Doosan LPG Forklift GC20P-5 GC25P-5 GC30P-5 GC33P-5 Part Book SB1211E04

Doosan LPG Forklift GC20P-5

GC25P-5 GC30P-5 GC33P-5 Part Book
SB1211E04
To download the complete and correct content, please visit:

https://manualpost.com/download/doosan-lpg-forklift-gc20p-5-gc25p-5-gc30p-5-gc
33p-5-part-book-sb1211e04/

Doosan LPG Forklift GC20P-5 GC25P-5 GC30P-5 GC33P-5 Part Book

SB1211E04 Size: 11.7 MB Format: PDF Language: English Brand: Doosan Type
of Machine: LPG Forklift Type of Document: Part Book Model: Doosan LPG Forklift
GC20P-5 GC25P-5 GC30P-5 GC33P-5 Number of Pages: 612 Pages Form
Number: SB1211E04
Download all on: manualpost.com.

Visit ManualPost.com to get correct and complete item

 [Unrelated content]
Another random document on
Internet:
 Darby's vague suspicion that they “bear the marks of
having been in ecclesiastical hands.” (N. T., Preface, p. 3.)
255. See (6), (7), (17), (18). The uncial characters most liable to
be confounded by scribes (p. 10) are ΑΔΛ, ΕΣ, ΟΘ, ΝΠ, and
less probably ΓΙΤ. An article in a foreign classical periodical,
written by Professor Cobet, the co-editor of the Leyden
reprint of the N. T. portion of Cod. B, unless regarded as a
mere jeu d'esprit, would serve to prove that the race of
conjectural emendators is not so completely extinct as
(before Mr. Linwood's pamphlet) I had supposed. By a
dexterous interchange of letters of nearly the same form (Δ
for Α, Ε for Σ, Ι for Τ, Σ for Ε, κ for ΙΣ, Τ for Ι) this modern
Bentley—and he well deserves the name—suggests for
ΑΣΤΕΙΟΣ τῷ θεῷ Act. vii. 20 [compare Heb. xi. 23] the
common-place ΔΕΚΤΟΣ τῷ θεῷ, from Act. x. 35. Each one
of the six necessary changes Cobet profusely illustrates by
examples, and even the reverse substitution of δεκτός for
ἀστεῖος from Alciphron: but in the absence of all manuscript
authority for the very smallest of these several
permutations in Act. vii. 20, he excites in us no other
feeling than a sort of grudging admiration of his misplaced
ingenuity. In the same spirit he suggests ΗΔΕΙΟΝΑ for
ΠΛΕΙΟΝΑ, Heb. xi. 4; while in 1 Cor. ii. 4 for ἐν πειθοῖς
σοφίας λόγοις he simply reads ἐν πειθοῖ σοφίας, the σ
which begins σοφίας having become accidentally doubled
and λόγοις subsequently added to explain πειθοῖς, which he
holds to be no Greek word at all: it seems indeed to be met
with nowhere else. Dr. Hort's comment on this learned
trifling is instructive: “Though it cannot be said that recent
attempts in Holland to revive conjectural criticism for the N.
T. have shown much felicity of suggestion, they cannot be
justly condemned on the ground of principle” (Introd., p.
277).
256. Thus Canon I of this chapter includes (12), (19): Canon III
includes (2), (3), (4), (8), (9), (10); while (13) comes under
 Canon IV; (20) under Canon VI.
257. “Canon Criticus” xxiv, N. T., by G. D. T. M. D., p. 12, 1735.
258. Dean Burgon cites (Revision Revised, pp. 359, 360) “no less
than thirty ancient witnesses.”
259. 'The precept, if we omit the phrase, is in striking harmony
with the at first sight sharp, extreme, almost paradoxical
character of various other precepts of the “Sermon on the
Mount.” Milligan, Words of the N. T., p. 111.
260. Very similar in point of moral feeling is the variation
between ὀλιγοπιστίαν, the gentler, intrinsically perhaps the
more probable, and ἀπιστίαν, the more emphatic term, in
Matt. xvii. 20. Both must have been current in the second
century, the former having the support of Codd. ‫א‬B, 13, 22,
33, 124, 346 [hiat 69], the Curetonian Syriac (and that too
against Cod. D), both Egyptian, the Armenian and Ethiopic
versions, Origen, Chrysostom (very expressly, although his
manuscripts vary), John Damascene, but of the Latins
Hilary alone. All the rest, including Codd. CD, the Peshitto
Syriac, and the Latins among first class witnesses, maintain
ἀπιστίαν of the common text.
261. Perhaps I may refer to my “Textual Guide,” p. 120. The
utmost caution should be employed in the use of this kind
of evidence: perhaps nowhere else do authorities differ so
much.—Ed.
262. E.g. Irenaeus, Contra Haereses, v. 30. 1, for which see
below, p. 261: the early date renders this testimony most
weighty.
