THECAUSES OF THE CORRUPTIONOF THETRADITIONAL TEXTOF THEHOLY GOSPELS

BEING THE SEQUEL TO_THE TRADITIONAL TEXT OF THE HOLY GOSPELS_

BY THE LATE

JOHN WILLIAM BURGON, B. D. 

DEAN OF CHICHESTER

ARRANGED, COMPLETED, AND EDITEDBY

EDWARD MILLER, M. A. 

WYKEHAMICAL PREBENDARY OF CHICHESTER

LONDONGEORGE BELL AND SONS

CAMBRIDGE: DEIGHTON, BELL AND CO. 

1896. 

'Tenet ecclesia nostra, tenuitque semper firmam illam et immotamTertulliani regulam "Id verius quod prius, id prius quod ab initio. " Quopropius ad veritatis fontem accedimus, eo purior decurrit Catholicaedoctrinae rivus. '

Cave's _Proleg. _ p. Xliv. 

'Interrogate de semitis antiquis quae sit via bona, et ambulate inea. '--Jerem. Vi. 16. 

'In summa, si constat id verius quod prius, id prius quod ab initio, idab initio quod ab Apostolis; pariter utique constabit, id esse abApostolis traditum, quod apud Ecclesias Apostolorum fueritsacrosanctum. '--Tertull. _adv. Marc. _ l. Iv. C. 5. 

PREFACE

The reception given by the learned world to the First Volume of thiswork, as expressed hitherto in smaller reviews and notices, has on thewhole been decidedly far from discouraging. All have had some word ofencomium on our efforts. Many have accorded praise and signified theiragreement, sometimes with unquestionable ability. Some have pronouncedadverse opinions with considerable candour and courtesy. Others inopposing have employed arguments so weak and even irrelevant to the realquestion at issue, as to suggest that there is not after all so much asI anticipated to advance against our case. Longer examinations of thisimportant matter are doubtless impending, with all the interestattaching to them and the judgements involved: but I beg now to offer myacknowledgements for all the words of encouragement that have beenuttered. 

Something however must be said in reply to an attack made in the_Guardian_ newspaper on May 20, because it represents in the main theposition occupied by some members of an existing School. I do not lingerover an offhand stricture upon my 'adhesion to the extravagant claim ofa second-century origin for the Peshitto, ' because I am content with thecompanionship of some of the very first Syriac scholars, and with theteaching given in an unanswered article in the _Church Quarterly Review_for April, 1895. Nor except in passing do I remark upon a fancifulcensure of my account of the use of papyrus in MSS. Before the tenthcentury--as to which the reviewer is evidently not versed in informationrecently collected, and described for example in Sir E. MaundeThompson's Greek and Latin Palaeography, or in Mr. F. G. Kenyon's OurBible and the Ancient Manuscripts, and in an article in the justmentioned Review which appeared in October, 1894. These observations anda large number of inaccuracies shew that he was at the least not postedup to date. But what will be thought, when attention is drawn to thefact that in a question whether a singular set of quotations from theearly Fathers refer to a passage in St. Matthew or the parallel one inSt. Luke, the peculiar characteristic of St. Matthew--'them thatpersecute you'--is put out of sight, and both passages (taking thelengthened reading of St. Matthew) are represented as having equallyonly four clauses? And again, when quotations going on to the succeedingverse in St. Matthew (v. 45) are stated dogmatically to have beenwrongly referred by me to that Evangelist? But as to the details of thispoint in dispute, I beg to refer our readers to pp. 144-153 of thepresent volume. The reviewer appears also to be entirely unacquaintedwith the history of the phrase [Greek: monogenês Theos] in St. John i. 18, which, as may be read on pp. 215-218, was introduced by heretics andharmonized with Arian tenets, and was rejected on the other side. Thatsome orthodox churchmen fell into the trap, and like those who in thesedays are not aware of the pedigree and use of the phrase, employed iteven for good purposes, is only an instance of a strange phenomenon. Wemust not be led only by first impressions as to what is to be taken forthe genuine words of the Gospels. Even if phrases or passages make fororthodoxy, to accept them if condemned by evidence and history is toalight upon the quicksands of conjecture. 

A curious instance of a fate like this has been supplied by a critic inthe _Athenaeum_, who, when contrasting Dean Burgon's style of writingwith mine to my discredit, quotes a passage of some length as the Dean'swhich was really written by me. Surely the principle upheld by ouropponents, that much more importance than we allow should be attributedto the 'Internal evidence of Readings and Documents, ' might have savedhim from error upon a piece of composition which characteristicallyproclaimed its own origin. At all events, after this undesigned support, I am the less inclined to retire from our vantage ground. 

But it is gratifying on all accounts to say now, that suchinterpolations as in the companion volume I was obliged frequently tosupply in order to fill up gaps in the several MSS. And in integralportions of the treatise, which through their very frequency would havethere made square brackets unpleasant to our readers, are not requiredso often in this part of the work. Accordingly, except in instances ofpure editing or in simple bringing up to date, my own additions orinsertions have been so marked off. It will doubtless afford greatsatisfaction to others as well as the admirers of the Dean to know whatwas really his own writing: and though some of the MSS. , especiallytowards the end of the volume, were not left as he would have preparedthem for the press if his life had been prolonged, yet much of the bookwill afford, on what he regarded as the chief study of his life, excellent examples of his style, so vigorously fresh and so happy inidiomatic and lucid expression. 

But the Introduction, and Appendix II on 'Conflation' and the 'NeutralText, ' have been necessarily contributed by me. I am anxious to inviteattention particularly to the latter essay, because it has been composedupon request, and also because--unless it contains some extraordinarymistake--it exhibits to a degree which has amazed me the baselessness ofDr. Hort's theory. 

The manner in which the Dean prepared piecemeal for his book, and thelarge number of fragments in which he left his materials, as has beendetailed in the Preface to the former volume, have necessarily producedan amount of repetition which I deplore. To have avoided it entirely, some of the MSS. Must have been rewritten. But in one instance Idiscovered when it was too late that after searching for, and findingwith difficulty and treating, an example which had not been supplied, Ihad forestalled a subsequent examination of the same passage from hisabler hand. However I hope that in nearly all, if not all cases, eachtreatment involves some new contribution to the question discussed; andthat our readers will kindly make allowance for the perplexity whichsuch an assemblage of separate papers could not but entail. 

My thanks are again due to the Rev. G. H. Gwilliam, B. D. , Fellow ofHertford College, for much advice and suggestion, which he is so capableof giving, and for his valuable care in looking through all the firstproofs of this volume; to 'M. W. , ' Dean Burgon's indefatigablesecretary, who in a pure labour of love copied out the text of the MSS. Before and after his death; also to the zealous printers at theClarendon Press, for help in unravelling intricacies still remaining inthem. 

This treatise is now commended to the fair and candid consideration ofreaders and reviewers. The latter body of men should remember that therewas perhaps never a time when reviewers were themselves reviewed by manyintelligent readers more than they are at present. I cannot hope thatall that we have advanced will be finally adopted, though my opinion isunfaltering as resting in my belief upon the Rock; still less do Iimagine that errors may not be discovered in our work. But I trust thatunder Divine Blessing some not unimportant contribution has been madetowards the establishment upon sound principles of the reverentcriticism of the Text of the New Testament. And I am sure that, as tothe Dean's part in it, this trust will be ultimately justified. 

EDWARD MILLER. 

9 Bradmore Road, Oxford:

_Sept. _ 2, 1896. 

CONTENTS. 

INTRODUCTION. 

The Traditional Text--established by evidence--especially before St. Chrysostom--corruption--early rise of it--Galilee of theGentiles--Syrio-Low-Latin source--various causes and forms ofcorruption. Pp. 1-9

CHAPTER I. 

General Corruption. 

§ 1. Modern re-editing--difference between the New Testament and otherbooks--immense number of copies--ordinary causes of error--Doctrinalcauses. § 2. Elimination of weakly attested readings--nature of inquiry. § 3. Smaller blemishes in MSS. Unimportant except when constant. § 4. Most mistakes arose from inadvertency: many from unfortunate design. Pp. 10-23

CHAPTER II. 

Accidental Causes of Corruption. I. Pure Accident. 

§ 1. St. John x. 29. § 2. Smaller instances, and Acts xx. 24. § 3. St. Luke ii. 14. § 4. St. Mark xv. 6; vii. 4; vi. 22. § 5. St. Mark viii. 1;vii. 14--St. John xiii. 37. Pp. 24-35

CHAPTER III. 

Accidental Causes of Corruption. II. Homoeoteleuton. 

St. Luke ii. 15--St. John vi. 11; vi. 55--St. Matt. Xxiii. 14; xix. 9--St. Luke xvi. 21. Pp. 36-41

CHAPTER IV. 

Accidental Causes of Corruption. III. From Writing in Uncials. 

§ 1. St. John iv. 35-36. § 2. St. Luke xv. 17--St. John v. 44. § 3. Actsxxvii. 14--St. John iv. 15--St. Luke xvii. 37--St. Matt. Xxii. 23--andother passages. § 4. St. John v. 4--St. Luke xxiii. 11--St. Matt. Iv. 23. § 5. 2 St. Peter i. 31--Heb. Vii. 1. § 6. St. Matt. Xxvii. 17. Pp. 42-55

CHAPTER V. 

Accidental Causes of Corruption. IV. Itacism. 

§ 1. Various passages--St. John xii. 1, 2; 41. § 2. Rev. I. 5--Otherpassages--St. Mark vii. 19. § 3. St. Mark iv. 8. § 4. Titus ii. 5. Pp. 56-66

CHAPTER VI. 

Accidental Causes of Corruption. V. Liturgical Influence. 

§ 1. Lectionaries of the Church--Liturgical influence--Antiquity of theLectionary System. § 2. St. John xiv. 1--Acts iii. 1--Last Twelve Versesof St. Mark. § 3. St. Luke vii. 31; ix. 1--Other passages. § 4. St. Markxv. 28. § 5. Acts iii. 1--St. Matt. Xiii. 44; xvii. 23. § 6. St. Mattvi. 13 (doxology in the Lord's Prayer). Pp. 67-88

CHAPTER VII. 

Causes of Corruption Chiefly Intentional. I. Harmonistic Influence. 

§ 1. St. Mark xvi. 9. § 2. St. Luke xxiv. 1--other examples. § 3. Chiefly intentional--Diatessarons--St. Matt. Xvii. 25, 26--Harmonizednarratives--Other examples. Pp. 89-99

CHAPTER VIII. 

Causes of Corruption Chiefly Intentional. II. Assimilation. 

§ 1. Transfer from one Gospel to another. § 2. Not entirelyintentional--Various passages. § 3. St. John xvi. 16. § 4. St. Johnxiii. 21-25. § 5. St. Mark i. 1, 2--Other examples--St. Matt. Xii. 10(St. Luke xiv. 3)--and others. § 6. St. Mark vi. 11. § 7. St. Mark xiv. 70. Pp. 100-122

CHAPTER IX. 

Causes of Corruption Chiefly Intentional. III. Attraction. 

§ 1. St. John vi. 71 and xiii. 26. § 2. Acts xx. 24--2 Cor. Iii. 3. Pp. 123-127

CHAPTER X. 

Causes of Corruption Chiefly Intentional. IV. Omission. 

§ 1. Omissions a class of their own--Exemplified from the Last TwelveVerses of St. Mark--Omission the besetting fault of transcribers. § 2. The _onus probandi_ rests upon omitters. § 3. St Luke vi. 1; and otheromissions. § 4. St. Matt. Xxi. 44. § 5. St. Matt. Xv. 8. § 6. St. Matt. V. 44--Reply to the Reviewer in the _Guardian_. § 7. Shorter Omissions. Pp. 128-156

CHAPTER XI. 

Causes of Corruption Chiefly Intentional. V. Transposition. 

§ 1. St. Mark i. 5; ii. 3--Other instances. § 2. St. Luke xiii. 9; xxiv. 7. § 3. Other examples--St. John v. 27--Transpositions often petty, butfrequent. 

VI. Substitution. 

§ 4. If taken with Modifications, a large class--Various instances. Pp. 164-165

VII. Addition. 

§ 5. The smallest of the four--St. Luke vi. 4--St. Matt. Xx. 28. § 6. St. Matt. Viii. 13; xxiv. 36--St. Mark iii. 16--Other examples. Pp. 166-171

CHAPTER XII. 

Causes of Corruption Chiefly Intentional. VIII. Glosses. 

§ 1. Not so numerous as has been supposed--St. Matt. Xiii. 36--St. Markvii. 3. § 2. St. Luke ix. 23. § 3. St. John vi. 15; xiii. 24; xx. 18--St. Matt. Xxiv. 31. § 4. St. John xviii. 14--St. Mark vi. 11. § 5. St. Mark xiv. 41--St. John ix. 22. § 6. St. John xii. 7. § 7. St. Johnxvii. 4. § 8. St. Luke i. 66. § 9. St. Luke v. 7--Acts xx. 4. Pp. 172-190

CHAPTER XIII. 

Causes of Corruption Chiefly Intentional. IX. Corruption by Heretics. 

§ 1. This class very evident--Began in the earliest times--Appeal towhat is earlier still--Condemned in all ages and countries. § 2. Theearliest depravers of the Text--Tatian's Diatessaron. § 3. Gnostics--St. John i. 3-4. § 4. St. John x. 14, 15. § 5. Doctrinal--Matrimony--St. Matt i. 19. Pp. 191-210

CHAPTER XIV. 

Causes of Corruption Chiefly Intentional. X. Corruption by the Orthodox. 

§ 1. St. Luke xix. 41; ii. 40. § 2. St. John viii. 40; and i. 18. § 3. 1Cor. Xv. 47. § 4. St. John iii. 13. § 5. St. Luke ix. 54-56. Pp. 211-231

APPENDIX I. 

Pericope de Adultera. Pp. 233-265

APPENDIX II. 

Dr. Hort's Theory of Conflation and theNeutral Text. Pp. 266-286

Index of Subjects. Pp. 287-288

Index of Passages of the New Testament Discussed. Pp. 289-290

THE CAUSES OF THECORRUPTION OF THE TRADITIONAL TEXTOF THE HOLY GOSPELS. 

INTRODUCTION. 

In the companion volume to this, the Traditional Text, that is, the Textof the Gospels which is the resultant of all the evidence faithfully andexhaustively presented and estimated according to the best procedure ofthe courts of law, has been traced back to the earliest ages in theexistence of those sacred writings. We have shewn, that on the one hand, amidst the unprecedented advantages afforded by modern conditions oflife for collecting all the evidence bearing upon the subject, theTraditional Text must be found, not in a mere transcript, but in alaborious revision of the Received Text; and that on the other hand itmust, as far as we can judge, differ but slightly from the Text nowgenerally in vogue, which has been generally received during the lasttwo and a half centuries. 

The strength of the position of the Traditional Text lies in its beinglogically deducible and to be deduced from all the varied evidence whichthe case supplies, when it has been sifted, proved, passed, weighed, compared, compounded, and contrasted with dissentient testimony. Thecontrast is indeed great in almost all instances upon which controversyhas gathered. On one side the vast mass of authorities is assembled: onthe other stands a small group. Not inconsiderable is the advantagepossessed by that group, as regards numerous students who do not lookbeneath the surface, in the general witness in their favour borne by thetwo oldest MSS. Of the Gospels in existence. That advantage howevershrinks into nothing under the light of rigid examination. The claim forthe Text in them made at the Semiarian period was rejected whenSemiarianism in all its phases fell into permanent disfavour. And theargument advanced by Dr. Hort that the Traditional Text was a new Textformed by successive recensions has been refuted upon examination of theverdict of the Fathers in the first four centuries, and of the earlySyriac and Latin Versions. Besides all this, those two manuscripts havebeen traced to a local source in the library of Caesarea. And on theother hand a Catholic origin of the Traditional Text found on latervellum manuscripts has been discovered in the manuscripts of papyruswhich existed all over the Roman Empire, unless it was in Asia, and wereto some degree in use even as late as the ninth century; before andduring the employment of vellum in the Caesarean school, and inlocalities where it was used in imitation of the mode of writing bookswhich was brought well-nigh to perfection in that city. 

It is evident that the turning-point of the controversy betweenourselves and the Neologian school must lie in the centuries before St. Chrysostom. If, as Dr. Hort maintains, the Traditional Text not onlygained supremacy at that era but did not exist in the early ages, thenour contention is vain. That Text can be Traditional only if it goesback without break or intermission to the original autographs, becauseif through break or intermission it ceased or failed to exist, it losesthe essential feature of genuine tradition. On the other hand, if it isproved to reach back in unbroken line to the time of the Evangelists, orto a period as near to them as surviving testimony can prove, then Dr. Hort's theory of a 'Syrian' text formed by recension or otherwise justas evidently falls to the ground. Following mainly upon the lines drawnby Dean Burgon, though in a divergence of my own devising, I claim tohave proved Dr. Hort to have been conspicuously wrong, and ourmaintenance of the Traditional Text in unbroken succession to beeminently right. The school opposed to us must disprove our arguments, not by discrediting the testimony of the Fathers to whom all TextualCritics have appealed including Dr. Hort, but by demonstrating if theycan that the Traditional Text is not recognized by them, or they mustyield eventually to us[1]. 

In this volume, the other half of the subject will be discussed. Insteadof exploring the genuine Text, we shall treat of the corruptions of it, and shall track error in its ten thousand forms to a few sources orheads. The origination of the pure Text in the inspired writings of theEvangelists will thus be vindicated anew by the evident paternity ofdeflections from it discoverable in the natural defects or iniquities ofmen. Corruption will the more shew itself in true colours:--

 Quinquaginta atris immanis hiatibus hydra[2]:

and it will not so readily be mistaken for genuineness, when the realhistory is unfolded, and the mistakes are accounted for. It seems clearthat corruption arose in the very earliest age. As soon as the Gospelwas preached, the incapacity of human nature for preserving accuracyuntil long years of intimate acquaintance have bred familiarity musthave asserted itself in constant distortion more or less of the sacredstories, as they were told and retold amongst Christians one to anotherwhether in writing or in oral transmission. Mistakes would inevitablyarise from the universal tendency to mix error with truth which Virgilhas so powerfully depicted in his description of 'Fame':--

 Tam ficti pravique tenax, quam nuntia veri[3]. 

And as soon as inaccuracy had done its baleful work, a spirit ofinfidelity and of hostility either to the essentials or the details ofthe new religion must have impelled such as were either imperfectChristians, or no Christians at all, to corrupt the sacred stories. 

Thus it appears that errors crept in at the very first commencement ofthe life of the Church. This is a matter so interesting and so importantin the history of corruption, that I must venture to place it againbefore our readers. 

Why was Galilee chosen before Judea and Jerusalem as the chief scene ofour Lord's Life and Ministry, at least as regards the time spent there?Partly, no doubt, because the Galileans were more likely than the otherinhabitants of Palestine to receive Him. But there was as I venture tothink also another very special reason. 

'Galilee of the nations' or 'the Gentiles, ' not only had a mixedpopulation[4] and a provincial dialect[5], but lay contiguous to therest of Palestine on the one side, and on others to two districts inwhich Greek was largely spoken, namely, Decapolis and the parts of Tyreand Sidon, and also to the large country of Syria. Our Lord laidfoundations for a natural growth in these parts of the Christianreligion after His death almost independent as it seems of the centre ofthe Church at Jerusalem. Hence His crossings of the lake, His miracleson the other side, His retirement in that little understood episode inHis life when He shrank from persecution[6], and remained secretly inthe parts of Tyre and Sidon, about the coasts of Decapolis, on theshores of the lake, and in the towns of Caesarea Philippi, where thetraces of His footsteps are even now indicated by tradition[7]. Hissuccess amongst these outlying populations is proved by the uniqueassemblage of the crowds of 5000 and 4000 men besides women andchildren. What wonder then if the Church sprang up at Damascus, andsuddenly as if without notice displayed such strength as to drawpersecution upon it! In the same way the Words of life appear to havepassed throughout Syria over congenial soil, and Antioch became thehaven whence the first great missionaries went out for the conversion ofthe world. Such were not only St. Paul, St. Peter, and St. Barnabas, butalso as is not unreasonable to infer many of that assemblage ofChristians at Rome whom St. Paul enumerates to our surprise in the lastchapter of his Epistle to the Romans. Many no doubt were friends whomthe Apostle of the Gentiles had met in Greece and elsewhere: but thereare reasons to shew that some at least of them, such as Andronicus andJunias or Junia[8] and Herodion, may probably have passed along thestream of commerce that flowed between Antioch and Rome[9], and thatthis interconnexion between the queen city of the empire and theemporium of the East may in great measure account for the number ofnames well known to the apostle, and for the then flourishing conditionof the Church which they adorned. 

It has been shewn in our first volume that, as is well known to allstudents of Textual Criticism, the chief amount of corruption is to befound in what is termed the Western Text; and that the corruption of theWest is so closely akin to the corruption which is found in Syriacremains, that practically they are included under one head ofclassification. What is the reason of this phenomenon? It is evidentlyderived from the close commercial alliance which subsisted between Syriaand Italy. That is to say, the corruption produced in Syria made its wayover into Italy, and there in many instances gathered freshcontributions. For there is reason to suppose, that it first arose inSyria. 

We have seen how the Church grew of itself there without regularteaching from Jerusalem in the first beginnings, or any regularsupervision exercised by the Apostles. In fact, as far as the Syrianbelievers in Christ at first consisted of Gentiles, they must perforcehave been regarded as being outside of the covenant of promise. Yetthere must have been many who revered the stories told about our Lord, and felt extreme interest and delight in them. The story of King Abgarillustrates the history: but amongst those who actually heard our Lordpreach there must have been very many, probably a majority, who wereuneducated. They would easily learn from the Jews, because the Aramaicdialects spoken by Hebrews and Syrians did not greatly differ the onefrom the other. What difference there was, would not so much hinder thespread of the stories, as tend to introduce alien forms of speech andsynonymous words, and so to hinder absolute accuracy from beingmaintained. Much time must necessarily have elapsed, before suchfamiliarity with the genuine accounts of our Lord's sayings and doingsgrew up, as would prevent mistakes being made and disseminated intelling or in writing. 

The Gospels were certainly not written till some thirty years after theAscension. More careful examination seems to place them later ratherthan earlier. For myself, I should suggest that the three first were notpublished long before the year 70 A. D. At the earliest; and that St. Matthew's Gospel was written at Pella during the siege of Jerusalemamidst Greek surroundings, and in face of the necessity caused by newconditions of life that Greek should become the ecclesiastical language. The Gospels would thus be the authorized versions in their entirety ofthe stories constituting the Life of our Lord; and corruption must havecome into existence, before the antidote was found in complete documentsaccepted and commissioned by the authorities in the Church. 

I must again remark with much emphasis that the foregoing suggestionsare offered to account for what may now be regarded as a fact, viz. , theconnexion between the Western Text, as it is called, and Syriac remainsin regard to corruption in the text of the Gospels and of the Acts ofthe Apostles. If that corruption arose at the very first spread ofChristianity, before the record of our Lord's Life had assumed permanentshape in the Four Gospels, all is easy. Such corruption, inasmuch as itbeset the oral and written stories which were afterwards incorporated inthe Gospels, would creep into the authorized narrations, and wouldvitiate them till it was ultimately cast out towards the end of thefourth and in the succeeding centuries. Starting from the verybeginning, and gaining additions in the several ways described in thisvolume by Dean Burgon, it would possess such vigour as to impress itselfon Low-Latin manuscripts and even on parts of the better Latin ones, perhaps on Tatian's Diatessaron, on the Curetonian and Lewis manuscriptsof the fifth century, on the Codex Bezae of the sixth; also on theVatican and the Sinaitic of the fourth, on the Dublin Palimpsest of St. Matthew of the sixth, on the Codex Regius or L of the eighth, on the St. Gall MS. Of the ninth in St. Mark, on the Codex Zacynthius of the eighthin St. Luke, and a few others. We on our side admit that the corruptionis old even though the manuscripts enshrining it do not date very farback, and cannot always prove their ancestry. And it is in thisadmission that I venture to think there is an opening for a meeting ofopinions which have been hitherto opposed. 

In the following treatise, the causes of corruption are divided into (I)such as proceeded from Accident, and (II) those which were Intentional. Under the former class we find (1) those which were involved in pureAccident, or (2) in what is termed Homoeoteleuton where lines orsentences ended with the same word or the same syllable, or (3) such asarose in writing from Uncial letters, or (4) in the confusion of vowelsand diphthongs which is called Itacism, or (5) in Liturgical Influence. The remaining instances may be conveniently classed as Intentional, notbecause in all cases there was a settled determination to alter thetext, for such if any was often of the faintest character, but becausesome sort of design was to a greater or less degree embedded in most ofthem. Such causes were (1) Harmonistic Influence, (2) Assimilation, (3)Attraction; such instances too in their main character were (4)Omissions, (5) Transpositions, (6) Substitutions, (7) Additions, (8)Glosses, (9) Corruption by Heretics, (10) Corruption by Orthodox. 

This dissection of the mass of corruption, or as perhaps it may bebetter termed, this classification made by Dean Burgon of the numerouscauses which are found to have been at work from time to time, appearsto me to be most interesting to the inquirer into the hidden history ofthe Text of the Gospels, because by revealing the influences which havebeen at work it sheds light upon the entire controversy, and oftenenables the student to see clearly how and why certain passages aroundwhich dispute has gathered are really corrupt. Indeed, the vast andmysterious ogre called corruption assumes shape and form under the acutepenetration and the deft handling of the Dean, whose great knowledge ofthe subject and orderly treatment of puzzling details is still morecommended by his interesting style of writing. As far as has beenpossible, I have let him in the sequel, except for such clericalcorrections as were required from time to time and have been much fewerthan his facile pen would have made, speak entirely for himself. 

FOOTNOTES:

[1] It must be always borne in mind, that it is not enough for thepurpose of the other side to shew that the Traditional Text was in aminority as regards attestation. They must prove that it was nowhere inthe earliest ages, if they are to establish their position that it wasmade in the third and fourth centuries. Traditional Text of the HolyGospels, p. 95. 

[2] 'A hydra in her direful shape, With fifty darkling throats agape. '--

Altered from Conington's version, Aen. Vi. 576. 

[3] 'How oft soe'er the truth she tell, What's false and wrong she loves too well. '--

Altered from Conington, Aen. Iv. 188. 

[4] Strabo, xvi, enumerates amongst its inhabitants Egyptians, Arabians, and Phoenicians. 

[5] Studia Biblica, i. 50-55. Dr. Neubauer, On the Dialects spoken inPalestine in the time of Christ. 

[6] Isaac Williams, On the Study of the Gospels, 341-352. 

[7] My devoted Syrian friend, Miss Helanie Baroody, told me during herstay in England that a village is pointed out as having been traversedby our Lord on His way from Caesarea Philippi to Mount Hermon. 

[8] It is hardly improbable that these two eminent Christians were someof those whom St Paul found at Antioch when St. Barnabas brought himthere, and thus came to know intimately as fellow-workers ([Greek:episêmoi en tois apostolois, oi kai pro emou gegonasin en Christô]). Most of the names in Rom. Xvi are either Greek or Hebrew. 

[9] 'Jam pridem Syrus in Tiberim defluxit Orontes Et _linguam_ et mores ... Vexit. '

--Juv. Sat. Iii. 62-3. 

CHAPTER I. 

GENERAL CORRUPTION. 

§ 1. 

We hear sometimes scholars complain, and with a certain show of reason, that it is discreditable to us as a Church not to have long since putforth by authority a revised Greek Text of the New Testament. The chiefwriters of antiquity, say they, have been of late years re-edited by theaid of the best Manuscripts. Why should not the Scriptures enjoy thesame advantage? Men who so speak evidently misunderstand the question. They assume that the case of the Scriptures and that of other ancientwritings are similar. 

Such remonstrances are commonly followed up by statements like thefollowing:--That the received Text is that of Erasmus:--that it wasconstructed in haste, and without skill:--that it is based on a veryfew, and those bad Manuscripts:--that it belongs to an age when scarcelyany of our present critical helps were available, and when the Scienceof Textual Criticism was unknown. To listen to these advocates forRevision, you would almost suppose that it fared with the Gospel at thisinstant as it had fared with the original Copy of the Law for many yearsuntil the days of King Josiah[10]. 

Yielding to no one in my desire to see the Greek of the New Testamentjudiciously revised, I freely avow that recent events have convinced me, and I suppose they have convinced the public also, that we have notamong us the men to conduct such an undertaking. Better a thousand timesin my judgement to leave things as they are, than to risk having thestamp of authority set upon such an unfortunate production as that whichappeared on the 17th May, 1881, and which claims at this instant torepresent the combined learning of the Church, the chief Sects, and theSocinian[11] body. 

Now if the meaning of those who desire to see the commonly received textof the New Testament made absolutely faultless, were something of thiskind:--That they are impatient for the collation of the copies whichhave become known to us within the last two centuries, and which amountalready in all to upwards of three thousand: that they are bent onprocuring that the ancient Versions shall be re-edited;--and would hailwith delight the announcement that a band of scholars had combined toindex every place of Scripture quoted by any of the Fathers:--if thiswere meant, we should all be entirely at one; especially if we couldfurther gather from the programme that a fixed intention was cherishedof abiding by the result of such an appeal to ancient evidence. Butunfortunately something entirely different is in contemplation. 

Now I am bent on calling attention to certain features of the problemwhich have very generally escaped attention. It does not seem to beunderstood that the Scriptures of the New Testament stand on an entirelydifferent footing from every other ancient writing which can be named. Afew plain remarks ought to bring this fact, for a fact it is, home toevery thoughtful person. And the result will be that men will approachthe subject with more caution, --with doubts and misgivings, --with afixed determination to be on their guard against any form of plausibleinfluence. Their prejudices they will scatter to the winds. At everystep they will insist on proof. 

In the first place, then, let it be observed that the New TestamentScriptures are wholly without a parallel in respect of their having beenso frequently multiplied from the very first. They are by consequencecontained at this day in an extravagantly large number of copies[probably, if reckoned under the six classes of Gospels, Acts andCatholic Epistles, Pauline Epistles, Apocalypse, Evangelistaries, andApostolos, exceeding the number of four thousand]. There is nothing likethis, or at all approaching to it, in the case of any profane writingthat can be named[12]. 

And the very necessity for multiplying copies, --a necessity which hasmade itself felt in every age and in every clime, --has perforce resultedin an immense number of variants. Words have been inevitablydropped, --vowels have been inadvertently confounded by copyists more orless competent:--and the meaning of Scripture in countless places hassuffered to a surprising degree in consequence. This first. 

But then further, the Scriptures for the very reason because they wereknown to be the Word of God became a mark for the shafts of Satan fromthe beginning. They were by consequence as eagerly solicited byheretical teachers on the one hand, as they were hotly defended by theorthodox on the other. Alike from friends and from foes therefore, theyare known to have experienced injury, and that in the earliest age ofall. Nothing of the kind can be predicated of any other ancientwritings. This consideration alone should suggest a severe exercise ofjudicial impartiality, in the handling of ancient evidence of whateversort. 

For I request it may be observed that I have not said--and I certainlydo not mean--that the Scriptures themselves have been permanentlycorrupted either by friend or foe. Error was fitful and uncertain, andwas contradicted by other error: besides that it sank eventually beforea manifold witness to the truth. Nevertheless, certain manuscriptsbelonging to a few small groups--particular copies of aVersion--individual Fathers or Doctors of the Church, --these do, to thepresent hour, bear traces incontestably of ancient mischief. 

But what goes before is not nearly all. The fourfold structure of theGospel has lent itself to a certain kind of licentious handling--ofwhich in other ancient writings we have no experience. One criticalowner of a Codex considered himself at liberty to assimilate thenarratives: another to correct them in order to bring them into (whatseemed to himself) greater harmony. Brevity is found to have been aparamount object with some, and Transposition to have amounted to apassion with others. Conjectural Criticism was evidently practisedlargely: and almost with as little felicity as when Bentley held thepen. Lastly, there can be no question that there was a certain school ofCritics who considered themselves competent to improve the style of theHoly Ghost throughout. [And before the members of the Church had gaineda familiar acquaintance with the words of the New Testament, blunderscontinually crept into the text of more or less heinous importance. ] Allthis, which was chiefly done during the second and third centuries, introduces an element of difficulty in the handling of ancient evidencewhich can never be safely neglected: and will make a thoughtful mansuspicious of every various reading which comes in his way, especiallyif it is attended with but slender attestation. [It has been alreadyshewn in the companion volume] that the names of the Codexes chieflyvitiated in this sort prove to be B[Symbol: Aleph]CDL; of theVersions, --the two Coptic, the Curetonian, and certain specimens of theOld Latin; of the Fathers, --Origen, Clement of Alexandria, and to someextent Eusebius. 

Add to all that goes before the peculiar subject-matter of the NewTestament Scriptures, and it will become abundantly plain why theyshould have been liable to a series of assaults which make it reasonablethat they should now at last be approached by ourselves as no otherancient writings are, or can be. The nature of God, --His Being andAttributes:--the history of Man's Redemption:--the soul's eternaldestiny:--the mysteries of the unseen world:--concerning these and everyother similar high doctrinal subject, the sacred writings alone speakwith a voice of absolute authority. And surely by this time enough hasbeen said to explain why these Scriptures should have been made abattle-field during some centuries, and especially in the fourth; andhaving thus been made the subject of strenuous contention, that copiesof them should exhibit to this hour traces of those many adverseinfluences. I say it for the last time, --of all such causes ofdepravation the Greek Poets, Tragedians, Philosophers, Historians, neither knew nor could know anything. And it thus plainly appears thatthe Textual Criticism of the New Testament is to be handled by ourselvesin an entirely different spirit from that of any other book. 

§ 2. 

I wish now to investigate the causes of the corruption of the Text ofthe New Testament. I do not entitle the present a discussion of 'VariousReadings, ' because I consider that expression to be incorrect andmisleading[13]. Freely allowing that the term 'variae lectiones, ' forlack of a better, may be allowed to stand on the Critic's page, I yetthink it necessary even a second time to call attention to theimpropriety which attends its use. Thus Codex B differs from thecommonly received Text of Scripture in the Gospels alone in 7578 places;of which no less than 2877 are instances of omission. In fact omissionsconstitute by far the larger number of what are commonly called 'VariousReadings. ' How then can those be called 'various readings' which arereally not readings at all? How, for example, can that be said to be a'various reading' of St. Mark xvi. 9-20, which consists in thecircumstance that the last 12 verses are left out by two MSS. ?Again, --How can it be called a 'various reading' of St. John xxi. 25, tobring the Gospel abruptly to a close, as Tischendorf does, at v. 24?These are really nothing else but indications either of a mutilated orelse an interpolated text. And the question to be resolved is, --On whichside does the corruption lie? and, How did it originate?

Waiving this however, the term is objectionable on other grounds. It isto beg the whole question to assume that every irregularity in the textof Scripture is a 'various reading. ' The very expression carries with itan assertion of importance; at least it implies a claim toconsideration. Even might it be thought that, because it is termed a'various reading, ' therefore a critic is entitled to call in questionthe commonly received text. Whereas, nine divergences out of ten are ofno manner of significance and are entitled to no manner ofconsideration, as every one must see at a glance who will attend to thematter ever so little. 'Various readings' in fact is a term whichbelongs of right to the criticism of the text of profane authors: and, like many other notions which have been imported from the same regioninto this department of inquiry, it only tends to confuse and perplexthe judgement. 

No variety in the Text of Scripture can properly be called a 'variousreading, ' of which it may be safely declared that it never has been, andnever will be, read. In the case of profane authors, where the MSS. Arefor the most part exceedingly few, almost every plausible substitutionof one word for another, if really entitled to alteration, is lookedupon as a various reading of the text. But in the Gospels, of which thecopies are so numerous as has been said, the case is far otherwise. Weare there able to convince ourselves in a moment that the supposed'various reading' is nothing else but an instance of licentiousness orinattention on the part of a previous scribe or scribes, and we canafford to neglect it accordingly[14]. It follows therefore, --and this isthe point to which I desire to bring the reader and to urge upon hisconsideration, --that the number of 'various readings' in the NewTestament properly so called has been greatly exaggerated. They are, inreality, exceedingly few in number; and it is to be expected that, assound (sacred) Criticism advances, and principles are established, andconclusions recognized, instead of becoming multiplied they will becomefewer and fewer, and at last will entirely disappear. We cannot affordto go on disputing for ever; and what is declared by common consent tobe untenable ought to be no longer reckoned. That only in short, as Iventure to think, deserves the name of a Various Reading which comes tous so respectably recommended as to be entitled to our sincereconsideration and respect; or, better still, which is of such a kind asto inspire some degree of reasonable suspicion that after all it mayprove to be the true way of exhibiting the text. 

The inquiry therefore on which we are about to engage, grows naturallyout of the considerations which have been already offered. We propose toascertain, as far as is practicable at the end of so many hundred years, in what way these many strange corruptions of the text have arisen. Veryoften we shall only have to inquire how it has come to pass that thetext exhibits signs of perturbation at a certain place. Suchdisquisitions as those which follow, let it never be forgotten, have noplace in reviewing any other text than that of the New Testament, because a few plain principles would suffice to solve every difficulty. The less usual word mistaken for the word of more frequentoccurrence;--clerical carelessness;--a gloss finding its way from themargin into the text;--- such explanations as these would probably inother cases suffice to account for every ascertained corruption of thetext. But it is far otherwise here, as I propose to make fully apparentby and by. Various disturbing influences have been at work for a greatmany years, of which secular productions know absolutely nothing, norindeed can know. 

The importance of such an inquiry will become apparent as we proceed;but it may be convenient that I should call attention to the matterbriefly at the outset. It frequently happens that the one remaining pleaof many critics for adopting readings of a certain kind, is theinexplicable nature of the phenomena which these readings exhibit. 'Howwill you possibly account for such a reading as the present, ' (saythey, ) 'if it be not authentic?' Or they say nothing, but leave it to beinferred that the reading they adopt, --in spite of its intrinsicimprobability, in spite also of the slender amount of evidence on whichit rests, --must needs be accepted as true. They lose sight of thecorrelative difficulty:--How comes it to pass that the rest of thecopies read the place otherwise? On all such occasions it is impossibleto overestimate the importance of detecting the particular cause whichhas brought about, or which at least will fully account for, thisdepravation. When this has been done, it is hardly too much to say thata case presents itself like as when a pasteboard mask has been tornaway, and the ghost is discovered with a broad grin on his face behindit. 

The discussion on which I now enter is then on the Causes of the variousCorruptions of the Text. [The reader shall be shewn with illustrationsto what particular source they are to be severally ascribed. Whenrepresentative passages have been thus labelled, and the causes are seenin operation, he will be able to pierce the mystery, and all the betterto winnow the evil from among the good. ]

§ 3. 

When I take into my hands an ancient copy of the Gospels, I expect thatit will exhibit sundry inaccuracies and imperfections: and I am neverdisappointed in my expectation. The discovery however creates nouneasiness, so long as the phenomena evolved are of a certain kind andrange within easily definable limits. Thus:--

1. Whatever belongs to peculiarities of spelling or fashions of writing, I can afford to disregard. For example, it is clearly consistent withperfect good faith, that a scribe should spell [Greek: krabatton][15] inseveral different ways: that he should write [Greek: outô] for [Greek:outôs], or the contrary: that he should add or omit what grammarianscall the [Greek: n ephelkystikon]. The questions really touched byirregularities such as these concern the date and country where the MS. Was produced; not by any means the honesty or animus of the copyist. Theman fell into the method which was natural to him, or which he foundprevailing around him; and that was all. 'Itacisms' therefore, as theyare called, of whatever kind, --by which is meant the interchange of suchvowels and diphthongs as [Greek: i-ei, ai-e, ê-i, ê-oi-u, o-ô, ê-ei], --need excite no uneasiness. It is true that these variations mayoccasionally result in very considerable inconvenience: for it willsometimes happen that a different reading is the consequence. But thecopyist may have done his work in perfect good faith for all that. It isnot he who is responsible for the perplexity he occasions me, but thelanguage and the imperfect customs amidst which he wrote. 

2. In likemanner the reduplication of syllables, words, clauses, sentences, isconsistent with entire sincerity of purpose on the part of the copyist. This inaccuracy is often to be deplored; inasmuch as a reduplicatedsyllable often really affects the sense. But for the most part nothingworse ensues than that the page is disfigured with errata. 

3. So, on the other hand, --the occasional omission of words, whether fewor many, --especially that passing from one line to the correspondingplace in a subsequent line, which generally results from the proximityof a similar ending, --is a purely venial offence. It is an evidence ofcarelessness, but it proves nothing worse. 

4. Then further, --slight inversions, especially of ordinary words; orthe adoption of some more obvious and familiar collocation of particlesin a sentence; or again, the occasional substitution of one common wordfor another, as [Greek: eipe] for [Greek: elege], [Greek: phônêsan] for[Greek: kraxan], and the like;--need not provoke resentment. It is anindication, we are willing to hope, of nothing worse than slovenlinesson the part of the writer or the group or succession of writers. 

5. I will add that besides the substitution of one word for another, cases frequently occur, where even the introduction into the text of oneor more words which cannot be thought to have stood in the originalautograph of the Evangelist, need create no offence. It is oftenpossible to account for their presence in a strictly legitimate way. 

But it is high time to point out, that irregularities which fall underthese last heads are only tolerable within narrow limits, and alwaysrequire careful watching; for they may easily become excessive or evenbetray an animus; and in either case they pass at once into quite adifferent category. From cases of excusable oscitancy they degenerate, either into instances of inexcusable licentiousness, or else into casesof downright fraud. 

6. Thus, if it be observed in the case of a Codex (_a_) that entiresentences or significant clauses are habitually omitted:--(_b_) thatagain and again in the course of the same page the phraseology of theEvangelist has upon clear evidence been seriously tampered with: and(_c_) that interpolations here and there occur which will not admit ofloyal interpretation:--we cannot but learn to regard with habitualdistrust the Codex in which all these notes are found combined. It is aswhen a witness, whom we suspected of nothing worse than a bad memory ora random tongue or a lively imagination, has been at last convicted ofdeliberate suppression of parts of his evidence, misrepresentation offacts, --in fact, deliberate falsehood. 

7. But now suppose the case of a MS. In which words or clauses areclearly omitted with design; where expressions are withheld which areconfessedly harsh or critically difficult, --whole sentences or parts ofthem which have a known controversial bearing;--Suppose further that thesame MS. Abounds in worthless paraphrase, and contains apocryphaladditions throughout:--What are we to think of our guide then? There canbe but one opinion on the subject. From habitually trusting, we shallentertain inveterate distrust. We have ascertained his character. Wethought he was a faithful witness, but we now find from experience ofhis transgressions that we have fallen into bad company. His witness maybe false no less than true: confidence is at an end. 

§ 4. 

It may be regarded as certain that most of the aberrations discoverablein Codexes of the Sacred Text have arisen in the first instance from themerest inadvertency of the scribes. That such was the case in a vastnumber of cases is in fact demonstrable. [Inaccuracy in the apprehensionof the Divine Word, which in the earliest ages was imperfectlyunderstood, and ignorance of Greek in primitive Latin translators, wereprolific sources of error. The influence of Lectionaries, in which HolyScripture was cut up into separate Lections either with or without anintroduction, remained with habitual hearers, and led them off incopying to paths which had become familiar. Acquaintance with'Harmonies' or Diatessarons caused copyists insensibly to assimilate oneGospel to another. And doctrinal predilections, as in the case of thosewho belonged to the Origenistic school, were the source of lapsing intoexpressions which were not the _verba ipsissima_ of Holy Writ. In suchcases, when the inadvertency was genuine and was unmingled with anyovert design, it is much to be noted that the error seldom propagateditself extensively. ]

But next, well-meant endeavours must have been made at a very earlyperiod 'to rectify' ([Greek: diorthoun]) the text thus unintentionallycorrupted; and so, what began in inadvertence is sometimes found in theend to exhibit traces of design, and often becomes in a high degreeperplexing. Thus, to cite a favourite example, it is clear to me that inthe earliest age of all (A. D. 100?) some copyist of St. Luke ii. 14(call him X) inadvertently omitted the second [Greek: en] in the AngelicHymn. Now if the persons (call them Y and Z) whose business it became inturn to reproduce the early copy thus inadvertently depraved, had butbeen content both of them to transcribe exactly what they saw beforethem, the error of their immediate predecessor (X) must infallibly havespeedily been detected, remedied, and forgotten, --simply because, asevery one must have seen as well as Y and Z, it was impossible totranslate the sentence which results, --[Greek: epi gês eirênê anthrôpoiseudokia]. Reference would have been made to any other copy of the thirdGospel, and together with the omitted preposition ([Greek: en]) sensewould have been restored to the passage. But unhappily one of the twosupposed Copyists being a learned grammarian who had no other copy athand to refer to, undertook, good man that he was, _proprio Marte_ toforce a meaning into the manifestly corrupted text of the copy beforehim: and he did it by affixing to [Greek: eudokia] the sign of thegenitive case ([Greek: s]). Unhappy effort of misplaced skill! That copy[or those copies] became the immediate progenitor [or progenitors] of alarge family, --from which all the Latin copies are descended; whereby itcomes to pass that Latin Christendom sings the Hymn 'Gloria in excelsis'incorrectly to the present hour, and may possibly sing it incorrectly tothe end of time. The error committed by that same venerable Copyistsurvives in the four oldest copies of the passage extant, B* and[Symbol: Aleph]*, A and D, --though happily in no others, --in the OldLatin, Vulgate, and Gothic, alone of Versions; in Irenaeus and Origen(who contradict themselves), and in the Latin Fathers. All the Greekauthorities, with the few exceptions just recorded, of which A and D arethe only consistent witnesses, unite in condemning the evidentblunder[16]. 

