and in one manuscript. There is no doubt but that it forms parts of the sacred text. Again, in Exod. xii. 40. we read, The sojourning of the children of Israel, who dwelt in Egypt, was four hundred and thirty years. But this is not true, for it was only two hundred and fifteen years; and it contradicts Gal. iii. 17. which says, that it was only four hundred and thirty years from the calling of Abraham, two hundred and fifteen of which elapsed before the going into Egypt. (Compare Gen. xii. 4. xvii. 1. 21. xxv. 26. and xlvii. 9.) The following is the verse as it appears in all the MSS. and editions of the Samaritan Pentateuch, confirmed by the Alexandrian manuscript of the Septuagint. Now the sojourning of the children of Israel, and of their fathers, which they sojourned in the land of Canaan and in the land of Egypt, was four hundred and thirty years. This is the true reading, and removes all doubt and obscurity. It is proper to remark, that the last three examples of additional passages from the Samaritan text are introduced by Dr. Boothroyd into the text of his translation of the Bible. 5. Such ancient versions as were immediately made from the original are proper sources of emendation, when our present Hebrew and Greek manuscripts disagree; and their respective value is in proportion to their priority of date, their being made from accurate exemplars, their being literal translations, and their being confirmed by one another, and, as far as respects the Pentateuch, by the Samaritan text; for the sole dissent of versions, unsupported by other authorities, constitutes only a dubious lection. Before, however, we admit any various reading into the text on the authority of an ancient version, we must be certain that the text of such version has not been corrupted. And no various reading can be derived from the modern Latin Versions of the Greek or Oriental versions, which are given in the Polyglotts, because the Latin translators have in some instances mistaken the sense of such Oriental versions. 8. The Syriac version being very literal, ascertains clearly the readings which it followed, to which, on account of its anti quity, it gives great authority; and it has preserved some, that appear to be genuine. Thus in 2 Sam. xv. 7. we read, It came to pass after forty years, which is manifestly erroneous, though supported by the commonly printed Vulgate, the Septuagint, and the Chaldee. David reigned only forty years, and if we follow the text, the rebellion of Absalom would follow long after the death of David. In order to obviate this difficulty, some commentators have proposed to date from the time when David was first anointed by the prophet Samuel. But the Syriac version (which is confirmed by the Arabic version, by Josephus, by the Sixtine edition of the Vulgate, by several manuscripts of the same version, and by Theodoret), reads FOUR. Most learned men are of opinion that D'ya (ARBAYIM) forty, is an error for the Syriac version, and translates at the end of FOUR years, in his new very (ARB) four. Accordingly, Dr. Boothroyd has adopted the reading of sion of the Old Testament. 9. Every deviation in the ancient versions, both of the Ola and New Testaments, is not to be considered as a proof of a various reading in the original manuscript whence it was taken; for the translator may have mistaken the original word, or he may have given it a signification different from what it bears at present, and this is the case particularly with the Septuagint. 10. One or a few ancient versions may render a reading probable, when it is strongly supported by the sense, connection, or parallel places, in opposition to one that does not agree with these, though found in other versions and in manuscripts. 6. The Greek version of the Old Testament, called the Septuagint, being the most ancient and illustrious, is preferable to the Old Syriac version of the same portion of Scripture; but the Old Syriac version of the New Testament, being executed at the close of the apostolic age, and consequently the most ancient of all the translations of the New Testament, is prefer-imperfect sentence. The translators of our authorized version have supable to every other version of it. him. The readings pointed out by the Greek version are sometimes the genuine lections, even when they are not found in any Hebrew manuscripts now extant. For instance, in Gen. iv. 8. we read, And Cain said to Abel his brother: And it came to pass, when they were in the field, &c. Here there is a manifest deficiency in all the Hebrew MSS. and printed editions. The translators of the authorized English version, not being able to find that any thing was said on this occasion, ventured to intimate that there was a conversation, indefinitely, and therefore rendered the first clause of the verse, and Cain talked with Abel his brother. The deficiency, which exists in all the MSS. and editions, is supplied in the Septuagint version, which is supported by the Samaritan text, the Syriac and Vulgate Latin versions, the two Chaldee Targums, the Greek translation of Aquila, and by the passage as cited by Philo: all of which supply the deficient words, Let us go out into the field. There is no doubt, therefore, that they form part of the original text, and that the verse ought to be translated thus:-And Cain said unto Abel his brother, Let us go out into the field. And it came to pass, when they were in the field, that Cain rose up against Abel his brother, and slew Again, in Acts xiii. 18. we read about the time of forty years suffered he (Top) their manners in the wilderness; that is, he dealt indul gently with them. However the Israelites provoked Jehovah, he mercifully bore with and endured them. On which clause we find in the margin of our authorized version the following conjecture: Gr. pop, perhaps for ipopoy, bore or fed them as a nurse beareth or feedeth her child. This conjecture is confirmed by the Codices Alexandrinus, Ephremi, and Basileensis, and four others of less note, as well as by the Syriac, Arabic, Coptic, and Ethiopic versions, and the quotations in some of the fathers; all of which read popopophos, he nourished and fed them, or bore them about in his arms as a tender nurse does her child. This reading agrees excellently with the scope of the place, and is at least of equal value with that in the commonly received text. Griesbach has therefore admitted it, and excluded the other. Both readings, indeed, when rightly understood, speak nearly the same sense; but the latter is the most expressive, and agrees best with St. Paul's discourse, and with the history to which he alludes. The same form of expression occurs in Exod. xix. 4. Num. xi. 12. Isa. xlvi. 3, 4. and lxiii. 9. 7. The Oldest Latin Versions of the New Testament, being of very high antiquity, notwithstanding they contain some false readings, are nevertheless of great value, because they lead to a discovery of the readings in very ancient Greek manuscripts, that existed prior to the date of any that are now extant. The Vulgate, for instance, in its present state, being (as we have already seen) a mixture of the Old Italic version, and that of Jerome, points out the state of the original text, partly in the first and partly in the fourth century, and it gives great authority to those readings which it clearly indicates: it also contains several which are preferable to the present readings, and are supported by some of the best and oldest manuscripts. Thus the literal rendering of Jer. li. 19. is-He is the former of all things, and the rod of his inheritance, which is unintelligible. The venerable translators of our authorized version have supplied Israel is the rod, &c. most probably from the parallel sentence in Jer. x. 16.; and that this is the true reading is evident from the Vulgate version, which reads et Israel sceptrum hæreditatis ejus, and also from the Chaldee paraphrase, which is further supported by twenty-three manuscripts collated by Dr. Kenni cott.1 1 Gerard's Institutes, p. 87. Kennicott's Second Dissertation, pp. 439, 440. and his Dissertatio Generalis, § 41. at the end of the second volume of his Critical Edition of the Hebrew Bible. Thus, in Gen. xiv. 20. we read, And he gave tithes of all. This leaves it uncertain whether Melchizedek or Abram gave tithes. It rather seems to be the former, but it was the latter. In Heb. vii. 4. as well as the Samaritan text, and the Septuagint version, we have Abram gave to him a tithe of all, ἔδωκεν άντω *Αφραμ δεκατην απο πάντων ; which is probably the genuine reading. in Isa. xl. 5. we read, All flesh shall see together, which is an plied it, referring to the glory of God mentioned in the preceding part of the verse. This omission is ancient, being prior to the Chaldee, Syriac, and Vulgate versions: but all the copies of the Septuagint version and the parallel passage in Isa. lii. 10. reads, shall see the salvation of our God, which lection is acknowledged by Luke. (iii. 6.) Bishop Lowth therefore considers it as genuine, and has admitted it into the text of his translation of Isaiah. 11. The concurrence of all or most of the ancient versions, in a reading not found in manuscripts now extant, renders such reading probable, if it be agreeable to the sense, though not absolutely contrary to it.2 Thus, in 1 Sam. ix. 7. we read, What shall we bring the man w (La-ISH)? In one of the manuscripts collected by Dr. Kennicott (No. 182. a manuscript of the fourteenth century), we read D 'N (LA-ISH H-ELOHIM), to the man of God? which is confirmed by the Chaldee paraphrase, and by the Septuagint, Syriac, Vulgate, and Arabic versions, and is probably the genuine reading. 12. Of the Chaldee paraphrases,3 when manuscripts vary, those are to be preferred which are the most ancient, and which have not been corrected, according to the present Masoretic text. -13. The Masora, Talmud, and Talmudical writers are also sources of emendation, but of no great authority in readings of any moment. With regard to the Masora, that reading only is to be admitted from it which is supported by ancient versions, and is in perfect harmony with the context, the analogy of language, and parallel passages. In Isa. ix. 2. (Heb. ; 3. of English version) we read, Thou hast multiplica Vulgate version and that of Symmachus agree; but the Keri reads (LO) the nation, and not the joy. The Ketib has N (LA) not, with which the to him, or it, that is, the nation; and with this agree the Chaldee paraphrase, the Septuagint, the Vulgate version, the readings in the text of fifteen manuscripts collated by Dr. Kennicott, and six of those collated by M. de Rossi. The latter reading is not only best supported, but it is also excellently in unison with the preceding verse. Bishop Lowth has therefore adopted it, and translates thus-Thou hast multiplied the nation, thou hast increased their joy. Readings derived from the Talmud and Talmudical writers are only to be admitted, when they expressly cite the Hebrew text, and when their readings are confirmed by manuscripts. In judging of the various lections obtained from the Jewish writers, those which are collected from the Talmud (though few in number) are of great value, and equal to those furnished by Aquila, Symmachus, the Syriac version, and the Chaldee paraphrase. But such as are derived from the commentaries and lexicons of the Rabbins, who lived between the tenth and thirteenth centuries, are (according to Prof. Bauer) to be accounted equal with the readings of manuscripts.5 2 Gerard's Institutes, pp. 280, 281. where several additional examples are given, for which we have not room. See an account of the Chaldee paraphrases, pp. 262-261. of this Volume. • See an account of the Masora in pp. 201, 202. supra, and of the Talmud in Part II Book 1. Chap. II. Sect. II. §6. infra, of this Volume. Bauer, Critica Sacra, pp. 444, 445. IV. As JOSEPHUS derived his representations of sacred history principally from the Hebrew text, the collation of his writings will be found a valuable aid in the determination of various readings in the Old Testament. 1. Thus, in 2 Sam. viii. 17., according to the Hebrew text, we read that Zadok the son of Ahitub and Ahimelech the son of Abiathar were the priests; which statement is directly contrary to 1 Sam. xxii. 20. and xxiii. 6., where Abiathar is expressly termed the son of Ahimelech. But Josephus, when he says that David appointed Zadok to be priest, together with Abiathar, appears to have read the Hebrew words, much more correctly, thus transposed:-And Zadok the son of Ahitub and Abiathar the son of Ahimelech were the priests. Dr. Boothroyd has properly adopted this rendering in the history of David, we never read of Ahimelech being priest, but the name of Abiathar frequently occurs. 2. In 1 Sam. vi. 19. we read that the Lord smote fifty thousand and seventy of the inhabitants of Beth-shemnesh for looking into the ark; which number, in the Arabic and Syriac versions, is five thousand and seventy. Three of the manuscripts collated by Dr. Kennicott (of the twelfth century), and Josephus, read seventy men only, and omit fifty thousand. Seventy is evidently the true number; for, as Beth-shemesh was but a "small village," it is improbable that it could contain so many as fifty thousand inhabitants.4 V. PARALLEL PASSAGES afford a very material help in determining various readings, where all other assistance fails. Cappels and Dr. Kennicotts have shown at great length what use may be made of parallel passages, in order to ascertain the genuine reading where it may be dubious, or to restore it where it may be lost. Professor Bauer has given an abstract of Cappel's collection of parallel passages in pp. 235-238. of his Critica Sacra; and two or three instances will show the importance of them in ascertaining a true reading in the New Testament. (3.) Proverbial sayings, or expressions frequently repeated: Num. xxi. 28, 29. and xxiv. 17. with Jer. xlviii. 45, 46. Ezek. v. 7. with xi. 12. Jer. v. Ixxix. 6, 7. Jer. x. 16. with li. 19. Isa. xxiv. 17, 18. with Jer. xlviii. 43, 44. (4.) Records of the same genealogies, 1 Chron. with several chapters of Genesis, and Ezra with Nehemiah. 9. and 29. with ix. 9. Psalm xlii. 5. 11. with xliii. 5. Jer. x. 25. with Psalm In any such passages as these, where there is a difference in numbers or names-where there is more than a verbal difference in records of the same transaction-or where there is even a verbal difference in copies of the same prayer or speech, in the printed text, but not in manuscripts and versions, there it is erroneous, and ought to be corrected.8 VI. QUOTATIONS from the Old and New Testaments in the Writings of the FATHERS are an emendatory source which is by no means to be neglected; but only correct editions of their works should be consulted. In order to judge of the true reading of any text of Scripture, from any quotation of it, with which we meet in the writings of the fathers, the following criteria have been laid down, principally by J. D Michaelis: century. If therefore a father, who flourished in the fifth and subsequent ages, has a particular reading, it is the same as if we found it in a manuscript of that time. 2. Wherever it is certain that the quotations were actually In Matt. i. 4. not fewer than fourteen manuscripts and two deciding on the authenticity of a true reading, and are in taken from manuscripts, they are of very great importance in of the fathers read Apvada, Aminadam; but the parallel pas-general to be preferred to any manuscripts of the Greek Tessage in 1 Chron. ii. 10. has Aminada B, which therefore is the tament now extant, the oldest of which cannot be placed earlier genuine reading of the Evangelist. Again, in Matt. xxvii. 46. than the end of the fourth or the commencement of the fifth instead of λαμα (lama), many MSS. read λιμα (leima), λιμα (lima), or sua (lema); but a reference to Psal. xxii. 2. (Heb.; or 1. of English version) shows that λaua is the proper reading. Once more, in Matt. ii. 23. the common reading is Nagaper (Nazarer); but in the Codices C. E. K. (Ephremi, Basileensis B. VI. 21. and Cyprius), and many other MSS. of less note, besides several printed editions, and the Coptic, Armenian, Italic, Vulgate, and Anglo-Saxon versions, and also in the quotations of Eusebius and Cyril, we read Nagape (NazareтH). And that this is the true reading is evident from comparing the numerous other passages of the four Gospels in which this place is called Nazareth, and not Nazaret. 1. Where parallel passages, together with the sense, support the reading of ancient manuscripts, they show that such reading is perfectly right. 3. As the fathers have frequently, though not always, quoted from memory, it is necessary to make a distinction between those passages which they expressly declare that they have taken literally from manuscripts, and those which they quot without any such assurance. 4. We are not therefore to reject the quotation of a father, because it differs from the common text, but must first examine whether it cannot be discovered in manuscripts of the New Testament; and to enable those who have access to manuscripts to make this comparison with as much ease as possible, we should endeavour to procure the most accurate and copious extracts from the writings of the fathers. If a reading, then, which had the appearance of being an error of put it down in the list of various readings: its antiquity will be determined memory, is actually discovered in manuscripts, we may without hesitation by the age in which the father who quoted it lived; and the manuscripts which contain it will afford a secondary evidence of its age and authenticity. But we must not judge of the writings of all the fathers, nor of all the writings of the same father, in the same manner. They may be divided into three different classes. 1. Commentaries, to which may be Thus in Isa. Ixi. 4. we read, they shall build the old wastes: but the sentence is incomplete, as we know not who are the builders. After they shall build, four MSS. (two of which are ancient) add (MaMaCH) they that spring from thee; and this reading is confirmed by lviii. 12. where the sentence is the very same, this word being added. Bishop Lowth therefore receives it into the text, and translates the sentence thus:And they that spring from thee shall build up the ruins of old times. 2. In a text evidently corrupted, a parallel place may sug-referred also those discourses which were written as expositions of parts gest a reading perfectly genuine.' Thus, in the common printed editions of Judg. vii. 18. we read, Say, of the Lord and of Gideon. This is defective. The venerable English translators have, with great propriety, supplied the sword, (HERеB) from the successful exploit of Gideon, related in v. 20. The word which those learned but much traduced men thus supplied from a parallel place proves to be right; for it is found in ten manuscripts besides the Chaldee paraphrase, and the Syriac and Arabic versions. In like manner they have supplied the word fourth in 2 Kings xxv. 3. from Jer. lii. 6. to complete the sense; and this supply is also confirmed by the different versions. 3. To determine with accuracy the authority of parallel passages in the Old Testament, they should be divided into four classes; viz. (1.) Passages containing the historical narration of an event which occurred but once, or the record of a prayer or speech but once uttered Ex. gr. Josh. xix. 50. xxiv. 30. comp. with Judg. ii. 9. 2 Sam. xxii. with Ps. xviii. The Book of Kings with that of Chronicles. 2 Kings xxv. with Jer. lii. 2 Kings xviii. to xx. with Isa. xxxvi. to xxxix. Isa. ii. 2. 4. with Micah iv. 1-3. (2.) Passages containing a command, and either a repetition of it, or a record of its being obeyed: Ex. xx. 2-17. with Deut. v. 6-22. Ex. xxv. to Xxx. with xxxvi. to xxxix. Lev. xi. 13-19. with Deut. xiv. 12-18. Ezekiel xii. 6. with 7. Kennicott, Diss. i. p. 532. Diss. ii. p. 208. Dr. A. Clarke and Dr. Boothroyd, on 1 Sam. vi. 19. See his Critica Sacra (lib. i. cc. iii.-xiv.), vol. i. pp. 14-135. 8vo. edition, with Professor Vogel's notes. In his first Dissertation on the Hebrew Text, pp. 13. 79. 198. 444. 457. 461. 481. 484. 502. 510. Gerard's Institutes, p. 273. Where the reader will find several additional illustrations of this canon. of the Bible. 2. Works of education. 3. Polemical writings. In the first it is evident that the book which is expounded is not quoted from memory, but the author, in writing his commentary, had lying before him a manuscript of the Greek Testament. But with respect to the polemical writings and know that their principal object is sometimes to confound their adver of the fathers, those who are acquainted with their mode of disputation, saries rather than to support the truth, will refer the quotations which appear in these productions to the lowest class. If a father was acquainted with more than one reading to a passage, he would certainly quote that which best suited his purpose, and with which he could most easily confute his opponents. It is therefore not sufficient to know what reading he quotes, but we must likewise consider where he quotes it; and those fathers would do well to point out the book, chapter, edition, and page, in therefore who collect various readings from the writings of the ancient order to enable the reader to form a proper judgment. 