Skip to main content

Full text of "Some difficult passages in the first chapter of 2 Corinthians"

See other formats



Benjamin 3. Warfleld 

Sorae Difficult Passages 

in the 

First Chapter of 

2 Corinthians 


.W275 m 

*. ^ 




^of flTS^ 

• e s a (^ 7^ 

- VV2 75 




/>' ^' 


vv axiiciu iwiu 


Some Difficult Passages in the First Chapter 

of 2 Corinthians. ^«- „r n— = 

Of Pff/i^ 


I. 2 Corinthians i. 6. ^^<7i 


THE difficulty in this verse is one of reading, the variations being 
both somewhat complicated and difficult to pass upon. For 
purposes of lucid statement the verse should be divided into three 
clauses, thus : ( l ) etre Se OXifioix^da, virip r^? v/u,a»v TrapaKXT/crccos \_KaX 
(T(i>TrfpLa<i'\ ', (2) €iT€ TrapaKoXovfieOa^ virkp t^s vp-Siv irapaKXtjo'ewi [xat 
(n)iTT]pLa<i^ ; (3) Trj<; Ivepyovixevrj'i ev VTrop-ovfj twv avTwv TraOrj/xaTiny wv 
KoX rjfJi£L<; ird(T)(OfX(v, koI rf cAttis 17/Awi/ ^Se^at'a VTrep v/xoiv. The main 
question concerns the arrangement of these clauses. It is observed 
that clauses (i) and (2) are parallel statements, while clause (3) is 
an adjunct ; and the variation which we are discussing concerns the 
position of this adjoined clause. Some MSS. attach it to the first 
member of the parallel, clause (i) ; others to the second member, 
clause (2). According t.o Tischendorf's statement, the former posi- 
tion is that assigned to it in.BDEF.GKL aP d. e.f.g. Gothic, 
White's edition of the Harclean Syriac,. ChrySostom, Theodoret, and 
Diamascenus ; while the latter position is given it in Ji^ A C M P 3"', 
23. 31. 49. 51.57. 67. 73. 80. (37). r. am. fu. harl. flor. tol*., Schaaf's 
edition of the Peshito, the Coptic, the Arm. (the ^th.), Antioch. 
Ambrst. (Ephr. Hier.). Genealogically speaking, the former group 
is suspicious, and appears to witness only to a "Western" corruption. 
By internal evidence of groups, the latter group is pointed to as by 
far the stronger. So that we can scarcely doubt that the weight ot 
external evidence is distinctly in favor of the arrangement which 
places clause (3) after clause (2) rather than after clause (i). 
Meyer has discussed the transcriptional problem with some fulness 
and his usual acumen, with the result of throwing the weight of the 
transcriptional evidence in the same scale with the external. He 
supposes that clause (2) was first omitted entirely, by homoeoteleuton, 
and then erroneously restored after clause (3), thus producing the 



reading of BDEFGKL etc. Whatever weight may be laid upon 
this transcriptional finding, it is certain that the intrinsic internal 
evidence supports it. For thereby an obvious parallelism is pre- 
served and the adjoined clause (3) is brought in in such a manner 
as to add immensely to the richness of the language, — whereas it 
would be almost intolerably heavy were it interposed between the 
parallels. The full weight of this consideration, however, can scarcely 
be felt before we consider the genuineness of the k<xi o-wTr/jota?, which 
appears sometimes at the end of the first clause, sometimes at the 
end of the second, and sometimes at the end of both. 

The evidence that would place koX cruiTy]pla.% at the end of the 
second clause, is practically the same as that which has been discred- 
ited in the main reading which we have already considered. Appar- 
ently only 37 and the Latin fu* add it to this clause, when placed 
before clause (3); and only 46 and White's Harclean (by an asterisk) 
suggest omission of it from clause (2), among the witnesses for the 
prepositing of (3) to (2). In these circumstances we can scarcely 
refuse to follow the array that is right in placing the clauses, also in 
omitting this pair of words. 

Whether or not koL o-wT?;/3tas should be read in clause (i) presents 
a much neater question. Tischendorf quotes for their presence there, 
Ji^ACDEFGKLMP etc., and for their omission only B. 17. 176 
(137), (EuthaP°**). Genealogically, there is no reason, however, 
why the former array, here too, may not be only " Western," and the 
true reading stand in the few documents arrayed for omission. B 
when non-Western as it here apparently is, because separated from 
the typically Western documents — and when not standing alone, and 
therefore probably preserving an inheritance, — is all the more worthy 
of consideration in Paul's epistles, because the non- Western reading 
is more apt to be lost in them than in most of the rest of the N. T 
On external grounds, I should be strongly inclined to suspect kox. 
a-(j}Tr}pta<; here too. And internal considerations appear to come 
with some additional arguments to the support of this suspicion. It 
is transcriptionally difficult to account for the phenomena of the 
evidence regarding /cat o-wTT^ptas on the supposition of its genuineness 
at this point. If it originally stood at the end of clause ( i ) , it should 
have been omitted along with clause (2) by homoeoteleuton, and on 
reinsertion it should have stood before, not after it, — at the end of 
clause (3). This seems to have been felt as a difficulty by Meyer, 
who supposes still another step in correcting the text, after the omis- 
sion of clause (2), by which the koI o-onyptas was inserted variously. 


It is far easier to presume that koI cr(i>Tr}pia<: was at first no part of the 
text, and was added on the margin, as a pious and strengthening 
supplement, by some scribe who desiderated something here of eternal 
import; and that it was afterwards taken innocently up into the 
text at various seemingly appropriate points. 

I say " seemingly appropriate points," for I am not sure that any 
point is really appropriate. Paul is not speaking in this context of 
salvation, but of affliction and consolation ; and the insertion of Kat 
o-wTT/ptas into it at any of the points in which our texts transmit them, 
appears to me to jar on the simple development of the thought. 
Paul bursts forth (ver. 3 sq.) into a fervent praise to God for the 
consolation He has brought him, as always, so also now, in his afflic- 
tions, not without a pregnant hint of the value of the experience for 
the work of his office (ver. 4). And now (ver. 6) he turns to tell 
the Corinthians that all the riches of his experience is for them : 
" But whether we be afflicted, it is for your consolation, — whether 
we be consoled, it is for your consolation." I cannot help feeling 
that the insertion of an " and salvation " after the first clause here 
(and not also after the second) would introduce a discordant note 
and break the simple and tender connection. This is still further 
borne out by the subsequent context; for the Apostle proceeds 
immediately : " that is efficacious in patient endurance of the same 
sufferings which we also suffer ; and our hope is steadfast in your 
behalf, in that we know that as ye are partakers of the sufferings, 
so also of the consolation." Here simply suffering and consolation 
continue to be the theme ; and not only so, but the connection 
is such as apparently to imply but a single antecedent. What is 
it that is efficacious in patient endurance of suffering? What but 
consolation ? But what consolation ? That which came through the 
Aposde's consolation apart from his suffering? or both? Certainly 
the parallelism between the first two clauses of the verse is far too 
close to allow us to separate them, and we must expect the t^s ivepyov- 
fxivrj? to take up the common apodosis of the two. But if this be so, 
it is intolerable to find the two apodoses different. The effect of 
omitting tjjs crwriyptas in the first clause is to make the second clause 
merely repeat (but repeat with added force and tenderness) the 
apodosis of the first ; and then the third clause takes up this common 
apodosis for further description. The beauty of the result is a strong 
argument, intrinsically, in support of the suspicion already aroused on 
external grounds that koI o-wrT/ptas in the first clause also, is an intru- 
sion into the text. 


