p129 Dear W (H?) Kelly, - I should gladly give you anything which would enable you to carry out your plans. My difficulty is whether it can be done. I will tell you where I am about it, and you will see I am bringing out a new edition* as it is out of print. As the Sinaiticus had come out, save for learned people since the last, I thought I would give it where it changed anything. This led me a little further, and where I had said T.R. reads, in the note, I have added the principal authorities for and against. I doubt I have done any good by it; still inquirers will see that B D L (and now the Sinaiticus generally), and Memphitic go together, and A, later uncials, and generally Syrr (Peschito and Harclean) go together, and so other MSS. further on. My original object was translation, not text. Hence, if all the main authorities accepted it, I did, and in common cases this is all right. When it is a question of mere copying, the older are more likely right, and there is the influence of lectionaries and Tatian ['the Harmonist' so called], which may be often thus corrected. But I believe the old MSS. have been quite as much wilfully tampered with, if not more, than others. We have none the clergy and monks had not to say to: I have no doubt a number of small mistakes - "answered" for "answered him" or "them," and "Jesus" for "He" - from lectionaries. But I am not myself satisfied critically, nor do I trust these received authorities.
*[New translation of the New Testament. Third edition.]

Tregelles is very accurate, but has merely a selection of MSS. which he approves of because they follow B. It is a system: Tischendorf more complete, but as a general rule following the same. Lachmann, though systematically following early uncials, is very often more with Textus Receptus. But I am not satisfied as to a critical text though many mistakes are corrected in mine. Hence my difficulty in replying to you.

January, 1881.

[53110E]