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.

                       By John William Burgon, B.D.

                           Dean of Chichester.

       “Little children,—Keep yourselves from idols.”—1 John v. 21.

                         Dover Publications, Inc.

                                 New York

                                   1971





CONTENTS


Dedication.
Preface.
Article I. The New Greek Text.
Article II. The New English Version.
Article III. Westcott And Hort’s New Textual Theory.
Letter To Bishop Ellicott, In Reply To His Pamphlet.
Appendix Of Sacred Codices.
Index I, of Texts of Scripture,—quoted, discussed, or only referred to in
this volume.
Index II, of Fathers.
Index III, Persons, Places, and Subjects.
Footnotes






[Transcriber’s Note: This book contains much Greek text, which will not be
well-rendered in plain text versions of this E-book. Also, there is much
use of Greek characters with a vertical bar across the tops of the letters
to indicate abbreviations; because the coding system used in this e-book
does not have such an “overline”, they are rendered here with underlines.
It also contains some text in Syriac, which is written right-to-left; for
the sake of different transcription methods, it is transcribed here in
both right-to-left and left-to-rights, so that regardless of the medium of
this E-book, one or the other should be readable.]

The following is PREBENDARY SCRIVENER’S recently published estimate of the
System on which DRS. WESTCOTT AND HORT have constructed their “_Revised
Greek Text of the New Testament_” (1881).—That System, the Chairman of the
Revising Body (BISHOP ELLICOTT) has entirely adopted (see below, pp. 391
to 397), and made the basis of his Defence of THE REVISERS and their “_New
Greek Text._”


    (1.) “There is little hope for the stability of their imposing
    structure, if _its foundations have been laid on the sandy ground
    of ingenious conjecture_. And, since barely the smallest vestige
    of historical evidence has ever been alleged in support of the
    views of these accomplished Editors, their teaching must either be
    received as intuitively true, or _dismissed from our consideration
    as precarious and even visionary_.”

    (2.) “DR. HORT’S System _is entirely destitute of historical
    foundation_.”

    (3.) “We are compelled to repeat as emphatically as ever our
    strong conviction that the Hypothesis to whose proof he has
    devoted so many laborious years, _is destitute not only of
    historical foundation, but of all probability, resulting from the
    internal goodness of the Text which its adoption would force upon
    us_.”

    (4.) “ ‘We cannot doubt’ (says DR. HORT) ‘that S. Luke xxiii. 34
    comes from an extraneous source.’ [_Notes_, p. 68.]—_Nor can we,
    on our part, doubt_,” (rejoins DR. SCRIVENER,) “_that the System
    which entails such consequences is hopelessly self-condemned_.”


SCRIVENER’S “Plain Introduction,” &c. [ed. 1883]: pp. 531, 537, 542, 604.





DEDICATION.


To The
Right Hon. Viscount Cranbrook, G.C.S.I.,
&c., &c., &c.

MY DEAR LORD CRANBROOK,

_Allow me the gratification of dedicating the present Volume to yourself;
but for whom—(I reserve the explanation for another day)—it would never
have been written._

_This is not, (as you will perceive at a glance,) the Treatise which a few
years ago I told you I had in hand; and which, but for the present
hindrance, might by this time have been completed. It has however_ grown
out _of that other work in the manner explained at the beginning of my
Preface. Moreover it contains not a few specimens of the argumentation of
which the work in question, when at last it sees the light, will be
discovered to be full._

_My one object has been to defeat the mischievous attempt which was made
in 1881 to thrust upon this Church and Realm a Revision of the Sacred
Text, which—recommended though it be by eminent names—I am thoroughly
convinced, and am able to prove, is untrustworthy from beginning to end._

_The reason is plain. It has been constructed throughout on an utterly
erroneous hypothesis. And I inscribe this Volume to you, my friend, as a
conspicuous member of that body of faithful and learned Laity by whose
deliberate verdict, when the whole of the evidence has been produced and
the case has been fully argued out, I shall be quite willing that my
contention may stand or fall._

_The_ English _(as well as the Greek) of the newly __“__Revised
Version__”__ is hopelessly at fault. It is to me simply unintelligible how
a company of Scholars can have spent ten years in elaborating such a very
unsatisfactory production. Their uncouth phraseology and their jerky
sentences, their pedantic obscurity and their unidiomatic English,
contrast painfully with __“__the happy turns of expression, the music of
the cadences, the felicities of the rhythm__”__ of our Authorized Version.
The transition from one to the other, as the Bishop of Lincoln remarks, is
like exchanging a well-built carriage for a vehicle without springs, in
which you get jolted to death on a newly-mended and rarely-traversed road.
But the __“__Revised Version__”__ is inaccurate as well; exhibits
defective scholarship, I mean, in countless places._

_It is, however, the_ systematic depravation of the underlying Greek
_which does so grievously offend me: for this is nothing else but a
poisoning of the River of Life at its sacred source. Our Revisers, (with
the best and purest intentions, no doubt,) stand convicted of having
deliberately rejected the words of __ Inspiration in every page, and of
having substituted for them fabricated Readings which the Church has long
since refused to acknowledge, or else has rejected with abhorrence; and
which only survive at this time in a little handful of documents of the
most depraved type._

_As Critics they have had abundant warning. Twelve years ago (1871) a
volume appeared on_ the “last Twelve Verses of the Gospel according to S.
Mark,”—_of which the declared object was to vindicate those Verses against
certain critical objectors, and to establish them by an exhaustive
argumentative process. Up to this hour, for a very obvious reason, no
answer to that volume has been attempted. And yet, at the end of ten years
(1881),—not only in the Revised English but also in the volume which
professes to exhibit the underlying Greek, (which at least is
indefensible,)—the Revisers are observed to separate off those Twelve
precious Verses from their context, in token that they are no part of the
genuine Gospel. Such a deliberate preference of_ “mumpsimus” _to_
“sumpsimus” _is by no means calculated to conciliate favour, or even to
win respect. The Revisers have in fact been the dupes of an ingenious
Theorist, concerning whose extraordinary views you are invited to read
what Dr. Scrivener has recently put forth. The words of the last-named
writer (who is_ facile princeps _in Textual Criticism) will be found
facing the beginning of the present Dedication._

_If, therefore, any do complain that I have sometimes hit my opponents
rather hard, I take leave to point out that __“__to everything __ there is
a season, and a time to every purpose under the sun__”__: __“__a time to
embrace, and a time to be far from embracing__”__: a time for speaking
smoothly, and a time for speaking sharply. And that when the words of
Inspiration are seriously imperilled, as now they are, it is scarcely
possible for one who is determined effectually to preserve the Deposit in
its integrity, to hit either too straight or too hard. In handling certain
recent utterances of Bishop Ellicott, I considered throughout that it was
the_ “Textual Critic”—_not the Successor of the Apostles,—with whom I had
to do._

_And thus I commend my Volume, the fruit of many years of incessant
anxious toil, to your indulgence: requesting that you will receive it as a
token of my sincere respect and admiration; and desiring to be remembered,
my dear Lord Cranbrook, as_

_Your grateful and affectionate_
_ Friend and Servant,_
_ John W. Burgon._

DEANERY, CHICHESTER,
All Saints’ Day., 1883.





PREFACE.


The ensuing three Articles from the “Quarterly Review,”—(wrung out of me
by the publication [May 17th, 1881] of the “Revision” of our “Authorized
Version of the New Testament,”)—appear in their present form in compliance
with an amount of continuous solicitation that they should be separately
published, which it would have been alike unreasonable and ungracious to
disregard. I was not prepared for it. It has caused me—as letter after
letter has reached my hands—mixed feelings; has revived all my original
disinclination and regret. For, gratified as I cannot but feel by the
reception my labours have met with,—(and only the Author of my being knows
what an amount of antecedent toil is represented by the ensuing pages,)—I
yet deplore more heartily than I am able to express, the injustice done to
the cause of Truth by handling the subject in this fragmentary way, and by
exhibiting the evidence for what is most certainly true, in such a very
incomplete form. A systematic Treatise is the indispensable condition for
securing cordial assent to the view for which I mainly contend. The
cogency of the argument lies entirely in the cumulative character of the
proof. It requires to be demonstrated by induction from a large collection
of particular instances, as well as by the complex exhibition of many
converging lines of evidence, that the testimony of one small group of
documents, or rather, of one particular manuscript,—(namely the Vatican
Codex B, which, for some unexplained reason, it is just now the fashion to
regard with superstitious deference,)—is the reverse of trustworthy.
Nothing in fact but a considerable Treatise will ever effectually break
the yoke of that iron tyranny to which the excellent Bishop of Gloucester
and Bristol and his colleagues have recently bowed their necks; and are
now for imposing on all English-speaking men. In brief, if I were not, on
the one hand, thoroughly convinced of the strength of my position,—(and I
know it to be absolutely impregnable);—yet more, if on the other hand, I
did not cherish entire confidence in the practical good sense and fairness
of the English mind;—I could not have brought myself to come before the
public in the unsystematic way which alone is possible in the pages of a
Review. I must have waited, at all hazards, till I had finished “my Book.”

But then, delay would have been fatal. I saw plainly that unless a sharp
blow was delivered immediately, the Citadel would be in the enemy’s hands.
I knew also that it was just possible to condense into 60 or 70
closely-printed pages what must _logically_ prove fatal to the “Revision.”
So I set to work; and during the long summer days of 1881 (June to
September) the foremost of these three Articles was elaborated. When the
October number of “the Quarterly” appeared, I comforted myself with the
secret consciousness that enough was by this time on record, even had my
life been suddenly brought to a close, to secure the ultimate rejection of
the “Revision” of 1881. I knew that the “New Greek Text,” (and therefore
the “New English Version”), had received its death-blow. It might for a
few years drag out a maimed existence; eagerly defended by some,—timidly
pleaded for by others. But such efforts could be of no avail. Its days
were already numbered. The effect of more and yet more learned
investigation,—of more elaborate and more extended inquiry,—_must_ be to
convince mankind more and yet more thoroughly that the principles on which
it had been constructed were radically unsound. In the end, when
partisanship had cooled down, and passion had evaporated, and prejudice
had ceased to find an auditory, the “Revision” of 1881 must come to be
universally regarded as—what it most certainly is,—_the most astonishing,
as well as the most calamitous literary blunder of the Age_.

I. I pointed out that “the NEW GREEK TEXT,”—which, in defiance of their
instructions,(1) the Revisionists of “the Authorized English Version” had
been so ill-advised as to spend ten years in elaborating,—was a wholly
untrustworthy performance: was full of the gravest errors from beginning
to end: had been constructed throughout on an entirely mistaken Theory.
Availing myself of the published confession of one of the Revisionists,(2)
I explained the nature of the calamity which had befallen the Revision. I
traced the mischief home to its true authors,—Drs. Westcott and Hort; a
copy of whose unpublished Text of the N. T. (the most vicious in
existence) had been confidentially, and under pledges of the strictest
secrecy, placed in the hands of every member of the revising Body.(3) I
called attention to the fact that, unacquainted with the difficult and
delicate science of Textual Criticism, the Revisionists had, in an evil
hour, surrendered themselves to Dr. Hort’s guidance: had preferred his
counsels to those of Prebendary Scrivener, (an infinitely more trustworthy
guide): and that the work before the public was the piteous—but
_inevitable_—result. All this I explained in the October number of the
“Quarterly Review” for 1881.(4)

II. In thus demonstrating the worthlessness of the “New Greek Text” of the
Revisionists, I considered that I had destroyed the key of their position.
And so perforce I had: for if the underlying Greek Text be mistaken, what
else but incorrect must the English Translation be? But on examining the
so-called “Revision of the Authorized Version,” I speedily made the
further discovery that the Revised English would have been in itself
intolerable, even had the Greek been let alone. In the first place, to my
surprise and annoyance, it proved to be a _New Translation_ (rather than a
Revision of the Old) which had been attempted. Painfully apparent were the
tokens which met me on every side that the Revisionists had been supremely
eager not so much to correct none but “plain and clear errors,”—as to
introduce as many changes into the English of the New Testament Scriptures
as they conveniently could.(5) A skittish impatience of the admirable work
before them, and a strange inability to appreciate its manifold
excellences:—a singular imagination on the part of the promiscuous Company
which met in the Jerusalem Chamber that they were competent to improve the
Authorized Version in every part, and an unaccountable forgetfulness that
the fundamental condition under which the task of Revision had been by
themselves undertaken, was that they should abstain from all but
“_necessary_” changes:—_this_ proved to be only part of the offence which
the Revisionists had committed. It was found that they had erred through
_defective Scholarship_ to an extent, and with a frequency, which to me is
simply inexplicable. I accordingly made it my business to demonstrate all
this in a second Article which appeared in the next (the January) number
of the “Quarterly Review,” and was entitled “THE NEW ENGLISH
TRANSLATION.”(6)

III. Thereupon, a pretence was set up in many quarters, (_but only by the
Revisionists and their friends_,) that all my labour hitherto had been
thrown away, because I had omitted to disprove the principles on which
this “New Greek Text” is founded. I flattered myself indeed that quite
enough had been said to make it logically certain that the underlying
“Textual Theory” _must be_ worthless. But I was not suffered to cherish
this conviction in quiet. It was again and again cast in my teeth that I
had not yet grappled with Drs. Westcott and Hort’s “arguments.” “Instead
of condemning _their Text_, why do you not disprove _their Theory_?” It
was tauntingly insinuated that I knew better than to cross swords with the
two Cambridge Professors. This reduced me to the necessity of either
leaving it to be inferred from my silence that I had found Drs. Westcott
and Hort’s “arguments” unanswerable; or else of coming forward with their
book in my hand, and demonstrating that in their solemn pages an attentive
reader finds himself encountered by nothing but a series of unsupported
assumptions: that their (so called) “Theory” is in reality nothing else
but a weak effort of the Imagination: that the tissue which these
accomplished scholars have been thirty years in elaborating, proves on
inspection to be as flimsy and as worthless as any spider’s web.

I made it my business in consequence to expose, somewhat in detail, (in a
third Article, which appeared in the “Quarterly Review” for April 1882),
the absolute absurdity,—(I use the word advisedly)—of “WESTCOTT AND HORT’S
NEW TEXTUAL THEORY;”(7) and I now respectfully commend those 130 pages to
the attention of candid and unprejudiced readers. It were idle to expect
to convince any others. We have it on good authority (Dr. Westcott’s) that
“he who has long pondered over a train of Reasoning, _becomes unable to
detect its weak points_.”(8) A yet stranger phenomenon is, that those who
have once committed themselves to an erroneous Theory, seem to be
incapable of opening their eyes to the untrustworthiness of the fabric
they have erected, even when it comes down in their sight, like a child’s
house built with playing-cards,—and presents to every eye but their own
the appearance of a shapeless ruin.

§ 1. Two full years have elapsed since the first of these Essays was
published; and my Criticism—for the best of reasons—remains to this hour
unanswered. The public has been assured indeed, (in the course of some
hysterical remarks by Canon Farrar(9)), that “the ‘Quarterly Reviewer’ can
be refuted as fully as he desires as soon as any scholar has the leisure
to answer him.” The “Quarterly Reviewer” can afford to wait,—if the
Revisers can. But they are reminded that it is no answer to one who has
demolished their master’s “Theory,” for the pupils to keep on reproducing
fragments of it; and by their mistakes and exaggerations, to make both
themselves and him, ridiculous.

§ 2. Thus, a writer in the “Church Quarterly” for January 1882, (whose
knowledge of the subject is entirely derived from what Dr. Hort has taught
him,)—being evidently much exercised by the first of my three Articles in
the “Quarterly Review,”—gravely informs the public that “it is useless to
parade such an array of venerable witnesses,” (meaning the enumerations of
Fathers of the IIIrd, IVth, and Vth centuries which are given below, at
pp. 42-4: 80-1: 84: 133: 212-3: 359-60: 421: 423: 486-90:)—“_for they have
absolutely nothing to say which deserves a moment’s hearing_.”(10)—What a
pity it is, (while he was about it), that the learned gentleman did not go
on to explain that the moon is made of green cheese!

§ 3. Dr. Sanday,(11) in a kindred spirit, delivers it as his opinion, that
“the one thing” I lack “is a grasp on the central condition of the
problem:”—that I do “not seem to have the faintest glimmering of the
principle of ‘Genealogy:’ ”—that I am “all at sea:”—that my “heaviest
batteries are discharged at random:”—and a great deal more to the same
effect. The learned Professor is quite welcome to think such things of me,
if he pleases. Οὐ φροντὶς Ἱπποκλείδῃ.

§ 4. At the end of a year, a Reviewer of quite a different calibre made
his appearance in the January number (1883) of the “Church Quarterly:” in
return for whose not very encouraging estimate of my labours, I gladly
record my conviction that if he will seriously apply his powerful and
accurate mind to the department of Textual Criticism, he will probably
produce a work which will help materially to establish the study in which
he takes such an intelligent interest, on a scientific basis. But then, he
is invited to accept the friendly assurance that the indispensable
condition of success in this department is, that a man should give to the
subject, (which is a very intricate one and abounds in unexplored
problems), his undivided attention for an extended period. I trust there
is nothing unreasonable in the suggestion that one who has not done this,
should be very circumspect when he sits in judgment on a neighbour of his
who, for very many years past, has given to Textual Criticism the whole of
his time;—has freely sacrificed health, ease, relaxation, even necessary
rest, to this one object;—has made it his one business to acquire such an
independent mastery of the subject as shall qualify him to do battle
successfully for the imperilled letter of GOD’S Word. My friend however
thinks differently. He says of me,—


    “In his first Article there was something amusing in the
    simplicity with which ‘Lloyd’s Greek Testament’ (which is only a
    convenient little Oxford edition of the ordinary kind) was put
    forth as the final standard of appeal. It recalled to our
    recollection Bentley’s sarcasm upon the text of Stephanus, which
    ‘your learned Whitbyus’ takes for the sacred original in every
    syllable.” (P. 354.)


§ 5. On referring to the passage where my “simplicity” has afforded
amusement to a friend whose brilliant conversation is always a delight to
_me_, I read as follows,—


    “It is discovered that in the 111 (out of 320) pages of a copy of
    Lloyd’s Greek Testament, in which alone these five manuscripts are
    collectively available for comparison in the Gospels,—the serious
    deflections of A from the _Textus Receptus_ amount in all to only
    842: whereas in C they amount to 1798: in B, to 2370: in א, to
    3392: in D, to 4697. The readings _peculiar to_ A within the same
    limits are 133: those peculiar to C are 170. But those of B amount
    to 197: while א exhibits 443: and the readings peculiar to D
    (within the same limits), are no fewer than 1829.... We submit
    that these facts are not altogether calculated to inspire
    confidence in codices B א C D.”(12)


§ 6. But how (let me ask) does it appear from this, that I have “put forth
Lloyd’s Greek Testament as the _final standard of Appeal_”? True, that, in
order to exhibit clearly their respective divergences, I have referred
five famous codices (A B א C D)—certain of which are found to have turned
the brain of Critics of the new school—_to one and the same familiar
exhibition of the commonly received Text of the New Testament_: but by so
doing I have not by any means assumed _the Textual purity_ of that common
standard. In other words I have not made it “_the final standard of
Appeal_.” _All_ Critics,—wherever found,—at all times, have collated with
the commonly received Text: but only as the most convenient _standard of
Comparison_; not, surely, as the absolute _standard of Excellence_. The
result of the experiment already referred to,—(and, I beg to say, it was
an exceedingly laborious experiment,)—has been, to demonstrate that the
five Manuscripts in question stand apart from one another in the following
proportions:—

842 (A) : 1798 (C) : 2370 (B) : 3392 (א) : 4697 (D).

But would not the same result have been obtained if the “five old uncials”
had been _referred to any other common standard which can be named_? In
the meantime, what else is the inevitable inference from this phenomenon
but that four out of the five _must_ be—while all the five _may_
be—outrageously depraved documents? instead of being fit to be made our
exclusive guides to the Truth of Scripture,—as Critics of the school of
Tischendorf and Tregelles would have us believe that they are?

§ 7. I cited a book which is in the hands of every schoolboy, (Lloyd’s
“Greek Testament,”) _only_ in order to facilitate reference, and to make
sure that my statements would be at once understood by the least learned
person who could be supposed to have access to the “Quarterly.” I presumed
every scholar to be aware that Bp. Lloyd (1827) professes to reproduce
Mill’s text; and that Mill (1707) reproduces the text of Stephens;(13) and
that Stephens (1550) exhibits with sufficient accuracy the Traditional
text,—which is confessedly at least 1530 years old.(14) Now, if a
tolerable approximation to the text of A.D. 350 may _not_ be accepted as
_a standard of Comparison_,—will the writer in the “Church Quarterly” be
so obliging as to inform us _which_ exhibition of the sacred Text _may_?

§ 8. A pamphlet by the Bishop of Gloucester and Bristol,(15) which
appeared in April 1882, remains to be considered. Written expressly in
defence of the Revisers and their New Greek Text, this composition
displays a slenderness of acquaintance with the subject now under
discussion, for which I was little prepared. Inasmuch however as it is the
production of the Chairman of the Revisionist body, and professes to be a
reply to my first two Articles, I have bestowed upon it an elaborate and
particular rejoinder extending to an hundred-and-fifty pages.(16) I shall
in consequence be very brief concerning it in this place.

§ 9. The respected writer does nothing else but reproduce Westcott and
Hort’s theory _in Westcott and Hort’s words_. He contributes nothing of
his own. The singular infelicity which attended his complaint that the
“Quarterly Reviewer” “censures their [Westcott and Hort’s] Text,” but,
“has not attempted _a serious examination of the arguments which they
allege in its support_,” I have sufficiently dwelt upon elsewhere.(17) The
rest of the Bishop’s contention may be summed up in two propositions:—The
first, (I.) That if the Revisionists are wrong in their “New Greek Text,”
then (not only Westcott and Hort, but) Lachmann, Tischendorf and Tregelles
must be wrong also,—a statement which I hold to be incontrovertible.—The
Bishop’s other position is also undeniable: viz. (II.) That in order to
pass an equitable judgment on ancient documents, they are to be carefully
studied, closely compared, and tested by a more scientific process than
rough comparison with the _Textus Receptus_.(18)... Thus, on both heads, I
find myself entirely at one with Bp. Ellicott.

§ 10. And yet,—as the last 150 pages of the present volume show,—I have
the misfortune to be at issue with the learned writer on almost every
particular which he proposes for discussion. Thus,

§ 11. At page 64 of his pamphlet, he fastens resolutely upon the famous
problem whether “GOD” (Θεός), or “who” (ὅς), is to be read in 1 Timothy
iii. 16. I had upheld the former reading in eight pages. He contends for
the latter, with something like acrimony, in twelve.(19) I have been at
the pains, in consequence, to write a “DISSERTATION” of seventy-six pages
on this important subject,(20)—the preparation of which (may I be allowed
to record the circumstance in passing?) occupied me closely for six
months,(21) and taxed me severely. Thus, the only point which Bishop
Ellicott has condescended to discuss argumentatively with me, will be
found to enjoy full half of my letter to him in reply.

The “Dissertation” referred to, I submit with humble confidence to the
judgment of educated Englishmen. It requires no learning to understand the
case. And I have particularly to request that those who will be at the
pains to look into this question, will remember,—(1) That the place of
Scripture discussed (viz. 1 Tim. iii. 16) was deliberately selected for a
trial of strength by the Bishop: (I should not have chosen it myself):—(2)
That on the issue of the contention which he has thus himself invited, we
have respectively staked our critical reputation. The discussion exhibits
very fairly our two methods,—his and mine; and “is of great importance as
an example,” “illustrating in a striking manner” our respective
positions,—as the Bishop himself has been careful to remind his
readers.(22)

§ 12. One merely desirous of taking a general survey of this question, is
invited to read from page 485 to 496 of the present volume. To understand
the case thoroughly, he must submit to the labour of beginning at p. 424
and reading down to p. 501.

§ 13. A thoughtful person who has been at the pains to do this, will be
apt on laying down the book to ask,—“But is it not very remarkable that so
many as five of the ancient Versions should favour the reading ‘which,’
(μυστήριον; ὃ ἐφανερώθη,) instead of ‘GOD’ (Θεός)”?—“Yes, it is very
remarkable,” I answer. “For though the Old Latin and the two Egyptian
Versions are constantly observed to conspire in error, they rarely find
allies in the Peschito and the Æthiopic. On the other hand, you are to
remember that besides VERSIONS, the FATHERS have to be inquired after:
while more important than either is the testimony of the COPIES. Now, the
combined witness to ‘GOD’ (Θεός),—so multitudinous, so respectable, so
varied, so unequivocal,—of the Copies and of the Fathers (in addition to
three of the Versions) is simply overwhelming. It becomes undeniable that
Θεός is by far the best supported reading of the present place.”

§ 14. When, however, such an one as Tischendorf or Tregelles,—Hort or
Ellicott,—would put me down by reminding me that half-a-dozen of the
oldest Versions are against me,—“_That_ argument” (I reply) “is not
allowable on _your_ lips. For if the united testimony of _five_ of the
Versions really be, in your account, decisive,—Why do you deny the
genuineness of the last Twelve Verses of S. Mark’s Gospel, _which are
recognized by every one of the Versions_? Those Verses are besides
attested _by every known Copy_, except two of bad character: _by a mighty
chorus of Fathers_: _by the unfaltering Tradition of the Church
universal_. First remove from S. Mark xvi. 20, your brand of suspicion,
and then come back to me in order that we may discuss together how 1 Tim.
iii. 16 is to be read. And yet, when you come back, it must not be to
plead in favour of ‘who’ (ὅσ), in place of ‘GOD’ (Θεός). For _not_ ‘who’
(ὅς), remember, but ‘which’ (ὅ) is the reading advocated by those five
earliest Versions.” ... In other words,—the reading of 1 Tim. iii. 16,
which the Revisers have adopted, enjoys, (as I have shown from page 428 to
page 501), _the feeblest attestation of any_; besides being condemned by
internal considerations and the universal Tradition of the Eastern Church.

§ 15. I pass on, after modestly asking,—Is it too much to hope, (I covet
no other guerdon for my labour!) that we shall hear no more about
substituting “who” for “GOD” in 1 Tim. iii. 16? We may not go on disputing
for ever: and surely, until men are able to produce some more cogent
evidence than has yet come to light in support of “the mystery of
godliness, _who_” (τὸ τῆς εὐσβείας μυστήριον: ὅς),—all sincere inquirers
after Truth are bound to accept _that_ reading which has been demonstrated
to be by far the best attested. Enough however on this head.

§ 16. It was said just now that I cordially concur with Bp. Ellicott in
the second of his two propositions,—viz. That “no equitable judgment can
be passed on ancient documents until they are carefully studied, and
closely compared with each other, and tested by a more scientific process
than rough comparison with” the _Textus Receptus_. I wish to add a few
words on this subject: the rather, because what I am about to say will be
found as applicable to my Reviewer in the “Church Quarterly” as to the
Bishop. Both have misapprehended this matter, and in exactly the same way.
Where such accomplished Scholars have erred, what wonder if ordinary
readers should find themselves all a-field?

§ 17. In Textual Criticism then, “rough comparison” can seldom, if ever,
be of any real use. On the other hand, the exact _Collation_ of documents
whether ancient or modern with the received Text, is the necessary
foundation of all scientific Criticism. I employ that Text,—(as Mill,
Bentley, Wetstein; Griesbach, Matthæi, Scholz; Tischendorf, Tregelles,
Scrivener, employed it before me,)—not as a criterion of _Excellence_, but
as a standard of _Comparison_. All this will be found fully explained
below, from page 383 to page 391. Whenever I would judge of _the
authenticity_ of any particular reading, I insist on bringing it, wherever
found,—whether in Justin Martyr and Irenæus, on the one hand; or in
Stephens and Elzevir, on the other;—to the test of _Catholic Antiquity_.
If that witness is consentient, or very nearly so, whether for or against
any given reading, I hold it to be decisive. To no other system of
arbitration will I submit myself. I decline to recognise any other
criterion of Truth.

§ 18. What compels me to repeat this so often, is the impatient
self-sufficiency of these last days, which is for breaking away from the
old restraints; and for erecting the individual conscience into an
authority from which there shall be no appeal. I know but too well how
laborious is the scientific method which _I_ advocate. A long summer day
disappears, while the student—with all his appliances about him—is
resolutely threshing out some minute textual problem. Another, and yet
another bright day vanishes. Comes Saturday evening at last, and a page of
illegible manuscript is all that he has to show for a week’s heavy toil.
_Quousque tandem?_ And yet, it is the indispensable condition of progress
in an unexplored region, that a few should thus labour, until a path has
been cut through the forest,—a road laid down,—huts built,—a _modus
vivendi_ established. In this department of sacred Science, men have been
going on too long inventing their facts, and delivering themselves of
oracular decrees, on the sole responsibility of their own inner
consciousness. There is great convenience in such a method certainly,—a
charming simplicity which is in a high degree attractive to flesh and
blood. It dispenses with proof. It furnishes no evidence. It asserts when
it ought to argue.(23) It reiterates when it is called upon to
explain.(24) “I am sir Oracle.” ... This,—which I venture to style the
_unscientific_ method,—reached its culminating point when Professors
Westcott and Hort recently put forth their Recension of the Greek Text.
Their work is indeed quite a psychological curiosity. Incomprehensible to
me is it how two able men of disciplined understandings can have seriously
put forth the volume which they call “INTRODUCTION—APPENDIX.” It is the
very _Reductio ad absurdum_ of the uncritical method of the last fifty
years. And it is especially in opposition to this new method of theirs
that I so strenuously insist that _the consentient voice of Catholic
Antiquity_ is to be diligently inquired after and submissively listened
to; for that _this_, in the end, will prove our _only_ safe guide.

§ 19. Let this be a sufficient reply to my Reviewer in the “Church
Quarterly”—who, I observe, notes, as a fundamental defect in my Articles,
“the want of a consistent working Theory, such as would enable us to
weigh, as well as count, the suffrages of MSS., Versions, and
Fathers.”(25) He is reminded that it was no part of my business to
propound a “Theory.” My _method_ I have explained often and fully enough.
My business was to prove that the theory of Drs. Westcott and Hort,—which
(as Bp. Ellicott’s pamphlet proves) has been mainly adopted by the
Revisionists,—is not only a worthless, but an utterly absurd one. And I
have proved it. The method I persistently advocate in every case of a
supposed doubtful Reading, (I say it for the last time, and request that I
may be no more misrepresented,) is, that _an appeal shall be unreservedly
made to Catholic Antiquity_; and that the combined verdict of Manuscripts,
Versions, Fathers, shall be regarded as decisive.

§ 20. I find myself, in the mean time, met by the scoffs, jeers,
misrepresentations of the disciples of this new School; who, instead of
producing historical facts and intelligible arguments, appeal to the
decrees of their teachers,—which _I_ disallow, and which _they_ are unable
to substantiate. They delight in announcing that Textual Criticism made
“_a fresh departure_” with the edition of Drs. Westcott and Hort: that the
work of those scholars “_marks an era_,” and is spoken of in Germany as
“_epoch-making_.” My own belief is, that the Edition in question, if it be
epoch-making at all, marks _that_ epoch at which the current of critical
thought, reversing its wayward course, began once more to flow in its
ancient healthy channel. “Cloud-land” having been duly sighted on the 14th
September 1881,(26) “a fresh departure” was insisted upon by public
opinion,—and a deliberate return was made,—to _terra firma_, and _terra
cognita_, and common sense. So far from “its paramount claim to the
respect of future generations,” being “the restitution of a more ancient
and a purer Text,”—I venture to predict that the edition of the two
Cambridge Professors will be hereafter remembered as indicating the
furthest point ever reached by the self-evolved imaginations of English
disciples of the school of Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles. The recoil
promises to be complete. English good sense is ever observed to prevail in
the long run; although for a few years a foreign fashion may acquire the
ascendant, and beguile a few unstable wits.

§ 21. It only remains to state that in republishing these Essays I have
availed myself of the opportunity to make several corrections and
additions; as well as here and there to expand what before had been too
briefly delivered. My learned friend and kind neighbour, the Rev. R.
Cowley Powles, has ably helped me to correct the sheets. Much valuable
assistance has been zealously rendered me throughout by my nephew, the
Rev. William F. Rose, Vicar of Worle, Somersetshire. But the unwearied
patience and consummate skill of my Secretary (M. W.) passes praise. Every
syllable of the present volume has been transcribed by her for the press;
and to her I am indebted for two of my Indices.—The obligations under
which many learned men, both at home and abroad, have laid me, will be
found faithfully acknowledged, in the proper place, at the foot of the
page. I am sincerely grateful to them all.

§ 22. It will be readily believed that I have been sorely tempted to
recast the whole and to strengthen my position in every part: but then,
the work would have no longer been,—“Three Articles reprinted from the
Quarterly Review.” Earnestly have I desired, for many years past, to
produce a systematic Treatise on this great subject. My aspiration all
along has been, and still is, in place of the absolute Empiricism which
has hitherto prevailed in Textual inquiry to exhibit the logical outlines
of what, I am persuaded, is destined to become a truly delightful Science.
But I more than long,—I fairly _ache_ to have done with Controversy, and
to be free to devote myself to the work of Interpretation. My apology for
bestowing so large a portion of my time on Textual Criticism, is David’s
when he was reproached by his brethren for appearing on the field of
battle,—“Is there not a cause?”

§ 23. For,—let it clearly be noted,—it is no longer the case that critical
doubts concerning the sacred Text are confined to critical Editions of the
Greek. So long as scholars were content to ventilate their crotchets in a
little arena of their own,—however mistaken they might be, and even though
they changed their opinions once in every ten years,—no great harm was
likely to come of it. Students of the Greek Testament were sure to have
their attention called to the subject,—which must always be in the highest
degree desirable; and it was to be expected that in this, as in every
other department of learning, the progress of Inquiry would result in
gradual accessions of certain Knowledge. After many years it might be
found practicable to put forth by authority a carefully considered
Revision of the commonly received Greek Text.

§ 24. But instead of all this, a Revision of the _English Authorised
Version_ having been sanctioned by the Convocation of the Southern
Province in 1871, the opportunity was eagerly snatched at by two
irresponsible scholars of the University of Cambridge for obtaining the
general sanction of the Revising body, and thus indirectly of Convocation,
for a private venture of their own,—their own privately devised Revision
of the _Greek Text_. On that Greek Text of theirs, (which I hold to be the
most depraved which has ever appeared in print), with some slight
modifications, our Authorised English Version has been silently revised:
silently, I say, for in the margin of the English no record is preserved
of the underlying Textual changes which have been introduced by the
Revisionists. On the contrary. Use has been made of that margin to
insinuate suspicion and distrust in countless particulars as to the
authenticity of the Text which has been suffered to remain unaltered. In
the meantime, the country has been flooded with two editions of the New
Greek Text; and thus the door has been set wide open for universal
mistrust of the Truth of Scripture to enter.

§ 25. Even schoolboys, it seems, are to have these crude views thrust upon
them. Witness the “Cambridge Greek Testament for Schools,” edited by Dean
Perowne,—who informs us at the outset that “_the Syndics of the Cambridge
University Press_ have not thought it desirable to reprint the text in
common use.” A consensus of Drs. Tischendorf and Tregelles,—who
confessedly employed _the self-same mistaken major premiss_ in remodelling
the Sacred Text,—seems, in a general way, to represent those Syndics’
notion of Textual purity. By this means every most serious deformity in
the edition of Drs. Westcott and Hort, becomes promoted to honour, and is
being thrust on the unsuspecting youth of England as the genuine utterance
of the HOLY GHOST. Would it not have been the fairer, the more faithful as
well as the more judicious course,—seeing that in respect of this abstruse
and important question _adhuc sub judice lis est_,—to wait patiently
awhile? Certainly not to snatch an opportunity “while men slept,” and in
this way indirectly to prejudge the solemn issue! Not by such methods is
the cause of GOD’S Truth on earth to be promoted. Even this however is not
all. Bishop Lightfoot has been informed that “the Bible Society has
permitted its Translators to adopt the Text of the Revised Version _where
it commends itself to their judgment_.”(27) In other words, persons wholly
unacquainted with the dangers which beset this delicate and difficult
problem are invited to determine, by the light of Nature and on the
“_solvere ambulando_” principle, what _is_ inspired Scripture, what _not_:
and as a necessary consequence are encouraged to disseminate in heathen
lands Readings which, a few years hence,—(so at least I venture to
predict,)—will be universally recognized as worthless.

§ 26. If all this does not constitute a valid reason for descending into
the arena of controversy, it would in my judgment be impossible to
indicate an occasion when the Christian soldier _is_ called upon to do
so:—the rather, because certain of those who, from their rank and station
in the Church, ought to be the champions of the Truth, are at this time
found to be among its most vigorous assailants.

§ 27. Let me,—(and with this I conclude),—in giving the present Volume to
the world, be allowed to request that it may be accepted as a sample of
how Deans employ their time,—the use they make of their opportunities.
Nowhere but under the shadow of a Cathedral, (or in a College,) can such
laborious endeavours as the present _pro Ecclesiâ_ DEI be successfully
prosecuted.

J. W. B.

DEANERY, CHICHESTER,
ALL SAINTS’ DAY, 1883.





ARTICLE I. THE NEW GREEK TEXT.


    “One question in connexion with the Authorized Version I have
    purposely neglected. It seemed useless to discuss its REVISION.
    _The Revision of the original Texts must precede the Revision of
    the Translation_: and _the time for this, even in the New
    Testament, has not yet fully come_.”—DR. WESTCOTT.(28)

    “It is my honest conviction that for any authoritative REVISION,
    we are not yet mature; _either in Biblical learning or Hellenistic
    scholarship_. There is good scholarship in this country, ... but
    _it has certainly not yet been sufficiently directed to the study
    of the New Testament_ ... to render any national attempt at
    REVISION either hopeful or lastingly profitable.”—BISHOP
    ELLICOTT.(29)

    “I am persuaded that a REVISION ought to come: I am convinced that
    it will come. Not however, I would trust, as yet; for _we are not
    as yet in any respect prepared for it_. _The Greek and the
    English_ which should enable us to bring this to a successful end,
    _might, it is feared, be wanting alike_.”—ARCHBISHOP TRENCH.(30)

    “It is happened unto them according to the true proverb, Κύων
    ἐπιστρέψας ἐπὶ τὸ ἴδιον ἐξέραμα; and Ὕς λουσαμένη εἰς κύλισμα
    βορβόρου.”—2 PETER ii. 22.

    “Little children,—Keep yourselves from idols.”—1 JOHN v. 21.


At a period of extraordinary intellectual activity like the present, it
can occasion no surprise—although it may reasonably create anxiety—if the
most sacred and cherished of our Institutions are constrained each in turn
to submit to the ordeal of hostile scrutiny; sometimes even to bear the
brunt of actual attack. When however at last the very citadel of revealed
Truth is observed to have been reached, and to be undergoing systematic
assault and battery, lookers-on may be excused if they show themselves
more than usually solicitous, “ne quid detrimenti Civitas DEI capiat.” A
Revision of the Authorized Version of the New Testament,(31) purporting to
have been executed by authority of the Convocation of the Southern
Province, and declaring itself the exclusive property of our two ancient
Universities, has recently (17th May, 1881) appeared; of which the
essential feature proves to be, that it is founded on an _entirely New
Recension of the Greek Text_.(32) A claim is at the same time set up on
behalf of the last-named production that it exhibits a closer
approximation to the inspired Autographs than the world has hitherto seen.
Not unreasonable therefore is the expectation entertained by its Authors
that the “New English Version” founded on this “New Greek Text” is
destined to supersede the “Authorized Version” of 1611. _Quæ cum ita
sint_, it is clearly high time that every faithful man among us should
bestir himself: and in particular that such as have made Greek Textual
Criticism in any degree their study should address themselves to the
investigation of the claims of this, the latest product of the combined
Biblical learning of the Church and of the sects.

For it must be plain to all, that the issue which has been thus at last
raised, is of the most serious character. The Authors of this new Revision
of the Greek have either entitled themselves to the Church’s profound
reverence and abiding gratitude; or else they have laid themselves open to
her gravest censure, and must experience at her hands nothing short of
stern and well-merited rebuke. No middle course presents itself; since
assuredly _to construct a new Greek Text_ formed no part of the
Instructions which the Revisionists received at the hands of the
Convocation of the Southern Province. Rather were they warned against
venturing on such an experiment; the fundamental principle of the entire
undertaking having been declared at the outset to be—That “a Revision of
the _Authorized Version_” is desirable; and the terms of the original
Resolution of Feb. 10th, 1870, being, that the removal of “PLAIN AND CLEAR
ERRORS” was alone contemplated,—“whether in the Greek Text originally
adopted by the Translators, or in the Translation made from the same.”
Such were in fact _the limits formally imposed by Convocation_, (10th Feb.
and 3rd, 5th May, 1870,) _on the work of Revision_. Only NECESSARY changes
were to be made. The first Rule of the Committee (25th May) was similar in
character: viz.—“_To introduce as few alterations as possible into the
Text of the Authorized Version_, consistently with faithfulness.”

But further, we were reconciled to the prospect of a Revised Greek Text,
by noting that a limit was prescribed to the amount of licence which could
by possibility result, by the insertion of a proviso, which however is now
discovered to have been entirely disregarded by the Revisionists. The
condition was enjoined upon them that whenever “_decidedly preponderating
evidence_” constrained their adoption of some change in “the Text from
which the Authorized Version was made,” _they should indicate such
alteration in the margin_. Will it be believed that, this notwithstanding,
_not one_ of the many alterations which have been introduced into the
original Text is so commemorated? On the contrary: singular to relate, the
Margin is disfigured throughout with ominous hints that, had “Some ancient
authorities,” “Many ancient authorities,” “Many very ancient authorities,”
been attended to, a vast many more changes might, could, would, or should
have been introduced into the Greek Text than have been actually adopted.
And yet, this is precisely the kind of record which we ought to have been
spared:—

(1) First,—Because it was plainly external to the province of the
Revisionists to introduce any such details into their margin _at all_:
their very function being, on the contrary, to investigate Textual
questions in conclave, and to present the ordinary Reader with _the
result_ of their deliberations. Their business was to correct “_plain and
clear errors_;” not, certainly, to invent a fresh crop of unheard-of
doubts and difficulties. This first.—Now,

(2) That a diversity of opinion would sometimes be found to exist in the
revising body was to have been expected, but when once two-thirds of their
number had finally “settled” any question, it is plainly unreasonable that
the discomfited minority should claim the privilege of evermore parading
their grievance before the public; and in effect should be allowed to
represent _that_ as a corporate doubt, which was in reality the result of
individual idiosyncrasy. It is not reasonable that the echoes of a
forgotten strife should be thus prolonged for ever; least of all in the
margin of “the Gospel of peace.”

(3) In fact, the privilege of figuring in the margin of the N. T.,
(instead of standing in the Text,) is even attended by a fatal result:
for, (as Bp. Ellicott remarks,) “the judgment commonly entertained in
reference to our present margin,” (_i.e._ the margin of the A. V.) is,
that _its contents are_ “exegetically or critically _superior to the
Text_.”(33) It will certainly be long before this popular estimate is
unconditionally abandoned. But,

(4) Especially do we deprecate the introduction into the margin of all
this strange lore, because we insist on behalf of unlearned persons that
they ought not to be molested with information which cannot, by
possibility, be of the slightest service to them: with vague statements
about “ancient authorities,”—of the importance, or unimportance, of which
they know absolutely nothing, nor indeed ever can know. Unlearned readers
on taking the Revision into their hands, (_i.e._ at least 999 readers out
of 1000,) will _never_ be aware whether these (so-called) “Various
Readings” are to be scornfully scouted, as nothing else but ancient
perversions of the Truth; or else are to be lovingly cherished, as
“_alternative_” [see the Revisers’ _Preface_ (iii. 1.)] exhibitions of the
inspired Verity,—to their own abiding perplexity and infinite distress.

Undeniable at all events it is, that the effect which these ever-recurring
announcements produce on the devout reader of Scripture is the reverse of
edifying: is never helpful: is always bewildering. A man of ordinary
acuteness can but exclaim,—“Yes, very likely. _But what of it_? My eye
happens to alight on ‘Bethesda’ (in S. John v. 2); against which I find in
the margin,—‘Some ancient authorities read _Bethsaida_, others
_Bethzatha_.’ Am I then to understand that in the judgment of the
Revisionists it is uncertain _which_ of those three names is right?”...
Not so the expert, who is overheard to moralize concerning the phenomena
of the case after a less ceremonious fashion:—“ ‘_Bethsaida_’! Yes, the
old Latin(34) and the Vulgate,(35) countenanced by _one_ manuscript of bad
character, so reads. _‘__Bethzatha__’__!_ Yes, the blunder is found in
_two_ manuscripts, both of bad character. Why do you not go on to tell us
that _another_ manuscript exhibits ‘_Belzetha_’?—another (supported by
Eusebius(36) and [in one place] by Cyril(37)), ‘_Bezatha_’? Nay, why not
say plainly that there are found to exist _upwards of thirty_ blundering
representations of this same word; but that ‘_Bethesda_’—(the reading of
sixteen uncials and the whole body of the cursives, besides the Peschito
and Cureton’s Syriac, the Armenian, Georgian and Slavonic
Versions,—Didymus,(38) Chrysostom,(39) and Cyril(40)),—is the only
reasonable way of exhibiting it? To speak plainly, _Why encumber your
margin with such a note at all?_”... But we are moving forward too fast.

It can never be any question among scholars, that a fatal error was
committed when a body of Divines, appointed _to revise the Authorized
English Version_ of the New Testament Scriptures, addressed themselves to
the solution of an entirely different and far more intricate problem,
namely _the re-construction of the Greek Text_. We are content to pass
over much that is distressing in the antecedent history of their
enterprise. We forbear at this time of day to investigate, by an appeal to
documents and dates, certain proceedings in and out of Convocation, on
which it is known that the gravest diversity of sentiment still prevails
among Churchmen.(41) This we do, not by any means as ourselves “halting
between two opinions,” but only as sincerely desirous that the work before
us may stand or fall, judged by its own intrinsic merits. Whether or no
Convocation,—when it “nominated certain of its own members to undertake
the work of Revision,” and authorized them “to refer when they considered
it desirable to Divines, Scholars, and Literary men, at home or abroad,
_for their opinion_;”—whether Convocation intended thereby to sanction the
actual _co-optation_ into the Company appointed by themselves, of members
of the Presbyterian, the Wesleyan, the Baptist, the Congregationalist, the
Socinian body; _this_ we venture to think may fairly be doubted.—Whether
again Convocation can have foreseen that of the ninety-nine Scholars in
all who have taken part in this work of Revision, only forty-nine would be
Churchmen, while the remaining fifty would belong to the sects:(42)—_this_
also we venture to think may be reasonably called in question.—Whether
lastly, the Canterbury Convocation, had it been appealed to with reference
to “the Westminster-Abbey scandal” (June 22nd, 1870), would not have
cleared itself of the suspicion of complicity, by an unequivocal
resolution,—we entertain no manner of doubt.—But we decline to enter upon
these, or any other like matters. Our business is exclusively with the
_result_ at which the Revisionists of the New Testament have arrived: and
it is to this that we now address ourselves; with the mere avowal of our
grave anxiety at the spectacle of an assembly of scholars, appointed to
revise _an English Translation_, finding themselves called upon, as every
fresh difficulty emerged, to develop the skill requisite for _critically
revising the original Greek Text_. What else is implied by the very
endeavour, but a singular expectation that experts in one Science may, at
a moment’s notice, show themselves proficients in another,—and _that_ one
of the most difficult and delicate imaginable?

Enough has been said to make it plain why, in the ensuing pages, we
propose to pursue a different course from that which has been adopted by
Reviewers generally, since the memorable day (May 17th, 1881) when the
work of the Revisionists was for the first time submitted to public
scrutiny. The one point which, with rare exceptions, has ever since
monopolized attention, has been the merits or demerits of _their English
rendering_ of certain Greek words and expressions. But there is clearly a
question of prior interest and infinitely greater importance, which has to
be settled first: namely, the merits or demerits of _the changes which the
same Scholars have taken upon themselves to introduce into the Greek
Text_. Until it has been ascertained that the result of their labours
exhibits a decided improvement upon what before was read, it is clearly a
mere waste of time to enquire into the merits of their work as _Revisers
of a __ Translation_. But in fact it has to be proved that the
Revisionists have restricted themselves to the removal of “plain and clear
_errors_” from the commonly received Text. We are distressed to discover
that, on the contrary, they have done something quite different. The
treatment which the N. T. has experienced at the hands of the Revisionists
recals the fate of some ancient edifice which confessedly required to be
painted, papered, scoured,—with a minimum of masons’ and carpenters’
work,—in order to be inhabited with comfort for the next hundred years:
but those entrusted with the job were so ill-advised as to persuade
themselves that it required to be to a great extent rebuilt. Accordingly,
in an evil hour they set about removing foundations, and did so much
structural mischief that in the end it became necessary to proceed against
them for damages.

Without the remotest intention of imposing views of our own on the general
Reader, but only to enable him to give his intelligent assent to much that
is to follow, we find ourselves constrained in the first instance,—before
conducting him over any part of the domain which the Revisionists have
ventured uninvited to occupy,—to premise a few ordinary facts which lie on
the threshold of the science of Textual Criticism. Until these have been
clearly apprehended, no progress whatever is possible.

(1) The provision, then, which the Divine Author of Scripture is found to
have made for the preservation in its integrity of His written Word, is of
a peculiarly varied and highly complex description. First,—By causing that
a vast multiplication of COPIES should be required all down the
ages,—beginning at the earliest period, and continuing in an
ever-increasing ratio until the actual invention of Printing,—He provided
the most effectual security imaginable against fraud. True, that millions
of the copies so produced have long since perished: but it is nevertheless
a plain fact that there survive of the Gospels alone upwards of one
thousand copies to the present day.

(2) Next, VERSIONS. The necessity of translating the Scriptures into
divers languages for the use of different branches of the early Church,
procured that many an authentic record has been preserved of the New
Testament as it existed in the first few centuries of the Christian era.
Thus, the Peschito Syriac and the old Latin version are believed to have
been executed in the IInd century. “It is no stretch of imagination”
(wrote Bp. Ellicott in 1870,) “to suppose that portions of the Peschito
might have been in the hands of S. John, or that the Old Latin represented
the current views of the Roman Christians of the IInd century.”(43) The
two Egyptian translations are referred to the IIIrd and IVth. The Vulgate
(or revised Latin) and the Gothic are also claimed for the IVth: the
Armenian, and possibly the Æthiopic, belong to the Vth.

(3) Lastly, the requirements of assailants and apologists alike, the
business of Commentators, the needs of controversialists and teachers in
every age, have resulted in a vast accumulation of additional evidence, of
which it is scarcely possible to over-estimate the importance. For in this
way it has come to pass that every famous Doctor of the Church in turn has
quoted more or less largely from the sacred writings, and thus has borne
testimony to the contents of the codices with which he was individually
familiar. PATRISTIC CITATIONS accordingly are a third mighty safeguard of
the integrity of the deposit.

To weigh these three instruments of Criticism—COPIES, VERSIONS,
FATHERS—one against another, is obviously impossible on the present
occasion. Such a discussion would grow at once into a treatise.(44)
Certain explanatory details, together with a few words of caution, are as
much as may be attempted.

I. And, first of all, the reader has need to be apprised (with reference
to the first-named class of evidence) that most of our extant COPIES of
the N. T. Scriptures are comparatively of recent date, ranging from the
Xth to the XIVth century of our era. That these are in every instance
copies of yet older manuscripts, is self-evident; and that in the main
they represent faithfully the sacred autographs themselves, no reasonable
person doubts.(45) Still, it is undeniable that they _are_ thus separated
by about a thousand years from their inspired archetypes. Readers are
reminded, in passing, that the little handful of copies on which we rely
for the texts of Herodotus and Thucydides, of Æschylus and Sophocles, are
removed from _their_ originals by full 500 years more: and that, instead
of a thousand, or half a thousand copies, we are dependent for the text of
certain of these authors on as many copies as may be counted on the
fingers of one hand. In truth, the security which the Text of the New
Testament enjoys is altogether unique and extraordinary. To specify one
single consideration, which has never yet attracted nearly the amount of
attention it deserves,—“Lectionaries” abound, which establish the Text
which has been publicly read in the churches of the East, from _at least_
A.D. 400 until the time of the invention of printing.

But here an important consideration claims special attention. We allude to
the result of increased acquaintance with certain of the oldest extant
codices of the N. T. Two of these,—viz. a copy in the Vatican technically
indicated by the letter B, and the recently-discovered Sinaitic codex,
styled after the first letter of the Hebrew alphabet א,—are thought to
belong to the IVth century. Two are assigned to the Vth, viz. the
Alexandrian (A) in the British Museum, and the rescript codex preserved at
Paris, designated C. One is probably of the VIth, viz. the codex Bezæ (D)
preserved at Cambridge. Singular to relate, the first, second, fourth, and
fifth of these codices (B א C D), but especially B and א, have within the
last twenty years established a tyrannical ascendency over the imagination
of the Critics, which can only be fitly spoken of as a blind superstition.
It matters nothing that all four are discovered on careful scrutiny to
differ essentially, not only from ninety-nine out of a hundred of the
whole body of extant MSS. besides, but even _from one another_. This last
circumstance, obviously fatal to their corporate pretensions, is
unaccountably overlooked. And yet it admits of only one satisfactory
explanation: viz. that _in different degrees_ they all five exhibit a
fabricated text. Between the first two (B and א) there subsists an amount
of sinister resemblance, which proves that they must have been derived at
no very remote period from the same corrupt original. Tischendorf insists
that they were partly written by the same scribe. Yet do they stand
asunder in every page; as well as differ widely from the commonly received
Text, with which they have been carefully collated. On being referred to
this standard, in the Gospels alone, B is found to omit at least 2877
words: to add, 536: to substitute, 935: to transpose, 2098: to modify,
1132 (in all 7578):—the corresponding figures for א being severally 3455,
839, 1114, 2299, 1265 (in all 8972). And be it remembered that the
omissions, additions, substitutions, transpositions, and modifications,
_are by no means the same_ in both. It is in fact _easier to find two
consecutive verses in which these two MSS. differ the one from the other,
than two consecutive verses in which they entirely agree_.

But by far the most depraved text is that exhibited by codex D. “No known
manuscript contains so many bold and extensive interpolations. Its
variations from the sacred Text are beyond all other example.”(46) This,
however, is not the result of its being the most recent of the five, but
(singular to relate) is due to quite an opposite cause. It is thought (not
without reason) to exhibit a IInd-century text. “When we turn to the Acts
of the Apostles,” (says the learned editor of the codex in question, Dr.
Scrivener,(47))—


    “We find ourselves confronted with a text, the like to which we
    have no experience of elsewhere. It is hardly an exaggeration to
    assert that codex D reproduces the _Textus receptus_ much in the
    same way that one of the best Chaldee Targums does the Hebrew of
    the Old Testament: so wide are the variations in the diction, so
    constant and inveterate the practice of expounding the narrative
    by means of interpolations which seldom recommend themselves as
    genuine by even a semblance of internal probability.”


“_Vix dici potest_” (says Mill) “_quam supra omnem modum licenter se
gesserit, ac plane lasciverit Interpolator_.” Though a large portion of
the Gospels is missing, in what remains (tested by the same standard) we
find 3704 words omitted: no less than 2213 added, and 2121 substituted.
The words transposed amount to 3471: and 1772 have been modified: the
deflections from the Received Text thus amounting in all to 13,281.—Next
to D, the most untrustworthy codex is א, which bears on its front a
memorable note of the evil repute under which it has always laboured: viz.
it is found that at least _ten_ revisers between the IVth and the XIIth
centuries busied themselves with the task of correcting its many and
extraordinary perversions of the truth of Scripture.(48)—Next in impurity
comes B:—then, the fragmentary codex C: our own A being, beyond all doubt,
disfigured by the fewest blemishes of any.

What precedes admits to some extent of further numerical illustration. It
is discovered that in the 111 (out of 320) pages of an ordinary copy of
the Greek Testament, in which alone these five manuscripts are
collectively available for comparison in the Gospels,—the serious
deflections of A from the _Textus receptus_ amount in all to only 842:
whereas in C they amount to 1798: in B, to 2370: in א, to 3392: in D, to
4697. The readings _peculiar to_ A within the same limits are 133: those
peculiar to C are 170. But those of B amount to 197: while א exhibits 443:
and the readings peculiar to D (within the same limits), are no fewer than
1829.... We submit that these facts—_which result from merely referring
five manuscripts to one and the same common standard_—are by no means
calculated to inspire confidence in codices B א C D:—codices, be it
remembered, which come to us without a character, without a history, in
fact without antecedents of _any_ kind.

But let the learned chairman of the New Testament company of Revisionists
(Bp. Ellicott) be heard on this subject. He is characterizing these same
“old uncials,” which it is just now the fashion—or rather, the _craze_—to
hold up as oracular, and to which his lordship is as devotedly and blindly
attached as any of his neighbours:—


    “The _simplicity and dignified conciseness_” (he says) “of the
    Vatican manuscript (B): the _greater expansiveness_ of our own
    Alexandrian (A): the _partially mixed characteristics_ of the
    Sinaitic (א): the _paraphrastic tone_ of the _singular_ codex Bezæ
    (D), are now brought home to the student.”(49)


Could ingenuity have devised severer satire than such a description of
four professing _transcripts_ of a book; and _that_ book, the everlasting
Gospel itself?—transcripts, be it observed in passing, on which it is just
now the fashion to rely implicitly for the very orthography of proper
names,—the spelling of common words,—the minutiæ of grammar. What (we ask)
would be thought of four such “_copies_” of Thucydides or of Shakspeare?
Imagine it gravely proposed, by the aid of four such conflicting
documents, to re-adjust the text of the funeral oration of Pericles, or to
re-edit “Hamlet.” _Risum teneatis amici?_ Why, some of the poet’s most
familiar lines would cease to be recognizable: _e.g._ A,—“_Toby or not
Toby; that is the question_:” B,—“_Tob or not, is the question_:” א,—“_To
be a tub, or not to be a tub; the question is that_:” C,—“_The question
is, to beat, or not to beat Toby?_”: D (the “singular codex”),—“_The only
question is this: to beat that Toby, or to be a tub?_”

And yet—without by any means subscribing to the precise terms in which the
judicious Prelate characterizes those _ignes fatui_ which have so
persistently and egregiously led his lordship and his colleagues
astray—(for indeed one seems rather to be reading a description of four
styles of composition, or of as many fashions in ladies’ dress, than of
four copies of the Gospel)—we have already furnished indirect proof that
his estimate of the codices in question is in the main correct. Further
acquaintance with them does but intensify the bad character which he has
given them. Let no one suppose that we deny their extraordinary
value,—their unrivalled critical interest,—nay, their actual _use_ in
helping to settle the truth of Scripture. What we are just now insisting
upon is only the _depraved text_ of codices א A B C D,—especially of א B
D. And because this is a matter which lies at the root of the whole
controversy, and because we cannot afford that there shall exist in our
reader’s mind the slightest doubt on _this_ part of the subject, we shall
be constrained once and again to trouble him with detailed specimens of
the contents of א B, &c., in proof of the justice of what we have been
alleging. We venture to assure him, without a particle of hesitation, that
א B D are _three of the most scandalously corrupt copies extant_:—exhibit
_the most shamefully mutilated_ texts which are anywhere to be met
with:—have become, by whatever process (for their history is wholly
unknown), the depositories of the largest amount of _fabricated readings_,
ancient _blunders_, and _intentional perversions of Truth_,—which are
discoverable in any known copies of the Word of GOD.

But in fact take a single page of any ordinary copy of the Greek
Testament,—Bp. Lloyd’s edition, suppose. Turn to page 184. It contains ten
verses of S. Luke’s Gospel, ch. viii. 35 to 44. Now, proceed to collate
those ten verses. You will make the notable discovery that, within those
narrow limits, by codex D alone the text has been depraved 53 times,
resulting in no less than 103 corrupt readings, 93 _of which are found
only in_ D. The words omitted by D are 40: the words added are 4.
Twenty-five words have been substituted for others, and 14 transposed.
Variations of case, tense, &c., amount to 16; and the phrase of the
Evangelist has been departed from 11 times. Happily, the other four “old
uncials” are here available. And it is found that (within the same limits,
and referred to the same test,) A exhibits 3 omissions, 2 of which are
_peculiar to_ A.—B omits 12 words, 6 of which are _peculiar to_ B:
substitutes 3 words: transposes 4: and exhibits 6 lesser changes—2 of them
being its own peculiar property.—א has 5 readings (affecting 8 words)
_peculiar to itself_. Its omissions are 7: its additions, 2: its
substitutions, 4: 2 words are transposed; and it exhibits 4 lesser
discrepancies.—C has 7 readings (affecting 15 words) _peculiar to itself_.
Its omissions are 4: its additions, 7: its substitutions, 7: its words
transposed, 7. It has 2 lesser discrepancies, and it alters the
Evangelist’s phrase 4 times.

But (we shall be asked) what amount of _agreement_, in respect of “Various
Readings,” is discovered to subsist between these 5 codices? for _that_,
after all, is the practical question. We answer,—A has been already shown
to stand alone twice: B, 6 times: א, 8 times: C, 15 times; D, 93 times.—We
have further to state that A B stand together by themselves once: B א, 4
times: B C, 1: B D, 1: א C, 1: C D, 1.—A א C conspire 1: B א C, 1: B א D,
1: A B א C, _once_ (viz. in reading ἐρώτησεν, which Tischendorf admits to
be a corrupt reading): B א C D, also _once_.—The 5 “old uncials” therefore
(A B א C D) combine, and again stand apart, with singular
impartiality.—Lastly, they are _never once_ found to be in accord in
respect of _any single _“various Reading”.—Will any one, after a candid
survey of the premisses, deem us unreasonable, if we avow that such a
specimen of the _concordia discors_ which everywhere prevails between the
oldest uncials, but which especially characterizes א B D, indisposes us
greatly to suffer their unsupported authority to determine for us the Text
of Scripture?

Let no one at all events obscure the one question at issue, by
asking,—“Whether we consider the _Textus Receptus_ infallible?” The merit
or demerit of the Received Text has absolutely _nothing whatever to do
with the question_. We care nothing about it. _Any_ Text would equally
suit our present purpose. _Any_ Text would show the “old uncials”
perpetually at discord _among themselves_. To raise an irrelevant
discussion, at the outset, concerning the _Textus Receptus_:—to describe
the haste with which Erasmus produced the first published edition of the
N. T.:—to make sport about the copies which he employed:—all this kind of
thing is the proceeding of one who seeks to mislead his readers:—to throw
dust into their eyes:—to divert their attention from the problem actually
before them:—_not_—(as we confidently expect when we have to do with such
writers as these)—the method of a sincere lover of Truth. To proceed,
however.

II. and III. Nothing has been said as yet concerning the Text exhibited by
the earliest of the VERSIONS and by the most ancient of the FATHERS. But,
for the purpose we have just now in hand, neither are such details
necessary. We desire to hasten forward. A somewhat fuller review of
certain of our oldest available materials might prove even more
discouraging. But _that_ would only be because it is impossible, within
such narrow limits as the present, to give the reader any idea at all of
the wealth of our actual resources; and to convince him of the extent to
which the least trustworthy of our guides prove in turn invaluable helps
in correcting the exorbitances of their fellows. The practical result in
fact of what has been hitherto offered is after all but this, that we have
to be on our guard against pinning our faith exclusively on two or
three,—least of all on one or two ancient documents; and of adopting
_them_ exclusively for our guides. We are shown, in other words, that it
is utterly out of the question to rely on any single _set_ or _group_ of
authorities, much less on any single document, for the determination of
the Text of Scripture. Happily, our MANUSCRIPTS are numerous: most of them
are in the main trustworthy: _all_ of them represent far older documents
than themselves. Our VERSIONS (two of which are more ancient by a couple
of centuries than any sacred codex extant) severally correct and check one
another. Lastly, in the writings of a host of FATHERS,—the principal being
Eusebius, Athanasius, Basil, the Gregories, Didymus, Epiphanius,
Chrysostom, the Cyrils, Theodoret,—we are provided with contemporaneous
evidence which, whenever it can be had, becomes an effectual safeguard
against the unsupported decrees of our oldest codices, A B א C D, as well
as the occasional vagaries of the Versions. In the writings of Irenæus,
Clemens Alex., Origen, Dionysius Alex., Hippolytus, we meet with older
evidence still. No more precarious foundation for a reading, in fact, can
be named, than the unsupported advocacy of a single Manuscript, or
Version, or Father; or even of two or three of these combined.

But indeed the principle involved in the foregoing remarks admits of being
far more broadly stated. It even stands to reason that we may safely
reject any reading which, out of the whole body of available
authorities,—Manuscripts, Versions, Fathers,—finds support nowhere save in
one and the same little handful of suspicious documents. For we resolutely
maintain, that _external Evidence_ must after all be our best, our only
safe guide; and (to come to the point) we refuse to throw in our lot with
those who, disregarding the witness of _every other_ known Codex—_every
other_ Version—_every other_ available Ecclesiastical Writer,—insist on
following the dictates of a little group of authorities, of which nothing
whatever is known with so much certainty as that often, when they concur
exclusively, it is to mislead. We speak of codices B or א or D; the
IXth-century codex L, and such cursives(50) as 13 or 33; a few copies of
the old Latin and one of the Egyptian versions: perhaps Origen.—Not theory
therefore:—not prejudice:—not conjecture:—not unproved assertion:—not any
single codex, and _certainly_ not codex B:—not an imaginary “Antiochene
Recension” of another imaginary “Pre-Syrian Text:”—not antecedent fancies
about the affinity of documents:—neither “the [purely arbitrary] method of
genealogy,”—nor one man’s notions (_which may be reversed by another man’s
notions_) of “Transcriptional Probability:”—not “instinctive processes of
Criticism,”—least of all “the individual mind,” with its “supposed power
of divining the Original Text”—of which no intelligible account can be
rendered:—nothing of this sort,—(however specious and plausible it may
sound, especially when set forth in confident language; advocated with a
great show of unintelligible learning; supported by a formidable array of
cabalistic symbols and mysterious contractions; above all when recommended
by justly respected names,)—nothing of this sort, we say, must be allowed
to determine for us the Text of Scripture. The very proposal should set us
on our guard against the _certainty_ of imposition.

We deem it even axiomatic, that, in every case of doubt or
difficulty—supposed or real—our critical method must be the same: namely,
after patiently collecting _all_ the available evidence, then, without
partiality or prejudice, to adjudicate between the conflicting
authorities, and loyally to accept that verdict for which there is clearly
the preponderating evidence. _The best supported Reading_, in other words,
must always be held to be _the true Reading_: and nothing may be rejected
from the commonly received Text, except on evidence which shall _clearly_
outweigh the evidence for retaining it. We are glad to know that, so far
at least, we once had Bp. Ellicott with us. He announced (in 1870) that
the best way of proceeding with the work of Revision is, “_to make the
Textus Receptus the standard_,—departing from it _only when_ critical or
grammatical considerations _show that it is clearly necessary_.”(51) We
ourselves mean no more. Whenever the evidence is about evenly balanced,
few it is hoped will deny that the Text which has been “in possession” for
three centuries and a half, and which rests on infinitely better
manuscript evidence than that of any ancient work which can be
named,—should, for every reason, be let alone.(52)

But, (we shall perhaps be asked,) has any critical Editor of the N. T.
seriously taught the reverse of all this? Yes indeed, we answer. Lachmann,
Tregelles, Tischendorf,—the most recent and most famous of modern
editors,—have all three adopted a directly opposite theory of textual
revision. With the first-named, fifty years ago (1831), virtually
originated the principle of recurring exclusively to a few ancient
documents to the exclusion of the many. “LACHMANN’S text seldom rests on
more than four Greek codices, very often on three, not unfrequently on
two, _sometimes on only one_.”(53) Bishop Ellicott speaks of it as “a text
composed _on the narrowest and most exclusive principles_.”(54) Of the
Greek Fathers (Lachmann says) he employed _only Origen_.(55) Paying
extraordinary deference to the Latin Version, he entirely disregarded the
coëval Syriac translation. The result of such a system must needs prove
satisfactory to no one except its author.

Lachmann’s leading fallacy has perforce proved fatal to the value of the
text put forth by DR. TREGELLES. Of the scrupulous accuracy, the
indefatigable industry, the pious zeal of that estimable and devoted
scholar, we speak not. All honour to his memory! As a specimen of
conscientious labour, his edition of the N. T. (1857-72) passes praise,
and will _never_ lose its value. But it has only to be stated, that
Tregelles effectually persuaded himself that “_eighty-nine ninetieths_” of
our extant manuscripts and other authorities may safely be rejected and
lost sight of when we come to amend the text and try to restore it to its
primitive purity,(56)—to make it plain that in Textual Criticism he must
needs be regarded as an untrustworthy teacher. _Why_ he should have
condescended to employ no patristic authority later than Eusebius [fl.
A.D. 320], he does not explain. “His critical principles,” (says Bishop
Ellicott,) “especially his general principles of estimating and regarding
modern manuscripts, are now perhaps justly called in question.”(57)

“The case of DR. TISCHENDORF” (proceeds Bp. Ellicott) “is still more
easily disposed of. _Which_ of this most inconstant Critic’s texts are we
to select? Surely not the last, in which an exaggerated preference for a
single Manuscript which he has had the good fortune to discover, has
betrayed him into an almost child-like infirmity of critical judgment.
Surely also not his seventh edition, which ... exhibits all the
instability which a comparatively recent recognition of the authority of
cursive manuscripts might be supposed likely to introduce.”(58) With Dr.
Tischendorf,—(whom one vastly his superior in learning, accuracy, and
judgment, has generously styled “the first Biblical Critic in
Europe”(59))—“_the evidence of codex_ א, supported or even unsupported by
one or two other authorities of any description, is sufficient to outweigh
any other witnesses,—whether Manuscripts, Versions, or ecclesiastical
Writers.”(60) We need say no more. Until the foregoing charge has been
disproved, Dr. Tischendorf’s last edition of the N. T., however precious
as a vast storehouse of materials for criticism,—however admirable as a
specimen of unwearied labour, critical learning, and first-rate
ability,—must be admitted to be an utterly unsatisfactory exhibition of
the inspired Text. It has been ascertained that his discovery of codex א
caused his 8th edition (1865-72) to differ from his 7th in no less than
3505 places,—“to the scandal of the science of Comparative Criticism, as
well as to his own grave discredit for discernment and consistency.”(61)
But, in fact, what is to be thought of a Critic who,—because the last
verse of S. John’s Gospel, in א, seemed to himself to be _written with a
different pen_ from the rest,—has actually _omitted that verse_ (xxi. 25)
entirely, in defiance of _every known Copy, every known Version_, and the
explicit testimony of _a host of Fathers_? Such are Origen (in 11
places),—Eusebius (in 3),—Gregory Nyss. (in 2),—Gregory
Nazian.,—ps.-Dionys. Alex.,(62)—Nonnus,—Chrysostom (in 6
places),—Theodoras Mops. (in 2),—Isidorus,—Cyril Alex. (in 2),—Victor
Ant.,—Ammonius,—Severus,—Maximus,—Andreas
Cretensis,—Ambrose,—Gaudentius,—Philastrius,— Sedulius,—Jerome,—Augustine
(in 6 places). That Tischendorf was a critic of amazing research, singular
shrewdness, indefatigable industry; and that he enjoyed an unrivalled
familiarity with ancient documents; no fair person will deny. But (in the
words of Bishop Ellicott,(63) whom we quote so perseveringly for a reason
not hard to divine,) his “great inconstancy,”—his “natural want of
sobriety of critical judgment,”—and his “unreasonable deference to the
readings found in his own codex Sinaiticus;”—to which should be added
“_the utter absence in him of any intelligible fixed critical
principles_;”—all this makes Tischendorf one of the worst of guides to the
true Text of Scripture.

The last to enter the field are DRS. WESTCOTT and HORT, whose
beautifully-printed edition of “the New Testament in the original
Greek”(64) was published _within five days_ of the “Revised Authorized
Version” itself; a “confidential” copy of their work having been already
entrusted to every member of the New Test. company of Revisionists to
guide them in their labours,—under pledge that they should neither show
nor communicate its contents to any one else.—The learned Editors candidly
avow, that they “have deliberately chosen on the whole to rely for
documentary evidence on the stores accumulated by their predecessors, and
to confine themselves to their proper work of editing the text
itself.”(65) Nothing therefore has to be enquired after, except the
critical principles on which they have proceeded. And, after assuring us
that “the study of Grouping is the foundation of all enduring
Criticism,”(66) they produce their secret: viz. That in “every one of our
witnesses” _except codex_ B, the “corruptions are innumerable;”(67) and
that, in the Gospels, the one “group of witnesses” _of _“incomparable
value”, is codex B in “combination with another primary Greek manuscript,
as א B, B L, B C, B T, B D, B Ξ, A B, B Z, B 33, and in S. Mark B Δ.”(68)
This is “Textual Criticism made easy,” certainly. Well aware of the
preposterous results to which such a major premiss must inevitably lead,
we are not surprised to find a plea straightway put in for “_instinctive
processes of Criticism_” of which _the foundation _“needs perpetual
correction and recorrection”. But our confidence fairly gives way when, in
the same breath, the accomplished Editors proceed as follows:—“But _we are
obliged to come to the individual mind_ at last; and canons of Criticism
are useful only as warnings against _natural illusions_, and aids to
circumspect consideration, not as absolute rules to prescribe the final
decision. It is true that no _individual mind_ can ever work with perfect
uniformity, or free itself completely from _its own idiosyncrasies_. Yet a
clear sense of the danger of _unconscious caprice_ may do much towards
excluding it. We trust also that the present Text has escaped some risks
of this kind by being the joint production of two Editors of different
habits of mind”(69) ... A somewhat insecure safeguard surely! May we be
permitted without offence to point out that the “idiosyncrasies” of an
“individual mind” (to which we learn with astonishment “we are obliged to
come at last”) are probably the very worst foundation possible on which to
build the recension of an inspired writing? With regret we record our
conviction, that these accomplished scholars have succeeded in producing a
Text vastly more remote from the inspired autographs of the Evangelists
than any which has appeared since the invention of printing. When full
Prolegomena have been furnished we shall know more about the matter;(70)
but to judge from the Remarks (in pp. 541-62) which the learned Editors
(Revisionists themselves) have subjoined to their elegantly-printed
volume, it is to be feared that the fabric will be found to rest too
exclusively on vague assumption and unproved hypothesis. In other words, a
painful apprehension is created that their edition of “The New Testament
in the original Greek” will be found to partake inconveniently of the
nature of a work of the Imagination. As codex א proved fatal to Dr.
Tischendorf, so is codex B evidently the rock on which Drs. Westcott and
Hort have split. Did it ever occur to those learned men to enquire how the
Septuagint Version of the _Old_ Testament has fared at the hands of codex
B? They are respectfully invited to address themselves to this very
damaging enquiry.

But surely (rejoins the intelligent Reader, coming fresh to these
studies), the oldest extant Manuscripts (B א A C D) _must_ exhibit the
purest text! Is it not so?

It _ought_ to be so, no doubt (we answer); but it certainly _need not_ be
the case.

We know that Origen in Palestine, Lucian at Antioch, Hesychius in Egypt,
“revised” the text of the N. T. Unfortunately, they did their work in an
age when such fatal misapprehension prevailed on the subject, that each in
turn will have inevitably imported a fresh assortment of _monstra_ into
the sacred writings. Add, the baneful influence of such spirits as
Theophilus (sixth Bishop of Antioch, A.D. 168), Tatian, Ammonius, &c., of
whom we know there were very many in the primitive age,—some of whose
productions, we further know, were freely multiplied in every quarter of
ancient Christendom:—add, the fabricated Gospels which anciently abounded;
notably the _Gospel of the Hebrews_, about which Jerome is so
communicative, and which (he says) he had translated into Greek and
Latin:—lastly, freely grant that here and there, with well-meant
assiduity, the orthodox themselves may have sought to prop up truths which
the early heretics (Basilides, A.D. 134, Valentinus, A.D. 140, with his
disciple Heracleon, Marcion, A.D. 150, and the rest,) most perseveringly
assailed;—and we have sufficiently explained how it comes to pass that not
a few of the codices of primitive Christendom must have exhibited Texts
which were even scandalously corrupt. “It is no less true to fact than
paradoxical in sound,” writes the most learned of the Revisionist body,


    “that the worst corruptions, to which the New Testament has ever
    been subjected, originated within a hundred years after it was
    composed: that Irenæus [A.D. 150] and the African Fathers, and the
    whole Western, with a portion of the Syrian Church, used far
    inferior manuscripts to those employed by Stunica, or Erasmus, or
    Stephens thirteen centuries later, when moulding the Textus
    Receptus.”(71)


And what else are codices א B C D but _specimens_—_in vastly_ _different
degrees_—_of the class thus characterized_ by Prebendary Scrivener? Nay,
who will venture to deny that those codices are indebted for their
preservation _solely_ to the circumstance, that they were long since
recognized as the depositories of Readings which rendered them utterly
untrustworthy?

Only by singling out some definite portion of the Gospels, and attending
closely to the handling it has experienced at the hands of A א B C D,—to
the last four of which it is just now the fashion to bow down as to an
oracular voice from which there shall be no appeal,—can the student become
aware of the hopelessness of any attempt to construct the Text of the N.
T. out of the materials which those codices exclusively supply. Let us
this time take S. Mark’s account of the healing of “the paralytic borne of
four” (ch. ii. 1-12),—and confront their exhibition of it, with that of
the commonly received Text. In the course of those 12 verses, (not
reckoning 4 blunders and certain peculiarities of spelling,) there will be
found to be 60 variations of reading,—of which 55 are nothing else but
depravations of the text, the result of inattention or licentiousness.
Westcott and Hort adopt 23 of these:—(18, in which א B conspire to vouch
for a reading: 2, where א is unsupported by B: 2, where B is unsupported
by א: 1, where C D are supported by neither א nor B). Now, in the present
instance, the “five old uncials” _cannot be_ the depositories of a
tradition,—whether Western or Eastern,—because they render inconsistent
testimony _in every verse_. It must further be admitted, (for this is
really not a question of opinion, but a plain matter of fact,) that it is
unreasonable to place confidence in such documents. What would be thought
in a Court of Law of five witnesses, called up 47 times for examination,
who should be observed to bear contradictory testimony _every time_?

But the whole of the problem does not by any means lie on the surface. All
that _appears_ is that the five oldest uncials are not trustworthy
witnesses; which singly, in the course of 12 verses separate themselves
from their fellows 33 times: viz. A, twice;—א, 5 times;—B, 6 times;—C,
thrice;—D, 17 times: and which also enter into the 11 following
combinations with one another in opposition to the ordinary Text:—A C,
twice;—א B, 10 times;—א D, once;—C D, 3 times;—א B C, once;—א B D, 5
times;—א C D, once;—B C D, once;—A א C D, once;—A B C D, once;—A א B C D,
once. (Note, that on this last occasion, which is the _only_ time when
they all 5 agree, _they are certainly all 5 wrong_.) But this, as was
observed before, lies on the surface. On closer critical inspection, it is
further discovered that their testimony betrays the baseness of their
origin by its intrinsic worthlessness. Thus, in Mk. ii, 1, the delicate
precision of the announcement ἠκούσθη ὅτι ΕἸΣ ΟἾΚΟΝ ἘΣΤΙ (that “_He has
gone in_”), disappears from א B D:—as well as (in ver. 2) the circumstance
that it became the signal for many “_immediately_” (א B) to assemble about
the door.—In ver. 4, S. Mark explains his predecessor’s concise statement
that the paralytic was “brought to” our SAVIOUR,(72) by remarking that the
thing was “_impossible_” by the ordinary method of approach. Accordingly,
his account of the expedient resorted to by the bearers fills one entire
verse (ver. 4) of his Gospel. In the mean time, א B by exhibiting (in S.
Mark ii. 3,) “bringing unto Him one sick of the palsy” (φέροντες πρὸς
αὐτὸν παραλυτικόν,—which is but a senseless transposition of πρὸς αὐτόν,
παραλυτικὸν φέροντες), do their best to obliterate the exquisite
significance of the second Evangelist’s method.—In the next verse, the
perplexity of the bearers, who, because they could not “_come nigh_ Him”
(προσεγγίσαι αὐτῷ), unroofed the house, is lost in א B,—whose προσενέγκαι
has been obtained either from Matt. ix. 2, or else from Luke v. 18, 19
(εἰσενεγκεῖν, εἰσενέγκωσιν). “The bed WHERE WAS the paralytic” (τὸν
κράββατον ὍΠΟΥ ἮΝ ὁ παραλυτικός), in imitation of “the roof WHERE WAS”
Jesus (τὴν στέγην ὍΠΟΥ ἮΝ [ὁ Ἰησοῦς], which had immediately preceded), is
just one of those tasteless depravations, for which א B, and especially D,
are conspicuous among manuscripts.—In the last verse, the _instantaneous
rising_ of the paralytic, noticed by S. Mark (ἠγέρθη εὐθέως), and insisted
upon by S. Luke (“_and immediately he rose up_ before them,”—καὶ παραχρῆμα
ἀναστὰς ἐνώπιον αὐτῶν), is obliterated by shifting εὐθέως in א B and C to
a place where εὐθέως is not wanted, and where its significancy disappears.

Other instances of Assimilation are conspicuous. All must see that, in
ver. 5, καὶ ἰδών (א B C) is derived from Matt. ix. 2 and Luke v. 20: as
well as that “Son, _be of good cheer_” (C) is imported hither from Matt.
ix. 2. “_My_ son,” on the other hand (א), is a mere effort of the
imagination. In the same verse, σου αἱ ἁμαρτίαι (א B D) is either from
Matt. ix. 5 (_sic_); or else from ver. 9, lower down in S. Mark’s
narrative. Λέγοντες, in ver. 6 (D), is from S. Luke v. 21. Ὕπαγε (א) in
ver. 9, and ὕπαγε εἰς τὸν οἶκόν σου (D), are clearly importations from ver
11. The strange confusion in ver. 7,—“_Because this man thus speaketh, he
blasphemeth_” (B),—and “_Why doth this man thus speak? He blasphemeth_” (א
D),—is due solely to Mtt. ix. 3:—while the appendix proposed by א as a
substitute for “We never saw it on this fashion” (οὐδέποτε οὕτως εἴδομεν),
in ver 12 (viz. “It was never so seen in Israel,” οὐδέποτε οὕτως ἐφάνη ἐν
τῷ Ἰσραήλ), has been transplanted hither from S. Matt. ix. 33.

We shall perhaps be told that, scandalously corrupt as the text of א B C D
hereabouts may be, no reason has been shown as yet for suspecting that
_heretical_ depravation ever had anything to do with such phenomena.
_That_ (we answer) is only because the writings of the early depravers and
fabricators of Gospels have universally perished. From the slender relics
of their iniquitous performances which have survived to our time, we are
sometimes able to lay our finger on a foul blot and to say, “_This_ came
from Tatian’s Diatessaron; and _that_ from Marcion’s mutilated recension
of the Gospel according to S. Luke.” The piercing of our SAVIOUR’S side,
transplanted by codices א B C from S. John xix. 34 into S. Matt, xxvii.
49, is an instance of the former,—which it may reasonably create
astonishment to find that Drs. Westcott and Hort (_alone among Editors_)
have nevertheless admitted into their text, as equally trustworthy with
the last 12 verses of S. Mark’s Gospel. But it occasions a stronger
sentiment than surprise to discover that this, “the gravest interpolation
yet laid to the charge of B,”—this “sentence which neither they nor any
other competent scholar can possibly believe that the Evangelist ever
wrote,”(73)—has been actually foisted into the margin of _the Revised
Version_ of S. Matthew xxvii. 49. Were not the Revisionists aware that
such a disfigurement must prove fatal to their work? _For whose_ benefit
is the information volunteered that “many ancient authorities” are thus
grossly interpolated?

An instructive specimen of depravation follows, which can be traced to
Marcion’s mutilated recension of S. Luke’s Gospel. We venture to entreat
the favour of the reader’s sustained attention to the license with which
the LORD’S Prayer as given in S. Luke’s Gospel (xi. 2-4), is exhibited by
codices א A B C D. For every reason one would have expected that so
precious a formula would have been found enshrined in the “old uncials” in
peculiar safety; handled by copyists of the IVth, Vth, and VIth centuries
with peculiar reverence. Let us ascertain exactly what has befallen it:—

(_a_) D introduces the LORD’S Prayer by interpolating the following
paraphrase of S. Matt. vi. 7:—“_Use not vain repetitions as the rest: for
some suppose that they shall be heard by their much speaking. But when ye
pray_” ... After which portentous exordium,

(_b_) B א omit the 5 words, “_Our_” “_which art in heaven_,” Then,

(_c_) D omits the article (τό) before “name:” and supplements the first
petition with the words “upon us” (ἐφ᾽ ἡμᾶς). It must needs also transpose
the words “_Thy Kingdom_” (ἡ βασιλεία σου).

(_d_) B in turn omits the third petition,—“_Thy will be done, as in
heaven, also on the earth;_” which 11 words א retains, but adds “_so_”
before “_also_,” and omits the article (τῆς); finding for once an ally in
A C D.

(_e_) א D for δίδου write δός (from Matt.).

(_f_) א omits the article (τό) before “_day by day._” And,

(_g_) D, instead of the 3 last-named words, writes “_this day_” (from
Matt.): substitutes “_debts_” (τὰ ὀφειλήματα) for “_sins_” (τὰ
ἁμαρτήματα,—also from Matt.): and in place of “_for [we] ourselves_” (καὶ
γὰρ αὐτοί) writes “_as also we_” (ὡς καὶ ἡμεῖς, again from Matt.).—But,

(_h_) א shows its sympathy with D by accepting two-thirds of this last
blunder: exhibiting “_as also [we] ourselves_” (ὡς καὶ αὐτοί).

(_i_) D consistently reads “_our debtors_” (τοῖς ὀφειλέταις ἡμῶν) in place
of “_every one that is indebted to us_” (παντὶ ὀφείλοντι ἡμῖν).—Finally,

(_j_) B א omit the last petition,—“_but deliver us from evil_” (ἀλλὰ ῥῦσαι
ἡμᾶς ἀπὸ τοῦ πονηροῦ)—unsupported by A C or D. Of lesser discrepancies we
decline to take account.

So then, these five “first-class authorities” are found to throw
themselves into _six different combinations_ in their departures from S.
Luke’s way of exhibiting the LORD’S Prayer,—which, among them, they
contrive to falsify in respect of no less than 45 words; and yet _they are
never able to agree among themselves as to any single various reading:_
while _only once_ are more than two of them observed to stand
together,—viz. in the unauthorized omission of the article. In respect of
32 (out of the 45) words, _they bear in turn solitary evidence_. What need
to declare that it is _certainly false_ in every instance? Such however is
the infatuation of the Critics, that the vagaries of Bare all taken for
gospel. Besides omitting the 11 words which B omits jointly with א, Drs.
Westcott and Hort erase from the Book of Life those other 11 precious
words which are omitted by B only. And in this way it comes to pass that
the mutilated condition to which the scalpel of Marcion the heretic
reduced the LORD’S Prayer some 1730 years ago,(74) (for the mischief can
all be traced back to _him!_), is palmed off on the Church of England by
the Revisionists as the work of the HOLY GHOST!

(A) We may now proceed with our examination of their work, beginning—as
Dr. Roberts (one of the Revisionists) does, when explaining the method and
results of their labours—with what we hold to be the gravest blot of all,
viz. the marks of serious suspicion which we find set against the last
Twelve verses of S. Mark’s Gospel. Well may the learned Presbyterian
anticipate that—


    “The reader will be struck by the appearance which this long
    paragraph presents in the Revised Version. Although inserted, it
    is marked off by a considerable space from the rest of the Gospel.
    A note is also placed in the margin containing a brief explanation
    of this.”(75)


A _very_ brief “explanation” certainly: for the note _explains_ nothing.
Allusion is made to the following words—


    “The two oldest Greek manuscripts, and some other authorities,
    omit from ver. 9 to the end. Some other authorities have a
    different ending to the Gospel.”


But now,—For the use of _whom_ has this piece of information been
volunteered? Not for learned readers certainly: it being familiarly known
to all, that codices B and א _alone of manuscripts_ (to their own
effectual condemnation) omit these 12 verses. But then scholars know
something more about the matter. They also know that these 12 verses have
been made the subject of a separate treatise extending to upwards of 300
pages,—which treatise has now been before the world for a full decade of
years, and for the best of reasons has never yet been answered. Its
object, stated on its title-page, was to vindicate against recent critical
objectors, and to establish “the last Twelve Verses” of S. Mark’s
Gospel.(76) Moreover, competent judges at once admitted that the author
had succeeded in doing what he undertook to do.(77) _Can_ it then be right
(we respectfully enquire) still to insinuate into unlearned minds distrust
of twelve consecutive verses of the everlasting Gospel, which yet have
been demonstrated to be as trustworthy as any other verses which can be
named?

The question arises,—But how did it come to pass that such evil counsels
were allowed to prevail in the Jerusalem Chamber? Light has been thrown on
the subject by two of the New Test. company. And first by the learned
Congregationalist, Dr. Newth, who has been at the pains to describe the
method which was pursued on every occasion. The practice (he informs us)
was as follows. The Bishop of Gloucester and Bristol, as chairman, asks—


    “Whether any _Textual_ Changes are proposed? The evidence for and
    against is briefly stated, and the proposal considered. The duty
    of stating this evidence is by tacit consent devolved upon (_sic_)
    two members of the Company, who from their previous studies are
    specially entitled to speak with authority upon such
    questions,—Dr. Scrivener and _Dr. Hort_,—and who come prepared to
    enumerate particularly the authorities on either side. Dr.
    Scrivener opens up the matter by stating the facts of the case,
    and by giving his judgment on the bearings of the evidence. Dr.
    Hort follows, and mentions any additional matters that may call
    for notice; and, if differing from Dr. Scrivener’s estimate of the
    weight of the evidence, gives his reasons and states his own view.
    After discussion, the vote of the Company is taken, and the
    proposed Reading accepted or rejected. _The Text being thus
    settled_, the Chairman asks for proposals on the Rendering.”(78)


And thus, the men who were appointed to improve _the English Translation_
are exhibited to us remodelling _the original Greek_. At a moment’s
notice, as if by intuition,—by an act which can only be described as the
exercise of instinct,—these eminent Divines undertake to decide which
shall be deemed the genuine utterances of the HOLY GHOST,(79)—which _not_.
Each is called upon to give his vote, and he gives it. “_The Text being
thus settled_” they proceed to do the only thing they were originally
appointed to do; viz. to try their hands at improving our Authorized
Version. But we venture respectfully to suggest, that by no such “rough
and ready” process is that most delicate and difficult of all critical
problems—the truth of Scripture—to be “settled.”

Sir Edmund Beckett remarks that if the description above given “of the
process by which the Revisionists ‘settled’ the Greek alterations, is not
a kind of joke, it is quite enough to ‘settle’ this Revised Greek
Testament in a very different sense.”(80) And so, in truth, it clearly
is.—“Such a proceeding appeared to me so strange,” (writes the learned and
judicious Editor of the _Speaker’s Commentary_,) “that I fully expected
that the account would be corrected, or that some explanation would be
given which might remove the very unpleasant impression.”(81) We have
since heard on the best authority, _that_ namely of Bishop Ellicott
himself,(82) that Dr. Newth’s account of the method of “settling” the text
of the N. T., pursued in the Jerusalem Chamber, is correct.

But in fact, it proves to have been, from the very first, a definite part
of the Programme. The chairman of the Revisionist body, Bishop
Ellicott,—when he had “to consider the practical question,”—whether “(1),
to construct a critical Text first: or (2), to use preferentially, though
not exclusively, some current Text: or (3), _simply to proceed onward_
with the work of Revision, whether of Text or Translation, making the
current _Textus Receptus_ the standard, and departing from it only when
critical or grammatical considerations show that it is clearly
necessary,—in fact, _solvere ambulando_;” announces, at the end of 19
pages,—“We are driven then to the third alternative.”(83)

We naturally cast about for some evidence that the members of the New
Testament company possess that mastery of the subject which alone could
justify one of their number (Dr. Milligan) in asserting roundly that these
12 verses are “_not from the pen of S. Mark himself_;”(84) and another
(Dr. Roberts) in maintaining that “the passage is _not the immediate
production of S. Mark_.”(85) Dr. Roberts assures us that—


    “Eusebius, Gregory of Nyssa, Victor of Antioch, Severus of
    Antioch, Jerome, as well as other writers, especially Greeks,
    testify that these verses were not written by S. Mark, or not
    found in the best copies.”(86)


Will the learned writer permit us to assure him in return that he is
entirely mistaken? He is requested to believe that Gregory of Nyssa says
nothing of the sort—_says __ nothing at all_ concerning these verses: that
Victor of Antioch vouches emphatically for their _genuineness_: that
Severus does but copy, while Jerome does but translate, a few random
expressions of Eusebius: and that Eusebius himself _nowhere_ “testifies
that these verses were not written by S. Mark.” So far from it, Eusebius
actually _quotes the verses_, quotes them as _genuine_. Dr. Roberts is
further assured that there are _no_ “other writers” whether Greek or
Latin, who insinuate doubt concerning these verses. On the contrary,
besides _both_ the Latin and _all_ the Syriac—besides the Gothic and the
_two_ Egyptian versions—there exist four authorities of the IInd
century;—as many of the IIIrd;—five of the Vth;—four of the VIth;—as many
of the VIIth;—together with _at least ten_ of the IVth(87)
(_contemporaries therefore of codices_ B _and_ א);—which actually
_recognize_ the verses in question. Now, when to _every known Manuscript
but two_ of bad character, besides _every ancient Version, some
one-and-thirty Fathers_ have been added, 18 of whom must have used copies
at least as old as either B or א,—Dr. Roberts is assured that an amount of
external authority has been accumulated which is simply overwhelming in
discussions of this nature.

But the significance of a single feature of the Lectionary, of which up to
this point nothing has been said, is alone sufficient to determine the
controversy. We refer to the fact that _in every part of Eastern
Christendom_ these same 12 verses—neither more nor less—have been from the
earliest recorded period, and still are, a _proper lesson both for the
Easter season and for Ascension Day_.

We pass on.

(B) A more grievous perversion of the truth of Scripture is scarcely to be
found than occurs in the proposed revised exhibition of S. Luke ii. 14, in
the Greek and English alike; for indeed not only is the proposed Greek
text (ἐν ἀνθρώποις εὐδοκίας) impossible, but the English of the
Revisionists (“_peace among men in whom he is well pleased_”) “can be
arrived at” (as one of themselves has justly remarked) “only through some
process which would make any phrase bear almost any meaning the translator
might like to put upon it.”(88) More than that: the harmony of the
exquisite three-part hymn, which the Angels sang on the night of the
Nativity, becomes hopelessly marred, and its structural symmetry
destroyed, by the welding of the second and third members of the sentence
into one. Singular to relate, the addition of _a single final letter_ (ς)
has done all this mischief. Quite as singular is it that we should be able
at the end of upwards of 1700 years to discover what occasioned its
calamitous insertion. From the archetypal copy, by the aid of which the
old Latin translation was made, (for the Latin copies _all_ read “_pax
hominibus bonæ voluntatis_,”) the preposition ἐν was evidently
away,—absorbed apparently by the ἀν which immediately follows. In order
therefore to make a sentence of some sort out of words which, without ἐν,
are simply unintelligible, εὐδοκία was turned into εὐδοκίας. It is
accordingly a significant circumstance that, whereas there exists _no_
Greek copy of the Gospels which _omits_ the ἐν, there is scarcely a Latin
exhibition of the place to be found which contains it.(89) To return
however to the genuine clause,—“Good-will towards men” (ἐν ἀνθρώποις
εὐδοκία).

Absolutely decisive of the true reading of the passage—irrespectively of
internal considerations—ought to be the consideration that it is vouched
for _by every known copy_ of the Gospels of whatever sort, excepting only
א A B D: the first and third of which, however, were anciently corrected
and brought into conformity with the Received Text; while the second (A)
is observed to be so inconstant in its testimony, that in the primitive
“Morning-hymn” (given in another page of the same codex, and containing a
quotation of S. Luke ii. 14), the correct reading of the place is found.
D’s complicity in error is the less important, because of the ascertained
sympathy between that codex and the Latin. In the meantime the two Syriac
Versions are a full set-off against the Latin copies; while the hostile
evidence of the Gothic (which this time sides with the Latin) is more than
neutralized by the unexpected desertion of the Coptic version from the
opposite camp. The Armenian, Georgian, Æthiopic, Slavonic and Arabian
versions, are besides all with the Received Text. It therefore comes to
this:—We are invited to make our election between every other copy of the
Gospels,—every known Lectionary,—and (not least of all) the ascertained
ecclesiastical usage of the Eastern Church from the beginning,—on the one
hand: and the testimony of four Codices without a history or a character,
which concur in upholding a patent mistake, on the other. Will any one
hesitate as to which of these two parties has the stronger claim on his
allegiance?

Could doubt be supposed to be entertained in any quarter, it must at all
events be borne away by the torrent of Patristic authority which is
available on the present occasion:—

In the IInd century,—we have the testimony of (1) Irenæus.(90)

In the IIIrd,—that of (2) Origen(91) in 3 places,—and of (3) the
_Apostolical Constitutions_(92) in 2.

In the IVth,—(4) Eusebius,(93)—(5) Aphraates the Persian,(94)—(6) Titus of
Bostra,(95) each twice;—(7) Didymus(96) in 3 places;—(8) Gregory of
Nazianzus,(97)—(9) Cyril of Jerusalem,(98)—(10) Epiphanius(99) twice;—(11)
Gregory of Nyssa(100) 4 times,—(12) Ephraem Syrus,(101)—(13) Philo bishop
of Carpasus,(102)—(14) Chrysostom,(103) in 9 places,—and (15) a nameless
preacher at Antioch,(104)—all these, _contemporaries (be it remembered)
of_ B _and_ א, are found to bear concurrent testimony in favour of the
commonly received text.

In the Vth century,—(16) Cyril of Alexandria,(105) on no less than 14
occasions, vouches for it also;—(17) Theodoret(106) on 4;—(18) Theodotus
of Ancyra(107) on 5 (once(108) in a homily preached before the Council of
Ephesus on Christmas-day, A.D. 431);—(19) Proclus(109) archbishop of
Constantinople;—(20) Paulus(110) bishop of Emesa (in a sermon preached
before Cyril of Alexandria on Christmas-day, A.D. 431);—(21) the Eastern
bishops(111) at Ephesus collectively, A.D. 431 (an unusually weighty piece
of evidence);—and lastly, (22) Basil of Seleucia.(112) Now, let it be
remarked that _these were contemporaries of codex_ A.

In the VIth century,—the Patristic witnesses are (23) Cosmas, the
voyager,(113) 5 times,—(24) Anastasius Sinaita,(114)—(25) Eulogius(115)
archbishop of Alexandria: _contemporaries, be it remembered, of codex_ D.

In the VIIth,—(26) Andreas of Crete(116) twice.

And in the VIIIth,—(27) Cosmas(117) bishop of Maiuma near Gaza,—and his
pupil (28) John Damascene,(118)—and (29) Germanus(119) archbishop of
Constantinople.

To these 29 illustrious names are to be added unknown writers of uncertain
date, but _all_ of considerable antiquity; and some(120) are proved by
internal evidence to belong to the IVth or Vth century,—in short, to be of
the date of the Fathers whose names 16 of them severally bear, but among
whose genuine works their productions are probably _not_ to be reckoned.
One of these was anciently mistaken for (30) Gregory Thaumaturgus:(121) a
second, for (31) Methodius:(122) a third, for (32) Basil.(123) Three
others, with different degrees of reasonableness, have been supposed to be
(33, 34, 35) Athanasius.(124) One has passed for (36) Gregory of
Nyssa;(125) another for (37) Epiphanius;(126) while no less than eight (38
to 45) have been mistaken for Chrysostom,(127) some of them being
certainly his contemporaries. Add (46) one anonymous Father,(128) and (47)
the author of the apocryphal _Acta Pilati_,—and it will be perceived that
18 ancient authorities have been added to the list, every whit as
competent to witness what was the text of S. Luke ii. 14 at the time when
A B א D were written, as Basil or Athanasius, Epiphanius or Chrysostom
themselves.(129) _For our present purpose_ they are _Codices_ of the IVth,
Vth, and VIth centuries. In this way then, far more than _forty-seven_
ancient witnesses have come back to testify to the men of this generation
that the commonly received reading of S. Luke ii. 14 is _the true
reading_, and that the text which the Revisionists are seeking to palm off
upon us is _a fabrication and a blunder_. Will any one be found to
maintain that the authority of B and א is appreciable, when confronted by
the first 15 _contemporary Ecclesiastical Writers_ above enumerated? or
that A can stand against the 7 which follow?

This is not all however. Survey the preceding enumeration geographically,
and note that, besides 1 name from Gaul,—at least 2 stand for
Constantinople,—while 5 are dotted over Asia Minor:—10 at least represent
Antioch; and—6, other parts of Syria:—3 stand for Palestine, and 12 for
other Churches of the East:—at least 5 are Alexandrian,—2 are men of
Cyprus, and—1 is from Crete. If the articulate voices of so many
illustrious Bishops, coming back to us in this way from every part of
ancient Christendom and all delivering the same unfaltering message,—if
_this_ be not allowed to be decisive on a point of the kind just now
before us, then pray let us have it explained to us,—What amount of
evidence _will_ men accept as final? It is high time that this were
known.... The plain truth is, that a case has been established against א A
B D and the Latin version, which amounts to _proof_ that those documents,
even when they conspire to yield the self-same evidence, are not to be
depended on as witnesses to the text of Scripture. The history of the
reading advocated by the Revisionists is briefly this:—_It emerges into
notice in the IInd century; and in the Vth, disappears from sight
entirely._

Enough and to spare has now been offered concerning the true reading of S.
Luke ii. 14. But because we propose to ourselves that _no uncertainty
whatever_ shall remain on this subject, it will not be wasted labour if at
parting we pour into the ruined citadel just enough of shot and shell to
leave no dark corner standing for the ghost of a respectable doubt
hereafter to hide in. Now, it is confessedly nothing else but the high
estimate which Critics have conceived of the value of the testimony of the
old uncials (א A B C D), which has occasioned any doubt at all to exist in
this behalf. Let the learned Reader then ascertain for himself the
character of codices א A B C D hereabouts, by collating _the context in
which S. Luke ii. 14 is found_, viz. the 13 verses which precede and the
one verse (ver. 15) which immediately follows. If the old uncials are
observed all to sing in tune throughout, hereabouts, well and good: but if
on the contrary, their voices prove utterly discordant, _who_ sees not
that the last pretence has been taken away for placing _any confidence at
all_ in their testimony concerning the text of ver. 14, turning as it does
on the presence or absence of _a single letter_?... He will find, as the
result of his analysis, that within the space of those 14 verses, the old
uncials are responsible for 56 “various readings” (so-called): singly, for
41; in combination with one another, for 15. So diverse, however, is the
testimony they respectively render, that they are found severally to
differ from the Text of the cursives no less than 70 times. Among them,
besides twice varying the phrase,—they contrive to omit 19 words:—to add
4:—to substitute 17:—to alter 10:—to transpose 24.—Lastly, these five
codices are observed (within the same narrow limits) to fall into _ten_
different combinations: viz. B א, for 5 readings;—B D, for 2;—א C, א D, A
C, א B D, A א D, A B א D, B א C D, A B א C D, for 1 each. A therefore,
which stands alone _twice_, is found in combination 4 times;—C, which
stands alone _once_, is found in combination 4 times;(130)—B, which stands
alone 5 times, is found in combination 6 times;—א, which stands alone 11
times, is found in combination 8 times;—D, which stands alone 22 times, is
found in combination 7 times.... And now,—for the last time we ask the
question,—With what show of reason can the unintelligible εὐδοκίας (of א A
B D) be upheld as genuine, in defiance of _the whole body of Manuscripts_,
uncial and cursive,—the great bulk of the Versions,—and the mighty array
of (upwards of fifty) Fathers exhibited above?

(C) We are at last able to proceed, with a promise that we shall rarely
prove so tedious again. But it is absolutely necessary to begin by
clearing the ground. We may not go on doubting for ever. The “Angelic
hymn” and “The last 12 Verses” of S. Mark’s Gospel, are convenient places
for a trial of strength. _It has now been proved_ that the commonly
received text of S. Luke ii. 14 is the true text,—the Revisionists’
emendation of the place, a palpable mistake. On behalf of the second
Gospel, we claim to have also established that an important portion of the
sacred narrative has been unjustly branded with a note of ignominy; from
which we solemnly call upon the Revisionists to set the Evangelist free.
The pretence that no harm has been done him by the mere statement of what
is an undeniable fact,—(viz. that “the two oldest Greek manuscripts, and
some other authorities, omit from verse 9 to the end;” and that “some
other authorities have a different ending to the Gospel,”)—will not stand
examination. Pin to the shoulder of an honourable man a hearsay libel on
his character, and see what he will have to say to you! Besides,—_Why have
the 12 verses been further separated off from the rest of the Gospel?_
This at least is unjustifiable.

Those who, with Drs. Roberts and Milligan,(131) have been taught to
maintain “_that the passage is not the immediate production of S.
Mark_,”—“_can hardly be regarded as a part of the original Gospel_; but is
rather an addition made to it at a very early age, whether in the lifetime
of the Evangelist or not, it is impossible to say:”—such Critics are
informed that they stultify themselves when they proceed in the same
breath to assure the offended reader that the passage “is nevertheless
_possessed of full canonical authority_.”(132) Men who so write show that
they do not understand the question. For if these 12 verses _are_
“canonical Scripture,”—as much inspired as the 12 verses which precede
them, and as worthy of undoubting confidence,—then, whether they be “the
production of S. Mark,” or of some other, is a purely irrelevant
circumstance. The _Authorship_ of the passage, as every one must see, is
not the question. The last 12 verses of Deuteronomy, for instance, were
probably not written by Moses. Do we therefore separate them off from the
rest of Deuteronomy, and encumber the margin with a note expressive of our
opinion? Our Revisionists, so far from holding what follows to be
“canonical Scripture,” are careful to state that a rival ending to be
found elsewhere merits serious attention. S. Mark xvi. 9-20, therefore
(_according to them_), is _not certainly_ a genuine part of the Gospel;
_may_, after all, be nothing else but a spurious accretion to the text.
And as long as such doubts are put forth by our Revisionists, they publish
to the world that, _in their account_ at all events, these verses are
_not_ “possessed of full canonical authority.” If “the two oldest Greek
manuscripts” _justly_ “omit from verse 9 to the end” (as stated in the
margin), will any one deny that our printed Text ought to omit them
also?(133) On the other hand, if the circumstance is a mere literary
curiosity, will any one maintain that it is entitled to abiding record in
the margin of the _English Version_ of the everlasting page?—_affords any
warrant whatever for separating _“the last Twelve Verses”_ from their
context_?

(D) We can probably render ordinary readers no more effectual service,
than by offering now to guide them over a few select places, concerning
the true reading of which the Revisionists either entertain such serious
doubts that they have _recorded_ their uncertainty in the margin of their
work; or else, entertaining no doubts at all, have deliberately thrust a
new reading into the body of their text, and _that_, without explanation,
apology, or indeed record of any kind.(134) One remark should be premised,
viz. that “various Readings” as they are (often most unreasonably) called,
are seldom if ever the result of conscious _fraud_. An immense number are
to be ascribed to sheer accident. It was through erroneous judgment, we
repeat, not with evil intent, that men took liberties with the deposit.
They imported into their copies whatever readings they considered highly
recommended. By some of these ancient Critics it seems to have been
thought allowable _to abbreviate_, by simply leaving out whatever did not
appear to themselves strictly necessary: by others, to _transpose_ the
words—even the members—of a sentence, almost to any extent: by others, to
_substitute_ easy expressions for difficult ones. In this way it comes to
pass that we are often presented, and in the oldest documents of all, with
Readings which stand self-condemned; are clearly fabrications. That it was
held allowable to assimilate one Gospel to another, is quite certain. Add,
that as early as the IInd century there abounded in the Church
documents,—“Diatessarons” they were sometimes called,—of which the avowed
object was to weave one continuous and connected narrative “out of the
four;”—and we shall find that as many heads have been provided, as will
suffice for the classification of almost every various reading which we
are likely to encounter in our study of the Gospels.

I. TO ACCIDENTAL CAUSES then we give the foremost place, and of these we
have already furnished the reader with two notable and altogether
dissimilar specimens. The first (viz. the omission of S. Mark xvi. 9-20
from certain ancient copies of the Gospel) seems to have originated in an
unique circumstance. According to the Western order of the four, S. Mark
occupies _the last_ place. From the earliest period it had been customary
to write τέλος (“END”) after the 8th verse of his last chapter, in token
that _there_ a famous ecclesiastical lection comes to a close. _Let the
last leaf of one very ancient archetypal copy have begun at ver. 9; and
let that last leaf have perished;—and all is plain._ A faithful copyist
will have ended the Gospel perforce—as B and א have done—at S. Mark xvi.
8.... Our other example (S. Luke ii. 14) will have resulted from an
accident of the most ordinary description,—as was explained at the
outset.—To the foregoing, a few other specimens of erroneous readings
resulting from Accident shall now be added.

(_a_) Always instructive, it is sometimes even entertaining to trace the
history of a mistake which, dating from the IInd or IIIrd century, has
remained without a patron all down the subsequent ages, until at last it
has been suddenly taken up in our own times by an Editor of the sacred
Text, and straightway palmed off upon an unlearned generation as the
genuine work of the HOLY GHOST. Thus, whereas the Church has hitherto
supposed that S. Paul’s company “were in all in the ship _two hundred
threescore and sixteen souls_” (Acts xxvii. 37), Drs. Westcott and Hort
(relying on the authority of B and the Sahidic version) insist that what
S. Luke actually wrote was “_about seventy-six_.” In other words, instead
of διακόσιαι ἑβδομηκονταέξ, we are invited henceforth to read ὩΣ
ἑβδομηκονταέξ. What can have given rise to so formidable a discrepancy?
Mere accident, we answer. First, whereas S. Luke certainly wrote ἦμεν δὲ
ἐν τῷ πλοίῳ αἱ πᾶσαι ψυχαί, his last six words at some very early period
underwent the familiar process of Transposition, and became, αἱ πᾶσαι
ψυχαὶ ἐν τῷ πλοίῳ; whereby the _word_ πλοίῳ and the _numbers_ διακόσιαι
ἑβδομηκονταέξ were brought into close proximity. (It is thus that
Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, &c., wrongly exhibit the place.) But
since “276” when represented in Greek numerals is ΣΟΣ, the inevitable
consequence was that the words (written in uncials) ran thus:
ΨΥΧΑΙΕΝΤΩΠΛΟΙΩΣΟΣ. Behold, the secret is out! Who sees not what has
happened? There has been no intentional falsification of the text. There
has been no critical disinclination to believe that “a corn-ship,
presumably heavily laden, would contain so many souls,”—as an excellent
judge supposes.(135) The discrepancy has been the result of sheer
accident: is the merest blunder. Some IInd-century copyist connected the
last letter of ΠΛΟΙΩ with the next ensuing numeral, which stands for 200
(viz. Σ); and made an _independent word_ of it, viz. ὡς—_i.e._ “about.”
But when Σ (_i.e._ 200) has been taken away from ΣΟΣ (_i.e._ 276), 76 is
perforce all that remains. In other words, the result of so slight a
blunder has been that instead of “_two hundred_ and seventy-six” (ΣΟΣ),
some one wrote ὡς ος´—_i.e._ “_about_ seventy-six.” His blunder would have
been diverting had it been confined to the pages of a codex which is
_full_ of blunders. When however it is adopted by the latest Editors of
the N. T. (Drs. Westcott and Hort),—and by their influence has been
foisted into the margin of our revised English Version—it becomes high
time that we should reclaim against such a gratuitous depravation of
Scripture.

All this ought not to have required explaining: the blunder is so
gross,—its history so patent. But surely, had its origin been ever so
obscure, the most elementary critical knowledge joined to a little
mother-wit ought to convince a man that the reading ὡς ἑβδομηκονταέξ
_cannot_ be trustworthy. A reading discoverable only in codex B and one
Egyptian version (which was evidently executed from codices of the same
corrupt type as codex B) _may always be dismissed as certainly spurious_.
But further,—Although a man might of course say “about _seventy_” or
“about _eighty_,” (which is how Epiphanius(136) quotes the place,) _who_
sees not that “about seventy-_six_” is an impossible expression? Lastly,
the two false witnesses give divergent testimony even while they seem to
be at one: for the Sahidic (or Thebaic) version arranges the words in an
order _peculiar to itself_.

(_b_) Another corruption of the text, with which it is proposed henceforth
to disfigure our Authorized Version, (originating like the last in sheer
accident,) occurs in Acts xviii. 7. It is related concerning S. Paul, at
Corinth, that having forsaken the synagogue of the Jews, “he entered into
a certain man’s house _named Justus_” (ὀνόματι Ἰούστου). That this is what
S. Luke wrote, is to be inferred from the fact that it is found in almost
every known copy of the Acts, beginning with A D G H L P. Chrysostom—the
only ancient Greek Father who quotes the place—_so_ quotes it. This is, in
consequence, the reading of Lachmann, Tregelles, and Tischendorf in his
7th edition. But then, the last syllable of “name” (ΟΝΟΜΑΤΙ) and the first
three letters of “Justus” (ΙΟΥΣΤΟΥ), in an uncial copy, may easily get
mistaken for an independent word. Indeed it only wants a horizontal stroke
(at the summit of the second Ι in ΤΙΙΟΥ) to produce “Titus” (ΤΙΤΟΥ). In
the Syriac and Sahidic versions accordingly, “Titus” actually stands _in
place of_ “Justus,”—a reading no longer discoverable in any extant codex.
As a matter of fact, the error resulted _not_ in the _substitution_ of
“Titus” for “Justus,” but in the introduction of _both_ names where S.
Luke wrote but one. א and E, the Vulgate, and the Coptic version, exhibit
“_Titus Justus_.” And that the foregoing is a true account of the birth
and parentage of “Titus” is proved by the tell-tale circumstance, that in
B the letters ΤΙ and ΙΟΥ are all religiously retained, and a supernumerary
letter (Τ) has been thrust in between,—the result of which is to give us
one more imaginary gentleman, viz. “_Titius_ Justus;” with whose
appearance,—(and he is found _nowhere_ but in codex B,)—Tischendorf in his
8th ed., with Westcott and Hort in theirs, are so captivated, that they
actually give him a place in their text. It was out of compassion (we
presume) for the friendless stranger “_Titus_ Justus” that our
Revisionists have, in preference, promoted _him_ to honour: in which act
of humanity they stand alone. Their “new Greek Text” is _the only one in
existence_ in which the imaginary foreigner has been advanced to
citizenship, and assigned “a local habitation and a name.” ... Those must
have been wondrous drowsy days in the Jerusalem Chamber when such
manipulations of the inspired text were possible!

(_c_) The two foregoing depravations grew out of the ancient practice of
writing the Scriptures in uncial characters (_i.e._ in capital letters),
no space being interposed between the words. Another striking instance is
supplied by S. Matthew xi. 23 and S. Luke x. 15, where however the error
is so transparent that the wonder is how it can ever have imposed upon any
one. What makes the matter serious is, that it gives a turn to a certain
Divine saying, of which it is incredible that either our SAVIOUR or His
Evangelists knew anything. We have hitherto believed that the solemn words
ran as follows:—“And thou, Capernaum, which art exalted (ἡ ... ὑψωθεῖσα)
unto heaven, shalt be brought down (καταβιβασθήσῃ) to hell.” For this, our
Revisionists invite us to substitute, in S. Luke as well as in S.
Matthew,—“And thou, Capernaum, shalt thou be exalted (μὴ ... ὑψωθήσῃ;)
unto heaven?” And then, in S. Matthew, (but not in S. Luke,)—“Thou shalt
go down (καταβήσῃ) into Hades.” Now, what can have happened to occasion
such a curious perversion of our LORD’S true utterance, and to cause Him
to ask an unmeaning _question_ about the future, when He was clearly
announcing a _fact_, founded on the history of the past?

A stupid blunder has been made (we answer), of which traces survive (as
usual) only in the same little handful of suspicious documents. The final
letter of Capernaum (Μ) by cleaving to the next ensuing letter (Η) has
made an independent word (ΜΗ); which new word necessitates a change in the
construction, and causes the sentence to become interrogative. And yet,
fourteen of the uncial manuscripts and the whole body of the cursives know
nothing of this: neither does the Peschito—nor the Gothic version: no,—nor
Chrysostom,—nor Cyril,—nor ps.-Cæsarius,—nor Theodoret,—the only Fathers
who quote either place. The sole witnesses for μὴ ... ὑψωθήσῃ in _both_
Gospels are א B, copies of the old Latin, Cureton’s Syriac, the Coptic,
and the Æthiopic versions,—a consensus of authorities which ought to be
held fatal to any reading. C joins the conspiracy in Matthew xi. 23, but
not in Luke x. 15: D L consent in Luke, but not in Matthew. The Vulgate,
which sided with א B in S. Matthew, forsakes them in S. Luke. In writing
_both_ times καταβήσῃ (“thou shalt go down”), codex B (forsaken this time
by א) is supported by a single manuscript, viz. D. But because, in Matthew
xi. 23, B obtains the sanction of the Latin copies, καταβήσῃ is actually
introduced into the Revised Text, and we are quietly informed in the
margin that “Many ancient authorities read _be brought down_:” the truth
being (as the reader has been made aware) that there are _only two
manuscripts in existence which read anything else_. And (what deserves
attention) those two manuscripts are convicted of having _borrowed their
quotation from the Septuagint_,(137) and therefore stand
self-condemned.... Were the occupants of the Jerusalem Chamber all—saving
the two who in their published edition insist on reading (with B and D)
καταβήσῃ in both places—_all_ fast asleep when they became consenting
parties to this sad mistake?

II. It is time to explain that, if the most serious depravations of
Scripture are due to Accident, a vast number are unmistakably the result
of DESIGN, and are very clumsily executed too. The enumeration of a few of
these may prove instructive: and we shall begin with something which is
found in S. Mark xi. 3. With nothing perhaps will each several instance so
much impress the devout student of Scripture, as with the exquisite
structure of a narrative in which corrupt readings stand self-revealed and
self-condemned, the instant they are ordered to come to the front and show
themselves. But the point to which we especially invite his attention is,
the sufficiency of the _external evidence_ which Divine Wisdom is observed
to have invariably provided for the establishment of the truth of His
written Word.

(_a_) When our LORD was about to enter His capital in lowly triumph, He is
observed to have given to “two of His disciples” directions well
calculated to suggest the mysterious nature of the incident which was to
follow. They were commanded to proceed to the entrance of a certain
village,—to unloose a certain colt which they would find tied there,—and
to bring the creature straightway to JESUS. Any obstacle which they might
encounter would at once disappear before the simple announcement that “the
LORD hath need of him.”(138) But, singular to relate, this transaction is
found to have struck some third-rate IIIrd-century Critic as not
altogether correct. The good man was evidently of opinion that the
colt,—as soon as the purpose had been accomplished for which it had been
obtained,—ought in common fairness to have been returned to “the owners
thereof.” (S. Luke xix. 33.) Availing himself therefore of there being no
nominative before “will send” (in S. Mark xi. 3), he assumed that it was
_of Himself_ that our LORD was still speaking: feigned that the sentence
is to be explained thus:—“say ye, ‘that the LORD hath need of him _and
will straightway send him hither_.’ ” According to this view of the case,
our SAVIOUR instructed His two Disciples to convey to the owner of the
colt an undertaking from Himself _that He would send the creature back as
soon as He had done with it_: would treat the colt, in short, _as a loan_.
A more stupid imagination one has seldom had to deal with. But in the
meantime, by way of clenching the matter, the Critic proceeded on his own
responsibility to thrust into the text the word “_again_” (πάλιν). The
fate of such an unauthorized accretion might have been confidently
predicted. After skipping about in quest of a fixed resting-place for a
few centuries (see the note at foot(139)), πάλιν has shared the invariable
fate of all such spurious adjuncts to the truth of Scripture, viz.: It has
been effectually eliminated from the copies. Traces of it linger on only
in those untrustworthy witnesses א B C D L Δ, and about twice as many
cursive copies, also of depraved type. So transparent a fabrication ought
in fact to have been long since forgotten. Yet have our Revisionists not
been afraid to revive it. In S. Mark xi. 3, they invite us henceforth to
read, “And if any one say unto you, Why do ye this? say ye, The LORD hath
need of him, and straightway _He_ (_i.e._ the LORD) _will send him_ BACK
_hither_.” ... Of what can they have been dreaming? They cannot pretend
that they have _Antiquity_ on their side: for, besides the whole mass of
copies with A at their head, _both_ the Syriac, _both_ the Latin, and
_both_ the Egyptian versions, the Gothic, the Armenian,—all in fact except
the Æthiopic,—are against them. Even Origen, who twice inserts πάλιν,(140)
twice leaves it out.(141) _Quid plura?_

(_b_) No need to look elsewhere for our next instance. A novel statement
arrests attention five verses lower down: viz. that “Many spread their
garments upon the way” [and why not “_in_ the way”? εἰς does not mean
“upon”]; “and others, branches _which they had cut from the fields_” (S.
Mark xi. 8). But how in the world could they have done _that_? They must
have been clever people certainly if they “cut _branches_ from” anything
except _trees_. Was it because our Revisionists felt this, that in the
margin they volunteer the information, that the Greek for “branches” is in
strictness “_layers of leaves_”? But what _are_ “layers of leaves”? and
what _proof_ is there that στοιβάδες has that meaning? and how could
“_layers of leaves_” have been suddenly procured from such a quarter? We
turn to our Authorized Version, and are refreshed by the familiar and
intelligible words: “And others cut down branches off the trees and
strawed them in the way.” Why then has this been changed? In an ordinary
sentence, consisting of 12 words, we find that 2 words have been
substituted for other 2; that 1 has undergone modification; that 5 have
been ejected. _Why_ is all this? asks the unlearned Reader. He shall be
told.

An instance is furnished us of the perplexity which a difficult word
sometimes occasioned the ancients, as well as of the serious consequences
which have sometimes resulted therefrom to the text of Scripture itself.
S. Matthew, after narrating that “a very great multitude spread their
garments in the way,” adds, “others cut branches (κλάδους) from the trees
and strawed them in the way.”(142) But would not branches of any
considerable size have impeded progress, inconveniently encumbering the
road? No doubt they would. Accordingly, as S. Mark (with S. Matthew’s
Gospel before him) is careful to explain, they were _not_ “branches of any
considerable size,” but “leafy twigs”—“_foliage_,” in fact it was—“cut
from the trees and strawed in the way.” The word, however, which he
employs (στοιβάδας) is an unique word—very like another of similar sound
(στιβάδας), yet distinct from it in sense, if not in origin.
Unfortunately, all this was not understood in a highly uncritical and most
licentious age. With the best intentions, (for the good man was only
seeking to reconcile two inconvenient parallel statements,) some
Revisionist of the IInd century, having convinced himself that the latter
word (στιβάδας) might with advantage take the place of S. Mark’s word
(στοιβάδας), substituted this for that. In consequence, it survives to
this day in nine uncial copies headed by א B. But then, στιβάς does not
mean “a branch” _at all_; no, nor a “layer of leaves” either; but _a
pallet_—_a floor-bed_, in fact, of the humblest type, constructed of
grass, rushes, straw, brushwood, leaves, or any similar substance. On the
other hand, because such materials are not obtainable _from trees_
exactly, the ancient Critic judged it expedient further to change δένδρων
into ἀγρῶν (“_fields_”). Even this was not altogether satisfactory.
Στιβάς, as explained already, in strictness means a “bed.” Only by a
certain amount of license can it be supposed to denote the materials of
which a bed is composed; whereas the Evangelist speaks of something
“strawn.” _The self-same copies_, therefore, which exhibit “_fields_” (in
lieu of “_trees_”), by introducing a slight change in the construction
(κόψαντες for ἔκοπτον), and _omitting_ the words “and strawed them in the
way,” are observed—after a summary fashion of their own, (with which,
however, readers of B א D are only too familiar)—to dispose of this
difficulty by putting it nearly out of sight. The only result of all this
misplaced officiousness is a miserable travestie of the sacred
words:—ἄλλοι δὲ στιβάδας, κόψαντες ἐκ τῶν ἀγρῶν: 7 words in place of 12!

But the calamitous circumstance is that the Critics have all to a man
fallen into the trap. True, that Origen (who once writes στοιβάδας and
once στιβάδας), as well as the two Egyptian versions, side with א B C L Δ
in reading ἐκ τῶν ἀγρῶν: but then _both versions_ (with C) _decline to
alter the construction_ of the sentence; and (with Origen) _decline to
omit the clause_ ἐστρώννυον εἰς τὴν ὁδόν: while, against this little band
of disunited witnesses, are marshalled all the remaining fourteen uncials,
headed by A D—the Peschito and the Philoxenian Syriac; the Italic, the
Vulgate, the Gothic, the Armenian, the Georgian, and the Æthiopic as well
as the Slavonic versions, besides the whole body of the cursives. Whether
therefore Antiquity, Variety, Respectability of witnesses, numbers, or the
reason of the thing be appealed to, the case of our opponents breaks
hopelessly down. Does any one seriously suppose that, if S. Mark had
written the common word στΙβάδας, so vast a majority of the copies at this
day would exhibit the improbable στΟΙβάδας? Had the same S. Mark expressed
nothing else but ΚΌΨΑΝΤΕΣ ἐκ τῶν ἈΓΡΩ´Ν, will any one persuade us that
_every copy in existence but five_ would present us with ἜΚΟΠΤΟΝ ἐκ τῶν
ΔΈΝΔΡΩΝ, καὶ ἘΣΤΡΏΝΝΥΟΝ ἘΙΣ ΤῊΝ ὉΔΌΝ? And let us not be told that there
has been Assimilation here. There has been none. S. Matthew (xxi. 8)
writes ἈΠῸ τῶν δένδρον ... ἘΝ τῇ ὡδῷ: S. Mark (xi. 8), ἘΚ τῶν δένδρων ...
ἘΙΣ τὴν ὁδόν. The types are distinct, and have been faithfully retained
all down the ages. The common reading is certainly correct. The Critics
are certainly in error. And we exclaim (surely not without good reason)
against the hardship of thus having an exploded corruption of the text of
Scripture furbished up afresh and thrust upon us, after lying deservedly
forgotten for upwards of a thousand years.

(_c_) Take a yet grosser specimen, which has nevertheless imposed just as
completely upon our Revisionists. It is found in S. Luke’s Gospel (xxiii.
45), and belongs to the history of the Crucifixion. All are aware that as,
at the typical redemption out of Egypt, there had been a preternatural
darkness over the land for three days,(143) so, preliminary to the actual
Exodus of “the Israel of GOD,” “there was darkness over all the land” for
three hours.(144) S. Luke adds the further statement,—“_And the sun was
darkened_” (καὶ ἐσκοτίσθη ὁ ἥλιος). Now the proof that this is what S.
Luke actually wrote, is the most obvious and conclusive possible.
Ἐσκοτίσθη is found in all the most ancient documents. Marcion(145) (whose
date is A.D. 130-50) so exhibits the place:—besides the old Latin(146) and
the Vulgate:—the Peschito, Cureton’s, and the Philoxenian Syriac
versions:—the Armenian,—the Æthiopic,—the Georgian,—and the
Slavonic.—Hippolytus(147) (A.D. 190-227),—Athanasius,(148)—Ephraem
Syr.,(149)—Theodore Mops.,(150)—Nilus the monk,(151)—Severianus, (in a
homily preserved in Armenian, p. 439,)—Cyril of Alexandria,(152)—the
apocryphal _Gospel of Nicodemus_—and the _Anaphora Pilati_,(153)—are all
witnesses to the same effect. Add the _Acta Pilati_(154)—and the Syriac
_Acts of the Apostles_.(155)—Let it suffice of the Latins to quote
Tertullian.(156)—But the most striking evidence is the consentient
testimony of the manuscripts, viz. _all the uncials_ but 3 and-a-half, and
_every known Evangelium_.

That the darkness spoken of was a divine portent—_not_ an eclipse of the
sun, but an incident wholly out of the course of nature—the ancients
clearly recognize. Origen,(157)—Julius Africanus(158) (A.D. 220),—Macarius
Magnes(159) (A.D. 330),—are even eloquent on the subject. Chrysostom’s
evidence is unequivocal.(160) It is, nevertheless, well known that this
place of S. Luke’s Gospel was tampered with from a very early period; and
that Origen(161) (A.D. 186-253), and perhaps Eusebius,(162) employed
copies which had been depraved. In some copies, writes Origen, instead of
“and the sun was darkened” (καὶ ἐσκοτίσθη ὁ ἥλιος), is found “the sun
having become eclipsed” (τοῦ ἡλίου ἐκλιπόντος). He points out with truth
that the thing spoken of is a physical impossibility, and delivers it as
his opinion that the corruption of the text was due either to some
friendly hand in order to _account for_ the darkness; or else, (which
he,(163) and Jerome(164) after him, thought more likely,) to the enemies
of Revelation, who sought in this way to provide themselves with a pretext
for cavil. Either way, Origen and Jerome elaborately assert that ἐσκοτίσθη
is the only true reading of S. Luke xxiii. 45. Will it be believed that
this gross fabrication—for no other reason but because it is found in א B
L, and probably once existed in C(165)—has been resuscitated in 1881, and
foisted into the sacred Text by our Revisionists?

It would be interesting to have this proceeding of theirs explained. _Why_
should the truth dwell exclusively(166) with א B L? It cannot be pretended
that between the IVth and Vth centuries, when the copies א B were made,
and the Vth and VIth centuries, when the copies A Q D R were executed,
this corruption of the text arose: for (as was explained at the outset)
the reading in question (καὶ ἐσκοτίσθη ὁ ἥλιος) is found in all the oldest
and most famous documents. Our Revisionists cannot take their stand on
“Antiquity,”—for as we have seen, _all the Versions_ (with the single
exception of the Coptic(167)),—and the oldest Church writers, (Marcion,
Origen, Julius Africanus, Hippolytus, Athanasius, Gregory Naz., Ephraem,
&c.,) are _all_ against them.—They cannot advance the claim of “clearly
preponderating evidence;” for they have but a single Version,—_not_ a
single Father,—and but three-and-a-half Evangelia to appeal to, out of
perhaps three hundred and fifty times that number.—They cannot pretend
that essential probability is in favour of the reading of א B; seeing that
the thing stated is astronomically impossible.—They will not tell us that
critical opinion is with them: for their judgment is opposed to that of
every Critic ancient and modern, except Tischendorf since his discovery of
codex א.—Of what nature then will be their proof?... _Nothing_ results
from the discovery that א reads τοῦ ἡλίου ἐκλιπόντος, B
ἐκλείποντος,—except that those two codices are of the same corrupt type as
those which Origen deliberately condemned 1650 years ago. In the meantime,
with more of ingenuity than of ingenuousness, our Revisionists attempt to
conceal the foolishness of the text of their choice by translating it
unfairly. They present us with, “_the sun’s light failing_.” But this is a
gloss of their own. There is no mention of “the sun’s _light_” in the
Greek. Nor perhaps, if the rationale of the original expression were
accurately ascertained, would such a paraphrase of it prove correct(168).
But, in fact, the phrase ἔκλειψις ἡλίου means “an eclipse of the sun” and
_no other thing_. In like manner, τοῦ ἡλίου ἐκλείποντος(169) (as our
Revisionists are perfectly well aware) means “_the sun becoming
eclipsed_,” or “_suffering eclipse_.” It is easy for Revisionists to
“emphatically deny that there is anything in the Greek word ἐκλείπειν,
when associated with the sun, which involves necessarily the notion of an
eclipse.”(170) The _fact_ referred to may not be so disposed of. It lies
outside the province of “emphatic denial.” Let them ask any Scholar in
Europe what τοῦ ἡλίου ἐκλιπόντος means; and see if he does not tell them
that it can _only_ mean, “the sun _having become eclipsed_”! They know
this every bit as well as their Reviewer. And they ought either to have
had the manliness to render the words faithfully, or else the good sense
to let the Greek alone,—which they are respectfully assured was their only
proper course. Καί ἐσκοτίσθη ὁ ἥλιος is, in fact, clearly above suspicion.
Τοῦ ἡλίου ἐκλείποντος, which these learned men (with the best intentions)
have put in its place, is, to speak plainly, a transparent fabrication.
That it enjoys “_clearly preponderating evidence_,” is what no person,
fair or unfair, will for an instant venture to pretend.

III. Next, let us produce an instance of depravation of Scripture
resulting from the practice of ASSIMILATION, which prevailed anciently to
an extent which baffles arithmetic. We choose the most famous instance
that presents itself.

(_a_) It occurs in S. Mark vi. 20, and is more than unsuspected. The
substitution (on the authority of א B L and the Coptic) of ἠπόρει for
ἐποίει in that verse, (_i.e._ the statement that Herod “was much
_perplexed_,”—instead of Herod “_did_ many things,”) is even vaunted by
the Critics as the recovery of the true reading of the place—long obscured
by the “very singular expression” ἐποίει. To ourselves the only “very
singular” thing is, how men of first-rate ability can fail to see that, on
the contrary, the proposed substitute is simply fatal to the SPIRIT’S
teaching in this place. “Common sense is staggered by such a rendering,”
(remarks the learned Bishop of Lincoln). “People are not wont to _hear
gladly_ those by whom they are _much perplexed_.”(171) But in fact, the
sacred writer’s object clearly is, to record the striking circumstance
that Herod was so moved by the discourses of John, (whom he used to
“listen to with pleasure,”) that he even “_did many things_” (πολλὰ
ἐποίει) _in conformity with the Baptist’s teaching_.(172)... And yet, if
this be so, how (we shall be asked) has “he was much perplexed” (πολλὰ
ἠπόρει) contrived to effect a lodgment in _so many as three_ copies of the
second Gospel?

It has resulted from nothing else, we reply, but the determination to
assimilate a statement of S. Mark (vi. 20) concerning Herod and John the
Baptist, with another and a distinct statement of S. Luke (ix. 7), having
reference to Herod and our LORD. S. Luke, speaking of the fame of our
SAVIOUR’S miracles at a period subsequent to the Baptist’s murder,
declares that when Herod “heard _all things that were done_ BY HIM”
(ἤκουσε τὰ γινόμενα ὑπ᾽ αὐτοῦ πάντα), “he _was much perplexed_”
(διηπόρει).—Statements so entirely distinct and diverse from one another
as _this_ of S. Luke, and _that_ (given above) of S. Mark, might surely
(one would think) have been let alone. On the contrary. A glance at the
foot of the page will show that in the IInd century S. Mark’s words were
solicited in all sorts of ways. A persistent determination existed to make
him say that Herod having “heard of _many things which _THE BAPTIST_
did_,” &c.(173)—a strange perversion of the Evangelist’s meaning, truly,
and only to be accounted for in one way.(174)

Had this been _all_, however, the matter would have attracted no
attention. One such fabrication more or less in the Latin version, which
abounds in fabricated readings, is of little moment. But then, the Greek
scribes had recourse to a more subtle device for assimilating Mark vi. 20
to Luke ix. 7. They perceived that S. Mark’s ἐποίει might be almost
identified with S. Luke’s διηπόρει, by _merely changing two of the
letters_, viz. by substituting η for ε and ρ for ι. From this, there
results in S. Mk. vi. 20: “and having heard many things of him, _he was
perplexed_;” which is very nearly identical with what is found in S. Lu.
ix. 7. This fatal substitution (of ἠπόρει for ἐποίει) survives happily
only in codices א B L and the Coptic version—all of bad character. But
(calamitous to relate) the Critics, having disinterred this
long-since-forgotten fabrication, are making vigorous efforts to galvanize
it, at the end of fifteen centuries, into ghastly life and activity. We
venture to assure them that they will not succeed. Herod’s “perplexity”
did not begin until John had been beheaded, and the fame reached Herod of
the miracles which our SAVIOUR wrought. The apocryphal statement, now for
the first time thrust into an English copy of the New Testament, may be
summarily dismissed. But the marvel will for ever remain that a company of
distinguished Scholars (A.D. 1881) could so effectually persuade
themselves that ἐποίει (in S. Mark vi. 20) is a “_plain and clear error_,”
and that there is “_decidedly preponderating evidence_” in favour of
ἠπόρει,—as to venture to _substitute the latter word for the former_. This
will for ever remain a marvel, we say; seeing that _all the uncials_
except three of bad character, together with _every known cursive without
exception_;—the old Latin and the Vulgate, the Peschito and the
Philoxenian Syriac, the Armenian, Æthiopic, Slavonian and Georgian
versions,—are with the traditional Text. (The Thebaic, the Gothic, and
Cureton’s Syriac are defective here. The ancient Fathers are silent.)