The exact form of text as I should propose to restore it, therefore, 
would read : eire Be OXifSofxeOa, virep Trj<; vfiSiV Trapa/cXi^crews, eiT€ irapaKa- 
Xov/xeOa, virep r^s vp.o)v TrapaKXija-eu)^, tt}? evepyovfx.evrj<; iv VTro/JLOvrj kt\. 
I have not been curious in looking up the matter, but I am not sure 
that any editor has printed just this text. Tischendorf viii., Tregelles' 
margin, and Westcott and Hort read the order of the clauses as I have 
given them, but retain the first koI o-wTi^ptas. Tregelles and Alford 
take the order of clauses (i), (3), (2) and retain the koL (noTTqpLa<i 
in both (i) and (2) ; Westcott and Hort's margin differs from this 
only in omitting the first koX a-(3iTr]pi.a<;. Some, thus, read koX crtDTrjpia^ 
twice ; others once, variously placed ; but none appear to omit it 
altogether. But I am convinced that externally it is suspicious in 
both places, and internally, perhaps a little more than suspicious ; and 
I feel sure that few will read the passage without it who will not at 
least wish that it should prove to have no just claim to be read. 

II. 2 Corinthians i. 8-10. 

The allusion which Paul makes in these verses to some great afflic- 
tion which he endured in Asia, has presented a standing puzzle to 
commentators. It has justly seemed to most recent commentators 
impossible to refer it to the tumult raised by Demetrius and recorded 
in Acts xix. 23 sq., with which, indeed, it appears to have no single 
feature in common ; but, besides this, there is little known of the evil 
chances that befell the Apostle in Asia. 

It is to be observed that our difficulty arises from the very plain- 
ness of the matter itself. The Corinthians to whom the. Apostle was 
writing, knew so well what Paul's great affliction was that they needed 
to be told nothing about it, and the slightest allusion sufficed. This 
very fact may be of value to us in identifying it. We must seek for 
some very severe, some even startling instance of persecution. And, 
indeed, the description that is here given of it would independently 
direct us to this conclusion. It was not only an "affliction" (ver 8), 
but such an one as "burdened the Apostle exceedingly above his 
power" (ver. 8), and led him "quite to despair even of living" 
(ver. 8). In it he obtained the answer of death in his conscious- 
ness, and deliverance from it could come from no less an one than 
that God who raiseth the dead (ver. 9). Nay, it is described as 
itself " death" (ver. 10), and not only so, but, with excess of strength, 
as "so great a death" (ver. 10). Manifestly, the Apostle has in 
mind an experience which had passed beyond danger into actuality. 


Were he giving us his account of the stoning which he endured at 
Lystra, and after which he was dragged out of the city for dead, he 
could not have spoken more strongly. 

I think, however, that we may learn from the way in which this 
account is introduced, more than the mere fact that the Corinthians 
already knew of the occurrence that is mentioned. The Apostle not 
only so speaks of it as to evince that not the fact of his affliction in 
Asia but the extremity to which he was brought by it, is the point 
of his communication. If I am not mistaken, the implication goes 
further and suggests a certain amount of what may be called self- 
correction by the Apostle. It looks as if he had himself told the 
Corinthians of the fact here adverted to, but in such a manner as to 
pain them by an evident unwillingness on his part to speak freely of 
his own sufferings, — in so matter-of-fact a way, in a word, as to sug- 
gest that they would not be interested in more than the bare fact, 
and would care little for the effect on the Apostle's feelings. We 
know that this was just the spirit in which i Corinthians was written 
(2 Cor. ii, 3 sq.) ; and if we can believe that the Apostle mentioned 
this affliction in that letter, we can easily understand, on the one 
hand, that he would have mentioned it there without more than brief 
and incidental reference to his own distress, and, on the other, that 
after the Corinthians had been awakened to a truer sense of the 
enormity of their conduct, which had forced their father in Christ to 
withhold the cry for sympathy with which he must have longed to 
address them, he would hasten tenderly to make known to them 
the greatness of the affliction that he had endured on this dreadful 
occasion. With this possibility in view, it is instructive to observe 
how the Apostle opens the subject. As the yap (ver. 8) advises us, 
this section is introduced., after Paul's expression of confidence that 
the Corinthians, whom he sees to have fallen into like sufferings with 
his, will obtain a like consolation, in order that he may point out 
from his own experience that the consolations of God are great 
enough to cover the greatest sufferings conceivable. The context, 
then, is a tender one. And he begins with the tender address, 
" brethren " (ver. 8) ; and, speaking thus tenderly, he declares that 
"he does not wish them to be ignorant concerning the affliction 
which befell him in Asia, that it was unbearably great." Is it not 
clear that the heart of the Apostle is here moved, and that he is about 
to tell his readers of the amount of his sufferings on an occasion 
which has already as a matter of mere fact been spoken of between 
them ? 


If the subtle implications of Paul's words have been soundly read 
in the foregoing remarks, our task in identifying the persecution here 
alluded to ought to be somewhat facihtated. Our first step should 
be to search i Corinthians in order to discover whether some severe 
affliction in Asia may not there be somewhat incidentally mentioned, 
such as will account for the tone and statements of our present 
passage. On undertaking this search, our eyes fall at once upon the 
startling cry of the Apostle in i Cor. xv. 32 : "If after the manner of 
men I fought with beasts at Ephesus, what doth it profit me?" — if, 
that is, the dead are not raised ; in which he seems to make known 
to the Corinthians, in a purely incidental way, the bare fact that he 
had been called upon to undergo a martyrdom out of which only 
that God who raises the dead could bring him alive. It is no doubt 
common among commentators to explain this allusion away, as if 
a figurative beast-fight only were meant. But this seems not only 
unnecessary but impossible, when only the passage itself is consid- 
ered. For, to go no further, in what way was Paul's conflict with 
men more a beast-fight " at Ephesus " than elsewhere ? The whole 
implication of the passage is, that the demands of the Christian life 
are such that, if in this hfe only we have hoped in Christ, we are of 
all men most pitiable. If, then, the dead are not raised, the whole 
Christian system is a gigantic and hideous error, — its preaching a lie 
(xv. 14, 15), its faith a vanity (xv. 16-28), its ritual a farce (xv. 29), 
and its life a useless sacrifice (xv. 30-34). In order to bring this 
last assertion into clear light, Paul appeals not only to the general 
danger and trial of the hfe that he literally " suffered " for Christ's 
sake (xv. 30-31 ; cf. 2 Cor. iv. 7 sq.), but adduces one striking concrete 
case of these sufferings, chosen just on account of its extremity and 
in order to carry the lesson home (xv. 32). Not only did he stand 
in jeopardy every hour, but he died daily; and that this may be 
taken literally, witnesses this casting to the beasts that had come to 
him in Ephesus. Not only, then, does the limitation "at Ephesus" 
seem to exclude the figurative interpretation, but the course of thought 
appears to demand a literal understanding of the words. Nor is this 
all. If we assume that this beast-fight did literally occur, it supplies 
an explanation of some othenvise obscure hints in the epistle to the 
Galatians (vi. 17 ; vi. 11), and as well furnishes us with precisely the 
occurrence that is needed to make the allusion in our present passage 

It need hardly be said that the lack of any account of this fighting 
with the beasts, in the book of Acts, does not disprove its literal occur- 


rence. We have only to refer to 2 Cor. xi. 23 sq. to learn how few 
of the daily deaths through which Paul was brought alive the book of 
Acts gives us accounts of. It is no doubt true that to be cast to the 
beasts was an extreme case, and it is difficult to understand how Paul 
came out of it alive ; but it is no less difficult to understand how he 
survived the stoning at Lystra, the shipwrecks, and the repeated cruel 
scourgings which we know he did endure. Paul himself says that 
this was a "so great death," and that he owed his deliverance from it 
to that power which raises the dead. The simple fact seems to be 
that Paul was "in deaths oft " (2 Cor. xi. 23), and that his endurance 
amounted to little short of a continuous miracle. One more almost 
miraculous escape in such a list, amounts to too little to form an 
objection to its actual occurrence. It is scarcely worth while to add 
further, that no objection to the actual occurrence of this beast-fight 
can be drawn from 2 Tim. iii. 11, where Paul adduces as examples of 
his sufferings "what things befell him at Antioch, at Iconium, at 
Lystra." The reason of the specification of these three places is not 
to be found in any fancied greater severity of Paul's sufferings there 
than elsewhere, as the objection would assume. Only at Lystra did 
the persecution proceed to extremes ; and from the list in 2 Cor. xi. 
23 sq. a much more striking series could be framed from this point of 
view. The aorist tense of i Tim. iii. 10 must not be overlooked, and 
governs the whole following sentence. Paul adduces the sufferings 
which he endured at such a time and in such a locality that Timothy 
could and did have them in mind when he undertook to become a 
follower of Paul. When he looked upon Paul and his life as the 
model of the life he should undertake on becoming a Christian, it 
included the sufferings such as had befallen the Apostle at Antioch, 
at Iconium, at Lystra, — wherefrom we may infer that the book of 
Acts is right in placing Timothy's birthplace and home in this region, 
and his conversion after Paul's visit to these places, but not that Paul 
never afterwards suffered so severe persecutions as befell him there. 

The solemnity with which Paul declares in vers. 9 and 10 of our 
present passage that his experience in his great trial in Asia had 
resulted in removing his trust forever from himself and placing it 
upon that God " who raiseth the dead, who from so great a death 
delivered us and will deliver," ought not to escape our notice. 
Clearly, the effect of these sufferings was to add new vividness to 
Paul's conception of God as the raiser of the dead, to withdraw his 
one hope from this life and place it in that resurrection-life that was 
to come. Is it not a point of connection (perhaps even a guide-post 


for our direction) that the casting to the beasts of Ephesus is the 
great instance of his daily dyings that springs into the Apostle's mind 
when in i Cor. xv. he is declaring that if the dead are not raised the 
Christian life of suffering would be a sad and hideous mistake ? It is 
at least a striking coincidence, which may be significant of much, 
that in i Corinthians, when speaking of the resurrection, Paul thinks 
of his casting to the beasts at Ephesus ; and in 2 Corinthians, written 
to the same people and not long afterwards, when speaking of a 
supreme trial that he had to endure in Asia, he thinks of the God 
that raiseth from the dead. 

It would be an interesting subject for inquiry, whether any memory 
of Paul's beast-fight at Ephesus survived in the primitive church. It 
is at least noticeable that early apocryphal literature is full of deliver- 
ances " from the mouth of the lions " ; and if a great, genuine in- 
stance of such a deliverance stood out in the memory of men, this 
circumstance might be partly accounted for. One of the difficulties 
which stand in the way of such an investigation, is to distinguish 
between reminiscences of i Cor. xv. 32 and remembrance of the fact 
itself. Let us advert to but a single instance. In the Acts of Paul 
and Thecla, which is generally esteemed one of our earliest apocry- 
phal acts and to belong to the second century, we have an elaborate 
account of how Thecla was thrown to the beasts ; and it is interest- 
ing to observe that the exclamation which rises to the lips of her pro- 
tectress when the news is brought to her of Thecla's deliverance, is : 
" Now I believe that the dead are raised ; now I believe that my child 
lives !" Here, too (we might be tempted to think), a deliverance 
from the arena is classed with resurrection from the dead. But it is 
clear to any careful reader that the author of the Acts of Paul and 
Thecla is only drawing from, not illustrating, St, Paul's epistles. The 
whole book is interwoven with hints taken from them, and indeed is 
based on a scheme derived from the mention in 2 Tim. iii. 11 of 
Antioch, Iconium, and Lystra. In the account of the beast-fight 
itself, it is only too clear that the author has i Cor. xv. 32 in mind : 
thence comes the thought of the resurrection, and from it he is con- 
tinually haunted with .a notion of a benefit which ought to result to 
some that are dead (ver. 29), and of a connection which ought to 
to brought out with a baptism. 

It should be noted, finally, that it seems to result from the plurals 
in our present passage, that Timothy (cf. 2 Cor. i. i ) in some sense 
partook in St. Paul's beast-fight. The affliction came upon both of 
them, and the effects on both were the same. To what extent this 


community of suffering went, there seems, however, no sufficient 
grounds to determine. It is only plain that it belonged in some 
degree to Timothy, as well as in its full extent to Paul. ^ 

III. 2 Corinthians i. 15-17. 

The development of the thought through these verses presents 
several difficulties, to avoid which it is necessary to give the closest 
attention to the connectives and emphases. 

In the immediately preceding context the Apostle had acted on 
the restored relations of mutual confidence between him and the 
Corinthians, and had opened his heart to them. He had told them 
of the extremity to which he was brought by the affliction which had 
befallen him in Asia, and of the abiding effect of that experience on 
his soul (vers. 8-10), and then had placed at the basis of his confi- 
dence in God's continuous deliverance the co-working of the Corin- 
thians themselves in prayer in his behalf (ver. 11). Then he had 
turned aside to point out to them the obvious fact that this confidence 
in their continued interest and prayer for him, was itself a convincing 
proof of his good conscience towards them (ver. 12). But the 
memory of their past injustice now obtrudes itself into his conscious- 
ness ; and, in the eagerness of love rather than in the bitterness of 
defence, he forestalls the possible objection to the sincerity of his 
asseveration, declares his entire honesty in his assertion of confi- 
dence in them, and appeals to their conscience to substantiate his 
words (ver. 130;), ending with an expression of hope that in the light 
of the day of the Lord Jesus, when the thoughts of every heart would 
be revealed, they and he would be seen to be mutually the ground of 
boasting of each other, — they, that they had had him as their apostle ; 
he, that he had had them as his converts (vers. 13^, 14). 

By the adduction and allaying of this hypothetical mistrust of his 
word (ver. 130:), the way was naturally prepared for a discussion, in 
the same noble spirit, of the real charges of double-dealing that the 
Corinthians had brought against the Apostle. He had originally 
intended to go to them directly from Ephesus and to return from 
Macedonia to them again before proceeding to Judea, — thus giving 
them a double joy in his double presence (vers. 15, 16) ; and clearly 
he had in some way communicated this purpose to them. But when 
the news of their evil state of mind towards him came to him, he 
had, for their good (ver. 23), so far changed his plans as to go first 
to Macedonia and only after that to visit them, by which new 


arrangement he could be with them only once; and in writing 
I Corinthians to them he announced this new purpose (i Cor. 
xvi. 5). Immediately the malcontents at Corinth were loud in their 
charges against him as a man of vacillating purpose and levity of 
statement, who made his promises lightly and broke them hghtly. It 
is to meet these charges that he now (ver. 15 sq.) speaks with them 
as to his change of plan for his journey. 

