Dr. Tregelles became acquainted in 1849 with the remarkable Syriac fragment which Dr. Cureton found among the MSS. brought from the Nitrian monasteries and deposited in the British Museum. This mutilated fragment contains portions of the four Gospels—Matt. i.-viii. 22; x. 31-xxiii. 25; Mark xvi. 17-20; John i. 1-42; iii. 6-vii. 37; xiv. 11-29; Luke ii. 48-iii. 16; vii. 33-xv. 21; xvii. 24-xxiv. 44; but in the opinion of the best Syriac scholars, it is older than the Peshito, and would seem to have been collated with the Greek by the translator of the Greek Testament into Syriac (Peshito). Dr. Cureton supposed that it represents a first translation from the original Hebrew Gospel of Matthew, but Dr. Davidson has we think conclusively proved that it is a translation from the Greek. Dr. Cureton conjectured that sundry curious blunders or deviations from the canonical Matthew are due to the mistakes made by the translator of the Hebrew into Syriac. These conjectures are ingenious but perfectly gratuitous. Dr. Davidson has shown that in a variety of places the Curetonian Syriac (as it is called) differs from the early Greek text by the obvious blunder between two Greek words of similar appearance. We have been rather explicit on the matter of this valuable witness to a very early text, not only because Dr. Tregelles and others have made constant reference to it, but because the second work which we have placed at the head of this article is a translation into Greek of the first part of these precious fragments, and is, moreover, a collation of every reading with Scholz's text, and with Schaaf's edition of the Peshito. This critical effort of Mr. Crowfoot will be of real service to the student who is not familiar with Syriac, and who wishes to see for himself the singular deviations of this text from the Textus Receptus. Take e.g. the additions made to the text of Matthew in chap. xx. 28, where a passage resembling one in Luke vii. is introduced. The Cur. Syriac here is sustained by the Codex D. Very frequently, however, it corresponds in its omissions with the most ancient MSS. and with the old Latin, as in Matt. xx. 22, 23. It is profoundly interesting, moreover, in that it retains of Mark's Gospel only a portion of the very closing passage, which is not to be found in Codex B. or in ℵ. Partly in consequence of this testimony Dr. Tregelles leaves the passage as an authentic appendix to the text of the Gospel of St. Mark. We see that Mr. Crowfoot and Dr. Tregelles sometimes differ, as we might expect them to do, as to the Greek equivalent which they suppose most likely to have been the exemplar of the Syriac, but they do not seriously differ as to the testimony it bears to a particular reading. In Matthew xi. 23, the Textus Rec. reads καὶ σὺ Καπερναοὺμ ἡ ἕως τοῦ οὐρανοῦ ὑψωθεῖσα, κ.τ.λ. Mr. Crowfoot gives in place of ἡ, οὐχ. Dr. Tregelles on the authority of B, C, D, the Vulgate a, b, c, and Syr. Cur., gives μὴ, and makes the clause interrogative.
But to proceed with Dr. Tregelles' labours. The various collations made by him need not be exhaustively enumerated, though special attention should be called to the extraordinary effort and patience which was required by him to form an accurate estimate of the readings of the Codex Colbertinus, called 33 in the Gospels, and 13 in the Acts and Catholic Epistles. The leaves of the vellum have been in places sodden with damp and stuck together. The consequence was that when separated, 'the ink adhered to the opposite page rather than to its own, so that in many leaves the MS. could only be read by observing how the ink had set-off, and thus reading the Greek words backwards.' At Paris, Leipsic, Berlin, Dresden and Wolfenbüttel, Dr. Tregelles continued his patient research, and came to such discoveries as that the Codex Sangallensis (Δ of the Gospels), and Codex Boernerianus (G of St. Paul's Epistles) were the severed portions of the same book. At Dublin, the difficult palimpsest fragment (Z) was deciphered after submitting the vellum to a chemical process, and Tregelles was able to restore the portions which had been left blank in the edition of this fragment published by Dr. Barrett.
Special reference may be made to the Codex, called Zacynthius and designated Ξ, the property of the British and Foreign Bible Society. This is almost an illegible parchment palimpsest, containing considerable portions of Luke's Gospel. The readings of this old lectionary have been carefully noted by Tregelles and are cited throughout his text of the Gospel of Luke. The Codex Leicestrensis, the property of the Town Council of Leicester, has been also carefully collated by our author, as well as by Mr. Scrivener. It is cited as 69 in the Gospels, 31 Acts, and by other numbers in remaining portions of the New Testament.
