OP THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT.

19

§ 2.—THE EDITIONS OF EEASMUS.

ALTHOUGH Cardinal Ximenes had caused the first Greek New

Testament to be printed, yet from his deferring its publication
until the whole of his Polyglot should be finished, the first pub-
lislied Greek Testament was given to the world by others. The
enterprise of F E O B E N , the printer of Basle, and the editorial care
of ERASMUS, anticipated the work prepared under the patronage
of Ximenes.
The first edition of Erasmus had found its way to Spain while
Cardinal Ximenes was yet living: and although he saw that
his own edition was anticipated, he had the nobility of spirit to
repress the remarks by which Stunica sought to depreciate the
work which a rival scholar had edited. " I would (he said) that
all might thus prophesy (referring to Num. xi. 29); produce what
is better, if thou canst; do not condemn the industry of another."

It appears that Froben, the printer of Basle, wished to anticipate

the edition of the Greek Testament which was (as he heard) in
preparation in Spain. He, therefore, knowing that Erasmus had
paid attention to the Greek MSS. of the sacred volume, caused
application to be made to him, through a friend, proposing that
ic should be immediately undertaken at his office.
This was on April 17, 1515. It seems as if Erasmus had
before this made some preparations for such a work, as to the
revised Latin translation, which accompanied his Greek Testa-
ment, and the annotations which were subjoined. All these parts
had, however, yet to be brought into a suitable form for publica-
tion. Erasmus was in England when the proposition of Froben
was sent to him; this was reiterated; and not only did this
energetic printer ask him to undertake the New Testament, but
he also made application to him for his editorial care for various
other works. He seems to have reached Basle in the course of
the summer of 1515; but on Sept. 11, it was as yet undetermined
whether the Latin translation should stand by the side of the
Greek in a parallel column, or should appear in a separate volume;

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. The Librarian-Seeley Historical Library, on 21 Nov 2019 at 01:30:06, subject to the
Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107326293.004
 20 AN ACCOUNT OF TIIE PRINTED TEXT

for on that day Gerbelius wrote to Erasmus on the subject, strongly

advising that the Greek text should be separate, for convenience
of use and portability. A few days after this, (Ecolampadius
joined Erasmus at Basle to assist him in correcting the proof
sheets; for he was at this same time over-occupied in editing the
works of Jerome, as well as other literary labours.
In less than six months from the commencement of the print-
ing, the whole volume was completed.* The date on the back
of the title page is " Sexto Calendas Martias, anno M.D.XVI";
that at the end of the dedication to Pope Leo X. is "M.D.XVI.
Calendis Februarys"; at the end of the whole volume, is " Mense
Februario, anno M.D.XVI."; while at the end of the annotations
the date is given " M.D.XVI. Kalendis Martij."
The publication appears to have taken place immediately.
Erasmus mentions in his letters, that copies were at once sent to
various persons besides Pope Leo, to whom it was dedicated. As
the first publication in print of the original text of the Christian
Scriptures, its appearance was an event of no small importance.
We may, indeed, regard it as a mark of the overruling of God's
providence that just before the Eeformation was about to burst
forth, leading so many to inquire into the Scripture doctrine of
justification through faith in the sacrifice of Christ, it was so
ordered that the Scripture in the original language should appear,
so as to lead inquirers to study it in the tongue in which it was
given forth by the inspiration of the Holy Ghost.
The first edition of Erasmus was thus printed and published in
extreme haste.f The MSS. used for it are still, for the most
part, preserved in the library at Basle, so that we are not left to
mere conjecture as to their value and antiquity. Erasmus seems

* Nouum instnunentum omne, diligenter ab Erasmo Boterodamo recognitum et

emendatum, non golum ad Grsecam ueritatem uerum etiam ad multorum utriusq;
Knguse codicum eorumq; ueterum simul et emendatorum Mem, postremo ad pro-
batissimorum autorum citationem, emendationem et interpretatiouem, praecipue,
Origenis, Chrysostomi, Cyrilli, Vulgarij, Hieronymi, Cypriani, Ambrosij, Hilarij,
Aiigustini, una cum annotationibus, quED lectorem dooeant, quid qua ratione muta-
tum sit.
+ Wetstein indeed asks, " At quomodo ipsam festinationem excusavit, aui quis
ipsum eo adegit ut festinaret V The fact of the case, however, was that Erasmus
was in IProben's hands, who would leave no stone unturned to get his edition into the
hands of the public before that which was already finished at Alcala.

