The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels

                        Vindicated and Established

                               By the Late

                        John William Burgon, B.D.

                            Dean of Chichester

                    Arranged, Completed, and Edited by

                           Edward Miller, M.A.

    Late Rector of Bucknell, Oxon; Editor of the Fourth Edition of Dr.
   Scrivener’s “Plain Introduction to the Textual Criticism of the New
  Testament”; and Author of “A Guide to the Textual Criticism of the New
                                Testament”

Πᾶσι Τοῖς Ἁγίοις ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ

PHIL. i. 1

                                  London

                           George Bell And Sons

                    Cambridge: Deighton, Bell and Co.

                                   1896





CONTENTS


Preface.
Introduction.
Chapter I. Preliminary Grounds.
Chapter II. Principles.
Chapter III. The Seven Notes Of Truth.
Chapter IV. The Vatican And Sinaitic Manuscripts.
Chapter V. The Antiquity of the Traditional Text. I. Witness of the Early
Fathers.
Chapter VI. The Antiquity Of The Traditional Text. II. Witness of the
Early Syriac Versions.
Chapter VII. The Antiquity Of The Traditional Text. III. Witness of the
Western or Syrio-Low-Latin Text.
Chapter VIII. Alexandria and Caesarea.
Chapter IX. The Old Uncials. The Influence Of Origen.
Chapter X. The Old Uncials. Codex D.
Chapter XI. The Later Uncials And The Cursives.
Chapter XII. Conclusion.
Appendix I. Honeycomb—ἀπὸ μελισσίου κηρίου.
Appendix II. Ὄξος—Vinegar.
Appendix III. The Rich Young Man.
Appendix IV. St. Mark i. 1.
Appendix V. The Sceptical Character Of B And א.
Appendix VI. The Peshitto And Curetonian.
Appendix VII. The Last Twelve Verses Of St. Mark’s Gospel.
Appendix VIII. New Editions Of The Peshitto-Syriac And The
Harkleian-Syriac Versions.
General Index.
Index II. Passages Of The New Testament Commented On.
Footnotes






“Tenet ecclesia nostra, tenuitque semper firmam illam et immotam
Tertulliani regulam ‘Id verius quod prius, id prius quod ab initio.’ Quo
propius ad veritatis fontem accedimus, eo purior decurrit Catholicae
doctrinae rivus.”—CAVE’S _Proleg._ p. xliv.

“Interrogate de semitis antiquis quae sit via bona, et ambulate in
eâ.”—Jerem. vi. 16.

“In summa, si constat id verius quod prius, id prius quod ab initio, id ab
initio quod ab Apostolis; pariter utique constabit, id esse ab Apostolis
traditum, quod apud Ecclesias Apostolorum fuerit sacrosanctum.”—TERTULL.
_adv. Marc._ l. iv. c. 5.





PREFACE.


The death of Dean Burgon in 1888, lamented by a large number of people on
the other side of the Atlantic as well as on this, cut him off in the
early part of a task for which he had made preparations during more than
thirty years. He laid the foundations of his system with much care and
caution, discussing it with his friends, such as the late Earl of Selborne
to whom he inscribed The Last Twelve Verses, and the present Earl of
Cranbrook to whom he dedicated The Revision Revised, for the purpose of
sounding the depths of the subject, and of being sure that he was resting
upon firm rock. In order to enlarge the general basis of Sacred Textual
Criticism, and to treat of the principles of it scientifically and
comprehensively, he examined manuscripts widely, making many discoveries
at home and in foreign libraries; collated some himself and got many
collated by other scholars; encouraged new and critical editions of some
of the chief Versions; and above all, he devised and superintended a
collection of quotations from the New Testament to be found in the works
of the Fathers and in other ecclesiastical writings, going far beyond
ordinary indexes, which may be found in sixteen thick volumes amongst the
treasures of the British Museum. Various events led him during his
life-time to dip into and publish some of his stores, such as in his Last
Twelve Verses of St. Mark, his famous Letters to Dr. Scrivener in the
_Guardian_ Newspaper, and in The Revision Revised. But he sedulously
amassed materials for the greater treatise up to the time of his death.

He was then deeply impressed with the incomplete state of his documents;
and gave positive instructions solely for the publication of his Text of
the Gospels as marked in the margin of one of Scrivener’s editions of the
New Testament, of his disquisition on “honeycomb” which as exhibiting a
specimen of his admirable method of criticism will be found in Appendix I
of this volume, and perhaps of that on ὄξος in Appendix II, leaving the
entire question as to publishing the rest to his nephew, the Rev. W. F.
Rose, with the help of myself, if I would undertake the editing required,
and of others.

The separate papers, which were committed to my charge in February, 1889,
were contained in forty portfolios, and according to my catalogue amounted
to 2,383. They were grouped under various headings, and some were placed
in one set as “Introductory Matter” ready for the printer. Most had been
copied out in a clear hand, especially by “M.W.” mentioned in the Preface
of the Revision Revised, to whom also I am greatly indebted for copying
others. The papers were of lengths varying from fourteen pages or more
down to a single sentence or a single reference. Some were almost
duplicates, and a very few similarly triplicates.

After cataloguing, I reported to Mr. Rose, suggesting a choice between
three plans, viz.,

1. Publishing separately according to the Dean’s instructions such papers
as were judged to be fit for publication, and leaving the rest:—

2. To put together a Work on the Principles of Textual Criticism out of
the MSS., as far as they would go:—

3. To make up what was ready and fit into a Book, supplying from the rest
of the materials and from elsewhere what was wanting besides filling up
gaps as well as I could, and out of the rest (as well as from the Dean’s
published works) to construct brief notes on the Text which we had to
publish.

This report was sent to Dr. Scrivener, Dean Goulburn, Sir Edward Maunde
Thompson, and other distinguished scholars, and the unanimous opinion was
expressed that the third of these plans should be adopted.

Not liking to encounter


    Tot et tanta negotia solus,


I invited at the opening of 1890 the Rev. G. H. Gwilliam, Fellow of
Hertford College, and the Rev. Dr. Waller, Principal of St. John’s Hall,
Highbury—a man of mathematical accuracy—to read over at my house the first
draft of a large portion of Volume I. To my loss, Dr. Waller has been too
busy since that time to afford me any help, except what may be found in
his valuable comparison of the texts of the Peshitto and Curetonian
printed in Appendix VI: but Mr. Gwilliam has been ready with advice and
help all along which have been of the greatest advantage to me especially
on the Syriac part of the subject, and has looked through all the first
proofs of this volume.

It was afterwards forced upon my mind that if possible the Indexes to the
Fathers ought to be included in the work. Indeed no book could adequately
represent Dean Burgon’s labours which did not include his _apparatus
criticus_ in that province of Textual Criticism, in which he has shewn
himself so _facile princeps_, that no one in England, or Germany, or
elsewhere, has been as yet able to come near him. With Sir E. Maunde
Thompson’s kind help, I have been able to get the part of the Indexes
which relates to the Gospels copied in type-writing, and they will be
published in course of time, God willing, if the learned world evinces
sufficient interest in the publication of them.

Unfortunately, when in 1890 I had completed a first arrangement of Volume
II, my health gave way; and after vainly endeavouring for a year to
combine this severe toil with the conduct of a living, I resigned the
latter, and moved into Oxford to devote myself exclusively to the
important work of turning the unpublished results of the skilful
faithfulness and the indefatigable learning of that “grand scholar”—to use
Dr. Scrivener’s phrase—towards the settlement of the principles that
should regulate the ascertainment of the Divine Words constituting the New
Testament.

The difficulty to be surmounted lay in the fact that after all was
gathered out of the Dean’s remains that was suitable for the purpose, and
when gaps of smaller or greater size were filled, as has been done
throughout the series of unfinished and unconnected MSS., there was still
a large space to cover without the Master’s help in covering it.

Time and research and thought were alike necessary. Consequently, upon
advice, I accepted an offer to edit the fourth edition of Scrivener’s
Plain Introduction, and although that extremely laborious accomplishment
occupied far more time than was anticipated, yet in the event it has
greatly helped the execution of my task. Never yet, before or since Dean
Burgon’s death, has there been such an opportunity as the present. The
general _apparatus criticus_ has been vastly increased; the field of
palaeography has been greatly enlarged through the discoveries in Egypt;
and there is a feeling abroad that we are on the brink of an improvement
in systems and theories recently in vogue.

On returning to the work, I found that the key to the removal of the chief
difficulty in the way of such improvement lay in an inflow of light upon
what may perhaps be termed as to this subject the Pre-manuscriptal
Period,—hitherto the dark age of Sacred Textualism, which precedes what
was once “the year one” of Palaeography. Accordingly, I made a toilsome
examination for myself of the quotations occurring in the writings of the
Fathers before St. Chrysostom, or as I defined them in order to draw a
self-acting line, of those who died before 400 A.D., with the result that
the Traditional Text is found to stand in the general proportion of 3:2
against other variations, and in a much higher proportion upon thirty test
passages. Afterwards, not being satisfied with resting the basis of my
argument upon one scrutiny, I went again through the writings of the
seventy-six Fathers concerned (with limitations explained in this book),
besides others who yielded no evidence, and I found that although several
more instances were consequently entered in my note-book, the general
results remained almost the same. I do not flatter myself that even now I
have recorded all the instances that could be adduced:—any one who is
really acquainted with this work will know that such a feat is absolutely
impossible, because such perfection cannot be obtained except after many
repeated efforts. But I claim, not only that my attempts have been honest
and fair even to self-abnegation, but that the general results which are
much more than is required by my argument, as is explained in the body of
this work, abundantly establish the antiquity of the Traditional Text, by
proving the superior acceptance of it during the period at stake to that
of any other.

Indeed, these examinations have seemed to me, not only to carry back the
Traditional Text satisfactorily to the first age, but to lead also to
solutions of several difficult problems, which are now presented to our
readers. The wealth of MSS. to which the Fathers introduce us at
second-hand can only be understood by those who may go through the
writings of many of them with this view; and outnumbers over and over
again before the year 1000 all the contemporaneous Greek MSS. which have
come down to us, not to speak of the years to which no MSS. that are now
extant are in the opinion of all experts found to belong.

It is due both to Dean Burgon and to myself to say that we came together
after having worked on independent lines, though I am bound to acknowledge
my great debt to his writings. At first we did not agree thoroughly in
opinion, but I found afterwards that he was right and I was wrong. It is a
proof of the unifying power of our principles, that as to our system there
is now absolutely no difference between us, though on minor points,
generally outside of this immediate subject, we do not always exactly
concur. Though I have the Dean’s example for altering his writings largely
even when they were in type, as he never failed to do, yet in loyalty I
have delayed alterations as long as I could, and have only made them when
I was certain that I was introducing some improvement, and more often than
not upon advice proffered to me by others.

Our coincidence is perhaps explained by our having been born when
Evangelical earnestness affected all religious life, by our having been
trained under the High Church movement, and at least in my case mellowed
under the more moderate widening caused by influences which prevailed in
Oxford for some years after 1848. Certainly, the comprehensiveness and
exhaustiveness—probably in imitation of German method—which had before
characterized Dr. Pusey’s treatment of any subject, and found an
exemplification in Professor Freeman’s historical researches, and which
was as I think to be seen in the action of the best spirits of the Oxford
of 1848-56—to quote my own experience,—lay at the root and constituted the
life of Burgon’s system, and the maintenance of these principles so far as
we could at whatever cost formed the link between us. To cast away at
least nineteen-twentieths of the evidence on points and to draw
conclusions from the petty remainder, seems to us to be necessarily not
less even than a crime and a sin, not only by reason of the sacrilegious
destructiveness exercised thereby upon Holy Writ, but also because such a
method is inconsistent with conscientious exhaustiveness and logical
method. Perfectly familiar with all that can be and is advanced in favour
of such procedure, must we not say that hardly any worse pattern than this
in investigations and conclusions could be presented before young men at
the critical time when they are entering upon habits of forming judgements
which are to carry them through life? Has the over-specialism which has
been in vogue of late years promoted the acceptance of the theory before
us, because it may have been under specializing influences forgotten, that
the really accomplished man should aim at knowing something of everything
else as well as knowing everything of the thing to which he is devoted,
since narrowness in investigation and neglect of all but a favourite
theory is likely to result from so exclusive an attitude?

The importance of the question at stake is often underrated. Dr. Philip
Schaff in his well-known “Companion” (p. 176),—as Dr. E. Nestle of Ulm in
one of his brochures (“Ein ceterum censeo zur neutestamentlichen
Textkritik”) which he has kindly sent me, has pointed out,—observes that
whereas Mill reckoned the variations to amount to 30,000, and Scrivener
supposed that they have since increased to four times as much, they
“cannot now fall much short of 150,000.” This amount is appalling, and
most of them are of a petty character. But some involve highly important
passages, and even Hort has reckoned (Introduction, p. 2) that the
disputed instances reach about one-eighth of the whole. Is it too strong
therefore to say, that we live over a volcano, with a crust of earth of
not too great a thickness lying between?

The first half of our case is now presented in this Volume, which is a
complete treatise in itself. A second will I hope follow at an early date,
containing a disquisition on the Causes of the Corruption of the
Traditional Text; and, I am glad to say, will consist almost exclusively
of Dean Burgon’s own compositions. I ask from Critics who may not assent
to all our conclusions a candid consideration of our case, which is rested
solely upon argument and reason throughout. This explanation made by the
Dean of his system in calmer times and in a more didactic form cannot, as
I think, fail to remove much prejudice. If we seem at first sight anywhere
to leap from reasoning to dogmatism, our readers will discover, I believe,
upon renewed observation that at least from our point of view that is not
so. If we appear to speak too positively, we have done this, not from
confidence in any private judgement, but because we are sure, at least in
our own minds, that we express the verdict of all the ages and all the
countries.

May the great Head of the Church bless our effort on behalf of the
integrity of His Holy Word, if not according to our plan and purpose, yet
in the way that seemeth Him best!

Edward Miller.

9 BRADMORE ROAD, OXFORD:

_Epiphany 1896_.





INTRODUCTION.


A few remarks at the outset of this treatise, which was left imperfect by
Dean Burgon at his unexpected death, may make the object and scope of it
more intelligible to many readers.

Textual Criticism of the New Testament is a close inquiry into what is the
genuine Greek—the true text of the Holy Gospels, of the Acts of the
Apostles, of the Pauline and Apostolic Epistles, and the Revelation.
Inasmuch as it concerns the text alone, it is confined to the Lower
Criticism according to German nomenclature, just as a critical examination
of meaning, with all its attendant references and connexions, would
constitute the Higher Criticism. It is thus the necessary prelude of any
scientific investigation of the language, the purport, and the teaching of
the various books of the New Testament, and ought itself to be conducted
upon definite and scientific principles. The object of this treatise is to
lead to a general settlement of those principles. For this purpose the
Dean has stripped the discussion of all adventitious disguise, and has
pursued it lucidly into manifold details, in order that no employment of
difficult terms or involved sentences may shed any mystification over the
questions discussed, and that all intelligent people who are interested in
such questions—and who is not?—may understand the issues and the proofs of
them.

In the very earliest times much variation in the text of the New
Testament, and particularly of the Holy Gospels—for we shall treat mainly
of these four books as constituting the most important province, and as
affording a smaller area, and so being more convenient for the present
inquiry:—much diversity in words and expression, I say, arose in the
Church. In consequence, the school of scientific Theology at Alexandria,
in the person of Origen, first found it necessary to take cognizance of
the matter. When Origen moved to Caesarea, he carried his manuscripts with
him, and they appear to have formed the foundation of the celebrated
library in that city, which was afterwards amplified by Pamphilus and
Eusebius, and also by Acacius and Euzoius(1), who were all successively
bishops of the place. During the life of Eusebius, if not under his
controlling care, the two oldest Uncial Manuscripts in existence as
hitherto discovered, known as B and א, or the Vatican and Sinaitic, were
executed in handsome form and exquisite calligraphy. But shortly after,
about the middle of the fourth century—as both schools of Textual Critics
agree—a text differing from that of B and א advanced in general
acceptance; and, increasing till the eighth century in the predominance
won by the end of the fourth, became so prevalent in Christendom, that the
small number of MSS. agreeing with B and א forms no sort of comparison
with the many which vary from those two. Thus the problem of the fourth
century anticipated the problem of the nineteenth. Are we for the genuine
text of the New Testament to go to the Vatican and the Sinaitic MSS. and
the few others which mainly agree with them, or are we to follow the main
body of New Testament MSS., which by the end of the century in which those
two were produced entered into possession of the field of contention, and
have continued in occupation of it ever since? This is the problem which
the following treatise is intended to solve, that is to say, which of
these two texts or sets of readings is the better attested, and can be
traced back through the stronger evidence to the original autographs.

A few words are now needed to describe and account for the present
position of the controversy.

After the discovery of printing in Europe, Textual Criticism began to rise
again. The career of it may be divided into four stages, which may be
termed respectively, Infancy, Childhood, Youth, and Incipient Maturity(2).

I. Erasmus in 1516 edited the New Testament from a very small number of
manuscripts, probably only five, in repute at the time; and six years
afterwards appeared the Complutensian edition under Cardinal Ximenes,
which had been printed two years before that of Erasmus. Robert Stephen,
Theodore Beza, and the Elzevirs, also, as is well known, published
editions of their own. In the latter edition of the Elzevirs, issued in
1633, occurred for the first time the widely-used expression “Textus
Receptus.” The sole object in this period was to adhere faithfully to the
text received everywhere.

II. In the next, evidence from Manuscripts, Versions, and Fathers was
collected, chiefly by Mill and Wetstein. Bentley thought of going back to
the fourth century for decisive evidence. Bengel and Griesbach laid stress
upon families and recensions of manuscripts, and led the way in departing
from the received standard. Collation of manuscripts was carried on by
these two critics and by other able scholars, and largely by Scholz. There
was thus an amplification of materials, and a crop of theories. Much that
was vague and elemental was intermingled with a promise of a great deal
that would prove more satisfactory in the future.

III. The leader in the next advance was Lachmann, who began to discard the
readings of the Received Text, supposing it to be only two centuries old.
Authorities having already become inconveniently multitudinous, he limited
his attention to the few which agreed with the oldest Uncials, namely, L
or the Regius at Paris, one or two other fragments of Uncials, a few
Cursives, the Old Latin Manuscripts, and a few of the oldest Fathers,
making up generally some six or seven in all upon each separate reading.
Tischendorf, the discoverer of א, the twin-sister of B, and the collator
of a large number of MSS.(3), followed him in the main, as did also
Tregelles. And Dr. Hort, who, with Bishop Westcott, began to theorize and
work when Lachmann’s influence was at the highest, in a most ingenious and
elaborate Introduction maintained the cause of the two oldest
Uncials—especially B—and their small band of followers. Admitting that the
Received Text dates back as far as the middle of the fourth century, Hort
argued that it was divided by more than two centuries and a half from the
original Autographs, and in fact took its rise at Antioch and should be
called “Syrian,” notwithstanding the predominance which he acknowledged
that it has enjoyed since the end of the fourth century. He termed the
readings of which B and א are the chief exponents “the Neutral Text,” and
held that that text can be traced back to the genuine Autographs(4).

IV. I have placed the tenets of the opposite school last as exhibiting
signs of Incipient Maturity in the Science, not because they are admitted
to be so, that being not the case, but because of their intrinsic merits,
which will be unfolded in this volume, and because of the immense addition
recently made of authorities to our store, as well as on account of the
indirect influence exercised of late by discoveries pursued in other
quarters(5). Indeed, it is sought to establish a wider stock of ruling
authorities, and a sounder method in the use of them. The leaders in the
advocacy of this system have been Dr. Scrivener in a modified degree, and
especially Dean Burgon. First, be it understood, that we do not advocate
perfection in the Textus Receptus. We allow that here and there it
requires revision. In the Text left behind by Dean Burgon(6), about 150
corrections have been suggested by him in St. Matthew’s Gospel alone. What
we maintain is the TRADITIONAL TEXT. And we trace it back to the earliest
ages of which there is any record. We trust to the fullest testimony and
the most enlightened view of all the evidence. In humble dependence upon
God the Holy Ghost, Who we hold has multiplied witnesses all down the ages
of the Church, and Whose cause we believe we plead, we solemnly call upon
those many students of the Bible in these days who are earnest after truth
to weigh without prejudice what we say, in the prayer that it may
contribute something towards the ascertainment of the true expressions
employed in the genuine Word of GOD.





CHAPTER I. PRELIMINARY GROUNDS.




§ 1.


In the ensuing pages I propose to discuss a problem of the highest dignity
and importance(7): namely, On what principles the true text of the New
Testament Scriptures is to be ascertained? My subject is the Greek text of
those Scriptures, particularly of the four Gospels; my object, the
establishment of that text on an intelligible and trustworthy basis.

That no fixed principles were known to exist before 1880 is proved by the
fact that the most famous critics not only differed considerably from one
another, but also from themselves. Till then all was empiricism in this
department. A section, a chapter, an article, a pamphlet, a tentative
essay—all these indeed from time to time appeared: and some were excellent
of their kind. But we require something a vast deal more methodical,
argumentative, and complete, than is compatible with such narrow limits.
Even where an account of the facts was extended to greater length and was
given with much fullness and accuracy, there was an absence of scientific
principle sufficient to guide students to a satisfactory and sound
determination of difficult questions. Tischendorf’s last two editions
differ from one another in no less than 3,572 particulars. He reverses in
every page in 1872 what in 1859 he offered as the result of his deliberate
judgement. Every one, to speak plainly, whether an expert or a mere
beginner, seemed to consider himself competent to pass sentence on any
fresh reading which is presented to his notice. We were informed that
“according to all principles of sound criticism” this word is to be
retained, that to be rejected: but till the appearance of the dissertation
of Dr. Hort no one was so obliging as to tell us what the principles are
to which reference is confidently made, and by the loyal application of
which we might have arrived at the same result for ourselves. And Hort’s
theory, as will be shewn further on, involves too much violation of
principles generally received, and is too devoid of anything like proof,
ever to win universal acceptance. As matters of fact easily verified, it
stands in sharp antagonism to the judgement passed by the Church all down
the ages, and in many respects does not accord with the teaching of the
most celebrated critics of the century who preceded him.

I trust I shall be forgiven, if in the prosecution of the present inquiry
I venture to step out of the beaten track, and to lead my reader forward
in a somewhat humbler style than has been customary with my predecessors.
Whenever they have entered upon the consideration of principles, they have
always begun by laying down on their own authority a set of propositions,
some of which so far from being axiomatic are repugnant to our judgement
and are found as they stand to be even false. True that I also shall have
to begin by claiming assent to a few fundamental positions: but then I
venture to promise that these shall all be self-evident. I am very much
mistaken if they do not also conduct us to results differing greatly from
those which have been recently in favour with many of the most forward
writers and teachers.

Beyond all things I claim at every thoughtful reader’s hands that he will
endeavour to approach this subject in an impartial frame of mind. To
expect that he will succeed in divesting himself of all preconceived
notions as to what is likely, what not, were unreasonable. But he is
invited at least to wear his prejudices as loose about him as he can; to
be prepared to cast them off if at any time he has been shewn that they
are founded on misapprehension; to resolve on taking nothing for granted
which admits of being proved to be either true or false. And, to meet an
objection which is sure to be urged against me, by proof of course I do
but mean the nearest approach to demonstration, which in the present
subject-matter is attainable.

Thus, I request that, apart from proof of some sort, it shall not be taken
for granted that a copy of the New Testament written in the fourth or
fifth century will exhibit a more trustworthy text than one written in the
eleventh or twelfth. That indeed of two ancient documents the more ancient
might not unreasonably have been expected to prove the more trustworthy, I
am not concerned to dispute, and will not here discuss such a question;
but the probabilities of the case at all events are not axiomatic. Nay, it
will be found, as I am bold enough to say, that in many instances a
fourteenth-century copy of the Gospels may exhibit the truth of Scripture,
while the fourth-century copy in all these instances proves to be the
depositary of a fabricated text. I have only to request that, until the
subject has been fully investigated, men will suspend their judgement on
this head: taking nothing for granted which admits of proof, and regarding
nothing as certainly either true or false which has not been shewn to be
so.




§ 2.


That which distinguishes Sacred Science from every other Science which can
be named is that it is Divine, and has to do with a Book which is
inspired; that is, whose true Author is God. For we assume that the Bible
is to be taken as inspired, and not regarded upon a level with the Books
of the East, which are held by their votaries to be sacred. It is chiefly
from inattention to this circumstance that misconception prevails in that
department of Sacred Science known as “Textual Criticism.” Aware that the
New Testament is like no other book in its origin, its contents, its
history, many critics of the present day nevertheless permit themselves to
reason concerning its Text, as if they entertained no suspicion that the
words and sentences of which it is composed were destined to experience an
extraordinary fate also. They make no allowances for the fact that
influences of an entirely different kind from any with which profane
literature is acquainted have made themselves felt in this department, and
therefore that even those principles of Textual Criticism which in the
case of profane authors are regarded as fundamental are often out of place
here.

It is impossible that all this can be too clearly apprehended. In fact,
until those who make the words of the New Testament their study are
convinced that they move in a region like no other, where unique phenomena
await them at every step, and where seventeen hundred and fifty years ago
depraving causes unknown in every other department of learning were
actively at work, progress cannot really be made in the present
discussion. Men must by all means disabuse their minds of the prejudices
which the study of profane literature inspires. Let me explain this matter
a little more particularly, and establish the reasonableness of what has
gone before by a few plain considerations which must, I think, win assent.
I am not about to offer opinions, but only to appeal to certain undeniable
facts. What I deprecate, is not any discriminating use of reverent
criticism, but a clumsy confusion of points essentially different.

No sooner was the work of Evangelists and Apostles recognized as the
necessary counterpart and complement of God’s ancient Scriptures and
became the “New Testament,” than a reception was found to be awaiting it
in the world closely resembling that which He experienced Who is the
subject of its pages. Calumny and misrepresentation, persecution and
murderous hate, assailed Him continually. And the Written Word in like
manner, in the earliest age of all, was shamefully handled by mankind. Not
only was it confused through human infirmity and misapprehension, but it
became also the object of restless malice and unsparing assaults. Marcion,
Valentinus, Basilides, Heracleon, Menander, Asclepiades, Theodotus,
Hermophilus, Apollonides, and other heretics, adapted the Gospels to their
own ideas. Tatian, and later on Ammonius, created confusion through
attempts to combine the four Gospels either in a diatessaron or upon an
intricate arrangement made by sections, under which as a further result
the words of one Gospel became assimilated to those of another(8). Want of
familiarity with the sacred words in the first ages, carelessness of
scribes, incompetent teaching, and ignorance of Greek in the West, led to
further corruption of the Sacred Text. Then out of the fact that there
existed a vast number of corrupt copies arose at once the need of
Recension, which was carried on by Origen and his school. This was a fatal
necessity to have made itself felt in an age when the first principles of
the Science were not understood; for “to correct” was too often in those
days another word for “to corrupt.” And this is the first thing to be
briefly explained and enforced: but more than a counterbalance was
provided under the overruling Providence of God.




§ 3.


Before our Lord ascended up to Heaven, He told His disciples that He would
send them the Holy Ghost, Who should supply His place and abide with His
Church for ever. He added a promise that it should be the office of that
inspiring Spirit not only “to bring to their remembrance all things
whatsoever He had told them(9),” but also to “guide” His Church “into all
the Truth,” or, “the whole Truth(10)” (πᾶσαν τὴν ἀλήθειαν). Accordingly,
the earliest great achievement of those days was accomplished on giving to
the Church the Scriptures of the New Testament, in which authorized
teaching was enshrined in written form. And first, out of those many
Gospels which incompetent persons had “taken in hand” to write or to
compile out of much floating matter of an oral or written nature, He
guided them to discern that four were wholly unlike the rest—were the very
Word of God.

There exists no reason for supposing that the Divine Agent, who in the
first instance thus gave to mankind the Scriptures of Truth, straightway
abdicated His office; took no further care of His work; abandoned those
precious writings to their fate. That a perpetual miracle was wrought for
their preservation—that copyists were protected against the risk of error,
or evil men prevented from adulterating shamefully copies of the
Deposit—no one, it is presumed, is so weak as to suppose. But it is quite
a different thing to claim that all down the ages the sacred writings must
needs have been God’s peculiar care; that the Church under Him has watched
over them with intelligence and skill; has recognized which copies exhibit
a fabricated, which an honestly transcribed text; has generally sanctioned
the one, and generally disallowed the other. I am utterly disinclined to
believe—so grossly improbable does it seem—that at the end of 1800 years
995 copies out of every thousand, suppose, will prove untrustworthy; and
that the one, two, three, four or five which remain, whose contents were
till yesterday as good as unknown, will be found to have retained the
secret of what the Holy Spirit originally inspired. I am utterly unable to
believe, in short, that God’s promise has so entirely failed, that at the
end of 1800 years much of the text of the Gospel had in point of fact to
be picked by a German critic out of a waste-paper basket in the convent of
St. Catherine; and that the entire text had to be remodelled after the
pattern set by a couple of copies which had remained in neglect during
fifteen centuries, and had probably owed their survival to that neglect;
whilst hundreds of others had been thumbed to pieces, and had bequeathed
their witness to copies made from them.

I have addressed what goes before to persons who sympathize with me in my
belief. To others the argument would require to be put in a different way.
Let it then be remembered, that a wealth of copies existed in early times;
that the need of zealous care of the Holy Scriptures was always felt in
the Church; that it is only from the Church that we have learnt which are
the books of the Bible and which are not; that in the age in which the
Canon was settled, and which is presumed by many critics to have
introduced a corrupted text, most of the intellect of the Roman Empire was
found within the Church, and was directed upon disputed questions; that in
the succeeding ages the art of transcribing was brought to a high pitch of
perfection; and that the verdict of all the several periods since the
production of those two manuscripts has been given till a few years ago in
favour of the Text which has been handed down:—let it be further borne in
mind that the testimony is not only that of all the ages, but of all the
countries: and at the very least so strong a presumption will ensue on
behalf of the Traditional Text, that a powerful case indeed must be
constructed to upset it. It cannot be vanquished by theories grounded upon
internal considerations—often only another name for personal tastes—, or
for scholarly likes or dislikes, or upon fictitious recensions, or upon
any arbitrary choice of favourite manuscripts, or upon a strained division
of authorities into families or groups, or upon a warped application of
the principle of genealogy. In the ascertainment of the facts of the
Sacred Text, the laws of evidence must be strictly followed. In questions
relating to the inspired Word, mere speculation and unreason have no
place. In short, the Traditional Text, founded upon the vast majority of
authorities and upon the Rock of Christ’s Church, will, if I mistake not,
be found upon examination to be out of all comparison superior to a text
of the nineteenth century, whatever skill and ingenuity may have been
expended upon the production or the defence of it.




§ 4.


For due attention has never yet been paid to a circumstance which, rightly
apprehended, will be found to go a great way towards establishing the text
of the New Testament Scriptures on a solid basis. I refer to the fact that
a certain exhibition of the Sacred Text—that exhibition of it with which
we are all most familiar—rests on ecclesiastical authority. Speaking
generally, the Traditional Text of the New Testament Scriptures, equally
with the New Testament Canon, rests on the authority of the Church
Catholic. “Whether we like it, or dislike it” (remarked a learned writer
in the first quarter of the nineteenth century), “the present New
Testament Canon is neither more nor less than the probat of the orthodox
Christian bishops, and those not only of the first and second, but of the
third and fourth, and even subsequent centuries(11).” In like manner,
whether men would or would not have it so, it is a plain fact that the
Traditional Greek Text of the New Testament is neither more nor less than
the probat of the orthodox Greek Christian bishops, and those, if not as
we maintain of the first and second, or the third, yet unquestionably of
the fourth and fifth, and even subsequent centuries.

For happily, the matter of fact here is a point on which the disciples of
the most advanced of the modern school are entirely at one with us. Dr.
Hort declares that “The fundamental text of late extant Greek MSS.
generally is, beyond all question, identical with the dominant Antiochian
or Graeco-Syrian text of the second half of the fourth century.... 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
MSS.(12)” And again, “Before the close of the fourth century, as we have
said, a Greek text, not materially differing from the almost universal
text of the ninth century and the Middle Ages, was dominant, probably by
authority, at Antioch, and exercised much influence elsewhere(13).” The
mention of “Antioch” is, characteristically of the writer, purely
arbitrary. One and the same Traditional Text, except in comparatively few
particulars, has prevailed in the Church from the beginning till now.
Especially deserving of attention is the admission that the Text in
question is of the fourth century, to which same century the two oldest of
our Sacred Codexes (B and א) belong. There is observed to exist in Church
Lectionaries precisely the same phenomenon. They have prevailed in
unintermitted agreement in other respects from very early times, probably
from the days of St. Chrysostom(14), and have kept in the main without
change the form of words in which they were originally cast in the
unchangeable East.

And really the problem comes before us (God be praised!) in a singularly
convenient, a singularly intelligible form. Since the sixteenth century—we
owe this also to the good Providence of God—one and the same text of the
New Testament Scriptures has been generally received. I am not defending
the “Textus Receptus”; I am simply stating the fact of its existence. That
it is without authority to bind, nay, that it calls for skilful revision
in every part, is freely admitted. I do not believe it to be absolutely
identical with the true Traditional Text. Its existence, nevertheless, is
a fact from which there is no escaping. Happily, Western Christendom has
been content to employ one and the same text for upwards of three hundred
years. If the objection be made, as it probably will be, “Do you then mean
to rest upon the five manuscripts used by Erasmus?” I reply, that the
copies employed were selected because they were known to represent with
accuracy the Sacred Word; that the descent of the text was evidently
guarded with jealous care, just as the human genealogy of our Lord was
preserved; that it rests mainly upon much the widest testimony; and that
where any part of it conflicts with the fullest evidence attainable, there
I believe that it calls for correction.

The question therefore which presents itself, and must needs be answered
in the affirmative before a single syllable of the actual text is
displaced, will always be one and the same, viz. this: Is it certain that
the evidence in favour of the proposed new reading is sufficient to
warrant the innovation? For I trust we shall all be agreed that in the
absence of an affirmative answer to this question, the text may on no
account be disturbed. Rightly or wrongly it has had the approval of
Western Christendom for three centuries, and is at this hour in possession
of the field. Therefore the business before us might be stated somewhat as
follows: What considerations ought to determine our acceptance of any
reading not found in the Received Text, or, to state it more generally and
fundamentally, our preference of one reading before another? For until
some sort of understanding has been arrived at on this head, progress is
impossible. There can be no Science of Textual Criticism, I repeat—and
therefore no security for the inspired Word—so long as the subjective
judgement, which may easily degenerate into individual caprice, is allowed
ever to determine which readings shall be rejected, which retained.

In the next chapter I shall discuss the principles which must form the
groundwork of the Science. Meanwhile a few words are necessary to explain
the issue lying between myself and those critics with whom I am unable to
agree. I must, if I can, come to some understanding with them; and I shall
use all clearness of speech in order that my meaning and my position may
be thoroughly apprehended.




§ 5.


Strange as it may appear, it is undeniably true, that the whole of the
controversy may be reduced to the following narrow issue: Does the truth
of the Text of Scripture dwell with the vast multitude of copies, uncial
and cursive, concerning which nothing is more remarkable than the
marvellous agreement which subsists between them? Or is it rather to be
supposed that the truth abides exclusively with a very little handful of
manuscripts, which at once differ from the great bulk of the witnesses,
and—strange to say—also amongst themselves?

The advocates of the Traditional Text urge that the Consent without
Concert of so many hundreds of copies, executed by different persons, at
diverse times, in widely sundered regions of the Church, is a presumptive
proof of their trustworthiness, which nothing can invalidate but some sort
of demonstration that they are untrustworthy guides after all.

The advocates of the old uncials—for it is the text exhibited by one or
more of five Uncial Codexes known as ABאCD which is set up with so much
confidence—are observed to claim that the truth must needs reside
exclusively with the objects of their choice. They seem to base their
claim on “antiquity”; but the real confidence of many of them lies
evidently in a claim to subtle divination, which enables them to recognize
a true reading or the true text when they see it. Strange, that it does
not seem to have struck such critics that they assume the very thing which
has to be proved. Be this as it may, as a matter of fact, readings
exclusively found in Cod. B, or Cod. א, or Cod. D are sometimes adopted as
correct. Neither Cod. A nor Cod. C are ever known to inspire similar
confidence. But the accession of both or either as a witness is always
acceptable. Now it is remarkable that all the five Codexes just mentioned
are never found, unless I am mistaken, exclusively in accord.

This question will be more fully discussed in the following treatise. Here
it is only necessary further to insist upon the fact that, generally
speaking, compromise upon these issues is impossible. Most people in these
days are inclined to remark about any controversy that the truth resides
between the two combatants, and most of us would like to meet our
opponents half-way. The present contention unfortunately does not admit of
such a decision. Real acquaintance with the numerous points at stake must
reveal the impossibility of effecting a settlement like that. It depends,
not upon the attitude, or the temper, or the intellects of the opposing
parties: but upon the stern and incongruous elements of the subject-matter
of the struggle. Much as we may regret it, there is positively no other
solution.

Indeed there exist but two rival schools of Textual Criticism. And these
are irreconcilably opposed. In the end, one of them will have to give way:
and, _vae victis!_ unconditional surrender will be its only resource. When
one has been admitted to be the right, there can no place be found for the
other. It will have to be dismissed from attention as a thing utterly,
hopelessly in the wrong(15).





CHAPTER II. PRINCIPLES.




§ 1.


The object of Textual Criticism, when applied to the Scriptures of the New
Testament, is to determine what the Apostles and Evangelists of Christ
actually wrote—the precise words they employed, and the very order of
them. It is therefore one of the most important subjects which can be
proposed for examination; and unless handled unskilfully, ought to prove
by no means wanting in living interest. Moreover, it clearly takes
precedence, in synthetical order of thought, of every other department of
Sacred Science, so far as that rests upon the great pillar of Holy
Scripture.

Now Textual Criticism occupies itself chiefly with two distinct branches
of inquiry. (1) Its first object is to collect, investigate, and arrange
the evidence supplied by Manuscripts, Versions, Fathers. And this is an
inglorious task, which demands prodigious labour, severe accuracy,
unflagging attention, and can never be successfully conducted without a
considerable amount of solid learning. (2) Its second object is to draw
critical inferences; in other words, to discover the truth of the text—the
genuine words of Holy Writ. And this is altogether a loftier function, and
calls for the exercise of far higher gifts. Nothing can be successfully
accomplished here without large and exact knowledge, freedom from bias and
prejudice. Above all, there must be a clear and judicial understanding.
The logical faculty in perfection must energize continually: or the result
can only be mistakes, which may easily prove calamitous.

My next step is to declare what has been hitherto effected in either of
these departments, and to characterize the results. In the first-named
branch of the subject, till recently very little has been attempted: but
that little has been exceedingly well done. Many more results have been
added in the last thirteen years: a vast amount of additional evidence has
been discovered, but only a small portion of it has been thoroughly
examined and collated. In the latter branch, a great deal has been
attempted: but the result proves to be full of disappointment to those who
augured much from it. The critics of this century have been in too great a
hurry. They have rushed to conclusions, trusting to the evidence which was
already in their hands, forgetting that only those conclusions can be
scientifically sound which are drawn from all the materials that exist.
Research of a wider kind ought to have preceded decision. Let me explain
and establish what I have been saying.




§ 2.


It was only to have been anticipated that the Author of the Everlasting
Gospel—that masterpiece of Divine Wisdom, that miracle of superhuman
skill—would shew Himself supremely careful for the protection and
preservation of His own chiefest work. Every fresh discovery of the beauty
and preciousness of the Deposit in its essential structure does but serve
to deepen the conviction that a marvellous provision must needs have been
made in God’s eternal counsels for the effectual conservation of the
inspired Text.

Yet it is not too much to assert that nothing which man’s inventive skill
could have devised nearly comes up to the actual truth of the matter. Let
us take a slight but comprehensive view of what is found upon
investigation, as I hold, to have been the Divine method in respect of the
New Testament Scriptures.

I. From the very necessity of the case, copies of the Gospels and Epistles
in the original Greek were multiplied to an extraordinary extent all down
the ages and in every part of the Christian Church. The result has been
that, although all the earliest have perished, there remains to this day a
prodigious number of such transcripts; some of them of very high
antiquity. On examining these with care, we discover that they must needs
have been (_a_) produced in different countries, (_b_) executed at
intervals during the space of one thousand years, (_c_) copied from
originals no longer in existence. And thus a body of evidence has been
accumulated as to what is the actual text of Scripture, such as is wholly
unapproachable with respect to any other writings in the world(16). More
than two thousand manuscript copies are now (1888) known to exist(17).

It should be added that the practice of reading Scripture aloud before the
congregation—a practice which is observed to have prevailed from the
Apostolic age—has resulted in the increased security of the Deposit: for
(1) it has led to the multiplication, by authority, of books containing
the Church Lessons; and (2) it has secured a living witness to the
_ipsissima verba_ of the Spirit—in all the Churches of Christendom. The
ear once thoroughly familiarized with the words of Scripture is observed
to resent the slightest departure from the established type. As for its
tolerating important changes, that is plainly out of the question.

II. Next, as the Gospel spread from land to land, it became translated
into the several languages of the ancient world. For, though Greek was
widely understood, the commerce and the intellectual predominance of the
Greeks, and the conquests of Alexander having caused it to be spoken
nearly all over the Roman Empire, Syriac and Latin Versions were also
required for ordinary reading, probably even in the very age of the
Apostles. And thus those three languages in which “the title of His
accusation” was written above His cross—not to insist upon any absolute
identity between the Syriac of the time with the then “Hebrew” of
Jerusalem—became from the earliest time the depositaries of the Gospel of
the World’s Redeemer. Syriac was closely related to the vernacular Aramaic
of Palestine and was spoken in the adjoining region: whilst Latin was the
familiar idiom of all the Churches of the West.

Thus from the first in their public assemblies, orientals and occidentals
alike habitually read aloud the writings of the Evangelists and Apostles.
Before the fourth and fifth centuries the Gospel had been further
translated into the peculiar idioms of Lower and Upper Egypt, in what are
now called the Bohairic and the Sahidic Versions,—of Ethiopia and of
Armenia,—of Gothland. The text thus embalmed in so many fresh languages
was clearly, to a great extent, protected against the risk of further
change; and these several translations remain to this day as witnesses of
what was found in copies of the New Testament which have long since
perished.

III. But the most singular provision for preserving the memory of what was
anciently read as inspired Scriptures remains to be described. Sacred
Science boasts of a literature without a parallel in any other department
of human knowledge. The Fathers of the Church, the Bishops and Doctors of
primitive Christendom, were in some instances voluminous writers, whose
works have largely come down to our times. These men often comment upon,
freely quote, habitually refer to, the words of Inspiration: whereby it
comes to pass that a host of unsuspected witnesses to the truth of
Scripture are sometimes producible. The quotations of passages by the
Fathers are proofs of the readings which they found in the copies used by
them. They thus testify in ordinary quotations, though it be at second
hand: and sometimes their testimony has more than usual value when they
argue or comment upon the passage in question. Indeed, very often the
manuscripts in their hands, which so far live in their quotations, are
older—perhaps centuries older—than any copies that now survive. In this
way, it will be perceived that a three-fold security has been provided for
the integrity of the Deposit:—Copies,—Versions,—Fathers. On the relation
of each of which heads to one another something particular has now to be
delivered.




§ 3.


Manuscript copies are commonly divided into Uncial, i.e. those which are
written in capital letters, and Cursive or “minuscule,” i.e. those which
are written in “running” or small hand. This division though convenient is
misleading. The earliest of the “Cursives” are more ancient than the
latest of the “Uncials” by full one hundred years(18). The later body of
the Uncials belongs virtually, as will be proved, to the body of the
Cursives. There is no merit, so to speak, in a MS. being written in the
uncial character. The number of the Uncials is largely inferior to that of
the Cursives, though they usually boast a much higher antiquity. It will
be shewn in a subsequent chapter that there is now, in the face of recent
discoveries of Papyrus MSS. in Egypt, much reason for inferring that
Cursive MSS. were largely derived from MSS. on Papyrus, just as the
Uncials themselves were, and that the prevalence for some centuries of
Uncials took its rise from the local library of Caesarea. For a full
account of these several Codexes, and for many other particulars in Sacred
Textual Criticism, the reader is referred to Scrivener’s Introduction,
1894.

Now it is not so much an exaggerated, as an utterly mistaken estimate of
the importance of the Textual decrees of the five oldest of these Uncial
copies, which lies at the root of most of the criticism of the last fifty
years. We are constrained in consequence to bestow what will appear to
some a disproportionate amount of attention on those five Codexes: viz.
the Vatican Codex B, and the Sinaitic Codex א, which are supposed to be
both of the fourth century: the Alexandrian Codex A, and the fragmentary
Parisian Codex C, which are assigned to the fifth: and lastly D, the Codex
Bezae at Cambridge, which is supposed to have been written in the sixth.
To these may now be added, as far as St. Matthew and St. Mark are
concerned, the Codex Beratinus Φ, and the Rossanensian Codex Σ, both of
which are of the early part of the sixth century or end of the fifth. But
these two witness generally against the two oldest, and have not yet
received as much attention as they deserve. It will be found in the end
that we have been guilty of no exaggeration in characterizing B, א, and D
at the outset, as three of the most corrupt copies in existence. Let not
any one suppose that the age of these five MSS. places them upon a
pedestal higher than all others. They can be proved to be wrong time after
time by evidence of an earlier period than that which they can boast.

Indeed, that copies of Scripture, as a class, are the most important
instruments of Textual Criticism is what no competent person will be found
to deny. The chief reasons of this are their continuous text, their
designed embodiment of the written Word, their number, and their variety.
But we make also such great account of MSS., because (1) they supply
unbroken evidence to the text of Scripture from an early date throughout
history until the invention of printing; (2) they are observed to be
dotted over every century of the Church after the first three; (3) they
are the united product of all the patriarchates in Christendom. There can
have been no collusion therefore in the preparation of this class of
authorities. The risk of erroneous transcription has been reduced to the
lowest possible amount. The prevalence of fraud to a universal extent is
simply a thing impossible. Conjectural corrections of the text are pretty
sure, in the long run, to have become effectually excluded. On the
contrary, the testimony of Fathers is fragmentary, undesigned, though
often on that account the more valuable, and indeed, as has been already
said, is often not to be found; yet occasionally it is very precious,
whether from eminent antiquity or the clearness of their verdict: while
Versions, though on larger details they yield a most valuable collateral
evidence, yet from their nature are incapable of rendering help upon many
important points of detail. Indeed, in respect of the _ipsissima verba_ of
Scripture, the evidence of Versions in other languages must be precarious
in a high degree.

Undeniable it is, that as far as regards Primitiveness, certain of the
Versions, and not a few of the Fathers, throw Manuscripts altogether in
the shade. We possess no actual copies of the New Testament so old as the
Syriac and the Latin Versions by probably more than two hundred years.
Something similar is perhaps to be said of the Versions made into the
languages of Lower and Upper Egypt, which may be of the third century(19).
Reasonable also it is to assume that in no instance was an ancient Version
executed from a single Greek exemplar: consequently, Versions enjoyed both
in their origin and in their acceptance more publicity than of necessity
attached to any individual copy. And it is undeniable that on countless
occasions the evidence of a translation, on account of the clearness of
its testimony, is every bit as satisfactory as that of an actual copy of
the Greek.

But I would especially remind my readers of Bentley’s golden precept, that
“The real text of the sacred writers does not now, since the originals
have been so long lost, lie in any MS. or edition, but is dispersed in
them all.” This truth, which was evident to the powerful intellect of that
great scholar, lies at the root of all sound Textual Criticism. To abide
by the verdict of the two, or five, or seven oldest Manuscripts, is at
first sight plausible, and is the natural refuge of students who are
either superficial, or who wish to make their task as easy and simple as
possible. But to put aside inconvenient witnesses is contrary to all
principles of justice and of science. The problem is more complex, and is
not to be solved so readily. Evidence of a strong and varied character may
not with safety be cast away, as if it were worthless.




§ 4.


We are constrained therefore to proceed to the consideration of the vast
mass of testimony which lies ready to our hands. And we must just as
evidently seek for principles to guide us in the employment of it. For it
is the absence of any true chart of the ocean that has led people to steer
to any barren island, which under a guise of superior antiquity might at
first sight present the delusive appearance of being the only safe and
sure harbour.

1. We are all, I trust, agreed at least in this,—That the thing which we
are always in search of is the Text of Scripture as it actually proceeded
from the inspired writers themselves. It is never, I mean, “ancient
readings” which we propose as the ultimate object of our inquiries. It is
always the oldest Reading of all which we desire to ascertain; in other
words, the original Text, nothing else or less than the very words of the
holy Evangelists and Apostles themselves.

And axiomatic as this is, it requires to be clearly laid down. For
sometimes critics appear to be engrossed with the one solicitude to
establish concerning the readings for which they contend, that at least
they must needs be very ancient. Now, since all readings must needs be
very ancient which are found in very ancient documents, nothing has really
been achieved by proving that such and such readings existed in the second
century of our era:—unless it can also be proved that there are certain
other attendant circumstances attaching to those readings, which
constitute a fair presumption, that they must needs be regarded as the
only genuine wording of the passage in question. The Holy Scriptures are
not an arena for the exercise or display of the ingenuity of critics.

2. I trust it may further be laid down as a fundamental principle that of
two possible ways of reading the Text, that way which is found on
examination to be the better attested and authenticated—by which I mean,
the reading which proves on inquiry to be supported by the better
evidence—must in every instance be of necessity presumed to be the actual
reading, and is to be accepted accordingly by all students.

3. I will venture to make only one more postulate, viz. this: That
hitherto we have become acquainted with no single authority which is
entitled to dictate absolutely on all occasions, or even on any one
occasion, as to what shall or shall not be regarded as the true Text of
Scripture. We have here no one infallible witness, I say, whose solitary
dictum is competent to settle controversies. The problem now to be
investigated, viz. what evidence is to be held to be “the best,” may
doubtless be stated in many ways: but I suppose not more fairly than by
proposing the following question,—Can any rules be offered whereby in any
case of conflicting testimony it may be certainly ascertained which
authorities ought to be followed? The court is full of witnesses who
contradict one another. How are we to know which of them to believe?
Strange to say, the witnesses are commonly, indeed almost invariably,
observed to divide themselves into two camps. Are there no rules
discoverable by which it may be probably determined with which camp of the
two the truth resides?

I proceed to offer for the reader’s consideration seven Tests of Truth,
concerning each of which I shall have something to say in the way of
explanation by-and-by. In the end I shall ask the reader to allow that
where these seven tests are found to conspire, we may confidently assume
that the evidence is worthy of all acceptance, and is to be implicitly
followed. A reading should be attested then by the seven following.


    NOTES OF TRUTH.

    1. Antiquity, or Primitiveness;
    2. Consent of Witnesses, or Number;
    3. Variety of Evidence, or Catholicity;
    4. Respectability of Witnesses, or Weight;
    5. Continuity, or Unbroken Tradition;
    6. Evidence of the Entire Passage, or Context;
    7. Internal Considerations, or Reasonableness.




§ 5.


The full consideration of these Tests of Truth must be postponed to the
next chapter. Meanwhile, three discussions of a more general character
demand immediate attention.

I. Antiquity, in and by itself, will be found to avail nothing. A reading
is to be adopted not because it is old, but because it is the best
attested, and therefore the oldest. There may seem to be paradox on my
part: but there is none. I have admitted, and indeed insist upon it, that
the oldest reading of all is the very thing we are in search of: for that
must of necessity be what proceeded from the pen of the sacred writer
himself. But, as a rule, fifty years, more or less, must be assumed to
have intervened between the production of the inspired autographs and the
earliest written representation of them now extant. And precisely in that
first age it was that men evinced themselves least careful or accurate in
guarding the Deposit,—least critically exact in their way of quoting
it;—whilst the enemy was most restless, most assiduous in procuring its
depravation. Strange as it may sound,—distressing as the discovery must
needs prove when it is first distinctly realized,—the earliest shreds and
scraps—for they are at first no more—that come into our hands as
quotations of the text of the New Testament Scriptures are not only
disappointing by reason of their inexactness, their fragmentary character,
their vagueness; but they are often demonstrably inaccurate. I proceed to
give one example out of many.

“My God, My God, wherefore hast thou forsaken me?” μὲ ἐγκατέλιπες; So it
is in St. Matt. xxvii. 46: so in St. Mark xv. 34. But because, in the
latter place, אB, one Old Latin, the Vulgate, and the Bohairic Versions,
besides Eusebius, followed by L and a few cursives, reverse the order of
the last two words, the editors are unanimous in doing the same thing.
They have yet older authority, however, for what they do. Justin M. (A.D.
164) and the Valentinians (A.D. 150) are with them. As far therefore as
antiquity goes, the evidence for reading ἐγκατέλιπές με is really wondrous
strong.

And yet the evidence on the other side, when it is considered, is
perceived to be overwhelming(20). Add the discovery that ἐγκατέλιπές με is
the established reading of the familiar Septuagint, and we have no
hesitation whatever in retaining the commonly Received Text, because the
secret is out. אB were sure to follow the Septuagint, which was so dear to
Origen. Further discussion of the point is superfluous.

I shall of course be asked,—Are we then to understand that you condemn the
whole body of ancient authorities as untrustworthy? And if you do, to what
other authorities would you have us resort?

I answer:—So far from regarding the whole body of ancient authorities as
untrustworthy, it is precisely “the whole body of ancient authorities” to
which I insist that we must invariably make our appeal, and to which we
must eventually defer. I regard them therefore with more than reverence. I
submit to their decision unreservedly. Doubtless I refuse to regard any
one of those same most ancient manuscripts—or even any two or three of
them—as oracular. But why? Because I am able to demonstrate that every one
of them singly is in a high degree corrupt, and is condemned upon evidence
older than itself. To pin my faith therefore to one, two, or three of
those eccentric exemplars, were indeed to insinuate that the whole body of
ancient authorities is unworthy of credit.

It is to Antiquity, I repeat, that I make my appeal: and further, I insist
that the ascertained verdict of Antiquity shall be accepted. But then,
inasmuch as by “Antiquity” I do not even mean any one single ancient
authority, however ancient, to the exclusion of, and in preference to, all
the rest, but the whole collective body, it is precisely “the body of
ancient authorities” which I propose as the arbiters. Thus, I do not mean
by “Antiquity” either (1) the Peshitto Syriac: or (2) Cureton’s Syriac: or
(3) the Old Latin Versions: or (4) the Vulgate: or (5) the Egyptian, or
indeed (6) any other of the ancient Versions:—not (7) Origen, nor (8)
Eusebius, nor (9) Chrysostom, nor (10) Cyril,—nor indeed (11) any other
ancient Father standing alone: neither (12) Cod. A,—nor (13) Cod. B,—nor
(14) Cod. C,—nor (15) Cod. D,—nor (16) Cod. א,—nor in fact (17) any other
individual Codex that can be named. I should as soon think of confounding
the cathedral hard by with one or two of the stones which compose it. By
Antiquity I understand the whole body of documents which convey to me the
mind of Antiquity,—transport me back to the primitive age, and acquaint
me, as far as is now possible, with what was its verdict.

And by parity of reasoning, I altogether decline to accept as decisive the
verdict of any two or three of these in defiance of the ascertained
authority of all, or a majority of the rest.

In short, I decline to accept a fragment of Antiquity, arbitrarily broken
off, in lieu of the entire mass of ancient witnesses. And further than
this, I recognize other Notes of Truth, as I have stated already; and I
shall prove this position in my next chapter.




§ 6.


II. The term “various readings” conveys an entirely incorrect impression
of the grave discrepancies discoverable between a little handful of
documents—of which Codexes B-א of the fourth century, D of the sixth, L of
the eighth, are the most conspicuous samples—and the Traditional Text of
the New Testament. The expression “various readings” belongs to secular
literature and refers to phenomena essentially different from those
exhibited by the copies just mentioned. Not but what “various readings,”
properly so called, are as plentiful in sacred as in profane codexes. One
has but to inspect Scrivener’s Full and Exact Collation of about Twenty
Greek Manuscripts of the Gospels (1853) to be convinced of the fact. But
when we study the New Testament by the light of such Codexes as BאDL, we
find ourselves in an entirely new region of experience; confronted by
phenomena not only unique but even portentous. The text has undergone
apparently an habitual, if not systematic, depravation; has been
manipulated throughout in a wild way. Influences have been demonstrably at
work which altogether perplex the judgement. The result is simply
calamitous. There are evidences of persistent mutilation, not only of
words and clauses, but of entire sentences. The substitution of one
expression for another, and the arbitrary transposition of words, are
phenomena of such perpetual occurrence, that it becomes evident at last
that what lies before us is not so much an ancient copy, as an ancient
recension of the Sacred Text. And yet not by any means a recension in the
usual sense of the word as an authoritative revision: but only as the name
may be applied to the product of individual inaccuracy or caprice, or
tasteless assiduity on the part of one or many, at a particular time or in
a long series of years. There are reasons for inferring, that we have
alighted on five specimens of what the misguided piety of a primitive age
is known to have been fruitful in producing. Of fraud, strictly speaking,
there may have been little or none. We should shrink from imputing an evil
motive where any matter will bear an honourable interpretation. But, as
will be seen later on, these Codexes abound with so much licentiousness or
carelessness as to suggest the inference, that they are in fact indebted
for their preservation to their hopeless character. Thus it would appear
that an evil reputation ensured their neglect in ancient times; and has
procured that they should survive to our own, long after multitudes which
were much better had perished in the Master’s service. Let men think of
this matter as they will,—whatever in fact may prove to be the history of
that peculiar Text which finds its chief exponents in Codd. BאDL, in some
copies of the Old Latin, and in the Curetonian Version, in Origen, and to
a lesser extent in the Bohairic and Sahidic Translations,—all must admit,
as a matter of fact, that it differs essentially from the Traditional
Text, and is no mere variation of it.

But why, it will be asked, may it not be the genuine article? Why may not
the “Traditional Text” be the fabrication?

1. The burden of proof, we reply, rests with our opponents. The consent
without concert of (suppose) 990 out of 1000 copies,—of every date from
the fifth to the fourteenth century, and belonging to every region of
ancient Christendom,—is a colossal fact not to be set aside by any amount
of ingenuity. A predilection for two fourth-century manuscripts closely
resembling one another, yet standing apart in every page so seriously that
it is easier to find two consecutive verses in which they differ than two
consecutive verses in which they entirely agree:—such a preference, I say,
apart from abundant or even definitely clear proof that it is well
founded, is surely not entitled to be accepted as conclusive.

2. Next,—Because,—although for convenience we have hitherto spoken of
Codexes BאDL as exhibiting a single text,—it is in reality not one text
but fragments of many, which are to be met with in the little handful of
authorities enumerated above. Their witness does not agree together. The
Traditional Text, on the contrary, is unmistakably one.

3. Further,—Because it is extremely improbable, if not impossible, that
the Traditional Text was or could have been derived from such a document
as the archetype of B-א: whereas the converse operation is at once obvious
and easy. There is no difficulty in producing a short text by omission of
words, or clauses, or verses, from a fuller text: but the fuller text
could not have been produced from the shorter by any development which
would be possible under the facts of the case(21). Glosses would account
for changes in the archetype of B-א, but not conversely(22).

4. But the chief reason is,—Because, on making our appeal unreservedly to
Antiquity—to Versions and Fathers as well as copies,—the result is
unequivocal. The Traditional Text becomes triumphantly established,—the
eccentricities of BאD and their colleagues become one and all emphatically
condemned.

All these, in the mean time, are points concerning which something has
been said already, and more will have to be said in the sequel. Returning
now to the phenomenon adverted to at the outset, we desire to explain that
whereas “Various Readings,” properly so called, that is to say, the
Readings which possess really strong attestation—for more than
nineteen-twentieths of the “Various Readings” commonly quoted are only the
vagaries of scribes, and ought not to be called “Readings” at all—do not
require classification into groups, as Griesbach and Hort have classified
them; “Corrupt Readings,” if they are to be intelligently handled, must by
all means be distributed under distinct heads, as will be done in the
Second Part of this work.

III. “It is not at all our design” (remarks Dr. Scrivener) “to seek our
readings from the later uncials, supported as they usually are by the mass
of cursive manuscripts; but to employ their confessedly secondary evidence
in those numberless instances wherein their elder brethren are hopelessly
at variance(23).” From which it is plain that in this excellent writer’s
opinion, the truth of Scripture is to be sought in the first instance at
the hands of the older uncials: that only when these yield conflicting
testimony may we resort to the “confessedly secondary evidence” of the
later uncials: and that only so may we proceed to inquire for the
testimony of the great mass of the cursive copies. It is not difficult to
foresee what would be the result of such a method of procedure.

I venture therefore respectfully but firmly to demur to the spirit of my
learned friend’s remarks on the present, and on many similar occasions.
His language is calculated to countenance the popular belief (1) That the
authority of an uncial codex, because it is an uncial, is necessarily
greater than that of a codex written in the cursive character: an
imagination which upon proof I hold to be groundless. Between the text of
the later uncials and the text of the cursive copies, I fail to detect any
separative difference: certainly no such difference as would induce me to
assign the palm to the former. It will be shewn later on in this treatise,
that it is a pure assumption to take for granted, or to infer, that
cursive copies were all descended from the uncials. New discoveries in
palaeography have ruled that error to be out of court.

But (2) especially do I demur to the popular notion, to which I regret to
find that Dr. Scrivener lends his powerful sanction, that the text of
Scripture is to be sought in the first instance in the oldest of the
uncials. I venture to express my astonishment that so learned and
thoughtful a man should not have seen that before certain “elder brethren”
are erected into a supreme court of judicature, some other token of
fitness besides that of age must be produced on their behalf. Whence, I
can but ask—, whence is it that no one has yet been at the pains to
establish the contradictory of the following proposition, viz. that
Codexes BאCD are the several depositaries of a fabricated and depraved
text: and that BאD, for C is a palimpsest, i.e., has had the works of
Ephraem the Syrian written over it as if it were of no use, are probably
indebted for their very preservation solely to the fact that they were
anciently recognized as untrustworthy documents? Do men indeed find it
impossible to realize the notion that there must have existed such things
as refuse copies in the fourth, fifth, sixth, and seventh centuries as
well as in the eighth, ninth, tenth, and eleventh? and that the Codexes
which we call BאCD may possibly, if not as I hold probably, have been of
that class(24)?

Now I submit that it is a sufficient condemnation of Codd. BאCD as a
supreme court of judicature (1) That as a rule they are observed to be
discordant in their judgements: (2) That when they thus differ among
themselves it is generally demonstrable by an appeal to antiquity that the
two principal judges B and א have delivered a mistaken judgement: (3) That
when these two differ one from the other, the supreme judge B is often in
the wrong: and lastly (4) That it constantly happens that all four agree,
and yet all four are in error.

Does any one then inquire,—But why at all events may not resort be had in
the first instance to Codd. BאACD?—I answer,—Because the inquiry is apt to
prejudice the question, pretty sure to mislead the judgement, only too
likely to narrow the issue and render the Truth hopelessly difficult of
attainment. For every reason, I am inclined to propose the directly
opposite method of procedure, as at once the safer and the more reasonable
method. When I learn that doubt exists, as to the reading of any
particular place, instead of inquiring what amount of discord on the
subject exists between Codexes ABאCD (for the chances are that they will
be all at loggerheads among themselves), I inquire for the verdict as it
is given by the main body of the copies. This is generally unequivocal.
But if (which seldom happens) I find this a doubtful question, then indeed
I begin to examine the separate witnesses. Yet even then it helps me
little, or rather it helps me nothing, to find, as I commonly do, that A
is on one side and B on the other,—except by the way that wherever אB are
seen together, or when D stands apart with only a few allies, the inferior
reading is pretty sure to be found there also.

Suppose however (as commonly happens) there is no serious division,—of
course, significance does not attach itself to any handful of eccentric
copies,—but that there is a practical unanimity among the cursives and
later uncials: I cannot see that a veto can rest with such unstable and
discordant authorities, however much they may singly add to the weight of
the vote already tendered. It is as a hundred to one that the uncial or
uncials which are with the main body of the cursives are right, because
(as will be shown) in their consentience they embody the virtual decision
of the whole Church; and that the dissentients—be they few or many—are
wrong. I inquire however,—What say the Versions? and last but not
least,—What say the Fathers?

The essential error in the proceeding I object to is best illustrated by
an appeal to elementary facts. Only two of the “five old uncials” are
complete documents, B and א: and these being confessedly derived from one
and the same exemplar, cannot be regarded as two. The rest of the “old
uncials” are lamentably defective.—From the Alexandrian Codex (A) the
first twenty-four chapters of St. Matthew’s Gospel are missing: that is,
the MS. lacks 870 verses out of 1,071. The same Codex is also without 126
consecutive verses of St. John’s Gospel. More than one-fourth of the
contents of Cod. A are therefore lost(25).—D is complete only in respect
of St. Luke: wanting 119 verses of St. Matthew,—5 verses of St. Mark,—166
verses of St. John.—On the other hand, Codex C is chiefly defective in
respect of St. Luke’s and St. John’s Gospel; from the former of which it
omits 643 (out of 1,151) verses; from the latter, 513 (out of 880), or far
more than the half in either case. Codex C in fact can only be described
as a collection of fragments: for it is also without 260 verses of St.
Matthew, and without 116 of St. Mark.

The disastrous consequence of all this to the Textual Critic is manifest.
He is unable to compare “the five old uncials” together except in respect
of about one verse in three. Sometimes he finds himself reduced to the
testimony of AאB: for many pages together of St. John’s Gospel, he is
reduced to the testimony of אBD. Now, when the fatal and peculiar sympathy
which subsists between these three documents is considered, it becomes
apparent that the Critic has in effect little more than two documents
before him. And what is to be said when (as from St. Matt. vi. 20 to vii.
4) he is reduced to the witness of two Codexes,—and those, אB? Evident it
is that whereas the Author of Scripture hath bountifully furnished His
Church with (speaking roughly) upwards of 2,300(26) copies of the Gospels,
by a voluntary act of self-impoverishment, some Critics reduce themselves
to the testimony of little more than one: and that one a witness whom many
judges consider to be undeserving of confidence.





CHAPTER III. THE SEVEN NOTES OF TRUTH.




§ 1. Antiquity.


The more ancient testimony is probably the better testimony. That it is
not by any means always so is a familiar fact. To quote the known dictum
of a competent judge: “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
Irenaeus and the African Fathers and the whole Western, with a portion of
the Syriac Church, used far inferior manuscripts to those employed by
Stunica, or Erasmus, or Stephen, thirteen centuries after, when moulding
the Textus Receptus(27).” Therefore Antiquity alone affords no security
that the manuscript in our hands is not infected with the corruption which
sprang up largely in the first and second centuries. But it remains true,
notwithstanding, that until evidence has been produced to the contrary in
any particular instance, the more ancient of two witnesses may reasonably
be presumed to be the better informed witness. Shew me for example that,
whereas a copy of the Gospels (suppose Cod. B) introduces the clause
“Raise the dead” into our SAVIOUR’S ministerial commission to His Apostles
(St. Matt. x. 8),—another Codex, but only of the fourteenth century
(suppose Evan. 604 (Hoskier)), omits it;—am I not bound to assume that our
LORD did give this charge to His Apostles; did say to them, νεκροὺς
ἐγείρετε; and that the words in question have accidentally dropped out of
the sacred Text in that later copy? Show me besides that in three other of
our oldest Codexes (אCD) the place in St. Matthew is exhibited in the same
way as in Cod. B; and of what possible avail can it be that I should urge
in reply that in three more MSS. of the thirteenth or fourteenth century
the text is exhibited in the same way as in Evan. 604?

There is of course a strong antecedent probability, that the testimony
which comes nearest to the original autographs has more claim to be the
true record than that which has been produced at a further distance from
them. It is most likely that the earlier is separated from the original by
fewer links than the later:—though we can affirm this with no absolute
certainty, because the present survival of Uncials of various dates of
production shews that the existence of copies is measured by no span like
that of the life of men. Accordingly as a general rule, and a general rule
only, a single early Uncial possesses more authority than a single later
Uncial or Cursive, and a still earlier Version or Quotation by a Father
must be placed before the reading of the early Uncial.

Only let us clearly understand what principle is to guide us, in order
that we may know how we are to proceed. Is it to be assumed, for instance,
that Antiquity is to decide this matter? by which is meant only
this,—That, of two or more conflicting readings, that shall be deemed the
true reading which is observed to occur in the oldest known document. Is
that to be our fundamental principle? Are we, in other words, to put up
with the transparent fallacy that the oldest reading must of necessity be
found in the oldest document? Well, if we have made up our minds that such
is to be our method, then let us proceed to construct our text chiefly by
the aid of the Old Latin and Peshitto Versions,—the oldest authorities
extant of a continuous text: and certainly, wherever these are observed to
agree in respect of any given reading, let us hear nothing about the
conflicting testimony of א or B, which are of the fourth century; of D,
which is of the sixth; of L, which is of the eighth.

But if our adversaries shift their ground, disliking to be “hoist with
their own petard,” and if such a solution standing alone does not commend
itself to our own taste, we must ask, What is meant by Antiquity?

For myself, if I must assign a definite period, I am disposed to say the
first six or seven centuries of our era. But I observe that those who have
preceded me in these inquiries draw the line at an earlier period.
Lachmann fixes A.D. 400: Tregelles (ever illogical) gives the beginning of
the seventh century: Westcott and Hort, before the close of the fourth
century. In this absence of agreement, it is found to be both the safest
and the wisest course to avoid drawing any hard and fast line, and in fact
any line at all. Antiquity is a comparative term. What is ancient is not
only older than what is modern, but when constantly applied to the
continuous lapse of ages includes considerations of what is more or less
ancient. Codex E is ancient compared with Codex L: Cod. A compared with
Cod. E: Cod. א compared with Cod. A: Cod. B though in a much lesser degree
compared with Cod. א: the Old Latin and Peshitto Versions compared with
Cod. B: Clemens Romanus compared with either. If we had the copy of the
Gospels which belonged to Ignatius, I suppose we should by common consent
insist on following it almost implicitly. It certainly would be of
overwhelming authority. Its decrees would be only not decisive. [This is,
I think, too strong: there might be mistakes even in that.—E. M.]
Therefore by Antiquity as a principle involving more or less authority
must be meant the greater age of the earlier Copies, Versions, or Fathers.
That which is older will possess more authority than that which is more
recent: but age will not confer any exclusive, or indeed paramount, power
of decision. Antiquity is one Note of Truth: but even if it is divorced
from the arbitrary selection of Authorities which has regulated too much
the employment of it in Textual Criticism, it cannot be said to cover the
whole ground.




§ 2. Number.


We must proceed now to consider the other Notes, or Tests: and the next is
Number.

1. That “witnesses are to be weighed—not counted,”—is a maxim of which we
hear constantly. It may be said to embody much fundamental fallacy.

2. It assumes that the “witnesses” we possess,—meaning thereby every
single Codex, Version, Father—, (1) are capable of being weighed: and (2)
that every individual Critic is competent to weigh them: neither of which
propositions is true.

3. In the very form of the maxim,—“_Not_ to be counted—_but_ to be
weighed,”—the undeniable fact is overlooked that “number” is the most
ordinary ingredient of weight, and indeed in matters of human testimony,
is an element which even cannot be cast away. Ask one of Her Majesty’s
Judges if it be not so. Ten witnesses (suppose) are called in to give
evidence: of whom one resolutely contradicts what is solemnly deposed to
by the other nine. Which of the two parties do we suppose the Judge will
be inclined to believe?

4. But it may be urged—would not the discovery of the one original
autograph of the Gospels exceed in “weight” any “number” of copies which
can be named? No doubt it would, I answer. But only because it would be
the original document, and not “a copy” at all: not “a witness” to the
fact, but the very fact itself. It would be as if in the midst of a
trial,—turning, suppose, on the history of the will of some testator—, the
dead man himself were to step into Court, and proclaim what had actually
taken place. Yet the laws of Evidence would remain unchanged: and in the
very next trial which came on, if one or two witnesses out of as many
hundred were to claim that their evidence should be held to outweigh that
of all the rest, they would be required to establish the reasonableness of
their claim to the satisfaction of the Judge: or they must submit to the
inevitable consequence of being left in an inconsiderable minority.

5. Number then constitutes Weight, or in other words,—since I have used
“Weight” here in a more general sense than usual,—is a Note of Truth. Not
of course absolutely, as being the sole Test, but _caeteris paribus_, and
in its own place and proportion. And this, happily, our opponents freely
admit: so freely in fact, that my only wonder is that they do not discover
their own inconsistency.

6. But the axiom in question labours under the far graver defect of
disparaging the Divine method, under which in the multitude of evidence
preserved all down the ages provision has been made as matter of hard
fact, not by weight but by number, for the integrity of the Deposit. The
prevalent use of the Holy Scriptures in the Church caused copies of them
to abound everywhere. The demand enforced the supply. They were read in
the public Services of the Church. The constant quotation of them by
Ecclesiastical Writers from the first proves that they were a source to
Christians of continual study, and that they were used as an ultimate
appeal in the decision of knotty questions. They were cited copiously in
Sermons. They were employed in the conversion of the heathen, and as in
the case of St. Cyprian must have exercised a strong influence in bringing
people to believe.

Such an abundance of early copies must have ensured perforce the
production of a resulting abundance of other copies made everywhere in
continuous succession from them until the invention of printing.
Accordingly, although countless numbers must have perished by age, use,
destruction in war, and by accident and other causes, nevertheless 63
Uncials, 737 Cursives, and 414 Lectionaries are known to survive of the
Gospels alone(28). Add the various Versions, and the mass of quotations by
Ecclesiastical Writers, and it will at once be evident what materials
exist to constitute a Majority which shall outnumber by many times the
Minority, and also that Number has been ordained to be a factor which
cannot be left out of the calculation.

7. Another circumstance however of much significance has yet to be stated.
Practically the Axiom under consideration is discovered to be nothing else
but a plausible proposition of a general character intended to shelter the
following particular application of it:—“We are able”—says Dr.
Tregelles—“to take the _few_ documents ... and safely discard ... the
89/90 or whatever else their numerical proportion may be(29).” Accordingly
in his edition of the Gospels, the learned writer rejects the evidence of
all the cursive Codexes extant but three. He is mainly followed by the
rest of his school, including Westcott and Hort.