263. In deference to Lardner and others, who have supposed
that Ignatius refers to the sacred autographs, we subjoin
the sentence in dispute. Ἐπεὶ ἤκουσά τινων λεγόντων, ὅτι
ἐὰν μὴ ἐν τοῖς ἀρχαίοις εὕρω, ἐν τῷ εὐαγγελίῳ οὐ πιστεύω;
καὶ λέγοντός μου αὐτοῖς, ὅτι γέγραπται, ἀπεκρίθησάν μοι,
 ὅτι πρόκειται. Ἐμοὶ δὲ ἀρχεῖά ἐστιν Ἰησοῦς Χριστός κ.τ.λ.
(Ad Philadelph. c. 8.) On account of ἀρχεῖα in the
succeeding clause, ἀρχείοις has been suggested as a
substitute for the manuscript reading ἀρχαίοις, and so the
interpolators of the genuine Epistle have actually written.
But without denying that a play on the words was designed
between ἀρχαίοις and ἀρχεῖα, both copies of the Old Latin
version maintain the distinction made in the Medicean
Greek (“si non in veteribus invenio” and “Mihi autem
principium est Jesus Christus”), and any difficulty as to the
sense lies not in ἀρχαίοις but in πρόκειται. Chevallier's
translation of the passage is perfectly intelligible, “Because
I have heard some say, Unless I find it in the ancient
writings, I will not believe in the Gospel. And when I said to
them, ‘It is written [in the Gospel],’ they answered me, ‘It is
found written before [in the Law].’ ” Gainsayers set the first
covenant in opposition to the second and better one.
264. Thus Dr. Westcott understands the term, citing from
Tertullian, De Monogamia, xi: “sciamus planè non sic esse
in Graeco authentico.” Dean Burgon refers us to Routh's
“Opuscula,” vol. i. pp. 151 and 206.
265. Compare too Jerome's expression “ipsa authentica”
(Comment. in Epist. ad Titum), when speaking of the
autographs of Origen's Hexapla: below, p. 263.
266. The view I take is Coleridge's (Table Talk, p. 89, 2nd ed.). “I
beg Tertullian's pardon; but among his many bravuras, he
says something about St. Paul's autograph. Origen
expressly declares the reverse;” referring, I suppose, to the
passage cited below, p. 263. Bp. Kaye, the very excellence
of whose character almost unfitted him for entering into the
spirit of Tertullian, observes: “Since the whole passage is
evidently nothing more than a declamatory mode of stating
the weight which he attached to the authority of the
Apostolic Churches; to infer from it that the very chairs in
 which the Apostles sat, or that the very Epistles which they
wrote, then actually existed at Corinth, Ephesus, Rome,
&c., would be only to betray a total ignorance of Tertullian's
style” (Kaye's “Ecclesiastical History ... illustrated from the
writings of Tertullian,” p. 313, 2nd ed.). Just so: the
autographs were no more in those cities than the chairs
were: but it suited the purpose of the moment to suppose
that they were extant; and, knowing nothing to the
contrary, he boldly sends the reader in search of them.
267. I do not observe, as some have thought, that Eusebius
(Hist. Eccl. v. 10) intimates that the copy of St. Matthew's
Gospel in Hebrew letters, left by St. Bartholomew in India,
was the Evangelist's autograph; and the fancy that St. Mark
wrote with his own hand the Latin fragments now at Venice
(for.) is worthy of serious notice. The statement twice made
in the “Chronicon Paschale,” of Alexandria, compiled in the
seventh century, but full of ancient fragments, that ὡσεὶ
τριτὴ was the true reading of John xix. 14 “καθὼς τὰ
ἀκριβῆ βιβλία περιέχει, αὐτό τε τὸ ἰδιόχειρον τοῦ
εὐαγγελιστοῦ ὅπερ μέχρι τοῦ νῦν πεφύλακται χάριτι Θεοῦ
ἐν τῇ ἐφεσίων ἁγιωτάτῃ ἐκκλησίᾳ καὶ ὑπὸ τῶν πιστῶν
ἐκεῖσε προσκυνεῖται” (Dindorf, Chron. Pasch., pp. 11 and
411), is simply incredible. Isaac Casaubon, however, a most
unimpeachable witness, says that this passage, and
another which he cites, were found by himself in a fine
fragment of the Paschal treatise of “Peter Bp. of Alexandria
and martyr” [d. 311], which he got from Andrew Damarius,
a Greek merchant or calligrapher (Pattison, Life of Is.
Casaubon, p. 38). Casaubon adds to the assertion of Peter
“Hec ille. Ego non ignoro quid adversus hanc sententiam
possit disputari: de quo judicium esto eruditorum” (Exercit.
in Annal. Eccles. pp. 464, 670, London, 1614).
268. “I have no doubt,” says Tischendorf, “that in the very
earliest ages after our Holy Scriptures were written, and
before the authority of the Church protected them, wilful
 alterations, and especially additions, were made in them,”
English N. T., 1869, Introd. p. xv.
269. Caius (175-200) in Routh's “Reliquiae,” ii. 125, quoted in
Burgon's “Revision Revised,” p. 323.
270. “Necdum quoque Marcion Ponticus de Ponto emersisset,
cujus magister Cerdon sub Hygino tunc episcopo, qui in
Urbe nonus fuit, Romam venit: quem Marcion secutus...”
Cyprian., Epist. 74. Cf. Euseb., Eccl. Hist., iv. 10, 11.
271. Dean Burgon attributes more importance to Marcion's
mutilations. See e.g. “The Revision Revised,” pp. 34-35.