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. The Librarian-Seeley Historical Library, on 21 Nov 2019 at 01:30:06, subject to the
Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107326293.004
 OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. 21

in general to have used them as diligently as the extreme speed

that was needed, allowed. For the Apocalypse he had but one
mutilated MS., borrowed from Eeuchlin, in which the text and
commentary were intermixed almost unintelligibly. And thus
he used here and there the Latin Vulgate for his guide, retrans-
lating into Greek as well as he could. This was the case with
regard to the last six verses, which from the mutilated condition
of his MS. were wholly wanting.
In other places, also, he used the Latin Vulgate to supply what
he supposed to be deficient in his MSS., in the same manner in
which the Complutensian editors had done, only with greater
frequency.
The publication of Erasmus's first edition excited great atten-
tion amongst scholars and theologians. There were many who
hailed its appearance, while others condemned it on every pos-
sible ground. If he had been content with publishing the Greek
text, or if he had only subjoined the Latin Vulgate, as then in
common use, all might have been well; but his own revised Latin
version was regarded as such an innovation, that every variation
from what had been commonly read, was regarded as presumption
or even as heresy. In fact the outcry with which Jerome had
once been assailed was now renewed against Erasmus. The anno-
tations also by which he justified what were regarded as his in-
novations were fresh causes of displeasure to many amongst the
monkish theologians of the day.
He did not insert the testimony of the heavenly witnesses,
1 John v. 7, and this was a ground of suspicion on the part of
many. It was in vain for him to say that it was not his place, as
an editor, to add to the Greek text which was before him; he was
treated (as other critics have since been) as though it had been
his duty to have invented evidence when he did not find it. The
controversies in which Erasmus was involved, in consequence of
the publication of his Greek Testament, are not without instruc-
tion to u s ; for we thus see what were the opinions on critical
subjects which were current in that day. He was attacked by
Edward Lee, afterwards Archbishop of York, and also by Stunica,
the Complutensian editor. The ignorance and presumption of the
former, are such as might seem almost incredible. If Erasmus's.

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. The Librarian-Seeley Historical Library, on 21 Nov 2019 at 01:30:06, subject to the
Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107326293.004
 22 AN ACCOUNT OF THE PRINTED TEXT

MSS. did not contain what Lee said ought to have been there,
he should have condemned and rejected them as worthless!
Stunica was an antagonist of a different stamp ;* and he had the
tact to point out the marks of overhaste in the edition of Eras-
mus, and to object to those things which really required correc-
tion.
Especially did Lee and Stunica complain of the omission of
1 John v. 7; and it was in vain for Erasmus to answer that this
was a case not of omission, but simply of non-addition. He showed
that even some Latin copies did not contain the verse; and that
Cyril of Alexandria, in his "Thesaurus," so cited the context of
the passage as to show that he knew nothing of the words in
question. All this availed nothing in a dispute with dogmatic
reasoners. At length Erasmus promised that if a Greek MS.
were produced which contained the words, he would insert
them. It was some time, however, before such a MS. made its
appearance. In the course of the discussions on this passage,
the authority of the Codex Vaticanus was appealed to for the first
time in a point of criticism. Erasmus requested his friend,
Paulus Bombasius, at Home, to examine the Codex Vaticanus for
him as to this passage; and accordingly, in a letter, dated Rome,
June 18, 1521, he sent him a transcript of the introductory
verses of both the 4th and the 5th chapters of St. John's 1st
Epistle.
In the course of these discussions Erasmus expressed an opinion,
that Greek MSS. which contained any such passages must have
been altered from the Latin subsequently to the council of Florence,
in the fifteenth century. This was apparently suggested to have
been a secret agreement of that council. Much has been made of
this hint of Erasmus by later writers, as if the alteration of Greek

* The manner in which the OomplutenBian editors speak of the Apocryphal books
has been noticed above. I t is rather curious to observe that Erasmus in his reply
to Lee (Ad notationes novas XXV.), alludes to them with much greater veneration,
as being received fully by the church. I t is probable from this that in different
countries, before the council of Trent, they were regarded in very different ways,
and that their canonisation by that council arose (as has been thought) rather from
mistake, than from any other cause. Erasmus speaks of the Apocryphal books of
Esdras (amongst the rest), "quse mine Euclesia sine discrimine legit;"—both of
which books were rejected at Trent.

