ðð¢ð« ððð¯ð¢ð ððð¥ð«ð²ðŠð©ð¥ð (ððšð«ð ððð¢ð¥ðð¬), ðð¡ð ðððð«ð¢ð¬ðð¢ð ðð¢ðððð¢ðšð§ð¬ ðð ðð¡ð ðð§ðð-ðð¢ððð§ð ðð¡ð®ð«ðð¡ ð ððð¡ðð«ð¬ ðð§ð ðð¡ð ðððð«ðð¡ ð ðšð« ðð¥ðð¯ðð§ ðð¢ð¬ð¬ð¢ð§ð ððð«ð¬ðð¬ ðð ðð¡ð ððð° ððð¬ðððŠðð§ð
Mohamad Mostafa Nassar
Twitter:@NassarMohamadMR
1. Introduction
Based on an anecdote attributed to Sir David Dalrymple (Lord Hailes), with the exception of a small number of verses (usually eleven), the entire New Testament can be reconstructed from the citations of the early Church Fathers from the first three Christian centuries.
Anyone who has had the experience of a Christian missionary witnessing them will undoubtedly have heard this argument used in conjunction with the textual reliability of the New Testament. Furthermore, these claims are present in a wide selection of contemporary Christian apologetical literature,[1] even finding pride of place in modern manuals of textual criticism, although in a somewhat less dramatic tempered format.[2]
A number of difficulties arise, however, when one wishes to test the efficacy of this statement. No original documentation is provided by any of the publications noted above, and, on numerous occasions, the Christian apologists simply cite each other (or even themselves!) as the source of information.
Even luminaries such as the late Bruce Metzger, Professor Emeritus of New Testament Language and Literature, neglect to provide a source for his information. It would appear there have been no attempts to gather together the various strands of this story or collate the differences in minutiae between different printed versions.
In this paper we will go back to the original source of the claim and attempt to place the story within a fixed chronological framework. We will comment on the various aspects of this incident after which we can draw some preliminary observations and conclusions.
Going back to the original documents, something which none of the authors have attempted to study, it will be shown that the data in them clearly disproves the claim that the entire New Testament can be reconstructed from the citations of the early Church Fathers from the first three Christian centuries.
2. Historical And Theological Antecedents
During the European âage of enlightenmentâ, increasingly sophisticated methods of questioning were employed by the skeptics of Christianity. Utilising work produced in part by Christians themselves, one of their aims was to demonstrate the textual corruption of the New Testament text. One of the most interesting accounts with a direct bearing on the topic is that of Dr. John Mill, of Oxford University.
In compiling his âcriticalâ edition of the New Testament, he included along with the primary text, some 30,000 variant readings. This shocked and startled many who had previously thought that the sacred text was above suspicion. Such reports were commented on in the literature, sometimes anonymously, and, as a result, accusations rang back and forth regarding the reliability on the New Testament text.
Robert Jenkin, Fellow of St. John’s College, Cambridge, had the third (second?) edition of his book entitled The Reasonableness And Certainty Of The Christian Religion published in 1708 in two volumes. Absent from the previous two editions of his book,[3] we can observe the addition of a few sentences that are themselves part of a larger section, which signal the beginning of a whole trend of apologetics that continues until today. Jenkin said:
The agreement likewise of the Greek Text of the New Testament, with the several ancient versions, and with the Quotations found in the writings of the Fathers, who cited and alleged them from the Times of the Apostles, proves that there have been no alterations of any such consequence, as to make the Scriptures insufficient for the ends of Divine Revelation.[4]
Proving the integrity of the text of the Greek New Testament was one of the ways to defend the doctrine taught therein. Jenkin says that there is probably no one text with a different reading which would cause any doctrine supported by that reading to be different from the original.[5]Â
Making reference to Mill’s massive collation, Jenkin discusses some of the problems arising from an analysis of this work, such as transcriptional errors and mistakes by the scribes, but goes on to conclude the canon of scripture and text of the Greek New Testament has never suffered any corruption from heretics.[6] Just a few years earlier, La Touch, proclaiming multiple proofs for the truth of Christianity, laid down four preliminary truths which he says are foundational for his exposition.[7]
The fourth and final preliminary truth is the integrity of the Greek New Testament due to the fact there are an â⊠infinite number of copies and versions of it, so that it might be put into the hands of all mankind: And this multiplicity of copies, rendred any considerable change which might be design’d, impossible to be made.â[8] As an aside, we can also observe one of the earliest causal links between multiplicity of copies and the integrity of the Greek New Testament text.
This is the kind of atmosphere the Christians were operating in; they acknowledged that there were variations in the biblical text, but this was a proof for the integrity of the Greek New Testament and not the other way around. Soon, however, the functional slip was to develop as different writers sought to prove this argument via different methods.
Thus, what had originally started out as a specific reaction and response to the publication of various critical editions of the New Testament, gradually increased in scope and offered a reverse argument for the veracity of the quotations of the ante-Nicene Fathers. St. Isidore of Seville (c. 560 â 636 CE) Archbishop of Seville recorded that Flavius Anastasius (Anastasius I), a Monophysite Roman emperor from 491 CE until 518 CE, was accused of making widespread changes to the four Gospels during his reign.[9]
So in order to prove that no alteration of the gospels had occurred, the citations of the Latin and Greek Fathers were used as evidence to show that there are no differences between themselves or the Greek New Testament. Of particular interest here are a number of influential sermons preached by the Reverend Benjamin Ibbot, preacher-assistant at St. James, Westminster, in 1713/14 CE. In a sermon entitled âThat The Present Scriptures Are Genuine And Uncorrupt; And The Objection Taken From The Many Various Readings, Answer’dâ He said:
Fifthly, BESIDES the silence of History in this Matter, we have another more convincing Argument that no such alter’d Gospels did ever, in Fact, appear and obtain in the World. For the Writers before Anastasius’s time, the Greek and Latin Fathers of the first four Centuries, are very full of Citations out of the New Testament, insomuch that there are but few Passages in that Book but what are produc’d at large by one or other of these Writers:
and yet their Citations agree with the present MSS. And Printed Copies; which is a demonstration that not only the Gospels, but the whole New Testament, hath continued the same since Anastasius’s time as before, and suffered no such Alteration as is pretended.
The same appears from the entire Commentaries and Versions which were made of the New Testament before Anastasius’s time, all which agree with the present Copies ; so that âtis impossible there should have been any such Forgery, unless all these Writings were alter’d too, and made over anew: A supposition so wild and extravagant, that I believe no Free-Thinker will maintain it.[10]
Under the chapter heading âIn All Points Of Doctrine And Duty, The Books Of The New Testament Have Descended To Us In Their Original Integrityâ Reverend Dr. Edward Harwood says specifically of the citations of the New Testament:
The citations from the New Testament in the writings of the primitive Christians in the first centuries are so numerous, that from various scattered passages in their books, if collected, there would be formed almost the whole body of the gospels and epistles: and though these citations were, most commonly, made from memory, yet always with regard to the sense and meaning, and most commonly with regard to the words and order of the words, they correspond with the original records from which they were extracted. An irrefragable argument this, how pure and sincere these Sacred Monuments have always been preserved.[11]
Here we can observe one of the first instances where the citations of the early Church Fathers are said to correspond with the âoriginalâ text. Remarkably, not a single author noted above provided any evidence for these momentous claims â much like their modern counterparts. In fact, the words of Harwood were just too good to pass up with a number of other authors copying the text verbatim without properly referencing the source.[12] The eighteenth century was a turbulent place at times for those who chose to examine the Bible with a critical eye.[13]
Equally, there arose a number of claims regarding the text of the Greek New Testament and the citations of the early Fathers which were perpetuated unchecked and unsourced. One of these claims concerns a certain Scottish Judge, Sir David Dalrymple, also known as Lord Hailes, who is said to have reconstructed every verse of the New Testament from the ante-Nicene Fathers’ quotations with the exception of eleven verses.
3. An Anecdote
Let us relate the anecdote in full by turning to the volume in which it first appeared, Robert Philip’s almost autobiographical memoir, The Life, Times, And Missionary Enterprises, Of The Rev. John Campbell. After a brief prefix by Philip, John Campbell, who was in part reporting what Rev. Dr Walter Buchanan had said, who was in part reporting what Sir David Dalrymple (Lord Hailes) had said, said:
Another of Mr. Campbell’s literary friends was, the late Rev. Walter Buchanan, of Edinburgh; the friend of Lord Hailes. At his table, Mr. Campbell met some distinguished men, and gathered up many literary anecdotes. One of the latter deserves to be mentioned, because it had so much influence in satisfying his own mind upon the perfection of the New Testament.
âANECDOTE OF LORD HAILES.
“I remember distinctly an interesting anecdote referring to the late Sir David Dalrymple, (better known to literary men abroad by his title of Lord Hailes,) a Scotch judge. I had it from the late Rev. Walter Buchanan, one of the ministers of Edinburgh. I took such interest in it, that though it must be about fifty years ago since he told it, I think I can almost relate it in Mr. Buchanan’s words.
“âI was dining some time ago with a literary party at old Mr. Abercrombie’s, (father of General Abercrombie who was slain in Egypt, at the head of the British army,) and spending the evening together. A gentleman present put a question which puzzled the whole company. It was this: Supposing all the New Testaments in the world had been destroyed at the end of the third century, could their contents have been recovered from the writings of the three first centuries? The question was novel to all, and no one even hazarded a guess in answer to the inquiry.
“âAbout two months after this meeting, I received a note from Lord Hailes, inviting me to breakfast with him next morning. He had been of the party. During breakfast he asked me, if I recollected the curious question about the possibility of recovering the contents of the New Testament from the writings of the three first centuries? âI remember it well, and have thought of it often without being able to form any opinion or conjecture on the subject.â
“âWell,â said Lord Hailes, âthat question quite accorded with the turn or taste of my antiquarian mind. On returning home, as I knew I had all the writers of those centuries, I began immediately to collect them, that I might set to work on the arduous task as soon as possible.â Pointing to a table covered with papers, he said, âThere have I been busy for these two months, searching for chapters, half chapters, and sentences of the New Testament, and have marked down what I have found, and where I have found it; so that any person may examine and see for themselves.
I have actually discovered the whole New Testament from those writings, except seven or eleven verses, (I forget which,) which satisfies me that I could discover them also. Now,â said he, âhere was a way in which God concealed, or hid the treasure of his word, that Julian, the apostate emperor, and other enemies of Christ who wished to extirpate the gospel from the world, never would have thought of; and though they had, they never could have effected their destruction.â
“The labour in effecting this feat must have been immense; for the gospels and epistles would not be divided into chapters and verses as they are now. Much must have been effected by the help of a concordance. And having been a judge for many years, a habit of minute investigation must have been formed in his mind.[14]
It would be instructive to remind ourselves exactly what an anecdote is. The Oxford English Dictionary provides two primary definitions for âanecdoteâ, viz., (1) secret, private, or hitherto unpublished narratives or details of history; (2) the narrative of a detached incident, or of a single event, told as being in itself interesting or striking (at first, an item of gossip).[15] An anecdote or item of gossip does not constitute precise, unambiguous, sufficient evidence â the same type of evidence required for a study of such scope and magnitude; nor does it allow one to peruse the methodology employed. One should also observe Campbell’s difficulty in recounting the story.
He thinks he can almost relate the anecdote in Buchanan’s own words although he expresses some doubt and informs us it was around fifty years ago since he was told it. The methodological considerations alone, if what is ascribed to Dalrymple is to be believed in all its particulars, must have been groundbreaking if not overwhelming, given the timeframe involved was a mere two months.
Philip, Campbell’s biographer and close companion said of him “He was emphatically âa fund of anecdoteâ⊔[16] Indeed, it may not be too far off the mark to describe Campbell as an anecdotographer; such stories clearly had a huge bearing on his person, and in this particular instance, satisfied him of the âperfectionâ of the New Testament.
The first published review of Philip’s book retained Campbell’s own description of this story as an anecdote,[17] and so did a wide variety of literature published immediately thereafter.[18] If any doubt could remain about the reception of this story, one particular item of note is H. A. Downing’s explicitly titled Anecdotes For The Family, Or Lessons Of Truth And Duty For Every-Day Life: A Choice Selection Of Facts, Occurrences, Examples, Testimonies, Incidents, And Providential Events, Of The Deepest Interest And Value of which Dalrymple’s anecdote is a part.
Nevertheless, the Christian apologists have conveniently extricated this fundamental descriptive term in order to divert the reader from any weaknesses that might otherwise have been suggested had the term remained present. What was originally considered an anecdote by all parties concerned,
Dalrymple, Buchanan, Campbell and Philip, and which was subsequently published as such, has now been transformed into an all-encompassing scientific study by contemporary apologists, completely distorting the readers perception of the reality of this incident. Campbell’s admission that he may not have recounted the story correctly, is, unsurprisingly, also absent. One of the golden rules of scholarship falters by the wayside: big claims require big evidence.
Counting among his immediate ancestors adherents to the Reformation in the earliest period, Sir David Dalrymple was born into one of the most prestigious families in Scotland on the 28th October 1726, the eve of the Scottish âenlightenmentâ. The eldest of sixteen children of Sir James Dalrymple and Lady Christian Hamilton, Dalrymple enjoyed an excellent upbringing and education, studying at Eton school in England before travelling to the Netherlands to read civil law at the University of Utrecht.
By February 1748, he became an advocate in the Court of Session in Edinburgh, Scotland, thereafter a judge in March 1766. An acting deputy Grand Master for many years, Dalrymple was elected Grand Master of the Grand Lodge of Scotland in 1774, being re-elected in 1775 before relinquishing his post to the Scottish banker Sir William Forbes of Pitsligo in 1776,[19]
during which time he moved through the ranks of his profession and became a Lord of Justiciary. Variously described as a historian, legal writer, translator and man of letters, one of his most famous publications An Inquiry Into The Secondary Causes Which Mr Gibbon Has Assigned For The Rapid Growth Of Christianity was a reply to sections of Edward Gibbon’s book The History Of The Decline And Fall Of The Roman Empire which Dalrymple perceived as an emboldened attack on the reasons and causes for the rapid expansion of Christianity.[20]
Previous to Gibbon’s history, the subject had not been generally studied giving him at once great admiration and respect from all quarters, including two persons in particular, Dr. Hume and Dr. Robertson, both of whom Gibbon considered as models for himself â and persons whom Dalrymple had no admiration for. Dalrymple had his last book published in 1790. A couple of years later, after suffering a stroke, he died shortly after on the 29th November 1792 at Newhailes, aged sixty-six years.[21]
Establishing a provenance for the anecdote was eased due to John Campbell’s key disclosure that it was Walter Buchanan who related the story to him on the authority of David Dalrymple. We know John Campbell mixed in the same circles as Walter Buchanan[22] and so would have had no problems meeting him, whether it be on a public, private or pastoral level. Less easy is establishing a time frame for this oral source.
There are, however, some vital pieces of information disclosed in the anecdote which allow us to date the story with a certain degree of confidence, to within eight years or so. In relating the anecdote, Campbell mentioned he had heard it from the late Walter Buchanan. Buchanan died in 1832,[23] so the story must have originated as a written source after this time. We know Campbell died in 1840, so he must have penned this anecdote before then.
Campbell also discloses that he heard the story almost fifty years ago. We can therefore deduce that Campbell heard this story from Buchanan between the years of 1782 and 1790 â assuming his recollection of fifty years is correct. As expected, all the dates in this range pre-date Dalrymple’s death. When Buchanan was narrating the story to Campbell, he says he heard the story some time ago, which indicates that his recounting of the story to Campbell occurred some time after the actual event took place.
If the story was recounted to Campbell in 1782 he would have been just sixteen years old. It would, therefore, seem probable that Campbell was recounting the story just before he died at which point he put it into written form, from which his biographer would subsequently transmit in printed format.
This would make Campbell twenty-six years old or perhaps older if we allow for a certain amount of room in his fifty years. This later dating is corroborated by a report from the Rev. T. Aveling, a colleague and successor of Campbell. Relating the last memories of his colleague and close companion, Aveling says that during the last six months of his life Campbell busied himself with writing down the chief events of his past, all the way back to his childhood years and early adulthood.[24]
We have already discussed the anecdote’s chronology which is internally consistent with what is known with regards to the dates, names and places of the persons named. Equally important, however, is placing the anecdote at a specific location in time. Once again, Campbell’s disclosure of incidental information allows us to further substantiate the general authenticity of this anecdote. Campbell claimed this anecdote started life at a literary party which took place at âold Mr. Abercromby’s, (father of General Abercromby who was slain in Egypt, at the head of the British army).â
The father of General Abercromby (d. 1801) was George Abercromby of Tullibody, Clackmannanshire (d. 1800). Alexander Abercromby (later Lord Abercromby, d. 1795), one of George Abercromby’s sons, was one of the founding members of the Mirror Club (created c. 1778 formerly known as Feast Of Tabernacles),
a prominent group of Scottish literati whose members included some of the most powerful persons of Scottish society at the time.[25] Although not a regular member, Dalrymple was a contributor to the club, whose publications included the Mirror[26] and the Lounger.[27] Henry Mackenzie (d. 1831), one of the founding members described the group as:
a small literary club, chiefly of barristers, of which I was a member, along with Mr. Blair, afterwards President of the Court of Session, Mr. (afterwards Judge) Abercromby, Lord Craig, Lord Bannatyne, and Mr. George Ogilvie. We used to discuss literary subjects (generally drinking tea at the house of one of the members) without the formality of a set speech.[28]
Commentators on the Lounger and the Mirror frequently observed the articles published there were authored by some of the leading young lawyers and amateur authors of Scotland. Both periodicals could boast no fewer than six essayists who became judges of the Supreme Courts of Scotland; other members were equally regarded as being accomplished in their chosen fields of study.[29]
With no formally set speech and the merits of an all pervasive atmosphere where thoughts, ideas and articles could be criticised without hesitation,[30] a question as novel as the one posed would have stirred the minds of those present, perhaps none more so than Dalrymple â whose pious intentions would have been obvious to those present,[31] as well as his academic interest in Christian antiquity.[32]
Dalrymple was mixing with some of the sharpest minds the Scottish âenlightenmentâ had to offer and one can imagine when the question was asked, inviting eyes would have moved toward the direction of Dalrymple, who, unable to answer immediately, quickly set himself to task.
ORAL SOURCE AND PRINTED TRANSMISSION
There are compelling reasons to believe that this anecdote was originally an oral source. In recounting the story, Campbell notes that Buchanan and Dalrymple were already dead. It would seem strange for him to recount a story which had so much influence on him purely from memory, if he knew it had been written down or published elsewhere.
At the time of writing, all of Buchanan’s and Dalrymple’s works intended for publication had been published and he would have been aware of such a momentous claim if it had been present in any of these author’s writings. The same year Philips’ book was published, it was reviewed by The Eclectic Review. Also noting the centrality of this anecdote in Campbell’s life, they printed it in its entirety, and, crucially for our investigation, said of it:
The following, respecting Lord Hailes, is curious, and we should much like to see the accuracy of his lordship’s statement tested.[33]
Had Dalrymple published his findings no such call would have been made by the reviewer. Dalrymple had been dead for over 45 years, allowing sufficient time for anything he had published to have been reviewed and commented on by other scholars, yet no such publication was known. If we examine subsequent printed versions of the story, we notice some are paraphrased, some are condensed while others present only snippets of information. Interestingly, the number of verses which Dalrymple could not locate fluctuates between different printed versions.
This would be hard to explain if this anecdote started life originally in print only. We find in some versions all but seven or eleven verses, all but ten or eleven verses, all but eleven verses and, finally, all but six or eleven verses (see Table I below).
As we have alluded to in the previous section, none of the contemporary Christian apolitical literature mentions the original description of the anecdote by Campbell, therefore, excluding three vital pieces of information.