Ver. 15 takes close hold upon the expression in vers. 13/^, 14 of the 
Apostle's hope that he and the Corinthians would be discovered at 
the judgment-day to have each the other as their ground of boasting. 
This is what he thinks now, since once more he and they are on 
terms of mutual confidence. And this is what he thought before 
those terms of mutual love were disturbed : " And it was in this 
confidence that I was cherishing the detennination to come to you 
firsts The emphatic prepositing of ravryj rrj -rr^TroiOricru, and the 
time set by the imperfect .i/3ovX6fji.r]v must not be overlooked. The 
language is equivalent to saying : " And it was in consequence of my 
confidence in our mutual love for one another that I was at that time 
intending to come first to you." The emphasis is laid on the attitude 
in which his mind stood towards them before the bad news from them 
reached him. He was confident, at that time, that his coming would 
bring them joy, and he consequently was intending so to arrange his 
journey as to come twice to them "in order that they might get (not 
one only but also) a second joy T The effect of this arrangement of 
the words and the resulting emphases, is to imply that the plan of the 
Apostle necessarily depended on his relation to the church : so that 
his plan would be necessarily set aside when he learned that his 
coming to them would not bring the joy he had fondly hoped, but 
rather pain. It thus happens that the whole matter concerning his 
change of plan is settled by the first sentence (vers. 15, 16), and the 
Apostle is able to leave the necessary inference to be drawn by his 
readers and to content himself with a single pointed question (ver. 
17a!) which could not fail to pierce the dullest conscience. "Seeing, 
therefore, that it was this that I was interiding, was it then fickleness 
that I showed?" he asks in a tone that branded the affirmative 
answer beforehand as utter folly. The "this," put fonvard with a 
very strong emphasis, refers not merely to his intention of coming to 
them first, but to his intention of so arranging his plan as to bring 
them a second joy. The ovv thus has its collective force fully devel- 
oped. And the participle fSovXofxevo^, the time of which is set by its 
verb ixpr)(, is to be resolved causally. In the second clause. 


the effect of dpa, ' as the matter stands,' ' in this condition of affairs,' 
is to throw increased emphasis back on the protasis, ' seeing, there- 
fore, that it was this that I was intending ' ; while the emphasis 
within the second clause itself falls on rfj ikacfipui., the article in which 
belongs to the abstract form of the conception. No language could 
express more strongly than this sentence the unspeakable folly of 
charging frivohty as the reason of a change of plan which was thus 
so necessarily involved in the change of circumstances. And as 
nothing further remained to be said on this special matter, the 
Apostle was free to turn at once to the broader implication of the 
accusation, which again he deals with in a single crushing and self- 
answering question. "Or," he adds at once, with an implication that 
unless this be true there is nothing further possible, " or is it possible 
that in f/ie things which I purpose, it is according to the flesh that I 
purpose them, that there should be with me the yea, yea, and the 
nay, nay ? " 

How the Apostle deals with this question is exceedingly instructive. 
He appeals simply to the faithfulness of God, as the guaranty that his 
word was not a vacillating yea or nay (ver. i8), — and then to the 
experience of his readers under his preaching, as the inward demon- 
stration of the Holy Spirit that this part of his word at least was yea 
alone (ver. 19 sq.) ; leaving it to his readers to draw the conclusion 
from this argumentum ad minus that he who was true in so great a 
witness-bearing could be trusted also in the little matter of his own plans. 

IV. 2 Corinthians i. 23, a7tdi\. i. 
In the discussions of the import of ovKen in the former, and of ttoXiv 
in the latter, of these two verses, it seems to be ordinarily forgotten that 
the broader context must be taken into account. Commentators 
usually try to take ovkIti, for instance, either in the sense of "not 
yet" or in that of "not again," according as their preconceived 
belief is that Paul made one or two visits to Corinth before writing 
this letter. But as a matter of fact the word means neither one nor 
the other. What it means is ' no longer,^ and it usually denies for 
the entire future. Its meaning here can only be caught by perceiving 
its' correlation with vers. 15 and 16, out of connection with which 
ver. 23 must not be forced. The Apostle had intended to come 
directly from Ephesus to Corinth in order that he might thus be able 
to bring the Corinthians twice the joy of seeing him ; but when he 
perceived that it would not be a joy for them to see him, but his 
coming would rather bring them sorrow, he changed his plan and 


" no longer came to Corinth,'' but departed into Macedonia. This is 
the common and natural meaning of the word, and is excellently 
expressed in the rendering of the Revised Version : ' I forbore to 
come to Corinth.' The implication is not that ' he still is coming but 
has postponed it for a time,' nor that ' he did not come another time 
in addition to those he had already come ' ; there is no reference in 
the word to "another" coming either not yet executed or already past. 
It simply says that that intention which Paul had of coming to Corinth 
directly from Ephesus, he concluded not to fulfil at all, at any time. 
It was finally and for all time laid aside. He saw what his imme- 
diate coming to Corinth involved, and in ' order to spare the Corin- 
thians, he no longer came to Corinth,' but departed another way. 
The question why Paul uses cis Koptv^ov here instead of Trpos v/xSs 
seems to be settled by this understanding of his purpose. It is alto- 
gether parallel to the use of cis "Ec^eo-ov in 2 Tim. iv. 1 2, where he 
means to intimate that Timothy may well leave Ephesus and bring 
Mark with him, since Tychicus has been sent to that city. So here Paul 
speaks objectively because he has the plan, not his readers, in mind. 

In this understanding of the passage, it has no bearing on the 
controversy concerning the number of the visits to Corinth which the 
Apostle had made before writing the letter. It only denies that he 
executed the first visit which he had planned when he was wishing to 
bring them a "second joy" (vers. 15, 16). 

A result somewhat similar is reached when we read the first verse 
of the second chapter in its vital connection with the context. As a 
mere matter of fact, i. 23-ii. 4 form a very closely knit paragraph. 
We have seen how oweVi looks back to vers. 15, 16; the xapSs of 
i. 24 takes up again the yapav of ver. 15 (for assuredly this is the 
right reading there), while, as the 8e advises us, ii. i is only the other 
side of the matter, and its Xvttq is the opposite of this, and its 
TToAtv must be explained with reference to the plan of 15, 16. It is 
important to observe that the prefixed to in ii. i binds the whole of 
the last half of the verse together as a single noun : " I judged this for 
myself, namely the-not-coming-back-to-you-in-sbrrow." The order of 
words in this composite noun was determined not by their relation to 
each other, but by their closer or more distant relation to kXQCiv and by 
their relative emphasis. The strongest emphasis falls on the fi^ ttoAiv, 
but not as a qualification of cv Avtjt;, but of iXBCw. The ttoXiv can 
best be rendered by the simple word ' back,' and what the Apostle 
says is not that he will not * come back ' to them, but that he is 
determined not to have his coming back in sorrow. In this there is 


no implication that the former coming was in sorrow : there is no 
reference to the character of the former coming at all. There is simply 
an energetic declaration that he had intended to come to them in 
order to bring joy, and he had not come because he would not con- 
sent to have 'his coming back to them in sorrow.' The whole impli- 
cation as to character is exhausted in the intention for the coming 
that was planned and that was not executed just because what he 
purposed was to bring joy and he was determined not to bring sorrow. 
Just because he was a fellow-worker to their joy, he could not bring 
sorrow, and the whole force of Xvirrj is taken up in its contrast to 
the x«P"5> which again takes us back to the xapav of i. 15. 