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. The Librarian-Seeley Historical Library, on 21 Nov 2019 at 01:30:06, subject to the
Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107326293.004
 OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. 23

MSS. to make them suit the Latin version had been a thing
practised in early ages.*
In proof that Erasmus at times used the Vulgate to amend his
Greek MSS., where he thought them defective, we need only turn
to his annotations for proof. Thus, Acts ix. 5, 6, we find in the
annotations: " Durum est tibi.) In grsecis codicibus id non additur
hoc loco, cum mox sequatur, Surge; sed aliquanto inferius, cum
narratur hsec res." And yet in his text there is the full passage,
answering to the Latin, a-Kkrjpov <xot irpb<! KevTpa Xaxrl^eiv
Tpeficov T6 KaX Oafifi&V etirev, KVpte rl fJS OiXeis 7roir}crcu; teal 6
KvpLo<i 7T/3O? avrbv, avcujTrfii,, instead of the simple reading aXXa

Again, on Acts viii. 37, the note is, " Dixit autem Philippus,
Si credis &c.) et usque ad eum locum. Et jussit stare currum,
non reperi in Grseco codice, quanquam arbitror omissum librariorum
incuria. Nam et hsec in quodam codice grseco asscripta reperi sed
in margine." And this verse, little as is its claim to be considered
part of Holy Scripture, was inserted by Erasmus, as being sup-
posed to have been incorrectly omitted in his MSS.; and from his
edition, this and similar passages have been perpetuated, just as
if they were undoubtedly genuine. In such cases, we repeatedly
find the Complutensian editors, in spite of their reverence for the
Vulgate, give the Greek as they found it in their copies; although
from their mode of editing they must have been very well aware
of the difference between it and the Latin by the side; where, in
fact, they fill up the Greek column in such a manner as to make
the variation conspicuous. In such places, if the Complutensian
text had ever acquired a place in common use, the many who now
uphold what they read, traditionally, just because they are ac-
customed to it, would have been as strenuous in repudiating words
as spurious, as they now are in defending them as genuine.
But let us make whatever deductions are needful, still Erasmus
is entitled to our thanks for the labour which he undertook and

* Some of Stunica's criticisms on Erasmus are singularly amusing. The Complu-

tensian text had spelled Spain in Horn, xv., I(nrawa, as it stands in a few of the later
MSS.; Erasmus had spelled it Smm'a; it is scarcely credible that Stunica should
hare charged Erasmus with casting an intentional slight upon his country, by taking
away one of the letters with which it is spelled.

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. The Librarian-Seeley Historical Library, on 21 Nov 2019 at 01:30:06, subject to the
Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107326293.004
 24 AN ACCOUNT OP THE PBINTED TEXT

accomplished, in spite of so many hindrances. He furnished the

Greek readers of the Word of God with the first published edition,
six years before they could have obtained that which had been
prepared under the auspices of Xinienes.
The next published edition was that which appeared at Venice
in 1518, at the end of the Aldine LXX. It was taken from the
first edition of Erasmus, to whom it was dedicated. Of course, it
omitted the text, 1 John v. 7.
In March, 1519, Erasmus's second edition was published,*
while he himself was absent from Basle: he employed much of
the time which had passed since the appearance of his first edition
in examining MSS., and in revising and improving his own Latin
translation.!
To this edition was prefixed a letter of thanks, which Pope
Leo X. had addressed to Erasmus the preceding year, for his
Greek Testament. And yet, in his prefaces, sentiments had been
expressed but little in accordance with papal dogmas. He had
spoken of the importance of Holy Scripture to all Christians; and
had expressed a wish that it might be so translated and used, as
not to be in the hands of the learned merely, but also of the
common people, such (he specifies) as the Scots and Irish. Little
did the Pope think that in encouraging the publication of Holy
Scripture, he was sharpening that weapon which the Spirit of
God was about to use so powerfully against Home, and Romish
doctrine and practice. Perhaps Erasmus, who was so conscious
of the evils which arose from ignorance of Holy Scripture,
would have recoiled from the work in which he was engaged, if
he could only have seen the use which God would make of the
Xew Testament, in the hands of the Christian people, even in his
own day.

