My dear brother,—As many are now interested in such researches through the recovery of the God. Sin., I send you a word upon it. It has naturally been a pet child of Tischendorf's as he found it, and no one can question its value as a witness of importance. But it seems to me, as far as I have examined it, that it is overrated. The Vatican MS. is much more correctly written, and in every respect it seems to me superior. There is a considerable number of serious mistakes and omissions in God. Sin. I do not know whether I have been more observant from having remarked this somewhat in the synoptical gospels; but it is particularly faulty in John, or at any rate I have observed the faults. It agrees in a good many readings with D, when D has been alone. The variations in οὖν, δὲ, καὶ, are innumerable, but it may be right here. So in the presence and absence of before proper names. But there are many readings which are clearly wrong. Its family is the same as B, still B stands alone. Of all MSS. for beauty and correctness the Dublin one is the best: I found but one fault in it. It agrees with td and B in character but is superior to both. Whether all its readings be correct is another question. But according to this family it is the first in correctness. 24 very often agrees with Vercel. among the Latins. I would mention another fact. Brixianus as a rule always agrees with the ordinary modern text as A in gospels. I do not pretend to account for this and other facts connected with the history of the text as one learned in such matters; but I thought the facts I have observed might be interesting to some of your readers.
As many have been disposed to think they could judge of the text by Tischendorf's publication in English, let me add that, much as we are indebted, as everyone knows, to Tischendorf for his diligent and careful labors (which I should be the first to acknowledge), this publication seems to me an unhappy one. We have the text according to that ordinarily received (T. R.) and then three ancient MSS. to throw doubt on all and decide nothing. Ordinary facts, such as A being not Alexandrian in the gospels, are of course unknown to ordinary readers; who are then in uncertainty without resource. Now while the most ancient MSS. will as a general rule have the most weight, and where A and B agree (in gospels) go far to decide a question, yet the simple fact of diplomatic or documentary evidence cannot decide everything. Some of the MSS. which exist were made before so large a destruction of Bibles took place in the last persecution, and versions earlier than any come in as a check on MSS. There is nothing to make any serious person uneasy as to the text, but it is laborious care, not rapid decision, which secures what is right. When I find such facts as this—two leaves torn out of Veronensis, a translation made in the second century, and a MS. as early perhaps as any we have, so that what precedes is lost too, in order to take away John 8:1-11,1Jesus went unto the mount of Olives. 2And early in the morning he came again into the temple, and all the people came unto him; and he sat down, and taught them. 3And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst, 4They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act. 5Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou? 6This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not. 7So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her. 8And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground. 9And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst. 10When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee? 11She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more. (John 8:1‑11) gaps left in others designedly, and Augustine telling us that copies of little credit leaving out for the sake of morality, these documentary evidences do not suffice to show it an interpolation. So in the end of Mark it will be found that Matthew takes the disciples to Galilee and there is no ascension, Luke on the other hand gives the ascension, the Lord leading them out to Bethany—introducing two distinct and important characters of Christ's connection with His disciples. Now Mark up to the end of verse 8 gives us the view found in Matthew; from verse 9 to the end, the heavenly associations of Christ with His disciples. I am not prepared to say as to the history of the text how this was so arranged, nor do I (to say the truth) find that others can; nor do I blame them. But while MS. authority must be our main resource, no one can deny that tendencies that vitiated the text were as early as any MS. and such we have to watch. God. Sin. is in one place evidently changed to avoid a question as to the Virgin Mary's having had other children. Let not the simple reader be dismayed at this: other MSS. are a counter check; and while there is the imperfection of copyists, there is not the uncertainty which many would gladly say there is, and which the absence of research would lead persons to fancy. J. N. D.