- The information was considered as an: âinteresting anecdote,â
- Campbell was recalling the anecdote from memory: âit must be about fifty years ago since he told it,â and
- Campbell was unsure of the accuracy of his recollection: âI think I can almost relate it.â
Let us now try to establish what other parts of the anecdote were included and excluded by tentatively reconstructing a snapshot of the printed transmission of this anecdote. We have taken the original anecdote and simply assigned each paragraph a number. If an âxâ has been assigned to the publication it means that it has related all the pertinent information contained in said paragraph. If the publication partially satisfies this requirement, the letter âPâ will be assigned.
| Author of the Publication, Date | Anecdote of Lord Hailes | Philip’s observations | Number of verses | ||||
| Paragraph one | Paragraph two | Paragraph three | Paragraph four | Campbell’s observations | |||
| Campbell, 1841[34] | x | x | x | x | x | x | 7 or 11 |
| Review, 1841[35] | x | x | x | x | x | x | 7 or 11 |
| Herald, 1841[36] | x | x | x | x | – | x | 7 or 11 |
| Newcomb, 1848[37] | – | x | – | P | – | – | 7 or 11 |
| Haldane, 1853[38] | – | x | x | x | – | – | 7 or 11 |
| Whytehead, 1854[39] | – | P | – | P | – | – | 10 or 11 |
| Alford, 1856[40] | – | – | – | x | – | – | 10 or 11 |
| Mathews, 1857[41] | – | x | x | x | – | – | 7 or 11 |
| Nairne, 1859[42] | – | – | – | P | – | – | 10 or 11 |
| Downing, 1862[43] | – | P | – | P | – | – | 11 |
| ?, 1863[44] | – | x | x | x | – | – | 7 or 11 |
| Hopkins, 1863[45] | – | – | – | P | – | – | 6 or 11 |
| Cooper, 1871[46] | – | P | – | P | – | – | 11 |
| Hinsdale, 1872[47] | – | P | – | P | – | – | 10 or 11 |
| Kennedy, 1880[48] | – | x | – | P | – | – | 7 or 11 |
| Hood, 1880[49] | x | x | x | x | – | – | 7 or 11 |
| Leach, 1897[50] | – | x | – | P | – | – | 11 |
| Hardy, 1899[51] | – | x | x | x | – | – | 7 or 11 |
| Hancock, 1902[52] | – | x | x | x | x | – | 7 or 11 |
Table I: The anecdote of Lord Hailes as seen in various subsequent publications. This is not a comprehensive list.
The aim of this table is not to call into question the integrity of the authors transmitting this anecdote. Obviously they had different sources (some explicitly referring to each other) and would have had many different explanations for transmitting the story as they did, be it the context in which the anecdote was placed or some other important editorial decision. It is clear, however, from its inception that the whole anecdote, including Campbell’s and Philip’s observations, has very seldom been recounted in full.
The situation among modern apologist literature is significantly worse. Statements similar to, âscholars could reconstruct the entire New Testament except eleven verses!â now abound, not just in the printed literature but on the internet as well.[53] Over a period of more than 165 years, two pages of information pregnant with exegetical significance have been reduced to a few sentences or even less, denying the reader vital information which they can use to make a value judgment on this anecdote.
4. Dalrymple’s Invitation: Some Preliminary Observations
The Newhailes house, originally built as Whitehill by the Scottish architect James Smith around 1686, was purchased by Sir David Dalrymple (d. 1721), grandfather of Sir David Dalrymple (Lord Hailes), in 1707. Sir David named his newly acquired property Newhailes after the family owned dilapidated Hailes castle near east Linton, Scotland.
Newhailes saw a number of extensions over the years, the most famous being the library, the largest room in the house, which occupied the entire east wing of the property. The library was built by Sir David and his son Sir James (father of Lord Hailes) between c. 1718 and 1722, being almost equal in volume to the original house.[54]
Purpose built, the library reached its zenith under the instruction of Lord Hailes where notable figures associated with the Scottish âenlightenmentâ would gather such as David Hume, James Boswell and Samuel Johnson, to discuss the pressing matters of the day, and to take advantage of some of the most impressive library facilities available in Scotland at the time. Indeed, Dr. Johnson purportedly described Dalrymple’s library as âthe most learned room in Europeâ.[55]
The last in the Dalrymple line, Sir Mark Dalrymple died in 1971 without an heir. The Government accepted from the Trustees of the late Sir Mark Dalrymple the Newhailes Library in lieu of estate duty (tax). As a result the Newhailes Library was allocated to the National Library of Scotland in July 1978 where it presently resides.
This fine collection, which is the library of the Dalrymple family largely formed by Lord Hailes himself, consists of around 7,000 volumes and contains numerous items penned by Lord Hailes unique to this collection alone, including autographs of his published works.[56]
In 1997, after spiralling costs and excessive demands which Lady Antonia Dalrymple (widow of Sir Mark) could no longer bear, the Dalrymple Trustees donated Newhailes House to the National Trust for Scotland, after it had raised sufficient funds to acquire the property including its restoration and endowment.[57]
It is anticipated once the conservation and security issues have been resolved, the National Trust for Scotland will successfully repatriate the books and manuscripts to their former glory at Newhailes now empty library shelves.[58] Although the libraries of British country houses have been generally neglected in terms of importance,[59] the National Library of Scotland have restated the significance of this Scottish country house library and described it as â⊠the greatest surviving collection of books and manuscripts of the Scottish Enlightenment âŠâ[60]
It is not difficult to see why if one simply examines the range and volume of material once housed at Newhailes with some 1800 volumes represented in history and biography, c. 2500 volumes in classical and modern Literature, c. 1000 volumes in law, politics and economics and c. 750 volumes in theology.
Naturally this leads us to the question of whether or not Dalrymple’s alleged work existed in manuscript format. We have already shown that this work was never published. The first clue the work actually existed are from the lips of Dalrymple himself. He is reported to have said:
There have I been busy for these two months, searching for chapters, half chapters, and sentences of the New Testament, and have marked down what I have found, and where I have found it; so that any person may examine and see for themselves.
Another good indication that this work actually existed and was located amongst his unpublished manuscripts, was found in a small biographical entry entitled âA Brief Memoir Of The Life And Writings Of The Authorâ, written anonymously (attributed to Dr. Charles Stuart of Dunearn), which was pre-fixed to the second and third editions of Dalrymple’s book An Inquiry Into The Secondary Causes Which Mr Gibbon Has Assigned For The Rapid Growth Of Christianity, published in 1808 and 1810 respectively. At the end of the subsection âCatalogue Of The Works Of Sir David Dalrymple. Bart. Lord Hailes; Arranged In The Order Of Their Publicationâ, it is reported that:
Lord Hailes, it is reported, left scarcely any thing in MS. fit for publication. He printed 38 pages 8vo of a Glossary of the Scottish language, the opposite pages blank, for communications and additions ; but this was never published, and with all similar works, is now superseded by the curious and complete Etymological Dictionary, by Dr Jamieson, in 2 vols….
He had made some progress in a work for verifying the Canon, in an interleaved copy of the New Testament; but those who have seen what is done, do not think that it is sufficiently considerable for publication, and are even uncertain if he intended it for any other besides his own use.[61]
Cataloguing of this huge library is currently work in progress; nevertheless there are a number of manual indices which were consulted that provided the necessary hints as to the whereabouts of the above stated information. The National Library of Scotland’s (unpublished) Catalogue Of Manuscripts Acquired Since 1925, Vol XVII: MSS 24501 â 26000 contains a subsection devoted to Lord Hailes (MSS. 25293-453).
The relevant sections for our enquiry relate to Dalrymple’s work on the Greek New Testament. This is located under the catalogue heading âDevotional And Theological Papersâ (MSS. 25396-412). The relevant extracts from the catalogue are as follows:
25396-412 DEVOTIONAL AND THEOLOGICAL PAPERS
25396-408 Notebooks containing printed leaves from, and notes by Lord Hailes on, the Greek New Testament, ca. 1759.
Quarto.
25396: 52 ff; 25397: 58 ff; 25398: 58 ff; 25399: 47 ff; 25400 55 ff; 25401: 79 ff; 25402: 42 ff; 25403: 44 ff; 25404: 58 ff; 25405: 98 ff; 25406: 104 ff; 25407: 70 ff; 25408: 84 ff.
25409-10 Notes and translations by Lord Hailes on the Greek New Testament, ca. 1759. MS 25410 includes miscellaneous devotional, theological, and biblical notes.
Folio and under.
25409: 133 ff; 25410: 149 ff.
As observed, there are presently thirteen catalogued notebooks with printed leaves from, and notes by Lord Hailes on, the Greek New Testament. They are in manuscript format and are around fifty to one hundred pages in length. MSS. 25409-10 are loose leaf folios which have been gathered together.
MSS. 25396-399 âINTERLEAVED COLLATIONâ
Manuscripts 25396-399 comprise a four volume collection of Latin and Greek New Testament citations according to the recollection of the early Fathers (resources noted below), penned on an interleaved copy of a complete (Protestant) Greek New Testament. This accords with what Dalrymple’s friends and colleagues had described.
A small inscription by Dalrymple, âopus inceptium 3rd December 1780â,[62] provides us with the exact date Dalrymple commenced his work and thus provides additional confirmation of the timeframes suggested in the brief chronology discussed earlier. Furthermore, Dalrymple takes the opportunity to note the resources at his disposal (see below). These form quite a considerable collection for someone whose profession was wholly unconnected with this most ambitious topic of study and demonstrates his desire to acquire knowledge of early Christian antiquity.[63]
At a time when a few books on a couple of shelves would have been a normal holding for an average family, Dalrymple had amassed thousands of volumes spanning several fields of knowledge. We should first of all note Dalrymple’s Greek New Testament was none other than the Textus Receptus, published in Glasgow (Scotland) by the Foulis brothers;[64] Following is an extract[65] in which Dalrymple lists the editions of the writings/Fathers he was using:
Barnabas edit Russel 8vo London 1746;[66] Clement Romanus id;[67] Hermas id;[68] Origenes contra celsum edit Spencer;[69] Cyprianus m edit Fell;[70] Justinus m;[71] Tertullianus;[72] Ireneus fragmenta anecdota edit Pfaffii Lug Bat 1743 8vo;[73] Ignatius edit Smith 4to Oxon 1709;[74] Photius bibliotheca fol edit Schotti Genev 1612;[75] Lucianus;[76] Polycarpus;[77] Eusebius hist eccles fol edit Valesii Paris;[78] Ireneus adversus hereses fol edit Feu-ardentii.[79]
Dalrymple commences his work with the Gospel of Matthew (MS. 25396), chapter one (Figure 1). If he was able to find the verse in a quotation from a Church Father from the resources available to him, he will note the reference(s) and the verse according to the recollection of the Father. If he is unable to find the relevant quotation, no verse number is written down and the corresponding space is left blank. This process is repeated for the remaining books of the New Testament finishing with Revelation (MS. 25399), comprising some 215 folios in total (Greek New Testament finishes at folio 205).
MS. 25396 [Spine = 1] contains Matthew, Mark, Luke.
MS. 25397 [Spine = 2] contains Luke (cont.), John, Acts.
MS. 25398 [Spine = 3] contains Acts (cont.), Romans, I Corinthians, II Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, I Thessalonians, II Thessalonians.
MS. 25399 [Spine = 4] contains I Timothy, II Timothy, Titus, Philemon, Hebrews, James, I Peter, II Peter, I John, II John, III John, Jude and Revelation.
(a)
(b)
Figure 1: MS. 25396 (“Interleaved Collation”) Dalrympleâs notebook open at the Gospel of Matthew folio 4 and 6, (a) with folio 5 resting on folio 6, (b) thereafter folio 5 resting on folio 4.
Dalrymple’s method of physically writing the citations down on paper is to geographically map the folio of his New Testament to the piece of paper. Thus, wherever a certain verse is positioned in the New Testament, it will likewise be positioned on the piece of paper. As the New Testament utilised by Dalrymple reproduces the Greek text in two vertical columns per page, the paper is divided into two halves with an imaginary vertical line down the middle. This was subject to change dependant on the requirements of each New Testament folio.
If a number of chapters started/stopped on a single folio, Dalrymple would likewise geographically map this to his piece of paper, sometimes resulting in five unequal imaginary sectors.[80] Resultantly, the maximum number of potential verses per page is dependant on the number of verses and geographic arrangement of the New Testament folio. Although a minor point, his organisation of the material helps to explain why he made a supplemental collation of citations, and why they were not consolidated into his interleaved collation.
MSS. 25400-408 âSUPPLEMENTAL COLLATIONâ
Manuscripts 25400-408 comprise a nine volume supplemental collection of Latin and Greek New Testament citations according to the recollection of the early Fathers (resources noted above). Contrary to the description provided by the National Library of Scotland, there are no printed leaves from the Greek New Testament here.[81] As before, following is an extract[82] in which Dalrymple lists the editions of the writings/Fathers he was using.
One should take care, however, not to view this extract as an exclusive set of books. For example, although Irenaeus is nowhere to be found in the list below (although present in the previously mentioned list from the âInterleaved Collationâ), there are a significant number of references to his works throughout all the after-mentioned manuscripts of the âSupplemental Collationâ.
Cyprian Fell;[83] Tertullian Rigalts;[84] Justin m Tryph edit Jebb;[85] _ _ _ apol edit Graber;[86] Clem Alex Potter;[87] Theophilus Fell;[88] Origen c cels Spencer;[89] Athenagoras;[90] Justin m apol; Ignatius Smith;[91] Polycarp Smith;[92] Eusebius Valesius.[93]
If we consider the resources mentioned here and those mentioned earlier, we will observe that Dalrymple had gathered together a large part of the primary sources with respect to the study of the canon of the New Testament,[94] placing himself in the enviable position of being able to carry out a comprehensive study whose results were open to criticism and verification, irrespective of the fact he never published his findings.
As with MSS. 25396-399, Dalrymple commences his work with the gospel of Matthew (MS. 25405) chapter one and lists every verse number of that chapter. If he was able to find the verse in a quotation from a Church Father from the resources available to him, he will note the reference(s) and the verse according to the recollection of the Father. If he is unable to find the relevant quotation, he leaves the space blank. This process is repeated for the remaining books of the New Testament finishing with Titus (MS. 25400),[95] comprising some 631 folios in total.
MS. 25405 [Spine = Matth.] contains Matthew.
MS. 25404 [Spine = Mark] contains Mark.
MS. 25406 [Spine = Luke] contains Luke.
MS. 25401 [Spine = John] contains John.
MS. 25408 [Spine = Act. Apost.] contains Acts.
MS. 25403 [Spine = Romans] contains Romans.
MS. 25407 [Spine = Corinth] contains I Corinthians, II Corinthians.
MS. 25402 [Spine = Galat Ephes Philip] contains Galatians, Ephesians and Philippians.
MS. 25400 [Spine = Coloss Thess Timoth] contains Colossians, I Thessalonians, II Thessalonians, I Timothy, II Timothy and Titus.
More verses of the New Testament (see results below) are found in this supplemental collation due to the fact Dalrymple had made greater use of the sources available to him. Also Dalrymple will note if more than one Father recollects the verse. It is therefore natural to assume this collation was penned sometime after the interleaved collation â although there is no specific inscription providing a date as was the case with MS. 25396. Why didn’t Dalrymple just fill in the blanks in his interleaved collation?
The answer to the question is rather straightforward â space. In his interleaved collation there was only a finite amount of physical space left on the page that Dalrymple could make use of. As we have already mentioned, Dalrymple geographically mapped the verses from the New Testament folio onto the piece of paper.
The present authors cannot recall a single occasion where this is not the case. On numerous occasions Dalrymple had to reduce considerably the size of his handwriting in order that the verse could simply be written down.
It would have been impossible in many instances and very difficult in others, to merely add the extra information to his interleaved collation whilst adopting the same geographic conventions. The simple solution was to start afresh in a new notebook which would act as a supplement to his interleaved collation.
Without any printed leaves from the New Testament, Dalrymple could list the verse numbers sequentially and write in a comfortable manner (usually 4-6 verses per folio, sometimes more), irrespective of geography and other space related concerns (Figure 2).
(a)
(b)
Figure 2: MS. 25405 (folio of the Gospel of Matthew) from the “Supplemental Collation” showing (a) recto and (b) verso.
Curiously, Dalrymple did not finish the entire New Testament in his supplemental collation. This is corroborated by the (anonymous) biographical sketch which informed us that Dalrymple had made only âsome progressâ in verifying the canon. Did Dalrymple stop work on his project? Did he die before he could complete it? The answer to this problem is no doubt more complex than the simple questions just posed would indicate, and unless some printed evidence or manuscript from Newhailes can be adduced in favour of a particular scenario, any attempt to resolve this intriguing question can only remain a possibility.
MSS. 25409-410 âLOOSE LEAF COLLATIONâ
Another collation of citations can be found in some miscellaneous loose leaf folios.[96] One indication that these folios were not considered ready to be part of his âofficialâ collations was the very fact they were not bound in notebooks. In MS. 25409, there are two attempts at Matthew chapter’s two and four in the space of just a few folios, between which one can find miscellaneous devotional, theological and biblical notes, including commentaries on books of the New Testament, prayers, translations and some notes by Dalrymple criticising Gibbon for his misunderstanding of the Roman Empire in the early Christian period.[97]
However, with the exception of Philemon, MS. 25409 does contain the collations of the remaining books of the New Testament (in order) not present in Dalrymple’s supplemental collation which finished with the book of Titus. Perhaps Dalrymple planned to bind these folios in notebook format once he had completed his research?
Nevertheless there remain some interesting titbits of information here; one can find what appears to be a small diary entry clearly inscribed with the dates June 15, 16, 17, 18, 23, 24, 25, 25 and July 11 of the year 1784, written over Colossians, chapter one, containing only verse numbers 1-6.[98] This unmistakably proves that Dalrymple was working on and off on this huge enterprise for a period of at least four years. The statement of Dalrymple attributed to him by Campbell that this work was completed in a mere âtwo monthsâ[99] is demonstrably untrue, and, as we will see, this was not the only statement attributed to Dalrymple which is contradicted by his own pen.
On one of the very rare occasions where Dalrymple converses in English, he makes an interesting comment with regard to how the textual evidence should be evaluated. The importance of this comment cannot be underestimated as he seldom remarks on his working method. With regard to Hebrews, chapter one, verses eight and nine, and chapter twelve, verse seven, Dalrymple says, âN. B. As these passages occur in the Old Testament, there is no evidence that Cyprian quoted them from the Epistle to the Hebrews.â[100]
This indicates Dalrymple was carefully evaluating the evidence available to him. Interestingly, Dalrymple adduces evidence for the Comma Johanneum (I John 5:7), based on the works of the Latin Father Cyprian of Carthage who is reported to have said âEt hi tres unum sunt cum tres unum sintâ.[101] With the benefit of hindsight, we now know this verse is a spurious fabrication that has been expunged from modern critical editions of the New Testament.
The first folio of MS. 25410 which the National Library of Scotland catalogue describes as, âNotes And Translations By Lord Hailes On The Greek New Testament, ca. 1759. MS 25410 Includes Miscellaneous Devotional, Theological, And Biblical Notesâ, contains a title page in Latin penned by Dalrymple called, âIndicia Novi Testamenti Ante Mortuum Cyprianumâ, which translates into English as âSigns Of The New Testament Before The Death Of Cyprianâ (Figure 3). Cyprian of Carthage died c. 258 CE and was one of the last Fathers of the 3rd century.
(a)
(b)
Figure 3: MS. 25410 (folio of the Gospel of Matthew) from the “Loose Leaf Collation” showing (a) recto, the title page of Dalrymple’s work “Indicia Novi Testamenti Ante Mortuum Cyprianum” and (b) verso.
The remaining seventy-nine folios comprise the Gospel of Matthew finishing with the Gospel of Mark, chapter two. Folios eighty-one onward comprise miscellaneous devotional, theological and biblical notes, including comments on the early Fathers, commentaries on various books of the New Testament, prayers, translations and some miscellaneous tracts. If we focus on the folio reproduced above we will notice Dalrymple make use of yet another layout. Here there are some twenty to twenty five verses per folio; only the references to the Fathers are noted excluding the rendering of the verses in question.[102]
This arrangement does not last long. Starting with Matthew, chapter five, Dalrymple splits each vertical column into four sectors allowing a maximum number of eight verses per page â once again only making note of the references excluding the rendering of the verses.[103]
Dalrymple made four attempts at coming to a satisfactory representation of the data; this is one indication that his work had never reached the final editing stage and yet again confirms the observations of his friends and colleagues that this work was not âsufficiently considerableâ for publication.
It was noted earlier that Dalrymple’s Greek New Testament was none other than the Textus Receptus. It contains verses (e.g., longer passages Mark 16:9-20 and John 7:53-8:11; and individual verses Matthew 17:21; 23:14; Mark 7:16; 9:44, 46; 11:26; 15:28; Luke 17:36; 23:17; John 5:4; Acts 8:37; 15:34; 24:7; 28:29; and Romans 16:24) which the modern critical scholarship agrees that they were probably not part of the original texts,[104] since they are not found in the oldest and best Greek manuscripts. Even more fundamental, the Byzantine text-type, on which the Textus Receptus is based, did not come into existence until the fourth century.[105]
How was Dalrymple supposed to find accurately signs of the New Testament text in the first, second and third centuries, using a copy-text of the Greek New Testament whose type of text did not originate until the fourth century? With the exception of some isolated readings, the Byzantine text was never used by the early church Fathers of the first three centuries,[106] irrespective of the musings of the Majority Text advocates. With the benefit of hindsight we can see that Dalrymple’s project was deficient in part from the beginning.