But if, again, this be the meaning of the phrase, it has no bearing 
on "the question as to the Apostle's previous visits to Corinth. The 
ttoXlv would, no doubt, imply that there had been one before. For 
it is probably impossible to make it a repetition of the TraAiv of i. 16, 
as if what the Apostle was saying was that though he had planned to 
come to them and then come 'back,' yet to spare them he had 
refrained from coming, and so could not have 'a coming dack.' But it 
says nothing as to how often Paul had been in Corinth, whether once or 
twice ; and, just because we cannot infer that a previous visit was ' in 
sorrow,' so it offers us no ground to infer that he had been there twice. 

Although it carries us somewhat beyond the limits we have set for 
ourselves, it is worth remarking that this fatal inadequacy to the 
inferences put upon them attends all the passages that are appealed 
to in order to prove that Paul had already twice visited Corinth. 
2 Cor. xii. I is, to say the least of it, thoroughly ambiguous, while ex- 
egetically speaking, 2 Cor. xii. 14, and especially xiii. i, seem freighted 
with an opposite implication. For it is undeniable that grammati- 
cally the words TptVov tovto are equally flexible to the two meanings, 
* this is the third time that I am coming,' and ' on this third occasion 
I am actually coming.' And exegetically, all reason fails for the very 
emphatic (note the position) assertion that the next time Paul visited 
his Corinthian children would be the third visit he had made them ; 
whereas the whole Epistle teems with a very important reason why 
he need assert that on this third occasion of his preparation to visit 
them, he would actually fulfil his intention, — for which we do not 
need to go further than the passage we have just considered, i. 15 sq. 
This appears to me to be the decisive consideration that determines 
the sense of these two passages, and, if so, then they assert that Paul's 
next visit would be the second, not the third. So complicated a 
matter cannot, however, be argued in a postscript to i. 23, and ii. i. 


Some Remarkable Greek New Testaments. 


I. De Sabio, 1538. 

ONE of the rarest Greek New Testaments known is that printed 
at Venice, in 1538, by " lo. Ant. de Nicolinis de Sabio" at 
the expense of Melchior Sessa, An entire copy existed in the 
Library of the Duke of Sussex; a copy of the second volume 
(Epistles and Revelation) is in the Bibliotheque Nationale at Paris, 
and was examined for Reuss by Eugen Scherdtlin ; but no complete 
copy was known to Reusk. A copy having lately come into my 
possession, I examined it with care, and thought that its pecuUarities 
were worth recording. 

Concerning its text, Reuss is right in correcting Jac. Le Long's 
erroneous statement that it contains the Latin version of Erasmus. 
It contains the Greek only. Reuss does not venture to particularize 
respecting its text, but states that from Scherdtlin's papers and col- 
lection of variants he is well enough satisfied that it is conformed 
to the text of the Aldine edition (of 1518). Reuss accordingly 
classifies it, along with the Aldine edition, among the books which 
follow the first edition (1516) of Erasmus. 

But the first thing I looked for was t^e interpolation at i John v. 7, 
which is not in the Aldine edition ; and I found that it does exist in 
this of De Sabio. Its form is almost exactly that of the Dublin 
codex, and it must have come from, as it, exactly copies, punctuation 
and all, the third edition of Erasmus. The whole passage reads as 
follows in De Sabio : on rpeis eto-tv 01 \w.pTvpQvvri.<i kv tw ovpavw, 
Trarrjp, Xdyos, /cat ■trvf.vp.a aytov, Kat ovtol ol rpei? ev cicrt. Kat rpeis cicrtv 
ot ixaprvpovvTi^ iv rfj yfj, rrvevfia, koL vScop Kat at/ta, /cat ol rpets cts to cv 
eto-iv. It is not to be inferred, however, that Reuss was not aware 
of this fact, for in speaking of the Gr, N. T. of Colinseus, 1534, 
he remarks that it was the last of the early editions to omit that 

Before going farther mth the text, it is better to give a description 
of the book. It is a small octavo, according to the old rules, though 


of about the size of a modern 24mo or 321110; the printed page, 
exclusive of running titles, margins, and catch-words, being 3:^- x i^ 
inches in dimension. Title : " TH2 KAINH2 | AIAQH'KHS | 
SiTravTa. \ NOVI TESTAMENTI | OMNIA. | [Vignette, a sitting 
cat, with a mouse in its mouth, surrounded by an ornament of 
fantastic leaf-and-scroU work.] | VENETIIS." The first Hne is in 
the large ornamental Greek capitals so often seen in books printed 
at Venice, and is without accents. At the end of volume i. is 
the colophon : Venetiis per loan. Anto. de Ni-[colinis de Sabio. 
Expensis vero Dhi Melchioris Seffe. Anno | Diii M D XXXVIII." 
At the end of volume ii. is the " Registrum " (containing ad. A to &., 
AA to PP, and [for vol. ii.] A to &., with adc de/., and the remark 
" Omnes quaterniones"'), followed by the colophon in Greek and 
Latin, as follows : " 'Ev ercriats ttovo) \}Xv Kai Se^LOTYjTL I Tov loidwov 
avTiDVLOv Tov <Ta/5tou, I avaXw/xaa-L 8e rov M.eX)(LO | pos tov crecrcrow eVei|crT<3 oySo'o). | Venetijs per lo. Ant. de NicoUnis de \ Sabio. 
Sumptu uero et requisitione Dhi \ Melchioris Sefsce. An?io Domijii. \ 
M D XXXVIII." Another leaf, at the end, contains the same emblem 
that occurs on the title page. 

The contents are as follows : Tov Iv dytbi? ■7raTpb<; rj/xwv mdwov 
ap)(t€TnaK07rov Kwz'O'TavTivovTroAcws tov ^vcroa-TOfxov VTrofJLvr]fjia cis tov 
ay tov MarOoLov tov cvayyeAto-Ti^v, occupying 29 pages ; followed by 
the Life of St. Matthew the Evangelist according to Sophronius, 
the "Hypothesis" of the Gospel according to Matthew, the table of 
the K€(f}dXam of Matthew, and four hexameter lines descriptive of 
Matthew's Gospel; the whole finishing leaf Aa 11 11, the pages thus 
far being not numbered. Then commence the numbered pages, 
running from the beginning of Matthew's Gospel to the end of vol. i., 
which occurs on p. 616. Matthew's Gospel occupies pages 1-116. 
The modem chapters are noted in the margin, and also in the running 
title at the top ; Scripture references (which are wanting in the 
Aldine) occur frequently in the outer margin, wholly in Greek, and 
referring to the chapter only (verses were not then invented for the 
N. T.), The old subdivisions of the chapters, marked by the letters 
A, B, C, &c., do not occur. On p. 127 is the Life of Mark the 
. Evangelist from the Synopsis by Dorotheus martyr and bishop of the 
Tyrians; on p. 128 the "Hypothesis" of the Gospel of Mark; on 
pp. 129-132, the table of Ke^uAata and 6 hexameter lines descriptive 
of Mark's Gospel; pp. 133-212, Gospel of Mark. Page 213, Life of 
Luke, from the Synopsis of Dorotheus; pp. 214, 215, "Hypothesis" ; 
pp. 215-225, table of K€<f}d\aia, and 5 hexameter lines; pp. 223-361, 