272. In 1 Cor. x. 9 Marcion seems to uphold the true reading
against the judgement of Epiphanius: ὁ δὲ μαρκίων ἀντὶ
τοῦ κν χν ἐποίησεν. Consult also Bp. Lightfoot's note
(Epistle to the Colossians, p. 336, n. 1) on Heracleon's
variation of πέντε for ἓξ in John ii. 20. “There is no reason
to think,” he says, “that Heracleon falsified the text here; he
appears to have found this various reading already in his
copy.”
273. See Chap. XI on Acts xxvii. 37.
274. Irenaeus' anxiety that his own works should be kept free
from corruption, and the value attached by him to the
labours of the corrector, are plainly seen in a remarkable
subscription preserved by Eusebius (Eccl. Hist. v. 20), which
illustrates what has been said above, Ὁρκίζω σε τὸν
μεταγραψόμενον τὸ βίβλιον τοῦτο, κατὰ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν
ἰησοῦ χριστοῦ, καὶ κατὰ τῆς ἐνδόξου παρουσίας αὐτοῦ, ἧς
ἔρχεται κρῖναι ζῶντας καὶ νεκρούς, ἵνα ἀντιβάλλῃς ὃ
μετεγράψω, καὶ κατορθώσῃς αὐτὸ πρὸς τὸ ἀντίγραφον
τοῦτο, ὅθεν μετεγράψω ἐπιμελῶς, καὶ τὸν ὅρκον τοῦτον
ὁμοίως μεταγράψῃς, καὶ θήσεις ἐν τῷ ἀντιγράφῳ. Here the
copyist (ὁ μεταγραφόμενος) is assumed to be the same
person as the reviser or corrector. Mr. Linwood also (ubi
supra, p. 11) illustrates from Martial (Lib. vii. Epigram. x)
 the reader's natural wish to possess an author's original
manuscript rather than a less perfect copy: Qui vis
archetypas habere nugas. A still stronger illustration of the
passage in Irenaeus (v. 30) is Linwood's citation of a well-
known passage in Aulus Gellius, a contemporary of that
Father, wherein he discusses with Higinus the corrupt
variation amaro for amaror in Virgil, Geor. ii. 247 (Noctes
Atticae, Lib. i. cap. 21).
275. Μακάριοι, φησίν, οἱ δεδιωγμένοι ἕνεκεν δικαιοσύνης, ὅτι
αὐτοὶ υἱοὶ Θεοῦ κληθήσονται; ἤ, ὥς τινες τῶν μετατιθέντων
τὰ Εὐαγγέλια, Μακάριοι, φησίν, οἱ δεδιωγμένοι ὑπὸ τῆς
δικαιοσύνης, ὅτι αὐτοὶ ἔσονται τέλειοι; καί, μακάριοι οἱ
δεδιωγμένοι ἕνεκα ἐμοῦ, ὅτι ἔξουσι τόπον ὅπου οὐ
διωχθήσονται (Stromata, iv. 6). Tregelles (Horne, p. 39,
note 2) pertinently remarks that Clement, in the very act of
censuring others, subjoins the close of Matt. v. 9 to v. 10,
and elsewhere himself ventures on liberties no less
extravagant, as when he thus quotes Matt. xix. 24 (or Luke
xviii. 25): πειστέον οὖν πολλῷ μᾶλλον τῇ γραφῇ λεγούσῃ,
Θᾶττον κάμηλον διὰ τρυπήματος βελόνης διελεύσεσθαι, ἢ
πλούσιον φιλοσοφεῖν (Stromata, ii. 5).
276. In this place (contrary to what might have been inferred
from the language of Irenaeus, cited above, p. 262, note 2)
the copyist (γραφεύς) is clearly distinct from the corrector
(διορθωτής), who either alters the words that stand in the
text, or adds to and subtracts from them. In Cobet's
masterly Preface to his own and Kuenen's “N. T. ad fidem
Cod. Vaticani,” Leyden, 1860, pp. xxvii-xxxiv, will be found
most of the passages we have used that bear on the
subject, with the following from classical writers, “Nota est
Strabonis querela xiii. p. 609 de bibliopolis, qui libros
edebant γραφεῦσι φαύλοις χρώμενοι, καὶ οὐκ
ἀντιβάλλοντες... Sic in Demosthenis Codice Monacensi ad
finem Orationis xi annotatum est Διωρθώθη πρὸς δύο
Ἀττικιανά, id est, correctus est (hic liber) ex duobus
 codicibus ab Attico (nobili calligrapho) descriptis.” Just as at
the end of each of Terence's plays the manuscripts read
“Calliopius recensui.”
277. No doubt certain that are quite or almost peculiar to Cod. D
would deserve consideration if they were not destitute of
adequate support. Some may be inclined to think the words
cited above in vol. I. p. 8 not unworthy of Him to whom
they are ascribed. The margin of the Harkleian Syriac alone
countenances D in that touching appendage to Acts viii. 24,
which every one must wish to be genuine, ος πολλα κλαιων
ου διελυ[ι]μπανεν. Several minute facts are also inserted by
D in the latter part of the same book, which are more likely
to rest on traditional knowledge than to be mere exercises
of an idle fancy. Such are απο ωρας ε εως δεκατης annexed
to the end of Acts xix. 9: και Μυρα to Acts xxi. 1; the
former of which is also found in Cod. 137 and the Harkleian
margin; the latter in the Sahidic and one or two Latin
copies.