IV. More serious in its consequences, however, than any other source of
mischief which can be named, is the process of MUTILATION, to which, from
the beginning, the Text of Scripture has been subjected. By the
“Mutilation” of Scripture we do but mean the intentional Omission—_from
whatever cause proceeding_—of genuine portions. And the causes of it have
been numerous as well as diverse. Often, indeed, there seems to have been
at work nothing else but a strange passion for getting rid of whatever
portions of the inspired Text have seemed to anybody superfluous,—or at
all events have appeared capable of being removed without manifest injury
to the sense. But the estimate of the tasteless IInd-century Critic will
never be that of the well-informed Reader, furnished with the ordinary
instincts of piety and reverence. This barbarous mutilation of the Gospel,
by the unceremonious excision of a multitude of little words, is often
attended by no worse consequence than that thereby an extraordinary
baldness is imparted to the Evangelical narrative. The removal of so many
of the coupling-hooks is apt to cause the curtains of the Tabernacle to
hang wondrous ungracefully; but often _that_ is all. Sometimes, however,
(as might have been confidently anticipated,) the result is calamitous in
a high degree. Not only is the beauty of the narrative effectually marred,
(as _e.g._ by the barbarous excision of καί—εὐθέως—μετὰ δακρύων—Κύριε,
from S. Mark ix. 24):(175)—the doctrinal teaching of our SAVIOUR’S
discourses in countless places, damaged, (as _e.g._ by the omission of καὶ
νηστείᾳ from verse 29):—absurd expressions attributed to the Holy One
which He certainly never uttered, (as _e.g._ by truncating of its last
word the phrase τό, Εἰ δύνασαι πιστεῦσαι in verse 23):—but (I.) The
narrative is often rendered in a manner unintelligible; or else (II.), The
entire point of a precious incident is made to disappear from sight; or
else (III.), An imaginary incident is fabricated: or lastly (IV.), Some
precious saying of our Divine LORD is turned into absolute nonsense. Take
a single short example of what has last been offered, from each of the
Gospels in turn.

(I.) In S. Matthew xiv. 30, we are invited henceforth to submit to the
information concerning Simon Peter, that “_when he saw the wind_, he was
afraid.” The sight must have been peculiar, certainly. So, indeed, is the
expression. But Simon Peter was as unconscious of the one as S. Matthew of
the other. Such curiosities are the peculiar property of codices א B—the
Coptic version—and the Revisionists. The predicate of the proposition
(viz. “_that it was strong_,” contained in the single word ἰσχυρόν) has
been wantonly excised. That is all!—although Dr. Hort succeeded in
persuading his colleagues to the contrary. A more solemn—a far sadder
instance, awaits us in the next Gospel.

(II.) The first three Evangelists are careful to note “the _loud_ cry”
with which the Redeemer of the World expired. But it was reserved for S.
Mark (as Chrysostom pointed out long since) to record (xv. 39) the
memorable circumstance that _this particular portent_ it was, which
wrought conviction in the soul of the Roman soldier whose office it was to
be present on that terrible occasion. The man had often witnessed death by
Crucifixion, and must have been well acquainted with its ordinary
phenomena. Never before had he witnessed anything like this. He was
stationed where he could see and hear all that happened: “standing” (S.
Mark says) “near” our SAVIOUR,—“_over against Him_.” “Now, when the
Centurion saw that it was _after so crying out_ (κράξας), that He expired”
(xv. 39) he uttered the memorable words, “Truly this man _was_ the SON OF
GOD!” “What chiefly moved him to make that confession of his faith was
that our SAVIOUR evidently died _with power_.”(176) “The miracle” (says
Bp. Pearson) “was not in the death, but _in the voice_. The strangeness
was not that He should die, but that at the point of death He should _cry
out so loud_. He died not by, but with a Miracle.”(177) ... All this
however is lost in א B L, which literally _stand alone_(178) in leaving
out the central and only important word, κράξας. Calamitous to relate,
they are followed herein by our Revisionists: who (misled by Dr. Hort)
invite us henceforth to read,—“Now when the Centurion saw _that He so gave
up the ghost_.”

(III.) In S. Luke xxiii. 42, by leaving out two little words (τω and
_κε_), the same blind guides, under the same blind guidance, effectually
misrepresent the record concerning the repentant malefactor. Henceforth
they would have us believe that “he said, ‘JESUS, remember me when thou
comest in thy Kingdom.’ ” (Dr. Hort was fortunately unable to persuade the
Revisionists to follow him in further substituting “_into_ thy kingdom”
for “_in_ thy kingdom;” and so converting what, in the A. V., is nothing
worse than a palpable mistranslation,(179) into what would have been an
indelible blot. The record of his discomfiture survives in the margin).
Whereas none of the Churches of Christendom have ever yet doubted that S.
Luke’s record is, that the dying man “said _unto _JESUS, LORD, remember
me,” &c.

(IV.) In S. John xiv. 4, by eliminating the second καί and the second
οἴδατε, our SAVIOUR is now made to say, “And whither I go, _ye know the
way_;” which is really almost nonsense. What He actually said was, “And
whither I go ye know, and the way ye know;” _in consequence of which_ (as
we all remember) “Thomas saith unto Him, LORD, we know not ‘whither’ Thou
goest, and how can we know ‘the way’?” ... Let these four samples suffice
of a style of depravation with which, at the end of 1800 years, it is
deliberately proposed to disfigure every page of the everlasting Gospel;
and for which, were it tolerated, the Church would have to thank no one so
much as Drs. Westcott and Hort.

We cannot afford, however, so to dismiss the phenomena already opened up
to the Reader’s notice. For indeed, this astonishing taste for mutilating
and maiming the Sacred Deposit, is perhaps the strangest phenomenon in the
history of Textual Criticism.

It is in this way that a famous expression in S. Luke vi. 1 has
disappeared from codices א B L. The reader may not be displeased to listen
to an anecdote which has hitherto escaped the vigilance of the Critics:—

“I once asked my teacher, Gregory of Nazianzus,”—(the words are Jerome’s
in a letter to Nepotianus),—“to explain to me the meaning of S. Luke’s
expression σάββατον δευτερόπρωτον, literally the ‘_second-first_ sabbath.’
‘I will tell you all about it in church,’ he replied. ‘The congregation
shall shout applause, and you shall have your choice,—either to stand
silent and look like a fool, or else to pretend you understand what you do
not.’ ” But “_eleganter lusit_,” says Jerome(180). The point of the joke
was this: Gregory, being a great rhetorician and orator, would have
descanted so elegantly on the signification of the word δευτερόπρωτον that
the congregation would have been borne away by his mellifluous periods,
quite regardless of the sense. In other words, Gregory of Nazianzus [A.D.
360] is found to have no more understood the word than Jerome did [370].

Ambrose(181) of Milan [370] attempts to explain the difficult expression,
but with indifferent success. Epiphanius(182) of Cyprus [370] does the
same;—and so, Isidorus(183) [400] called “Pelusiota” after the place of
his residence in Lower Egypt.—Ps.-Cæsarius(184) also volunteers remarks on
the word [A.D. 400?].—It is further explained in the _Paschal
Chronicle_,(185)—and by Chrysostom(186) [370] at Antioch.—“_Sabbatum
secundo-primum_” is found in the old Latin, and is retained by the
Vulgate. Earlier evidence on the subject does not exist. We venture to
assume that a word so attested must at least be entitled to _its place in
the Gospel_. Such a body of first-rate positive IVth-century testimony,
coming from every part of ancient Christendom, added to the significant
fact that δευτερόπρωτον is found in _every codex extant_ except א B L, and
half a dozen cursives of suspicious character, ought surely to be regarded
as decisive. That an unintelligible word should have got _omitted_ from a
few copies, requires no explanation. Every one who has attended to the
matter is aware that the negative evidence of certain of the Versions also
is of little weight on such occasions as the present. They are observed
constantly to leave out what they either failed quite to understand, or
else found untranslateable. On the other hand, it would be inexplicable
indeed, that an unique expression like the present should have
_established itself universally_, if it were actually spurious. This is
precisely an occasion for calling to mind the precept _proclivi scriptioni
præstat ardua_. Apart from external evidence, it is a thousand times more
likely that such a peculiar word as this should be genuine, than the
reverse. Tischendorf accordingly retains it, moved by this very
consideration.(187) It got excised, however, here and there from
manuscripts at a very early date. And, incredible as it may appear, it is
a fact, that in consequence of its absence from the mutilated codices
above referred to, S. Luke’s famous “second-first Sabbath” has been
_thrust out of his Gospel by our Revisionists_.

But indeed, Mutilation has been practised throughout. By codex B (collated
with the traditional Text), no less than 2877 words have been excised from
the four Gospels alone: by codex א,—3455 words: by codex D,—3704
words.(188)

As interesting a set of instances of this, as are to be anywhere met with,
occurs within the compass of the last three chapters of S. Luke’s Gospel,
from which about 200 words have been either forcibly ejected by our
Revisionists, or else served with “notice to quit.” We proceed to specify
the chief of these:—

(1) S. Luke xxii. 19, 20. (Account of the Institution of the Sacrament of
the LORD’S Supper,—from “which is given for you” to the end,—32 words.)

(2) _ibid._ 43, 44. (Our SAVIOUR’S Agony in the garden,—26 words.)

(3) xxiii. 17. (The custom of releasing one at the Passover,—8 words.)

(4) _ibid._ 34. (Our LORD’S prayer on behalf of His murderers,—12 words.)

(5) _ibid._ 38. (The record that the title on the Cross was written in
Greek, Latin, and Hebrew,—7 words.)

(6) xxiv. 1. (“and certain with them,”—4 words.)

(7) _ibid._ 3. (“of the LORD JESUS,”—3 words.)

(8) _ibid._ 6. (“He is not here, but He is risen,”—5 words.)

(9) _ibid._ 9. (“from the sepulchre,”—3 words.)

(10) _ibid._ 12. (The mention of S. Peter’s visit to the sepulchre,—22
words.)

(11) _ibid._ 36. (“and saith unto them, Peace be unto you!”—5 words.)

(12) _ibid._ 40. (“and when He had thus spoken, He showed them His hands
and His feet,”—10 words.)

(13) _ibid._ 42. (“and of an honeycomb,”—4 words.)

(14) _ibid._ 51. (“and was carried up into Heaven,”—5.)

(15) _ibid._ 52. (“worshipped Him,”—2 words.)

(16) _ibid._ 53. (“praising and,”—2 words.)

On an attentive survey of the foregoing sixteen instances of unauthorized
Omission, it will be perceived that the 1st passage (S. Luke xxii. 19, 20)
must have been eliminated from the Text because the mention of _two_ Cups
seemed to create a difficulty.—The 2nd has been suppressed because (see p.
82) the incident was deemed derogatory to the majesty of GOD
Incarnate.—The 3rd and 5th were held to be superfluous, because the
information which they contain has been already conveyed by the parallel
passages.—The 10th will have been omitted as apparently inconsistent with
the strict letter of S. John xx. 1-10.—The 6th and 13th are certainly
instances of enforced Harmony.—Most of the others (the 4th, 7th, 8th, 9th,
11th, 12th, 14th, 15th, 16th) seem to have been excised through mere
wantonness,—the veriest licentiousness.—In the meantime, so far are Drs.
Westcott and Hort from accepting the foregoing account of the matter, that
they even style the 1st “a _perverse interpolation_:” in which view of the
subject, however, they enjoy the distinction of standing entirely alone.
With the same “moral certainty,” they further proceed to shut up within
double brackets the 2nd, 4th, 7th, 10th, 11th, 12th, 14th, 15th: while the
3rd, 5th, 6th, 13th, and 16th, they exclude from their Text as
indisputably spurious matter.

Now, we are not about to abuse our Readers’ patience by an investigation
of the several points raised by the foregoing statement. In fact, all
should have been passed by in silence, but that unhappily the “Revision”
of our Authorized Version is touched thereby very nearly indeed. So
intimate (may we not say, _so fatal_?) proves to be the sympathy between
the labours of Drs. Westcott and Hort and those of our Revisionists, _that
whatever the former have shut up within double brackets, the latter are
discovered to have branded with a note of suspicion_, conceived invariably
in the same terms: viz., “Some ancient authorities omit.” And further,
_whatever those Editors have rejected from their Text, these Revisionists
have rejected also_. It becomes necessary, therefore, briefly to enquire
after the precise amount of manuscript authority which underlies certain
of the foregoing changes. And happily this may be done in a few words.

The _sole_ authority for just half of the places above enumerated(189) is
_a single Greek codex_,—and that, the most depraved of all,—viz. Beza’s
D.(190) It should further be stated that the only allies discoverable for
D are a few copies of the old Latin. What we are saying will seem scarcely
credible: but it is a plain fact, of which any one may convince himself
who will be at the pains to inspect the critical apparatus at the foot of
the pages of Tischendorf’s last (8th) edition. Our Revisionists’ notion,
therefore, of what constitutes “weighty evidence” is now before the
Reader. If, in _his_ judgment, the testimony of _one single manuscript_,
(and _that_ manuscript the Codex Bezæ (D),)—does really invalidate that of
_all other Manuscripts and all other Versions_ in the world,—then of
course, the Greek Text of the Revisionists will in his judgment be a thing
to be rejoiced over. But what if he should be of opinion that such
testimony, in and by itself, is simply worthless? We shrewdly suspect that
the Revisionists’ view of what constitutes “weighty Evidence” will be
found to end where it began, viz. in the Jerusalem Chamber.

For, when we reach down codex D from the shelf, we are reminded that,
within the space of the three chapters of S. Luke’s Gospel now under
consideration, there are in all no less than 354 words omitted; _of
which_, 250 _are omitted by_ D _alone_. May we have it explained to us
why, of those 354 words, only 25 are singled out by Drs. Westcott and Hort
for permanent excision from the sacred Text? Within the same compass, no
less than 173 words have been _added by_ D to the commonly Received
Text,—146, _substituted_,—243, _transposed_. May we ask how it comes to
pass that of those 562 words _not one_ has been promoted to their margin
by the Revisionists?... Return we, however, to our list of the changes
which they actually _have_ effected.

(1) Now, that ecclesiastical usage and the parallel places would seriously
affect such precious words as are found in S. Luke xxii. 19, 20,—was to
have been expected. Yet has the type been preserved all along, from the
beginning, with singular exactness; except in one little handful of
singularly licentious documents, viz. in D a ff2 i l, which _leave all
out_;—in b e, which substitute verses 17 and 18;—and in “the singular and
sometimes rather wild Curetonian Syriac Version,”(191) which, retaining
the 10 words of ver. 19, substitutes verses 17, 18 for ver. 20. Enough for
the condemnation of D survives in
Justin,(192)—Basil,(193)—Epiphanius,(194)—Theodoret,(195)—Cyril,(196)—Maximus,(197)—Jerome.(198)
But why delay ourselves concerning a place vouched for _by every known
copy of the Gospels except_ D? Drs. Westcott and Hort entertain “_no moral
doubt_ that the [32] words [given at foot(199)] were absent from the
original text of S. Luke;” in which opinion, happily, _they stand alone_.
But why did our Revisionists suffer themselves to be led astray by such
blind guidance?

The next place is entitled to far graver attention, and may on no account
be lightly dismissed, seeing that these two verses contain the sole record
of that “Agony in the Garden” which the universal Church has almost
erected into an article of the Faith.

(2) That the incident of the ministering Angel, the Agony and bloody sweat
of the world’s Redeemer (S. Luke xxii. 43, 44), was anciently absent from
certain copies of the Gospels, is expressly recorded by Hilary,(200) by
Jerome,(201) and others. Only necessary is it to read the apologetic
remarks which Ambrose introduces when he reaches S. Luke xxii. 43,(202) to
understand what has evidently led to this serious mutilation of
Scripture,—traces of which survive at this day exclusively in _four_
codices, viz. A B R T. Singular to relate, in the Gospel which was read on
Maundy-Thursday these two verses of S. Luke’s Gospel are thrust in between
the 39th and the 40th verses of S. Matthew xxvi. Hence, 4 cursive copies,
viz. 13-69-124-346—(confessedly derived from a common ancient
archetype,(203) and therefore not four witnesses but only one),—actually
exhibit these two Verses in that place. But will any unprejudiced person
of sound mind entertain a doubt concerning the genuineness of these two
verses, witnessed to as they are by _the whole body of the Manuscripts_,
uncial as well as cursive, and _by every ancient Version_?... If such a
thing were possible, it is hoped that the following enumeration of ancient
Fathers, who distinctly recognize the place under discussion, must at
least be held to be decisive:—viz.

Justin M.,(204)—Irenæus(205) in the IInd century:—

Hippolytus,(206)—Dionysius Alex.,(207)—ps. Tatian,(208) in the IIIrd.—

Arius,(209)—Eusebius,(210)—Athanasius,(211)—Ephraem
Syr.,(212)—Didymus,(213)—Gregory
Naz.,(214)—Epiphanius,(215)—Chrysostom,(216)—ps.-Dionysius Areop.,(217) in
the IVth:—

Julian the heretic,(218)—Theodoras Mops.,(219)—Nestorius,(220)—Cyril
Alex.,(221)—Paulus, bishop of
Emesa,(222)—Gennadius,(223)—Theodoret,(224)—and several Oriental Bishops
(A.D. 431),(225) in the Vth:—besides Ps.-Cæsarius,(226)—Theodosius
Alex.,(227)—John Damascene,(228)—Maximus,(229)—Theodorus
hæret.,(230)—Leontius Byz.,(231)—Anastasius Sin.,(232)—Photius:(233) and
of the Latins,
Hilary,(234)—Jerome,(235)—Augustine,(236)—Cassian,(237)—Paulinus,(238)—Facundus.(239)

It will be seen that we have been enumerating _upwards of forty famous
personages from every part of ancient Christendom_, who recognize these
verses as genuine; fourteen of them being as old,—some of them, a great
deal older,—than our oldest MSS.—_Why_ therefore Drs. Westcott and Hort
should insist on shutting up these 26 precious words—this article of the
Faith—in double brackets, in token that it is “morally certain” that
verses 43 and 44 are of spurious origin, we are at a loss to divine.(240)
We can but ejaculate (in the very words they proceed to
disallow),—“FATHER, forgive them; for they know not what they do.” But our
especial concern is with _our Revisionists_; and we do not exceed our
province when we come forward to reproach them sternly for having
succumbed to such evil counsels, and deliberately branded these Verses
with their own corporate expression of doubt. For unless _that_ be the
purpose of the marginal Note which they have set against these verses, we
fail to understand the Revisers’ language and are wholly at a loss to
divine what purpose that note of theirs can be meant to serve. It is
prefaced by a formula which, (as we learn from their own Preface,) offers
to the reader the “alternative” of _omitting_ the Verses in question:
implies that “_it would not be safe_” any longer to accept them,—as the
Church has hitherto done,—with undoubting confidence. In a word,—_it
brands them with suspicion_.... We have been so full on this subject,—(not
half of our references were known to Tischendorf,)—because of the
unspeakable preciousness of the record; and because we desire to see an
end at last to expressions of doubt and uncertainty on points which really
afford not a shadow of pretence for either. These two Verses were excised
through mistaken piety by certain of the orthodox,—jealous for the honour
of their LORD, and alarmed by the use which the impugners of His GODhead
freely made of them.(241) Hence Ephraem [_Carmina Nisibena_, p. 145] puts
the following words into the mouth of Satan, addressing the host of
Hell:—“One thing I witnessed in Him which especially comforts me. I saw
Him praying; and I rejoiced, for His countenance changed and He was
afraid. _His sweat was drops of blood_, for He had a presentiment that His
day had come. This was the fairest sight of all,—unless, to be sure, He
was practising deception on me. For verily if He hath deceived me, then it
is all over,—both with me, and with you, my servants!”

(4) Next in importance after the preceding, comes the Prayer which the
SAVIOUR of the World breathed from the Cross on behalf of His murderers
(S. Luke xxiii. 34). These twelve precious words,—(“Then said JESUS,
FATHER, forgive them; for they know not what they do,”)—like those
twenty-six words in S. Luke xxii. 43, 44 which we have been considering
already, Drs. Westcott and Hort enclose within double brackets in token of
the “moral certainty” they entertain that the words are spurious.(242) And
yet these words are found in _every known uncial_ and in _every known
cursive Copy_, except four; besides being found _in every ancient
Version_. And _what_,—(we ask the question with sincere
simplicity,)—_what_ amount of evidence is calculated to inspire undoubting
confidence in any existing Reading, if not such a concurrence of
Authorities as this?... We forbear to insist upon the probabilities of the
case. The Divine power and sweetness of the incident shall not be enlarged
upon. We introduce no considerations resulting from Internal Evidence.
True, that “few verses of the Gospels bear in themselves a surer witness
to the Truth of what they record, than this.” (It is the admission of the
very man(243) who has nevertheless dared to brand it with suspicion.) But
we reject his loathsome patronage with indignation. “Internal
Evidence,”—“Transcriptional Probability,”—and all such “chaff and draff,”
with which he fills his pages _ad nauseam_, and mystifies nobody but
himself,—shall be allowed no place in the present discussion. Let this
verse of Scripture stand or fall as it meets with sufficient external
testimony, or is forsaken thereby. How then about the _Patristic_
evidence,—for this is all that remains unexplored?

Only a fraction of it was known to Tischendorf. We find our SAVIOUR’S
Prayer attested,—

In the IInd century by Hegesippus,(244)—and by Irenæus:(245)—

In the IIIrd, by Hippolytus,(246)—by Origen,(247)—by the _Apostolic
Constitutions_,(248)—by the _Clementine Homilies_,(249)—by
ps.-Tatian,(250)—and by the disputation of Archelaus with Manes:(251)—

In the IVth, by Eusebius,(252)—by Athanasius,(253)—by Gregory
Nyss.,(254)—by Theodoras Herac.,(255)—by Basil,(256)—by
Chrysostom,(257)—by Ephraem Syr.,(258)—by ps.-Ephraim,(259)—by
ps.-Dionysius Areop.,(260)—by the Apocryphal _Acta Pilati_,(261)—by the
_Acta Philippi_,(262)—and by the Syriac _Acts of the App._,(263)—by
ps.-Ignatius,(264)—and ps.-Justin:(265)—

In the Vth, by Theodoret,(266)—by Cyril,(267)—by Eutherius:(268)

In the VIth, by Anastasius Sin.,(269)—by Hesychius:(270)—

In the VIIth, by Antiochus mon.,(271)—by Maximus,(272)—by Andreas
Cret.:(273)—

In the VIIIth, by John Damascene,(274)—besides ps.-Chrysostom,(275)—ps.
Amphilochius,(276)—and the _Opus imperf._(277)

Add to this, (since Latin authorities have been brought to the
front),—Ambrose,(278)—Hilary,(279)—Jerome,(280)—Augustine,(281)—and other
earlier writers.(282)

We have thus again enumerated _upwards of forty_ ancient Fathers. And
again we ask, With what show of reason is the brand set upon these 12
words? Gravely to cite, as if there were anything in it, such
counter-evidence as the following, to the foregoing torrent of Testimony
from every part of ancient Christendom:—viz: “B D, 38, 435, a b d and one
Egyptian version”—might really have been mistaken for a _mauvaise
plaisanterie_, were it not that the gravity of the occasion effectually
precludes the supposition. How could our Revisionists _dare_ to insinuate
doubts into wavering hearts and unlearned heads, where (as here) they were
_bound_ to know, there exists _no manner of doubt at all_?

(5) The record of the same Evangelist (S. Luke xxiii. 38) that the
Inscription over our SAVIOUR’S Cross was “written ... in letters of Greek,
and Latin, and Hebrew,” _disappears entirely_ from our “Revised” version;
and this, for no other reason, but because the incident is omitted by B C
L, the corrupt Egyptian versions, and Cureton’s depraved Syriac: the text
of which (according to Bp. Ellicott(283)) “is of a very composite
nature,—_sometimes inclining to the shortness and simplicity of the
Vatican manuscript_” (B): _e.g._ on the present occasion. But surely the
negative testimony of this little band of disreputable witnesses is
entirely outweighed by the positive evidence of א A D Q R with 13 other
uncials,—the evidence of _the entire body of the cursives_,—the sanction
of the Latin,—the Peschito and Philoxenian Syriac,—the
Armenian,—Æthiopic,—and Georgian versions; besides Eusebius—whose
testimony (which is express) has been hitherto strangely
overlooked(284)—and Cyril.(285) Against the threefold plea of Antiquity,
Respectability of witnesses, Universality of testimony,—what have our
Revisionists to show? (_a_) They cannot pretend that there has been
Assimilation here; for the type of S. John xix. 20 is essentially
different, and has retained its distinctive character all down the ages.
(_b_) Nor can they pretend that the condition of the Text hereabouts bears
traces of having been jealously guarded. We ask the Reader’s attention to
this matter just for a moment. There may be some of the occupants of the
Jerusalem Chamber even, to whom what we are about to offer may not be
altogether without the grace of novelty:—

That the Title on the Cross is diversely set down by each of the four
Evangelists,—all men are aware. But perhaps all are not aware that _S.
Luke’s record_ of the Title (in ch. xxiii. 38) is exhibited in _four
different ways_ by codices A B C D:—

A exhibits—ΟΥΤΟΣ ΕΣΤΙΝ Ο ΒΑΣΙΛΕΥΣ ΤΩΝ ΙΟΥΔΑΙΩΝ

B (with א L and a) exhibits—Ο ΒΑΣΙΛΕΥΣ ΤΩΝ ΙΟΥΔΑΙΩΝ ΟΥΤΟΣ

C exhibits—Ο ΒΑΣΙΛΕΥΣ ΤΩΝ ΙΟΥΔΑΙΩΝ (which is Mk. xv. 26).

D (with e and ff2) exhibits—Ο ΒΑΣΙΛΕΥΣ ΤΩΝ ΙΟΥΔΑΙΩΝ ΟΥΤΟΣ ΕΣΤΙΝ (which is
the words of the Evangelist transposed).

We propose to recur to the foregoing specimens of licentiousness
by-and-by.(286) For the moment, let it be added that codex X and the
Sahidic version conspire in a fifth variety, viz., ΟΥΤΟΣ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΙΗΣΟΥΣ Ο
ΒΑΣΙΛΕΥΣ ΤΩΝ ΙΟΥΔΑΙΩΝ (which is S. Matt. xxvii. 37); while Ambrose(287) is
found to have used a Latin copy which represented ΙΗΣΟΥΣ Ο ΝΑΖΩΡΑΙΟΣ Ο
ΒΑΣΙΛΕΥΣ ΤΩΝ ΙΟΥΔΑΙΩΝ (which is S. John xix. 18). We spare the reader any
remarks of our own on all this. He is competent to draw his own painful
inferences, and will not fail to make his own damaging reflections. He
shall only be further informed that 14 uncials and the whole body of the
cursive copies side with codex A in upholding the Traditional Text; that
the Vulgate,(288)—the Peschito,—Cureton’s Syriac,—the Philoxenian;—besides
the Coptic,—Armenian,—and Æthiopic versions—are all on the same side:
lastly, that Origen,(289)—Eusebius,—and Gregory of Nyssa(290) are in
addition consentient witnesses;—and we can hardly be mistaken if we
venture to anticipate (1st),—That the Reader will agree with us that the
Text with which we are best acquainted (as usual) is here deserving of all
confidence; and (2ndly),—That the Revisionists who assure us “that they
did not esteem it within their province to construct a continuous and
complete Greek Text;” (and who were never authorized to construct _a new
Greek Text at all_;) were not justified in the course they have pursued
with regard to S. Luke xxiii. 38. “THIS IS THE KING OF THE JEWS” is the
only idiomatic way of rendering into English the title according to S.
Luke, whether the reading of A or of B be adopted; but, in order to make
it plain that they _reject the Greek of_ A _in favour of_ B, the
Revisionists have gone out of their way. They have instructed the two
Editors of “_The Greek Testament with the __ Readings adopted by the
Revisers of the Authorized Version_”(291) to exhibit S. Luke xxiii. 38 _as
it stands in the mutilated recension of Drs. Westcott and Hort_.(292) And
if _this_ procedure, repeated many hundreds of times, be not constructing
a “new Greek Text” of the N. T., we have yet to learn what _is_.

(6) From the first verse of the concluding chapter of S. Luke’s Gospel, is
excluded the familiar clause—“_and certain others with them_” (καί τινες
σὺν αὐταῖς). And pray, why? For no other reason but because א B C L, with
some Latin authorities, omit the clause;—and our Revisionists do the like,
on the plea that they have only been getting rid of a “harmonistic
insertion.”(293) But it is nothing of the sort, as we proceed to explain.

Ammonius, or some predecessor of his early in the IInd century, saw fit
(with perverse ingenuity) to seek to _force_ S. Luke xxiii. 55 into
agreement with S. Matt. xxvii. 61 and S. Mark xv. 47, by turning
κατακολουθήσασαι δὲ καὶ γυναῖκες,—into κατηκολούθησαν δὲ ΔΎΟ γυναῖκες.
This done, in order to produce “harmonistic” agreement and to be thorough,
the same misguided individual proceeded to run his pen through the words
“and certain with them” (καί τινες σὺν αὐταῖς) as inopportune; and his
work was ended. 1750 years have rolled by since then, and—What traces
remain of the man’s foolishness? Of his _first_ feat (we answer),
Eusebius,(294) D and Evan. 29, besides five copies of the old Latin (a b e
ff2 q), are the sole surviving Witnesses. Of his _second_ achievement, א B
C L, 33, 124, have preserved a record; besides seven copies of the old
Latin (a b c e ff2 g-1 1), together with the Vulgate, the Coptic, and
Eusebius in one place(295) though not in another.(296) The Reader is
therefore invited to notice that the tables have been unexpectedly turned
upon our opponents. S. Luke introduced the words “and certain with them,”
in order to prepare us for what he will have to say in xxiv. 10,—viz. “It
was Mary Magdalene, and Joanna, and Mary the mother of James, and _other
women with them_, which told these things unto the Apostles.” Some stupid
harmonizer in the IInd century omitted the words, because they were in his
way. Calamitous however it is that a clause which the Church has long
since deliberately reinstated should, in the year 1881, be as deliberately
banished for the second time from the sacred page by our Revisionists; who
under the plea of _amending our English Authorized Version_ have (with the
best intentions) _falsified the Greek Text_ of the Gospels in countless
places,—often, as here, without notice and without apology.

(10) We find it impossible to pass by in silence the treatment which S.
Luke xxiv. 12 has experienced at their hands. They have branded with doubt
S. Luke’s memorable account of S. Peter’s visit to the sepulchre. And why?
Let the evidence _for_ this precious portion of the narrative be first
rehearsed. Nineteen uncials then, with א A B at their head, supported by
_every known cursive_ copy,—all these vouch for the genuineness of the
verse in question. The Latin,—the Syriac,—and the Egyptian versions also
contain it. Eusebius,(297)—Gregory of
Nyssa,(298)—Cyril,(299)—Severus,(300)—Ammonius,(301) and others(302) refer
to it: while _no ancient writer_ is found to impugn it. Then, _why_ the
double brackets of Drs. Westcott and Hort? and _why_ the correlative
marginal note of our Revisionists?—Simply because D and 5 copies of the
old Latin (a b e l fu) leave these 22 words out.

(11) On the same sorry evidence—(viz. D and 5 copies of the old Latin)—it
is proposed henceforth to omit our SAVIOUR’S greeting to His disciples
when He appeared among them in the upper chamber on the evening of the
first Easter Day. And yet the precious words (“_and saith unto them, Peace
be unto you_” [Lu. xxiv. 36],) are vouched for by 18 uncials (with א A B
at their head), and _every known cursive copy_ of the Gospels: by all the
Versions: and (as before) by Eusebius,(303)—and Ambrose,(304)—by
Chrysostom,(305)—and Cyril,(306)—and Augustine.(307)

(12) The same remarks suggest themselves on a survey of the evidence for
S. Luke xxiv. 40:—“_And when He had thus spoken, He showed them His hands
and His feet._” The words are found in 18 uncials (beginning with א A B),
and in every known cursive: in the Latin,(308)—the Syriac,—the
Egyptian,—in short, _in all the ancient Versions_. Besides these,
ps.-Justin,(309)—Eusebius,(310)—Athanasius,(311)—Ambrose (in
Greek),(312)—Epiphanius,(313)—Chrysostom,(314)—Cyril,(315)—Theodoret,(316)—Ammonius,(317)—and
John Damascene(318)—quote them. What but the veriest trifling is it, in
the face of such a body of evidence, to bring forward the fact that D and
5 copies of the old Latin, with Cureton’s Syriac (of which we have had the
character already(319)), _omit_ the words in question?

The foregoing enumeration of instances of Mutilation might be enlarged to
almost any extent. Take only three more short but striking specimens,
before we pass on:—

(_a_) Thus, the precious verse (S. Matthew xvii. 21) which declares that
“_this kind_ [of evil spirit] _goeth not out but by prayer and fasting_,”
is expunged by our Revisionists; although it is vouched for by every known
uncial _but two_ (B א), every known cursive _but one_ (Evan. 33); is
witnessed to by the Old Latin and the Vulgate,—the Syriac, Coptic,
Armenian, Georgian, Æthiopic, and Slavonic versions; by
Origen,(320)—Athanasius,(321)—Basil,(322)—Chrysostom,(323)—the _Opus
imperf._,(324)—the Syriac Clement,(325)—and John Damascene;(326)—by
Tertullian,—Ambrose,—Hilary,—Juvencus,—Augustine,—Maximus Taur.,—and by
the Syriac version of the _Canons of Eusebius_: above all by the Universal
East,—having been read in all the churches of Oriental Christendom on the
10th Sunday after Pentecost, from the earliest period. Why, in the world,
then (our readers will ask) have the Revisionists left those words out?...
For no other reason, we answer, but because Drs. Westcott and Hort place
them among the interpolations which they consider unworthy of being even
“exceptionally retained in association with the true Text.”(327) “Western
and Syrian” is their oracular sentence.(328)

(_b_) The blessed declaration, “_The Son of Man is come to save that which
was lost_,”—has in like manner been expunged by our Revisionists from S.
Matth. xviii. 11; although it is attested by every known uncial except B א
L, and every known cursive _except three_: by the old Latin and the
Vulgate: by the Peschito, Cureton’s and the Philoxenian Syriac: by the
Coptic, Armenian, Æthiopic, Georgian and Slavonic versions:(329)—by
Origen,(330)—Theodoras Heracl.,(331)—Chrysostom(332)—and Jovius(333) the
monk;—by Tertullian,(334)—Ambrose,(335)—Hilary,(336)—Jerome,(337)—pope
Damasus(338)—and Augustine:(339)—above all, by the Universal Eastern
Church,—for it has been read in all assemblies of the faithful on the
morrow of Pentecost, from the beginning. Why then (the reader will again
ask) have the Revisionists expunged this verse? We can only answer as
before,—because Drs. Westcott and Hort consign it to the _limbus_ of their
_Appendix_; class it among their “Rejected Readings” of the most hopeless
type.(340) As before, _all_ their sentence is “Western and Syrian.” They
add, “Interpolated either from Lu. xix. 10, or from an independent source,
written or oral.”(341)... Will the English Church suffer herself to be in
this way defrauded of her priceless inheritance,—through the irreverent
bungling of well-intentioned, but utterly misguided men?

(_c_) In the same way, our LORD’S important saying,—“_Ye know not what
manner of spirit ye are of: for the Son of man is not come to destroy
men’s lives, but to save them_” (S. Luke ix. 55, 56), has disappeared from
our “Revised” Version; although Manuscripts, Versions, Fathers from the
_second century_ downwards, (as Tischendorf admits,) witness eloquently in
its favour.

V. In conclusion, we propose to advert, just for a moment, to those five
several mis-representations of S. Luke’s “Title on the Cross,” which were
rehearsed above, viz. in page 86. At so gross an exhibition of
licentiousness, it is the mere instinct of Natural Piety to exclaim,—But
then, could not those men even set down so sacred a record as _that_,
correctly? They could, had they been so minded, no doubt, (we answer):
but, marvellous to relate, the TRANSPOSITION of words,—no matter how
significant, sacred, solemn;—of short clauses,—even of whole sentences of
Scripture;—was anciently accounted an allowable, even a graceful exercise
of the critical faculty.

The thing alluded to is incredible at first sight; being so often done,
apparently, without any reason whatever,—or rather in defiance of all
reason. Let _candidus lector_ be the judge whether we speak truly or not.
Whereas S. Luke (xxiv. 41) says, “_And while they yet believed not for
joy, and wondered_,” the scribe of codex A (by way of improving upon the
Evangelist) transposes his sentence into this, “And while they yet
disbelieved Him, _and wondered for joy_:”(342) which is almost nonsense,
or quite.

But take a less solemn example. Instead of,—“And His disciples plucked
_the ears of corn, and ate them_, (τοὺς στάχυας, καὶ ἤσθιον,) rubbing them
in their hands” (S. Luke vi. 1),—B C L R, by _transposing_ four Greek
words, present us with, “And His disciples plucked, _and ate the ears of
corn_, (καὶ ἤσθιον τοὺς στάχυας,) rubbing them,” &c. Now this might have
been an agreeable occupation for horses and for another quadruped, no
doubt; but hardly for men. This curiosity, which (happily) proved
indigestible to our Revisionists, is nevertheless swallowed whole by Drs.
Westcott and Hort as genuine and wholesome Gospel. (_O dura Doctorum
ilia!_)—But to proceed.

Then further, these preposterous Transpositions are of such perpetual
recurrence,—are so utterly useless or else so exceedingly mischievous,
_always_ so tasteless,—that familiarity with the phenomenon rather
increases than lessens our astonishment. What _does_ astonish us, however,
is to find learned men in the year of grace 1881, freely resuscitating
these long-since-forgotten _bêtises_ of long-since-forgotten Critics, and
seeking to palm them off upon a busy and a careless age, as so many new
revelations. That we may not be thought to have shown undue partiality for
the xxiind, xxiiird, and xxivth chapters of S. Luke’s Gospel by selecting
our instances of _Mutilation_ from those three chapters, we will now look
for specimens of _Transposition_ in the xixth and xxth chapters of the
same Gospel. The reader is invited to collate the Text of the oldest
uncials, throughout these two chapters, with the commonly Received Text.
He will find that within the compass of 88 consecutive verses,(343)
codices א A B C D Q exhibit no less than 74 instances of
Transposition:—for 39 of which, D is responsible:—א B, for 14:—א and א B
D, for 4 each:—A B and א A B, for 3 each:—A, for 2:—B, C, Q, א A, and A D,
each for 1.—In other words, he will find that in no less than 44 of these
instances of Transposition, D is implicated:—א, in 26:—B, in 25:—A, in
10:—while C and Q are concerned in only one a-piece.... It should be added
that Drs. Westcott and Hort have adopted _every one of the 25 in which
codex_ B _is concerned_—a significant indication of the superstitious
reverence in which they hold that demonstrably corrupt and most
untrustworthy document.(344) Every other case of Transposition they have
rejected. By their own confession, therefore, 49 out of the 74 (_i.e._
two-thirds of the entire number) are instances of depravation. We turn
with curiosity to the Revised Version; and discover that out of the 25 so
retained, the Editors in question were only able to persuade the
Revisionists to adopt 8. So that, in the judgment of the Revisionists, 66
out of 74, or _eleven-twelfths_, are instances of licentious tampering
with the deposit.... O to participate in the verifying faculty which
guided the teachers to discern in 25 cases of Transposition out of 74, the
genuine work of the HOLY GHOST! O, far more, to have been born with that
loftier instinct which enabled the pupils (Doctors Roberts and Milligan,
Newth and Moulton, Vance Smith and Brown, Angus and Eadie) to winnow out
from the entire lot exactly 8, and to reject the remaining 66 as nothing
worth!

According to our own best judgment, (and we have carefully examined them
all,) _every one_ of the 74 is worthless. But then _we_ make it our
fundamental rule to reason always from grounds of external Evidence,—never
from postulates of the Imagination. Moreover, in the application of our
rule, we begrudge no amount of labour: reckoning a long summer’s day well
spent if it has enabled us to ascertain the truth concerning one single
controverted word of Scripture. Thus, when we find that our Revisionists,
at the suggestion of Dr. Hort, have transposed the familiar Angelic
utterance (in S. Luke xxiv. 7), λέγων ὅτι δεῖ τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου
παραδοθῆναι,—into this, λέγων τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ὅτι δεῖ, &c., we at
once enquire for _the evidence_. And when we find that no single Father,
_no_ single Version, and no Codex—except the notorious א B C L—advocates
the proposed transposition; but on the contrary that every Father (from
A.D. 150 downwards) who quotes the place, quotes it as it stands in the
Textus receptus;(345)—we have no hesitation whatever in rejecting it. It
is found in the midst of a very thicket of fabricated readings. It has
nothing whatever to recommend it. It is condemned by the consentient voice
of Antiquity. It is advocated only by four copies,—which _never_ combine
exclusively, except to misrepresent the truth of Scripture and to seduce
the simple.

But the foregoing, which is a fair typical sample of countless other
instances of unauthorized Transposition, may not be dismissed without a
few words of serious remonstrance. Our contention is that, inasmuch as the
effect of such transposition _is incapable of being idiomatically
represented in the English language_,—(for, in all such cases, the Revised
Version retains the rendering of the Authorized,)—our Revisionists have
violated the spirit as well as the letter of their instructions, in
putting forth _a new Greek Text_, and silently introducing into it a
countless number of these and similar depravations of Scripture. These
Textual curiosities (for they are nothing more) are absolutely out of
place in a _Revision of the English Version_: achieve no lawful purpose:
are sure to mislead the unwary. This first.—Secondly, we submit
that,—strong as, no doubt, the temptation must have been, to secure the
sanction of the N. T. Revisionists for their own private Recension of the
Greek, (printed long since, but published simultaneously with the “Revised
Version”)—it is to be regretted that Drs. Westcott and Hort should have
yielded thereto. Man’s impatience never promotes GOD’S Truth. The
interests of Textual Criticism would rather have suggested, that the
Recension of that accomplished pair of Professors should have been
submitted to public inspection in the first instance. The astonishing Text
which it advocates might have been left with comparative safety to take
its chance in the Jerusalem Chamber, after it had undergone the searching
ordeal of competent Criticism, and been freely ventilated at home and
abroad for a decade of years. But on the contrary. It was kept close. It
might be seen only by the Revisers: and even _they_ were tied down to
secrecy as to the letter-press by which it was accompanied.... All this
strikes us as painful in a high degree.

VI. Hitherto we have referred almost exclusively to the Gospels. In
conclusion, we invite attention to our Revisionists’ treatment of 1 Tim.
iii. 16—the _crux criticorum_, as Prebendary Scrivener styles it.(346) We
cannot act more fairly than by inviting a learned member of the revising
body to speak on behalf of his brethren. We shall in this way ascertain
the amount of acquaintance with the subject enjoyed by some of those who
have been so obliging as to furnish the Church with a new Recension of the
Greek of the New Testament. Dr. Roberts says:—


    “The English reader will probably be startled to find that the
    familiar text,—‘_And without controversy great is the mystery of
    godliness_: GOD _was manifest in the flesh_,’ has been exchanged
    in the Revised Version for the following,—‘_And without
    controversy great is the mystery of godliness; He who was
    manifested in the flesh._’ A note on the margin states that ‘the
    word GOD, in place of _He who_, rests on no sufficient ancient
    evidence;’ and it may be well that, in a passage of so great
    importance, the reader should be convinced that such is the case.

    “What, then, let us enquire, is the amount of evidence which can
    be produced in support of the reading ‘GOD’? This is soon stated.
    Not one of the early Fathers can be certainly quoted for it. None
    of the very ancient versions support it. No uncial witnesses to
    it, with the doubtful exception of A.... But even granting that
    the weighty suffrage of the Alexandrian manuscript is in favour of
    ‘GOD,’ far more evidence can be produced in support of ‘who.’ א
    and probably C witness to this reading, and it has also powerful
    testimony from the versions and Fathers. Moreover, the relative
    ‘who’ is a far more difficult reading than ‘GOD,’ and could hardly
    have been substituted for the latter. On every ground, therefore,
    we conclude that this interesting and important passage must stand
    as it has been given in the Revised Version.”(347)


And now, having heard the learned Presbyterian on behalf of his
brother-Revisionists, we request that we may be ourselves listened to in
reply.

The place of Scripture before us, the Reader is assured, presents a
memorable instance of the mischief which occasionally resulted to the
inspired Text from the ancient practice of executing copies of the
Scriptures in uncial characters. S. Paul _certainly_ wrote μέγα ἐστὶ τὸ
τῆς εὐσεβείας μυστήριον; Θεὸς ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί, (“_Great is the mystery
of godliness_: GOD _was manifested in the flesh_”) But it requires to be
explained at the outset, that the holy Name when abbreviated (which it
always was), thus,—_ΘΣ_ (“GOD”), is only distinguishable from the relative
pronoun “who” (ΟΣ), by two horizontal strokes,—which, in manuscripts of
early date, it was often the practice to trace so faintly that at present
they can scarcely be discerned.(348) Need we go on? An archetypal copy in
which one or both of these slight strokes had vanished from the word _ΘΣ_
(“GOD”), gave rise to the reading ΟΣ (“who”),—of which nonsensical
substitute, traces survive in _only two_(349) manuscripts,—א and 17: not,
for certain, in _one single_ ancient Father,—no, nor for certain in _one
single_ ancient Version. So transparent, in fact, is the absurdity of
writing τὸ μυστέριον ὅς (“the mystery _who_”), that copyists promptly
substituted ὅ (“_which_”): thus furnishing another illustration of the
well-known property of a fabricated reading, viz. sooner or later
inevitably to become the parent of a second. Happily, to this second
mistake the sole surviving witness is the Codex Claromontanus, of the VIth
century (D): the only Patristic evidence in its favour being Gelasius of
Cyzicus,(350) (whose date is A.D. 476): and the unknown author of a homily
in the appendix to Chrysostom.(351) The Versions—all but the Georgian and
the Slavonic, which agree with the Received Text—favour it unquestionably;
for they are observed invariably to make the relative pronoun agree in
gender with the word which represents μυστήριον (“mystery”) which
immediately precedes it. Thus, in the Syriac Versions, ὅς (“_who_”) is
found,—but only because the Syriac equivalent for μυστήριον is of the
masculine gender: in the Latin, _quod_ (“_which_”)—but only because
_mysterium_ in Latin (like μυστήριον in Greek) is neuter. Over this latter
reading, however, we need not linger; seeing that ὅ does not find a single
patron at the present day. And yet, this was the reading which was eagerly
upheld during the last century: Wetstein and Sir Isaac Newton being its
most strenuous advocates.

It is time to pass under hasty review the direct evidence for the true
reading. A and C exhibited _ΘΣ_ until ink, thumbing, and the injurious use
of chemicals, obliterated what once was patent. It is too late, by full
150 years, to contend on the negative side of _this_ question.—F and G,
which exhibit _ΟΣ_ and _ΟΣ_ respectively, were confessedly derived from a
common archetype: in which archetype, it is evident that the horizontal
stroke which distinguishes Θ from Ο must have been so faintly traced as to
be scarcely discernible. The supposition that, in this place, the stroke
in question represents _the aspirate_, is scarcely admissible. _There is
no single example of_ ὅς _written_ _ΟΣ_ _in any part of __ either Cod._ F
_or Cod._ G. On the other hand, in the only place where ΟΣ represents
_ΘΣ_, it is written _ΟΣ_ _in both_. Prejudice herself may be safely called
upon to accept the obvious and only lawful inference.

To come to the point,—Θεός is the reading of _all the uncial copies extant
but two_ (viz. א which exhibits ὅς, and D which exhibits ὅ), and of all
the cursives _but one_ (viz. 17). The universal consent of the
Lectionaries proves that Θεός has been read in all the assemblies of the
faithful from the IVth or Vth century of our era. At what earlier period
of her existence is it supposed then that the Church (“the witness and
keeper of Holy Writ,”) availed herself of her privilege to substitute Θεός
for ὅς or ὅ,—whether in error or in fraud? Nothing short of a conspiracy,
to which every region of the Eastern Church must have been a party, would
account for the phenomenon.

We enquire next for the testimony of the Fathers; and we discover that—(1)
Gregory of Nyssa quotes Θεός _twenty-two times_:(352)—that Θεός is also
recognized by (2) his namesake of Nazianzus in two places;(353)—as well as
by (3) Didymus of Alexandria;(354)—(4) by ps.-Dionysius Alex.;(355)—and
(5) by Diodorus of Tarsus.(356)—(6) Chrysostom quotes 1 Tim. iii. 16 in
conformity with the received text at least three times;(357)—and (7) Cyril
Al. as often:(358)—(8) Theodoret, four times:(359)—(9) an unknown author
of the age of Nestorius (A.D. 430), once:(360)—(10) Severus, Bp. of
Antioch (A.D. 512), once.(361)—(11) Macedonius (A.D. 506) patriarch of
CP.,(362) of whom it has been absurdly related that he _invented_ the
reading, is a witness for Θεός perforce; so is—(12) Euthalius, and—(13)
John Damascene on two occasions.(363)—(14) An unknown writer who has been
mistaken for Athanasius,(364)—(15) besides not a few ancient scholiasts,
close the list: for we pass by the testimony of—(16) Epiphanius at the 7th
Nicene Council (A.D. 787),—of (17) Œcumenius,—of (18) Theophylact.

It will be observed that neither has anything been said about the many
indirect allusions of earlier Fathers to this place of Scripture; and yet
some of these are too striking to be overlooked: as when—(19) Basil,
writing of our SAVIOUR, says αὐτὸς ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί:(365)—and (20)
Gregory Thaum., καὶ ἔστι Θεὸς ἀληθινὸς ὁ ἄσαρκος ἐν σαρκὶ
φανερωθείς:(366)—and before him, (21) Hippolytus, οὗτος προελθὼν εἰς
κόσμον, Θεὸς ἐν σώματι ἐφανερώθη:(367)—and (22) Theodotus the Gnostic, ὁ
Σωτὴρ ὤφθη κατιὼν τοῖς ἀγγέλοις:(368)—and (23) Barnabas, Ἰησοῦς ... ὁ υἱὸς
τοῦ Θεοῦ τύπῳ καὶ ἐν σαρκὶ φανερωθείς:(369)—and earlier still (24)
Ignatius: Θεοῦ ἀνθρωπίνως φανερουμένον:—ἐν σαρκὶ γενόμενος Θεός:—εἶς Θεὸς
ἔστιν ὁ φανερώσοας ἑαυτὸν διὰ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ.(370)—Are we to
suppose that _none_ of these primitive writers read the place as we do?

Against this array of Testimony, the only evidence which the unwearied
industry of 150 years has succeeded in eliciting, is as follows:—(1) The
exploded _Latin_ fable that Macedonius (A.D. 506) _invented_ the
reading:(371)—(2) the fact that Epiphanius,—_professing to
transcribe_(372) from an earlier treatise of his own(373) (in which
ἐφανερώθη stands _without a nominative_), prefixes ὅς:—(3) the statement
of an unknown scholiast, that in one particular place of Cyril’s writings
where the Greek is lost, Cyril wrote ὅς,—(which seems to be an entire
mistake; but which, even if it were a fact, would be sufficiently
explained by the discovery that in two other places of Cyril’s writings
the evidence _fluctuates_ between ὅς and Θεός):—(4) a quotation in an
epistle of Eutherius of Tyana (it exists only in Latin) where “qui” is
found:—(5) a casual reference (in Jerome’s commentary on Isaiah) to our
LORD, as One “qui apparuit in carne, justificatus est in spiritu,”—which
Bp. Pearson might have written.—Lastly, (6) a passage of Theodorus
Mopsuest. (quoted at the Council of Constantinople, A.D. 553), where the
reading is “qui,”—which is balanced by the discovery that in another place
of his writings quoted at the same Council, the original is translated
“quod.” And this closes the evidence. Will any unprejudiced person, on
reviewing the premisses, seriously declare that ὅς is the better sustained
reading of the two?

For ourselves, we venture to deem it incredible that a Reading which—(_a_)
Is not to be found in more than two copies (א and 17) of S. Paul’s
Epistles: which—(_b_) Is not certainly supported by a single
Version:—(_c_) Nor is clearly advocated by a single Father,—_can_ be
genuine. It does not at all events admit of question, that until _far_
stronger evidence can be produced in its favour, ὅς (“who”) may on no
account be permitted to usurp the place of the commonly received Θεός
(“GOD”) of 1 Tim. iii. 16. But the present exhibits in a striking and
instructive way all the characteristic tokens of a depravation of the
text. (1st) At an exceedingly early period it resulted in _another_
deflection. (2nd) It is without the note of _Continuity_; having died out
of the Church’s memory well-nigh 1400 years ago. (3rd) It is deficient in
_Universality_; having been all along denied the Church’s corporate
sanction. As a necessary consequence, (4th) It rests at this day on wholly
_insufficient Evidence_: Manuscripts, Versions, Fathers being _all_
against it. (5th) It carries on its front its own refutation. For, as all
must see, _ΘΣ_ might easily be mistaken for ΟΣ: but in order to make ΟΣ
into _ΘΣ_, _two horizontal lines must of set purpose be added to the
copy_. It is therefore a vast deal _more likely_ that _ΘΣ_ became ΟΣ, than
that ΟΣ became _ΘΣ_. (6th) Lastly, it is condemned by internal
considerations. Ὅς is in truth so grossly improbable—rather, so
_impossible_—a reading, that under any circumstances we must have
anxiously enquired whether no escape from it was discoverable: whether
there exists no way of explaining _how_ so patent an absurdity as
μυστέριον ὅς _may_ have arisen? And on being reminded that the
disappearance of two faint horizontal strokes, _or even of one_, would
fully account for the impossible reading,—(and thus much, at least, all
admit,)—should we not have felt that it required an overwhelming consensus
of authorities in favour of ὅς, to render such an alternative deserving of
serious attention? It is a mere abuse of Bengel’s famous axiom to recal it
on occasions like the present. We shall be landed in a bathos indeed if we
allow _gross improbability_ to become a constraining motive with us in
revising the sacred Text.

And thus much for the true reading of 1 Tim. iii. 16. We invite the reader
to refer back(374) to a Reviser’s estimate of the evidence in favour of
Θεός and ὅς respectively, and to contrast it with our own. If he is
impressed with the strength of the cause of our opponents,—their mastery
of the subject,—and the reasonableness of their contention,—we shall be
surprised. And yet _that_ is not the question just now before us. The
_only_ question (be it clearly remembered) which has to be considered, is
_this_:—Can it be said with truth that the “evidence” for ὅς (as against
Θεός) in 1 Tim. iii. 16 is “_clearly preponderating_”? Can it be
maintained that Θεός is a “_plain and clear error_”? Unless this can be
affirmed—_cadit quæstio_. The traditional reading of the place ought to
have been let alone. May we be permitted to say without offence that, in
our humble judgment, if the Church of England, at the Revisers’ bidding,
were to adopt this and thousands of other depravations of the sacred
page,(375)—with which the Church Universal was once well acquainted, but
which in her corporate character she has long since unconditionally
condemned and abandoned,—she would deserve to be pointed at with scorn by
the rest of Christendom? Yes, and to have _that_ openly said of her which
S. Peter openly said of the false teachers of his day who fell back into
the very errors which they had already abjured. The place will be found in
2 S. Peter ii. 22. So singularly applicable is it to the matter in hand,
that we can but invite attention to the quotation on our title-page and p.
1.

And here we make an end.

1. Those who may have taken up the present Article in expectation of being
entertained with another of those discussions (of which we suspect the
public must be already getting somewhat weary), concerning the degree of
ability which the New Testament Revisionists have displayed in their
rendering into English of the Greek, will at first experience
disappointment. Readers of intelligence, however, who have been at the
pains to follow us through the foregoing pages, will be constrained to
admit that we have done more faithful service to the cause of Sacred Truth
by the course we have been pursuing, than if we had merely multiplied
instances of incorrect and unsatisfactory _Translation_. There is (and
this we endeavoured to explain at the outset) a question of prior interest
and far graver importance which has to be settled _first_, viz. the degree
of confidence which is due to the underlying NEW GREEK TEXT which our
Revisionists have constructed. In other words, before discussing their
_new Renderings_, we have to examine their _new Readings_.(376) The
silence which Scholars have hitherto maintained on this part of the
subject is to ourselves scarcely intelligible. But it makes us the more
anxious to invite attention to this neglected aspect of the problem; the
rather, because we have thoroughly convinced ourselves that the “new Greek
Text” put forth by the Revisionists of our Authorized Version is _utterly
inadmissible_. The traditional Text has been departed from by them nearly
6000 times,—almost invariably _for the worse_.

2. Fully to dispose of _all_ these multitudinous corruptions would require
a bulky Treatise. But the reader is requested to observe that, if we are
right in the few instances we have culled out from the mass,—_then we are
right in all_. If we have succeeded in proving that the little handful of
authorities on which the “new Greek Text” depends, are the reverse of
trustworthy,—are absolutely misleading,—then, we have cut away from under
the Revisionists the very ground on which they have hitherto been
standing. And in that case, the structure which they have built up
throughout a decade of years, with such evident self-complacency,
collapses “like the baseless fabric of a vision.”

3. For no one may flatter himself that, by undergoing a _further_ process
of “Revision,” the “Revised Version” may after all be rendered
trustworthy. The eloquent and excellent Bishop of Derry is “convinced
that, with all its undeniable merits, it will have to be somewhat
extensively revised.” And so perhaps are we. But (what is a far more
important circumstance) we are further convinced that a prior act of
penance to be submitted to by the Revisers would be the restoration of the
underlying Greek Text to very nearly—_not quite_—the state in which they
found it when they entered upon their ill-advised undertaking. “Very
nearly—not quite:” for, in not a few particulars, the “Textus receptus”
_does_ call for Revision, certainly; although Revision on entirely
different principles from those which are found to have prevailed in the
Jerusalem Chamber. To mention a single instance:—When our LORD first sent
forth His Twelve Apostles, it was certainly no part of His ministerial
commission to them to “_raise the dead_” (νεκροὺς ἐγείρετε, S. Matthew x.
8). This is easily demonstrable. Yet is the spurious clause retained by
our Revisionists; because it is found in those corrupt witnesses—א B C D,
and the Latin copies.(377) When will men learn unconditionally to put away
from themselves the weak superstition which is for investing with oracular
authority the foregoing quaternion of demonstrably depraved Codices?

4. “It may be said”—(to quote again from Bp. Alexander’s recent
Charge),—“that there is a want of modesty in dissenting from the
conclusions of a two-thirds majority of a body so learned. But the rough
process of counting heads imposes unduly on the imagination. One could
easily name _eight_ in that assembly, whose _unanimity_ would be
practically almost decisive; but we have no means of knowing that these
did not _form the minority_ in resisting the changes which we most
regret.” The Bishop is speaking of the _English_ Revision. Having regard
to the Greek Text exclusively, _we_ also (strange to relate) had singled
out _exactly eight_ from the members of the New Testament company—Divines
of undoubted orthodoxy, who for their splendid scholarship and proficiency
in the best learning, or else for their refined taste and admirable
judgment, might (as we humbly think), under certain safeguards, have been
safely entrusted even with the responsibility of revising the Sacred Text.
Under the guidance of Prebendary Scrivener (who among living Englishmen is
_facile princeps_ in these pursuits) it is scarcely to be anticipated
that, WHEN UNANIMOUS, such Divines would ever have materially erred. But
then, of course, a previous life-long familiarity with the Science of
_Textual Criticism_, or at least leisure for prosecuting it now, for ten
or twenty years, with absolutely undivided attention,—would be the
indispensable requisite for the success of such an undertaking; and this,
undeniably, is a qualification rather to be desiderated than looked for at
the hands of English Divines of note at the present day. On the other
hand, (loyalty to our Master constrains us to make the avowal,) the motley
assortment of names, twenty-eight in all, specified by Dr. Newth, at p.
125 of his interesting little volume, joined to the fact that the average
attendance _was not so many as sixteen_,—concerning whom, moreover, the
fact has transpired that some of the most judicious of their number often
_declined to give any vote at all_,—is by no means calculated to inspire
any sort of confidence. But, in truth, considerable familiarity with these
pursuits may easily co-exist with a natural inaptitude for their
successful cultivation, which shall prove simply fatal. In support of this
remark, one has but to refer to the instance supplied by Dr. Hort. The
Sacred Text has none to fear so much as those who _feel_ rather than
think: who _imagine_ rather than reason: who rely on a supposed _verifying
faculty_ of their own, of which they are able to render no intelligible
account; and who, (to use Bishop Ellicott’s phrase,) have the misfortune
to conceive themselves possessed of a “_power of divining the Original
Text_,”—which would be even diverting, if the practical result of their
self-deception were not so exceedingly serious.

5. In a future number, we may perhaps enquire into the measure of success
which has attended the Revisers’ _Revision of the English_ of our
Authorized Version of 1611. We have occupied ourselves at this time
exclusively with a survey of the seriously mutilated and otherwise grossly
depraved NEW GREEK TEXT, on which their edifice has been reared. And the
circumstance which, in conclusion, we desire to impress upon our Readers,
is this,—that the insecurity of that foundation is so alarming, that,
except as a concession due to the solemnity of the undertaking just now
under review, further Criticism might very well be dispensed with, as a
thing superfluous. Even could it be proved concerning the superstructure,
that “_it had been [ever so] well builded_,”(378) (to adopt another of our
Revisionists’ unhappy perversions of Scripture,) the fatal objection would
remain, viz. that it is not “_founded upon the rock_.”(379) It has been
the ruin of the present undertaking—as far as the Sacred Text is
concerned—that the majority of the Revisionist body have been misled
throughout by the oracular decrees and impetuous advocacy of Drs. Westcott
and Hort; who, with the purest intentions and most laudable industry, have
constructed a Text demonstrably more remote from the Evangelic verity,
than any which has ever yet seen the light. “The old is good,”(380) say
the Revisionists: but we venture solemnly to assure them that “_the old is
better_;”(381) and that this remark holds every bit as true of their
Revision of the Greek throughout, as of their infelicitous exhibition of
S. Luke v. 39. To attempt, as they have done, to build the Text of the New
Testament on a tissue of unproved assertions and the eccentricities of a
single codex of bad character, is about as hopeful a proceeding as would
be the attempt to erect an Eddystone lighthouse on the Goodwin Sands.





ARTICLE II. THE NEW ENGLISH VERSION.


    “Such is the time-honoured Version which we have been called upon
    to revise! We have had to study this great Version carefully and
    minutely, line by line; and the longer we have been engaged upon
    it the more we have learned to admire _its simplicity_, _its
    dignity_, _its power_, _its happy turns of expression_, _its
    general accuracy_, and we must not fail to add, _the music of its
    cadences, and the felicities of its rhythm_. To render a work that
    had reached this high standard of excellence, still more
    excellent; to increase its fidelity, without destroying its charm;
    was the task committed to us.”—PREFACE TO THE REVISED VERSION.

    “To pass from the one to the other, is, as it were, to alight from
    a well-built and well-hung carriage which glides easily over a
    macadamized road,—and to get into one _which has bad springs or
    none at all_, and in which you are _jolted in ruts with aching
    bones over the stones of a newly-mended and rarely traversed
    road_, like some of the roads in our North Lincolnshire
    villages.”—BISHOP WORDSWORTH.(382)

    “No Revision at the present day could hope to meet with an hour’s
    acceptance if it failed to preserve the tone, rhythm, and diction
    of the present Authorized Version.”—BISHOP ELLICOTT.(383)

    “I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy
    of this Book,—If any man shall add unto these things, GOD shall
    add unto him the plagues that are written in this Book.

    “And if any man shall take away from the words of the Book of this
    prophecy, GOD shall take away his part out of the Book of Life,
    and out of the holy City, and from the things which are written in
    this Book.”—REVELATION xxii. 18, 19.


Whatever may be urged in favour of Biblical Revision, it is at least
undeniable that the undertaking involves a tremendous risk. Our Authorized
Version is the one religious link which at present binds together ninety
millions of English-speaking men scattered over the earth’s surface. Is it
reasonable that so unutterably precious, so sacred a bond should be
endangered, for the sake of representing certain words more
accurately,—here and there translating a tense with greater
precision,—getting rid of a few archaisms? It may be confidently assumed
that no “Revision” of our Authorized Version, however judiciously
executed, will ever occupy the place in public esteem which is actually
enjoyed by the work of the Translators of 1611,—the noblest literary work
in the Anglo-Saxon language. We shall in fact never have _another_
“Authorized Version.” And this single consideration may be thought
absolutely fatal to the project, except in a greatly modified form. To be
brief,—As a companion in the study and for private edification: as a book
of reference for critical purposes, especially in respect of difficult and
controverted passages:—we hold that a revised edition of the Authorized
Version of our English Bible, (if executed with consummate ability and
learning,) would at any time be a work of inestimable value. The method of
such a performance, whether by marginal Notes or in some other way, we
forbear to determine. But certainly only as a handmaid is it to be
desired. As something _intended to supersede_ our present English Bible,
we are thoroughly convinced that the project of a rival Translation is not
to be entertained for a moment. For ourselves, we deprecate it entirely.

On the other hand, _who_ could have possibly foreseen what has actually
come to pass since the Convocation of the Southern Province (in Feb. 1870)
declared itself favourable to “a Revision of the Authorized Version,” and
appointed a Committee of Divines to undertake the work? _Who_ was to
suppose that the Instructions given to the Revisionists would be by them
systematically disregarded? _Who_ was to imagine that an utterly
untrustworthy “new Greek Text,” constructed on mistaken principles,—(say
rather, on _no principles at all_,)—would be the fatal result? To speak
more truly,—_Who_ could have anticipated that the opportunity would have
been adroitly seized to inflict upon the Church the text of Drs. Westcott
and Hort, in all its essential features,—a text which, as will be found
elsewhere largely explained, we hold to be _the most vicious Recension of
the original Greek in existence_? Above all,—_Who_ was to foresee that
instead of removing “_plain_ and _clear errors_” from our Version, the
Revisionists,—(besides systematically removing out of sight so many of the
genuine utterances of the SPIRIT,)—would themselves introduce a countless
number of blemishes, unknown to it before? Lastly, how was it to have been
believed that the Revisionists would show themselves industrious in sowing
broadcast over four continents doubts as to the Truth of Scripture, which
it will never be in their power either to remove or to recal? _Nescit vox
missa reverti._

For, the ill-advised practice of recording, in the margin of an English
Bible, certain of the blunders—(such things cannot by any stretch of
courtesy be styled “Various Readings”)—which disfigure “some” or “many”
“ancient authorities,” can only result in hopelessly unsettling the faith
of millions. It cannot be defended on the plea of candour,—the candour
which is determined that men shall “know the worst.” “The worst”_ has_ NOT
_been told_: and it were dishonesty to insinuate that _it has_. If all the
cases were faithfully exhibited where “a few,” “some,” or “many ancient
authorities” read differently from what is exhibited in the actual Text,
not only would the margin prove insufficient to contain the record, but
_the very page itself_ would not nearly suffice. Take a single instance
(the first which comes to mind), of the thing referred to. Such
illustrations might be multiplied to any extent:—

In S. Luke iii. 22, (in place of “Thou art my beloved Son; _in Thee I am
well pleased_,”) the following authorities of the IInd, IIIrd and IVth
centuries, read,—“_this day have I begotten Thee_:” viz.—codex D and the
most ancient copies of the old Latin (a, b, c, ff-2, 1),—Justin Martyr in
three places(384) (A.D. 140),—Clemens Alex.(385) (A.D. 190),—and
Methodius(386) (A.D. 290) among the Greeks. Lactantius(387) (A.D.
300),—Hilary(388) (A.D. 350),—Juvencus(389) (A.D. 330),—Faustus(390) (A.D.
400), and—Augustine(391) amongst the Latins. The reading in question was
doubtless derived from the _Ebionite Gospel_(392) (IInd cent.). Now, we
desire to have it explained to us _why_ an exhibition of the Text
supported by such an amount of first-rate primitive testimony as the
preceding, obtains _no notice whatever_ in our Revisionists’ margin,—if
indeed it was the object of their perpetually recurring marginal
annotations, to put the unlearned reader on a level with the critical
Scholar; to keep nothing back from him; and so forth?... It is the gross
one-sidedness, the patent _unfairness_, in a critical point of view, of
this work, (which professes to be nothing else but _a Revision of the
English Version of_ 1611,)—which chiefly shocks and offends us.

For, on the other hand, of what possible use can it be to encumber the
margin of S. Luke x. 41, 42 (for example), with the announcement that “A
few ancient authorities read _Martha, Martha, thou art troubled: Mary hath
chosen_ &c.” (the fact being, that D _alone_ of MSS. omits “_careful and
... about many things. But one thing is needful, and_” ...)? With the
record of this circumstance, is it reasonable (we ask) to choke up our
English margin,—to create perplexity and to insinuate doubt? The author of
the foregoing marginal Annotation was of course aware that the same
“singular codex” (as Bp. Ellicott styles cod. D) omits, in S. Luke’s
Gospel alone, no less than 1552 words: and he will of course have
ascertained (by counting) that the words in S. Luke’s Gospel amount to
19,941. Why then did he not tell _the whole_ truth; and instead of
“_&c._,” proceed as follows?—“But inasmuch as cod. D is so scandalously
corrupt that about _one word in thirteen_ is missing throughout, the
absence of nine words in this place is of no manner of importance or
significancy. The precious saying omitted is above suspicion, and the
first half of the present Annotation might have been spared.”... We submit
that a Note like that, although rather “singular” in style, really _would_
have been to some extent helpful,—if not to the learned, at least to the
unlearned reader.

In the meantime, unlearned and learned readers alike are competent to see
that the foregoing perturbation of S. Luke x. 41, 42 rests on _the same_
manuscript authority as the perturbation of ch. iii. 22, which immediately
preceded it. The _Patristic_ attestation, on the other hand, of the
reading which has been promoted to the margin, is almost _nil_: whereas
_that_ of the neglected place has been shown to be considerable, very
ancient, and of high respectability.

But in fact,—(let the Truth be plainly stated; for, when GOD’S Word is at
stake, circumlocution is contemptible, while concealment would be a
crime;)—“_Faithfulness_” towards the public, a stern resolve that the
English reader “shall know the worst,” and all that kind of thing,—such
considerations have had nothing whatever to do with the matter. A vastly
different principle has prevailed with the Revisionists. Themselves the
dupes of an utterly mistaken Theory of Textual Criticism, their supreme
solicitude has been _to impose that same Theory_,—(_which is Westcott and
Hort’s_,)—with all its bitter consequences, on the unlearned and
unsuspicious public.

We shall of course be indignantly called upon to explain what we mean by
so injurious—so damning—an imputation? For all reply, we are content to
refer to the sample of our meaning which will be found below, in pp.
137-8. The exposure of what has there been shown to be the method of the
Revisionists in respect of S. Mark vi. 11, might be repeated hundreds of
times. It would in fact _fill a volume_. We shall therefore pass on, when
we have asked the Revisionists in turn—_How they have dared_ so
effectually to blot out those many precious words from the Book of Life,
that no mere English reader, depending on the Revised Version for his
knowledge of the Gospels, can by possibility suspect their existence?...
Supposing even that it _was_ the calamitous result of their mistaken
principles that they found themselves constrained on countless occasions,
to omit from their Text precious sayings of our LORD and His
Apostles,—what possible excuse will they offer for not having preserved a
record of words so amply attested, _at least in their margin_?

Even so, however, the whole amount of the mischief which has been effected
by our Revisionists has not been stated. For the Greek Text which they
have invented proves to be so hopelessly depraved throughout, that if it
were to be thrust upon the Church’s acceptance, we should be a thousand
times worse off than we were with the Text which Erasmus and the
Complutensian,—Stephens, and Beza, and the Elzevirs,—bequeathed to us
upwards of three centuries ago. On this part of the subject we have
remarked at length already [pp. 1-110]: yet shall we be constrained to
recur once and again to the underlying Greek Text of the Revisionists,
inasmuch as it is impossible to stir in any direction with the task before
us, without being painfully reminded of its existence. Not only do the
familiar Parables, Miracles, Discourses of our LORD, trip us up at every
step, but we cannot open the first page of the Gospel—no, nor indeed read
_the first line_—without being brought to a standstill. Thus,

1. S. Matthew begins,—“The book of the generation of JESUS CHRIST” (ver.
1).—Good. But here the margin volunteers two pieces of information:
first,—“Or, _birth_: as in ver. 18.” We refer to ver. 18, and read—“Now
the birth of JESUS CHRIST was on this wise.” Good again; but the margin
says,—“Or, _generation_: as in ver. 1.” Are we then to understand that
_the same Greek word_, diversely rendered in English, occurs in both
places? We refer to the “_new_ Greek Text:” and there it stands,—γένεσις
in either verse. But if the word be the same, why (on the Revisers’
theory) is it diversely rendered?

In the meantime, _who_ knows not that there is all the difference in the
world between S. Matthew’s γέΝΕσις, in ver. 1,—and the same S. Matthew’s
γέΝΝΗσις, in ver. 18? The latter, the Evangelist’s announcement of the
circumstances of the human Nativity of CHRIST: the former, the
Evangelist’s unobtrusive way of recalling the Septuagintal rendering of
Gen. ii. 4 and v. 1:(393) the same Evangelist’s calm method of guiding the
devout and thoughtful student to discern in the Gospel the History of the
“new Creation,”—by thus providing that when first the Gospel opens its
lips, it shall syllable the name of the first book of the elder Covenant?
We are pointing out that it more than startles—it supremely offends—one
who is even slenderly acquainted with the treasures of wisdom hid in the
very diction of the N. T. Scriptures, to discover that a deliberate effort
has been made to get rid of the very foremost of those notes of Divine
intelligence, by confounding two words which all down the ages have been
carefully kept distinct; and that this effort is the result of an
exaggerated estimate of a few codices which happen to be written in the
uncial character, viz. two of the IVth century (B א); one of the Vth (C);
two of the VIth (P Z); one of the IXth (Δ); one of the Xth (S).

The Versions(394)—(which are our _oldest_ witnesses)—are perforce only
partially helpful here. Note however, that _the only one which favours_
γένεσις is the heretical Harkleian Syriac, executed in the VIIth century.
The Peschito and Cureton’s Syriac distinguish between γένεσις in ver. 1
and γέννησις in ver. 18: as do the Slavonic and the Arabian Versions. The
Egyptian, Armenian, Æthiopic and Georgian, have only one word for both.
Let no one suppose however that _therefore_ their testimony is ambiguous.
It is γέννησις (_not_ γένεσις) which they exhibit, both in ver. 1 and in
ver. 18.(395) The Latin (“_generatio_”) is an equivocal rendering
certainly: but the earliest Latin writer who quotes the two places, (viz.
Tertullian) employs the word “_genitura_” in S. Matth. i. 1,—but
“_nativitas_” in ver. 18,—which no one seems to have noticed.(396) Now,
Tertullian, (as one who sometimes wrote in Greek,) is known to have been
conversant with the Greek copies of his day; and “his day,” be it
remembered, is A.D. 190. He evidently recognized the parallelism between
S. Matt. i. 1 and Gen. ii. 4,—where the old Latin exhibits “liber
_creaturæ_” or “_facturæ_,” as the rendering of βίβλος γενέσεως. And so
much for the testimony of the Versions.

But on reference to Manuscript and to Patristic authority(397) we are
encountered by an overwhelming amount of testimony for γέννησις in ver.
18: and this, considering the nature of the case, is an extraordinary
circumstance. Quite plain is it that the Ancients were wide awake to the
difference between spelling the word with one N or with two,—as the little
dissertation of the heretic Nestorius(398) in itself would be enough to
prove. Γέννησις, in the meantime, is the word employed by Justin
M.,(399)—by Clemens Alex.,(400)—by Athanasius,(401)—by Gregory of
Nazianzus,(402)—by Cyril Alex.,(403)—by Nestorius,(404)—by
Chrysostom,(405)—by Theodorus Mopsuest.,(406)—and by three other
ancients.(407) Even more deserving of attention is it that Irenæus(408)
(A.D. 170)—(whom Germanus(409) copies at the end of 550 years)—calls
attention to the difference between the spelling of ver. 1 and ver. 18. So
does Didymus:(410)—so does Basil:(411)—so does
Epiphanius.(412)—Origen(413) (A.D. 210) is even eloquent on the
subject.—Tertullian (A.D. 190) we have heard already.—It is a significant
circumstance, that the only Patristic authorities discoverable on the
other side are Eusebius, Theodoret, and the authors of an heretical
Creed(414)—whom Athanasius holds up to scorn.(415) ... Will the
Revisionists still pretend to tell us that γέννησις in verse 18 is a
“_plain and clear error_”?

2. This, however, is not all. Against the words “of JESUS CHRIST,” a
further critical annotation is volunteered; to the effect that “Some
ancient authorities read _of the Christ_.” In reply to which, we assert
that _not one single known MS._ omits the word “JESUS:” whilst its
presence is vouched for by
ps.-Tatian,(416)—Irenæus,—Origen,—Eusebius,—Didymus,—
Epiphanius,—Chrysostom,—Cyril,—in addition to _every known Greek copy of
the Gospels_, and not a few of the Versions, including the Peschito and
both the Egyptian. What else but nugatory therefore is such a piece of
information as this?

3. And so much for the first, second, and third Critical annotations, with
which the margin of the revised N. T. is disfigured. Hoping that the worst
is now over, we read on till we reach ver. 25, where we encounter a
statement which fairly trips us up: viz.,—“And knew her not _till she had
brought forth a son_.” No intimation is afforded of what has been here
effected; but in the meantime every one’s memory supplies the epithet
(“her first-born”) which has been ejected. Whether something very like
indignation is not excited by the discovery that these important words
have been surreptitiously withdrawn from their place, let others say. For
ourselves, when we find that only א B Z and two cursive copies can be
produced for the omission, we are at a loss to understand of what the
Revisionists can have been dreaming. Did they know(417) that,—besides the
Vulgate, the Peschito and Philoxenian Syriac, the Æthiopic, Armenian,
Georgian, and Slavonian Versions,(418)—a whole torrent of Fathers are at
hand to vouch for the genuineness of the epithet they were so
unceremoniously excising? They are invited to refer to ps.-Tatian,(419)—to
Athanasius,(420)—to Didymus,(421)—to Cyril of Jer.,(422)—to Basil,(423)—to
Greg. Nyss.,(424)—to Ephraem Syr.,(425)—to Epiphanius,(426)—to
Chrysostom,(427)—to Proclus,(428)—to Isidorus Pelus.,(429)—to John
Damasc.,(430)—to Photius,(431)—to Nicetas:(432)—besides, of the Latins,
Ambrose,(433)—the _Opus imp._,—Augustine,—and not least to
Jerome(434)—eighteen Fathers in all. And how is it possible, (we ask,)
that two copies of the IVth century (B א) and one of the VIth (Z)—all
three without a character—backed by a few copies of the old Latin, should
be supposed to be any counterpoise at all for such an array of first-rate
contemporary evidence as the foregoing?

Enough has been offered by this time to prove that an authoritative
Revision of the Greek Text will have to precede any future Revision of the
English of the New Testament. Equally certain is it that for such an
undertaking the time has not yet come. “It is my honest
conviction,”—(remarks Bp. Ellicott, the Chairman of the
Revisionists,)—“that for any authoritative Revision, we are not yet
mature: either in Biblical learning or Hellenistic scholarship.”(435) The
same opinion precisely is found to have been cherished by Dr. Westcott
till _within about a year-and-a-half_(436) of the first assembling of the
New Testament Company in the Jerusalem Chamber, 22nd June, 1870. True,
that we enjoy access to—suppose from 1000 to 2000—more MANUSCRIPTS than
were available when the Textus Recept. was formed. But nineteen-twentieths
of those documents, for any use which has been made of them, might just as
well be still lying in the monastic libraries from which they were
obtained.—True, that four out of our five oldest uncials have come to
light since the year 1628; but, _who knows how to use them_?—True, that we
have made acquaintance with certain ancient VERSIONS, about which little
or nothing was known 200 years ago: but,—(with the solitary exception of
the Rev. Solomon Cæsar Malan, the learned Vicar of Broadwindsor,—who, by
the way, is always ready to lend a torch to his benighted brethren,)—what
living Englishman is able to tell us what they all contain? A smattering
acquaintance with the languages of ancient Egypt,—the Gothic, Æthiopic,
Armenian, Georgian and Slavonian Versions,—is of no manner of avail. In no
department, probably, is “a little learning” more sure to prove “a
dangerous thing.”—True, lastly, that the FATHERS have been better edited
within the last 250 years: during which period some fresh Patristic
writings have also come to light. But, with the exception of Theodoret
among the Greeks and Tertullian among the Latins, _which of the Fathers
has been satisfactorily indexed_?

Even what precedes is not nearly all. _The fundamental Principles_ of the
Science of Textual Criticism are not yet apprehended. In proof of this
assertion, we appeal to the new Greek Text of Drs. Westcott and
Hort,—which, beyond all controversy, is more hopelessly remote from the
inspired Original than any which has yet appeared. Let a generation of
Students give themselves entirely up to this neglected branch of sacred
Science. Let 500 more COPIES of the Gospels, Acts, and Epistles, be
diligently collated. Let at least 100 of the ancient _Lectionaries_ be
very exactly collated also. Let the most important of the ancient VERSIONS
be edited afresh, and let the languages in which these are written be for
the first time really _mastered_ by Englishmen. _Above all, let the
_FATHERS_ he called upon to give up their precious secrets._ Let their
writings be ransacked and indexed, and (where needful) let the MSS. of
their works be diligently inspected, in order that we may know what
actually is the evidence which they afford. Only so will it ever be
possible to obtain a Greek Text on which absolute reliance may be placed,
and which may serve as the basis for a satisfactory Revision of our
Authorized Version. Nay, let whatever unpublished works of the ancient
Greek Fathers are anywhere known to exist,—(and not a few precious remains
of theirs are lying hid in great national libraries, both at home and
abroad,)—let these be printed. The men could easily be found: the money,
far more easily.—When all this has been done,—_not before_—then in GOD’S
Name, let _the Church_ address herself to the great undertaking. Do but
revive the arrangements which were adopted in King James’s days: and we
venture to predict that less than a third part of ten years will be found
abundantly to suffice for the work. How the coming men will smile at the
picture Dr. Newth(437) has drawn of what was the method of procedure in
the reign of Queen Victoria! Will they not peruse with downright merriment
Bp. Ellicott’s jaunty proposal “_simply to proceed onward with the
work_”—[to wit, of constructing a new Greek Text,]—“in fact, _solvere
ambulando_,” [_necnon in laqueum cadendo_]?(438)

I. We cannot, it is presumed, act more fairly by the Revisers’ work,(439)
than by following them over some of the ground which they claim to have
made their own, and which, at the conclusion of their labours, their Right
Reverend Chairman evidently surveys with self-complacency. First, he
invites attention to the Principle and Rule for their guidance agreed to
by the Committee of Convocation (25th May, 1870), viz. “TO INTRODUCE AS
FEW ALTERATIONS AS POSSIBLE INTO THE TEXT OF THE AUTHORIZED VERSION,
CONSISTENTLY WITH FAITHFULNESS.” Words could not be more emphatic. “PLAIN
AND CLEAR ERRORS” were to be corrected. “NECESSARY emendations” were to be
made. But (in the words of the Southern Convocation) “We do not
contemplate any new Translation, _or any alteration of the language_,
EXCEPT WHERE, in the judgment of the most competent Scholars, SUCH CHANGE
IS NECESSARY.” The watchword, therefore, given to the company of
Revisionists was,—“NECESSITY.” _Necessity_ was to determine whether they
were to depart from the language of the Authorized Version, or not; for
the alterations were to be AS FEW AS POSSIBLE.

(_a_) Now it is idle to deny that this fundamental Principle has been
utterly set at defiance. To such an extent is this the case, that even an
unlettered Reader is competent to judge them. When we find “_to_”
substituted for “unto” (_passim_):—“_hereby_” for “by this” (1 Jo. v.
2):—“all that _are_,” for “all that be” (Rom. i. 7):—“_alway_” for
“always” (2 Thess. i. 3):—“we _that_,” “them _that_,” for “we _which_,”
“them _which_” (1 Thess. iv. 15); and yet “every spirit _which_,” for
“every spirit that” (1 Jo. iv. 3), and “he _who_ is not of GOD,” for “he
that is not of GOD” (ver. 6,—although “he _that_ knoweth GOD” had
preceded, in the same verse):—“_my_ host” for “mine host” (Rom. xvi. 23);
and “_underneath_” for “_under_” (Rev. vi. 9):—it becomes clear that the
Revisers’ notion of NECESSITY is not that of the rest of mankind. But let
the plain Truth be stated. Certain of them, when remonstrated with by
their fellows for the manifest disregard they were showing to the
Instructions subject to which they had undertaken the work of Revision,
are reported to have even gloried in their shame. The majority, it is
clear, have even ostentatiously set those Instructions at defiance.

Was the course they pursued,—(we ask the question respectfully,)—strictly
_honest_? To decline the work entirely under the prescribed Conditions,
was always in their power. But, first to accept the Conditions, and
straightway to act in defiance of them,—_this_ strikes us as a method of
proceeding which it is difficult to reconcile with the high character of
the occupants of the Jerusalem Chamber. To proceed however.

“Nevertheless” and “notwithstanding” have had a sad time of it. One or
other of them has been turned out in favour of “_howbeit_” (S. Lu. x. 11,
20),—of “_only_” (Phil. iii. 16),—of “_only that_” (i. 18),—of “_yet_” (S.
Matth. xi. 11),—of “_but_” (xvii. 27),—of “_and yet_” (James ii. 16)....
We find “_take heed_” substituted for “beware” (Col. ii. 8):—“_custom_”
for “manner” (S. Jo. xix. 40):—“he was _amazed_,” for “he was astonished:”
(S. Lu. v. 9):—“_Is it I, _LORD_?_” for “LORD, is it I?” (S. Matth. xxvi.
22):—“_straightway_ the cock crew,” for “immediately the cock crew” (S.
Jo. xviii. 27):—“Then _therefore he delivered Him_,” for “Then delivered
he Him therefore” (xix. 16):—“_brought_ it to His mouth,” for “put it to
His mouth” (ver. 29):—“_He manifested Himself on this wise_,” for “on this
wise shewed He Himself” (xxi. 1):—“_So when they got out upon the land_,”
for “As soon then as they were come to land” (ver. 9):—“the things
_concerning_,” for “the things pertaining to the kingdom of GOD” (Acts i.
3):—“as GOD’S_ steward_,” for “as the steward of God” (Tit. i. 7): but
“the _belly of the whale_” for “the whale’s belly” (S. Matth. xii. 40),
and “_device of man_” for “man’s device” in Acts xvii. 29.—These, and
hundreds of similar alterations have been evidently made out of the merest
wantonness. After substituting “_therefore_” for “then” (as the rendering
of οὖν) a score of times,—the Revisionists quite needlessly substitute
“_then_” for “therefore” in S. Jo. xix. 42.—And why has the singularly
beautiful greeting of “the elder unto the well-beloved Gaius,” been
exchanged for “unto _Gaius the beloved_”? (3 John, ver. 1).

(_b_) We turn a few pages, and find “he that _doeth_ sin,” substituted for
“he that committeth sin;” and “_To this end_” put in the place of “For
this purpose” (1 Jo. iii. 8):—“_have beheld_” and “_bear witness_,” for
“have seen and do testify” (iv. 14):—“_hereby_” for “by this” (v.
2):—“_Judas_” for “Jude” (Jude ver. 1), although “_Mark_” was substituted
for “Marcus” (in 1 Pet. v. 13), and “_Timothy_” for “Timotheus” (in Phil.
i. 1):—“how that they _said to_ you,” for “how that they told you” (Jude
ver. 18).—But why go on? The substitution of “_exceedingly_” for “greatly”
in Acts vi. 7:—“_the birds_” for “the fowls,” in Rev. xix.
21:—“_Almighty_” for “Omnipotent” in ver. 6:—“_throw down_” for “cast
down,” in S. Luke iv. 29:—“_inner chamber_” for “closet,” in vi. 6:—these
are _not_ “necessary” changes.... We will give but three instances
more:—In 1 S. Pet. v. 9, “whom _resist_, stedfast in the faith,” has been
altered into “whom _withstand_.” But how is “withstand” a better rendering
for ἀντίστητε, than “resist”? “Resist,” at all events, _was the
Revisionists’ word in S. Matth._ v. 39 _and S. James_ iv. 7.—Why also
substitute “the _race_” (for “the kindred”) “of Joseph” in Acts vii. 13,
although γένος was rendered “kindred” in iv. 6?—Do the Revisionists think
that “_fastening their_ eyes on him” is a better rendering of ἀτενίσαντες
εἰς αὐτόν (Acts vi. 15) than “_looking stedfastly_ on him”? They certainly
did not think so when they got to xxiii. 1. There, because they found
“_earnestly beholding_ the council,” they must needs alter the phrase into
“_looking stedfastly_.” It is clear therefore that _Caprice_, not
_Necessity_,—an _itching impatience_ to introduce changes into the A. V.,
not the discovery of “_plain and clear errors_”—has determined the great
bulk of the alterations which molest us in every part of the present
unlearned and tasteless performance.

II. The next point to which the Revisionists direct our attention is their
NEW GREEK TEXT,—“the necessary foundation of” their work. And here we must
renew our protest against the wrong which has been done to English readers
by the Revisionists’ disregard of the IVth Rule laid down for their
guidance, viz. that, whenever they adopted a new Textual reading, such
alteration was to be “_indicated in the margin_.” This “proved
inconvenient,” say the Revisionists. Yes, we reply: but only because you
saw fit, in preference, to choke up your margin with a record of the
preposterous readings you did _not_ admit. Even so, however, the thing
might to some extent have been done, if only by a system of signs in the
margin wherever a change in the Text had been by yourselves effected. And,
at whatever “inconvenience,” you were bound to do this,—partly because the
Rule before you was express: but chiefly in fairness to the English
Reader. How comes it to pass that you have _never_ furnished him with the
information you stood pledged to furnish; but have instead, volunteered in
every page information, worthless in itself, which can only serve to
unsettle the faith of unlettered millions, and to suggest unreasonable as
well as miserable doubts to the minds of all?

For no one may for an instant imagine that the marginal statements of
which we speak are a kind of equivalent for the _Apparatus Criticus_ which
is found in every principal edition of the Greek Testament—excepting
always that of Drs. Westcott and Hort. So far are we from deprecating
(with Daniel Whitby) the multiplication of “Various Readings,” that we
rejoice in them exceedingly; knowing that they are the very foundation of
our confidence and the secret of our strength. For this reason we consider
Dr. Tischendorf’s last (8th) edition to be furnished with not nearly
enough of them, though he left all his predecessors (and himself in his
7th edition) far behind. Our quarrel with the Revisionists is _not_ by any
means that they have commemorated _actual_ “alternative Readings” in their
margin: but that, while they have given prominence throughout to _patent
Errors_, they _have unfairly excluded all mention of,—have not made the
slightest allusion to,—hundreds of Readings which ought in fact rather to
have stood in the Text_.

The marginal readings, which our Revisers have been so ill-advised as to
put prominently forward, and to introduce to the Reader’s notice with the
vague statement that they are sanctioned by “Some” (or by “Many”) “ancient
authorities,”—are specimens _arbitrarily selected_ out of an immense mass;
are magisterially recommended to public attention and favour; _seem_ to be
invested with the sanction and authority of Convocation itself. And this
becomes a very serious matter indeed. No hint is given _which_ be the
“ancient Authorities” so referred to:—nor what proportion they bear to the
“ancient Authorities” producible on the opposite side:—nor whether they
are the _most_ “ancient Authorities” obtainable:—nor what amount of
attention their testimony may reasonably claim. But in the meantime a
fatal assertion is hazarded in the Preface (iii. 1.), to the effect that
_in cases where _“it would not be safe to accept one Reading to the
absolute exclusion of others,”_ _“alternative Readings” have been given
“in the margin.” So that the “Agony and bloody sweat” of the World’s
REDEEMER (Lu. xxii. 43, 44),—and His Prayer for His murderers (xxiii.
34),—and much beside of transcendent importance and inestimable value,
may, _according to our Revisionists_, prove to rest upon no foundation
whatever. At all events, “_it would not be safe_,” (_i.e._ _it is not
safe_) to place absolute reliance on them. Alas, how many a deadly blow at
Revealed Truth hath been in this way aimed with fatal adroitness, which no
amount of orthodox learning will ever be able hereafter to heal, much less
to undo! Thus,—

(_a_) From the first verse of S. Mark’s Gospel we are informed that “Some
ancient authorities omit _the Son of _GOD.” Why are we _not_ informed that
every known uncial Copy _except one of bad character_,—every cursive _but
two_,—_every Version_,—and the following Fathers,—all _contain_ the
precious clause: viz. Irenæus,—Porphyry,—Severianus of Gabala,—Cyril
Alex.,—Victor Ant.,—and others,—besides Ambrose and Augustine among the
Latins:—while the supposed adverse testimony of Serapion and Titus, Basil
and Victorinus, Cyril of Jer. and Epiphanius, proves to be all a mistake?
To speak plainly, since the clause is above suspicion, _Why are we not
rather told so?_

(_b_) In the 3rd verse of the first chapter of S. John’s Gospel, we are
left to take our choice between,—“without Him was not anything made that
hath been made. In him was life; and the life,” &c.,—and the following
absurd alternative,—“Without him was not anything made. _That which hath
been made was life in him_; and the life,” &c. But we are _not_ informed
that this latter monstrous figment is known to have been the importation
of the Gnostic heretics in the IInd century, and to be as destitute of
authority as it is of sense. _Why is prominence given only to the lie?_

(_c_) At S. John iii. 13, we are informed that the last clause of that
famous verse (“No man hath ascended up to heaven, but He that came down
from heaven, even the Son of Man—_which is in heaven_”), is not found in
“many ancient authorities.” But why, in the name of common fairness, are
we not _also_ reminded that this, (as will be found more fully explained
in the note overleaf,) is _a circumstance of no Textual significancy
whatever_?

Why, above all, are we not assured that the precious clause in question (ὁ
ὢν ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ) _is_ found in every MS. in the world, except five of bad
character?—is recognized by _all_ the Latin and _all_ the Syriac versions;
as well as by the Coptic,—Æthiopic,—Georgian,—and Armenian?(440)—is either
quoted or insisted upon by
Origen,(441)—Hippolytus,(442)—Athanasius,(443)—Didymus,(444)—Aphraates the
Persian,(445)—Basil the Great,(446)—Epiphanius,(447)—Nonnus,—ps.-Dionysius
Alex.,(448)—Eustathius;(449)—by Chrysostom,(450)—Theodoret,(451)—and
Cyril,(452) each 4 times;—by Paulus, Bishop of Emesa(453) (in a sermon on
Christmas Day, A.D. 431);—by Theodoras
Mops.,(454)—Amphilochius,(455)—Severus,(456)—Theodorus
Heracl.,(457)—Basilius Cil.,(458)—Cosmas,(459)—John Damascene, in 3
places,(460)—and 4 other ancient Greek writers;(461)—besides
Ambrose,(462)—Novatian,(463)—Hilary,(464)—Lucifer,(465)—Victorinus,—Jerome,(466)—Cassian,—Vigilius,(467)—Zeno,(468)—Marius,(469)—Maximus
Taur.,(470)—Capreolus,(471)—Augustine, &c.:—is acknowledged by Lachmann,
Tregelles, Tischendorf: in short, is _quite above suspicion_: why are we
not told _that_? Those 10 Versions, those 38 Fathers, that host of Copies
in the proportion of 995 to 5,—_why_, concerning all these is there not so
much as a hint let fall that such a mass of counter-evidence
exists?(472)... Shame,—yes, _shame_ on the learning which comes abroad
only to perplex the weak, and to unsettle the doubting, and to mislead the
blind! Shame,—yes, _shame_ on that two-thirds majority of well-intentioned
but most incompetent men, who,—finding themselves (in an evil hour)
appointed to correct “_plain and clear errors_” in the _English_
“Authorized Version,”—occupied themselves instead with _falsifying the
inspired Greek Text_ in countless places, and branding with suspicion some
of the most precious utterances of the SPIRIT! Shame,—yes, _shame_ upon
them!

Why then, (it will of course be asked,) is the margin—(_a_) of S. Mark i.
1 and—(_b_) of S. John i. 3, and—(_c_) of S. John iii. 13, encumbered
after this discreditable fashion? It is (we answer) only because _the Text
of Drs. Westcott and Hort_ is thus depraved in all three places. Those
Scholars enjoy the unenviable distinction of having dared to expel from S.
John iii. 13 the words ὁ ὢν ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ, which Lachmann, Tregelles and
Tischendorf were afraid to touch. Well may Dean Stanley have bestowed upon
Dr. Hort the epithet of “_fearless_”!... If report speaks truly, it is by
the merest accident that the clause in question still retains its place in
_the Revised Text_.

(_d_) Only once more. And this time we will turn to the very end of the
blessed volume. Against Rev. xiii. 18—

“Here is wisdom. He that hath understanding, let him count the number of
the Beast; for it is the number of a Man: and his number is six hundred
and sixty and six.”

Against this, we find noted,—“Some ancient authorities read _six hundred
and sixteen_.”

But why is not the _whole_ Truth told? viz. why are we not informed that
_only one_ corrupt uncial (C):—_only one_ cursive copy (11):—_only one_
Father (Tichonius): and _not one_ ancient Version—advocates this
reading?—which, on the contrary, Irenæus (A.D. 170) knew, but rejected;
remarking that 666, which is “found in all the best and oldest copies and
is attested by men who saw John face to face,” is unquestionably the true
reading.(473) Why is not the ordinary Reader further informed that the
same number (666) is expressly vouched for by Origen,(474)—by
Hippolytus,(475)—by Eusebius:(476)—as well as by Victorinus—and
Primasius,—not to mention Andreas and Arethas? To come to the moderns, as
a matter of fact the established reading is accepted by Lachmann,
Tischendorf, Tregelles,—even by Westcott and Hort. _Why_ therefore—for
what possible reason—at the end of 1700 years and upwards, is this, which
is so clearly nothing else but an ancient slip of the pen, to be forced
upon the attention of 90 millions of English-speaking people?

Will Bishop Ellicott and his friends venture to tell us that it has been
done because “it would not be safe to accept” 666, “to the absolute
exclusion of” 616?... “We have given _alternative Readings_ in the
margin,” (say they,) “wherever they seem to be of sufficient importance or
interest to deserve notice.” Will they venture to claim either “interest”
or “importance” for _this_? or pretend that it is an “alternative Reading”
_at all_? Has it been rescued from oblivion and paraded before universal
Christendom in order to perplex, mystify, and discourage “those that have
understanding,” and would fain “count the number of the Beast,” if they
were able? Or was the intention only to insinuate one more wretched
doubt—one more miserable suspicion—into minds which have been taught (_and
rightly_) to place absolute reliance in the textual accuracy of all the
gravest utterances of the SPIRIT: minds which are utterly incapable of
dealing with the subtleties of Textual Criticism; and, from a one-sided
statement like the present, will carry away none but entirely mistaken
inferences, and the most unreasonable distrust?... Or, lastly, was it only
because, in their opinion, the margin of every Englishman’s N. T. is the
fittest place for reviving the memory of obsolete blunders, and
ventilating forgotten perversions of the Truth?... We really pause for an
answer.

(_e_) But serious as this is, _more_ serious (if possible) is the unfair
_Suppression systematically practised_ throughout the work before us. “We
have given alternative Readings in the margin,”—(says Bishop Ellicott on
behalf of his brother-Revisionists,)—“_wherever they seem to be of
sufficient importance or interest to deserve notice._” [iii. 1.] From
which statement, readers have a right to infer that whenever “alternative
Readings” are _not_ “given in the margin,” it is because such Readings do
_not_ “seem to be of _sufficient importance or interest to deserve
notice_.” Will the Revisionists venture to tell us that,—(to take the
first instance of unfair Suppression which presents itself,)—our LORD’s
saying in S. Mark vi. 11 is not “of sufficient importance or interest to
deserve notice”? We allude to the famous words,—“Verily I say unto you, It
shall be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgment,
than for that city:”—words which are not only omitted from the “New
English Version,” but _are not suffered to leave so much as a trace of
themselves in the margin_. And yet, the saying in question is attested by
the Peschito and the Philoxenian Syriac Versions: by the Old Latin: by the
Coptic, Æthiopic and Gothic Versions:—by 11 uncials and by the whole bulk
of the cursives:—by Irenæus and by Victor of Antioch. So that whether
Antiquity, or Variety of Attestation is considered,—whether we look for
Numbers or for Respectability,—the genuineness of the passage may be
regarded as _certain_. Our complaint however is _not_ that the
Revisionists entertain a different opinion on this head from ourselves:
but that they give the reader to understand that the state of the Evidence
is such, that it is quite “safe to accept” the shorter reading,—“to the
_absolute exclusion_ of the other.”—So vast is the field before us, that
this single specimen of what we venture to call “unfair Suppression,” must
suffice. (Some will not hesitate to bestow upon it a harsher epithet.) It
is in truth by far the most damaging feature of the work before us, that
its Authors should have so largely and so seriously _falsified the
Deposit_; and yet, (in clear violation of the IVth Principle or Rule laid
down for their guidance at the outset,) have suffered no trace to survive
in the margin of the deadly mischief which they have effected.

III. From the Text, the Revisionists pass on to the TRANSLATION; and
surprise us by the avowal, that “the character of the Revision was
determined for us from the outset by the first Rule,—‘to introduce as few
alterations as possible, consistently with faithfulness.’ Our task was
Revision, not Retranslation.” (This is _naïve_ certainly.) They proceed,—


    “If the meaning was fairly expressed by the word or phrase that
    was before us in the Authorized Version, we made no change, even
    where rigid adherence to _the rule of Translating, as far as
    possible, the same Greek word by the same English word_ might have
    prescribed some modification.”—[iii. 2 _init._] (The italics are
    our own.)


To the “_rule_” thus introduced to our notice, we shall recur by and by
[pp. 152-4: also pp. 187-202]. We proceed to remark on each of the five
principal Classes of alterations indicated by the Revisionists: and
first,—“Alterations positively required by change of reading in the Greek
Text” (_Ibid._).

(1) Thus, in S. John xii. 7, we find “_Suffer her to keep it_ against the
day of my burying;” and in the margin (as an alternative), “Let her alone:
_it was that she might keep it_.”—Instead of “as soon as JESUS heard the
word,”—we are invited to choose between “_not heeding_,” and
“_overhearing_ the word” (S. Mk. v. 36): these being intended for
renderings of παρακούσας,—an expression which S. Mark certainly never
employed.—“On earth, peace among men _in whom he is well pleased_” (S. Lu.
ii. 14): where the margin informs us that “many ancient authorities read,
_good pleasure among men_.” (And why not “_good will_,”—the rendering
adopted in Phil. i. 15?) ... Take some more of the alterations which have
resulted from the adoption of a corrupt Text:—“Why _askest thou me
concerning that which is good_?” (Matth. xix. 17,—an absurd
fabrication).—“He would fain _have been filled_ with the husks,” &c....
“and I perish _here_ with hunger!” (χορτασθῆναι, borrowed from Lu. xvi.
21: and εγΩΔΕωδε, a transparent error: S. Luke xv. 16, 17).—“When _it
shall fail_, they may receive you into the eternal tabernacles” (xvi.
9).——Elizabeth “lifted up her voice _with a loud cry_” (κραυγή—the private
property of three bad MSS. and Origen: Lu. i. 42).—“And _they stood still
looking sad_” (xxiv. 17,—a foolish transcriptional blunder).—“The
multitude _went up_ and began to ask him,” &c. (ἀναβάς for ἀναβοήσας, Mk.
xv. 8).—“But is guilty of _an eternal sin_” (iii. 29).—“And the officers
_received Him_ with blows of their hands,”—marg. “or _strokes of rods_:”
ΕΛΑΒΟΝ for ΕΒΑΛΟΝ (xiv. 65).—“Else, that which should fill it up taketh
from it, _the new from the old_” (ii. 21): and “No man _rendeth a piece
from a new garment_ and putteth it upon an old garment; else _he will rend
the new_,” &c. (Lu. v. 36).—“What is this? _a new teaching!_” (Mk. i.
27).—“JESUS saith unto him, _If thou canst!_” (Mk. ix. 23).—“Because of
your _little __ faith_”(Matth. xvii. 20).—“_We must_ work the works of Him
that sent Me, while it is day” (Jo. ix. 4).—“_The man that is called_
JESUS made clay” (ver. 11).—“If ye shall ask _Me anything in My name_”
(xiv. 14).—“The Father abiding in Me _doeth His works_” (xiv. 10).—“If ye
shall ask anything of the Father, _He will give it you in My name_” (xvi.
23).—“I glorified Thee on the earth, _having accomplished the work_ which
Thou hast given Me to do” (xvii. 4).—“Holy Father, keep them _in Thy Name
which_ Thou hast given Me ... I kept them _in Thy Name which_ Thou hast
given me” (ver. 11, 12).—“She ... saith unto Him _in Hebrew_, Rabboni”
(xx. 16).—“These things said Isaiah, _because_ he saw his glory” (xii.
41,—ΟΤΙ for ΟΤΕ, a common itacism).—“In tables _that are hearts of flesh_”
(ἐν πλαξὶ καρδίαις σαρκίναις, a “perfectly absurd reading,” as Scrivener
remarks, p. 442: 2 Cor. iii. 3).—“_Now if_ we put the horses’ bridles [and
pray, why not ‘the horses’ _bits_’?] into their mouths” (ΕΙΔΕ, an ordinary
itacism for ΙΔΕ, James iii. 3).—“Unto the sick were _carried away from his
body_ handkerchiefs,” &c. (Acts xix. 12).—“_Ye know all things once for
all_” (Jude ver. 5).—“_We love_ because he first loved us” (1 Jo. iv.
19).—“I have found _no work of thine fulfilled_ before my GOD” (Rev. iii.
2).—“Seven Angels _arrayed with [precious] stone_” (xv. 6), instead of
“clothed in linen,” λίθον for λίνον. (Fancy the Angels “_clothed in
stone_”! “Precious” is an interpolation of the Revisers).—“_Dwelling in_
the things which he hath seen:” for which the margin offers as an
alternative, “_taking his stand upon_” (Colossians ii. 18). But ἐμβατεύων
(the word here employed) clearly means neither the one nor the other. S.
Paul is delivering a warning against unduly “_prying into_ the things
_not_ seen.”(477) A few MSS. of bad character omit the “_not_.” That is
all!... These then are a handful of the less conspicuous instances of a
change in the English “positively required by a change of reading in the
Greek Text:” every one of them being either a pitiful blunder or else a
gross fabrication.—Take only two more: “I neither know, nor understand:
_thou, what sayest thou?_” (Mk. xiv. 68 margin):—“And _whither I go, ye
know the way_” (Jo. xiv. 4).... The A. V. is better in every instance.

(2) and (3) Next, alterations made because the A. V. “appeared to be
incorrect” or else “obscure.” They must needs be such as the
following:—“He that _is bathed_ needeth not save to wash his feet” (S.
John xiii. 10).—“LORD, if he is fallen asleep _he will recover_”
(σωθήσεται, xi. 12).—“Go ye therefore into _the partings of the highways_”
(Matth. xxii. 9).—“Being grieved at _the hardening_ of their heart” (Mk.
iii. 5).—“Light _a lamp_ and put it _on the stand_” (Matt. v.
15).—“Sitting at _the place of toll_” (ix. 9).—“The supplication of a
righteous man availeth much _in its working_” (James v. 16).—“Awake up
_righteously_” (1 Cor. xv. 34).—“_Guarded_ through faith unto _a
salvation_” (1 Pet. i. 5).—“Wandering in ... _the holes of the earth_”
(Heb. xi. 38—very queer places certainly to be “wandering” in).—“_She that
is in Babylon_, elect together with you, saluteth you” (1 Pet. v.
13).—“Therefore do _these powers work in Him_” (Matth. xiv. 2).—“In danger
of the _hell of fire_” (v. 22).—“_Put out_ into the deep” (Luke v.
4).—“The tomb that Abraham bought for _a price in silver_” (Acts vii. 16).

With reference to every one of these places, (and they are but samples of
what is to be met with in every page,) we venture to assert that they are
either _less_ intelligible, or else _more_ inaccurate, than the
expressions which they are severally intended to supersede; while, in some
instances, they are _both_. Will any one seriously contend that “_the hire
of wrong-doing_” is better than “_the wages of unrighteousness_” (2 Pet.
ii. 15)? or, will he venture to deny that, “Come and _dine_”—“so when they
_had dined_,”—is a hundred times better than “Come and _break your
fast_”—“so when they _had broken their fast_” (Jo. xxi. 12,
15)?—expressions which are only introduced because the Revisionists were
ashamed (as well they might be) to write “breakfast” and “breakfasted.”
The seven had not been “_fasting_.” Then, why introduce so incongruous a
notion here,—any more than into S. Luke xi. 37, 38, and xiv. 12?

Has the reader any appetite for more specimens of “incorrectness”
_remedied_ and “obscurity” _removed_? Rather, as it seems, have _both_
been largely imported into a Translation which was singularly intelligible
before. Why darken Rom. vii. 1 and xi. 2 by introducing the interrogative
particle, and then, by mistranslating it “_Or_”?—Also, why translate γένος
“_race_”? (“a man of Cyprus _by race_,” “a man of Pontus _by race_,” “an
Alexandrian _by race_,” Acts iv. 36: xviii. 2, 24).—“_If_ there is a
natural body, there is also a spiritual body,” say the Revisionists: “O
death, where is thy victory? O _death_ where is thy sting?” (Could they
not let even 1 Cor. xv. 44 and 55 alone?)—Why alter “For the bread of GOD
is _He_,” into “For the bread of GOD is _that_ which cometh down from
Heaven”? (Jo. vi. 33).—“_As long as I am_ in the world,” was surely better
than “_When I am_ in the world, I am the light of the world” (ix. 5).—Is
“_He went forth out of_ their hand” supposed to be an improvement upon
“_He escaped out of_ their hand”? (x. 39): and is “They loved _the glory_
of men more than _the glory_ of GOD” an improvement upon “the _praise_”?
(xii. 43).—“Judas saith unto Him, LORD, _what is come to pass_ that Thou
wilt manifest Thyself to us”? Is _that_ supposed to be an improvement upon
xiv. 22?—How is “_If then_” an improvement on “Forasmuch then” in Acts xi.
17?—or how is this endurable in Rom. vii. 15,—“For that which I do, I
_know_ not: for _not what I would, that do I practise_:”—or this, in xvi.
25, “The mystery which hath been _kept in silence through times eternal_,
but now is manifested,” &c.—“Thou therefore, _my child_,”—addressing the
Bishop of Ephesus (2 Tim. ii. 1): and “Titus, _my true child_,”—addressing
the Bishop of Crete (Tit. i. 4).

Are the following deemed improvements? “Every one that _doeth_ sin doeth
also _lawlessness: and sin is lawlessness_” (1 Jo. iii. 4): “I will _move_
thy candlestick out of its place” (Rev. ii. 5):—“a _glassy_ sea” (iv.
6):—“a _great_ voice” (v. 12):—“Verily, not of Angels _doth He take hold_,
but _He taketh hold_ of the seed of Abraham:”—“He _took hold of_ the blind
man by _the hand_:”—“They _took hold of him_ and brought him unto the
Areopagus” (Heb. ii. 16: S. Mk. viii. 23: Acts xvii. 19):—“wherefore GOD
is not _ashamed of them_, to be called their GOD” (Acts xi. 16):—“_Counted
it not a prize_ to be on an equality with GOD” (Phil. ii. 6).—Why are we
to substitute “_court_” for “palace” in Matth. xxvi. 3 and Lu. xi. 21?
(Consider Matth. xii. 29 and Mk. iii. 27).—“Women received their dead _by
a resurrection_” (Heb. xi. 35):—“If ye forgive not every one _his brother
from their hearts_” (Matth. xviii. 35):—“If _because of meat_ thy brother
is grieved, thou walkest _no longer in love_” (Rom. xiv. 15):—“which GOD,
who cannot lie, promised _before times eternal_; but _in his own seasons_
manifested _his word in the message_” (Tit. i. 2, 3):—“Your _pleasures_
[and why not ‘lusts’?] that war in your members” (James iv. 1):—“Behold
_how much wood_ is kindled by _how small a fire_!” (iii. 5).—Are these
really supposed to be less “obscure” than the passages they are intended
to supersede?

(_a_) Not a few of the mistaken renderings of the Revisionists can only be
established by an amount of illustration which is at once inconvenient to
the Reviewer and unwelcome probably to the general Reader. Thus, we take
leave to point out that,—“And _coming up_ at that very hour” (in Lu. ii.
38),—as well as “she _came up_ to Him” (in Lu. x. 40), are inexact
renderings of the original. The verb ἐφιστάναι, which etymologically
signifies “to stand upon,” or “over,” or “by,”—(but which retains its
literal signification on only four out of the eighteen occasions(478) when
the word occurs in the Gospels and Acts,)—is found almost invariably to
denote the “_coming suddenly upon_” a person. Hence, it is observed to be
used five times to denote the sudden appearance of friendly visitants from
the unseen world:(479) and seven times, the sudden hostile approach of
what is formidable.(480) On the two remaining occasions, which are those
before us,—(namely, the sudden coming of Anna into the Temple(481) and of
Martha into the presence of our LORD,(482))—“_coming suddenly in_” would
probably represent S. Luke’s ἐπιστᾶσα exactly. And yet, one would hesitate
to import the word “suddenly” into the narrative. So that “_coming in_”
would after all have to stand in the text, although the attentive student
of Scripture would enjoy the knowledge that something more is _implied_.
In other words,—the Revisionists would have done better if they had left
both places alone.... These are many words; yet is it impossible to
explain such matters at once satisfactorily and briefly.

(_b_) But more painful by far it is to discover that a morbid striving
after etymological accuracy,—added to a calamitous preference for a
depraved Text,—has proved the ruin of one of the most affecting scenes in
S. John’s Gospel. “Simon Peter beckoneth to him, _and saith unto him, Tell
us who it is of whom He speaketh_” [a fabulous statement evidently; for
Peter beckoned, because he might _not_ speak]. “He _leaning back, as he
was_,”—[a very bad rendering of οὕτως, by the way; and sure to recal
inopportunely the rendering of ὡς ἦν in S. Mark iv. 36, instead of
suggesting (as it obviously ought) the original of S. John iv. 6:]—“on
JESUS’ breast, saith unto Him, LORD who is it?” (S. John xiii. 24-5). Now,
S. John’s word concerning himself in this place is certainly ἐπιπεσών. He
“_just sank_”—let his head “_fall_”—on his Master’s breast, and whispered
his question. For this, a few corrupt copies substitute ἀναπεσών. But
ἀναπεσών _never_ means “_leaning back_.” It is descriptive of the posture
of one _reclining at a meal_ (S. Jo. xiii. 12). Accordingly, it is 10
times rendered by the Revisionists to “_sit down_.” Why, in this place,
and in chapter xxi. 20, _a new meaning_ is thrust upon the word, it is for
the Revisionists to explain. But they must explain the matter a vast deal
better than Bp. Lightfoot has done in his interesting little work on
Revision (pp. 72-3), or they will fail to persuade any,—except one
another.

(_c_) Thus it happens that we never spend half-an-hour over the
unfortunate production before us without exclaiming (with one in the
Gospel), “_The old is better_.” Changes of _any_ sort are unwelcome in
such a book as the Bible; but the discovery that changes have been made
_for the worse_, offends greatly. To take instances at random:—’Ὁ πλεῖστος
ὄχλος (in Matth. xxi. 8) is rightly rendered in our A. V. “a _very great_
multitude.”(483) Why then has it been altered by the R. V. into “_the most
part of_ the multitude”?—Ὁ πολὺς ὄχλος (Mk. xii. 37), in like manner, is
rightly rendered “_the common people_,” and ought not to have been glossed
in the margin “_the great multitude_.”—In the R. V. of Acts x. 15, we find
“_Make_ thou not common,” introduced as an improvement on, “_That call_
not thou common.” But “the old is better:” for, besides its idiomatic and
helpful “_That_,”—the old alone states the case truly. Peter did not
“_make_,” he only “_called_,” something “common.”—“All the _male_
children,” as a translation of πάντας τοὺς παῖδας (in Matth. ii. 16) is an
unauthorized statement. There is no reason for supposing that the female
infants of Bethlehem were spared in the general massacre: and the Greek
certainly conveys no such information.—“When he came into the house, JESUS
_spake first_ to him”—is really an incorrect rendering of Matth. xvii. 25:
at least, it imports into the narrative a notion which is not found in the
Greek, and does not exhibit faithfully what the Evangelist actually says.
“_Anticipated_,” in modern English,—“_prevented_,” in ancient
phraseology,—“_was beforehand with him_” in language neither new nor
old,—conveys the sense of the original exactly.—In S. Lu. vi. 35, “Love
your enemies, ... and lend, _never despairing_,” is simply a mistaken
translation of ἀπελπίζοντες, as the context sufficiently proves. The old
rendering is the true one.(484) And so, learnedly, the Vulgate,—_nihil
inde sperantes_. (Consider the use of ἀποβλέπειν [Heb. xi. 26]: ἀφορᾶν
[Phil. ii. 23: Heb. xii. 2]: _abutor_, as used by Jerome for _utor_,
&c.)—“Go with them _making no distinction_” is not the meaning of Acts xi.
12: which, however, was correctly translated before, viz. “nothing
doubting.”—The mischievous change (“_save_” in place of “but”) in Gal. ii.
16 has been ably and faithfully exposed by Bp. Ollivant. In the words of
the learned and pious Bp. of Lincoln, “it is illogical and erroneous, and
_contradicts the whole drift of S. Paul’s Argument_ in that Epistle, and
in the Epistle to the Romans.”

(_d_) We should be dealing insincerely with our Readers were we to conceal
our grave dissatisfaction at not a few of the novel _expressions_ which
the Revisionists have sought to introduce into the English New Testament.
That the malefactors between whom “the LORD of glory” was crucified were
not ordinary “_thieves_” is obvious; yet would it have been wiser, we
think, to leave the old designation undisturbed. We shall never learn to
call them “_robbers_.”—“The king sent forth _a soldier of his guard_” is a
gloss—not a translation of S. Mark vi. 27. “_An executioner_” surely is
far preferable as the equivalent for σπεκουλάτωρ!(485)—“_Assassins_” (as
the rendering of σικάριοι) is an objectionable substitute for “murderers.”
A word which “belongs probably to a romantic chapter in the history of the
Crusades”(486) has no business in the N. T.—And what did these learned men
suppose they should gain by substituting “_the twin brothers_” for
“_Castor and Pollux_” in Acts xxviii. 11? The Greek (Διόσκουροι) is
neither the one nor the other.—In the same spirit, instead of, “they that
received _tribute-money_” (in S. Matth. xvii. 24), we are now presented
with “they that received _the half-shekel_:” and in verse 27,—instead of
“when thou hast opened his mouth, thou shalt find _a piece of money_,” we
are favoured with “thou shalt find _a shekel_.” But _why_ the change has
been made, we fail to see. The margin is _still_ obliged to explain that
not one of these four words is found in the original: the Greek in the
former place being τὰ δίδραχμα,—in the latter, στατήρ.—“_Flute-players_”
(for “minstrels”) in S. Matthew ix. 23, is a mistake. An αὐλητής played
_the pipe_ (αὐλός, 1 Cor. xiv. 7),—hence “pipers” in Rev. xviii. 22;
(where by the way μουσικοί [“musicians”] is perversely and less accurately
rendered “_minstrels_”).—Once more. “_Undressed_ cloth” (Mk. ii. 21),
because it is an expression popularly understood only in certain districts
of England, and a _vox artis_, ought not to have been introduced into the
Gospels. “_New_” is preferable.—“_Wine-skins_” (Mtt. ix. 17: Mk. ii. 22:
Lu. v. 37) is a term unintelligible to the generality; as the Revisionists
confess, for they explain it by a note,—“That is, _skins used as
bottles_.” What else is this but substituting a new difficulty for an old
one?—“_Silver_,” now for the first time thrust into Acts viii. 20, is
unreasonable. Like “argent” in French, ἀργύριον as much means “money,”
here as in S. Matthew xxv. 18, 27, &c.—In S. James ii. 19, we should like
to know what is gained by the introduction of the “_shuddering_”
devils.—To take an example from a different class of words,—Who will say
that “Thou _mindest_ not the things of GOD” is a better rendering of οὐ
φρονεῖς, than the old “Thou _savourest_ not,”—which at least had no
ambiguity about it?... A friend points out that Dr. Field (a “master in
Israel”) has examined 104 of the changes _made_ in the Revised Version;
and finds 8 questionable: 13 unnecessary: 19 faulty (_i.e._ cases in which
the A. V. required amendment, but which the R. V. has not succeeded in
amending): 64 _changes for the worse_.(487)... This is surely a terrible
indictment for such an one as Dr. Field to bring against the
Revisers,—_who were directed only to correct_ “PLAIN AND CLEAR ERRORS.”

(_e_) We really fail to understand how it has come to pass that,
notwithstanding the amount of scholarship which sometimes sat in the
Jerusalem Chamber, so many novelties are found in the present Revision
which betoken a want of familiarity with the refinements of the Greek
language on the one hand; and (what is even more inexcusable) only a
slender acquaintance with the resources and proprieties of English speech,
on the other. A fair average instance of this occurs in Acts xxi. 37,
where (instead of “_Canst_ thou _speak_ Greek?”) Ἑλληνιστὶ γινώσκεις? is
rendered “_Dost_ thou _know_ Greek?” That γινώσκειν means “to know” (and
not “to speak”) is undeniable: and yet, in the account of all, except the
driest and stupidest of pedagogues, Ἑλληνιστὶ γινώσκεις; must be
translated “Canst thou _speak_ Greek?” For (as every schoolboy is aware)
Ἑλληνιστί is an adverb, and signifies “_in Greek fashion_:” so that
something has to be supplied: and the full expression, if it must needs be
given, would be, “Dost thou know [how to talk] in Greek?” But then, this
condensation of phrase proves to be the established idiom of the
language:(488) so that the rejection of the learned rendering of Tyndale,
Cranmer, the Geneva, the Rheims, and the Translators of 1611 (“_Canst thou
speak_ Greek?”)—the rejection of this, at the end of 270 years, in favour
of “_Dost thou know_ Greek?” really betrays ignorance. It is worse than
bad Taste. It is a stupid and deliberate _blunder_.

(_f_) The substitution of “_they weighed unto him_” (in place of “_they
covenanted with him for_”) “thirty pieces of silver” (S. Matth. xxvi. 15)
is another of those plausible mistakes, into which a little learning
(proverbially “a dangerous thing”) is for ever conducting its unfortunate
possessor; but from which it was to have been expected that the undoubted
attainments of some who frequented the Jerusalem Chamber would have
effectually preserved the Revisionists. That ἔστησαν is intended to recal
Zech. xi. 12, is obvious; as well as that _there_ it refers to the ancient
practice of _weighing_ uncoined money. It does not, however, by any means
follow, that it was customary to _weigh_ shekels in the days of the
Gospel. Coined money, in fact, was never weighed, but always counted; and
these were shekels, _i.e._ _didrachms_ (Matth. xvii. 24). The truth (it
lies on the surface) is, that there exists a happy ambiguity about the
word ἔστησαν, of which the Evangelist has not been slow to avail himself.
In the particular case before us, it is expressly recorded that in the
first instance money did _not_ pass,—only a bargain was made, and a
certain sum promised. S. Mark’s record is that the chief priests were glad
at the proposal of Judas, “_and promised_ to give him money” (xiv. 11): S.
Luke’s, that “_they covenanted_” to do so (xxii. 5, 6). And with this, the
statement of the first Evangelist is found to be in strictest agreement.
The chief Priests “set” or “appointed”(489) him a certain sum. The
perfectly accurate rendering of S. Matth. xxvi. 15, therefore, exhibited
by our Authorized Version, has been set aside to make way for _a
misrepresentation of the Evangelist’s meaning_. “In the judgment of the
most competent scholars,” was “such change NECESSARY”?

(_g_) We respectfully think that it would have been more becoming in such
a company as that which assembled in the Jerusalem Chamber, as well as
more consistent with their Instructions, if _in doubtful cases_ they had
abstained from touching the Authorized Version, but had recorded their own
conjectural emendations _in the margin_. How rash and infelicitous, for
example, is the following rendering of the famous words in Acts xxvi. 28,
29, which we find thrust upon us without apology or explanation; without,
in fact, any marginal note at all:—“And Agrippa said unto Paul, _With but
little persuasion thou wouldest fain make me_ a Christian. And Paul said,
I would to GOD, that whether _with little or with much_,” &c. Now this is
indefensible. For, in the first place, to get any such meaning out of the
words, our Revisionists have been obliged to substitute the fabricated
ποιῆσαι (the peculiar property of א A B and a few cursives) for γενέσθαι
in ver. 28. Moreover, even so, the words do not yield the required sense.
We venture to point out, that this is precisely one of the occasions where
the opinion of a first-rate Greek Father is of paramount importance. The
moderns confess themselves unable to discover a single instance of the
phrase ἐν ὀλίγῳ in the sense of “_within a little_.” Cyril of Jerusalem
(A.D. 350) and Chrysostom (A.D. 400), on the contrary, evidently
considered that here the expression can mean nothing else; and they were
competent judges, seeing that Greek was their native language: far better
judges (be it remarked in passing) on a point of this kind than the whole
body of Revisionists put together. “Such an amount of victorious grace and
wisdom did Paul derive from the HOLY SPIRIT” (says Cyril), “that even King
Agrippa at last exclaimed,”(490) &c. From which it is evident that Cyril
regarded Agrippa’s words as an avowal that he was well-nigh overcome by
the Apostle’s argument. And so Chrysostom,(491) who says plainly that ἐν
ὀλίγῳ means “within a little,”(492) and assumes that “within a little” S.
Paul had persuaded his judge.(493) He even puts παρ᾽ ὀλίγον into Agrippa’s
mouth.(494) So also, in effect, Theodoret.(495) From all which it is
reasonable, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, to infer that
our A. V. reflects faithfully what was the Church’s traditionary
interpretation of Acts xxvi. 28 in the first half of the fourth century.
Let it only be added that a better judge of such matters than any who
frequented the Jerusalem Chamber—the late President of Magdalen, Dr.
Routh,—writes: “_Vertendum esse sequentia suadent, Me fere Christianum
fieri suades. Interp. Vulgata habet, In modico suades me Christianum
fieri._”(496) Yes, the Apostle’s rejoinder fixes the meaning of what
Agrippa had said before.—And this shall suffice. We pass on, only
repeating our devout wish that what the Revisionists failed to understand,
or were unable _materially and certainly_ to improve, they would have been
so obliging as to let alone. In the present instance the A. V. is probably
right; the R. V., probably wrong. No one, at all events, can pretend that
the rendering with which we are all familiar is “_a plain and clear
error_.” And confessedly, unless it was, it should have been left
unmolested. But to proceed.

(4) and (5) There can be no question as to the absolute duty of rendering
identical expressions _in strictly parallel places of the Gospels_ by
strictly identical language. So far we are wholly at one with the
Revisionists. But “alterations [supposed to be] rendered necessary _by
consequence_” (_Preface_, iii. 2.), are quite a different matter: and we
venture to think that it is precisely in their pursuit of a mechanical
uniformity of rendering, that our Revisionists have most often as well as
most grievously lost their way. We differ from them in fact _in limine_.
“When a particular word” (say they) “is found to recur with characteristic
frequency in any one of the Sacred Writers, it is obviously desirable to
adopt for it some uniform rendering” (iii. 2). “Desirable”! Yes, but in
what sense? It is much to be desired, no doubt, that the English language
always contained _the exact counterparts_ of Greek words: and of course,
if it did, it would be in the highest degree “desirable” that a Translator
should always employ those words and no other. But then it happens
unfortunately that _precisely equivalent words do not exist_. Τέκνον, nine
times out of ten signifies nothing else but “_child_.” On the tenth
occasion, however, (_e.g._ where Abraham is addressing the rich man in
Hades,) it would be absurd so to render it. We translate “_Son_.” We are
in fact without choice.—Take another ordinary Greek term, σπλάγχνα, which
occurs 11 times in the N. T., and which the A. V. uniformly renders
“bowels.” Well, and “bowels” confessedly σπλάγχνα are. Yet have our
Revisionists felt themselves under the “necessity” of rendering the word
“_heart_,” in Col. iii. 12,—“_very heart_,” in Philemon, ver.
12,—“affections” in 2 Cor. vi. 12,—“_inward affection_,” in vii.
15,—“_tender mercies_” in Phil. i. 8,—“_compassion_” in 1 Jo. iii.
17,—“_bowels_” only in Acts i. 18.—These learned men, however, put forward
in illustration of their own principle of translation, the word
εὐθέως,—which occurs about 80 times in the N. T.: nearly half the
instances being found in S. Mark’s Gospel. We accept their challenge; and
assert that it is tasteless barbarism to seek to impose upon εὐθέως,—no
matter _what_ the context in which it stands,—the sense of
“_straightway_,”—only because εὐθύς, the adjective, generally (not always)
means “straight.” Where a miracle of healing is described (as in S. Matth.
viii. 3: xx. 34. S. Lu. v. 13), since the benefit was no doubt
instantaneous, it is surely the mere instinct of “faithfulness” to
translate εὐθέως “_immediately_.” So, in respect of the sudden act which
saved Peter from sinking (S. Matth. xiv. 31); and that punctual cock-crow
(xxvi. 74), which (S. Luke says) did not so much follow, as _accompany_
his denial (xxii. 60). But surely not so, when _the growth of a seed_ is
the thing spoken of (Matth. xiii. 5)! Acts again, which must needs have
occupied some little time in the doing, reasonably suggest some such
rendering as “_forthwith_” or “_straightway_,”—(_e.g._ S. Matth. xiv. 22:
xxi. 2: and S. John vi. 21): while, in 3 John ver. 14, the meaning (as the
Revisionists confess) can only be “_shortly_.”... So plain a matter really
ought not to require so many words. We repeat, that the Revisionists set
out with a mistaken Principle. They clearly _do not understand their
Trade_.

They invite our attention to their rendering of certain of the Greek
Tenses, and of the definite Article. We regret to discover that, in both
respects, their work is disfigured throughout by changes which convict a
majority of their body alike of an imperfect acquaintance with the genius
of the Greek language, and of scarcely a moderate appreciation of the
idiomatic proprieties of their own. Such a charge must of necessity, when
it has been substantiated, press heavily upon such a work as the present;
for it is not as when a solitary error has been detected, which may be
rectified. A vicious _system_ of rendering Tenses, and representing the
Greek Article, is sure to crop up in every part of the undertaking, and
must occasionally be attended by consequences of a serious nature.

1. Now, that we may not be misunderstood, we admit at once that, in
teaching _boys_ how to turn Greek into English, we insist that every tense
shall be marked by its own appropriate sign. There is no telling how
helpful it will prove in the end, that every word shall at first have been
rendered with painful accuracy. Let the Article be [mis-]represented—the
Prepositions caricatured—the Particles magnified,—let the very order of
the words at first, (however impossible,) be religiously retained.
Merciless accuracy having been in this way acquired, a youth has to be
_un_taught these servile habits. He has to be reminded of the requirements
of the _English idiom_, and speedily becomes aware that the idiomatic
rendering of a Greek author into English, is a higher achievement by far,
than his former slavish endeavour always to render the same word and tense
in the same slavish way.

2. But what supremely annoys us in the work just now under review is, that
the schoolboy method of translation already noticed is therein exhibited
in constant operation throughout. It becomes oppressive. We are never
permitted to believe that we are in the company of Scholars who are
altogether masters of their own language. Their solicitude ever seems to
be twofold:—(1) To exhibit a singular indifference to the proprieties of
English speech, while they maintain a servile adherence (etymological or
idiomatic, as the case may be) to the Greek:—(2) Right or wrong, to part
company from William Tyndale and the giants who gave us our “Authorized
Version.”

Take a few illustrations of what precedes from the second chapter of S.
Matthew’s Gospel:—

(1.) Thus, in ver. 2, the correct English rendering “_we have seen_” is
made to give place to the incorrect “_we saw_ his star in the east.”—In
ver. 9, the idiomatic “_when they had heard the king_, they departed,” is
rejected for the unidiomatic “And they, _having heard the king_, went
their way.”—In ver. 15, we are treated to “that it might be fulfilled
which was spoken by the LORD _through_ the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt
_did I call_ my son.” And yet who sees not, that in both instances the old
rendering is better? Important as it may be, _in the lecture-room_, to
insist on what is implied by τὸ ῥηθὲν ὙΠῸ τοῦ κυρίου ΔΙᾺ τοῦ προφήτου, it
is simply preposterous to _come abroad_ with such refinements. It is to
stultify oneself and to render one’s author unintelligible. Moreover, the
attempt to be so wondrous literal is safe to break down at the end of a
few verses. Thus, if διά is “_through_” in verse 15,—why not in verse 17
and in verse 23?

(2.) Note how infelicitously, in S. Matth. ii. 1, “there came wise men
from the east” is changed into “_wise men from the east came_.”—In ver. 4,
the accurate, “And when [Herod] had gathered together” (συναγαγών) &c., is
displaced for the inaccurate, “And _gathering together_” &c.—In ver. 6, we
are presented with the unintelligible, “And thou _Bethlehem, land of
Judah_:” while in ver. 7, “Then Herod _privily called_ the wise men, and
_learned of them carefully_,” is improperly put in the place of “Then
Herod, when he had privily called the wise men, enquired of them
diligently” (ἠκρίβωσε παρ᾽ αὐτῶν).—In ver. 11, the familiar “And when they
were come into the house, they saw” &c., is needlessly changed into “They
_came into the house_, and saw:” while “and when they had opened
(ἀνοίξαντες) their treasures,” is also needlessly altered into “and
_opening_ their treasures.”—In ver. 12, the R. V. is careful to print “_of
_GOD” in italics, where italics are not necessary: seeing that
χρηματισθέντες implies “being warned of GOD” (as the translators of 1611
were well aware(497)): whereas in countless other places the same
Revisionists reject the use of italics where italics are absolutely
required.—Their “until I _tell thee_” (in ver. 13) is a most unworthy
substitute for “until I _bring thee word_.”—And will they pretend that
they have improved the rendering of the concluding words of the chapter?
If Ναζωραῖος κληθήσεται does not mean “He shall be called a Nazarene,”
what in the world _does_ it mean? The ὅτι of quotation they elsewhere
omit. Then why, here,—“_That_ it might be fulfilled ... _that_”?—Surely,
every one of these is an alteration made for alteration’s sake, and in
every instance _for the worse_.

We began by surveying _the Greek_ of the first chapter of S. Matthew’s
Gospel. We have now surveyed _the English_ of the second chapter. What
does the Reader think of the result?

