In Scholz introduces the parenthetic words of Griesbach (qui saepe quidem habet Oròç in Òperum editionibus, sed perperam, uti docuimus in Symbolis criticis, tom. i. pag. xliii). Again, in Colossians ii. 11, after rou owμaroç the Constantinopolitan MSS. have Tv åμаρrov; whereas the Alexandrian revision omits the phrase. Yet Scholz adopts the Alexandrian reading, copying the authorities for it from Griesbach's note. Apocalypse xv. 2, he has exovTEC in the text, which seems to be a typographical error in Griesbach for exovraç;* and in a note he puts exovras 13! On Matthew iv. 10, among ἔχοντας the authorities for inserting oríow pov he takes from Griesbach, "codd. e quibus interpolatus fuit Lucas." But in the parallel passage of Luke, he has in the text the very words here declared to be an interpolation. It is needless to give other examples of the editor's negligence and gross blunders, since anyone may readily find them. for himself. Yet the edition was received with considerable favour in England immediately on its appearance, because it upheld the later form of the text, in opposition to the innovating Griesbach who found so many received readings unsupported by the most ancient evidence that he was compelled to reject them. In 1846 and 1848 respectively, appeared two editions of the Greek Testament by Edward von Muralt. The latter is the larger, containing a preface of 115 pages, and upwards of 200 pages of various readings at the end. The editor professes to give a better collation of B. than his predecessors, and says that he was allowed to use the MS. itself at Rome, for three days, in the year 1844, which were sufficient for noting the disagreement between the readings given by Birch and Bartolocci. But Tischendorf asserts that Von Muralt did not see the MS. in question. Little reliance can be placed upon the Vatican readings as here given. If very cautiously used, the critical apparatus of the editor may be useful. abbreviations should have been more distinct, and easily understood. His In 1860 was published the second edition of a small unpretending volume, containing the Greek text by Buttmann, in which the Vatican MS. readings are chiefly followed. In the portion where B. is defective, the text of A. is given. Only in a few places has the editor departed from the Vatican; and in but one has he indulged in conjecture, viz., 2 Peter iii. 10, where rà is changed into a. Below the page are given the readings contained in the editions of Griesbach, Lachmann, Tischendorf (1854), and the Elzevir. It is worthy of note, * The edition of 1805 has Exovras. that Buttmann reads exouev in Romans v. 1, though B. and the most ancient MS. authority is against it and for exwuev, let us have. The indicative is right, since the whole context favours a declaratory, not hortatory sense. But he has εὐδοκία in Luke ii. 14, not vdoxías, though the latter is the original reading of the MS. The text of the edition cannot be trusted as a correct reproduction of B. A much better one was published by the same editor in 1862 (8vo. and 4to.), printed with types resembling the uncial character. Here Buttmann's object is the same as before, to follow the text of the Vatican MS. mainly; and he has taken great pains to ascertain what it is. The recensus locorum at the end presents a list of all places in which his text differs from that of B., as well as of all the passages in which the various collators of B. disagree as to its reading; Bentley, Birch, Mai (first and second editions), Cobet and Kuenen, Lachmann, Tischendorf, and Muralt. The edition in question cannot be commended, because it is uncritical. Buttmann proceeds arbitrarily in rejecting one reading and retaining another. His list at the end is full of errors, and betrays little judgment in giving the witnesses for the single Vatican readings. As to the real condition of the Vatican text, reliance can only be placed in the second Roman edition (Vercellone's, 1859); to which should be added, the two collations of Bentley, and Tischendorf's statements. * As it is not our purpose to catalogue successive editions of the Greek Testament, we pass over all that Tischendorf published before the seventh, which appeared in 1859 in two handsome volumes. This is the most important and valuable work of the kind which we possess at present. The learned author, who is well known for his indefatigable labours in bringing ancient MSS. to light and editing their texts, has earned for himself a very high reputation in the criticism of the Greek Testament. He is better acquainted with the readings of ancient authorities than any other critic of the day; and we rely much on his MS. quotations. As to the text, he does not follow the most ancient testimonies implicitly, but exercises an independent judgment in estimating their probable value. In the main, he is a follower of Lachmann, trusting most to the oldest MSS. But his basis is wider and better. According to Tischendorf, the text should be derived from ancient testimonies, especially Greek codices, without, however, neglecting versions and fathers. When the witnesses disagree, such readings as are attested by the oldest *See Tischendorf's review, in the Literarische Centralblatt für Deutschland, No. 21, 1862. Greek MSS., i.e., those reaching from the fourth till nearly the ninth century, should be put in the first place. Among these again, the most ancient are the most authoritative. Their authority is greatly increased if the testimonies of versions and fathers agree with it; nor is it overpowered by the disagreement of the majority of more recent MSS. or even of them all; meaning by recent ones those that reach from the ninth to the sixteenth century. At the same time the critic admits that the praise of antiquity belonging to the readings of the oldest MSS. may attach to the more recent; though that is not probable of itself; and that the number of codices made after the eighth century should not be urged against the comparative paucity of the older ones. Very justly does he remark, that the readings of the junior may equal or excel those of the oldest, since they may have the consent of the Syriac, Sahidic, Italic, or Gothic versions, and also of the Fathers Clement, Origen, Irenæus, and Tertullian. Thus Tischendorf has generally followed the oldest Greek MSS. without neglecting either the later ones, or the best versions and most important fathers. We could wish that he had cited the ancient versions and fathers as accurately as he has the MSS. But he has relied too much on Latin