CHAP. XIV.

PART III. an incorporated gloss in the New Testament, which is but little known, but which is both very important in itself, and very applicable to the case before us. It is remarkable, that Michaelis has passed over it in his criticisms on St. John's Gospel: Bishop Marsh, however, has duly remarked it in his notes on that work, and has deduced from it the conclusions which it obviously suggests.

In the Royal Library at Paris is a remnant of a very ancient Greek MS. of the New Testament, the Codex Ephremi1. This valuable relic is pronounced by Wetstein, (in whose enumeration it is marked C,) to be of the same age as the celebrated Alexandrian MS.; but, the passage which I am about to produce, will certainly not tend to diminish its comparative antiquity. Montfaucon has given a fac-simile of the first six verses of the 5th chapter of St. John's Gospel, as they stand in this MS.; in which that portion of the evangelical history is thus read:

μετα δε ταύτα ην ἡ ἑορτη των

Ιουδαίων, και ανεβη ὁ Ιησους

'MICHAELIS' Introd. to the New Testament, by MARSH,

PART III.

CHAP. XIV.

When Jesus saw him

lie, and knew that, &c.

In the Greek MS., the text and the marginal sentences, though both are in the uncial character, are written by different hands; and it will be evident, from the language, and from the Itacism perceptible in the latter, that these are of a date posterior to the former. It will be equally manifest, that they were marginal notes, annexed with the design of illustrating the popular superstition under which the infirm man was waiting at the bath; but, at the same time, adopting the superstition, and averring it to be true. The original text, was free from that blemish; and the simplicity and close sequence of the recital, bear internal evidence that those marginal passages are alien to it. The superstitious clause, therefore, does not pertain to the evangelical historian, but has become incorporated into his history in the progress of transcription.

Bishop Marsh thus speaks concerning this passage: "The Coder Ephrem has many

marginal notes written in uncial letters, "without accents. This proves what has been "sometimes doubted, that marginal notes were "made in the most ancient MSS., and that "this practice prevailed in the early ages of

Christianity. But, these marginal scholia PART III

66 seem to have been confined to such MSS. as

were in the hands of private persons; while "those which have been used for church ser

66

vice, such as the Coder Beza, are without "them. It is likewise remarkable, that in this "MS. the disputed, or rather spurious text of "John, v. 4, is written, not in the text; but in a "marginal scholion. Now, as this verse is

totally omitted in the Coder Beza and the "Codex Vaticanus, which are the two most "ancient MSS. now extant; as it is likewise

omitted in the Codex Ephrem (which is in"ferior in age to the Coder Beza), but written "in the margin as a scholion; is written in more "modern MSS. in the text, but marked with an " asterisk, or obelus, as suspicious; and in MSS. "still more modern is written without any "mark; we see the various gradations by which "it has acquired its place in our present text ; " and have proof positive that the verse was originally nothing more than a marginal scho"lion, and of course spurious. Other passages "likewise in the Greek Testament owe their present existence in the printed editions "to the same cause'." What the learned prelate here affirms of the Greek Testament,

66

66

Introd. to N. T. vol. ii. p. 732, Note 118.

CHAP. XIV.

PART III. Kennicott has shown to be the case also of the Hebrew.

CHAP. XIV.

In the second chapter of Genesis, there appears an internal critical evidence of an insertion of the 11th, 12th, 13th, and 14th verses, similar to this in St. John, constituting, in a similar manner, a parenthesis intersecting the thread of the narration; and introduced, solely for the purpose of illustration. It does not wear the character of the simple narrative in which it appears; but, of a gloss or note of a later age, founded upon the fanciful traditions prevailing with respect to the situation of the ancient Paradise. The reader will find evidence of the unconquered difficulty of reconciling this description with true geography, if he consults Michaelis' Supplementa ad Ler. Heb. on the names, of Eden, and of the four rivers mentioned in the verses in question. I have therefore long been confirmed, on critical grounds alone, and without any relation to the particular argument of the present treatise, in the persuasion, that those four verses were a gloss of very ancient date; which became incorporated into the text, either during the captivity, while the Hebrews were dwelling in the regions bordering upon the Hiddekel (or Tigris) and Euphrates, or after their return from that captivity; and that the text, and gloss, stood originally thus: