which ought to be added or omitted; many other MSS. have notes or scholia to the effect that it is "wanting in most copies," or "in the more accurate copies"; or that it is "found in some copies," or "in the more ancient copies." It breaks the connection, and differs in style from the rest of the Gospel. These phenomena are irreconcilable with the supposition that it belonged originally to the text, and nearly all critics of reputation agree in rejecting it as a later addition. This does not prove the story false; on the contrary, it has many internal marks of truth.

Another remarkable interpolation is that in John v. 3, 4, respecting the descent of the angel at the pool of Bethesda, where the ancient evidence against the questionable portions is so strong, and the variations among the authorities that contain them are so numerous, that there can be no reasonable doubt of their spuriousness, though they were early added to the text.

Another is the rebuke of James and John by Christ, as given in the Received Text in Luke ix. 55. The evidence against the genuineness of the words placed in the margin by the Revisers is decisive, though in this case also the addition was made as early as the second century. But the words bear the stamp of a genuine utterance of Christ in their originality and their harmony with his character. The clause even as Elijah did" at the end of verse 54 is also rightly rejected by the Revisers, as wanting in the best MSS. and other ancient authorities, while its omission cannot be reasonably explained as due either to accident or design.

The last twelve verses of the Gospel of Mark present a problem of much interest in connection with this subject. They are retained by the Revisers without brackets, but are separated by an extra space from the preceding, with a marginal note mentioning their absence from the two oldest Greek MSS. and other documents, and that some other authorities have a still different ending of the Gospel. This is not the place for entering into a discussion of the difficult and complicated question concerning the genuineness of

these verses, of which the Rev. (now Very Rev.) Mr. Burgon is the most prominent advocate.

Of the passages of any considerable length in the Gospels which the Revisers have been constrained to reject as later additions to the text there remains only, I believe, the doxology of the Lord's Prayer. Here an examination of the evidence will satisfy us that the words could not have been omitted by accident from the authorities in which they are wanting; and the beauty of the doxology is such that it could not have been omitted by design. On the other hand, its addition from the liturgical service of the church was most natural. It is founded on 1 Chron. xxix. II. In many of the MSS. which contain it, it is written in red ink, to distinguish it from the proper text; in others, it appears only in the margin: such MSS. mark the steps of its introduction. It is found in the newly discovered Codex Rossanensis, of the latter part of the sixth or the beginning of the seventh century; but this MS., to judge from the readings which have been published, though better than the ninth and tenth century uncials, represents a text far less pure than that of our uncials of the fourth, fifth, and sixth centuries,, B, D, Z, which omit the doxology (A and C are mutilated here), as do also the cursives I, 17, 118, 130, 209, of which 1, 118, and 209 are of exceptional excellence. The testimony of the Old Latin, Vulgate, and Memphitic versions against it, and the dead silence respecting it of the early commentators on the Prayer, as Origen, Tertullian, Cyprian, are of very great weight; while its variations in form in several of the versions and ancient quotations in which something like it is found, diminish their authority as witnesses in its favor.

This detailed, though incomplete, exhibition of supplements to the original text from the Septuagint version of the Old Testament, from parallel passages in the Gospels, from the context of the passage itself, or from similar passages in other parts of the same Gospel, from marginal notes or glosses, and sometimes from tradition, is intended to serve several purposes besides that of an enumeration of

A very

remarkable changes of text in the new revision. large part of these changes consists in the omission of words or clauses, or even whole verses, which are found in the common text; in comparatively few cases have words been added by the Revisers. To many readers these omissions of familiar words will seem little less than sacrilege. One little versed in criticism and unacquainted with MSS. is likely to say to himself, "The presumption is altogether in favor of the fuller text: transcribers might easily omit words by accident, but they could only add by design; and we cannot suppose that any considerable number of them would wilfully interpolate writings which they regarded as sacred, especially after the warning in Rev. xxii. 18.”

