11. It is very possible that some scattered readings cannot be reduced to any of the above-named classes, but enough has [pg 018] been said to afford the student a general notion of the nature and extent of the subject[13]. It may be reasonably thought that a portion of these variations, and those among the most considerable, had their origin in a cause which must have operated at least as much in ancient as in modern times, the changes gradually introduced after publication by the authors themselves into the various copies yet within their reach. Such revised copies would circulate independently of those issued previously, and now beyond the writer's control; and thus becoming the parents of a new family of copies, would originate and keep up diversities from the first edition, without any fault on the part of transcribers[14]. It is thus perhaps we may best account for the omission or insertion of whole paragraphs or verses in manuscripts of a certain class [see above [(1)], [(2)], [(3)]]; or, in cases where the work was in much request, for those minute touches and trifling improvements in words, in construction, in tone, or in the mere colouring of the style [[(5)], [(11)], [(12)]], which few authors can help attempting, when engaged on revising their favourite compositions. Even in the Old Testament, [pg 019] the song of David in 2 Sam. xxii is evidently an early draft of the more finished composition, Ps. xviii. Traces of the writer's curae secundae may possibly be found in John v. 3, 4; vii. 53-viii. 11; xiii. 26; Acts xx. 4, 15; xxiv. 6-8. To this list some critics feel disposed to add portions of Luke xxi-xxiv.
12. The fullest critical edition of the Greek Testament hitherto published contains but a comparatively small portion of the whole mass of variations already known; as a rule, the editors neglect, and rightly neglect, mere errors of transcription. Such things must be recorded for several reasons, but neither they, nor real various readings that are slenderly supported, can produce any effect in the task of amending or restoring the sacred text. Those who wish to see for themselves how far the common printed editions of what is called the “textus receptus” differ from the judgement of the most recent critics, may refer if they please to the small Greek Testament published in the series of “Cambridge Greek and Latin Texts[15],” which exhibits in a thicker type all words and clauses wherein Robert Stephen's edition of 1550 (which is taken as a convenient standard) differs from the other chief modifications of the textus receptus (viz. Beza's 1565 and Elzevir's 1624), as also from the revised texts of Lachmann 1842-50, of Tischendorf 1865-72, of Tregelles 1857-72, of the Revisers of the English New Testament (1881), and of Westcott and Hort (1881). The student will thus be enabled to estimate for himself the limits within which the text of the Greek Testament may be regarded as still open to discussion, and to take a general survey of the questions on which the theologian is bound to form an intelligent opinion.
13. The work that lies before us naturally divides itself into three distinct parts.
I. A description of the sources from which various readings are derived (or of their external evidence), comprising:
(a) Manuscripts of the Greek New Testament or of portions thereof.
(b) Ancient versions of the New Testament in various languages.
(c) Citations from the Greek Testament or its versions made by early ecclesiastical writers, especially by the Fathers of the Christian Church.
(d) Early printed or later critical editions of the Greek Testament.
II. A discussion of the principles on which external evidence should be applied to the recension of the sacred volume, embracing
(a) The laws of internal evidence, and the limits of their legitimate use.