278. Considering that Cod. D and the Latin manuscripts contain
the variation in Luke iii. 22, but not in Matt. iii. 17, we
ought not to doubt that Justin Martyr (p. 331 B, ed. Paris,
1636) and Clement (p. 113, ed. Potter) refer to the former.
Hence Bp. Kaye (Account of the Writings of Clement, p.
410) should not have produced this passage among others
to show (what in itself is quite true) that “Clement
frequently quotes from memory.”
279. This point is exceedingly well stated by Canon Cook
(Revised Version of the first three Gospels, p. 176): “I will
not dwell upon indications of Arian tendencies. They are
not such as we should be entitled to rely upon.... Eusebius
was certainly above the suspicion of consciously introducing
false statements or of obliterating true statements. As was
the case with many supporters of the high Arian party,
which came nearest to the sound orthodox faith, Eusebius
 was familiar with all scriptural texts which distinctly ascribe
to our Lord the divine attributes and the divine name, and
was far more likely to adopt an explanation which coincided
with his own system, than to incur the risk of exposure and
disgrace by obliterating or modifying them in manuscripts
which would be always open to public inspection.”
280. “This is possible, though there is no proof of it,” is Professor
Abbot's comment (ubi supra, p. 190, but see above, vol. i.
p. 118, note 2).
281. In the “Notitia Editionis Cod. Sin.,” 1860. They are Matt.
xxvii. 64-xxviii. 20; Mark i. 1-35; Luke xxiv. 24-53; John xxi.
1-25. Other like calculations, with much the same result,
are given in Scrivener's “Cod. Sin.,” Introd. pp. xlii, xliii.
282. And that too hardly to the credit of either of them. “Ought
it not,” asks Dean Burgon, “sensibly to detract from our
opinion of the value of their evidence to discover that it is
easier to find two consecutive verses in which the two MSS.
differ, the one from the other, than two consecutive verses
in which they entirely agree?... On every such occasion only
one of them can possibly be speaking the truth. Shall I be
thought unreasonable if I confess that these perpetual
inconsistencies between Codd. B and 8—grave
inconsistencies, and occasionally even gross ones—
altogether destroy my confidence in either?” (Last Twelve
Verses of St. Mark, pp. 77-8.)
283. Magnus siquidem hic in nostris codicibus error inolevit, dum
quod in eadem re alius Evangelista plus dixit, in alio, quia
minus putaverint, addiderunt. Vel dum eundem sensum
alius aliter expressit, ille qui unum e quatuor primum
legerat, ad ejus exemplum ceteros quoque existimaverit
emendandos. Unde accidit ut apud nos mixta sint omnia
(Praef. ad Damasum).
284.
 The precise references may be seen in Tischendorf's, and
for the most part more exactly in Tregelles' N. T. That on
Matt. xxiv. 36 is Tom. vii. p. 199, or vi. p. 54; on Galat. iii. 1
is Tom. vii. pp. 418, 487.
285. See our note on Luke xxii. 44 below in Chap. XI. This same
writer testifies to a practice already partially employed, of
using breathings, accents, and stops in copies of Holy
Scripture. Ἐπειδὴ δέ τινες κατὰ προσῳδίαν ἔστιζαν τὰς
γραφὰς καὶ περὶ τῶν προσῳδῶν τάδε: ὀξεῖα ᾽, δασεῖα ᾽,
βαρεῖα ᾽, ψιλὴ ᾽, περισπωμένη ᾽, ἀπόστροφος ᾽, μακρὰ —,
ὑφὲν ᾽, βραχεῖα ᾽, ὑποδιαστολή, Ὡσαύτως καὶ περὶ τῶν
λοιπῶν σημείων κ.τ.λ. (Epiphan., De Mensur., c. 2, Tom. iii.
p. 237 Migne). This passage may tend to confirm the
statements made above, Vol. I. pp. 45-8, respecting the
presence of such marks in very ancient codices, though on
the whole we may not quite vouch for Sir F. Madden's
opinion as regards Cod. A.
286. “Evangelia quae falsavit Lucianus, apocrypha.” “Evangelia
quae falsavit Esitius [alii Hesychius vel Isicius], apocrypha,”
occur separately in the course of a long list of spurious
books (such as the Gospels of Thaddaeus, Matthias, Peter,
James, that “nomine Thomae quo utuntur Manichaei,” &c.)
in Appendix iii to Gelasius' works in Migne's Patrologia,
Tom. lix. p. 162 [a.d. 494]. But the authenticity of those
decrees is far from certain, and since we hear of these
falsified Gospels nowhere else, Gelasius' knowledge of them
might have been derived from what he had read in
Jerome's “Praef. ad Damasum.”
287. Griesbach rejoices to have Hug's assent “in eo, in quo
disputationis de veteribus N. T. recensionibus cardo vertitur;
nempe extitisse, inde a secundo et tertio saeculo, plures
sacri textûs recensiones, quarum una, si Evangelia spectes,
supersit in Codice D, altera in Codd. BCL, alia in Codd.