Dr. Tregelles has not paid much attention to the mass of cursive MSS. It is not fair to accuse him of utterly neglecting them, when he has gone through the laborious work of collating specimens of cursive MSS. in each of the divisions of his subject. He has, however, placed far more confidence in another class of authority and of evidence. The most ancient versions have been thoroughly noted by him in their several codices. The old Latin is carefully studied throughout; the Codex Amiatinus of Jerome's Latin is published in the volume before us, with all the deviations from it in the Clementine Vulgate. The Peshito and Harcleian Syriac versions, the Cureton fragments, the Jerusalem Lectionary, the Memphitic and Thebaic (sometimes called the Coptic and Sahidic) versions, the Ethiopic and the Gothic, are used throughout this edition of the Greek Testament. A considerable number of uncial MSS., which have been published in facsimile or in a printed text, Dr. Tregelles has copied with his own hand, and all the rest of the uncial MSS. he appears to have also collated with his own hand. Having gone through this extraordinary labour, he has proceeded to give the text of the New Testament on the authority of the oldest MSS. and versions, and with the aid of the earliest citations, so as to present the text of the fourth century. He does not hesitate to deviate from these ancient testimonies, when they agree in transcriptural error; and he confers this great advantage on the student, that he states in every case the authorities on both sides with reference to any disputed reading.
Now there has often been expressed on the part of the advocates of the cursive MSS. and the Constantinopolitan group of MSS. and of the later uncial MSS., the conviction that their consensus ought to outweigh the strong and clearly expressed testimony of the ancient MSS. on the plausible supposition that the existing later MS. may be the copies of an older text than that of any existing MS. whatever. Now if Dr. Tregelles or Dean Alford or Dr. Tischendorf had been mere slaves of the few uncial MSS. of great antiquity which are extant, and had no further or corroborative testimony to add in favour of the readings, or the additions and omissions they have affirmed, there would be much justice in the protest sometimes raised; but neither of them can justly be charged with this, and Dr. Tregelles must certainly be acquitted of such prejudice. He and Dean Alford do indisputably and notoriously differ in certain cases where subjective reasons and considerations of the exercise of personal discretion must assume great importance; and in some of these doubtful and difficult cases Tregelles has been more influenced by diplomatic considerations, and has more readily yielded to authority, than Dean Alford; but Dr. Tregelles has stated very acutely and powerfully his reasons for trusting the ancient MSS., even in these difficult readings. Let the following phenomena to which he is able, in most cases, to add the unexceptionable evidence of his own personal observation and collation, be considered. (a) The uncial MSS. are now known and have been at length collated with such care that we may be certain of their testimony. (b) The palimpsests which have been recently found and deciphered confirm the readings of the oldest codices. (c) The great discovery of the Sinaitic Codex throws in its testimony against the bulk of the cursive MSS. (d) The Curetonian Syriac of the Gospels agrees with the oldest MSS. (e) Certain cursive MSS. (such as Codex Colbertinus of the 12th century) agree with the ancient text rather than with the bulk of the cursives, thus providing a class of exception which proves the rule. (f) There is agreement of the ancient versions with this older text; and (g) not infrequently there is the express testimony of early patristic writers to the existence of such a text in their day. Now the principle that Dr. Tregelles takes great pains to establish is as follows,—While there are certain readings sustained by the great majority of recent MSS., divergent readings of the same passages can be proved to have been in existence long before the existence of these MSS., by the evidence of the earliest MSS. of the old Latin version, by the Syriac and other translations, and by the deliberate discussion of the very peculiarities in question by some earlier writer like Origen. Now, even if there were no uncial MSS. which confirmed such divergence, this would constitute a presumption in favour of such a divergence, if some adequate explanation could be found of the commonly received text. But, if in addition to these testimonies, a considerable number of the most ancient uncial MSS. confirm such readings, then Tregelles urges the adoption of them as an approximation to the true text. Thus, take his elaborate argument in favour of the reading of Matt. xix. 17, τί με ἐρωτᾷς περὶ τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ; εἷς ἐστιν ὁ ἀγαθός. This alteration was first made by Griesbach and sustained by Lachmann, and adopted subsequently by Tischendorf and Alford, though condemned by Mr. Scrivener on the ground of the numerical poverty of the evidence, and because it evinced theological zeal for the honour of the Incarnate Son. It is interesting to find, since the judgment of these recensionists was deliberately given, that the final recension of the Vatican MS. and the testimony of the Sinaitic MS. have arisen to defend it. The evidence for the existence of this text in the fourth century, or indeed before the time of Origen, and before the existence of Cureton Syriac, just proves, according to Tregelles, that it is safe 'to take the few documents whose evidence is proved to be trustworthy, and to discard the eighty-nine ninetieths of the evidence shown thus to be less valuable.' One result of his comparative criticism is, 'that as certain MSS. are found by a process of inductive proof to contain an ancient text, their character as witnesses must be considered to be so established, that in other places their testimony deserves peculiar weight;' and still further—'that the ancient MSS. were not exceptional documents, because they contain readings which we learn elsewhere to have been both ancient and widespread.'
One great advantage in Dr. Tregelles' New Testament is, that he not merely states but cites the authority of the patristic writers to whom he appeals, and by a somewhat elaborate notation enables the reader at a glance to see how his uncial MSS. and principal versions are serving him, and where all the lacunæ begin and end.
