Page images
PDF
EPUB

some

suggesting occasionally a reconsideration of question, or a fuller treatment of difficult passages, and the like.

Beyond this he has not attempted to interfere, feeling it better that each Commentary should have its own individual character, and being convinced that freshness and variety of treatment are than a compensation for any lack of uniformity in the Series.

more

DEANERY, PETERBOROUGH,

14th Feb, 1880.

EDITOR'S PREFACE.

In the preparation of this Edition of the Greek Text of St Mark's Gospel the works principally consulted have been Bruder's Concordance of the New Testament, and Trommius' of the LXX.; Grimm's Edition of Wilkii Clavis, the Lexicon of Schleusner, and Cremer's Biblio-Theological Lexicon of New Testament Greek; Dr Moulton's Edition of Winer's Grammar; Goodwin's Greek Moods and Tenses; Clyde's Greek Syntax; Clyde's Romaic and Modern Greek, and Vincent and Bourne’s Modern Greek.

References have been given to Lightfoot's Horæ Hebraicæ; Westcott's Introduction to the Study of the Gospels; Scrivener’s Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament; Hammond's Textual Criticism; Ellicott's Historical Lectures on the Life of our Lord; Liddon's Bampton Lectures, ed. 1882; as also to the Commentaries of Maldonatus, Bengel, Meyer, and Lange, and various modern books of

travel.

I have to thank very sincerely my friend and colleague the Rev. Thomas Walker, Sub-Warden of St Augustine's College, for looking over the sheets as they passed through the press, and for many valuable suggestions on several points.

G. F. M.

ST AUGUSTINE'S COLLEGE,

Nov. 25, 1882.

ON THE GREEK TEXT.

In undertaking an edition of the Greek text of the New Testament with English notes for the use of Schools, the Syndics of the Cambridge University Press have not thought it desirable to reprint the text in common use*. To have done this would have been to set aside all the materials that have since been accumulated towards the formation of a correct text, and to disregard the results of textual criticism in its application to MSS., Versions and Fathers. It was felt that a text more in accordance with the present state of our knowledge was desirable. On the other hand the Syndics were unable to adopt one of the more recent critical texts, and they were not disposed to make themselves responsible for the preparation of an

* The form of this text most used in England, and adopted in Dr Scrivener's edition, is that of the third edition of Robert Stephens (1550). The name “Received Text” is popularly given to the Elzevir edition of 1633, which is based on this edition of Stephens, and the name is borrowed from a phrase in the Preface, "Textum ergo habes nunc ab omnibus receptum.”

entirely new and independent text: at the same time it would have been obviously impossible to leave it to the judgment of each individual contributor to frame his own text, as this would have been fatal to anything like uniformity or consistency. They believed however that a good text might be constructed by simply taking the consent of the two most recent critical editions, those of Tischendorf and Tregelles, as a basis. The same principle of consent could be applied to places where the two critical editions were at variance, by allowing a determining voice to the text of Stephens where it agreed with either of their readings, and to a third critical text, that of Lachmann, where the text of Stephens differed from both.

In this manner readings peculiar to one or other of the two editions would be passed over as not being supported by sufficient critical consent; while readings having the double authority would be treated as possessing an adequate title to confidence.

A few words will suffice to explain the manner in which this design has been carried out.

In the Acts, the Epistles, and the Revelation, wherever the texts of Tischendorf and Tregelles agree, their joint readings are followed without any deviation.

Where they differ from each other, but neither of them agrees with the text of Stephens as printed in Dr Scrivener's edition, the consensus of Lachmann with either is taken in preference to the text of Stephens. In all other cases the text of Stephens as represented in Dr Scrivener's edition has been followed.

« PreviousContinue »