I once hoped that it might be possible to refer all the Corruptions ofthe Text of Scripture to ordinary causes: as, careless transcription, --divers accidents, --misplaced critical assiduity, --doctrinalanimus, --small acts of unpardonable licence. 

But increased attention and enlarged acquaintance with the subject, haveconvinced me that by far the larger number of the omissions of suchCodexes as [Symbol: Aleph]BLD must needs be due to quite a differentcause. These MSS. Omit so many words, phrases, sentences, verses ofScripture, --that it is altogether incredible that the proximity of likeendings can have much to do with the matter. Inadvertency may be made tobear the blame of some omissions: it cannot bear the blame of shrewd andsignificant omissions of clauses, which invariably leave the sensecomplete. A systematic and perpetual mutilation of the inspired Textmust needs be the result of design, not of accident[17]. 

[It will be seen therefore that the causes of the Corruptions of theText class themselves under two main heads, viz. (I. ) Those which arosefrom Inadvertency, and (II. ) Those which took their origin in Design. ]

FOOTNOTES:

[10] 2 Kings xxii. 8 = 2 Chron. Xxxiv. 15. 

[11] [This name is used for want of a better. Churchmen are Unitariansas well as Trinitarians. The two names in combination express our Faith. We dare not alienate either of them. ]

[12] See The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels (Burgon and Miller), p. 21, note 1. 

[13] See Traditional Text, chapter ii, § 6, p. 33. 

[14] [Perhaps this point may be cleared by dividing readings into twoclasses, viz. (1) such as really have strong evidence for their support, and require examination before we can be certain that they are corrupt;and (2) those which afford no doubt as to their being destitute offoundation, and are only interesting as specimens of the modes in whicherror was sometimes introduced. Evidently, the latter class are not'various' at all. ]

[15] [I. E. Generally [Greek: krabatton], or else [Greek: krabaton], oreven [Greek: krabakton]; seldom found as [Greek: krabbatton], or speltin the corrupt form [Greek: krabbaton]. ]

[16] I am inclined to believe that in the age immediately succeedingthat of the Apostles, some person or persons of great influence andauthority executed a Revision of the N. T. And gave the world the resultof such labours in a 'corrected Text. ' The guiding principle seems tohave been to seek to _abridge_ the Text, to lop off whatever seemedredundant, or which might in any way be spared, and to eliminate fromone Gospel whatever expressions occurred elsewhere in another Gospel. Clauses which slightly obscured the speaker's meaning; or which seemedto hang loose at the end of a sentence; or which introduced aconsideration of difficulty:--words which interfered with the easy flowof a sentence:--every thing of this kind such a personage seems to haveheld himself free to discard. But what is more serious, passages whichoccasioned some difficulty, as the _pericope de adultera_; physicalperplexity, as the troubling of the water; spiritual revulsion, as theagony in the garden:--all these the reviser or revisers seem to havejudged it safest simply to eliminate. It is difficult to understand howany persons in their senses could have so acted by the sacred deposit;but it does not seem improbable that at some very remote period therewere found some who did act in some such way. Let it be observed, however, that unlike some critics I do not base my real argument uponwhat appears to me to be a not unlikely supposition. 

[17] [Unless it be referred to the two converging streams of corruption, as described in The Traditional Text. ]

CHAPTER II. 

ACCIDENTAL CAUSES OF CORRUPTION. 

I. Pure Accident. 

[It often happens that more causes than one are combined in the originof the corruption in any one passage. In the following history of ablunder and of the fatal consequences that ensued upon it, only thefirst step was accidental. But much instruction may be derived from theinitial blunder, and though the later stages in the history come underanother head, they nevertheless illustrate the effects of earlyaccident, besides throwing light upon parts of the discussion which areyet to come. ]

§ 1. 

We are sometimes able to trace the origin and progress of accidentaldepravations of the text: and the study is as instructive as it isinteresting. Let me invite attention to what is found in St. John x. 29;where, --instead of, 'My Father, who hath given them [viz. My sheep] toMe, is greater than all, '--Tischendorf, Tregelles, Alford, are forreading, 'That thing which My (_or_ the) Father hath given to Me isgreater (i. E. Is a greater thing) than all. ' A vastly differentproposition, truly; and, whatever it may mean, wholly inadmissible here, as the context proves. It has been the result of sheer accidentmoreover, --as I proceed to explain. 

St. John certainly wrote the familiar words, --[Greek: ho patêr mou][Greek: os dedôke moi, meizôn pantôn esti]. But, with the licentiousness[or inaccuracy] which prevailed in the earliest age, some remote copyistis found to have substituted for [Greek: hos dedôke], its grammaticalequivalent [Greek: ho dedôkôs]. And this proved fatal; for it was onlynecessary that another scribe should substitute [Greek: meizon] for[Greek: meizôn] (after the example of such places as St. Matt. Xii. 6, 41, 42, &c. ), and thus the door had been opened to at least fourdistinct deflections from the evangelical verity, --which straightwayfound their way into manuscripts:--(1) [Greek: o dedôkôs ... Meizôn]--ofwhich reading at this day D is the sole representative: (2) [Greek: osdedôke ... Meizon]--which survives only in AX: (3) [Greek: o dedôke ... Meizôn]--which is only found in [Symbol: Aleph]L: (4) [Greek: o dedôke... Meizon]--which is the peculiar property of B. The 1st and 2nd ofthese sufficiently represent the Evangelist's meaning, though neither ofthem is what he actually wrote; but the 3rd is untranslatable: while the4th is nothing else but a desperate attempt to force a meaning into the3rd, by writing [Greek: meizon] for [Greek: meizôn]; treating [Greek: o]not as the article but as the neuter of the relative [Greek: os]. 

This last exhibition of the text, which in fact scarcely yields anintelligible meaning and rests upon the minimum of manuscript evidence, would long since have been forgotten, but that, calamitously for theWestern Church, its Version of the New Testament Scriptures was executedfrom MSS. Of the same vicious type as Cod. B[18]. Accordingly, all theLatin copies, and therefore all the Latin Fathers[19], translate, --'Pater [meus] quod dedit mihi, majus omnibus est[20]. ' The Westernsresolutely extracted a meaning from whatever they presumed to be genuineScripture: and one can but admire the piety which insists on findingsound Divinity in what proves after all to be nothing else but a sorryblunder. What, asks Augustine, was 'the thing, greater than all, ' whichthe Father gave to the Son? To be the Word of the Father (he answers), His only-begotten Son and the brightness of His glory[21]. The Greeksknew better. Basil[22], Chrysostom[23], Cyril on nine occasions[24], Theodoret[25]--as many as quote the place--invariably exhibit the_textus receptus_ [Greek: ôs ... Meizôn], which is obviously the truereading and may on no account suffer molestation. 

'But, '--I shall perhaps be asked, --'although Patristic and manuscriptevidence are wanting for the reading [Greek: o dedôke moi ... Meizôn], --is it not a significant circumstance that three translationsof such high antiquity as the Latin, the Bohairic, and the Gothic, should concur in supporting it? and does it not inspire extraordinaryconfidence in B to find that B alone of MSS. Agrees with them?' To whichI answer, --It makes me, on the contrary, more and more distrustful ofthe Latin, the Bohairic and the Gothic versions to find them exclusivelysiding with Cod. B on such an occasion as the present. It is obviouslynot more 'significant' that the Latin, the Bohairic, and the Gothic, should here conspire with--than that the Syriac, the Sahidic, and theEthiopic, should here combine against B. On the other hand, how utterlyinsignificant is the testimony of B when opposed to all the uncials, allthe cursives, and all the Greek fathers who quote the place. So far frominspiring me with confidence in B, the present indication of the fatalsympathy of that Codex with the corrupt copies from which confessedlymany of the Old Latin were executed, confirms me in my habitual distrustof it. About the true reading of St. John x. 29, there really exists nomanner of doubt. As for the 'old uncials' they are (as usual) hopelesslyat variance on the subject. In an easy sentence of only 9 words, --whichhowever Tischendorf exhibits in conformity with no known Codex, whileTregelles and Alford blindly follow Cod. B, --they have contrived toinvent five 'various readings, ' as may be seen at foot[26]. Shall wewonder more at the badness of the Codexes to which we are just nowinvited to pin our faith; or at the infatuation of our guides?

§ 2. 

I do not find that sufficient attention has been paid to gravedisturbances of the Text which have resulted from a slight clericalerror. While we are enumerating the various causes of Textual depravity, we may not fail to specify this. Once trace a serious Textualdisturbance back to (what for convenience may be called) a 'clericalerror, ' and you are supplied with an effectual answer to a form ofinquiry which else is sometimes very perplexing: viz. If the truemeaning of this passage be what you suppose, for what conceivable reasonshould the scribe have misrepresented it in this strange way, --madenonsense, in short, of the place?... I will further remark, that it isalways interesting, sometimes instructive, after detecting the remoteorigin of an ancient blunder, to note what has been its subsequenthistory and progress. 

Some specimens of the thing referred to I have already given in anotherplace. The reader is invited to acquaint himself with the strangeprocess by which the '276 souls' who suffered shipwreck with St. Paul(Acts xxvii. 37), have since dwindled down to 'about 76[27]. '--He isfurther requested to note how 'a certain man' who in the time of St. Paul bore the name of 'Justus' (Acts xviii. 7), has been sincetransformed into '_Titus_, ' '_Titus Justus_, ' and even '_TitiusJustus_[28]. '--But for a far sadder travestie of sacred words, thereader is referred to what has happened in St. Matt. Xi. 23 and St. Lukex. 15, --where our Saviour is made to ask an unmeaning question--insteadof being permitted to announce a solemn fact--concerningCapernaum[29]. --The newly-discovered ancient name of the Island ofMalta, _Melitene_[30], (for which geographers are indebted to theadventurous spirit of Westcott and Hort), may also be profitablyconsidered in connexion with what is to be the subject of the presentchapter. And now to break up fresh ground. 

Attention is therefore invited to a case of attraction in Acts xx. 24. It is but the change of a single letter ([Greek: logoU] for [Greek:logoN]), yet has that minute deflection from the truth led to a completemangling of the most affecting perhaps of St. Paul's utterances. I referto the famous words [Greek: all' oudenos logon poioumai, oude echô tênpsuchên mou timian emautô, hôs teleiôsai ton dromon mou meta charas]:excellently, because idiomatically, rendered by our Translators of1611, --'But none of these things move me, neither count I my life dearunto myself, so that I might finish my course with joy. '

For [Greek: oudenos loGON], (the accusative after [Greek: poioumai]), some one having substituted [Greek: oudenos loGOU], --a reading whichsurvives to this hour in B and C[31], --it became necessary to findsomething else for the verb to govern. [Greek: Tên psychên] was at hand, but [Greek: oude echô] stood in the way. [Greek: Oude echô] musttherefore go[32]; and go it did, --as B, C, and [Symbol: Aleph] remain toattest. [Greek: Timian] should have gone also, if the sentence was to bemade translatable; but [Greek: timian] was left behind[33]. The authorsof ancient embroilments of the text were sad bunglers. In the meantime, Cod. [Symbol: Aleph] inadvertently retained St. Luke's word, [Greek:LOGON]; and because [Symbol: Aleph] here follows B in every otherrespect, it exhibits a text which is simply unintelligible[34]. 

Now the second clause of the sentence, viz. The words [Greek: oude echotên psychên mou timian emautô], may on no account be surrendered. It isindeed beyond the reach of suspicion, being found in Codd. A, D, E, H, L, P, 13, 31, --in fact in every known copy of the Acts, except thediscordant [Symbol: Aleph]BC. The clause in question is furtherwitnessed to by the Vulgate[35], --by the Harkleian[36], --byBasil[37], --by Chrysostom[38], --by Cyril[39], --by Euthalius[40], --and bythe interpolator of Ignatius[41]. What are we to think of our guides(Tischendorf, Tregelles, Westcott and Hort, and the Revisers) who havenevertheless surrendered the Traditional Text and presented us insteadwith what Dr. Field, --who is indeed a Master in Israel, --describes asthe impossible [Greek: all' oudenos logou poioumai tên psychên timianemautô][42]?

The words of the last-named eminent scholar on the reading just citedare so valuable in themselves, and are observed to be so often in point, that they shall find place here:--'Modern Critics, ' he says, 'indeference to the authority of the older MSS. , and to certain criticalcanons which prescribe that preference should be given to the shorterand more difficult reading over the longer and easier one, have decidedthat the T. R. In this passage is to be replaced by that which iscontained in those older MSS. 

'In regard to the difficulty of this reading, that term seems hardlyapplicable to the present case. A difficult reading is one whichpresents something apparently incongruous in the sense, or anomalous inthe construction, which an ignorant or half-learned copyist wouldendeavour, by the use of such critical faculty as he possessed, toremove; but which a true critic is able, by probable explanation, and acomparison of similar cases, to defend against all such fanciedimprovements. In the reading before us, [Greek: all' oudenos logoupoioumai tên psychên timian emautô], it is the construction, and not thesense, which is in question; and this is not simply difficult, butimpossible. There is really no way of getting over it; it bafflesnovices and experts alike[43]. ' When will men believe that a readingvouched for by only B[Symbol: Aleph]C is safe to be a fabrication[44]?But at least when Copies and Fathers combine, as here they do, againstthose three copies, what can justify critics in upholding a text whichcarries on its face its own condemnation?

§ 3. 

We now come to the inattention of those long-since-forgotten Ist or IIndcentury scribes who, beguiled by the similarity of the letters [Greek:EN] and [Greek: AN] (in the expression [Greek: ENANthrôpois eudokia], St. Luke ii. 14), left out the preposition. An unintelligible clause wasthe consequence, as has been explained above (p. 21): which some onenext sought to remedy by adding to [Greek: eudokia] the sign of thegenitive ([Greek: S]). Thus the Old Latin translations were made. 

That this is the true history of a blunder which the latest Editors ofthe New Testament have mistaken for genuine Gospel, is I submitcertain[45]. Most Latin copies (except 14[46]) exhibit 'pax hominibusbonae voluntatis, ' as well as many Latin Fathers[47]. On the other hand, the preposition [Greek: EN] is retained in every known Greek copy of St. Luke without exception, while the reading [Greek: eudokias] isabsolutely limited to the four uncials AB[Symbol: Aleph]D. The witnessof antiquity on this head is thus overwhelming and decisive. 

§ 4. 

In other cases the source, the very progress of a blunder, --isdiscoverable. Thus whereas St. Mark (in xv. 6) certainly wrote [Greek:hena desmion], [Greek: ONPER êtounto], the scribe of [Symbol: Delta], who evidently derived his text from an earlier copy in uncial letters isfound to have divided the Evangelist's syllables wrongly, and to exhibitin this place [Greek: ON. PERÊTOUNTO]. The consequence might have beenpredicted. [Symbol: Aleph]AB transform this into [Greek: ON PARÊTOUNTO]:which accordingly is the reading adopted by Tischendorf and by Westcottand Hort. 

Whenever in fact the final syllable of one word can possibly be mistakenfor the first syllable of the next, or _vice versa_, it is safe sooneror later to have misled somebody. Thus, we are not at all surprised tofind St. Mark's [Greek: ha parelabon] (vii. 4) transformed into [Greek:haper elabon], but only by B. 

[Another startling instance of the same phenomenon is supplied by thesubstitution in St. Mark vi. 22 of [Greek: tês thygatros autouHêrôdiados] for [Greek: tês thygatros autês tês Hêrôdiados]. Here afirst copyist left out [Greek: tês] as being a repetition of the lastsyllable of [Greek: autês], and afterwards a second attempted to improvethe Greek by putting the masculine pronoun for the feminine ([Greek:AUTOU] for [Greek: AUTÊS]). The consequence was hardly to have beenforeseen. ]

Strange to say it results in the following monstrous figment:--that thefruit of Herod's incestuous connexion with Herodias had been a daughter, who was also named Herodias; and that she, --the King's owndaughter, --was the immodest one[48] who came in and danced before him, 'his lords, high captains, and chief estates of Galilee, ' as they sat atthe birthday banquet. Probability, natural feeling, the obviousrequirements of the narrative, History itself--, for Josephus expresslyinforms us that 'Salome, ' not 'Herodias, ' was the name of Herodias'daughter[49], --all reclaim loudly against such a perversion of thetruth. But what ought to be in itself conclusive, what in fact settlesthe question, is the testimony of the MSS. , --of which only seven([Symbol: Aleph]BDL[Symbol: Delta] with two cursive copies) can be foundto exhibit this strange mistake. Accordingly the reading [Greek: AUTOU]is rejected by Griesbach, Lachmann, Tregelles, Tischendorf and Alford. It has nevertheless found favour with Dr. Hort; and it has even beenthrust into the margin of the revised Text of our Authorized Version, asa reading having some probability. 

This is indeed an instructive instance of the effect of accidentalerrors--another proof that [Symbol: Aleph]BDL cannot be trusted. 

Sufficiently obvious are the steps whereby the present erroneous readingwas brought to perfection. The immediate proximity in MSS. Of theselfsame combination of letters is observed invariably to result in avarious reading. [Greek: AUTÊSTÊS] was safe to part with its second[Greek: TÊS] on the first opportunity, and the definitive article([Greek: tês]) once lost, the substitution of [Greek: AUTOU] for [Greek:AUTÊS] is just such a mistake as a copyist with ill-directedintelligence would be sure to fall into if he were bestowing sufficientattention on the subject to be aware that the person spoken of in verses20 and 21 is Herod the King. 

[This recurrence of identical or similar syllables near together was afrequent source of error. Copying has always a tendency to becomemechanical: and when the mind of the copyist sank to sleep in hismonotonous toil, as well as if it became too active, the sacred Textsuffered more or less, and so even a trifling mistake might be the seedof serious depravation. ]

§ 5. 

Another interesting and instructive instance of error originating insheer accident, is supplied by the reading in certain MSS. Of St. Markviii. 1. That the Evangelist wrote [Greek: pampollou ochlou] 'themultitude being very great, ' is certain. This is the reading of all theuncials but eight, of all the cursives but fifteen. But instead of this, it has been proposed that we should read, 'when there was again a greatmultitude, ' the plain fact being that some ancient scribe mistook, as heeasily might, the less usual compound word for what was to himself a farmore familiar expression: i. E. He mistook [Greek: PAMPOLLOU] for [Greek:PALIN POLLOU]. 

This blunder must date from the second century, for 'iterum' is met within the Old Latin as well as in the Vulgate, the Gothic, the Bohairic, and some other versions. On the other hand, it is against 'every trueprinciple of Textual Criticism' (as Dr. Tregelles would say), that themore difficult expression should be abandoned for the easier, whenforty-nine out of every fifty MSS. Are observed to uphold it; when theoldest version of all, the Syriac, is on the same side; when the sourceof the mistake is patent; and when the rarer word is observed to be inSt. Mark's peculiar manner. There could be in fact no hesitation on thissubject, if the opposition had not been headed by those notorious falsewitnesses [Symbol: Aleph]BDL, which it is just now the fashion to upholdat all hazards. They happen to be supported on this occasion byGMN[Symbol: Delta] and fifteen cursives: while two other cursives lookboth ways and exhibit [Greek: palin pampollou]. 

In St Mark vii. 14, [Greek: palin] was similarly misread by somecopyists for [Greek: panta], and has been preserved by [Symbol:Aleph]BDL[Symbol: Delta] ([Greek: PALIN] for [Greek: PANTA]) againstthirteen uncials, all the cursives, the Peshitto and Armenian. 

So again in St. John xiii. 37. A reads [Greek: dynasai moi] by anevident slip of the pen for [Greek: dynamai soi]. And in xix. 31 [Greek:megalÊ Ê Êmera] has become [Greek: megalê hêmera] in [Symbol:Aleph]AE[Symbol: Gamma] and some cursive copies. 

FOOTNOTES:

[18] See the passages quoted in Scrivener's Introduction, II. 270-2, 4thed. 

[19] Tertull. (Prax. C. 22): Ambr. (ii. 576, 607, 689 _bis_): Hilary(930 _bis_, 1089): Jerome (v. 208): Augustin (iii^2. 615): Maximinus, anArian bishop (_ap_. Aug. Viii. 651). 

[20] Pater (_or_ Pater meus) quod dedit mihi (_or_ mihi dedit), majusomnibus est (_or_ majus est omnibus: _or_ omnibus majus est). 

[21] iii^2. 615. He begins, '_Quid dedit Filio Pater majus omnibus? Utipsi ille esset unigenitus Filius_. '

[22] i. 236. 

[23] viii. 363 _bis_. 

[24] i. 188: ii. 567: iii. 792: iv. 666 (ed. Pusey): v^1. 326, 577, 578:_ap. _ Mai ii. 13: iii. 336. 

[25] v. 1065 (=Dial^{Maced} _ap. _ Athanas. Ii. 555). 

[26] Viz. + [Greek: mou] ABD:--[Greek: mou] [Symbol: Aleph] | [Greek:os] A: [Greek: o] B[Symbol: Aleph]D | [Greek: dedôken] B[Symbol:Aleph]A: [Greek: dedôkôs] | [Greek: meizôn] [Symbol: Aleph]D: [Greek:meizon] AB | [Greek: meiz. Pantôn estin] A: [Greek: pantôn meiz. Estin]B[Symbol: Aleph]D. 

[27] The Revision Revised, p. 51-3. 

[28] The Revision Revised, p. 53-4. 

[29] Ibid. P. 51-6. 

[30] Ibid. P. 177-8. 

[31] Also in Ammonius the presbyter, A. D. 458--see Cramer's Cat. P. 334-5, _last line_. [Greek: Logou] is read besides in the cursives Act. 36, 96, 105. 

[32] I look for an approving word from learned Dr. Field, who wrote in1875--'The real obstacle to our acquiescing in the reading of the T. R. Is, that if the words [Greek: oude echô] had once formed a part of theoriginal text, there is no possibility of accounting for the subsequentomission of them. ' The same remark, but considerably toned down, isfound in his delightful Otium Norvicense, P. Iii, p. 84. 

[33] B and C read--[Greek: all' oudenos logou poioumai tên psychênemautô]: which is exactly what Lucifer Calarit. Represents, --'_sed pronihilo aestimo animam meam caram esse mihi_' (Galland. Vi. 241). 

[34] [Symbol: Aleph] reads--[Greek: all' oudenos logon poioumai tênpsychên timian emautô hôs teleiôsô ton dromon mou]. 

[35] '_Sed nihil horum_ ([Greek: toutôn] is found in many Greek Codd. )_vereor, nee facio animam meam pretiosiorem quam me_. ' So, the _Cod. Amiat. _ It is evident then that when Ambrose (ii. 1040) writes '_necfacio animam meam cariorem mihi_, ' he is quoting the latter of these twoclauses. Augustine (iii^{1}. 516), when he cites the place thus, '_Nonenim facto animam meam preliosiorem quam me_'; and elsewhere (iv. 268)'_pretiosam mihi_'; also Origen (_interp. _ iv. 628 c), '_sed ego nonfacto cariorem animam meam mihi_'; and even the Coptic, '_sed anima mea, dico, non est pretiosa mihi in aliquo verbo_':--these evidentlysummarize the place, by making a sentence out of what survives of thesecond clause. The Latin of D exhibits '_Sed nihil horum cura est mihi:neque habeo ipsam animam caram mihi_. '

[36] Dr. Field says that it may be thus Graecized--[Greek: all' oudenalogon poioumai, oude lelogistai moi psychê ti timion]. 

[37] ii. 296 e, --exactly as the T. R. 

[38] Exactly as the T. R. , except that he writes [Greek: tên psychên]without [Greek: mou] (ix. 332). So again, further on (334 b), [Greek:ouk echô timian tên emautou psychên]. This latter place is quoted inCramer's Cat. 334. 

[39] _Ap. _ Mai ii. 336 [Greek: edei kai tês zôês kataphronein hyper touteleiôsai ton dromon, oude tên psychên ephê poieiôsai timian heautô. ]

[40] [Greek: logon echô, oude poioumai tên psychên timian emautô, ôstek. T. L. ] (_ap. _ Galland. X. 222). 

[41] [Greek: all' oudenos logon poioumai tôn deinôn, oude echô tênpsychên timian emautô]. Epist. Ad Tars. C. 1 (Dressel, p. 255). 

[42] The whole of Dr. Field's learned annotation deserves to becarefully read and pondered. I speak of it especially in the shape inwhich it originally appeared, viz. In 1875. 

[43] Ibid. P. 2 and 3. 

[44] Surprising it is how largely the text of this place has suffered atthe hands of Copyists and Translators. In A and D, the words [Greek:poioumai] and [Greek: echô] have been made to change places. The latterCodex introduces [Greek: moi] after [Greek: echô], --for [Greek: emautô]writes [Greek: emautou], --and exhibits [Greek: tou teleiôsai] without[Greek: hôs]. C writes [Greek: hôs to teleiôsai]. [Symbol: Aleph]B aloneof Codexes present us with [Greek: teleiôsô] for [Greek: teleiôsai], andare followed by Westcott and Hort _alone of Editors_. The Peshitto('_sed mihi nihili aestimatur anima mea_'), the Sahidic ('_sed non factoanimam meam in ullâ re_'), and the Aethiopic ('_sed non reputo animammeam nihil quidquam_'), get rid of [Greek: timian] as well as of [Greek:oude echô]. So much diversity of text, and in such primitive witnesses, while it points to a remote period as the date of the blunder to whichattention is called in the text, testifies eloquently to the utterperplexity which that blunder occasioned from the first. 

[45] Another example of the same phenomenon, (viz. The absorption of[Greek: EN] by the first syllable of [Greek: ANthrôpois]) is to be seenin Acts iv. 12, --where however the error has led to no mischievousresults. 

[46] For those which insert _in_ (14), and those which reject it (25), see Wordsworth's edition of the Vulgate on this passage. 

[47] Of Fathers:--Ambrose i. 1298--Hieronymus i. 448^{2}, 693, 876: ii. 213: iv. 34, 92: v. 147: vi. 638: vii. 241, 251, 283, --Augustine 34times, --Optatus (Galland. V. 472, 457), --Gaudentius Brix. (_ap. _Sabat. ), --Chromatius Ag. (Gall. Viii. 337), --Orosius (_ib. _ ix. 134), Marius M. (_ib. _ viii. 672), Maximus Taur. (_ib. _ ix. 355), --Sedulius(_ib. _ 575), --Leo M. (_ap. _ Sabat. ), --Mamertus Claudianus (Gall. X. 431), --Vigilius Taps. (_ap. _ Sabat. ), --Zacchaeus (Gall. Ix. 241), --Caesarius Arel. (_ib. _ xi. 11), --ps. -Ambros. Ii. 394, 396, --Hormisdas P. (Conc. Iv. 1494, 1496), --52 Bps. At 8th Council ofToledo (Conc. Vi. 395), &c. , &c. 

[48] See Wetstein on this place. 

[49] Antiqq. I. 99, xviii. 5. 4. 

CHAPTER III. 

ACCIDENTAL CAUSES OF CORRUPTION. 

II. Homoeoteleuton. 

No one who finds the syllable [Greek: OI] recurring six times over inabout as many words, --e. G. [Greek: kai egeneto, hôs apêlthon ... OIangelOI, kai OI anthrôpOI OI pOImenes eipon], --is surprised to learnthat MSS. Of a certain type exhibit serious perturbation in that place. Accordingly, BL[Symbol: Xi] leave out the words [Greek: kai hoianthrôpoi]; and in that mutilated form the modern critical editors arecontented to exhibit St. Luke ii. 15. One would have supposed thatTischendorf's eyes would have been opened when he noticed that in hisown Codex ([Symbol: Aleph]) one word more ([Greek: hoi]) isdropped, --whereby nonsense is made of the passage (viz. [Greek: hoiangeloi poimenes]). Self-evident it is that a line with a 'like ending'has been omitted by the copyist of some very early codex of St. Luke'sGospel; which either read, --

[Greek: OI ANGELOI] } {[Greek: OI ANGELOI][[Greek: KAI OI A[=NO]I OI]] } or else {[[Greek: KAI OI A[=NO]I]][Greek: POIMENES] } {[Greek: OI POIMENES]

Another such place is found in St. John vi. 11. The Evangelist certainlydescribed the act of our Saviour on a famous occasion in the well-knownwords, --[Greek: kai eucharistêsas]

 [Greek: diedôketois [mathêtais, oi de mathêtaitois] anakeimenois. ]

The one sufficient proof that St. John did so write, being the testimonyof the MSS. Moreover, we are expressly assured by St. Matthew (xiv. 19), St. Mark (vi. 41), and St. Luke (ix. 16), that our Saviour's act wasperformed in this way. It is clear however that some scribe has sufferedhis eye to wander from [Greek: tois] in l. 2 to [Greek: tois] in l. 4, --whereby St. John is made to say that our Saviour himself distributedto the 5000. The blunder is a very ancient one; for it has crept intothe Syriac, Bohairic, and Gothic versions, besides many copies of theOld Latin; and has established itself in the Vulgate. Moreover some goodFathers (beginning with Origen) so quote the place. But such evidence isunavailing to support [Symbol: Aleph]ABL[Symbol: Pi], the early readingof [Symbol: Aleph] being also contradicted by the fourth hand in theseventh century against the great cloud of witnesses, --beginning with Dand including twelve other uncials, beside the body of the cursives, theEthiopic and two copies of the Old Latin, as well as Cyril Alex. 

Indeed, there does not exist a source of error which has proved morefatal to the transcribers of MSS. Than the proximity of identical, ornearly identical, combinations of letters. And because these aregenerally met with in the final syllables of words, the error referredto is familiarly known by a Greek name which denotes 'likeness ofending' (Homoeoteleuton). The eye of a scribe on reverting from his copyto the original before him is of necessity apt sometimes to alight onthe same word, or what looks like the same word, a little lower down. The consequence is obvious. All that should have come in between getsomitted, or sometimes duplicated. 

It is obvious, that however inconvenient it may prove to find oneself inthis way defrauded of five, ten, twenty, perhaps thirty words, no veryserious consequence for the most part ensues. Nevertheless, the resultis often sheer nonsense. When this is the case, it is loyally admittedby all. A single example may stand for a hundred. [In St. John vi. 55, that most careless of careless transcripts, the Sinaitic [Symbol:Aleph], omits on a most sacred subject seven words, and the resulthardly admits of being characterized. Let the reader judge for himself. The passage stands thus:--[Greek: hê gar sarx mou alêthôs esti brôsis, kai to haima mou alêthôs esti posis]. The transcriber of [Symbol: Aleph]by a very easy mistake let his eye pass from one [Greek: alêthôs] toanother, and characteristically enough the various correctors allowedthe error to remain till it was removed in the seventh century, thoughthe error issued in nothing less than 'My Flesh is drink indeed. ' Couldthat MS. Have undergone the test of frequent use?]

But it requires very little familiarity with the subject to be awarethat occasions must inevitably be even of frequent occurrence when theresult is calamitous, and even perplexing, in the extreme. The writingsof Apostles and Evangelists, the Discourses of our Divine Lord Himself, abound in short formulae; and the intervening matter on such occasionsis constantly an integral sentence, which occasionally may be discoveredfrom its context without evident injury to the general meaning of theplace. Thus [ver. 14 in St. Matt, xxiii. Was omitted in an early age, owing to the recurrence of [Greek: ouai hymin] at the beginning, by somecopyists, and the error was repeated in the Old Latin versions. Itpassed to Egypt, as some of the Bohairic copies, the Sahidic, and Origentestify. The Vulgate is not quite consistent: and of course [Symbol:Aleph]BDLZ, a concord of bad witnesses especially in St. Matthew, followsuit, in company with the Armenian, the Lewis, and five or morecursives, enough to make the more emphatic the condemnation by the mainbody of them. Besides the verdict of the cursives, thirteen uncials (asagainst five) including [Symbol: Phi] and [Symbol: Sigma], the Peshitto, Harkleian, Ethiopic, Arabian, some MSS. Of the Vulgate, with Origen(iii. 838 (only in Lat. )); Chrysostom (vii. 707 (_bis_); ix. 755); OpusImperf. 185 (_bis_); 186 (_bis_); John Damascene (ii. 517); Theophylact(i. 124); Hilary (89; 725); Jerome (iv. 276; v. 52; vi. 138: vii. 185)]. 

Worst of all, it will sometimes of necessity happen that such anomission took place at an exceedingly remote period; (for there havebeen careless scribes in every age:) and in consequence the error ispretty sure to have propagated itself widely. It is observed to exist(suppose) in several of the known copies; and if, --as very often is thecase, --it is discoverable in two or more of the 'old uncials, ' all hopeof its easy extirpation is at an end. Instead of being loyallyrecognized as a blunder, --which it clearly is, --it is forthwith chargedupon the Apostle or Evangelist as the case may be. In other words, it istaken for granted that the clause in dispute can have had no place inthe sacred autograph. It is henceforth treated as an unauthorizedaccretion to the text. Quite idle henceforth becomes the appeal to theninety-nine copies out of a hundred which contain the missing words. Iproceed to give an instance of my meaning. 

Our Saviour, having declared (St. Matt. Xix. 9) that whosoever puttethaway his wife [Greek: ei mê epi porneia, kai gamêsê allên, moichatai], --adds [Greek: kai ho apolelymenên gamêsas moichatai]. Thosefive words are not found in Codd. [Symbol: Aleph]DLS, nor in severalcopies of the Old Latin nor in some copies of the Bohairic, and theSahidic. Tischendorf and Tregelles accordingly reject them. 

And yet it is perfectly certain that the words are genuine. Thosethirty-one letters probably formed three lines in the oldest copies ofall. Hence they are observed to exist in the Syriac (Peshitto, Harkleianand Jerusalem), the Vulgate, some copies of the Old Latin, the Armenian, and the Ethiopic, besides at least seventeen uncials (includingB[Symbol: Phi][Symbol: Sigma]), and the vast majority of the cursives. So that there can be no question of the genuineness of the clause. 

A somewhat graver instance of omission resulting from precisely the samecause meets us a little further on in the same Gospel. The threefoldrecurrence of [Greek: tôn] in the expression [Greek: TÔN psichiôn TÔNpiptonTÔN] (St. Luke xvi. 21), has (naturally enough) resulted in thedropping of the words [Greek: psichiôn tôn] out of some copies. Unhappily the sense is not destroyed by the omission. We are notsurprised therefore to discover that the words are wanting in--[Symbol:Aleph]BL: or to find that [Symbol: Aleph]BL are supported here by copiesof the Old Latin, and (as usual) by the Egyptian versions, nor byClemens Alex. [50] and the author of the Dialogus[51]. Jerome, on theother hand, condemns the Latin reading, and the Syriac Versions areobserved to approve of Jerome's verdict, as well as the Gothic. But whatsettles the question is the fact that every known Greek MS. , exceptthose three, witnesses against the omission: besides Ambrose[52], Jerome[53], Eusebius[54] Alex. , Gregory[55] Naz. , Asterius[56], Basil[57], Ephraim[58] Syr. , Chrysostom[59], and Cyril[60] ofAlexandria. Perplexing it is notwithstanding to discover, anddistressing to have to record, that all the recent Editors of theGospels are more or less agreed in abolishing 'the crumbs which fellfrom the rich man's table. '

[The foregoing instances afford specimens of the influence of accidentalcauses upon the transmission from age to age of the Text of the Gospels. Before the sense of the exact expressions of the Written Word wasimpressed upon the mind of the Church, --when the Canon was notdefinitely acknowledged, and the halo of antiquity had not yet gatheredround writings which had been recently composed, --severe accuracy wasnot to be expected. Errors would be sure to arise, especially fromaccident, and early ancestors would be certain to have a numerousprogeny; besides that evil would increase, and slight deviations wouldgive rise in the course of natural development to serious and perplexingcorruptions. 

In the next chapter, other kinds of accidental causes will come underconsideration. ]

FOOTNOTES:

[50] P. 232. 

[51] _Ap. _ Orig. I. 827. 

[52] Ambrose i. 659, 1473, 1491:--places which shew how insecure wouldbe an inference drawn from i. 543 and 665. 

[53] Hieron. V. 966; vi. 969. 

[54] _Ap. _ Mai ii. 516, 520. 

[55] i. 370. 

[56] P. 12. 

[57] ii. 169. 

[58] ii. 142. 

[59] i. 715, 720; ii. 662 (_bis_) 764; vii. 779. 

[60] v^{2}. 149 (luc. Text, 524). 

CHAPTER IV. 

ACCIDENTAL CAUSES OF CORRUPTION. 

III. From Writing in Uncials. 

§ 1. 

Corrupt readings have occasionally resulted from the ancient practice ofwriting Scripture in the uncial character, without accents, punctuation, or indeed any division of the text. Especially are they found in placeswhere there is something unusual in the structure of the sentence. 

St. John iv. 35-6 ([Greek: leukai eisi pros therismon êdê]) has sufferedin this way, --owing to the unusual position of [Greek: êdê]. Certain ofthe scribes who imagined that [Greek: êdê] might belong to ver. 36, rejected the [Greek: kai] as superfluous; though no Father is known tohave been guilty of such a solecism. Others, aware that [Greek: êdê] canonly belong to ver. 35, were not unwilling to part with the copula atthe beginning of ver. 36. A few, considering both words of doubtfulauthority, retained neither[61]. In this way it has come to pass thatthere are four ways of exhibiting this place:--(_a_) [Greek: prostherismon êdê. Kai ho therizôn]:--(_b_) [Greek: pros therismon. Êdê hoth. ]:--(_c_) [Greek: pros therismon êdê. Ho therizôn]:--(_d_) [Greek:pros therismon. Ho therizôn, k. T. L. ]

The only point of importance however is the position of [Greek: êdê]:which is claimed for ver. 35 by the great mass of the copies: as well asby Origen[62], Eusebius[63], Chrysostom[64], Cyril[65], the Vulgate, Jerome of course, and the Syriac. The Italic copies are hopelesslydivided here[66]: and Codd. [Symbol: Aleph]BM[Symbol: Pi] do not helpus. But [Greek: êdê] is claimed for ver. 36 by CDEL, 33, and by theCuretonian and Lewis (= [Greek: kai êdê ho therizôn]): while Codex A issingular in beginning ver. 36, [Greek: êdê kai], --which shews that someearly copyist, with the correct text before him, adopted a viciouspunctuation. For there can be no manner of doubt that the commonlyreceived text and the usual punctuation is the true one: as, on acareful review of the evidence, every unprejudiced reader will allow. But recent critics are for leaving out [Greek: kai] (with [Symbol:Aleph]BCDL): while Tischendorf, Westcott and Hort, Tregelles (_marg. _), are for putting the full stop after [Greek: pros therismon] and (withACDL) making [Greek: êdê] begin the next sentence, --which (as Alfordfinds out) is clearly inadmissible. 

§ 2. 

Sometimes this affects the translation. Thus, the Revisers propose inthe parable of the prodigal son, --'And I perish _here_ with hunger!' Butwhy '_here_?' Because I answer, whereas in the earliest copies of St. Luke the words stood thus, --[Greek: EGÔDELIMÔAPOLLYMAI], some carelessscribe after writing [Greek: EGÔDE], reduplicated the three last letters([Greek: ÔDE]): he mistook them for an independent word. Accordingly inthe Codex Bezae, in R and U and about ten cursives, we encounter [Greek:egô de ôde]. The inventive faculty having thus done its work it remainedto superadd 'transposition, ' as was done by [Symbol: Aleph]BL. From[Greek: egô de ôde limô], the sentence has now developed into [Greek:egô de limô ôde]: which approves itself to Griesbach and Schultz, toLachmann and Tischendorf and Tregelles, to Alfoid and Westcott and Hort, and to the Revisers. A very ancient blunder, certainly, [Greek: egô deôde] is: for it is found in the Latin[67] and the Syriac translations. It must therefore date from the second century. But it is a blundernotwithstanding: a blunder against which 16 uncials and the whole bodyof the cursives bear emphatic witness[68]. Having detected its origin, we have next to trace its progress. 

The inventors of [Greek: ôde] or other scribes quickly saw that thisword requires a correlative in the earlier part of the sentence. Accordingly, the same primitive authorities which advocate 'here, ' areobserved also to advocate, above, 'in my Father's house. ' No extantGreek copy is known to contain the bracketed words in the sentence[Greek: [en tô oikô] tou patros mou]: but such copies must have existedin the second century. The Peshitto, the Cureton and Lewis recognize thethree words in question; as well as copies of the Latin with whichJerome[69], Augustine[70] and Cassian[71] were acquainted. The phrase'in domo patris mei' has accordingly established itself in the Vulgate. But surely we of the Church of England who have been hitherto sparedthis second blunder, may reasonably (at the end of 1700 years) refuse totake the first downward step. Our Lord intended no contrast whateverbetween two localities--but between two parties. The comfortable estateof the hired servants He set against the abject misery of the Son: notthe house wherein the servants dwelt, and the spot where the poorprodigal was standing when he came to a better mind. --These are manywords; but I know not how to be briefer. And, --what is worthy ofdiscussion, if not the utterances of 'the Word made flesh?'

If hesitation to accept the foregoing verdict lingers in any quarter, itought to be dispelled by a glance at the context in [Symbol: Aleph]BL. What else but the instinct of a trained understanding is it to surveythe neighbourhood of a place like the present? Accordingly, we discoverthat in ver. 16, for [Greek: gemisai tên koilian autou apo], [Symbol:Aleph]BDLR present us with [Greek: chortasthênai ek]: and in ver. 22, the prodigal, on very nearly the same authority ([Symbol: Aleph]BDUX), is made to say to his father, --[Greek: Poiêson me hôs hena tôn misthiônsou]:

Which certainly he did not say[72]. Moreover, [Symbol: Aleph]BLX and theOld Latin are for thrusting in [Greek: tachy] (D [Greek: tacheôs]) after[Greek: exenenkate]. Are not these one and all confessedly fabricatedreadings? the infelicitous attempts of some well-meaning critic toimprove upon the inspired original?

From the fact that three words in St. John v. 44 were in the oldest MSS. Written thus, --[Greek: MONOUTHUOU] (i. E. [Greek: monou Theou ou]), themiddle word ([Greek: theou]) got omitted from some very early copies;whereby the sentence is made to run thus in English, --'And seek not thehonour which cometh from the only One. ' It is so that Origen[73], Eusebius[74], Didymus[75], besides the two best copies of the Old Latin, exhibit the place. As to Greek MSS. , the error survives only in B at thepresent day, the preserver of an Alexandrian error. 

§ 3. 

St. Luke explains (Acts xxvii. 14) that it was the 'typhonic wind calledEuroclydon' which caused the ship in which St. Paul and he sailed pastCrete to incur the 'harm and loss' so graphically described in the lastchapter but one of the Acts. That wind is mentioned nowhere but in thisone place. Its name however is sufficiently intelligible; beingcompounded of [Greek: Euros], the 'south-east wind, ' and [Greek:klydôn], 'a tempest:' a compound which happily survives intact in thePeshitto version. The Syriac translator, not knowing what the wordmeant, copied what he saw, --'the blast' (he says) 'of the tempest[76], which [blast] is called Tophonikos Eurokl[=i]don. ' Not so the licentiousscribes of the West. They insisted on extracting out of the actual'Euroclydon, ' the imaginary name 'Euro-aquilo, ' which accordingly standsto this day in the Vulgate. (Not that Jerome himself so read the name ofthe wind, or he would hardly have explained '_Eurielion_' or'_Euriclion_' to mean 'commiscens, sive deorsum ducens[77]. ') Of thisfeat of theirs, Codexes [Symbol: Aleph] and A (in which [Greek:EUROKLUDÔN] has been perverted into [Greek: EURAKULÔN]) are at this day_the sole surviving Greek witnesses_. Well may the evidence for'Euro-aquilo' be scanty! The fabricated word collapses the instant it isexamined. Nautical men point out that it is 'inconsistent in itsconstruction with the principles on which the names of the intermediateor compound winds are framed:'--

'_Euronotus_ is so called as intervening immediately between _Eurus_ and_Notus_, and as partaking, as was thought, of the qualities of both. Thesame holds true of _Libonotus_, as being interposed between _Libs_ and_Notus_. Both these compound winds lie in the same quarter or quadrantof the circle with the winds of which they are composed, and no otherwind intervenes. But _Eurus_ and _Aquilo_ are at 90° distance from oneanother; or according to some writers, at 105°; the former lying in thesouth-east quarter, and the latter in the north-east: and two winds, oneof which is the East cardinal point, intervene, as Caecias andSubsolanus[78]. '

Further, why should the wind be designated by an impossible _Latin_name? The ship was 'a ship of Alexandria' (ver. 6). The sailors wereGreeks. What business has '_Aquilo_' here? Next, if the wind did bearthe name of 'Euro-aquilo, ' why is it introduced in this marked way([Greek: anemos typhônikos, ho kaloumenos]) as if it were a kind ofcuriosity? Such a name would utterly miss the point, which is theviolence of the wind as expressed in the term Euroclydon. But above all, if St. Luke wrote [Greek: EURAK]-, how has it come to pass that everycopyist but three has written [Greek: EUROK]-? The testimony of B ismemorable. The original scribe wrote [Greek: EURAKUDÔN][79]: the_secunda mantis_ has corrected this into [Greek: EURYKLUDÔN], --which isalso the reading of Euthalius[80]. The essential circumstance is, that_not_ [Greek: ULÔN] but [Greek: UDÔN] has all along been the last halfof the word in Codex B[81]. 