Now again I ask,—Is it likely, is it in any way credible, that we can be
warranted in rejecting the testimony of (suppose) 1490 ancient witnesses,
in favour of the testimony borne by (suppose) ten? Granting freely that
two of these ten are older by 50 or 100 years than any single MS. of the
1490 I confidently repeat the question. The respective dates of the
witnesses before us may perhaps be thus stated. The ten MSS. so
confidently relied upon date as follows, speaking generally:—


    2 about A.D. 330-340.
    1 about 550.
    1 about 750.
    6 (say) about 950 to A.D. 1350.


The 1490 MSS. which are constantly observed to bear consentient testimony
against the ten, date somewhat thus:—


    1: A.D. 400.
    1: 450.
    2: 500.
    16 (say): 650 to A.D. 850.
    1470: 850 to A.D. 1350.


And the question to which I invite the reader to render an answer is
this:—By what process of reasoning, apart from an appeal to other
authorities, (which we are going to make by-and-by), can it be thought
credible that the few witnesses shall prove the trustworthy guides,—and
the many witnesses the deceivers?

Now those many MSS. were executed demonstrably at different times in
different countries. They bear signs in their many hundreds of
representing the entire area of the Church, except where versions were
used instead of copies in the original Greek. Many of them were written in
monasteries where a special room was set aside for such copying. Those who
were in trust endeavoured with the utmost pains and jealousy to secure
accuracy in the transcription. Copying was a sacred art. And yet, of
multitudes of them that survive, hardly any have been copied from any of
the rest. On the contrary, they are discovered to differ among themselves
in countless unimportant particulars; and every here and there single
copies exhibit idiosyncrasies which are altogether startling and
extraordinary. There has therefore demonstrably been no collusion—no
assimilation to an arbitrary standard,—no wholesale fraud. It is certain
that every one of them represents a MS., or a pedigree of MSS., older than
itself; and it is but fair to suppose that it exercises such
representation with tolerable accuracy. It can often be proved, when any
of them exhibit marked extravagancy, that such extravagancy dates back as
far as the second or third century. I venture to think—and shall assume
until I find that I am mistaken—that, besides the Uncials, all the cursive
copies in existence represent lost Codexes of great antiquity with at
least the same general fidelity as Ev. 1, 33, 69, which enjoy so much
favour in some quarters only because they represent lost MSS. demonstrably
of the same general type as Codd. אBD(30).

It will be seen that the proofs in favour of Number being a recognized and
powerful Note of Truth are so strong, that nothing but the interests of an
absorbing argument can prevent the acknowledgement of this position. It is
doubtless inconvenient to find some 1490 witnesses contravening some ten,
or if you will, twenty favourites: but Truth is imperative and knows
nothing of the inconvenience or convenience of Critics.

8. When therefore the great bulk of the witnesses,—in the proportion
suppose of a hundred or even fifty to one,—yield unfaltering testimony to
a certain reading; and the remaining little handful of authorities, while
advocating a different reading, are yet observed to be unable to agree
among themselves as to what that different reading shall precisely
be,—then that other reading concerning which all that discrepancy of
detail is observed to exist, may be regarded as certainly false.

I will now give an instance of the general need of the testimony of Number
being added to Antiquity, in order to establish a Reading.

There is an obscure expression in the Epistle to the Hebrews,—Alford
speaks of it as “almost a _locus desperatus_”—which illustrates the matter
in hand not unaptly. The received reading of Heb. iv. 2,—“not being mixed
[viz. the word preached] with faith in them that heard it,”—is supported
by the united testimony of the Peshitto and of the Latin versions(31).
Accordingly, the discovery that א also exhibits συγκεκερασμενος determined
Tischendorf, who however stands alone with Scholz, to retain in this place
the singular participle. And confessedly the note of Antiquity it enjoys
in perfection; as well as yields a sufficiently intelligible sense. But
then unfortunately it proves to be incredible that St. Paul can have been
the author of the expression(32). All the known copies but four(33) read
not συγκεκραμένος but -μένους. So do all the Fathers who are known to
quote the place(34):—Macarius(35), Chrysostom(36), Theodorus of
Mopsuestia(37), Cyril(38), Theodoret(39), Damascene(40), Photius(41),
Theophylactus(42), Oecumenius(43). The testimony of four of the older of
these is even express: and such an amount of evidence is decisive. But we
are able to add that of the Harkleian, Bohairic, Ethiopic, and Armenian
versions. However uncongenial therefore the effort may prove, there can be
no doubt at all that we must henceforth read here,—“But the word listened
to did not profit them, because they were not united in respect of faith
with those who listened [and believed]”: or words to that effect(44). Let
this then be remembered as a proof that, besides even the note of Variety
to some extent super-added to that of Antiquity, it must further be shewn
on behalf of any reading which claims to be authentic, that it enjoys also
the support of a multitude of witnesses: in other words that it has the
note of Number as well(45).

And let no one cherish a secret suspicion that because the Syriac and the
Latin versions are such venerable documents they must be held to outweigh
all the rest, and may be right in this matter after all. It will be found
explained elsewhere that in places like the present, those famous versions
are often observed to interpret rather than to reproduce the inspired
verity: to discharge the office of a Targum rather than of a translation.
The sympathy thus evinced between א and the Latin should be observed: the
significance of it will come under consideration afterwards.




§ 3. Variety.


I must point out in the next place, that Evidence on any passage, which
exhibits in perfection the first of the two foregoing characteristics—that
of Antiquity, may nevertheless so easily fall under suspicion, that it
becomes in the highest degree necessary to fortify it by other notes of
Truth. And there cannot be a stronger ally than Variety.

No one can doubt, for it stands to reason, that Variety distinguishing
witnesses massed together must needs constitute a most powerful argument
for believing such Evidence to be true. Witnesses of different kinds; from
different countries; speaking different tongues:—witnesses who can never
have met, and between whom it is incredible that there should exist
collusion of any kind:—such witnesses deserve to be listened to most
respectfully. Indeed, when witnesses of so varied a sort agree in large
numbers, they must needs be accounted worthy of even implicit confidence.
Accordingly, the essential feature of the proposed Test will be, that the
Evidence of which “Variety” is to be predicated shall be derived from a
variety of sources. Readings which are witnessed to by MSS. only; or by
ancient Versions only: or by one or more of the Fathers only:—whatever
else may be urged on their behalf, are at least without the full support
of this note of Truth; unless there be in the case of MSS. a sufficient
note of Variety within their own circle. It needs only a slight
acquaintance with the principles which regulate the value of evidence, and
a comparison with other cases enjoying it of one where there is actually
no variety, to see the extreme importance of this third Test. When there
is real variety, what may be called hole-and-corner
work,—conspiracy,—influence of sect or clique,—are impossible. Variety it
is which imparts virtue to mere Number, prevents the witness-box from
being filled with packed deponents, ensures genuine testimony. False
witness is thus detected and condemned, because it agrees not with the
rest. Variety is the consent of independent witnesses, and is therefore
eminently Catholic. Origen or the Vatican and the Sinaitic, often stand
all but alone, because there are scarce any in the assembly who do not
hail from other parts with testimony different from theirs, whilst their
own evidence finds little or no verification.

It is precisely this consideration which constrains us to pay supreme
attention to the combined testimony of the Uncials and of the whole body
of the Cursive Copies. They are (_a_) dotted over at least 1000 years:
(_b_) they evidently belong to so many divers countries,—Greece,
Constantinople, Asia Minor, Palestine, Syria, Alexandria, and other parts
of Africa, not to say Sicily, Southern Italy, Gaul, England, and Ireland:
(_c_) they exhibit so many strange characteristics and peculiar
sympathies: (_d_) they so clearly represent countless families of MSS.,
being in no single instance absolutely identical in their text, and
certainly not being copies of any other Codex in existence,—that their
unanimous decision I hold to be an absolutely irrefragable evidence of the
Truth(46). If, again, only a few of these copies disagree with the main
body of them, I hold that the value of the verdict of the great majority
is but slightly disturbed. Even then however the accession of another
class of confirmatory evidence is most valuable. Thus, when it is
perceived that Codd. אBCD are the only uncials which contain the clause
νεκροὺς ἐγείρετε in St. Matt. x. 8, already spoken of, and that the merest
fraction of the cursives exhibit the same reading, the main body of the
cursives and all the other uncials being for omitting it, it is felt at
once that the features of the problem have been very nearly reversed. On
such occasions we inquire eagerly for the verdict of the most ancient of
the Versions: and when, as on the present occasion, they are divided,—the
Latin and the Ethiopic recognizing the clause, the Syriac and the Egyptian
disallowing it,—an impartial student will eagerly inquire with one of old
time,—“Is there not here a prophet of the Lord besides, that we might
inquire of him?” He will wish to hear what the old Fathers have to say on
this subject. I take the liberty of adding that when he has once perceived
that the text employed by Origen corresponds usually to a surprising
extent with the text represented by Codex B and some of the Old Latin
Versions, he will learn to lay less stress on every fresh instance of such
correspondence. He will desiderate greater variety of testimony,—the
utmost variety which is attainable. The verdict of various other Fathers
on this passage supplies what is wanted(47). Speaking generally, the
consentient testimony of two, four, six, or more witnesses, coming to us
from widely sundered regions is weightier by far than the same number of
witnesses proceeding from one and the same locality, between whom there
probably exists some sort of sympathy, and possibly some degree of
collusion. Thus when it is found that the scribe of B wrote “six conjugate
leaves of Cod. א(48),” it is impossible to regard their united testimony
in the same light as we should have done, if one had been produced in
Palestine and the other at Constantinople. So also of primitive Patristic
testimony. The combined testimony of Cyril, patriarch of
Alexandria;—Isidore of Pelusium, a city at the mouth of the Nile;—and
Nonnus of Panopolis in the Thebaid, is not nearly so weighty as the
testimony of one of the same three writers in conjunction with Irenaeus,
Bishop of Lyons in Gaul, and with Chrysostom who passed the greater part
of his life at Antioch. The same remark holds true of Versions. Thus, the
two Egyptian Versions when they conspire in witnessing to the same
singular reading are entitled to far less attention than one of those same
Versions in combination with the Syriac, or with the Latin, or with the
Gothic.




§ 4. Weight, or Respectability.


We must request our readers to observe, that the term “weight” may be
taken as regards Textual Evidence in two senses, the one general and the
other special. In the general sense, Weight includes all the notes of
truth,—it may relate to the entire mass of evidence;—or else it may be
employed as concerning the value of an individual manuscript, or a single
Version, or a separate Father. Antiquity confers some amount of Weight: so
does Number: and so does Variety also, as well as each of the other notes
of truth. This distinction ought not to be allowed to go out of sight in
the discussion which is now about to occupy our attention.

We proceed then to consider Weight in the special sense and as attached to
single Witnesses.

Undeniable as it is, (_a_) that ancient documents do not admit of being
placed in scales and weighed; and (_b_) that if they did, the man does not
exist who is capable of conducting the operation,—there are yet, happily,
principles of sound reason,—considerations based on the common sense of
mankind, learned and unlearned alike,—by the aid of which something may be
effected which is strictly analogous to the process of weighing solid
bodies in an ordinary pair of scales. I proceed to explain.

1. In the first place, the witnesses in favour of any given reading should
be respectable. “Respectability” is of course a relative term; but its use
and applicability in this department of Science will be generally
understood and admitted by scholars, although they may not be altogether
agreed as to the classification of their authorities. Some critics will
claim, not respectability only, but absolute and oracular authority for a
certain set of ancient witnesses,—which others will hold in suspicion. It
is clear however that respectability cannot by itself confer pre-eminence,
much less the privilege of oracular decision. We listen to any one whose
character has won our respect: but dogmatism as to things outside of
actual experience or mathematical calculation is the prerogative only of
Revelation or inspired utterance; and if assumed by men who have no
authority to dogmatize, is only accepted by weak minds who find a relief
when they are able


    “jurare in verba magistri.”
    “To swear whate’er the master says is true.”


And if on the contrary certain witnesses are found to range themselves
continually on the side which is condemned by a large majority of others
exhibiting other notes of truth entitling them to credence, those few
witnesses must inevitably lose in respectability according to the extent
and frequency of such eccentric action.

2. If one Codex (_z_) is demonstrably the mere transcript of another Codex
(_f_), these may no longer be reckoned as two Codexes, but as one Codex.
It is hard therefore to understand how Tischendorf constantly adduces the
evidence of “E of Paul” although he was perfectly well aware that E is “_a
mere transcript_ of the Cod. Claromontanus(49)” or D of Paul. Or again,
how he quotes the cursive Evan. 102; because the readings of that unknown
seventeenth-century copy of the Gospels are ascertained to have been
derived from Cod. B itself(50).

3. By strict parity of reasoning, when once it has been ascertained that,
in any particular instance, Patristic testimony is not original but
derived, each successive reproduction of the evidence must obviously be
held to add nothing at all to the weight of the original statement. Thus,
it used to be the fashion to cite (in proof of the spuriousness of “the
last twelve verses” of St. Mark’s Gospel) the authority of “Eusebius,
Gregory of Nyssa, Victor of Antioch, Severus of Antioch, Jerome(51),”—to
which were added “Epiphanius and Caesarius(52),”—“Hesychius of Jerusalem
and Euthymius(53).” In this enumeration, the names of Gregory, Victor,
Severus, Epiphanius and Caesarius were introduced in error. There remains
Eusebius,—whose exaggeration (_a_) Jerome translates, (_b_) Hesychius
(sixth century) copies, and (_c_) Euthymius (A.D. 1116) refers to(54) and
Eusebius himself neutralizes(55). The evidence therefore (such as it is)
collapses hopelessly: being reducible probably to a random statement in
the lost treatise of Origen on St. Mark(56), which Eusebius repudiates,
even while in his latitudinarian way he reproduces it. The weight of such
testimony is obviously slight indeed.

4. Again, if two, three, or four Codexes are discovered by reason of the
peculiarities of text which they exhibit to have been derived,—nay,
confessedly are derived—from one and the same archetype,—those two, three,
or four Codexes may no longer be spoken of as if they were so many.
Codexes B and א, for example, being certainly the twin products of a lost
exemplar, cannot in fairness be reckoned as = 2. Whether their combined
evidence is to be estimated at = 1.75, 1.50, or 1.25, or as only 1.0,—let
diviners decide. May I be allowed to suggest that whenever they agree in
an extraordinary reading their combined evidence is to be reckoned at
about 1.50: when in an all but unique reading, at 1.25: when the reading
they contain is absolutely unique, as when they exhibit συστρεφομένων δὲ
αὐτῶν in St. Matt. xvii. 22, they should be reckoned as a single Codex?
Never, at all events, can they be jointly reckoned as absolutely two. I
would have them cited as B-א. Similar considerations should be attached to
F and G of St. Paul, as being “independent transcripts of the same
venerable archetype(57),” and to Evan. 13, 69, 124, 346, 556, 561, and
perhaps 348, 624, 788(58), as being also the representatives of only one
anterior manuscript of uncertain date.

5. It requires further to be pointed out that when once a clear note of
affinity has been ascertained to exist between a small set of documents,
their exclusive joint consent is henceforward to be regarded with
suspicion: in other words, their evidential Weight becomes impaired. For
instance, the sympathy between D and some Old Latin copies is so marked,
so constant, in fact so extraordinary, that it becomes perfectly evident
that D, though only of the sixth century, must represent a Greek or Latin
Codex of the inaccurate class which prevailed in the earliest age of all,
a class from which some of the Latin translations were made(59).

6. I suppose it may be laid down that an ancient Version outweighs any
single Codex, ancient or modern, which can be named: the reason being,
that it is scarcely credible that a Version—the Peshitto, for example, an
Egyptian, or the Gothic—can have been executed from a single exemplar. But
indeed that is not all. The first of the above-named Versions and some of
the Latin are older,—perhaps by two centuries—than the oldest known copy.
From this it will appear that if the only witnesses producible for a
certain reading were the Old Latin Versions and the Syriac Version on the
one hand,—Codd. B-א on the other,—the united testimony of the first two
would very largely overbalance the combined testimony of the last. If B or
if א stood alone, neither of them singly would be any match for either the
Syriac or the Old Latin Versions,—still less for the two combined.

7. The cogency of the considerations involved in the last paragraph
becomes even more apparent when Patristic testimony has to be considered.

It has been pointed out elsewhere(60) that, in and by itself, the
testimony of any first-rate Father, where it can be had, must be held to
outweigh the solitary testimony of any single Codex which can be named.
The circumstance requires to be again insisted on here. How to represent
the amount of this preponderance by a formula, I know not: nor as I
believe does any one else know. But the fact that it exists, remains, and
is in truth undeniable. For instance, the origin and history of Codexes
ABאC is wholly unknown: their dates and the places of their several
production are matters of conjecture only. But when we are listening to
the articulate utterance of any of the ancient Fathers, we not only know
with more or less of precision the actual date of the testimony before us,
but we even know the very diocese of Christendom in which we are standing.
To such a deponent we can assign a definite amount of credibility, whereas
in the estimate of the former class of evidence we have only inferences to
guide us.

Individually, therefore, a Father’s evidence, where it can be certainly
obtained—_caeteris paribus_, is considerably greater than that of any
single known Codex. Collectively, however, the Copies, without question,
outweigh either the Versions by themselves, or the Fathers by themselves.
I have met—very rarely I confess—but I have met with cases where the
Versions, as a body, were opposed in their testimony to the combined
witness of Copies and Fathers. Also, but very rarely, I have known the
Fathers, as a body, opposed to the evidence of Copies and Versions. But I
have never known a case where the Copies stood alone—with the Versions and
the Fathers united against them.

I consider that such illustrious Fathers as Irenaeus and
Hippolytus,—Athanasius and Didymus,—Epiphanius and Basil,—the two
Gregories and Chrysostom,—Cyril and Theodoret, among the
Greeks,—Tertullian and Cyprian,—Hilary and Ambrose,—Jerome and Augustine,
among the Latins,—are more respectable witnesses by far than the same
number of Greek or Latin Codexes. Origen, Clemens Alexandrinus, and
Eusebius, though first-rate Authors, were so much addicted to Textual
Criticism themselves, or else employed such inconsistent copies,—that
their testimony is that of indifferent witnesses or bad judges.

As to the Weight which belongs to separate Copies, that must be determined
mainly by watching their evidence. If they go wrong continually, their
character must be low. They are governed in this respect by the rules
which hold good in life. We shall treat afterwards of the character of
Codex D, of א, and of B.




§ 5. Continuity.


In proposing Continuous Existence as another note of a genuine reading, I
wish to provide against those cases where the Evidence is not only
ancient, but being derived from two different sources may seem to have a
claim to variety also. I am glad to have the opportunity thus early of
pointing out that the note of variety may not fairly be claimed for
readings which are not advocated by more than two distinct specimens of
ancient evidence. But just now my actual business is to insist that some
sort of Continuousness is requisite as well as Antiquity, Number, Variety,
and Weight.

We can of course only know the words of Holy Scripture according as they
have been handed down to us; and in ascertaining what those words actually
were, we are driven perforce to the Tradition of them as it has descended
to us through the ages of the Church. But if that Tradition is broken in
the process of its descent, it cannot but be deprived of much of the
credit with which it would otherwise appeal for acceptance. A clear
groundwork of reasonableness lay underneath, and a distinct province was
assigned, when _quod semper_ was added to _quod ubique et quod ab
omnibus_. So there is a Catholicity of time, as well as of space and of
people: and all must be claimed in the ascertainment and support of Holy
Writ.

When therefore a reading is observed to leave traces of its existence and
of its use all down the ages, it comes with an authority of a peculiarly
commanding nature. And on the contrary, when a chasm of greater or less
breadth of years yawns in the vast mass of evidence which is ready for
employment, or when a tradition is found to have died out, upon such a
fact alone suspicion or grave doubt, or rejection must inevitably ensue.

Still more, when upon the admission of the Advocates of the opinions which
we are opposing the chasm is no longer restricted but engulfs not less
than fifteen centuries in its hungry abyss, or else when the transmission
ceased after four centuries, it is evident that according to an essential
Note of Truth, those opinions cannot fail to be self-destroyed as well as
to labour under condemnation during more than three quarters of the
accomplished life of Christendom.

How Churchmen of eminence and ability, who in other respects hold the
truths involved in Churchmanship, are able to maintain and propagate such
opinions without surrendering their Churchmanship, we are unable to
explain. We would only hope and pray that they may be led to see the
inconsistencies of their position. And to others who do not accept Church
doctrine we would urge that, inasmuch as internal evidence is so uncertain
as often to face both ways, they really cannot rest upon anything else
than continuous teaching if they would mount above personal likings and
dislikings to the possession of definite and unmistakable support. In fact
all traditional teaching which is not continuous must be like the detached
pieces of a disunited chain.

To put the question in the most moderate form, my meaning is, that
although it is possible that no trace may be discoverable in any later
document of what is already attested by documents of the fourth century to
be the true reading of any given place of Scripture, yet it is a highly
improbable circumstance that the evidence should entirely disappear at
such a very early period. It is reasonable to expect that if a reading
advocated by Codexes א and B, for instance, and the Old Latin Versions,
besides one or two of the Fathers, were trustworthy, there ought to be
found at least a fair proportion of the later Uncial and the Cursive
Copies to reproduce it. If, on the contrary, many of the Fathers knew
nothing at all about the matter; if Jerome reverses the evidence borne by
the Old Latin; if the later Uncials, and if the main body of the Cursives
are silent also:—what can be said but that it is altogether unreasonable
to demand acceptance for a reading which comes to us upon such a very
slender claim to our confidence?

That is the most important inference: and it is difficult to see how in
the nature of the case it can be got over. But in other respects
also:—when a smaller break occurs in the transmission, the evidence is
proportionally injured. And the remark must be added, that in cases where
there is a transmission by several lines of descent which, having in other
respects traces of independence, coincide upon a certain point, it is but
reasonable to conclude that those lines enjoy, perhaps, a silent, yet a
parallel and unbroken tradition all down the ages till they emerge. This
principle is often illustrated in the independent yet consentient
testimony of the whole body of the Cursives and later Uncials(61).




§ 6. Context.


A prevailing fallacy with some critical writers on the subject to which
the present volume is devoted, may be thus described. In the case of a
disputed reading, they seem to think that they do enough if they simply
marshal the authorities for and against, and deliver an oracular verdict.
In critical editions of the Greek text, such a summary method is perhaps
unavoidable. But I take leave to point out that in Sacred Textual
Criticism there are several other considerations which absolutely require
attention besides, and that those considerations ought to find expression
where the space permits. It is to some of these that I proceed now to
invite the reader’s attention.

A word,—a phrase,—a clause,—or even a sentence or a paragraph,—must have
some relation to the rest of the entire passage which precedes or comes
after it. Therefore it will often be necessary, in order to reach all the
evidence that bears upon a disputed question, to examine both the meaning
and the language lying on both sides of the point in dispute. We do not at
present lay so much stress upon the contextual meaning, because people are
generally not unready to observe it, and it is often open to much
difference of opinion:—we refrain especially, because we find from
experience that there is in the case of the New Testament always enough
external evidence of whose existence no doubt can be entertained to settle
any textual question that can arise.

Nevertheless, it may be as well to give a single instance. In 1 Cor. xiii.
5, Codex B and Clement of Alexandria read τὸ μὴ ἑαυτῆς instead of τὰ
ἑαυτῆς, i.e. “charity seeketh not what does not belong to her,” instead of
“seeketh not her own.” That is to say, we are invited, in the midst of
that magnificent passage which is full of lofty principles, to suppose
that a gross violation of the eighth commandment is forbidden, and to
insert a commonplace repudiation of gross dishonesty. We are to sink
suddenly from a grand atmosphere down to a vulgar level. In fact, the
light shed on the words in question from the context on either side of
course utterly excludes such a supposition; consequently, the only result
is that we are led to distrust the witnesses that have given evidence
which is so palpably absurd.

But as regards the precise form of language employed, it will be found
also a salutary safeguard against error in every instance, to inspect with
severe critical exactness the entire context of the passage in dispute. If
in certain Codexes that context shall prove to be confessedly in a very
corrupt state, then it becomes even self-evident that those Codexes can
only be admitted as witnesses with considerable suspicion and reserve.

Take as an illustration of what I have been saying the exceedingly
precious verse, “Howbeit, this kind goeth not out but by prayer and
fasting” (St. Matt. xvii. 21), which has met with rejection by the recent
school of critics. Here the evidence against the verse is confined to B
and the first reading of א amongst the Uncials, Evan. 33 alone of the
Cursives, e and ff1 of the Old Latin Versions, as well as the Curetonian
and the Lewis, Jerusalem, Sahidic, a few Bohairic copies, a few Ethiopic,
and the Greek of Eusebius’ Canons:—evidence of a slight and shifty
character, when contrasted with the witness of all the other Uncials and
Cursives, the rest of the Versions, and more than thirteen of the Fathers
beginning with Tertullian and Origen(62). It is plain that the stress of
the case for rejection, since א being afterwards corrected speaks
uncertainly, rests such as it is upon B; and that if the evidence of that
MS. is found to be unworthy of credit in the whole passage, weak indeed
must be the contention which consists mainly of such support.

Now if we inspect vv. 19, 20, 22, and 23, to go no farther, we shall
discover that the entire passage in B is wrapped in a fog of error. It
differs from the main body of the witnesses in ten places; in four of
which its evidence is rejected by Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles,
Westcott and Hort, and the Revisers(63); in two more by the Revisers(64);
and of the remaining four, it is supported in two by only א and severally
by one or six Cursives, and in the other two by only א and D with
severally four or five Cursive copies(65).

Inspection of the Context therefore adds here strong confirmation:—though
indeed in this instance to have recourse to such a weapon is to slay the
already slain.

St. Matthew (xi. 2, 3) relates that John Baptist “having heard in the
prison the works of CHRIST, sent two of his Disciples” (δύο τῶν μαθητῶν
αὐτοῦ) with the inquiry, “Art Thou He that should come(66), or are we to
look for another (ἕτερον)?” So all the known copies but nine. So the
Vulgate, Bohairic, Ethiopic. So Origen. So Chrysostom. It is interesting
to note with what differences of expression St. Luke reproduces this
statement. Having explained in ver. 18 that it was the Forerunner’s
disciples who brought him tidings concerning CHRIST, St. Luke (vii. 19)
adds that John “called for certain two” (δύο τινάς) of them, and “sent
them to JESUS”: thus emphasizing, while he repeats, the record of the
earlier Evangelist. Inasmuch however as ἕτερον means, in strictness, “the
other _of two_,” in order not to repeat himself, he substitutes ἄλλον for
it. Now all this is hopelessly obscured by the oldest amongst our
manuscript authorities. It in no wise surprises us to find that τινάς has
disappeared from D, the Peshitto, Latin, Bohairic, Gothic, and Ethiopic.
The word has disappeared from our English version also. But it offends us
greatly to discover that (1) אBLRXΞ (with Cyril) obliterate ἄλλον from St.
Luke vii. 19, and thrust ἕτερον into its place,—as clear an instance of
vicious assimilation as could anywhere be found: while (2) for δύο (in St.
Matt. xi. 3) אBCDPZΔ write διά: which is acquiesced in by the Peshitto,
Harkleian, Gothic and Armenian Versions. The Old Latin Versions
prevaricate as usual: two read, _mittens duos ex discipulis suis_: all the
rest,—_mittens discipulos suos_,—which is the reading of Cureton’s Syriac
and the Dialogus (p. 819), but of no known Greek MS.(67) Lastly (3) for
Ἰησοῦν in St. Luke, BLRΞ substitute κύριον. What would be thought of us if
we were freely imposed upon by readings so plainly corrupt as these three?

But light is thrown upon them by the context in St. Luke. In the thirteen
verses which immediately follow, Tischendorf himself being the judge, the
text has experienced depravation in at least fourteen particulars(68).
With what reason can the same critic straightway insist on other readings
which rest exclusively upon the same authorities which the fourteen
readings just mentioned claim for their support?

This Note of Truth has for its foundation the well-known law that mistakes
have a tendency to repeat themselves in the same or in other shapes. The
carelessness, or the vitiated atmosphere, that leads a copyist to
misrepresent one word is sure to lead him into error about another. The
ill-ordered assiduity which prompted one bad correction most probably did
not rest there. And the errors committed by a witness just before or just
after the testimony which is being sifted was given cannot but be held to
be closely germane to the inquiry.

So too on the other side. Clearness, correctness, self-collectedness, near
to the moment in question, add to the authority of the evidence.
Consequently, the witness of the Context cannot but be held to be
positively or negatively, though perhaps more often negatively than
positively, a very apposite Note of Truth.




§ 7. Internal Evidence.


It would be a serious omission indeed to close this enumeration of Tests
of Truth without adverting to those Internal Considerations which will
make themselves heard, and are sometimes unanswerable.

Thus the reading of πάντων (masculine or neuter) which is found in Cod. B
(St. Luke xix. 37) we reject at once because of its grammatical
impossibility as agreeing with δυνάμεων (feminine); and that of καρδίαις
(2 Cor. iii. 3) according to the witness of AאBCDEGLP on the score of its
utter impossibility(69). Geographical reasons are sufficiently strong
against reading with Codd. אIKNΠ ἑκατὸν καὶ ἑξήκοντα in St. Luke xxiv. 13
(i.e. a hundred and threescore furlongs), to make it of no manner of
importance that a few additional authorities, as Origen, Eusebius, and
Jerome, can be produced in support of the same manifestly corrupt reading.
On grounds of ordinary reasonableness we cannot hear of the sun being
eclipsed when the moon was full, or of our Lord being pierced before
death. The truth of history, otherwise sufficiently attested both by St.
Matthew and Josephus, absolutely forbids αὐτοῦ (אBDLΔ) to be read for
αὐτῆς (St. Mark vi. 22), and in consequence the wretched daughter of
Herodias to be taken to have been the daughter of Herod.

In these and such-like instances, the Internal reasons are plain and
strong. But there is a manifest danger, when critics forsake those
considerations which depend upon clear and definite points, and build
their own inventions and theories into a system of strict canons which
they apply in the teeth of manifold evidence that has really everything to
recommend it. The extent to which some critics are ready to go may be seen
in the monstrous Canon proposed by Griesbach, that where there are more
readings than one of any place, that reading which favours orthodoxy is an
object of suspicion(70). There is doubtless some reason in the Canon which
asserts that “The harder the reading, the less likely it is to have been
invented, and the more likely it is to be genuine,” under which
δευτεροπώτῳ (St. Luke vi. 1) must receive additional justification. But
people are ordinarily so constituted, that when they have once constructed
a system of Canons they place no limits to their operation, and become
slaves to them.

Accordingly, the true reading of passages must be ascertained, with very
slight exception indeed, from the preponderating weight of external
evidence, judged according to its antiquity, to number, variety, relative
value, continuousness, and with the help of the context. Internal
considerations, unless in exceptional cases they are found in strong
opposition to evident error, have only a subsidiary force. Often they are
the product of personal bias, or limited observation: and where one
scholar approves, another dogmatically condemns. Circumstantial evidence
is deservedly rated low in the courts of justice: and lawyers always
produce witnesses when they can. The Text of Holy Scripture does not vary
with the weathercock according to changing winds of individual or general
opinion or caprice: it is decided by the Tradition of the Church as
testified by eye-witnesses and written in black and white and gold in all
countries of Christendom, and all down the ages since the New Testament
was composed.

I desire to point out concerning the foregoing seven Notes of Truth in
Textual Evidence that the student can never afford entirely to lose sight
of any of them. The reason is because although no doubt it is conceivable
that any one of the seven might possibly in itself suffice to establish
almost any reading which can be named, practically this is never the case.
And why? Because we never meet with any one of these Tests in the fullest
possible measure. No Test ever attains to perfection, or indeed can
attain. An approximation to the Test is all that can be expected, or even
desired. And sometimes we are obliged to put up with a very slight
approximation indeed. Their strength resides in their co-operation.





CHAPTER IV. THE VATICAN AND SINAITIC MANUSCRIPTS.




§ 1.


No progress is possible in the department of “Textual Criticism” until the
superstition—for we are persuaded that it is nothing less—which at present
prevails concerning certain of “the old uncials” (as they are called) has
been abandoned. By “the old uncials” are generally meant, [1] The
_Vatican_ Codex (B),—and [2] the _Sinaitic_ Codex (א),—which by common
consent are assigned to the fourth century: [3] the _Alexandrian_ (A), and
[4] the _Cod. Ephraemi rescriptus_ (C),—which are given to the fifth
century: and [5] the _Codex Bezae_ (D),—which is claimed for the sixth
century: to which must now be added [6] the _Codex Beratinus_ (Φ), at the
end of the fifth, and [7] the _Codex Rossanensis_ (Σ), at the beginning of
the sixth century. Five of these seven Codexes for some unexplained
reason, although the latest of them (D) is sundered from the great bulk of
the copies, uncial and cursive, by about as many centuries as the earliest
of them (Bא) are sundered from the last of their group, have been invested
with oracular authority and are supposed to be the vehicles of imperial
decrees. It is pretended that what is found in either B or in א or in D,
although unsupported by any other manuscript, may reasonably be claimed to
exhibit the truth of scripture, in defiance of the combined evidence of
all other documents to the contrary. Let a reading be advocated by B and א
in conjunction, and it is assumed as a matter of course that such evidence
must needs outweigh the combined evidence of all other MSS. which can be
named. But when (as often happens) three or four of these “old uncials”
are in accord,—especially if (as is not unfrequently the case) they have
the support of a single ancient version (as the Bohairic),—or a solitary
early Father (as Origen), it seems to be deemed axiomatic that such
evidence must needs carry all before it(71).

I maintain the contradictory proposition, and am prepared to prove it. I
insist that readings so supported are clearly untrustworthy and may be
dismissed as certainly unauthentic.

But let us in this chapter seek to come to some understanding with one
another. My method shall be to ask a plain question which shall bring the
matter to a clear issue. I will then (1) invent the best answers I am able
to that question: and then (2) to the best of my ability—I will dispose of
these answers one by one. If the reader (1) is able to assign a better
answer,—or (2) does not deem my refutation satisfactory,—he has but to
call me publicly to account: and by the rejoinder I shall publicly render
either he, or I, must be content to stand publicly discredited. If I knew
of a fairer way of bringing this by no means recondite matter to a
definite issue, the reader may be well assured I should now adopt
it(72).—My general question is,—Why throughout the Gospels are B and א
accounted so trustworthy, that all but the absolute disposal of every
disputed question about the Text is held to depend upon their evidence?

And I begin by asking of a supposed Biblical Student,—Why throughout the
Gospels should Codex B and א be deemed more deserving of our confidence
than the other Codexes?

_Biblical Student._ Because they are the most ancient of our Codexes.

_Dean Burgon._ This answer evidently seems to you to convey an axiomatic
truth: but not to me. I must trouble you to explain to me why “the most
ancient of our Codexes” must needs be the purest?

_B. S._ I have not said that they “must needs be the purest”: and I
request you will not impute to me anything which I do not actually say.

_The Dean._ Thank you for a most just reproof. Let us only proceed in the
same spirit to the end, and we shall arrive at important results. Kindly
explain yourself therefore in your own way.

_B. S._ I meant to say that because it is a reasonable presumption that
the oldest Codexes will prove the purest, therefore Bא—being the oldest
Codexes of the Gospels—may reasonably be expected to be the best.

_The Dean._ So far happily we are agreed. You mean, I presume, that
inasmuch as it is an admitted principle that the stream is purest at its
source, the antiquity of B and א creates a reasonable presumption in their
favour. Is that what you mean?

_B. S._ Something of the kind, no doubt. You may go on.

_The Dean._ Yes, but it would be a great satisfaction to me to know for
certain, whether you actually do, or actually do not mean what I
suppose:—viz., to apply the principle, _id verum esse quod primum_, I take
you to mean that in B and א we have the nearest approach to the autographs
of the Evangelists, and that therefore in them we have the best evidence
that is at present within reach of what those autographs actually were. I
will now go on as you bid me. And I take leave to point out to you, that
it is high time that we should have the facts of the case definitely
before us, and that we should keep them steadily in view throughout our
subsequent discussion. Now all critics are agreed, that B and א were not
written earlier than about 340, or say before 330 A.D. You will admit
that, I suppose?

_B. S._ I have no reason to doubt it.

_The Dean._ There was therefore an interval of not far short of three
hundred years between the writing of the original autographs and the
copying of the Gospels in B and א(73). Those two oldest Codexes, or the
earliest of them, are thus found to be separated by nearly three centuries
from the original writings,—or to speak more accurately,—by about two
centuries and three-quarters from three of the great autographs, and by
about 250 years from the fourth. Therefore these MSS. cannot be said to be
so closely connected with the original autographs as to be entitled to
decide about disputed passages what they were or were not. Corruption
largely infected the several writings(74), as I shall shew at some length
in some subsequent chapters, during the great interval to which I have
alluded.

_B. S._ But I am surprised to hear you say this. You must surely recollect
that B and א were derived from one and the same archetype, and that that
archetype was produced “in the early part of the second century if not
earlier(75),” and was very close to the autographs, and that they must be
accordingly accurate transcripts of the autographs, and—

_The Dean._ I must really pray you to pause:—you have left facts far
behind, and have mounted into cloudland. I must beg you not to let slip
from your mind, that we start with a fact, so far as it can be
ascertained, viz. the production of B and א, about the middle of the
fourth century. You have advanced from that fact to what is only a
probable opinion, in which however I am agreed with you, viz. that B and א
are derived from one and the same older manuscript. Together therefore, I
pray you will not forget, they only count nearly as one. But as to the age
of that archetype—forgive me for saying, that—unintentionally no doubt but
none the less really—you have taken a most audacious leap. May I ask,
however, whether you can quote any ancient authority for the date which
you have affixed?

_B. S._ I cannot recollect one at the present moment.

_The Dean._ No, nor Dr. Hort either,—for I perceive that you adopt his
speculation. And I utterly deny that there is any probability at all for
such a suggestion:—nay, the chances are greatly, if not decisively,
against the original from which the lines of B and א diverged, being
anything like so old as the second century. These MSS. bear traces of the
Origenistic school, as I shall afterwards shew(76). They have too much
method in their error for it to have arisen in the earliest age: its
systematic character proves it to have been the growth of time. They
evince effects, as I shall demonstrate in due course, of heretical
teaching, Lectionary practice, and regular editing, which no manuscript
could have contracted in the first ages of the Church.

_B. S._ But surely the differences between B and א, which are many, prove
that they were not derived immediately from their common ancestor, but
that some generations elapsed between them. Do you deny that?

_The Dean._ I grant you entirely that there are many differences between
them,—so much the worse for the value of their evidence. But you must not
suffer yourself to be misled by the figure of genealogy upon points where
it presents no parallel. There were in manuscripts no periods of infancy,
childhood, and youth, which must elapse before they could have a progeny.
As soon as a manuscript was completed, and was examined and passed, it
could be copied: and it could be copied, not only once a year, but as
often as copyists could find time to write and complete their copies(77).
You must take also another circumstance into consideration. After the
destruction of manuscripts in the persecution of Diocletian, and when the
learned were pressing from all quarters into the Church, copies must have
been multiplied with great rapidity. There was all the more room for
carelessness, inaccuracy, incompetency, and capricious recension. Several
generations of manuscripts might have been given off in two or three
years.—But indeed all this idea of fixing the date of the common ancestor
of B and א is based upon pure speculation—Textual Science cannot rest her
conclusions upon foundations of sand like that. I must bring you back to
the Rock: I must recall you to facts. B and א were produced in the early
middle, so to speak, of the fourth century. Further than this, we cannot
go, except to say—and this especially is the point to which I must now
request your attention,—that we are in the possession of evidence older
than they are.

_B. S._ But you do not surely mean to tell me that other Uncials have been
discovered which are earlier than these?

_The Dean._ No: not yet: though it is possible, and perhaps probable, that
such MSS. may come to light, not in vellum but in papyrus; for as far as
we know, B and א mark the emergence into prominence of the “Uncial” class
of great manuscripts(78). But though there are in our hands as yet no
older manuscripts, yet we have in the first place various Versions, viz.,
the Peshitto of the second century(79), the group of Latin Versions(80)
which begin from about the same time, the Bohairic and the Thebaic of the
third century, not to speak of the Gothic which was about contemporary
with your friends the Vatican and Sinaitic MSS. Next, there are the
numerous Fathers who quoted passages in the earliest ages, and thus
witnessed to the MSS. which they used. To take an illustration, I have
cited upon the last twelve verses of St. Mark’s Gospel no less than twelve
authorities before the end of the third century, that is down to a date
which is nearly half a century before B and א appeared. The general mass
of quotations found in the books of the early Fathers witnesses to what I
say(81). So that there is absolutely no reason to place these two MSS.
upon a pedestal by themselves on the score of supreme antiquity. They are
eclipsed in this respect by many other authorities older than they are.
Such, I must beg you to observe, is the verdict, not of uncertain
speculation, but of stubborn facts.

_B. S._ But if I am not permitted to plead the highest antiquity on behalf
of the evidence of the two oldest Uncials,—

_The Dean._ Stop, I pray you. Do not imagine for a single instant that I
wish to prevent your pleading anything at all that you may fairly plead.
Facts, which refuse to be explained out of existence, not myself, bar your
way. Forgive me, but you must not run your head against a brick wall.

_B. S._ Well then(82), I will meet you at once by asking a question of my
own. Do you deny that B and א are the most precious monuments of their
class in existence?

_The Dean._ So far from denying, I eagerly assert that they are. Were they
offered for sale to-morrow, they would command a fabulous sum. They might
fetch perhaps £100,000. For aught I know or care they may be worth it.
More than one cotton-spinner is worth—or possibly several times as much.

_B. S._ But I did not mean that. I spoke of their importance as
instruments of criticism.

_The Dean._ Again we are happily agreed. Their importance is
unquestionably first-rate. But to come to the point, will you state
plainly, whether you mean to assert that their text is in your judgement
of exceptional purity?

_B. S._ I do.

_The Dean._ At last there we understand one another. I on the contrary
insist, and am prepared to prove, that the text of these two Codexes is
very nearly the foulest in existence. On what, pray, do you rely for your
opinion which proves to be diametrically the reverse of mine(83)?

_B. S._ The best scholars tell me that their text, and especially the text
of B, is of a purer character than any other: and indeed I myself, after
reading B in Mai’s edition, think that it deserves the high praise given
to it.

_The Dean._ My dear friend, I see that you have been taken in by Mai’s
edition, printed at Leipzig, and published in England by Williams &
Norgate and D. Nutt. Let me tell you that it is a most faulty
representation of B. It mixes later hands with the first hand. It abounds
in mistakes. It inserts perpetually passages which are nowhere found in
the copy. In short, people at the time fancied that in the text of the
mysterious manuscript in the Vatican they would find the _verba ipsissima_
of the Gospels: but when Cardinal Mai was set to gratify them, he found
that B would be unreadable unless it were edited with a plentiful
correction of errors. So the world then received at least two recensions
of B mixed up in this edition, whilst B itself remained behind. The world
was generally satisfied, and taken in. But I am sorry that you have shared
in the delusion.

_B. S._ Well, of course I may be wrong: but surely you will respect the
opinion of the great scholars.

_The Dean._ Of course I respect deeply the opinion of any great scholars:
but before I adopt it, I must know and approve the grounds of their
opinion. Pray, what in this instance are they?

_B. S._ They say that the text is better and purer than any other.

_The Dean._ And I say that it is nearly the most corrupt known. If they
give no special grounds except the fact that they think so, it is a
conflict of opinion. There is a balance between us. But from this deadlock
I proceed to facts. Take for example, as before, the last twelve verses of
St. Mark. On the one side are alleged B and א,—of which B by the
exhibition of a blank space mutely confesses its omission, and א betrays
that it is double-minded(84); one Old Latin MS. (_k_), two Armenian MSS.,
two Ethiopic, and an Arabic Lectionary; an expression of Eusebius, who
elsewhere quotes the passage, which was copied by Jerome and Severus of
Antioch, saying that the verses were omitted in some copies. L of the
eighth century, and a few Cursives, give a brief, but impossible,
termination. On the other side I have referred to(85) six witnesses of the
second century, six of the third, fifteen of the fourth, nine of the
fifth, eight of the sixth and seventh, all the other Uncials, and all the
other Cursives, including the universal and immemorial Liturgical use.
Here, as you must see, B and א, in faltering tones, and with only an
insignificant following, are met by an array of authorities, which is
triumphantly superior, not only in antiquity, but also in number, variety,
and continuousness. I claim also the superiority as to context, internal
considerations, and in weight too.

_B. S._ But surely weight is the ground of contention between us.

_The Dean._ Certainly, and therefore I do not assume my claim till I
substantiate it. But before I go on to do so, may I ask whether you can
dispute the fact of the four first Notes of Truth being on my side?

_B. S._ No: you are entitled to so much allowance.

_The Dean._ That is a very candid admission, and just what I expected from
you. Now as to Weight. The passage just quoted is only one instance out of
many. More will abound later on in this book: and even then many more must
of necessity remain behind. In point of hard and unmistakable fact, there
is a continual conflict going on all through the Gospels between B and א
and a few adherents of theirs on the one side, and the bulk of the
Authorities on the other, and the nature and weight of these two Codexes
may be inferred from it. They will be found to have been proved over and
over again to be bad witnesses, who were left to survive in their handsome
dresses whilst attention was hardly ever accorded to any services of
theirs. Fifteen centuries, in which the art of copying the Bible was
brought to perfection, and printing invented, have by unceasing rejection
of their claims scaled for ever the condemnation of their character, and
so detracted from their weight.

_B. S._ Still, whilst I acknowledge the justice of much that you have
said, I cannot quite understand how the text of later copies can be really
older than the text of earlier ones.

_The Dean._ You should know that such a thing is quite possible. Copies
much more numerous and much older than B and א live in their surviving
descendants. The pedigree of the Queen is in no wise discredited because
William the Conqueror is not alive. But then further than this. The
difference between the text of B and א on the one side and that which is
generally represented by A and Φ and Σ on the other is not of a kind
depending upon date, but upon recension or dissemination of readings. No
amplification of B and א could by any process of natural development have
issued in the last twelve verses of St. Mark. But it was easy enough for
the scribe of B not to write, and the scribe of א consciously(86) and
deliberately to omit, verses found in the copy before him, if it were
determined that they should severally do so. So with respect to the 2,556
omissions of B. The original text could without any difficulty have been
spoilt by leaving out the words, clauses, and sentences thus omitted: but
something much more than the shortened text of B was absolutely essential
for the production of the longer manuscripts. This is an important point,
and I must say something more upon it.

First then(87), Cod. B is discovered not to contain in the Gospels alone
237 words, 452 clauses, 748 whole sentences, which the later copies are
observed to exhibit in the same places and in the same words. By what
possible hypothesis will such a correspondence of the Copies be accounted
for, if these words, clauses, and sentences are indeed, as is pretended,
nothing else but spurious accretions to the text?

Secondly, the same Codex throughout the Gospels exhibits 394 times words
in a certain order, which however is not the order advocated by the great
bulk of the Copies. In consequence of what subtle influence will it be
pretended, that all over the world for a thousand years the scribes were
universally induced to deflect from the authentic collocation of the same
inspired words, and always to deflect in precisely the same way?

But Cod. B also contains 937 Gospel words, of which by common consent the
great bulk of the Cursive Copies know nothing. Will it be pretended that
in any part of the Church for seven hundred years copyists of Evangelia
entered into a grand conspiracy to thrust out of every fresh copy of the
Gospel self-same words in the self-same places(88)?

You will see therefore that B, and so א, since the same arguments concern
one as the other, must have been derived from the Traditional Text, and
not the Traditional Text from those two Codexes.

_B. S._ You forget that Recensions were made at Edessa or Nisibis and
Antioch which issued in the Syrian Texts, and that that was the manner in
which the change which you find so difficult to understand was brought
about.

_The Dean._ Excuse me, I forget no such thing; and for a very good reason,
because such Recensions never occurred. Why, there is not a trace of them
in history: it is a mere dream of Dr. Hort: they must be “phantom
recensions,” as Dr. Scrivener terms them. The Church of the time was not
so unconscious of such matters as Dr. Hort imagines. Supposing for a
moment that such Recensions, took place, they must have been either merely
local occurrences, in which case after a controversy on which history is
silent they would have been inevitably rejected by the other Churches in
Christendom; or they must have been general operations of the Universal
Church, and then inasmuch as they would have been sealed with the
concurrence of fifteen centuries, I can hardly conceive greater
condemnations of B and א. Besides, how could a text which has been in fact
Universal be “Syrian”? We are on _terra firma_, let me remind you, not in
the clouds. The undisputed action of fifteen centuries is not to be set
aside by a nickname.

_B. S._ But there is another way of describing the process of change which
may have occurred in the reverse direction to that which you advocate.
Expressions which had been introduced in different groups of readings were
combined by “Conflation” into a more diffuse and weaker passage. Thus in
St. Mark vi. 33, the two clauses καὶ προῆλθον αὐτούς, καὶ συνῆλθον αὐτοῦ,
are made into one conflate passage, of which the last clause is “otiose”
after συνέδραμον ἐκεῖ occurring immediately before(89).

_The Dean._ Excuse me, but I entirely disagree with you. The whole passage
appears to me to savour of the simplicity of early narratives. Take for
example the well-known words in Gen. xii. 5, “and they went forth to go
into the land of Canaan; and into the land of Canaan they came(90).” A
clumsy criticism, bereft of any fine appreciation of times and habits
unlike the present, might I suppose attempt to remove the latter clause
from that place as being “otiose.” But besides, your explanation entirely
breaks down when it is applied to other instances. How could conflation,
or mixture, account for occurrence of the last cry in St. Mark xv. 39, or
of vv. 43-44 in St. Luke xxii describing the Agony and Bloody Sweat, or of
the first Word from the Cross in St. Luke xxiii. 34, or of the descending
angel and the working of the cure in St. John v. 3-4, or of St. Peter’s
visit to the sepulchre in St. Luke xxiv. 12, or what would be the foisting
of verses or passages of different lengths into the numerous and similar
places that I might easily adduce? If these were all transcribed from some
previous text into which they had been interpolated, they would only
thrust the difficulty further back. How did they come there? The clipped
text of B and א—so to call it—could not have been the source of them. If
they were interpolated by scribes or revisers, the interpolations are so
good that, at least in many cases, they must have shared inspiration with
the Evangelists. Contrast, for example, the real interpolations of D and
the Curetonian. It is at the least demonstrated that that hypothesis
requires another source of the Traditional Text, and this is the argument
now insisted on. On the contrary, if you will discard your reverse
process, and for “Conflation” will substitute “Omission” through
carelessness, or ignorance of Greek, or misplaced assiduity, or heretical
bias, or through some of the other causes which I shall explain later on,
all will be as plain and easy as possible. Do you not see that? No
explanation can stand which does not account for all the instances
existing. Conflation or mixture is utterly incapable of meeting the larger
number of cases. But you will find before this treatise is ended that
various methods will be described herein with care, and traced in their
actual operation, under which debased texts of various kinds were produced
from the Traditional Text.

_B. S._ I see that there is much probability in what you say: but I retain
still some lingering doubt.

_The Dean._ That doubt, I think, will be removed by the next point which I
will now endeavour to elucidate. You must know that there is no agreement
amongst the allies, except so far as the denial of truth is concerned. As
soon as the battle is over, they at once turn their arms against one
another. Now it is a phenomenon full of suggestion, that such a _Concordia
discors_ is conspicuous amongst B and א and their associates. Indeed these
two Codexes are individually at variance with themselves, since each of
them has undergone later correction, and in fact no less than eleven hands
from first to last have been at work on א, which has been corrected and
re-corrected backwards and forwards like the faulty document that it is.
This by the way, but as to the continual quarrels of these
dissentients(91), which are patent when an attempt is made to ascertain
how far they agree amongst themselves, I must request your attention to a
few points and passages(92).




§ 2. St. John v. 4.


When it is abruptly stated that אBCD—four out of “the five old
uncials”—omit from the text of St. John’s Gospel the account of the angel
descending into the pool and troubling the water,—it is straightway
supposed that the genuineness of St. John v. 4 must be surrendered. But
this is not at all the way to settle questions of this kind. Let the
witnesses be called in afresh and examined.

Now I submit that since these four witnesses omitting A, (besides a
multitude of lesser discrepancies,) are unable to agree among themselves
whether “there was at Jerusalem a sheep-_pool_” (א), or “a pool at the
sheep-_gate_”: whether it was “surnamed” (BC), or “named” (D), or neither
(א):—which appellation, out of thirty which have been proposed for this
pool, they will adopt,—seeing that C is for “_Bethesda_”; B for
“_Bethsaida_”; א for “_Bethzatha_”; D for “_Belzetha_”:—whether or no the
crowd was great, of which they all know nothing,—and whether some were
“paralytics,”—a fact which was evidently revealed only to D:—to say
nothing of the vagaries of construction discoverable in verses 11 and
12:—when, you see, at last these four witnesses conspire to suppress the
fact that an Angel went down into the pool to trouble the water;—this
concord of theirs derives suggestive illustration from their conspicuous
discord. Since, I say, there is so much discrepancy hereabouts in B and א
and their two associates on this occasion, nothing short of unanimity in
respect of the thirty-two contested words—five in verse 3, and
twenty-seven in verse 4—would free their evidence from suspicion. But here
we make the notable discovery that only three of them omit all the words
in question, and that the second Corrector of C replaces them in that
manuscript. D retains the first five, and surrenders the last
twenty-seven: in this step D is contradicted by another of the “Old
Uncials,” A, whose first reading retains the last twenty-seven, and
surrenders the first five. Even their satellite L forsakes them, except so
far as to follow the first hand of A. Only five Cursives have been led
astray, and they exhibit strikingly this _Concordia discors_. One (157)
follows the extreme members of the loving company throughout. Two (18,
314) imitate A and L: and two more (33, 134) have the advantage of D for
their leader. When witnesses prevaricate so hopelessly, how far can you
believe them?

Now—to turn for a moment to the other side—this is a matter on which the
translations and such Fathers as quote the passage are able to render just
as good evidence as the Greek copies: and it is found that the Peshitto,
most of the Old Latin, as well as the Vulgate and the Jerusalem, with
Tertullian, Ammonius, Hilary, Ephraem the Syrian, Ambrose (two), Didymus,
Chrysostom (eight), Nilus (four), Jerome, Cyril of Alexandria (five),
Augustine (two), and Theodorus Studita, besides the rest of the
Uncials(93), and the Cursives(94), with the slight exception already
mentioned, are opposed to the Old Uncials(95).

Let me next remind you of a remarkable instance of this inconsistency
which I have already described in my book on The Revision Revised (pp.
34-36). “The five Old Uncials” (אABCD) falsify the Lord’s Prayer as given
by St. Luke in no less than forty-five words. But so little do they agree
among themselves, that they throw themselves into six different
combinations in their departures from the Traditional Text; and yet they
are never able to agree among themselves as to one single various reading:
while only once are more than two of them observed to stand together, and
their grand point of union is no less than an omission of the article.
Such is their eccentric tendency, that in respect of thirty-two out of the
whole forty-five words they bear in turn solitary evidence.




§ 3.


I should weary you, my dear student, if I were to take you through all the
evidence which I could amass upon this disagreement with one another,—this
_Concordia discors_. But I would invite your attention for a moment to a
few points which being specimens may indicate the continued divisions upon
Orthography which subsist between the Old Uncials and their frequent
errors. And first(96), how do they write the “Mary’s” of the Gospels, of
whom in strictness there are but three?

“The Mother of JESUS(97),” as most of us are aware, was not “Mary” (Μαρία)
at all; but “_Mariam_” (Μαριάμ),—a name strictly identical with that of
the sister of Moses(98). We call her “Mary” only because the Latins
_invariably_ write her name “Maria.” So complete an obliteration of the
distinction between the name of the blessed Virgin—and _that_ of (1) her
sister, Mary the wife of Clopas(99), of (2) Mary Magdalene, and of (3)
Mary the sister of Lazarus, may be deplored, but it is too late to remedy
the mischief by full 1800 years. The question before us is not that; but
only—how far the distinction between “_Mariam_” and “_Maria_” has been
maintained by the Greek copies?

Now, as for the cursives, with the memorable exception of Evann. 1 and
33,—which latter, because it is disfigured by more serious blunders than
any other copy written in the cursive character, Tregelles by a _mauvaise
plaisanterie_ designates as “the queen of the cursives,”—it may be said at
once that they are admirably faithful. Judging from the practice of fifty
or sixty which have been minutely examined with this view, the traces of
irregularity are so rare that the phenomenon scarcely deserves notice. Not
so the old uncials. Cod. B, on the first occasion where a blunder is
possible(100) (viz. in St. Matt. i. 20), exhibits Μαρία instead of
Μαριάμ:—so does Cod. C in xiii. 55,—Cod. D in St. Luke i. 30, 39, 56: ii.
5, 16, 34,—Codd. CD in St. Luke by אBC, in St. Matt. i. 34, 38, 46,—Codd.
BאD, in ii. 19.

On the other hand, the Virgin’s sister (Μαρία), is twice written Μαριόμ:
viz. by C, in St. Matt xxvii. 56; and by א, in St. John xix. 25:—while
Mary Magdalene is written Μαριάμ by “the five old uncials” no less than
eleven times: viz. by C, in St. Matt. xxvii. 56,—by א, in St. Luke xxiv.
10, St. John xix. 25, xx. 11,—by A, in St. Luke viii. 2,—by אA, in St.
John xx. 1,—by אC, in St. Matt. xxviii. 1,—by אB, in St. John xx. 16 and
18,—by BC, in St. Mark xv. 40,—by אBC, in St. Matt. xxvii. 61.

Lastly, Mary (Μαρία) the sister of Lazarus, is called Μαριάμ by Cod. B in
St. Luke x. 42: St. John xi. 2: xii. 3;—by BC, in St. Luke xi. 32;—by אC,
in St. Luke x. 39.—I submit that such specimens of licentiousness or
inattention are little calculated to conciliate confidence in Codd. BאCD.
It is found that B goes wrong nine times: D, ten (exclusively in respect
of the Virgin Mary): C, eleven: א, twelve.—Evan. 33 goes wrong thirteen
times: 1, nineteen times.—A, the least corrupt, goes wrong only twice.




§ 4.


Another specimen of a blunder in Codexes BאL33 is afforded by their
handling of our LORD’S words,—“Thou art Simon the son of Jona.” That this
is the true reading of St. John i. 43 is sufficiently established by the
fact that it is the reading of all the Codexes, uncial and cursive
alike,—excepting always the four vicious specimens specified above. Add to
the main body of the Codexes the Vulgate, Peshitto and Harkleian Syriac,
the Armenian, Ethiopic, Georgian, and Slavonic versions:—besides several
of the Fathers, such as
Serapion(101),—Basil(102),—Epiphanius(103),—Chrysostom(104),—Asterius(105),—and
another (unknown) writer of the fourth century(106):—with Cyril(107) of
the fifth,—and a body of evidence has been adduced, which alike in respect
of its antiquity, its number, its variety, and its respectability, casts
such witnesses as B-א entirely into the shade. When it is further
remembered that we have preserved to us in St. Matt. xvi. 17 our Saviour’s
designation of Simon’s patronymic in the vernacular of Palestine, “Simon
Bar-jona,” which no manuscript has ventured to disturb, what else but
irrational is the contention of the modern School that for “Jona” in St.
John i. 42, we are to read “John”? The plain fact evidently is that some
second-century critic supposed that “Jonah” and “John” are identical: and
of his weak imagination the only surviving witnesses at the end of 1700
years are three uncials and one cursive copy,—a few copies of the Old
Latin (which fluctuate between “Johannis,” “Johanna,” and “Johna”),—the
Bohairic Version, and Nonnus. And yet, on the strength of this slender
minority, the Revisers exhibit in their text, “Simon the son of John,”—and
in their margin volunteer the information that the Greek word is
“Joanes,”—which is simply not the fact: Ιωανης being the reading of _no_
Greek manuscript in the world except Cod. B(108).

Again, in the margin of St. John i. 28 we are informed that instead of
Bethany—the undoubted reading of the place,—some ancient authorities read
“Betharabah.” Why, there is not a single ancient Codex,—not a single
ancient Father,—not a single ancient Version,—which so reads the
place(109).




§ 5.


_B. S._ But(110), while I grant you that this general disagreement between
B and א and the other old Uncials which for a time join in their dissent
from the Traditional Text causes the gravest suspicion that they are in
error, yet it appears to me that these points of orthography are too small
to be of any real importance.

_The Dean._ If the instances just given were only exceptions, I should
agree with you. On the contrary, they indicate the prevailing character of
the MSS. B and א are covered all over with blots(111),—א even more so than
B. How they could ever have gained the characters which have been given
them, is passing strange. But even great scholars are human, and have
their prejudices and other weaknesses; and their disciples follow them
everywhere as submissively as sheep. To say nothing of many great scholars
who have never explored this field, if men of ordinary acquirements in
scholarship would only emancipate themselves and judge with their own
eyes, they would soon see the truth of what I say.

_B. S._ I should assent to all that you have told me, if I could only have
before me a sufficient number of instances to form a sound induction,
always provided that they agree with these which you have quoted. Those
which you have just given are enough as specimens: but forgive me when I
say that, as a Biblical Student, I think I ought to form my opinions upon
strong, deep, and wide foundations of facts.

_The Dean._ So far from requiring forgiveness from me, you deserve all
praise. My leading principle is to build solely upon facts,—upon real, not
fancied facts,—not upon a few favourite facts, but upon all that are
connected with the question under consideration. And if it had been
permitted me to carry out in its integrity the plan which I laid down for
myself(112),—that however has been withheld under the good Providence of
Almighty GOD.—Nevertheless I think that you will discover in the sequel
enough to justify amply all the words that I have used. You will, I
perceive, agree with me in this,—That whichever side of the contention is
the most comprehensive, and rests upon the soundest and widest induction
of facts,—that side, and that side alone, will stand.





CHAPTER V. THE ANTIQUITY OF THE TRADITIONAL TEXT(113). I. WITNESS OF THE
EARLY FATHERS.




§ 1. Involuntary Evidence of Dr. Hort.


Our readers will have observed, that the chief obstacle in the way of an
unprejudiced and candid examination of the sound and comprehensive system
constructed by Dean Burgon is found in the theory of Dr. Hort. Of the
internal coherence and the singular ingenuity displayed in Dr. Hort’s
treatise, no one can doubt: and I hasten to pay deserved and sincere
respect to the memory of the highly accomplished author whose loss the
students of Holy Scripture are even now deploring. It is to his arguments
sifted logically, to the judgement exercised by him upon texts and
readings, upon manuscripts and versions and Fathers, and to his collisions
with the record of history, that a higher duty than appreciation of a
Theologian however learned and pious compels us to demur.

But no searching examination into the separate links and details of the
argument in Dr. Hort’s Introduction to his Edition of the New Testament
will be essayed now. Such a criticism has been already made by Dean Burgon
in the 306th number of the Quarterly Review, and has been republished in
The Revision Revised(114). The object here pursued is only to remove the
difficulties which Dr. Hort interposes in the development of our own
treatise. Dr. Hort has done a valuable service to the cause of Textual
Criticism by supplying the rationale of the attitude of the School of
Lachmann. We know what it really means, and against what principles we
have to contend. He has also displayed a contrast and a background to the
true theory; and has shewn where the drawing and colouring are either
ill-made or are defective. More than all, he has virtually destroyed his
own theory.

The parts of it to which I refer are in substance briefly the following:

“The text found in the mass of existing MSS. does not date further back
than the middle of the fourth century. Before that text was made up, other
forms of text were in vogue, which may be termed respectively Neutral,
Western, and Alexandrian. The text first mentioned arose in Syria and more
particularly at Antioch. Originally there had been in Syria an Old-Syriac,
which after Cureton is to be identified with the Curetonian. In the third
century, about 250 A.D., ‘an authoritative revision, accepted by Syriac
Christendom,’ was made, of which the locality would be either Edessa or
Nisibis, or else Antioch itself. ‘This revision was grounded probably upon
an authoritative revision at Antioch’ (p. 137) of the Greek texts which
called for such a recension on account of their ‘growing diversity and
confusion.’ Besides these two, a second revision of the Greek texts, or a
third counting the Syriac revision, similarly authoritative, was completed
at Antioch ‘by 350 or thereabouts’; but what was now ‘the Vulgate Syriac’
text, that is the Peshitto, did not again undergo any corresponding
revision. From the last Greek revision issued a text which was afterwards
carried to Constantinople—‘Antioch being the true ecclesiastical parent of
Constantinople’—and thenceforward became the Text dominant in Christendom
till the present century. Nevertheless, it is not the true Text, for that
is the ‘Neutral’ text, and it may be called ‘Syrian.’ Accordingly, in
investigations into the character and form of the true Text, ‘Syrian’
readings are to be ‘rejected at once, as proved to have a relatively late
origin.’ ”

A few words will make it evident to unprejudiced judges that Dr. Hort has
given himself away in this part of his theory.

1. The criticism of the Canon and language of the Books of the New
Testament is but the discovery and the application of the record of
Testimony borne in history to those books or to that language. For a proof
of this position as regards the Canon, it is sufficient to refer to Bishop
Westcott’s admirable discussion upon the Canon of the New Testament. And
as with the Books generally, so with the details of those Books—their
paragraphs, their sentences, their clauses, their phrases, and their
words. To put this dictum into other terms:—The Church, all down the ages,
since the issue of the original autographs, has left in Copies or in
Versions or in Fathers manifold witness to the books composed and to the
words written. Dr. Hort has had the unwisdom from his point of view to
present us with some fifteen centuries, and—I must in duty say it—the
audacity to label those fifteen centuries of Church Life with the title
“Syrian,” which as used by him I will not characterize, for he has made it
amongst his followers a password to contemptuous neglect. Yet those
fifteen centuries involve everything. They commenced when the Church was
freeing herself from heresy and formulating her Faith. They advanced
amidst the most sedulous care of Holy Scripture. They implied a
consentient record from the first, except where ignorance, or inaccuracy,
or carelessness, or heresy, prevailed. And was not Dr. Hort aware, and do
not his adherents at the present day know, that Church Life means nothing
arbitrary, but all that is soundest and wisest and most complete in
evidence, and most large-minded in conclusions? Above all, did he fancy,
and do his followers imagine, that the HOLY GHOST who inspired the New
Testament could have let the true Text of it drop into obscurity during
fifteen centuries of its life, and that a deep and wide and full
investigation (which by their premisses they will not admit) must issue in
the proof that under His care the WORD of GOD has been preserved all
through the ages in due integrity?—This admission alone when stripped of
its disguise, is plainly fatal to Dr. Hort’s theory.

2. Again, in order to prop up his contention, Dr. Hort is obliged to
conjure up the shadows of two or three “phantom revisions,” of which no
recorded evidence exists(115). We must never forget that subjective theory
or individual speculation are valueless, when they do not agree with
facts, except as failures leading to some better system. But Dr. Hort, as
soon as he found that he could not maintain his ground with history as it
was, instead of taking back his theory and altering it to square with
facts, tampered with historical facts in order to make them agree with his
theory. This is self-evident: no one has been able to adduce, during the
quarter of a century that has elapsed since Dr. Hort published his book,
passages to shew that Dr. Hort was right, and that his supposed revisions
really took place. The acute calculations of Adams and Leverrier would
have been very soon forgotten, if Neptune had not appeared to vindicate
their correctness.

But I shall not leave matters here, though it is evident that Dr. Hort is
confuted out of his own mouth. The fifteen centuries of dominant evidence,
which he admits to have been on our side, involve the other centuries that
had passed previously, because the Catholic Church of Christ is ever
consistent with itself, and are thus virtually decisive of the
controversy; besides the collapse of his theory when superimposed upon the
facts of history and found not to coincide with them. I proceed to prove
from the surviving records of the first three or four centuries, during
the long period that elapsed between the copying of the Vatican and
Sinaitic MSS. and the days of the Evangelists, that the evidence of
Versions and Fathers is on our side.

And first of the Fathers.




§ 2. Testimony of the Ante-Chrysostom Writers.


No one, I believe, has till now made a systematic examination of the
quotations occurring in the writings of the Fathers who died before A.D.
400 and in public documents written prior to that date. The consequence is
that many statements have been promulgated respecting them which are
inconsistent with the facts of the case. Dr. Hort, as I shall shew, has
offended more than once in this respect. The invaluable Indexes drawn up
by Dean Burgon and those who assisted him, which are of the utmost avail
in any exhaustive examination of Patristic evidence upon any given text,
are in this respect of little use, the question here being, What is the
testimony of all the Fathers in the first four centuries, and of every
separate Father, as to the MSS. used by them or him, upon the controversy
waged between the maintainers of the Traditional Text on the one side, and
on the other the defenders of the Neologian Texts? The groundwork of such
an examination evidently lies not in separate passages of the Gospels, but
in the series of quotations from them found in the works of the collective
or individual Fathers of the period under consideration.

I must here guard myself. In order to examine the text of any separate
passage, the treatment must be exhaustive, and no evidence if possible
should be left out. The present question is of a different kind. Dr. Hort
states that the Traditional Text, or as he calls it “the Syrian,” does not
go back to the earliest times, that is as he says, not before the middle
of the fourth century. In proving my position that it can be traced to the
very first, it would be amply sufficient if I could shew that the evidence
is half on our side and half on the other. It is really found to be much
more favourable to us. We fully admit that corruption prevailed from the
very first(116): and so, we do not demand as much as our adversaries
require for their justification. At all events the question is of a
general character, and does not depend upon a little more evidence or a
little less. And the argument is secondary in its nature: it relates to
the principles of the evidence, not directly to the establishment of any
particular reading. It need not fail therefore if it is not entirely
exhaustive, provided that it gives a just and fair representation of the
whole case. Nevertheless, I have endeavoured to make it exhaustive as far
as my power would admit, having gone over the whole field a second time,
and having employed all the care in either scrutiny that I could command.

The way in which my investigation has been accomplished is as follows:—A
standard of reference being absolutely necessary, I have kept before me a
copy of Dr. Scrivener’s Cambridge Greek Testament, A.D. 1887, in which the
disputed passages are printed in black type, although the Text there
presented is the Textus Receptus from which the Traditional Text as
revised by Dean Burgon and hereafter to be published differs in many
passages. It follows therefore that upon some of these the record, though
not unfavourable to us, has many times been included in our opponents’
column. I have used copies of the Fathers in which the quotations were
marked, chiefly those in Migne’s Series, though I have also employed other
editions where I could find any of superior excellence as well as Migne.
Each passage with its special reading was entered down in my note-book
upon one column or the other. Successive citations thus fell on either
side when they witnessed upon the disputed points so presented. But all
doubtful quotations (under which head were included all that were not
absolutely clear) were discarded as untrustworthy witnesses in the
comparison that was being made; and all instances too of mere spelling,
because these latter might have been introduced into the text by copyists
or editors through an adaptation to supposed orthography in the later ages
when the text of the Father in question was copied or printed. The fact
also that deflections from the text more easily catch the eye than
undeviating rejection of deflections was greatly to the advantage of the
opposite side. And lastly, where any doubt arose I generally decided
questions against my own contention, and have omitted to record many
smaller instances favourable to us which I should have entered in the
other column. From various reasons the large majority of passages proved
to be irrelevant to this inquiry, because no variation of reading occurred
in them, or none which has been adopted by modern editors. Such were
favourite passages quoted again and again as the two first verses of St.
John’s Gospel, “I and My Father are one,” “I am the way, the truth, and
the life,” “No man knoweth the Father but the Son,” and many others. In
Latin books, more quotations had to be rejected than in Greek, because the
verdict of a version cannot be so close as the witness of the original
language.

An objection may perhaps be made, that the texts of the books of the
Fathers are sure to have been altered in order to coincide more accurately
with the Received Text. This is true of the Ethica, or Moralia, of Basil,
and of the Regulae brevius Tractatae, which seem to have been read
constantly at meals, or were otherwise in continual use in Religious
Houses. The monks of a later age would not be content to hear every day
familiar passages of Holy Scripture couched in other terms than those to
which they were accustomed, and which they regarded as correct. This fact
was perfectly evident upon examination, because these treatises were found
to give evidence for the Textus Receptus in the proportion of about 6:1,
whereas the other books of St. Basil yielded according to a ratio of about
8:3.

For the same reason I have not included Marcion’s edition of St. Luke’s
Gospel, or Tatian’s Diatessaron, in the list of books and authors, because
such representations of the Gospels having been in public use were sure to
have been revised from time to time, in order to accord with the judgement
of those who read or heard them. Our readers will observe that these were
self-denying ordinances, because by the inclusion of the works mentioned
the list on the Traditional side would have been greatly increased. Yet
our foundations have been strengthened, and really the position of the
Traditional Text rests so firmly upon what is undoubted, that it can
afford to dispense with services which may be open to some suspicion(117).
And the natural inference remains, that the difference between the witness
of the Ethica and the Regulae brevius Tractatae on the one hand, and that
of the other works of Basil on the other, suggests that too much
variation, and too much which is evidently characteristic variation, of
readings meets us in the works of the several Fathers, for the existence
of any doubt that in most cases we have the words, though perhaps not the
spelling, as they issued originally from the author’s pen(118). Variant
readings of quotations occurring in different editions of the Fathers are
found, according to my experience, much less frequently than might have
been supposed. Where I saw a difference between MSS. noted in the
Benedictine or other editions or in copies from the Benedictine or other
prints, of course I regarded the passage as doubtful and did not enter it.
Acquaintance with this kind of testimony cannot but render its general
trustworthiness the more evident. The habit of quotation of authorities
from the Fathers by Tischendorf and all Textual Critics shews that they
have always been taken to be in the main trustworthy. It is in order that
we may be on sure ground that I have rejected many passages on both sides,
and a larger number of cases of pettier testimony on the Traditional side.

