(Title Page)

INTRODUCTION

to the

CRITICAL STUDY AND KNOWLEDGE

of the

HOLY SCRIPTURES

---

by

The Rev. THOMAS HARTWELL HORNE, B.D.
of Saint John's College, Cambridge;

Rector of the United parishes of St. Edmund the King and Martyr
and St. Nicholas Acoss, Lombard St.; Prebendary of Saint Paul's

New Edition

FROM THE 8th LONDON EDITION, CORRECTED AND ENLARGED
illustrated with numerous maps and facsimiles of Biblical MSS.

---

VOLUME II.

---

Philadelphia:
PUBLISHED BY J. WHETHAM & SON, 144 CHESTNUT ST.
Stereotyped by L. Johnson.

---

1841

The Edition Overseen by Horne

The text of the 9th edition of Horne's handbook for our passage (John 8:1-11) began as smaller footnote in the 5th and earlier editions (pre 1925).

We have documented Horne's own expansion of his original footnote by using a BLUE color scheme for his original footnotes, and RED for additions/substitutions finalized in the 9th Edition of 1841. BLACK text is common throughout the 5th to 9th editions, whether in a footnote or raised to the main text.

As will be apparent, Horne did not change his views on John 8:1-11 in the entire 30 or more years from about 1925 to 1956, but staunchly defended the passage throughout his life.

If anything, in pulling out his original footnote and making it a two-column page in full size type, Horne clearly wanted not only to make plain his own views, but present students with solid reasons not to be swayed by the "latest scholarship" from Germany, being imported into Protestant England by the likes of Samuel Davidson (1848) and S. P. Tregelles (1854).

It was a double-slap in the face against Horne, for S. P. Tregelles to take the liberties that he did regarding this passage (in the 10th ed.), even when it was apparent that the now aging Horne would not budge on the question of the authenticity of John 8:1-11.

The Pericope De Adultera (John 8:1-11)

Some doubts have been entertained concerning the genuineness of the portion of this Gospel comprised between ch. vii. 53. and viii. 1—11.

Its authenticity has been questioned by Erasmus, Calvin, Beza, Grotius, Le Clerc, Wetstein, Semler, Schulze, Morus, Haenlein, Paulus, Schmidt, and various other writers who are mentioned by Wolfius (Cur. Phil in loc.), and by Koecher (Analect in loc.);

Griesbach and Schulz have remarked it as [sic] a passage which ought probably to be omitted: and its genuineness has been advocated by Drs. Mill and Whitby, Bp. Middleton, Heumann, Michaelis, Storr, Langius, Dettmers, and especially by Staeudlin in his Prolusio, qua Pericopae de adultera Joh. vii 53 viii 1-11. veritas, et ahtentia, defenditur. (Gottingen, 1806, 4to.), Kuinoel has devoted 17 closely printed pages of his valuable commentary to a detail of the arguments against and for this clause, the genuineness of which he considers as most satisfactorily proved. (Comment. in Libros Novi Testamenti Historicos, vol. iv. ppl. 379-396.)

See also Tittmann's Commentarius in Evangelium Johannis, pp. 318-322. ... and Dr. Bloomfield.

The limits of a note / necessarily prescribed to this section forbid us to enter into a review of all that has been said on this subject; but it may be permitted to remark that the evidence is in favour of the genuineness of the passage in question.

For, though it is not found in several ancient versions, and is not quoted or illustrated by Chrysostom, Theophylact, Nonnus (who wrote commentaries or explanations of this Gospel), nor by Tertullian, or Cyprian, both of whom treat copiously on chastity and adultery, and therefore had abundant opportunity of citing it, if it had been extant in their copies; yet it is found in the greater part of the manuscripts (Griesbach has enumerated more than eighty) that are extant, though with great diversity of readings.

If it had not been genuine, how could it have found its way into all these manuscripts? Moreover, there is nothing in the paragraph in question that militates either against the character, sentiments, or conduct of Jesus Christ; on the contrary, the whole is perfectly consistent with his meekness, gentleness, and benevolence.

To which we may add, that this passage is cited as genuine by Augustine, who assigns the reason why it was omitted by some copyists, viz. lest any offence should be taken by supposing that our Lord suffered a guilty woman to go unpunished.