IV. Next, the Revisionists invite attention to certain points of detail:
and first, to their rendering of THE TENSES OF THE VERB. They begin with
the Greek Aorist,—(in their account) “perhaps the most important” detail
of all:—


    “We have not attempted to violate the idiom of our language by
    forms of expression which it would not bear. But we have often
    ventured to represent the Greek aorist by the English preterite,
    even when the reader may find some passing difficulty in such a
    rendering, because we have felt convinced that the true meaning of
    the original was obscured by the presence of the familiar
    auxiliary. A remarkable illustration may be found in the
    seventeenth chapter of S. John’s Gospel.”—_Preface_, iii.
    2,—(_latter part_).


(_a_) We turn to the place indicated, and are constrained to assure these
well-intentioned men, that the phenomenon we there witness is absolutely
fatal to their pretensions as “_Revisers_” of our Authorized Version. Were
it only “some passing difficulty” which their method occasions us, we
might have hoped that time would enable us to overcome it. But since it is
_the genius of the English language_ to which we find they have offered
violence; the fixed and universally-understood idiom of our native tongue
which they have systematically set at defiance; the matter is absolutely
without remedy. The difference between the A. V. and the R. V. seems to
ourselves to be simply this,—that the renderings in the former are the
idiomatic English representations of certain well-understood Greek tenses:
while the proposed substitutes are nothing else but the pedantic efforts
of mere grammarians to reproduce in another language idioms which it
abhors. But the Reader shall judge for himself: for _this_ at least is a
point on which every educated Englishman is fully competent to pass
sentence.

When our Divine LORD, at the close of His Ministry,—(He had in fact
reached the very last night of His earthly life, and it wanted but a few
hours of His Passion,)—when He, at such a moment, addressing the Eternal
FATHER, says, ἐγώ σε ἐδόξασα ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς; τὸ ἔργον ἐτελείωσα ... ἐφανέρωσά
σου τὸ ὄνομα τοῖς ἀνθρώποις, &c. [Jo. xvii. 4, 6], there can be no doubt
whatever that, had He pronounced those words in English, He would have
said (with our A. V.) “I _have glorified_ Thee on the earth: I _have
finished_ the work:” “I _have manifested_ Thy Name.” The pedantry which
(on the plea that the Evangelist employs the aorist, not the perfect
tense,) would twist all this into the indefinite past,—“I glorified” ...
“I finished” ... “I manifested,”—we pronounce altogether insufferable. We
absolutely refuse it a hearing. Presently (in ver. 14) He says,—“I have
given them Thy word; and the world _hath hated them_.” And in ver. 25,—“O
righteous FATHER, the world _hath not known_ Thee; but I _have known_
Thee, and these _have known_ that Thou _hast sent_ Me.” _Who_ would
consent to substitute for these expressions,—“the world hated them:” and
“the world knew Thee not, but I knew Thee; and these knew that Thou didst
send Me”?—Or turn to another Gospel. _Which_ is better,—“Some one hath
touched Me: for I perceive that virtue is gone out of Me,” (S. Lu. viii.
46):—or,—“Some one _did touch_ Me: for _I perceived_ that power _had gone
forth_ from Me”?

When the reference is to an act so extremely recent, _who_ is not aware
that the second of these renderings is abhorrent to the genius of the
English language? As for ἔγνων, it is (like _novi_ in Latin) present in
_sense_ though past in _form_,—here as in S. Lu. xvi. 3.—But turn to yet
another Gospel. _Which_ is better in S. Matth. xvi. 7:—“_we took_ no
bread,” or “It is because _we have taken_ no bread”?—Again. When Simon
Peter (in reply to the command that he should thrust out into deep water
and let down his net for a draught,) is heard to exclaim,—“Master, we have
toiled all the night, and have taken nothing: nevertheless at Thy word I
will let down the net” (Lu. v. 5),—_who_ would tolerate the proposal to
put in the place of it,—“Master, _we toiled all night_, and _took_
nothing: but at Thy word,” &c. It is not too much to declare that the
idiom of the English language refuses peremptorily to submit to such
handling. Quite in vain is it to encounter us with reminder that
κοπιάσαντες and ἐλάβομεν are aorists. The answer is,—We know it: but we
deny that it follows that the words are to be rendered “we _toiled_ all
night, and _took_ nothing.” There are laws of English Idiom as well as
laws of Greek Grammar: and when these clash in what is meant to be a
translation into English out of Greek, the latter must perforce give way
to the former,—or we make ourselves ridiculous, and misrepresent what we
propose to translate.

All this is so undeniable that it ought not to require to be insisted
upon. But in fact our Revisionists by their occasional practice show that
they fully admit _the Principle_ we are contending for. Thus, ἧραν (in S.
Jo. xx. 2 and 13) is by them translated “_they have taken_:”—ἱνατί με
ἐγκατέλιπες; (S. Matt. xxvii. 46) “Why _hast Thou forsaken
Me_?”(498):—ἔδειξα (S. Jo. x. 32) “_have I showed_:”—ἀπέστειλε (vi. 29)
“_He hath sent_:”—ἠτιμάσατε (James ii. 6) “_ye have
dishonoured_:”—ἐκαθάρισε (Acts x. 15) “_hath cleansed_:”—ἔστησεν (xvii.
31) “He _hath appointed_.” But indeed instances abound everywhere. In
fact, the requirements of the case are often observed to _force_ them to
be idiomatic. Τί ἐποίησας; (in Jo. xviii. 35), they rightly render “What
_hast_ thou done?”:—and ἔγραψα (in 1 Jo. ii. 14, 21), “I _have_
written;”—and ἤκουσα (in Acts ix. 13), “I _have_ heard.”—On the other
hand, by translating οὐκ εἴασεν (in Acts xxviii. 4), “_hath not
suffered_,” they may be thought to have overshot the mark. They seem to
have overlooked the fact that, when once S. Paul had been bitten by the
viper, “the barbarians” looked upon him as _a dead man_; and therefore
discoursed about what Justice “_did not_ suffer,” as about an entirely
past transaction.

But now, _Who_ sees not that the admission, once and again deliberately
made, that sometimes it is not only lawful, but even _necessary_, to
accommodate the Greek aorist (when translated into English) with the sign
of the perfect,—reduces the whole matter (of the signs of the tenses) to a
mere question of _Taste_? In view of such instances as the foregoing,
where severe logical necessity has compelled the Revisionists to abandon
their position and fly, it is plain that their contention is at an end,—so
far as _right_ and _wrong_ are concerned. They virtually admit that they
have been all along unjustly forcing on an independent language an alien
yoke.(499) Henceforth, it simply becomes a question to be repeated, as
every fresh emergency arises,—Which then is _the more idiomatic_ of these
two English renderings?... Conversely, twice at least (Heb. xi. 17 and
28), the Revisionists have represented the _Greek perfect_ by the English
indefinite preterite.

(_b_) Besides this offensive pedantry in respect of the Aorist, we are
often annoyed by an _unidiomatic_ rendering of the Imperfect. True enough
it is that “the servants and the officers _were standing_ ... and _were
warming_ themselves:” Peter also “_was standing_ with them and _was
warming_ himself” (S. Jo. xviii. 18). But we do not so express ourselves
in English, unless we are about to add something which shall _account for_
our particularity and precision. Any one, for example, desirous of stating
what had been for years his daily practice, would say—“_I left_ my house.”
Only when he wanted to explain that, on leaving it for the 1000th time, he
met a friend coming up the steps to pay him a visit, would an Englishman
think of saying, “_I was leaving_ the house.” A Greek writer, on the other
hand, would not _trust_ this to the imperfect. He would use the present
participle in the dative case, (“_To me, leaving my house_,”(500) &c.).
One is astonished to have to explain such things.... “If therefore thou
_art offering_ thy gift at the altar” (Matt. v. 23), may seem to some a
clever translation. To ourselves, it reads like a senseless exaggeration
of the original.(501) It sounds (and _is_) as unnatural as to say (in S.
Lu. ii. 33) “And His father [a depravation of the text] and His mother
_were marvelling_ at the things which were spoken concerning Him:”—or (in
Heb. xi. 17) “yea, he that had received the promises _was offering up_ his
only-begotten son:”—or, of the cripple at Lystra (Acts xiv. 9), “the same
heard Paul _speaking_.”

(_c_) On the other hand, there are occasions confessedly when the Greek
Aorist absolutely demands to be rendered into English by the sign of the
_Pluperfect_. An instance meets us while we write: ὡς δὲ ἐπαύσατο λαλῶν
(S. Lu. v. 4),—where our Revisionists are found to retain the idiomatic
rendering of our Authorized Version,—“When He _had left_ speaking.” Of
what possible avail could it be, on such an occasion, to insist that,
because ἐπαύσατο is not in the pluperfect tense, it may not be
accommodated with _the sign_ of the pluperfect when it is being translated
into English?—The R. V. has shown less consideration in S. Jo. xviii.
24,—where “Now Annas _had sent_ Him bound unto Caiaphas the high priest,”
is right, and wanted no revision.—Such places as Matth. xxvii. 60, Jo.
xxi. 15, Acts xii. 17, and Heb. iv. 8, on the other hand, simply defy the
Revisionists. For perforce Joseph “_had hewn_ out” (ἐλατόμησε) the new
tomb which became our LORD’S: and the seven Apostles, confessedly, “_had
dined_” (ἠρίστησαν): and S. Peter, of course, “declared unto them how the
LORD _had brought him out_ of the prison” (ἐξήγαγεν): and it is impossible
to substitute anything for “If Jesus [Joshua] _had given_ them rest”
(κατέπαυσεν).—Then of course there are occasions, (not a few,) where the
Aorist (often an indefinite present in Greek) claims to be Englished by
the sign of the present tense: as where S. John says (Rev. xix. 6), “The
LORD GOD Omnipotent reigneth” (ἐβασίλευσε). There is no striving against
such instances. They _insist_ on being rendered according to the genius of
the language into which it is proposed to render them:—as when ἔκειτο (in
S. Jo. xx. 12) exacts for its rendering “_had lain_.”

(_d_) It shall only be pointed out here in addition, for the student’s
benefit, that there is one highly interesting place (viz. S. Matth.
xxviii. 2), which in every age has misled Critics and Divines (as Origen
and Eusebius); Poets (as Rogers); Painters (as West);—yes, and will
continue to mislead readers for many a year to come:—and all because men
have failed to perceive that the aorist is used there for the pluperfect.
Translate,—“There _had been_ a great earthquake:” [and so (1611-1881) our
margin,—until in short “the Revisionists” interfered:] “for the Angel of
the LORD _had_ descended from heaven, and _come and rolled away_
(ἀπεκύλισε) the stone from the door, and sat upon it.” Strange, that for
1800 years Commentators should have failed to perceive that the Evangelist
is describing what terrified “_the keepers_.” “_The women_” saw no Angel
sitting upon the stone!—though Origen,(502)—Dionysius of
Alexandria,(503)—Eusebius,(504)—ps.-Gregory Naz.,(505)—Cyril
Alex.,(506)—Hesychius,(507)—and so many others—have taken it for granted
that they _did_.

(_e_) Then further, (to dismiss the subject and pass on,)—There are
occasions where the Greek _perfect_ exacts the sign of the _present_ at
the hands of the English translator: as when Martha says,—“Yea LORD, I
_believe_ that Thou art the CHRIST” (S. Jo. xi. 27).(508) What else but
the veriest pedantry is it to thrust in there “_I have believed_,” as the
English equivalent for πεπίστευκα?—Just as intolerable is the
officiousness which would thrust into the LORD’S prayer (Matt. vi. 12),
“as we also _have forgiven_ (ἀφήκαμεν) our debtors.”(509)—On the other
hand, there are Greek _presents_ (whatever the Revisionists may think)
which are just as peremptory in requiring _the sign of the future_, at the
hands of the idiomatic translator into English. Three such cases are found
in S. Jo. xvi. 16, 17, 19. Surely, the future is _inherent_ in the present
ἔρχομαι! In Jo. xiv. 18 (and many similar places), who can endure, “I will
not leave you desolate: _I come unto you_”?

(_f_) But instances abound. How does it happen that the inaccurate
rendering of ἐκκόπτεται—ἐκβάλλεται—has been retained in S. Matth. iii. 10,
S. Lu. iii. 9?

V. Next, concerning the DEFINITE ARTICLE; in the case of which, (say the
Revisionists,)


    “many changes have been made.” “We have been careful to observe
    the use of the Article wherever it seemed to be idiomatically
    possible: where it did not seem to be possible, we have yielded to
    necessity.”—(_Preface_, iii. 2,—_ad fin._)


In reply, instead of offering counter-statements of our own we content
ourselves with submitting a few specimens to the Reader’s judgment; and
invite him to decide between the Reviewer and the Reviewed ... “_The_
sower went forth to sow” (Matth. xiii. 3).—“It is greater than _the_
herbs” (ver. 32).—“Let him be to thee as _the_ Gentile and _the_ publican”
(xviii. 17).—“The unclean spirit, when he is gone out of _the_ man” (xii.
43).—“Did I not choose you _the_ twelve?” (Jo. vi. 70).—“If I then, _the_
Lord and _the_ master” (xiii. 14).—“For _the_ joy that a man is born into
the world” (xvi. 21).—“But as touching Apollos _the_ brother” (1 Cor. xvi.
12).—“_The_ Bishop must be blameless ... able to exhort in _the_ sound
doctrine” (Titus i. 7, 9).—“_The_ lust when it hath conceived, beareth
sin: and _the_ sin, when it is full grown” &c. (James i. 15).—“Doth _the_
fountain send forth from the same opening sweet water and bitter?” (iii.
11).—“Speak thou the things which befit _the_ sound doctrine” (Titus ii.
1).—“The time will come when they will not endure _the_ sound doctrine” (2
Tim. iv. 3).—“We had _the_ fathers of our flesh to chasten us” (Heb. xii.
9).—“Follow after peace with all men, and _the_ sanctification” (ver.
14).—“Who is _the_ liar but he that denieth that JESUS is the CHRIST?” (1
Jo. ii. 22).—“Not with _the_ water only, but with _the_ water and with
_the_ blood” (v. 6).—“He that hath the SON, hath _the_ life: he that hath
not the SON of GOD hath not _the_ life” (ver. 12).

To rejoin, as if it were a sufficient answer, that the definite Article is
found in all these places in the original Greek,—is preposterous. In
French also we say “Telle est _la_ vie:” but, in translating from the
French, we do not _therefore_ say “Such is _the_ life.” May we, without
offence, suggest the study of Middleton _On the Doctrine of the Greek
Article_ to those members of the Revisionists’ body who have favoured us
with the foregoing crop of mistaken renderings?

So, in respect of the indefinite article, we are presented with,—“_An_
eternal” (for “_the_ everlasting”) “gospel to proclaim” (Rev. xiv. 6):—and
“one like unto _a_ son of man,” for “one like unto _the_ Son of Man” in
ver. 14.—Why “_a_ SAVIOUR” in Phil. iii. 20? There is but one! (Acts iv.
12).—On the other hand, Κρανίον is rendered “_The_ skull” in S. Lu. xxiii.
33. It is hard to see why.—These instances taken at random must suffice.
They might be multiplied to any extent. If the Reader considers that the
idiomatic use of the English Article is understood by the authors of these
specimen cases, we shall be surprised, and sorry—_for him_.

VI. The Revisionists announce that they “have been particularly careful”
as to THE PRONOUNS [iii. 2 _ad fin._] We recal with regret that this is
also a particular wherein we have been specially annoyed and offended.
Annoyed—at their practice of _repeating the nominative_ (_e.g._ in Mk. i.
13: Jo. xx. 12) to an extent unknown, abhorrent even, to our language,
except indeed when a fresh substantive statement is made: offended—at
their license of translation, _when it suits them_ to be licentious.—Thus,
(as the Bp. of S. Andrews has well pointed out,) “_it is He that_” is an
incorrect translation of αὐτός in S. Matth. i. 21,—a famous passage. Even
worse, because it is unfair, is “_He who_” as the rendering of ὅς in 1
Tim. iii. 16,—another famous passage, which we have discussed
elsewhere.(510)

VII. ’In the case of the PARTICLES’ (say the Revisionists),


    “we have been able to maintain a reasonable amount of
    _consistency_. The Particles in the Greek Testament are, as is
    well known, comparatively few, and they are commonly used with
    precision. It has therefore been the more necessary here to
    preserve a general _uniformity of rendering_.”—(iii. 2 _ad fin._)


Such an announcement, we submit, is calculated to occasion nothing so much
as uneasiness and astonishment. Of all the parts of speech, the Greek
Particles,—(especially throughout the period when the Language was in its
decadence,)—are the least capable of being drilled into “a general
uniformity of rendering;” and he who tries the experiment ought to be the
first to be aware of the fact. The refinement and delicacy which they
impart to a narrative or a sentiment, are not to be told. But then, from
the very nature of the case, “_uniformity of rendering_” is precisely the
thing they will not submit to. They take their colour from their context:
often mean two quite different things in the course of two successive
verses: sometimes are best rendered by a long and formidable word;(511)
sometimes cannot (without a certain amount of impropriety or
inconvenience) be rendered _at all_.(512) Let us illustrate what we have
been saying by actual appeals to Scripture.

(1) And first, we will derive our proofs from the use which the sacred
Writers make of the particle of most frequent recurrence—δέ. It is said to
be employed in the N. T. 3115 times. As for its meaning, we have the
unimpeachable authority of the Revisionists themselves for saying that it
may be represented by any of the following
words:—“but,”—“and,”(513)—“yea,”(514)—“what,”(515)—“now,”(516)—“and
that”,(517)—“howbeit,”(518)—“even,”(519)—“therefore,”(520)—“I
say,”(521)—“also,”(522)—“yet,”(523)—“for.”(524) To which 12 renderings,
King James’s translators (mostly following Tyndale) are observed to add at
least these other 12:—“wherefore,”(525)—“so,”(526)—“moreover,”(527)—“yea
and,”(528)—“furthermore,”(529)—“nevertheless,”(530)—“notwithstanding,”(531)—“yet
but,”(532)—“truly,”(533)—“or,”(534)—“as for,”(535)—“then,”(536)—“and
yet.”(537) It shall suffice to add that, by the pitiful substitution of
“but” or “and” on _most_ of the foregoing occasions, the freshness and
freedom of almost every passage has been made to disappear: the plain fact
being that the men of 1611—above all, that William Tyndale 77 years before
them—produced a work of real genius; seizing with generous warmth the
meaning and intention of the sacred Writers, and perpetually varying the
phrase, as they felt, or fancied that Evangelists and Apostles would have
varied it, had they had to express themselves in English: whereas the men
of 1881 have fulfilled their task in what can only be described as _a
spirit of servile pedantry_. The Grammarian (pure and simple) crops up
everywhere. We seem never to rise above the atmosphere of the
lecture-room,—the startling fact that μέν means “indeed,” and δέ “but.”

We subjoin a single specimen of the countless changes introduced in the
rendering of Particles, and then hasten on. In 1 Cor. xii. 20, for three
centuries and a half, Englishmen have been contented to read (with William
Tyndale), “But now are they many members, YET BUT one body.” Our
Revisionists, (overcome by the knowledge that δέ means “but,” and yielding
to the supposed “necessity for preserving a general uniformity of
rendering,”) substitute,—“_But_ now they are many members, _but_ one
body.” Comment ought to be superfluous. We neither overlook the fact that
δέ occurs here twice, nor deny that it is fairly represented by “but” in
the first instance. We assert nevertheless that, on the second occasion,
“YET BUT” ought to have been let alone. And this is a fair sample of the
changes which have been effected _many times in every page_. To proceed
however.

(2) The interrogative particle ἤ occurs at the beginning of a sentence at
least 8 or 10 times in the N. T.; first, in S. Matth. vii. 9. It is often
scarcely translateable,—being apparently invested with with no more
emphasis than belongs to our colloquial interrogative “_Eh?_” But
sometimes it would evidently bear to be represented by “Pray,”(538)—being
at least equivalent to φέρε in Greek or _age_ in Latin. Once only (viz. in
1 Cor. xiv. 36) does this interrogative particle so eloquently plead for
recognition in the text, that both our A. V. and the R. V. have rendered
it “What?”—by which word, by the way, it might very fairly have been
represented in S. Matth. xxvi. 53 and Rom. vi. 3: vii. 1. In five of the
places where the particle occurs. King James’s Translators are observed to
have give it up in despair.(539) But what is to be thought of the
adventurous dulness which (with the single exception already indicated)
has _invariably_ rendered ἤ by the conjunction “_or_”? The blunder is the
more inexcusable, because the intrusion of such an irrelevant conjunction
into places where it is without either use or meaning cannot have failed
to attract the notice of every member of the Revising body.

(3) At the risk of being wearisome, we must add a few words.—Καί, though
no particle but a conjunction, may for our present purpose be reasonably
spoken of under the same head; being diversely rendered “and,”—“and
yet,”(540)—“then,”(541)—“or,”(542)—“neither,”(543)—“though,”(544)—“so,”(545)—“but,”(546)—“for,”(547)—“that,”(548)—in
conformity with what may be called the genius of the English language. The
last six of these renderings, however, our Revisionists disallow;
everywhere thrusting out the word which the argument seems rather to
require, and with mechanical precision thrusting into its place every time
the (perfectly safe, but often palpably inappropriate) word, “and.” With
what amount of benefit this has been effected, one or two samples will
sufficiently illustrate:—

(_a_) The Revisionists inform us that when “the high priest Ananias
commanded them that stood by him to smite him on the mouth,”—S. Paul
exclaimed, “GOD shall smite thee, thou whited wall: AND sittest thou to
judge me after the law, and commandest me to be smitten contrary to the
law?”(549)... Do these learned men really imagine that they have improved
upon the A. V. by their officiousness in altering “FOR” into “AND”?

(_b_) The same Apostle, having ended his argument to the Hebrews,
remarks,—“_So_ we see that they could not enter in because of unbelief”
(Heb. iii. 19): for which, our Revisionists again substitute “And.” Begin
the sentence with “AND,” (instead of “So,”) and, in compensation for what
you have clearly _lost_, what have you _gained_?... Once more:—

(_c_) Consider what S. Paul writes concerning Apollos (in 1 Cor. xvi. 12),
and then say what possible advantage is obtained by writing “AND” (instead
of “BUT”) “his will was not at all to come at this time”.... Yet once
more; and on _this_ occasion, scholarship is to some extent involved:—

(_d_) When S. James (i. 11) says ἀνέτειλε γὰρ ὁ ἥλιος ... καὶ ἐξήρανε τὸν
χόρτον,—_who_ knows not that what his language strictly means in idiomatic
English, is,—“_No sooner_ does the sun arise,” “_than_ it withereth the
grass”? And so in effect our Translators of 1611. What possible
improvement on this can it be to substitute, “For the sun ariseth ... AND
withereth the grass”?—Only once more:—

(_e_) Though καί undeniably means “and,” and πῶς, “how,”—_who_ knows not
that καὶ πῶς means “_How then?_” And yet, (as if a stupid little boy had
been at work,) in two places,—(namely, in S. Mark iv. 13 and S. Luke xx.
44,)—“AND HOW” is found mercilessly thrust in, to the great detriment of
the discourse; while in other two,—(namely, in S. John xiv. 5 and 9,)—the
text itself has been mercilessly deprived of its characteristic καί by the
Revisionists.—Let this suffice. One might fill many quires of paper with
such instances of tasteless, senseless, vexatious, and _most
unscholarlike_ innovation.

VIII. “Many changes” (we are informed) “have been introduced in the
rendering of the PREPOSITIONS.” [_Preface_, iii. 2, _ad fin._]:—and we are
speedily reminded of the truth of the statement, for (as was shown above
[pp. 155-6]) the second chapter of S. Matthew’s Gospel exhibits the
Revisionists “all a-field” in respect of διά. “We have rarely made any
change” (they add) “where the true meaning of the original would be
apparent to _a Reader of ordinary intelligence_.” It would of course ill
become such an one as the present Reviewer to lay claim to the foregoing
flattering designation: but really, when he now for the first time reads
(in Acts ix. 25) that the disciples of Damascus let S. Paul down “_through
the wall_,” he must be pardoned for regretting the absence of a marginal
reference to the history of Pyramus and Thisbe in order to suggest _how_
the operation was effected: for, as it stands, the R. V. is to him simply
unintelligible. Inasmuch as the basket (σπυρίς) in which the Apostle
effected his escape was of considerable size, do but think what an
extravagantly large hole it must have been to enable them _both_ to get
through!... But let us look further.

Was it then in order to bring Scripture within the _captus_ of “a Reader
of ordinary intelligence” that the Revisers have introduced no less than
_thirty changes_ into _eight-and-thirty words_ of S. Peter’s 2nd Epistle?
Particular attention is invited to the following interesting specimen of
“_Revision_.” It is the only one we shall offer of the many _contrasts_ we
had marked for insertion. We venture also to enquire, whether the Revisers
will consent to abide by it as a specimen of their skill in dealing with
the Preposition ἐν?

A. V.                       R. V.
“And beside all this,       “Yea (1), and for (2)
giving all diligence, add   this very (3) cause (4)
to your faith virtue; and   adding (5) on (6) your
to virtue knowledge; and    part (7) all diligence,
to knowledge temperance;    in (8) your faith supply
and to temperance           (9) virtue; and in (10)
patience; and to patience   your (11)  virtue
godliness; and to           knowledge; and in (12)
godliness brotherly         your (13) knowledge
kindness; and to            temperance; and in (14)
brotherly kindness          your (15) temperance
charity.”—[2 Pet. i.        patience; and in (16)
5-7.]                       your (17) patience
                            godliness; and in (18)
                            your (19) godliness love
                            (20) of (21) the (22)
                            brethren (23); and in
                            (24) your (25) love (26)
                            of (27) the (28) brethren
                            (29) love (30).”

The foregoing strikes us as a singular illustration of the Revisionists’
statement (_Preface_, iii. 2),—“We made _no_ change _if the meaning was
fairly expressed_ by the word or phrase that was before us in the
Authorized Version.” To ourselves it appears that _every one of those 30
changes is a change for the worse_; and that one of the most exquisite
passages in the N. T. has been hopelessly spoiled,—rendered in fact
well-nigh unintelligible,—by the pedantic officiousness of the Revisers.
Were they—(if the question be allowable)—bent on removing none but “_plain
and clear errors_,” when they substituted those 30 words? Was it in token
of their stern resolve “to introduce into the Text _as few alterations as
possible_,” that they spared the eight words which remain out of the
eight-and-thirty?

As for their _wooden_ rendering of ἐν, it ought to suffice to refer them
to S. Mk. i. 23, S. Lu. xiv. 31, to prove that sometimes ἐν can only be
rendered “_with_”:—and to S. Luke vii. 17, to show them that ἐν sometimes
means “_throughout_”:—and to Col. i. 16, and Heb. i. 1, 2, in proof that
sometimes it means “_by_.”—On the other hand, their suggestion that ἐν may
be rendered “_by_” in S. Luke i. 51, convicts them of not being aware that
“the proud-in-the-imagination-of-their-hearts” is _a phrase_—in which
perforce “_by_” has no business whatever. One is surprised to have to
teach professed Critics and Scholars an elementary fact like this.

In brief, these learned men are respectfully assured that there is not one
of the “Parts of Speech” which will consent to be handled after the
inhumane fashion which seems to be to themselves congenial. Whatever they
may think of the matter, it is nothing else but absurd to speak of an
Angel “casting his sickle _into the earth_” (Rev. xiv. 19).—As for his
“pouring out his bowl _upon the air_” (xvi. 17),—we really fail to
understand the nature of the operation.—And pray, What is supposed to be
the meaning of “the things _upon the heavens_”—in Ephesians i. 10?

Returning to the preposition διά followed by the genitive,—(in respect of
which the Revisionists challenge Criticism by complaining in their Preface
[iii. 3 _ad fin._] that in the A. V. “ideas of instrumentality or of
mediate agency, distinctly marked in the original, have been _confused or
obscured in the Translation_,”)—we have to point out:—

(1st) That these distinguished individuals seem not to be aware that the
proprieties of English speech forbid the use of “_through_” (as a
substitute for “_by_”) in certain expressions where instrumentality is
concerned. Thus, “the Son of man” was not betrayed “_through_” Judas, but
“_by_” him (Matt. xxvi. 24: Luke xxii. 22).—Still less is it allowable to
say that a prophecy was “spoken,” nay “_written_,” “_through_ the Prophet”
(Matth. i. 22 and margin of ii. 5). “Who spake BY_ the Prophets_,” is even
an article of the Faith.

And (2ndly),—That these scholars have in consequence adopted a see-saw
method of rendering διά,—sometimes in one way, sometimes in the other.
First, they give us “wonders and signs done _by_ the Apostles” (Acts ii.
43; but in the margin, “Or, _through_”): presently, “a notable miracle
hath been wrought _through_ them” (iv. 16: and this time, the margin
withholds the alternative, “Or, _by_”). Is then “the true meaning” of
“_by_,” in the former place, “apparent to a Reader of ordinary
intelligence”? but so obscure in the latter as to render _necessary_ the
alteration to “_through_”? Or (_sit venia verbo_),—Was it a mere “toss-up”
with the Revisionists _what_ is the proper rendering of διά?

(3rdly), In an earlier place (ii. 22), we read of “miracles, wonders, and
signs” which “GOD did _by_” JESUS of Nazareth. Was it reverence, which, on
that occasion, forbad the use of “_through_”—even in the margin? We hope
so: but the preposition is still the same—διά not ὑπό.

Lastly (4thly),—The doctrine that Creation is the work of the Divine WORD,
all Scripture attests. “All things were made _by_ Him” (S. Jo. i. 3):—“the
world was made _by_ Him” (ver. 10).—Why then, in Col. i. 16, where the
same statement is repeated,—(“all things were created _by_ Him and for
Him,”)—do we find “_through_” substituted for “_by_”? And why is the same
offence repeated in 1 Cor. vii. 6,—(where we _ought_ to read,—“one GOD,
the FATHER, of whom are all things ... and one LORD JESUS CHRIST, _by_
whom are all things”)?—Why, especially, in Heb. i. 2, in place of “_by_
whom also [viz. by THE SON] He made the worlds,” do we find substituted
“_through_ whom”?... And why add to this glaring inconsistency the
wretched vacillation of giving us the choice of “_through_” (in place of
“_by_”) in the margin of S. John i. 3 and 10, and not even offering us the
alternative of “_by_” (in place of “_through_”) in any of the other
places,—although the preposition is διά on every occasion?

And thus much for the Revisers’ handling of the Prepositions. We shall
have said all that we can find room for, when we have further directed
attention to the uncritical and unscholarlike Note with which they have
disfigured the margin of S. Mark i. 9. We are there informed that,
according to the Greek, our SAVIOUR “was baptized _into the Jordan_,”—an
unintelligible statement to English readers, as well as a misleading one.
Especially on their guard should the Revisers have been hereabouts,—seeing
that, in a place of vital importance on the opposite side of the open page
(viz. in S. Matth. xxviii. 19), they had already substituted “_into_” for
“_in_.” This latter alteration, one of the Revisers (Dr. Vance Smith)
rejoices over, because it obliterates (in his account) the evidence for
Trinitarian doctrine. That the Revisionists, as a body, intended nothing
less,—_who_ can doubt? But then, if they really deemed it necessary to
append a note to S. Mark i. 9 in order to explain to the public that the
preposition εἰς signifies “_into_” rather than “_in_,”—why did they not at
least go on to record the elementary fact that εἰς has here (what
grammarians call) a “pregnant signification”? that it implies—(every
schoolboy knows it!)—_and that it is used in order to imply_—that the Holy
One “_went down_ INTO,” and so, “_was baptized_ IN the _Jordan_”?(550)...
But _why_, in the name of common sense, _did not the Revisionists let the
Preposition alone_?

IX. The MARGIN of the Revision is the last point to which our attention is
invited, and in the following terms:—


    “The subject of the Marginal Notes deserves special attention.
    They represent the results of _a large amount of careful and
    elaborate discussion_, and will, perhaps, by their very presence,
    indicate to some extent the intricacy of many of the questions
    that have almost daily come before us for decision. These Notes
    fall into four main groups:—_First_, Notes specifying such
    differences of reading as were judged to be of sufficient
    importance to require a particular notice;—_Secondly_, Notes
    indicating the exact rendering of words to which, for the sake of
    English idiom, we were obliged to give a less exact rendering in
    the text;—_Thirdly_, Notes, very few in number, affording some
    explanation which the original appeared to require;—_Fourthly_,
    Alternative Renderings in difficult or debateable passages. The
    Notes of this last group are numerous, and largely in excess of
    those which were admitted by our predecessors. In the 270 years
    that have passed away since their labours were concluded, the
    Sacred Text has been minutely examined, discussed in every detail,
    and analysed with a grammatical precision unknown in the days of
    the last Revision. There has thus been accumulated a large amount
    of materials that have prepared the way for different renderings,
    which necessarily came under discussion.”—(_Preface_, iii. 4.)


When a body of distinguished Scholars bespeak attention to a certain part
of their work in such terms as these, it is painful for a Critic to be
obliged to declare that he has surveyed this department of their
undertaking with even less satisfaction than any other. So long, however,
as he assigns _the grounds_ of his dissatisfaction, the Reviewed cannot
complain. The Reviewer puts himself into their power. If he is mistaken in
his censure, his credit is gone. Let us take the groups in order:—

(1) Having already stated our objections against the many Notes which
specify _Textual errors_ which the Revisionists declined to adopt,—we
shall here furnish only two instances of the mischief we deplore:—

(_a_) Against the words, “And while they _abode_ in Galilee” (S. Matthew
xvii. 22), we find it stated,—“Some ancient authorities read _were
gathering themselves together_.” The plain English of which queer piece of
information is that א and B exhibit in this place an impossible and
untranslatable Reading,—the substitution of which for ἀναστρεφομένων δὲ
ἀυτῶν can only have proceeded from some Western critic, who was
sufficiently unacquainted with the Greek language to suppose that
ΣΥΝ-στρεφομένων δὲ αὐτῶν, might possibly be the exact equivalent for
CON_-versantibus autem illis_. This is not the place for discussing a kind
of hallucination which prevailed largely in the earliest age, especially
in regions where Greek was habitually read through Latin spectacles. (Thus
it was, obviously, that the preposterous substitution of EURAQUILO for
“Euroclydon,” in Acts xxvii. 14, took its rise.) Such blunders would be
laughable if encountered anywhere except on holy ground. Apart, however,
from the lamentable lack of critical judgment which a marginal note like
the present displays, what is to be thought of the scholarship which
elicits “_While they were gathering themselves together_” out of
συστρεφομένων δὲ αὐτῶν? Are we to suppose that the clue to the Revisers’
rendering is to be found in (συστρέψαντος) Acts xxviii. 3? We should be
sorry to think it. They are assured that the source of the _Textual_
blunder which they mistranslate is to be found, instead, in Baruch iii.
38.(551)

(_b_) For what conceivable reason is the world now informed that, instead
of _Melita_,—“some ancient authorities read _Melitene_,” in Acts xxviii.
1? Is every pitiful blunder of cod. B to live on in the margin of every
Englishman’s copy of the New Testament, for ever? Why, _all_ other
MSS.—the Syriac and the Latin versions,—Pamphilus of Cæsarea(552) (A.D.
294), the friend of Eusebius,—Cyril of
Jerusalem,(553)—Chrysostom,(554)—John Damascene,(555)—all the Fathers in
short who quote the place;—the coins, the ancient geographers;—_all_ read
Μελίτη; which has also been acquiesced in by every critical Editor of the
N. T.—(_excepting always Drs. Westcott and Hort_), from the invention of
Printing till now. But because these two misguided men, without apology,
explanation, note or comment of any kind, have adopted “_Melitene_” into
their text, is the Church of England to be dragged through the mire also,
and made ridiculous in the eyes of Christendom? This blunder moreover is
“gross as a mountain, open, palpable.” One glance at the place, written in
uncials, explains how it arose:—ΜελιτηΗΝΗσοσκαλειται. Some stupid scribe
(as the reader sees) has connected the first syllable of νῆσος with the
last syllable of Μελίτη.(556) _That_ is all! The blunder—(for a blunder it
most certainly is)—belongs to the age and country in which “_Melitene_”
was by far the more familiar word, being the name of the metropolitan see
of Armenia;(557) mention of which crops up in the _Concilia_
repeatedly.(558)

(2) and (4) The second and the fourth group may be considered together.
The former comprises those words of which the _less exact_ rendering finds
place in the Text:—the latter, “_Alternative renderings_ in difficult and
debateable passages.”

We presume that here our attention is specially invited to such notes as
the following. Against 1 Cor. xv. 34,—“_Awake out of drunkenness
righteously_”:—against S. John i. 14,—“_an only begotten from a
father_”:—against 1 Pet. iii. 20,—“_into which few, that is, eight souls,
were brought safely through water_”:—against 2 Pet. iii. 7,—“_stored with
fire_”:—against S. John xviii. 37,—“_Thou sayest it, because I am a
king_”:—against Ephes. iii. 21,—“_All the generations of the age of the
ages_”:—against Jude ver. 14,—“_His holy myriads_”:—against Heb. xii.
18,—“_a palpable and kindled fire_”:—against Lu. xv. 31,—“_Child_, thou
art ever with me”:—against Matth. xxi. 28,—“_Child_, go work to-day in my
vineyard”:—against xxiv. 3,—“What shall be the sign of Thy _presence_, and
of _the consummation of the age_?”—against Tit. i. 2,—“_before times
eternal_”: against Mk. iv. 29,—“When the fruit _alloweth_ [and why not
‘_yieldeth_ itself’?], straightway _he sendeth forth_ the sickle”:—against
Ephes. iv. 17,—“_through every joint of the supply_”:—against ver.
29,—“_the building up of the need_”:—against Lu. ii. 29,—“_Master_, now
lettest thou Thy _bondservant_ depart in peace”:—against Acts iv. 24,—“O
_Master_, thou that didst make the heaven and the earth”:—against Lu. i.
78,—“Because of _the heart of mercy_ of our GOD.” Concerning all such
renderings we will but say, that although they are unquestionably better
in the Margin than in the Text; it also admits no manner of doubt that
they would have been best of all in neither. Were the Revisionists serious
when they suggested as the more “exact” rendering of 2 Pet. i. 20,—“No
prophecy of Scripture is of _special_ interpretation”? And what did they
mean (1 Pet. ii. 2) by “_the spiritual milk which is without guile_”?

Not a few marginal glosses might have been dispensed with. Thus, against
διδάσκαλος, upwards of 50 times stands the Annotation, “Or,
_teacher_.”—Ἄρτος, (another word of perpetual recurrence,) is every time
explained to mean “_a loaf_.” But is this reasonable? seeing that φαγεῖν
ἄρτον (Luke xiv. 1) can mean nothing else but “to eat _bread_”: not to
mention the petition for “_daily bread_” in the LORD’S prayer. These
learned men, however, do not spare us even when mention is made of “taking
the children’s _bread_ and casting it to the dogs” (Mk. vii. 27): while in
the enquiry,—“If a son shall ask _bread_ of any of you that is a father”
(Lu. xi. 11), “_loaf_” is actually thrust into the text.—We cannot
understand why such marked favour has been shown to similar easy words.
Δοῦλος, occurring upwards of 100 times in the New Testament, is invariably
honoured (sometimes [as in Jo. xv. 15] _twice in the course of the same
verse_) with 2 lines to itself, to explain that in Greek it is
“_bondservant_.”—About 60 times, δαιμόνιον is explained in the margin to
be “_demon_” in the Greek.—It has been deemed necessary 15 times to devote
_three lines_ to explain the value of “a penny.”—Whenever τέκνον is
rendered “_Son_,” we are molested with a marginal annotation, to the
effect that the Greek word means “_child_.” Had the Revisionists been
consistent, the margins would not nearly have sufficed for the many
interesting details of this nature with which their knowledge of Greek
would have furnished them.

May we be allowed to suggest, that it would have been better worth while
to explain to the unlearned that ἀρχαι in S. Peter’s vision (Acts x. 11;
xi. 5) in strictness means not “corners,” but “_beginnings_” [cf. Gen. ii.
10]:—that τὴν πρώτην (in Lu. xv. 22) is literally “_the first_” [cf. Gen.
iii. 7] (not “the best”) “robe”:—that ἀληθινός (_e.g._ in Lu. xvi. 11: Jo.
i. 9: vi. 32; and especially in xv. 1 and Heb. viii. 2 and ix. 24) means
“_very_” or “_real_,” rather than “true”?—And when two different words are
employed in Greek (as in S. Jo. xxi. 15, 16, 17:—S. Mk. vii. 33, 35, &c.
&c.), would it not have been as well to try to _represent_ them in
English? For want of such assistance, no unlearned reader of S. Matth. iv.
18, 20, 21: S. Mk. i. 16, 18, 19: S. Lu. v. 2,—will ever be able to
understand the precise circumstances under which the first four Apostles
left their “_nets_.”

(3) The third group consists of _Explanatory Notes_ required by the
obscurity of the original. Such must be the annotation against S. Luke i.
15 (explanatory of “strong drink”),—“Gr. sikera.” And yet, the word
(σίκερα) happens to be _not_ Greek, but Hebrew.—On the other hand, such
must be the annotation against μωρέ, in S. Matth. v. 22:—“Or, _Moreh_, a
Hebrew expression of condemnation;” which statement is incorrect. The word
proves to be _not_ Hebrew, but Greek.—And this, against “Maran atha” in 1
Cor. xvi. 22,—“That is, _Our _LORD_ cometh_:” which also proves to be a
mistake. The phrase means “_Our _LORD_ is come_,”—which represents a
widely different notion.(559)—Surely a room-full of learned men,
volunteering to put the N. T. to-rights, ought to have made more sure of
their elementary _facts_ before they ventured to compromise the Church of
England after this fashion!—Against “_the husks_ which the swine did eat”
(Lu. xv. 16), we find, “Gr. _the pods of the carob tree_,”—which is really
not true. The Greek word is κεράτια,—which only signifies “the pods of the
carob tree,” as “French beans” signifies “the pods of the _Phaseolus
vulgaris_.”—By the way, it is _quite_ certain that μύλος ὀνικός [in Matth.
xviii. 6 and Lu. xvii. 2 (not Mk. xi. 42)] signifies “_a mill-stone turned
by an ass_”? Hilary certainly thought so: but is that thing at all likely?
What if it should appear that μύλος ὀνικός merely denotes the _upper_
mill-stone (λίθος μυλικός, as S. Mark calls it,—_the stone that grinds_),
and which we know was called ὄνος by the ancients?(560)—Why is “the brook
Cedron” (Jo. xviii. 1) first spelt “Kidron,” and then explained to mean
“_ravine of the cedars_”? which “_Kidron_” no more means that “_Kishon_”
means “_of the ivies_,”—(though the Septuagintal usage [Judges iv. 13: Ps.
lxxxiii. 9] shows that τῶν κισσῶν was in its common Hellenistic
designation). As for calling the Kidron “_a ravine_,” you might as well
call “Mercury” in “Tom quad” “_a lake_.” “Infelictious” is the mildest
epithet we can bestow upon marginal annotations crude, questionable,—even
_inaccurate_ as these.

Then further, “Simon, the son of _Jona_” (in S. John i. 42 and xxi. 15),
is for the first time introduced to our notice by the Revisionists as “the
son of _John_:” with an officious marginal annotation that in Greek the
name is written “_Ioanes_.” But is it fair in the Revisers (we modestly
ask) to thrust in this way the _bêtises_ of their favourite codex B upon
us? _In no codex in the world except the Vatican codex_ B, is “Ioannes”
spelt “_Ioanes_” in this place. Besides, the name of Simon Peter’s father
was _not_ “John” at all, but “_Jona_,”—as appears from S. Matth. xvi. 17,
and the present two places in S. John’s Gospel; where the evidence
_against_ “Ioannes” is overwhelming. This is in fact the handy-work of Dr.
Hort. But surely the office of marginal notes ought to be to assist, not
to mislead plain readers: honestly, to state _facts_,—not, by a side-wind,
to commit the Church of England to _a new (and absurd) Textual theory_!
The _actual Truth_, we insist, should be stated in the margin, whenever
unnecessary information is gratuitously thrust upon unlearned and
unsuspicious readers.... Thus, we avow that we are offended at reading
(against S. John i. 18)—“Many very ancient authorities read ‘GOD_ only
begotten_’ ”: whereas the “authorities” alluded to read μονογενὴς
Θεός,—(whether with or without the article [ὁ] prefixed,)—which (as the
Revisionists are perfectly well aware) means “_the only-begotten _GOD,”
and no other thing. Why then did they not say so? _Because_ (we
answer)—_they were ashamed of the expression_. But to proceed.—The
information is volunteered (against Matth. xxvi. 36 and Mk. xiv. 32) that
χωρίον means “_an enclosed piece of ground_,”—which is not true. The
statement seems to have proceeded from the individual who translated
ἄμφοδον (in Mk. xi. 4) the “_open street_:” whereas the word merely
denotes the “highway,”—literally the “_thoroughfare_.”

A very little real familiarity with the Septuagint would have secured
these Revisers against the perpetual exposure which they make of
themselves in their marginal Notes.—(_a_) Πάσας τὰς ἡμέρας, for instance,
is quite an ordinary expression for “always,” and therefore should not be
exhibited (in the margin of S. Matth. xxviii. 20) as a curiosity,—“Gr.
_all the days_.”—So (_b_) with respect to the word αἰών, which seems to
have greatly exercised the Revisionists. What need, _every time it
occurs_, to explain that εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων means literally “_unto
the ages of the ages_”? Surely (as in Ps. xlv. 6, quoted Heb. i. 8,) the
established rendering (“for ever and ever”) is plain enough and needs no
gloss!—Again, (_c_) the numeral εἰς, representing the Hebrew substitute
for the indefinite article, prevails throughout the Septuagint. Examples
of its use occur in the N. T. in S. Matth. viii. 19 and ix. 18;-xxvi. 69
(μία παιδίσκη), Mk. xii. 42: and in Rev. viii. 13: ix. 13: xviii. 21 and
xix. 17;—where “_one_ scribe,” “_one_ ruler,” “_one_ widow,” “_one_
eagle,” “_one_ voice,” “_one_ angel,” are really nothing else but
mistranslations. True, that εἶς is found in the original Greek: but what
then? Because “_une_” means “_one_,” will it be pretended that “_Tu es une
bête_” would be properly rendered “_Thou art one beast_”?

(_d_) Far more serious is the substitution of “having _a great_ priest
over the house of GOD” (Heb. x. 21), for “having _an high_ priest:”
inasmuch as this obscures “the pointed reference to our LORD as the
antitype of the Jewish high priest,”—who (except in Lev. iv. 3) is
designated, not ἀρχιερεύς, but either ὁ ἱερεὺς ὁ μέγας, or else ὁ ἱερεύς
only,—as in Acts v. 24(561).... And (_e_) why are we presented with “For
_no word from _GOD_ shall be void of power_” (in S. Luke i. 37)? Seeing
that the Greek of that place has been fashioned on the Septuagintal
rendering of Gen. xviii. 14 (“_Is anything too hard for the
_LORD_?_”(562)), we venture to think that the A. V. (“_for with _GOD_
nothing shall be impossible_”(563)) ought to have been let alone. It
cannot be mended. One is surprised to discover that among so many
respectable Divines there seems not to have been _one_ sufficiently
familiar with the Septuagint to preserve his brethren from perpetually
falling into such mistakes as the foregoing. We really had no idea that
the Hellenistic scholarship of those who represented the Church and the
Sects in the Jerusalem Chamber, was so inconsiderable.

Two or three of the foregoing examples refer to matters of a recondite
nature. Not so the majority of the Annotations which belong to this third
group; which we have examined with real astonishment—and in fact have
remarked upon already. Shall we be thought hard to please if we avow that
we rather desiderate “Explanatory Notes” on matters which really _do_ call
for explanation? as, to be reminded of what kind was the “net”
(ἀμφίβληστρον) mentioned in Matth. iv. 18 (_not_ 20), and Mk. i. 16 (_not_
18):—to see it explained (against Matth. ii. 23) that _netser_ (the root
of “Nazareth”) denotes “Branch:”—and against Matth. iii. 5; Lu. iii. 3,
that ἡ περίχωρος τοῦ Ἰορδάνου, signifies “the _depressed valley of the
Jordan_,” as the usage of the LXX. proves.(564) We should have been glad
to see, against S. Lu. ix. 31,—“Gr. _Exodus_.”—At least in the margin, we
might have been told that “_Olivet_” is the true rendering of Lu. xix. 29
and xxi. 37: (or were the Revisionists not aware of the fact? They are
respectfully referred to the Bp. of Lincoln’s note on the place last
quoted.)—Nay, why not tell us (against Matth. i. 21) that “JESUS” means
[not “_Saviour_,” but] “_JEHOVAH__ is Salvation_”?

But above all, surely so many learned men ought to have spared us the
absurd Annotation set against “_ointment of spikenard_” (νάρδου πιστικῆς,)
in S. Mark xiv. 3 and in S. John xii. 3. Their marginal Note is as
follows:—


    “Gr. _pistic_ nard, pistic being perhaps a local name. Others take
    it to mean _genuine_; others _liquid_.”


Can Scholars require to be told that “_liquid_” is an _impossible_ sense
of πιστική in this place? The epithet so interpreted must be derived (like
πιστός [_Prom._ V. v. 489]) from πίνω, and would mean _drinkable_: but
since ointment _cannot_ be drunk, it is certain that we must seek the
etymology of the word elsewhere. And why should the weak ancient
conjecture be retained that it is “perhaps a _local_ name”? Do Divines
require to have it explained to them that the one “locality” which
effectually fixes the word’s meaning, is _its place in the everlasting
Gospel_?... Be silent on such lofty matters if you will, by all means; but
“who are these that darken counsel by words without knowledge?” S. Mark
and S. John (whose narratives by the way never touch exclusively except in
this place(565)) are observed here to employ an ordinary word with lofty
spiritual purpose. The _pure faith_ (πίστις) in which that offering of the
ointment was made, determines the choice of an unusual epithet (πιστικός)
which shall signify “faithful” rather than “genuine,”—shall suggest a
_moral_ rather than a _commercial_ quality: just as, presently, Mary’s
“breaking” the box (συντρίψασα) is designated by a word which has
reference to a broken heart.(566) She “_contrited_” it, S. Mark says; and
S. John adds a statement which implies that the Church has been rendered
fragrant by her act for ever.(567) (We trust to be forgiven for having
said a little more than the occasion absolutely requires.)

(5) Under which of the four previous “groups” certain Annotations which
disfigure the margin of the first chapter of S. Matthew’s Gospel, should
fall,—we know not. Let them be briefly considered by themselves.

So dull of comprehension are we, that we fail to see on what principle it
is stated that—“Ram,” “Asa,” “Amon,” “Shealtiel,” are in Greek (“Gr.”)
“_Aram_,” “_Asaph_,” “_Amos_,” “_Salathiel_.” For (1),—Surely it was just
as needful (or just as needless) to explain that “Perez,” “Zarah,”
“Hezron,” “Nahson,” are in Greek “_Phares_,” “_Zara_,” “_Esrom_,”
“_Naasson_.”—But (2), Through what “necessity” are the names, which we
have been hitherto contented to read as the Evangelist wrote them, now
exhibited on the first page of the Gospel in any other way?(568)—(3)
Assuming, however, the O. T. spelling _is_ to be adopted, then _let us
have it explained to us why _“Jeconiah”_ in ver. 11 is not written_
“Jehoiakim”? (As for “Jeconiah” in ver. 12,—it was for the Revisionists to
settle whether they would call him “Jehoiachin,” “Jeconiah,” or “Coniah.”
[By the way,—Is it lawful to suppose that _they did not know_ that
“Jechonias” here represents two different persons?])—On the other hand,
(4) “_Amos_” probably,—“_Asaph_” certainly,—are corrupt exhibitions of
“Amon” and “Asa:” and, if noticed at all, should have been introduced to
the reader’s notice with the customary formula, “some ancient
authorities,” &c.—To proceed—(5), Why substitute “Immanuel” (for
“Emmanuel”) in ver. 23,—only to have to state in the margin that S.
Matthew writes it “_Emmanuel_”? By strict parity of reasoning, against
“Naphtali” (in ch. iv. 13, 15), the Revisionists ought to have written
“Gr. _Nephthaleim_.”—And (6), If this is to be the rule, then why are we
not told that “Mary is in ‘Gr. _Mariam_’ ”? and why is not Zacharias
written “_Zachariah_”?... But (to conclude),—What is the object of all
this officiousness? and (its unavoidable adjunct) all this inconsistency?
Has the spelling of the 42 names been revolutionized, in order to sever
with the Past and to make “a fresh departure”? Or were the four marginal
notes added _only for the sake of obtaining, by a side-wind, the
(apparent) sanction of the Church_ to the preposterous notion that “Asa”
was written “_Asaph_” by the Evangelist—in conformity with six MSS. of bad
character, but in defiance of History, documentary Evidence, and internal
Probability? Canon Cook [pp. 23-24] has some important remarks on this.

X. We must needs advert again to the ominous admission made in the
Revisionists’ _Preface_ (iii. 2 _init._), that to some extent they
recognized the duty of a “_rigid adherence to the rule of translating_, as
far as possible, the _same Greek word by the same English word_.” This
mistaken principle of theirs lies at the root of so much of the mischief
which has befallen the Authorized Version, that it calls for fuller
consideration at our hands than it has hitherto (viz. at pp. 138 and 152)
received.

The “Translators” of 1611, towards the close of their long and quaint
Address “to the Reader,” offer the following statement concerning what had
been their own practice:—“We have not _tied ourselves_” (say they) “_to an
uniformity of phrasing, or to an identity of words_, as some peradventure
would wish that we had done.” On this, they presently enlarge. We have
been “especially careful,” have even “made a conscience,” “not to vary
from the sense of that which we had translated before, if the word
signified the same thing in both places.” But then, (as they shrewdly
point out in passing,) “_there be some words that be not of the __ same
sense everywhere_.” And had this been the sum of their avowal, no one with
a spark of Taste, or with the least appreciation of what constitutes real
Scholarship, would have been found to differ from them. Nay, even when
they go on to explain that they have not thought it desirable to insist on
invariably expressing “the same notion” by employing “the same particular
word;”—(which they illustrate by instancing terms which, in their account,
may with advantage be diversely rendered in different places;)—we are
still disposed to avow ourselves of their mind. “If” (say they,) “we
translate the Hebrew or Greek word once _purpose_, never to call it
_intent_; if one where _journeying_, never _travelling_; if one where
_think_, never _suppose_; if one where _pain_, never _ache_; if one where
_joy_, never _gladness_;—thus to mince the matter, we thought to savour
more of curiosity than of wisdom.” And yet it is plain that a different
principle is here indicated from that which went before. The remark “that
niceness in words was always counted the next step to trifling,” suggests
that, in the Translators’ opinion, it matters little _which_ word, in the
several pairs of words they instance, is employed; and that, for their own
parts, they rather rejoice in the ease and freedom which an ample
vocabulary supplies to a Translator of Holy Scripture. Here also however,
as already hinted, we are disposed to go along with them. Rhythm, subtle
associations of thought, proprieties of diction which are rather to be
felt than analysed,—any of such causes may reasonably determine a
Translator to reject “purpose,” “journey,” “think,” “pain,” “joy,”—in
favour of “intent,” “travel,” “suppose,” “ache,” “gladness.”

But then it speedily becomes evident that, at the bottom of all this,
there existed in the minds of the Revisionists of 1611 a profound (shall
we not rather say a _prophetic_?) consciousness, that the fate of the
English Language itself was bound up with the fate of their Translation.
_Hence_ their reluctance to incur the responsibility of tying themselves
“to an uniformity of phrasing, or to an identity of words.” We should be
liable to censure (such is their plain avowal), “if we should say, as it
were, unto certain words, Stand up higher, have a place in the Bible
always; and to others of like quality, Get you hence, be banished for
ever.” But this, to say the least, is to introduce a distinct and a
somewhat novel consideration. We would not be thought to deny that there
is some—perhaps a great deal—of truth in it: but by this time we seem to
have entirely shifted our ground. And we more than suspect that, if a jury
of English scholars of the highest mark could be impanelled to declare
their mind on the subject thus submitted to their judgment, there would be
practical unanimity among them in declaring, that these learned men,—with
whom all would avow hearty sympathy, and whose taste and skill all would
eagerly acknowledge,—have occasionally pushed the license they enunciate
so vigorously, a little—perhaps a great deal—too far. For ourselves, we
are glad to be able to subscribe cordially to the sentiment on this head
expressed by the author of the _Preface_ of 1881:


    “They seem”—(he says, speaking of the Revisionists of 1611)—“to
    have been guided by the feeling that their Version would secure
    for the words they used a lasting place in the language; and they
    express a fear lest they should ‘be charged (by scoffers) with
    some unequal dealing towards a great number of good English
    words,’ which, without this liberty on their part, would not have
    a place in the pages of the English Bible. Still it cannot be
    doubted that their studied avoidance of uniformity in the
    rendering of the same words, even when occurring in the same
    context, is one of the blemishes in their work.”—_Preface_, (i.
    2).


Yes, it cannot be doubted. When S. Paul, in a long and familiar passage (2
Cor. i. 3-7), is observed studiously to linger over the same word
(παράκλησις namely, which is generally rendered “_comfort_”);—to harp upon
it;—to reproduce it _ten times_ in the course of those five verses;—it
seems unreasonable that a Translator, as if in defiance of the Apostle,
should on four occasions (viz. when the word comes back for the 6th, 7th,
9th, and 10th times), for “_comfort_” substitute “_consolation_.” And this
one example may serve as well as a hundred. It would really seem as if the
Revisionists of 1611 had considered it a graceful achievement to vary the
English phrase even on occasions where a marked identity of expression
characterizes the original Greek. When we find them turning “goodly
apparel,” (in S. James ii. 2,) into “gay clothing,” (in ver. 3,)—we can
but conjecture that they conceived themselves at liberty to act exactly as
S. James himself would (possibly) have acted had he been writing English.

But if the learned men who gave us our A. V. may be thought to have erred
on the side of excess, there can be no doubt whatever, (at least among
competent judges,) that our Revisionists have sinned far more grievously
and with greater injury to the Deposit, by their slavish proclivity to the
opposite form of error. We must needs speak out plainly: for the question
before us is not, What defects are discoverable in our Authorized
Version?—but, What amount of gain would be likely to accrue to the Church
if the present Revision were accepted as a substitute? And we assert
without hesitation, that the amount of certain loss would so largely
outweigh the amount of possible gain, that the proposal may not be
seriously entertained for a moment. As well on grounds of Scholarship and
Taste, as of Textual Criticism (as explained at large in our former
Article), the work before us is immensely inferior. To speak plainly, it
is an utter failure.

XI. For the respected Authors of it practically deny the truth of the
principle enunciated by their predecessors of 1611, viz. that “_there be
some words that be not of the same sense everywhere_.” On such a
fundamental truism we are ashamed to enlarge: but it becomes necessary
that we should do so. We proceed to illustrate, by two familiar
instances,—the first which come to hand,—the mischievous result which is
inevitable to an enforced uniformity of rendering.

(_a_) The verb αἰτεῖν confessedly means “to ask.” And perhaps no better
general English equivalent could be suggested for it. But then, _in a
certain context_, “ask” would be an inadequate rendering: in another, it
would be improper: in a third, it would be simply intolerable. Of all
this, the great Scholars of 1611 showed themselves profoundly conscious.
Accordingly, when this same verb (in the middle voice) is employed to
describe how the clamorous rabble, besieging Pilate, claimed their
accustomed privilege, (viz. to have the prisoner of their choice released
unto them,) those ancient men, with a fine instinct, retain Tyndale’s
rendering “_desired_”(569) in S. Mark (xv. 8),—and his “_required_” in S.
Luke (xxiii. 23).—When, however, the humble entreaty, which Joseph of
Arimathea addressed to the same Pilate (viz. that he might be allowed to
take away the Body of JESUS), is in question, then the same Scholars
(following Tyndale and Cranmer), with the same propriety exhibit
“_begged_.”—King David, inasmuch as he only “_desired_ to find a
habitation for the GOD of Jacob,” of course may not be said to have
“_asked_” to do so; and yet S. Stephen (Acts vii. 46) does not hesitate to
employ the verb ᾐτήσατο.—So again, when they of Tyre and Sidon approached
Herod whom they had offended: they did but “_desire_” peace.(570)—S. Paul,
in like manner, addressing the Ephesians: “I _desire_ that ye faint not at
my tribulations for you.”(571)

But our Revisionists,—possessed with the single idea that αἰτεῖν means “to
_ask_” and αἰτεῖσθαι “to _ask for_,”—have proceeded mechanically to
inflict that rendering on every one of the foregoing passages. In defiance
of propriety,—of reason,—even (in David’s case) of historical
truth,(572)—they have thrust in “_asked_” everywhere. At last, however,
they are encountered by two places which absolutely refuse to submit to
such iron bondage. The terror-stricken jailer of Philippi, when _he_
“asked” for lights, must needs have done so after a truly imperious
fashion. Accordingly, the “_called for_”(573) of Tyndale and all
subsequent translators, is _pro hâc vice_ allowed by our Revisionists to
stand. And to conclude,—When S. Paul, speaking of his supplications on
behalf of the Christians at Colosse, uses this same verb (αἰτούμενοι) in a
context where “_to ask_” would be intolerable, our Revisionists render the
word “_to make request_;”(574)—though they might just as well have let
alone the rendering of _all_ their predecessors,—viz. “_to desire_.”

These are many words, but we know not how to make them fewer. Let this one
example, (only because it is the first which presented itself,) stand for
a thousand others. Apart from the grievous lack of Taste (not to say of
Scholarship) which such a method betrays,—_who_ sees not that the only
excuse which could have been invented for it has disappeared by the time
we reach the end of our investigation? If αἰτέω, αἰτοῦμαι had been
_invariably_ translated “ask,” “ask for,” it might at least have been
pretended that “the English Reader is in this way put entirely on a level
with the Greek Scholar;”—though it would have been a vain pretence, as all
must admit who understand the power of language. _Once_ make it apparent
that just in a single place, perhaps in two, the Translator found himself
forced to break through his rigid uniformity of rendering,—and _what_
remains but an uneasy suspicion that then there must have been a strain
put on the Evangelists’ meaning in a vast proportion of the other seventy
places where αἰτεῖν occurs? An unlearned reader’s confidence in his guide
vanishes; and he finds that he has had not a few deflections from the
Authorized Version thrust upon him, of which he reasonably questions alike
the taste and the necessity,—_e.g._ at S. Matth. xx. 20.

(_b_) But take a more interesting example. In S. Mark i. 18, the A. V.
has, “and straightway they _forsook_” (which the Revisionists alter into
“_left_”) “their nets.” Why? Because in verse 20, the same word ἀφέντες
will recur; and because the Revisionists propose to let the statement
(“they _left_ their father Zebedee”) stand. They “level up” accordingly;
and plume themselves on their consistency.

We venture to point out, however, that the verb ἀφιέναι is one of a large
family of verbs which,—always retaining their own essential
signification,—yet depend for their English rendering entirely on the
context in which they occur. Thus, ἀφιέναι is rightly rendered “_to
suffer_,” in S. Matth. iii. 15;—“_to leave_,” in iv. 11;—“_to let have_,”
in v. 40;—“_to forgive_,” in vi. 12, 14, 15;—“_to let_,” in vii. 4;—“_to
yield up_,” in xxvii. 50;—“_to let go_,” in S. Mark xi. 6;—“_to let
alone_,” in xiv. 6. Here then, by the admission of the Revisionists, are
eight diversities of meaning in the same word. But they make the admission
grudgingly; and, in order to render ἀφιέναι as often as possible
“_leave_,” they do violence to many a place of Scripture where some other
word would have been more appropriate. Thus “_laying aside_” might have
stood in S. Mark vii. 8. “_Suffered_” (or “let”) was preferable in S. Luke
xii. 39. And, (to return to the place from which we started,) in S. Mark
i. 18, “forsook” was better than “left.” And why? Because men “_leave_
their father,” (as the Collect for S. James’s Day bears witness); but
“_forsake_ all covetous desires” (as the Collect for S. Matthew’s Day
aptly attests). For which reason,—“And they all _forsook_ Him” was
infinitely preferable to “and they all _left_ Him, and fled,” in S. Mark
xiv. 50. We insist that a vast deal more is lost by this perpetual
disregard of the idiomatic proprieties of the English language, than is
gained by a pedantic striving after uniformity of rendering, only because
the Greek word happens to be the same.

For it is sure sometimes to happen that what seems mere licentiousness
proves on closer inspection to be unobtrusive Scholarship of the best
kind. An illustration presents itself in connection with the word just now
before us. It is found to have been our SAVIOUR’S practice to “_send
away_” the multitude whom He had been feeding or teaching, in some formal
manner,—whether with an act of solemn benediction, or words of
commendatory prayer, or both. Accordingly, on the memorable occasion when,
at the close of a long day of superhuman exertion, His bodily powers
succumbed, and the Disciples were fain to take Him “as He was” in the
ship, and at once He “fell asleep;”—on that solitary occasion, _the
Disciples_ are related to have “_sent away_ the multitudes,”—_i.e._ to
have formally dismissed them on His behalf, as they had often seen their
Master do. The word employed to designate this practice on two memorable
occasions is ἀπολύειν:(575) on the other two, ἀφιέναι.(576) This proves to
have been perfectly well understood as well by the learned authors of the
Latin Version of the N. T., as by the scholars who translated the Gospels
into the vernacular of Palestine. It has been reserved for the boasted
learning of the XIXth century to misunderstand this little circumstance
entirely. The R. V. renders S. Matth. xiii. 36,—not “Then JESUS _sent the
multitude away_” (“_dimissis turbis_” in every Latin copy,) but—“Then He
_left_ the multitudes.” Also S. Mark iv. 36,—not “And when they had _sent
away the multitude_,” (which the Latin always renders “_et dimittentes
turbam_,”) but—“And _leaving_ the multitude.” Would it be altogether
creditable, we respectfully ask, if at the end of 1800 years the Church of
England were to put forth with authority such specimens of “Revision” as
these?

(_c_) We will trouble our Readers with yet another illustration of the
principle for which we are contending.—We are soon made conscious that
there has been a fidgetty anxiety on the part of the Revisionists,
everywhere to substitute “_maid_” for “_damsel_” as the rendering of
παιδίσκη. It offends us. “A damsel named Rhoda,”(577)—and the “damsel
possessed with a spirit of divination,”(578)—might (we think) have been
let alone. But out of curiosity we look further, to see what these
gentlemen will do when they come to S. Luke xii. 45. Here, because παῖδας
has been (properly) rendered “menservants,” παιδίσκας, they (not
unreasonably) render “_maid-servants_,”—whereby _they break their rule_.
The crucial place is behind. What will they do with the Divine “Allegory”
in Galatians, (iv. 21 to 31,)—where all turns on the contrast(579) between
the παιδίσκη and the ἐλευθέρα,—the fact that Hagar was a “_bondmaid_”
whereas Sarah was a “_free woman_”? “Maid” clearly could not stand here.
“Maid-servant” would be intolerable. What is to be done? The Revisionists
adopt _a third_ variety of reading,—_thus surrendering their principle
entirely_. And what reader with a spark of taste, (we confidently ask the
question,) does not resent their substitution of “_handmaid_” for
“bondmaid” throughout these verses? _Who_ will deny that the mention of
“_bondage_” in verses 24 and 25 claims, at the hands of an intelligent
English translator, that he shall avail himself of the admirable and
helpful equivalent for παιδίσκη which, as it happens, the English language
possesses? More than that. _Who_—(except one who is himself “in
bondage—with his children”)—_who_ does not respond gratefully to the
exquisite taste and tact with which “_bondmaid_” itself has been exchanged
for “_bondwoman_” by our translators of 1611, in verses 23, 30 and 31?...
Verily, those men understood their craft! “There were giants in those
days.” As little would they submit to be bound by the new cords of the
Philistines as by their green withes. Upon occasion, they could shake
themselves free from either. And why? For the selfsame reason: viz.
because the SPIRIT of their GOD was mightily upon them.

Our contention, so far, has been but this,—that it does not by any means
follow that identical Greek words and expressions, _wherever occurring_,
are to be rendered by identical words and expressions in English. We
desire to pass on to something of more importance.

Let it not be supposed that we make light of the difficulties which our
Revisionists have had to encounter; or are wanting in generous
appreciation of the conscientious toil of many men for many years; or that
we overlook the perils of the enterprise in which they have seen fit to
adventure their reputation. If ever a severe expression escapes us, it is
because our Revisionists themselves seem to have so very imperfectly
realized the responsibility of their undertaking, and the peculiar
difficulties by which it is unavoidably beset. The truth is,—as all who
have given real thought to the subject must be aware,—the phenomena of
Language are among the most subtle and delicate imaginable: the problem of
Translation, one of the most manysided and difficult that can be named.
And if this holds universally, in how much greater a degree when the book
to be translated is THE BIBLE! Here, anything like a mechanical _levelling
up_ of terms, every attempt to impose a pre-arranged system of uniform
rendering on words,—every one of which has a history and (so to speak) _a
will_ of its own,—is inevitably destined to result in discomfiture and
disappointment. But what makes this so very serious a matter is that,
because HOLY SCRIPTURE is the Book experimented upon, the loftiest
interests that can be named become imperilled; and it will constantly
happen that what is not perhaps in itself a very serious mistake may yet
inflict irreparable injury. We subjoin an humble illustration of our
meaning—the rather, because it will afford us an opportunity for
penetrating a little deeper into the proprieties of Scriptural
Translation:—

(_d_) The place of our LORD’S Burial, which is mentioned upwards of 30
times in the Gospels, is styled in the original, μνημεῖον. This
appellation is applied to it three times by S. Matthew;—six times by S.
Mark;—eight times by S. Luke;(580)—eleven times by S. John. Only on four
occasions, in close succession, does the first Evangelist call it by
another name, viz. τάφος.(581) King James’s translators (following Tyndale
and Cranmer) decline to notice this diversity, and uniformly style it the
“_sepulchre_.” So long as it belonged to Joseph of Arimathea, they call it
a “tomb” (Matth. xxvii. 60): when once it has been appropriated by “the
LORD of Glory,” _in the same verse_ they give it a different English
appellation. But our Revisionists of 1881, as if bent on “making a fresh
departure,” _everywhere_ substitute “_tomb_” for “sepulchre” as the
rendering of μνημεῖον.

Does any one ask,—And why should they _not_? We answer, Because, in
connection with “_the Sepulchre_” of our LORD, there has grown up such an
ample literature and such a famous history, that we are no longer _able_
to sever ourselves from those environments of the problem, even if we
desired to do so. In all such cases as the present, we have to balance the
Loss against the Gain. Quite idle is it for the pedant of 1881 to insist
that τάφος and μνημεῖον are two different words. We do not dispute the
fact. (Then, if he _must_, let him represent τάφος in some other way.) It
remains true, notwithstanding, that the receptacle of our SAVIOUR’S Body
after His dissolution will have to be spoken of as “_the Holy Sepulchre_”
till the end of time; and it is altogether to be desired that its familiar
designation should be suffered to survive unmolested on the eternal page,
in consequence. There are, after all, mightier laws in the Universe than
those of grammar. In the quaint language of our Translators of 1611: “For
is the Kingdom of GOD become words or syllables? Why should we be in
bondage to them if we may be free?”... As for considerations of
etymological propriety, the nearest English equivalent for μνημεῖον (be it
remembered) is _not_ “tomb,” but “_monument_.”

(_e_) Our Revisionists seem not to be aware that 270 years of undisturbed
possession have given to certain words rights to which they could not else
have pretended, but of which it is impossible any more to dispossess them.
It savours of folly as well as of pedantry even to make the attempt.
Διδαχή occurs 30,—διδασκαλία 21 times,—in the N. T. Etymologically, both
words alike mean “_teaching_;” and are therefore indifferently rendered
“_doctrina_” in the Vulgate,(582)—for which reason, “_doctrine_”
represents both words indifferently in our A. V.(583) But the Revisers
have well-nigh extirpated “DOCTRINE” from the N. T.: (1st), By making
“_teaching_,” the rendering of διδαχή,(584)—(reserving “_doctrine_” for
διδασκαλία(585)): and (2ndly), By 6 times substituting “_teaching_” (once,
“_learning_”) for “_doctrine_,” in places where διδασκαλία occurs.(586)
This is to be lamented every way. The word cannot be spared so often. The
“_teachings_” of our LORD and of His Apostles were _the _“doctrines”_ of
Christianity_. When S. Paul speaks of “the _doctrine_ of baptisms” (Heb.
vi. 2), it is simply incomprehensible to us why “the _teaching_ of
baptisms” should be deemed a preferable expression. And if the warning
against being “carried about with every wind of _doctrine_,” may stand in
Ephes. iv. 14, why may it not be left standing in Heb. xiii. 9?

(_f_) In the same spirit, we can but wonder at the extravagant bad taste
which, at the end of 500 years, has ventured to substitute “_bowls_” for
“vials” in the Book of Revelation.(587) As a matter of fact, we venture to
point out that φιάλη no more means “_a bowl_” than “saucer” means “a cup.”
But, waiving this, we are confident that our Revisers would have shown
more wisdom if they had _let alone_ a word which, having no English
equivalent, has passed into the sacred vocabulary of the language, and has
acquired a conventional signification which will cleave to it for ever.
“_Vials of wrath_” are understood to signify the outpouring of GOD’S
wrathful visitations on mankind: whereas “bowls” really conveys no meaning
at all, except a mean and unworthy, not to say an inconveniently ambiguous
one. What must be the impression made on persons of very humble
station,—labouring-men,—when they hear of “the seven Angels that had _the
seven bowls_”? (Rev. xvii. 1.) The φιάλη,—if we must needs talk like
Antiquaries—is a circular, almost flat and very shallow vessel,—of which
the contents can be discharged in an instant. It was used in pouring out
libations. There is, at that back of it, in the centre, a hollow for the
first joint of the forefinger to rest in. _Patera_ the Latins called it.
Specimens are to be seen in abundance.

The same Revisionists have also fallen foul of the “alabaster _box_ of
ointment.”—for which they have substituted “an alabaster _cruse_ of
ointment.”(588) But what _is_ a “cruse”? Their marginal note says, “Or,
‘_a flask_:’ ” but once more, what _is_ “a flask”? Certainly, the
receptacles to which that name is now commonly applied, (_e.g._ a
powder-flask, a Florence flask, a flask of wine, &c.) bear no resemblance
whatever to the vase called ἀλάβαστρον. The probability is that the
receptacle for the precious ointment with which the sister of Lazarus
provided herself, was likest of all to a small medicine-bottle (_lecythus_
the ancients called it), made however of alabaster. Specimens of it
abound. But why not let such words alone? The same Critics have had the
good sense to leave standing “the bag,” for what was confessedly a
_box_(589) (S. John xii. 6: xiii. 29); and “your purses” for what in the
Greek is unmistakably “your _girdles_”(590) (S. Matth. x. 9). We can but
repeat that possession for _five centuries_ conveys rights which it is
always useless, and sometimes dangerous, to dispute. “Vials” will
certainly have to be put back into the Apocalypse.

(_g_) Having said so much about the proposed rendering of such unpromising
vocables as μνημεῖον—διδαχή—φιάλη, it is time to invite the Reader’s
attention to the calamitous fate which has befallen certain other words of
infinitely greater importance.

And first for Ἀγάπη—a substantive noun unknown to the heathen, even as the
sentiment which the word expresses proves to be a grace of purely
Christian growth. What else but a real calamity would be the sentence of
perpetual banishment passed by our Revisionists on “that most excellent
gift, the gift of _Charity_,” and the general substitution of “Love” in
its place? Do not these learned men perceive that “Love” is not an
equivalent term? Can they require to be told that, because of S. Paul’s
exquisite and life-like portrait of “CHARITY,” and the use which has been
made of the word in sacred literature in consequence, it has come to pass
that the word “_Charity_” connotes many ideas to which the word “Love” is
an entire stranger? that “Love,” on the contrary, has come to connote many
unworthy notions which in “_Charity_” find no place at all? And if this be
so, how can our Revisionists expect that we shall endure the loss of the
name of the very choicest of the Christian graces,—and which, if it is
nowhere to be found in Scripture, will presently come to be only
traditionally known among mankind, and will in the end cease to be a term
clearly understood? Have the Revisionists of 1881 considered how firmly
this word “_Charity_” has established itself in the phraseology of the
Church,—ancient, mediæval, modern,—as well as in our Book of Common
Prayer? how thoroughly it has vindicated for itself the right of
citizenship in the English language? how it has entered into our common
vocabulary, and become one of the best understood of “household words”? Of
what can they have been thinking when they deliberately obliterated from
the thirteenth chapter of S. Paul’s 1st Epistle to the Corinthians the
ninefold recurrence of the name of “that most excellent gift, the gift of
CHARITY”?

(_h_) With equal displeasure, but with even sadder feelings, we recognize
in the present Revision a resolute elimination of “MIRACLES” from the N.
T.—Not so, (we shall be eagerly reminded,) but only of their _Name_. True,
but the two perforce go together, as every thoughtful man knows. At all
events, the getting rid of _the Name_,—(except in the few instances which
are enumerated below,)—will in the account of millions be regarded as the
getting rid of _the thing_. And in the esteem of all, learned and
unlearned alike, the systematic obliteration of the signifying word from
the pages of that Book to which we refer exclusively for our knowledge of
the remarkable thing signified,—cannot but be looked upon as a memorable
and momentous circumstance. Some, it may be, will be chiefly struck by the
foolishness of the proceeding: for at the end of centuries of familiarity
with such a word, we are no longer _able_ to part company with it, even if
we were inclined. The term has struck root firmly in our Literature: has
established itself in the terminology of Divines: has grown into our
common speech. But further, even were it possible to get rid of the words
“Miracle” and “Miraculous,” what else but abiding inconvenience would be
the result? for we must still desire to speak about _the things_; and it
is a truism to remark that there are no other words in the language which
connote the same ideas. What therefore has been gained by substituting
“_sign_” for “_miracle_” on some 19 or 20 occasions—(“this beginning of
_his signs_ did JESUS,”—“this is again the _second sign_ that JESUS
did”)—we really fail to see.

That the word in the original is σημεῖον, and that σημεῖον means “a sign,”
we are aware. But what then? Because ἄγγελος, in strictness, means “a
messenger,”—γραφή, “a writing,”—ὑποκριτής, “an actor,”—ἐκκλησία, “an
assembly,”—εὐαγγέλιον, “good tidings,”—ἐπίσκοπος, “an
overseer,”—βαπτιστής, “one that dips,”—παράδεισος, “a garden,”—μαθητής, “a
learner,”—χἁρις, “favour:”—are we to forego the established English
equivalents for these words, and never more to hear of “grace,”
“disciple,” “Paradise,” “Baptist,” “Bishop,” “Gospel,” “Church,”
“hypocrite,” “Scripture,” “Angel”? Is it then desired to revolutionize our
sacred terminology? or at all events to sever with the Past, and to
translate the Scriptures into English on etymological principles? We are
amazed that the first proposal to resort to such a preposterous method was
not instantly scouted by a large majority of those who frequented the
Jerusalem Chamber.

The words under consideration are not only not equivalent, but they are
quite dissimilar. All “_signs_” are not “_Miracles_,”(591) though all
“_Miracles_” are undeniably “_signs_.” Would not a marginal annotation
concerning the original word, as at S. Luke xxiii. 8, have sufficed? And
_why_ was the term “_Miracle_” as the rendering of σημεῖον(592) spared
only on _that_ occasion in the Gospels; and _only_ in connection with S.
Peter’s miracle of healing the impotent man, in the Acts?(593) We ask the
question not caring for an answer. We are merely bent on submitting to our
Readers, whether,—especially in an age like the present of wide-spread
unbelief in the Miraculous,—it was a judicious proceeding in our
Revisionists almost everywhere to substitute “Sign” for “Miracle” as the
rendering of σημεῖον.

(_i_) Every bit as offensive, in its way, is a marginal note respecting
the Third Person in the Trinity, which does duty at S. Matth. i. 18: S.
Mark i. 8: S. Luke i. 15: Acts i. 2: Rom. v. 5: Heb. ii. 4. As a rule, in
short, against every fresh first mention of “the HOLY GHOST,” five lines
are punctually devoted to the remark,—“_Or_, Holy Spirit: _and so
throughout this book_.” Now, as Canon Cook very fairly puts the case,—


    “Does this imply that the marginists object to the word ‘GHOST’?
    If so, it must be asked, On what grounds? Certainly not as an
    archaism. The word is in every Churchman’s mouth continually. For
    the sake of consistency? But Dr. Vance Smith complains bitterly of
    the _inconsistency_ of his colleagues in reference to this very
    question,—see his _Texts and Margins_, pp. 7, 8, 45. I would not
    suggest a doctrinal bias: but to prove that it had no influence, a
    strong, if not unanimous, declaration on the part of the Revisers
    is called for. Dr. Vance Smith alleges this notice as one of the
    clearest proofs that the Revisers ought in consistency to discard
    the word as ‘_a poor and almost obsolete_ equivalent for
    Spirit.’ ”(594)


But in fact when one of the Revisionists openly claims, on behalf of the
Revision, that “in the most substantial sense,” (whatever _that_ may
happen to mean,) it is “contrary to fact” “that the doctrines of popular
Theology remain unaffected, untouched by the results of the
Revision,”(595)—Charity itself is constrained to use language which by a
certain school will be deemed uncharitable. If doctrinal prepossession had
no share in the production under review,—why is no protest publicly put
forth against such language as the foregoing, when employed by a
conspicuous Member of the Revisionist body?

(_j_) In a similar spirit to that which dictated our remarks on the
attempted elimination of “_Miracles_” from the N. T. of the future,—we
altogether disapprove of the attempt to introduce “is _Epileptic_,” as the
rendering of σεληνιάζεται, in S. Matth. xvii. 15. The miracle performed on
“_the lunatic child_” may never more come abroad under a different name.
In a matter like this, 500 years of occupation, (or rather 1700, for
“_lunaticus_” is the reading of all the Latin copies,) constitute a title
which may not be disputed. “EPILEPTIC” is a sorry _gloss_—not a
translation. Even were it demonstrable that Epilepsy exclusively exhibits
every feature related in connection with the present case;(596) and that
sufferers from Epilepsy are specially affected by the moon’s changes,
(neither of which things are _certainly_ true): even so, the Revisionists
would be wholly unwarranted in doing violence to the Evangelist’s
language, in order to bring into prominence their own private opinion that
what is called “_Lunacy_” here (and in ch. iv. 24) is to be identified
with the ordinary malady called “Epilepsy.” This was confessedly an
extraordinary case of _demoniacal possession_(597) besides. The
Revisionists have in fact gone out of their way in order to introduce us
to a set of difficulties with which before we had no acquaintance. And
after all, the English reader desires to know—_not_, by any means, what
two-thirds of the Revisionists _conjecture_ was the matter with the child,
but—_what the child’s Father actually said_ was the matter with him. Now,
the Father undeniably did _not_ say that the child was “Epileptic,” but
that he was “_Lunatic_.” The man employed a term which (singular to
relate) has its own precise English equivalent;—a term which embodies to
this hour (as it did anciently) the popular belief that the moon
influences certain forms of disease. With the advance of Science,
civilized nations surrender such Beliefs; but they do not _therefore_
revolutionize their Terminology. “The advance of Science,” however, has
nothing whatever to do with _the Translation of the word_ before us. The
Author of this particular rendering (begging his pardon) is open to a
process “_de lunatico inquirendo_” for having imagined the contrary.

(_k_) The foregoing instances suggest the remark, that the Ecclesiastical
Historian of future years will point with concern to the sad evidences
that the Church had fallen on evil days when the present Revision was
undertaken. With fatal fidelity does it, every here and there, reflect the
sickly hues of “modern Thought,” which is too often but another name for
the latest phase of Unfaithfulness. Thus, in view of the present
controversy about the Eternity of Future Punishment, which has brought
into prominence a supposed distinction between the import of the epithets
“ETERNAL” and “EVERLASTING,”—how painful is it to discover that the latter
epithet, (which is the one objected to by the unbelieving school,) has
been by our Revisionists diligently excluded(598) _every time it occurs_
as the translation of αἰώνιος, in favour of the more palatable epithel
“eternal”! King James’s Translators showed themselves impartial to a
fault. As if to mark that, in their account, the words are of identical
import, they even introduced _both words into the same verse_(599) of
Scripture. Is it fair that such a body of men as the Revisionists of 1881,
claiming the sanction of the Convocation of the Southern Province, should,
in a matter like the present, throw all their weight into the scale of
Misbelief? They were authorized only to remove “plain and clear _errors_.”
They were instructed to introduce “as few changes _as possible_.” Why have
they needlessly gone out of their way, on the contrary, indirectly to show
their sympathy with those who deny what has been the Church’s teaching for
1800 years? Our Creeds, Te Deum, Litany, Offices, Articles,—our whole
Prayer Book, breathes a different spirit and speaks a different
language.... Have our Revisionists persuaded the Old Testament company to
follow their example? It will be calamitous if they _have_. There will be
serious discrepancy of teaching between the Old and the New Testament if
they have _not_.

(_l_) What means also the fidgetty anxiety manifested throughout these
pages to explain away, or at least to evacuate, expressions which have to
do with ETERNITY? _Why_, for example, is “the _world_ (αἰών) to come,”
invariably glossed “the _age_ to come”? and εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας so
persistently explained in the margin to mean, “_unto the ages_”? (See the
margin of Rom. ix. 5. Are we to read “GOD blessed _unto the ages_”?) Also
εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων, “_unto the ages of the ages_”? Surely we,
whose language furnishes expressions of precisely similar character (viz.
“for ever,” and “for ever and ever”), might dispense with information hazy
and unprofitable as this!

(_m_) Again. At a period of prevailing unbelief in the INSPIRATION of
Scripture, nothing but real necessity could warrant any meddling with such
a testimony on the subject as is found in 2 Tim. iii. 16. We have hitherto
been taught to believe that “_All Scripture is given by inspiration of_
GOD and is profitable,” &c. The ancients(600) clearly so understood S.
Paul’s words: and so do the most learned and thoughtful of the moderns.
Πᾶσα γραφή, even if it be interpreted “every Scripture,” can only mean
every portion of those ἱερὰ γράμματα of which the Apostle had been
speaking in the previous verse; and therefore must needs signify _the
whole of Scripture_.(601) So that the expression “_all Scripture_”
expresses S. Paul’s meaning exactly, and should not have been disturbed.

But—“It is very difficult” (so at least thinks the Right Rev. Chairman of
the Revisers) “to decide whether θεόπνευστος is a part of the predicate,
καί being the simple copula; or whether it is a part of the subject.
Lexicography and grammar contribute but little to a decision.” Not so
thought Bishop Middleton. “I do not recollect” (he says) “any passage in
the N. T. in which two Adjectives, apparently connected by the copulative,
were intended by the writer to be so unnaturally disjoined. He who can
produce such an instance, will do much towards establishing the
plausibility of a translation, which otherwise must appear, to say the
least of it, to be forced and improbable.”—And yet it is proposed to
thrust this “forced and improbable” translation on the acceptance of all
English-speaking people, wherever found, on the plea of _necessity_! Our
Revisionists translate, “Every Scripture inspired of GOD _is also
profitable_,” &c.,—which of course may be plausibly declared to imply that
a distinction is drawn by the Apostle himself between inspired and
uninspired Scripture. And pray, (we should be presently asked,) is not
many a Scripture (or writing) “profitable for teaching,” &c. which is
_not_ commonly held to be “inspired of GOD”?... But in fact the proposed
rendering is inadmissible, being without logical coherence and
consistency. The utmost that could be pretended would be that S. Paul’s
assertion is that “every portion of Scripture _being inspired_” (_i.e._
inasmuch as it is—because it is—inspired); “is _also_ profitable,” &c.
Else there would be no meaning in the καί. But, in the name of common
sense, if this be so, _why_ have the blessed words been meddled with?

(_n_) All are unhappily familiar with the avidity with which the disciples
of a certain School fasten upon a mysterious expression in S. Mark’s
Gospel (xiii. 32), which seems to predicate concerning the Eternal SON,
limitation in respect of Knowledge. This is not the place for vindicating
the Catholic Doctrine of the SON’S “equality with the FATHER as touching
His GODhead;” or for explaining that, in consequence, all things that the
FATHER hath, (_the knowledge of _“that Day and Hour”_ included_,) the SON
hath likewise.(602) But this is the place for calling attention to the
deplorable circumstance that the clause “_neither the_ SON,” which has an
indisputable right to its place in S. Mark’s Gospel, has on insufficient
authority by our Revisionists been thrust into S. Matth. xxvi. 36, where
it has no business whatever, and from which the word “only” effectually
excludes it.(603) We call attention to this circumstance with sincere
sorrow: but it is sorrow largely mixed with indignation. What else but the
betrayal of a sacred trust is it when Divines appointed to correct
manifest errors in _the English_ of the N. T. go out of their way to
introduce an error like this into the _Greek_ Text which Catholic
Antiquity would have repudiated with indignation, and for which certainly
the plea of “necessity” cannot be pretended?

(_o_) A MARGINAL ANNOTATION set over against Romans ix. 5 is the last
thing of this kind to which we shall invite attention. S. Paul declares it
to be Israel’s highest boast and glory that of them, “as concerning the
flesh [came] CHRIST, _who is over all_ [things], GOD_ blessed for ever_!
Amen.” A grander or more unequivocal testimony to our LORD’S eternal
GODhead is nowhere to be found in Scripture. Accordingly, these words have
been as confidently appealed to by faithful Doctors of the Church in every
age, as they have been unsparingly assailed by unbelievers. The dishonest
shifts by which the latter seek to evacuate the record which they are
powerless to refute or deny, are paraded by our ill-starred Revisionists
in the following terms:—


    “Some modern Interpreters place a full stop after _flesh_, and
    translate, _He who is God over all be (is) blessed for ever_: or,
    _He who is over all is God, blessed for ever_. Others punctuate,
    _flesh, who is over all. God be (is) blessed for ever._”


Now this is a matter,—let it be clearly observed,—which, (as Dr. Hort is
aware,) “belongs to _Interpretation_,—and _not to Textual
Criticism_.”(604) What business then has it in these pages at all? Is it
then the function of Divines appointed to revise the _Authorized Version_,
to give information to the 90 millions of English-speaking Christians
scattered throughout the world as to the unfaithfulness of “_some modern
Interpreters_”?(605) We have hitherto supposed that it was “_Ancient_
authorities” exclusively,—(whether “a few,” or “some,” or “many,”)—to
which we are invited to submit our judgment. How does it come to pass that
_the Socinian gloss_ on this grand text (Rom. ix. 5) has been brought into
such extraordinary prominence? Did our Revisionists consider that their
marginal note would travel to earth’s remotest verge,—give universal
currency to the view of “some modern Interpreters,”—and in the end “tell
it out among the heathen” also? We refer to
Manuscripts,—Versions,—Fathers: and what do we find? (1) It is
demonstrable that _the oldest __ Codices, besides the whole body of the
cursives_, know nothing about the method of “some modern
Interpreters.”(606)—(2) “There is absolutely not a shadow, _not a tittle
of evidence, in any of the ancient Versions_, to warrant what they
do.”(607)—(3) How then, about the old Fathers? for the sentiments of our
best modern Divines, as Pearson and Bull, we know by heart. We find that
the expression “_who is over all_ [things], GOD_ blessed for ever_” is
expressly acknowledged to refer to our SAVIOUR by the following 60
illustrious names:—

Irenæus,(608)—Hippolytus in 3 places,(609)—Origen,(610)—Malchion, in the
name of six of the Bishops at the Council of Antioch, A.D.
269,(611)—ps.-Dionysius Alex., twice,(612)—the _Constt.
App._,(613)—Athanasius in 6 places,(614)—Basil in 2 places,(615)—Didymus
in 5 places,(616)—Greg. Nyssen. in 5 places,(617)—Epiphanius in 5
places,(618)—Theodoras
Mops.,(619)—Methodius,(620)—Eustathius,(621)—Eulogius,
twice,(622)—Cæsarius, 3 times,(623)—Theophilus Alex.,
twice,(624)—Nestorius,(625)—Theodotus of Ancyra,(626)—Proclus,
twice,(627)—Severianus Bp. of Gabala,(628)—Chrysostom, 8 times,(629)—Cyril
Alex., 15 times,(630)—Paulus Bp. of Emesa,(631)—Theodoret, 12
times,(632)—Gennadius, Abp. of C. P.,(633)—Severus, Abp. of
Antioch,(634)—Amphilochius,(635)—Gelasius Cyz.,(636)—Anastasius
Ant.,(637)—Leontius Byz., 3 times,(638)—Maximus,(639)—J. Damascene, 3
times.(640) Besides of the Latins, Tertullian,
twice,(641)—Cyprian,(642)—Novatian, twice,(643)—Ambrose, 5
times,(644)—Palladius the Arian at the Council of Aquileia,(645)—Hilary, 7
times,(646)—Jerome, twice,(647)—Augustine, about 30
times,—Victorinus,(648)—the _Breviarium_, twice,(649)—Marius
Mercator,(650)—Cassian, twice,(651)—Alcimus Avit.,(652)—Fulgentius,
twice,(653)—Leo, Bp. of Rome, twice,(654)—Ferrandus,
twice,(655)—Facundus:(656)—to whom must be added 6 ancient writers, of
whom 3(657) have been mistaken for Athanasius,—and 3(658) for Chrysostom.
All these see in Rom. ix. 5, a glorious assertion of the eternal GODhead
of CHRIST.

Against such an overwhelming torrent of Patristic testimony,—for we have
enumerated _upwards of sixty_ ancient Fathers—it will not surely be
pretended that the Socinian interpretation, to which our Revisionists give
such prominence, can stand. But why has it been introduced _at all_? We
shall have every Christian reader with us in our contention, that such
perverse imaginations of “modern Interpreters” are not entitled to a place
in the margin of the N. T. For our Revisionists to have even given them
currency, and thereby a species of sanction, constitutes in our view a
very grave offence.(659) A public retraction and a very humble Apology we
claim at their hands. Indifferent Scholarship, and mistaken views of
Textual Criticism, are at least venial matters. But _a Socinian gloss
gratuitously thrust into the margin of every Englishman’s N. T._ admits of
no excuse—is not to be tolerated on _any_ terms. It would by itself, in
our account, have been sufficient to determine the fate of the present
Revision.

XII. Are we to regard it as a kind of _set-off_ against all that goes
before, that in an age when the personality of Satan is freely called in
question, “THE EVIL ONE” has been actually _thrust into the Lord’s
Prayer_? A more injudicious and unwarrantable innovation it would be
impossible to indicate in any part of the present unhappy volume. The case
has been argued out with much learning and ability by two eminent Divines,
Bp. Lightfoot and Canon Cook. The Canon remains master of the field. That
_the change ought never to have been made_ is demonstrable. The grounds of
this assertion are soon stated. To begin, (1) It is admitted on all hands
that it must for ever remain a matter of opinion only whether in the
expression ἀπὸ τοῦ πονηροῦ, the nominative case is τὸ πονηρόν (as in S.
Matth. v. 37, 39: Rom. xii. 9), or ὁ πονηρός (as in S. Matth. xiii. 19,
38: Eph. vi. 16),—either of which yields a good sense. But then—(2) The
Church of England in her formularies having emphatically declared that,
for her part, she adheres to the former alternative, it was in a very high
degree unbecoming for the Revisionists to pretend to the enjoyment of
_certain_ knowledge that the Church of England in so doing was mistaken:
and unless “from evil” be “_a clear and plain error_,” the Revisionists
were bound to let it alone. Next—(3), It can never be right to impose the
narrower interpretation on words which have always been understood to bear
the larger sense: especially when (as in the present instance) the larger
meaning distinctly includes and covers the lesser: witness the paraphrase
in our Church Catechism,—“and that He will keep us (_a_) from all sin and
wickedness, and (_b_) _from our ghostly enemy_, and (_c_) from everlasting
death.”—(4) But indeed Catholic Tradition claims to be heard in this
behalf. Every Christian at his Baptism renounces not only “the Devil,” but
also “_all his works_, the vain pomp and glory of the world, with all
covetous desires of the same, and the carnal desires of the flesh.”(660)
And at this point—(5), The voice of an inspired Apostle interposes in
attestation that this is indeed the true acceptation of the last petition
in the LORD’S Prayer: for when S. Paul says—“the LORD will deliver me
_from every evil work_ and will preserve me unto His heavenly kingdom; to
whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen,”(661)—what else is he referring to
but to the words just now under consideration? He explains that in the
LORD’S Prayer it is “_from every evil work_” that we pray to be
“delivered.” (Note also, that he retains _the Doxology_.) Compare the
places:—

S. Matth. vi. 13.—ἀλλὰ ῬΎΣΑΙ ἩΜΆΣ ἈΠῸ ΤΟΎ ΠΟΝΗΡΟΎ. ὍΤΙ ΣΟΎ ἘΣΤΙΝ Ἡ
ΒΑΣΙΛΕΊΑ ... καὶ Ἡ ΔΌΞΑ ἘΙΣ ΤΟΎΣ ἈΙΏΝΑΣ. ἈΜΉΝ.

2 Tim. iv. 18.—καὶ ῬΎΣΕΤΑΊ ΜΕ ὁ Κύριος ἈΠῸ ΠΑΝΤῸΣ ἜΡΓΟΥ ΠΟΝΗΡΟΥ καὶ σώσει
εἰς ΤῊΝ ΒΑΣΙΛΕΊΑΝ ἈΥΤΟΥ ... ᾧ Ἡ ΔΌΞΑ ΕΊΣ ΤΟΥΣ ἈΙΏΝΑΣ.... ἈΜΉΝ.

Then further—(6), What more unlikely than that our LORD would end with
giving such prominence to that rebel Angel whom by dying He is declared to
have “destroyed”? (Heb. ii. 14: 1 John iii. 8.) For, take away the
Doxology (as our Revisionists propose), and we shall begin the LORD’S
Prayer with “OUR FATHER,” and literally end it with—_the Devil_!—But above
all,—(7) Let it never be forgotten that this is _the pattern Prayer_, a
portion of every Christian child’s daily utterance,—the most sacred of all
our formularies, and by far the most often repeated,—into which it is
attempted in this way to introduce a startling novelty. Lastly—(8), When
it is called to mind that nothing short of _necessity_ has warranted the
Revisionists in introducing a single change into the A. V.,—“_clear and
plain errors_”—and that no such plea can be feigned on the present
occasion, the liberty which they have taken in this place must be admitted
to be absolutely without excuse.... Such at least are the grounds on
which, for our own part, we refuse to entertain the proposed introduction
of the Devil into the LORD’S Prayer. From the position we have taken up,
it will be found utterly impossible to dislodge us.

XIII. It is often urged on behalf of the Revisionists that over not a few
dark places of S. Paul’s Epistles their labours have thrown important
light. Let it not be supposed that we deny this. Many a Scriptural
difficulty vanishes the instant a place is accurately translated: a far
greater number, when the rendering is idiomatic. It would be strange
indeed if, at the end of ten years, the combined labours of upwards of
twenty Scholars, whose _raison d’être_ as Revisionists was to do this very
thing, had not resulted in the removal of many an obscurity in the A. V.
of Gospels and Epistles alike. What offends us is the discovery that, for
every obscurity which has been removed, at least half a dozen others have
been introduced: in other words, that the result of this Revision has been
the planting in of a _fresh crop of difficulties_, before undreamed of; so
that a perpetual wrestling with _these_ is what hereafter awaits the
diligent student of the New Testament.

We speak not now of passages which have been merely altered for the worse:
as when, (in S. James i. 17, 18,) we are invited to read,—“Every good gift
and every _perfect boon_ is from above, coming down from the Father of
lights, with whom _can be no variation_, neither _shadow that is cast by
turning_. Of his own will _he brought us forth_.” Grievous as such
blemishes are, it is seen at a glance that they must be set down to
nothing worse than tasteless assiduity. What we complain of is that,
misled by a depraved Text, our Revisers have often made nonsense of what
before was perfectly clear: and have not only thrust many of our LORD’S
precious utterances out of sight, (_e.g._ Matt. xvii. 21: Mark x. 21 and
xi. 26: Luke ix. 55, 56); but have attributed to Him absurd sayings which
He certainly never uttered, (_e.g._ Matt. xix. 17); or else, given such a
twist to what He actually said, that His blessed words are no longer
recognizable, (as in S. Matt. xi. 23: S. Mark ix. 23: xi. 3). Take a
sample:—

(1.) The Church has always understood her LORD to say,—“FATHER, I will
that they also, whom Thou hast given Me, be with Me where I am; that they
may behold My glory.”(662) We reject with downright indignation the
proposal henceforth to read instead,—“FATHER_, that which Thou hast given
Me I will that, where I am, they also may be with Me_,” &c. We suspect a
misprint. The passage reads like nonsense. Yes, and nonsense it is,—in
Greek as well as in English: (ὅ has been written for οὕς—one of the
countless _bêtises_ for which א B D are exclusively responsible; and which
the weak superstition of these last days is for erecting into a new
Revelation). We appeal to the old Latin and to the Vulgate,—to the better
Egyptian and to all the Syriac versions: to _every known Lectionary_: to
Clemens Alex.,(663)—to Eusebius,(664)—to Nonnus,(665)—to Basil,(666)—to
Chrysostom,(667)—to Cyril,(668)—to Cælestinus,(669)—to Theodoret:(670) not
to mention Cyprian,(671)—Ambrose,(672)—Hilary,(673) &c.:(674) and above
all, 16 uncials, beginning with A and C,—and the whole body of the
cursives. So many words ought not to be required. If men prefer _their_
“mumpsimus” to _our_ “sumpsimus,” let them by all means have it: but pray
let them keep their rubbish to themselves,—and at least leave our
SAVIOUR’S words alone.

(2.) We shall be told that the foregoing is an outrageous instance. It is.
Then take a few milder cases. They abound, turn whichever way we will.
Thus, we are invited to believe that S. Luke relates concerning our
SAVIOUR that He “_was led by the Spirit in the wilderness during forty
days_” (iv. 1). We stare at this new revelation, and refer to the familiar
Greek. It proves to be the Greek of _all the copies in the __ world but
four_; the Greek which supplied the Latin, the Syrian, the Coptic
Churches, with the text of their respective Versions; the Greek which was
familiar to Origen,(675)—to Eusebius,(676)—to Basil,(677)—to
Didymus,(678)—to Theodoret,(679)—to Maximus,(680)—and to two other ancient
writers, one of whom has been mistaken for Chrysostom,(681) the other for
Basil.(682) It is therefore quite above suspicion. And it informs us that
JESUS “was led by the Spirit _into the wilderness_;” and there was “_forty
days tempted of the Devil_.” What then has happened to obscure so plain a
statement? Nothing more serious than that—(1) Four copies of bad character
(א B D L) exhibit “in” instead of “into:” and that—(2) Our Revisionists
have been persuaded to believe that _therefore_ S. Luke must needs have
done the same. Accordingly they invite us to share their conviction that
it was the _leading about_ of our LORD, (and not His _Temptation_,) which
lasted for 40 days. And this sorry misconception is to be thrust upon the
90 millions of English-speaking Christians throughout the world,—under the
plea of “necessity”!... But let us turn to a more interesting specimen of
the mischievous consequences which would ensue from the acceptance of the
present so-called “Revision.”

(3.) What is to be thought of _this_, as a substitute for the familiar
language of 2 Cor. xii. 7?—“_And by reason of the exceeding greatness of
the revelations—wherefore, that I should not be exalted overmuch_, there
was given to me a thorn in the flesh.” The word “wherefore” (διό), which
occasions all the difficulty—(breaking the back of the sentence and
necessitating the hypothesis of a change of construction)—is due solely to
the influence of א A BB. The ordinary Text is recognized by almost every
other copy; by the Latin,—Syriac,—Gothic,—Armenian Versions;—as well as by
Irenæus,(683)—Origen,(684)—Macarius,(685)—Athanasius,(686)—Chrysostom,(687)—Theodoret,(688)—John
Damascene.(689) Even Tischendorf here makes a stand and refuses to follow
his accustomed guides.(690) In plain terms, the text of 2 Cor. xii. 7 is
beyond the reach of suspicion. Scarcely intelligible is the infatuation of
which our Revisers have been the dupes.—_Quousque tandem?_

(4.) Now this is the method of the Revising body throughout: viz. so
seriously to maim the Text of many a familiar passage of Holy Writ as
effectually to mar it. Even where they remedy an inaccuracy in the
rendering of the A. V., they often inflict a more grievous injury than
mistranslation on the inspired Text. An instance occurs at S. John x. 14,
where the good Shepherd says,—“I know Mine own _and am known of Mine_,
even as the FATHER knoweth Me and I know the Father.” By thrusting in here
the Manichæan depravation (“_and Mine own know Me_”), our Revisionists
have obliterated the exquisite diversity of expression in the
original,—which implies that whereas the knowledge which subsists between
the FATHER and the SON is identical on either side, not such is the
knowledge which subsists between the creature and the Creator. The
refinement in question has been faithfully retained all down the ages by
every copy in existence except four of bad character,—א B D L. It is
witnessed to by the Syriac,—by Macarius,(691)—Gregory
Naz.,(692)—Chrysostom,(693)—Cyril
Alex.,(694)—Theodoret,(695)—Maximus.(696)

But why go on? Does any one in his sober senses suppose that if S. John
had written “_Mine own know Me_,” 996 manuscripts out of 1000, at the end
of 1800 years, would be found to exhibit “_I am known of Mine_”?

(5.) The foregoing instances must suffice. A brief enumeration of many
more has been given already, at pp. 144(_b_)-152.

Now, in view of the phenomenon just discovered to us,—(viz. for one crop
of deformities weeded out, an infinitely larger crop of far grosser
deformities as industriously planted in,)—we confess to a feeling of
distress and annoyance which altogether indisposes us to accord to the
Revisionists that language of congratulation with which it would have been
so agreeable to receive their well-meant endeavours. The serious question
at once arises,—Is it to be thought that upon the whole we are gainers, or
losers, by the Revised Version? And there seems to be no certain way of
resolving this doubt, but by opening a “Profit and Loss account” with the
Revisers,—crediting them with every item of _gain_, and debiting them with
every item of _loss_. But then,—(and we ask the question with sanguine
simplicity,)—Why should it not be _all_ gain and _no_ loss, when, at the
end of 270 years, a confessedly noble work, a truly unique specimen of
genius, taste and learning, is submitted to a body of Scholars, equipped
with every external advantage, _only_ in order that they may improve upon
it—_if they are able_? These learned individuals have had upwards of ten
years wherein to do their work. They have enjoyed the benefit of the
tentative labours of a host of predecessors,—some for their warning, some
for their help and guidance. They have all along had before their eyes the
solemn injunction that, whatever they were not able _certainly_ to
improve, they were to be _supremely careful to let alone_. They were
warned at the outset against any but “_necessary_” changes. Their sole
business was to remove “_plain and clear errors_.” They had pledged
themselves to introduce “_as few alterations as possible_.” Why then, we
again ask,—_Why_ should not every single innovation which they introduced
into the grand old exemplar before them, prove to be a manifest, an
undeniable change for the better?(697)

XIV. The more we ponder over this unfortunate production, the more
cordially do we regret that it was ever undertaken. Verily, the Northern
Convocation displayed a far-sighted wisdom when it pronounced against the
project from the first. We are constrained to declare that could we have
conceived it possible that the persons originally appointed by the
Southern Province would have co-opted into their body persons capable of
executing their work with such extravagant licentiousness as well as such
conspicuous bad taste, we should never have entertained one hopeful
thought on the subject. For indeed every characteristic feature of the
work of the Revisionists offends us,—as well in respect of what they have
left undone, as of what they have been the first to venture to do:—

(_a_) Charged “to introduce _as few_ alterations as possible into the Text
of the Authorized Version,” they have on the contrary evidently acted
throughout on the principle of making _as many_ changes in it as they
conveniently could.

(_b_) Directed “to limit, _as far as possible_, the expression of such
alterations to the language of the Authorized and earlier English
Versions,”—they have introduced such terms as “assassin,” “apparition,”
“boon,” “disparagement,” “divinity,” “effulgence,” “epileptic,”
“fickleness,” “gratulation,” “irksome,” “interpose,” “pitiable,”
“sluggish,” “stupor,” “surpass,” “tranquil:” such compounds as
“self-control,” “world-ruler:” such phrases as “_draw up_ a narrative:”
“_the impulse_ of the steersman:” “_in lack_ of daily food:” “_exercising_
oversight.” These are but a very few samples of the offence committed by
our Revisionists, of which we complain.

(_c_) Whereas they were required “to _revise_ the Headings of the
Chapters,” they have not even _retained_ them. We demand at least to have
our excellent “Headings” back.

(_d_) And what has become of our time-honoured “Marginal References,”—_the
very best Commentary_ on the Bible, as we believe,—certainly the very best
help for the right understanding of Scripture,—which the wit of man hath
ever yet devised? The “Marginal References” would be lost to the Church
for ever, if the work of the Revisionists were allowed to stand: the space
required for their insertion having been completely swallowed up by the
senseless, and worse than senseless, Textual Annotations which at present
infest the margin of every sacred page. We are beyond measure amazed that
the Revisionists have even deprived the reader of the _essential aid_ of
references to the places of the Old Testament which are quoted in the New.

(_e_) Let the remark be added in passing, that we greatly dislike the
affectation of printing certain quotations from the Old Testament after
the strange method adopted by our Revisers from Drs. Westcott and Hort.

(_f_) The further external _assimilation of the Sacred Volume to an
ordinary book_ by getting rid of the division into Verses, we also hold to
be a great mistake. In the Greek, by all means let the verses be merely
noted in the margin: but, for more than one weighty reason, in the
_English_ Bible let the established and peculiar method of printing the
Word of GOD, tide what tide, be scrupulously retained.

(_g_) But incomparably the gravest offence is behind. By far the most
serious of all is _that_ Error to the consideration of which we devoted
our former Article. THE NEW GREEK TEXT which, in defiance of their
Instructions,(698) our Revisionists have constructed, has been proved to
be utterly undeserving of confidence. Built up on a fallacy which since
1831 has been dominant in Germany, and which has lately found but too much
favour among ourselves, it is in the main a reproduction of the recent
labours of Doctors Westcott and Hort. But we have already recorded our
conviction, that the results at which those eminent Scholars have arrived
are wholly inadmissible. It follows that, in our account, the “New English
Version,” has been all along a foredoomed thing. If the “New Greek Text”
be indeed a tissue of fabricated Readings, the translation of these into
English must needs prove lost labour. It is superfluous to enquire into
the merits of the English rendering of words which Evangelists and
Apostles demonstrably never wrote.

(_h_) Even this, however, is not nearly all. As Translators, full
two-thirds of the Revisionists have shown themselves singularly
deficient,—alike in their critical acquaintance with the language out of
which they had to translate, and in their familiarity with the idiomatic
requirements of their own tongue. They had a noble Version before them,
which they have contrived to spoil in every part. Its dignified simplicity
and essential faithfulness, its manly grace and its delightful rhythm,
they have shown themselves alike unable to imitate and unwilling to
retain. Their queer uncouth phraseology and their jerky sentences:—their
pedantic obscurity and their stiff, constrained manner:—their fidgetty
affectation of accuracy,—and their habitual achievement of English which
fails to exhibit the spirit of the original Greek;—are sorry substitutes
for the living freshness, and elastic freedom, and habitual fidelity of
the grand old Version which we inherited from our Fathers, and which has
sustained the spiritual life of the Church of England, and of all
English-speaking Christians, for 350 years. Linked with all our holiest,
happiest memories, and bound up with all our purest aspirations: part and
parcel of whatever there is of good about us: fraught with men’s hopes of
a blessed Eternity and many a bright vision of the never-ending Life;—the
Authorized Version, wherever it was possible, _should have been jealously
retained_. But on the contrary. Every familiar cadence has been
dislocated: the congenial flow of almost every verse of Scripture has been
hopelessly marred: so many of those little connecting words, which give
life and continuity to a narrative, have been vexatiously displaced, that
a perpetual sense of annoyance is created. The countless minute
alterations which have been needlessly introduced into every familiar page
prove at last as tormenting as a swarm of flies to the weary traveller on
a summer’s day.(699) To speak plainly, the book has been made
_unreadable_.

But in fact the distinguished Chairman of the New Testament Company
(Bishop Ellicott,) has delivered himself on this subject in language which
leaves nothing to be desired, and which we willingly make our own. “No
Revision” (he says) “in the present day _could hope to meet with an hour’s
acceptance_ if it failed to preserve the tone, rhythm, and diction of the
present Authorized Version.”(700)—What else is this but a vaticination,—of
which the uninspired Author, by his own act and deed, has ensured the
punctual fulfilment?

We lay the Revisers’ volume down convinced that the case of their work is
simply hopeless. _Non ego paucis offendar maculis._ Had the blemishes been
capable of being reckoned up, it might have been worth while to try to
remedy some of them. But when, instead of being disfigured by a few weeds
scattered here and there, the whole field proves to be sown over in every
direction with thorns and briars; above all when, deep beneath the
surface, roots of bitterness to be counted by thousands, are found to have
been silently planted in, which are sure to produce poisonous fruit after
many days:—under _such_ circumstances only one course can be prescribed.
Let the entire area be ploughed up,—ploughed deep; and let the ground be
left for a decent space of time without cultivation. It is idle—worse than
idle—to dream of revising, _with a view to retaining_, this Revision.
Another generation of students must be suffered to arise. Time must be
given for Passion and Prejudice to cool effectually down. Partizanship,
(which at present prevails to an extraordinary extent, but which is
wondrously out of place in _this_ department of Sacred
Learning,)—_Partizanship_ must be completely outlived,—before the Church
can venture, with the remotest prospect of a successful issue, to organize
another attempt at revising the Authorized Version of the New Testament
Scriptures.

Yes, and in the meantime—(let it in all faithfulness be added)—the Science
of Textual Criticism will have to be prosecuted, _for the first time_, in
a scholarlike manner. FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES,—sufficiently axiomatic to
ensure general acceptance,—will have to be laid down for men’s guidance.
The time has quite gone by for vaunting “_the now established Principles
of Textual Criticism_,”(701)—as if they had an actual existence. Let us be
shown, instead, _which those Principles be_. As for the weak superstition
of these last days, which—_without proof of any kind_—would erect two
IVth-century Copies of the New Testament, (demonstrably derived from one
and the same utterly depraved archetype,) into an authority from which
there shall be no appeal,—it cannot be too soon or too unconditionally
abandoned. And, perhaps beyond all things, men must be invited to disabuse
their minds of the singular imagination that it is in their power, when
addressing themselves to that most difficult and delicate of
problems,—_the improvement of the Traditional Text_,—“solvere
ambulando.”(702) They are assured that they may not take to Textual
Criticism as ducks take to the water. They will be drowned inevitably if
they are so ill-advised as to make the attempt.

Then further, those who would interpret the New Testament Scriptures, are
reminded that a thorough acquaintance with the Septuagintal Version of the
Old Testament is one indispensable condition of success.(703) And finally,
the Revisionists of the future (if they desire that their labours should
be crowned), will find it their wisdom to practise a severe self-denial;
to confine themselves to the correction of “_plain and clear errors_;” and
in fact to “introduce into the Text _as few alterations as possible_.”

On a review of all that has happened, from first to last, we can but feel
greatly concerned: greatly surprised: most of all, disappointed. We had
expected a vastly different result. It is partly (not quite) accounted
for, by the rare attendance in the Jerusalem Chamber of some of the names
on which we had chiefly relied. Bishop Moberly (of Salisbury) was present
on only 121 occasions: Bishop Wordsworth (of S. Andrews) on only 109:
Archbishop Trench (of Dublin) on only 63: Bishop Wilberforce on only
_one_. The Archbishop, in his Charge, adverts to “the not unfrequent
sacrifice of grace and ease to the rigorous requirements of a literal
accuracy;” and regards them “as pushed to a faulty excess” (p. 22). Eleven
years before the scheme for the present “Revision” had been matured, the
same distinguished and judicious Prelate, (then Dean of Westminster,)
persuaded as he was that a Revision _ought_ to come, and convinced that in
time it _would_ come, deprecated its being attempted _yet_. His words
were,—“Not however, I would trust, as yet: for we are not as yet _in any
respect prepared for it. The Greek, and the English_ which should enable
us to bring this to a successful end might, it is to be feared, be wanting
alike.”(704) Archbishop Trench, with wise after-thought, in a second
edition, explained himself to mean “_that special Hellenistic Greek, here
required_.”

The Bp. of S. Andrews has long since, in the fullest manner, cleared
himself from the suspicion of complicity in the errors of the work before
us,—as well in respect of the “New Greek Text” as of the “New English
Version.” In the Charge which he delivered at his Diocesan Synod, (22nd
Sept. 1880,) he openly stated that two years before the work was finally
completed, he had felt obliged to address a printed circular to each
member of the Company, in which he strongly remonstrated against the
excess to which changes had been carried; and that the remonstrance had
been, for the most part, unheeded. Had this been otherwise, there is good
reason to believe that the reception which the Revision has met with would
have been far less unfavourable, and that many a controversy which it has
stirred up, would have been avoided. We have been assured that the Bp. of
S. Andrews would have actually resigned his place in the Company at that
time, if he had not been led to expect that some opportunity would have
been taken by the Minority, when the work was finished, to express their
formal dissent from the course which had been followed, and many of the
conclusions which had been adopted.

Were certain other excellent personages, (Scholars and Divines of the best
type) who were often present, disposed at this late hour to come forward,
they too would doubtless tell us that they heartily regretted what was
done, but were powerless to prevent it. It is no secret that Dr. Lee,—the
learned Archdeacon of Dublin,—(one of the few really competent members of
the Revising body,)—found himself perpetually in the minority.

The same is to be recorded concerning Dr. Roberts, whose work on the
Gospels (published in 1864) shows that he is not by any means so entirely
a novice in the mysteries of Textual Criticism as certain of his
colleagues.—One famous Scholar and excellent Divine,—a Dean whom we
forbear to name,—with the modesty of real learning, often withheld what
(had he given it) would have been an adverse vote.—Another learned and
accomplished Dean (Dr. Merivale), after attending 19 meetings of the
Revising body, withdrew in disgust from them entirely. He disapproved _the
method_ of his colleagues, and was determined to incur no share of
responsibility for the probable result of their deliberations.—By the
way,—What about a certain solemn Protest, by means of which the Minority
had resolved _liberare animas suas_ concerning the open disregard shown by
the Majority for the conditions under which they had been entrusted with
the work of Revision, but which was withheld at the last moment? Inasmuch
as their reasons for the course they eventually adopted seemed sufficient
to those high-minded and honourable men, we forbear to challenge it.
Nothing however shall deter us from plainly avowing our own opinion that
human regards scarcely deserve a hearing when GOD’S Truth is imperilled.
And that the Truth of GOD’S Word in countless instances _has been_
ignorantly sacrificed by a majority of the Revisionists—(out of deference
to a worthless Theory, newly invented and passionately advocated by two of
their body),—has been already demonstrated; as far, that is, as
demonstration is _possible_ in this subject matter.

As for Prebendary Scrivener,—_the only really competent Textual Critic of
the whole party_,—it is well known that he found himself perpetually
outvoted by two-thirds of those present. We look forward to the
forthcoming new edition of his _Plain Introduction_, in the confident
belief that he will there make it abundantly plain that he is in no degree
responsible for the monstrous Text which it became his painful duty to
conduct through the Press on behalf of the entire body, of which he
continued to the last to be a member. It is no secret that, throughout,
Dr. Scrivener pleaded in vain for the general view we have ourselves
advocated in this and the preceding Article.

All alike may at least enjoy the real satisfaction of knowing that,
besides having stimulated, to an extraordinary extent, public attention to
the contents of the Book of Life, they have been instrumental in awakening
a living interest in one important but neglected department of Sacred
Science, which will not easily be again put to sleep. It may reasonably
prove a solace to them to reflect that they have besides, although perhaps
in ways they did not anticipate, rendered excellent service to mankind. A
monument they have certainly erected to themselves,—though neither of
their Taste nor yet of their Learning. Their well-meant endeavours have
provided an admirable text-book for Teachers of Divinity,—who will
henceforth instruct their pupils to beware of the Textual errors of the
Revisionists of 1881, as well as of their tasteless, injudicious, and
unsatisfactory essays in Translation. This work of theirs will discharge
the office of a warning beacon to as many as shall hereafter embark on the
same perilous enterprise with themselves. It will convince men of the
danger of pursuing the same ill-omened course: trusting to the same
unskilful guidance: venturing too near the same wreck-strewn shore.

Its effect will be to open men’s eyes, as nothing else could possibly have
done, to the dangers which beset the Revision of Scripture. It will teach
faithful hearts to cling the closer to the priceless treasure which was
bequeathed to them by the piety and wisdom of their fathers. It will
dispel for ever the dream of those who have secretly imagined that a more
exact Version, undertaken with the boasted helps of this nineteenth
century of ours, would bring to light something which has been hitherto
unfairly kept concealed or else misrepresented. Not the least service
which the Revisionists have rendered has been the proof their work
affords, how very seldom our Authorized Version is materially wrong: how
faithful and trustworthy, on the contrary, it is throughout. Let it be
also candidly admitted that, even where (in our judgment) the Revisionists
have erred, they have never had the misfortune _seriously_ to obscure a
single feature of Divine Truth; nor have they in any quarter (as we hope)
inflicted wounds which will be attended with worse results than to leave a
hideous scar behind them. It is but fair to add that their work bears
marks of an amount of conscientious (though misdirected) labour, which
those only can fully appreciate who have made the same province of study
to some extent their own.





ARTICLE III. WESTCOTT AND HORT’S NEW TEXTUAL THEORY.


    “In the determination of disputed readings, these Critics avail
    themselves of so small a portion of existing materials, or allow
    so little weight to others, that the Student who follows them has
    positively _less ground for his convictions than former Scholars
    had at any period in the history of modern Criticism_.”—CANON
    COOK, p. 16.

    “We have no right, doubtless, to assume that our Principles are
    infallible: but we _have_ a right to claim that any one who
    rejects them ... should confute the Arguments and rebut the
    Evidence on which the opposite conclusion has been founded.
    _Strong expressions of Individual Opinion are not Arguments._”—BP.
    ELLICOTT’S Pamphlet, (1882,) p. 40.

    Our “method involves vast research, unwearied patience.... It will
    therefore find but little favour with _those who adopt the easy
    method_ ... _of using some favourite Manuscript_, or _some
    supposed power of divining the Original Text_.”—BP. ELLICOTT,
    _Ibid._ p. 19.

    “Non enim sumus sicut plurimi, adulterantes (καπηλεύοντες) verbum
    DEI.”—2 Cor. ii. 17.

    “Who is this that darkeneth counsel by words without
    knowledge?”—JOB xxxviii. 2.

    “Can the blind lead the blind? shall they not both fall into the
    ditch?”—S. LUKE vi. 39.


Proposing to ourselves (May 17th, 1881) to enquire into the merits of the
recent Revision of the Authorized Version of the New Testament Scriptures,
we speedily became aware that an entirely different problem awaited us and
demanded preliminary investigation. We made the distressing discovery,
that the underlying Greek Text had been completely refashioned throughout.
It was accordingly not so much a “_Revised English Version_” as a “_New
Greek Text_,” which was challenging public acceptance. Premature
therefore,—not to say preposterous,—would have been any enquiry into the
degree of ability with which the original Greek had been rendered into
English by our Revisionists, until we had first satisfied ourselves that
it was still “the original Greek” with which we had to deal: or whether it
had been the supreme infelicity of a body of Scholars claiming to act by
the authority of the sacred Synod of Canterbury, to put themselves into
the hands of some ingenious theory-monger, and to become the dupes of any
of the strange delusions which are found unhappily still to prevail in
certain quarters, on the subject of Textual Criticism.

The correction of known Textual errors of course we eagerly expected: and
on every occasion when the Traditional Text was altered, we as confidently
depended on finding a record of the circumstance inserted with religious
fidelity into the margin,—as agreed upon by the Revisionists at the
outset. In both of these expectations however we found ourselves sadly
disappointed. The Revisionists have _not_ corrected the “known Textual
errors.” On the other hand, besides silently adopting most of those
wretched fabrications which are just now in favour with the German school,
they have encumbered their margin with those other Readings which, after
due examination, _they had themselves deliberately rejected_. For why?
Because, in their collective judgment, “for the present, it would not be
safe to accept one Reading to the absolute exclusion of others.”(705) A
fatal admission truly! What are found in the margin are therefore
“_alternative Readings_,”—in the opinion of these self-constituted
representatives of the Church and of the Sects.

It becomes evident that, by this ill-advised proceeding, our Revisionists
would convert every Englishman’s copy of the New Testament into a
one-sided Introduction to the Critical difficulties of the Greek Text; a
labyrinth, out of which they have not been at the pains to supply him with
a single hint as to how he may find his way. On the contrary. By candidly
avowing that they find themselves enveloped in the same Stygian darkness
with the ordinary English Reader, they give him to understand that there
is absolutely no escape from the difficulty. What else must be the result
of all this but general uncertainty, confusion, distress? A hazy mistrust
of all Scripture has been insinuated into the hearts and minds of
countless millions, who in this way have been _forced_ to become
doubters,—yes, doubters in the Truth of Revelation itself. One recals
sorrowfully the terrible woe denounced by the Author of Scripture on those
who minister occasions of falling to others:—“It must needs be that
offences come; but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh!”

For ourselves, shocked and offended at the unfaithfulness which could so
deal with the sacred Deposit, we made it our business to expose, somewhat
in detail, what had been the method of our Revisionists. In our October
number(706) we demonstrated, (as far as was possible within such narrow
limits,) the utterly untrustworthy character of not a few of the results
at which, after ten years of careful study, these distinguished Scholars
proclaim to the civilized world that they have deliberately arrived. In
our January number(707) also, we found it impossible to avoid extending
our enumeration of Textual errors and multiplying our proofs, while we
were making it our business to show that, even had their _Text_ been
faultless, their _Translation_ must needs be rejected as intolerable, on
grounds of defective Scholarship and egregious bad Taste. The popular
verdict has in the meantime been pronounced unmistakably. It is already
admitted on all hands that the Revision has been a prodigious blunder. How
it came about that, with such a first-rate textual Critic among them as
Prebendary Scrivener,(708) the Revisers of 1881 should have deliberately
gone back to those vile fabrications from which the good Providence of GOD
preserved Erasmus and Stunica,—Stephens and Beza and the Elzevirs,—three
centuries ago:—how it happened that, with so many splendid Scholars
sitting round their table, they should have produced a Translation which,
for the most part, reads like a first-rate school-boy’s _crib_,—tasteless,
unlovely, harsh, unidiomatic;—servile without being really
faithful,—pedantic without being really learned;—an unreadable
Translation, in short; the result of a vast amount of labour indeed, but
of wondrous little skill:—how all this has come about, it were utterly
useless at this time of day to enquire.

Unable to disprove the correctness of our Criticism on the Revised Greek
Text, even in a single instance, certain partizans of the
Revision,—singular to relate,—have been ever since industriously
promulgating the notion, that the Reviewer’s great misfortune and fatal
disadvantage all along has been, that he wrote his first Article before
the publication of Drs. Westcott and Hort’s Critical “_Introduction_.” Had
he but been so happy as to have been made aware by those eminent Scholars
of the critical principles which have guided them in the construction of
their Text, how differently must he have expressed himself throughout, and
to what widely different conclusions must he have inevitably arrived! This
is what has been once and again either openly declared, or else privately
intimated, in many quarters. Some, in the warmth of their partizanship,
have been so ill-advised as to insinuate that it argues either a
deficiency of moral courage, or else of intellectual perception, in the
Reviewer, that he has not long since grappled definitely with the Theory
of Drs. Westcott and Hort,—and either published an Answer to it, or else
frankly admitted that he finds it unanswerable.

(_a_) All of which strikes us as queer in a high degree. First, because as
a matter of fact we were careful to make it plain that the _Introduction_
in question had duly reached us _before the first sheet_ of our earlier
Article had left our hands. To be brief,—we made it our business to
procure a copy and read it through, the instant we heard of its
publication: and on our fourteenth page (see above, pp. 26-8) we
endeavoured to compress into a long foot-note some account of a Theory
which (we take leave to say) can appear formidable only to one who either
lacks the patience to study it, or else the knowledge requisite to
understand it. We found that, from a diligent perusal of the _Preface_
prefixed to the “limited and private issue” of 1870, we had formed a
perfectly correct estimate of the contents of the _Introduction_; and had
already characterized it with entire accuracy at pp. 24 to 29 of our first
Article. Drs. Westcott and Hort’s _New Testament in the original Greek_
was discovered to “partake inconveniently of the nature of a work of the
Imagination,”—as we had anticipated. We became easily convinced that
“those accomplished Scholars had succeeded in producing a Text vastly more
remote from the inspired autographs of the Evangelists and Apostles of our
LORD, than any which has appeared since the invention of Printing.”

(_b_) But the queerest circumstance is behind. How is it supposed that any
amount of study of _the last new Theory_ of Textual Revision can seriously
affect a Reviewer’s estimate of the evidential value of the historical
_facts_ on which he relies for his proof that a certain exhibition of the
Greek Text is untrustworthy? The _onus probandi_ rests clearly not with
_him_, but with those who call those proofs of his in question. More of
this, however, by and by. We are impatient to get on.

(_c_) And then, lastly,—What have _we_ to do with the _Theory_ of Drs.
Westcott and Hort? or indeed with the Theory of _any other person who can
be named_? We have been examining the new Greek Text _of the
Revisionists_. We have condemned, after furnishing detailed proof, _the
results_ at which—by whatever means—that distinguished body of Scholars
has arrived. Surely it is competent to us to upset their _conclusion_,
without being constrained also to investigate in detail the illicit
logical processes by which two of their number in a separate publication
have arrived at far graver results, and often even stand hopelessly apart,
the one from the other! We say it in no boastful spirit, but we have an
undoubted right to assume, that unless the Revisionists are able by a
stronger array of authorities to set aside the evidence we have already
brought forward, the calamitous destiny of their “Revision,” so far as the
New Testament is concerned, is simply a thing inevitable.

Let it not be imagined, however, from what goes before, that we desire to
shirk the proposed encounter with the advocates of this last new Text, or
that we entertain the slightest intention of doing so. We willingly accept
the assurance, that it is only because Drs. Westcott and Hort are
virtually responsible for the Revisers’ Greek Text, that it is so
imperiously demanded by the Revisers and their partizans, that the Theory
of the two Cambridge Professors may be critically examined. We can
sympathize also with the secret distress of certain of the body, who now,
when it is all too late to remedy the mischief, begin to suspect that they
have been led away by the hardihood of self-assertion;—overpowered by the
_facundia præceps_ of one who is at least a thorough believer in his own
self-evolved opinions;—imposed upon by the seemingly consentient pages of
Tischendorf and Tregelles, Westcott and Hort.—Without further preface we
begin.

It is presumed that we shall be rendering acceptable service in certain
quarters if,—before investigating the particular Theory which has been
proposed for consideration,—we endeavour to give the unlearned English
Reader some general notion, (it must perforce be a very imperfect one,) of
the nature of the controversy to which the Theory now to be considered
belongs, and out of which it has sprung. Claiming to be an attempt to
determine the Truth of Scripture on scientific principles, the work before
us may be regarded as the latest outcome of that violent recoil from the
Traditional Greek Text,—that strange impatience of its authority, or
rather denial that it possesses any authority at all,—which began with
Lachmann just 50 years ago (viz. in 1831), and has prevailed ever since;
its most conspicuous promoters being Tregelles (1857-72) and Tischendorf
(1865-72).

The true nature of the Principles which respectively animate the two
parties in this controversy is at this time as much as ever,—perhaps
_more_ than ever,—popularly misunderstood. The common view of the
contention in which they are engaged, is certainly the reverse of
complimentary to the school of which Dr. Scrivener is the most
accomplished living exponent. We hear it confidently asserted that the
contention is nothing else but an irrational endeavour on the one part to
set up the many modern against the few ancient Witnesses;—the later
cursive copies against the “old Uncials;”—inveterate traditional Error
against undoubted primitive Truth. The disciples of the new popular
school, on the contrary, are represented as relying exclusively _on
Antiquity_. We respectfully assure as many as require the assurance, that
the actual contention is of an entirely different nature. But, before we
offer a single word in the way of explanation, let the position of our
assailants at least be correctly ascertained and clearly established. We
have already been constrained to some extent to go over this ground: but
we will not repeat ourselves. The Reader is referred back, in the
meantime, to pp. 21-24.

Lachmann’s ruling principle then, was exclusive reliance on a very few
ancient authorities—_because_ they are “ancient.” He constructed his Text
on three or four,—not unfrequently on _one or two_,—Greek codices. Of the
Greek Fathers, he relied on Origen. Of the oldest Versions, he cared only
for the Latin. To the Syriac (concerning which, see above, p. 9), he paid
no attention. We venture to think his method _irrational_. But this is
really a point on which the thoughtful reader is competent to judge for
himself. He is invited to read the note at foot of the page.(709)

Tregelles adopted the same strange method. He resorted to a very few out
of the entire mass of “ancient Authorities” for the construction of his
Text. His proceeding is exactly that of a man, who—in order that he may
the better explore a comparatively unknown region—begins by putting out
both his eyes; and resolutely refuses the help of the natives to show him
the way. _Why_ he rejected the testimony of _every Father of the IVth
century, except Eusebius_,—it were unprofitable to enquire.

Tischendorf, the last and by far the ablest Critic of the three, knew
better than to reject “_eighty-nine ninetieths_” of the extant witnesses.
He had recourse to the ingenious expedient of _adducing_ all the available
evidence, but _adopting_ just as little of it as he chose: and he _chose_
to adopt those readings only, which are vouched for by the same little
band of authorities whose partial testimony had already proved fatal to
the decrees of Lachmann and Tregelles. Happy in having discovered (in
1859) an uncial codex (א) second in antiquity only to the oldest before
known (B), and strongly resembling that famous IVth-century codex in the
character of its contents, he suffered his judgment to be overpowered by
the circumstance. He at once (1865-72) remodelled his 7th edition (1856-9)
in 3505 places,—“to the scandal of the science of Comparative Criticism,
as well as to his own grave discredit for discernment and
consistency.”(710) And yet he knew concerning Cod. א, that at least ten
different Revisers from the Vth century downwards had laboured to remedy
the scandalously corrupt condition of a text which, “as it proceeded from
the first scribe,” even Tregelles describes as “_very rough_.”(711) But in
fact the infatuation which prevails to this hour in this department of
sacred Science can only be spoken of as incredible. Enough has been said
to show—(the only point we are bent on establishing)—that the one
distinctive tenet of the three most famous Critics since 1831 has been a
superstitious reverence for whatever is found in the _same little handful_
of early,—but _not_ the earliest,—_nor yet of necessity the
purest_,—documents.

Against this arbitrary method of theirs we solemnly, stiffly remonstrate.
“Strange,” we venture to exclaim, (addressing the living representatives
of the school of Lachmann, and Tregelles, and Tischendorf):—“Strange, that
you should not perceive that you are the dupes of a fallacy which is even
transparent. You _talk_ of ‘Antiquity.’ But you must know very well that
you actually _mean_ something different. You fasten upon three, or perhaps
four,—on two, or perhaps three,—on _one, or perhaps two_,—documents of the
IVth or Vth century. But then, confessedly, these are one, two, three, or
four _specimens only_ of Antiquity,—not ‘Antiquity’ itself. And what if
they should even prove to be _unfair samples_ of Antiquity? Thus, you are
observed always to quote cod. B or at least cod. א. Pray, why may not the
Truth reside instead with A, or C, or D?—You quote the old Latin or the
Coptic. Why may not the Peschito or the Sahidic be right rather?—You quote
either Origen or else Eusebius,—but why not Didymus and Athanasius,
Epiphanius and Basil, Chrysostom and Theodoret, the Gregories and the
Cyrils?... It will appear therefore that we are every bit as strongly
convinced as you can be of the paramount claims of ‘Antiquity:’ but that,
eschewing prejudice and partiality, we differ from you only in _this_,
viz. that we absolutely refuse to bow down before the _particular
specimens of Antiquity_ which you have arbitrarily selected as the objects
of your superstition. You are illogical enough to propose to include
within your list of ‘ancient Authorities,’ codd. 1, 33 and 69,—which are
severally MSS. of the Xth, XIth, and XIVth centuries. And why? Only
because the Text of those 3 copies is observed to bear a sinister
resemblance to that of codex B. But then why, in the name of common sense,
do you not show corresponding favour to the remaining 997 cursive Copies
of the N. T.,—seeing that these are observed to bear _the same general
resemblance to codex_ A?... You are for ever talking about ‘old Readings.’
Have you not yet discovered that ALL ‘Readings’ are ‘OLD’?”

