B

Bagster, 1841. The English Hexapla, exhibiting the six important English Translations of the New Testament Scriptures, Wiclif 1380, Tyndale 1534, Cranmer 1539, Genevan 1557, Anglo-Rhemish 1582, Authorised 1611, the original Greek text after Scholz, with the various readings of the Textus Receptus and the Principal Constantinopolitan and Alexandrine Manuscripts, and a complete Collation of Scholz's text with Griesbach's edition of 1805, preceded by an historical Account of the English Translations. London: Samuel Bagster & Sons, 1841.

The excellent "historical account of the English translations" mentioned in the title is a substantial treatise (160 folio pages) by Samuel P. Tregelles.

Bagster, 1870. The New Testament, Greek and English, in Parallel Columns, with Various Readings. London: Samuel Bagster and Sons, 1870.

Bengel, 1725. Johann Albrecht Bengel, Prodromus Novi Testamenti recte cauteque ordinandi [Forerunner of a New Testament to be settled rightly and carefully], published as an appendix to Chrysostomi libri VI de sacerdotio (Denkendorf, 1725). Reprinted in Burk 1763.

In this essay J.A. Bengel, a Lutheran schoolmaster, published a prospectus for an edition of the Greek Testament which he had already begun to prepare (see Bengel 1734). In it he outlines his text-critical principles, which included a novel classification of manuscripts into two primitive groups: the Asiatic and the African. The first group he supposed to be of Byzantine origin, and to it belonged the majority of modern manuscripts and the Syriac version; the second, of Egyptian provenance, was represented by Codex Alexandrinus and the manuscripts of the early Latin and Coptic versions. Bengel also brought into prominence, as a proposed rule of criticism, Mill's preference for harder readings (see Mill 1707); this rule he expressed in four pregnant words, proclivi scriptioni praestat ardua "before the easy reading, stands the difficult." Bengel sent a letter to a friend in 1726, indicating that before long his Greek Testament would be ready for the press; but he delayed to publish it until after it became clear that Bentley's proposed edition was not forthcoming (see Bentley 1720). He had hoped to learn somewhat from Bentley's proposed Prolegomena, and to correct and supplement his own edition from Bentley's notes. Bengel's reputation as a pious man and a sober scholar protected him from the calumny to which Bentley was exposed, and his Prodromus met encouragement even from those who had attacked Bentley's Proposals.

Bengel, 1734. Johann Albrecht Bengel, H KAINH DIAQHKH. Novum Testamentum Græcum ita adornatum ut Textus probatarum editionem medullam, Margo variantium lectionum in suas classes distributarum locorumque parallelorum delectum, apparatus subjunctus criseos sacræ Millianæ præsertim compendium limam supplementum ac fractum exhibeat, inserviente J.A.B. [The Greek New Testament, so prepared that the approved text of the editions is in the middle, and in the margin selected various readings distributed into their ranks of preference, and collateral places, with an appended apparatus, featuring principally a revised compendium of the sacred criticism of Mill, supplemented and also abridged, by the service of J.A.B.]. Edente Jo. Albert Bengel. Tubingæ, 1734 (4 vols.); 1753 (manual); 1763 (revised Apparatus only); 1776 (manual).

Bengel's edition is remarkable for its completeness and its practical usefulness as a resource for study. Preceding the text is a lengthy Introduction modelled after Mill's (see Mill 1707). The text was the first to be presented in paragraphs. It is accompanied by a selection of noteworthy readings in the margin (drawn from Mill's apparatus), each graded according to its relative worthiness to be considered as the original reading. This was done by assigning to each a letter of the Greek alphabet (a, b, g, d, e), according to whether the reading was, in his judgment, much preferable, somewhat preferable, equal, somewhat inferior, or much inferior to the one displayed in the body of the text (which was composed only of readings to be found in previous editions of the Received Text). Following the text is a lengthy Apparatus Criticus [Critical Apparatus] in which the various readings are discussed, and the reasons for the evaluations given. Here he bases these evaluations upon an innovative theory of manuscript groups, in which the readings are referred to either the debased Asiatic (Byzantine) family, or to the more pristine African (Alexandrian) family, which was often seconded by the old Latin and Greek-Latin manuscripts. Unlike previous editors, he also gives citations both for and against each deviation from the Received text, so that if a manuscript is not mentioned in a given place the reader would not be left doubting whether it supported the text or not.