In St. John iv. 15, on the authority of [Symbol: Aleph]B, Tischendorfadopts [Greek: dierchesthai] (in place of the uncompounded verb), assigning as his reason, that 'If St. John had written [Greek:erchesthai], no one would ever have substituted [Greek: dierchesthai]for it. ' But to construct the text of Scripture on such considerations, is to build a lighthouse on a quicksand. I could have referred thelearned Critic to plenty of places where the thing he speaks of asincredible has been done. The proof that St. John used the uncompoundedverb is the fact that it is found in all the copies except our twountrustworthy friends. The explanation of [Greek: DIerchômai] issufficiently accounted for by the final syllable ([Greek: DE]) of[Greek: mêde] which immediately precedes. Similarly but without the sameexcuse, St. Mark x. 16 [Greek: eulogei] has become [Greek: kateulogei] ([Symbol: Aleph]BC). " xii. 17 [Greek: thaumasan] " [Greek: ezethaumasan] ([Symbol: Aleph]B). " xiv. 40 [Greek: bebarêmenoi] " [Greek: katabebarêmenoi] (A[Symbol: Aleph]B). 

It is impossible to doubt that [Greek: kai] (in modern critical editionsof St. Luke xvii. 37) is indebted for its existence to the same cause. In the phrase [Greek: ekei synachthêsontai hoi aetoi] it might have beenpredicted that the last syllable of [Greek: ekei] would some day bemistaken for the conjunction. And so it has actually come to pass. [Greek: KAI oi aetoi] is met with in many ancient authorities. But[Symbol: Aleph]LB also transposed the clauses, and substituted [Greek:episynachthêsontai] for [Greek: synachthêsontai]. The self-samecasualty, viz. [Greek: kai] elicited out of the insertion of [Greek:ekei] and the transposition of the clauses, is discoverable among theCursives at St. Matt. Xxiv. 28, --the parallel place: where by the waythe old uncials distinguish themselves by yet graver eccentricities[82]. How can we as judicious critics ever think of disturbing the text ofScripture on evidence so precarious as this?

It is proposed that we should henceforth read St. Matt. Xxii. 23 asfollows:--'On that day there came to Him Sadducees _saying_ that thereis no Resurrection. ' A new incident would be in this way introduced intothe Gospel narrative: resulting from a novel reading of the passage. Instead of [Greek: hoi legontes], we are invited to read [Greek:legontes], on the authority of [Symbol: Aleph]BDMSZP and several of theCursives, besides Origen, Methodius, Epiphanius. This is a respectablearray. There is nevertheless a vast preponderance of numbers in favourof the usual reading, which is also found in the Old Latin copies and inthe Vulgate. But surely the discovery that in the parallel Gospels itis--

[Greek: hoitines legousin anastasin mê einai] (St. Mark xii. 18) and[Greek: hoi antilegontes anastasin mê einai] (St. Luke xx. 27)

may be considered as decisive in a case like the present. Sure I am thatit will be so regarded by any one who has paid close attention to themethod of the Evangelists. Add that the origin of the mistake is seen, the instant the words are inspected as they must have stood in an uncialcopy:

[Greek: SADDOUKAIOIOILEGONTES]

and really nothing more requires to be said. The second [Greek: OI] wassafe to be dropped in a collocation of letters like that. It might alsohave been anticipated, that there would be found copyists to be confusedby the antecedent [Greek: KAI]. Accordingly the Peshitto, Lewis, andCuretonian render the place 'et dicentes;' shewing that they mistook[Greek: KAI OI LEGONTES] for a separate phrase. 

§ 4. 

The termination [Greek: TO] (in certain tenses of the verb), whenfollowed by the neuter article, naturally leads to confusion; sometimesto uncertainty. In St. John v. 4 for instance, where we read in ourcopies [Greek: kai etarasse to hydôr], but so many MSS. Read [Greek:etarasseto], that it becomes a perplexing question which reading tofollow. The sense in either case is excellent: the only difference beingwhether the Evangelist actually says that the Angel 'troubled' thewater, or leaves it to be inferred from the circumstance that after theAngel had descended, straightway the water 'was troubled. '

The question becomes less difficult of decision when (as in St. Lukevii. 21) we have to decide between two expressions [Greek: echarisatoblepein] (which is the reading of [Symbol: Aleph]*ABDEG and 11 otheruncials) and [Greek: echarisato to blepein] which is only supported by[Symbol: Aleph]^{b}ELVA. The bulk of the Cursives faithfully maintainthe former reading, and merge the article in the verb. 

Akin to the foregoing are all those instances, --and they are literallywithout number--, where the proximity of a like ending has been thefruitful cause of error. Let me explain: for this is a matter whichcannot be too thoroughly apprehended. 

Such a collection of words as the following two instances exhibit willshew my meaning. 

In the expression [Greek: esthêta lampran anepempsen] (St. Luke xxiii. 11), we are not surprised to find the first syllable of the verb([Greek: an]) absorbed by the last syllable of the immediately preceding[Greek: lampran]. Accordingly, [Symbol: Aleph]LR supported by one copyof the Old Latin and a single cursive MS. Concur in displaying [Greek:epempsen] in this place. 

The letters [Greek: NAIKÔNAIKAI] in the expression (St. Luke xxiii. 27)[Greek: gynaikôn hai kai] were safe to produce confusion. The first ofthese three words could of course take care of itself. (Though D, withsome of the Versions, make it into [Greek: gynaikes]. ) Not so howeverwhat follows. ABCDLX and the Old Latin (except c) drop the [Greek: kai]:[Symbol: Aleph] and C drop the [Greek: ai]. The truth rests with thefourteen remaining uncials and with the cursives. 

Thus also the reading [Greek: en olê tê Galilaia] (B) in St. Matt. Iv. 23, (adopted by Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Alford, Westcott andHort and the Revisers, ) is due simply to the reduplication on the partof some inattentive scribe of the last two letters of the immediatelypreceding word, --[Greek: periêgen]. The received reading of the place isthe correct one, --[Greek: kai periêgen holên tên Galilaian ho Iêsous], because the first five words are so exhibited in all the Copies exceptB[Symbol: Aleph]C; and those three MSS. Are observed to differ as usualfrom one another, --which ought to be deemed fatal to their evidence. Thus, B reads [Greek: kai periêgen en holêi têi Galilaiai]. [Symbol: Aleph] " [Greek: kai periêgen ho _is_ en têi Galilaiai]. C " [Greek: kai periêgen ho _is_ en holê têi Galilaiai]. 

But--(I shall be asked)--what about the position of the Sacred Name? Howcomes it to pass that [Greek: ho Iêsous], which comes after [Greek:Galilaian] in almost every other known copy, should come after [Greek:periêgen] in three of these venerable authorities (in D as well as in[Symbol: Aleph] and C), and in the Latin, Peshitto, Lewis, andHarkleian? Tischendorf, Alford, Westcott and Hort and the Revisers atall events (who simply follow B in leaving out [Greek: ho Iêsous]altogether) will not ask me this question: but a thoughtful inquirer issure to ask it. 

The phrase (I reply) is derived by [Symbol: Aleph]CD from the twin placein St. Matthew (ix. 35) which in all the MSS. Begins [Greek: kaiperiêgen ho _is_]. So familiar had this order of the words become, thatthe scribe of [Symbol: Aleph], (a circumstance by the way of whichTischendorf takes no notice, ) has even introduced the expression intoSt. Mark vi. 6, --the parallel place in the second Gospel, --where [Greek:ho _is_] clearly has no business. I enter into these minute detailsbecause only in this way is the subject before us to be thoroughlyunderstood. This is another instance where 'the Old Uncials' shew theirtext to be corrupt; so for assurance in respect of accuracy of detail wemust resort to the Cursive Copies. 

§ 5. 

The introduction of [Greek: apo] in the place of [Greek: hagioi] made bythe 'Revisers' into the Greek Text of 2 Peter i. 21, --derives its originfrom the same prolific source. (1) some very ancient scribe mistook thefirst four letters of [Greek: agioi] for [Greek: apo]. It was but themistaking of [Greek: AGIO] for [Greek: APO]. At the end of 1700 years, the only Copies which witness to this deformity are BP with fourcursives, --in opposition to [Symbol: Aleph]AKL and the whole body of thecursives, the Vulgate[83] and the Harkleian. Euthalius knew nothing ofit[84]. Obvious it was, next, for some one in perplexity, --(2) tointroduce both readings ([Greek: apo] and [Greek: hagioi]) into thetext. Accordingly [Greek: apo Theou hagioi] is found in C, two cursives, and Didymus[85]. Then, (3), another variant crops up, (viz. [Greek:hypo] for [Greek: apo]--but only because [Greek: hypo] went immediatelybefore); of which fresh blunder ([Greek: hypo Theou hagioi]) Theophylactis the sole patron[86]. The consequence of all this might have beenforeseen: (4) it came to pass that from a few Codexes, both [Greek: apo]and [Greek: agioi] were left out, --which accounts for the reading ofcertain copies of the Old Latin[87]. Unaware how the blunder began, Tischendorf and his followers claim '(2)', '(3)', and '(4)', as proofsthat '(1)' is the right reading: and, by consequence, instead of '_holy_men of God spake, ' require us to read 'men spake _from_ God, ' which iswooden and vapid. Is it not clear that a reading attested by only BP andfour cursive copies must stand self-condemned?

Another excellent specimen of this class of error is furnished by Heb. Vii. 1. Instead of [Greek: Ho synantêsas Abraam]--said ofMelchizedek, --[Symbol: Aleph]ABD exhibit [Greek: OS]. The whole body ofthe copies, headed by CLP, are against them[88], --besidesChrysostom[89], Theodoret[90], Damascene[91]. It is needless to do morethan state how this reading arose. The initial letter of [Greek:synantêsas] has been reduplicated through careless transcription:[Greek: OSSYN]--instead of [Greek: OSYN]--. That is all. But theinstructive feature of the case is that it is in the four oldest of theuncials that this palpable blunder is found. 

§ 6. 

I have reserved for the last a specimen which is second to none insuggestiveness. 'Whom will ye that I release unto you?' asked Pilate ona memorable occasion[92]: and we all remember how his enquiry proceeds. But the discovery is made that, in an early age there existed copies ofthe Gospel which proceeded thus, --'Jesus [who is called[93]] Barabbas, or Jesus who is called Christ?' Origen so quotes the place, but 'In manycopies, ' he proceeds, 'mention is not made that Barabbas was also calledJesus: and those copies may perhaps be right, --else would the name ofJesus belong to one of the wicked, --of which no instance occurs in anypart of the Bible: nor is it fitting that the name of Jesus should likeJudas have been borne by saint and sinner alike. I think, ' Origen adds, 'something of this sort must have been an interpolation of theheretics[94]. ' From this we are clearly intended to infer that 'JesusBarabbas' was the prevailing reading of St. Matt. Xxvii. 17 in the timeof Origen, a circumstance which--besides that a multitude of copiesexisted as well as those of Origen--for the best of reasons, we takeleave to pronounce incredible[95]. 

The sum of the matter is probably this:--Some inattentive second centurycopyist [probably a Western Translator into Syriac who was anindifferent Greek scholar] mistook the final syllable of '_unto you_'([Greek: UMIN]) for the word '_Jesus_' ([Greek: IN]): in other words, carelessly reduplicated the last two letters of [Greek: UMIN], --fromwhich, strange to say, results the form of inquiry noticed at theoutset. Origen caught sight of the extravagance, and condemned it thoughhe fancied it to be prevalent, and the thing slept for 1500 years. Thenabout just fifty years ago Drs. Lachmann, Tischendorf and Tregellesbegan to construct that 'fabric of Textual Criticism' which has been thecause of the present treatise [though indeed Tischendorf does not adoptthe suggestion of those few aberrant cursives which is supported by nosurviving uncial, and in fact advocates the very origin of the mischiefwhich has been just described]. But, as every one must see, 'such thingsas these are not 'readings' at all, nor even the work of 'the heretics;'but simply transcriptional mistakes. How Dr. Hort, admitting theblunder, yet pleads that 'this remarkable reading is attractive by thenew and interesting fact which it seems to attest, and by the antitheticforce which it seems to add to the question in ver. 17, ' [is more thanwe can understand. To us the expression seems most repulsive. No'antithetic force' can outweigh our dislike to the idea that Barabbaswas our Saviour's namesake! We prefer Origen's account, though hemistook the cause, to that of the modern critic. ]

FOOTNOTES:

[61] It is clearly unsafe to draw any inference from the mere omissionof [Greek: êdê] in ver. 35, by those Fathers who do not shew how theywould have began ver. 36--as Eusebius (see below, note 2), Theodoret (i. 1398: ii. 233), and Hilary (78. 443. 941. 1041). 

[62] i. 219: iii. 158: iv. 248, 250 _bis_, 251 _bis_, 252, 253, 255_bis_, 256, 257. Also iv. 440 note, which = cat^{ox} iv. 21. 

[63] _dem. _ 440. But not _in cs. _ 426: _theoph. _ 262, 275. 

[64] vii. 488, 662: ix. 32. 

[65] i. 397. 98. (Palladius) 611: iii. 57. So also in iv. 199, [Greek:etoimos êdê pros to pisteuein]. 

[66] Ambrose, ii. 279, has '_Et qui metit_. ' Iren.^{int} substitutes'_nam_' for '_et_, ' and omits '_jam_. ' Jerome 9 times introduces '_jam_'before '_albae sunt_. ' So Aug. (iii.^2 417): but elsewhere (iv. 639: v. 531) he omits the word altogether. 

[67] 'Hic' is not recognized in Ambrose. _Append. _ ii. 367. 

[68] The Fathers render us very little help here. Ps. -Chrys. Twice(viii. 34: x. 838) has [Greek: egô de ôde]: once (viii. 153) not. JohnDamascene (ii. 579) is without the [Greek: ôde]. 

[69] i. 76: vi. 16 (_not_ vi. 484). 

[70] iii.^{2} 259 (_not_ v. 511). 

[71] p. 405. 

[72] [The prodigal was prepared to say this; but his father's kindnessstopped him:--a feature in the account which the Codexes in questionignore. ]

[73] iii. 687. But in i. 228 and 259 he recognizes [Greek: theou]. 

[74] _Ap. _ Mai vii. 135. 

[75] Praep. Xiii. 6, --[Greek: monou tou henos] (vol. Ii. 294). 

[76] Same word occurs in St. Mark iv. 37. 

[77] iii. 101. 

[78] Falconer's Dissertation on St. Paul's Voyage, pp. 16 and 12. 

[79] Let the learned Vercellone be heard on behalf of Codex B: 'Antequammanum de tabulâ amoveamus, e re fore videtur, si, ipso codice Vaticanoinspecto, duos injectos scrupulos eximamus. Cl. Tischendorfius innuperrimâ suâ editione scribit (Proleg. P. Cclxxv), Maium ad Act. Xxvii. 14, codici Vaticano tribuisse a primâ manu [Greek: euraklydôn]; nos vero[Greek: eurakydôn]; atque subjungit, "_utrumque, ut videtur, male_. " At, quidquid "videri" possit, certum nobis exploratumque est Vaticanumcodicem primo habuisse [Greek: eurakydôn], prout expressum fuit tum intabella quâ Maius Birchianas lectiones notavit, tum in alterâ quâ noserrata corrigenda recensuimus. '--Præfatio to Mai's 2nd ed. Of the Cod. Vaticanus, 1859 (8vo), p. V. § vi. [Any one may now see this in thephotographed copy. ]

[80] _Ap. _ Galland. X. 225. 

[81] Remark that some vicious sections evidently owed their origin tothe copyist _knowing more of Latin than of Greek_. 

True, that the compounds euronotus euroauster exist in Latin. _That isthe reason why_ the Latin translator (not understanding the word)rendered it _Euroaquilo_: instead of writing _Euraquilo_. 

I have no doubt that it was some Latin copyist who began the mischief. Like the man who wrote [Greek: ep' autô tô phorô] for [Greek: ep'autophôrô]. 

 Readings of Euroclydon

 [Greek: EURAKYDÔN] B (sic) [Greek: EURAKYLÔN] [Symbol: Aleph]A [Greek: EURAKÊLÔN] [Greek: EUTRAKÊLÔN] [Greek: EURAKLÊDÔN] Peshitto. [Greek: EURAKYKLÔN]

 Euroaquilo Vulg. 

 [Greek: EUROKLYDÔN] HLP [Greek: EURAKLYDÔN] Syr. Harkl. [Greek: EURYKLYDÔN] B^{2 man. }

[82] [Greek: Opou] ([Greek: ou] [Symbol: Aleph]) [Greek: gar] (--[Greek:gar] [Symbol: Aleph]BDL) [Greek: ean] ([Greek: an] D) [Greek: to ptôma]([Greek: sôma] [Symbol: Aleph]). 

[83] _Sancti Dei homines. _

[84] _Ap. _ Galland. X. 236 a. 

[85] Trin. 234. 

[86] iii. 389. 

[87] '_Locuti sunt homines D_. '

[88] Their only supporters seem to be K [i. E. Paul 117 (Matthaei's §)], 17, 59 [published in full by Cramer, vii. 202], 137 [Reiche, p. 60]. Whydoes Tischendorf quote besides E of Paul, which is nothing else but acopy of D of Paul?

[89] Chrys. Xii. 120 b, 121 a. 

[90] Theodoret, iii. 584. 

[91] J. Damascene, ii. 240 c. 

[92] St. Matt. Xxvii. 17. 

[93] Cf. [Greek: ho legomenos Barabbas]. St. Mark xv. 7. 

[94] _Int. _ iii. 918 c d. 

[95] On the two other occasions when Origen quotes St. Matt. Xxvii. 17(i. 316 a and ii. 245 a) nothing is said about 'Jesus Barabbas. '--Alluding to the place, he elsewhere (iii. 853 d) merely says that'_Secundum quosdam Barabbas dicebatur et Jesus. _'--The author of awell-known scholion, ascribed to Anastasius, Bp. Of Antioch, but query, for see Migne, vol. Lxxxix. P. 1352 b c (= Galland. Xii. 253 c), and1604 a, declares that he had found the same statement 'in very earlycopies. ' The scholion in question is first cited by Birch (Varr. Lectt. P. 110) from the following MSS. :--S, 108, 129, 137, 138, 143, 146, 181, 186, 195, 197, 199 or 200, 209, 210, 221, 222: to which Scholz adds 41, 237, 238, 253, 259, 299: Tischendorf adds 1, 118. In Gallandius (Bibl. P. P. Xiv. 81 d e, _Append. _), the scholion may be seen more fully giventhan by Birch, --from whom Tregelles and Tischendorf copy it. Theophylact(p. 156 a) must have seen the place as quoted by Gallandius. The onlyevidence, so far as I can find, for reading '_Jesus_ Barabbas' (in St. Matt. Xxvii. 16, 17) are five disreputable Evangelia 1, 118, 209, 241, 299, --the Armenian Version, the Jerusalem Syriac, [and the SinaiSyriac]; (see Adler, pp. 172-3). 

CHAPTER V. 

ACCIDENTAL CAUSES OF CORRUPTION. 

IV. Itacism. 

[It has been already shewn in the First Volume that the Art ofTranscription on vellum did not reach perfection till after the lapse ofmany centuries in the life of the Church. Even in the minute elements ofwriting much uncertainty prevailed during a great number of successiveages. It by no means followed that, if a scribe possessed a correctauricular knowledge of the Text, he would therefore exhibit it correctlyon parchment. Copies were largely disfigured with misspelt words. Andvowels especially were interchanged; accordingly, such change became inmany instances the cause of corruption, and is known in TextualCriticism under the name 'Itacism. ']

§ 1. 

It may seem to a casual reader that in what follows undue attention isbeing paid to minute particulars. But it constantly happens, --and thisis a sufficient answer to the supposed objection, --that, fromexceedingly minute and seemingly trivial mistakes, there resultsometimes considerable and indeed serious misrepresentations of theSpirit's meaning. New incidents:--unheard-of statements:--facts as yetunknown to readers of Scripture:--perversions of our Lord's Divinesayings:--such phenomena are observed to follow upon the omission of thearticle, --the insertion of an expletive, --the change of a single letter. Thus [Greek: palin], thrust in where it has no business, makes it appearthat our Saviour promised to return the ass on which He rode in triumphinto Jerusalem[96]. By writing [Greek: ô] for [Greek: o], many criticshave transferred some words from the lips of Christ to those of HisEvangelist, and made Him say what He never could have dreamed ofsaying[97]. By subjoining [Greek: s] to a word in a place which it hasno right to fill, the harmony of the heavenly choir has been marredeffectually, and a sentence produced which defies translation[98]. Byomitting [Greek: tô] and [Greek: Kyrie], the repenting malefactor ismade to say, 'Jesus! remember me, when Thou comest in Thy kingdom[99]. '

Speaking of our Saviour's triumphal entry into Jerusalem, which tookplace 'the day after' 'they made Him a supper' and Lazarus 'which hadbeen dead, whom He raised from the dead, ' 'sat at the table with Him'(St. John xii. 1, 2), St. John says that 'the multitude which had beenwith Him _when_ He called Lazarus out of the tomb and raised Him fromthe dead bare testimony' (St. John xii. 17). The meaning of this is bestunderstood by a reference to St. Luke xix. 37, 38, where it is explainedthat it was the sight of so many acts of Divine Power, the chiefest ofall being the raising of Lazarus, which moved the crowds to yield thememorable testimony recorded by St. Luke in ver. 38, --by St. John inver. 13[100]. But Tischendorf and Lachmann, who on the authority of Dand four later uncials read [Greek: hoti] instead of [Greek: hote], import into the Gospel quite another meaning. According to their way ofexhibiting the text, St. John is made to say that 'the multitude whichwas with Jesus, testified _that_ He called Lazarus out of the tomb andraised him from the dead': which is not only an entirely differentstatement, but also the introduction of a highly improbablecircumstance. That many copies of the Old Latin (not of the Vulgate)recognize [Greek: hoti], besides the Peshitto and the two Egyptianversions, is not denied. This is in fact only one more proof of theinsufficiency of such collective testimony. [Symbol: Aleph]AB with therest of the uncials and, what is of more importance, _the whole body ofthe cursives_, exhibit [Greek: hote], --which, as every one must see, iscertainly what St. John wrote in this place. Tischendorf's assertionthat the prolixity of the expression [Greek: ephônêsen ek tou mnêmeioukai êgeiren auton ek nekrôn] is inconsistent with [Greek:hote][101], --may surprise, but will never convince any one who is evenmoderately acquainted with St. John's peculiar manner. 

The same mistake--of [Greek: hoti] for [Greek: hote]--is met with atver. 41 of the same chapter. 'These things said Isaiah _because_ he sawHis glory' (St. John xii. 41). And why not '_when_ he saw His glory'?which is what the Evangelist wrote according to the strongestattestation. True, that eleven manuscripts (beginning with [Symbol:Aleph]ABL) and the Egyptian versions exhibit [Greek: hoti]: also Nonnus, who lived in the Thebaid (A. D. 410): but all other MSS. , the Latin, Peshitto, Gothic, Ethiopic, Georgian, and one Egyptian version:--Origen[102], --Eusebius in four places[103], --Basil[104], --Gregory ofNyssa twice[105], --Didymus three times[106], --Chrysostom twice[107], --Severianus of Gabala[108];--these twelve Versions and Fathers constitutea body of ancient evidence which is overwhelming. Cyril three timesreads [Greek: hoti][109], three times [Greek: hote][110], --and once[Greek: hênika][111], which proves at least how he understood the place. 

§ 2. 

[A suggestive example[112] of the corruption introduced by a pettyItacism may be found in Rev. I. 5, where the beautiful expression whichhas found its way into so many tender passages relating to Christiandevotion, 'Who hath _washed_[113] us from our sins in His own blood'(A. V. ), is replaced in many critical editions (R. V. ) by, 'Who hath_loosed_[114] us from our sins by His blood. ' In early times a puristscribe, who had a dislike of anything that savoured of provincialretention of Aeolian or Dorian pronunciations, wrote from unconsciousbias [Greek: u] for [Greek: ou], transcribing [Greek: lusanti] for[Greek: lousanti] (unless he were not Greek scholar enough to understandthe difference): and he was followed by others, especially such as, whether from their own prejudices or owing to sympathy with the scruplesof other people, but at all events under the influence of a slavishliteralism, hesitated about a passage as to which they did not rise tothe spiritual height of the precious meaning really conveyed therein. Accordingly the three uncials, which of those that give the Apocalypsedate nearest to the period of corruption, adopt [Greek: u], followed bynine cursives, the Harkleian Syriac, and the Armenian versions. On theother side, two uncials--viz. B^{2} of the eighth century and P of theninth--the Vulgate, Bohairic, and Ethiopic, write [Greek: lousanti]and--what is most important--all the other cursives except the handfuljust mentioned, so far as examination has yet gone, form a barrier whichforbids intrusion. ]

[An instance where an error from an Itacism has crept into the TextusReceptus may be seen in St. Luke xvi. 25. Some scribes needlesslychanged [Greek: hôde] into [Greek: hode], misinterpreting the letterwhich served often for both the long and the short [Greek: o], andthereby cast out some illustrative meaning, since Abraham meant to laystress upon the enjoyment 'in his bosom' of comfort by Lazarus. Theunanimity of the uncials, a majority of the cursives, the witness of theversions, that of the Fathers quote the place being uncertain, aresufficient to prove that [Greek: hôde] is the genuine word. ]

[Again, in St. John xiii. 25, [Greek: houtôs] has dropped out of manycopies and so out of the Received Text because by an Itacism it waswritten [Greek: outos] in many manuscripts. Therefore [Greek: ekeinosoutos] was thought to be a clear mistake, and the weaker word wasaccordingly omitted. No doubt Latins and others who did not understandGreek well considered also that [Greek: houtôs] was redundant, and thiswas the cause of its being omitted in the Vulgate. But really [Greek:houtôs], being sufficiently authenticated[115], is exactly in consonancewith Greek usage and St. John's style[116], and adds considerably to thegraphic character of the sacred narrative. St. John was reclining([Greek: anakeimenos]) on his left arm over the bosom of the robe([Greek: en tôi kolpôi]) of the Saviour. When St. Peter beckoned to himhe turned his head for the moment and sank ([Greek: epipesôn], not[Greek: anapesôn] which has the testimony only of B and abouttwenty-five uncials, [Symbol: Aleph] and C being divided againstthemselves) on the breast of the Lord, being still in the generalposture in which he was ([Greek: houtôs][117]), and asked Him in awhisper 'Lord, who is it?']

[Another case of confusion between [Greek: ô] and [Greek: o] may be seenin St. Luke xv. 24, 32, where [Greek: apolôlôs] has gained so strong ahold that it is found in the Received Text for [Greek: apolôlos], whichlast being the better attested appears to be the right reading[118]. Butthe instance which requires the most attention is [Greek: katharizon] inSt. Mark vii. 19, and all the more because in _The Last Twelve Verses ofSt. Mark_, the alteration into [Greek: katharizôn] is advocated as being'no part of the Divine discourse, but the Evangelist's inspired commenton the Saviour's words[119]. ' Such a question must be decided strictlyby the testimony, not upon internal evidence--which in fact is in thiscase absolutely decisive neither way, for people must not be led by theattractive view opened by [Greek: katharizôn], and [Greek: katharizon]bears a very intelligible meaning. When we find that the uncial evidenceis divided, there being eight against the change ([Symbol: Phi][Symbol:Sigma]KMUV[Symbol: Gamma][Symbol: Pi]), and eleven for it ([Symbol:Aleph]ABEFGHLSX[Symbol: Delta]);--that not much is advanced by theversions, though the Peshitto, the Lewis Codex, the Harkleian (?), theGothic, the Old Latin[120], the Vulgate, favour [Greek:katharizon];--nor by the Fathers:--since Aphraates[121], Augustine(?)[122], and Novatian[123] are contradicted by Origen[124], Theophylact[125], and Gregory Thaumaturgus[126], we discover that wehave not so far made much way towards a satisfactory conclusion. Theonly decided element of judgement, so far as present enquiries havereached, since suspicion is always aroused by the conjunction of[Symbol: Aleph]AB, is supplied by the cursives which with a largemajority witness to the received reading. It is not therefore safe toalter it till a much larger examination of existing evidence is madethan is now possible. If difficulty is felt in the meaning given by[Greek: katharizon], --and that there is such difficulty cannot candidlybe denied, --this is balanced by the grammatical difficulty introduced by[Greek: katharizôn], which would be made to agree in the same clausewith a verb separated from it by thirty-five parenthetic words, including two interrogations and the closing sentence. Those people whoform their judgement from the Revised Version should bear in mind thatthe Revisers, in order to make intelligible sense, were obliged tointroduce three fresh English words that have nothing to correspond tothem in the Greek; being a repetition of what the mind of the readerwould hardly bear in memory. Let any reader who doubts this leave outthe words in italics and try the effect for himself. The fact is that tomake this reading satisfactory, another alteration is required. [Greek:Katharizôn panta ta brômata] ought either to be transferred to the 20thverse or to the beginning of the 18th. Then all would be clear enough, though destitute of a balance of authority: as it is now proposed toread, the passage would have absolutely no parallel in the simple andtransparent sentences of St. Mark. We must therefore be guided by thebalance of evidence, and that is turned by the cursive testimony. ]

§ 3. 

Another minute but interesting indication of the accuracy and fidelitywith which the cursive copies were made, is supplied by the constancywith which they witness to the preposition [Greek: en] (_not thenumeral_ [Greek: hen]) in St. Mark iv. 8. Our Lord says that the seedwhich 'fell into the good ground' 'yielded by ([Greek: en]) thirty, andby ([Greek: en]) sixty, and by ([Greek: en]) an hundred. ' Tischendorfnotes that besides all the uncials which are furnished with accents andbreathings (viz. EFGHKMUV[Symbol: Pi]) 'nearly 100 cursives' exhibit[Greek: en] here and in ver. 20. But this is to misrepresent the case. All the cursives may be declared to exhibit [Greek: en], e. G. AllMatthaei's and all Scrivener's. I have myself with this object examineda large number of Evangelia, and found [Greek: en] in all. The Basle MS. From which Erasmus derived his text[127] exhibits [Greek: en], --thoughhe printed [Greek: hen] out of respect for the Vulgate. TheComplutensian having [Greek: hen], the reading of the Textus Receptusfollows in consequence: but the Traditional reading has been shewn to be[Greek: en], --which is doubtless intended by [Greek: EN] in Cod. A. 

Codd. [Symbol: Aleph]C[Symbol: Delta] (two ever licentious and [Symbol:Delta] similarly so throughout St. Mark) substitute for the preposition[Greek: en] the preposition [Greek: eis], --(a sufficient proof to methat they understand [Greek: EN] to represent [Greek: en], not [Greek:hen]): and are followed by Tischendorf, Tregelles, and the Revisers. Asfor the chartered libertine B (and its servile henchman L), for thefirst [Greek: en] (but not for the second and third) it substitutes thepreposition [Greek: EIS]: while, in ver. 20, it retains the first[Greek: en], but omits the other two. In all these vagaries Cod. B isfollowed by Westcott and Hort[128]. 

§ 4. 

St. Paul[129] in his Epistle to Titus [ii. 5] directs that young womenshall be 'keepers at home, ' [Greek: oikourous]. So, (with fiveexceptions, ) every known Codex[130], including the corrected [Symbol:Aleph] and D, --HKLP; besides 17, 37, 47. So also Clemens Alex. [131](A. D. 180), --Theodore of Mopsuestia[132], --Basil[133], --Chrysostom[134]--Theodoret[135], --Damascene[136]. So again the Old Latin (_domumcustodientes_[137]), --the Vulgate (_domus curam habentes_[138]), --andJerome (_habentes domus diligentiam_[139]): and so the Peshitto and theHarkleian versions, --besides the Bohairic. There evidently can be nodoubt whatever about such a reading so supported. To be [Greek:oikouros] was held to be a woman's chiefest praise[140]: [Greek:kalliston ergon gynê oikouros], writes Clemens Alex. [141]; assigning tothe wife [Greek: oikouria] as her proper province[142]. On the contrary, 'gadding about from house to house' is what the Apostle, writing toTimothy[143], expressly condemns. But of course the decisiveconsideration is not the support derived from internal evidence; but theplain fact that antiquity, variety, respectability, numbers, continuityof attestation, are all in favour of the Traditional reading. 

Notwithstanding this, Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Westcott andHort, because they find [Greek: oikourgous] in [Symbol: Aleph]*ACD*F-G, are for thrusting that 'barbarous and scarcely intelligible' word, if itbe not even a non-existent[144], into Titus ii. 5. The Revised Versionin consequence exhibits 'workers at home'--which Dr. Field may well callan 'unnecessary and most tasteless innovation. ' But it is insufficientlyattested as well, besides being a plain perversion of the Apostle'steaching. [And the error must have arisen from carelessness andignorance, probably in the West where Greek was not properlyunderstood. ]

So again, in the cry of the demoniacs, [Greek: ti hêmin kai soi, Iêsou, huie tou Theou]; (St. Matt. Viii. 29) the name [Greek: Iêsou] is omittedby B[Symbol: Aleph]. 

The reason is plain the instant an ancient MS. Is inspected:--[Greek:KAISOI_IU_UIETOU_THU_]:--the recurrence of the same letters caused toogreat a strain to scribes, and the omission of two of them was theresult of ordinary human infirmity. 

Indeed, to this same source are to be attributed an extraordinary numberof so-called 'various readings'; but which in reality, as has alreadybeen shewn, are nothing else but a collection of mistakes, --thesurviving tokens that anciently, as now, copying clerks left out words;whether misled by the fatal proximity of a like ending, or by the speedyrecurrence of the like letters, or by some other phenomenon with whichmost men's acquaintance with books have long since made them familiar. 

FOOTNOTES:

[96] St. Mark xi. 4. See Revision Revised, pp. 57-58. 

[97] St. Mark vii. 19, [Greek: katharizôn] for [Greek: katharizon]. Seebelow, pp. 61-3. 

[98] St. Luke ii. 14. 

[99] St. Luke xxiii. 42. 

[100] St. Matt. Xx. 9. See also St. Mark xi. 9, 10. 

[101] 'Quae quidem orationis prolixitas non conveniens esset si [Greek:hote] legendum esset. '

[102] iv. 577: 'quando. '

[103] Dem. Ev. 310, 312, 454 _bis. _

[104] i. 301. 

[105] ii. 488, and _ap. _ Gall. Vi. 580. 

[106] Trin. 59, 99, 242. 

[107] viii. 406, 407. Also ps. -Chrysost. V. 613. Note, that'Apolinarius' in Cramer's Cat. 332 is Chrys. Viii. 407. 

[108] _Ap. _ Chrys. Vi. 453. 

[109] iv. 505, 709, and _ap_. Mai iii. 85. 

[110] ii. 102: iv. 709, and _ap_. Mai iii. 118. 

[111] v^{1}. 642. 

[112] Unfortunately, though the Dean left several lists of instances ofItacism, he worked out none, except the substitution of [Greek: hen] for[Greek: en] in St. Mark iv. 8, which as it is not strictly on all fourswith the rest I have reserved till last. He mentioned all that I haveintroduced (besides a few others), on detached papers, some of them morethan once, and [Greek: lousanti] and [Greek: katharizon] even more thanthe others. In the brief discussion of each instance which I havesupplied, I have endeavoured whenever it was practicable to include anyslight expressions of the Dean's that I could find, and to develop allsurviving hints. 

[113] [Greek: lousanti]. 

[114] [Greek: lusanti]. 

[115] [Greek: houtôs]. BCEFGHLMX[Symbol: Delta]. Most cursives. Goth. [Greek: outos]. KSU[Symbol: Gamma][Symbol: Lambda]. Ten cursives. _Omit_ [Symbol: Aleph]AD[Pi]. Many cursives. Vulg. Pesh. Ethiop. Armen. Georg. Slavon. Bohair. Pers. 

[116] E. G. Thuc. Vii. 15, St. John iv. 6. 

[117] See St. John iv. 6: Acts xx. 11, xxvii. 17. The beloved Apostlewas therefore called [Greek: ho epistêthios]. See Suicer. S. V. Westcotton St. John xiii. 25. 

[118] 24. [Greek: apolôlôs. ] [Symbol: Aleph]^{a}ABD &c. [Greek: apolôlos]. [Symbol: Aleph]*GKMRSX[Symbol: Gamma][Symbol: Pi]*. Most curs. 

 32. [Greek: apolôlôs]. [Symbol: Aleph]*ABD &c. [Greek: apolôlos]. [Symbol: Aleph]^{c}KMRSX[Symbol: Gamma][Symbol: Pi]*. Most curs. 

[119] Pp. 179, 180. Since the Dean has not adopted [Greek: katharizôn]into his corrected text, and on account of other indications whichcaused me to doubt whether he retained the opinion of his earlier years, I applied to the Rev. W. F. Rose, who answered as follows:--'I amthankful to say that I can resolve all doubt as to my uncle's laterviews of St. Mark vii. 19. In his annotated copy of the _Twelve Verses_he deletes the words in his note p. 179, "This appears to be the truereading, " and writes in the margin, "The old reading is doubtless thetrue one, " and in the margin of the paragraph referring to [Greek:katharizôn] on p. 180 he writes, "Alter the wording of this. " Thisentirely agrees with my own recollection of many conversations with himon the subject. I think he felt that the weight of the cursive testimonyto the old rending was conclusive, --at least that he was not justifiedin changing the text in spite of it. ' These last words of Mr. Roseexpress exactly the inference that I had drawn. 

[120] 'The majority of the Old Latin MSS. Have "in secessum uadit (orexiit) purgans omnes escas"; _i_ (Vindobonensis) and _r_ (Usserianus)have "et purgat" for "purgans": and _a_ has a conflation "in secessumexit purgans omnes escas et exit in rivum"--so they all point the sameway. '--(Kindly communicated by Mr. H. J. White. )

[121] Dem. Xv. (Graffin)--'Vadit enim esca in ventrem, unde purgationein secessum emittitur. ' (Lat. )

[122] iii. 764. 'Et in secessum exit, purgans omnes escas. '

[123] Galland. Iii. 319. 'Cibis, quos Dominus dicit perire, et insecessu naturali lege purgari. '

[124] iii. 494. [Greek: elege tauta ho Sôtêr, katharizôn panta tabrômata. ]

[125] i. 206. [Greek: ekkatharizôn panta ta brômata. ]

[126] Galland. Iii. 400. [Greek: alla kai ho Sôtêr, panta katharizôn tabrômata. ]

[127] Evan. 2. See Hoskier, Collation of Cod. Evan. 604, App. F. P. 4. 

[128] [The following specimens taken from the first hand of B mayillustrate the kakigraphy, if I may use the expression, which ischaracteristic of that MS. And also of [Symbol: Aleph]. The list mightbe easily increased. 

I. _Proper Names. _

[Greek: Iôanês], generally: [Greek: Iôannês], Luke i. 13*, 60, 63; Actsiii. 4; iv. 6, 13, 19; xii. 25; xiii. 5, 25; xv. 37; Rev. I. 1, 4, 9;xxii. 8. 

[Greek: Beezeboul], Matt. X. 25; xii. 24, 27; Mark iii. 22; Luke xi. 15, 18, 19. 

[Greek: Nazaret], Matt. Ii. 23; Luke i. 26; John i. 46, 47. [Greek:Nazara], Matt. Iv. 13. [Greek: Nazareth], Matt. Xxi. 11; Luke ii. 51;iv. 16. 

[Greek: Maria] for [Greek: Mariam], Matt. I. 20; Luke ii. 19. [Greek:Mariam] for [Greek: Maria], Matt. Xxvii. 61; Mark xx. 40; Luke x. 42;xi. 32; John xi. 2; xii. 3; xx. 16, 18. See Traditional Text, p. 86. 

[Greek: Koum], Mark v. 41. [Greek: Golgoth], Luke xix. 17. 

[Greek: Istraêleitai, Istraêlitai, Israêleitai, Israêlitai]. 

[Greek: Eleisabet, Elisabet]. 

[Greek: Môsês, Môusês. ]

[Greek: Dalmanountha], Mark viii. 10. 

[Greek: Iôsê] (Joseph of Arimathea), Mark xv. 45. [Greek: Iôsêph], Matt. Xxvii. 57, 59; Mark xv. 42; Luke xxiii. 50; John xix. 38. 

II. _Mis-spelling of ordinary words. _

[Greek: kath' idian], Matt. Xvii. 1, 19; xxi v. 3; Mark iv. 34; vi. 31, &c. [Greek: kat' idian], Matt. Xiv. 13, 23; Mark vi. 32; vii. 33, &c. 

[Greek: genêma], Matt. Xxvi. 29; Mark xiv. 25; Luke xxii. 18. [Greek:gennêma], Matt. Iii. 7; xii. 34; xxiii. 33; Luke iii. 7 (the well-known[Greek: gennêmata echidnôn]). 

A similar confusion between [Greek: genesis] and [Greek: gennêsis], Matt. I, and between [Greek: egenêthên] and [Greek: egennêthên], and[Greek: gegenêmai] and [Greek: gegennêmai]. See Kuenen and Cobet N. T. Ad fid. Cod. Vaticani lxxvii. 

III. _Itacisms. _

[Greek: kreinô], John xii. 48 ([Greek: kreinei]). [Greek: krinô], Matt. Vii. 1; xix. 28; Luke vi. 37; vii. 43; xii. 57, &c. 

[Greek: teimô, timô], Matt. Xv. 4, 5, 8; xix. 19; xxvii. 9; Mark vii. 6, 10, &c. 

[Greek: enebreimêthê] (Matt. Ix. 30) for [Greek: enebrimêsato]. [Greek:anakleithênai] (Mark vi. 39) for [Greek: anaklinai. Seitos] for [Greek:sitos] (Mark iv. 28). 

IV. _Bad Grammar. _

[Greek: tôi oikodespotêi epekalesan] for [Greek: ton oikodespotên ekal. ](Matt. X. 25). [Greek: katapatêsousin] for [Greek:-sôsin] (Matt. Vii. 6). [Greek: ho an aitêsetai] (Matt. Xiv. 7). [Greek: hotan de akouete](Mark xiii. 7). 

V. _Impossible words. _

[Greek: emnêsteumenên] (Luke i. 27). [Greek: ouranou] for [Greek:ouraniou] (ii. 13). [Greek: anêzêtoun] (Luke ii. 44). [Greek: kopiousin](Matt. Vi. 28). [Greek: êrôtoun] (Matt. Xv. 23). [Greek: kataskênoin](Mark iv. 32). [Greek: hêmeis] for [Greek: hymeis]. [Greek: hymeis] for[Greek: hêmeis]. ]

[129] This paper on Titus ii. 5 was marked by the Dean as being 'readyfor press. ' It was evidently one of his later essays, and was left inone of his later portfolios. 

[130] _All_ Matthaei's 16, --_all_ Rinck's 7, --_all_ Reiche's 6, --_all_Scrivener's 13, &c. , &c. 

[131] 622. 

[132] _Ed. _ Swete, ii. 247 (_domos suas bene regentes_); 248 (_domusproprias optime regant_). 

[133] ii. (_Eth. _) 291 a, 309 b. 

[134] xi. 750 a, 751 b c d--[Greek: hê oikouros kai oikonomikê. ]

[135] iii. 704. 

[136] ii. 271. 

[137] Cod. Clarom. 

[138] Cod. Amiat. , and August. Iii^{1}. 804. 

[139] vii. 716 c, 718 b (_Bene domum regere_, 718 c). 

[140] [Greek: kat' oikon oikourousin hôste parthenoi] (Soph. Oed. Col. 343). --'[Greek: Oikouros] est quasi proprium vocabulum mulierum: [Greek:oikourgos] est scribarum commentum, '--as Matthaei, whose note is worthreading, truly states. Wetstein's collections here should by all meansbe consulted. See also Field's delightful Otium Norv. , pp. 135-6. 

[141] P. 293, _lin. _ 4 (see _lin. _ 2). 

[142] P. 288, _lin. _ 20. 

[143] 1 Tim. V. 13. 

[144] [Greek: oikourgein]--which occurs in Clemens Rom. (ad Cor. C. 1)--is probably due to the scribe. 

CHAPTER VI. 

ACCIDENTAL CAUSES OF CORRUPTION. 

V. Liturgical Influence. 

§ 1. 