It must be noted that it is not our aim to show whether or not Dalrymple was correct in his assessment that a particular verse was cited/alluded by a Church Father. The enormous project of verifying whether a Church Father actually cited/alluded to a verse in the New Testament is still being undertaken today. Modern studies on the issue of Patristic citations of the New Testament, specifically those of the apostolic fathers, will be briefly discussed in the next section.
The data is arranged according to the number of missing verses in the individual books of the New Testament as seen in the three collations, viz., interleaved, supplemental and loose leaf. At the end of the data from each book, the summation and the percentage of missing verses is shown. This process is repeated for each book of the New Testament.
GOSPEL OF MATTHEW
| Chapter | No. of verses | MS. 25396 (Interleaved Collation) | MS. 25405 (Supplemental Collation) | MS. 25410 (Loose Leaf Collation) | ||||||
| Missing verses | Number of missing verses | Percentage of missing verses | Missing verses | Number of missing verses | Percentage of missing verses | Missing verses | Number of missing verses | Percentage of missing verses | ||
| 1 | 25 | 2-19, 22, 24-25 | 21 | 84.0 | 2-15, 24-25 | 16 | 64.0 | 2-15, 24-25 | 16 | 64.0 |
| 2 | 23 | 3, 7-10, 15, 17-23 | 13 | 56.5 | 7-8, 10, 17-21 | 8 | 34.8 | 4, 6-8, 10, 12-14, 17-21 | 13 | 56.5 |
| 3 | 17 | 1-2, 5-8, 14-15 | 8 | 47.1 | 1, 5, 14-15 | 4 | 23.5 | 1, 2, 5, 14-15 | 5 | 29.4 |
| 4 | 25 | 2-7, 11-14, 17, 20-21, 23(?) | 14 | 56.0 | 12-14, 20, 23-25 | 7 | 28.0 | 12-14, 18-21, 23-25 | 10 | 40.0 |
| 5 | 48 | 2, 12, 15, 17, 20, 24-25, 27, 31-33, 35, 40-41 | 14 | 29.2 | 2, 31 | 2 | 4.17 | 1, 2, 30-31, 38 | 5 | 10.4 |
| 6 | 34 | 1, 5-8, 15-18, 22-23, 27, 29-30 | 14 | 41.2 | 5, 15, 17-18, 23 | 5 | 14.7 | 1, 5, 15, 17-18, 23 | 6 | 17.6 |
| 7 | 29 | 3, 4-5, 8, 15-18, 20, 27-28 | 11 | 37.9 | 3-4, 20, 28-29 | 5 | 17.2 | 20, 28 | 2 | 6.9 |
| 8 | 34 | 1, 3-34 | 33 | 97.1 | 1, 3, 6-9, 13-14, 16, 18-19, 23, 25, 27-28, 30-34 | 20 | 58.8 | 1, 3, 6-9, 13-14, 16, 18-19, 23, 25, 27-28, 30-34 | 20 | 58.8 |
| 9 | 38 | 1-8, 10-11, 14-36, 38 | 34 | 89.5 | 1-3, 7, 10-11, 14, 19, 21, 23-24, 26-28, 30-34, 36 | 20 | 52.6 | 1-3, 7, 10-11, 14, 19, 21, 23-24, 26-28, 30-34, 36 | 20 | 52.6 |
| 10 | 42 | 2, 4-15, 17, 19-21, 24-28, 30-31, 34-35, 37-39, 41-42 | 30 | 71.4 | 4, 9, 11-14 | 6 | 14.3 | 4, 9, 11-14 | 6 | 14.3 |
| 11 | 30 | 1-14, 16-20, 23-24, 26, 30 | 23 | 76.7 | 1, 7, 16-17, 20, 23-24, 26 | 8 | 26.7 | 1, 7, 16-17, 20, 23, 26 | 7 | 23.3 |
| 12 | 50 | 1-23, 25-32, 34-35, 37-49 | 46 | 92.0 | 1, 5-6, 9-17, 22-23, 25-28, 41-46, 49 | 25 | 50.0 | 1, 5-6, 9, 10-17, 22-28, 41-46, 49, 50 | 27 | 54 |
| 13 | 58 | 1-2, 4, 7-8, 10-21, 23-32, 34-38, 40-43, 45-54, 56-58 | 49 | 84.5 | 1-2, 12, 18, 20, 23, 26-29, 32, 35-37, 48-51, 53, 56-58 | 22 | 37.9 | 1, 2, 6, 12, 18, 20, 23, 26-29, 32, 35-37, 39, 48-53, 56-58 | 25 | 43.1 |
| 14 | 36 | 1-20, 22-36 | 35 | 97.2 | 1-2, 5-9, 11-20, 22-24, 26-29, 32-35 | 28 | 77.8 | 1, 2, 5-9, 11-24, 26-27 | 23 | 63.9 |
| 15 | 39 | 1-10, 12-16, 20-23, 25-39 | 34 | 87.2 | 1-2, 4, 7, 10, 12, 15-16, 20-23, 25, 28-39 | 25 | 64.1 | 1, 2, 4, 7, 10, 12, 15-17, 20-23, 25, 28-39 | 26 | 66.7 |
| 16 | 28 | 1-17, 20-23, 25, 27-28 | 24 | 85.7 | 1-5, 7-12, 14-15, 20-23, 25, 27-28 | 20 | 71.4 | 2-5, 7-12, 14-15, 20-23, 25, 27-28 | 19 | 67.9 |
| 17 | 27 | 4, 7-8, 10-27 | 21 | 77.8 | 7-8, 14-19, 21-26 | 14 | 51.9 | 6-9, 14-19, 21-26 | 16 | 59.3 |
| 18 | 35 | 1-2, 4-9, 11-18, 21-35 | 31 | 88.6 | 5, 7, 12-16, 18, 21, 23-26, 31, 33, 35 | 16 | 45.7 | 5, 7, 12-16, 18, 21, 23-26, 31, 33, 35 | 16 | 45.7 |
| 19 | 30 | 1-10, 13-16, 18-22, 25, 27-30 | 24 | 80.0 | 1-2, 7, 10, 15, 25, 27 | 7 | 23.3 | 1-2, 7, 10, 25 | 5 | 16.7 |
| 20 | 34 | 1-24, 26, 28-34 | 32 | 94.1 | 2, 4, 7-8, 11-15, 17-19, 23-24, 26, 29-33 | 20 | 58.8 | 2, 4, 7-8, 11-15, 17-19, 23-27, 29-33 | 22 | 64.7 |
| 21 | 46 | 1-40, 42, 44-46 | 44 | 95.7 | 1-4, 6, 10-11, 14-15, 17-20, 23-24, 26, 32, 44-46 | 20 | 43.5 | 1-6, 10-11, 14-15, 17-20, 23-24, 26, 32, 44-46 | 21 | 45.7 |
| 22 | 46 | 1-10, 12-13, 15-29, 31, 33-46 | 42 | 91.3 | 1, 12, 15-16, 18, 22-23, 26-27, 31, 33-34, 36, 38, 41-43, 45-46 | 19 | 41.3 | 1, 12, 15-16, 18, 22-23, 26-27, 31, 33-34, 36, 38, 41-43, 45-46 | 19 | 41.3 |
| 23 | 39 | 1-4, 6-11, 14-33, 35-39 | 35 | 89.7 | 1, 10-11, 14, 17-22, 30-33 | 14 | 35.9 | 1, 5, 10-11, 14, 17-22, 30-34 | 16 | 41.0 |
| 24 | 51 | 1-13, 15-22, 28-34, 36-51 | 44 | 86.3 | 1, 34, 39-41, 43-44, 47-51 | 12 | 23.5 | 1, 34, 38-41, 43-44, 47-51 | 13 | 25.5 |
| 25 | 46 | 1-3, 5-20, 22-25, 28-33, 36-40, 43-45 | 35 | 76.1 | 2-3, 5-13, 15-19, 22-25, 28-29 | 22 | 47.8 | 2-13, 15-19, 22-25, 28-29 | 23 | 50.0 |
| 26 | 75 | 1-22, 25-30, 32-33, 35-37, 40, 43-47, 49-50, 56-58, 60-74 | 59 | 78.7 | 1-6, 8-11, 14, 16, 18-22, 25, 30, 32-33, 35-37, 40, 44-45, 47, 50, 56-58, 63-66, 69-74 | 42 | 56.0 | 1-6, 8-11, 14, 16, 18-22, 24-25, 30-37, 40, 42, 44-45, 47-48, 50-51, 55-61, 63-66, 69-75 | 53 | 70.7 |
| 27 | 66 | 1-2, 5-10, 15-16, 20-27, 30-33, 35-45, 47-49, 53-59, 61-63, 65-66 | 48 | 72.7 | 1-2, 7-8, 10, 15-16, 20-23, 27, 30-33, 36-37, 40-41, 44, 47-49, 53-57, 59, 61-63, 65-66 | 35 | 53.0 | 1-2, 5, 7-8, 10-13, 15-23, 27, 30-33, 36-37, 40-41, 44, 47-50, 53-57, 59, 61-63, 65-66 | 43 | 65.2 |
| 28 | 20 | 3-8, 10-12, 14-18 | 14 | 70.0 | 3, 5-8, 10-12, 14-17 | 12 | 60.0 | 1, 3, 5-12, 14-17 | 14 | 70.0 |
| Total | 1071 | – | 832 | 77.7% | – | 454 | 42.4% | – | 491 | 45.8% |
GOSPEL OF MARK
| Chapter | No. of verses | MS. 25396 (Interleaved Collation) | MS. 25404 (Supplemental Collation) | MS. 25410 (Loose Leaf Collation) | ||||||
| Missing verses | Number of missing verses | Percentage of missing verses | Missing verses | Number of missing verses | Percentage of missing verses | Missing verses | Number of missing verses | Percentage of missing verses | ||
| 1 | 45 | 3-45 | 43 | 95.6 | 3-5, 8, 10-34, 36-45 | 39 | 86.7 | 3-5, 8, 10-34, 36-45 | 39 | 86.7 |
| 2 | 28 | 1-13, 15-28 | 27 | 96.4 | 1-6, 8-10, 12-28 | 26 | 92.9 | 1-6, 8-10, 12-14 | 12 | 42.9 |
| 3 | 35 | 1-16, 18-34 | 33 | 94.3 | 1-27, 30-35 | 33 | 94.3 | – | – | – |
| 4 | 41 | 1-10, 13-33, 35-40 | 37 | 90.2 | 1-2, 4-10, 12-20, 22-23, 25-41 | 37 | 90.2 | – | – | – |
| 5 | 43 | 1-43 | 43 | 100 | 3-8, 10-12, 14-33, 35-43 | 38 | 88.4 | – | – | – |
| 6 | 56 | 1-56 | 56 | 100 | 1-24, 26-56 | 55 | 98.2 | – | – | – |
| 7 | 37 | 1-37 | 37 | 100 | 1-2, 4-6, 8, 10-14, 16-17, 19-37 | 29 | 78.4 | – | – | – |
| 8 | 38 | 1-38 | 38 | 100 | 1-34, 36-37 | 36 | 94.7 | – | – | – |
| 9 | 50 | 1-41, 43-50 | 49 | 98.0 | 1-2, 5-22, 24-41, 43-50 | 46 | 92.0 | – | – | – |
| 10 | 52 | 1-43, 45-52 | 51 | 98.1 | 1-8, 10, 13-16, 32-37, 39-44, 46-51 | 31 | 59.6 | – | – | – |
| 11 | 33 | 1-33 | 33 | 100 | 1-23, 27-29, 31-33 | 29 | 87.9 | – | – | – |
| 12 | 44 | 1-24, 26-44 | 43 | 97.7 | 1-16, 18-24, 26-28, 32-40 | 35 | 79.5 | – | – | – |
| 13 | 37 | 1-37 | 37 | 100 | 1-5, 7-13, 16, 18, 20-22, 24-31, 33-37 | 30 | 81.1 | – | – | – |
| 14 | 72 | 1-72 | 72 | 100 | 1-2, 4-5, 7-11, 14-20, 22-24, 26-35, 37, 39-57, 59-60, 63-72 | 61 | 84.7 | – | – | – |
| 15 | 47 | 1-47 | 47 | 100 | 1-18, 20-41, 42-47 | 46 | 97.9 | – | – | – |
| 16 | 20 | 1-20 | 20 | 100 | 1-8, 10-14, 16 | 14 | 70.0 | – | – | – |
| Total | 678 | – | 666 | 98.2% | – | 585 | 86.3% | – | – | – |
GOSPEL OF LUKE
| Chapter | No. of verses | MS. 25396-97 (Interleaved Collation) | MS. 25406 (Supplemental Collation) | ||||
| Missing verses | Number of missing verses | Percentage of missing verses | Missing verses | Number of missing verses | Percentage of missing verses | ||
| 1 | 80 | 1-5, 7-80 | 79 | 98.8 | 1, 3-4, 7, 10-12, 14, 19, 21-23, 25, 27-29, 34, 36-37, 39-40, 45, 48-53, 56-62, 65-66, 80 | 38 | 47.5 |
| 2 | 52 | 1-12 (7?), 15-20, 22-52 | 49 | 94.2 | 2-6, 12, 15-19, 25, 27, 33, 35, 39-41, 43, 45, 47-48, 51-52 | 24 | 46.2 |
| 3 | 38 | 1-38 | 38 | 100 | 9-10, 15, 18-20, 24-37 | 20 | 52.6 |
| 4 | 44 | 1-44 | 44 | 100 | 13-15, 20, 22-26, 28, 33(?), 36-40, 44 | 17 | 38.6 |
| 5 | 39 | 1-7, 9-30, 33-39 | 36 | 92.3 | 1-3, 5-6,12, 15, 17-20, 23, 28, 30, 38-39 | 16 | 41 |
| 6 | 49 | 1-24, 26-28, 31-35, 39-44, 46-49 | 42 | 85.7 | 6, 8, 11, 15-16, 18-19, 33, 41, 44, 47-49 | 13 | 26.5 |
| 7 | 50 | 1-11, 13-50 | 49 | 98.0 | 1-8, 11-12, 17-18, 24, 29-33, 35, 39, 44-46, 48-49 | 25 | 50 |
| 8 | 56 | 1, 4, 6-51, 53-56 | 52 | 92.9 | 1, 4, 6, 8, 11-15, 19, 23-24, 26-27, 29, 33-42, 49-56 | 33 | 58.9 |
| 9 | 62 | 1-30, 32-62 | 61 | 98.4 | 1, 4, 6, 9, 11-12, 15-16, 18-19, 23, 31-32, 36-40, 42-47, 49-52 | 28 | 45.2 |
| 10 | 42 | 1-3, 5-18, 20-42 | 40 | 95.2 | 3, 6, 12-15, 17, 20 | 8 | 19 |
| 11 | 54 | 1-47 (5?), 49-51, 53-54 | 52 | 96.3 | 6, 16-17, 24-26, 29-32, 34-36, 44-45, 48-51, 53-54 | 21 | 38.9 |
| 12 | 59 | 1-3, 6-7, 9-23, 25-26, 28-48, 50-59 | 53 | 89.8 | 6, 21, 26, 52, 54-55 | 6 | 10.2 |
| 13 | 35 | 1-10, 12-15, 17-25, 27-35 | 33 | 94.3 | 1-5, 8-10, 12, 17-18, 20, 22-23, 30, 33 | 16 | 45.7 |
| 14 | 35 | 1-10, 12-26, 28-34 | 32 | 91.4 | 1, 3, 6-7, 9, 25, 28-32, 34 | 12 | 34.3 |
| 15 | 32 | 1-3, 5-32 | 31 | 96.9 | 1, 3, 9, 12, 14-16, 18-19, 21, 24-28, 30 | 16 | 50 |
| 16 | 31 | 1-9, 14-30 | 26 | 83.9 | 1, 3, 5, 7, 30 | 5 | 16.1 |
| 17 | 37 | 2-37 | 36 | 97.3 | 13, 17, 22-24, 33, 36-37 | 8 | 21.6 |
| 18 | 43 | 1-10, 12, 15-37, 39-43 | 39 | 90.7 | 4, 6, 15-16, 23-26, 28, 31-35, 37, 40-41 | 17 | 39.5 |
| 19 | 48 | 1-48 | 48 | 100 | 1-4, 7, 11-12, 14, 18-19, 24-25, 27-40, 43-48 | 32 | 66.7 |
| 20 | 47 | 1-35, 37-47 | 46 | 97.9 | 1-3, 12, 18-24, 26, 29-30, 32, 40-43, 45-47 | 22 | 46.8 |
| 21 | 38 | 1-19, 21-38 | 37 | 97.4 | 5-6, 18, 21-22, 24, 32, 36 | 8 | 21.1 |
| 22 | 71 | 1-14, 16-24, 26, 28-71 | 68 | 95.8 | 2, 6, 9, 11-14, 16-17, 21, 23, 25, 27-28, 30, 33, 35-41, 43-44, 46-47, 49, 52-65, 68, 71 | 44 | 62 |
| 23 | 56 | 1-18, 20, 22-32, 34-44, 46, 48-52, 54-56 | 50 | 89.3 | 4-6, 10-17, 20-32, 35-41, 47-50, 54-56 | 38 | 67.9 |
| 24 | 53 | 1-4, 6-13, 18-25, 27-29, 32-38, 40-42, 44-53 | 43 | 81.1 | 5, 8, 10-12, 14, 18-20, 22, 24, 28-29, 32-36, 48, 50-53 | 23 | 43.4 |
| Total | 1151 | – | 1084 | 94.2% | – | 490 | 42.6% |
GOSPEL OF JOHN
| Chapter | No. of verses | MS. 25397 (Interleaved Collation) | MS. 25401 (Supplemental Collation) | MS. 25409 (Loose Leaf Collation) | ||||||
| Missing verses | Number of missing verses | Percentage of missing verses | Missing verses | Number of missing verses | Percentage of missing verses | Missing verses | Number of missing verses | Percentage of missing verses | ||
| 1 | 51 | 2, 6, 8, 10-11, 13, 15-17, 19-25, 27-28, 30-31, 35-51 | 37 | 72.5 | 8, 19, 23-25, 28, 31, 33-47 | 22 | 43.1 | 8, 13, 17, 19-22, 24-25, 28, 31, 35-47, 49-51 | 27 | 52.9 |
| 2 | 25 | 1-5, 7-18, 20, 22, 24-25 | 21 | 84.0 | 1, 5-8, 10, 12, 14-15, 17-18, 20, 22, 25 | 14 | 56.0 | 1-3, 5, 8, 10-12, 14-15, 17-18, 20, 22, 24-25 | 16 | 64.0 |
| 3 | 36 | 1-36 | 36 | 100 | 1-2, 4, 8-13, 22-26, 32-34 | 17 | 47.2 | 1-2, 4-5, 7-13, 16-17, 20-22, 23-36 | 30 | 83.3 |
| 4 | 54 | 1-5, 7-13, 15-20, 22-23, 25-34, 36-54 | 49 | 90.7 | 1, 3, 5, 8-9, 11, 16-17, 19, 21, 27-31, 33, 39, 43-54 | 29 | 53.7 | 1-5, 7-13, 15-20, 22-23 | 20 | 37.0 |
| 5 | 47 | 1-30, 32-38, 40-45 | 43 | 91.5 | 1, 3-4, 6-7, 9-11, 13, 15-16, 30, 34-35, 38, 41-42, 44 | 18 | 38.3 | – | – | – |
| 6 | 71 | 1-32, 34, 36-50, 52-71 | 68 | 95.8 | 3-8, 14, 16-26, 30-31, 34, 36, 41-43, 45-47, 49-50, 52, 54, 56-59, 61-62, 64, 70-71 | 41 | 57.7 | – | – | – |
| 7 | 53* | 1-37, 39-41, 43-53 | 51 | 96.2 | 1-4, 6-15, 17, 19-26, 30-31, 34-36, 39-43, 45-53 | 42 | 79.2 | – | – | – |
| 8 | 59* | 1-11, 13-39, 41-57, 58-59 | 57 | 96.6 | 1-11, 13-16, 20-22, 25, 30, 33, 39, 41, 43, 45-48, 50-53, 59 | 33 | 55.9 | – | – | – |
| 9 | 41 | 1-38, 40-41 | 40 | 97.6 | 2-3, 5, 8-13, 15-30, 32-34, 38-41 | 32 | 78.0 | – | – | – |
| 10 | 42 | 1-2, 4-6, 8, 11-17, 19-23, 25-29, 31-42 | 35 | 83.3 | 4-6, 13, 17, 19-23, 29, 31, 33, 39-42 | 17 | 40.5 | – | – | – |
| 11 | 57 | 1-24, 26-42, 44-57 | 55 | 96.5 | 1-24, 28-34, 36-38, 40, 45-52, 55-57 | 46 | 80.7 | – | – | – |
| 12 | 50 | 1-5, 7-23, 25-30, 32-50 | 47 | 94.0 | 2-11, 13-24, 26, 29, 31, 33-37, 39-43, 46-48 | 38 | 76.0 | – | – | – |
| 13 | 38 | 1-3, 9-38 | 33 | 86.8 | 7, 9, 11-13, 18-22, 24, 28-30, 32, 34-38 | 20 | 52.6 | – | – | – |
| 14 | 31 | 1-2, 4-5, 7, 10, 13-22, 24-27, 29, 31 | 22 | 71.0 | 1, 3-4, 12-15, 18-26, 29-31 | 19 | 61.3 | – | – | – |
| 15 | 27 | 1-4, 6-24, 26-27 | 25 | 92.6 | 3-10, 17, 21-27 | 16 | 59.3 | – | – | – |
| 16 | 33 | 1, 3-10, 14-24, 26-32 | 27 | 81.8 | 1, 4-6, 8-11, 16-19, 21, 25-26, 28-32 | 20 | 60.6 | – | – | – |