* In the title page of this edition, the extraordinary error was corrected which had
appeared in the title page of the first; in which Vulgarius appeared as the name of
a person; this only having been, by mistake, formed by Erasmus from Bulgaria,
the region of which Theophylact was archbishop.
+ In writing from Louvain, to Pirckheimer, Erasmus says," Novum Testamentum,
quod pridem Basilese prsecipitatum, verius quam editum, retexo ac recudo, et ita
recudo, ut aliud opus sit futurum. Absolvetur, ut spero, inter quatuor menses." This
letter is dated Nov. 2,1517, in the printed editions: it can, however, hardly admit of
a doubt that the year should be 1518. The arrangement of Erasmus's letters, as to
years, is all confusion.

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. The Librarian-Seeley Historical Library, on 21 Nov 2019 at 01:30:06, subject to the
Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107326293.004
 OP THE GKEEK NEW TESTAMENT. 25

As to this second edition, Erasmus enjoyed comparative leisure;

he was not over-worked in reading proof sheets and copying for
the press, so as to be hardly able to accomplish the work pressing
on him. In this edition, others undertook the labour of correct-
ing what he transmitted to Basle.
The places in which the text was altered in this edition were
(according to Mill) four hundred; many of these were the errata
which had arisen from over-haste in the execution of the first
edition. It may be doubted whether all the changes were im-
provements. The text 1 John v. 7 was still not introduced.
Erasmus was not able, however, to bestow on this edition all the
care that he desired; he was hindered, he says, by the state of his
health.
It is not often that we know, with any exactitude, the number
of copies of an edition of any work which were published in early
times: we are, however, informed in one place by Erasmus, that
the numbers unitedly of his first two editions amounted to three
thousand three hundred: how many of these belonged respectively
to each edition, we do not know. The whole of these, however,
were in circulation by the year 1522, as is shown by Erasmus
then bringing out his third edition. This shows that the demand
for the Greek New Testament was considerable; and that Froben
had shown his judgment, in taking steps to meet a requirement
on the part of theological students.
The revision of the Latin version of Erasmus, in his edition of
1519, raised up against him yet more enemies. In his first edi-
tion, he retained, in the beginning of St. John's Gospel, the
expression of the Vulgate, " In principio erat Verbum": in 1519,
however, he followed the phraseology of the early Latin fathers,
substituting " Sermo" for " Verbum." This was deemed almost,
if not quite, a heresy; and he had to defend himself, in conse-
quence, against many attacks.*
Erasmus's third edition appeared in 1522; in this he introduced
the verse 1 John v. 1, in fulfilment of his promise that he would
* Erasmus gives a curious account of the effect which this change of a word pro-
duced in England among some. A bishop (whose name he suppresses) was preaching
a t " Paul's Cross," when he went out of his way to attack Erasmus's new translation.
I t was a shameful thing for those who had been so long doctors of divinity, to have