Luke's Gospel. Pages 362-369, Life, "Hypothesise^ Ke(f>dXaia, and 
3 hexameter lines, respecting John and his Gospel; pp. 370-470, 
John's Gospel. Pages 471-481, eK6e(n<i of the K€0a\ata of the Acts, 
with a statement that all the K£<^aXaia [thus far] amount to 40, and 
those that follow, 48; pp. 482-616, Book of Acts, and Colophon. 
After vol. i. follow two blank leaves, and then begins the "J/ypot/iesis" 
of the Epistle to the Romans, on pp. 2-5 of vol. ii. ; followed, on pp. 
6-9, by the table of Kc^aXata. All the other books have their 
''Hy/fo thesis" and table of Kc^aXata (except the third Epistle of 
John, which lacks the table only, and the Revelation, which has no 
accompanying matter) ; and it will be enough to state on which page 
each book ends, as follows : Romans, p. 57 ; i Corinthians, p. 109 ; 
2 Corinthians, p. 145 ; Galatians, p. 163 ; Ephesians, p. 183 ; Philip- 
pians, p. 198; Colossians, p. 213; i Thessalonians, p. 227 ; 2 Thes- 
salonians, p. 236 ; i Timothy, p. 253 ; 2 Timothy, p. 266 ; Titus, 
p. 278 ; Hebrews, p. 322 ; James, p. 338 ; i Peter, p. 355 ; 2 Peter, 
p. 366 ; I John, p. 385 ; 2 John, p. 389 ; 3 John, p. 391 ; Jude, p. 
398 ; Revelation, p. 465. There follow the d7ro8?7/Aiat of Paul, pp. 
466-474; the Martyrdom of Paul, p. 475 ; and the next page bears 
the colophon. One blank leaf separates the colophon from the leaf 
whose second page bears the emblem. The accessory matter, it will 
be observed, is nearly identical with that of many of the older printed 
Greek Testaments, especially the folios. 

There is no numbering of volumes, and no separate title-page to 
vol. ii. The first two words of the title to the "Hypothesis " to the 
Romans are in the ornamental Venetian Greek capitals already men- 
tioned. The several books commence with ornamental initials. 

With regard to the page numberings, the following errors appear. 
In vol i., in the numbering of p. 146 the 4 is upside down; 170 is 
misnumbered 140; 227 is 257, 257 is 157, 277 is 177, 289 is 189, 
294 is 298, 295 is 299 ; after which the numbers all continue 4 too 
many, with the following slips in the new (faulty) numbering : 359 is 
misnumbered 358, 371 is 331, (433 seems to be 413, but the impres- 
sion is bad, and the reading uncertain) ; pages 498 and 499 change 
places entirely, by a mistake in the make-up of the forms, each being 
correctly numbered; 533 is misnumbered 534, 535 is 536 (after 
which comes the right 536), in 549 the 4 is upside down, 556 is 
misnumbered 546. In vol. ii., 37 is misnumbered 57, 133 is 113, 212 
is 112, 262 is 162, 352 is 353 (followed by the right 353). Several 
numbers are put upon the wrong corner of the page, but it is hardly 
worth while to specify the places. 


Misprints in chapter headings and numbers of the running titles 
are as follows (keeping here the numbers of the pages as they actually 
occur in the volume) : vol. i., p. 25, vii for viii (side margin) ; at top, 
p. 28, VII for VIII ; p. 38, XI for x ; p. 90, xviii for xxii ; pp. 118, 120, 
XXVI for xxvii. ; p. 184, vii for xi ; p. 198, xiii for xiiii ; p. 200, vn 
for XIIII ; p. 258, VI for vii ; p. 374, 11 for i ; p. 376, in for 11 ; p. 380, 
mi for III ; p. 396, v for vi ; p. 454, xii for xviii ; (pages 498 and 499 
exchange places ;) p. 550, xa for xv ; p. 601 (side margin), xvxi for 
XXVI. Vol. ii., p.- 18, top, iiii for iii ; p. 46, xii for xiii ; p. 141, omits 
i; p. 192, side marg., iii. turned wrong side up; p. 168, top, omits i; 
258, II fori ; 264, 266, III for iiii ; p. 288, omits 11 ; p. 348, 11 for iii ; 
p. 426, omits XI ; p. 427 wrongly adds xi (also, the numbers 426, 
427, are in the wrong corners at the top). Now and then there is a 
misprint in the running title, as Acurepa for IIpojTT^ (tt^os tous KopivOC- 
ous), vol. ii., p. no ; but such cases are scarcely worth recording. 

Concerning the characteristic Aldine readings, where that edition 
departs from both the Complutensian and Erasmus I., I observe that 
in Matthew xxi. 7, De Sabio follows neither the Complutensian 
iTreKdOicrev nor the Aldine iKaOia-av, but has eTreKaOicrav, as Erasmus 
III. (1522). In Luke xxii. 12, De Sabio has the Erasmian avwytov, 
instead of the Aldine dvwycwi/ [^zV]. In 2 Peter i. i, it has Sv/acwv, 
not following the Aldine ^v/xwv. In Revelation xviii. 7 it reads 
TOcrovTOv Kepdaare airfj ^acravKTixov Koi iriv6o<;, unlike the Aldine, 
which has ^6t(. for Kepda-are ; but following nearly Eras. I., with a 
touch of the Complutensian. In Matthew xxvii. 33, it has o ia-n for 
the Aldine os eo-rt. In the remaining two of the seven places given 
by Reuss as characteristic and original with the Aldine, De Sabio 
follows it. (They are i Pet. iii. 21, and i Tim. v. 21.) 

Next, respecting the ten Complutensian readings which Reuss 
observed in the Aldine. The case with De Sabio is as follows. Acts 
xxi. 3, it has dva<f>avevTi<i, with the Complutensian and Aldine, as 
against the Erasmian dva^avavre?. In i Timothy jv. i, it has the 
Erasmian Trvevfiacn TrAdvot?, against the Complutensian and Aldine 
TTv. irkdvrjs. Apoc. X. 2, it has the Erasmian ySt^Aapt'Stoi/, against the 
Complutensian and Aldine f3t.(3\L8dpiov. Colossians i, 2, it has the 
Erasmian KoAao-crats, against the Complutensian and Aldine Kokoaa-al^. 
In 2 . Corinthians iv. 4, it omifs tov dopdrov with Erasmus, against 
Complutensian and Aldine. Hebrews vii. 13, it has the Erasmian 
7rpo(T€(7T77K€, agalnst the Complutensian and Aldine irpoa-iaxv^^- James 
iv. 6, with Erasmus it omits the whole verse, from and including 810 
Xeyci to the end, against Complutensian and Aldine that insert it. 


In I Thessalonians ii. 8, it has the Complutensian and Aldine l/xupo- 
[xevoi against the Erasmian o/j-eipofxevoi. In i Corinthians xii. 2, it has 
otSare on ore with the Complutensian and Aldine against Erasmus, 
who omits ore. In Apoc. viii. 9, it has twv iv ry Oakaa-a-rj, with the 
Complutensian and Aldine, against Erasmus, who omits the words. 
However, the last two cases apply to the first edition of Erasmus 
(15 16), for the text was emended in those places in his later editions. 
Thus it appears that in six of these places De Sabio follows Erasmus, 
and in four the Complutensian and Aldine. But two of the four 
should be excluded, for the reason just mentioned. 