5. It is necessary to make an accurate distinction between a quotation properly so called, and a passage of Scripture introduced and applied as part of a discourse. For if a writer, in treating any known doctrine of the Bible, uses the words of Scripture, he is at liberty to add or subtract, to contract or dilate them in a manner that is best adapted to the tenor of his discourse. But different manuscripts, and any one of these latter coincides with the former, even such passages are not unworthy of notice, for if they are different in the coincidence is not to be considered as a matter of chance. But when no manuscript corroborates the reading in such a passage, it is entitled to no voice in deciding on the text of the Greek Testament. 6. In collecting readings from the works of the fathers, an accurate distinction must be made between those who wrote in Greek, and those who wrote in another language. Properly speaking, the former only are to be considered when we select readings for the Greek Testament, and the latter immediately relate to the Hamilton's Codex Criticus of the Hebrew Bible, p. 18. text of the version from which they are quoted, unless particular mention | be made of the Greek, or the writer, like Jerome, made a practice of cor. recting the translation of his country from the original. 7. It must also be observed whether a Father takes notice of a text only once, or but seldom, or very often. For a frequent repetition will make the slighter kinds of difference deserving of more attention; whereas a single instance or two of that sort will be the more easily imputed to a slip of the memory, or a casual mistake. 8. It is necessary to observe whether an author be uniform and consistent with himself, or different and various. If a text be found differently expressed by the same author, we shall often be at a loss to know which he esteemed the right: and sometimes, perhaps, he may be wrong in each; and yet sometimes, too, it may be easily discovered, that one passage was designed to express the text more exactly, and another was only a reference by memory, and from thence proceeded the variation, A. Ja ple of it is wenrixe ou Day, his comment upon Acts xx. 28. he reads it xxλTINY YOU DO, Church of God, three times (though Dr. Mill cites him there for the reading of Kupov (Lord): but in his comment on Eph. iv. 12. he casually refers to this text, and quotes it probably by memory, and there he puts it down xxxiv TOU Kupov, that is, Church of the Lord. 9. The writings of the Fathers are to be compared, one with another; and an inquiry must be instituted, what testimony arises from them upon the whole. If it be a point, of which they generally take notice, or in which they are agreed; if we meet with no contrary voice, or none worthy of being regarded, or with some who argue for it, while others criticise or comment upon it, this will afford the clearest and strongest testimony that can be either desired or obtained. 10. We must compare the evidence arising from an examination of the writings of the Fathers, with that which appears to be the reading of the Greek manuscripts in general, and see how well they agree together. Where the MSS. in general | and the Fathers do agree, it must be something very extraordinary that will make it reasonable to believe that they are altogether in a mistake. Nay, that evidence from the Fathers must be very strong, which will make it reasonable to think the Greek MSS. agreeing in general among themselves, are mistaken. A casual citation of a text will not be sufficient to prove them so mis. taken, nor a bare comment upon a version, where it varies from the original: much less will this do, where opposite testimonies can be produced from Greek writers; and especially where those opposite testimonies are so full upon the point, as supposes and implies that they found the reading which they mention in the Greek copies which were in use in their days. If any instance can be found in which it can be clearly proved from the writings of the fathers, that the general and allowed reading of the Greek copies in the early ages of the church was different from the gene. ral reading of the Greek MSS. in our days, we should without hesitation give up such general reading of our present MSS. But it is very questionable whether one single instance of this sort can any where be found; and those persons who raise general clamours about the corruption of the manuscripts of the sacred writings, unsupported by any solid proofs, are no more to be heard, but still more to be condemned, than those who speak in this manner of the writings of the Fathers. But in a matter of doubt and uncertainty, where the MSS. of the sacred writings in the original language are divided, the united testimony of the Fathers will turn the scale in favour of the side for which they appear, and will more powerfully establish and confirm the general reading of the Scripture MSS. where they are agreed. 11. The Fathers having in general quoted the Scriptures very exactly, as they had it in their copies, whenever a read ing followed by them agrees with any ancient manuscript, it is in all probability the genuine reading. Thus, in most copies of Matt. vi. 1. we read, Take heed that you do not your ALMS (noun): But in the Codices Vaticanus and Cantabrigiensis, and three or four other MSS. of less antiquity, as also in the old Italic and Vulgate Versions and most of the Fathers, we read &xacovny, right. eousness, that is, acts of righteousness. This reading is most agreeable to the mode of speech which obtained among the Jews, and consequently is the genuine one. Griesbach has therefore inserted it in the text. Again, in Luke x. 1. we read that the Lord appointed other seventy disciples. The Codices Vaticanus, Cantabrigiensis, and Medicæus (No. 42. of Griesbach's notation), together with the Persian, Armenian, Vulgate, and four copies of the Old Italic versions, read μтa duo, seventy. two; and in this reading they are supported by eleven Fathers principally of the Latin or Western Church. On the contrary, all the other MSS. have simply doμnxovтz, seventy, in which reading they are supported by the learned Greek Fathers, Eusebius, Gregory Bishop of Nyssa, Cyril, Euthy mius, Theophylact, and Theophanes, and by Irenæus, Tertullian, Ambrose, Jerome Damasus, and others among the Latin writers. The common reading, therefore, is established as the genuine one by the concurrence of the Fathers with MSS. 12. The total silence of the Fathers concerning a reading, which would have confirmed their opinion in a controverted point, justly renders that reading suspicious, unless such tota silence can be satisfactorily accounted for. This negative argument against a reading will be of little weight where only upon some particular part of his works, and such author has himself it respects the writings of one single author only; and where it is founded taken notice of the text in other places, it will be of no weight at all. Nay, if but one or two only have made mention of a text, this will be a better proof that it was read in their days than any omission of their contempora ries, or of those that lived after them, will be a proof that it was not. But let us take this argument in the strongest light, and let the utmost possible be made of it; it can only furnish matter of doubt and inquiry; it can at most amount to no more than probable and presumptive evidence, and nothing can be positively and certainly concluded from it. One plain positive proof from the original MSS. or the ancient versions will be able to weigh it