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. The Librarian-Seeley Historical Library, on 21 Nov 2019 at 01:30:06, subject to the
Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107326293.004
 26 AN ACCOUNT OP THE PRINTED TEXT
do so, if it were found in any Greek MS. Between 1519 and
1522, a MS. was brought forward in England, containing the
verse in a particular form; and he inserted it, not as convinced of
its genuineness, but to redeem his promise, and to take away the
handle for calumniating him which had been afforded by his ho-
nestly following his MSS. in this passage. The verse in question
continued to hold its place in the other editions of Erasmus, and
in those which were taken from them; it was, however, soon
moulded into a grammatical form, and one which did not so fully
display its origin in the Latin Vulgate as did the MS. from which
it was taken.*
This third edition differed from the text of the preceding (ac-
cording to Mill) in 118 places: several of the amended readings
were such as Erasmus took from the tacit corrections which had
been introduced into the Aldine reprint of his own first edition.
Soon after the appearance of Erasmus's third edition, the Corn-
to go to school again,—for such to receive instruction from any mere GreeHing. At
length his zeal waxed so warm (he said) that he called on the lord mayor of London,
who was present, and on the citizens for aid, that they would show themselves men,
aud not suffer such new translations, which subvert the authority of Holy Scripture,
to obtain farther currency!
* The Codex Britannicus to which Erasmus referred is the Codex Montfortianus,
now in the library of Trinity College, Dublin. His note on the place, in his third
edition, concludes thus: "Verumtamen ne quid dissimulem repertus est apud Anglos
Grtecus codex unus in quo habetur quod in Vulgatia deest. Scriptum est enim hunc
a d m o d u m , ori Tpets eltriv ol lia.pTvpovvTts tv TU avpavtf, irariflp, \6yost KOX irvevfia* Kal oSrot ot
rpus Iv t'urtv. Kal rpets cum* fiapTvpovires hi rfj yfj Trvcv/la, v&ap, KaX aT/Aa et T V ixaprvpiav riav
arSpunw, etc. Quanquam haud scio an casu factum sit, ut hoc loco non repetatur
quod est in Gratis nostris, ical oi Tp«s els TO SV &aw. Ex hoc igitur codice Britannico
reposuimus, quod in nostris dicebatur deesse: ne cui sit ansa calumniandi. Tametsi
suspicor codicem ilium ad nostros esse correctum. Duos consului codices mirse
vetustatis Latinos in bibliotheca quse Brugis est divi Donatiani. Neuter habebat
testimonium patris, verbi, et spiritus. Ac ne illud quidem in altero addebatur, In
terra. Tantum erat, E t tres sunt qui testimonium dant, spiritus, aqua, et sanguis."
Accordingly in this form the passage stands in Erasmus's third edition, only"i-novis
added after Trvtvpa, oi is inserted before the second naprvpovrres, and xai before USap
(the two former of these words are thus in the MS.) j the discrepancy between the
text and the note probably arose from an oversight in copying. Erasmus did not
omit the end of verse 8.
In his subsequent editions, he inserted the articles before jranip. Wyos and irvaiu.
(though he did not make a similar improvement in verse 8) j and when subsequent
editors had grammatically placed S-yiov between the article and the substantive, the
verse assumed, in the common editions, the form which it has retained. Its origin,
however, is clear: the Complutensian editors translated it from the modern Latin,
and so did the writer of the Dublin MS.; the latter, however, was too clumsy even to
insert the articles.

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. The Librarian-Seeley Historical Library, on 21 Nov 2019 at 01:30:06, subject to the
Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107326293.004
 OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. 27

plutensian Polyglot found its way into general circulation. This

edition consisted of six hundred copies; and, though it might do
something towards supplying the demand which had sprung up
for the original Scriptures, yet the number of copies was too
limited for it to be able to supersede in common use the Erasmian
text.
In the Apocalypse, however, it was superior to the mere piece-
meal text which Erasmus had been able to give; and thus, when
that critic published his fourth edition in 1527, there were at least
ninety readings in that book alone which had been emended on
the authority of the Complutensian: more corrections might have
been made; but Erasmus seems to have forgotten what all the
places were which he had himself turned into Greek, ten years
before, to supply the defects of his MS. If it is wonderful that
he should have allowed such readings to remain, is it not still
more wonderful that, for three hundred years, they have been
repeated in the common editions, although their origin has been
a matter of common knowledge?
Erasmus has often been blamed for using the Aldine reprint of
his own first edition as if it were a distinct authority. But it
appears from Erasmus's own words, that he was not aware that
such was the case. Indeed he could not have known it, for some
time at least; for he wrote from Louvain, or Antwerp, to his
friends at Basle, before the appearance of his second edition, re-
questing them to restore the concluding verses of the Eevelation,
in accordance with the Aldine.* Hence the idea seems to have
been received, that there was MS. authority for what really rests
on none.
Except in the Kevelation, Mill says, the fourth edition of Eras-
mus differed only in about ten places from his third. This fourth
edition differs from all the others published by Erasmus, in having
two Latin versions by the side of the Greek,—that of Erasmus
himself, and the Yulgate. It was thus thought, that the severe

* " Cum igitur Basileam mitterem recognitum exemplar, soripsi amicis, ut ex edi-
tione Aldina restituerent eum locum. Nam mihi nondum emptum erat hoc opus.
Id ita, ut jtissi, factum est."—Erasmi Apologia ad Leum. 1520. This quotation is
taken from Wetstein, Proleg, p. 126; for this Apologia is not included in Erasmus's
collected works.