The last contribution to this department of sacred Science is a critical
edition of the New Testament by Drs. WESTCOTT and HORT. About this, we
proceed to offer a few remarks.

I. The first thing here which unfavourably arrests attention is the
circumstance that this proves to be the only Critical Edition of the New
Testament since the days of Mill, which does not even pretend to
contribute something to our previous critical knowledge of the subject.
Mill it was (1707) who gave us the great bulk of our various Readings;
which Bengel (1734) slightly, and Wetstein (1751-2) very considerably,
enlarged.—The accurate Matthæi (1782-8) acquainted us with the contents of
about 100 codices more; and was followed by Griesbach (1796-1806) with
important additional materials.—Birch had in the meantime (1788) culled
from the principal libraries of Europe a large assortment of new Readings:
while truly marvellous was the accession of evidence which Scholz brought
to light in 1830.—And though Lachmann (1842-50) did wondrous little in
this department, he yet furnished the critical authority (such as it is)
for his own unsatisfactory Text.—Tregelles (1857-72), by his exact
collations of MSS. and examination of the earliest Fathers, has laid the
Church under an abiding obligation: and what is to be said of Tischendorf
(1856-72), who has contributed more to our knowledge than any other editor
of the N. T. since the days of Mill?—Dr. Scrivener, though he has not
independently edited the original Text, is clearly to be reckoned among
those who _have_, by reason of his large, important, and accurate
contributions to our knowledge of ancient documents. Transfer his
collections of various Readings to the foot of the page of a copy of the
commonly Received Text,—and “_Scrivener’s New Testament_”(712) might stand
between the editions of Mill and of Wetstein. Let the truth be told. C. F.
Matthæi and he are _the only two Scholars who have collated any
considerable number of sacred Codices with the needful amount of
accuracy_.(713)

Now, we trust we shall be forgiven if, at the close of the preceding
enumeration, we confess to something like displeasure at the oracular tone
assumed by Drs. Westcott and Hort in dealing with the Text of Scripture,
though they admit (page 90) that they “rely for documentary evidence on
the stores accumulated by their predecessors.” Confident as those
distinguished Professors may reasonably feel of their ability to dispense
with the ordinary appliances of Textual Criticism; and proud (as they must
naturally be) of a verifying faculty which (although they are able to give
no account of it) yet enables them infallibly to discriminate between the
false and the true, as well as to assign “a local habitation and a name”
to every word,—inspired or uninspired,—which purports to belong to the N.
T.:—they must not be offended with us if we freely assure them at the
outset that we shall decline to accept a single argumentative assertion of
theirs for which they fail to offer sufficient proof. Their wholly
unsupported decrees, at the risk of being thought uncivil, we shall
unceremoniously reject, as soon as we have allowed them a hearing.

This resolve bodes ill, we freely admit, to harmonious progress. But it is
inevitable. For, to speak plainly, we never before met with such a
singular tissue of magisterial statements, unsupported by a particle of
rational evidence, as we meet with here. The abstruse gravity, the
long-winded earnestness of the writer’s manner, contrast whimsically with
the utterly inconsequential character of his antecedents and his
consequents throughout. Professor Hort—(for “the writing of the volume and
the other accompaniments of the Text devolved” on _him_,(714))—Dr. Hort
seems to mistake his Opinions for facts,—his Assertions for arguments,—and
a Reiteration of either for an accession of evidence. There is throughout
the volume, apparently, a dread of _Facts_ which is even extraordinary. An
actual illustration of the learned Author’s meaning,—a concrete
case,—seems as if it were _never_ forthcoming. At last it comes: but the
phenomenon is straightway discovered to admit of at least two
interpretations, and therefore never to prove the thing intended. In a
person of high education,—in one accustomed to exact reasoning,—we should
have supposed all this impossible.... But it is high time to unfold the
_Introduction_ at the first page, and to begin to read.

II. It opens (p. 1-11) with some unsatisfactory Remarks on “Transmission
by Writing;” vague and inaccurate,—unsupported by one single Textual
reference,—and labouring under the grave defect of leaving the most
instructive phenomena of the problem wholly untouched. For, inasmuch as
“Transmission by writing” involves two distinct classes of errors, (1st)
Those which are the result of _Accident_,—and (2ndly) Those which are the
result of _Design_,—it is to use a Reader badly not to take the earliest
opportunity of explaining to him that what makes codd. B א D such utterly
untrustworthy guides, (except when supported by a large amount of
extraneous evidence,) is the circumstance that _Design_ had evidently so
much to do with a vast proportion of the peculiar errors in which they
severally abound. In other words, each of those codices clearly exhibits a
fabricated Text,—is the result of arbitrary and reckless _Recension_.

Now, this is not a matter of opinion, but of fact. In S. Luke’s Gospel
alone (collated with the traditional Text) the _transpositions_ in codex B
amount to 228,—affecting 654 words: in codex D, to 464,—affecting 1401
words. Proceeding with our examination of the same Gospel according to S.
Luke, we find that the words _omitted_ in B are 757,—in D, 1552. The words
_substituted_ in B amount to 309,—in D, to 1006. The readings _peculiar_
to B are 138, and affect 215 words;—those peculiar to D, are 1731, and
affect 4090 words. Wondrous few of these _can_ have been due to accidental
causes. The Text of one or of both codices must needs be depraved. (As for
א, it is so frequently found in accord with B, that out of consideration
for our Readers, we omit the corresponding figures.)

We turn to codd. A and C—(executed, suppose, a hundred years _after_ B,
and a hundred years _before_ D)—and the figures are found to be as
follows:—

                            In A.        In C.
The transpositions are      75           67
affecting                   199 words    197
The words omitted are       208          175
The words substituted       111          115
The peculiar readings       90           87
affecting                   131 words    127

Now, (as we had occasion to explain in a previous page,(715)) it is
entirely to misunderstand the question, to object that the preceding
Collation has been made with the Text of Stephanus open before us. Robert
Etienne in the XVIth century was not _the cause_ why cod. B in the IVth,
and cod. D in the VIth, are so widely discordant from one another; A and
C, so utterly at variance with both. The simplest explanation of the
phenomena is the truest; namely, that B and D exhibit grossly depraved
Texts;—a circumstance of which it is impossible that the ordinary Reader
should be too soon or too often reminded. But to proceed.

III. Some remarks follow, on what is strangely styled “Transmission by
printed Editions:” in the course of which Dr. Hort informs us that
Lachmann’s Text of 1831 was “the first founded on documentary
authority.”(716)... On _what_ then, pray, does the learned Professor
imagine that the Texts of Erasmus (1516) and of Stunica (1522) were
founded? His statement is incorrect. The actual difference between
Lachmann’s Text and those of the earlier Editors is, that _his_
“documentary authority” is partial, narrow, self-contradictory; and is
proved to be untrustworthy by a free appeal to Antiquity. _Their_
documentary authority, derived from independent sources,—though partial
and narrow as that on which Lachmann relied,—exhibits (_under the good
Providence of _GOD,) a Traditional Text, the general purity of which is
demonstrated by all the evidence which 350 years of subsequent research
have succeeded in accumulating; and which is confessedly the Text of A.D.
375.

IV. We are favoured, in the third place, with the “History of this
Edition:” in which the point that chiefly arrests attention is the
explanation afforded of the many and serious occasions on which Dr.
Westcott (“W.”) and Dr. Hort (“H.”), finding it impossible to agree, have
set down their respective notions separately and subscribed them with
their respective initial. We are reminded of what was wittily said
concerning Richard Baxter: viz. that even if no one but himself existed in
the Church, “Richard” would still be found to disagree with “Baxter,”—and
“Baxter” with “Richard”.... We read with uneasiness that


    “no individual mind can ever act with perfect uniformity, or free
    itself completely from _its own Idiosyncrasies_;” and that “the
    danger of _unconscious Caprice_ is inseparable from personal
    judgment.”—(p. 17.)


All this reminds us painfully of certain statements made by the same
Editors in 1870:—


    “We are obliged to come to the _individual mind_ at last; and
    Canons of Criticism are useful only as warnings against _natural
    illusions_, and aids to circumspect consideration, not as absolute
    rules to prescribe the final decision.”—(pp. xviii., xix.)


May we be permitted without offence to point out (not for the first time)
that “idiosyncrasies” and “unconscious caprice,” and the fancies of the
“individual mind,” can be allowed _no place whatever_ in a problem of such
gravity and importance as the present? Once admit such elements, and we
are safe to find ourselves in cloud-land to-morrow. A weaker foundation on
which to build, is not to be named. And when we find that the learned
Professors “venture to hope that the present Text has escaped some risks
of this kind by being the production of two Editors of different habits of
mind, working independently and to a great extent on different plans,”—we
can but avow our conviction that the safeguard is altogether inadequate.
When two men, devoted to the same pursuit, are in daily confidential
intercourse on such a subject, the “_natural illusions_” of either have a
marvellous tendency to communicate themselves. Their Reader’s only
protection is rigidly to _insist_ on the production of _Proof_ for
everything which these authors say.

V. The dissertation on “Intrinsic” and “Transcriptional Probability” which
follows (pp. 20-30),—being _unsupported by one single instance or
illustration_,—we pass by. It ignores throughout the fact, that the most
serious corruptions of MSS. are due, _not_ to “Scribes” or “Copyists,” (of
whom, by the way, we find perpetual mention every time we open the page;)
but to the persons who employed them. So far from thinking with Dr. Hort
that “the value of the evidence obtained from Transcriptional Probability
is incontestable,”—for that, “without its aid, Textual Criticism could
rarely obtain a high degree of security,” (p. 24,)—we venture to declare
that inasmuch as one expert’s notions of what is “transcriptionally
probable” prove to be the diametrical reverse of another expert’s notions,
the supposed evidence to be derived from this source may, with advantage,
be neglected altogether. Let the study of _Documentary Evidence_ be
allowed to take its place. Notions of “Probability” are the very pest of
those departments of Science which admit of an appeal to _Fact_.

VI. A signal proof of the justice of our last remark is furnished by the
plea which is straightway put in (pp. 30-1) for the superior necessity of
attending to “the relative antecedent credibility of Witnesses.” In other
words, “The comparative trustworthiness of documentary Authorities” is
proposed as a far weightier consideration than “Intrinsic” and
“Transcriptional Probability.” Accordingly we are assured (in capital
letters) that “Knowledge of Documents should precede final judgment upon
readings” (p. 31).

“Knowledge”! Yes, but how acquired? Suppose two rival documents,—cod. A
and cod. B. May we be informed how you would proceed with respect to them?


    “Where one of the documents is found habitually to contain
    _morally certain, or at least strongly preferred, Readings_,—and
    the other habitually to contain their rejected rivals,—we [_i.e._
    _Dr. Hort_] can have no doubt that the Text of the first has been
    transmitted in comparative purity; and that the Text of the second
    has suffered comparatively large corruption.”—(p. 32.)


But can such words have been written seriously? Is it gravely pretended
that Readings become “_morally certain_,” because they are “_strongly
preferred_”? Are we (in other words) seriously invited to admit that the
“STRONG PREFERENCE” of “the individual mind” is to be the ultimate
standard of appeal? If so, though _you_ (Dr. Hort) may “_have no doubt_”
as to which is the purer manuscript,—see you not plainly that a man of
different “idiosyncrasy” from yourself, may just as reasonably claim to
“have no doubt”—_that you are mistaken_?... One is reminded of a passage
in p. 61: viz.—


    “If we find in any group of documents a succession of Readings
    exhibiting an exceptional purity of text, that is,—_Readings which
    the fullest consideration of Internal Evidence pronounces to be
    right, in opposition to formidable arrays of Documentary
    Evidence_; the cause must be that, as far at least as these
    Readings are concerned, some one exceptionally pure MS. was the
    common ancestor of all the members of the group.”


But how does _that_ appear? “The cause” _may_ be _the erroneous judgment
of the Critic_,—may it not?... Dr. Hort is for setting up what his own
inner consciousness “pronounces to be right,” against “Documentary
Evidence,” however multitudinous. He claims that his own verifying faculty
shall be supreme,—shall settle every question. Can he be in earnest?

VII. We are next introduced to the subject of “Genealogical Evidence” (p.
39); and are made attentive: for we speedily find ourselves challenged to
admit that a “total change in the bearing of the evidence” is “made by the
introduction of the factor of Genealogy” (p. 43). Presuming that the
_meaning_ of the learned Writer must rather be that _if we did but know_
the genealogy of MSS., we should be in a position to reason more
confidently concerning their Texts,—we read on: and speedily come to a
second axiom (which is again printed in capital letters), viz. that “All
trustworthy restoration of corrupted Texts is founded on the study of
their History” (p. 40). We really read and wonder. Are we then engaged in
_the _“restoration of corrupted Texts”? If so,—which be they? We
require—(1) To be shown the “_corrupted Texts_” referred to: and then—(2)
To be convinced that “the study of _their History_”—(as distinguished from
an examination of the evidence for or against _their Readings_)—is a thing
feasible.


    “A simple instance” (says Dr. Hort) “will show at once the
    practical bearing” of “the principle here laid down.”—(p. 40.)


But (as usual) Dr. Hort produces _no_ instance. He merely proceeds to
“suppose” a case (§ 50), which he confesses (§ 53) does not exist. So that
we are moving in a land of shadows. And this, he straightway follows up by
the assertion that


    “it would be difficult to insist too strongly on the
    transformation of the superficial aspects of numerical authority
    effected by recognition of Genealogy.”—(p. 43.)


Presently, he assures us that


    “a few documents are not, by reason of their mere paucity,
    appreciably less likely to be right than a multitude opposed to
    them.” (p. 45.)


On this head, we take leave to entertain a somewhat different opinion.
_Apart from the character of the Witnesses_, when 5 men say one thing, and
995 say the exact contradictory, we are apt to regard it even as axiomatic
that, “by reason of their mere paucity,” the few “are appreciably far less
likely to be right than the multitude opposed to them.” Dr. Hort seems to
share our opinion; for he remarks,—


    “A presumption indeed remains that a majority of extant documents
    is more likely to represent a majority of ancestral documents,
    than _vice versâ_.”


Exactly so! We meant, and we mean _that_, and no other thing. But then, we
venture to point out, that the learned Professor considerably understates
the case: seeing that the “_vice versâ presumption_” is absolutely
non-existent. On the other hand, apart from _Proof to the contrary_, we
are disposed to maintain that “a majority of extant documents” in the
proportion of 995 to 5,—and sometimes of 1999 to 1,—creates more than “a
presumption.” It amounts to _Proof of _“a majority of ancestral
documents”.

Not so thinks Dr. Hort. “This presumption,” (he seems to have persuaded
himself,) may be disposed of by his mere assertion that it “is too minute
to weigh against the smallest tangible evidence of other kinds” (_Ibid._).
As usual, however, he furnishes us with _no evidence at all_,—“tangible”
or “intangible.” Can he wonder if we smile at his unsupported _dictum_,
and pass on?... The argumentative import of his twenty weary pages on
“Genealogical Evidence” (pp. 39-59), appears to be resolvable into the
following barren truism: viz. That if, out of 10 copies of Scripture, 9
_could be proved_ to have been executed from one and the same common
original (p. 41), those 9 would cease to be regarded as 9 independent
witnesses. But does the learned Critic really require to be told that we
want no diagram of an imaginary case (p. 54) to convince us of _that_?

The one thing here which moves our astonishment, is, that Dr. Hort does
not seem to reflect that _therefore_ (indeed _by his own showing_) codices
B and א, having been _demonstrably_ “executed from one and the same common
original,” are not to be reckoned as _two_ independent witnesses to the
Text of the New Testament, but as little more than _one_. (See p. 257.)

High time however is it to declare that, in strictness, all this talk
about “Genealogical evidence,” when applied to Manuscripts,
is—_moonshine_. The expression is metaphorical, and assumes that it has
fared with MSS. as it fares with the successive generations of a family;
and so, to a remarkable extent, no doubt, it _has_. But then, it happens,
unfortunately, that we are unacquainted with _one single instance_ of a
known MS. copied from another known MS. And perforce all talk about
“Genealogical evidence,” where _no single step in the descent_ can be
produced,—in other words, _where no Genealogical evidence exists_,—is
absurd. The living inhabitants of a village, congregated in the churchyard
where the bodies of their forgotten progenitors for 1000 years repose
without memorials of any kind,—is a faint image of the relation which
subsists between extant copies of the Gospels and the sources from which
they were derived. That, in either case, there has been repeated mixture,
is undeniable; but since the Parish-register is lost, and not a vestige of
Tradition survives, it is idle to pretend to argue on _that_ part of the
subject. It may be reasonably assumed however that those 50 yeomen,
bearing as many Saxon surnames, indicate as many remote _ancestors_ of
some sort. That they represent as many _families_, is at least a _fact_.
Further we cannot go.

But the illustration is misleading, because inadequate. Assemble rather an
Englishman, an Irishman, a Scot; a Frenchman, a German, a Spaniard; a
Russian, a Pole, an Hungarian; an Italian, a Greek, a Turk. From Noah
these 12 are all confessedly descended; but if _they_ are silent, and
_you_ know nothing whatever about their antecedents,—your remarks about
their respective “genealogies” must needs prove as barren—as Dr. Hort’s
about the “genealogies” of copies of Scripture. “_The factor of
Genealogy_,” in short, in this discussion, represents a mere phantom of
the brain: is the name of an imagination—not of a fact.

The nearest approximation to the phenomenon about which Dr. Hort writes so
glibly, is supplied—(1) by Codd. F and G of S. Paul, which are found to be
independent transcripts of the same venerable lost original:—(2) by Codd.
13, 69, 124 and 346, which were confessedly derived from one and the same
queer archetype: _and especially_—(3) by Codd. B and א. These two famous
manuscripts, because they are disfigured exclusively by the self-same
mistakes, are convicted of being descended (and not very remotely) from
the self-same very corrupt original. By consequence, the combined evidence
of F and G is but that of a single codex. Evan. 13, 69, 124, 346, when
they agree, would be conveniently designated by a symbol, or a single
capital letter. Codd. B and א, as already hinted (p. 255), are not to be
reckoned as two witnesses. Certainly, they have not nearly the Textual
significancy and importance of B in conjunction with A, or of A in
conjunction with C. At best, they do but equal 1-½ copies. Nothing of this
kind however is what Drs. Westcott and Hort intend to convey,—or indeed
seem to understand.

VIII. It is not until we reach p. 94, that these learned men favour us
with a single actual appeal to Scripture. At p. 90, Dr. Hort,—who has
hitherto been skirmishing over the ground, and leaving us to wonder what
in the world it can be that he is driving at,—announces a chapter on the
“Results of Genealogical evidence proper;” and proposes to “determine the
Genealogical relations of the chief ancient Texts.” Impatient for
argument, (at page 92,) we read as follows:—


    “The fundamental Text of _late extant Greek MSS._ generally is
    _beyond all question identical_ with the dominant Antiochian or
    Græco-Syrian Text of the _second half of the fourth century_.”


We request, in passing, that the foregoing statement may be carefully
noted. The Traditional Greek Text of the New Testament,—the TEXTUS
RECEPTUS, in short,—is, according to Dr. Hort, “BEYOND ALL QUESTION” the
“TEXT OF THE SECOND HALF OF THE FOURTH CENTURY.” We shall gratefully avail
ourselves of his candid admission, by and by.

Having thus _assumed_ a “dominant Antiochian or Græco-Syrian text of the
second half of the IVth century,” Dr. H. attempts, by an analysis of what
he is pleased to call “_conflate_ Readings,” to prove the “posteriority of
‘Syrian’ to ‘Western’ and other ‘Neutral’ readings.”... Strange method of
procedure! seeing that, of those second and third classes of readings, we
have not as yet so much as heard the names. Let us however without more
delay be shown those specimens of “Conflation” which, in Dr. Hort’s
judgment, supply “the clearest evidence” (p. 94) that “Syrian” are
posterior alike to “Western” and to “Neutral readings.” Of these, after 30
years of laborious research, Dr. Westcott and he flatter themselves that
they have succeeded in detecting _eight_.

IX. Now because, on the one hand, it would be unreasonable to fill up the
space at our disposal with details which none but professed students will
care to read;—and because, on the other, we cannot afford to pass by
anything in these pages which pretends to be of the nature of proof;—we
have consigned our account of Dr. Hort’s 8 instances of _Conflation_
(which prove to be less than 7) to the foot of the page.(717)

And, after an attentive survey of the Textual phenomena connected with
these 7 specimens, we are constrained to assert that the interpretation
put upon them by Drs. Westcott and Hort, is purely arbitrary: a baseless
imagination,—a dream and nothing more. Something has been attempted
analogous to the familiar fallacy, in Divinity, of building a false and
hitherto unheard-of doctrine on a few isolated places of Scripture,
divorced from their context. The actual _facts_ of the case shall be
submitted to the judgement of learned and unlearned Readers alike: and we
promise beforehand to abide by the unprejudiced verdict of either:—

(_a_) S. Mark’s Gospel is found to contain in all 11,646 words: of which
(collated with the Traditional Text) A omits 138: B, 762: א, 870: D,
900.—S. Luke contains 19,941 words: of which A omits 208: B, 757; א, 816:
D, no less than 1552. (Let us not be told that the traditional Text is
itself not altogether trustworthy. _That_ is a matter entirely beside the
question just now before the Reader,—as we have already, over and over
again, had occasion to explain.(718) Codices must needs all alike be
compared _with something_,—must perforce all alike be referred to _some
one common standard_: and we, for our part, are content to employ (as
every Critic has been content before us) the traditional Text, as the most
convenient standard that can be named. So employed, (viz. as a standard of
_comparison_, not of _excellence_,) the commonly Received Text, more
conveniently than any other, _reveals_—certainly does not
_occasion_—different degrees of discrepancy. And now, to proceed.)

(_b_) Dr. Hort has detected _four_ instances in S. Mark’s Gospel, only
_three_ in S. Luke’s—_seven_ in all—where Codices B א and D happen to
concur in making an omission _at the same place_, but not _of the same
words_. We shall probably be best understood if we produce an instance of
the thing spoken of: and no fairer example can be imagined than the last
of the eight, of which Dr. Hort says,—“This simple instance needs no
explanation” (p. 104). Instead of αἰνοῦντες καὶ εὐλογοῦντες,—(which is the
reading of _every known copy_ of the Gospels _except five_,)—א B C L
exhibit only εὐλογοῦντες: D, only αἰνοῦντες. (To speak quite accurately, א
B C L omit αἰνοῦντες καί and are followed by Westcott and Hort: D omits
καὶ εὐλογοῦντες, and is followed by Tischendorf. Lachmann declines to
follow either. Tregelles doubts.)

(_c_) Now, upon this (and the six other instances, which however prove to
be a vast deal less apt for their purpose than the present), these learned
men have gratuitously built up the following extravagant and astonishing
theory:—

(_d_) They assume,—(they do not attempt to _prove_: in fact they _never_
prove _anything_:)—(1) That αἰνοῦντες καί—and καὶ εὐλογοῦντες—are
respectively fragments of two independent Primitive Texts, which they
arbitrarily designate as “Western” and “Neutral,” respectively:—(2) That
the latter of the two, [_only_ however because it is vouched for by B and
א,] must needs exhibit what the Evangelist actually wrote: [though _why_
it must, these learned men forget to explain:]—(3) That in the middle of
the IIIrd and of the IVth century the two Texts referred to were with
design and by authority welded together, and became (what the same
irresponsible Critics are pleased to call) the “Syrian text.”—(4) That
αἰνοῦντες καὶ εὐλογοῦντες, being thus shown [?] to be “a Syrian
_Conflation_,” may be rejected at once. (_Notes_, p. 73.)

X. But we demur to this weak imagination, (which only by courtesy can be
called “_a Theory_,”) on every ground, and are constrained to remonstrate
with our would-be Guides at every step. They assume everything. They prove
nothing. And the facts of the case lend them no favour at all. For
first,—We only find εὐλογοῦντες standing alone, in two documents of the
IVth century, in two of the Vth, and in one of the VIIIth: while, for
αἰνοῦντες standing alone, the only Greek voucher producible is a
notoriously corrupt copy of the VIth century. True, that here a few copies
of the old Latin side with D: but then a few copies _also_ side with the
traditional Text: and Jerome is found to have adjudicated between their
rival claims _in favour of the latter_. The probabilities of the case are
in fact simply overwhelming; for, since D omits 1552 words out of 19,941
(_i.e._ about one word in 13), _why_ may not καὶ εὐλογοῦντες _be two of
the words it omits_,—in which case there has been no “Conflation”?

Nay, look into the matter a little more closely:—(for surely, before we
put up with this queer illusion, it is our duty to look it very steadily
in the face:)—and note, that in this last chapter of S. Luke’s Gospel,
which consists of 837 words, no less than 121 are omitted by cod. D. To
state the case differently,—D is observed to leave out _one word in seven_
in the very chapter of S. Luke which supplies the instance of “Conflation”
under review. What possible significance therefore can be supposed to
attach to its omission of the clause καὶ εὐλογοῦντες? And since, _mutatis
mutandis_, the same remarks apply to the 6 remaining cases,—(for one, viz.
the [7th], is clearly an oversight,)—will any Reader of ordinary fairness
and intelligence be surprised to hear that we reject the assumed
“Conflation” unconditionally, as a silly dream? It is founded entirely
upon the omission of 21 (or at most 42) words out of a total of 31,587
from Codd. B א D. And yet it is demonstrable that out of that total, B
omits 1519: א, 1686: D, 2452. The occasional _coincidence in Omission_ of
B + א and D, was in a manner inevitable, and is undeserving of notice.
If,—(which is as likely as not,)—on _six_ occasions, B + א and D have but
_omitted different words in the same sentence_, then _there has been no
_“Conflation”; and the (so-called) “Theory,” which was to have
revolutionized the Text of the N. T., is discovered to rest absolutely
_upon nothing_. It bursts, like a very thin bubble: floats away like a
film of gossamer, and disappears from sight.

But further, as a matter of fact, _at least five_ out of the eight
instances cited,—viz. the [1st], [2nd], [5th], [6th], [7th],—_fail to
exhibit the alleged phenomena_: conspicuously ought never to have been
adduced. For, in the [1st], D merely _abridges_ the sentence: in the
[2nd], it _paraphrases_ 11 words by 11; and in the [6th], it _paraphrases_
12 words by 9. In the [5th], B D merely _abridge_. The utmost _residuum_
of fact which survives, is therefore as follows:—

[3rd]. In a sentence of 11 words, B א omit 4: D other 4.
[4th].    "        "     9 words, B א omit 5: D other 5.
[8th].    "        "     5 words, B א omit 2: D other 2.

But if _this_ be “the clearest Evidence” (p. 94) producible for “the
Theory of Conflation,”—then, the less said about the “Theory,” the better
for the credit of its distinguished Inventors. How _any_ rational Textual
Theory is to be constructed out of the foregoing Omissions, we fail to
divine. But indeed the whole matter is demonstrably a weak imagination,—_a
dream_, and nothing more.

XI. In the meantime, Drs. Westcott and Hort, instead of realizing the
insecurity of the ground under their feet, proceed gravely to build upon
it, and to treat their hypothetical assumptions as well-ascertained facts.
They imagine that they have already been led by “independent Evidence” to
regard “the longer readings as conflate each from the two earlier
readings:”—whereas, up to p. 105 (where the statement occurs), they have
really failed to produce a single particle of evidence, direct or
indirect, for their opinion. “We have found reason to believe” the
Readings of א B L, (say they,) “to be the original Readings.”—But why, if
this is the case, have they kept their “finding” so entirely to
themselves?—_No reason whatever_ have they assigned for their belief. The
Reader is presently assured (p. 106) that “_it is certain_” that the
Readings exhibited by the traditional Text in the eight supposed cases of
“Conflation” are all posterior in date to the fragmentary readings
exhibited by B and D. But, once more, What is _the ground_ of this
“certainty”?—Presently (viz. in p. 107), the Reader meets with the further
assurance that


    “_the proved_ actual use of [shorter] documents in the conflate
    Readings renders their use elsewhere a _vera causa_ in the
    Newtonian sense.”


But, once more,—_Where_ and _what_ is the “proof” referred to? May a plain
man, sincerely in search of Truth,—after wasting many precious hours over
these barren pages—be permitted to declare that he resents such solemn
trifling? (He craves to be forgiven if he avows that “_Pickwickian_”—not
“Newtonian”—was the epithet which solicited him, when he had to transcribe
for the Printer the passage which immediately precedes.)

XII. Next come 8 pages (pp. 107-15) headed—“Posteriority of ‘Syrian’ to
‘Western’ and other (neutral and ‘Alexandrian’) Readings, shown by
Ante-Nicene Patristic evidence.”

In which however we are really “shown” nothing of the sort. _Bold
Assertions_ abound, (as usual with this respected writer,) but _Proof_ he
never attempts any. Not a particle of “Evidence” is adduced.—Next come 5
pages headed,—“Posteriority of Syrian to Western, Alexandrian, and other
(neutral) Readings, shown by Internal evidence of Syrian readings” (p.
115).

But again we are “_shown_” absolutely nothing: although we are treated to
the assurance that we have been shown many wonders. Thus, “the Syrian
conflate Readings _have shown_ the Syrian text to be posterior to at least
two ancient forms still extant” (p. 115): which is the very thing they
have signally failed to do. Next,


    “Patristic evidence _has shown_ that these two ancient Texts, and
    also a third, must have already existed early in the third
    century, and suggested very strong grounds for believing that in
    the middle of the century the Syrian Text had not yet been
    formed.”


Whereas _no single appeal_ has been made to the evidence supplied by _one
single ancient Father_!—


    “Another step is gained by a close examination of all Readings
    distinctively Syrian.”—(_Ibid._)


And yet we are never told which the “Readings distinctively Syrian”
_are_,—although they are henceforth referred to in every page. Neither are
we instructed how to recognize them when we see them; which is
unfortunate, since “it follows,”—(though we entirely fail to see from
_what_,)—“that all distinctively Syrian Readings may be set aside at once
as certainly originating after the middle of the third century.” (p. 117)
... Let us hear a little more on the subject:—


    “The same _Facts_”—(though Dr. Hort has not hitherto favoured us
    with _any_)—“lead to another conclusion of equal or even greater
    importance respecting non-distinctive Syrian Readings ... Since
    the Syrian Text is only a modified eclectic combination of earlier
    Texts independently attested,”—


(for it is in this confident style that these eminent Scholars handle the
problem they undertook to solve, but as yet have failed even _to touch_),—


    “existing documents descended from it can attest nothing but
    itself.”—(p. 118.)


Presently, we are informed that “it follows from what has been said
above,”—(though _how_ it follows, we fail to see,)—“that all Readings in
which the Pre-Syrian texts concur, _must be accepted at once as the
Apostolic Readings_:” and that “all distinctively Syrian Readings _must be
at once rejected_.”—(p. 119.)

Trenchant decrees of this kind at last arrest attention. It becomes
apparent that we have to do with a Writer who has discovered a summary way
of dealing with the Text of Scripture, and who is prepared to impart his
secret to any who care to accept—without questioning—his views. We look
back to see where this accession of confidence began, and are reminded
that at p. 108 Dr. Hort announced that for convenience he should
henceforth speak of certain “groups of documents,” by the conventional
names “Western”—“Pre-Syrian”—“Alexandrian”—and so forth. Accordingly, ever
since, (sometimes eight or ten times in the course of a single page,(719))
we have encountered this arbitrary terminology: have been required to
accept it as the expression of ascertained facts in Textual Science. Not
till we find ourselves floundering in the deep mire, do we become fully
aware of the absurdity of our position. Then at last, (and high time
too!), we insist on knowing what on earth our Guide is about, and whither
he is proposing to lead us?... More considerate to our Readers than he has
been to us, we propose before going any further, (instead of mystifying
the subject as Dr. Hort has done,) to state in a few plain words what the
present Theory, divested of pedantry and circumlocution, proves to be; and
what is Dr. Hort’s actual contention.

XIII. The one great Fact, which especially troubles him and his joint
Editor,(720)—(as well it may)—is _The Traditional Greek Text_ of the New
Testament Scriptures. Call this Text Erasmian or Complutensian,—the Text
of Stephens, or of Beza, or of the Elzevirs,—call it the “Received,” or
the _Traditional Greek Text_, or whatever other name you please;—the fact
remains, that a Text _has_ come down to us which is attested by a general
consensus of ancient Copies, ancient Fathers, ancient Versions. This, at
all events, is a point on which, (happily,) there exists entire conformity
of opinion between Dr. Hort and ourselves. Our Readers cannot have yet
forgotten his virtual admission that,—_Beyond all question the Textus
Receptus_ is _the dominant Græco-Syrian Text of_ A.D. 350 _to_ A.D.
400.(721)

Obtained from a variety of sources, this Text proves to be essentially
_the same_ in all. That it requires Revision in respect of many of its
lesser details, is undeniable: but it is at least as certain that it is an
excellent Text as it stands, and that the use of it will never lead
critical students of Scripture seriously astray,—which is what no one will
venture to predicate concerning any single Critical Edition of the N. T.
which has been published since the days of Griesbach, by the disciples of
Griesbach’s school.

XIV. In marked contrast to the Text we speak of,—(which is identical with
the Text of every extant Lectionary of the Greek Church, and may therefore
reasonably claim to be spoken of as the _Traditional_ Text,)—is _that_
contained in a little handful of documents of which the most famous are
codices B א, and the Coptic Version (as far as it is known), on the one
hand,—cod. D and the old Latin copies, on the other. To magnify the merits
of these, as helps and guides, and to ignore their many patent and
scandalous defects and blemishes:—_per fas et nefas_ to vindicate their
paramount authority wherever it is in any way possible to do so; and when
_that_ is clearly impossible, then to treat their errors as the ancient
Egyptians treated their cats, dogs, monkeys, and other vermin,—namely, to
embalm them, and pay them Divine honours:—_such_ for the last 50 years has
been the practice of the dominant school of Textual Criticism among
ourselves. The natural and even necessary correlative of this, has been
the disparagement of the merits of the commonly Received Text: which has
come to be spoken of, (we know not why,) as contemptuously, almost as
bitterly, as if it had been at last ascertained to be untrustworthy in
every respect: a thing undeserving alike of a place and of a name among
the monuments of the Past. Even to have “used the Received Text _as a
basis for correction_” (p. 184) is stigmatized by Dr. Hort as one “great
cause” why Griesbach went astray.

XV. Drs. Westcott and Hort have in fact outstripped their predecessors in
this singular race. Their absolute contempt for the Traditional
Text,—their superstitious veneration for a few ancient documents; (which
documents however they freely confess _are not more ancient_ than the
“Traditional Text” which they despise;)—knows no bounds. But the thing
just now to be attended to is the argumentative process whereby they seek
to justify their preference.—LACHMANN avowedly took his stand on a very
few of the oldest known documents: and though TREGELLES slightly enlarged
the area of his predecessor’s observations, his method was practically
identical with that of Lachmann.—TISCHENDORF, appealing to every known
authority, invariably shows himself regardless of the evidence he has
himself accumulated. Where certain of the uncials are,—_there_ his verdict
is sure also to be.... Anything more unscientific, more unphilosophical,
more transparently _foolish_ than such a method, can scarcely be
conceived: but it has prevailed for 50 years, and is now at last more
hotly than ever advocated by Drs. WESTCOTT and HORT. Only, (to their
credit be it recorded,) they have had the sense to perceive that it must
needs be recommended by _Arguments_ of some sort, or else it will
inevitably fall to pieces the first fine day any one is found to charge
it, with the necessary knowledge of the subject, and with sufficient
resoluteness of purpose, to make him a formidable foe.

XVI. Their expedient has been as follows.—Aware that the Received or
Traditional Greek Text (to quote their own words,) “_is virtually
identical with that used by Chrysostom and other Antiochian Fathers in the
latter part of the IVth century_:” and fully alive to the fact that it
“_must therefore have been represented by Manuscripts as old as any which
are now surviving_” (_Text_, p. 547),—they have invented an extraordinary
Hypothesis in order to account for its existence:—

They assume that the writings of Origen “establish the prior existence of
at least three types of Text:”—the most clearly marked of which, they call
the “Western:”—another, less prominent, they designate as
“Alexandrian:”—the third holds (they say) a middle or “Neutral” position.
(That all this is mere _moonshine_,—a day-dream and no more,—we shall
insist, until some proofs have been produced that the respected Authors
are moving amid material forms,—not discoursing with the creations of
their own brain.) “The priority of two at least of these three Texts just
noticed to the Syrian Text,” they are confident has been established by
the eight “_conflate_” Syrian Readings which they flatter themselves they
have already resolved into their “Western” and “Neutral” elements (_Text_,
p. 547). This, however, is a part of the subject on which we venture to
hope that our Readers by this time have formed a tolerably clear opinion
for themselves. The ground has been cleared of the flimsy superstructure
which these Critics have been 30 years in raising, ever since we blew away
(pp. 258-65) the airy foundation on which it rested.

At the end of some confident yet singularly hazy statements concerning the
characteristics of “Western” (pp. 120-6), of “Neutral” (126-30), and of
“Alexandrian” Readings (130-2), Dr. Hort favours us with the assurance
that—


    “The Syrian Text, to which the order of time now brings us,” “is
    the chief monument of a new period of textual history.”—(p. 132.)

    “Now, the three great lines were brought together, and made to
    contribute to the formation of a new Text different from all.”—(p.
    133.)


Let it only be carefully remembered that it is of something virtually
identical with the _Textus Receptus_ that we are just now reading an
imaginary history, and it is presumed that the most careless will be made
attentive.


    “The Syrian Text must in fact be the result of a ‘_Recension_,’
    ... performed deliberately by Editors, and not merely by
    Scribes.”—(_Ibid._)


But _why_ “must” it? Instead of “_must in fact_,” we are disposed to read
“_may—in fiction_.” The learned Critic can but mean that, on comparing the
Text of Fathers of the IVth century with the Text of cod. B, it becomes to
himself self-evident that _one of the two_ has been fabricated. Granted.
Then,—Why should not _the solitary Codex_ be the offending party? For what
imaginable reason should cod. B,—which comes to us without a character,
and which, when tried by the test of primitive Antiquity, stands convicted
of “_universa vitiositas_,” (to use Tischendorf’s expression);—_why_ (we
ask) should _codex_ B be upheld “contra mundum”?... Dr. Hort
proceeds—(still speaking of “_the_ [imaginary] _Syrian Text_”),—


    “It was probably initiated by the distracting and inconvenient
    currency of at least three conflicting Texts in the same
    region.”—(p. 133.)


Well but,—Would it not have been more methodical if “the currency of at
least three conflicting Texts in the same region,” had been first
_demonstrated_? or, at least, shown to be a thing probable? Till this
“distracting” phenomenon has been to some extent proved to have any
existence in _fact_, what possible “probability” can be claimed for the
history of a “Recension,”—which very Recension, up to this point, _has not
been proved to have ever taken place at all_?


    “Each Text may perhaps have found a Patron in some leading
    personage or see, and thus have seemed to call for a conciliation
    of rival claims.”—(p. 134.)


Why yes, to be sure,—“each Text [_if it existed_] may perhaps [_or perhaps
may not_] have found a Patron in some leading personage [as Dr. Hort or
Dr. Scrivener in our own days]:” but then, be it remembered, this will
only have been possible,—(_a_) If the Recension _ever took place_:
and—(_b_) If it was conducted after the extraordinary fashion which
prevailed in the Jerusalem Chamber from 1870 to 1881: for which we have
the unimpeachable testimony of an eye-witness;(722) confirmed by the
Chairman of the Revisionist body,—by whom in fact it was deliberately
invented.(723)

But then, since not a shadow of proof is forthcoming that _any such
Recension as Dr. Hort imagines ever took place at all_,—what else but a
purely gratuitous exercise of the imaginative faculty is it, that Dr. Hort
should proceed further to invent the method which might, or could, or
would, or should have been pursued, if it _had_ taken place?

Having however in this way (1) Assumed a “Syrian Recension,”—(2) Invented
the cause of it,—and (3) Dreamed the process by which it was carried into
execution,—the Critic hastens, _more suo_, to characterize _the historical
result_ in the following terms:—


    “The qualities which THE AUTHORS OF THE SYRIAN TEXT seem to have
    most desired to impress on it are lucidity and completeness. They
    were evidently anxious to remove all stumbling-blocks out of the
    way of the ordinary reader, so far as this could be done without
    recourse to violent measures. They were apparently equally
    desirous that he should have the benefit of instructive matter
    contained in all the existing Texts, provided it did not confuse
    the context or introduce seeming contradictions. New Omissions
    accordingly are rare, and where they occur are usually found to
    contribute to apparent simplicity. New Interpolations, on the
    other hand, are abundant, most of them being due to harmonistic or
    other assimilation, fortunately capricious and incomplete. Both in
    matter and in diction THE SYRIAN TEXT is conspicuously a full
    Text. It delights in Pronouns, Conjunctions, and Expletives and
    supplied links of all kinds, as well as in more considerable
    Additions. As distinguished from the _bold vigour_ of the
    ‘Western’ scribes, and _the refined scholarship_ of the
    ‘Alexandrians,’ the spirit of its own corrections is at once
    sensible and feeble. Entirely blameless, on either literary or
    religious grounds, as regards vulgarized or unworthy diction, yet
    _shewing no marks of either Critical or Spiritual insight, it
    presents the New Testament in a form smooth and attractive, but
    appreciably impoverished in sense and force; more fitted for
    cursory perusal or recitation than for repeated and diligent
    study_.”—(pp. 134-5.)


XVII. We forbear to offer any remarks on this. We should be thought
uncivil were we to declare our own candid estimate of “the critical and
spiritual” perception of the man who could permit himself so to write. We
prefer to proceed with our sketch of the Theory, (of _the Dream_ rather,)
which is intended to account for the existence of the Traditional Text of
the N. T.: only venturing again to submit that surely it would have been
high time to discuss the characteristics which “the Authors of the Syrian
Text” impressed upon their work, when it had been first established—or at
least rendered probable—that the supposed Operators and that the assumed
Operation have any existence except in the fertile brain of this
distinguished and highly imaginative writer.

XVIII. Now, the first consideration which strikes us as fatal to Dr.
Hort’s unsupported conjecture concerning the date of the Text he calls
“Syrian” or “Antiochian,” is the fact that what he so designates bears a
most inconvenient resemblance to the Peschito or ancient Syriac Version;
which, like the old Latin, is (by consent of the Critics) generally
assigned to the second century of our era. “It is at any rate no stretch
of imagination,” (according to Bp. Ellicott,) “to suppose that portions of
it might have been in the hands of S. John.” [p. 26.] Accordingly, these
Editors assure us that—


    “the only way of explaining the whole body of facts is _to
    suppose_ that the Syriac, like the Latin Version, underwent
    Revision long after its origin; and that our ordinary Syriac MSS.
    represent not the primitive but the altered Syriac Text.”—(p.
    136.)

    “A Revision of the old Syriac Version _appears_ to have taken
    place in the IVth century, or sooner; and _doubtless in some
    connexion with the Syrian Revision of the Greek Text_, the
    readings being to a very great extent coincident.”—(_Text_, 552.)

    “Till recently, the Peschito has been known only in the form which
    it finally received by _an evidently authoritative Revision_,”—_a
    Syriac _“Vulgate”_ answering to the Latin _“Vulgate.”—(p. 84.)

    “Historical antecedents render it _tolerably certain_ that the
    locality of such an authoritative Revision”—(which Revision
    however, be it observed, still rests wholly on unsupported
    conjecture)—“would be either Edessa or Nisibis.”—(p. 136.)


In the meantime, the abominably corrupt document known as “Cureton’s
Syriac,” is, by another bold hypothesis, assumed to be the only surviving
specimen of the unrevised Version, and is henceforth _invariably_
designated by these authors as “the old Syriac;” and referred to, as “syr.
vt.,”—(in imitation of the Latin “_vetus_”): the venerable Peschito being
referred to as the “Vulgate Syriac,”—“syr. vg.”


    “When therefore we find large and peculiar coincidences between
    the _revised Syriac Text_ and the Text of the Antiochian Fathers
    of the latter part of the IVth century,”—[of which coincidences,
    (be it remarked in passing,) the obvious explanation is, that the
    Texts referred to are faithful traditional representations of the
    inspired autographs;]—“and _strong indications_ that the Revision
    _was deliberate and in some way authoritative_ in both cases,—_it
    becomes natural to suppose_ that the two operations had some
    historical connexion.”—(pp. 136-7.)


XIX. But how does it happen—(let the question be asked without
offence)—that a man of good abilities, bred in a University which is
supposed to cultivate especially the Science of exact reasoning, should
habitually allow himself in such slipshod writing as this? The very _fact_
of a “Revision” of the Syriac has all to be proved; and until it has been
_demonstrated_, cannot of course be reasoned upon as a fact. Instead of
demonstration, we find ourselves invited (1)—“_To suppose_” that such a
Revision took place: and (2)—“_To suppose_” that all our existing
Manuscripts represent it. But (as we have said) not a shadow of reason is
produced why we should be so complaisant as “to suppose” either the one
thing or the other. In the meantime, the accomplished Critic hastens to
assure us that there exist “strong indications”—(why are we not _shown_
them?)—that the Revision he speaks of was “deliberate, and in some way
authoritative.”

Out of this grows a “natural supposition” that “two [purely imaginary]
operations,” “had some _historical connexion_.” Already therefore has the
shadow thickened into a substance. “The _Revised_ Syriac Text” has by this
time come to be spoken of as an admitted fact. The process whereby it came
into being is even assumed to have been “deliberate and authoritative.”
These Editors henceforth style the Peschito the “_Syriac_ Vulgate,”—as
confidently as Jerome’s Revision of the old Latin is styled the “_Latin_
Vulgate.” They even assure us that “Cureton’s Syriac” “renders the
comparatively late and ‘revised’ character of the Syriac Vulgate _a matter
of certainty_” (p. 84). The very city in which the latter underwent
Revision, can, it seems, be fixed with “_tolerable certainty_” (p.
136).... Can Dr. Hort be serious?

At the end of a series of conjectures, (the foundation of which is the
hypothesis of an Antiochian Recension of the Greek,) the learned writer
announces that—“The textual elements of each principle document _having
being thus ascertained, it now becomes possible to determine the Genealogy
of a much larger number of individual readings than before_” (_Text_, p.
552).—We read and marvel.

So then, in brief, the Theory of Drs. Westcott and Hort is this:—that,
somewhere between A.D. 250 and A.D. 350,


    “(1) The growing diversity and confusion of Greek Texts led to an
    authoritative Revision at Antioch:—which (2) was then taken as
    standard for a similar authoritative Revision of the Syriac
    text:—and (3) was itself at a later time subjected to a second
    authoritative Revision”—this “final process” having been
    “apparently completed by [A.D.] 350 or thereabouts.”—(p. 137.)


XX. Now, instead of insisting that this entire Theory is made up of a
series of purely gratuitous assumptions,—destitute alike of attestation
and of probability: and that, as a mere effort of the Imagination, it is
entitled to no manner of consideration or respect at our hands:—instead of
dealing _thus_ with what precedes, we propose to be most kind and
accommodating to Dr. Hort. We proceed _to accept his Theory in its
entirety_. We will, with the Reader’s permission, assume that _all_ he
tells us is historically true: is an authentic narrative of what actually
did take place. We shall in the end invite the same Reader to recognize
the inevitable consequences of our admission: to which we shall inexorably
pin the learned Editors—bind them hand and foot;—of course reserving to
ourselves the right of disallowing _for ourselves_ as much of the matter
as we please.

Somewhere between A.D. 250 and 350 therefore,—(“it is impossible to say
with confidence” [p. 137] what was the actual date, but these Editors
evidently incline to the latter half of the IIIrd century, _i.e._ _circa_
A.D. 275);—we are to believe that the Ecclesiastical heads of the four
great Patriarchates of Eastern Christendom,—Alexandria, Antioch,
Jerusalem, Constantinople,—had become so troubled at witnessing the
prevalence of depraved copies of Holy Scripture in their respective
churches, that they resolved by common consent on achieving an
authoritative Revision which should henceforth become the standard Text of
all the Patriarchates of the East. The same sentiment of distress—(by the
hypothesis) penetrated into Syria proper; and the Bishops of Edessa or
Nisibis, (“great centres of life and culture to the Churches whose
language was Syriac,” [p. 136,]) lent themselves so effectually to the
project, that a single fragmentary document is, at the present day, the
only vestige remaining of the Text which before had been universally
prevalent in the Syriac-speaking Churches of antiquity. “The _almost total
extinction of Old Syriac MSS._, contrasted with the great number of extant
_Vulgate Syriac MSS._,”—(for it is thus that Dr. Hort habitually exhibits
evidence!),—is to be attributed, it seems, to the power and influence of
the Authors of the imaginary Syriac Revision. [_ibid._] Bp. Ellicott, by
the way (an unexceptionable witness), characterizes Cureton’s Syriac as
“_singular and sometimes rather wild_.” “_The text, of a very composite
nature_; sometimes _inclining to the shortness and simplicity of the
Vatican manuscript, but more commonly presenting the same paraphrastic
character of text as the Codex Bezæ_.” [p. 42.] (It is, in fact, an
_utterly depraved_ and _fabricated_ document.)

We venture to remark in passing that Textual matters must have everywhere
reached a very alarming pass indeed to render intelligible the resort to
so extraordinary a step as a representative Conference of the “leading
Personages or Sees” (p. 134) of Eastern Christendom. The inference is at
least inevitable, that men in high place at that time deemed themselves
competent to grapple with the problem. Enough was familiarly known about
the character and the sources of these corrupt Texts to make it certain
that they would be recognizable when produced; and that, when condemned by
authority, they would no longer be propagated, and in the end would cease
to molest the Church. Thus much, at all events, is legitimately to be
inferred from the hypothesis.

XXI. Behold then from every principal Diocese of ancient Christendom, and
in the Church’s palmiest days, the most famous of the ante-Nicene Fathers
repair to Antioch. They go up by authority, and are attended by skilled
Ecclesiastics of the highest theological attainment. Bearers are they
perforce of a vast number of Copies of the Scriptures: and (by the
hypothesis) _the latest possible dates_ of any of these Copies must range
between A.D. 250 and 350. But the Delegates of so many ancient Sees will
have been supremely careful, before starting on so important and solemn an
errand, to make diligent search for the oldest Copies anywhere
discoverable: and when they reach the scene of their deliberations, we may
be certain that they are able to appeal to not a few codices _written
within a hundred years of the_ date of the _inspired Autographs_
themselves. Copies of the Scriptures authenticated as having belonged to
the most famous of their predecessors,—and held by them in high repute for
the presumed purity of their Texts—will have been freely produced: while,
in select receptacles, will have been stowed away—for purposes of
comparison and avoidance—specimens of those dreaded Texts whose existence
has been the sole cause why (by the hypothesis) this extraordinary
concourse of learned Ecclesiastics has taken place.

After solemnly invoking the Divine blessing, these men address themselves
assiduously to their task; and (by the hypothesis) they proceed to condemn
every codex which exhibits a “strictly Western,” or a “strictly
Alexandrian,” or a “strictly Neutral” type. In plain English, if codices
B, א, and D had been before them, they would have unceremoniously rejected
all three; but then, (by the hypothesis) neither of the two first-named
had yet come into being: while 200 years at least must roll out before
Cod. D would see the light. In the meantime, the _immediate ancestors_ of
B א and D will perforce have come under judicial scrutiny; and, (by the
hypothesis,) they will have been scornfully rejected by the general
consent of the Judges.

XXII. Pass an interval—(are we to suppose of fifty years?)—and the work
referred to is “_subjected to a second authoritative Revision_.” _Again_,
therefore, behold the piety and learning of the four great Patriarchates
of the East, formally represented at Antioch! The Church is now in her
palmiest days. Some of her greatest men belong to the period of which we
are speaking. Eusebius (A.D. 308-340) is in his glory. One whole
generation has come and gone since the last Textual Conference was held,
at Antioch. Yet is no inclination manifested to reverse the decrees of the
earlier Conference. This second Recension of the Text of Scripture does
but “carry out more completely the purposes of the first;” and “the final
process was apparently completed by A.D. 350” (p. 137).—So far the
Cambridge Professor.

XXIII. But the one important fact implied by this august deliberation
concerning the Text of Scripture has been conveniently passed over by Dr.
Hort in profound silence. We take leave to repair his omission by inviting
the Reader’s particular attention to it.

We request him to note that, _by the hypothesis_, there will have been
submitted to the scrutiny of these many ancient Ecclesiastics _not a few
codices of exactly the same type as codices_ B _and_ א: especially as
codex B. We are able even to specify with precision certain features which
the codices in question will have all concurred in exhibiting. Thus,—

(1) From S. Mark’s Gospel, those depraved copies will have omitted THE
LAST TWELVE VERSES (xvi. 9-20).

(2) From S. Luke’s Gospel the same corrupt copies will have omitted our
SAVIOUR’S AGONY IN THE GARDEN (xxii. 43, 44).

(3) His PRAYER ON BEHALF OF HIS MURDERERS (xxiii. 34), will have also been
away.

(4) The INSCRIPTION ON THE CROSS, in GREEK, LATIN, AND HEBREW (xxiii. 38),
will have been partly, misrepresented,—partly, away.

(5) And there will have been no account discoverable of S. PETER’S VISIT
TO THE SEPULCHRE (xxiv. 12).

(6) Absent will have been also the record of our LORD’S ASCENSION INTO
HEAVEN (_ibid._ 51).

(7) Also, from S. John’s Gospel, the codices in question will have omitted
the incident of THE TROUBLING OF THE POOL OF BETHESDA (v. 3, 4).

Now, we request that it may be clearly noted that, _according to Dr.
Hort_, against every copy of the Gospels so maimed and mutilated, (_i.e._
_against every copy of the Gospels of the same type as codices_ B _and_
א,)—the many illustrious Bishops who, (_still_ according to Dr. Hort,)
assembled at Antioch, first in A.D. 250 and then in A.D. 350,—by common
consent set a mark of _condemnation_. We are assured that those famous
men,—those Fathers of the Church,—were emphatic in their sanction,
instead, of codices of the type of Cod. A,—in which all these seven
omitted passages (and many hundreds besides) are duly found in their
proper places.

When, therefore, at the end of a thousand and half a thousand years, Dr.
Hort (guided by his inner consciousness, and depending on an intellectual
illumination of which he is able to give no intelligible account) proposes
to reverse the deliberate sentence of Antiquity,—his position strikes us
as bordering on the ludicrous. Concerning the seven places above referred
to, which the assembled Fathers pronounce to be genuine Scripture, and
declare to be worthy of all acceptation,—Dr. Hort expresses himself in
terms which—could they have been heard at Antioch—must, it is thought,
have brought down upon his head tokens of displeasure which might have
even proved inconvenient. But let the respected gentleman by all means be
allowed to speak for himself:—

(1) THE LAST TWELVE VERSES of S. Mark (he would have been heard to say)
are a “very early interpolation.” “Its authorship and precise date must
remain unknown.” “It manifestly cannot claim any Apostolic authority.” “It
is doubtless founded on some tradition of the Apostolic age.”—(_Notes_,
pp. 46 and 51.)

(2) THE AGONY IN THE GARDEN (he would have told them) is “an early Western
interpolation,” and “can only be a fragment from traditions, written or
oral,”—“rescued from oblivion by the scribes of the second century.”—(pp.
66-7.)

(3) THE PRAYER OF OUR LORD FOR HIS MURDERERS (Dr. Hort would have
said),—“I cannot doubt comes from an extraneous source.” It is “a Western
interpolation.”—(p.68.)

(4) TO THE INSCRIPTION ON THE CROSS, IN GREEK, LATIN, AND HEBREW [S. Luke
xxiii. 38], he would not have allowed so much as a hearing.

(5) The spuriousness of the narrative of S. PETER’S VISIT TO THE SEPULCHRE
[S. Luke xxiv. 12] (the same Ante-Nicene Fathers would have learned) he
regards as a “moral certainty.” He would have assured them that it is “a
Western non-interpolation.”—(p. 71.)

(6) They would have learned that, in the account of the same Critic, S.
Luke xxiv. 51 is another spurious addition to the inspired Text: another
“Western non-interpolation.” Dr. Hort would have tried to persuade them
that OUR LORD’S ASCENSION INTO HEAVEN “_was evidently inserted from an
assumption_ that a separation from the disciples at the close of a Gospel
_must be the Ascension_,” (_Notes_, p. 73).... (What the Ante-Nicene
Fathers would have thought of their teacher we forbear to conjecture.)—(p.
71.)

(7) THE TROUBLING OF THE POOL OF BETHESDA [S. John v. 3, 4] is not even
allowed a bracketed place in Dr. Hort’s Text. How the accomplished Critic
would have set about persuading the Ante-Nicene Fathers that they were in
error for holding it to be genuine Scripture, it is hard to imagine.

XXIV. It is plain therefore that Dr. Hort is in direct antagonism with the
collective mind of Patristic Antiquity. _Why_, when it suits him, he
should appeal to the same Ancients for support,—we fail to understand. “If
Baal be GOD, then follow _him_!” Dr. Hort has his codex B and his codex א
to guide him. He informs us (p. 276) that “the fullest consideration does
but increase the conviction that the _pre-eminent relative purity_” of
those two codices “is approximately _absolute_,—_a true approximate
reproduction of the Text of the Autographs_.” On the other hand, he has
discovered that the Received Text is virtually the production of the
Fathers of the Nicene Age (A.D. 250-A.D. 350),—exhibits a Text fabricated
throughout by the united efforts of those well-intentioned but thoroughly
misguided men. What is it to _him_, henceforth, how Athanasius, or
Didymus, or Cyril exhibits a place?

Yes, we repeat it,—Dr. Hort is in direct antagonism with the Fathers of
the IIIrd and the IVth Century. His own fantastic hypothesis of a “Syrian
Text,”—the solemn expression of the collective wisdom and deliberate
judgment of the Fathers of the Nicene Age (A.D. 250-A.D. 350),—is the best
answer which can by possibility be invented to his own pages,—is, in our
account, the one sufficient and conclusive refutation of his own Text.

Thus, his prolix and perverse discussion of S. Mark xvi. 9-20 (viz. from
p. 28 to p. 51 of his _Notes_),—which, carefully analysed, is found merely
to amount to “Thank you for showing us our mistake; but we mean to stick
to our _Mumpsimus_!”:—those many inferences as well from what the Fathers
do _not_ say, as from what they _do_;—are all effectually disposed of by
his own theory of a “Syrian text.” A mighty array of forgotten Bishops,
Fathers, Doctors of the Nicene period, come back and calmly assure the
accomplished Professor that the evidence on which he relies is but an
insignificant fraction of the evidence which was before themselves when
they delivered their judgment. “Had you known but the thousandth part of
what we knew familiarly,” say they, “you would have spared yourself this
exposure. You seem to have forgotten that Eusebius was one of the chief
persons in our assembly; that Cyril of Jerusalem and Athanasius, Basil and
Gregory of Nazianzus, as well as his namesake of Nyssa,—were all living
when we held our Textual Conference, and some of them, though young men,
were even parties to our decree.”... Now, as an _argumentum ad hominem_,
this, be it observed, is decisive and admits of no rejoinder.

XXV. How then about those “Syrian _Conflations_” concerning which a few
pages back we heard so much, and for which Dr. Hort considers the august
tribunal of which we are now speaking to be responsible? He is convinced
that the (so-called) Syrian Text (which he regards as the product of their
deliberations), is “an eclectic text _combining Readings from the three
principal Texts_” (p. 145): which Readings in consequence he calls
“_conflate_.” How then is it to be supposed that these “Conflations”
arose? The answer is obvious. As “Conflations,” _they have no
existence_,—save in the fertile brain of Dr. Hort. Could the ante-Nicene
fathers who never met at Antioch have been interrogated by him concerning
this matter,—(let the Hibernian supposition be allowed for argument
sake!)—they would perforce have made answer,—“You quite mistake the
purpose for which we came together, learned sir! You are evidently
thinking of your Jerusalem Chamber and of the unheard-of method devised by
your Bishop” [see pp. 37 to 39: also p. 273] “for ascertaining the Truth
of Scripture. Well may the resuscitation of so many forgotten blunders
have occupied you and your colleagues for as long a period as was expended
on the Siege of Troy! _Our_ business was not to _invent_ readings whether
by ‘Conflation’ or otherwise, but only to distinguish between spurious
Texts and genuine,—families of fabricated MSS., and those which we knew to
be trustworthy,—mutilated and unmutilated Copies. Every one of what _you_
are pleased to call ‘Conflate Readings,’ learned sir, we found—just as you
find them—in 99 out of 100 of our copies: and we gave them our deliberate
approval, and left them standing in the Text in consequence. We believed
them to be,—we are confident that they _are_,—the very words of the
Evangelists and Apostles of the LORD: the _ipsissima verba_ of the SPIRIT:
‘_the true sayings of the_ HOLY GHOST.’ ” [See p. 38, note 2.]

All this however by the way. The essential thing to be borne in mind is
that, according to Dr. Hort,—_on two distinct occasions between_ A.D. 250
_and_ 350—the whole Eastern Church, meeting by representation in her
palmiest days, deliberately put forth _that_ Traditional Text of the N. T.
with which we at this day are chiefly familiar. That this is indeed his
view of the matter, there can at least be no doubt. He says:—


    “_An authoritative Revision_ at Antioch ... was itself subjected
    to _a second authoritative Revision_ carrying out more completely
    the purposes of the first.” “At what date between A.D. 250 and 350
    _the first process_ took place, it is impossible to say with
    confidence.” “_The final process_ was apparently completed by A.D.
    350 or thereabouts.”—(p. 137.)

    “The fundamental text of late extant Greek MSS. generally _is
    beyond all question_ identical with the dominant Antiochian or
    Græco-Syrian text of _the second half of the IVth century_.”—(p.
    92.)


Be it so. It follows that the Text exhibited by such codices as B and א
_was deliberately condemned_ by the assembled piety, learning, and
judgment of the four great Patriarchates of Eastern Christendom. At a
period when there existed _nothing more modern_ than Codices B and
א,—nothing _so_ modern as A and C,—all specimens of the former class were
_rejected_: while such codices as bore a general resemblance to A were by
common consent pointed out as deserving of confidence and _recommended for
repeated Transcription_.

XXVI. Pass _fifteen hundred_ years, and the Reader is invited to note
attentively what has come to pass. Time has made a clean sweep, it may be,
of every Greek codex belonging to either of the two dates above indicated.
Every tradition belonging to the period has also long since utterly
perished. When lo, in A.D. 1831, under the auspices of Dr. Lachmann, “a
new departure” is made. Up springs what may be called the new German
school of Textual Criticism,—of which the fundamental principle is a
superstitious deference to the decrees of cod. B. The heresy prevails for
fifty years (1831-81) and obtains many adherents. The practical result is,
that its chief promoters make it their business to throw discredit on the
result of the two great Antiochian Revisions already spoken of! The
(so-called) “Syrian Text”—although assumed by Drs. Westcott and Hort to be
the product of the combined wisdom, piety, and learning of the great
Patriarchates of the East from A.D. 250 to A.D. 350; “a ‘Recension’ in the
proper sense of the word; a work of attempted Criticism, performed
deliberately by Editors and not merely by Scribes” (p. 133):—this “Syrian
Text,” Doctors Westcott and Hort denounce as “_showing no marks of either
critical or spiritual insight:_”—

It “presents” (say they) “the New Testament in a form smooth and
attractive, but _appreciably impoverished in sense and force_; more fitted
for cursory perusal or recitation than for repeated and diligent
study.”—(p. 135.)

XXVII. We are content to leave this matter to the Reader’s judgment. For
ourselves, we make no secret of the grotesqueness of the contrast thus,
for the second time, presented to the imagination. On _that_ side, by the
hypothesis, sit the greatest Doctors of primitive Christendom, assembled
in solemn conclave. Every most illustrious name is there. By ingeniously
drawing a purely arbitrary hard-and-fast line at the year A.D. 350, and so
anticipating many a “_floruit_” by something between five and
five-and-twenty years, Dr. Hort’s intention is plain: but the expedient
will not serve his turn. Quite content are we with the names secured to us
within the proposed limits of time. On _that_ side then, we behold
congregated choice representatives of the wisdom, the piety, the learning
of the Eastern Church, from A.D. 250 to A.D. 350.—On this side sits—Dr.
Hort! ... An interval of 1532 years separates these two parties.

XXVIII. And first,—How may the former assemblage be supposed to have been
occupying themselves? The object with which those distinguished personages
came together was the loftiest, the purest, the holiest imaginable: viz.
to purge out from the sacred Text the many corruptions by which, in their
judgments, it had become depraved during the 250 (or at the utmost 300)
years which have elapsed since it first came into existence; to detect the
counterfeit and to eliminate the spurious. Not unaware by any means are
they of the carelessness of Scribes, nor yet of the corruptions which have
been brought in through the officiousness of critical “Correctors” of the
Text. To what has resulted from the misdirected piety of the Orthodox,
they are every bit as fully alive as to what has crept in through the
malignity of Heretical Teachers. Moreover, while the memory survives in
all its freshness of the depravations which the inspired Text has
experienced from these and other similar corrupting influences, the _means
abound_ and _are at hand_ of _testing_ every suspected place of Scripture.
Well, and next,—How have these holy men prospered in their holy
enterprise?

XXIX. According to Dr. Hort, by a strange fatality,—a most unaccountable
and truly disastrous proclivity to error,—these illustrious Fathers of the
Church have been at every instant substituting the spurious for the
genuine,—a fabricated Text in place of the Evangelical Verity. Miserable
men! In the Gospels alone they have interpolated about 3100 words: have
omitted about 700: have substituted about 1000; have transposed about
2200: have altered (in respect of number, case, mood, tense, person, &c.)
about 1200.(724) This done, they have amused themselves with the
give-and-take process of mutual accommodation which we are taught to call
“_Conflation_:” in plain terms, _they have been manufacturing Scripture_.
The Text, as it comes forth from their hands,—

(a) “_Shews no marks of either critical or spiritual insight:_”—

(b) “Presents the New Testament in a form smooth and attractive, but
_appreciably impoverished in sense and force_:”—

(c) “_Is more fitted for cursory perusal or recitation, than for repeated
and diligent study._”

Moreover, the mischief has proved infectious,—has spread. In Syria also,
at Edessa or Nisibis,—(for it is as well to be circumstantial in such
matters,)—the self-same iniquity is about to be perpetrated; of which the
Peschito will be the abiding monument: _one_ solitary witness only to the
pure Text being suffered to escape. Cureton’s fragmentary Syriac will
alone remain to exhibit to mankind the outlines of primitive Truth. (The
reader is reminded of the character already given of the document in
question at the summit of page 279. Its extravagance can only be fully
appreciated by one who will be at the pains to read it steadily through.)

XXX. And pray, (we ask,)—_Who_ says all this? _Who_ is it who gravely puts
forth all this egregious nonsense?... It is Dr. Hort, (we answer,) at pp.
134-5 of the volume now under review. In fact, according to _him_, those
primitive Fathers have been the great falsifiers of Scripture; have proved
the worst enemies of the pure Word of GOD; have shamefully betrayed their
sacred trust; have done the diametrical reverse of what (by the
hypothesis) they came together for the sole purpose of doing. They have
depraved and corrupted that sacred Text which it was their aim, their
duty, and their professed object to purge from its errors. And (by the
hypothesis) Dr. Hort, at the end of 1532 years,—aided by codex B and his
own self-evolved powers of divination,—has found them out, and now holds
them up to the contempt and scorn of the British public.

XXXI. In the meantime the illustrious Professor invites us to believe that
the mistaken textual judgment pronounced at Antioch in A.D. 350 had an
immediate effect on the Text of Scripture throughout the world. We are
requested to suppose that it resulted in the instantaneous extinction of
codices the like of B א, wherever found; and caused codices of the A type
to spring up like mushrooms in their place, and _that_, in every library
of ancient Christendom. We are further required to assume that this
extraordinary substitution of new evidence for old—the false for the
true—fully explains why Irenæus and Hippolytus, Athanasius and Didymus,
Gregory of Nazianzus and Gregory of Nyssa, Basil and Ephraem, Epiphanius
and Chrysostom, Theodore of Mopsuestia and Isidore of Pelusium, Nilus and
Nonnus, Proclus and Severianus, the two Cyrils and Theodoret—_one and
all_—show themselves strangers to the text of B and א.... We read and
marvel.

XXXII. For, (it is time to enquire,)—Does not the learned Professor see
that, by thus getting rid of the testimony of the whole body of the
Fathers, he leaves the Science which he is so good as to patronize in a
most destitute condition,—besides placing himself in a most inconvenient
state of isolation? If clear and consentient Patristic testimony to the
Text of Scripture is not to be deemed forcible witness to its
Truth,—_whither_ shall a man betake himself for constraining Evidence? Dr.
Hort has already set aside the Traditional Text as a thing of no manner of
importance. The venerable Syriac Version he has also insisted on reducing
very nearly to the level of the despised cursives. As for the copies of
the old Latin, they had confessedly become so untrustworthy, at the time
of which he speaks, that a modest Revision of the Text they embody, (the
“_Vulgate_” namely,) became at last a measure of necessity. What remains
to him therefore? Can he seriously suppose that the world will put up with
the “idiosyncrasy” of a living Doctor—his “personal instincts” (p.
xi.)—his “personal discernment” (p. 65),—his “instinctive processes of
Criticism” (p. 66),—his “individual mind,”—in preference to articulate
voices coming to us across the gulf of Time from every part of ancient
Christendom? How—with the faintest chance of success—does Dr. Hort propose
to remedy the absence of External Testimony? If mankind can afford to do
without either consent of Copies or of Fathers, why does mankind any
longer adhere to the ancient methods of proof? Why do Critics of every
school _still_ accumulate references to MSS., explore the ancient
Versions, and ransack the Patristic writings in search of neglected
citations of Scripture? That the ancients were indifferent Textual
Critics, is true enough. The mischief done by Origen in this
department,—through his fondness for a branch of Learning in which his
remarks show that he was all unskilled,—is not to be told. But then, these
men lived within a very few hundred years of the Apostles of the LORD
JESUS CHRIST: and when they witness to the reading of their own copies,
their testimony on the point, to say the least, is worthy of our most
respectful attention. _Dated codices,_ in fact are they, _to all intents
and purposes,_ as often as they bear clear witness to the Text of
Scripture:—a fact, (we take leave to throw out the remark in passing,)
which has not yet nearly attracted the degree of attention which it
deserves.

XXXIII. For ourselves, having said so much on this subject, it is fair
that we should add,—We devoutly wish that Dr. Hort’s hypothesis of an
authoritative and deliberate Recension of the Text of the New Testament
achieved at Antioch first, about A.D. 250, and next, about A.D. 350, were
indeed an historical fact. We desire no firmer basis on which to rest our
confidence in the Traditional Text of Scripture than the deliberate
verdict of Antiquity,—the ascertained sanction of the collective Church,
in the Nicene age. The _Latin_ “Vulgate” [A.D. 385] is the work of a
single man—Jerome. The _Syriac_ “Vulgate” [A.D. 616] was also the work of
a single man—Thomas of Harkel. But this _Greek_ “Vulgate” was (by the
hypothesis) the product of the Church Catholic, [A.D. 250-A.D. 350,] in
her corporate capacity. Not only should we hail such a monument of the
collective piety and learning of the Church in her best days with
unmingled reverence and joy, were it introduced to our notice; but we
should insist that no important deviation from such a “_Textus Receptus_”
as _that_ would deserve to be listened to. In other words, if Dr. Hort’s
theory about the origin of the _Textus Receptus_ have _any foundation at
all_ in fact, it is “all up” with Dr. Hort. He is absolutely _nowhere._ He
has most ingeniously placed himself on the horns of a fatal dilemma.

For,—(let it be carefully noted,)—the entire discussion becomes, in this
way, brought (so to speak) within the compass of a nutshell. To state the
case briefly,—We are invited to make our election between the Fathers of
the Church, A.D. 250 and A.D. 350,—and Dr. Hort, A.D. 1881. The issue is
really reduced to _that._ The general question of THE TEXT OF SCRIPTURE
being the matter at stake; (not any particular passage, remember, but _the
Text of Scripture as a whole;_)—and the _conflicting parties_ being but
_two_;—_Which_ are we to believe? the _consentient Voice of Antiquity,_—or
the solitary modern Professor? Shall we accept the august Testimony of the
whole body of the Fathers? or shall we prefer to be guided by the
self-evolved imaginations of one who confessedly has nothing to offer but
conjecture? The question before us is reduced to that single issue. But in
fact the alternative admits of being yet more concisely stated. We are
invited to make our election between FACT and—FICTION.... All this, of
course, on the supposition that there is _any truth at all_ in Dr. Hort’s
“New Textual Theory.”

XXXIV. Apart however from the gross intrinsic improbability of the
supposed Recension,—the utter absence of one particle of evidence,
traditional or otherwise, that it ever did take place, must be held to be
fatal to the hypothesis that it _did._ It is simply incredible that an
incident of such magnitude and interest would leave no trace of itself in
history. As a conjecture—(and it only professes to be a conjecture)—Dr.
Hort’s notion of how the Text of the Fathers of the IIIrd, IVth, and Vth
centuries,—which, as he truly remarks, is in the main identical with our
own _Received Text_,—came into being, must be unconditionally abandoned.
In the words of a learned living Prelate,—“_the supposition_” on which
Drs. Westcott and Hort have staked their critical reputation, “_is a
manifest absurdity_.”(725)

XXXV. We have been so full on the subject of this imaginary “Antiochian”
or “Syrian text,” not (the reader may be sure) without sufficient reason.
Scant satisfaction truly is there in scattering to the winds an airy
tissue which its ingenious authors have been industriously weaving for 30
years. But it is clear that with this hypothesis of a “Syrian” text,—the
immediate source and actual prototype of the commonly received Text of the
N. T.,—_stands or falls their entire Textual theory_. Reject it, and the
entire fabric is observed to collapse, and subside into a shapeless ruin.
And with it, of necessity, goes the “New Greek Text,”—and therefore the
“_New English Version_” of our Revisionists, which in the main has been
founded on it.

XXXVI. In the meantime the phenomena upon which this phantom has been
based, remain unchanged; and fairly interpreted, will be found to conduct
us to the diametrically opposite result to that which has been arrived at
by Drs. Westcott and Hort. With perfect truth has the latter remarked on
the practical “identity of the Text, more especially in the Gospels and
Pauline Epistles, in all the known cursive MSS., except a few” (p. 143).
We fully admit the truth of his statement that—

“_Before the close of the IVth century_, a Greek Text not materially
differing from the almost universal Text of the IXth,”—[and why not of the
VIth? of the VIIth? of the VIIIth? or again of the Xth? of the XIth? of
the XIIth?]—“century, was dominant at Antioch.”—(p. 142.)

And why not throughout the whole of Eastern Christendom? _Why_ this
continual mention of “_Antioch_”—this perpetual introduction of the
epithet “_Syrian_”? Neither designation applies to Irenæus or to
Hippolytus,—to Athanasius or to Didymus,—to Gregory of Nazianzus or to his
namesake of Nyssa,—to Basil or to Epiphanius,—to Nonnus or to Macarius,—to
Proclus or to Theodoras Mops.,—to the earlier or to the later Cyril.—In
brief,


    “The fundamental text of the late extant Greek MSS. generally is,
    beyond all question, identical with [what Dr. Hort chooses to
    call] the dominant Antiochian or Græco-Syrian text of the second
    half of the IVth century.... The Antiochian [and other] Fathers,
    and the bulk of extant MSS. written from about three or four, to
    ten or eleven centuries later, must have had, in the greater
    number of extant variations, a common original _either
    contemporary with, or older than, our oldest extant MSS._”—(p.
    92.)


XXXVII. So far then, happily, we are entirely agreed. The only question
is,—How is this resemblance to be accounted for? _Not_, we answer,—_not_,
certainly, by putting forward so violent and improbable—so _irrational_ a
conjecture as that, first, about A.D. 250,—and then again about A.D.
350,—an authoritative standard Text was fabricated at Antioch; of which
all other known MSS. (except a very little handful) are nothing else but
transcripts:—but rather, by loyally recognizing, in the practical identity
of the Text exhibited by 99 out of 100 of our extant MSS., the probable
general fidelity of those many transcripts _to the inspired exemplars
themselves from which remotely they are confessedly descended_. And
surely, if it be allowable to assume (with Dr. Hort) that for 1532 years,
(viz. from A.D. 350 to A.D. 1882) the _Antiochian_ standard has been
faithfully retained and transmitted,—it will be impossible to assign any
valid reason why the inspired Original itself, the _Apostolic_ standard,
should not have been as faithfully transmitted and retained from the
Apostolic age to the Antiochian,(726)—_i.e._ throughout an interval of
less than 250 years, or _one-sixth_ of the period.

XXXVIII. Here, it will obviously occur to enquire,—But what has been Drs.
Westcott and Hort’s _motive_ for inventing such an improbable hypothesis?
and why is Dr. Hort so strenuous in maintaining it?... We reply by
reminding the Reader of certain remarks which we made at the outset.(727)
The _Traditional Text_ of the N. T. is a phenomenon which sorely exercises
Critics of the new school. To depreciate it, is easy: to deny its critical
authority, is easier still: to cast ridicule on the circumstances under
which Erasmus produced his first (very faulty) edition of it (1516), is
easiest of all. But _to ignore_ the “Traditional Text,” is impossible.
Equally impossible is it to overlook its practical identity with the Text
of Chrysostom, who lived and taught _at Antioch_ till A.D. 398, when he
became Abp. of _Constantinople_. Now this is a very awkward circumstance,
and must in some way be got over; for it transports us, at a bound, from
the stifling atmosphere of Basle and Alcala,—from Erasmus and Stunica,
Stephens and Beza and the Elzevirs,—to Antioch and Constantinople in the
latter part of the IVth century. What is to be done?

XXXIX. Drs. Westcott and Hort assume that this “Antiochian text”—found in
the later cursives and the Fathers of the latter half of the IVth
century—must be an _artificial_, an _arbitrarily invented_ standard; a
text _fabricated_ between A.D. 250 and A.D. 350. And if they may but be so
fortunate as to persuade the world to adopt their hypothesis, then all
will be easy; for they will have reduced the supposed “consent of Fathers”
to the reproduction of one and the same single “primary documentary
witness:”(728)—and “it is hardly necessary to point out the total change
in the bearing of the evidence by the introduction of _the factor of
Genealogy_” (p. 43) at this particular juncture. _Upset_ the hypothesis on
the other hand, and all is reversed in a moment. Every attesting Father is
perceived to be a dated MS. and an independent authority; and the combined
evidence of several of these becomes simply unmanageable. In like manner,
“the approximate consent of the cursives” (see the foot-note), is
perceived to be equivalent _not_ to “A PRIMARY DOCUMENTARY WITNESS,”—_not_
to “ONE ANTIOCHIAN ORIGINAL,”—but to be tantamount to the articulate
speech of _many_ witnesses _of high character_, coming to us _from every
quarter_ of primitive Christendom.

XL. But—(the further enquiry is sure to be made)—In favour of which
document, or set of documents, have all these fantastic efforts been made
to disparage the commonly received standards of excellence? The ordinary
English Reader may require to be reminded that, prior to the IVth century,
our Textual helps are few, fragmentary, and—to speak plainly—insufficient.
As for sacred Codices of that date, we possess NOT ONE. Of our two
primitive Versions, “the Syriac and the old Latin,” the second is grossly
corrupt; owing (says Dr. Hort) “to a perilous confusion between
transcription and _reproduction_;” “the preservation of a record and _its
supposed improvement_” (p. 121). “Further acquaintance with it only
increases our distrust” (_ibid._). In plainer English, “the earliest
readings which can be fixed chronologically” (p. 120) belong to a Version
which is licentious and corrupt to an incredible extent. And though “there
is no reason to doubt that the Peschito [or ancient Syriac] is at least as
old as the Latin Version” (p. 84), yet (according to Dr. Hort) it is
“impossible”—(he is nowhere so good as to explain to us wherein this
supposed “impossibility” consists),—to regard “_the present form_ of the
Version as a true representation of the original Syriac text.” The date of
it (according to _him_) _may_ be as late as A.D. 350. Anyhow, we are
assured (but only by Dr. Hort) that important “evidence for the Greek text
is hardly to be looked for from _this_ source” (p. 85).—The Fathers of the
IIIrd century who have left behind them considerable remains in Greek are
but two,—Clemens Alex. and Origen: and there are considerations attending
the citations of either, which greatly detract from their value.

XLI. The question therefore recurs with redoubled emphasis,—In favour of
_which_ document, or set of documents, does Dr. Hort disparage the more
considerable portion of that early evidence,—so much of it, namely, as
belongs to the IVth century,—on which the Church has been hitherto
accustomed confidently to rely? He asserts that,—


    “Almost all Greek Fathers after Eusebius have texts so deeply
    affected by mixture that” they “cannot at most count for more than
    so many secondary Greek uncial MSS., _inferior in most cases to
    the better sort of secondary uncial MSS. now existing_.”—(p. 202.)


And thus, at a stroke, behold, “almost _all Greek Fathers after
Eusebius_”—(who died A.D. 340)—are disposed of! washed overboard! put
clean out of sight! Athanasius and Didymus—the 2 Basils and the 2
Gregories—the 2 Cyrils and the 2 Theodores—Epiphanius and Macarius and
Ephraem—Chrysostom and Severianus and Proclus—Nilus and Nonnus—Isidore of
Pelusium and Theodoret: not to mention at least as many more who have left
scanty, yet most precious, remains behind them:—all these are pronounced
_inferior_ in authority to as many IXth- or Xth-century copies!... We
commend, in passing, the foregoing _dictum_ of these accomplished Editors
to the critical judgment of all candid and intelligent Readers. _Not_ as
dated manuscripts, therefore, at least equal in Antiquity to the oldest
which we now possess:—_not_ as the authentic utterances of famous Doctors
and Fathers of the Church, (instead of being the work of unknown and
irresponsible Scribes):—_not_ as sure witnesses of what was accounted
Scripture in a known region, by a famous personage, at a well-ascertained
period, (instead of coming to us, as our codices _universally_ do, without
a history and without a character):—in no such light are we henceforth to
regard Patristic citations of Scripture:—but only “as so many secondary
MSS., _inferior to the better sort of secondary uncials now existing_.”

XLII. That the Testimony of the Fathers, in the lump, must perforce in
some such way either be ignored or else flouted, if the Text of Drs.
Westcott and Hort is to stand,—we were perfectly well aware. It is simply
fatal to them: _and they know it_. But we were hardly prepared for such a
demonstration as _this_. Let it all pass however. The question we propose
is only the following,—If the Text “used by _great Antiochian theologians_
not long after the middle of the IVth century” (p. 146) is undeserving of
our confidence:—if we are to believe that a systematic depravation of
Scripture was universally going on till about the end of the IIIrd
century; and if at that time, an authoritative and deliberate recension of
it—conducted on utterly erroneous principles—took place at Antioch, and
resulted in the vicious “traditional Constantinopolitan” (p. 143), or (as
Dr. Hort prefers to call it) the “eclectic Syrian Text:”—_What remains to
us_? Are we henceforth to rely on our own “inner consciousness” for
illumination? Or is it seriously expected that for the restoration of the
inspired Verity we shall be content to surrender ourselves blindfold to
the _ipse dixit_ of an unknown and irresponsible nineteenth-century guide?
If neither of these courses is expected of us, will these Editors be so
good as to give us the names of the documents on which, in their judgment,
we _may_ rely?

XLIII. We are not suffered to remain long in a state of suspense. The
assurance awaits us (at p. 150), that the Vatican codex,


    “B—is found to hold a unique position. Its text is throughout
    _Pre-Syrian_, perhaps _purely Pre-Syrian_.... From distinctively
    Western readings it seems to be all but entirely free.... We have
    not been able to recognize as _Alexandrian_ any readings of B in
    any book of the New Testament.... So that ... neither of the early
    streams of innovation has touched it to any appreciable
    extent.”—(p. 150.)

    “The text of the Sinaitic codex (א)” also “seems to be entirely,
    or all but entirely, _Pre-Syrian_. A very large part of the text
    is in like manner free from _Western_ or _Alexandrian_
    elements.”—(p. 151.)

    “_Every other_ known Greek manuscript has either a mixed or a
    Syrian text.”—(p. 151.)


Thus then, at last, at the end of exactly 150 weary pages, the secret
comes out! The one point which the respected Editors are found to have
been all along driving at:—the one aim of those many hazy disquisitions of
theirs about “Intrinsic and Transcriptional Probability,”—“Genealogical
evidence, simple and divergent,”—and “the study of Groups:”—the one reason
of all their vague terminology,—and of their baseless theory of
“Conflation,”—and their disparagement of the Fathers:—the one _raison
d’être_ of their fiction of a “Syrian” and a “Pre-Syrian” and a “Neutral”
text:—the secret of it all comes out at last! A delightful, a truly
Newtonian simplicity characterizes the final announcement. All is summed
up in the curt formula—_Codex_ B!

Behold then the altar at which Copies, Fathers, Versions, are all to be
ruthlessly sacrificed:—the tribunal from which there shall be absolutely
no appeal:—the Oracle which is to silence every doubt, resolve every
riddle, smooth away every difficulty. All has been stated, where the name
has been pronounced of—codex B. One is reminded of an enegmatical epitaph
on the floor of the Chapel of S. John’s College, “_Verbum non
amplius—Fisher_”! To codex B all the Greek Fathers after Eusebius must
give way. Even Patristic evidence _of the ante-Nicene period_ “requires
critical sifting” (p. 202),—must be distrusted, may be denied (pp.
202-5),—if it shall be found to contradict Cod. B! “B very far exceeds all
other documents in neutrality of Text.”—(p. 171.)

XLIV. “At a long interval after B, but hardly a less interval before all
other MSS., stands א” (p. 171).—Such is the sum of the matter!... A
coarser,—a clumsier,—a more unscientific,—a more _stupid_ expedient for
settling the true Text of Scripture was surely never invented! _But_ for
the many foggy, or rather unreadable disquisitions with which the
_Introduction_ is encumbered, “Textual Criticism made easy,” might well
have been the title of the little volume now under Review; of which at
last it is discovered that _the general Infallibility of Codex_ B is the
fundamental principle. Let us however hear these learned men out.

XLV. They begin by offering us a chapter on the “General relations of B
and א to other documents:” wherein we are assured that,—


    “_Two striking facts_ successively come out with especial
    clearness. Every group containing both א and B, _is found_ ... to
    have _an apparently more original Text_ than every opposed group
    containing neither; and every group containing B ... _is found_ in
    a large preponderance of cases ... to have _an apparently more
    original Text_ than every opposed group containing א.”—(p. 210.)


“_Is found_”! but pray,—_By whom?_ And “_apparently_”! but pray,—_To
whom?_ and _On what grounds of Evidence_? For unless it be on _certain_
grounds of Evidence, how can it be pretended that we have before us “two
striking _facts_”?

Again, with what show of reason can it possibly be asserted that these
“two striking facts” “come out with _especial clearness_”? so long as
their very existence remains _in nubibus_,—has never been established, and
is in fact emphatically denied? Expressions like the foregoing _then_ only
begin to be tolerable when it has been made plain that the Teacher has
some solid foundation on which to build. Else, he occasions nothing but
impatience and displeasure. Readers at first are simply annoyed at being
trifled with: presently they grow restive: at last they become clamorous
for demonstration, and will accept of nothing less. Let us go on however.
We are still at p. 210:—


    “We found א and B to stand alone in their almost complete immunity
    from distinctive Syriac readings ... and B to stand far above א in
    its _apparent_ freedom from either Western or Alexandrian
    readings.”—(p. 210.)


But pray, gentlemen,—_Where_ and _when_ did “we find” either of these two
things? We have “found” nothing of the sort hitherto. The Reviewer is
disposed to reproduce the Duke of Wellington’s courteous reply to the
Prince Regent, when the latter claimed the arrangements which resulted in
the victory of Waterloo:—“_I have heard your Royal Highness say so_.”...
At the end of a few pages,


    “_Having found_ א B the constant element in groups of every size,
    distinguished by internal excellence of readings, _we found_ no
    less excellence in the readings in which they concur without other
    attestations of Greek MSS., or even of Versions or Fathers.”—(p.
    219.)


What! again? Why, we “_have found_” nothing as yet but Reiteration. Up to
this point we have not been favoured with one particle of Evidence!... In
the meantime, the convictions of these accomplished Critics,—(but not,
unfortunately, those of their Readers,)—are observed to strengthen as they
proceed. On reaching p. 224, we are assured that,


    “The independence [of B and א] can be carried back so far,”—(not a
    hint is given _how_,)—“that their concordant testimony may be
    treated as equivalent to that of a MS. older than א and B
    themselves by at least two centuries,—_probably_ by a generation
    or two more.”


How _that_ “independence” was established, and how _this_ “probability”
has been arrived at, we cannot even imagine. The point to be attended to
however, is, that by the process indicated, some such early epoch as A.D.
100 has been reached. So that now we are not surprised to hear that,


    “The respective ancestries of א and B must have diverged from a
    common parent _extremely near the Apostolic autographs_.”—(p. 220.
    See top of p. 221.)


Or that,—“_The close approach to the time of the autographs_ raises the
presumption of purity to an unusual strength.”—(p. 224.)

And lo, before we turn the leaf, this “presumption” is found to have
ripened into certainty:—


    “This general immunity from substantive error ... in the common
    original of א B, in conjunction with its very high antiquity,
    provides in a multitude of cases _a safe criterion of genuineness,
    not to be distrusted_ except on very clear internal evidence.
    Accordingly ... it is our belief, (1) That Readings of א B _should
    be accepted as the true Readings_ until strong internal evidence
    is found to the contrary; and (2), _That no Readings of_ א B _can
    be safely rejected absolutely_.”—(p. 225.)


XLVI. And thus, by an unscrupulous use of the process of Reiteration,
accompanied by a boundless exercise of the Imaginative faculty, we have
reached the goal to which all that went before has been steadily tending:
viz. the absolute supremacy of codices B and א above all other
codices,—and, when they differ, then of codex B.

And yet, the “immunity from substantive error” of a _lost_ Codex of
_imaginary_ date and _unknown_ history, cannot but be a pure
imagination,—(a mistaken one, as we shall presently show,)—of these
respected Critics: while their proposed practical inference from it,—(viz.
to regard two remote and confessedly depraved Copies of that original, as
“_a safe criterion of genuineness_,”)—this, at all events, is the reverse
of logical. In the meantime, the presumed proximity of the Text of א and B
to the Apostolic age is henceforth discoursed of as if it were no longer
matter of conjecture:—


    “The ancestries of both MSS. having started from a common source
    _not much later than the Autographs_,” &c.—(p. 247.)


And again:—


    “_Near as the divergence_ of the respective ancestries of B and א
    _must have been to the Autographs_,” &c.—(p. 273.)


Until at last, we find it announced as a “moral certainty:”—


    “_It is morally certain_ that the ancestries of B and א _diverged
    from a point near the Autographs_, and never came into contact
    subsequently.”—(_Text_, p. 556.)


After which, of course, we have no right to complain if we are assured
that:—


    “The fullest comparison does but increase the conviction that
    their pre-eminent relative _purity_ is approximately
    _absolute_,—_a true approximate reproduction of the Text of the
    Autographs_”—(p. 296.)


XLVII. But how does it happen—(we must needs repeat the enquiry, which
however we make with unfeigned astonishment,)—How does it come to pass
that a man of practised intellect, addressing persons as cultivated and
perhaps as acute as himself, can handle a confessedly obscure problem like
the present after this strangely incoherent, this foolish and wholly
inconclusive fashion? One would have supposed that Dr. Hort’s mathematical
training would have made him an exact reasoner. But he writes as if he had
no idea at all of the nature of demonstration, and of the process
necessary in order to carry conviction home to a Reader’s mind. Surely,
(one tells oneself,) a minimum of “pass” Logic would have effectually
protected so accomplished a gentleman from making such a damaging
exhibition of himself! For surely he must be aware that, as yet, he has
produced _not one particle of evidence_ that his opinion concerning B and
א is well founded. And yet, how can he possibly overlook the circumstance
that, unless he is able to _demonstrate_ that those two codices, and
especially the former of them, has “preserved not only a very ancient
Text, but _a very pure line of ancient Text_” also (p. 251), his entire
work, (inasmuch as it reposes on that one assumption,) on being critically
handled, crumbles to its base; or rather melts into thin air before the
first puff of wind? He cannot, surely, require telling that those who look
for Demonstration will refuse to put up with Rhetoric:—that, with no
thoughtful person will Assertion pass for Argument:—nor mere Reiteration,
however long persevered in, ever be mistaken for accumulated Proof.

“When I am taking a ride with Rouser,”—(quietly remarked Professor Saville
to Bodley Coxe,)—“I observe that, if I ever demur to any of his views,
Rouser’s practice always is, to repeat the same thing over again in the
same words,—_only in a louder tone of voice_” ... The delicate rhetorical
device thus indicated proves to be not peculiar to Professors of the
University of Oxford; but to be familiarly recognized as an instrument of
conviction by the learned men who dwell on the banks of the Cam. To be
serious however.—Dr. Hort has evidently failed to see that nothing short
of a careful induction of particular instances,—a system of laborious
footnotes, or an “Appendix” bristling with impregnable facts,—could
sustain the portentous weight of his fundamental position, viz. that Codex
B is so exceptionally pure a document as to deserve to be taken as a chief
guide in determining the Truth of Scripture.

It is related of the illustrious architect, Sir Gilbert Scott,—when he had
to rebuild the massive central tower of a southern Cathedral, and to rear
up thereon a lofty spire of stone,—that he made preparations for the work
which astonished the Dean and Chapter of the day. He caused the entire
area to be excavated to what seemed a most unnecessary depth, and
proceeded to lay a bed of concrete of fabulous solidity. The “wise
master-builder” was determined that his work should last for ever. Not so
Drs. Westcott and Hort. They are either troubled with no similar
anxieties, or else too clear-sighted to cherish any similar hope. They are
evidently of opinion that a cloud or a quagmire will serve their turn
every bit as well as granite or Portland-stone. Dr. Hort (as we have seen
already, namely in p. 252,) considers that his individual “STRONG
PREFERENCE” of one set of Readings above another, is sufficient to
determine whether the Manuscript which contains those Readings is pure or
the contrary. “_Formidable arrays of_ [hostile] _Documentary evidence_,”
he disregards and sets at defiance, when once his own “_fullest
consideration of Internal Evidence_” has “pronounced certain Readings to
be right” [p. 61].

The only indication we anywhere meet with of the actual _ground_ of Dr.
Hort’s certainty, and reason of his preference, is contained in his claim
that,—


    “Every binary group [of MSS.] _containing_ B is found to offer a
    large proportion of Readings, which, on the closest scrutiny, have
    THE RING OF GENUINENESS: while it is difficult to find any
    Readings so attested which LOOK SUSPICIOUS after full
    consideration.”—(p. 227. Also vol. i. 557—where the dictum is
    repeated.)


XLVIII. And thus we have, at last, an honest confession of the ultimate
principle which has determined the Text of the present edition of the N.
T. “_The ring of genuineness_”! _This_ it must be which was referred to
when “_instinctive processes of Criticism_” were vaunted; and the candid
avowal made that “the experience which is their foundation needs perpetual
correction and recorrection.”(729)


    “We are obliged” (say these accomplished writers) “to _come to the
    individual mind at last_.”(730)


And thus, behold, “at last” we _have_ reached the goal!... _Individual
idiosyncrasy_,—_not_ external Evidence:—Readings “_strongly
preferred_,”—_not_ Readings _strongly attested_:—“_personal discernment_”
(self! still self!) _conscientiously exercising __ itself upon Codex_
B;—this is a true account of the Critical method pursued by these
accomplished Scholars. They deliberately claim “_personal discernment_” as
“the surest ground for confidence.”(731) Accordingly, they judge of
Readings by their _looks_ and by their _sound_. When, in _their_ opinion,
words “look suspicious,” words are to be rejected. If a word has “the ring
of genuineness,”—(_i.e._ _if it seems to them_ to have it,)—they claim
that the word shall pass unchallenged.

XLIX. But it must be obvious that such a method is wholly inadmissible. It
practically dispenses with Critical aids altogether; substituting
individual caprice for external guidance. It can lead to no tangible
result: for Readings which “look suspicious” to one expert, may easily
_not_ “look” so to another. A man’s “inner consciousness” cannot possibly
furnish trustworthy guidance in this subject matter. Justly does Bp.
Ellicott ridicule “the easy method of ... _using a favourite Manuscript_,”
combined with “_some supposed power of divining the Original
Text_;”(732)—unconscious apparently that he is thereby aiming a cruel blow
at certain of his friends.

As for the proposed test of Truth,—(the enquiry, namely, whether or no a
reading has “the ring of genuineness”)—it is founded on a transparent
mistake. The coarse operation alluded to may be described as a “rough and
ready” expedient practised by _receivers of money_ in the way of
self-defence, and _only_ for their own protection, lest base metal should
be palmed off upon them unawares. But Dr. Hort is proposing an analogous
test for the exclusive satisfaction of _him who utters_ the suspected
article. We therefore disallow the proposal entirely: not, of course,
because we suppose that so excellent and honourable a man as Dr. Hort
would attempt to pass off as genuine what he suspects to be fabricated;
but because we are fully convinced—(for reasons “plenty as
blackberries”)—that through some natural defect, or constitutional
inaptitude, he is not a competent judge. The man who finds “_no marks of
either Critical or Spiritual insight_” (p. 135) in the only Greek Text
which was known to scholars till A.D. 1831,—(although he confesses that
“the text of Chrysostom and other Syrian Fathers of the IVth century is
substantially identical with it”(733)); and vaunts in preference “_the
bold vigour_” and “_refined scholarship_” which is exclusively met with in
certain depraved uncials of the same or later date:—the man who thinks it
not unlikely that the incident of the piercing of our SAVIOUR’S side
(ἄλλος δὲ λαβῶν λόγχην κ.τ.λ.) was actually found in the genuine Text of
S. Matt. xxvii. 49, _as well as_ in S. John xix. 34:(734)—the man who is
of opinion that the incident of the Woman taken in Adultery (filling 12
verses), “presents serious differences from the diction of S. John’s
Gospel,”—treats it as “an insertion in a comparatively late Western
text”(735) and declines to retain it even within brackets, on the ground
that it “would fatally interrupt” the course of the narrative if suffered
to stand:—the man who can deliberately separate off from the end of S.
Mark’s Gospel, and print separately, S. Mark’s last 12 verses, (on the
plea that they “manifestly cannot claim any apostolic authority; but are
doubtless founded on some tradition of the Apostolic age;”(736))—yet who
straightway proceeds to annex, _as an alternative Conclusion_ (ἄλλως),
“the wretched supplement derived from codex L:”(737)—the man (lastly) who,
in defiance of “solid reason and pure taste,” finds music in the “utterly
marred” “rhythmical arrangement” of the Angels’ Hymn on the night of the
Nativity:(738)—such an one is not entitled to a hearing when he talks
about “_the ring of genuineness_.” He has already effectually put himself
out of Court. He has convicted himself of a natural infirmity of
judgment,—has given proof that he labours under a peculiar Critical
inaptitude for this department of enquiry,—which renders his decrees
nugatory, and his opinions worthless.

L. But apart from all this, the Reader’s attention is invited to a little
circumstance which Dr. Hort has unaccountably overlooked: but which, the
instant it has been stated, is observed to cause his picturesque theory to
melt away—like a snow-wreath in the sunshine.

On reflexion, it will be perceived that the most signal deformities of
codices B א D L are _instances of Omission_. In the Gospels alone, B omits
2877 words.

How,—(we beg to enquire,)—How will you apply your proposed test to a
_Non-entity_? How will you ascertain whether something which _does not
exist in the Text_ has “the ring of genuineness” or not? There can be _no_
“ring of genuineness,” clearly, where there is nothing to ring with! Will
any one pretend that _the omission_ of the incident of the troubling of
the pool has in it any “ring of genuineness”?—or dare to assert that “the
ring of genuineness” is imparted to the history of our SAVIOUR’S Passion,
by the omission of His Agony in the Garden?—or that the narrative of His
Crucifixion becomes more musical, when our Lord’s Prayer for His murderers
has been _omitted_?—or that ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ (“for they were afraid”), has
“the ring of genuineness” as the conclusion of the last chapter of the
Gospel according to S. Mark?

But the strangest circumstance is behind. It is notorious that, on the
contrary, Dr. Hort is frequently constrained to admit that _the omitted
words_ actually _have_ “the ring of genuineness.” The words which he
insists on thrusting out of the Text are often conspicuous _for the very
quality_ which (by the hypothesis) was the warrant for their exclusion. Of
this, the Reader may convince himself by referring to the note at foot of
the present page.(739) In the meantime, the matter discoursed of may be
conveniently illustrated by a short apologue:—

Somewhere in the fens of Ely diocese, stood a crazy old church (dedicated
to S. Bee, of course,) the bells of which—according to a learned Cambridge
Doctor—were the most musical in the world. “I have listened to those
bells,” (he was accustomed to say,) “for 30 years. All other bells are
cracked, harsh, out of tune. Commend me, for music, to the bells of S.
Bee’s! _They_ alone have _the ring of genuineness_.” ... Accordingly, he
published a treatise on Campanology, founding his theory on the musical
properties of the bells of S. Bee’s.—At this juncture, provokingly enough,
some one directed attention to the singular fact that S. Bee’s is one of
the few churches in that district _without_ bells: a discovery which, it
is needless to add, pressed inconveniently on the learned Doctor’s theory.

LI. But enough of this. We really have at last, (be it observed,) reached
the end of our enquiry. Nothing comes after Dr. Hort’s extravagant and
unsupported estimate of Codices B and א. On the contrary. Those two
documents are caused to cast their sombre shadows a long way ahead, and to
darken all our future. Dr. Hort takes leave of the subject with the
announcement that, whatever uncertainty may attach to the evidence for
particular readings,

“_The general course of future Criticism must be shaped by the happy
circumstance that the fourth century has bequeathed to us two MSS._ [B and
א], of which even the less incorrupt [א] must have been of exceptional
purity among its contemporaries: and which rise into greater pre-eminence
of character the better the early history of the Text becomes known.”—(p.
287.)

In other words, our guide assures us that in a dutiful submission to
codices B and א,—(which, he naïvely remarks, “_happen likewise to be the
oldest extant_ Greek MSS. of the New Testament” [p. 212],)—lies all our
hope of future progress. (Just as if we should ever have _heard_ of these
two codices, had their contents come down to us written in the ordinary
cursive character,—in a dated MS. (suppose) of the XVth century!)...
Moreover, Dr. Hort “must not hesitate to express” his own robust
conviction,


    “That no trustworthy improvement can be effected, _except in
    accordance with the leading Principles of method which we have
    endeavoured to explain_.”—(p. 285.)


LII. And this is the end of the matter. Behold our fate therefore:—(1)
Codices B and א, with—(2) Drs. Westcott and Hort’s _Introduction and Notes
on Select Readings_ in vindication of their contents! It is proposed to
shut us up within those limits!... An uneasy suspicion however secretly
suggests itself that perhaps, as the years roll out, something may come to
light which will effectually dispel every dream of the new School, and
reduce even prejudice itself to silence. So Dr. Hort hastens to frown it
down:—


    “It would be an illusion to anticipate important changes of Text
    [_i.e._ of the Text advocated by Drs. Westcott and Hort] _from any
    acquisition of new Evidence_.”—(p. 285.)


And yet, _why_ the anticipation of important help from the acquisition of
fresh documentary Evidence “would be an illusion,”—does not appear. That
the recovery of certain of the exegetical works of Origen,—better still,
of Tatian’s _Diatessaron_,—best of all, of a couple of MSS. of the date of
Codices B and א; but not, (like those two corrupt documents) derived from
one and the same depraved archetype;—That any such windfall, (and it will
come, some of these days,) would infallibly disturb Drs. Westcott and
Hort’s equanimity, as well as scatter to the winds not a few of their most
confident conclusions,—we are well aware. _So indeed are they._ Hence,
what those Critics earnestly deprecate, _we_ as earnestly desire. We are
therefore by no means inclined to admit, that


    “Greater possibilities of improvement lie in a more exact study of
    the relations between the documents that we already
    possess;”—(_Ibid._)


knowing well that “_the documents_” referred to are chiefly, (if not
solely,) _Codices_ B _and_ א: knowing also, that it is further meant, that
in estimating other evidence, of whatever kind, the only thing to be
enquired after is whether or no the attesting document _is generally in
agreement with codex_ B.

For, according to these writers,—tide what tide,—codex B is to be the
standard: itself not absolutely requiring confirmation from _any_
extraneous quarter. Dr. Hort asserts, (but it is, as usual, _mere_
assertion,) that,


    “_Even when_ B _stands quite alone_, its readings must never be
    lightly rejected.”—(p. 557.)


And yet,—_Why_ a reading found _only in codex_ B should experience greater
indulgence than another reading found _only in codex_ A, we entirely fail
to see.


    On the other hand, “_an unique criterion_ is supplied by the
    concord of the independent attestation of B and א.”—(_Notes_, p.
    46.)


But pray, how does _that_ appear? Since B and א are derived from one and
the same original—Why should not “the concord” spoken of be rather “an
unique criterion”_ of the utter depravity of the archetype_?

LIII. To conclude. We have already listened to Dr. Hort long enough. And
now, since confessedly, a chain is no stronger than it is at its weakest
link; nor an edifice more secure than the basis whereon it stands;—we must
be allowed to point out that we have been dealing throughout with a dream,
pure and simple; from which it is high time that we should wake up, now
that we have been plainly shown on what an unsubstantial foundation these
Editors have been all along building. A child’s house, several stories
high, constructed out of playing-cards,—is no unapt image of the frail
erection before us. We began by carefully lifting off the topmost story;
and then, the next: but we might as well have saved ourselves the trouble.
The basement-story has to be removed bodily, which must bring the whole
edifice down with a rush. In reply to the fantastic tissue of unproved
assertions which go before, we assert as follows:—

(1) The impurity of the Texts exhibited by Codices B and א is not a matter
of opinion, but a matter of fact.(740) These are two of the least
trustworthy documents in existence. So far from allowing Dr. Hort’s
position that—“A Text formed” by “taking Codex B as the sole authority,”
“would be incomparably nearer the Truth than a Text similarly taken from
any other Greek or other single document” (p. 251),—we venture to assert
that it would be, on the contrary, _by far the foulest Text that had ever
seen the light_: worse, that is to say, even than the Text of Drs.
Westcott and Hort. And that is saying a great deal. In the brave and
faithful words of Prebendary Scrivener (_Introduction_, p. 453),—words
which deserve to become famous,—


    “It is no less true to fact than paradoxical in sound, that the
    worst corruptions to which the New Testament has ever been
    subjected, originated within a hundred years after it was
    composed: that Irenæus [A.D. 150], and the African Fathers, and
    the whole Western, with a portion of the Syrian Church, used far
    inferior manuscripts to those employed by Stunica, or Erasmus, or
    Stephens thirteen centuries later, when moulding the Textus
    Receptus.”


And Codices B and א are, demonstrably, nothing else but _specimens of the
depraved class thus characterized_.

Next—(2), We assert that, so manifest are the disfigurements jointly and
_exclusively_ exhibited by codices B and א,(741) that instead of accepting
these codices as two “independent” Witnesses to the inspired Original, we
are constrained to regard them as little more than a single reproduction
of one and the same scandalously corrupt and (_comparatively_) late Copy.
By consequence, we consider their joint and exclusive attestation of any
particular reading, “_an unique criterion_” of its worthlessness; a
sufficient reason—_not_ for adopting, but—for unceremoniously rejecting
it.

Then—(3), As for the origin of these two curiosities, it can perforce only
be divined from their contents. That they exhibit fabricated Texts is
demonstrable. No amount of honest _copying_,—persevered in for any number
of centuries,—could by possibility have resulted in two such documents.
Separated from one another in actual date by 50, perhaps by 100
years,(742) they must needs have branched off from a common corrupt
ancestor, and straightway become exposed continuously to fresh depraving
influences. The result is, that codex א, (which evidently has gone through
more adventures and fallen into worse company than his rival,) has been
corrupted to a far graver extent than codex B, and is even more
untrustworthy. Thus, whereas (in the Gospels alone) B has 589 Readings
_quite peculiar to itself_, affecting 858 words,—א has 1460 such Readings,
affecting 2640 words.

One _solid fact_ like the preceding, (let it be pointed out in passing,)
is more helpful by far to one who would form a correct estimate of the
value of a Codex, than any number of such “reckless and unverified
assertions,” not to say peremptory and baseless decrees, as abound in the
highly imaginative pages of Drs. Westcott and Hort.

(4) Lastly,—We suspect that these two Manuscripts are indebted for their
preservation, _solely to their ascertained evil character_; which has
occasioned that the one eventually found its way, four centuries ago, to a
forgotten shelf in the Vatican library: while the other, after exercising
the ingenuity of several generations of critical Correctors, eventually
(viz. in A.D. 1844(743)) got deposited in the waste-paper basket of the
Convent at the foot of Mount Sinai. Had B and א been copies of average
purity, they must long since have shared the inevitable fate of books
which are freely _used_ and highly prized; namely, they would have fallen
into decadence and disappeared from sight. But in the meantime, behold,
their very Antiquity has come to be reckoned to their advantage; and
(strange to relate) is even considered to constitute a sufficient reason
why they should enjoy not merely extraordinary consideration, but the
actual surrender of the critical judgment. Since 1831, Editors have vied
with one another in the fulsomeness of the homage they have paid to these
“two false Witnesses,”—for such B and א _are_, as the concurrent testimony
of Copies, Fathers and Versions abundantly proves. Even superstitious
reverence has been claimed for these two codices: and Drs. Westcott and
Hort are so far in advance of their predecessors in the servility of their
blind adulation, that they must be allowed to have easily won the race.

LIV. With this,—so far as the Greek Text under review is concerned,—we
might, were we so minded, reasonably make an end. We undertook to show
that Drs. Westcott and Hort, in the volumes before us, have built up an
utterly worthless Textual fabric; and we consider that we have already
sufficiently shown it. The Theory,—the Hypothesis rather, on which their
Text is founded, we have _demonstrated_ to be _simply absurd_. Remove that
hypothesis, and a heap of unsightly ruins is all that is left
behind,—except indeed astonishment (not unmingled with concern) at the
simplicity of its accomplished Authors.

Here then, we might leave off. But we are unwilling so to leave the
matter. Large consideration is due to ordinary English Readers; who must
perforce look on with utter perplexity—not to say distress—at the strange
spectacle presented by _that_ Text (which is in the main _the Text of the
Revised English Version_) on the one hand,—and _this_ Review of it, on the
other:—

(1) “And pray, which of you am I to believe?”—will inevitably be, in
homely English, the exclamation with which not a few will lay down the
present number of the “_Quarterly_.” “I pretend to no learning. I am not
prepared to argue the question with you. But surely, the oldest Manuscript
_must_ be the purest! It even stands to reason: does it not?—Then further,
I admit that you _seem_ to have the best of the argument so far; yet,
since the three most famous Editors of modern times are against
you,—Lachmann, Tregelles, Tischendorf,—excuse me if I suspect that you
_must_ be in the wrong, after all.”

LV. With unfeigned humility, the Reviewer [_Q. R._] proceeds to explain
the matter to his supposed Objector [_S. O._], in briefest outline, as
follows:—

_Q. R._ “You are perfectly right. The oldest Manuscript _must_ exhibit the
purest text: _must_ be the most trustworthy. But then, unfortunately, it
happens that _we do not possess it_. ‘The oldest Manuscript’ is lost. You
speak, of course, of the inspired Autographs. These, I say, have long
since disappeared.”

(2) _S. O._ “No, I meant to say that the _oldest Manuscript we possess_,
if it be but a very ancient one, must needs be the purest.”

_Q. R._ “O, but _that_ is an entirely different proposition. Well, _apart
from experience_, the probability that the oldest copy extant will prove
the purest is, if you please, considerable. Reflection will convince you
however that it is _but_ a probability, at the utmost: a probability based
upon more than one false assumption,—with which nevertheless you shall not
be troubled. But in fact it clearly does not by any means follow that,
_because_ a MS. is very ancient, _therefore_ the Text, which it exhibits
will be very pure. That you may be thoroughly convinced of this,—(and it
is really impossible for your mind to be too effectually disabused of a
prepossession which has fatally misled so many,)—you are invited to
enquire for a recent contribution to the learned French publication
indicated at the foot of this page,(744) in which is exhibited a
fac-simile of 8 lines of the _Medea_ of Euripides (ver. 5-12), written
about B.C. 200 in small uncials (at Alexandria probably,) on papyrus.
Collated with any printed copy, the verses, you will find, have been
penned with scandalous, with incredible inaccuracy. But on this head let
the learned Editor of the document in question be listened to, rather than
the present Reviewer:—


    “On voit que le texte du papyrus est hérissé des fautes les plus
    graves. _Le plus récent et le plus mauvais de nos manuscrits
    d’Euripide vaut infiniment mieux que cette copie,—faite, il y a
    deux mille ans, dans le pays où florissaient l’érudition
    hellénique et la Critique des textes._”(745)—(p. 17.)


“Why, the author of the foregoing remarks might have been writing
concerning Codex B!”

(3) _S. O._ “Yes: but I want _Christian_ evidence. The author of that
scrap of papyrus _may_ have been an illiterate slave. What if it should be
a _school-boy’s exercise_ which has come down to us? The thing is not
impossible.”

_Q. R._ “Not ‘impossible’ certainly: but surely highly improbable.
However, let it drop. You insist on Christian evidence. You shall have it.
What think you then of the following statement of a very ancient Father
(Caius(746)) writing against the heresy of Theodotus and others who denied
the Divinity of CHRIST? He is bearing his testimony to the liberties which
had been freely taken with the Text of the New Testament in his own time,
viz. about A.D. 175-200:—


    “The Divine Scriptures,” he says, “these heretics have audaciously
    _corrupted_: ... laying violent hands upon them under pretence of
    _correcting_ them. That I bring no false accusation, any one who
    is disposed may easily convince himself. He has but to collect the
    copies belonging to these persons severally; then, to compare one
    with another; and he will discover that their discrepancy is
    extraordinary. Those of Asclepiades, at all events, will be found
    discordant from those of Theodotus. Now, plenty of specimens of
    either sort are obtainable, inasmuch as these men’s disciples have
    industriously multiplied the (so-called) ‘_corrected_’ copies of
    their respective teachers, which are in reality nothing else but
    ‘_corrupted_’ copies. With the foregoing copies again, those of
    Hermophilus will be found entirely at variance. As for the copies
    of Apollonides, they even contradict one another. Nay, let any one
    compare the fabricated text which these persons put forth in the
    first instance, with that which exhibits their _latest_
    perversions of the Truth, and he will discover that the
    disagreement between them is even excessive.

    “Of the enormity of the offence of which these men have been
    guilty, they must needs themselves be fully aware. Either they do
    not believe that the Divine Scriptures are the utterance of the
    HOLY GHOST,—in which case they are to be regarded as unbelievers:
    or else, they account themselves wiser than the HOLY GHOST,—and
    what is that, but to have the faith of devils? As for their
    denying their guilt, the thing is impossible, seeing that the
    copies under discussion are their own actual handywork; and they
    know full well that not such as these are the Scriptures which
    they received at the hands of their catechetical teachers. Else,
    let them produce the originals from which they made their
    transcripts. Certain of them indeed have not even condescended to
    falsify Scripture, but entirely reject Law and Prophets
    alike.”(747)


“Now, the foregoing statement is in a high decree suggestive. For here is
an orthodox Father _of the IInd century_ inviting attention to four
well-known families of falsified manuscripts of the Sacred
Writings;—complaining of the hopeless divergences which they exhibit
(being not only inconsistent with one another, but _with themselves_);—and
insisting that such _corrected_, are nothing else but shamefully
_corrupted_ copies. He speaks of the phenomenon as being in his day
notorious: and appeals to Recensions, the very names of whose
authors—Theodotus, Asclepiades, Hermophilus, Apollonides—have (all but the
first) long since died out of the Church’s memory. You will allow
therefore, (will you not?), that by this time the claim of the _oldest
existing copies_ of Scripture to be the purest, has been effectually
disposed of. For since there once prevailed such a multitude of corrupted
copies, we have no security whatever that the oldest of our extant MSS.
are not derived—remotely if not directly—from some of _them_.”

(4) _S. O._ “But at all events the chances are even. Are they not?”

_Q. R._ “By no means. A copy like codex B, once _recognized_ as belonging
to a corrupt family,—once _known_ to contain a depraved exhibition of the
Sacred Text,—was more likely by far to remain unused, and so to escape
destruction, than a copy highly prized and in daily use.—As for Codex א,
it carries on its face its own effectual condemnation; aptly illustrating
the precept _fiat experimentum in corpore vili_. It exhibits the efforts
of many generations of men to restore its Text,—(which, ‘as proceeding
from the first scribe,’ is admitted by one of its chief admirers to be
‘_very rough_,(748)’)—to something like purity. ‘_At least ten different
Revisers_,’ from the IVth to the XIIth century, are found to have tried
their hands upon it.(749)—Codex C, after having had ‘at least three
correctors very busily at work upon it’(750) (in the VIth and IXth
centuries), finally (in the XIIth) was fairly _obliterated_,—literally
_scraped out_,—to make room for the writings of a Syrian Father.—I am
therefore led by _à priori_ considerations to augur ill of the contents of
B א C. But when I find them hopelessly at variance _among themselves_:
above all, when I find (1) _all other Manuscripts_ of whatever date,—(2)
the _most ancient Versions_,—and (3), the _whole body of the primitive
Fathers_, decidedly opposed to them,—I am (to speak plainly) at a loss to
understand how any man of sound understanding, acquainted with all the
facts of the case and accustomed to exact reasoning, can hesitate to
regard the unsupported (or the _slenderly_ supported) testimony of one or
other of them as _simply worthless_. The craven homage which the foremost
of the three habitually receives at the hands of Drs. Westcott and Hort, I
can only describe as a weak superstition. It is something more than
unreasonable. It becomes even ridiculous.—Tischendorf’s preference (in his
last edition) for the _bêtises_ of his own codex א, can only be defended
on the plea of parental partiality. But it is not on that account the less
foolish. His ‘exaggerated preference for the single manuscript which he
had the good fortune to discover, _has betrayed him_’—(in the opinion of
Bishop Ellicott)—‘_into an almost child-like infirmity of critical
judgment_’ ”(751)

(5) _O. S._ “Well but,—be all _that_ as it may,—Caius, remember, is
speaking of _heretical_ writers. When I said ‘I want Christian evidence,’
I meant _orthodox_ evidence, of course. You would not assert (would you?)
that B and א exhibit traces of _heretical_ depravation?”

_Q. R._ “Reserving my opinion on that last head, good Sir, and determined
to enjoy the pleasure of your company on any reasonable terms,—(for
convince you, I both can and will, though you prolong the present
discussion till tomorrow morning,)—I have to ask a little favour of you:
viz. that you will bear me company in an imaginary expedition.

“I request that the clock of history may be put back seventeen hundred
years. This is A.D. 183, if you please: and—(indulge me in the
supposition!)—you and I are walking in Alexandria. We have reached the
house of one Clemens,—a learned Athenian, who has long been a resident
here. Let us step into his library,—he is from home. What a queer place!
See, he has been reading his Bible, which is open at S. Mark x. Is it not
a well-used copy? It must be at least 50 or 60 years old. Well, but
suppose only 30 or 40. It was executed therefore _within fifty years of
the death of S. John the Evangelist_. Come, let us transcribe two of the
columns(752) (σελίδες) as faithfully as we possibly can, and be off.... We
are back in England again, and the clock has been put right. Now let us
sit down and examine our curiosity at leisure.(753)... It proves on
inspection to be a transcript of the 15 verses (ver. 17 to ver. 31) which
relate to the coming of the rich young Ruler to our LORD.

“We make a surprising discovery. There are but 297 words in those 15
verses,—according to the traditional Text: of which, in the copy which
belonged to Clemens Alexandrinus, 39 prove to have been left out: 11 words
are added: 22, substituted: 27, transposed: 13, varied; and the phrase has
been altered at least 8 times. Now, 112 words out of a total of 297, is 38
per cent. What do you think of _that_?”

(6) _S. O._ “Think? O but, I disallow your entire proceeding! You have no
business to collate with ‘a text of late and degenerate type, such as is
the Received Text of the New Testament.’ When _this_ ‘is taken as a
standard, any document belonging to a purer stage of the Text must by the
nature of the case have the appearance of being guilty of omissions: and
the nearer the document stands to the autograph, the more numerous must be
the omissions laid to its charge.’ I learnt that from Westcott and Hort.
See page 235 of their luminous _Introduction_.”

_Q. R._ “Be it so! Collate the passage then for yourself with the Text of
Drs. Westcott and Hort: which, (remember!) aspires to reproduce ‘the
autographs themselves’ ‘with the utmost exactness which the evidence
permits’ (pp. 288 and 289).(754) You will find that _this_ time the words
omitted amount to 44. The words added are 13: the words substituted, 23:
the words transposed, 34: the words varied 16. And the phrase has been
altered 9 times at least. But, 130 on a total of 297, is 44 per cent. You
will also bear in mind that Clement of Alexandria is one of our principal
authorities for the Text of the Ante-Nicene period.(755)

“And thus, I venture to presume, the imagination has been at last
effectually disposed of, that _because_ Codices B and א are the two oldest
Greek copies in existence, the Text exhibited by either must _therefore_
be the purest Text which is anywhere to be met with. _It is impossible to
produce a fouler exhibition of S. Mark x. 17-31 than is contained in a
document full two centuries older than either _B_ or א,—itself the
property of one of the most famous of the ante-Nicene Fathers._”

LVI.—(7) At this stage of the argument, the Reviewer finds himself taken
aside by a friendly Critic [_F. C._], and privately remonstrated with
somewhat as follows:—

_F. C._ “Do you consider, Sir, what it is you are about? Surely, you have
been proving a vast deal too much! If the foregoing be a fair sample of
the Text of the N. T. with which Clemens Alex. was best acquainted, it is
plain that the testimony to the Truth of Scripture borne by one of the
most ancient and most famous of the Fathers, is absolutely worthless. Is
_that_ your own deliberate conviction or not?”

_Q. R._ “Finish what you have to say, Sir. After that, you shall have a
full reply.”

(8) _F. C._ “Well then. Pray understand, I nothing doubt that in your main
contention you are right; but I yet cannot help thinking that this
bringing in of a famous ancient Father—_obiter_—is a very damaging
proceeding. What else is such an elaborate exposure of the badness of the
Text which Clemens (A.D. 150) employed, but the hopeless perplexing of a
question which was already sufficiently thorny and difficult? You have, as
it seems to me, imported into these 15 verses an entirely fresh crop of
‘Various Readings.’ Do you seriously propose them as a contribution
towards ascertaining the _ipsissima verba_ of the Evangelist,—the true
text of S. Mark x. 17-31?”

_Q. R._ “Come back, if you please, Sir, to the company. Fully appreciating
the friendly spirit in which you just now drew me aside, I yet insist on
so making my reply that all the world shall hear it. Forgive my plainness:
but you are evidently profoundly unacquainted with the problem before
you,—in which however you do not by any means enjoy the distinction of
standing alone.

“The foulness of a Text which must have been penned within 70 or 80 years
of the death of the last of the Evangelists, is a matter of fact—which
must be loyally accepted, and made the best of. The phenomenon is
surprising certainly; and may well be a warning to all who (like Dr.
Tregelles) regard as oracular the solitary unsupported dicta of a
Writer,—provided only he can claim to have lived in the IInd or IIIrd
century. To myself it occasions no sort of inconvenience. You are to be
told that the exorbitances of a _single_ Father,—as Clemens; a _single_
Version,—as the Egyptian: a _single_ Copy,—as cod. B, are of no manner of
significancy or use, except as warnings: are of no manner of interest,
except as illustrating the depravation which systematically assailed the
written Word in the age which immediately succeeded the Apostolic: _are,
in fact, of no __ importance whatever_. To make them the basis of an
induction is preposterous. It is not allowable to infer the universal from
the particular. If the bones of Goliath were to be discovered to-morrow,
would you propose as an induction therefrom that it was the fashion to
wear four-and-twenty fingers and toes on one’s hands and feet in the days
of the giant of Gath? All the wild readings of the lost Codex before us
may be unceremoniously dismissed. The critical importance and value of
this stray leaf from a long-since-vanished Copy is entirely different, and
remains to be explained.

“You are to remember then,—perhaps you have yet to learn,—that there are
but 25 occasions in the course of these 15 verses, on which either
Lachmann (L.), or Tischendorf (T.), or Tregelles (Tr.), or Westcott and
Hort (W. H.), or our Revisionists (R. T.), advocate a departure from the
Traditional Text. To those 25 places therefore our attention is now to be
directed,—on them, our eyes are to be riveted,—exclusively. And the first
thing which strikes us as worthy of notice is, that the 5 authorities
above specified fall into no fewer than _twelve_ distinct combinations in
their advocacy of certain of those 25 readings: holding all 5 together
_only 4 times_.(756) The one question of interest therefore which arises,
is this,—What amount of sanction do any of them experience at the hands of
Clemens Alexandrinus?

“I answer,—_Only on 3 occasions does he agree with any of them._(757) The
result of a careful analysis shows further that _he sides with the
Traditional Text_ 17 _times:—witnessing against Lachmann, 9 times: against
Tischendorf, 10 times: against Tregelles, 11 times: against Westcott and
Hort, 12 times._(758)

“So far therefore from admitting that ‘the Testimony of Clemens Al.—one of
the most ancient and most famous of the Fathers—is absolutely
worthless,’—I have proved it to be _of very great value_. Instead of
‘hopelessly perplexing the question,’ his Evidence is found to have
_simplified matters considerably_. So far from ‘importing into these 15
verses a fresh crop of Various Readings,’ he has _helped us to get rid of
no less than_ 17 of the existing ones.... ‘Damaging’ his evidence has
certainly proved: but _only to Lachmann_, _Tischendorf_, _Tregelles_,
_Westcott and Hort and our ill-starred Revisionists_. And yet it remains
undeniably true, that ‘it is impossible to produce a fouler exhibition of
S. Mark x. 17-31 than is met with in a document full two centuries older
than either B or א,—the property of one of the most famous of the
Fathers.’(759) ... Have you anything further to ask?”

(9) _F. C._ “I should certainly like, in conclusion, to be informed
whether we are to infer that the nearer we approach to the date of the
sacred Autographs, the more corrupt we shall find the copies. For, if so,
pray—Where and when did purity of Text begin?”

_Q. R._ “You are not at liberty, logically, to draw any such inference
from the premisses. The purest documents of all existed perforce in the
first century: _must_ have then existed. The spring is perforce purest at
its source. My whole contention has been, and is,—That there is nothing at
all unreasonable in the supposition that two stray copies of the IVth
century,—coming down to our own times without a history and without a
character,—_may_ exhibit a thoroughly depraved text. _More_ than this does
not follow lawfully from the premisses. At the outset, remember, you
delivered it as your opinion that ‘_the oldest Manuscript we possess, if
it be but a very ancient one, must needs be the purest_.’ I asserted, in
reply, that ‘it does not by any means follow, _because_ a manuscript is
very ancient, that _therefore_ its text will be very pure’ (p. 321); and
all that I have been since saying, has but had for its object to prove the
truth of my assertion. Facts have been incidentally elicited, I admit,
calculated to inspire distrust, rather than confidence, in very ancient
documents generally. But I am neither responsible for these facts; nor for
the inferences suggested by them.

“At all events, I have to request that you will not carry away so entirely
erroneous a notion as that I am the advocate for _Recent_, in preference
to _Ancient_, Evidence concerning the Text of Scripture. Be so obliging as
not to say concerning me that I ‘_count_’ instead of ‘_weighing_’ my
witnesses. If you have attended to the foregoing pages, and have
understood them, you must by this time be aware that _in every instance_
it is to ANTIQUITY that I persistently make my appeal. I abide by its
sentence, and I require that you shall do the same.

“You and your friends, on the contrary, reject _the Testimony of
Antiquity_. You set up, instead, some idol of your own. Thus, Tregelles
worshipped ‘codex B.’ But ‘codex B’ is not ‘Antiquity’!—Tischendorf
assigned the place of honour to ‘codex א.’ But once more, ‘codex א’ is not
‘Antiquity’!—You rejoice in the decrees of the VIth-century-codex D,—and
of the VIIIth-century-codex L,—and of the Xth, XIth, and XIVth century
codices, 1, 33, 69. But will you venture to tell me that any of these are
‘Antiquity’? _Samples_ of Antiquity, at best, are any of these. No more!
But then, it is demonstrable that they are _unfair_ samples. Why are you
regardless of _all other_ COPIES?—So, with respect to VERSIONS, and
FATHERS. You single out one or two,—the one or two which suit your
purpose; and you are for rejecting all the rest. But, once more,—The
_Coptic_ version is not ‘Antiquity,’—neither is _Origen_ ‘Antiquity.’ The
_Syriac_ Version is a full set-off against the former,—_Irenæus_ more than
counterbalances the latter. Whatever is found in one of these ancient
authorities must confessedly be AN ‘ancient Reading:’ but it does not
therefore follow that it is THE ancient Reading of the place. Now, it is
THE _ancient Reading_, of which we are always in search. And he who
sincerely desires to ascertain what actually is _the Witness of
Antiquity_,—(_i.e._, what is the prevailing testimony of all the oldest
documents,)—will begin by casting his prejudices and his predilections to
the winds, and will devote himself conscientiously to an impartial survey
of the whole field of Evidence.”

_F. C._ “Well but,—you have once and again admitted that the phenomena
before us are extraordinary. Are you able to explain how it comes to pass
that such an one as Clemens Alexandrinus employed such a scandalously
corrupt copy of the Gospels as we have been considering?”

_Q. R._ “You are quite at liberty to ask me any question you choose. And
I, for my own part, am willing to return you the best answer I am able.
You will please to remember however, that the phenomena will
remain,—however infelicitous my attempts to explain them may seem to
yourself. My view of the matter then—(think what you will about it!)—is as
follows:—

LVII. “Vanquished by THE WORD_ Incarnate_, Satan next directed his subtle
malice against _the Word written_. Hence, as I think,—_hence_ the
extraordinary fate which befel certain early transcripts of the Gospel.
First, heretical assailants of Christianity,—then, orthodox defenders of
the Truth,—lastly and above all, self-constituted Critics, who (like Dr.
Hort) imagined themselves at liberty to resort to ‘instinctive processes’
of Criticism; and who, at first as well as ‘at last,’ freely made their
appeal ‘to the individual mind:’—_such_ were the corrupting influences
which were actively at work throughout the first hundred and fifty years
after the death of S. John the Divine. Profane literature has never known
anything approaching to it,—can show nothing at all like it. Satan’s arts
were defeated indeed through the Church’s faithfulness, because,—(the good
Providence of GOD had so willed it,)—the perpetual multiplication, in
every quarter, of copies required for Ecclesiastical use,—not to say the
solicitude of faithful men in diverse regions of ancient Christendom to
retain for themselves unadulterated specimens of the inspired Text,—proved
a sufficient safeguard against the grosser forms of corruption. But this
was not all.

“The Church, remember, hath been from the beginning the ‘Witness and
Keeper of Holy Writ.’(760) Did not her Divine Author pour out upon her, in
largest measure, ‘the SPIRIT of Truth;’ and pledge Himself that it should
be that SPIRIT’S special function to ‘guide’_ her children _‘into all the
Truth’(761)?... That by a perpetual miracle, Sacred Manuscripts would be
protected all down the ages against depraving influences of whatever
sort,—was not to have been expected; certainly, was never promised. But
the Church, in her collective capacity, hath nevertheless—as a matter of
fact—been perpetually purging herself of those shamefully depraved copies
which once everywhere abounded within her pale: retaining only such an
amount of discrepancy in her Text as might serve to remind her children
that they carry their ‘treasure in earthen vessels,’—as well as to
stimulate them to perpetual watchfulness and solicitude for the purity and
integrity of the Deposit. Never, however, up to the present hour, hath
there been any complete eradication of all traces of the attempted
mischief,—any absolute getting rid of every depraved copy extant. These
are found to have lingered on anciently in many quarters. _A few such
copies linger on to the present day._ The wounds were healed, but the
scars remained,—nay, the scars are discernible still.

“What, in the meantime, is to be thought of those blind guides—those
deluded ones—who would now, if they could, persuade us to go back to those
same codices of which the Church hath already purged herself? to go back
in quest of those very Readings which, 15 or 1600 years ago, the Church
_in all lands_ is found to have rejected with loathing? Verily, it is
‘happening unto them according to the true proverb’—which S. Peter sets
down in his 2nd Epistle,—chapter ii. verse 22. To proceed however.

“As for Clemens,—he lived at the very time and in the very country where
the mischief referred to was most rife. For full two centuries after his
era, heretical works were so industriously multiplied, that in a diocese
consisting of 800 parishes (viz. Cyrus in Syria), the Bishop (viz.
Theodoret, who was appointed in A.D. 423,) complains that he found no less
than 200 copies of the _Diatessaron_ of Tatian the heretic,—(Tatian’s date
being A.D. 173,)—honourably preserved in the Churches of his (Theodoret’s)
diocese, and mistaken by the orthodox for an authentic performance.(762)
Clemens moreover would seem to have been a trifle too familiar with the
works of Basilides, Marcion, Valentinus, Heracleon, and the rest of the
Gnostic crew. He habitually mistakes apocryphal writings for inspired
Scripture:(763) and—with corrupted copies always at hand and before him—he
is just the man to present us with a quotation like the present, and
straightway to volunteer the assurance that he found it ‘so written in the
Gospel according to S. Mark.’(764) The archetype of Codices B and
א,—especially the archetype from which Cod. D was copied,—is discovered to
have experienced adulteration largely from the same pestilential source
which must have corrupted the copies with which Clement (and his pupil
Origen after him) were most familiar.—And thus you have explained to you
the reason of the disgust and indignation with which I behold in these
last days a resolute attempt made to revive and to palm off upon an
unlearned generation the old exploded errors, under the pretence that they
are the inspired Verity itself,—providentially recovered from a neglected
shelf in the Vatican,—rescued from destruction by a chance visitor to
Mount Sinai.”

_F. C._ “Will you then, in conclusion, tell us how _you_ would have us
proceed in order to ascertain the Truth of Scripture?”

_Q. R._ “To answer that question fully would require a considerable
Treatise. I will not, however, withhold a slight outline of what I
conceive to be the only safe method of procedure. I could but _fill up_
that outline, and _illustrate_ that method, even if I had 500 pages at my
disposal.

LVIII. “On first seriously applying ourselves to these studies, many years
ago, we found it wondrous difficult to divest ourselves of prepossessions
very like your own. Turn which way we would, we were encountered by the
same confident terminology:—‘the best documents,’—‘primary
manuscripts,’—‘first-rate authorities,’—‘primitive evidence,’—‘ancient
readings,’—and so forth: and we found that thereby cod. A. or B,—cod. C or
D—were _invariably and exclusively meant_. It was not until we had
laboriously collated these documents (including א) for ourselves, that we
became aware of their true character. Long before coming to the end of our
task (and it occupied us, off and on, for eight years) we had become
convinced that the supposed ‘best documents’ and ‘first-rate authorities’
are in reality among _the worst_:—that these Copies deserve to be called
‘primary,’ only because in any enumeration of manuscripts, they stand
foremost;—and that their ‘Evidence,’ whether ‘primitive’ or not, is
_contradictory_ throughout.—_All_ Readings, lastly, we discovered are
‘ancient.’