Readings of the following fifteen Greek manuscripts (here designated by the notation of Scrivener and Miller 1894) were first published in Bengel's Apparatus Criticus:

Uncials:

Evan. V (9th century)
Paul. M (10th century)

Cursives:

Evan.1 (10th cent.)
Evan.2 (15th cent.)
Evan.83 (11th cent.)
Evan.84 (12th cent.)
Evan.85 (13th cent.)
Evan.86 (10th cent.)
Evan.97 (15th cent.)
Evan.101 (16th cent.)
Act.45 (15th cent.)
Act.46 (11th cent.)
Paul.54 (12th cent.)
Apoc.80 (12th cent.)

Lectionary Evst.24 (10th cent.)

Bengel encountered some opposition from writers who were offended by his recommended changes to the Received text, but in general his work was widely appreciated and commended. This is due partly to Bengel's prudent decision not to cause needless offense by introducing the changes into the text itself. It should also be noticed that Bengel did not recommend the omission of the disputed clause in 1 John 5:7 (see Erasmus 1516), but rather defended it; and so he gained the respect of persons who might otherwise have attacked his work. Count Zinzendorf, the patron of the Moravian Brethren, announced that Bengel's text was to be the basis of the German version to be used in their churches; and John Wesley, founder of the Methodist church, also used Bengel's text for his English version (see Wesley 1755).

Bengel died in 1752, after having also provided a complete exegetical commentary to his text (see Bengel 1742). A manual edition of his text was brought out in 1753, minus the Apparatus Criticus, with revised estimates of the marginal readings. An enlarged and corrected edition of his Apparatus Criticus appeared in 1763, prepared by his son-in-law Philip David Burk (see Burk 1763). Beginning with the manual edition of 1776, edited by Bengel's son Ernst, there is included a Tabula quae criseos Bengelianae diversas periodos exhibet, showing all differences between the editions and the readings preferred by Bengel in his Gnomon Novi Testamenti (see Bengel 1742). For an account of Bengel's life see John Christian Frederic Burk, A Memoir of the Life and Writings of John Albert Bengel. Translated by R.F. Walker (London: W. Ball, 1837).

Bengel, 1742. Johann Albrecht Bengel, Joannis Bengelii Gnomon Novi Testamenti, in quo, ex nativa Verborum Vi, Simplicitas, Profunditas, Concinnitas, et Salubritas sensuum coelestium, indicatur. [Johann Albrecht Bengel's Gnomon of the New Testament, in which, from the natural force of the words, the simplicity, depth, harmony, and saving power of the heavenly meanings, is indicated] Tubingen, 1742; 2nd ed., edited by Ernst Bengel, 1759; 3rd ed., edited by Ernst Bengel, 1773; with notes added by J. Steudal, 1835, and reprinted 1855.

Bengel's Gnomon is an exegetical commentary on the Greek text, written in Latin, which indicates the readings preferred by him at the time it was written. These do not always correspond to the readings preferred in his earlier critical edition (see Bengel 1734).

Bengel's exegesis frequently dwells upon rhetorical aspects of the text, and he especially notices structural parallelisms and figures of speech. The exegetical commentary is also accompanied by text-critical remarks which supplement the textual commentary of his earlier Apparatus Criticus (1734). In many places it is clear that Bengel's rhetorical analysis has played a large part in his choice of readings, so that the exegetical and critical aspects of the commentary cannot be separated. His treatment of 1 John 5:7-8, in which he defends the authenticity of the disputed Trinitarian clause, is a notable example of this, for he defends the clause quite impressively on rhetorical grounds alone.

Like his text, Bengel's Gnomon was a great success, and was frequently reprinted after his death. John Wesley used it as the basis of his Explanatory Notes upon the New Testament (see Scanlin 1988, pp. 103-4). At length an English translation of the entire work was made: Gnomon of the New Testament by John Albert Bengel, now first translated into English. With original Notes explanatory and illustrative. Revised and edited by Rev. Andrew R. Fausset, M.A., of Trinity College, Dublin (4 vols. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1857). Title page of volume 1: Gnomon of the New Testament by John Albert Bengel, according to the edition originally brought out by his son, M. Ernest Bengel; and subsequently completed by J.C.F. Steudel. With corrections and additions from the ed. secunda of 1759. Fausset's English edition is not to be confused with the more widely available American edition, Gnomon of the New Testament, &c. by Charlton T. Lewis and Marvin R. Vincent (Philadelphia: Perkinpine & Higgins, 1864), which has recently been reprinted under the inapt title, New Testament Word Studies by John Albert Bengel, A New Translation by Charlton T. Lewis and Marvin R. Vincent (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1971). Fausset's English edition is a faithful translation of Bengel's Gnomon, "revised" only by the addition of footnotes which give comments found in Bengel's other works; Lewis and Vincent, on the other hand, present a thorough revision, in which extracts from Bengel's remarks are attached to an entirely different critical text and discussion. Remarks of Bengel which depend upon his own text, or which for any other reason are not in accordance with the views of Lewis and Vincent, are suppressed or contradicted.