But, in reply to this supposition or objection, we may remark,

1. That, according to his own declaration, he came not into the world to condemn the world (John iii. 17., viii. 15., xii. 47., Luke xii. 14.), and to execute the office of a judge (and it is but reasonable to try him by his own principles, in which no inconsistency can be found) ; and,

2. Any exercise of judicial authority would have given a direct contradiction to that deference and subordination which he constantly showed and inculcated to the power of the civil magistrate. [original 1925 footnote ends here]

[the rest was added to the final version when raised from the footnotes to the main text]

An additional evidence in favour of the disputed clause is found in the seventh verse of John viii., where λιθον has the article τον prefixed : He that is without sin among you, let him first cast THE [not a stone, as in our authorised version] STONE at her;  τον λιθον επ αυτη βαλετω.

The allusion, Bishop Middleton remarks, is to the particular manner of stoning, which required that one of the witnesses (for two at the least were necessary, see Deut. xvii. 6.) should throw the stone, which was to serve as a signal to the by-standers to complete the punishment. There is, therefore, strict propriety in calling this stone TON λιθον, in order to distinguish it from other stones. It is not probable that an interpolator would have been thus exact in his phraseology, or would have adverted to this apparently trifling circumstance;

especially since the expression of βαλλειν τον λιθον is not elsewhere found in the New Testament, A few manuscripts (Griesbach and Schulz specify eleven) omit the article;

but this, Dr. M[iddleton] is of opinion, only proves that the copyists knew not what to make of it ; and that, had they undertaken to interpolate the passage, they would have done it less skilfully than did the present interpolator, supposing we must consider the passage to be spurious.

Upon a review therefore of the whole evidence respecting this disputed clause, we may safely conclude that it preponderates in favour of its genuineness.

---

Modern Notes:

1. Much of the "BLUE" text was not actually removed, but placed in footnotes and abridged for purposes of organization once the footnote was raised to the main text.

2. The reference to Tittmann was placed in the footnotes, and Bloomfield was added.

3. The acknowledgement of the opinion of Griesbach and Schulz was probably added because it was required for honesty, since Horne was using Griesbach as an authority regarding the MSS counts. It is extremely doubtful that Horne wished to credit their opinion, since he strongly disagreed with it.

4. The major change in moving from footnote to main text is that Horne adds a whole new argument from Bishop Middleton regarding the usage of the "definite article" ("TON"). Horne wishes to strengthen his position, not tone it down.

5. Horne repeats his original position and restates it with a second, even stronger conclusion in favour of authenticity and genuineness. This is a only a decade before Tregelles takes over the editing and attempts to overwhelm Horne's arguments with an incredibly insensitive and contradictory insertion of his own.

The Edition Revised by S. P. Tregelles and S. Davidson

Samuel Davidson had brought into England the attack upon John 8:1-11 by the 19th century Germans in 1848, via his Introduction to the NT (Bagster & Sons), devoting 16 whole pages to arguments about the authenticity of John 8:1-11, and leaving English Protestants perplexed and shaken.

Samuel P. Tregelles was one of his eager hearers, completely sold to the "new German scholarship" pouring in from the continent. Within a decade, Tregelles had published in 1854 his own extreme position on the textual criticism of the NT, with his An Account of the Printed Text of the NT (Bagster & Sons)

Not satisfied with their own 'achievements', and impatient for others to adopt their radical views on editing the NT, Davidson seem to have entered into a partnership of sorts, convincing a new publisher (Longman & Brown) to take over Horne's longstanding and very popular handbook, and let them step in as the 'editors'.

It seems apparent that Horne had no idea what they were really planning, being essentially honest and trusting. The unfortunate result was that the younger Tregelles virtually rewrote the first half of the text, and extensively altered the findings of the rest.

Davidson and Tregelles had concluded that their ideas would be far more speedily propagated if inserted into a popular and highly esteemed handbook. They were quite correct, and quickly influenced a whole generation of young NT students with their ideas, including a very young and enthusiastic F. J. A. Hort, filled with disastisfaction with orthodoxy and looking for ammunition.

In part, some excuse must be made for the fact that this was a time of extreme change in England, with the Roman Catholic Counter-Reformation in full swing under the cloak of the Oxford Movement. Simultaneously the economic philsophy of Carl Marx and the Evolutionary ideas of Darwin were breaking onto the stage.

