spite, perhaps even in consequence, 
of their extreme simplicity, has proved a searching test 
of the tact and sagacity of all that have handled 

CAXON I. The harder reading is preferable to the 
easier. This is Bengel s prime rule, and looks fair 
enough in itself. It would seem more likely that 
a copyist should try to explain an obscure expres 
sion, or to relieve a harsh construction, than that he 
should make that perplexed which before was easy. 
Thus in John vii. 39, where the true reading stands 
" the Spirit (or " the Holy Spirit ") was not yet," we 
are not at all surprised to find the word " given " sup 
plied by all the versions, including our English Bible 
in its italic type. The difficulty would be to discover 
how it could have fallen out of the text, if it had ever 
been there, as Cod. B and one cursive of no great value 
would fain persuade us to believe. 


( AM >N II. The shorter reading is more probable than 
the longer, it being the tendency of most scribes (though 
certainly not of all) rather to enlarge than to abridge. 
This rule applies to the case, among others, where two 
or more accounts of the same event or speech occur, 
and the fuller narrative is used to amplify the more 
brief. Thus in some copies of Acts ix. 5, G, are found the 
words, " It is hard for thee to kick against the goads. 
And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt 
thou have me to do ? And the Lord said unto him," yet 
all this does not belong to the passage at all, but is trans 
ferred, with some change, from S. Paul s own narrative 
of his conversion, Acts xxvi. 14. In the parallel places 
of the three early or Synoptic Gospels the tendency to 
such accretions is very strongly marked, and its effect 
is of course to smooth down seeming discrepancies 
between them, and to bring into the other two forms or 
expressions belonging of right only to one. A simple case 
is that of the Lord s solemn declaration, "I came not 
to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance." Thus 
it really is in Luke v. 32, from which the concluding 
explanation "unto repentance" has been interpolated 
into the two parallel passages Matt. ix. 13 ; Mark ii. 17. 

CANON III. In deciding on the probability of a 
various reading regard should be had to the peculiar 
style, manner, and habits of thought of the author, 
which copyists are very prone to overlook and so un 
consciously to withdraw from sight. Thus S. Mark, 
though never obscure, is often singularly concise and 
abrupt ; S. Luke in his Acts of the Apostles is fond of 
omitting " saith " or " said " after the word indicating 
the speaker, which verb is duly supplied in recent 



copies in at least six places; the pointed energy of 
S. James leads him perpetually to neglect connecting 
particles, and these have been erroneously brought into 
the common text. Yet even this canon has a 
double edge, since habit or the love of critical correc 
tion will sometimes tempt the scribe to alter the text 
into his author s usual manner, as well as to depart 
from it through inadvertence. 

CANON IV. Attention must also be paid to the 
genius and usage of each several authority, and to the 
independence or otherwise of the testimony borne by 
each. Thus the evidence of Cod. B is of the less in 
fluence in omissions and that of Cod. D or Beza s in 
considerable additions to the text : even so good a copy 
as Cod. C, by adding the clause "into repentance" in 
Matt. ix. 13; Mark ii. 17, displays a proneness to the 
assimilation of unlike passages a little damaging to its 
character for purity. Again, as it would be manifestly 
unfair to estimate Codd. DE or FG of S. Paul s 
Epistles, or the four members of Ferrar s group (p. 82) 
when in accordance with each other, as more witnesses 
than one, so, even where the resemblance is less per 
petual, as in the case of Codd. tfB, it is impossible to note 
their close correspondence in places where they stand 
almost alone, without indulging the suspicion that there 
is some recondite connection between them of a nature 
which we do not fully understand, and for which some 
allowance is required to be made. 

CANON V. would be the most valuable of all, if it 
were more capable of application to particular in 
stances. It has been said that " when the cause of a 
various reading is known, the variation itself disap- 


x" and this language hardly exaggerates what mav 
be effected by internal evidence, when it is clear, 
simple, and unambiguous. Hence springs the rule that 
" i reading out of several is to be chosen, from which 
all the rest may have been derived, although it could not 
be derived from any of them." Thus in James iii. 12, 
if we suppose that form of the second clause to be 
the true one, which is supported by Codd. NABC and 
other good authority, "neither can salt water yield 
sweet," it is easy to understand how a somewhat 
rugged construction was gradually made to assume the 
shape in which it is seen in our Authorized Bible, " so 
can no fountain both yield salt water and fresh." 

In our two concluding lectures we shall have fuller 
opportunity for tracing the influence of these rules in 
their practical application to the texts we shall then 
undertake to examine. The first canon especially, that 
of preferring the harder of two readings, may obviously 
be over-strained, and must be applied with especial 
caution. " To force readings into the text merely be 
cause they are difficult" I adopt thankfully the 
forcible language of the Bishop of Lincoln, Dr Christo 
pher Wordsworth, "is to adulterate the divine text 
with human alloy; it is to obtrude upon the reader of 
Scripture the solecisms of faltering copyists, in the 
place of the word of God." 



WE come at length to apply the principles and facts 
we have hitherto been concerned with to the examina 
tion of select passages in the New Testament, in which 
the Received reading of the Greek text, and conse 
quently of our own English translation of it, has been 
called in question with more or less reason. As we 
stated at the outset, the great mass of variations made 
known to us from the enlarged study of critical authori 
ties are quite insignificant, scarcely affecting the sense 
at all (p. 7), while some are of a wholly different 
character, so grave and perplexing that we can form no 
safe judgment about them without calling all available 
resources to our aid. Yet this last statement must be 
made with an important reservation, which I have 
purposely kept back until you can see for yourselves that 
it is strictly true. Be the various readings in the New 
Testament what they may, they do not in any way alter 
the complexion of the whole book, or lead us to modify 
a single inference which theologians have gathered from 
the common text, as it is now extant in our Authorized 
version. " Even put them into the hands of a knave or 
fool" I employ the pointed language of Beutley, in 


the sequel of a passage I have cited before (p. 13) 
"and yet with the most sinistrous and absurd choice, he 
shall not extinguish the light of any one chapter, nor 
so disguise Christianity, but that every feature of it 
will still be the same." Certain passages, it may be, 
will no longer be available to establish doctrines whose 
proof rests secure upon a hundred besides, and this is 
the very worst that can happen : others, upon whose 
genuineness suspicion has been rashly thrown, will be 
cleared and vindicated by the process of exact dis 
cussion : some will assume in their new form a vigour 
and beauty they possessed not before. The main result 
of all investigations will be a thankful conviction that 
God s Providence has kept from harm the treasure of 
His written word, so far as is needful for the quiet 
assurance of His Church and people. 

In the present lecture we shall limit our examina 
tion to passages of the Holy Gospels, reserving the 
other books of the New Testament for our next and 
concluding one. Taking them in order, the first varia 
tion of moment which meets us, is at once very in 
structive, and, we must add in fairness, of somewhat 
doubtful decision. 

(1) MATTH. v. 22. "Whosoever is angry with his 
brother without a cause." The single Greek word 
rendered without cause," or "lightly," is removed from 
the text by Lachmann, Tischendorf, Westcott and 
Hort : it is retained by Griesbach and Tregelles, the 
latter placing it within brackets as of questionable 
genuinenett, although neither he nor Griesbach knew of 
the adverse testimony of the Codex Sinaiticus. I shall 
name the.>c chief critical editors of the Greek Te.-ta- 


ment from time to time, through no wish to bias y,.ur 
judgment by the weight of their authority, for in truth 
the conclusions I would have you come to will often be 
contrary to theirs, but that you may be aware of the 
results arrived at by scholars who have devoh-d 
strong natural powers or persevering industry, and in 
more than one instance both these qualities, to the 
illustration of the subject on which we are engaged. 
The limiting word "without cause" is not found in 
Codd. tfB, or in two ordinary cursives of the twelfth 
century or later : it was erased from Cod. A by a later 
hand. Justin Martyr as usual (p. 110) refers to the 
verse too loosely to be depended on, but he has no vestige 
of "without cause:" the same maybe said of Tertullian. 
Origen twice cites the passage without it, but makes no 
comment; and his follower Jerome, a century later, 
expressly states that, although found in certain manu 
scripts, the true copies (which we may suppose to be 
Origen s) have it not. Accordingly he proceeds to erase 
it from his Vulgate or New Latin translation, although 
every known manuscript of the Old Latin version, and 
the early Latin writers, Cyprian, Hilary and Lucifer, 
retained it. The only other versions omitting the term, 
are just those of small account which are ascertained to 
have been made or corrected by the Vulgate, namely, 
the ./Ethiopic, Frankish, Anglo-Saxon, Arabic of the 
Polyglott, all in this instance distinctly traceable to the 
influence of Origen over Jerome s mind. Augustine 
also, who had once dwelt upon it, when late in life he 
had come to write his famous book of Retractationes, 
adopted after Jerome a reading so congenial to his 
taste. It unfortunately happens that we are here do 


prived of the help, not only of Cod. A (which begins with 
ch. \\v. 0), but also of C: but all other known Greek 
codices save the four above-named read "without cause," 
comprising D and L, the usual ally of B, the cursives 
1. 33, and the whole host besides. In questions like the 
present, versions, we know, are of special use (p. 107), 
but all versions save those named above have the word: 
the Old Latin, all the four Syriac, the Memphitic (the 
Thcbaic being wanting), the Armenian, the Gothic. Of 
the Fathers, Chrysostom presses the fact that not all 
anger is prohibited, but what is unseasonable, causeless, 
in vain. Ireuseus, even Origen once in the Latin (p. Ill), 
Eusebius, Cyril of Alexandria, retain the word in their 
quotations. Much like this omission is the expunging 
of "falsely," (ver. 11), which is not in the corresponding 
place of S. Luke (ch. vi. 22), by Cod. D and some Latins 

\Ve will not hesitate to say that on the whole 
external evidence preponderates in favour of the reten 
tion of " without cause." It is the earlier, fuller, less 
equivocal: internal considerations are possibly more am 
biguous. "Griesbach and Meyer," says Dean Alford, 
" hold it to have been expunged from motives of moral 
rigorism De "VVette to have been inserted to soften the 


apparent rigour of the precept," which would bring it 
under our first, or Bengel s, canon (p. 114). Different 
critics of the highest rauk, all very competent to judge 
if they would but agree in their judgment, come each 
to the conclusion which best suits his own temperament 
ami tone of mind. My esteemed friend, Professor Milli- 
gan, perhaps a little over-states the matter \\heii he 
MJI "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. " The common text is best as 
it stands. 

(2) MATT. vi. 13 (part). " For thine is the king 
dom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen." 
The question here is whether these words formed 
originally a portion of the Lord s Prayer, and conse 
quently of S. Matthew s Gospel, or whether they are an 
early addition to it, brought in from the Liturgies 
which from the earliest times were in solemn use in the 
Church. It is so far in favour of this doxology that its 
absence from S. Luke s Gospel might lead to its rejection 
here, and it makes nothing against it that it was 
moulded upon such passages as 1 Chr. xxix. 11 ; 
2 Chr. xx. G ; to which we are not disposed to add with 
some the Apocryphal 1 Esdras (or " The Priest," as the 
Greeks call that book) iv. 59, or the last clause of the 
Prayer of Manasses, which latter may very well have 
been borrowed from the Gospel. Yet, looking to the 
documentary evidence, it is hard to suppress the growing 
conviction that modern editors have done right in re 
moving it from the text. Codd NBD and the Dublin 
palimpsest Z (p. 76) omit the clause, Codd. AC are 
defective here, so. that Cod. L is really the best uncial 
that reads it, although Cod. A and all the later side 
with L, as do all cursives (even Cod. 33) except five, 
whereof Cod. 1 alone is of much account, and another 
(Cod. 209, at Venice) is little more than a transcript of 
B. A few others exhibit the obelus, a mark of possible 
spuriousness, set in the margin, and the valuable 
Cod. 157 (p. 82) with two or three more annex to "glory" 

AY TV//; 7/0 z;r GOSPKLS. 123 

the impossible addition "of Father, Son, and Holy 
Ghost," obviously taken from the Liturgies. Here again 
is a point on which versions may be used with safety 
(p. 107), rind the doxology is wanting in the chief Old 
Latin codkvs a. b. c. ff. g! and others, in the Vulgate 
(only that Pope Clement s edition ends the Lord s 
Prayer with "Amen"), and its satellites the Frank ish 
and Anglo-Saxon. Its absence from the Latin versions 
caused the doxology to be unknown in Latin service- 
books, nor indeed is it found in those portions of our 
own Book of Common Prayer which were derived 
immediately from the Latin. It is contained in all 
four Syriac versions (Cureton s omitting "and the 
power"), in the Thebaic (omitting "and the glory"), 
in the text of most Memphitic and in the margin of 
others, in the very excellent Old Latin k. (omitting "the 
kingdom" "and the glory"),/ and others, in the ^Ethiopic 
and Armenian, here at any rate free from Latin influ 
ence, the Gothic, Georgian, Sclavonic, one form of the 
Persic, and the Arabic of Erpenius. Of the Fathers, 
Origen in the third century, Cyril of Jerusalem in the 
fourth, formally expound the Lord s Prayer without 
shewing any knowledge of its existence, while Chryso- 
stom, a little later than Cyril, comments upon it without 
displaying the least consciousness of its doubtful charac 
ter. It is first met with in the Apostolical Constitu 
tions, a work which, in its existing shape, dates from the 
fourth century, or possibly a little sooner, and is full of 
Liturgical matter. That the doxology, in its place at 
the end of the Lord s Prayer, existed as early as the 
second century, is evident from the testimony of the 
versions, although the variations observed in the Cure- 


Ionian Syriac, the Thebaic, and Cod. k. may lead us to 
believe that it had not yet received its ultimate form. 
It can hardly be upheld any longer as a portion of the 
sacred text. 

(3) MATTH. xi. 19. " But wisdom is justified of her 
children:" "of," as one scarcely needs say, being here 
the archaic English for "by," the clause intimates that 
Divine wisdom is justified, or acquiesced in, by those 
who are nurtured therein. Now this whole passage, from 
ver. 2 downwards, so closely resembles Luke vii. 18 35, 
both in matter and in language, that we may be quite 
sure that the two Evangelists are relating the same holy 
discourse, delivered by the Lord under the self-same 
circumstances. No more exact parallel can be conceived 
to exist between two writers, who probably derived 
their information from the same source, whether oral or 
documentary, without having seen each the other s Gos 
pel. Hence, in the midst of so much similarity through 
out, it is inconceivable that the closing words of each 
narrative should for the first time be entirely unlike, 
and give quite a different sense, if indeed it can be said 
of one of them that it affords any satisfactory sense at 
all. Yet for "children," which all retain in S. Luke, 
Tischendorf and Tregelles, Westcott arid Hort, would 
here read "works." One has no wish to deny the 
general tendency of scribes to assimilate the very ex 
pressions of the several Evangelists, and, as a rule, this 
tendency ought to be fully allowed for; but on the 
present occasion such a consideration can have no plan-: 
verbal variation is one thing, complete divergency of 
meaning is another. The Lord must have said either 
"children" or "works" (the two words do not differ 


much in the Greek), lie cannot have employed both 
terms in the same hre.-ith. This was so plainly seen 
by the scribe of Cod. Sinaiticus that, with a bold con- 
ucy which we noted in him in regard to another pas 
sage (p. 49), he adopts "works" in S. Luke also, where 
lie is countenanced by no authority save S. Ambrose, 
who alleges that "most Greeks so have it." In S. 
Matthew, while the external testimony is insufficient 
against the weight of internal evidence, yet is by no 
means insignificant in itself: the combination of the 
Peshito and Memphitic versions would alone entitle 
what they vouch for to grave attention. We find 
"works" in Codd. KB (but B has been subsequently 
altered) 124 (yet not its two fellows, Codd. 13. 34G ; 
Cod. 69 being here deficient : see p. 82), some Greek 
scholia or notes, manuscripts known to Jerome, in the 
Peshito and text of the Philoxenian Syriac, the Mem- 
phitic, certain Armenian codices, the ./Ethiopia (some 
forms of which present us with the two readings united), 
and in the Persic of the Polyglott, which is derived 
from the Peshito. In defence of " children " are cited 
Codd. CDLA and all other uncials and cursives (in 
cluding 1. 33), Cureton s Syriac and the margin of the 
Philoxenian, all the Latin versions Old and New, Origen 
and Clirysostom. 

Those who defend the variation "works" naturally 
press into their service Bengel s canon (p. 114), that the 
harder ivadin^ is to be preferred to the easier; butlhis 
is just an instance in which the interests of common 
sense compel us to set bounds to its operation. A resort 
to the forced explanation of referring the expression 
" works " to the life of Jesus or the life of John, where- 


by wisdom is or was justified, commended, vindicated, 
can satisfy no one who has not made up his mind 
beforehand that the common reading is unquestionably 

(4) MATT. xvi. 2, 3. It is not hard to see why these 
verses, the first clause of ver. 2 excepted, have been 
treated as doubtful by the most recent editors of the 
New Testament. The words run, with a slight varia 
tion from our Authorized version, "When it is evening, 
ye say, It will be fair weather : for the heaven is red. 
And in the morning, It will be foul weather to day : 
for the heaven is red and lowring. Ye know how 
to discern the face of the heaven ; but can ye not 
discern the signs of the times ?" The exclamation " ye 
hypocrites" of the common text, is undoubtedly 
spurious. Once before, in ch. xii. 38 40, the same 
request had been made by gainsayers, "Shew us a sign 
from heaven," and the answer rendered was the same 
in substance as in this passage, save that the sentences 
we have quoted are not found in the earlier place : 
hence the temptation to pass them by on the part of 
copyists, whose climate moreover the natural phenomena 
described therein did not veiy well suit. Yet it really 
seems impossible for any one possessed of the slightest 
tincture of critical instinct to read the verses thought 
fully, without feeling sure that they were actually 
spoken by the Lord ; so that, internal evidence in 
their favour being clear and well-nigh irresistible, the 
opposing witnesses rather damage their own authority 
than impair our confidence in our conclusion. These 
witnesses, however, are in themselves considerable 
Codd. NB and three other late but ordinarily good uncials 


(one other uncial marking the whole with an asterisk), 
that excellent cursive 157, two of Ferrar s group (13. 
124: see p. 82, note) and some eleven others: the 
verses are noticed, however, in the commentary annexed 
to two copies which omit them. Of the versions, the 
Curetonian and the Armenian (before it was corrupted 
from the Latin) reject the passage, and (as it would 
seem from Mill) some codices of the Memphitic. 
Origen does not comment upon it, while Jerome, in his 
sweeping way, alleges that it is not contained in most 
manuscripts. All other authorities side with the com 
mon text, which Jerome in his Vulgate does not 
venture to tamper with. Eusebius acknowledges the 
verses, inasmuch as he adapted to them his system of 
canons and sectional divisions of this Gospel : he 
rightly makes them parallel with Luke xii. 54 5G. 

Examples of this kind of which we shall hereafter 
meet with not a few, where testimony, which on the 
whole cannot possibly be admitted, is both weighty 
in itself and comes to us from several sources apparently 
Independent of each other suggest the suspicion that 
tin Holy Gospels, like other works both in ancient 
and modern times, may have circulated in more than 
one edition, the earlier wanting some passages which 
the sacred writers inserted in the later. Sufficient 
attention has hardly been paid to a supposition which 
would account for discrepancies otherwise very per 
plexing; and it is evident that transcripts might have 
been made from the first issue which, being propagated 
: .n distant lands, would always keep up the difference 
between the several recen>ions, each as it came from 
the author s hand. Some such process as this may be 


seen by comparing the song of David in 2 Sam. xxii. 
with Ps. xviii., the historical book obviously exhibiting 
an early draft of the more finished composition in the 

(5) MATT. xvii. 21. "Howbeit this kind goeth not 
out but by prayer and fasting." We have here a 
striking exemplification of the second rule laid down in 
our last lecture (p. 115), there being reason to think 
that this verse is but an accretion, taken, with some 
slight variation, from the parallel place, Mark ix. 29. 
Otherwise the omission is not imperatively demanded 
by the state of the evidence, although that is ancient 
and drawn from various quarters. It consists of Codd. 
tf (by the first hand) B. 33, the Curetonian and Jeru 
salem Syriac, the Thebaic and one or more copies of the 
Memphitic known through Mill, e. and ff. 1 of the Old 
Latin, both of high value, some forms of the ^Ethiopic, 
and Eusebius, as seen from his arrangement of his 
canon in S. Mark. We are attaching great force to 
internal probabilities when we allow such a scanty roll 
to outweigh the far more numerous and equally varied 
authorities that uphold the verse, namely Codd. N (by 
an early second hand) CDL, all other uncials, every 
cursive save one, the Peshito and Philoxenian Svriac, 
the Memphitic in most copies, the Armenian, all other 
forms of the Old and Vulgate Latin, followed by the 
Latin Fathers Hilary, Ambrose, and Augustine, by 
Origen among the Greeks and Chrysostom in his 
commentary very distinctly. 

(6) In the preceding verse occurs another doubtful 
question, in reference to which we have to choose 
between "Because of your little faith, the gen tier, 


intriuMcully perhaps the more likely reading, and 
"Dccaiise of your faithlessness" or "unbelief," the more 
emphatic term. In the Greek, of course, the two words 
are much alike, and in point of moral feeling the varia 
tion much reminds us of ch. v. 22 (p. 119), only that 
the chief witnesses for the stronger form in that place 
lu-n> advocate what might seem to be the weaker. 
"Little faith" is the reading of Codd. tf B. 1. 22 (the 
valuable cursive, Paris 72), 33, the three here extant of 
Ferrar s group (13. 124. 34G: see p. 82, note), of Cureton s 
Syriac, both Egyptian, the Armenian and ./Ethiopia 
versions, of Origen, Chrysostom (very expressly, but in 
one manuscript only), John Damescene in his oldest copy 
(p. 112), but among the Latins of Hilary alone. All the 
rest, Codd. CDL, the host of later uncials and cursives, 
the Peshito and Philoxenian Syriac, the Latins and one 
Armenian copy after them, maintain the common 
text. On the one hand it may be urged that "faith 
lessness" was suggested by the epithet "faithless" in 
ver. 17, on the other that although "little faith" occurs 
nowhere else as a noun in the New Testament, yet 
the epithet "O thou" or "ye of little faith" had been 
already met with in this Gospel four times over. The 
choice is delicate, and the difference small. 

(7) Of a widely different character is the grave 
discrepancy of our authorities in Matt. xix. 17, Avhich 
runs in our Authorized Bible "Why callest thou me 
good ? there is none good but one, that is God," which 
precisely corresponds with the wording of the two 
parallel places, Mark x. 18; Luke xviii. 19. In all the 
three "Why callest thou me good?" has a distinct re- 
to the address " Good Master" in the preceding 
S.L. 9 


verse. But in S. Matthew the adjective "good" before 
"Master" is more than doubtful, while he stands alone 
in representing the question to be "what good thing 
.shall I do?", the other two simply putting the inquiry 
"what shall I do?" This divergency in the verse 
before prepares the mind for the larger one in ver. 17, 
"Why askest thou me of that which is good? One 
there is who is good :" the discussion of which various 
reading is the more important, inasmuch as the altera 
tion cannot be accidental. On the one part or the 
other it must have been made designedly for obvious 
reasons; and I am the more called upon to lay before 
you the state of the case as clearly as I can, because 
I once strove hard to vindicate the common Greek text, 
and can now do so no longer. 

It may be seen that the key of the whole position 
is the epithet "good" before "Master" in ver. 16, for if 
this be genuine, the only pertinent answer is contained 
in the Received text. Now this first "good" is omitted 
in Codd. KBDL and in four cursives, two of them 
being very excellent (1. 22), in three chief copies of 
the Old Latin (a. e. ff 1 .}, in the ^Ethiopic, in Origen 
twice, and of the early Latin in Hilary also. Regard 
being had to its presence in the other Gospels, the 
uncials alone would suffice to justify its omission, 
by virtue of Canon II. (p. 115). The new and now 
most appropriate form of the answer "Why askest 
thou me of that which is good ? One there is who 
is good," is vouched for by the same great uncials 
Codd. tfBDL, by 1. 22., and to some extent by another 
cursive, and by versions far more numerous and im 
portant than those which only omit the first "good" 


in vcr. 1(1, namely by Cureton s and the Jerusalem 
Syriac, by tho Memphitic and Armenian, by the Old 
Latin a. b. c. e. ff 1 . jf 9 . g l . and others, by the New or 
Vulgate Latin, after Jerome, with the Frankish and 
Anglo-Saxon in its wake. A few of these versions 
add is God" at the end, while the Philoxenian 
Syriac, the ^Ethiopic, Codd. g 1 . m. and others of the Old 
Latin, take the first clause from the amended, the second 
from the Received text : " Why askest thou me of 
that which is good? There is none good but one, 
that is God." The evidence of Origen also, on which 
great stress has been deservedly laid, avails for the first 
of the two clauses, not at all for the second. "Now 
Matthew," he says, "wrote on the supposition that the 
Saviour was asked about a good work in the question, 
What good shall I do? But Mark and Luke state 
that the Saviour said, Why callest thou me good? 
tJtere is none good but One, that is God." Nothing 
can be more explicit, so far as the question extends 
" Why askest thou me of that which is good ? " Thus 
far also goes Augustine, who, like Origen, expressly 
discriminates the language of the Evangelists. 

We cannot refuse to admit a complex reading 
which is consistently upheld by considerations so 
powerful, yet the case for the Received text even 
now looks strong, consisting as it does of Cod. C and 
all uncials except the aforesaid four, of Codd. 33. GO 
(which commences with Matt, xviii. 15), all cursives 
but two, of the Peshito Syriac and Thebaic versions, 
and of Fathers ancient as Justin Martyr (in spite of 
his looseness in citation), and IrenaDiis in the second 
century, of Hilary, Optatus, and Ambrose against all 



their own Latin copies except two (/ however, being 
one), of Eusebius, Chrysostom, and a host of later 
ecclesiastical writers. 