In the examination of the Greek Fathers, Latin Translations have generally
been neglected (except in the case of St. Irenaeus(119)), because the
witness of a version is secondhand, and Latin translators often employed a
rendering with which they were familiar in representing in Latin passages
cited from the Gospels in Greek. And in the case even of Origen and
especially of the later Fathers before A.D. 400, it is not certain whether
the translation, such as that of Rufinus, comes within the limit of time
prescribed. The evidence of the Father as to whether he used a Text or
Texts of one class or another is of course much better exhibited in his
own Greek writing, than where some one else has translated his words into
Latin. Accordingly, in the case of the Latin Fathers, only the clearest
evidence has been admitted. Some passages adduced by Tischendorf have been
rejected, and later experience has convinced me that such rejections made
in the earlier part of my work were right. In a secondary process like
this, if only the cup were borne even, no harm could result, and it is of
the greatest possible importance that the foundation of the building
should be sound.

The general results will appear in the annexed Table. The investigation
was confined to the Gospels. For want of a better term, I have uniformly
here applied the title “Neologian” to the Text opposed to ours.

_Fathers._                                   _Traditional   _Neologian._
                                             Text._
Patres Apostolici and Didachè                11             4
Epistle to Diognetus                         1              0
Papias                                       1              0
Justin Martyr                                17             20
Heracleon                                    1              7
Gospel of Peter                              2              0
Seniores apud Irenaeum                       2              0
Athenagoras                                  3              1
Irenaeus (Latin as well as Greek)            63             41
Hegesippus                                   2              0
Theophilus Antiochenus                       2              4
Testament of Abraham                         4              0
Epistola Viennensium et Lugdunensium         1              0
Clement of Alexandria                        82             72
Tertullian                                   74             65
Clementines                                  18             7
Hippolytus                                   26             11
Callixtus (Pope)                             1              0
Pontianus (Pope)                             0              2
Origen                                       460            491
Julius Africanus                             1              1
Gregory Thaumaturgus                         11             3
Novatian                                     6              4
Cornelius (Pope)                             4              1
Synodical Letter                             1              2
Cyprian                                      100            96
Concilia Carthaginiensia                     8              4
Dionysius of Alexandria                      12             5
Synodus Antiochena                           3              1
Acta Pilati                                  5              1
Theognostus                                  0              1
Archelaus (Manes)                            11             2
Pamphilus                                    5              1
Methodius                                    14             8
Peter of Alexandria                          7              8
Alexander Alexandrinus                       4              0
Lactantius                                   0              1
Juvencus                                     1              2
Arius                                        2              1
Acta Philippi                                2              1
Apostolic Canons and Constitutions           61             28
Eusebius (Caesarea)                          315            214
Theodorus Heracleensis                       2              0
Athanasius                                   179            119
Firmicus Maternus                            3              1
Julius (Pope)                                1              2
Serapion                                     5              1
Eustathius                                   7              2
Macarius Aegyptius or Magnus(120)            36             17
Hilary (Poictiers)                           73             39
Candidus Arianus                             0              1
Eunomius                                     1              0
Didymus                                      81             36
Victorinus of Pettau                         4              3
Faustinus                                    4              0
Zeno                                         3              5
Basil                                        272            105
Victorinus Afer                              14             14
Lucifer of Cagliari                          17             20
Titus of Bostra                              44             24
Cyril of Jerusalem                           54             32
Pacianus                                     2              2
Optatus                                      10             3
Quaestiones ex Utroque Test                  13             6
Gregory of Nyssa                             91             28
Philastrius                                  7              6
Gregory of Nazianzus                         18             4
Amphilochius                                 27             10
Epiphanius                                   123            78
Ambrose                                      169            77
Macarius Magnes                              11             5
Diodorus of Tarsus                           1              0
Evagrius Ponticus                            4              0
Esaias Abbas                                 1              0
Nemesius                                     0              1
Philo of Carpasus(121)                       9              2
——
                                             2630           1753

The testimony therefore of the Early Fathers is emphatically, according to
the issue of numbers, in favour of the Traditional Text, being about 3:2.
But it is also necessary to inform the readers of this treatise, that here
quality confirms quantity. A list will now be given of thirty important
passages in which evidence is borne on both sides, and it will be seen
that 530 testimonies are given in favour of the Traditional readings as
against 170 on the other side. In other words, the Traditional Text beats
its opponent in a general proportion of 3 to 1. This result supplies a
fair idea of the two records. The Neologian record consists mainly of
unimportant, or at any rate of smaller alterations, such as δέδωκα for
ἔδωκα, ὁ οὐράνιος for ὁ εν οὐρανοῖς, φοβεῖσθε for φοβηθῆτε,
disarrangements of the order of words, omissions of particles, besides of
course greater omissions of more or less importance. In fact, a great deal
of the variations suggest to us that they took their origin when the
Church had not become familiar with the true readings, the _verba
ipsissima_, of the Gospels, and when an atmosphere of much inaccuracy was
spread around. It will be readily understood how easily the text of the
Holy Gospels might have come to be corrupted in oral teaching whether from
the pulpit or otherwise, and how corruptions must have so embedded
themselves in the memories and in the copies of many Christians of the
day, that it needed centuries before they could be cast out. That they
were thus rooted out to a large extent must have been due to the loving
zeal and accuracy of the majority. Such was a great though by no means the
sole cause of corruption. But before going further, it will be best to
exhibit the testimony referred to as it is borne by thirty of the most
important passages in dispute. They have been selected with care: several
which were first chosen had to be replaced by others, because of their
absence from the quotations of the period under consideration. Of course,
the quotations are limited to that period. Quotations are made in this
list also from Syriac sources. Besides my own researches, The Last Twelve
Verses, and The Revision Revised, of Dean Burgon have been most prolific
of apposite passages. A reference here and there has been added from
Resch’s Ausser-Canonische Paralleltexte zu den Evangelien, Leipzig,
1894-5.

1. St. Matt. i. 25. Πρωτότοκον.

On the Traditional side:—
Tatian (Diatessaron).
Athanasius (c. Apoll. i. 20; ii. 15).
Basil (Adv. Eunom. iv. (291); in S. Xti. Gen. 5; i. 392; ii. 599, 600).
Didymus (Trin. iii. 4).
Cyril Jerus. (Cat. vii. 9).
Gregory Nyss. (ii. 229).
Ephraem Syras (Commentary on Diatessaron).
Epiphanius (Haer. II. li. 5; III. lxxxviii. 17, &c.—5 times).
Ambrose (De Fid. I. xiv. 89)(122).

Against:—I can discover nothing.

2. St. Matt. v. 44 (some of the clauses).

Traditional:—Separate clauses are quoted by—
Didachè (§ I).
Polycarp (x.).
Justin M. (Apol. i. 15).
Athenagoras (Leg. pro Christian. 11).
Tertullian (De Patient, vi.).
Theophilus Ant. (Ad Autolycum).
Clemens Alex. (Paed. i. 8; Strom. iv. 14; vii. 14).
Origen (De Orat. i.; Cels. viii. 35; 41).
Eusebius (Praep. Ev. xiii. 7; Comment, in Isai. 66; Comment. in Ps. 3;
            108).
Athanasius (De Incarnat. c. Arian. 3; 13).
Apost. Const, (i. 1, all the clauses; vii. I).
Gregory Naz. (Orat. iv. 124).
Gregory Nyss. (In Bapt. Christ.; In S. Stephanum).
Lucifer (Pro S. Athan. ii.).
Philo of Carpasus (I. 7).
Pacianus (Epist. ii.).
Hilary (Tract. in Ps. cxviii. 9. 9; 10. 16).
Ambrose (De Abrahamo ii. 30; In Ps. xxxviii. 10; In Ps. cxviii. 12. 51).
Aphraates (Dem. ii.).
Apocryphal Acts of the Gospels (p. 89).

Against:—
Cyprian (De Bono Patient, v.; De Zelo xv.; Test. ad Jud. iii. 49).
Irenaeus (Haer. III. xviii. 5).
Origen (Comment. on St. John XX. xv.; xxvii.).
Eusebius (Dem. Evan. xiii. 7).
Gregory Nyss. (In Bapt. Christ.).

3. St. Matt. vi. 13. Doxology.

Traditional:—
Didachè (viii, with variation).
Apostol. Const. (iii. 18; vii. 25, with variation).
Ambrose (De Sacr. vi. 5. 24).

Against (?), i.e. generally silent about it:—
Tertullian (De Orat. 8).
Cyprian (De Orat. Dom. 27).
Origen (De Orat. 18).
Cyril Jerus. (Cat. xxiii., Myst. 5, 18).
Gregory Nyss. is doubtful (De Orat. Dom. end).

4. St. Matt. vii. 13, 14. Ἡ πύλη.

Traditional:—
Hippolytus (In Susannam v. 18).
Testament of Abraham(5 times).
Origen (Select. in Ps. xvi.; Comment. in Matt. xii. 12).
Ambrose (Epist. I. xxviii. 6).
Esaias Abbas.
Philo of Carpasus (iii. 73).

Against:—
Hippolytus (Philosoph. v. 1. 1—bis).
Origen (Cels. vi. 17; Select. in Ps. xlv. 2; cxvii.; c. Haeres. v. 8).
Cyprian (De Hab. Virg. xxi.; Test. ad Jud. iii. 6).
Eusebius (Eclog. Proph. iii. 4; Comment. in Ps. 3).
Clemens Alex. (Strom. IV. ii.; vi.; v. 5; Cohort. ad Gent. p. 79).
Basil (Hom. in Ps. xxxiii. 4; xlv. 2).
Cyril Jerus. (Cat. iii. 7).
Gregory Nyss. (c. Fornicarios).
Ambrose (Exposit. in Luc. iv. 37).
Philo of Carpasus (i. 7).
Macarius Aegypt. (Hom. xxviii.).
Lucifer (De Athan. ii.; Moriendum esse).

5. St. Matt. ix. 13. εἰς μετάνοιαν. Mark ii. 17.

Traditional:—
Barnabas (5).
Justin M. (Apol. i. 15).
Irenaeus (III. v. 2).
Origen (Comment. in Joh. xxviii. 16).
Eusebius (Comment. in Ps. cxlvi.).
Hilary (Comment. in Matt. ad loc.).
Basil (De Poenitent. 3; Hom. in Ps. xlviii. 1; Epist. Class. I. xlvi. 6).

Against:—
Clemens Rom. (ii. 2).
Hilary (in Mark ii. 17).

6. St. Matt. xi. 27. βούληται ἀποκάλυψαι.

Traditional:—
Irenaeus (c. Haeres. IV. vi. 1).
Archelaus—Manes (xxxvii.).
Clementines (Recog. ii. 47; Hom. xvii. 4; xviii. 4; 13).
Athanasius (Matt. xi. 27—commenting upon it; De Incarn. c. Arian. 7; 13;
            47; 48; c. Arianos iii. 26; 49; c. Sabell. Greg. 4).
Didymus (De Trin. iii. 36).
Basil (Adv. Eunom. v. 314).
Victorinus Afer (Adv. Arium i. 15).
Ambrose (De Fide V. xvi. 201; De Spir. S. II. xi. 123).
Gregory Nyss. (c. Eunom. i.).
Hilary (Comment. in Matt. ad loc.; De Trin. ii. 10; vi. 26; ix. 50; Frag.
            xv.).
Quaestiones ex N. T. (124).

Against:—
Irenaeus (c. Haeres. I. xx. 3; II. vi. I; IV. vi. 3).
Clemens Alex. (Cohort. ad Gent. i. end; Paed. i. 5; Strom. i. 28; v. 13;
            vii. 10; 18; Quis Div. Salv. viii.).
Justin M. (Apol. i. 63—bis; Dial. c. Tryph. 100).
Origen (Cels. vi. 17; Comm. in Joh. i. 42).
Synodus Antiochena.
Athanasius (Hist. Arian. xii.; c. Arian. i. 12; 39; iv. 23; Serm. Maj. de
            Fide, 28).
Didymus (De Trin. ii. 16).
Eusebius (Eclog. Proph. i. 11; De Eccles. Theol. I. xv; xvi.).
Basil (Adv. Eunom. v. 311).
Cyril Jerus. (Cat. vi. 6; x. 1).
Epiphanius (Adv. Haeres. i. 34. 18; ii. 54. 4; iii. 65. 4; 76. 4; 29;
            Ancor. 67).

7. St. Matt. xvii. 21. The Verse.

Traditional:—
Clement Alex. Ἐκλογαι ἐκ τ. προφ xv.
Origen (Comment. in Matt. xiii. 7; Hom. i.).
Athanasius (De Virg. vii.).
Basil (De Jejun. Hom. i. 9; Reg. fus. tract. xviii.; Hom, de Jejun. iii.).
Juveneus (iii. vv. 381-2).
Ambrose (In Ps. xlv. 9; Epist. Class. I. xlii. 11).
Hilary (Comment. in Matt. ad loc).

Against:—none, so far as I can find.

8. St. Matt. xviii. 11. The Verse.

Traditional:—
Origen (ii. 147; Conc. v. 675). Tertullian (Pudic. 9; Resurr. 9).
Ambrose (De Interpell. Dav. IV. ii. 4; Expos. in Luc. vii. 209; De Fid.
            Res. II. 6)(123).

Against:—none, so far as I can find.

9. St. Matt. xix. 16, 17. ἀγαθέ, and περὶ τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ.

Traditional:—
Clemens Alex. (Strom. v. 10).
Origen—ἀγαθέ (Comment. in Matt. xv. 10).
Eusebius (Praep. Evan. xi. 21).
Athanasius (De Incarn. c. Arian. 7).
Cyril Jerus. (Cat. xviii. 30).
Gregory Naz. (i. 529).
Hilary (Comment. in Matt. ad loc.).
Epiphanius (Adv. Haeres. I. iii. 34. 18).
Macarius Magnes (i. 9)(124).

Against:—
Origen (Praep. Evan. xi. 19; Comment. in Matt. xv. 10.—bis).
Eusebius (Praep. Evan. xi. 21).
Novatian (De Trin. xxx.).
Hilary—omits ἀγαθέ (Comment. in loc.).

10. St. Matt. xxiii. 38. ἔρημος. St. Luke xiii. 35.

Traditional:—
Cyprian (Test. ad Jud. i. 6).
Irenaeus (c. Haeres. IV. xxxvi. 8; xxxvii. 5).
Clemens Alex. (Paed. i. 9).
Methodius (Serm. de Simeone et Anna).
Origen (Hom. in Jerem. vii.— bis; X.; xiii.; Select. in Jeremiam xv.; in
            Threnos iv. 6).
Apostol. Const. (vi. 5).
Eusebius (Dem. Evan. II. iv. (38)—four times; IV. xvi. (189); VI. (291);
            viii. (401); x. (481); Eclog. Proph. IV. i.; Comment. in Ps.
            73—bis; 77; 79; in Isaiam 7-8; De Theophan. vii.—tris).
Basil (Comment. in Isaiam i. 20).
Cyril Jerus. (Cat. xiii. 32).
Philo of Carpasus (iii. 83).
Ambrose (In Ps. xliii. 69; In Cant. Cant. iv. 54).

Against:—
Didymus (Expos. in Ps. 67).
Epiphanius (Adv. Haeres. I. iii. 40).
Zeno (xiv. 2).

11. St. Matt. xxvii. 34. Ὄξος and οἶνον.

Traditional:—
Gospel of Peter (§ 5).
Acta Philippi (§ 26).
Barnabas (§ 7).
Irenaeus.
Tertullian.
Celsus.
Origen.
Eusebius of Emesa.
Theodore of Heraclea.
Didymus.
Gregory Naz.
Gregory Nyss.
Ephraem Syrus.
Titus of Bostra.

Against:—
Apocryphal Acts of the Apostles.
Macarius Magnes (ii. 12).
Gospel of Nicodemus(125).

12. St. Matt. xxviii. 2. ἀπὸ τῆς θύρας.

Traditional:—
Gospel of Nicodemus.
Aeta Philippi.
Apocryphal Acts of the Apostles.
Eusebius (ad Marinum, ii. 4).
Greg. Nyss. (De Christ. Resurr. I. 390, 398)(126)?

Compare also Acta Pilati (ἀπὸ τοῦ στόματος τοῦ σπηλαίου, and ἐκ τοῦ
μνημείου), and Gospel of Peter (ἐπὶ τῆς θύρασ—ἐπὶ τῆς θύρας).

Against:—
Dionysius Alex. (Epist. Canon. ad Basilidem).
Origen (c. Celsum, ii. 70).
Apostol. Can. (vii. 1).

13. St. Matt. xxviii. 19. βαπτίζοντες.

Traditional:—
Irenaeus (c. Haeres. III. xvii. 1).
Hippolytus (c. Haeres. Noet. 14).
Apostolic Canons (pp. 29; 43; 49 (Lagarde); Const. ii. 26; iv. 1; vii.
            22).
Concilia Carthaginiensia (vii.—tris).
Ps. Justin (Expos. Rect. Fid. v.).
Tertullian (De Baptismo xiii.).
Cyprian (Epist. ad Jubaianum v.; xxv. 2 tingentes; lxiii. 18; ad
            Novatianum Heret. iii.—3rd cent.; Testimon. II. xxvi.
            tingentes).
Eusebius (c. Marcell. I. i.).
Athanasius (Epist. Encycl. i.; Epist. ad Serap. i. 6; 28; ii. 6; iii. 6;
            iv. 5; de Syn. 23; De Titulis Ps. 148).
Basil (Adv. Eunom. v. 299; De Fide 4; De Bapt. I. 1; ii. 6; Epist. Class.
            I. viii. 11; II. ccx. 3).
Didymus (De Trin. i. 30; 36; ii. 5; iii. 23).
Cyril Jerus. (Cat. xvi. 4).
Hilary (Comment. in Matt. ad loc.; c. Auxentium 14; De Syn. xxix.; De
            Trin. ii. 1).
Amphilochius (Epist. Synod.).
Gregory Nyss. (c. Eunom. xi.; In Bapt. Christ.; In Christ. Resurr.—bis;
            Epist. v.; xxiv.).
Victorinus of Pettau (In Apoc. i. 15).
Optatus (De Schism. Don. v. 5).
Firmicus Maternus (De Error. Profan. Relig. xxv.).
Ambrose (De Joseph. xii. 71).
Victorinus Afer (Adv. Arium iv. 18).
Epiphanius (Adv. Haeres. iii. 73. 3; 74. 5; ἀνακεφαλαίωσις, end).

Against:—none.

14. St. Mark i. 2. τοῖς προφήταις ... Ησαΐᾳ.

Traditional:—
Titus of Bostra.
Origen.
Porphyry.
Irenaeus (III. xvi. 3).
Eusebius.
Ambrose(127).

Against:—
Irenaeus (III. xi. 8).
Origen (Cels. ii. 4; Comment. in John i. 14).
Titus of Bostra (Adv. Manich. iii. 4).
Epiphanius.
Basil (Adv. Eunom. ii. 15).
Epiphanius (Adv. Haeres. II. i. 51).
Serapion.
Victorinus of Pettau (In Apoc. S. Joann.).

15. St. Mark xvi. 9-20. Last Twelve Verses.

Traditional:—
Papias (Eus. H. E. iii. 39).
Justin Martyr (Tryph. 53; Apol. i. 45).
Irenaeus (c. Haer. III. x. 6; iv. 56).
Tertullian (De Resurr. Carn. xxxvii.; Adv. Praxeam xxx.).
Clementines (Epit. 141).
Hippolytus (c. Haer. Noet. _ad fin._).
Vincentius (2nd Council of Carthage—Routh, Rell. Sacr. iii. p. 124).
Acta Pilati (xiv. 2).
Apost. Can. and Const. (can. 1; v. 7; 19; vi. 15; 30; viii. 1).
Eusebius (Mai, Script. Vett. Nov. Collect. i. p. 1).
Cyril Jerus. (Cat. xiv. 27).
Syriac Table of Canons.
Macarius Magnes (iii. 16; 24).
Aphraates (Dem. i.—bis).
Didymus (Trin. ii. 12).
Syriac Acts of the Apostles.
Epiphanius (Adv. Haer. I. xliv. 6).
Gregory Nyss. (In Christ. Resurr. ii.).
Apocryphal Acts of the Gospel—Wright (4; 17; 24).
Ambrose (Hexameron vi. 38; De Interpell. ii. 5; Apol. proph. David II. iv.
            26; Luc. vii. 81; De Poenit. I. viii. 35; De Spir. S. II.
            xiii. 151).

Against:—
Eusebius (Mai, Script. Vett. Nov. Collect. i. p. 1)(128).

16. St. Luke i. 28. εὐλογημένη, κ.τ.λ.

Traditional:—
Tertullian (De Virg. Vel. vi.).
Eusebius (Dem. Evan. vii. 329).
Aphraates (Dem. ix.).
Ambrose (Exposit. in loc.).

Against:—
Titus of Bostra (Exposit. in loc.; Adv. Manich. iii.).

17. St. Luke ii. 14. Εὐδοκία.

Traditional:—
Irenaeus (III. x. 4).
Origen (c. Celsum i. 60; Selecta in Ps. xlv.; Comment. in Matt. xvii.;
            Comment. in Joh. i. 13).
Apostol. Const. (vii. 47; viii. 12).
Methodius (Serm. de Simeon. et Anna).
Eusebius (Dem. Ev. iv. (163); vii. (342)).
Gregory Thaumaturgus (De Fid. Cap. 12).
Aphraates (Dem. ix.; xx.).
Titus of Bostra (Expos. in Luc. ad loc).
Athanasius (De Tit. Pss. Ps. cxlviii.).
Didymus (De Trin. i. 27; Expos. in Ps. lxxxiv.).
Basil (In S. Christ. Gen. 5).
Gregory Naz. (Or. xlv. i.).
Philo of Carpasus (iii. 167).
Epiphanius (Haer. I. 30. 29; III. 78. 15).
Gregory Nyss. (In Ps. xiv.; In Cant. Cant. xv.; In Diem Nat. Christ. 1138;
            De Occurs. Dom. 1156).
Ephraem Syr.(129) (Gr. iii. 434).

Against:—
Irenaeus (III. x. 4).
Optatus (De Schism. Don. iv. 4).
Cyril Jerus. (Cat. xii. 72).
Ambrose (Exposit. in Luc. ad loc.).
Juvencus (II. v. 174).

18. St. Luke x. 41-2. Ὀλίγων χρεία ἐστίν, ἢ ἑνός.

Traditional:—
Basil (Const. Monast. i. 1).
Macarius Aegypt. (De Orat.).
Evagrius Ponticus.

Against:—
Titus of Bostra (Exposit. in Luc. ad loc. But μεριμνᾷς).

19. St. Luke xxii. 43-4. Ministering Angel and Agony.

Traditional:—
Justin M. (Tryph. 103).
Irenaeus (Haer. III. xxii. 2; IV. xxxv. 3).
Tatian (Ciasca, 556).
Hippolytus (c. Haer. Noet. 5; 18).
Marcion (ad loc.).
Dionysius Alex. (Hermen. in Luc. ad loc.).
Eusebius (Sect. 283).
Athanasius (Expos. in Ps. lxviii.).
Ephraem Syrus (ap. Theodor. Mops.).
Gregory Naz. (xxx. 16).
Didymus (Trin. iii. 21).
Titus of Bostra (In Luc. ad loc.).
Epiphanius (Haer. II. (2) lxix. 19; 59; Ancor. 31; 37).
Arius (Epiph. Haer. lxix. 19; 61)(130).

Against:—none.

20. St. Luke xxiii. 34. Our Lord’s Prayer for His murderers.

Traditional:—
Hegesippus (Eus. H. E. ii. 23).
Ps. Justin (Quaest. et Respons. 108—bis).
Irenaeus (c. Haer. III. xviii. 5).
Archelaus (xliv.).
Marcion (in loc.).
Hippolytus (c. Noet. 18).
Clementines (Recogn. vi. 5; Hom. xi. 20).
Apost. Const. (ii. 16; v. 14).
Athanasius (De Tit. Pss., Ps. cv.).
Eusebius (canon x.).
Didymus (Trin. iii. 21).
Amphilochius (Orat. in d. Sabbati).
Hilary (De Trin. i. 32).
Ambrose (De Joseph, xii. 69; De Interpell. III. ii. 6; In Ps. CXVIII. iii.
            8; xiv. 28; Expos. Luc. v. 77; x. 62; Cant. Cant. i. 46).
Gregory Nyss. (De Perf. Christ. anim. forma—bis).
Titus of Bostra (Comment. Luc. ad loc.—bis).
Acta Pilati (x. 5).
Basil (Adv. Eunom. iv. 290).
Gregory Naz. (Orat. iv. 78).
Ephraem Syr. (ii. 321).
Acta Philippi (§ 26).
Quaestiones ex Utroque Test. (N.T. 67; Mixtae II. (1) 4).
Apocryphal Acts of the Gospels (Wright), 11; (16)(131).

Against:—none.

21. St. Luke xxiii. 38. The Superscription.

Traditional:—
Marcion (ad loc.).
Eusebius (Eclog. Proph. II. xiv.).
Gospel of Peter (i. 11).
Acta Pilati (x. 1).
Gregory Nyss. (In Cant. Cant. vii.).
Titus of Bostra (In Luc. ad loc).

Against:—none.

22. St. Luke xxiii. 45. ἐσκοτίσθη.

Traditional:—
Marcion (ad loc.).
Gospel of Peter (§ 5).
Acta Pilati.
Anaphora Pilati (§ 7).
Hippolytus (c. Haer. Noet. 18).
Tertullian (Adv. Jud. xiii.).
Athanasius (De Incarn. Verb. 49; ad Adelph. 3; ap. Epiph. i. 1006).
Cyril Jerus. (Cat. xiii. 24).
Macarius Magnes (iii. 17).
Julius Africanus (Chronicon, v. 1).
Apocryphal Acts of the Gospels (Wright, p. 16).
Ephraem Syrus (ii. 48).

Against:—
Origen (Cels. ii. 35).
Acta Pilati.

Eusebius mentions the reading ἐκλιπόντος, but appears afterwards to
condemn it(132).

23. St. Luke xxiv. 40. The Verse.

Traditional:—
Marcion (ad loc.).
Tertullian (De Carne Christi 5).
Athanasius (ad Epictet. 7; quoted by Epiph. i. 1003).
Eusebius (ap. Mai, ii. 294).
Ambrose (ap. Theodoret, iv. 141).
Epiphanius (Haer. III. lxxvii. 9)(133).

Against:—none.

24. St. Luke xxiv. 42. ἀπὸ μελισσίου κηρίου.

Traditional:—
Marcion (ad loc.).
Justin Martyr (bis).
Clemens Alex.
Tertullian.
Athanasius (c. Arian. iv. 35).
Cyril Jerus. (bis).
Gregory Nyss.
Epiphanius.

Against:—
Clemens Alex. Paed. i. 5(134).

25. St. John i. 3-4. Full stop at the end of the Verse?

Traditional:—
Athanasius (Serm. in Nativ. Christ. iii.).
Eusebius (Praep. Evan. xi. 19).
Didymus (De Trin. I. xv.).
Gregory Nyss. (c. Eunom. i. p. 348—bis; ii. p. 450; p. 461; p. 468; iv. p.
            584; v. p. 591).
Epiphanius (Haer. I. (xliii.) 1; II. (li.) 12; (lxv.) 3; (lxix.) 56;
            Ancoratus lxxv.).
Alexandrians and Egyptians (Ambrose In Ps. 36).

Against:—
Irenaeus (I. viii. 5 (2); III. xi. 1).
Theodotus (ap. Clem. Alex. vi.).
Hippolytus (Philosoph. V. i. 8; 17).
Clemens Alex. (Paed. ii. 9).
Valentinians (ap. Epiph. Haer. I. (xxxi.) 27).
Origen (c. Cels. vi. 5; Princip. II. ix. 4; IV. i. 30; In Joh. i. 22; 34;
            ii. 6; 10; 12; 13—bis; in Rom. iii. 10; 15; c. Haer. v. 151).
Eusebius (de Eccles. Theol. II. xiv.).
Basil (c. Eunom. V. 303).
Gregory Nyss. (De Cant. Cant. Hom. ii.).
Candidus Arianus (De Generat. Div.).
Victorinus Afer (Adv. Arium I. iv. 33; 41).
Hilary (De Trin. i. 10).
Ambrose (In Ps. xxxvi. 35 (4);
De Fide III. vi. 41-2—tris)(135).

26. St. John i. 18. Ὁ Μονογένης Υἱός.

Traditional:—
Irenaeus (c. Haeres. III. xi. 6; IV. xx. 6).
Tertullian (Adv. Praxean xv.).
Hippolytus (c. Haeres. Noeti 5).
Synodus Antiochena.
Archelaus (Manes) (xxxii.).
Origen (Comment. in Joh. vi. 2; c. Celsum ii. 71).
Eusebius (De Eccles. Theol. I. ix.; II. xi.; xxiii.).
Alexander Alex. (Epist.).
Gregory Naz. (Orat. xxix. 17).
Cyril Jerus. (Cat. vii. 11).
Didymus (In Ps. cix.).
Athanasius (De Decr. Nic. Syn. xiii.; xxi.; c. Arianos ii. 62; iv. 26).
Titus of Bostra (Adv. Manichaeos iii. 6).
Basil (De Spir. S. xi.; Hom. in Ps. xxviii. 3; Epist. ccxxxiv.; Sermons
            xv. 3).
Gregory Nyss. (c. Eunom. ii. p. 522).
Hilary (De Trin. iv. 8; 42; vi. 39; 40).
Ambrose (De Interpell. I. x. 30; De Benedict, xi. 51; Expos. in Luc. i.
            25—bis; ii. 12; De Fide III. iii. 24; De Spir. S. I. i. 26).
Eustathius (De Engastr. 18).
Faustinus (De Trin. ii. 5—tris).
Quaest. ex Utroque Test. (71; 91).
Victorinus Afer (De Generat. Verb. xvi.; xx.; Adv. Arium i. 2—bis; iv. 8;
            32).

Against:—
Irenaeus (IV. xx. 11).
Theodotus (ap. Clem. vi.).
Clemens Alex. (Strom. v. 12).
Origen (Comment, in Joh. II. 29; XXXII. 13).
Eusebius (Υἱὸς or Θεός, De Eccles. Theol. I. ix-x.).
Didymus (De Trin. i. 15; ii. 5; 16).
Arius (ap. Epiph. 73—Tisch.).
Basil (De Spiritu Sanct. vi.; c. Eunom. i. p. 623).
Gregory Nyss. (c. Eunom. iii. p. 577—bis; 581).
Epiphanius (Adv. Haeres. II. (lxv.) 5; III. (lxx.) 7).

27. St. John iii. 13. Ὁ ὢν ἐν τῷ Οὐρανῷ.

Traditional:—
Hippolytus (c. Haer. Noet. 4).
Novatian (De Trin. 13).
Athanasius (i. 1275; Frag. p. 1222, apud Panopl. Euthym. Zyg.).
Origen (In Gen. Hom. iv. 5; In Rom. viii. 2—bis).
Basil (Adv. Eunom. iv. 2).
Amphilochius (Sentent. et Excurs. xix.).
Didymus (De Trin. III. ix.).
Theodorus Heracleensis (In Is. liii. 5).
Lucifer (Pro S. Athan. ii.).
Epiphanius (Haer. II. lvii. 7).
Eustathius (De Engastr. 18).
Zeno (xii. I).
Hilary (Tract. in Ps. ii. 11; cxxxviii. 22; De Trin. x. 16).
Ambrose (In Ps. xxxix. 17; xliii. 39; Expos. in Luc. vii. 74).
Aphraates (Dem. viii.).

Against:—some Fathers quote as far as these words and then stop, so that
it is impossible to know whether they stopped because the words were not
in their copies, or because they did not wish to quote further. On some
occasions at least it is evident that it was not to their purpose to quote
further than they did, e.g. Greg. Naz. Ep. ci. Eusebius (Eclog. Proph.
ii.) is only less doubtful(136). See Revision Revised, p. 134, note.

28. St. John X. 14. γινώσκομαι ὑπὸ τῶν ἐμῶν.

Traditional:—
Macarius Aegypt. (Hom. vi.).
Gregory Naz. (orat. xv. end; xxxiii. 15).

Against:—
Eusebius (Comment. in Isaiam 8).
Basil (Hom. xxi.; xxiii.).
Epiphanius (Comm. in Ps. lxvi.)(137).

29. St. John xvii. 24. οὕς (or ὅ).

Traditional:—
Irenaeus (c. Haeres. IV. xiv. 1).
Cyprian (De Mortal, xxii.; Test. ad Jud. iii. 58)(138).
Clemens Alex. (Paed. i. 8).
Athanasius (De Tit. Pss. Ps. iii.).
Eusebius (De Eccles. Theol. iii. 17—bis; c. Marcell. p. 292).
Hilary (Tract. in Ps. lxiv. 5; De Trin. ix. 50).
Ambrose (De Bon. Mort. xii. 54; De Fide V. vi. 86; De Spirit. S. II. viii.
            76).
Quaestiones ex N. T. (75)(139).

Against:—
Clemens Alex. (140—Tisch.).

30. St. John xxi. 25. The Verse.

Traditional:—
Origen (Princ. II. vi.; vol. ii. 1 = 81; In Matt. XIV. 12; In Luc. Hom.
            xxvii; xxix; In Joh. I. 11; V. ap. Eus. H. E. VI. 25; XIII. 5;
            XIX. 2; XX. 27; Cat. Corder. p. 474).
Pamphilus (Apol. pro Orig. Pref.; iii. ap. Gall. iv. pp. 9, 15).
Eusebius (Mai, iv. 297; Eus. H. E. vi. 25; Lat. iii. 964).
Gregory Nyss. (c. Eunom. xii.—bis).
Gregory Naz. (Orat. xxviii. 20).
Ambrose (Expos. Luc. I. 11).
Philastrius (Gall. vii. 499)(140).

Against:—none.

As far as the Fathers who died before 400 A.D. are concerned, the question
may now be put and answered. Do they witness to the Traditional Text as
existing from the first, or do they not? The results of the evidence, both
as regards the quantity and the quality of the testimony, enable us to
reply, not only that the Traditional Text was in existence, but that it
was predominant, during the period under review. Let any one who disputes
this conclusion make out for the Western Text, or the Alexandrian, or for
the Text of B and א, a case from the evidence of the Fathers which can
equal or surpass that which has been now placed before the reader.

An objection may be raised by those who are not well acquainted with the
quotations in the writings of the Fathers, that the materials of judgement
here produced are too scanty. But various characteristic features in their
mode of dealing with quotations should be particularly noticed. As far as
textual criticism is concerned, the quotations of the Fathers are fitful
and uncertain. They quote of course, not to hand down to future ages a
record of readings, but for their own special purpose in view. They may
quote an important passage in dispute, or they may leave it wholly
unnoticed. They often quote just enough for their purpose, and no more.
Some passages thus acquire a proverbial brevity. Again, they write down
over and over again, with unwearied richness of citation, especially from
St. John’s Gospel, words which are everywhere accepted: in fact, all
critics agree upon the most familiar places. Then again, the witness of
the Latin Fathers cannot always be accepted as being free from doubt, as
has been already explained. And the Greek Fathers themselves often work
words of the New Testament into the roll of their rhetorical sentences, so
that whilst evidence is given for the existence of a verse, or a longer
passage, or a book, no certain conclusions can be drawn as to the words
actually used or the order of them. This is particularly true of St.
Gregory of Nazianzus to the disappointment of the Textual Critic, and also
of his namesake of Nyssa, as well as of St. Basil. Others, like St.
Epiphanius, quote carelessly. Early quotation was usually loose and
inaccurate. It may be mentioned here, that the same Father, as has been
known about Origen since the days of Griesbach, often used conflicting
manuscripts. As will be seen more at length below, corruption crept in
from the very first.

Some ideas have been entertained respecting separate Fathers which are not
founded in truth. Clement of Alexandria and Origen are described as being
remarkable for the absence of Traditional readings in their works(141).
Whereas besides his general testimony of 82 to 72 as we have seen, Clement
witnesses in the list just given 8 times for them to 14 against them;
whilst Origen is found 44 times on the Traditional aide to 27 on the
Neologian. Clement as we shall see used mainly Alexandrian texts which
must have been growing up in his days, though he witnesses largely to
Traditional readings, whilst Origen employed other texts too. Hilary of
Poictiers is far from being against the Traditional Text, as has been
frequently said: though in his commentaries he did not use so Traditional
a text as in his De Trinitate and his other works. The texts of
Hippolytus, Methodius, Irenaeus, and even of Justin, are not of that
exclusively Western character which Dr. Hort ascribes to them(142).
Traditional readings occur almost equally with others in Justin’s works,
and predominate in the works of the other three.

But besides establishing the antiquity of the Traditional Text, the
quotations in the early Fathers reveal the streams of corruption which
prevailed in the first ages, till they were washed away by the vast
current of the transmission of the Text of the Gospels. Just as if we
ascended in a captive balloon over the Mississippi where the volume of the
Missouri has not yet become intermingled with the waters of the sister
river, so we may mount up above those ages and trace by their colour the
texts, or rather clusters of readings, which for some time struggled with
one another for the superiority. But a caution is needed. We must be
careful not to press our designation too far. We have to deal, not with
distinct dialects, nor with editions which were separately composed, nor
with any general forms of expression which grew up independently, nor in
fact with anything that would satisfy literally the full meaning of the
word “texts,” when we apply it as it has been used. What is properly meant
is that, of the variant readings of the words of the Gospels which from
whatever cause grew up more or less all over the Christian Church, so far
as we know, some have family likenesses of one kind or another, and may be
traced to a kindred source. It is only in this sense that we can use the
term Texts, and we must take care to be moderate in our conception and use
of it.

The Early Fathers may be conveniently classed, according to the colour of
their testimony, the locality where they flourished, and the age in which
they severally lived, under five heads, viz., Early Traditional, Later
Traditional, Syrio-Low Latin, Alexandrian, and what we may perhaps call
Caesarean.

I. _Early Traditional._

                                             _Traditional._   _Neologian._
Patres Apostolici and Didachè                11               4
Epistle to Diognetus                         1                0
Papias                                       1                0
Epistola Viennensium et Lugdunensium         1                0
Hegesippus                                   2                0
Seniores apud Irenaeum                       2                0
Justin(143)                                  17               20
Athenagoras                                  3                1
Gospel of Peter                              2                0
Testament of Abraham                         4                0
Irenaeus                                     63               41
Clementines                                  18               7
Hippolytus                                   26               11
                                             ——               ——
                                             151              84

II. _Later Traditional._

                                             _Traditional._   _Neologian._
Gregory Thaumaturgus                         11               3
Cornelius                                    4                1
Synodical Letter                             1                2
Archelaus (Manes)                            11               2
Apostolic Constitutions and Canons           61               28
Synodus Antiochena                           3                1
Concilia Carthaginiensia                     8                4
Methodius                                    14               8
Alexander Alexandrinus                       4                0
Theodorus Heracleensis                       2                0
Titus of Bostra                              44               24
Athanasius(—except Contra Arianos)(144)122   63
Serapion                                     5                1
Basil                                        272              105
Eunomius                                     1                0
Cyril of Jerusalem                           54               32
Firmicus Maternus                            3                1
Victorinus of Pettau                         4                3
Gregory of Nazianzus                         18               4
Hilary of Poictiers                          73               39
Eustathius                                   7                2
Macarius Aegyptius or Magnus                 36               17
Didymus                                      81               36
Victorinus Afer                              14               14
Gregory of Nyssa                             91               28
Faustinus                                    4                0
Optatus                                      10               3
Pacianus                                     2                2
Philastrius                                  7                6
Amphilochius (Iconium)                       27               10
Ambrose                                      169              77
Diodorus of Tarsus                           1                0
Epiphanius                                   123              78
Acta Pilati                                  5                1
Acta Philippi                                2                1
Macarius Magnes                              11               5
Quaestiones ex Utroque Testamento            13               6
Evagrius Ponticus                            4                0
Esaias Abbas                                 1                0
Philo of Carpasus                            9                2
                                             ——               ——
                                             1332             609

III. _Western or Syrio-Low Latin._

                                             _Traditional._   _Neologian._
Theophilus Antiochenus                       2                4
Callixtus and Pontianus (Popes)              1                2
Tertullian                                   74               65
Novatian                                     6                4
Cyprian                                      100              96
Zeno, Bishop of Verona                       3                5
Lucifer of Cagliari                          17               20
Lactantius                                   0                1
Juvencus (Spain)                             1                2
Julius (Pope)?                               1                2
Candidus Arianus                             0                1
Nemesius (Emesa)                             0                1
                                             ——               ——
                                             205              203

IV. _Alexandrian._

                                             _Traditional._   _Neologian._
Heracleon                                    1                7
Clement of Alexandria                        82               72
Dionysius of Alexandria                      12               5
Theognostus                                  0                1
Peter of Alexandria                          7                8
Arius                                        2                1
Athanasius (Orat. c. Arianos)                57               56
                                             ——               ——
                                             161              150

V. _Palestinian or Caesarean._

                                             _Traditional._   _Neologian._
Julius Africanus (Emmaus)                    1                1
Origen                                       460              491
Pamphilus of Caesarea                        5                1
Eusebius of Caesarea                         315              214
                                             ——               ——
                                             781              707

The lessons suggested by the groups of Fathers just assembled are now
sufficiently clear.

I. The original predominance of the Traditional Text is shewn in the list
given of the earliest Fathers. Their record proves that in their writings,
and so in the Church generally, corruption had made itself felt in the
earliest times, but that the pure waters generally prevailed.

II. The tradition is also carried on through the majority of the Fathers
who succeeded them. There is no break or interval: the witness is
continuous. Again, not the slightest confirmation is given to Dr. Hort’s
notion that a revision or recension was definitely accomplished at Antioch
in the middle of the fourth century. There was a gradual improvement, as
the Traditional Text gradually established itself against the forward and
persistent intrusion of corruption. But it is difficult, if not altogether
impossible, to discover a ripple on the surface betokening any movement in
the depths such as a revision or recension would necessitate.

III. A source of corruption is found in Low-Latin MSS. and especially in
Africa. The evidence of the Fathers shews that it does not appear to have
been so general as the name “Western” would suggest. But this will be a
subject of future investigation. There seems to have been a connexion
between some parts of the West in this respect with Syria, or rather with
part of Syria.

IV. Another source of corruption is fixed at Alexandria. This, as in the
last case, is exactly what we should expect, and will demand more
examination.

V. Syria and Egypt,—Europe, Asia, and Africa,—seem to meet in Palestine
under Origen.

But this points to a later time in the period under investigation. We must
now gather up the depositions of the earliest Versions.





CHAPTER VI. THE ANTIQUITY OF THE TRADITIONAL TEXT. II. WITNESS OF THE
EARLY SYRIAC VERSIONS.


The rise of Christianity and the spread of the Church in Syria was
startling in its rapidity. Damascus and Antioch shot up suddenly into
prominence as centres of Christian zeal, as if they had grown whilst men
slept.

The arrangement of places and events which occurred during our Lord’s
Ministry must have paved the way to this success, at least as regards
principally the nearer of the two cities just mentioned. Galilee, the
scene of the first year of His Ministry—“the acceptable year of the
Lord”—through its vicinity to Syria was admirably calculated for laying
the foundation of such a development. The fame of His miracles and
teaching extended far into the country. Much that He said and did happened
on the Syrian side of the Sea of Galilee. Especially was this the case
when, after the death of John the Baptist had shed consternation in the
ranks of His followers, and the Galilean populace refused to accompany Him
in His higher teaching, and the wiles of Herod were added as a source of
apprehension to the bitter opposition of Scribes and Pharisees, He spent
some months between the Passover and the Feast of Tabernacles in the north
and north-east of Palestine. If Damascus was not one of the “ten
cities(145),” yet the report of His twice feeding thousands, and of His
stay at Caesarea Philippi and in the neighbourhood(146) of Hermon, must
have reached that city. The seed must have been sown which afterwards
sprang up men knew not how.

Besides the evidence in the Acts of the Apostles, according to which
Antioch following upon Damascus became a basis of missionary effort hardly
second to Jerusalem, the records and legends of the Church in Syria leave
but little doubt that it soon spread over the region round about. The
stories relating to Abgar king of Edessa, the fame of St. Addaeus or
Thaddaeus as witnessed particularly by his Liturgy and “Doctrine,” and
various other Apocryphal Works(147), leave no doubt about the very early
extension of the Church throughout Syria. As long as Aramaic was the chief
vehicle of instruction, Syrian Christians most likely depended upon their
neighbours in Palestine for oral and written teaching. But when—probably
about the time of the investment of Jerusalem by Vespasian and Titus and
the temporary removal of the Church’s centre to Pella—through the care of
St. Matthew and the other Evangelists the Gospel was written in Greek,
some regular translation was needed and doubtless was made.

So far both Schools of Textual Criticism are agreed. The question between
them is, was this Translation the Peshitto, or was it the Curetonian? An
examination into the facts is required: neither School has any authority
to issue decrees.

The arguments in favour of the Curetonian being the oldest form of the
Syriac New Testament, and of the formation of the Peshitto in its present
condition from it, cannot be pronounced to be strong by any one who is
accustomed to weigh disputation. Doubtless this weakness or instability
may with truth be traced to the nature of the case, which will not yield a
better harvest even to the critical ingenuity of our opponents. May it not
with truth be said to be a symptom of a feeble cause?

Those arguments are mainly concerned with the internal character of the
two texts. It is asserted(148) (1) that the Curetonian was older than the
Peshitto which was brought afterwards into closer proximity with the
Greek. To this we may reply, that the truth of this plea depends upon the
nature of the revision thus claimed(149). Dr. Hort was perfectly logical
when he suggested, or rather asserted dogmatically, that such a drastic
revision as was necessary for turning the Curetonian into the Peshitto was
made in the third century at Edessa or Nisibis. The difficulty lay in his
manufacturing history to suit his purpose, instead of following it. The
fact is, that the internal difference between the text of the Curetonian
and the Peshitto is so great, that the former could only have arisen in
very queer times such as the earliest, when inaccuracy and looseness,
infidelity and perverseness, might have been answerable for anything. In
fact, the Curetonian must have been an adulteration of the Peshitto, or it
must have been partly an independent translation helped from other
sources: from the character of the text it could not have given rise to
it(150).

Again, when (2) Cureton lays stress upon “certain peculiarities in the
original Hebrew which are found in this text, but not in the Greek,” he
has not found others to follow him, and (3) the supposed agreement with
the Apocryphal Gospel according to the Hebrews, as regards any results to
be deduced from it, is of a similarly slippery nature. It will be best to
give his last argument in his own words:—“It is the internal evidence
afforded by the fact that upon comparing this text with the Greek of St.
Matthew and the parallel passages of St. Mark and St. Luke, they are found
to exhibit the same phenomena which we should, _a priori_, expect
certainly to discover, had we the plainest and most incontrovertible
testimony that they are all in reality translations from such an Aramaic
original as this.” He seems here to be trying to establish his position
that the Curetonian was at least based on the Hebrew original of St.
Matthew, to which he did not succeed in bringing over any scholars.

The reader will see that we need not linger upon these arguments. When
interpreted most favourably they carry us only a very short way towards
the dethronement of the great Peshitto, and the instalment of the little
Curetonian upon the seat of judgement. But there is more in what other
scholars have advanced. There are resemblances between the Curetonian,
some of the Old-Latin texts, the Codex Bezae, and perhaps Tatian’s
Diatessaron, which lead us to assign an early origin to many of the
peculiar readings in this manuscript. Yet there is no reason, but all the
reverse, for supposing that the Peshitto and the Curetonian were related
to one another in line-descent. The age of one need have nothing to do
with the age of the other. The theory of the Peshitto being derived from
the Curetonian through a process of revision like that of Jerome
constituting a Vulgate rests upon a false parallel(151). There are, or
were, multitudes of Old-Latin Texts, which in their confusion called for
some recension: we only know of two in Syriac which could possibly have
come into consideration. Of these, the Curetonian is but a fragment: and
the Codex Lewisianus, though it includes the greater part of the Four
Gospels, yet reckons so many omissions in important parts, has been so
determinedly mutilated, and above all is so utterly heretical(152), that
it must be altogether rejected from the circle of purer texts of the
Gospels. The disappointment caused to the adherents of the Curetonian, by
the failure of the fresh MS. which had been looked for with ardent hopes
to satisfy expectation, may be imagined. _Noscitur a sociis_: the
Curetonian is admitted by all to be closely allied to it, and must share
in the ignominy of its companion, at least to such an extent as to be
excluded from the progenitors of a Text so near to the Traditional Text as
the Peshitto must ever have been(153).

But what is the position which the Peshitto has occupied till the middle
of the present century? What is the evidence of facts on which we must
adjudicate its claim?

Till the time of Cureton, it has been regarded as _the_ Syriac Version,
adopted at the time when the translation of the New Testament was made
into that language, which must have been either the early part of the
second century, or the end of the first,—adopted too in the Unchangeable
East, and never deposed from its proud position. It can be traced by facts
of history or by actual documents to the beginning of the golden period of
Syriac Literature in the fifth century, when it is found to be firm in its
sway, and it is far from being deserted by testimony sufficient to track
it into the earlier ages of the Church.

The Peshitto in our own days is found in use amongst the Nestorians who
have always kept to it(154), by the Monophysites on the plains of Syria,
the Christians of St. Thomas in Malabar, and by “the Maronites on the
mountain-terraces of Lebanon(155).” Of these, the Maronites take us back
to the beginning of the eighth century when they as Monothelites separated
from the Eastern Church; the Monophysites to the middle of the fifth
century; the Nestorians to an earlier date in the same century. Hostile as
the two latter were to one another, they would not have agreed in reading
the same Version of the New Testament if that had not been well
established at the period of their separation. Nor would it have been thus
firmly established, if it had not by that time been generally received in
the country for a long series of years.

But the same conclusion is reached in the indubitable proof afforded by
the MSS. of the Peshitto Version which exist, dating from the fifth
century or thereabouts. Mr. Gwilliam in the third volume of Studia Biblica
et Ecclesiastica(156) mentions two MSS. dating about 450 A.D., besides
four of the fifth or sixth century, one of the latter, and three which
bear actual dates also of the sixth. These, with the exception of one in
the Vatican and one belonging to the Earl of Crawford, are from the
British Museum alone(157). So that according to the manuscriptal evidence
the treasures of little more than one library in the world exhibit a very
_apparatus criticus_ for the Peshitto, whilst the Curetonian can boast
only one manuscript and that in fragments, though of the fifth century.
And it follows too from this statement, that whereas only seven uncials of
any size can be produced from all parts of the world of the Greek Text of
the New Testament before the end of the sixth century, no less than eleven
or rather twelve of the Peshitto can be produced already before the same
date. Doubtless the Greek Text can boast certainly two, perhaps three, of
the fourth century: but the fact cannot but be taken to be very
remarkable, as proving, when compared with the universal Greek original,
how strongly the local Peshitto Version was established in the century in
which “commences the native historical literature of Syria(158).”

The commanding position thus occupied leads back virtually a long way.
Changes are difficult to introduce in “the unchangeable East.”
Accordingly, the use of the Peshitto is attested in the fourth century by
Ephraem Syrus and Aphraates. Ephraem “in the main used the Peshitto
text”—is the conclusion drawn by Mr. F. H. Woods in the third volume of
Studia Biblica(159). And as far as I may judge from a comparison of
readings(160), Aphraates witnesses for the Traditional Text, with which
the Peshitto mainly agrees, twenty-four times as against four. The
Peshitto thus reckons as its supporters the two earliest of the Syrian
Fathers.

But the course of the examination of all the primitive Fathers as
exhibited in the last section of this work suggests also another and an
earlier confirmation of the position here taken. It is well known that the
Peshitto is mainly in agreement with the Traditional Text. What therefore
proves one, virtually proves the other. If the text in the latter case is
dominant, it must also be in the former. If, as Dr. Hort admits, the
Traditional Text prevailed at Antioch from the middle of the fourth
century, is it not more probable that it should have been the continuance
of the text from the earliest times, than that a change should have been
made without a record in history, and that in a part of the world which
has been always alien to change? But besides the general traces of the
Traditional Text left in patristic writings in other districts of the
Church, we are not without special proofs in the parts about Syria. Though
the proofs are slight, they occur in a period which in other respects was
for the present purpose almost “a barren and dry land where no water is.”
Methodius, bishop of Tyre in the early part of the fourth century,
Archelaus, bishop in Mesopotamia in the latter half of the third, the
Synodus Antiochena in A.D. 265, at a greater distance Gregory Thaumaturgus
of Neocaesarea in Pontus who flourished about 243 and passed some time at
Caesarea in Palestine, are found to have used mainly Traditional MSS. in
Greek, and consequently witness to the use of the daughter text in Syriac.
Amongst those who employed different texts in nearly equal proportions
were Origen who passed his later years at Caesarea and Justin who issued
from the site of Sychar. Nor is there reason, whatever has been said, to
reject the reference made by Melito of Sardis about A.D. 170 in the words
ὁ Σύρος. At the very least, the Peshitto falls more naturally into the
larger testimony borne by the quotations in the Fathers, than would a text
of such a character as that which we find in the Curetonian or the Lewis
Codex.

But indeed, is it not surprising that the petty Curetonian with its single
fragmentary manuscript, and at the best its short history, even with so
discreditable an ally as the Lewis Codex, should try conclusions with what
we may fairly term the colossal Peshitto? How is it possible that one or
two such little rills should fill so great a channel?

But there is another solution of the difficulty which has been advocated
by the adherents of the Curetonian in some quarters since the discovery
made by Mrs. Lewis. It is urged that there is an original Syriac Text
which lies at the back of the Curetonian and the Codex Lewisianus, and
that this text possesses also the witness of the Diatessaron of
Tatian:—that those MSS. themselves are later, but that the Text of which
they give similar yet independent specimens is the Old Syriac,—the first
Version made from the Gospels in the earliest ages of the Church.

The evidence advanced in favour of this position is of a speculative and
vague nature, and moreover is not always advanced with accuracy. It is not
“the simple fact that no purely ‘Antiochene’ [i.e. Traditional] reading
occurs in the Sinai Palimpsest(161).” It is not true that “in the
Diatessaron Joseph and Mary are never spoken of as husband and wife,”
because in St. Matt. i. 19 Joseph is expressly called “her husband,” and
in verse 24 it is said that Joseph “took unto him Mary his wife.” It
should be observed that besides a resemblance between the three documents
in question, there is much divergence. The Cerinthian heresy, which is
spread much more widely over the Lewis Codex than its adherents like to
acknowledge, is absent from the other two. The interpolations of the
Curetonian are not adopted by the remaining members of the trio. The
Diatessaron, as far as we can judge,—for we possess no copy either in
Greek or in Syriac, but are obliged to depend upon two Arabic Versions
edited recently by Agostino Ciasca, a Latin Translation of a commentary on
it by Ephraem Syrus, and quotations made by Aphraates or Jacobus
Nisibenus—, differs very largely from either. That there is some
resemblance between the three we admit: and that the two Codexes are more
or less made up from very early readings, which we hold to be corrupt, we
do not deny. What we assert is, that it has never yet been proved that a
regular Text in Syriac can be constructed out of these documents which
would pass muster as the genuine Text of the Gospels; and that, especially
in the light shed by the strangely heretical character of one of the
leading associates, such a text, if composed, cannot with any probability
have formed any stage in the transmission of the pure text of the original
Version in Syriac to the pages of the Peshitto. If corruption existed in
the earliest ages, so did purity. The Word of GOD could not have been
dragged only through the mire.

We are thus driven to depend upon the leading historical facts of the
case. What we do know without question is this:—About the year 170 A.D.,
Tatian who had sojourned for some time at Rome drew up his Diatessaron,
which is found in the earlier half of the third century to have been read
in Divine service at Edessa(162). This work was current in some parts of
Syria in the time of Eusebius(163), to which assertion some evidence is
added by Epiphanius(164). Rabbūla, bishop of Edessa, A.D. 412-435(165),
ordered the presbyters and deacons of his diocese to provide copies of the
distinct or _Mĕpharrĕshe_ Gospels. Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrrhus near the
Euphrates(166), writes in 453 A.D., that he had turned out about two
hundred copies of Tatian’s Diatessaron from his churches, and had put the
Gospels of the four Evangelists in their place. These accounts are
confirmed by the testimony of many subsequent writers, whose words
together with those to which reference has just been made may be seen in
Mr. Hamlyn Hill’s book on the Diatessaron(167). It must be added, that in
the Curetonian we find “The _Mĕpharrĕsha_ Gospel of Matthew(168),” and the
Lewis Version is termed “The Gospel of the _Mĕpharrĕshe_ four books”; and
that they were written in the fifth century.

Such are the chief facts: what is the evident corollary? Surely, that
these two Codexes, which were written at the very time when the
Diatessaron of Tatian was cast out of the Syrian Churches, were written
purposely, and possibly amongst many other MSS. made at the same time, to
supply the place of it—copies of the _Mĕpharrĕshe_, i.e. Distinct or
Separate(169) Gospels, to replace the _Mĕhallĕte_ or Gospel of the Mixed.
When the sockets are found to have been prepared and marked, and the
pillars lie fitted and labelled, what else can we do than slip the pillars
into their own sockets? They were not very successful attempts, as might
have been expected, since the Peshitto, or in some places amongst the
Jacobites the Philoxenian or Harkleian, entirely supplanted them in future
use, and they lay hidden for centuries till sedulous inquiry unearthed
them, and the ingenuity of critics invested them with an importance not
their own(170).

What was the origin of the mass of floating readings, of which some were
transferred into the text of these two Codexes, will be considered in the
next section. Students should be cautioned against inferring that the
Diatessaron was read in service throughout Syria. There is no evidence to
warrant such a conclusion. The mention of Edessa and Cyrrhus point to the
country near the upper Euphrates; and the expression of Theodoret,
relating to the Diatessaron being used “in churches of our parts,” seems
to hint at a circumscribed region. Plenty of room was left for a
predominant use of the Peshitto, so far as we know: and no reason on that
score can be adduced to counterbalance the force of the arguments given in
this section in favour of the existence from the beginning of that great
Version.

Yet some critics endeavour to represent that the Peshitto was brought
first into prominence upon the supersession of the Diatessaron, though it
is never found under the special title of _Mĕpharrĕsha_. What is this but
to disregard the handposts of history in favour of a pet theory?





CHAPTER VII. THE ANTIQUITY OF THE TRADITIONAL TEXT. III. WITNESS OF THE
WESTERN OR SYRIO-LOW-LATIN TEXT.


There are problems in what is usually termed the Western Text of the New
Testament, which have not yet, as I believe, received satisfactory
treatment. Critics, including even Dr. Scrivener(171), have too readily
accepted Wiseman’s conclusion(172), that the numerous Latin Texts all come
from one stem, in fact that there was originally only one Old-Latin
Version, not several.

That this is at first sight the conclusion pressed upon the mind of the
inquirer, I readily admit. The words and phrases, the general cast and
flow of the sentences, are so similar in these texts, that it seems at the
outset extremely difficult to resist the inference that all of them began
from the same translation, and that the differences between them arose
from the continued effect of various and peculiar circumstances upon them
and from a long course of copying. But examination will reveal on better
acquaintance certain obstinate features which will not allow us to be
guided by first appearances. And before investigating these, we may note
that there are some considerations of a general character which take the
edge off this phenomenon.

Supposing that Old-Latin Texts had a multiform origin, they must have
gravitated towards more uniformity of expression: intercourse between
Christians who used different translations of a single original must, in
unimportant points at least, have led them to greater agreement. Besides
this, the identity of the venerated original in all the cases, except
where different readings had crept into the Greek, must have produced a
constant likeness to one another, in all translations made into the same
language and meant to be faithful. If on the other hand there were
numerous Versions, it is clear that in those which have descended to us
there must have been a survival of the fittest.

But it is now necessary to look closely into the evidence, for the answers
to all problems must depend upon that, and upon nothing but that.

The first point that strikes us is that there is in this respect a generic
difference between the other Versions and the Old-Latin. The former are in
each case one, with no suspicion of various origination. Gothic, Bohairic,
Sahidic, Armenian (though the joint work of Sahak and Mesrop and Eznik and
others), Ethiopic, Slavonic:—each is one Version and came from one general
source without doubt or question. Codexes may differ: that is merely
within the range of transcriptional accuracy, and has nothing to do with
the making of the Version. But there is no preeminent Version in the
Old-Latin field. Various texts compete with difference enough to raise the
question. Upon disputed readings they usually give discordant verdicts.
And this discord is found, not as in Greek Codexes where the testifying
MSS. generally divide into two hostile bodies, but in greater and more
irregular discrepancy. Their varied character may be seen in the following
Table including the Texts employed by Tischendorf, which has been
constructed from that scholar’s notes upon the basis of the chief passages
in dispute, as revealed in the text of the Revised Version throughout the
Gospels, the standard being the _Textus Receptus_:—

Brixianus, f                                         286/54(173) =
                                                     about 16/3
Monacensis, q                                        255/97 = 5/2 +
Claromontanus, h (only in St. Matt.)                 46/26 = 5/3 +
Colbertinus, c                                       165/152 = about
                                                     14/13
Fragm. Sangall. n                                    6/6 = 1
Veronensis, b                                        124/184 = 2/3 +
Sangermanensis II, g2                                24/36 = 2/3
Corbeiensis II, ff2                                  113/180 = 2/3 -
Sangermanensis I, g2                                 27/46 = 3/5 -
Rehdigeranus, I                                      104/164 = 5/8 +
Vindobonensis, i                                     37/72 = 1/2 +
Vercellensis, a                                      100/214 = 1/2 -
Corbeiensis I, ff1                                   37/73 = 1/2 -
Speculum, m                                          8/18 = 1/2 -
Palatinus, e                                         48/130 = 1/3 +
Frag. Ambrosiana, s                                  2/6 = 1/3
Bobiensis, k                                         25/93 = 1/4 +

Looking dispassionately at this Table, the reader will surely observe that
these MSS. shade off from one another by intervals of a somewhat similar
character. They do not fall readily into classes: so that if the threefold
division of Dr. Hort is adopted, it must be employed as not meaning very
much. The appearances are against all being derived from the extreme left
or from the extreme right. And some current modes of thought must be
guarded against, as for instance when a scholar recently laid down as an
axiom which all critics would admit, that _k_ might be taken as the
representative of the Old-Latin Texts, which would be about as true as if
Mr. Labouchere at the present day were said to represent in opinion the
Members of the House of Commons.

The sporadic nature of these Texts may be further exhibited, if we take
the thirty passages which helped us in the second section of this chapter.
The attestation yielded by the Old-Latin MSS. will help still more in the
exhibition of their character.

               _Traditional._              _Neologian._
St. Matt.
i. 25          f. ff1. g2. q.              b. c. g1. k.
v. 44          (1) c. f. h.                a. b. ff1. g1.2. k. l.
               (2) a. b. c. f. h.
vi. 13         f. g1. q.                   a. b. c. ff1. g2. l.
vii. 13        f. ff2. g1.2. q.            a. b. c. h. k. m.
ix. 13         c. g1.2.                    a. b. f. ff1. h. k. l. q.
xi. 27         All.
xvii. 21       “Most” a. b. c.             e. ff1. (?) g1.
xviii. 11                                  e. ff1.
xix. 17
(1) ἀγαθέ      b. c. f. ff2.               a. e. ff1. g1.2. h. q.
(2) τί με      f. q.                       a. b. c. e. ff1.2. g1. h.
ἐρωτᾷς                                     l. (Vulg.)
κ.τ.λ.
(3) εἶς ἐστ.   f. g1. m. q.                b.c.ff1.2. g1. h. l.
ὁ ἀγ.                                      (Vulg.)
xxiii. 38.     All—except                  ff2.
(Lk. xiii.
35)
xxvii. 34      c. f. h. q.                 a. b. ff1.2. g1.2. l.
                                           (Vulg.)
xxviii. 2      f. h.                       a. b. c. ff1.2. g1.2. l.
                                           n.
"   19         All.
St. Mark
i. 2                                       All.
xvi. 9-20      All—except                  k.
St. Luke
i. 28          All.
ii. 14                                     All.
x. 41-42       f. g1.2. q. (Vulg.)         a. b. c. e. ff2. i. l.
xxii. 43-44    a. b. c. e. ff2. g1.2. i.   f.
               l. q.
xxiii. 34      c. e. f. ff2. l.            a. b. d.
"   38         All—except                  a.
"   45         a. b. c. e. f. ff2. l. q.
xxiv. 40       c. f. q.                    a. b. d. e. ff2. l.
"   42         a. b. f. ff2. l. q.         e.
St. John
i. 3-4         c. (Vulg.)                  a. b. e. ff2. q.
"   18         a. b. c. e. f. ff2. l. q.
iii. 13        All.
x. 14                                      All.
xvii. 24       All (Vulg.)                 Vulg. MSS.
xxi. 25        All.

It will be observed that in all of these thirty passages, Old-Latin MSS.
witness on both sides and in a sporadic way, except in three on the
Traditional side and six on the Neologian side, making nine in all against
twenty-one. In this respect they stand in striking contrast with all the
Versions in other languages as exhibiting a discordance in their witness
which is at the very least far from suggesting a single source, if it be
not wholly inconsistent with such a supposition.

Again, the variety of synonyms found in these texts is so great that they
could not have arisen except from variety of origin. Copyists do not
insert _ad libitum_ different modes of expression. For example, Mr. White
has remarked that ἐπιτιμᾷν is translated “in no less than eleven different
ways,” or adding _arguere_, in twelve, viz. by

admonere          emendare          minari            praecipere
comminari         imperare          obsecrare         prohibere
corripere(174)    increpare         objurgare         arguere (r).

It is true that some of these occur on the same MS., but the variety of
expression in parallel passages hardly agrees with descent from a single
prototype. Greek MSS. differ in readings, but not in the same way.
Similarly δοξάζω, which occurs, as he tells us, thirty-seven times in the
Gospels, is rendered by _clarifico_, _glorifico_, _honorem accipio_,
_honorifico_, _honoro_, _magnifico_, some passages presenting four
variations. So again, it is impossible to understand how συνοχή in the
phrase συνοχή ἐθνῶν (St. Luke xxi. 25) could have been translated by
compressio (Vercellensis, _a_), _occursus_ (Brixianus, _f_), _pressura_
(others), _conflictio_ (Bezae, _d_), if they had a common descent. They
represent evidently efforts made by independent translators to express the
meaning of a difficult word. When we meet with _possidebo_ and
_haereditabo_ for κληρονομήσω (St. Luke x. 25) _lumen_ and _lux_ for φῶς
(St. John i. 9), _ante galli cantum_ and _antequam gallus cantet_ for πρὶν
ἀλέκτορα φωνῆσαι (St. Matt. xxvi. 34), _locum_ and _praedium_ and _in
agro_ for χωρίον (xxvi. 35), _transfer a me calicem istum_ and _transeat a
me calix iste_ for παρελθέτω ἀπ᾽ ἐμοῦ τὸ ποτήριον τοῦτο (xxvi. 39);—when
we fall upon _vox venit de caelis_, _vox facta est de caelis_, _vox de
caelo facta est_, _vox de caelis_, and the like; or _qui mihi bene
complacuisti_, _charissimus in te complacui_, _dilectus in quo bene
placuit mihi_, _dilectus in te bene sensi_ (St. Mark i. 11), or
_adsumpsit_ (_autem_ ... _duodecim_), _adsumens_, _convocatis_ (St. Luke
xviii. 31) it is clear that these and the instances of the same sort
occurring everywhere in the Old-Latin Texts must be taken as finger-posts
pointing in many directions. Various readings in Greek Codexes present,
not a parallel, but a sharp contrast. No such profusion of synonyms can be
produced from them.

The arguments which the Old-Latin Texts supply internally about themselves
are confirmed exactly by the direct evidence borne by St. Augustine and
St. Jerome. The well-known words of those two great men who must be held
to be competent deponents as to what they found around them, even if they
might fall into error upon the events of previous ages, prove (1) that a
very large number of texts then existed, (2) that they differed greatly
from one another, (3) that none had any special authority, and (4) that
translators worked on their own independent lines(175). But there is the
strongest reason for inferring that Augustine was right when he said, that
“in the earliest days of the faith whenever any Greek codex fell into the
hands of any one who thought that he had slight familiarity (_aliquantulum
facultatis_) with Greek and Latin, he was bold enough to attempt to make a
translation(176).” For what else could have happened than what St.
Augustine says actually did take place? The extraordinary value and
influence of the sacred Books of the New Testament became apparent soon
after their publication. They were most potent forces in converting
unbelievers: they swayed the lives and informed the minds of Christians:
they were read in the services of the Church. But copies in any number, if
at all, could not be ordered at Antioch, or Ephesus, or Rome, or
Alexandria. And at first no doubt translations into Latin were not to be
had. Christianity grew almost of itself under the viewless action of the
HOLY GHOST: there were no administrative means of making provision. But
the Roman Empire was to a great extent bilingual. Many men of Latin origin
were acquainted more or less with Greek. The army which furnished so many
converts must have reckoned in its ranks, whether as officers or as
ordinary soldiers, a large number who were accomplished Greek scholars.
All evangelists and teachers would have to explain the new Books to those
who did not understand Greek. The steps were but short from oral to
written teaching, from answering questions and giving exposition to making
regular translations in fragments or books and afterwards throughout the
New Testament. The resistless energy of the Christian faith must have
demanded such offices on behalf of the Latin-speaking members of the
Church, and must have produced hundreds of versions, fragmentary and
complete. Given the two languages side by side, under the stress of the
necessity of learning and the eagerness to drink in the Words of Life, the
information given by St. Augustine must have been amply verified. And the
only wonder is, that scholars have not paid more attention to the witness
of that eminent Father, and have missed seeing how natural and true it
was.

It is instructive to trace how the error arose. It came chiefly, if I
mistake not, from two ingenious letters of Cardinal Wiseman, then a young
man, and from the familiarity which they displayed with early African
Literature. So Lachmann, Tischendorf, Davidson, Tregelles, Scrivener, and
Westcott and Hort, followed him. Yet an error lies at the root of
Wiseman’s argument which, if the thing had appeared now, scholars would
not have let pass unchallenged and uncorrected.

Because the Bobbian text agreed in the main with the texts of Tertullian,
Cyprian, Arnobius, and Primasius, Wiseman assumed that not only that text,
but also the dialectic forms involved in it, were peculiar to Africa and
took their rise there. But as Mr. White has pointed out(177), “that is
because during this period we are dependent almost exclusively on Africa
for our Latin Literature.” Moreover, as every accomplished Latin scholar
who is acquainted with the history of the language is aware, Low-Latin
took rise in Italy, when the provincial dialects of that Peninsula sprang
into prominence upon the commencement of the decay of the pure Latin race,
occurring through civil and foreign wars and the sanguinary proscriptions,
and from the consequent lapse in the predominance in literature of the
pure Latin Language. True, that the pure Latin and the Low-Latin continued
side by side for a long time, the former in the best literature, and the
latter in ever increasing volume. What is most apposite to the question,
the Roman colonists in France, Spain, Portugal, Provence, and Walachia,
consisted mainly of Italian blood which was not pure Latin, as is shewn
especially in the veteran soldiers who from time to time received grants
of land from their emperors or generals. The six Romance Languages are
mainly descended from the provincial dialects of the Italian Peninsula. It
would be contrary to the action of forces in history that such and so
strong a change of language should have been effected in an outlying
province, where the inhabitants mainly spoke another tongue altogether. It
is in the highest degree improbable that a new form of Latin should have
grown up in Africa, and should have thence spread across the
Mediterranean, and have carried its forms of speech into parts of the
extensive Roman Empire with which the country of its birth had no natural
communication. Low-Latin was the early product of the natural races in
north and central Italy, and from thence followed by well-known channels
into Africa and Gaul and elsewhere(178). We shall find in these truths
much light, unless I am deceived, to dispel our darkness upon the Western
text.

The best part of Wiseman’s letters occurs where he proves that St.
Augustine used Italian MSS. belonging to what the great Bishop of Hippo
terms the “Itala,” and pronounces to be the best of the Latin Versions.
Evidently the “Itala” was the highest form of Latin Version—highest, that
is, in the character and elegance of the Latin used in it, and
consequently in the correctness of its rendering. So here we now see our
way. Critics have always had some difficulty about Dr. Hort’s “European”
class, though there is doubtless a special character in _b_ and its
following. It appears now that there is no necessity for any embarrassment
about the intermediate MSS., because by unlocalizing the text supposed to
be African we have the Low-Latin Text prevailing over the less educated
parts of Italy, over Africa, and over Gaul, and other places away from
Rome and Milan and the other chief centres.

Beginning with the Itala, the other texts sink gradually downwards, till
we reach the lowest of all. There is thus no bar in the way of connecting
that most remarkable product of the Low-Latin Text, the Codex Bezae, with
any others, because the Latin Version of it stands simply as one of the
Low-Latin group.

Another difficulty is also removed. Amongst the most interesting and
valuable contributions to Sacred Textual Criticism that have come from the
fertile conception and lucid argument of Mr. Rendel Harris, has been the
proof of a closer connexion between the Low-Latin Text, as I must venture
to call it, and the form of Syrian Text exhibited in the Curetonian
Version, which he has given in his treatment of the Ferrar Group of Greek
MSS. Of course the general connexion between the two has been long known
to scholars. The resemblance between the Curetonian and Tatian’s
Diatessaron, to which the Lewis Codex must now be added, on the one hand,
and on the other the less perfect Old-Latin Texts is a commonplace in
Textual Criticism. But Mr. Harris has also shewn that there was probably a
Syriacization of the Codex Bezae, a view which has been strongly confirmed
on general points by Dr. Chase: and has further discovered evidence that
the text of the Ferrar Group of Cursives found its way into and out of
Syriac and carried back, according to Mr. Harris’ ingenious suggestion,
traces of its sojourn there. Dr. Chase has very recently shed more light
upon the subject in his book called “The Syro-Latin Element of the
Gospels(179).” So all these particulars exhibit in strong light the
connexion between the Old-Latin and the Syriac. If we are dealing, not so
much with the entire body of Western Texts, but as I contend with the
Low-Latin part of them in its wide circulation, there is no difficulty in
understanding how such a connexion arose. The Church in Rome shot up as
noiselessly as the Churches of Damascus and Antioch. How and why? The key
is given in the sixteenth chapter of St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans. How
could he have known intimately so many of the leading Roman Christians,
unless they had carried his teaching along the road of commerce from
Antioch to Rome? Such travellers, and they would by no means be confined
to the days of St. Paul, would understand Syriac as well as Latin. The
stories and books, told or written in Aramaic, must have gone through all
Syria, recounting the thrilling history of redemption before the
authorized accounts were given in Greek. Accordingly, in the earliest
times translations must have been made from Aramaic or Syriac into Latin,
as afterwards from Greek. Thus a connexion between the Italian and Syrian
Churches, and also between the teaching given in the two countries, must
have lain embedded in the foundations of their common Christianity, and
must have exercised an influence during very many years after.