down, unless it can be shown that they have been altered and corrupted. VII. The fragments of HERETICAL WRITINGS are not to be overlooked in the search for various readings: for the supposition is rash, that they generally corrupted the text of all parts of the sacred writings.3 Although Marcion wilfully corrupted various parts of such books of the New Testament as he chose to admit into his collection of canonical books, yet not all his deviations are to be ranked in the list of wilful corruptions. Michaelis therefore divides the various readings, for which he has been branded with the name of heretic, into the three following classes; viz. "1. Unwarranted alterations made in favour of Marcion's own system. "2. Alterations grounded on the authority of manuscripts, which had various readings that differed from the common text, and which are still retained in very many of our present manuscripts. "3. Readings that are not only warranted by authority, but preferable to the text of our own common editions." For instance, the words και προσκολληθήσεται προς την γυναίκα αυτού (and shall be joined unto his wife), in Eph. v. 31., were omitted by Marcion; and Jerome was of opinion that the passage came not from the hands of St. Paul. Again Xprov (Christ), which is the reading preferred by Marcion, in 1 Cor. x. 8. is most probably the genuine reading, and the other reading [Kupov, Lord] a correction of a copyist; at least we cannot ascribe it to the heterodoxy of Marcion, as it affords no argument in his favour. Xprov is retained by Griesbach. Michaelis remarks that the readings belonging to the second and third classes are of importance in the criticism of the New Testament. Dr. Mill and Wetstein, and after them Griesbach, have given all the readings of Marcion which could be discovered. Dr. Scholz charges Epiphanius with falsehood, in affirming that Marcion corrupted the Epistles to the Philippians, Thessalonians, and Philemon, and he states that Marcion for the most part agrees with the Alexandrine family of MSS. 6 VIII. CRITICAL CONJECTURE is not alone a legitimate source of emendation, nor is it at all to be applied, unless the text is manifestly corrupted, and in the most urgent necessity for the conjectural criticism of an interested party, in his own cause, and in defiance of positive evidence, is little better than subornation of testimony in a court of law. 1. Conjectural Readings, strongly supported by the sense, connection, the nature of the language, or similar texts, may sometimes be probable, especially when it can be shown that they would easily have given occasion to the present reading ; and readings first suggested by conjecture have sometimes been afterwards found to be actually in manuscripts, or in some version. Thus, in Gen. i. 8. the clause, And God saw that it was good, is wanting to complete the account of the second day's work of creation, but it is found in the tenth verse in the middle of the narrative of the third day's work. Hence, many learned men have conjectured, either, 1. That the sentence, And the evening and the morning were the second day, has been transposed from verse 10. to verse 8.; or, 2. That the clause, And God saw that it was good, has been transposed from verse 8. to verse 10. The latter conjecture affords the most probable reading, and is to be preferred, being confirmed by the Septuagint version; the translators of which most evidently found this clause in the copies which they used. 2. A Conjectural Reading, unsupported by any manuscripts, and unauthorized by similarity of letters, by the connection and context of the passage itself, and by the analogy of faith, is manifestly to be rejected. In the address of James to the apostles convened at Jerusalem, he gives it as his opinion that they should write to the believing Gentiles that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and fornication, and things strangled, and blood. (Acts xv. 20.) As the question related to the ceremonial and not to the moral law, the celebrated critic Dr. Bentley conjectured that for pas, fornication, we should read xopas, swine's flesh; and in this conjecture he has been followed by Mr. Reeves in the Scholia to his beaumanuscript whatever, nor by any similarity of the letters, nor by the context of the passage; for in the encyclical letter of the apostles (ver. 25.) we read fornication. If xopsis had been the correct lection in the first Once more, in John i. 28. we read that These things were done in Bethabara. This lection is found in thirty-one manuscripts, in the printed editions, in the Armenian version, and a late exemplar of the Sclavonic version, and is preferred by Origen, and after him by Eusebius, Suidas, Jerome, and others. But it is certain that, instead of Baba, we ought to read Bavia, Bethany, which word is found in the Codices Alexandri-tiful and useful editions of the Bible. But this reading is supported by no nus, Vaticanus, Ephremi, Basileensis, Harleianus No. 5684., Seidelii, Stephani, Stephani, Regius No. 22432. (now 4S.) and Vaticanus 354., in B. and V. of Matthæi's notation, in upwards of one hundred other MSS. of less antiquity, and in the Syriac, Armenian, Persic, Coptic, and Vulgate 1 Berriman's Dissertation, p. 38. ■ Stuart's Elements of Interpretation, p. 119. (Andover, 1822.) • Michaelis's Introduction, vol. i. pp. 321, 322. Scholz, Nov. Test. vol. i. That the Jews in the time of Christ understood the word pry Six-Prolegom. p. cxlvi. Dr. Herwerden has given numerous instances, in evvn, righteousness, in the sense of alms, is abundantly proved by Mr. John Gregory, Works, pp. 59, 60. (London, 1684, 4to ), and especially by Dr. Lightfoot, Works, vol. ii. pp. 153, 154. folio. 20 VOL. I. which the writings of the apostate Julian are useful for enabling us to judge of various readings in the Septuagint version, as well as in the New Testainent. De Juliano Imperatore, pp. 103-109. Lugd. Bat. 1827. instance, it would have been unquestionably retained in the second. And greater number is of most weight. The evidence of manu when it is recollected that the word #oprsia, which in our version is rendered fornication, means not only the crime against chastity usually so scripts is to be weighed, not enumerated; for the agreement called, but also adultery and prostitution of every kind (for which very of several manuscripts is of no authority, unless their genealogy many of the feasts of the idolatrous Gentiles were notorious), the force of (if we may be allowed the term) is known; because it is possithe apostolic prohibition will be evident; and the genuineness of the comble that a hundred manuscripts that now agree together may monly received reading will be established in opposition to Bentley's arbitrary conjecture.1 have descended from one and the same source. (1.) The common reading of Psalm xxviii. 