161 
authority, but all far more modern. Not only are the defects of 
the MS., such as the first forty-seven chapters of Genesis, the 
Apocalypse, and other smaller defects supplied — excusably, if not 
commendably — but large masses of matter, which never formed any 
part of the original document, are arbitrarily inserted — such as the 
rejected version of Daniel, and the whole four books of the Maccabees; 
so that the work is rendered enormously voluminous and expensive 
by the accumulation of matter which has no title to be there, and 
which is no of value whatever in a critical point of view. But what 
Dr Lee considered the gravest of the sins with which this expensive 
edition was chargeable, was the insertion, for dogmatic and eccle- 
siastical reasons, of those spurious or doubtful passages in the New 
Testament which are wanting in the Vatican and the other most 
ancient authorities. Such are Mark xvi. 9-20, Luke xxii. 43, 44, 
John viii. 1—11, and particularly 1 John v. 7. The editor treated 
these omissions as if they were defects in his MS. ; whereas these 
passages were insertions — i. e ., corruptions introduced into later 
documents. What made the matter worse was, that in other cases 
in which the Vatican Codex wanted matter found in the common 
Greek text, it was omitted by Cardinal A. Mai ; such as the Doxo- 
logy to the Lord’s Prayer, Matthew vi. 13, also Matthew xxiii. 14, 
Acts xxiv. 7, 8 , without any reason being assigned, or even any 
notice taken. This different proceeding in different cases might be 
considered mere carelessness or accident by those who did not know 
that the passages arbitrarily introduced had the support of the Latin 
Vulgate, while those left out wanted that support. For all the 
three omitted passages before noticed were wanting in that version — 
the first in all the editions and MSS., the other two in its oldest 
and best MSS. This was denounced as flagrant partiality. In 
short (Dr Lee concluded), men who are committed to certain versions 
and texts, and to certain ecclesiastical systems and interests, have 
nothing to do to be editing such works as this. They can hardly 
afford to be quite candid or perfectly honest; and though they were, 
they can hardly expect to get credit for these virtues. The book 
which costs nine pounds is, for critical purposes — the only purposes 
for which it was wanted — not worth nine shillings. Williams and 
Norgate’s reprint of the New Testament part — the only part which 
is of any importance — is to cost about this moderate sum, and it 
will possess all the utility and value of the five huge quartos. 