The gambit of Davidson and Tregelles was only partly successful. Davidson, the first to "come out" with radical ideas about the bible based on German skepticism, was ultimately a casualty, losing his teaching position and exiled to the sidelines for heresy.

Tregelles, observing the personal disaster of Davidson, wisely distanced himself, and was more careful about revealing his more radical agendas. The younger Hort was even more clever, working himself quietly into a position of power within the Church of England, and making careful liasons with like-minded thinkers who had long since abandoned orthodoxy as 'naive'.

(Title Page)

INTRODUCTION

to the

CRITICAL STUDY AND KNOWLEDGE

of the

HOLY SCRIPTURES

by

The Rev. THOMAS HARTWELL HORNE, B.D.
Saint John's College Cambridge;

D.D. OF THE UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA;
Rector of the United parishes of St. Edmund the King and Martyr
and St. Nicholas Acoss, Lombard St.
Prebendary of Saint Paul's

Tenth Edition

Revised, corrected, and brought down to the present time,

edited by

The Rev. Samuel Davidson, D.D.
author of A Treatese on Biblical Criticism etc.

and

Samuel Prideaux Tregelles, LL.D.
author of Remarks on the Printed Text of the Greek NT etc.

Volume IV.

LONDON: Longman, Brown, Green, Longmans, & Roberts
MCCCLVI (1856)

Preface Written by Tregelles

The long apologetic preface of the 10th edition reveals the busy and dominating influence of the younger more active editor, Tregelles.

The preface is actually a long-winded attempt to justify the radical gutting of Horne's original volumes, and the replacement of their contents with Tregelles' own work.

Possibly through a previous agreement with Horne and the publishers, Tregelles seems to have been restrained regarding the valued introductions to each NT book. Yet Tregelles knew that to be effective he had to make some severe alterations to key parts of these sections as well, especially parts like the discussion on John 8:1-11.

It is likely that the young Tregelles couldn't really keep his hands off Horne's work, and this necessitated a large apologetic preface justifying his opposition to Horne's views on key issues like the authenticity of John 8:1-11.

Preface

(written by S. P. Tregelles)

"...Textual Criticism has been my especial study in connection with the Greek New Testament for many years; and thus it appeared to be right to treat the topics more independently than I could have done, had I sought to act merely as an editor and annotator; for when any scholar has been an investigator in any department of study, it is only natural that he should be in some measure especially qualified for speaking for himself, and communicating the results of his studies to others.

And this leads me to the second of the reasons referred to above.

In examining the whole subject of Textual Criticism, and in obtaining an acquaintance with the sources of evidence ( MSS., versions, and early citations), not a little has accumulated on my hands, which is certainly not accessible to all Biblical scholars ; and although others have freely used and have published without hinderance much that has been collected by me, yet all this has formed a part of what I have long thought might be profitably published at some future day, as a contribution to the accurate knowledge of New Testament criticism. These things, then, being so, I was glad to have the opportunity of thus making some present use of the results of my studies, so that they may be available for the benefit of others.

Part I of This Volume

I have thus, in speaking of MSS., versions, the History of the Text, [Part I] and some other topics, given at least an outline of my own investigations on these subjects.

A hint was communicated to me while the volume was passing through the press, that this portion had been unduly extended ; but as the publishers coincided with me in considering that too much compression would in that part be injudicious, no portion of what had been written was omitted. It must be understood, however, that even on the sources of criticism many subjects are rather indicated than entered into in detail; enough, however, has been given to direct the student in learning for himself.

To me it is a satisfaction to have been able to speak thus far on these subjects, though I might wish that it had been possible to have entered more minutely into the internal characteristics of the ancient MSS., and the several versions, and to have discussed fully the patristic citations. But still this volume, and one which appeared not long ago ,
An Account of the Printed Text of the Greek New Testament, with Remarks on its Revision upon Critical Principles. (S.P. Tregelles, Bagster : 1854)
may suffice for the present for communicating to others the results of my own studies, which have been carried on through many long years.

I ought, perhaps, to add, that if I am ever able to exhibit fully the results of my studies in this department of Biblical learning in a combined and united form, I can see no prospect of its being possible for several years at least, a period which appears doubly uncertain to those who consider the instability of all mundane and human things.