The "Monita" of Bengel

In Bengel's Preface to his Gnomon he includes an enumerated list of 27 "suggestions" (Monita) which may be taken as a summary of his critical principles. The following extract of these is taken from pages 13 through 17 of Fausset's translation:

1. By far the more numerous portions of the Sacred Text (thanks be to God) labour under no variety of reading deserving notice.
2. These portions contain the whole scheme of salvation, and establish every particular of it by every test of truth.
3. Every various reading ought and may be referred to these portions, and decided by them as by a normal standard.
4. The text and various readings of the New Testament are found in manuscripts and in books printed from manuscripts, whether Greek, Latin, Graeco-Latin. . .Syriac, etc., Latinizing Greek, or other languages, the clear quotations of Irenaeus, etc., according as Divine Providence dispenses its bounty to each generation. We include all these under the title of Codices, which has sometimes as comprehensive a signification.
5. These codices, however, have been diffused through churches of all ages and countries, and approach so near to the original autographs, that, when taken together, in all the multitude of their varieties, they exhibit the genuine text.
6. No conjecture is ever on any consideration to be listened to. It is safer to bracket any portion of the text, which may haply to appear to labour under inextricable difficulties.
7. All the codices taken together, should form the normal standard, by which to decide in the case of each taken separately.
8. The Greek codices, which possess an antiquity so high, that it surpasses even the very variety of reading, are very few in number: the rest are very numerous.
9. Although versions and fathers are of little authority where they differ from the Greek manuscripts of the New Testament, yet, where the Greek manuscripts of the New Testament differ from each other, those have the greatest authority, with which versions and fathers agree.
10. The text of the Latin Vulgate, where it is supported by the consent of the Latin fathers, or even of other competent witnesses, deserves the utmost consideration, on account of its singular antiquity.
11. The number of witnesses who support each reading of every passage ought to be carefully examined: and to that end, in so doing, we should separate those codices which contain only the Gospels, from those which contain the Acts and the Epistles, with or without the Apocalypse, or those which contain that book alone; those which are entire, from those which have been mutilated; those which have been collated for the Stephanic edition, from those which have been collated for the Complutensian, or the Elzevirian, or any obscure edition; those which are known to have been carefully collated, as, for instance, the Alexandrine, from those which are not known to have been carefully collated, or which are known to have been carelessly collated, as for instance the Vatican MS., which otherwise would be almost without an equal.
12. And so, in fine, more witnesses are to be preferred to fewer; and, which is more important, witnesses who differ in country, age, and language, are to be preferred to those who are closely connected with each other; and, which is most important of all, ancient witnesses are to be preferred to modern ones. For, since the original autographs (and they were written in Greek) can alone claim to be the well-spring, the amount of authority due to codices drawn from primitive sources, Latin, Greek, etc., depends upon their nearness to that fountain-head.
13. A Reading, which does not allure by too great facility, but shines with its own native dignity of truth, is always to be preferred to those which may fairly be supposed to owe their origin to either the carelessness or the injudicious care of copyists.
14. Thus, a corrupted text is often betrayed by alliteration, parallelism, or the convenience of an Ecclesiastical Lection, especially at the beginning or conclusion of it; from the occurrence of the same words, we are led to suspect an omission; from too great facility, a gloss. Where the passage labours under a manifold variety of readings, the middle reading is the best.
15. There are, therefore, five principal criteria, by which to determine a disputed text. The antiquity of the witnesses, the diversity of their extraction, and their multitude; the apparent origin of the corrupt reading, and the native colour of the genuine one.
16. When these criteria all concur, no doubt can exist, except in the mind of a skeptic.
17. When, however, it happens that some of these criteria may be adduced in favour of one reading, and some in favour of another, the critic may be drawn sometimes in this, sometimes in that direction; or, even should he decide, others may be less ready to submit to his decision. When one man excels another in powers of vision, whether bodily or mental, discussion is vain. In such a case, one man can neither obtrude on another his own conviction, nor destroy the conviction of another; unless, indeed, the original autograph Scriptures should ever come to light."

