xxvi. 14), or in the parallel passage of one of the other synoptical

Gospels. In quotations, also, from the Old Testament the shorter form is always the more probably correct (_ibid._). Circumstances too will be supplied which were deemed essential for the preservation of historical truth (e.g. Act. viii. 37), or names of persons and places may be inserted from the Lectionaries: and to this head we must refer the graver and more deliberate interpolations so frequently met with in Cod. D and a few other documents. Yet it is just as true that words and clauses are sometimes wilfully omitted for the sake of removing apparent difficulties (e.g. υἱοῦ βαραχίου, Matt, xxiii. 35 in Cod. א and a few others), and that the negligent loss of whole passages through ὁμοιοτέλευτον is common to manuscripts of every age and character. On the whole, therefore, the indiscriminate rejection of portions of the text regarded as supplementary, on the evidence of but a few authorities, must be viewed with considerable distrust and suspicion.

IV. That reading of a passage is preferable which best suits the peculiar style, manner, and habits of thought of an author; it being the tendency of copyists to overlook the idiosyncrasies of the writer. For example, the abrupt energy of St. James’ _asyndeta_ (e.g. ch. i. 27), of which we have just seen a marked instance, is much concealed by the particles inserted by the common text (e.g. ch. ii. 4, 13; iii. 17; iv. 2; v. 6): St. Luke in the Acts is fond of omitting “said” or “saith” after the word indicating the speaker, though they are duly supplied by recent scribes (e.g. ch. ii. 38; ix. 5; xix. 2; xxv. 22; xxv. 28, 29). Thus again, in editing Herodotus, an Ionic form is more eligible than an Attic one equally well attested, while in the Greek Testament an Alexandrian termination should be chosen under similar circumstances. Yet even this canon has a double edge: habit or the love of critical correction will sometimes lead the scribe to change the text to his author’s more usual style, as well as to depart from it through inadvertence (_see_ Acts iv. 17; 1 Pet. ii. 24): so that we may securely apply the rule only where the external evidence is not unequally balanced.

V. Attention must be paid to the genius and usage of each several authority, in assigning the weight due to it in a particular instance. Thus the testimony of Cod. B is of the less influence in omissions, that of Cod. D (Bezae) in additions, inasmuch as the tendency of the former is to abridge, that of the latter to amplify the sacred text. The value of versions and ecclesiastical writers also much depends on the degree of care and critical skill which they display.

Every one of the foregoing rules might be applied _mutatis mutandis_ to the emendation of the text of any author whose works have suffered alteration since they left his hands: the next (so far as it is true) is peculiar to the case of Holy Scripture.

VI. “Inter plures unius loci lectiones ea pro suspectâ merito habetur, quae orthodoxorum dogmatibus manifestè prae ceteris favet” (Griesbach, N. T., Proleg., p. lxvi. vol. i). I cite this canon from Griesbach for the sake of annexing Archbishop Magee’s very pertinent corollary: “from which, at least, it is reasonable to infer, that whatever readings, in favour of the Orthodox opinion, may have had _his_ sanction, have not been preferred by him from any bias in behalf of Orthodoxy” (Discourses on Atonement and Sacrifice, vol. iii. p. 212). Alford says that the rule, “sound in the main,” does not hold good, when, “_whichever reading is adopted, the orthodox meaning is legitimate_, but _the adoption of the stronger orthodox reading is absolutely incompatible with the heretical meaning_,—then it is probable that _such stronger orthodox reading was the original_” (N. T., Proleg., vol. i. p. 83, note 6, 4th edition): instancing Act. xx. 28, where the weaker reading τὴν ἐκκλησίαν τοῦ κυρίου would quite satisfy the orthodox, while the alternative reading τοῦ θεοῦ “would have been certain to be altered by the heretics.” But in truth there seems no good ground for believing that the rule is “sound in the main,” though two or three such instances as 1 Tim. iii. 16(251) and the insertion of θεόν in Jude, ver. 4, might seem to countenance it. We dissent altogether from Griesbach’s statement, “Scimus enim, lectiones quascunque, etiam manifestò falsas, dummodo orthodoxorum placitis patrocinarentur, inde a tertii seculi initiis mordicus defensas seduloque propagatas, ceteras autem ejusdem loci lectiones, quae dogmati ecclesiastico nil praesidii afferrent, haereticorum perfidiae attributas temere fuisse” (Griesb. _ubi supra_), if he means that the orthodox forged those great texts, which, _believing them to be authentic_, it was surely innocent and even incumbent on them to employ(252). The Church of Christ “inde a tertii seculi initiis” has had her faults, many and grievous, but she never did nor shall fail in her duty as a faithful “witness and keeper of Holy Writ.” But while vindicating the copyists of Scripture from all wilful tampering with the text, we need not deny that they, like others of their craft, preferred that one out of several extant readings that seemed to give the fullest and most emphatic sense: hence Davidson would fain account for the addition ἐκ τῆς σαρκὸς αὐτοῦ καὶ ἐκ τῶν ὀστέων αὐτοῦ (which, however, is not unlikely to be genuine(253)) in Eph. v. 30. Since the mediaeval scribes belonged almost universally to the monastic orders, we will not dispute the truth of Griesbach’s rule, “Lectio prae aliis sensum pietati (praesertim monasticae) alendae aptum fundens, suspecta est,” though its scope is doubtless very limited(254). Their habit of composing and transcribing Homilies has also been supposed to have led them to give a hortatory form to positive commands or dogmatic statements (_see_ Vol. I. p. 17), but there is much weight in Wordsworth’s remark, that “such suppositions as these have a tendency to destroy the credit of the ancient MSS.; and if such surmises were true, those MSS. would hardly be worth the pains of collating them” (_note on_ 1 Cor. xv. 49).