EFGHS et quae sunt reliqua” (Meletemata, p. lxviii, prefixed
 to “Commentarius Criticus,” Pars ii, 1811). I suppose that
Tregelles must have overlooked this decisive passage
(probably the last its author wrote for the public eye) when
he states that Griesbach now “virtually gave up his system”
as regards the possibility of “drawing an actual line of
distinction between his Alexandrian and Western
recensions” (An Account of the Printed Text, p. 91). He
certainly showed, throughout his “Commentarius Criticus,”
that Origen does not lend him the support he had once
anticipated; but he still held that the theory of a triple
recension was the very hinge on which the whole question
turned, and clung to that theory as tenaciously as ever.
Third Edition. Dr. Hort (N. T., Introd. p. 186) has since
confirmed our opinion that Griesbach was faithful to the last
to the essential characteristics of his theory, adding that
“the Meletemata of 1811 ... reiterate Griesbach's familiar
statements in precise language, while they show a growing
perception of mixture which might have led him to further
results if he had not died in the following spring.”
288. It should be also observed that ΦΣ containing SS. Matthew
and Mark are probably older than D.
289. E.g. Matt. i. 18; Acts viii. 37 for Irenaeus: Acts xiii. 33 for
Origen. It is rare indeed that the express testimony of a
Father is so fully confirmed by the oldest copies as in John
i. 28, where Βηθανίᾳ, said by Origen to be σχεδὸν ἐν πᾶσι
τοῖς ἀντιγράφοις, actually appears in ‫*א‬ABC*.
290. This view is controverted in Burgon's “Remains.”
291. Mr. A. A. Vansittart, Journal of Philology, vol. ii. No. 3, p. 35.
I suppose too that Mr. Hammond means much the same
thing when he says, “It seems almost superfluous to affirm
that every element of evidence must be allowed its full
weight; but it is a principle that must not be forgotten.”
(Outlines of Textual Criticism, p. 93, 2nd edition.) Truly it is
not superfluous to insist on this principle when we so
 perpetually find the study of the cursive manuscripts
disparaged by the use of what we may venture to call the
Caliph Omar's argument, that if they agree with the older
authorities their evidence is superfluous, if they contradict
them, it is necessarily false.
292. The evidence of Evan. R, which contains only the decisive
letters ΝΗΡΟΥ, is the more valuable, inasmuch as it has
been alleged to support the readings of documents of the
other class (which no doubt it often does) and thus to
afford a confirmation of their authority; it cannot help them
much when its vote is against them. On analyzing the 908
readings for which R is cited in Tischendorf's eighth edition,
I find that it sides with A, the representative of the one
class, 356 times; with its better reputed rival B 157 times,
where A and B are at variance. It is with A alone of the
great uncials 101 times, with B alone four, with ‫ א‬alone
five, with C alone (but C is lost in 473 places out of the
908) six; with D alone twenty-four. Some of its other
combinations are instructive. It is with AC forty-two times
and with ACL sixteen; with AD fifty-one and with ADL
eighteen; with ‫א‬B eleven and with ‫א‬BL twenty-nine; with
‫א‬L nine times; with AL nineteen; with BL fifteen; with CL
never; with DL twice. Cod. R stands unsupported by any of
the preceding eighty-nine times, seldom without some
countenance (but see Luke xi. 24 ἐκ), such as the
Memphitic version, or later codices. In the places where its
fragments coincide with those of Cod. Ξ (which is much
more friendly to B) they agree 127 times, differ 105.
293. Dean Burgon avers that he is thoroughly convinced that “no
reading can be of real importance—I mean has a chance of
being true—which is witnessed to exclusively by a very few
copies, whether uncial or cursive.... Nothing else are such
extraordinary readings, wherever they may happen to be
found, but fragments of primitive error, repudiated by the
Church (‘a witness and keeper of Holy Writ’) in her
 corporate capacity.” (Letter in the Guardian, July 12, 1882.)
I cannot go quite so far as this. [Dean Burgon has left his
reply.]
294. Not that we can in any way assent to the notions of Canon
T. R. Birks (Essay on the right estimation of manuscript
evidence in the text of the N. T., 1878), whose proposition
that “Constant increase of error is no certain and inevitable
result of repeated transcription” (p. 33) is true enough in
itself, though we cannot follow him when he adds that
“Errors, after they have found entrance, may be removed
as well as increased in later copies. A careful scribe may
not only make fewer mistakes of his own, but he may
correct manifest faults of the manuscript from which he
copies, and avail himself of the testimony of others, so as
to revise and improve the text of that on which he chiefly
relies.” Only such a scribe would no longer be a witness for
the state of the text as extant in his generation, but a
critical editor, working on principles of his own, whether
good or bad alike unknown to us.
