Eph 1:15 [Textus Receptus (Elzevir) (1624)]646
Διὰ τοῦτο κἀγὼ, ἀκούσας τὴν καθ’ ὑμᾶς πίστιν ἐν τῷ Κυρίῳ Ἰησοῦ, καὶ τὴν ἀγάπην τὴν εἰς πάντας τοὺς ἁγίους,
Eph 1:15 [Codex Sinaiticus (א or 01) (4th century)]
Eph 1:15 [Codex Alexandrinus (Royal MS 1 D VIII) (A02) (5th century)]
Eph 1:15 [Codex Vaticanus Gr. 1209 (B03) (4th century)]
Eph 1:15 [Codex Ephraemi Syri Rescriptus (Grec 9) (C04) (5th century)]
Eph 1:15 [Codex Claromontanus (Grec 107) (D06) (5th century)]
Critical Apparatus :
A Textual Commentary On Ephesians 1:15
(a) The authorities which Lachmann admitted were very few in number : thus in the Gospels he used the collations of but four Greek MSS., and four fragments, and two of these MSS. were considerably mutilated . The only version admitted (as has been said) was the Latin, in its twofold form, -as prior to the time of Jerome, and as revised by him : the only fathers whose writings were employed were Irenæus and Origen, and the Latins, Cyprian, Hilary of Poictiers, and Lucifer. In consequence of this restriction there are passages in which two MSS. or perhaps only one contain the sacred text ; and thus an error in such a copy or copies is assumed to be the wide-spread reading of the fourth century. But in connection with such passages it must always be borne in mind that Lachmann did not profess to give a perfect text ; and thus if a certain unquestionable error was attested by his authorities, they were to be followed in editing ; not as supposing that such error proceeded from the sacred authors, but on the ground that it belonged to the traditive text of the fourth century.
An instance of this is seen in Ephes. i. 15, where the common text reads, ἀκούσας τὴν καθ’ ὑμᾶς πίστιν ἐν τῷ κυρίῳ Ἰησοῦ, καὶ τὴν ἀγάπην τὴν εἰς πάντας τοὺς ἁγίους : here Lachmann omits the words τὴν ἀγάπην, as not being found in the Alexandrian MS., and (apparently) not in the Vatican. But he gives this, not as the true passage, as written by St. Paul, but as being (he thinks) an early mistake, -an hiatus, in fact, of early copyists. He says (Proleg., vol. ii., p. xii.) that it is manifest that ἀγάπην has dropped from the text, but whether it be that word alone, or more, it is impossible to say ; comparing the passage with Col. i. 4, where in the clause καὶ τὴν ἀγάπην ἣν ἔχετε, the words ἣν ἔχετε are not uniformly read in all the more ancient authorities. Now here the reason for not giving either ἀγάπην, or else τὴν ἀγάπην, in the text, on the authority of the Codices Claromontanus and Boernerianus (two of Lachmann’s admitted witnesses), supported by the more recent copies in general, and the other ancient versions, as well as the Latin,* can only be the supposition that it had been filled in as a correction in the copies in which it is found. And yet, when the word certainly belongs to the text as an original part of it, and when the versions vouch for it, and that without any other addition, it can hardly be deemed an exercise of mere choice for it to receive a place in the text, in spite of its omission in certain ancient and valuable documents.
Thus far, then, Lachmann’s principles (to say nothing at present of his range of authorities might be safely extended, without at all trenching upon his plan of presenting the traditive text of the early centuries. It was, however, a great and grievous mistake , on the part of those who criticised Lachmann’s edition, when they lighted on such passages as Eph. i. 15, as if he had there given what he believed to be the genuine and original text . Lach mann’s censors (such for instance as Tholuck) who did not apprehend his plan, or had not truly investigated the facts of the case, copied from one another, in representing Lachmann’s range of Greek authorities as more confined than it really was, especially in his larger edition. Hence the following judgment of Tholuck is far from correct : “ Since there are so few codices which are written in uncial characters, and are preserved entire, Lachmann has been obliged sometimes to adopt readings which are authorised only by a single codex. Thus he has given the whole text, from the fourth to the twelfth chapter of 2 Corinthians, according to no other authority than that of the Codex B, and the whole text from Hebrews ix. 14 to the end, on the basis of Codex A merely. “Such statements have misled students ; for it has been supposed that they would not have been advanced, except on grounds of competent knowledge. But how do the facts stand? In the passage in 2 Corinthians, the whole, up to chap. x. 8, is contained in C (Cod. Ephraemi), and the whole of the chapters, said to rest on B only, are contained in D (Cod. Claromontanus) and G (Cod. Boernerianus) : in the latter part of the Hebrews, the hiatus in C is from x. 24 to xii. 15, and in D there is there no defect at all. It is important to state these things explicitly, because the incorrect assertions have misled, and will still mislead, those who are unacquainted with critical details.
While maintaining that a critical basis should be laid broad enough for us not to be obliged to follow certain authorities into known error, it is of great importance not to put down an attested reading to be an error without full inquiry and examination. It may be very natural thus to condemn a reading which differs from what we are accustomed to see ; but we must look well to it, lest, in stigmatising a reading as devoid of meaning, we only show that we have not understood it. This is wholly different from cases of known and certain mistake in MSS.
* This case would come apparently under the fourth head in Lachmann’s statement of weight evidence ; for the documents of the Western region stand opposed to those considered peculiarly Alexandrian ; and thus it seems that, even on those principles, the reading is only doubtful.
(S. P. Tregelles, An Account of the Printed Text of the Greek New Testament, pp. 104-106)