| 17 | 26 | 1-2, 4-20, 22-26 | 24 | 92.3 | 1-2, 7-10, 13-19 | 13 | 50.0 | – | – | – |
| 18 | 40 | 1-3, 5-6, 8-35, 37-40 | 37 | 92.5 | 1-9, 12-21, 24-35, 38-40 | 34 | 85.0 | – | – | – |
| 19 | 42 | 1-9, 11-27, 30-31, 36-40, 42 | 34 | 81.0 | 3-8, 10, 12-14, 16, 18-22, 25, 27-33, 35-36, 38-42 | 31 | 73.8 | – | – | – |
| 20 | 31 | 1-17, 19-21, 23-24, 28-31 | 26 | 83.9 | 1-15, 18-20, 25-26, 30 | 21 | 67.7 | – | – | – |
| 21 | 25 | 1-12, 14-17, 20-24 | 21 | 84.0 | 1-2, 6-15, 17-22, 24-25 | 20 | 80.0 | – | – | – |
| Total | 879 | – | 788 | 88.6% | – | 543 | 61.8% | – | – | – |
ACTS
| Chapter | No. of verses | MS. 25397-98 (Interleaved Collation) | MS. 25408 (Supplemental Collation) | ||||
| Missing Verses | Number of missing verses | Percentage of missing verses | Missing Verses | Number of missing verses | Percentage of missing verses | ||
| 1 | 26 | 1-2, 4, 6-12, 14-15, 17-25 | 21 | 80.8 | 1, 4-6, 12-13, 19, 21, 23, 25 | 10 | 38.5 |
| 2 | 47 | 1, 3-23, 25-47 | 45 | 95.7 | 5-8, 11-12, 14, 18-21, 40, 42-47 | 18 | 38.3 |
| 3 | 26 | 1-26 | 26 | 100 | 4-5, 9-10 | 4 | 15.4 |
| 4 | 37 | 1-11, 14-31, 33-37 | 34 | 91.9 | 1-4, 6-7, 13-18, 21, 29-30, 36-37 | 17 | 45.9 |
| 5 | 42 | 1-3, 5-9, 11-28, 30-35, 39-40, 42 | 35 | 83.3 | 1, 6-7, 9-18, 21-28, 30-39, 41 | 32 | 76.2 |
| 6 | 15 | 1-15 | 15 | 100 | 1, 3-4, 6-14 | 12 | 80.0 |
| 7 | 60 | 1-21, 23-41, 44-59 | 56 | 93.3 | 1, 10-21, 23, 25-30, 32-37, 44-48, 50-54, 57-58 | 38 | 63.3 |
| 8 | 40 | 1-40 | 40 | 100 | 1-8, 12, 15-16, 22, 24-25, 31, 34, 38, 40 | 18 | 45 |
| 9 | 43 | 2-43 | 42 | 97.7 | 2, 7, 9-10, 12-14, 17, 21-24, 26-35, 38-39, 42-43 | 26 | 60.5 |
| 10 | 48 | 1-4, 6-8, 16-48 | 40 | 83.3 | 6-8, 16-23, 26-27, 30-33, 36, 45, 48 | 20 | 41.7 |
| 11 | 30 | 1-30 | 30 | 100 | 1-30 | 30 | 100 |
| 12 | 25 | 1, 3-6, 8-25 | 23 | 92.0 | 1-25 | 25 | 100 |
| 13 | 52 | 1-9, 12-21, 23-45, 47-52 | 48 | 92.3 | 1-3, 5-7, 9-10, 12-21, 23-32, 34-45, 48-52 | 45 | 86.5 |
| 14 | 28 | 1-28 | 28 | 100 | 1-5, 7, 9, 12-14, 18-28 | 21 | 75 |
| 15 | 41 | 1-4, 6-27, 30-41 | 38 | 92.7 | 3-5, 12, 21, 30-36, 38, 40-41 | 15 | 36.6 |
| 16 | 40 | 1-23, 27-40 | 37 | 92.5 | 1-2, 4-7, 14, 16-24, 26-40 | 31 | 77.5 |
| 17 | 34 | 1-27, 29-34 | 33 | 97.1 | 1-5, 7-12, 19-21, 33-34 | 16 | 47.1 |
| 18 | 28 | 1-28 | 28 | 100 | 1, 3-28 | 27 | 96.4 |
| 19 | 40* | 1-40 | 40 | 100 | 1, 4, 6-40 | 37 | 92.5 |
| 20 | 38 | 1-6, 9-34, 36-38 | 35 | 92.1 | 1-5, 7-15, 18-22, 24, 31-34, 36-38 | 27 | 71.1 |
| 21 | 40 | 1-11, 15-25, 27-40 | 36 | 90.0 | 1-8, 15-25, 27-40 | 33 | 82.5 |
| 22 | 30 | 1-30 | 30 | 100 | 1-2, 4-20, 22-30 | 28 | 93.3 |
| 23 | 35 | 1-35 | 35 | 100 | 1-3, 7-35 | 32 | 91.4 |
| 24 | 27 | 1-27 | 27 | 100 | 1-25, 27 | 26 | 96.3 |
| 25 | 27 | 1-27 | 27 | 100 | 1-27 | 27 | 100 |
| 26 | 32 | 1-32 | 32 | 100 | 1-16, 19-21, 23-32 | 29 | 90.6 |
| 27 | 44 | 1-44 | 44 | 100 | 2-44 | 43 | 97.7 |
| 28 | 31 | 1-31 | 31 | 100 | 1-4, 6-17, finishes at verse 17 | 16 | 51.6 |
| Total | 1006 | – | 956 | 95% | – | 703 | 69.9% |
ROMANS
| Chapter | No. of verses | MS. 25398 (Interleaved Collation) | MS. 25403 (Supplemental Collation) | ||||
| Missing Verses | Number of missing verses | Percentage of missing verses | Missing Verses | Number of missing verses | Percentage of missing verses | ||
| 1 | 32 | 2-7, 9-13, 15-16, 22-23, 31 | 16 | 50 | 5-7, 9-10, 13, 15, 31 | 8 | 25 |
| 2 | 29 | 2, 7, 10-13, 17-22, 25-27 | 15 | 51.7 | 22, 26-27 | 3 | 10.3 |
| 3 | 31 | 1-20, 22-31 | 31 | 100 | 1-2, 7, 10-12, 19, 25, 27-28 | 10 | 32.3 |
| 4 | 25 | 1-25 | 25 | 100 | 1-2, 4-6, 11-16, 18-25 | 19 | 76 |
| 5 | 21 | 1-2, 4-6, 9-12, 15-21 | 16 | 76.2 | 11-12, 16, 18 | 4 | 19 |
| 6 | 23 | (1?) 2-3, 5-9, 11-23 | 21 | 91.3 | 7, 18 | 2 | 8.7 |
| 7 | 25 | 1-6, 8, 10-11, 13, 16-21, 23, 25 | 18 | 72 | 1, 10, 13, 15-16, 19, 21 | 7 | 28 |
| 8 | 39 | 1, 3-6, 9-12, 16-17, 22-27, 31, 33-34, 39 | 21 | 53.8 | 1, 16, 22-23, 26-27, 31, 33 | 8 | 20.5 |
| 9 | 33 | 1-5, 7, 9-15, 17, 23-33 | 25 | 75.8 | 1-2, 7, 9, 17, 23-24, 27-33 | 14 | 42.4 |
| 10 | 21 | 1-7, 9-10, 12-22 | 20 | 95.2 | 1, 5, 13 | 3 | 14.3 |
| 11 | 36 | 1-3, 5-26 (25?), 27-35 | 34 | 94.4 | 1-3, 5-10, 12-15, 18-19, 23, 27-31 | 21 | 58.3 |
| 12 | 21 | 2-4, 6-10, 12-13, 15-16, 18-21 | 16 | 76.2 | 4, 6-7 | 3 | 14.3 |
| 13 | 14 | 2-6, 9-14 | 11 | 78.6 | – | 0 | 0 |
| 14 | 23 | 3-8, 11-14, 16-20, 22 | 16 | 69.6 | 7-8, 14, 19, 22-23 | 6 | 26.1 |
| 15 | 33 | 1-18, 22-33 | 30 | 90.9 | 1-3, 5-12, 15, 17-18, 21-28, 30-33 | 26 | 78.8 |
| 16 | 27 | 1-24, 27 | 25 | 92.6 | 1-17, 20-24 | 22 | 81.5 |
| Total | 433 | – | 340 | 78.5% | – | 156 | 36.0% |
I CORINTHIANS
| Chapter | No. of verses | MS. 25398 (Interleaved Collation) | MS. 25407 (Supplemental Collation) | ||||
| Missing Verses | Number of missing verses | Percentage of missing verses | Missing Verses | Number of missing verses | Percentage of missing verses | ||
| 1 | 31 | 1-4, 6-19, 22, 25, 28-29 | 22 | 71 | 1-2, 4, 6-8, 11-13 | 9 | 29 |
| 2 | 16 | 1, 3, 8, 12-13, 15-16 | 7 | 43.7 | 1, 3 | 2 | 12.5 |
| 3 | 23 | 4-5, 8-11, 17, 20-21 | 9 | 39.1 | 4-5, 14, 23 | 4 | 17.4 |
| 4 | 21 | 1-3, 5-8, 10-11, 14-21 | 17 | 81 | 1-2, 10, 14, 17 | 5 | 23.8 |
| 5 | 13 | 1-4, 6, 9-10, 12-13 | 9 | 69.2 | 4 | 1 | 7.69 |
| 6 | 20 | 1, 3-8, 11-14, 16, 18, 20 | 14 | 70 | 4-6 | 3 | 15 |
| 7 | 40 | 1-17, 19-40 | 39 | 97.5 | 16-17, 19, 23, 26, 36 | 6 | 15 |
| 8 | 13 | 1-3, 9-10, 12 | 6 | 46.2 | – | 0 | 0 |
| 9 | 27 | 1-8, 11-15, 17-19, 21-23 | 19 | 70.4 | 2-3, 7-8, 11, 13-14, 17-18, 23 | 10 | 37 |
| 10 | 33 | 4-10, 12-16, 19, 21-31 | 24 | 72.7 | 15, 22 | 2 | 6.06 |
| 11 | 34 | 1-2, 4-6, 8-18, 20-34 | 31 | 91.2 | 2, 9, 12-13, 17, 30 | 6 | 17.6 |
| 12 | 31 | 1-7, 10-31 | 29 | 93.5 | 1-3, 14-22, 24-25, 28-30 | 17 | 54.8 |
| 13 | 13 | 1-3, 5-9, 11, 13 | 10 | 76.9 | – | 0 | 0 |
| 14 | 40 | 1-13, 15-20, 22-28, 31-40 | 36 | 90 | 1-5, 7-8, 12, 15-19, 22-25, 27-28, 31, 36-40 | 25 | 62.5 |
| 15 | 58 | 1, 9-11, 13-21, 23-25, 27-34, 39, 46-47, 53, 55-58 | 32 | 55.2 | 1, 9, 58 | 3 | 5.17 |
| 16 | 24 | 1-24 | 24 | 100 | 1-24 | 24 | 100 |
| Total | 437 | – | 328 | 75.1% | – | 117 | 26.8% |
II CORINTHIANS
| Chapter | No. of verses | MS. 25398 (Interleaved Collation) | MS. 25407 (Supplemental Collation) | ||||
| Missing Verses | Number of missing verses | Percentage of missing verses | Missing Verses | Number of missing verses | Percentage of missing verses | ||
| 1 | 24 | 1-11, 13-24 | 23 | 95.8 | 2, 4-7, 11, 13-24 | 18 | 75.0 |
| 2 | 17 | 1-14, 16-17 | 16 | 94.1 | 1-4, 13 | 5 | 29.4 |
| 3 | 18 | 1-4, 8-12 | 9 | 50.0 | 1-2, 4, 9-13 | 8 | 44.4 |
| 4 | 18 | 1-3, 5, 9, 11-16 | 11 | 61.1 | 1-3, 5, 12-13, 15 | 7 | 38.9 |
| 5 | 21 | 3, 5, 7, 9, 12-15, 17-18 | 10 | 47.6 | 11-14, 18 | 5 | 23.8 |
| 6 | 18 | 1-8, 11-13, 15-18 | 15 | 83.3 | 1-2, 8, 12-13 | 5 | 27.8 |
| 7 | 16 | 1-16 | 16 | 100 | 2-4, 6-8, 12-16 | 11 | 68.7 |
| 8 | 24 | 1-11, 16-20, 22-24 | 19 | 79.2 | 1-11, 16-19, 22-24 | 18 | 75.0 |
| 9 | 15 | 1-5, 8, 10-15 | 12 | 80.0 | 1-5, 8, 11, 13-15 | 10 | 66.7 |
| 10 | 18 | 1-2, 6-16, 18 | 14 | 77.8 | 1, 6-14, 18 | 11 | 61.1 |
| 11 | 33 | 1, 3-13, 15-22, 26-33 | 28 | 84.8 | 1, 4-5, 7-12, 16-18, 21-22, 26-27, 30-32 | 19 | 57.6 |
| 12 | 21 | 1, 3, 5, 7-21 | 18 | 85.7 | 1, 3, 5-6, 11-19 | 13 | 61.9 |
| 13 | 13 | 1-13 | 13 | 100 | 3-4, 6-9, 11-13 | 9 | 69.2 |
| Total | 256 | – | 204 | 79.7% | – | 139 | 54.3% |
GALATIANS
| Chapter | No. of verses | MS. 25398 (Interleaved Collation) | MS. 25402 (Supplemental Collation) | ||||
| Missing Verses | Number of missing verses | Percentage of missing verses | Missing Verses | Number of missing verses | Percentage of missing verses | ||
| 1 | 24 | 2-3, 5-14, 17-18, 20-24 | 19 | 79.2 | 2-3, 5, 11-12, 14, 17-18, 20-24 | 13 | 54.2 |
| 2 | 21 | 1-8, 10-11, 14-19, 21 | 17 | 81.0 | 7-8, 15-19, 21 | 8 | 38.1 |
| 3 | 29 | 1-9, 11-18, 20-23, 26, 28-29 | 24 | 82.8 | 2, 4, 12, 14, 18, 20-21, 29 | 8 | 27.6 |
| 4 | 31 | 1-3, 5-8, 12-20, 25, 27-31 | 22 | 71.0 | 13-15, 17-18, 20, 25, 28-30 | 10 | 32.3 |
| 5 | 26 | 1, 3-7, 9-16, 18-24, 26 | 22 | 84.6 | 3-4, 9, 11, 23 | 5 | 19.2 |
| 6 | 18 | 1-6, 8-13, 15-18 | 16 | 88.9 | 3-6, 11-13, 15-16, 18 | 10 | 55.6 |
| Total | 149 | – | 120 | 80.5% | – | 54 | 36.2% |
EPHESIANS
| Chapter | No. of verses | MS. 25398 (Interleaved Collation) | MS. 25402 (Supplemental Collation) | ||||
| Missing Verses | Number of missing verses | Percentage of missing verses | Missing Verses | Number of missing verses | Percentage of missing verses | ||
| 1 | 23 | 1-23 | 23 | 100 | 1-8, 19, 22-23 | 11 | 47.8 |
| 2 | 22 | 1, 4-5, 7, 9-19, 21-22 | 17 | 77.3 | 7, 9, 22 | 3 | 13.6 |
| 3 | 21 | 1-7, 9-15, 17-21 | 19 | 90.5 | 1-2, 7, 12-15, 19-21 | 10 | 47.6 |
| 4 | 32 | 1-4, 7-9, 11-25, 27-32 | 28 | 87.5 | 7, 16 | 2 | 6.25 |
| 5 | 33 | 2-15, 17-30, 33 | 29 | 87.9 | 9-10, 15, 17, 20, 27, 33 | 7 | 21.2 |
| 6 | 24 | 1, 3-12, 14-24 | 22 | 91.7 | 8, 10, 18-24 | 9 | 37.5 |
| Total | 155 | – | 138 | 89.0% | – | 42 | 27.1% |
PHILIPPIANS
| Chapter | No. of verses | MS. 25398 (Interleaved Collation) | MS. 25402 (Supplemental Collation) | ||||
| Missing Verses | Number of missing verses | Percentage of missing verses | Missing Verses | Number of missing verses | Percentage of missing verses | ||
| 1 | 30 | 2-30 | 29 | 96.7 | 2, 4, 6, 8, 11-12, 19, 25-28 | 11 | 36.7 |
| 2 | 30 | 1-2, 12-14, (15?), 16-30 | 21 | 70.0 | 4, 12, 16, 19, 22-30 | 13 | 43.3 |
| 3 | 21 | 1-7, 9, 11-19 | 17 | 81.0 | 1-7, 9, 16-18 | 11 | 52.4 |
| 4 | 23 | 1-12, 14-23 | 22 | 95.7 | 1-2, 4, 6-7, 10, 14-16, 19-23 | 14 | 60.9 |
| Total | 104 | – | 89 | 85.6% | – | 49 | 47.% |
COLOSSIANS
| Chapter | No. of verses | MS. 25398 (Interleaved Collation) | MS. 25400 (Supplemental Collation) | MS. 25409 (Loose Leaf Collation) | ||||||
| Missing Verses | Number of missing verses | Percentage of missing verses | Missing Verses | Number of missing verses | Percentage of missing verses | Missing Verses | Number of missing verses | Percentage of missing verses | ||
| 1 | 29 | 1-9, 11-14, 17, 19, 21-23, 25-29 | 23 | 79.3 | 1-4, 7-8, 12-13, 17, 23, 29 | 11 | 37.9 | 1-9, 11-13, 17, 19, 23, 25-27, 29 | 19 | 65.5 |
| 2 | 23 | 1-7, 9-13, 19-22 | 16 | 69.6 | 1, 5, 10, 15 | 4 | 17.4 | 1-7, 10, 12-13, 21-23 | 13 | 56.5 |
| 3 | 25 | 2-4, 6-7, 11-16, 18-25 | 19 | 76.0 | – | 0 | 0 | 7, 11-16, 18-25 | 15 | 60.0 |
| 4 | 18 | 1-5, 7-18 | 17 | 94.4 | 7-13, 15-18 | 11 | 61.1 | 1, 3-5, 7-13, 15-18 | 15 | 83.3 |
| Total | 95 | – | 75 | 78.9% | – | 26 | 27.4% | – | 62 | 65.3% |
I THESSALONIANS
| Chapter | No. of verses | MS. 25398 (Interleaved Collation) | MS. 25400 (Supplemental Collation) | ||||
| Missing Verses | Number of missing verses | Percentage of missing verses | Missing Verses | Number of missing verses | Percentage of missing verses | ||
| 1 | 10 | 1-10 | 10 | 100 | 1-8 | 8 | 80.0 |
| 2 | 20 | 1-20 | 20 | 100 | 1-2, 8-14, 16-18, 20 | 13 | 65.0 |
| 3 | 13 | 1-13 | 13 | 100 | 1-12 | 12 | 92.3 |
| 4 | 18 | 1-12, 18 | 13 | 72.2 | 1-2, 10, 12, 18 | 5 | 27.8 |
| 5 | 28 | 1-13, 15-16, 18-28 | 26 | 92.9 | 4, 9-12, 16, 18, 24-28 | 12 | 42.9 |
| Total | 89 | – | 82 | 92.1% | – | 50 | 56.1% |
II THESSALONIANS
| Chapter | No. of verses | MS. 25398 (Interleaved Collation) | MS. 25400 (Supplemental Collation) | ||||
| Missing Verses | Number of missing verses | Percentage of missing verses | Missing Verses | Number of missing verses | Percentage of missing verses | ||
| 1 | 12 | 1-3, 5-12 | 11 | 91.7 | 1-3, 11-12 | 5 | 41.7 |
| 2 | 17 | 5, 13-17 | 6 | 35.3 | 13-17 | 5 | 29.4 |
| 3 | 18 | 1-18 | 18 | 100 | 3-5, 7, 9-13, 16-18 | 12 | 66.7 |
| Total | 47 | – | 35 | 74.5% | – | 22 | 46.8% |
I TIMOTHY
| Chapter | No. of verses | MS. 25399 (Interleaved Collation) | MS. 25400 (Supplemental Collation) | ||||
| Missing Verses | Number of missing verses | Percentage of missing verses | Missing Verses | Number of missing verses | Percentage of missing verses | ||
| 1 | 20 | 1-3, 5-14, 16-19 | 17 | 85.0 | 1-3, 6, 10-12 | 7 | 35.0 |
| 2 | 15 | 3-7, 9-15 | 12 | 80.0 | 1, 3, 6, 8 | 4 | 26.7 |
| 3 | 16 | 1, 3-14 | 13 | 81.3 | 5-16 | 12 | 75.0 |
| 4 | 16 | 6-9, 11-12, 14-16 | 9 | 56.2 | 9, 11, 13-16 | 6 | 37.5 |
| 5 | 25 | 1-17, 19-20, 22-25 | 23 | 92.0 | 1-2, 4-5, 7, 10, 13, 16, 24-25 | 10 | 40.0 |
| 6 | 21 | 1-2, 6, 8-9, 11-14, 19 | 10 | 47.6 | 1, 6, 11-12, 17-19 | 7 | 33.3 |
| Total | 113 | – | 84 | 74.3% | – | 46 | 40.7% |
II TIMOTHY
| Chapter | No. of verses | MS. 25399 (Interleaved Collation) | MS. 25400 (Supplemental Collation) | ||||
| Missing Verses | Number of missing verses | Percentage of missing verses | Missing Verses | Number of missing verses | Percentage of missing verses | ||
| 1 | 18 | 1-2, 4-9, 11-15 | 14 | 77.8 | 1-6, 9-13, 17 | 12 | 66.7 |