295. Very pertinent to this matter is a striking extract from J. G.
Reiche (a critic “remarkable for extent and accuracy of
learning, and for soundness and sobriety of judgement,” as
Canon Cook vouches, Revised Version, p. 4), given in
Bloomfield's “Critical Annotations on the Sacred Text,” p. 5,
note: “In multis sanè N. T. locis lectionis variae, iisque
gravissimi argumenti, de verâ scripturâ judicium firmum et
absolutum, quo acquiescere possis, ferri nequit, nisi
omnium subsidiorum nostrorum alicujus auctoritatis
suffragia, et interna veri falsique indicia, diligenter
explorata, justâ lance expendantur.... Quod in causâ est, ut
re non satis omni ex parte circumspectâ, non solum critici
tantopere inter se dissentiant, sed etiam singuli sententiam
suam toties retractent atque commutent.” In the same spirit
Lagarde, speaking of the more recent manuscripts of the
Septuagint, thus protests: “Certum est eos non a somniis
 monachorum undecimi vel alius cujusquam saeculi natos,
sed ex archetypis uncialibus aut ipsos aut intercedentibus
aliis derivatos. Unde elucet criticum acuto judicio et
doctrinâ probabili instructum codicibus recentioribus
collectis effecturum esse (?) quid in communi plurium
aliquorum archetypo scriptum fuerit” (Genesis, p. 19).
Compare also Canon Cook, Revised Version of the First
Three Gospels, p. 5.
296. “So extravagant a statement could scarcely be deemed
worthy of the elaborate confutation with which Dr.
Scrivener has condescended to honour it” (Saturday
Review, Aug. 20, 1881). Yet this scheme of “Comparative
Criticism made easy” has obtained, for its childlike
simplicity, more acceptance than the reviewer could
reasonably suppose. Dr. Hort, of course, speaks very
differently: “B must be regarded as having preserved not
only a very ancient text, but a very pure line of very ancient
text, and that with comparatively small depravation either
by scattered ancient corruptions otherwise attested or by
individualisms of the scribe himself. On the other hand, to
take it as the sole authority except where it contains self-
betraying errors, as some have done, is an unwarrantable
abandonment of criticism, and in our opinion inevitably
leads to erroneous results” (Introd. p. 250).
297. The textual labours of the Cambridge duumvirate have
received all the fuller consideration in the learned world by
reason of their authors having been members of the New
Testament Revision Company, in whose deliberations they
had a real influence, though, as a comparison of their text
with that adopted by the Revisionists might easily have
shown, by no means a preponderating one. I have carefully
studied the chief criticisms which have been published on
the controversy, without materially adding to the
acquaintance with the subject which nearly eleven years of
familiar conference with my colleagues had necessarily
 brought to me. The formidable onslaught on Dr. Hort's and
Bishop Westcott's principles in three articles in the
Quarterly Review [afterwards published together with
additions in “The Revision Revised”] especially in the
number for April, 1882, and Canon F. C. Cook's “Revised
Version of the First Three Gospels” (1882), must be known
to most scholars, and abound with materials from which a
final judgement may be formed. “The Ely Lectures on the
Revised Version of the N. T.” (1882), which my friend and
benefactor Canon Kennedy was pleased to inscribe to
myself, are none the less valuable for their attempt to hold
the balance even between opposite views of the questions
at issue. The host of pamphlets and articles in periodicals
which the occasion has called forth could hardly be
enumerated in detail, but some of them have been used
with due acknowledgement in Chap. XII.
298. We are concerned not with names but with things, so that
Dr. Hort may give his ignis fatuus what appellation he likes,
only why he calls it Syrian it is hard to determine. The
notices connecting his imaginary revision with Lucian of
Antioch which we have given above he feels to be
insufficient, for he says no more than that “the conjecture
derives some little support from a passage of Jerome,
which is not itself discredited by the precariousness of the
modern theories which have been suggested by it” (Hort, p.
138).
299. See Burgon's “The Revision Revised,” pp. 271-288.
300. Other examples may be seen in our notes in Chap. XII on
Luke ii. 14 for Methodius; Luke xxii. 43, 44 for Hippolytus
again; Luke xxiii. 34 for Irenaeus and Origen. Add Luke x. 1
for Irenaeus (p. 546, note 1); xxiii. 45 (Hippolytus); John
xiii. 24 (Clem. Alex.); 2 Cor. xii. 7 (Iren. Orig.); Mark xvi. 17,
18 (Hippol.). See also Miller's “Textual Guide,” pp. 84, 85,
 where 165 passages on fifteen texts are gathered from
writers before St. Chrysostom.
301. For reasons which will be readily understood, we have
quoted sparingly from the trenchant article in the Quarterly
Review, April, 1882, but the following summary of the
consequences of a too exclusive devotion to Codd. ‫א‬B
seems no unfit comment on the facts of the case: “Thus it
would appear that the Truth of Scripture has run a very
narrow risk of being lost for ever to mankind. Dr. Hort
contends that it more than half lay perdu on a forgotten
shelf in the Vatican Library;—Dr. Tischendorf that it had
found its way into a waste-paper basket in the convent of
St. Catherine at the foot of Mount Sinai—from which he
rescued it on February 4, 1859:—neither, we venture to
think, a very likely supposition. We incline to believe that
the Author of Scripture hath not by any means shown
Himself so unmindful of the safety of the Deposit, as these
learned persons imagine” (p. 365). The Revision Revised, p.
343.