Following this are ten more paragraphs, numbered 18 through 27, which do not pertain to the evaluation of various readings, but instead contain sundry remarks relative to the design and use of his critical edition. The seventeen given above may therefore be taken as Bengel's formally stated canons of criticism.

Bentley, 1720. Richard Bentley, Ἡ Καινη Διαθηκη Græce. Novum Testamentum Versionis Vulgatæ, per S^tum Hieronymum ad vetusta Exemplaria Græca castigatæ et exactæ. Utrumque ex antiquissimis Codd. MSS. cum Græcis tum Latinis, edidit Richardus Bentleius. Proposals for printing. Cambridge, 1720. Reprinted in Dr. Bentley's Proposals for Printing a New Edition of the Greek Testament, and St. Hierom's Latin Version. With a full Answer to all the Remarks of a late Pamphleteer. By a Member of Trinity College in Cambridge, London, 1721. Also reprinted in The Works of Richard Bentley, D.D., Collected and Edited by the Rev. Alexander Dyce, vol. 3 (London, 1838) and in Caspar Rene Gregory's Prolegomena to Tischendorf's eighth edition, pages 231-40 (see Tischendorf 1869).

Richard Bentley, a brilliant but contentious classical scholar at Oxford, first displayed his knowledge of New Testament textual criticism in Remarks upon a Late Discourse of Free Thinking, in a Letter to F.H., D.D., by Phileleutherus Lipsiensis (London, 1713), in which he responded to an essay recently published by the Deist Anthony Collins (see Mill 1707). For this he was publicly thanked by a Dr. Hare in A Clergyman's thanks to Phileleutherus (London, 1713), who also called upon Bentley to settle the text of the New Testament with a critical edition. Bentley made known his plans for such an edition in a letter to Dr. Wake, Archbishop of Canterbury, in 1716 (quoted at length in Tregelles 1854), and he further described and advertised it for subscription in the Proposals of 1720.

It was his intention to revise both the Greek text and the text of the Latin Vulgate on the basis of the very oldest manuscripts, and he expressed his belief that when both were thus revised they would closely agree with one another. The revision was to be done according to text-critical principles which were familiar to him as an editor of classical literature. He indicated that perhaps 2000 emendations of the Stephens text would be required.

This plan was immediately assailed by Conyers Middleton in an anonymous pamphlet, Remarks, Paragraph by Paragraph, upon the Proposals lately Published by Richard Bentley for a New Edition of the Greek Testament and Latin Version (London, 1720), to which Bentley responded very harshly in Dr. Bentley's Proposals for printing a new Edition of the Greek Testament, and St. Hierom's Latin Version, with a full Answer to all the Remarks of a late Pamphleteer (London: J. Knapton, 1721). Middleton followed with a second and longer pamphlet, Some Farther Remarks, Paragraph by Paragraph, upon Proposals, &c. (London, 1721). During this period several polemical tracts appeared, in which the chief point of contention was the genuineness of the clause in 1 John 5:7, which Bentley had declared to be spurious. (see Orme 1866, and the list in the Bibliographical Appendix of Horne 1839).

Bentley succeeded in raising sufficient funds for the project through subscription, and employed competent scholars (including J.J. Wettstein) to make collations of several ancient manuscripts which were inadequately represented in Mill or which had come to light since Mill's edition was published; but his edition was effectively prevented by the attacks of his many enemies, and never appeared. For a description of Bentley's study and the controversy see H. Monk, The Life of Richard Bentley (2nd ed., London, 1833); Adam Fox, John Mill and Richard Bentley: A Study of the Textual Criticism of the New Testament 1675-1729 (Oxford: Blackwell, 1954); and A.A. Ellis, Bentleii Critica Sacra (Cambridge, 1862).