There is one distinct class of evidence provided by Almighty God for theconservation of the deposit in its integrity[145], which calls forspecial notice in this place. The Lectionaries of the ancient Churchhave not yet nearly enjoyed the attention they deserve, or the laboriousstudy which in order to render them practically available theyabsolutely require. Scarcely any persons, in fact, except professedcritics, are at all acquainted with the contents of the very curiousdocuments alluded to: while collations of any of them which have beenhitherto effected are few indeed. I speak chiefly of the Books calledEvangelistaria (or Evangeliaria), in other words, the proper lessonscollected out of the Gospels, and transcribed into a separate volume. Let me freely admit that I subjoin a few observations on this subjectwith unfeigned diffidence; having had to teach myself throughout thelittle I know;--and discovering in the end how very insufficient for mypurpose that little is. Properly handled, an adequate study of theLectionaries of the ancient Church would become the labour of a life. Werequire exact collations of at least 100 of them. From such a practicalacquaintance with about a tenth of the extant copies some veryinteresting results would infallibly be obtained[146]. 

As for the external appearance of these documents, it may be enough tosay that they range, like the mass of uncial and cursive copies, over aspace of about 700 years, --the oldest extant being of about the eighthcentury, and the latest dating in the fifteenth. Rarely are any so oldas the former date, --or so recent as the last named. When they began tobe executed is not known; but much older copies than any which atpresent exist must have perished through constant use: [for they are inperfect order when we first become acquainted with them, and as a wholethey are remarkably consistent with one another]. They are almostinvariably written in double columns, and not unfrequently aresplendidly executed. The use of Uncial letters is observed to have beenretained in documents of this class to a later period than in the caseof the Evangelia, viz. Down to the eleventh century. For the most partthey are furnished with a kind of musical notation executed invermilion; evidently intended to guide the reader in that peculiarrecitative which is still customary in the oriental Church. 

In these books the Gospels always stand in the following order: St. John: St. Matthew: St. Luke: St. Mark. The lessons are brief, --resembling the Epistles and Gospels in our Book of Common Prayer. 

They seem to me to fall into two classes: (_a_) Those which contain alesson for every day in the year: (_b_) Those which only contain[lessons for fixed Festivals and] the Saturday-Sunday lessons ([Greek:sabbatokyriakai]). We are reminded by this peculiarity that it was nottill a very late period in her history that the Eastern Church was ableto shake herself clear of the shadow of the old Jewish Sabbath[147]. [Tothese Lectionaries Tables of the Lessons were often added, of a similarcharacter to those which we have in our Prayer-books. The Table of dailyLessons went under the title of Synaxarion (or Eclogadion); and theTable of the Lessons of immovable Festivals and Saints' days was styledMenologion[148]. ]

Liturgical use has proved a fruitful source of textual perturbation. Nothing less was to have been expected, --as every one must admit who hasexamined ancient Evangelia with any degree of attention. For a periodbefore the custom arose of writing out the Ecclesiastical Lections inthe 'Evangelistaries, ' and 'Apostolos, ' it may be regarded as certainthat the practice generally prevailed of accommodating an ordinary copy, whether of the Gospels or of the Epistles, to the requirements of theChurch. This continued to the last to be a favourite method with theancients[149]. Not only was it the invariable liturgical practice tointroduce an ecclesiastical lection with an ever-varying formula, --bywhich means the holy Name is often found in MSS. Where it has no properplace, --but notes of time, &c. , ['like the unique and indubitablygenuine word [Greek: deuteroprôtôi][150], ' are omitted as carrying nomoral lesson, as well as longer passages like the case of the two versesrecounting the ministering Angel with the Agony and the BloodySweat[151]. 

That Lessons from the New Testament were probably read in the assembliesof the faithful according to a definite scheme, and on an establishedsystem, at least as early as the fourth century, has been shewn tofollow from plain historical fact in the tenth chapter of the TwelveLast Verses of St. Mark's Gospel, to which the reader is referred formore detailed information. Cyril, at Jerusalem, --and by implication, hisnamesake at Alexandria, --Chrysostom, at Antioch and at Constantinople, --Augustine, in Africa, --all four expressly witness to the circumstance. In other words, there is found to have been at least at that time fullyestablished throughout the Churches of Christendom a Lectionary, whichseems to have been essentially one and the same in the West and in theEast. That it must have been of even Apostolic antiquity may be inferredfrom several considerations[152]. For example, Marcion, in A. D. 140, would hardly have constructed an Evangelistarium and Apostolicon of hisown, as we learn from Epiphanius[153], if he had not been induced by theLectionary System prevailing around him to form a counterplan ofteaching upon the same model. ]

§ 2. 

Indeed, the high antiquity of the Church's Lectionary System is inferredwith certainty from many a textual phenomenon with which students ofTextual Science are familiar. 

It may be helpful to a beginner if I introduce to his notice the classof readings to be discussed in the present chapter, by inviting hisattention to the first words of the Gospel for St. Philip and St. James'Day in our own English Book of Common Prayer, --'And Jesus said unto Hisdisciples. ' Those words he sees at a glance are undeniably nothing elsebut an Ecclesiastical accretion to the Gospel, --words which breedoffence in no quarter, and occasion error to none. They havenevertheless stood prefixed to St. John xiv. 1 from an exceedinglyremote period; for, besides establishing themselves in every Lectionaryof the ancient Church[154], they are found in Cod. D[155], --in copies ofthe Old Latin[156] as the Vercellensis, Corbeiensis, Aureus, Bezae, --andin copies of the Vulgate. They may be of the second or third, they mustbe as old as the fourth century. It is evident that it wants but a verylittle for those words to have established their claim to a permanentplace in the Text. Readings just as slenderly supported have beenactually adopted before now[157]. 

I proceed to cite another instance; and here the success of an ordinarycase of Lectionary licence will be perceived to have been complete: forbesides recommending itself to Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, andWestcott and Hort, the blunder in question has established itself in thepages of the Revised Version. Reference is made to an alteration of theText occurring in certain copies of Acts iii. 1, which will be furtherdiscussed below[158]. When it has been stated that these copies are[Symbol: Aleph]ABCG, --the Vulgate, --the two Egyptian versions, --besidesthe Armenian, --and the Ethiopic, --it will be admitted that theEcclesiastical practice which has resulted in so widespread a reading, must be primitive indeed. To some persons such a formidable array ofevidence may seem conclusive in favour of any reading: but it can onlyseem so to those who do not realize the weight of counter-testimony. 

But by far the most considerable injury which has resulted to the Gospelfrom this cause is the suspicion which has alighted in certain quarterson the last twelve verses of the Gospel according to St. Mark. [Thoseverses made up by themselves a complete Lection. The preceding Lection, which was used on the Second Sunday after Easter, was closed with theLiturgical note 'The End, ' or [Greek: TO TELOS], occurring after theeighth verse. What more probable, nay, more certain result could therebe, than that some scribe should mistake the end of the Lection for theend of St. Mark's Gospel, if the last leaf should chance to have beentorn off, and should then transcribe no more[159]? How natural that St. Mark should express himself in a more condensed and abrupt style thanusual. This of course is only put forward as an explanation, whichleaves the notion of another writer and a later date unnecessary. If itcan be improved upon, so much the better. Candid critics ought to studyDean Burgon's elaborate chapter already referred to before rejectingit. ]

§ 3. 

And there probably does not exist, in the whole compass of the Gospel, amore interesting instance of this than is furnished by the words [Greek:eipe de ho Kyrios], in St. Luke vii. 31. This is certainly derived fromthe Lectionaries; being nothing else but the formula with which it wascustomary to introduce the lection that begins at this place. Accordingly, only one out of forty copies which have been consulted forthe purpose contains them. But the circumstance of interest remains tobe stated. When these four unauthorized words have been thus got rid of, the important discovery is made that the two preceding verses (verses 28and 29) must needs form a part of our Lord's discourse, --which it isperceived flows on unbroken from v. 24 to v. 35. This has been seenalready by some[160], though denied by others. But the fact does notadmit of rational doubt; though it is certainly not as yet generallyknown. It is not generally known, I mean, that the Church has recovereda piece of knowledge with which she was once familiar[161], but whichfor many centuries she has forgotten, viz. That thirty-two words whichshe supposed to be those of the Evangelist are in reality those of herLord. 

Indeed, when the expressions are considered, it is perceived that thisaccount of them must needs be the true one. Thus, we learn from the 24thverse that our Saviour was at this time addressing 'the crowds' or'multitudes. ' But the four classes specified in verses 29, 30, cannotreasonably be thought to be the Evangelist's analysis of those crowds. In fact what is said of 'the Pharisees and Lawyers' in ver. 30 isclearly not a remark made by the Evangelist on the reception which ourSaviour's words were receiving at the hands of his auditory; but ourSaviour's own statement of the reception which His Forerunner'spreaching had met with at the hands of the common people and thepublicans on the one hand, --the Pharisees and the Scribes on the other. Hence the inferential particle [Greek: oun] in the 31st verse; and theuse in ver. 35 of the same verb ([Greek: edikaiôthê]) which the DivineSpeaker had employed in ver. 29: whereby He takes up His previousstatement while He applies and enforces it. 

Another specimen of unauthorized accretion originating in the same wayis found a little farther on. In St. Luke ix. 1 ('And having calledtogether His twelve Disciples'), the words [Greek: mathêtas autou] areconfessedly spurious: being condemned by nearly every known cursive anduncial. Their presence in the meantime is fully accounted for by theadjacent rubrical direction how the lesson is to be introduced: viz. 'Atthat time Jesus having called together His twelve Disciples. 'Accordingly we are not surprised to find the words [Greek: ho Iêsous]also thrust into a few of the MSS. : though we are hardly prepared todiscover that the words of the Peshitto, besides the Latin and Cureton'sSyriac, are disfigured in the same way. The admirers of 'the olduncials' will learn with interest that, instead of [Greek: mathêtasautou], [Symbol: Aleph]C with LX[Symbol: Lambda][Symbol: Xi] and achoice assortment of cursives exhibit [Greek: apostolous], --beingsupported in this manifestly spurious reading by the best copies of theOld Latin, the Vulgate, Gothic, Harkleian, Bohairic, and a few othertranslations. 

Indeed, it is surprising what a fertile source of corruption Liturgicalusage has proved. Every careful student of the Gospels remembers thatSt. Matthew describes our Lord's first and second missionary journey invery nearly the same words. The former place (iv. 23) ending [Greek: kaipasan malakian en tô laô] used to conclude the lesson for the secondSunday after Pentecost, --the latter (ix. 35) ending [Greek: kai pasanmalakian] occupies the same position in the Gospel for the seventhSunday. It will not seem strange to any one who considers the matter, that [Greek: en tô laô] has in consequence not only found its way intoix. 35, but has established itself there very firmly: and that from avery early time. The spurious words are first met with in the CodexSinaiticus[162]. 

But sometimes corruptions of this class are really perplexing. Thus[Symbol: Aleph] testifies to the existence of a short additional clause([Greek: kai polloi êkolouthêsan autô]) at the end, as some critics say, of the same 35th verse. Are we not rather to regard the words as thebeginning of ver. 36, and as being nothing else but the liturgicalintroduction to the lection for the Twelve Apostles, which follows (ix. 36-x. 8), and whose Festival falls on the 30th June? Whatever itsorigin, this confessedly spurious accretion to the Text, which existsbesides only in L and six cursive copies, must needs be of extraordinaryantiquity, being found in the two oldest copies of the Old Latin:--asufficient indication, by the way, of the utter insufficiency of such anamount of evidence for the genuineness of any reading. 

This is the reason why, in certain of the oldest documents accessible, such a strange amount of discrepancy is discoverable in the text of thefirst words of St. Luke x. 25 ([Greek: kai idou nomikos tis anestê, ekpeirazôn aiton, kai legôn]). Many of the Latin copies preface thiswith _et haec eo dicente_. Now, the established formula of thelectionaries here is, --[Greek: nomikos tis prosêthen tô I. ], whichexplains why the Curetonian, the Lewis, with 33, 'the queen of thecursives, ' as their usual leader in aberrant readings is absurdlystyled, so read the place: while D, with one copy of the Old Latin, stands alone in exhibiting, --[Greek: anestê de tis nomikos]. FourCodexes ([Symbol: Aleph]BL[Symbol: Xi]) with the Curetonian omit thesecond [Greek: kai] which is illegible in the Lewis. To read this placein its purity you have to take up any ordinary cursive copy. 

§ 4. 

Take another instance. St. Mark xv. 28 has been hitherto read in allChurches as follows:--'And the Scripture was fulfilled, which saith, "And He was numbered with the transgressors. "' In these last dayshowever the discovery is announced that every word of this is anunauthorized addition to the inspired text. Griesbach indeed only marksthe verse as probably spurious; while Tregelles is content to enclose itin brackets. But Alford, Tischendorf, Westcott and Hort, and theRevisers eject the words [Greek: kai eplêrôthê hê graphê hê legousa, kaimeta anomôn elogisthê] from the text altogether. What can be the reasonfor so extraordinary a proceeding?

Let us not be told by Schulz (Griesbach's latest editor) that 'thequotation is not in Mark's manner; that the formula which introduces itis John's: and that it seems to be a gloss taken from Luke xxii. 37. 'This is not criticism but dictation, --imagination, not argument. Men whoso write forget that they are assuming the very point which they arecalled upon to prove. 

Now it happens that all the Uncials but six and an immense majority ofthe Cursive copies contain the words before us:--that besides these, theOld Latin, the Syriac, the Vulgate, the Gothic and the Bohairicversions, all concur in exhibiting them:--that the same words areexpressly recognized by the Sectional System of Eusebius;--having asection ([Greek: sis] / [Greek: ê] i. E. 216/8) to themselves--which isthe weightiest sanction that Father had it in his power to give to wordsof Scripture. So are they also recognized by the Syriac sectional system(260/8), which is diverse from that of Eusebius and independent of it. What then is to be set against such a weight of ancient evidence? Thefact that the following six Codexes are without this 28th verse, [Symbol: Aleph]ABCDX, together with the Sahidic and Lewis. The notoriousCodex k (Bobiensis) is the only other ancient testimony producible; towhich Tischendorf adds 'about forty-five cursive copies. ' Will it beseriously pretended that this evidence for omitting ver. 28 from St. Mark's Gospel can compete with the evidence for retaining it?

Let it not be once more insinuated that we set numbers before antiquity. Codex D is of the sixth century; Cod. X not older than the ninth: andnot one of the four Codexes which remain is so old, within perhaps twocenturies, as either the Old Latin or the Peshitto versions. We haveEusebius and Jerome's Vulgate as witnesses on the same side, besides theGothic version, which represents a Codex probably as old as either. Tothese witnesses must be added Victor of Antioch, who commented on St. Mark's Gospel before either A or C were written[163]. 

It will be not unreasonably asked by those who have learned to regardwhatever is found in B or [Symbol: Aleph] as oracular, --'But is itcredible that on a point like this such authorities as [Symbol:Aleph]ABCD should all be in error?'

It is not only credible, I answer, but a circumstance of which we meetwith so many undeniable examples that it ceases to be even a matter ofsurprise. On the other hand, what is to be thought of the credibilitythat on a point like this all the ancient versions (except the Sahidic)should have conspired to mislead mankind? And further, on whatintelligible principle is the consent of all the other uncials, and thewhole mass of cursives, to be explained, if this verse of Scripture beindeed spurious?

I know that the rejoinder will be as follows:--'Yes, but if the tenwords in dispute really are part of the inspired verity, how is theirabsence from the earliest Codexes to be accounted for?' Now it happensthat for once I am able to assign the reason. But I do so under protest, for I insist that to point out the source of the mistakes in our oldestCodexes is no part of a critic's business. It would not only prove anendless, but also a hopeless task. This time, however, I am able toexplain. 

If the reader will take the trouble to inquire at the Bibliothèque atParis for a Greek Codex numbered '71, ' an Evangelium will be put intohis hands which differs from any that I ever met with in givingsingularly minute and full rubrical directions. At the end of St. Markxv. 27, he will read as follows:--'When thou readest the sixth Gospel ofthe Passion, --also when thou readest the second Gospel of the Vigil ofGood Friday, --stop here: skip verse 28: then go on at verse 29. ' Theinference from this is so obvious, that it would be to abuse thereader's patience if I were to enlarge upon it, or even to draw it outin detail. Very ancient indeed must the Lectionary practice in thisparticular have been that it should leave so fatal a trace of itsoperation in our four oldest Codexes: but _it has left it_[164]. Theexplanation is evident, the verse is plainly genuine, and the Codexeswhich leave it out are corrupt. 

One word about the evidence of the cursive copies on this occasion. Tischendorf says that 'about forty-five' of them are without thisprecious verse of Scripture. I venture to say that the learned criticwould be puzzled to produce forty-five copies of the Gospels in whichthis verse has no place. But in fact his very next statement (viz. Thatabout half of these are Lectionaries), --satisfactorily explains thematter. Just so. From every Lectionary in the world, for the reasonalready assigned, these words are away; as well as in every MS. Which, like B and [Symbol: Aleph], has been depraved by the influence of theLectionary practice. 

And now I venture to ask, --What is to be thought of that Revision of ourAuthorized Version which omits ver. 28 altogether; with a marginalintimation that 'many ancient authorities insert it'? Would it not havebeen the course of ordinary reverence, --I was going to say of truth andfairness, --to leave the text unmolested: with a marginal memorandum thatjust 'a very few ancient authorities leave it out'?

§ 5. 

A gross depravation of the Text resulting from this cause, whichnevertheless has imposed on several critics, as has been already said, is furnished by the first words of Acts iii. The most ancient witnessaccessible, namely the Peshitto, confirms the usual reading of theplace, which is also the text of the cursives: viz. [Greek: Epi to autode Petros kai Iôannês k. T. L. ] So the Harkleian and Bede. So Codex E. 

The four oldest of the six available uncials conspire however inrepresenting the words which immediately precede in the followingunintelligible fashion:--[Greek: ho de Kyrios prosetithei toussôzomenous kath' hêmeran epi to auto. Petros de k. T. L. ] How is it to bethought that this strange and vapid presentment of the passage had itsbeginning? It results, I answer, from the ecclesiastical practice ofbeginning a fresh lection at the name of 'Peter, ' prefaced by the usualformula 'In those days. ' It is accordingly usual to find the liturgicalword [Greek: archê]--indicative of the beginning of a lection, --thrustin between [Greek: epi to auto de] and [Greek: Petros]. At a yet earlierperiod I suppose some more effectual severance of the text was made inthat place, which unhappily misled some early scribe[165]. And so itcame to pass that in the first instance the place stood thus: [Greek: hode Kyrios prosetithei tous sôzomenous kath' hêmeran tê ekklêsia epi toauto], --which was plainly intolerable. 

What I am saying will commend itself to any unprejudiced reader when ithas been stated that Cod. D in this place actually reads asfollows:--[Greek: kathêmeran epi to auto en tê ekklêsia. En de taishêmerais tautais Petros k. T. L. ]: the scribe with simplicity both givingus the liturgical formula with which it was usual to introduce theGospel for the Friday after Easter, and permitting us to witness theperplexity with which the evident surplusage of [Greek: tê ekklêsia epito auto] occasioned him. He inverts those two expressions and thrusts ina preposition. How obvious it now was to solve the difficulty by gettingrid of [Greek: tê ekklêsia]. 

It does not help the adverse case to shew that the Vulgate as well asthe copy of Cyril of Alexandria are disfigured with the same corruptreading as [Symbol: Aleph]ABC. It does but prove how early and howwidespread is this depravation of the Text. But the indirect proof thusafforded that the actual Lectionary System must needs date from a periodlong anterior to our oldest Codexes is a far more important as well as amore interesting inference. In the meantime I suspect that it was inWestern Christendom that this corruption of the text had its beginning:for proof is not wanting that the expression [Greek: epi to auto] seemedhard to the Latins[166]. 

Hence too the omission of [Greek: palin] from [Symbol: Aleph]BD (St. Matt, xiii. 43). A glance at the place in an actual Codex[167] willexplain the matter to a novice better than a whole page of writing:--

 [Greek: akouetô. Telos] [Greek: palin. Archê. Eipen o Kurios tên parabolên tautên. ] [Greek: Omoia estin k. T. L. ]

The word [Greek: palin], because it stands between the end ([Greek:telos]) of the lesson for the sixth Thursday and the beginning ([Greek:archê]) of the first Friday after Pentecost, got left out [though everyone acquainted with Gospel MSS. Knows that [Greek: archê] and [Greek:telos] were often inserted in the text]. The second of these two lessonsbegins with [Greek: homoia] [because [Greek: palin] at the beginning ofa lesson is not wanted]. Here then is a singular token of the antiquityof the Lectionary System in the Churches of the East: as well as a proofof the untrustworthy character of Codd. [Symbol: Aleph]BD. The discoverythat they are supported this time by copies of the Old Latin (a c eff^{1. 2} g^{1. 2} k l), Vulgate, Curetonian, Bohairic, Ethiopic, does butfurther shew that such an amount of evidence in and by itself is whollyinsufficient to determine the text of Scripture. 

When therefore I see Tischendorf, in the immediately preceding verse(xiii. 43) on the sole authority of [Symbol: Aleph]B and a few Latincopies, omitting the word [Greek: akouein], --and again in the presentverse on very similar authority (viz. [Symbol: Aleph]D, Old Latin, Vulgate, Peshitto, Curetonian, Lewis, Bohairic, together with fivecursives of aberrant character) transposing the order of the words[Greek: panta hosa echei pôlei], --I can but reflect on the utterlyinsecure basis on which the Revisers and the school which they followwould remodel the inspired Text. 

It is precisely in this way and for the selfsame reason, that the clause[Greek: kai elypêthêsan sphodra] (St. Matt. Xvii. 23) comes to beomitted in K and several other copies. The previous lesson ends at[Greek: egerthêsetai], --the next lesson begins at [Greek: prosêlthon]. 

§ 6. 

Indeed, the Ancient Liturgy of the Church has frequently exercised acorrupting influence on the text of Scripture. Having elsewhereconsidered St. Luke's version of the Lord's Prayer[168], I will in thisplace discuss the genuineness of the doxology with which the Lord'sPrayer concludes in St. Matt. Vi. 13[169], --[Greek: hoti sou estin hêbasileia kai hê dynamis kai hê doxa eis tous aiônas. Amên], --words whichfor 360 years have been rejected by critical writers as spurious, notwithstanding St. Paul's unmistakable recognition of them in 2 Tim. Iv. 18, --which alone, one would have thought, should have sufficed topreserve them from molestation. 

The essential note of primitive antiquity at all events these fifteenwords enjoy in perfection, being met with in all copies of thePeshitto:--and this is a far weightier consideration than the fact thatthey are absent from most of the Latin copies. Even of these howeverfour (k f g^{1} q) recognize the doxology, which is also found inCureton's Syriac and the Sahidic version; the Gothic, the Ethiopic, Armenian, Georgian, Slavonic, Harkleian, Palestinian, Erpenius' Arabic, and the Persian of Tawos; as well as in the [Greek: Didachê] (withvariations); Apostolical Constitutions (iii. 18-vii. 25 withvariations); in St. Ambrose (De Sacr. Vi. 5. 24), Caesarius (Dial. I. 29). Chrysostom comments on the words without suspicion, and oftenquotes them (In Orat. Dom. , also see Hom. In Matt. Xiv. 13): as doesIsidore of Pelusium (Ep. Iv. 24). See also Opus Imperfectum (Hom. InMatt. Xiv), Theophylact on this place, and Euthymius Zigabenus (in Matt. Vi. 13 and C. Massal. Anath. 7). And yet their true claim to be acceptedas inspired is of course based on the consideration that they are foundin ninety-nine out of a hundred of the Greek copies, including [Symbol:Phi] and [Symbol: Sigma] of the end of the fifth and beginning of thesixth centuries. What then is the nature of the adverse evidence withwhich they have to contend and which is supposed to be fatal to theirclaims?

Four uncial MSS. ([Symbol: Aleph]BDZ), supported by five cursives of badcharacter (1, 17 which gives [Greek: amên], 118, 130, 209), and, as wehave seen, all the Latin copies but four, omit these words; which, it isaccordingly assumed, must have found their way surreptitiously into thetext of all the other copies in existence. But let me ask, --Is it at alllikely, or rather is it any way credible, that in a matter like this, all the MSS. In the world but nine should have become corrupted? Nohypothesis is needed to account for one more instance of omission incopies which exhibit a mutilated text in every page. But how will menpretend to explain an interpolation universal as the present; which maybe traced as far back as the second century; which has establisheditself without appreciable variety of reading in all the MSS. ; which hastherefore found its way from the earliest time into every part ofChristendom; is met with in all the Lectionaries, and in all the GreekLiturgies; and has so effectually won the Church's confidence that tothis hour it forms part of the public and private devotions of thefaithful all over the world?

One and the same reply has been rendered to this inquiry ever since thedays of Erasmus. A note in the Complutensian Polyglott (1514) expressesit with sufficient accuracy. 'In the Greek copies, after _And deliver usfrom evil_, follows _For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and theglory, for ever_. But it is to be noted that in the Greek liturgy, afterthe choir has said _And deliver us from evil_, it is the Priest whoresponds as above: and those words, according to the Greeks, the priestalone may pronounce. This makes it probable that the words in questionare no integral part of the Lord's Prayer: but that certain copyistsinserted them in error, supposing, from their use in the liturgy, thatthey formed part of the text. ' In other words, they represent that men'sears had grown so fatally familiar with this formula from its habitualuse in the liturgy, that at last they assumed it to be part and parcelof the Lord's Prayer. The same statement has been repeated ad nauseam byten generations of critics for 360 years. The words with which ourSaviour closed His pattern prayer are accordingly rejected as aninterpolation resulting from the liturgical practice of the primitiveChurch. And this slipshod account of the matter is universallyacquiesced in by learned and unlearned readers alike at the present day. 

From an examination of above fifty ancient oriental liturgies, it isfound then that though the utmost variety prevails among them, yet that_not one_ of them exhibits the evangelical formula as it stands in St. Matt. Vi. 13; while in some instances the divergences of expression areeven extraordinary. Subjoined is what may perhaps be regarded as thetypical eucharistic formula, derived from the liturgy which passes asChrysostom's. Precisely the same form recurs in the office which iscalled after the name of Basil: and it is essentially reproduced byGregory of Nyssa, Cyril of Jerusalem, and pseudo-Caesarius; whilesomething very like it is found to have been in use in more of theChurches of the East. 

'_For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory_, Father, Sonand Holy Ghost, now and always and _for ever_ and ever. _Amen_. '

But as every one sees at a glance, such a formula as theforegoing, --with its ever-varying terminology of praise, --its constantreference to the blessed Trinity, --its habitual [Greek: nun kaiaei], --and its invariable [Greek: eis tous aiônas tôn aiônôn], (whichmust needs be of very high antiquity, for it is mentioned byIrenaeus[170], and may be as old as 2 Tim. Iv. 18 itself;)--thedoxology, I say, which formed part of the Church's liturgy, thoughtranscribed 10, 000 times, could never by possibility have resulted inthe unvarying doxology found in MSS. Of St. Matt. Vi. 13, --'_For thineis the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen. _'

On the other hand, the inference from a careful survey of so manyOriental liturgies is inevitable. The universal prevalence of a doxologyof some sort at the end of the Lord's Prayer; the general prefix 'forthine'; the prevailing mention therein of 'the kingdom and the power andthe glory'; the invariable reference to Eternity:--all this constitutesa weighty corroboration of the genuineness of the form in St. Matthew. Eked out with a confession of faith in the Trinity, and otherwiseamplified as piety or zeal for doctrinal purity suggested, everyliturgical formula of the kind is clearly derivable from the form ofwords in St. Matt. Vi. 13. In no conceivable way, on the other hand, could that briefer formula have resulted from the practice of theancient Church. The thing, I repeat, is simply impossible. 

What need to point out in conclusion that the Church's peculiar methodof reciting the Lord's Prayer in the public liturgy does notwithstandingsupply the obvious and sufficient explanation of all the adversephenomena of the case? It was the invariable practice from the earliesttime for the Choir to break off at the words 'But deliver us from evil. 'They never pronounced the doxology. The doxology must for that reasonhave been omitted by the critical owner of the archetypal copy of St. Matthew from which nine extant Evangelia, Origen, and the Old Latinversion originally derived their text. This is the sum of the matter. There can be no simpler solution of the alleged difficulty. ThatTertullian, Cyprian, Ambrose recognize no more of the Lord's Prayer thanthey found in their Latin copies, cannot create surprise. The wonderwould have been if they did. 

Much stress has been laid on the silence of certain of the Greek Fathersconcerning the doxology although they wrote expressly on the Lord'sPrayer; as Origen, Gregory of Nyssa[171], Cyril of Jerusalem, Maximus. Those who have attended most to such subjects will however bear me mostready witness, that it is never safe to draw inferences of the kindproposed from the silence of the ancients. What if they regarded adoxology, wherever found, as hardly a fitting subject for exegeticalcomment? But however their silence is to be explained, it is at leastquite certain that the reason of it is not because their copies of St. Matthew were unfurnished with the doxology. Does any one seriouslyimagine that in A. D. 650, when Maximus wrote, Evangelia were, in thisrespect, in a different state from what they are at present?

The sum of what has been offered may be thus briefly stated:--Thetextual perturbation observable at St. Matt. Vi. 13 is indeed due to aliturgical cause, as the critics suppose. But then it is found that notthe great bulk of the Evangelia, but only Codd. [Symbol: Aleph]BDZ, 1, 17, 118, 130, 209, have been victims of the corrupting influence. Asusual, I say, it is the few, not the many copies, which have been ledastray. Let the doxology at the end of the Lord's Prayer be thereforeallowed to retain its place in the text without further molestation. Letno profane hands be any more laid on these fifteen precious words of theLord Jesus Christ. 

There yet remains something to be said on the same subject for theedification of studious readers; to whom the succeeding words arespecially commended. They are requested to keep their attentionsustained, until they have read what immediately follows. 

The history of the rejection of these words is in a high degreeinstructive. It dates from 1514, when the Complutensian editors, whilstadmitting that the words were found in their Greek copies, banished themfrom the text solely in deference to the Latin version. In a marginalannotation they started the hypothesis that the doxology is a liturgicalinterpolation. But how is that possible, seeing that the doxology iscommented on by Chrysostom? 'We presume, ' they say, 'that thiscorruption of the original text must date from an antecedent period. 'The same adverse sentence, supported by the same hypothesis, wasreaffirmed by Erasmus, and on the same grounds; but in his edition ofthe N. T. He suffered the doxology to stand. As the years have rolledout, and Codexes DBZ[Symbol: Aleph] have successively come to light, critics have waxed bolder and bolder in giving their verdict. First, Grotius, Hammond, Walton; then Mill and Grabe; next Bengel, Wetstein, Griesbach; lastly Scholz, Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Alford, Westcott and Hort, and the Revisers have denounced the precious words asspurious. 

But how does it appear that tract of time has strengthened the caseagainst the doxology? Since 1514, scholars have become acquainted withthe Peshitto version; which by its emphatic verdict, effectuallydisposes of the evidence borne by all but three of the Old Latin copies. The [Greek: Didachê] of the first or second century, the Sahidic versionof the third century, the Apostolic Constitutions (2), follow on thesame side. Next, in the fourth century come Chrysostom, Ambrose, ps. -Caesarius, the Gothic version. After that Isidore, the Ethiopic, Cureton's Syriac. The Harkleian, Armenian, Georgian, and other versions, with Chrysostom (2), the Opus Imperfectum, Theophylact, and Euthymius(2), bring up the rear[172]. Does any one really suppose that twoCodexes of the fourth century (B[Symbol: Aleph]), which are evennotorious for their many omissions and general accuracy, are anyadequate set-off against such an amount of ancient evidence? L and 33, generally the firm allies of BD and the Vulgate, forsake them at St. Matt. Vi. 13: and dispose effectually of the adverse testimony of D andZ, which are also balanced by [Symbol: Phi] and [Symbol: Sigma]. But atthis juncture the case for rejecting the doxology breaks down: and whenit is discovered that every other uncial and every other cursive inexistence may be appealed to in its support, and that the story of itsliturgical origin proves to be a myth, --what must be the verdict of animpartial mind on a survey of the entire evidence?

The whole matter may be conveniently restated thus:--Liturgical use hasindeed been the cause of a depravation of the text at St. Matt. Vi. 13;but it proves on inquiry to be the very few MSS. , --not the verymany, --which have been depraved. 

Nor is any one at liberty to appeal to a yet earlier period than isattainable by existing liturgical evidence; and to suggest that then thedoxology used by the priest may have been the same with that which isfound in the ordinary text of St. Matthew's Gospel. This may have beenthe case or it may not. Meanwhile, the hypothesis, which fell to theground when the statement on which it rested was disproved, is not nowto be built up again on a mere conjecture. But if the fact could beascertained, --and I am not at all concerned to deny that such a thing ispossible, --I should regard it only as confirmatory of the genuineness ofthe doxology. For why should the liturgical employment of the lastfifteen words of the Lord's Prayer be thought to cast discredit on theirgenuineness? In the meantime, the undoubted fact, that for anindefinitely remote period the Lord's Prayer was not publicly recited bythe people further than 'But deliver us from evil, '--a doxology of somesort being invariably added, but pronounced by the priest alone, --thisclearly ascertained fact is fully sufficient to account for a phenomenonso ordinary [found indeed so commonly throughout St. Matthew, to saynothing of occurrences in the other Gospels] as really not to requireparticular explanation, viz. The omission of the last half of St. Matthew vi. 13 from Codexes [Symbol: Aleph]BDZ. 

FOOTNOTES:

[145] [I have retained this passage notwithstanding the objections madein some quarters against similar passages in the companion volume, because I think them neither valid, nor creditable to high intelligence, or to due reverence. ]

[146] [The Textual student will remember that besides the Lectionariesof the Gospels mentioned here, of which about 1000 are known, there aresome 300 more of the Acts and Epistles, called by the name Apostolos. ]

[147] ['It seems also a singular note of antiquity that the Sabbath andthe Sunday succeeding it do as it were cohere, and bear one appellation;so that the week takes its name--_not_ from the Sunday with which itcommences, but--from the Saturday-and-Sunday with which it concludes. 'Twelve Verses, p. 194, where more particulars are given. ]

[148] [For the contents of these Tables, see Scrivener's PlainIntroduction, 4th edition, vol. I. Pp. 80-89. ]

[149] See Scrivener's Plain Introduction, 4th edition, vol. I. Pp. 56-65. 

[150] Twelve Verses, p. 220. The MS. Stops in the middle of a sentence. 

[151] St. Luke xxii. 43, 44. 

[152] In the absence of materials supplied by the Dean upon what was hisown special subject, I have thought best to extract the above sentencesfrom the Twelve Last Verses, p. 207. The next illustration is his own, though in my words. 

[153] i. 311. 

[154] [Greek: eipen ho Kyrios tois heautou mathêtais; mê tarassesthô. ]

[155] [Greek: kai eipen tois mathêtais autou]. The same Codex (D) alsoprefixes to St. Luke xvi. 19 the Ecclesiastical formula--[Greek: eipende kai eteran parabolên]. 

[156] '_Et ait discipulis suis, non turbetur_. '

[157] E. G. The words [Greek: kai legei autois; eirênê hymin] have beenomitted by Tisch, and rejected by W. -Hort from St. Luke xxiv. 36 _on thesole authority_ of D and five copies of the Old Latin. Again, on thesame sorry evidence, the words [Greek: proskynêsantes auton] have beenomitted or rejected by the same critics from St. Luke xxiv. 52. In bothinstances the expressions are also branded with doubt in the R. V. 

[158] Pp. 78-80. 

[159] See Traditional Text, Appendix VII. 

[160] Bp. C. Wordsworth. But Alford, Westcott and Hort, doubt it. 

[161] Thus Codex [Symbol: Xi] actually interpolates at this place thewords--[Greek: ouketi ekeinois elegeto, alla tois mathêtais. ] Tisch. _adloc_. 

[162] Cyril Alex, (four times) and the Verona Codex (b), besides L and afew other copies, even append the same familiar words to [Greek: kaipasan malakian] in St. Matt. X. 1. 

[163] Investigate Possinus, 345, 346, 348. 

[164] It is surprising to find so great an expert as Griesbach in thelast year of his life so entirely misunderstanding this subject. See hisComment. Crit. Part ii. P. 190. 'Nec ulla ... Debuerint. '

[165] [Greek: tous sôzomenous kathêmeran en tê ekklêsia. Epi to auto de(TÊ S' TÊS DIAKINÊSIMOU) Petros kai Iôannês, k. T. L. ] Addit. 16, 184, fol. 152 _b_. 

[166] Bede, Retr. 111. D (add. [Greek: hoi en t. Ekkl. ]). Brit. Mus. Addit. 16, 184. Fol. 152 _b. _ Vulgate. 

[167] So the place stands in Evan. 64. The liturgical notes are printedin a smaller type, for distinction. 

[168] The Revision Revised, 34-6. 

[169] See The Traditional Text, p. 104. 

[170] [Greek: alla kai hêmas epi tês Eucharistias legontas, 'eis tousaiônas tôn aiônôn, ' k. T. L. ] Contra Haer. Lib. I. C. 3. 

[171] But the words of Gregory of Nyssa are doubtful. See Scrivener, Introduction, ii. P. 325, note 1. 

[172] See my Textual Guide, Appendix V. Pp. 131-3 (G. Bell & Sons). Ihave increased the Dean's list with a few additional authorities. 

CHAPTER VII. 

CAUSES OF CORRUPTION CHIEFLY INTENTIONAL. 

I. Harmonistic Influence. 

[It must not be imagined that all the causes of the depravation of thetext of Holy Scripture were instinctive, and that mistakes arose solelybecause scribes were overcome by personal infirmity, or wereunconsciously the victims of surrounding circumstances. There was oftenmore design and method in their error. They, or those who directed them, wished sometimes to correct and improve the copy or copies before them. And indeed occasionally they desired to make the Holy Scriptures witnessto their own peculiar belief. Or they had their ideas of taste, and didnot scruple to alter passages to suit what they fancied was theirenlightened judgement. 

Thus we can trace a tendency to bring the Four Records into oneharmonious narrative, or at least to excise or vary statements in oneGospel which appeared to conflict with parallel statements in another. Or else, some Evangelical Diatessaron, or Harmony, or combined narrativenow forgotten, exercised an influence over them, and whether consciouslyor not, --since it is difficult always to keep designed and unintentionalmistakes apart, and we must not be supposed to aim at scientificexactness in the arrangement adopted in this analysis, --induced them toadopt alterations of the pure Text. 

We now advance to some instances which will severally and conjointlyexplain themselves. ]

§ 1. 

Nothing can be more exquisitely precise than St. John's way ofdescribing an incident to which St. Mark (xvi. 9) only refers; viz. OurLord's appearance to Mary Magdalene, --the first of His appearances afterHis Resurrection. The reason is discoverable for every word theEvangelist uses:--its form and collocation. Both St. Luke (xxiv. 3) andpreviously St. Mark (xvi. 5) expressly stated that the women who visitedthe Sepulchre on the first Easter morning, 'after they had entered in'([Greek: eiselthousai]), saw the Angels. St John explains that at thattime Mary was not with them. She had separated herself from theircompany;--had gone in quest of Simon Peter and 'the other disciple. 'When the women, their visit ended, had in turn departed from theSepulchre, she was left in the garden alone. 'Mary was standing [withher face] _towards the sepulchre_ weeping, --_outside_[173]. '

All this, singular to relate, was completely misunderstood by thecritics of the two first centuries. Not only did they identify theincident recorded in St. John xx. 11, 12 with St. Mark xv. 5 and St. Luke xxiv. 3, 4, from which, as we have seen, the first-named Evangelistis careful to distinguish it;--not only did they further identify bothplaces with St. Matt, xxviii. 2, 3[174], from which they are clearlyseparate;--but they considered themselves at liberty to tamper with theinspired text in order to bring it into harmony with their ownconvictions. Some of them accordingly altered [Greek: pros to mnêmeion]into [Greek: pros tô mnêmeiô] (which is just as ambiguous in Greek as'_at_ the sepulchre' in English[175]), and [Greek: exô] they boldlyerased. It is thus that Codex A exhibits the text. But in fact thisdepravation must have begun at a very remote period and prevailed to anextraordinary extent: for it disfigures the best copies of the OldLatin, (the Syriac being doubtful): a memorable circumstance truly, andin a high degree suggestive. Codex B, to be sure, reads [Greek:heistêkei pros tô mnêmeiô, exô klaiousa], --merely transposing (with manyother authorities) the last two words. But then Codex B substitutes[Greek: elthousai] for [Greek: eiselthousai] in St. Mark xvi. 5, inorder that the second Evangelist may not seem to contradict St. Matt, xxviii. 2, 3. So that, according to this view of the matter, the Angelicappearance was outside the sepulchre[176]. Codex [Symbol: Aleph], on thecontrary, is thorough. Not content with omitting [Greek: exô], --(as inthe next verse it leaves out [Greek: duo], in order to prevent St. Johnxx. 12 from seeming to contradict St. Matt. Xxviii. 2, 3, and St. Markxvi. 5), --it stands alone in reading [Greek: EN tô mnêmeiô]. (C and Dare lost here. ) When will men learn that these 'old uncials' are _ignesfatui_, --not beacon lights; and admit that the texts which they exhibitare not only inconsistent but corrupt?

There is no reason for distrusting the received reading of the presentplace in any particular. True, that most of the uncials and many of thecursives read [Greek: pros tô mnêmeiô]: but so did neitherChrysostom[177] nor Cyril[178] read the place. And if the Evangelisthimself had so written, is it credible that a majority of the copieswould have forsaken the easier and more obvious, in order to exhibit theless usual and even slightly difficult expression? Many, by writing[Greek: pros tô mnêmeiô], betray themselves; for they retain a suretoken that the accusative ought to end the sentence. I am not concernedhowever just now to discuss these matters of detail. I am only bent onillustrating how fatal to the purity of the Text of the Gospels has beenthe desire of critics, who did not understand those divine compositions, to bring them into enforced agreement with one another. The sectionalsystem of Eusebius, I suspect, is not so much the cause as theconsequence of the ancient and inveterate misapprehensions whichprevailed in respect of the history of the Resurrection. It is timehowever to proceed. 

§ 2. 

Those writers who overlook the corruptions which the text has actuallyexperienced through a mistaken solicitude on the part of ancient criticsto reconcile what seemed to them the conflicting statements of differentEvangelists, are frequently observed to attribute to this kind ofofficiousness expressions which are unquestionably portions of thegenuine text. Thus, there is a general consensus amongst critics of thedestructive school to omit the words [Greek: kai tines syn autais] fromSt. Luke xxiv. 1. Their only plea is the testimony of [Symbol: Aleph]BCLand certain of the Latin copies, --a conjunction of authorities which, when they stand alone, we have already observed to bear invariably falsewitness. Indeed, before we proceed to examine the evidence, we discoverthat those four words of St. Luke are even required in this place. ForSt. Matthew (xxvii. 61), and St. Mark after him (xv. 47), had distinctlyspecified two women as witnesses of how and where our Lord's body waslaid. Now they were the same women apparently who prepared the spicesand ointment and hastened therewith at break of day to the sepulchre. Had we therefore only St. Matthew's Gospel we should have assumed that'the ointment-bearers, ' for so the ancients called them, were but two(St. Matt. Xxviii. 1). That they were at least three, even St. Markshews by adding to their number Salome (xvi. 1). But in fact theircompany consisted of more than four; as St. Luke explains when he statesthat it was the same little band of holy women who had accompanied ourSaviour out of Galilee (xxiii. 55, cf. Viii. 2). In anticipationtherefore of what he will have to relate in ver. 10, he says in ver. 1, 'and certain with them. '

But how, I shall be asked, would you explain the omission of these wordswhich to yourself seem necessary? And after insisting that one is neverbound to explain how the text of any particular passage came to becorrupted, I answer, that these words were originally ejected from thetext in order to bring St. Luke's statement into harmony with that ofthe first Evangelist, who mentions none but Mary Magdalene and Mary themother of James and Joses. The proof is that four of the same Latincopies which are for the omission of [Greek: kai tines syn autais] areobserved to begin St. Luke xxiii. 55 as follows, --[Greek:katakolouthêsasai de DUO gynaikes]. The same fabricated reading is foundin D. It exists also in the Codex which Eusebius employed when he wrotehis Demonstratio Evangelica. Instead therefore of wearying the readerwith the evidence, which is simply overwhelming, for letting the textalone, I shall content myself with inviting him to notice that thetables have been unexpectedly turned on our opponents. There is indeedfound to have been a corruption of the text hereabouts, and of the wordsjust now under discussion; but it belongs to an exceedingly remote age;and happily the record of it survives at this day only in [Symbol:Aleph]BCDL and certain of the Old Latin copies. Calamitous however itis, that what the Church has long since deliberately refused to partwith should, at the end of so many centuries, by Lachmann and Tregellesand Tischendorf, by Alford and Westcott and Hort, be resolutely thrustout of place; and indeed excluded from the Sacred Text by a majority ofthe Revisers. 