302. See Appendix of passages at the end of this chapter. Yet
while refusing without hesitation the claim of the monstra
which follow to be regarded as a part of the sacred text, we
are by no means insensible to the fact impressed upon us
by the Dean of Llandaff, that there are readings which
conciliate favour the more we think over them: it being the
special privilege of Truth always to grow upon candid
minds. We subjoin his persuasive words: “It is deeply
interesting to take note of the process of thought and
feeling which attends in one's own mind the presentation of
some unfamiliar reading. At first sight the suggestion is
repelled as unintelligible, startling, almost shocking. By
degrees, light dawns upon it—it finds its plea and its
palliation. At last, in many instances, it is accepted as
adding force and beauty to the context, and a conviction
gradually forms itself that thus and not otherwise was it
 written.” (Vaughan, Epistle to Romans, Preface to the third
edition, p. xxi.)
303. Thus far we are in agreement with the “Two Members of
the N. T. Company,” however widely we may differ from
their general views: “The great contribution of our own
times to a mastery over materials has been the clearer
statement of the method of genealogy, and, by means of it,
the corrected distribution of the great mass of documentary
evidence” (p. 19). Only that arbitrary theories ought to be
kept as far as possible out of sight.
304. So that we may be sure what we should have found in Cod.
D, and with high probability in Cod. E, were they not
defective, when in Acts xxvii. 5 we observe δι᾽ ἡμερῶν
δεκάπεντε inserted after διαπλεύσαντες in 137, 184, and
the Harkleian margin with an asterisk; as also when we
note in Acts xxviii. 16 ἔξω τῆς παρεμβολῆς before σύν in
the last two and in demid.
305. E.g. Luke xxiv. 3 τοῦ κυρίου ἰησοῦ omitted by D, a b e ff2 l;
ver. 6 οὐκ ἔστιν ὦδε ἀλλὰ ἠγέρθη (comp. Mark xvi. 6),
omitted by the same; ver. 9 ἀπὸ τοῦ μνημείου by the same,
by c and the Armenian; the whole of ver. 12, by the same
(except ff2) with fuld., but surely not by the Jerusalem
Syriac, even according to Tischendorf's showing, or by
Eusebius' canon, for he knew the verse well (comp. John
xx. 5); ver. 36 καὶ λέγει αὐτοῖς, εἰρήνη ὑμῖν omitted by D, a
b e ff2 l as before (comp. John xx. 19, 26); the whole of
ver. 40, omitted by the same and by Cureton's Syriac
(comp. John xx. 20); ver. 51 καὶ ἀνεφέρετο εἰς τὸν οὐρανόν
and ver. 52 προσκυνήσαντες αὐτόν omitted by the same
and by Augustine, the important clause in ver. 51 by ‫*א‬
also, and consequently by Tischendorf. Yet, as if to show
how mixed the evidence is, D deserts a b ff2 l when, in
company with a host of authorities, both manuscripts and
 versions (f q, Vulgate, Bohairic, Syriac, and others), they
annex καὶ ἀπὸ μελισσίου κηρίου to the end of ver. 42. See
also Luke x. 41, 42; xxii. 19, 20, discussed in Chap. XII.
306. So of certain of the chief versions we sometimes hear it
said that they are less important in the rest of the N. T.
than in the Gospels; which means that in the former they
side less with ‫א‬B.
307. Canon Kennedy, whose “Ely Lectures” exhibit, to say the
least, no prejudice against the principles enunciated in Dr.
Hort's Introduction, is good enough to commend the four
rules here set forth to the attention of his readers (p. 159,
note). The first three were stated in my first edition (1861),
the fourth added in the second edition (1874), and, while
they will not satisfy the advocates of extreme views on
either side, suffice to intimate the terms on which the
respective claims of the uncial and cursive manuscripts, of
the earlier and the more recent authorities, may, in my
deliberate judgement, be equitably adjusted.
308. Dean Burgon held that too much deference is here paid to
the mere antiquity of those which happen to be the oldest
MSS., but are not the oldest authorities. He would therefore
enlarge the grounds of judgement.
309. The harmony subsisting between B and the Sahidic in
characteristic readings, for which they stand almost or quite
alone, is well worth notice: e.g. Acts xxvii. 37; Rom. xiii. 13;
Col. iii. 6; Heb. iii. 2; 1 John ii. 14; 20.
310. “The intrinsic evidence seems immoveable against the
insertion.” Textual Criticism of the N. T., B. B. Warfield, D.D.,
p. 135.
311. Yet in Penn's “Annotations to the Vatican Manuscripts”
(1837) “The restoration of this verse to its due place” is
described as “the most important circumstance of this [sc.
his own] revision.” Its omission is imputed to “the undue
 influence of a criticism of Origen [ἤδη δὲ αὐτοῦ
ἀποθανόντος], whom Jerome followed.”
312. “This gross perversion of the truth, alike of Scripture and of
history—a reading as preposterous as it is revolting,” is the
vigorous protest of Dean Burgon, The Revision Revised, p.
68, note.