| 2 | 26 | 1-4, 6-10, 12-14, 16-19, 22-26 | 21 | 80.8 | 3, 6-10, 18-19, 21, 25-26 | 13 | 50.0 |
| 3 | 17 | 1-5, 7-17 | 16 | 94.1 | 10-13 | 4 | 23.5 |
| 4 | 22 | 1-6, 9-22 | 20 | 90.9 | 1-2, 5, 9, 12, 14-22 | 14 | 63.6 |
| Total | 83 | – | 71 | 85.5% | – | 43 | 51.8% |
TITUS
| Chapter | No. of verses | MS. 25399 (Interleaved Collation) | MS. 25400 (Supplemental Collation) | ||||
| MS. 25399 (Interleaved Collation) Missing Verses | Number of missing verses | Percentage of missing verses | MS. 25400 (Supplemental Collation) | Number of missing verses | Percentage of missing verses | ||
| 1 | 16 | 1-8, (11?), 12-16 | 14 | 87.5 | 1-5, 8-9, 11, 14 | 9 | 56.2 |
| 2 | 15 | 1-13, 15 | 14 | 93.3 | 1-2, 6-10, 14-15 | 9 | 60.0 |
| 3 | 15 | 2-8, 12-15 | 11 | 73.3 | 6-8, 12-15 | 7 | 46.7 |
| Total | 46 | – | 39 | 84.8% | – | 25 | 54.3% |
PHILEMON
| Chapter | No. of verses | MS. 25399 (Interleaved Collation) | ||
| Missing verses | Number of missing verses | Percentage of missing verses | ||
| 1 | 25 | 1-25 | 25 | 100 |
| Total | 25 | – | 25 | 100% |
HEBREWS
| Chapter | No. of verses | MS. 25399 (Interleaved Collation) | MS. 25409 (Loose Leaf Collation) | ||||
| Missing Verses | Number of missing verses | Percentage of missing verses | Missing Verses | Number of missing verses | Percentage of missing verses | ||
| 1 | 14 | 1-2, 5-8, 10-13 | 10 | 71.4 | 2, 6, 10-12, 14 | 6 | 42.9 |
| 2 | 18 | 1-3, 5-14, 16-18 | 16 | 88.9 | 1-10, 12-18 | 17 | 94.4 |
| 3 | 19 | 3-13, 15-19 | 16 | 84.2 | 3-4, 6-17 | 14 | 73.7 |
| 4 | 16 | 1-13, 15-16 | 15 | 93.8 | 1-13, 15-16 | 15 | 93.8 |
| 5 | 14 | 1-13 | 14 | 100 | 1-11 | 11 | 78.6 |
| 6 | 20 | 2-6, 9-20 | 17 | 85.0 | 2-3, 9-10, 12-19 | 12 | 60.0 |
| 7 | 28 | 1-28 | 28 | 100 | 3-28 | 26 | 92.9 |
| 8 | 13 | 1-4, 6-13 | 12 | 92.3 | 1-13 | 13 | 100 |
| 9 | 28 | 1-28 | 28 | 100 | 1-28 | 28 | 100 |
| 10 | 39 | 1-24, (25?), 26-28, 30-33, 35-37, 39 | 36 | 92.3 | 1-21, 24-25, 28-31 | 27 | 69.2 |
| 11 | 40 | 1-30, 32-36, 39-40 | 37 | 92.5 | 1-2, 5-24, 28-31, 33-35 | 29 | 72.5 |
| 12 | 29 | 1-5, 7-21, 24-28 | 25 | 86.2 | 3-4, 7-13, 17-20, 25-29 | 18 | 62.1 |
| 13 | 25 | 1-14, 16-25 | 24 | 96.0 | 1-3, 6-11, 13-25 | 22 | 88.0 |
| Total | 303 | – | 278 | 91.7% | – | 238 | 78.5% |
JAMES
| Chapter | No. of verses | MS. 25399 (Interleaved Collation) | MS. 25409 (Loose Leaf Collation) | ||||
| Missing Verses | Number of missing verses | Percentage of missing verses | Missing Verses | Number of missing verses | Percentage of missing verses | ||
| 1 | 27 | 1-7, 9-27 | 26 | 96.3 | 1-9, 11-12, 14-27 | 25 | 92.6 |
| 2 | 26 | 1-26 | 26 | 100 | 1-7, 9-22, 24-26 | 24 | 92.3 |
| 3 | 18 | 1-18 | 18 | 100 | 1-18 | 18 | 100 |
| 4 | 17 | 1-5, 8-17 | 15 | 88.2 | 1-5, 7-17 | 16 | 94.1 |
| 5 | 20 | 1-19 | 19 | 95.0 | 1-11, 13-19 | 18 | 90.0 |
| Total | 108 | – | 104 | 96.3% | – | 101 | 93.5% |
I PETER
| Chapter | No. of verses | MS. 25399 (Interleaved Collation) | MS. 25409 (Loose Leaf Collation) | ||||
| Missing Verses | Number of missing verses | Percentage of missing verses | Missing Verses | Number of missing verses | Percentage of missing verses | ||
| 1 | 25 | 1-7, 9-12, 14-20, 22-25 | 22 | 88.0 | 2-5, 10-11, 20, 23 | 8 | 32.0 |
| 2 | 25 | 1, 3-4, 6-8, 10-11, 13-20, (21?), 23, 25 | 19 | 76.0 | 4-6, 14, 17, 19, 25 | 7 | 28.0 |
| 3 | 22 | 1-8, 10-14, 16-18, 20-22 | 19 | 86.4 | 5-7, 10-12, 19, 22 | 8 | 36.4 |
| 4 | 19 | 1-6, 9-12, 14-19 | 16 | 84.2 | 1-2, 4-5, 9-11, 17-19 | 10 | 52.6 |
| 5 | 14 | 1-4, 7-14 | 12 | 85.7 | 1-4, 7, 9-14 | 11 | 78.6 |
| Total | 105 | – | 88 | 83.8% | – | 44 | 42.0% |
II PETER
| Chapter | No. of verses | MS. 25399 (Interleaved Collation) | MS. 25409 (Loose Leaf Collation) | ||||
| Missing Verses | Number of missing verses | Percentage of missing verses | Missing Verses | Number of missing verses | Percentage of missing verses | ||
| 1 | 21 | 1-18, 20-21 | 20 | 95.2 | 1-21 | 21 | 100 |
| 2 | 22 | 1, 3-22 | 21 | 95.5 | 1, 3-5, 7-22 | 20 | 90.9 |
| 3 | 18 | 1-18 | 18 | 100 | 1-18 | 18 | 100 |
| Total | 61 | – | 59 | 96.7% | – | 59 | 96.7% |
I JOHN
| Chapter | No. of verses | MS. 25399 (Interleaved Collation) | MS. 25409 (Loose Leaf Collation) | ||||
| Missing Verses | Number of missing verses | Percentage of missing verses | Missing Verses | Number of missing verses | Percentage of missing verses | ||
| 1 | 10 | 2-4, 6-10 | 8 | 80.0 | 2-4 | 3 | 30.0 |
| 2 | 29 | 1, 3-7, 9-17, 19-29 | 26 | 89.7 | 7-8, 10, 12-14, 20-21, 24-29 | 14 | 48.3 |
| 3 | 24 | 1, 3-15, 17-24 | 22 | 91.7 | 1, 11-14, 18-20, 22-24 | 11 | 45.8 |
| 4 | 21 | 1-2, 4-9, 11-21 | 19 | 90.5 | 1, 5-14, 19, 21 | 13 | 61.9 |
| 5 | 21 | 1-18, 20-21 | 20 | 95.2 | 2, 4, 5, 8-11, 13-15, 18-20 | 13 | 61.9 |
| Total | 105 | – | 95 | 89.4% | – | 54 | 49.6% |
II JOHN
| Chapter | No. of verses | MS. 25399 (Interleaved Collation) | MS. 25409 (Loose Leaf Collation) | ||||
| Missing Verses | Number of missing verses | Percentage of missing verses | Missing Verses | Number of missing verses | Percentage of missing verses | ||
| 1 | 13 | 1-13 | 13 | 100 | 1-6, 8-9, 12-13 | 10 | 77 |
| Total | 13 | – | 13 | 100% | – | 10 | 77% |
III JOHN
| Chapter | No. of verses | MS. 25399 (Interleaved Collation) | MS. 25409 (Loose Leaf Collation) | ||||
| Missing Verses | Number of missing verses | Percentage of missing verses | Missing Verses | Number of missing verses | Percentage of missing verses | ||
| 1 | 14 | 1-14 | 14 | 100 | 14 | 14 | 100 |
| Total | 14 | – | 14 | 100% | – | 14 | 100% |
JUDE
| Chapter | No. of verses | MS. 25399 (Interleaved Collation) | MS. 25409 (Loose Leaf Collation) | ||||
| Missing Verses | Number of missing verses | Percentage of missing verses | Missing Verses | Number of missing verses | Percentage of missing verses | ||
| 1 | 25 | 1-25 | 25 | 100.0 | 1-4, 7, 9-10, 12-13, 15-16, 18-21, 24-25 | 17 | 68.0 |
| Total | 25 | – | 25 | 100% | – | 17 | 68% |
REVELATION
| Chapter | No. of verses | MS. 25399 (Interleaved Collation) | MS. 25409 (Loose Leaf Collation) | ||||
| Missing Verses | Number of missing verses | Percentage of missing verses | Missing Verses | Number of missing verses | Percentage of missing verses | ||
| 1 | 20 | 1-4, 6-20 | 19 | 95.0 | 2-3, 7, 19 | 4 | 20.0 |
| 2 | 29 | 1-9, 11-29 | 28 | 96.6 | 1-3, 8-9, 12, 18-19, 24-26, 29 | 12 | 41.4 |
| 3 | 22 | 1-6, 9-11, 13-22 | 19 | 86.4 | 1, 3, 6, 9, 13-16, 20, 22 | 10 | 45.5 |
| 4 | 11 | 1-11 | 11 | 100 | 1-3, 5-7, 9-11 | 9 | 81.8 |
| 5 | 14 | 6-7, 9-14 | 8 | 57.1 | 11-12, 14 | 3 | 21.4 |
| 6 | 17 | 1-17 | 17 | 100 | 1, 3, 5-7, 12, 15-17 | 9 | 52.9 |
| 7 | 17 | 1-17 | 17 | 100 | 1-3, (4?), 6-8, 11-12 | 9 | 52.9 |
| 8 | 13 | 1-13 | 13 | 100 | 1-13 | 13 | 100 |
| 9 | 21 | 1-21 | 21 | 100 | 1-9, 11-21 | 20 | 95.2 |
| 10 | 11 | 1-2, 4-8, 10-11 | 9 | 81.8 | 2, 4-8, 10-11 | 8 | 72.7 |
| 11 | 19 | 1-19 | 19 | 100 | 1-18 | 18 | 94.7 |
| 12 | 18 | 1-18 | 18 | 100 | 1-3, 5-9, 11-18 | 16 | 88.9 |
| 13 | 18 | 1-18 | 18 | 100 | 1 | 1 | 5.56 |
| 14 | 20 | 1-3, 5-20 | 19 | 95.0 | 3, 5, 8, 12-13, 15-20 | 11 | 55.0 |
| 15 | 8 | 1-8 | 8 | 100 | 2-8 | 7 | 87.5 |
| 16 | 21 | 1-21 | 21 | 100 | 1-14, 16-18, 20-21 | 19 | 90.5 |
| 17 | 18 | 1-18 | 18 | 100 | 5, 7, 9-10, 17-18 | 6 | 33.3 |
| 18 | 24 | 1-24 | 24 | 100 | 1-3, 10-24 | 18 | 75.0 |
| 19 | 21 | 1-21 | 21 | 100 | 1-6, 8-10, 17-21 | 14 | 66.7 |
| 20 | 15 | 1-15 | 15 | 100 | 1, 5, 7-9, 11 | 6 | 40.0 |
| 21 | 27 | 1-11, 13-27 | 26 | 96.3 | 13-18, 20, 24, 26 | 9 | 33.3 |
| 22 | 21 | 1-10, 12-14, 16-21 | 19 | 90.5 | 1-4, 6-7, 16-17 | 8 | 38.1 |
| Total | 405 | – | 388 | 95.8% | – | 230 | 56.8% |
To get a clear idea of the extent of missing verses, we have tabulated [Figure 4(a)] the data as seen in the three collations against the New Testament books and graphically represented them [Figure 4(b)].
| Book | Total Number Of Verses | Interleaved Collation | Supplemental Collation | Loose Leaf Collation | |||
| Number of verses missing | Percentage of verses missing | Number of verses missing | Percentage of verses missing | Number of verses missing | Percentage of verses missing | ||
| Matthew | 1071 | 832 | 77.7% | 454 | 42.4% | 491 | 45.8% |
| Mark | 678 | 666 | 98.2% | 585 | 86.3% | Incomplete | Incomplete |
| Luke | 1151 | 1084 | 94.2% | 490 | 42.6% | – | – |
| John | 879 | 788 | 89.6% | 543 | 61.8% | Incomplete | Incomplete |
| Acts | 1006 | 956 | 95.0% | 703 | 69.9% | – | – |
| Romans | 433 | 340 | 78.5% | 156 | 36.0% | – | – |
| 1 Corinthians | 437 | 328 | 75.1% | 117 | 26.8% | – | – |
| 2 Corinthians | 256 | 204 | 79.7% | 139 | 54.3% | – | – |
| Galatians | 149 | 120 | 80.5% | 54 | 36.2% | – | – |
| Ephesians | 155 | 138 | 89.0% | 42 | 27.1% | – | – |
| Philippians | 104 | 89 | 85.6% | 49 | 47.1% | – | – |
| Colossians | 95 | 75 | 78.9% | 26 | 27.4% | 62 | 65.3% |
| 1 Thessalonians | 89 | 82 | 92.1% | 50 | 56.1% | – | – |
| 2 Thessalonians | 47 | 35 | 74.5% | 22 | 46.8% | – | – |
| 1 Timothy | 113 | 84 | 74.3% | 46 | 40.7% | – | – |
| 2 Timothy | 83 | 71 | 85.5% | 43 | 51.8% | – | – |
| Titus | 46 | 39 | 84.8% | 25 | 54.3% | – | – |
| Philemon | 25 | 25 | 100% | – | – | – | – |
| Hebrews | 303 | 278 | 98.7% | – | – | 238 | 78.5% |
| James | 108 | 104 | 96.3% | – | – | 101 | 93.5% |
| 1 Peter | 105 | 88 | 83.8% | – | – | 44 | 42.0% |
| 2 Peter | 61 | 59 | 96.7% | – | – | 59 | 96.7% |
| 1 John | 105 | 95 | 89.4% | – | – | 54 | 49.6% |
| 2 John | 13 | 13 | 100% | – | – | 10 | 77.0% |
| 3 John | 14 | 14 | 100% | – | – | 14 | 100% |
| Jude | 25 | 25 | 100% | – | – | 17 | 68.0% |
| Revelation | 405 | 388 | 95.8% | – | – | 230 | 56.8% |
| Total | 7956 | 7020 | 88.2% |
(a)
(b)
Figure 4: (a) Tabulation of the missing verses in the Interleaved, Supplemental and Loose Leaf Collations. (b) Bar-graph representation of the missing verses
Even if we admit the best case scenario of the least number of missing verses in each of the books of the New Testament as seen in the three collations, we obtain 4336 verses (~54%) absent in the Patristic citations of the New Testament. This staggering number of missing verses stands in complete opposition to the writings of the missionaries and apologists for the last 165 years, all of which have claimed between six and eleven verses are missing from the New Testament, and that the entire New Testament can be reconstructed from the citations of the early Church Fathers from the first three centuries.
About one hundred years ago a Committee of the Oxford Society of Historical Theology published a volume whose aim was to establish which documents of the protestant New Testament were known and cited/alluded by the Apostolic Fathers, as found in the writings of Barnabas, Didache, I Clement, Ignatius, Polycarp, Hermas and II Clement.[107]
After a close examination of these writings, scholars of the committee assigned a grade ranging from âAâ to âDâ depending on the strength of the citation/allusion with the corresponding document from the New Testament.[108] Out of 216 possible intersections (New Testament verses circa 7,947), 61% had no evidence, 20% were rated âDâ, 10% âCâ, 7% âBâ and 3% âAâ.[109]
The number of cases where the Apostolic Fathers can be said with certainty to have quoted directly from the text of the New Testament or even made an allusion was significantly less than what was originally thought. Remarkably, the findings of the committee were largely ignored; Petersen observes,
The answers to this question were first set out in the 1905 volume, but have been largely ignored because of their devastating effect on dearly held myths about the genesis of the New Testament.[110]
One hundred years on, an ‘Oxford Committee’ has convened once again to contemplate the questions afresh, with the express purpose to update, develop and widen the scope of the issues originally considered by the old committee.[111] The original results have been largely validated; however, different scholars using different methodologies, working in different paradigms and with different source materials will produce different results as both Oxford publications prove.
If this is the case for modern examinations with all the latest advancements and developments, what can we say of one man (to say nothing of Dalrymple) working in the late eighteenth century. Dalrymple’s reconstructive methodology is presently unknown to us and there are an innumerable number of questions that one should wish to ask of such a huge enterprise. Was an allusion or the most distant memory considered as constituting a citation? Did he consider the problems in establishing the transmission of the early church Fathers writings?