(8) The next passage to which your notice will 
be directed is very easily dealt with : in fact, it is 
mentioned chiefly to shew on what slight grounds 
a gloss will sometimes find its way into the text and 
continue there. In Matt, xxvii. 35, after the Evan 
gelist s words "And they crucified him, and parted 
his garments, casting lots : " is added in our common 
Bibles a clause not belonging to this Gospel, but 
borrowed from John xix. 24, with just one expression 
assimilated to S. Matthew s usual manner, "That it 
might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, 
They parted my garments among them, and upon my 
vesture did they cast lots (Ps. xxii. 18)." Uncial autho 
rity the passage has absolutely none before Cod. A of 
the ninth century (p. 74). Since Erasmus found it in his 
Cod. 1 (p. 80), it crept into his, the first published edi 
tion of the New Testament : it is not found in the great 
Complutensian Polyglott of Cardinal Ximenes, which 
was printed in 1514, but did not appear before 1522, 
too late to have the influence it well deserved over 
the Greek text then issuing from the press in various 
forms. Besides Codd. A. 1, nine other cursives (Ferrar s 
G9. 124 being among them) have been alleged in its 
support, though with some small variations of reading. 
Of the Fathers Eusebius cites it in this Gospel nearly 
alone. Its main support rests on certain forms of 
the Latin, a. b. c. (f. &c., Pope Clement s Vulgate 
after the great Codex Amiatinus, but not Pope Sixtus* 
or the majority of the Vulgate manuscripts. The 


versions which depend on or have been corrected from 
the Vulgate also contain it, as the Armenian, Frank ish, 
Anglo-Saxon, the Roman Arabic, and Persic of the 
Polyglott. Tremellius first interpolated the Peshito 
with this sentence, by turning the Greek words into 
Syriac : it is wholly unknown to Syriac codices and 
to Widmanstadt s primary edition (p. 90). The Phi- 
loxenian text too contains it, but with a marginal 
note which strongly condemns it 

A case resting on such evidence cannot stand for 
a moment; but if the testimony were anything like 
equally divided, a plea might be set up for the addi 
tional sentence on the ground that the clause before 
it and its own conclusion both end in "cast lots." 
Those who have any experience in the collation of 
manuscripts of every kind are familiar with a source 
of error technically called homaeoteleuton, that is, like 
ending, whereby the eye of the scribe or the press 
compositor is apt to wander from the end of the 
first clause to the similar ending of the second, com 
pletely overlooking all the words that lie between 

(9) MARK vi. 20. "For Herod feared John, know 
ing that he was a just man and a holy, and observed 
him; and when he heard him, he did many things, 
and hoard him gladly." Perhaps no one ever pondered 
over this verse without feeling that the clause "he 
did many things " is very feeble in so clear and vigorous 
a writer as S. Mark, and indeed hardly intelligible 
as it stands. Conjecture has been employed upon 
it to no purpose, and we may say at once that mere 
conjecture seldom does effect any thing for a passage 


like this. But four of our best authorities here exhibit 
a reading which, once heard, can hardly fail of im 
mediate acceptance : instinct in such cases taking 
the lead of reasoning. The Greek for "he did" is 
epoiei (eVotet) : in its place Codd. NBC and the 
Memphitic version have cporei (rj-n-opei) "he was 
perplexed," a word dissimilar neither to the eye nor 
the ear. I say "to the ear" in case any one may think, 
which I do not, that ancient manuscripts were tran 
scribed rather from dictation than by the immediate 
act of copying: of the slovenly practice of dictation I 
can discern no considerable traces. Fewas our autho 
rities here are, they are many enough and good enough 
for our purpose, when the sense so powerfully recom 
mends them ; for the passage now reads admirably : 
"when he heard him, he was much perplexed, and 
heard him gladly," a lively picture indeed of the 
inward struggle of conscience in a bad man s mind, 
enslaved by sinful indulgence, yet not void of admira 
tion for what was pure and noble. The Greek word 
rendered "much" (vroXXa) is so used in five other 
places in this Gospel (ch. iii. 12; v. 10, 23, 38; ix. 26). 
(10) MARK vii. 19. "Because it entereth not into 
his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the 
draught, purging all meats." Here again we have a 
verse which affords, in its last clause, no satisfactory 
meaning. What is it that "purgeth all meats" ? The 
Greek participle, being in the neuter gender, can 
be in concord with none of the nouns in the verse, 
but must be referred to that which entereth into a 
man from without in the preceding verse: yet how 
that can in any way be said to "purge all meats" it 


is not at all easy to determine. In this dilemma we 
have but to turn to the various readings annexed to 
critical editions to see our way clear at once. We 
there discover that the participle is not neuter at all, 
but masculine, the difference between the forms being 
only the substitution of the long omega (<u) for the 
short omicron (o), a minute change abundantly ac 
counted for by the itacism (p. 39). The masculine 
form is that of Codd. KABL, of Ferrar s four cursives 
(13. G9. 124>. 346) and a large number of others, as 
well as of Erasmus in his first two editions ; while the 
neuter has far less support. The Latin versions are 
necessarily neutral, the Peshito Syriac falsely refers 
the participle to the noun immediately preceding. 
The masculine participle has the Divine Speaker for 
its subject, and is not a part of the Lord s discourse, 
but a brief passing comment of S. Mark himself, "This 
he said, pronouncing all things clean," much in the 
same way as the writer interposes in ch. iii. 30 "Be 
cause they said, He hath an unclean spirit." Thus 
simply and expressively the Greek Fathers, such as 
Origen and Chrysostom, understood the sense, and 
it is strange that their exposition should have been 
lost sight of, illustrated as it is by Acts x. 15 "What 
.God hath cleansed, that call not thou common." 

(11) MARK ix. 29. "This kind can come forth hy 
nothing, save by prayer and fasting." In discussing the 
parallel place, Matt. xvii. 21, we assented to the opinion 
of recent critics that the verse was interpolated from 
the present passage : we must resist their wish to ex 
punge from this verse the concluding words "and fac 
ing." The evidence on which, internal considerations 


inducing us, we were content to act in the former < 
was far from considerable : in this instance it is even 
weaker, being Codd. N (by the first hand) B, the Latin 
/;., and the silent help of Clement of Alexandria: literally 
nothing more. It is indeed true that in two places in 
the New Testament (Acts x. 30 ; 1 Cor. vii. 5) "fasting" 
has been joined on to "prayer" in the common text, 
whereas it is not recognized by the best authorities, but 
the case against the word " fasting" is much stronger in 
them than here. The genuineness of both terms in 
Acts xiii. 2, 3 ; xiv. 23, has never been disputed, and 
we cannot deny too earnestly an unjust charge occasion 
ally brought against the copyists of our Greek manu 
scripts, that they accommodated the text before them 
to the ascetic practices of their own times. 

(12) MARK xv. 28. "And the scripture was fulfilled, 
which saith, And he was numbered with the trans 
gressors." Just as the clause from Ps. xxii. 18 has been 
wrongly transferred from its proper place in John xix. 24 
to Matt, xxvii. 35 (p. 132), so must we confess that the 
present citation from Isai. liii. 12 has been brought into 
S. Mark s text from Luke xxii. 37. Appeals to the Old 
Testament Scriptures are not much in this Evangelist s 
manner, and the tendency to enlargement from other 
Gospels would alone render the passage suspicious (p. 
115). The verse is wanting in Codd. KABCD, in 
another good uncial, while in A and one other it is 
alleged to be marked as doubtful by means of an obelus 
or asterisk. As many as 25 cursives are said to make 
for omission, as well as about 20 Church lesson-books, 
some of them being uncials (but see p. 77). Of the 
versions, only the Thebaic and the Old Latin k. reject it, 


"but it seems doubtful whether Eusebius acknowledged 
vcr. 28 in arranging liis canon. The mass of the later 
uncials (including Codd. LP), the most and best cursives, 
and almost all the versions retain the verse: internal 
considerations, however, are somewhat adverse to it, 
and, that being the case, the united testimony of the 
ii\v chief uncials is simply irresistible. 

(13) MARK xvi. 9 20. We have now reached the 
most important passage in the New Testament upon 
which the researches of modern criticism have tended 
to throw a doubt, and we rejoice in the assurance that, the 
more closely it is scrutinized, the more manifestly it will 
be seen to form a genuine portion of the second Gospel. 
The paragraph is not found at all in Codd. NB, the two 
oldest of all, but in the case of B with the suggestive 
peculiarity of the vacant column described in a former 
lecture (p. 57) l , which leads Mr Burgon of Oriel not very 
unreasonably to claim Cod. B as a witness in favour of 
those twelve verses, whose existence its scribe was 
plainly aware of, if he had them not in the archetype 
before him. The case of Cod. L, B s close ally, must be 
stated at length, and I may say in passing that I trust 
that no one will think his pains thrown away upon this 
whole most interesting discussion. At the end of ver. 8 
the copyist breaks off with the words "for they were 
afraid," on the last line but one of a column. Then at 

1 "\Yi> prefer to lay no stress on Tischendorf s opinion that the leaves 
containing Mark xvi. in X anil B were written by the same scribe, yet 
besides the similarity of handwriting, on which no one would like to 
i too confidently, there are other circumstances, apparently nn- 
notici il by Tischendorf, which corroborate his judgment. In that case 
Codd. KB would for this passage make but one witness, not two. 


the top of the next column, but in the same hand (of 
the eighth century be it remembered) the following 
note occurs : "And this also is somewhere extant : 
And they briefly announced all that was bidden them 
to Peter and his company. And after this also Jesus 
himself from the east even to the west sent forth 
through them the holy and incorruptible proclamation 
of eternal salvation. And this also is extant after for 
they were afraid: " then follow ver. 9 20 in their usual 
form. The scribe knew of two separate endings of 
S. Mark s Gospel, and lacked the critical skill required to 
discern the true from the false. The Old Latin k. also, 
so often the associate of Codd. KB, sets in the room of 
the last twelve verses a loose translation of the note 
given in Cod. L, as also do two ^Ethiopic manuscripts. 
Besides the aforenamed, ver. 9 20 are omitted in some 
old Armenian codices and an Arabic Church lesson- 
book of the ninth century ; and L s note is found in 
the margin of one cursive of the tenth century (Cod. 
274), of one Memphitic copy, and of the Philoxenian 

The proofs of the genuineness of ver. 9 20 seem 
quite overwhelming. They are contained in Codd. ACD 
(which last is defective from ver. 15), in all other 
uncials, in all cursives without exception ; in the Syriac, 
in the Curetonian (which, by a singular happiness, 
contains ver. 17 20, though no other portion of 
S. Mark), the Peshito, the Jerusalem, and Philoxenian 
text, in the Thebaic (ver. 20 alone being preserved), 
the Memphitic, all the Old Latin except k. ( but a. by 
the first hand and b. e. are defective), the Vulgate, the 
Gothic (to ver. 12), the Georgian and lesser versions, 


even the ^Ethiopic and Armenian 1 with the exceptions 
stated above. Of ancient writers, the paragraph was 
known possibly to Papias, probably to Justin Martyr, 
ivrtainly to Irenaeus in the second century; to Hippo- 
lytus and apparently to Celsus in the third ; to the 
Persian sage Aphraates (in a Syriac Homily dated 
A.D. 337), to Cyril of Jerusalem, Epiphanius, Ambrose, 
Augustine, Chrysostom, in the fourth. Add to this the 
fact of which Mr Burgon has made such excellent use, 
that in the Calendar of Church lessons, which existed 
unquestionably in the fourth century, very probably 
much earlier, the passage formed part of a special ser 
vice for so high a feast as Ascension Day, and was used on 
other occasions in the ordinary course of Divine service. 
Unless Eusebius is retailing at second-hand the 
views of Origen, whom he much imitated, we meet with 
the earliest hint of doubt thrown on the paragraph in a 
treatise of his, first published by Cardinal Mai, in 1847, 
his " Questions to Marinus." He is busily engaged in 
his attempt to harmonize the Synoptic Gospels, a study 
which gave rise to his system of canons we have spoken 
of so often. Like every one else who has made the 
attempt, he found the enterprise full of difficulties, 
although they, as the critics often tell us, only make the 
genuineness of a passage the more sure (p. 114). He is 
perplexed how to reconcile the time of the Resurrection 
as described in Matt, xxviii. 1 with what is stated in 
-Mark xvi. 9. His solution is two-fold : the second we 

1 But we ought to add that some Armenian codices which contain 
the paragraph have the subscription " Gospel after Mark" at the end 
i if VIT. 8 as well as of ver. 20, as though they (like Cod. L) recognized 
a double ending to the book. 


need not concern ourselves with ; it is a curious device 
of punctuation invented for those who might reject 
his first, which, in Eusebius own language, runs as 
follows : 

" He who is for getting rid of the section which speaketh of thia 
[i.e. ver. 9] would say that it is not met with in all the copies of 
S. Mark s Gospel: the accurate copies, at any rate, circumscribe the 
end of S. Mark s history in the words of the young man who was 
Been by the women and said unto them, Fear not, ye seek Jesus of 
Nazareth, and so on : to which he adds and when they heard it they 
fled, neither told they any thing to any man, for they were afraid. 
For at this point, in nearly all the copies of S. Mark s Gospel, the end 
is circumscribed. What follows, being met with rarely in some, but 
not in all, would he superfluous, especially if it contained a contra 
diction to the testimony of the other Evangelists. This one would 
say if he deprecated and would entirely get rid of a superfluous 

Just so : the short way with objectors to the varia 
tion of this passage from the other Gospels would be to 
deny the genuineness of the paragraph, which Eusebius 
hardly chooses to do himself, though most of the copies 
known to him Codd. KB might very well be among 
them did not contain the disputed verses. Jerome, 
as usual, repeats and almost exaggerates his prede 
cessor s statement, although he did not venture to act 
upon it when revising the Latin Vulgate. Air Burgon 
abundantly demonstrates that all the subsequent evi 
dence which has been collected against the verses, 
whether bearing the name of Severus of Antioch, of 
Hesychius, or any other, down to Euthymius Zigabenus 
in the twelfth century, is a mere echo of Eusebius, 
deriving all knowledge of the matter from him. 

Directly opposed to his statements are those of 
Victor of Autioch, who in the fifth century wrote a 


commentary on S. M. irk s Gospel, which fills the ample 
margins of not a few of the cursive manuscripts. He 
too, like Eusebius, found many copies in which the 
twelve verses were wanting. This set him upon looking 
into the matter, and he fairly tells us the result : " but 
since we found them in most of the accurate copies and 
in the Palestine copy of S. Mark s Gospel," we have 
used them, as the truth required. This Palestine copy 
to which Victor refers is probably of the same character 
with the ancient Jerusalem copies to which certain 
other scribes appeal in their margins in defence of the 
suit-same paragraph. Now it is a sad token of the 
heedlessness with which important subjects of sacred 
criticism have sometimes been handled, that those very 
manuscripts of this Gospel they are no less than 
twenty-four in all which contain in their several mar 
gins Victor s decided judgment in favour of the genuine 
ness of ver. 9 20, have, for this very reason and no other, 
been cited by one editor after another as adverse to them. 
It is absolutely impossible that S. Mark s Gospel 
can have ended abruptly with the words " for they were 
afraid." Mr Kelly puts this very well when he asks 
" Can any one, who knows the character of the Lord 
and of His ministry, conceive for an instant that we 
should be left with nothing but a message baulked 
ili rough the alarm of women?" Accordingly, certain 
theologians, who feel unable to conclude that S. Mark 
wrote the passage, are willing to concede that it was 
appended to his unfinished work in primitive times, 
and that it is rightly entitled to be regarded as Canoni 
cal. These writers urge against us a certain difference 
of style subsisting between the twelve verses and the 


rest of S. Mark s Gospel, a difference, we are persuaded, 
more apparent than real, and from which no safe con 
clusion can be drawn within so small a compass. This 
Evangelist s pregnant brevity is conspicuous enough in 
them, and, for the rest, nothing can well be more pre 
carious than objections grounded on minutiae of this 
kind. Professor Broadus of South Carolina, for in 
stance, has established quite a strong case in favour of 
the identity of authorship by reason of the similarity 
of the phraseology, and Mr Burgon, to whose splendid 
monograph on the subject we thankfully recur for the 
last time, justifies in full detail his deliberate conviction 
that the supposed adverse argument drawn from peculi 
arities of language "breaks down hopelessly under 
severe analysis." 

I fear that some of those I am trying to interest in 
these studies have found the foregoing discussion rather 
tedious and dry, although I have aimed throughout to 
limit my view to the broad issues of the question, over 
looking, as much as possible, many an interesting by- 
point which seemed less relevant to the main topic of 
our examination. I venture, however, to hope that I 
have carried those who have followed me throughout to 
the conclusion announced from the first, that the last 
twelve verses of this second Gospel are, beyond all 
doubt or misgiving, an original and genuine portion of 
the Evangelist s divine work. 

(14) LUKE ii. 14. It is well known to those who 
love ecclesiastical music, that the first clause of the 
Angelic Hymn appears in a different form in the 
Roman Mass-book and in the English Communion 
Service. The cause of this variation is that the 


former follows the Vulgate Latin version of the New 
Testament, the latter the Received text of the Greek. 
This, the common text, is transparently clear. 

Glory to God in the highest, 
And on earth peace : 
Good will among men. 

The words are distributed, after the Hebrew fashion, 
into a stanza consisting of three members. In the 
first and second heaven and earth are contrasted ; 
the third refers to both the preceding, and alleges 
the efficient cause which has brought to God glory and 
on earth peace. By the addition of a single letter 
(c, sigma) to the end of the last line, so as to turn 
the Greek word rendered "good will" from the nomi 
native into the genitive case, the rhythmical arrange 
ment is sorely marred, and the simple shepherds sent 
away with a message, whose diction no scholar has yet 
construed to his mind. Let us look to the evidence 
upon which rests a change so slight in itself, so mo 
mentous in its results. Of the five great uncials C is 
defective here, but the sigma indicating the genitive 
is found in Codd. NABD, and in no other Greek 
manuscript whatsoever. Of these, however, K and B 
have been corrected by later hands, D is much 
associated with the Latin version, in every form of 
which the genitive occurs, and the testimony of A 
may be cited on both sides, inasmuch as in the primi 
tive 14th or Morning Hymn, a cento of Scripture texts, 
annexed to the Book of Psalms, it actually reads the 
nominative, and such was no doubt the form used in 
Divine Service by the early Greek Church. The 


Gothic version and the Latin Fathers Hilary and 
Augustine, the translator of Irenreus and the rest, 
naturally follow the Latin translations, and Jerome 
manifestly adopts the same form when rendering from 
Origen a passage not extant in the Greek. Origen s 
own text, in three several places, has the nominative, 
although no special stress is laid upon it by him. For 
the common text we allege Cod. L and all other uncials 
as yet unnamed, including Cod. H (xi) of Tregolles, a 
palimpsest fragment of S. Luke which often favours 
B 1 , all cursives of every kind, the three Syriac versions 
here extant, and that most explicitly, with the Armenian 
and ^Ethiopic. Here too comes in the evidence of 
the Greek Fathers their virtually unanimous evidence, 
from which, in a matter of this kind, there ought to be 
no appeal. Of Origen we have already spoken : but 
the Apostolical Constitutions and Methodius, at the 
end of the third century or early in the fourth; Euse- 
bius, Aphraates the Persian, Titus of Bostra, Gregory 
Nazianzen, Cyril of Jerusalem, Epiphanius and Chry- 
sostom throughout the fourth ; Cyril of Alexandria 
in three places, other authorities less weighty because 
less ancient, all maintain the text as we find it in 
the ordinary Greek copies. 

If the genitive were taken, it would of course be 
necessary to extract from it some tolerable sense, an 
endeavour which has hitherto met with small success. 

1 Called Cod. Zacynthius, as brought from Zante in 1821 into the 
library of the British and Foreign Bible Society. It has around tho 
text a copious commentary or catena, and although not earlier than 
the eighth century, exhibits the Vatican chapters (see p. 28) in its 
margin. It contains 342 verses down to Luke xi. 33, and was edited 
by Tregelles in 1S61. 

7.V 777 /; HOLY GOSPELS. 145 

as Hebrew poetry it would then consist of 
only two very unequal ineinlHTs: 

Glory to God in the highest, 

And on earth peace among men of good pleasure. 

God s glory is in the highest places, peace among 
them in whom He is well pleased; or, as the Vulgate 

jt. sts, "among those disposed to receive it," a limita 
tion of the grace of the Gospel, which, as Dean Alt ord 
justly remarks, is as untenable in Greek as in theology. 
Yet what else than this the genitive can mean it is 
hard indeed to say. 

(15) LUKE vi. 1. The phrase "second sabbath 
after the first " has perplexed every commentator, and 
being one which occurs nowhere else, will probably 
never be satisfactorily explained. Since the season 
is early harvest, no conjecture is more probable than 
that it was the sabbath immediately after the first 
or great Paschal sabbath, on the morrow after which 
day was waved the sheaf of the first-fruits (Lev. xxiii. 
10, 11) : thus corresponding to our Saturday in Easter 
wrck. The expression "on another sabbath " (ver. 6) 
seems to favour the notion that the previous one 
had been definitely indicated, and here, at any rate, 
Bengal s canon may find a fit place, which declares that 
a reading is not the less probable because it is difficult. 
The epithet "second after the first," however, is wholly 
omitted in Codd. tfBL 1. 22. 33. G9. 118. 157. 209 
(see p. 122). Two of the usual associates of Cod. G9, 
namely 13. 124, together with Codd. BT and a few 
others, c .xhiliit a form differing from that of the 
Received text only by a familiar itacism. Since this 
verse commences an ecclesiastical lesson, all Church 
s. L. 10 


Lectionaries (the Jerusalem Syriac among them) omit 
the note of time, as they usually do in such cases. 
Nor ought we to wonder if some versions, according to 
their wont, pass over altogether an expression which 
their translators could not understand. Hence its 
absence from the Peshito Syriac and Mcmphitic (the 
Thebaic is not extant), the Old Latin b. c. and two or 
three other copies, from both Persic, and some forms 
.of the ^Ethiopic and Arabic. How such a term could 
have got into the text unless it were genuine has 
baffled and must baffle conjecture. We retain it 
without hesitation on the evidence of Codd. ACD, 
of all other uncials and cursives not named before, 
the best Old Latin codices (a.f. ff 2 . <7 1 . 2 ), all manuscripts 
of the Vulgate, the Armenian, Gothic and Philoxenian 
Syriac versions, although this last notes in the margin 
its absence from some copies. Add to this list the 
ecclesiastical writers and scholiasts who have tried their 
hand, with whatever success, upon various explana 
tions : such are Ccesarius, Epiphanius, Ambrose, Chry- 
sostom in the fourth century, Isidore of Pelusium and 
perhaps Clement of Alexandria in the fifth. 

(16) LUKE x. 42. "One thing is needful." This 
solemn speech of our Divine Master has shaken many 
a pulpit and sanctified many a life. No nobler sermon 
was ever preached upon it than that by S. Augustine 
which he sums up in the emphatic comment "the 
toil for many things passeth away, the love of the 
one thing abideth." Our Lord s language may well 
have shocked the timorous by its uncompromising 
exclusiveness, much as Matt. v. 22 might do (p. 121), 
but it almost moves our indignation to see it diluted 

;.v /.v Tin: HOLY r.ow.s. m 

into the feeble paraphrase 1 of Codd. $]$L, the very 
ancient second hand of (p. G3), 1. 33. " there is need of 
few things, or [rather] of one," where N omits " need" 
in its I (hindering fashion (p. 41). With these agree 
tin- Mcmpliitic, ^Ethiopic, and margin of the Philoxeuian 
version, Jerome, and Origen as cited in a catena or 
commentary by various hands. One ordinary cursive, 
the Jerusalem Syriac, and Cyril of Alexandria in his 
Syriac version, have only "there is need of few things," 
and so the Armenian nearly. The chief purely Latin 
authorities fail us here, inasmuch as Cod. D, with 
a. b. e. ff*., Ambrose, and some others retain out of 
the whole passage no more than the words "Martha, 
Martha" (ver. 41), with or without the verb "thou art 

So powerfully is this pregnant dictum supported 
by internal evidence, that we doubt not here to reject 
the testimony, not of Cod. D and the Latins only, 
but of the more formidable array which supports Cod. 
B. The Received text is that of Codd. AC, of all 
other uncials and cursives not before mentioned, of 
the Peshito and Cureton s Syriae (the latter so often 
an ally of D), of the Philoxenian text, of g l . and others 
of the Old Latin, including/., which is of a more recent 
type (p. 100), of the Vulgate or New Latin. Chrysostom, 
Augustine in two places, John Damascene and others 

1 Just as frigid a gloss, self-condemned one would suppose by 
its own wordy feebleness, is found in Codd. NDC2. 33. 157, ci>;>u-s 
of the Meuiphitic, the Philoxenian margin and Cyril of Alexandria 
in Luke vi. 48, where in the room of " for it had been founded upon 
the rock," they read " because it had been built well," the ^Ethiopia 
retaining both forms. It is not sufficient to say in defence of this 
poor stuff that the Received text is also that of Matt. vii. 2.".. 



complete the list : S. Basil sides once in silence with 
the Received text, but once puts on the clause an 
ingenious comment, which may be best understood 
by assuming that he had before him the reading of 
Cod. B and its fellows. 

(17) LUKE xi. 2, 4. The probability is so strong 
that the form of the Lord s Prayer here given, doubt 
less on a later and different occasion, should have 
been interpolated from that in Matt. vi. 9 13, that 
the authority produced for omitting no less than three 
clauses here, considerable in itself, is entitled to our 
deference also on other grounds. Instead of "Our 
Father, which art in heaven," we find simply "Father" 
in Codd. KBC. 1. 346 (but not its fellows, see p. 82 
note), and four other good cursives, in two Old Latin 
copies (g\ cf.}, nearly all those of the Vulgate Latin, 
and its follower the Armenian. Origen and various 
scholia after him expressly discriminate the fuller 
expression of the other Gospel from the short one 
here. For omitting "Thy will be done, as in heaven, 
so in earth" (ver. 2), as also "but deliver us from evil" 
(ver. 4), we find in substance the same testimony, 
weakened in the former of these places (ver. 2) by the 
desertion of the first hand of Cod. N and one cursive, 
strengthened by the additional support of Cureton s 
Syriac, and another form of the Old Latin Qf 2 .). In 
ver. 4, the evidence against the last clause is strongest 
of all. Although the Curetonian contains it, Cyril 
of Alexandria now echoes the express evidence of 
Origen and the scholiasts before referred to. Ter- 
tullian also, who in controversy with Marcion would 
use S. Luke s Gospel, cites none of the three doubtful 


flo.u>rs, while Augustine expressly affirms that in 
this Kvangelist the Lord s Prayer embraced but five 
pi-tit ions, in S. Matthew seven. The mass of copies 
and versions must yield in a case like this. 

(IS) LUKE xiv. 5. "Which of you shall have an 
ass or an ox fallen into a pit...?" For "ass" of the 
Received text, a vast array of imposing authorities 
substitutes "son," which in Greek is not very unlike 
it in form, and thus renders the Lord s question an 
example of bathos that is so tasteless as to be almost 
ludicrous, "Which of you shall have a son or an ox?"; 
not, be it observed, "a son, nay even an ox," for the 
original will bear no .such means of evasion. The 
reference in the common text is, of course, to Ex. xxi. 
33, the order of the words being changed from what 
stands there and in Ex. xxiii. 4, ch. xiii. 15 of this 
Gospel, because the argument here rises from the less 
esteemed animal to one more valuable. It is instructive 
to observe how hopelessly authorities of all ages and 
degrees of importance are divided on a point about 
which it might be thought that common sense would 
forbid even a moment s hesitation. For "son" may 
be alleged Codd. AB united (p. 55), ten lesser uncials, 
no less than 125 cursives cited by name (our y has 
"your son:" see p. 83), against Codd. NL (the usual 
allies of B), three other uncials, quite as many cursives 
as on the other side, and those of the best (1. 33, c.). 
Cureton s Syriac and one cursive combine both read 
ings "sun or ox or ass"; one form of the Arabic with 
another cursive have "ox" only; one of Mr Burgon s 
Venice cursives has "sou or ass," without "ox." C <><1. 
C is -unfortunately defective hre, as it so often is when 


we need it most, Cod. D has "sheep or ox," at any 
rate excluding "son." Versions are just as much at 
variance as Greek manuscripts. For "son" we can cite 
the Peshito (with its Persic imitator) and the Philo- 
xenian Syriac, the Thebaic, the Old Latin e. f. y., and 
some Slavonic manuscripts: for "ass" the Hemphitic 
and Jerusalem Syriac, the three best codices of the 
Old Latin (a. b. c.) and two others, the Vulgate, 
Armenian, and ./Ethiopic ("his ox or ass"). The com 
mentators, Titus of Bostra in the fourth century, 
Clement of Alexandria in the fifth, recognised and 
laboured to explain "son." Their expositions are 
followed by late writers, as Theophylact in the eleventh 
century, Euthymius Zigabenus in the twelfth, and the 
language of one or other of them is repeated in catenas 
and scholia set in the margin of some manuscripts, 
whose own text exhibits the adverse, and, in our judg 
ment, the true reading. 

(19) LUKE xxii. 43, 44. "And there appeared 
an angel unto him from heaven, strengthening him. 
And being in an agony he prayed more earnestly: and 
his sweat was as it were great drops of blood falling 
down to the ground." No more grateful fruit of 
modern criticism can well be named, than the rescuing 
these verses, whose sacred words the devout reader 
of Scripture could so ill spare, from the doubt which 
once seemed to hang about them. They are not found 
in Codd. ABRT 1 , 124 (in Cod. 13 only the first two 
words are by the first hand), nor in/, of the Old Latin, 

1 Cod. Borgianus (T), now in the Propaganda at Borne, is ft 
small but precious fragment of 13 leaves or more (177 verses), with a 
Thebaio version on the left or opposite page, of the fifth century. 


in prrlia]K (lie majority of Mempliitic, in some 
ami Armenian o>i>ies. Cod. A, however, by affixing 
to tin- i-nd of ver. 42, to which they cannot possibly 
belong, the proper Ammonian section and Euscbian 
canon (see pp. 127, 128, 153), shews that its scribe was 
acquainted with the passage. It is read in all other 
uncials and cursives, Codd. NDLQ 1 being the chief, 
in all the four Syriac versions (Cureton s omitting 
" from heaven "), in the Old Latin a. b. c. e. ff*. y\ g*. 
and others, the Vulgate and ^Ethiopic, in some Mem- 
phitic, Thebaic, and Armenian manuscripts. It has 
been said that these verses are rejected in Cod. &$ by 
a hand so ancient as to be little less authoritative than 
that of the first scribe, and certainly Tischendorfs 
language lends some countenance to the notion. I 
possess, however, through Mr Burgon s kindness, a 
photograph of the whole page, which exhibits rude slight 
curves at the beginning and end of the passage only, 
and points nearly invisible throughout, both as likely 
to have been scrawled fifty years since as fourteen 

In the present case we are able to form such a 
reasonable judgment on the origin of the variation, as is 
seldom in our power. Cod. C9, the kinsman of 13. 124 
namc-d above (p. 82), transfers the two verses from their 
proper place so as to follow Matt. xxvi. 39, and they 
are thus found in the margin of Cod. C, set there by a 
later hand, C itself being defective in this place. Now 
when we look into Church Lectionaries, we discover that 
this is tin- position the two verses occupy in eveiy one 
of them. They form a regular part of the late service 
for the Thursday in Holy Week (Matt. xxvi. 21 xxvii.2), 


and there, not elsewhere in lesson -books of the Gospels, 
do they occur: these lessons, be it remembered, were 
certainly settled in or before the fourth century. 
Hence it arises that in ordinary manuscripts adapted 
to liturgical use, as are so many of the later uncials 
and cursives, asterisks (*), or obeli ( ~ ), whose use was 
pretty much the same, were set in the margin to indi 
cate the practice of passing them over in public reading. 
A scholion in the margin of one cursive states that 
some copies have them not, but pleads good authority 
in their behalf: one manuscript of the Philoxenian 
alleges in the margin that Gospels circulated at Alex 
andria did not contain them, the fact being that they 
are not found in Cyril s Homilies in Syriac, nor does 
Athanasius refer to them. Yet the evidence of the 
Fathers is early and express in their favour : namely, 
Justin Martyr (with rare precision) and Irenceus in 
the second century, Hippolytus and Dionysius of Alex 
andria in the third, Didymus and Epiphanius, Gregory 
Nazianzen and Chrysostom in the fourth, Theodoret 
a little later. Hilary, on the other hand, in the fourth 
century, declared that the passage is wanting in very 
many codices Greek and Latin, an assertion which 
Jerome, as usual, repeats to the echo. 

(20) LUKE xxiii. 34. "Then said Jesus, Father, 
forgive them, for they know not what they do." No 
holy passage has been called into question on much 
slighter grounds than this one, so fraught with religious 
i eeling, and approving itself to every true critical 
instinct. It is omitted by Codd. BD and two not 
very important cursives : one late uncial marks it 
with an asterisk. Hero aain Cod. N seems to have 

.V /.\ Till: HOLY GOSPELS. 153 

been touelied by a recent hand, even more slightly 
than in eh. xxii. 4:>, 44: on the other side, the clause 
\\;is brought into D by a writer of about the ninth 
century. To this scanty list against its genuineness 
must be added the two Old Latin copies a. b. (though 
doubtless the best of all), the Thebaic version, and 
t\\ Memphitic manuscripts examined by Canon 
Lightfoot; eleven others exhibit the clause in their 
text, two more in the margin. All other manuscripts, 
uncials and cursives, have the passage without a 
vestige of suspicion : Codd. NACLQ. 1. 33. C9 and 
the rest, the four Syriac versions, the Old Latin codices 
c. e. f. ff \ &c., the Vulgate, Armenian and ^Ethiopic 
translations. As might have been anticipated, Patristic 
authorities in its favour are express, varied, and 
numerous : such are the dying words of S. James the 
Just, reported by Eusebius after Hegesippus "who 
lived," he says, "in the first succession to the Apostles"; 
Irenaius and Origen in their Latin versions; the Apo 
stolic Constitutions twice, the Clementine Homilies, 
Chrysostom often, Hilary, Theodoret, John Damascene: 
it is also recognised in the canons of Eusebius. The 
difficulty really is to know how Cod. B and any Egyp 
tian version came to omit the words; for as to Cod. D 
and certain Latins, there is quite a forest of short 
clauses not contained in them, in the last chapter of 
this Gospel, of the same kind as that noted in ch. x. 41, 
42 (p. 14-7 , as if they had followed some early recension 
\\heiein such additions were not yet inserted ; an hy 
pothesis (for it can be called no more) which we hazarded 
before when speaking of .Matt. xvi. 2, . ] (p. 127). 

(21) JOHN i. IS. / The only begotten Sou, which 


is in the bosom of the Father." Instead of " the only 
begotten Sou" Tregelles, with Westcott and Hort, 
ventures to set in the text what Lachmann had long 
since placed in his margin, the startling novelty "God 
only begotten," an expression whose doctrinal import 
ance is obvious, and which it will require much proof 
before we can persuade ourselves to accept it as 
genuine. The testimony in its behalf is at first sight 
very imposing, being Codd. KBC (by the first hand) 
L. 33, Cod. tf also omitting "which is"; of the versions 
the Peshito and margin of the Philoxenian, the Roman 
^Ethiopic, and a host of Fathers, some expressly, as 
Clement of Alexandria in the second century, Didymus 
and Epiphanius in the fourth ; others by apparent 
reference, as Gregory of Nyssa. Of the Coptic versions, 
the Thebaic is defective here, the Memphitic reading 
what may either be "God " or " of God," probably the 
latter. The heretic Arius also upholds " God only be 
gotten," which circumstance does not help to reconcile 
us to a term that reverential minds instinctively shrink 
from. For the Received text, since Cod. D is here 
wanting, can be produced among manuscripts Cod. A 
and the thirteen other uncials not yet enumerated, all 
cursives except 33, the Curetonian and Jerusalem Syriac, 
with the Philoxenian text, every copy of the Latin, the 
Georgian and Slavonic, the Armenian and one form 
of the ^thiopic, the Anglo-Saxon and Arabic. Of the 
Greeks Athanasius repeatedly and Chrysostom, all 
Latins from Tertullian downwards, make for "Son." 
Origen and Eusebius might be cited on both sides. 

"The only begotten Son" is a term familiar to S. 
John (ch. iii. 16, 18; 1 John iv. 9); the alternative, 


which one hardly likes to utter with the voice, occurs 
absolutely nowhere else. Bengel s canon (p. 114) might 
then-ton- sviu applicable, and lead us to choose the 
harder expression, but that it is a rule which must have 
its limit somewhere, and has found it here. Every 
one must feel the new reading to be false, even though 
for the sake of consistency he may be forced to up 
hold it. We are bound by no such stern law, and note 
the present as a case wherein Cod. A and the mass 
of copies, well supported by versions, afford us a purer 
text than Codd. NBCL 33. 

(22) JOHN iii. 13. "The Son of man, which is in 
heaven." Here again we have nearly the same manu 
script evidence as in the preceding passage supporting 
the novel reading, for removing from the text the 
weighty clause "which is in heaven," this being the 
most mysterious, yet one of the most glorious glimpses 
afforded to us in Scripture of the nature of the Re- 
(leenier on the side of His proper Divinity. Codd. CD 
an- here lacking to us, but Codd. NBC. 33 omit the 
words, supported by a small fragment of the sixth 
century, now at St Petersburg, called by the critics 
T b . Of the versions only the ^Ethiopia and one Mem- 
phi tic manuscript are on this side. There is really 
no Patristic evidence to set up against the clause, 
for it can matter nothing that Eusebius might have 
cited it and did not. Silence in such a case is of little 
or no weight, as may appear from the circumstance 
that Cyril of Alexandria, who alleges the words once, 
pass.-s them over once: Origen also (in the Latin) 
neglects them once, but quotes them twice, once v. TV 
expressly. "Which is in heaven" appears in Cod. A 


(with a very slight variation by the first hand), all 
other uncials and cursives, in all the rest of the versions, 
including the four Syriac, the Memphitic (the TheLaic 
here failing us), the Latin and Armenian. Among the 
Fathers it is quite a theological commonplace. Hip- 
polytus (A.D. 220) draws from the passage its obvious 
doctrinal inference, wherein he is followed twice 
over by Hilary and after him by Epiphanius. In 
Dionysius of Alexandria and Novatian of the third 
century, Aphraates (A.D. 330), Didymus, Lucifer and 
Chrysostom of the fourth, Theodoret of the fifth, 
we have presented to us a consent of ecclesiastical 
writers, as we had before of versions, from every part 
of the Christian world, such as few impartial minds can 
resist. Beyond all doubt, the Received text in this 
instance rests on far surer ground than in ch. i. 18. 

(23) JOHN v. 1. " After this there was a feast 
of the Jews." In S. John s Gospel we have clear 
notices of three several passovers (ch. ii. 13; vi. 4; 
xii. 1). Since "the feast of the Jews," even alone, 
would probably, almost certainly indeed, mean another 
passover, the second out of four during the Lord s 
ministry, it is well to know on what authority rests the 
definite article prefixed to "feast" in the Aldine frag 
ment (John i. vi.) published as early as 1504, as well as 
in the Complutensian, the first printed New Testament 
(1514), and upheld by Tischendorf, but which never 
found a place in the Received text, because it was 
not adopted by Erasmus. Internal evidence appears 
to be in abeyance here, and it must be confessed that 
manuscripts are very evenly balanced. For "the feast" 
we can cite Codd. tfCLA, at least six other uncials, the 


cursives Codd. 1. 33 and full fifty-four others, with the 
ir and Thebaic versions, which alone of tlit-ir 
cm be employed in regard to the article, since tin- 
Coptic language has both the definite and indefinite 
in use. Irenams (in the Latin) insists on this being 
the second passover, but so does Cod. A (which reads 
"of unleavened bread" for "of the Jews") and another 
authority, although they omit the article. It is wanting 
in Codd. ABD and seven other uncials, in Cod. 69 
and pretty many other cursives. Of the Fathers, 
Cyril of Alexandria varies, Origen looks doubtful, 
Chrysostom and Cyril once understand the feast as 
the Pentecost, and so would not read the article. With 
some hesitation we shall incline to take "the feast" 
as on the whole the more likely reading. 

(24) JOHN v. 3, 4. The last clause of vcr. 3 
"waiting for the moving of the water" and the whole 
of ver. 4 are omitted, not without considerable reason, 
by Tischendorf, Tregelles, Westcott and Hort. Codd. 
NBC (by the first hand) 157 and another cursive reject 
the whole; Cod. A (by the first hand) L and one recent 
cursive pass over the last clause of ver. 3, which cer 
tainly wears the semblance of a gloss: Codd. D. 33 
do not contain ver. 4, and this alone is called into 
suspicion by means of asterisks or obeli (employed 
without much discrimination) in two uncials, nineteen 
cursives, the margin of the Philoxeuian, and Armenian 
manuscripts. One other uncial has an asterisk in 
the margin throughout, but the passage is contained 
in C (by the third hand), in twelve uncials, (Cod. I, 
a fragment taken by Tischendorf to St Petersburg, alone 
being as old as the sixth century), and all known 


cursives not before referred to, but all with that ex 
treme variation in details which experience shews to 
be itself a symptom unfavourable to genuineness. The 
versions are not so unequally divided. The passage 
is absent from Cureton s Syriac, the Thebaic, thirteen 
of Canon Lightfoot s Memphitic manuscripts (three 
others, however, contain it in the text, two in the 
margin), from some Armenian codices,/, and others of 
the Old Latin and a few of the Vulgate. The Roman 
-^Ethiopic leaves out as much as the Philoxenian 
margin obelizes. The Peshito and Jerusalem Syriac, 
with the Philoxenian text, acknowledge the verses in 
full, as do nearly all the Latins. Tertullian, in par 
ticular, plainly speaks of the angel s interposition to stir 
the pool of Bethsaida (as it is in Cod. B, the Latin c., 
and the Vulgate) ; Ambrose twice quotes the place : it 
was known to Didymus, to Chrysostom and Cyril, to 
Euthymius and Theophylact in later times. Nonnus, 
.however, who made a metrical paraphrase of the 
Gospel history jn the fifth century, does not touch an 
incident so well calculated to adorn his poem. The 
last clause of ver. 3 stands on a different footing from 
ver. 4, which Dean Alford regarded as "an insertion to 
complete what the narrative implied with reference to 
the popular belief." It is evident that the passage 
was known early, widely diffused, and extensively 
received : but it is well-nigh impossible, in the face of 
hostile evidence so ancient and varied, to regard it as a 
genuine portion of S. John s Gospel. 

(25) JOHX vii. 8. " I go not up yet unto this 
feast." " Yet " is omitted by the critical editors Tischen- 
dorf and Tregejles, though Westcott. and Hort are 


sufficiently satisfied with it to retain it in the text, 
placing the simple "not" in their margin. The 
latter reading must surely be the true one. This 
passage, as is well known, was one of several which 
provoked the "bark" of Porphyry, the most acute 
adversary encountered by Christianity in early times 
[d. o()4]. " He said he would not go, yet did what he 
said he would not do:" thus Jerome represents Por 
phyry s objection to the conduct of our Lord, who 
on this ground is impeached of levity and fickleness. 
It is manifest, therefore, that both Porphyry the foe 
and Jerome the champion of our faith, must have read 
"not" in their copies: "not yet" would rather be 
a gentle intimation that what He would not do then, 
He would do hereafter. Accordingly we find " not " in 
Codd. XD, in four other uncial copies and three or 
four cursives, Codd. AC being both defective here : to 
till-so add Cureton s Syriac, the Memphitic, the best 
codices of the Old Latin (a. b. c. e. ff*., &c.), and Vul- 
gate, the Armenian and ^Ethiopic, the Georgian and 
Slavonic, Anglo-Saxon and Persic. Thus also Epi- 
phanius and Chrysostom in the fourth century, Cyril 
in the fifth, each of them feeling the difficulty, and 
ting it in his own way. No hesitation would have 
been felt in adopting a reading, at once the harder in 
itself, and the only one that will suit the circumstances 
of the case, had not the wilful and palpable correction 
not yet" bci-ii upheld by Codd. BLT (seep. 150, note), 
the mass of later uncials, all cursives save four, by the 
Peshito Syriac and the Arabic of Erpenius, which even 
in the Gospels is much moulded on it, by the Jerusalem 
and Philoxenian Syriac both text and margin, the 


Thcbaic, Gothic, a few Old Latin codices (as /), and 
some of the Vulgate. Basil cites the same reading, 
but not, as it would seem, expressly. It is seldom that 
we can trace so clearly as in this instance the date 
and origin of an important corruption, which could not 
have arisen accidentally, but was rather the work of 
injudicious, if not of dishonest, zeal. 

(20) JOHN" vii. 53 viii. 11. The last passage 
which time will permit us to examine in the Gospels 
is the celebrated paragraph concerning the adulteress, 
which has been interposed between ch. vii. 52 and 
ch. viii. 12. We may broadly assert that modern critics 
have come to a unanimous, or almost unanimous, con 
clusion, first, that it does not belong to the place where 
it is usually read ; secondly, that it is no idle fable, no 
vulgar forgery, but a genuine apostolic or primitive 
record of what actually took place. The state of the 
evidence is so utterly unlike what we have found or 
shall find elsewhere in the New Testament, that no 
other verdict than this can well be pronounced. As 
we saw in the text last considered, Codd. AC are de 
fective just here, but by estimating the vacant room 
left by the lost leaves of each, it is quite certain that 
so long a passage as this one of twelve verses could 
not have been contained in them. Thus we can say 
that Codd. KABCT (see p. 150, note) omit them alto 
gether ; Codd. LA do the same, but leave a void space 
too small to hold them, before which space the first 
hand of A had begun to write ch. viii. 12. One other 
uncial also omits them (Cod. X at Munich, of the 
ninth or tenth century), yet "since this Codex is 
nothing but a commentary on the Gospel, as read in 


public," to use Mr Burgon s language, it could not 
do otherwise. Of cursive manuscripts no less than 
h fty-ri^ht are cited as not containing the paragraph, 
although eight of them have it in a later hand ; while 
three more omit ch. viii. 3 11, though not the three 
preceding verses. The passage (all or a part of it) is 
noted as doubtful by asterisks or obeli in five uncials 
and fifty-nine cursives, in the margin of many of which 
are scholia, explaining that the section so obelized is 
not in some, or in many, or in most, copies, but is ac 
knowledged in the Apostolic Constitutions, whose ge 
nuineness the ancients did not question : other scholia 
note its absence from the commentaries of Chrysostom, 
Cyril of Alexandria, and Theodore of Mopsuestia. Next 
come the manuscripts which have the verses, though 
not in their present place. One cursive sets them 
after ch. vii. 36. The case of Ferrar s group (13. G.9. 
124?. 340) has been stated before (p. 82), and that 
arrangement may be either supported or accounted for 
(as the case may be) by certain verbal similitudes 
subsisting between Luke xxi. 37, 38 and John viii. 1, 2 
in the Greek. Cod. 1 and ten more cursives banish 
the whole paragraph to the end of S. John s Gospel : 
four or five others supply only ch. viii. 3 ] 1 at the 
end, as if ch. vii. 53 viii. 2 were not doubtful. In 
Lectionaries the section was never read as a part of 
the lesson for the day of Pentecost, but was reserved 
for the Saints days of penitent women, such as Theo 
dora (Sept. 18), or Pelagia (Oct. 8). In the Jerusalem 
Syriac (see p. 94-), the lesson for Pentecost ended at 
ch. viii. 2, ver. 3 11 being assigned to S. Euphemia s 
day (Sept. 16). Against this weight of hostile testi 
mony we can oppose but Cod. D as the most ancient 
s. L. 11 


which contains the passage in any shape, six later 
uncials, and 308 cursives expressly cited, mainly by 
Scholz. But here again (see p. 158), the variations of 
the manuscripts from Cod. D and from each other far 
exceed any thing of the kind observed elsewhere, ;md 
largely subtract from the authority which mere numbers 
might have lent to their united evidence. 

With regard to the versions, the case of the Jeru 
salem Syriac has been stated. Neither the genuine 
Peshito nor the Philoxenian contain the paragraph, 
although it was forcibly brought into the former in 
Walton s or the London Polyglott (1G57) from a manu 
script (now lost) which belonged to Archbishop Ussher, 
and was inserted in the latter from another source : it 
is also found in a Syriac codex now at Paris, the respec 
tive additions being referred to Maras, Bishop of 
Amida, A.D. G22, and to the Abbot Mar Paulus. The 
twelve verses are not in the Thebaic, but in many, per 
haps most, copies of the Memphitic, an unlooked-for 
result of Canon Lightfoot s recent enquiries. The Old 
Latin too is divided. The passage is wanting in a. f. 
and two others : in b the whole text from ch. vii. 44 to 
ch. viii. 12 has been wilfully erased ; but c. e. ff 2 . g. 
and others, together with the Vulgate in all its forms, 
retain the section, as do the ^Ethiopic, Slavonic, 
Anglo-Saxon, Arabic and Persic, whereof one copy 
transfers it to ch. x. It does not exist in the Gothic, 
or in the best Armenian codices or editions. 

Of Patristic support also the passage is singularly 

void. As was mentioned by the scholia, the Apostolic 

Constitutions, a work in its existing shape dating from 

the third or fourth century, clearly allude to it ; but it 

. is overpassed most unaccountably by Chrysostom and 


the younger Cyril. Euthymius Zigabcnus in the 
twelfth century is the first of the Greeks to cite it in 
its phuv, yet even lie declares that in the correct copies 
it is either not found at all or obelized, as being an in 
terpolation and addition. Even when the history itself 
is named, as by Eusebius after Papias, it fs regarded as 
an extract from the Gospel to the Hebrews, not as 
a portion of canonical Scripture. Add thereto, that it is 
not until the ninth century that we find the number of 18 
Greek chapters in S. John increased to 19 by the inser 
tion in manuscripts of ch. x, " concerning the adulteress." 

Among the Latins, its place in so many copies of 
their vernacular translation procured it more general 
favour. Jerome declares that it was found in his time 
" in many Greek and Latin codices." Ambrose cites 
it, and Augustine complains of certain persons "of weak 
faith, or rather enemies of the true faith" who removed 
it from their copies (perhaps after the rude fashion 
seen in cod. &), " fearing, I suppose, that impunity for 
sin might be given to their women." 

We are far from denying that the ethical scruple 
glanced at by Augustine was entirely without weight, 
and the absence of the paragraph from the lesson for 
the day of Pentecost probably favoured its omission 
from late codices accommodated, as most of them were, 
to ecclesiastical use; but the great preponderance of 
the best Greek manuscripts against it, the wide varia 
tions observed between the copies which contain it, 
the ambiguous verdict of the best translations, and the 
deep silence of the Greek Fathers about so remarkable 
a narrative, forbid our regarding this most interesting 
and beautiful section as originally, or of right, belong- 
ing t<> the place wherein it stands. 




IN the preceding Lecture I brought before you some 
of the most interesting questions which have reference 
to the text of the Holy Gospels, selecting for your 
consideration out of a far greater number those pas 
sages which have been the subjects of the most anxious 
controversy, or which, by reason of their intrinsic 
importance, an intelligent student of the sacred Scrip 
tures would most desire to examine and be instructed 
in. The same plan shall be followed in the present 
Lecture with regard to those books of the New Testa 
ment which follow the Gospels, not indeed in the 
order of the dates at which they were severally written, 
but according to the distribution of subjects and the 
arrangement of our common Bibles. Let us first take 
a few specimens from the last of the historical books, 
the Acts of the Apostles, more than one place of which 
(ch. viii. 37; xii. 2o; xiii. 18) we have already submitted 
to your scrutiny (pp. 43, 73, 87). 

(1) ACTS xi. 20. "And some of them were men 
of Cyprus and Gyrene, which, when they were come 
to Antioch, spake unto the Grecians, preaching the 


Lord Jesus." The careful scholars who made our 
Authorized version of the New Testament, departing 
in this respect from earlier English translators, and 
indeed from their own practice in the Old Testament 
and the Apocrypha, attempted to imitate the Greek 
original by drawing a refined distinction between 
"Greeks" or Hellenes and "Grecians" or Hellenistce. 
The two cognate words doubtless meant very different 
things. A Greek was either a Hellen by race, or a 
heathen by religion, so that S. Mark says of the poor 
woman whose daughter was healed that she was "a 
Greek, a Syrophosnician by nation" (ch. vii. 26): her 
worship was paganism, while by birth she was a 
Canaanite. The Hellenists, or Grecians, on the contrary, 
were born Jews, living in foreign lands, speaking the 
Greek as vernacular in the countries where they 
sojourned, using the Greek Septuagint version of the 
Hebrew Bible in the service of the synagogue : very 
probably they neither understood nor sought to under 
stand any other. Now which of these very different 
orders of men is spoken of in the passage before us ? 
The Received text has "Hellenistae," our Authorized 
version renders "Grecians" accordingly. But it seems 
plain tliat the reading is erroneous, and that "Greeks," 
"Hellenes," should take its place. The context indeed 
hardly allows us a choice. Immediately after the call of 
the Gentiles to the privileges of the Gospel was acknow 
ledged and acquiesced in by the brethren at Jerusalem 
(ver. 18), we read that some who had been scattered 
abroad years before, now went about preaching the word 
to Jews only. In this there was nothing new. There 
had been " Hellenists," that is, Greek-speaking Jews, 


among them long since (ch. vi. 1), and to say that 
these were again preached to was not at all strange : 
the marvel is contained in ver. 20, with which we 
are now concerned. Translated closely this verse 
should run "But there were some of them, men of 
Cyprus and Gyrene, which, when they were come to 
Antioch, spake unto the Greeks also " : ("also " con 
veying additional information), and preached too with 
such success in converting these heathen Greeks, that 
Gentile Christians first obtained at Antioch the name, 
no longer of Nazarenes (ch. xxiv. 5), but of Christians 
(ch. xi. 26). The meaning being thus clear, and the 
Received text mistaken, we enquire what autho 
rities maintain the true reading? They are good in 
themselves, although few in number, being only Codd. 
AD (by the first hand), a single cursive, though that one 
of first-rate excellence, the Peshito Syriac, the Arme 
nian, perhaps the ./Ethiopia Some versions, as might 
have been expected, overlook entirely the difference 
between Hellenes and Hellenists, and are useless to 
us here : the Peshito, in the other two places where 
the term Hellenist occurs, has "Greek disciples" in 
ch. vi. 1, "those Jews who knew Greek " (a fair 
definition) in ch. ix. 29, but simply " Greeks " here. 
Eusebius also has " Greeks," and though Chrysostom s 
text reads " Hellenists," yet his commentary shews 
tha\t he had " Hellenes " in the copy before him, all 
the nXiore surely because he is perplexed how to ex 
pound it: his words are echoed by (Ecumenius and 
Theophylact. Here then is a case wherein a few wit 
nesses preserve the only reading that can be true 
against a large majority which vouch for the false. 


ll.-M- iii.-ts 1 is found in BE, in D according to a 
rather late corrector, in the three more recent uneial.-;, 
in all cursives save one (including even 13 1 . 01, see p. S-S . 
Cod. C is defective here, and the wonderful blunder 
of Cod. X ("Evangelists," p. 47) suggests the notion 
that its archetype agreed with B. 

( !} ACTS xiii. 32, 33. "The promise which was 
made unto the fathers, God hath fulfilled the same 
unto us their children." This reads smoothly enough 
as spoken by S. Paul to the Jews assembled in their 
synagogue at Autioch in Pisidia : when we come to 
look into the state of documentary evidence, it will 
appear too smooth to be true. For "us their children " 
we find "our children" in the five great uncials KABCD, 
but apparently in no cursive whatever, in the Vulgate 
version (one copy reading "your" for "our" by a 
familiar itacism, see p. 41), in the yEthiopic, in Hilary, 
Ambrose, and the Venerable Bede after their own 
Latin version. The Thebaic omits "us," the Mem- 
pliitic "us their," the latter of which pronouns would 
in Greek be fully implied. The Received text is that 
of the third hand of C (which is no great authority), 
of Cod. E, for once in opposition to Bede (p. 7-), of 
the three other uncials extant in this book, of all 
cursives, of the two Syriac (Peshito and Philoxi -man, 
the other two having now failed us) and Armenian 
1 It unfortunately happens that cursive manuscripts which contain 
more than one portion of the New Testament have seldom the same 
numeral assigned to them throughout. Thus the great Cod. 33 of 
the Gospels (p. 80) in the Acts and Catholic Epistles is known as 13, 
in S. Paul as 17 : the Leicester copy, GO of the Gospels (p. 81) ia 
called 31 in the Acts and Catholic Epistles, 37 iu S. i uul, 1-1 in the 


versions, of the catenae of the Fathers with Chrysostom 
and Theophylact. Of course Bengel s canon (p. 114) 
might here be brought into play, but the result is 
so harsh as to tempt us to suspect that the primitive 
reading of the passage was "unto us" simply, "their 
children" being annexed as a pertinent gloss. Thus 
would all variations be well accounted for (Canon v, 
p. 11G), only that such a conclusion cannot be accepted 
as anything better than plausible conjecture in the face 
of the fact that "us" alone is read only in one cursive, 
and that one of no particular value. 

(3) ACTS xiii. 33. "As it is also written in the 
second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I 
begotten thee." The variation which commended 
itself to the acute and judicious Griesbach, and to 
several editors after him, is "the first psalm," and so, 
in fact, Erasmus deliberately chose to have it in his 
first published Greek Testament. No better example 
than this can well be given of the danger of taking 
up a reading because it is difficult (Canon 1, p. 114) 
when documentary evidence tells strongly against it. 
It is well known that the first and second Psalms, 
although they have little in common as regards style 
and tone, and were probably composed at different 
periods, were sometimes reckoned by the ancients as 
one, for which arrangement Bede assigns the fanciful 
reason that, beginning as it does with a beatitude 
"Blessed is the man," &c., the first Psalm would thus 
end with one: "Blessed are all they that put their 
trust in him." Now arises the question whether the 
Apostle, in using what is in our present Bibles Ps. ii, 
7, has cited it as from the second Psalm or from the 


first. For the word "second" of the common text, 
which with AVestcott and Hort we are content to 
abide by, may be alleged (with some slight change in 
the order of the Greek) Codd. KABCE. 13. Cl (seep. 83), 
all other uncials and cursives, D only excepted, which 
has "first," in company with Tertullian, Cyprian, 
Hilary (who enters into a long explanation of the 
matter), and certain Latin manuscripts known to Bede- 
Nor is the variation exclusively western, for Origen, 
Eusebius, and certain Greek catena? maintain it 
also, Eusebius pronouncing, with reference to the 
beatitudes, that "whereas the sentiment was the same 
in both, it was no wonder that the Hebrews joined the 
two Psalms together." The fact is, that the practice 
of reckoning the two Psalms, now in conjunction, now 
separate, existed as early as Justin Martyr s time, whose 
Old Testament quotations are almost as loose as those 
in the New. There is no cause, therefore, here to 
follow Cod. D against all the rest of the manuscripts 
and versions. 

(4) ACTS xv. 34. "Notwithstanding it pleased 
Silas to abide there still." We have in this verse an 
addition to the text of the Acts which is condemned 
at once by the lack of sufficient external authority, 
and by the numerous variations of the form in which 
it appears in the copies that contain it. Indeed one 
can almost trace its growth, and in its existing shape 
(as Mill saw long since) it can be regarded as nothing 
else than a gloss brought in from the margin, designed 
to explain how Silas, notwithstanding his being sent 
away with Judas from Antioch to the Apostles at 
Jerusalem (ver. 33), was soon afterwards at hand, 


to l)e chosen by S. Paul as a companion in 
travel (ver. 40). The verse is wholly wanting in Codd. 
KABE and three later uncials, in Codd. 31 (p. 167, 
note), Gl and full fifty-six other cursives: indeed it 
would scarcely have been admitted into the Received 
text at all, but that Erasmus found it, as he found ch. viii. 
37 (p. 73), in the margin of quite a modern Basle cur 
sive which he used. Of the versions it is absent from the 
Peshito Syriac (only that certain editors have thrust their 
own translation of the Greek into the text), from the 
Memphitic, Polyglott Arabic, the best copies of the Latin 
Vulgate (am. fuld., see p. 103), and Slavonic : it is 
not found in Chrysostom s commentary, or in one 
form of Theophylact s. When it does appear, as we 
just said, it is instructive to note the several shapes 
that the verse gradually assumes. In Cod. C and 
many cursives (13 being among them) it runs " Not 
withstanding it seemed good to Silas to await them": 
the Complutensian Polyglott and a few cursives vir 
tually resemble Erasmus and the Received text, "to 
abide there still": thus it stands in the Thebaic (where 
we might not have looked for it), in the later Syriac with 
an asterisk (p. 93), in Erpeiiius Arabic, (Ecumeuius 1 
commentary, and one form of Theophylact s. Cod. D 
adds a new clause to the verse as given by Cod. C 
"but Judas went alone," and is followed by one or 
two Latin codices, some forms of the Armenian and 
Slavonic editions. Cassiodorus (of the sixth century) 
and Pope Clement s Vulgate add to all this one word 
more "But it pleased Silas to abide there; but Judas 
alone departed to Jerusalem." The ^thiopic has 
something different from them all, "And Paul per- 


sistrd in remaining," with or without a final "there." 
You know by this tini - what conclusion to draw from 
the.-. ^l.-iriii^ discrepancies in our authorities (see 
pp. 158, l(\-l}. 

(5) ACTS xvi. 7. "But the Spirit suffered them 
not." For "the Spirit," say rather, "the Spirit of 
Jesus"; the evidence in favour of this addition being 
so overwhelming that it is not easy to conjecture how 
it ever fell out of the text: "the Spirit of Christ" 
in Rom viii. 9 is a close and satisfactory parallel. The 
blessed name is read in Codd. tfABDE, in the valuable 
second hand of C (p. 63), in Codd. 13. 31. Cl and 
six or more other cursives, in both Syriac, the Mem- 
phitic, the Vulgate (except a single copy), the ^thio- 
pic, three codices of the Armenian. But this last 
version is quite unsettled on the point : two of its 
manuscripts read "Christ," as in the passage above 
cited from S. Paul; six "the Holy Spirit" withEpipha- 
nius; three have nothing added to "Spirit." Cod. C 
and the dissenting copy of the Vulgate read "of the 
Lord"; but the catena?, with Didymus and Cyril of 
Alexandria, are with the five great uncials. With the 
Received text side the three junior uncials here extant, 
the mass of the cursives, the Thebaic (again found with 
the moderns), Chrysostom and Theophylact. The 
whole clause is omitted in two ordinary cursives. 

(G) ACTS xx. 28. "To feed the Church of God, 
which ho hath purchased with his own blood." Nothing 
but familiarity with these solemn words could prevent 
our feeling them to be very startling, yet the result 
of recent criticism has been to uphold them as tin y 
stand. Of the several various readings presented to us 


by existing documents, only two can come into com 
petition, namely, "the Church of God," and "the Church 
of the Lord," as seen in the extracts above given, 
pp. 58, 72 : they differ in the abridged form of Greek 
writing only by a single letter 0T (GD) and KT (LD). 
The Received text is maintained by Codd. fc$B, at least 
14 cursives (but Cod. 61 is here defective), by every copy 
of the Latin Vulgate save that in the Complutensian 
Polyglott, which was probably altered from the parallel 
Greek, by three manuscripts of the Peshito Syriac and 
the Philoxenian text. The alternative "Lord" is 
stronger in numbers if not in real power : Codd. ACDE 
(and the Latin versions of the last two in spite of the 
Vulgate), sixteen cursives (including 13, the best 
surviving), some of the catenae, the Memphitic, Thebaic, 
and Philoxenian margin, the Armenian, perhaps one 
form of the ^Ethiopic. Its other form, with most manu 
scripts and editions of the Peshito, Erpenius Arabic 
(p. 176, note), Origen once, four copies of Athanasius, 
and Tlieodoret twice, read "Christ"; the Old Latin m. 
(p. 101) "the Lord Christ." Not to mention other 
variations still more slightly countenanced, we come 
to "the Lord God," given by the great majority of 
Greek codices, namely, the third hand of C, the three 
later uncials, and considerably more than a hundred 
cursives. This is found in the Complutensian Polyglott, 
but in no version except the Slavonic, and no ecclesias 
tical writer before Theophylact in the eleventh century. 
It is manifestly a composite reading, devised for 
reconciling the two earlier " God " and " Lord," which 
alone deserve serious discussion, as between them the 
chief uncials are divided, KB on the one hand, ACDE 


on the other. Here, therefore, is a case in -which 
Patristic authority should have more than usual weight, 
and when we find that so bold a term as "the blood 
of God" occurs not only in Tertullian but in the purest 
text of Ignatius [A. D. 107], though afterwards softened 
into "Christ," we cannot help feeling that nothing 
short of the express language of Scripture could have 
brought it so early into vogue : even as it is, the precise 
expression was censured by Origen and others after 
him. Manuscripts of Athanasius fluctuate between 
"God," "the Lord" and "Christ," as do those of 
Chrysostom and Theophylact in part. Basil the Great 
and Epiphanius of the fourth century also prefer "God," 
with Ambrose and the Latins after their own version 
of Scripture. For "the Lord" the chief evidence would 
be that of Irenaeus, only that he is here extant only 
in an old Latin translation (p. 108), and it has been 
alleged that the current of his argument proves that 
he had "God" in his Greek text. "Lord" is found too 
in the Apostolical Constitutions (p. 162), in Eusebius 
and Didymus, in Lucifer of Cagliari, Jerome and 
Augustine (the Latin Bible notwithstanding), all of 
the fourth century; possibly in Theodoret a little later. 
Ammonius (A.D. 220) is quoted in the catenae to the 
sume purport. 

"Where the choice is so difficult, internal considera 
tions will be sure to determine the judgment of critics. 
It seems fair to say that all which uphold the com 
bination " the Lord God " virtually make for the 
harder form, which alone could have given offence. 
There is force also in Dean Alford s remark that "the 
Church of the Lord" would have fully satisfied the 


orthodox, and have laid them under no temptation 
to chansre it, whereas the alternative "the Church 


of God" would be sure to be tampered with by 
those whose opinions were absolutely incompatible 
with it. 

(7) ACTS xxvii. 37. "And we were in all in the 
ship, two hundred threescore and sixteen souls." Here 
Westcott and Hort have received for 276 the variation 
7G, placing the higher number in the margin. Their 
only support is Cod. B and the Thebaic version, which 
are not unfrequently together without other company. 
The change was plainly resorted to by those who were 
slow to believe that a heavy laden corn-ship (ver. 6, 
18) would contain so many souls. But vessels of this 
kind were very large. One that found its way to the 
Piraeus in Lucian s time (about A. D. 150), being 
driven out of its course from Alexandria to Italy, 
cannot be brought below 1300 tons burden ; and no 
modern can easily conceive the wretched overcrowding of 
an ancient ship. Josephus, a year or two later (A. D. G3), 
was wrecked in the Adriatic with GOO on board. Add 
to this that S. Luke wishes to impress on us the fact 
that out of so large a party all were saved, whereas 76 
would have been very few. 

Of the rest of our authorities, Codd. KG (DE have 
now failed us), three later uncials and all cursives 
save one have 276; A reads 275; Cod. 31 (the Leicester 
copy) 270 ; one form of the YEthiopic "about 206," the 
Mcmphitic in one codex 176, in another the incredible 
number 876. Epiphanius comes nearest to Cod. B 
"about 70": for the more specific 76 "about" would 
be less suited. 


The source of all these variations is, beyond ques 
tion, the habit of expressing numbers in ancient 
documents by letters used as figures. Of this practice, 
once very prevalent, many traces remain in surviving 
copies, such as NU and others. Iremeus recognises it 
when treating of the number of the beast, whether GGG 
or GIG (Rev. xiii. 18), in a passage we have already 
referred to (p. 110). It is no doubt the source of many 
discrepancies observed in parallel portions of the Old 
Testament. Here the omission or insertion of a single 
letter (to: omega) would make all the difference between 
"270" (cor) and "about 7G" (wcor). 

(8) ROM. v. 1. " Therefore being justified by faith* 
we have peace with God." The closer the context of 
this passage is examined, the plainer it will appear that 
inference from preceding statements, not vague or 
general exhortation, is the Apostle s purpose. Yet 
the majority of our best authorities, in the place of 
" we have " read " let us have," the difference between 
the two being the substitution of the long vowel omega 
for the short omicron (see p. 135). The hortatory form is 
adopted by Codd. KB (the former corrected by an early 
hand, the latter by one later) ACDE (but E of S. Paul 
is of no weight, p. 70), two other uncials, full thirty 
cursives (17. 37 being among them: see p. 1G7, note), 
the JVshito possibly, the Memphitic (the Thebaic is 
not extant), all forms of the Latin, the ^Ethiopic, 
the Arabic, and Chrysostom. The supporters of the 
indicative are Codd. FG (the rather as they oppose 
their own Latin versions), another uncial, and the 
great majority of the cursives, with Epiphanius, Cyril 
of Alexandria, and the Slavonic version. The printed 


Philoxenian strangely combines both "let us have, 
we have." Here, of course, save for special reasons, 
no one would doubt to adopt the hortatory form, even 
though the resulting sense is so comparatively poor. 
We cannot help remembering, however, that although 
the itacism (p. 39) which substitutes the long o for the 
short, and the converse, is not so common in the most 
ancient copies as in later, yet no manuscripts are quite 
free from it, and we feel persuaded that the various 
reading in this verse has its origin in that fruitful 
source of error. In Heb. xii. 28, " we have grace," which 
is there quite inadmissible, has no mean support in 
stead of "let us have* of the Received text. The 
case of 1 Cor. xv. 49 we will consider in its proper 

(9) ROM. xiii. 9. "Thou shalt not bear false wit 
ness." The ninth commandment is omitted by Codd. 
ABD(E)FG, one later uncial, thirty-four cursives at 
least, including 17 (seep. 167, note) and 47 (an excellent 
Bodleian cursive, recently collated anew by Tregelles), by 
the Peshito Syriac and Erpenius Arabic 1 (which sets the 
sixth commandment before the seventh), the Thebaic 
(which omits the seventh also), by the best copies of the 
Vulgate version (am.fuld., &c., p. 103), the Gothic, by 
Clement of Alexandria (twice), by Origen twice (but he 
has it once, and once omits " thou shalt not covet " also), 
by Cyriland Theodoret,by Augustine, Ambrose, and some 
other Latins; nor does it appear in the Complutensian 

1 This Arabic version, whatever independent value it may possess 
iu the Gospels (pp. 106, 159), is in the Acts and Epistles a close 
rendering from the Peshito, and is of no use but to ascertain the true 
reading of the latter. 

TllK A.I 77 AY/ / .! A7W THE XKW TEST A UK XT. 177 

(lit inn. Kra>mus, however, brought it into the lleceived 
text, \\linv it iv.-ts on tin- support of Cod. fc$, of the 
Millie remaining later uncial, of the majority, us it 
would serin, <>t the cursives, including 37 (see p. 167, note) : 
one cursive places it before the eighth commandment. 
Its retention is supported by the Philoxenian Syriac 
(wherein "thou shalt not covet" precedes), the Mem- 
phitic, the Clementine Vulgate and most of its manu 
scripts, some being good, the Armenian and ^Ethiopic. 
Chrysostom has the ninth, but omits the tenth com 
mandment, and such constant variation would serve to 
shew that something is wrong (see p. 158). 

The clause might very well have been lost by the 
homwoteleuton see p. (133), but on the other hand there 
is a natural tendency to enlarge a list like this (Canon II. 
p. 1L5) by the addition of a member which might seem 
to have been accidently overlooked. We must here, as 
often, prefer the Complutensian text to that edited by 

(10) ROM. xvi. 5. " Epaenetus, who is the first-fruits 
of Achaia unto Christ." But then the household of 
Stephanas was the first-fruits of Achaia (1 Cor. xvi. 15), 
and S. Paul is now writing from Corinth, the capital of 
that province (ver. 1, &c.). The latter circumstance 
seems to have suggested "Achaia" as an alternative 
reading, for "Asia" is no doubt that of the true text, 


bring supported by Codd. tfABCD (by the first hand) 
EFG, two good cursives, the Vulgate, Ifemphitio (the 
Thebaic being lost), Armenian, yEthiopic, Origen in the 
Latin, but very expressly, all Latin Fathers after their own 
version, and John Damascene. The evidence for "Achaia" 
is much weaker, namely the second hand of Cod. D, again 
S.L. 12 


corrected by the third hand which E follows (p. 71), 
the two later uncials, nearly all the cursives (even 17. 
37. 47), both Syriac versions, and one excellent manu 
script of the Vulgate, with Chrysostom, Theodoret, 
(Ecumenius and Theophylact. Where the five great 
codices are unanimous, as here, there can be no doubt 
that we are bound to follow them, even though their 
reading were not, as it is, intrinsically preferable; but 
the Peshito vouches for the antiquity of the variation 
"Achaia," and Codd. 17. 37 are not often found in 
opposition to the oldest uncials. 

(11) ROM. xvi. 2527. To what part of the Epistle 
to the Romans ought this noble doxology to be an 
nexed ? In the Received text, although it is set at 
the end, there are three other verses which, with more 
or less reason, have been regarded as suitable con 
clusions to this divine Epistle (ch. xv. 33 ; xvi. 20, 24) 1 ; 
so that M. Rdnan has propounded a theory which 
Canon Lightfoot has sufficiently disposed of, that we 
have here combined in one the endings of four several 
letters, addressed to four different Churches, each of 
them containing the first fourteen chapters nearly 
unchanged, with appropriate endings and personal 
allusions peculiar to each. It is enough to reply to 
this ingenious hypothesis that ch. xv. 33, whether with 
or without the final "Amen" (which is omitted in Codd. 
AFG, Greek and Latin, and three cursives), " Now the 
God of peace be with you all," occurs in the body of 
one (Phil. iv. 9), not at the end of another (2 Cor. xiii. 
11) of S. Paul s letters, and so affords M. Renan no 

1 "Thus loth to depart is the tune of all loving friends," is dear 
old Fuller s comment on the Apostle s reiterated farewells. 


help; while with respect to the two similar verses in 
ch. xvi., no ivally ancient authorities recognise both. 
The chief of them (Codd. NABC), Origen, the M.-iu- 
]>liitic, ^Ethiopic, and best copies of the Vulgate (am. 
j uhl., &c., p. 103) put "The grace of our Lord Jesus 
Christ be with you" at the end of ver. 20 and not at 
the end of ver. 24, whereas Codd. DEFG, not receiving 
it in ver. 20, retain it in the latter place. Thus we 
have forms of speech adapted for the close of this great 
Epistle in two places (ch. xvi. 20; 25 27), not in four. 
But another complication now conies into view. 
The doxology comprised in ver. 25 27 is so completely 
in S. Paul s style and manner, that no one can doubt 
its authenticity, yet manuscripts and versions vary 
as to the position which it ought to occupy. In Codd. 
XBCDE, the Latin of F, with the Vulgate to which it 
belongs (p. 76), in the Peshito, Memphitic and ^Ethiopia 
versions, it is placed at the end, as in the Received 
text: in Cod. G (but not in its associate F, p. 75) 
there is a space about sufficient to contain it left at the 
end of ch. xiv., and there the three verses arc found 
in one late uncial and in quite a large majority of the 
cursives (including Codd. 37. 47, see p. 17G), as also in 
the Philoxenian Syriac and one form of the Arabic, in 
Chrysostom, Cyril of Alexandria, Theodoret and John 
1 );unascene ; and this too although the connection be- 
t \YIVII ch. xiv. and ch. xv. is manifestly of the closest 
nature. More remarkable still it is to find that Cod. A 
and another uncial, Cod. 17 the best of the cursives and 
one other, Armenian manuscripts and printed books 
iva<l tin- doxology in both positions. Origen especially 
records the fact that some copies had it at the close of 



ch. xiv., others at the end of the Epistle, to which latter 
arrangement he seems to lean. In F it is wholly absent 
in both Greek and Latin after ch. xiv, in Greek after 
ch. xvi. 24. There is no space in Cod. G between 
"Amen" ch. xvi. 24 and the subscription to the Epistle. 
All this variation points to something we cannot 
well understand, and the resuming in ch. xv. 1 of the 
subject treated of in ch. xiv. will serve to shew that the 
original documents which put the doxology in that 
situation must there have ended the letter. Hence it 
has been plausibly conjectured that S. Paul set forth 
this great treatise in two separate forms; the first 
addressed to the Roman Church, precisely in the shape 
we now have it ; the other designed, like that to the 
Ephesians, for more general circulation, the two con 
cluding chapters being now withheld, as being of local 
and passing interest. This supposition is countenanced 
by the fact that Cod. G omits the words " in Rome " in 
ch. i. 7, 15 (confirmed in ch. i. 7 by a marginal note of 
Cod. 47 : see p. 176), just as in Eph. i. 1, " in Ephesus" 
is omitted in Codd. XB and the important second hand 
of one cursive (G7). At any rate we may adopt this 
theory from Canon Lightfoot as a provisional expedient ; 
although it may not be necessary, nor indeed most agree 
able to the facts of the case, to deny that the doxology 
was included in S. Paul s earliest recension of the Epi 
stle to the Romans. 

(12) 1 COR. xi. 24. "And when he had given 
thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat : this is my 
body which is broken for you." Here the participle 
"broken" is rejected by most modern critics on the 
weighty evidence of Codd. tfABC. 17, and the second 


hand of <>7, with no other support than one form 
of the Armenian, < yril of Alexandria and Fulgt.-ntius in 
i he. fifth century, and Theodoret s report of Athanasius. 
( -id. D, like its more celebrated namesake (p. 185), is 
rather fond of synonyms, and for "broken" reads 
" bruised " by the first hand. Every other authority 
les the six afore-named manuscripts supplies some 
thing or other, for indeed the expression "which is for 
you," almost intolerably bald and harsh in Greek, would 
be impossible in any other language. Hence later 
hands in Codd. NCD (and consequently E, p. 71) have 
" broken," which is also read by Codd. FG and the three 
other uncials containing this chapter, by all cursives 
except the two afore-said, by both Syriac, the Gothic 
and the other Armenian, which was altered from tho 
Latin. Of those Latin the parallel versions of Codd. 
DE have "which is broken," the interlinear renderings 
of < odd. FG "which shall be broken," but this is a dif 
ference of interpretation merely. More serious is the 
variation of the Latin Vulgate and Cyprian " which shall 
be delivered," and of the Memphitic " which is delivered." 
The Thebaic and yEthiopic again, with a manuscript of 
Kulhaluts (p. 70), support "which is given," manifestly 
.1. lived from Luke xxii. 19. Theodoret knew both f.-rms. 
While the holy bread is often spoken of in the New 
Testament as "broken," the same expression is nowhere 
eUe applied to the Lord s body, and might seem to 
involve a superficial contradiction to John xix. M(> : 
hence it may have been omitted from the very oldest 
manuscripts, and other words supplied, as early as 
Cyprian s age. Had not "broken" been for some 
-on avoided, it would naturally have been taken up 


again from the former part of the verse : on the other 
hand, of course, it might be said, that it was conveyed 
into this clause from the preceding context. If any 
word must be brought in between "which is" and 
"for you" and some word really seems indispensable 
it cannot be any other than that in the Received 
text, which has the powerful support of the Peshito, 
the oldest document cited, of the Greek Fathers, as 
Basil, Athanasius (in spite of Theodoret s representation), 
and Chrysostom in the fourth century, of Euthalius in 
one manuscript, of John Damascene, (Ecumenius and 
Theophylact. Add to this the fact that, in all forms 
of the Primitive Greek Liturgies known to us, "broken" 
occurs in the most sacred words of Institution. These 
Liturgies have probably come down unaltered from 
the fourth century, whatever changes they may have 
undergone in earlier times. 

(13) 1 COR. xv. 49. "As we have borne the image 
of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the 
heavenly." Thus the words stand in the Received text, 
admirably corresponding with the context, especially 
with the future tenses in ver. 51, 52. The itacism, 
however, which we noticed in Rom. v. 1 (p. 175) has 
exercised its influence here, in versions no less than in 
manuscripts of the Greek. The hortatory " let us bear" 
for "we shall bear" appears in Codd. NACD(E)FG, 17. 
37. 47, three lesser uncials, the great majority of cur 
sives which have been well collated, in the Complu- 
tensian Polyglott, the Memphitic, Vulgate, and Gothic 
versions, also in the ^Ethiopic according to Tregelles. 
Tertullian twice insists that we have here a precept, 
not a promise, and Chrysostom is express to the same 

Tin-: LATTEI; r.nrror Tin: .v/;ir77>-/ j.i//;.v7 . 183 

purport Irena-us and Origcn (each several times ovi r, 
both ill Greek and Latin), and in the fourth century 
M> tlioilins and Epiphanius, Caesarius and Gregory of 
Nyssa. \\itli the Latin Fathers Hilary and Ambrose 
attcr ( Yprian and the Latin version, Euthalius and Cyril 
(twice) in the fifth century, John Damascene in the 
eighth, all adopt the form "let us bear," to the sore 
injury of the sense. It may seem a bold measure, but 
J am persuaded it is the only safe one, to prefer the 
future tense to this accumulation of testimony against 
it from sources so various ; but for once Cod. B and a 
comparatively small band of cursives maintain the 
correct reading, as does the Armenian version, and 
probably (not for certain) the two Syriac. Tischendorf 
adds the ./Ethiopia version, but I cannot tell whether 
he or Tregelles is right. Theodoret is decisive for the 
future, which Cyril of Alexandria has twice, as well as 
the other form twice. Photius in a catena states both 
sides of the question, (Ecumenius and Theophylact are 
with Cod. B, whose influence we will strain for once 
(but see p. 49) that we may preserve the spirit of the 
Apostle s words. 

(14) 1 COR. xv. 51. The text of S. Paul s Epistle?, 
taken generally, is much more free from various read 
ings than any other part of the New Testament, and 
those that do occur seldom give much trouble to the 
critic. Here, however, we have a passage which has 
perplexed Biblical students from Jerome s time down 
wards : it lias exercised, as some of you may remember, 
the keen judgment of Bp. Pearson, in his Exposition of 
the seventh Article of the Apostles Creed. From the 
Received text the following divergencies are more or less 


well supported : (a) " Wo shall not all sleep, but we 
shall all be changed." (b) " Not all of us shall sleep, 
but we shall all be changed." (c) " We shall all sleep, 
but we shall not all be changed." (d) "We shall all 
rise, but we shall not all be changed." (e) " We shall 
all sleep, and the whole of us shall be changed." "Does 
not the first of these readings," asks Tregelles, " possess 
the best claim on our attention ? For the connection 
is such that the Apostle immediately speaks of the 
we who will not sleep, but .will be changed when 
the trumpet sounds at the coming of the Lord 1 ." 
Neglecting a slight Greek particle which has not been 
rendered in our Authorized version, what is virtually the 
Received text (a) is supported by Cod. B, the third hand 
of D and E which is derived from it (p. 71), the three later 
uncials containing the passage, by Codd. 37.47, and nearly 
all cursives, by Origen, Theodore of Heraclea and Apol- 
linarius, as cited by Jerome, by the two Syriac versions, 
the Memphitic (the Thebaic not being extant), the 
Gothic, and one form of the yEthiopic : the Old Latin m. 
(p. 101) also quotes the second clause without a nega 
tive. For (a), moreover, may be cited Ephraem (p. GO) 
and Ca>sarius, Gregory of Nyssa and Chrysostom (often) 
in the fourth century, Euthalius and Theodoret in the 
fifth, Andreas of Ca3sarea in the sixth, John Damascene 
in the eighth. The form (b) is supported only by 
Origen in the Greek and by some copies known to 
Jerome : it is probably no various reading, but a more 
explicit way of bringing out the true meaning of (a). 
The form (d) also will hardly enter into competition, 
since among manuscripts it is upheld only by the first 
1 Account of the 1 rintcd Text of the Greek Sew Testament, p. 1 Jl. 

TllK LA TTER / A /, / <>! THE SEW TESTA Mil ST. 1F5 

hand of I), whose prom-ness to synonyms reminds us of 
its namesake in tin- Gospels (p. LSI), and hy the Yulgati- 
in e\< TV >hape, even tin- ]iar;illel Latin versions in KK 
a-uiiot their own Greek, by Tertullian and Hilary. 
.Ii roine and Augustine note it as read in the Latin 
manuscripts, but not in the Greek. Cod. A by the first 
hand stands alone for (e), which is apparently due to 
an error of the scribe in a single letter. The only 
formidable rival to (a) is (c), which is maintained by 
( odd. NCF (with an itacism) G. 17, by A also, if we 
make allowance for the trauscriptural mistake. This 
reading is in substance the same as that in the margin 
of the Complutensian, and is discussed by Jerome, who 
alleges Didymus and Acacius in its favour : it appears 
too in Origen, as well as (a) and (b), so little consistency 
can be looked for in Patristic citations, unless they 
be very express. Cyril of Alexandria and the Greek 
copies known to Pelagius and Maximus vary in like 
manner between (a) and (c). For (c) are quoted the 
Armenian and one form of the ./Ethiopic version, but 
no Latin except the interlinear translation of G and 
that rendering set above the text of F which is derived 
from G (see p. 70). 

J!e>ides the manifest inferiority of (c) in regard to 
the sense, it is but weakly supported by versions and 
ecclesiastical writers. We prefer without hesitation 
the reading (a) of Cod. B and the great majority of 
critical authorities, bearing in mind the statement of 
Bp. Wordsworth of Lincoln : "The objection which was 
made by some in ancient times to the Received reading 
was, that the wicked would not be changed, namely, 
glorified ; but S. Paul is here speaking only of the 


resurrection of the Just" Thus men sought to evade a 
difficulty of their own making by such expedients us 
(c) and (d). 

(15) PHIL. iii. 3. " For we are the circumcision, 
which worship God in the spirit." The alternative 
reading, " which worship by (or "in") the Spirit of God," 
seems to yield a very inferior sense. The true circumcision 
to which we belong is one of the spirit, not of the letter 
(2 Cor. iii. G), a meaning which the Received text brings 
out precisely, and from which its rival differs by only a 
single Greek character, through the change whereof it is 
made to glide from a perfectly intelligible though rare 
construction into the common-place formula " the Spirit 
of God." Yet such is the decision of our main critical 
authorities, Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, and the 
state of the evidence certainly goes far to justify their 
decision, although Griesbach clave to the common read 
ing, doubtless as being the harder one (p. 114), and Mill 
boldly denounces the alteration as being made in igno 
rance of S. Paul s design. Here, therefore, we have 
internal considerations drawing us powerfully one way, 
and documentary testimony the other. " Worship God 
in the spirit " is found only in the first hand of D, the 
third hand of tf , one late uncial, a very few cursives of 
small account, the Peshito Syriac and the Philoxenian 
text, the Old Latin w.,the Vulgate, the Latin translations 
of DEF, the Gothic, Armenian, and ^Ethiopic versions. 
Chrysostom very clearly vouches for the same form, 
which is found in the Latin of Origen and some others. 
On the other hand, " by the Spirit of God " is read in 
Codd. XABC, the third hand of D (and consequently 
E, p. 71) FG, two other uncials, full a hundred cur- 

THI: LA rn:n i\\nr OF mi; XKW TESTA .VKXT. 187 

Bret, including all the best, in the margin of the Phi- 
loxenian Syriac, the Memphitic (the Thebaic being 
defective), a single codex of the Vulgate, and the Latin 
of G, which is much conformed to its own Greek (p. 7G), 
in Eusebius, Athanasius, a codex of Euthalius, Theodo- 
ret (sometimes), and John Damascene. Both Augustine 
and Ambrose, while they recognize the alternative as 
read by some or most of the Latin copies, declare that 
nearly all the Greek have the genitive form "the Spirit 
of God," as we actually find to be the case. Augustine 
suggests also "God the Spirit." It calls for some 
courage to resist the proposed change in this place, 
however unlikely we may feel it to be correct. 

(1C) COL. ii. 2. "To the acknowledgment of the 
mystery of God, and of the Father, and of Christ": 
rather render, " of God the Father and of Christ," even 
as the Received text stands. We put forward this 
in forest ing passage, rendered difficult only by the great 
variation in the text, as a good example of the canon 
(V., p. 11G) which declares that reading to be the best, 
which most readily accounts for all the phenomena, and 
bears the appearance of being the original, from which 
all the rest were derived. This is here that supplied by 
the great Cod. B, which reads " the mystery of God who 
is Christ," or " of the God Christ," a form of speech some 
what countenanced by ch. i. 27, "this mystery... which U 
Christ; "yet more so by the text we have next to examine 
(1 Tim. iii. 16), if we could venture to lay any stress 
upon it. Cod. B is supported only by Hilary and Cyril 
(the latter having "God and" [or "even"] "Christ"). 
Its reading is approved by Lachmann, Tregelles, Tisch- 
eudorf in his last edition, and other good judges. 


Another of our canons, which prescribes the choice 
of the shorter reading (II., p. 115), has been preferred for 
this place by Griesbach (whose critical tact is indeed 
very admirable, see p. 112), by Dean Alford, and afore 
time by Tischendorf. This plan would make the verse 
end at "the mystery of God," and regard every thing 
after these words as mere surplusage and accretion. 
The additions to " God " are indeed manifold. Some 
(Cod. D, the Latin of Codd. DE, and Augustine) have 
"which is Christ" from ch. i. 27; others "God the 
Father of Christ," which is found in Codd. tfAC, one 
cursive, one Arabic codex, and (on Griesbach s informa 
tion, yet unconfirmed) in the Thebaic : thus also Codd. 
am.fuld. of the Vulgate (p. 103), and the Latin of F (the 
Greek of FG being lost), only that "Jesus" is annexed. 
No one variation is so well supported as this, but if 
it were true, how can we account for the divergencies 
from so simple and ordinary a form ? The Received 
text " of God the Father and of Christ " cannot stand, 
as it has for it only the third hand of D (with E against 
its parallel Latin, see p. 71), two later uncials, the great 
mass of cursives, the Philoxenian Syriac, Theodoret, 
John Damascene, and some others. Lesser varieties may 
be named, but must not be allowed to perplex our ulti 
mate decision: "of God in Christ" from Clement of Alex 
andria and a Latin writer of the third century: " of ( !<.d 
who is in Christ" from the single cursive Cod. 17, to which 
one Armenian edition adds "Jesus," the other Arme 
nian giving " God the Father in Christ Jesus." Lesser 
codices of the Vulgate vary strangely. In the Clemen 
tine edition we find " of God the Father, and of Christ 
Jesus," while two cursives, the Peshito Syriac, Arabic, 

7V//: /..! 7T/.7, / .I A"/" OF THE XE\Y TKXTAMl-IXT. 1 sO 

and < lirysi>>tim, prefer "of God the Father, and of 
Christ, 1 which confirms the Received text without 
beitiLT identical with it. 

All these various modifications offer a common oppo 
sition to Griesbach s, or the shortest form, "the mystery 
of God," which is too slenderly supported to hold the 
ground against them. The passage is thus read in one 
late uncial, and about six cursives, of which 37 is good, 
the second hand of G7 (6G of the Acts) of decided value 
(p. 180). It were almost like guess-work to act upon 
testimony such as this, and we prefer to fall back on 
Cod. B in the last resort, noting this text to our readers 
as one that would be involved in hopeless confusion, if 
we possessed not the clue of internal evidence that is, 
of common sense matured by experience, to guide us, 
however uncertainly, through the tangled maze. 

(17) 1 TIM. iii. 16. "God was manifest (or rather 
" manifested") in the flesh." We have now come to a 
text which has proved the very torture of critics, and 
whose variations, significant though they be, appear to 
have arisen from no desire on any side to accommodate 
it to doctrinal predilections, but simply through a 
habit of ancient scribes, which AVC have had occasion to 
notice before (p. 58) ; that of abridging the sacred 
names after a fashion we should think unbecoming and 


which in this instance has proved far from convenient. 
Between the Greek masculine relative " who" (OC) and 
the abbreviated form of " God " (80) the difference is 
merely one of the presence or absence of two very thin 
horizontal lines, one within the O, the other over the 
two letters, and in manuscripts of remote date slight 
strokes like these are perpetually found obliterated 


from mere age, where beyond doubt they once exist <<!. 
Hence the original evidence of Codd. AC is quite doubtful 
between " God was manifested" and "who was mani 
fested," though in their later condition it is indisputably 
the former, the question always being whether the more 
recent hand has changed the primitive reading, or 
merely renewed the decaying strokes. Respecting 
Cod. C I have said before (p. 62) all I know, and in 
respect to it the candid statement of its editor Tischen- 
dorf has rather increased the difficulty than tended to 
remove it. Cod. A has several times in the present 
generation been submitted to the closest examination 
with a view to ascertain its actual testimony. The leaf 
containing it has been handled carefully, no doubt, but 
so frequently, as to be in no good condition (see p. 52), 
and, seeing as we all must with our own eyes, I 
am sorry to have to say that my conclusion on the 
matter, namely that the two faint horizontal strokes of 
the first scribe yet underlie the coarser black lines of 
a far more recent one, is opposed to the decision of 
scholars I cannot name without deep respect, of Dr 
Ellicott the Bishop of Gloucester and Bristol, and, as I 
believe but am not sure, of Dean Alford also. I can 
only plead that those who saw Cod. A when it first 
came into England, and was necessarily in a better 
state of preservation than now, formed the same opinion 
as I do. Such were its early collators, Young and 
Huish (p. 54); the illustrious editor of the New Testa 
ment (1707) John Mill, and that too contrary to his 
first prepossessions; Dr John Berriman, who, with four 
others, scrutinized the document when preparing his 
Lady Moyer Lectures in 1737; and C. G. Woide, who 


himself edited this manuscript in 1786 (p. 55). As the 
Ma mis, neither of these first-rate uncials can be 
appealed to with confidence, which is the more unfor 
tunate, inasmuch as we have now lost the help of 
( oil. I}, which broke off, as you will remember, at 
Hob. ix. 14, that Epistle in ancient times often taking 
precedence of 1 Timothy (p. 27). 

Cod. tf, however, speaks with no uncertain sound : 
for, although here also the corrector has been busy, yet 
his work is palpable and without disguise : above "who" 
(OC) of the first scribe, the two Greek letters (6e) 
necessary to be prefixed to OC in order to turn the 
relative into "God" are inserted above the line, with 
the proper accent ( ), by a hand of about the twelfth 
century (Plate I., No. 12). The masculine relative also 
appears in Codd. FG beyond any reasonable doubt : the 
neuter relative (O), which is grammatically more correct, 
as agreeing with " mystery" preceding, is found in Cod. D 
by the first hand ; but this is manifestly a corrupt varia- 
tinn from the masculine form, whose solecism in regard 
to construction pleads in its favour (Canon I., p. 114). 
The cursives which support the relative are but three, of 
which, however, 17 is one, and another is of high value 
(73, at Upsal). For "God," since Codd. AC are out of 
court, we have no better evidence than the three later 
uncials which contain this verse, and full 200 cursives, 
only that the Leicester codex 37, by placing O (here 
intended for the Greek article) before "God" abridged 
(Plate III., No. 11, line 1 : see p. 81), makes an effort to 
combine the reading of Cod. D with that of later copies. 
Nor do versions uphold the case of the Received 
text. The Peshito Syriac and Philoxenian text, with 


the Armenian, one form both of the ^Ethiopic, and the 
Arabic of Erpenius (p. 17G, note), have a relative which 
may be either masculine or neuter. The Philoxenian 
margin probably, the Memphitic, Thebaic, Gothic, and 
the other ^Ethiopic certainly, favour the masculine 
relative: all Latin codices, even those of Codd. FG 
whose Greek is masculine, side with Cod. D, with Hilary 
and Augustine, for the neuter. "God" is found only 
in the Slavonic and Polyglott Arabic, which count for 
almost nothing. 

In respect to the Fathers, the Received text makes 
a better stand. Ignatius, in his purest copies, speaks 
of "God being manifested as man," Hippolytus twic.- 
declares that " God was manifested in the body." In 
the fourth century Didymus and Gregory of Nyssa in 
all probability acknowledged it, as unquestionably did 
Theodoret, John Damascene, QEcumenius, Theophylact, 
at a later period. Chrysostom s manuscripts fluctuate 
in his commentary, though he elsewhere seems to refer 
to the common reading: the catenas are hostile. Photius 
cites Gregory Thaumaturgus, of the third century, for 
God." The masculine relative is upheld by Cyril of 
Alexandria (in spite of his printed editions), by Epi- 
phanius (twice), and many others : nor is a text so im 
portant as this alleged in many places where it would 
fairly be looked for, though a negative argument should 
not be pressed too far. 

On the whole, if Codd. AC be kept out of sight 
(and we know not how more light can be thrown on 
their testimony), this is one of the controversies which 
the discovery of Cod. N ought to have closed, since it 
adds a first-rate uncial witness to a case already 

mi: LA XT/;// r.i i;r OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 193 

very strong through the support of versions. Slowly 
.UK! deliberately) yet in full confidence that God in 
other passages of His written word has sufficiently 
assured us of the Proper Divinity of His Incarnate 
Son, we have yielded up this clause as no longer ten 
able against the accumulated force of external evidence 
which has been brought against it. 

(18) HEB. ii. 7. Whensoever a passage is cited from 
the Old Testament in the New, the tendency on the 
part of scribes is to enlarge the quotation rather than 
to compress it (Canon n. p. 115). Thus in Heb. xii. 20, 
" or thrust through with a dart," taken from Ex. xix. 13, 
rests on no adequate authority whatever. The last 
clause of the present verse, " and didst set him over the 
works of thy hands," though imbedded in the quotation 
from Ps. viii. 4 6, is rejected by Tischendorf, set 
within brackets by Lachmann and Trcgelles. The middle 
place which it holds in the citation diminishes the pre 
sumption against its genuineness in the Epistle, and it 
seems pertinent enough to the argument : on the other 
hand, how came the words to be lost, if they were ever 
there ? Internal evidence is thus equally divided : the ex 
ternal is perhaps less ambiguous. The clause is absent 
from Cod. B, from D by the third hand, E by the second, 
two later uncials, from 47 and full fifty or sixty cursives, 
from some manuscripts and editions of the Peshito, but 
not from Widmanstadt s(p.90),from the Philoxenian text, 
the commentaries of Chrysostom, John Damascene, (Ecu- 
menius and Theophylact. It appears in Codd. NACDE 
the first hand, which one would not suspect, see p. 71), 
M (see p. 77), and a later uncial (FG do not contain this 
Epistle), fewer cursives, but the best, as 17. 37. 137 and 

S. L. 13 


its close ally, the Philoxenian margin (pp. 73, 93), the 
Vulgate, even that appended to Cod. F, the Memphitic, 
Armenian, and ^Ethiopic versions, with Eusebius, a 
manuscript of Euthalius, and Theodoret. One is con 
tent to retain a clause thus strongly attested. 

(19) HEB. ii. 9. " That He by the grace of God 
should taste death for every man." We have here an 
important various reading, dwelt upon by Origen in the 
third century (he discusses it in no less than six places 
in his works), by Jerome in the fourth, by Theodoret in 
the fifth, at which last period Theodore of Mopsuestia, 
who lay under an ill repute among the orthodox, boldly 
charges them with corrupting the passage, by sub 
stituting what he deemed an unmeaning addition "by 
the grace of God" for the true text, "without" or 
" apart from God." Now " apart from God" is at pre 
sent found in no manuscripts except Cod. M (p. 11) 
and that second hand of the cursive C7 to which we 
are indebted for so many excellent readings, resembling 
those of the best uncials. Among versions it is found 
only in some copies of the Peshito (including at least 
jone of the best), and is cited by the Latins Ambrose 
(twice) in the fourth century, Fulgentius and Vigilius 
of Thapsus in the fifth, as well as by the Greek Anas- 
tasius the Abbot in the eighth. Here, then, we have 
a variation as old as Origen, yet one which cannot 
stand for a moment against Codd. J<ABCD and the 

I have called your attention to this almost forgotten 
reading for two reasons ; the first being an ingenious 
and by no means unlikely conjecture as to its origin. 
It has been supposed that "apart from God" has been 


transferred into the text of ver. 9 from the margin of 
MT. S, where it was inserted as a seasonable gloss upon 
the words " he left nothing that is not put under him " 
(compare 1 Cor. xv. 27). This may be, and it is always 
interesting to be able to account for the existence of a 
strange corruption like the present. My second point 
is to shew by a plain proof that the variation was not, 
as (Ecumenius and Theophylact suppose, the work of the 
followers of Nestorius. That they must be acquitted of 
so serious a charge is evident from the fact that the 
reading was known to Origen two centuries before the 
subtle heresy of Nestorius took its rise. Yet, upon the 
face of it, there was much to countenance the mistake : 
the arrogant language of Theodore of Mopsuestia ; the 
existence of the false words in Nestorian copies of the 
Peshito, such as one of the eighth century in the 
British Museum (Rich, 7157), certain Syrian Churches 
being infected with that error down to the present 
hour ; above all, the substance of the change itself: for 
no statement could better suit the Nestorian fiction 
that the Redeemer came with two separate Persons as 
\vcll as two separate Natures, than the assertion that 
He suffered apart from his Divinity. 

(20) HEB. iv. 2. " The word preached did not profit 
them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard 
it." By a simple change in the case of the participle, 
the latter clause is made to run " not being mingled by 
faith with " (or, with the margin of our Bibles, because 
they were not united by faith to) " those that heard it "; 
mixed or mingled no longer agreeing with " the word," 
but with "them" immediate] j before it. It would be 
impossible to part with the common reading, the nomi- 

^ 132 


native, without regret, for it is much the clearer, though, 
it must be confessed, it is not on that account the more 
probable (Canon I. p. 114). The accusative form ("them 
not being mingled ") is adopted by Codd. ABCD(E)M, 
the three later uncials, 17. 37. 47, and the great mass 
of cursives, the Complutensian edition, the Memphitic, 
the best copies of the Vulgate (am. fuld., &c., p. 103), 
the Latin of Cod. F, whose Greek is lost (p. 74), the 
Philoxenian Syriac, Armenian, and /Ethiopia To the 
same effect are cited the Latin of Irenaeus in two manu 
scripts (but the Received reading stands in others), and 
Theodore of Mopsuestia expressly. So too Chrysostom, 
Theophylact, QEcumenius, and one or two more. Cyril 
of Alexandria and Theodoret may be alleged on both 
sides. For the nominative, whereby " mixed" is in 
concord with " the word," the roll is but scanty : Cod. X 
and quite a handful of cursives, the Latin versions of 
Codd. DE against the parallel Greek, the Clementine 
Vulgate and many good Vulgate manuscripts, only not 
the best, with Lucifer of Cagliari of the fourth century, 
whose Latin text is usually very pure ; add to these the 
considerable help of the Peshito Syriac (very clearly), 
and of the Arabic of Erpenius (p. 17G, note). Tischendorf 
here abides by the Received text, induced partly no 
doubt by deference to the Codex Sinaiticus, whose dis 
covery will immortalize his name (p. 33), not that such 
prepossessions ought to have biassed his judgment in 
the least : partly by an opinion that to make satisfactory 
sense of the passage as corrected we must change " them 
that heard it" into " the things heard," for which fur 
ther alteration the evidence is very feeble indeed. 