This view of the interconnexion of the Syrian and Old-Latin readings leads
us on to what must have been at first the chief origin of corruption. “The
rulers derided Him”: “the common people heard Him gladly.” It does not, I
think, appear probable that the Gospels were written till after St. Paul
left Jerusalem for Rome. Literature of a high kind arose slowly in the
Church, and the great missionary Apostle was the pioneer. It is surely
impossible that the authors of the Synoptic Gospels should have seen one
another’s writings, because in that case they would not have differed so
much from one another(180). The effort of St. Luke (Pref.), made probably
during St. Paul’s imprisonment at Caesarea (Acts xxiv. 23), though he may
not have completed his Gospel then, most likely stimulated St. Matthew.
Thus in time the authorized Gospels were issued, not only to supply
complete and connected accounts, but to become accurate and standard
editions of what had hitherto been spread abroad in shorter or longer
narratives, and with more or less correctness or error. Indeed, it is
clear that before the Gospels were written many erroneous forms of the
stories which made up the oral or written Gospel must have been in vogue,
and that nowhere are these more likely to have prevailed than in Syria,
where the Church took root so rapidly and easily. But the readings thus
propagated, of which many found their way, especially in the West, into
the wording of the Gospels before St. Chrysostom, never could have entered
into the pure succession. Here and there they were interlopers and
usurpers, and after the manner of such claimants, had to some extent the
appearance of having sprung from the genuine stock. But they were ejected
during the period elapsing from the fourth to the eighth century, when the
Text of the New Testament was gradually purified.

This view is submitted to Textual students for verification.

                  ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

We have now traced back the Traditional Text to the earliest times. The
witness of the early Fathers has established the conclusion that there is
not the slightest uncertainty upon this point. To deny it is really a
piece of pure assumption. It rests upon the record of facts. Nor is there
any reason for hesitation in concluding that the career of the Peshitto
dates back in like manner. The Latin Texts, like others, are of two kinds:
both the Traditional Text and the forms of corruption find a place in
them. So that the testimony of these great Versions, Syriac and Latin, is
added to the testimony of the Fathers. There are no grounds for doubting
that the causeway of the pure text of the Holy Gospels, and by consequence
of the rest of the New Testament, has stood far above the marshes on
either side ever since those sacred Books were written. What can be the
attraction of those perilous quagmires, it is hard to understand. “An
highway shall be there, and a way”; “the redeemed shall walk there”; “the
wayfaring men, though fools, shall not err therein(181).”





CHAPTER VIII. ALEXANDRIA AND CAESAREA.




§ 1. Alexandrian Readings, and the Alexandrian School.


What is the real truth about the existence of an Alexandrian Text? Are
there, or are there not, sufficient elements of an Alexandrian character,
and of Alexandrian or Egyptian origin, to constitute a Text of the Holy
Gospels to be designated by that name?

So thought Griesbach, who conceived Origen to be the standard of the
Alexandrian text. Hort, who appears to have attributed to his Neutral text
much of the native products of Alexandria(182), speaks more of readings
than of text. The question must be decided upon the evidence of the case,
which shall now be in the main produced.

The Fathers or ancient writers who may be classed as Alexandrian in the
period under consideration are the following:—

                                             _Traditional._   _Neologian._
Heracleon                                    1                7
Clement of Alexandria                        82               72
Dionysius of Alexandria                      12               5
Theognosius                                  0                1
Peter of Alexandria                          7                8
Arius                                        2                1
Athanasius (c. Arianos)                      57               56
                                             ——               ——
                                             161              150

Under the thirty places already examined, Clement, the most important of
these writers, witnesses 8 times for the Traditional reading and 14 times
for the Neologian. Origen, who in his earlier years was a leader of this
school, testifies 44 and 27 times respectively in the order stated.

The Version which was most closely connected with Lower Egypt was the
Bohairic, and under the same thirty passages gives the ensuing evidence:—

1. Matt. i. 25. Omits. One MS. says the Greek has “her first-born son”.
2. " v. 44. Large majority, all but 5, omit. Some add in the margin.
3. " vi. 13. Only 5 MSS. have the doxology.
4. " vii. 13. All have it.
5. " ix. 13. 9 have it, and 3 in margin: 12 omit, besides the 3 just
            mentioned.
6. " xi. 27. All have βούληται.
7. " xvii. 21. Only 6 MSS. have it, besides 7 in margin or interlined: 11
            omit wholly.
8. " xviii. 11. Only 4 have it.
9. " xix. 16. Only 7 have “good,” besides a few corrections: 12 omit.
" " 17. Only 1 has it.
10. " xxiii. 38. Only 6 have it.
11. " xxvii. 34. One corrected and one which copied the correction. All
            the rest have οἶνον(183).
12. " xxviii. 2. All have it.
13. " " 19. All have it.
14. Mark i. 2. All (i.e. 25) give, Ἠσαΐᾳ.
15. " xvi. 9-20. None wholly omit: 2 give the alternative ending.
16. Luke  i. 28. Only 4 + 2 corrected have it: 12 omit.
17. "  ii. 14. All have εὐδοκία.
18. "  x. 41-2. Ὀλίγων δὲ (3 omit) ἐστὶ χρεία ἢ ἑνός: 1 omits ἢ ἑνός. 2
            corrected add “of them.”
19. " xxii. 43-4. Omitted by 18(184).
20. " xxiii. 34. All omit(185).
21. Luke xxiii. 38. All omit except 5(186) (?).
22. " " 45. All have ἐκλιπόντος(187).
23. " xxiv. 40. All have it.
24. " " 42. All omit(188).
25. John i. 3-4. All (except 1 which pauses at οὐδὲ ἕν) have it. The
            Sahidic is the other way.
26. " " 18. All have Θεός(189).
27. " iii. 13. Omitted by 9.
28. " x. 14. All have “mine know me.” The Bohairic has no passive: hence
            the error(190).
29. " xvii. 24. The Bohairic could not express οὕς: hence the error(191).
30. " xxi. 25. All have it.

The MSS. differ in number as to their witness in each place.

No manuscripts can be adduced as Alexandrian: and in fact we are
considering the ante-manuscriptal period. All reference therefore to
manuscripts would be consequent upon, not a factor in, the present
investigation.

It will be seen upon a review of this evidence, that the most striking
characteristic is found in the instability of it. The Bohairic wabbles
from side to side. Clement witnesses on both sides upon the thirty places
but mostly against the Traditional text, whilst his collected evidence in
all cases yields a slight majority to the latter side of the contention.
Origen on the contrary by a large majority rejects the Neologian readings
on the thirty passages, but acknowledges them by a small one in his
habitual quotations. It is very remarkable, and yet characteristic of
Origen, who indeed changed his home from Alexandria to Caesarea, that his
habit was to adopt one of the most notable of Syrio-Low-Latin readings in
preference to the Traditional reading prevalent at Alexandria. St. Ambrose
(in Ps. xxxvi. 35) in defending the reading of St. John i. 3-4, “without
Him was not anything made: that which was made was life in Him,” says that
Alexandrians and Egyptians follow the reading which is now adopted
everywhere except by Lachmann, Tregelles, and W.-Hort. It has been said
that Origen was in the habit of using MSS. of both kinds, and indeed no
one can examine his quotations without coming to that conclusion.

Therefore we are led first of all to the school of Christian Philosophy
which under the name of the Catechetical School has made Alexandria for
ever celebrated in the early annals of the Christian Church. Indeed Origen
was a Textual Critic. He spent much time and toil upon the text of the New
Testament, besides his great labours on the Old, because he found it
disfigured as he says by corruptions “some arising from the carelessness
of scribes, some from evil licence of emendation, some from arbitrary
omissions and interpolations(192).” Such a sitting in judgement, or as
perhaps it should be said with more justice to Origen such a pursuit of
inquiry, involved weighing of evidence on either side, of which there are
many indications in his works. The connexion of this school with the
school set up at Caesarea, to which place Origen appears to have brought
his manuscripts, and where he bequeathed his teaching and spirit to
sympathetic successors, will be carried out and described more fully in
the next section. Origen was the most prominent personage by far in the
Alexandrian School. His fame and influence in this province extended with
the reputation of his other writings long after his death. “When a writer
speaks of the ‘accurate copies,’ what he actually means is the text of
Scripture which was employed or approved by Origen(193).” Indeed it was an
elemental, inchoate school, dealing in an academical and eclectic spirit
with evidence of various kinds, highly intellectual rather than original,
as for example in the welcome given to the Syrio-Low-Latin variation of
St. Matt. xix. 16, 17, and addicted in some degree to alteration of
passages. It would appear that besides this critical temper and habit
there was to some extent a growth of provincial readings at Alexandria or
in the neighbourhood, and that modes of spelling which were rejected in
later ages took their rise there. Specimens of the former of these
peculiarities may be seen in the table of readings just given from the
Bohairic Version. The chief effects of Alexandrian study occurred in the
Caesarean school which now invites our consideration.




§ 2. Caesarean School.


In the year 231, as seems most probable, Origen finally left Alexandria.
His head-quarters thenceforward may be said to have been Caesarea in
Palestine, though he travelled into Greece and Arabia and stayed at
Neo-Caesarea in Cappadocia with his friend and pupil Gregory Thaumaturgus.
He had previously visited Rome: so that he must have been well qualified
by his experience as well as probably by his knowledge and collection of
MSS. to lay a broad foundation for the future settlement of the text. But
unfortunately his whole career marks him out as a man of uncertain
judgement. Like some others, he was a giant in learning, but ordinary in
the use of his learning. He was also closely connected with the
philosophical school of Alexandria, from which Arianism issued.

The leading figures in this remarkable School of Textual Criticism at
Caesarea were Origen and Eusebius, besides Pamphilus who forms the link
between the two. The ground-work of the School was the celebrated library
in the city which was formed upon the foundation supplied by Origen, so
far as the books in it escaped the general destruction of MSS. that
occurred in the persecution of Diocletian. It is remarkable, that although
there seems little doubt that the Vatican and Sinaitic MSS. were amongst
the fruits of this school, as will be shewn in the next chapter, the
witness of the writings of both Origen and Eusebius is so favourable as it
is to the Traditional Text. In the case of Origen there is as already
stated(194) not far from an equality between the totals on either side,
besides a majority of 44 to 27 on the thirty important texts: and the
numbers for Eusebius are respectively 315 to 214, and 41 to 11.

Palestine was well suited from its geographical position to be the site of
the junction of all the streams. The very same circumstances which adapted
it to be the arena of the great drama in the world’s history drew to its
shores the various elements in the representation in language of the most
characteristic part of the Word of God. The Traditional Text would reach
it by various routes: the Syrio-Low-Latin across the sea and from Syria:
the Alexandrian readings from the near neighbourhood. Origen in his
travels would help to assemble all. The various alien streams would thus
coalesce, and the text of B and א would be the result. But the readings of
MSS. recorded by Origen and especially by Eusebius prove that in this
broad school the Traditional Text gained at least a decided preponderance
according to the private choice of the latter scholar. Yet, as will be
shewn, he was probably, not the writer of B and of the six conjugate
leaves in א, yet as the executor of the order of Constantine the
superintendent also in copying those celebrated MSS. Was he then
influenced by the motives of a courtier in sending such texts as he
thought would be most acceptable to the Emperor? Or is it not more in
consonance with the facts of the case—especially as interpreted by the
subsequent spread in Constantinople of the Traditional Text(195)—, that we
should infer that the fifty MSS. sent included a large proportion of Texts
of another character? Eusebius, the Homoiousian or Semi-Arian, would thus
be the collector of copies to suit different tastes and opinions, and his
scholar and successor Acacius, the Homoean, would more probably be the
writer of B and of the six conjugate leaves of א(196). The trimming
character of the latitudinarian, and the violent forwardness of the
partisan, would appear to render such a supposition not unreasonable.
Estimating the school according to principles of historical philosophy,
and in consonance with both the existence of the Text denoted by B and א
and also the subsequent results, it must appear to us to be transitional
in character, including two distinct and incongruous solutions, of which
one was afterwards proved to be the right by the general acceptation in
the Church that even Dr. Hort acknowledges to have taken place.

An interesting inquiry is here suggested with respect to the two
celebrated MSS. just mentioned. How is it that we possess no MSS. of the
New Testament of any considerable size older than those, or at least no
other such MSS. as old as they are? Besides the disastrous results of the
persecution of Diocletian, there is much force in the reply of Dean
Burgon, that being generally recognized as bad MSS. they were left
standing on the shelf in their handsome covers, whilst others which were
more correct were being thumbed to pieces in constant use. But the
discoveries made since the Dean’s death enables me to suggest another
answer which will also help to enlarge our view on these matters.

The habit of writing on vellum belongs to Asia. The first mention of it
that we meet with occurs in the 58th chapter of the 5th book of Herodotus,
where the historian tells us that the Ionians wrote on the skins of sheep
and goats because they could not get “byblus,” or as we best know it,
papyrus. Vellum remained in comparative obscurity till the time of Eumenes
II, King of Pergamum. That intelligent potentate, wishing to enlarge his
library and being thwarted by the Ptolemies who refused out of jealousy to
supply him with papyrus, improved the skins of his country(197), and made
the “charta Pergamena,” from whence the term parchment has descended to
us. It will be remembered that St. Paul sent to Ephesus for “the books,
especially the parchments(198).” There is evidence that vellum was used at
Rome: but the chief materials employed there appear to have been waxen
tablets and papyrus. Martial, writing towards the end of the first
century, speaks of vellum MSS. of Homer, Virgil, Cicero, and Ovid(199).
But if such MSS. had prevailed generally, more would have come down to us.
The emergence of vellum into general use is marked and heralded by the
products of the library at Caesarea, which helped by the rising literary
activity in Asia and by the building of Constantinople, was probably the
means of the introduction of an improved employment of vellum. It has been
already noticed(200), that Acacius and Euzoius, successively bishops of
Caesarea after Eusebius, superintended the copying of papyrus manuscripts
upon vellum. Greek uncials were not unlike in general form to the square
Hebrew letters used at Jerusalem after the Captivity. The activity in
Asiatic Caesarea synchronized with the rise in the use of vellum. It would
seem that in moving there Origen deserted papyrus for the more durable
material.

A word to explain my argument. If vellum had been in constant use over the
Roman Empire during the first three centuries and a third which elapsed
before B and א were written, there ought to have been in existence some
remains of a material so capable of resisting the tear and wear of use and
time. As there are no vellum MSS. at all except the merest fragments
dating from before 330 A.D., we are perforce driven to infer that a
material for writing of a perishable nature was generally employed before
that period. Now not only had papyrus been for “long the recognized
material for literary use,” but we can trace its employment much later
than is usually supposed. It is true that the cultivation of the plant in
Egypt began to wane after the capture of Alexandria by the Mahommedans in
638 A.D., and the destruction of the famous libraries: but it continued in
existence during some centuries afterwards. It was grown also in Sicily
and Italy. “In France papyrus was in common use in the sixth century.” Sir
E. Maunde Thompson enumerates books now found in European Libraries of
Paris, Genoa, Milan, Vienna, Munich, and elsewhere, as far down as the
tenth century. The manufacture of it did not cease in Egypt till the tenth
century. The use of papyrus did not lapse finally till paper was
introduced into Europe by the Moors and Arabs(201), upon which occurrence
all writing was executed upon tougher substances, and the cursive hand
drove out uncial writing even from parchment.

The knowledge of the prevalence of papyrus, as to which any one may
satisfy himself by consulting Sir E. Maunde Thompson’s admirable book, and
of the employment of the cursive hand before Christ, must modify many of
the notions that have been widely entertained respecting the old Uncials.

1. In the first place, it will be clear that all the Cursive MSS. are not
by any means the descendants of the Uncials. If the employment of papyrus
in the earliest ages of the Christian Church was prevalent over by far the
greater part of the Roman Empire, and that description is I believe less
than the facts would warrant—then more than half of the stems of genealogy
must have originally consisted of papyrus manuscripts. And further, if the
use of papyrus continued long after the date of B and א, then it would not
only have occupied the earliest steps in the lines of descent, but much
later exemplars must have carried on the succession. But in consequence of
the perishable character of papyrus those exemplars have disappeared and
live only in their cursive posterity. This aspect alone of the case under
consideration invests the Cursives with much more interest and value than
many people would nowadays attribute to them.

2. But beyond this conclusion, light is shed upon the subject by the fact
now established beyond question, that cursive handwriting existed in the
world some centuries before Christ(202). For square letters (of course in
writing interspersed with circular lines) we go to Palestine and Syria,
and that may not impossibly be the reason why uncial Greek letters came
out first, as far as the evidence of extant remains can guide us, in those
countries. The change from uncial to cursive letters about the tenth
century is most remarkable. Must it not to a great extent have arisen from
the contemporary failure of papyrus which has been explained, and from the
cursive writers on papyrus now trying their hand on vellum and introducing
their more easy and rapid style of writing into that class of
manuscripts(203)? If so, the phenomenon shews itself, that by the very
manner in which they are written, Cursives mutely declare that they are
not solely the children of the Uncials. Speaking generally, they are the
progeny of a marriage between the two, and the papyrus MSS. would appear
to have been the better half.

Such results as have been reached in this chapter and the last have issued
from the advance made in discovery and research during the last ten years.
But these were not known to Tischendorf or Tregelles, and much less to
Lachmann. They could not have been embraced by Hort in his view of the
entire subject when he constructed his clever but unsound theory some
forty years ago(204). Surely our conclusion must be that the world is
leaving that school gradually behind.





CHAPTER IX. THE OLD UNCIALS. THE INFLUENCE OF ORIGEN.




§ 1(205).


Codex B was early enthroned on something like speculation, and has been
maintained upon the throne by what has strangely amounted to a positive
superstition. The text of this MS. was not accurately known till the
edition of Tischendorf appeared in 1867(206): and yet long before that
time it was regarded by many critics as the Queen of the Uncials. The
collations of Bartolocci, of Mico, of Rulotta, and of Birch, were not
trustworthy, though they far surpassed Mai’s two first editions. Yet the
prejudice in favour of the mysterious authority that was expected to issue
decrees from the Vatican(207) did not wait till the clear light of
criticism was shed upon its eccentricities and its defalcations. The same
spirit, biassed by sentiment not ruled by reason, has remained since more
has been disclosed of the real nature of this Codex(208).

A similar course has been pursued with respect to Codex א. It was perhaps
to be expected that human infirmity should have influenced Tischendorf in
his treatment of the treasure-trove by him: though his character for
judgement could not but be seriously injured by the fact that in his
eighth edition he altered the mature conclusions of his seventh in no less
than 3,572(209) instances, chiefly on account of the readings in his
beloved Sinaitic guide.

Yet whatever may be advanced against B may be alleged even more strongly
against א. It adds to the number of the blunders of its associate: it is
conspicuous for habitual carelessness or licence: it often by itself
deviates into glaring errors(210). The elevation of the Sinaitic into the
first place, which was effected by Tischendorf as far as his own practice
was concerned, has been applauded by only very few scholars: and it is
hardly conceivable that they could maintain their opinion, if they would
critically and impartially examine this erratic copy throughout the New
Testament for themselves.

The fact is that B and א were the products of the school of philosophy and
teaching which found its vent in Semi-Arian or Homoean opinions. The proof
of this position is somewhat difficult to give, but when the nature of the
question and the producible amount of evidence are taken into
consideration, is nevertheless quite satisfactory.

In the first place, according to the verdict of all critics the date of
these two MSS. coincides with the period when Semi-Arianism or some other
form of Arianism were in the ascendant in the East, and to all outward
appearance swayed the Universal Church. In the last years of his rule,
Constantine was under the domination of the Arianizing faction; and the
reign of Constantius II over all the provinces in the Roman Empire that
spoke Greek, during which encouragement was given to the great heretical
schools of the time, completed the two central decades of the fourth
century(211). It is a circumstance that cannot fail to give rise to
suspicion that the Vatican and Sinaitic MSS. had their origin under a
predominant influence of such evil fame. At the very least, careful
investigation is necessary to see whether those copies were in fact free
from that influence which has met with universal condemnation.

Now as we proceed further we are struck with another most remarkable
coincidence, which also as has been before noticed is admitted on all
hands, viz. that the period of the emergence of the Orthodox School from
oppression and the settlement in their favour of the great Nicene
controversy was also the time when the text of B and א sank into
condemnation. The Orthodox side under St. Chrysostom and others became
permanently supreme: so did also the Traditional Text. Are we then to
assume with our opponents that in the Church condemnation and acceptance
were inseparable companions? That at first heresy and the pure Text, and
afterwards orthodoxy and textual corruption, went hand in hand? That such
ill-matched couples graced the history of the Church? That upon so
fundamental a matter as the accuracy of the written standard of reference,
there was precision of text when heretics or those who dallied with heresy
were in power, but that the sacred Text was contaminated when the Orthodox
had things their own way? Is it indeed come to this, that for the pure and
undefiled Word of GOD we must search, not amongst those great men who
under the guidance of the Holy Spirit ascertained and settled for ever the
main Articles of the Faith, and the Canon of Holy Scripture, but amidst
the relics of those who were unable to agree with one another, and whose
fine-drawn subtleties in creed and policy have been the despair of the
historians, and a puzzle to students of Theological Science? It is not too
much to assert, that Theology and History know no such unscientific
conclusions.

It is therefore a circumstance full of significance that Codexes B and א
were produced in such untoward times(212), and fell into neglect on the
revival of orthodoxy, when the Traditional Text was permanently received.
But the case in hand rests also upon evidence more direct than this.

The influence which the writings of Origen exercised on the ancient Church
is indeed extraordinary. The fame of his learning added to the splendour
of his genius, his vast Biblical achievements and his real insight into
the depth of Scripture, conciliated for him the admiration and regard of
early Christendom. Let him be freely allowed the highest praise for the
profundity of many of his utterances, the ingenuity of almost all. It must
at the same time be admitted that he is bold in his speculations to the
verge, and beyond the verge, of rashness; unwarrantedly confident in his
assertions; deficient in sobriety; in his critical remarks even foolish. A
prodigious reader as well as a prodigious writer, his words would have
been of incalculable value, but that he seems to have been so saturated
with the strange speculations of the early heretics, that he sometimes
adopts their wild method; and in fact has not been reckoned among the
orthodox Fathers of the Church.

But (and this is the direction in which the foregoing remarks have tended)
Origen’s ruling passion is found to have been textual criticism(213). This
was at once his forte and his foible. In the library of his friend
Pamphilus at Caesarea were found many Codexes that had belonged to him,
and the autograph of his Hexapla, which was seen and used by St.
Jerome(214). In fact, the collection of books made by Pamphilus, in the
gathering of which at the very least he was deeply indebted to Origen,
became a centre from whence, after the destruction of copies in the
persecution of Diocletian, authority as to the sacred Text radiated in
various directions. Copying from papyrus on vellum was assiduously
prosecuted there(215). Constantine applied to Eusebius for fifty handsome
copies(216), amongst which it is not improbable that the manuscripts
(σωματία) B and א were to be actually found(217). But even if that is not
so, the Emperor would not have selected Eusebius for the order, if that
bishop had not been in the habit of providing copies: and Eusebius in fact
carried on the work which he had commenced under his friend Pamphilus, and
in which the latter must have followed the path pursued by Origen. Again,
Jerome is known to have resorted to this quarter(218), and various entries
in MSS. prove that others did the same(219). It is clear that the
celebrated library of Pamphilus exercised great influence in the province
of Textual Criticism; and the spirit of Origen was powerful throughout the
operations connected with it, at least till the Origenists got gradually
into disfavour and at length were finally condemned at the Fifth General
Council in A.D. 553.

But in connecting B and א with the Library at Caesarea we are not left
only to conjecture or inference. In a well-known colophon affixed to the
end of the book of Esther in א by the third corrector, it is stated that
from the beginning of the book of Kings to the end of Esther the MS. was
compared with a copy “corrected by the hand of the holy martyr Pamphilus,”
which itself was written and corrected after the Hexapla of Origen(220).
And a similar colophon may be found attached to the book of Ezra. It is
added that the Codex Sinaiticus (τόδε τὸ τεῦχος) and the Codex Pamphili
(τὸ αὐτὸ παλαιώτατον βιβλίον) manifested great agreement with one another.
The probability that א was thus at least in part copied from a manuscript
executed by Pamphilus is established by the facts that a certain “Codex
Marchalianus” is often mentioned which was due to Pamphilus and Eusebius;
and that Origen’s recension of the Old Testament, although he published no
edition of the Text of the New, possessed a great reputation. On the books
of Chronicles, St. Jerome mentions manuscripts executed by Origen with
great care, which were published by Pamphilus and Eusebius. And in Codex H
of St. Paul it is stated that that MS. was compared with a MS. in the
library of Caesarea “which was written by the hand of the holy
Pamphilus(221).” These notices added to the frequent reference by St.
Jerome and others to the critical (ἀκριβῆ) MSS., by which we are to
understand those which were distinguished by the approval of Origen or
were in consonance with the spirit of Origen, shew evidently the position
in criticism which the Library at Caesarea and its illustrious founder had
won in those days. And it is quite in keeping with that position that א
should have been sent forth from that “school of criticism.”

But if א was, then B must have been;—at least, if the supposition
certified by Tischendorf and Scrivener be true, that the six conjugate
leaves of א were written by the scribe of B. So there is a chain of
reference, fortified by the implied probability which has been furnished
for us from the actual facts of the case.

Yet Dr. Hort is “inclined to surmise that B and א were both written in the
West, probably at Rome; that the ancestors of B were wholly Western (in
the geographical, not the textual sense) up to a very early time indeed;
and that the ancestors of א were in great part Alexandrian, again in the
geographical, not the textual sense(222).” For this opinion, in which Dr.
Hort stands alone amongst authorities, there is nothing but “surmise”
founded upon very dark hints. In contrast with the evidence just brought
forward there is an absence of direct testimony: besides that the
connexion between the Western and Syrian Texts or Readings, which has been
recently confirmed in a very material degree, must weaken the force of
some of his arguments.




§ 2(223).


The points to which I am anxious rather to direct attention are (1) the
extent to which the works of Origen were studied by the ancients: and (2)
the curious discovery that Codexes אB, and to some extent D, either belong
to the same class as those with which Origen was chiefly familiar; or else
have been anciently manipulated into conformity with Origen’s teaching.
The former seems to me the more natural supposition; but either inference
equally satisfies my contention: viz. that Origen, and mainly BאD, are not
to be regarded as wholly independent authorities, but constitute a class.

The proof of this position is to be found in various passages where the
influence of Origen may be traced, such as in the omission of Υἱοῦ τοῦ
Θεοῦ—“The Son of God”—in Mark i. 1(224); and of ἐν Ἐφέσῳ—“at Ephesus”—in
Eph. i. 1(225); in the substitution of Bethabara (St. John i. 28) for
Bethany(226); in the omission of the second part of the last petition the
Lord’s Prayer in St. Luke(227), of ἔμπροσθέν μου γέγονεν in John i.
27(228).

He is also the cause why the important qualification εἰκῆ (“without a
cause”) is omitted by Bא from St. Matt. v. 22; and hence, in opposition to
the whole host of Copies, Versions(229), Fathers, has been banished from
the sacred Text by Lachmann, Tischendorf, W. Hort and the Revisers(230).
To the same influence, I am persuaded, is to be attributed the omission
from a little handful of copies (viz. A, B-א, D*, F-G, and 17*) of the
clause τῇ ἀληθείᾳ μὴ πείθεσθαι (“that you should not obey the truth”) Gal.
iii. 1. Jerome duly acknowledges those words while commenting on St.
Matthew’s Gospel(231); but when he comes to the place in Galatians(232),
he is observed, first to admit that the clause “is found in some copies,”
and straightway to add that “inasmuch as it is not found in the copies of
Adamantius(233), he omits it.” The clue to his omission is supplied by his
own statement that in writing on the Galatians he had made Origen his
guide(234). And yet the words stand in the Vulgate.

For:—

C Dc E K L P, 46 Cursives.
Vulg. Goth. Harkl. Arm. Ethiop.
Orig. ii. 373.
Cyril Al. ii. 737.
Ephr. Syr. iii. 203.
Macarius Magnes (or rather the heathen philosopher with whom he
            disputed),—128.
ps.-Athanas. ii. 454.
Theodoret ii. 40.
J. Damascene ii. 163.
Theodorus Studita,—433, 1136.
Hieron. vii. 418. c. Legitur in quibusdam codicibus, “Quis vos fascinavit
            non credere veritati?” Sed hoc, quia in exemplaribus Adamantii
            non habetur, omisimus.

Against:—

אABD*FG 17*.
d e f g—fu.
Peshitto, Bohairic.
Chrys.
Euthal. cod.
Exemplaria Adamantii.
Cyril 429.
Theodoret i. 658 (=Mai vii2 150).
Theodorus Mops.
Hier. vii. 418. c.

In a certain place Origen indulges in a mystical exposition of our LORD’S
two miracles of feeding(235); drawing marvellous inferences, as his manner
is, from the details of either miracle. We find that Hilary(236), that
Jerome(237), that Chrysostom(238), had Origen’s remarks before them when
they in turn commented on the miraculous feeding of the 4000. At the
feeding of the 5000, Origen points out that our LORD “commands the
multitude to sit down” (St. Matt. xiv. 19): but at the feeding of the
4000, He does not “command” but only “directs” them to sit down. (St.
Matt. xv. 35(239)) ... From which it is plain that Origen did not read as
we do in St. Matt. xv. 35, καὶ ἐκέλευσε τοῖς ὄχλοις—but παρήνγειλε τῷ ὄχλῳ
ἀναπεσεῖν; which is the reading of the parallel place in St. Mark (viii.
6). We should of course have assumed a slip of memory on Origen’s part;
but that אBD are found to exhibit the text of St. Matt. xv. 35 in
conformity with Origen(240). He is reasoning therefore from a MS. which he
has before him; and remarking, as his unfortunate manner is, on what
proves to be really nothing else but a palpable depravation of the text.

Speaking of St. John xiii. 26, Origen remarks,—“It is not written ‘He it
is to whom I shall give the sop’; but with the addition of ‘I shall dip’:
for it says, ‘I shall dip the sop and give it.’ ” This is the reading of
BCL and is adopted accordingly by some Editors. But surely it is a
depravation of the text which may be ascribed with confidence to the
officiousness of Origen himself. _Who_, at all events, on such precarious
evidence would surrender the established reading of the place, witnessed
to as it is by every other known MS. and by several of the Fathers? The
grounds on which Tischendorf reads βάψω το ψωμίον καὶ δώσω αὐτῷ, are
characteristic, and in their way a curiosity(241).

Take another instance of the same phenomenon. It is plain, from the
consent of (so to speak) all the copies, that our Saviour rejected the
Temptation which stands second in St. Luke’s Gospel with the words,—“Get
thee behind Me, Satan(242).” But Origen officiously points out that this
(quoting the words) is precisely what our LORD did not say. He adds a
reason,—“He said to Peter, ‘Get thee behind Me, Satan’; but to the Devil,
‘Get thee hence,’ without the addition ‘behind Me’; for to be behind Jesus
is a good thing(243).”

Our Saviour on a certain occasion (St. John viii. 38) thus addressed his
wicked countrymen:—“I speak that which I have seen with My Father; and ye
likewise do that which you have seen with your father.” He contrasts His
own gracious doctrines with their murderous deeds; and refers them to
their respective “Fathers,”—to “My Father,” that is, GOD; and to “your
father,” that is, the Devil(244). That this is the true sense of the place
appears plainly enough from the context. “Seen with” and “heard from(245)”
are the expressions employed on such occasions, because sight and hearing
are the faculties which best acquaint a man with the nature of that
whereof he discourses.

Origen, misapprehending the matter, maintains that GOD is the “Father”
spoken of on either side. He I suspect it was who, in order to support
this view, erased “My” and “your”; and in the second member of the
sentence, for “seen with,” substituted “heard from”;—as if a contrast had
been intended between the manner of the Divine and of the human
knowledge,—which would be clearly out of place. In this way, what is in
reality a revelation, becomes converted into a somewhat irrelevant
precept: “I speak the things which I have seen with the Father.” “Do ye
the things which ye have heard from the Father,”—which is how Lachmann,
Tischendorf, Tregelles, Alford exhibit the place. Cyril Alex. employed a
text thus impaired. Origen also puts ver. 39 into the form of a precept
(ἐστέ ... ποιεῖτε); but he has all the Fathers(246) (including
himself),—all the Versions,—all the copies against him, being supported
only by B.

But the evidence against “the restored reading” to which Alford invites
attention, (viz. omitting μου and substituting ἠκούσατε παρὰ τοῦ Πατρός
for ἑωράκατε παρὰ τῷ Πατρὶ ὑμῶν.) is overwhelming. Only five copies
(BCLTX) omit μου: only four (BLT, 13) omit ὑμῶν: a very little handful are
for substituting ἠκούσατε with the genitive for ἑωράκατε. Chrys.,
Apolinaris, Cyril Jerus., Ammonius, as well as every ancient version of
good repute, protest against such an exhibition of the text. In ver. 39,
only five read ἐστέ (אBDLT): while ποιεῖτε is found only in Cod. B.
Accordingly, some critics prefer the imperfect ἐποιεῖτε, which however is
only found in אDLT. “The reading is remarkable” says Alford. Yes, and
clearly fabricated. The ordinary text is right.




§ 3.


Besides these passages, in which there is actual evidence of a connexion
subsisting between the readings which they contain and Origen, the
sceptical character of the Vatican and Sinaitic manuscripts affords a
strong proof of the alliance between them and the Origenistic School. It
must be borne in mind that Origen was not answerable for all the tenets of
the School which bore his name, even perhaps less than Calvin was
responsible for all that Calvinists after him have held and taught.
Origenistic doctrines came from the blending of philosophy with
Christianity in the schools of Alexandria where Origen was the most
eminent of the teachers engaged(247).





CHAPTER X. THE OLD UNCIALS. CODEX D.




§ 1(248).


It is specially remarkable that the Canon of Holy Scripture, which like
the Text had met with opposition, was being settled in the later part of
the century in which these two manuscripts were produced, or at the
beginning of the next. The two questions appear to have met together in
Eusebius. His latitudinarian proclivities seem to have led him in his
celebrated words(249) to lay undue stress upon the objections felt by some
persons to a few of the Books of the New Testament; and cause us therefore
not to wonder that he should also have countenanced those who wished
without reason to leave out portions of the Text. Now the first occasion,
as is well known, when we find all the Books of the New Testament
recognized with authority occurred at the Council of Laodicea in 363 A.D.,
if the passage is genuine(250), which is very doubtful; and the settlement
of the Canon which was thus initiated, and was accomplished by about the
end of the century, was followed, as was natural, by the settlement of the
Text. But inasmuch as the latter involved a large multitude of intricate
questions, and corruption had crept in and had acquired a very firm hold,
it was long before universal acquiescence finally ensued upon the general
acceptance effected in the time of St. Chrysostom. In fact, the Nature of
the Divine Word, and the character of the Written Word, were confirmed
about the same time:—mainly, in the period when the Nicene Creed was
re-asserted at the Council of Constantinople in 381 A.D.; for the Canon of
Holy Scripture was fixed and the Orthodox Text gained a supremacy over the
Origenistic Text about the same time:—and finally, after the Third Council
of Constantinople in 680 A.D., at which the acknowledgement of the Natures
of the Son of Man was placed in a position superior to all heresy; for it
was then that the Traditional Text began in nearly perfect form to be
handed down with scarce any opposition to future ages of the Church.

Besides the multiplicity of points involved, three special causes delayed
the complete settlement of the Text, so far as the attainment was
concerned all over the Church of general accuracy throughout the Gospels,
not to speak of all the New Testament.

1. Origenism, going beyond Origen, continued in force till it was
condemned by the Fifth General Council in 553 A.D., and could hardly have
wholly ended in that year. Besides this, controversies upon fundamental
truths agitated the Church, and implied a sceptical and wayward spirit
which would be ready to sustain alien variations in the written Word, till
the censure passed upon Monothelitism at the Sixth General Council in 680
A.D.

2. The Church was terribly tried by the overthrow of the Roman Empire, and
the irruption of hordes of Barbarians: and consequently Churchmen were
obliged to retire into extreme borders, as they did into Ireland in the
fifth century(251), and to spend their energies in issuing forth from
thence to reconquer countries for the Kingdom of Christ. The resultant
paralysis of Christian effort must have been deplorable. Libraries and
their treasures, as at Caesarea and Alexandria under the hands of
Mahommedans in the seventh century, were utterly destroyed. Rest and
calmness, patient and frequent study and debate, books and other helps to
research, must have been in those days hard to get, and were far from
being in such readiness as to favour general improvement in a subject of
which extreme accuracy is the very breath and life.

3. The Art of Writing on Vellum had hardly passed its youth at the time
when the Text advocated by B and א fell finally into disuse. Punctuation
did but exist in the occasional use of the full stop: breathings or
accents were perhaps hardly found: spelling, both as regards consonants
and vowels, was uncertain and rudimental. So that the Art of transcribing
on vellum even so far as capital letters were concerned, did not arrive at
anything like maturity till about the eighth century.

But it must not be imagined that manuscripts of substantial accuracy did
not exist during this period, though they have not descended to us. The
large number of Uncials and Cursives of later ages must have had a goodly
assemblage of accurate predecessors from which they were copied. It is
probable that the more handsome and less correct copies have come into our
hands, since such would have been not so much used, and might have been in
the possession of the men of higher station whose heathen ancestry had
bequeathed to them less orthodox tendencies, and the material of many
others must have been too perishable to last. Arianism prevailed during
much of the sixth century in Italy, Africa, Burgundy, and Spain. Ruder and
coarser volumes, though more accurate, would be readily surrendered to
destruction, especially if they survived in more cultured descendants.
That a majority of such MSS. existed, whether of a rougher or more
polished sort, both in vellum and papyrus, is proved by citations of
Scripture found in the Authors of the period. But those MSS. which have
been preserved are not so perfect as the others which have come from the
eighth and following centuries.

Thus Codex A, though it exhibits a text more like the Traditional than
either B or א, is far from being a sure guide. Codex C, which was written
later in the fifth century, is only a fragmentary palimpsest, i.e. it was
thought to be of so little value that the books of Ephraem the Syrian were
written over the Greek: it contains not more than two-thirds of the New
Testament, and stands as to the character of its text between A and B.
Codex Q, a fragment of 235 verses, and Codex I of 135, in the same
century, are not large enough to be taken into consideration here. Codexes
Φ and Σ, recently discovered, being products of the end of the fifth or
beginning of the sixth, and containing St. Matthew and St. Mark nearly
complete, are of a general character similar to A, and evince more
advancement in the Art. It is unfortunate indeed that only a fragment of
either of them, though that fragment in either case is pretty complete as
far as it goes, has come into our hands. After them succeeds Codex D, or
Codex Bezae, now in the Cambridge Library, having been bequeathed to the
University by Theodore Beza, whose name it bears. It ends at Acts xxii.
29.




§ 2. Codex D(252).


No one can pretend fully to understand the character of this Codex who has
not been at the pains to collate every word of it with attention. Such an
one will discover that it omits in the Gospels alone no less than 3,704
words; adds to the genuine text 2,213; substitutes 2,121; transposes
3,471, and modifies 1,772. By the time he has made this discovery his
esteem for Cod. D will, it is presumed, have experienced serious
modification. The total of 13,281 deflections from the Received Text is a
formidable objection to explain away. Even Dr. Hort speaks of “the
prodigious amount of error which D contains(253).”

But the intimate acquaintance with the Codex which he has thus acquired
has conducted him to certain other results, which it is of the utmost
importance that we should particularize and explain.

I. And first, this proves to be a text which in one Gospel is often
assimilated to the others. And in fact the assimilation is carried
sometimes so far, that a passage from one Gospel is interpolated into the
parallel passage in another. Indeed the extent to which in Cod. D
interpolations from St. Mark’s Gospel are inserted into the Gospel
according to St. Luke is even astounding. Between verses 14 and 15 of St.
Luke v. thirty-two words are interpolated from the parallel passage in St.
Mark i. 45-ii. 1: and in the 10th verse of the vith chapter twelve words
are introduced from St. Mark ii. 27, 28. In St. Luke iv. 37, ἡ ἀκοή, “the
report,” from St. Mark i. 28, is substituted for ἦχος, “the sound,” which
is read in the other manuscripts. Besides the introduction into St. Luke
i. 64 of ἐλύθη from St. Mark vii. 35, which will be described below, in
St. Luke v. 27 seven words are brought from the parallel passage in St.
Mark ii. 14, and the entire passage is corrupted(254). In giving the
Lord’s Prayer in St. Luke xi. 2, the scribe in fault must needs illustrate
the Lord’s saying by interpolating an inaccurate transcription of the
warning against “vain repetitions” given by Him before in the Sermon on
the Mount. Again, as to interpolation from other sources, grossly enough,
St. Matt. ii. 23 is thrust in at the end of St. Luke ii. 39; that is to
say, the scribe of D, or of some manuscript from which D was copied,
either directly or indirectly, thought fit to explain the carrying of the
Holy Child to Nazareth by the explanation given by St. Matthew, but
quoting from memory wrote “by the prophet” in the singular, instead of “by
the prophets” in the plural(255). Similarly, in St. Luke iv. 31 upon the
mention of the name of Capernaum, D must needs insert from St. Matt. iv.
13, “which is upon the sea-coast within the borders of Zabulon and
Nephthalim” (την παραθαλασσιον (_sic_) εν οριοις Ζαβουλων και Νεφθαλειμ).
Indeed, no adequate idea can be formed of the clumsiness, the coarseness
of these operations, unless some instances are given: but a few more must
suffice.

1. In St. Mark iii. 26, our LORD delivers the single statement, “And if
Satan is risen against himself (ἀνέστε ἐφ᾽ ἑαυτὸν) and is divided (καὶ
μεμέρισται) he cannot stand, but hath an end (ἀλλὰ τέλος ἔχει).” Instead
of this, D exhibits, “And if Satan cast out Satan, he is divided against
himself: his kingdom cannot stand, but hath the end (ἀλλὰ τὸ τέλος ἔχει).”
Now this is clearly an imitation, not a copy, of the parallel place in St.
Matt. xii. 26, where also a twofold statement is made, as every one may
see. But the reply is also a clumsy one to the question asked in St. Mark,
but not in St. Matthew, “How can Satan cast out Satan?” Learned readers
however will further note that it is St. Matthew’s ἐμερίσθη, where St.
Mark wrote μεμέρισται, which makes the statement possible for him which is
impossible according to the representation given by D of St. Mark.

2. At the end of the parable of the pounds, the scribe of D, or one of
those whom he followed, thinking that the idle servant was let off too
easily, and confusing with this parable the other parable of the
talents,—blind of course to the difference between the punishments
inflicted by a “lord” and those of a new-made king,—inserts the 30th verse
of St. Matt. xxv. at the end of St. Luke xix. 27.

3. Again, after St. Matt. xx. 28, when the LORD had rebuked the spirit of
ambition in the two sons of Zebedee, and had directed His disciples not to
seek precedence, enforcing the lesson from His own example as shewn in
giving His Life a ransom for many, D inserts the following tasteless
passage: “But ye seek to increase from a little, and from the greater to
be something less(256).” Nor is this enough:—an addition is also made from
St. Luke xiv. 8-10, being the well-known passage about taking the lowest
room at feasts. But this additional interpolation is in style and language
unlike the words of any Gospels, and ends with the vapid piece of
information, “and this shall be useful to thee.” It is remarkable that,
whereas D was alone in former errors, here it becomes a follower in one
part or other of the passage of twelve Old Latin manuscripts(257): and
indeed the Greek in the passage in D is evidently a version of the
Syrio-Low-Latin. The following words, or forms of words or phrases, are
not found in the rest of the N.T.: παρακληθέντες (aor. part. _rogati_ or
_vocati_), ἀνακλίνεσθε (_recumbite_), ἐξέχοντας (_eminentioribus_),
δειπνοκλήτωρ (_invitator caenae_), ἔτι κάτω χώρει (_adhuc infra accede_),
ἥττονα τόπον (_loco inferiori_), ἥττων (_inferior_), σύναγε ἔτι ἄνω
(_collige adhuc superius_). These Latin expressions are taken from one or
other of the twelve Old Latin MSS. Outside of the Latin, the Curetonian is
the sole ally, the Lewis being mutilated, of the flighty Old Uncial under
consideration.

These passages are surely enough to represent to the reader the
interpolations of Codex D, whether arising from assimilation or otherwise.
The description given by the very learned editor of this MS. is in the
following words:—“No known manuscript contains so many bold and extensive
interpolations (six hundred, it is said, in the Acts alone), countenanced,
where they are not absolutely unsupported, chiefly by the Old Latin and
the Curetonian version(258).”

II. There are also traces of extreme licentiousness in this copy of the
Gospels which call for distinct notice. Sometimes words or expressions are
substituted: sometimes the sense is changed, and utter confusion
introduced: delicate terms or forms are ignored: and a general corruption
ensues.

I mean for example such expressions as the following, which are all found
in the course of a single verse (St. Mark iv. 1).

St. Mark relates that once when our SAVIOUR was teaching “by the sea-side”
(παρά) there assembled so vast a concourse of persons that “He went into
the ship, and sat in the sea,” all the multitude being “on the land,
towards the sea”: i.e. with their faces turned in the direction of the
ship in which He was sitting. Was a plain story ever better told?

But according to D the facts of the case were quite different. First, it
was our SAVIOUR who was teaching “towards the sea” (πρός). Next, in
consequence of the crowd, He crossed over, and “sat on the other side of
the sea” (πέραν). Lastly, the multitude—followed Him, I suppose; for they
also—“were on the other side of the sea” (πέραν) ... Now I forgive the
scribe for his two transpositions and his ungrammatical substitution of ὁ
λαός for ὄχλος. But I insist that a MS. which circulates incidents after
this fashion cannot be regarded as trustworthy. Verse 2 begins in the same
licentious way. Instead of,—“And He taught them many things (πολλά) in
parables,” we are informed that “He taught them in many parables”
(πολλαῖς). Who will say that we are ever safe with such a guide?




§ 3.


All are aware that the two Evangelical accounts of our LORD’S human
descent exhibit certain distinctive features. St. Matthew distributes the
42 names in “the book of the generations of JESUS CHRIST, the son of
David, the son of Abraham,” into three fourteens; and requires us to
recognize in the Ἰεχονίας of ver. 11 a different person (viz. Jehoiakim)
from the Ἰεχονίας of ver. 12 (viz. Jehoiachin). Moreover, in order to
produce this symmetry of arrangement, he leaves out the names of 3
kings,—Ahaziah, Joash, Amaziah: and omits at least 9 generations of
Zorobabel’s descendants(259). The mystical correspondence between the 42
steps in our SAVIOUR’S human descent from Abraham, and the 42 stations of
the Israelites on their way to Canaan(260), has been often remarked upon.
It extends to the fact that the stations also were, historically, far more
than 42. And so much for what is contained in St. Matthew’s Gospel.

St. Luke, who enumerates the 77 steps of his genealogy in backward order,
derives the descent of “JESUS, the son of Joseph” from “Adam, the son of
GOD.” He traces our LORD’S descent from David and again from Zorobabel
through a different line of ancestry from that adopted by St. Matthew. He
introduces a second “Cainan” between Arphaxad and Sala (ver. 35, 36). The
only names which the two tables of descent have in common are these
five,—David, Salathiel, Zorobabel, Joseph, JESUS.

But Cod. D—(from which the first chapter of St. Matthew’s Gospel has long
since disappeared)—in St. Luke iii. exhibits a purely fabricated table of
descent. To put one name for another,—as when A writes “Shem” instead of
Seth: to misspell a name until it ceases to be recognizable,—as when א
writes “Balls” for Boaz: to turn one name into two by cutting it in
half,—as where א writes “Admin” _and_ “Adam” instead of Aminadab: or
again, in defiance of authority, to leave a name out,—as when A omits
Mainan and Pharez; or to put a name in,—as when Verona Lat. (b) inserts
“Joaram” after Aram:—with all such instances of licence the “old Uncials”
have made us abundantly familiar. But we are not prepared to find that in
place of the first 18 names which follow those of “JESUS” and “Joseph” in
St. Luke’s genealogy (viz. Heli to Rhesa inclusive), D introduces the 9
immediate ancestors of Joseph (viz. Abiud to Jacob) as enumerated by St.
Matthew,—thus abbreviating St. Luke’s genealogy by 9 names.
Next,—“Zorobabel” and “Salathiel” being common to both genealogies,—in
place of the 20 names found in St. Luke between Salathiel and David (viz.
Neri to Nathan inclusive), Cod. D presents us with the 15 royal
descendants of David enumerated by St. Matthew (viz. Solomon to
Jehoiachin(261) inclusive);—infelicitously inventing an imaginary
generation, by styling Jehoiakim “the son of Eliakim,”—being not aware
that “Jehoiakim” and “Eliakim” are one and the same person: and, in
defiance of the first Evangelist, supplying the names of the 3 kings
omitted by St. Matthew (i. 8), viz. Ahaziah, Joash, and Amaziah. Only 34
names follow in Cod. D; the second “Cainan” being omitted. In this way,
the number of St. Luke’s names is reduced from 77 to 66. A more flagrant
instance of that licentious handling of the deposit which was a common
phenomenon in Western Christendom is seldom to be met with(262). This
particular fabrication is happily the peculiar property of Cod. D; and we
are tempted to ask, whether it assists in recommending that singular
monument of injudicious and arbitrary textual revision to the favour of
one of the modern schools of Critics.




§ 4.


We repeat that the ill treatment which the deposit has experienced at the
hands of those who fabricated the text of Cod. D is only to be understood
by those who will be at the pains to study its readings throughout.
Constantly to substitute the wrong word for the right one; or at all
events to introduce a less significant expression: on countless occasions
to mar the details of some precious incident; and to obscure the purpose
of the Evangelist by tastelessly and senselessly disturbing the inspired
text,—_this_ will be found to be the rule with Cod. D throughout. As
another example added to those already cited:—In St. Luke xxii, D omits
verse 20, containing the Institution of the Cup, evidently from a wish to
correct the sacred account by removing the second mention of the Cup from
the record of the third Evangelist.

St. Mark (xv. 43) informs us that, on the afternoon of the first Good
Friday, Joseph of Arimathaea “taking courage _went in_ (εἰσῆλθε) to Pilate
and requested to have the _body_ (σῶμα) of Jesus”: that “Pilate wondered
(ἐθαύμασεν) [at hearing] that He _was dead_ (τέθνηκε) already: and sending
for the centurion [who had presided at the Crucifixion] inquired of him if
[JESUS] had been dead long?” (εἰ πάλαι ἀπέθανε.)

But the author of Cod. D, besides substituting “_went_” (ἦλθεν) for “went
_in_,”—“_corpse_” (πτῶμα) for “body” (which by the way he repeats in ver.
45),—and a sentiment of “continuous wonder” (ἐθαύμαζεν) for the fact of
astonishment which Joseph’s request inspired,—having also substituted the
prosaic τεθνήκει for the graphic τέθνηκε of the Evangelist,—represents
Pilate as inquiring of the centurion “if [indeed JESUS] was dead already?”
(εἰ ἤδη τεθνήκει; _si jam mortuus esset?_), whereby not only is all the
refinement of the original lost, but the facts of the case also are
seriously misrepresented. For Pilate did not doubt Joseph’s tidings. He
only wondered at them. And his inquiry was made not with a view to testing
the veracity of his informant, but for the satisfaction of his own
curiosity as to the time when his Victim had expired.

Now it must not be supposed that I have fastened unfairly on an
exceptional verse and a half (St. Mark xv. half of v. 43 and all v. 44) of
the second Gospel. The reader is requested to refer to the note(263),
where he will find set down a collation of _eight consecutive verses_ in
the selfsame context: viz. St. Mark xv. 47 to xvi. 7 inclusive; after an
attentive survey of which he will not be disposed to deny that only by
courtesy can such an exhibition of the original verity as Cod. D be called
“a copy” at all. Had the genuine text been _copied_ over and over again
till the crack of doom, the result could never have been this. There are
in fact but 117 words to be transcribed: and of these no less than 67—much
more than half—have been either omitted (21), or else added (11);
substituted (10), or else transposed (11); depraved (12, as by writing
ανατελλοντος for ἀνατείλαντος), or actually blundered (2, as by writing
ερχονται ημιον for ἔρχονται ἡμῖν). Three times the construction has been
altered,—once indeed very seriously, for the Angel at the sepulchre is
made to personate Christ. Lastly, five of the corrupt readings are the
result of Assimilation. Whereas the evangelist wrote καὶ ἀναβλέψασαι
θεωροῦσιν ὅτι ἀποκεκύλισται ὁ λίθος, what else but a licentious paraphrase
is the following,—ερχονται και ευρισκουσιν αποκεκυλισμενον τον λιθον? This
is in fact a fabricated, not an honestly transcribed text: and it cannot
be too clearly understood that such a text (more or less fabricated, I
mean) is exhibited by Codexes BאD throughout.




§ 5.


It is remarkable that whenever the construction is somewhat harsh or
obscure, D and the Latin copies are observed freely to transpose,—to
supply,—and even slightly to paraphrase,—in order to bring out the
presumed meaning of the original. An example is furnished by St. Luke i.
65, where the Evangelist, having related that Zacharias wrote—“His name is
John,” adds,—“and all wondered. And his mouth was opened immediately, and
his tongue, and he spake praising GOD.” The meaning of course is that his
tongue “was loosed.” Accordingly D actually supplies ἐλύθη,—the Latin
copies, “resoluta est.” But D does more. Presuming that what occasioned
the “wonder” was not so much what Zacharias wrote on the tablet as the
restored gift of speech, it puts that clause first,—ingeniously
transposing the first two words (παραχρημα και); the result of which is
the following sentence:—“And immediately his tongue was loosed; and all
wondered. And his mouth was opened, and he spake praising GOD”.... In the
next verse it is related that “fear came upon all who dwelt round about
them.” But the order of the words in the original being unusual (καὶ
ἐγένετο ἐπὶ πάντας φόβος τοὺς περιοικοῦντας αὐτούς), D and the Latin
copies transpose them: (indeed the three Syriac do the same): but D b c
gratuitously introduce an epithet,—και εγενετο φοβος μεγας επι παντας τους
περιοικουντας αυτον.... In ver. 70, the expression τῶν ἀπ᾽ αἰῶνος προφητῶν
αὐτοῦ appearing harsh was (by transposing the words) altered into this,
which is the easy and more obvious order: προφητων αυτον των απ᾽
αιωνος.... So again in ver. 71: the phrase σωτηρίαν ἐξ ἐχθρῶν seeming
obscure, the words ἐκ χειρός (which follow) were by D substituted for ἐξ.
The result (σωτηρίαν ἐκ χειρὸς ἐχθρῶν ἡμῶν [compare ver. 74], καὶ πάντων
τῶν μισούντων ἡμᾶς) is certainly easier reading: but—like every other
change found in the same context—it labours under the fatal condemnation
of being an unauthorized human gloss.

The phenomenon however which perplexes me most in Cod. D is that it
abounds in fabricated readings which have nothing whatever to recommend
them. Not contented with St. Luke’s expression “to thrust out _a little_
(ὀλίγον) from the land” (v. 3), the scribe writes οσον οσον. In ver. 5,
instead of “I will let down the net” (χαλάσω τὸ δίκτυον) he makes St.
Peter reply, “I will not neglect to obey” (ου μη παρακουσομαι). So, for
“and when they had this done,” he writes “and when they had straightway
let down the nets”: and immediately after, instead of διερρήγνυτο δὲ τὸ
δίκτυον αὐτῶν we are presented with ωστε τα δικτυα ρησσεσθαι. It is very
difficult to account for this, except on an hypothesis which I confess
recommends itself to me more and more: viz. that there were in circulation
in some places during the earliest ages of the Church Evangelical
paraphrases, or at least free exhibitions of the chief Gospel
incidents,—to which the critics resorted; and from which the less
judicious did not hesitate to borrow expressions and even occasionally to
extract short passages. Such loose representations of passages must have
prevailed both in Syria, and in the West where Greek was not so well
understood, and where translators into the vernacular Latin expressed
themselves with less precision, whilst they attempted also to explain the
passages translated.

This notion, viz. that it is within the province of a Copyist to interpret
the original before him, clearly lies at the root of many a so-called
“various reading.”

Thus for the difficult ἐπιβαλὼν ἔκλαιε (in St. Mark xiv. 72), “when he
thought thereon” (i.e. “when in self-abandonment he flung himself upon the
thought”), “he wept,” D exhibits καὶ ἤρξατο κλαίειν, “and he began to
weep,” a much easier and a very natural expression, only that it is not
the right one, and does not express all that the true words convey. Hence
also the transposition by D and some Old Latin MSS. of the clause ἦν γὰρ
μέγας σφόδρα “for it was very great” from xvi. 4, where it seems to be out
of place, to ver. 3 where it seems to be necessary. Eusebius is observed
to have employed a MS. similarly corrupt.

Hence again the frequent unauthorized insertion of a nominative case to
determine the sense: e.g. ὁ ἄγγελος “the angel,” xvi. 6, ὁ δὲ Ἰωσήφ
“Joseph,” xv. 46, or the substitution of the name intended for the
pronoun,—as της Ελισαβεδ (sic) for αὐτῆς in St. Luke i. 41.

Hence in xvi. 7, instead of, “He goeth before you into Galilee, there
shall ye see Him as He said unto you,”—D exhibits,—“Behold, I go before
you into Galilee, there shall ye see Me, as I told you.” As if it had been
thought allowable to recall in this place the fact that our SAVIOUR had
once (St. Matt. xxvi. 32, St. Mark xiv. 28) spoken these words in His own
person.

And in no other way can I explain D’s vapid substitution, made as if from
habit, of “a Galilean city” for “a city of Galilee, named Nazareth” in St.
Luke i. 26.

Hence the frequent insertion of a wholly manufactured clause in order to
impart a little more clearness to the story—as of the words τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ
“his name” (after κληθήσεται “shall be called”)—into St. Luke i. 60.

These passages afford expressions of a feature in this Manuscript to which
we must again invite particular attention. It reveals to close observation
frequent indications of an attempt, not to supply a faithful
representation of the very words of Holy Scripture and nothing more than
those words, but to interpret, to illustrate,—in a word,—to be a Targum.
Of course, such a design or tendency is absolutely fatal to the accuracy
of a transcriber. Yet the habit is too strongly marked upon the pages of
Codex D to admit of any doubt whether it existed or not(264).

In speaking of the character of a MS. one is often constrained to
distinguish between the readings and the scribe. The readings may be
clearly fabricated: but there may be evidence that the copyist was an
accurate and painstaking person. On the other hand, obviously the scribe
may have been a considerable blunderer, and yet it may be clear that he
was furnished with an admirable archetype. In the case of D we are
presented with the alarming concurrence of a fabricated archetype and
either a blundering scribe, or a course of blundering scribes.

But then further,—One is often obliged (if one would be accurate) to
distinguish between the penman who actually produced the MS., and the
critical reader for whom he toiled. It would really seem however as if the
actual transcriber of D, or the transcribers of the ancestors of D, had
invented some of those monstrous readings as they went on. The Latin
version which is found in this MS. exactly reflects, as a rule, the Greek
on the opposite page: but sometimes it bears witness to the admitted truth
of Scripture, while the Greek goes off _in alia omnia_(265).




§ 6.


It will of course be asked,—But why may not D be in every respect an exact
copy,—line for line, word for word, letter for letter,—of some earlier
archetype? To establish the reverse of _this_, so as to put the result
beyond the reach of controversy, is impossible. The question depends upon
reasons purely critical, and is not of primary importance. For all
practical purposes, it is still Codex D of which we speak. When I name
“Codex D” I mean of course nothing else but Codex D according to
Scrivener’s reprint of the text. And if it be a true hypothesis that the
actual Codex D is nothing else but the transcript of another Codex
strictly identical with itself, then it is clearly a matter of small
importance of which of the two I speak. When “Codex D” is cited, it is the
contents of Codex D which are meant, and no other thing.

And upon this point it may be observed, that D is chiefly remarkable as
being the only Greek Codex(266) which exhibits the highly corrupt text
found in some of the Old Latin manuscripts, and may be taken as a survival
from the second century.

The genius of this family of copies is found to have been—

1. To substitute one expression for another, and generally to paraphrase.

2. To remove difficulties, and where a difficult expression presented
itself, to introduce a conjectural emendation of the text. For example,
the passage already noticed about the Publican going down to his house
“justified rather than the other” is altered into “justified more than
that Pharisee” (μαλλον παρ᾽ εκεινον τον Φαρισαιον. St. Luke xviii.
14)(267).

3. To omit what might seem to be superfluous. Thus the verse, “Lord, he
hath ten pounds” (St. Luke xix. 25) is simply left out(268).

Enough has been surely said to prove amply that the text of Codex D is
utterly untrustworthy. Indeed, the habit of interpolation found in it, the
constant tendency to explain rather than to report, the licentiousness
exhibited throughout, and the isolation in which this MS. is found, except
in cases where some of the Low-Latin Versions and Cureton’s Syriac, and
perhaps the Lewis, bear it company, render the text found in it the
foulest in existence. What then is to be thought of those critics who upon
the exclusive authority of this unstable offender and of a few of the
Italic copies occasionally allied with it, endeavour to introduce changes
in face of the opposition of all other authorities? And since their
ability is unquestioned, must we not seek for the causes of their singular
action in the theory to which they are devoted?




§ 7.


Before we take leave of the Old Uncials, it will be well to invite
attention to a characteristic feature in them, which is just what the
reader would expect who has attended to all that has been said, and which
adds confirmation to the doctrine here propounded.

The clumsy and tasteless character of some at least of the Old Uncials has
come already under observation. This was in great measure produced by
constantly rubbing off delicate expressions which add both to the meaning
and the symmetry of the Sacred Record. We proceed to give a few examples,
not to prove our position, since it must surely be evident enough to the
eyes of any accomplished scholar, but as specimens, and only specimens, of
the loss which the Inspired Word would sustain if the Old Uncials were to
be followed. Space will not admit of a full discussion of this matter.

An interesting refinement of expression, which has been hopelessly
obscured through the proclivity of אBD to fall into error, is found in St.
Matt. xxvi. 71. The Evangelist describing the second of St. Peter’s
denials notes that the damsel who saw him said to the bystanders, “This
man _too_ (καὶ) was with Jesus of Nazareth.” The three MSS. just mentioned
omit the καὶ. No other MS., Uncial or Cursive, follows them. They have
only the support of the unstable Sahidic(269). The loss inflicted is
patent: comment is needless.

Another instance, where poverty of meaning would be the obvious result if
the acceptance by some critics of the lead of the same trio of Uncials
were endorsed, may be found in the description of what the shepherds did
when they had seen the Holy Child in the manger. Instead of “they made
known abroad” (διεγνώρισαν), we should simply have “they made known”
(ἐγνώρισαν). We are inclined to say, “Why this clipping and pruning to the
manifest disadvantage of the sacred deposit.” Only the satellite L and Ξ
and six Cursives with a single passage from Eusebius are on the same side.
The rest in overwhelming majority condemn such rudeness(270).




§ 8.


The undoubtedly genuine expression καὶ τίς ἐστι, Κυριε (which is the
traditional reading of St. John ix. 36), loses its characteristic ΚΑΙ in
Cod. א*AL,—though it retains it in the rest of the uncials and in all the
cursives. The καί is found in the Complutensian,—because the editors
followed their copies: it is not found in the Textus Receptus only because
Erasmus did not as in cases before mentioned follow his. The same
refinement of expression recurs in the Traditional Text of ch. xiv. 22
(Κύριε, ΚΑῚ τί γέγονεν), and experienced precisely the same fate at the
hands of the two earliest editors of the printed Greek Text. It is also
again faithfully upheld in its integrity by the whole body of the
cursives,—always excepting “33”. But (as before) in uncials of bad
character, as BDL (even by AEX) the καί is omitted,—for which insufficient
reason it has been omitted by the Revisers likewise,—notwithstanding the
fact that it is maintained in all the other uncials. As is manifest in
most of these instances, the Versions, being made into languages with
other idioms than Greek, can bear no witness; and also that these delicate
embellishments would be often brushed off in quotations, as well as by
scribes and so-called correctors.

We have not far to look for other instances of this. St. Matthew (i. 18)
begins his narrative,—μνηστευθείσης ΓᾺΡ τῆς μητρὸς αὐτοῦ Μαρίας τῷ Ἰωσήφ.
Now, as readers of Greek are aware, the little untranslated (because
untranslateable) word exhibited in capitals(271) stands with peculiar
idiomatic force and propriety immediately after the first word of such a
sentence as the foregoing, being employed in compliance with strictly
classical usage(272): and though it might easily come to be omitted
through the carelessness or the licentiousness of copyists, yet it could
not by any possibility have universally established itself in copies of
the Gospel—as it has done—had it been an unauthorized accretion to the
text. We find it recognized in St. Matt. i. 18 by Eusebius(273), by
Basil(274), by Epiphanius(275), by Chrysostom(276), by Nestorius(277), by
Cyril(278), by Andreas Cret.(279): which is even extraordinary; for the
γάρ is not at all required for purposes of quotation. But the essential
circumstance as usual is, that γάρ is found besides in the whole body of
the manuscripts. The only uncials in fact which omit the idiomatic
particle are four of older date, viz. BאC*Z.

This same particle (γάρ) has led to an extraordinary amount of confusion
in another place, where its idiomatic propriety has evidently been neither
felt nor understood,—viz. in St. Luke xviii. 14. “This man” (says our
LORD) “went down to his house justified rather than” (ἢ γάρ) “the other.”
Scholars recognize here an exquisitely idiomatic expression, which in fact
obtains so universally in the Traditional Text that its genuineness is
altogether above suspicion. It is vouched for by 16 uncials headed by A,
and by the cursives in the proportion of 500 to 1. The Complutensian has
it, of course: and so would the Textus Receptus have it, if Erasmus had
followed his MS.: but “_praefero_” (he says) “_quod est usitatius apud
probos autores_.” Uncongenial as the expression is to the other languages
of antiquity, ἢ γάρ is faithfully retained in the Gothic and in the
Harkleian Version(280). Partly however, because it is of very rare
occurrence and was therefore not understood(281), and partly because when
written in uncials it easily got perverted into something else, the
expression has met with a strange fate. ΗΓΑΡ is found to have suggested,
or else to have been mistaken for, both ΗπΕΡ(282) and ΥΠΕΡ(283). The
prevailing expedient however was, to get rid of the Η—to turn ΓΑΡ into
ΠΑΡ,—and, for ἐκεῖνος to write ἐκεῖνον(284). The uncials which exhibit
this strange corruption of the text are exclusively that quaternion which
have already come so often before us,—viz. BאDL. But D improves upon the
blunder of its predecessors by writing, like a Targum, μᾶλλον ΓΑΡ᾽
αἰκεῖνον (sic), and by adding (with the Old Latin and the Peshitto) τὸν
Φαρισαῖον,—an exhibition of the text which (it is needless to say) is
perfectly unique(285).

And how has the place fared at the hands of some Textual critics? Lachmann
and Tregelles (forsaken by Tischendorf) of course follow Codd. BאDL. The
Revisers (with Dr. Hort)—not liking to follow BאDL, and unable to adopt
the Traditional Text, suffer the reading of the Textus Receptus (ἢ
ἐκεῖνος) to stand,—though a solitary cursive (Evan. 1) is all the
manuscript authority that can be adduced in its favour. In effect, ἢ
ἐκεῖνος may be said to be without manuscript authority(286).

The point to be noticed in all this is, that the true reading of St. Luke
xviii. 14 has been faithfully retained by the MSS. in all countries and
all down the ages, not only by the whole body of the cursives, but by
every uncial in existence except four. And those four are BאDL.

But really the occasions are without number when minute words have dropped
out of אB and their allies,—and yet have been faithfully retained, all
through the centuries, by the later Uncials and despised Cursive copies.
In St. John xvii. 2, for instance, we read—δόξασόν σου τὸν υἱόν, ἵνα ΚΑῚ ὁ
υἱός ΣΟΥ δοξάσῃ σέ: where καί is omitted by אABCD: and σου (after ὁ υἱός)
by אBC. Some critics will of course insist that, on the contrary, both
words are spurious accretions to the text of the cursives; and they must
say so, if they will. But does it not sensibly impair their confidence in
א to find that it, and it only, exhibits λελάληκεν (for ἐλάλησεν) in ver.
1,—δώσω αὐτῷ (for δώσῃ αὐτοῖς) in ver. 2, while אB are peculiar in writing
Ἰησοῦς without the article in ver. 1?

Enough has surely been said to exhibit and illustrate this rude
characteristic of the few Old Copies which out of the vast number of their
contemporaries are all that we now possess. The existence of this
characteristic is indubitable and undoubted: it is in a measure
acknowledged by Dr. Hort in words on which we shall remark in the ensuing
chapter(287). Our readers should observe that the “rubbing off” process
has by no means been confined to particles like καί and γάρ, but has
extended to tenses, other forms of words, and in fact to all kinds of
delicacies of expression. The results have been found all through the
Gospels: sacred and refined meaning, such as accomplished scholars will
appreciate in a moment, has been pared off and cast away. If people would
only examine B, א and D in their bare unpresentableness, they would see
the loss which those MSS. have sustained, as compared with the Text
supported by the overwhelming mass of authorities: and they would refuse
to put their trust any longer in such imperfect, rudimentary, and
ill-trained guides.





CHAPTER XI. THE LATER UNCIALS AND THE CURSIVES.




§ 1(288).


The nature of Tradition is very imperfectly understood in many quarters;
and mistakes respecting it lie close to the root, if they are not
themselves the root, of the chief errors in Textual Criticism. We must
therefore devote some space to a brief explanation of this important
element in our present inquiry.

Tradition is commonly likened to a stream which, as is taken for granted,
contracts pollution in its course the further it goes. Purity is supposed
to be attainable only within the neighbourhood of the source: and it is
assumed that distance from thence ensures proportionally either greater
purity or more corruption.

Without doubt there is much truth in this comparison: only, as in the case
of nearly all comparisons there are limits to the resemblance, and other
features and aspects are not therein connoted, which are essentially bound
up with the subject believed to be illustrated on all points in this
similitude.

In the first place, the traditional presentment of the New Testament is
not like a single stream, but resembles rather a great number of streams
of which many have remained pure, but some have been corrupted. One
cluster of bad streams was found in the West, and, as is most probable,
the source of very many of them was in Syria: another occurred in the East
with Alexandria and afterwards Caesarea as the centre, where it was joined
by the currents from the West. A multitude in different parts of the
Church were kept wholly or mainly clear of these contaminants, and
preserved the pure and precise utterance as it issued from the springs of
the Written Word.

But there is another pitfall hidden under that imperfect simile which is
continually employed on this subject either by word of mouth or in
writing. The Tradition of the Church does not take shape after the model
of a stream or streams rolling in mechanical movement and unvaried flow
from the fountain down the valley and over the plain. Like most mundane
things, it has a career. It has passed through a stage when one manuscript
was copied as if mechanically from another that happened to be at hand.
Thus accuracy except under human infirmity produced accuracy; and error
was surely procreative of error. Afterwards came a period when both bad
and good exemplars offered themselves in rivalry, and the power of
refusing the evil and choosing the good was in exercise, often with much
want of success. As soon as this stage was accomplished, which may be said
roughly to have reached from Origen till the middle of the fourth century,
another period commenced, when a definite course was adopted, which was
followed with increasing advantage till the whole career was fixed
irrevocably in the right direction. The period of the two Gregories,
Basil, Chrysostom, and others, was the time when the Catholic Church took
stock of truth and corruption, and had in hand the duty of thoroughly
casting out error and cleansing her faith. The second part of the Creed
was thus permanently defined; the third part which, besides the Divinity
of the Holy Ghost, relates to His action in the Church, to the Written
Word, inclusive both of the several books generally and the text of those
books, to the nature of the Sacraments, to the Ministry, to the character
of the unity and government of the Church, was on many points delayed as
to special definition by the ruin soon dealt upon the Roman Empire, and by
the ignorance of the nations which entered upon that vast domain: and
indeed much of this part of the Faith remains still upon the battlefield
of controversy.

But action was taken upon what may be perhaps termed the Canon of St.
Augustine(289): “What the Church of the time found prevailing throughout
her length and breadth, not introduced by regulations of Councils, but
handed down in unbroken tradition, that she rightly concluded to have been
derived from no other fount than Apostolic authority.” To use other words,
in the accomplishment of her general work, the Church quietly and without
any public recension examined as to the written Word the various streams
that had come down from the Apostles, and followed the multitude that were
purest, and by gradual filtration extruded out of these nearly all the
corruption that even the better lines of descent had contracted.

We have now arrived at the period, when from the general consentience of
the records, it is discovered that the form of the Text of the New
Testament was mainly settled. The settlement was effected noiselessly, not
by public debate or in decrees of general or provincial councils, yet none
the less completely and permanently. It was the Church’s own operation,
instinctive, deliberate, and in the main universal. Only a few witnesses
here and there lifted up their voices against the prevalent decisions,
themselves to be condemned by the dominant sense of Christendom. Like the
repudiation of Arianism, it was a repentance from a partial and temporary
encouragement of corruption, which was never to be repented of till it was
called in question during the general disturbance of faith and doctrine in
the nineteenth century. Doubtless, the agreement thus introduced has not
attained more than a general character. For the exceeding number of
questions involved forbids all expectation of an universal coincidence of
testimony extending to every single case.

But in the outset, as we enter upon the consideration of the later
manuscripts, our way must be cleared by the removal of some fallacies
which are widely prevalent amongst students of Sacred Textual Criticism.