“A diligent inspection of a vast number of later Copies scattered
throughout the principal libraries of Europe, and the exact Collation of a
few, further convinced us that the deference generally claimed for B, א,
C, D is nothing else but a weak superstition and a vulgar error:—that the
date of a MS. is not of its essence, but is a mere accident of the
problem:—and that later Copies, so far from ‘crumbling down salient
points, softening irregularities, conforming differences,’(765) and so
forth,—on countless occasions, _and as a rule_,—preserve those delicate
lineaments and minute refinements which the ‘old uncials’ are constantly
observed to obliterate. And so, rising to a systematic survey of the
entire field of Evidence, we found reason to suspect more and more the
soundness of the conclusions at which Lachmann, Tregelles, and Tischendorf
had arrived: while we seemed led, as if by the hand, to discern plain
indications of the existence for ourselves of a far ‘more excellent way.’

LIX. “For, let the ample and highly complex provision which Divine Wisdom
hath made for the effectual conservation of that crowning master-piece of
His own creative skill,—THE WRITTEN WORD,—be duly considered; and surely a
recoil is inevitable from the strange perversity which in these last days
would shut us up within the limits of a very few documents to the neglect
of all the rest,—as though a revelation from Heaven had proclaimed that
the Truth is to be found exclusively in _them_. The good Providence of the
Author of Scripture is discovered to have furnished His household, the
Church, with (speaking roughly) 1000 copies of the Gospels:—with twenty
Versions—two of which go back to the beginning of Christianity: and with
the writings of a host of ancient Fathers. _Why_ out of those 1000 MSS.
_two_ should be singled out by Drs. Westcott and Hort for special
favour,—to the practical disregard of all the rest: _why_ Versions and
Fathers should by them be similarly dealt with,—should be practically set
aside in fact in the lump,—we fail to discover. Certainly the pleas urged
by the learned Editors(766) can appear satisfactory to no one but to
themselves.

LX. “For our method then,—It is the direct contradictory to that adopted
by the two Cambridge Professors. Moreover, it conducts us throughout to
directly opposite results. We hold it to be even axiomatic that a Reading
which is supported by only one document,—out of the 1100 (more or less)
already specified,—whether that solitary unit be a FATHER, a VERSION, or a
COPY,—stands self-condemned; may be dismissed at once, without concern or
enquiry.

“Nor is the case materially altered if (as generally happens) a few
colleagues of bad character are observed to side with the else solitary
document. Associated with the corrupt B, is often found the more corrupt
א. Nay, six leaves of א are confidently declared by Tischendorf to have
been written by the scribe of B. The sympathy between these two, and the
Version of Lower Egypt, is even notorious. That Origen should sometimes
join the conspiracy,—and that the same Reading should find allies in
certain copies of the unrevised Latin, or perhaps in Cureton’s Syriac:—all
_this_ we deem the reverse of encouraging. The attesting witnesses are, in
our account, of so suspicious a character, that the Reading cannot be
allowed. On such occasions, we are reminded that there is truth in Dr.
Hort’s dictum concerning the importance of noting the tendency of certain
documents to fall into ‘groups:’ though his assertion that ‘it cannot be
too often repeated that the study of grouping is _the foundation of all
enduring Criticism_,’(767) we hold to be as absurd as it is untrue.

LXI. “So far negatively.—A safer, the _only_ trustworthy method, in fact,
of ascertaining the Truth of Scripture, we hold to be the method
which,—without prejudice or partiality,—simply ascertains WHICH FORM OF
THE TEXT ENJOYS THE EARLIEST, THE FULLEST, THE WIDEST, THE MOST
RESPECTABLE, AND—above all things—THE MOST VARIED ATTESTATION. That a
Reading should be freely recognized alike by the earliest and by the
latest available evidence,—we hold to be a prime circumstance in its
favour. That Copies, Versions, and Fathers, should all three concur in
sanctioning it,—we hold to be even more conclusive. If several Fathers,
living in different parts of ancient Christendom, are all observed to
recognize the words, or to quote them in the same way,—we have met with
all the additional confirmation we ordinarily require. Let it only be
further discoverable _how_ or _why_ the rival Reading came into existence,
and our confidence becomes absolute.

LXII. “An instance which we furnished in detail in a former article,(768)
may be conveniently appealed to in illustration of what goes before. Our
LORD’S ‘Agony and bloody sweat,’—first mentioned by Justin Martyr (A.D.
150), is found _set down in every MS. in the world except four_. It is
duly exhibited _by every known Version_. It is recognized by _upwards of
forty famous Fathers_ writing without concert in remote parts of ancient
Christendom. Whether therefore Antiquity,—Variety of
testimony,—Respectability of witnesses,—or Number,—is considered, the
evidence in favour of S. Luke xxii. 43, 44 is simply overwhelming. And yet
out of superstitious deference to _two_ Copies of bad character, Drs.
Westcott and Hort (followed by the Revisionists) set the brand of
spuriousness on those 26 precious words; professing themselves ‘morally
certain’ that this is nothing else but a ‘Western Interpolation:’ whereas,
mistaken zeal for the honour of Incarnate JEHOVAH alone occasioned the
suppression of these two verses in a few early manuscripts. This has been
explained already,—namely, in the middle of page 82.

LXIII. “Only one other instance shall be cited. The traditional reading of
S. Luke ii. 14 is vouched for by _every __ known copy of the Gospels but
four_—3 of which are of extremely bad character, viz. א B D. The Versions
are divided: but _not_ the Fathers: of whom _more than forty-seven_ from
every part of ancient Christendom,—(Syria, Palestine, Alexandria, Asia
Minor, Cyprus, Crete, Gaul,)—come back to attest that the traditional
reading (as usual) is the true one. Yet such is the infatuation of the new
school, that Drs. Westcott and Hort are content to make _nonsense_ of the
Angelic Hymn on the night of the Nativity, rather than admit the
possibility of complicity in error in א B D: error in respect of _a single
letter!_... The Reader is invited to refer to what has already been
offered on this subject, from p. 41 to p. 47.

LXIV. “It will be perceived therefore that the method we plead for
consists merely in a loyal recognition of the whole of the Evidence:
setting off one authority against another, laboriously and impartially;
and adjudicating fairly between them _all_. Even so hopelessly corrupt a
document as Clement of Alexandria’s copy of the Gospels proves to have
been—(described at pp. 326-31)—is by no means without critical value.
Servilely followed, it would confessedly land us in hopeless error: but,
judiciously employed, as a set-off against _other_ evidence; regarded
rather as a check upon the exorbitances of _other_ foul documents, (_e.g._
B א C and especially D); resorted to as a protection against the prejudice
and caprice of modern Critics;—that venerable document, with all its
faults, proves invaluable. Thus, in spite of its own aberrations, it
witnesses to _the truth of the Traditional Text_ of S. Mark x. 17-31—(the
place of Scripture above referred to(769))—in several important
particulars; siding with it against Lachmann, 9 times;—against
Tischendorf, 10 times;—against Tregelles, 11 times;—against Westcott and
Hort, 12 times.

“We deem this laborious method the only true method, in our present state
of imperfect knowledge: the method, namely, of _adopting that Reading
which has the fullest, the widest, and the most varied attestation.
Antiquity, and Respectability of Witnesses,_ are thus secured. How men can
persuade themselves that 19 Copies out of every 20 may be safely
disregarded, if they be but written in minuscule characters,—we fail to
understand. To ourselves it seems simply an irrational proceeding. But
indeed we hold this to be no _seeming_ truth. The fact is absolutely
demonstrable. As for building up a Text, (as Drs. Westcott and Hort have
done,) with special superstitious deference to a _single codex,_—we deem
it about as reasonable as would be the attempt to build up a pyramid from
its apex; in the expectation that it would stand firm on its extremity,
and remain horizontal for ever.”

And thus much in reply to our supposed Questioner. We have now reached the
end of a prolonged discussion, which began at page 320; more immediately,
at page 337.

LXV. In the meantime, _a pyramid balanced on its apex_ proves to be no
unapt image of the Textual theory of Drs. Westcott and Hort. When we reach
the end of their _Introduction_ we find we have reached the point to which
all that went before has been evidently converging: but we make the
further awkward discovery that it is the point on which all that went
before absolutely _depends_ also. _Apart from_ codex B, the present theory
could have no existence. _But for_ codex B, it would never have been
excogitated. _On_ codex B, it entirely rests. _Out of_ codex B, it has
_entirely sprung._

Take away this one codex, and Dr. Hort’s volume becomes absolutely without
coherence, purpose, meaning. _One-fifth_ of it(770) is devoted to remarks
on B and א. The fable of “the _Syrian_ text” is invented solely for the
glorification of B and א,—which are claimed, of course, to be
“_Pre_-Syrian.” This fills 40 pages more.(771) And thus it would appear
that the Truth of Scripture has run a very narrow risk of being lost for
ever to mankind. Dr. Hort contends that it more than half lay _perdu_ on a
forgotten shelf in the Vatican Library;—Dr. Tischendorf, that it had been
deposited in a waste-paper basket(772) in the convent of S. Catharine at
the foot of Mount Sinai,—from which he rescued it on the 4th February,
1859:—neither, we venture to think, a very likely circumstance. We incline
to believe that the Author of Scripture hath not by any means shown
Himself so unmindful of the safety of the Deposit, as these distinguished
gentlemen imagine.

Are we asked for the ground of our opinion? We point without hesitation to
the 998 COPIES which remain: to the many ancient VERSIONS: to the many
venerable FATHERS,—_any one_ of whom we hold to be _a more trustworthy
authority_ for the Text of Scripture, _when he speaks out plainly,_ than
either Codex B or Codex א,—aye, or than both of them put together. Behold,
(we say,) the abundant provision which the All-wise One hath made for the
safety of the Deposit: the “threefold cord” which “is not quickly broken”!
We hope to be forgiven if we add, (not without a little warmth,) that we
altogether wonder at the perversity, the infatuation, the blindness,—which
is prepared to make light of all these precious helps, in order to magnify
two of the most corrupt codices in existence; and _that_, for no other
reason but because, (as Dr. Hort expresses it,) they “_happen_ likewise to
be the oldest extant Greek MSS. of the New Testament.” (p. 212.)

LXVI. And yet, had what precedes been the sum of the matter, we should for
our own parts have been perfectly well content to pass it by without a
syllable of comment. So long as nothing more is endangered than the
personal reputation of a couple of Scholars—at home or abroad—we can
afford to look on with indifference. Their private ventures are their
private concern. What excites our indignation is the spectacle of the
_Church of England_ becoming to some extent involved in their
discomfiture, because implicated in their mistakes: dragged through the
mire, to speak plainly, at the chariot-wheels of these two infelicitous
Doctors, and exposed with them to the ridicule of educated Christendom.
Our Church has boasted till now of learned sons in abundance within her
pale, ready at a moment’s notice to do her right: to expose shallow
sciolism, and to vindicate that precious thing which hath been committed
to her trust.(773) Where are the men _now?_ What has come to her, that, on
the contrary, certain of her own Bishops and Doctors have not scrupled to
enter into an irregular alliance with Sectarians,—yes, have even taken
into partnership with themselves one who openly denies the eternal Godhead
of our LORD JESUS CHRIST,—in order, as it would seem, to give proof to the
world of the low ebb to which Taste, Scholarship, and Sacred Learning have
sunk among us?

LXVII. Worse yet. We are so distressed, because the true sufferers after
all by this ill-advised proceeding, are the 90 millions of
English-speaking Christian folk scattered over the surface of the globe.
These have had the title-deeds by which they hold their priceless
birthright, shamefully tampered with. _Who_ will venture to predict the
amount of mischief which must follow, if the “_New Greek Text_” which has
been put forth by the men who were appointed _to revise the English
Authorized Version,_ should become used in our Schools and in our
Colleges,—should impose largely on the Clergy of the Church of England?...
But to return from this, which however will scarcely be called a
digression.

A pyramid poised on its apex then, we hold to be a fair emblem of the
Theory just now under review. Only, unfortunately, its apex is found to be
constructed of brick without straw: say rather _of straw—without brick._

LXVIII. _Why_ such partiality has been evinced latterly for Cod. B, none
of the Critics have yet been so good as to explain; nor is it to be
expected that, satisfactorily, any of them ever will. _Why_ again
Tischendorf should have suddenly transferred his allegiance from Cod. B to
Cod. א,—unless, to be sure, he was the sport of parental partiality,—must
also remain a riddle. If _one_ of the “old uncials” must needs be taken as
a guide,—(though we see no sufficient reason why _one_ should be appointed
to lord it over the rest,)—we should rather have expected that Cod. A
would have been selected,(774)—the text of which “Stands in broad contrast
to those of either B or א, though the interval of years [between it and
them] is probably small.” (p. 152.) “By a curious and apparently unnoticed
coincidence,” (proceeds Dr. Hort,) “its Text in several books agrees with
the Latin Vulgate in so many peculiar readings devoid of old Latin
attestation, as to leave little doubt that a Greek MS. largely employed by
Jerome”—[and why not “THE_ Greek copies_ employed by Jerome”?]—“in his
Revision of the Latin version must have had to a great extent a common
original with A.” (_Ibid_.)

Behold a further claim of this copy on the respectful consideration of the
Critics! What would be thought of the Alexandrian Codex, if some
attestation were discoverable in its pages that it actually _had belonged_
to the learned Palestinian father? According to Dr. Hort,

“Apart from this individual affinity, A—both in the Gospels and
elsewhere—may serve as _a fair example of the Manuscripts that,_ to judge
by Patristic quotations, _were commonest in the IVth century._”—(p. 152.)

O but, the evidence in favour of Codex A thickens apace! Suppose
then,—(for, after this admission, the supposition is at least
allowable,)—suppose the discovery were made tomorrow of half-a-score of
codices of the _same date as Cod._ B, but exhibiting the _same Text as
Cod._ A. What a complete revolution would be thereby effected in men’s
minds on Textual matters! How impossible would it be, henceforth, for B
and its henchman א, to obtain so much as a hearing! Such “an eleven” would
safely defy the world! And yet, according to Dr. Hort, the supposition may
any day become a fact; for he informs us,—(and we are glad to be able for
once to declare that what he says is perfectly correct,)—that such
manuscripts once abounded or rather _prevailed;_—“_were commonest_ in the
IVth century,” when codices B and א were written. We presume that then, as
now, such codices prevailed universally, in the proportion of 99 to 1.

LXIX. But—what need to say it?—we entirely disallow any such narrowing of
the platform which Divine Wisdom hath willed should be at once very varied
and very ample. Cod. A is sometimes in error: sometimes even _conspires in
error exclusively with Cod._ B. An instance occurs in 1 S. John v. 18,—a
difficult passage, which we the more willingly proceed to remark upon,
because the fact has transpired that it is one of the few places in which
_entire unanimity_ prevailed among the Revisionists,—who yet (as we shall
show) have been, one and all, mistaken in substituting “_him_” (αὐτόν) for
“_himself_” (ἑαυτόν).... We venture to bespeak the Reader’s attention
while we produce the passage in question, and briefly examine it. He is
assured that it exhibits a fair average specimen of what has been the
Revisionists’ fatal method in every page:—

LXX. S. John in his first Epistle (v. 18) is distinguishing between the
mere recipient of the new birth (ὁ ΓΕΝΝΗΘΕῚΣ ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ),—and the man who
retains the sanctifying influences of the HOLY SPIRIT which he received
when he became regenerate (ὁ ΓΕΓΕΝΝΗΜΈΝΟΣ ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ). The latter (he
says) “_sinneth not_:” the former, (he says,) “_keepeth himself, and the
Evil One toucheth him not_.” So far, all is intelligible. The nominative
is the same in both cases. Substitute however “keepeth _him_ (αὐτόν),” for
“keepeth _himself_ (ἑαυτόν),” and (as Dr. Scrivener admits(775)), ὁ
γεννηθεὶς ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ can be none other than the Only Begotten SON of GOD.
And yet our LORD is _nowhere_ in the New Testament designated as ὁ
γεννηθεὶς ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ.(776) Alford accordingly prefers to make nonsense of
the place; which he translates,—“he that hath been begotten of GOD, _it
keepeth him_.”

LXXI. Now, on every occasion like the present,—(instead of tampering with
the text, _as Dr. Hort and our Revisionists have done without explanation
or apology,_)—our safety will be found to consist in enquiring,—But (1)
What have the Copies to say to this? (2) What have the Versions? and (3)
What, the Fathers?... The answer proves to be—(1) _All the copies except
three,_(777) read “himself.”—(2) So do the Syriac and the Latin;(778)—so
do the Coptic, Sahidic, Georgian, Armenian, and Æthiopic
versions.(779)—(3) So, Origen clearly thrice,(780)—Didymus clearly 4
times,(781)—Ephraem Syrus clearly twice,(782)—Severus also
twice,(783)—Theophylact expressly,(784)—and Œcumenius.(785)—So, indeed,
Cod. A; for the original Scribe is found to have corrected himself.(786)
The sum of the adverse attestation therefore which prevailed with the
Revisionists, is found to have been—_Codex_ B _and a single cursive copy_
at Moscow.

This does not certainly seem to the Reviewer, (as it seemed to the
Revisionists,) “decidedly preponderating evidence.” In his account,
“_plain and clear error_” dwells with their Revision. But this may be
because,—(to quote words recently addressed by the President of the
Revising body to the Clergy and Laity of the Diocese of Gloucester and
Bristol,)—the “Quarterly Reviewer” is “_innocently ignorant of the now
established principles of Textual Criticism._”(787)

LXXII. “It is easy,”—(says the learned Prelate, speaking on his own behalf
and that of his co-Revisionists,)—“to put forth to the world a sweeping
condemnation of many of our changes of reading; and yet all the while to
be _innocently ignorant of the now established principles of Textual
Criticism._”

May we venture to point out, that it is easier still to denounce adverse
Criticism in the lump, instead of trying to refute it in any one
particular:—to refer vaguely to “established principles of Textual
Criticism,” instead of stating which they be:—to sneer contemptuously at
endeavours, (which, even if unsuccessful, one is apt to suppose are
entitled to sympathy at the hands of a successor of the Apostles,) instead
of showing _wherein_ such efforts are reprehensible? We are content to put
the following question to any fair-minded man:—Whether of these two is the
more facile and culpable proceeding;—(1) _Lightly to blot out an inspired
word from the Book of Life, and to impose a wrong sense on Scripture_, as
in this place the Bishop and his colleagues are found to have done:—or,
(2) To fetch the same word industriously back: to establish its meaning by
diligent and laborious enquiry: to restore both to their rightful honours:
and to set them on a basis of (_hitherto unobserved_) evidence, from which
(_faxit DEUS!_) it will be found impossible henceforth to dislodge them?

This only will the Reviewer add,—That if it be indeed one of the “now
established principles of Textual Criticism,” that the evidence of _two
manuscripts and-a-half_ outweighs the evidence of (1) All _the remaining_
997-½,—(2) The whole body of the Versions,—(3) _Every Father who quotes
the place, from_ A.D. 210 to A.D. 1070,—and (4) _The strongest possible
internal Evidence_:—if all this _indeed_ be so,—he devoutly trusts that he
may be permitted to retain his “Innocence” to the last; and in his
“Ignorance,” when the days of his warfare are ended, to close his eyes in
death.—And now to proceed.

LXXIII. The Nemesis of Superstition and Idolatry is ever the same.
Phantoms of the imagination henceforth usurp the place of substantial
forms. Interminable doubt,—wretched misbelief,—childish
credulity,—judicial blindness,—are the inevitable sequel and penalty. The
mind that has long allowed itself in a systematic trifling with Evidence,
is observed to fall the easiest prey to Imposture. It has doubted what is
_demonstrably_ true: has rejected what is _indubitably_ Divine.
Henceforth, it is observed to mistake its own fantastic creations for
historical facts: to believe things which rest on insufficient evidence,
or on no evidence at all. Thus, these learned Professors,—who condemn the
“last Twelve Verses of the Gospel according to S. Mark;” which have been
accounted veritable Scripture by the Church Universal for more than 1800
years;—nevertheless accept as the genuine “_Diatessaron of Tatian_” [A.D.
170], a production which was discovered yesterday, and which _does not
even claim to be_ the work of that primitive writer.(788)

Yes, the Nemesis of Superstition and Idolatry is ever the same. General
mistrust of _all_ evidence is the sure result. In 1870, Drs. Westcott and
Hort solemnly assured their brother-Revisionists that “the prevalent
assumption that throughout the N. T. the true Text is to be found
_somewhere_ among recorded Readings, _does not stand the test of
experience_.” They are evidently still haunted by the same spectral
suspicion. They invent a ghost to be exorcised in every dark corner.
Accordingly, Dr. Hort favours us with a chapter on the Art of “removing
Corruptions of the sacred Text _antecedent to extant documents_” (p. 71).
We are not surprised (though we _are_ a little amused) to hear that,—

“The _Art of Conjectural Emendation_ depends for its success so much on
personal endowments, fertility of resource in the first instance, and even
more an appreciation of language too delicate to acquiesce in merely
plausible corrections, that it is easy to forget its true character as a
critical operation founded on knowledge and method.”—(p. 71.)

LXXIV. _Very_ “easy,” certainly. One sample of Dr. Hort’s skill in this
department, (it occurs at page 135 of his _Notes on Select Readings_,)
shall be cited in illustration. We venture to commend it to the attention
of our Readers:—

(a) S. Paul [2 Tim. i. 13] exhorts Timothy, (whom he had set as Bp. over
the Church of Ephesus,) to “_hold fast_” a certain “_form_” or “pattern”
(ὑποτύπωσιν) “_of sound words_, _which_” (said he) “_thou hast heard of
me_.” The flexibility and delicate precision of the Greek language enables
the Apostle to indicate exactly what was the prime object of his
solicitude. It proves to have been the safety of _the very words_ which he
had syllabled, (ὑγιαινόντων λόγων ὯΝ παρ᾽ ἐμοῦ ἤκουσασ). As learned Bp.
Beveridge well points out,—“_which words_, not _which form_, thou hast
heard of me. So that it is not so much the _form_, as the _words_
themselves, which the Apostle would have him to hold fast.”(789)

All this however proves abhorrent to Dr. Hort. “This sense” (says the
learned Professor) “cannot be obtained from the text except by treating ὧν
as put in the genitive by _an unusual and inexplicable attraction_. It
seems more probable that ὧν is a _primitive corruption_ of ὅν after
πάντων.”

Now, this is quite impossible, since neither ὅν nor πάντων occurs anywhere
in the neighbourhood. And as for the supposed “unusual and inexplicable
attraction,” it happens to be one of even common occurrence,—as every
attentive reader of the New Testament is aware. Examples of it may be seen
at 2 Cor. i. 4 and Ephes. iv. 1,—also (in Dr. Hort’s text of) Ephes. i. 6
(ἧς in all 3 places). Again, in S. Luke v. 9 (whether ᾗ or ὧν is read):
and vi. 38 (ῷ):—in S. Jo. xv. 20 (οὗ):—and xvii. 11 (ᾧ): in Acts ii. 22
(οἷς): vii. 17 (ἧς) and 45 (ὧν): in xxii. 15 (ὧν),&c.... But why entertain
the question? There is absolutely _no room_ for such Criticism in respect
of a reading which is found _in every known MS.,—in every known
Version,—in every Father who quotes the place_: a reading which Divines,
and Scholars who were not Divines,—Critics of the Text, and grammarians
who were without prepossessions concerning Scripture,—Editors of the Greek
and Translators of the Greek into other languages,—all alike have
acquiesced in, from the beginning until now.

We venture to assert that it is absolutely unlawful, in the entire absence
of evidence, to call such a reading as the present in question. There is
absolutely no safeguard for Scripture—no limit to Controversy—if a place
like this may be solicited at the mere suggestion of individual caprice.
(For it is worth observing that _on this, and similar occasions, Dr. Hort
is forsaken by Dr. Westcott_. Such notes are enclosed in brackets, and
subscribed “H.”) In the meantime, who can forbear smiling at the
self-complacency of a Critic who puts forth remarks like those which
precede; and yet congratulates himself on “_personal endowments, fertility
of resource, and a too delicate appreciation of language_”?

(b) Another specimen of conjectural extravagance occurs at S. John vi. 4,
where Dr. Hort labours to throw suspicion on “the Passover” (τὸ πάσχα),—in
defiance of _every known Manuscript,—every known Version_,—and _every
Father who quotes or recognizes the place_.(790) We find _nine columns_
devoted to his vindication of this weak imagination; although so partial
are his _Notes_, that countless “various Readings” of great interest and
importance are left wholly undiscussed. Nay, sometimes entire Epistles are
dismissed with a single weak annotation (_e.g._ 1 and 2
Thessalonians),—_or with none_, as in the case of the Epistle to the
Philippians.

(c) We charitably presume that it is in order to make amends for having
conjecturally thrust out τὸ πάσχα from S. John vi. 4,—that Dr. Hort is for
conjecturally thrusting into Acts xx. 28, Υἱοῦ (after τοῦ ἰδίου),—an
imagination to which he devotes a column and-a-half, but _for which he is
not able to produce a particle of evidence_. It would result in our
reading, “to feed the Church of GOD, which He purchased”—(not “with _His
own_ blood,” but)—“with the _blood of His own_ SON:” which has evidently
been suggested by nothing so much as by the supposed necessity of getting
rid of a text which unequivocally asserts that CHRIST is GOD.(791)

LXXV. Some will be chiefly struck by the conceit and presumption of such
suggestions as the foregoing. A yet larger number, as we believe, will be
astonished by their essential foolishness. For ourselves, what surprises
us most is the fatal misapprehension they evince of the true office of
Textual Criticism as applied to the New Testament. It _never is to invent
new Readings_, but only to adjudicate between existing and conflicting
ones. He who seeks to thrust out “THE PASSOVER” from S. John vi. 4, (where
it may on no account be dispensed with(792)); and to thrust “THE SON” into
Acts xx. 28, (where His Name cannot stand without evacuating a grand
Theological statement);—will do well to consider whether he does not bring
himself directly under the awful malediction with which the beloved
Disciple concludes and seals up the Canon of Scripture:—“I testify unto
every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this Book,—If any man
shall _add unto_ these things, GOD shall add unto him the plagues that are
written in this Book. And if any man shall _take away from_ the words of
the Book of this prophecy, GOD shall take away his part out of the Book of
Life, and out of the holy City, and from the things which are written in
this Book.”(793)

May we be allowed to assure Dr. Hort that “CONJECTURAL EMENDATION” CAN BE
ALLOWED NO PLACE WHATEVER IN THE TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF THE NEW TESTAMENT?
He will no doubt disregard our counsel. May Dr. Scrivener then [p. 433] be
permitted to remind him that “it is now agreed among competent judges that
_Conjectural emendation_ must _never_ be resorted to,—even in passages of
acknowledged difficulty”?

There is in fact no need for it,—nor can be: so very ample, as well as so
very varied, is the evidence for the words of the New Testament.

LXXVI. Here however we regret to find we have _both_ Editors against us.
They propose “the definite question,”—


    “ ‘Are there, as a matter of fact, places in which we are
    _constrained by overwhelming evidence_ to recognize the existence
    of Textual error in _all_ extant documents?’ To this question we
    have no hesitation in replying in the affirmative.”—(p. 279.)


Behold then the deliberate sentence of Drs. Westcott and Hort. They
flatter themselves that they are able to produce “_overwhelming evidence_”
in proof that there are places where _every extant document_ is in error.
The instance on which they both rely, is S. Peter’s prophetic announcement
(2 Pet. iii. 10), that in “the day of the LORD,” “the earth and the works
that are therein _shall be burned up_” (κατακαήσεται).

This statement is found to have been glossed or paraphrased in an age when
men knew no better. Thus, Cod. C substitutes—“_shall vanish away_:”(794)
the Syriac and one Egyptian version,—“_shall not be found_,” (apparently
in imitation of Rev. xvi. 20). But, either because the “not” was
accidentally omitted(795) in some very ancient exemplar;—or else because
it was deemed a superfluity by some Occidental critic who in his
simplicity supposed that εὑρεθήσεται might well represent the Latin
_urerentur_,—(somewhat as Mrs. Quickly warranted “_hang hog_” to be Latin
for “bacon,”)—codices א and B (with four others of later date) exhibit
“_shall be found_,”(796)—which obviously makes utter nonsense of the
place. (Εὑρεθήσεται appears, nevertheless, in Dr. Hort’s text: _in
consequence of which_, the margin of our “Revised Version” is disfigured
with the statement that “The most ancient manuscripts read _discovered_.”)
But what is there in all this to make one distrust the Traditional
reading?—supported as it is by the whole mass of Copies: by the
Latin,(797)—the Coptic,—the Harkleian,—and the Æthiopic Versions:—besides
the only Fathers who quote the place; viz. Cyril seven times,(798) and
John Damascene(799) once?... As for pretending, at the end of the
foregoing enquiry, that “we are _constrained by overwhelming evidence_ to
recognize the existence of textual error _in all extant documents_,”—it is
evidently a mistake. Nothing else is it but a misstatement of facts.

LXXVII. And thus, in the entire absence of proof, Dr. Hort’s view of “the
existence of corruptions” of the Text “antecedent to all existing
authority,”(800)—falls to the ground. His confident prediction, that such
corruptions “will sooner or later have to be acknowledged,” may be
dismissed with a smile. So indifferent an interpreter of the Past may not
presume to forecast the Future.

The one “matter of fact,” which at every step more and more impresses an
attentive student of the Text of Scripture, is,—(1st), The utterly
depraved character of Codices B and א: and (2nd), The singular infatuation
of Drs. Westcott and Hort in insisting that those 2 Codices “_stand alone
in their almost complete immunity from error:_”(801)—that “the fullest
comparison does but increase the conviction that _their pre-eminent
relative purity is approximately absolute_.”(802)

LXXVIII. Whence is it,—(we have often asked ourselves the question, while
studying these laborious pages,)—How does it happen that a scholar like
Dr. Hort, evidently accomplished and able, should habitually mistake the
creations of his own brain for material forms? the echoes of his own voice
while holding colloquy with himself, for oracular responses? We have not
hitherto expressed our astonishment,—but must do so now before we make an
end,—that a writer who desires to convince, can suppose that his own
arbitrary use of such expressions as “Pre-Syrian” and “Neutral,”—“Western”
and “Alexandrian,”—“Non-Western” and “Non-Alexandrian,”—“Non-Alexandrian
Pre-Syrian” and “Pre-Syrian Non-Western,”—will produce any (except an
irritating) effect on the mind of an intelligent reader.

The delusion of supposing that by the free use of such a vocabulary a
Critic may dispense with the ordinary processes of logical proof, might
possibly have its beginning in the retirement of the cloister, where there
are few to listen and none to contradict: but it can only prove abiding if
there has been no free ventilation of the individual fancy. Greatly is it
to be regretted that instead of keeping his Text a profound secret for 30
years, Dr. Hort did not freely impart it to the public, and solicit the
favour of candid criticism.

Has no friend ever reminded him that assertions concerning the presence or
absence of a “Syrian” or a “Pre-Syrian,” a “Western” or a “Non-Western
_element_,” are but wind,—the merest chaff and draff,—_apart from proof_?
Repeated _ad nauseam_, and employed with as much peremptory precision as
if they were recognized terms connoting distinct classes of
Readings,—(whereas they are absolutely without significancy, except, let
us charitably hope, to him who employs them);—such expressions would only
be allowable on the part of the Critic, if he had first been at the pains
to _index every principal Father_,—and _to reduce Texts to families_ by a
laborious process of Induction. Else, they are worse than foolish. More
than an impertinence are they. They bewilder, and mislead, and for a while
encumber and block the way.

LXXIX. This is not all however. Even when these Editors notice hostile
evidence, they do so after a fashion which can satisfy no one but
themselves. Take for example their note on the word εἰκῆ (“_without a
cause_”) in S. Matthew v. 22 (“But I say unto you, that whosoever is angry
with his brother _without a cause_”). The Reader’s attention is specially
invited to the treatment which this place has experienced at the hands of
Drs. Westcott and Hort:—

(_a_) They unceremoniously eject the word from S. Matthew’s Gospel with
their oracular sentence, “_Western and Syrian._”—Aware that εἰκῆ is
recognized by “Iren. lat-3; Eus. _D. E._ Cyp.,” they yet claim for
omitting it the authority of “Just. Ptolem. (? Iren. 242 _fin_.), Tert.;
and certainly” (they proceed) “Orig. on Eph. iv. 31, noticing both
readings, and similarly Hier. _loc._, who probably follows Origen: also
Ath. _Pasch._ Syr. 11: Ps.-Ath. _Cast._ ii. 4; and others”.... Such is
their “_Note_” on S. Matthew v. 22. It is found at p. 8 of their volume.
In consequence, εἰκῆ (“_without a cause_”) disappears from their Text
entirely.

(_b_) But these learned men are respectfully informed that neither Justin
Martyr, nor Ptolemæus the Gnostic, nor Irenæus, no, nor Tertullian
either,—that _not one of these four writers_,—supplies the wished-for
evidence. As for Origen,—they are assured that _he_—_not_ “probably” but
_certainly_—is the cause of all the trouble. They are reminded that
Athanasius(803) quotes (_not_ S. Matt. v. 22, but) 1 Jo. iii. 15. They are
shown that what they call “ps.-Ath. _Cast._” is nothing else but a
paraphrastic translation (by _Græculus quidam_) of John Cassian’s
_Institutes_,—“ii. 4” in the Greek representing viii. 20 in the Latin....
And now, how much of the adverse Evidence remains?

(_c_) Only this:—Jerome’s three books of Commentary on the Ephesians, are,
in the main, a translation of Origen’s lost 3 books on the same
Epistle.(804) Commenting on iv. 31, Origen says that εἰκῆ has been
improperly added to the Text,(805)—_which shows that in Origen’s copy_
εἰκῆ _was found there_. A few ancient writers in consequence (but only in
consequence) of what Jerome (or rather Origen) thus delivers, are observed
to omit εἰκῆ.(806) That is all!

(_d_) May we however respectfully ask these learned Editors why, besides
Irenæus,(807)—Eusebius,(808)—and Cyprian,(809)—they do not mention that
εἰκῆ is _also_ the reading of Justin Martyr,(810)—of Origen
himself,(811)—of the _Constitutiones App._,(812)—of Basil three
times,(813)—of Gregory of Nyssa,(814)—of Epiphanius,(815)—of Ephraem Syrus
twice,(816)—of Isidorus twice,(817)—of Theodore of Mops.,—of Chrysostom 18
times,—of the _Opus imp._ twice,(818)—of Cyril(819)—and of
Theodoret(820)—(each in 3 places). It was also the reading of Severus,
Abp. of Antioch:(821)—as well as of
Hilary,(822)—Lucifer,(823)—Salvian,(824)—Philastrius,(825)—Augustine,
and—Jerome,(826)—(although, when translating from Origen, he pronounces
against εἰκῆ(827)):—not to mention Antiochus mon.,(828)—J.
Damascene,(829)—Maximus,(830)—Photius,(831)—Euthymius,—Theophylact,—and
others?(832)... We have adduced no less than _thirty_ ancient witnesses.

(_e_) Our present contention however is but this,—that a Reading which is
attested by _every uncial Copy of the Gospels except_ B _and_ א; by a
whole _torrent of Fathers_; by _every known copy_ of the old Latin,—by
_all_ the Syriac, (for the Peschito inserts [not translates] the word
εἰκῆ,)—by the Coptic,—as well as by the Gothic—and Armenian versions;—that
such a reading is not to be set aside by the stupid dictum, “WESTERN AND
SYRIAN.” By no such methods will the study of Textual Criticism be
promoted, or any progress ever be made in determining the Truth of
Scripture. There really can be no doubt whatever,—(that is to say, if we
are to be guided by _ancient Evidence_,)—that εἰκῆ (“_without a cause_”)
was our SAVIOUR’S actual word; and that our Revisers have been here, as in
so many hundred other places, led astray by Dr. Hort. So true is that
saying of the ancient poet,—“Evil company doth corrupt good manners.” “And
if the blind lead the blind,”—(a greater than Menander hath said
it,)—“_both shall fall into the ditch_.”(833)

(_f_) In the meantime, we have exhibited somewhat in detail, Drs. Westcott
and Hort’s Annotation on εἰκῆ, [S. Matth. v. 22,] in order to furnish our
Readers with at least _one definite specimen_ of the Editorial skill and
Critical ability of these two accomplished Professors. Their general
practice, as exhibited in the case of 1 Jo. v. 18, [see above, pp. 347-9,]
is to tamper with the sacred Text, without assigning their
authority,—indeed, without offering apology of any kind.

(_g_) The _sum_ of the matter proves to be as follows: Codd. B and א (the
“two false Witnesses”),—B and א, _alone of MSS._—omit εἰκῆ. On the
strength of this, Dr. Hort persuaded his fellow Revisers to omit “_without
a cause_” from their Revised Version: and it is proposed, in consequence,
that every Englishman’s copy of S. Matthew v. 22 shall be mutilated in the
same way for ever.... _Delirant reges, plectuntur Achivi._

(_h_) But the question arises—Will the Church of England submit to have
her immemorial heritage thus filched from her? We shall be astonished
indeed if she proves so regardless of her birthright.

LXXX. Lastly, the intellectual habits of these Editors have led them so to
handle evidence, that the sense of proportion seems to have forsaken them.
“He who has long pondered over a train of Reasoning,”—(remarks the elder
Critic,)—“_becomes unable to detect its weak points_.”(834) Yes, the
“idols of the den” exercise at last a terrible ascendency over the
Critical judgment. It argues an utter want of mental perspective, when we
find “the Man working on the Sabbath,” put on the same footing with “the
Woman taken in Adultery,” and conjectured to have “_come from the same
source_:”—the incident of “the Angel troubling the pool of Bethesda”
dismissed, as having “_no claim to any kind of association with the true
Text_:”(835)—and “the _two_ Supplements” to S. Mark’s Gospel declared to
“_stand on equal terms_ as independent attempts to fill up a gap;” and
allowed to be possibly “_of equal antiquity._”(836) How can we wonder,
after this, to find _anything_ omitted,—_anything_ inserted,—_anything_
branded with suspicion? And the brand is very freely applied by Drs.
Westcott and Hort. Their notion of the Text of the New Testament, is
certainly the most extraordinary ever ventilated. It has at least the
merit of entire originality. While they eagerly insist that many a passage
is but “a Western interpolation” after all; is but an “Evangelic
Tradition,” “rescued from oblivion by the Scribes of the second
century;”—they yet _incorporate those passages with the Gospel_. Careful
enough to clap them into fetters first, they then, (to use their own queer
phrase,)—“_provisionally associate them with the Text_.”

LXXXI. We submit, on the contrary, that Editors who “_cannot doubt_” that
a certain verse “comes from an extraneous source,”—“_do not believe_ that
it belonged originally to the Book in which it is now included,”—are
unreasonable if they proceed to assign to it _any_ actual place there at
all. When men have once thoroughly convinced themselves that two Verses of
S. Luke’s Gospel are _not Scripture_, but “only a fragment from the
Traditions, written or oral, which were for a while locally
current;”(837)—what else is it but the merest trifling with sacred Truth,
to promote those two verses to a place in the inspired context? Is it not
to be feared, that the conscious introduction of _human Tradition_ into
GOD’S _written Word_ will in the end destroy the soul’s confidence in
Scripture itself? opening the door for perplexity, and doubt, and
presently for Unbelief itself to enter.

LXXXII. And let us not be told that the Verses stand there “provisionally”
only; and for that reason are “enclosed within double brackets.” Suspected
felons are “provisionally” locked up, it is true: but after trial, they
are either convicted and removed out of sight; or else they are acquitted
and suffered to come abroad like other men. Drs. Westcott and Hort have
_no right_ at the end of thirty years of investigation, _still_ to
encumber the Evangelists with “provisional” fetters. Those fetters either
signify that the Judge is _afraid to carry out his own righteous
sentence_: or else, that he _entertains a secret suspicion that he has
made a terrible mistake after all,—has condemned the innocent_. Let these
esteemed Scholars at least have “the courage of their own convictions,”
and be throughout as consistent as, in two famous instances (viz. at pages
113 and 241), they have been. Else, in GOD’S Name, let them have the
manliness to avow themselves in error: abjure their πρῶτον ψεῦδος; and
cast the fantastic Theory, which they have so industriously reared upon
it, unreservedly, to the winds!

LXXXIII. To conclude.—It will be the abiding distinction of the Revised
Version (_thanks to Dr. Hort,_) that it brought to the front a question
which has slept for about 100 years; but which may not be suffered now to
rest undisturbed any longer. It might have slumbered on for another
half-century,—a subject of deep interest to a very little band of Divines
and Scholars; of perplexity and distrust to all the World besides;—_but_
for the incident which will make the 17th of May, 1881, for ever memorable
in the Annals of the Church of England.

LXXXIV. The Publication on that day of the “Revised English Version of the
New Testament” instantly concentrated public attention on the neglected
problem: for men saw at a glance that the Traditional Text of 1530 years’
standing,—(the exact number is Dr. Hort’s, not ours,)—had been
unceremoniously set aside in favour of _an entirely different Recension_.
The true Authors of the mischief were not far to seek. Just five days
before,—under the editorship of Drs. Westcott and Hort, (Revisionists
themselves,)—had appeared the most extravagant Text which has seen the
light since the invention of Printing. No secret was made of the fact
that, under pledges of strictest secrecy,(838) a copy of this wild
performance (marked “Confidential”) had been entrusted to every member of
the Revising body: and it has since transpired that Dr. Hort advocated his
own peculiar views in the Jerusalem Chamber with so much volubility,
eagerness, pertinacity, and plausibility, that in the end—notwithstanding
the warnings, remonstrances, entreaties of Dr. Scrivener,—his counsels
prevailed; and—the utter shipwreck of the “Revised Version” has been, (as
might have been confidently predicted,) the disastrous consequence. Dr.
Hort is calculated to have _talked for three years_ out of the ten.

But in the meantime there has arisen _this_ good out of the
calamity,—namely, that men will at last require that the Textual problem
shall be fairly threshed out. They will insist on having it proved to
their satisfaction,—(1) That Codices B and א are indeed the oracular
documents which their admirers pretend; and—(2) That a narrow selection of
ancient documents is a secure foundation on which to build the Text of
Scripture. Failing this,—(and the _onus probandi_ rests wholly with those
who are for setting aside the Traditional Text in favour of another,
_entirely dissimilar in character_,)—failing this, we say, it is
reasonable to hope that the counsels of the “_Quarterly Review_” will be
suffered to prevail. In the meantime, we repeat that this question has now
to be fought out: for to ignore it any longer is impossible. Compromise of
any sort between the two conflicting parties, is impossible also; for they
simply contradict one another. Codd. B and א are either among the purest
of manuscripts,—or else they are among the very foulest. The Text of Drs.
Westcott and Hort is either the very best which has ever appeared,—or else
it is the very worst; the nearest to the sacred Autographs,—or the
furthest from them. There is no room for _both_ opinions; and there cannot
exist any middle view.

The question will have to be fought out; and it must be fought out fairly.
It may not be magisterially settled; but must be advocated, on either
side, by the old logical method. If Continental Scholars join in the fray,
England,—which in the last century took the lead in these studies,—will,
it is to be hoped, maintain her ancient reputation and again occupy the
front rank. The combatants may be sure that, in consequence of all that
has happened, the public will be no longer indifferent spectators of the
fray; for the issue concerns the inner life of the whole
community,—touches men’s very heart of hearts. Certain it is that—“GOD
defend _the Right_!” will be the one aspiration of every faithful spirit
among us. THE TRUTH,—(we avow it on behalf of Drs. Westcott and Hort as
eagerly as on our own behalf,)—GOD’S TRUTH will be, as it has been
throughout, the one object of all our striving. Αἴλινον αἴλινον εἰπέ, τὸ
δ᾽ εὖ νικάτω.

*I HAVE BEEN VERY JEALOUS FOR THE LORD GOD OF HOSTS.*





LETTER TO BISHOP ELLICOTT, IN REPLY TO HIS PAMPHLET.


    “Nothing is more satisfactory at the present time than the evident
    feelings of veneration for our Authorized Version, and the very
    generally-felt desire for _as little change as possible_.”—BISHOP
    ELLICOTT.(839)

    “We may be satisfied with the attempt to correct _plain and clear
    errors_, but _there it is our duty to stop_.”—BISHOP
    ELLICOTT.(840)

    “We have now, at all events, no fear of _an over-corrected
    Version_.”—BISHOP ELLICOTT.(841)

    “I fear we must say in candour that in the Revised Version we meet
    in every page with small _changes, which are vexatious, teasing,
    and irritating, even the more so because they are small; which
    seem almost to be made for the sake of change_.”—BISHOP
    WORDSWORTH.(842)

    [The question arises,]—“Whether the Church of England,—which in
    her Synod, so far as this Province is concerned, sanctioned a
    Revision of her Authorized Version _under the express condition_,
    which she most wisely imposed, that _no Changes should be made in
    it except what were absolutely necessary_,—could consistently
    accept a Version in which 36,000 changes have been made; _not a
    fiftieth of which can be shown to be needed, or even
    desirable_.”—BISHOP WORDSWORTH.(843)


Letter To
The Right Rev. Charles John Ellicott, D.D.,
Bishop Of Gloucester And Bristol,
In Reply To His Pamphlet In Defence Of
The Revisers And Their Greek Text Of
The New Testament.


    “WHAT COURSE WOULD REVISERS HAVE US TO FOLLOW?... WOULD IT BE WELL
    FOR THEM TO AGREE ON A CRITICAL GREEK TEXT? _TO THIS QUESTION WE
    VENTURE TO ANSWER VERY UNHESITATINGLY IN THE NEGATIVE._

    “THOUGH WE HAVE MUCH CRITICAL MATERIAL, AND A VERY FAIR AMOUNT OF
    CRITICAL KNOWLEDGE, _WE HAVE CERTAINLY NOT YET ACQUIRED SUFFICIENT
    CRITICAL JUDGMENT_ FOR ANY BODY OF REVISERS HOPEFULLY TO UNDERTAKE
    SUCH A WORK AS THIS.”


BISHOP ELLICOTT.(844)

MY LORD BISHOP,

Last May, you published a pamphlet of seventy-nine pages(845) in
vindication of the Greek Text recently put forth by the New Testament
Company of Revisers. It was (you said) your Answer to the first and second
of my Articles in the _Quarterly Review_:(846)—all three of which,
corrected and enlarged, are now submitted to the public for the second
time. See above, from page 1 to page 367.




[1] Preliminary Statement.


You may be quite sure that I examined your pamphlet as soon as it
appeared, with attention. I have since read it through several times:
and—I must add—with ever-increasing astonishment. First, because it is so
evidently the production of one who has never made Textual Criticism
seriously his study. Next, because your pamphlet is no refutation whatever
of my two Articles. You flout me: you scold me: you lecture me. But I do
not find that you ever _answer_ me. You reproduce the theory of Drs.
Westcott and Hort,—which I claim to have demolished.(847) You seek to put
me down by flourishing in my face the decrees of Lachmann, Tischendorf and
Tregelles,—which, as you are well aware, I entirely disallow.
Denunciation, my lord Bishop, is not Argument; neither is Reiteration,
Proof. And then,—Why do you impute to me opinions which I do not hold? and
charge me with a method of procedure of which I have never been guilty?
Above all, why do you seek to prejudice the question at issue between us
by importing irrelevant matter which can only impose upon the ignorant and
mislead the unwary? Forgive my plainness, but really you are so
conspicuously unfair,—and at the same time so manifestly unacquainted,
(except at second-hand and only in an elementary way,) with the points
actually under discussion,—that, were it not for the adventitious
importance attaching to any utterance of yours, deliberately put forth at
this time as Chairman of the New Testament body of Revisers, I should have
taken no notice of your pamphlet.




[2] The Bishop’s pamphlet was anticipated and effectually disposed of,
three weeks before it appeared, by the Reviewer’s Third Article.


I am bound, at the same time, to acknowledge that you have been singularly
unlucky. While _you_ were penning your Defence, (namely, throughout the
first four months of 1882,) _I_ was making a fatal inroad into your
position, by showing how utterly without foundation is the “Textual
Theory” to which you and your co-Revisers have been so rash as to commit
yourselves.(848) This fact I find duly recognized in your “Postscript.”
“Since the foregoing pages were in print” (you say,) “a third article has
appeared in the _Quarterly Review_, entitled ‘Westcott and Hort’s Textual
Theory.’ ”(849) Yes. _I_ came before the public on the 16th of April;
_you_ on the 4th of May, 1882. In this way, your pamphlet was
anticipated,—had in fact been fully disposed of, three weeks before it
appeared. “The Reviewer,” (you complain at page 4,) “censures their
[Westcott and Hort’s] Text: _in neither Article has he attempted a serious
examination of the arguments which they allege in its support_.” But, (as
explained,) the “serious examination” which you reproach me with having
hitherto failed to produce,—had been already three weeks in the hands of
readers of the _Quarterly_ before your pamphlet saw the light. You would,
in consequence, have best consulted your own reputation, I am persuaded,
had you instantly recalled and suppressed your printed sheets. _What_, at
all events, you can have possibly meant, while publishing them, by adding
(in your “Postscript” at page 79,)—“_In this controversy it is not for us
to interpose:_” and again,—“_We find nothing in the Reviewer’s third
article to require further answer from us:_”—passes my comprehension;
seeing that your pamphlet (page 11 to page 29) is an elaborate avowal that
you have made Westcott and Hort’s theory entirely your own. The Editor of
the _Speaker’s Commentary_, I observe, takes precisely the same view of
your position. “The two Revisers” (says Canon Cook) “actually add a
Postscript to their pamphlet of a single short page noticing their
unexpected anticipation by the third _Quarterly Review_ article; with the
remark that ‘in this controversy (between Westcott and Hort and the
Reviewer) it is not for us to interfere:’—as if Westcott and Hort’s theory
of Greek Revision could be refuted, or seriously damaged, without _cutting
the ground from under the Committee of Revisers on the whole of this
subject_.”(850)




[3] Bp. Ellicott remonstrated with for his unfair method of procedure.


I should enter at once on an examination of your Reply, but that I am
constrained at the outset to remonstrate with you on the exceeding
unfairness of your entire method of procedure. Your business was to make
it plain to the public that you have dealt faithfully with the Deposit:
have strictly fulfilled the covenant into which you entered twelve years
ago with the Convocation of the Southern Province: have corrected only
“_plain and clear errors_.” Instead of this, you labour to enlist vulgar
prejudice against me:—partly, by insisting that I am for determining
disputed Readings by an appeal to the “Textus Receptus,”—which (according
to you) I look upon as faultless:—partly, by exhibiting me in disagreement
with Lachmann, Tischendorf and Tregelles. The irrelevancy of this latter
contention,—the groundlessness of the former,—may not be passed over
without a few words of serious remonstrance. For I claim that, in
discussing the Greek Text, I have invariably filled my pages as full of
_Authorities_ for the opinions I advocate, as the limits of the page would
allow. I may have been tediously demonstrative sometimes: but no one can
fairly tax me with having shrunk from the severest method of evidential
proof. To find myself therefore charged with “mere
denunciation,”(851)—with substituting “strong expressions of individual
opinion” for “arguments,”(852)—and with “attempting to cut the cord by
reckless and unverified assertions,” (p. 25,)—astonishes me. Such language
is in fact even ridiculously unfair.

The misrepresentation of which I complain is not only conspicuous, but
systematic. It runs through your whole pamphlet: is admitted by yourself
at the close,—(viz. at p. 77,)—_to be half the sum of your entire
contention_. Besides cropping up repeatedly,(853) it finds deliberate and
detailed expression when you reach the middle of your essay,—viz. at p.
41: where, with reference to certain charges which I not only bring
against codices א B C L, but laboriously substantiate by a free appeal to
the contemporary evidence of Copies, Versions, and Fathers,—you venture to
express yourself concerning me as follows:—


    “To attempt to sustain such charges by a rough comparison of these
    ancient authorities with the TEXTUS RECEPTUS, and to measure the
    degree of their depravation _by the amount of their divergence
    from such a text as we have shown this Received Text really to
    be_, is to trifle with the subject of sacred Criticism.”—p. 41.


You add:—


    “Until the depravation of these ancient Manuscripts has been
    demonstrated in a manner more consistent with _the recognized
    principles of Criticism_, such charges as those to which we allude
    must be regarded as expressions of passion, or prejudice, and set
    aside by every impartial reader as assertions for which no
    adequate evidence has yet been produced.”—pp. 41-2.




[4] (Which be “the recognized principles of Textual Criticism”?—a question
asked in passing.)


But give me leave to ask in passing,—_Which_, pray, _are_ “the recognized
principles of Criticism” to which you refer? I profess I have never met
with them yet; and I am sure it has not been for want of diligent enquiry.
You have publicly charged me before your Diocese with being “innocently
ignorant of the _now established principles_ of Textual Criticism.”(854)
But why do you not state which those principles _are_? I am surprised. You
are for ever vaunting “_principles_ which have been established by the
investigations and reasonings” of Lachmann, Tischendorf and
Tregelles:(855)—“the _principles_ of Textual Criticism which are accepted
and recognized by the great majority of modern Textual Critics:”(856)—“the
_principles_ on which the Textual Criticism of the last fifty years has
been based:”(857)—but you never condescend to explain _which be_ the
“principles” you refer to. For the last time,—_Who_ established those
“Principles”? and, _Where_ are they to be seen “established”?

I will be so candid with you as frankly to avow that the _only two_
“principles” with which I am acquainted as held, with anything like
consent, by “the modern Textual Critics” to whom you have surrendered your
judgment, are—(1st) A robust confidence in the revelations of their own
inner consciousness: and (2ndly) A superstitious partiality for two
codices written in the uncial character,—for which partiality they are
able to assign no intelligible reason. You put the matter as neatly as I
could desire at page 19 of your Essay,—where you condemn, with excusable
warmth, “those who adopt the easy method of _using some favourite
Manuscript_,”—or of exercising “_some supposed power of divining the
original Text;_”—as if those were “the only necessary agents for
correcting the Received Text.” _Why_ the evidence of codices B and א,—and
perhaps the evidence of the VIth-century codex D,—(“the singular codex” as
you call it; and it is certainly a very singular codex indeed:)—_why_, I
say, the evidence of these two or three codices should be thought to
outweigh the evidence of all other documents in existence,—whether Copies,
Versions, or Fathers,—I have never been able to discover, nor have their
admirers ever been able to tell me.




[5] Bp. Ellicott’s and the Reviewer’s respective methods, contrasted.


Waiving this however, (for it is beside the point,) I venture to ask,—With
what show of reason can you pretend that I “_sustain my charges_” against
codices א B C L, “_by a rough comparison of these ancient authorities with
the_ Textus Receptus”?(858)... Will you deny that it is a mere
misrepresentation of the plain facts of the case, to say so? Have I not,
on the contrary, _on every occasion_ referred Readings in dispute,—the
reading of א B C L on the one hand, the reading of the _Textus Receptus_
on the other,—simultaneously to one and the same external standard? Have I
not persistently enquired for the verdict—so far as it has been
obtainable—of CONSENTIENT ANTIQUITY? If I have sometimes spoken of certain
famous manuscripts (א B C D namely,) as exhibiting fabricated Texts, have
I not been at the pains to establish the reasonableness of my assertion by
showing that they yield divergent,—that is _contradictory_, testimony?

The task of laboriously collating the five “old uncials” throughout the
Gospels, occupied me for five-and-a-half years, and taxed me severely. But
I was rewarded. I rose from the investigation profoundly convinced that,
however important they may be as instruments of Criticism, codices א B C D
are among the most corrupt documents extant. It was a conviction derived
from exact _Knowledge_ and based on solid grounds of _Reason_. You, my
lord Bishop, who have never gone deeply into the subject, repose simply on
_Prejudice_. Never having at any time collated codices א A B C D for
yourself, you are unable to gainsay a single statement of mine by a
counter-appeal to _facts_. Your textual learning proves to have been all
obtained at second-hand,—taken on trust. And so, instead of marshalling
against me a corresponding array of ANCIENT AUTHORITIES,—you invariably
attempt to put me down by an appeal to MODERN OPINION. “The _majority of
modern Critics_” (you say) have declared the manuscripts in question “not
only to be wholly undeserving of such charges, but, on the contrary, to
exhibit a text of comparative purity.”(859)

The sum of the difference therefore between our respective methods, my
lord Bishop, proves to be this:—that whereas _I_ endeavour by a laborious
accumulation of _ancient Evidence_ to demonstrate that the decrees of
Lachmann, of Tischendorf and of Tregelles, _are untrustworthy_; _your_ way
of reducing me to silence, is to cast Lachmann, Tregelles and Tischendorf
at every instant in my teeth. You make your appeal exclusively to _them_.
“It would be difficult” (you say) “to find a recent English Commentator of
any considerable reputation who has not been influenced, more or less
consistently, by _one or the other of these three Editors_:”(860) (as if
_that_ were any reason why I should do the same!) Because I pronounce the
Revised reading of S. Luke ii. 14, “a grievous perversion of the truth of
Scripture,” you bid me consider “that in so speaking I am _censuring
Lachmann, Tischendorf and Tregelles_.” You seem in fact to have utterly
missed the point of my contention: which is, that the ancient Fathers
collectively (A.D. 150 to A.D. 450),—inasmuch as they must needs have
known far better than Lachmann, Tregelles, or Tischendorf, (A.D. 1830 to
A.D. 1880,) what was the Text of the New Testament in the earliest
ages,—are perforce far more trustworthy guides than they. And further,
that whenever it can be clearly shown that the Ancients as a body say one
thing, and the Moderns another, the opinion of the Moderns may be safely
disregarded.

When therefore I open your pamphlet at the first page, and read as
follows:—“A bold assault has been made in recent numbers of the _Quarterly
Review_ upon the whole fabric of Criticism which has been built up _during
the last fifty years_ by the patient labour of successive editors of the
New Testament,”(861)—I fail to discover that any practical inconvenience
results to myself from your announcement. The same plaintive strain
reappears at p. 39; where, having pointed out “that the text of the
Revisers is, in all essential features, the same as that text in which the
best critical editors, _during the past fifty years_, are generally
agreed,”—you insist “that thus, any attack made on the text of the
Revisers is really an attack on the critical principles that have been
carefully and laboriously established _during the last half-century_.”
With the self-same pathetic remonstrance you conclude your labours. “If,”
(you say) “the Revisers are wrong in the principles which they have
applied to the determination of the Text, _the principles_ on which the
Textual Criticism of _the last fifty years_ has been based, are wrong
also.”(862)... Are you then not yet aware that the alternative which seems
to you so alarming is in fact my whole contention? What else do you
imagine it is that I am proposing to myself throughout, but effectually to
dispel the vulgar prejudice,—say rather, to plant my heel upon the weak
superstition,—which “_for the last fifty years_” has proved fatal to
progress in this department of learning; and which, if it be suffered to
prevail, will make _a science_ of Textual Criticism impossible? A shallow
empiricism has been the prevailing result, up to this hour, of the
teaching of Lachmann, and Tischendorf, and Tregelles.




[6] Bp. Ellicott in May 1870, and in May 1882.


A word in your private ear, (by your leave) in passing. You seem to have
forgotten that, at the time when you entered on the work of Revision,
_your own_ estimate of the Texts put forth by these Editors was the
reverse of favourable; _i.e._ was scarcely distinguishable from that of
your present correspondent. Lachmann’s you described as “a text composed
on _the narrowest and most exclusive_ principles,”—“really based on
_little more than four manuscripts_.”—“The case of Tischendorf” (you said)
“is still more easily disposed of. Which of this most inconstant Critic’s
texts are we to select? Surely not the last, in which an exaggerated
preference for a single manuscript has betrayed him into _an almost
childlike infirmity of judgment_. Surely also not the seventh edition,
which exhibits all the instability which a comparatively recent
recognition of the authority of cursive manuscripts might be supposed
likely to introduce.”—As for poor Tregelles, you said:—“His critical
principles ... are now, perhaps justly, called in question.” His text “is
rigid and mechanical, and sometimes fails to disclose _that critical
instinct and peculiar scholarly sagacity which_”(863) have since evidently
disclosed themselves in perfection in those Members of the Revising body
who, with Bp. Ellicott at their head, systematically outvoted Prebendary
Scrivener in the Jerusalem Chamber. But with what consistency, my lord
Bishop, do you to-day vaunt “the principles” of the very men whom
yesterday you vilipended precisely because _their _“principles” then
seemed to yourself so utterly unsatisfactory?




[7] “The fabric of modern Textual Criticism” (1831-81) rests on an
insecure basis.


I have been guilty of little else than sacrilege, it seems, because I have
ventured to send a shower of shot and shell into the flimsy decrees of
these three Critics which now you are pleased grandiloquently to designate
and describe as “_the whole fabric of Criticism which has been built up
within the last fifty years_.” Permit me to remind you that the “fabric”
you speak of,—(confessedly a creation of yesterday,)—rests upon a
foundation of sand; and has been already so formidably assailed, or else
so gravely condemned by a succession of famous Critics, that as “_a
fabric_,” its very existence may be reasonably called in question.
Tischendorf insists on the general depravity (“_universa vitiositas_”) of
codex B; on which codex nevertheless Drs. Westcott and Hort chiefly
rely,—regarding it as unique in its pre-eminent purity. The same pair of
Critics depreciate the Traditional Text as “beyond all question identical
with the dominant [Greek] Text _of the second half of the fourth
century_:”—whereas, “_to bring the sacred text back to the condition in
which it existed during the fourth century_,”(864) was Lachmann’s one
object; the sum and substance of his striving. “The fancy of a
Constantinopolitan text, and every inference that has been grounded on its
presumed existence,”(865) Tregelles declares to have been “swept away at
once and for ever,” by Scrivener’s published Collations. And yet, what
else but _this_ is “the fancy,” (as already explained,) on which Drs.
Westcott and Hort have been for thirty years building up their visionary
Theory of Textual Criticism?—What Griesbach attempted [1774-1805], was
denounced [1782-1805] by C. F. Matthæi;—disapproved by
Scholz;—demonstrated to be untenable by Abp. Laurence. Finally, in 1847,
the learned J. G. Reiche, in some Observations prefixed to his Collations
of MSS. in the Paris Library, eloquently and ably exposed the
unreasonableness of _any_ theory of “Recension,”—properly so called;(866)
thereby effectually anticipating Westcott and Hort’s weak imagination of a
“_Syrian_ Text,” while he was demolishing the airy speculations of
Griesbach and Hug. “There is no royal road” (he said) “to the Criticism of
the N. T.: no plain and easy method, at once reposing on a firm
foundation, and conducting securely to the wished for goal.”(867)...
Scarcely therefore in Germany had the basement-story been laid of that
“fabric of Criticism which has been built up during the last fifty years,”
and which _you_ superstitiously admire,—when a famous German scholar was
heard denouncing the fabric as insecure. He foretold that the “_regia
via_” of codices B and א would prove a deceit and a snare: which thing, at
the end of four-and-thirty years, has punctually come to pass.

Seven years after, Lachmann’s method was solemnly appealed from by the
same J. G. Reiche:(868) whose words of warning to his countrymen deserve
the attention of every thoughtful scholar among ourselves at this day. Of
the same general tenor and purport as Reiche’s, are the utterances of
those giants in Textual Criticism, Vercellone of Rome and Ceriani of
Milan. Quite unmistakable is the verdict of our own Scrivener concerning
the views of Lachmann, Tischendorf and Tregelles, and the results to which
their system has severally conducted them.—If Alford adopted the
prejudices of his three immediate predecessors, his authority has been
neutralized by the far different teaching of one infinitely his superior
in judgment and learning,—the present illustrious Bishop of Lincoln.—On
the same side with the last named are found the late Philip E. Pusey and
Archd. Lee,—Canon Cook and Dr. Field,—the Bishop of S. Andrews and Dr. S.
C. Malan. Lastly, at the end of fifty-one years, (viz. in 1881,) Drs.
Westcott and Hort have revived Lachmann’s unsatisfactory
method,—superadding thereto not a few extravagances of their own. That
their views have been received with expressions of the gravest
disapprobation, no one will deny. Indispensable to their contention is the
grossly improbable hypothesis that the Peschito is to be regarded as the
“Vulgate” (_i.e._ the _Revised_) Syriac; Cureton’s, as the “Vetus” or
_original_ Syriac version. And yet, while I write, the Abbé Martin at
Paris is giving it as the result of his labours on this subject, that
Cureton’s Version cannot be anything of the sort.(869) Whether Westcott
and Hort’s theory of a “_Syrian_” Text has not received an effectual
quietus, let posterity decide. Ἁμέραι δ᾽ ἐπίλοιποι μάρτυρες σοφώτατοι.

From which it becomes apparent that, at all events, “the fabric of
Criticism which has been built up within the last fifty years” has not
arisen without solemn and repeated protest,—as well from within as from
without. It may not therefore be spoken of by you as something which men
are bound to maintain inviolate,—like an Article of the Creed. It is quite
competent, I mean, for any one to denounce the entire system of Lachmann,
Tischendorf and Tregelles,—_as I do now_,—as an egregious blunder; if he
will but be at the pains to establish on a severe logical basis the
contradictory of not a few of their most important decrees. And you, my
lord Bishop, are respectfully reminded that your defence of their
system,—if you must needs defend what I deem worthless,—must be conducted,
not by sneers and an affectation of superior enlightenment; still less by
intimidation, scornful language, and all those other bad methods whereby
it has been the way of Superstition in every age to rivet the fetters of
intellectual bondage: but by severe reasoning, and calm discussion, and a
free appeal to ancient Authority, and a patient investigation of all the
external evidence accessible. I request therefore that we may hear no more
of _this_ form of argument. The Text of Lachmann and Tischendorf and
Tregelles,—of Westcott and Hort and Ellicott, (_i.e._ _of the
Revisers_,)—is just now on its trial before the world.(870)




[8] Bp. Ellicott’s strange notions about the “Textus Receptus.”


Your strangest mistakes and misrepresentations however are connected with
the “Textus Receptus.” It evidently exercises you sorely that “with the
Quarterly Reviewer, the Received Text is a standard, by comparison with
which all extant documents, _however indisputable their antiquity,_ are
measured.”(871) But pray,—

(1) By comparison with what _other_ standard, if not by the Received Text,
would you yourself obtain the measure of “all extant documents,” however
ancient?... This first. And next,

(2) Why should the “_indisputable antiquity_” of a document be supposed to
disqualify it from being measured by the same standard to which (_but only
for convenience_) documents of whatever date,—by common consent of
scholars, at home and abroad,—are invariably referred? And next,

(3) Surely, you cannot require to have it explained to you that a standard
_of _COMPARISON, is not _therefore_ of necessity a standard _of
_EXCELLENCE. Did you ever take the trouble to collate a sacred manuscript?
If you ever did, pray with _what_ did you make your collation? In other
words, what “standard” did you employ?... Like Walton and Ussher,—like
Fell and Mill,—like Bentley, and Bengel, and Wetstein,—like Birch, and
Matthæi, and Griesbach, and Scholz,—like Lachmann, and Tregelles, and
Tischendorf, and Scrivener,—I venture to assume that you collated your
manuscript,—whether it was of “disputable” or of “indisputable
antiquity,”—with _an ordinary copy of the Received Text_. If you did not,
your collation is of no manner of use. But, above all,

(4) How does it come to pass that you speak so scornfully of the Received
Text, seeing that (at p. 12 of your pamphlet) you assure your readers that
_its pedigree may be traced back to a period perhaps antecedent to the
oldest of our extant manuscripts_? Surely, a traditional Text which
(_according to you_) dates from about A.D. 300, is good enough for the
purpose of _Collation_!

(5) At last you say,—


    “If there were reason to suppose that the Received Text
    represented _verbatim et literatim_ the text which was current at
    Antioch in the days of Chrysostom, it would still be impossible to
    regard it as a standard from which there was no appeal.”(872)


Really, my lord Bishop, you must excuse me if I declare plainly that the
more I attend to your critical utterances, the more I am astonished. From
the confident style in which you deliver yourself upon such matters, and
especially from your having undertaken to preside over a Revision of the
Sacred Text, one would suppose that at some period of your life you must
have given the subject a considerable amount of time and attention. But
indeed the foregoing sentence virtually contains two propositions neither
of which could possibly have been penned by one even moderately acquainted
with the facts of Textual Criticism. For first,

(_a_) You speak of “representing _verbatim et literatim_ THE Text which
was current at Antioch in the days of Chrysostom.” Do you then really
suppose that there existed at Antioch, at any period between A.D. 354 and
A.D. 407, _some one definite Text of the N. T. _CAPABLE_ of being so
represented_?—If you do, pray will you indulge us with the grounds for
such an extraordinary supposition? Your “acquaintance” (Dr. Tregelles)
will tell you that such a fancy has long since been swept away “at once
and for ever.” And secondly,

(_b_) You say that, even if there were reason to suppose that the
“Received Text” were such-and-such a thing,—“it would still be impossible
to regard it as _a standard from which there was no appeal_.”

But pray, who in his senses,—what sane man in Great Britain,—ever dreamed
of regarding the “Received,”—aye, _or any other known _“Text,”—as “a
standard _from which there shall be no appeal_”? Have I ever done so? Have
I ever _implied_ as much? If I have, show me _where_. You refer your
readers to the following passage in my first Article:—


    “What precedes admits to some extent of further numerical
    illustration. It is discovered that, in 111 pages, ... the serious
    deflections of A from the _Textus Receptus_ amount in all to only
    842: whereas in C they amount to 1798: in B, to 2370: in א, to
    3392: in D, to 4697. The readings _peculiar to_ A within the same
    limits are 133: those peculiar to C are 170. But those of B amount
    to 197: while א exhibits 443: and the readings peculiar to D
    (within the same limits), are no fewer than 1829.... We submit
    that these facts are not altogether calculated to inspire
    confidence in codices B א C D.”—p. 14.


But, do you really require to have it explained to you that it is entirely
to misunderstand the question to object to such a comparison of codices as
is found above, (viz. in pages 14 and 17,) on the ground that it was made
with the text of Stephanus lying open before me? Would not _the self-same
phenomenon_ have been evolved by collation with _any other_ text? If you
doubt it, sit down and try the experiment for yourself. Believe me, Robert
Etienne in the XVIth century was not _the cause_ why cod. B in the IVth
and cod. D in the VIth are so widely discordant and divergent from one
another: A and C so utterly at variance with both.(873) We _must_ have
_some_ standard whereby to test,—wherewith to compare,—Manuscripts. What
is more, (give me leave to assure you,) _to the end of time_ it will
probably be the practice of scholars to compare MSS. of the N. T. with the
“Received Text.” The hopeless discrepancies between our five “old
uncials,” can in no more convenient way be exhibited, than by referring
each of them in turn to one and the same common standard. And,—_What_
standard more reasonable and more convenient than the Text which, by the
good Providence of GOD, was universally employed throughout Europe for the
first 300 years after the invention of printing? being practically
_identical_ with the Text which (as you yourself admit) was in popular use
at the end of three centuries from the date of the sacred autographs
themselves: in other word, being more than 1500 years old.




[9] The Reviewer vindicates himself against Bp. Ellicott’s misconceptions.


But you are quite determined that I shall mean something essentially
different. The Quarterly Reviewer, (you say,) is one who “contends that
the Received Text needs but little emendation; and _may be used without
emendation as a standard_.”(874) I am, (you say,) one of “those who adopt
the easy method of making the Received Text a standard.”(875) My
“Criticism,” (it seems,) “often rests ultimately upon the notion that it
is little else but sacrilege to impugn the tradition of the last three
hundred years.”(876) (“_The last three hundred years_:” as if the
Traditional Text of the N. Testament dated from the 25th of Queen
Elizabeth!)—I regard the “Textus Receptus” therefore, according to you, as
the Ephesians regarded the image of the great goddess Diana; namely, as a
thing which, one fine morning, “fell down from Jupiter.”(877) I mistake
the Received Text, (you imply,) for the Divine Original, the Sacred
Autographs,—and erect it into “a standard from which there shall be no
appeal,”—“a tradition which it is little else but sacrilege to impugn.”
That is how you state my case and condition: hopelessly _confusing_ the
standard of _Comparison_ with the standard of _Excellence_.

By this time, however, enough has been said to convince any fair person
that you are without warrant in your present contention. Let _any_ candid
scholar cast an impartial eye over the preceding three hundred and fifty
pages,—open the volume where he will, and read steadily on to the end of
any textual discussion,—and then say whether, on the contrary, my
criticism does not invariably rest on the principle that the Truth of
Scripture is to be sought in that form of the Sacred Text which has _the
fullest_, _the widest_, _and the most varied attestation_.(878) Do I not
invariably make _the consentient __ voice of Antiquity_ my standard? If I
do _not_,—if, on the contrary, I have ever once appealed to the “Received
Text,” and made _it_ my standard,—why do you not prove the truth of your
allegation by adducing in evidence that one particular instance? instead
of bringing against me a charge which is utterly without foundation, and
which can have no other effect but to impose upon the ignorant; to mislead
the unwary; and to prejudice the great Textual question which hopelessly
divides you and me?... I trust that at least you will not again confound
the standard _of Comparison_ with the standard _of Truth_.




[10] Analysis of contents of Bp. Ellicott’s pamphlet.


You state at page 6, that what you propose to yourself by your pamphlet,
is,—


    “_First_, to supply accurate information, in a popular form,
    concerning the Greek text of the Now Testament:

    “_Secondly_, to establish, by means of the information so
    supplied, the soundness of the principles on which the Revisers
    have acted in their choice of readings; and by consequence, the
    importance of the ‘New Greek Text:’ ”—[or, as you phrase it at p.
    29,]—“to enable the reader to form a fair judgment on the question
    of _the trustworthiness of the readings adopted by the Revisers_.”


To the former of these endeavours you devote twenty-three pages: (viz. p.
7 to p. 29):—to the latter, you devote forty-two; (viz. p. 37 to p. 78).
The intervening eight pages are dedicated,—(_a_) To the constitution of
the Revisionist body: and next, (_b_) To the amount of good faith with
which you and your colleagues observed the conditions imposed upon you by
the Southern Houses of Convocation. I propose to follow you over the
ground in which you have thus entrenched yourself, and to drive you out of
every position in turn.




[11] Bp. Ellicott’s account of the “TEXTUS RECEPTUS.”


First then, for your strenuous endeavour (pp. 7-10) to prejudice the
question by pouring contempt on the humblest ancestor of the _Textus
Receptus_—namely, the first edition of Erasmus. You know very well that
the “Textus Receptus” is _not_ the first edition of Erasmus. Why then do
you so describe its origin as to imply that _it is_? You ridicule the
circumstances under which a certain ancestor of the family first saw the
light. You reproduce with evident satisfaction a silly witticism of
Michaelis, viz. that, in his judgment, the Evangelium on which Erasmus
chiefly relied was not worth the two florins which the monks of Basle gave
for it. Equally contemptible (according to you) were the copies of the
Acts, the Epistles, and the Apocalypse which the same scholar employed for
the rest of his first edition. Having in this way done your best to
blacken a noble house by dilating on the low ebb to which its fortunes
were reduced at a critical period of its history, some three centuries and
a half ago,—you pause to make your own comment on the spectacle thus
exhibited to the eyes of unlearned readers, lest any should fail to draw
therefrom the injurious inference which is indispensable for your
argument:—


    “We have entered into these details, because we desire that the
    general reader should know fully the true pedigree of that printed
    text of the Greek Testament which has been in common use for the
    last three centuries. It will be observed that its documentary
    origin is not calculated to inspire any great confidence. Its
    parents, as we have seen, were two or three late manuscripts of
    little critical value, which accident seems to have brought into
    the hands of their first editor.”—p. 10.


Now, your account of the origin of the “Textus Receptus” shall be suffered
to stand uncontradicted. But the important _inference_, which you intend
that inattentive or incompetent readers should draw therefrom, shall be
scattered to the winds by the unequivocal testimony of no less
distinguished a witness than yourself. Notwithstanding all that has gone
before, you are constrained to confess _in the very next page_ that:—


    “The manuscripts which Erasmus used differ, for the most part,
    _only in small and insignificant details from the bulk of the
    cursive manuscripts_. The general character of their text is the
    same. By this observation the pedigree of the Received Text is
    carried up beyond the individual manuscripts used by Erasmus....
    _That_ pedigree stretches back to a remote antiquity. _The first
    ancestor of the Received Text was at least contemporary with the
    oldest of our extant manuscripts, if not older than any one of
    them._”—pp. 11, 12.


By your own showing therefore, the Textus Receptus is, “_at least_,” 1550
years old. Nay, we will have the fact over again, in words which you adopt
from p. 92 of Westcott and Hort’s _Introduction_ [see above, p. 257], and
clearly make your own:—


    “The fundamental text of late extant Greek MSS. generally is
    _beyond all question identical_ with the dominant Antiochian or
    Græco-Syrian _Text of the second half of the fourth century_.”—p.
    12.


But, if this be so,—(and I am not concerned to dispute your statement in a
single particular,)—of what possible significancy can it be to your
present contention, that the ancestry of the WRITTEN WORD (like the
ancestors of the WORD INCARNATE) had at one time declined to the wondrous
low estate on which you enlarged at first with such evident satisfaction?
Though the fact be admitted that Joseph “the carpenter” was “the husband
of Mary, of whom was born JESUS, who is called CHRIST,”—what possible
inconvenience results from that circumstance so long as the only thing
contended for be loyally conceded,—namely, that the descent of MESSIAH is
lineally traceable back to the patriarch Abraham, through David the King?
And the genealogy of the written, no less than the genealogy of the
Incarnate WORD, is traceable back by _two distinct lines of descent_,
remember: for the “Complutensian,” which was printed in 1514, exhibits the
“Traditional Text” with the same general fidelity as the “Erasmian,” which
did not see the light till two years later.




[12] Bp. Ellicott derives his estimate of the “TEXTUS RECEPTUS” from
Westcott and Hart’s fable of a “SYRIAN TEXT.”


Let us hear what comes next:—


    “At this point a question suggests itself which we cannot refuse
    to consider. If the pedigree of the Received Text may be traced
    back to so early a period, does it not deserve the honour which is
    given to it by the Quarterly Reviewer?”—p. 12.


A very pertinent question truly. We are made attentive: the more so,
because you announce that your reply to this question shall “go to the
bottom of the controversy with which we are concerned.”(879) That reply is
as follows:—


    “If there were reason to suppose that the Received Text
    represented _verbatim et literatim_ the text which was current at
    Antioch in the days of Chrysostom, it would still be impossible to
    regard it as a standard _from which there was no appeal_. The
    reason why this would be impossible may be stated briefly as
    follows. In the ancient documents which have come down to
    us,—amongst which, as is well known, are manuscripts written in
    the fourth century,—we possess evidence that other texts of the
    Greek Testament existed in the age of Chrysostom, materially
    different from the text which he and the Antiochian writers
    generally employed. Moreover, a rigorous examination of extant
    documents shows that the Antiochian or (as we shall henceforth
    call it with Dr. Hort) the Syrian text did not represent an
    earlier tradition than those other texts, but was in fact of later
    origin than the rest. We cannot accept it therefore as _a final
    standard_.”—pp. 13, 14.


“A _final_ standard”!... Nay but, why do you suddenly introduce this
unheard-of characteristic? _Who_, pray, since the invention of Printing
was ever known to put forward _any_ existing Text as “a final standard”?
Not the Quarterly Reviewer certainly. “The honour which is given to the
_Textus Receptus_ by the Quarterly Reviewer” is no other than the honour
which it has enjoyed at the hands of scholars, by universal consent, for
the last three centuries. That is to say, he uses it as a standard of
comparison, and employs it for habitual reference. _So do you._ You did
so, at least, in the year 1870. You did more; for you proposed “to proceed
with the work of Revision, whether of text or translation, _making the
current _‘Textus Receptus’_ the standard_.”(880) We are perfectly agreed
therefore. For my own part, being fully convinced, like yourself, that
essentially the Received Text is full 1550 years old,—(yes, and a vast
deal older,)—I esteem it quite good enough for all ordinary purposes. And
yet, so far am I from pinning my faith to it, that I eagerly make my
appeal _from_ it to the threefold witness of Copies, Versions, Fathers,
whenever I find its testimony challenged.—And with this renewed
explanation of my sentiments,—(which one would have thought that no
competent person could require,)—I proceed to consider the reply which you
promise shall “go to the bottom of the controversy with which we are
concerned.” I beg that you will not again seek to divert attention from
that which is the real matter of dispute betwixt you and me.

What kind of argumentation then is this before us? You assure us that,—

(_a_) “A rigorous examination of extant documents,”—“shows” Dr. Hort—“that
the Syrian text”—[which for all practical purposes may be considered as
only another name for the “Textus Receptus”]—was of later origin than
“other texts of the Greek Testament” which “existed in the age of
Chrysostom.”

(_b_) “We cannot accept it therefore as a final standard.”

But,—Of what nature is the logical process by which you have succeeded in
convincing yourself that _this_ consequent can be got out of _that_
antecedent? Put a parallel case:—“A careful analysis of herbs ‘shows’ Dr.
Short that the only safe diet for Man is a particular kind of rank grass
which grows in the Ely fens. We must therefore leave off eating butcher’s
meat.”—Does _that_ seem to you altogether a satisfactory argument? To me,
it is a mere _non sequitur_. Do but consider the matter for a moment. “A
rigorous examination of extant documents shows” Dr. Hort—such and such
things. “A rigorous examination of the” same “documents shows” _me_—that
Dr. Hort _is mistaken_. A careful study of his book convinces _me_ that
his theory of a Syrian Recension, manufactured between A.D. 250 and A.D.
350, is a dream, pure and simple—_a mere phantom of the brain_. Dr. Hort’s
course is obvious. Let him _first_ make his processes of proof
intelligible, and _then_ public. You cannot possibly suppose that the
fable of “a Syrian text,” though it has evidently satisfied _you_, will be
accepted by thoughtful Englishmen without proof. What prospect do you
suppose you have of convincing the world that Dr. Hort is competent to
assign _a date_ to this creature of his own imagination; of which he has
hitherto failed to demonstrate so much as the probable existence?

I have, for my own part, established by abundant references to his
writings that he is one of those who, (through some intellectual
peculiarity,) are for ever mistaking conjectures for facts,—assertions for
arguments,—and reiterated asseveration for accumulated proof. He deserves
sympathy, certainly: for,—(like the man who passed his life in trying to
count how many grains of sand will exactly fill a quart pot;—or like his
unfortunate brother, who made it his business to prove that nothing,
multiplied by a sufficient number of figures, amounts to something;)—he
has evidently taken a prodigious deal of useless trouble. The spectacle of
an able and estimable man exhibiting such singular inaptitude for a
province of study which, beyond all others, demands a clear head and a
calm, dispassionate judgment,—creates distress.




[13] Bp. Ellicott has completely adopted Westcott and Hort’s Theory.


But in the meantime, so confident are _you_ of the existence of a “Syrian
text,”—(_only however because Dr. Hort is_,)—that you inflict upon your
readers all the consequences which “the Syrian text” is supposed to carry
with it. Your method is certainly characterized by humility: for it
consists in merely serving up to the British public a _réchauffé_ of
Westcott and Hort’s Textual Theory. I cannot discover that you contribute
anything of your own to the meagre outline you furnish of it. Everything
is assumed—as before. Nothing is proved—as before. And we are referred to
Dr. Hort for the resolution of every difficulty which Dr. Hort has
created. “According to Dr. Hort,”—“as Dr. Hort observes,”—“to use Dr.
Hort’s language,”—“stated by Dr. Hort,”—“as Dr. Hort notices,”—“says Dr.
Hort:” yes, from p. 14 of your pamphlet to p. 29 you do nothing else but
reproduce—Dr. Hort!

First comes the fabulous account of the contents of the bulk of the
cursives:(881)—then, the imaginary history of the “Syriac Vulgate;” which
(it seems) bears “indisputable traces” of being a revision, of which you
have learned _from Dr. Hort_ the date:(882)—then comes the same
disparagement of the ancient Greek Fathers,—“for reasons which have been
_stated by Dr. Hort_ with great clearness and cogency:”(883)—then, the
same depreciatory estimate of writers subsequent to Eusebius,—whose
evidence is declared to “stand at best on no higher level than the
evidence of inferior manuscripts in the uncial class:”(884) but _only_
because it is discovered to be destructive of the theory _of Dr. Hort_.

Next comes “the Method of Genealogy,”—which you declare is the result of
“vast research, unwearied patience, great critical sagacity;”(885) but
which I am prepared to prove is, on the contrary, a shallow expedient for
dispensing with scientific Induction and the laborious accumulation of
evidence. This same “Method of Genealogy,” you are not ashamed to announce
as “the great contribution of our own times to a mastery over materials.”
“For the full explanation of it, _you must refer your reader to Dr. Hort’s
Introduction_.”(886) Can you be serious?

Then come the results to which “the application of this method _has
conducted Drs. Westcott and Hort_.”(887) And first, the fable of the
“Syrian Text”—which “_Dr. Hort considers_ to have been the result of a
deliberate Recension,” conducted on erroneous principles. This fabricated
product of the IIIrd and IVth centuries, (you say,) rose to
supremacy,—became dominant at Antioch,—passed thence to
Constantinople,—and once established there, soon vindicated its claim to
be the N. T. of the East: whence it overran the West, and for 300 years as
the “Textus Receptus,” has held undisputed sway.(888) Really, my lord
Bishop, you describe imaginary events in truly Oriental style. One seems
to be reading not so much of the “Syrian Text” as of the Syrian Impostor.
One expects every moment to hear of some feat of this fabulous Recension
corresponding with the surrender of the British troops and Arabi’s
triumphant entry into Cairo with the head of Sir Beauchamp Seymour in his
hand!

All this is followed, of course, by the weak fable of the “Neutral” Text,
and of the absolute supremacy of Codex B,—which is “_stated in Dr. Hort’s
own words_:”(889)—viz. “B very far exceeds all other documents in
neutrality of text, being in fact always, or nearly always, neutral.” (The
_fact_ being that codex B is demonstrably one of the most corrupt
documents in existence.) The posteriority of the (imaginary) “Syrian,” to
the (imaginary) “Neutral,” is insisted upon next in order, as a matter of
course: and declared to rest upon three other considerations,—each one of
which is found to be pure fable: viz. (1) On the fable of “Conflation,”
which “_seems_ to supply a proof” that Syrian readings are posterior both
to Western and to Neutral readings—but, (as I have elsewhere(890) shown,
at considerable length,) most certainly _does_ not:—(2) On Ante-Nicene
Patristic evidence,—of which however not a syllable is produced:—(3) On
“_Transcriptional probability_”—which is about as useful a substitute for
proof as a sweet-pea for a walking-stick.

Widely dissimilar of course is your own view of the importance of the
foregoing instruments of conviction. To _you_, “these three reasons taken
together seem to make up an argument for the posteriority of the Syrian
Text, which it is impossible to resist. They form” (you say) “a threefold
cord of evidence which [you] believe will bear any amount of argumentative
strain.” You rise with your subject, and at last break out into eloquence
and vituperation:—“Writers like the Reviewer may attempt to cut the cord
_by reckless and unverified assertions_: but _the knife has not yet been
fabricated that can equitably separate any one of its strands_.”(891)...
So effectually, as well as so deliberately, have you lashed yourself—for
better or for worse—to Westcott and Hort’s New Textual Theory, that you
must now of necessity either share its future triumphs, or else be a
partaker in its coming humiliation. Am I to congratulate you on your
prospects?

For my part, I make no secret of the fact that I look upon the entire
speculation about which you are so enthusiastic, as an excursion into
cloud-land: a _dream_ and nothing more. My contention is,—_not_ that the
Theory of Drs. Westcott and Hort rests on an _insecure_ foundation, but,
that it rests on _no foundation at all_. Moreover, I am greatly mistaken
if this has not been _demonstrated_ in the foregoing pages.(892) On one
point, at all events, there cannot exist a particle of doubt; namely, that
so far from its “_not being for you to interpose in this controversy_”—you
are without alternative. You must either come forward at once, and bring
it to a successful issue: or else, you must submit to be told that you
have suffered defeat, inasmuch as you are inextricably involved in
Westcott and Hort’s discomfiture. You are simply without remedy. _You_ may
“_find nothing in the Reviewer’s third article to require a further
answer_:” but readers of intelligence will tell you that your finding,
since it does not proceed from stupidity, can only result from your
consciousness that you have made a serious blunder: and that now, the less
you say about “Westcott and Hort’s new textual Theory,” the better.




[14] The Question modestly proposed,—Whether Bp. Ellicott’s adoption of
Westcott and Hort’s “new Textual Theory” does not amount to (what lawyers
call) “CONSPIRACY”?


But, my lord Bishop, when I reach the end of your laborious avowal that
you entirely accept “Westcott and Hort’s new Textual Theory,”—I find it
impossible to withhold the respectful enquiry,—Is such a proceeding on
your part altogether allowable? I frankly confess that to _me_ the
wholesale adoption by the Chairman of the Revising body, of the theory of
two of the Revisers,—and then, his exclusive reproduction and vindication
of _that theory_, when he undertakes,


    “to supply the reader with a few broad outlines of Textual
    Criticism, so as to enable him to form _a fair judgment_ on the
    question of the trustworthiness of _the readings adopted by the
    Revisers_,”—p. 29,


all this, my lord Bishop, I frankly avow, to _me_, looks very much indeed
like what, in the language of lawyers, is called “Conspiracy.” It appears
then that instead of presiding over the deliberations of the Revisionists
as an impartial arbiter, you have been throughout, heart and soul, an
eager partizan. You have learned to employ freely Drs. Westcott and Hort’s
peculiar terminology. You adopt their scarcely-intelligible phrases: their
wild hypotheses: their arbitrary notions about “Intrinsic” and
“Transcriptional Probability:” their baseless theory of “Conflation:”
their shallow “Method of Genealogy.” You have, in short, evidently
swallowed their novel invention whole. I can no longer wonder at the
result arrived at by the body of Revisionists. Well may Dr. Scrivener have
pleaded in vain! He found Drs. Ellicott and Westcott and Hort too many for
him.... But it is high time that I should pass on.




[15] Proofs that the Revisers have outrageously exceeded the Instructions
they received from the Convocation of the Southern Province.


It follows next to enquire whether your work as Revisers was conducted in
conformity with the conditions imposed upon you by the Southern House of
Convocation, or not. “_Nothing_” (you say)—


    “_can be more unjust_ on the part of the Reviewer than to suggest,
    as he has suggested in more than one passage,(893) that the
    Revisers _exceeded their Instructions_ in the course which they
    adopted with regard to the Greek Text. On the contrary, as we
    shall show, they adhered most closely to their Instructions; and
    did neither more nor less than they were required to do.”—(p. 32.)


“The Reviewer,” my lord Bishop, proceeds to _demonstrate_ that you
“exceeded your Instructions,” even to an extraordinary extent. But it will
be convenient first to hear you out. You proceed,—


    “Let us turn to the Rule. It is simply as follows:—‘That the text
    to be adopted be that for which the Evidence _is decidedly
    preponderating_: and that when the text so adopted differs from
    that from which the Authorized Version was made, the alteration be
    indicated in the margin.’ ”—(_Ibid._)


But you seem to have forgotten that the “Rule” which you quote formed no
part of the “_Instructions_” which were imposed upon you by Convocation.
It was one of the “Principles _agreed to by the Committee_” (25 May,
1870),—a Rule _of your own making_ therefore,—for which Convocation
neither was nor is responsible. The “fundamental Resolutions adopted by
the Convocation of Canterbury” (3rd and 5th May, 1870), five in number,
contain no authorization whatever for making changes in the Greek Text.
They have reference only to the work of revising “_the Authorized
Version_:” an undertaking which the first Resolution declares to be
“desirable.” “In order to ascertain what were the Revisers’ _Instructions_
with regard to the Greek Text,” we must refer to the original Resolution
of Feb. 10th, 1870: in which the removal of “_plain and clear errors_,
whether in the Greek Text originally adopted by the Translators, or in the
Translation made from the same,”—is for the first and last time mentioned.
That you yourself accepted this as the limit of your authority, is proved
by your Speech in Convocation. “We may be satisfied” (you said) “with the
attempt to correct _plain and clear errors_: but _there, it is our duty to
stop_.”(894)

Now I venture to assert that not one in a hundred of the alterations you
have actually made, “whether in the Greek Text originally adopted by the
Translators, or in the Translation made from the same,” are corrections of
“_plain and clear errors_.” Rather,—(to adopt the words of the learned
Bishop of Lincoln,)—“I fear we must say in candour that in the Revised
Version we meet in every page with changes _which seem almost to be made
for the sake of change_.”(895) May I trouble you to refer back to p. 112
of the present volume for a few words more on this subject from the pen of
the same judicious Prelate?

(_a_) _And first_,—_In respect of the New English Version_.

For my own part, (see above, pp. 171-2,) I thought the best thing I could
do would be to illustrate the nature of my complaint, by citing and
commenting on an actual instance of your method. I showed how, in revising
eight-and-thirty words (2 Pet. i. 5-7), you had contrived to introduce no
fewer than _thirty changes_,—every one of them being clearly a change for
the worse. You will perhaps say,—Find me another such case! I find it, my
lord Bishop, in S. Luke viii. 45, 46,—where you have made _nineteen
changes_ in revising the translation of four-and-thirty words. I proceed
to transcribe the passage; requesting you to bear in mind your own
emphatic protestation,—“We made _no_ change _if the meaning was fairly
expressed_ by the word or phrase before us.”

A.V.                        R.V.
“Peter and they that were   “Peter said [1], and they
with him said, Master,      that were with him,
the multitude throng thee   Master the multitudes [2]
and press thee, and         press [3] thee and crush
sayest thou, Who touched    thee [5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10.]
me? And Jesus said,         But [11] Jesus said, Some
Somebody hath touched me:   one [12] did touch [14]
for I perceive that         me: for I perceived [15]
virtue is gone out of       that power [16] had [17]
me.”                        gone forth [18] from [19]
                            me.”

Now pray,—Was not “the meaning _fairly expressed_” before? Will you tell
me that in revising S. Luke viii. 45-6, you “_made as few alterations as
possible_”? or will you venture to assert that you have removed none but
“_plain and clear errors_”? On the contrary. I challenge any competent
scholar in Great Britain to say _whether every one of these changes_ be
not either absolutely useless, or else _decidedly a change for the worse_:
six of them being downright _errors_.

The transposition in the opening sentence is infelicitous, to say the
least. (The English language will not bear such handling. Literally, no
doubt, the words mean, “said Peter, and they that were with him.” But you
may not so _translate_.)—The omission of the six interesting words,
indicated within square brackets, is a serious blunder.(896) The words are
_undoubtedly_ genuine. I wonder how you can have ventured thus to mutilate
the Book of Life. And why did you not, out of common decency and
reverence, _at least in the margin_, preserve a record of the striking
clause which you thus,—with well-meant assiduity, but certainly with
deplorable rashness,—forcibly ejected from the text? To proceed
however.—“Multitudes,”—“but,”—“one,”—“did,”— “power,”—“forth,”—“from:”—are
all seven either needless changes, or improper, or undesirable. “_Did
touch_,”—“_perceived_,”—“_had gone forth_,”—are unidiomatic and incorrect
expressions. I have already explained this elsewhere.(897) The aorist
(ἥψατο) has here a perfect signification, as in countless other
places:—ἔγνων, (like “_novi_,”) is frequently (as here) to be Englished by
the present (“_I perceive_”): and “_is gone out of me_” is the nearest
rendering of ἐξελθοῦσαν(898) ἀπ᾽ ἐμοῦ which our language will
bear.—Lastly, “_press_” and “_crush_,” as renderings of συνέχουσι and
ἀποθλίβουσι, are inexact and unscholarlike. Συνέχειν, (literally “to
encompass” or “hem in,”) is here to “throng” or “crowd:” ἀποθλίβειν,
(literally “to squeeze,”) is here to “press.” But in fact the words were
perfectly well rendered by our Translators of 1611, and ought to have been
let alone.—This specimen may suffice, (and it is a very fair specimen,) of
what has been your calamitous method of revising the A. V. throughout.

So much then for the Revised _English_. The fate of the Revised _Greek_ is
even more extraordinary. I proceed to explain myself by instancing what
has happened in respect of the GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE.

(_b_) _Next_,—_In respect of the New Greek Text._

On examining the 836(899) Greek Textual corrections which you have
introduced into those 1151 verses, I find that at least 356 of them _do
not affect the English rendering at all_. I mean to say that those 356
(supposed) emendations are either _incapable_ of being represented in a
Translation, or at least are _not_ represented. Thus, in S. Luke iv. 3,
whether εἶπε δέ or καὶ εἶπεν is read:—in ver. 7, whether ἐμοῦ or μου:—in
ver. 8, whether Κύριον τὸν Θεόν σου προσκυνήσες, or Προσκυνήσεις Κ. τὸν Θ.
σου; whether ἤγαγε δέ or καὶ ἤγαγεν; whether υἱός or ὁ υἱός:—in ver. 17,
whether τοῦ προφήτου Ἡσαïου or Ἡ. τοῦ προφήτου; whether ἀνοίξας or
ἀναπτύξας:—in ver. 18, whether εὐαγγελίσασθαι or εὐαγγελίζεσθαι:—in ver.
20, whether οἱ ὀφθαλμοὶ ἐν τῇ συναγωγῇ or ἐν τῇ συναγωγῇ οἱ ὀφθαλμοί:—in
ver. 23, whether εἰς τήν or ἐν τῇ:—in ver. 27, whether ἐν τῷ Ἰσραὴλ ἐπὶ
Ἐλισσαίου τοῦ προφήτου or ἐπὶ Ἐλισσ., τοῦ π. ἐν τῷ Ἰ.:—in ver. 29, whether
ὀφρύος or τῆς ὀφρύος; whether ὥστε or εἰς τό:—in ver. 35, whether ἀπ᾽ or
ἐξ:—in ver. 38, whether ἀπό or ἐκ; whether πενθερά or ἡ πενθερά:—in ver.
43, whether ἐπί or εἰς; whether ἀπεστάλην or ἀπέσταλμαι:—in ver. 44,
whether εἰς τὰς συναγωγάς or ἐν ταῖς συναγωγαῖς:—in every one of these
cases, _the English remains the same_, whichever of the alternative
readings is adopted. At least 19 therefore out of the 33 changes which you
introduced into the Greek Text of S. Luke iv. are plainly gratuitous.

_Thirteen_ of those 19, (or about two-thirds,) are also in my opinion
changes _for_ the _worse_: are nothing else, I mean, but substitutions of
_wrong for right_ Readings. But _that_ is not my present contention. The
point I am just now contending for is this:—That, since it certainly was
no part of your “Instructions,” “Rules,” or “Principles” _to invent a new
Greek Text_,—or indeed to meddle with the original Greek at all, _except
so far as was absolutely necessary for the Revision of the English
Version_,—it is surely a very grave form of inaccuracy to assert (as you
now do) that you “adhered most closely to your Instructions, and did
neither more nor less than you were required.”—You _know_ that you did a
vast deal more than you had any authority or right to do: a vast deal more
than you had the shadow of a pretext for doing. Worse than that. You
deliberately forsook the province to which you had been exclusively
appointed by the Southern Convocation,—and you ostentatiously invaded
another and a distinct province; viz. _That_ of the critical Editorship of
the Greek Text: for which, _by your own confession_,—(I take leave to
remind you of your own honest avowal, quoted above at page 369,)—you and
your colleagues _knew_ yourselves to be incompetent.

For, when those 356 wholly gratuitous and uncalled-for changes in the
Greek of S. Luke’s Gospel come to be examined in detail, they are found to
affect far more than 356 words. By the result, 92 words have been omitted;
and 33 added. No less than 129 words have been substituted for others
which stood in the text before; and there are 66 instances of
Transposition, involving the dislocation of 185 words. The changes of
case, mood, tense, &c., amount in addition to 123.(900) The sum of the
words which you have _needlessly_ meddled with in the Greek Text of the
third Gospel proves therefore to be 562.

At this rate,—(since, [excluding marginal notes and variations in stops,]
Scrivener(901) counts 5337 various readings in his Notes,)—the number of
alterations _gratuitously and uselessly introduced by you into the Greek
Text of the entire N. T._, is to be estimated at 3590.

And if,—(as seems probable,)—the same general proportion prevails
throughout your entire work,—it will appear that the words which, without
a shadow of excuse, you have _omitted_ from the Greek Text of the N. T.,
must amount to about 590: while you have _added_ in the same gratuitous
way about 210; and have needlessly _substituted_ about 820. Your instances
of uncalled-for _transposition_, (about 420 in number,) will have involved
the gratuitous dislocation of full 1190 words:—while the occasions on
which, at the bidding of Drs. Westcott and Hort, you have altered case,
mood, tense, &c., must amount to about 780. In this way, the sum of the
changes you have effected in the Greek Text of the N. T. _in clear
defiance of your Instructions_,—would amount, as already stated, to 3590.

Now, when it is considered that _not one_ of those 3590 changes _in the
least degree affects the English Revision_,—it is undeniable, not only
that you and your friends did what you were without authority for
doing:—but also that you violated as well the spirit as the letter of your
Instructions. As for your present assertion (at p. 32) that you “adhered
_most closely_ to the Instructions you received, and _did neither more nor
less than you were required to do_,”—you must submit to be reminded that
it savours strongly of the nature of pure fable. The history of the new
Greek Text is briefly this:—A majority of the Revisers—_including
yourself, their Chairman_,—are found to have put yourselves almost
unreservedly into the hands of Drs. Westcott and Hort. The result was
obvious. When the minority, headed by Dr. Scrivener, appealed to the
chair, they found themselves confronted by a prejudiced Advocate. They
ought to have been listened to by an impartial Judge. _You_, my lord
Bishop, are in consequence (I regret to say) responsible for all the
mischief which has occurred. The blame of it rests at _your_ door.

And pray disabuse yourself of the imagination that in what precedes I have
been _stretching_ the numbers in order to make out a case against you. It
would be easy to show that in estimating the amount of needless changes at
356 out of 836, I am greatly under the mark. I have not included such
cases, for instance, as your substitution of ἡ μνᾶ σου, Κύριε for Κύριε, ἡ
μνᾶ σου (in xix. 18), and of Τοίνυν ἀπόδοτε for Ἀπόδοτε τοίνυν (in xx.
25),(902)—only lest you should pretend that the transposition affects the
English, and therefore _was_ necessary. Had I desired to swell the number
I could have easily shown that fully _half_ the changes you effected in
the Greek Text were wholly superfluous for the Revision of the English
Translation, and therefore were entirely without excuse.

_This_, in fact,—(give me leave to remind you in passing,)—is the _true_
reason why, at an early stage of your proceedings, you resolved that
_none_ of the changes you introduced into the Greek Text should find a
record in your English margin. Had _any_ been recorded, _all_ must have
appeared. And had this been done, you would have stood openly convicted of
having utterly disregarded the “Instructions” you had received from
Convocation. With what face, for example, _could_ you, (in the margin of
S. Luke xv. 17,) against the words “he said,”—have printed “ἔφη not εἶπε”?
or, (at xxiv. 44,) against the words “unto them,”—must you not have been
ashamed to encumber the already overcrowded margin with such an irrelevant
statement as,—“πρὸς αὐτούς _not_ αὐτοῖς”?

Now, if this were all, you might reply that by my own showing the Textual
changes complained of, if they do no good, at least do no harm. But then,
unhappily, you and your friends have not confined yourselves to colourless
readings, when silently up and down every part of the N. T. you have
introduced innovations. I open your New English Version at random (S. John
iv. 15), and invite your attention to the first instance which catches my
eye.

You have made the Woman of Samaria _complain of the length of the walk_
from Sychar to Jacob’s well:—“Sir, give me this water, that I thirst not,
neither _come all the way_ hither to draw.”—What has happened? For
ἔρχωμαι, I discover that you have silently substituted ΔΙέρχωμαι. (Even
διέρχωμαι has no such meaning: but let _that_ pass.) What then was your
authority for thrusting διέρχωμαι (which by the way is a patent absurdity)
into the Text? The word is found (I discover) _in only two Greek MSS. of
had character_(903) (B א), which, being derived from a common corrupt
original, can only reckon for _one_: and the reasoning which is supposed
to justify this change is thus supplied by Tischendorf:—“If the Evangelist
had written ἔρχ-, who would ever have dreamed of turning it into
δι-έρχωμαι?”... No one, of course, (is the obvious answer,) except the
inveterate blunderer who, some 1700 years ago, seeing ΜΗΔΕΕΡΧΩΜΑΙ before
him, _reduplicated the antecedent_ ΔΕ. The sum of the matter is _that_!...
Pass 1700 years, and the long-since-forgotten blunder is furbished up
afresh by Drs. Westcott and Hort,—is urged upon the wondering body of
Revisers as the undoubted utterance of THE SPIRIT,—is accepted by
yourself;—finally, (in spite of many a remonstrance from Dr. Scrivener and
his friends,) is thrust upon the acceptance of 90 millions of
English-speaking men throughout the world, as the long-lost-sight-of, but
at last happily recovered, utterance of the “Woman of Samaria!”... Ἄπαγε.

Ordinary readers, in the meantime, will of course assume that the change
results from the Revisers’ skill in translating,—the advances which have
been made in the study of Greek; for no trace of the textual vagary before
us survives in the English margin.

And thus I am reminded of what I hold to be your gravest fault of all. The
rule of Committee subject to which you commenced operations,—the Rule
which re-assured the public and reconciled the Church to the prospect of a
Revised New Testament,—expressly provided that, whenever the underlying
Greek Text was altered, _such alteration should be indicated in the
margin_. This provision you entirely set at defiance from the very first.
You have _never_ indicated in the margin the alterations you introduced
into the Greek Text. In fact, you made so many changes,—in other words,
you seem to have so entirely lost sight of your pledge and your
compact,—that compliance with this condition would have been simply
impossible. I see not how your body is to be acquitted of a deliberate
breach of faith.

_(c) Fatal consequences of this mistaken officiousness._

How serious, in the meantime, _the consequences_ have been, _they_ only
know who have been at the pains to examine your work with close attention.
Not only have you, on countless occasions, thrust out words, clauses,
entire sentences of genuine Scripture,—but you have been careful that no
trace shall survive of the fatal injury which you have inflicted. I wonder
you were not afraid. Can I be wrong in deeming such a proceeding in a high
degree sinful? Has not the SPIRIT pronounced a tremendous doom(904)
against those who do such things? Were you not afraid, for instance, to
leave out (from S. Mark vi. 11) those solemn words of our SAVIOUR,—“Verily
I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrha in the
day of judgment, than for that city”? Surely you will not pretend to tell
me that those fifteen precious words, witnessed to as they are by _all the
known copies but nine_,—by the Old Latin, the Peschito and the Philoxenian
Syriac, the Coptic, the Gothic and the Æthiopic Versions,—besides
Irenæus(905) and Victor(906) of Antioch:—you will not venture to say (will
you?) that words so attested are so evidently a “plain and clear error,”
as not to deserve even a marginal note to attest to posterity “that such
things were”! I say nothing of the witness of the Liturgical usage of the
Eastern Church,—which appointed these verses to be read on S. Mark’s
Day:(907) nor of Theophylact,(908) nor of Euthymius.(909) I appeal to _the
consentient testimony of Catholic antiquity_. Find me older witnesses, if
you can, than the “Elders” with whom Irenæus held converse,—men who must
have been contemporaries of S. John the Divine: or again, than the old
Latin, the Peschito, and the Coptic Versions. Then, for the MSS.,—Have you
studied S. Mark’s Text to so little purpose as not to have discovered that
the six uncials on which you rely are the depositories of an abominably
corrupt Recension of the second Gospel?

But you committed a yet more deplorable error when,—without leaving behind
either note or comment of any sort,—you obliterated from S. Matth. v. 44,
the solemn words which I proceed to underline:—“_Bless them that curse
you_, _do good to them that hate you_, and pray for them which
_despitefully use you and_ persecute you.” You relied almost exclusively
on those two false witnesses, of which you are so superstitiously fond, B
and א: regardless of the testimony of almost all the other COPIES
besides:—of almost all the VERSIONS:—and of a host of primitive FATHERS:
for the missing clauses are more or less recognized by Justin Mart. (A.D.
140),—by Theophilus Ant. (A.D. 168),—by Athenagoras (A.D. 177),—by Clemens
Alexan. (A.D. 192),—by Origen (A.D. 210),—by the Apostolic Constt. (IIIrd
cent.),—by Eusebius,—by Gregory Nyss.,—by Chrysostom,—by Isidorus,—by
Nilus,—by Cyril,—by Theodoret, and certain others. Besides, of the Latins,
by Tertullian,—by Lucifer,—by Ambrose,—by Hilary,—by Pacian,—by
Augustine,—by Cassian, and many more.... Verily, my lord Bishop, your
notion of what constitutes “_clearly preponderating Evidence_” must be
freely admitted to be at once original and peculiar. I will but
respectfully declare that if it be indeed one of “_the now established
Principles of Textual Criticism_” that a bishop is at liberty to blot out
from the Gospel such precepts of the Incarnate WORD, as these: to reject,
on the plea that they are “plain and clear errors,” sayings attested by
twelve primitive Fathers,—half of whom lived and died before our two
oldest manuscripts (B and א) came into being:—If all this be so indeed,
permit me to declare that I would not exchange MY “_innocent
ignorance_”(910) of those “Principles” for YOUR _guilty knowledge_ of
them,—no, not for anything in the wide world which yonder sun shines down
upon.

As if what goes before had not been injury enough, you are found to have
adopted the extraordinary practice of encumbering your margin with doubts
as to the Readings which after due deliberation you had, as a body,
_retained_. Strange perversity! You could not find room to retain a record
in your margin of the many genuine words of our Divine LORD,—His
Evangelists and Apostles,—to which Copies, Versions, Fathers lend the
fullest attestation; but you _could_ find room for an insinuation that His
“Agony and bloody sweat,”—together with His “Prayer on behalf of His
murderers,”—_may_ after all prove to be nothing else but spurious
accretions to the Text. And yet, the pretence for so regarding either S.
Luke xxii. 43, 44, or xxiii. 34, is confessedly founded on a minimum of
documentary evidence: while, as has been already shown elsewhere,(911) an
overwhelming amount of ancient testimony renders it _certain_ that not a
particle of doubt attaches to the Divine record of either of those
stupendous incidents.... Room could not be found, it seems, for a _hint_
in the margin that such ghastly wounds as those above specified had been
inflicted on S. Mark vi. 11 and S. Matth. v. 44;(912) but _twenty-two
lines_ could be spared against Rom. ix. 5 for the free ventilation of the
vile Socinian gloss with which unbelievers in every age have sought to
evacuate one of the grandest assertions of our SAVIOUR’S GODHEAD. May I be
permitted, without offence, to avow myself utterly astonished?

Even this however is not all. The 7th of the Rules under which you
undertook the work of Revision, was, that “_the Headings of Chapters
should be revised_.” This Rule you have not only failed to comply with;
but you have actually deprived us of those headings entirely. You have
thereby done us a grievous wrong. We demand to have the headings of our
chapters back.

You have further, without warrant of any sort, deprived us of our
_Marginal References_. These we cannot afford to be without. We claim that
_they_ also may be restored. The very best Commentary on Holy Scripture
are they, with which I am acquainted. They call for learned and judicious
Revision, certainly; and they might be profitably enlarged. But they may
never be taken away.

And now, my lord Bishop, if I have not succeeded in convincing you that
the Revisers not only “_exceeded their Instructions_ in the course which
they adopted with regard to the Greek Text,” but even acted in open
defiance of their Instructions; did both a vast deal _more_ than they were
authorized to do, and also a vast deal _less_;—it has certainly been no
fault of mine. As for your original contention(913) that “_nothing can be
more unjust_” than THE CHARGE brought against the Revisers of having
exceeded their Instructions,—I venture to ask, on the contrary, whether
anything can be more unreasonable (to give it no harsher name) than THE
DENIAL?




[16] The calamity of the “New Greek Text” traced to its source.


There is no difficulty in accounting for the most serious of the foregoing
phenomena. They are the inevitable consequence of your having so far
succumbed at the outset to Drs. Westcott and Hort as to permit them to
communicate bit by bit, under promise of secrecy, their own outrageous
Revised Text of the N. T. to their colleagues, accompanied by a printed
disquisition in advocacy of their own peculiar critical views. One would
have expected in the Chairman of the Revising body, that the instant he
became aware of any such _manœuvre_ on the part of two of the society, he
would have remonstrated with them somewhat as follows, or at least to this
effect:—

“This cannot be permitted, Gentlemen, on any terms. We have not been
appointed to revise the _Greek Text_ of the N. T. Our one business is to
revise the _Authorized English Version_,—introducing such changes only as
are absolutely necessary. The Resolutions of Convocation are express on
this head: and it is my duty to see that they are faithfully carried out.
True, that we shall be obliged to avail ourselves of our skill in Textual
Criticism—(such as it is)—to correct ‘_plain and clear errors_’ in the
Greek: but _there_ we shall be obliged to stop. I stand pledged to
Convocation on this point by my own recent utterances. That two of our
members should be solicitous (by a side-wind) to obtain for their own
singular Revision of the Greek Text the sanction of our united body,—is
intelligible enough: but I should consider myself guilty of a breach of
Trust were I to lend myself to the promotion of their object. Let me hope
that I have you all with me when I point out that on every occasion when
Dr. Scrivener, on the one hand, (who in matters of Textual Criticism is
_facile princeps_ among us,) and Drs. Westcott and Hort on the other,
prove to be irreconcileably opposed in their views,—_there_ the Received
Greek Text must by all means be let alone. We have agreed, you will
remember, to ‘make _the current Textus Receptus the standard; departing
from it only when critical or grammatical considerations show that it is
clearly necessary_.’(914) It would be unreasonable, in my judgment, that
anything in the Received Text should be claimed to be ‘a clear and plain
error,’ on which those who represent the two antagonistic schools of
Criticism find themselves utterly unable to come to any accord. In the
meantime, Drs. Westcott and Hort are earnestly recommended to submit to
public inspection that Text which they have been for twenty years
elaborating, and which for some time past has been in print. Their labours
cannot be too freely ventilated, too searchingly examined, too generally
known: but I strongly deprecate their furtive production _here_. All too
eager advocacy of the novel Theory of the two accomplished Professors, I
shall think it my duty to discourage, and if need be to repress. A printed
volume, enforced by the suasive rhetoric of its two producers, gives to
one side an unfair advantage. But indeed I must end as I began, by
respectfully inviting Drs. Westcott and Hort to remember that we meet
here, _not_ in order _to fabricate a new Greek Text_, but in order to
_revise our _‘Authorized English Version.’”... Such, in substance, is the
kind of Allocution which it was to have been expected that the Episcopal
Chairman of a Revising body would address to his fellow-labourers the
first time he saw them enter the Jerusalem chamber furnished with the
sheets of Westcott and Hort’s N. T.; especially if he was aware that those
Revisers had been individually talked over by the Editors of the work in
question, (themselves Revisionists); and perceived that the result of the
deliberations of the entire body was in consequence, in a fair way of
becoming a foregone conclusion,—unless indeed, by earnest remonstrance, he
might be yet in time to stave off the threatened danger.

But instead of saying anything of this kind, my lord Bishop, it is clear
from your pamphlet that you made the Theory of Drs. Westcott and Hort
_your own Theory_; and their Text, by necessary consequence, in the main
_your own Text_. You lost sight of all the pledges you had given in
Convocation. You suddenly became a partizan. Having secured the precious
advocacy of Bp. Wilberforce,—whose sentiments on the subject you had
before adopted,—you at once threw him and them overboard.(915)... I can
scarcely imagine, in a good man like yourself, conduct more reckless,—more
disappointing,—more unintelligible. But I must hasten on.




[17] Bp. Ellicott’s defence of the “New Greek Text,” in sixteen
particulars, examined.


It follows to consider the strangest feature of your pamphlet: viz. those
two-and-thirty pages (p. 43 to p. 75) in which, descending from generals,
you venture to dispute in sixteen particulars the sentence passed upon
your new Greek Text by the _Quarterly Review_. I call this part of your
pamphlet “strange,” because it displays such singular inaptitude to
appreciate the force of Evidence. But in fact, (_sit venia verbo_) your
entire method is quite unworthy of you. Whereas I appeal throughout to
_Ancient Testimony_, you seek to put me down by flaunting in my face
_Modern Opinion_. This, with a great deal of Reiteration, proves to be
literally the sum of your contention. Thus, concerning S. Matth. i. 25,
the Quarterly Reviewer pointed out (_suprà_ pp. 123-4) that the testimony
of B א, together with that of the VIth-century fragment Z, and two cursive
copies of bad character,—cannot possibly stand against the testimony of
ALL OTHER copies. You plead in reply that on “those two oldest manuscripts
_the vast majority of Critics set a high value_.” Very likely: but for all
_that_, you are I suppose aware that B and א are two of the most corrupt
documents in existence? And, inasmuch as they are confessedly derived from
one and the same depraved original, you will I presume allow that they may
not be adduced as two independent authorities? At all events, when I
further show you that almost all the Versions, and literally _every one_
of the Fathers who quote the place, (they are _eighteen_ in number,) are
against you,—how can you possibly think there is any force or relevancy
whatever in your self-complacent announcement,—“We cannot hesitate to
_express our agreement with Tischendorf and Tregelles_ who see in these
words an interpolation derived from S. Luke. _The same appears to have
been the judgment of Lachmann._” Do you desire that _that_ should pass for
argument?

To prolong a discussion of this nature with you, were plainly futile.
Instead of repeating what I have already delivered—briefly indeed, yet
sufficiently in detail,—I will content myself with humbly imitating what,
if I remember rightly, was Nelson’s plan when he fought the battle of the
Nile. He brought his frigates, one by one, alongside those of the
enemy;—lashed himself to the foe;—and poured in his broadsides. We
remember with what result. The sixteen instances which you have yourself
selected, shall now be indicated. First, on every occasion, reference
shall be made to the place in the present volume where my own Criticism on
your Greek Text is to be found in detail. Readers of your pamphlet are
invited next to refer to your own several attempts at refutation, which
shall also be indicated by a reference to your pages. I am quite contented
to abide by the verdict of any unprejudiced person of average
understanding and fair education:—

(1) _Four words omitted in_ S. Matth. i. 25,—complained of, above, pp.
122-4.—You defend the omission in your pamphlet at pages 43-4,—falling
back on Tischendorf, Tregelles and Lachmann, as explained on the opposite
page. (p. 416.)

(2) _The omission of_ S. Matth. xvii. 21,—proved to be indefensible,
above, pp. 91-2.—The omission is defended by you at pp. 44-5,—on the
ground, that although Lachmann retains the verse, and Tregelles only
places it in brackets, (Tischendorf alone of the three omitting it
entirely,)—“it must be remembered that here Lachmann and Tregelles were
not acquainted with א.”

(3) _The omission of_ S. Matth. xviii. 11,—shown to be unreasonable,
above, p. 92.—You defend the omission in your pp. 45-7,—remarking that
“here there is even less room for doubt than in the preceding cases. The
three critical editors are all agreed in rejecting this verse.”

(4) _The substitution of_ ἠπόρει for ἐποίει, in S. Mark vi. 20,—strongly
complained of, above, pp. 66-9.—Your defence is at pp. 47-8. You urge that
“in this case again the Revisers have Tischendorf only on their side, and
not Lachmann nor Tregelles: but it must be remembered that these critics
had not the reading of א before them.”

(5) _The thrusting of_ πάλιν (after ἀποστελεῖ) into S. Mark xi.
3,—objected against, above, pp. 56-8.—You defend yourself at pp. 48-9,—and
“cannot doubt that the Revisers were perfectly justified” in doing “as
Tischendorf and Tregelles had done before them,”—viz. _inventing_ a new
Gospel incident.

(6) _The mess you have made_ of S. Mark xi. 8,—exposed by the Quarterly
Reviewer, above, pp. 58-61,—you defend at pp. 49-52. You have “preferred
to read with Tischendorf and Tregelles.” About,

(7) S. Mark xvi. 9-20,—and (8) S. Luke ii. 14,—I shall have a few serious
words to say immediately. About,

(9) the 20 _certainly genuine_ words you have omitted from S. Luke ix. 55,
56,—I promise to give you at no distant date an elaborate lecture. “Are we
to understand” (you ask) “that the Reviewer honestly believes the added
words to have formed part of the Sacred Autograph?” (“The _omitted_
words,” you mean.) To be sure you are!—I answer.

(10) _The amazing blunder_ endorsed by the Revisers in S. Luke x. 15;
which I have exposed above, at pp. 54-6.—You defend the blunder (as usual)
at pp. 55-6, remarking that the Revisers, “_with Lachmann_, _Tischendorf_,
_and Tregelles_, adopt the interrogative form.” (This seems to be a part
of your style.)

(11) _The depraved exhibition of the _LORD’S_ Prayer_ (S. Luke xi. 2-4)
which I have commented on above, at pp. 34-6,—you applaud (as usual) at
pp. 56-8 of your pamphlet, “with Tischendorf and Tregelles.”

(12) _The omission_ of 7 important words in S. Luke xxiii. 38, I have
commented on, above, at pp. 85-8.—You defend the omission, and “the texts
of Tischendorf and Tregelles,” at pp. 58-9.

(13) _The gross fabrication_ in S. Luke xxiii. 45, I have exposed, above,
at pp. 61-5.—You defend it, at pp. 59-61.

(14) _A plain omission_ in S. John xiv. 4, I have pointed out, above, at
pp. 72-3.—You defend it, at pp. 61-2 of your pamphlet.

(15) “_Titus Justus_,” thrust by the Revisers into Acts xviii. 7, I have
shown to be an imaginary personage, above, at pp. 53-4.—You stand up for
the interesting stranger at pp. 62-4 of your pamphlet. Lastly,

(16) My discussion of 1 Tim. iii. 16 (_suprà_ pp. 98-106),—you contend
against from p. 64 to p. 76.—The true reading of this important place,
(which is not _your_ reading,) you will find fully discussed from p. 424
to p. 501.

I have already stated why I dismiss _thirteen_ out of your sixteen
instances in this summary manner. The remaining _three_ I have reserved
for further discussion for a reason I proceed to explain.




[18] Bp. Ellicott’s claim that the Revisers were guided by “the
consentient testimony of the most ancient Authorities,”—disproved by an
appeal to their handling of S. Luke ii. 14 and of S. Mark xvi. 9-20. The
self-same claim,—(namely, of abiding by the verdict of Catholic
Antiquity,)—vindicated, on the contrary, for the “Quarterly Reviewer.”


You labour hard throughout your pamphlet to make it appear that the point
at which our methods, (yours and mine,) respectively diverge,—is, that _I_
insist on making my appeal to the “_Textus Receptus_;” _you_, to _Ancient
Authority_. But happily, my lord Bishop, this is a point which admits of
being brought to issue by an appeal to fact. _You_ shall first be heard:
and you are observed to express yourself on behalf of the Revising body,
as follows:


    “It was impossible to mistake the conviction upon which its
    Textual decisions were based.

    “It was a conviction that (1) THE TRUE TEXT WAS NOT TO BE SOUGHT
    IN THE TEXTUS RECEPTUS; or (2) In the bulk of the Cursive
    Manuscripts; or (3) In the Uncials (with or without the support of
    the _Codex Alexandrinus_;) or (4) In the Fathers who lived after
    Chrysostom; or (5) In Chrysostom himself and his contemporaries;
    BUT (6) IN THE CONSENTIENT TESTIMONY OF THE MOST ANCIENT
    AUTHORITIES.”—(p. 28.)


In such terms you venture to contrast our respective methods. You want the
public to believe that I make the “Textus Receptus” “_a standard from
which there shall be no appeal_,”—entertain “the notion that it is _little
else than sacrilege to impugn the tradition of the last 300
years_,”(916)—and so forth;—while _you_ and your colleagues act upon the
conviction that the Truth is rather to be sought “_in the consentient
testimony of the most ancient Authorities_.” I proceed to show you, by
appealing to an actual instance, that neither of these statements is
correct.

(_a_) And first, permit me to speak for myself. Finding that you challenge
the Received reading of S. LUKE ii. 14, (“_good will towards men_”);—and
that, (on the authority of 4 Greek Codices [א A B D], all _Latin_
documents, and the Gothic Version,) you contend that “_peace among men in
whom he is well pleased_” ought to be read, instead;—I make my appeal
unreservedly to ANTIQUITY.(917) I request the _Ancients_ to adjudicate
between you and me by favouring us with their verdict. Accordingly, I find
as follows:

That, in the IInd century,—the Syriac Versions and Irenæus _support the
Received Text_:

That, in the IIIrd century,—the Coptic Version,—Origen in 3 places,
and—the Apostolical Constitutions in 2, do the same:

That, in the IVth century, (_to which century_, you are invited to
remember, _codices_ B _and_ א _belong_,)—Eusebius,—Aphraates the
Persian,—Titus of Bostra,—each in 2 places:—Didymus in 3:—Gregory of
Nazianzus,—Cyril of Jer.,—Epiphanius 2—and Gregory of Nyssa—4 times:
Ephraem Syr.,—Philo bp. of Carpasus,—Chrysostom 9 times,—and an unknown
Antiochian contemporary of his:—these eleven, I once more find, are _every
one against you_:

That, in the Vth century,—besides the Armenian Version, Cyril of Alex. in
14 places:—Theodoret in 4:—Theodotus of Ancyra in 5:—Proclus:—Paulus of
Emesa:—the Eastern bishops of Ephesus collectively, A.D. 431;—and Basil of
Seleucia:—_these contemporaries of cod._ A I find are _all eight against
you_:

That, in the VIth century,—besides the Georgian—and Æthiopic
Versions,—Cosmas, 5 times:—Anastasius Sinait. and Eulogius,
(_contemporaries of cod._ D,) are _all three with the Traditional Text_:

That, in the VIIth and VIIIth centuries,—Andreas of Crete, 2:—pope
Martinus at the Lat. Council:—Cosmas, bp. of Maiume near Gaza,—and his
pupil John Damascene;—together with Germanus, abp. of Constantinople:—are
again _all five with the Traditional Text_.

To these 35, must be added 18 other ancient authorities with which the
reader has been already made acquainted (viz. at pp. 44-5): all of which
bear the self-same evidence.

Thus I have enumerated _fifty-three_ ancient Greek authorities,—of which
_sixteen_ belong to the IInd, IIIrd, and IVth centuries: and
_thirty-seven_ to the Vth, VIth, VIIth, and VIIIth.

And now, which of us two is found to have made the fairer and the fuller
appeal to “the consentient testimony of the most ancient authorities:”
_you_ or _I_?... This first.

And next, since the foregoing 53 names belong to some of the most famous
personages in Ecclesiastical antiquity: are dotted over every region of
ancient Christendom: in many instances are _far more ancient than codices_
B _and_ א:—with what show of reason will you pretend that the evidence
concerning S. Luke ii. 14 “_clearly preponderates_” in favour of the
reading which you and your friends prefer?

I claim at all events to have demonstrated that _both_ your statements are
unfounded: viz. (1) That _I_ seek for the truth of Scripture in the
“Textus Receptus:” and (2) That _you_ seek it in “the consentient
testimony of the _most ancient authorities_.”—(Why not frankly avow that
you believe the Truth of Scripture is to be sought for, and found, in
“_the consentient testimony of codices_ א _and_ B”?)

(_b_) Similarly, concerning THE LAST 12 VERSES OF S. MARK, which you brand
with suspicion and separate off from the rest of the Gospel, in token
that, in your opinion, there is “a breach of continuity” (p. 53),
(whatever _that_ may mean,) between verses 8 and 9. _Your_ ground for thus
disallowing the last 12 Verses of the second Gospel, is, that B and א omit
them:—that a few late MSS. exhibit a wretched alternative for them:—and
that Eusebius says they were often away. Now, _my_ method on the contrary
is to refer all such questions to “_the consentient testimony of the most
ancient authorities_.” And I invite you to note the result of such an
appeal in the present instance. The Verses in question I find are
recognized,

In the IInd century,—By the Old Latin—and Syriac Verss.:—by Papias;—Justin
M.;—Irenæus;—Tertullian.

In the IIIrd century,—By the Coptic—and the Sahidic Versions:—by
Hippolytus;—by Vincentius at the seventh Council of Carthage;—by the “Acta
Pilati;”—and by the “Apostolical Constitutions” in two places.

In the IVth century,—By Cureton’s Syr. and the Gothic Verss.:—besides the
Syriac Table of Canons;—Eusebius;—Macarius Magnes;—Aphraates;—Didymus;—the
Syriac “Acts of the
Ap.;”—Epiphanius;—Leontius;—ps.-Ephraem;—Ambrose;—Chrysostom;—Jerome;—Augustine.

In the Vth century,—Besides the Armenian Vers.,—by codices A and C;—by
Leo;—Nestorius;—Cyril of Alexandria;—Victor of Antioch;—Patricius;—Marius
Mercator.

In the VIth and VIIth centuries,—Besides cod. D,—the Georgian and Æthiopic
Verss.:—by Hesychius;—Gregentius;—Prosper;—John, abp. of Thessalonica;—and
Modestus, bishop of Jerusalem.... (See above, pages 36-40.)

And now, once more, my lord Bishop,—Pray which of us is it,—_you_ or
_I_,—who seeks for the truth of Scripture “in _the consentient testimony
of the most ancient authorities_”? On _my_ side there have been adduced in
evidence _six_ witnesses of the IInd century:—_six_ of the
IIIrd:—_fifteen_ of the IVth:—_nine_ of the Vth:—_eight_ of the VIth and
VIIth,—(44 in all): while _you_ are found to rely on codices B and א (as
before), supported by a single _obiter dictum_ of Eusebius. I have said
nothing as yet about _the whole body of the Copies_: nothing about
_universal, immemorial, Liturgical use_. Do you seriously imagine that the
testimony on your side is “decidedly preponderating”? Above all, will you
venture again to exhibit our respective methods as in your pamphlet you
have done? I protest solemnly that, in your pages, I recognize neither
myself nor you.

Permit me to declare that I hold your disallowance of S. Mark xvi. 9-20 to
be the gravest and most damaging of all the many mistakes which you and
your friends have committed. “The textual facts,” (say you, speaking of
the last 12 Verses,)—“have been placed before the reader, because Truth
itself demanded it.” This (with Canon Cook(918)) I entirely deny. It is
because “the textual facts have” NOT “been placed before the reader,” that
I am offended. As usual, you present your readers with a one-sided
statement,—a partial, and therefore inadmissible, exhibition of the
facts,—facts which, fully stated and fairly explained, would, (as you
cannot fail to be aware,) be fatal to your contention.

But, I forbear to state so much as _one_ of them. The evidence has already
filled a volume.(919) Even if I were to allow that in your marginal note,
“the textual facts _have been_ [fully and fairly] _placed before the
reader_”—what possible pretence do you suppose they afford for severing
the last 12 Verses from the rest of S. Mark, in token that they form no
part of the genuine Gospel?... This, however, is only by the way. I have
proved to you that it is _I_—not _you_—who rest my case on an appeal to
CATHOLIC ANTIQUITY: and this is the only thing I am concerned just now to
establish.

I proceed to contribute something to the Textual Criticism of a famous
place in S. Paul’s first Epistle to Timothy,—on which you have challenged
me to a trial of strength.




[19] “GOD was manifested in the flesh” Shown To Be The True Reading Of 1
Timothy III. 16.


_A Dissertation._

In conclusion, you insist on ripping up the discussion concerning 1 Tim.
iii. 16. I had already devoted eight pages to this subject.(920) You reply
in twelve.(921) That I may not be thought wanting in courtesy, the present
rejoinder shall extend to seventy-six. I propose, without repeating
myself, to follow you over the ground you have re-opened. But it will be
convenient that I should define at the outset what is precisely the point
in dispute between you and me. I presume it to be undeniably _this_:—That
whereas the Easterns from time immemorial, (and we with them, since
Tyndale in 1534 gave us our English Version of the N. T.,) have read the
place thus:—(I set the words down in plain English, because the issue
admits of being every bit as clearly exhibited in the vernacular, as in
Greek: and because I am determined that all who are at the pains to read
the present DISSERTATION shall understand it also:)—Whereas, I say, we
have hitherto read the place thus,

“GREAT IS THE MYSTERY OF GODLINESS:—GOD WAS MANIFEST IN THE FLESH,
JUSTIFIED IN THE SPIRIT, SEEN OF ANGELS, PREACHED UNTO THE GENTILES,
BELIEVED ON IN THE WORLD, RECEIVED UP INTO GLORY:”

_You_ insist that this is a “_plain and clear error_.” You contend that
there is “_decidedly preponderating evidence_” for reading instead,

“GREAT IS THE MYSTERY OF GODLINESS, WHO WAS MANIFESTED IN THE FLESH,
JUSTIFIED IN THE SPIRIT,” &C.:

Which contention of yours I hold to be demonstrably incorrect, and proceed
to prove is a complete misconception.

(_A_) _Preliminary explanations and cautions._

But English readers will require to have it explained to them at the
outset, that inasmuch as ΘΕΟΣ (GOD) is invariably written _ΘΣ_ in
manuscripts, the only difference between the word “GOD” and the word
“_who_” (ΟΣ) consists of two horizontal strokes,—one, which distinguishes
Θ from Ο; and another similar stroke (above the letters ΘΣ) which
indicates that a word has been contracted. And further, that it was the
custom to trace these two horizontal lines so wondrous faintly that they
sometimes actually elude observation. Throughout cod. A, in fact, the
letter Θ is often scarcely distinguishable from the letter Ο.

It requires also to be explained for the benefit of the same English
reader,—(and it will do learned readers no harm to be reminded,)—that
“_mystery_” (μυστήριον) being a neuter noun, _cannot_ be followed by the
masculine pronoun (ὅς),—“_who_.” Such an expression is abhorrent alike to
Grammar and to Logic,—is intolerable, in Greek as in English. By
consequence, ὅς (“_who_”) is found to have been early exchanged for ὅ
(“_which_”). From a copy so depraved, the Latin Version was executed in
the second century. Accordingly, every known copy or quotation(922) of
_the Latin_ exhibits “quod.” _Greek_ authorities for this reading (ὅ) are
few enough. They have been specified already, viz. at page 100. And with
this brief statement, the reading in question might have been dismissed,
seeing that it has found no patron since Griesbach declared against it. It
was however very hotly contended for during the last century,—Sir Isaac
Newton and Wetstein being its most strenuous advocates; and it would be
unfair entirely to lose sight of it now.

The two rival readings, however, in 1 Tim. iii. 16, are,—Θεὸς ἐφανερώθη
(“GOD _was manifested_”), on the one hand; and τὸ τῆς εὐσεβείας μυστήριον,
ὅς (“_the mystery of godliness, who_”), on the other. _These_ are the two
readings, I say, between whose conflicting claims we are to adjudicate.
For I request that it may be loyally admitted at the outset,—(though it
has been conveniently overlooked by the Critics whom _you_ follow,)—that
the expression ὂς ἐφανερώθη in Patristic quotations, _unless it be
immediately preceded by_ the word μυστήριον, is nothing to the purpose; at
all events, does not prove the thing which _you_ are bent on proving.
English readers will see this at a glance. An Anglican divine,—with
reference to 1 Timothy iii. 16,—may surely speak of our SAVIOUR as One
“_who_ was manifested in the flesh,”—without risk of being straightway
suspected of employing a copy of the English Version which exhibits “_the
mystery of godliness who_.” “Ex hujusmodi locis” (as Matthæi truly
remarks) “nemo, nisi mente captus, in contextu sacro probabit ὅς.”(923)

When Epiphanius therefore,—_professing to transcribe_(924) from an earlier
treatise of his own(925) where ἐφανερώθη stands _without a
nominative_,(926) writes (if he really does write) ὂς ἐφανερώθη,(927)—we
are not at liberty to infer therefrom that Epiphanius is opposed to the
reading Θεός.—Still less is it lawful to draw the same inference from the
Latin Version of a letter of Eutherius [A.D. 431] in which the expression
“_qui manifestatus est in carne_,”(928) occurs.—Least of all should we be
warranted in citing Jerome as a witness for reading ὅς in this place,
because (in his Commentary on Isaiah) he speaks of our SAVIOUR as One who
“was manifested in the flesh, justified in the Spirit.”(929)

As for reasoning thus concerning Cyril of Alexandria, it is demonstrably
inadmissible: seeing that at the least on two distinct occasions, this
Father exhibits Θεὸς ἐφανερώθη. I am not unaware that in a certain place,
apostrophizing the Docetæ, he says,—“Ye do err, not knowing the
Scriptures, nor indeed the _great mystery of godliness_, that is CHRIST,
who (ὅς) _was manifested in the flesh, justified in the Spirit_,”(930) &c.
&c. And presently, “I consider _the mystery of godliness_ to be no other
thing but the Word of GOD the FATHER, who (ὅς) Himself _was manifested in
the flesh_.”(931) But there is nothing whatever in this to invalidate the
testimony of those other places in which Θεός actually occurs. It is
logically inadmissible, I mean, to set aside the places where Cyril is
found actually to write Θεὸς ἐφανερώθη, because in other places he employs
1 Tim. iii. 16 less precisely; leaving it to be inferred—(which indeed is
abundantly plain)—that Θεός is always his reading, from the course of his
argument and from the nature of the matter in hand. But to proceed.

_(B) Bp. Ellicott invited to state the evidence for reading ὅς in_ 1 Tim.
iii. 16.

[a] _“__The state of the evidence,__”__ as declared by Bp. Ellicott._

When last the evidence for this question came before us, I introduced it
by inviting a member of the Revising body (Dr. Roberts) to be spokesman on
behalf of his brethren.(932) This time, I shall call upon a more
distinguished, a wholly unexceptionable witness, viz. _yourself_,—who are,
of course, greatly in advance of your fellow-Revisers in respect of
critical attainments. The extent of your individual familiarity with the
subject when (in 1870 namely) you proposed to revise the Greek Text of the
N. T. for the Church of England on the _solvere-ambulando_ principle,—may
I presume be lawfully inferred from the following annotation in your
“_Critical and Grammatical Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles_.” I quote
from the last Edition of 1869; only taking the liberty—(1) To break it up
into short paragraphs: and—(2) To give _in extenso_ the proper names which
you abbreviate. Thus, instead of “Theod.” (which I take leave to point out
to you might mean either Theodore of Heraclea or his namesake of
Mopsuestia,—either Theodotus the Gnostic or his namesake of Ancyra,)
“Euthal.,” I write “Theodoret, Euthalius.” And now for the external
testimony, as _you_ give it, concerning 1 Timothy iii. 16. You inform your
readers that,—


    “The state of the evidence is briefly as follows:—

    (1) Ὅς is read with A1 [_indisputably_; after minute personal
    inspection; see note, p. 104.] C1 [Tischendorf _Prol. Cod.
    Ephraemi_, § 7, p. 39.] F G א (see below); 17, 73, 181;
    Syr.-Philoxenian, Coptic, Sahidic, Gothic; also (ὅς or ὅ) Syriac,
    Arabic (Erpenius), Æthiopic, Armenian; Cyril, Theodorus Mopsuest.,
    Epiphanius, Gelasius, Hieronymus _in Esaiam_ liii. 11.

    (2) ὅ, with D1 (Claromontanus), Vulgate; nearly all Latin Fathers.

    (3) Θεός, with D3 K L; nearly all MSS.; Arabic (Polyglott),
    Slavonic; Didymus, Chrysostom (? see Tregelles, p. 227 note),
    Theodoret, Euthalius, Damascene, Theophylact, Œcumenius,—Ignatius
    _Ephes_. 29, (but very doubtful). A hand of the 12th century has
    prefixed θε to ος, the reading of א; see Tischendorf _edit.
    major_, Plate xvii. of Scrivener’s Collation of א, facsimile (13).

    On reviewing this evidence, as not only the most important uncial
    MSS., but _all_ the Versions older than the 7th century are
    distinctly in favour of a _relative_,—as ὅ seems only a Latinizing
    variation of ὅς,—and lastly, as ὅς is the more difficult, though
    really the more intelligible, reading (Hofmann, _Schriftb._ Vol.
    I. p. 143), and on every reason more likely to have been changed
    into Θεός (Macedonius is actually said to have been expelled for
    making the change, _Liberati Diaconi Breviarium_ cap. 19) than
    _vice versâ_, we unhesitatingly decide in favour of
    ὅς.”—(_Pastoral Epistles_, ed. 1869, pp. 51-2.)


Such then is your own statement of the evidence on this subject. I proceed
to demonstrate to you that you are completely mistaken:—mistaken as to
what you say about ὅς,—mistaken as to ὅ,—mistaken as to Θεός:—mistaken in
respect of Codices,—mistaken in respect of Versions,—mistaken in respect
of Fathers. Your slipshod, inaccurate statements, (_all_ obtained at
second-hand,) will occasion me, I foresee, a vast deal of trouble; but I
am determined, now at last, if the thing be possible, to set this question
at rest. And that I may not be misunderstood, I beg to repeat that all I
propose to myself is to _prove_—beyond the possibility of denial—that the
evidence for Θεός (in 1 Timothy iii. 16) _vastly preponderates over the
evidence for either_ ὅς _or_ ὅ. It will be for _you_, afterwards, to come
forward and prove that, on the contrary, Θεός is a “_plain and clear
error_:” _so_ plain and _so_ clear that you and your fellow-Revisers felt
yourselves constrained to thrust it out from the place it has confessedly
occupied in the New Testament for at least 1530 years.

You are further reminded, my lord Bishop, that unless you do this, you
will be considered by the whole Church to have dealt unfaithfully with the
Word of GOD. For, (as I shall remind you in the sequel,) it is yourself
who have invited and provoked this enquiry. You devote twelve pages to it
(pp. 64 to 76),—“compelled to do so by the Reviewer.” “Moreover” (you
announce) “this case is of great importance as an example. It illustrates
in a striking manner the complete isolation of the Reviewer’s position. If
he is right all other Critics are wrong,” &c., &c., &c.—Permit me to
remind you of the warning—“Let not him that girdeth on his harness boast
himself as he that putteth it off.”

[b] _Testimony of the __MANUSCRIPTS__ concerning_ 1 Tim. iii. 16: _and
first as to the testimony of __CODEX_ A.

You begin then with the _Manuscript_ evidence; and you venture to assert
that ΟΣ is “indisputably” the reading of Codex A. I am at a loss to
understand how a “professed Critic,”—(who must be presumed to be
acquainted with the facts of the case, and who is a lover of Truth,)—can
permit himself to make such an assertion. Your certainty is based, you
say, on “minute personal inspection.” In other words, you are so good as
to explain that you once tried a coarse experiment,(933) by which you
succeeded in convincing yourself that the suspected diameter of the Ο is
exactly coincident with the sagitta of an _epsilon_ (Ε) which happens to
stand _on the back of the page_. But do you not see that unless you start
with _this_ for your major premiss,—“_Theta_ cannot exist on one side of a
page if _epsilon_ stands immediately behind it on the other side,”—your
experiment is _nihil ad rem_, and proves absolutely nothing?

Your “inspection” happens however to be _inaccurate_ besides. You
performed your experiment unskilfully. A man need only hold up the leaf to
the light on a very brilliant day,—as Tregelles, Scrivener, and many
besides (including your present correspondent) have done,—to be aware that
the sagitta of the _epsilon_ on fol. 145_b_ does not cover much more than
a third of the area of the _theta_ on fol. 145_a_. Dr. Scrivener further
points out that it cuts the circle _too __ high_ to have been reasonably
mistaken by a careful observer for the diameter of the _theta_ (Θ). The
experiment which you describe with such circumstantial gravity was simply
nugatory therefore.

How is it, my lord Bishop, that you do not perceive that the way to
ascertain the reading of Codex A at 1 Tim. iii. 16, is,—(1) To investigate
_not_ what is found at _the back_ of the leaf, but what is written on _the
front_ of it? and (2), Not so much to enquire what can be deciphered of
the original writing by the aid of a powerful lens _now_, as to ascertain
what was apparent to the eye of competent observers when the Codex was
first brought into this country, viz. 250 years ago? That Patrick Young,
the first custodian and collator of the Codex [1628-1652], read _ΘΣ_, is
certain.—Young communicated the “various Readings” of A to Abp.
Ussher:—and the latter, prior to 1653, communicated them to Hammond, who
clearly knew nothing of ΟΣ.—It is plain that _ΘΣ_ was the reading seen by
Huish—when he sent his collation of the Codex (made, according to Bentley,
with great exactness,(934)) to Brian Walton, who published the fifth
volume of his Polyglott in 1657.—Bp. Pearson, who was very curious in such
matters, says “we find not ὅς _in any copy_,”—a sufficient proof how _he_
read the place in 1659.—Bp. Fell, who published an edition of the N. T. in
1675, certainly considered _ΘΣ_ the reading of Cod. A.—Mill, who was at
work on the Text of the N. T. from 1677 to 1707, expressly declares that
he saw the remains of _ΘΣ_ in this place.(935) Bentley, who had himself
(1716) collated the MS. with the utmost accuracy (“_accuratissime ipse
contuli_”), knew nothing of any other reading.—Emphatic testimony on the
subject is borne by Wotton in 1718:—“There can be no doubt” (he says)
“that this MS. always exhibited _ΘΣ_. Of this, _any one may easily
convince himself who will be at the pains to examine the place with
attention_.”(936)—Two years earlier,—(we have it on the testimony of Mr.
John Creyk, of S. John’s Coll., Cambridge,)—“the old line in the letter θ
was plainly to be seen.”(937)—It was “much about the same time,” also,
(viz. about 1716) that Wetstein acknowledged to the Rev. John Kippax,—“who
took it down in writing from his own mouth,—that though the middle stroke
of the θ has been evidently retouched, yet the fine stroke which was
originally in the body of the θ is discoverable at each end of the fuller
stroke of the corrector.”(938)—And Berriman himself, (who delivered a
course of Lectures on the true reading of 1 Tim. iii. 16, in 1737-8,)
attests emphatically that he had seen it also. “_If therefore_” (he adds)
“_at any time hereafter the old line should become altogether
undiscoverable, there will never be just cause to doubt but that the
genuine, and original reading of the MS. was_ _ΘΣ_: and that the new
strokes, added at the top and in the middle by the corrector were not
designed to corrupt and falsify, but to preserve and perpetuate the true
reading, which was in danger of being lost by the decay of
Time.”(939)—Those memorable words (which I respectfully commend to your
notice) were written in A.D. 1741. How _you_ (A.D. 1882), after surveying
all this accumulated and consistent testimony (borne A.D. 1628 to A.D.
1741) by eye-witnesses as competent to observe a fact of this kind as
yourself; and fully as deserving of credit, when they solemnly declare
what they have seen:—how _you_, I say, after a survey of this evidence,
can gravely sit down and inform the world that “_there is no sufficient
evidence that there was ever a time when this reading was patent as the
reading which came from the original scribe_” (p. 72):—_this_ passes my
comprehension.—It shall only be added that Bengel, who was a very careful
enquirer, had already cited the Codex Alexandrinus as a witness for Θεός
in 1734:(940)—and that Woide, the learned and conscientious editor of the
Codex, declares that so late as 1765 he had seen traces of the θ which
twenty years later (viz. in 1785) were visible to him no longer.(941)

That Wetstein subsequently changed his mind, I am not unaware. He was one
of those miserable men whose visual organs return a false report to their
possessor whenever they are shown a text which witnesses inconveniently to
the GOD-head of JESUS CHRIST.(942) I know too that Griesbach in 1785
announced himself of Wetstein’s opinion. It is suggestive however that ten
years before, (N. T. ed. 1775,) he had rested the fact _not_ on the
testimony borne by the MS. itself, but on “_the consent of Versions,
Copies, and Fathers_ which exhibit the Alexandrian Recension.”(943)—Since
Griesbach’s time, Davidson, Tregelles, Tischendorf, Westcott and Hort, and
Ellicott have announced their opinion that _ΘΣ_ was never written at 1
Tim. iii. 16: confessedly only because _ΘΣ_ is to them invisible _one
hundred years after_ _ΘΣ_ _has disappeared from sight_. The fact remains
for all _that_, that the original reading of A is attested so amply, that
no sincere lover of Truth can ever hereafter pretend to doubt it. “Omnia
testimonia,” (my lord Bishop,) “omnemque historicam veritatem in
suspicionem adducere non licet; nec mirum est nos ea nunc non discernere,
quæ, antequam nos Codicem vidissemus, evanuerant.”(944)

The sum of the matter, (as I pointed out to you on a former
occasion,(945)) is this,—That it is too late by 150 years to contend on
the negative side of this question. Nay, a famous living Critic (long may
he live!) assures us that when his eyes were 20 years younger (Feb. 7,
1861) he actually discerned, _still lingering_, a faint trace of the
diameter of the Θ which Berriman in 1741 had seen so plainly. “I have
examined Codex A at least twenty times within as many years” (wrote
Prebendary Scrivener in 1874(946)), “and ... seeing (as every one must)
with my own eyes, I have always felt convinced that it reads _ΘΣ_”.... For
_you_ to assert, in reply to all this mass of positive evidence, that the
reading is “indisputably” ΟΣ,—and to contend that what makes this
indisputable, is the fact that behind part of the _theta_ (Θ), [but too
high to mislead a skilful observer,] an _epsilon_ stands on the reverse
side of the page;—strikes me as bordering inconveniently on the
ridiculous. If _this_ be your notion of what does constitute “sufficient
evidence,” well may the testimony of so many _testes oculati_ seem to you
to lack sufficiency. Your notions on these subjects are, I should think,
peculiar to yourself. You even fail to see that your statement (in
Scrivener’s words) is “_not relevant to the point at issue._”(947) The
plain fact concerning cod. A is _this_:—That at 1 Tim. iii. 16, two
delicate horizontal strokes in _ΘΣ_ which were thoroughly patent in
1628,—which could be seen plainly down to 1737,—and which were discernible
by an expert (Dr. Woide) so late as A.D. 1765,(948)—have for the last
hundred years entirely disappeared; which is precisely what Berriman (in
1741) predicted would be the case. Moreover, he solemnly warned men
against drawing from this circumstance the mistaken inference which _you_,
my lord Bishop, nevertheless _insist_ on drawing, and representing as an
“indisputable” fact.

I have treated so largely of the reading of the Codex Alexandrinus, not
because I consider the testimony of a solitary copy, whether uncial or
cursive, a matter of much importance,—certainly not the testimony of Codex
A, which (in defiance of every other authority extant) exhibits “_the body
of _GOD” in S. John xix. 40:—but because _you_ insist that A is a witness
on your side: whereas it is demonstrable, (and I claim to have
demonstrated,) that you cannot honestly do so; and (I trust) you will
never do so any more.

[c] _Testimony of_ CODICES א _and_ C _concerning_ 1 Tim. iii. 16.

That א reads ΟΣ is admitted.—Not so Codex C, which the excessive
application of chemicals has rendered no longer decipherable in this
place. Tischendorf (of course) insists, that the original reading was
ΟΣ.(949) Wetstein and Griesbach (just as we should expect,) avow the same
opinion,—Woide, Mill, Weber and Parquoi being just as confident that the
original reading was _ΘΣ_. As in the case of cod. A, it is too late by
full 100 years to re-open this question. Observable it is that the
witnesses yield contradictory evidence. Wetstein, writing 150 years ago,
before the original writing had become so greatly defaced,—(and Wetstein,
inasmuch as he collated the MS. for Bentley [1716], must have been
thoroughly familiar with its contents,)—only “_thought_” that he read ΟΣ;
“because the delicate horizontal stroke which makes Θ out of Ο,” was to
him “_not apparent_.”(950) Woide on the contrary was convinced that _ΘΣ_
had been written by the first hand: “for” (said he) “though there _exists
no vestige_ of the delicate stroke which out of Ο makes Θ, _the stroke
written above the letters is by the first hand_.” What however to Wetstein
and to Woide was not apparent, was visible enough to Weber, Wetstein’s
contemporary. And Tischendorf, so late as 1843, expressed his astonishment
that the stroke in question had hitherto escaped the eyes of every one;
“_having been repeatedly seen by himself_.”(951) He attributes it, (just
as we should expect) to a corrector of the MS.; partly, because of _its
colour_, (“_subnigra_”); partly, because of _its inclining upwards to the
right_. And yet, _who_ sees not that an argument derived from _the colour_
of a line which is already well-nigh invisible, must needs be in a high
degree precarious? while Scrivener aptly points out that the cross line in
Θ,—the ninth letter further on, (which has never been questioned,)—_also_
“ascends towards the right.” The hostile evidence collapses therefore. In
the meantime, what at least is certain is, that the subscribed musical
notation indicates that _a thousand years ago, a word of two syllables_
was read here. From a review of all of which, it is clear that the utmost
which can be pretended is that some degree of uncertainty attaches to the
testimony of cod. C. Yet, _why_ such a plea should be either set up or
allowed, I really see not—except indeed by men who have made up their
minds beforehand that ΟΣ _shall be_ the reading of 1 Tim. iii. 16. Let the
sign of uncertainty however follow the notation of C for this text, if you
will. That cod. C is an indubitable witness for ΟΣ, I venture at least to
think that no fair person will ever any more pretend.

[d] _Testimony of_ CODICES F _and_ G _of S. Paul, concerning_ 1 Tim. iii.
16.

The next dispute is about the reading of the two IXth-century codices, F
and G,—concerning which I propose to trouble you with a few words in
addition to what has been already offered on this subject at pp. 100-1:
the rather, because you have yourself devoted one entire page of your
pamphlet to the testimony yielded by these two codices; and because you
therein have recourse to what (if it proceeded from any one but a Bishop,)
I should designate the _insolent_ method of trying to put me down by
authority,—instead of seeking to convince me of my error by producing some
good reasons for your opinion. You seem to think it enough to hurl
Wetstein, Griesbach, Lachmann, Tregelles, Tischendorf, and (cruellest of
all) my friend Scrivener, at my head. Permit me to point out that this,
_as an argument_, is the feeblest to which a Critic can have recourse. He
shouts so lustily for help only because he is unable to take care of
himself.

F and G then are confessedly independent copies of one and the same
archetype: and “both F and G” (you say) “exhibit _ΟΣ_.”(952) Be it so. The
question arises,—What does the stroke above the _ΟΣ_ signify? I venture to
believe that these two codices represent a copy which originally exhibited
_ΘΣ_, but from which the diameter of the Θ had disappeared—(as very often
is the case in codex A)—through tract of time. The effect of this would be
that F and G are in reality witnesses for Θεός. Not so, you say. _That_
slanting stroke represents the aspirate, and proves that these two codices
are witnesses for ὅς.(953) Let us look a little more closely into this
matter.

Here are two documents, of which it has been said that they “were
separately derived from some early codex, in which there was probably no
interval between the words.”(954) They were _not immediately_ derived from
such a codex, I remark: it being quite incredible that two independent
copyists could have hit on the same extravagantly absurd way of dividing
the uncial letters.(955) The common archetype which both employed must
have been the work of a late Western scribe every bit as licentious and as
unacquainted with Greek as themselves.(956) _That_ archetype however may
very well have been obtained from a primitive codex of the kind first
supposed, in which the words were written continuously, as in codex B.
Such Manuscripts were furnished with neither breathings nor accents:
accordingly, “of the ordinary breathings or accents there are no
traces”(957) in either F or G.

But then, cod. F occasionally,—G much oftener,—exhibits a little straight
stroke, nearly horizontal, over the initial vowel of certain words. Some
have supposed that this was designed to represent the aspirate: but it is
not so. The proof is, that it is found _consistently_ introduced over the
same vowels _in the interlinear Latin_. Thus, the Latin preposition “a”
_always_ has the slanting stroke above it:(958) and the Latin interjection
“o” is furnished with the same appendage,—alike in the Gospels and in the
Epistles.(959) This observation evacuates the supposed significance of the
few instances where ἃ is written _Α_:(960) as well as of the much fewer
places where ὁ or ὃ are written _Ο_:(961) especially when account is taken
of the many hundred occasions, (often in rapid succession,) when nothing
at all is to be seen above the “ο.”(962) As for the fact that ἵνα is
always written _Ι_ΝΑ (or ΪΝΑ),—let it only be noted that besides ιδωμεν,
ιχθυς, ισχυρος, &c., Ιακωβος, Ιωαννης, Ιουδας, &c., (which are all
distinguished in the same way,)—_Latin words also beginning with an_ “I”
are similarly adorned,—and we become convinced that the little stroke in
question is to be explained on some entirely different principle. At last,
we discover (from the example of “sī,” “sīc,” “etsī,” “servītus,”
“saeculīs,” “idolīs,” &c.) that the supposed sign of the rough breathing
_is nothing else but an ancient substitute for the modern dot over the
_“I.”—We may now return to the case actually before us.

It has been pointed out that the line above the ΟΣ in both F and G “is not
horizontal, but rises a little towards the right.” I beg to call attention
to the fact that there are 38 instances of the slight super-imposed “line”
here spoken of, in the page of cod. F where the reading under discussion
appears: 7 in the Greek, 31 in the Latin. In the corresponding page of
cod. G, the instances are 44: 8 in the Greek, 36 in the Latin.(963) These
short horizontal strokes (they can hardly be called _lines_) generally—not
by any means always—slant upwards; and _they are invariably the sign of
contraction_.

The problem before us has in this way been divested of a needless
encumbrance. The suspicion that the horizontal line above the word ΟΣ may
possibly represent the aspirate, has been disposed of. It has been
demonstrated that throughout these two codices a horizontal line slanting
upwards, set over a vowel, is either—(1) The sign of contraction; or
else—(2) A clerical peculiarity. In the place before us, then, _which_ of
the two is it?

_The sign of contraction_, I answer: seeing that whereas there are, in the
page before us, 9 aspirated, and (including _ΟΣ_) 8 contracted Greek
words, not one of those _nine_ aspirated words has _any mark at all_ above
its initial letter; while every one of the _eight_ contracted words is
duly furnished with the symbol of contraction. I further submit that
inasmuch as ὅς is _nowhere_ else written _ΟΣ_ in either codex, it is
unreasonable to assume that it is so written in this place. Now, that
almost every codex in the world reads _ΘΣ_ in 1 Tim. iii. 16,—is a plain
fact; and that _ΟΣ_ (in verse 16) _would be_ Θεός if the delicate
horizontal stroke which distinguishes Θ from Ο, were not away,—no one
denies. Surely, therefore, the only thing which remains to be enquired
after, is,—Are there _any other_ such substitutions of one letter for
another discoverable in these two codices? And it is notorious that
instances of the phenomenon abound. The letters Σ, Ε, Ο, Θ are confused
throughout.(964) And what else are ΠΕΝΟΟΥΝΤΕΣ for πενθουντες (Matth. v.
4),—ΕΚΡΙΖΩΟΗΤΙ for εκριζωθητι (Luc. xvii. 16),—ΚΑΤΑΒΗΟΙ for καταβηθι (xix.
6),—but instances of the _self-same mistake_ which (as I contend) has in
this place turned _ΘΣ_ into _ΟΣ_?

My lord Bishop, I have submitted to all this painful drudgery, not, you
may be sure, without a sufficient reason. _Never any more must we hear of
_“breathings”_ in connexion with codices_ F _and_ G. The stroke above the
ΟΣ in 1 Tim. iii. 16 has been proved to be _probably the sign of
contraction_. I forbear, of course, to insist that the two codices are
witnesses _on my side_. I require that you, in the same spirit of
fairness, will abstain from claiming them as certainly witnessing _on
yours_. The Vth-century codex C, and the IXth-century codex F-G must be
regarded as equivocal in the testimony they render, and are therefore not
to be reckoned to either of the contending parties.

These are many words about the two singularly corrupt IXth-century
documents, concerning which so much has been written already. But I
sincerely desire,—(and so I trust do you, as a Christian Bishop,)—to see
the end of a controversy which those only have any right to re-open (_pace
tuâ dixerim_) who have _something new to offer on the subject_: and
certain it is that the bearing of F and G on this matter has never before
been fully stated. I dismiss those two codices with the trite remark that
they are, at all events, but one codex: and that against them are to be
set K L P,—_the only uncials which remain_; for D (of “Paul”) exhibits ὅ,
and the Vatican codex B no longer serves us.

[fe] _Testimony of the_ CURSIVE COPIES: _and specially of_ “Paul 17,” “73”
_and_ “181,” _concerning_ 1 Tim. iii. 16.

Next, for the cursive Copies. You claim without enquiry,—and _only because
you find that men have claimed them before you_,—Nos. 17, 73, 181, as
witnesses for ὅς. Will you permit me to point out that no progress will
ever be made in these studies so long as “professed Critics” will
persevere in the evil practice of transcribing one another’s references,
and thus appropriating one another’s blunders?

About the reading of “Paul 17,” (the notorious “33” of the Gospels,) there
is indeed no doubt.—Mindful however of President Routh’s advice to me
always “to verify my references,”—concerning “Paul 73” I wrote a letter of
enquiry to Upsala (July 28, 1879), and for all answer (Sept. 6th) received
a beautiful tracing of what my correspondent called the “1 Thim. iii. 16
_paraphe_.” It proved to be an abridged exhibition of 21 lines of
Œcumenius. I instantly wrote to enquire whether this was really all that
the codex in question has to say to 1 Tim. iii. 16? but to this I received
no reply. I presumed therefore that I had got to the bottom of the
business. But in July 1882, I addressed a fresh enquiry to Dr. Belsheim of
Christiania, and got his answer last October. By that time he had visited
Upsala: had verified for me readings in other MSS., and reported that the
reading here is ὅς. I instantly wrote to enquire whether he had seen the
word with his own eyes? He replied that he desired to look further into
_this_ matter on some future occasion,—the MS. in question being (he says)
a difficult one to handle. I am still awaiting his final report, which he
promises to send me when next he visits Upsala. (“Aurivillius” says
nothing about it.) Let “Paul 73” in the meantime stand with a note of
interrogation, or how you will.

About “Paul 181,” (which Scholz describes as “vi. 36” in the Laurentian
library at Florence,) I take leave to repeat (in a foot-note) what (in a
letter to Dr. Scrivener) I explained in the “Guardian” ten years ago.(965)
In consequence however of your discourteous remarks (which you will be
gratified to find quoted at foot,(966)) I have written (not for the first
time) to the learned custos of the Laurentian library on the subject;
stating the entire case and reminding him of my pertinacity in 1871. He
replies,—“Scholz fallitur huic bibliothecæ tribuendo codicem sign. ‘plut.
vi. n. 36.’ Nec est in præsenti, nec fuit antea, neque exstat in aliâ
bibliothecâ apud nos.”... On a review of what goes before, I submit that
one who has taken so much pains with the subject does not deserve to be
flouted as I find myself flouted by the Bp. of Gloucester and Bristol,—who
has not been at the pains to verify _one single point_ in this entire
controversy for himself.

_Every other known copy of S. Paul’s Epistles_, (written in the cursive
character,) I have ascertained (by laborious correspondence with the
chiefs of foreign libraries) concurs in exhibiting Θεὸς ἐφανερώθη ἐν
σαρκί. The importance of this testimony ought to be supremely evident to
yourself who contend so strenuously for the support of Paul 73 and 181.
But because, in my judgment, this practical unanimity of the manuscripts
is not only “important” but _conclusive_, I shall presently recur to it
(viz. at pages 494-5,) more in detail. For do but consider that these
copies were one and all derived from yet older MSS. than themselves; and
that the remote originals of those older MSS. were perforce of higher
antiquity still, and were executed in every part of primitive Christendom.
How is it credible that they should, one and all, conspire to mislead? I
cannot in fact express better than Dr. Berriman did 140 years ago, the
logical result of such a concord of the copies:—“From whence can it be
supposed that this general, I may say this universal consent of the Greek
MSS. should arise, but from hence,—That Θεός is the genuine original
reading of this Text?” (p. 325.)

In the meantime, you owe me a debt of gratitude: for, in the course of an
enquiry which I have endeavoured to make exhaustive, I have discovered
_three_ specimens of the book called “_Apostolus_,” or “_Praxapostolus_”
(_i.e._ Lections from the Epistles and Acts) which also exhibit ὅς in this
place. One of these is Reg. 375 (our “Apost. 12”) in the French
collection, a _Western_ codex, dated A.D. 1022.(967) The story of the
discovery of the other two (to be numbered “Praxapost.” 85, 86,) is
interesting, and will enliven this dull page.

At Tusculum, near Rome,—(the locality which Cicero rendered illustrious,
and where he loved to reside surrounded by his books,)—was founded early
in the XIth century a Christian library which in process of time became
exceedingly famous. It retains, in fact, its ancient reputation to this
day. Nilus “Rossanensis” it was, who, driven with his monks from Calabria
by invading hordes, established in A.D. 1004 a monastery at Tusculum, to
which either he, or his successors, gave the name of “Crypta Ferrata.” It
became the headquarters of the Basilian monks in the XVIIth century.
Hither habitually resorted those illustrious men, Sirletus, Mabillon,
Zacagni, Ciampini, Montfaucon,—and more lately Mai and Dom Pitra. To
Signor Cozza-Luzi, the present learned and enlightened chief of the
Vatican library, (who is himself “Abbas Monachorum Basiliensium Cryptæ
Ferratæ,”) I am indebted for my copy of the Catalogue (now in process of
publication(968)) of the extraordinary collection of MSS. belonging to the
society over which he presides.

In consequence of the information which the Abbate Cozza-Luzi sent me, I
put myself in communication with the learned librarian of the monastery,
the “Hieromonachus” D. Antonio Rocchi, (author of the Catalogue in
question,) whom I cannot sufficiently thank for his courtesy and kindness.
The sum of the matter is briefly this:—There are still preserved in the
library of the Basilian monks of Crypta Ferrata,—(notwithstanding that
many of its ancient treasures have found their way into other
repositories,(969))—4 manuscripts of S. Paul’s Epistles, which I number
290, -1, -2, -3: and 7 copies of the book called “Praxapostolus,” which I
number 83, -4, -5, -6, -7, -8, -9. Of these eleven, 3 are defective
hereabouts: 5 read Θεός: 2 (Praxapost.) exhibit ὅς; and 1 (Apost. 83)
contains an only not unique reading, to be mentioned at p. 478.
Hieromonachus Rocchi furnishes me with references besides to 3 Liturgical
Codices out of a total of 22, (Ἀποστολοευαγγέλια), which also exhibit
Θεός.(970) I number them Apost. 106, 108, 110.

And now, we may proceed to consider the VERSIONS.

[f] _Testimony of the_ VERSIONS _to the reading of_ 1 Tim. iii. 16.

“Turning to the ancient Versions” (you assert) “we find them almost
unanimous against Θεός” (p. 65). But your business, my lord Bishop, was to
show that some of them witness _in favour of_ ὅς. If you cannot show that
several ancient Versions,—besides a fair proportion of ancient
Fathers,—are clearly on your side, your contention is unreasonable as well
as hopeless. What then do the VERSIONS say?

(_a_) Now, it is allowed on all hands that the LATIN Version was made from
copies which must have exhibited μυστήριον ὅ ἐφανερώθη. The agreement of
the Latin copies is absolute. The Latin Fathers also conspire in reading
“_mysterium quod_:” though some of them seem to have regarded “quod” as a
conjunction. Occasionally, (as by the Translator of Origen,(971)) we even
find “quia” substituted _for_ “quod.” Estius conjectures that “quod” _is_
a conjunction in this place. But in fact the reasoning of the Latin
Fathers is observed invariably to proceed as if they had found nothing
else but “DEUS” in the text before them. They bravely assume that the
Eternal WORD, the second Person in the Trinity, is _designated_ by the
expression “_magnum pietatis sacramentum_.”

(_b_) It is, I admit, a striking circumstance that such a mistake as this
in the old Latin should have been retained in the VULGATE. But if you ever
study this subject with attention, you will find that Jerome,—although no
doubt he “professedly corrected the old Latin Version by the help of
ancient Greek manuscripts,” (p. 69,)—on many occasions retains readings
which it is nevertheless demonstrable that he individually disapproved. No
certain inference therefore as to what Jerome _found_ in ancient Greek
MSS. can be safely drawn from the text of the Vulgate.

(_c_) Next, for the _Syriac_ (PESCHITO) Version. I beg to subjoin the view
of the late loved and lamented P. E. Pusey,—the editor of Cyril, and who
at the time of his death was engaged in re-editing the Peschito. He
says,—“In 1 Tim. iii. 16, the Syriac has ‘_qui manifestatus est_.’ The
relative is indeterminate, but the verb is not. In Syriac however
μυστήριον is masculine; and thus, the natural way would be to take
μυστήριον as the antecedent, and translate ‘_quod manifestatum est_.’ _No
one would have thought of any other way of translating the Syriac_—but for
the existence of the various reading ὅς in the Greek, and the
_possibility_ of its affecting the translation into Syriac. But the
Peschito is so really a translation into good Syriac, (not into
word-for-word Syriac,) that if the translator had wanted to express the
Greek ὅς, in so difficult a passage, _he would have turned it
differently_.”(972)—The Peschito therefore yields the same testimony as
the Latin; and may not be declared (as you declare it) to be
indeterminate. Still less may it be represented as witnessing to ὅς.

(_d_) It follows to enquire concerning the rendering of 1 Tim. iii. 16 in
the PHILOXENIAN, or rather the HARKLEIAN Version (VIIth cent.), concerning
which I have had recourse to the learned Editor of that Version. He
writes:—“There can be no doubt that the authors of this Version had either
Θεός or Θεοῦ before them: while their marginal note shows that they were
aware of the reading ὅς. They exhibit,—‘_Great is the mystery of the
goodness of the fear_ (feminine) _of _GOD_, who-was-manifested_
(masculine) _in the flesh_.’ The marginal addition [ܗܘ before ܕܐܬܓܠܝ (or
ܘܗ before ܝܠܓܬܐܕ)] makes the reference to GOD all the plainer.”(973) See
more below, at p. 489.

Now this introduction of the word Θεός into the text, however inartistic
it may seem to you and to me, is a fatal circumstance to those who would
contend on your side. It shows translators divided between two rival and
conflicting readings: but determined to give prominence to the
circumstance which constituted the greatness of the mystery: viz. GOD
INCARNATE. “May I suggest” (adds the witty scholar in his Post-script)
“that there would be no mystery in ‘a man being manifested in the flesh’?”

The facts concerning the Harkleian Version being such, you will not be
surprised to hear me say that I am at a loss to understand how, without a
syllable expressive of doubt, you should claim this version (the
“Philoxenian” you call it—but it is rather the Harkleian), as a witness on
your side,—a witness for ὅς.(974) It not only witnesses _against_ you,
(for the Latin and the Peschito do _that_,) but, as I have shown you, it
is a witness on _my_ side.

(_e_) and (_f_). Next, for the Versions of LOWER and UPPER EGYPT.

“We are content” (you say) to “refer our readers to Tischendorf and
Tregelles, who unhesitatingly claim the Memphitic [or Coptic] and the
Thebaic [or Sahidic] for ὅς.”(975) But surely, in a matter of this kind,
my lord Bishop—(I mean, when we are discussing some nicety of a language
of which personally we know absolutely nothing,)—we may never “be content
to refer our readers” to individuals who are every bit as ignorant of the
matter as ourselves. Rather should we be at the pains to obtain for those
whom we propose to instruct the deliberate verdict of those who have made
the subject their special study. Dr. Malan (who must be heartily sick of
me by this time), in reply to my repeated enquiries, assures me that in
Coptic and in Sahidic alike, “the relative pronoun always takes the gender
of the Greek antecedent. But, inasmuch as there is properly speaking no
neuter in either language, the masculine does duty _for_ the neuter; the
gender of the definite article and relative pronoun being determined by
the gender of the word referred to. Thus, in S. John xv. 26, the Coptic
‘_pi_’ and ‘_phè_’ respectively represent the definite article and the
relative, alike in the expression ὁ Παράκλητος ὅν, and in the expression
τὸ Πνεῦμα ὅ: and so throughout. In 1 Tim. iii. 16, therefore, ‘_pi
mustèrion phè_,’ must perforce be rendered, τὸ μυστήριον ὅ:—not, surely, ὁ
μυστήριον ὅς. And yet, if _the relative_ may be masculine, why not _the
article_ also? But in fact, we have no more right to render the Coptic (or
the Sahidic) relative by ὅς in 1 Tim. iii. 16, than in any other similar
passage where a neuter noun (_e.g._ πνεῦμα or σῶμα) has gone before. _In
this particular case_, of course a pretence may be set up that the gender
of the relative shall be regarded as an open question: but in strictness
of grammar, it is far otherwise. No Coptic or Sahidic scholar, in fact,
having to translate the Coptic or Sahidic back into Greek, would ever
dream of writing anything else but τὸ μυστήριον ὅ.”(976) And now I trust I
have made it plain to you that _you are mistaken_ in your statement (p.
69),—that “Ὅς is _supported by the two Egyptian Versions_.” It is
supported by _neither_. You have been shown that they both witness against
you. You will therefore not be astonished to hear me again declare that I
am at a loss to understand how you can cite the “Philoxenian, _Coptic and
Sahidic_,”(977)—as witnesses on your side. It is not in this way, my lord
Bishop, that GOD’S Truth is to be established.

(_g_) As for the GOTHIC Version,—dissatisfied with the verdict of De
Gabelentz and Loebe,(978) I addressed myself to Dr. Ceriani of Milan, the
learned and most helpful chief of the Ambrosian Library: in which by the
way is preserved _the only known copy_ of Ulphilas for 1 Tim. iii. 16. He
inclines to the opinion that “_saei_” is to be read,—the rather, because
Andreas Uppström, the recent editor of the codex, a diligent and able
scholar, has decided in favour of that “_obscure_” reading.(979) The
Gothic therefore must be considered to witness to the (more than)
extraordinary combination;—μέγΑΣ ... μυστήριον ... ὍΣ. (See the footnote 4
p. 452.)

I obtain at the same time, the same verdict, and on the same grounds, from
that distinguished and obliging scholar, Dr. John Belsheim of Christiania.
“But” (he adds) “the reading is a little dubious. H. F. Massmann, in the
notes to his edition,(980) at page 657, says,—‘_saei_ [qui] is altogether
obliterated.’ ”—In claiming the Gothic therefore as a witness for ὅς, you
will (I trust) agree with me that a single _scarcely legible copy_ of a
Version is not altogether satisfactory testimony:—while certainly
“_magnus_ est pietatis sacramentum, _qui_ manifestat_us_ est in
corpore”—is not a rendering of 1 Tim. iii. 16 which you are prepared to
accept.

(_h_) For the ÆTHIOPIC. Version,—Dr. Hoerning, (of the British Museum,)
has at my request consulted six copies of 1 Timothy, and informs me that
they present no variety of text. _The antecedent, as well as the relative,
is masculine in all._ The Æthiopic must therefore be considered to favour
the reading μυστήριον; ὅ ἐφανερώθη, and to represent the same Greek text
which underlies the Latin and the Peschito Versions. The Æthiopic
therefore is against you.

(_i_) “The ARMENIAN Version,” (writes Dr. Malan) “from the very nature of
the language, is indeterminate. There is _no grammatical distinction of
genders_ in Armenian.”

(_j_) The ARABIC Version, (so Dr. Ch. Rieu(981) informs me,) exhibits,—“In
_truth the mystery of this justice is great. It is that he_” (or “_it_,”
for the Arabic has no distinction between masculine and neuter) “_was
manifested in the body, and was justified in the spirit_” &c.—This version
therefore witnesses for neither “who,” “which,” nor “GOD.”

(_k_) and (_l_). There only remain the GEORGIAN Version, which is of the
VIth century,—and the SLAVONIC, which is of the IXth. Now, both of these
(Dr. Malan informs me) _unequivocally witness to_ Θεός.

Thus far then for the testimony yielded by ancient MANUSCRIPTS and
VERSIONS of S. Paul’s Epistles.

[_g_] _Review of the progress which has been hitherto made in the present
Enquiry._

Up to this point, you must admit that wondrous little sanction has been
obtained for the reading for which _you_ contend, (viz. μυστήριον; ὅς
ἐφανερώθη,) as the true reading of 1 Tim. iii. 16. Undisturbed in your
enjoyment of the testimony borne by Cod. א, you cannot but feel that such
testimony is fully counterbalanced by the witness of Cod. A: and further,
that the conjoined evidence of the HARKLEIAN, the GEORGIAN, and the
SLAVONIC Versions outweighs the single evidence of the GOTHIC.

But what is to be said about the consent of the manuscripts of S. Paul’s
Epistles for reading Θεός in this place, _in the proportion of_ 125 _to_
1? You must surely see that, (as I explained above at pp. 445-6,) such
multitudinous testimony is absolutely decisive of the question before us.
At p. 30 of your pamphlet, you announce it as a “lesson of primary
importance, often reiterated but often forgotten, _ponderari debere
testes, non numerari_.” You might have added with advantage,—“_and
oftenest of all, misunderstood_.” For are you not aware that, generally
speaking, “Number” _constitutes_ “Weight”? If you have discovered some
“regia via” which renders the general consent of COPIES,—the general
consent of VERSIONS,—the general consent of FATHERS, a consideration of
secondary importance, why do you not at once communicate the precious
secret to mankind, and thereby save us all a world of trouble?

You will perhaps propose to fall back on Hort’s wild theory of a “_Syrian
Text_,”—executed by authority at Antioch somewhere between A.D. 250 and
A.D. 350.(982) Be it so. Let that fable be argued upon as if it were a
fact. And what follows? That _at a period antecedent to the date of any
existing copy_ of the Epistle before us, the Church in her corporate
capacity declared Θεός (not ὅς) to be the true reading of 1 Tim. iii. 16.

Only one other head of Evidence (the PATRISTIC) remains to be explored;
after which, we shall be able to sum up, and to conclude the present
Dissertation.

[h] _Testimony of the_ FATHERS _concerning the true reading of_ 1 _Tim._
iii. 16:—GREGORY OF NYSSA,—DIDYMUS,—THEODORET,—JOHN
DAMASCENE,—CHRYSOSTOM,—GREGORY NAZ.,—SEVERUS OF ANTIOCH,—DIODORUS OF
TARSUS.

It only remains to ascertain what the FATHERS have to say on this subject.
And when we turn our eyes in this direction, we are encountered by a mass
of evidence which effectually closes this discussion. You contended just
now as eagerly for the Vth-century Codex A, as if its witness were a point
of vital importance to you. But I am prepared to show that GREGORY OF
NYSSA (a full century before Codex A was produced), in at least 22 places,
knew of no other reading but Θεός.(983) Of his weighty testimony you
appear to have been wholly unaware in 1869, for you did not even mention
Gregory by name (see p. 429). Since however you now admit that his
evidence is unequivocally against you, I am willing to hasten
forward,—only supplying you (at foot) with the means of verifying what I
have stated above concerning the testimony of this illustrious Father.

You are besides aware that DIDYMUS,(984) another illustrious witness, is
against you; and that he delivers unquestionable testimony.

You are also aware that THEODORET,(985) in _four_ places, is certainly to
be reckoned on the same side:

And further, that JOHN DAMASCENE(986) _twice_ adds his famous evidence to
the rest,—and is also against you.

CHRYSOSTOM(987) again, whose testimony you called in question in 1869, you
now admit is another of your opponents. I will not linger over his name
therefore,—except to remark, that how you can witness a gathering host of
ancient Fathers illustrious as these, without misgiving, passes my
comprehension. Chrysostom is _three_ times a witness.

Next come two quotations from GREGORY OF NAZIANZUS,—which I observe you
treat as “inconclusive.” I retain them all the same.(988) You are reminded
that this most rhetorical of Fathers is seldom more precise in quoting
Scripture.

And to the same century which Gregory of Nazianzus adorned, is probably to
be referred,—(it cannot possibly be later than A.D. 350, though it may be
a vast deal more ancient,)—THE TITLE bestowed, in the way of summary, on
that portion of S. Paul’s first Epistle to Timothy which is contained
between chap. iii. 16 and chap. iv. 7,—viz., Περὶ ΘΕΊΑΣ ΣΑΡΚώσεως. We
commonly speak of this as the seventh of the “_Euthalian_” κεφάλαια or
chapters: but Euthalius himself declares that those 18 titles were
“devised by a certain very wise and pious Father;”(989) and this
particular title (Περὶ θείας σαρκώσεως) is freely employed and discussed
in Gregory of Nyssa’s treatise against Apolinaris,(990)—which latter had,
in fact, made it part of the title of his own heretical treatise.(991)
That the present is a very weighty attestation of the reading, ΘΕῸΣ
ἐφανερώθη ἐν ΣΑΡΚΊ no one probably will deny: a memorable proof moreover
that Θεός(992) must have been universally read in 1 Tim. iii. 16
throughout the century which witnessed the production of codices B and א.

SEVERUS, BP. OF ANTIOCH, you also consider a “not unambiguous” witness. I
venture to point out to you that when a Father of the Church, who has been
already insisting on the GODhead of CHRIST (καθ᾽ ὅ γὰρ ὑπῆρχε Θεός,) goes
on to speak of Him as τὸν ἐν σαρκὶ φανερωθέντα Θεόν, there is no
“ambiguity” whatever about the fact that he is quoting from 1 Tim. iii.
16.(993)

And why are we only “_perhaps_” to add the testimony of DIODORUS OF
TARSUS; seeing that Diodorus adduces S. Paul’s actual words (Θεὸς
ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί), and expressly says that he finds them in _S. Paul’s
Epistle to Timothy_?(994) How—may I be permitted to ask—would you have a
quotation made plainer?

[i] _Bp. Ellicott as a controversialist. The case of_ EUTHALIUS.

Forgive me, my lord Bishop, if I declare that the _animus_ you display in
conducting the present critical disquisition not only astonishes, but even
shocks me. You seem to say,—_Non persuadebis, etiamsi persuaseris_. The
plainest testimony you reckon doubtful, if it goes against you: an
unsatisfactory quotation, if it makes for your side, you roundly declare
to be “evidence” which “stands the test of examination.”(995)... “We have
examined his references carefully” (you say). “Gregory of Nyssa, Didymus
of Alexandria, Theodoret and John Damascene (_who died_ severally about
394, 396, 457 and 756A.D.) _seem_ unquestionably to have read Θεός.”(996)
Excuse me for telling you that this is not the language of a candid
enquirer after Truth. Your grudging admission of the _unequivocal_
evidence borne by these four illustrious Fathers:—your attempt to detract
from the importance of their testimony by screwing down their date “to the
sticking place:”—your assertion that the testimony of a fifth Father “_is
not unambiguous_:”—your insinuation that the emphatic witness of a sixth
may “_perhaps_” be inadmissible:—all this kind of thing is not only quite
unworthy of a Bishop when he turns disputant, but effectually indisposes
his opponent to receive his argumentation with that respectful deference
which else would have been undoubtedly its due.

Need I remind you that men do not write their books when they are _in
articulo mortis_? Didymus _died_ in A.D. 394, to be sure: but he was then
85 years of age. He was therefore born in A.D. 309, and is said to have
flourished in 347. How old do you suppose were the sacred codices he had
employed _till then_? See you not that such testimony as his to the Text
of Scripture must in fairness be held to belong to _the first quarter of
the IVth century_?—is more ancient in short (and infinitely more
important) than that of any written codex with which we are acquainted?

Pressed by my “cloud of witnesses,” you seek to get rid of _them_ by
insulting _me_. “We pass over” (you say) “_names brought in to swell the
number, such as Euthalius_,—_for whom no reference is given_.”(997) Do you
then suspect me of the baseness,—nay, do you mean seriously to impute it
to me,—of introducing “names” “to swell the number” of witnesses on my
side? Do you mean further to insinuate that I prudently gave no reference
in the case of “Euthalius,” because I was unable to specify any place
where his testimony is found?... I should really pause for an answer, but
that a trifling circumstance solicits me, which, if it does not entertain
the Bp. of Gloucester and Bristol, will certainly entertain every one else
who takes the trouble to read these pages.

“Such as _Euthalius_”! You had evidently forgotten when you penned that
offensive sentence, that EUTHALIUS is one of the few Fathers _adduced by
yourself_(998) (but for whom you “gave no reference,”) in 1869,—when you
were setting down the Patristic evidence in favour of Θεός.... This little
incident is really in a high degree suggestive. Your practice has
evidently been to appropriate Patristic references(999) without thought or
verification,—prudently to abstain from dropping a hint how you came by
them,—but to use them like dummies, for show. At the end of a few years,
(naturally enough,) you entirely forget the circumstance,—and proceed
vigorously to box the ears of the first unlucky Dean who comes in your
way, whom you suspect of having come by his learning (such as it is) in
the same slovenly manner. Forgive me for declaring (while my ears are yet
tingling) that if you were even moderately acquainted with this department
of Sacred Science, you would see at a glance that my Patristic references
are _never_ obtained at second hand: for the sufficient reason that
elsewhere they are not to be met with. But waiving this, you have made it
_luce clarius_ to all the world that so late as the year 1882, to _you_
“Euthalius” was nothing else but “a name.” And this really does astonish
me: for not only was he a famous Ecclesiastical personage, (a Bishop like
yourself,) but his work (the date of which is A.D. 458,) is one with which
no Author of a “_Critical_ Commentary” on S. Paul’s Epistles can afford to
be unacquainted. Pray read what Berriman has written concerning Euthalius
(pp. 217 to 222) in his admirable “_Dissertation on_ 1 _Tim._ iii. 16.”
Turn also, if you please, to the _Bibliotheca_ of Gallandius (vol. x.
197-323), and you will recognize the plain fact that the _only_ reason
why, in the “Quarterly Review,” “no reference is given for Euthalius,” is
because the only reference possible is—1 Tim. iii. 16.

[j] _The testimony of the letter ascribed to_ DIONYSIUS OF ALEXANDRIA.
_Six other primitive witnesses to_ 1 Tim. iii. 16, _specified_.

Then further, you absolutely take no notice of the remarkable testimony
which I adduced (p. 101) from a famous Epistle purporting to have been
addressed by DIONYSIUS OF ALEXANDRIA (A.D. 264) to Paul of Samosata. That
the long and interesting composition in question(1000) was not actually
the work of the great Dionysius, is inferred—(whether rightly or wrongly I
am not concerned to enquire)—from the fact that the Antiochian Fathers say
expressly that Dionysius did not deign to address Paul personally. But you
are requested to remember that the epistle must needs have been written by
_somebody_:(1001) that it may safely be referred to the IIIrd century; and
that it certainly witnesses to Θεὸς ἐφανερώθη,(1002)—which is the only
matter of any real importance to my argument. Its testimony is, in fact,
as express and emphatic as words can make it.

And here, let me call your attention to the circumstance that there are at
least SIX OTHER PRIMITIVE WITNESSES, _some_ of whom must needs have
recognized the reading for which I am here contending, (viz. Θεὸς
ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί,) though not one of them quotes the place _in extenso_,
nor indeed refers to it in such a way as effectually to bar the door
against reasonable dispute. The present is in fact just the kind of text
which, from its undeniable grandeur,—its striking rhythm,—and yet more its
dogmatic importance,—was sure to attract the attention of the earliest, no
less than the latest of the Fathers. Accordingly, the author of the
Epistle _ad Diognetum_(1003) clearly refers to it early in the IInd
century; though not in a way to be helpful to us in our present enquiry. I
cannot feel surprised at the circumstance.

The yet earlier references in the epistles of (1) IGNATIUS (three in
number) _are_ helpful, and may not be overlooked. They are as
follows:—Θεοῦ ἀνθρωπίνως φανερουμένου:—ἐν σαρκὶ γενόμενος Θεός—εἶς Θεός
ἐστιν ὁ φανερώσας ἑαυτὸν διὰ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ, ὅς ἐστιν αὐτοῦ
Λόγος ἀΐδιος.(1004) It is to be wished, no doubt, that these references
had been a little more full and explicit: but the very early Fathers are
ever observed to quote Scripture thus partially,—allusively,—elliptically.

(2) BARNABAS has just such another allusive reference to the words in
dispute, which seems to show that he must have read Θεὸς ἐφανερώθη ἐν
σαρκί: viz. Ἰησοῦς ... ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ τύπῳ καὶ ἐν σαρκὶ
φανερωθείς.(1005)—(3) HIPPOLYTUS, on two occasions, even more
unequivocally refers to this reading. Once, while engaged in proving that
CHRIST is GOD, he says:—Οὗτος προελθὼν εἰς κόσμον Θεὸς ἐν σώματι
ἐφανερώθη:(1006)—and again, in a very similar passage which Theodoret
quotes from the same Father’s lost work on the Psalms:—Οὗτος ὁ προελθὼν
εἰς τὸν κόσμον, Θεὸς καὶ ἄνθρωπος ἐφανερώθη.(1007)—(4) GREGORY
THAUMATURGUS, (if it really be he,) seems also to refer directly to this
place when he says (in a passage quoted by Photius(1008)),—καὶ ἔστι Θεὸς
ἀληθινὸς ὁ ἄσαρκος ἐν σαρκὶ φανερωθείς.—Further, (5) in the APOSTOLICAL
CONSTITUTIONS, we meet with the expression,—Θεὸς Κύριος ὁ ἐπιφανεὶς ἡμῖν
εν σαρκί.(1009)

And when (6) BASIL THE GREAT [A.D. 377], writing to the men of Sozopolis
whose faith the Arians had assailed, remarks that such teaching “subverts
the saving Dispensation of our LORD JESUS CHRIST;” and, blending Rom. xvi.
25, 26 with “the great mystery” of 1 Tim. iii. 16,—(in order to afford
himself an opportunity of passing in review our SAVIOUR’S work for His
Church in ancient days,)—viz. “After all these, at the end of the day,
αὐτὸς ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί, γενόμενος ἐκ γυναικός:”(1010)—_who_ will deny
that such an one probably found neither ὅς nor ὅ, but Θεός, in the copy
before him?

I have thought it due to the enquiry I have in hand to give a distinct
place to the foregoing evidence—such as it is—of Ignatius, Barnabas,
Hippolytus, Gregory Thaumaturgus, the Apostolical Constitutions, and
Basil. But I shall not _build_ upon such foundations. Let me go on with
what is indisputable.

[k] _The testimony of_ CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA.

Next, for CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA, whom you decline to accept as a witness for
Θεός. You are prepared, I trust, to submit to the logic of _facts_?

In a treatise addressed to the Empresses Arcadia and Marina, Cyril is
undertaking to prove that our LORD is very and eternal GOD.(1011) His
method is to establish several short theses all tending to this one
object, by citing from the several books of the N. T., in turn, the
principal texts which make for his purpose. Presently, (viz. at page 117,)
he announces as his thesis,—“_Faith in_ CHRIST _as_ GOD;” and when he
comes to 1 Timothy, _he quotes_ iii. 16 _at length_; reasons upon it, and
points out that Θεὸς ἐν σαρκί is here spoken of.(1012) There can be no
doubt about this quotation, which exhibits no essential variety of
reading;—a quotation which Euthymius Zigabenus reproduces in his
“_Panoplia_,”—and which C. F. Matthæi has with painful accuracy edited
from that source.(1013)—Once more. In a newly recovered treatise of Cyril,
1 Tim. iii. 16 is again _quoted at length with_ Θεός,—followed by the
remark that “our Nature was justified, by GOD _manifested in Him_.”(1014)
I really see not how you would have Cyril more distinctly recognize Θεὸς
ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί as the reading of 1 Tim. iii. 16.(1015)

You are requested to observe that in order to prevent cavil, I forbear to
build on two other famous places in Cyril’s writings where the evidence
for reading Θεός is about balanced by a corresponding amount of evidence
which has been discovered for reading ὅς. Not but what the _context_
renders it plain that Θεός must have been Cyril’s word on both occasions.
Of this let the reader himself be judge:—

(1) In a treatise, addressed to the Empresses Eudocia and Pulcheria, Cyril
quotes 1 Tim. iii. 16 _in extenso_.(1016) “If” (he begins)—“the Word,
being GOD, could be said to inhabit Man’s nature (ἐπανθρωπῆσαι) without
yet ceasing to be GOD, but remained for ever what He was before,—then,
great indeed is the mystery of Godliness.”(1017) He proceeds in the same
strain at much length.(1018) Next (2) the same place of Timothy is just as
fully quoted in Cyril’s _Explanatio xii. capitum_: where not only the
Thesis,(1019) but also the context constrains belief that Cyril wrote
Θεός:—“What then means ‘was manifested in the flesh’? It means that the
Word of GOD the FATHER was made flesh.... In this way therefore we say
that He was both GOD and Man.... Thus” (Cyril concludes) “is He GOD and
LORD of all.”(1020)

But, as aforesaid, I do not propose to rest my case on either of these
passages; but on those two other places concerning which there exists no
variety of tradition as to the reading. Whether the passages in which the
reading is _certain_ ought not to be held to determine the reading of the
passages concerning which the evidence is about evenly balanced;—whether
in doubtful cases, the requirements of the context should not be allowed
to turn the scale;—I forbear to enquire. I take my stand on what is clear
and undeniable. On the other hand you are challenged to produce a single
instance in Cyril of μυστηριον; ὅς ἐφανερώθη, where the reading is not
equally balanced by μυστήριον Θεός. And (as already explained) of course
it makes nothing for ὅς that Cyril should sometimes say that “the mystery”
here spoken of is CHRIST who “was manifested in the flesh,” &c. A man with
nothing else but the A. V. of the “Textus Receptus” before him might
equally well say _that_. See above, pages 427-8.

Not unaware am I of a certain brief Scholium(1021) which the Critics
freely allege in proof that Cyril wrote ὅς (not Θεός), and which _as they
quote it_, (viz. so mutilated as effectually to conceal its meaning,)
certainly seems to be express in its testimony. But the thing is all a
mistake. Rightly understood, the Scholium in question renders no testimony
at all;—as I proceed to explain. The only wonder is that such critics as
Bentley,(1022) Wetstein,(1023) Birch,(1024) Tischendorf,(1025) or even
Tregelles,(1026) should not have seen this for themselves.

The author, (whether Photius, or some other,) is insisting on our LORD’S
absolute exemption from sin, although for our sakes He became very Man. In
support of this, he quotes Is. liii. 9, (or rather, 1 Pet. ii. 22)—“_Who
did no sin, neither was guile found in His mouth_.” “S. Cyril” (he
proceeds) “in the 12th ch. of his Scholia says,—‘_Who was manifested in
the flesh, justified in the Spirit_;’ for He was in no way subject to our
infirmities,” and so on. Now, every one must see at a glance that it is
entirely to misapprehend the matter to suppose that it is any part of the
Scholiast’s object, in what precedes, to invite attention to so irrelevant
a circumstance as that Cyril began his quotation of 1 Tim. iii. 16, with
ὅς instead of Θεός.(1027) As Waterland remarked to Berriman 150 years
ago,(1028) the Scholiast’s one object was to show how Cyril interpreted
the expression “_justified in the Spirit_.” Altogether misleading is it to
quote _only the first line_, beginning at ὅς and ending at πνεύματι, as
the Critics _invariably_ do. The point to which in this way prominence is
exclusively given, was clearly, to the Commentator, a matter of no concern
at all. He quotes from Cyril’s “_Scholia de Incarnatione
Unigeniti_,”(1029) in preference to any other of Cyril’s writings, for a
vastly different reason.(1030) And yet _this_—(viz. Cyril’s supposed
substitution of ὅς for Θεός)—is, in the account of the Critics, the one
thing which the Scholiast was desirous of putting on record.

In the meanwhile, on referring to the place in Cyril, we make an important
discovery. The Greek of the Scholium in question being lost, we depend for
our knowledge of its contents on the Latin translation of Marius Mercator,
Cyril’s contemporary. And in that translation, no trace is discoverable of
either ὅς or ὅ.(1031) The quotation from Timothy begins abruptly at
ἐφανερώθη. The Latin is as follows:—“Divinus Paulus _magnum quidem_ ait
_esse mysterium pietatis_. Et vere ita se res habet: _manifestatus est_
enim _in carne_, cum sit DEUS Verbum.”(1032) The supposed hostile evidence
from this quarter proves therefore to be non-existent. I pass on.

[l] _The argument_ e silentio _considered._

The argument _e silentio_,—(of all arguments the most precarious,)—has not
been neglected.—“But we cannot stop here,” you say:(1033) “Wetstein
observed long ago that Cyril does not produce this text when he does
produce Rom. ix. 5 in answer to the allegation which he quotes from Julian
that S. Paul never employed the word Θεός of our LORD.”(1034) Well but,
neither does Gregory of Nyssa produce this text when he is writing a
Treatise expressly to prove the GODhead of the SON and of the HOLY GHOST.
“_Grave est_,”—says Tischendorf.(1035) No, not “_grave_” at all, I answer:
but whether “_grave_” or not, that _Gregory of Nyssa_ read Θεός in this
place, is at least certain. As for Wetstein, you have been reminded
already, that “_ubi de Divinitate_ CHRISTI _agitur, ibi profecto sui
dissimilior deprehenditur_.”(1036) Examine the place in Cyril Alex. for
yourself, reading steadily on from p. 327 a to p. 333 b. Better still,
read—paying special attention to his Scriptural proofs—Cyril’s two
Treatises “_De rectâ Fide_.”(1037) But in fact attend to the method of
Athanasius, of Basil, or of whomsoever else you will;(1038) and you will
speedily convince yourself that the argument _e silentio_ is next to
valueless on occasions like the present.

Certain of the Critics have jumped to the conclusion that the other Cyril
cannot have been acquainted with S. Mark xvi. 19 (and therefore with the
“last Twelve Verses” of his Gospel), because when, in his Catechetical
Lectures, he comes to the “Resurrection,” “Ascension,” and “Session at the
Right Hand,”—he does not quote S. Mark xvi. 19. And yet,—(as it has been
elsewhere(1039) fully shown, and in fact the reason is assigned by Cyril
himself,)—this is only because, on the previous day, being Sunday, Cyril
of Jerusalem had enlarged upon the Scriptural evidence for those august
verities, (viz. S. Mark xvi. 19,—S. Luke xxiv. 51,—Acts i. 9); and
therefore was unwilling to say over again before the same auditory what he
had so recently delivered.

But indeed,—(the remark is worth making in passing,)—many of our modern
Critics seem to forget that the heretics with whom Athanasius, Basil, the
Gregories, &c., were chiefly in conflict, did not by any means deny the
Godhead of our LORD. Arians and Apolinarians alike admitted that CHRIST
_was_ GOD. This, in fact, has been pointed out already. Very differently
indeed would the ancient Fathers have expressed themselves, could they
have imagined the calamitous use which, at the end of 1500 years, perverse
wits would make of their writings,—the astonishing inferences they would
propose to extract from their very silence. I may not go further into the
subject in this place.

[m] _The story about_ MACEDONIUS. _His testimony._

It follows to say a few words concerning MACEDONIUS II., patriarch of
Constantinople [A.D. 496-511], of whom it has been absurdly declared that
he was _the inventor_ of the reading for which I contend. I pointed out on
a former occasion that it would follow from that very circumstance, (as
far as it is true,) that Macedonius “_is a witness for_
Θεός—_perforce_.”(1040)

Instead of either assenting to this, (which is surely a self-evident
proposition!),—or else disproving it,—you are at the pains to furbish up
afresh, as if it were a novelty, the stale and stupid figment propagated
by Liberatus of Carthage, that Macedonius was expelled from his see by the
Emperor Anastasius for falsifying 1 Timothy iii. 16. This exploded fable
you preface by announcing it as “_a remarkable fact_,” that “it was the
_distinct belief of Latin writers_ as early as the VIth century that the
reading of this passage had been corrupted by the Greeks.”(1041) How you
get your “remarkable fact,” out of your premiss,—“the distinct belief of
Latin writers,” out of the indistinct rumour [“_dicitur_”] vouched for by
a single individual,—I see not. But let that pass.

“The story shows” (you proceed) “that the Latins in the sixth century
believed ὅς to be the reading of the older Greek manuscripts, and regarded
Θεός as a false reading made out of it.” (p. 69.)—My lord Bishop, I
venture to declare that the story shows nothing of the sort. The Latins in
the VIth (and _every other_) century believed that—_not_ ὅς, but—ὅ, was
the right reading of the Greek in this place. Their belief on this subject
however has nothing whatever to do with the story before us. Liberatus was
not the spokesman of “the Latins of the VIth,” (or any other bygone)
“century:” but (as Bp. Pearson points out) a singularly ill-informed
Archdeacon of Carthage; who, had he taken ever so little pains with the
subject, would have become aware that for no such reason as he assigns was
Macedonius [A.D. 511] thrust out of his bishopric. If, however, there were
at least thus much of truth in the story,—namely, that one of the charges
brought against Macedonius was his having corrupted Scripture, and notably
his having altered ὅς into Θεός in 1 Tim. iii. 16;—surely, the most
obvious of all inferences would be, that Θεός _was found in copies of S.
Paul’s epistles put forth at Constantinople by archiepiscopal authority
between_ A.D. 496 _and_ A.D. 511. To say the least,—Macedonius, by his
writings or by his discourses, certainly by his influence, _must have
shown himself favourable to_ Θεός (_not_ ὅς) ἐφανερώθη. Else, with what
show of reason could the charge have been brought against him? “I suppose”
(says our learned Dr. John Mill) “that the fable before us arose out of
the fact that Macedonius, on hearing that in several MSS. of the
Constantinopolitan Church the text of 1 Tim. iii. 16 (which witnesses
expressly to the Godhead of CHRIST) had been depraved, was careful that
those copies should be corrected in conformity with the best
exemplars.”(1042)

But, in fact, I suspect you completely misunderstand the whole matter. You
speak of “_the_ story.” But pray,—_Which_ “story” do you mean? “The story”
which Liberatus told in the VIth century? or the ingenious gloss which
Hincmar, Abp. of Rheims, put upon it in the IXth? You _mention_ the
first,—you _reason from_ the second. Either will suit me equally well.
But—_una la volta, per carità!_

Hincmar, (whom the critics generally follow,) relates that Macedonius
turned ΟΣ into ΘΕΟΣ (_i.e._ _ΘΣ_).(1043) _If Macedonius did, he preferred_
Θεός _to_ ὅς.... But the story which Liberatus promulgated is quite
different.(1044) Let him be heard:—


    “At this time, Macedonius, bp. of CP., is said to have been
    deposed by the emperor Anastasius on a charge of having falsified
    the Gospels, and notably that saying of the Apostle, ‘_Quia
    apparuit in carne, justificatus est in spiritu._’ He was charged
    with having turned the Greek monosyllable ΟΣ (_i.e._ ‘_qui_’), by
    the change of a single letter (Ω for Ο) into ΩΣ: _i.e._ ‘_ut esset
    Deus apparuit per carnem._’ ”


Now, that this is a very lame story, all must see. In reciting the passage
in Latin, Liberatus himself exhibits neither “_qui_,” nor “_quod_,” nor
“_Deus_,”—but “QUIA _apparuit in carne_.” (The translator of Origen, by
the way, does the same thing.(1045)) And yet, Liberatus straightway adds
(as the effect of the change) “_ut esset Deus apparuit per carnem_:” as if
that were possible, unless “_Deus_” stood in the text already! Quite plain
in the meantime is it, that, according to Liberatus, ὡς was the word which
Macedonius introduced into 1 Tim. iii. 16. And it is worth observing that
the scribe who rendered into Greek Pope Martin I.’s fifth Letter (written
on the occasion of the Lateran Council A.D. 649),—having to translate the
Pope’s quotation from the Vulgate (“_quod manifestatus est_,”)—exhibits ὡς
ἐφανερώθη in this place.(1046)

High time it becomes that I should offer it as my opinion that those
Critics are right (Cornelius à Lapide [1614] and Cotelerius [1681]) who,
reasoning from what Liberatus actually says, shrewdly infer that there
must have existed codices in the time of Macedonius which exhibited ΟΣ
ΘΕΟΣ in this place; and that _this_ must be the reading to which Liberatus
refers.(1047) _Such codices exist still._ One, is preserved in the library
of the Basilian monks at Crypta Ferrata, already spoken of at pp. 446-8:
another, is at Paris. I call them respectively “Apost. 83” and “Paul
282.”(1048) This is new.

Enough of all this however. Too much in fact. I must hasten on. The entire
fable, by whomsoever fabricated, has been treated with well-merited
contempt by a succession of learned men ever since the days of Bp.
Pearson.(1049) And although during the last century several writers of the
unbelieving school (chiefly Socinians(1050)) revived and embellished the
silly story, in order if possible to get rid of a text which witnesses
inconveniently to the GODHEAD of CHRIST, one would have hoped that, in
these enlightened days, a Christian Bishop of the same Church which the
learned, pious, and judicious John Berriman adorned a century and a-half
ago, would have been ashamed to rekindle the ancient strife and to swell
the Socinian chorus. I shall be satisfied if I have at least convinced you
that Macedonius is a witness for Θεός in 1 Tim. iii. 16.

[n] _The testimony of an_ ANONYMOUS _writer_ (A.D. 430),—_of_ EPIPHANIUS
(A.D. 787),—_of_ THEODORUS STUDITA (A.D. 795?),—_of_ SCHOLIA,—_of_
ŒCUMENIUS,—_of_ THEOPHYLACT,—_of_ EUTHYMIUS.

The evidence of an ANONYMOUS Author who has been mistaken for
Athanasius,—you pass by in silence. That this writer lived in the days
when the Nestorian Controversy was raging,—namely, in the first half of
the Vth century,—is at all events evident. He is therefore at least as
ancient a witness for the text of Scripture as codex A itself: and Θεὸς
ἐφανερώθη is clearly what he found written in this place.(1051) Why do you
make such a fuss about Cod. A, and yet ignore this contemporary witness?
We do not know _who wrote_ the Epistle in question,—true. Neither do we
know who wrote Codex A. What _then_?

Another eminent witness for Θεός, whom also you do not condescend to
notice, is EPIPHANIUS, DEACON OF CATANA in Sicily,—who represented Thomas,
Abp. of Sardinia, at the 2nd Nicene Council, A.D. 787. A long discourse of
this Ecclesiastic may be seen in the Acts of the Council, translated into
Latin,—which makes his testimony so striking. But in fact his words are
express,(1052) and the more valuable because they come from a region of
Western Christendom from which textual utterances are rare.

A far more conspicuous writer of nearly the same date, THEODORUS STUDITA
of CP, [A.D. 759-826,] is also a witness for Θεός.(1053) How does it
happen, my lord Bishop, that you contend so eagerly for the testimony of
codices F and G, which are but _one_ IXth-century witness after all,—and
yet entirely disregard living utterances like these, of known men,—who
belonged to known places,—and wrote at a known time? Is it because they
witness unequivocally against you?

Several ancient SCHOLIASTS, expressing themselves diversely, deserve
enumeration here, who are all witnesses for Θεός exclusively.(1054)
Lastly,—

ŒCUMENIUS(1055) (A.D. 990),—THEOPHYLACT(1056) (A.D. 1077),—EUTHYMIUS(1057)
(A.D. 1116),—close this enumeration. They are all three clear witnesses
for reading not ὅς but Θεός.

[o] _The testimony of_ ECCLESIASTICAL TRADITION.

Nothing has been hitherto said concerning the Ecclesiastical usage with
respect to this place of Scripture. 1 Tim. iii. 16 occurs in a lection
consisting of nine verses (1 Tim. iii. 13-iv. 5), which used to be
publicly read in almost all the Churches of Eastern Christendom on the
Saturday before Epiphany.(1058) It was also read, in not a few Churches,
on the 34th Saturday of the year.(1059) Unfortunately, the book which
contains lections from S. Paul’s Epistles, (“_Apostolus_” it is
technically called,) is of comparatively rare occurrence,—is often found
in a mutilated condition,—and (for this and other reasons) is, as often as
not, without this particular lesson.(1060) Thus, an analysis of 90 copies
of the “Apostolus” (No. 1 to 90), is attended by the following result:—10
are found to have been set down in error;(1061) while 41 are
declared—(sometimes, I fear, through the unskilfulness of those who
profess to have examined them),—not to contain 1 Tim. iii. 16.(1062) Of 7,
I have not been able to obtain tidings.(1063) Thus, there are but 32
copies of the book called “Apostolus” available for our present purpose.

But of these thirty-two, _twenty-seven_ exhibit Θεός.(1064) You will be
interested to hear that _one_ rejoices in the unique reading Θεοῦ:(1065)
while another Copy of the ’Apostolus’ keeps “Paul 282” in countenance by
reading ὅς Θεός.(1066) In other words, “GOD” is found in 29 copies out of
32: while “who” (ὅς) is observed to survive in only 3,—and they, Western
documents of suspicious character. Two of these were produced in one and
the same Calabrian monastery; and they still stand, side by side, in the
library of Crypta Ferrata:(1067) being exclusively in sympathy with the
very suspicious Western document at Paris, already described at page 446.

ECCLESIASTICAL TRADITION is therefore clearly against _you_, in respect of
the reading of 1 Tim. iii. 16. How _you_ estimate this head of Evidence, I
know not. For my own part, I hold it to be of superlative importance. It
transports us back, at once, to the primitive age; and is found to be
infinitely better deserving of attention than the witness of any extant
uncial documents which can be produced. And why? For the plain reason that
it must needs have been once attested by _an indefinitely large number of
codices more ancient by far than any which we now possess_. In fact,
ECCLESIASTICAL TRADITION, when superadded to the testimony of Manuscripts
and Fathers, becomes an overwhelming consideration.

And now we may at last proceed to sum up. Let me gather out the result of
the foregoing fifty pages; and remind the reader briefly of the amount of
external testimony producible in support of each of these rival
readings:—ὅ,—ὅς—Θεός.

[I.] _Sum of the Evidence of_ VERSIONS, COPIES, FATHERS, _in favour of
reading_ μυστήριον; ὅ ἐφανερώθη _in_ 1 Tim. iii. 16.

(α) The reading μυστήριον; ὅ ἐφανερώθη,—(which Wetstein strove hard to
bring into favour, and which was highly popular with the Socinian party
down to the third quarter of the last century,)—enjoys, as we have seen,
(pp. 448-53,) the weighty attestation of the Latin and of the Peschito,—of
the Coptic, of the Sahidic, and of the Æthiopic Versions.

No one may presume to speak slightingly of such evidence as this. It is
the oldest which can be produced for the truth of anything in the inspired
Text of the New Testament; and it comes from the East as well as from the
West. Yet is it, in and by itself, clearly inadequate. Two characteristics
of Truth are wanting to it,—two credentials,—unfurnished with which, it
cannot be so much as seriously entertained. It demands _Variety_ as well
as _Largeness of attestation_. It should be able to exhibit in support of
its claims the additional witness of COPIES and FATHERS. But,

(β) On the contrary, ὅ is found besides in _only one Greek
Manuscript_,—viz. the VIth-century codex Claromontanus, D. And further,

(γ) _Two ancient writers_ alone bear witness to this reading, viz.
GELASIUS OF CYZICUS,(1068) whose date is A.D. 476;(1069) and the UNKNOWN
AUTHOR of a homily of uncertain date in the Appendix to
Chrysostom(1070).... It is scarcely intelligible how, on such evidence,
the Critics of the last century can have persuaded themselves (with
Grotius) that μυστήριον; ὅ ἐφανερώθη is the true reading of 1 Timothy iii.
16. And yet, in order to maintain this thesis, Sir Isaac Newton descended
from the starry sphere and tried his hand at Textual Criticism. Wetstein
(1752) freely transferred the astronomer’s labours to his own pages, and
thus gave renewed currency to an opinion which the labours of the learned
Berriman (1741) had already _demonstrated_ to be untenable.

Whether THEODORE OF MOPSUESTIA (in his work “_de Incarnatione_”) wrote ὅς
or ὅ, must remain uncertain till a sight has been obtained of his Greek
together with its context. I find that he quotes 1 Tim iii. 16 at least
three times:—Of the first place, there is only a Latin translation, which
begins “QUOD _justificat_US _est in spiritu_.”(1071) The second place
comes to us in Latin, Greek, and Syriac: but unsatisfactorily in all
three:—(_a_) The Latin version introduces the quotation thus,—“Consonantia
et Apostolus dicit, _Et manifeste magnum est pietatis mysterium_,
QUI(1072) (or QUOD(1073)) _manifestat_US (or TUM) _est in carne,
justificat_US (or TUM) _est in spiritu_:”—(_b_) The Greek, (for which we
are indebted to Leontius Byzantinus, A.D. 610,) reads,—Ὅς ἐφανερώθη ἐν
σαρκί, ἐδικαιώθη ἐν πνεύματι(1074)—divested of all preface.(1075) Those
seven words, thus isolated from their context, are accordingly printed by
Migne as _a heading_ only:—(_c_) The Syriac translation unmistakably
reads, “Et Apostolus dixit, _Vere sublime est hoc mysterium_,
QUOD,”—omitting τῆς εὐσεβείας.(1076) The third quotation, which is found
only in Syriac,(1077) begins,—“_For truly great is the-mystery
of-the-fear-of_ GOD, _who was manifested in-the-flesh and-was-justified
in-the-spirit_.” This differs from the received text of the Peschito by
substituting a different word for εὐσέβεια, and by employing the emphatic
state “the-flesh,” “the-spirit” where the Peschito has the absolute state
“flesh,” “spirit.” The two later clauses agree with the Harkleian or
Philoxenian.(1078)—I find it difficult from all this to know what
precisely to do with Theodore’s evidence. It has a truly oracular
ambiguity; wavering between ὅ—ὅς—and even Θεός. You, I observe, (who are
only acquainted with the second of the three places above cited, and but
imperfectly with _that_,) do not hesitate to cut the knot by simply
claiming the heretic’s authority for the reading you advocate,—viz. ὅς. I
have thought it due to my readers to tell them all that is known about the
evidence furnished by Theodore of Mopsuestia. At all events, the utmost
which can be advanced in favour of reading μυστήριον; ὅ in 1 Timothy iii.
16, has now been freely stated. I am therefore at liberty to pass on to
the next opinion.

[II.] _Sum of the Evidence of_ VERSIONS, COPIES, FATHERS _in favour of
reading_ μυστήριον; ὅς ἐφανερώθη _in_ 1 Timothy iii. 16.

Remarkable it is how completely Griesbach succeeded in diverting the
current of opinion with respect to the place before us, into a new
channel. At first indeed (viz. in 1777) he retained Θεός in his Text,
timidly printing ὅς in small type above it; and remarking,—“_Judicium de
hâc lectionis varietate lectoribus liberum relinquere placuit_.” But, at
the end of thirty years (viz. in 1806), waxing bolder, Griesbach
substituted ὅς for Θεός,—“_ut ipsi_” (as he says) “_nobis constaremus_.”
Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Westcott and Hort, and the Revisers,
under your guidance, have followed him: which is to me
unaccountable,—seeing that even less authority is producible for ὅς, than
for ὅ, in this place. But let the evidence for μυστήριον; ὅς ἐφανερώθη ἐν
σαρκί be briefly recapitulated:—

(α) It consists of _a single uncial copy_, viz. the corrupt cod. א,—(for,
as was fully explained above,(1079) codd. C and F-G yield uncertain
testimony): and _perhaps two cursive copies_, viz. Paul 17, (the notorious
“33” of the Gospels,)—and a copy at Upsala (No. 73), which is held to
require further verification.(1080) To these, are to be added three other
liturgical witnesses in the cursive character—being Western copies of the
book called “_Apostolus_,” which have only recently come to light. Two of
the codices in question are of Calabrian origin.(1081) A few words more on
this subject will be found above, at pages 477 and 478.

(β) _The only Version_ which certainly witnesses in favour of ὅς, is the
Gothic: which, (as explained at pp. 452-3) exhibits a hopelessly obscure
construction, and rests on the evidence of a single copy in the Ambrosian
library.

(γ) Of Patristic testimonies (to μυστήριον; ὅς ἐφανερώθη) _there exists
not one_. That EPIPHANIUS [A.D. 360] _professing to transcribe_ from an
early treatise of his own, in which ἐφανερώθη stands _without a
nominative_, should prefix ὅς—proves nothing, as I have fully explained
elsewhere.(1082)—The equivocal testimony rendered by THEODORE OF
MOPSUESTIA [A.D. 390] is already before the reader.(1083)

And this exhausts the evidence for a reading which came in,—and (I venture
to predict) will go out,—with the present century. My only wonder is, how
an exhibition of 1 Tim. iii. 16 so feebly attested,—so almost _without_
attestation,—can have come to be seriously entertained by any. “Si,”—(as
Griesbach remarks concerning 1 John v. 7)—“si tam pauci ... testes ...
sufficerent ad demonstrandam lectionis cujusdam γνησιότητα, licet obstent
tam multa tamque gravia et testimonia et argumenta; _nullum prorsus
superesset in re criticâ veri falsique criterium_, et _textus Novi
Testamenti universus plane incertus esset atque dubius_.”(1084)

Yet _this_ is the Reading which you, my lord Bishop, not only stiffly
maintain, but which you insist is no longer so much as “_open to
reconsideration_.” You are, it seems, for introducing the _clôture_ into
Textual debate. But in fact you are for inflicting pains and penalties as
well, on those who have the misfortune to differ in opinion from yourself.
You discharge all the vials of the united sees of Gloucester and Bristol
on _me_ for my presumption in daring to challenge the verdict of “the
Textual Criticism of the last fifty years,”—of the Revisers,—and of
yourself;—my folly, in venturing to believe that the traditional reading
of 1 Tim. iii. 16, (which you admit is at least 1530 years old,) is the
right reading after all. You hold me up to public indignation. “He has
made” (you say) “an elaborate effort to shake conclusions _about which no
professed Scholar has any doubt whatever_; but which an ordinary reader
(and to such we address ourselves) might regard as _still open to
reconsideration_.”—“Moreover” (you proceed) “this case is of great
importance as an example. It illustrates in a striking manner the complete
isolation of the Reviewer’s position. If he is right, all other Critics
are wrong.”(1085)

Will you permit me, my lord Bishop, as an ordinary writer, addressing
(like yourself) “ordinary readers,”—respectfully to point out that you
entirely mistake the problem in hand? The Greek Text of the N. T. is not
to be settled by MODERN OPINION, but by ANCIENT AUTHORITY.(1086) In this
department of enquiry therefore, “_complete isolation_” is his, and _his
only_, who is forsaken by COPIES, VERSIONS, FATHERS. The man who is able,
on the contrary, to point to an overwhelming company of Ancient Witnesses,
and is contented modestly to take up his station at their feet,—such an
one can afford to disregard “_The Textual Criticism of the last fifty
years_,” if it presumes to contradict _their_ plain decrees; can even
afford to smile at the confidence of “professed Scholars” and “Critics,”
if they are so ill advised as to set themselves in battle array against
that host of ancient men.

To say therefore of such an one, (as _you_ now say of _me_,) “If he is
right, all other Critics are wrong,”—is to present an irrelevant issue,
and to perplex a plain question. The business of Textual Criticism (as you
state at page 28 of your pamphlet) is nothing else but to ascertain “_the
consentient testimony of the most ancient Authorities_.” The office of the
Textual Critic is none other but to interpret rightly _the solemn verdict
of Antiquity_. Do _I_ then interpret that verdict rightly,—or do I not?
The whole question resolves itself into _that_! If I do _not_,—pray show
me wherein I have mistaken the facts of the case. But if I _do_,—why do
you not come over instantly to my side? “_Since_ he is right,” (I shall
expect to hear you say,) “it stands to reason that the ‘professed Critics’
whom he has been combating,—myself among the number,—must be wrong.”... I
am, you see, loyally accepting the logical issue you have yourself raised.
I do but seek to reconcile your dilemma with the actual facts of the
problem.

And now, will you listen while I state the grounds on which I am convinced
that your substitution of ὅς for Θεός in 1 Tim. iii. 16 is nothing else
but a calamitous perversion of the Truth? May I be allowed at least to
exhibit, in the same summary way as before, the evidence for reading in
this place neither ὅ nor ὅς,—but Θεός?

[III.] _Sum of the Evidence of_ VERSIONS, COPIES, FATHERS, _in favour of
reading_ Θεὸς ἐφανερώθη _in_ 1 Tim. iii 16.

Entirely different,—in respect of variety, of quantity and of
quality,—from what has gone before, is the witness of Antiquity to the
Received Text of 1 Timothy iii. 16: viz. καὶ ὁμολογουμένως μέγα ἐστὶ τὸ
τῆς εὐσεβείας μυστήριον; ΘΕῸΣ ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί, κ.τ.λ.... I proceed to
rehearse it in outline, having already dwelt in detail upon so much of it
as has been made the subject of controversy.(1087) The reader is fully
aware(1088) that I do not propose to make argumentative use of the first
six names in the ensuing enumeration. To those names, [enclosed within
square brackets,] I forbear even to assign numbers; not as entertaining
doubt concerning the testimony they furnish, but as resolved to build
exclusively on facts which are incontrovertible. Yet is it but reasonable
that the whole of the Evidence for Θεὸς ἐφανερώθη should be placed before
the reader: and _he_ is in my judgment a wondrous unfair disputant who can
attentively survey the evidence which I thus forego, without secretly
acknowledging that its combined Weight is considerable; while its
Antiquity makes it a serious question whether it is not simply contrary to
reason that it should be dispensed with in an enquiry like the present.

[(_a_) In the Ist century then,—it has been already shown (at page 463)
that IGNATIUS (A.D. 90) probably recognized the reading before us in three
places.]

[(_b_) The brief but significant testimony of BARNABAS will be found in
the same page.]

[(_c_) In the IInd century,—HIPPOLYTUS [A.D. 190] (as was explained at
page 463,) twice comes forward as a witness on the same side.]

[(_d_) In the IIIrd century,—GREGORY THAUMATURGUS, (if it be indeed he)
has been already shown (at page 463) probably to testify to the reading
Θεὸς ἐφανερώθη.]

[(_e_) To the same century is referred the work entitled CONSTITUTIONES
APOSTOLICÆ: which seems also to witness to the same reading. See above, p.
463.]

[(_f_) BASIL THE GREAT also [A.D. 355], as will be found explained at page
464, must be held to witness to Θεὸς ἐφανερώθη in 1 Tim. iii. 16: though
his testimony, like that of the five names which go before, being open to
cavil, is not here insisted on.]—And now to get upon _terra firma_.

(1) To the IIIrd century then [A.D. 264?], belongs the Epistle ascribed to
DIONYSIUS OF ALEXANDRIA, (spoken of above, at pages 461-2,) in which 1
Tim. iii. 16 is distinctly quoted in the same way.

(2) In the next, (the IVth) century, unequivocal Patristic witnesses to
Θεὸς ἐφανερώθη abound. Foremost is DIDYMUS, who presided over the
Catechetical School of Alexandria,—the teacher of Jerome and Rufinus. Born
A.D. 309, and becoming early famous, he clearly witnesses to what was the
reading of the first quarter of the IVth century. His testimony has been
set forth at page 456.

(3) GREGORY, BISHOP OF NAZIANZUS [A.D. 355], a contemporary of Basil, in
_two_ places is found to bear similar witness. See above page 457.

(4) DIODORUS, (or “Theodorus” as Photius writes his name,) the teacher of
Chrysostom,—first of Antioch, afterwards the heretical BISHOP OF TARSUS in
Cilicia,—is next to be cited [A.D. 370]. His testimony is given above at
pages 458-9.

(5) The next is perhaps our most illustrious witness,—viz. GREGORY, BISHOP
OF NYSSA in Cappadocia [A.D. 370]. References to at least _twenty-two_
places of his writings have been already given at page 456.

(6) Scarcely less important than the last-named Father, is CHRYSOSTOM
[A.D. 380], first of Antioch,—afterwards PATRIARCH OF CONSTANTINOPLE,—who
in _three_ places witnesses plainly to Θεὸς ἐφανερώθη. See above, page
457.

(7) And to this century, (not later certainly than the last half of it,)
is to be referred the title of that κεφάλαιον, or chapter, of St. Paul’s
First Epistle to Timothy which contains chap. iii. 16,—(indeed, which
_begins_ with it,) viz. Περὶ θείας σαρκώσεως. Very eloquently does that
title witness to the fact that Θεός was the established reading of the
place under discussion, before either cod. B or cod. א was produced. See
above, pages 457-8.

(8) In the Vth century,—besides the CODEX ALEXANDRINUS (cod. A,)
concerning which so much has been said already (page 431 to page 437),—we
are able to appeal for the reading Θεὸς ἐφανερώθη, to,

(9) CYRIL, ARCHBISHOP OF ALEXANDRIA, [A.D. 410,] who in _at least two_
places witnesses to it unequivocally. See above, pp. 464 to 470. So does,

(10) THEODORET, BISHOP OF CYRUS in Syria, [A.D. 420]: who, in at least
_four_ places, (see above, page 456) renders unequivocal and important
witness on the same side.

(11) Next, the ANONYMOUS AUTHOR claims notice [A.D. 430], whose
composition is found in the Appendix to the works of Athanasius. See
above, page 475.

(12) You will be anxious to see your friend EUTHALIUS, BISHOP OF SULCA,
duly recognized in this enumeration. He comes next. [A.D. 458.] The
discussion concerning him will be found above, at page 459 to page 461.

(13) MACEDONIUS II, PATRIARCH OF CP. [A.D. 496] must of necessity be
mentioned here, as I have very fully explained at page 470 to page 474.

(14) To the VIth century belongs the GEORGIAN Version, as already noted at
page 454.

(15) And hither is to be referred the testimony of SEVERUS, BISHOP OF
ANTIOCH [A.D. 512], which has been already particularly set down at page
458.

(16) To the VIIth century [A.D. 616] belongs the HARKLEIAN (or
PHILOXENIAN) Version; concerning which, see above, page 450. “That Θεός
was the reading of the manuscripts from which this Version was made, is
put beyond reach of doubt by the fact that in twelve of the other places
where εὐσέβεια occurs,(1089) the words ܩܦܝܕܘܐ ܕܗܬܐ (or ܐܬܗܕ ܐܘܕܝܦܩ)
(‘_beauty-of-fear_’) are found _without_ the addition of ܐܠܚܐ (or ܐܚܠܐ)
(‘GOD’). It is noteworthy, that on the thirteenth occasion (1 Tim. ii. 2),
where the Peschito reads ‘_fear of_ GOD,’ the Harkleian reads ‘_fear_’
only. On the other hand, the Harkleian margin of Acts iii. 12 expressly
states that εὐσέβια is the Greek equivalent of ܩܦܝܕܘܐ ܕܗܬܐ (or ܐܬܗܕ
ܐܘܕܝܦܩ) (‘_beauty-of-fear_’). This effectually establishes the fact that
the author of the Harkleian recension found Θεός in his Greek manuscript
of 1 Tim. iii. 16.”(1090)

(17) In the VIIIth century, JOHN DAMASCENE [A.D. 730] pre-eminently claims
attention. He is _twice_ a witness for Θεὸς ἐφανερώθη, as was explained at
page 457.

(18) Next to be mentioned is EPIPHANIUS, DEACON OF CATANA; whose memorable
testimony at the 2nd Nicene Council [A.D. 787] has been set down above, at
page 475. And then,

(19) THEODORUS STUDITA of CP. [A.D. 790],—concerning whom, see above, at
pages 475-6.

(20), (21) _and_ (22). To the IXth century belong the three remaining
uncial codices, which alike witness to Θεὸς ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί:—viz. the
“COD. MOSQUENSIS” (K); the “COD. ANGELICUS” (L); and the “COD.
PORPHYRIANUS” (P).

(23) The SLAVONIC VERSION belongs to the same century, and exhibits the
same reading.

(24) Hither also may be referred several ancient SCHOLIA which all witness
to Θεὸς ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί, as I explained at page 476.

(25) To the Xth century belongs ŒCUMENIUS [A.D. 990], who is also a
witness on the same side. See page 476.

(26) To the XIth century, THEOPHYLACT [A.D. 1077], who bears express
testimony to the same reading. See page 476.

(27) To the XIIth century, EUTHYMIUS [A.D. 1116], who closes the list with
his approving verdict. See page 476.

And thus we reach a period when there awaits us a mass of testimony which
transports us back (_per saltum_) to the Church’s palmiest days;
testimony, which rightly understood, is absolutely decisive of the point
now under discussion. I allude to the testimony of EVERY KNOWN COPY OF S.
PAUL’S EPISTLES except the three, or four, already specified, viz. D of S.
Paul; א, 17, and perhaps 73. A few words on this last head of Evidence may
not be without the grace of novelty even to yourself. They are
supplementary to what has already been offered on the same subject from
page 443 to page 446.

The copies of S. Paul’s Epistles (in cursive writing) supposed to exist in
European libraries,—not including those in the monasteries of Greece and
the Levant,(1091)—amount to at least 302.(1092) Out of this number, 2 are
fabulous:(1093)—1 has been destroyed by fire:(1094)—and 6 have strayed
into unknown localities.(1095) Add, that 37 (for various reasons) are said
not to contain the verse in question;(1096) while of 2, I have been
hitherto unsuccessful in obtaining any account:(1097)—and it will be seen
that the sum of the available cursive copies of S. Paul’s Epistles is
exactly 254.

Now, that 2 of these 254 cursive copies (viz. Paul 17 and 73)—exhibit
ὅς,—you have been so eager (at pp. 71-2 of your pamphlet) to establish,
that I am unwilling to do more than refer you back to pages 443, -4, -5,
where a few words have been already offered in reply. Permit me, however,
to submit to your consideration, as a set-off against those _two copies_
of S. Paul’s Epistles which read ὅς,—the following _two-hundred and
fifty-two copies_ which read Θεός.(1098) To speak with perfect accuracy,—4
of these (252) exhibit ὁ Θεὸς ἐφανερώθη;(1099)—1, ὅς Θεός;(1100)—and 247,
Θεός absolutely. The numbers follow:—

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 16. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23.
24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41.
43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 52. 55. 56. 57. 59. 62. 63. 65. 67. 68. 69.
70. 71. 72. 74. 75. 77. 78. 79. 80. 81. 83. 84. 85. 86. 87. 88. 90. 91.
92. 93. 94. 95. 96. 97. 98. 99. 100. 101. 102. 103. 104. 105. 106. 107.
108. 109. 110. 111. 112. 113. 114. 115. 116. 117. 120. 121. 122. 123. 125.
126. 128. 129. 130. 131. 132. 133. 134. 135. 136. 137. 138. 139. 140. 141.
142. 143. 144. 145. 149. 150. 151. 153. 154. 155. 156. 157. 158. 159. 164.
165. 166. 167. 168. 169. 170. 171. 173. 174. 175. 176. 177. 178. 179. 180.
182. 183. 184. 185. 186. 188. 189. 190. 192. 193. 194. 195. 196. 197. 198.
199. 200. 201. 203. 204. 205. 206. 207. 208. 211. 212. 213. 215. 216. 217.
218.(1101) 219. 220. 221. 222. 223. 224. 226. 227. 228. 229. 230. 231.
232. 233. 234. 235. 236. 237. 238. 239. 240. 241. 242. 243. 244. 245. 246.
247. 249. 250. 251. 252. 253. 255. 256. 257. 258. 260. 262. 264. 265. 266.
267. 268. 269. 270. 272. 273. 274. 276. 277. 278. 279. 280. 281.
282.(1102) 283. 285. 288. 289. 290. 291. 292. 294. 295. 296. 297. 298.
299. 300. 301.

Behold then the provision which THE AUTHOR of Scripture has made for the
effectual conservation in its integrity of this portion of His written
Word! Upwards of eighteen hundred years have run their course since the
HOLY GHOST by His servant, Paul, rehearsed the “mystery of Godliness;”
declaring _this_ to be the great foundation-fact,—namely, that “GOD WAS
MANIFESTED IN THE FLESH.” And lo, out of _two hundred and fifty-four_
copies of S. Paul’s Epistles no less than _two hundred and fifty-two_ are
discovered to have preserved that expression. Such “Consent” amounts to
_Unanimity_; and, (as I explained at pp. 454-5,) unanimity in this
subject-matter, is conclusive.

The copies of which we speak, (you are requested to observe,) were
produced in every part of ancient Christendom,—being derived in every
instance from copies older than themselves; which again were transcripts
of copies older still. They have since found their way, without design or
contrivance, into the libraries of every country of Europe,—where, for
hundreds of years they have been jealously guarded. And,—(I repeat the
question already hazarded at pp. 445-6, and now respectfully propose it to
_you_, my lord Bishop; requesting you at your convenience to favour me
publicly with an answer;)—For what conceivable reason can this multitude
of witnesses be supposed to have entered into a wicked conspiracy to
deceive mankind?

True, that no miracle has guarded the sacred Text in this, or in any other
place. On the other hand, for the last 150 years, Unbelief has been
carping resolutely at this grand proclamation of the Divinity of
CHRIST,—in order to prove that not this, but some other thing, it must
have been, which the Apostle wrote. And yet (as I have fully shown) the
result of all the evidence procurable is to establish that the Apostle
must be held to have written no other thing but _this_.

To the overwhelming evidence thus furnished by 252 out of 254 cursive
_Copies_ of S. Paul’s Epistles,—is to be added the evidence supplied by
the _Lectionaries_. It has been already explained (viz. at pp. 477-8) that
out of 32 copies of the “Apostolus,” 29 concur in witnessing to Θεός. I
have just (May 7th) heard of another in the Vatican.(1103) To these 30,
should be added the 3 Liturgical codices referred to at pp. 448 and 474,
_note_ 1. Now this is emphatically the voice of _ancient Ecclesiastical
Tradition_. The numerical result of our entire enquiry, proves therefore
to be briefly this:—

(I.) In 1 TIMOTHY iii. 16, the reading Θεὸς ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί, is
witnessed to by 289 MANUSCRIPTS:(1104)—by 3 VERSIONS:(1105)—by upwards of
20 Greek FATHERS.(1106)

(II) The reading ὅ (in place of Θεός) is supported by a single MS. (D):—by
5 ancient VERSIONS:(1107)—by 2 late Greek FATHERS.(1108)

(III.) The reading ὅς (also in place of Θεός) is countenanced by 6
MANUSCRIPTS in all (א, Paul 17, 73: Apost. 12, 85, 86):—by _only one_
VERSION for certain (viz. the Gothic(1109)):—_not for certain by a single
Greek_ FATHER.(1110)

I will not repeat the remarks I made before on a general survey of the
evidence in favour of ὅς ἐφανερώθη: but I must request you to refer back
to those remarks, now that we have reached the end of the entire
discussion. They extend from the middle of p. 483 to the bottom of p. 485.

The unhappy Logic which, on a survey of what goes before, can first
persuade itself, and then seek to persuade others, that Θεός is a “_plain
and clear error_;” and that there is “_decidedly preponderating
evidence_,” in favour of reading ὅς in 1 Timothy iii. 16;—must needs be of
a sort with which I neither have, nor desire to have, any acquaintance. I
commend the case between you and myself to the judgment of Mankind; and
trust you are able to await the common verdict with the same serene
confidence as I am.

Will you excuse me if I venture, in the homely vernacular, to assure you
that in your present contention you “have not a leg to stand upon”?
“Moreover” (to quote from your own pamphlet [p. 76],) “_this case is of
great importance as an example_.” You made deliberate choice of it in
order to convict me of error. I have accepted your challenge, you see. Let
the present, by all means, be regarded by the public as a trial-place,—a
test of our respective methods, yours and mine. I cheerfully abide the
issue,

(p) INTERNAL EVIDENCE _for reading_ Θεὸς ἐφανερώθη _in_ 1 Tim. iii. 16,
_absolutely overwhelming_.

In all that precedes, I have abstained from pleading the _probabilities_
of the case; and for a sufficient reason. Men’s notions of what is
“probable” are observed to differ so seriously. “Facile intelligitur”
(says Wetstein) “lectiones ὅς et Θεός esse interpretamenta pronominis ὅ:
sed nec ὅ nec ὅς posse esse interpretamentum vocis Θεός.” Now, I should
have thought that the exact reverse is as clear as the day. _What_ more
obvious than that _ΘΣ_, by exhibiting indistinctly either of its delicate
horizontal strokes, (and they were often so traced as to be scarcely
discernible,(1111)) would become mistaken for ΟΣ? What more natural again
than that the masculine relative should be forced into agreement with its
neuter antecedent? Why, _the thing has actually happened_ at Coloss. i.
27; where ὍΣ ἐστι Χριστός has been altered into ὅ, only because μυστήριον
is the antecedent. But waiving this, the internal evidence in favour of
Θεός must surely be admitted to be overwhelming, by all save one
determined that the reading _shall be_ ὅς or ὅ. I trust we are at least
agreed that the maxim “_proclivi lectioni præstat ardua_,” does not
enunciate so foolish a proposition as that in choosing between two or more
conflicting readings, we are to prefer _that_ one which has the feeblest
external attestation,—provided it be but in itself almost unintelligible?

And yet, in the present instance,—How (give me leave to ask) will you
translate? To those who acquiesce in the notion that the μέγα μυστήριον
τῆς εὐσεβείας means our SAVIOUR CHRIST Himself, (consider Coloss. i. 27,)
it is obvious to translate “_who_:” yet how harsh, or rather how
intolerable is this! I should have thought that there could be no real
doubt that “_the mystery_” here spoken of must needs be that complex
exhibition of Divine condescension which the Apostle proceeds to rehearse
in outline: and of which the essence is that it was very and eternal GOD
who was the subject of the transaction. Those who see this, and yet adopt
the reading ὅς, are obliged to refer it to the remote antecedent Θεός.
_You_ do not advocate this view: neither do I. For reasons of their own,
Alford(1112) and Lightfoot(1113) both translate “_who_.”

Tregelles (who always shows to least advantage when a point of taste or
scholarship is under discussion) proposes to render:—


    “He who was manifested in the flesh, (he who) was justified in the
    spirit, (he who) was seen by angels, (he who) was preached among
    Gentiles, (he who) was believed on in the world, (he who) was
    received up in glory.”(1114)


I question if his motion will find _a seconder_. You yourself lay it down
magisterially that ὅς “is _not emphatic_ (‘He who,’ &c.): nor, by a
_constructio ad sensum_, is it the relative to μυστήριον; but is a
relative to an _omitted_ though easily recognized antecedent, viz.
CHRIST.” You add that it is not improbable “that the words are quoted from
some known _hymn_, or probably from some familiar _Confession of Faith_.”
Accordingly, in your Commentary you venture to exhibit the words within
inverted commas _as a quotation_:—“And confessedly great is the mystery of
godliness: ‘who was manifested in the flesh, justified in the spirit,’ ”
&c.,(1115)—for which you are without warrant of any kind, and which you
have no right to do. Westcott and Hort (the “chartered libertines”) are
even more licentious. Acting on their own suggestion that these clauses
are “a quotation from _an early Christian hymn_,” they proceed to print
the conclusion of 1 Tim. iii. 16 stichometrically, as if it were a
_six-line stanza_.

This notwithstanding, the Revising body _have adopted_ “He who,” as the
rendering of ὅς; a mistaken rendering as it seems to me, and (I am glad to
learn) to yourself also. Their translation is quite a curiosity in its
way. I proceed to transcribe it:—


    “He who was manifested in the flesh, justified in the spirit, seen
    of angels, preached among the nations, believed on in the world,
    received up in glory.”


But this does not even pretend to be a sentence: nor do I understand what
the proposed construction is. Any arrangement which results in making the
six clauses last quoted part of the subject, and “great” the predicate of
one long proposition,—is unworthy.—Bentley’s wild remedy testifies far
more eloquently to his distress than to his aptitude for revising the text
of Scripture. He suggests,—“CHRIST _was put to death_ in the flesh,
justified in the spirit, ... seen _by Apostles_.”(1116)—“According to the
ancient view,” (says the Rev. T. S. Green,) “the sense would be: ‘and
confessedly great is the mystery of godliness [in the person of him], who
[mystery notwithstanding] was manifested in the flesh, &c.’ ”(1117)...
But, with submission, “the ancient view” was not this. The
Latins,—calamitously shut up within the limits of their “_pietatis
sacramentum, quod_,”—are found to have habitually broken away from that
iron bondage, and to have discoursed of our SAVIOUR CHRIST, as being
Himself the “sacramentum” spoken of. The “sacramentum,” in their view, was
the incarnate WORD.(1118)—Not so the Greek Fathers. These all, without
exception, understood S. Paul to say,—what Ecclesiastical Tradition hath
all down the ages faithfully attested, and what to this hour the copies of
his Epistles prove that he actually wrote,—viz. “_And confessedly great is
the mystery of godliness_:—GOD _was manifested in the flesh, justified in
the spirit_,” and so on. Moreover this is the view of the matter in which
all the learning and all the piety of the English Church has thankfully
acquiesced for the last 350 years. It has commended itself to Andrewes and
Pearson, Bull and Hammond, Hall and Stillingfleet, Ussher and Beveridge,
Mill and Bengel, Waterland and Berriman. The enumeration of names is
easily brought down to our own times. Dr. Henderson, (the learned
non-conformist commentator,) in 1830 published a volume with the following
title:—


    “The great mystery of godliness incontrovertible: or, Sir Isaac
    Newton and the Socinians foiled in the attempt to prove a
    corruption in the text 1 Tim. iii. 16: containing a review of the
    charges brought against the passage; an examination of the various
    readings; and a confirmation of that in the received text on
    principles of general and biblical criticism.”


And,—to turn one’s eyes in quite a different direction,—“Veruntamen,”
wrote venerable President Routh, at the end of a life-long critical study
of Holy Writ,—(and his days were prolonged till he reached his hundredth
year,)—


    “Veruntamen, quidquid ex sacri textûs historia, illud vero haud
    certum, critici collegerunt, me tamen interna cogunt argumenta
    præferre lectionem Θεός, quem quidem agnoscunt veteres
    interpretes, Theodoretus cæterique, duabus alteris ὅς et ὅ.”(1119)


And here I bring my DISSERTATION on 1 TIM. iii. 16 to a close. It began at
p. 424, and I little thought would extend to seventy-six pages. Let it be
clearly understood that I rest my contention not at all on Internal, but
entirely on External Evidence; although, to the best of my judgment, they
are alike conclusive as to the matter in debate.—Having now
incontrovertibly, as I believe, established ΘΕΌΣ as the best attested
Reading of the place,—I shall conclude the present LETTER as speedily as I
can.

(1) _“__Composition of the Body which is responsible for the __‘__New
Greek Text.__’__ ”_

There remains, I believe, but one head of discourse into which I have not
yet followed you. I allude to your “few words about the composition of the
body which is responsible for the ‘New Greek Text,’ ”(1120)—which extend
from the latter part of p. 29 to the beginning of p. 32 of your pamphlet.
“Among the sixteen most regular attendants at your meetings,” (you say)
“were to be found most of those persons who were presumably best
acquainted with the subject of Textual Criticism.”(1121) And with this
insinuation that you had “all the talents” with you, you seek to put me
down.

But (as you truly say) “the number of living Scholars in England who have
connected their names with the study of the Textual Criticism of the New
Testament is exceedingly small.”(1122) And, “of that exceedingly small
number,” you would be puzzled to name so much as _one_, besides the three
you proceed to specify (viz. Dr. Scrivener, Dr. Westcott, and Dr.
Hort,)—who were members of the Revision company. On the other hand,—(to
quote the words of the most learned of our living Prelates,)—“it is well
known that there are _two opposite Schools_ of Biblical Criticism among
us, _with very different opinions as to the comparative value of our
Manuscripts of the Greek Testament_.”(1123) And in proof of his statement,
the Bishop of Lincoln cites “on the one side”—_Drs. Westcott and Hort_;
“and on the other”—_Dr. Scrivener_.

Now, let the account be read which Dr. Newth gives (and which you admit to
be correct) of the extraordinary method by which the “New Greek Text” was
“_settled_,”(1124) “for the most part at the First Revision,”(1125)—and it
becomes plain that it was not by any means the product of the
independently-formed opinions of 16 experts, (as your words imply); but
resulted from the aptitude of 13 of your body to be guided by the sober
counsels of Dr. Scrivener on the one hand, or to be carried away by the
eager advocacy of Dr. Hort, (supported as he ever was by his respected
colleague Dr. Westcott,) on the other. As Canon Cook well puts it,—“The
question really is, Were the members competent to form a correct
judgment?”(1126) “In most cases,” “_a __ simple majority_”(1127)
determined what the text should be. But _ponderari debent testes_, my lord
Bishop, _non numerari_.(1128) The vote of the joint Editors should have
been reckoned practically as only _one_ vote. And whenever Dr. Scrivener
and they were irreconcilably opposed, the existing Traditional Text ought
to have been let alone. All pretence that it was _plainly and clearly
erroneous_ was removed, when the only experts present were hopelessly
divided in opinion. As for the rest of the Revising Body, inasmuch as they
extemporized their opinions, they were scarcely qualified to vote at all.
Certainly they were not entitled individually to an equal voice with Dr.
Scrivener in determining what the text should be. Caprice or Prejudice, in
short, it was, not Deliberation and Learning, which prevailed in the
Jerusalem Chamber. A more unscientific,—to speak truly, a coarser and a
clumsier way of manipulating the sacred Deposit, than that which you
yourself invented, it would be impossible, in my judgment, to devise.

(2) _An Unitarian Revisionist intolerable._—_The Westminster-Abbey
Scandal._

But this is not nearly all. You invite attention to the constituent
elements of the Revising body, and congratulate yourself on its
miscellaneous character as providing a guarantee that it has been
impartial.

I frankly avow, my lord Bishop, that the challenge you thus deliberately
offer, surprises me greatly. To have observed severe silence on this part
of the subject, would have seemed to me your discreeter course. Moreover,
had you not, in this marked way, invited attention to the component
elements of the Revising body, I was prepared to give the subject the
go-by. The “_New Greek Text_,” no less than the “_New __ English
Version_,” must stand or fall on its own merits; and I have no wish to
prejudice the discussion by importing into it foreign elements. Of this,
you have had some proof already; for, (with the exception of what is
offered above, in pages 6 and 7,) the subject has been, by your present
correspondent, nowhere brought prominently forward.

Far be it from me, however, to decline the enquiry which you evidently
court. And so, I candidly avow that it was in my account a serious breach
of Church order that, on engaging in so solemn an undertaking as the
Revision of the Authorized Version, a body of Divines professing to act
under the authority of the Southern Convocation should spontaneously
associate with themselves Ministers of various
denominations,(1129)—Baptists, Congregationalists, Wesleyan Methodists,
Independents, and the like: and especially that a successor of the
Apostles should have presided over the deliberations of this assemblage of
Separatists. In my humble judgment, we shall in vain teach the sinfulness
of Schism, if we show ourselves practically indifferent on the subject,
and even set an example of irregularity to our flocks. My Divinity may
appear unaccommodating and old-fashioned: but I am not prepared to unlearn
the lessons long since got by heart in the school of Andrewes and Hooker,
of Pearson and Bull, of Hammond and Sanderson, of Beveridge and Bramhall.
I am much mistaken, moreover, if I may not claim the authority of a
greater doctor than any of these,—I mean S. Paul,—for the fixed views I
entertain on this head.

All this, however, is as nothing in comparison of the scandal occasioned
by the co-optation into your body of Dr. G. Vance Smith, the Unitarian
Minister of S. Saviour’s Gate Chapel, York. That, while engaged in the
work of interpreting the everlasting Gospel, you should have knowingly and
by choice associated with yourselves one who, not only openly denies the
eternal Godhead of our LORD, but in a recent publication is the avowed
assailant of that fundamental doctrine of the Christian Religion, as well
as of the Inspiration of Holy Scripture itself,(1130)—filled me (and many
besides myself) with astonishment and sorrow. You were respectfully
memorialized on the subject;(1131) but you treated the representations
which reached you with scornful indifference.

Now therefore that you re-open the question, I will not scruple publicly
to repeat that it seems to me nothing else but an insult to our Divine
Master and a wrong to the Church, that the most precious part of our
common Christian heritage, the pure Word of GOD, should day by day, week
by week, month by month, year after year, have been thus handled; for the
avowed purpose of producing a Translation which should supersede our
Authorized Version. That the individual in question contributed aught to
your deliberations has never been pretended. On the contrary. No secret
has been made of the fact that he was, (as might have been anticipated
from his published writings,) the most unprofitable member of the Revising
body. Why then was he at first surreptitiously elected? and why was his
election afterwards stiffly maintained? The one purpose achieved by his
continued presence among you was that it might be thereby made to appear
that the Church of England no longer insists on Belief in the eternal
Godhead of our LORD, as essential; but is prepared to surrender her claim
to definite and unequivocal dogmatic teaching in respect of Faith in the
Blessed TRINITY.

But even if this Unitarian had been an eminent Scholar, my objection would
remain in full force; for I hold, (and surely so do you!), that the right
Interpretation of GOD’S Word may not be attained without the guidance of
the HOLY SPIRIT, whose aid must first be invoked by faithful prayer.

In the meantime, this same person was invited to communicate with his
fellow-Revisers in Westminster-Abbey, and did accordingly, on the 22nd of
June, 1870, receive the Holy Communion, in Henry VII.’s Chapel, at the
hands of Dean Stanley: declaring, next day, that he received the Sacrament
on this occasion without “joining in reciting the Nicene Creed” and
without “compromise” (as he expressed it,) of his principles as an
“Unitarian.”(1132) So conspicuous a sacrilege led to a public Protest
signed by some thousands of the Clergy.(1133) It also resulted, in the
next ensuing Session of Convocation, in a Resolution whereby the Upper
House cleared itself of complicity in the scandal.(1134)...

How a good man like you can revive the memory of these many painful
incidents without anguish, is to me unintelligible. That no blessing from
Him, “_sine Quo nihil validum, nihil sanctum_,” could be expected to
attend an undertaking commenced under such auspices,—was but too plain.
The Revision was a foredoomed thing—in the account of many besides
myself—from the outset.

(3) _The probable Future of the Revision of_ 1881.

Not unaware am I that it has nevertheless been once and again confidently
predicted in public Addresses, Lectures, Pamphlets, that ultimate success
is in store for the Revision of 1881. I cannot but regard it as a
suspicious circumstance that these vaticinations have hitherto invariably
proceeded from members of the Revising body.

It would ill become such an one as myself to pretend to skill in
forecasting the future. But of _this_ at least I feel certain:—that if, in
an evil hour, (quod absit!), the Church of England shall ever be induced
to commit herself to the adoption of the present Revision, she will by so
doing expose herself to the ridicule of the rest of Christendom, as well
as incur irreparable harm and loss. And such a proceeding on her part will
be inexcusable, for she has been at least faithfully forewarned. Moreover,
in the end, she will most certainly have to retrace her steps with sorrow
and confusion.

Those persons evidently overlook the facts of the problem, who refer to
what happened in the case of the Authorized Version when it originally
appeared, some 270 years ago; and argue that as the Revision of 1611 at
first encountered opposition, which yet it ultimately overcame, so must it
fare in the end with the present Revised Version also. Those who so reason
forget that the cases are essentially dissimilar.

If the difference between the Authorized Version of 1611 and the Revision
of 1881 were only this.—That the latter is characterized by a mechanical,
unidiomatic, and even repulsive method of rendering; which was not only
unattempted, but repudiated by the Authors of the earlier work;—there
would have been something to urge on behalf of the later performance. The
plea of zeal for GOD’S Word,—a determination at all hazards to represent
with even servile precision the _ipsissima verba_ of Evangelists and
Apostles,—_this_ plea might have been plausibly put forward: and, to some
extent, it must have been allowed,—although a grave diversity of opinion
might reasonably have been entertained as to _what constitutes_ “accuracy”
and “fidelity” of translation.

But when once it has been made plain that _the underlying Greek_ of the
Revision of 1881 is an entirely new thing,—_is a manufactured article
throughout_,—all must see that the contention has entirely changed its
character. The question immediately arises, (and it is the _only_ question
which remains to be asked,)—Were then the Authors of this “New Greek Text”
_competent_ to undertake so perilous an enterprise? And when, in the words
of the distinguished Chairman of the Revising body—(words quoted above, at
page 369,)—“_To this question, we venture to answer very unhesitatingly in
the negative_,”—What remains but, with blank astonishment, not unmingled
with disgust, to close the volume? Your own ingenuous
admission,—(volunteered by yourself a few days before you and your allies
“proceeded to the actual details of the Revision,”)—that “_we have
certainly not acquired sufficient Critical Judgment_ for any body of
Revisers hopefully to undertake such a work as this,”—is decisive on the
subject.

The gravity of the issue thus raised, it is impossible to over-estimate.
We find ourselves at once and entirely lifted out of the region originally
proposed for investigation. It is no longer a question of the degree of
skill which has been exhibited in translating the title-deeds of our
heavenly inheritance out of Greek into English. Those title-deeds
themselves have been empirically submitted to a process which, _rightly or
wrongly_, seriously affects their integrity. Not only has a fringe of most
unreasonable textual mistrust been tacked on to the margin of every
inspired page, (as from S. Luke x. 41 to xi. 11):—not only has many a
grand doctrinal statement been evacuated of its authority, (as, by the
shameful mis-statement found in the margin against S. John iii. 13,(1135)
and the vile Socinian gloss which disfigures the margin of Rom. ix.
5(1136)):—but we entirely miss many a solemn utterance of the SPIRIT,—as
when we are assured that verses 44 and 46 of S. Mark ix. are omitted by
“_the best ancient authorities_,” (whereas, on the contrary, the MSS.
referred to are _the worst_). Let the thing complained of be illustrated
by a few actual examples. Only five shall be subjoined. The words in the
first column represent what _you_ are pleased to designate as among “the
most certain conclusions of modern Textual Criticism” (p. 78),—but what
_I_ assert to be nothing else but mutilated exhibitions of the inspired
Text. The second column contains the indubitable Truth of Scripture,—the
words which have been read by our Fathers’ Fathers for the last 500 years,
and which we propose, (GOD helping us,) to hand on unimpaired to our
Children, and to our Children’s Children, for many a century to come:—

REVISED (1881).             AUTHORIZED (1611).
“And come, follow me.”      “And come, _take up the
                            cross and_ follow
                            me.”(1137)
“And they blindfolded       “And when they had
him, and asked him,         blindfolded him, _they
saying, Prophesy.”          struck him on the face_,
                            and asked him, saying,
                            Prophesy.”(1138)
“And there was also a       “And a superscription
superscription over him,    also was _written_ over
This is the King of the     him _in letters of Greek,
Jews.”                      and Latin, and Hebrew_,
                            This is the King of the
                            Jews.”(1139)
“And they gave him a        “And they gave him a
piece of a broiled fish.”   piece of a broiled fish,
                            _and of an
                            honeycomb_.”(1140)

But the next (S. Luke ix. 54-6,) is a far more serious loss:—

“ ‘Lord, wilt thou that     “ ‘Lord, wilt thou that
we bid fire to come down    we command fire to come
from heaven, and consume    down from heaven, and
them?’ But he turned and    consume them, _even as
rebuked them. And they      Elias did_?’ But he
went to another village.”   turned and rebuked them,
                            _and said, _‘Ye know not
                            what manner of spirit ye
                            are of. For the Son of
                            man is not come to
                            destroy men’s lives, but
                            to save them’. And they
                            went to another village.”

The unlearned reader sees at a glance that the only difference of
_Translation_ here is the substitution of “bid” for “command.”—which by
the way, is not only uncalled for, but is a change _for the worse_.(1141)
On the other hand, how grievous an injury has been done by the mutilation
of the blessed record in respect of those (3 + 5 + 7 + 4 + 24 = )
_forty-three_ (in English _fifty-seven_) undoubtedly inspired as well as
most precious words,—even “ordinary Readers” are competent to discern.

I am saying that the systematic, and sometimes serious,—_always_
inexcusable,—liberties which have been taken with the Greek Text by the
Revisionists of 1881, constitute a ground of offence against their work
for which no pretext was afforded by the Revision of 1611. To argue
therefore from what has been the fate of the one, to what is likely to be
the fate of the other, is illogical. The cases are not only not parallel:
they are even wholly dissimilar.

The cheapest copies of our Authorized Version at least exhibit the Word of
GOD faithfully and helpfully. Could the same be said of a cheap edition of
the work of the Revisionists,—destitute of headings to the Chapters, and
containing no record of the extent to which the Sacred Text has undergone
depravation throughout?

Let it be further recollected that the greatest Scholars and the most
learned Divines of which our Church could boast, conducted the work of
Revision in King James’ days; and it will be acknowledged that the
promiscuous assemblage which met in the Jerusalem Chamber cannot urge any
corresponding claim on public attention. _Then_, the Bishops of Lincoln of
1611 were Revisers: the Vance Smiths stood without and found fault. But in
the affair of 1881, Dr. Vance Smith revises, and ventilates heresy from
within:(1142) the Bp. of Lincoln stands outside, and is one of the
severest Critics of the work.—Disappointed men are said to have been
conspicuous among the few assailants of our “Authorized Version,”—Scholars
(as Hugh Broughton) who considered themselves unjustly overlooked and
excluded. But on the present occasion, among the multitude of hostile
voices, there is not a single instance known of a man excluded from the
deliberations of the Jerusalem Chamber, who desired to share them.

To argue therefore concerning the prospects of the Revision of 1881 from
the known history of our Authorized Version of 1611, is to argue
concerning things essentially dissimilar. With every advance made in the
knowledge of the subject, it may be confidently predicted that there will
spring up increased distrust of the Revision of 1881, and an ever
increasing aversion from it.

(4) _Review of the entire subject, and of the respective positions of Bp.
Ellicott and myself._

Here I lay down my pen,—glad to have completed what (because I have
endeavoured to do my work _thoroughly_) has proved a very laborious task
indeed. The present rejoinder to your Pamphlet covers all the ground you
have yourself traversed, and will be found to have disposed of your entire
contention.

I take leave to point out, in conclusion, that it places you individually
in a somewhat embarrassing predicament. For you have now no alternative
but to come forward and disprove my statements as well as refute my
arguments: or to admit, by your silence, that you have sustained defeat in
the cause of which you constituted yourself the champion. You constrained
me to reduce you to this alternative when you stood forth on behalf of the
Revising body, and saw fit to provoke me to a personal encounter.

But you must come provided with something vastly more formidable,
remember, than denunciations,—which are but wind: and vague
generalities,—which prove nothing and persuade nobody: and appeals to the
authority of “Lachmann, Tischendorf, and Tregelles,”—which I disallow and
disregard. You must produce a counter-array of well-ascertained facts; and
you must build thereupon irrefragable arguments. In other words, you must
conduct your cause with learning and ability. Else, believe me, you will
make the painful discovery that “the last error is worse than the first.”
You had better a thousand times, even now, ingenuously admit that you made
a grievous mistake when you put yourself into the hands of those ingenious
theorists, Drs. Westcott and Hort, and embraced their arbitrary
decrees,—than persevere in your present downward course, only to sink
deeper and deeper in the mire.

(5) _Anticipated effect of the present contention on the Text of_ 1
Timothy iii. 16.

I like to believe, in the meantime, that this passage of arms has resulted
in such a vindication(1143) of the traditional Reading of 1 TIMOTHY iii.
16, as will effectually secure that famous place of Scripture against
further molestation. _Faxit __DEUS__!_... In the margin of the Revision of
1881, I observe that you have ventured to state as follows,—


    “The word GOD, in place of _He who_, rests on no sufficient
    ancient evidence.”


In the words of your Unitarian ally, Dr. Vance Smith,—


    “The old reading is pronounced untenable by the Revisers, as it
    has long been known to be by all careful students of the New
    Testament.... It is in truth another example of the facility with
    which ancient copiers could introduce the word God into their
    manuscripts,—a reading which was the natural result of the growing
    tendency in early Christian times ... to look upon the humble
    Teacher as the incarnate Word, and therefore as ‘God manifested in
    the flesh’ ” (p. 39).


Such remarks proceeding from such a quarter create no surprise. But, pray,
my lord Bishop, of what were _you_ thinking when you permitted yourself to
make the serious mis-statement which stands in the margin? You must needs
have meant thereby that,—“The word _He who_ in place of GOD, on the
contrary, _does_ rest on sufficient ancient evidence.” I solemnly call
upon you, in the Name of Him by whose Spirit Holy Scripture was given, to
prove the truth of your marginal Note of which the foregoing 70 pages are
a refutation.—You add,


    “Some ancient authorities read _which_.”


But why did you suppress the fact, which is undeniable, viz.: that a great
many “_More_ ancient authorities” read “which” (ὅ), than read “who” (ὅς)?

(6) _The nature of this contention explained._

And yet, it was no isolated place which I was eager to establish, when at
first I took up my pen. It was the general trustworthiness of the
Traditional Text,—(the Text which you admit to be upwards of 1500 years
old,)—which I aimed at illustrating: the essential rottenness of the
foundation on which the Greek Text of the Revision of 1881 has been
constructed by yourself and your fellow Revisers,—which I was determined
to expose. I claim to have proved not only that your entire superstructure
is tasteless and unlovely to a degree,—but also that you have reared it up
on a foundation of sand. In no vaunting spirit, (GOD is my witness!), but
out of sincere and sober zeal for the truth of Scripture I say it,—your
work, whether you know it or not, has been so handled in the course of the
present volume of 500 pages that its essential deformity must be apparent
to every unprejudiced beholder. It can only be spoken of at this time of
day as a shapeless ruin.

A ruin moreover it is which does not admit of being repaired or restored.
And why? Because the mischief, which extends to every part of the edifice,
takes its beginning, as already explained, in every part of the
foundation.

And further, (to speak without a figure,) it cannot be too plainly stated
that no compromise is possible between our respective methods,—yours and
mine: between the NEW GERMAN system in its most aggravated and in fact
intolerable form, to which you have incautiously and unconditionally given
in your adhesion; and the OLD ENGLISH school of Textual Criticism, of
which I humbly avow myself a disciple. Between the theory of Drs. Westcott
and Hort (which you have made your own) and the method of your present
Correspondent, there can be no compromise, because the two are
antagonistic throughout. We have, in fact, nothing in common,—except
certain documents; which _I_ insist on interpreting by the humble
Inductive process: while you and your friends insist on your right of
deducing your estimate of them from certain antecedent imaginations of
your own,—every one of which I disallow, and some of which I am able to
disprove.

Such, my lord Bishop, is your baseless imagination—(1) That the
traditional Greek Text (which, without authority, you style “_The Syrian
text_,”) is the result of a deliberate Recension made at Antioch, A.D. 250
and 350:(1144)—(2) That the Peschito, in like manner, is the result of a
Recension made at Edessa or Nisibis about the same time:(1145)—(3) That
Cureton’s is the Syriac “Vetus,” and the Peschito the Syriac
“Vulgate:”(1146)—(4) That the respective ancestries of our only two
IVth-century Codices, B and א, “diverged from a common parent extremely
near the apostolic autographs:”(1147)—(5) That this common original
enjoyed a “general immunity from substantive error;” and by
consequence—(6) That B and א provide “a safe criterion of genuineness,” so
that “no readings of א B can be safely rejected absolutely.”(1148)—(7)
Similar wild imaginations you cherish concerning C and D,—which, together
with B and א _you_ assume to be among the most trustworthy guides in
existence; whereas _I_ have convinced myself, by laborious collation, that
they are _the most corrupt of all_. We are thus diametrically opposed
throughout. Finally,—(8) _You_ assume that you possess a power of
divination which enables you to dispense with laborious processes of
Induction; while I, on the contrary, insist that the Truth of the Text of
Scripture is to be elicited exclusively from the consentient testimony of
the largest number of the best COPIES, FATHERS, VERSIONS.(1149) There is,
I am persuaded, no royal road to the attainment of Truth in this
department of Knowledge. Only through the lowly portal of humility,—only
by self-renouncing labour,—may we ever hope to reach the innermost shrine.
_They_ do but go astray themselves and hopelessly mislead others, who
first _invent their facts_, and then proceed to build thereupon their
premisses.

Such builders are Drs. Westcott and Hort,—with whom (by your own avowal)
you stand completely identified.(1150) I repeat, (for I wish it to be
distinctly understood and remembered,) that what I assert concerning those
Critics is,—_not_ that their superstructure rests upon an insecure
foundation; but that it rests on _no foundation at all_. My complaint
is,—_not_ that they are _somewhat_ and _frequently_ mistaken; but that
they are mistaken _entirely_, and that they are mistaken _throughout_.
There is no possibility of approximation between _their_ mere assumptions
and the results of _my_ humble and laborious method of dealing with the
Text of Scripture. We shall only _then_ be able to begin to reason
together with the slightest prospect of coming to any agreement, when they
have unconditionally abandoned all their preconceived imaginations, and
unreservedly scattered every one of their postulates to the four winds.

(7) _Parting Counsels._

Let me be allowed, in conclusion, to recommend to your attention and that
of your friends,—(I.) “THE LAST TWELVE VERSES OF S. MARK’S GOSPEL:”—(II.)
THE ANGELIC HYMN on the night of the Nativity:—(III.) The text of 1
TIMOTHY iii. 16,—these three,—(in respect of which up to this hour, you
and I find ourselves to be hopelessly divided,)—as convenient _Test
places_. When you are prepared frankly to admit,—(I.) That there is no
reason whatever for doubting the genuineness of S. MARK xvi.
9-20:(1151)—(II.) That ἐν ἀνθρώποις εὐδοκία is unquestionably the
Evangelical text of S. LUKE ii. 14:(1152)—and (III.) That Θεὸς ἐφανερώθη
ἐν σαρκί is what the great Apostle must be held to have written in 1
TIMOTHY iii 16,(1153)—we shall be in good time to proceed to something
else. _Until_ this happy result has been attained, it is a mere waste of
time to break up fresh ground, and to extend the area of our differences.

I cannot however disguise from you the fact that such an avowal on your
part will amount to an admission that “the whole fabric of Textual
Criticism which has been built up during the last fifty years by
successive editors of the New Testament,”—Lachmann namely, Tischendorf,
and Tregelles,—is worthless. Neither may the inevitable consequence of
this admission be concealed: viz. that your own work as Revisionists has
been, to speak plainly, one gigantic blunder, from end to end.

(8) _The subject dismissed._

The issue of this prolonged contention I now commend, with deep humility,
to ALMIGHTY GOD. The SPIRIT OF TRUTH will, (I know,) take good care of His
own masterpiece,—the Written Word. May He have compassion on my ignorance,
and graciously forgive me, if, (intending nothing less,) I shall prove to
have anywhere erred in my strenuous endeavour to maintain the integrity of
Scripture against the rashness of an impatient and unlearned generation.

But if, (as I humbly believe and confidently hope,) my conclusions are
sound throughout, then may He enable men freely to recognize the Truth;
and thus, effectually avert from our Church the supreme calamity with
which, for a few months in 1881, it seemed threatened; namely, of having
an utterly depraved Recension of the Greek Text of the New Testament
thrust upon it, as the basis of a very questionable ’Revision’ of the
English.

My lord Bishop,—I have the honour to wish you respectfully farewell.

J. W. B.

DEANERY, CHICHESTER,
_July, 1883_.

THE GRASS WITHERETH: THE FLOWER FADETH: BUT THE WORD OF OUR GOD SHALL
STAND FOR EVER.





APPENDIX OF SACRED CODICES.


The inquiries into which I was led (January to June 1883) by my
DISSERTATION in vindication of the Traditional Reading of 1 Tim. iii. 16,
have resulted in my being made aware of the existence of a vast number of
Sacred Codices which had eluded the vigilance of previous Critics.

I had already assisted my friend Prebendary Scrivener in greatly enlarging
Scholz’s list. We had in fact raised the enumeration of “_Evangelia_” to
621: of “_Acts and Catholic Epistles_” to 239: of “_Paul_” to 281: of
“_Apocalypse_” to 108: of “_Evangelistaria_” to 299: of the book called
“_Apostolus_” to 81:—making a total of 1629.—But at the end of a
protracted and somewhat laborious correspondence with the custodians of
not a few great Continental Libraries, I am able to state that our
available “_Evangelia_” amount to at least 739(1154): our “_Acts and Cath.
Epp._” to 261: our “_Paul_” to 338: our “_Apoc._” to 122: our “_Evstt._”
to 415(1155): our copies of the “_Apostolus_” to 128(1156): making a total
of 2003. This shows an increase of _three hundred and seventy-four_.

My original intention had been to publish this enumeration of Sacred
Codices in its entirety as an APPENDIX to the present volume: but finding
that the third edition of Dr. Scrivener’s “Introduction” would appear some
months before my own pages could possibly see the light, I eagerly
communicated my discoveries to my friend. I have indeed proposed to myself
no other object throughout but the advancement of the study of Textual
Criticism: and it was reasonable to hope that by means of his widely
circulated volume, the great enlargement which our previously ascertained
stores have suddenly experienced would become more generally known to
scholars. I should of course still have it in my power to reproduce here
the same enumeration of Sacred Codices.

The great bulk however which the present volume has acquired, induces me
to limit myself in this place to some account of those Codices which have
been expressly announced and discoursed about in my Text (as at pp. 474
and 492-5). Some other occasion must be found for enlarging on the rest of
my budget.

It only remains to state that for most of my recent discoveries I am
indebted to the Abbate Cozza-Luzi, Prefect of the Vatican; who on being
informed of the object of my solicitude, with extraordinary liberality and
consideration at once set three competent young men to work in the
principal libraries of Rome. To him I am further indebted for my
introduction to the MS. treasures belonging to the Basilian monks of
Crypta-Ferrata, the ancient Tusculum. Concerning the precious library of
that monastery so much has been offered already (viz. at pp. 446-448, and
again at pp. 473-4), as well as concerning its learned chief, the
Hieromonachus Antonio Rocchi, that I must be content to refer my readers
to those earlier parts of the present volume. I cannot however
sufficiently acknowledge the patient help which the librarian of Crypta
Ferrata has rendered me in the course of these researches.

For my knowledge of the sacred Codices preserved at Messina, I am indebted
to the good offices and learning of Papas Filippo Matranga. In respect of
those at Milan, my learned friend Dr. Ceriani has (not for the first time)
been my efficient helper. M. Wescher has kindly assisted me at Paris; and
Dr. C. de Boor at Berlin. It must suffice, for the rest, to refer to the
Notes at foot of pp. 491-2 and 477-8.

ADDITIONAL CODICES OF S. PAUL’S EPISTLES.

282. ( = Act. 240. Apoc. 109). Paris, “Arménien 9” (_olim_ Reg. 2247).
_membr._ foll. 323. This bilingual codex (Greek and Armenian) is described
by the Abbé Martin in his _Introduction à la Critique Textuelle du N. T._
(1883), p. 660-1. See above, p. 474, note 1. An Italian version is added
from the Cath. Epp. onwards. _Mut._ at beginning (Acts iv. 14) and end.
(For its extraordinary reading at 1 Tim. iii. 16, see above, p. 473-4.)

283. ( = Act. 241). Messina P K Z (_i.e._ 127) [xii.], _chart._ foll. 224.
_Mut._ begins at Acts viii. 2,—ends at Hebr. viii. 2; also a leaf is lost
between foll. 90 and 91. Has ὑποθθ. and Commentary of an unknown author.

284. ( = Act. 195). Modena, ii. A. 13 [xiii.?], _Mut._ at the end.

285. ( = Act. 196), Modena, ii. Cf. 4 [xi. or xii.]. Sig. Ant. Cappelli
(sub-librarian) sends me a tracing of 1 Tim. iii. 16.

286. Ambrosian library, E. 2, _inf._the Catena of Nicetas. “Textus
particulatim præmittit Commentariis.”

287. Ambrosian A. 241, _inf._, “est Catena ejusdem auctoris ex initio, sed
non complectitur totum opus.”

288. Ambrosian D. 541 _inf._ [x. or xi.] _membr._ Text and Catena on all
S. Paul’s Epp. “Textus continuatus. Catena in marginibus.” It was brought
from Thessaly.

289. Milan C. 295 _inf._ [x. or xi.] _membr._ with a Catena. “Textus
continuatus. Catena in marginibus.”

290. ( = Evan. 622. Act. 242. Apoc. 110). Crypta Ferrata, A. α. i. [xiii.
or xiv.] foll. 386: _chart._ a beautiful codex of the entire N. T.
described by Rocchi, p. 1-2. Menolog. _Mut._ 1 Nov. to 16 Dec.

291. ( = Act. 243). Crypta Ferrata, A. β. i. [x.] foll. 139: in two
columns,—letters almost uncial. Particularly described by Rocchi, pp. 15,
16. Zacagni used this codex when writing about Euthalius. _Mut._,
beginning with the argument for 1 S. John and ending with 2 Tim.

†292. ( = Act. 244). Crypta Ferrata, A. β. iii. [xi. or xii.]. _Membr._,
foll. 172. in 2 columns beautifully illuminated: described by Rocchi, p.
18-9. Zacagni employed this codex while treating of Euthalius. _Menolog._

293. ( = Act. 245). Crypta Ferrata, A. β. vi. [xi.], foll. 193. _Mut._ at
the end, Described by Rocchi, p. 22-3.

294. ( = Act. 246). Vat. 1208. Abbate Cozzi-Luzi confirms Berriman’s
account [p. 98-9] of the splendour of this codex. It is written in gold
letters, and is said to have belonged to Carlotta, Queen of Jerusalem,
Cyprus, and Armenia, who died at Rome A.D. 1487, and probably gave the
book to Pope Innocent VIII., whose arms are printed at the beginning. It
contains effigies of S. Luke, S. James, S. Peter, S. John, S. Jude, S.
Paul.

295. ( = Act 247). Palatino-Vat. 38 [xi.] _membr._ foll. 35. Berriman (p.
100) says it is of quarto size, and refers it to the IXth cent.

296. Barberini iv. 85 (_olim_ 19), dated A.D. 1324. For my knowledge of
this codex I am entirely indebted to Berriman, who says that it contains
“the arguments and marginal scholia written” (p. 102).

297. Barberini, vi. 13 (_olim_ 229), _membr._ [xi.] foll. 195: contains S.
Paul’s 14 Epp. This codex also was known to Berriman, who relates (p.
102), that it is furnished “with the old marginal scholia.”

298. (= Act. 248), Berlin (Hamilton: No 625 in the English printed
catalogue, where it is erroneously described as a “Lectionarium.”) It
contains Acts, Cath. Epp. and S. Paul,—as Dr. C. de Boor informs me.

299. (= Act. 249), Berlin, 4to. 40 [xiii.]: same contents as the
preceding.

300. (= Act. 250), Berlin, 4to. 43 [xi.], same contents as the preceding,
but commences with the Psalms.

301. (= Act. 251), Berlin, 4to. 57 [xiv.], _chart._ Same contents as Paul
298.

302. (= Evan. 642. Act. 252.) Berlin, 8vo. 9 [xi.], probably once
contained all the N. T. It now begins with S. Luke XXIV. 53, and is _mut._
after 1 Thess.

303. Milan, N. 272 _inf._ “Excerpti loci.”

304. (= Act. 253) Vat. 369 [xiv.] foll. 226, _chart._

305. Vat. 549, _membr._ [xii.] foll. 380. S. Paul’s Epistles, with
Theophylact’s Commentary.

306. Vat. 550, _membr._ [xii.] foll. 290; contains Romans with Comm. of
Chrysostom.

307. Vat 551, _membr._ [x.] foll. 283. A large codex, containing some of
S. Paul’s Epp. with Comm. of Chrysostom.

308. Vat. 552, _membr._ [xi.] foll. 155. Contains Hebrews with Comm. of
Chrysostom.

309. Vat. 582, _membr._ [xiv.] foll. 146. S. Paul’s Epistles with Comm. of
Chrysostom.

310. Vat. 646 [xiv.], foll. 250: “cum supplementis.” _Chart._ S. Paul’s
Epp. with Comm. of Theophylact and Euthymius. Pars I. et II.

311. (= Evan. 671). Vat. 647. _Chart._ foll. 338 [xv.]. S. Paul’s Epistles
and the Gospels, with Theophylact’s Commentary.

312. Vat. 648, written A.D. 1232, at Jerusalem, by Simeon, “qui et Saba
dicitur:” foll. 338, _chart._ S. Paul’s Epistles, with Comm. of
Theophylact.

313. (= Act. 239). Vat. 652, _chart._ [xv.] foll. 105. The Acts and
Epistles with Commentary. See the _Preface_ to Theophylact, ed. 1758, vol.
iii. p. v.-viii., also “Acts 239” in Scrivener’s 3rd. edit. (p. 263).

314. Vat. 692, _membr._ [xii.] foll. 93, _mut._ Corinthians, Galatians,
Ephesians, with Commentary.

315. Vat. 1222, _chart._ [xvi.] foll. 437. S. Paul’s Epp. with
Theophylact’s Comm.

316. (= Act. 255). Vat. 1654, _membr._ [x. or xi.], foll. 211. Acts and
Epistles of S. Paul with Chrysostom’s Comm.

317. Vat. 1656, _membr._ [xii.], foll. 182. Hebrews with Comm. of
Chrysostom, _folio_.

318. Vat. 1659, _membr._ [xi.] foll. 444. S. Paul’s Epp. with Comm. of
Chrysostom.

319. Vat. 1971 (Basil 10) _membr._ [x.] foll. 247. Ἐπιστολαὶ τῶν ἀποστόλων
σὺν τοῖς τοῦ Εὐθαλίου.

320. Vat. 2055 (Basil 94), _membr._ [x.] foll. 292. S. Paul’s Epp. with
Comm. of Chrysostom.

321. Vat. 2065 (Basil 104), [x.] _membr._ foll. 358. Romans with Comm. of
Chrysostom.

322. (= Act. 256) Vat. 2099 (Basil 138) _membr._ foll. 120 [x.]. Note that
though numbered for the Acts, this code only contains ἐπιστολαὶ ιδ᾽ καὶ
καθολικαὶ, σὺν ταῖς σημειώσεσι λειτουργικαῖς περὶ τῶν ἡμερῶν ἐν αἷς
λεκτέαι.

323. Vat. 2180 [xv.] foll. 294, _chart._ With Comm. of Theophylact.

324. Alexand. Vat. 4 [x.] foll. 256, _membr._ “Optimæ notæ.” Romans with
Comm. of Chrysostom, λογ. κβ᾽. “Fuit monasterii dicti τοῦ Περιβλέπτου.”

325. (= Evan. 698. Apoc. 117). Alexand. Vat. 6. _chart._ foll. 336 [xvi.],
a large codex. The Gospels with Comm. of Nicetas: S. Paul’s Epp. with
Comm. of Theophylact: Apocalypse with an anonymous Comm.

326. Vat. Ottob. 74 [xv.] foll. 291, _chart._ Romans with Theodoret’s
Comm.

327. Palatino-Vat. 10 [x.] _membr._ foll. 268. S. Paul’s Epp. with a
Patristic Commentary. “Felkman adnotat.”

328. Palatino-Vat. 204 [x.] foll. 181, cum additamentis. With the
interpretation of Œcumenius.

329. Palatino-Vat. 325 [x.] _membr._ foll. 163, _mut._ Inter alia adest
εἰς ἐπιστ. πρὸς Τιμόθεον ὁμιλεῖαι τινες Χρυσοστόμου.

330. Palatino-Vat. 423 [xii.], partly _chart._ Codex miscell. habet
ἐπιστολῶν πρὸς Κολασσαεῖς καὶ Θεσσαλονικεῖς περικοπὰς σὺν τῇ ἑρμηνείᾳ.

331. Angelic. T. 8, 6 [xii.] foll. 326. S. Paul’s Epp. with Comm. of
Chrysostom.

332. (= Act. 259). Barberini iii. 36 (_olim_ 22): _membr._ foll. 328
[xi.]. Inter alia ἐπιτομαὶ κεφαλ. τῶν Πράξεων καὶ ἐπιστολῶν τῶν ἁγ.
ἀποστόλων.

333. (= Act. 260). Barberini iii. 10 (_olim_ 259) _chart._ foll. 296
[xiv.]. Excerpta ἐκ Πράξ. (f. 152): Ἰακώβου (f. 159): Πέτρου (f. 162):
Ἰωάνν. (f. 165): Ἰούδ. (f. 166): πρὸς Ρωμ. (f. 167): πρὸς Κορ. (f. 179):
πρὸς Κολ. (fol. 189): πρὸς Θεσς. (f. 193): πρὸς Τιμ. α᾽ (def. infin.).

334. Barb. V. 38 (_olim_ 30) [xi.] foll. 219, _mut._ Hebrews with Comm. of
Chrysostom.

335. Vallicell. F. [xv.], _chart._ miscell. Inter alia, εἰς τὰς ἐπιστολὰς
τῶν Ἀποστόλων ἐξηγήσεις τινες.

336. (= Act. 261), Casanatensis, G. 11, 6.—Note, that though numbered for
“Acts,” it contains only the Catholic Epp. and those of S. Paul with a
Catena.

337. Ottob. 328. [All I know as yet of this and of the next codex is that
Θεός is read in both at 1 Tim. iii. 16].

338. Borg. F. vi. 16. [See note on the preceding.]

ADDITIONAL COPIES OF THE “APOSTOLUS.”

82. Messina ΠΓ (_i.e._ 83) foll. 331, 8vo. Perfect.

83. Crypta Ferrata, A. β. iv. [x.] _membr._ foll. 139, Praxapostolus.
Rocchi gives an interesting account of this codex, pp. 19-20. It seems to
be an adaptation of the liturgical use of C P. to the requirements of the
Basilian monks in the Calabrian Church. This particular codex is _mut._ in
the beginning and at the end. (For its extraordinary reading at 1 Tim.
iii. 16, see above, p. 473-4).

84. Crypta Ferrata, Α. β. v. [xi.], _membr._ foll. 245, a most beautiful
codex. Rocchi describes it carefully, pp. 20-2. At the end of the Menology
is some liturgical matter. “Patet Menologium esse merum ἀπόγραφον alicujus
Menologii CPtani, in usum. si velis, forte redacti Ecclesiae Rossanensis
in Calabria.” A suggestive remark follows that from this source “rituum
rubricarumque magnum segetem colligi posse, nec non Commemorationem
_Sanctorum_ mirum sane numerum, quas in aliis Menologiis vix invenies.”

85. Crypta Ferrata Α. β. vii. [xi.] _membr._ foll. 64, Praxapostolus. This
codex and the next exhibit ὅς ἐφανερώθη in 1 Tim. iii. 16. The Menology is
_mut._ after 17 Dec.

86. Crypta Ferrata Α. β. viii. [xii. or xiii.] fragments of foll. 127.
_membr._ Praxapostolus. (See the preceding.) Interestingly described by
Rocchi, p. 23-4.

87. Crypta Ferrata Α. β. ix. [xii.], foll. 104, _membr._ Praxapostolus.
Interestingly described by Rocchi, p. 24-5. The Menology is unfortunately
defective after 9th November.

88. Crypta Ferrata, Α. β. x. [xiii.?] _membr._ 16 fragmentary leaves.
“Vere lamentanda est quæ huic Eclogadio calamitas evenit” (says the
learned Rocchi, p. 25), “quoniam ex ejus residuis, multa Sanctorum nomina
reperies quæ alibi frustra quæsieris.”

89. Crypta Ferrata Α. β. xi. [xi.] _membr._ foll. 291, _mut._, written in
two columns. The Menology is defective after 12 June, and elsewhere.
Described by Rocchi, p. 26.

90. (= Evst. 322) Crypta Ferrata, Α. β. ii. [xi.] _membr._ foll. 259, with
many excerpts from the Fathers, fully described by Rocchi, p. 17-8,
fragmentary and imperfect.

91. (= Evst. 323) Crypta Ferrata, Α. δ. ii. [x.] _membr._ foll. 155, a
singularly full lectionary. Described by Rocchi, p. 38-40.

92. (= Evst. 325) Crypta Ferrata, Α. δ. iv. [xiii.] _membr._ foll. 257, a
beautiful and interesting codex, “Calligrapho Joanne Rossanensi
Hieromonacho Cryptæferratæ”: fully described by Rocchi, p. 40-3. Like many
other in the same collection, it is a palimpsest.

93. (= Evst. 327) Crypta Ferrata, Α. δ. vi. [xiii.] _membr._ foll. 37,
_mut._ at beginning and end, and otherwise much injured: described by
Rocchi, p. 45-6.

94. (= Evst. 328) Crypta Ferrata, Α. δ. ix. [xii.], _membr._ foll. 117,
_mut._ at beginning and end.

95. (= Evst. 334) Crypta Ferrata, Α. δ. xx. [xii.] _membr._ foll. 21, a
mere fragment. (Rocchi, p. 51.)

96. (= Evst. 337) Crypta Ferrata, Α. δ. xxiv. A collection of fragments.
(Rocchi, p. 53.)

97. (= Evst. 339) Crypta Ferrata, Γ. β. ii. [xi.] _membr._ foll. 151,
elaborately described by Rocchi, p. 244-9. This codex once belonged to
Thomasius.

98. (= Evst. 340) Crypta Ferrata, Γ. β iii. [xiv.] _membr._ foll. 201.
Goar used this codex: described by Rocchi, p. 249-51.

99. (= Evst. 341) Crypta Ferrata, Γ. β. vi. [xiii. or xiv.], _membr._
foll. 101: described by Rocchi, p. 255-7.

100. (= Evst. 344) Crypta Ferrata, Γ. β. ix. [xvi.], _membr._ foll. 95,
_mut._ at beginning and end, and much injured.

101. (= Evst. 346) Crypta Ferrata, Γ. β. xii. [xiv.], _membr._ foll. 98,
_mut._ at beginning and end.

102. (= Evst. 347) Crypta Ferrata, Γ. β. xiii. [xiii.] _membr._ foll. 188:
written by John of Rossano, Hieromonachus of Cryptaferrata, described by
Rocchi, p. 265-7.

103. (= Evst. 349) Crypta Ferrata, Γ. β. xv. [xi. to xiv.] _membr._ foll.
41.—Described p. 268-9.

104. (= Evst. 350) Crypta Ferrata, Γ. β. xvii. [xvi.]. _Chart._ foll. 269.
Described, p. 269-70.

105. (= Evst. 351), Crypta Ferrata, Γ. β. xviii. [xiv.] _chart._ foll. 54.

106. (= Evst. 352) Crypta Ferrata, Γ. β. xix. [xvi.] _chart._, foll. 195,
described p. 271.

107. (= Evst. 353) Crypta Ferrata, Γ. β. xxiii. [xvii.], _membr._ foll.
75,—the work of Basilius Falasca, Hieromonachus, and head of the
monastery, A.D. 1641,—described p. 273-4.

108. (= Evst. 354) Crypta Ferrata, Γ. β. xxiv. [xvi.] _chart._ foll.
302,—the work of Lucas Felix, head of the monastery; described, p. 274-5.

109. (= Evst. 356) Crypta Ferrata, Γ. β. xxxviii. [xvii.]. _chart._ foll.
91, the work of “Romanus Vasselli” and “Michael Lodolinus.”

110. (= Evst. 357) Crypta Ferrata, Γ. β. xlii. [xvi.] _chart._ foll. 344.

111. (= Evst. 358) Crypta Ferrata, Δ. β. xxii. [xviii.] _chart._ foll.
77,—described foll. 365-6.

112. (= Evst. 312) Messina, _membr._ in 8vo. foll. 60 [xiii.],—“fragmentum
parvi momenti.”

113. Syracuse (“Seminario”) _chart._ foll. 219, _mut._ given by the Cav.
Landolina.

114. (= Evan. 155) Alex. Vat.

115. [I have led Scrivener into error by assigning this number (Apost.
115) to “Vat. 2068 (Basil 107).” See above, p. 495, note 1. I did not
advert to the fact that “Basil 107” had _already_ been numbered “Apost.
49.”]

116. Vat. 368 (Praxapostolus) [xiii.] foll. 136, _membr._

117. (= Evst. 381) Vat. 774 [xiii.], foll. 160, _membr._

118. (= Evst. 387) Vat. 2012 (Basil 51), foll. 211 [xv.] _chart._

119. Vat. 2116 (Basil 155) [xiii.] foll. 111.

120. Alexand. Vat. 11 (Praxapostolus), [xiv.] _membr._ foll. 169.

121. (= Evst. 395) Alexand. Vat. 59 [xii.] foll. 137.

122. Alexand. Vat. 70, A.D. 1544, foll. 18: “in fronte pronunciatio Græca
Latinis literis descripta.”

123. (= Evst. 400) Palatino-Vat. 241 [xv.] _chart._ foll. 149.

124. (= Evst. 410) Barb. iii. 129 (_olim_ 234) _chart._ [xiv.] foll. 189.

125. Barb. iv. 11 (_olim_ 193), A.D. 1566, _chart._ foll. 158,
Praxapostolus.

126. Barb. iv. 60 (_olim_ 116) [xi.] foll. 322, a fine codex with
_menologium_. Praxapostolus.

127. Barb. iv. 84 (_olim_ 117) [xiii.] foll. 185, with menologium. _Mut._

128. Paris, _Reg. Greek_, 13, _membr._ [xiii. or xiv.], a huge folio of
Liturgical Miscellanies, consisting of between 6 and 900 unnumbered
leaves. (At the σαββ. πρὸ των φωτων, line 11, θς ἐφα.) Communicated by the
Abbé Martin.

POSTSCRIPT (NOV. 1883.)

It will be found stated at p. 495 (line 10 from the bottom) that the
Codices (of “Paul” and “Apost.”) which exhibit Θεὸς ἐφανερώθη amount in
all to 289.

From this sum (for the reason already assigned above), _one_ must be
deducted, viz., “Apost. 115.”

On the other hand, 8 copies of “PAUL” (communicated by the Abbate
Cozza-Luzi) are to be added: viz. _Vat._ 646 (Paul 310): 647 (Paul 311):
1971 (Paul 319). _Palat. Vat._ 10 (Paul 327): 204 (Paul 328). _Casanat._
G. 11, 16 (Paul 336). _Ottob._ 328 (Paul 337). _Borg._ F. vi. 16 (Paul
338). So that no less than 260 out of 262 cursive copies of St. Paul’s
Epistle,—[not 252 out of 254, as stated in p. 495 (line 21 from the
bottom)],—are found to witness to the Reading here contended for. The
enumeration of Codices at page 494 is therefore to be continued as
follows:—310, 311, 319, 327, 328, 336, 337, 338.

To the foregoing are also to be added 4 copies of the “APOSTOLUS,” viz.
_Vat._ 2116 (Apost. 119). _Palat. Vat._ 241 (Apost. 123). _Barb._ iv. 11
[_olim_ 193] (Apost. 125). Paris, _Reg. Gr._ 13 (Apost. 128).

From all which, it appears that, (including copies of the “Apostolus,”)
THE CODICES WHICH ARE KNOWN TO WITNESS TO ΘΕῸΣ ἘΦΑΝΕΡΏΘΗ IN 1 Tim. iii.
16, AMOUNT [289-1+8+4] TO EXACTLY THREE HUNDRED.





INDEX I, OF TEXTS OF SCRIPTURE,—QUOTED, DISCUSSED, OR ONLY REFERRED TO IN
THIS VOLUME.


Note, that an asterisk (*) distinguishes references to the Greek Text from
references to the English Translation. [Where either the Reading of the
Original, or the English Translation is largely discussed, the sign is
doubled (** or ++).]

Genesis ii. 4, 119
  10, 180
  iii. 7, 180
  v. 1, 119
  xviii. 14, 183

Exodus x. 21-23, 61

Leviticus iv. 3, 183

Deut. xxxiv. 1-12, 48

Judges iv. 13, 181

2 Sam. vii. 2, 3, 192

1 Kings viii. 17, 18, 192

1 Chron. xvii. 1, 2, 192

2 Chron. xxiv. 8, 10, 11, 201

Job xxxviii. 2, 235

Psalms xxxiii. 18, 185
  xlv. 6, 182
  lxxxiii. 9, 181

Isaiah xiv. 15, 56
  lvii. 15, 185
  liii. 9, 467

Jeremiah xv. 9, 64

Amos viii. 9, 64

Zecharia xi. 12, 150

Apocrypha—Baruch iii. 38 [or 37] 177*

S. Matt. i. (genealogy), 167+
  1, 119-21+
  3, 7, 10, 12, 186+
  18, 119-22+**, 204+, 224+
  21, 165+, 184+
  22, 173+
  23, 186
  25, 123-4**+, 311*, 315*, 416*, 417
  ii. 1, 156+
  2, 155+
  4, 156+
  5, 173+
  6, 7, 156+
  9, 155+
  11, 12, 13, 156+
  15, 155+
  16, 146+
  17, 156+
  22, 167+
  23, 156+, 157+, 184+
  iii. 5, 184+
  6, 175+
  10, 164+
  15, 193+
  16, 175+
  iv. 3, 511+
  11, 193+
  13, 15, 186
  18, 184+
  18, 20, 21, 180+
  v. 15, 141+
  22, 141+, 180+, 317*, 358-61**
  23, 161+
  37, 214+
  39, 129+, 214+
  40, 193+
  44, 410-1**, 412
  vi. 8, 317*
  12, 163+
  12, 14, 15, 193+
  13, 105, 311*, 316*
  vi. 29, 167+
  30, 167+
  vii. 4, 193+
  9, 168+
  28, 199+
  viii. 3, 153+
  4, 259
  8, 511+
  13, 316*
  19, 183+
  ix. 2, 32
  3, 33
  5, 32
  6, 259
  9, 141+
  17, 148+
  ix. 18, 183+
  23, 148+
  33, 33
  x. 8, 108*
  9, 201+
  21, 511+
  35, 317*
  xi. 11, 128+, 166+
  23, 54-56**, 217*
  29, 317*
  xii. 24, 27, 317*
  29, 143+, 168+
  38, 204+
  40, 128+
  43, 164+
  47, 311*, 315*
  xiii. 3, 164+
  5, 154+
  19, 38, 214+
  32, 164+
  35, 316*
  36, 195++
  xiv. 2, 141+
  2, 3, 13, 68
  15, 22, 23, 195+
  22, 154+
  30, 71*, 317*
  31, 153+
  xv. 14, 361
  32, 39, 195+
  xvi. 2, 3, 105, 311*, 316*
  7, 159+
  12, 199+
  17, 181
  21, 317*
  xvii. 15, 205++
  20, 139*+, 317*
  21, 91-2**, 206**, 217+, 311*, 317*, 417
  22, 176*+, 317*
  24, 147+, 150
  25, 146+
  27, 128+, 147+
  xviii. 6, 181+
  11, 92**, 311*, 315*, 417
  17, 164+
  35, 143+
  xix. 17, 105, 139*+, 217, 316*
  xx. 15, 168+
  20, 193+, 512+
  21, 512+
  34, 153+
  xxi. 1-3, 57
  2, 154+
  8, 59, 61, 145+
  28, 178+
  31, 316*
  xxii. 9, 141+
  33, 199+
  xxiii. 35, 316*
  xxiv. 3, 178+
  xxv. 18, 27, 148+
  39, 167+
  46, 207+
  xxvi. 3, 143+
  7, 200++
  15, 149-150++
  22, 128+
  24, 173+
  36, 182+, 210*
  48, 203+
  53, 168+
  69, 183+
  74, 154
  xxvii. 34, 315*
  37, 87
  45, 61, 64
  46, 159+
  49, 33-4*, 309*, 315*
  50, 193+
  60, 162+, 198++
  61, 88
  xxvii. 61, 64, 66, 198+
  xxviii. 1, 198+
  2, 162+
  19, 174+, 316*
  20, 182+

S. Mark i. 1, 132**, 135, 316*
  8, 204+
  9, 174+, 175+
  13, 165+
  16, 184+
  16, 18, 19, 180+
  18, 193+, 194+
  22, 199+
  23, 172+
  27, 105, 139+
  28, 316*
  44, 259
  ii. 1-12, 30-33**
  11, 259
  21, 139*+, 148+
  22, 148+
  iii. 5, 141+
  14, 16, 316*
  27, 143+
  29, 139*+
  iv. 13, 170+
  29, 178+
  36, 145+, 195+
  v. 31, 402*
  36, 139*+, 316*
  43, 511*
  vi. 11, 118, 137-8**, 409-10**, 412*
  14, 16, 68
  16, 70
  17, 68
  20, 66-69**, 315*, 417
  22, 68, 315*
  24, 25, 68
  27, 147+
  29, 167+
  30, 32, 68
  33, 258*
  36, 45, 195+
  vii. 8, 194+
  27, 179+
  31, 315*
  33, 35, &c., 180+
  viii. 7, 511+
  viii. 9, 195+
  23, 143+
  26, 259*
  ix. 1, 316*
  18, 20, 22, 26, 205+
  23, 139*+, 217*
  23, 24, 29, 69-71*
  38, 260*
  39, 169+
  42, 181
  44, 46, 510
  49, 260*
  x. 17-31, 326-31**
  21, 217*, 510*
  35, 37, 512*
  44, 46, 105
  xi. 1-6, 57
  3, 56-58**, 217*, 417
  4, 182+
  6, 193+
  8, 58-61**, 418, 439*
  26, 217*
  xii. 37, 146+
  42, 183+
  xiii. 19, 160+
  32, 210**
  xiv. 3, 200++, 184-5++*
  6, 193+
  8, 185
  11, 150
  30, 71**
  30, 68, 72, 316*
  32, 182+
  50, 194+
  65, 139*
  68, 141+, 316*
  72, 316*
  xv. 8, 139*, 191+
  31, 167+
  33, 61
  39, 71-2**
  47, 89
  xvi. 9-20, 33, 36-40**, 47-9**, 51*, 281-4*, 311*, 317*, 418, 419,
              422-4**, 519*
  17, 20, 204+
  19, 470

S. Luke i. 15, 180+, 204+
  26, 316*
  37, 183+
  42, 139*+
  51, 172+
  78, 179+
  ii. 9, 144+
  12, 203+
  14, 41-7**, 51, 139+, 316*, 340-1**, 418, 419, 420-2**, 519*
  29, 178+
  33, 161+
  38, 144+
  iii. 3, 184+
  9, 164+
  20, 68
  22, 115**
  iv. 1, 218-219*+
  3, 403*+, 511+
  7, 8, 17, 18, 21, 23, 27, 35, 403*+
  29, 129+, 403+*
  32, 199+
  38, 43, 404*+
  39, 144
  44, 315*, 404*+
  v. 2, 180+
  4, 141+, 162+
  5, 159+
  9, 128+, 352
  13, 153+
  18, 19, 32
  20, 32
  21, 33
  36, 139+
  37, 148+
  39, 110
  vi. 1 (δευτ.) 73-5**, 311*, 316*
  1 (ἤσθ.) 93-4*
  6, 129+
  35, 146+
  38, 352
  39, 235
  48, 110, 315*
  vii. 7, 511*
  17, 172+
  37, 200++
  viii. 35-44, 16-7**
  45-6, 401-3**+
  46, 158+
  ix. 7, 66-9**, 405*
  7, 8, 68
  10, 68, 260-1*
  12, 195+
  31, 184+
  39, 42, 205+
  54-6, 311*, 315*, 511*
  55, 56, 93*, 217, 418
  x. 1, 316*
  10, 68
  11, 128+
  15, 54-6**, 418
  20, 128+
  40, 144+
  41, 42, 116-117* , 311*
  41 to xi. 11, 510*
  42, 315*
  xi. 2-4, 34-6**, 418
  4, 163+, 317*
  11, 179+
  15, 18, 19, 317*
  21, 143+
  54, 261*
  xii. 2, 169+
  18, 261*
  39, 194+
  45, 195-6++
  xiv. 1, 179+
  21, 169+
  xv. 16, 181+
  16, 17, 139+*
  17, 407*+
  21, 315*
  22, 180+
  23, 405*
  31, 178+
  xvi. 3, 159+
  9, 139+*
  11, 180+
  12, 316*
  21, 139+*
  xvii. 2, 181+
  xviii. 7, 169+
  xix. 10, 92
  18, 406*+
  23, 169+
  29, 184+
  29-34, 33, 57
  xix., xx., 94-5**
  xx. 1, 144+
  25, 406*+
  44, 170+
  xxi. 24, 316*
  34, 144+
  37, 184+
  xxii. 5, 6, 150
  19, 20 to xxiv. 53 75-7*
  19, 20, 78-9**
  22, 173+
  43-4, 75, 76, 79-82**, 131, 281*, 311*, 316*, 340**, 411*
  60, 154
  64, 511*
  xxiii. 8, 204+
  17, 75, 76, 311*
  23, 25, 191+
  32, 317*
  33, 165+
  34, reverse of title, 75, 76, 82-5**, 131, 281-3*, 311*, 316*, 411*
  38, 75, 76, 85-8**, 281-3, 311*, 418, 511*
  42, 72*
  45, 61-5**, 315* 419
  55, 88-9**
  xxiv. 1, 75, 76, 88-9**
  3, 76
  4, 144+
  6, 76
  7, 96-7**
  9, 76
  10, 89
  12, 76, 89-90**, 281-3*, 311*
  13, 316*
  17, 105, 139*+
  36, 40, 76, 90-1**
  41, 93*
  42, 76, 511*
  44, 407*+
  51, 76, 281-3*, 470
  52, 76
  53, 76, 261-2*

S. John i. 1, 469
  3, 132*+, 135, 174+
  3, 10, 174
  4, 316*
  9, 180+
  10, 174+
  13, 347
  14, 178+
  18, 182+, 315*
  34, 316*
  42, 181+*
  ii. 3, 316*
  iii. 3, 5, 6, 7, 8 347
  13, 132-5**, 311*, 315*, 510*
  iv. 6, 145
  15, 407-8**+
  v. 2, 5-6**
  3, 4, 282-3, 311*, 316*
  34, 105
  vi. 4, 353**, 354*
  21, 154+
  29, 160+
  32, 180+
  33, 142+
  51, 316*
  70, 164+
  vii. 39, 316*
  53 to viii. 11, 311*
  ix. 4, 139+*, 316*
  5, 142+
  11, 140+*, 316*
  35, 315*
  38, 316*
  x. 14, 220-1**+, 315*
  32, 160+
  39, 142+
  xi. 12, 141+
  27, 163+
  xii. 3, 184-5*++
  6, 201+
  7, 139*+, 185
  41, 140*+
  43, 142+
  xiii. 10, 141+, 316*
  12, 145+
  14, 164+
  21-6, 105
  24, 316*
  24-5, 145*+
  29, 201+
  xiv. 4, 72-3*+, 141+, 419
  5, 9, 170+
  10, 14, 140+*
  18, 163+
  22, 142+
  xv. 1, 180+
  15, 179+
  20, 352
  26, 451*
  xvi. 13, 335
  15, 210
  16, 17, 19, 163+
  21, τ 164+
  23, 140*+
  32, 169+
  xvii. 4, 140*+
  4, 6, 158+
  11, 352
  11, 12, 140*+
  14, 158+
  24, 217-8**+
  25, 158+
  xviii. 1, 181+
  5, 316*
  18, 161+
  24, 162+
  27, 128+
  35, 160+
  37, 178+
  xix. 16, 128+
  18, 87
  20, 86
  29, 128+
  34, 33, 309*
  39, 317*
  40, 128+, 436
  41, 317*
  42, 129+
  xx. 2, 159+
  4, 167+
  12, 162+, 165+
  13, 159+
  16, 140+
  28, 469
  30, 204+
  xxi. 1, 9, 128+
  xxi. 12, 15, 142+
  15, 162+, 181*+
  15, 16, 17, 180+
  25, 23-4**, 317

Acts i. 2, 204+
  3, 128+
  5, 317*
  9, 470
  18, 153+
  19, 316*
  23, 150
  ii. 22, 173+, 352
  43, 173+
  iii. 6, 316*
  14, 191+
  iv. 1, 144+
  6, 129+
  16, 173+
  16, 22, 204+
  24, 178+
  36, 142+
  v. 24, 183+
  vi. 7, 129+
  12, 144+
  15, 129+
  vii. 13, 129+
  16, 141+
  17, 352
  45, 186+, 352
  46, 191+
  viii. 3, 167+
  5, 316*
  20, 148+
  ix. 13, 160+
  25, 171+
  x. 11, 180+
  15, 146+, 160+
  17, 144
  19, 316*
  xi. 5, 180+
  11, 144+
  12, 146+
  16, 143+
  17, 142+
  xii. 7, 144+
  13, 195+
  17, 162+
  20, 192+
  25, 316*
  xiii. 28, 191+
  xiv. 9, 161+
  xvi. 16, 195+
  29, 192+
  xvii. 5, 144+
  19, 143+
  28, 316*
  29, 128+
  31, 150+, 160+
  xviii. 2, 24, 142+
  7, 53-4**
  xix. 12, 140+
  xx. 28, 353-4*
  xxi. 37, 149++
  xxii. 13, 144+
  15, 352
  20, 144+
  xxiii. 1, 129+
  3, 169+
  11, 27, 144+
  xxv. 13, 316*
  xxvi. 28, 29, 151-2*++
  xxvii. 14, 176+
  26, 167+
  37, 51-3**, 316*
  xxviii. 1, 177-8**+
  2, 144+
  3, 177+
  4, 160+
  11, 147+
  13, 317*

Rom. i. 7, 127*
  7-xiii. 1, 440*
  20, 207+
  iii. 22, 167+
  29, 168+
  iv. 8, 315*
  v. 5, 204+
  vi. 2, 160
  3, 168+
  vii. 1, 142+, 168+
  15, 142-3+
  ix. 5., 208++, 210-4**++, 354*, 412*, 469, 510
  13, 160
  22, 167+
  xi. 2, 142+
  4, 156+
  xii. 6, 167+
  xii. 9, 214+
  xiv. 4, 167+
  15, 143+
  xv. 20, 167+
  xvi. 23, 127+
  25, 143+
  25, 26, 464

1 Cor. i. 27, 160
  iv. 21, 441*
  vi. 20, 160
  viii. 6, 174+
  ix. 11, 160
  x. 1, 167+
  xii. 8-10, 166+
  20, 167+, 168+
  27, 167+
  xiii., 201-2++
  3, 316*
  xiv. 7, 148+
  36, 168+
  xv. 34, 141+, 178+
  44, 142+
  55, 142+, 440*
  xvi. 12, 164*, 170+
  22, 180+

2 Cor. i. 3-7, 189+
  4, 352
  23, 167+
  ii. 12, 167+
  iii. 3, 140*+
  v. 8, 167+
  17, 19, 440*
  vi. 11, 440*
  12, 153+
  13, 167+
  15, 153+
  viii. 11, 14, 441*
  xii. 7, 219-20**+
  xiii. 1, 169+

Gal. ii. 4, 167+
  16, 146+
  iii. 1, 440*
  iv. 21-31, 196++

Eph. i. 1., 317*
  6, 352
  10, 173+
  iii. 13, 192+
  21, 178+
  iv. 1, 167+, 352
  14, 199+
  17, 178+
  20, 160
  29, 178+
  vi. 16, 214+

Phil. i. 1, 129+
  8, 153+
  15, 139+
  18, 128+
  ii. 6, 143+
  10, 513*
  23, 146+
  iii. 16, 128+
  iv. 3, 440*

Col. i. 9, 192+
  16, 172+, 174+
  23, 441*
  27, 497-8*
  ii. 8, 128+
  18, 355-6**, 140+
  22, 23, 441*
  iii. 2, 441*
  12, 153+

1 Thess. i. 9, 441*
  iv. 15, 127+

2 Thess. i. 3, 127+

1 Tim. ii. 2, 489*
  10, 440*
  17, 440*
  19, 439*
  iii. 1, 441*
  13 to iv. 5, 476
  16, 98-106***, 165+, 316*, 353, 419, 424-501***, 515, 519*
  iv. 1, 2, 440*
  10, 439*
  14, 441*
  v. 13, 441*
  vi. 15, 441*
  20, 344
  20, 440*

2 Tim. i. 13, 28, 351*
  ii. 1, 143+
  17, 25, 440*
  iii. 6, 441*
  16, 208-9++
  iv. 3, 164+
  17, 166+
  18, 215

Titus i. 2, 178+*
  2, 3, 143+
  4, 143+
  7, 128+
  7, 9, 164+
  13, 439*
  ii. 1, 164+

Philemon, ver. 12, 153+

Heb. i. 1, 2, 172+
  2, 174+
  8, 182
  ii. 4, 204+
  14, 216
  16, 143+
  iii. 19, 169+
  iv. 8, 162+, 186+
  vi. 2, 199+
  viii. 2, 180+
  ix. 24, 180+
  x. 21, 183+
  xi. 17, 160+, 161+
  17, 28, 163+
  26, 146+
  28, 160+
  35, 143+
  38, 141+
  xii. 2, 146+
  9, 164+
  14, 164+
  18, 178+
  xiii. 9, 199+

S. James i. 11, 163+, 170+
  15, 164+
  17, 317*
  17, 18, 217+
  ii. 2, 3, 190+
  6, 160+
  11, 511*
  16, 128+
  19, 148+
  iii. 3, 140+
  5, 143+
  11, 164+
  iv. 1, 143+
  7, 129+
  v. 16, 141+

1 S. Peter i. 5, 141+
  23, 216*
  ii. 2, 179+
  22, 467
  iii. 20, 178+
  v. 9, 129+
  13, 129+, 141+

2 S. Peter i. 5-7, 174+, 400
  20, 179+
  ii. 15, 142
  22, 106, 335
  iii. 7, 178+
  10, 355-6**
  13, 167+

1 S. John i. 2, 169+
  3, 167+
  ii. 14, 160*
  22, 164+
  27, 169+
  29, 347
  iii. 4, 143+
  8, 129+, 216
  9, 347
  15, 359
  17, 153+
  iv. 3, 6, 127+
  7, 347
  14, 129+
  19, 140+
  v. 1, 347
  2, 127+, 129+
  4, 347
  6, 164+
  7, 483
  12, 164+
  18, 347-50**
  20, 469

3 S. John 1, 129+
  14, 154+

S. Jude 1, 129+
  5, 140+
  6, 207+
  14, 178+
  18, 129+

Rev. ii. 5, 143+
  iii. 2, 140+
  iv. 6, 143+
  v. 12, 143+
  vi. 9, 127+
  viii. 13, 183+
  ix. 13, 183+
  xiii. 18, 135-7**
  xiv. 6, 165+
  14, 165+
  19, 172+
  xv. 6, 140+
  xvi. 17, 172+, 199++
  xvii. 1, 200++
  xviii. 21, 183+
  22, 148+
  xix. 6, 129+, 162+
  17, 183+
  21, 129+
  xxii. 18, 19, 1
  19, 409





INDEX II, OF FATHERS.


Fathers referred to, or else quoted(*), in this volume. For the chief
Editions employed, see the note at p. 121.

_Acta Apostt._ (Syriac), 40, 62, 84, 423
  _Philippi_, 84
  _Pilati_, 45, 62, 84, 423

Alcimus Avit., 213

Ambrosius, 24, 40, 73, 79, 85, 87, 90, 91, 92, 123, 132, 133, 213, 215*,
            218, 410, 423

Ammonius, 23, 29, 88*, 89, 91

Amphilochius, 133, 213 [_ed._ Combefis]
  ps. ----, 85

_Anaphora Pilati_, 62

Anastasius Ant., 213 [_ed._ Migne]
  Sin., 44, 81, 84, 421 [_ed._ Migne]

Andreas Cret., 23, 44, 84, 421 [_ed._ Combefis]

Anonymous, 43, 100, 102

Antiochus mon., 84, 360 [_ed._ Migne]

Aphraates, 40, 43, 133, 421, 423

_Apostolical_, see “_Constitutiones_.”

Archelaus (with Manes), 84

Arius, 80

Athenagoras, 410

Athanasius, 44, 62, 64, 80, 84, 90, 91, 121, 122, 123, 133, 212, 220, 359
  ps. ——, 133, 402, 475

Augustinus, 24, 40, 81, 85, 90, 91, 92, 116*, 123, 132, 133, 213, 356,
            360, 410, 423, 500*

Barnabas, 103*, 463*

Basilius M., 44, 79, 84, 91, 102*, 108, 122, 123, 133, 210*, 212, 218,
            219, 360, 402, 464*
  —— Cil., 133
  —— Sel., 43, 421

_Breviarium_, 213

Capreolus, 133

Cassianus, 81, 133, 213, 348, 411 [_ed._ 1611]

Cælestinus, 218

Cæsarius, 212, 215*
  ps. ——, 55, 74, 81

_Catena_ (Cramer’s), 353

Chromatius, 348

_Chronicon Paschale_, 40, 74, 353 [_ed._ Du Fresne]

Chrysostomus, 5, 23, 26, 27, 40, 43, 44, 53, 55, 62*, 71*, 72, 74, 80, 84,
            90, 91, 92, 99, 101*, 108, 121, 122, 123, 133, 151*, 152*,
            177, 212, 218, 219, 220, 353, 356, 360, 402, 410, 421, 423,
            457
  ps. ——, 85, 90, 133, 218, 360, 402, 427

Clemens, Alex., 115, 121, 208*, 218, 327, 336*, 410
  —— Rom, 38*
  —— —— (Syriac), 91

_Clementina_, 84

_Concilia_ [_ed._ Labbe et Cossart] _passim._

_Constitutiones Apostolicæ_, 43, 84, 212, 360, 410, 421, 423, 463*

Cosmas Indicopleustes, 44, 63, 133, 421 [_ed._ Montfaucon]
  —— ep. Maiumæ, 44, 421

_Cramer_, see _Catena_.

Cyprianus, 213, 218, 359

Cyrillus Alex., 5, 23, 43, 55, 62, 79, 80, 84, 86, 89, 90, 96, 102*, 103,
            121, 122, 132, 133, 163, 213, 218, 219, 220, 353, 356, 360,
            402, 410, 421, 423, 427, 428*, 464-469**
  —— Hieros, 43, 62, 72, 123, 151*, 177, 421, 470

Damascenus, _see_ “Johannes.”

Damasus, P. 92

_Dialogus_, 208*, 402

Didymus, 5, 40, 43, 80, 101, 122, 123, 133, 212, 219, 348, 402, 421, 423,
            427, 456

Diodorus Tars., 101, 458

Dionysius Alex., 163
  ps. —— ——, 23, 80, 101, 133, 212, 462*
  ps. —— —— Areop., 80, 84

_Eastern Bishops at Ephesus collectively_ (A.D. 431), 43, 80, 421

Epiphanius, 40, 43, 44, 74, 79, 80, 90, 96, 116, 122, 123, 133, 212, 360,
            402, 421, 423, 427
  ps. ——, 427
  —— diac. Catan. [A.D. 787], 102, 103, 475

Ephraemus Syrus, 43, 62, 64, 80, 82*, 84, 122, 123, 215*, 348, 360, 421
  ps. —— ——, 84, 353, 423

Eulogius, 44, 212, 421

Eusebius Cæs., 5, 23, 40, 43, 62*, 72, 80, 84, 86, 87, 88*, 89, 90, 96,
            108, 122, 136, 163, 218, 219, 323-324**, 353, 359, 410, 421,
            423
  —— His _Canons_, 91

Eustathius, 133, 212

Euthalius, 102, 458, 459-461**

Eutherius, 84, 103, 427

Euthymius Zig., 360, 410, 465, 476* [_ed._ Matthæi]

Facundus, 81, 213

Faustus, 115

Ferrandus, 213, 500*

Fulgentius, 213, 500*

Gaudentius, 24

Gelasius Cyzic., 100, 213, 479

Gennadius, 80, 213

Germanus CP., 44, 122, 421

_Gospel of Nicodemus_, 62

Gregentius, 423

Gregorius Nazianz., 23, 43, 73*, 80, 101*, 121, 134, 421, 457
  ps —— ——, 163, 220
  —— Nyssen., 23, 40, 43, 44, 84, 87, 89, 101*, 123, 134, 208*, 212, 360,
              410, 421, 456, 458
  —— Thaum., 44, 45, 102*, 463*

Hegesippus, 84

Hesychius, 84, 163, 423

Hieronymus, 24, 40, 41, 63*, 64*, 73*, 79*, 81, 85, 90, 92, 103*, 108,
            123*, 133, 213, 348, 356, 359, 360*, 423, 427

Hilarius, 79, 81, 85, 91, 92, 115, 133, 213, 218, 281, 360, 410

Hippolytus, 62, 64, 80, 84, 102*, 133, 136, 212, 353, 423, 463*

Ignatius, 103*, 463*
  ps. ——, 84

Johannes Damascenus, 44, 81, 85, 91, 102, 123, 133, 177, 213, 220, 356,
            360, 421, 457
  —— Thessal., 96, 423

Irenæus, 42, 64*, 80, 84, 122, 132, 212, 220, 353, 356, 359, 409, 420, 423

Isidorus, 23, 74, 123*, 360, 410

Jovius mon., 92

Julian hæret., 80

Julius Africanus, 62*, 64

Justinus Mart., 79, 80, 115, 121, 360, 410, 423
  ps. —— ——, 84, 90

Juvencus, 91, 108, 115

Lactantius, 115

Leo ep., 213, 423
  —— _ap._ Sabatier, 41

Leontius Byz., 81, 213, 423, 480

Liberatus of Carthage, 471-3

Lucifer Calarit, 133, 360, 410

Macarius Magnes, 40, 62*, 220, 423 [_ed._ 1876]

Macedonius, 470-475**, 102, 103

Malchion, 212

Marcion, 34, 35, 61, 64, 96, 402

Marius Mercator, 133, 213, 423, 468
  —— Victorinus, 500*

Martinus P., 421, 473

Maximus, 23, 79, 81, 84
  —— Taurin, 91, 133, 213, 219, 220, 360

Methodius, 44, 115, 212 [_ed._ Combefis]

Modestus Hier., 423

Nestorius, 80, 121, 212, 423, 427

Nicetas, 123

Nilus mon., 62, 359, 410

Nonnus, 23, 133, 218, 353

Novatianus, 133, 213

Œcumenius, 102, 348, 476

Origenes, 23, 41, 43, 58, 60, 62*, 63**, 64, 72, 84, 87, 92, 122*, 133,
            136, 163, 208*, 212, 219, 220, 348, 353, 356, 359, 360, 402,
            410, 421, 427

_Opus imperf._, 85, 91

Pacianus, 410

Palladius, the Arian, 213

Pamphilus Cæs., 177

Papias, 423

_Paschale_, see “_Chronicon._”

Patricius, 423

Paulinus, 81

Paulus Emes., 43, 80, 133, 213, 421

Philastrius, 24, 360

Philo, 43, 421

Photius CP., 81, 123, 360

Porphyrius, 132

Proclus CP., 43, 123

Prosper, 423

Salvianus, 360

Sedulius, 24

Severianus Gabal., 132, 212

Severus Ant., 23, 40, 89, 102*, 133, 213, 348, 360, 458

ps. Tatianus, 80, 84, 122, 123, 402 [_ed._ Moesinger, 1876]

Tertullianus, 62*, 90*, 91, 92, 120, 122, 208*, 213*, 215*, 410, 423

Titus Bostr., 43, 421

Theodoretus, 43, 55, 79, 80, 84, 91, 102, 122, 133, 152*, 213, 218, 219,
            220, 336, 356, 360, 410, 421, 456, 458*

Theodorus Herac., 84, 92, 133
  —— hæret., 81
  —— Mops., 23, 62, 80, 103, 121, 133, 212, 356, 360, 480-482*
  —— Studita [_ed._ Sirmondi], 475

Theodosius Alex., 81

Theodotus Ancyr., 43, 212, 421
  —— Gnosticus, 102*

Theophilus Alex., 212
  —— Ant., 410

Theophylactus, 102, 147, 348, 360, 410, 476 [_ed._ Venet. 1755]

Victor Antioch., 23, 40, 66*, 132, 409, 423

Victorinus, 133, 213

Victricius, 218

Vigilius, 133, 348

Vincentius, 423

Zeno, 133





INDEX III, PERSONS, PLACES, AND SUBJECTS.


_General Index of_ Persons, Places, _and_ Subjects _referred to in this
Volume. But_ Scriptural References _are to be sought in_ INDEX I.; _and_
Patristic References, _in_ INDEX II. ’New Codices’ _will be found
enumerated in the_ APPENDIX.

“A,” _see_ “Alexandrinus.”

א and B: _see_ “B,” _and_ “Antiquity.”

א A B C D, in conflict, 12, 13, 14, 16-7, 30-1, 46-7, 75-8, 94-5, 117,
            249, 262, 265, 289, 386

“Abutor”, 146

Acacius, Bp. of Melitene, 178

Accident, 50-6

Æthiopic, _see_ “Version.”

ἀγάπη, 201-2

ἀΐδιος, 207

αἰτεῖν, 191-3

αἰών, 182, 208

αἰώνιος, 207

ἀλάβαστρον, 200-1

Alexander (Dr.), Bp. of Derry, 107-8

“Alexandrian” readings, 271-2, 357

Alexandrinus (cod.) (A), 11-17, 345-347, 431-7

ἀληθινός, 180

Alford (Dean), 381, 456, 498

Allocution, 413-5

Alterations, yet not improvements, 139-143

Ammonius, 29

Amos (in S. Matt, i.), 186

ἀμφίβληστρον, 184

Amphilochius, 210

ἄμφοδον, 182

ἀναβάς, 139

ἀναπεσών, 145

Anastasius (Imp.), 472-3

Ancient Authority, _see_ “Ellicott.”

“Ancoratus”, 427

Andrewes, Bp., 500

Antioch, 385, 391

“Antiochian,” _see_ “Syrian.”

“Antiquity”, 333

ἀντίστητε, 129

Anziani (Dr.), 445, 492

Aorist, 158-60, 162

ἀπελπίζοντες, 146

ἀφιέναι, 193-5

Apolinaris, 456, 458

Apollonides, 323-4

ἀπολύειν, 195

ἀποστολοευαγγέλια, 448

“Apostolus”, 446-8, 476-8, 482, 491. _See the_ APPENDIX.

Aram (in S. Matt. i.), 186

Argument _e silentio_, 469

Armenian, _see_ Version.

Article, the, 164-5

Articles (Three) in the “Quarterly Review,” their history _pref._ ix-xiv

ἄρτος, 179

ἀρχαί, 180

Asaph (in S. Matt. i.), 186-7

Asclepiades, 323-4

“Ask” (αἰτεῖν), 171-3

“Assassins”, 147

Assimilation, 32, 65-69
  ——, proofs of, 66

ἀτενίσαντες, 129

“Attraction”, 351-2

αὐληταί, 148

Authority, (ancient) _see_ “Ellicott.”

αὐτός, 165

“B,” _see_ “Vaticanus.”

B and א (codd.), sinister resemblance, 12

B and א, 12, 255-7, 315-20, 333, 357, 361, 365, 408, 410

Bandinel (Dr.), 445

“Baptist” Revisers, 504-5

Baptismal Renunciation, 215

Basil to Amphilochius, 210

Basilides, 29

Beckett, Sir Edmund, 38, 222

Belsheim, Dr. J., 444, 453, 493

Bengel (J. A.), 246, 500

Bentley, Dr. R., 432, 467, 499

Berlin (_see_ “De Boor”), 492, 493

Berriman, Dr. J., 432, 433, 446, 468, 474, 480, 500

Bethesda, 5

Beveridge (Bp.), 351, 500

Beyer (Dr.), 477

Bezæ, cod. (D), 11-7, 77-9, 117, 264-5

Birch (Andreas), 246, 383, 467

Blunders, 149, 150, 180, 181;—172, 176, 177, &c.

Bois (John), 228

“Bondmaid”, 196

“Boon”, 217

“Bowls”, 200

“Branch”, 184

Broughton (Hugh), 513

Bull (Bp.), 212, 500

“C,” _see_ “Ephraemi.”

Caius (A.D. 175) on the Text, 323-4

Cambridge, Codex (D), _see,_ Bezæ.
  “—— Greek Text”, _Pref._ xxviii

Capper (S. Herbert), Esq., 492

Cappilli (Sig.), 491-2

Carob tree, 181

Castan (M.), 477

Castiglione, 452

Catalogue of Crypta Ferrata, 447

Cedron, 181

Ceriani (Dr.), 381, 452, 477, 491-2-3. _See the_ APPENDIX.

Changes (licentious), 127, 403-7

“Charity”, 201-2

χωρίον, 182

Chronicle of Convocation, 507

“_Church Quarterly_” (1882), _Pref._ xvi

“_Church Quarterly_,” (1883), _Pref._ xvi-xx., xxiv-vii.

Citations, _see_ “Fathers.”

Clemens, Alex., 326-7, 327-31

Codd. B—א—A—C—D, 11-17, 30, 108, 249, 262, 269-71
  —— F and G, 438-43
  —— Paul 73, 444
  —— —— 181, 444-5
  —— new, _see the_ APPENDIX.

Collation of MSS., 125, 246-7;
  with the Received Text, 249-50, 262

Complutensian, 391

“Conflate readings”, 258-65

“Conflation” examined, 258-65, 285

“Congregationalist” Revisers, 504-5

Conjectural emendation, 351-7

Consent of copies (_see_ “Fathers”), 454-5

“_Conversantibus_”, 176

Cook, (Canon), 204-5, 214, 234, 372, 381, 470, 502

Cornelius à Lapide, 473

Corruptions in the N. T., 334-5

Cotelerius, 473

Coxe (Rev. H. O.), 306, 445, 491

Cozza-Luzi (Abbate), 447, 477, 491-2-3, _see the_ APPENDIX.

Cranbrook, Viscount, page v-viii

Creyk (John), 433

“Crib”, 238

Cross, title on, 85-8

_Crux criticorum_, the, 98

Crypta Ferrata, 447, 473-4, 478, 521

“D,” _see_ “Bezæ.”

δαιμόνιον, 179

Darkness, 62-4

Dartige (M.), 493

Dated codices, 292

δέ, 167-8

Deane (Rev. H.), 450, 481, 489

De Boor (Dr. C.), 492-3

Definite, _see_ Article.

Delicate distinction, 402

Demoniacal possession, 206

Denis (M.), 493

Derry (Bp. of), _see_ Alexander.

Design, 56-65

δευτερόπρωτον, 73

“Devil”, 214-6

διά, 170, 173-4, _see_ ὑπό

Dialogue (supposed), 320-8, 328-42

Diatessaron, _see_ “Tatian.”

διδασκαλία, 199

διδάσκαλος, 179

διδαχή, 199

διέρχωμαι, 407

Dionysius Alex., 461-2

Διόσκουροι, 147

Dissertation on 1 Tim. iii. 16 _Pref._ xxi-iv, 424-501

Divination. _See_ “Verifying faculty.”

“Doctrine” extirpated, 199

δοῦλος, 179

δύναμις, 204

Dublin (Abp. of), _see_ Trench.

ἤ interrogative, 168-9

Ebionite Gospel, 116

Ecclesiastical Tradition, 495

Eclipse, 63-5

Editions of Fathers, 121

ἔγνων, 159

Egyptian, _see_ Version.

ειδε for ιδε, 140

εἰκῆ, 359-61

εἰπεῖν, 511-2

εἶς, 183

ἐκλείποντος, 63-5

ἔλαβον, 139

ἑλληνιστί, 149

Ellicott (Bp. of Gloucester), on the “old uncials”, 14-5
  —— on the A. V., 112, 368
  —— on “Revision” xlii, 112, 124, 126, 226-8, 368
  —— on “Marginal Readings”, 136-7
  —— on “Textus Receptus”, 383-8, 389-91
  —— on 1 Tim. iii. 16, 428-31
  —— on 2 Tim. iii. 16, 209
  —— on Textual Criticism, 234
  —— on “innocent Ignorance”, 349-50
  —— on the Greek Text, 369, 509
  —— on “Euthalius”, 460-1
  —— his jaunty proposal, 216
  —— his Pamphlet _Pref._ xx-xxii, 369 _seq._

Ellicott, his critical knowledge, 370, 376, 385, 430, 457, 459-61, 471-2,
            _Dedication_ p. viii
  —— his requirement anticipated, 371, 397
  —— his method of procedure, 372-4, 419-24, 459-61
  —— method of his Reviewer, 375-383, 496-7, 517, _Pref._ xxiv-vii
  —— appeals to _Modern Opinion_, instead of to _Ancient Authority_,
              376-8, 415-6, 438-9, 483-5, 514-5
  —— follows Dr. Hort, 391-8, 455, 517-8
  —— complains of Injustice, 399, 400-13
  —— suggested Allocution, 413-5
  —— his defence of the “New Greek Text,” examined 415-9, 419-24

ἐμβατεύων, 140

ἐν, its different renderings, 171-2

ἐν ὀλίγῳ, 151-2

English idiom, 154-5, 158-75

ἐφανερώθη, 427, 468

ἐφιστάναι, 144

Ephraemi cod. (C), 11-17, 325

“Epileptic”, 205-6

ἐπιπεσών, 145

Epiphanius, 427

ἐπιστᾶσα, 144

ἠπόρει [_see_ Scrivener, _ed._ 3, pp. 581-2], 66-9

Errors (plain and clear), 3, 4, 105, 148, 172, 216, 222-3, 228, 348,
            400-1, 430, 496, 512

Escher (Dr.), 493

ἐσκοτίσθη, 61

ἔστησαν, 150

“Eternal”, 207

Eternity, 208

Ethiopic, _see_ “Version.”

Eudocia, 465

“Euraquilo”, 176

εὐρεθήσεται, 356

Euripides (papyrus of), 321-2

“Euroclydon”, 176

Euthalius, 429, 460-1

Eutherius, 427

εὐθέως, 153-4

Euthymius Zigabenus. _See_ INDEX II.

“Everlasting”, 207

“Evil One”, 214-6

ἐξελθοῦσαν, 402

ἔξοδος, 184

Exodus, 184

External evidence, 19-20

“F” and “G” (codd.), 257

“Factor of Genealogy”, 256

Farrar, Canon (now Archd.), _Pref._ xv

Fathers, 121, 125-6, _see_ INDEX II.

Fell (Bp.), 432

Field (Dr.), 146, 148, 163, 177, 180, 382

Florence, _see_ “Anziani.”

Flute-players, 148

Forstemann (Dr.), 441, 493

Future sense, 163-4

Gabelentz and Loebe, 452

Gandell (Professor), 184

Gardiani (Sig.), 492

γεγεννημένος, 347

Gelasius of Cyzicus, 479, _see_ INDEX II.

“Genealogical Evidence”, 253

γένεσις and γέννησις, 119-22

γεννηθείς, 347

γένος, 142

Geographical distribution of Patristic Testimony, 45, 134

Gifford (Dr.), 214

γινώσκεις, 149

Gloucester (Bp. of), _see_ “Ellicott.”

γλωσσόκομον, 201

“GOD blessed for ever”!, 211

Gorresio (Sig.), 492

Gospel incident, 194-5
  —— (the Ebionite), 116
  —— of the Hebrews, 29

Gothic, _see_ Version.

“Græco-Syrian,” _see_ “Syrian.”

“_Great_ priest”, 182

Green, Rev. T. S., 499

Gregory (Dr. C. R.), 477

Gregory Naz., 73

Griesbach (J. J.), 380, 456, 482, 483

Hall, Bp., 500

Hammond (Dr.), 432, 500

Headings of the Chapters, 223, 412

Hellenistic Greek, 182-4, _See_ “Septuagint.”

Henderson (Dr.), 500

Heracleon, 29

Hermophilus, 323-4

Herodotus, 65

Hesychius, 29, 163

Hilary on μύλος ὀνικός, 281

Hincmar, Abp. of Rheims, 472

Hoerning (Dr.), 453

’HOLY GHOST’, 204

Hort, Dr., 37, 135, 182, 211, 248, 394, (_see_ Westcott and Hort).
  —— hypothesis and system, _see reverse of Title-page_.
  —— his “Introduction” analyzed, 246-69
  —— “strong preference” for codd. B and א, 252, 269-271, 298-305, 307-8,
              312-14
  —— mistaken estimate of B and א, 315-20
  —— divining and verifying faculty, 253, 290, 291, 307-8
  —— imaginary  history of the Traditional Greek Text, 271-88, 296-8
  —— antagonism with Patristic Antiquity, 283-5, 298-300
  —— fatal dilemma, 292-3
  —— Reiteration, 306
  —— ultimate appeal to his own individual mind, 307-8
  —— “Art of Conjectural Emendation”, 351-7
  —— absurd Textual hypothesis, 293-4
  —— intellectual peculiarity, 362
  —— method of editing the Greek Text, 363
  —— Text of the N. T., 364-5
  —— often forsaken by Dr. Westcott, 352

Hug (J. L.), 381

Huish (Alex.), 432

Idiom, _see_ “English.”

ἱερεὺς (ὁ μέγας), 182

Imperfect tense, 161

Incident (unsuspected), 194-5

“Independent” Reviewers, 504-5

“Innocent ignorance” of the Reviewer, 347-9, 411

Inspiration, 208

“Instructions,” _see_ “Revisers.”

Instrumentality (ideas of), 173

Internal Evidence, 253

Interpreters, (modern), 211

“Intrinsic probability”, 251-2

Jacobson (Dr. W.) Bp. of Chester, 37

Jechonias (in Matt. i.), 186

Jerome, 73, 427, 449

“JESUS”, 184

“Joanes”, 181

John (S.) and S. Mark, 185

Jona (son of), 181-2

Josephus, 52

καί, 169-70
  —— its force,  209

καὶ πῶς, 170

Kaye (Bp.) on Clemens Al., 336

κέδρων, 181

κενεμβατεύων, 356

κεράτια, 181

Kidron, 181

Kippax (Rev. John), 433

Kishon, 181

κισσῶν, 181

Knowledge of CHRIST not limited, 210

κράξας, 71-2

Lachmann’s Text, 21, 242-3, 246, 270, 380-1

Lagarde (P. A. de), 493
  —— _Analecta Syr._, 481

Latin Version, 9

Laubmann (Dr.), 493

Lawrence (Abp.), 380

“Layers of leaves”, 58-61

“Lecythus”, 201

Lee (Archd.) _on Inspiration_, 208, 230, 382

Leontius Byzantinus, 480, _see_ INDEX II.

Liberatus of Carthage, 471-3

Licentious, _see_ “Changes.”

Lightfoot (Dr.) Bp. of Durham, 145, 498, _Pref._ xxxi.

Limitation of our SAVIOUR’s knowledge, 210

Lincoln (Bp. of), _see_ Wordsworth.

λίθος μυλικός, 181

Lloyd (Bp.) ed. of N. T., _Pref._ xvii-ix, 16

LORD’s Prayer, 34-6, 214-6

“Love”, 201-2

Lucian, 29

Luke (Gospel according to S.), 16, 34-5, 75-91, 249, 403-7

“Lunaticus”, 205-6

Macedonius, 103, 470-5, 489

Mai (Card.), 121

Malan (Dr. S. C.), 67, 120, 123, 124, 348, 356, 382, 451, 453-4

Manichæan depravation, 220

“Maranatha”, 180

Marcion, 29, 34-5, 61

Margin, 3-6, 33, 115, 130, 131, 137, 175, 236-7

Marginal References, 223, 412

Marius Mercator, 468

Mark (Gospel according to S.), 30, 262
  —— collation of 15 verses, 327-31
  —— last Twelve Verses, 36-7, 39-40, 48, 49, 51, _Ded._ vii, _Pref._
              xxiii
  —— and S. John, 185

Martin (Abbé), 382, 446, 474, 477, 478, 492, 528

Martin I. (Pope), 421, 473

Massmann (H. F.), 453

Matranga (Papas Filippo), 477, 492, _see the_ APPENDIX, p. 522-3

Matthæi (C. F.), 246
  —— —— Scholia, 348, 380, 427, 434, 465, 468

Matthew (S.) chap. i. (Greek), 119-24, 186
  —— —— (English), 156-7, 186

Medial agency, 173

Melita and Melitene, 177-8

Menander, 361

Merivale (Dean), 230

Messina, _see_ “Matranga”: and p. 523

μία, 183

Middleton (Bp.), 165, 209

Milan (_see_ “Ceriani”), 452, 477, 491-2-3

Mill (Dr. John),  245, 383, 432, 437, 472, 500
  ——  on cod. D, 13
  ——  (Dr. W. H.), 354

Milligan (Dr.), 39, 48

“Miracle”, 202-4

μνημεῖον, 197-9

Moberly (Dr.) Bp. of Salisbury, 106, 228-9

Modena, _see_ “Cappilli”: and p. 523

Modern Interpreters, 411
  ——  Opinion, _see_ “Ellicott.”

μονογενὴς Θεύς, 182

Montfaucon, 121

“Moreh”, 180

Morier (Sir Robert), 492

μωρέ, 180

μύλος ὀνικός, 181

Mutilation, 69-93

Mystical interpretation, 185

νάρδου πιστικῆς, 184-5

Nazareth, 184

“Necessity” of Revision, 127, 150, 223, 228

Needless changes, 87-8, 224-5; 97, 224-5, 399, 403-7

νεκροὺς ἐγείρετε, 108

Nemesis of superstition, 350

“Netser”, 184

“Neutral” readings, 271-2, 357

“New English Version”, 225-6

“New Greek Text”, 130, 224-5

Newth (Dr.), 37-9, 109, 126, 369, 502

Newton (Sir Isaac), 426, 480, 500

Nilus Rossanensis, 447

Nineteen changes in 34 words, 401

Nominative repeated, 165

“Non-Alexandrian” readings, 357

“Non-Alexandrian Pre-Syrian”, 357

Nonsensical rendering, 218

“Non-Western”, 357-8

Notes in the margin, 175

Numerals in MSS., 52-3

“Number of the Beast”, 135

ὁ ὤν ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ, 133

Occupation (Right of), 199-206

ωδε, 139

“Olivet”, 184

Ollivant (Bp.), 146

Omission, intentional, 69-93

ὄνος, 181

“Or” not meant by ἤ, 168-9

Opinion, (modern) _see_ “Ellicott.”

Origen, as a textual critic, 292

ὅς, 165

ὅς and θεός, in MSS., 99-105

ὅτι for ὅτε, 140

“_Otium Norvicense_,” _see_ “Field.”

οὕτως, 145

παιδίσκη, 195-6

πάλιν, 57

Palmer (Archd.), 49, 126

Papyrus, 321-2

παραδῷ, 178

παράκλησις, 190

Paralytic borne of four, 30-3

Paris cod., _see_ “Ephraemi.”
  ——, _see_ “Wescher,” “Martin.”

Parquoi (M.), 437

Particles (Greek), 166

πᾶσα γραφή, 208-9

πάσας τὰς ἡμέρας, 152

πάσχα, τὸ, 353

Paul “17,” “73,” “181”, 443-8
  ——  (S.), Codd., 493-4
  ——  New Codd., _see the_ APPENDIX.

Pearson (Bp.), 212, 432, 471, 500

Peckover (Alex.), Esq., 493

Penerino (Sig.), 492

Perfect (English), 158-60
  ——  (Greek), 163

περίχωρος, 184

Perowne, (Dean), _Pref._ xxx

Perverted sense, 218-9

“_Phaseolus vulgaris_”, 181

Phavorinus, 140

Photius, 467

φιάλη, 200

“Pistic nard”, 184

“Plain and clear,” _see_ “Errors.”

πλεῖστος ὄχλος, 145

Pluperfect sense of Aorist, 162

_Ponderari debent testes_, 455

πονηροῦ, (ἀπὸ τοῦ), 214-6

Possession (Demoniacal), 206

Possession (right of), 199-206

Powles (Rev. R. Cowley), _Pref._ xxviii, 322

“Praxapostolus,” _see_ “Apostolus.”

“Pre-Syrian”, 357-8

“Pre-Syrian Non-Western”, 357

Preface of 1611, 187-91, 198-9
  —— 1881, 189

Preponderating evidence, 411, 496

Prepositions, 170-5

“Present” (Greek), sometimes a Future, 163-4
  —— sense of “perfect”, 163

Principle of translation, mistaken,    187-96

“Principles of Textual Criticism”, 125-6, 227, 349-50, 374-5, 411

Probability, 497

Proper names in S. Matt. i. 186

“Proud-in-the-imagination-of-their-hearts”, 172

Provision (GOD’s) for the safety of His Word, 8, 9, 338, 494

προέφθασεν, 146

Pronouns, 165

πρώτη, 180

Pulcheria, 465

Pusey (P. E.), 345, 382, 449, 468

Pyramus and Thisbe, 171

Pyramid poised on its apex, 342-5

“_Quarterly Review_”, _Pref._ ix-xiv

_Quia_, 448, 473

_Quod_ (in 1 Tim. iii. 16), 448

Quotations, _see_ “Fathers.”

Randell (Rev. T.), 481, 493

“Ravine”, 181

“Readings,” _see_ “Various.”
  —— before “Renderings”, 106, 225

Received Text, _see_ “Textus.”

Recension (imaginary), 271-88

Reiche (J. G.), 380-1

Reiteration not Proof, 306-7

Rendering of the same word, 138, 152-4, 187-202

Result of acquaintance with documents, 337

Rettig (H. C. M.), 442

“Revised Version,” _see_ “Revision.”

Revisers exceeded their Instructions:—
  (1) In respect of the English, 112, 127-30, 155-7, 225-6, 368, 400-3
  (2) In respect of the Greek, 57-8, 97, 118-26, 224, 399, 403-6

Revising body (composition of), 504-5

Revision, original Resolution and Rules concerning, 3, 97, 114, 127, 130
  —— of 1611, 167, 508-14
  —— of 1881, how it was conducted, 37, 117-8, 369
  —— unfair in its method, 116, 131-8
  —— essentially different from that of 1611, 508-14
  —— rests on a foundation of sand, 110, 516
  —— incapable of being further revised, 107
  —— its case hopeless, 226-7
  —— characterized, 238
  —— its probable fate, 508-14
  —— unfavourable to Orthodoxy, 513
  —— interesting specimens, 171, 401

Rhythm in translation, 188

Rieu (Dr.), 453

Right of possession, 199

“Ring of genuineness”, 307, 309-12

Roberts (Dr.), 36, 39-40, 48, 98, 230

Rocchi (Hieromonachus), 447-8, 474, 492, _see the_ APPENDIX.

Rogers, the poet, 162

Romans ix. 5, 210-4

Rome, (_See_ “Cozza Luzi,” “Escher”), 521

Rose, (Rev. W. F.), of Worle, Somersetshire, _Pref._ xxviii

Rouser (Professor), 306

Routh (President), 152, 211, 444, 452, 501

Sachau, 481

S. Andrews (Bp. of), _see_ “Wordsworth.”

Salisbury (Bp. of), _see_ “Moberly.”

Samaria, (woman of), 407-8

Sanday, (Dr.), _Pref._ xvi

Saville (Prof.), 306

Scholium misunderstood, 467, 468

Scholz (Dr.), 246, 380, 445, 456

Scott (Sir Gilbert), 306

Scripture, God’s provision for its safety 8, 9, 338, 494
  —— depraved by heretics, 336

Scrivener (Prebendary), 13, 30, 37, 49, 106, 108, 126, 231, 237-8, 243,
            246, 317, 381, 405, 431, 474, 477, 493, 502-3, _see back of
            Title._

Septuagint, 182, 183, 184, 228

“Sepulchre,” the Holy, 198

σημεῖον, 203-4

σικάριοι, 147

Sieber (M.), 493

σίκερα, 180

Sinaiticus, cod. (א), 11-17, 265, 286,,289, 291, 314-5, 325-6, 343-5

Sixteen places, 415-9

Smith (Dr. Vance), 174, 204-5, 503-8, 513, 515

Socinian gloss,  210-4

“_Solvere ambulando_”, 126, 228, xxxi

σπεκουλάτωρ, 147

Spelling of proper names, 186-7

σπλάγχνα, 153

σπυρίς, 171, 180

Stanley (Dean), 135, 507

Stillingfleet (Bp.), 500

στιβάς and στοιβάδες, 58-60

συντρίψασα, 185

συστρεφομένων, 176-7

Syndics of Cambridge Press, xxx-i

Syracuse, 494

Syriac Version, 9

“Syrian,” “Antiochian,” “Græco-Syrian,”—Dr. Hort’s designations of the
            Traditional Greek Text 257-65, 269
  —— its assumed origin, 272-88
  —— and history, 290-1
  —— characterized, 87, 288-290

τάφος, 298

Tatian (_see_ INDEX II.) 29, 336, 350

“Teaching”, 199

τέκνον, 153, 179

τέλος, 51

Tenses, 157-64, _see_ “Aorist,” “Imperfect,” “Perfect,” “Pluperfect,”
            “Present.”
  —— unidiomatically rendered, 402

Test-places (three), 47, 519

Text to be determined by external evidence, 19-20, 45
  —— provision for its security, 10
  —— (Received), _see_ “Textus Receptus” and “Syrian.”

Texts, _see_ INDEX I.

’Textus Receptus’, 12-3, 17-8, 107, 118
  —— (Bp. Ellicott on), 388
  —— needs correction 21, 107
  —— _see_ “Syrian,” “Traditional.”

Theodore of Mopsuestia, 480, _see_ INDEX II.

Theodotus, the Gnostic, 323-4

Theophilus, Bp. of Antioch, 29

θεόπνευστος, 208-9

Θεός and ὅς in MSS., 99-105, 425-6
  —— , not ὅς, to be read in 1 Tim. iii. 16, _Pref._ xxi-iv, 424-501

Thierry (M.), 493

Thirty changes in 38 words, 171

1 Timothy iii. 16. _See_ Θεός

Tischendorf (Dr.) 22-4, 45, 243-4, 246, 270-1, 370, 383, 437-8, 451, 467

Title on the Cross, 85-8

“Titus Justus”, 53-4

“Tomb”, 198

Tradition (Ecclesiastical), 495

Traditional Text departed from 6000 times, 107
  —— _see_ “Syrian.”
  —— meaning of S. Mark xiii. 32, 209-10

“Transcriptional probability”, 251-2

Translators of 1611, 187-91, 207
  —— of 1881, mistaken principle of 138, 187-96

Transposition, 93-7

Tregelles (Dr.), 22, 45, 243, 246, 270, 370, 380, 383, 431, 451, 467, 498

Trench (Abp.), xlii, 106, 229

Trinitarian doctrine, 174-5

True Text, (only safe way of ascertaining), 339-42

Tusculum, 446

Tyndale (William), 167, 191, 192

Uncials (depravity of the old), 12-17, 30-5, 46-7, 75-6, 94-5

Uniformity of rendering, 166, 187

“Unitarian” Reviser, intolerable, 503-8

ὑπό and διά, 156

ὑποτύπωσις, 351

Uppström (Andr.), 452

Upsala, 444, _see_ “Belsheim.”

Ussher (Abp.), 432, 469, 500

Valckenaer, 228

Valentinus, 29

Various Readings, 49-50, 56, 65, 130-1

Vaticanus, codex (B), 11-17, 265, 273, 286, 289, 291, 314-5, 325, 342-5,
            _see_ “B and א.”

Veludo (Sig.), 492

Vercellone (C.), 381

Verifying faculty, 95-6, 109, 253, 290-1, 307-8

Version (Authorized), 112-4
  —— (old Latin), 9, 448
  —— (Vulgate), 9, 419
  —— (Peschito), 9, 449-50
  —— (Harkleian), 450
  —— (Coptic), 9, 451-2
  —— (Sahidic), 9, 451-2
  —— (Gothic), 9, 452-3
  —— (Armenian), 9, 453
  —— (Æthiopic), 9, 453
  —— (Georgian), 454
  —— (Arabic), 453-4
  —— (Slavonian), 454

“Vials”, 200

Von Heinemann (Dr.), 493

Vulgate, _see_ “Version.”

W. (M.), _Pref._ xxviii

Walton (Bp. Brian), 432

Waterland (Dr.), 500

Way (only safe) of ascertaining the True Test, 339-42

Weber (M.), 437

Wescher (M.), 492

“Wesleyan Methodist” Revisers, 504-5

West the painter, 162

Westcott (Dr.), xlii, 124, _see_ “Hort.”

Westcott and Hort (Drs.), 24-9, 33, 49, 51, 72, 83, 91, 92, 94, 95, 97,
            110, 114, 125, 134-5, 177, 239-41, 245, 247, 370, 380, 382,
            499, 502, 518-9, _See reverse of Title-page, and Pref._ xi-iv,
            xxvi-viii, xxxi

“Western,”, 357
  —— readings, 271-2
  —— and “Syrian”, 361

“Westminster Abbey scandal”, 507

Wetstein (J. J.), 246, 383, 426, 456, 467, 469, 480, 497

Wilberforce (Bp.), 229, 415, 505, 507

Woide (C. G.), 434-7

Wolfii _Anecd. Græca_, 458

Wood (C. F. B.), 183

Word, incarnate and written, 334-5, 390-1

Wordsworth (Dr. Charles), Bp. of S. Andrews, 106, 165, 229-30, 382
  —— (Dr. Christopher), Bp. of Lincoln, 37, 112, 147, 184, 226, 368, 382,
              400, 502, 505, 513, _Ded._ vi

Wotton (Henry), 433

Xenophon, 149

Young (Patrick), 432
  —— (Dr.), of Glasgow, 477

ζώνη, 201






FOOTNOTES


    1 Any one who desires to see this charge established, is invited to
      read from page 399 to page 413 of what follows.

    2 Dr. Newth. See pp. 37-9.

    3 See pp. 24-9: 97, &c.

    4 See below, pp. 1 to 110.

    5 This will be found more fully explained from pp. 127 to 130: pp. 154
      to 164: also pp. 400 to 403. See also the quotations on pp. 112 and
      368.

    6 See below, pp. 113 to 232.

    7 See below, pp. 235 to 366.

_    8 Gospel of the Resurrection_, p. viii.

    9 Reference is made to a vulgar effusion in the “_Contemporary
      Review_” for March 1882: from which it chiefly appears that Canon
      (now Archdeacon) Farrar is unable to forgive S. Mark the Evangelist
      for having written the 16th verse of his concluding chapter. The
      Venerable writer is in consequence for ever denouncing those “_last
      Twelve Verses_.” In March 1882, (pretending to review my Articles in
      the “Quarterly,”) he says:—“In spite of Dean Burgon’s Essay on the
      subject, the minds of most scholars are _quite unalterably made up_
      on such questions as the authenticity of the last twelve verses of
      S. Mark.” [_Contemporary Review_, vol. xli. p. 365.] And in the
      ensuing October,—“If, among _positive results_, any one should set
      down such facts as that ... Mark xvi. 9-20 ... _formed no part of
      the original apostolic autograph_ ... He, I say, who should
      enumerate these points as being _beyond the reach of serious
      dispute_ ... would be expressing the views which are _regarded as
      indisputable_ by the vast majority of such recent critics as have
      established any claim to serious attention.” [_Expositor_, p. 173.]

      It may not be without use to the Venerable writer that he should be
      reminded that critical questions, instead of being disposed of by
      such language as the foregoing, are not even touched thereby. One is
      surprised to have to tell a “fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge,”
      so obvious a truth as that by such writing he does but effectually
      put himself out of court. By proclaiming that his mind is “_quite
      unalterably made up_” that the end of S. Mark’s Gospel is not
      authentic, he admits that he is impervious to argument and therefore
      incapable of understanding proof. It is a mere waste of time to
      reason with an unfortunate who announces that he is beyond the reach
      of conviction.

   10 No. xxviii., page 436. If any one cares to know what the teaching
      was which the writer in the “Church Quarterly” was intending to
      reproduce, he is invited to read from p. 296 to p. 300 of the
      present volume.

_   11 Contemporary Review_, (Dec. 1881),—p. 985 seq.

   12 Q. R. (No. 304,) p. 313.—The passage referred to will be found below
      (at p. 14),—slightly modified, in order to protect myself against
      the risk of _future_ misconception. My Reviewer refers to four other
      places. He will find that my only object in them all was to prove
      that codices A B א C D _yield divergent testimony_; and therefore,
      so habitually _contradict_ one another, as effectually to invalidate
      their own evidence throughout. This has never been _proved_ before.
      It can _only_ be proved, in fact, by one who has laboriously
      collated the codices in question, and submitted to the drudgery of
      exactly tabulating the result.

   13 “Damus tibi in manus Novum Testamentum _idem profecto_, quod ad
      textum attinet, cum ed. Millianâ,”—are the well known opening words
      of the “Monitum” prefixed to Lloyd’s N. T.—And Mill, according to
      Scrivener, [_Introduction_, p. 399,] “only aims at reproducing
      Stephens’ text of 1550, though in a few places he departs from it,
      whether by accident or design.” Such places are found to amount in
      all to _twenty-nine_.

   14 See below, pp. 257-8: also p. 390.

_   15 The Revisers and the Greek Text of the New Testament_,
      &c.—Macmillan, pp. 79.

   16 See below, pp. 369 to 520.

   17 Pages 371-2.

_   18 Pamphlet_, pp. 77: 39, 40, 41.

   19 See below, p. 425.

   20 Pages 424-501.

   21 From January till June 1883.

_   22 Pamphlet_, p. 76.

_   23 E.g._ pages 252-268: 269-277: 305-308.

_   24 E.g._ pages 302-306.

   25 Page 354.

   26 On that day appeared Dr. Hort’s “_Introduction and Appendix_” to the
      N. T. as edited by himself and Dr. Westcott.

   27 “_Charge_,” published in the _Guardian_, Dec. 20, 1882, p. 1813.

   28 Preface to _History of the English Bible_ (p. ix.),—1868.

   29 Preface to _Pastoral Epistles_ (p. xiv.),—1861.

_   30 The Authorized Version of the N. T._ (p. 3),—1858.

_   31 The New Testament of Our Lord and Saviour __JESUS CHRIST__
      translated out of the Greek: being the Version set forth __A.D.__
      1611, compared with the most ancient Authorities, and Revised
      __A.D.__ 1881._ Printed for the Universities of Oxford and
      Cambridge, 1881.

_   32 The New Testament in the Original Greek, according to the Text
      followed in the Authorized Version, together with the Variations
      adopted in the Revised Version._ Edited for the Syndics of the
      Cambridge University Press, by F. H. A. Scrivener, M.A., D.C.L.,
      LL.D., Prebendary of Exeter and Vicar of Hendon. Cambridge, 1881.

      Ἡ ΚΑΙΝΗ ΔΙΑΘΗΚΗ. _The Greek Testament, with the Readings adopted by
      the Revisers of the Authorized Version._ [Edited by the Ven.
      Archdeacon Palmer, D.D.] Oxford, 1881.

_   33 On Revision_,—pp. 215-6.

   34 Tertullian, _bis._

   35 Hieron. _Opp._ ii. 177 c (see the note).

   36 Apud Hieron. iii. 121.

   37 iv. 617 c (ed. Pusey).

   38 P. 272.

   39 i. 548 c; viii. 207 a.

   40 iv. 205.

   41 A reference to the _Journal of Convocation_, for a twelvemonth after
      the proposal for a Revision of the Authorized Version was seriously
      entertained, will reveal more than it would be convenient in this
      place even to allude to.

   42 We derive our information from the learned Congregationalist, Dr.
      Newth,—_Lectures on Bible Revision_ (1881), p. 116.

_   43 On Revision_, pp. 26-7.

   44 Dr. Scrivener’s _Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New
      Testament_, 2nd edition, 1874 (pp. 607), may be confidently
      recommended to any one who desires to master the outlines of Textual
      Criticism under the guidance of a judicious, impartial, and
      thoroughly competent guide. A new and revised edition of this
      excellent treatise will appear shortly.

   45 Studious readers are invited to enquire for Dr. Scrivener’s _Full
      and exact Collation of about Twenty Greek Manuscripts of the Holy
      Gospels (hitherto unexamined), deposited in the British Museum, the
      Archiepiscopal Library at Lambeth, &c., with a Critical
      Introduction_. (Pp. lxxiv. and 178.) 1853. The introductory matter
      deserves very attentive perusal.—With equal confidence we beg to
      recommend his _Exact Transcript of the Codex Augiensis, a
      Græco-Latin Manuscript of S. Paul’s Epistles, deposited in the
      Library of Trinity College, Cambridge; to which is added a full
      Collation of Fifty Manuscripts, containing various portions of the
      Greek New Testament, in the Libraries of Cambridge, Parham,
      Leicester, Oxford, Lambeth, the British Museum, &c. With a Critical
      Introduction_ (which must also be carefully studied). (Pp. lxxx. and
      563.) 1859.—Learned readers can scarcely require to be told of the
      same learned scholar’s _Novum Testamentum Textûs Stephanici,
      __A.D.__ 1550. Accedunt variæ Lectiones Editionum Bezæ, Elzeviri,
      Lachmanni, Tischendorfii, Tregellesii._ Curante F. H. A. Scrivener,
      A.M., D.C.L., LL.D. [1860.] Editio auctior et emendatior.
      1877.—Those who merely wish for a short popular Introduction to the
      subject may be grateful to be told of Dr. Scrivener’s Six _Lectures
      on the Text of the N. T. and the Ancient MSS. which contain it,
      chiefly addressed to those who do not read Greek_. 1875.

   46 Scrivener’s _Plain Introduction_,—p. 118.

_   47 Bezæ Codex Cantabrigiensis: being an exact Copy, in ordinary Type,
      of the celebrated Uncial Græco-Latin Manuscript of the Four Gospels
      and Acts of the Apostles, written early in the Sixth Century, and
      presented to the University of Cambridge by Theodore Beza_, A.D.
      1581. Edited, with a Critical Introduction, Annotations, and
      Facsimiles, by Frederick H. Scrivener, M.A., Rector of S. Gerrans,
      Cornwall. (Pp. lxiv. and 453.) Cambridge, 1864. No one who aspires
      to a competent acquaintance with Textual Criticism can afford to be
      without this book.

   48 On the subject of codex א we beg (once for all) to refer scholars to
      Scrivener’s _Full Collation of the Codex Sinaiticus with the
      Received Text of the New Testament. To which is prefixed a Critical
      Introduction._ [1863.] 2nd Edition, revised. (Pp. lxxii. and 163.)
      1867.

   49 Bishop Ellicott’s _Considerations on Revision_, &c. (1870), p. 40.

   50 The epithet “_cursive_,” is used to denote manuscripts written in
      “running-hand,” of which the oldest known specimens belong to the
      IXth century. “_Uncial_” manuscripts are those which are written in
      capital letters. A “_codex_” popularly signifies a _manuscript_. A
      “version” is _a translation_. A “recension” is _a revision_. (We
      have been requested to explain these terms.)

_   51 Considerations on Revision_, p. 30.

   52 Once for all, we request it may be clearly understood that we do
      not, by any means, claim _perfection_ for the Received Text. We
      entertain no extravagant notions on this subject. Again and again we
      shall have occasion to point out (_e.g._ at page 107) that the
      _Textus Receptus_ needs correction. We do but insist, (1) That it is
      an incomparably better text than that which either Lachmann, or
      Tischendorf, or Tregelles has produced: infinitely preferable to the
      “New Greek Text” of the Revisionists. And, (2) That to be improved,
      the _Textus Receptus_ will have to be revised on entirely different
      “principles” from those which are just now in fashion. Men must
      begin by unlearning the _German prejudices_ of the last fifty years;
      and address themselves, instead, to the stern logic of _facts_.

   53 Scrivener’s _Introduction_, pp. 342-4.

_   54 Ut suprà_, p. 46. We prefer to quote the indictment against
      Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, from the pages of Revisionists.

   55 “Ex scriptoribus Græcis _tantisper Origene solo_ usi
      sumus.”—_Præfatio_, p. xxi.

   56 Scrivener’s _Plain Introd._ p. 397.

_   57 Ut suprà_, p. 48.

_   58 Ut suprà_, p. 47.

   59 Prebendary Scrivener, _ibid._ (ed. 1874), p. 429.

_   60 Ibid._ p. 470.

_   61 Ibid._

_   62 Concilia_, i. 852.

_   63 Ut suprà_, p. 47.

_   64 The New Testament in the Original Greek._ The Text revised by
      Brooke Foss Westcott, D.D., and Fenton John Anthony Hort, D.D.
      Cambridge and London, 1881.

   65 From the Preface prefixed to the “limited and private issue” of
      1870, p. vi.

_   66 Ut suprà_, p. xv.

_   67 Ibid._ p. xviii.

_   68 Ibid._ p. xvi.

_   69 Ibid._ pp. xviii., xix.

   70 [_Note,—that I have thought it best, for many reasons, to retain the
      ensuing note as it originally appeared; merely restoring [within
      brackets] those printed portions of it for which there really was no
      room. The third Article in the present volume will be found to
      supply an ample exposure of the shallowness of Drs. Westcott and
      Hort’s Textual Theory._]

      While these sheets are passing through the press, a copy of the
      long-expected volume reaches us. The theory of the respected authors
      proves to be the shallowest imaginable. It is briefly
      _this_:—Fastening on the two oldest codices extant (B and א, both of
      the IVth century), they invent the following hypothesis:—“That the
      ancestries of those two manuscripts _diverged from a point near the
      autographs, and never came into contact subsequently_.” [No reason
      is produced for this opinion.]

      Having thus secured two independent witnesses of what was in the
      sacred autographs, the Editors claim that the _coincidence_ of א and
      B must “mark those portions of text in which two primitive and
      entirely separate lines of transmission had not come to differ from
      each other through independent corruption:” and therefore that, “in
      the absence of specially strong internal evidence to the contrary,”
      “the readings of א and B combined _may safely be accepted as
      genuine_.”

      But what is to be done when the same two codices diverge _one from
      the other_?—In all such cases (we are assured) the readings of any
      “binary combination” of B are to be preferred; because “on the
      closest scrutiny,” they generally “have the _ring of genuineness_;”
      hardly ever “_look suspicious_ after full consideration.” “Even when
      B stands quite alone, its readings must never be lightly rejected.”
      [We are not told why.]

      But, (rejoins the student who, after careful collation of codex B,
      has arrived at a vastly different estimate of its character,)—What
      is to be done when internal and external evidence alike condemn a
      reading of B? How is “_mumpsimus_” for example to be
      treated?—“_Mumpsimus_” (the Editors solemnly reply) as “the better
      attested reading”—(by which they mean the reading attested by B,)—we
      place in our margin. “_Sumpsimus_,” apparently the _right_ reading,
      we place in the text within ††; in token that it is probably “_a
      successful ancient conjecture_.”

      We smile, and resume:—But how is the fact to be accounted for that
      the text of Chrysostom and (in the main) of the rest of the
      IVth-century Fathers, to whom we are so largely indebted for our
      critical materials, and who must have employed codices fully as old
      as B and א: how is it, we ask, that the text of all these, including
      codex A, differs essentially from the text exhibited by codices B
      and א?—The editors reply,—The text of Chrysostom and the rest, we
      designate “Syrian,” and assume to have been the result of an
      “editorial Revision,” which we conjecturally assign to the second
      half of the IIIrd century. It is the “_Pre-Syrian_” text that we are
      in search of; and we recognize the object of our search in codex B.

      We stare, and smile again. But how then does it come to pass (we
      rejoin) that the Peschito, or primitive _Syriac_, which is older by
      full a century and a half than the last-named date, is practically
      still the same text?—This fatal circumstance (not overlooked by the
      learned Editors) they encounter with another conjectural assumption.
      “_A Revision_” (say they) “of the Old Syriac version appears to have
      taken place early in the IVth century, or sooner; and doubtless in
      some connexion with the Syrian revision of the Greek text, the
      readings being to a very great extent coincident.”

      And pray, where _is_ “the _Old Syriac_ version” of which you
      speak?—It is (reply the Editors) our way of designating the
      fragmentary Syriac MS. commonly known as “Cureton’s.”—Your way (we
      rejoin) of manipulating facts, and disposing of evidence is
      certainly the most convenient, as it is the most extraordinary,
      imaginable: yet is it altogether inadmissible in a grave enquiry
      like the present. Syriac scholars are of a widely different opinion
      from yourselves. Do you not perceive that you have been drawing upon
      your imagination for every one of your facts?

      We decline in short on the mere conjectural _ipse dixit_ of these
      two respected scholars to admit either that the Peschito is a
      Revision of Cureton’s Syriac Version;—or that it was executed about
      A.D. 325;—or that the text of Chrysostom and the other principal
      IVth-century Fathers is the result of an unrecorded “Antiochian
      Revision” which took place about the year A.D. 275.

      [But instead of troubling ourselves with removing the upper story of
      the visionary structure before us,—which reminds us painfully of a
      house which we once remember building with playing-cards,—we begin
      by removing the basement-story, which brings the entire
      superstructure in an instant to the ground.]

      For we decline to admit that the texts exhibited by B א can have
      “diverged from a point near the sacred autographs, and never come
      into contact subsequently.” We are able to show, on the contrary,
      that the readings they jointly embody afford the strongest
      presumption that the MSS. which contain them are nothing else but
      specimens of those “corrected,” _i.e._ _corrupted_ copies, which are
      known to have abounded in the earliest ages of the Church. From the
      prevalence of identical depravations in either, we infer that they
      are, on the contrary, derived from the same not very remote depraved
      original: and therefore, that their coincidence, when they differ
      from all (or nearly all) other MSS., so far from marking “two
      primitive and entirely separate lines of transmission” of the
      inspired autographs, does but mark what was derived from the same
      corrupt common ancestor; whereby the supposed two independent
      witnesses to the Evangelic verity become resolved into _a single
      witness to a fabricated text of the IIIrd century_.

      It is impossible in the meantime to withhold from these learned and
      excellent men (who are infinitely better than their theory) the
      tribute of our sympathy and concern at the evident perplexity and
      constant distress to which their own fatal major premiss has reduced
      them. The Nemesis of Superstition and Idolatry is ever the same.
      Doubt,—unbelief,—credulity,—general mistrust of _all_ evidence, is
      the inevitable sequel and penalty. In 1870, Drs. Westcott and Hort
      solemnly assured their brother Revisionists that “the prevalent
      assumption, that throughout the N. T. the true text is to be found
      _somewhere_ among recorded readings, _does not stand the test of
      experience_;”[P. xxi.] and they are evidently still haunted by the
      same spectral suspicion. They see a ghost to be exorcised in every
      dark corner. “The Art of _Conjectural Emendation_” (says Dr. Hort)
      “depends for its success so much on personal endowments, fertility
      of resource in the first instance, and even more an appreciation of
      language too delicate to acquiesce in merely plausible corrections,
      that it is easy to forget its true character as a critical operation
      founded on knowledge and method.”[_Introd._ p. 71.] Specimens of the
      writer’s skill in this department abound. _One_ occurs at p. 135
      (_App._) where, _in defiance of every known document_, he seeks to
      evacuate S. Paul’s memorable injunction to Timothy (2 Tim. i. 13) of
      all its significance. [A fuller exposure of Dr. Hort’s handling of
      this important text will be found later in the present volume.] May
      we be allowed to assure the accomplished writer that IN BIBLICAL
      TEXTUAL CRITICISM, “CONJECTURAL EMENDATION” HAS NO PLACE?

   71 Scrivener, _Introduction_, p. 453.—Stunica, it will be remembered,
      was the chief editor of the Complutensian, or _first printed_
      edition of the New Testament, (1514).

   72 προσέφορον αὐτῷ,—S. Matt. ix. 2.

   73 Scrivener, _Plain Introd_. p. 472.

   74 The words omitted are therefore the following 22:—ἡμῶν, ὁ ἐν τοῖς
      οὐρανοῖς ... γενηθήτω τὸ θελημά σου, ὡς ἐν οὐρανῷ, καὶ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς
      ... ἀλλὰ ῥῦσαι ἡμᾶς ἀπὸ τοῦ πονηροῦ.

_   75 Companion to the Revised Version_, p. 61.

_   76 The last Twelve Verses of the Gospel according to S. Mark,
      vindicated against recent critical Objectors and established_, by
      the Rev. J. W. Burgon,—pp. 334, published by Parker, Oxford, 1871.

   77 As Dr. Jacobson and Dr. Chr. Wordsworth,—the learned Bishops of
      Chester and Lincoln. It is right to state that Bp. Ellicott
      “_considers the passage doubtful_.” (_On Revision_, p. 36.) Dr.
      Scrivener (it is well known) differs entirely from Bp. Ellicott on
      this important point.

_   78 Lectures on Bible Revision_, pp. 119-20.

   79 τὰς ἀληθεῖς ῥήσεις Πνεύματος τοῦ Ἁγίου.—Clemens Rom., c. 45.

_   80 Should the Revised New Testament be authorized?_—p. 42.

_   81 Revised Version of the first three Gospels, considered,_—by Canon
      Cook,—pp. 221-2.

   82 At p. 34 of his pamphlet in reply to the first two of the present
      Articles.

_   83 On Revision_, pp. 30 and 49.

_   84 Words of the N. T._ p. 193.

_   85 Companion to the Revised Version_, p. 63.

_   86 Ibid._ p. 62.

   87 Viz. Eusebius,—Macarius Magnes,—Aphraates,—Didymus,—the Syriac _Acts
      of the App._,—Epiphanius,—Ambrose,—Chrysostom,—Jerome,—Augustine. It
      happens that the disputation of Macarius Magnes (A.D. 300-350) with
      a heathen philosopher, which has recently come to light, contains an
      elaborate discussion of S. Mark xvi. 17, 18. Add the curious story
      related by the author of the _Paschal Chronicle_ (A.D. 628)
      concerning Leontius, Bishop of Antioch (A.D. 348),—p. 289. This has
      been hitherto overlooked.

   88 Scrivener’s _Introduction_, p. 515.

   89 Tisch. specifies 7 Latin copies. Origen (iii. 946 _f._), Jerome
      (vii. 282), and Leo (ap. Sabatier) are the only patristic quotations
      discoverable.

   90 i. 459

   91 i. 374; ii. 714; iv. 15.

   92 vii. 47; viii. 13.

_   93 Dem. Ev._ pp. 163, 342.

   94 i. 180, 385.

   95 In loc. Also _in Luc._ xix. 29 (_Cat. Ox._ 141).

_   96 De Trin._ p. 84; Cord. _Cat. in Ps._ ii. 450, 745.

   97 i. 845,—which is reproduced in the _Paschal Chronicle_, p. 374.

   98 P. 180; cf. p. 162.

   99 i. 154, 1047.

  100 i. 355, 696, 6; 97 iii. 346.

  101 Gr. iii. 434.

  102 Ap. Galland. ix. 754.

  103 i. 587; ii. 453, 454; vi. 393; vii. 311, 674; viii. 85; xi. 347.
      Also _Cat. in Ps._ iii. 139.

  104 Ap. Chrys. vi. 424; cf. p. 417.

_  105 In Luc._ pp. 12, 16, 502 ( = Mai, ii. 128). Also Mai, ii. 343,
      _Hom. de Incarn._ p. 109. _Opp._ ii. 593; v.1 681, 30, 128, 380,
      402, 154; vi. 398. Maii, iii.2 286.

  106 i. 290, 1298; ii. 18; iii. 480.

  107 Ap. Galland. ix. 446, 476. _Concil._ iii. 1001, 1023.

_  108 Concil._ iii. 1002.

  109 Ap. Galland. ix. 629.

_  110 Concil._ iii. 1095.

_  111 Concil._ iii. 829 = Cyr. _Opp._ vi. 159.

_  112 Nov. Auctar._ i. 596.

  113 Montf. ii. 152, 160, 247, 269.

_  114 Hexaem._ ed. Migne, vol. 89, p. 899.

  115 Ap. Galland. xii. 308.

  116 Ed. Combefis, 14, 54; ap. Galland. xiii. 100, 123.

  117 Ap. Galland. xiii. 235.

  118 ii. 836.

  119 Ap. Galland. xiii. 212.

_  120 E.g._ Chrys. _Opp._ viii.; _Append._ 214.

  121 P. 6 D.

  122 Ap. Galland. iii. 809.

  123 ii. 602.

  124 ii. 101, 122, 407.

  125 iii. 447.

  126 ii. 298.

  127 ii. 804; iii. 783; v. 638, 670, 788; viii. 214, 285; x. 754, 821.

  128 Cord. _Cat. in Ps._ ii. 960.

  129 Of the ninety-two places above quoted, Tischendorf knew of only
      _eleven_, Tregelles adduces only _six_.—Neither critic seems to have
      been aware that “Gregory Thaum.” is not the author of the citation
      they ascribe to him. And why does Tischendorf quote as Basil’s what
      _is known_ not to have been his?

  130 But then, note that C is only available for comparison down to the
      end of ver. 5. In the 9 verses which have been lost, who shall say
      how many more eccentricities would have been discoverable?

_  131 Companion to the Revised Version_, pp. 62, 63. _Words of the N. T._
      p. 193.

_  132 Words of the N. T._ p. 193.

  133 Drs. Westcott and Hort (consistently enough) put them _on the
      self-same footing_ with the evidently spurious ending found in L.

  134 True, that a separate volume of Greek Text has been put forth,
      showing every change which has been either actually accepted, or
      else suggested for future possible acceptance. But (in the words of
      the accomplished editor), “the _Revisers are not responsible for its
      publication_.” Moreover, (and this is the chief point,) it is a
      sealed book to all but Scholars.

      It were unhandsome, however, to take leave of the learned labours of
      Prebendary Scrivener and Archdeacon Palmer, without a few words of
      sympathy and admiration. Their volumes (mentioned at the beginning
      of the present Article) are all that was to have been expected from
      the exquisite scholarship of their respective editors, and will be
      of abiding interest and value. _Both_ volumes should be in the hands
      of every scholar, for neither of them supersedes the other. Dr.
      Scrivener has (with rare ability and immense labour) set before the
      Church, _for the first time, the Greek Text which was followed by
      the Revisers of 1611_, viz. Beza’s N. T. of 1598, supplemented in
      above 190 places from other sources; every one of which the editor
      traces out in his _Appendix_, pp. 648-56. At the foot of each page,
      he shows what changes have been introduced into the Text by the
      Revisers of 1881.—Dr. Palmer, taking the _Text of Stephens_ (1550)
      as his basis, presents us with the Readings adopted by the Revisers
      of the “Authorized Version,” and relegates the displaced Readings
      (of 1611) to the foot of each page.—We cordially congratulate them
      both, and thank them for the good service they have rendered.

  135 The number is not excessive. There were about 600 persons aboard the
      ship in which Josephus traversed the same waters. (_Life_, c. III.)

  136 ii. 61 and 83.

  137 Isaiah xiv. 15.

  138 S. Matthew xxi. 1-3. S. Mark xi. 1-6. S. Luke xix. 29-34.

  139 א D L read—αὐτον ἀποστελλει ΠΑΛΙΝ ὡδε: C*,—αὐτον ΠΑΛΙΝ ἀποστελλει
      ὡδε: B,—ἀποστελλει ΠΑΛΙΝ αὐτον ὡδε: Δ,—ἀποστελλει ΠΑΛΙΝ ὡδε:
      yscr—αὐτον ἀποστελλει ΠΑΛΙΝ.

  140 iii. 722, 740.

  141 iii. 737, iv. 181.

  142 S. Matt. xxi. 8.

  143 Exod. x. 21-23.

  144 S. Matth. xxvii. 45; S. Mark xv. 33; S. Lu. xxiii. 44.

  145 Ap. Epiphan. i. 317 and 347.

_  146 Intenebricatus est sol_—a: _obscuratus est sol_—b: _tenebricavit
      sol_—c.

  147 Ap. Routh, _Opusc._ i. 79.

  148 i. 90, 913; ap. Epiph. i. 1006.

_  149 Syr._ ii. 48. So also _Evan. Conc._ pp. 245, 256, 257.

  150 Mai, _Scriptt. Vett._ vi. 64.

  151 i. 305.

  152 Ap. Mai, ii. 436; iii. 395. Also _Luc._ 722.

  153 i. 288, 417.

  154 P. 233.

  155 Ed. by Wright, p. 16.

  156 “Sol mediâ die _tenebricavit_.” _Adv. Jud._ c. xiii.

  157 iii. 922-4. Read the whole of cap. 134. See also ap. Galland. xiv.
      82, append., which by the way deserves to be compared with Chrys.
      vii. 825 a.

  158 ἀλλ᾽ ἦν σκότος θεοποίητον, διότι τὸν Κύριον συνέβη παθεῖν.—Routh,
      ii. 298.

  159 εἶτ᾽ ἐξαίφνης κατενεχθὲν ψηλαφητὸν σκότος, ἡλίου τὴν οἰκείαν αὐγὴν
      ἀποκρύψαντος, p. 29.

  160 ὅτι γὰρ οὐκ ἠν ἔκλειψις [sc. τὸ σκότος ἐκεῖνο] οὐκ ἐντεῦθεν μόνον
      δῆλον ἦν, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἀπὸ τοῦ καιροῦ. τρεῖς γὰρ ὥρας παρέμεινιν; ἡ δὲ
      ἔκλειψις ἐν μιᾷ καιροῦ γίνεται ῥοπῇ.—vii. 825 a.

  161 i. 414, 415; iii. 56.

  162 Ap. Mai, iv. 206. But further on he says: αὐτίκα γοῦν ἐπὶ τῷ πάθει
      οὐχ ἥλιος μόνον ἐσκότασεν κ.τ.λ.—Cyril of Jerusalem (pp. 57, 146,
      199, 201, 202) and Cosmas (ap. Montf. ii. 177 _bis_) were apparently
      acquainted with the same reading, but neither of them actually
      quotes Luke xxiii. 45.

  163 “In quibusdam exemplaribus non habetur _tenebræ factæ sunt, et
      obscuratus est sol_: sed ita, _tenebræ factæ sunt super omnem
      terram, sole deficiente_. Et forsitan ausus est aliquis quasi
      manifestius aliquid dicere volens, pro, _et obscuratus est sol_,
      ponere _deficiente sole_, existimans quod non aliter potuissent
      fieri tenebræ, nisi sole deficiente. Puto autem magis quod
      insidiatores ecclesiæ Christi mutaverunt hoc verbum, quoniam
      _tenebræ factæ sunt sole deficiente_, ut verisimiliter evangelia
      argui possint secundum adinventiones volentium arguere illa.” (iii.
      923 f. a.)

  164 vii. 235. “_Qui scripserunt contra Evangelia_, suspicantur deliquium
      solis,” &c.

  165 This rests on little more than conjecture. Tisch. _Cod. Ephr. Syr._
      p. 327.

  166 Ἐκλείποντος is only found besides in eleven lectionaries.

  167 The Thebaic represents “the sun _setting_;” which, (like the mention
      of “_eclipse_,”) is only another _interpretation_ of the
      darkness,—derived from Jer. xv. 9 or Amos viii. 9 (“_occidit_ sol
      meridie”). Compare Irenæus iv. 33. 12, (p. 273,) who says that these
      two prophecies found fulfilment in “eum _occasum_ solis qui,
      crucifixo eo, fuit ab horâ sextâ.” He alludes to the same places in
      iv. 34. 3 (p. 275). So does Jerome (on Matt. xxvii. 45),—“Et hoc
      factum reor, ut compleatur prophetia,” and then he quotes Amos and
      Jeremiah; finely adding (from some ancient source),—“Videturque mihi
      clarissimum lumen mundi, hoc est luminare majus, retraxisse radios
      suos, ne aut pendentem videret Dominum; aut impii blasphemantes suâ
      luce fruerentur.”

  168 Our old friend of Halicarnassus (vii. 37), speaking of an eclipse
      which happened B.C. 481, remarks: ὁ ἥλιος ἐκλιπὼν τὴν ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ
      ἕδρην.

  169 For it will be perceived that our Revisionists have adopted the
      reading vouched for _only by codex_ B. What c* once read is as
      uncertain as it is unimportant.

  170 Bp. Ellicott’s pamphlet, p. 60.

_  171 On the Revised Version_, p. 14.

  172 πολλὰ κατὰ γνώμην αὐτοῦ διεπράττετο, as (probably) Victor of Antioch
      (_Cat._ p. 128), explains the place. He cites some one else (p. 129)
      who exhibits ἠπόρει; and who explains it of Herod’s difficulty
      _about getting rid of Herodias_.

  173 καὶ ἀκούσας αὐτοῦ πολλὰ ἂ ἐποίει, καὶ ἡδέως αὐτοῦ ἤκουεν, will have
      been the reading of that lost venerable codex of the Gospels which
      is chiefly represented at this day by Evann. 13-69-124-346,—as
      explained by Professor Abbott in his Introduction to Prof. Ferrar’s
      _Collation of four important MSS._, etc. (Dublin 1877). The same
      reading is also found in Evann. 28 : 122 : 541 : 572, and Evst. 196.

      Different must have been the reading of that other venerable
      exemplar which supplied the Latin Church with its earliest Text. But
      of this let the reader judge:—“_Et cum audisset illum multa facere,
      libenter_,” &c. (c: also “Codex Aureus” and γ, both at Stockholm):
      “_et audito eo quod multa faciebat, et libenter_,” &c. (g2 q): “_et
      audiens illum quia multa faciebat, et libenter_,” &c. (b). The
      Anglo-Saxon, (“_and he heard that he many wonders wrought, and he
      gladly heard him_”) approaches nearest to the last two.

      The Peschito Syriac (which is without variety of reading here) in
      strictness exhibits:—“_And many things he was hearing [from] him and
      doing; and gladly he was hearing him._” But this, by competent
      Syriac scholars, is considered to represent,—καὶ πολλὰ ἀκούων αὐτοῦ,
      ἐποίει; καὶ ἡδέως ἤκουεν αὐτοῦ.—Cod. Δ is peculiar in exhibiting καὶ
      ἀκούσας αὐτοῦ πολλά, ἡδέως αὐτοῦ ἤκουεν,—omitting ἐποίει, καί.—The
      Coptic also renders, “_et audiebat multa ab eo, et anxio erat
      corde_.” From all this, it becomes clear that the actual _intention_
      of the blundering author of the text exhibited by א B L was, to
      connect πολλά, _not_ with ἠπόρει, but with ἀκούσας. So the Arabian
      version: but not the Gothic, Armenian, Sclavonic, or Georgian,—as
      Dr. S. C. Malan informs the Reviewer.

  174 Note, that tokens abound of a determination anciently to assimilate
      the Gospels hereabouts. Thus, because the first half of Luke ix. 10
      (ϟα / η) and the whole of Mk. vi. 30 (ξα / η) are bracketed together
      by Eusebius, the former place in codex A is found brought into
      conformity with the latter by the unauthorized insertion of the
      clause καὶ ὅσα ἐδίδαξαν.—The parallelism of Mtt. xiv. 13 and Lu. ix.
      10 is the reason why D exhibits in the latter place ἀν- (instead of
      ὑπ)εχώρησε.—In like manner, in Lu. ix. 10, codex A exhibits εἰς
      ἔρημον τόπον, instead of εἰς τόπον ἔρημον; only because ἔρημον τόπον
      is the order of Mtt. xiv. 13 and Mk. vi. 32.—So again, codex א, in
      the same verse of S. Luke, entirely omits the final clause πόλεως
      καλουμένης Βηθσαῖδά, only in order to assimilate its text to that of
      the two earlier Gospels.—But there is no need to look beyond the
      limits of S. Mark vi. 14-16, for proofs of Assimilation. Instead of
      ἐκ νεκρῶν ἠγέρθη (in ver. 14), B and א exhibit ἐγήγερται ἐκ
      νεκρῶν—only because those words are found in Lu. ix. 7. A
      substitutes ἀνέστη (for ἠγέρθη)—only because that word is found in
      Lu. ix. 8. For ἠγέρθη ἐκ νεκρῶν, C substitutes ἠγέρθη ἀπὸ τῶν
      νεκρῶν—only because S. Matth. so writes in ch. xiv. 2. D inserts καὶ
      ἔβαλεν εἰς φυλακήν into ver. 17—only because of Mtt. xiv. 3 and Lu.
      iii. 20. In א B L Δ, βαπτίζοντος (for βαπτιστοῦ) stands in ver.
      24—only by Assimilation with ver. 14. (L is for assimilating ver. 25
      likewise), Κ Δ Π, the Syr., and copies of the old Latin, transpose
      ἐνεργοῦσιν αἱ δυνάμεις (in ver. 14)—only because those words are
      transposed in Mtt. xiv. 2.... If facts like these do not open men’s
      eyes to the danger of following the fashionable guides, it is to be
      feared that nothing ever will. The foulest blot of all remains to be
      noticed. Will it be believed that in ver. 22, codices א B D L Δ
      conspire in representing the dancer (whose name is _known_ to have
      been “Salome”) as _another _“Herodias”—_Herod’s own daughter_? This
      gross perversion of the truth, alike of Scripture and of history—a
      reading as preposterous as it is revolting, and therefore rejected
      hitherto by _all_ the editors and _all_ the critics—finds undoubting
      favour with Drs. Westcott and Hort. Calamitous to relate, _it also
      disfigures the margin of our Revised Version of S. Mark_ vi. 22, _in
      consequence_.

_  175 i.e._ “_And_” is omitted by B L Δ: “_immediately_” by א C: “_with
      tears_” by א A B C L Δ: “_Lord_” by א A B C D L.—In S. Mark vi.
      16—(viz. “But when Herod heard thereof, he said [This is] John whom
      I beheaded. He is risen [from the dead],”)—the five words in
      brackets are omitted by our Revisers on the authority of א B (D) L
      Δ. But א D further omit Ἰωάννην: C D omit ὁ: א B D L omit ὅτι. To
      enumerate and explain the effects of all the barbarous Mutilations
      which the Gospels alone have sustained at the hands of א, of B, and
      of D—_would fill many volumes like the present_.

  176 Chrysostom, vii. 825.

_  177 On the Creed_, Art. iv. “Dead:” about half-way through.

  178 The Coptic represents ὅτι ἐξέπνευσε.

  179 Namely, of ἘΝ τῇ Βας. σου, which is the reading of _every known copy
      but two_; besides Origen, Eusebius, Cyril Jer., Chrysostom, &c. Only
      B L read ΕἸΣ,—which Westcott and Hort adopt.

  180 i. 261.

  181 i. 936, 1363.

  182 i. 158.

  183 P. 301.

  184 Ap. Galland. vi. 53.

  185 P. 396.

  186 vii. 431.

  187 “Ut ab additamenti ratione alienum est, ita cur omiserint in promptu
      est.”

  188 But then, 25 (out of 320) pages of D are lost: D’s omissions in the
      Gospels may therefore be estimated at 4000. Codex A does not admit
      of comparison, the first 24 chapters of S. Matthew having perished;
      but, from examining the way it exhibits the other three Gospels, it
      is found that 650 would about represent the number of words omitted
      from its text.—The discrepancy between the texts of B א D, thus _for
      the first time brought distinctly into notice_, let it be distinctly
      borne in mind, is a matter wholly irrespective of the merits or
      demerits of the Textus Receptus,—which, for convenience only, is
      adopted as a standard: not, of course, of _Excellence_ but only of
      _Comparison_.

  189 Viz. the 1st, the 7th to 12th inclusive, and the 15th.

  190 Concerning “the _singular codex_ D,”—as Bp. Ellicott phrases it,—see
      back, pages 14 and 15.

  191 Bp. Ellicott _On Revision_,—p. 42. Concerning the value of the
      last-named authority, it is a satisfaction to enjoy the deliberate
      testimony of the Chairman of the Revisionist body. See below, p. 85.

  192 i. 156.

  193 ii. 254.

  194 i. 344

  195 iv. 220, 1218.

_  196 In Luc._ 664 (Mai, iv. 1105).

  197 ii. 653.

  198 “In Lucâ legimus _duos calices_, quibus discipulis propinavit,” vii.
      216.

  199 Τὸ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν διδόμενον; τοῦτο ποιεῖτε εἰς τὴν ἐμὴν ἀνάμνησιν.
      ὡσαύτως καὶ τὸ ποτήριον μετὰ τὸ δειπνῆσαι, λέγων, Τοῦτο τὸ ποτήριον,
      ἡ καινὴ διαθήκη ἐν τῷ αἵματί μου, τὸ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν ἐκχυνόμενον.

  200 P. 1062.

  201 ii. 747.

  202 i. 1516. See below, p. 82.

  203 Abbott’s _Collation of four important Manuscripts_, &c., 1877.

  204 ii. 354.

  205 Pp. 543 and 681 ( = ed. Mass. 219 and 277).

_  206 Contra Noet._ c. 18; also ap. Theodoret iv. 132-3.

  207 Ap. Galland. xix.; _Append._ 116, 117.

_  208 Evan. Conc._ pp. 55, 235.

  209 Ap. Epiph. i. 742, 785.

  210 It is § 283 in his sectional system.

  211 P. 1121.

  212 ii. 43; v. 392; vi. 604. Also _Evan. Conc._ 235. And see below, p.
      82.

  213 Pp. 394, 402.

  214 i. 551.

  215 [i. 742, 785;] ii. 36, 42.

  216 v. 263; vii. 791; viii. 377.

  217 ii. 39.

  218 Ap. Theod. Mops.

  219 In loc. bis; ap. Galland. xii. 693; and Mai, _Scriptt. Vett._ vi.
      306.

_  220 Concilia_, iii. 327 a.

  221 Ap. Mai, iii. 389.

_  222 Concilia_, iii. 1101 d.

  223 Schol. 34.

  224 i. 692; iv. 271, 429; v. 23. _Conc._ iii. 907 e.

_  225 Concilia_, iii. 740 d.

  226 Ap. Galland. vi. 16, 17, 19.

  227 Ap. Cosmam, ii. 331.

  228 i. 544.

  229 In Dionys. ii. 18, 30.

  230 Ap. Galland. xii. 693.

_  231 Ibid._ 688.

  232 Pp. 108, 1028, 1048.

_  233 Epist._ 138

  234 P. 1061.

  235 ii. 747.

  236 iv. 901, 902, 1013, 1564.

  237 P. 373.

  238 Ap. Galland. ix. 40.

_  239 Ibid._ xi. 693.

  240 Let their own account of the matter be heard:—“The documentary
      evidence clearly designates [these verses] as _an early Western
      interpolation_, adopted in eclectic texts.”—“They can only be _a
      fragment from the Traditions_, written or oral, which were for a
      while at least _locally current_:”—an “evangelic Tradition,”
      therefore, “_rescued from oblivion by the Scribes of the second
      century_.”

  241 Consider the places referred to in Epiphanius.

  242 The Editors shall speak for themselves concerning this, the first of
      the “Seven last Words:”—“We cannot doubt that _it comes from an
      extraneous source_:”—“need not have belonged originally _to the book
      in which it is now included_:”—is “_a Western interpolation_.”

      Dr. Hort,—unconscious apparently that he is _at the bar_, not _on
      the bench_,—passes sentence (in his usual imperial style)—“Text,
      Western and Syrian” (p. 67).—But then, (1st) It happens that our
      LORD’S intercession on behalf of His murderers is attested by
      upwards of forty Patristic witnesses _from every part of ancient
      Christendom_: while, (2ndly) On the contrary, the places in which it
      is _not found_ are certain copies of the old Latin, and codex D,
      which is supposed to be our great “Western” witness.

  243 Dr. Hort’s _N. T._ vol. ii. _Note_, p. 68.

  244 Ap. Eus. _Hist. Eccl._ ii. 23.

  245 P. 521 and ... [Mass. 210 and 277.]

  246 Ed. Lagarde, p. 65 _line_ 3.

  247 ii. 188. _Hær._ iii. 18 p. 5.

  248 Ap. Gall. iii. 38, 127.

_  249 Ibid._ ii. 714. (_Hom._ xi. 20.)

_  250 Evan. Conc._ 275.

  251 Ap. Routh, v. 161.

  252 He places the verses in _Can._ x.

  253 i. 1120.

  254 iii. 289.

_  255 Cat. in Ps._ iii. 219.

  256 i. 290.

  257 15 times.

  258 ii. 48, 321, 428; ii. (_syr._) 233.

_  259 Evan. Conc._ 117, 256.

  260 i. 607.

  261 Pp. 232, 286.

  262 P. 85.

  263 Pp. 11, 16. Dr. Wright assigns them to the IVth century.

_  264 Eph._ c. x.

  265 ii. 166, 168, 226.

  266 6 times.

  267 Ap. Mai, ii. 197 ( = Cramer 52); iii. 392.—Dr. Hort’s strenuous
      pleading for the authority of Cyril on this occasion (who however is
      plainly against him) is amusing. So is his claim to have the cursive
      “82” on his side. He is certainly reduced to terrible straits
      throughout his ingenious volume. Yet are we scarcely prepared to
      find an upright and honourable man contending so hotly, and almost
      on any pretext, for the support of those very Fathers which, when
      they are against him, (as, 99 times out of 100, they are,) he treats
      with utter contumely. He is observed to put up with any ally,
      however insignificant, who even _seems_ to be on his side.

  268 Ap. Theod. v. 1152.

  269 Pp. 423, 457.

_  270 Cat. in Ps._ i. 768; ii. 663.

  271 Pp. 1109, 1134.

  272 i. 374.

  273 P. 93.

  274 ii. 67, 747.

  275 i. 814; ii. 819; v. 735.

  276 P. 88.

  277 Ap. Chrys. vi. 191.

  278 11 times.

  279 P. 782 f.

  280 12 times.

  281 More than 60 times.

  282 Ap. Cypr. (ed. Baluze), &c. &c.

_  283 On Revision_,—p. 42 _note_. See above, p. 78 _note_.

_  284 Eclog. Proph._ p. 89.

_  285 In Luc._ 435 and 718.

  286 See pages 93 to 97.

  287 i. 1528.

  288 So Sedulius Paschalis, ap. Galland. ix. 595.

  289 iii. 2.

  290 Euseb. _Ecl. Proph._ p. 89: Greg. Nyss. i. 570.—These last two
      places have hitherto escaped observation.

  291 See above, pp. 49-50, note 2.

  292 Viz., thus:—ἦν δὲ καὶ ἐπιγραφὴ ἐπ᾽ αὐτῷ, Ὁ βασιλεὺς τῶν Ἰουδαίων
      οὗτος.

  293 Dean Alford, _in loc._

  294 ὁ Λουκᾶς μιᾷ λέγει τῶν σαββάτων ὄρθρου βαθέος φέρειν ἀρώματα
      γυναῖκας ΔΎΟ τὰς ἀκολουθησάσας ἀυτῷ, αἵ τινες ἦσαν ἀπὸ τῆς Γαλιλαίας
      συνακολουθήσασαι, ὅτε ἔθαπτον αὐτὸν ἐλθοῦσαι ἐπὶ τὸ μνῆμα; αἵτινες
      ΔΎΟ, κ.τ.λ.,—_ad Marinum_, ap. Mai, iv. 266.

  295 Ps. i. 79.

_  296 Dem._ 492.

  297 Ap. Mai, iv. 287, 293.

  298 i. 364.

  299 Ap. Mai, ii. 439.

  300 Ap. Galland. xi. 224.

_  301 Cat. in Joann._ p. 453.

  302 Ps.-Chrys. viii. 161-2. Johannes Thessal. ap. Galland. xiii. 189.

  303 Ap. Mai, iv. 293 _bis_; 294 _diserte_.

  304 i. 506, 1541.

  305 iii. 91.

  306 iv. 1108, and _Luc._ 728 ( = Mai, ii. 441).

  307 iii.2 142; viii. 472.

  308 So Tertullian:—“_Manus et pedes suos inspiciendos offert_” (_Carn._
      c. 5). “_Inspectui eorum manus et pedes suos offert_” (_Marc._ iv.
      c. 43). Also Jerome i. 712.

_  309 De Resur._ 240 (quoted by J. Damascene, ii. 762).

  310 Ap. Mai, iv. 294.

  311 i. 906, quoted by Epiph. i. 1003.

  312 Ap. Theodoret, iv. 141.

  313 i. 49.

  314 i. 510; ii. 408, 418; iii. 91.

  315 iv. 1108; vi. 23 (_Trin._). Ap. Mai, ii. 442 _ter._

  316 iv. 272.

_  317 Cat. in Joan._ 462, 3.

  318 i. 303.

  319 See above, pp. 78 and 85.

  320 iii. 579.

  321 ii. 114 (ed. 1698).

  322 ii. 9, 362, 622.

  323 ii. 309; iv. 30; v. 531; vii. 581.

  324 vi. 79.

_  325 Ep._ i. (ap. Gall. i. p. xii.)

  326 ii. 464.

_  327 Text_, pp. 565 and 571.

_  328 Append._ p. 14.

  329 We depend for our Versions on Dr. S. C. Malan: pp. 31, 44.

  330 ii. 147. _Conc._ v. 675.

  331 Cord. _Cat._ i. 376.

  332 vii. 599, 600 _diserte_.

  333 Ap. Photium, p. 644.

  334 Three times.

  335 i. 663, 1461, ii. 1137.

  336 Pp. 367, 699.

  337 vii. 139.

  338 Ap. Galland. vi. 324.

  339 iii. P. i. 760.

_  340 Text_, p. 572.

_  341 Append._ p. 14.

  342 ἔτι δὲ ἀπιστούντων αὐτῷ, καὶ θαυμαζόντων ἀπὸ τῆς χαρᾶς.

  343 Viz. from ch. xix. 7 to xx. 46.

  344 We take leave to point out that, however favourable the estimate
      Drs. Westcott and Hort may have personally formed of the value and
      importance of the Vatican Codex (B), nothing can excuse their
      summary handling, not to say their contemptuous disregard, of all
      evidence adverse to that of their own favourite guide. They _pass
      by_ whatever makes against the reading they adopt, with the oracular
      announcement that the rival reading is “_Syrian_,” “_Western_,”
      “_Western and Syrian_,” as the case may be.

      But we respectfully submit that “_Syrian_,” “_Western_,” “_Western
      and Syrian_,” as Critical expressions, are absolutely without
      meaning, as well as without use to a student in this difficult
      department of sacred Science. They supply no information. They are
      never supported by a particle of intelligible evidence. They are
      often demonstrably wrong, and _always_ unreasonable. They are
      _Dictation_, not _Criticism_. When at last it is discovered that
      they do but signify that certain words _are not found in codex_
      B,—they are perceived to be the veriest _foolishness_ also.

      Progress is impossible while this method is permitted to prevail. If
      these distinguished Professors have enjoyed a Revelation as to what
      the Evangelists actually wrote, they would do well to acquaint the
      world with the fact at the earliest possible moment. If, on the
      contrary, they are merely relying on their own inner consciousness
      for the power of divining the truth of Scripture at a glance,—they
      must be prepared to find their decrees treated with the contumely
      which is due to imposture, of whatever kind.

  345 Marcion (Epiph. i. 317);—Eusebius (Mai, iv. 266);—Epiphanius (i.
      348);—Cyril (Mai, ii. 438);—John Thessal. (Galland. xiii. 188).

  346 [The discussion of this text has been left very nearly as it
      originally stood,—the rather, because the reading of 1 Tim. iii. 16
      will be found fully discussed at the end of the present volume. See
      _Index of Texts_.]

_  347 Companion to the Revised Version_, &c., by Alex. Roberts, D.D. (2nd
      edit.), pp. 66-8.

  348 Of this, any one may convince himself by merely inspecting the 2
      pages of codex A which are exposed to view at the British Museum.

  349 For, of the 3 cursives usually cited for the same reading (17, 73,
      181), the second proves (on enquiry at Upsala) to be merely an
      abridgment of Œcumenius, who certainly read Θεός; and the last is
      non-existent.

_  350 Concilia_, ii. 217 c.

  351 viii. 214 b.

  352 A single quotation is better than many references. Among a multitude
      of proofs that CHRIST is GOD, Gregory says:—Τιμοθέῳ δὲ διαῤῥήδῃν
      βοᾷ; ὅτι ὁ Θεὸς ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί, ἐδικαιώθη ἐν πνεύματι. ii. 693.

  353 Τοῦτο ἡμῖν τὸ μέγα μυστήριον ... ὁ ἐνανθρωπήσας δι᾽ ἡμᾶς καὶ
      πτωχεύσας Θεός, ἵνα ἀναστήσῃ τὴν σάρκα. (i. 215 a.)—Τί τὸ μέγα
      μυστήριον?... Θεὸς ἄνθρωπος γίνεται. (i. 685 b.)

_  354 De Trin._ p. 83—where the testimony is express.

  355 Θεὸς γὰρ ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί.—_Concilia_, i. 853 d.

  356 Cramer’s _Cat. in Rom._ p. 124.

  357 One quotation may suffice:—Τὸ δὲ Θεὸν ὄντα, ἄνθρωπον θελῆσαι
      γενέσθαι καὶ ἀνεσχέσθαι καταβῆναι τοσοῦτον ... τοῦτό ἐστι τὸ
      ἐκπλήξεως γέμον. ὂ δὴ καὶ Παῦλος θαυμάζων ἔλεγεν; καὶ ὁμολογουμένως
      μέγα ἐστὶ τὸ τῆς εὐσεβείας μυστέριον; ποῖον μέγα; Θεὸς ἐφανερώθη ἐν
      σαρκί; καὶ πάλιν ἀλλαχοῦ; οὐ γὰρ ἀγγέλων ἐπιλαμβάνεται ὁ Θεός,
      κ.τ.λ. i. 497. = Galland. xiv. 141.

  358 The following may suffice:—μέγα γὰρ τότε τῆς εὐσεβείας μυστήριον;
      πεφανέρωται γὰρ ἐν σαρκὶ Θεὸς ὢν καὶ ὁ Λόγος; ἐδικαιώθη δὲ καὶ ἐν
      πνεύματι. v. p. ii.; p. 154 c d.—In a newly-recovered treatise of
      Cyril, 1 Tim. iii. 16 is quoted at length with Θεός, followed by a
      remark on the ἐν ἀυτῷ φανερωθεὶς Θεός. This at least is decisive.
      The place has been hitherto overlooked.

  359 i. 92; iii. 657; iv. 19, 23.

  360 Apud Athanasium, _Opp._ ii. 33, where see Garnier’s prefatory note.

  361 Καθ᾽ ὂ γὰρ ὑπῆρχε Θεὸς [sc. ὁ Χριστὸς] τοῦτον ᾔτει τὸν νομοθέτην
      δοθῆναι πᾶσι τοῖς ἔθνεσι ... τοιγαροῦν καὶ δεξάμενα τὰ ἔθνη τὸν
      νομοθέτην, τὸν ἐν σαρκὶ φανερωθέντα Θεόν. Cramer’s _Cat._ iii. 69.
      The quotation is from the lost work of Severus against Julian of
      Halicarnassus.

  362 Galland. xii. 152 e, 153 e, with the notes both of Garnier and
      Gallandius.

  363 i. 313; ii. 263.

  364 Ap. Athanas. i. 706.

  365 iii. 401-2.

  366 Ap. Phot. 230.

_  367 Contra Hær. Noet._ c. 17.

  368 Ap. Clem. Al. 973.

  369 Cap. xii.

_  370 Ad Eph._ c. 19, 7; _ad Magn._ c. 8.

  371 See Scrivener’s _Plain Introd._ pp. 555-6, and Berriman’s
      _Dissertation_, pp. 229-263. Also the end of this volume.

  372 i. 887 c.

  373 ii. 74 b.

  374 See above, p. 98.

  375 As, that stupid fabrication, Τί με ἐρωτᾷς περὶ τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ; (in S.
      Matth. xix. 17):—the new incidents and sayings proposed for
      adoption, as in S. Mark i. 27 (in the Synagogue of Capernaum): in S.
      John xiii. 21-6 (at the last supper): in S. Luke xxiv. 17 (on the
      way to Emmaus):—the many proposed omissions, as in S. Matth. vi. 13
      (the Doxology): in xvi. 2, 3 (the signs of the weather): in S. Mark
      ix. 44 & 46 (the words of woe): in S. John v. 3, 4 (the Angel
      troubling the pool), &c. &c. &c.

  376 It cannot be too plainly or too often stated that learned Prebendary
      Scrivener is _wholly guiltless_ of the many spurious “Readings” with
      which a majority of his co-Revisionists have corrupted the Word of
      GOD. He pleaded faithfully,—but he pleaded in vain.—It is right also
      to state that the scholarlike Bp. of S. Andrews (Dr. Charles
      Wordsworth) has fully purged himself of the suspicion of complicity,
      by his printed (not published) remonstrances with his
      colleagues.—The excellent Bp. of Salisbury (Dr. Moberly) attended
      only 121 of their 407 meetings; and that judicious scholar, the Abp.
      of Dublin (Dr. Trench) only 63. The reader will find more on this
      subject at the close of Art. II.,—pp. 228-30.

  377 Eusebius,—Basil,—Chrysostom (_in loc._),—Jerome,—Juvencus,—omit the
      words. P. E. Pusey found them in _no_ Syriac copy. But the
      conclusive evidence is supplied by the Manuscripts; not more than 1
      out of 20 of which contain this clause.

  378 “Revised Text” of S. Luke vi. 48.

  379 “Authorized Version,” supported by A C D and 12 other uncials, the
      whole body of the cursives, the Syriac, Latin, and Gothic versions.

  380 “Revised Text” of S. Luke v. 39.

  381 “Authorized Version,” supported by A C and 14 other uncials, the
      whole body of the cursives, and _all_ the versions except the
      Peschito and the Coptic.

_  382 Address at Lincoln Diocesan Conference_,—p. 16.

_  383 On Revision_,—p. 99.

_  384 Dial._ capp. 88 and 103 (pp. 306, 310, 352).

  385 P. 113.

  386 Ap. Galland. iii. 719, c d.

  387 iv. 15 (ap. Gall. iv. 296 b).

  388 42 b, 961 e, 1094 a.

  389 Ap. Galland. iv. 605 (ver. 365-6).

  390 Ap. Aug. viii. 423 e.

  391 “Vox illa Patris, quæ super baptizatum facta est _Ego hodie genui
      te_,” (_Enchirid._ c. 49 [_Opp._ vi. 215 a]):—

      “Illud vero quod nonnulli codices habent secundum Lucam, hoc illa
      voce sonuisse quod in Psalmo scriptum est, _Filius meus es tu: ego
      hodie genui te_, quanquam in antiquioribus codicibus Græcis non
      inveniri perhibeatur, tamen si aliquibus fide dignis exemplaribus
      confirmari possit, quid aliud quam utrumque intelligendum est
      quolibet verborum ordine de cælo sonuisse?” (_De Cons. Ev._ ii. c.
      14 [_Opp._ iii. P. ii. 46 d e]). Augustine seems to allude to what
      is found to have existed in the _Ebionite Gospel_.

  392 Epiphanius (i. 138 b) quotes the passage which contains the
      statement.

  393 Αὕτη ἡ βίβλος γενέσεως—οὐρανοῦ καὶ γῆς: also—ἀνθρώπων.

  394 For my information on this subject, I am entirely indebted to one
      who is always liberal in communicating the lore of which he is
      perhaps the sole living depositary in England,—the Rev. Dr. S. C.
      Malan. See his _Seven Chapters of the Revision of 1881, revised_,—p.
      3. But especially should the reader be referred to Dr. Malan’s
      learned dissertation on this very subject in his _Select Readings in
      Westcott and Hort’s Gr. Text of S. Matth._,—pp. 1 to 22.

  395 So Dr. Malan in his _Select Readings_ (see above note 1),—pp. 15,
      17, 19.

  396 “Liber _genituræ_ Jesu Christi filii David, filii Abraham” ...
      “Gradatim ordo deducitur ad Christi _nativitatem_.”—_De Carne
      Christi_, c. 22.

  397 A friendly critic complains that we do not specify which editions of
      the Fathers we quote. Our reply is—This [was] a Review, not a
      Treatise. We are _constrained_ to omit such details. Briefly, we
      always quote _the best Edition_. Critical readers can experience
      _no_ difficulty in verifying our references. A few details shall
      however be added: Justin (_Otto_): Irenæus (_Stieren_): Clemens Al.
      (_Potter_): Tertullian (_Oehler_): Cyprian (_Baluze_): Eusebius
      (_Gaisford_): Athanas. (1698): Greg. Nyss. (1638): Epiphan. (1622):
      Didymus (1769): Ephraem Syr. (1732): Jerome (_Vallarsi_): Nilus
      (1668-73): Chrysostom (_Montfaucon_): Cyril (_Aubert_): Isidorus
      (1638): Theodoret (_Schulze_): Maximus (1675): John Damascene
      (_Lequien_): Photius (1653). Most of the others (as Origen, Greg.
      Nazianz., Basil, Cyril of Jer., Ambrose, Hilary, Augustine), are
      quoted from the Benedictine editions. When we say “Mai,” we always
      mean his _Nova Biblioth. PP._ 1852-71. By “Montfaucon,” we mean the
      _Nov. Coll. PP._ 1707. It is necessity that makes us so brief.

_  398 Concilia_, iii. 521 a to d.

  399 i.2 340.

  400 P. 889 line 37 (γένησιν).

  401 i. 943 c.

  402 i. 735.

  403 v.1 363, 676.

_  404 Concil._ iii. 325 ( = Cyril v.2 28 a).

  405 vii. 48; viii. 314.

  406 In Matth. ii. 16.

  407 Ps.-Athanas. ii. 306 and 700: ps.-Chrysost. xii. 694.

  408 P. 470.

  409 Gall. ix. 215.

_  410 Trin._ 188.

  411 i. 250 b.

  412 i. 426 a (γένησις).

  413 Διαφέρει γένεσις καὶ γέννησις; γένεσις μὲν γάρ ἐστι παρὰ Θεοῦ πρώτη
      πλάσις, γέννησις δὲ ἡ ἐκ καταδίκης τοῦ θανάτου διὰ τὴν παράβασιν ἐξ
      ἀλλήλων διαδοχή.—Galland. xiv. _Append._ pp. 73, 74.

  414 [dated 22 May A.D. 359] ap. Athan. i. 721 d.

  415 i. 722 c.

  416 P. 20 of the newly-recovered _Diatessaron_, translated from the
      Armenian. The Exposition is claimed for Ephraem Syrus.

  417 Dr. Malan, _Seven Chapters of the Revision, revised_, p. 7.

  418 See below, note 13.

  419 See p. 122, note 11.

  420 i. 938, 952. Also ps.-Athan. ii. 409, excellently.

_  421 Trin._ 349.

  422 P. 116.

  423 i. 392; ii. 599, 600.

  424 ii. 229.

  425 See p. 122, note 11.

  426 i. 426, 1049 (5 times), 1052-3.

  427 vii. 76.

  428 Galland. ix. 636.

  429 P. 6 (τὸν υἱὸν αὐτῆς: which is also the reading of Syrev and of the
      Sahidic. The Memphitic version represents τὸν υἱόν.)

  430 i. 276.

  431 Gal. xiii. 662.

_  432 In Cat._

  433 ii. 462.

  434 “_Ex hoc loco quidam perversissime suspicantur et alios filios
      habuisse Mariam, dicentes primogenitum non dici nisi qui habeat et
      fratres_” (vii. 14). He refers to his treatise against Helvidius,
      ii. 210.

_  435 Preface to Pastoral Epistles_,—more fully quoted facing p. 1.

  436 The Preface (quoted above facing p. 1,) is dated 3rd Nov. 1868.

_  437 Lectures on Biblical Revision_, (1881) pp. 116 seqq. See above, pp.
      37-9.

_  438 On Revision_, pp. 30 and 49.

_  439 The New Testament of Our Lord and Saviour JESUS CHRIST, translated
      out of the Greek: being the Version set forth_ A.D. _1611, compared
      with the most ancient Authorities, and Revised_ A.D. _1881_. Printed
      for the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge, 1881.

      _The New Testament in the Original Greek, according to the Text
      followed in the Authorized Version, together with the Variations
      adopted in the Revised Version._ Edited for the Syndics of the
      Cambridge University Press, by F. H. A. Scrivener, M.A., D.C.L.,
      LL.D., Prebendary of Exeter and Vicar of Hendon. Cambridge, 1881.

      Ἡ ΚΑΙΝΗ ΔΙΑΘΗΚΗ. _The Greek Testament, with the Readings adopted by
      the Revisers of the Authorized Version._ [Edited by the Ven.
      Archdeacon Palmer, D.D.] Oxford, 1881.

      _The New Testament in the Original Greek._ The Text revised by
      Brooke Foss Westcott, D.D., and Fenton John Anthony Hort, D.D.
      Cambridge and London, 1881.

  440 Malan’s _Gospel of S. John translated from the Eleven oldest
      Versions_.

  441 Int. ii. 72; iv. 622 dis.

_  442 C. Noet._ § 4.

  443 i. 1275.

_  444 Trin._ 363.

  445 Ap. Gall. v. 67.

  446 i. 282.

  447 i. 486.

_  448 Ep. ad Paul. Sam. Concil._ i. 872 e; 889 e.

  449 Ap. Galland. iv. 563.

  450 vii. 546; viii. 153, 154, 277.

  451 iii. 570; iv. 226, 1049, 1153.

  452 iv. 150 (text); vi. 30, 169. Mai, ii. 69.

_  453 Concilia_, iii. 1102 d.

  454 Quoted by Leontius (Gall. xii. 693).

_  455 In Cat._ Cord. 96.

_  456 Ibid._ p. 94.

_  457 Cat. in Ps._ ii. 323 and 343.

  458 Ap. Photium, p. 281.

  459 Montf. ii. 286.

  460 i. 288, 559, 567.

  461 Ps.-Athan. ii. 464. Another, 625. Another, 630. Ps.-Epiphan. ii.
      287.

  462 i. 863, 903, 1428.

  463 Gall. iii. 296.

  464 32 dis.; 514; 1045 dis.

  465 Gall. vi. 192.

  466 iv. 679.

  467 Ap. Athan. ii. 646.

  468 Gall. v. 124.

_  469 Ibid._ iii. 628, 675.

_  470 Ibid._ ix. 367.

_  471 Ibid._ ix. 493.

  472 Let the Reader, with a map spread before him, survey the whereabouts
      of the several VERSIONS above enumerated, and mentally assign each
      FATHER to his own approximate locality: then let him bear in mind
      that 995 out of 1000 of the extant MANUSCRIPTS agree with those
      Fathers and Versions; and let him further recognize that those MSS.
      (executed at different dates in different countries) must severally
      represent independent remote originals, inasmuch as _no two of them
      are found to be quite alike_.—Next, let him consider that, _in all
      the Churches of the East_, these words from the earliest period were
      read as _part of the Gospel for the Thursday in Easter week_.—This
      done, let him decide whether it is reasonable that two worshippers
      of codex B—A.D. 1881—should attempt to thrust all this mass of
      ancient evidence clean out of sight by their peremptory sentence of
      exclusion,—“WESTERN AND SYRIAN.”

      Drs. Westcott and Hort inform us that “_the character of the
      attestation_ marks” the clause (ὁ ὢν ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ), “as a WESTERN
      GLOSS.” But the “attestation” for retaining that clause—(_a_) Comes
      demonstrably from every quarter of ancient Christendom:—(_b_) Is
      more ancient (by 200 years) than the evidence for omitting it:—(_c_)
      Is more numerous, in the proportion of 99 to 1:—(_d_) In point of
      respectability, stands absolutely alone. For since we have _proved_
      that Origen and Didymus, Epiphanius and Cyril, Ambrose and Jerome,
      _recognize_ the words in dispute, of what possible Textual
      significancy can it be if presently (_because it is sufficient for
      their purpose_) the same Fathers are observed to quote S. John iii.
      13 _no further than down to the words _“Son of Man”? No person,
      (least of all a professed Critic,) who adds to his learning a few
      grains of common sense and a little candour, can be misled by such a
      circumstance. Origen, Eusebius, Proclus, Ephraim Syrus, Jerome,
      Marius, when they are only insisting on the doctrinal significancy
      of the earlier words, naturally end their quotation at this place.
      The two Gregories (Naz. [ii. 87, 168]: Nyss. [Galland. vi. 522]),
      writing against the Apolinarian heresy, of course quoted the verse
      no further than Apolinaris himself was accustomed (for his heresy)
      to adduce it.... About the _internal_ evidence for the clause,
      nothing has been said; but _this_ is simply overwhelming. We make
      our appeal to _Catholic Antiquity_; and are content to rest our
      cause on _External Evidence_;—on COPIES, on VERSIONS, on FATHERS.

  473 Pp. 798, 799.

  474 iii. 414.

_  475 Ant._ c. 50; _Consum._ c. 28.

_  476 Hist. Eccl._ v. 8.

  477 Ἐμβατεῦσαι;—Ἐπιβῆναι τὰ ἔνδον ἐξερευνῆσαι ἣ σκοπῆσαι. Phavorinus,
      quoted by Brüder.

  478 Viz. S. Luke iv. 39: Acts x. 17: xi. 11: xxii. 20.

  479 S. Luke ii. 9 (where “_came upon_” is better than “_stood by_ them,”
      and should have been left): xxiv. 4: Acts xii. 7: xxii. 13: xxiii.
      11.

  480 S. Luke xx. 1: xxi. 34 (last Day): Acts iv. 1: vi. 12: xvii. 5
      (“assault”): xxiii. 27: xxviii. 2 (a rain-storm,—which, by the way,
      suggests for τὸν ἐφεστῶτα a different rendering from “_the
      present_”).

  481 S. Luke ii. 38.

  482 S. Luke x. 40.

  483 Cf. ch. xi. 20. So in Latin, _Illa plurima sacrificia_. (Cic. _De
      Fin._ 2. 20. 63.)

  484 “The context” (says learned Dr. Field) “is too strong for
      philological quibbles.” The words “_can by no possibility bear any
      other meaning_.”—_Otium Norvicense_, p. 40.

  485 Στρατιώτης ὂς πρὸς τὸ φονεύειν τέτακται,—Theophylact, i. 201 e. Boys
      quotes Seneca _De Irá_:—_Tunc centurio supplicio præpositus condere
      gladium_ speculatorem _jussit_.

  486 Trench, _Study of Words_, p. 106.

_  487 Otium Norvicense_, pars tertia, 1881, pp. 155.

  488 Compare Xenophon (_Cyrop._ vii. 6. 8), τοὺς Συριστὶ ἐπισταμένους.
      The _plena locutio_ is found in Nehem. xiii. 24,—οἱ υἱοὶ αὐτῶν ἥμισυ
      λαλοῦντες Ἁζωτιστί, καὶ οὐκ εἰσὶν ἐπιγινώσκοντες λαλεῖν Ἰουδαιστί
      (quoted by Wetstein).

  489 Cf. Acts i. 23; xvii. 31. The Latin is “_statuerunt_” or
      “_constituerunt_.” The Revisionists give “appointed” in the second
      of these places, and “put forward” in the first. In both,—What
      becomes of their uniformity?

  490 P. 279.

  491 καὶ τὸν δικαστὴν εἷλεν ὁ τέως κατάδικος εἶναι νομιζόμενος καὶ τὴν
      νίκην αὐτὸς ὁ χειρωθεὶς ὁμολογεῖ λαμπρᾷ τῇ φωνῇ παρόντων ἁπάντων
      λέγων, ἐν ὀλίγῳ κ.τ.λ. x. 307 b. (= xii. 433 a).

  492 ἐν ὀλίγῳ; τουτέστι παρὰ μικρόν. ix. 391 a.

  493 καὶ τὸν δικάζοντα μικροῦ μεταπεῖσαι, ὡς καὶ αὐτὸν ἐκεῖνον λέγειν, ἐν
      ὀλίγῳ κ.τ.λ. ii. 516 d.

  494 iii. 399 d.

  495 v. 930 (παρ᾽ ὀλίγον).

  496 MS. Note in his copy of the N. T.

  497 And the Revisionists: for see Rom. xi. 4.

  498 Yet even here they cannot abstain from putting in the margin the
      peculiarly infelicitous alternative,—“_Why didst thou forsake Me?_”

  499 As in Rom. vi. 2: ix. 13. 1 Cor. i. 27: vi. 20: ix. 11. Ephes. iv.
      20, &c. &c.

  500 Comp. S. Matth. viii. 1, 5, 23, 28; ix. 27, 28; xxi. 23.

  501 Ἐὰν οὖν προσφέρῃς.

  502 ii. 155.

  503 Routh, _Rell_. iii. 226 _ad calc._

  504 Ap. Mai, iv. 266.

  505 ii. 1324.

  506 ii. 380.

  507 Ap. Greg. Nyss. iii. 403.

  508 So also Heb. xi. 17, 28. And see the Revision of S. James i. 11.

  509 Comp. ἀφίεμεν in S. Lu. xi. 4. In the case of certain Greek verbs,
      the _preterite_ in form is invariably _present_ in signification.
      See Dr. Field’s delightful _Otium Norvicense_, p. 65.

  510 See above, pp. 98-106. Also _infra_, towards the end.

  511 As in S. Matth. xi. 11 and 2 Tim. iv. 17, where δέ is rendered
      “notwithstanding:”—Phil. i. 24 and Heb. xii. 11, where it is
      “nevertheless.”

_  512 Eight_ times in succession in 1 Cor. xii. 8-10, δέ is not
      represented in the A. V. The ancients _felt_ so keenly what Tyndale,
      Cranmer, the Geneva, the Rheims, and the A. V. ventured to exhibit,
      that as often as not they leave out the δέ,—in which our
      Revisionists twice follow them. The reader of taste is invited to
      note the precious result of inserting “and,” as the Revisionists
      have done six times, where according to the genius of the English
      language it is not wanted at all.

  513 38 times in the Genealogy, S. Matth. i.

  514 Rom. xiv. 4: xv. 20.

  515 Rom. ix. 22.

  516 1 Cor. xii. 27.

  517 Gal. ii. 4.

  518 Act xxvii. 26.

  519 Rom. iii. 22.

  520 Ephes. iv. 1.

  521 2 Cor. v. 8.

  522 S. Mark xv. 31.

  523 S. Mark vi. 29.

  524 1 Cor. x. 1.

  525 S. Matth. vi. 30.

  526 S. John xx. 4.

  527 2 Cor. i. 23.

  528 2 Cor. vii. 13.

  529 2 Cor. ii. 12.

  530 2 Pet. iii. 13.

  531 S. Matth. ii. 22.

  532 1 Cor. xii. 20.

  533 1 S. John i. 3.

  534 S. Matth. xxv. 39.

  535 Acts viii. 3.

  536 Rom. xii. 6.

  537 S. Matth. vi. 29.

  538 As in S. Matth. vii. 9: xii. 29: xx. 15. Rom. iii. 29.

  539 S. Matth. xx. 15: xxvi. 53. Rom. iii. 29: vi. 3: vii. 1.

  540 S. John xvi. 32.

  541 S. Luke xix. 23.

  542 2 Cor. xiii. 1.

  543 S. Luke xii. 2.

  544 S. Luke xviii. 7.

  545 S Luke xiv. 21.

  546 1 S. John ii. 27.

  547 1 S. John i. 2.

  548 S. Mark ix. 39.

  549 Acts xxiii. 3.

  550 Consider S. Matth. iii. 16,—ἀνέβη ἀπὸ τοῦ ὕδατος: and ver.
      6,—ἐβαπτίζοντο ἐν τῷ Ἰορδάνῃ.

  551 ἐν τοῖς ἀνθρώποις συνανεστράφη.

  552 Galland. iv. 6 b _bis_.

  553 P. 279.

  554 ix. 400.

  555 ii. 707.

  556 The circumstance is noticed and explained in the same way by Dr.
      Field in his delightful _Otium Norvicense_.

_  557 Concilia_, iv. 79 e.

  558 Thus Cyril addresses one of his Epistles to Acacius Bp. of
      Melitene,—_Concilia_, iii. 1111.

  559 See Dr. Field’s delightful _Otium Norvicense_ (Pars tertia), 1881,
      pp. 1-4 and 110, 111. This masterly contribution to Sacred Criticism
      ought to be in the hands of every student of Scripture.

  560 See Hesychius, and the notes on the place.

_  561 Notes designed to illustrate some expressions in the Gk. Test. by a
      reference to the_ LXX., &c. By C. F. B. Wood, Præcentor of
      Llandaff,—Rivingtons, 1882, (pp. 21,)—p. 17:—an admirable
      performance, only far too brief.

  562 Μὴ ἀδυνατήσει παρὰ τῷ θεῷ ῥῆμα?

  563 Οὐκ ἀδυνατήσει παρὰ τῷ θεῷ πᾶν ῥῆμα.

  564 [Pointed out to me by Professor Gandell,—whose exquisite familiarity
      with Scripture is only equalled by his readiness to communicate his
      knowledge to others.]

  565 μύρου νάρδου πιστικῆς and ἐνταφιασμός,—S. Mark xiv. 3 and 8: S. John
      xii. 3 and 7. Hear Origen (apud Hieron. iii. 517):—“Non de nardo
      propositum est nunc Spiritui Sancto dicere, neque de hoc quod oculis
      intuemur, Evangelista scribit, unguento; sed _de nardo spirituali_.”
      And so Jerome himself, vii. 212.

  566 Ps. xxxiii. 18 (ἐγγὺς Κύριος τοῖς συντετριμμένοις τὴν καρδίαν): Is.
      lvii. 15.

  567 Consider Ignatius, _ad Ephes._ c. xvii. Also, the exquisite remark
      of Theod. Heracl. in Cramer’s _Cat._

  568 We prefer that readers should be reminded, by the varied form, of
      the _Greek_ original. In the extreme case (Acts vii. 45: Hebr. iv.
      8), is it not far more edifying that attention should be in this way
      directed to the identity of the names “_Joshua_” and “_Jesus_,” than
      that the latter word should be entirely obliterated by the
      former;—and this, only for the sake of unmistakeably proclaiming,
      (what yet must needs be perfectly manifest, viz.) that “_Joshua_” is
      the personage spoken of?

  569 So, in S. Luke xxiii. 25, and Acts iii. 14: xiii. 28,—still
      following Tyndale.

  570 Acts xii. 20.

  571 Eph. iii. 13.

  572 For, as the story plainly shows (2 Sam. vii. 2, 3; 1 Chron. xvii. 1,
      2), it was only “_in his heart_” to build GOD an house (1 Kings
      viii. 17, 18). Hence Cranmer’s “_he would fain_” have done so.

  573 Acts xvi. 29.

  574 Col. i. 9.

  575 S. Matth. xiv. 15, 22, 23 (= S. Mark vi. 36, 45, [and note the
      substitution of ἀποταξάμενος in ver. 46]: S. Luke ix. 12): and xv.
      32, 39 (= S. Mark viii. 9).

  576 S. Matt. xiii. 36: and S. Mark iv. 36.

  577 Acts xii. 13.

  578 Acts xvi. 16.

  579 Verses 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 30, 31.

  580 Twice he calls it μνῆμα.

  581 Ch. xxvii. 61, 64, 66; xxviii. 1.

  582 Except in 2 Tim. iii. 16,—where πρὸς διδασκαλίαν is rendered _ad
      docendum_.

  583 Except in Rom. xii. 7,—where ἐν τῇ διδασκαλίᾳ is rendered “_on
      teaching_.”

  584 Except in Rom. xvi. 17, where they render it “_doctrine_.”

  585 And yet, since upwards of 50 times we are molested with a marginal
      note to inform us that διδάσκαλος means “_Teacher_”—διδασκαλία
      (rather than διδαχή) might have claimed to be rendered “_teaching_.”

  586 Viz. Rom. xii. 7: 1 Tim. iv. 13, 16: v. 17: 2 Tim. iii. 10, 16.—Rom.
      xv. 4.

  587 Eight times in Rev. xvi.

  588 S. Matth. xxvi. 7. S. Mark xiv. 3. S. Luke vii. 37.

  589 γλωσσόκομον. Consider the LXX. of 2 Chron. xxiv. 8, 10, 11.

  590 ζώνας.

_  591 E.g._ S. Matth. xxvi. 48. S. Luke ii. 12.

  592 Δύναμις is rendered “miracle” in the R. V. about half-a-dozen times.

  593 Acts iv. 16, 22.—On the other hand, “sign” was allowed to represent
      σημεῖον repeatedly in the A. V., as in S. Matth. xii. 38, &c., and
      the parallel places: S. Mark xvi. 17, 20: S. John xx. 30.

  594 Canon Cook’s _Revised Version of the first three Gospels
      considered_, &c.—p. 26: an admirable performance,—unanswered,
      because _unanswerable_.

  595 Dr. Vance Smith’s _Revised Texts and Margins_,—p. 45.

  596 S. Matth. xvii. 15: S. Mk. ix. 18, 20, 22, 26: S. Lu. ix. 39, 42.

  597 Consider our LORD’S solemn words in Mtt. xvii. 21,—“_But this kind
      goeth not out save by prayer and fasting_,”—12 words left out by the
      R. V., though witnessed to by _all the Copies but_ 3: by the Latin,
      Syriac, Coptic, and Armenian Versions: and by the following
      Fathers:—(1) Origen, (2) Tertullian, (3) the Syriac Clement, (4) the
      Syriac _Canons of Eusebius_, (5) Athanasius, (6) Basil, (7) Ambrose,
      (8) Juvencus, (9) Chrysostom, (10) _Opus imp._, (11) Hilary, (12)
      Augustine, (13) J. Damascene, and others. Then (it will be asked),
      why have the Revisionists left them out? Because (we answer) they
      have been misled by B and א, Cureton’s Syriac and the Sahidic,—as
      untrustworthy a quaternion of witnesses to the text of Scripture as
      could be named.

  598 The word is only not banished entirely from the N. T. It occurs
      twice (viz. in Rom. i. 20, and Jude ver. 6), but only as the
      rendering of ἀῖδιος.

  599 S. Matth. xxv. 46.

  600 Clemens Al. (p. 71) says:—τὰσ γραφὰς ὁ Ἀπόστολος Θεοπνεύστους καλεῖ,
      ὠφελίμους οὔσας. Tertullian,—_Legimus omnem Scripturam ædificationi
      habilem, divinitus inspirari._ Origen (ii. 443),—πᾶσα γραφὴ
      θεόπνευστος οὖσα ὠφελιμός ἐστι. Gregory Nyss. (ii. 605),—πᾶσα γραφὴ
      θεόπνευστος λέγεται. Dial. (ap. Orig. i. 808),—πᾶσα γραφὴ
      θεόπνευστος λέγεται παρὰ τοῦ Ἀποστόλου. So Basil, Chrysostom, Cyril,
      Theodoret, &c.

  601 See Archdeacon Lee _on Inspiration_, pp. 261-3, reading his notes.

  602 S. John xvi. 15.

  603 Study by all means Basil’s letter to Amphilochius, (vol. iii. p. 360
      to 362.)—Ἔστιν οὖν ὁ νοῦς ὁ παρὰ τῷ Μάρκῳ τοιοῦτος; Περὶ δὲ τῆς
      ἡμέρας ἐκείνης ἢ ὥρας, οὐδεὶς οἶδεν, οὔτε οἱ ἄγγελοι τοῦ Θεοῦ, ἀλλ᾽
      οὐδ᾽ ἄν ὁ Υἱὸς ἔγνω, εἰ μὴ ὁ Πατέρ; ἐκ γὰρ τοῦ Πατρὸς αὐτῷ ὑπῆρχε
      δεδομένη ἡ γνῶσις ... τουτέστιν, ἡ αἰτία τοῦ εἰδέναι τὸν Υἱὸν παρὰ
      τοῦ Πατρός; καὶ ἀβίαστός ἐστι τῷ εὐγνωμόνως ἀκούοντι ἡ ἐξήγησις
      αὕτη. ἐπειδὴ οὐ πρόσκειται τὸ μόνος; ὡς καὶ παρὰ τῷ Ματθαίῳ.—(p. 362
      c.) Basil says of this interpretation—ἂ τοίνυν ἐκ παιδὸς παρὰ τῶν
      πατέρων ἠκούσαμεν.

_  604 Notes_, p. 109.

_  605 Celebre effugium_, (as Dr. Routh calls it,) _quod ex falsâ verborum
      constructione Critici quidam hæreticis pararunt._ _Reliqq._ iii.
      322-3.

  606 C alone has a point between ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων and Θεὸς εὐλογητὸς εἰς
      τους αἰῶνας. But this is an entirely different thing from what is
      noted in the margin.

  607 MS. communication from the Rev. S. C. Malan.

  608 i. 506.

_  609 Opusc._ i. 52, 58; _Phil._ 339.

  610 iv. 612.

  611 Routh, _Reliqq. Sac._ iii. 292, and 287. (_Concil._ i. 845 b. c.)

_  612 Concilia_, i. 873 d: 876 a.

  613 vi. c. 26.

  614 i. 414, 415, 429, 617, 684, 908.

  615 i. 282. And in _Cat._ 317.

_  616 Trin._ 21, 29, 327, 392. Mai, vii. 303.

  617 ii. 596 a, (quoted by the Emp. Justinian [_Concil._ v. 697] and the
      _Chronicon Paschale_, 355), 693, 697; iii. 287. Galland. vi. 575.

  618 i. 481, 487, 894, 978; ii. 74.

  619 Ap. Cyril (ed. Pusey), v. 534.

  620 Ap. Gall. iii. 805.

  621 Ap. Gall. iv. 576.

  622 Ap. Phot. col. 761, 853.

  623 Ap. Gall. vi. 8, 9, 80.

  624 Ap. Gall. vii. 618, and ap. Hieron. i. 560.

_  625 Concilia_, iii. 522 e ( = iv. 297 d = ap. Gall. viii. 667). Also,
      _Concilia_ (Harduin), i. 1413 a.

  626 Ap. Gall. ix. 474.

  627 Ap. Gall. ix. 690, 691 ( = _Concil._ iii. 1230, 1231).

_  628 Homilia_ (Arm.), p. 165 and 249.

  629 i. 464, 483; vi. 534; vii. 51; viii. 191; ix. 604, 653; x. 172.

  630 v.1 20, 503, 765, 792; v.2 58, 105, 118, 148; vi. 328. Ap. Mai, ii.
      70, 86, 96, 104; iii. 84 _in Luc._ 26.

_  631 Concilia_, iii. 1099 b.

  632 i. 103; ii. 1355; iii. 215, 470; iv. 17, 433, 1148, 1264, 1295,
      1309; v. 67, 1093.

  633 Cramer’s _Cat._ 160.

_  634 Ibid. in Act._ 40.

  635 P. 166.

_  636 Concilia_, ii. 195.

  637 Ap. Gall. xii. 251.

  638 Ap. Gall. xii. 682.

  639 ii. 64.

  640 i. 557; ii. 35, 88.

  641 Prax. 13, 15—“Christum autem et ipse Deum cognominavit, _Quorum
      patres, et ex quibus Christus secundum carnem, qui est super omnia
      Deus benedictus in ævum_.”

  642 P. 287.

  643 Ap. Gall. iii. 296, 313.

  644 i. 1470; ii. 457, 546, 609, 790.

_  645 Concilia_, ii. 982 c.

  646 78, 155, 393, 850, 970, 1125, 1232.

  647 i. 870, 872.

  648 Ap. Gall. viii. 157.

  649 Ap. Gall. vii. 589, 590.

  650 Ap. Gall. viii. 627.

  651 709, 711.

  652 Ap. Gall. x. 722.

  653 Ap. Gall. xi. 233, 237.

_  654 Concilia_, iii. 1364, 1382.

  655 Ap. Gall. 352, 357.

_  656 Ibid._ 674.

  657 ii. 16, 215, 413.

  658 i. 839; v. 769; xii. 421.

  659 Those of our readers who wish to pursue this subject further may
      consult with advantage Dr. Gifford’s learned note on the passage in
      the _Speaker’s Commentary_. Dr. Gifford justly remarks that “it is
      the natural and simple construction, which every Greek scholar would
      adopt without hesitation, if no question of doctrine were involved.”

  660 Note, that this has been the language of the Church from the
      beginning. Thus Tertullian,—“Aquam adituri ... contestamur nos
      renuntiare diabolo, _et pompæ et angelis ejus_” (i. 421): and
      Ambrose,—“Quando te interrogavit, Abrenuntias diabolo _et operibus
      ejus_, quid respondisti? Abrenuntio. Abrenuntias _sæculo et
      voluptatibus ejus_, quid respondisti? Abrenuntio” (ii. 350 c): and
      Ephraem Syrus,—Ἀποτάσσομαι τῷ Σατανᾷ καὶ πᾶσιν τοῖς ἔργοις αὐτοῦ
      (ii. 195 and iii. 399). And Cæsarius of Arles,—“Abrenuntias diabolo,
      _pompis et operibus ejus_ ... Abrenuntio” (Galland. xi. 18 e).

  661 2 Tim. iv. 18.

  662 S. John xvii. 24.

  663 P. 140.

  664 Marcell. p. 192.

_  665 In loc. diserte._

_  666 Eth._ ii. 297.

  667 viii. 485.

_  668 Text_, iv. 1003; _Comm._ 1007, which are _two distinct
      authorities_, as learned readers of Cyril are aware.

_  669 Concilia_, iii. 356 d.

  670 iv. 450.

  671 Pp. 235, 321.

  672 i. 412; ii. 566, 649.

  673 Pp. 1017, 1033.

  674 Victricius ap. Gall. viii. 230. Also ps.-Chrys. v. 680.

  675 iii. 966 _dis._

_  676 Dem._ 92.

  677 i. 319.

_  678 Trin._ 190.

  679 v. 1039, 1069.

  680 ii. 460.

  681 v. 615.

  682 ii. 584. Cyril read the place both ways:—v.2 156, and _in Luc._ p.
      52.

  683 i. 720.

  684 ii. 381; iii. 962; iv. 601.

  685 Ap. Galland. vii. 183.

  686 Ap. Montf. ii. 67.

  687 iii. 333; v. 444; x. 498, 620; xii. 329.

  688 ii. 77; iii. 349.

  689 ii. 252.

  690 “Deseruimus fere quos sequi solemus codices.”

  691 P. 38 ( = Gall. vii. 26).

  692 i. 298, 613.

  693 viii. 351, 352.

  694 iv. 652 c, 653 a, 654 d.

  695 i. 748; iv. 274, 550.

_  696 In Dionys. Ar._ ii. 192.

  697 As these sheets are passing through the press, we have received a
      book by Sir Edmund Beckett, entitled, _Should the Revised New
      Testament be Authorized?_ In four Chapters, the author discusses
      with characteristic vigour, first, the principles and method of the
      Revisers, and then the Gospel of S. Matthew, the Epistle to the
      Hebrews, and the Apocalypse, as fair samples of their work, with a
      union of sound sense, forensic skill, and scholarship more skilful
      than to deserve his cautious disclaimer. Amidst details open, of
      course, to discussion, abundant proofs are set forth, in a most
      telling style, that the plea of “necessity” and “faithfulness”
      utterly fails, in justification of a mass of alterations, which, in
      point of English composition, carry their condemnation on their
      face, and, to sum up the great distinction between the two Versions,
      illustrate “the difference between working by _discretion_ and by
      _rules_—by which no great thing was ever done or ever will be.” Sir
      Edmund Beckett is very happy in his exposure of the abuse of the
      famous canon of preferring the stranger reading to the more obvious,
      as if copyists never made stupid blunders or perpetrated wilful
      absurdities. The work deserves the notice of all English readers.

  698 It has been objected by certain of the Revisionists that it is not
      fair to say that “they were appointed to do one thing, and have done
      another.” We are glad of this opportunity to explain.

      That _some_ corrections of the Text were necessary, we are well
      aware: and had those _necessary_ changes been made, we should only
      have had words of commendation and thanks to offer. But it is found
      that by Dr. Hort’s eager advocacy two-thirds of the Revisionists
      have made a vast number of _perfectly needless changes_:—(1) Changes
      which _are incapable of being represented in a Translation_: as ἐμοῦ
      for μου,—πάντες for ἅπαντες,—ὅτε for ὁπότε. Again, since γέννησις,
      at least as much as γένεσις, means “_birth_,” _why_ γένεσις in S.
      Matth. i. 18? Why, also, inform us that instead of ἐν τῷ ἀμπελῶνι
      αὐτοῦ πεφυτευμένην, they prefer πεφυτευμένην ἐν τῷ ἀμπελῶνι αὐτοῦ?
      and instead of καρπὸν ζητῶν,—ζητῶν καρπόν? Now this they have done
      _throughout_,—at least 341 times in S. Luke alone. But (what is far
      worse), (2) They suggest in the margin changes which yet they _do
      not adopt_. These numerous changes are, _by their own confession_,
      not “necessary:” and yet they are of a most serious character. In
      fact, it is of these we chiefly complain.—But, indeed (3), _How
      many_ of their _other_ alterations of the Text will the Revisionists
      undertake to defend publicly on the plea of “_Necessity_”?

      [A vast deal more will be found on this subject towards the close of
      the present volume. In the meantime, see above, pages 87-88.]

  699 “We meet in every page” (says Dr. Wordsworth, the learned Bishop of
      Lincoln,) “with small changes which are vexatious, teasing, and
      irritating; even the more so because they are small (as small
      insects sting most sharply), _which seem almost to be made merely
      for the sake of change_.”—p. 25.

_  700 On the Revision of the English Version_, &c. (1870), p. 99.

  701 Bp. Ellicott, _Diocesan Progress_, Jan. 1882,—p. 19.

  702 Bp. Ellicott, _On Revision_,—p. 49.

  703 “_Qui_ LXX _interpretes non legit, aut minus legit accurate, is
      sciat se non adeo idoneum, qui Scripta Evangelica Apostolica de
      Græco in Latinum, aut alium aliquem sermonem transferat, ut ut in
      aliis Græcis scriptoribus multum diuque fuerit versatus_.” (John
      Bois, 1619.)—“_Græcum N. T. contextum rite intellecturo nihil est
      utilius quam diligenter versasse Alexandrinam antiqui Fœderis
      interpretationem_, E QUÂ UNÂ PLUS PETI POTERIT AUXILII, QUAM EX
      VETERIBUS SCRIPTORIBUS GRÆCIS SIMUL SUMTIS. _Centena reperientur in
      N. T. nusquam obvia in scriptis Græcorum veterum, sed frequentata in
      Alexandrinâ versione._” (Valcknaer, 1715-85.)

_  704 On the Authorized Version_,—p. 3.

_  705 Preface_, p. xiv.

_  706 Quarterly Review_, No. 304.

_  707 Quarterly Review_, No. 305.

  708 At the head of the present Article, as it originally appeared, will
      be found enumerated Dr. Scrivener’s principal works. It shall but be
      said of them, that they are wholly unrivalled, or rather
      unapproached, in their particular department. Himself an exact and
      elegant Scholar,—a most patient and accurate observer of Textual
      phenomena, as well as an interesting and judicious expositor of
      their significance and value;—guarded in his statements, temperate
      in his language, fair and impartial (even kind) to all who come in
      his way:—Dr. Scrivener is the very best teacher and guide to whom a
      beginner can resort, who desires to be led by the hand, as it were,
      through the intricate mazes of Textual Criticism. His _Plain
      Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament for the use of
      Biblical Students_, (of which a third edition is now in the press,)
      is perforce the most generally useful, because the most
      comprehensive, of his works; but we strenuously recommend the three
      prefatory chapters of his _Full and Exact Collation of about twenty
      Greek Manuscripts of the Gospels_ [pp. lxxiv. and 178,—1853], and
      the two prefatory chapters of his _Exact Transcript of the Codex
      Augiensis_, &c., to which is added a full Collation of Fifty
      Manuscripts, [pp. lxxx. and 563,—1859,] to the attention of
      students. His Collation of _Codex Bezæ_ (D) is perhaps the greatest
      of his works: but whatever he has done, he has done best. It is
      instructive to compare his collation of Cod. א with Tischendorf’s.
      No reader of the Greek Testament can afford to be without his
      reprint of Stephens’ ed. of 1550: and English readers are reminded
      that Dr. Scrivener’s is the only _classical_ edition of the English
      Bible,—_The Cambridge Paragraph Bible_, &c., 1870-3. His Preface or
      “Introduction” (pp. ix.-cxx.) passes praise. Ordinary English
      readers should enquire for his _Six Lectures on the Text of the N.
      T._, &c., 1875,—which is in fact an attempt to popularize the _Plain
      Introduction_. The reader is referred to note 1 at the foot of page
      243.

  709 “Agmen ducit Carolus Lachmannus (_N. T. Berolini_ 1842-50), ingenii
      viribus et elegantiâ doctrinæ haud pluribus impar; editor N. T.
      audacior quam limatior: cujus textum, a recepto longè decedentem,
      tantopere judicibus quibusdam subtilioribus placuisse jamdudum
      miramur: quippe qui, abjectâ tot cæterorum codicum Græcorum ope,
      perpaucis antiquissimis (nec iis integris, nec per eum satis
      accuratè collatis) innixus, libros sacros ad sæculi post Christum
      quarti normam restituisse sibi videatur; versionum porrò (cujuslibet
      codicis ætatem facilè superantium) Syriacæ atque Ægyptiacarum
      contemptor, neutrius linguæ peritus; Latinarum contrà nimius fautor,
      præ Bentleio ipso Bentleianus.”—Scrivener’s Preface to _Nov. Test,
      textûs Stephanici_, &c. See above, p. 238, _note_.

  710 Scrivener’s _Introduction_, p. 429.

  711 N. T. Part II. p. 2.

  712 No one who attends ever so little to the subject can require to be
      assured that “_The New Testament in the Original Greek, according to
      the text followed in the Authorized Version, together with the
      variations adopted in the Revised Version_,” edited by Dr. Scrivener
      for the Syndics of the Cambridge University Press, 1881, does not by
      any means represent his own views. The learned Prebendary merely
      edited the decisions of the two-thirds majority of the
      Revisionists,—_which were not his own_.

  713 Those who have never tried the experiment, can have no idea of the
      strain on the attention which such works as those enumerated in p.
      238 (_note_) occasion. At the same time, it cannot be too clearly
      understood that it is chiefly by the multiplication of _exact_
      collations of MSS. that an abiding foundation will some day be laid
      on which to build up the _Science_ of Textual Criticism. We may
      safely keep our “_Theories_” back till we have collated our
      MSS.,—re-edited our Versions,—indexed our Fathers. They will be
      abundantly in time _then_.

_  714 Introduction_, p. 18.

  715 See lower part of page 17. Also note at p. 75 and middle of p. 262.

  716 P. 13, cf. p. viii.

  717 They are as follows:—

      [1st] S. Mark (vi. 33) relates that on a certain occasion the
      multitude, when they beheld our SAVIOUR and His Disciples departing
      in order to cross over unto the other side of the lake, ran on foot
      thither,—(α) “_and outwent them_—(β) _and came together unto Him_”
      (_i.e._ on His stepping out of the boat: not, as Dr. Hort strangely
      imagines [p. 99], on His emerging from the scene of His “retirement”
      in “some sequestered nook”).

      Now here, A substitutes συνέδραμον [_sic_] for συνῆλθον.—א B with
      the Coptic and the Vulg. omit clause (β).—D omits clause (α), but
      substitutes “_there_” (αὐτοῦ) for “_unto Him_” in clause
      (β),—exhibits therefore a fabricated text.—The Syriac condenses the
      two clauses thus:—“_got there before Him_.”—L, Δ, 69, and 4 or 5 of
      the old Latin copies, read diversely from all the rest and from one
      another. The present is, in fact, one of those many places in S.
      Mark’s Gospel where all is contradiction in those depraved witnesses
      which Lachmann made it his business to bring into fashion. Of
      _Confusion_ there is plenty. “Conflation”—as the Reader sees—there
      is none.

      [2nd] In S. Mark viii. 26, our SAVIOUR (after restoring sight to the
      blind man of Bethsaida) is related to have said,—(α) “_Neither enter
      into the village_”—(β) “_nor tell it to any one_—(γ) _in the
      village_.” (And let it be noted that the trustworthiness of this way
      of exhibiting the text is vouched for by A C N Δ and 12 other
      uncials: by the whole body of the cursives: by the Peschito and
      Harklensian, the Gothic, Armenian, and Æthiopic Versions: and by the
      only Father who quotes the place—Victor of Antioch. [Cramer’s _Cat._
      p. 345, lines 3 and 8.])

      But it is found that the “two false witnesses” (א B) omit clauses
      (β) and (γ), retaining only clause (α). One of these two however
      (א), aware that under such circumstances μηδέ is intolerable, [Dr.
      Hort, on the contrary, (only because he finds it in B,) considers
      μηδέ “_simple and vigorous_” as well as “unique” and “peculiar” (p.
      100).] substitutes μή. As for D and the Vulg., they substitute and
      paraphrase, importing from Matt. ix. 6 (or Mk. ii. 11), “_Depart
      unto thine house_.” D proceeds,—“_and tell it to no one_ [μηδενὶ
      εἴπῃς, from Matth. viii. 4,] _in the village_.” Six copies of the
      old Latin (b f ff-2 g-1-2 l), with the Vulgate, exhibit the
      following paraphrase of the entire place:—“_Depart unto thine house,
      and if thou enterest into the village, tell it to no one._” The same
      reading exactly is found in Evan. 13-69-346: 28, 61, 473, and i,
      (except that 28, 61, 346 exhibit “_say nothing_ [from Mk. i. 44] _to
      no one_.”) All six however add at the end,—“_not even in the
      village_.” Evan. 124 and a stand alone in exhibiting,—“_Depart unto
      thine house; and enter not into the village; neither tell it to any
      one_,”—to which 124 [not a] adds,—“_in the village_.”... _Why_ all
      this contradiction and confusion is now to be called
      “Conflation,”—and what “clear evidence” is to be elicited therefrom
      that “Syrian” are posterior alike to “Western” and to “neutral”
      readings,—passes our powers of comprehension.

      We shall be content to hasten forward when we have further informed
      our Readers that while Lachmann and Tregelles abide by the Received
      Text in this place; Tischendorf, _alone of Editors_, adopts the
      reading of א (μη εις την κωμην εισελθης): while Westcott and Hort,
      _alone of Editors_, adopt the reading of B (μηδε εις την κωμην
      εισελθης),—so ending the sentence. What else however but calamitous
      is it to find that Westcott and Hort have persuaded their fellow
      Revisers to adopt the same mutilated exhibition of the Sacred Text?
      The consequence is, that henceforth,—instead of “_Neither go into
      the town, nor tell it to any in the town_,”—we are invited to read,
      “_Do not even enter into the village_.”

      [3rd] In S. Mk. ix. 38,—S. John, speaking of one who cast out devils
      in CHRIST’S Name, says—(α) “_who followeth not us, and we forbad
      him_—(β) _because he followeth not us_.”

      Here, א B C L Δ the Syriac, Coptic, and Æthiopic, omit clause (α),
      retaining (β). D with the old Latin and the Vulg. omit clause (β),
      but retain (α).—Both clauses are found in A N with 11 other uncials
      and the whole body of the cursives, besides the Gothic, and the only
      Father who quotes the place,—Basil [ii. 252].—Why should the
      pretence be set up that there has been “Conflation” here? Two
      Omissions do not make one Conflation.

      [4th] In Mk. ix. 49,—our SAVIOUR says,—“_For_ (α) _every one shall
      be salted with fire_—_and_ (β) _every sacrifice shall be salted with
      salt_.”

      Here, clause (α) is omitted by D and a few copies of the old Latin;
      clause (β) by א B L Δ.

      But such an ordinary circumstance as the omission of half-a-dozen
      words by Cod. D is so nearly without textual significancy, as
      scarcely to merit commemoration. And do Drs. Westcott and Hort
      really propose to build their huge and unwieldy hypothesis on so
      flimsy a circumstance as the concurrence in error of א B L
      Δ,—especially in S. Mark’s Gospel, which those codices exhibit more
      unfaithfully than any other codices that can be named? Against them,
      are to be set on the present occasion A C D N with 12 other uncials
      and the whole body of the cursives: the Ital. and Vulgate; both
      Syriac; the Coptic, Gothic, Armenian, and Æthiopic Versions; besides
      the only Father who quotes the place,—Victor of Antioch. [Also
      “Anon.” p. 206: and see Cramer’s _Cat._ p. 368.]

      [5th] S. Luke (ix. 10) relates how, on a certain occasion, our
      SAVIOUR “_withdrew to a desert place belonging to the city called
      Bethsaida_:” which S. Luke expresses in six words: viz. [1] εἰς [2]
      τόπον [3] ἔρημον [4] πόλεως [5] καλουμένης [6] Βηθσαϊδά: of which
      six words,—

      (_a_)—א and Syrcu retain but three,—1, 2, 3.

      (_b_)—The Peschito retains but four,—1, 2, 3, 6.

      (_c_)—B L X Ξ D and the 2 Egyptian versions retain other four,—1, 4,
      5, 6: but for πόλεως καλουμένης D exhibits κώμην λεγομένην.

      (_d_)—The old Latin and Vulg. retain five,—1, 2, 3, 5, 6: but for
      “_qui_ (or _quod_) _vocabatur_,” the Vulg. _b_ and _c_ exhibit
      “_qui_ (or _quod_) est.”

      (_e_)—3 cursives retain other five, viz. 1, 2, 4, 5, 6: while,

      (_f_)—A C Δ E, with 9 more uncials and the great bulk of the
      cursives,—the Harklensian, Gothic, Armenian, and Æthiopic
      Versions,—retain _all the six words_.

      In view of which facts, it probably never occurred to any one before
      to suggest that the best attested reading of all is the result of
      “conflation,” _i.e._ of _spurious mixture_. Note, that א and D have,
      this time, changed sides.

      [6th] S. Luke (xi. 54) speaks of the Scribes and Pharisees as (α)
      “_lying in wait for Him_,” (β) _seeking_ (γ) _to catch something out
      of His mouth_ (δ) “_that they might accuse Him_.” This is the
      reading of 14 uncials headed by A C, and of the whole body of the
      cursives: the reading of the Vulgate also and of the Syriac. What is
      to be said against it?

      It is found that א B L with the Coptic and Æthiopic Versions omit
      clauses (β) and (δ), but retain clauses (α) and (γ).—Cod. D, in
      conjunction with Cureton’s Syriac and the old Latin, retains clause
      (β), and _paraphrases all the rest of the sentence_. How then can it
      be pretended that there has been any “Conflation” here?

      In the meantime, how unreasonable is the excision from the Revised
      Text of clauses (β) and (δ)—(ζητοῦντες ... ἵνα κατηγορήσωσιν
      αὐτόν)—which are attested by A C D and 12 other uncials, together
      with the whole body of the cursives; by all the Syriac and by all
      the Latin copies!... Are we then to understand that א B, and the
      Coptic Version, outweigh every other authority which can be named?

      [7th] The “rich fool” in the parable (S. Lu. xii. 18), speaks of (α)
      πάντα τὰ γενήματά μου, καὶ (β) τὰ ἀγαθά μου. (So A Q and 13 other
      uncials, besides the whole body of the cursives; the Vulgate, Basil,
      and Cyril.)

      But א D (with the old Latin and Cureton’s Syriac [which however
      drops the πάντα]), retaining clause (α), omit clause (β).—On the
      other hand, B T, (with the Egyptian Versions, the Syriac, the
      Armenian, and Æthiopic,) retaining clause (β), substitute τὸν σῖτον
      (a gloss) for τὰ γενήματα in clause (α). Lachmann, Tisch., and
      Alford, accordingly retain the traditional text in this place. So
      does Tregelles, and so do Westcott and Hort,—only substituting τὸν
      σῖτον for τὰ γενήματα. Confessedly therefore there has been no
      “Syrian conflation” _here_: for all that has happened has been _the
      substitution_ by B of τὸν σῖτον for τὰ γενήματα; and the omission of
      4 words by א D. This instance must therefore have been an
      oversight.—Only once more.

      [8th] S. Luke’s Gospel ends (xxiv. 53) with the record that the
      Apostles were continually in the Temple, “(α) _praising and_ (β)
      _blessing _GOD.” Such is the reading of 13 uncials headed by A and
      every known cursive: a few copies of the old Lat., the Vulg.,
      Syraic, Philox., Æthiopic, and Armenian Versions. But it is found
      that א B C omit clause (α): while D and seven copies of the old
      Latin omit clause (β).

      And this completes the evidence for “Conflation.” We have displayed
      it thus minutely, lest we should be suspected of unfairness towards
      the esteemed writers on _the only occasion_ which they have
      attempted argumentative proof. Their theory has at last _forced
      them_ to make an appeal to Scripture, and to produce some actual
      specimens of their meaning. After ransacking the Gospels for 30
      years, they have at last fastened upon _eight_: of which (as we have
      seen), several have really no business to be cited,—as not
      fulfilling the necessary conditions of the problem. To prevent cavil
      however, let _all but one_, the [7th], pass unchallenged.

  718 The Reader is referred to pp. 17, 75, 249.

_  719 E.g._ pp. 115, 116, 117, 118, &c.

  720 Referred to below, p. 296.

  721 See above, pages 257 (bottom) and 258 (top).

  722 See above, pp. 37 to 38.

_  723 Ibid._ p. 39.

  724 To speak with entire accuracy, Drs. Westcott and Hort require us to
      believe that the Authors of the [imaginary] Syrian Revisions of A.D.
      250 and A.D. 350, interpolated the genuine Text of the Gospels, with
      between 2877 (B) and 3455 (א) spurious words; mutilated the genuine
      Text in respect of between 536 (B) and 839 (א) words:—substituted
      for as many genuine words, between 935 (B) and 1114 (א) uninspired
      words:—licentiously transposed between 2098 (B) and 2299 (א):—and in
      respect of number, case, mood, tense, person, &c., altered without
      authority between 1132 (*B*) and 1265 (א) words.

  725 Quoted by Canon Cook, _Revised Version Considered_,—p. 202.

_  726 i.e._ say from A.D. 90 to A.D. 250-350.

  727 See above, p. 269.

  728 “If,” says Dr. Hort, “an editor were for any purpose to make it his
      aim to restore as completely as possible the New Testament of
      Antioch in A.D. 350, he could not help taking the approximate
      consent of the cursives as equivalent to _a primary documentary
      witness_. And he would not be the less justified in so doing for
      being unable to say precisely by what historical agencies THE ONE
      ANTIOCHIAN ORIGINAL”—[note the fallacy!]—“_was multiplied into the
      cursive hosts of the later ages_.”—Pp. 143-4.

  729 Preface to the “limited and private issue” of 1870, p. xviii.:
      reprinted in the _Introduction_ (1881), p. 66.

_  730 Ibid._

  731 P. 65 (§ 84). In the Table of Contents (p. xi.), “_Personal
      instincts_” are substituted for “_Personal discernment_.”

_  732 The Revisers and the Greek Text_,—p. 19.

_  733 Introduction_,—p. xiii.

_  734 Notes_, p. 22.

_  735 Notes_, p. 88.

_  736 Notes_,—p. 51.

  737 Scrivener’s _Plain Introduction_,—pp. 507-8.

  738 Scrivener’s “_Introduction_,” pp. 513-4.

  739 In S. MATTH. i. 25,—the omission of “_her first-born_:”—in vi. 13,
      the omission of the _Doxology_:—in xii. 47, the omission of _the
      whole verse_:—in xvi. 2, 3, the omission of our LORD’S memorable
      words concerning the _signs of the weather_:—in xvii. 21, the
      omission of the mysterious statement, “_But this kind goeth not out
      save by prayer and fasting_:”—in xviii. 11, the omission of the
      precious words “_For the Son of man came to save that which was
      lost_.”

      In S. MARK xvi. 9-20, the omission of the “_last Twelve
      Verses_,”—(“the contents of which are _not such as could have been
      invented_ by any scribe or editor of the Gospel,”—W. and H. p. 57).
      All admit that ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ is an impossible ending.

      In S. LUKE vi. 1, the suppression of the unique δευτεροπρώτῳ; (“the
      very obscurity of the expression attesting strongly to its
      genuineness,”—Scrivener, p. 516, and so W. and H. p. 58):—ix. 54-56,
      the omitted _rebuke to the_ “_disciples James and John_:”—in x. 41,
      42, the omitted _words concerning Martha and Mary_:—in xxii. 43, 44,
      the omission of the _Agony in the Garden_,—(which nevertheless, “_it
      would be impossible to regard_ as a product of the inventiveness of
      scribes,”—W. and H. p. 67):—in xxiii. 17, a memorable clause
      omitted:—in xxiii. 34, the omission of our Lord’s _prayer for His
      murderers_,—(concerning which Westcott and Hort remark that “_few
      verses of the Gospels bear in themselves a surer witness to the
      truth of what they record than this_”—p. 68):—in xxiii. 38, the
      statement that the Inscription on the Cross was “_in letters of
      Greek, and Latin, and Hebrew_:”—in xxiv. 12, _the visit of S. Peter
      to the Sepulchre_. Bishop Lightfoot remarks concerning S. Luke ix.
      56: xxii. 43, 44: and xxiii. 34,—“_It seems impossible to believe
      that these incidents are other than authentic_,”—(p. 28.)

      In S. JOHN iii. 13, the solemn clause “_which is in heaven_:”—in v.
      3, 4, the omitted incident of _the troubling of the pool_:—in vii.
      53 to viii. 11, _the narrative concerning the woman taken in
      adultery_ omitted,—concerning which Drs. W. and H. remark that “_the
      argument which has always told most in its favour in modern times is
      its own internal character_. The story itself has justly seemed _to
      vouch for its own substantial truth_, and the words in which it is
      clothed to harmonize with those of other Gospel narratives”—(p. 87).
      Bishop Lightfoot remarks that “_the narrative bears on its face the
      highest credentials of authentic history_”—(p. 28).

  740 To some extent, even the unlearned Reader may easily convince
      himself of this, by examining the rejected “alternative” Readings in
      the margin of the “Revised Version.” The “Many” and the “Some
      ancient authorities,” there spoken of, _almost invariably
      include_—sometimes _denote_—codd. B א, one or both of them. These
      constitute the merest fraction of the entire amount of corrupt
      readings exhibited by B א; but they will give English readers some
      notion of the problem just now under consideration.

      Besides the details already supplied [see above, pages 16 and 17:—30
      and 31:—46 and 47:—75:—249:—262:—289:—316 to 319] concerning B and
      א,—(the result of laborious collation,)—some particulars shall now
      be added. The piercing of our SAVIOUR’S side, thrust in after Matt.
      xxvii. 49:—the eclipse of the sun when the moon was full, in Lu.
      xxiii. 45:—the monstrous figment concerning Herod’s daughter, thrust
      into Mk. vi. 22:—the precious clauses omitted in Matt. i. 25 and
      xviii. 11:—in Lu. ix. 54-6, and in Jo. iii. 13:—the wretched glosses
      in Lu. vi. 48: x. 42: xv. 21: Jo. x. 14 and Mk. vi. 20:—the
      substitution of οινον (for οξος) in Matt. xxvii. 34,—of Θεος (for
      υιος) in Jo. i. 18,—of ανθρωπου (for Θεου) in ix. 35,—of οὑ (for ῷ)
      in Rom. iv. 8:—the geographical blunder in Mk. vii. 31: in Lu. iv.
      44:—the omission in Matt. xii. 47,—and of two important verses in
      Matt. xvi. 2, 3:—of ιδια in Acts i. 19:—of εγειραι και in iii.
      6;—and of δευτεροπρωτω in Lu. vi. 1:—the two spurious clauses in Mk.
      iii. 14, 16:—the obvious blunders in Jo. ix. 4 and 11:—in Acts xii.
      25—besides the impossible reading in 1 Cor. xiii. 3,—make up a heavy
      indictment against B and א jointly—which are here found in company
      with just a very few disreputable allies. Add, the plain error at
      Lu. ii. 14:—the gloss at Mk. v. 36:—the mere fabrication at Matt.
      xix. 17:—the omissions at Matt. vi. 13: Jo. v. 3, 4.

      B (in company with others, but apart from א) by exhibiting
      βαπτισαντες in Matt. xxviii. 19:—ὡδε των in Mk. ix.
      1:—“seventy-_two_,” in Lu. x. 1:—the blunder in Lu. xvi. 12:—and the
      grievous omissions in Lu. xxii. 43, 44 (CHRIST’S Agony in the
      Garden),—and xxiii. 34 (His prayer for His murderers),—enjoys
      unenviable distinction.—B, singly, is remarkable for an obvious
      blunder in Matt. xxi. 31:—Lu. xxi. 24:—Jo. xviii. 5:—Acts x. 19—and
      xvii. 28:—xxvii. 37:—not to mention the insertion of δεδομενον in
      Jo. vii. 39.

      א (in company with others, but apart from B) is conspicuous for its
      sorry interpolation of Matt. viii. 13:—its substitution of εστιν
      (for ην) in S. John i. 4:—its geographical blunder in S. Luke xxiv.
      13:—its textual blunder at 1 Pet. i. 23.—א, singly, is remarkable
      for its sorry paraphrase in Jo. ii. 3:—its addition to i. 34:—its
      omissions in Matt. xxiii. 35:—Mk. i. 1:—Jo. ix. 38:—its insertion of
      Ησαιου in Matt. xiii. 35:—its geographical blunders in Mk. i.
      28:—Lu. i. 26:—Acts viii. 5:—besides the blunders in Jo. vi. 51—and
      xiii. 10:—1 Tim. iii. 16:—Acts xxv. 13:—and the clearly fabricated
      narrative of Jo. xiii. 24. Add the fabricated text at Mk. xiv. 30,
      68, 72; of which the object was “so far to assimilate the narrative
      of Peter’s denials with those of the other Evangelists, as to
      suppress the fact, vouched for by S. Mark only, that the cock crowed
      twice.”

  741 Characteristic, and fatal beyond anything that can be named are, (1)
      The _exclusive_ omission by B and א of Mark xvi. 9-20:—(2) The
      omission of εν Εφεσῳ, from Ephes. i. 1:—(3) The blunder,
      αποσκιασματος, in James i. 17:—(4) The nonsensical συστρεφομενων in
      Matt. xvii. 22:—(5) That “vile error,” (as Scrivener calls it,)
      περιελοντες, in Acts xxviii. 13:—(6) The impossible order of words
      in Lu. xxiii. 32; and (7) The extraordinary order in Acts i. 5:—(8)
      The omission of the last clause of the LORD’S prayer, in Lu. xi. 4;
      and (9) Of that solemn verse, Matt. xvii. 21; and (10) Of ισχυρον in
      Matt. xiv. 30:—(11) The substitution of εργων (for τεκνων) in Matt.
      xi. 29:—(12) Of ελιγμα (for μιγμα) in Jo. xix. 39,—and (13) of ην
      τεθειμενος (for ετεθη) in John xix. 41. Then, (14) The thrusting of
      Χριστος into Matt. xvi. 21,—and (15) Of ὁ Θεος into vi. 8:—besides
      (16) So minute a peculiarity as Βεεζεβουλ in Matt. x. 35: xii. 24,
      27: Lu. xi. 15, 18, 19. (17) Add, the gloss at Matt. xvii. 20, and
      (18) The omissions at Matt. v. 22: xvii. 21.—It must be admitted
      that such peculiar blemishes, taken collectively, constitute a proof
      of affinity of origin,—community of descent from one and the same
      disreputable ancestor. But space fails us.

      The Reader will be interested to learn that although, in the
      Gospels, B combines exclusively with A, but 11 times; and with C,
      but 38 times: with D, it combines exclusively 141 times, and with א,
      239 times: (viz. in Matt. 121,—in Mk. 26,—in Lu. 51,—in Jo. 41
      times).

      Contrast it with A:—which combines exclusively with D, 21 times:
      with א 13 times: with B, 11 times: with C, 4 times.

  742 The Reviewer speaks from actual inspection of both documents. They
      are essentially dissimilar. The learned Ceriani assured the Reviewer
      (in 1872) that whereas the Vatican Codex must certainly have been
      written _in Italy_,—the birthplace of the Sinaitic was [_not_ Egypt,
      but] _either Palestine or Syria_. Thus, considerations of time and
      place effectually dispose of Tischendorf’s preposterous notion that
      the Scribe of Codex B wrote _six leaves_ of א: an imagination which
      solely resulted from the anxiety of the Critic to secure for his own
      cod. א the same antiquity which is claimed for the vaunted cod. B.

      This opinion of Dr. Tischendorf’s rests on the same fanciful basis
      as his notion that _the last verse_ of S. John’s Gospel in א was not
      written by the same hand which wrote the rest of the Gospel. There
      is _no manner of difference_: though of course it is possible that
      the scribe took a new pen, preliminary to writing that last verse,
      and executing the curious and delicate ornament which follows.
      Concerning S. Jo. xxi. 25, see above, pp. 23-4.

  743 Tischendorf’s narrative of the discovery of the Sinaitic manuscript
      (“_When were our Gospels written?_”), [1866,] p. 23.

  744 “Papyrus Inédit de la Bibliothèque de M. Ambroise Firmin-Didot.
      Nouveaux fragments d’Euripide et d’autres Poètes Grecs, publiés par
      M. Henri Weil. (Extrait des _Monumens Grecs publiés par
      l’Association pour l’encouragement des Etudes Grecques en France_.
      Année 1879.)” Pp. 36.

  745 The rest of the passage may not be without interest to classical
      readers:—“Ce n’est pas à dire qu’elle soit tout à fait sans intérêt,
      sans importance: pour la constitution du texte. Elle nous apprend
      que, au vers 5, ἀρίστων, pour ἀριστέων (correction de Wakefield)
      était déjà l’ancienne vulgate; et que les vers 11 et 12, s’ils sont
      altérés, comme l’assurent quelques éditeurs d’Euripide, l’étaient
      déjà dans l’antiquité.

      “L’homme ... était aussi ignorant que négligent. Je le prends pour
      un Egyptien n’ayant qu’une connoissance très imparfaite de la langue
      grecque, et ne possédant aucune notion ni sur l’orthographe, ni sur
      les règles les plus élémentaires du trimètre iambique. Le plus
      singulier est qu’il commence sa copie au milieu d’un vers et qu’il
      la finisse de même. Il oublie des lettres nécessaires, il en ajoute
      de parasites, il les met les unes pour les autres, il tronque les
      mots ou il les altère, au point de détruire quelquefois la suite de
      la construction et le sens du passage.” A faithful copy of the
      verses in minuscule characters is subjoined for the gratification of
      Scholars. We have but divided the words and inserted capital
      letters:—

      “ανδρων αριστων οι δε πανχρυσον δερος
      Πελεια μετηλθον ου γαρ τον δεσπονα εμην
      Μηδια πυργους γης επλευσε Ειολκιας
      ερωτι θυμωδ εγπλαγις Ιανοσονος
      οτ αν κτανει πισας Πελειαδας κουρας
      πατερα κατοικη τηνδε γην Κορινθιαν
      συν ανδρι και τεκνοισιν ανδανοισα μεν
      φυγη πολιτων ων αφηκετο χθονος.”

      An excellent scholar (R. C. P.) remarks,—“The fragment must have
      been written from dictation (of small parts, as it seems to me); and
      by an illiterate scribe. It is just such a result as one might
      expect from a half-educated reader enunciating Milton for a
      half-educated writer.”

  746 See p. 324 _note_ 1.—Photius [cod. 48] says that “Gaius” was a
      presbyter of Rome, and ἐθνῶν ἐπίσκοπος. See Routh’s _Reliqq._ ii.
      125.

  747 Eusebius, _Hist. Ecol._ v. 28 (ap. Routh’s _Reliqq._ ii. 132-4).

  748 Tregelles, Part ii. p. 2.

  749 Scrivener’s prefatory _Introduction_,—p. xix.

_  750 Ibid._ p. iii.

_  751 On Revision_,—p. 47.

  752 Singular to relate, S. Mark x. 17 to 31 _exactly_ fills two columns
      of cod. א. (See Tischendorf’s reprint, 4to, p. 24*.)

  753 Clemens Al. (ed. Potter),—pp. 937-8.... Note, how Clemens begins §
      v. (p. 938, line 30). This will be found noticed below, viz. at p.
      336, note 3.

  754 “This Text” (say the Editors) “is _an attempt to reproduce at once
      the autograph Text_.”—_Introduction_, p. xxviii.

  755 Westcott and Hort’s _Introduction_, pp. 112-3.

  756 Besides,—All but L. conspire 5  times.
      All but T. 3 times.
      All but Tr. 1 time.
      Then,—T. Tr. WH. combine 2 times
      T. WH. RT. 1 time
      Tr. WH. RT. 1 time
      L. Tr. WH. 1 time
      Then,—L. T. stand by themselves 1 time
      L. Tr. 1 time
      T. WH. 1 time
      Lastly,—L. stands alone 4 times.
      Total: 21.

_  757 Twice_ he agrees with all 5: viz. omitting ἄρας τὸν σταυρόν in ver.
      21; and in omitting ῆ γυναῖκα (in ver. 29):—_Once_ he agrees with
      only Lachmann: viz. in transposing ταῦτα πάντα (in ver. 20).

  758 On the remaining 5 occasions (17 + 3 + 5 = 25), Clemens exhibits
      peculiar readings of his own,—sides with _no one_.

_  759 Q. R._ p. 360.

  760 Article xx. § 1.

  761 Εἰς πᾶσαν τὴν ἀλήθειαν.—S. John xvi. 13.

  762 Theodoret, _Opp._ iv. 208.—Comp. Clinton, _F. R._ ii. _Appendix_, p.
      473.

  763 The reader is invited to enquire for Bp. Kaye (of Lincoln)’s
      _Account of the writings of Clement of Alexandria_,—and to read the
      vith and viiith chapters.

  764 Ταῦτα μὲν ἐν τῷ κατὰ Μάρκον εὐαγγελίῳ γέγραπται. (§ v.),—p. 938.

  765 Alford’s N. T. vol. i. proleg. p. 92.

  766 See p. 197 (§ 269): and p. 201 (§ 275-9):—and p. 205 (§ 280).

_  767 Preface_ (1870), p. xv.

  768 See above, pp. 79 to 85.

  769 Pp. 359-60.

  770 P. 210 to p. 287. See the Contents, pp. xxiii.-xxviii.

  771 Pp. 91-119 and pp. 133-146.

  772 “I perceived _a large and wide basket_ full of old parchments; and
      the librarian told me that two heaps like this had been already
      _committed to the flames._ What was my surprise to find amid this
      heap of papers,” &c.—(_Narrative of the discovery of the Sinaitic
      Manuscript,_ p. 23.)

  773 τὴν παρακαταθήκην.—1 Tim. vi. 20.

  774 [While this sheet is passing through the press, I find among my
      papers a note (written in 1876) by the learned, loved, and lamented
      Editor of Cyril,—Philip E. Pusey,—with whom I used to be in constant
      communication:—“It is not obvious to me, looking at the subject from
      outside, why B C L, constituting a class of MSS. allied to each
      other, and therefore nearly = 1-½ MSS., are to be held to be
      superior to A. It is still less obvious to me why —— showing up (as
      he does) very many grave faults of B, should yet consider B superior
      in character to A.”]

_  775 Introduction_, p. 567.

  776 Let the following places be considered: S. Jo. i. 13; iii. 3, 5, 6,
      7, 8; 1 Jo. ii. 29; iii. 9 _bis_, iv. 7; v. 1 _bis_, 4, 18 _bis_.
      _Why_ is it to be supposed that on this last occasion THE ETERNAL
      SON should be intended?

  777 A*, B, 105.

  778 The paraphrase is interesting. The Vulgate, Jerome [ii. 321, 691],
      Cassian [p. 409],—“_Sed generatio Dei conservat eum_:” Chromatius
      [Gall. viii. 347], and Vigilius Taps. [ap. Athanas. ii. 646],—“_Quia
      (quoniam) nativitas Dei custodit (servat) illum._” In a letter of 5
      Bishops to Innocentius I. (A.D. 410) [Galland. viii. 598 b], it
      is,—“_Nativitas quæ ex Deo est._” Such a rendering (viz. “_his
      having been born of_ GOD”) amounts to an _interpretation_ of the
      place.

  779 From the Rev. S. C. Malan, D.D.

  780 iv. 326 b c.

  781 Gall. viii. 347,—of which the Greek is to be seen in Cramer’s _Cat._
      pp. 143-4. Many portions of the lost Text of this Father, (the
      present passage included [p. 231]) are to be found in the Scholia
      published by C. F. Matthæi [N. T. xi. 181 to 245-7].

  782 i. 94, 97.

  783 In _Cat._ p. 124, repeated p. 144.

  784 iii. 433 c.

  785 ii. 601 d.

  786 By putting a small uncial Ε above the Α.

_  787 Diocesan Progress_, Jan. 1882.—[pp. 20] p. 19.

_  788 Introduction_, p. 283. _Notes_, pp. 3, 22, and _passim_.

  789 Sermons, vol. i. 132,—(“_A form of sound words to be used by
      Ministers._”)

  790 Quoted by ps.-Ephraem _Evan. Conc._ p. 135 l. 2:—Nonnus:—Chrys.
      viii. 248:—Cyril iv. 269 e, 270 a, 273:—Cramer’s _Cat._ p. 242 l. 25
      (which is _not_ from Chrys.):—_Chron. Paschale_ 217 a
      (_diserte_).—Recognized by Melito (A.D. 170):—Irenæus (A.D.
      177):—Hippolytus (A.D. 190):—Origen:—Eusebius:—Apollinarius Laod.,
      &c.

  791 This is the _true_ reason of the eagerness which has been displayed
      in certain quarters to find ὅς, (not Θεός) in 1 Tim. iii. 16:—just
      as nothing else but a determination that CHRIST shall not be spoken
      of as ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων Θεός, has occasioned the supposed doubt as to
      the construction of Rom. ix. 5,—in which we rejoice to find that Dr.
      Westcott refuses to concur with Dr. Hort.

  792 See Dr. W. H. Mill’s _University Sermons_ (1845),—pp. 301-2 and
      305:—a volume which should be found in every clergyman’s library.

  793 Rev. xxii. 18, 19.

  794 ἀφανισθήσονται.

  795 This happens not unfrequently in codices of the type of א and B. A
      famous instance occurs at Col. ii. 18, (ἂ μὴ ἑώρακεν
      ἐμβατεύων,—“_prying into the things he hath not seen_”); where א* A
      B D* and a little handful of suspicious documents leave out the
      “_not_.” Our Editors, rather than recognize this blunder (so obvious
      and ordinary!), are for conjecturing Α ΕΟΡΑΚΕΝ ΕΜΒΑΤΕΥΩΝ into ΑΕΡΑ
      ΚΕΝΕΜΒΑΤΕΥΩΝ; which (if it means anything at all) may as well
      mean,—“proceeding on an airy foundation to offer an empty
      conjecture.” Dismissing that conjecture as worthless, we have to set
      off the whole mass of the copies—against some 6 or 7:—Irenæus (i.
      847), Theodoras Mops, (in _loc_.), Chrys. (xi. 372), Theodoret (iii.
      489, 490), John Damascene (ii. 211)—against no Fathers at all (for
      Origen once has μή [iv. 665]; once, has it not [iii. 63]; and once
      is doubtful [i. 583]). Jerome and Augustine both take notice of the
      diversity of reading, _but only to reject it_.—The Syriac versions,
      the Vulgate, Gothic, Georgian, Sclavonic, Æthiopic, Arabic and
      Armenian—(we owe the information, as usual, to Dr. Malan)—are to be
      set against the suspicious Coptic. All these then are with the
      Traditional Text: which cannot seriously be suspected of error.

  796 εὑρεθήσεται.

  797 Augustin, vii. 595.

  798 ii. 467: iii. 865:—ii. 707: iii. 800:—ii. 901. _In Luc_. pp. 428,
      654.

  799 ii. 347.

  800 Preface to “Provisional issue,” p. xxi.

_  801 Introduction_, p. 210.

_  802 Ibid_. p. 276.

  803 Apud Mai, vi. 105.

_  804 Opp._ vii. 543. Comp. 369.

  805 Ap. Cramer, _Cat._ vi. 187.

  806 So, Nilus, i. 270.

_  807 Interp._ 595: 607.

_  808 Dem. Evan._ p. 444.

  809 P. 306.

_  810 Epist. ad Zen._ iii. 1. 78. Note, that our learned Cave considered
      this to be a _genuine_ work of Justin M. (A.D. 150).

_  811 Cantic._ (an early work) _interp._ iii. 39,—though elsewhere (i.
      112, 181 [?]: ii. 305 _int._ [but _not_ ii. 419]) he is for leaving
      out εἰκῆ.

  812 Gall. iii. 72 and 161.

  813 ii. 89 b and e (partly quoted in the _Cat._ of Nicetas) _expressly_:
      265.

  814 i. 818 _expressly_.

  815 ii. 312 (preserved in Jerome’s Latin translation, i. 240).

  816 i. 132; iii. 442.

  817 472, 634.

  818 Ap. Chrys.

  819 iii. 768: _apud Mai_, ii. 6 and iii. 268.

  820 i. 48, 664; iv. 946.

  821 Cramer’s _Cat._ viii. 12, line 14.

  822 128, 625.

  823 Gall. vi. 181.

  824 Gall. x. 14.

  825 Gall. vii. 509.

  826 i. 27, written when he was 42; and ii. 733, 739, written when he was
      84.

  827 vii. 26,—“_Radendum est ergo_ sine causâ.” And so, at p. 636.

  828 1064.

  829 ii. 261.

  830 ii. 592.

_  831 Amphilochia_, (Athens, 1858,)—p. 317. Also in _Cat._

_  832 Apophthegm. PP._ [ap. Cotel. _Eccl. Gr. Mon._ i. 622].

  833 S. Matth. xv. 14.

_  834 Gospel of the Resurrection_,—p. vii.

_  835 Introduction_, pp. 300-2.

_  836 Ibid._ p. 299.

_  837 Appendix_, p. 66.

  838 See Scrivener’s _Introduction_, p. 432.

_  839 On Revision_,—p. 99.

_  840 Speech in Convocation_, Feb. 1870, (p. 83.)

_  841 On Revision_,—p. 205.

_  842 Address to Lincoln Diocesan Conference_,—p. 25.

_  843 Ibid._,—p. 27.

_  844 Considerations on Revision_,—p. 44. The Preface is dated 23rd May,
      1870. The Revisers met on the 22nd of June.

      We learn from Dr. Newth’s _Lectures on Bible Revision_ (1881),
      that,—“As the general Rules under which the Revision was to be
      carried out had been carefully prepared, no need existed for any
      lengthened discussion of preliminary arrangements, and the Company
      upon its first meeting was able to enter at once upon its work” (p.
      118) ... “The portion prescribed for the first session was Matt. i.
      to iv.” (p. 119) ... “The question of the spelling of proper names
      ... being settled, the Company proceeded to the actual details of
      the Revision, and in a surprisingly short time settled down to an
      established method of procedure.”—“All proposals made at the first
      Revision were decided by simple majorities” (p. 122) ... “_The
      questions which concerned the Greek Text were decided for the most
      part at the First Revision._” (Bp. Ellicott’s _Pamphlet_, p. 34.)

_  845 The Revisers and the Greek Text of the New Testament, by two
      Members of the New Testament Company_,—1882. Macmillan, pp. 79,
      price two shillings and sixpence.

  846 “To these two articles—so far, at least, as they are concerned with
      the Greek Text adopted by the Revisers—our Essay is intended for an
      answer.”—p. 79.

  847 See above, pages 235 to 366.

  848 Article III.,—see last note.

_  849 Pamphlet_, p. 79.

_  850 The Revised Version of the first three Gospels, considered in its
      bearings upon the record of our __LORD’S__ Words and of incidents in
      His Life_,—(1882. pp. 250. Murray,)—p. 232. Canon Cook’s temperate
      and very interesting volume will be found simply unanswerable.

  851 P. 40.

_  852 Ibid._

  853 As at p. 4, and p. 12, and p. 13, and p. 19, and p. 40.

  854 See above, pp. 348-350.

  855 P. 40.

  856 P. 40.

  857 P. 77.

  858 P. 41, and so at p. 77.

  859 P. 41.

  860 P. 5.

  861 P. 3.

  862 P. 77.

_  863 On Revision_, pp. 47-8.

  864 Scrivener’s _Introduction_,—p. 423.

_  865 Ibid._ p. 421.

  866 “Non tantum totius Antiquitatis altum de tali opere suscepto
      silentium,—sed etiam frequentes Patrum, usque ad quartum seculum
      viventium, de textu N. T. liberius tractato, impuneque corrupto,
      deque summâ Codicum dissonantiâ querelæ, nec non ipsæ corruptiones
      inde a primis temporibus continuo propagatæ,—satis sunt documento,
      neminem opus tam arduum, scrupulorum plenum, atque invidiæ et
      calumniis obnoxium, aggressum fuisse; etiamsi doctiorum Patrum de
      singulis locis disputationes ostendant, eos non prorsus rudes in
      rebus criticis fuisse.”—_Codd. MSS. N. T. Græcorum &c. nova
      descriptio, et cum textu vulgo recepto Collatio, &c._ 4to. Gottingæ,
      1847. (p. 4.)

  867 He proceeds:—“Hucusque nemini contigit, nec in posterum, puto,
      continget, monumentorum nostrorum, tanquam totidem testium
      singulorum, ingens agmen ad tres quatuorve, e quibus omnium
      testimonium pendeat, testes referre; aut e testium grege innumero
      aliquot duces auctoresque secernere, quorum testimonium tam plenum,
      certum firmumque sit, ut sine damno ceterorum testimonio
      careamus.”—_Ibid._ (p. 19.)

_  868 Commentarius Criticus in N. T._ (in his Preface to the Ep. to the
      Hebrews). We are indebted to Canon Cook for calling attention to
      this. See by all means his _Revised Text of the first three
      Gospels_,—pp. 4-8.

  869 It requires to be stated, that, (as explained by the Abbé to the
      present writer,) the “Post-scriptum” of his Fascic. IV., (viz. from
      p. 234 to p. 236,) is a _jeu d’esprit_ only,—intended to enliven a
      dry subject, and to entertain his pupils.

  870 It seems to have escaped Bishop Ellicott’s notice, (and yet the fact
      well deserves commemoration) that the claims of Tischendorf and
      Tregelles on the Church’s gratitude, are not by any means founded on
      _the Texts_ which they severally put forth. As in the case of Mill,
      Wetstein and Birch, their merit is that they _patiently accumulated
      evidence_. “Tischendorf’s reputation as a Biblical scholar rests
      less on his critical editions of the N. T., than on the texts of the
      chief uncial authorities which in rapid succession he gave to the
      world.” (Scrivener’s _Introduction_,—p. 427.)

  871 P. 12.

  872 P. 13.

  873 See above, pp. 12: 30-3: 34-5: 46-7: 75: 94-6: 249: 262: 289: 319.

  874 P. 40.

  875 P. 19.

  876 P. 4.

  877 Acts xix. 35.

_  878 Suprà_, pp. 339-41.

  879 P. 13.

  880 Bp. Ellicott, _On Revision_, &c.—p. 30.

  881 P. 15.

  882 P. 16.

  883 P. 17.

  884 P. 18.

  885 P. 19.

  886 P. 19.

  887 P. 20.

  888 P. 21.

  889 Pp. 23-4.

_  890 Supra_, pp. 258-266.

  891 Pp. 25-7.

  892 See _Art._ III.,—viz. from p. 235 to p. 366.

  893 You refer to such places as pp. 87-8 and 224, where see the Notes.

_  894 Chronicle of Convocation_, Feb. 1870, p. 83.

  895 See above, p. 368.

  896 The clause (“and sayest thou, Who touched me?”) is witnessed to by A
      C D P R X Γ Δ Λ Ξ Π and _every other known uncial except three of
      bad character: by every known cursive but four_:—by the Old Latin
      and Vulgate: by all the four Syriac: by the Gothic and the Æthiopic
      Versions; as well as by ps.-Tatian (_Evan. Concord_, p. 77) and
      Chrysostom (vii. 359 a). It cannot be pretended that the words are
      derived from S. Mark’s Gospel (as Tischendorf coarsely
      imagined);—for the sufficient reason that _the words are not found
      there_. In S. Mark (v. 31) it is,—καὶ λέγεις, Τίς μου ἥψατο; in S.
      Luke (viii. 45), καὶ λέγεις, Τίς ὁ ἁψάμενός μου. Moreover, this
      delicate distinction has been maintained all down the ages.

  897 Page 154 to p. 164.

  898 You will perhaps remind me that you do not read ἐξελθοῦσαν. I am
      aware that you have tacitly substituted ἐξεληλυθυῖαν,—which is only
      supported by _four_ manuscripts of bad character: being disallowed
      by _eighteen uncials_, (with A C D at their head,) and _every known
      cursive but one_; besides the following Fathers:—Marcion (Epiph. i.
      313 a, 327 a.) (A.D. 150),—Origen (iii. 466 e.),—the author of _the
      Dialogus_ (Orig. i. 853 d.) (A.D. 325),—Epiphanius (i. 327
      b.),—Didymus (pp. 124, 413.), in two places,—Basil (iii. 8
      c.),—Chrysostom (vii. 532 a.),—Cyril (Opp. vi. 99 e. Mai, ii. 226.)
      in two places,—ps.-Athanasius (ii. 14 c.) (A.D. 400),—ps.-Chrysostom
      (xiii. 212 e f.).... Is it tolerable that the Sacred Text should be
      put to wrongs after this fashion, by a body of men who are avowedly
      (for see page 369) unskilled in Textual Criticism, and who were
      appointed only to revise the authorized _English Version_?

  899 This I make the actual sum, after deducting for marginal notes and
      variations in stops.

  900 I mean such changes as ἠγέρθη for ἐγήγερται (ix. 7),—φέρετε for
      ἐνένκαντες (xv. 23), &c. These are generally the result of a change
      of construction.

  901 MS. communication from my friend, the Editor

  902 I desire to keep out of sight the _critical impropriety_ of such
      corrections of the text. And yet, it is worth stating that א B L are
      _the only witnesses discoverable_ for the former, and _almost the
      only_ witnesses to be found for the latter of these two utterly
      unmeaning changes.

  903 Characteristic of these two false-witnesses is it, that they are not
      able to convey even _this_ short message correctly. In reporting the
      two words ἔρχωμαι ἐνθάδε, they contrive to make two blunders. B
      substitutes διέρχομαι for διέρχωμαι: א, ὦδε for ἐνθάδε,—which latter
      eccentricity Tischendorf (characteristically) does not allude to in
      his note ... “These be thy gods, O Israel!”

  904 Rev. xxii. 19.

  905 iv. 28, c. 1 (p. 655 = Mass. 265). Note that the reference is _not_
      to S. Matt. x. 15.

  906 P. 123.

  907 Viz. vi. 7-13.

  908 i. 199 and 200.

_  909 In loc._

  910 See above, pp. 347-9.

  911 See above, pp. 79-85.

  912 See above, pp. 409-411.

  913 See above, p. 399.

  914 Bp. Ellicott _on Revision_, p. 30.

  915 The Bp. attended _only one meeting_ of the Revisers. (Newth, p.
      125.)

  916 Page 4.

  917 See above, pp. 41 to 47.

  918 Pages 17, 18.

  919 See above, p. 37, note 1.

  920 Pages 98-106.

  921 Pages 64-76.

  922 The exceptions are not worth noticing _here_.

  923 N. T. ed. 2da. 1807, iii. 442-3.

  924 i. 887 c.

  925 Called _Ancoratus_, written in Pamphylia, A.D. 373. The extract in
      _Adv. Hær._ extends from p. 887 to p. 899 (= _Ancor._ ii. 67-79).

  926 ii. 74 b. Note, that to begin the quotation at the word ἐφανερώθη
      was a frequent practice with the ancients, especially when enough
      had been said already to make it plain that it was of the SON they
      were speaking, or when it would have been nothing to the purpose to
      begin with Θεός. Thus Origen, iv. 465 c:—Didymus on 1 John _apud_
      Galland. vi. 301 a:—Nestorius, _apud_ Cyril, vi. 103 e:—ps-Chrysost.
      x. 763 c, 764 c:—and the Latin of Cyril v.1 785. So indeed
      ps-Epiphanius, ii. 307 c.

  927 i. 894 c.

_  928 Apud_ Theodoret, v. 719.

  929 iv. 622 a,—_qui apparuit in carne, justificatus est in spiritu_.

_  930 De incarn. Unig._ v. part i. 680 d e = _De rectâ fide_, v. part ii.
      b c.

_  931 Ibid._ 681 a = _ibid._ 6 d e.

  932 Page 98.

  933 Note at the end of Bishop Ellicott’s Commentary on 1 Timothy.

  934 Berriman’s MS. Note in the British Museum copy of his
      _Dissertation_,—p. 154. Another annotated copy is in the Bodleian.

  935 “Certe quidem in exemplari Alexandrino nostro, linea illa transversa
      quam loquor, adeo exilis ac plane evanida est, ut primo intuitu haud
      dubitarim ipse scriptum _ΟΣ_, quod proinde in variantes lectiones
      conjeceram.... Verum postea perlustrato attentius loco, lineolæ, quæ
      primam aciem fugerat, ductus quosdam ac vestigia satis certa
      deprehendi, præsertim ad partem sinistram, quæ peripheriam literæ
      pertingit,” &c.—_In loco._

_  936 Clem. Rom._ ed. Wotton, p. 27.

  937 Berriman, pp. 154-5.

_  938 Ibid._ (_MS. Note._) Berriman adds other important testimony, p.
      156.

_  939 Dissertation_, p. 156. Berriman refers to the fact that some one in
      recent times, with a view apparently to establish the actual reading
      of the place, has clumsily thickened the superior stroke with common
      black ink, and introduced a rude dot into the middle of the θ. There
      has been no attempt at fraud. Such a line and such a dot could
      deceive no one.

  940 “Quanquam lineola, quæ Θεός compendiose scriptum ab ὅς distinguitur,
      sublesta videtur nonnullis.”—N. T. p. 710.

  941 Griesbach in 1785 makes the same report:—“Manibus hominum inepte
      curiosorum ea folii pars quæ dictum controversum continet, adeo
      detrita est, ut nemo mortalium hodie certi quidquam discernere
      possit ... Non oculos tantum sed digitos etiam adhibuisse videntur,
      ut primitivam illius loci lectionem eruerent et velut exsculperent.”
      (_Symb. Crit._ i. p. x.) The MS. was evidently in precisely the same
      state when the Rev. J. C. Velthusen (_Observations on Various
      Subjects_, pp. 74-87) inspected it in 1773.

  942 As C. F. Matthæi [N. T. m. xi. _Præfat._ pp. lii.-iii.]
      remarks:—“_cum de Divinitate_ CHRISTI _agitur, ibi profecto sui
      dissimilior deprehenditur_.” Woide instances it as an example of the
      force of prejudice, that Wetstein “apparitionem lineolæ alii causæ
      adscripsisse, _quia eam abesse volebat_.” [_Præfat._ p. xxxi.]

  943 “Patet, ut alia mittamus, e consensu Versionum,” &c.—ii. 149.

  944 Woide, _ibid._

_  945 Supra_, p. 100.

_  946 Introduction_, p. 553.

_  947 Introd._ p. 553.

  948 Any one desirous of understanding this question fully, should
      (besides Berriman’s admirable _Dissertation_) read Woide’s
      _Præfatio_ to his edition of Codex A, pp. xxx. to xxxii. (§
      87).—“Erunt fortasse quidam” (he writes in conclusion) “qui
      suspicabuntur, nonnullos hanc lineolam diametralem in medio Θ
      vidisse, quoniam eam videre volebant. Nec negari potest præsumptarum
      opinionum esse vim permagnam. Sed idem, etiam Wetstenio, nec
      immerito, objici potest, eam apparitionem lineolæ alii causæ
      adscripsisse, quia eam abesse volebat. Et eruditissimis placere
      aliquando, quæ vitiosa sunt, scio: sed omnia testimonia, omnemque
      historicam veritatem in suspicionem adducere non licet: nec mirum
      est nos ea nunc non discernere, quæ, antequam nos Codicem
      vidissemus, evanuerant.”

_  949 Prolegomena_ to his ed. of Cod. C,—pp. 39-42.

  950 “Ος habet codex C, ut puto; nam lineola illa tenuis, quæ ex Ο facit
      Θ, non apparet.” (_In loc._) And so Griesbach, _Symb. Crit._ i. p.
      viii. (1785).

  951 “Quotiescunque locum inspiciebam (inspexi autem per hoc biennium
      sæpissime) mihi prorsus apparebat.” “Quam [lineolam] miror hucusque
      omnium oculos fugisse.” [_Prolegg._ p. 41].... Equidem miror sane.

  952 Page 75.

  953 Pages 64, 69, 71, 75.—Some have pointed out that opposite _ΟΣ_ in
      F—above _ΟΣ_ in G,—is written “quod.” Yes, but not “_qui_.” The
      Latin version is independent of the Greek. In S. Mark xi. 8, above
      ΑΓΡΩΝ is written “_arboribus_;” and in 1 Tim. iv. 10, ΑΓΩΝΙΖΟΜΕΘΑ is
      translated by F “_maledicimur_,”—by G, “_exprobramur vel
      maledicimur_.”

_  954 Introduction to_ Cod. Augiensis, p. xxviij.

_  955 E.g._ Out of ΟΜΕΝΤΟΙΣΤΕΡΕΟΣ [2 Tim. ii. 19], they both make Ο · μεν
      · το · ισ · τεραιος. For ὑγιαίνωσιν [Tit. i. 13], both write υγει ·
      ενωσειν:—for καινὴ κτίσις [2 Cor. v. 17] both give και ·
      νηκτισις:—for ἀνέγκλητοι ὄντες [1 Tim. iii. 10], both exhibit ανευ ·
      κλητοιον · εχοντες (“nullum crimen habentes”):—for ὡς γάγγραινα
      νομὴν ἕξει [2 Tim. ii. 17], both exhibit ως · γανγρα · ινα · (F G)
      νομηνεξει, (G, who writes above the words “_sicut cancer ut
      serpat_”).

  956 He must be held responsible for ὝΠΟΚΡΙΣΙ in place of ὑποκρίσει [1
      Tim. iv. 2]: ΑΣΤΙΖΟΜΕΝΟΣ instead of λογιζόμενος [2 Cor. v. 19]:
      ΠΡΙΧΟΤΗΤΙ instead of πραότητι [2 Tim. ii. 25]. And he was the author
      of ΓΕΡΜΑΝΕ in Phil. iv. 3: as well as of Ο δε πνευμα in 1 Tim. iv.
      1.

      But the scribes of F and G also were curiously innocent of Greek. G
      suggests that γυναιξειν (in 1 Tim. ii. 10) may be “infinitivus”—(of
      course from γυναίκω).

_  957 Introduction_, p. 155.

  958 Thirteen times between Rom. i. 7 and xiii. 1.

_  959 E.g._ Gal. iii. 1; 1 Cor. xv. 55; 2 Cor. vi. 11 (_ο_ς and _ο_).
      Those who have Matthæi’s reprint of G at hand are invited to refer
      to the last line of fol. 91: (1 Tim. vi. 20) where Ὦ Τιμόθεε is
      exhibited thus:—_Ο_ Ὦ ΤΙΜΟΘΕΕ.

  960 Col. ii. 22, 23: iii. 2.

  961 As 1 Tim. iii. 1: iv. 14: vi. 15. Consider the practice of F in 1
      Thess. i. 9 (_Ο_; ΠΟΙΑΝ): in 2 Cor. viii. 11, 14 (_Ο_; ΠΩΣ).

  962 Rarest of all are instances of this mark over the Latin “e”: but we
      meet with “_spē_” (Col. i. 23): “_sē_” (ii. 18): _rēpēntes_ (2 Tim.
      iii. 6), &c. So, in the Greek, ἡ or ᾗ written _Η_ are most
      unusual.—A few instances are found of “u” with this appendage, as
      “_domūs_” (1 Tim. v. 13): “_spiritū_” (1 Cor. iv. 21), &c.

  963 This information is obtained from a photograph of the page procured
      from Dresden through the kindness of the librarian, Counsellor Dr.
      Forstemann.

  964 See Rettig’s _Prolegg._ pp. xxiv.-v.

  965 “You will perceive that I have now succeeded in identifying every
      Evangelium hitherto spoken of as existing in Florence, with the
      exception of Evan 365 [Act. 145, Paul 181] (Laurent vi. 36), &c.,
      which is said to ‘contain also the Psalms.’ I assure you no such
      Codex exists in the Laurentian Library; no, nor ever did exist
      there. Dr. Anziani devoted full an hour to the enquiry, allowing me
      [for I was very incredulous] to see the process whereby he convinced
      himself that Scholz is in error. It was just such an intelligent and
      exhaustive process as Coxe of the Bodleian, or dear old Dr. Bandinel
      before him, would have gone through under similar circumstances.
      Pray strike that Codex off your list; and with it ‘Acts 145’ and
      ‘Paul 181.’ I need hardly say that Bandini’s Catalogue knows nothing
      of it. It annoys me to be obliged to add that I cannot even find out
      the history of Scholz’s mistake.”—_Guardian_, August 27, 1873.

  966 “_Whose_ word on such matters is entitled to most credit,—the word
      of the Reviewer, or the word of the most famous manuscript collators
      of this century?... Those who have had occasion to seek in public
      libraries for manuscripts which are not famous for antiquity or
      beauty or completeness (_sic_), know that the answer ‘_non est
      inventus_’ is no conclusive reason for believing that the object of
      their quest has not been seen and collated in former years by those
      who profess to have actually seen and collated it. That 181 ‘is
      non-existent’ must be considered unproven.”—Bp. Ellicott’s
      _Pamphlet_, p. 72.

  967 The learned Abbé Martin, who has obligingly inspected for me the 18
      copies of the “Praxapostolus” in the Paris library, reports as
      follows concerning “Apost. 12” ( = Reg. 375),—“A very foul MS. of
      small value, I believe: but a curious specimen of bad Occidental
      scholarship. It was copied for the monks of S. Denys, and exhibits
      many Latin words; having been apparently revised on the Latin. The
      lection is assigned to Σαββάτῳ λ᾽ (not λδ᾽) in this codex.”

  968 “_Codices Cryptenses seu Abbatiæ Cryptæ Ferratæ in Tusculano,
      digesti et illustrati cura et studio_ D. Antonii Rocchi,
      Hieromonachi Basiliani Bibliothecæ custodis,”—_Tusculani_, fol.
      1882.—I have received 424 pages (1 May, 1883).

  969 Not a few of the Basilian Codices have been transferred to the
      Vatican.

  970 In an APPENDIX to the present volume, I will give fuller
      information. I am still (3rd May, 1883) awaiting replies to my
      troublesome interrogatories addressed to the heads of not a few
      continental libraries.

  971 Rufinus, namely (_fl._ A.D. 395). _Opp._ iv. 465

  972 MS. letter to myself, August 11, 1879.

  973 MS. letter from the Rev. Henry Deane, of S. John’s College, Oxford.

  974 See above, page 429.

  975 Page 71. And so p. 65 and 69.

  976 MS. letter to myself.

  977 See above, page 429.

_  978 Ulfilas. Veteris et Novi Test. Versionis Goth. fragmenta quæ
      supersunt_, &c. 4to. 1843.

  979 “Si tamen Uppström ‘_obscurum_’ dixit, non ‘_incertum_,’ fides illi
      adhiberi potest, quia diligentissime apices omnes investigabat; me
      enim præsente in aula codicem tractabat.”—(Private letter to
      myself.)

      Ceriani proceeds,—“Quæris quomodo componatur cum textu 1 Tim. iii.
      16, nota 54 _Proleg._ Gabelentz Gothicam versionem legens Θεός.
      Putarem ex loco Castillionæi in notis ad Philip. ii. 6, locutos
      fuisse doctos illos Germanos, oblitos illius Routh præcepti ‘_Let me
      recommend to you the practice of always verifying your references,
      sir_.’ ”

      The reader will be interested to be informed that Castiglione, the
      former editor of the codex, was in favour of “GOD” in 1835, and of
      “_soei_” (_quæ_ [ = ὅ], to agree with “_runa_,” _i.e._ “mystery,”
      which is feminine in Gothic) in 1839. Gabelentz, in 1843, ventured
      to print “_saei_” = ὅς. “Et ‘saei’ legit etiam diligentissimus
      Andreas Uppström nuperus codicis Ambrosiani investigator et editor,
      in opere _Codicis Gothici Ambrosiani sive Epist. Pauli, &c._ Holmiæ
      et Lipsiæ, 1868.”

  980 Stuttgard, 1857.

  981 Of the department of Oriental MSS. in the Brit. Mus., who derives
      his text from “the three Museum MSS. which contain the Arabic
      Version of the Epistles: viz. _Harl._ 5474 (dated A.D.
      1332):—_Oriental_ 1328 (Xth cent.):—_Arundel Orient._ 19 (dated A.D.
      1616).”—Walton’s Polyglott, he says, exhibits “a garbled version,
      quite distinct from the genuine Arabic: viz. ‘_These glories
      commemorate them in the greatness of the mystery of fair piety.
      _GOD_ appeared in the flesh_,’ ” &c.

  982 See above, pp. 271 to 294.

  983 i. 387 a: 551 a: 663 a _bis_.—ii. 430 a: 536 c: 581 c: 594 a, 595 b
      (these two, of the 2nd pagination): 693 d [ = ii. 265, ed. 1615,
      from which Tisch. quotes it. The place may be seen in full, _supra_,
      p. 101.]—iii. 39 b _bis_: 67 a b.—_Ap. Galland._ vi. 518 c: 519 d:
      520 b: 526 d: 532 a: 562 b: 566 d: 571 a. All but five of these
      places, I believe, exhibit ὁ Θεός,—which seems to have been the
      reading of this Father. The article is seldom seen in MSS. Only four
      instances of it,—(they will be found distinctly specified below,
      page 493, _note_ 1),—are known to exist. More places must have been
      overlooked.

      Note, that Griesbach only mentions Gregory of Nyssa (whose name
      Tregelles omits entirely) to remark that he is not to be cited for
      Θεός; seeing that, according to him, 1 Tim. iii. 16 is to be read
      thus:—τὸ μυστήριον ἐν σαρκὶ ἐφανερώθη. Griesbach borrowed that
      quotation and that blunder from Wetstein; to be blindly followed in
      turn by Scholz and Alford. And yet, the words in question are _not
      the words of Gregory Nyss. at all_; but of Apolinaris, against whom
      Gregory is writing,—as Gregory himself explains. [_Antirrh. adv.
      Apol._ apud Galland. vi. 522 d.]

_  984 De Trin._ p. 83. The testimony is express.

  985 i. 92: iii. 657.-iv. 19, 23.

  986 i. 313:—ii. 263.

  987 i. 497 c d e.—viii. 85 e: 86 a.—xi. 605 f: 606 a b d e.—(The first
      of these places occurs in the Homily _de Beato Philogonio_, which
      Matthæi in the main [viz. from p. 497, line 20, to the end] edited
      from an independent source [_Lectt. Mosqq._ 1779]. Gallandius [xiv.
      _Append._ 141-4] reprints Matthæi’s labours).—Concerning this place
      of Chrysostom (_vide suprà_, p. 101), Bp. Ellicott says (p.
      66),—“The passage which he [the Quarterly Reviewer] does allege,
      deserves to be placed before our readers in full, as an illustration
      of the precarious character of patristic evidence. If this passage
      attests the reading θεός in 1 Tim. iii. 16, does it not also attest
      the reading ὁ θεός in Heb. ii. 16, where no copyist or translator
      has introduced it?”... I can but say, in reply,—“No, certainly not.”
      May I be permitted to add, that it is to me simply unintelligible
      how Bp. Ellicott can show himself so _planè hospes_ in this
      department of sacred Science as to be capable of gravely asking such
      a very foolish question?

  988 i. 215 a: 685 b. The places may be seen quoted _suprà_, p. 101.

  989 The place is quoted in Scrivener’s _Introduction_, p. 59.

_  990 Antirrheticus_, ap. Galland. vi. 517-77.

  991 The full title was,—Ἀπόδειξις περὶ τῆς θείας σαρκώσεως τῆς καθ᾽
      ὁμοίωσιν ἀνθρώπου. _Ibid._ 518 b, c: 519 a.

  992 Apolinaris did not deny that CHRIST was very GOD. His heresy (like
      that of Arius) turned upon the nature of the conjunction of the
      Godhead with the Manhood. Hear Theodoret:—Α. Θεὸς Λόγος σαρκὶ
      ἑνωθεὶς ἄνθρωπον ἀπετέλεσεν Θεόν. Ο. Τοῦτο οὖν λέγεις θείαν
      ἐμψυχίαν? Α. Καὶ πάνυ. Ο. Ἀντὶ ψυχῆς οὖν ὁ Λόγος? Α. Ναί. _Dial._
      vi. _adv. Apol._ (_Opp._ v. 1080 = Athanas. ii. 525 d.)

  993 Cramer’s _Cat. in Actus_, iii. 69. It is also met with in the Catena
      on the Acts which J. C. Wolf published in his _Anecdota Græca_, iii.
      137-8. The place is quoted above, p. 102.

  994 Cramer’s _Cat. in Rom._ p. 124.

  995 P. 67.

  996 P. 65.

  997 P. 65.

  998 See above, p. 429.

  999 Bentley, Scholz, Tischendorf, Alford and others adduce
      “_Euthalius_.”

_ 1000 Concilia_, i. 849-893. The place is quoted below in note 3.

 1001 “Verum ex illis verbis illud tantum inferri debet false eam
      epistolam Dionysio Alexandrino attribui: non autem scriptum non
      fuisse ab aliquo ex Episcopis qui Synodis adversus Paulum
      Antiochenum celebratis interfuerant. Innumeris enim exemplis constat
      indubitatæ antiquitatis Epistolas ex Scriptorum errore falsos
      titulos præferre.”—(Pagi ad A.D. 264, apud Mansi, _Concil._ i.
      1039.)

 1002 εἶς ἐστιν ὁ Χριστός, ὁ ῶν ἐν τῷ Πατρι συναΐδιος λόγος, ἕν αὐτοῦ
      πρόσωπον, ἀόρατος Θεός, καὶ ὁρατὸς γενόμενος; ΘΕῸΣ ΓᾺΡ ἘΦΑΝΕΡΏΘΗ ἘΝ
      ΣΑΡΚΊ, γενόμενος ἐκ γυναικός, ὁ ἐκ Θεοῦ Πατρὸς γεννηθεὶς ἐκ γαστρὸς
      πρὸ ἑωσφόρου—_Concilia_, i. 853 a.

 1003 Cap. xi.

_ 1004 Ad Ephes._ c. 19: c. 7. _Ad Magnes._ c. 8.

 1005 Cap. xii.

_ 1006 Contra Hæresim Noeti_, c. xvii. (Routh’s _Opuscula_, i. 76.) Read
      the antecedent chapters.

_ 1007 Dialog._ ii. ’_Inconfusus._’—_Opp._ iv. 132.

 1008 Cod. 230,—p. 845, line 40.

 1009 vii. 26, _ap. Galland_. iii. 182 a.

 1010 iii. 401-2, _Epist._ 261 ( = 65). A quotation from Gal. iv. 4
      follows.

 1011 μαθήσεται γὰρ ὅτι φύσει μὲν καὶ ἀληθείᾳ Θεός ἐστιν ὁ Ἐμμανουήλ,
      θεοτόκος δὲ δι᾽ αὐτὸν καὶ ἡ τεκοῦσα παρθένος.—Vol. v. Part ii. 48 e.

 1012 καὶ οὔτι που φαμὲν ὅτι καθ᾽ ἡμᾶς ἄνθρωπος ἁπλῶς, ἀλλ᾽ ὡς Θεὸς ἐν
      σαρκὶ καὶ καθ᾽ ἡμᾶς γεγονώς.—_Opp._ V. Part 2, p. 124 c d. (=
      _Concilia_, iii. 221 c d.)

 1013 N. T. vol. xi. _Præfat._ p. xli.

 1014 διὰ τοῦ ἐν ἀυτῷ φανερωθέντος Θεοῦ.—_De Incarnatione Domini_, Mai,
      _Nov. PP. Bibliotheca_, ii. 68.

 1015 Earlier in the same Treatise, Cyril thus grandly paraphrases 1 Tim.
      iii. 16:—τότε δὴ τότε τὸ μέγα καὶ ἄῤῥητον γίνεται τῆς οἰκονομίας
      μυστήριον; αὐτὸς γὰρ ὁ Λόγος τοῦ Θεοῦ, ὁ δημιουργὸς ἁπάσης τῆς
      κτίσεως, ὁ ἀχώρητος, ὁ ἀπερίγραπτος, ὁ ἀναλλοίωτος, ἡ πηγὴ τῆς ζωῆς,
      τὸ ἐκ τοῦ φωτὸς φῶς, ἡ ζῶσα τοῦ Πατρὸς εἰκών, τὸ ἀπαύγασμα τῆς
      δόξης, ὁ χαρακτὴρ τῆς ὑποστάσεως, τὴν ἀνθρωπείαν φύσιν
      ἀναλαμβάνει.—_Ibid._ p. 37.

 1016 P. 153 d. (= _Concilia_, iii. 264 c d.)

_ 1017 Ibid_, d e.

 1018 εἰ μὲν γὰρ ὡς ἕνα τῶν καθ᾽ ἡμᾶς, ἄνθρωπον ἁπλῶς, καὶ οὐχὶ δὴ μᾶλλον
      Θεὸν ἐνηνθρωπηκότα διεκήρυξαν οἰ μαθηταί κ.τ.λ. Presently,—μέγα γὰρ
      τότε τὸ τῆς εὐσεβείας ἐστὶ μυστήριον, πεφανέρωται γὰρ ἐν σαρκὶ Θεὸς
      ὢν ὁ Λόγος. p. 154 a b c.—In a subsequent page,—ὅ γε μὴν
      ἐνανθρωπήσας Θεός, καίτοι νομισθεὶς οὐδὲν ἕτερον εἶναι πλὴν ὅτι
      μόνον ἄνθρωπος ... ἐκηρύχθη ἐν ἔθνεσιν, ἐπιστεύθη ἐν κόσμῳ,
      τετίμηται δὲ καὶ ὡς Υἱὸς ἀληθῶς τοῦ Θεοῦ καὶ Πατρός ... Θεὸς εἶναι
      πεπιστευμένος.—_Ibid._ p. 170 d e.

 1019 Ἀναθεματισμὸς β᾽.—Εἴ τις οὐχ ὁμολογεῖ σαρκὶ καθ᾽ ὑπόστασιν ἡνῶσθαι
      τὸν ἐκ Θεοῦ Πατρὸς Λόγον, ἕνα τε εἶναι Χριστὸν μετὰ τῆς ἰδίας
      σαρκός, τὸν αὐτὸν δηλονότι Θεόν τε ὁμοῦ καὶ ἄνθρωπον, ἀνάθεμα
      ἔστω.—vi. 148 a.

_ 1020 Ibid._ b, c, down to 149 a. (= _Concilia_, iii. 815 b-e.)

 1021 Preserved by Œcumenius in his _Catena_, 1631, ii. 228.

 1022 Ellis, p. 67.

 1023 In loc.

_ 1024 Variæ Lect._ ii. 232. He enumerates ten MSS. in which he found
      it,—but he only quotes down to ἐφανερώθη.

 1025 In loc.

 1026 P. 227 _note_.

 1027 Pointed out long since by Matthæi, _N. T._ vol. xi. _Præfat._ p.
      xlviii. Also in his ed. of 1807,—iii. 443-4. “Nec ideo laudatus est,
      ut doceret Cyrillum loco Θεός legisse ὅς, sed ideo, ne quis si Deum
      factum legeret hominem, humanis peccatis etiam obnoxium esse
      crederet.”

 1028 See Berriman’s _Dissertation_, p. 189.—(MS. note of the Author.)

 1029 Not from the 2nd article of his _Explanatio xii. capitum_, as
      Tischendorf supposes.

 1030 See how P. E. Pusey characterizes the “Scholia,” in his _Preface_ to
      vol. vi. of his edition,—pp. xii. xiii.

 1031 Cyril’s Greek, (to judge from Mercator’s Latin,) must have run
      somewhat as follows:—Ὁ θεσπέσιος Παῦλος ὁμολογουμένως μέγα φησὶν
      εἶναι τὸ τῆς εὐσεβείας μυστήριον. Καὶ ὄντως οὔτως ἔξει; ἐφανερώθη
      γὰρ ἐν σαρκί, Θεὸς ὢν ὁ Λόγος.

_ 1032 Opp._ vol. v. P. i. p. 785 d.—The original scholium (of which the
      extant Greek proves to be only a garbled fragment, [see Pusey’s ed.
      vi. p. 520,]) abounds in expressions which imply, (if they do not
      require,) that Θεός went before: _e.g._ ___quasi Deus homo
      factus:____—____erant ergo gentes in mundo sine Deo, cum absque
      Christo essent:____—____Deus enim erat incarnatus:____—____in
      humanitate tamen Deus remansit: Deus enim Verbum, carne assumptâ,
      non deposuit quod erat; intelligitur tamen idem Deus simul et
      homo,___ &c.

 1033 P. 67.

_ 1034 Opp._ vi. 327.

 1035 ii. 852.

 1036 Matthæi, N. T. xi. _Præfat._ pp. lii.-iii.

 1037 Vol. V. P. ii. pp. 55-180.

 1038 “How is the Godhead of Christ proved?” (asks Ussher in his _Body of
      Divinity_, ed. 1653, p. 161). And he adduces out of the N. T. only
      Jo. i. 1, xx. 28; Rom. ix. 5; 1 Jo. v. 20.—He _had_ quoted 1 Tim.
      iii. 16 in p. 160 (with Rom. ix. 5) to prove the union of the two
      natures.

 1039 Burgon’s _Last Twelve Verses_, &c., p. 195 and note. See Canon Cook
      on this subject,—pp. 146-7.

_ 1040 Suprà_, p. 102.

 1041 Pp. 68-9.

_ 1042 Proleg. in N. T._,—§ 1013.

_ 1043 Opp._ (ed. 1645) ii. 447.

_ 1044 Concilia_, v. 772 a. I quote from Garnier’s ed. of the
      _Breviarium_, reprinted by Gallandius, xii. 1532.

 1045 iv. 465 c.

_ 1046 Concilia_, vi. 28 e [= iii. 645 c (ed. Harduin)].

 1047 “Ex sequentibus colligo quædam exemplaria tempore Anastasii et
      Macedonii habuisse ὅς Θεός; ut, mutatione factâ ὅς in ὡς,
      intelligeretur _ut esset Deus_.” (Cotelerii, _Eccl. Gr. Mon._ iii.
      663)—“Q. d. Ut hic homo, qui dicitur Jesus, esset et dici posset
      Deus,” &c. (Cornelius, _in loc._ He declares absolutely “olim
      legerunt ... ὅς Θεός.”)—All this was noticed long since by Berriman,
      pp. 243-4.

 1048 “Apost. 83,” is “_Crypta-Ferrat._ A. β. iv.” described in the
      APPENDIX. I owe the information to the learned librarian of Crypta
      Ferrata, the Hieromonachus A. Rocchi. It is a pleasure to transcribe
      the letter which conveyed information which the writer knew would be
      acceptable to me:—“Clme Rme Domine. Quod erat in votis, plures loci
      illius Paulini non modo in nostris codd. lectiones, sed et in his
      ipsis variationes, adsequutus es. Modo ego operi meo finem imponam,
      descriptis prope sexcentis et quinquaginta quinque vel codicibus vel
      MSS. Tres autem, quos primum nunc notatos tibi exhibeo, pertinent ad
      Liturgicorum ordinem. Jam felici omine tuas prosoquere
      elucubrationes, cautus tantum ne studio et labore nimio valetudinem
      tuam defatiges. Vale. De Tusculano, xi. kal. Maias, an. R. S.
      MDCCCLXXXIII. ANTONIUS ROCCHI, Hieromonachus Basilianus.”

      For “Paul 282,” (a bilingual MS. at Paris, known as “Arménien 9,”) I
      am indebted to the Abbé Martin, who describes it in his
      _Introduction à la Critique Textuelle du N. T._, 1883,—pp. 660-1.
      See APPENDIX.

 1049 Prebendary Scrivener (p. 555) ably closes the list. Any one desirous
      of mastering the entire literature of the subject should study the
      Rev. John Berriman’s interesting and exhaustive _Dissertation_,—pp.
      229-263.

 1050 The reader is invited to read what Berriman, (who was engaged on his
      “_Dissertation_” while Bp. Butler was writing the “Advertisement”
      prefixed to his “_Analogy_” [1736],) has written on this part of the
      subject,—pp. 120-9, 173-198, 231-240, 259-60, 262, &c.

 1051 Apud Athanasium, _Opp_. ii. 33; and see Garnier’s introductory Note.

 1052 “Audi Paulum magnâ voce clamantem: _Deus manifestatus est in carne_
      [down to] _assumptus est in gloriâ_. O magni doctoris affatum!
      _Deus_, inquit, _manifestatus est in carne_,” &c.—_Concilia_, vii.
      p. 618 e.

 1053 Theodori Studitæ, _Epistt_. lib. ii. 36, and 156. (Sirmondi’s _Opera
      Varia_, vol. v. pp. 349 e and 498 b,—Venet. 1728.)

 1054 Paul 113, (Matthæi’s a) contains two Scholia which witness to Θεὸς
      ἐφανερώθη:—Paul 115, (Matthæi’s d) also contains two Scholia.—Paul
      118, (Matthæi’s h).—Paul 123, (Matthæi’s n). See Matthæi’s N. T.
      vol. xi. _Præfat._ pp. xlii.-iii.

 1055 ii. 228 a.

 1056 ii. 569 e: 570 a.

_ 1057 Panoplia_,—Tergobyst, 1710, fol. ρκγ᾽. p. 2, col. 1.

 1058 Σαββάτῳ πρὸ τῶν φώτων.

 1059 But in Apost. 12 (Reg. 375) it is the lection for the 30th (λ᾽)
      Saturday.—In Apost. 33 (Reg. 382), for the 31st (λα᾽).—In Apost. 26
      (Reg. 320), the lection for the 34th Saturday begins at 1 Tim. vi.
      11.—Apostt. 26 and 27 (Regg. 320-1) are said to have a peculiar
      order of lessons.

 1060 For convenience, many codices are reckoned under this head (viz. of
      “Apostolus”) which are rather Ἀπόστολο-εὐαγγέλια. Many again which
      are but fragmentary, or contain only a very few lessons from the
      Epistles: such are Apostt. 97 to 103. See the APPENDIX.

 1061 No. 21, 28, 31 are said to be Gospel lessons (“Evstt.”). No. 29, 35
      and 36 are Euchologia; “the two latter probably Melchite, for the
      codices exhibit some Arabic words” (Abbé Martin). No. 43 and 48 must
      be erased. No. 70 and 81 are identical with 52 (B. M. _Addit._
      32051).

 1062 Viz. Apost. 1: 3: 6: 9 & 10 (which are Menologies with a few Gospel
      lections): 15: 16: 17: 19: 20: 24: 26: 27: 32: 37: 39: 44: 47: 50:
      53: 55: 56: 59: 60: 61: 63: 64: 66: 67: 68: 71: 72: 73: 75: 76: 78:
      79: 80: 87: 88: 90.

 1063 Viz. Apost. 4 at Florence: 8 at Copenhagen: 40, 41, 42 at Rome: 54
      at St. Petersburg: 74 in America.

 1064 Viz. Apost. 2 and 52 (Addit. 32051) in the B. Mus., also 69 (Addit.
      29714 verified by Dr. C. R. Gregory): 5 at Gottingen: 7 at the
      Propaganda (verified by Dr. Beyer): 11, 22, 23, 25, 30, 33 at Paris
      (verified by Abbé Martin): 13, 14, 18 at Moscow: 38, 49 in the
      Vatican (verified by Signor Cozza-Luzi): 45 at Glasgow (verified by
      Dr. Young): 46 at Milan (verified by Dr. Ceriani): 51 at Besançon
      (verified by M. Castan): 57 and 62 at Lambeth, also 65 B-C (all
      three verified by Scrivener): 58 at Ch. Ch., Oxford: 77 at Moscow:
      82 at Messina (verified by Papas Matranga): 84 and 89 at Crypta
      Ferrata (verified by Hieromonachus Rocchi).

 1065 Viz. Apost. 34 (Reg. 383), a XVth-century Codex. The Abbé Martin
      assures me that this copy exhibits μυστήριον; | θῢ ἐφανερώθη. Note
      however that the position of the point, as well as the accentuation,
      proves that nothing else but θς was intended. This is very
      instructive. What if the same slip of the pen had been found in Cod.
      B?

 1066 Viz. Apost 83 (Crypta Ferrata, A. β. iv.)

 1067 Viz. Praxapost. 85 and 86 (Crypta Ferrata, A. β. vii. which exhibits
      μυστήριον; ὅς ἐφα | νερώθη ἐν σαρκί; and A. β. viii., which exhibits
      μυστίριον; ὅς ἐ ... νερώθη | ἐν σαρκύ. [_sic._]). Concerning these
      codices, see above, pp. 446 to 448.

_ 1068 Concilia_, ii. 217 c ( = ed. Hard. i. 418 b).

 1069 He wrote a history of the Council of Nicæa, in which he introduces
      the discussions of the several Bishops present,—all the product (as
      Cave thinks) of his own brain.

 1070 viii. 214 b.

 1071 Cited at the Council of CP. (A.D. 553). [_Concilia_, ed. Labbe et
      Cossart, v. 447 b c = ed. Harduin, iii. 29 c and 82 e.]

_ 1072 Concilia_, Labbe, v. 449 a, and Harduin, iii. 84 d.

 1073 Harduin, iii. 32 d.

 1074 A Latin translation of the work of Leontius (_Contra Nestor. et
      Eutych._), wherein it is stated that the present place was found in
      _lib._ xiii., may be seen in Gallandius [xii. 660-99: the passage
      under consideration being given at p. 694 c d]: but Mai (_Script.
      Vett._ vi. 290-312), having discovered in the Vatican the original
      text of the excerpts from Theod. Mops., published (from the xiith
      book of Theod. _de Incarnatione_) the Greek of the passage [vi.
      308]. From this source, Migne [_Patr. Gr._ vol. 66, col. 988] seems
      to have obtained his quotation.

 1075 Either as given by Mai, or as represented in the Latin translation
      of Leontius (obtained from a different codex) by Canisius [_Antiquæ
      Lectt._, 1601, vol. iv.], from whose work Gallandius simply
      reprinted it in 1788.

_ 1076 Theodori Mops. Fragmenta Syriaca, vertit_ Ed. Sachau, Lips.
      1869,—p. 53.—I am indebted for much zealous help in respect of these
      Syriac quotations to the Rev. Thomas Randell of Oxford,—who, I
      venture to predict, will some day make his mark in these studies.

_ 1077 Ibid._ p. 64. The context of the place (which is derived from
      Lagarde’s _Analecta Syriaca_, p. 102, top,) is as follows: “Deitas
      enim inhabitans hæc omnia gubernare incepit. Et in hac re etiam
      gratia Spiritus Sancti adjuvabat ad hunc effectum, ut beatus quoque
      Apostolus dixit: ‘_Vere grande ... in spiritu_;’ quoniam nos quoque
      auxilium Spiritûs accepturi sumus ad perfectionem justitiæ.” A
      further reference to 1 Tim. iii. 16 at page 69, does not help us.

 1078 I owe this, and more help than I can express in a foot-note, to my
      learned friend the Rev. Henry Deane, of S. John’s.

 1079 Pages 437-43.

 1080 See above, p. 444.

 1081 See above, pp. 446-8; also the _Appendix_.

 1082 See pp. 426-8.

 1083 See pp. 480-2.

 1084 N. T. 1806 ii. _ad calcem_, p. [25].

 1085 Page 76.

 1086 See above, pp. 376-8.

 1087 Viz. from p. 431 to p. 478.

 1088 See above, pp. 462-4.

 1089 Viz. Acts iii. 12; 1 Tim. iv. 7, 8; vi. 3, 5, 6; 2 Tim. iii. 5; Tit.
      i. 1; 2 Pet. i. 3, 6, 7; iii. 11.

 1090 From the friend whose help is acknowledged at foot of pp. 450, 481.

 1091 Scholz enumerates 8 of these copies: Coxe, 15. But there must exist
      a vast many more; as, at M. Athos, in the convent of S. Catharine,
      at Meteora, &c., &c.

 1092 In explanation of this statement, the reader is invited to refer to
      the APPENDIX at the end of the present volume. [Since the foregoing
      words have been in print I have obtained from Rome tidings of about
      34 more copies of S. Paul’s Epistles; raising the present total to
      336. The known copies of the book called “_Apostolus_” now amount to
      127.]

 1093 Viz. Paul 61 (see Scrivener’s _Introduction_, 3rd ed. p. 251): and
      Paul 181 (see above, at pp. 444-5).

 1094 Viz. Paul 248, at Strasburg.

 1095 Viz. Paul 8 (see Scrivener’s _Introduction_): 15 (which is not in
      the University library at Louvain): 50 and 51 (in Scrivener’s
      _Introduction_): 209 and 210 (which, I find on repeated enquiry, are
      no longer preserved in the Collegio Romano; nor, since the
      suppression of the Jesuits, is any one able to tell what has become
      of them).

 1096 Viz. Paul 42: 53: 54: 58 (_Vat._ 165,—from Sig. Cozza-Luzi): 60: 64:
      66: 76: 82: 89: 118: 119: 124: 127: 146: 147: 148: 152: 160: 161:
      162: 163: 172: 187: 191: 202: 214: 225 (_Milan_ N. 272 _sup._,—from
      Dr. Ceriani): 259: 263: 271: 275: 284 (_Modena_ II. A. 13,—from Sig.
      Cappilli [Acts, 195—_see Appendix_]): 286 (_Milan_ E. 2 _inf._—from
      Dr. Ceriani [_see Appendix_]): 287 (_Milan_ A. 241 _inf._—from Dr.
      Ceriani [_see Appendix_]): 293 (_Crypta Ferrata_, A. β. vi.—from the
      Hieromonachus A. Rocchi [_see Appendix_]): 302 (_Berlin, MS. Græc._
      8vo. No. 9.—from Dr. C. de Boor [_see Appendix_]).

 1097 Viz. Paul 254 (restored to CP., see Scrivener’s _Introduction_): and
      Paul 261 (Muralt’s 8: Petrop. xi. 1. 2. 330).

 1098 I found the reading of 150 copies of S. Paul’s Epistles at 1 Tim.
      iii. 16, ascertained ready to my hand,—chiefly the result of the
      labours of Mill, Kuster, Walker, Berriman, Birch, Matthæi, Scholz,
      Reiche, and Scrivener. The following 102 I am enabled to contribute
      to the number,—thanks to the many friendly helpers whose names
      follow:—

      In the VATICAN (Abbate Cozza-Luzi, keeper of the library, whose
      friendly forwardness and enlightened zeal I cannot sufficiently
      acknowledge. See the _Appendix_) No. 185, 186, 196, 204, 207, 294,
      295, 296, 297.—PROPAGANDA (Dr. Beyer) No. 92.—CRYPTA FERRATA (the
      Hieromonachus A. Rocchi. See the _Appendix_,) No. 290, 291,
      292.—VENICE (Sig. Veludo) No. 215.—MILAN (Dr. Ceriani, the most
      learned and helpful of friends,) No. 173, 174, 175, 176, 223, 288,
      289.—FERRARA, (Sig. Gennari) No. 222.—MODENA (Sig. Cappilli) No.
      285.—BOLOGNA (Sig. Gardiani) No. 105.—TURIN (Sig. Gorresio) No. 165,
      168.—FLORENCE (Dr. Anziani) No. 182, 226, 239.—MESSINA (Papas
      Filippo Matranga. See the _Appendix_,) No. 216, 283.—PALERMO (Sig.
      Penerino) No. 217.—The ESCURIAL (S. Herbert Capper, Esq., of the
      British Legation. He executed a difficult task with rare ability, at
      the instance of his Excellency, Sir Robert Morier, who is requested
      to accept this expression of my thanks,) No. 228, 229.—PARIS (M.
      Wescher, who is as obliging as he is learned in this department,)
      No. 16, 65, 136, 142, 150, 151, 154, 155, 156, 157, 164.—(L’Abbé
      Martin. See the _Appendix_) No. 282. ARSENAL (M. Thierry) No.
      130.—S. GENEVIEVE (M. Denis) No. 247.—POICTIERS (M. Dartige) No.
      276.—BERLIN (Dr. C. de Boor) No. 220, 298, 299, 300, 301.—DRESDEN
      (Dr. Forstemann) No. 237.—MUNICH (Dr. Laubmann) No. 55, 125, 126,
      128.—GOTTINGEN (Dr. Lagarde) No. 243.—WOLFENBUTTEL (Dr. von
      Heinemann) No. 74, 241.—BASLE (Mons. Sieber) No. 7.—UPSALA (Dr.
      Belsheim) No. 273, 274.—LINCOPING (the same) No. 272.—ZURICH (Dr.
      Escher) No. 56.—Prebendary Scrivener verified for me Paul 252: 253:
      255: 256: 257: 258: 260: 264: 265: 277.—Rev. T. Randell, has
      verified No. 13.—Alex. Peckover, Esq., No. 278.—Personally, I have
      inspected No. 24: 34: 62: 63: 224: 227: 234: 235: 236: 240: 242:
      249: 250: 251: 262: 266: 267: 268: 269: 270: 279: 280: 281.

 1099 Viz. Paul 37 (the _Codex Leicest._, 69 of the Gospels):—Paul 85
      (Vat. 1136), observed by Abbate Cozza-Luzi:—Paul 93 (Naples 1. B.
      12) which is 83 of the Acts,—noticed by Birch:—Paul 175 (Ambros. F.
      125 _sup._) at Milan; as I learn from Dr. Ceriani. See above, p. 456
      _note_ 1.

 1100 Viz. Paul 282,—concerning which, see above, p. 474, note 1.

 1101 The present locality of this codex (Evan. 421 = Acts 176 = Paul 218)
      is unknown. The only Greek codices in the public library of the
      “Seminario” at Syracuse are an “Evst.” and an “Apost.” (which I
      number respectively 362 and 113). My authority for Θεός in Paul 218,
      is Birch [_Proleg._ p. xcviii.], to whom Munter communicated his
      collations.

 1102 For the ensuing codices, see the APPENDIX.

 1103 Vat. 2068 (Basil. 107),—which I number “Apost. 115” (see APPENDIX.)

 1104 Viz. by 4 uncials (A, K, L, P), + (247 Paul + 31 Apost. = ) 278
      cursive manuscripts reading Θεός: + 4 (Paul) reading ὁ Θεός: + 2 (1
      Paul, 1 Apost.) reading ὅς Θεός: + 1 (Apost.) reading Θῢ = 289. (See
      above, pp. 473-4: 478.)

 1105 The Harkleian (see pp. 450, 489): the Georgian, and the Slavonic (p.
      454).

 1106 See above, pp. 487-490,—which is the summary of what will be found
      more largely delivered from page 455 to page 476.

 1107 See above, pp. 448-453: also p. 479.

 1108 See above, pp. 479-480.

 1109 See above, pp. 452-3.

 1110 See above, pp. 482, 483.

 1111 See above, page 436, and middle of page 439.

 1112 See his long and singular note.

_ 1113 Fresh Revision_, p. 27.

_ 1114 Printed Text_, p. 231.

 1115 P. 226.

 1116 “_Forte_ μυστήριον; ὁ _χς_ ἐθανατώθη ἐν σαρκί ... ἐν πνεύματι, ὤφθη
      ἀποστόλοις.”—Bentleii _Critica Sacra_, p. 67.

_ 1117 Developed Criticism_, p. 160.

 1118 Thus Augustine (viii. 828 f.) paraphrases,—“_In carne manifestatus
      est_ FILIUS DEI.”—And Marius Victorinus, A.D. 390 (ap. Galland.
      viii. 161),—“_Hoc enim est magnum sacramentum, quod_ DEUS
      _exanimavit semet ipsum cum esset in_ DEI _formá:_” “_fuit ergo
      antequam esset in carne, sed manifestatum dixit in carne_.”—And
      Fulgentius, A.D. 513, thus expands the text (ap. Galland. xi.
      232):—“_quia scilicet Verbum quod in principio erat, et apud_ DEUM
      _erat, et_ DEUS _erat, id est_ DEI _unigenitus Filius_, DEI _virtus
      et sapientia, per quem et in quo facta sunt omnia, ... idem_ DEUS
      _unigenitus_,” &c. &c.—And Ferrandus, A.D. 356 (_ibid._ p.
      356):—“_ita pro redemtione humani generis humanam naturam credimus
      suscepisse, ut ille qui Trinitate perfecta_ DEUS _unigenitus
      permanebat ac permanet, ipse ex Maria fieret primogenitus in multis
      fratribus_,” &c.

_ 1119 MS. note in his interleaved copy of the N. T._ He adds, “Hæc
      addenda posui Notis ad S. Hippolytum contra Noetum p. 93, vol. i.
      _Scriptor. Ecclesiast. Opusculorum._”

 1120 Page 29.

 1121 P. 29.

 1122 P. 30.

_ 1123 Address_, on the Revised Version, p. 10.

 1124 See above, pp. 37 to 39.

 1125 Bp. Ellicott’s pamphlet, p. 34.

 1126 P. 231.

 1127 Fifth Rule of the Committee.

 1128 Bp. Ellicott’s pamphlet, p. 30.

 1129 No fair person will mistake the spirit in which the next ensuing
      paragraphs (in the Text) are written. But I will add what shall
      effectually protect me from being misunderstood.

      Against the respectability and personal worth of any member of the
      Revisionist body, let me not be supposed to breathe a syllable. All,
      (for aught I know to the contrary,) may be men of ability and
      attainment, as well as of high moral excellence. I will add that, in
      early life, I numbered several professing Unitarians among my
      friends. It were base in me to forget how wondrous kind I found
      them: how much I loved them: how fondly I cherish their memory.

      Further. That in order to come at the truth of Scripture, we are
      bound to seek help at the hands of _any_ who are able to render
      help,—_who_ ever doubted? If a worshipper of the false prophet,—if a
      devotee of Buddha,—could contribute anything,—_who_ would hesitate
      to sue to him for enlightenment? As for Abraham’s descendants,—they
      are our very brethren.

      But it is quite a different thing when Revisionists appointed by the
      Convocation of the Southern Province, co-opt Separatists and even
      Unitarians into their body, where they shall determine the sense of
      Scripture and vote upon its translation on equal terms. Surely, when
      the Lower House of Convocation accepted the 5th “Resolution” of the
      Upper House,—viz., that the Revising body “shall be at liberty to
      invite the co-operation of any eminent for scholarship, to whatever
      nation or religious body they may belong;”—the Synod of Canterbury
      did not suppose that it was pledging itself to sanction _such_
      “co-operation” as is implied by actual _co-optation_!

      It should be added that Bp. Wilberforce, (the actual framer of the
      5th fundamental Resolution,) has himself informed us that “in
      framing it, it never occurred to him that it would apply to the
      admission of any member of the Socinian body.” _Chronicle of
      Convocation_ (Feb. 1871,) p. 4.

      “I am aware,” (says our learned and pious bishop of Lincoln,) “that
      the ancient Church did not scruple to avail herself of the
      translation of a renegade Jew, like Aquila; and of Ebionitish
      heretics, like Symmachus and Theodotion; and that St. Augustine
      profited by the expository rules of Tychonius the Donatist. But I
      very much doubt whether the ancient Church would have looked for a
      large outpouring of a blessing from GOD on a work of translating His
      Word, where the workmen were not all joined together in a spirit of
      Christian unity, and in the profession of the true Faith; and in
      which the opinions of the several translators were to be counted and
      not weighed; and where everything was to be decided by numerical
      majorities; and where the votes of an Arius or a Nestorius were to
      be reckoned as of equal value with those of an Athanasius or a
      Cyril.” (_Address on the Revised Version_, 1881, pp. 38.)

_ 1130 The Bible and Popular Theology_, by G. Vance Smith, 1871.

_ 1131 An Unitarian Reviser of our Authorized Version, intolerable: an
      earnest Remonstrance and Petition_,—addressed to yourself by your
      present correspondent:—Oxford, Parker, 1872, pp. 8.

 1132 See letter of “One of the Revisionists, G. V. S.” in _the Times_ of
      July 11, 1870.

_ 1133 Protest against the Communion of an Unitarian in Westminster Abbey
      on June_ 22nd, 1870:—Oxford, 1870, pp. 64.

 1134 See the _Chronicle of Convocation_ (Feb. 1871), pp. 3-28,—when a
      Resolution was moved and carried by the Bp. (Wilberforce) of
      Winchester,—“That it is the judgment of this House that no person
      who denies the Godhead of our LORD JESUS CHRIST ought to be invited
      to join either company to which is committed the Revision of the
      Authorized Version of Holy Scripture: and that it is further the
      judgment of this House that any such person now on either Company
      should cease to act therewith.

      “And that this Resolution be communicated to the Lower House, and
      their concurrence requested:”—which was done. See p. 143.

 1135 The Reader is invited to refer back to pp. 132-135.

 1136 The Reader is requested to refer back to pp. 210-214.

 1137 S. Mark x. 21.

 1138 S. Luke xxii. 64.

 1139 S. Luke xxiii. 38.

 1140 S. Luke xxiv. 42.

 1141 Εἰπεῖν is “_to command_” in S. Matth. (and S. Luke) iv. 3: in S.
      Mark v. 43: viii. 7, and in many other places. On the other hand,
      the Revisers have thrust “_command_” into S. Matth. xx. 21, where
      “_grant_” had far better have been let alone: and have overlooked
      other places (as S. Matth. xxii. 24, S. James ii. 11), where
      “_command_” might perhaps have been introduced with advantage. (I
      nothing doubt that when the Centurion of Capernaum said to our Lord
      μόνον εἰπὲ λόγῳ [Mtt. viii. 8 = Lu. vii. 7], he entreated Him “only
      to give _the word of command_.”)

      We all see, of course, that it was because Δός is rendered “_grant_”
      in the (very nearly) parallel place to S. Matth. xx. 21 (viz. S.
      Mark x. 37), that the Revisers thought it incumbent on them to
      represent Εἰπέ in the earlier Gospel differently; and so they
      bethought themselves of “_command_.” (Infelicitously enough, as I
      humbly think. “_Promise_” would evidently have been a preferable
      substitute: the word in the original (εἰπεῖν) being one of that
      large family of Greek verbs which vary their shade of signification
      according to their context.) But it is plainly impracticable to
      _level up_ after this rigid fashion,—to translate in this mechanical
      way. Far more is lost than is gained by this straining after an
      impossible closeness of rendering. The spirit becomes inevitably
      sacrificed to the letter. All this has been largely remarked upon
      above, at pp. 187-206.

      Take the case before us in illustration. S. James and S. John with
      their Mother, have evidently agreed together to “_ask a favour_” of
      their LORD (cf. Mtt. xx. 20, Mk. x. 35). The Mother begins Εἰπέ,—the
      sons begin, Δός. Why are we to assume that the request is made by
      the Mother in _a different spirit_ from the sons? Why are we to
      impose upon her language the imperious sentiment which the very
      mention of “_command_” unavoidably suggests to an English ear?

      A prior, and yet more fatal objection, remains in full force. The
      Revisers, (I say it for the last time,) were clearly going beyond
      their prescribed duty when they set about handling the Authorized
      Version after this merciless fashion. Their business was to correct
      “_plain and clear errors_,”—_not_ to produce a “New English
      Version.”

 1142 Take the following as a sample, which is one of the Author’s proofs
      that the “Results of the Revision” are “unfavourable to
      Orthodoxy:”—“The only instance in the N. T. in which the religious
      worship or adoration of CHRIST was apparently implied, has been
      _altered_ by the Revision: ‘_At_ the name of JESUS every knee shall
      bow,’ [Philipp. ii. 10] is now to be read ‘_in_ the name.’ Moreover,
      no alteration of text or of translation will be found anywhere to
      make up for this loss; as indeed it is well understood that the N.
      T. contains neither precept nor example which really sanctions the
      religious worship of JESUS CHRIST.”—_Texts and Margins_,—p. 47.

_ 1143 Supra_, p. 424 to p. 501.

 1144 See above, pp. 272-275, pp. 278-281.

 1145 See above, p. 275.

 1146 See above, pp. 276-7.

 1147 See above, pp. 303-305.

 1148 See above, p. 304.

 1149 See above, pp. 339-42; also pp. 422, 423.

 1150 See above, pp. 391-7.

 1151 See above, pp. 36-40: 47-9: 422-4.

 1152 See above, pp. 41-7: 420-2.

 1153 See above, pp. 98-106: 424-501.

 1154 Evan. 738 belongs to Oriel College, Oxford, [xii.], small 4to. of
      130 foll. slightly _mut._ Evan. 739, Bodl. Greek Miscell. 323
      [xiii.], 8vo. _membr._ foll. 183, _mut._ Brought from Ephesus, and
      obtained for the Bodleian in 1883.

 1155 Evst. 415 belongs to Lieut. Bate, [xiii.], _chart._ foll. 219,
      mutilated throughout. He obtained it in 1878 from a Cyprus villager
      at Kikos, near Mount Trovodos (_i.e._ Olympus.) It came from a
      monastery on the mountain.

 1156 Apost. 128 will be found described, for the first time, below, at p.
      528.