This view of the matter is very superficial. We have seen in the few cases in which the evidence has been stated that, if the longer form of the passage were the original, we could not rationally explain the omissions as the result either of accident or design. Very strange omissions will sometimes occur through accident in a single MS.; but the chances will be perhaps a thousand to one against another independent copyist's making the same blunder. In the cases in which the evidence has not been stated, it would in general be equally clear, I believe, on examination, that the hypothesis that the longer form of the passage was genuine would leave the omission entirely unaccountable; while, if the shorter form were the original, we should have a plau sible explanation of the addition. Each repeated instance of this kind strengthens our conviction that in this explanation we are on the right track. And we are confirmed in our view when we find that the tendency to add rather than to omit characterizes the MSS. of ancient classical authors, and that the most eminent philologists fully recognize the principle to which our New Testament examples seem irresistibly to lead us. For example, Porson says in his Letters to Travis (p. 149), “Perhaps you think it ‘an absurd and affected idea' that a marginal note can ever creep into the text; yet I hope you are not so ignorant as not to know that this has actually happened, not merely in

hundreds or thousands, but in millions of places." He then quotes Daillé and Bengel on this point, and adds, "From this known propensity of transcribers to turn everything into text which they found written in the margin of their MSS. or between the lines, so many interpolations have proceeded that at present the surest canon of criticism is, Praeferatur lectio brevior." (That is, "The shorter reading is to be preferred.")

The cases which we have noticed are instructive in other ways. When critically examined, they demonstrate the superlative value of such MSS. as B, N, Z, D, L, C, and s in the Gospel of Mark, in questions of omission or addition, as compared with the mass of the later uncials and cursives. They show that certain cursives are also of exceptional value in such questions. They illustrate in some measure the process by which the character of our different witnesses may be tested. We find that their character is often different in different books of the New Testament. We find that the value of their testimony depends much on the nature of the reading. We perceive that they fall more or less distinctly into certain groups, representing certain tendencies, and that this consideration is often important in weighing evidence. But these and other matters can only be hinted at. Other classes of readings, which would also serve to test the relative value and bring out the characteristics of our different authorities, must be wholly passed over, at least for the present, as this paper has already reached an inordinate length.

XII.

ON THE READING "ONLY-BEGOTTEN GOD,"

IN JOHN I. 18.

WITH PARTICULAR REFERENCE TO THE STATEMENTS
OF DR. TREGELLES.*

[From the Bibliotheca Sacra for October, 1861.]

Θεὸν οὐδεὶς ἑώρακεν πώποτε· ὁ μονογενής υἱός [al. θεός], ὁ ὢν εἰς τὸν κόλπον τοῦ πατρός, ἐκεῖνος ἐξηγήσατο.

θεός,

IN John i. 18, which reads in the common version: "No man hath seen God at any time; the only-begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him," it has long been known to scholars that important critical authorities, instead of the expression μovoyɛvìs viós. "the only-begotten Son," have the remarkable reading μovoyevs ós, "only-begotten God." The MSS. that contain it, though not numerous, are of the very highest rank, including both the famous Vatican MS. and the newly discovered Codex Sinaiticus of Tischendorf. This reading is also found in several of the ancient versions, and has been supposed to be attested by a great majority of the ancient Fathers, both Greek and Latin. Though not adopted into the text of any edition of the Greek Testament yet published, its genuineness has been maintained by Dr. S. P. Tregelles, the most eminent among English scholars in the department of textual criticism; and it will undoubtedly be presented as the true reading in his long expected edition. It would also, as Dr. Tregelles assures us, have been received by Lachmann

*An Introduction to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament; with Analyses, etc., of the respective Books. By the Rev. Thomas Hartwell Horne, B.D. The critical part rewritten and the remainder revised and edited by Samuel Prideaux Tregelles, LL.D. Second Edition. London: Longman, etc., 1860. 8vo. pp. xxvii., 801; pp. 751-784 being "Additions" and Postscript," which alone distinguish this from the former edition. These Additions, with the Postscript, have also been published separately.