8. is, The LORD is their strength 10 (LaMo); but there is no antecedent. In six manuscripts and all the versions, however, we read Dy? (LEAMMO) of his people, which completes the sense. This emendation is pronounced by Bp. Horsley, to be tionable" he has therefore incorporated it in the text of his New Version of the Psalms, and has translated the sentence thus: unques No one should attempt this kind of emendation who is not 5. Readings are certainly right, which are supported by a most deeply skilled in the sacred languages; nor should few ancient manuscripts, in conjunction with the ancient vercritical conjectures ever be admitted into the text, for we sions, quotations, parallel places (if any), and the sense; never can be certain of the truth of merely conjectural read-though they should not be found in most manuscript or printed ings. Were these indeed to be admitted into the text, the editions, especially when the rejection of them in the latter can utmost confusion and uncertainty would necessarily be cre- be easily accounted for. ated. The diligence and modesty of the Masorites are in this respect worthy of our imitation: they invariably inserted their conjectures in the margin of their manuscripts, but most religiously abstained from altering the text according to their hypotheses and it is to be regretted that their example has not been followed by some modern translators of the Old and New Testament (and especially of the latter); who, in order to support doctrines which have no foundation whatever in the sacred writings, have not hesitated to obtrude their conjectures into the text. This is particularly the case with the Greek and English New Testament edited by Dr. Mace in 1729, whose bold and unhallowed emendations were exposed by Dr. Twells, and also with the editors of the (modern Socínian) improved version of the New Testament, whose conjectures and erroneous criticisms and interpretations have been most ably exposed by the Rev. Drs. Nares and Laurence, the Quarterly and Eclectic Reviewers, and other eminent critics. §3. GENERAL RULES FOR JUDGING OF VARIOUS READINGS IN THE OLD AND NEW TESTAMENTS. HAVING thus stated the causes of various readings, and offered a few cautions with regard to the sources whence the true lection is to be determined, it only remains that we submit to the reader's attention a few GENERAL Rules, by WHICH AN ACCURATE JUDGMENT MAY BE FORMED CONCERNING VARIOUS READINGS. 1. We must take care, that we do not attempt to correct that which does not require emendation. The earlier manuscript, cæteris paribus, is more likely to be right than the later, because every subsequent copy is liable to new errors. This rule will prevent us from being misled by an immoderate desire of correcting what we may not understand, or what may at a first glance ap. pear to be unsuitable to the genius of the Hebrew or Greek language, or to the design of an author. Wherever, therefore, any difficulty presents itself, it will be necessary previously to consider whether it may not be obviated in some other manner, before we have recourse to emendation; and even ingenuously to acknowledge our ignorance, rather than indulge a petulant licentiousness of making corrections. Examples are not wanting of critics on the sacred writings, who have violated this obvious rule, particularly Houbigant, in the notes to his edition of the Hebrew Bible. 2. That reading in which all the recensions of the best copies agree, and which is supported by all the ancient versions, is to be accounted genuine. Jehovah is the strength of his people. fruit of the SPIRIT (TOU VUμTOS), is in all goodness, and righteousness, scripts, the best is to be preferred; but if both of them exhibit retic copies, and the other in the Septuagint version. The former may be In Psalm ii. 6. there are two readings, one of which is found in the Masoliterally translated thus:- Yet will I anoint my King upon my holy hill of Sion. This reading is supported by weighty evidence, viz. the Masora, chus, the Chaldee paraphrase, and Jerome. The other reading, which is the quotation of it in Acts iv. 27., the Greek versions of Aquila and Symmafound in the Septuagint, may be thus rendered:-But as for me, by him I for the two readings is nearly equal: but if we examine their goodness, we am appointed king on Sion, his holy mountain. Now here the authority shall see that the Masoretic fection is to be preferred, as being more gram 3. Readings are certainly right, and that in the very highest sense, at all consistent with the existence of any various reading, which are supported by several of the most ancient manu-matically correct, and more suited to the context. scripts, or by the majority of them, by all or most of the ancient versions,—by quotations,—by parallel places (if there be any),—and by the sense; even though such readings should not be found in the common printed editions, nor perhaps in any printed edition.2 7. A good various reading, though supported only by one or two witnesses of approved character, is to be preferred. Thus, in the common printed editions of 1 Kings i. 20. we read, And thou, my Lord, O King, the eyes of all Israel are upon thee, which is not sense. Instead of , And THOU, we have any, And Now, in ninety-one of the manuscripts collated by Dr. Kennicott, in the Chaldee paraphrase, and in the Arabic and Vulgate versions. This is the genuine reading, and is required by the sense. Again, in Matt. xxv. 29., we read, From him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he HATH, xx. 'O EXEI apσT. This is found in all the ancient copies, and in the majority of manuscripts, and in all the versions but one. But in twenty-two other manuscripts, and in the Vulgate, as well as in some copies of the Syriac, Sclavonic, and Old Italic versions, and six Fathers, we read' O AOKEI EXEIN, that which he SEEMETH TO HAVE. But it is wrong, and has been corrected from Luke viii. 18. 4. Greater is the authority of a reading, found in only a few manuscripts of different characters, dates, and countries, than in many manuscripts of a similar complexion. But, of manuscripts of the same family or recension, the reading of the 1 Other examples of unsupported conjectural emendations may be seen in Pritii Introd. ad Lectionem Novi Testamenti, p. 393. ; Clerici Ars Critica, tom. ii. part iii. sect. i. c. 16. § 11.; and in Wetstein's Prolegom. ad Nov. Test. pp. 170. et seq. • Gerard's Institutes, pp. 266-268. 8. In the prophetical and poetical books of the Old Testament, as well as in the New Testament, that reading is best which accords with the poetical parallelism. Chap. II. infra. The application of this canon to the various readings of from the latter. Thus in Matt. vii. 2. we read, Εν ώ γαρ κρινετε, κριθήσεσθε. Και εν ώ μετρειτέ, αντιμετρηθήσεται υμιν. For, with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged; And with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. For, aтμтрnostar, shall be measured again, (which is the reading of the common printed editions, of the manuscript by Matthæi noted with the letter H, of the manuscript 13. of Griesbach's notation, of the Vulgate ment of Alexandria, of Origen sometimes, and of the Latin Fathers, we read version, of some manuscripts of the Old Italic version of Polycarp, of CleμST PHOTα, shall be measured, in the Codices Vaticanus, Harleianus No. which are manuscripts in uncial characters of great antiquity, in twelve 5684., Cyprius, Stephani, Regius 22432 (now 48.), and Vaticanus 354., all of manuscripts in smaller characters, by Griesbach, numbered 1. 17. 33, 77. 108. 114. 117. 131. 218. 236, of Professor Birch's Collation, the Evangelisteria, by the manuscripts distinguished by Matthæi with the letters B and V (both numbered 32. and 36., and seventy other manuscripts of inferior note, and of the eighth century), a. c. and d. (all of the tenth or eleventh century), and ⚫ Bp. Middleton on the Greek Article, pp. 493. 133. by eight others of Matthæi's manuscripts of less note, by the Armenian and Ethiopic versions, by the copies of the Old Italic version preserved at Verona, Vercelli, Forli, and Toledo, by Clement of Rome, by Origen once, by the author of the dialogue against Marcion, by Theodoret, Theophylacttion of the Syriac New Testament; and which, he states, are much more Euthymius, Chrysocephalus, and other Greek writers. The reading of ATT, therefore, being supported by such an overwhelming body of evidence, is very properly introduced into the text by Griesbach as preferable to the common reading of autiμeTpythσsta; and it is further demanded by the parallelism. For xpμati (judgment), xpVITs (ye judge), and xp (ye shall be judged), in the first line, require, in order to preserve the balance of the period, μITрw (measure), METPOiTs (ye measure), and MIT POST: (it shall be measured), in the second line. 9. Of two readings of equal or nearly equal authority, that is to be preferred, which is most agreeable to the style of the sacred writer. If, therefore, one of two readings in the New Testament exhibits the He. brew idiom, it is preferable to one that is good Greek, because the latter has the appearance of being a gloss of some Greek writer, which the former does not present. Thus in Jude 1., yvos, sanctified, is a better lection than yμvos, beloved; because the former is inore in unison with the usage of the apostles in their salutations, and in the commencement of their Epistles. In Acts xvii. 26. the reading, ivos aiμatos, of one blood, is preferable to ivos, of one (which occurs in Rom. ix. 10.), because it is in unison with the Hebrew style of writing. In John vi. 69. the common reading, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God, Xpisos o vios TOV OU, TOU (VTOS, is preferable to that of the holy one of God, ayos TOU OU, which Griesbach has admitted into the text, omitting To CTOs, on the authority of the Codices Vaticanus, Ephremi, Cantabrigiensis, Stephani, the Coptic version, and some other authorities of less note. That eminent critic, indeed, allows that the received lection is not to be despised; but we may observe that its genuineness is not only confirmed by the consentient testimonies of many MSS., versions, and fathers, but also from the fact and from the style of writing adopted by the Evangelists. For the appellation of holy one of God is nowhere applied to our Saviour, except in the confession of the demoniac. (Mark i. 24. Luke iv. 54.) In Acts iv. 27. 30. Jesus is termed ayos mais, holy child; but not holy one of God. On the contrary, the appellation of Christ, the Son of God, occurs repeatedly in the New Testament, and especially in this Gospel of John (i. 50.; 49. of English version, and xi. 27.), and is elsewhere expressly applied to him by Peter. See Matt. xvi. 16. The common reading, therefore, of John vi. 69. is to be preferred, in opposition to that adopted by Griesbach, as being most agreeable to the style of the sacred writer. 10. That reading is to be preferred which is most agreeable to the context, and to the author's design in writing. Every writer, and much more a divinely inspired writer, is presumed to write in such a manner, as not to contradict himself either knowingly or willingly, and to write throughout with a due regard to the order and connection of things. Now in Mark i. 2., for V TO1s porais, in the prophets, several manuscripts read Hoαia Twрor, in the prophet Isaiah. Both Mill and Griesbach reject the common reading. But as the context shows that the Evangelist cited not one but two prophets; viz. Mal. iii. 1., and Isa. xl. 3.; the common reading ought to be retained, especially as it is supported by the Codex Alexandrinus, the Ethiopic and Coptic versions, and the quotations of many fathers. 11. A reading, whose source is clearly proved to be erroneous, must be rejected. 12. Of two readings, neither of which is unsuitable to the sense, either of which may have naturally arisen from the other, and both of which are supported by manuscripts, versions, and quotations in the writings of the fathers; the one will be more probable than the other, in proportion to the preponderance of the evidence that supports it: and that preponderance admits a great variety of degrees.2 In Acts xx. 28. we read, Feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood. Of this sentence there are not fewer than six various readings, viz. 1. Thy exxλnoia TOU Xp1500, the church of Christ; 2. Tov Osov, of God, which lection is expunged by Griesbach, who prefers, 3. Tou Kupiou, of the Lord. This reading is also preferred by Wetstein; 4. Tou Kupio xxi , of the Lord and God, which Griesbach has inserted in his inner margin; 5. Tourou xa Kupiou, of the God and Lord; and 6. Tou Kupio ov, of the Lord God; in order to determine which of these readings is to be adopted, it is necessary briefly to review the various authorities which have been adduced for each. seventeen others, none of which indeed are older than the eleventh cen tury, and many of them are more modern. It is also supported by two MSS. of the Peschito or Old Syriac version, collated by Professor Lee for his ediancient than those upon which the printed text was formed. This reading is also found in a very ancient Syriac MS. in the Vatican Library, in the Latin Vulgate, the Ethiopic, according to Dr. Mill, though Griesbach thinks it doubtful; and it is quoted or referred to by Ignatius, Tertullian, Athanasius, Basil, Epiphanius, Ambrose, Chrysostom, Celestine bishop of Rome, Oecumenius, Theophylact, and eleven other fathers of the Greek and Latin Church, besides the sixth Synod in Trullo (hield A. D. 680), and the second Nicene Synod (held A. D. 787). scripts, viz. the Codices Alexandrinus, Cantabrigiensis, Ephremi, and Lau3. Tou Kuprou-Of the Lord. This reading is supported by thirteen manudianus (all of which are written in uncial letters, of great and undisputed antiquity, and derived from different and independent sources), the Moscow MS. which formerly belonged to Chrysostom, according to Matthæi (on Eph. iv. 9.), who has noted it with the letter B, and eight others of less note. This reading is also found in the Coptic, Sahidic, in the inargin of the Philoxenian or later Syriac, in the Old Italic as contained in the Codex Cantabrigiensis, and as edited by Sabatier, and in the Armenian versions. The Ethiopic version has likewise been cited, as exhibiting the reading of Kupiou, Lord, but its evidence is indecisive, the same word being used therein for both Lord and God. Griesbach thinks it probable that this version reads Kupiou, from the consentient testimony of the Coptic and Armenian versions. Among the fathers, this reading is supported by Eusebius, Athanasius, Chrysostom, Ammonius, Maximus, Antonius, Ibas, Lucifer, Jerome, Augustine, Sedulius, Alcimus, the author of the pretended Apostolical Constitutions, and the second Council of Carthage (which, however, in the Greek, reads ov, of God). 