SECTION. II.

Five charges against 1 John v. 7. admitted by Bengel.

I now deliver the charges against 1 John v. 7. which Bengel in his Apparatus criticus has not only admitted, but, where it was necessary, has proved. Now as Bengel was by far the most learned of those who have defended the passage, and he was likewise highly distinguished both for his accuracy and his scrupulous conscientiousness, we may safely take for granted, that the charges are true, which this able and honest advocate has admitted.

1. Not a single Greek manuscript, written before the sixteenth century {1}, contains the controverted passage {2}.

2. Though it is contained in the common printed editions of the Greek Testament, it was not inserted on the authority of Greek manuscripts: for the editors of the Complutensian edition translated it from Latin into Greek {3}: and from the Complutensian, it was transferred to the other editions of the Greek Testament.

3. It is contained in no other version, than the Latin. It is wanting in both Syriac versions, in the Arabic, Coptic, Ethiopic, Armenian and Russian {4} versions. It is true that in modern times the passage has been interpolated in the two last mentioned versions: but in the former it was not interpolated before the fourteenth, and in the latter not before the seventeenth century.

4. Not all the manuscripts even of the Latin version contain it {5}. In some it is totally omitted: in others it is found only in the margin, and of those, which have it in the text, some place it before, others after, the earthly witnesses.

5. The ancient Greek fathers have never quoted the passage, not even in those places, where we should the most expect it.

Consequently we must either admit that the passage in question is spurious, or we must allow, unless we choose to be inconsistent with ourselves, that all other readings contained in some Latin manuscripts, but rejected by all the Greek manuscripts are genuine. In fact, it is very extraordinary that any man should think of opposing the testimony of a single version in favour of a passage to the united evidence of the Greek manuscripts and allother versions against it, when the copies even of that single version are not unanimous in its favour, and the very copies, which contain it, are at variance in regard to its position.

Footnotes to Sect. II.

{1} --- The Codex Montfortianus, which contains the passage, was written in England after the year 1500. As to the Codex Ravianus, which likewise contains the passage, it is a mere forgery, as the reader will find on consulting my catalogue of MSS. in the second volume of this Introduction, Ch. viii. Sect. 6. No. 195. Further, the passage is contained in a Wolfenbuttel MS. called by Knittel in his 'New Criticism on 1 John v. 7.' Codex Guelpherbytanus D. But it is certain that this MS. was written so late as the last century. See my catalogue of MSS. No. 131. Lastly, there is another MS. in the same library, called by Knittel Guelpherbytanus C, (No. 130. in my catalogue), in which the passage is found, not in the text, but in the margin, and written, not by the person who wrote the manuscript, but in a very different, and in a very modern hand. However this MS. has an unusual reading in the text: for instead of oti treis eisin oi marturountes, to pneuma, k.t.l. it has oti oi treis eisin oi marturountes, to pneuma, k.t.l. whence Knittel conjectures, but, as far I can see without the least foundation, that 1 John v. 7. was contained in the text of the more ancient manuscript, from which this was copied.

{2} --- Since the time that Bengel made this candid confession, many more Greek MSS. have been examined, but the passage has been found in none. Wetstein's List amount to eighty-seven: to which may be added the Molsheim MS (No. 179 in my catalogue) collated by father Goldhagen. It is true that Goldhagen does not say in express terms, that this MS. omits 1 John v. 7.: but as his particular object was to confirm the readings of the Vulgate, his silence at this place in regard to the Molsheim MS. is a tacit acknowledgment. Further, the famous manuscript-thief Aymon was in possession of a leaf, which he had torn out of a MS. containing the first Epistle of St. John, which he showed to Mr. Uffenbach, and which omitted 1 John v. 7. See Uffenbach's Travel's, Vol. III. p. 477. It is true that in this leaf, a modern hand had written the passage in the margin: but this may be done in every MS. if the margin has only sufficient breadth. In the library belonging to the city of Bern, there is likewise a Greek MS. supposed to have been written in the ninth century, which omits the passage, as appears from the catalogus Codd. MSS. bibliothecae Bernensis, published by I. R. Sinner de Ballaigeres. Clark, in his Letters on Spain, relates that he did not find the passage, in the MSS. which he consulted in the Spanish libraries: and Birch in his Letter published in the Orient. Bibl. Vol. XXIII. p. 152. declares that among all the Greek MSS. which he had seen, the passage was contained in none: and he mentions particularly the celebrated Codex Vaticanus. Treschow collated five Vienna MSS. (Lambec. 1. 34. 35. 36. 37.) all of which likewise omitted the passage: but in one of them, the Lambec 35. a modern hand has added in the margin the two Latin words, "alibi aliter." See Treschow's Tentamen, p. 35. Lastly, Matthai has examined the Greek manuscripts preserved in the Moscow Libraries: but discovered the passage in none.

{3} --- Since bengel's time this has been more fully confirmed by Semler in his "More accurate inquiry into the state of the Greek text of the Complutensian edition."

{4} --- See the second volume of this Introduction, Ch. vii. Sect. 37.

{5} --- Since bengel's time, Blanchini and Wetstein have augmented the list of Latin MSS. which omit 1 John v. 7.: and since their time it has been augmented by the addition of several more, to which I will add a MS. (described in Uffenbach's Travel's, Vol. III. p. 476.) which formerly belonged to Aymon.