What concordances did he use or have access to?[112] How accurate are his results? Did he receive any assistance? In any case it is not our intention to provide a complete survey of these complex issues,[113] which is beyond the scope of this article, but merely to bring to the attention of the reader that understanding the methodology employed by Dalrymple is critical to interpreting his results. This becomes important when one realises that one of the overriding principles of Patristic citations, which has been reemphasised by Robert Grant is,
Patristic citations are not citations unless they have been adequately analyzed.[114]
From 1825 to 1831, the Rev. Edward Burton, Regius Professor of Divinity at the University of Oxford and canon of Christ-Church, delivered a series of important sermons whose purpose was to expound the salient points of Christianity and prove that it was a religion based on sound evidences, superior to all others. He preached two sermons in 1825 entitled âEvidences of Christianityâ.
In the second sermon, Burton appeals to the numerous quotations of the early Fathers as “proof of the genuineness of the New Testament”. Comparing the material available to what editors of other ancient writers such as Tacitus and Homer possessed, he suggested that nobody questioned the authenticity of the material in front of them, whilst pointing out that the New Testament “possess more vouchers of this kind than any other ancient work whatsoever”. Burton goes on to describe an experiment of his own he conducted in this regard:
And if we could suppose all the copies of the New Testament by some sudden catastrophe to be destroyed, I have little doubt that nearly the whole of it might be recovered by gathering together these numerous quotations; and I say this with more confidence, because, upon referring to two only of the fathers, Tertullian and Origen, who lived in the former part of the third century, and taking as a specimen the two first chapters of St. John’s Gospel, I find that, with the exception of eleven verses, the whole of them is to be found in those two authors only.
It may be remarked, also, that these early quotations by the fathers are more valuable, because they are much more ancient, than the readings of any existing manuscript. The oldest manuscript, as observed above, cannot have an earlier date assigned to it than the fourth century; but the fathers, who quoted passages from the New Testament, lived in the third and second centuries, and some of them even in the first. Nor is this the only evidence which we can draw from the writings of the fathers.
They prove, not only that the books of the New Testament which we read and acknowledge now, were read and acknowledged by the Christians of those days, but that the Jews and Gentiles, the enemies of the Gospel, knew that these documents were in existence, but they could not â they dared not â pretend to say they were spurious, or not written by the persons whose names they bore.
Whoever reds the disputation which Justin Martyr held with Trypho the Jew, or the work which Origen wrote against Celsus the philosopher, will see at once that these enemies of our faith were well acquainted with its leading tenets, that they drew their information from the Gospels and Epistles, and carried on their attacks upon the supposition that the matter contained in them was strictly true.[115]
One cannot help but notice the striking parallels between this story and Dalrymple’s anecdote:
- All the copies of the New Testament being destroyed,
- the reconstruction of the New Testament from quotations of early church Fathers,
- the eleven verses,
- the importance of the quotations of the Fathers, and
- enemies of the Gospel.
Consider that Campbell was recalling the anecdote of Dalrymple based on a fifty year old memory which he admits was not perfect. As we have already mentioned, we know he put this particular memory into print format after Walter Buchanan had died in 1832 and most probably just before he died himself in 1840. By that time Burton had already preached his sermon in 1825 and it had been put into print and subsequently published in 1832. Could Campbell have read this influential sermon and conflated this account with information received from Walter Buchanan?
Campbell was emphatically a fund of anecdote according to his biographer and close friend; any piece of information bearing on the integrity and authenticity of the New Testament would have been supremely important to him and he would have made every effort to gather such information.[116]
Campbell became acutely sick towards the end of his life â the same time he comprised a written record of his life. Could he have had problems with his memory or difficulty in accurately documenting events, especially events as far as 50 years ago?
Although the parallels adduced above may suggest a common source, one would suggest it is rather unlikely, but not beyond the realms of possibility, he would have made such an egregious error in relating a small, but very important piece of information â the effects of which are still felt within the Christian community today and will remain so for a long time to come.
5. Conclusions
Admitting the best case scenario, more than 50% of the New Testament is missing according to the manuscript evidence. This hardly equates with eleven missing verses (~0.1%) as is frequently propagated in the missionary and apologetical literature. We have also observed that the alleged time frame for the completion of this work â set at two months in the literature â is also untrue. According to his own pen, Dalrymple was working on and off on this huge project for a period of at least four years.
This leads us to one very important question. Who is responsible for fabricating the key parts of this anecdote? One is loathe to cast aspersion on the personal character of another, especially when that person is no longer able to voice their response; nevertheless, on the basis of the evidence presently available, suspicion must fall upon Campbell.
We should point out that this article does not aim to show who is ultimately responsible for the precise verbal form of the anecdote as it was originally published, rather it is to show that the alleged results contained therein are unsupported and untrue when examined alongside Dalrympleâs own manuscripts.
Although a judicious and careful scholar whose multidisciplinary knowledge can hardly be denied, Dalrymple barely left anything in manuscript format fit for publication. In preparing the very work now under discussion, friends and colleagues who saw his interleaved collation of early Church Father citations did not think them suitable for publication; they even doubted whether the work was intended for any other use apart from his own.
Yet the missionaries and apologists have not sought to establish whether Dalrymple’s work was intended for the usage of anyone other than himself. Dalrymple called on a single person, Walter Buchanan, and relayed his results to him only; there is no evidence he reconvened those present at the literary party, neither did he present his results to the scholarly community and release his thesis for examination.
All the indications are that his work was meant for private edification. Little could Dalrymple have known that these few morsels of information which have been transmitted to us would become one of the primary evidences for the textual reliability of the New Testament among certain sections of Christian community, starting from his time and continuing over two hundred years later.
Lest one conclude that no-one had noticed the peculiarity of the statement attributed to Dalrymple. A small posthumous biography of Dalrymple first prefixed to the second edition of his book An Inquiry Into The Secondary Causes Which Mr Gibbon Has Assigned For The Rapid Growth Of Christianity made clear reference to his work verifying the New Testament canon, confirming it had been viewed by others who concluded it was not suitable for publication.
Further still, writing a review of Philipsâ book in the same year as it was published, The Eclectic Review appended a subtle disclaimer to this anecdote â âDalrympleâsâ statement was âcuriousâ, the accuracy of which the reviewer recommended should be tested.
For a period of more than 165 years missionary and apologetical publications, whether they are in the form of books, articles, audio/video cassettes, radio programs, TV shows, internet, etc., have all continued to selectively repeat in full or in part the anecdote attributed to Dalrymple, highlighting only those aspects of the anecdote which served the purposes of spreading the good news. None of the authors, from the past or present, have attempted to study the original documents in order to verify those claims which we now know to be false.
Josh McDowell hailed this piece of information as new evidence that demands a verdict. In reality it is a two hundred year old anecdote based on a third hand account, whose recollection (transmission) is questionable, and whose results have been grossly exaggerated and fabricated. Perhaps it is best to finish with some words from Dalrymple himself. In a short unpublished tract entitled Habits (advice on how children should be taught) under subsection Avoidances Or Bad Habits, he advised:
Never to allow ones self to be very communicative in narrating anecdotes least one arrive at the dreadful badness of revealing perhaps the secrets of another…[117]
And Allah knows best!
Atheism
Paul the False Apostle of Satan
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Lady Antonia Dalrymple for permission to use the images and Mr. Ian Riches, archivist for the National Trust for Scotland; the Trustees of the National Library of Scotland for providing the digital images of the manuscripts and Mrs. Sheila Mackenzie, Senior Curator, Manuscripts Division, National Library of Scotland; Dr. Iain G. Brown, Principal Curator, Manuscripts Division, National Library of Scotland, for his response to a request for advice in tracking down the relevant catalogue; Dr. Brian Hillyard, Rare Books Collections Manager, National Library of Scotland, for access to his latest research on Newhailes Library. None of the aforementioned persons or organisations are associated with Islam Compass
References & Notes
[1] For example see F. Harber, Reasons For Believing: A Seeker’s Guide To Christianity, 1998, New Leaf Press, p. 67; J. F. Williams, “Are The Biblical Documents Reliable?” in J. F. Williams (Ed.), Evidence, Answers, And Christian Faith: Probing The Headlines That Impact Your Family, 2002, Kregel Publications: Grand Rapids (MI), p. 89; G. Johnson & M. Ross, Geek-Proof Your Faith:
How To Handle 12 Tough Issues Without Looking Stupid, 1995, Zondervan Publishing House: Grand Rapids (MI), p. 46; J. R. Rice, Our God-Breathed Book The Bible: The Verbally Inspired, Eternal, Inerrant Word Of God, 1969, Sword Of The Lord Publishers, p. 364; N. L. Geisler, “Tough Questions About The Bible, False Prophets, And The Holy Books Of Other Religions” in R. K. Zacharias & N. L. Geisler (Eds.), Who Made God?
And Answers To Over 100 Other Tough Questions Of Faith, 2003, Zondervan: Grand Rapids (MI), p. 146; D. Story, Defending Your Faith: Reliable Answers For A New Generation Of Seekers And Skeptics, 1997, Kregel Publications: Grand Rapids (MI), pp. 38â39; B. Howse, One Nation Under Man?
The Worldview War Between Christians And The Secular Left, 2005, Broadman & Holman Publishers, Nashville: Tennessee, p. 194; J. Poling, How Reliable Is The Bible?, 2003, Zondervan: Grand Rapids (MI), p. 54; N. L. Geisler & H. W. House, The Battle For God: Responding To The Challenge of Neotheism, 2001, Kregel Publications:
Grand Rapids (MI), p. 90; J. P. Moreland, Scaling The Secular City: A Defense Of Christianity, 1988, Second Printing, Baker Book House: Grand Rapids (MI), p. 136; B. Wilson (Compiler), A Ready Defense: The Best Of Josh McDowell, 1990, Here’s Life Publishers, Inc.: San Bernardino, pp. 47-48; N. L. Geisler & W. E. Nix, A General Introduction To The Bible, 1986, Revised And Expanded, Moody Press: Chicago, p. 430; N. L. Geisler & R. M. Brooks, When Skeptics Ask, 2001, Baker Books: Grand Rapids (MI), p. 160; L. Strobel,
The Case For Christ: A Journalist’s Personal Investigation Of The Evidence For Jesus, 1998, Zondervan Publishing House: Grand Rapids (MI), p. 59; J. Ankerberg & J. Weldon, Knowing The Truth About The Reliability Of The Bible, 1997, Harvest House Publishers: Eugene (OR), p. 14; J. McDowell, Evidence That Demands A Verdict: Historical Evidences For The Christian Faith, 1972, Volume I, Hereâs Life Publishers (CA), p. 51; J. McDowell,
The New Evidence That Demands A Verdict: Evidence I & II Fully Updated In One Volume To Answer Questions Challenging Christians In The 21st Century, 1999, Thomas Nelson Publishers: Nashville, pp. 42-45; R. Rhodes, Reasoning From The Scriptures With Muslims, 2002, Harvest House Publishers: Eugene (OR), pp. 205-206; E. F. Caner & E. M. Caner, More Than A Prophet: An Insider’s Response To Muslim Beliefs About Jesus & Christianity, 2003, Kregel Publications: Grand Rapids (MI), p. 78; N. L. Geisler & F. Turek, I Donât Have Enough Faith To Be An Atheist, 2004, Crossway Books:
Wheaton (IL), p. 228 & p. 248; N. L. Geisler & W. E. Nix, From God To Us: How We Got Our Bible, 1974, The Moody Bible Institute Of Chicago, pp. 157-158; C. V. Meister, Building Belief: Constructing Faith From The Ground Up, 2006, Baker Books, Grand Rapids (MI), p. 147; P. B. Ewen, Faith On Trial: An Attorney Analyzes The Evidence For The Death And Resurrection Of Jesus, 1999, Broadman & Holman Publishers: Nashville (TN), p. 31; S. Campbell, The Worldâs Easiest Guide To Understanding The Bible, 2002, Northfield Publishing, p. 45.
P. J. Williams, Warden and Director of Research, Tyndale House, University of Cambridge, wondered whether the above stated argument was a common one. He said,
To my knowledge the second argument [that most of the NT text could be reconstructed by quotations from early church Fathers] is not one that is commonly used, …
[2] The precise number of verses and limiting dates are not present. For example see B. M. Metzger, The Text Of The New Testament: Its Transmission Corruption, And Restoration, 1992, Third Enlarged Edition, Oxford University Press: Oxford & New York, p. 86; B. M. Metzger & B. D. Ehrman, The Text Of The New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, And Restoration, 2005, Fourth Edition, Oxford University Press, Inc.:
New York, p. 126; J. H. Greenlee, Introduction To New Testament Textual Criticism, 1964, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company: Grand Rapids (MI); D. A. Black, New Testament Textual Criticism: A Concise Guide, 1994, Baker Academic: Grand Rapids (MI), p. 24.
This claim is conspicuous in its absence from other well-known books. For example see, K. Elliott & I. Moir, Manuscripts And The Text Of The New Testament: An Introduction For English Readers, 1995, T & T Clark, Edinburgh (Scotland). This book was originally written by Ian Moir but he died before it could get published. Keith Elliott saw it through publication; J. Finegan, Encountering New Testament Manuscripts:
A Working Introduction To Textual Criticism, 1974, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.: Grand Rapids (MI); L. Vaganay & C-B Amphoux (Trans. J. Heimerdinger),
An Introduction To New Testament Textual Criticism, 1991, Second Edition Revised And Updated, Cambridge University Press; K. Aland & B. Aland (Trans. E. F. Rhodes), The Text Of The New Testament: An Introduction To The Critical Editions And To The Theory And Practice Of Modern Textual Criticism, 1995 (2nd Revised Edition), William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company: Grand Rapids (MI); D. C. Parker, The Living Text Of The Gospels, 1997, Cambridge University Press: Cambridge (UK).
[3] R. Jenkin, The Reasonableness And Certainty Of The Christian Religion, 1698, Peter Buck: London; R. Jenkin, The Reasonableness And Certainty Of The Christian Religion, 1700, Second Edition (Enlarged), P. B. & R. Wellington: London.
[4] R. Jenkin, The Reasonableness And Certainty Of The Christian Religion: Containing Discourses Upon Such Subjects As Are Thought Most Liable To Objections, 1708, Second Edition (Corrected, And Very Much Enlarged), Volume II, W. B. for Richard Sare: London, p. 131. (N. B.: The first volume printed by the same publisher and in the same year says that it is the “Third Edition, Correct, And Very Much Enlarged”.)
[5] ibid., pp. 131-132.
[6] ibid., p. 134. Jenkin additionally states 1 John 5:7 to be authentic.
[7] P. La Touch, Gent., A Preservative Against Atheism And Infidelity; Proving The Fundamental Principles Of Natural Religion, And The Necessity And Certainty Of Reveal’d Religion. With An Introduction, Shewing The Causes, Pernicious Effects, And Cure Of Infidelity, 1706, Tho. Osborne & Sam. Butler: London, pp. 198â205.
[8] ibid., p. 205.
[9] J-P. Minge (Ed.), PatrologiÊ Cursus Completus Sive Bibliotheca Universalis, Integra, Uniformis, Commoda, Oeconomica, Omnium SS. Patrium, Doctorum Scriptorumque Ecclesasticorum Qui Ab Ãvo Apostolico Ad Innocentiii III Tempora Floruerunt; Recusio Chronologica Omnium QuÊ Exstitere Monumentorum CatholicÊ Traditionis Per Duodecim Priora EcclesiÊ SÊcula,âŠ, 1850, Series Secunda, PatrologiÊ Tomus LXXXIII (Sancti Isidori Hispalensis Tomi Quintus, Sextus Et Septimus), Venit Apud Editorem, In Via Dicta D’Amboise, Prope Portam Vulgo D’Enfer Nominatam, Seu Petit-Montrouge: Parisiis, column 1053, paragraph 113. The text in Latin reads:
Anastasius regnat annis XXVII. Iste, Acephalorum errorem vindicans, episcopos Chalcedonensis Synodi, defensores exsilio damnat, Evangelia quoque, tanquam ab idiotis evangelistis composite, reprehendit atque emendat.
An English translation is available here.
[10] B. Ibbot, D. D. (Ed.), A Course Of Sermons Preach’d For The Lecture Founded By The Honourable Robert Boyle Esq; At The Church Of St. Mary Le Bow, In The Years 1713, And 1714. Wherein The True Notion Of The Exercise Of Private Judgment, Or Free-Thinking, In Matters Of Religion, Is Stated; The Objections Against It, Answered; And The Modern Way Of Free-Thinking,
As Treated Of In A Late Discourse In That Subject, Is Taken Into Consideration, 1727, John Wyat: London, p. 110; Also see G. Burnet (Ed.), A Defence Of Natural And Revealed Religion: Being An Abridgment Of The Sermons Preached At The Lecture Founded By The Honble Robert Boyle, Esq, 1737, Volume III, Arthur Bettesworth & Charles Hitch: London, p. 25.
[11] E. Harwood, A New Introduction To The Study And Knowledge Of The New Testament, 1767, T. Becket & P. A. De Hondt, J. Johnson & B. Davenport: London, p. 123. N.B. For some unknown reason Harwood chooses not to mention the Book of Revelation here. Harwood draws his approach from Benson’s work which was a response to some penetrating questions regarding the authenticity of the Christian religion. See G. Benson, D. D., The Reasonablenesse Of The Christian Religion, As Delivered In The Scriptures. In Four Parts, 1759, The Third Edition, Volume 1, J. Waugh, Lombard-Street & W. Fenner, Pater-Noster-Row: London, see especially pp. 119-130.
[12] For example see, Revd. D. Simpson, M. A., Sacred Literature: Shewing The Holy Scriptures To Be Superior To The Most Celebrated Writings Of Antiquity, By The Testimony Of Above, Five Hundred Witnesses, And Also By A Comparison Of Their Several Kinds Of Composition. In Twelve Books:
To Which Are Added, Epistles And Extracts From Some Of The Most Early Christian Fathers. The Whole Intended Not Only To Recommend The Bible As Superior To All Other Books, But As A Moral And Theological Repository For Christians Of Every Rank And Degree, 1788, Volume I, M. Swinney: Birmingham; Dilly, Buckland, Matthews, Scollick, Trapp: London ;
Spence: York ; Bulgin: Bristol ; Clarke: Manchester ; Bayley: Macclesfield; and all other booksellers in town and country, p. 269; Also see a textbook authored by Thomas Hartwell Horne of St John’s College, Cambridge, T. H. Horne, M. A., An Introduction To The Critical Study And Knowledge Of The Holy Scriptures, 1825, Fourth Corrected Edition, E. Littell: Philadelphia, pp. 119-120. The author in the preface notes that his volume has been well-received in theological seminaries and universities in England and North America.
[13] L. O. Bristol, “New Testament Textual Criticism In The Eighteenth Century”, Journal Of Biblical Literature, 1950, Volume 69, Number 2, pp. 101â112.
[14] R. Philip, The Life, Times, And Missionary Enterprises, Of The Rev. John Campbell, 1841, John Snow, Paternoster Row: London, pp. 214â216.
[15] “Anecdote” in J. A. Simpson & E. S. C. Weiner (Eds.), The Oxford English Dictionary, 1989, Second Edition, Volume I: AâBazouki, Oxford University Press: Oxford (UK), p. 454. Readers are advised to consult the above reference for more detailed information with respect to etymology and examples of usage.
[16] R. Philip, The Life, Times, And Missionary Enterprises, Of The Rev. John Campbell, 1841, op. cit., p. 225.
[17] The Eclectic Review, 1841, Volume X (New Series), July-December, p. 337. This periodical ran from the year 1805 to 1868.
[18] The Editor, “Biographical Sketch. The Rev. John Campbell, The African Traveller (Part III)”, The Scottish Christian Herald, 1841, Volume III (Second Series), No. 152, pp. 755-756; H. Newcomb, Christianity Demonstrated, In Four Distinct And Independent Series Of Proofs. With An Explanation Of The Types And Prophecies Concerning The Messiah, 1848, Gould, Kendall & Lincoln: Boston, pp. 57â58; A. Haldane, Memoirs Of The Lives Of Robert Haldane Of Airthrey,
And Of His Brother, James Alexander Haldane, 1852, Hamilton, Adams, And Co., Paternoster-Row: London & W. Whyte And Co.: Edinburgh, pp. 535â536; Rev. R. Whytehead, M.A., The Warrant Of Faith: Or, A Handbook To The Canon And Inspiration Of The Scriptures, 1854, Samuel Bagster and Sons: London, pp. 432â433.
[19] A. Lawrie, The History Of Free Masonry, Drawn From Authentic Sources Of Information; With An Account Of The Grand Lodge Of Scotland, From Its Institution In 1736, To The Present Time, Compiled From The Records; And Appendix Of Original Papers, 1804, Alex. Lawrie and Co.: Edinburgh, p. 201 & pp. 210-211.