[A very interesting instance of such Harmonistic Influence may be foundin the substitution of 'wine' ([Greek: oinon]) for vinegar ([Greek:oxos]), respecting which the details are given in the second Appendix tothe Traditional Text. ]

[Observe yet another instance of harmonizing propensities in the AncientChurch. ]

In St. Luke's Gospel iv. 1-13, no less than six copies of the Old Latinversions (b c f g^{1} l q) besides Ambrose (Com. St. Luke, 1340), areobserved to transpose the second and third temptations; introducingverses 9-12 between verses 4 and 5; in order to make the history of theTemptation as given by St. Luke correspond with the account given by St. Matthew. 

The scribe of the Vercelli Codex (a) was about to do the same thing; buthe checked himself when he had got as far as 'the pinnacle of thetemple, '--which he seems to have thought as good a scene for the thirdtemptation as 'a high mountain, ' and so left it. 

§ 3. 

A favourite, and certainly a plausible, method of accounting for thepresence of unauthorized matter in MSS. Is to suggest that, in the firstinstance, it probably existed only in the shape of a marginal gloss, which through the inadvertence of the scribes, in process of time, foundits way into the sacred text. That in this way some depravations ofScripture may possibly have arisen, would hardly I presume be doubted. But I suspect that the hypothesis is generally a wholly mistaken one;having been imported into this subject-matter (like many other notionswhich are quite out of place here), from the region of theClassics, --where (as we know) the phenomenon is even common. Especiallyis this hypothesis resorted to (I believe) in order to explain thoseinstances of assimilation which are so frequently to be met with inCodd. B and [Symbol: Aleph]. 

Another favourite way of accounting for instances of assimilation, is bytaking for granted that the scribe was thinking of the parallel or thecognate place. And certainly (as before) there is no denying that justas the familiar language of a parallel place in another Gospel presentsitself unbidden to the memory of a reader, so may it have struck acopyist also with sufficient vividness to persuade him to write, not thewords which he saw before him, but the words which he remembered. Allthis is certainly possible. 

But I strongly incline to the suspicion that this is not by any meansthe right way to explain the phenomena under discussion. I am of opinionthat such depravations of the text were in the first instanceintentional. I do not mean that they were introduced with any sinistermotive. My meaning is that [there was a desire to remove obscurities, orto reconcile incongruous passages, or generally to improve the style ofthe authors, and thus to add to the merits of the sacred writings, instead of detracting from them. Such a mode of dealing with the holydeposit evinced no doubt a failure in the part of those who adopted itto understand the nature of the trust committed to the Church, just assimilar action at the present day does in the case of such as load theNew Testament with 'various readings, ' and illustrate it as they imaginewith what are really insinuations of doubt, in the way that they preparean edition of the classics for the purpose of enlarging and sharpeningthe minds of youthful students. There was intention, and the intentionwas good: but it was none the less productive of corruption. ]

I suspect that if we ever obtain access to a specimen of those connectedGospel narratives called Diatessarons, which are known to have existedanciently in the Church, we shall be furnished with a clue to a problemwhich at present is shrouded in obscurity, --and concerning the solutionof which, with such instruments of criticism as we at present possess, we can do little else but conjecture. I allude to those many occasionson which the oldest documents extant, in narrating some incident whichreally presents no special difficulty, are observed to diverge intohopeless variety of expression. An example of the thing referred to willbest explain my meaning. Take then the incident of our Lord's payingtribute, --set down in St. Matt. Xvii. 25, 26. 

The received text exhibits, --'And when he [Peter] had entered ([Greek:hote eisêlthen]) into the house, Jesus was beforehand with him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? Of whom do earthly kings take toll ortribute? of their sons or of strangers?' Here, for [Greek: hoteeisêlthen], Codex B (but no other uncial) substitutes [Greek: elthonta]:Codex [Symbol: Aleph] (but no other) [Greek: eiselthonta]: Codex D (butno other) [Greek: eiselthonti]: Codex C (but no other) [Greek: hoteêlthon]: while a fifth lost copy certainly contained [Greek:eiselthontôn]; and a sixth, [Greek: elthontôn autôn]. A very fairspecimen this, be it remarked in passing, of the _concordia discors_which prevails in the most ancient uncial copies[179]. How is all thisdiscrepancy to be accounted for?

The Evangelist proceeds, --'Peter saith unto Him ([Greek: Legei autô hoPetros]), Of strangers. ' These four words C retains, but continues--'Nowwhen he had said, Of strangers' ([Greek: Eipontos de autou, apo tônallotriôn]);--which unauthorized clause, all but the word [Greek:autou], is found also in [Symbol: Aleph], but in no other uncial. On theother hand, for [Greek: Legei autô ho Petros], [Symbol: Aleph] (alone ofuncials) substitutes [Greek: Ho de ephê]: and B (also alone of uncials)substitutes [Greek: Eipontos de], --and then proceeds exactly like thereceived text: while D merely omits [Greek: ho Petros]. Again Iask, --How is all this discrepancy to be explained[180]?

As already hinted, I suspect that it was occasioned in the firstinstance by the prevalence of harmonized Gospel narratives. In no moreloyal way can I account for the perplexing phenomenon already described, which is of perpetual recurrence in such documents as Codexes B[Symbol:Aleph]D, Cureton's Syriac, and copies of the Old Latin version. It iswell known that at a very remote period some eminent persons occupiedthemselves in constructing such exhibitions of the Evangelical history:and further, that these productions enjoyed great favour, and were ingeneral use. As for their contents, --the notion we form to ourselves ofa Diatessaron, is that it aspired to be a weaving of the fourfold Gospelinto one continuous narrative: and we suspect that in accomplishing thisobject, the writer was by no means scrupulous about retaining theprecise words of the inspired original. He held himself at liberty, onthe contrary, (_a_) to omit what seemed to himself superfluous clauses:(_b_) to introduce new incidents: (_c_) to supply picturesque details:(_d_) to give a new turn to the expression: (_e_) to vary theconstruction at pleasure: (_f_) even slightly to paraphrase. Compiledafter some such fashion as I have been describing, at a time too whenthe preciousness of the inspired documents seems to have been butimperfectly apprehended, --the works I speak of, recommended by theirgraphic interest, and sanctioned by a mighty name, must have imposedupon ordinary readers. Incautious owners of Codexes must havetransferred without scruple certain unauthorized readings to the marginsof their own copies. A calamitous partiality for the fabricated documentmay have prevailed with some for whom copies were executed. Above all, it is to be inferred that licentious and rash Editors ofScripture, --among whom Origen may be regarded as a prime offender, --musthave deliberately introduced into their recensions many an unauthorizedgloss, and so given it an extended circulation. 

Not that we would imply that permanent mischief has resulted to theDeposit from the vagaries of individuals in the earliest age. The DivineAuthor of Scripture hath abundantly provided for the safety of His Wordwritten. In the multitude of copies, --in Lectionaries, --in Versions, --incitations by the Fathers, a sufficient safeguard against error hath beenerected. But then, of these multitudinous sources of protection we mustnot be slow to avail ourselves impartially. The prejudice which woulderect Codexes B and [Symbol: Aleph] into an authority for the text ofthe New Testament from which there shall be no appeal:--thesuperstitious reverence which has grown up for one little cluster ofauthorities, to the disparagement of all other evidence wheresoeverfound; this, which is for ever landing critics in results which aresimply irrational and untenable, must be unconditionally abandoned, ifany real progress is to be made in this department of inquiry. But whenthis has been done, men will begin to open their eyes to the fact thatthe little handful of documents recently so much in favour, are, on thecontrary, the only surviving witnesses to corruptions of the Text whichthe Church in her corporate capacity has long since deliberatelyrejected. But to proceed. 

[From the Diatessaron of Tatian and similar attempts to harmonize theGospels, corruption of a serious nature has ensued in some well-knownplaces, such as the transference of the piercing of the Lord's side fromSt. John xix. 34 to St. Matt. Xxvii. 49[181], and the omission of thewords 'and of an honeycomb' ([Greek: kai apo tou melissioukêriou][182]). ]

Hence also, in Cureton's Syriac[183], the _patch-work_ supplement to St. Matt. Xxi. 9: viz. :--[Greek: polloi de] (St. Mark xi. 8) [Greek:exêlthon eis hypantêsin autou. Kai] (St. John xii. 13) [Greek: êrxanto... Chairontes ainein ton Theon ... Peri pasôn hôn eidon] (St. Luke xix. 37). This self-evident fabrication, 'if it be not a part of the originalAramaic of St. Matthew, ' remarks Dr. Cureton, 'would appear to have beensupplied from the parallel passages of Luke and John conjointly. ' How isit that even a sense of humour did not preserve that eminent scholarfrom hazarding the conjecture, that such a self-evident deflection ofhis corrupt Syriac Codex from the course all but universally pursued isa recovery of one more genuine utterance of the Holy Ghost?

FOOTNOTES:

[173] [Greek: Maria de heistêkei pros to mnêmeion klaiousa exô] (St. John xx. 11). Comp. The expression [Greek: pros to phôs] in St. Lukexxii. 56. Note, that the above is not offered as a revised translation;but only to shew unlearned readers what the words of the originalexactly mean. 

[174] Note, that in the sectional system of Eusebius _according to theGreek_, the following places are brought together:--

 (St. Matt. Xxviii) (St. Mark xvi) (St. Luke xxiv) (St. John xx) 1-4. 2-5. 1-4. 1, 11, 12. _According to the Syriac_:-- 3, 4. 5. 3, 4, 5(1/2). 11, 12. 

[175] Consider [Greek: ho de Petros heistêkei pros tê thyra exô] (St. John xviii. 16). Has not this place, by the way, exerted an assimilatinginfluence over St. John xx. 11?

[176] Hesychius, _qu. _ 51 (apud Cotelerii Eccl. Gr. Mon. Iii. 43), explains St. Mark's phrase [Greek: en tois dexiois] as follows:--[Greek:dêlonoti tou exôterou spêlaiou]. 

[177] viii. 513. 

[178] iv. 1079. 

[179] Traditional Text, pp. 81-8. 

[180] I am tempted to inquire, --By virtue of what verifying faculty doLachmann and Tregelles on the former occasion adopt the reading of[Symbol: Aleph]; Tischendorf, Alford, W. And Hort, the reading of B? Onthe second occasion, I venture to ask, --What enabled the Revisers, withLachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Westcott and Hort, to recognize in areading, which is the peculiar property of B, the genuine language ofthe Holy Ghost? Is not a superstitious reverence for B and [Symbol:Aleph] betraying for ever people into error?

[181] Revision Revised, p. 33. 

[182] Traditional Text, Appendix I, pp. 244-252. 

[183] The Lewis MS. Is defective here. 

CHAPTER VIII. 

CAUSES OF CORRUPTION CHIEFLY INTENTIONAL. 

II. Assimilation. 

§ 1. 

There results inevitably from the fourfold structure of theGospel, --from the very fact that the story of Redemption is set forth infour narratives, three of which often ran parallel, --this practicalinconvenience: namely, that sometimes the expressions of one Evangelistget improperly transferred to another. This is a large and importantsubject which calls for great attention, and requires to be separatelyhandled. The phenomena alluded to, which are similar to some of thosewhich have been treated in the last chapter, may be comprised under thespecial head of Assimilation. 

It will I think promote clearness in the ensuing discussion if wedetermine to consider separately those instances of Assimilation whichmay rather be regarded as deliberate attempts to reconcile one Gospelwith another: indications of a fixed determination to establish harmonybetween place and place. I am saying that between ordinary cases ofAssimilation such as occur in every page, and extraordinary instanceswhere _per fas et nefas_ an enforced Harmony has been established, --which abound indeed, but are by no means common, --I am disposed to drawa line. 

This whole province is beset with difficulties: and the matter is initself wondrously obscure. I do not suppose, in the absence of anyevidence direct or indirect on the subject, --at all events I am notaware--that at any time has there been one definite authoritativeattempt made by the Universal Church in her corporate capacity toremodel or revise the Text of the Gospels. An attentive study of thephenomena leads me, on the contrary, to believe that the severalcorruptions of the text were effected at different times, and took theirbeginning in widely different ways. I suspect that Accident was theparent of many; and well meant critical assiduity of more. Zeal for theTruth is accountable for not a few depravations: and the Church'sLiturgical and Lectionary practice must insensibly have produced others. Systematic villainy I am persuaded has had no part or lot in the matter. The decrees of such an one as Origen, if there ever was another likehim, will account for a strange number of aberrations from the Truth:and if the Diatessaron of Tatian could be recovered[184], I suspect thatwe should behold there the germs at least of as many more. But, I repeatmy conviction that, however they may have originated, the causes [arenot to be found in bad principle, but either in infirmities orinfluences which actuated scribes unconsciously, or in a want ofunderstanding as to what is the Church's duty in the transmission fromgeneration to generation of the sacred deposit committed to herenlightened care. ]

§ 2. 

1. When we speak of Assimilation, we do not mean that a writer whileengaged in transcribing one Gospel was so completely beguiled andovermastered by his recollections of the parallel place in anotherGospel, --that, forsaking the expressions proper to the passage beforehim, he unconsciously adopted the language which properly belongs to adifferent Evangelist. That to a very limited extent this may haveoccasionally taken place, I am not concerned to deny: but it would argueincredible inattention to what he was professing to copy, on the onehand, --astonishing familiarity with what he was not professing to copy, on the other, --that a scribe should have been capable of offendinglargely in this way. But in fact a moderate acquaintance with thesubject is enough to convince any thoughtful person that the corruptionsin MSS. Which have resulted from accidental Assimilation must needs beinconsiderable in bulk, as well as few in number. At all events, thephenomenon referred to, when we speak of 'Assimilation, ' is not to be soaccounted for: it must needs be explained in some entirely differentway. Let me make my meaning plain:

(_a_) We shall probably be agreed that when the scribe of Cod. [Symbol:Aleph], in place of [Greek: basanisai hêmas] (in St. Matt. Viii. 29), writes [Greek: hêmas apolesai], --it may have been his memory whichmisled him. He may have been merely thinking of St. Mark i. 24, or ofSt. Luke iv. 34. 

(_b_) Again, when in Codd. [Symbol: Aleph]B we find [Greek: tassomenos]thrust without warrant into St. Matt. Viii. 9, we see that the word haslost its way from St. Luke vii. 8; and we are prone to suspect that onlyby accident has it crept into the parallel narrative of the earlierEvangelist. 

(_c_) In the same way I make no doubt that [Greek: potamô] (St. Matt. Iii. 6) is indebted for its place in [Symbol: Aleph]BC, &c. , to theinfluence of the parallel place in St. Mark's Gospel (i. 5); and I amonly astonished that critics should have been beguiled into adopting soclear a corruption of the text as part of the genuine Gospel. 

(_d_) To be brief:--the insertion by [Symbol: Aleph] of [Greek: adelphe](in St. Matt. Vii. 4) is confessedly the result of the parallel passagein St. Luke vi. 42. The same scribe may be thought to have written[Greek: tô anemô] instead of [Greek: tois anemois] in St. Matt. Viii. 26, only because he was so familiar with [Greek: tô anemô] in St. Lukeviii. 24 and in St. Mark iv. 39. --The author of the prototype of[Symbol: Aleph]BD (with whom by the way are some of the Latin versions)may have written [Greek: echete] in St. Matt, xvi. 8, only because hewas thinking of the parallel place in St. Mark viii. 17. --[Greek:Êrxanto aganaktein] (St. Matt. Xx. 24) can only have been introducedinto [Symbol: Aleph] from the parallel place in St. Mark x. 41, and_may_ have been supplied _memoriter_. --St. Luke xix. 21 is clearly notparallel to St. Matt. Xxv. 24; yet it evidently furnished the scribe of[Symbol: Aleph] with the epithet [Greek: austêros] in place of [Greek:sklêros]. --The substitution by [Symbol: Aleph] of [Greek: honparêtounto] in St. Matt. Xxvii. 15 for [Greek: hon êthelon] may seem tobe the result of inconvenient familiarity with the parallel place in St. Mark xv. 6; where, as has been shewn[185], instead of [Greek: honperêitounto], Symbol: [Aleph]AB viciously exhibit [Greek: hon parêtounto], which Tischendorf besides Westcott and Hort mistake for the genuineGospel. Who will hesitate to admit that, when [Symbol: Aleph]L exhibitin St. Matt. Xix. 16, --instead of the words [Greek: poiêsô hina echôzôên aiônion], --the formula which is found in the parallel place of St. Luke xviii. 18, viz. [Greek: poiêsas zôên aiônion klêronomêsô], --thoseunauthorized words must have been derived from this latter place? Everyordinary reader will be further prone to assume that the scribe whofirst inserted them into St. Matthew's Gospel did so because, forwhatever reason, he was more familiar with the latter formula than withthe former. 

(_e_) But I should have been willing to go further. I might have beendisposed to admit that when [Symbol: Aleph]DL introduce into St. Matt. X. 12 the clause [Greek: legontes, eirênê tô oikô toutô] (which lastfour words confessedly belong exclusively to St. Luke x. 5), the authorof the depraved original from which [Symbol: Aleph]DL were derived mayhave been only yielding to the suggestions of an inconveniently goodmemory:--may have succeeded in convincing himself from what follows inverse 13 that St. Matthew must have written, 'Peace be to this house;'though he found no such words in St. Matthew's text. And so, with thebest intentions, he may most probably have inserted them. 

(_f_) Again. When [Symbol: Aleph] and Evan. 61 thrust into St. Matt. Ix. 34 (from the parallel place in St. Luke viii. 53) the clause [Greek:eidotes hoti apethanen], it is of course conceivable that the authors ofthose copies were merely the victims of excessive familiarity with thethird Gospel. But then, --although we are ready to make every allowancethat we possibly can for memories so singularly constituted, and toimagine a set of inattentive scribes open to inducements to recollect orimagine instead of copying, and possessed of an inconvenient familiaritywith one particular Gospel, --it is clear that our complaisance must stopsomewhere. Instances of this kind of licence at last breed suspicion. Systematic 'assimilation' cannot be the effect of accident. Considerableinterpolations must of course be intentional. The discovery that Cod. D, for example, introduces at the end of St. Luke v. 14 thirty-two wordsfrom St. Mark's Gospel (i. 45--ii. 1, [Greek: ho de exelthôn] down to[Greek: Kapharnaoum]), opens our eyes. This wholesale importationsuggests the inquiry, --How did it come about? We look further, and wefind that Cod. D abounds in instances of 'Assimilation' so unmistakablyintentional, that this speedily becomes the only question, How may allthese depravations of the sacred text be most satisfactorily accountedfor? [And the answer is evidently found in the existence of extremelicentiousness in the scribe or scribes responsible for Codex D, beingthe product of ignorance and carelessness combined with such loosenessof principle, as permitted the exercise of direct attempts to improvethe sacred Text by the introduction of passages from the three remainingGospels and by other alterations. ]

§ 3. 

Sometimes indeed the true Text bears witness to itself, as may be seenin the next example. 

The little handful of well-known authorities ([Symbol: Aleph]BDL, with afew copies of the Old Latin, and one of the Egyptian Versions[186]), conspire in omitting from St. John xvi. 16 the clause [Greek: hoti egôhypagô pros ton Patera]: for which reason Tischendorf, Tregelles, Alford, Westcott and Hort omit those six words, and Lachmann puts theminto brackets. And yet, let the context be considered. Our Saviour hadsaid (ver. 16), --'A little while, and ye shall not see Me: and again, alittle while, and ye shall see Me, because I go to the Father. ' Itfollows (ver. 17), --'Then said some of His disciples among themselves, What is this that He saith unto us, A little while, and ye shall not seeMe: and again, a little while, and ye shall see Me: and, _Because I goto the_ Father?'--Now, the context here, --the general sequence of wordsand ideas--in and by itself, creates a high degree of probability thatthe clause is genuine. It must at all events be permitted to retain itsplace in the Gospel, unless there is found to exist an overwhelmingamount of authority for its exclusion. What then are the facts? All theother uncials, headed by A and I^{b} (_both_ of the fourthcentury), --every known Cursive--all the Versions, (Latin, Syriac, Gothic, Coptic, &c. )--are for retaining the clause. Add, thatNonnus[187] (A. D. 400) recognizes it: that the texts of Chrysostom[188]and of Cyril[189] do the same; and that both those Fathers (to saynothing of Euthymius and Theophylact) in their Commentaries expresslybear witness to its genuineness:--and, With what shew of reason can itany longer be pretended that some Critics, including the Revisers, arewarranted in leaving out the words?... It were to trifle with the readerto pursue this subject further. But how did the words ever come to beomitted? Some early critic, I answer, who was unable to see theexquisite proprieties of the entire passage, thought it desirable tobring ver. 16 into conformity with ver. 19, where our Lord seems atfirst sight to resyllable the matter. That is all!

Let it be observed--and then I will dismiss the matter--that theselfsame thing has happened in the next verse but one (ver. 18), asTischendorf candidly acknowledges. The [Greek: touto ti hestin] of theEvangelist has been tastelessly assimilated by BDLY to the [Greek: tiestin touto] which went immediately before. 

§ 4. 

Were I invited to point to a beautifully described incident in theGospel, I should find it difficult to lay my finger on anything more aptfor my purpose than the transaction described in St. John xiii. 21-25. It belongs to the closing scene of our Saviour's Ministry. 'Verily, verily, I say unto you, ' (the words were spoken at the Last Supper), 'one of you will betray Me. The disciples therefore looked one atanother, wondering of whom He spake. Now there was reclining in thebosom of Jesus ([Greek: ên de anakeimenos en tô kolpô tou 'I. ]) one ofHis disciples whom Jesus loved. To him therefore Simon Peter motionethto inquire who it may be concerning whom He speaketh. He then, justsinking on the breast of Jesus ([Greek: epipesôn de ekeinos houtôs epito stêthos tou 'I. ]) [i. E. Otherwise keeping his position, see above, p. 60], saith unto Him, Lord, who is it?'

The Greek is exquisite. At first, St. John has been simply 'reclining([Greek: anakeimenos]) in the bosom' of his Divine Master: that is, hisplace at the Supper is the next adjoining His, --for the phrase reallymeans little more. But the proximity is of course excessive, as thesequel shews. Understanding from St. Peter's gesture what is required ofhim, St. John merely sinks back, and having thus let his head fall([Greek: epipesôn]) on (or close to) His Master's chest ([Greek: epi tostêthos]), he says softly, --'Lord, who is it?' ... The moment is perhapsthe most memorable in the Evangelist's life: the position, one ofunutterable privilege. Time, place, posture, action, --all settle so deepinto his soul, that when, in his old age, he would identify himself, hedescribes himself as 'the disciple whom Jesus loved; who also at theSupper' (that memorable Supper!) 'lay ([Greek: anepesen][190]) on Jesus'breast, ' (literally, 'upon His chest, '--[Greek: epi to stêthos autou]), and said, 'Lord, who is it that is to betray Thee?' (ch. Xxi. 20).... Yes, and the Church was not slow to take the beautiful hint. Hislanguage so kindled her imagination that the early Fathers learned tospeak of St. John the Divine, as [Greek: ho epistêthios], --'the(recliner) on the chest[191]. '

Now, every delicate discriminating touch in this sublime picture isfaithfully retained throughout by the cursive copies in the proportionof about eighty to one. The great bulk of the MSS. , as usual, uncial andcursive alike, establish the undoubted text of the Evangelist, which ishere the Received Text. Thus, a vast majority of the MSS. , with [Symbol:Aleph]AD at their head, read [Greek: epipesôn] in St. John xiii. 25. Chrysostom[192] and probably Cyril[193] confirm the same reading. Soalso Nonnus[194]. Not so B and C with four other uncials and abouttwenty cursives (the vicious Evan. 33 being at their head), besidesOrigen[195] in two places and apparently Theodorus of Mopsuestia[196]. These by mischievously assimilating the place in ch. Xiii to the laterplace in ch. Xxi in which such affecting reference is made to it, hopelessly obscure the Evangelist's meaning. For they substitute [Greek:anapesôn oun ekeinos k. T. L. ] It is exactly as when children, by way ofimproving the sketch of a great Master, go over his matchless outlineswith a clumsy pencil of their own. 

That this is the true history of the substitution of [Greek: anapesôn]in St. John xiii. 25 for the less obvious [Greek: epipesôn] is certain. Origen, who was probably the author of all the mischief, twice sets thetwo places side by side and elaborately compares them; in the course ofwhich operation, by the way, he betrays the viciousness of the textwhich he himself employed. But what further helps to explain how easily[Greek: anapesôn] might usurp the place of [Greek: epipesôn][197], isthe discovery just noticed, that the ancients from the earliest periodwere in the habit of identifying St. John, as St. John had identifiedhimself, by calling him '_the one that lay_ ([Greek: ho anapesôn]) _uponthe Lord's chest_. ' The expression, derived from St. John xxi. 20, isemployed by Irenaeus[198] (A. D. 178) and by Polycrates[199] (Bp. OfEphesus A. D. 196); by Origen[200] and by Ephraim Syrus[201]: byEpiphanius[202] and by Palladius[203]: by Gregory of Nazianzus[204] andby his namesake of Nyssa[205]: by pseudo-Eusebius[206], bypseudo-Caesarius[207], and by pseudo-Chrysostom[208]. The only wonderis, that in spite of such influences all the MSS. In the world exceptabout twenty-six have retained the true reading. 

Instructive in the meantime it is to note the fate which this word hasexperienced at the hands of some Critics. Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Alford, Westcott and Hort, have all in turn bowed to theauthority of Cod. B and Origen. Bishop Lightfoot mistranslates[209] andcontends on the same side. Alford informs us that [Greek: epipesôn] hassurreptitiously crept in 'from St. Luke xv. 20': (why should it? howcould it?) '[Greek: anapesôn] not seeming appropriate. ' Whereas, on thecontrary, [Greek: anapesôn] is the invariable and obviousexpression, --[Greek: epipesôn] the unusual, and, till it has beenexplained, the unintelligible word. Tischendorf, --who had read [Greek:epipesôn] in 1848 and [Greek: anapesôn] in 1859, --in 1869 reverts to hisfirst opinion; advocating with parental partiality what he had since metwith in Cod. [Symbol: Aleph]. Is then the truth of Scripture aptlyrepresented by that fitful beacon-light somewhere on the Frenchcoast, --now visible, now eclipsed, now visible again, --which benightedtravellers amuse themselves by watching from the deck of the Calaispacket?

It would be time to pass on. But because in this department of study menare observed never to abandon a position until they are fairly shelledout and left without a pretext for remaining, I proceed to shew that[Greek: anapesôn] (for [Greek: epipesôn]) is only one corrupt readingout of many others hereabouts. The proof of this statement follows. Might it not have been expected that the old uncials' ([Symbol:Aleph]ABCD) would exhibit the entire context of such a passage as thepresent with tolerable accuracy? The reader is invited to attend to theresults of collation:--

 xiii. 21. -[Greek: o] [Symbol: Aleph]B: [Greek: umin legô] _tr. _ B. 

 xiii. 22. -[Greek: oun] BC: + [Greek: oi Ioudaioi] [Symbol: Aleph]: [Greek: aporountei] D. 

 xiii. 23. -[Greek: de] B: + [Greek: ek] [Symbol: Aleph]ABCD:-[Greek: o] B: + [Greek: kai] D. 

 xiii. 24. (_for_ [Greek: pythesthai tis an eiê] + [Greek: outos] D) [Greek: kai legei autô, eipe tis estin] BC: (_for_ [Greek: legei]) [Greek: elegen] [Symbol: Aleph]: + [Greek: kai legei autô eipe tis estin peri ou legei] [Symbol: Aleph]. 

 xiii. 25. (_for_ [Greek: epipesôn]) [Greek: anapesôn] BC:-[Greek: de] BC: (_for_ [Greek: de]) [Greek: oun] [Symbol: Aleph]D; -[Greek: outos] [Symbol: Aleph]AD. 

 xiii. 26. + [Greek: oun] BC: + [Greek: autô] D:--[Greek: o] B: + [Greek: kai legei] [Symbol: Aleph]BD: + [Greek: an] D: (_for_ [Greek: bapsas]) [Greek: embapsas] AD: [Greek: bapsô ... Kai dôsô autô] BC: + [Greek: psômou] (_after_ [Greek: psômion]) C: (_for_ [Greek: embapsas]) [Greek: bapsas] D: (_for_ [Greek: kai embapsas]) [Greek: bapsas oun] [Symbol: Aleph]BC: -[Greek: to] B: + [Greek: lambanei kai] BC: [Greek: Iskariôtou] [Symbol: Aleph]BC: [Greek: apo Karyôtou] D. 

 xiii. 27. -[Greek: tote] [Symbol: Aleph]:-[Greek: meta to psômion tote] D: (_for_ [Greek: legei oun]) [Greek: kai legei] D:-[Greek: o] B. 

In these seven verses therefore, (which present no special difficulty toa transcriber, ) the Codexes in question are found to exhibit at leastthirty-five varieties, --for twenty-eight of which (jointly or singly) Bis responsible: [Symbol: Aleph] for twenty-two: C for twenty-one: D fornineteen: A for three. It is found that twenty-three words have beenadded to the text: fifteen substituted: fourteen taken away; and theconstruction has been four times changed. One case there has been ofsenseless transposition. Simon, the father of Judas, (not Judas thetraitor), is declared by [Symbol: Aleph]BCD to have been called'Iscariot. ' Even this is not all. What St. John relates concerninghimself is hopelessly obscured; and a speech is put into St. Peter'smouth which he certainly never uttered. It is not too much to say thatevery delicate lineament has vanished from the picture. What are we tothink of guides like [Symbol: Aleph]BCD, which are proved to be utterlyuntrustworthy?

§ 5. 

The first two verses of St. Mark's Gospel have fared badly. Easy oftranscription and presenting no special difficulty, they ought to havecome down to us undisfigured by any serious variety of reading. On thecontrary. Owing to entirely different causes, either verse hasexperienced calamitous treatment. I have elsewhere[210] proved that theclause [Greek: huiou tou Theou] in verse 1 is beyond suspicion. Itsremoval from certain copies of the Gospel was originally due toheretical influence. But because Origen gave currency to the text somutilated, it re-appears mechanically in several Fathers who are intentonly on reproducing a certain argument of Origen's against the Manicheesin which the mutilated text occurs. The same Origen is responsible tosome extent, and in the same way, for the frequent introduction of'Isaiah's' name into verse 21--whereas 'in the prophets' is what St. Mark certainly wrote; but the appearance of 'Isaiah' there in the firstinstance was due to quite a different cause. In the meantime, it iswitnessed to by the Latin, Syriac[211], Gothic, and Egyptian versions, as well as by [Symbol: Aleph]BDL[Symbol: Delta], and (according toTischendorf) by nearly twenty-five cursives; besides the followingancient writers: Irenaeus, Origen, Porphyry, Titus, Basil, Serapion, Epiphanius, Severianus, Victor, Eusebius, Victorinus, Jerome, Augustine. I proceed to shew that this imposing array of authorities for reading[Greek: en tô Êsaia tô prophêtê] instead of [Greek: en tois prophêtais]in St. Mark i. 2, which has certainly imposed upon every recent editorand critic[212], --has been either overestimated or else misunderstood. 

1. The testimony of the oldest versions, when attention is paid to theircontents, is discovered to be of inferior moment in minuter matters ofthis nature. Thus, copies of the Old Latin version thrust Isaiah's nameinto St. Matt. I. 22, and Zechariah's name into xxi. 4: as well asthrust out Jeremiah's name from xxvii. 9:--the first, with Curetonian, Lewis, Harkleian, Palestinian, and D, --the second, with Chrysostom andHilary, --the third, with the Peshitto. The Latin and the Syriac furthersubstitute [Greek: tou prophêtou] for [Greek: tôn prophêtôn] in St. Matt. Ii. 23, --through misapprehension of the Evangelist's meaning. Whatis to be thought of Cod. [Symbol: Aleph] for introducing the name of'Isaiah' into St. Matt. Xiii. 35, --where it clearly cannot stand, thequotation being confessedly from Ps. Lxxviii. 2; but where neverthelessPorphyry[213], Eusebius[214], and pseudo-Jerome[215] certainly found itin many ancient copies?

2. Next, for the testimony of the Uncial Codexes [Symbol:Aleph]BDL[Symbol: Delta]:--If any one will be at the pains to tabulatethe 900[216] new 'readings' adopted by Tischendorf in editing St. Mark'sGospel, he will discover that for 450, or just half of them, --all the450, as I believe, being corruptions of the text, --[Symbol: Aleph]BL areresponsible: and further, that their responsibility is shared on about200 occasions by D: on about 265 by C: on about 350 by [Delta][217]. Atsome very remote period therefore there must have grown up a viciousgeneral reading of this Gospel which remains in the few bad copies: butof which the largest traces (and very discreditable traces they are) atpresent survive in [Symbol: Aleph]BCDL[Symbol: Delta]. After thisdiscovery the avowal will not be thought extraordinary that I regardwith unmingled suspicion readings which are exclusively vouched for byfive of the same Codexes: e. G. By [Symbol: Aleph]BDL[Symbol: Delta]. 

3. The cursive copies which exhibit 'Isaiah' in place of 'the prophet. 'reckoned by Tischendorf at 'nearly twenty-five, ' are probably less thanfifteen[218], and those, almost all of suspicious character. High timeit is that the inevitable consequence of an appeal to such evidence werebetter understood. 

4. From Tischendorf's list of thirteen Fathers, serious deductions haveto be made. Irenaeus and Victor of Antioch are clearly with the TextusReceptus. Serapion, Titus, Basil do but borrow from Origen; and, withhis argument, reproduce his corrupt text of St. Mark i. 2. Thelast-named Father however saves his reputation by leaving out thequotation from Malachi; so, passing directly from the mention of Isaiahto the actual words of that prophet. Epiphanius (and Jerome too on oneoccasion[219]) does the same thing. Victorinus and Augustine, beingLatin writers, merely quote the Latin version ('sicut scriptum est inIsaiâ propheta'), which is without variety of reading. There remainOrigen (the faulty character of whose Codexes has been remarked uponalready), Porphyry[220] the heretic (who wrote a book to convict theEvangelists of mis-statements[221], and who is therefore scarcely atrustworthy witness), Eusebius, Jerome and Severianus. Of these, Eusebius[222] and Jerome[223] deliver it as their opinion that the nameof 'Isaiah' had obtained admission into the text through theinadvertency of copyists. Is it reasonable, on the slender residuum ofevidence, to insist that St. Mark has ascribed to Isaiah wordsconfessedly written by Malachi? 'The fact, ' writes a recent editor inthe true spirit of modern criticism, 'will not fail to be observed bythe careful and honest student of the Gospels. ' But what if 'the fact'should prove to be 'a fiction' only? And (I venture to ask) would not'carefulness' be better employed in scrutinizing the adverse testimony?'honesty' in admitting that on grounds precarious as the present noindictment against an Evangelist can be seriously maintained? Thisproposal to revive a blunder which the Church in her corporate capacityhas from the first refused to sanction (for the Evangelistaria knownothing of it) carries in fact on its front its own sufficientcondemnation. Why, in the face of all the copies in the world (except alittle handful of suspicious character), will men insist on imputing toan inspired writer a foolish mis-statement, instead of frankly admittingthat the text must needs have been corrupted in that little handful ofcopies through the officiousness of incompetent criticism?

And do any inquire, --How then did this perversion of the truth arise? Inthe easiest way possible, I answer. Refer to the Eusebian tables, andnote that the foremost of his sectional parallels is as follows:--

 St. Matt. [Greek: ê] (i. E. Iii. 3). St. Mark. [Greek: b] (i. E. I. 3). St. Luke. [Greek: z] (i. E. Iii. 3-6). St. John. [Greek: i] (i. E. I. 23)[224]. 

Now, since the name of Isaiah occurs in the first, the third and thefourth of these places in connexion with the quotation from Is. Xl. 3, _what_ more obvious than that some critic with harmonistic proclivitiesshould have insisted on supplying _the second also_, i. E. The parallelplace in St. Mark's Gospel, with the name of the evangelical prophet, elsewhere so familiarly connected with the passage quoted? This isnothing else in short but an ordinary instance of Assimilation, sounskilfully effected however as to betray itself. It might have beenpassed by with fewer words, for the fraud is indeed transparent, butthat it has so largely imposed upon learned men, and established itselfso firmly in books. Let me hope that we shall not hear it advocated anymore. 

Regarded as an instrument of criticism, Assimilation requires to be verydelicately as well as very skilfully handled. If it is to be applied todetermining the text of Scripture, it must be employed, I take leave tosay, in a very different spirit from what is met with in Dr. Tischendorf's notes, or it will only mislead. Is a word--a clause--asentence--omitted by his favourite authorities [Symbol: Aleph]BDL? It isenough if that learned critic finds nearly the same word, --a verysimilar clause, --a sentence of the same general import, --in an accountof the same occurrence by another Evangelist, for him straightway toinsist that the sentence, the clause, the word, has been imported intothe commonly received Text from such parallel place; and to reject itaccordingly. 

But, as the thoughtful reader must see, this is not allowable, exceptunder peculiar circumstances. For first, whatever _a priori_improbability might be supposed to attach to the existence of identicalexpressions in two Evangelical records of the same transaction, iseffectually disposed of by the discovery that very often identity ofexpression actually does occur. And (2), the only condition which couldwarrant the belief that there has been assimilation, is observed to beinvariably away from Dr. Tischendorf's instances. --viz. A sufficientnumber of respectable attesting witnesses: it being a fundamentalprinciple in the law of Evidence, that the very few are rather to besuspected than the many. But further (3), if there be some markeddiversity of expression discoverable in the two parallel places; and ifthat diversity has been carefully maintained all down the ages in eitherplace;--then it may be regarded as certain, on the contrary, that therehas not been assimilation; but that this is only one more instance oftwo Evangelists saying similar things or the same thing in slightlydifferent language. Take for example the following case:--Whereas St. Matt. (xxiv. 15) speaks of 'the abomination of desolation [Greek: torhêthen DIA Daniêl tou prophêtou], standing ([Greek: hestôs]) in theholy place'; St. Mark (xiii. 14) speaks of it as '[Greek: to rhêthen UPODaniêl tou prophêtou] standing ([Greek: hestos]) where it ought not. 'Now, because [Symbol: Aleph]BDL with copies of the Italic, the Vulgate, and the Egyptian versions omit from St. Mark's Gospel the six wordswritten above in Greek, Tischendorf and his school are for expungingthose six words from St. Mark's text, on the plea that they are probablyan importation from St. Matthew. But the little note of variety whichthe Holy Spirit has set on the place in the second Gospel (indicatedabove in capital letters) suggests that these learned men are mistaken. Accordingly, the other fourteen uncials and all the cursives, --besidesthe Peshitto, Harkleian, and copies of the Old Latin--a much moreweighty body of evidence--are certainly right in retaining the words inSt. Mark xiii. 14. 

Take two more instances of misuse in criticism of Assimilation. 

St. Matthew (xii. 10), and St. Luke in the parallel place of his Gospel(xiv. 3), describe our Lord as asking, --'Is it lawful to heal on thesabbath day?' Tischendorf finding that his favourite authorities in thislatter place continue the sentence with the words 'or _not_?' assumesthat those two words must have fallen out of the great bulk of thecopies of St. Luke, which, according to him, have here assimilated theirphraseology to that of St. Matthew. But the hypothesis is clearlyinadmissible, --though it is admitted by most modern critics. Do notthese learned persons see that the supposition is just as lawful, andthe probability infinitely greater, that it is on the contrary the fewcopies which have here undergone the process of assimilation; and thatthe type to which they have been conformed, is to be found in St. Matt. Xxii. 17; St. Mark xii. 14; St. Luke xx. 22?

It is in fact surprising how often a familiar place of Scripture hasexerted this kind of assimilating influence over a little handful ofcopies. Thus, some critics are happily agreed in rejecting the proposalof [Symbol: Aleph]BDLR, (backed scantily by their usual retinue ofevidence) to substitute for [Greek: gemisai tên koilian autou apo], inSt. Luke xv. 16, the words [Greek: chortasthênai ek]. But editors haveomitted to point out that the words [Greek: epethymei chortasthênai], introduced in defiance of the best authorities into the parable ofLazarus (xvi. 20), have simply been transplanted thither out of theparable of the prodigal son. 

The reader has now been presented with several examples of Assimilation. Tischendorf, who habitually overlooks the phenomenon where it seems tobe sufficiently conspicuous, is observed constantly to discover cases ofAssimilation where none exist. This is in fact his habitual way ofaccounting for not a few of the omissions in Cod. [Symbol: Aleph]. Andbecause he has deservedly enjoyed a great reputation, it becomes themore necessary to set the reader on his guard against receiving suchstatements without a thorough examination of the evidence on which theyrest. 

§ 6. 

The value--may I not say, the use?--of these delicate differences ofdetail becomes apparent whenever the genuineness of the text is calledin question. Take an example. The following fifteen words aredeliberately excluded from St. Mark's Gospel (vi. 11) by some critics onthe authority of [Symbol: Aleph]BCDL[Symbol: Delta], --a most suspiciouscompany, and three cursives; besides a few copies of the Old Latin, including the Vulgate:--[Greek: amên legô hymin, anektoteron estaiSodomois ê Gomorrois en hêmerai kriseôs, hê tê polei ekeinê]. It ispretended that this is nothing else but an importation from the parallelplace of St. Matthew's Gospel (x. 15). But that is impossible: for, asthe reader sees at a glance, a delicate but decisive note ofdiscrimination has been set on the two places. St. Mark writes, [Greek:SodomOIS Ê GomorrOIS]: St. Matthew, [Greek: GÊ SodomÔN KAI GomorrÔN]. And this threefold, or rather fourfold, diversity of expression hasexisted from the beginning; for it has been faithfully retained all downthe ages: it exists to this hour in every known copy of the Gospel, --except of course those nine which omit the sentence altogether. Therecan be therefore no doubt about its genuineness. The critics of themodern school (Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Alford, Westcott andHort) seek in vain to put upon us a mutilated text by omitting thosefifteen words. The two places are clearly independent of each other. 

It does but remain to point out that the exclusion of these fifteenwords from the text of St. Mark, has merely resulted from the influenceof the parallel place in St. Luke's Gospel (ix. 5), --where nothingwhatever is found[225] corresponding with St. Matt. X. 5--St. Mark vi. 11. The process of Assimilation therefore has been actively at workhere, although not in the way which some critics suppose. It hasresulted, not in the insertion of the words in dispute in the case ofthe very many copies; but on the contrary in their omission from thevery few. And thus, one more brand is set on [Symbol: Aleph]BCDL[Symbol:Delta] and their Latin allies, --which will be found _never_ to conspiretogether exclusively except to mislead. 

§ 7. 

Because a certain clause (e. G. [Greek: kai hê lalia sou homoiazei] inSt. Mark xiv. 70) is absent from Codd. [Symbol: Aleph]BCDL, Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Alford, Westcott and Hort entirely eject thesefive precious words from St. Mark's Gospel, Griesbach having alreadyvoted them 'probably spurious. ' When it has been added that many copiesof the Old Latin also, together with the Vulgate and the Egyptianversions, besides Eusebius, ignore their existence, the present writerscarcely expects to be listened to if he insists that the words areperfectly genuine notwithstanding. The thing is certain however, and theRevisers are to blame for having surrendered five precious words ofgenuine Scripture, as I am going to shew. 

1. Now, even if the whole of the case were already before the reader, although to some there might seem to exist a _prima facie_ probabilitythat the clause is spurious, yet even so, --it would not be difficult toconvince a thoughtful man that the reverse must be nearer the truth. Forlet the parallel places in the first two Gospels be set down side byside:--

St. Matt. Xxvi. 73. St. Mark xiv. 70. 

(1) [Greek: Alêthôs kai su] (1) [Greek: Alêthôs](2) [Greek: ex autôn ei·] (2) [Greek: ex autôn ei·](3) [Greek: kai gar] (3) [Greek: kai gar Galilaios ei, ](4) [Greek: hê lalia sou dêlon se poiei] (4) [Greek: kai hê lalia sou homoiazei. ]

What more clear than that the later Evangelist is explaining what hispredecessor meant by 'thy speech bewrayeth thee' [or else is giving anindependent account of the same transaction derived from the commonsource]? To St. Matthew, --a Jew addressing Jews, --it seemed superfluousto state that it was the peculiar accent of Galilee which betrayed SimonPeter. To St. Mark, --or rather to the readers whom St. Mark speciallyaddressed, --the point was by no means so obvious. Accordingly, heparaphrases, --'for thou art a Galilean and thy speech correspondeth. 'Let me be shewn that all down the ages, in ninety-nine copies out ofevery hundred, this peculiar diversity of expression has been faithfullyretained, and instead of assenting to the proposal to suppress St. Mark's (fourth) explanatory clause with its unique verb [Greek:homoiazei], I straightway betake myself to the far more pertinentinquiry, --What is the state of the text hereabouts? What, in fact, thecontext? This at least is not a matter of opinion, but a matter of fact. 

1. And first, I discover that Cod. D, in concert with several copies ofthe Old Latin (a b c ff^{2} h q, &c. ), only removes clause (4) from itsproper place in St. Mark's Gospel, in order to thrust it into theparallel place in St. Matthew, --where it supplants the [Greek: hê laliasou dêlon se poiei] of the earlier Evangelist; and where it clearly hasno business to be. 

Indeed the object of D is found to have been to assimilate St. Matthew'sGospel to St. Mark, --for D also omits [Greek: kai su] in clause (1). 

