APPENDIX B.
A good deal of valuable matter which appeared in the first edition of Dr. Scrivener's Plain Introduction, 1861, has been excluded from the second and third editions of the same work. Such is his collation of the Complutensian Polyglot, and such the basis of the present appendix. On p. 304 of this, the first edition of his Introduction, he writes:
"Since Stephen's edition of 1550, and that of the Elzevirs, have been taken as the standard or Received text, the former chiefly in England, the latter on the "Continent, and inasmuch as nearly all collated manuscripts have been compared "with one or the other of these, it becomes absolutely necessary to know the "precise points in which they differ from each other, even to the minutest errors" of the press. Mill (N. T. Proleg. 1307) observed but twelve such variations; "Tischendorf gives a catalogue of 150 (N. T. Proleg. p. lxxxv. 7th ed.): it is "hoped that the following list of 286 places will be found tolerably exact; mere "errata as regards the breathings or accents it seemed needless to include."
The collation follows, and I reproduce it here further on, with such small corrections as a close verification of all the passages cited has made necessary. The whole ground I have had no leisure nor indeed much inclination to go over. I have also verified the readings which Scrivener gives of C. in its support of St. or Elz., and have made a few corrections. To this end I used Scrivener's own collation of C., referring to the original in cases of doubt. The readings of B have been of course corrected carefully throughout, all the folio editions and all the octavo editions of Beza have been consulted and the results given, and so I trust that our transatlantic brethren will for once be satisfied, and leave the old 'Bezan" quarrels alone henceforth. Besides this, I have thought well to give fully the support afforded on each side by the several editions of Erasmus, by the Aldine Bible of 1518, the other three editions of Robert Stephen, and the early independent edition of Colinaeus. We thus have a pretty full history of the text down to 1624 as far as regards the passages in question. It has been a matter of considerable labour to bring all these readings together, and has necessitated close on six thousand references in 22 separate editions, many of them ponderous tomes without any verse-divisions to render the task of reference lighter. Still I have thought it well worth my while to draw up the lists in this form, as a standard record for reference. Some day I may find the time (which has failed Dr. Scrivener) to give a history of the whole text of the N. T. down through all the principal editions, which would be of immense value when the next body of revisers come to do their work, as come they must, to revise, we trust, with better success than the last company.
I am fortunate in having in my own possession these 22 editions with the exception of the 8° Bezan editions of 1565, 1567, 1580, and 1604. Copies of the last three are in the British Museum, but there is no copy of 1565 in all London, so far as I am aware. Through the kindness of Mr. Jenkinson, of the University Library, and by the good offices of Mr. C. F. Foster, of Cambridge, I have been able to obtain the loan of this book for my purpose. Two pages however are wanting in the Cambridge copy, and the readings which were thus missing have been very kindly supplied to me by Mr. E. B. Nicholson, of the Bodleian, from the Oxford copy.
I have omitted all Scrivener's references to E2. i.e. Elz. 1633 as the subject is much more fully dealt with by me in the next appendix C. (q.v.).
I have excluded all reference to the edition of H. Stephens 1576, the pseudoBeza which so misled Dr. Scrivener, and in the same way have not given the readings of the sixth 8° Beza of 1611 (published after Beza's death), although in the latter case I have carefully examined all the passages where the original alterations of the Elzevirs in their first edition might perchance have been influenced by this last Bezan edition. I have however found no real instance. As a matter of fact then, out of these 262 variations (i.e. exclusive of the list of v épek.) there remain very few which may be said to be original on the part of the Elzevirs-some 15 perhaps, exclusive of their misprints.
Notice first that in the readings adduced from the Aldine edition of 1518 there is absolute divergence between it and Erasmus I. no less than 16 times, which tends to show that Aldus' edition is not such a servile copy of Erasmus as has to this day been supposed. Notice in this connection further Matthew xxi. 7 where Er. 1 has a simple error, and Ald. strikes out a line for itself; whereas Er. 2 does not follow Ald., and Er. 3. 4. 5, though opposed to Er. 2, are not even agreed among themselves.
My work with Colinaeus' edition proves to me more clearly than ever that this edition "calls aloud" for careful and thorough collation.
Then it is interesting to note how often St. 1551 follows 1550 in misprints, and how often it corrects them. Sometimes it is itself responsible for an error of Elz. 1624, e.g. Apoc. iii. 12, λag for vaw, which passed down through B1565. 1582., b1565. 1567. (and was not corrected by Elzevir until the seventh edition), although Elz. had no excuse, as it was corrected by B1588-9. 1598. and b1580. 1590. 1604. 1611.
And then, although this would point to these or one of these editions of Beza having been used to set up the Elzevir New Testament, it is perfectly clear that the Elzevirs picked and chose their readings as they liked, for, while often following b collectively, against B collectively, or Bb. collectively, they most eclectically follow now one and now another different combination.
Thus, in Matt. x. 4 8 'Iσkapiúτns with b1580. 1590. 1604 against the rest.
In Matt. xix. 1, xxiv. 9, Mark ii. 7, Luke xix. 4, John vii. 38, Acts vi. 3
2 Cor. viii. 8, etc. b1565. 1567. against all B. and the later b.
In Luke xvii. 26. Acts ix. 3. Heb. xii. 9 b1565 alone against all the rest.
In 1 Cor. vii. 5 B1598 alone against all the rest, and in Matt. xxv. 2 B1598 and all b against the three earlier editions of B.
Fairly often B. collectively and b1565. 1567. against the last three b.
Sometimes as in John xiv. 11 the three last of b. against B and b1565. 1567. Again a curious combination in Mark ix. 16 B1565 and b1565. 1580. 1590. 1604 against B1582. 1588-9. 1598 and b1567.
Again, Mark ix. 40 in the same chapter all the rest against the first B. and the last b!
A more reasonable one is Mark xii. 20 Eπтà ouν with B1588-9. 1598 and all b. against the 2 earlier B.
Sometimes b1580 stands quite alone forsaking the rest and sides with Stephen as in Acts xix. 33, 1 Cor. vii. 29.
Sometimes the three later B. (followed by Elz.) are against B1565 and all b. (1 Cor. xii. 23).
Sometimes the 2 first B. and the 2 first b. against the 2 later B. and the 3 later b. (2 Cor. iii. 3) etc. etc.
Notice too in 1 Pet. ii. 21. how b1604 forsakes all the earlier 8° editions and goes over to join the 3 later folios in siding with St. against Elz.
Truly Beza's was a "house divided against itself."