The matter thus far shows that the De Sabio edition discloses 
some consultation of the Aldine, but by no means enough to make it 
conformed to it in text. 

But a more thorough examination than this is demanded ; and in 
that line we will for the present follow Reuss in his select test vari- 
ants. Taking first the 39 places of Reuss in which are readings 
peculiar to the Complutensian, but different alike from the Erasmian, 
Stephanie, and Plantin editions, we find that De Sabio agrees with 
the Erasmian readings in all but five ; and in these five he agrees 
with the Complutensian. In order to show whether these agree- 
ments with the Complutensian are by accident or design, we will 
take them up as they occur. The first is Reuss' No. 4, Luke viii. 15, 
where the difference from the Erasmian consists in adding, at the end 
of the verse, ravra XeycDv l^wvei, 6 €)(wv wra d/couctv ctKoueru). (De 
Sabio misprints the last word, by putting the accent on the ante- 
penult.) The second is Reuss' No. 5, Luke ix. 23, where De Sabio, 
with the Complutensian, omits the words Kaff rnxipav. The third is 
Reuss' No. 8, where De Sabio and Complutensian read Irja-ovv, but 
Erasmus Irjo-ov. The fourth is Reuss' No. 1 7, Matthew xii. 6, where 
De Sabio and Complutensian read /aci^ov, but Erasmus /xei^wv. The 
fifth is Reuss' No. 25, Acts ii. 31, where De Sabio and Complutensian 
read iyKaTeXeLfftOrj, but Erasmus iyKaTeXrjcjiOr]. 

Now of these five, the first could not be accidental, nor hardly the 
second and third. The fourth and fifth might be accidental, but 
considering them along with the others, it seems scarcely probable, 
or even possible, that any of them — either the group of the last two, 
or the group of the second and third — could be accidental. It 
seems as if De Sabio must have had the Complutensian at hand. 
Add to this the fact that Reuss' No. 21, Luke xxii. 12, is also a place 
where the Aldine departs from the Erasmian, but De Sabio follows it, 
and the argument gathers force that De Sabio did not slavishly follow 
the Aldine 


In Reuss' " Classis Secunda," comprising Nos. 40-43, in which the 
first recension of Robert Stephen (1546) follows the Complutensian, 
but the Plantin editions do not, De Sabio follows Erasmus through- 
out, like the Aldine ; and this class throws no light on the subject 
while considered alone by itself. 

In the "Classis Tertia," of readings common to each Stephanie 
recension and the Complutensian, but not followed by the Plantin 
editions, consisting of only one number, 44, Luke x. 22, De Sabio 
agrees with the Complutensian against Erasmus, by adding, at the 
beginning of the verse, the words koI orpa^ets Trpos tov<s fjia6rjTa<s cTttc. 
This also shows Complutensian influence. 

In the Fourth Class of Reuss, comprising Nos. 45-71, those in 
which the first edition of R. Stephen, with the Plantin, agrees with 
the Complutensian, De Sabio agrees with the Erasmian in all but 
seven. The eight are as follows : No. 46, Mark xi. i, (3r}6a<fiayr], 
Compl., against Eras. f3r]0<f)ayy ; No. 49, John viii. 6, ad^. firj 
Trpoo-TToiov/Aevos, with Compl., against Eras., which omits ; No. 53, 
Luke V. 19, TTws, a peculiar reading, against Compl. Trotas and 
Eras. StoL Trotas ; No. 5 7, John ii. 1 7, KaTacfidyeraL, Compl., against 
Eras. KaT€(f>aye ; No. 59, Acts xxi. 3, dvac^aveVre?, Compl., against 
Eras. dva^avavTES ; No. 63, Mark i. 16, add. avrov tov orifK^vos, 
Compl., against Eras., who 077iits ; No. 71, Matt, xxvii. 41, add. koL 
(fyapiaaiiDv, against Eras., who omits. These differences again cannot 
be the result of accident, though one of them, No. 59, is also an 
Aldine reading. In all the others the Aldine follows the Erasmian. 

In the Fifth Class of Reuss, in which the Plantin editions follow 
the Compl., while the Stephanie do not, comprising Nos. 72-256 
(or 185 places), De Sabio follows Erasmus in all but the following 
places: In No. 84, Luke xxii. 47, it follows the Compl. in inserting 
toCto yap (n]fJL€tov ScSwKct aurots, ov av cfiiXijcro) auros i(TTiv, which 
Erasmus omits ; in No. 103, Romans vii. 4, it adds avSpl, with Compl., 
against Eras., who omits it; (in No. n8, i Tim. iv. i, it agrees with 
Eras, against Compl. and Aldine ; in No. 130, 2 Peter i. i, it agrees 
with Eras., while the Aldine is different;) in No. 164, Luke xiv. 15, 
it reads apiarov, with the Compl., while Eras, and Aid. have dprov ', 
(in No. T 76, I Peter iii. 20, it has the /ater Erasmian, airai iieSexaro, 
against the Complutensian and Aldine;) in No. 194, Matthew ix. 18, 
it has apxuiv Tis iXOsliv, a seeming modification of Compl. and Eras., 
for Compl. has eh, while Eras, has nothing, in place of ns ; in No. 
220, Matt, xxiii. 25, it has the Compl. dStKt'a?, against the Eras. 
oK/oacrias; (in No. 226, Matt. xxii. 13, it agrees mainly with Eras., but 


has apare avTov kol, with Compl., Colingeus, and R. Stephen — a mixed 
reading; in No. 231, Rev. xx. 5, it follows Erasmus, but has dve^rjo-av 
for it,r}aav ;) in No. 234, Matt. xxv. 29, it has koI o SokcI Ixet [j"zV], 
which is probably intended to follow the Compl. (which has l^civ for 
£;(€i), against the Erasmian Koi o ex^i, but as the reading is, it is a 
senseless conflate (unless it is a misprint). These variations from 
Erasmus could not possibly have been the result of accident, but 
must have arisen from a use of the Complutensian. 

The Sixth Class of Reuss comprises numbers 257-261, and in- 
cludes those places in which both the Stephanie and the Plantin 
editions agree with the Complutensian. In two of these De Sabio 
agrees with the Complutensian, and in three with Erasmus. The two 
Complutensian agreements are: No. 257, John xviii. 20, ttcivtotc 01 
tovSaiot, against Erasmus' Travres ol lov8. ; No, 260, Heb. ix. i, adding 
a-Kr/vT], with Compl., while Eras, omits it. These again could not be 

The Seventh Class of Reuss, Nos. 262, 263, is that where the 
earlier, but not the later, Steph. differs from Compl. and Plantin. In 
the first of these. Acts xii. 25, De Sabio agrees with the Compluten- 
sian, reading o-aSXos, against the Eras. -n-avXos. In the other he 
agrees with Eras. 