It is sometimes imagined (1) that Uncials and Cursives differ in kind; (2)
that all Cursives are alike; (3) that all Cursives are copies of Codex A,
and are the results of a general Recension; and (4) that we owe our
knowledge of the New Testament entirely to the existing Uncials. To these
four fallacies must be added an opinion which stands upon a higher footing
than the preceding, but which is no less a fallacy, and which we have to
combat in this chapter, viz. that the Text of the later Uncials and
especially the Text of the Cursives is a debased Text.

1. The real difference between Uncials and Cursives is patent to all
people who have any knowledge of the subject. Uncials form a ruder kind of
manuscripts, written in capital letters with no space between them till
the later specimens are reached, and generally with an insufficient and
ill-marked array of stops. Cursives show a great advance in workmanship,
being indited, as the name suggests, in running and more easily flowing
letters, with “a system of punctuation much the same as in printed books.”
As contrasted with one another, Uncials as a class enjoy a great
superiority, if antiquity is considered; and Cursives are just as much
higher than the sister class, if workmanship is to be the guiding
principle of judgement. Their differences are on the surface, and are such
that whoso runs may read.

But Textual Science, like all Science, is concerned, not with the
superficial, but with the real;—not with the dress in which the text is
presented, but with the text itself;—not again with the bare fact of
antiquity, since age alone is no sure test of excellence, but with the
character of the testimony which from the nature of the subject-matter is
within reach. Judging then the later Uncials, and comparing them with the
Cursives, we make the discovery that the texts of both are mainly the
same. Indeed, they are divided by no strict boundary of time: they overlap
one another. The first Cursive is dated May 7, 835(290): the last Uncials,
which are Lectionaries, are referred to the eleventh, and possibly to the
twelfth, century(291). One, Codex Λ, is written partly in uncials, and
partly in cursive letters, as it appears, by the same hand. So that in the
ninth, tenth, and eleventh centuries both uncials and cursives must have
issued mainly and virtually from the same body of transcribers. It follows
that the difference lay in the outward investiture, whilst, as is found by
a comparison of one with another, there was a much more important
similarity of character within.

2. But when a leap is made from this position to another sweeping
assertion that all cursives are alike, it is necessary to put a stop to so
illicit a process. In the first place, there is the small handful of
cursive copies which is associated with B and א. The notorious 1,—handsome
outwardly like its two leaders but corrupt in text,—33, 118, 131, 157,
205, 209(292), and others;—the Ferrar Group, containing 13, 69, 124, 346,
556, 561, besides 348, 624, 788;—these are frequently dissentients from
the rest of the Cursives. But indeed, when these and a few others have
been subtracted from the rest and set apart in a class by themselves, any
careful examination of the evidence adduced on important passages will
reveal the fact that whilst almost always there is a clear majority of
Cursives on one side, there are amply enough cases of dissentience more or
less to prove that the Cursive MSS. are derived from a multiplicity of
archetypes, and are endued almost severally with what may without
extravagance be termed distinct and independent personality. Indeed, such
is the necessity of the case. They are found in various countries all over
the Church. Collusion was not possible in earlier times when
intercommunication between countries was extremely limited, and publicity
was all but confined to small areas. The genealogies of Cursive MSS., if
we knew them, would fill a volume. Their stems must have been extremely
numerous; and like Uncials, and often independently of Uncials, they must
have gone back to the vast body of early papyrus manuscripts.

3. And as to the Cursives having been copies of Codex A, a moderate
knowledge of the real character of that manuscript, and a just estimate of
the true value of it, would effectually remove such a hallucination. It is
only the love of reducing all knowledge of intricate questions to the
compass of the proverbial nutshell, and the glamour that hangs over a very
old relic, which has led people, when they had dropped their grasp of B,
to clutch at the ancient treasure in the British Museum. It is right to
concede all honour to such a survival of so early a period: but to lift
the pyramid from its ample base, and to rest it upon a point like A, is a
proceeding which hardly requires argument for its condemnation. And next,
when the notion of a Recension is brought forward, the answer is, What and
when and how and where? In the absence of any sign or hint of such an
event in records of the past, it is impossible to accept such an
explanation of what is no difficulty at all. History rests upon research
into documents which have descended to us, not upon imagination or
fiction. And the sooner people get such an idea out of their heads as that
of piling up structures upon mere assumption, and betake themselves
instead to what is duly attested, the better it will be for a Science
which must be reared upon well authenticated bases, and not upon phantom
theories.

4. The case of the Cursives is in other respects strangely misunderstood,
or at least is strangely misrepresented. The popular notion seems to be,
that we are indebted for our knowledge of the true text of Scripture to
the existing Uncials entirely; and that the essence of the secret dwells
exclusively with the four or five oldest of those Uncials. By consequence,
it is popularly supposed that since we are possessed of such Uncial
Copies, we could afford to dispense with the testimony of the Cursives
altogether. A more complete misconception of the facts of the case can
hardly be imagined. For the plain truth is that all the phenomena
exhibited by the Uncial MSS. are reproduced by the Cursive Copies. A small
minority of the Cursives, just as a small minority of the Uncials, are
probably the depositaries of peculiar recensions.

It is at least as reasonable to assert that we can afford entirely to
disregard the testimony of the Uncials, as to pretend that we can afford
entirely to disregard the testimony of the Cursives. In fact of the two,
the former assertion would be a vast deal nearer to the truth. Our
inductions would in many cases be so fatally narrowed, if we might not
look beyond one little handful of Uncial Copies.

But the point to which the reader’s attention is specially invited is
this:—that so far from our being entirely dependent on Codexes BאCD, or on
some of them, for certain of the most approved corrections of the Received
Text, we should have been just as fully aware of every one of those
readings if neither B nor א, C nor D, had been in existence. Those
readings are every one to be found in one or more of the few Cursive
Codexes which rank by themselves, viz. the two groups just mentioned and
perhaps some others. If they are not, they may be safely disregarded; they
are readings which have received no subsequent recognition(293).

Indeed, the case of the Cursives presents an exact parallel with the case
of the Uncials. Whenever we observe a formal consensus of the Cursives for
any reading, there, almost invariably, is a grand consensus observable for
the same reading of the Uncials.

The era of greater perfection both in the outer presentment and in the
internal accuracy of the text of copies of the New Testament may be said,
as far as the relics which have descended to us are concerned, to have
commenced with the Codex Basiliensis or E of the Gospels. This beautiful
and generally accurate Codex must have been written in the seventh
century(294). The rest of the later Uncials are ordinarily found together
in a large or considerable majority: whilst there is enough dissent to
prove that they are independent witnesses, and that error was condemned,
not ignored. Thus the Codex Regius (L, eighth century), preserved at
Paris, generally follows B and א: so does the Codex Sangallensis (Δ, ninth
century), the Irish relic of the monastery of St. Gall, in St. Mark alone:
and the Codex Zacynthius (Ξ, an eighth century palimpsest) now in the
Library of the Bible Society, in St. Luke(295). The isolation of these few
from the rest of their own age is usually conspicuous. The verdict of the
later uncials is nearly always sustained by a large majority. In fact, as
a rule, every principal reading discoverable in any of the oldest Uncials
is also exhibited in one, two, or three of the later Uncials, or in one or
more of the small handful of dissentient Cursives already enumerated.
Except indeed in very remarkable instances, as in the case of the last
twelve verses of St. Mark, such readings are generally represented: yet in
the later MSS. as compared with the oldest there is this additional
feature in the representation, that if evidence is evidence, and weight,
number, and variety are taken into account, those readings are altogether
condemned.




§ 2(296).


But we are here confronted with the contention that the text of the
Cursives is of a debased character. Our opponents maintain that it is such
that it must have been compounded from other forms of text by a process of
conflation so called, and that in itself it is a text of a character
greatly inferior to the text mainly represented by B and א.

Now in combating this opinion, we are bound first to remark that the
burden of proof rests with the opposite side. According to the laws which
regulate scientific conclusions, all the elements of proof must be taken
into consideration. Nothing deserves the name of science in which the
calculation does not include all the phenomena. The base of the building
must be conterminous with the facts. This is so elementary a principle
that it seems needless to insist more upon it.

But then, this is exactly what we endeavour to accomplish, and our
adversaries disregard. Of course they have their reasons for dismissing
nineteen-twentieths of the evidence at hand: but—this is the point—it
rests with them to prove that such dismissal is lawful and right. What
then are their arguments? Mainly three, viz. the supposed greater
antiquity of their favourite text, the superiority which they claim for
its character, and the evidence that the Traditional Text was as they
maintain formed by conflation from texts previously in existence.

Of these three arguments, that from antiquity has been already disposed
of, and illustration of what has been already advanced will also be at
hand throughout the sequel of this work. As to conflation, a proof against
its possible applicability to the Traditional Text was supplied as to
particles and other words in the last chapter, and will receive
illustration from instances of words of a greater size in this. Conflation
might be possible, supposing for a moment that other conditions favoured
it, and that the elements to be conflated were already in existence in
other texts. But inasmuch as in the majority of instances such elements
are found nowhere else than in the Traditional Text, conflation as
accounting for the changes which upon this theory must have been made is
simply impossible. On the other hand, the Traditional Text might have been
very easily chipped and broken and corrupted, as will be shewn in the
second part of this Treatise, into the form exhibited by B and א(297).

Upon the third argument in the general contention, we undertake to say
that it is totally without foundation. On the contrary, the text of the
Cursives is greatly the superior of the two. The instances which we
proceed to give as specimens, and as specimens only, will exhibit the
propriety of language, and the taste of expression, in which it is
pre-eminent(298). Let our readers judge fairly and candidly, as we doubt
not that they will, and we do not fear the result.

But before entering upon the character of the later text, a few words are
required to remind our readers of the effect of the general argument as
hitherto stated upon this question. The text of the later Uncials is the
text to which witness is borne, not only by the majority of the Uncials,
but also by the Cursives and the Versions and the Fathers, each in greater
numbers. Again, the text of the Cursives enjoys unquestionably the support
of by very far the largest number among themselves, and also of the
Uncials and Versions and Fathers. Accordingly, the text of which we are
now treating, which is that of the later Uncials and the Cursives
combined, is incomparably superior under all the external Notes of Truth.
It possesses in nearly all cases older attestation(299): there is no sort
of question as to the greater number of witnesses that bear evidence to
its claims: nor to their variety: and hardly ever to the explicit proof of
their continuousness; which indeed is also generally—nay,
universally—implied owing to the nature of the case: their weight is
certified upon strong grounds: and as a matter of fact, the context in
nearly all instances testifies on their side. The course of doctrine
pursued in the history of the Universal Church is immeasurably in their
favour. We have now therefore only to consider whether their text, as
compared with that of BאD and their allies, commends itself on the score
of intrinsic excellence. And as to this consideration, if as has been
manifested the text of B-א, and that of D, are bad, and have been shewn to
be the inferior, this must be the better. We may now proceed to some
specimen instances exhibiting the superiority of the Later Uncial and
Cursive text.




§ 3.


Our SAVIOUR’S lament over Jerusalem (“If thou hadst known, even thou, at
least in this thy day, the things which belong unto thy peace!”) is just
one of those delicately articulated passages which are safe to suffer by
the process of transmission. Survey St. Luke’s words (xix. 42), Εἰ ἔγνως
καὶ σύ, καί γε ἐν τῇ ἡμερᾳ σου ταύτῃ, τὰ πρὸς εἰρήνην σου,—and you will
perceive at a glance that the vulnerable point in the sentence, so to
speak, is καὶ σύ, καί γε. In the meanwhile, attested as those words are by
the Old Latin(300) and by Eusebius(301), as well as witnessed to by the
whole body of the copies beginning with Cod. A and including the lost
original of 13-69-124-346 &c.,—the very _order_ of those words is a thing
quite above suspicion. Even Tischendorf admits this. He retains the
traditional reading in every respect. Eusebius however twice writes καί γε
σύ(302); once, καὶ σύ γε(303); and once he drops καί γε entirely(304).
Origen drops it 3 times(305). Still, there is at least a general
_consensus_ among Copies, Versions and Fathers for beginning the sentence
with the characteristic words, εἰ ἔγνως καὶ σύ; the phrase being witnessed
to by the Latin, the Bohairic, the Gothic, and the Harkleian Versions; by
Irenaeus(306),—by Origen(307),—by ps.-Tatian(308),—by Eusebius(309),—by
Basil the Great(310),—by Basil of Seleucia(311),—by Cyril(312).

What then is found in the three remaining Uncials, for C is defective
here? D exhibits ει εγνως και συ, εν τη ημερα ταυτη, τα προς ειρηνην σοι:
being supported only by the Latin of Origen in one place(313). Lachmann
adopts this reading all the same. Nothing worse, it must be confessed, has
happened to it than the omission of καί γε, and of the former σου. But
when we turn to Bא, we find that they and L, with Origen once(314), and
the Syriac heading prefixed to Cyril’s homilies on St. Luke’s Gospel(315),
exclusively exhibit,—ει εγνως εν τη ημερα ταυτη και συ τα προς ειρηνην:
thus, not only omitting καί γε, together with the first and second σου,
but by transposing the words καὶ σύ—ἐν τῇ ἡμερᾳ ταύτῃ, obliterating from
the passage more than half its force and beauty. This maimed and mutilated
exhibition of our LORD’S words, only because it is found in Bא, is adopted
by W.-Hort, who are in turn followed by the Revisers(316). The Peshitto by
the way omits καὶ σύ, and transposes the two clauses which remain(317).
The Curetonian Syriac runs wild, as usual, and the Lewis too(318).

Amid all this conflict and confusion, the reader’s attention is invited to
the instructive fact that the whole body of cursive copies (and all the
uncials but four) have retained in this passage all down the ages
uninjured every exquisite lineament of the inspired archetype. The truth,
I say, is to be found in the cursive copies, not in the licentious BאDL,
which as usual stand apart from one another and from A. Only in respect of
the first σου is there a slight prevarication on the part of a very few
witnesses(319). Note however that it is overborne by the consent of the
Syriac, the Old Latin and the Gothic, and further that the testimony of
ps.-Tatian is express on this head(320). There is therefore nothing to be
altered in the traditional text of St. Luke xix. 42, which furnishes an
excellent instance of fidelity of transmission, and of an emphatic
condemnation of B-א.




§ 4.


It is the misfortune of inquiries like the present that they sometimes
constrain us to give prominence to minute details which it is difficult to
make entertaining. Let me however seek to interest my reader in the true
reading of St. Matt. xx. 22, 23: from which verses recent critical Editors
reject the words, “and to be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized
with,” καὶ τὸ βάπτισμα ὃ ἐγὼ βαπτίζομαι βαπτισθῆναι.

About the right of the same words to a place in the corresponding part of
St. Mark’s Gospel (x. 38), there is no difference of opinion: except that
it is insisted that in St. Mark the clause should begin with ἤ instead of
καί.

Next, the reader is requested to attend to the following circumstance:
that, except of course the four (אBDL) and Z which omit the place
altogether and one other (S), all the Uncials together with the bulk of
the Cursives, and the Peshitto and Harkleian and several Latin Versions,
concur in reading ἢ τὸ βάπτισμα in St. Matthew: all the Uncials but eight
(אBCDLWΔΣ), together with the bulk of the Cursives and the Peshitto, agree
in reading καὶ τὸ βάπτισμα in St. Mark. This delicate distinction between
the first and the second Gospel, obliterated in the Received Text, is
faithfully maintained in nineteen out of twenty of the Cursive Copies.

In the meantime we are assured on the authority of אBDLZ—with most of the
Latin Copies, including of course Hilary and Jerome, the Cureton, the
Lewis, and the Bohairic, besides Epiphanius,—that the clause in question
has no right to its place in St. Matthew’s Gospel. So confidently is this
opinion held, that the Revisers, following Griesbach, Lachmann,
Tischendorf, Tregelles, Alford, have ejected the words from the Text. But
are they right? Certainly not, I answer. And I reason thus.

If this clause has been interpolated into St. Matthew’s Gospel, how will
you possibly account for its presence in every MS. in the world except 7,
viz. 5 uncials and 2 cursives? It is pretended that it crept in by
assimilation from the parallel place in St. Mark. But I reply,—

1. Is this credible? Do you not see the glaring improbability of such an
hypothesis? Why should the Gospel most in vogue have been assimilated in
all the Copies but seven to the Gospel least familiarly known and read in
the Churches?

2. And pray when is it pretended that this wholesale falsification of the
MSS. took place? The Peshitto Syriac as usual sides with the bulk of the
Cursives: but it has been shewn to be of the second century. Some of the
Latin Copies also have the clause. Codex C, Chrysostom and Basil of
Seleucia also exhibit it. Surely the preponderance of the evidence is
overwhelmingly one way. But then

3. As a matter of fact the clause cannot have come in from St. Mark’s
Gospel,—for the very conclusive reason that the two places are delicately
discriminated,—as on the testimony of the Cursives and the Peshitto has
been shewn already. And

4. I take upon myself to declare without fear of contradiction on the part
of any but the advocates of the popular theory that, on the contrary, it
is St. Matthew’s Gospel which has been corrupted from St. Mark’s. A
conclusive note of the assimilating process is discernible in St. Mark’s
Gospel where ἢ has intruded,—not in St. Matthew’s.

5. Why St. Matthew’s Gospel was maimed in this place, I am not able to
explain. Demonstrable it is that the Text of the Gospels at that early
period underwent a process of Revision at the hands of men who apparently
were as little aware of the foolishness as of the sinfulness of all they
did: and that Mutilation was their favourite method. And, what is very
remarkable, the same kind of infatuation which is observed to attend the
commission of crime, and often leads to its detection, is largely
recognizable here. But the Eye which never sleeps has watched over the
Deposit, and provided Himself with witnesses.




§ 5.


Singular to relate, the circumstances under which Simon and Andrew, James
and John were on the last occasion called to Apostleship (St. Matt. iv.
17-22: St. Mark i. 14-20: St. Luke v. 1-11) have never yet been
explained(321). The facts were as follows.

It was morning on the Sea of Galilee. Two boats were moored to the shore.
The fishermen having “toiled all the night and taken nothing(322),‘—’were
gone out of them and had washed out (ἀπέπλυναν) their nets (τὰ
δίκτυα)(323).” But though fishing in deep water had proved a failure, they
knew that by wading into the shallows, they might even now employ a
casting-net with advantage. Accordingly it was thus that our SAVIOUR,
coming by at this very juncture, beheld Simon and Andrew employed
(βάλλοντας ἀμφίβληστρον)(324). Thereupon, entering Simon’s boat, “He
prayed him that he would thrust out a little from the land(325).” The rest
requires no explanation.

Now, it is plain that the key which unlocks this interesting story is the
graphic precision of the compound verb employed, and the well-known usage
of the language which gives to the aorist tense on such occasions as the
present a pluperfect signification(326). The Translators of 1611, not
understanding the incident, were content, as Tyndale, following the
Vulgate(327), had been before them, to render ἀπέπλυναν τὰ δίκτυα,—“were
washing their nets.” Of this rendering, so long as the Greek was let
alone, no serious harm could come. The Revisers of 1881, however, by not
only retaining the incorrect translation “were washing their nets,” but,
by making the Greek tally with the English—by substituting in short
ἔπλυνον for ἀπέπλυναν,—have so effectually darkened the Truth as to make
it simply irrecoverable by ordinary students. The only point in the
meantime to which the reader’s attention is just now invited is this:—that
the compound verb in the aorist tense (ἀπέπλυναν) has been retained by the
whole body of the Cursives, as transmitted all down the ages: while the
barbarous ἔπλυνον is only found at this day in the two corrupt uncials
BD(328) and a single cursive (Evan. 91)(329).




§ 6.


“How hardly shall they that _have riches_ enter into the Kingdom of
Heaven,” exclaimed our LORD on a memorable occasion. The disciples were
amazed. Replying to their thoughts,—“Children,” He added, “how hard is it
for them that _trust in riches_ to enter into the Kingdom of GOD.” (St.
Mark x. 23, 24). Those familiar words, vouched for by 16 uncials and all
the cursives, are quite above suspicion. But in fact all the Versions
support them likewise. There is really no pretext for disturbing what is
so well attested, not to say so precious. Yet Tischendorf and Westcott and
Hort eject τοὺς πεποιθότας ἐπὶ τοῖς χρήμασιν from the text, on the sole
ground that the clause in question is omitted by אBΔ, one copy of the
Italic (k), and one copy of the Bohairic. Aware that such a proceeding
requires an apology,—“I think it unsafe,” says Tischendorf, “to forsake in
this place the very ancient authorities which I am accustomed to follow”:
i.e. Codexes א and B. But of what nature is this argument? Does the critic
mean that he must stick to antiquity? If this be his meaning, then let him
be reminded that Clemens(330), a more ancient authority than אB by 150
years,—not to say the Latin and the Syriac Versions, which are more
ancient still,—recognizes the words in question(331). Does however the
learned critic mean no more than this,—That it is with him a fundamental
principle of Textual Criticism to uphold at all hazards the authority of B
and א? He cannot mean that; as I proceed to explain.

For the strangest circumstance is behind. Immediately after he has thus
(in ver. 24) proclaimed the supremacy of אB, Tischendorf is constrained to
reject the combined evidence of אBCΔ. In ver. 26 those 4 copies advocate
the absurd reading λέγοντες πρὸς ΑΥΤΟΝ Καὶ τίς δύναται σωθῆναι; whereas it
was evidently to themselves (πρὸς ἑαυτούς) that the disciples said it.
Aware that this time the “antiquissimae quas sequi solet auctoritates”
stand self-condemned, instead of ingenuously avowing the fact, Tischendorf
grounds his rejection of προς αυτον on the consideration that “Mark never
uses the expression λεγειν προς αυτον.” Just as if the text of one place
in the Gospel is to be determined by the practice of the same Evangelist
in another place,—and not by its own proper evidence; which in the present
instance is (the reader may be sure) simply overwhelming!

Westcott and Hort erroneously suppose that all the copies but four,—all
the versions but one (the Bohairic),—may be in error: but that B-א, C, and
Cod. Δ which is curious in St. Mark, must needs be in the right.




§ 7.


There are many occasions—as I remarked before,—where the very logic of the
case becomes a powerful argument. Worthless in and by themselves,—in the
face, I mean, of general testimony,—considerations derived from the very
reason of the thing sometimes vindicate their right to assist the
judgement wherever the evidence is somewhat evenly balanced. But their
cogency is felt to be altogether overwhelming when, after a careful survey
of the evidence alone, we entertain no doubt whatever as to what must be
the right reading of a place. They seem then to sweep the field. Such an
occasion is presented by St. Luke xvi. 9,—where our LORD, having shewn
what provision the dishonest steward made against the day when he would
find himself houseless,—the Divine Speaker infers that something analogous
should be done by ourselves with our own money,—“in order” (saith He)
“that _when ye fail_, ye may be received into the everlasting
tabernacles.” The logical consistency of all this is as exact, as the
choice of terms in the Original is exquisite: the word employed to
designate Man’s departure out of this life (ἐκλίπητε), conveying the image
of one fainting or failing at the end of his race. It is in fact the word
used in the LXX to denote the peaceful end of Abraham, and of Ishmael, and
of Isaac, and of Jacob(332).

But instead of this, אBDLRΠ with AX present us with εκλιπη or
εκλειπη,—shewing that the author of this reading imagined without
discrimination, that what our LORD meant to say was that when at last our
money “fails” us, we may not want a home. The rest of the Uncials to the
number of twelve, together with two correctors of א, the bulk of the
Cursives, and the Old Latin copies, the Vulgate, Gothic, Harkleian, and
Ethiopic Versions, with Irenaeus(333), Clemens Alex.(334), Origen(335),
Methodius(336), Basil(337), Ephraem Syrus(338), Gregory Naz.(339),
Didymus(340), Chrysostom(341), Severianus(342), Jerome(343),
Augustine(344), Eulogius(345), and Theodoret(346), also Aphraates (A.D.
325)(347), support the reading ἐκλίπητε. Cyril appears to have known both
readings(348).

His testimony, such as it is, can only be divined from his fragmentary
remains; and “divination” is a faculty to which I make no pretence.

In p. 349, after δεῖ δὲ πάντως αὐτοὺς ἀποπεσεῖν τῆς οἰκονομίας ἐπιπηδῶντος
θανάτου, καὶ τῶν καθ᾽ ἡμᾳς πραγμάτων ἐξελκότος. ἀδιάφυκτον γὰρ ἀνθρώπῳ
παντὶ τοῦ θανάτου τὸν λίνον,—Cyril is represented as saying (6 lines lower
down) ὅταν αὐτοὺς ὁ ἐπίγειος ἐκλείτῃ ΠΛΟΥΤΟΣ, with which corresponds the
Syriac of Luc. 509. But when we encounter the same passage in Cramer’s
Catena (p. 122), besides the reference to death, ἀποπεσοῦνται πάντως τῆς
οἰκονομίας ἐπιπηδῶντος αὐτοῖς τοῦ θανάτου (lines 21-3), we are presented
with ὅταν αὐτοὺς ἡ ἐπίγειος ἐκλείποι Ζωή, which clearly reverses the
testimony. If Cyril wrote _that_, he read (like every other Father)
ἐκλίπητε. It is only right to add that ἐκλίπῃ is found besides in pp. 525,
526 (= Mai ii. 358) and 572 of Cyril’s Syriac Homilies on St. Luke. This
however (like the quotation in p. 506) may well be due to the Peshitto. I
must avow that amid so much conflicting evidence, my judgement concerning
Cyril’s text is at fault.




§ 8.


There is hardly to be found a more precious declaration concerning the
guiding and illuminating office of the Holy Ghost, than our Lord’s promise
that “when He, the Spirit of Truth shall come, He shall guide you into all
the Truth”: ὁδηγήσει ὑμᾶς εἰς πᾶσαν τὴν ἀλήθειαν (St. John xvi. 13). Now,
the six words just quoted are found to have experienced an extraordinary
amount of perturbation; far more than can be due to the fact that they
happen to be the concluding words of a lection. To be brief,—every known
variety in reading this passage may be brought under one of three heads:—

1. With the first,—which is in fact a gloss, not a reading (διηγήσεται
ὑμῖν τὴν ἀλήθειαν πᾶσαν),—we need not delay ourselves. Eusebius in two
places(349), Cyril Jer.(350), copies of the Old Latin(351), and
Jerome(352) in a certain place, so read the place. Unhappily the same
reading is also found in the Vulgate(353). It meets with no favour
however, and may be dismissed.

2. The next, which even more fatally darkens our Lord’s meaning, might
have been as unceremoniously dealt with, the reading namely of Cod. L
(ὁδηγήσει ὑμᾶς ἐν τῇ ἀληθείᾳ πάσῃ), but that unhappily it has found favour
with Tischendorf,—I suppose, because with the exception of πάσῃ it is the
reading of his own Cod. א(354). It is thus that Cyril Alex.(355) thrice
reads the place: and indeed the same thing practically is found in D(356);
while so many copies of the Old Latin exhibit _in omni veritate_, or _in
veritate omni_(357), that one is constrained to inquire, How is ἐν ἀληθείᾳ
πασῃ to be accounted for?

We have not far to look. ὁδηγεῖν followed by ἐν occurs in the LXX, chiefly
in the Psalms, more than 16 times. Especially must the familiar expression
in Ps. xxiv. 5 (ὁδήγησόν με ἐν τῇ ἀληθείᾳ σου, _Dirige me in veritate
tua_), by inopportunely suggesting itself to the mind of some early
copyist, have influenced the text of St. John xvi. 13 in this fatal way.
One is only astonished that so acute a critic as Tischendorf should have
overlooked so plain a circumstance. The constant use of the Psalm in
Divine Service, and the entire familiarity with the Psalter resulting
therefrom, explains sufficiently how it came to pass, that in this as in
other places its phraseology must have influenced the memory.

3. The one true reading of the place (ὁδηγήσει ὑμᾶς εἰς πᾶσαν τὴν
ἀλήθειαν) is attested by 12 of the uncials (EGHIbKMSUΓΔΛΠ), the whole body
of the cursives, and by the following Fathers,—Didymus(358),
Epiphanius(359), Basil(360), Chrysostom(361), Theodotus, Bp. of
Antioch(362), Cyril Alex.(363), Theodoret(364); besides Tertullian in five
places, Hilary and Jerome in two(365).

But because the words πᾶσαν τὴν ἀλήθειαν are found transposed in ABY alone
of manuscripts, and because Peter Alex.(366), and Didymus(367) once,
Origen(368) and Cyril Alex.(369) in two places, are observed to sanction
the same infelicitous arrangement (viz. τὴν ἀλήθειαν πᾶσαν),—Lachmann,
Tregelles, Alford, Westcott and Hort, adopt without hesitation this order
of the words(370). It cannot of course be maintained. The candid reader in
the meantime will not fail to note that as usual the truth has been
preserved neither by A nor B nor D: least of all by א: but comes down to
us unimpaired in the great mass of MS. authorities, uncial and cursive, as
well as in the oldest Versions and Fathers.




§ 9.


It may have been anticipated by the readers of these pages that the Divine
Author of Scripture has planted here and there up and down the sacred
page—often in most improbable places and certainly in forms which we
should have least of all imagined—tests of accuracy, by attending to which
we may form an unerring judgement concerning the faithfulness of a copy of
the sacred Text. This is a discovery which at first astonished me: but on
mature reflection, I saw that it was to have been confidently anticipated.
Is it indeed credible that Almighty Wisdom—which is observed to have made
such abundant provision for the safety of the humblest forms of animal
life, for the preservation of common seeds, often seeds of noxious
plants,—should yet have omitted to make provision for the life-giving seed
of His own Everlasting Word?

For example, strange to relate, it is a plain fact (of which every one may
convince himself by opening a copy of the Gospels furnished with a
sufficient critical apparatus), that although in relating the healing of
the centurion’s servant (St. Matt. viii. 5-13) the Evangelist writes
εκατονταρχΟΣ in verses 5 and 8, he writes εκατονταρχΗ instead of -ΧΩ in
ver. 13. This minute variety has been faithfully retained by uncials and
cursives alike. _Only_ one uncial (viz. א) has ventured to assimilate the
two places, writing εκατονταρχης throughout. With the blindness
proverbially ascribed to parental love, Tischendorf follows א, though the
carelessness that reigns over that MS. is visible to all who examine it.

The matter is a trifle confessedly. But so was the scrap of a ballad which
identified the murderer, another scrap of it being found with the bullet
in the body of the murdered man.




§ 10.


The instances which have been given in this chapter of the superiority of
the text exhibited in the later Uncials and the Cursives might have been
increased in number to almost any extent out of the papers left by Dean
Burgon. The reader will find many more illustrations in the rest of these
two volumes. Even Dr. Hort admits that the Traditional Text which is
represented by them is “entirely blameless on either literary or religious
grounds as regards vulgarized or unworthy diction(371),” while “repeated
and diligent study” can only lead, if conducted with deep and wide
research, to the discovery of beauties and meanings which have lain
unrevealed to the student before.

Let it be always borne in mind, that (_a_) the later Uncials and Cursives
are the heirs in succession of numerous and varied lines of descent spread
throughout the Church; that (_b_) their verdict is nearly always decisive
and clear; and that nevertheless (_c_) such unanimity or majority of
witnesses is not the testimony of mechanical or suborned testifiers, but
is the coincidence, as facts unquestionably prove, except in certain
instances of independent deponents to the same story.

Let me be allowed to declare(372) in conclusion that no person is
competent to pronounce concerning the merits or demerits of cursive copies
of the Gospels, who has not himself, in the first instance, collated with
great exactness at least a few of them. He will be materially assisted, if
it has ever fallen in his way to familiarize himself however partially
with the text of vast numbers. But nothing can supply the place of exact
collation of at least a few copies: of which labour, if a man has had no
experience at all, he must submit to be assured that he really has no
right to express himself confidently in this subject-matter. He argues,
not from facts, but from his own imagination of what the facts of the case
will probably be. Those only who have minutely collated several copies,
and examined with considerable attention a large proportion of all the
Sacred Codexes extant, are entitled to speak with authority here. Further,
I venture to assert that no conviction will force itself so irresistibly
on the mind of him who submits to the labour of exactly collating a few
Cursive copies of the Gospels, as that the documents in question have been
executed with even extraordinary diligence, fidelity, and skill. That
history confirms this conviction, we have only to survey the elaborate
arrangements made in monasteries for carrying on the duty, and perfecting
the art, of copying the Holy Scriptures.

If therefore this body of Manuscripts be thus declared by the excellence
of its text, by the evident pains bestowed upon its production, as well as
by the consentience with it of other evidence, to possess high
characteristics; if it represents the matured settlement of many delicate
and difficult questions by the Church which after centuries of vacillation
more or less, and indeed less rather than more, was to last for a much
larger number of centuries; must it not require great deference indeed
from all students of the New Testament? Let it always be remembered, that
no single Cursive is here selected from the rest or advanced to any
position whatsoever which would invest its verdicts with any special
authority. It is the main body of the Cursives, agreeing as they generally
do with the exception of a few eccentric groups or individuals, which is
entitled to such respect according to the measure of their agreement. And
in point of fact, the Cursives which have been collated are so generally
consentient, as to leave no doubt that the multitude which needs collation
will agree similarly. Doubtless, the later Uncials and the Cursives are
only a class of the general evidence which is now before us: but it is
desirable that those Textual Students who have been disposed to undervalue
this class should weigh with candour and fairness the arguments existing
in favour of it, which we have attempted to exhibit in this chapter.





CHAPTER XII. CONCLUSION.


The Traditional Text has now been traced, from the earliest years of
Christianity of which any record of the New Testament remains, to the
period when it was enshrined in a large number of carefully-written
manuscripts in main accord with one another. Proof has been given from the
writings of the early Fathers, that the idea that the Traditional Text
arose in the middle of the fourth century is a mere hallucination,
prompted by only a partial acquaintance with those writings. And witness
to the existence and predominance of that form of Text has been found in
the Peshitto Version and in the best of the Latin Versions, which
themselves also have been followed back to the beginning of the second
century or the end of the first. We have also discovered the truth, that
the settlement of the Text, though mainly made in the fourth century, was
not finally accomplished till the eighth century at the earliest; and that
the later Uncials, not the oldest, together with the cursives express, not
singly, not in small batches or companies, but in their main agreement,
the decisions which had grown up in the Church. In so doing, attention has
been paid to all the existing evidence: none has been omitted. _Quod
semper, quod ubique, quod ab omnibus_, has been the underlying principle.
The foundations of the building have been laid as deeply and as broadly as
our power would allow. No other course would be in consonance with
scientific procedure. The seven notes of truth have been made as
comprehensive as possible. Antiquity, number, variety, weight, continuity,
context, and internal evidence, include all points of view and all methods
of examination which are really sound. The characters of the Vatican,
Sinaitic, and Bezan manuscripts have been shewn to be bad, and the streams
which led to their production from Syrio-Old-Latin and Alexandrian sources
to the temporary school of Caesarea have been traced and explained. It has
been also shewn to be probable that corruption began and took root even
before the Gospels were written. The general conclusion which has grown
upon our minds has been that the affections of Christians have not been
misdirected; that the strongest exercise of reason has proved their
instincts to have been sound and true; that the Text which we have used
and loved rests upon a vast and varied support; that the multiform record
of Manuscripts, Versions, and Fathers, is found to defend by large
majorities in almost all instances those precious words of Holy Writ,
which have been called in question during the latter half of this century.

We submit that it cannot be denied that we have presented a strong case,
and naturally we look to see what has been said against it, since except
in some features it has been before the World and the Church for some
years. We submit that it has not received due attention from opposing
critics. If indeed the opinions of the other School had been preceded by,
or grounded upon, a searching examination, such as we have made in the
case of B and א, of the vast mass of evidence upon which we rest,—if this
great body of testimony had been proved to be bad from overbalancing
testimony or otherwise,—we should have found reason for doubt, or even for
a reversal of our decisions. But Lachmann, Tregelles, and Tischendorf laid
down principles chiefly, if not exclusively, on the score of their
intrinsic probability. Westcott and Hort built up their own theory upon
reasoning internal to it, without clearing the ground first by any careful
and detailed scrutiny. Besides which, all of them constructed their
buildings before travellers by railways and steamships had placed within
their reach the larger part of the materials which are now ready for use.
We hear constantly the proclamation made in dogmatic tones that they are
right: no proof adequate to the strength of our contention has been worked
out to shew that we are wrong.

Nevertheless, it may be best to listen for a moment to such objections as
have been advanced against conclusions like these, and which it may be
presumed will be urged again.

1. “After all it cannot be denied that B and א are the oldest manuscripts
of the New Testament in existence, and that they must therefore be
entitled to the deference due to their age.” Now the earlier part of this
allegation is conceded by us entirely: _prima facie_ it constitutes a very
strong argument. But it is really found on examination to be superficial.
Fathers and Versions are virtually older, and, as has been demonstrated,
are dead against the claim set up on behalf of those ancient manuscripts,
that they are the possessors of the true text of the Gospels. Besides
which antiquity is not the sole note of truth any more than number is. So
much has been already said on this part of the subject, that it is
needless to enter into longer discussion here.

2. “The testimony of witnesses ought to be weighed before it is reckoned.”
Doubtless: this also is a truism, and allowance has been made for it in
the various “notes of truth.” But this argument, apparently so simple, is
really intended to carry a huge assumption involved in an elaborate
maintenance of the (supposed) excellent character of B and א and their
associates. After so much that has been brought to the charge of those two
MSS. in this treatise, it is unnecessary now to urge more than that they
appeared in strange times, when the Church was convulsed to her centre;
that, as has been demonstrated, their peculiar readings were in a very
decided minority in the period before them; and, as all admit, were
rejected in the ages that passed after the time of their date.

3. It is stated that the Traditional is a conflate text, i.e. that
passages have been put together from more than one other text, so that
they are composite in construction instead of being simple. We have
already treated this allegation, but we reply now that it has not been
established: the opinion of Canon Cooke who analysed all the examples
quoted by Hort(373), of Scrivener who said they proved nothing(374), and
of many other critics and scholars has been against it. The converse
position is maintained, that the text of B and א is clipped and mutilated.
Take the following passage, which is fairly typical of the large class in
question: “For we are members of His Body” (writes St. Paul(375)) “of His
flesh and of His bones” (ἐκ τῆς σαρκὸς αὐτοῦ καὶ ἐκ τῶν ὀστέων αἰτοῦ). But
those last 9 words are disallowed by recent editors, because they are
absent from B-א, A, 8, and 17, and the margin of 67, besides the Bohairic
version. Yet are the words genuine. They are found in DFGKLP and the whole
body of the cursives: in the Old Latin and Vulgate and the two Syriac
versions: in Irenaeus(376),—in Theodorus of Mopsuestia(377),—in
Nilus(378),—in Chrysostom(379) more than four times,—in
Severianus(380),—in Theodoret(381),—in Anastasius Sinaita(382),—and in
John Damascene(383). They were probably read by Origen(384) and by
Methodius(385). Many Latin Fathers, viz. Ambrose(386),—Pacian(387),—Esaias
abb.(388),—Victorinus(389),—Jerome(390),—Augustine(391)—and Leo P.(392)
recognise them.

Such ample and such varied attestation is not to be set aside by the vapid
and unsound dictum “Western and Syrian,”—or by the weak suggestion that
the words in dispute are an unauthorized gloss, fabricated from the LXX
version of Gen. ii. 23. That St. Paul’s allusion is to the oracular
utterance of our first father Adam, is true enough: but, as Alford after
Bengel well points out, it is incredible that any forger can have been at
work here.

Such questions however, as we must again and again insist, are not to be
determined by internal considerations: no,—nor by dictation, nor by
prejudice, nor by divination, nor by any subjective theory of conflation
on which experts and critics may be hopelessly at issue: but by the weight
of the definite evidence actually producible and produced on either side.
And when, as in the present instance, Antiquity, Variety of testimony,
Respectability of witnesses, and Number are overwhelmingly in favour of
the Traditional Text, what else is it but an outrage on the laws of
evidence to claim that the same little band of documents which have
already come before us so often, and always been found in error, even
though aided by speculative suppositions, shall be permitted to outweigh
all other testimony?

To build therefore upon a conflate or composite character in a set of
readings would be contrary to the evidence:—or at any rate, it would at
the best be to lay foundations upon ground which is approved by one school
of critics and disputed by the other in every case. The determination of
the text of Holy Scripture has not been handed over to a mere conflict of
opposite opinions, or to the uncertain sands of conjecture.

Besides, as has been already stated, no amount of conflation would supply
passages which the destructive school would wholly leave out. It is
impossible to “conflate” in places where Bא and their associates furnish
no materials for the supposed conflation. Bricks cannot be made without
clay. The materials actually existing are those of the Traditional Text
itself. But in fact these questions are not to be settled by the scholarly
taste or opinions of either school, even of that which we advocate. They
must rest upon the verdict found by the facts in evidence: and those facts
have been already placed in array.

4. Again, stress is laid upon Genealogy. Indeed, as Dean Burgon himself
goes on to say, so much has lately been written about “the principle” and
“the method” “of genealogy,” that it becomes in a high degree desirable
that we should ascertain precisely what those expressions lawfully mean.
No fair controversialist would willingly fail to assign its legitimate
place and value to any principle for which he observes an opponent eagerly
contending. But here is a “principle” and here is a “method” which are
declared to be of even paramount importance. “Documents ... are all
fragments, usually casual and scattered fragments, of a genealogical tree
of transmission, sometimes of vast extent and intricacy. The more exactly
we are able to trace the chief ramifications of the tree, and to determine
the places of the several documents among the branches, the more secure
will be the foundations laid for a criticism capable of distinguishing the
original text from its successive corruptions(393).”

The expression is metaphorical; belonging of right to families of men, but
transferred to Textual Science as indicative that similar phenomena attend
families of manuscripts. Unfortunately the phenomena attending
transmission,—of Natures on the one hand, of Texts on the other,—are
essentially dissimilar. A diminutive couple may give birth to a race of
giants. A genius has been known to beget a dunce. A brood of children
exhibiting extraordinary diversities of character, aspect, ability,
sometimes spring from the same pair. Nothing like this is possible in the
case of honestly-made copies of MSS. The analogy breaks down therefore in
respect of its most essential feature. And yet, there can be no objection
to the use of the term “Genealogy” in connexion with manuscripts, provided
always that nothing more is meant thereby than derivation by the process
of copying: nothing else claimed but that “Identity of reading implies
identity of origin(394).”

Only in this limited way are we able to avail ourselves of the principle
referred to. Of course if it were a well-ascertained fact concerning three
copies (XYZ), that Z was copied from Y, and Y from X, XYZ might reasonably
be spoken of as representing three descents in a pedigree; although the
interval between Z and Y were only six months,—the interval between Y and
X, six hundred years. Moreover, these would be not three independent
authorities, but only one. Such a case, however,—(the fact cannot be too
clearly apprehended),—is simply non-existent. What is known commonly lies
on the surface:—viz. that occasionally between two or more copies there
exists such an amount of peculiar textual affinity as to constrain us to
adopt the supposition that they have been derived from a common original.
These peculiarities of text, we tell ourselves, cannot be fortuitous.
Taking our stand on the true principle that “identity of reading implies
identity of origin,” we insist on reasoning from the known to the unknown:
and (at our humble distance) we are fully as confident of our scientific
fact as Adams and Le Verrier would have been of the existence of Neptune
had they never actually obtained sight of that planet.

So far are we therefore from denying the value and importance of the
principle under discussion that we are able to demonstrate its efficacy in
the resolution of some textual problems which have been given in this
work. Thus E, the uncial copy of St. Paul, is “nothing better,” says
Scrivener, “than a transcript of the Cod. Claromontanus” D. “The Greek is
manifestly worthless, and should long since have been removed from the
list of authorities(395).” Tischendorf nevertheless, not Tregelles, quotes
it on every page. He has no business to do so, Codexes D and E, to all
intents and purposes, being _strictly one Codex_. This case, like the two
next, happily does not admit of diversity of opinion. Next, F and G of St.
Paul’s Epistles, inasmuch as they are confessedly derived from one and the
same archetype, are not to be reckoned as two authorities, but as one.

Again, the correspondence between the nine MSS. of the Ferrar group—Evann.
13 at Paris, 69 at Leicester, 124 at Vienna, 346 at Milan, 556 in the
British Museum, 561 at Bank House, Wisbech,—and in a lesser degree, 348 at
Milan, 624 at Crypta Ferrata, 788 at Athens,—is so extraordinary as to
render it certain that these copies are in the main derived from one
common archetype(396). Hence, though one of them (788) is of the tenth
century, three (348, 561, 624) are of the eleventh, four (13, 124, 346,
556) of the twelfth, and one (69) of the fourteenth, their joint evidence
is held to be tantamount to the recovery of a lost uncial or papyrus of
very early date,—which uncial or papyrus, by the way, it would be
convenient to indicate by a new symbol, as Fr. standing for Ferrar, since
Φ which was once attributed to them is now appropriated to the Codex
Beratinus. If indicated numerically, the figures should at all events be
connected by a hyphen (13-69-124-346-&c.); not as if they were independent
witnesses, as Tischendorf quotes them. And lastly, B and א are undeniably,
more than any other two Codexes which can be named, the depositaries of
one and the same peculiar, all but unique, text.

I propose to apply the foregoing remarks to the solution of one of the
most important of Textual problems. That a controversy has raged around
the last twelve verses of St. Mark’s Gospel is known to all. Known also it
is that a laborious treatise was published on the subject in 1871, which,
in the opinion of competent judges, has had the effect of removing the
“Last Twelve Verses of St. Mark” beyond the reach of suspicion.
Notwithstanding this, at the end of ten years an attempt was made to
revive the old plea. The passage, say Drs. Westcott and Hort, “manifestly
cannot claim any Apostolic authority; but is doubtless founded on some
tradition of the Apostolic age,” of which the “precise date must remain
unknown.” It is “a very early interpolation” (pp. 51, 46). In a word, “the
last twelve verses” of St. Mark’s Gospel, according to Drs. Westcott and
Hort, are spurious. But what is their ground of confidence? for we claim
to be as competent to judge of testimony as they. It proves to be “the
unique criterion supplied by the concord of the independent attestations
of א and B” (p. 46).

“Independent attestations”! But when two copies of the Gospel are
confessedly derived from one and the same original, how can their
“attestations” be called “independent”? This is however greatly to
understate the case. The non-independence of B and א in respect of St.
Mark xvi. 9-20 is absolutely unique: for, strange to relate, it so happens
that the very leaf on which the end of St. Mark’s Gospel and the beginning
of St. Luke’s is written (St. Mark xvi. 2-Luke i. 56), is one of the six
leaves of Cod. א which are held to have been written by the scribe of Cod.
B. “The inference,” remarks Scrivener, “is simple and direct, that at
least in these leaves Codd. Bא make but one witness, not two(397).”

The principle of Genealogy admits of a more extended and a more important
application to this case, because B and א do not stand quite alone, but
are exclusively associated with three or four other manuscripts which may
be regarded as being descended from them. As far as we can judge, they may
be regarded as the founders, or at least as prominent members of a family,
whose descendants were few, because they were generally condemned by the
generations which came after them. Not they, but other families upon other
genealogical stems, were the more like to the patriarch whose progeny was
to equal the stars of heaven in multitude.

Least of all shall I be so simple as to pretend to fix the precise date
and assign a definite locality to the fontal source, or sources, of our
present perplexity and distress. But I suspect that in the little handful
of authorities which have acquired such a notoriety in the annals of
recent Textual Criticism, at the head of which stand Codexes B and א, are
to be recognized the characteristic features of a lost family of (once
well known) second or third-century documents, which owed their existence
to the misguided zeal of some well-intentioned but utterly incompetent
persons who devoted themselves to the task of correcting the Text of
Scripture; but were entirely unfit for the undertaking(398).

Yet I venture also to think that it was in a great measure at Alexandria
that the text in question was fabricated. My chief reasons for thinking so
are the following: (1) There is a marked resemblance between the peculiar
readings of Bא and the two Egyptian Versions,—the Bohairic or Version of
Lower Egypt especially. (2) No one can fail to have been struck by the
evident sympathy between Origen,—who at all events had passed more than
half his life at Alexandria,—and the text in question. (3) I notice that
Nonnus also, who lived in the Thebaid, exhibits considerable sympathy with
the text which I deem so corrupt. (4) I cannot overlook the fact that Cod.
א was discovered in a monastery under the sway of the patriarch of
Alexandria, though how it got there no evidence remains to point out. (5)
The licentious handling so characteristic of the Septuagint Version of the
O. T.,—the work of Alexandrian Jews,—points in the same direction, and
leads me to suspect that Alexandria was the final source of the text of
B-א. (6) I further observe that the sacred Text (κείμενον) in Cyril’s
Homilies on St. John is often similar to B-א; and this, I take for
granted, was the effect of the school of Alexandria,—not of the patriarch
himself. (7) Dionysius of Alexandria complains bitterly of the corrupt
Codexes of his day: and certainly (8) Clemens habitually employed copies
of a similar kind. He too was of Alexandria(399).

Such are the chief considerations which incline me to suspect that
Alexandria contributed largely to our Textual troubles.

The readings of B-א are the consequence of a junction of two or more
streams and then of derivation from a single archetype. This inference is
confirmed by the fact that the same general text which B exhibits is
exhibited also by the eighth-century Codex L, the work probably of an
Egyptian scribe(400): and by the tenth-century Codex 33: and by the
eleventh-century Codex 1: and to some extent by the twelfth-century Codex
69.

We have already been able to advance to another and a very important step.
There is nothing in the history of the earliest times of the Church to
prove that vellum manuscripts of the New Testament existed in any number
before the fourth century. No such documents have come down to us. But we
do know, as has been shewn above(401), that writings on papyrus were
transcribed on vellum in the library of Caesarea. What must we then
conclude? That, as has been already suggested, papyrus MSS. are mainly the
progenitors of the Uncials, and probably of the oldest Uncials. Besides
this inference, we have seen that it is also most probable that many of
the Cursives were transcribed directly from papyrus books or rolls. So
that the Genealogy of manuscripts of the New Testament includes a vast
number of descendants, and many lines of descent, which ramified from one
stem on the original start from the autograph of each book. The Vatican
and the Sinaitic do not stand pre-eminent because of any great line of
parentage passing through them to a multitudinous posterity inheriting the
earth, but they are members of a condemned family of which the issue has
been small. The rejected of the fourth century has been spurned by
succeeding centuries. And surely now also the fourth century, rich in a
roll of men conspicuous ever since for capacity and learning, may be
permitted to proclaim its real sentiments and to be judged from its own
decisions, without being disfranchised by critics of the nineteenth.

The history of the Traditional Text, on the contrary, is continuous and
complete under the view of Genealogy. The pedigree of it may be commended
to the examination of the Heralds’ College. It goes step by step in
unbroken succession regularly back to the earliest time. The present
printed editions may be compared for extreme accuracy with the text passed
by the Elzevirs or Beza as the text received by all of their time. Erasmus
followed his few MSS. because he knew them to be good representatives of
the mind of the Church which had been informed under the ceaseless and
loving care of mediaeval transcribers: and the text of Erasmus printed at
Basle agreed in but little variation with the text of the Complutensian
editors published in Spain, for which Cardinal Ximenes procured MSS. at
whatever cost he could. No one doubts the coincidence in all essential
points of the printed text with the text of the Cursives. Dr. Hort
certifies the Cursive Text as far back as the middle of the fourth
century. It depends upon various lines of descent, and rests on the
testimony supplied by numerous contemporary Fathers before the year 1000
A.D., when co-existing MSS. failed to bear witness in multitudes. The
acceptance of it by the Church of the fifth century, which saw the
settlement of the great doctrinal controversies either made or confirmed,
proves that the seal was set upon the validity of the earliest pedigrees
by the illustrious intellects and the sound faith of those days. And in
the fifth chapter of this work, contemporary witness is carried back to
the first days. There is thus a cluster of pedigrees, not in one line but
in many parallel courses of descent, not in one country but in several,
ranging over the whole Catholic Church where Greek was understood,
attested by Versions, and illustrated copiously by Fathers, along which
without break in the continuity the Traditional Text in its main features
has been transmitted. Doubtless something still remains for the Church to
do under the present extraordinary wealth of authorities in the
verification of some particulars issuing in a small number of alterations,
not in challenging or changing like the other school anything approaching
to one-eighth of the New Testament(402): for that we now possess in the
main the very Words of the Holy Gospels as they issued from their inspired
authors, we are taught under the principle of Genealogy that there is no
valid reason to doubt.

To conclude, the system which we advocate will be seen to contrast
strikingly with that which is upheld by the opposing school, in three
general ways:

I. We have with us width and depth against the narrowness on their side.
They are conspicuously contracted in the fewness of the witnesses which
they deem worthy of credence. They are restricted as to the period of
history which alone they consider to deserve attention. They are confined
with regard to the countries from which their testimony comes. They would
supply Christians with a shortened text, and educate them under a
cast-iron system. We on the contrary champion the many against the few: we
welcome all witnesses, and weigh all testimony: we uphold all the ages
against one or two, and all the countries against a narrow space. We
maintain the genuine and all-round Catholicism of real Christendom against
a discarded sectarianism exhumed from the fourth century. If we condemn,
it is because the evidence condemns. We cling to all the precious Words
that have come down to us, because they have been so preserved to our days
under verdicts depending upon overwhelming proof.

II. We oppose facts to their speculation. They exalt B and א and D because
in their own opinion those copies are the best. They weave ingenious webs,
and invent subtle theories, because their paradox of a few against the
many requires ingenuity and subtlety for its support. Dr. Hort revelled in
finespun theories and technical terms, such as “Intrinsic Probability,”
“Transcriptional Probability,” “Internal evidence of Readings,” “Internal
evidence of Documents,” which of course connote a certain amount of
evidence, but are weak pillars of a heavy structure. Even conjectural
emendation(403) and inconsistent decrees(404) are not rejected. They are
infected with the theorizing which spoils some of the best German work,
and with the idealism which is the bane of many academic minds, especially
at Oxford and Cambridge. In contrast with this sojourn in cloudland, we
are essentially of the earth though not earthy. We are nothing, if we are
not grounded in facts: our appeal is to facts, our test lies in facts, so
far as we can we build testimonies upon testimonies and pile facts on
facts. We imitate the procedure of the courts of justice in decisions
resulting from the converging product of all the evidence, when it has
been cross-examined and sifted. As men of business, not less than
students, we endeavour to pursue the studies of the library according to
the best methods of the world.

III. Our opponents are gradually getting out of date: the world is
drifting away from them. Thousands of manuscripts have been added to the
known stores since Tischendorf formed his system, and Hort began to
theorize, and their handful of favourite documents has become by
comparison less and less. Since the deaths of both of those eminent
critics, the treasures dug up in Egypt and elsewhere have put back the
date of the science of palaeography from the fourth century after the
Christian era to at least the third century before, and papyrus has sprung
up into unexpected prominence in the ancient and mediaeval history of
writing. It is discovered that there was no uncial period through which
the genealogy of cursives has necessarily passed. Old theories on those
points must generally be reconstructed if they are to tally with known
facts. But this accession of knowledge which puts our opponents in the
wrong, has no effect on us except to confirm our position with new proof.
Indeed, we welcome the unlocking of the all but boundless treasury of
ancient wealth, since our theory, being as open as possible, and resting
upon the visible and real, remains not only uninjured but strengthened. If
it were to require any re-arrangement, that would be only a re-ordering of
particulars, not of our principles which are capacious enough to admit of
any addition of materials of judgement. We trust to the Church of all the
ages as the keeper and witness of Holy Writ, we bow to the teaching of the
HOLY GHOST, as conveyed in all wisdom by facts and evidence: and we are
certain, that, following no preconceived notions of our own, but led under
such guidance, moved by principles so reasonable and comprehensive, and
observing rules and instructions appealing to us with such authority, we
are in all main respects


    STANDING UPON THE ROCK.





APPENDIX I. HONEYCOMB—ἈΠῸ ΜΕΛΙΣΣΊΟΥ ΚΗΡΊΟΥ.


[The Dean left positive instructions for the publication of this
Dissertation, as being finished for Press.]

I propose next to call attention to the omission from St. Luke xxiv. 42 of
a precious incident in the history of our Lord’s Resurrection. It was in
order effectually to convince the Disciples that it was Himself, in His
human body, who stood before them in the upper chamber on the evening of
the first Easter Day, that He inquired, [ver. 41] “Have ye here any meat?
[ver. 42] and they gave Him a piece of a broiled fish, AND OF AN
HONEYCOMB.” But those four last words (καὶ ἀπὸ μελισσίου κηρίου) because
they are not found in six copies of the Gospel, are by Westcott and Hort
ejected from the text. Calamitous to relate, the Revisers of 1881 were by
those critics persuaded to exclude them also. How do men suppose that such
a clause as that established itself universally in the sacred text, if it
be spurious? “How do you suppose,” I shall be asked in reply, “if it be
genuine, that such a clause became omitted from any manuscript at all?”

I answer,—The omission is due to the prevalence in the earliest age of
fabricated exhibitions of the Gospel narrative; in which, singular to
relate, the incident recorded in St. Luke xxiv. 41-43 was identified with
that other mysterious repast which St. John describes in his last
chapter(405). It seems incredible, at first sight, that an attempt would
ever be made to establish an enforced harmony between incidents exhibiting
so many points of marked contrast: for St. Luke speaks of (1) “broiled
fish [ἰχθύος ὀπτοῦ] and honeycomb,” (2) which “_they_ gave _Him_,” (3)
“and _He_ did eat” (4) on the first Easter Day, (5) at evening, (6) in a
chamber, (7) at Jerusalem:—whereas St. John specifies (1) “_bread_, and
fish [ὀψάριον] likewise,” (2) which _He_ gave them, (3) and of which it is
not related that Himself partook. (4) The occasion was subsequent: (5) the
time, early morning: (6) the scene, the sea-shore: (7) the country,
Galilee.

Let it be candidly admitted on the other hand, in the way of excuse for
those ancient men, that “broiled fish” was common to both repasts; that
they both belong to the period subsequent to the Resurrection: that the
same parties, our LORD namely and His Apostles, were concerned in either
transaction; and that both are prefaced by similar words of inquiry.
Waiving this, it is a plain fact that Eusebius in his 9th Canon, makes the
two incidents parallel; numbering St. Luke (xxix. 41-3), § 341; and St.
John (xxi. 9, 10, 12, first half, and 13), severally §§ 221, 223, 225. The
Syriac sections which have hitherto escaped the attention of critical
scholars(406) are yet more precise. Let the intention of their venerable
compiler—whoever he may have been—be exhibited in full. It has never been
done before:—

“(ST. LUKE xxiv.)                     “(ST. JOHN xxi.)”
“§ 397. [Jesus] said unto them,       “§ 255. Jesus saith unto them,
Have ye here any meat? (ver. 41.)     Children, have ye any meat? They
                                      answered Him, No. (ver. 5.)
“_Id._ ...                            “§ 259 ... As soon then as they
                                      were come to land, they saw a fire
                                      of coals there, and fish laid
                                      thereon, and bread. (ver. 9.)
“§ 398. And they gave Him a piece     “§ 264. Jesus then cometh and
of a broiled fish and of an           taketh bread, and giveth them, and
honeycomb. (ver. 42.)                 fish likewise. (ver. 13.)
“§ 399. And He took it and did eat    “§ 262. Jesus saith unto them, Come
before them. (ver. 43.)”              and dine. (ver. 12.)”

The intention of all this is unmistakable. The places are deliberately
identified. But the mischief is of much older date than the Eusebian
Canons, and must have been derived in the first instance from a distinct
source. Eusebius, as he himself informs us, did but follow in the wake of
others. Should the Diatessaron cf Ammonius or that of Tatian ever be
recovered, a flood of light will for the first time be poured over a
department of evidence where at present we must be content to grope our
way(407).

But another element of confusion I suspect is derived from that lost
Commentary on the Song of Solomon in which Origen is said to have
surpassed himself(408). Certain of the ancients insist on discovering in
St. Luke xxiv. 42 the literal fulfilment of the Greek version of Cant. v.
1, “I ate my _bread_ with _honey_.” Cyril of Jerusalem remarks that those
words of the spouse “were fulfilled” when “they gave Him a piece of a
broiled fish and of an honeycomb(409)”: while Gregory Nyss. points out
(alluding to the same place) that “the true Bread,” when He appeared to
His Disciples, “was by honeycomb made sweet(410).” Little did those
Fathers imagine the perplexity which at the end of 15 centuries their
fervid and sometimes fanciful references to Scripture would occasion!

I proceed to shew how inveterately the ancients have confused these two
narratives, or rather these two distinct occasions. “Who knows not,” asks
Epiphanius, “that our SAVIOUR ate, after His Resurrection from the dead?
As the holy Gospels of Truth have it, ‘There was given unto Him’ [which is
a reference to St. Luke], ‘bread and part of a broiled fish.’ [but it is
St. John who mentions the bread];—‘and He took and ate’ [but only
according to St. Luke], ‘and gave to His disciples,’ [but only according
to St. John. And yet the reference must be to St. Luke’s narrative, for
Epiphanius straightway adds,] ‘as He _also_ did at the sea of Tiberias;
both eating,’ [although _no_ eating on His part is recorded concerning
_that_ meal,] ‘and distributing(411).’ ” Ephraem Syrus makes the same
mis-statement. “If He was not flesh,” he asks, “who was it, at the sea of
Tiberias, who ate(412)?” “While Peter is fishing,” says Hesychius(413),
(with plain reference to the narrative in St. John), “behold in the LORD’S
hands bread and honeycomb(414)”: where the “honeycomb” has clearly lost
its way, and has thrust out the “fish.” Epiphanius elsewhere even more
fatally confuses the two incidents. “JESUS” (he says) “on a second
occasion after His Resurrection ate both a piece of a broiled fish and
some honeycomb(415).” One would have set this down to sheer inadvertence,
but that Jerome circumstantially makes the self-same assertion:—“In John
we read that while the Apostles were fishing, He stood upon the shore, and
ate part of a broiled fish and honeycomb. At Jerusalem He is not related
to have done anything of the kind(416).” From whom can Jerome have derived
that wild statement(417)? It is certainly not his own. It occurs in his
letter to Hedibia where he is clearly a translator only(418). In another
place, Jerome says, “He sought fish broiled upon the coals, in order to
confirm the faith of His doubting Apostles, who were afraid to approach
Him, because they thought they saw a spirit,—not a solid body(419)”: which
is a mixing up of St. John’s narrative with that of St Luke. Clemens
Alex., in a passage which has hitherto escaped notice, deliberately
affirms that “the LORD blessed the loaves and the broiled fishes with
which He feasted His Disciples(420).” Where did he find that piece of
information?

One thing more in connexion with the “broiled fish _and honeycomb_.”
Athanasius—and Cyril Alex.(421) after him—rehearse the incident with
entire accuracy; but Athanasius adds the apocryphal statement that “He
took what remained over, and gave it unto them(422)”: which tasteless
appendix is found besides in Cureton’s Syriac [not in the Lewis],—in the
Bohairic, Harkleian, Armenian, and Ethiopic Versions; and must once have
prevailed to a formidable extent, for it has even established itself in
the Vulgate(423). It is witnessed to, besides, by two ninth-century
uncials (ΚΠ) and ten cursive copies(424). The thoughtful reader will say
to himself,—“Had only Cod. B joined itself to this formidable conspiracy
of primitive witnesses, we should have had this also thrust upon us by the
new school as indubitable Gospel: and remonstrances would have been in
vain!”

Now, as all must see, it is simply incredible that these many Fathers, had
they employed honestly-made copies of St. Luke’s and of St. John’s Gospel,
could have fallen into such frequent and such strange misrepresentations
of what those Evangelists actually say. From some fabricated Gospel—from
some “Diatessaron” or “Life of Christ,” once famous in the Church, long
since utterly forgotten,—from some unauthentic narrative of our Saviour’s
Death and Resurrection, I say, these several depravations of the sacred
story must needs have been imported into St. Luke’s Gospel. And lo, out of
all that farrago, the only manuscript traces which survive at this distant
day, are found in the notorious B-א, with A, D, L, and Π,—one copy each of
the Old Latin (e) and the Bohairic [and the Lewis],—which exclusively
enjoy the unenviable distinction of omitting the incident of the
“honeycomb”: while the confessedly spurious appendix, “He gave them what
remained over,” enjoys a far more ancient, more varied, and more
respectable attestation,—and yet has found favour with no single Editor of
the Sacred Text: no, nor have our Revisers seen fit by a marginal note to
apprize the ordinary English reader that “many uncial authorities” are
disfigured in this particular way. With this latter accretion to the
inspired verity, therefore, we need not delay ourselves: but that, so many
disturbing influences having resulted, at the end of seventeen centuries,
in the elimination of the clause καὶ ἀπὸ μελισσίου κηρίου from six corrupt
copies of St. Luke’s Gospel,—a fixed determination or a blundering
tendency should now be exhibited to mutilate the Evangelical narrative in
respect of the incident which those four words embody,—this may well
create anxiety. It makes critical inquiry an imperative duty: not indeed
for our own satisfaction, but for that of others.

Upon ourselves, the only effect produced by the sight of half a dozen
Evangelia,—whether written in the uncial or in the cursive character we
deem a matter of small account,—opposing themselves to the whole body of
the copies, uncial and cursive alike, is simply to make us suspicious of
those six Evangelia. Shew us that they have been repeatedly tried already
and as often have been condemned, and our suspicion becomes intense. Add
such evidence of the operation of a disturbing force as has been already
set before the reader; and further inquiry in our own minds we deem
superfluous. But we must answer those distinguished Critics who have ruled
that Codexes B-א, D, L, can hardly if ever err.

The silence of the Fathers is really not of much account. Some critics
quote Clemens Alexandrinus. But let that Father be allowed to speak for
himself. He is inveighing against gluttony. “Is not variety consistent
with simplicity of diet?” (he asks); and he enumerates olives, vegetables,
milk, cheese, &c. If it must be flesh, he proceeds, let the flesh be
merely broiled. “ ‘Have ye here any meat?’ said our Lord to His disciples
after His Resurrection. Whereupon, having been by Him taught frugality in
respect of diet, ‘they gave Him a piece of a broiled fish.’ ... Yet may
the fact not be overlooked that those who sup as The Word approves may
partake besides of ‘honeycomb.’ The fittest food, in a word, we consider
to be that which requires no cooking: next, as I began by explaining,
cheap and ordinary articles of diet(425).” Shall I be thought unreasonable
if I insist that so far from allowing that Clemens is “silent” concerning
the “honeycomb,” I even regard his testimony to the traditionary reading
of St. Luke xxiv. 42 as express? At the end of 1700 years, I am as sure
that “honeycomb” was found in his copy, as if I had seen it with my eyes.

Origen, who is next adduced, in one place remarks concerning our
SAVIOUR—“It is plain that after His Resurrection, He ate of a fish(426).”
The same Father elsewhere interprets mystically the circumstance that the
Disciples “gave Him a piece of a broiled fish(427).” Eusebius in like
manner thrice mentions the fact that our LORD partook of “broiled
fish(428)” after His Resurrection. And because these writers do not also
mention “honeycomb,” it is assumed by Tischendorf and his school that the
words καὶ ἀπὸ μελισσίου κηρίου cannot have existed in their copies of St.
Luke(429). The proposed inference is plainly inadmissible. Cyril, after
quoting accurately St. Luke xxiv. 36 to 43 (“honeycomb” and all)(430),
proceeds to remark exclusively on the incident of the “fish”(431). Ambrose
and Augustine certainly recognized the incident of “the honeycomb”: yet
the latter merely remarks that “to eat fish with the LORD is better than
to eat lentiles with Esau(432);” while the former draws a mystical
inference from “the record in the Gospel that JESUS ate _broiled
fishes_(433).” Is it not obvious that the more conspicuous incident,—that
of the “broiled fish,”—being common to both repasts, stands for all that
was partaken of on either occasion? in other words, represents the entire
meal? It excludes neither the “honeycomb” of the upper chamber, nor the
“bread” which was eaten beside the Galilean lake. Tertullian(434),
intending no slight either to the “broiled fish” or to the “bread,” makes
mention only of our Lord’s having “eaten honeycomb” after His
Resurrection. And so Jerome, addressing John, bishop of Jerusalem,
exclaims—“Why did the Lord eat honeycomb? Not in order to give thee
licence to eat honey, but in order to demonstrate the truth of His
Resurrection(435).” To draw inferences from the rhetorical _silence_ of
the Fathers as if we were dealing with a mathematical problem or an Act of
Parliament, can only result in misconceptions of the meaning of those
ancient men.

As for Origen, there is nothing in either of the two places commonly cited
from his writings(436), where he only mentions the partaking of “fish,” to
preclude the belief that Origen knew of the “honeycomb” also in St. Luke
xxiv. 42. We have but fragments of his Commentary on St. Luke(437), and an
abridged translation of his famous Commentary on Canticles. Should these
works of his be hereafter recovered in their entirety, I strongly suspect
that a certain scholium in Cordier’s Catena on St. Luke(438), which
contains a very elaborate recognition of the “honeycomb,” will be found to
be nothing else but an excerpt from one or other of them. At foot the
learned reader will be gratified by the sight of the original Greek of the
scholium referred to(439), which Cordier so infelicitously exhibits in
Latin. He will at least be made aware that if it be not Origen who there
speaks to us, it is some other very ancient father, whose testimony to the
genuineness of the clause now under consideration is positive evidence in
its favour which greatly outweighs the negative evidence of the archetype
of B-א. But in fact as a specimen of mystical interpretation, the passage
in question is quite in Origen’s way(440)—has all his fervid wildness,—in
all probability is actually _his_.

The question however to be decided is clearly not whether certain ancient
copies of St. Luke were without the incident of the honeycomb; but only
whether it is reasonable to infer from the premisses that the Evangelist
made no mention of it. And I venture to anticipate that readers will
decide this question with me in the negative. That, from a period of the
remotest antiquity, certain disturbing forces have exercised a baneful
influence over this portion of Scripture is a plain fact: and that their
combined agency should have resulted in the elimination of the incident of
the “honeycomb” from a few copies of St. Luke xxiv. 42, need create no
surprise. On the other hand, this Evangelical incident is attested by the
following witnesses:—

In the second century, by Justin M.(441),—by Clemens Alexandrinus(442),—by
Tertullian(443),—by the Old-Latin,—and by the Peshitto Version:

In the third century, by Cureton’s Syriac,—and by the Bohairic:

In the fourth century, by Athanasius(444),—by Gregory of Nyssa(445),—by
Epiphanius(446),—by Cyril of Jerusalem(447),—by Jerome(448),—by
Augustine(449),—and by the Vulgate:

In the fifth century, by Cyril of Alexandria(450),—by Proclus(451),—by
Vigilius Tapsensis(452),—by the Armenian,—and Ethiopic Versions:

In the sixth century, by Hesychius and Cod. N(453):

In the seventh century, by the Harkleian Version.

Surely an Evangelical incident attested by so many, such respectable, and
such venerable witnesses as these, is clearly above suspicion. Besides its
recognition in the ancient scholium to which attention has been largely
invited already(454), we find the incident of the “honeycomb” recognized
by 13 ancient Fathers,—by 8 ancient Versions,—by the unfaltering Tradition
of the universal Church,—above all, by every copy of St. Luke’s Gospel in
existence (as far as is known), uncial as well as cursive—except _six_.
That it carries on its front the impress of its own genuineness, is what
no one will deny(455). Yet was Dr. Hort for dismissing it without
ceremony. “A singular interpolation evidently from an extraneous source,
written or oral,” he says. A singular hallucination, we venture to reply,
based on ideal grounds and “a system [of Textual Criticism] hopelessly
self-condemned(456);” seeing that that ingenious and learned critic has
nothing to urge except that the words in dispute are omitted by B-א,—by A
seldom found in the Gospels in such association,—by D of the sixth
century,—by L of the eighth,—by Π of the ninth.

                  ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

I have been so diffuse on this place because I desire to exhibit an
instance shewing that certain perturbations of the sacred Text demand
laborious investigation,—have a singular history of their own,—may on no
account be disposed of in a high-handed way, by applying to them any cut
and dried treatment,—nay I must say, any arbitrary shibboleth. The clause
in dispute enjoys in perfection every note of a genuine reading: viz.
number, antiquity, variety, respectability of witnesses, besides
continuity of attestation: every one of which notes are away from that
exhibition of the text which is contended for by my opponents(457).
Tischendorf conjectures that the “honeycomb” may have been first brought
in from the “Gospel of the Hebrews.” What if, on the contrary, by the
Valentinian “Gospel of Truth,”—a composition of the second century,—the
“honeycomb” should have been first thrust out(458)? The plain statement of
Epiphanius (quoted above(459)) seems to establish the fact that his maimed
citation was derived from that suspicious source.

Let the foregoing be accepted as a specimen of the injury occasionally
sustained by the Evangelical text in a very remote age from the evil
influence of the fabricated narratives, or _Diatessarons_, which anciently
abounded. The genuineness of the clause καὶ ἀπὸ μελισσίου κηρίου, it is
hoped, will never more be seriously called in question. Surely it has been
demonstrated to be quite above suspicion(460).





APPENDIX II. ὌΞΟΣ—VINEGAR.


[The Dean thought this to be one of his most perfect papers.]

When He had reached the place called Golgotha, there were some who
_offered_ to the Son of Man (ἐδίδουν “were for giving” Him) a draught of
wine drugged with myrrh(461). He would not so much as taste it. Presently,
the soldiers gave Him while hanging on the Cross vinegar mingled with
gall(462). This He tasted, but declined to drink. At the end of six hours,
He cried, “I thirst”: whereupon one of the soldiers ran, filled a sponge
with vinegar, and gave Him to drink by offering the sponge up to His mouth
secured to the summit of the reed of aspersion: whereby (as St. John
significantly remarks) it covered the bunch of ceremonial hyssop which was
used for sprinkling the people(463). This time He drank; and exclaimed,
“It is finished.”