313. “Post enim duodecim apostolos septuaginta alios Dominus
noster ante se misisse invenitur; septuaginta autem nec
octonario numero neque denario” (Irenaeus, p. 146,
Massuet). Tertullian, just a little later (re-echoed by the
younger Cyril), compares the Apostles with the twelve wells
at Elim (Ex. xv. 27), the seventy with the three-score and
ten palm-trees there (Adv. Marc. iv. 24). So Eusebius thrice,
Basil and Ambrose. On the other hand in the Recognitions
of Clement, usually assigned to the second or third century,
the number adopted is seventy-two, “vel hoc modo
recognitâ imagine Moysis” and of his elders, traditionally set
down at that number. Compare Num. xi. 16. Epiphanius,
Hilary (Scholz), and Augustine are also with Cod. B.
314. To enable us to translate “a son, nay even an ox,” would
require ἢ καί, which none read. The argument, moreover, is
one a minori ad majus. Compare Ex. xxi. 33 with Ex. xxiii.
4; ch. xiii. 15.
315. Let me add ex meo Codd. 22, 219, 492, 547, 549, 558,
559, 576, 582, 584, 594, 596, 597, 598, 601, being no
doubt a large majority of cursives. So Cod. 662, apparently
after correction.
316. But not in the Beirût MS. discovered in 1877 by Dr. Is. H.
Hall.
317. A more ludicrous blunder of Cod. B has been pointed out to
me in the Old Testament, Ps. xvii. 14 “they have children at
their desire”: ΕΧΟΡΤΑΣΘΗΣΑΝ ΫΙΩΝ Cod. A, but
 ΕΧΟΡΤΑΣΘΗΣΑΝ ΫΕΙΩΝ Cod. B. The London papyrus has
ΥΩΝ for ΥΙΩΝ.
318. Codex P is of far greater value than others of its own date.
It is frequently found in the company of B, sometimes
alone, sometimes with other chief authorities, especially in
the Catholic Epistles, e.g. James iv. 15; v. 4; 14; 2 Pet. i. 17
(partly); ii. 6; 1 John ii. 20.
319. We note many small variations between the text of these
critics as communicated to the Revisers some years before,
and that finally published in 1881. The latter, of course, we
have treated as their standard.
320. This precious cursive forms one of a small class which in
the Catholic Epistles and sometimes in the Acts conspire
with the best uncials in upholding readings of the higher
type: the other members are 69, 137, 182, to which will
sometimes be added the text or margin of the Harkleian
Syriac, Codd. 27, 29, the second hands of 57 and 66, 100,
180, 185, and particularly 221, which is of special interest
in these Epistles. The following passages, examined by
means of Tischendorf's notes, will prove what is here
alleged: 1 Pet. iii. 16; 2 Pet. i. 4; 21; ii. 6; 11; 1 John i. 5;
7; 8; ii. 19; iii. 1; 19; 22; iv. 19; v. 5.
321. Notice especially those instances in the Catholic Epistles,
wherein the primary authorities are comparatively few, in
which Cod. B accords with the later copies against Codd.
‫א‬A(C), and is also supported by internal evidence: e.g. 1
Pet. iii. 18; iv. 14; v. 2; 2 Pet. ii. 20; 1 John ii. 10; iii. 23,
&c. In 1 John iii. 21, where the first ἡμῶν is omitted by A
and others, the second by C almost alone, B seems right in
rejecting the word in both places. So in other cases internal
probabilities occasionally plead strongly in favour of B,
when it has little other support: as in Rom. viii. 24, where
τίς ἐλπίζει; as against τις, τί καὶ ἐλπίζει; though B and the
margin of Cod. 47 stand alone here, best accounts for the
 existence of other variations (see p. 248). In Eph. v. 22, B
alone, with Clement and Jerome, the latter very expressly,
omits the verb in a manner which can hardly fail to
commend itself as representing the true form of the
passage. In Col. iii. 6, B, the Sahidic, the Roman Ethiopic,
Clement (twice), Cyprian, Ambrosiaster, and auct. de singl.
cler., are alone free from the clause interpolated from Eph.
v. 6.
322. Viz. Luke i. 1-4, some portion of the Gospel and most of the
Acts: excluding such cases as St. Stephen's speech, Acts vii,
and the parts of his Gospel which resemble in style, and
were derived from the same sources as, those of SS.
Matthew and Mark.
323. Dr. Hort (Introd., Notes, p. 141) confirms the foregoing
statements, which we have repeated unchanged from our
former editions. “What spellings are sufficiently probable to
deserve inclusion among alternative readings, is often
difficult to determine. Although many deviations from
classical orthography are amply attested, many others,
which appear to be equally genuine, are found in one, two,
or three MSS. only, and that often with an irregularity which
suggests that all our MSS. have to a greater or less extent
suffered from the effacement of unclassical forms of words.
It is no less true on the other hand that a tendency in the
opposite direction is discernible in Western MSS.: the
orthography of common life, which to a certain extent was
used by all the writers of the New Testament, though in
unequal degrees, would naturally be introduced more freely
in texts affected by an instinct of popular adaptation.”
324. E.g. Aeschylus, Persae, 411: κόρυμβ᾽, ἐπ᾽ ἄλλην δ᾽ ἄλλος
ἴθυνεν δόρυ, or Sophocles, Antigone, 219: τὸ μὴ πιχωρεῖν
τοῖς ἀπιστοῦσιν τάδε.
325. Cod. ‫א‬, for instance, does not omit it above 208 times
throughout the N. T., out of which 134 occur with verbs