Dalrymple served the maximum term possible – being two years successively – after which he had to relinquish his post. See “Laws And Regulations Of The Grand Lodge Of Scotland”, ibid., p. 306 ( Chapter II.ii ). Although this book is commonly attributed to Laurie as is clear from the dedication, it is in fact the work of Sir David Brewster (d. 1868).
The copy of this book housed at The National Library of Scotland contains a typewritten note, copied from a manuscript note in the Edinburgh University Library copy (apparently not available now) written by Dr. David Irvine, Librarian of the Advocates Library, which clearly identifies Brewster as the author of this title. A revised edition of this book was also published, see W. A. Laurie, The History Of Free Masonry And The Grand Lodge Of Scotland:
With Chapters On The Knight Templars, Knights Of St John, Mark Masonry, And R. A. Degree; To Which Is Added An Appendix Of Valuable Papers, 1859, R. C. Lepage & Co.: Calcutta, R. Spencer: London, Seaton and Mackenzie: Edinburgh, p. 122 & pp. 126-127. For a definition of Grand-Master see “Grand Master” in A. G. Mackey, M. D. (Rev. D. Campbell),
A Lexicon Of Freemasonry; Containing A Definition Of All Its Communicable Terms, Notices Of Its History, Traditions, And Antiquities, And An Account Of All The Rites And Mysteries Of The Ancient World, 1860, First English Edition, Richard Griffin And Company: London & Glasgow, p. 128.
[20] For a succinct account of the controversy surrounding the publication of Gibbons book see M. C. Noonkester, “Gibbon And The Clergy: Private Virtues, Public Vices”, Harvard Theological Review, 1990, Volume 83, Number 4, pp. 399-414. Gibbon was careful to show respect to those whose social or professional status demanded deference (particularly Sir David Dalrymple), even although many of their objections were largely the same as those critics whom Gibbon treated with contempt. See ibid. pp. 403-404.
[21] “Dalrymple, Sir David” in L. Stephen & S. Lee (Eds.), Dictionary Of National Biography, 1908, Volume V (CraikâDrake), Smith, Elder, & Co.: London, pp. 403â406.
[22] A. Haldane, Memoirs Of The Lives Of Robert Haldane Of Airthrey, And Of His Brother, James Alexander Haldane, 1852, op. cit., pp. 122-150.
[23] H. Scott, D. D., Fasti EcclesiÊ ScoticanÊ: The Succession Of Ministers In The Church Of Scotland From The Reformation, 1915, Volume 1 (New Edition), Synod Of Lothian And Tweeddale, Oliver & Boyd: Edinburgh, p. 29.
[24] R. Philip, The Life, Times, And Missionary Enterprises, Of The Rev. John Campbell, 1841, op. cit., p. 585.
[25] D. D. McElroy, Scotland’s Age Of Improvement: A Survey Of Eighteenth-Century Literary Clubs And Societies, 1969, Washington State University Press, pp. 157-160. For further information regarding Scotland ‘s literary clubs and societies from 1700-1800 one should consult McElroy’s two volume typescript A Century Of Scottish Clubs: 1700-1800.
[26] Shortly after the last issue of the Mirror on the 27 th May 1780, all issues of the periodical were collected and republished in three volumes spanning numerous editions. For instance see The Mirror. A Periodical Paper, Published At Edinburgh In The Years 1779 And 1780, 1781, Three Volumes, W. Creech: Edinburgh & A Strahan, and T. Cadell: London.
[27] Shortly after the last issue of the Lounger on the 6th January 1787, all issues of the periodical were collected and republished in three volumes spanning numerous editions. For instance see The Lounger. A Periodical Paper, Published At Edinburgh In The Years 1785 And 1786, 1787, Third Edition, Three Volumes, A Strahan, and T. Cadell: London & William Creech: Edinburgh.
[28] H. W. Thompson (Ed.), The Anecdotes And Egotisms Of Henry Mackenzie, 1745-1831, 1927, Oxford University Press: London, p. 152.
[29] D. D. McElroy, Scotland’s Age Of Improvement: A Survey Of Eighteenth-Century Literary Clubs And Societies, 1969, op. cit., p. 159. Dalrymple was one of the chief contributors (anonymously) to the Mirror. See H. W. Thompson, A Scottish Man Of Feeling: Some Account Of Henry Mackenzie, Esq. Of Edinburgh And Of The Golden Age of Burns and Scott, 1931, Oxford University Press: London & New York , p. 189.
[30] “Letter From A Member Of The Mirror-Club, Relating Some Particulars Of That Society” in Authors Of The Mirror (Eds.), The Lounger. A Periodical Paper, Published At Edinburgh In The Years 1785 And 1786, 1787, Third Edition, Volume 1, op. cit., pp. 276-285.
[31] For some interesting snippets of information in this regard see “Lord Hailes, Of The Court Of Session” in J. Maidment (Ed.), Kay’s Edinburgh Portraits: A Series Of Anecdotal Biographies Chiefly Of Scotchmen, 1885, Popular Letterpress Edition, Volume II, Hamilton, Adams, & Co.: London & Thomas D. Morison: Glasgow, pp. 14-16. Here Dalrymple is described as differing from the majority of his peers in his views on religion, i.e. he described himself as a believing Christian.
He was a firm opponent of âFrench philosophyâ and was âpeculiarly sensitiveâ upon any topic linked with religion. In his position as one of the curators of the Advocatesâ Library, Dalrymple censured David Hume for purchasing without approval some âobjectionableâ French works. Consequently, Hume retired from his position as keeper of the Library. See “Dalrymple, Sir David” in L. Stephen & S. Lee (Eds.), Dictionary Of National Biography, 1908, Volume V (CraikâDrake), op. cit., p. 404. Dalrymple once attempted to dissuade William Smellie, a naturalist and editor of the first edition of EncyclopÊdia Britannica, from translating Buffon’s Natural History, solely due to the fact it contained âatheistical partsâ.
For the full text of Dalrymple’s letter see R. Kerr (Ed.), Memoirs Of The Life, Writings, & Correspondence Of William Smellie, 1811, Volume II, John Anderson: Edinburgh and Longman, Hurst, Rees, Orme, & Brown: London, pp. 159-161. Kerr is scathing of Dalrymple and accuses him of âapproaching bigotryâ in his attempt to deter Smellie.
Although fellow freemasons, it is clear Smellie did not share the same passion for the Christian religion as did Dalrymple, despite the fact he was raised in a strict Scottish Calvinist sect called the Cameronians, see R. Kerr (Ed.), Memoirs Of The Life, Writings, & Correspondence Of William Smellie, 1811, Volume I, John Anderson: Edinburgh and Longman, Hurst, Rees, Orme, & Brown: London, pp. 15-18;
Also see Richard Sher’s new introduction in a facsimile reprint of this work, R. Kerr (Ed.), Memoirs Of The Life, Writings, And Correspondence Of William Smellie, 1996 (facsimile reprint), Volume I, Thoemmes Press: Bristol, pp. viii â ix.
[32] Hillyard neatly summarises Dalrymple’s interest in classical studies in his article, âDalrymple, David, Lord Hailesâ in R. B. Todd (Ed.), The Dictionary Of British Classicists, 2004, Volume 1 (AâF), Thoemmes Continuum: Bristol, pp. 224-226.
[33] The Eclectic Review, 1841, Volume X (New Series), July-December, p. 337.
[34] R. Philip, The Life, Times, And Missionary Enterprises, Of The Rev. John Campbell, 1841, op. cit., pp. 214â216.
[35] The Eclectic Review, 1841, Volume X (New Series), July-December, p. 337.
[36] The Editor, âBiographical Sketch. The Rev. John Campbell, The African Traveller (Part III)â, The Scottish Christian Herald, 1841, Volume III (second series), Number 152, pp. 755-756.
[37] H. Newcomb, Christianity Demonstrated, In Four Distinct And Independent Series Of Proofs. With An Explanation Of The Types And Prophecies Concerning The Messiah, 1848, op. cit., pp. 57â58.
[38] A. Haldane, Memoirs Of The Lives Of Robert Haldane Of Airthrey, And Of His Brother, James Alexander Haldane, 1852, op. cit., pp. 535â536.
[39] Rev. R. Whytehead, M.A., The Warrant Of Faith: Or, A Handbook To The Canon And Inspiration Of The Scriptures, 1854, op. cit., pp. 432â433.
[40] Rev. C. R. Alford, M. A., First Principles Of The Oracles Of God: Vindicated From The Aspersions Of Professor Jowett And Authors Of The Rationalistic School, 1856, Seeley, Jackson & Halliday: London, pp. 20â22.
[41] J. M. Mathews, D. D., The Bible And Men Of Learning; In A Course Of Lectures, 1857, Daniel Fanshaw: New York, pp. 302â303.
[42] C. M. Nairne, M A., Paley’s Evidences Of Christianity, 1859, Robert Carter & Brothers: New York, p. 157.
[43] H. A. Downing, Anecdotes For The Family, Or Lessons Of Truth And Duty For Every-Day Life: A Choice Selection Of Facts, Occurrences, Examples, Testimonies, Incidents, And Providential Events, Of The Deepest Interest And Value, 1862, Case, Lockwood & Co.: Hartford, p. 226.
[44] No author, The Harmony Of The Gospels: In The Words Of The Authorized Version. With An Account Of Ancient Manuscripts And Of The Various Translations Of Holy Scripture, 1863, Seeley, Jackson & Halliday: London, pp. 328â329.
[45] M. Hopkins, D. D., (Ed.), Evidences Of Christianity: Lectures Before The Lowell Institute, January 1844, 1863, T. R. Marvin & Son: Boston, and Sheldon & Company: New York, p. 267.
[46] T. Cooper, The Bridge Of History Over The Gulf Of Time: A Popular View Of The Historical Evidence For The Truth Of Christianity, 1871, Hodder & Stoughton: London, pp. 72â73 & p. 95.
[47] B. A. Hinsdale, A. M., The Genuineness And Authenticity Of The Gospels: An Argument Conducted On Historical And Critical Grounds, 1872, Bosworth, Chase & Hall, Publishers: Cincinnati, p. 41.
[48] J. Kennedy, M. A., D. D., The Gospels: Their Age And Authorship. Traced From The Fourth Century Into The First, 1880, Sunday School Union: London, pp. 182-183.
[49] E. P. Hood, The World Of Moral And Religious Anecdote: Illustrations And Incidents Gathered From The Words, Thoughts, And Deeds In The Lives Of Men, Women, And Books, 1880, Hodder & Stoughton: London, pp. 61-63.
[50] Rev. C. Leach, D. D., Is My Bible True? Where Did We Get It?, 1897, Morgan and Scott: London, p. 35. If one cross checks the apologetical literature and traces back the references (where provided), the mention of this anecdote can almost always be attributed to this title. Hence the popularity of âelevenâ verses and not any of the other number of verses as listed in Table I above.
[51] E. J. Hardy, M. A., Doubt And Faith: Being Donnellan Lectures Delivered In Trinity College, Dublin (1898-9), With Supplemental Chapters, 1899, T. Fisher Unwin: London, pp. 125â126.
[52] G. B. Hancock, Mormonism Exposed: Joseph Smith An Impostor And The Book Of Mormon A Fraud, 1902, A. Doggett, Printer: Marionville, pp. 13â14.
[53] For example see here, here, here, here and here. None, however, can quite match the theatrical flair of the Christian missionary Jay Smith, the European Leadership Forumsâ âexpertâ on Islam, who has recently established a âYoutubeâ evangelical outreach to Muslims. In a video clip titled âIs The Bible Corrupted?â
Smith affirms the best piece of evidence to prove the integrity of the New Testament text is the anecdote of Sir David Dalrymple, where, according to Smith, one can prove the entire text of the twenty seven book New Testament prior to the 4th century, with the exception of âeleven insignificant versesâ.
[54] B. P. Hillyard, âLatest Research On The Newhailes Libraryâ, 1999, 3rd December, Newhailes Study Day, Playfair Library, University of Edinburgh, pp. 1-12 (unpublished lecture). For a full description of the library one is advised to consult this lecture. For a brief summary of Newhailes House see T. Hannan, Famous Scottish Houses: The Lowlands, 1928, A. & C. Black, Ltd.: London, pp. 133-136.
[55] The authors have not been able to find a source for this quotation. Dr. Brian Hillyard, Rare Books Collections Manager, National Library of Scotland, doubts Johnson ever made such a statement. See B. P. Hillyard, âLatest Research On The Newhailes Libraryâ, 1999, 3rd December, op. cit., p . 2.
[56] National Library Of Scotland, Annual Report: 1978-79, 1979, Crown Copyright: Edinburgh, pp. 3-5 & 21 & 55-57 & 77.
[57] J. Cornforth, âNewhailes, East Lothian â Iâ, Country Life, 1996, 21st November, pp. 46-51, please note that the title on the contents page gives Midlothian instead of East Lothian; J. Cornforth, âNewhailes, East Lothian â IIâ, Country Life, 1996, 28 th November, pp. 42-47.
[58] National Library Of Scotland, Annual Report: 1978-79, 1979, op. cit., pp. 4-5. At the moment the National Trust for Scotland are in negotiations with the National Library of Scotland for the return of 400 or so books (personal communication).
[59] P. H. Reid, âThe Decline And Fall Of The British Country House Libraryâ, Libraries & Culture, 2001, Volume 36, Number 2, pp. 345-366. With the exception of a University of St Andrews Ph.D thesis written in the 1950’s, the Newhailes Library has not been studied in depth. See B. P. Hillyard, âLatest Research On The Newhailes Libraryâ, 1999, 3rd December, op. cit., p. 1.
That is not to say the library was inaccessible. It would seem the Dalrymples were favourable to those wishing to utilise their extensive collections of books and manuscripts. For example, when William Knight sought to pen his volume on Hume, he was granted access to the historical manuscripts at Newhailes from which he was able to discover new sources of information. See W. Knight. LL.D., Hume, 1886, William Blackwood and Sons: Edinburgh and London, p. vii; also see E. C. Mossner, The Life Of David Hume, 2001, Oxford University Press, p. xiv.
[60] National Library Of Scotland, Annual Report: 1978-79, 1979, op. cit., p. 4.
[61] D. Dalrymple, An Inquiry Into The Secondary Causes Which Mr Gibbon Has Assigned For The Rapid Growth Of Christianity, 1808, Second Edition, J Ritchie, for A. Johnstone, Grass-Market: Edinburgh, pp. xliii â xliv.
[62] D. Dalrymple, Notebooks Containing Printed Leaves From, And Notes By Lord Hailes On, The Greek New Testament, ca. 1759, Newhailes Papers, National Library Of Scotland, MS. 25396: f. 1v (unpublished manuscript).
[63] This is all the more remarkable when one realises that Dalrymple’s classical studies âoccupied no more than part of his leisure-time pursuits.â See âDalrymple, David, Lord Hailesâ in R. B. Todd (Ed.), The Dictionary Of British Classicists, 2004, Volume 1 (AâF), op. cit., p. 225; B. P. Hillyard, âLatest Research On The Newhailes Libraryâ, 1999, 3rd December, op. cit., pp. 2-3.
[64] Novum Testamentum: Ex Editione Wetsteniana MDCCXI, 1759, Excudebant R. Et A. Foulis AcademiÊ Typographi Symptibus Gulielmi Charnley BibliopolÊ Novocastrensis, Apud Quem Venales Prostant: GlasguÊ (Scotland). As the title informs us, this edition of the Greek New Testament is the 1711 edition produced for H. Wettstein (Ed. Gerhard von Maestricht) which, with the exception of one variation, is a reprint of Fell’s edition of 1675 which can be traced all the way back to Erasmus’ Greek New Testament (i.e., Textus Receptus) of 1516.
For further information and a complete trace see T. H. Darlow, M. A. & H. T. Moule, M. A., Historical Catalogue Of The Printed Editions Of Holy Scripture In The Library Of The British And Foreign Bible Society, 1911, Volume II, Languages Other Than English: Greek to Opa, pp. 573â622.
[65] D. Dalrymple, Notebooks Containing Printed Leaves From, And Notes By Lord Hailes On, The Greek New Testament, ca 1759, op. cit., MS. 25396: f. 1v (unpublished manuscript). Dalrymple lists each resource on its own line. We have maintained the same order but have slightly modified the arrangement by listing them concurrently on the same line.
[66] R. Russel, A. M. (Ed.), SS. Patrum Apostolicorum BarnabÊ, HermÊ, Clementis, Ignatii, Polycarpi, Opera Genuina; Una Cum Ignatii & Polycarpi Martyriis: Versionibus Antiquis Ac Recentioribus, Variantibus Lectionibus, Selectisque Variorum Notis Illustrata. Accesserunt S. Ignatii EpistolÊ, Tum InterpolatÊ, Tum SupposititiÊ, 1746, 2 Volumes, Apud Gulielmum Russel, Sub Horatii Capite, Extra Portum Temple-Bar: Londini. Volume I contains an index of scripture quotations from the Old and New Testaments. See pp. 262â264. In total there are just over 50 citations of the New Testament according to the editor.
[67] ibid.
[68] ibid.
[69] G. Spencerus (Ed.), Origenis Contra Celsum Libri Octo. Ejusdem Philocalia, 1677, Excudebat Joan. Hayes, CeleberrimÊ AcademiÊ Typographus. Impensis Guli. Morden BibliopolÊ: CantabrigiÊ.
[70] J. Fello (Ed.), Sancti CÊcilii Cypriani Opera Recognita & Illustrata Per Joannem Oxoniensem Episcopum. Accedunt Annales Cyprianici, Sive Tredecim Annorum, Quibus S. Cyprianus Inter Christianos Versatus Est, Brevis Historia Chronologice Delineata Per Joannem Cestriensem, 1682, E Theatro Sheldoniano: Oxonii.
[71] Dalrymple does not specifically mention the edition, however, the following items are available in his library: J. A. Grabe (Ed.), Sancti Justini Philosophi Et Martyris Apologia Prima Pro Christianus Ad Antoninum Pium,âŠ, 1700, E Theatro Sheldoniano: OxoniÊ; S. Jebb (Ed.), Sancti Justini Philosophi & Martyris Cum TrÏ phone JudÊo Dialogus,âŠ, 1719, Impensis Gul. & Joh. Innys, Bibliopolarum Londinensium:
Londini; S. Thirlbii (Ed.), Justini Philosophi & Martyris ApologiÊduÊ Et Dialogus Cum Tryphone JudÊo. âŠ, 1722, Impensis Richardi Sare, Juxta Portam Australem Hospitii Greiani, In Vico Dicto Holbourn: Londini. According to the editor there are over 120 citations of the New Testament, mostly from the four Gospels, see pp. 448-449.
[72] Dalrymple does not specifically mention the edition, however, the following items are available in his library: Unknown Editor, Q. Septimii Florentis Tertulliani Opera. Ad Vetustissimorum Exemplarium Fidem Sedulo Emendata, Diligentia Nic. Rigaltii I.C.âŠ, 1675, Apud Petrum le Petit, Edmundum Couterot, et Carolum Angot: LutetiÊ Parisiorum. This is a reprint of the 1664 Rigault edition; Unknown Editor, Q. Septimii Florentis Tertulliani Apologeticus Et Ad Scapulam Liber. Accessit M. Minucii Felicis Octavius, 1686, Ex Officina Joan. Hayes, AlmÊ AcademiÊ Typographi: CantabridgiÊ.
[73] C. M. Pfaffii (Ed.), Sancti Patris IrenÊi Scripta Anecdota, GrÊcÚ & LatinÚ âŠ, 1743, HagÊ Comitum et Francofurti ad Moenum, Sumptibus Societatis: Lugduni Batavorum.
[74] T. Smithi (Ed.), S. Ignatii EpistolÊ GenuinÊ, Juxta Exemplar Medicéum Denuo RecensitÊ, Una Cum Veteri Latina Versione; Annotationibus D. Joannis Pearsoni Nuper Episcopi Cestriensis, Et ThomÊ Smithi S.T.P. IllustratÊ. Accedunt Acta Genuina Martyrii S. Ignatii, Epistola S. Polycarpi Ad Philippenses, Et Smyrnensis EcclesiÊ Epistola De S. Polycarpi Martyrio âŠ, 1709, E Theatro Sheldoniano: Oxonii.
[75] A. Schottus (Ed.), Photii Myriobiblon, Siue, Bibliotheca Librorum Quos Photius Patriarcha Constantinopolitanus Legit & Censuit âŠ, 1612, Oliva Pavli Stephani: GenevÊ.