                  ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

Now, the ancients, and indeed the moderns too, have hopelessly confused
this pathetic story by identifying the “vinegar and gall” of St. Matt.
xxvii. 34 with the “myrrhed wine” of St. Mark xv. 23; shewing therein a
want of critical perception which may reasonably excite astonishment; for
“wine” is not “vinegar,” neither is “myrrh” “gall.” And surely, the
instinct of humanity which sought to alleviate the torture of crucifixion
by administering to our Saviour a preliminary soporific draught, was
entirely distinct from the fiendish malice which afterwards with a
nauseous potion strove to aggravate the agony of dissolution. Least of all
is it reasonable to identify the leisurely act of the insolent soldiery at
the third hour(464), with what “one of them” (evidently appalled by the
darkness) “ran” to do at the ninth(465). Eusebius nevertheless, in his
clumsy sectional system, brackets(466) together these three places (St.
Matt. xxvii. 34, St. Mark xv. 23, St. John xix. 29): while moderns (as the
excellent Isaac Williams) and ancients (as Cyril of Jerusalem)(467) alike
strenuously contend that the two first must needs be identical. The
consequence might have been foreseen. Besides the substitution of “wine”
for “vinegar” (οἶνον for ὄξος) which survives to this day in nineteen
copies of St. Matt. xxvii. 34, the words “and gall” are found improperly
thrust into four or five copies of St. John xix. 29. As for Eusebius and
Macarius Magnes, they read St. John xix. 29 after such a monstrous fashion
of their own, that I propose to invite separate attention to it in another
place. Since however the attempt to assimilate the fourth Gospel to the
first (by exhibiting ὄξος μετὰ χολῆς in St. John xix. 29) is universally
admitted to be indefensible, it need not occupy us further.

                  ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

I return to the proposed substitution of οἶνον for ὄξος in St. Matt.
xxvii. 34, and have only to point out that it is as plain an instance of
enforced harmony as can be produced. That it exists in many copies of the
Old-Latin, and lingers on in the Vulgate: is the reading of the Egyptian,
Ethiopic, and Armenian Versions and the Lewis Cod.; and survives in
BאDKLΠ, besides thirteen of the cursives(468);—all this will seem strange
to those only who have hitherto failed to recognize the undeniable fact
that Codd. B-א DL are among the foulest in existence. It does but prove
how inveterately, as well as from how remote a period, the error under
discussion has prevailed. And yet, the great and old Peshitto
Version,—Barnabas(469),—Irenaeus(470),—Tertullian(471),—Celsus(472),—Origen(473),—the
Sibylline verses in two places(474) (quoted by Lactantius),—and
ps.-Tatian(475),—are more ancient authorities than any of the preceding,
and they all yield adverse testimony.

Coming down to the fourth century, (to which B-א belong,) those two
Codexes find themselves contradicted by Athanasius(476) in two places,—by
another of the same name(477) who has been mistaken for the patriarch of
Alexandria,—by Eusebius of Emesa(478),—by Theodore of Heraclea(479),—by
Didymus(480),—by Gregory of Nyssa(481),—and by his namesake of
Nazianzus(482),—by Ephraem Syrus(483),—by Lactantius(484),—by
Jerome(485),—by Rufinus(486),—by Chrysostom(487),—by Severianus of
Gabala(488),—by Theodore of Mopsuestia(489),—by Cyril of
Alexandria(490),—and by Titus of Bostra(491). Now these are more
respectable contemporary witnesses to the text of Scripture by far than
Codexes B-א and D (who also have to reckon with A, Φ, and Σ—C being mute
at the place), as well as outnumber them in the proportion of 24 to 2. To
these (8 + 16 =) 24 are to be added the Apocryphal “Gospel of
Nicodemus(492),” which Tischendorf assigns to the third century; the “Acts
of Philip(493),” and the Apocryphal “Acts of the Apostles(494),” which Dr.
Wright claims for the fourth; besides Hesychius(495), Amphilochius(496),
ps.-Chrysostom(497), Maximus(498), Severus of Antioch(499), and John
Damascene(500),—nine names which far outweigh in antiquity and importance
the eighth and ninth-century Codexes KLΠ. Those critics in fact who would
substitute “wine” for “vinegar” in St. Matt. xxvii. 34 have clearly no
case. That, however, which is absolutely decisive of the question against
them is the fact that _every uncial and every cursive copy in existence_,
except the very few specimens already quoted, attest that the oldest known
reading of this place is the true reading. In fact, the Church has
affirmed in the plainest manner, from the first, that ὄξος (not οἶνον) is
to be read here. We are therefore astonished to find her deliberate decree
disregarded by Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Westcott and Hort, in an
attempt on their part to revive what is a manifest fabrication, which but
for the Vulgate would long since have passed out of the memory of
Christendom. Were they not aware that Jerome himself knew better? “Usque
hodie” (he says) “Judaei et omnes increduli Dominicae resurrectionis,
_aceto et felle_ potant Jesum; et dant ei _vinum myrrhatum_ ut eum
consopiant, et mala eorum non videat(501):”—whereby he both shews that he
read St. Matt. xxvii. 34 according to the traditional text (see also p.
233 c), and that he bracketed together two incidents which he yet
perceived were essentially distinct, and in marked contrast with one
another. But what most offends me is the deliberate attempt of the
Revisers in this place. Shall I be thought unreasonable if I avow that it
exceeds my comprehension how such a body of men can have persuaded
themselves that it is fair to eject the reading of an important place of
Scripture like the present, and to substitute for it a reading resting
upon so slight a testimony _without furnishing ordinary Christian readers
with at least a hint of what they had done_? They have considered the
evidence in favour of “_wine_” (in St. Matt. xxvii. 34) not only
“decidedly preponderating,” but the evidence in favour of “_vinegar_” so
slight as to render the word undeserving even of a place in the margin.
Will they find a sane jury in Great Britain to be of the same opinion? Is
this the candid and equitable action befitting those who were set to
represent the Church in this momentous business?





APPENDIX III. THE RICH YOUNG MAN.


The eternal Godhead of CHRIST was the mark at which, in the earliest age
of all, Satan persistently aimed his most envenomed shafts. St. John, in
many a well-known place, notices this; begins and ends his Gospel by
proclaiming our Saviour’s Eternal Godhead(502); denounces as “deceivers,”
“liars,” and “antichrists,” the heretical teachers of his own day who
denied this(503);—which shews that their malice was in full activity
before the end of the first century of our era; ere yet, in fact, the
echoes of the Divine Voice had entirely died out of the memory of very
ancient men. These Gnostics found something singularly apt for their
purpose in a famous place of the Gospel, where the blessed Speaker seems
to disclaim for Himself the attribute of “goodness,”—in fact seems to
distinguish between Himself and GOD. Allusion is made to an incident
recorded with remarkable sameness of expression by St. Matthew (xix. 16,
17), St. Mark (x. 17, 18) and St. Luke (xviii. 18, 19), concerning a
certain rich young Ruler. This man is declared by all three to have
approached our LORD with one and the same question,—to have prefaced it
with one and the same glozing address, “_Good_ Master!”—and to have been
checked by the object of his adulation with one and the same reproof;—“Why
dost thou [who takest me for an ordinary mortal like thyself(504)] call me
_good_? No one is good [essentially good(505)] save one,” that is “GOD.”
... See, said some old teachers, fastening blindly on the letter,—He
disclaims being good: ascribes goodness exclusively to the Father:
separates Himself from very and eternal God(506).... The place was
accordingly eagerly fastened on by the enemies of the Gospel(507): while,
to vindicate the Divine utterance against the purpose to which it was
freely perverted, and to establish its true meaning, is found to have been
the endeavour of each of the most illustrious of the Fathers in turn.
Their pious eloquence would fill a volume(508). Gregory of Nyssa devotes
to this subject the eleventh book of his treatise against Eunomius(509).

In order to emphasize this impious as well as shallow gloss the heretic
Valentinus (A.D. 120),—with his disciples, Heracleon and Ptolemaeus, the
Marcosians, the Naassenes, Marcion (A.D. 150), and the rest of the Gnostic
crew,—not only substituted “One is good” for “No one is good but one,”—but
evidently made it a great point besides to introduce the name of the
FATHER, either in place of, or else in addition to, the name of
“GOD(510).” So plausible a depravation of the text was unsuspiciously
adopted by not a few of the orthodox. It is found in Justin
Martyr(511),—in pseudo-Tatian(512),—in the Clementine homilies(513). And
many who, like Clemens Alex.,—Origen,—the Dialogus,—and pseudo-Tatian (in
five places), are careful to retain the Evangelical phrase “No one is good
but one [that is] GOD,”—even they are observed to conclude the sentence
with the heretical addition “THE FATHER(514).” I am not of course denying
that the expression is theologically correct: but only am requesting the
reader to note that, on the present occasion, it is clearly inadmissible;
seeing that it was no part of our Saviour’s purpose, as Didymus, Ambrose,
Chrysostom, Theodoret point out, to reveal Himself to such an one as the
rich young ruler in His own essential relation to the Eternal
Father(515),—to proclaim in short, in this chance way, the great mystery
of the Godhead: but only (as the ancients are fond of pointing out) to
reprove the man for his fulsomeness in addressing one of his fellows (as
he supposed) as “good(516).” In the meantime, the extent to which the
appendix under discussion prevails in the Patristic writings is a singular
illustration of the success with which, within 60 or 70 years of its
coming into being, the text of Scripture was assailed; and the calamitous
depravation to which it was liable. Surprising as well as grievous to
relate, in every recent critical recension of the Greek text of St.
Matthew’s Gospel, the first four words of the heretical gloss (εἶς ἐστιν ὁ
ἀγαθός) have been already substituted for the seven words before found
there (οὐδεὶς ἀγαθὸς εἰ μὴ εἶς, ὁ Θεός); and (more grievous still) now, at
the end of 1700 years, an effort is being made to establish this
unauthorized formula in our English Bibles also. This is done, be it
observed, in opposition to the following torrent of ancient
testimony:—viz., in the second century, the Peshitto Version,—Justin
Martyr(517),—ps.-Tatian (5 times)(518),—Clemens Alex. (twice)(519):—in the
third century, the Sahidic Version,—ps.-Dionysius Areopag.(520):—in the
fourth century, Eusebius (3 times)(521), Macarius Magnes (4
times)(522),—Basil(523),—Chrysostom(524):—Athanasius(525),—Gregory Nyss.
(3 times)(526),—and Didymus apparently (twice)(527):—in the fifth century,
Cod. C,—Augustine in many places(528),—Cyril Alex.(529),—and Theodoret (8
times)(530):—in the sixth century, Antiochus mon.(531),—the _Opus
imperf._(532)—with the Harkleian and the Ethiopic Version. ... When to
these 21 authorities have been added _all the known copies_, except six of
dissentients,—an amount of ancient evidence has been adduced which must be
held to be altogether decisive of a question like the present(533).

For what, after all, is the proper proof of the genuineness of any
reading, but the prevailing consent of Copies, Fathers, Versions? This
fundamental truth, strangely overlooked in these last days, remains
unshaken. For if the universal consent of Copies, when sustained by a free
appeal to antiquity, is not to be held definitive,—what in the world is?
Were the subject less solemn there would be something diverting in the
_naïveté_ of the marginal note of the revisers of 1881,—“Some ancient
authorities read ... ‘None is good save one [even] God.’ ” How many
“ancient authorities” did the Revisers suppose exhibit anything else?

But all this, however interesting and instructive, would have attracted
little attention were it not for the far more serious corruption of the
Sacred Text, which has next to be considered. The point to be attended to
is, that at the very remote period of which we are speaking, it appears
that certain of the Orthodox,—with the best intentions doubtless, but with
misguided zeal,—in order to counteract the pernicious teaching which the
enemies of Christianity elicited from this place of Scripture,
deliberately falsified the inspired record(534). Availing themselves of a
slight peculiarity in St. Matthew’s way of exhibiting the words of the
young Ruler,—(namely, “What _good thing_ shall I do,”)—they turned our
LORD’S reply, “Why callest thou me good?” in the first Gospel, into
this,—“_Why askest thou me concerning the good?_” The ensuing formula
which the heretics had devised,—“_One there is that is good_,” with some
words of appendix concerning God the Father, as already explained,—gave
them no offence, because it occasioned them no difficulty. It even suited
their purpose better than the words which they displaced. On the other
hand, they did not fail to perceive that the epithet “good,” “Good
Master,” if suffered to remain in the text, would witness inconveniently
against them, by suggesting our LORD’S actual reply,—viz. “Why callest
thou me good?” Accordingly, in an evil hour, they proceeded further to
erase the word ἀγαθέ from their copies. It is a significant circumstance
that the four uncial Codexes (BאDL) which exclusively exhibit τί με ἐρωτᾷς
περὶ τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ; are exclusively the four which omit the epithet ἀγαθέ.

The subsequent history of this growth of error might have been foreseen.
Scarcely had the passage been pieced together than it began to shew
symptoms of disintegration; and in the course of a few centuries, it had
so effectually disappeared, that tokens of it here and there are only to
be found in a few of the earliest documents. First, the epithet (ἀγαθέ)
was too firmly rooted to admit of a sentence of perpetual banishment from
the text. Besides retaining its place in every known copy of the Gospels
except eight(535), it survives to this hour in a vast majority of the most
ancient documents. Thus, ἀγαθέ is found in Justin Martyr(536) and in
ps.-Tatian(537):—in the remains of the Marcosian(538),—and of the
Naassene(539) Gnostics;—as well as in the Peshitto,—and in the Old Latin
versions:—in the Sahidic,—and the Bohairic version,—besides in the
Clementine Homilies(540), in Cureton and Lewis,—and in the Vulgate:—in
Origen(541),—in Athanasius(542),—and in Basil(543),—and in Cyril of
Jerusalem(544):—in Ephraem Syrus(545), and in Gregory of Nyssa(546): in
Macarius Magnes(547),—and in Chrysostom(548):—in
Juvencus(549),—Hilary(550),—Gaudentius(551),—Jerome(552),—and
Augustine(553);—lastly in Vigilius Tapsensis(554):—in Cyril Alex.(555),—in
Theodoret(556),—in Cod. C,—in the Harkleian Version,—and in the _Opus
imperfectum_(557). So that, at the end of 1700 years, 6 witnesses of the
second century,—3 of the third,—14 of the fourth,—4 of the fifth,—2 of the
sixth, come back from all parts of Christendom to denounce the liberty
taken by the ancients, and to witness to the genuineness of the
traditional text.

So much then,—(1) For the unauthorized omission of ἀγαθέ, and—(2) For the
heretical substitution of εἶς ἐστιν ὁ ἀγαθός in the room of οὐδεὶς ἀγαθὸς
εἰ μὴ εἶς ὁ Θεός. We have still to inquire after the fate of the most
conspicuous fabrication of the three: viz.—(3) The substitution of Τί με
ἐρωτᾷς περὶ τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ; for τί με λέγεις ἀγαθόν; What support do the
earliest witnesses lend to the inquiry,—“_Why askest thou me concerning
the good_?” ... That patent perversion of the obvious purport of our
Saviour’s address, I answer, is disallowed by Justin Martyr(558) (A.D.
140),—by the Marcosians(559),—and the Naassenes(560) (A.D. 150),—by the
Clementine homilies(561),—and ps.-Tatian(562) (third century);—by the
Peshitto and the Thebaic version;—by Macarius
Magnes(563),—Athanasius(564),—and Basil(565);—by Hilary(566),—Gregory of
Nyssa(567);—by Chrysostom(568),—by Cyril Alex.(569),—by Theodoret(570),—by
the _Opus imperfectum_(571),—by the Harkleian,—and the Armenian versions.
I have produced 18 witnesses,—4 belonging to the second century: 3 to the
third: 6 to the fourth: 5 to the fifth. Moreover they come from every part
of ancient Christendom. Such an amount of evidence, it must be again
declared, is absolutely decisive of a question of this nature. Whether men
care more for Antiquity or for Variety of testimony; whether
Respectability of witnesses or vastly preponderating Numbers, more
impresses the imagination,—they must needs admit that the door is here
closed against further debate. The traditional text of St. Matt. xix. 16,
17 is certainly genuine, and must be allowed to stand unmolested.

For it is high time to inquire,—What, after all, is the evidence
producible on the other side? The exhibition of the text, I answer, which
recommends itself so strongly to my opponents that they have thrust it
bodily into the Gospel, is found in its entirety only with that little
band of witnesses which have already so often come before us; and always
with false testimony. I am saying that Origen(572) in the third
century,—Codd. B-א in the fourth,—Cod. D in the fifth,—Cod. L in the
eighth,—besides a couple of cursive Codexes (Evann. 1 and 22),—are
literally the whole of the producible evidence for the Revisers’ text in
its entirety. Not that even these seven so-called consentient witnesses
are in complete accord among themselves. On the contrary. The discrepancy
between them is perpetual. A collation of them with the traditional text
follows:—

Και ιδου εις προσελθων ειπεν (D [_not_ Orig. BאL] λεγει) αυτω (Bא [_not_
Orig. DL] αυτω ειπε), Διδασκαλε αγαθε (Orig. BאDL—αγαθε) τι αγαθον ποιησω
(אL [_not_ Orig. BD] ποιησας) ινα εχω (Orig. BD [_not_ אL] σχω) ζωην
αιωνιον (Orig. 664b אL [_not_ Orig. 664a BD] ζωην αιωνιον κληρονομησω); ο
δε ειπεν αυτω, Τι με λεγεις αγαθον (Orig. 664-5 BאDL τι με ερωτας [Orig.
666b επερωτας] περι του (Orig. 664c D [_not_ Orig. 665c 666b BאL]—του)
αγαθου); ουδεις αγαθος ει μη εις ο Θεος (BאDL εις εστιν ο (D [_not_ Orig.
BאL]—ο) αγαθος).

Can it be possibly reasonable to avow that such an amount of discrepancy
between witnesses which claim to be consentient, inspires confidence
rather than distrust in every one of them?

The reader is next to be told that there survive, as might have been
expected, traces in sundry quarters of this threefold ancient fraud (as it
seems to be rather than blunder);—as in Justin(573), and the
Marcosian(574), and Naassene heretics(575); the Latin Versions(576); the
Bohairic(577); the Cureton and Lewis(578); pseudo-Dionysius(579), the
Clementine homilies(580) and Eusebius(581); Cyril Alex.(582) and Antiochus
the monk(583) (A.D. 614); Hilary(584), Jerome(585), and Augustine(586);
besides in Evann. 479 and 604, and Evst. 5. But the point to be attended
to is, that not one of the foregoing authorities sanctions the text which
Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, W.-Hort, and the Revisers of 1881
unanimously adopt. This first. And next, that no sooner are these sixteen
witnesses fairly confronted, than they set about hopelessly contradicting
one another: so that it fares with them as it fared with the Philistines
in the days of Saul:—“Behold, every man’s sword was against his fellow,
and there was a very great discomfiture(587).” This will become best
understood by the reader if he will allow “(I),” to represent the
_omission_ of the epithet ἀγαθέ:—“(II),” the _substitution_ of τί με
ἐρωτᾷς περὶ τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ:—and “(III),” the _substitution_ of εἶς ἐστιν ὁ
ἀγαθός with or without appendix. For it will appear that,—

(_a_) Evan. 479 and Evst. 5, though they witness _in favour of_ (I), yet
witness _against_ (II) and (III):—and that,

(_b_) The Latin and the Bohairic Versions, with Jerome and Evan. 604,
though they witness _in favour of_ (II) and (III), yet witness against
(I).

Note, that Cureton and Lewis do the same: but then the Cureton stultifies
itself by omitting from the introductory inquiry the underlined and
clearly indispensable word,—“What _good_ [thing] must I do?” The same
peculiarity is exhibited by the Thebaic Version and by Cyril of Jer.(588)
Now this is simply fatal to the testimony of Cureton’s Syr. concerning
“(II),”—seeing that, without it, the proposed reply cannot have been
spoken.—It appears further that,

(_c_) Augustine, though he witnesses in favour of (II), yet witnesses
against both (I) and (III):—and that,

(_d_) Hilary, though he witnesses in favour of (III), and yields uncertain
testimony concerning (I), yet witnesses against (II):—and that,

(_e_) Justin M. (in one place) and the Marcosian and Naassene heretics,
together with the Clementine homilies, though they witness in favour of
(III), yet witness against (I) and (II):—and that,

(_f_) ps.-Dionysius, Eusebius, and Antiochus mon. (A.D. 614), though they
witness in favour of (II), yet witness against (III).

(_g_) Cyril also, though he delivers uncertain testimony concerning (I)
and (II), yet witnesses against (III).

The plain fact is that the place before us exhibits every chief
characteristic of a clumsy fabrication. No sooner had it with perverse
ingenuity been pieced together, than the process of disintegration set in.
The spurious phrases τί με ἐρωτᾷς περὶ τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ, and εἶς ἐστιν ἀγαθός,
having no lawful dwelling-place of their own, strayed out of the first
Gospel into the third as soon as they were invented. Cureton in St. Luke
xviii. 19 has both phrases, Lewis neither,—Marcion, in his heretical
recension of St. Luke’s Gospel (A.D. 150), besides the followers of Arius,
adopt the latter(589). “The key of the whole position,” as Scrivener
points out, “is the epithet ‘_good_’ before ‘Master’ in ver. 16: for if
this be genuine, the only pertinent answer is contained in the Received
Text(590).” Precisely so: and it has been proved to be genuine by an
amount of continuous attestation which is absolutely overwhelming. We just
now analyzed the inconsistent testimony of sixteen ancient authorities;
and found that only the two cursive copies favour the omission of ἀγαθέ,
while nine of the oldest witnesses are for retaining it. Concerning the
expression τί με ἐρωτᾷς περὶ τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ, these inconsistent witnesses are
evenly divided,—seven being for it, seven against it. All, in fact, is
error, confusion, discord, the instant we get outside the traditional
text.

The reason of all this contrariety has been assigned already. Before
Christianity was a hundred years old, two opposite evil influences were at
work here: one, heretical—which resulted in (III): the other,
orthodox,—which resulted in (II) and (I). These influences, proceeding
from opposite camps, were the cause that copies got independently
propagated of two archetypes. But the Church, in her corporate capacity,
has declined to know anything of either. She has been careful all down the
ages that the genuine reading shall be rehearsed in every assembly of the
faithful on the 12th Sunday after Pentecost; and behold, at this hour it
is attested by every copy in the world—except that little handful of
fabricated documents, which it has been the craze of the last fifty years
to cry up as the only authentic witnesses to the truth of Scripture, viz.
Codd. BאDL and Origen. Now, as to the first two of these, Dr. Scrivener
has pronounced(591) that (Bא), “subsequent investigations have brought to
light so close a relation as to render it impossible to regard them as
independent witnesses;” while every page of the Gospel bears emphatic
witness to the fact that Codd. BאDL are, as has been said, the
depositaries of a hopelessly depraved text.

But how about Origen? He, in A.D. 250, commenting on the present place of
St. Matthew’s Gospel, has a great deal to say concerning the grievously
corrupt condition of the copies hereabouts. Now, the copies he speaks of
must have been older, by at least 100 years, than either Cod. B or Cod. א.
He makes this admission casually in the course of some remarks which
afford a fair sample of his critical method and therefore deserve
attention:—He infers from Rom. xiii. 9 that if the rich young ruler really
did “love his neighbour as himself,” which, according to the three
Evangelists, he virtually said he did(592), he was perfect(593)! Yet our
Saviour’s rejoinder to him is,—“_If_ thou wilt be perfect,” go and do such
and such things. Having thus invented a difficulty where none exists,
Origen proposes, as a way out of it, to regard the precept (in St. Matt.
xix. 20,—“Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself”) as an unauthorized
accretion to the Text,—the work of some tasteless scribe(594). The
reasonableness of suspecting its genuineness (he says) is heightened by
the fact that neither in St. Mark’s nor yet in St. Luke’s parallel
narrative, are the words found about “loving one’s neighbour as oneself.”
As if that were not rather a reason for presuming it to be genuine! To be
sure (proceeds Origen) it would be monstrous to regard these words, “Thou
shalt love thy neighbour as thyself,” as an interpolation, were it not for
the existence of so many other discrepancies hereabouts. The copies of St.
Matthew are in fact all at strife among themselves. And so are the copies
of the other Gospels. Vast indeed, and with this he concludes, is the
discrepancy in St. Matthew(595): whether it has proceeded from the
carelessness of the scribes;—or from criminal audacity on the part of
correctors of Scripture;—or whether, lastly, it has been the result of
licentiousness on the part of those who, pretending to “correct” the text,
have added or omitted according to their own individual caprice(596).

Now all this is very instructive.  Here is the most famous Critic of
antiquity estimating the genuineness of a clause in the Gospel, not by the
amount of external attestation which it enjoys, but by his own
self-evolved fancies concerning it. As a matter of fact, no extant copy,
Father, or Version is without the clause under discussion. By proposing
therefore that it shall be regarded as spurious, Origen does but convict
himself of rashness and incompetency. But when this same Critic,—who, by
his own shewing, has had the evil hap to alight on a collection of
singularly corrupt documents,—proceeds to handle a text of Scripture which
has demonstrably had a calamitous history from the first days of the
Gospel until now;—two inconvenient questions force themselves on our
attention:—The first,—What confidence can be reposed in his judgement? The
second—What is there to conciliate our esteem for the particular Codex
from which he happens to quote? On the other hand, the reader has been
already shewn by a more open appeal to antiquity than has ever before been
attempted, that the reading of St. Matt. xix. 16, 17 which is exclusively
found in BאDL and the copy from which Origen quotes, is deficient in
external attestation.

Now, when it is considered that Bא confessedly represent one and the same
archetype, which may very well have been of the date of Origen
himself,—how is it possible to resist the conviction that these three are
not independent voices, but echoes of one and the same voice? And, What if
certain Codexes preserved in the library of Caesarea in
Palestine(597);—Codexes which were handled in turn by Origen, by Eusebius,
by Jerome, and which also furnished the archetype from which B and א were
derived;—what, I say, if it shall some day come to be generally admitted,
that those Caesarean Codexes are most probably the true _fons et origo_ of
much of our past perplexity and of our present trouble? Since “coincidence
of reading infallibly implies identity of ancestry(598),” are we not even
led by the hand to see that there must have existed in the famous library
of Caesarea a little nest of copies credited, and justly so, with
containing every “last new thing” in the way of Textual Criticism, to
which Critics of the type of Origen and Jerome, and perhaps Eusebius, must
have been only too fond of resorting? A few such critically corrected
copies would furnish a complete explanation of every peculiarity of
reading exhibited exclusively by Codexes B and א, and [fondled, perhaps
with some critical cynicism, by] those three Fathers.

Yet it is to be remembered, (with reference to the place before us,) that
“Origen, Eusebius, and Jerome” are not in accord here, except in reading
τί με ἐρωτᾷς περὶ τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ?—for Eusebius differs from Origen and Jerome
in proceeding with the traditional text οὐδεὶς ἀγαθὸς εἰ μὴ εἶς: while
Jerome and even Origen concur with the traditional text in recognizing the
epithet ἀγαθέ,—a circumstance which, as already explained, may be regarded
as fatal to the formula τί με ἐρωτᾷς κ.τ.λ. which follows.

This however by the way. That so ill-supported a fraud should have imposed
upon Griesbach, Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Alford, Westcott and
Hort, and the Revisers of 1881, including Scrivener,—is to me
unintelligible. The substituted reading is an impossible one to begin
with, being inconsistent with its context. And although I hold the
introduction of intrinsic probability into these inquiries to be unlawful,
until the truth has been established on grounds of external evidence; yet,
when that has been accomplished, not only do internal considerations claim
a hearing, but their effect is often, as in the present case, entirely to
sweep the field. It is impossible, so at least it seems to me, to survey
the narrative by the light of internal probability, without being overcome
by the incoherence and essential foolishness of the reading before us.
This is a point which deserves attention.

1. That our LORD actually _did_ remonstrate with the young ruler for
calling Him “good,” is at least certain. Both St. Mark (x. 17, 18) and St.
Luke (xviii. 18, 19) record that fact, and the text of neither is
disputed. How grossly improbable then is the statement that He also
reproved the young man for inviting Him to a philosophical discussion
concerning τὸ ἀγαθόν,—which yet the young man clearly had not done.
According to two out of the three Evangelists, if not to the third also,
his question had not been about the abstract quality; but concerning the
concrete thing, as a means to an end:—“What _good work must I do_ in order
that I may inherit eternal life?”—a purely practical question.  Moreover,
the pretended inquiry is not touched by the proposed rejoinder,—“One there
is who is good,”—or “There is none good but one, that is GOD.” Does not
the very wording of that rejoinder shew that it must needs have been
preceded by the inquiry, “Why callest thou Me good?” The young man is told
besides that if he desires to “inherit eternal life” he must keep God’s
commandments. The question and the answer in the genuine text are strictly
correlative. In the fabricated text, they are at cross purposes and
inconsistent with one another in a high degree.

2. Let it however be supposed for an instant that our LORD’S reply
actually was,—“Why askest thou Me concerning abstract goodness?” Note what
results. Since it cannot be thought that such an interrogation is
substantially equivalent to “Why callest thou Me good?” the saying,—if
uttered at all,—must have been spoken in addition. Was it then spoken to
the same man?—“Yes,” replies the author of Cureton’s Syriac: “the
rejoinder ran thus,—‘Why callest thou Me good?’ and, ‘Why askest thou Me
respecting the good(599)?’ ”—“Not exactly,” remarks the author of Evan.
251, “The second of those two inquiries was interposed after the word
‘Which?’ in ver. 18.”—“Not so,” cries the author of the Gospel to the
Hebrews. “The men who came to our Lord were two in number(600).” There is
reason for suspecting that certain of the early heretics were of the same
opinion(601). Will not every candid reader admit that the more closely we
look into the perplexed tangle before us, the more intolerable it
becomes,—the more convinced we feel of its essential foolishness? And—Is
it too much to hope that after this deliberate exposure of the
insufficiency of the evidence on which it rests, no further efforts will
be made to bolster up a reading so clearly indefensible?

Nothing more, I suppose, need be added. I have been so diffuse concerning
the present place of Scripture because I ardently desire to see certain of
the _vexatae quaestiones_ in Textual Criticism fairly threshed out and
settled. And this is a place which has been famous from the earliest
times,—a θρυλλούμενον κεφάλαιον as Macarius Magnes (p. 12) calls it, in
his reply to the heathen philosopher who had proposed it as a subject for
discussion. It is (in the opinion of modern critics) “quite a test
passage(602).” Tischendorf made this the subject of a separate
dissertation in 1840(603). Tregelles, who discusses it at great
length(604), informs us that he even “relies on this one passage as
supplying an argument on the whole question” which underlies his critical
Recension of the Greek Text. It has caused all the Critics—Griesbach,
Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Alford, W.-Hort, the Revisers, even
Scrivener(605), to go astray. Critics will spend their strength in vain if
they seek any further to establish on a rational basis alterations made on
the strength of testimony which is both restricted and is at variance with
itself.

Let it be noted that our persistent appeal concerning St. Matt. xix. 17,
18 has been made to Antiquity. We reject the proposed innovation as
undoubtedly spurious, because of the importance and overwhelming number of
the witnesses of the second, third, and fourth centuries which come
forward to condemn it; as well as because of the plain insufficiency and
want of variety in the evidence which is adduced in its support. Whenever
a proposed correction of the Sacred Text is insufficiently attested, and
especially when that attestation is destitute of Variety,—we claim that
the traditional reading shall stand.





APPENDIX IV. ST. MARK I. 1.


St. Mark’s Gospel opens as follows:—“The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus
Christ, THE SON OF GOD.” The significancy of the announcement is apparent
when the opening of St. Matthew’s Gospel is considered,—“The book of the
generation of Jesus Christ, the Son of David.” Surely if there be a clause
in the Gospel which carries on its front the evidence of its genuineness,
it is this(606). But in fact the words are found in every known copy but
three (א, 28, 255); in all the Versions; in many Fathers. The evidence in
its favour is therefore overwhelming. Yet it has of late become the
fashion to call in question the clause—Υἱοῦ τοῦ Θεοῦ. Westcott and Hort
shut up the words in brackets. Tischendorf ejects them from the text. The
Revisers brand them with suspicion. High time is it to ascertain how much
of doubt really attaches to the clause which has been thus assailed.

Tischendorf relies on the testimony of ten ancient Fathers, whom he quotes
in the following order,—Irenaeus, Epiphanius, Origen, Basil, Titus,
Serapion, Cyril of Jerusalem, Severianus, Victorinus, Jerome. But the
learned critic has to be reminded (1) that _pro hac vice_, Origen,
Serapion, Titus, Basil, Victorinus and Cyril of Jerusalem are not six
fathers, but only one. Next (2), that Epiphanius delivers no testimony
whatever on the point in dispute. Next (3), that Jerome(607) is rather to
be reckoned with the upholders, than the impugners, of the disputed
clause: while (4) Irenaeus and Severianus bear emphatic witness in its
favour. All this quite changes the aspect of the Patristic testimony. The
scanty residuum of hostile evidence proves to be Origen and three
Codexes,—of which two are cursives. I proceed to shew that the facts are
as I have stated them.

As we might expect, the true author of all the mischief was Origen. At the
outset of his commentary on St. John, he writes with reference to St. Mark
i. 1,—“Either the entire Old Testament (represented by John Baptist) is
here spoken of as ‘the beginning’ of the New; or else, only the end of it
(which John quotes) is so spoken of, on account of this linking on of the
New Testament to the Old. For Mark says,—‘The beginning of the Gospel of
Jesus Christ, as it is written in Isaiah the prophet, Behold, I send my
messenger, &c. The voice of one, &c.’ I can but wonder therefore at those
heretics,”—he means the followers of Basilides, Valentinus, Cerdon,
Marcion, and the rest of the Gnostic crew,—“who attribute the two
Testaments to two different Gods; seeing that this very place sufficiently
refutes them. For how can John be ‘the beginning of the Gospel,’ if, as
they pretend, he belongs to another God, and does not recognize the
divinity of the New Testament?” Presently,—“In illustration of the former
way of taking the passage, viz. that John stands for the entire Old
Testament, I will quote what is found in the Acts [viii. 35] ‘Beginning at
the same Scripture of Isaiah, He was brought as a lamb, &c., Philip
preached to the eunuch the Lord Jesus.’ How could Philip, beginning at the
prophet, preach unto him Jesus, unless Isaiah be some part of ‘the
beginning of the Gospel(608)?’ ” From the day that Origen wrote those
memorable words [A.D. 230], an appeal to St. Mark i. 1-3 became one of the
commonplaces of Theological controversy. St. Mark’s assertion that the
voices of the ancient Prophets, were “the beginning of the Gospel”—of whom
John Baptist was assumed to be the symbol,—was habitually cast in the
teeth of the Manichaeans.

On such occasions, not only Origen’s reasoning, but often Origen’s
mutilated text was reproduced. The heretics in question, though they
rejected the Law, professed to hold fast the Gospel. “But” (says Serapion)
“they do not understand the Gospel; for they do not receive the beginning
of it:—‘The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, as it is written in
Isaiah the prophet(609).’ ” What the author of this curt statement meant,
is explained by Titus of Bostra, who exhibits the quotation word for word
as Serapion, following Origen, had exhibited it before him; and adding
that St. Mark in this way “connects the Gospel with the Law; recognizing
the Law as the beginning of the Gospel(610).” How does this prove that
either Serapion or Titus disallowed the words υἱοῦ τοῦ Θεοῦ? The simple
fact is that they are both reproducing Origen: and besides availing
themselves of his argument, are content to adopt the method of quotation
with which he enforces it.

Next, for the testimony of Basil. His words are,—“Mark makes the preaching
of John the beginning of the Gospel, saying, ‘The beginning of the Gospel
of Jesus Christ ... as it is written in Isaiah the prophet ... The voice
of one crying in the wilderness(611).’ ” This certainly shews that Basil
was treading in Origen’s footsteps; but it no more proves that he
disallowed the three words in dispute in ver. 1, than that he disallowed
the sixteen words not in dispute in ver. 2.—from which it is undeniable
that he omits them intentionally, knowing them to be there. As for
Victorinus (A.D. 290), his manner of quoting the beginning of St. Mark’s
Gospel is identical with Basil’s(612), and suggests the same observation.

If proof be needed that what precedes is the true account of the
phenomenon before us, it is supplied by Cyril of Jerusalem, with reference
to this very passage. He points out that “John was the end of the
prophets, for ‘All the prophets and the Law were until John;’ but the
beginning of the Gospel dispensation, for it says, ‘The beginning of the
Gospel of Jesus Christ,’ and so forth. John was baptizing in the
wilderness(613).” Cyril has therefore passed straight from the middle of
the first verse of St. Mark i. to the beginning of ver. 4: not, of course,
because he disallowed the eight and thirty words which come in between;
but only because it was no part of his purpose to quote them. Like
Serapion and Titus, Basil and Cyril of Jerusalem are in fact reproducing
Origen: but unlike the former two, the two last-named quote the Gospel
elliptically. The liberty indeed which the ancient Fathers freely
exercised, when quoting Scripture for a purpose,—of leaving out whatever
was irrelevant; of retaining just so much of the text as made for their
argument,—may never be let slip out of sight. Little did those ancient men
imagine that at the end of some 1500 years a school of Critics would arise
who would insist on regarding every irregularity in such casual appeals to
Scripture, as a deliberate assertion concerning the state of the text 1500
years before. Sometimes, happily, they make it plain by what they
themselves let fall, that their citations of Scripture may not be so dealt
with. Thus, Severianus, bishop of Gabala, after appealing to the fact that
St. Mark begins his Gospel by styling our Saviour Υἱὸς Θεοῦ, straightway
quotes ver. 1 without that record of Divine Sonship,—a proceeding which
will only seem strange to those who omit to read his context. Severianus
is calling attention to the considerate reserve of the Evangelists in
declaring the eternal Generation of Jesus Christ. “Mark does indeed say
‘Son of God’; but straightway, in order to soothe his hearers, he checks
himself and cuts short that train of thought; bringing in at once about
John the Baptist: saying,—‘The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ ...
as it is written in Isaiah the prophet, Behold,’ &c. No sooner has the
Evangelist displayed the torch of Truth, than he conceals it(614).” How
could Severianus have made his testimony more emphatic?

                  ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

And now the reader is in a position to understand what Epiphanius has
delivered. He is shewing that whereas St. Matthew begins his Gospel with
the history of the Nativity, “the holy Mark makes what happened at Jordan
the introduction of the Gospel: saying,—The beginning of the Gospel ... as
it is written in Isaiah the prophet ... The voice of one crying in the
wilderness(615).” This does not of course prove that Epiphanius read ver.
1 differently from ourselves. He is but leaving out the one and twenty
words (5 in ver. 1: 16 in ver. 2) which are immaterial to his purpose. Our
Lord’s glorious designation (“Jesus Christ, the Son of God,”) and the
quotation from Malachi which precedes the quotation from Isaiah, stand in
this writer’s way: his one object being to reach “the voice of one crying
in the wilderness.” Epiphanius in fact is silent on the point in dispute.

                  ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

But the most illustrious name is behind. Irenaeus (A.D. 170)
unquestionably read Υἱοῦ τοῦ Θεοῦ in this place. He devotes a chapter of
his great work to the proof that Jesus is the Christ,—very God as well as
very Man; and establishes the doctrine against the Gnostics, by citing the
Evangelists in turn. St. Mark’s testimony he introduces by an apt appeal
to Rom. i. 1-4, ix. 5, and Gal. iv. 4, 5: adding,—“The Son of God was made
the Son of Man, in order that by Him we might obtain the adoption: Man
carrying, and receiving, and enfolding the Son of God. Hence, Mark
says,—‘The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, as it
is written in the prophets(616).’ ” Irenaeus had already, in an earlier
chapter, proved by an appeal to the second and third Gospels that Jesus
Christ is God. “Quapropter et Marcus,” (he says) “interpres et sectator
Petri, initium Evangelicae conscriptionis fecit sic: ‘Initium Evangelii
Jesu Christi Filii Dei, quemadmodum scriptum est in Prophetis,’ &c.(617)”
This at all events is decisive. The Latin of either place alone survives:
yet not a shadow of doubt can be pretended as to how the man who wrote
these two passages read the first verse of St. Mark’s Gospel(618).

Even more interesting is the testimony of Victor of Antioch; for though he
reproduces Origen’s criticism, he makes it plain that he will have nothing
to say to Origen’s text(619). He paraphrases, speaking in the person of
the Evangelist, the two opening verses of St. Mark’s Gospel, as
follows!—“I shall make ‘the beginning of the Gospel’ from John: of the
Gospel, I say ‘of the Son of God:’ for so ‘it is written in the prophets,’
viz. that He is the Son of God.... Or, you may connect ‘as it is written
in the prophets’ with ‘Behold, I send my messenger’: in which case, I
shall make ‘the beginning of the Gospel of the Son of God’ that which was
spoken by the prophets concerning John.” And again,—“Mark says that John,
the last of the prophets, is ‘the beginning of the Gospel’: adding, ‘as it
is written in the prophets, Behold,’ &c., &c.(620)” It is therefore clear
how Victor at least read the place.

It is time to close this discussion. That the Codexes which Origen
habitually employed were of the same type as Cod. א,—and that from them
the words Υἱοῦ τοῦ Θεοῦ were absent,—is undeniable. But that is the sum of
the evidence for their omission. I have shewn that Serapion and Titus,
Basil and Victorinus and Cyril of Jerusalem, do but reproduce the teaching
of Origen: that Epiphanius delivers no testimony either way: while
Irenaeus and Severianus bear emphatic witness to the genuineness of the
clause in dispute. To these must be added Porphyry (A.D. 270)(621), Cyril
of Alexandria(622), Victor of Antioch, ps.-Athanasius(623), and
Photius(624),—with Ambrose (625), and Augustine(626) among the Latins. The
clause is found besides in all the Versions, and in every known copy of
the Gospels but three; two of which are cursives. On what principle
Tischendorf would uphold the authority of א and Origen against such a mass
of evidence, has never been explained. In the meantime, the disappearance
of the clause (Υἱοῦ τοῦ Θεοῦ) from certain of the earliest copies of St.
Mark’s Gospel is only too easily accounted for. So obnoxious to certain
precursors of the Gnostic sect was the fundamental doctrine which it
embodies, that St. John (xx. 31) declares it to have been the very purpose
of his Gospel to establish “that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God.”
What is more obvious than that the words at some very remote period should
have been fraudulently removed from certain copies of the Gospel?





APPENDIX V. THE SCEPTICAL CHARACTER OF B AND א.


The sceptical character of the Vatican and Sinaitic MSS. affords a strong
proof of the alliance between them and the Origenistic school. Instances
found in these Codexes may be classed thus:—


    Note 1. The following instances are professedly taken from the
    Gospels. Only a few are added from elsewhere.

    Note 2. Other Uncials are also added, to indicate by specimens how
    far these two MSS. receive countenance or not from other sources,
    and also in part how far the same influence enter them.


I. Passages detracting from the Scriptural acknowledgement of the Divinity
of our Lord:—

Υἱοῦ τοῦ Θεοῦ omitted—St. Mark i. 1 (א*).
Ὁ Χριστὸς ὁ Υἱὸς ... τοῦ ζῶντος omitted—St. John vi. 69 (אBC*DL).
Κύριε omitted—St. Mark ix. 24 (אABC*DL).
Τοῦ Κυρίου Ἰησοῦ omitted—St. Luke xxiv. 3 (D).
Θεοῦ changed into Κυρίου—Acts xx. 28 (AC*DES).
Omission of faith in CHRIST. εἰς ἐμέ—St. John vi. 47 (אBLΓ).
Slur on efficacy of prayer through CHRIST:
  Insert μέ—St. John xiv. 14 (אBEHUΓΔ).
  Transfer ἐν τῷ ὀνόματί μου—St. John xxi. 23 (אBC*LXVΔ).
Omission of εὐθέως in the cure—St. Mark vii. 35 (אBDLWdΔ) Cf. St. Mark ii.
            12.
Judgement-seat of GOD instead of CHRIST—Rom. xiv. 10 (א*ABC*D &c.).
Ὁ ὢν ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ omitted—St. John iii. 13 (אBLΓb).
Omission of Κύριε in penitent thief’s prayer—St. Luke xxiii. 42
            (אBC*DLM*).
    "     " the Ascension in St. Luke, ἀνεφέρετο εἰς τὸν οὐρανόν—St. Luke
                xxiv. 51 (א*D).
Insertion of οὐδὲ ὁ Υἱός from St. Mark xiii. 32 in St. Matt. xxiv. 36. Cf.
            Basil to Amphilochius, iii. 360-2 (Revision Revised, p. 210,
            note).
Omission of Θεός in reference to the creation of man—St. Mark x. 6
            (אBCIΔ). Cf. St. Matt. xii. 30 (BD).
"  "  ἐπάνω πάντων ἐστίν—St. John iii. 31 (א*D).
"  "  ὁ Υἱός μένει εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα—St. John viii. 35 (אXΓ).
"  "  διελθὼν διὰ μέσον αὐτῶν, καὶ παρῆγεν οὕτως—St. John viii. 59 (אBD).
τὸν Υἱὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου for τ. Υ. τ. Θεοῦ—St. John ix. 35 (אBD).
Κυρίου for Θεοῦ—2 Pet. i. 1 (א).
Omission of ὅτι ἐγὼ ὑπάγω πρὸς τὸν Πατέρα—St. John xvi. 6 (אBD).
"  "  Κύριος—1 Cor. xv. 47 (א*BCD*EFG).
Ὅς for Θσς—1 Tim. iii. 16 (א, Revision Revised, pp. 431-43).
Ὅ for Ὅς—Col. ii. 10, making the Fulness of the GODHEAD the head of all
            principality and power (BDEFG).

II. Generally sceptical tendency:—

N.B.—Omission is in itself sceptical.

Πνεῦμα Θεοῦ instead of τὸ Πνεῦμα τοῦ Θεοῦ—Matt. iii. 16 (אB). Cf. Acts
            xvi. 7, τὸ Πνεῦμα Ιησοῦ for τὸ Πνεῦμα—אABC2DE2(627).
Γένεσις for γέννησις, slurring the Divine Birth—Matt. i. 18 (אBCPSZΔ).
Omission of the title of “good” applied to our LORD—Matt. xix. 16, 17
            (אBDL).
"  "  the necessity of our LORD to suffer. καὶ οὕτως ἔδει—St. Luke xxiv.
            46 (אBC*DL).
"  "  last Twelve Verses of St. Mark (אB).
Omission of passages relating to Everlasting Punishment (closely
            Origenistic):
αἰωνίου ἁμαρτήματος for αἰων. κρίσεως—St. Mark iii. 29 (אBLΔ).
ἁμαρτίας (D)—ibid.
ὅπου ὁ σκώληξ αὐτῶν οὐ τελευτᾷ, καὶ τὸ πῦρ οὐ σβέννυται—St. Mark ix. 44,
            46 (אBCLΔ).
"  "  the danger of rejecting our Lord—St. Matt. xxi. 44 (D).
"  "  καὶ πᾶσα θυσία ἁλὶ ἁλισθήσεται—St. Mark ix. 49 (אBLΔ).
"  "  the condemnation of Pharisaic treatment of widows—St. Matt. xxiii.
            14 (אBDLZ).
"  "  καὶ τὸ βάπτισμα ὂ ἐγὼ βαπτίζομαι βαπτισθῆναι—St. Matt. xx. 22, 23
            (אBDLZ).
"  "  αὐτῆς τὸν πρωτότοκον—St. Matt. i. 25 (אBZ).
"  "  the verse about prayer and fasting—St. Matt. xvii. 21 (א*B).
"  "  the words giving authority to the Apostles to heal diseases—St. Mark
            iii. 15 (אBC*).
"  "  the forgiveness of sins to those who turn—St. Mark iv. 12 (אBCL).
"  "  condemnation of cities and mention of the Day of Judgement—St. Mark
            vi. 11 (אBCDLΔ).
"  "  fasting—St. Mark ix. 29 (א*B).
"  "  taking up the Cross—St. Mark x. 21 (אBCDΔ).
"  "  the danger of riches—St. Mark x. 24 (אBΔ).
"  "  the danger of not forgiving others—St. Mark xi. 26 (אBLSΔ).
"  "  εὐλογημένη σὺ ἐν γυναιξίν—St. Luke i. 28 (אBL).
"  "  ἀλλ᾽ ἐπὶ παντὶ ῥήματι Θεοῦ—St. Luke iv. 4 (אBL).
"  "  ὁ διάβολος εἰς ὄπος ὑψηλόν—St. Luke iv. 5 (אBL).
"  "  ὕπαγε ὀπίσω μου, Σατανᾶ—St. Luke iv. 8 (אBDLΞ).
"  "  reference to Elijah’s punishment, and the manner of spirit—St. Luke
            ix. 55, 56.
"  "  the saving effect of faith—St. Luke xvii. 19 (B).
"  "  the day of the Son of Man—St. Luke xvii. 24 (BD).
"  "  the descent of the Angel into Bethesda—St. John v. 3, 4 (אBC*D).
"  "  ἢν ἐγὼ δώσω—St. John vi. 51 (אBCLΔ).

III. Evincing a “philosophical” obtuseness to tender passages:—

Omissions in the records of the Institution of the Holy Sacrament: thus—
  Φάγετε ... τὸ ... καινῆς—St. Mark xiv. 22-24 (אBCD).
  καινῆς—St. Matt. xxvi. 27 (אB).
  λάβετε, φάγετε ... κλώμενον—1 Cor. xi. 2-4 (אABC*).
Omission of Agony in the Garden and strengthening Angel—St. Luke xxii. 43,
            44 (ABRT, first corrector).
"  "  First Word from the Cross—St. Luke xxiii. 34 (אaBD*).
Mutilation of the LORD’S Prayer—St. Luke xi. 2-4: i.e.
Omission of ἡμῶν ὁ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς (אBL).
"   "  γενηθήτω τὸ θέλημά σου, ὡς ἐν οὐρανῷ, καὶ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς (BL).
"   "  ἀλλὰ ῥῦσαι ἡμᾶς ἀπὸ τοῦ πονηροῦ (א*BL).
Omission of εἰκῆ—Matt. v. 22 (אB).
"   "  the verse telling of our LORD’S coming to save what was lost—St.
            Matt. xviii. 11 (אBL*).
"   "  εὐλογεῖτε τοὺς καταρωμένους ὑμᾶς καλῶς ποιεῖτε τοὺς μισοῦντας
            ὑμᾶς—St. Matt. v. 44 (אB).
"   "  the prophecy of being numbered with the transgressors—St. Mark xv.
            28 (אABCet 3DX).
"   "  ἐν τῷ φανερῷ—St. Matt. vi. 6 (אBDZ).
"   "  reference to the last cry—St. Mark xv. 39 (אBL).
"   "  striking on the face—St. Luke xxii. 64 (אBLMTΦ).
"   "  triple superscription (γράμμ. Ἑλλην. κ. Ῥωμ. κ. Ἑβραϊκ.)—St. Luke
            xxiii. 38 (BCL). So א* in St. John xix. 20-21.
"   "  καὶ ἀπὸ τοῦ μελισσίου κηρίου—St. Luke xxiv. 42 (אABDLΦ).
"   "  καὶ ἐζήτουν αὐτὸν ἀποκτεῖναι—St. John v. 15 (אBCDL).
λύσαντι for λούσαντι—Rev. i. 5 (אAC).
δικαιοσύνην for ἐλεημοσύνην—Matt. vi. 1 (א*et bBD).

IV. Shewing attempts to classicize New Testament Greek.

These attempts have left their traces, conspicuous especially for
omissions, all over B and א in a multiplicity of passages too numerous to
quote. Their general character may be gathered in a perusal of Dr. Hort’s
Introduction, pp. 223-227, from which passage we may understand how these
MSS. may have commended themselves at periods of general advancement in
learning to eminent scholars like Origen and Dr. Hort. But unfortunately a
Thucydidean compactness, condensed and well-pruned according to the
fastidious taste of the study, is exactly that which does not in the long
run take with people who are versed in the habits of ordinary life, or
with scholars who have been exercised in many fields, as was shewn by the
falling into disuse of Origen’s critical manuscripts. The echoes of the
fourth century have surely been heard in the nineteenth.





APPENDIX VI. THE PESHITTO AND CURETONIAN.


[The Rev. C. H. WALLER, D.D., Principal of St. John’s Hall, Highbury.]

A careful collation of the Curetonian Syriac with the Peshitto would I
think leave no doubt on the mind of any one that the Curetonian as
exhibited by Cureton himself is the later version. But in order to give
full effect to the argument it would be necessary to shew the entire
Curetonian fragment side by side with the corresponding portions of the
Peshitto. Otherwise it is scarcely possible to realize (1) how entirely
the one version is founded upon the other—(2) how manifestly the
Curetonian is an attempt to improve upon the other; or (3) how the
Curetonian presupposes and demands an acquaintance with the Gospels in
general, or with views of Gospel history which belong to the Church rather
than to the sacred text.

Even in those brief passages exhibited by Dr. Scrivener from both editions
this can be made out. And it is capable of still further illustration from
almost every page of Dr. Cureton’s book.

To take the fragments exhibited by Dr. Scrivener first. (_a_) In St. Matt.
xii. 1-4, where the Peshitto simply translates the Textus Receptus (not
altered by our Revisers), saying that the disciples were hungry “and began
to pluck ears of corn and to eat,” the Curetonian amends thus:—“and the
disciples were hungry and began to pluck ears of corn, and _break them in
their hands_, and eat,” introducing (as it frequently does, e.g. St. Matt.
iv. 11, “for a season”; St. Matt. iv. 21, “laying his hand”; St. Matt. v.
12, “your fathers”; St. Matt. v. 47, “what thank have ye?”) words borrowed
from St. Luke vi. 1.

But in the next verse of the passage, where the words “on the Sabbath,”
are absolutely required in order to make the Pharisees’ question
intelligible to the first readers of St. Matthew, “Behold, thy disciples
do what is not lawful to do on the Sabbath” (Textus Receptus and Peshitto;
not altered by our Revisers), the Curetonian must needs draw on the common
knowledge of educated readers by exhibiting the question thus, “Why are
thy disciples doing what is not lawful to do?” an abbreviated reading
which leaves us ignorant _what_ the action objected to might be; whether
to pluck ears in another man’s field, or to rub the grain from them on the
Sabbath day? On what possible ground can such emendations as this have the
preference of antiquity in their favour?

Again, the shewbread in ver. 4 of this passage is, not as we have it in
the Peshitto, “the bread of the table of the Lord,” [Syriac letters], a
simple phrase which everyone can understand, but the Old Testament
expression, “face-bread,” [Syriac letters], which exhibits the
translator’s knowledge of the earlier Scriptures, as do his emendations of
the list of names in the first chapter of St. Matthew, and, if I mistake
not, his quotations also.

(_b_) Or, to turn to St. Mark xvi. 17-20 (the other passage exhibited by
Dr. Scrivener). Both the Peshitto and Curetonian shew their agreement, by
the points in which they differ from our received text. “The Lord _Jesus_
then, after He had _commanded_ His disciples, _was exalted_ to heaven and
sat on the right hand of GOD”—is the Curetonian phrase. The simpler
Peshitto runs thus. “_Jesus_ the Lord then, after He had _spoken with
them_, ascended to heaven, and sat on the right hand of GOD.” Both alike
introduce the word “Jesus” as do our Revisers: but the two slight touches
of improvement in the Curetonian are evident, and belong to that aspect of
the matter which finds expression in the Creed, and in the obedience of
the Church. Who can doubt which phrase is the later of the two? A similar
slight touch appears in the Curetonian addition to ver. 17 of “them that
believe _on Me_” instead of simply “them that believe.”

The following points I have myself observed in the collation of a few
chapters of St. Matthew from the two versions. Their minuteness itself
testifies to the _improved_ character of the Curetonian. In St. Matt. v.
32 we have been accustomed to read, with our Text Received and Revised and
with all other authorities, “Whosoever shall put away his wife, except for
the cause of _fornication_.” So reads the Peshitto. But whence comes it
that the Curetonian Syriac substitutes here _adultery_ for fornication,
and thereby sanctions,—not the precept delivered by our Lord, but the
_interpretation almost universally placed upon it?_ How is it possible to
contend that here the Curetonian Syriac has alone preserved the true
reading? Yet either this must be the case, or else we have a deliberate
alteration of a most distinct and precise kind, telling us, not what our
Lord said, but what He is commonly supposed to have _meant_.

Not less curious is the addition in ver. 41, “Whosoever shall compel thee
to go a mile, go with him two _others_.” Our Lord said “go with him
twain,” as all Greek MSS. except D bear witness. The Curetonian and D and
some Latin copies say practically “go with him _three_.” Is this again an
original reading, or an improvement? It is no accidental change.

But by far the most striking ’improvements’ introduced by the Curetonian
MS. are to my mind, those which attest the perpetual virginity of our
Lord’s Mother. The alterations of this kind in the first chapter form a
group quite unique.  Beginning with ver. 18, we read as follows:—

In the Peshitto and our _Greek_       In the Curetonian.
Text without any variation.
Ver. 16. “Jacob begat Joseph _the     “Jacob begat Joseph _to whom was
husband of Mary_ of whom was born     espoused_ Mary _the virgin_, which
Jesus, who is called Messiah.”        bare Jesus _the Messiah_.”
Ver. 18. “Now the birth of Jesus      “The birth of _the Messiah_ was
Christ was on this wise (Peshitto,    thus.”
and Textus Receptus: Revised also,
but with some uncertainty).”
Ver. 19. “Joseph _her husband_        Ver. 19. “_Joseph_, because he was
being a just man,” &c.                a righteous man,” &c. [there is no
                                      Greek or Latin authority with Cn.
                                      here].
Ver. 20. “Fear not to take unto       ... “Mary _thine espoused_” (Cn.
thee Mary _thy wife_.”                seems to be alone here).
Ver. 24. “Joseph ... did as the       ... “and took _Mary_” (Cn. seems
Angel of the Lord had bidden him,     alone in omitting “his wife”).
and took unto him _his wife_.”
Ver. 25. “And knew her not until      “And purely dwelt with her until
she brought forth [her firstborn] a   she bare _the_ son” (Cn. here is
son.”                                 not alone except in inserting the
                                      article).

The absolute omission from the Curetonian Syriac of all mention of Joseph
as Mary’s _husband_, or of Mary as his _wife_ is very remarkable. The last
verse of the chapter has suffered in other authorities by the loss of the
word “firstborn,” probably owing to a feeling of objection to the
inference drawn from it by the Helvidians. It seems to have been forgotten
(1) that the fact of our Lord’s being a “firstborn” in the Levitical sense
is proved by St. Luke from the presentation in the temple (see Neh. x.
36); and (2) that His being called a “firstborn” in no way implies that
his mother had other children after him. But putting this entirely aside,
the feeling in favour of Mary’s perpetual virginity on the mind of the
translator of the Curetonian Syriac was so strong as to draw him to _four
distinct and separate omissions_, in which he stands unsupported by any
authority, of the word “husband” in two places, and in two others of the
word “wife.”

I do not see how any one can deny that here we have emendations of the
most deliberate and peculiar kind. Nor is there any family of earlier
readings which contains them, or to which they can be referred. The fact
that the Curetonian text has some readings in common with the so-called
_western_ family of text (e.g. the transposition of the beatitudes in
Matt. v. 4, 5) is not sufficient to justify us in accounting for such
vagaries as this. It is indeed a “Western” superstition which has exalted
the Virgin Mary into a sphere beyond the level of all that rejoice in God
her Saviour. But the question here suggested is whether this way of
regarding the matter is truly _ancient_; and whether the MS. of an ancient
version which exhibits such singular phenomena on its first page is worthy
to be set above the common version which is palpably its basis. In the
first sentence of the Preface Dr. Cureton states that it was obtained from
a Syrian Monastery _dedicated to St. Mary Deipara_. I cannot but wonder
whether it never occurred to him that the _cultus_ of the Deipara, and the
taste which it indicates, may partly explain why a MS. of a certain
character and bias was ultimately domiciled there. [See note at the end of
this Chapter.]

                  ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

Shall I be thought very disrespectful if I say that the study which I have
been able to devote to Dr. Cureton’s book has impressed me with a profound
distrust of his scholarship? “She shall _bare_ for thee a son,” says he on
the first page of his translation;—which is not merely bald and literal,
but absolutely un-English in many places.


    In Matt. vi. in the first verse we have _alms_ and in the third
    and fourth _righteousness_. An explanation.

    In ver. 13 the Cn. has the _doxology_, but with _power omitted_,
    the Peshitto _not_.

    In ver. 17. Cn. _wash thy face_ and _anoint thy head_ instead of
    our text.

    In ver. 19. Cn. leaves out βρῶσις “rust” and puts in “where
    _falleth_ the moth.”

    In x. 42. The _discipleship_ instead of _disciple_.

    In xi. 2. Of _Jesus_ instead of _Christ_.

    In xiii. 6. Parable of Sower, a _Targum_-like alteration.

    ver. 13 a _most important Targum_.

    ver. 33 a _wise woman took and hid in meal_.

    xiv. 13 leaves out “by ship,” and says “on foot,” where the
    Peshitto has “on dry land,” an odd change, of an opposite kind to
    some that I have mentioned.

    In St. John iii. 6, Cn. has: “That which is born of the flesh is
    flesh, _because of flesh it is born;_ and that which is born of
    the Spirit is spirit, _because God is a spirit, and of God it is
    born_.” And in ver. 8: “So is every one that is born _of water
    and_ of the Spirit.” This is a _Targum_-like expansion: possibly
    anti-Arian. See Tischendorf’s Gr. Test. _in loco_. All the above
    changes look like deliberate emendations of the text.


[It is curious that the Lewis Codex and the Curetonian both break off from
the Traditional account of the Virgin-birth, but in opposite directions.
The Lewis Codex makes Joseph our Lord’s actual Father: the Curetonian
treats the question as described above. That there were two streams of
teaching on this subject, which specially characterized the fifth century,
is well known: the one exaggerating the Nestorian division of the two
Natures, the other tending in a Eutychian direction. That _two
fifth-century MSS. should illustrate these deviations_ is but natural; and
their survival not a little remarkable.]





APPENDIX VII. THE LAST TWELVE VERSES OF ST. MARK’S GOSPEL.


It would be a manifest defect, if a book upon Textual Criticism passing
under the name of Dean Burgon were to go forth without some reference to
the present state of the controversy on the subject, which first made him
famous as a Textual critic.

His argument has been strengthened since he wrote in the following ways:—

1. It will be remembered that the omission of the verses has been rested
mainly upon their being left out by B and א, of which circumstance the
error is mutely confessed in B by the occurrence of a blank space, amply
sufficient to contain the verses, the column in question being the only
vacant one in the whole manuscript. It has been generally taken for
granted, that there is nothing in א to denote any consciousness on the
part of the scribe that something was omitted. But a closer examination of
the facts will shew that the contrary is the truth. For—

i. The page of א on which St. Mark ends is the _recto_ of leaf 29, being
the second of a pair of leaves (28 and 29), forming a single sheet
(containing St. Mark xiv. 54-xvi. 8, St. Luke i. 1-56), which Tischendorf
has shewn to have been written not by the scribe of the body of the New
Testament in this MS., but by one of his colleagues who wrote part of the
Old Testament and acted as _diorthota_ or corrector of the New
Testament—and who is further identified by the same great authority as the
scribe of B. This person appears to have cancelled the sheet originally
written by the scribe of א, and to have substituted for it the sheet as we
now have it, written by himself. A correction so extensive and laborious
can only have been made for the purpose of introducing some important
textual change, too large to be effected by deletion, interlineation, or
marginal note. Thus we are led not only to infer that the testimony of א
is here not independent of that of B, but to suspect that this sheet may
have been thus cancelled and rewritten in order to conform its contents to
those of the corresponding part of B.

ii. This suspicion becomes definite, and almost rises to a certainty, when
we look further into the contents of this sheet. Its second page (28
_v__o_) exhibits four columns of St. Mark (xv. 16-xvi. 1); its third page
(29 _r__o_), the two last columns of St. Mark (xvi. 2-8) and the first two
of St. Luke (i. 1-18). But the writing of these six columns of St. Mark is
so spread out that they contain less matter than they ought; whereas the
columns of St. Luke that follow contain the normal amount. It follows,
therefore, that the change introduced by the _diorthota_ must have been an
extensive excision from St. Mark:—in other words, that these pages as
originally written must have contained a portion of St. Mark of
considerable length which has been omitted from the pages as they now
stand. If these six columns of St. Mark were written as closely as the
columns of St. Luke which follow, there would be room in them for the
omitted twelve verses.—More particularly, the fifth column (the first of
page 29 _r__o_) is so arranged as to contain only about five-sixths of the
normal quantity of matter, and the _diorthota_ is thus enabled to carry
over four lines to begin a new column, the sixth, by which artifice he
manages to conclude St. Mark not with a blank column such as in B tells
its own story, but with a column such as in this MS. is usual at the end
of a book, exhibiting the closing words followed by an “arabesque” pattern
executed with the pen, and the subscription (the rest being left empty).
But, by the very pains he has thus taken to conform this final column to
the ordinary usage of the MS., his purpose of omission is betrayed even
more conclusively, though less obviously, than by the blank column of
B(628).

iii. A further observation is to be noted, which not only confirms the
above, but serves to determine the place where the excision was made to
have been at the very _end_ of the Gospel. The last of the four lines of
the sixth and last column of St. Mark (the second column of leaf 29
_r__o_) contains only the five letters το γαρ ([ἐφοβοῦν]το γαρ), and has
the rest of the space (more than half the width of the column) filled up
with a minute and elaborate ornament executed with the pen in ink and
vermilion, the like of which is nowhere else found in the MS., or in the
New Testament part of B, such spaces being invariably left unfilled(629).
And not only so, but underneath, the usual “arabesque” above the
subscription, marking the conclusion of the text, has its horizontal arm
extended all the way across the width of the column,—and not, as always
elsewhere, but halfway or less(630). It seems hardly possible to regard
these carefully executed works of the pen of the _diorthota_ otherwise
than as precautions to guard against the possible restoration, by a
subsequent reviser, of a portion of text deliberately omitted by him (the
_diorthota_) from _the end_ of the Gospel. They are evidence therefore
that he knew of a conclusion to the Gospel which he designedly expunged,
and endeavoured to make it difficult for any one else to reinsert.

We have, therefore, good reason to believe that the disputed Twelve Verses
were not only in an exemplar known to the scribe of B, but also in the
exemplar used by the scribe of א; and that their omission (or, more
properly, disappearance) from these two MSS. is due to one and the same
person—the scribe, namely, who wrote B and who revised א,—or rather,
perhaps, to an editor by whose directions he acted.

2. Some early Patristic evidence has been added to the stores which the
Dean collected by Dr. Taylor, Master of St. John’s College, Cambridge.
This evidence may be found in a book entitled “The Witness of Hermas” to
the Four Gospels, published in 1892, of which § 12 in the Second Part is
devoted to “The ending of St. Mark’s Gospel,” and includes also quotations
from Justin Martyr, and the Apology of Aristides. A fuller account is
given in the Expositor of July 1893, and contains references to the
following passages:—Irenaeus iii. 11. 6 (quoting xvi. 19); Justin Martyr,
Trypho, § 138; Apol. i. 67; Trypho, § 85; Apol. i. 45; Barnabas, xv. 9;
xvi. 7; Quarto-deciman Controversy (Polycarp)? and Clement of Rome, i. 42.
The passages from Hermas are, 1. (xvi. 12-13) Sim. ii. 1, Vis. i. 1, iii.
1, iv. 1, and v. 4; 2. (xvi. 14) Sim. ix. 141 and 20. 4, Vis. iii. 8. 3,
iii. 7. 6; 3. (xvi. 15-16) Vis. iii, Sim. ix. 16, 25; 4. (xvi. 17-18) Vis.
iv, Mand. i, xii. 2. 2-3, Sim. ix. 1. 9, iii. 7, ix. 26, Mand. xii. 6. 2;
5. (xvi. 19-20) Vis. iii. 1. Some of the references are not apparent at
first sight, but Dr. Taylor’s discussions in both places should be read
carefully.

3. In my own list given above, p. 109, of the writers who died before A.D.
400, I have added from my two examinations of the Ante-Chrysostom Fathers
to the list in The Revision Revised, p. 421, the Clementines, four
references from the Apostolic Canons and Constitutions, Cyril of
Jerusalem, Gregory of Nyssa, the Apocryphal Acts of the Apostles, and two
references to the four of St. Ambrose mentioned in “The Last Twelve
Verses,” p. 27. To these Dr. Waller adds, Gospel of Peter, § 7 (πενθοῦντες
καὶ κλαίοντες), and § 12 (ἐκλαίομεν καὶ ἐλυπούμεθα), referring to the ἅπαξ
λεγόμενον, as regards the attitude of the Twelve at the time, in xvi. 10.

4. On the other hand, the recently discovered Lewis Codex, as is well
known, omits the verses. The character of that Codex, which has been
explained above in the sixth chapter of this work, makes any alliance with
it suspicious, and consequently it is of no real importance that its
testimony, unlike that of B and א, is claimed to be unswerving.

For that manuscript is disfigured by heretical blemishes of the grossest
nature, and the obliteration of it for the purpose of covering the vellum
with other writing was attended with circumstances of considerable
significance.

In the first chapter of St. Matthew, Joseph is treated as the father of
our Lord (vers. 16, 21, 24) as far as His body was concerned, for as to
His soul even according to teaching of Gnostic origin He was treated as
owing His nature to the Holy Ghost (ver. 20). Accordingly, the blessed
Virgin is called in the second chapter of St. Luke Joseph’s “wife,”
μεμνηστευμένη being left with no equivalent(631): and at His baptism, He
is described as “_being as He was called_ the son of Joseph” (St. Luke
iii. 23). According to the heretical tenet that our Lord was chosen out of
other men to be made the Son of God at the baptism, we read afterwards,
“This is My Son, My chosen” (St. Luke ix. 35), “the chosen of God” (St.
John i. 34), “Thou art My Son and My beloved” (St. Matt. iii. 17), “This
is My Son Who is beloved” (St. Mark ix. 7); and we are told of the Holy
Ghost descending like a dove (St. Matt. iii. 16), that It “_abode_ upon
Him.” Various smaller expressions are also found, but perhaps the most
remarkable of those which have been left upon the manuscript occurs in St.
Matt. xxvii. 50, “And Jesus cried with a loud voice, and _His Spirit went
up_.” After this, can we be surprised because the scribe took the
opportunity of leaving out the Last Twelve Verses of St. Mark which
contain the most detailed account of the Ascension in the Gospels, as well
as the καὶ ἀνεφέρετο εἰς τὸν οὐρανόν of St. Luke?

Again, at the time when the manuscript was put out of use, and as is
probable in the monastery of St. Catherine so early as the year 778 A.D.
(Introduction by Mrs. Lewis, p. xv), the old volume was pulled to pieces,
twenty-two leaves were cast away, the rest used in no regular order, and
on one at least, as we are told, a knife was employed to eradicate the
writing. Five of the missing leaves must have been blank, according to
Mrs. Lewis: but the seventeen remaining leaves contained passages of
supreme importance as being expressive of doctrine, like St. John i. 1-24,
St. Luke i. 16-39, St. Mark i. 1-11, St. Matt. xxviii. 8-end, and others.
Reading the results of this paragraph in connexion with those of the last,
must we not conclude that this manuscript was used for a palimpsest, and
submitted to unusual indignity in order to obliterate its bad record?

It will be seen therefore that a cause, which for unchallenged evidence
rests solely upon such a witness, cannot be one that will commend itself
to those who form their conclusions judicially. The genuineness of the
verses, as part of the second Gospel, must, I hold, remain unshaken by
such opposition.

5. An ingenious suggestion has been contributed by Mr. F. C. Conybeare,
the eminent Armenian scholar, founded upon an entry which he discovered in
an Armenian MS. of the Gospels, dated A.D. 986, where “Ariston Eritzou” is
written in minioned uncials at the head of the twelve verses. Mr.
Conybeare argues, in the Expositor for October, 1893, that “Ariston
Eritzou” is not the copyist himself, who signs himself Johannes, or an
Armenian translator, Ariston or Aristion being no Armenian name. He then
attempts to identify it with Aristion who is mentioned by Papias in a
passage quoted by Eusebius (H. E. iii. 39) as a disciple of the Lord. Both
the words “Ariston Eritzou” are taken to be in the genitive, as “Eritzou”
certainly is, and to signify “Of or by Aristion the presbyter,” this being
the meaning of the latter word. The suggestion is criticized by Dr. Ad.
Harnack in the Theologische Literaturzeitung, 795, where Dr. Harnack
pronounces no opinion upon the soundness of it: but the impression left
upon the mind after reading his article is that he is unable to accept it.

It is remarkable that the verses are found in no other Armenian MS. before
1100. Mr. Conybeare traces the version of the passage to an old Syrian
Codex about the year 500, but he has not very strong grounds for his
reasoning; and even then for such an important piece of information the
leap to the sub-Apostolic age is a great one. But there is another serious
difficulty in the interpretation of this fragmentary expression. Even
granting the strong demands that we may construe over the expression of
Papias, Ἀριστίων καὶ ὁ πρεσβύτερος Ἰωάννης, and take Aristion to have been
meant as a presbyter, and that according to the parallel of Aristion in
Eusebius’ history having been transliterated in an Armenian version to
Ariston, Aristion “the disciple” may be the man mentioned here, there is a
formidable difficulty presented by the word “Aristŏn” as it is written in
the place quoted. It ought at least to have had a long ō according to Dr.
Harnack, and it is not in the genitive case as “Eritzou” is. Altogether,
the expression is so elliptical, and occurs with such isolated mystery in
a retired district, and at such a distance of years from the event
supposed to be chronicled, that the wonder is, not that a diligent and
ingenious explorer should advocate a very curious idea that he has formed
upon a very interesting piece of intelligence, but that other Critics
should have been led to welcome it as a key to a long-considered problem.
Are we not forced to see in this incident an instance of a truth not
unfrequently verified, that when people neglect a plain solution, they are
induced to welcome another which does not include a tenth part of the
evidence in its support?