2. The Ethiopic version, on the contrary, is for assimilating St. Markto St. Matthew, for it transfers the same clause (4) as it stands in St. Matthew's Gospel ([Greek: kai hê lalia sou dêlon se poiei]) to St. Mark. 

3. Evan. 33 (which, because it exhibits an ancient text of a type likeB, has been styled [with grim irony] 'the Queen of the Cursives') ismore brilliant here than usual; exhibiting St. Mark's clause (4)thus, --[Greek: kai gar hê lalia sou dêlon se homoiazei]. 

4. In C (and the Harkleian) the process of Assimilation is asconspicuous as in D, for St. Mark's third clause (3) is imported bodilyinto St. Matthew's Gospel. C further omits from St. Mark clause (4). 

5. In the Vercelli Codex (a) however, the converse process isconspicuous. St. Mark's Gospel has been assimilated to St. Matthew's bythe unauthorized insertion into clause (1) of [Greek: kai su] (which bythe way is also found in M), and (in concert with the Gothic and Evann. 73, 131, 142*) by the entire suppression of clause (3). 

6. Cod. L goes beyond all. [True to the craze of omission], it furtherobliterates as well from St. Matthew's Gospel as from St. Mark's alltrace of clause (4). 

7. [Symbol: Aleph] and B alone of Codexes, though in agreement with theVulgate and the Egyptian version, do but eliminate the final clause (4)of St. Mark's Gospel. But note, lastly, that--

8. Cod. A, together with the Syriac versions, the Gothic, and the wholebody of the cursives, recognizes none of these irregularities: butexhibits the commonly received text with entire fidelity. 

On a survey of the premisses, will any candid person seriously contendthat [Greek: kai hê lalia sou homiazei] is no part of the genuine textof St. Mark xiv. 70? The words are found in what are virtually the mostancient authorities extant: the Syriac versions (besides the Gothic andCod. A), the Old Latin (besides Cod. D)--retain them;--those in theirusual place, --these, in their unusual. Idle it clearly is in the face ofsuch evidence to pretend that St. Mark cannot have written the words inquestion[226]. It is too late to insist that a man cannot have lost hiswatch when his watch is proved to have been in his own pocket at eightin the morning, and is found in another man's pocket at nine. As for Cand L, their handling of the Text hereabouts clearly disqualifies themfrom being cited in evidence. They are condemned under the note ofContext. Adverse testimony is borne by B and [Symbol: Aleph]: and bythem only. They omit the words in dispute, --the ordinary habit oftheirs, and most easily accounted for. But how is the punctual insertionof the words in every other known copy to be explained? In the meantime, it remains to be stated, --and with this I shall take leave of thediscussion, --that hereabouts 'we have a set of passages which bear clearmarks of wilful and critical correction, thoroughly carried out in Cod. [Symbol: Aleph], and only partially in Cod. B and some of its compeers;the object being so far to assimilate the narrative of Peter's denialswith those of the other Evangelists, as to suppress the fact, vouchedfor by St. Mark only, that the cock crowed twice[227]. ' _That_ incidentshall be treated of separately. Can those principles stand, which in theface of the foregoing statement, and the evidence which preceded it, justify the disturbance of the text in St. Mark xiv. 70?

[We now pass on to a kindred cause of adulteration ofthe text of the New Testament. ]

FOOTNOTES:

[184] This paper bears the date 1877: but I have thought best to keepthe words with this caution to the reader. 

[185] Above, p. 32. 

[186] The alleged evidence of Origen (iv. 453) is _nil_; the sum of itbeing that he takes no notice whatever of the forty words between[Greek: opsesthe me] (in ver. 16), and [Greek: touto ti estin] (in ver. 18). 

[187] Nonnus, --[Greek: hixomai eis gennêtêra]. 

[188] viii. 465 a and c. 

[189] iv. 932 and 933 c. 

[190] = [Greek: ana-keimenos + epi-pesôn]. [Used not to suggestover-familiarity (?). ]

[191] Beginning with Anatolius Laodicenus, A. D. 270 (_ap. _ Galland. Iii. 548). Cf. Routh, Rell. I. 42. 

[192] [Greek: Ouk anakeitai monon, alla kai tô stêthei epipiptei] (Opp. Viii. 423 a). --[Greek: Ti de kai epipiptei tô stêthei] (ibid. D). Notethat the passage ascribed to 'Apolinarius' in Cord. Cat. P. 342 (whichincludes the second of these two references) is in reality part ofChrysostom's Commentary on St. John (ubi supra, c d). 

[193] Cord. Cat. P. 341. But it is only in the [Greek: keimenon] (ortext) that the verb is found, --Opp. Iv. 735. 

[194] [Greek: ho de thrasys oxei palmô | stêthesin achrantoisi pesônperilêmenos anêr]. 

[195] iv. 437 c: 440 d. 

[196] Ibid. P. 342. 

[197] Even Chrysostom, who certainly read the place as we do, isobserved twice to glide into the more ordinary expression, viz. Xiii. 423, line 13 from the bottom, and p. 424, line 18 from the top. 

[198] [Greek: ho epi to stêthos autou anapesôn] (iii. 1, § 1). 

[199] [Greek: ho epi to stêthos tou Kyriou anapesôn] (_ap. _ Euseb. Iii. 31). 

[200] [Greek: Ti dei peri tou anapesontos epi to stêthos legein tou'Iêsou] (ibid. Vi. 25. Opp. Iv. 95). 

[201] [Greek: ho epi tô stêthei tou phlogos anapesôn] (Opp. Ii. 49 a. Cf. 133 c). 

[202] (As quoted by Polycrates): Opp. I. 1062: ii. 8. 

[203] [Greek: tou eis to tês sophias stêthos pistôs epanapesontos](_ap. _ Chrys, xiii. 55). 

[204] [Greek: ho epi to stêthos tou Iêsou anapauetai] (Opp. I. 591). 

[205] (As quoted by Polycrates): Opp. I. 488. 

[206] Wright's Apocryphal Acts (fourth century), translated from theSyriac, p. 3. 

[207] (Fourth or fifth century) _ap. _ Galland. Vi. 132. 

[208] _Ap. _ Chrys. Viii. 296. 

[209] On a fresh Revision, &c. , p. 73. --'[Greek: Anapiptein], (whichoccurs eleven times in the N. T. ), when said of guests ([Greek:anakeimenoi]) at a repast, denotes nothing whatever but the preliminaryact of each in taking his place at the table; being the Greek equivalentfor our "_sitting down_" to dinner. So far only does it signify "changeof posture. " The notion of "falling _backward_" quite disappears in thenotion of "reclining" or "lying down. "'--In St. John xxi. 20, thelanguage of the Evangelist is the very mirror of his thought; whichevidently passed directly from the moment when he assumed his place atthe table ([Greek: anepesen]), to that later moment when ([Greek: epi tostêthos autou]) he interrogated his Divine Master concerning Judas. Itis a _general_ description of an incident, --for the details of which wehave to refer to the circumstantial and authoritative narrative whichwent before. 

[210] Traditional Text, Appendix IV. 

[211] Pesh. And Harkl. : Cur. And Lew. Are defective. 

[212] Thus Griesbach, Scholz, Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Alford, Wordsworth, Green, Scrivener, M^{c}Clellan, Westcott and Hort, and theRevisers. 

[213] In pseudo-Jerome's Brev. In Psalm. , Opp. Vii. (ad calc. ) 198. 

[214] Mont. I. 462. 

[215] Ubi supra. 

[216] Omitting trifling variants. 

[217] [Symbol: Aleph]BL are _exclusively_ responsible on 45 occasions:+C (i. E. [Symbol: Aleph]BCL), on 27: +D, on 35: +[Symbol: Delta], on 73:+CD, on 19: +C[Symbol: Delta], on 118: +D[Symbol: Delta] (i. E. [Symbol:Aleph]BDL[Symbol: Delta]), on 42: +CD[Symbol: Delta], on 66. 

[218] In the text of Evan. 72 the reading in dispute is _not_ found:205, 206 are duplicates of 209: and 222, 255 are only fragments. Thereremain 1, 22, 33, 61, 63, 115, 131, 151, 152, 161, 184, 209, 253, 372, 391:--of which the six at Rome require to be re-examined. 

[219] v. 10. 

[220] _Ap. _ Hieron. Vii. 17. 

[221] 'Evangelistas arguere falsitatis, hoc impiorum est, Celsi, Porphyrii, Juliani. ' Hieron. I. 311. 

[222] [Greek: grapheôs toinun esti sphalma]. Quoted (from the lost workof Eusebius ad Marinum) in Victor of Ant. 's Catena, ed. Cramer, p. 267. (See Simon, iii. 89; Mai, iv. 299; Matthaei's N. T. Ii. 20, &c. )

[223] 'Nos autem nomen Isaiae putamus _additum Scriptorum vitio_, quodet in aliis locis probare possumus. ' vii. 17 (I suspect he got it fromEusebius). 

[224] See Studia Biblica, ii. P. 249. Syrian Form of Ammonian sectionsand Eusebian Canons by Rev. G. H. Gwilliam, B. D. Mr. Gwilliam gives St. Luke iii. 4-6, according to the Syrian form. 

[225] Compare St. Mark vi. 7-13 with St. Luke ix. 1-6. 

[226] Schulz, --'et [Greek: lalia] et [Greek: omoiazei] aliena a Marco. 'Tischendorf--'omnino e Matthaeo fluxit: ipsum [Greek: omoiazei]glossatoris est. ' This is foolishness, --not criticism. 

[227] Scrivener's Full Collation of the Cod. Sin. , &c. , 2nd ed. , p. Xlvii. 

CHAPTER IX. 

CAUSES OF CORRUPTION CHIEFLY INTENTIONAL. 

III. Attraction. 

§ 1. 

There exist not a few corrupt Readings, --and they have imposed largelyon many critics, --which, strange to relate, have arisen from nothingelse but the proneness of words standing side by side in a sentence tobe attracted into a likeness of ending, --whether in respect ofgrammatical form or of sound; whereby sometimes the sense is made tosuffer grievously, --sometimes entirely to disappear. Let this be calledthe error of Attraction. The phenomena of 'Assimilation' are entirelydistinct. A somewhat gross instance, which however has imposed onlearned critics, is furnished by the Revised Text and Version of St. John vi. 71 and xiii. 26. 

'Judas Iscariot' is a combination of appellatives with which everyChristian ear is even awfully familiar. The expression [Greek: IoudasIskariôtês] is found in St. Matt. X. 4 and xxvi. 14: in St. Mark iii. 19and xiv. 10: in St. Luke vi. 16, and in xxii. 31 with the expressstatement added that Judas was so 'surnamed. ' So far happily we are allagreed. St. John's invariable practice is to designate the traitor, whomhe names four times, as 'Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon;'--jealousdoubtless for the honour of his brother Apostle, 'Jude ([Greek: Ioudas])the brother of James[228]': and resolved that there shall be no mistakeabout the traitor's identity. Who does not at once recall theEvangelist's striking parenthesis in St. John xiv. 22, --'Judas (notIscariot)'? Accordingly, in St. John xiii. 2 the Revisers present uswith 'Judas Iscariot, Simon's son': and even in St. John xii. 4 they arecontent to read 'Judas Iscariot. ' But in the two places of St. John'sGospel which remain to be noticed, viz. Vi. 71 and xiii. 26, instead of'Judas Iscariot the son of Simon' the Revisers require us henceforth toread, 'Judas the son of Simon Iscariot. ' And _why_? Only, I answer, because--in place of [Greek: Ioudan Simônos IskariôTÊN] (in vi. 71) and[Greek: Iouda Simônos IskariôTÊ] (in xiii. 26)--a little handful ofcopies substitute on both occasions [Greek: IskariôTOU]. Need I go on?Nothing else has evidently happened but that, through the oscitancy ofsome very early scribe, the [Greek: IskariôTÊN], [Greek: IskariôTÊ], have been attracted into concord with the immediately preceding genitive[Greek: SImôNOS] ... So transparent a blunder would have scarcelydeserved a passing remark at our hands had it been suffered toremain, --where such _bêtises_ are the rule and not the exception, --viz. In the columns of Codexes B and [Symbol: Aleph]. But strange to say, notonly have the Revisers adopted this corrupt reading in the two passagesalready mentioned, but they have not let so much as a hint fall that anyalteration whatsoever has been made by them in the inspired Text. 

§ 2. 

Another and a far graver case of 'Attraction' is found in Acts xx. 24. St. Paul, in his address to the elders of Ephesus, refers to thediscouragements he has had to encounter. 'But none of these things moveme, ' he grandly exclaims, 'neither count I my life dear unto myself, sothat I might finish my course with joy. ' The Greek for this begins[Greek: all' oudenos logon poioumai]: where some second or third centurycopyist (misled by the preceding genitive) in place of [Greek: logoN]writes [Greek: logoU]; with what calamitous consequence, has been foundlargely explained elsewhere[229]. Happily, the error survives only inCodd. B and C: and their character is already known by the readers ofthis book and the Companion Volume. So much has been elsewhere offeredon this subject that I shall say no more about it here: but proceed topresent my reader with another and more famous instance of attraction. 

St. Paul in a certain place (2 Cor. Iii. 3) tells the Corinthians, inallusion to the language of Exodus xxxi. 12, xxxiv. 1, that they are anepistle not written on '_stony tables_ ([Greek: en plaxi lithinais]), 'but on '_fleshy tables_ of the heart ([Greek: en plaxi kardiassarkinais]). ' The one proper proof that this is what St. Paul actuallywrote, is not only (1) That the Copies largely preponderate in favour ofso exhibiting the place: but (2) That the Versions, with the singleexception of 'that abject slave of manuscripts the Philoxenian [orHarkleian] Syriac, ' are all on the same side: and lastly (3) That theFathers are as nearly as possible unanimous. Let the evidence for[Greek: kardias] (unknown to Tischendorf and the rest) be produced indetail:--

In the second century, Irenaeus[230], --the Old Latin, --the Peshitto. 

In the third century, Origen seven times[231], --the Coptic version. 

In the fourth century, theDialogus[232], --Didymus[233], --Basil[234], --Gregory Nyss. [235], --Marcusthe Monk[236], --Chrysostom in two places[237], --Nilus[238], --theVulgate, --and the Gothic versions. 

In the fifth century, Cyril[239], --Isidorus[240], --Theodoret[241], --theArmenian--and the Ethiopic versions. 

In the seventh century, Victor, Bp. Of Carthage addressing TheodorusP. [242]

In the eighth century, J. Damascene[243] ... Besides, of the Latins, Hilary[244], --Ambrose[245], --Optatus[246], --Jerome[247], --Tichonius[248], --Augustine thirteen times[249], --Fulgentius[250], andothers[251] ... If this be not overwhelming evidence, may I be told what_is_[252]?

But then it so happens that--attracted by the two datives between which[Greek: kardias] stands, and tempted by the consequent jingle, asurprising number of copies are found to exhibit the 'perfectly absurd'and 'wholly unnatural reading[253], ' [Greek: plaxi kardiAIS sarkinAIS]. And because (as might have been expected from their character)A[254]B[Symbol: Aleph]CD[255] are all five of the number, --Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Alford, Westcott and Hort, one and all adopt andadvocate the awkward blunder[256]. [Greek: Kardiais] is also adopted bythe Revisers of 1881 without so much as a hint let fall in the marginthat the evidence is overwhelmingly against themselves and in favour ofthe traditional Text of the Authorized Version[257]. 

FOOTNOTES:

[228] St. Luke vi. 16; Acts i. 13; St. Jude 1. 

[229] Above, pp. 28-31. 

[230] 753 _int_. 

[231] ii. 843 c. Also _int_ ii. 96, 303; iv. 419, 489, 529, 558. 

[232] _Ap_. Orig. I. 866 a, --interesting and emphatic testimony. 

[233] Cord. Cat. In Ps. I. 272. 

[234] i. 161 e. Cord. Cat. In Ps. I. 844. 

[235] i. 682 ([Greek: ouk en plaxi lithinais ... All' en tô tês kardiaspyxiô]). 

[236] Galland. Viii. 40 b. 

[237] vii. 2: x. 475. 

[238] i. 29. 

[239] i. 8: ii. 504: v^{2}. 65. (Aubert prints [Greek: kardiassarkinês]. The published Concilia (iii. 140) exhibits [Greek: kardiassarkinais]. Pusey, finding in one of his MSS. [Greek: all' en plaxikardias lithinais] (sic), prints [Greek: kardias sarkinais]. ) _Ap_. Mai, iii. 89, 90. 

[240] 299. 

[241] iii. 302. 

[242] Concil. Vi. 154. 

[243] ii. 129. 

[244] 344. 

[245] i. 762: ii. 668, 1380. 

[246] Galland. V. 505. 

[247] vi. 609. 

[248] Galland. Viii. 742 dis. 

[249] i. 672: ii. 49: iii^{1}. 472, 560: iv. 1302: v. 743-4: viii. 311:x. 98, 101, 104, 107, 110. 

[250] Galland. Xi. 248. 

[251] Ps. -Ambrose, ii. 176. 

[252] Yet strange to say, Tischendorf claims the support of Didymus andTheodoret for [Greek: kardiais], on the ground that in the course oftheir expository remarks they contrast [Greek: kardiai sarkinai] (or[Greek: logikai]) with [Greek: plakes lithinai]: as if it were not theword [Greek: plaxi] which alone occasions difficulty. Again, Tischendorfenumerates Cod. E (Paul) among his authorities. Had he then forgottenthat E is '_nothing better than a transcript of Cod. D_ (Claromontanus), made by some ignorant person'? that 'the Greek _is manifestlyworthless_, and that it should long since have been removed from thelist of authorities'? [Scrivener's Introd. , 4th edit. , i. 177. See alsoTraditional Text, p. 65, and note. Tischendorf is frequently inaccuratein his references to the fathers. ]

[253] Scrivener's Introd. Ii. 254. 

[254] A in the Epistles differs from A in the Gospels. 

[255] Besides GLP and the following cursives, --29, 30, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 55, 74, 104, 106, 109, 112, 113, 115, 137, 219, 221, 238, 252, 255, 257, 262, 277. 

[256] That I may not be accused of suppressing what is to be said on theother side, let it be here added that the sum of the adverse evidence(besides the testimony of many MSS. ) is the Harkleian version:--thedoubtful testimony of Eusebius (for, though Valerius reads [Greek:kardias], the MSS. Largely preponderate which read [Greek: kardiais] inH. E. Mart. Pal. Cxiii. § 6. See Burton's ed. P. 637):--Cyril in oneplace, as explained above:--and lastly, a quotation from Chrysostom onthe Maccabees, given in Cramer's Catena, vii. 595 ([Greek: en plaxikardiais sarkinais]), which reappears at the end of eight lines withoutthe word [Greek: plaxi]. 

[257] [The papers on Assimilation and Attraction were left by the Deanin the same portfolio. No doubt he would have separated them, if he hadlived to complete his work, and amplified his treatment of the latter, for the materials under that head were scanty. --For 2 Cor. Iii. 3, seealso a note of my own to p. 65 of The Traditional Text. ]

CHAPTER X. 

CAUSES OF CORRUPTION CHIEFLY INTENTIONAL. 

IV. Omission. 

[We have now to consider the largest of all classes of corruptvariations from the genuine Text[258]--the omission of words and clausesand sentences, --a truly fertile province of inquiry. Omissions are muchin favour with a particular school of critics; though a habit ofadmitting them whether in ancient or modern times cannot but besymptomatic of a tendency to scepticism. ]

§ 1. 

Omissions are often treated as 'Various Readings. ' Yet only by anHibernian licence can words omitted be so reckoned: for in truth thevery essence of the matter is that on such occasions nothing is read. Itis to the case of words omitted however that this chapter is to beexclusively devoted. And it will be borne in mind that I speak now ofthose words alone where the words are observed to exist in ninety-nineMSS. Out of a hundred, so to speak;--being away only from that hundredthcopy. 

Now it becomes evident, as soon as attention has been called to thecircumstance, that such a phenomenon requires separate treatment. Wordsso omitted labour _prima facie_ under a disadvantage which is all theirown. My meaning will be best illustrated if I may be allowed to adduceand briefly discuss a few examples. And I will begin with a crucialcase;--the most conspicuous doubtless within the whole compass of theNew Testament. I mean the last twelve verses of St. Mark's Gospel; whichverses are either bracketed off, or else entirely severed from the restof the Gospel, by Tischendorf, Tregelles, Alford and others. 

The warrant of those critics for dealing thus unceremoniously with aportion of the sacred deposit is the fact that whereas Eusebius, for thestatement rests solely with him, declares that anciently many copieswere without the verses in question, our two oldest extant MSS. Conspirein omitting them. But, I reply, the latter circumstance does not conductto the inference that those verses are spurious. It only proves that thestatement of Eusebius was correct. The Father cited did not, as isevident from his words[259], himself doubt the genuineness of the versesin question; but admitted them to be genuine. [He quotes twoopinions;--the opinion of an advocate who questions their genuineness, and an opposing opinion which he evidently considers the better of thetwo, since he rests upon the latter and casts a slur upon the former asbeing an off-hand expedient; besides that he quotes several words out ofthe twelve verses, and argues at great length upon the secondhypothesis. 

On the other hand, one and that the least faulty of the two MSS. Witnessing for the omission confesses mutely its error by leaving avacant space where the omitted verses should have come in; whilst theother was apparently copied from an exemplar containing the verses[260]. And all the other copies insert them, except L and a few cursives whichpropose a manifestly spurious substitute for the verses, --together withall the versions, except one Old Latin (k), the Lewis Codex, twoArmenian MSS. And an Arabic Lectionary, --besides more than ninetytestimonies in their favour from more than 'forty-four' ancientwitnesses[261];--such is the evidence which weighs down the conflictingtestimony over and over and over again. Beyond all this, the cause ofthe error is patent. Some scribe mistook the [Greek: Telos] occurring atthe end of an Ecclesiastical Lection at the close of chapter xvi. 8 forthe 'End' of St. Mark's Gospel[262]. 

That is the simple truth: and the question will now be asked by anintelligent reader, 'If such is the balance of evidence, how is it thatlearned critics still doubt the genuineness of those verses?'

To this question there can be but one answer, viz. 'Because thosecritics are blinded by invincible prejudice in favour of two unsafeguides, and on behalf of Omission. '

We have already seen enough of the character of those guides, and arenow anxious to learn what there can be in omissions which render them soacceptable to minds of the present day. And we can imagine nothingexcept the halo which has gathered round the detection of spuriouspassages in modern times, and has extended to a supposed detection ofpassages which in fact are not spurious. Some people appear to feeldelight if they can prove any charge against people who claim to beorthodox; others without any such feeling delight in superior criticism;and the flavour of scepticism especially commends itself to the taste ofmany. To the votaries of such criticism, omissions of passages whichthey style 'interpolations, ' offer temptingly spacious hunting-fields. 

Yet the experience of copyists would pronounce that Omission is thebesetting fault of transcribers. It is so easy under the influence ofthe desire of accomplishing a task, or at least of anxiety for makingprogress, to pass over a word, a line, or even more lines than one. Ashas been explained before, the eye readily moves from one ending to asimilar ending with a surprising tendency to pursue the course whichwould lighten labour instead of increasing it. The cumulative result ofsuch abridgement by omission on the part of successive scribes may beeasily imagined, and in fact is just what is presented in Codex B[263]. Besides these considerations, the passages which are omitted, and whichwe claim to be genuine, bear in themselves the character belonging tothe rest of the Gospels, indeed--in Dr. Hort's expressive phrase--'havethe true ring of genuineness. ' They are not like some which some criticsof the same school would fain force upon us[264]. But beyond all, --andthis is the real source and ground of attestation, --they enjoy superiorevidence from copies, generally beyond comparison with the opposingtestimony, from Versions, and from Fathers. ]

§ 2. 

The fact seems to be all but overlooked that a very much larger amountof proof than usual is required at the hands of those who would persuadeus to cancel words which have been hitherto by all persons, --in allages, --in all countries, --regarded as inspired Scripture. They have (1)to account for the fact of those words' existence: and next (2), todemonstrate that they have no right to their place in the sacred page. The discovery that from a few copies they are away, clearly has verylittle to do with the question. We may be able to account for theomission from those few copies: and the instant we have done this, thenegative evidence--the argument _e silentio_--has been effectuallydisposed of. A very different task--a far graver responsibility--isimposed upon the adverse party, as may be easily shewn. [They mustestablish many modes of accounting for many classes and groups ofevidence. Broad and sweeping measures are now out of date. The burden ofproof lies with them. ]

§ 3. 

The force of what I am saying will be best understood if a few actualspecimens of omission may be adduced, and individually considered. Andfirst, let us take the case of an omitted word. In St. Luke vi. 1[Greek: deuteroprôtô] is omitted from some MSS. Westcott and Hort andthe Revisers accordingly exhibit the text of that place asfollows:--[Greek: Egeneto de en sabbatô diaporeuesthai auton diasporimôn]. 

Now I desire to be informed how it is credible that so very difficultand peculiar a word as this, --for indeed the expression has never yetbeen satisfactorily explained, --should have found its way into everyknown Evangelium except [Symbol: Aleph]BL and a few cursives, if it bespurious? How it came to be here and there omitted, is intelligibleenough. (_a_) One has but to glance at the Cod. [Symbol: Aleph], [Greek: TO EN SABBATÔ] [Greek: DEUTEROPRÔTÔ]

in order to see that the like ending ([Greek: TÔ]) in the superior line, fully accounts for the omission of the second line. (_b_) A properlesson begins at this place; which by itself would explain thephenomenon. (_c_) Words which the copyists were at a loss to understand, are often observed to be dropped: and there is no harder word in theGospels than [Greek: deuteroprôtos]. But I repeat, --will you tell us howit is conceivable that [a word nowhere else found, and known to be a_crux_ to commentators and others, should have crept into all the copiesexcept a small handful?]

In reply to all this, I shall of course be told that really I must yieldto what is after all the weight of external evidence: that Codd. [Symbol: Aleph]BL are not ordinary MSS. But first-class authorities, ofsufficient importance to outweigh any number of the later cursive MSS. 

My rejoinder is plain:--Not only am I of course willing to yield toexternal evidence, but it is precisely 'external evidence' which makesme insist on retaining [Greek: deuteroprôto--apo melissiou kêriou--haraston stauron--kai anephereto eis ton ouranon--hotan eklipête]--the 14thverse of St. Matthew's xxiiird chapter--and the last twelve verses ofSt. Mark's Gospel. For my own part, I entirely deny the cogency of theproposed proof, and I have clearly already established the grounds of myrefusal. Who then is to be the daysman between us? We are driven back onfirst principles, in order to ascertain if it may not be possible tomeet on some common ground, and by the application of ordinary logicalprinciples of reasoning to clear our view. [As to these we must referthe reader to the first volume of this work. Various cases of omissionhave been just quoted, and many have been discussed elsewhere. Accordingly, it will not be necessary to exhibit this large class ofcorruptions at the length which it would otherwise demand. But a fewmore instances are required, in order that the reader may see in thisconnexion that many passages at least which the opposing schooldesignate as Interpolations are really genuine, and that students may beplaced upon their guard against the source of error that we arediscussing. ]

§ 4. 

And first as to the rejection of an entire verse. 

The 44th verse of St. Matt. Xxi, consisting of the fifteen words printedat foot[265], is marked as doubtful by Tregelles, Westcott and Hort, andthe Revisers:--by Tischendorf it is rejected as spurious. We insistthat, on the contrary, it is indubitably genuine; reasoning from theantiquity, the variety, the respectability, the largeness, or rather, the general unanimity of its attestation. 

For the verse is found in the Old Latin, and in the Vulgate, --in thePeshitto, Curetonian, and Harkleian Syriac, --besides in the Coptic, Armenian, and Ethiopic versions. It is found also in Origen[266], --ps. -Tatian[267]--Aphraates[268], --Chrysostom[269], --Cyril Alex. [270], --the Opus Imperfectum[271], --Jerome[272], --Augustine[273]:--in CodexesB[Symbol: Aleph]C[Symbol: Theta][Symbol: Sigma]XZ[Symbol: Delta][Symbol:Pi]EFG HKLMSUV, --in short, it is attested by every known Codex excepttwo of bad character, viz. --D, 33; together with five copies of the OldLatin, viz. --a b e ff^{1} ff^{2}. There have therefore been adduced forthe verse in dispute at least five witnesses of the second or thirdcentury:--at least eight of the fourth:--at least seven if not eight ofthe fifth: after which date the testimony in favour of this verse isoverwhelming. How could we be justified in opposing to such a mass offirst-rate testimony the solitary evidence of Cod. D (concerning whichsee above, Vol. I. C. Viii. ) supported only by a single errant Cursiveand a little handful of copies of the Old Latin versions, [even althoughthe Lewis Codex has joined this petty band?]

But, says Tischendorf, --the verse is omitted by Origen and byEusebius, --by Irenaeus and by Lucifer of Cagliari, --as well as by Cyrilof Alexandria. I answer, this most insecure of arguments for mutilatingthe traditional text is plainly inadmissible on the present occasion. The critic refers to the fact that Irenaeus[274], Origen[275], Eusebius[276] and Cyril[277] having quoted 'the parable of the wickedhusbandmen' _in extenso_ (viz. From verse 33 to verse 43), _leave off atverse_ 43. Why may they not leave off where the parable leaves off? Whyshould they quote any further? Verse 44 is nothing to their purpose. Andsince the Gospel for Monday morning in Holy Week [verses 18-43], inevery known copy of the Lectionary actually ends at verse 43, --whyshould not their quotation of it end at the same verse? But, unfortunately for the critic, Origen and Cyril (as we have seen, --thelatter expressly, ) elsewhere actually quote the verse in dispute. Andhow can Tischendorf maintain that Lucifer yields adverse testimony[278]?That Father quotes _nothing but_ verse 43, which is all he requires forhis purpose[279]. Why should he have also quoted verse 44, which he doesnot require? As well might it be maintained that Macarius Egyptius[280]and Philo of Carpasus[281] omit verse 44, because (like Lucifer) theyonly quote verse 43. 

I have elsewhere explained what I suspect occasioned the omission of St. Matt. Xxi. 44 from a few Western copies of the Gospels[282]. Tischendorf's opinion that this verse is a fabricated imitation of theparallel verse in St. Luke's Gospel[283] (xx. 18) is clearly untenable. Either place has its distinctive type, which either has maintained alldown the ages. The single fact that St. Matt. Xxi. 44 in the Peshittoversion has a sectional number to itself[284] is far too weighty to beset aside on nothing better than suspicion. If a verse so elaboratelyattested as the present be not genuine, we must abandon all hope of everattaining to any certainty concerning the Text of Scripture. 

In the meantime there emerges from the treatment which St. Matt. Xxi. 44has experienced at the hands of Tischendorf, the discovery that, in theestimation of Tischendorf, Cod. D [is a document of so much importanceas occasionally to outweigh almost by itself the other copies of allages and countries in Christendom. ]

§ 5. 

I am guided to my next example, viz. The text of St. Matt. Xv. 8, by thechoice deliberately made of that place by Dr. Tregelles in order toestablish the peculiar theory of Textual Revision which he advocates sostrenuously; and which, ever since the days of Griesbach, has it must beconfessed enjoyed the absolute confidence of most of the illustriouseditors of the New Testament. This is, in fact, the second example onTregelles' list. In approaching it, I take leave to point out that thatlearned critic unintentionally hoodwinks his readers by not settingbefore them in full the problem which he proposes to discuss. Thoroughlyto understand this matter, the student should be reminded that there isfound in St. Matt. Xv. 8, --and parallel to it in St. Mark vii. 6, --

St. Matt. 

'Ye hypocrites, well did Isaiah prophesy of you saying, "This peopledraweth nigh unto Me with their mouth and honoureth me with their lips([Greek: engizei moi ho laos houtos tô stomati autôn, kai tois cheilesime tima]), but their heart is far from Me. "'

St. Mark. 

'Well did Isaiah prophesy of you, hypocrites, as it is written, "Thispeople honoureth Me with their lips ([Greek: houtos ho laos toischeilesi me tima]), but their heart is far from Me. "'

The place of Isaiah referred to, viz. Ch. Xxix. 13, reads as follows inthe ordinary editions of the LXX:--[Greek: kai eipe Kyrios, engizei moiho laos houtos en tô stomati autou, kai en tois cheilesin autôn timôsime]. 

Now, about the text of St. Mark in this place no question is raised. Neither is there any various reading worth speaking of in ninety-nineMSS. Out of a hundred in respect of the text in St. Matthew. But whenreference is made to the two oldest copies in existence, B and [Symbol:Aleph], we are presented with what, but for the parallel place in St. Mark, would have appeared to us a strangely abbreviated reading. BothMSS. Conspire in exhibiting St. Matt. Xv. 8, as follows:--[Greek: holaos houtos tois cheilesi me tima]. So that six words ([Greek: engizeimoi] and [Greek: tô stomati autôn, kai]) are not recognized by them: inwhich peculiarity they are countenanced by DLT^{c}, two cursive copies, and the following versions:--Old Latin except f, Vulgate, Curetonian, Lewis, Peshitto, and Bohairic, (Cod. A, the Sahidic and Gothic versions, being imperfect here. ) To this evidence, Tischendorf adds a phalanx ofFathers:--Clemens Romanus (A. D. 70), Ptolemaeus the Gnostic (A. D. 150), Clemens Alexandrinus (A. D. 190), Origen in three places (A. D. 210), Eusebius (A. D. 325), Basil, Cyril of Alexandria, Chrysostom: and Alfordsupplies also Justin Martyr (A. D. 150). The testimony of Didymus (A. D. 350), which has been hitherto overlooked, is express. Tertullian, Cyprian, Hilary, are naturally found to follow the Latin copies. Such aweight of evidence may not unreasonably inspire Dr. Tregelles with anexceeding amount of confidence. Accordingly he declares 'that this onepassage might be relied upon as an important proof that it is the fewMSS. And not the many which accord with ancient testimony. ' Availinghimself of Dr. Scrivener's admission of 'the possibility that thedisputed words in the great bulk of the MSS. Were inserted from theSeptuagint of Isaiah xxix. 13[285], ' Dr. Tregelles insists 'that onevery true principle of textual criticism, the words must be regarded asan amplification borrowed from the Prophet. This naturally explainstheir introduction, ' (he adds); 'and when once they had gained a footingin the text, it is certain that they would be multiplied by copyists, who almost always preferred to make passages as full and complete aspossible' (p. 139). Dr. Tregelles therefore relies upon this onepassage, --not so much as a 'proof that it is the few MSS. And not themany which accord with ancient testimony';--for one instance cannotpossibly prove that; and that is after all beside the realquestion;--but, as a proof that we are to regard the text of Codd. B[Symbol: Aleph] in this place as genuine, and the text of all the otherCodexes in the world as corrupt. 

The reader has now the hypothesis fully before him by which from thedays of Griesbach it has been proposed to account for the discrepancybetween 'the few copies' on the one hand, and the whole torrent ofmanuscript evidence on the other. 

Now, as I am writing a book on the principles of Textual Criticism, Imust be allowed to set my reader on his guard against all suchunsupported dicta as the preceding, though enforced with emphasis andrecommended by a deservedly respected name. I venture to think that theexact reverse will be found to be a vast deal nearer the truth: viz. That undoubtedly spurious readings, although they may at one time orother have succeeded in obtaining a footing in MSS. , and to some extentmay be observed even to have propagated themselves, are yet discoveredto die out speedily; seldom indeed to leave any considerable number ofdescendants. There has always in fact been a process of eliminationgoing on, as well as of self-propagation: a corrective force at work, aswell as one of deterioration. How else are we to account for the utterdisappearance of the many _monstra potius quam variae lectiones_ whichthe ancients nevertheless insist were prevalent in their times? It isenough to appeal to a single place in Jerome, in illustration of what Ihave been saying[286]. To return however from this digression. 

We are invited then to believe, --for it is well to know at the outsetexactly what is required of us, --that from the fifth century downwardsevery _extant copy of the Gospels except five_ (DLT^{c}, 33, 124)exhibits a text arbitrarily interpolated in order to bring it intoconformity with the Greek version of Isa. Xxix. 13. On this wildhypothesis I have the following observations to make:--

1. It is altogether unaccountable, if this be indeed a true account ofthe matter, how it has come to pass that in no single MS. In the world, so far as I am aware, has this conformity been successfully achieved:for whereas the Septuagintal reading is [Greek: engizei moi ho laosoutos EN tô stomati AUTOU, kai EN tois cheilesin AUTÔN TIMÔSI me], --theEvangelical Text is observed to differ therefrom in no less than sixparticulars. 

2. Further, --If there really did exist this strange determination on thepart of the ancients in general to assimilate the text of St. Matthew tothe text of Isaiah, how does it happen that not one of them everconceived the like design in respect of the parallel place in St. Mark?

3. It naturally follows to inquire, --Why are we to suspect the mass ofMSS. Of having experienced such wholesale depravation in respect of thetext of St. Matthew in this place, while yet we recognize in them such amarked constancy to their own peculiar type; which however, as alreadyexplained, is _not_ the text of Isaiah?

4. Further, --I discover in this place a minute illustration of thegeneral fidelity of the ancient copyists: for whereas in St. Matthew itis invariably [Greek: ho laos outos], I observe that in the copies ofSt. Mark, --except to be sure in (_a_) Codd. B and D, (_b_) copies of theOld Latin, (_c_) the Vulgate, and (_d_) the Peshitto (all of which areconfessedly corrupt in this particular, )--it is invariably [Greek: outosho laos]. But now, --Is it reasonable that the very copies which havebeen in this way convicted of licentiousness in respect of St. Mark vii. 6 should be permitted to dictate to us against the great heap of copiesin respect of their exhibition of St. Matt. Xv. 8?

And yet, if the discrepancy between Codd. B and [Symbol: Aleph] and thegreat bulk of the copies in this place did not originate in the wayinsisted on by the critics, how is it to be accounted for? Now, onordinary occasions, we do not feel ourselves called upon to instituteany such inquiry, --as indeed very seldom would it be practicable to do. Unbounded licence of transcription, flagrant carelessness, arbitraryinterpolations, omissions without number, disfigure those two ancientMSS. In every page. We seldom trouble ourselves to inquire into thehistory of their obliquities. But the case is of course materiallychanged when so many of the oldest of the Fathers and all the oldestVersions seem to be at one with Codexes B and [Symbol: Aleph]. Let thenthe student favour me with his undivided attention for a few moments, and I will explain to him how the misapprehension of Griesbach, Tischendorf, Tregelles and the rest, has arisen. About the MSS. And theVersions these critics are sufficiently accurate: but they have fatallymisapprehended the import of the Patristic evidence; as I proceed toexplain. 

The established Septuagintal rendering of Isa. Xxix. 13 in the Apostolicage proves to have been this, --[Greek: Engizei moi ho laos outos toischeilesin autôn timôsi me]: the words [Greek: en tô stomati autôn, kaien] being omitted. This is certain. Justin Martyr[287] and Cyril ofAlexandria in two places[288] so quote the passage. Procopius Gazaeus inhis Commentary on Origen's Hexapla of Isaiah says expressly that the sixwords in question were introduced into the text of the Septuagint byAquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion. Accordingly they are often observedto be absent from MSS. [289] They are not found, for example, in theCodex Alexandrinus. 

But the asyndeton resulting from the suppression of these words was feltto be intolerable. In fact, without a colon point between [Greek: outos]and [Greek: tois], the result is without meaning. When once thecomplementary words have been withdrawn, [Greek: engizei moi] at thebeginning of the sentence is worse than superfluous. It fatallyencumbers the sense. To drop those two words, after the example of theparallel place in St. Mark's Gospel, became thus an obvious proceeding. Accordingly the author of the (so-called) second Epistle of ClemensRomanus (§ 3), professing to quote the place in the prophet Isaiah, exhibits it thus, --[Greek: Ho laos outos tois cheilesi me tima]. ClemensAlexandrinus certainly does the same thing on at least twooccasions[290]. So does Chrysostom[291]. So does Theodoret[292]. 

Two facts have thus emerged, which entirely change the aspect of theproblem: the first, (_a_) That the words [Greek: en tô stomati autôn, kai en] were anciently absent from the Septuagintal rendering of Isaiahxxix. 13: the second, (_b_) that the place of Isaiah was freely quotedby the ancients without the initial words [Greek: engizei moi]. 

And after this discovery will any one be so perverse as to deny that onthe contrary it must needs be Codexes B and [Symbol: Aleph], and not thegreat bulk of the MSS. , which exhibit a text corrupted by the influenceof the Septuagint rendering of Isaiah xxix. 13? The precise extent towhich the assimilating influence of the parallel place in St. Mark'sGospel has been felt by the copyists, I presume not to determine. Theessential point is that the omission from St. Matthew xv. 8 of the words[Greek: Tô stomati autôn, kai], is certainly due in the first instanceto the ascertained Septuagint omission of those very words in Isaiahxxix. 13. 

But that the text of St. Mark vii. 6 has exercised an assimilatinginfluence on the quotation from Isaiah is demonstrable. For there can beno doubt that Isaiah's phrase (retained by St. Matthew) is [Greek: holaos outos], --St. Mark's [Greek: outos ho laos]. And yet, when ClemensRomanus quotes Isaiah, he begins--[Greek: outos ho laos][293]; and sotwice does Theodoret[294]. 

The reader is now in a position to judge how much attention is due toDr. Tregelles' dictum 'that this one passage may be relied upon' insupport of the peculiar views he advocates: as well as to his confidentclaim that the fuller text which is found in ninety-nine MSS. Out of ahundred 'must be regarded as an amplification borrowed from theprophet. ' It has been shewn in answer to the learned critic that in theancient Greek text of the prophet the 'amplification' he speaks of didnot exist: it was the abbreviated text which was found there. So thatthe very converse of the phenomenon he supposes has taken place. Freelyaccepting his hypothesis that we have here a process of assimilation, occasioned by the Septuagintal text of Isaiah, we differ from him onlyas to the direction in which that process has manifested itself. Heassumes that the bulk of the MSS. Have been conformed to the generallyreceived reading of Isaiah xxix. 13. But it has been shewn that, on thecontrary, it is the two oldest MSS. Which have experienced assimilation. Their prototypes were depraved in this way at an exceedingly remoteperiod. 

To state this matter somewhat differently. --In all the extant uncialsbut five, and in almost every known cursive copy of the Gospels, thewords [Greek: tô stomati autôn, kai] are found to belong to St. Matt. Xv. 8. How is the presence of those words to be accounted for? The replyis obvious:--By the fact that they must have existed in the originalautograph of the Evangelist. Such however is not the reply of Griesbachand his followers. They insist that beyond all doubt those words musthave been imported into the Gospel from Isaiah xxix. But I have shewnthat this is impossible; because, at the time spoken of, the words inquestion had no place in the Greek text of the prophet. And thisdiscovery exactly reverses the problem, and brings out the directlyopposite result. For now we discover that we have rather to inquire howis the absence of the words in question from those few MSS. Out of themass to be accounted for? The two oldest Codexes are convicted ofexhibiting a text which has been corrupted by the influence of theoldest Septuagint reading of Isaiah xxix. 13. 

I freely admit that it is in a high degree remarkable that five ancientVersions, and all the following early writers, --Ptolemaeus[295], ClemensAlexandrinus[296], Origen[297], Didymus[298], Cyril[299], Chrysostom[300], and possibly three others of like antiquity[301], --should all quote St. Matthew in this place from a faulty text. But this does but prove at howextremely remote a period the corruption must have begun. It probablydates from the first century. Especially does it seem to shew howdistrustful we should be of our oldest authorities when, as here, theyare plainly at variance with the whole torrent of manuscript authority. This is indeed no ordinary case. There are elements of distrust here, such as are not commonly encountered. 

§ 6. 

What I have been saying is aptly illustrated by a place in our Lord'sSermon on the Mount: viz. St. Matt. V. 44; which in almost every MS. Inexistence stands as follows:

 (1) [Greek: agapate tous echthrous humôn], (2) [Greek: eulogeite tous katarômenous humas], (3) [Greek: kalôs poieite tois misousin[302] humas], (4) [Greek: kai proseuchesthe huper tôn epêreazontôn humas], (5) [Greek: kai diôkontôn hymas][303]. 

On the other hand, it is not to be denied that there exists anappreciable body of evidence for exhibiting the passage in a shorterform. The fact that Origen six times[304] reads the place thus:

 [Greek: agapate tous echthrous humôn, kai proseuchesthe huper tôn diôkontôn humas]. 

(which amounts to a rejection of the second, third, and fourthclauses;)--and that he is supported therein by B[Symbol: Aleph], (besides a few cursives) the Curetonian, the Lewis, several Old LatinMSS. , and the Bohairic[305], seems to critics of a certain school acircumstance fatal to the credit of those clauses. They are aware thatCyprian[306], and they are welcome to the information thatTertullian[307] once and Theodoret once[308] [besides Irenaeus[309], Eusebius[310], and Gregory of Nyssa[311]] exhibit the place in the sameway. So does the author of the Dialogus contra Marcionitas[312], --whomhowever I take to be Origen. Griesbach, on far slenderer evidence, wasfor obelizing all the three clauses. But Lachmann, Tregelles, Tischendorf and the Revisers reject them entirely. I am persuaded thatthey are grievously mistaken in so doing, and that the received textrepresents what St. Matthew actually wrote. It is the text of all theuncials but two, of all the cursives but six or seven; and this aloneought to be decisive. But it is besides the reading of the Peshitto, theHarkleian, and the Gothic; as well as of three copies of the Old Latin. 

