Whatever may be, out of England, the general estimation in
which her Universities are held for Hebraical scholarship, none will
dare say that the country, which gave birth to a B e n tl e y and a
P orteus, has, in solid Greek learning, ever lacked a man to stand,
like Jonadab the son of Rechab, “before (IeHOuaH) for ever.’
The difference between the last century and the present, in English
Hellenic studies, seems chiefly to lie in*the fact that, having exhausted
extant literary sources in Grecian drama and philosophy,
the critical apparatus derived from those honored pursuits is now
becoming intensely directed towards the verbal restoration of the
original books composing the Hew Testament; and the names of
D a vid so n, A lford, S h a r p e , and T r eg el l e s , are the well-known
representatives of this new school, in different phases of its tendency.
The first-mentioned, speaking of the Palestinic period some 1800
years agor allows : “ The age was one of illiterate simplicity. The
apostles themselves were from the humblest ranks of society. Their
abilities and education were tolerably alike. * * * The age was
illiterate. They belonged, for the most part, to a class of society
unpractised in the art of writing.” 647 The second frankly avows : “ I
do not hesitate to say that [verbal inspiration] being thus applied,
its effect will be to destroy altogether the credibility of our Evangelists.”
618 The third published, last year, that most useful little hook,
Notes introductory to the New Testament. And the fourth uses the
following language: “ It is a cause for thankfulness that the common
Greek text [of the Hew Testament] is no worse than it is ; hut it is
a cause for humiliation (and with sober sadness do I write the word)
that Christian translators have not acted with a more large-souled
and intelligent honesty.” 649
The foregoing remarks arise from the imperative necessity of
547 Introduction to the New Testament, &c., London, 1848, I, pp. 408, 417- Jo. L amius
[De erudilione Apostolorum. Liber singularis in quo multa quoe ad primitivorum Christianorum
literas, doctrinas, scripta, placita, sludia, conditionem, censum, mores, et ritus attinent, exponun-
tur et illustrantur : editio altera, 4to, Florentiæ, anno MDCCLXVI, “ Censoribus permitten-
tibus,” pp. 477-991),—publishing in Italy when the Italian Catholic mind had not yet
endured a “ Francesco,” a “ Maifei,” or a “ Bomba,”— had long previously established
apostolic incapacity in the republic of letters. As one among the “ workies”— and I say
it with pride — to tread down, and keep down, what embers of intolerance may yet smoke
in my adopted country, I can join in gratulation with citizens of our republic of America—
mais (ici) nous avons changé tout cela.”
648 Greek Testament: with a critically revised Text, &c., London, 18*54; I, Prolegomena, p.
20. Alford (II, p. 181) expressly cautions us to read Acts xvii, 26—‘‘Not, ‘hath made
of one blood/ &c., as E. V. but ‘ caused every nation of men (sprung) of one blood/
fcc. See Matt, v, 32, Mark vii, 37.”
649 Account of the Printed Text of the Greek New Testament, London, 1855, p. 267.
vindicating, once for all, in ethnological discussion, the accuracy of
my colleague s and my own observations in the joint volume which
preceded the present.”660
Those assertions having been flatly contradicted, Dr. Hott661
when resuming the subject, stated, “ The word blood is an interpolation,
and not to be found in the original texts. The word blood has
been rejected by the Catholic Church, from the time of St. Jerome
to the present hour. The text of Tischendorf is regarded, I believe
generally as the most accurate Greek text known, and in this the
word blood does not appear. I have at hand a long list of authorities
to the same effect; hut as it is presumed no competent authority
will call our assertion in question, it is needless to cite them The
verse above alluded to in Acts should, therefore, read:—
“ ‘And hath made of one all races (genus) of men/ &c.
• ■ Thf 7 0rd llood is a £loss’ and we have just as much right to
interpolate one form, one substance, one nature, one responsibility, or
anything else, as blood.”
Many incompetent authorities, nevertheless, still continuing to
question my collaborator’s correctness, I feel it incumbent upon my-
self to prove that he was perfectly right. I hope the foregoing array
of texts and references, among which is T isc h e nd o r f ’s much prized
authority wil obviate future discussion of others amongst themselves.
It will forever with myself.
But, so swiftly does archaeological criticism advance on the European
continent, that even Tischendorf’s Text now falls—although in
this particularrm*, by leaving out “ blood,” the highest Catholic
« , / generally does) coincides with that employed in the
rational method’’— behind the age of L achmann’s ; whose Text
heads the list, justly eulogized by T r e g e l l e s 662 in these words ■—“ The
t o t Greek Testament, since the invention of printing, edited wholly on
Ta^ n!”01,1*7’ 11TeSpeCtive °f modern tediti°ns, is due to ChaL s
It becomes, in consequence, evident to the reader that scientific
arguments (m England at last, as they have ever been on the conti-
nt) in which texts of the Greek Scriptures are involved, are neither
carried on, at the present day, upon the obsolete English Version of
660 Types Of Mankind, Chap. XV, “ Biblical Ethnography:— Section 77 TV™, n •
and Specific”— pp. 558-9. Terms, Unirersal
® The Moral and Intellectual Diversity of Races, h e .-fr om the French of Conn, A L n * • ”eZ Op lu'Till9 N I J' B' Lippin00tt & Co” 12“°. Op. cit., p. 113. See also the same author’s admirable “ L1ec8t5u6r;e aopnp ethnod itxt ;C... , p•. 5 5 ■ SSS32?and “ sion of Books of the M