[76] Dalrymple does not specifically mention the edition, however, the following items are available in his library: Unknown Editor, Luciani Parasitus, Ubi Artem Esse Parasiticam Astruit, 1553, Ex Officina Christiani Wecheli: Parisiis; J. Bourdelotii (Ed.), Luciani Samosatensis Philosophi Opera Omnia QuÊ Extant. Cum Latina Doctiss. Virorum Interpretatione âŠ, 1615, Apud Iulianum Bertault, In Monte D. Hilarii, Ad Insigne Henrici Magni: LutetiÊ Parisiorum.
[77] Dalrymple does not specifically mention the edition, however, the following items are available in his library: R. Russel, A. M. (Ed.), SS. Patrum Apostolicorum BarnabÊ, HermÊ, Clementis, Ignatii, Polycarpi, Opera Genuina; Una Cum Ignatii & Polycarpi Martyriis: Versionibus Antiquis Ac Recentioribus, Variantibus Lectionibus, Selectisque Variorum Notis Illustrata. Accesserunt S. Ignatii EpistolÊ, Tum InterpolatÊ, Tum SupposititiÊ., 1746, op. cit. ; L. T. Ittigio (Ed.), Bibliotheca Patrum Apostolicorum GrÊco-Latina âŠ, 1699, Impensis HÊredum Lanckisianorum, Excudebat Joh. Heinricus Richter: LipsiÊ.
This Lutheran theologian is sometimes incorrectly credited with coining the term âApostolic Fathersâ and applying it to the early collection of non-canonical books founded upon what he considered to be the apostolic tradition. Dr William Wake of Christ Church, Oxford, is the first person to have used the term âApostolic(al) Fathersâ in print (1693). See H. J. de Jonge, âOn The Origin Of The Term âApostolic Fathersââ, Journal Of Theological Studies, 1978, Volume XXIX, No. 2, pp. 503-505.
[78] H. Valesius, Eusebii Pamphili EcclesiasticÊ HistoriÊ Libri Decem. Eiusdem De Vita Imp. Constantini, Libri IV. Quibus Subjicitur Oratio Constantini Ad Sanctos, & Panegyricus Eusebij âŠ, 1659, Excudebat Antonius Vitré, Regis & Cleri Gallicani Typographus: Parisiis.
[79] F. Feu-Ardentii (Ed.), Divi IrenÊi Episcopi Lugdunensis, Et Martyris, Aduersus Valentini, Et Similium Gnosticorum HÊreses, Libri Quinque âŠ, 1575, Apud Sebastianum Niuellium: Parisiis.
[80] For example see D. Dalrymple, Notebooks Containing Printed Leaves From, And Notes By Lord Hailes On, The Greek New Testament, ca. 1759, Newhailes Papers, National Library Of Scotland, MS. 25399: f. 4v and f. 5r (unpublished manuscript).
[81] It has been suggested to the curators the title be changed due to its inaccuracy. Furthermore the title suggests Dalrymple’s notes are contemporaneous with the edition of the Greek New Testament. This is not the case. The Greek New Testament was published in 1759.
We have already observed the interleaved collation contains an explicit start date, being the 3rd December 1780. As the supplemental collation finds more verses and utilises additional resources, it is only natural to assume that it dates from after this period.
[82] D. Dalrymple, Notebooks Containing Printed Leaves From, And Notes By Lord Hailes On, The Greek New Testament, ca. 1759, Newhailes Papers, National Library Of Scotland, MS. 25405: f. 1r (unpublished manuscript). Dalrymple lists each resource on its own line. We have maintained the same order but have slightly modified the arrangement by listing them concurrently on the same line.
As with the extract from the âInterleaved Collationâ, please note the use of the term ‘list’; this may inadvertently suggest some sort of formal list of books when in fact Dalrymple has simply quickly scribbled down those resources he wished to make note of at the time.
[83] J. Fello (Ed.), Sancti CÊcilii Cypriani Opera Recognita & Illustrata Per Joannem Oxoniensem Episcopum. Accedunt Annales Cyprianici, Sive Tredecim Annorum, Quibus S. Cyprianus Inter Christianos Versatus Est, Brevis Historia Chronologice Delineata Per Joannem Cestriensem, 1682, E Theatro Sheldoniano: Oxonii.
[84] Unknown Editor, Q. Septimii Florentis Tertulliani Opera. Ad Vetustissimorum Exemplarium Fidem Sedulo Emendata, Diligentia Nic. Rigaltii I.C.âŠ, 1675, Apud Petrum le Petit, Edmundum Couterot, et Carolum Angot: LutetiÊ Parisiorum. This is a reprint of the 1664 Rigault edition.
[85] S. Jebb (Ed.), Sancti Justini Philosophi & Martyris Cum TrÏ phone JudÊo Dialogus,âŠ, 1719, Impensis Gul. & Joh. Innys, Bibliopolarum Londinensium: Londini.
[86] J. A. Grabe (Ed.), Sancti Justini Philosophi Et Martyris Apologia Prima Pro Christianus Ad Antoninum Pium,âŠ, 1700, E Theatro Sheldoniano: OxoniÊ.
[87] As far as the authors are aware, there are no editions of this book at the National Library of Scotland bearing a Newhailes shelfmark authored by John Potter (d. 1747), Regius Professor of Divinity and Canon of Christ Church, Oxford. Without further enquiry it is unknown meantime which edition of Potter’s work Dalrymple used.
[88] J. Fello (Ed.), S. Theophili Episcopi Antiocheni Ad Autolycum Libri III. Recogniti & Notis Illustrati, 1684, E Theatro Sheldoniano: Oxonii.
[89] G. Spencerus (Ed.), Origenis Contra Celsum Libri Octo. Ejusdem Philocalia, 1677, Excudebat Joan. Hayes, CeleberrimÊ AcademiÊ Typographus. Impensis Guli. Morden BibliopolÊ: CantabrigiÊ.
[90] D. Humphreys (Ed.), The Apologeticks Of The Learned Athenian Philosopher Athenagoras, I. For The Christian Religion. II. For The Truth Of The Resurrection. Against The Scepticks And Infidels Of That Age. âŠ, 1714, Printed by Geo. James, for Richard Smith At Bishop Beveridge’s Head In Pater-Noster-Row: London . N. B. This work is in English. As far as the authors are aware, there are no other books containing the works of Athenagoras with a Newhailes shelfmark.
[91] T. Smithi (Ed.), S. Ignatii EpistolÊ GenuinÊ, Juxta Exemplar Medicéum Denuo RecensitÊ, Una Cum Veteri Latina Versione; Annotationibus D. Joannis Pearsoni Nuper Episcopi Cestriensis, Et ThomÊ Smithi S.T.P. IllustratÊ. Accedunt Acta Genuina Martyrii S. Ignatii, Epistola S. Polycarpi Ad Philippenses, Et Smyrnensis EcclesiÊ Epistola De S. Polycarpi Martyrio âŠ, 1709, E Theatro Sheldoniano: Oxonii.
[92] ibid.
[93] H. Valesius, Eusebii Pamphili EcclesiasticÊ HistoriÊ Libri Decem. Eiusdem De Vita Imp. Constantini, Libri IV. Quibus Subjicitur Oratio Constantini Ad Sanctos, & Panegyricus Eusebij âŠ, 1659, Excudebat Antonius Vitré, Regis & Cleri Gallicani Typographus: Parisiis.
[94] For an up-to-date list of the important primary sources for the study of the formation of the New Testament canon, see L. M. McDonald, The Biblical Canon: Its Origin, Transmission, And Authority, 2007, Hendrickson Publishers, Inc.: Peabody (MA), pp. 435-436. Much the same list can also be found in L. M. McDonald, “Primary Sources For The Study Of The New Testament Canon”, in L. M. McDonald & J. A. Sanders (Eds.), The Canon Debate, 2002, Hendrickson Publishers, Inc.: Peabody (MA), pp. 583-584.
[95] The manuscript number assigned to each notebook does not necessarily imply chronological ordering. For instance MSS 25409-410 which are gathered loose leaf manuscripts were catalogued (i.e. assigned MS number) after the bound volumes in Newhailes as a matter of routine (Personal communication â Mrs Olive Geddes, Senior Curator, Manuscripts Division, National Library of Scotland).
[96] It has been confirmed by checking the binding index that these folios were received by the National Library of Scotland in gathered loose leaf format. This rules out the possibility that theses folios were received as part of a notebook that subsequently had to be discarded by the library.
[97] D. Dalrymple, Notes And Translations By Lord Hailes On The Greek New Testament, ca. 1759. MS 25410 Includes Miscellaneous Devotional, Theological, And Biblical Notes, Newhailes Papers, National Library of Scotland, MS. 25409: f. 1r â 7v (unpublished manuscript).
[98] D. Dalrymple, Notes And Translations By Lord Hailes On The Greek New Testament, ca. 1759. MS 25410 Includes Miscellaneous Devotional, Theological, And Biblical Notes, Newhailes Papers, National Library of Scotland, MS. 25409: f. 24r (unpublished manuscript).
[99] One should remember to place these two months in their appropriate context and appreciate that time in the middle / late 18th century had a different application than today. Five days a week, Dalrymple would travel by horse and carriage between his seat in Newhailes, Musselburgh, and the court in Edinburgh, a distance of five miles. See D. Dalrymple, An Inquiry Into The Secondary Causes Which Mr Gibbon Has Assigned For The Rapid Growth Of Christianity, 1808, Second Edition, op. cit., p. xiv.
[100] D. Dalrymple, Notes And Translations By Lord Hailes On The Greek New Testament, ca. 1759. MS 25410 Includes Miscellaneous Devotional, Theological, And Biblical Notes, Newhailes Papers, National Library of Scotland, MS. 25409: f. 39(a)r (unpublished manuscript).
It should be pointed out this comment was scribbled on a torn piece of paper, the verso side of which contains some brief notes on Mr. Gibbon’s book. This further reinforces the fact we are dealing with a draft work and not one awaiting publication.
[101] D. Dalrymple, Notes And Translations By Lord Hailes On The Greek New Testament, ca. 1759. MS 25410 Includes Miscellaneous Devotional, Theological, And Biblical Notes, Newhailes Papers, National Library Of Scotland, MS. 25409: f. 82r (unpublished manuscript).
[102] D. Dalrymple, Notes And Translations By Lord Hailes On The Greek New Testament, ca. 1759. MS 25410 Includes Miscellaneous Devotional, Theological, And Biblical Notes, Newhailes Papers, National Library of Scotland, MS. 25410: f. 1r â 4v (unpublished manuscript).
[103] D. Dalrymple, Notes And Translations By Lord Hailes On The Greek New Testament, ca. 1759. MS 25410 Includes Miscellaneous Devotional, Theological, And Biblical Notes, Newhailes Papers, National Library of Scotland, MS. 25410: f. 15r â 80v (unpublished manuscript). Folios 4v â 8v are blank. Although folios 9 â 14 are blank, they adopt the eight sector layout.
[104] For a discussion on what âoriginalâ can represent in this context, see E. J. Epp, âThe Multivalence Of The Term “Original Text” In New Testament Textual Criticismâ, Harvard Theological Review, 1999, Volume 92, No. 3. pp. 245-281. Also see K. D. Clarke, âOriginal Text Or Canonical Text?
Questioning The Shape Of The New Testament Text We Translateâ, in S. E. Porter & R. S. Hess (Eds.), Translating The Bible: Problems And Prospects, 1999, Journal For The Study Of The New Testament Supplement Series 173, Sheffield Academic Press: Sheffield (UK), pp. 281-322.
[105] K. Aland & B. Aland (Trans. E. F. Rhodes), The Text Of The New Testament: An Introduction To The Critical Editions And To The Theory And Practice Of Modern Textual Criticism, 1995, 2nd Revised Edition, op. cit., pp. 55-71. B. M. Metzger & B. D. Ehrman, The Text Of The New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption,
And Restoration, 2005, Fourth Edition, op. cit., pp. 279-280. Recently, Professor Holger Strutwolf of the Institut FÃŒr Neutestamentliche Textforschung, has questioned the very existence of localised text-types and their usefulness in describing the New Testament manuscript tradition, whilst proposing the primacy of the coherence-based genealogical method.
If such a paradigm shift occurs, there would be a turnaround of nearly 300 years of traditional scholarship. See P. Foster, “Recent Developments And Future Directions In New Testament Textual Criticism: Report On A Conference At The University Of Edinburgh, 27 April 2006”, Journal For The Study Of The New Testament, 2006, Volume 29, No 2, pp. 231-233.
[106] D. B. Wallace, “The Majority Text Theory: History, Methods, And Critique”, in B. D. Ehrman & M. W. Holmes (Eds.), The Text Of The New Testament In Contemporary Research: Essays On The Status Quaestionis (A Volume In Honor Of Bruce M. Metzger), 1995, Studies And Documents, Volume 46, Wm B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.: Grand Rapids (MI), p. 313. Also see G. D. Fee,
âThe Majority Text And The Original Text Of The New Testamentâ in E. J. Epp & G. D. Fee (Eds.), Studies In The Theory And Method Of New Testament Textual Criticism, 1993, Studies And Documents, Volume 45, Wm B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.: Grand Rapids (MI), pp. 183-208, especially sub-section The Use Of Patristic Evidence. With regard to the Fathers in general and the search for the âprimitive’ New Testament text, see M. J. Suggs, âThe Use Of Patristic Evidence In The Search For A Primitive New Testament Textâ, New Testament Studies, 1958, Volume IV, pp. 139-147.
[107] A Committee of the Oxford Society of Historical Theology, The New Testament In The Apostolic Fathers, 1905, At The Clarendon Press: Oxford (UK).
[108] ibid., p. iii. The committee describes the classification system as follows:
The first duty of the Committee was to agree upon a plan. It was decided to arrange the books of the New Testament in four classes, distinguished by the letters A, B, C and D, according to the degree of probability of their use by the several authors.
Class A includes those books about which their can be no reasonable doubt, either because they are expressly mentioned, or because there are other certain indications of their use. Class B comprises those books the use of which, in the judgement of the editors, reaches a high degree of probability. With class C we come to a lower degree of probability; and in class D are placed those books which may possibly be referred to, but in regard to which the evidence appeared to uncertain to allow any reliance to be placed upon it.
[109] W. L. Petersen, “Textual Traditions Examined: What The Text Of The Apostolic Fathers Tells Us About The Text Of The New Testament In The Second Century”, in A. F. Gregory & C. M. Tuckett (Eds.), The New Testament And The Apostolic Fathers: The Reception Of The New Testament In The Apostolic Fathers, 2005, Oxford University Press, Inc.: New York, p. 30; Two useful tables of results may also be found in the original volume, see A Committee of the Oxford Society of Historical Theology, The New Testament In The Apostolic Fathers, 1905, op. cit., pp. 137â138.
[110] W. L. Petersen, “Textual Traditions Examined: What The Text Of The Apostolic Fathers Tells Us About The Text Of The New Testament In The Second Century”, in A. F. Gregory & C. M. Tuckett (Eds.), The New Testament And The Apostolic Fathers: The Reception Of The New Testament In The Apostolic Fathers, 2005, op. cit., p. 45.
[111] A. F. Gregory & C. M. Tuckett (Eds.), The New Testament And The Apostolic Fathers: The Reception Of The New Testament In The Apostolic Fathers, 2005, op. cit. and A. F. Gregory & C. M. Tuckett (Eds.), The New Testament And The Apostolic Fathers: Trajectories Through The New Testament And The Apostolic Fathers, 2005, Oxford University Press, Inc.: New York.
[112] Even modern computer assisted indices such as Biblia Patristica: Index Des Citations Et Allusions Bibliques Dans La Littérature Patristique, a series which has collected all the Patristic citations of the first three Christian centuries and more, can report the presence of citations which are not in fact citations at all. For instance, see A. J. Bellinzoni, “The Gospel Of Luke In The Apostolic Fathers: An Overview”, in A. F. Gregory & C. M. Tuckett (Eds.), The New Testament And The Apostolic Fathers: Trajectories Through The New Testament And The Apostolic Fathers, 2005, op. cit., pp. 45â68.
[113] We are not suggesting that Dalrymple was unaware of the difficulties surrounding the citations of the Fathers. Numerous publications from the middle of the 18th century already show an understanding of the complexities surrounding the citations of the Fathers. For example, see J. A. Ernesti, Institutio Interpretis Novi Testamenti Ad Usus Lectionum, 1761, LipsiÊ (Leipzig). For an English translation of this work based on the fifth edition published in 1809 including notes introduced by the translator see, J. A. Ernesti (Trans. C. H. Terrot, A. M.),
Principles Of Biblical Interpretation, 1832, The Biblical Cabinet; Or, Hermeneutical, Exegetical, And Philological Library, Volume I, Thomas Clark: Edinburgh, pp. 104â108. For an up-to-date statement of the status quaestionis see G. D. Fee, “The Use Of the Greek Fathers For New Testament Textual Criticism”, in B. D. Ehrman & M. W. Holmes (Eds.),
The Text Of The New Testament In Contemporary Research: Essays On The Status Quaestionis (A Volume In Honor Of Bruce M. Metzger), 1995, op. cit., pp. 191â207; Also see C. D. Osburn, âMethodology In Identifying Patristic Citations In NT Textual Criticismâ, Novum Testamentum, 2005, Volume 47, Number 4, pp. 313-343.
[114] R. M. Grant, “The Citation Of Patristic Evidence In An Apparatus Criticus”, in M. M. Parvis & A. P. Wikgren (Eds.), New Testament Manuscript Studies: The Materials And The Making Of A Critical Apparatus, 1950, University of Chicago Press, p. 124. Highlighting the same point, Sir Frederic Kenyon says of Burgon’s huge collection of Patristic citations:
A gigantic work was undertaken by the late Dean Burgon, with a view to making the evidence of patristic quotations more accessible; namely, an index of all Biblical quotations in the principal ecclesiastical writers, which is now preserved in manuscript in the British Museum in sixteen huge volumes (Add. MSS. 33421-33436). These references are to comparatively uncritical texts of the Fathers (generally those in Migne), but they could of course be used also in connexion will later editions, where such exist…
See F. G. Kenyon, Handbook To The Textual Criticism Of The New Testament, 1901, Macmillan and Co., Limited: London, p. 206, footnote 1. On many occasions tables of quotations from Burgon compiled by Kenyon are placed side by side with the anecdote of Dalrymple in Christian apologetical literature. The fact that Burgon’s references are to uncritical texts of the Fathers does not appear to be important enough to warrant a mention.
In the context of Patristic quotations and the Majority Text, Gordon Fee describes Burgonâs data as âsuspectâ due to his use of uncritical editions of the Fathers, providing numerous examples in the process. See G. D. Fee, âThe Majority Text And The Original Text Of The New Testamentâ in E. J. Epp & G. D. Fee (Eds.), Studies In The Theory And Method Of New Testament Textual Criticism, 1993, Studies And Documents, Volume 45, op. cit., pp. 202-206. As with Dalrymple’s anecdote, the Christian apologists and missionaries are selective about what information is presented to the reader, no doubt wishing to inspire the maximum amount of confidence in their minds.
[115] Rev. E. Burton, D. D., Sermons, Preached Before The University Of Oxford, 1832, J. G. & F. Rivington: London, pp. 36â37.
[116] R. Philip, The Life, Times, And Missionary Enterprises, Of The Rev. John Campbell, 1841, op. cit., p. 558:
… for as he was for ever trying to do good, or to make all journeys a continuation of his little book, “Walks Of Usefulness,” he drew out the history, or the opinions, of many a stranger, and thus gathered up stores of anecdotes.
[117] D. Dalrymple, Notes And Translations By Lord Hailes On The Greek New Testament, ca. 1759. MS 25410 Includes Miscellaneous Devotional, Theological, And Biblical Notes, Newhailes Papers, National Library Of Scotland, MS. 25410: f. 122r (unpublished manuscript). As we have observed, anecdotes can be a powerful tool as has been aptly described by Downing, who, in compiling a book of anecdotes wrote in the preface to his volume:
Anecdotes are always full of interest, to all classes of readers. And when they are well selected, they deeply enstamp on the memory the most important lessons.
See H. A. Downing, Anecdotes For The Family, Or Lessons Of Truth And Duty For Every-Day Life: A Choice Selection Of Facts, Occurrences, Examples, Testimonies, Incidents, And Providential Events, Of The Deepest Interest And Value, 1862, op. cit., p. iii.