4. Tou Kupiou xx @sov-Of the Lord and God. This reading is supported only by the Codex G. (Passionei, assigned by Blanchini to the eighth, but by Montfaucon to the ninth century), and sixty-three other MSS.; none of which, though they form the majority in point of number, are among the most correct and authoritative. It is also found in the Sclavonic version, but it is not cited by one of the fathers; and is printed in the Complutensian and Plantin editions. 5. To x Kupiov-Of the God and Lord. This reading occurs only in the MS. by Griesbach numbered 47. ; it is an apograph transcribed in the sixteenth century by John Faber of Deventer from one written in 1293. 6. Tou Kupicu sou-Of the Lord God. This reading is found only in one MS. (95. of Griesbach's notation) of the fifteenth century, and the incorrect Arabic version printed in the Paris and London Polyglotts; and it is cited by Theophylact alone among the fathers. Lord, and No. 4. Tou Kupiou xa. Ov, Of the Lord and God, are best supOf these six readings, No. 2. Tou rov, Of God, No. 3. Tou Kupion, of the ported by external testimony, and it is the preponderance of the evidence adduced for each, that must deterinine which of them is the genuine reading. 1. The testimony of manuscripts is pretty equally divided between these three readings. Though Kupou is supported by the greater number of uncial MSS. (viz. the Codices Alexandrinus, Cantabrigiensis, Ephremi, and Laudianus), yet so is supported by the Codex Vaticanus, which is of the highest autho rity; and Kupov xo, though deficient in this respect (for G. or the Cocentury), yet it is most numerously supported by manuscripts of different dex Passionei, as we have noticed, is not earlier than the eighth or ninth families, and especially by the Moscow manuscripts, and by the Complu tensian edition. 2. The ancient versions, supporting sev and Kupov, are equal to each other in number indeed, but those which support the former are superior in weight. For the Latin Vulgate, the Peschito or Old Syriac, and the Ethiopic, in favour of e, are of higher authority than their competitors, the Coptic, Sahidic, and Armenian. The compound reading Kupio xx so is unsupported by any but the Sclavonic; which is closely connected with the Moscow manuscripts. 3. The testimony of the fathers is greatly in favour of ev. For though by Wetstein, and copied by Griesbach; yet no citations from thence are a considerable number of counter-testimonies in favour of Kupicu is named adduced by either, which leads us to suspect, that their testimony is either spurious, slight, or else refuted by the express citations on the other side. Thus, the objection of Athanasius to the phrase "the blood of God," as "being nowhere used in Scripture, and to be reckoned among the daring his own counter-testimony, citing the received reading of Acts xx. 28., and fabrications of the Arians," recorded by Wetstein, is abundantly refuted by by the frequent use of the phrase by the orthodox fathers, Ignatius, Tertullian, Leontius, Fulgentius, Bede, Theophylact, and others above enumerated. The objection, therefore, was urged inconsiderately, and probably in the warmth of controversy; in which Athanasius was perpetually engaged with the Arians, his incessant persecutors. is contradicted by his testimony in favour of Kupio xx, is unsupported by the fathers before Theophylact; and From this abstract, it appears to the writer of these pages, that the exter 1. Tou Xpasou-Of Christ. This reading is supported by no Greek MSS.; but it is found in the printed editions of the Peschito or Old Syriac version, even in the Vatican copies of the Nestorians. This reading is also found in the Arabic version edited by Erpenius (which was made from the Syriac), nal evidence preponderates, upon the whole, in favour of ro; and this is and it seems to be supported by Origen (probably, for the passage is ambi further confirmed by the internal evidence. For, in the first place, the guous), by Athanasius, the anonymous author of the first dialogue against the expression xxnx Tou ou, church of God, is in unison with the style of Macedonians, Theodoret, the interpolated Epistle of Ignatius, Basil, and St. Paul; and it occurs in not fewer than eleven passages of his epistles; Fulgentius. The popish synod of the Malabar Christians, held in 1599, in the New Testament. And secondly, su might easily give occasion to while the phrase Xxx Tou Kupiov, church of the Lord, occurs nowhere under the direction of Mendoza, the Portuguese archbishop of Goa, states that the Nestorians inserted this reading at the instigation of the devil,. If (as Michaelis remarks) the Evangelist Luke wrote, the origin the other readings, though none of these could so easily give occasion to instigante diabolo! of Kupiou and Xpisov may be explained either as corrections of the text or as marginal notes; because "the blood of God" is a very extraordinary expression; but if he had written Kupicu, it is inconceivable how any one should alter it into . And on this latter supposition, the great number of various readings is inexplicable. It seems as if different transcribers had found a difficulty in the passage, and that each corrected according to his own judgment. 2 Touro-Of God. This is the common reading. It is supported by that most ancient and venerable MS., B, or the Codex Vaticanus, and by 1 Bp. Jebb's Sacred Literature, p. 144. In pp. 206. 329-331. of the same work the reader will find other instructive examples of the canon above given. 2 Gerard's Institutes, p. 275. second London edition of Griesbach's Greek Testament, printed by him in 1818, with equal beauty and accuracy. From Professor Birch (of Copenhagen) finding nothing noted in his collation of the Codex Vaticanus respecting the reading of sou (though he expressly says, that if any variety of reading had taken place in that MS. it Irenæus is commonly cited as an authority for the reading Tou Kupiou: could not have escaped him, as he intended to examine this remarkable but Dr. Burton has shown that much use cannot be made of his authority in place above all others in all the manuscripts that caine in his way), Gries deciding this reading. (Testimonies of Ante-Nicene Fathers, p. 17.) bach endeavours to set aside the testimony furnished by the Vatican manu- 5 Nov. Test. vol. i. p. 597. • See canon 9. in the preceding column. script. But it is a FACT that sou is the reading of that manuscript: for (1.) Compare 1 Cor. i. 2. x. 32. xi. 16. 22. xv. 9. 2 Cor. i. 1. Gal. i. 13. 1 Thess. it WAS there in 1738, when it was collated by the very learned Thomas ii. 14. 2 Thess. i. 4. and 1 Tim. iii. 5. 15. The phrase xxλ TOυ Kupiou, Wagstaffe, then at Rome, for Dr. Berryman, who was at that time engaged congregation of the Lord, is of frequent occurrence in the Septuagint ver in preparing for publication his work on the genuineness of 1 Tin. iii. 16.;sion, whence it might have crept into the text of the MSS. that support it, and (2) IS the reading of the Vatican MS., for a transcript of it was particularly of the Codex Alexandrinus, which was written in Egypt, where obtained by Mr. R. Taylor from the keeper of the Vatican library for the the Septuagint version was made. |