The indefiniteness of any such prospect makes me all the more glad that I have been able to put the portion of this volume, which relates to Textual Criticism, into its present definite form. I may rightly add, that in this determination, and in the manner in which it has been carried out, I have had the satisfaction of the approval of the Rev. T. H. Horne. It only requires, in stating this, that it should be borne in mind that for all critical opinions expressed, I alone am responsible.

When I remember how differently some now regard critical principles to what was the case comparatively few years ago, I cannot do other than feel thankful that results should so far have been attained. Twenty years ago things were not so regarded in this country as is the case at present; the principle of recurrence to the earliest and best authorities is one in which many have now acquiesced ; and while continued efforts, made both in private and public, have been thus far of use, the original authorities have been at the same time re-examined; MSS. have been more accurately collated ; the texts of many have been published by Tischendorf; the ancient versions have been more accurately investigated, and the patristic citations have been more studied. Thus there has been in the last twenty years a simultaneous apprehension of critical principles, and of the facts to which they may be applied.

I believe that I have no occasion to say more as to the first part of this volume, the contents of which may speak for themselves. No one will, I believe, consider that I have given undue prominence to my own investigations, who is aware of the change of the tone of thought as to many critical points amongst Christian scholars in this country, to effect which my efforts have been constantly directed for more than twenty years, and that not without some success.

Part II of This Volume

The second portion of this volume consists of Introductions to the respective books of the New Testament.

And here I am not author, but simply editor.

Here I felt that I stood on very different ground from that which I had occupied with regard to the Textual portion of the volume.

I had not so much to consider how I should have treated the subjects, as what addition might be needful, in consequence of modern research, to what the Rev. T. H. Horne had himself stated. It was not for me to pull down one edifice in order to erect another in its stead ; to do this for the mere sake of change, would be like removing an old manor house to make room for a trim Italian villa.

But as editor I have used my liberty : as to those books of the New Testament, the authority, &c., of which has been specially disputed, I have added what appeared to me necessary; I have removed what seemed doubtful, or what has not borne the test of close examination, and I have sought that the evidence in favour of the respective books of the sacred volume may be sufficient for the purpose of the general student.

Some would have wished that the quotations of earlier writers given by Mr. Horne should be omitted ; to do this in general was, however, equally opposed to my judgment and inclination ; for there are few things to which it is now more needful to direct the attention of young Biblical students than that there were Biblical scholars before those who have lived and written during the last thirty years.

To many now the investigations of such foreigners as Eichhorn and Michaelis seem things almost unknown ; and such seem unconscious that we ever had Biblical scholars in our own country. To such the names of Lardner and others are unfamiliar, and their works are almost or quite unknown.

I am therefore glad that such citations remain as given by Mr. Horne, and I hope that they may be the means of directing some students to the works of those who lived before the present generation. Had there not been such an ignoring of what others have done long ago, and such obliviousness as to their works, we should not find so many new discoveries made as to points long ago investigated and known.

It is the part of wisdom, for scholars now to combine all that is true in recent research with the ascertained facts of earlier inquiry.

It is true that many of the objections raised against the books of the New Testament, which were noticed by Mr. Horne, belong, in the form stated, to a past generation ; but this does not render them even now void of application ; for it is well that students should be aware that much in the way of objection that is advanced as new is only some old argument put in a new dress, or adapted to some novel mode of phraseology.

It is thus well to see that the objection had been fully answered, even before the supposed scheme of philosophy to which it is now adapted had been heard of. Absolute evidence to the authority of the New Testament books remains the same, even though it is now the fashion with some forms of pseudo-philosophy to ignore this as much as possible, and to subject all testimony to the application of some supposed principle, or to the subjective feeling of each inquirer.

I have not gone out of my way to state these forms of objection ; they vary continually, and their shapes change as often as that of the clouds which flit across the sky. If I know on the evidence of my senses that the sun is there, the varying kinds and consistencies of cloud and mist that obscure his brightness do nothing to efface from my mind that known fact. Had objection assumed some one definite ground of argument, I might have well noticed it ; but absolute evidence, if apprehended, is sufficient to answer the subjective notions which are put in competition against it.

On some occasions, and for certain students, it is well, no doubt, to meet and refute sceptical theories, and to discuss objections and difficulties one by one: but this is not the only thing to which Introductions to the New Testament books should be devoted.