The Eighth Class of Reuss includes those places in which all the 
heads of the ancient families (Steph., Plant.) agree with the Compl. 
against Eras. This class comprises Nos. 264-305, and is more 
instructive on examination than it can be in the space here given to 
it. However, of the 43 places, De Sabio sides with the Compl. in 
13, and with Eras, in the rest. (One of the places, No. 264, corrects 
fi(.TpiQrja-eTai \o fieTprjOrja-erai, thus giving a reading that appears in the 
edition of Bebelius, Basle, 1524; but this was probably intended 
merely to follow Erasmus, and is no more than the iotacism of com- 
positors introduces in many places.) In two of them. No. 271, 
Heb. vii. 13, No. 297, Jas. iv. 6, De Sabio sides with Erasmus against 
the Aldine. The agreements with the Compl. are as follows : No. 
265, Matt, xviii. 29, adds £is ras TroSas airov, which Eras, omits ; No. 
267, John vi. 27, adds t^v (Spwa-iv secund., which Eras, omits; No. 
278, Mark i. 16, d/xc^tySXT^crT/Dov, for Eras. aiJL(f)ij3\r)crTpa ; No. 280, 
Luke xi. :i:^, 4>^yyo<;, for Eras. <f)ws ; No. 283, John xxi. 15, 16, 17, 
iSiva, for Eras, 'uoawa; No. 290, John viii. 9, agreeing with Compl. 
so far as to add l^rfpxovro . . . ecrxaTcov (which Eras, omits), but 
agreeing with Eras, so far as to omit koI vtto t^s crwctSj/o-cws IXeyxp- 
fievoi ; No. 293, Matt, xxiii, 7, having pa^ySi twice, against Eras, once ; 


No. 294, Luke ii. 2;^, iwo-^c^, against Eras. 6 Tra-njp ; No. 296, 2 Cor, 
ix. 8, adi/. irdvTore, which Eras, omits ; No. 300, Matt. ix. 5, evKOTria- 
Tepov, for Eras. evKoXoyrepov ; No. 301, Matt. XXV. 24, a-Kkrjpbs, for 
Eras. ava-TTjpo^ ; No. 302, Mark xi. 26, a(/d. the whole verse, which 
Eras, omits. One of the agreements with Eras, is the more note- 
worthy, viz., No. 304, Acts xiii. 33, i/faAyLtw Trpdorw, for which the 
Compl. had i{/. SeuTepw. But these agreements with the Compl. can 
by no means be the result of accident. 

The Ninth Class of Reuss includes those differences between the 
Complutensian and the ^rsf edition of Erasmus, in which Erasmus 
changed the reading in his later editions. It comprises numbers 
306-347. This class, on the one hand, cannot with satisfaction be 
treated so summarily as the others ; and, on the other hand, it 
branches out in various conclusions to which recurrence might profit- 
ably be made farther on. But in this paragraph it will be treated as 
summarily as possible. 

In'Nos. 306-311 De Sabio follows the Complutensian, against 
Eras. I. (in 311 it followed the Aldine also) ; but in all of them it 
agrees with Eras. II. (15 19), and Eras. III. (1522). In No. 312 it 
follows Eras. III., against the former Eras, and the Compl. In No. 
313 it follows the Compl., against a misprint of Eras. I. and a differ- 
ent reading of Eras. II., III. In 314 it follows Eras. II., corrected 
from a misprint of Eras. I., and against the Compl. In 315 it follows 
the Compl. and Eras. II., against Eras. I. In 316 it follows Compl., 
but adds Trpos airov with Eras. II. (a mixed reading of De S.). In 
317 it follows Eras. II., III., against Compl. and Eras. I. In 318, 
320, it follows Compl. \vith Eras. III., against Eras. I. and II. ; but 
in 319 (i John v. 7) it follows Eras. III., after the Compl., though 
differently from the latter on alleged MS. authority, against Eras. I. 
and II. In 321 it follows Eras. III., correcting a misprint of Eras. 
I., II., against Compl. In 322 it follows a mixture of Gerbelius 
( 1 5 2 1 ) and Erasmus, resulting in a reading previously found in Bebe- 
lius (1524) ; but the adherence to Eras, is in Eras. I., II., while 
Eras. III. passes to the Aldine. In 323 it follows Eras. III. against 
Compl. and Eras I., II. In 324 it follows Aldine and Eras. III., 
against Eras. I., II., and the different Compl. In 325 it follows 
Eras. I., against the others. In 326 (Apoc. viii. 13) it follows the 
Compl., omitting rpU, however ; and thus exhibiting a reading not 
found in Eras, till his edition IV., 1527, with which it agrees. In 
327 (Apoc. xiv. 6) it follows the old conflate of Eras. I., II., III., 
against Compl. In 328 it follows Compl. and Eras. IV. against Eras. 


I., IL, III. In 329, 330, 331, 332, 333, 335, 336, 338-347, it follows 
Eras. I., II., III., against Eras. IV. and Compl. In 334, 337, it 
follows Compl. and Eras. IV., against Eras. I., II., III. Plainly this 
class shows that something more than the Aldine was used in forming 
the text of De Sabio ; and the fact would come out much clearer, 
had the readings themselves been exhibited in full. 

The relations of De Sabio to the first edition of Erasmus have pretty 
well appeared ; and incidentally also, its relations to the Aldine, since 
the Aldine was generally a mere copy of Eras. I., even to the mis- 
prints. But a little more examination is needed, with reference to 
the relation of De Sabio to Eras. II., III., IV., V., and to other early 

Respecting Erasmus II. (15 19), the relations shown to it by 
De Sabio are the same as to Eras. I. except the following. In Nos. 
396-312, Eras. II. agrees with the Complutensian ; and therein 
De Sabio agrees with Eras. II. (against Eras. I., of course) in all but 
312, where it leaves both to follow Eras. III. In 313 Eras. II. 
corrects Eras. I., but De Sabio agrees with Compl. against both. In 
315, 317, De Sabio agrees with Eras. II. against Eras. I. In 316 
De Sabio adds a correction from Eras. II., but otherwise agrees with 
Compl., against Eras. I. In 350-364 Compl. and Eras. I. agree, 
against Eras. II. ; and of these De Sabio agrees with Compl. and 
Eras. I. in 350, 353, 354, 355, 361 ; in 351, 356, 357, 358, 359, 360, 
362, 363, 364 agrees with Eras. II. ; while in 352 it agrees with Eras. 

II. except in one letter {Trpoa-ev^wfjLaL for irpoa-eviofjiat, Mark xiv. 22), 
wherein Compl., Eras. I. and II. are the same, thus giving a reading 
found first in Bebelius of 1534. 

Respecting the edition of Nic. Gerbelius, 1521, and that of Wolf. 
Cephalseus, 1524, De Sabio shows no evidence of following either, 
but the contrary. . 

Respecting Eras. III. (1522), the relations shown to it by De Sabio 
are the same as those to Eras. II. , except as follows. In 364 Eras. 

III. agrees with Eras. I. against Eras. II. (and against De S.). In 
319 ( I John V. 7) Eras. III. introduces a new reading, which De Sabio 
follows. In 318, 320, Eras. III. follows the Compl. with De Sabio, 
against Eras. I., II. In 321 Eras. III. and De Sabio agree, against 
Compl., Eras. I., IL In 322 Eras. III. passes to Aldine, and 
De Sabio follows in part, resulting in a mixed reading found first in 
Bebelius, 1524. In 323 De Sabio follows Eras. III., against Compl. 
and (the different reading of) Eras. I., II. In 324 it agrees with 
Eras. III., after the Aldine, against Compl. (different from the rest) 










SSfS'passagesin the first 

Prmceton Theological Semmary-Speer Library 

1012 00072 4197 


Mfjip ,