Of course the real difficulty in the way of accepting these verses as the
composition of St. Mark lies in the change of style found in them. That
this change is not nearly so great as it may appear at first sight, any
one may satisfy himself by studying Dean Burgon’s analysis of the words
given in the ninth chapter of his “Last Twelve Verses of St. Mark.” But it
has been the fashion in some quarters to confine ancient writers to a
wondrously narrow form of style in each case, notwithstanding Horace’s
rough Satires and exquisitely polished Odes, and Cicero’s Letters to his
Friends and his Orations and Philosophical Treatises. Perhaps the recent
flood of discoveries respecting early Literature may wash away some of the
film from our sight. There seems to be no valid reason why St. Mark should
not have written all the Gospel that goes by his name, only under altered
circumstances. The true key seems to be, that at the end of verse 8 he
lost the assistance of St. Peter. Before ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ, he wrote out St.
Peter’s story: after it, he filled in the end from his own acquired
knowledge, and composed in summary. This very volume may supply a
parallel. Sometimes I have transcribed Dean Burgon’s materials with only
slight alteration, where necessary imitating as I was able his style. In
other places, I have written solely as best I could.

I add two suggestions, not as being proved to be true, because indeed
either is destructive of the other, but such that one or other may
possibly represent the facts that actually occurred. To meet the charge of
impossibility, it is enough to shew what is possible, though in the
absence of direct evidence it may not be open to any one to advocate any
narrative as being absolutely true.

I. Taking the story of Papias and Clement of Alexandria, as given by
Eusebius (H. E. ii. 15), that St. Mark wrote his gospel at the request of
Roman converts, and that St. Peter, as it seems, helped him in the
writing, I should suggest that the pause made in ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ, so unlike
the close of any composition, of any paragraph or chapter, and still less
of the end of a book, that I can recollect, indicates a sudden
interruption. What more likely than that St. Peter was apprehended at the
time, perhaps at the very moment when the MS. reached that place, and was
carried off to judgement and death? After all was over, and the
opportunity of study returned, St. Mark would naturally write a
conclusion. He would not alter a syllable that had fallen from St. Peter’s
lips. It would be the conclusion composed by one who had lost his literary
illuminator, formal, brief, sententious, and comprehensive. The
crucifixion of the leading Apostle would thus impress an everlasting mark
upon the Gospel which was virtually his. Here the Master’s tongue ceased:
here the disciple took up his pen for himself.

II. If we follow the account of Irenaeus (Eus. H. E. v. 8) that St. Mark
wrote his Gospel—and did not merely publish it—after St. Peter’s death,
Dr. Gwynn suggests to me that he used his notes made from St. Peter’s
dictation or composed with his help up to xvi. 8, leaving at the end what
were exactly St. Peter’s words. After that, he added from his own stores,
and indited the conclusion as I have already described.

Whether either of these descriptions, or any other solution of the
difficulty, really tallies with the actual event, I submit that it is
clear that St. Mark may very well have written the twelve verses himself;
and that there is no reason for resorting to Aristion, or to any other
person for the authorship. I see that Mr. Conybeare expresses his
indebtedness to Dean Burgon’s monograph, and expresses his opinion that
“perhaps no one so well sums up the evidence for and against them” as he
did (Expositor, viii. p. 241). I tender to him my thanks, and echo for
myself all that he has said.





APPENDIX VIII. NEW EDITIONS OF THE PESHITTO-SYRIAC AND THE
HARKLEIAN-SYRIAC VERSIONS.


A book representing Dean Burgon’s labours in the province of Sacred
Textual Criticism would be incomplete if notice were not taken in it of
the influence exercised by him upon the production of editions of the two
chief Syriac Versions.

Through his introduction of the Rev. G. H. Gwilliam, B.D. to the late
Philip E. Pusey, a plan was formed for the joint production of an edition
of the Peshitto New Testament by these two scholars. On the early and
lamented death of Philip Pusey, which occurred in the following year, Mr.
Gwilliam succeeded to his labours, being greatly helped by the Dean’s
encouragement. He has written on the Syriac Canons of the Gospels; and the
nature of his work upon the Peshitto Gospels, now in the press, may be
seen on consulting his article on “The Materials for the Criticism of the
Peshitto New Testament” in the third volume of Studia Biblica et
Ecclesiastica, pp. 47-104, which indeed seems to be sufficient for the
Prolegomena of his edition. A list of his chief authorities was also
kindly contributed by him to my Scrivener, and they are enumerated there,
vol. II. pp. 12-13. The importance of this work, carried on successively
by two such accomplished Syriacists, may be seen from and will illustrate
the sixth chapter of this work.

In connexion with the Dean, if not on his suggestion, the late Rev. Henry
Deane, B.D., when Fellow of St. John’s College, Oxford, began to collect
materials for a new and critical edition of the Harkleian. His work was
carried on during many years, when ill-health and failing eyesight put a
stop to all efforts, and led to his early death—for on leaving New
College, after having been Tutor there for five years, I examined him then
a boy at the top of Winchester College. Mr. Deane has left the results of
his work entered in an interleaved copy of Joseph White’s “Sacrorum
Evangeliorum Versio Syriaca Philoxeniana”—named, as my readers will
observe, from the translator Mar Xenaias or Philoxenus, not from Thomas of
Harkel the subsequent editor. A list of the MSS. on which Mr. Deane based
his readings was sent by him to me, and inserted in my Scrivener, vol. II.
p. 29. Mr. Deane added (in a subsequent letter, dated April 16, 1894):—“My
labours on the _Gospels_ shew that the H[arkleian] text is much the same
in all MSS. The Acts of the Apostles must be worked up for a future
edition by some one who knows the work.” Since his lamented death, putting
a stop to any edition by him, his widow has placed his collation just
described in the Library of St. John’s College, where by the permission of
the Librarian it may be seen, and also used by any one who is recognized
as continuing the valuable work of that accomplished member of the
College. Is there no capable and learned man who will come forward for the
purpose?





GENERAL INDEX.


A.

A or Alexandrian MS., 24, 31, 57, 76, 175, 201, 213 note 2.

א or Sinaitic MS., 2, 24, 31, 32, 49, 57, 174, 219, 235;
  six conjugate leaves, 52, 165, 233;
  value, B-א, 55, 68-9;
  history and character, 153, 160 &c, 233-5;
  sceptical character, App. V. 287.

Acacius, 2, 155;
  probably the scribe of B, 154.

Acta Philippi, 100-20.

Acta Pilati, 100-20.

Adamantius, copies of, 167.
  _See_ Origen.

Alexander Alexandrinus, 100, 113, 119.

Alexandria, school of, 2, 122, 234.

Alexandrians and Egyptians, 113.

Alford, 171.

Ambrose, St., 101-20.

Ammonius, 11, 242.

Amphilochius, St., 101-20.

Anaphora Pilati, 112.

Antioch, early Church at, 123-4.

Antiquity, 29-31.

Aphraates, 103-14, 213 note 4;
  witnesses to Peshitto, 130.

Apocryphal Acts of the Gospels, 103-15, 132.

Apollonides, 10.

Apostolic Canons and Constitutions, 100, 103-15, 119.

Apostolic Fathers, 99, 118.

Archelaus, 100, 105-13, 119, 130.

Arius, 110, 111, 114, 121.

Armenian Version, 23, 49, 136.

Asclepiades, 10.

Athanasius, 100, 103-15, 119, 121, 148, 235
  note 1, 244.

Athenagoras, 99, 103, 115, 119.

Augustine, St., on Old-Latin Texts, 140-3;
  canon of, 61 note, 198.

B.

B or Vatican MS., 2, 24, 31, 32, 49, 57, 174;
  number of omissions, 78;
  history and character, 153, 160 &c., 233-5;
  sceptical character of, App. V. 287;
  B and א, their value, 55, 68-89.

Barnabas, St., 104, 107.

Bartolocci, 157.

Basil, St., 97, 101, 107-15, 117, 197, 281-2.

Basilides, 3.

Bengel, 3.

Beratinus, Codex (Φ), 25, 26, 175.

Bethabara or Bethany, 88.

Beza, 3.

Bigg, Dr., 151.

Birch, 157.

Bobiensis (k), 137.

Bohairic Version, 23, 30, 49, 136, 149-50, and _passim_.

Brixianus (f), 137.

Burgon, Dean, Indexes of, Preface, 94;
  addition by, to Greek MSS., 21 note 2.

Burkitt, Mr. F. C, 129 note 1.

C.

C or Parisian MS., 24, 31, 51, 57, 76, 175.

Caesarea (Turris Stratonis), library of, 2, 152, 163-5, 225, 274.
  _See_ B and א.

Caesarea, School of, 121, 152-8.

Caesarea Philippi, our Lord’s stay at, 124.

Callixtus, 99, 120.

Candidus Arianus, 101, 113, 120.

Canon of the N.T., 10, 13-14, 161, 172;
  settlement of the Canon followed by that of the Text, 173.

Celsus, 107.

Chase, Dr. F. H., 144. 176 note.

Chrysostom, St., 31, 161, 197.

Ciasca, Agostino, 132.

Claromontanus (h), 137.

Clemens Alex., 58, 62, 99, 103-15, 117, 121, 148, 149, 150, 234, 241, 246.

Clemens Rom., 105.

Clementines, 99, 105, 109, 111, 119.

Colbertinus (c), 137.

Complutensian edition, 3.

Concilia Carthaginiensia, 100, 108, 119.

Concordia discors, 17, 81-8.

Conflation, 80-1, 206-7, 227-9.

Consent without Concert, 17.

Constans, 163 note 3.

Constantine I, 160, 163 note 3.

Constantinople, Councils of, 173.

Constantius II, 160, 161 note 1.

Context, 61-5.

Continuity, 58-61.

Conybeare, Mr. F. C., 304-5, 307.

Cook, Canon, 163 note 4, 227.

Corbeiensis I, II, (ff1, ff2), 137.

Cornelius, 100, 119.

Corruption, pre-Evangelistic, 146.

Crawford, the Earl of, 129.

Critical copies, 36 note.

Curetonian Version, 31, 91;
  date of, 123-34;
  origin of text, 144 &c, 182 note 2;
  218 note 11, and _passim_.

Curetonian and Peshitto, App. VI. 292.

Cursive MSS., 24, 51, 156-8, 196-223;
  in relation to later Uncials, 199-203;
  main body of, not a single copy, 223;
  copied in part from papyrus, 235;
  the first extant, 200.

Cyprian, St., 100, 103-15, 120.

Cyril of Alexandria, St., 31, 119, 247.

Cyril of Jerusalem, St., 101, 103-15, 282.

D.

D or Cod. Bezae, 24, 31, 51, 76, 126, 144, 175-95;
  sympathy with Old-Latin MSS., 56.

D and E, Codd. of St. Paul, 54, 231.

Δ, Cod. Sangallensis, in St. Mark, 204.

Damascus, Early Church at, 122-4.

Deane, the late Rev. H., and Harkleian, App. VIII. 309.

Decapolis, 123 note.

Delicate expressions rubbed off in the old Uncials, 190.

Diatessarons, formerly abounded 252.

Didachè, 99, 103, 104.

Didymus, 101, 103-15, 119, 120.

Diez, Fried., 143 note.

Diodorus (Tarsus), 101, 120.

Diognetus, Epistle to, 99, 118.

Dionysius Alex., 100, 107, 110, 121, 148, 234.

Doctrine and the Text of N.T., connexion between, 173.

E.

E, Cod. of Gospels. 203.

E of Paul = D of Paul, 54, 231.

Edessa, 134.

Egyptian Versions, 31.

Elzevirs, 3.

Ephraem Syrus, St., 103, 107, 110, 112, 132, 243;
  witnesses to Peshitto, 130.

Epiphanius, St., 101, 103-15, 117, 120, 133, 243, 283-4.

Erasmus, 3, 15.

Esaias Abbas, 101, 104. 120.

Ethiopic Version, 23, 49, 51, 136.

Eumenes II, 155.

Eunomius, 101.

Eusebian Canons, 242.

Eusebius (Caesarea), 2, 30, 31, 100, 103-15, 121, 133, 152, 162;
  personally favoured the Traditional Text, 100, 121, 153;
  probably not the scribe of B, 154;
  latitudinarian, 154, 172;
  on St. Mark xvi., 55, 58, 109, 242.

Eusebius (Emesa), 107.

Eustathius, 100, 114, 120.

Euthalius (Sulci), 164 note 2.

Evagrius Ponticus, 100, 110, 120.

Evan., 102 = B, 54.

F.

F of St. Paul, like G, 56.

Fathers, 19, 23, 26, 50, 52;
  value of quotations by, 57-8, 97-8;
  early, witness of, 94-122;
  indexes to quotations in, by Dean Burgon, Pref., 94-5.

Faustinus, 101, 114, 120.

Ferrar group, 56, 114, 200, 235-6.

Firmicus Maternus, 100, 108, 119.

G.

G of St. Paul, like F, 56.

Genealogy, 229-37.

Genealogy, the, in St. Luke iii., 181-2.

Giles, Mr. H. A., 156 note.

Gothic Version, 23, 136.

Gregory, Dr. C. R., prolegomena, 160.

Gregory Nas., St., 101, 103-15, 117, 119, 197.

Gregory Nyss., St., 101, 103-15, 117, 120, 249 note, 260.

Gregory Thaumaturgus, St., 100, 110, 119, 130, 152.

Griesbach, 3, 117, 148.

Gwilliam, Rev. G. H., Pref.;
  in Studia Biblica, 128, 129 note 1, 241 note;
  editor of Peshitto, App. VIII. 308.

Gwynn, Rev. Dr., App. VII. 298-301, 306.

H.

H of St. Paul, 164.

Haddan, A. W., 174 note.

Harkleian Version, 49, 133-4;
  new ed., App VIII. 309.

Harnack, Dr., 304-5.

Harris, Mr. J. Rendel, 144 note 1, 176.

Hedybia, 244.

Hegesippus, 99, 111, 118.

Heracleon. 10, 99, 121, 148.

Hermophilus, 10.

Herodotus, 155.

Hesychius, 243.

Hilary, St. (Poictiers), 104-15, 117, 119, 169.

Hill, Rev. J. Hamlyn, 133.

Hippolytus, St., 99, 104-15, 117, 119.

Hort, Dr., 4, 7, 95, 158, 176, 251, 291, and _passim_;
  admissions of, 14;
  involuntary witness of, 90-4;
  inaccurate upon the early Fathers, 117, 121;
  fancies of, 129 note 2;
  B and א written at Rome, 165;
  W.-Hort, 208 note 11;
  on the Traditional Text, 221-2, 236;
  on Genealogy, 230. _See_ Conflation.

I.

Internal Evidence, 65-7, 214-5.

Interpolations, 81.

Irenaeus, St., 98, 99, 103-15, 117, 119, 284.

Isaias. _See_ Esaias.

Itala, 143.

Ἰωάννης or Ἰωάνης, 87.

J.

Jacobites, 133.

Jacobus Nisibenus, 132.

Jerome, St., on Old-Latin Texts, 140-2, 244.

Jona and Jonah, 87.

Julius (Pope), 100, 120.

Julius Africanus, 100, 112, 121.

Justin Martyr, St., 30, 99, 103-15, 117, 119;
  ps. Justin, 108, 111.

Juveneus, 100, 105, 110, 120.

L.

L or Regius, 4, 30, 32, 204.

Lachmann, 4, 90, 158, 225.

Lactantius, 100, 120.

Laodicea, Council of, 172.

Last Twelve Verses, i.e. of St. Mark, 55, 102, 232, App. VII. 298.

Latin MSS., Old, 4, 30, 31, 49, 51, 64, 126;
  do not fall strictly into three classes, 136-9;
  Wiseman’s theory of, false, 142;
  did not come from one stem, 135-46;
  influenced by Low-Latin dialects, 135-146;
  derived much from Syrian pre-Evangelistic corruption, 144-6.

Lectionaries, 22 and note.

Letters in _Guardian_, Dean Burgon’s, 200 note 3.

Lewis Codex, 131-2, 134 note, 144, 302-3, and _passim_.

Libraries, destruction of, 174.

Library at Caesarea. _See_ Caesarea.

Low-Latin MSS., 122. _See_ Latin MSS.

Lucifer (Cagliari), 101, 103, 104, 114, 120.

M.

Macarius Alexandrinus, 100 note.

Macarius Magnes, 101, 106-12, 120.

Macarius Magnus or Aegyptius, 100, 104, 110, 115, 120.

Mai, Cardinal, editions of B, 75, 159.

Manuscripts, multitude of, 24-7, 19, 21 and note 2;
  six classes of, 22 note;
  kinds of, 24;
  value of,53-6;
  in profane authors, 21 note 1.
  _See_ Papyrus, Vellum, Uncial, Cursive.

Marcion, 10, 97, 110, 111, 112.

Mariam and Mary, 84-6.

Maries, the, in N. T., 84-6.

Mark, St. _See_ Last Twelve Verses.

Maronite use of the Peshitto, 128.

Maunde Thompson, Sir E., Pref., 155-6, 158.

Melito, 131.

Menander, 10.

Methodius, 100, 106, 110, 117, 119, 131.

Mico, 137.

Migne’s edition of the Fathers, 96.

Mill, 3.

Miller’s Textual Guide, 3 note, 91 note.

Miller’s Scrivener (Plain Introduction, ed. 4), _passim_.

Ministry, our Lord’s, in the North and North-West, 123.

Monacensis (9), 137.

Monophysite use of the Peshitto, 128.

Monothelitism, condemned in 680 A.D., 173.

N.

Nemesius, 101, 120.

Neologian Text, 99, 103.

Nestorian use of Peshitto, 128.

Neutral Text (so-called), 4, 92.

Nicodemus, Gospel of, 107, 257.

Notes of Truth, seven, 29, 40-67.

Novatian, 100, 106, 114.

O.

Omissions, 81, 280-1, 291.

Optatus, 100, 108, 110, 120.

Origen, 2, 10, 31, 50, 51, 58, 100, 104-15, 117, 121, 122, 130, 162, 169,
            242, 247, 255 note 6, 272, 280-1, 291;
  his great influence, 162;
  a Textual Critic, 149-54;
  founder of the Caesarean school, 152-3, 162-5;
  character, 152;
  fancies, 169 note 2;
  critical copies, 274-5.

Origenism, condemned in 553 A.D., 173.

Orthodox, the, 264.

P.

Φ. _See_ Beratinus.

Pacianus, 100, 103, 120.

Palatinus (e), 137.

Pamphilus, 2, 100, 115, 121, 152, 163-4.

Paper, first made in China, 156 note.

Papias, 99, 109, 118.

Papyrus MSS., 24, 154-8, 163, 201;
  copying from, 2, 175, 235.

Parisian Codex. _See_ C.

Paul, St., 145.

Peshitto Version, 31, 91, 123;
  antiquity of, 125-134, 210, 224;
  Peshitto and Curetonian, texts of, App. VI. 292.

Peter (Alexandria), 100, 121, 148.

Peter, Gospel of, 99, 107, 111, 119.

Peter, St., App. VII. 306.

Philastrius, 101, 103, 120.

Phillips, Cod., 129 note.

Philo (Carpasus or Carpasia), 101, 103, 104, 107, 110, 120.

Philoxenian. _See_ Harkleian.

Polycarp, 103.

Pontianus, 99, 120.

Porphyry, 108.

Prior, Dr. Alexander, 156 note.

Pusey, P. E., Pref. and 129.

Q.

Q, Cod., 175.

Quaestiones ex Utroque Testamento, 101, 105-15, 120.

R.

R, Cod. of St. Luke (Cod. Nitriensis), 204 note.

Rabbūla, 133.

Recensions, phantom, 79, 91, 93, 121.

Rehdigeranus (1), 137.

Respectability. _See_ Weight.

Revision Revised, the, 91, 102, _passim_.

Revisers, 208 note 11, 212, 245.

Romance languages, origin of, 143.

Rossanensian Codex. _See_ Σ.

Rulotta, 157.

S.

Σ (Rossanensian), Cod., 25, 76, 175.

Sachau, Dr., 129 note.

Sahidio (Thebaic) Version, 23, 136.

Sangallensia Fragmenta (n), 137.

Sangermanensis I (g2), 137.

Scholz, 4.

Scrivener, Dr, Pref., 5, 32, 135, 227, 231, 233, 272.

Seniores apud Irenaeum, 99, 118.

Serapion, 100, 109, 119.

Sinaitic MS. _See_ א.

Slavonic Version, 136.

Stephen, Rob., 3.

Synodical Letter, 100, 119.

Synodus Antiochena, 100, 105, 113, 119, 130.

Synoptic problem, 146.

Syria, rapid spread of the Church in, 123-4.

Syriac Canons, 109, 254 note.

Syriac Sections, 291.

Syriac Versions, 49, 123-34.

“Syrian,” an audacious nick-name, 91-2.

Syrio-Low-Latin Text, 135-47, 225;
  intercommunication between Syria and Italy, 145-6.

T.

T, Cod., 204 note.

Tatian, 97, 103, 110.

Tatian’s Diatessaron, 126, 132-4, 242, 302 note.

Taylor, Rev. Dr., 300.

Tertullian, 99, 104-15, 120.

Testament of Abraham, 99, 104, 119.

Tests of Truth, seven, 24, 40-67.

Textual Criticism, 1-5;
  importance of, Pref., 6 note.

Textus Receptus, origin of the name, 3;
  character of, 5, 15-16, 30;
  imperfect, 5.

Theodoret (Cyrrhus), 133, 134.

Theodoras Heracleensis, 100, 107, 114, 119.

Theodotus, 10, 113, 114.

Theognotus, 100, 121, 148.

Theophilus Antiochenus, 99, 120.

Theophylact, 49 note 1.

Tischendorf, 4, 5 note, 7, 9, 49 note, 98, 99, 136, 158, 160 note 2;
  curious reasoning, 169 and note 1, 225.

Titus of Bostra, 101, 104-15, 119.

Tradition, nature of, 196-9, 224.

Traditional Text, character of, 5, 196-9;
  founded upon the vast majority of authorities, 13;
  relation to the Canon, 13-14, 32, 172-3, 197;
  variously attested, 29, 40-7; dates
  back to the earliest time, 90-147;
  settled first, 173;
  finally, 173;
  mode of settlement, 198;
  continuity of, 224;
  history of, 236-7;
  incontrovertible as a fact, 236.

U.

Uncials, 24, 51.

Uncials, later, 196-223. _See_ Cursives.

V.

Valentinians, 10, 30, 113.

Valentinus, 260.

Variety, 49-53.

Vatican MS. _See_ B.

Vellum, 154-8, 174.

Vercellensis (a), 137.

Veronensis (b), 137.

Versions, 19, 22, 26, 50, 52;
  value of, 56.

Victor of Antioch, 284.

Victorinus (Afer), 101, 105, 108, 113, 114, 120.

Victorinus (Pettau), 101, 108, 109, 119.

Viennensium et Lugdunensium Epistola, 99, 118.

Vincentius, 109.

Vindobonensis (i), 137.

Vulgate, 30, 31, and _passim_.

W.

Waller, Rev. Dr. C. H., Pref., App. VI. 292-7, App. VII. 302.

Weight, 53-8, 77, 226.

Westcott, Bp. of Durham, 4;
  on the Canon, 92.

Westcott and Hort, 226, 232.

Western Text, 135-47. _See_ Syrio-Low-Latin.

Wetstein, 3.

White, Rev. H. J., 139, 142.

Wiseman, Cardinal, 135, 143.

Woods, Rev. F. H., 130.

Wright, Dr. W., 129 note 2.

X.

Ξ, Cod. Zacynthius, 204

Ximenes, Cardinal, 3, 236.

Z.

Z, Cod. Dublinensis, 204 note 1.

Zeno, 101, 107, 114, 120.





INDEX II. PASSAGES OF THE NEW TESTAMENT COMMENTED ON.


St. Matthew:

     i. 2-16                      180-2
        16, 18, 19, 20, 24, 25    295
        18                        192-3, 288
        25                        103, 138, 149, 289
    ii. 23                        177
   iii. 16                        288
    iv. 11                        293
        13                        177
        17-22                     211-3
        21                        293
     v. 12                        293
        22                        290
        32, 41                    294
        44                        103, 138, 149, 290
        47                        293
    vi. 1                         290
        6                         290
        13                        104, 138, 149
        13, 17, 19                297
   vii. 13-4                      104, 138, 149
 viii.  5-13                      219-20
    ix. 13                        104, 138, 149
    x.  8                         51-2
        42                        297
   xi.  2                         297
        2-3                       63-4
        27                        105, 138, 149
  xii.  1-4                       292
        30                        288
 xiii.  6, 13, 33                 297
        36                        34 n. 2
   xiv. 13                        297
        19                        168
    xv. 35                        168
  xvii. 21                        62-3, 105, 138, 149, 289
        22                        55
 xviii. 11                        106, 138, 149, 290
   xix. 16-7                      78, 106, 138, 149, 259, 288
    xx. 22-3                      209-11, 289
        28                        178
        44                        289
 xxiii. 14                        289
        38                        106, 138, 149
  xxiv. 36                        288
  xxvi. 32                        187
        34                        140
        35                        140
        39                        140
        71                        190-1
 xxvii. 34                        253-8
        46                        30
xxviii. 2                         107, 138, 149
        19                        108, 138, 149, 213 n.

St. Mark:

     i. 1                         166, 279-86, 287
        2                         108, 138, 149
        11                        140
        14-20                     211-13
        28                        176
        45-ii. 1                  176
    ii. 12                        287
        13                        177
        17                        104
        27-8                      176
   iii. 16                        289
        26                        177-8
        29                        289
    iv. 1                         179-80
        12                        289
    vi. 11                        289
        22                        66
        33                        80
   vii. 35                        287
  viii. 6                         168
        7                         82 n.
    ix. 24                        287
        29                        289
        44-6                      289
        49                        289
     x. 6                         288
        17-8                      259-78
        23-4                      213-14
        24                        289
        38                        209-11
    xi. 26                        289
  xiii. 32                        288
   xiv. 22-4                      290
        28                        187
        72                        187
    xv. 23                        253-4
        28                        290
        39                        80, 290
        43                        190
        46                        187
        47-xvi. 7                 184
   xvi. 3, 4, 6                   187
  xvi. 7            187
       9-20         109, 138, 149, 288, 293, 298-307

ST. LUKE:

    i. 26           187
       28           109, 138, 149, 289
       41           187
       60           187
       64           176-7
       65, 70, 71   174, 185
   ii. 2            188 n.
       14           110, 138, 149
       39           177
  iii. 23-38        180-2
   iv. 4            289
       5            289
       8            289
       31           177
       37           176
    v. 1-11         211-13
       3            186
       14-15        176
       27           177
   vi. 1            293
       10           176
  vii. 18           64
       35           177
   ix. 55-6         289
    x. 12           176
       25           140
       41-2         110, 138, 149
   xi. 2            177
       2-4          84, 290
       4            166
  xiv. 8-10         178
       22           191
  xvi. 9            215-6
 xvii. 2            194-5
       19           289
       24           289
xviii. 14           189, 193-4
       18-19        259-78
  xix. 25           189
       27           178
       37           65
       42           217-9
  xxi. 25           140
 xxii. 43-4         110, 138, 149, 290
       44           80
       64           290
xxiii. 34           111, 138, 149, 290
       38           111, 138, 150, 290
       42           288
       45           112, 138, 150
 xxiv. 3            287
       13           66
       40           112, 139, 150
       41-3         239-52
       42           112, 139, 150, 290
       46           288
       51           288

ST. JOHN:

    i.  3-4         113, 139, 150
        9           140
       18           113-4, 139, 150
       27           166
       28            88, 166
       43            87
  iii.  6           297
       13           114, 139, 150, 288
       31           288
    v.  3-4          80, 82, 289
       15           290
   vi. 47           287
       51           289
       69           287
 viii. 35           288
       38-9         170-1
       59           288
   ix. 35           288
       36           191
    x. 14           115, 139, 150
  xiv. 14           287
  xvi.  6           288
 xvii. 24           115, 139, 150
  xix. 20-1         290
       25            85 n. 3
       29           253-4
 xxi.   5-13        241-4
       23           287
       25           115, 139, 150

ACTS:

  xvi.  7           288
   xx. 28           287
 xxiv. 23           146

ROMANS:

  xiv. 10           288

1 COR.:

   xi.  2-4         290
  xvi. 47           288

2 COR.:

  iii.  3            65

GAL.:

  iii.  1           166-7

EPH.:

    i.  1           166
    v. 20           227-8

COL.:

   ii. 10           288

1 TIM.:

  iii. 16           288

HEB.:

   iv.  2            48-9

2 PET.:

    i.  1           288

REV.:

    i.  5           290






FOOTNOTES


    1 See Jerome, Epist. 34 (Migne, xxii. p. 448). Cod. V. of Philo has
      the following inscription:—Εὐζόϊος ἐπίσκοπος ἐν σωματίοις
      ἀνενέωσατο, i.e. transcribed on vellum from papyrus. Leopold Cohn’s
      edition of Philo, De Opiticiis Mundi, Vratislaw, 1889.

    2 See my Guide to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament, pp.
      7-37. George Bell and Sons, 1886.

    3 For an estimate of Tischendorf’s great labour, see an article on
      Tischendorf’s Greek Testament in the Quarterly Review for July,
      1895.

    4 Dr. Hort’s theory, which is generally held to supply the
      philosophical explanation of the tenets maintained in the school of
      critics who support B and א as pre-eminently the sources of the
      correct text, may be studied in his Introduction. It is also
      explained and controverted in my Textual Guide, pp. 38-59; and has
      been powerfully criticized by Dean Burgon in The Revision Revised,
      Article III, or in No. 306 of the Quarterly Review, without reply.

    5 Quarterly Review, July 1895, “Tischendorf’s Greek Testament.”

    6 See Preface.

    7 It is remarkable, that in quarters where we should have looked for
      more scientific procedure the importance of the Textual Criticism of
      the New Testament is underrated, upon a plea that theological
      doctrine may be established upon passages other than those of which
      the text has been impugned by the destructive school. Yet (_a_) in
      all cases consideration of the text of an author must perforce
      precede consideration of inferences from the text—Lower Criticism
      must be the groundwork of Higher Criticism; (_b_) confirmatory
      passages cannot be thrown aside in face of attacks upon doctrine of
      every possible character; (_c_) Holy Scripture is too unique and
      precious to admit of the study of the several words of it being
      interesting rather than important; (_d_) many of the passages which
      Modern Criticism would erase or suspect—such as the last Twelve
      Verses of St. Mark, the first Word from the Cross, and the thrilling
      description of the depth of the Agony, besides numerous others—are
      valuable in the extreme; and, (_e_) generally speaking, it is
      impossible to pronounce, especially amidst the thought and life
      seething everywhere round us, what part of Holy Scripture is not, or
      may not prove to be, of the highest importance as well as
      interest.—E. M.

    8 See below, Vol. II. throughout, and a remarkable passage quoted from
      Caius or Gaius by Dean Burgon in The Revision Revised (Quarterly
      Review, No. 306), pp. 323-324.

    9 St. John xiv. 26.

   10 St. John xvi. 13.

   11 Rev. John Oxlee’s sermon on Luke xxii. 28-30 (1821), p. 91 (Three
      Sermons on the power, origin, and succession of the Christian
      Hierarchy, and especially that of the Church of England).

   12 Westcott and Hort, Introduction, p. 92.

   13 Ibid. p. 142.

   14 Scrivener, Plain Introduction, ed. 4, Vol. I. pp. 75-76.

   15 Of course this trenchant passage refers only to the principles of
      the school found to fail. A school may leave fruits of research of a
      most valuable kind, and yet be utterly in error as to the inferences
      involved in such and other facts. Dean Burgon amply admitted this.
      The following extract from one of the many detached papers left by
      the author is appended as possessing both illustrative and personal
      interest:—

      “Familiar as all such details as the present must of necessity prove
      to those who have made Textual Criticism their study, they may on no
      account be withheld. I am not addressing learned persons only. I
      propose, before I lay down my pen, to make educated persons,
      wherever they may be found, partakers of my own profound conviction
      that for the most part certainty is attainable on this
      subject-matter; but that the decrees of the popular school—at the
      head of which stand many of the great critics of Christendom—are
      utterly mistaken. Founded, as I venture to think, on entirely false
      premisses, their conclusions almost invariably are altogether wrong.
      And this I hold to be demonstrable; and I propose in the ensuing
      pages to establish the fact. If I do not succeed, I shall pay the
      penalty for my presumption and my folly. But if I succeed—and I wish
      to have jurists and persons skilled in the law of evidence, or at
      least thoughtful and unprejudiced persons, wherever they are to be
      found, and no others, for my judges,—if I establish my position, I
      say, let my father and my mother’s son be kindly remembered by the
      Church of Christ when he has departed hence.”

   16 There are, however, in existence, about 200 MSS. of the Iliad and
      Odyssey of Homer, and about 150 of Virgil. But in the case of many
      books the existing authorities are but scanty. Thus there are not
      many more than thirty of Aeschylus, and they are all said by W.
      Dindorf to be derived from one of the eleventh century: only a few
      of Demosthenes, of which the oldest are of the tenth or eleventh
      century: only one authority for the first six books of the Annals of
      Tacitus (see also Madvig’s Introduction): only one of the
      Clementines: only one of the Didachè, &c. See Gow’s Companion to
      School Classics, Macmillan & Co. 1888.

   17 “I had already assisted my friend Prebendary Scrivener in greatly
      enlarging Scholz’s list. We had, in fact, raised the enumeration of
      ‘Evangelia’ [copies of Gospels] to 621: of ‘Acts and Catholic
      Epistles’ to 239: of ‘Paul’ to 281: of ‘Apocalypse’ to 108: of
      ‘Evangelistaria’ [Lectionary copies of Gospels] to 299: of the book
      called ‘Apostolos’ [Lectionary copies of Acts and Epistles] 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: our ‘Acts and Cath. Epp.’ to
      261: our ‘Paul’ to 338: our ‘Apoc.’ to 122: our ‘Evst.’ to 415: our
      copies of the ‘Apostolos’ to 128—making a total of 2003. This shews
      an increase of three hundred and seventy-four.” Revision Revised, p.
      521. But since the publication of Dr. Gregory’s Prolegomena, and of
      the fourth edition of Dr. Scrivener’s Plain Introduction to the
      Criticism of the New Testament, after Dean Burgon’s death, the list
      has been largely increased. In the fourth edition of the
      Introduction (Appendix F, p. 397) the total number under the six
      classes of “Evangelia,” “Acts and Catholic Epistles,” “St. Paul,”
      “Apocalypse,” “Evangelistaria,” and “Apostolos,” has reached (about)
      3,829, and may be reckoned when all have come in at over 4,000. The
      separate MSS. (some in the reckoning just given being counted more
      than once) are already over 3,000.

   18 Evan. 481 is dated A.D. 835; Evan. S. is dated A.D. 949.

   19 Or, as some think, at the end of the second century.

   20 ACΣ (Φ in St. Matt.) with fourteen other uncials, most cursives,
      four Old Latin, Gothic, St. Irenaeus, &c. &c.

   21 See Vol. II.

   22 All such questions are best understood by observing an illustration.
      In St. Matt. xiii. 36, the disciples say to our Lord, “Explain to us
      (φράσον ἡμῖν) the parable of the tares.” The cursives (and late
      uncials) are all agreed in this reading. Why then do Lachmann and
      Tregelles (not Tischendorf) exhibit διασάφησον? Only because they
      find διασάφησον in B. Had they known that the first reading of א
      exhibited that reading also, they would have been more confident
      than ever. But what pretence can there be for assuming that the
      Traditional reading of all the copies is untrustworthy in this
      place? The plea of antiquity at all events cannot be urged, for
      Origen reads φράσον four times. The Versions do not help us. What
      else is διασάφησον but a transparent Gloss? Διασάφησον (elucidate)
      explains φράσον, but φράσον (tell) does not explain διασάφησον.

   23 Plain Introduction, I. 277. 4th edition.

   24 It is very remarkable that the sum of Eusebius’ own evidence is
      largely against those uncials. Yet it seems most probable that he
      had B and א executed from the ἀκριβῆ or “critical” copies of Origen.
      See below, Chapter IX.

   25 Viz. 996 verses out of 3,780.

   26 Miller’s Scrivener (4th edition), Vol. I. Appendix F. p. 397. 1326 +
      73 + 980 = 2379.

   27 Scrivener’s Introduction, Ed. iv (1894), Vol. II. pp. 264-265.

   28 But see Miller’s edition of Scrivener’s Introduction, I. 397. App.
      F, where the numbers as _now_ known are given as 73, 1326, 980
      respectively.

   29 Account of the Printed Text, p. 138.

   30 This general position will be elucidated in Chapters IX and XI.

   31 So also the Georgian and Sclavonic versions (the late Dr. Malan).

   32 The Traditional view of the authorship of the Epistle to the Hebrews
      is here maintained as superior both in authority and evidence to any
      other.

   33 א, 31, 41, 114.

   34 Tischendorf wrongly adduces Irenaeus. Read to the end of III. c. 19,
      § 1.

   35 Ap. Galland. vii. 178.

   36 xii. 64 c, 65 b. Καὶ ὅρα τι θαυμαστῶς; οὐκ εἶπεν, οὐ συνεφώνησαν,
      ἀλλ᾽, οὐ συνεκράθησαν. See by all means Cramer’s Cat. p. 451.

   37 Ap. Cramer, Cat. p. 177. Οὐ γὰρ ἦσαν κατὰ τὴν πίστιν τοῖς
      ἐπαγγελθεῖσι συνημμένοι; ὄθεν οὔτως ἀναγνωστέον, “μὴ
      συγκεκερασμένους τῇ πίστει τοῖς ἀκουσθεῖσι.”

   38 vi. 15 d. Ἄρα γὰρ ἔμελλον κατὰ τὸν ἴσον τρόπον συνανακιρνᾶσθαι τε
      ἀλλήλοις, καθάπερ ἀμέλει καὶ οἶνος ὕδατι, κ.τ.λ. After this, it
      becomes of little moment that the same Cyril should elsewhere (i.
      394) read συγκεκραμένος ἐν πίστει τοῖς ἀκούσασι.

   39 iii. 566. After quoting the place, Thdrt. proceeds, Τί γὰρ ὤνησεν ἡ
      τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐπαγγελία τοὺς ... μὴ ... οἷον τοῖς τοῦ Θεοῦ λόγοις
      ἀνακραθέντας.

   40 ii. 234.

_   41 Ap_. Oecum.

   42 ii. 670.

   43 From Dr. Malan, who informs me that the Bohairic and Ethiopic
      exhibit “_their heart_ was not mixed with”: which represents the
      same reading.

   44 So Theophylactus (ii. 670), who (with all the more trustworthy
      authorities) writes συγκεκραμένους. For this sense of the verb, see
      Liddell and Scott’s Lex., and especially the instances in Wetstein.

   45 Yet Tischendorf says, “Dubitare nequeo quin lectio Sinaitica hujus
      loci mentem scriptoris recte reddat atque omnium sit verissima.”

   46 See below, Chapter XI, where the character and authority of Cursive
      Manuscripts are considered.

   47 The evidence on the passage is as follows:—For the insertion:—

      א* etc. BC*ΦΣDPΔ, 1, 13, 33, 108, 157, 346, and about ten more. Old
      Latin (except f), Vulgate, Bohairic, Ethiopic, Hilary, Cyril Alex.
      (2), Chrysostom (2).

      Against:—

      EFGKLMSUVXΓΠ. The rest of the Cursives, Peshitto (Pusey and Gwilliam
      found it in no copies), Sahidic, Eusebius, Basil, Jerome,
      Chrysostom, _in loc._, Juvencus. Compare Revision Revised, p. 108,
      note.

   48 By the Editor. See Miller’s Scrivener, Introduction (4th ed.), Vol.
      I. p. 96, note 1, and below, Chapter IX.

   49 Miller’s Scrivener, I. p. 176.

   50 Ibid. p. 208.

   51 Tregelles’ Printed Text, &c., p. 247.

   52 Tischendorf, N. T., p. 322.

   53 Tischendorf and Alford.

   54 Burgon’s Last Twelve Verses, &c., pp. 38-69; also p. 267.

   55 Ad Marinum. Ibid. p. 265.

   56 Ibid. pp. 235-6.

   57 Miller’s Scrivener, I. p. 181.

   58 Ferrar and Abbott’s Collation of Four Important Manuscripts, Abbè
      Martin, _Quatre MSS. importants_, J. Rendel Harris, On the Origin of
      the Ferrar Group (C. J. Clay and Sons), 1893. Miller’s Scrivener, I.
      p. 398, App. F.

   59 See below, Chapter X. Also Mr. Rendel Harris’ “Study of Codex Bezae”
      in the Cambridge Texts and Studies.

   60 Last Twelve Verses of St. Mark, p. 21, &c.; Revision Revised, p.
      297.

   61 See more upon this point in Chapters V, XI. Compare St. Augustine’s
      Canon: “Quod universa tenet Ecclesia nec conciliis institutum sed
      semper retentum est, non nisi auctoritate Apostolica traditum
      rectissime creditur.” C. Donatist. iv. 24.

   62 See Revision Revised, pp. 91, 206, and below, Chapter V.

   63 καθ᾽ ἰδίαν, ἐδυνήθημεν, τριημέρᾳ, ἀναστήσεται.

   64 μετάβα ἔνθεν.

   65 συστρεφομένων, ὀλιγοπιστίαν; omission of Ἰησοῦς, λέγει.

   66 ὁ ἐρχόμενος, for which D absurdly substitutes ὁ ἐργαζόμενος, “he
      that worketh.”

   67 So, as it seems, the Lewis, but the column is defective.

   68 Viz. Ver. 20, ἀπέστειλεν for ἀπέσταλκεν, אB; ἕτερον for ἄλλον,
      אDLXΞ. Ver. 22, omit ὅτι, אBLXΞ; insert καὶ before κωφοί, אBDFΓΔ*Λ;
      insert καὶ before πτωχοί, אFX. Ver. 23, ὂς ἂν for ὂς ἐάν, אD. Ver.
      24, τοῖς ὄχλοις for πρὸς τοὺς ὄχλους, אD and eight others; ἐξήλθατε
      for ἐξεληλύθατε, אABDLΞ. Ver. 25, ἐξήλθατε for ἐξεληλύθατε, אABDLΞ.
      Ver. 26, ἐξήλθατε for ἐξεληλύθατε, אBDLΞ. Ver. 28, insert ἀμὴν
      before λέγω, אLX; omit προφήτης, אBKLMX. Ver. 30, omit εἰς ἑαυτούς,
      אD. Ver. 32, ἂ λέγει for λέγοντες, א*B. See Tischendorf, eighth
      edition, _in loco_. The _Concordia discors_ will be noticed.

   69 The explanation given by the majority of the Revisers has only their
      English Translation to recommend it, “in tables that are hearts of
      flesh” for ἐν πλαξὶ καρδίαις σαρκίναις. In the Traditional reading
      (_a_) πλαξὶ σαρκίναις answers to πλαξὶ λιθίναις; and therefore
      σαρκίναις would agree with πλαξὶ, not with καρδίαις. (_b_) The
      opposition between λιθίναις and καρδίαις σαρκίναις would be weak
      indeed, the latter being a mere appendage in apposition to πλαξί,
      and would therefore be a blot in St. Paul’s nervous passage. (_c_)
      The apposition is harsh, ill-balanced (contrast St. Mark viii. 8),
      and unlike Greek: Dr. Hort is driven to suppose πλαξί to be a
      “primitive interpolation.” The faultiness of a majority of the
      Uncials is corrected by Cursives, Versions, Fathers.

   70 “Inter plures unius loci lectiones ea pro suspecta merito habetur,
      quae orthodoxorum dogmatibus manifeste prae ceteris favet.” N.T.
      Prolegomena, I. p. lxvi.

   71 See Hort’s Introduction, pp. 210-270.

   72 I have retained this challenge though it has been rendered nugatory
      by the Dean’s lamented death, in order to exhibit his absolute
      sincerity and fearlessness.—E. M.

   73 Here the Dean’s MS. ceases, and the Editor is responsible for what
      follows. The MS. was marked in pencil, “Very rough—but worth
      carrying on.”

   74 See a passage from Caius quoted in The Revision Revised, p. 323.
      Eusebius, Hist. Eccles. v. 28.

   75 Hort, Introduction, p. 223.

   76 See Appendix V, and below, Chapter IX.

   77 As a specimen of how quickly a Cursive copy could be written by an
      accomplished copyist, we may note the following entry from Dean
      Burgon’s Letters in the Guardian to Dr. Scrivener, in a letter dated
      Jan. 29, 1873. “Note further, that there is ... another copy of the
      O.T. in one volume ... at the end of which is stated that Nicodemus
      ὁ ξένος, the scribe, began his task on the 8th of June and finished
      it on the 15th of July, A.D. 1334, working very hard—as he must have
      done indeed.”

   78 See below, Chapter VIII. § 2.

   79 See Chapter VI.

   80 See Chapter VII.

   81 See next Chapter.

   82 Another fragment found in the Dean’s papers is introduced here.

   83 Here the fragment ends.

   84 See Dr. Gwynn’s remarks which are quoted below, Appendix VII.

   85 The Revision Revised, p. 423. Add a few more; see Appendix VII.

   86 Dr. Gwynn, Appendix VII.

   87 Another MS. comes in here.

   88 The MS. ceases.

   89 Hort, Introduction, pp. 95-99.

   90 ו-צאו ללכת ארצה בנען ויבאו ארצה בנען׃

   91 An instance is afforded in St. Mark viii. 7, where “the Five Old
      Uncials” exhibit the passage thus:

      A. και ταυτα ευλογησας ειπεν παρατεθηναι και αυτα.
      א*. και ευλογησας αυτα παρεθηκεν.
      א1. και ευλογησας ειπεν και ταυτα παρατιθεναι.
      B. ευλογησας αυτα ειπεν και ταυτα παρατιθεναι.
      C. και ευλογησας αυτα ειπεν και ταυτα παραθετε.
      D. και ευχαριστησας ειπεν και αυτους εκελευσεν παρατιθεναι.

      Lachmann, and Tischendorf (1859) follow A; Alford, and Tischendorf
      (1869) follow א; Tregelles and Westcott, and Hort adopt B. They
      happen to be all wrong, and the Textus Receptus right. The only word
      they all agree in is the initial καί.

   92 After this the MSS. recommence.

   93 SΠ mark the place with asterisks, and Λ with an obelus.

   94 In twelve, asterisks: in two, obeli.

   95 The MS., which has not been perfect, here ceases.

   96 In the Syriac _one_ form appears to be used for _all_ the _Marys_
      ([Syriac characters] Mar-yam, also sometimes, but not always, spelt
      in the _Jerusalem Syriac_ [Syriaic characters] = Mar-yaam), also for
      _Miriam_ in the O. T., for _Mariamne_ the wife of Herod, and others;
      in fact, wherever it is intended to represent a Hebrew female name.
      At Rom. xvi. 6, the Peshitto has [Syriaic characters] = Μαρία
      obviously as a translation of the Greek form in the text which was
      followed. (See Thesaurus Syriacus, Payne Smith, coll. 2225, 2226.)

      In Syriac literature [Syriac characters] = Maria occurs from time to
      time as the name of some Saint or Martyr—e.g. in a volume of Acta
      Mart. described by Wright in Cat. Syr. MSS. in B. M. p. 1081, and
      which appears to be a fifth-century MS.

      On the hypothesis that Hebrew-Aramaic was spoken in Palestine
      (_pace_ Drs. Abbot and Roberts), I do not doubt that _only one_ form
      (cf. Pearson, Creed, Art. iii. and notes) of the name was in use,
      “Maryam,” a vulgarized form of “Miriam”; but it may well be that
      Greek Christians kept the Hebrew form Μαριαμ for the Virgin, while
      they adopted a more Greek-looking word for the other women. This
      fine distinction has been lost in the _corrupt_ Uncials, while
      observed in the _correct_ Uncials and Cursives, which is all that
      the Dean’s argument requires.—(G. H. G.)

   97 The MSS. continue here.

   98 LXX.

   99 St. John xix. 25. As the passage is _syndeton_, the omission of the
      καί which would be necessary if Μαρία ἡ τοῦ Κλωπᾶ were different
      from ἡ ἀδελφὴ τῆς μητρὸς αἰτοῦ could not be justified. Compare,
      e.g., the construction in the mention of four in St. Mark xiii. 3.
      In disregarding the usage requiring exclusively either _syndeton_ or
      _asyndeton_, even scholars are guided unconsciously by their
      _English_ experience.—(ED.)

  100 The genitive Μαρ᾽ας is used in the Textus Receptus in Matt. i. 16,
      18; ii. 11; Mark vi. 3; Luke i. 41. Μαριάμ is used in the
      Nominative, Matt. xiii. 55; Luke i. 27, 34, 39, 46, 56; ii. 5, 19.
      In the Vocative, Luke i. 30. The Accusative, Matt. i. 20; Luke ii.
      16. Dative, Luke ii. 5; Acts i. 14. Μαριάμ occurs for another Mary
      in the Textus Receptus, Rom. xvi. 6.

  101 Serapion, Bp. of Thmuis (on a mouth of the Nile) A.D. 340 (_ap._
      Galland. v. 60 a).

  102 Basil, i. 240 d.

  103 Epiphanius, i. 435 c.

  104 Chrysostom, iii. 120 d e; vii. 180 a, 547 e _quat._; viii. 112 a c
      (nine times).

  105 Asterius, p. 128 b.

  106 Basil Opp. (i. Append.) i. 500 e (cf. p. 377 Monitum).

  107 Cyril, iv. 131 c.

  108 A gives Ιωνα; א, Ιωαννης; C and D are silent. Obvious it is that the
      revised text of St. John i. 43 and of xxi. 15, 16, 17,—must stand or
      fall together. In this latter place the Vulgate forsakes us, and אB
      are joined by C and D. On the other hand, Cyril (iv. 1117),—Basil
      (ii. 298),—Chrysostom (viii. 525 c d),—Theodoret (ii. 426),—Jo.
      Damascene (ii. 510 e),—and Eulogius ([A.D. 580.] _ap._ Photium, p.
      1612), come to our air. Not that we require it.

  109 “_Araba_” (instead of “_abara_”) is a word which must have exercised
      so powerful and seductive an influence over ancient Eastern
      scribes,—(having been for _thirty-four centuries_ the established
      designation of the sterile Wady, which extends from the Southern
      extremity of the Dead Sea to the North of the Arabian Gulf)—that the
      only wonder is it did not find its way into Evangelia. See Gesenius
      on ערבה (Ἄραβα in the LXX of Deut. ii. 8, &c. So in the Revised O.
      T.).

  110 The MSS. have ceased.

  111 See Appendix V.

  112 See Preface.

  113 This chapter and the next three have been supplied entirely by the
      Editor.

  114 See also Miller’s Textual Guide, chapter IV. No answer has been made
      to the Dean’s strictures.

  115 See Dr. Scrivener’s incisive criticism of Dr. Hort’s theory,
      Introduction, edit. 4, ii. 284-296.

  116 The Revision Revised, pp. 323-324, 334.

  117 Yet Marcion and Tatian may fairly be adduced as witnesses upon
      individual readings.

  118 E.g. “Many of the verses which he [Origen] quotes in different
      places shew discrepancies of text that cannot be accounted for
      either by looseness of citation or by corruption of the MSS. of his
      writings.” Hort, Introduction, p. 113. See also the whole passage,
      pp. 113-4.

  119 See Hort. Introduction, p. 160. The most useful part of Irenaeus’
      works in this respect is found in the Latin Translation, which is of
      the fourth century.

  120 Or Magnus, or Major, which names were applied to him to distinguish
      him from his brother who was called Alexandrinus, and to whom some
      of his works have been sometimes attributed. Macarius Magnus or
      Aegyptius was a considerable writer, as may be understood from the
      fact that he occupies nearly 1000 pages in Migne’s Series. His
      memory is still, I am informed, preserved in Egypt. But in some
      fields of scholarship at the present day he has met with strange
      neglect.

  121 The names of many Fathers are omitted in this list, because I could
      not find any witness on one side or the other in their writings.
      Also Syriac writings are not here included.

  122 See The Revision Revised, p. 123.

  123 The Revision Revised, p. 92.

  124 I have mentioned here only cases where the passage is quoted
      professedly from St. Matthew. The passage as given in St. Mark x.
      17-18, and in St. Luke xviii. 18-19, is frequently quoted without
      reference to any one of the Gospels. Surely some of these quotations
      must be meant for St. Matthew.

  125 For the reff. see below, Appendix II.

  126 Compare The Revision Revised, pp. 162-3.

  127 For reff. see Vol. II. viii. For Mark i. 1, Υἱοῦ τοῦ Θεοῦ, see
      Appendix IV.

  128 The Revision Revised, pp. 423-440. Last Twelve Verses, pp. 42-51.
      The latitudinarian Eusebius on the same passage witnesses on both
      sides.

  129 The Revision Revised, pp. 420-1; Last Twelve Verses, pp. 42-3.

  130 The Revision Revised, pp. 79-82. The Dean alleges more than forty
      witnesses in all. What are quoted here, as in the other instances,
      are only the Fathers before St. Chrysostom.

  131 Ibid. pp. 82-5.

  132 The Revision Revised, pp. 61-65.

  133 Ibid. pp. 90-1.

  134 See below, Appendix I.

  135 Many of the Fathers quote only as far as οὐδὲ ἕν. But that was
      evidently a convenient quotation of a stock character in
      controversy, just as πάντα δι᾽ αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο was even more commonly.
      St Epiphanius often quotes thus, but remarks (Haer. II. (lxix.) 56,
      Ancor. lxxv.), that the passage goes on to ὁ γέγονεν.

  136 See The Revision Revised, p. 133.

  137 Ibid. pp. 220-1.

  138 Tischendorf quotes these on the wrong side.

  139 The Revision Revised, pp. 217-8.

  140 Ibid. pp. 23-4. See also an article in Hermathena, Vol. VIII., No.
      XIX., 1893, written by the Rev. Dr. Gwynn with his characteristic
      acuteness and ingenuity.

  141 Hort, Introduction, pp. 128, 127.

  142 Ibid. p. 113.

  143 It may perhaps be questioned whether Justin should be classed here:
      but the character of his witness, as on Matt. v. 44, ix. 13, and
      Luke xxii. 43-44, is more on the Traditional side, though the
      numbers are against that.

  144 Athanasius in his “Orationes IV contra Arianos” used Alexandrian
      texts. See IV.

  145 According to Pliny (N. II. v. 18), the towns of Decapolis were: 1.
      Scythopolis the chief, not far from Tiberias (Joseph. B. J. III. ix.
      7); 2. Philadelphia; 3. Raphanae; 4. Gadara; 5. Hippos; 6. Dios; 7.
      Pella; 8. Gerasa; 9. Canatha (Otopos, Joseph.); 10. Damascus. This
      area does not coincide with that which is sometimes now marked in
      maps and is part of Galilee and Samaria. But the Gospel notion of
      Decapolis, is of a country east of Galilee, lying near to the Lake,
      starting from the south-east, and stretching on towards the
      mountains into the north. It was different from Galilee (Matt. iv.
      25), was mainly on the east of the sea of Tiberias (Mark v. 20,
      Eusebius and Jerome OS2. pp. 251, 89—“around Pella and
      Basanitis,”—Epiphanius Haer. i. 123), extended also to the west
      (Mark vii. 31), was reckoned in Syria (Josephus, passim, “Decapolis
      of Syria”), and was generally after the time of Pompey under the
      jurisdiction of the Governor of Syria. The Encyclopaedia Britannica
      describes it well as “situated, with the exception of a small
      portion, on the eastern side of the Upper Jordan and the sea of
      Tiberias.” Smith’s Dictionary of the Bible, to which I am indebted
      for much of the evidence given above, is inconsistent. The
      population was in a measure Greek.

  146 Εἰς τὰς κώμας Καισαρείας τῆς Φιλίππου. What a condensed account of
      His sojourn in various “towns”!

  147 See Ancient Syriac Documents relative to the Earliest Establishment
      of Christianity in Edessa and the neighbouring countries, &c. edited
      by W. Cureton, D.D., with a Preface by the late Dr. Wright, 1864.

  148 Cureton’s Preface to “An Antient Recension, &c.”

  149 Philip E. Pusey held that there was a revision of the Peshitto in
      the eighth century, but that it was confined to grammatical
      peculiarities. This would on general grounds be not impossible,
      because the art of copying was perfected by about that time.

  150 See Appendix VI.

  151 This position is demonstrated in full in an article in the Church
      Quarterly Review for April, 1895, on “The Text of the Syriac
      Gospels,” pp. 123-5.

  152 The Text of the Syriac Gospels, pp. 113-4: also Church Times, Jan.
      11, 1895. This position is established in both places.

  153 Yet some people appear to think, that the worse a text is the more
      reason there is to suppose that it was close to the Autograph
      Original. Verily this is evolution run wild.

  154 Encyclopaedia Britannica, 9th ed., “Syriac Literature,” by Dr. W.
      Wright, now published separately under the same title.

  155 Dr. Scrivener, Introduction (4th Edition), II. 7.

  156 See also Miller’s Edition of Scrivener’s Introduction (4th), II. 12.

  157 Another very ancient MS. of the Peshitto Gospels is the Cod.
      Philipp. 1388, in the Royal Library, Berlin (in Miller’s Scrivener
      the name is spelt PHILLIPPS). Dr. Sachau ascribes it to the fifth,
      or the beginning of the sixth century, thus making it older than the
      Vatican Tetraevangelicum, No. 3, in Miller’s Scrivener, II. 12. A
      full description will be found in Sachau’s Catalogue of the Syr.
      MSS. in the Berlin Library.

      The second was collated by Drs. Guidi and Ugolini, the third, in St.
      John, by Dr. Sachau. The readings of the second and third are in the
      possession of Mr. Gwilliam, who informs me that all three support
      the Peshitto text, and are free from all traces of any pre-Peshitto
      text, such as according to Dr. Hort and Mr. Burkitt the Curetonian
      and Lewis MSS. contain. Thus every fresh accession of evidence tends
      always to establish the text of the Peshitto Version more securely
      in the position it has always held until quite recent years.

      The interesting feature of all the above-named MSS. is the
      uniformity of their testimony to the text of the Peshitto. Take for
      example the evidence of No. 10 in Miller’s Scrivener, II. 13, No. 3,
      in Miller’s Scrivener, II. 12, and Cod. Philipp. 1388. The first was
      collated by P. E. Pusey, and the results are published in Studia
      Biblica, vol. i, “A fifth century MS.”

  158 Dr. W. Wright’s article in Encyclopaedia Britannica. Dr. Hort could
      not have been aware of this fact when he spoke of “the almost total
      extinction of Old Syriac MSS.”: or else he lamented a disappearance
      of what never appeared.

  159 p. 107.

  160 See Patrologia Syriaca, Graffin, P. I. vol. ii. Paris, 1895.

  161 See in St. Matt. alone (out of many instances) v. 22 (the
      translation of εἰκῆ), ix. 13 (of εἰς μετάνοιαν), xi. 23 (“which art
      exalted”), xx. 16 (of πολλοὶ γάρ εἰσι κλητοί, ὀλίγοι δὲ ἐκλεκτοί),
      xxvi. 42 (ποτήριον), 28 (καινῆς); besides St. Luke ii. 14 (εὐδοκία),
      xxiii. 45 (ἐσκοτίσθη), John iii. 13 (though “from heaven”), xxi. 25
      (the verse).

  162 Doctrine of Addai, xxxv. 15-17.

  163 H. E. iv. 29.

  164 Haer. xlvi. 1.

  165 Canons.

  166 Haer. i. 20.

  167 The Earliest Life of Christ, Appendix VIII.

  168 The MS. is mutilated at the beginning of the other three Gospels.

  169 It appears almost, if not quite, certain that this is the true
      meaning. Payne Smith’s Thesaurus Syriacus, coll. 3303-4.

  170 The Lewis Codex was in part destroyed, as not being worth keeping,
      while the leaves which escaped that fate were used for other
      writing. Perhaps others were treated in similar fashion, which would
      help to account for the fact mentioned in note 2, p. 129.

  171 Plain Introduction, II. 43-44.

  172 Essays on Various Subjects, i. Two Letters on some parts of the
      controversy concerning 1 John v. 7, pp. 23, &c. The arguments are
      more ingenious than powerful. Africa, e.g., had no monopoly of
      Low-Latin.

  173 The numerator in these fractions denotes the number of times
      throughout the Gospels when the text of the MS. in question agrees
      in the selected passages with the Textus Receptus: the denominator,
      when it witnesses to the Neologian Text.

  174 Once in k by _comperire_ probably a slip for _corripere_. Old Latin
      Texts, III. pp. xxiv-xxv.

  175 “Tot sunt paene (exemplaria), quot codices,” Jerome, Epistola ad
      Damascum. “Latinorum interpretum infinita varietas,” “interpretum
      numerositas,” “nullo modo numerari possunt,” De Doctrina Christiana,
      ii. 16, 21.

  176 De Doctr. Christ. ii. 16.

  177 Scrivener’s Plain Introduction, II. 44, note 1.

  178 See Diez, Grammatik der Romanischen Sprachen, as well as
      Introduction to the Grammar of the Romance Languages, translated by
      C. B. Cayley. Also Abel Hovelacque, The Science of Language, English
      Translation, pp. 227-9. “The Grammar of Frederick Diez, first
      published some forty years ago, has once for all disposed of those
      Iberian, Keltic, and other theories, which nevertheless crop up from
      time to time.” Ibid. p. 229. Brachet, Grammar of the French
      Language, pp. 3-5; Whitney, Language and the Study of Language, pp.
      165, &c., &c.

  179 “Syro-Latin” is doubtless an exact translation of “Syro-Latinus”:
      but as we do not say “Syran” but “Syrian,” it is not idiomatic
      English.

  180 This is purely my own opinion. Dean Burgon followed Townson in
      supposing that the Synoptic Evangelists in some cases saw one
      another’s books.

  181 Isaiah xxxv. 8, 9.

  182 Introduction, pp. 127, &c.

  183 Probably Alexandrian reading.

  184 Probably Alexandrian reading.

  185 Probably Alexandrian reading.

  186 Probably Alexandrian reading.

  187 Probably Alexandrian reading.

  188 Probably Alexandrian reading.

  189 Probably Alexandrian reading.

  190 Probably Alexandrian reading.

  191 Probably Alexandrian reading.

  192 In Matt. xv. 14, quoted and translated by Dr. Bigg in his Bampton
      Lectures on The Christian Platonists of Alexandria, p. 123.

  193 Burgon, Last Twelve Verses, p. 236, and note z.

  194 Above, p. 100.

  195 Hort, Introduction, p. 143.

  196 Eusebius suggested the Homoean theory, but his own position, so far
      as he had a position, is best indicated as above.

  197 Sir E. Maunde Thompson, Greek and Latin Palaeography, p. 35. Plin.
      at. Hist. xiii. 11.

  198 τὰ βιβλία, μάλιστα τὰς μεμβράνας, 2 Tim. iv. 13.

  199 Palaeography, p. 36.

  200 See above, p. 2.

  201 Palaeography, pp. 27-34. Paper was first made in China by a man
      named Ts’ai Lun, who lived about A.D. 90. He is said to have used
      the bark of a tree; probably Broussonetia papyrifera, Vent. from
      which a coarse kind of paper is still made in northern China. The
      better kinds of modern Chinese paper are made from the bamboo, which
      is soaked and pounded to a pulp. See Die Erfindung des Papiers in
      China, von Friedrich Hirth. Published in Vol. I. of the _T’oung Pao_
      (April, 1890). S. J. Brille: Leide. (Kindly communicated by Mr. H.
      A. Giles, H. B. M. Consul at Ningpo, author of “A Chinese-English
      Dictionary.” &c., through my friend Dr. Alexander Prior of Park
      Terrace, N. W., and Halse House, near Taunton.)

  202 ... “the science of palaeography, which now stands on quite a
      different footing from what it had twenty, or even ten, years ago.
      Instead of beginning practically in the fourth century of our era,
      with the earliest of the great vellum codices of the Bible, it now
      begins in the third century before Christ....” Church Quarterly
      Review for October, 1894, p. 104.

  203 ... “it is abundantly clear that the textual tradition at about the
      beginning of the Christian era is substantially identical with that
      of the tenth or eleventh century manuscripts, on which our present
      texts of the classics are based. Setting minor differences aside,
      the papyri, with a very few exceptions, represent the same texts as
      the vellum manuscripts of a thousand years later.” Church Quarterly,
      pp. 98, 99. What is here represented as unquestionably the case as
      regards Classical manuscripts is indeed more than what I claim for
      manuscripts of the New Testament. The Cursives were in great measure
      successors of papyri.

  204 Introduction, p. 16. He began it in the year 1853, and as it appears
      chiefly upon Lachmann’s foundation.

  205 By the Editor.

  206 Tischendorf’s fourteen brief days’ work is a marvel of accuracy, but
      must not be expected to be free from all errors. Thus he wrongly
      gives Ευρακυλων instead of Ευρακυδων, as Vercellone pointed out in
      his Preface to the octavo ed. of Mai in 1859, and as may be seen in
      the photographic copy of B.

  207 Cf. Scrivener’s Introduction, (4th ed.) II. 283.

  208 See Kuenen and Cobet’s Edition of the Vatican B, Introduction.

  209 Gregory’s Prolegomena to Tischendorf’s 8th Ed. of New Testament, (I)
      p. 286.

  210 See Appendix V.

  211 Constantine died in 337, and Constantius II reigned till 360.

  212 In his Last Twelve Verses of St. Mark, pp. 291-4, Dean Burgon argued
      that a lapse of about half a century divided the date of א from that
      of B. But it seems that afterwards he surrendered the opinion which
      he embraced on the first appearance of א in favour of the conclusion
      adopted by Tischendorf and Scrivener and other experts, in
      consequence of their identifying the writing of the six conjugate
      leaves of א with that of the scribe of B. See above, pp. 46, 52.

  213 The Revision Revised, p. 292.

  214 The above passage, including the last paragraph, is from the pen of
      the Dean.

  215 See above, Introduction, p. 2.

  216 It is remarkable that Constantine in his Semi-Arian days applied to
      Eusebius, whilst the orthodox Constans sent a similar order
      afterwards to Athanasius. Apol. ad Const. § 4 (Montfaucon, Vita
      Athan. p. xxxvii), _ap._ Wordsworth’s Church History, Vol. II. p.
      45.

  217 See Canon Cook’s ingenious argument. Those MSS. are handsome enough
      for an imperial order. The objection of my friend, the late
      Archdeacon Palmer (Scrivener’s Introduction, I. 119, note), which I
      too hastily adopted on other grounds also in my Textual Guide, p.
      82, note 1, will not stand, because σωματία cannot mean “collections
      [of writings],” but simply, according to the frequent usage of the
      word in the early ages of the Church, “vellum manuscripts.” The
      difficulty in translating τρισσὰ καὶ τετρασσά “of three or four
      columns in a page” is not insuperable.

  218 Scrivener, Vol. II. 269 (4th ed.).

  219 Scrivener, Vol. I. 55 (4th ed.).

  220 The colophon is given in full by Wilhelm Bousset in a number of the
      well-known “Texte und Untersuchungen,” edited by Oscar von Gebhardt
      and Adolf Harnack, entitled “Textkritische Studien zum Neuen
      Testament,” p. 45. II. Der Kodex Pamphili, 1894, to which my notice
      was kindly drawn by Dr. Sanday.

  221 Miller’s Scrivener, I. 183-4. By Euthalius, the Deacon, afterwards
      Bp. of Sulci.

  222 Introduction, p. 267. Dr. Hort controverts the notion that B and א
      were written at Alexandria (not Caesarea), which no one now
      maintains.

  223 By the Dean.

  224 See Appendix IV, and Revision Revised, p. 132. Origen, c. Celsum,
      Praef. ii. 4; Comment. in John ix. Followed here only by א*.

  225 See Last Twelve Verses, pp. 93-99. Also pp. 66, note, 85, 107, 235.

  226 Migne, viii. 96 d. Ταῦτα ἐγένετο ἐν Βηθανίᾳ. ὅσα δὲ τῶν ἀντιγράφων
      ἀκριβέστερον ἔχει, ἐν Βηθαβαρᾷ, φησιν; ἡ γὰρ Βηθανία οὐχὶ πέραν τοῦ
      Ἰορδάνου, οὐδὲ ἐπὶ τῆς ἐπήμου ἦν; ἀλλ᾽ ἐγγύς που τῶν Ἱεροσολύμων.
      This speedily assumed the form of a _scholium_, as follows:—Χρὴ δὲ
      γινώσκειν, ὅτι τὰ ἀκριβῆ τῶν ἀντιγράφων ἐν Βηθαβαρᾷ περιέχει; ἡ γὰρ
      Βηθανία οὐχὶ πέραν τοῦ Ἰορδάνου, ἀλλ᾽ ἐγγύς που τῶν
      Ἱεροσολύμων:—which is quoted by the learned Benedictine editor of
      Origen in M. iv. 401 (at top of the left hand column),—evidently
      from Coisl. 23, our Evan. 39,—since the words are found in Cramer,
      Cat. ii. 191 (line 1-3).

  227 Origen, i. 265; coll. 1. 227, 256.

  228 Origen, Comment. in John vi.

  229 The word is actually transliterated into Syriac letters in the
      Peshitto.

  230 See The Revision Revised, pp. 358-61.

  231 vii. 52.

  232 vii. 418.

  233 A name by which Origen was known.

  234 Imbecillitatem virium mearum sentiens, Origenis Commentarios sum
      sequatus. Scripsit ille vir in epistolam Pauli ad Galatas quinque
      proprie volumina, et decimum Stromatum suorum librum commatico super
      explanatione ejus sermone complevit.—Praefatio, vii. 370.

  235 iii. 509-10.

  236 686-7.

  237 vii. 117-20.

  238 vii. 537 seq.

  239 I endeavour in the text to make the matter in hand intelligible to
      the English reader. But such things can scarcely be explained in
      English without more words than the point is worth. Origen
      says:—κἀκεῖ μὲν κελεύει τοὺς ὄχλους ἀνακλιθῆναι (Matt. xiv. 19), ἢ
      ἀναπεσεῖν ἐπὶ τοῦ χόρτου. (καὶ γὰρ ὁ Λουκᾶς (ix. 14) κατακλίνατε
      αὐτούς, ἀνέγραψε; καὶ ὁ Μάρκος (vi. 39), ἐπέταξε, φησίν, αὐτοῖς
      πάντας ἀνακλῖναι;) ἐνθάδε δὲ οὐ κελεύει, ἀλλὰ παραγγέλλει τῷ ὄχλῳ
      ἀνακλιθῆναι. iii. 509 f, 510 a.

  240 The only other witnesses are from Evan. 1, 33, and the lost
      archetype of 13, 124, 346. The Versions do not distinguish certainly
      between κελεύω and παραγγέλλω. Chrysostom, the only Father who
      quotes this place, exhibits ἐκέλευσε ... καὶ λαβών (vii. 539 c).

  241 Lectio ab omni parte commendatur, et a correctore alienissima: βαψω
      και δωσω ab usu est Johannis, sed elegantius videbatur βαψας επιδωσω
      vel δωσω.

  242 Luke iv. 8.

  243 Πρὸς μὲν τὸν Πέτρον εἶπεν; ὕπαγε ὀπίσω μου, Σατανᾶ; πρὸς δὲ τὸν
      διάβολον. ὕπαγε, Σατανᾶ, χώρις τῆς ὀπίσω μου προσθήκης; τὸ γὰρ ὀπίσω
      τοῦ Ἰησοῦ εἶναι ἀγαθόν ἐστι. iii. 540. I believe that Origen is the
      sole cause of the perplexity. Commenting on Matt. xvi. 23 υπαγε
      οπισω μου Σατανα (the words addressed to Simon Peter), he explains
      that they are a rebuke to the Apostle for having for a time at
      Satan’s instigation _desisted from following Him_. Comp. (he says)
      these words spoken to Peter (υπ. οπ. μου Σ.) with those addressed to
      Satan at the temptation _without the_ οπισω μου “for to be _behind
      Christ_ is a good thing.” ... I suppose he had before him a MS. of
      St. Mat., _without_ the οπισω μου. This gloss is referred to by
      Victor of Antioch (173 Cat. Poss., i. 348 Cramer). It is even
      repeated by Jerome on Matt. vii. 21 d e: Non ut plerique putant
      eâdem Satanas et Apostolus Petrus sententiâ condemnantur. Petro enim
      dicitur, “_Vade retro me_, Satana;” id est “Sequere me, qui
      contrarius es voluntati meae.” Hic vero audit, “_Vade Satana:_” et
      non ei dicitur “_retro me_,” ut subaudiatur, “vade in ignem
      aeternum.” _Vade Satana_ (Irenaeus, 775, also Hilary, 620 a). Peter
      Alex, has υπαγε Σατανα, γεγραπται γαρ, ap. Routh, Reliqq. iv. 24 (on
      p. 55). Audierat diabolus a Domino, _Recede Sathanas, scandalum mihi
      es_. Scriptum est, _Dominum Deum tuum adorabis et illi soli
      servies_, Tertullian, Scorp. c. 15. Οὐκ εἶπεν Ὕπαγε ὀπίσω μου; οὐ
      γὰρ ὑποστρέψαι οἷός τε; ἀλλά; Ὕπαγε Σατανᾶ, ἐν οἶς ἐπελέξω.—Epist.
      ad Philipp. c. xii. Ignat. Interpol. According to some Critics
      (Tisch., Treg., W.-Hort) there is _no_ υπαγε οπισω μου Σ. in Lu. iv.
      8, and _only_ υπαγε Σ. in Matt. iv. 10, so that υπαγε οπισω μου
      Σατανα occurs in _neither_ accounts of the temptation. But I believe
      υπαγε οπισω μου Σ. is the correct reading in _both_ places. Justin
      M. Tryph. ii. 352. Origen interp. ii. 132 b (Vade retro), so
      Ambrose, i. 671; so Jerome, vi. 809 e; redi retro S., Aug. iv. 47 e;
      redi post me S., Aug. iii. 842 g. Theodoret, ii. 1608. So Maximus
      Taur., Vigil. Tapa. Vade retro S. _ap._ Sabattier. “_Vade post me
      Satana._ Et sine dubio ire post Deum servi est.” Et iterum quod ait
      ad ilium, “_Dominum Deum tuum adorabis, et ipsi soli servies._”
      Archelaus et Man. disput. (Routh, Reliqq. v. 120), A.D. 277. St.
      Antony the monk, _apud_ Athanas. “_Vita Ant._” i. 824 c d (=
      Galland. iv. 647 a). A.D. 300. _Retro vade Satana_, ps.-Tatian
      (Lu.), 49. Athanasius, i. 272 d, 537 c, 589 f. Nestorius ap. Marium
      Merc. (Galland. viii. 647 c) _Vade retro S._ but only _Vade S._
      viii. 631 c. Idatius (A.D. 385) _apud_ Athanas. ii. 605 b. Chrys.
      vii. 172 _bis_ (Matt.) J. Damascene, ii. 450. ps.-Chrys. x. 734,
      737. Opus Imperf. ap. Chrys. vi. 48 _bis_. Apocryphal Acts, Tisch.
      p. 250.