A young student may well receive the impression (if this be the prominent and principal thing) that all that can be said about the New Testament is to show in how many ways it may be assailed, and how clever the men must be who use such ingenuity in raising objections. In this way a tendency may be communicated to the mind of the student, from too great prominence being given to forms of objection, which is hardly ever eradicated ; just as the specimens of false spelling in Lindley Murray's exercises have often so familiarised the eyes of children with what is incorrect, that they never quite overcome the effects of that most injudicious mode of teaching orthography. The result produced is just the contrary of that which was intended.

All facts and arguments stated by Mr. Horne are retained with due prominence. It was not my business as editor to interfere with these, even though my own opinion is freely added where needful.

Part III of This Volume

The third part, or Bibliographical Appendix, contains such portions of Mr. Horne's List as relate to the Scriptures in the original languages and in the ancient versions, with such additions as appeared to me to be necessary. Some of these are old works ; but the greater part are such as have appeared in the last ten years.

In conclusion, let me remind all students and readers that the New Testament is not given us as that on which our intellectual faculties simply are to be exercised, but as the revelation of God, inspired by the Holy Ghost, to teach the way of salvation through faith in Christ crucified.

S. PRIDEAUX TREGELLES.
Plymouth, September 18. 1856.

Edited by Tregelles

IMPORTANT NOTE: The editing done by Tregelles to Horne's main text is shown by a two-color scheme:

Horne's original wording which has been removed is shown in BLUE, and Tregelles' additions and substitutions are shown in RED. (Some additional explanatory remarks of our own are in GREEN.)

The changes were double-checked against the 9th edition of Horne's book, (pub. J. Whetham & Son 1841 ).

Horne's original footnotes are shown in PURPLE. Nazaroo's modern footnotes are in RED.

Vol. IV
Chapter VI: On the Gospel of John
Section IV: Authenticity / Integrity
pp. 465-467: The Pericope de Adultera

---

Introduction to the New Testament	465

...

---

The Pericope de Adultera: John 7:53-8:11

---

Some doubts have been entertained concerning (T)he genuineness of the portion of this Gospel comprised between ch. vii. 53. and viii. 1—11 has been much discussed. ²

Its authenticity has been questioned or denied by Erasmus, Calvin, Beza, Grotius, Le Clerc, Wetstein, Semler, Schulze, Morus, Haenlein, Paulus, Schmidt, and various other writers who are mentioned by Wolfius, and by Koecher. ²

---

Introduction to the New Testament	466

Griesbach and Schulz have remarked it as a passage which ought probably to be omitted: this had been done by Wetstein previously, as since by Lachmann, Tischendorf, and many others: ³ and its genuineness has been advocated by Drs. Mill and Whitby, Bp. Middleton, Heumann, Michaelis, Storr, Langius, Dettmers, Staeudlin ³ , Kuinsel, and Dr. Bloomfield.

The limits necessarily prescribed to this section forbid us to enter into a review of all that has been said on this subject ; but it may be permitted to remark that the evidence is / appears to be ⁴ in favour of the genuineness of the passage in question.

For, though it is not found in several ancient versions, and is not quoted or illustrated by Chrysostom, Theophylact, Nonnus (who wrote commentaries or explanations of this Gospel), nor by Tertullian, or Cyprian, both of whom treat copiously on chastity and adultery, and therefore had abundant opportunity of citing it, if it had been extant in their copies; yet it is found in the greater part of the manuscripts (Griesbach has enumerated more than eighty ⁵ ) that are extant, though with great diversity of readings.

If it had not been genuine, how could it have found its way into all these manuscripts? Moreover, there is nothing in the paragraph in question that militates either against the character, sentiments, or conduct of Jesus Christ; on the contrary, the whole is perfectly consistent with his meekness, gentleness, and benevolence.

To which we may add, that this passage is cited as genuine by Augustine, who assigns the reason why it was omitted by some copyists, viz. lest any offence should be taken by supposing that our Lord suffered a guilty woman to go unpunished.

But, in reply to this supposition or objection, we may remark,

1. That, according to his own declaration, he came not into the world to condemn the world (John iii. 17., viii. 15., xii. 47., Luke xii. 14.), and to execute the office of a judge (and it is but reasonable to try him by his own principles, in which no inconsistency can be found) ; and,

2. Any exercise of judicial authority would have given a direct contradiction to that deference and subordination which he constantly showed and inculcated to the power of the civil magistrate.