(21) HEB. ix. 1. " Then verily the first covenant had 


also ordinances of divine service." Our Authorized 
of Kil 1 In iv has very rightly the word "covenant" in 
italic type, to shew that it is not found in the original 
at all, but is simply repeated from the last verses of the 
preceding chapter. The Complutensian Polyglott, how 
ever, and after its example the Greek text of Stephens 
(1550), and the English translations of Tyndale (152G) 
and Coverdale (1535), insert the word "tabernacle" 
instead, which was no doubt suggested by " the first 
taliernacle" in vcr. 2. Our own Bible was saved from 
this error by following the edition of Beza (158.9), which 
has no noun after "the first" in ver. 1, and in the Latin 
supplies the blank by the true word "covenant" in the 
proper type. Since "tabernacle" is read in no uncial 
manuscript whatsoever, and not in the best cursives 
(such as 17. 37), although, probably, in a majority of the 
whole mass (with 47), it ought undoubtedly to be re 
moved from the Greek text. Only a copy of Euthalius 
and Theodoret can be alleged in its behalf, for the soli 
tary version which supports " tabernacle," the Mem- 
phitic, must have meant it as an interpretation, not as 
representing a word read in the original. 

(2 2) HEB. xi. 13. We noticed above a clause in this 
Epistle (ch. xii. 20) which rests on no adequate authority 
(p. 193), but which, being taken with its context from the 
Old Testament, can easily be accounted for. The sam> 
cannot be said for the words now before us, "and wen- 
persuaded of them," which first appeared in the Greek 
Testament of Erasmus (1510), were brought into the 
Kuglish Bible by Tyndale (152G), and have remained 
there ever since, not a single authority of any kind 
being known to support them, and the sense being 


rather impeded than aided by their presence. Whence 
they came would be hard to say, except from an ordinary 
cursive at Basle (Cod. 7 of S. Paul), which internal 
evidence convinces me was much used by Erasmus, and 
which, in his elaborate edition of the Greek Testament 
(1751 2), its collator Wetstein does not quote as 
omitting the clause. 

(23) JAMES ii. 18. " Yea, a man may say, Thou hast 
faith, and I have works : shew me thy faith without thy 
works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works." 
One of the few marginal notes in our Authorized Bible 
which are concerned with various readings (see p. 86), 
is here inserted so as to make the sense quite opposite to 
that in the text, if not completely to destroy it : " some 
copies read [as an alternative to witlwut thy works] by 
thy works." There is no real doubt that the marginal 
rendering is wrong, and that of the translators true, but 
the English student may like to know the precise 
merits of the case, and how, in a matter so evident, the 
marginal note was set there at all. 

"Without," or rather "apart from thy works" is 
found in five out of the seven uncials which contain this 
Epistle, including Codd. &<ABC, in about fourteen cur 
sives, including 13, 31 (see p. 167,note), and (what in such 
a matter ought to weigh considerably) in every known 
version, both Syriac, both Egyptian, ff\ of the Old 
Latin, which contains St James, the Vulgate, Armenian, 
and JSthiopic. For " by" (which evidently sprang from 
the " by" immediately following) we know of no vouch 
ers except two late uncials, nearly all the cursives, the 
marginal commentaries or catena?, and Theophylact. 
If ever there was a case where a recent and improbable 

THE LA 777,7, / .I A"/ 01 Tllfi X K W TESTA VENT. 199 

must be rejected for the iiitrin>irally good one of 
all the aucients, such a case is the present. 

What then the need of a marginal note ? The fact 
is that our translators were doing what they seldom 
liked to venture on : they were changing the Received 
Greek t<-\t whieh they usually accepted without ques 
tion, to follow Beza s Greek Testaments of 1582, 1589, 
l"i!IS and the Vulgate. They knew that "by," however 
ill it suited the context, had appeared in every preceding 
Knglish version, as well as in the editions of the Com- 
plutensians, of Erasmus, of Stephens (1550), and ofBeza 
himself in 15G5, and so they drew attention in the 
margin to their weighty and much-needed correction. 

(24) 1 PET. iii. 15. As a result of our examination of 
1 Tim. iii. 16 we felt compelled by the force of truth to 
withdraw, at least from controversial use, a great text 
on which modern theologians, though not perhaps 
ancient, have been wont to lay much stress. A critical 
enquiry into the present passage will produce the 
opposite effect of rendering available in the support 
of the orthodox faith what seemed previously to have 
no dogmatic value. " Sanctify the Lord God in your 
h. arts" is the Received text, as in Isai. viii. 13, upon 
which S. Peter, after his well-known fashion, is mould 
ing his own language. "Sanctify the Lord Christ in. 
your hearts" is the alternative reading, which we shall 

;4ood reason to adopt. " As the Apostle here applies 
to Christ language which in the Old Testament is made 
use of with reference to Jehovah, he clearly suggests 
the supreme godhead of our Redeemer," is the fair com 
ment of Professor Alexander Roberts. Now "the Lord 
( hrist is found in Codd. NABC (only seven uncials 


contain this Epistle); eight cursives, including Cod. 13, 
the best (see p. 167, note) ; both Syriac and both Egyptian 
versions, the Vulgate, Erpenius Arabic, the Armenian 
nearly ("the same Lord and Christ"), Clement of Alex 
andria in the second, Fulgentius in the fifth century, 
Bedo in the eighth. Against this phalanx we have 
nothing to set except the three later uncials, all the 
cursives (including 31, see p. 167, note) except nine, the 
Polyglott Arabic and Slavonic versions, Theophylact 
and (Ecumenius in fact nothing earlier than the ninth 
century. One Lectionary at Leyden, with its accompany 
ing Arabic version, has " The Lord Jesus our Christ." 

(25) 1 JOHN ii. 23. The English reader s attention 
will have been directed to this verse by reason of its 
second member being printed in italics "but he that 
acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also," this being 
the only instance in the New Testament wherein variety 
of reading is thus indicated in the Authorized Bible of 
1611, though later impressions exhibit the same device 
in John viii. 6 and elsewhere. The example had been 
set to our translators in what is called the " Great 
Bible" of 1539, and indeed the Greek words they 
render are even now no portion of the Received text, 
although Beza inserted them in his edition of 1582, 
pointing out at the same time this Apostle s habit of 
using antithetic clauses in his composition. Beyond 
doubt Beza is here right and those who omitted the 
clause mistaken, although the Complutensian Polyglott 
and Erasmus alike rejected it. The cause of its absence 
from some copies is easily perceived : it arose from that 
negligence of the scribes to which we have before given 
the technical name of homosoteleuton (p. 133) or "like 


ending": each member of the verse terminating in Grnk 
with the same three words. The italicised clause is 
strongly upheld also by external evidence, being found 
in five of the seven extant uncials (Codd. tf ABC bein^ 
four of them), in at least 34 cursives (including Cod. 1*3 
and other excellent copies), in both Syriac, in the 
Meinphitic (perhaps too in the Thebaic), in the best 
codices of the Latin Vulgate (am. fold., p. 103 &c.) and 
its printed editions, in the Armenian, ^Ethiopic, and 
Erpenius (not the Polyglott) Arabic versions. It is 
recognised by Origen (thrice), Eusebius, both Cyrils, 
Theophylact (but not CEcumenius). The Old Latin m. 
(p. 101), with Cyprian and Hilary, adopts "he that ac- 
knowledgeth the Son hath both the Son and the Father." 
We note this as an instance of the evil consequences 
ensuing on the exclusive adherence to modern Greek 
manuscripts upon the part of our earliest editors. 

(2(i) 1 JOHN v. 7, 8. We are here treading over 
the ashes of many a fiery debate, but the flame which 
once raged so fiercely is well-nigh extinct. It may be 
doubted whether a single person now living, who is 
capable of forming an intelligent judgment on critical 
subjects, believes or professes to believe in the genuine- 
]!>> of that interpolated gloss, familiarly known as the 
Text of the Three Heavenly Witnesses." Yet Mi- 
Charles Forster s "New Plea" for its authenticity, 
published only seven years since, the ingenious and, 
as it proved, the last effort of a veteran scholar, is as 
full of life and vigour as any of its predecessors in that 
long controversy which gave rise to the trenchant "Let 
ters to Mr Archdeacon Travis" (1790), the best km>\\ n. 
perhaps the ablest, work of one who was at once tho 


pride and the shame of the University of Cambridge, 
the profoundly learned, the acute, the scornful and 
overhearing Richard Person. We shall here attempt 
nothing more than a brief summary of the facts of the 
case, but it will be such as shall leave no person at a 
loss as to the inference to be drawn from them. There 
can be no doubt that on the main issue Porson was 
right, Travis and Forster wrong. 

" For there are three that bear witness, the Spirit, 
and the water, and the blood : and the three agree in 
one." Such is the whole passage as it proceeded from 
the Apostle s pen. In our common Bibles we further 
read, after "bear witness" in ver. 7, what may have 
been originally a pious and innocent gloss on the genu 
ine passage, first set in the margin, and afterwards 
intruded into the text, but which has no rightful place 
there on any principle that is capable of reasonable vin 
dication. The two verses now run as follows, the 
supposititious words being placed within brackets for 
convenient guidance to the eye and mind : 

" For there are three that bear witness [in heaven, 
the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost : and these 
three are one. And there are three that bear witness 
in earth,] the Spirit, and the water, and the blood : and 
the three agree in one." 

Here, no doubt, we may mark the antithesis, the 
opposition of the several members of parallel clauses, 
which we mentioned just now (1 John ii. 23) as charac 
teristic of the sacred writer, and which perhaps helped 
to procure acceptance for the interpolation. It is right 
to say this much in its behalf, for there is almost 
nothing more that can be said. 


< W. C being defective from 1 John iv. 2 to 3 John 2, 
we have but six uncials (Codcl. KAB and tin- thivo 
later) to take as our chief guides: not one of them 
>hc\vs ;i vestige of the words within brackets. The 
cursive copies which contain this chapter are at least 
194, besides about GO Lectionaries, or Church-lesson 
books : the bracketed passage appears in only three, 
and those of quite modern date. One of them, indeed 
(Cod. Kavianus at Berlin), is good for nothing, being a 
mere transcript from printed Greek Testaments, espe- 
rially from the Complutensian. The same may appa 
rently be said of a marginal note inserted by a very 
recent hand in a manuscript of the eleventh century 
now at Naples. The real authorities are thus reduced 
to two, one (Codex Ottobonianus, 1G2) in the Vatican, 
upon which, so far as it goes, no grave suspicion has been 
cast ; the second at Trinity College, Dublin, which has 
not passed unchallenged. That at Rome is as late in 
age as the fifteenth century, and, like Cod. E of the 
Acts (see p. 71), has the Latin version on the same 
page with the Greek, and in the post of honour on 
the left. This passage has therefore been set in the 
Greek column of the Codex Ottobonianus, for the 
>ame reason as it was a little later in the Complutensian 
Polyglott, because it was already extant in the parallel 
Latin Vulgate ; and they both bear the semblance, the 
Complutensian very decidedly, of having been actually 
translated from the Latin by their side. The Dublin 
manuscript, Codex Montfortianus (Gl Gospels, 34- Acts, 
Ac.), as it is called from a former owner, stands upon a 
different footing. When Erasmus published his first 
editions of the New Testament (151G, 1519), he wag 


censured for leaving out a passage which, as being found 
in their Latin Bibles, most of his readers were familiar 
with. His reply was that he could do no other than 
omit it, because he had never yet met with a Greek 
codex which contained it : whensoever he did meet with 
one, he would insert it from that copy. A transcript of 
the verses as read in "A British manuscript" found in 
England was sent to him before the publication of his 
third edition in 1522, and Avhat he had sent him, he then 
gave his readers in its proper place. Now no "British 
manuscript" containing the bracketed words has ever 
been heard of unless it is that at present in Dublin, the 
earliest possessor of which that we can trace is Froy, a 
Franciscan friar, about the period of the Reformation. 
It is true that, besides another slight variation, Mont- 
fort s manuscript does not answer to Erasmus descrip 
tion of the British one, in that, like the Complutensian 
and Vatican copies, it omits the last clause of ver. 8, 
"and the three agree in one," which, by his account, the 
British one contained. A great deal has been made of 
the discrepancy by those who deny the identity between, 
the two : yet the supposition is obvious that the person, 
whosoever he was, that sent the paper to Erasmus, 
might have broken off after transcribing the disputed 
words, and neglected to note down the further variation 
immediately after them. We are willing to assume, 
then, that the British and Montfort codices are one and 
the samo, and see no reason for suspecting that it wa* 
forged between 1519 and 1522 to answer a purpose: 
yet a manuscript like this, which could hardly be more 
than a century old when it thus came to light, which 
bears in parts a close resemblance to the Latin Vulgate-, 

777 /: LA TTKR I ART OF THE XEW TEXTA Mi:.\T. 203 

and has been thought to have been transcribed, at 
in the Apocalypse, from the Leicester codex (p. 81), ran 
hardly be deemed of sufficient value or antiquity to 
bear adequate testimony to the existence of the passage 
in really important Greek documents. 

When from manuscripts we come to versions and 
Fathers, the result may be stated in a word. The in 
sertion belonged to the Latin branch of the Church, and 
to none other. Of the Greek Fathers not one has cited 
it, or made any reference to it that can be depended 
on, even when it might seem most required by his 
argument, and although he quotes consecutively the 
verses immediately before and after it. It has been 
unhappily thrust by editors into the printed Peshito 
version, but is not found in a single manuscript : it is 
not in the Philoxenian Syriac, the Memphitic, Thebaic, 
^Ethiopic or Arabic, in any shape. Scarcely any Arme 
nian codex has it, and only a few recent Slavonic copies, 
To the western Church it appertains exclusively, and hero 
too it appears with that wide variation in the reading 
which has several times before been alleged as unfavour 
able to the genuineness of a passage which exhibits it 
(see p. 158). Mai s celebrated "Speculum" (w.), of the 
sixth or seventh century, representing the Old Latin, 
and about 49 out of every 50 extant codices of the Vul 
gate, contain it in some shape or other : yet even hero it 
is missing in full fifty of the best Latin copies, in 
cluding those principal ones am. fuld. (p. 103). Even 
the great Latin writers Hilary, Lucifer, Ambrose, 
Jerome, Augustine, all of the fourth century, know 
nothing of it. The Fathers who do allege it are chiefly 
Africans, as Tertulliau in the second century not im- 


possibly, Cyprian with greater likelihood in the third, 
Vigilius of Thapsus and Fulgentius of Ruspae in the 
fifth or sixth. Nor have we much reason to doubt 
that Eugenius, Bishop of Carthage, late in the fifth 
century, pressed it into a confession of faith presented 
to the Arian Hunneric, king of the Vandals. 

We have said before that it is perfectly gratuitous 
to allege fraud against those who introduced the Three 
Heavenly Witnesses by way of spiritual comment, first 
into the margin of this Epistle, then into the text. That 
it has no right to hold a place in the body of Scrip 
ture we regard as certain. It belongs not to the whole 
Christian Church, but to a single branch of it, and 
in early times only to one fruitful offshoot of that 

(27) REV. xvi. 7. The Received text of the Book 
of the Revelation is far more widely removed from that 
of the best critical authorities than is the case in any 
other portion of the New Testament. This partly 
arises from real variations between the few primary au 
thorities to which we have access in this portion of our 
critical labours, partly to the circumstance that Erasmus 
had access to only one Greek copy, and that a poor 
one (p. 80), while succeeding editors of this Book chose 
rather to follow Erasmus than the Complutensinn 
Polyglott, which would have led them less astray. The 
general tendency of the readings of more recent codices 
has here been to suppress the broad Hebraisms of 
which the Apocalypse is full, to smooth the gram 
matical constructions of the Greek, to soften what is 
hard, and correct what is difficult ; as if to prove before 
hand Bengel s sweeping rule (p. 114), that the harsher 


the reading the more likely it is to be true. A single 
example will shew our meaning as well as a multitude. 
"I heard the altar speak," writes the Apostle, "Even 
so, Lord God Almighty, true and righteous are thy 
judgments." Tin- altar, which the prophet from 
Judah apostrophised in the days of Jeroboam (1 Kings 
xiii. 2), is here represented by a yet bolder figure of 
impassioned poetry, as rejoicing in unison with the 
angel of the waters (ver. 5), in that God had avenged 
the blood of his saints and prophets which had been shed 
as it were thereupon (ch. vi. 9). This of course was 
above the comprehension of the later scribes, who, by 
interpolating two words, bring us down to the prosaic 
statement of the common text, "I heard another out 
of the altar." The corrupt " another out of," as is so 
repeatedly the case in the Apocalypse, rests in this pre 
cise shape on almost no authority at all. It is merely 
the consequence of Erasmus following ordinary copies 
of the Latin Vulgate against his own solitary Cod. 
Reuchlini, which, omitting " another," retains still the 
feeble " out of" with the Complutensian and Cod. B 
of this book, a Vatican manuscript of the eighth or 
ninth century, beyond measure inferior to its great 
namesake. The commentator Andreas of the seventh 
century in some copies favours the latter form, while 
one other cursive makes for the paraphrase of the 
Memphitic and ^Ethiopic, "a voice from the altar." The 
In >t (am., p. 103) and two or three other codices of the 
Vulgate have "another," or "another angel," but there 
is probably no Greek evidence whatever for " another." 
The true reading, "the altar saying" or "speaking," 
is maintained by the three great uncials which still 


contain this book (Codd. KAC), by the only remain 
ing one of later date except B, by every known cursive 
except Cod. 1, by fuld. (p. 103) and other good manu 
scripts of the Vulgate, by the Syriac (which, however, 
is no longer the Peshito, but a much later version), by 
the Armenian, by other .copies of Andreas, and by 
Arethas of Cacsarea, who wrote a commentary on the 
Apocalypse in the tenth century, and points out therein 
the peculiar turn of expression, to which he gives 
the technical name of synecdoche. 

You will easily understand that the passages which 
have been selected for examination in the course of the 
present and the last preceding Lectures form numerically 
but a very small portion of those whose readings have 
been brought into question by Biblical critics. They have 
been specially chosen from the mass, some for their novel 
or interesting character, most of them, either for their 
unusual length or their intrinsic value. I can call to 
mind none that through pressure of time have been 
over-passed, which in gravity at all approach some of 
those you have been invited to consider. Now, if the 
case be thus, surely we are entitled to claim for the 
existing text of the Greek New Testament such 
moderate exemption from avoidable imperfections, such 
almost entire freedom from wilful corruption, as will en 
able us to use it with confidence both in our theological 
studies and in our devotional reading. You will not, 
I trust, be disposed to think slightingly of the science 
of Textual criticism, or deem it unworthy of attention 


in an age when every one is trying to learn a little 
about everything; if, while instructing us in the pro 
cesses wlierehy a yet purer and more correct Bible may 
lie attained to, it assures us at the same time of the 
_;viier;il integrity and perfect honesty of that Authorized 
\ersi.m of the Holy Scriptures, which is the happy 
inheritance of English-speaking nations. 

s i, 14 





I ncials. Codex Alexandrinus (A) 4956, 58- 9, C3, 160, 190 

Augiensis (F, S. Paul) 736,116 

Bezjc (D, Gospels, Acts) ... 43, 638, 116, 143, 147, 153, 

181, 185 

Boernerianua (G, S. Paul) 736,116 

Borgianus (T, Gospels) 150 note 

Claromoutanus (D, S. Paul) 6870, 75, 100, 116, 

181, 184 
- Coislin (H, S. Paul) 70 

Dublinensis (Z, Gospels) 76 

Ephraein (C) ...49, 6063, 116, 147, 149, 151, 160, 190 

Guelpherbytani (P, Q, Gospels) 76 

- Laudianus (E, Acts) 713, 167, 203 

Monacensis (X, Gospels) 160 

Nitriensis (R, Gospels) 76 

Regius 62 (L, Gospels) 42, 43, 49, 77, 93, 121, 122, 


Ruber (M, S. Paul) 77 

Sangallensis (A, Gospels) 43, 74 

Sangermanensis (E, S. Paul) ... 701, 72, 75, 116, 175 

Sinaiticus (N) ... 26, 3241, 469, 57, 59, 79, 125, 147, 

151, 152, 167, 191, 196 

Vaticanus (B) 2532, 48, 49, 567, 59, 77, 116 

. Zacynthius (3, Gospels) 144 and note 

B (Apocalypse) 207 

I (Gospels) 157 

N (Gospels) 78, 100 

T b (Gospels) 155 

212 INDEX I. 


Codex W d (Gospels) 77 

- T and A (Gospels) 78 

Cursivei. 1 (Gospels, Acts, Epistles) 79 

- 1 (Beuchlini, Apocalypse) 80, 206, 207 

7 (S. Paul) I .t* 

- 13 (Gospels) 2 iiMc 

- 22 (Gospels) !_".>, i:jo 

- 33 (Gospels, 13 Acts, 17 S. Paul j 80, 167 note 

- 47 (S. Paul) 176, 180 

- 61 (Gospels, 34 Acts) 2035 

61 (Acts) 83 

- 66 (Acts) } . ...180,189,194 

67 (S. Paul) J 

- 69 (Gospels, 31 Act?, 37 S. Paul, 14 Apoc.) 81, 131, 

107 note, 191 

- 73 (S.Paul) 191 

- 95, 96 (Apocalypse) 83 

- 124 (Gospels) 82 note 

- 137 (Acts) 73 

- 157 (Gospels) 82 

- 162 (Acts, Ac.) 203 

- 209 (Gospels) 12:. , 14." 

- 274 (Gospels) 138 

- 346 (Gospels) 82 note 

y (Lectionary of Gospels) 83 

Codd. KB compared 415, 46, 116, 137 note 

FG (S. Paul) compared 75, 179, 185 

Professor Terror s group 82 aud note, 116, 127, 129, 132, 135, 148, 

151, 161. 


Old Version. 
Codex a. (Vercellensis) 99 

b. (Veronensis) 100 

c. (Paris) 49, 101 

e. i. (Vienna) 101 

/. (Brixianus) 100, 147 

Jp.ff*. (Corbey) 101, 198 

/ . s . (S. Germainj 101 

X I. 213 


/(. (Vat inline) ............................................................... 101 

j. ( n<i-t ........................................................... lIMi 

/.-. (liohhirnsUi ........................................................ 100, 138 

HI. (s>TH/n;;i) ......................................................... 101, 205 

Xew Version or Vulgate. 

,nn. (Amiiitinns) ............................................................... 103, 105 

fuld. (Fulilensis) ..................................................................... 103 


Syriac. Peshito ..................................................................... 89 

Cure ton ian ........... ...................................................... 90 

Phlloxenian or Harcleun ................................................ 92 

Jerusalem ................................................................. 93 

Egyptian ........................................................................... 946 

Memphitic .................................................................. 96 

Theba ic ..................................................................... 97 

Latin, Old and New or Vul<jate ............................................. 98105 

I .d itlons of Popes Ki.rti(8 and Clement ............... 1015, 123, 132 

(rotbic .................................................................................... 105 

.Ktliiopic ............................................................................. ib. 

Armenian ............................................................... ib., 139 note 

Georgian ................................................................................. 10G 

Frankish ................................................................................. ib. 

Anglo-Saxoii ........................................................................... ib. 

................................................................................... ib. 

Arabic .................................................................................... ib. 

- of Erpcuius ................................................ ib., 159, 176 note 



Gen. xxxi. 47 



Ex. xix. 13 


xxi. 33 

... 149 

xxiii. 4..., 

... ib. 

Lev. xxiii. 10, 11 145 

Deut. i. 31 88 

2 Sam. xxii. .. ...128 

1 Kin. xiii. 2.... 

2 Kin. xviii. 26 


1 Chr. xxix. 11 122 

2Chr. xx. 6 ib. 

- xxiv. 20 22 48 

Ps. ii. 7 168 

viii. 4 6 193 

xviii 128 

xxii. 18 132, 136 

Isai. viii. 13. 199 

xxxvi. 11 89 

liii. 12... ...136 

Dan. ii. 4. 



1 Esdras iv. 59 ...122 

Prayer of Manasses 122 

Matt. i. 18 1089 

T. 11 121 

-v. 22 119, 129, 146 

-vi. 913 148 

vi. 13 122 

- vii. 25 147 note 

ix. 13 115, 116 

xi. 19 124 

xii. 2840 126 

xvi. 2, 3 ib. 

xvii. 17 129 

- 20 128 

- 21 128, 135 

xix. 16, 17 129 

xx. 28 91, 93 

xxiii. 35 47 8 

xxvi. 39 151 

xxvii. 28 42 

- 35 132, 136 

xxviii. 1 139 

Mark ii. 17 115, 116 

-iii. 12 134 

30 135 

T. 10,23, 38 134 




Mark vi. 20 I M 

22 434 

vii. 1 J 134 

26 165 

_ :;l 445 

ix. 26 134 

_ 29 128, 185 

x. 18 129 

xiv. 30, 68, 72 48-9 

xv. 28 136 

xvi. 6 8 567 

920 91, 13742 

Lukei. 26 47 

ii. 14 142 

v. 32 115 

vi. 1, 6 145 

4 68 

22 121 

48 147 note 

vii. 1835 124 

-x. 41, 42 147, 153 

xi.2,4 148 

51 48 

xii. 54-56 127 

xiii. 15 149 

xiv. 5 ib. 

810 91 

xv. 18, 19,21 109 

xvi. 12 42 

xviii. 19 129 

_ xxi. 24 42 

37, 38 82,161 

xxii. 19 181 

37 136 

43, 44 150, 152 

xxiii.34 1-VJ 

xxiv 153 

John i. 18... 153,156 


Johnii. 3 47 

-13 156 

-iii. 13 155 

- 16, 18 154 

-v. 1 156 

3,4 157 

vi. 4 156 

vii. 8 158 

- 36 161 

- 39 114 

53 viii. 11 82, 1603 

viii. 6 200 

xii. 1 156 

xix. 24 132, 136 

- 36 181 

- xxi. 21, 22 65 

Acts vi. 1 166 

-5 47 

viii. 24 68 

37... ... 73, 170 

ix. 5, 6 ... 


-x. 15 


xi. 18 

- 1927. 









.47, 164 

30; xii. 25 43 

xiii. 1 90 

- 2,3 136 

- 18 87 

32, 33 167 

33 168 

-xiv. 9 47 

23 136 

xv. 33, 34,40 169 

xvi. 7... 171 




Acts xx. 28 58, 72, 171 

-xxiv. 5 166 

-xxvi. 14 115 

-xxvii. 6, 18, 37 174 

Horn, i- 7, 15 180 

-v. 1 175, 182 

-viii. 9 171 

-xiii. 9 176 

-xiv. 23 179 

-xv. 23 98 

33 178 

xvi. 1,5 177 

20, 24 17880 

22 8 

2527 ... .. 17880 


1 Cor. vii. 5 

-ix. 5 

xi. 24 

xiii. 5, 6 

xv. 27 195 

49, 51, 52 176,182 

- 51 183 

-xvi.15 177 

2 Cor. iii. 6 186 

xiii. 11 . .. 178 

Eph. i. 1 


Phil. iii. 3 186 

iv. 9 . -- 173 

Col. i. 27 187, 188 

-ii. 21 1879 

1 Tim. iii. 15, 1G...G2, 81, 187, 189 

93, 199 

2 Tim. iv. 13 8 

Heb. ii. 4 47 

- 7 193 

- 8, 9 194 

iv. 2 195 

-ix. 1 I .Mi 

-xi. 13 197 

xii. 20 1JW, 1J7 

- 28 176 

James ii. 18 188 

iii. 12 .. .. 117 

1 Peter iii. 15 
v. 13 .. 


Uolmii. 23 200, 202 

iv. 9 154 

- v. G 9 57 

- 7,8 58, 101, 2016 

2 John 12 8 

llev. vi. 9 207 

xiii. 18 110, 175 

xvi. 5 207 

7 .., ... 2068 


Tin-: SAM/-: AUTHOR. 

OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. For the Use of Biblical Stu 
dents. Second Edition, thoroughly Revised, enlarged, and brought 
down to the present date; with an account of the- Egyptian Ver- 
aions, contributed by Canon LIGHTFOOT. With numerous Illus 
trative Extracts from MSS., lithographed in facsimile. Demy 8vo. 
1 6*. 


Prolegomena, Notes, and Facsimiles. 4.10. ?6. 


CUS, with the Received Text of the New Testament ; to which is 

prefixed a Critical Introduction. Second Edition, revised. Fcap. 

8vo. 5. 

:< Mr Scrivener has now placed the results of Tischendorf s discovery 
within reach of all in a charming little volume, which ought to 
form a companion to the Greek Testament in the library of every 
Biblical student. "Reader. 


GIENSIS, a Grseco- Latin Manuscript in Uncial Letters of S. 
Paul s Epistles, preserved in the Library of Trinity College, 
Cambridge. To which is added a Collation of Fifty Manuscripts 
containing various portions of the Greek New Testament deposited 
in English Libraries : with a full Critical Introduction. Royal 8vo. 

The CRITICAL INTRODUCTION it istvcd separately, price 5*. 


phanici, 1550. Accedunt variie lectiones editionum Bezas, Elzeviri, 
Lachmanni, Tischendorfii, et Tregellesii. i6mo. 48. 6d. 
This Edition embodies all the readings of Tregelles and of Tischen- 
dorf s Eighth or Latest Edition. 

An Edition with, wide Mary in for Xotet, 7. 6d. 


I l- .LS (hitherto unexamined) deposited in the British Museum, 
the Archiepiscopal Library at Lambeth, SLC., with a Critical Intro 
duction. Demy 8vo. 6*. 


April, Is- 





Full Catalogues will be scut post free on application. 


A Series of Greek and Latin Anthers, Kith English Notes, edited ly 
eminent Scholars. 8vo. 

.Kschylus. By F. A. Palcy, M.A. 18s. 

Cicero s Orations. By G. Long, M.A. 4 vols. 16*., 14s., 1G., IS*. 

Demosthenes. By R. Winston, M.A. 2 vols. 16*. each. 

Euripides. By F. A. Palcy, M.A. 3 vols. 16s. each. 

Homer. By F. A. Paley, M.A. Vol. I. 12*. ; Vol. II. 14s. 

Herodotus. By Rev. J. W. Blakesley, B.D. 2 vols. 32s. 

Hesiod. By F. A. Paley, M.A. 10*. Gd. 

Horace. By Rev. A. J. Macleauc, M.A. 18.<. 

Juvenal and Persius. By Rev. A. J. Macleano, M.A. 12*. 

Plato. By W. H. Thompson, D.D. 2 vols. 7s. 6d. each. 

Sophocles. Vol. I. By Rev. F. H. Blaydes, M.A. 18*. 

Vol. II. Philoctetes. Electra. Ajax and Trachinue. By 

r. A. 1 iilcy, M.A. 12. 

Tacitus : The Annals. By the Rev. P. Frost. 15s. 

Terence. By E. St. J. Parry, M.A. 18*. 

Virgil. By J. Coningtou, M.A. 3 vols. 14*. each. 

An Atlas of Classical Geography; Twenty- four Maps. By 

W. Hii .-hiM and Geonri Long, M.A. New edition, with coloured outHiu-.-. 
Imperial 8vo. 12*. 6d. 

rni irith aborc. 

A Complete Latin Grammar. By J. W. Donaldson, D.D. 3n.l 

Kdition. i 


.1 Srrii xt / drrrk anil Latin .liitlinrit,icith I- .ngli.fJi \<>ti-s. Fcap.Svi). 
Caesar : De Bello Gallico. By George Long, M.A. ox. G(/. 

- Books I. III. I .: j. By G. Long, M.A. 2s. Gd. 

Catullus, Tibullus, and Propertius. Si-lickd rooms. "NVith Life. 
By Kcv. A. H. Wratisl:. 

and Sons 

Cicero: De Senectute, De Amicitia, and Select Epistles. By 

Georpe Lonsr, M.A. 4g. 6d. 

Cornelius Nepos. By Rev. J. F. Maemiohael. 2s. 6<7. 
Homer : Iliad. Books I.-XII. By F. A. Paley, M.A. 6. Grf. 

Horace. With Life. By A. J. Macleane, M.A. 6s. Grf. [In 

2 parts. 3s. 6d. each.] 

Juvenal : Sixteen Satires. By H. Prior, M.A. 4s. 6rf. 
Martial: Select Epigrams. With Life. By F. A. Paley, M.A. 6s. bd. 
Ovid: the Fasti. By F. A. Paley, M.A/ 5s. 

Sallust: Catilina and Jugurtha. With Life. By G. Long, M.A. 5s. 
Tacitus : Germania and Agricola. By Pvev. P. Frost. 3s. 6d. 
Virgil : Bucolics, Georgics, and ^Eneid, Books I.-IV. Abridged 

from Professor Conin<:ton s Edition. 5s.6d. .Sneid, Books V. XII 

Also in 9 poparate Volumes, Is. 6<l. each. 

Xenophon: The Anabasis. With Life. By Rev. J.F.Macmichael. os. 
Also in 4 separate volume*, Is. fit/, each. 

The Cyropaedia. By G. M. Gorham, M.A. 6s. 

Memorabilia. By Percival Frost, M.A. 4s. 6d. 

A Grammar-School Atlas of Classical Geography, containing 
Ten selected Map?. Imperial 8\o. 5s. 

Uniform with the Series. 

The New Testament, in Greek. With English Notes, &c. Ey 
Rev. J. F. Macuiiehael. 7*. Gd. 


yEschylus. By F. A. Paley, M.A. 3s. 

Cffisar: De Bello Gallico. By G. Long, M.A. 2s. 

Cicero : De Senectute et de Amicitia, et Epistolas Selectae. By 

G. Lon?, M.A. Is. 6d. 

Ciceronis Orationes. Vol. I. (in Verrem.) ByG. Long, M.A. 3s.6<i. 
Euripides. By F. A. Paley, M.A. 3 vols. 3s. 6d. each. 
Herodotus. By J. G. Blakesley, B.D. 2 vols. 7s. 
Homeri Ilias. I.-XII. By F. A. Paley, M.A. 2.,-. M. 
Horatius. By A. J. Macleane, M.A. 2s. CJ. 
Juvenal et Persius. By A. J. Macleano, M.A. Is. GJ. 
Lucretius. By H. A. J. Munro, M.A. 2s. G</. 
Sall usti Crispi Catilina et Jugurtha. By G. Long, M.A. Is. 6<7. 
Sophocles. By ! . A. Paley. M.A. In the i>re.^. 

Terenti Comosdiee. By W. Wngucr, Ph.D. 3s. 
Thucydides. By J. G. Donaldson, D.D. 2 vols. 7s. 
Virgilius. By J. Conington, M.A. 3s. 6d. 
Xenophontis Expeditio Cyri. By J. F. Macmichael, B.A. 2s. 6<Z. 

Novum Testamentum Graecum. By F. H. Scrivener, M.A. 
is. 6d. An edition -vith vu<lc inartriu for notes, half bound, 12*. 

Educational Works. 


.I Stlfction of the most n.iunll;/ r .<(</ <>i the Greek and I. tit in Authors, 

Annottitedfor Schools. Fcap. Svo. Is. (></. <<;</(.. /ritli . <, /itimis. 
Euripides. Alccstis.- -Modoa. -Hippolytus.- Hecuba. Bacchic. 

Ion. 2. Orestes. Phoenissro. TroadeK. By F. A. Paley, M. \. 
.aSschylus. Prometheus Vinctus. Septem contra Thebas. Aga- 

nioinnon. Persa?. Eumenides. By F. A. Paley, M.A. 
Sophocles. (Kdipus Tyrannus. (Edipua Coloneus. Antigone. 

By K. A. Pfvley, M.A. 

Homer. Iliad. Book I. By F. A. Paley, M.A. Is. 
Terence. Aiuhia. Hauton Timorumenos. Phormio. Adelphoo. 

l!v I rofiu-or Wiisnicr, Ph.D. 

Cicero s De Senectute De Amicitia and Epistolte Selecta;. By 

G. Long, M.A. 

Ovid. Selections. By A. J. Macleane, M.A. 
Othc,- in preitaration. 


A Series of Classical Texts, annotated by VMU-kxown Mmlars. d: Sco. 
Aristophanes. The Peace. By F. A. Paley, M.A. 4s. 6d. 

The Acharnians. By F. A. Paley, M.A. 4s. 6d. 

The Frogs. By F. A. Paley, M.A. 4s. 6d. 

Cicero. The Letters to Atticus. Bk. I. By A. Pretor, M.A. 4s. Gd. 
Demosthenes de Falsa Legatione. By R. Shilleto, M.A. 6s. 

The Law of Leptines. By B. W. Beatson, M.A. 3s. 6d. 

Plato. The Apolopy of Socrates and Crito. By W. Wagner, Pli.D. 

Cth Edition, is. 6d. 

The Phredo. Gth Edition. By W. Wagner, Ph.D. 5s. fid. 

The Protagoras. 3rd Edition. By W. Wayte, M.A. 4s. 6d. 

The Euthyphro. 2nd edition. By G. H. Wells, M.A. 3s. 

The Euthydemus. By G. H. Wells, M.A. 4*. 

ThaBetrablic. Books I. A II. By G. H. Wells, M.A. 5*.M. 

Plautus. The Aulularia. By W. Wagner, Ph.D. 2nd edition. 4s. M. 

Trinummus. By W. Wagner, Ph.D. 2nd edition, it. M. 

The Menaechmei. By W. Wagner, Ph.D. 4s. &l. 

Sophoclis TrachuiiaB. By A. Pretor, M.A. 4.?. 6<f. 
Terence. By W. Wagner, Ph.D. 10. 6d. 
Theocritus. By F. A. Paley, M.A. 4. 6d. 

(W/l> :<>n. 

JEtna. By H. A. J. Munro, M.A. 3s. 6rf. 
Aristophanis ComoDdine. By H. A. Holden, LL.D. Svo. 2 vols. 

. Plays sold separately. 

Pax. By F. A. Paley, M.A. Fcap. Svo. 4s. Gd. 

Catullus. By H. A. J. Munro, M.A. 7s. ( ,</. 

Corpus Poetarum Latinorum. Edited by Walker. 1vol. Svo. 18. 

Horace. Quinti Horatii Flacci Opera. By H. A. J. Munro, M.A. 

Large Svo. H. 1. 
Livy. The first five Books. By J. Prendeville. 12mo. ronn. ".. 

Or Books I. -III. a. 6d. IV. and V. 3. 6d. 

George Bell and Sons 

Lucretius. Titi Lucretii Cari de Rerum Natura Libn Sex. With 

a Translation and Notes. By H. A. J. Munro, M.A. 2 vols. 8ve. Vol. I. 

Text. (Hew Bdttion, FMpanag.) Vol. II. Translation. (Sold separately.) 
Ovid. P. Ovidii Nasonis Hcroides XIV. By A. Palmer, M.A. 8vo. 6*. 
Propertius. Sex Aurelii Propertii Carmina. By F. A. Paley, M.A. 

8vo. Cloth, 9s. 

Sex. Propertii Elegiarum. Lib. IV. By A. Palmer. Fcap. 8vo. us. 
Sophocles. The Ajax. By C. E. Palmer, M.A. 4*. M. The History of the Peloponnesian War. By Ricliard 

Shilleto, M.A. Book I. 8vo. 6s. 6d. Book II. 8vo. ,.*. <;./. 


Auxilia Latina. A Series of Progressive Latin Exercises. By 

M. J. B. Baddeloy. M.A. Fcap. 8vo. Part I. Accidence. Is. 6d. Part II. 

3rd Edition, 2s. Key, 2s. 6d. 
Latin Prose Lessons. By Prof. Church, M.A. Gth Edit. Fcap. 8vo. 

2s. 6d. 
Latin Exercises and Grammar Papers. By T. Collins, M.A. 3rd 

Edition. Fcap. 8vo. 2s. 6d. 
Unseen Papers in Prose and Verse. With Examination Questions. 

By T. Collins, M.A. 2nd edition. Fcap. 8vo. 2s. 6d. 
Analytical Latin Exercises. By C. P. Mason, B.A. 3rd Edit. 3s. &d, 
ScalaGraeca: a Series of Elementary Greek Exercises. By Rev. J.W. 

Davis, M.A., and R. W. Baddeley, M.A. 3rd Edition. Fcap. Svo. 2s. 6d. 
Greek Verse Composition. By G. Preston, M.A. Crown Bvo.-lx.i;./. 
EclogEB Latinse ; or, First Latin Reading-Book, with English Notes 

and a Dictionary. New Edition. Fcap. 8vo. 2s. 6d. 
Materials for Latin Prose Composition. New Edition. Fcap. Svo. 

2s. 6d. Key, 4s. 
A Latin Verse-Book. An Introductory Work on Hexameters and 

Pentameters. New Edition. Fcap. Svo. 3s. Key, 5s. 
Analecta Graeca Minora, with Introductory Sentences, English 

Notes, and a Dictionary. Now Edition. Fcap. Svo. 3s. 6d. 
Materials for Greek Prose Composition. New Edit. Fcap. Svo. 

3s. 6d. Key, 5s. 
Florilegium Poeticum. Elegiac Extracts from Ovid and Tibullus. 

New Edition. With Notes. Fcap. Svo. 3s. 


A First Cheque-book for Latin Verse-makers. l.<. Gd. 
A Latin Version for Masters. 2s. 6d. 
Reddenda ; or Passages with Parallel Hints for Translation into 

Latin Prose and Verse. Crown Svo. 4s. Cd. 
Reddenda Reddita (see next page). 

Foliorum Silvula. Part I. Passages for Translation into Latin 

Kloiriac and Heroic Verso. 9th Edition. Post Svo. 7s. 6d. 
. Part II. Select Passages for Translation into Latin Lyrio 

and Comic Iambic Verse. 3rd Edition. Post 8vo. 5s. 

Part III. Select Passages for Translation into Greek Verse. 

3rd Edition. Post Svo. 

Educational Works. 

Folia Silvulse, sivc Eclogfe Poetarnm Anglicorum in Latinum et 

. 8vo. Vol. I. 10s. 6d. Vol. II. 12s. 

Foliorum CenturiaB. Select Passages for Translation into Latin 
and (Jrrrk Tro-i-. 7th Kdition. Post 8vo. 8s. 

%* Many of the following books are well adapted for School Prizes. 

.ffischylus. Translated into English Prose by F. A. Paley, M.A. 

2nd Edition. 8vo. 7s. 6d. 
Translated into English Verse by Anna Swanwick. Post 

8vo. 5. 
Anthologia Graeca. A Selection of Choice Greek Poetry, with Notes. 

By F. St. John Thackeray. 4th and Cheaper Edition. 16mo. 4s. 6d. 
Anthologia Latina. A Selection of Choice Latin Poetry, from 

NSBVUIS to BoSthius, with Notes. By Rev. F. St. John Thackeray. Revised 

and Cheaper Edition. 16mo. 4*. 6d. 

Horace. The Odes and Carmen Saeculare. In English Verse by 
J. Conington, M.A. 8th edition. Fcap. 8vo. 5s. 6d. 

- The Satires and Epistles. In English Verse by J. Coning 
ton, M.A. 5th edition. 6s. 6<i. 

Illustrated from Antique Gems by C. W. King, M.A. The 

text revised with Introduction by H. A. J. Munro, M.A. Large 8vo. 11. Is. 
Horace s Odes. Englished and Imitated by various hands. Edited 

by C. VT. F. Cooper. Crown 8vo. 6s. <kl. 
MVSEB Etonenses, trive Carminvm Etoiite Conditorvm Delectvs. 

By Richard Okes. 2 vols. 8vo. 15s. 
Propertius. Verse translations from Book V., with revised Latin 

Text. By F. A. Paloy, M.A. Fcap. 8vo. 3s. 
Plato. Gorgias. Translated by E. M. Cope, M.A. 8vo. 7s. 

Philebus. Translated by F. A. Paley, M.A. Small 8vo. 4. 

Theaetetus. Translated by F. A. Paley, M.A. Small 8vo, 4*. 

Analysis and Index of the Dialogues. By Dr. Day. Post 

8vo. 5s. 

Reddenda Reddita : Passages from English Poetry, with a Latin 

Verso Translation. By F. E. Gretton. Crown 8vo. 6s. 
Sabrinae Corolla in hortulis Regite Scholae Salopiensiscontexuerunt 

tres viri floribus legendis. Editio tertia. 8vo. 8s. 6d. 
Sertum Carthusianum Floribus trium Scculorum Contextum. By 

W. H. Brown. 8vo. Us. 
Theocritus. In English Verse, by C. S. Calverley, M.A. Crown 

8vo. l- .iiiii >/i pn | 

Translations into Englisli and Latin. By C. S. Calverley, M.A. 

Post 8vo. ?K. 6d. 
- By R. C. Jebb, M.A. ; H. Jackson, M.A., and W. E. Currey, 

M.A. Crown 8vo. 8s. 

into Greek and Latin Verse. By R. C. Jebb. 4to. cloth 

Kilt. 10. 6d. 
Between Whiles. Translations by B. H. Kennedy. 2nd Edition 

ivvi-. il. I ripwn v . 

6 George Bell and 


A Latin Grammar. By Albert llaikncss. 1 ost s\<>. <;.<. 
- By T. H. Key, M.A. 6th Thousand. Post 8vo. H,-. 

A Short Latin Grammar for Schools. By T. H. Key, M.A., 

I . U.S. 14th Edition. Post 8vo. 3s. 6d. 
A Guide to the Choice of Classical Books. By J. B. Mayor, M.A. 

Ueviscd Edition. Crown 8vo. 3s. 
The Theatre of the Greeks. By J. W. Donaldson, D.D. 8th 

Edition. Post 8vo. 5s. 
Keightley s Mythology of Greece and Italy. 4th Edition. >.-. 

A Dictionary of Latin and Greek Quotations. By II. T. Riley. 

Post 8vo. 5s. With Index Verborum, 6s. 
A History of Roman Literature. By \V. S. Teuffel, Professor at 

the University of Tubingen. By W. Wagner, Ph.D. 2 vols. Deuiy 8vo. 21s. 
Student s Guide to the University of Cambridge. 4th Edition 

revised. Fcap. 8vo. Part 1. 2s. 6<1. ; Parts 2 to 6, l.s. each. 


Latin Accidence. By the Rev. P. Frost, M.A. Is. 
Latin Versification. Is. 

Notabilia Qusedam ; or the Principal Tenses of most of the 
Irregular Greek Verbs and Elementary Greek, Latin, and French Con 
struction. New Edition. Is. 

Richmond Rules for the Ovidian Distich, &c. By J. Tate, 
M.A. Is. 

The Principles of Latin Syntax. Is. 

Greek Verbs. A Catalogue of "Verbs, Irregular and Defective ; their 
leadin? formations, tenses, and inflexions, with Paradigms for conjugation. 
Rules for formation of tenses, &c. &c. By J. S. Baird, T.C.D. 2.s. 6d. 

Greek Accents (Notes on). By A. Barry, D.D. New Edition. 1*. 

Homeric Dialect. Its Leading Forms and Peculiarities. By J. S. 

Baird, T.C.D. New Edition, by W. G. Kutherford. Is. 
Greek Accidence. By the Rev. P. Frost, M.A. New Edition, 1*. 


Whitworth s Choice and Chance. 3rd Edition. Crown KY<>. t x. 
McDowell s Exercises on Euclid and in Modern Geometry. 

:!nl Edition. <>.-. 

Vyvyan s Trigonometry. :;.-. ( /. [.///*/ iml>lixln-<i. 

Taylor s Geometry of Conies. Elementary. :>rd Edition. 4s. 6<i. 
Aldis s Solid Geometry. 3rd Edition, (i.--. 
Garnett s Elementary Dynamics. Jud Edition. i ..v. 

Heat, an Elementary Treatise. Jnd Edition. :ix. 6rf. 

Walton s Elementary Mechanics (I loblems in). Jnd Edition. ti<. 



A .sVnV* o/ Kl< nifntary Treatises for the of Student* in the 

I liircrsitiex, Sclioolt, and Candidate* for the Public 

Examinations. Fcap. 8ro. 

Arithmetic. By Rev. C. Elsce, M.A. Fcap. 8vo. 10th Edit. 3. 6d. 
Algebra. By the Rev. C. Elsee, M.A. 6th Edit. 4s. 
Arithmetic. By A. Wrigley, M.A. 3s. M. 

A Progressive Course of Examples. With Answers. By 

J. Watson, M.A. 5th Edition, Us. 6d. 

Algebra. Progressive Course of Examples. By Rev. W. F. 
M Mirhii. 1, M.A.. and R. Prowdo Smith, M.A. 2nd Edition. 3*.6d. With 

AllSWlTS. I 

Plane Astronomy, An Introduction to. By P. T. Main, M.A. 

tt li Kdition. 4.s. 
Conic Sections treated Geometrically. By W. H. Besant, M.A. 

Itli Edition. 4s. 6<I. Solution to the Examples. 4s. 
Elementary Conic Sections treated Geometrically. By W. II. 

Beaant, M.A. [/ the Pre*-. 

Statics, Elementary. By Rev. H. Gotdwin, D.D. 2nd Edit. 3*. 
Hydrostatics, Elementary. By W. H. Besant, M.A. 10th Edit. 4s. 
Mensuration, An Elementary Treatise on. By B.T. Moore, M.A. G*. 
Newton s Principia, The First Three Sections of, with an Appen 

dix ; and tho Ninth ail Eleventh Sections. By J. II. Evans, M.A. 5th 

Edition, by P. T. Main, M.A. 4.. 

Trigonometry, Elementary. By T. P. Hudson, M.A. 3s. 6d. 
Optics, Geometrical. With Answers. By W. S. Aldis, M.A. 3s. 6rf. 
Analytical Geometry for Schools. By T. G. Vyvyan. 3rd Edit. 4x. 6</. 

Greek Testament, Companion to the. By A. C. Barrett, A.M. 

4th Edition, iv\ i-.-d. Fcap. 8vo. 5s. 
Book of Common Prayer, An Historical and Explanatory Treatise 

on tho. By W. (.. Humphry, B.C. 6th Edition. Fenp. 8vo. 4*. Gd. 
Music, Text-book of. By H. C. Banister. 9th Edit, revised. 5*. 

Concise History of. By Rev. H. G. Bonavia Hunt, 15. Mus. 
Oxon. 5th Edition revised. 3.. 6d. 


S, f foregoing Series. 


Text-Book of Geometry. By T. S. Aldis, M.A. Small 8vo. 

4s. 6d. Part I. b. U. Pr1 I 

The Elements of Euclid. By H. J. Hose. Fcap. 8vo. 4s. 6d. 
Exercises separately, Is. 

- The First Six Books, with Commentary by Dr. Lardner. 
10th Edition. 8vo. 6. 

The First Two Books explained to Beginners. By C. P. 

Mason, I .. A. _ r..l I-Mitin:;. Imp 8vo. 2s. 

George Bell and Sons 

The Enunciations and Figures to Euclid s Elements. By Rev. 

J. Brasse, D.D. New Edition. l- cap-Svo. Is. On Cards, in case, 5s. 6iL 
Without the Figures, Gd. 

Exercises on Euclid and in Modern Geometry. By J. McDowell, 

B.A. Crown 8vo. 3rd Edition revised. 6s. 

Geometrical Conic Sections. By W. H. Besant, M.A. 4th Edit. 

is. 6d. Solution to the Example?. l.. 
Elementary Geometrical Conic Sections. By W. H. Besant, 

M.A. [In //i j-res*. 

Elementary Geometry of Conies. By C. Taylor, D.I). 3rd Edit. 

8vo. 4s. 6d. 
An Introduction to Ancient and Modern Geometry of Conies. 

By C. Taylor, M.A. 8vo. 15*. 
Solutions of Geometrical Problems, proposed at St. John s 

College from 1830 to 184<3. By T. Gaskin, M.A. 8vo. 12s. 


Trigonometry, Introduction to Plane. By liev. T. G. Vyvyan, 

Charterhouse. Cr. 8vo. :J.i. 6<J. 

Elementary Trigonometry. By T. P. Hudson, M.A. 3s. 6rf. 
An Elementary Treatise on Mensuration. By B. T. Moore, 


An Introduction to Analytical Plane Geometry. By W. P. 

TurnbuU, M.A. 8vo. 12s. 
Problems on the Principles of Plane Co-ordinate Geometry. 

By W. Walton, M.A. 8vo. 16s. 
Trilinear Co-ordinates, and Modern Analytical Geometry of 

Two Dimensions. By W. A. Whitworth, M.A. 8vo. 16s. 
An Elementary Treatise on Solid Geometry. By W. S. Aldis, 

M.A. 2nd Edition revised. 8ro. 8s. 
Elementary Treatise on the Differential Calculus. By M. 

O Brien, M.A. 8vo. 10*. 6d. 
Elliptic Functions, Elementary Treatise on. By A. Cayley, M.A. 

Demy 8vo. 15s. 


Statics, Elementary. By H. Goodwin, D.D. Fcap. 8vo. 2nd 
Edition. 3s. 

Dynamics, A Treatise on Elementary. By W. Garnett, M.A. 
2nd Edition. Crown 8vo. Os. 

Elementary Mechanics, Problems in. By W. Walton, M.A. New- 
Edition. Crown 8vo. (>.-. 

Theoretical Mechanics, Problems in. By W. Walton. 2nd Edit, 
revised and enlarged. Demy 8vo. in-. 

Educational Work*. 9 

Hydrostatics. l ,y W. H.Bcsunt, M.A. Fcap.Svo. lOthEdition. 4*. 
Hydromechanics, A Treatise on. By W. II. Besant, M.A. 8vo. 

Dynamics of a Particle, A Treatise on the. By W. H. Besant, M.A. 

Optics, Geometrical. By W. S. Aldis, M.A. Fcap. 8vo. 3s. 6d. 

Double Refraction, A Chapter on Fresnel s Theory of. By W. S 
AlcliB, M.A. 8vo. 2s. 

Heat, An F.lomentary Treatise on. By W. Garnett, M.A. Crown 
8vo. 2nd Edition revised. 3*. 6d 

Newton s Principia, The First Three Sections of, with an Appen 
dix ; and tin- Ninth and Eleventh Sections. By J. H. Evans, M A 5th 
Edition. Edited by P. T. Main, M.A. 4*. 

Astronomy, An Introduction to Plane. By P. T. Main, M.A. 
Fcap. 8vo. cloth. 4s 

Astronomy, Practical and Spherical. By R. Main, M.A. 8vo. 14*. 
Astronomy, Elementary Chapters on, from the Astronomic 
me ofBiot. By H. Goodwin, D.D. 8vo. 3s. 6cl. 

Pure Mathematics and Natural Philosophy, A Compendium of 

Facts and Formula; in. By G. R. Smaller. L nd Edition, ivvi>d l>v 
J. McDowell, M.A. Fcap. 8vo. 3s. 6d. 

Elementary Course of Mathematics. By H. Goodwin, D.D. 

Cth Edition. 8vo. 16s. 

Problems and Examples, adapted to the Elementary Course of 
Mathematics. 3rd Edition. 8vo. 5s. 

Solutions of Goodwin s Collection of Problems and Examples. 

By W. W. Hutt, M.A. 3rd Edition, revised and enlarged. 8vo. 9s. 
Pure Mathematics, Elementary Examples in. By J. Taylor. 8vo. 
7s. 6d. 

Mechanics of Construction. With numerous Examples. By 
8. Fenwick, F.R.A.S. 8vo 12*. 

Pure and Applied Calculation, Notes on the Principles of. By 
Rev. J. Challis, M.A. Demy 8vo. 15*. 

Physics, The Mathematical Principle of. By Eev. J. Challis, M A. 
Demy 8vo. 5s. 


Edited by H. TIM nun \Yoon, Secretary of the 

: y df Art>. 

1. Dyeing and Tissue Printing. By W. Crookes, F.R.S. 

In the pi-ess. 
_>. Iron and Steel. r,y 1 mf. A. K. Hunting-ton, of King s Collect-. 

-. Cotton Manufacture. 1;\ i;ir!>.u<l M !., of Man- 

I. Telegraphs and Telephones, llv \V. II. 1 n ceo, l- .H.S. 

/ ,i.-iii|/. 

~>. Glass Manufacture. By 1 1. my Chance, M.A. ; II. Powell, B. A.; 

and John, M.A., 1.1..!)., I. U.S. /,i II.. 

10 George Bell and Son* 


Rome and the Campagna. By R. Burn, M.A. With 85 En- 
<rravi:i-r- and 1 ii Maps and Plans. With Appendix. 4to. 31. 3s. 

Old Rome. A Handbook for Travellers. By R. Burn, M.A. 
With Maps MTU! Plans. Demy 8vo. 10s. (M. 

Modern Europe. By Dr. T. II. Dyer. 2nd Edition, revised and 
continued. 5 vols. Demy 8vo. 21. 12s. 6d. 

The History of the Kings of Rome. By Dr. T. H. Dyer. 8vo. 16*. 

The History of Pompeii : its Buildings and Antiquities. By 
T. H. Dyer. 3rd Edition, brought down to 187 1. Post Svo. 7*. 6d. 

Ancient Athens : its History, Topography, and Remains. By 
T. H. Dyer. Suiwr-royal Svo. Cloth. 11. 5s. 

The Decline of the Roman Republic. Ly G. Long. 5 vola. 
8vo. 14s. each. 

A History of England during the Early and Middle Age3. By 
C. H. Pearson, M.A. 2nd Edition revised and enlarged. Svo. Vol. I. 
16s. Vol. II. 14s. 

Historical Maps of England. By C. H. Pearson. Folio. 2nd 
Kdition revised. 31s. CJ. 

History of England, 1800-15. By Harriet Martineau, with new 
and copious Index. 1 vol. 3s. 6J. 

History of the Thirty Years Peace, 1815-46. By Harriet Mar 
tineau. 4 vols. 3s. 6cl. each. 

A Practical Synopsis of English History. By A. Bowes. 4th 

Edition. Svo. 2s. 
Student s Text-Book of English and General History. By 

]). Bealc. Crown Svo. 2s. Gd. 

Lives of the Queens of England. By A. Strickland. Library 
Edition, 8 vols. 7s. 6d. each. Cheaper Edition, 6 vols. 5s. each. Abridged 
Edition, 1 vol. 6s. 6d. 

Eginhard s Life of Karl the Great (Charlemagne). Translated 
with Notes, by W. Glaister, M.A., B.C.L. Crown Svo. 4s. 6J. 

Outlines of Indian History. By A. W. Hughes. Small post 

Svo. is. 6d. 

The Elements of General History. By Prof. Tytler. New 
Edition, brought down to 187 i. Small post Svo. 


An Atlas of Classical Geography. 21 M;i;>>. By W. Hughes 
:md G. Long, M.A. New Edition. Imperial Svo. 1- . 

A Grammar-School Atlas of Classical Geography. Ten Maps 
selected from tlie above. New Edition. Im; !-. 

First Classical Maps. By the Rev. .1. Tate, M.A. 3rd Edition. 

lm;MMi;il >MO. 7-. I . 

Standard Library Atlas of Classical Geography. Imp. Svo. T^.GJ. 

Educational Works. 11 


(H7ACM. With Dr. Mnhn .- Etymolopy. 1 fwL, 1O8 PgW, 8000 Illn-- 
tnitioi Jl . With Appendices MM 70 additional pages of Jllustni- 

.: !!> 1 iures, 31. 6d. 

Prospectuses, with specimen pajras, post free on application. 
New Dictionary of the English Language. Combining Explan 
ation with Etymology, and copiously illustrated by Quotations from the 
By Dr. Richardson. Now Edition, with a Supplement. 
- vols. 4to. 41. Its. 6ci. ; half russia. 51. 15s. 6d.; russia, 61. 128. Supplement 
separately. 4to. 12*. 

>. Edit, without the Quotations, 15s.; lialf russia, 20s.; russia, 24s. 
Supplementary English Glossary. Containing 12.000 Words and 
.linjfs occurring ill English Literature, not found in any other 
! .iry. By T. L. O. Davies. Demy 8vo. 16s. 

Dictionary of Corrupted Words. By Rev. A. S. Palmer, [in the ]>.<*<. 
Brief History of the English Language. By Prof. James Hadley, 

1 . 1 . . 1 >. . Yale College. Foap. 8vo. Is. 
The Elements of the English Language. By E. Adams, Ph.D. 

15th Edition. Post 8vo. 4s. 6d. 

Philological Essays. By T. H. Key, M.A., F.R.S. 8vo. 10*. &d. 
Language, its Origin and Development. By T. H. Key, M.A., 

F.H.S. 8vo. 14s. 

Synonyms and Antonyms of the English Language. By Arch 
deacon Smith, liud Edition. Post 8vo. 5.s. 

Synonyms Discriminated. By Archdeacon Smith. DemyBvo. 16s. 
Bible Enghsh. By T. L. 0. Davies. os. 

The Queen s English. A Manual of Idiom and Usage. By the 
hiti- Dean Alford. 5th Edition. Fcap. 8vo. 5s. 

Etymological Glossary of nearly 2500 English Words de- 
I rom the Greek. By the Kev. E. J. Boyce. Fcap. 8vo. 3s. 6d. 

A Syriac Grammar. By G. Phillips, D.D. 3rd Edition, enlarged. 
8ro. 7s. 6<i. 

A. Grammar of the Arabic Language. By Rev. W. J. Beau 
mont, M.A. 12mo. 7. 


Novum Testamentum Grsecum, Textus Stephanici, 1550. By 

K IT. Scrivener, A.M., LL.D. New Edition. 16tno. 4s. 6d. Also on 
Writin;, 1 aper, with Wide Margin. Half-bound, li-. 

By the same Author. 

Codex Bezee Cantabrigiensis. 4to. 26s. 
A Full Collation of the Codex Sinaiticus with the Received Text 

of the New Testament, with Critical Introduction. 2ml Edition, K 

Fcap. 8vo. 5s. 

A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament. 

With Forty Facsimiles from Ancient Manuscripts. 2nd Edition. S-. 

Six Lectures on the Text of the New Testament. For English 

Readers. Crown 8vo. 6s. 

12 George Bell and Sons 

The New Testament for English Readers. By the late H. Alford, 
D.D. Vol. I. Part I. 3rd Edit. 12s. Vol. I. Part "l I. 2nd Edit. 10,.6d. 
Vol. II. Part I. 2nd Edit. 16s. Vol. II. Part II. 2nd Edit. 16*. 

The Greek Testament. By the late H. Alford, D.D. Vol. I. 6th 
Edit. 11. 8s. Vol. II. 6th Edit. 11. 4s. Vol. III. 5tli Edit. IS*. Vol. IV. 
Part I. 4th Ldit. IRs. Vol. IV. Part II. 4th Edit. 14*. Vol. IV. 11. I- *. 

Companion to the Greek Testament. By A. C. Barrett, M.A. 

4th Edition, revised. Fcap. 8vo. 5s. 

The Book of Psalms. A New Translation, with Introductions, Ac. 
By the Very Rev. J. J. Stewart Pcrowne, D.D. 8vo. Vol. I. 4th Edition, 
18*. Vol. II. 4th Edit. 16*. 

Abridged for Schools. 3rd Edition. Crown 8vo. 10.?. 6d. 

History of the Articles of Religion. By C. H. Hard wick. 3rd 

Edition. Post 8vo. 5s. 

History of the Creeds. By J. R. Lumby, D.D. 2nd Edition. 
Crown 8vo. 7s. 6(1. 

Pearson on the Creed. Carefully printed from an early edition. 
With Analysis and Index by E. Walford, M.A. Post 8vo. 5. 

An Historical and Explanatory Treatise on the Book of 
Common Prayer. By Rev. W. G. Humphry, B.D. Gth Edition, enlarged. 
Small post 8vo. 4*. 6d. 

The New Table of Lessons Explained. By Eev. W. G. Humphry, 
B.D. Fcap. Is. 6d. 

A Commentary on the Gospels for the Sundays and other Holy 
Days of the Christian Year. By Rev. W. Denton, A.M. Is ew Edition. 
3 vols. 8vo. 54s. Sold separately. 

Commentary on the Epistles for the Sundays and other Holy 
Days of the Christian Year. By Rev. W. Denton, A.M. 2 36s. Sold 

Commentary on the Acts. By Kev. "W. Denton, A.M. Vol. I. 
8vo. 18s. Vol. II. 14s. 

Notes on the Catechism. By Rev. ( anon Barry, D.D. dth Edit. 

Fcap. 2s. 
Catechetical Hints and Helps. By Rev. E. J. Boyce, M.A. 4th 

Edition, revised. Fcap. 2s. 6d. 

Examination Papers on Religious Instruction. By Rev. E. J. 
Boyce. Sewed. Is. 6d. 

Church Teaching for the Church s Children. An Exposition 
of the Catechism. By the Rev. F. W. Harper. Sq. fcap. 2s. 

The Winton Church Catechist. Questions and Answers on the 
Teaching of the Church Catechism. By the late Hev. J. S. B. Monsell, 
LL.D. 3rd Edition. Cloth, 3s.; or in Four Parts, sew d. 

The Church Teacher s Manual of Christian Instruction. By 
Rev. M. F. Sadler. 21st Thousand. - 

Short Explanation of the Epistles and Gospels of the Chris 
tian Year, with Questions. Royal 32mo. 2s. 6d.; calf, 4s. 6d. 

Butler s Analogy of Religion ; with Introduction and Index by 
Rev. Dr. Steere. New Edition. Fcap. 3s. 6d. 

Three Sermons on Human Nature, and Dissertation on 

Virtue. By W. Whewell, D.D. 4th Edition. Fcap. 8vo. 2a. 6d. 

Educational Works. 13 

Lectures on the History of Moral Philosophy in England. Bv 

W. Whewell, D.D. Crown 8vo. 8. 
Kent s Commentary on International Law. By J. T. Abdv, 

I, I.. I). New :mtl < li( :ip Kilition. Crown 8vo. 10. GU. 

A Manual of the Roman Civil Law. By G. Leapin^well, LL D 

u . 


A series for ue in ScJiools, with Enqligh Notes, grammatical and 

explanatory, and renderings of difficult idiomatic expressions. 

Fcap. 8vo. 

Schiller s Wallenstein. By Dr. A. Buchheim. 3rd Edit. G*. Gtf. 
Or tin! L.i _ er and Piccolomini, 3.?. 6d. Wallonstoin g Tod, 3s. 6J. 

Maid of Orleans. By Dr. W. Wagner. 3*. Gd. 

Maria Stuart. By V. Kastner. 3*. 

Goethe s Hermann and Dorothea. By E. Bell, M.A., and 

E. W61fel. 2*. 6d. 
German Ballads, from Uhland, Goethe, and Schiller. By C. L. 

Bielefeld. 3rd Edition. 3s. 6d. 
Charles XII., par Voltaire. By L. Direy. -1th Edition. 3*. 6d. 

Aventures de Tclemaque, par Fenelon. By C. J. Delille. 2nd 
Edition. 4s. 6d. 

Select Fables of La Fontaine. By F. E. A. Gasc. 1-lth Edition. 3s. 
Picciola.Ly X.B. Saintine. ByDr.Dubuc. llth Thousand. 3s. G</. 


Twenty Lessons in French. With Vocabulary, giving the Pro 
nunciation. By W. Brebner. Post 8vo. 4s. 

French Grammar for Public Schools. By Ecv. A. C. Clapiu, M.A. 
;>. 8vo. !th Edition, revised. 2s. 6d. 

French Primer. By Rev. A. C. Clapin, M.A. Fcap. 8vo. -1th Edit. 

Primer of French Philology. By Rev. A. C. Clapin. Fcap. 8vo. U 
Le Nouveau Tr sor; or, French Student s Companion. By 
M. K. S. loth Kdition. Fcap. 8vo. 3*. 6d. 

First French Book. Fcap 8vo. 7Gth Thousand. 1*. GJ. 
Second French Book. :!7th Th.uisuml. Fcap. 8vo. 2s. GJ. 
Key to First and S<;coml Frcucli Books. Fcap. 8vo. 3.<. (id. 

French Fables for Beginners, in Prose, with Index. MthTlioi;!. 

Select Fables of La Fontaine. New Edition. Fcap. 8vo. :i-. 
Histoires Amusantes et Instructives. With Notes. 1 1th Thou- 

Fcap. 8vo. - 

14 George Bell and Sons 

Practical Guide to Modern French Conversation. 12th Thou- 

-timl. lV:i]>. 8vo. 2s. 6J. 

French Poetry for the Young. With Notes. 4th Edition. Fcap. 

8vo. 2s. 
Materials for French Prose Composition ; or, Selections from 

the best English Prose Writers. 15th Thousand. Fcap. 8vo. 4. 6d. 

Key, 6s. 
Prosateurs Contemporahis. With Notes. 8vo. Oth Edition, 

revised. 5s. 
Le Petit Compagnon; a French Talk-Book for Little Children. 

10th Thousand. 16mo. 2s. 6d. 
An Improved Modern Pocket Dictionary of the French and 

English Language;:. 150th Thousand, with Additions. 16mo. Cloth. 4*. 

Also in 2 vols., in neat leatherette, 5s. 
Modern French-English and English-French Dictionary. 2nd 

Edition, revised. In 1 vol. 12s. Gd. (formerly 2 vols. 25s.) 


Being a Selection of the best Tragedies and Comedies of Moliere, 
Racine, Corneille, and Voltaire. With Arpmments and Notes by A. 
Gombert. New Edition, revised by F. E. A. Gasc. Fcap. 8vo. Is. each ; 
sewed, 6d. CONTENTS. 

MOLIERE : Le Misanthrope. L Avare. Le Bourgeois Gentilhomme. Le 
Tartuffe. Le Malade Imaginaire. Les Femmes Savantes. Les Fonrberioa 
de Scapin. Les Pre cieuses Ridicules. L Ecole des Femmes. L Ecole des 
Maris. Le Me decin malgre Lui. 

RACINE: PheMre. Esther. Athalie. Iphige"nie. Les Plaideurs. La 
The"ba!de ; or, Les Freres Ennemis. Andromaque. Britannicus. 
P. CORNEILLE: Le Cid. Horace. Cinna. Polyeucto. 
VOLTAIRE : Zaire. 


Materials for German Prose Composition. By Dr Buchheim. 

7th Edition Fcap. 4s. M. K < 
A German Grammar for Public Schools. By the Rev. A. C. 

Clapin and F. Holl Muller. 2nd Edition. Fcap. 2s. 6d. 
Kotzebue s Der Gefangene. With Notes by Dr. W. Strombo 


A Brief History of the English Language. By Prof. Ja.-. i i 

LL.D., of Yale College. Fc;ip. 8vo. l.v. 
The Elements of the English Language. By E. Adams, Ph.D. 

18th Edition. Post 8vo. 4s. 6d. 
The Rudiments of English Grammar and Analysis. F>y 

E. Adams, Ph.D. 8th Edition. Fcap. 8vo. 2s. 

By C. P. MASON, Fellow of Univ. Coll. London. 
First Notions of Grammar for Young Learners. Fcap. svo. 

10th ThoiiMind. Cloth. 8d. 

First Steps in English Grammar for Junior Cla.~- 
18mo. New Edition. Is. 

Educational Work*. 15 

Outlines of English Grammar for the use of Junior ( : 

-;;L nSvo. 2f. 

English Grammar, including the Principles of Grammatical 

h Edition. 77th Thou.-a,ml. Crown 8vo. 3s. 6J. 

A Shorter English Grammar, with copious Exercises. 8th Tluui- 
. o. 3s. 6tl. 

English Grammar Practice, being the Exercises separately. In. 

Edited for Middle-Class Examinations. 

With Notes on the Analysis and Parsing, and Explanatory Remarks. 
Milton s Paradise Lost, Book I. With Life. 3rd Edit. Post 8vo. 

Book II. "With Life. 2nd Edit. Post 8vo. 2s. 

Book III. With Life. Post 8vo. 2s. 

Goldsmith s Deserted Village. With Life. Post 8vo. Is. Gd. 
Cowper s Task. Book II. With Life. Post 8vo. 2s. 
Thomson s Spring. With Life. Post 8vo. 2s. 

Winter. With Life. Post 8vo. 2s. 

Practical Hints on Teaching. By Rev. J. Menet, M.A. ."th Edit. 
Crown 8vo. cloth, 2i. Gd. ; paper, 2s. 

Test Lessons in Dictation. 2nd Edition. Paper cover, Is. 6d. 

Questions for Examinations in English Literature. By Rev. 
W. W. Skcat, Prof, of Anjrlo-Saxon nt Cambridge University. 2*. <*?. 

Drawing Copies. By P. H. Delomotte. Oblong 8vo. 12a. Sold 

also in parts at 1 . each. 
Poetry for the School-room. New Edition. Fcap. 8vo. Is. Gtl. 

Geographical Text-Book ; a Practical Geography. By M. E. S. 

1-1I.U. - -. 

The Blank Maps done up oeparately, 4to. 2*. coloured. 
Loudon s (Mrs.) Entertaining Naturalist. New Edition. Revised 

by\V. S. Dallas, 1M..S 

Handbook of Botany. New Edition, greatly enlarged by 

D. Woostcr. lV:i;.. 2.-: M. 

The Botanist s Pocket-Book. With a copious Index. By W. 11. 

H:n :!!-.!. I rownSvo. Cloth limp. 4s. 6d. 

Experimental Chemistry, founded on the Work of Dr. Stockhardt. 
By C. W. 1 1 t 8vo. 5s. 

Double Entry Elucidated. By B. W. Foster. 12th Edit. 4to. 

A New Manual of Book-keeping. By P. Crelliu, Accountant. 
Crown 8vo. 



Georye Bell and Sons Educational Works. 

Picture School-Books. In Simple Language, with numerous 
Illustrations. Royal 16mo. 

School Primer. 6d. School Reader. By J. Tilleard. !. Poetry Book 
for Schools. Is. The Life of Joseph. Is. The Scripture Parables. By the 
Rev. J. E. Clarke. Is. The Scripture Miracles. By the Rev. J. E. Clarke. 
!. The New Testament History. By the Rov. J. (4. Wood, M.A. Is. The 
Old Testament History. By the Rev. J. G. Wood, M.A. Is. The Story of 
Bunyan s Pilgrim s Progress. Is. The Life of Christopher Columbus. By 
Sarah Crompton. Is. The Life of Martin Luther. By Surah Croinpton. Is. 


In 8 vols. Limp cloth, 6J. each. 
The Cat and the Hen; Sam and his Dog Red-leg; Bob and Tom L>T ; A 

Wreck The New-born Lamb ; Rosewood Box ; Poor Fan ; Wise Dogr The 

Three Monkeys Story of a Cat, told by Herself The Blind Boy ; The Muto 

Girl ; A New Tale of Babes in a Wood The Dey and tho Knight ; The New 

Bank-note ; The Royal Visit ; A Kind s Walk on a Winter s Day Queen Bee 

and Busy Bee Gull s Crag, a Story of the Sea. 

First Book of Geography. By C. A. Johns. Is. 



The popularity which the Books for Young Readers have attained is 
a sufficient proof that teachers and pupils alike approve of the use of inter 
esting stories, with a simple plot in place of the dry combination of letters and 
syllables, making 1 no impression on the mind, of which elementary reading- 
books generally consist. 

The Publishers have therefore thought it advisable to extend the application 
of this principle to books adapted for more advanced readers. 

Now Ready. Post 8vo. Strongly bound. 
Masterman Ready. By Captain Marryat, E.N. Is. &d. 
The Settlers in Canada. By Captain Manyat, E.N. Is. G<?. 
Parables from Nature. (Selected.) By Mrs. Gatty. Is. 
Friends in Fur and Feathers. By Gwyufryii. Is. 
Robinson Crusoe. Is. 6d. 

Andersen s Danish Tales. (Selected.) By E. Bell, M.A. Is. 
Southey s Life of Nelson. (Abridged.) Is. 
Grimm s German Tales. (Selected.) By E. Bell, M.A. lx. 
Life of the Duke of Wellington, with Maps and Plans. Is. 
Marie ; or, Glimpses of Life in France. By A. II. Ellis. Is. 
Poetry for Boys. By 1). Munro. I--. 
Edgeworlh s Tales ; a Selection, IK. 
Great Englishmen ; Short Lives for Yoiiug Children, l.s. 
Others in Preparation. 

Priute .l by STRXNGEWAYS & SONS, Tower Street, Upper St. Martin s Lane.