Berry, 1897. George Ricker Berry, The Interlinear literal Translation of the Greek New Testament with the Authorized Version conveniently presented in the margins for ready reference and with the various readings of the editions of Elzevir 1624, Griesbach, Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Alford, and Wordsworth, to which has been added a new Greek-English New Testament Lexicon, supplemented by a chapter elucidating the synonyms of the New Testament, with a complete index to the synonyms. New York: Hinds & Noble, 1897. Reprinted by Zondervan from 1967 to 1992 as The Interlinear Greek-English New Testament with Lexicon and Synonyms, and in 1995 as The Interlinear KJV Parallel New Testament in Greek and English, Based on the Majority Text, with Lexicon and Synonyms.

This interlinear is simply an American reprint of the Bagster edition prepared by Thomas Newberry (see Newberry 1877) with a different Introduction and with G.R. Berry's Lexicon and Synonyms added to the end.

Beza, 1565. Theodore Beza, Novum Testamentum, cum versione Latina veteri, et nova Theodori Bezæ. Geneva, 1565 (folio); 2nd folio edition 1582; 3rd folio edition 1589; 4th folio edition 1598.

The basis of Beza's text was Estienne 1551 with a few minor changes, amounting to less than a hundred. Beza was a prominent theologian and scholar in Geneva, and his changes were generally taken to be improvements upon the text; but in many places this is doubtful. Despite his qualifications, he seems not to have applied himself to the improvement of the Estienne text, which was substantially that of Erasmus' later editions. Beza's annotations to the text showed more critical independence, as may be seen in the note to John 8:1-12, which he regarded as inauthentic. That he did not omit the passage from his text shows, however, that by 1565 the text of Erasmus had attained a kind of prescriptive right as the text in common use, duly corrected and established (as was thought) on manuscript authority by Estienne. His annotations included the readings gathered by Henry Estienne for his father Robert, whose collations had come into Beza's possession, and also included notes on the readings of the Peshitta Syriac version (as translated into Latin by Tremellius).

Beza's text of 1598 was the one most often followed by the translators of the King James version, and it also became the basis of the later Elzevir editions (see Elzevir 1624), which on the continent held a place of honour comparable to that of Estienne's editions in England.

Beza's text of 1565 is collated against Estienne 1550 in Scrivener and Nestle 1906. Because his text of 1598 was evidently favoured by the King James translators, it is reprinted with a few alterations in Scrivener's reconstruction of the text underlying that version (see Scrivener 1881, in which all departures from Beza are marked). For a close examination of this subject see Irena Dorota Backus, The Reformed Roots of the English New Testament: The Influence of Theodore Beza on the English New Testament (Pittsburgh: Pickwick Press, 1980).

Beza, 1582. Theodore Beza, Novum Testamentum. 2nd folio edition. Geneva, 1582. See Beza 1565.

Beza, 1589. Theodore Beza, Novum Testamentum. 3rd folio edition. Geneva, 1589. See Beza 1565.

Beza, 1598. Theodore Beza, Novum Testamentum. 4th folio edition. Geneva, 1598. See Beza 1565.

Birch, 1788. Andrew Birch, Quatuor Evangelia Graece cum Variantibus a textu Lectionibus Codd. Manuscriptorum Bibliothecae Vaticanae; Barberinae, Laurentianae, Vindobonensis, Escurialensis, Havniensis Regiae; quibus accedunt Lectiones Versionum Syrarum Veteris, Philoxenianae, et Hierosolymitanae, jussu et sumptibus regiis edidit Andreas Birch. Havniae [Copenhagen], 1788.

This edition, which was to be continued in a second volume, was produced in order to publish the various readings of manuscripts recently collated by Andrew Birch and others, at the expense of the King of Denmark. Among them were the Codex Vaticanus, the readings of which were previously known to most scholars only from the scanty extracts included in the sixth volume of Walton 1657. Birch finally gained access to the manuscript in 1781, but under circumstances which somehow prevented him from collating it in the Gospels of Luke and John; for these two books he supplied the readings of Vaticanus from the earlier and yet unpublished collation of Mico (see Ford 1799). The edition was not completed, however, in consequence of a fire at the printer's office. Birch's collations for the remainder of the New Testament later appeared in different form (see Birch 1798).

Birch, 1798. Andrew Birch, Variae Lectiones ad textum Actorum Apostolorum, Epistolarum Catholicarum et Pauli, e Codd. Graecis MSS. Bibliothecae Vaticanae, Barberinae, Augustinianorum Eremitarum Romae, Borgianae Velitris, Neapolitanae Regiae, Laurentinianae, S. Marci Venetorum, Vindobonensis Caesarae, et Hafniensis Regiae, collectae et editae ab Andrea Birch, Theol. D. et Prof. Havniae, 1798. Followed by Variae Lectiones ad Apocalypsin in 1800, and Variae Lectiones ad Textum IV. Evangeliorum e Codd. MSS. iterum recognitae et quamplurimis accessionibus auctae in 1801.

These three volumes give for the entire New Testament the various readings (without text) of the manuscripts collated by Birch (see Birch 1788).

Bover, 1943. José Maria Bover, Novi Testamenti Biblia Graeca et Latina. Madrid, 1943. 4th ed, 1959; 5th ed, 1968. A relatively unimportant edition, compiled by a Spanish Jesuit, with a preference for the readings of the older manuscripts. Manuscript variants are noted in the margin where other critical editions disagree.

Bruder, 1842. Karl Hermann Bruder, Tamieion ton tes kaines diathekes lexeon [Romanized Greek]: sive Concordantiae omnium vocum Novi Testamenti Graeci. Leipzig: Bernhard Tauchnitz, 1842; 2nd ed. 1853; 4th ed. 1888; 7th ed. 1913.

Bruder's concordance (a revision of Erasmus Schmid's TAMEION of 1638) gives the various readings of Erasmus, Stephens 1550, Elzevir, Mill, Bengel, Webster, Knapp, Tittman, Scholz, and Lachmann, and also includes a selection of readings from selected manuscripts and commentators. The 4th edition (1888) adds the readings of Tregelles and Westcott & Hort. Longer readings are given in an appendix.

Bullinger, 1877. Ethelbert W. Bullinger, A Critical Lexicon and Concordance to the English and Greek New Testament. London: Samuel Bagster and Sons, 1877. Reprinted by Zondervan in Grand Rapids, 1975.

Bullinger's work is unlike any other English (KJV) concordance in that he indicates various readings of 5 critical editions of the Greek New Testament plus the readings of Codex Sinaiticus throughout the concordance. It should be noticed, however, that when a substitution of words is involved, Bullinger indicates the critical reading in only one place. Thus in 1 John 2:7 the editors read Beloved instead of Brethren, and Bullinger indicates this under the word Brother, but he does not add a reference to the verse under Beloved. Additions are not indicated at all. Therefore, with respect to the critical readings, the concordance is incomplete, and useful only for information concerning omissions. An appendix gives in text order about 250 various readings involving larger clauses. Another appendix gives in text order the readings of Codex Sinaiticus and its ancient correctors.

Burgon, 1871. John William Burgon, The Last Twelve Verses of the Gospel according to S. Mark, Vindicated against Recent Critical Objectors and Established. Oxford: James Parker, 1871.

Burgon, 1883. John William Burgon, The Revision Revised. Three Articles Reprinted from the Quarterly Review: I. The New Greek Text. II. The New English Version. III. Westcott and Hort's New Textual Theory. To which is added a Reply to Bishop Ellicott's Pamphlet in Defence of the Revisers and their Greek Text of the New Testament: Including a Vindication of the Traditional Reading of 1 Timothy III. 16. London: John Murray, 1883.

The revision referred to in the title of this book is the English Revised Version of 1881. Burgon argues against the theories of Westcott and Hort, who had served on the revision committee, and who exercised great influence over the committee's text-critical decisions. He defends the readings of the traditional text, which means that the readings of the King James version are usually upheld. He occasionally stoops to rhetorical attacks, and frequently overstates his case. A response to Burgon's criticism was given by Charles J. Ellicott in The Revisers and the Greek Text of the New Testament (London: Macmillan & Co., 1882).

Burgon, 1896. John William Burgon, The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels Vindicated and Established. London: G. Bell, 1896.

Burgon, 1896 b. John William Burgon, The Causes of the Corruption of the Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels, being the Sequel to "The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels." London: G. Bell, 1896.

Burk, 1763. Philip David Burk, Joannis Alberti Bengelii Apparatus Criticus ad Novum Testamentum, criseos sacrae compendium, limam, supplementum, ac fructum exhibens. Cura Philippi Davidis Burkii. Tubingae, 1763.

This is a greatly enlarged and corrected edition of Bengel's Apparatus Criticus (see Bengel 1734). Burk, who was the son-in-law of Bengel, reprints in a lengthy appendix (329 pages) fourteen short works written by Bengel to introduce, explain and defend his method.