An additional evidence in favour of the disputed clause is found in the seventh verse of John viii., where λιθον has the article τον prefixed : He that is without sin among you, let him first cast THE [not a stone, as in our authorised version] STONE at her;  τον λιθον επ αυτη βαλετω.

The allusion, Bishop Middleton remarks, is to the particular manner of stoning, which required that one of the witnesses (for two at the least were necessary, see Deut. xvii. 6.) should throw the stone, which was to serve as a signal to the by-standers to complete the punishment. There is, therefore, strict propriety in calling this stone TON λιθον, in order to distinguish it from other stones. It is not probable that an interpolator would have been thus exact in his phraseology, or would have adverted to this apparently trifling circumstance;

---

Introduction to the New Testament	467

especially since the expression of βαλλειν τον λιθον is not elsewhere found in the New Testament, A few manuscripts (Griesbach and Schulz specify eleven) [but these are among the oldest that contain the section] ⁶ omit the article;

but this, Dr. M. is of opinion, only proves that the copyists knew not what to make of it ; and that, had they undertaken to interpolate the passage, they would have done it less skilfully than did the present interpolator, supposing we must consider the passage to be spurious. ⁴

Upon a review therefore of the whole evidence respecting this disputed clause, we may safely conclude / the author concludes [i.e., Horne, but not Tregelles] ⁷ that it preponderates in favour of its genuineness.

10th Ed. Insertion by S. P. Tregelles, Editor (1856) ¹

[The editor [S. P. Tregelles] has given elsewhere ( Account of Printed Text , pp. 236—243.) his statement of the evidence for and against the passage, and his grounds for regarding it as no genuine portion of St. John's Gospel, though in all probability a perfectly true narrative.

The outline of evidence is this : — It is found in some form or other in D. F. G. H. K. U. Г., and more than 300 cursive copies as part of the text. In E. Λ. and sixteen cursive copies it is marked with asterisks ; also in part in M.

In S. it is obelized, as well as in about forty cursive copies.

In ten cursive copies it is placed by itself at the end of this Gospel, and four others similarly place a part of it.

The Codex Leicestrensis (69.) and three others place it at the end of Luke xxi. ; and one MS. has it after John vii. 36.

It is found in some copies of the old Latin, in the Vulgate, the AEthiopic, and the Jerusalem Syriac Lectionary.

Jerome and other Latin writers of the latter part of the fourth century, mention that it was found in many copies, and Augustine conjectures why some might omit it.

On the other hand, it is omitted by A. B. C. T. (all MSS. of the oldest class), in L. X. Δ., in 33. and more than fifty other cursive copies, and more than thirty lectionaries.

Here account should be taken of the MSS. which mark it as doubtful, or place it elsewhere.

It should too be noticed, that D. is the only MS. of the oldest class which has the section ; but in such a form that if it is genuine there, it cannot be so in any of the other copies.

It is not found in the best copies of the old Latin, nor in the Peshito, nor Harclean Syriac, nor in the Memphitic in the good MSS., nor in the Thebaic, nor the Gothic, nor the Armenian. (The enumeration of these versions is made correctly as to the result, the steps have been given elsewhere.)

Besides early Latin Fathers, it was certainly unknown to Origen and Chrysostom, and others amongst the Greeks. Indeed, the section has but little Greek authority till after the seventh century, and it has been always regarded as most doubtful.]

---

Original Footnotes:

notes: p 466

2. Koecheri Analecta, in loc.

3. Staeudlin, Prolusio qua Pericopœ de Adultera, Joh. vii. 53. viii. 1—11., Veritas et Authentia defenditur. Gottingae, 1806. 4to.

---

Notes p 467:

4. Kuinoel, Comment, in Libros Nov. Test. Históricos, pp. 379—396.

Tittmamii Commentarius in Evang. Johannis, pp. 318—322.

Bishop Middleton's Doctrine of the Greek Article, on John viii. 7. Griesbachii et Schulzii Nov. Test. torn. i. pp. 555, 556.

Bloomfield's Annotations, vol. iii. 275—284., in which Dr. B. has given a copious statement of the evidence for and against this section of St. John's Gospel.