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. The Librarian-Seeley Historical Library, on 21 Nov 2019 at 01:30:06, subject to the
Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107326293.004
 28 AN ACCOUNT OP THE PRINTED TEXT

censures cast upon the new translation might he shown to be

undeserved.
In the fifth edition of Erasmus, published in 1535, the year
before his death, the text differs scarcely at all from that of the
year 1527 (Mill says only in four places); and as the fifth edition
of Erasmus is the substantial basis of the text which has com-
monly been used, and as that edition scarcely varies from the
fourth, we may look on the edition of 1527 as containing really that
revision of the text, which has obtained a kind of permanency.
Erasmus's materials were but few, in comparison with those
which have been since available for purposes of criticism; they
were also comparatively modern; they might, indeed, have been
used to more advantage; but still, while criticism was in its
infancy, it is not too much to say that Erasmus's name is
entitled to a high place amongst those who have laboured in this
field; and, had he possessed the materials since brought to light,
no one would have valued more than he those ancient MSS. and
versions, on the authority of which the New Testament might now
be edited.
He valued the readings of his Greek MSS. far more highly than
those of the Vulgate, in its condition after having suffered from
the hands of ignorant and careless transcribers. Had he, however,
extensively used ancient Latin MSS. (such, for instance, as those
which he mentions that he saw at Bruges), he would have found
that they would give a very different notion of the version of
Jerome from that which could be obtained from those in common
use. And had he been so situated, as to be able to use the more
ancient Greek MSS. (or those whose text agrees with such),* he
would have found himself in possession of ancient authority, both
Greek and Latin, in a sort of general accordance.
For, whatever may be said of the text which he produced,
Erasmus valued ancient testimony to readings. Thus his note on
Acts xiii. 33 is the following:—" Quidam codices habebant in
* Only one such MS. appears to have fallen under Erasmus's own notice. This is
the MS. at Basle numbered 1 in the Gospels. This he thought to be of but little
value, from its readings being so different from the common Greek copies. In fact,
the MS. of the Gospels which he put for copy into the compositors' hands, is one of
exceedingly little value. It still has the marks of Erasmus's corrections, and the
printer's notices of the beginnings of the folios.

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. The Librarian-Seeley Historical Library, on 21 Nov 2019 at 01:30:06, subject to the
Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107326293.004
 OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. 29

psalmo secundo, quidam, in psalmo, omisso numero. At Hierony-

mus palam testatur in Actis hunc psalmum qui apud nos secundus
est, primi titulo citari; et hinc surait* argumentum, aut primum
ilium, Beatus vir, prsefationis additur vice, aut ilium et proxi-
mum, Quare fremuerunt, eundem esse psalmum.f Proinde nos
his autoribus germanam restituimus scripturam." Thus he gives
the reading of the passage ev TG>tyaXfia)r& Trpayrq>, considering
that the absolute evidence which he possessed was sufficient au-
thority to warrant his changing one word. This may be taken as
an illustration how Erasmus would have formed his conclusions if
ancient evidence had been before him. This is one of the places
in which the commonly received text did not follow Erasmus:
had it been otherwise, this reading would have been certainly
upheld, maintained, and defended by those who now condemn it
as an innovation.!
Thus it was that the Greek New Testament was published in
print, just in the same manner as other ancient works appeared:
in all such cases, the MSS. which came first to hand were used;
and with regard to almost all other works, pains were continually
taken to use such materials as might come to light for correcting
the text, and causing it the more exactly to represent the original
work as first written.
The Greek New Testament, however, soon became, as it were,
stereotyped in men's minds; so that the readings originally edited
on most insufficient MS. authority, were supposed to possess some
prescriptive right, just as if (to use Dr. Bentley's phrase) an
apostle had been the compositor. Dogmatic discussions (of deep
and real importance in themselves) occupied the minds of theolo-
gians; and thus textual criticism was neglected, or even shunned,
by those who ought to have cultivated it, as intimately connected
with true reverence for God's inspired and holy word.

* The above citation is from Erasmus's first edition, in which, however, this word
is erroneously printed " sumunt"; it is corrected in the edition of 1522, in which this
note also is expanded.
t The edition of 1522 here adds, " Idem prodit ferme Hilarius, illud ingenue tes-
tatus, huno primum citari a Paulo. Quin et divus Augustinus in commentariis
indicafc hunc potius esse unum quam primum."
t It is proper to add, for the reader's information, thatffputiais expressly stated to
be the reading by Origen, and that it is found in the Codex Bezse (D). Tertullian
also (Adv. Mare. lib. iv. 22) cites the passage as from the first psalm.

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. The Librarian-Seeley Historical Library, on 21 Nov 2019 at 01:30:06, subject to the
Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107326293.004