Let us however inquire more curiously for the evidence of Versions andFathers on this subject; remembering that the point in dispute isnothing else but the genuineness of clauses 2, 3, 4. And here, atstarting, we make the notable discovery that Origen, whose practice wasrelied on for retaining none but the first and the fifthclauses, --himself twice[313] quotes the first clause in connexion withthe fourth: while Theodoret, on two occasions[314], connects with clause1 what he evidently means for clause 2; and Tertullian once if not twiceconnects closely clauses 1, 2; and once, clauses 1, 2, 5[315]. Fromwhich it is plain that neither Origen nor Theodoret, least of allTertullian, can be held to disallow the clauses in question. Theyrecognize them on the contrary, which is simply a fatal circumstance, and effectively disposes of their supposed hostile evidence. 

But in fact the Western Church yields unfaltering testimony. Besides thethree copies of the Old Latin which exhibit all the five clauses, theVulgate retains the first, third, fifth and fourth. Augustine[316]quotes consecutively clauses 1, 3, 5: Ambrose[317] clauses 1, 3, 4, 5--1, 4, 5: Hilary[318], clauses 1, 4, 5, and (apparently) 2, 4, 5:Lucifer[319], clauses 1, 2, 3 (apparently), 5: pseudo-Epiphanius[320]connects clauses 1, 3, --1, 3, 5: and Pacian[321], clauses 5, 2. Next wehave to ascertain what is the testimony of the Greek Fathers. 

And first we turn to Chrysostom[322] who (besides quoting the fourthclause from St. Matthew's Gospel by itself five times) quotesconsecutively clauses 1, 3--iii. 167; 1, 4--iv. 619; 2, 4--v. 436; 4, 3--ii. 340, v. 56, xii. 654; 4, 5--ii. 258, iii. 341; 1, 2, 4--iv. 267;1, 3, 4, 5--xii. 425; thus recognizing them _all. _

Gregory Nyss. [323] quotes connectedly clauses 3, 4, 5. 

Eusebius[324], clauses 4, 5--2, 4, 5--1, 3, 4, 5. 

The Apostolic Constitutions[325] (third century), clauses 1, 3, 4, 5(having immediately before quoted clause 2, )--also clauses 2, 4, 1. 

Clemens Alex. [326] (A. D. 192), clauses 1, 2, 4. 

Athenagoras[327] (A. D. 177), clauses 1, 2, 5. 

Theophilus[328] (A. D. 168), clauses 1, 4. 

While Justin M. [329] (A. D. 140) having paraphrased clause 1, connectstherewith clauses 2 and 4. 

And Polycarp[330] (A. D. 108) apparently connects clauses 4 and 5. 

Didache[331] (A. D. 100?) quotes 2, 4, 5 and combines 1 and 3 (pp. 5, 6). 

In the face of all this evidence, no one it is presumed will any more befound to dispute the genuineness of the generally received reading inSt. Matt. V. 44. All must see that if the text familiarly known in theage immediately after that of the Apostles had been indeed the bald, curt thing which the critics imagine, viz. 

 [Greek: agapate tous echthrous humôn, kai proseuchesthe huper tôn diôkontôn humas, --]

by no possibility could the men of that age in referring to St. Matt. V. 44 have freely mentioned 'blessing those who curse, --doing good to thosewho hate, --and praying for those who despitefully use. ' Since there arebut two alternative readings of the passage, --one longer, onebriefer, --every clear acknowledgement of a single disputed clause in thelarger reading necessarily carries with it all the rest. 

This result of 'comparative criticism' is therefore respectfullyrecommended to the notice of the learned. If it be not decisive of thepoint at issue to find such a torrent of primitive testimony at one withthe bulk of the Uncials and Cursives extant, it is clear that there canbe no Science of Textual Criticism. The Law of Evidence must be held tobe inoperative in this subject-matter. Nothing deserving of the name of'proof' will ever be attainable in this department of investigation. 

But if men admit that the ordinarily received text of St. Matt. V. 44has been clearly established, then let the legitimate results of theforegoing discussion be loyally recognized. The unique value ofManuscripts in declaring the exact text of Scripture--the conspicuousinadequacy of Patristic evidence by themselves, --have been madeapparent: and yet it has been shewn that Patristic quotations areabundantly sufficient for their proper purpose, --which is, to enable usto decide between conflicting readings. One more indication has beenobtained of the corruptness of the text which Origen employed, --concerning which he is so strangely communicative, --and of whichB[Symbol: Aleph] are the chief surviving examples; and the probabilityhas been strengthened that when these are the sole, or even theprincipal witnesses, for any particular reading, that reading will proveto be corrupt. 

Mill was of opinion, (and of course his opinion finds favour withGriesbach, Tischendorf, and the rest, ) that these three clauses havebeen imported hither from St. Luke vi. 27, 28. But, besides that this ismere unsupported conjecture, how comes it then to pass that the order ofthe second and third clauses in St. Matthew's Gospel is the reverse ofthe order in St. Luke's? No. I believe that there has been excisionhere: for I hold with Griesbach that it cannot have been the result ofaccident[332]. 

[I take this opportunity to reply to a reviewer in the _Guardian_newspaper, who thought that he had reduced the authorities quoted frombefore A. D. 400 on page 103 of The Traditional Text to two on our sideagainst seven, or rather six[333], on the other. Let me first say thaton this perilous field I am not surprised at being obliged to re-judgeor withdraw some authorities. I admit that in the middle of a longcatena of passages, I did not lay sufficient stress, as I now find, uponthe parallel passage in St. Luke vi. 27, 28. After fresh examination, Iwithdraw entirely Clemens Alex. , Paed. I. 8, --Philo of Carpasus, I. 7, --Ambrose, De Abrahamo ii. 30, Ps. Cxviii. 12. 51, and the tworeferred to Athanasius. Also I do not quote Origen, Cels. Viii. 41, --Eusebius in Ps. Iii. , --Apost. Const. Vii. 4, --Greg. Nyss. , In S. Stephanum, because they may be regarded as doubtful, although forreasons which I proceed to give they appear to witness in favour of ourcontention. It is necessary to add some remarks before dealing with therest of the passages. ]

[1. It must be borne in mind, that this is a question both negative andpositive:--negative on the side of our opponents, with all thedifficulties involved in establishing a negative conclusion as to thenon-existence in St. Matthew's Gospel of clauses 2, 3, and 5, --andpositive for us, in the establishment of those clauses as part of thegenuine text in the passage which we are considering. If we can soestablish the clauses, or indeed any one of them, the case against usfails: but unless we can establish all, we have not proved everythingthat we seek to demonstrate. Our first object is to make the adverseposition untenable: when we have done that, we fortify our own. Therefore both the Dean and myself have drawn attention to the fact thatour authorities are summoned as witnesses to the early existence in eachcase of 'some of the clauses, ' if they do not depose to all of them. Weare quite aware of the reply: but we have with us the advantage ofpositive as against negative evidence. This advantage especially rulesin such an instance as the present, because alien circumstances governthe quotation, and regulate particularly the length of it. Suchquotation is always liable to shortening, whether by leaving outintermediate clauses, or by sudden curtailment in the midst of thepassage. Therefore, actual citation of separate clauses, beingundesigned and fortuitous, is much more valuable than omission arisingfrom what cause soever. ]

[2. The reviewer says that 'all four clauses are read by both texts, 'i. E. In St. Matthew and St. Luke, and appears to have been unaware asregards the present purpose of the existence of the fifth clause, orhalf-clause, in St. Matthew. Yet the words--[Greek: huper ... Tôndiôkontôn humas] are a very label, telling incontestibly the origin ofmany of the quotations. Sentences so distinguished with St. Matthew'slabel cannot have come from St. Luke's Gospel. The reviewer has oftengone wrong here. The [Greek: huper]--instead of the [Greek: peri] after[Symbol: Aleph]BL[Symbol: Xi] in St. Luke--should be to our opponents asign betraying the origin, though when it stands by itself--as inEusebius, In Ps. Iii. --I do not press the passage. ]

[3. Nor again does the reviewer seem to have noticed the effects of thecontext in shewing to which source a quotation is to be referred. It isa common custom for Fathers to quote v. 45 in St. Matthew, which ishardly conceivable if they had St. Luke vi. 27, 28 before them, or evenif they were quoting from memory. Other points in the context of greateror less importance are often found in the sentence or sentencespreceding or following the words quoted, and are decisive of thereference. ]

[The references as corrected are given in the note[334]. It will be seenby any one who compares the verifications with the reviewer's list, howhis failure to observe the points just explained has led him astray. Theeffect upon the list given in The Traditional Text will be that beforethe era of St. Chrysostom twenty-five testimonies are given in favour ofthe Traditional Text of St. Matt. V. 44, and adding Tertullian from theDean nine against it. And the totals on page 102, lines 2 and 3 will be522 and 171 respectively. ]

§ 7. 

Especially have we need to be on our guard against conniving at theejection of short clauses consisting of from twelve to fourteenletters, --which proves to have been the exact length of a line in theearliest copies. When such omissions leave the sense manifestlyimperfect, no evil consequence can result. Critics then either take nonotice of the circumstance, or simply remark in passing that theomission has been the result of accident. In this way, [[Greek: hoipateres autôn], though it is omitted by Cod. B in St. Luke vi. 26, isretained by all the Editors: and the strange reading of Cod. [Symbol:Aleph] in St. John vi. 55, omitting two lines, was corrected on themanuscript in the seventh century, and has met with no assent in moderntimes]. 

 [Greek: ÊGAR] [Greek: SARXMOUALÊTHÔS] [[Greek: ESTIBRÔSISKAI] [Greek: TOAIMAMOUALÊTHÔS]] [Greek: ESTIPOSIS]

But when, notwithstanding the omission of two or three words, the senseof the context remains unimpaired, --the clause being of independentsignification, --then great danger arises lest an attempt should be madethrough the officiousness of modern Criticism to defraud the Church of apart of her inheritance. Thus [[Greek: kai hoi syn autô] (St. Luke viii. 45) is omitted by Westcott and Hort, and is placed in the margin by theRevisers and included in brackets by Tregelles as if the words were ofdoubtful authority, solely because some scribe omitted a line and wasfollowed by B, a few cursives, the Sahidic, Curetonian, Lewis, andJerusalem Versions]. 

When indeed the omission dates from an exceedingly remote period; tookplace, I mean, in the third, or more likely still in the second century;then the fate of such omitted words may be predicted with certainty. Their doom is sealed. Every copy made from that defective original ofnecessity reproduced the defects of its prototype: and if (as oftenhappens) some of those copies have descended to our times, they becomequoted henceforward as if they were independent witnesses[335]. Nor isthis all. Let the taint have been communicated to certain copies of theOld Latin, and we find ourselves confronted with formidable because veryvenerable foes. And according to the recently approved method of editingthe New Testament, the clause is allowed no quarter. It is declaredwithout hesitation to be a spurious accretion to the Text. Take, as aninstance of this, the following passage in St. Luke xii. 39. 'If' (saysour Lord) 'the master of the house had known in what hour

 [Greek: OKLEPTÊS] [Greek: ERCHETAI] [[Greek: EGRÊGOR] [Greek: ÊSENKAI]] [Greek: OUKANA] [Greek: PHÊKEN]

his house to be broken through. ' Here, the clause within brackets, whichhas fallen out for an obvious reason, does not appear in Codd. [Symbol:Aleph] and D. But the omission did not begin with [Symbol: Aleph]. Twocopies of the Old Latin are also without the words [Greek: egrêgorêsenkai], --which are wanting besides in Cureton's Syriac. Tischendorfaccordingly omits them. And yet, who sees not that such an amount ofevidence as this is wholly insufficient to warrant the ejection of theclause as spurious? What is the 'Science' worth which cannot preserve tothe body a healthy limb like this?

[The instances of omission which have now been examined at some lengthmust by no means be regarded as the only specimens of this class ofcorrupt passages[336]. Many more will occur to the minds of the readersof the present volume and of the earlier volume of this work. In fact, omissions are much more common than Additions, or Transpositions, orSubstitutions: and this fact, that omissions, or what seem to beomissions, are apparently so common, --to say nothing of the very strongevidence wherewith they are attested--when taken in conjunction with thenatural tendency of copyists to omit words and passages, cannot butconfirm the general soundness of the position. How indeed can itpossibly be more true to the infirmities of copyists, to the verdict ofevidence on the several passages, and to the origin of the New Testamentin the infancy of the Church and amidst associations which were notliterary, to suppose that a terse production was first produced andafterwards was amplified in a later age with a view to 'lucidity andcompleteness[337], ' rather than that words and clauses and sentenceswere omitted upon definitely understood principles in a small class ofdocuments by careless or ignorant or prejudiced scribes? The reply tothis question must now be left for candid and thoughtful students todetermine. ]

FOOTNOTES:

[258] It will be observed that these are empirical, not logical, classes. Omissions are found in many of the rest. 

[259] Last Twelve Verses of St. Mark's Gospel, chapter v. And AppendixB. 

[260] See Dr. Gwynn's remarks in Appendix VII of The Traditional Text, pp. 298-301. 

[261] The Revision Revised, pp. 42-45, 422-424: Traditional Text, p. 109, where thirty-eight testimonies are quoted before 400 A. D. 

[262] The expression of Jerome, that almost all the Greek MSS. Omit thispassage, is only a translation of Eusebius. It cannot express his ownopinion, for he admitted the twelve verses into the Vulgate, and quotedparts of them twice, i. E. Ver. 9, ii. 744-5, ver. 14, i. 327 c. 

[263] Dr. Dobbin has calculated 330 omissions in St. Matthew, 365 in St. Mark, 439 in St Luke, 357 in St. John, 384 in the Acts, and 681 in theEpistles--3, 556 in all as far as Heb. Ix. 14, where it terminates. Dublin University Magazine, 1859, p. 620. 

[264] Such as in Cod. D after St. Luke vi. 4. 'On the same day He behelda certain man working on the sabbath, and said unto him, "Man, blessedart thou if thou knowest what thou doest; but if thou knowest not, thouart cursed and a transgressor of the law"' (Scrivener's translation, Introduction, p. 8). So also a longer interpolation from the Curetonianafter St. Matt. Xx. 28. These are condemned by internal evidence as wellas external. 

[265] [Greek: kai ho pesôn epi ton lithon touton synthlasthêsetai; eph'on d' an pesê, likmêsei auton]. 

[266] iv. 25 d, 343 d. --What proves these two quotations to be from St. Matt. Xxi. 44, and not from St. Luke xx. 18, is, that they alike exhibitexpressions which are peculiar to the earlier Gospel. The first isintroduced by the formula [Greek: oudepote anegnôte] (ver. 42: comp. Orig. Ii. 794 c), and both exhibit the expression [Greek: epi ton lithontouton] (ver. 44), not [Greek: ep' ekeinon ton lithon]. Vainly is iturged on the opposite side, that [Greek: pas ho pesôn] belongs to St. Luke, --whereas [Greek: kai ho pesôn] is the phrase found in St. Matthew's Gospel. Chrysostom (vii. 672) writes [Greek: pas ho piptôn]while professing to quote from St. Matthew; and the author of Cureton'sSyriac, who had this reading in his original, does the same. 

[267] P. 193. 

[268] P. 11. 

[269] vii. 672 a [freely quoted as Greg. Naz. In the Catena of Nicetas, p. 669] xii. 27 d. 

[270] _Ap_. Mai, ii. 401 dis. 

[271] _Ap_. Chrys. Vi. 171 c. 

[272] vii. 171 d. 

[273] iii^{2}. 86, 245: v. 500 e, 598 d. 

[274] 682-3 (Massuet 277). 

[275] iii. 786. 

[276] Theoph. 235-6 (= Mai, iv. 122). 

[277] ii. 660 a, b, c. 

[278] 'Praeterit et Lucifer. '

[279] _Ap. _ Galland. Vi. 191 d. 

[280] Ibid. Vii. 20 c. 

[281] Ibid. Ix. 768 a. 

[282] [I am unable to find any place in the Dean's writings where he hasmade this explanation. The following note, however, is appended here]:--

With verse 43, the long lesson for the Monday in Holy-week (ver. 18-43)comes to an end. 

Verse 44 has a number all to itself (in other words, is sect. 265) inthe fifth of the Syrian Canons, --which contains whatever is foundexclusively in St. Matthew and St. Luke. 

[283] 'Omnino ex Lc. Assumpta videntur. '

[284] The section in St. Matthew is numbered 265, --in St. Luke, 274:both being referred to Canon V, in which St. Matthew and St. Luke areexclusively compared. 

[285] Vol. I. 13. 

[286] Letter to Pope Damasus. See my book on St. Mark, p. 28. 

[287] Dial. § 78, _ad fin. _ (p. 272). 

[288] Opp. Ii. 215 a: v. Part ii. 118 c. 

[289] See Holmes and Parsons' ed. Of the LXX, --vol. Iv. _in loc. _

[290] Opp. Pp. 143 and 206. P. 577 is allusive only. 

[291] Opp. Vii. 158 c: ix. 638 b. 

[292] Opp. Ii. 1345: iii. 763-4. 

[293] § xv:--on which his learned editor (Bp. Jacobson) pertinentlyremarks, --'Hunc locum Prophetae Clemens exhibuisset sicut a Christolaudatam, S. Marc. Vii. 6, si pro [Greek: apestin] dedisset [Greek:apechei]. '

[294] Opp. I. 1502: iii. 1114. 

[295] _Ap. _ Epiphanium, Opp. I. 218 d. 

[296] Opp. P. 461. 

[297] Opp. Iii. 492 (a remarkable place): ii. 723: iv. 121. 

[298] De Trinitate, p. 242. 

[299] Opp. Ii. 413 b. [Observe how this evidence leads us toAlexandria. ]

[300] Opp. Vii. 522 d. The other place, ix. 638 b, is uncertain. 

[301] It is uncertain whether Eusebius and Basil quote St. Matthew orIsaiah: but a contemporary of Chrysostom certainly quotes theGospel, --Chrys. Opp. Vi. 425 d (cf. P. 417, line 10). 

[302] But Eus.^{Es 589} [Greek: tous m. ]

[303] I have numbered the clauses for convenience. --It will perhapsfacilitate the study of this place, if (on my own responsibility) Isubjoin a representation of the same words in Latin:--

 (1) Diligite inimicos vestros, (2) benedicite maledicentes vos, (3) benefacite odientibus vos, (4) et orate pro calumniantibus vos, (5) et persequentibus vos. 

[304] Opp. Iv. 324 _bis_, 329 _bis_, 351. Gall. Xiv. App. 106. 

[305] 'A large majority, all but five, omit it. Some add it in themargin. ' Traditional Text, p. 149. 

[306] Opp. P. 79, cf. 146. 

[307] Scap. C. 1. 

[308] Opp. Iv. 946. 

[309] Haer. III. Xviii. 5. 

[310] Dem. Evan. Xiii. 7. 

[311] In Bapt. Christ. 

[312] Orig. Opp. I. 812. 

[313] Opp. I. 768: iv. 353. 

[314] Opp. I. 827: ii. 399. 

[315] Spect. C. 16: (Anim. C. 35): Pat. C. 6. 

[316] [In Ep. Joh. IV. Tract, ix. 3 (1, 3 (ver. 45 &c. )); In Ps. Cxxxviii. 37 (1, 3); Serm. XV. 8 (1, 3, 5); Serm. LXII. _in loc. _ (1, 3, 4, 5). ]

[317] In Ps. Xxxviii. 2. 

[318] Opp. Pp. 303, 297. 

[319] Pro S. Athanas. Ii. 

[320] Ps. Cxviii. 10. 16; 9. 9. 

[321] Ep. Ii. 

[322] Opp. Iii. 167: iv. 619: v. 436:--ii. 340: v. 56: xii. 654:--ii. 258: iii. 41:--iv. 267: xii. 425. 

[323] Opp. Iii. 379. 

[324] Praep. 654: Ps. 137, 699: Es. 589. 

[325] Pp. 3. 198. 

[326] Opp. P. 605 and 307. 

[327] Leg. Pro Christian. 11. 

[328] Ad Autolycum, iii. 14. 

[329] Opp. I. 40. 

[330] Ad Philipp. C. 12. 

[331] § 1. 

[332] Theodoret once (iv. 946) gives the verse as Tischendorf gives it:but on two other occasions (i. 827: ii. 399) the same Theodoret exhibitsthe second member of the sentence thus, --[Greek: eulogeite tousdiôkontas humas] (so pseud. -Athan. Ii. 95), which shews how littlestress is to be laid on such evidence as the first-named placefurnishes. 

Origen also (iv. 324 bis, 329 bis, 351) repeatedly gives the place asTischendorf gives it--but on one occasion, which it will be observed is_fatal_ to his evidence (i. 768), he gives the second member thus, --iv. 353:

[Greek: kai proseuchesthe huper tôn epêreazontôn humas].. ·. 1. 4. 

Next observe how Clemens Al. (605) handles the same place:--

[Greek: agapate tous echthrous humôn, eulogeite tous katarômenous humas, kai proseuchesthe huper tôn epêreazyntôn humin, kai ta homoia. ]. ·. 1, 2, 4. --3, 5. 

Justin M. (i. 40) quoting the same place from memory (and with exceedinglicence), yet is observed to recognize in part _both_ the clauses whichlabour under suspicion:. ·. 1, 2, 4. --3, 5. 

[Greek: euchesthe huper tôn echthrôn humôn kai agapate tous misountashumas], which roughly represents [Greek: kai eulogeite tous katarômenoushumin kai euchesthe huper tôn epêreazontôn humas]. 

The clause which hitherto lacks support is that which regards [Greek:tous misountas humas]. But the required help is supplied by Irenaeus (i. 521), who (loosely enough) quotes the place thus, --

_Diligite inimicos vestros, et orate pro eis, qui vos oderunt. _ . ·. 1(made up of 3, 4). --2, 5. 

And yet more by the most venerable witness of all, Polycarp, whowrites:--ad Philipp. C. 12:--

_Orate pro persequentibus et odientibus vos. _. ·. 4, 5. --1, 2, 3. 

I have examined [Didaché] _Justin_, _Irenaeus_, _Eusebius_, _Hippolytus_, _Cyril Al. _, _Greg. Naz. _, _Basil_, _Athan. _, _Didymus_, _Cyril Hier. _, _Chrys. _, _Greg. Nyss. _, _Epiph. _, _Theod. _, _Clemens. _

And the following are the results:--

Didaché. [Greek: Eulogeite tous katarômenous humin, kai proseuchesthehuper tôn echthrôn humôn, nêsteuete huper tôn diôkontôn humas ... Humeisde agapate tous misountas humas].. ·. 2, 3, 4, 5. 

Aphraates, Dem. Ii. The Latin Translation runs:--Diligite inimicosvestros, benedicite ei qui vobis maledicit, orate pro eis qui vos vexuntet persequuntur. 

Eusebius Prae 654.. ·. 2, 4, 5, omitting 1, 3. 

Eusebius Ps 699.. ·. 4, 5, omitting 1, 2, 3. 

Eusebius Es 589.. ·. 1, 3, 4, 5, omitting 2. 

Clemens Al. 605.. ·. 1, 2, 4, omitting 3, 5. 

Greg. Nyss. Iii. 379.. ·. 3, 4, 5, omitting 1, 2. 

Vulg. Diligite inimicos vestros, benefacite his qui oderunt vos, etorate pro persequentibus et calumniantibus vos.. ·. 1, 3, 5, 4, omitting2. 

Hilary, 297. Benedicite qui vos persequuntur, et orate procalumniantibus vos ac persequentibus vos.. ·. 2, 4, 5, omitting the_first and third_. 

Hilary, 303. Diligite inimicos vestros, et orate pro calumniantibus vosac persequentibus vos.. ·. 1, 4, 5, omitting the _second and third_. Cf. 128. 

Cyprian, 79 (cf. 146). Diligite inimicos vestros, et orate pro his quivos persequuntur.. ·. 1, 5, omitting 2, 3, 4. 

Tertullian. Diligite (enim) inimicos vestros, (inquit, ) et orate promaledicentibus vos--which apparently is meant for a quotation of 1, 2.. ·. 1, 2, omitting 3, 4, 5. 

Tertullian. Diligite (enim) inimicos vestros, (inquit, ) etmaledicentibus benedicite, et orate pro persecutoribus vestris--which isa quotation of 1, 2, 5. . ·. 1, 2, 5, omitting 3, 4. 

Tertullian. Diligere inimicos, et orare pro eis qui vos persequuntur.. ·. 1, 5, omitting 2, 3, 4. 

Tertullian. Inimicos diligi, maledicentes benedici.. ·. 1, 2, omitting 3, 4, 5. 

Ambrose. Diligite inimicos vestros benefacite iis qui oderunt vos: oratepro calumniantibus et persequentibus vos.. ·. 1, 3, 4, 5, omitting 2. 

Ambrose. Diligite inimicos vestros, orate pro calumniantibus etpersequentibus vos.. ·. 1, 4, 5, omitting 2, 3. 

Augustine. Diligite inimicos vestros benefacite his qui vos oderunt: etorate pro eis qui vos persequuntur.. ·. 1, 3, 5, omitting 2, 4. 

'Benedicite qui vos persequuntur, et orate pro calumniantibus vos acpersequentibus vos. ' Hilary, 297. 

Cyril Al. Twice (i. 270: ii. 807) quotes the place thus, --

[Greek: eu poieite tous echthrous humôn, kai proseuchesthe huper tônepêreazontôn humas. ]

Chrys. (iii. 355) says

[Greek: autos gar eipen, euchesthe huper tôn echthrôn] [[Greek: humôn]]

and repeats the quotation at iii. 340 and xii. 453. 

So Tertull. (Apol. C. 31), pro inimicis deum orare, et _persecutoribus_nostris bone precari.. ·. 1, 5. 

If the lost Greek of Irenaeus (i. 521) were recovered, we shouldprobably find

[Greek: agapate tous echthrous humôn, kai proseuchesthe huper tônmisountôn humas]:

and of Polycarp (ad Philipp. C. 12), [Greek: proseuchesthe huper tôn diôkontôn kai misountôn humas]. 

[333] _Dialogus Adamantii_ is not adducible within my limits, because'it is in all probability the production of a later age. ' My number waseight. 

[334] Observe that 5 = [Greek: huper ... Tôn diôkontôn]. 

For--

Didache (§ 1), 2 (3), 3 (2), 4, 5. 

Polycarp (xii), 3 (2), 5. 

Justin Martyr, Apol. I. 15, 3 (2), 2 (3), 4 (4), 5? [Greek: huper tônechthrôn] (=[Greek: diôkontôn]?), but the passage more like St. Luke, the context more like St. Matt. , ver. 45. 

Athenagoras (Leg. Pro Christian. 11), 1, 2 (3). 5. Ver. 45. 

Tertullian (De Patient, vi), 1, 2 (3), 5, pt. Ver. 45. Add Apol. C. 31. 1, 5. 

Theophilus Ant. (Ad Autolycum iii. 14), 1, 4 (4), [Greek: hyper] andver. 46. 

Clemens Alex. (Strom, iv. 14), 1, 2 (3), 4 (4), pt. Ver. 45; (Strom, vii. 14), favours St. Matt. 

Origen (De Orat. I), 1, 4 (4), [Greek: huper] and in the middle of twoquotations from St. Matthew; (Cels. Viii. 45), 1, 4 (4) [Greek: huper]and all ver. 45. 

Eusebius (Praep. Evan. Xiii. 7), 2 (3), 4 (4), 5, all ver. 45; (Comment, in Is. 66), 1, 3 (2), 4 (4), 5, also ver. 45; (In Ps. Cviii), 4, 5. 

Apost. Const, (i. 2), 1, 3 (2), 4 (4), 5, [Greek: huper] and ver. 45. 

Greg. Naz. (Orat. Iv. 124), 2 (3), 4 (4), 5, [Greek: hupereuchesthai]. 

Greg. Nyss. (In Bapt. Christi), 3 (2), 4 (4), 5, [Greek: huper], ver. 45. 

Lucifer (Pro S. Athan. Ii) omits 4 (4), but quotes ver. 44 ... End ofchapter. 

Pacianus (Epist. Ii), 2 (3), 5. 

Hilary (Tract, in Ps. Cxviii. 9. 9), 2 (3), 4 (4), 5; (ibid. 10. 16), 1, 4 (4), 5. (The reviewer omits 'ac persequentibus vos' in both cases. )

Ambrose (In Ps. Xxxviii. 2), 1, 3, 4, 5; (In Ps. Xxxviii. 10), 1, 4 (4), 5. 

Aphraates (Dem. Ii), 1, 2 (3), 4 (4), 5, [Greek: ethnikoi]. 

Apocryphal Acts of the Apostles (p. 89), 2 (3), 3 (2), 4 (4), ver. 45. 

Number = 25. 

[335] See Traditional Text, p. 55. 

[336] For one of the two most important omissions in the New Testament, viz. The _Pericope de Adultera_, see Appendix I. See also Appendix II. 

[337] Westcott and Hort, Introduction, p. 134. 

CHAPTER XI. 

CAUSES OF CORRUPTION CHIEFLY INTENTIONAL. 

V. Transposition, VI. Substitution, and VII. Addition. 

§ 1. 

One of the most prolific sources of Corrupt Readings, is Transposition, or the arbitrary inversion of the order of the sacred words, --generallyin the subordinate clauses of a sentence. The extent to which thisprevails in Codexes of the type of B[Symbol: Aleph]CD passes belief. Itis not merely the occasional writing of [Greek: tauta panta] for [Greek:panta tauta], --or [Greek: ho laos outos] for [Greek: outos ho laos], towhich allusion is now made: for if that were all, the phenomenon wouldadmit of loyal explanation and excuse. But what I speak of is asystematic putting to wrong of the inspired words throughout the entireCodex; an operation which was evidently regarded in certain quarters asa lawful exercise of critical ingenuity, --perhaps was looked upon as anelegant expedient to be adopted for improving the style of the originalwithout materially interfering with the sense. 

Let me before going further lay before the reader a few specimens ofTransposition. 

Take for example St. Mark i. 5, --[Greek: kai ebaptizonto pantes], --isunreasonably turned into [Greek: pantes kai ebaptizonto]; whereby themeaning of the Evangelical record becomes changed, for [Greek: pantes]is now made to agree with [Greek: Hierosolumitai], and the Evangelist isrepresented as making the very strong assertion that _all_ the people ofJerusalem came to St. John and were baptized. This is the privateproperty of BDL[Symbol: Delta]. 

And sometimes I find short clauses added which I prefer to ascribe tothe misplaced critical assiduity of ancient Critics. Confessedlyspurious, these accretions to the genuine text often bear traces ofpious intelligence, and occasionally of considerable ability. I do notsuppose that they 'crept in' from the margin: but that they wereinserted by men who entirely failed to realize the wrongness of whatthey did, --the mischievous consequences which might possibly ensue fromtheir well-meant endeavours to improve the work of the Holy Ghost. 

[Take again St. Mark ii. 3, in which the order in [Greek: pros autonparalytikon pherontes], --is changed by [Symbol: Aleph]BL into [Greek:pherontes pros auton paralytikon]. A few words are needed to explain tothose who have not carefully examined the passage the effect of thisapparently slight alteration. Our Lord was in a house at Capernaum witha thick crowd of people around Him: there was no room even at the door. Whilst He was there teaching, a company of people come to Him ([Greek:erchontai pros auton]), four of the party carrying a paralytic on a bed. When they arrive at the house, a few of the company, enough to representthe whole, force their way in and reach Him: but on looking back theysee that the rest are unable to bring the paralytic near to Him ([Greek:prosengisai autô][338]). Upon which they all go out and uncover theroof, take up the sick man on his bed, and the rest of the familiarstory unfolds itself. Some officious scribe wished to remove allantiquity arising from the separation of [Greek: paralytikon] from[Greek: airomenon] which agrees with it, and transposed [Greek:pherontes] to the verb it is attached to, thus clumsily excluding theexquisite hint, clear enough to those who can read between the lines, that in the ineffectual attempt to bring in the paralytic only some ofthe company reached our Lord's Presence. Of course the scribe inquestion found followers in [Symbol: Aleph]BL. ]

It will be seen therefore that some cases of transposition are of a kindwhich is without excuse and inadmissible. Such transposition consists indrawing back a word which occurs further on, but is thus introduced intoa new context, and gives a new sense. It seems to be assumed that sincethe words are all there, so long as they be preserved, their exactcollocation is of no moment. Transpositions of that kind, to speakplainly, are important only as affording conclusive proof that suchcopies as B[Symbol: Aleph]D preserve a text which has undergone a sortof critical treatment which is so obviously indefensible that theCodexes themselves, however interesting as monuments of a primitiveage, --however valuable commercially and to be prized by learned andunlearned alike for their unique importance, --are yet to be prizedchiefly as beacon-lights preserved by a watchful Providence to warnevery voyaging bark against making shipwreck on a shore already strewnwith wrecks[339]. 

Transposition may sometimes be as conveniently illustrated in English asin Greek. St. Luke relates (Acts ii. 45, 46) that the first believerssold their goods 'and parted them to all men, as every man had need. Andthey, continuing daily, ' &c. For this, Cod. D reads, 'and parted themdaily to all men as every man had need. And they continued in thetemple. '

§ 2. 

It is difficult to divine for what possible reason most of thesetranspositions were made. On countless occasions they do not in theleast affect the sense. Often, they are incapable of being idiomaticallyrepresented, in English. Generally speaking, they are of no manner ofimportance, except as tokens of the licence which was claimed bydisciples, as I suspect, of the Alexandrian school [or exercisedunintentionally by careless or ignorant Western copyists]. But therearise occasions when we cannot afford to be so trifled with. Animportant change in the meaning of a sentence is sometimes effected bytransposing its clauses; and on one occasion, as I venture to think, theprophetic intention of the Speaker is obscured in consequence. I alludeto St. Luke xiii. 9, where under the figure of a barren fig-tree, ourLord hints at what is to befall the Jewish people, because in the fourthyear of His Ministry it remained unfruitful. 'Lo, these three years, '(saith He to the dresser of His Vineyard), 'come I seeking fruit on thisfig-tree, and find none; cut it down; why cumbereth it the ground?''Spare it for this year also' (is the rejoinder), 'and if it bearfruit, --well: but if not, next year thou shalt cut it down. ' But on thestrength of [Symbol: Aleph]BLT^{w}, some recent Critics would have usread, --'And if it bear fruit next year, --well: but if not, thou shaltcut it down':--which clearly would add a year to the season of theprobation of the Jewish race. The limit assigned in the genuine text isthe fourth year: in the corrupt text of [Symbol: Aleph]BLT^{w}, two badCursives, and the two chief Egyptian versions, this period becomesextended to the fifth. 

To reason about such transpositions of words, a wearisome proceeding atbest, soon degenerates into the veriest trifling. Sometimes, the orderof the words is really immaterial to the sense. Even when a differentshade of meaning is the result of a different collocation, that willseem the better order to one man which seems not to be so to another. The best order of course is that which most accurately exhibits theAuthor's precise shade of meaning: but of this the Author is probablythe only competent judge. On our side, an appeal to actual evidence isobviously the only resource: since in no other way can we reasonablyexpect to ascertain what was the order of the words in the originaldocument. And surely such an appeal can be attended with only oneresult: viz. The unconditional rejection of the peculiar and oftenvarying order advocated by the very few Codexes, --a cordial acceptanceof the order exhibited by every document in the world besides. 

I will content myself with inviting attention to one or two samples ofmy meaning. It has been made a question whether St. Luke (xxiv. 7)wrote, --[Greek: legôn, Hoti dei ton huion tou anthrôpou paradothênai], as all the MSS. In the world but four, all the Versions, and all theavailable Fathers'[340] evidence from A. D. 150 downwards attest: orwhether he wrote, --[Greek: legôn ton huion tou anthrôpou hoti deiparadothênai], as [Symbol: Aleph]BCL, --and those four documentsonly--would have us believe? [The point which first strikes a scholar isthat there is in this reading a familiar classicism which is alien tothe style of the Gospels, and which may be a symptom of an attempt onthe part of some early critic who was seeking to bring them intoagreement with ancient Greek models. ] But surely also it is even obviousthat the correspondence of those four Codexes in such a particular asthis must needs be the result of their having derived the reading fromone and the same original. On the contrary, the agreement of all therest in a trifling matter of detail like the present can be accountedfor in only one way, viz. , by presuming that they also have all beenderived through various lines of descent from a single document: but_that_ document the autograph of the Evangelist. [For the great numberand variety of them necessitates their having been derived throughvarious lines of descent. Indeed, they must have the notes of number, variety, as well as continuity, and weight also. ]

§ 3. 

On countless occasions doubtless, it is very difficult--perhapsimpossible--to determine, apart from external evidence, whichcollocation of two or more words is the true one, whether e. G. [Greek:echei zôên] for instance or [Greek: zôên echei][341], --[Greek: êgerthêeutheôs] or [Greek: eutheôs êgerthê][342], --[Greek: chôlous, typhlous]--or [Greek: typhlous, chôlous][343], --shall be preferred. Theburden of proof rests evidently with innovators on Traditional use. 

Obvious at the same time is it to foresee that if a man sits down beforethe Gospel with the deliberate intention of improving the style of theEvangelists by transposing their words on an average of seven (B), eight([Symbol: Aleph]), or twelve (D) times in every page, he is safe toconvict himself of folly in repeated instances, long before he hasreached the end of his task. Thus, when the scribe of [Symbol: Aleph], in place of [Greek: exousian edôken autô kai krisin poiein][344], presents us with [Greek: kai krisin edôken autô exousian poiein], wehesitate not to say that he has written nonsense[345]. And when BDinstead of [Greek: eisi tines tôn ôde hestêkotôn] exhibit [Greek: eisetôn ôde tôn hestêkotôn], we cannot but conclude that the credit of thosetwo MSS. Must be so far lowered in the eyes of every one who with trueappreciation of the niceties of Greek scholarship observes what has beendone. 

[This characteristic of the old uncials is now commended to theattention of students, who will find in the folios of those documentsplenty of instances for examination. Most of the cases of Transpositionare petty enough, whilst some, as the specimens already presented to thereader indicate, constitute blots not favourable to the generalreputation of the copies on which they are found. Indeed, they are sofrequent that they have grown to be a very habit, and must havepropagated themselves. For it is in this secondary character rather thanin any first intention, so to speak, that Transpositions, together withOmissions and Substitutions and Additions, have become to some extentindependent causes of corruption. Originally produced by other forces, they have acquired a power of extension in themselves. 

It is hoped that the passages already quoted may be found sufficient toexhibit the character of the large class of instances in which the pureText of the original Autographs has been corrupted by Transposition. That it has been so corrupted, is proved by the evidence which isgenerally overpowering in each case. There has clearly been muchintentional perversion: carelessness also and ignorance of Greekcombined with inveterate inaccuracy, characteristics especially ofWestern corruption as may be seen in Codex D and the Old Latin versions, must have had their due share in the evil work. The result has beenfound in constant slurs upon the sacred pages, lessening the beauty andoften perverting the sense, --a source of sorrow to the keen scholar andreverent Christian, and reiterated indignity done in wantonness orheedlessness to the pure and easy flow of the Holy Books. ]

§ 4. 

[All the Corruption in the Sacred Text may be classed under four heads, viz. Omission, Transposition, Substitution, and Addition. We areentirely aware that, in the arrangement adopted in this Volume forpurposes of convenience, Scientific Method has been neglected. Theinevitable result must be that passages are capable of being classedunder more heads than one. But Logical exactness is of less practicalvalue than a complete and suitable treatment of the corrupted passagesthat actually occur in the four Gospels. 

It seems therefore needless to supply with a scrupulousness that mightbore our readers a disquisition upon Substitution which has not forceditself into a place amongst Dean Burgon's papers, although it is foundin a fragmentary plan of this part of the treatise. Substituted forms orwords or phrases, such as [Greek: OS] ([Greek: hos]) for [Greek: THS]([Greek: Theos])[346] [Greek: êporei] for [Greek: epoiei] (St. Mark vi. 20), or [Greek: ouk oidate dokimazein] for [Greek: dokimazete] (St. Lukexii. 56), have their own special causes of substitution, and arenaturally and best considered under the cause which in each case gavethem birth. 

Yet the class of Substitutions is a large one, if Modifications, as theywell may be, are added to it[347]. It will be readily concluded thatsome substitutions are serious, some of less importance, and manytrivial. Of the more important class, the reading of [Greek:hamartêmatos] for [Greek: kriseôs] (St. Mark iii. 29) which the Revisershave adopted in compliance with [Symbol: Aleph]BL[Symbol: Delta] andthree Cursives, is a specimen. It is true that D reads [Greek:hamartias] supported by the first corrector of C, and three of theFerrar group (13, 69, 346): and that the change adopted is supported bythe Old Latin versions except f, the Vulgate, Bohairic, Armenian, Gothic, Lewis, and Saxon. But the opposition which favours [Greek:kriseôs] is made up of A, C under the first reading and the secondcorrection, [Symbol: Phi][Symbol: Sigma] and eleven other Uncials, thegreat bulk of the Cursives, f, Peshitto, and Harkleian, and is superiorin strength. The internal evidence is also in favour of the Traditionalreading, both as regards the usage of [Greek: enochos], and the naturalmeaning given by [Greek: kriseôs]. [Greek: Hamartêmatos] has clearlycrept in from ver. 28. Other instances of Substitution may be found inthe well-known St. Luke xxiii. 45 ([Greek: tou hêliou eklipontos]), St. Matt. Xi. 27 ([Greek: boulêtai apokalypsai]), St. Matt. Xxvii. 34([Greek: oinon] for [Greek: oxos]), St. Mark i. 2 ([Greek: Hêsaia] for[Greek: tois prophêtais]), St. John i. 18 ([Greek: ho Monogenês Theos]being a substitution made by heretics for [Greek: ho Monogenês Huios]), St. Mark vii. 31 ([Greek: dia Sidônos] for [Greek: kai Sidônos]). Theseinstances may perhaps suffice: many more may suggest themselves tointelligent readers. Though most are trivial, their cumulative force isextremely formidable. Many of these changes arose from various causeswhich are described in many other places in this book. ]

§ 5. 

[The smallest of the four Classes, which upon a pure survey of theoutward form divide among themselves the surface of the entire field ofCorruption, is that of Additions[348]. And the reason of their smallnessof number is discoverable at once. Whilst it is but too easy for scribesor those who have a love of criticism to omit words and passages underall circumstances, or even to vary the order, or to use another word orform instead of the right one, to insert anything into the sacred Textwhich does not proclaim too glaringly its own unfitness--in a word, toinvent happily--is plainly a matter of much greater difficulty. Therefore to increase the Class of Insertions or Additions orInterpolations, so that it should exceed the Class of Omissions, is togo counter to the natural action of human forces. There is no difficultyin leaving out large numbers of the Sacred Words: but there is muchdifficulty in placing in the midst of them human words, possessed ofsuch a character and clothed in such an uniform, as not to betray tokeen observation their earthly origin. 

A few examples will set this truth in clearer light. It is remarkablethat efforts at interpolation occur most copiously amongst the books ofthose who are least fitted to make them. We naturally look amongst therepresentatives of the Western school where Greek was less understoodthan in the East where Greek acumen was imperfectly represented by Latinactivity, and where translation into Latin and retranslation into Greekwas a prolific cause of corruption. Take then the following passage fromthe Codex D (St. Luke vi. 4):--

'On the same day He beheld a certain man working on the sabbath, andsaid to him, "Man, blessed art thou if thou knowest what thou doest; butif thou knowest not, thou art cursed and a transgressor of the law. "'

And another from the Curetonian Syriac (St. Matt. Xx. 28), which occursunder a worse form in D. 

'But seek ye from little to become greater, and not from greater tobecome less. When ye are invited to supper in a house, sit not down inthe best place, lest some one come who is more honourable than thou, andthe lord of the supper say to thee, "Go down below, " and thou be ashamedin the presence of them that have sat down. But if thou sit down in thelower place, and one who is inferior to thee come in, the lord also ofthe supper will say to thee, "Come near, and come up, and sit down, " andthou shalt have greater honour in the presence of them that have satdown. '

Who does not see that there is in these two passages no real 'ring ofgenuineness'?

Take next some instances of lesser insertions. ]

§ 6. 

Conspicuous beyond all things in the Centurion of Capernaum (St. Matt. Viii. 13) was his faith. It occasioned wonder even in the Son of Man. Dowe not, in the significant statement, that when they who had been sentreturned to the house, 'they found the servant whole that had beensick[349], ' recognize by implication the assurance that the Centurion, because he needed no such confirmation of his belief, went _not_ withthem; but enjoyed the twofold blessedness of remaining with Christ, andof believing without seeing? I think so. Be this however as it may, [Symbol: Aleph]CEMUX besides about fifty cursives, append to St. Matt. Viii. 13 the clearly apocryphal statement, 'And the Centurion returningto his house in that same hour found the servant whole. ' It does notimprove the matter to find that Eusebius[350], besides the Harkleian andthe Ethiopic versions, recognize the same appendix. We are thankful, that no one yet has been found to advocate the adoption of this patentaccretion to the inspired text. Its origin is not far to seek. I presumeit was inserted in order to give a kind of finish to the story[351]. 