translations of the versions. Here he might have obtained help with advantage. Whether the haste with which he has published so many editions has affected his judgment unfavourably, we will not undertake to assert. Had he not altered his text considerably in successive editions it might have been better; though stereotyped opinions cannot be good. In selecting the readings he prefers, he conveys the impression of less calmness and deliberation than a critical editor should possess. But we know that he is most thoughtful in his work; and therefore appearances are deceitful in the case. As an editor he is hardly equal to Lachmann in critical sagacity, nice perception, and tact. His forte lies in deciphering ancient MSS. and editing them with accuracy. Since Griesbach there is no man to whom Greek Testament criticism owes so much. stands pre-eminent in his department. No other edition can be compared with his seventh in value and completeness. As it is now exhausted, the indefatigable critic is publishing another, i.e., the eighth, in which he will be able to incorporate the readings of N, and also those of eighteen uncial codices recently found. Though the seventh is the best yet published, we do not follow it implicitly. In several cases another reading is preferable to that which the learned editor has placed in the text. Thus in Matthew xi. He 10, he has καὶ κατασκευάσει ; whereas ὃς κατασκευάσει is much better supported. Here he follows Lachmann injudiciously. Again, Matthew xxiii. 38, pnuos is in his text, after a great number of uncial MSS. It should be absent, having been transferred from Luke xiii. 35. Here Lachmann is superior to Tischendorf. In Romans xi. 6, the words i de ἔργων, οὐκέτι ἐστὶ χάρις· ἐπεὶ τὸ ἔργον οὐκέτι ἐστὶν ἔργον, should not be in the text, both for other reasons, and because they are attested only by two uncials B.L. Here Griesbach, Scholz, and Lachmann, are right. It is evident that Reiche has influenced Tischendorf in retaining the words. In Ephes. v. 30, he gives the common Elzevir reading, "We are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones." The words in italics should be expunged, as Lachmann has treated them. In Luke ii. 14, he has after Lachmann, πì yñs εipývn ev avОρúπоiç εvdoкíaç, i.e., "peace on earth among men of (God's) good pleasure," a reading by no means so well attested as the nominative εὐδοκία, nor so probable. The phrase ἀνθρώποι Evdokiaç for God's chosen people is without a parallel. In Mark xi. 8, Tischendorf's reading seems inferior to that of Lachmann, ἄλλοι δὲ στιβάδας, κόψαντες ἐκ τῶν ἀγρῶν, instead οἱ ἄλλοι δὲ στιβάδας ἔκοπτον ἐκ τῶν δένδρων καὶ ἐστρώννυον εἰς τὴν ὁδόν. The reading ἀγρῶν probably arose from δένδρων by some strange mistake; perhaps from the Latin arborum = arm, converted into agrorum, from which the Greek ȧypov was translated. Here, as in so many other cases, Alford follows Tischendorf. In John In interpunction we observe that Tischendorf is sometimes more correct than Lachmann; sometimes the reverse. i. 3, he punctuates rightly according to the common method, not separating 8 yeyover from the oude v preceding; whereas Lachmann follows C.D. Origen, Irenæus, and others. He has no semicolon or interrogation after ὁ δικαιῶν, ὑπὲρ ἡμων, (Romans viii. 33, 34), where it would be most appropriate, and where Lachmann has put it. It is scarcely necessary to refer to the critical edition now in progress by Dr. Tregelles, because nothing more than the Gospels is yet published. The pietistic observations prefixed to each of the two parts issued, and somewhat ostentatiously paraded, may not probably recommend the author to the favour of scholars. We refer to such sentences as, "It is only a Christian scholar who can use these things rightly in the fullest sense; for he alone knows the full value of Holy Scripture as the record of the Holy Ghost, given to make wise unto salvation, through faith which is in Christ Jesus; and he only can rightly apprehend what that spirit of prayer is in which all biblical studies should be carried on.' Again, "I have sought to serve Christ in serving His church, in labour connected with the text of Holy Scripture, the testimony of the Holy Ghost." How naturally does this unctuous phraseology remind one by way of contrast of Tischendorf's statement* respecting the gentleman in question, "oblitus sit mendacem oportere esse memorem." His The The editor is an admirer and follower of Lachmann, anxious, apparently, to differ from Tischendorf, and to nibble at his fair fame. The basis on which he proceeds is the testimony of the ancient or uncal MSS., together with some later and cursive ones containing an old text; ancient versions as far as the seventh century; and patristic citations down to Eusebius inclusive. He professes to give the various readings, so as to make it clear what is the evidence on both sides. He has done service to criticism by collating several ancient MSS., a work which he performs very accurately. But in the qualifications of a critical editor he seems to be deficient. judgment cannot be trusted; and his sagacity is small. Rely ing, as he does implicitly, on mere antiquity and external evidence in tracing the private text, he often errs. internal goodness of readings is subordinated to outward authorities. Thus he takes into the text in John i. 18, μovoуovns Oɛós, the only-begotten God, which, though attested by many ancient authorities, could not have proceeded from the evangelist. A reading may be ancient, and even supported by a preponderance of external authority, which ought not on that account to be received into the text. Particular reasons may determine the reception of another. Thus in Matthew xxvii. 16, 17, 'Inσouv before Bapaßßav should be adopted as the right reading, on the authority of Origen's translator and ancient codices. Yet Lachmann and Tischendorf reject it; though Fritzsche has maintained its genuineness most successfully. It is easy to see why 'Inoouv should have been omitted: it is difficult to perceive the reason of its being taken into the text. Hence it must be regarded as original. In like manner the word Ἡσαΐου added to προφήτου in Matthew xiii. 35, is adopted by no new editor; but it was in copies known to Eusebius, Jerome, and Porphyry. And it is in the Sinaitic MS: The reason for omitting it is obvious, because Isaiah did not write the passage quoted, but Asaph, or an unknown Psalmist. Dr. Tregelles has the orpos of B, in imitation of Lachmann; though the latter critic does not believe that it stood at |