VII. “Apparent probabilities of erroneous transcription, permutation of letters, itacism and so forth,” have been designated by Bp. Ellicott “_paradiplomatic_ evidence” (Preface to the Galatians; p. xvii, first edition), as distinguished from the “_diplomatic_” testimony of codices, versions, &c. This species of evidence, which can hardly be deemed internal, must have considerable influence in numerous cases, and will be used the most skilfully by such as have considerable practical acquaintance with the rough materials of criticism. We have anticipated what can be laid before inexperienced readers on this topic in the first chapter of our first volume, when discussing the sources of various readings(255): in fact, so far as canons of internal or of paradiplomatic evidence are at all trustworthy, they instruct us in the reverse process to that aimed at in Vol. I. Chap. I; the latter showing by what means the pure text of the inspired writings was brought into its present state of _partial_ corruption, the former promising us some guidance while we seek to retrace its once downward course back to the fountain-head of primeval truth(256). To what has been previously stated in regard to paradiplomatic testimony it may possibly be worth while to add Griesbach’s caution “lectiones RHYTHMI fallaciâ facillimè explicandae nullius sunt pretii” (N. T., Proleg. p. lxvi), a fact whereof 2 Cor. iii. 3 affords a memorable example. Here what once seemed the wholly unnatural reading ἐν πλαξὶ _καρδίαις_ σαρκίναις, being disparaged by dint of the rhyming termination, is received by Lachmann in the place of καρδίας, on the authority of Codd. AB (_sic_) CDEGLP, perhaps a majority of cursive copies (seven out of Scrivener’s twelve, and Wake 12 or Paul. 277); to which add Cod. א unknown to Lachmann, and that abject slave of manuscripts, the Harkleian Syriac. Codd. FK have καρδίας, with all the other versions. If we attempt to interpret καρδίαις, we must either render with Alford, in spite of the order of the Greek, “on fleshy tables, [your] hearts:” or with the Revisers of 1881 “in tables _that are_ hearts of flesh;” yet surely σαρκίναις as well as λιθίναις must agree with πλαξί. Dr. Hort in mere despair would almost reject the second πλαξί (Introd., Notes, p. 119).

It has been said that “when the cause of a various reading is known, the variation usually disappears(257).” This language may seem extravagant, yet it hardly exaggerates what may be effected by internal evidence, when it is clear, simple, and unambiguous. It is, therefore, much to be lamented that this is seldom the case in practice. Readings that we should uphold in virtue of one canon, are very frequently (perhaps in a majority of really doubtful passages) brought into suspicion by means of another; yet they shall each of them be perfectly sound and reasonable in their proper sphere. An instance in point is Matt. v. 22, where the external evidence is divided. Codd. אΒ (in Δ _secundâ manu_), 48, 198, 583, 587, Origen _twice_, the Ethiopic and Vulgate, omit εἰκῆ after πᾶς ὁ ὀργιζόμενος τῷ ἀδελφῷ ἀυτοῦ, Jerome fairly stating that it is “in quibusdam codicibus,” not “in veris,” which may be supposed to be Origen’s MSS., and therefore removing it from his revised Latin version. It is found, however, in all other extant copies (including ΣDEKLMSUVΔ (_primâ manu_) Π, most cursives, all the Syriac (the Peshitto inserting, not a Syriac equivalent, but the Greek word εἰκῆ) and Old Latin copies, the Bohairic, Armenian, and Gothic versions), in Eusebius, in many Greek Fathers, in the Latin Fathers from Irenaeus downwards(258), and even in the Old Latin Version of Origen himself; the later authorities uniting with Codd. ΣD and their associates against the two oldest manuscripts extant. Under such circumstances the suggestions of internal evidence would be precious indeed, were not that just as equivocal as diplomatic proof. “Griesbach and Meyer,” says Dean Alford, “hold it to have been expunged from motives of moral rigorism:—De Wette to have been inserted to soften the apparent rigour of the precept(259).” Our sixth Canon is here opposed to our first(260). The important yet precarious and strictly auxiliary nature of rules of internal evidence will not now escape the attentive student; he may find them exemplified very slightly and imperfectly in the twelfth Chapter of this volume, but more fully by recent critical editors of the Greek Testament; except perhaps by Tregelles, who usually passes them by in silence, though to some extent they influence his decisions; by Lachmann, in the formation of whose provisional text they have had no share; and by Dean Burgon, who held that “we must resolutely maintain, that External Evidence must after all be our best, our only safe guide” (The Revision Revised, p. 19)(261). We will close this investigation by citing a few of those crisp little periods (conceived in the same spirit as our own remarks) wherewith Davidson is wont to inform and sometimes perhaps to amuse his admirers:

“Readings must be judged on internal grounds. One can hardly avoid doing so. It is natural and almost unavoidable. It must be admitted indeed that the choice of readings on internal evidence is liable to abuse. Arbitrary caprice may characterize it. It may degenerate into simple _subjectivity_. But though the temptation to misapply it be great, it must not be laid aside.... While allowing superior weight to the external sources of evidence, we feel the pressing necessity of the subjective. Here, as in other instances, the objective and subjective should accompany and modify one another. They cannot be rightly separated.” (Biblical Criticism, vol. ii. p. 374, 1852.)