consueto in versiculos distinctus et bipartitis columnis inscriptus. Variantes lectiones a major! editione mutuo sumptse sunt, appositis notis valoris earum, et tabula, qua signa ipsa explicantur. Loca parallela editor ex eodem opere descripsit. — Bibliotheca Sacra, Pt. I., cap. II., sec. I., § 62, n. 7. — (I. B.)
1 The first of these was J. J. Wetstein, Bengel's great critical rival — the other an anonymous writer, probably John George Hager, M.A. of Leipsic, whose attack was inserted in "Early Gathered Fruits." — Seep. 12, f. n. 1. -(I. B.)
2 A periodical publication, entitled, New Literary Notices from Tubingen. -(I. B.)
8 MICHAEL LILIENTHAL, a Lutheran divine, a learned historian and philologist, and an able writer, born in 1686 at Liebstadt, in Prussia, mem ber of the Academy of Berlin, and honorary professor of that of Petersburg ; he established himself at Konigsberg, where he was pastor and professor up to the time of his death, which occurred in 1750. — (I. B.)
whose name my censor previously acted, has not, as far as I know, though repeatedly challenged by me to do so, brought forward, in " The Early Gathered Fruits"1 one single instance, in which I have altered, by innovation, even a syllable of the Sacred Text.2 This silence furnishes the desired proof of admitted truth. Part of my Defence is reprinted in the present work, at the com mencement of my annotations on the Apocalypse.
Most learned men entirely neglect the spirit, and, conse quently, do not treat even the letter rightly. Hence it arises, that up to the present time, the most confused and contradictory opinions prevail, as to the mode of deciding between conflicting readings, and on the method of combining such decision with the Received Text. One relies on the antiquity, another on the number of Manuscripts, nay, even to such an extent, as to exaggerate their number : one man adduces the Latin Vulgate, another the Oriental Versions : one quotes the Greek Scholiasts, another the more ancient Fathers : one so far relies upon the context (which is truly the surest evidence), that he adopts universally the easier and fuller reading : another expunges, if so inclined, whatever has been once omitted by a single Ethiopic — I will not say translator, but — copyist : one is always eager to condemn the more received reading, another equally determined to defend it in every instance. Not every one who owns a harp can play upon it.3 We are convinced, after long and careful consideration, that every various reading may be distinguished
1 The following remarks had occurred in a journal bearing that name (No. 4 of the year 1738)
" If every bookmaker is to take into his head to treat the New Testa ment in this manner, we shall soon got a Greek text totally different from the received one. The audacity is really too great for us not to notice it, especi ally as such vast importance, it seems, is attached to this edition. Scarcely a chapter of it has not something either omitted, or inserted, or altered, or transposed. The audacity is unprecedented." — (I. B.)
2 With some exceptions, in the Apocalypse, a book peculiarly circum stanced, he had not admitted into the text a single syllable, which had not been already embodied with it in printed editions. This is accounted for, and explained afterwards. — See Section X. of this Preface. — (I. B.)
3 "Non omnes, qui citharam habent, sunt citharaedi." This proverb is of very ancient date. It is quoted by Varro, who died B.C. 28, in his treatise de Re Rustica, lib. II., cap. 1 — (I. B.)