  244 See ver. 44.

  245 St. John viii. 40; xv. 15.

  246 Orig., Euseb., Epiph., both Cyrils, Didymus, Basil, Chrysostom.

  247 For the sceptical passages in B and א see Appendix V.

  248 By the Editor.

  249 Eusebius (Hist. Eccles. iii. 25) divides the writings of the Church
      into three classes:—

      1. The Received Books (ὁμολογούμενα), i.e. the Four Gospels, Acts,
      the Fourteen Epistles of St. Paul, 1 Peter, 1 John, and the
      Revelation (?).

      2. Doubtful (ἀντιλεγόμενα), i.e. James, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, Jude
      (cf. ii. 23 _fin._).

      3. Spurious (νόθα), Acts of St. Paul, Shepherd of Hermas, Revelation
      of St. Peter, Epistle of Barnabas, the so-called Διδαχαί, Revelation
      of St. John (?).

      This division appears to need confirmation, if it is to be taken as
      representing the general opinion of the Church of the time.

  250 See Westcott, Canon, &c. pp. 431-9.

  251 See particularly Haddan’s Remains, pp. 258-294, Scots on the
      Continent. The sacrifice of that capable scholar and excellent
      churchman at a comparatively early age to the toil which was
      unavoidable under want of encouragement of ability and genius has
      entailed a loss upon sacred learning which can hardly be
      over-estimated.

  252 The reader is now in the Dean’s hands. See Mr. Rendel Harris’
      ingenious and suggestive “Study of Codex Bezae” in the Cambridge
      Texts and Studies, and Dr. Chase’s “The Old Syriac Element in the
      Text of Codex Bezae.” But we must demur to the expression “Old
      Syriac.”

  253 Introduction, p. 149.

  254 The same wholesale corruption of the deposit prevails in what
      follows, viz. the healing of the paralytic borne of four (v. 17-26),
      and the call of St. Matthew (27-34): as well as in respect of the
      walk through the cornfields on the Sabbath day (vi. 1-5), and the
      healing of the man with the withered hand (6-11). Indeed it is
      continued to the end of the call of the Twelve (12-19). The
      particulars are too many to insert here.

  255 καθως ερεθη δια του προφητου, instead of ὅπως πληρωθῇ διὰ τῶν
      προφητῶν.

  256 Υμεις δε ζητειτε εκ μικρου αυξησαι, και εκ μειζονος ελαττον ειναι.

  257 I.e. a b c d e ff1.2 g1.2 h m n.

  258 Scrivener’s Introduction, I. 130 (4th ed.). The reader will
      recollect the suggestion given above in Chapter VII that some of
      these corruptions may have come from the earliest times before the
      four Gospels were written. The interpolation just noticed may very
      well have been such a survival.

  259 The number of the generations in St. Luke’s Gospel is 18.

  260 Num. xxxiii. coll. xxi. 18, 19 and Deut. x. 6, 7.

  261 Note, that whereas the Ἰεχονίας of St. Matt. i. 11 is _Jehoiakim_,
      and the Ἰεχονίας of ver. 12, _Jehoiachin_,—Cod. D writes them
      respectively Ιωακειμ and Ιεχονιας.

  262 Cureton’s Syriac is the only known copy of the Gospels in which the
      three omitted kings are found in St. Matthew’s Gospel: which, I
      suppose, explains why the learned editor of that document flattered
      himself that he had therein discovered the lost original of St.
      Matthew’s Gospel. Cureton (Pref., p. viii) shews that in other
      quarters also (e.g. by Mar Yakub the Persian, usually known as
      Aphraates) 63 generations were reckoned from Adam to JESUS
      exclusive: _that_ number being obtained by adding 24 of St.
      Matthew’s names and 33 of St. Luke’s to the 3 names common to both
      Evangelists (viz. David, Salathiel, and Zorobabel); and to these,
      adding the 3 omitted kings.

      The testimony of MSS. is not altogether uniform in regard to the
      number of names in the Genealogy. In the Textus Receptus (including
      our SAVIOUR’S name and the name of the Divine AUTHOR of Adam’s
      being) the number of the names is 77. So Basil made it; so Greg.
      Naz. and his namesake of Nyssa; so Jerome and Augustine.

  263 ἡ δὲ Μαρία (D—η) Μαγδαληνὴ καὶ Μαρία Ἰωσῆ (D Ιακωβου) ἐθεώρουν (D
      εθεασαντο) ποῦ (D οπου) τίθεται (D τεθειται). Καὶ διαγενομένου τοῦ
      σαββάτου, Μαρία ἡ Μαγδαληνὴ καὶ Μαρία ἡ τοῦ Ἰακώβου καὶ Σαλώμη (D
      _omits the foregoing thirteen words_) (D + πορευθεισαι) ἠγόρασαν
      ἀρώματα, ἵνα ἐλθοῦσαι (D—ελθουσαι) ἀλείψωσιν αὐτόν (D αυτ. αλειψ.)
      καὶ (D + ερχορται) λίαν (D—λιαν) πρωῒ τῆς (D—της) μιᾶς σαββάτων (D
      σαββατου) ἔρχονται (D _see above_) ἐπὶ τὸ μνημεῖον, ἀνατείλαντος (D
      ανατελλοντος) τοῦ ἡλίου. καὶ ἕλεγον πρὸς ἑαυτὰς (D εαυτους), Τίς
      ἀποκυλίσει ἡμῖν (D ημιον αποκ.) τὸν λίθον ἐκ (D απο) τῆς θύρας τοῦ
      μνημείου? (D + ην γαρ μεγας σφοδρα). Καὶ ἀναβλέψασαι θεωροῦσιν (D
      ερχονται και ευρισκουσιν) ὅτι ἀποκεκίλισται ὁ λίθος (D
      αποκεκυλισμενον τον λιθον). ἦν γὰρ μέγας σφόδρα. (D _see above_.)
      καὶ ... εἶδον νεανίσκον (D νεαν. ειδ.) καθήμενον.... καὶ
      ἐξεθαμβήθησαν (D εθανβησαν). ὁ δὲ λέγει αὐταῖς (D και λεγει αυτοις)
      (D + ο αγγελος). Μὴ ἐκθαμβεῖσθε (D φοβεισθαι) (D + τον) Ἰησοῦν
      ζητεῖτε τὸν Ναζαρηνὸν (D—τον Ναζ.) ... ἴδε (D ειδετε) ὁ τόπος (D
      εκει τοπον αυτον) ὅπου ἔθηκαν αὐτόν. ἀλλ᾽ (D αλλα) ὑπάγετε (D + και)
      εἴπατε ... ὅτι (D + ιδου) προάγει (D προαγω) ὑμᾶς εἰς τὴν Γαλιλαίαν;
      ἐκεῖ αὐτὸν (D μη) ὄψεοθε, καθὼς εἶπεν (D ειρηκα) ὑμῖν. St. Mark xv.
      47-xvi. 7.

  264 So for example at the end of the same passage in St. Luke, the
      difficult αὕτη ἡ ἀπογραφὴ πρώτη ἐγένετο (ii. 2) becomes αυτη εγενετο
      απογραφη πρωτη; ἐπλήσθησαν is changed into the simpler ετελεσθησαν;
      φόβος μέγας (ii. 9) after ἐφοβήθησαν into σφοδρα; και (ii. 10) is
      inserted before παντὶ τῷ λαῷ.

  265 Yet not unfrequently the Greek is unique in its extravagance, e.g.
      Acts v. 8; xiii. 14; xxi. 28, 29.

  266 Cureton’s Syriac is closely allied to D, and the Lewis Codex less
      so.

  267 See b c e f ff2 i l q Vulg.

  268 So b e g2 Curetonian, Lewis.

  269 St. Chrysostom (vii. 84. d), Origen (iii. 902. d _int_.), Victor of
      Antioch (335) insert the καί.

  270 So too ἀνακειμένους (BCLΔ. 42) for συνανακειμένους (St. Mark vi.
      26): omit δὲ (אBC*LΔ. six curs.) in καὶ ἄλλα δὲ πλοῖα (iv. 36):
      ἐγείρουσιν (אB*C*ΔΠ. few curs.) for διεγείρουσιν (iv. 38): ἔθηκεν
      (אBC2DL. few curs.) for κατέθηκεν (xv. 46): μέγαλα (א*etc 6BD*L) for
      μεγαλεῖα (St. Luke i. 49): ἀναπεσών (אcBC*KLXΠ* few curs.) for
      ἐπιπεσών (St. John xiii. 25): &c., &c.

  271 Owing to differences of idiom in other languages, it is not
      represented here in so much as a single ancient Version.

  272 “_Est enim_ τοῦ ΓΑΡ _officium inchoare narrationem_.” Hoogeveen, De
      Partic. Cf. Prom. Vinct. v. 666. See also St. Luke ix. 44.

  273 Dem. Ev. 320 b.

  274 ii. 597: 278.

  275 i. 1040 b.

  276 viii. 314 a: (Eclog.) xii. 694 d.

_  277 Ap._ Cyril, v2. 28 a.

  278 v1. 676 e.

  279 30 b (=Gall. xiii. 109 d).

  280 So, in Garnier’s MSS. of Basil ii. 278 a, note. Also in Cyril _apud_
      Mai ii. 378.

  281 So Mill, _Prolegg._ 1346 and 1363.—Beza says roundly, “_Quod
      plerique Graeci codices scriptum habent_ ἢ γὰρ ἐκεινος, _sane non
      intelligo; nisi dicam γάρ redundare._”

  282 ἠπερ ἐκεῖνος is exhibited by the printed text of Basil ii. 278 a.

  283 ὑπὲρ αὐτόν is found in Basil ii. 160 b:—ὑπὲρ ἐκεῖνον, in Dorotheus
      (A.D. 596) ap. Galland. xii. 403 d:—ὑπὲρ τὸν Φαρισαῖον, in
      Chrysostom iv. 536 a; vi. 142 d—(where one of the Manuscripts
      exhibits παρὰ τὸν Φαρισαῖον).—Nilus the Monk has the same reading
      (ὑπὲρ τὸν Φαρισαῖον),—i. 280.

  284 Accordingly, παρ᾽ ἐκεῖνον is found in Origen i. 490 b. So also reads
      the author of the scholium in Cramer’s Cat. ii. 133,—which is the
      same which Matthaei (_in loc._) quotes out of Evan. 256. And so
      Cyril (_ap._ Mai, ii. 180),—παρ᾽ ἐκεῖνον τὸν Φαρισαῖον.—Euthymius
      (A.D. 1116), commenting on the traditional text of Luke xviii. 14
      (see Matthaei’s _Praefat._ i. 177), says ΓΑΡ ὅ ἐκεῖνος ἢγουν οὐκ
      ἐκεῖνος.

  285 The μᾶλλον is obviously added by way of interpretation, or to help
      out the meaning. Thus, in Origen (iv. 124 d) we meet with μᾶλλον
      αὐτοῦ:—in Chrysostom (i. 151 c), μᾶλλον ὑπὲρ τὸν Φαρισαῖον: and in
      Basil Sel. (p. 184 c), μᾶλλον ἢ ὁ Φαρισαῖος.

  286 It is found however in ps.-Chrysostom (viii. 119 c):—in Antiochus
      Mon. (p. 1102 = ed. Migne, vol. 89, p. 1579 c): and in Theophylact
      (i. 433 c). At p. 435 b, the last-named writes ἢ ἐκεῖνος, ἀντὶ τοῦ
      ΠΑΡ᾽ ὃ ἐκεῖνος.

  287 Introduction, p. 135.

  288 For all this section except the early part of “4” the Editor is
      responsible.

  289 See above, p. 61, note.

  290 481 of the Gospels: from St. Saba, now at St. Petersburg.

  291 The Evangelistaria 118, 192. Scrivener, Introduction, I. pp. 335,
      340.

  292 Scrivener, I. App. F, p. 398*. Of these, 205 and 209 are probably
      from the same original. Burgon, Letters in _Guardian_ to Dr.
      Scrivener.

  293 I am not of course asserting that any known cursive MS. is an exact
      counterpart of one of the oldest extant Uncials. Nor even that every
      reading however extraordinary, contained in Codd. BאD, is also to be
      met with in one of the few Cursives already specified. But what
      then? Neither do any of the oldest Uncials contain all the textual
      avouchings discoverable in the same Cursives.

      The thing asserted is only this: that, as a rule, every principal
      reading discoverable in any of the five or seven oldest Uncials, is
      also exhibited in one or more of the Cursives already cited or in
      others of them; and that generally when there is consent among the
      oldest of the Uncials, there is also consent among about as many of
      the same Cursives. So that it is no exaggeration to say that we find
      ourselves always concerned with the joint testimony of the same
      little handful of Uncial and Cursive documents: and therefore, as
      was stated at the outset, if the oldest of the Uncials had never
      existed, the readings which they advocate would have been advocated
      by MSS. of the eleventh, twelfth, thirteenth, and fourteenth
      centuries.

_  294 Manuscript Evangelia in foreign Libraries_, Letters in the
      _Guardian_ from Dean Burgon to Dr. Scrivener, _Guardian_, Jan. 29,
      1873. “You will not be dating it too early if you assign it to the
      seventh century.”

  295 The other uncials which have a tendency to consort with B and א are
      of earlier date. Thus T (Codex Borgianus I) of St. Luke and St. John
      is of the fourth or fifth century, R of St. Luke (Codex Nitriensis
      in the British Museum) is of the end of the sixth, Z of St. Matthew
      (Codex Dublinensis), a palimpsest, is of the sixth: Q and P,
      fragments like the rest, are respectively of the fifth and sixth.

  296 By the Editor.

  297 Above, pp. 80-81.

  298 Hort, Introduction, p. 135.

  299 Chapters V, VI, VII.

  300 Vercell.:—_Si scires tu, quamquam in hac tuâ die, quae ad pacem
      tuam._ So Amiat. and Aur.:—_Si cognovisses et tu, et quidem in hâc
      die tuâ, quae ad pacem tibi._

  301 Mai, iv. 129.

  302 Ibid., and H. E. iii. 7.

  303 Montf. ii. 470.

  304 Montf. i. 700.

  305 iii. 321; _interp._ 977; iv. 180.

  306 i. 220: also the _Vet. interp._, “Si cognovisses et tu.” And so _ap.
      Epiph._ i. 254 b.

  307 iii. 321, 977.

_  308 Evan. Conc._ 184, 207.

  309 In all 5 places.

_  310 Mor._ ii. 272 b.

  311 205.

_  312 In Luc._ (Syr.) 686.

_  313 Int._ iii. 977.

  314 iv. 180.

_  315 In Luc._ (Syr.) 607.

  316 In their usual high-handed way, these editors _assume, without note
      or comment_, that Bא are to be followed here. The “Revisers” of 1881
      _do the same_. Is this to deal honestly with the evidence and with
      the English reader?

  317 Viz.—εἰ ἔγνως τὰ πρὸς εἰρήνην σου, καί γε ἐν τῇ ἡμέρᾳ σου ταύτῃ.

  318 Viz.—εἰ καὶ ἐν τῇ ἡμέρᾳ ταύτῃ ἔγνως τὴν εἰρήνην σου.

  319 It is omitted by Eus. iv. 129, Basil ii. 272, Cod. A, Evann. 71,
      511, Evst. 222, 259. For the second σου still fewer authorities
      exhibit σοι, while some few (as Irenaeus) omit it altogether.

  320 “_Hanc diem tuam._ Si ergo dies ejus erat, quanto magis et tempus
      ejus!” p. 184, and so 207.

  321 “Having been wholly unsuccessful [in their fishing], two of them,
      seated on the shore, were occupying their time in washing,—and two,
      seated in their boat ... were mending—their nets.” (Farrar’s Life of
      Christ, i. 241-2.) The footnote appended to this “attempt to combine
      _as far as it is possible_ in one continuous narrative” the
      “accounts of the Synoptists,” is quite a curiosity.

  322 St. Luke v. 5.

  323 Ibid., verses 1, 2.

  324 St. Matt. iv. 18-St. Mark i. 16.

  325 St. Luke v. 3.

  326 As in St. Matt, xxvii. 2, 60; St. Luke v. 4; xiii. 16; St. John
      xviii. 24; xxi. 15; Acts xii. 17; Heb. iv. 8, &c., &c.

_  327 lavabant retia_, it. vulg. The one known exception is (1) the Cod.
      Rehdigeranus [VII] (Tischendorf).

  328 The same pair of authorities are _unique_ in substituting
      βαπτίσαντες (for βαπτίζοντες) in St. Matt. xxviii. 19; i.e. the
      Apostles were to baptize people first, and make them disciples
      afterwards.

  329 אC exhibit ἔπλυναν: A (by far the purest of the five “old uncials”)
      retains the traditional text.

  330 P. 938.

  331 So does Aphraates, a contemporary of B and א, p. 392.

  332 Gen. xxv. 8, 17; xxxv. 29; xlix. 33. Also Jer. xlii. 17, 22; Lament.
      i. 20; Job xiii. 19; Ps. ciii. 30.

  333 268, 661.

  334 942, 953 (Lat Tr.).

  335 162, 338 (Lat. Tr.), 666.

_  336 ap._ Phot. 791.

  337 i. 353.

  338 iii. 120.

  339 i. 861.

  340 280.

  341 i. 920; iii. 344; iv. 27; vi. 606.

  342 vi. 520.

  343 i. 859 b.

  344 3. 772.

  345 Mai, 2.

  346 i. 517.

  347 388.

  348 In one place of the Syriac version of his Homilies on St. Luke (Luc.
      110), the reading is plainly ἵνα ὅταν ἐκλίπητε: but when the Greek
      of the same passage is exhibited by Mai (ii. 196, line 28-38) it is
      observed to be destitute of the disputed clause. On the other hand,
      at p. 512 of the Syriac, the reading is ἐκλίπῃ. But then the entire
      quotation is absent from the Greek original (Mai, ii. 349, line 11
      from bottom). In Mai, ii. 380, Cyril’s reading is certainly
      ἐκλίπητε.

  349 Eus.mare 330, -ps 251 (—πᾶσαν).

  350 Cyrhr 270.

  351 e, _inducet vobis veritatem omnem:_ m, _disseret vobis omnem
      veritatem_.

_  352 docebit vos omnem veritatem_ (ii. 301).

  353 Cod. _am._ (which exhibits _docebit vos in omnem_, &c.) clearly
      confuses two distinct types.

  354 א om. πάσῃ.

  355 Cyr. Alex. iv. 347; v. 369, 593.

  356 D, ἐκεῖνος ὑμᾶς ὁδηγήσει ἐν τῇ ἀληθείᾳ πάσῃ.

  357 So Cod. b, _deducet vos in veritate omni_. Cod. c, _docebit vos in
      veritate omni_.

  358 Did. 278, 446, 388 (προσ), 443 (—την).

  359 Epiph. i. 898; ii. 78.

  360 Bas. iii. 42 (προσ): and so Evan. 249. Codd. of Cyril Alex. (ἐπί).

  361 Chrys. viii. 527: also 460, 461 (—την).

  362 Theod.ant 541, _ap._ Wegn.

  363 Cyr. Alex.txt iv. 923: v. 628.

  364 Thdt. iii. 15 (ἐκεῖ. ος ὑμ. ὁδ.).

  365 Tert. i. 762, 765, 884; ii. 11, 21. Hil. 805, 959. Jer. ii. 140.
      141. There are many lesser variants:—“(diriget vos Tert. i. 884,
      deducet vos Tert. ii. 21, Vercell. vos deducet; i. 762 vos ducet:
      Hil. 805, vos diriget) in omnem veritatem.” Some few (as D, Tert. i.
      762; ii. 21. Cod. a, Did. 388. Thdrt. iii. 15) prefix ἐκεῖνος.

  366 Pet. Alex. _ap._ Routh, p. 9.

  367 Did. 55.

  368 Orig. i. 387, 388.

  369 Cyr. Alex. iv. 925, 986.

  370 εἰς τὴν ἁλήθ. πᾶσαν L., Tr., W.-H.: ἐν τῇ ἁληθ. πάσῃ T.

  371 Introduction, p. 135. The rest of his judgement is unfounded in
      fact. Constant and careful study combined with subtle appreciation
      will not reveal “feebleness” or “impoverishment” either in “sense”
      or “force.”

  372 These are the Dean’s words to the end of the paragraph.

  373 Revised Version, &c., pp. 205-218.

  374 Introduction, i. 292-93.

  375 Ephes. v. 30.

  376 718 (Mass. 294), Gr. and Lat.

_  377 In loc._ ed. Swete, Gr. and Lat.

  378 i. 95, 267.

  379 iii. 215 b, 216 a; viii. 272 c; xi. 147 a b c d.

_  380 Ap._ Cramer, vi. 205, 208.

  381 iii. 434.

  382 (A.D. 560), 1004 a, 1007 a.

  383 ii. 190 e.

  384 Rufinus (iii. 61 c) translates,—“quia membra sumus corporis ejus,
      _et reliqua_.” What else can this refer to but the very words in
      dispute?

_  385 Ap._ Galland. iii. 688 c:—ὅθεν ὁ Ἀπόστολος εὐθυβόλως εἰς Χριστὸν
      ἀνηκόντισε τὰ κατὰ τὸν Ἀδάμ; οὕτως γὰρ ἂν μάλιστα ἐκ τῶν ὀστῶν αὐτοῦ
      καὶ τῆς σαρκὸς τὴν ἐκκλησίαν συμφωνήσει γεγονέναι. And lower down
      (e, and 689 a):—ὅπως αὐξηθῶσιν οἱ ἐν αὐτῷ οἰκοδομηθέντες ἅπαντες, οἱ
      γεγεννημένοι διὰ τοῦ λουτροῦ, ἐκ τῶν ὀστῶν καὶ ἐκ τῆς σαρκός,
      τουτέστιν ἐκ τῆς ἁγιωσύνης αὐτοῦ, καὶ ἐκ τῆς δόξης προσειληφότες;
      ὀστᾶ γὰρ καὶ σάρκα Σοφίας ὁ λέγων εἶναι σύνεσιν καὶ ἀρετήν, ὀρθότατα
      λέγει. From this it is plain that Methodius read Ephes. v. 30 as we
      do; although he had before quoted it (iii. 614 b) _without_ the
      clause in dispute. Those who give their minds to these studies are
      soon made aware that it is never safe to infer from the silence of a
      Father that he disallowed the words he omits,—especially if those
      words are in their nature parenthetical, or supplementary, or not
      absolutely required for the sense. Let a short clause be beside his
      immediate purpose, and a Father is as likely as not to omit it. This
      subject has been discussed elsewhere: but it is apt to the matter
      now in hand that I should point out that Augustine _twice_ (iv. 297
      c, 1438 c) closes his quotation of the present place abruptly:
      “Apostolo dicente, _Quoniam membra sumus corporis ejus_.” And yet,
      elsewhere (iii. 794), he gives the words in full.

      It is idle therefore to urge on the opposite side, as if there were
      anything in it, the anonymous commentator on St. Luke in Cramer’s
      Cat. p. 88.

  386 i. 1310 b. Also Ambrosiaster, ii. 248 d.

_  387 Ap._ Galland. vii. 262 e (A.D. 372).

  388 Ibid. 314 c.

  389 Mai, iii. 140.

  390 vii. 659 b.

  391 See above, end of note 2.

  392 Concil. iv. 50 b.

  393 Hort, Introduction, p. 40.

  394 Ibid. p. 46.

  395 Miller’s Scrivener, Introduction, I. p. 177.

  396 Introduction, I. Appendix F, p. 398*.

  397 Introduction, II. 337, note 1. And for Dean Burgon’s latest opinion
      on the date of א see above, pp. 46, 52, 162. The present MS., which
      I have been obliged to abridge in order to avoid repetition of much
      that has been already said, was one of the Dean’s latest
      productions. See Appendix VII.

  398 Since Dean Burgon’s death, there has been reason to identify this
      set of readings with the Syrio-Low-Latin Text, the first origin of
      which I have traced to the earliest times before the Gospels were
      written—by St. Matthew, St. Mark, and St. Luke, and of course St.
      John.

  399 So with St. Athanasius in his earlier days. See above, p. 119, note
      2.

  400 Miller’s Scrivener, Introduction, I. 138.

  401 pp. 2, 155.

  402 Hort, Introduction, p. 2.

  403 Hort, Introduction, p. 7.

  404 Quarterly Review, No. 363, July, 1895.

  405 St. John xxi. 9-13.

  406 In Studia Biblica et Eccles. II. vi. (G. H. Gwilliam), published two
      years after the Dean’s death, will be found a full description of
      this form of sections.

  407 As far as we know at present about Tatian’s Diatessaron, he kept
      these occurrences distinct.—ED.

  408 “Origenes, quum in caeteris libris omnes vicerit, in Cantico
      Canticorum ipse se vicit.”—Hieron. Opp. iii. 499; i. 525.

  409 After quoting Luke xxiv. 41, 42 _in extenso_, he proceeds,—βλέπεις
      πῶς πεπλήρωται τό; Ἔφαγον ἄρτον μου μετὰ μέλιτος μου (p. 210 b): and
      καὶ μετὰ τὴν ἀναστασιν ἕλεγεν, Ἔφαγον τὸν ἄρτον μετὰ μέλιτος μου.
      ἔδωκαν γὰρ αὐτῷ ἀπὸ μελισσίου κηρίου (p. 341 a).

  410 Ἄρτος γίνεται, οὐκέτι ἐπὶ πικρίδων ἐσθιόμενος ... ἀλλ᾽ ὄψον ἑαυτῷ τὸ
      μέλι ποιούμενος. And, ὁ μετὰ τὴν ἀνάστασιν προφανεὶς τοῖς μαθηταῖς
      ἄρτος ἐστί, τῷ κηρίῳ τοῦ μέλιτος ἡδυνόμενος,—i. 624 a b. See more
      concerning this quotation below, p. 249 note.

  411 Epiph. i. 143.

  412 Ephr. Syr. ii. 48 e.

  413 Or whoever else was the author of the first Homily of the
      Resurrection, wrongly ascribed to Gregory Nyss. (iii. 382-99).
      Hesychius was probably the author of the second Homily. (Last Twelve
      Verses, &c., pp. 57-9.) Both are _compilations_ however, into which
      precious passages of much older Fathers have been unscrupulously
      interwoven,—to the infinite perplexity of every attentive reader.

_  414 Apud_ Greg. Nyss. iii. 399 d.

  415 Epiph. i. 652 d.

  416 In Joanne legimus quod piscantibus Apostolis, in littore steterit,
      et partem assi piscis, favumque comederit, quae verae resurrectionis
      indicia sunt. In Jerusalem autem nihil horum fecisse
      narratur.—Hieron. i. 825 a.

  417 Not from Eusebius’ Qu. ad Marinum apparently. Compare however
      Jerome, i. 824 d with Eusebius (_ap._ Mai), iv. 295 (cap. x).

  418 See Last Twelve Verses, &c., pp. 51-6.

  419 i. 444 b.

  420 P. 172.

  421 iv. 1108 c.

  422 Athanas. i. 644: καὶ φαγὼν ἐνώπιον αὐτῶν, ΛΑΒΩΝ ΤΑ ΕΠΙΛΟΙΠΑ ἀπέδωκεν
      αὐτοῖς. This passage reappears in the fragmentary Commentary
      published by Mai (ii. 582), divested only of the words καὶ ἀπὸ μελ.
      κηρ.—The characteristic words (in capitals) do not appear in
      Epiphanius (i. 143 c), who merely says καὶ ἔδωκε τοῖς
      μαθηταῖς,—confusing the place in St. Luke with the place in St.
      John.

  423 Aug. iii. P. 2, 143 (A.D. 400); viii. 472 (A.D. 404).

  424 To the 9 specified by Tisch.—(Evann. 13, 42, 88 (τα περισσευματα),
      130 (το επαναλειφθεν), 161, 300, 346, 400, 507),—add Evan. 33, in
      which the words καὶ τὰ ἐπίλοιπα ἔδωκεν αὐτοῖς have been overlooked
      by Tregelles.

  425 Πρὸς τούτοις οὐδὲ τραγημάτων κηρίων ἀμοίρους περιορατέον τοὺς
      δειπνοῦντας κατὰ Λόγον.—p. 174.

  426 i. 384.

  427 iii. 477.

_  428 Apud_ Mai, iv. 294, 295 _bis_.

  429 “Ibi τὸ κηρίον praeterire non poterat [_sc._ Origenes] si in
      exemplis suis additamentum reperisset.” (From Tischendorf’s note on
      Luke xxiv. 42.)

  430 iv. 1108 b c.

  431 Κατεδήδοκε γὰρ τὸ προκομισθὲν ἰχθύδιον, ἤτοι τὸ εξ αὐτοῦ
      μέρος.—Ibid. d. Similarly in the fragments of Cyril’s Commentary on
      St. Luke, he is observed to refer to the incident of the piece of
      broiled fish exclusively. (Mai, ii. 442, 443, which reappears in P.
      Smith, p. 730.)

  432 iii. P. i. p. 51. For the honeycomb, see iii. P. ii. p. 143 a: viii.
      472 d.

  433 i. 215.

  434 “_Favos_ post fella gustavit.”—De Coronâ, c. 14 (i. p. 455).

  435 ii. 444 a.

  436 i. 384; iii. 477.

  437 Opp. iii. 932-85: with which comp. Galland. xiv. Append. 83-90 and
      91-109.

  438 Cat. (1628), p. 622. Cordier translates from “Venet. 494” (our
      “Evan. 466”).

  439 What follows is obtained (June 28, 1884) by favour of Sig. Veludo,
      the learned librarian of St. Mark’s, from the Catena on St. Luke’s
      Gospel at Venice (cod. 494 = our Evan. 466), which Cordier (in 1628)
      translated into Latin. The Latin of this particular passage is to be
      seen at p. 622 of his badly imagined and well-nigh useless work. The
      first part of it (συνέφαγε ... ἐναπογράψονται) is occasionally found
      as a scholium, e.g. in Cod. Marc. Venet. 27 (our Evan. 210), and is
      already known to scholars from Matthaei’s N. T. (note on Luc. xxiv.
      42). The rest of the passage (which now appears for the first time)
      I exhibit for the reader’s convenience parallel with a passage of
      Gregory of Nyssa’s Christian Homily on Canticles. If the author of
      what is found in the second column is not quoting what is found in
      the first, it is at least certain that both have resorted to, and
      are here quoting from the same lost original:—

      Συνέφαγεν δὲ καὶ τῷ ὀπτῷ ἰχθύῳ (sic) τὸ κηρίον τοῦ μέλιτος; δηλῶν ὡς
      οἱ πυρωθέντες διὰ τῆς θείας ἐνανθρωπήσεως καὶ μετασχόντες αὐτοῦ τῆς
      θεότητος, ὡς μέλι μετ᾽ ἐπιθυμίας τὰς ἐντολὰς αὐτοῦ παραδέξονται;
      κηρῷ ὤσπερ τοὺς νόμους ἐναπογράψαντες; ὅτι ὁ μὲν τοῦ πάσχα

      [Transcriber’s Note: The following two paragraphs were side-by-side
      columns in the original.]

      ἄρτος ἐπὶ πικρίδων ἠσθίετο καὶ ὁ νόμος διεκελεύτο;
      πρὸς γὰρ τὸ παρὸν ἡ πικρία;
      ὁ δὲ μετὰ τὴν ἀνάστασιν ἄρτος τῷ κηρίῳ τοῦ μέλιτος ἡδύνετο;
      ὄψον γὰρ ἑαυτοῖς τὸ μέλι ποιησόμεθα, ὅταν ἐν τῷ ἰδίῳ κηρῷ ὁ καρπὸς
      τῆς ἀρετῆς καταγλυκαίνει τὰ τῆς ψυχῆς αἰσθητήρια.
      ANON. _apud Corderium_ (fol. 58): see above.

      ... ἄρτος ... οὐκέτι ἐπὶ πικρίδων ἐσθιόμενος, ὡς ὁ νόμος
      διακελεύεται;
      πρὸς γὰρ τὸ παρόν ἐστιν ἡ πικρίς;
      (... ὁ μετὰ τὴν ἀνάστασιν τοῦ κυρίου προσφανεὶς τοῖς μαθηταῖς ἄρτος
      ἐστί, τῷ κηρίῳ τοῦ μέλιτος ἡδυνόμενος.)
      ἀλλ᾽ ὄψον ἑαυτῷ τὸ μέλι ποιούμενος, ὅταν ἐν τῷ ἰδίῳ καιρῷ ὁ καρπὸς
      τῆς ἀρετῆς καταγλυκαίνῃ τὰ τῆς ψυχῆς αἰσθητήρια.
      GREG. NYSS. in Cant. (Opp. i. a); the sentence in brackets being
      transposed.

      Quite evident is it that, besides Gregory of Nyssa, HESYCHIUS (or
      whoever else was the author of the first Homily on the Resurrection)
      had the same original before him when he wrote as follows:—ἀλλ᾽
      ἐπειδὴ ὁ πρὸ τοῦ πάσχα σῖτος ὁ ἄζυμος, ὄψον τὴν πικρίδα ἔχει, ἴδωμεν
      τίνι ἡδόσματι ὁ μετὰ τὴν ἀνάστασιν ἄρτος ἡδύνεται. ὁρᾶς τοῦ Πέτρου
      ἁλιεύοντος ἐν ταῖς χεροὶ τοῦ κυρίου ἄρτον καὶ κηρίον μέλιτος νόησον
      τί σοι ἡ πικρία τοῦ βίου κατασκευάζεται. οὐκοῦν ἀναστάντες καὶ ἡμεῖς
      ἐκ τῆς τῶν λόγων ἀλείας, ἤδη τῷ ἄρτῳ προσδράμωμεν, ὂν καταγλυκαίνει
      τὸ κηρίον τῆς ἀγαθῆς ἐλπίδος. (_ap_. Greg. Nyss. Opp. iii. 399 c d.)

  440 So Matthaei: “Haec interpretatio sapit ingenium Origenis.” (N.T.
      iii. 498.)

  441 Καὶ ἔφαγε κηρίον καὶ ἰχθύν,—ii. 240. From the fragment De
      Resurrectione preserved by John Damascene,—ii. 762a.

  442 See above, note 1, p. 247.

  443 See above, note 1, p. 248.

  444 i. 644 (see above, p. 244, n. 7).

  445 i. 624 (see above, p. 242, n. 3).

  446 pp. 210, 431 (see above, p. 243).

  447 i. 652 d (see above, p. 247).

  448 i. 825 a; ii. 444 a.

  449 See above, note 1, p. 245.

  450 iv. 1108.

_  451 Apud_ Galland. ix. 633.

  452 Varim. i. 56.

_  453 Apud_ Greg. Nyss. iii. 399.

  454 See above, p. 248, note 6.

  455 “The words could hardly have been an interpolation.” (Alford, _in
      loc_).

  456 Scrivener’s Introd. II. p. 358.

  457 It is well known that Dean Burgon considered B, א, and D to be bad
      manuscripts. When I wrote my Textual Guide, he was angry with me for
      not following him in this. Before his death, the logic of facts
      convinced me that he was right and I was wrong. We came together
      upon independent investigation. I find that those MSS. in disputed
      passages are almost always wrong—mainly, if not entirely, the
      authors of our confusion. What worse could be said of them? And
      nothing less will agree with the facts from our point of view.
      Compromise on this point which might be amiable shrinks upon inquiry
      before a vast array of facts.—E. M.

  458 Compare Epiphanius (i. 143 c) _ut supra_ (Haer. xxx. c. 19) with
      Irenaeus (iii. c. ii, § 9): “Hi vero qui sunt a Valentino ... in
      tantum processerunt audaciae, uti quod ab his non olim conscriptum
      est _Veritatis Evangelium_ titulent.”

  459 See above, p. 243.

  460 There is reason for thinking that the omission was an Alexandrian
      reading. Egyptian asceticism would be alien to so sweet a food as
      honeycomb. See above, p. 150. The Lewis Cod. omits the words. But it
      may be remembered that it restricts St. John Baptist’s food to
      locusts “and the honey of the mountain.”—E. M.

  461 Ἐσμυρμισμένον οἶνον, Mark xv. 23.

  462 Ὄξος μετὰ χολῆς μεμιγμένον, Matt. xxvii. 34 (= Luke xxiii. 37).

  463 Πλήσαντες σπόγγον ὄξους, καὶ ὑσσώπῳ περιθέντες, John xix. 29.

  464 Matt. xxvii. 34 (= Luke xxiii. 37).

  465 Καὶ εἰθέως δραμὰν εἰς ἐξ αὐτῶν, Matt. xxvii. 48 (= Mark xv. 36).

  466 Not so the author of the Syriac Canons. Like Eusebius, he identifies
      (1) Matt. xxvii. 34 with Mark xv. 23; and (2) Matt. xxvii. 48 with
      Mark xv. 36 and Luke xxiii. 36; but unlike Eusebius, he makes John
      xix. 29 parallel with these last three.

  467 The former,—pp. 286-7: the latter,—p. 197. The Cod. Fuld.
      ingeniously—“Et dederunt ei vinum murratum bibere cum felle mixtum”
      (Ranke, p. 154).

  468 Evann. 1, 22, 33, 63, 69, 73, 114, 122, 209, 222, 253, 507, 513.

  469 §7.

  470 Pp. 526, 681 (Mass. 212, 277).

  471 De Spect. written A.D. 198 (see Clinton, App. p. 413), c. xxx.-i. p.
      62.

  472 “ ‘Et dederunt ei bibero _acetum_ et fel.’ Pro eo quod dulci suo
      vino eos laetificarat, _acetum_ ei porrexerunt; pro felle autem
      magna ejus miseratio amaritudinem gentium dulcem fecit.” Evan. Conc.
      p. 245.

  473 Celsus τὸ ὄξος καὶ τὴν χολὴν ὀνειδίζει τῷ Ἰησοῦ,—writes Origen (i.
      416 c d e), quoting the blasphemous language of his opponent and
      refuting it, but accepting the reference to the Gospel record. This
      he does twice, remarking on the second occasion (i. 703 b c) that
      such as Celsus are for ever offering to JESUS “gall and _vinegar_.”
      (These passages are unknown to many critics because they were
      overlooked by Griesbach.)—Elsewhere Origen twice (iii. 920 d e, 921
      b) recognizes the same incident, on the second occasion contrasting
      the record in Matt. xxvii. 34 with that in Mark xv. 23 in a way
      which shews that he accounted the places parallel:—“Et hoc
      considera, quod secundum Matthaeum quidem Jesus accipiens _acetum
      cum felle permixtum_ gustavit, et noluit bibere: secundum Marcum
      autem, cum daretur et _myrrhatum vinum_, non accepit.”—iii. 921 b.

  474 Lib. i. 374 and viii. 303 (assigned by Alexander to the age of
      Antoninus Pius), _ap._ Galland. i. 346 a, 395 c. The line (εἰς δὲ τὸ
      βρῶμα χολήν, καὶ εἰς δίψαν ὄξος ἔδωκαν) is also found in
      Montfaucon’s Appendix (Palaeogr. 246). Sibyll. lib. i. 374, Gall. i.
      346 a εἰς δὲ τὸ βρῶμα χολήν, καὶ εἰς πότον ὄξος ἄκρατον; ibid. viii.
      303, 395 c ... πιεῖν ὄξος ἔδωκαν; quoted by Lactantius, lib. iv. c.
      18, A.D. 320, Gall. iv. 300 a ... εἰς δίψαν ὄξος ἔδωκαν, which is
      the way the line is quoted from the Sibyl in Montfaucon’s Appendix
      (Pal. Graec. 246). Lactantius a little earlier (Gall. iv. 299 b) had
      said,—“Dederunt ei cibum fellis, et miscuerunt ei aceti potionem.”

  475 Referring to the miracle at Cana, where (viz. in p. 55) the
      statement is repeated. Evan. Conc. p. 245. See above, note 5.

_  476 Apud_ Montf. ii. 63; Corderii, Cat in Luc. p. 599.

  477 The Tractatus [ii. 305 b] at the end of the Quaestt. ad Antiochum
      (Ath. ii. 301-6), which is certainly of the date of Athanasius, and
      which the editor pronounces to be not unworthy of him (Praefat. II.
      viii-ix).

  478 Opusc. ed. Augusti, p. 16.

  479 Cord. Cat. in Ps. ii. 393.

  480 Cord. Cat. in Ps. ii. 409.

  481 Οὐ σπογγιὰ χολῇ τε καὶ ὄξει διάβροχος, οἵαν οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι τῷ εὐεργέτῃ
      τὴν φιλοτησίαν ἐνδεικνύμενοι διὰ τοῦ καλάμου προτείνουσι.—i. 624 b
      (where it should be noted that the contents of verses 34 and 48 (in
      Matt. xxvii) are confused).

  482 i. 481 a, 538 d, 675 b. More plainly in p. 612 e,—μιᾶς τῆς χολῆς,
      ἑνὸς ὄξους, δι᾽ ὧν τὴν πικρὰν γεῦσιν ἐθεραπεύθημεν (= Cat. Nic. p.
      788).

  483 ii. 48 c, 284 a.

  484 Lib. iv. c. 18. See above, last page, note 7.

  485 vii. 236 c d, quoted next page.

  486 “Refertur etiam quod aceto potatus sit, vel vino myrrhato, quod est
      amarius felle.” Rufinus, in Symb. § 26.

  487 vii. 819 a b (= Cat. Nic. p. 792). See also a remarkable passage
      ascribed to Chrys. in the Catena of Nicetas, pp. 371-2.

  488 “Jesus _de felle una cum aceto_ amaritudinis libavit.” (Hom.
      translated by Aucher from the Armenian.—Venice. 1827, p. 435).

_  489 Apud_ Mai, N. Bibl. PP. iii. 455.

_  490 Apud_ Mai, ii. 66; iii. 42. Is this the same place which is quoted
      in Cord. Cat. in Ps. ii. 410?

_  491 Apud_ Galland. v. 332.

  492 Or Acta Pilati, pp. 262, 286.

  493 P. 85.

  494 P. 16.

  495 Cord. Cat. in Ps. ii. 410.

  496 p. 87.

  497 x. 829.

  498 ii. 84, 178.

  499 Cramer, Cat. i. 235.

  500 i. 228, 549.

  501 vii. 236 c d.

  502 St. John i. 1-3, 14; xx. 31.

  503 1 St. John ii. 18, 22, 23; iv. 1, 2, 3, 15; v. 10, 11, 12, 20; 2 St.
      John ver. 7, 9, 10. So St. Jude ver. 4.

  504 So Athanasius excellently:—ὁ θεὸς συναριθμήσας ἑαυτὸν μετὰ τῶν
      ἀνθρώπων, κατὰ τὴν σάρκα αὐτοῦ τοῦτο εἶπε, καὶ πρὸς τὸν νοῦν τοῦ
      προσελθόντος αὐτῷ; ἐκεῖνος γὰρ ἄνθρωπον αὐτὸν ἐνόμιζε μόνον καὶ οὐ
      θεόν, καὶ τοῦτον ἔχει τὸν νοῦν ἡ ἀπόκρισις. Εἰ μὲν γὰρ ἄνθρωπον,
      φησί νομίζεις με καὶ οὐ θεόν, μή με λέγε ἀγαθόν; οὐδεὶς γὰρ ἀγαθός;
      οὐ γὰρ διαφέρει [is not an attribute or adornment of] ἀνθρωπίνη
      φύσει τὸ ἀγαθόν, ἀλλὰ θεῷ.—i. 875 a. So Macarius Magnes, p. 13.—See
      also below, note 2, p. 262.

  505 So, excellently Cyril Alex. V. 310 d, Suicer’s Thesaurus; see
      Pearson on the Creed, on St. Matt. xix. 17.

  506 So Marcion (_ap._ Epiph.),—εἶπέ τισ πρὸς αὐτόν; διδάσκαλε ἀγαθέ, τί
      ποιήσος ζωὴν αἰώνιον κληρονομήσω; ὁ δέ, μή με λέγετε ἀγαθόν, εἶς
      ἐστιν ἀγαθός, ὁ Θεὸς ὁ Πατήρ [i. 339 a]. Note, that it was thus
      Marcion exhibited St. Luke xviii. 18, 19. See Hippol. Phil. 254,—Τί
      με λέγετε ἀγαθόν; εἶς ἐστιν ἀγαθός.

  507 So Arius (_ap._ Epiphanium),—εἶτα πάλιν φησὶ ὁ μανιώδης Ἀρείος, πῶς
      εἶπεν ὁ Κύριος, Τί με λέγεις ἀγαθόν; εἶς ἐστιν ἀγαθὸς ὁ Θεός. ὡς
      αὐτοῦ ἀργουμένον τὴν ἀγαθότητα [i. 742 b].—From this, Arius inferred
      a separate essence:—καὶ ἀφώρισεν ἑαυτὸν ἐντεῦθεν ἀπὸ τῆς τοῦ Πατρὸς
      οὐσίας τε καὶ ὑποστάσεως. τὸ δὲ πᾶν ἐστι γελοιῶδες [i. 780 c].—Note,
      that this shews how St. Luke’s Gospel was quoted by the Arians.

  508 E.g. ps.-Tatian, Evan. Conc. 173, 174.—Ambrose, ii. 473 e-476
      d.—Gregory Naz. i. 549.—Didymus, Trin. 50-3.—Basil, i. 291
      c.—Epiphanius, i. 780-1.—Macarius Magnes, 12-14.—Theodoret, v.
      930-2.—Augustine is very eloquent on the subject.

  509 ii. 689. See the summary of contents at p. 281.

  510 Thus, Valentinus (_ap._ Clem. Alex.),—εἶς δέ ἐστιν ἀγαθός, οὖ
      παρουσία ἡ διὰ τοῦ υἱοῦ φανέρωσις ... ὁ μόνος ἀγαθὸς Πατήρ [Strom.
      ii. 409].—Heracleon (_ap._ Orig.),—ὁ γὰρ πέμψας αὐτὸν Πατήρ, ...
      οὗτος καὶ μόνος ἀγαθός, καὶ μείζων τοῦ πεμφθέντος [iv. 139
      b].—Ptolemaeus to Flora (_ap._ Epiphanium),—καὶ εἰ ὁ τέλειος Θεὸς
      ἀγαθός ἐστι κατὰ τὴν ἑαυτοῦ φύσιν, ὥσπερ καὶ ἔστιν; ἕνα γὰρ μόνον
      εἴναι ἀγαθὸν Θεόν, τὸν ἑαυτοῦ Πατέρα, ὁ Σωτὴρ ἡμῶν ἀπεφῄνατο, ὂν
      αὐτὸς ἐφανέρωσεν [i. 221 c].—The Marcosian gloss was,—εἶς ἐστὶν
      ἀγαθός, ὁ Πατὴρ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς [_ap._ Irenaeum, p. 92].—The
      Naassenes substituted,—εἶς ἐστὶν ἀγαθός, ὁ Πατήρ μου ὁ ἐν τοῖς
      οὐρανοῖς, ὂς ἀνατελεῖ τὸν ἥλιον αὐτοῦ κ.τ.λ. [_ap._ Hippolyt.
      Philosoph. 102].—Marcion introduced the same gloss even into St.
      Luke’s Gospel,—εἶς ἐστὶν ἀγαθός, ὁ Θεὸς ὁ Πατήρ [_ap._ Epiphan. i.
      339 d, and comp. 315 c].

  511 Εἶς ἐστιν ἀγαθός, ὁ Πατήρ μου ὁ ἐν τοῖς ουρανοῖς—Tryph. c. 101 [vol.
      ii. 344].

  512 “_Unus tantum_” (ait) “_est bonus, Pater qui in coelis est_.”—Evan.
      Conc. p. 173 and on p. 169,—“_Unus tantum_” (ait) “_est bonus_”: ast
      post haec non tacuit, sed adjecit “_Pater_.”

  513 Μή με λέγε ἀγαθόν; ὁ γὰρ ἀγαθὸς εἶς ἐστιν (_ap._ Galland. ii. 752
      d). And so at p. 759 a and d, adding—ὁ Πατὴρ ὁ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς.
      This reference will be found vindicated below: in note 8, p. 269.

  514 For the places in Clemens Alex. see below, note 3, p. 263.—The
      places in Origen are at least six:—Τί με λέγεις ἀγαθόν; οὐδεὶς
      ἀγαθὸς εἰ μὴ εἶς, ὁ Θεός ὁ Πατήρ [i. 223 c, 279 a, 586 a; iv. 41 d:
      and the last nine words, iv. 65 d, 147 a].—For the places in
      ps.-Tatian, see below, note 2, p. 263.—The place in the _Dialogus_
      is found _ap._ Orig. i. 804 b:—λέγοντος τοῦ Χριστοῦ; οὐδεὶς ἀγαθὸς
      εἰ μὴ εἶς ὁ Πατήρ—words assigned to Megethius the heretic.

  515 Didymus,—οὐκ εἶπεν μὲν οὐδεὶς ἀγαθὸς εἰ μὴ εἶς ὁ Πατήρ; ἀλλ᾽ οὐδεὶς
      ἀγαθὸς εἰ μὴ εἶς ὁ Θεός [p. 51].—And Ambrose,—“Circumspectione
      coelesti non dixit, _Nemo bonus nisi unus Pater_, sed _Nemo bonus
      nisi unus Deus_” [ii. 474 b].—And Chrysostom,—ἐπήγαγεν, εἰ μὴ εἶς ὁ
      Θεός. καὶ οὐκ εἶπεν, εἰ μὴ ὁ Πατήρ μου, ἵνα μάθῃς ὅτι οὐκ ἐξεκάλυψεν
      ἑαυτὸν τῷ νεανίσκῳ [vii. 628 b: quoted by Victor, Ant. in Cat. p.
      220].—And Theodoret (wrongly ascribed to Maximus, ii. 392, 396),—Οὐκ
      εἴρηται, Οὐδεὶς ἀγαθός, εἰ μὴ εἶς, ὁ Πατήρ. ἀλλ᾽, Οὐδεὶς ἀγαθός, εἰ
      μὴ εἶς, ὁ Θεός [v. p. 931]. Epiphanius [see the references above, in
      note 1, p. 261] expressly mentions that this unauthorized addition
      (to Luke xviii. 18) was the work of the heretic Marcion.

  516 “Dicendo autem ‘_Quid me vocas bonum_,’ opinionem eius qui
      interrogaverat suo responso refutavit, _quia iste putabat Christum
      de hâc terrâ et sicut unum ex magistris Israelitarum
      esse_,”—ps.-Tatian, Evan. Conc. p. 174.—“Dives per adulationem
      honoravit Filium ... _sicut homines sociis suis grata nomina dare
      volunt_.” Ibid. p. 168.

  517 Apol. i. c. 16 [i. 42],—quoted below in note 2, p. 265.

  518 “Cui respondit, ‘_Non est aliquis bonus_,’ ut tu putasti, ‘_nisi
      tantum unus Deus Pater_’ ... ‘_Nemo_’ (sit) ‘_bonus, nisi tantum
      unus, Pater qui est in coelis_’ [Evan. Conc. p. 169]. ‘_Non est
      bonus, nisi tantum unus_’ [Ibid.]. ‘_Non est bonus, nisi tantum unus
      qui est in coelis_’ [p. 170]. ‘_Non est bonus nisi tantum unus_’ ”
      [p. 173].

  519 Οὐ μὴν ἀλλὰ καὶ ὁπηνίκα διαρρήδην λέγει; Οὐδεὶς ἀγαθός, εἰ μὴ ὁ
      Πατήρ μου, ὁ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς [p. 141]. And overleaf,—ἀλλὰ καὶ
      οὐδεὶς ἀγαθός, εἰ μὴ ὁ Πατὴρ αὐτοῦ [p. 142]. Tischendorf admits the
      reference.

  520 i. 315 b. The quotation is given below, in note 7, p. 269.

  521 Praep. Evan. 542 b; Ps. 426 d; _ap._ Mai, iv. 101.

  522 Οὐδεὶς ἀγαθὸς εἰ μὴ εἶς, ὁ Θεός (p. 12).

  523 ii. 242 e and 279 e. (See also i. 291 e and iii. 361 a.)

  524 vii. 628 b,—οὐ γὰρ εἶπε, τί με λέγεις ἀγαθόν; οὐκ εἱμὶ ἀγαθός; ἀλλ᾽,
      οὐδεὶς ἀγαθός ... εἰ μὴ εἶς ὁ θεός. See also vii. 329.

  525 i. 875 a. The quotation is proved to be from St. Matt. xix. (17-21)
      by all that follows.

  526 ii. 691 d; 694 b c. See below, note 10, p. 267.

  527 Trin. 50, 51.

  528 “_Nemo bonus nisi unus Deus_”:—iv. 383 c; v. 488 b; viii. 770 d, 772
      b.

  529 v. P. i. 310 d, and 346 a (= 672 b).

  530 v. 931-3. Note that Ambrose, Didymus, Chrysostom, Theodoret, all
      four hang together in this place, which is plain from the remark
      that is common to all four, quoted above in note 1, last page. There
      is nothing to shew from which Gospel Nilus (ii. 362) quotes the
      words οὐδεὶς ἀγαθός, εἰ μὴ εἶ; ὁ Θεός.

  531 p. 1028, unequivocally.

_  532 Ap._ Chrys. vi. 137 d, 138 b.

  533 Besides these positive testimonies, the passage is quoted frequently
      as it is given in St. Mark and St. Luke, _but with no special
      reference_. Surely some of these must refer to St. Matthew?

  534 For other instances of this indiscreet zeal, see Vol. II.

  535 BאDL. 1, 22, 479, Evst. 5.

  536 Καὶ προσελθόντος αὐτῷ τινος καὶ εἰπόντος; Διδάσκαλε ἀγαθέ,
      ἀπεκρίνατο λέγων; Οὐδεὶς ἀγαθὸς εἰ μὴ μόνος ὁ Θεὸς ὁ ποιήσας τὰ
      πάντα.—Apol. I. c. 16 [vol. i. p. 42]. And so in Tryph. c. 101 [vol.
      ii. p. 344],—λέγοντος αὐτῷ τινος; Διδάσκαλε ἀγαθέ; κ.τ.λ.

  537 “_Ad iudicem dives venit, donis dulcis linguae eum capturus._” (The
      reference, therefore, is to St. Matthew’s Gospel: which is further
      proved by the quotation lower down of the latter part of ver. 17:
      also by the inquiry,—“_Quid adhuc mihi deest?_”) “Ille dives bonum
      eum vocavit.”_ _“Dives Dominum ‘Magistrum bonum’ vocaverat sicut
      unum ex bonis magistris.”—Evan. Conc. 168, 169.

_  538 Ap._ Irenaeum,—p. 92. See below, note 2, p. 267.

_  539 Ap._ Hippolytum, Philosoph. 102. See below, note 3, p. 267.

  540 Μή με λέγε ἀγαθόν (_ap._ Galland. ii. 759 d: comp. 752 b). For the
      reference, and its indication, see below, note 8, p. 269.

  541 Comment. in Matt. xv. (in loc).

  542 i. 875 a,—clearly a quotation from memory of St. Matt. xix. 17, 18,
      19, 20, 21.

  543 Adv. Eunom. i. 291 e,—ἀγαθὲ διδάσκαλε, ἀκούσας. Again in ii. 242 c,
      and 279 e, expressly. See also iii. 361 a.

  544 Καθὼς ἀπεκρίνατο τῷ προσελθόντι καὶ εἰπόντι, Διδάσκαλε ἀγαθέ, τί
      ποιήσω ἵνα ζωὴν αἰώνιον ἔχω;—Catech. 299.

  545 iii. 296 d (certainly from St. Matthew).

  546 Προσῄει θωπεύων τῇ τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ προσηγορίᾳ τὸ Κύριον ... Διδάσκαλον
      ἀγαθὸν ὀνομάζων.—Contr. Eunom. ii. 692 b. Also πρὸς τὸν νεάνισκον
      ἀγαθὸν αὐτὸν προσαγορεύσαντα; Τί με λέγεις ἀγαθόν; (_ap._ Mai, iv.
      12).

  547 Ὁ νεανίσκος ἐκεῖνος ... προσελθὰν διελέγετο φάσκων; Διδάσκαλε
      ἀγαθέ,—p. 12.

  548 vii. 628 b.

  549 lib. iii. 503.

  550 994 c.

_  551 Ap._ Sabatier.

  552 vii. 147-8.

  553 iii.1 761 d; iii.2 82 d [ibi enim et _bonum_ nominavit]; iv. 1279 g;
      v. 196 g.

_  554 Ap._ Sabatier.

  555 v. P. i. 346 a (= 672 b),—προσέρχεταί τις ἐν τοῖς εὐανγελίοις, καὶ
      φησί ... Διδάσκαλε ἀγαθέ.

  556 Τί με λέγεις ἀγαθόν;—v. 931. See note 1, p. 262.

_  557 Magister bone, quid boni faciam ut vitam aeternam
      possideam?_—(_ap._ Chrysost. vi. 137 d, 138 b).

  558 Λέγοντος αὐτῷ τινός, Διδάσκαλε ἀγαθέ, ἀπεκρίνατο;  Τί με λέγεις
      ἀγαθόν; εἶς ἐστιν ἀγαθός, ὁ Πατήρ μου ὁ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς  [Tryph. c.
      101, vol. ii. 344]. And see the place (Apol. i. 16) quoted above,
      note 2, p. 265.

  559 Marcosians (_ap._ Irenaeum),—Καὶ τῷ εἰπόντι αὐτῷ, Διδάσκαλέ ἀγαθέ,
      τὸν ἀληθῶς ἀγαθὸν Θεὸν ὡμολογηκέναι εἰπόντα, Τί με λέγεις ἀγαθόν;
      εἶς ἐστιν ἀγαθός, ὁ Πατὴρ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς [p. 92]. No one who
      studies the question will affect to doubt that this quotation and
      the next are from St. Matthew’s Gospel.

  560 The Naassenes (_ap._ Hippolytum),—Τὸ ὑπὸ τοῦ Σωτῆρος λεγόμενον; Τί
      με λέγεις ἀγαθόν; εἶς ἐστιν ἀγαθος, ὁ Πατήρ μου ὁ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς,
      ὄς ἀνατελεῖ τὸν ἥλιον αὐτοῦ ἐπὶ δικαίους καὶ ἀδίκους, καὶ βρἐχει ἐπὶ
      ὁσίους καὶ ἀμαρτωλούς [Philosoph. 102]. See the remark in the former
      note 5, p. 265.

  561 See below, note 8, p. 269.

  562 “_Cur vocas me bonum_, quum in eo quod a me discere vis, iustus
      sim?”—Evan. Conc. p. 168. And so in pp. 173, 174. See above, note 3,
      p. 265.

  563 This is in fact a double testimony, for the difficulty had been
      raised by the heathen philosopher whom Macarius is refuting. Τί με
      λέγεις ἀγαθόν;—pp. 12 and 13 (ed. 1876). See above, note 6, p. 263.

  564 i. 875 a. See last page, note 9.

  565 ii. 279 e.

_  566 Quid me vocas bonum?_—703.

  567 ii. 692 d. Also _ap._ Mai, iv. 7, 12 (πρὸς τὸν νεάνισκον).

  568 vii 628 b. The place is quoted in note 1, p. 262.

  569 v.1 346 a (προσέρχεταί τις ἐν τοῖς εὐαγγελίοις κ.τ.λ.) = p. 672 b.

  570 v. 931,—which clearly is a reproduction of the place of Chrysostom
      (vii. 628 b) referred to in the last note but one. Read the whole
      page.

_  571 Ap._ Chrysost. vi. 137 d, 138 b.

  572 Καὶ ἰδού, εἶς προσελθὼν εἶπεν αὐτῷ; Διδάσκαλε, τί ἀγαθὸν ποιήσω, ἵνα
      σχῶ ζωὴν αἰώνιον (but at the end of eight lines, Origen exhibits
      (like the five authorities specified in note 8, next page) ἵνα ζωὴν
      αἰώνιον κληρονομήσω?) ... Τί με ἐρωτᾷς περὶ τοῦ (but τοῦ six lines
      lower down) ἀγαθοῦ? εἶς ἐστιν ὁ ἀγαθός.—in Matt. iii. 664ab. And so
      p. 665c. Cf. 666b.

  573 See above, note 2, p. 261.

  574 See above, note 2, p. 261.

  575 See above, note 2, p. 261.

  576 a e ff1 omit _bone_; b c f ff2 g1-2 h-q Vulg. insert it; a b c e
      ff1. 2 g1 h l Vulg. write _de bono_, f q _bonum_; a b c ff1. 2 1
      Vulg. write _unus_; f g1 h m q _nemo_.

  577 See above, p. 149.

  578 This wild performance is unique in its testimony (see below, p.
      277). Cureton renders the text thus:—“Why askest thou me concerning
      good? for One is good, GOD.” And Mrs. Lewis thus:—“Why askest thou
      me concerning the good? for One is the good one.”

  579 Τί με ἐρωτᾷς περὶ τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ? οὐδεὶς ἀγαθός, εἰ μὴ μόνος ὁ Θεός.—i.
      315b.

  580 Αὐτὸς ὁ διδάσκαλος ἡμῶν τῷ εἰπόντι Φαρισαίῳ, Τί ποιήσας ζωὴν αἰώνιον
      κληρονομήσω? πρῶτον ἔφη, Μή με λέγε ἀγαθόν. ὁ γὰρ ἀγαθὸς εἶς ἐστιν,
      ὁ Πατὴρ ὁ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς (_ap._ Galland. ii. 759 d e).—Note, the
      reference is certainly to St. Matthew’s Gospel, as all that follows
      proves: the inquiry in ver. 16 (by assimilation from Luke xviii. 18)
      being similarly exhibited in א, L,—Irenaeus, Int. p. 241; Orig. iii.
      664b; Cyril, Alex. v.1 310d; Basil, ii. 279e; and Chrysostom, iii.
      182; vii. 627-8; viii. 234.

  581 Eusebius—Τί με ἐρωτᾷς περὶ τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ? Οὐδεὶς ἀγαθός, εἰ μὴ εἶς ὁ
      Θεός,—Praep. Evan. 542b.—The last seven words are also found in Ps.
      (ed. Montf.) 426d; and _ap._ Mai, iv. 101.

  582 Διδάσκαλε, τί ἀγαθὸν ποιήσας, ζωὴν αἰώνιον κληρονομήσω; ὁ δέ εἶπεν
      αὐτῷ, Τί με ἐρωτᾷς περὶ τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ? οὐδεὶς ἀγαθὸς εἰ μὴ εἶς ὁ Θεός.
      (Note, that all but the last seven words exactly = א, L, and Basil,
      ii. 279e.)—V.1 310d.—But elsewhere (also quoting St. Matthew) Cyril
      exhibits—διδάσκαλε ἀγαθέ ... τί με λέγεις ἀγαθόν; οὐδεὶς ἀγαθὸς εἰ
      μὴ εἶς ὁ Θεός.—Ibid. p. 346a (= p. 672b).

  583 Τί με ἐρωτᾷς περὶ τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ? οὐδεὶς ἀγαθός, εἰ μὴ εἶς ὁ Θεός.—p.
      1028.

_  584 Magister, quid boni faciam, ut habeam vitam aeternam_. _Cui
      Dominus, Quid me vocas bonum_ (703):—_Unus enim bonus est, ait_
      Dominus (489). But elsewhere, _Magister bone, quid boni faciam_
      (994c).

_  585 Magister bone, quid boni faciam ut habeam vitam aeternam? Qui dicit
      ei, Quid me interrogas de bono? Unus est bonus Deus?_ .—vii. 147-8.

  586 For “_bone_,” see above, note 12, p. 266: for “_nemo_,” &c, see note
      12, p. 263.

  587 1 Sam. xiv. 20.

  588 p. 299.

  589 Epiphanius [i. 339d], and Hippolytus [Phil. 254], shew that Marcion
      so read Luke xviii. 19.—Epiphanius [i. 742 b] quotes Arius. See the
      words above, in notes 3, 4, p. 260.

  590 Six Lectures on the Text (1875),—p. 130.

  591 Plain Introduction (ed. 4), II. p. 329.

  592 Matt. xix. 20 = Mark x. 20 = Luke xviii. 21.

  593 iii. 669 cd.

  594 Πρόσχες οὖν εἰ δυνάμεθα πρὸς τὴν προκειμένην ζήτησιν ... οὕτως
      ἀπαντῆσαι, ὅτι μήποτε τό; ἀγαπήσεις τὸν πλουσίον σου ὡς ἑαυτόν.
      ὑπονοεῖσθαι δυναται, ὡς οὐχ ὑπὸ τοῦ Σωτῆρος ἐνταῦθα παρειλῆφθαι,
      ἀλλ᾽ ὑπό τινος τὴν ἀκρίβειαν μὴ νοήσαντος τῶν λεγομένων,
      προστεθεῖσθαι.—iii. 670 a b.

  595 Καὶ εὶ μὲν μὴ καὶ περὶ ἄλλων πολλῶν διαφωνία ἦν πρὸς ἄλληλα τῶν
      ἀντιγράφων ὤστε πάντα τὰ κατὰ Ματθαîον μὴ συνᾴδειν ἀλλήλοις, ὁμοίως
      δὲ καὶ τὰ λοιπὰ εὐαγγέλια, κ.τ.λ.—iii. 671 b.

  596 Νυνὶ δέ δηλονότι πολλὴ γέγονεν ἡ τῶν ἀντιγράφων διαφορά, εἴτε ἀπὸ
      ῥᾳθυμίας τινῶν γραφέων, εἴτε ἀπὸ τόλμης τινῶν μοχθηρᾶς τῆς
      διορθώσεως τῶν γραφομὲνων, εἴτε καὶ ἀπὸ τῶν τὰ ἑαυτοῖς δοκοῦντα ἐν
      τῇ διορθώσει προστιθέντων ἢ ἀφαιρούντων.—iii. 671 c.

  597 See above, pp. 152-4.

  598 W.-Hort, p. 287.

  599 So Cureton renders St. Luke xviii. 19.

  600 “Scriptum est in evangelio quodam quod dicitur secundum Hebraeos,...
      _Dixit ei alter divitum:_ Magister quid boni faciens vivam?”—(Orig.
      Vet. Interp. iii. 670.) I suppose the mention of εἶς προσελθών, in
      ver. 16, suggested this.

  601 The Marcionite Gospel exhibited Μή με λέγετε ἀγαθόν (Hippol. Phil.
      254; Epiph. i. 315 c).—Comp. the Clement. Hom. (_ap._ Galland. ii.
      752 b, 759 a d).

  602 Hammond, quoted approvingly by Scrivener,—I. 328 (cd. 4).

  603 C. R. Gregory’s Prolegomena, p. 7.

  604 Printed Text, pp. 133-8.

  605 Introduction (1883),—pp. 573-6. [Also Vol. II. (1894), pp. 327-9. I
      did not as Editor think myself entitled to alter Dr. Scrivener’s
      expressed opinion. E. M.]

  606 It is right to state that Tischendorf thought differently. “Videtur
      illud huic quidem loco parum apte illatum.” He can only bring
      himself to admit that the text had been “jam Irenaei tempore nobili
      additamento auctum.” He insists that it is absurd, as well as at
      variance with the entire history of the sacred text, to suppose that
      the title “SON OF GOD” has here been removed by unscrupulous
      Unbelief, rather than thrust in by officious Piety.

  607 v. 10; vii. 17; and in the Vulgate. Twice however (viz. i. 311 and
      vi. 969) Jerome _omits_ the clause.

  608 In Joan. iv. 15, 16.—See also contra Cels. i. 389 d e f, where
      Origen says the same thing more briefly. The other places are iv.
      125 and 464.

  609 Οὔτε ἐπιστήμην τοῦ εὐαγγελίου ἔχουσι, τὴν τῶν εὐαγγελίων ἀρχὴν μὴ
      παραλαβόντες; ἀρχὴ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ. καθὼς γέγραπται ἐν
      Ἠσαΐα τῷ προφήτῃ. _adv._ Manichaeos (_ap._ Galland. v. 61).

_  610 ap._ Galland. v. 329.

  611 i. 250.

_  612 ap._ Galland. iv. 55.

  613 p. 42.

  614 A.D. 400. De Sigill. _ap._ Chrys. xii. 412:—ὁ μακάριος Μάρκος,
      καθεὶς ἑαυτὸν εἶς τὸ εὐαγγέλιον, καὶ θαρσήσας τοῖς
      προγεγυμνασμένοις, λέγει μὲν “υἱὸν Θεοῦ,” ἀλλ᾽ εὐθέως συνέστειλε τὸν
      λόγον, καὶ ἐκολόβωσε τὴν ἔννοιαν, ἵνα μαλάξῃ τὸν ἀκροατήν. ἐπάγει
      οὖν εὐθέως τὰ κατὰ τὸν Βαπτιστήν, λέγων, “ἀρχὴ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου Ἰησοῦ
      Χριστοῦ, καθὼς γέγραπται ἐν Ἠσαίᾳ τῷ προφήτῃ ἰδου” κ.τ.λ. ἔδειξε τὴν
      λαμπάδα τῆς ἀληθείας, καὶ εὐθέας ἀπέκρυψε.

  615 i. 427:—ἀρχὴ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου ... ὡς γέγραπται ἐν Ἠσαΐᾳ τῷ προφήτῃ ...
      φωνὴ βοῶντος ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ.

  616 i. 506 (lib. iii. cap. xvi).

  617 i. 461 (lib. iii. cap. x).

  618 Midway between the two places cited above, Irenaeus shews how the
      four Gospels may be severally identified with the four living
      creatures described in the Apocalypse. He sees the lion in St. John,
      who says: “_In the beginning was the Word: and ... all things were
      made by him: and without him was not anything made:_” the flying
      eagle in St. Mark, because he begins his gospel with an appeal to
      “the prophetic spirit which comes down upon men from on high;
      saying, ‘_The beginning of the Gospel ... as it is written in the
      prophets._’ Hence the Evangelists’ concise and elliptical manner,
      which is a characteristic of prophecy” (lib. iii. cap. xi. § 8, p.
      470). Such quotations as these (18 words being omitted in one case,
      5 in the other) do not help us. I derive the above notice from the
      scholium in Evan. 238 (Matthaei’s e,—N. T. ii. 21); Curzon’s “73.
      8.”

      The lost Greek of the passage in Irenaeus was first supplied by
      Grabe from a MS. of the Quaestiones of Anastasius Sinaita, in the
      Bodleian (Barocc. 206, fol. πβ). It is the solution of the 144th
      Quaestio. But it is to be found in many other places besides. In
      Evan. 238, by the way, twelve more of the lost words of Irenaeus are
      found: viz. Οὔτε πλείονα τὸν ἀριθμόν, οὔτε ἀλάττονα ἀνδέχεται εἶναι
      τὰ εὐαγγέλια; ἐπεὶ γὰρ ... Germanus also (A.D. 715, ap. Gall. xiii.
      215) quoting the place, confirms the reading ἐν τοῖς
      προφήταις,—which must obviously have stood in the original.

  619 Note, that he actually reads “The beginning of the Gospel of the Son
      of God,”—omitting the words “JESUS CHRIST”: not, of course, as
      disallowing them, but in order the more effectually to emphasize the
      Divine Sonship of MESSIAH.

  620 Ἐγώ φησι (_sc._ ὁ Μάρκος) τὴν ἀρχὴν τοῦ Εὐαγγελίου ἀπὸ Ἰωάννου
      ποιήσομαι; Εὐαγγελίου δὲ τοῦ υἱοῦ Θεοῦ, οὕτω γὰρ ἐν τοῖς προφήταις
      γέγραπται, ὅτι υἱός ἐστι Θεοῦ.... δύνασαι δὲ τό, ὡς γέγραπται ἐν
      τοῖς προφήταις, συνάψαι τῷ, ἰδοὺ ἐγὼ ἀποστέλλω τὸν ἄγγελόν μου; ἵνα
      τὴν ἀρχὴν ποιήσομαι τοῦ Εὐαγγελίου τοῦ υἱοῦ Θεοῦ τὸ τοῖς προφήταις
      περὶ Ἰωάννου εἰρημένον. This is the first scholium in the Catena as
      edited by Possinus,—p. 6. What follows is a well-known scholium of
      the same Catena, (the first in Cramer’s ed.), which C. F. Matthaei
      (N. T. ii. 20) prints from six of his MSS.:—Ἰωάννην οὖν τὸν
      τελευταῖον τῶν προφητῶν ἀρχὴν εἶναι τοῦ Εὐαγγελίου φησὶν ὁ Μάρκος,
      ἐπιφέρων “ὡς γέγραπται ἐν τοῖς προφήταις; Ἰδοὺ κ.τ.λ.”

_  621 Ap._ Hieron. vii. 17.

  622 vi. 330 _diserte_.

  623 ii. 413.

  624 A.D. 890. De objectionibus Manichaeorum, _ap._ Galland. xiii. 667.

  625 i. 1529 d.

  626 Cons. 39.

  627 E2 of the Acts and Cath. Epp. (Laudianus) in the Bodleian Library at
      Oxford, of the sixth century.

  628 This observation is due to Dr. Salmon; see the Note appended to
      Lecture IX of his Historical Introduction to the New Testament (5th
      edition, p. 147).

  629 This fact was first pointed out by Dr. Gwynn in a memorandum
      communicated by him to Dr. Scrivener, who inserted it in his Plain
      Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament (3rd edition, p.
      xii; cp. 4th edition, vol. I, p. 94), and I am indebted to the same
      source for this admirable amplification of part of that memorandum.

  630 A sufficient facsimile of the page in question (29 _r__o_) is given
      by Dean Burgon in his Last Twelve Verses, reproduced from a
      photograph.

  631 On the contrary, in Tatian’s Diatessaron γυναικί is left out and
      μεμνηστευμένη is translated. For the Curetonian, see above, p. 295.