We proceed to give some further account of the contents and peculiarities of this great work. Dr. Tregelles and Dr. Alford agree in the great majority of cases where they differ from the received text, although in some instances they have not with the same facts before them, come to the same conclusion. E.g., both call attention to the fact that in John vi. 51, the clause ἣν ἐγὼ δώσω is omitted by B, C, D, L, T, 33, the Latin versions, the Cur. Syriac, Thebaic, and Æthiopic versions, and by many Fathers, and Alford even mentions a longer list of such omissions than Tregelles, but Alford allows the homoioteleuton just above, to be a sufficient explanation of the original omission in the text, and retains the clause: Tregelles strikes it out, making the verse read thus, 'and the bread which I will give for the life of the world is my flesh.' Since their discussion, the Sinaitic MS. confirms Tregelles, by not only omitting the clause, but altering the order of the words. This alteration of order may confirm Dean Alford in his continued insertion of the clause, though we think Tregelles is in the right. Through whole chapters of the Gospels, Acts, and Epistles, these two recensionists may be said to agree verbatim et literatim, and to have come precisely to the same conclusions: still a few specimens of their divergence may explain more fully than a more elaborate analysis, the character of their work. In John viii. 41, Alford prefers the less comprehensible form γεγεννήμεθα, to the form ἐγεννήθημεν, on the ground of the possible alteration of the tense to the more usual form. We do not think that Tregelles has acted here on his own principles, for he shows that versions and citations defend the former rather than the latter reading. In John viii. 54, they differ again as to the preferable character of the readings ἡμῶν or ὑμῶν, 'our God' or 'your God,' and here Tregelles defends the reading ἡμῶν with a great array of evidence; see also ch. ix. 4, where ἡμᾶς δεῖ ἐργάζεσθαι κ.τ.λ. is given as preferable to the ἐμὲ δεῖ κ.τ.λ., and largely on the ground that Origen must have been acquainted with this obscure text, and tried to interpret it. In each instance a theological zeal might have provoked a copyist to the ordinary readings. Throughout the ninth chapter of the Acts, where the received text has passed through so fiery an alembic, Alford and Tregelles agree, we believe, in every word, with one exception, and that is the word ἐπείραζεν is preferred by one to the ἐπειρᾶτο of the other in v. 26. Here strong uncial authority governs Tregelles, and the disposition to prefer the less usual or less common form has influenced Dr. Alford. In Romans v. 1, the celebrated reading ἔχωμεν in place of ἔχομεν is preferred by Tregelles. Alford still has doubts about it, from the indecision of MSS. in their modes of spelling certain vowel sounds. The quotations from Origen and Tertullian are decisive of the existence of such a text in their day, and the array of versions is strongly confirmatory of the seven uncials and two cursives that are quoted for it. We need scarcely say, that Tregelles gives his powerful authority in favour of ὃς, rather than θεὸς, in 1 Tim. iii. 16, and rejects the reference to the three heavenly witnesses in 1 John v. 7; but in spite of the authority of Tischendorf's collation of B and of ℵ, and other authorities in favour of the received text, he gives κυρίου instead of θεοῦ as the preferable reading of Acts xx. 28.
Our author is strongly moved by the citations of Origen, and consequently places in his margin as the alternative reading in Heb. ii. 9, χωρὶς θεοῦ by the side of χάριτι θεοῦ. It is clear, from no fewer than seven citations of Origen, he must have had a MS. before him with this startling statement, 'that Jesus on the behalf of all without (or in the absence, or hiding of) God might taste death.' The only MS. authority for such a reading is the uncial fragment called M of the tenth century, so that we are surprised to see the high place given to it in Tregelles' margin. Dr. Tregelles, in the wealth of material at his disposal, sometimes almost travels into the region of the exegete, as in the long note upon Rom. ix. 5, where he gives eight or nine quotations from Greek and Latin Fathers, to show the sense in which they took the phrase, ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων θεὸς εὐλογητὸς εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας as not divided from the ὁ χριστὸς which precedes. It may be added, that he retains ἐν Ἐφέσῳ in the text of Eph. i. 1, thus preserving the traditional character of this Epistle as one addressed not to Laodiceans or any group of Asiatic churches, but to the church at Ephesus.
Dr. Tregelles and Dean Alford differ slightly in 1 Cor. iii. In the fifth verse, τί οὖν ἐστιν Απολλώς is preferred to the τίς of the Receptus, by Tregelles, while Alford sustains the latter. Tregelles has given the adjectives χρυσίον and ἀργύριον in v. 12, in place of the χρυσὸν, ἄργυρον; and ἔθηκα to the commoner τέθεικα and of v. 10. Here Alford seems to have the weight of evidence in favour of his view, though doubtless the aorist gives the finer sense, and makes the truer affirmation 'I laid,' rather than 'I have been laying the foundation.'
He leaves Ἄγαρ in brackets in his text of Gal. iv. 25. So also he deals with the εἰκῆ of Matt. v. 22. The βαπτίσαντες of Matt. xxviii. 19, given on the authority of the doubtful recensions of the Vatican MS. is most unsatisfactory. Tischendorf, who gave it in some of his earlier editions, has returned to βαπτίζοντες ; and probably Dr. Tregelles will show us in his appendix that he has done the same, as ℵ agrees with all the uncial MS. here in the more grammatical reading. We will not further trouble our readers with details. These will suffice for a specimen. Every page presents at a glance the presence of the entire group of MS. versions and fragments collated by the author, and the whole is printed with extreme beauty of type and arrangement.