from the beginning of the Epistle to the Ephesians, on the testimony of the Sinaitic and Vatican MSS., supported as they are by Origen and Basil. The omission may have been caused by internal difficulties attending the opinion that St. Paul addressed the church at Ephesus in this manner; difficulties which are still felt, and supposed to be removed by the hypothesis of a "circular epistle," identical with "the epistle from Laodicea," mentioned in Colossians iv. 16; though the fact of a circular epistle having the contents and phraseology of the present one, militates against its Pauline authorship. Our critic omits "Son of God" after Jesus Christ in Mark i. 1; the last part of Mark viii. 26, "nor tell it to any in the town;" the conclusion of Mark ix. 49, "and every sacrifice shall be salted with salt;" the words "and carried up into heaven, and they worshipped him," in Luke xxiv. 51, 52. He reads, "I stood," not "he stood" in Revelations xii. 18. In Matthew xiii. 35 he reads, “Isaiah the prophet;" in John vi. 51, "the bread which I will give for the life of the world, is my flesh;" and in John xiii. 10, "he that has bathed has no need to wash himself," etc. In these he appears to be right. But it is not our purpose to characterise the text of this scholar in every feature. An impartial estimate of its value will place it above all others. His motto was the right one, "dies diem docet;" though hasty writers have sometimes adduced it to his disparagement, as if one who edited the text eight times, and was instrumental above all others in bringing forth new evidence, should not modify or change his view of readings according to the increase of that evidence and a riper judgment. Had he not altered his opinions in different editions as to the right reading of many texts, he must have shut his eyes against light, and stereotyped conclusions contrary to the weight of collective authority. To his credit, be it said, he advanced. Those who think that he did not weigh evidence are unacquainted with his method of working. In the interest of assumed rivals, it may gratify some to nibble at his judgment; the learned have decided against such prepos

sessions. And such as accuse him of undue reliance on the Sinaitic MS. ignore the fact that their favourite Church scholar, Dean Alford, scruples not to adopt a reading on its authority alone, as in Revelation xxii. 21, where "The grace of the Lord Jesus be with the saints" is a reading scarcely authentic. Here Lachmann and Von Tischendorf rightly have, "The grace of the Lord Jesus be with all."

Were we disposed to search out defects, or to differ in judgment from so distinguished a critic, we might say that he should have omitted the last clause of Mark ix. 38, "because he followeth not us;" and have retained evλoγοῦντες in the text of Luke xxiv. 53, rather than αἰνοῦντες. In Colossians ii. 2 the word xplorоu after Toυ OɛOυ seems to be a gloss not properly belonging to the text. "The mystery of God, even Christ" does not commend itself as a Pauline expression. Luke xxii. 43, 44, might also have been rejected, or at least bracketed as doubtful; for the verses are not in A and B, though and D have

them.

With respect to punctuation, we have seldom departed from that of Von Tischendorf. In this particular he is usually exact and accurate. Thus in Romans ix. 5 he puts a full stop after σápka, beginning a sentence with, “God who is over all be blessed," etc. This is required by Pauline usage, which does not apply Osòs to Christ, as the fourth gospel with its Alexandrian theology does at the commencement, much less ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων Θεὸς, “God who is over all." In like manner, he puts a comma rightly after Karaλáßw in Philippians iii. 12, as Lachmann does in his smaller edition, not in the larger. He does not follow Lachmann in placing Romans ix. 3-5 in a parenthesis; nor does he put ηὐχόμην τοῦ χριστοῦ only in a parenthesis, as if the apostle alluded to a past wish, which is evidently wrong. Nor is Hebrews xii. 20, 21, enclosed in a parenthesis after the example of Lachmann. But Hebrews vii. 20, 21,

oi μèv yàp . . . eiç ròv aiūva is so marked. Lachmann has put in a parenthesis Luke vii. 29, 30, as if the words of Christ were interrupted. This is not recommended by the context.

Von Tischendorf has nothing to break the thread of discourse, and he is right. In 1 Corinthians xiv. 34 Lachmann places a comma after ἐκκλησίαις, connecting τῶν ἁγίων with ai yuvaïkes; this innovation is not followed by Von Tischendorf. The reading of the former gives, “As in all the churches, let the wives of the saints be silent in the churches." In Luke xiii. 25 he does not follow Lachmann in connecting the commencement of the verse with the preceding words, "Many, I say unto you, will seek to enter in and shall not be able, from the time that the master of the house is risen up," etc., etc. Here it is difficult to decide, and it is better perhaps to follow our guide in making the twenty-fifth verse a sentence complete in itself; in which case the second part or apodosis begins with καὶ ἀποκριθεὶς κ.τ.λ., then he shall answer and say unto you," etc.; not with TÓTE K.T.A. of the twenty-sixth verse, which, instead of being joined to the twenty-fifth, must begin another sentence. It is true that Meyer objects to an apodosis beginning with kaì, but such a thing is not remarkable in the New Testament. Von Tischendorf is probably right here, as he is supported by De Wette. Meyer's view is less correct than that of Lachmann; though Bengel, Vater, and Bornemann agree with it. Neither has he followed the same editor in beginning a sentence with yέyovev in the third verse of St. John's Gospel; though several Fathers favour the distinction in question. Authorities are divided. The sense of the place is considerably affected by the punctuation; for we must translate according to Lachmann's mode, "What has come into existence by him is life." But we incline to depart from Von Tischendorf's punctuation in Galatians iv. 19, and to agree with Lachmann. Instead of joining Tέkva μou with what follows and making the words begin a new sentence, it is better to connect them with the preceding context, so that the translation would be, "when I am present with you, my children, with whom I am travailing again till Christ be formed in you. But I could have wished to be present with you now," etc. Here the S

after 0λov has its proper force. In like manner, we have altered his punctuation in 2 Peter i. 3–5; though the passage is somewhat perplexing. According to our author, the third and fourth verses make one sentence, in which case it is not easy to see its completeness; for it seems to want a second part, i.e., the apodosis. Believing that this lies in the fifth, sixth, and seventh verses, we have put a semicolon at the end of the fourth verse, instead of a full stop. It is singular that Weitzsäcker, who has lately translated the text of Von Tischendorf's eighth edition into German, pronouncing it the best, has made no change in the punctuation of the present verses; though he has not scrupled to do so in other instances. Some indeed, as Lachmann, after the Vulgate, Erasmus, and Grotius, connect the beginning of the third verse with the second, and place a full stop at the end of the fourth; but this gives a less probable construction, and is contrary to the analogy of other epistles. It is better to restrict the introductory salutation to the first two verses, than run it into others. In Von Tischendorf's text, the commencement of a new paragraph at the third verse does not harmonise exactly with a full stop at the end of the fourth; though it does in Lachmann's mode. De Wette, Huther, and the Dutch version issued by the Reformed Church,* take the passage as we have done. Bunsen, as usual, follows Lachmann.

But a translator cannot follow closely the punctuation of the original, because the English language differs so much from Greek. He must conform to the genius of the tongue into which he transfuses the Greek. Here he has considerable latitude, and many opportunities of bringing out the minuter lines of interpretation. Thus it is desirable, if not necessary, to place a comma after the word slain in Revelation xiii. 8, "whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain, from the foundation of the world," since the last clause belongs to written (written from the foundation of the world). In Hebrews ii. 9 a comma must be put after

* Het Nieuwe Testament, van wege de algemeene synode der nederlandsche hervormde kerk op nieuw uit den grondtekst overgezet. 1868.

angels, if the received version be retained; or in any case, the words "on account of the suffering of death crowned with glory and honour" should be divided by no comma, because they are closely united in sense. A point of any kind after death disturbs the true meaning. In Ephesians v. 26, which is incorrectly rendered in the received version, we put a comma before "by the word," separating it from what immediately precedes in order to connect it with the verb "sanctify." "That he might sanctify it, after cleansing it with the laver of the water, by the word." De Wette indeed objects to this; but the awkwardness of taking both ἐν ῥήματι and λουτρῷ with καθαρίσας is apparent; and all the versions that do so read strangely, whether they have "cleansing her by the laver of the water in the word;" or, "having cleansed it by the bathing of water in the word;" or, "having cleansed it by the bath of the water in the word." In 1 Peter i. 11 there should be no comma, after what, else a wrong sense will be conveyed. Yet there is one in the received version; and Alford faithfully follows. The riva (what) refers to the noun season or time (kapóv) as well as πotov; "what time or what manner of time."

Parentheses must be sparingly introduced. They are sometimes needed, but many have used them unnecessarily and incorrectly. Thus it is right to enclose in brackets "then were the days of unleavened bread," in Acts xii. 3; and "which becomes women professing godliness," in 1 Timothy ii. 10. But Hebrews iii. 7-11, all after dió to KаTáжаvσív μov is not a parenthesis. In Romans ii. 13-15 κατάπαυσίν μου a parenthesis appears to be necessary, though it is difficult to determine its limits. It should probably include the fourteenth and fifteenth verses, as Lachmann has judged; not the thirteenth also, as Winer supposes, though he remarks acutely that кρwε in the sixteenth verse glances back at крi0noоvтa in the twelfth.

Since the introduction of Bentley and Lachmann's principle in the formation of a text, viz., to edit the words transmitted to us by the most ancient documents, irre