[Another and that a most remarkable Addition may be found in St. Matt. Xxiv. 36, into which the words [Greek: oude ho Huios], 'neither the Son'have been transferred from St. Mark xiii. 32 in compliance with a whollyinsufficient body of authorities. Lachmann was the leader in thisproceeding, and he has been followed by Tischendorf, Westcott and Hort, and the Revisers. The latter body add in their margin, 'Manyauthorities, some ancient, omit _neither the Son_. ' How inadequate tothe facts of the case this description is, will be seen when theauthorities are enumerated. But first of those who have been regarded bythe majority of the Revisers as the disposers of their decision, according to the information supplied by Tischendorf. 

They are (_a_) of Uncials [Symbol: Aleph] (in the first reading and asre-corrected in the seventh century) BD; (_b_) five Cursives (for apresent of 346 may be freely made to Tischendorf); (_c_) ten Old Latincopies also the Aureus (Words. ), some of the Vulgate (four according toWordsworth), the Palestinian, Ethiopic, Armenian; (_d_) Origen (Lat. Iii. 874), Hilary (733^{a}), Cyril Alex. (Mai Nova Pp. Bibliotheca, 481), Ambrose (i. 1478^{f}). But Irenaeus (Lat. I. 386), Cyril (Zach. 800), Chrysostom (ad locum) seem to quote from St. Mark. So too, asTischendorf admits, Amphilochius. 

On the other hand we have, (_a_) the chief corrector of [Symbol:Aleph](c^{a})[Symbol: Phi][Symbol: Sigma] with thirteen other Uncialsand the Greek MSS. Of Adamantius and Pierius mentioned by Jerome[352];(_b_) all the Cursives, as far as is known (except the aforenamed);(_c_) the Vulgate, with the Peshitto, Harkletan, Lewis, Bohairic, andthe Sahidic; (_d_) Jerome (in the place just now quoted), St. Basil whocontrasts the text of St. Matthew with that of St. Mark, Didymus, who isalso express in declaring that the three words in dispute are not foundin St. Matthew (Trin. 195), St. John Damascene (ii. 346), ApolloniusPhilosophus (Galland. Ix. 247), Euthymius Zigabenus (in loc), Paulinus(iii. 12), St. Ambrose (ii. 656^{a}), and Anastasius Sinaita (Migne, lxxxix. 941). 

Theophylact (i. 133), Hesychius Presb. (Migne, lxiii. 142) Eusebius(Galland. Ix. 580), Facundus Herm. (Galland. Xi. 782), Athanasius (ii. 660), quote the words as from the Gospel without reference, and maytherefore refer to St. Mark. Phoebadius (Galland. V. 251), though quotedagainst the Addition by Tischendorf, is doubtful. 

On which side the balance of evidence inclines, our readers will judge. But at least they cannot surely justify the assertion made by themajority of the Revisers, that the Addition is opposed only by 'manyauthorities, some ancient, ' or at any rate that this is a fair andadequate description of the evidence opposed to their decision. 

An instance occurs in St. Mark iii. 16 which illustrates thecarelessness and tastelessness of the handful of authorities to which itpleases many critics to attribute ruling authority. In the fourteenthverse, it had been already stated that our Lord 'ordained twelve, '[Greek: kai epoiêse dôdeka]; but because [Symbol: Aleph]B[Symbol: Delta]and C (which was corrected in the ninth century with a MS. Of theEthiopic) reiterate these words two verses further on, Tischendorf withWestcott and Hort assume that it is necessary to repeat what has been sorecently told. Meanwhile eighteen other uncials (including A[Symbol:Phi][Symbol: Sigma] and the third hand of C); nearly all the Cursives;the Old Latin, Vulgate, Peshitto, Lewis, Harkleian, Gothic, Armenian, and the other MSS. Of the Ethiopic omit them. It is plainly unnecessaryto strengthen such an opposition by researches in the pages of theFathers. 

Explanation has been already given, how the introductions to Lections, and other Liturgical formulae, have been added by insertion to the Textin various places. Thus [Greek: ho Iêsous] has often been inserted, andin some places remains wrongly (in the opinion of Dean Burgon) in thepages of the Received Text. The three most important additions to theReceived Text occur, as Dean Burgon thought, in St. Matt. Vi. 18, where[Greek: en tô phanerô] has crept in from v. 6 against the testimony of alarge majority both of Uncial and of Cursive MSS. : in St. Matt. Xxv. 13, where the clause [Greek: en hê ho huios tou anthrôpou erchetai] seemedto him to be condemned by a superior weight of authority: and in St. Matt. Xxvii. 35, where the quotation ([Greek: hina plêrôthê ... Ebalonklêron]) must be taken for similar reasons to have been originally agloss. ]

FOOTNOTES:

[338] [Greek: prosengisai] is transitive here, like [Greek: engizô] inGen. Xlviii. 10, 13: 2 Kings iv. 6: Isaiah xlvi. 13. 

[339] The following are the numbers of Transpositions supplied by B, [Symbol: Aleph], and D in the Gospels:--B, 2, 098: [Symbol: Aleph], 2, 299: D, 3, 471. See Revision Revised, pp. 12, 13. 

[340] Marcion (Epiph. I. 317): Eusebius (Mai, iv. 266): Epiphanius (i. 348): Cyril (Mai, ii. 438): John Thess. (Gall. Xiii. 188). 

[341] St. John v. 26, in [Symbol: Aleph]

[342] St. Mark ii. 12, in D. 

[343] St. Luke xiv. 13, in [Symbol: Aleph]B. 

[344] St. John v. 27. 

[345] 'Nec aliter' (says Tischendorf) 'Tertull. ' (Prax. 21), --'_etjudicium dedit illi facere in potestate_. ' But this (begging the learnedcritic's pardon) is quite a different thing. 

[346] See the very learned, ingenious, and satisfactory disquisition inThe Revision Revised, pp. 424-501. 

[347] The numbers are:--

 B, substitutions, 935; modifications, 1, 132; total, 2, 067. [Symbol: Aleph], " 1, 114; " 1, 265; " 2, 379. D, " 2, 121; " 1, 772; " 3, 893. 

Revision Revised, pp. 12, 13. 

[348] B has 536 words added in the Gospels: [Symbol: Aleph], 839: D, 2, 213. Revision Revised, pp. 12, 13. The interpolations of D arenotorious. 

[349] St. Luke vii. 10. 

[350] Theoph. P. 212. 

[351] An opposite fate, strange to say, has attended a short clause inthe same narrative, which however is even worse authenticated. Insteadof [Greek: oude en tô Israêl tosautên pistin euron] (St. Matt. Viii. 10), we are invited henceforth to read [Greek: par' oudeni tosautênpistin en tô Israêl euron];--a tame and tasteless gloss, witnessed to byonly B, and five cursives, --but having no other effect, if it shouldchance to be inserted, than to mar and obscure the Divine utterance. 

For when our Saviour declares 'Not even in Israel have I found so greatfaith, ' He is clearly contrasting this proficiency of an earnest Gentileagainst whatever of a like nature He had experienced in His dealing withthe Jewish people; and declaring the result. He is contrasting Jacob'sdescendants, the heirs of so many lofty privileges, with this Gentilesoldier: their spiritual attainments with his; and assigning the palm tohim. Substitute 'With no one in Israel have I found so great faith, ' andthe contrast disappears. Nothing else is predicated but a greatermeasure of faith in one man than in any other. The author of this feebleattempt to improve upon St. Matthew's Gospel is found to have also triedhis hand on the parallel place in St. Luke, but with even inferiorsuccess: for there his misdirected efforts survive only in certaincopies of the Old Latin. Ambrose notices his officiousness, remarkingthat it yields an intelligible sense; but that, 'juxta Graecos, ' theplace is to be read differently (i. 1376. )

It is notorious that a few copies of the Old Latin (Augustine _once_(iv. 322), though he quotes the place nearly twenty times in the usualway) and the Egyptian versions exhibit the same depravation. Cyrilhabitually employed an Evangelium which was disfigured in the same way(iii. 833, also Opp. V. 544, ed. Pusey. ). But are we out of suchmaterials as these to set about reconstructing the text of Scripture?

[352] 'In quibusdam Latinis codicibus additum est, _neque Filius_: quumin Graecis, et maxime Adamantii et Pierii exemplaribus hoc non habeaturadscriptum. Sed quia in nonnullis legitur, disserendum videtur. ' Hier. Vii. 199 a. 'Gaudet Arius et Eunomius, quasi ignorantia magistri gloriadiscipulorum sit, et dicunt:--"Non potest aequalis esse qui novit et quiignorat. "' Ibid. 6. 

In vi. 919, we may quote from St. Mark. 

CHAPTER XII. 

CAUSES OF CORRUPTION CHIEFLY INTENTIONAL. 

VIII. Glosses. 

§ 1. 

'Glosses, ' properly so called, though they enjoy a conspicuous place inevery enumeration like the present, are probably by no means so numerousas is commonly supposed. For certainly _every_ unauthorized accretion tothe text of Scripture is not a 'gloss': but only those explanatory wordsor clauses which have surreptitiously insinuated themselves into thetext, and of which no more reasonable account can be rendered than thatthey were probably in the first instance proposed by some ancient Criticin the way of useful comment, or necessary explanation, or lawfulexpansion, or reasonable limitation of the actual utterance of theSpirit. Thus I do not call the clause [Greek: nekrous egeirete] in St. Matt. X. 8 'a gloss. ' It is a gratuitous and unwarrantableinterpolation, --nothing else but a clumsy encumbrance of the text[353]. 

[Glosses, or _scholia_, or comments, or interpretations, are of variouskinds, but are generally confined to Additions or Substitutions, sinceof course we do not omit in order to explain, and transposition of wordsalready placed in lucid order, such as the sacred Text may be reasonablysupposed to have observed, would confuse rather than illustrate themeaning. A clause, added in Hebrew fashion[354], which may perhapsappear to modern taste to be hardly wanted, must not therefore be takento be a gloss. ]

Sometimes a 'various reading' is nothing else but a gratuitousgloss;--the unauthorized substitution of a common for an uncommon word. This phenomenon is of frequent occurrence, but only in Codexes of aremarkable type like B[Symbol: Aleph]CD. A few instances follow:--

1. The disciples on a certain occasion (St. Matt. Xiii. 36), requestedour Lord to 'explain' to them ([Greek: PHRASON hêmin], 'they said') theparable of the tares. So every known copy, except two: so, all theFathers who quote the place, --viz. Origen, five times[355], --Basil[356], --J. Damascene[357]. And so _all_ the Versions[358]. Butbecause B-[Symbol: Aleph], instead of [Greek: phrason], exhibit [Greek:DIASAPHÊSON] ('make clear to us'), --which is also _once_ the reading ofOrigen[359], who was but too well acquainted with Codexes of the samedepraved character as the archetype of B and [Symbol: Aleph], --Lachmann, Tregelles (not Tischendorf), Westcott and Hort, and the Revisers of1881, assume that [Greek: diasaphêson] (a palpable gloss) stood in theinspired autograph of the Evangelist. They therefore thrust out [Greek:phrason] and thrust in [Greek: diasaphêson]. I am wholly unable todiscern any connexion between the premisses of these critics and theirconclusions[360]. 

2. Take another instance. [Greek: Pygmê], --the obscure expression([Symbol: Delta] leaves it out) which St. Mark employs in vii. 3 todenote the strenuous frequency of the Pharisees' ceremonialwashings, --is exchanged by Cod. [Symbol: Aleph], but by no other knowncopy of the Gospels, for [Greek: pykna], which last word is of coursenothing else but a sorry gloss. Yet Tischendorf degrades [Greek: pygmê]and promotes [Greek: pykna] to honour, --happily standing alone in hisinfatuation. Strange, that the most industrious of modern accumulatorsof evidence should not have been aware that by such extravagances hemarred his pretension to critical discernment! Origen andEpiphanius--the only Fathers who quote the place--both read [Greek:pygmê]. It ought to be universally admitted that it is a mere waste oftime that we should argue out a point like this[361]. 

§ 2. 

A gloss little suspected, which--not without a pang of regret--I proceedto submit to hostile scrutiny, is the expression 'daily' ([Greek: kath'hêmeran]) in St. Luke ix. 23. Found in the Peshitto and in Cureton'sSyriac, --but only in some Copies of the Harkleian version[362]: found inmost Copies of the Vulgate, --but largely disallowed by copies of the OldLatin[363]: found also in Ephraem Syrus[364], --but clearly notrecognized by Origen[365]: found again in [Symbol: Aleph]AB and sixother uncials, --but not found in CDE and ten others: the expressionreferred to cannot, at all events, plead for its own retention in thetext higher antiquity than can be pleaded for its exclusion. Cyril, (ifin such a matter the Syriac translation of his Commentary on St. Lukemay be trusted, ) is clearly an authority for reading [Greek: kath'hêmeran] in St. Luke ix. 23[366]; but then he elsewhere twice quotes St. Luke ix. 23 in Greek without it[367]. Timotheus of Antioch, of the fifthcentury, omits the phrase[368]. Jerome again, although he suffered'_quotidie_' to stand in the Vulgate, yet, when for his own purposes hequotes the place in St. Luke[369], --ignores the word. All this iscalculated to inspire grave distrust. On the other hand, [Greek: kath'hêmeran] enjoys the support of the two Egyptian Versions, --of theGothic, --of the Armenian, --of the Ethiopic. And this, in the presentstate of our knowledge, must be allowed to be a weighty piece ofevidence in its favour. 

But the case assumes an entirely different aspect the instant it isdiscovered that out of the cursive copies only eight are found tocontain [Greek: kath hêmeran] in St. Luke ix. 23[370]. How is it to beexplained that nine manuscripts out of every ten in existence shouldhave forgotten how to transmit such a remarkable message, had it everbeen really so committed to writing by the Evangelist? The omission(says Tischendorf) is explained by the parallel places[371]. Utterlyincredible, I reply; as no one ought to have known better thanTischendorf himself. We now scrutinize the problem more closely; anddiscover that the very _locus_ of the phrase is a matter of uncertainty. Cyril once makes it part of St. Matt. X. 38[372]. Chrysostom twiceconnects it with St. Matt. Xvi. 24[373]. Jerome, evidently regarding thephrase as a curiosity, informs us that 'juxta antiqua exemplaria' it wasmet with in St. Luke xiv. 27[374]. All this is in a high degreeunsatisfactory. We suspect that we ourselves enjoy some slightfamiliarity with the 'antiqua exemplaria' referred to by the Critic; andwe freely avow that we have learned to reckon them among the leastreputable of our acquaintance. Are they not represented by thoseEvangelia, of which several copies are extant, that profess to have been'transcribed from, and collated with, ancient copies at Jerusalem'?These uniformly exhibit [Greek: kath hêmeran] in St. Luke ix. 23[375]. But then, if the phrase be a gloss, --it is obvious to inquire, --how isits existence in so many quarters to be accounted for?

Its origin is not far to seek. Chrysostom, in a certain place, afterquoting our Lord's saying about taking up the cross and following Him, remarks that the words 'do not mean that we are actually to bear thewood upon our shoulders, but to keep the prospect of death steadilybefore us, and like St. Paul to "die daily"[376]. ' The same Father, inthe two other places already quoted from his writings, is observedsimilarly to connect the Saviour's mention of 'bearing the Cross' withthe Apostle's announcement--'I die daily. ' Add, that Ephraem Syrus[377], and Jerome quoted already, --persistently connect the same two placestogether; the last named Father even citing them in immediatesuccession;--and the inference is unavoidable. The phrase in St. Lukeix. 23 must needs be a very ancient as well as very interestingexpository gloss, imported into the Gospel from 1 Cor. Xv. 31, --asMill[378] and Matthaei[379] long since suggested. 

Sincerely regretting the necessity of parting with an expression withwhich one has been so long familiar, we cannot suffer the sentimentalplea to weigh with us when the Truth of the Gospel is at stake. Certainit is that but for Erasmus, we should never have known the regret: forit was he that introduced [Greek: kath hêmeran] into the Received Text. The MS. From which he printed is without the expression: which is alsonot found in the Complutensian. It is certainly a spurious accretion tothe inspired Text. 

[The attention of the reader is particularly invited to this lastparagraph. The learned Dean has been sneered at for a supposedsentimental and effeminate attachment to the Textus Receptus. He wasalways ready to reject words and phrases, which have not adequatesupport; but he denied the validity of the evidence brought against manytexts by the school of Westcott and Hort, and therefore he refused tofollow them in their surrender of the passages. ]

§ 3. 

Indeed, a great many 'various readings, ' so called, are nothing else butvery ancient interpretations, --fabricated readings therefore, --of whichthe value may be estimated by the fact that almost every trace of themhas long since disappeared. Such is the substitution of [Greek: pheugei]for [Greek: anechôrêsen] in St. John vi. 15;--which, by the way, Tischendorf thrusts into his text on the sole authority of [Symbol:Aleph], some Latin copies including the Vulgate, and Cureton'sSyriac[380]: though Tregelles ignores its very existence. That ourLord's 'withdrawal' to the mountain on that occasion was of the natureof 'flight, ' or 'retreat' is obvious. Hence Chrysostom and Cyril remarkthat He '_fled_ to the mountain. ' And yet both Fathers (like Origen andEpiphanius before them) are found to have read [Greek: anechôrêsen]. 

Almost as reasonably in the beginning of the same verse mightTischendorf (with [Symbol: Aleph]) have substituted [Greek:anadeiknynai] for [Greek: hina poiêsôsin auton], on the plea thatCyril[381] says, [Greek: zêtein auton anadeixai kai basilea]. We may onno account suffer ourselves to be imposed upon by such shallow pretencesfor tampering with the text of Scripture: or the deposit will never besafe. A patent gloss, --rather an interpretation, --acquires no claim tobe regarded as the genuine utterance of the Holy Spirit by being merelyfound in two or three ancient documents. It is the little handful ofdocuments which loses in reputation, --not the reading which gains inauthority on such occasions. 

In this way we are sometimes presented with what in effect are newincidents. These are not unfrequently discovered to be introduced indefiance of the reason of the case; as where (St. John xiii. 34) SimonPeter is represented (in the Vulgate) as _actually saying_ to St. John, 'Who is it concerning whom He speaks?' Other copies of the Latinexhibit, 'Ask Him who it is, ' &c. : while [Symbol: Aleph]BC (for on suchoccasions we are treated to any amount of apocryphal matter) wouldpersuade us that St. Peter only required that the information should befurnished him by St. John:--'Say who it is of whom He speaks. ' Sometimesa very little licence is sufficient to convert the _oratio obliqua_ intothe recta. Thus, by the change of a single letter (in [Symbol: Aleph]BX)Mary Magdalene is made to say to the disciples 'I have seen the Lord'(St. John xx. 18). But then, as might have been anticipated, the newdoes not altogether agree with the old. Accordingly D and othersparaphrase the remainder of the sentence thus, --'and she signified tothem what He had said unto her. ' How obvious is it to foresee that onsuch occasions the spirit of officiousness will never know when to stop!In the Vulgate and Sahidic versions the sentence proceeds, 'and He toldthese things unto me. '

Take another example. The Hebraism [Greek: meta salpingos phônêsmegalês] (St. Matt. Xxiv. 31) presents an uncongenial ambiguity toWestern readers, as our own incorrect A. V. Sufficiently shews. Twomethods of escape from the difficulty suggested themselves to theancients:--(_a_) Since 'a trumpet of great sound' means nothing else but'a loud trumpet, ' and since this can be as well expressed by [Greek:salpingos megalês], the scribes at a very remote period are found tohave omitted the word [Greek: phônês]. The Peshitto and Lewis(interpreting rather than translating) so deal with the text. Accordingly, [Greek: phônês] is not found in [Symbol: Aleph]L[Symbol:Delta] and five cursives. Eusebius[382], Cyril Jerus. [383], Chrysostom[384], Theodoret[385], and even Cyprian[386] are also withoutthe word. (_b_) A less violent expedient was to interpolate [Greek: kai]before [Greek: phônês]. This is accordingly the reading of the bestItalic copies, of the Vulgate, and of D. So Hilary[387] and Jerome[388], Severianus[389], Asterius[390], ps. -Caesarius[391], Damascene[392] andat least eleven cursive copies, so read the place. --There can be nodoubt at all that the commonly received text is right. It is found inthirteen uncials with B at their head: in Cosmas[393], Hesychius[394], Theophylact[395]. But the decisive consideration is that the great bodyof the cursives have faithfully retained the uncongenial Hebraism, andaccordingly imply the transmission of it all down the ages: a phenomenonwhich will not escape the unprejudiced reader. Neither will he overlookthe fact that the three 'old uncials' (for A and C are not availablehere) advocate as many different readings: the two wrong readings beingrespectively countenanced by our two most ancient authorities, viz. ThePeshitto version and the Italic. It only remains to point out thatTischendorf blinded by his partiality for [Symbol: Aleph] contends herefor the mutilated text, and Westcott and Hort are disposed to do thesame. 

§ 4. 

Recent Editors are agreed that we are henceforth to read in St. Johnxviii. 14 [Greek: apothanein] instead of [Greek: apolesthai]:--'NowCaiaphas was he who counselled the Jews that it was expedient that oneman should _die_' (instead of '_perish_') 'for the people. ' There iscertainly a considerable amount of ancient testimony in favour of thisreading: for besides [Symbol: Aleph]BC, it is found in the Old Latincopies, the Egyptian, and Peshitto versions, besides the Lewis MS. , theChronicon, Cyril, Nonnus, Chrysostom. Yet may it be regarded as certainthat St. John wrote [Greek: apolesthai] in this place. The proper proofof the statement is the consentient voice of all the copies, --exceptabout nineteen of loose character:--we know their vagaries but too well, and decline to let them impose upon us. In real fact, nothing else is[Greek: apothanein] but a critical assimilation of St. John xviii. 14 toxi. 50, --somewhat as 'die' in our A. V. Has been retained by King James'translators, though they certainly had [Greek: apolesthai] before them. 

Many of these glosses are rank, patent, palpable. Such is thesubstitution (St. Mark vi. 11) of [Greek: hos an topos mê dexêtai hymas]by [Symbol: Aleph]BL[Symbol: Delta] for [Greek: hosoi an mê dexôntaihymas], --which latter is the reading of the Old Latin and Peshitto, aswell as of the whole body of uncials and cursives alike. Some Criticevidently considered that the words which follow, 'when you go out_thence_, ' imply that _place_, not _persons_, should have gone before. Accordingly, he substituted 'whatsoever place' for '_whosoever_[396]':another has bequeathed to us in four uncial MSS. A lasting record of hisrashness and incompetency. Since however he left behind the words[Greek: mêde akousôsin hymôn], which immediately follow, who sees notthat the fabricator has betrayed himself? I am astonished that so patenta fraud should have imposed upon Tischendorf, and Tregelles, andLachmann, and Alford, and Westcott and Hort. But in fact it does notstand alone. From the same copies [Symbol: Aleph]BL[Symbol: Delta] (withtwo others, CD) we find the woe denounced in the same verse on theunbelieving city erased ([Greek: amên legô hymin, anektoteron estaiSodomois ê Gomorrois en hêmerai kriseôs, ê tê polei ekeinê]). Quite idleis it to pretend (with Tischendorf) that these words are an importationfrom the parallel place in St. Matthew. A memorable note of diversityhas been set on the two places, which in _all_ the copies is religiouslymaintained, viz. [Greek: Sodomois ê Gomorrois], in St. Mark: [Greek: gêSodomôn kai Gomorrôn], in St. Matt. It is simply incredible that thiscould have been done if the received text in this place had been ofspurious origin. 

§ 5. 

The word [Greek: apechei] in St. Mark xiv. 41 has proved astumbling-block. The most obvious explanation is probably the truest. After a brief pause[397], during which the Saviour has been content tosurvey in silence His sleeping disciples;--or perhaps, after tellingthem that they will have time and opportunity enough for sleep and restwhen He shall have been taken from them;--He announces the arrival of'the hour, ' by exclaiming, [Greek: Apechei], --'It is enough;' or, 'It issufficient;' i. E. _The season for repose is over. _

But the 'Revisers' of the second century did not perceive that [Greek:apechei] is here used impersonally[398]. They understood the word tomean 'is fully come'; and supplied the supposed nominative, viz. [Greek:to telos][399]. Other critics who rightly understood [Greek: apechei] tosignify 'sufficit, ' still subjoined 'finis. ' The Old Latin and theSyriac versions must have been executed from Greek copies whichexhibited, --[Greek: apechei to telos]. This is abundantly proved by therenderings _adest finis_ (f), --_consummatus est finis_ (a); from whichthe change to [Greek: apechei to telos KAI hê hôra] (the reading of D)was obvious: _sufficit finis et hora_ (d q); _adest enim consummatio;et_ (ff^{2} _venit_) _hora_ (c); or, (as the Peshitto more fully givesit), _appropinquavit finis, et venit hora_[400]. Jerome put this matterstraight by simply writing _sufficit_. But it is a suggestivecircumstance, and an interesting proof how largely the reading [Greek:apechei to telos] must once have prevailed, that it is frequently metwith in cursive copies of the Gospels to this hour[401]. Happily it isan 'old reading' which finds no favour at the present day. It need nottherefore occupy us any longer. 

As another instance of ancient Glosses introduced to help out the sense, the reading of St. John ix. 22 is confessedly [Greek: hina ean tis autonhomologêsêi Christon]. So all the MSS. But one, and so the Old Latin. Soindeed all the ancient versions except the Egyptian. Cod. D alone adds[Greek: einai]: but [Greek: einai] must once have been a familiar gloss:for Jerome retains it in the Vulgate: and indeed Cyril, whenever hequotes the place[402], exhibits [Greek: ton Christon einai]. Not sohowever Chrysostom[403] and Gregory of Nyssa[404]. 

§ 6. 

There is scarcely to be found, amid the incidents immediately precedingour Saviour's Passion, one more affecting or more exquisite than theanointing of His feet at Bethany by Mary the sister of Lazarus, whichreceived its unexpected interpretation from the lips of Christ Himself. 'Let her alone. Against the day of My embalming hath she kept it. ' (St. John xii. 7. ) He assigns to her act a mysterious meaning of which theholy woman little dreamt. She had treasured up that precious unguentagainst the day, --(with the presentiment of true Love, she knew that itcould not be very far distant), --when His dead limbs would requireembalming. But lo, she beholds Him reclining at supper in her sister'shouse: and yielding to a Divine impulse she brings forth her reservedcostly offering and bestows it on Him at once. Ah, she little knew, --shecould not in fact have known, --that it was the only anointing thosesacred feet were destined ever to enjoy!... In the meantime through adesire, as I suspect, to bring this incident into an impossible harmonywith what is recorded in St. Mark xvi. 1, with which obviously it has nomanner of connexion, a scribe is found at some exceedingly remote periodto have improved our Lord's expression into this:--'Let her alone inorder that against the day of My embalming she may keep it. ' Such anexhibition of the Sacred Text is its own sufficient condemnation. Whatthat critic exactly meant, I fail to discover: but I am sure he hasspoilt what he did not understand: and though it is quite true that[Symbol: Aleph]BD with five other Uncial MSS. And Nonnus, besides theLatin and Bohairic, Jerusalem, Armenian, and Ethiopic versions, besidesfour errant cursives so exhibit the place, this instead of commendingthe reading to our favour, only proves damaging to the witnesses bywhich it is upheld. We learn that no reliance is to be placed even insuch a combination of authorities. This is one of the places which theFathers pass by almost in silence. Chrysostom[405] however, andevidently Cyril Alex. [406], as well as Ammonius[407] convey thoughroughly a better sense by quoting the verse with [Greek: epoiêse] for[Greek: tetêrêken]. Antiochus[408] is express. [A and eleven otheruncials, and the cursives (with the petty exception already noted), together with the Peshitto, Harkleian (which only notes the otherreading in the margin), Lewis, Sahidic, and Gothic versions, form a bodyof authority against the palpable emasculation of the passage, which fornumber, variety, weight, and internal evidence is greatly superior tothe opposing body. Also, with reference to continuity and antiquity itpreponderates plainly, if not so decisively; and the context of D isfull of blunders, besides that it omits the next verse, and B and[Symbol: Aleph] are also inaccurate hereabouts[409]. So that theTraditional text enjoys in this passage the support of all the Notes ofTruth. ]

In accordance with what has been said above, for [Greek: Aphes autên;eis tên hêmeran tou entaphiasmou mou tetêrêken auto] (St. John xii. 7), the copies which it has recently become the fashion to adore, read[Greek: aphes autên hina ... Têrêsê auto]. This startlinginnovation, --which destroys the sense of our Saviour's words, andfurnishes a sorry substitute which no one is able to explain[410], --isaccepted by recent Editors and some Critics: yet is it clearly nothingelse but a stupid correction of the text, --introduced by some one whodid not understand the intention of the Divine Speaker. Our Saviour ishere discovering to us an exquisite circumstance, --revealing what untilnow had been a profound and tender secret: viz. That Mary, convinced bymany a sad token that the Day of His departure could not be very fardistant, had some time before provided herself with this costlyointment, and 'kept it' by her, --intending to reserve it against thedark day when it would be needed for the 'embalming' of the lifelessbody of her Lord. And now it wants only a week to Easter. She beholdsHim (with Lazarus at His side) reclining in her sister's house atsupper, amid circumstances of mystery which fill her soul with awfulanticipation. She divines, with love's true instinct, that this mayprove her only opportunity. Accordingly, she '_anticipates_ to anoint'([Greek: proelabe myrisai], St. Mark xiv. 8) His Body: and, yielding toan overwhelming impulse, bestows upon Him all her costly offering atonce!... How does it happen that some professed critics have overlookedall this? Any one who has really studied the subject ought to know, froma mere survey of the evidence, on which side the truth in respect of thetext of this passage must needs lie. 

§ 7. 

Our Lord, in His great Eucharistic address to the eternal Father, thusspeaks:--'I have glorified Thee on the earth. I have perfected the workwhich Thou gavest Me to do' (St. John xvii. 4). Two things are stated:first, that the result of His Ministry had been the exhibition uponearth of the Father's 'glory[411]': next, that the work which the Fatherhad given the Son to do[412] was at last finished[413]. And that this iswhat St. John actually wrote is certain: not only because it is found inall the copies, except twelve of suspicious character (headed by[Symbol: Aleph]ABCL); but because it is vouched for by the Peshitto[414]and the Latin, the Gothic and the Armenian versions[415]: besides awhole chorus of Fathers; viz. Hippolytus[416], Didymus[417], Eusebius[418], Athanasius[419], Basil[420], Chrysostom[421], Cyril[422], ps. -Polycarp[423], the interpolator of Ignatius[424], and the authors ofthe Apostolic Constitutions[425]: together with the following among theLatins:--Cyprian[426], Ambrose[427], Hilary[428], Zeno[429], Cassian[430], Novatian[431], certain Arians[432], Augustine[433]. 

But the asyndeton (so characteristic of the fourth Gospel) provinguncongenial to certain of old time, D inserted [Greek: kai]. A morepopular device was to substitute the participle ([Greek: teleiôsas]) for[Greek: eteleiôsa]: whereby our Lord is made to say that He hadglorified His Father's Name 'by perfecting' or 'completing'--'in that Hehad finished'--the work which the Father had given Him to do; whichdamages the sense by limiting it, and indeed introduces a new idea. Amore patent gloss it would be hard to find. Yet has it been adopted asthe genuine text by all the Editors and all the Critics. So general isthe delusion in favour of any reading supported by the combined evidenceof [Symbol: Aleph]ABCL, that the Revisers here translate--'I glorifiedThee on the earth, _having accomplished_ ([Greek: teleiôsas]) the workwhich Thou hast given Me to do:' without so much as vouchsafing a hintto the English reader that they have altered the text. 

When some came with the message 'Thy daughter is dead: why troublestthou the Master further?' the Evangelist relates that Jesus '_as soon asHe heard_ ([Greek: eutheôs akousas]) what was being spoken, said to theruler of the synagogue, Fear not: only believe. ' (St. Mark v. 36. ) Forthis, [Symbol: Aleph]BL[Symbol: Delta] substitute 'disregarding ([Greek:parakousas]) what was being spoken': which is nothing else but a sorrygloss, disowned by every other copy, including ACD, and all theversions. Yet does [Greek: parakousas] find favour with Teschendorf, Tregelles, and others. 

§ 8. 

In this way it happened that in the earliest age the construction of St. Luke i. 66 became misapprehended. Some Western scribe evidently imaginedthat the popular saying concerning John Baptist, --[Greek: ti apa topaidion touto estai], extended further, and comprised the Evangelist'srecord, --[Greek: kai cheir Kyriou ên met' autou]. To support thisstrange view, [Greek: kai] was altered into [Greek: kai gar], and[Greek: esti] was substituted for [Greek: ên]. It is thus that the placestands in the Verona copy of the Old Latin (b). In other quarters theverb was omitted altogether: and that is how D, Evan. 59 with theVercelli (a) and two other copies of the Old Latin exhibit the place. Augustine[434] is found to have read indifferently--'manus enim Dominicum illo, ' and 'cum illo est': but he insists that the combined clausesrepresent the popular utterance concerning the Baptist[435]. Unhappily, there survives a notable trace of the same misapprehension in [Symbol:Aleph]-BCL which, alone of MSS. , read [Greek: kai gar ... ên][436]. Theconsequence might have been anticipated. All recent Editors adopt thisreading, which however is clearly inadmissible. The received text, witnessed to by the Peshitto, Harkleian, and Armenian versions, isobviously correct. Accordingly, A and all the uncials not already named, together with the whole body of the cursives, so read the place. Withfatal infelicity the Revisers exhibit 'For indeed the hand of the Lordwas with him. ' They clearly are to blame: for indeed the MS. Evidenceadmits of no uncertainty. It is much to be regretted that not a singlevery ancient Greek Father (so far as I can discover) quotes the place. 

§ 9. 

It seems to have been anciently felt, in connexion with the firstmiraculous draught of fishes, that St. Luke's statement (v. 7) that theships were so full that 'they were sinking' ([Greek: hôste bythizesthaiauta]) requires some qualification. Accordingly C inserts [Greek: êdê](were 'just' sinking); and D, [Greek: para ti] ('within a little'):while the Peshitto the Lewis and the Vulgate, as well as many copies ofthe Old Latin, exhibit 'ita ut _pene_. ' These attempts to improve uponScripture, and these paraphrases, indicate laudable zeal for thetruthfulness of the Evangelist; but they betray an utterly mistaken viewof the critic's office. The truth is, [Greek: bythizesthai], as theBohairic translators perceived and as most of us are aware, means 'werebeginning to sink. ' There is no need of further qualifying theexpression by the insertion with Eusebius[437] of any additional word. 

I strongly suspect that the introduction of the name of 'Pyrrhus' intoActs xx. 4 as the patronymic of 'Sopater of Beraea, ' is to be accountedfor in this way. A very early gloss it certainly is, for it appears inthe Old Latin: yet, the Peshitto knows nothing of it, and the Harkleianrejects it from the text, though not from the margin. Origen and theBohairic recognize it, but not Chrysostom nor the Ethiopic. I suspectthat some foolish critic of the primitive age invented [Greek: Pyrou](or [Greek: Pyrrou]) out of [Greek: Beroiaios] (or [Greek: Berroiaios])which follows. The Latin form of this was 'Pyrus[438], ' 'Pyrrhus, ' or'Pirrus[439]. ' In the Sahidic version he is called the 'son of Berus'([Greek: huios Berou]), --which confirms me in my conjecture. But indeed, if it was with some _Beraean_ that the gloss originated, --and what morelikely?--it becomes an interesting circumstance that the inhabitants ofthat part of Macedonia are known to have confused the _p_ and _b_sounds[440].... This entire matter is unimportant in itself, but theletter of Scripture cannot be too carefully guarded: and let me invitethe reader to consider, --If St. Luke actually wrote [Greek: SôpatrosPyrrou Beroiaios], why at the present day should five copies out of sixrecord nothing of that second word?

FOOTNOTES:

[353] See The Traditional Text, pp. 51-52. 

[354] St. Mark vi. 33. See The Traditional Text, p. 80. 

[355] iii. 3 e: 4 b and c: 442 a: 481 b. Note, that the [Greek: rhêsis]in which the first three of these quotations occur seems to have beenobtained by De la Rue from a Catena on St. Luke in the Mazarine Library(see his Monitum, iii. 1). A large portion of it (viz. From p. 3, line25, to p. 4, line 29) is ascribed to 'I. Geometra in Proverbia' in theCatena in Luc. Of Corderius, p. 217. 

[356] ii. 345. 

[357] ii. 242. 

[358] The Latin is _edissere_ or _dissere_, _enarra_ or _narra_, bothhere and in xv. 15. 

[359] iv. 254 a. 

[360] In St. Matthew xiii. 36 the Peshitto Syriac has [Syriac letters]'declare to us' and in St. Matthew xv. 15 the very same words, therebeing _no_ various reading in either of these two passages. 

The inference is, that the translators had the same Greek word in eachplace, especially considering that in the only other place where, besides St. Matt. Xiii. 36, v. 1. , [Greek: diasaphein] occurs, viz. St. Matt. Xviii. 31, they render [Greek: diesaphêsan] by [Syriacletters]--they made known. 

Since [Greek: phrazein] only occurs in St. Matt. Xiii. 36 and xv. 15, wecannot generalize about the Peshitto rendering of this verb. Conversely, [Syriac letters] is used as the rendering of other Greek words besides[Greek: phrazein], e. G. 

 of [Greek: epiluein], St. Mark iv. 34; of [Greek: diermêneuein], St. Luke xxiv. 27; of [Greek: dianoigein], St. Luke xxiv. 32 and Acts xvii. 3. 

On the whole I have _no doubt_ (though it is not susceptible of _proof_)that the Peshitto had, in both the places quoted above, [Greek:phrason]. 

[361] In St. Mark vii. 3, the translators of the Peshitto renderwhatever Greek they had before them by [Syriac letters], which means'eagerly, ' 'sedulously'; cf. Use of the word for [Greek: spoudaiôs], St. Luke vii. 4; [Greek: epimelôs], St Luke xv. 8. 

The Root means 'to cease'; thence 'to have leisure for a thing': it hasnothing to do with 'Fist. ' [Rev. G. H. Gwilliam. ]

[362] Harkl. Marg. _in loc. _, and Adler, p. 115. 

[363] Viz. A b c e ff^{2} l q. 

[364] [Greek: 'Opheilei psychê, en tô logô tou Kyriou katakolouthousa, ton stauron autou kath' hêmeran airein, hôs gegraptai; tout' estin, hetoimôs echousa hypomenein dia Christon pasan thlipsin kai peirasmon, k. T. L. ] (ii. 326 e). In the same spirit, further on, he exhorts toconstancy and patience, --[Greek: ton epi tou Kyriou thanaton enepithymiai pantote pro ophthalmôn echontes, kai (kathôs eirêtai hypo touKyriou) kath' hêmeran ton stauron airontes, ho esti thanatos] (ii. 332e). It is fair to assume that Ephraem's reference is to St. Luke ix. 23, seeing that he wrote not in Greek but in Syriac, and that in thePeshitto the clause is found only in that place. 

[365] [Greek: Akoue Louka legontos], --i. 281 f. Also, int. Iii. 543. 

[366] Pp. 221 (text), 222, 227. 

[367] ii. 751 e, 774 e (in Es. )--the proof that these quotations arefrom St. Luke; that Cyril exhibits [Greek: arnêsasthô] instead of[Greek: aparn]. (see Tischendorf's note on St. Luke ix. 23). Thequotation in i. 40 (Glaph. ) _may_ be from St. Matt. Xvi. 24. 

[368] Migne, vol. Lxxxvi. Pp. 256 and 257. 

[369] After quoting St. Mark viii. 34, --'aut juxta Lucam, _dicebat adcunctos: Si quis vult post me venire, abneget semetipsum; et tollatcrucem suam, et sequetur me_. '--i. 852 c. 

This is found in his solution of _XI Quaestiones_, 'ad Algasiam, '--freetranslations probably from the Greek of some earlier Father. Six lineslower down (after quoting words found nowhere in the Gospels), Jeromeproceeds:--'_Quotidie_ credens in Christum _tollit crucem suam_, etnegat seipsum. '

[370] This spurious clause adorned the lost archetype of Evann. 13, 69, 124, 346 (Ferrar's four); and survives in certain other Evangelia whichenjoy a similar repute, --as 1, 33, 72 (with a marginal note ofdistrust), 131. 

[371] They are St. Matt. Xvi. 24; St. Mark viii. 34. 

[372] i. 597 c (Adorat. )--elsewhere (viz. I. 21 d; 528 c; 580 b; iv. 1058 a; v^(2). 83 c) Cyril quotes the place correctly. Note, that thequotation found in Mai, iii. 126, which Pusey edits (v. 418), in Ep. AdHebr. , is nothing else but an excerpt from the treatise de Adorat. I. 528 c. 

[373] In his Commentary on St. Matt. Xvi. 24:--[Greek: Dia pantos toubiou touto dei poiein. Diênekôs gar, phêsi, periphere ton thanatontouton, kai kath hêmeran hetoimos eso pros sphagên] (vii. 557 b). Again, commenting on ch. Xix. 21, --[Greek: Dei proêgoumenôs akolouthein tôChristô toutesti, panta ta par autou keleuomena poiein, pros sphgaseinai hetoimon, kai thanaton kathêmerinin] (p. 629 e):--words whichChrysostom immediately follows up by quoting ch. Xvi. 24 (630 a). 

[374] i. 949 b, --'_Quotidie_ (inquit Apostolus) _morior propter vestramsalutem_. Et Dominus, juxta antiqua exemplaria, _Nisi quis tuleritcrucem suam quotidie, et sequntus fuerit me, non potest meus essediscipulus_'--Commenting on St. Matt. X. 38 (vol. Vii. P. 65 b), Jeromeremarks, --'in alio Evangelio scribitur, --_Qui non accipit crucem suamquotidie_': but the corresponding place to St. Matt. X. 38, in thesectional system of Eusebius (Greek and Syriac), is St. Luke xiv. 27. 

[375] Viz. Evan. 473 (2^{pe}). 

[376] ii. 66 c, d. 

[377] See above, p. 175, note 2. 

[378] Proleg. P. Cxlvi. 

[379] N. T. (1803), i. 368. 

[380] Lewis here agrees with Peshitto. 

[381] iv. 745. 

[382] In Ps. 501. 

[383] 229 and 236. 

[384] vii. 736: xi. 478. 

[385] ii. 1209. 

[386] 269. 

[387] 577. 

[388] i. 881. 

[389] _Ap. _ Chrys. Vi. 460. 

[390] _Ap_. Greg. Nyss. Ii. 258. 

[391] Galland. Vi. 53. 

[392] ii. 346. 

[393] ii. 261, 324. 

[394] _Ap. _ Greg. Nyss. Iii. 429. 

[395] i. 132. 

[396] The attentive student of the Gospels will recognize with interesthow gracefully the third Evangelist St. Luke (ix. 5) has overcome thisdifficulty. 

[397] Augustine, with his accustomed acuteness, points out that St. Mark's narrative shews that after the words of 'Sleep on now and takeyour rest, ' our Lord must have been silent for a brief space in order toallow His disciples a slight prolongation of the refreshment which hiswords had already permitted them to enjoy. Presently, He is heard tosay, --'It is enough'--(that is, 'Ye have now slept and rested enough');and adds, 'The hour is come. Behold, the Son of Man is betrayed into thehands of sinners. ' 'Sed quia commemorata non est ipsa interpositiosilentii Domini, propterea coartat intellectum, ut in illis verbis aliapronuntiatio requiratur. '--iii^{2}. 106 a, b. The passage in questionruns thus:--[Greek: Katheidete to loipon kai anapauesthe. Apechei;êlthen hê hôra; idou, k. T. L. ]

[398] Those who saw this, explain the word amiss. Note the Scholion(Anon. Vat. ) in Possinus, p. 321:--[Greek: apechei, toutesti, peplêrôtai, telos echei to kat' eme]. Last Twelve Verses, p. 226, note. 

[399] I retract unreservedly what I offered on this subject in a formerwork (Last Twelve Verses, &c. , pp. 225, 226). I was misled by one whoseldom indeed misleads, --the learned editor of the Codex Bezae (_inloco_). 

[400] So Peshitto. Lewis, _venit hora, appropinquat finis_. Harkleian, _adest consummatio, venit hora. _

[401] [Greek: apechei]. Vg. _sufficit_. + [Greek: to telos], 13, 69, 124, 2^{pe}, c^{scr}, 47, 54, 56, 61, 184, 346, 348, 439. D, q, _sufficit finis et hora_. F, _adest finis, venit hora_. C, ff^{2}, _adest enim consummatio, et_ (ff^{2} venit) _hora_. A, _consummatus estfinis, advenit hora_. It is certain that one formidable source of dangerto the sacred text has been its occasional obscurity. This hasresulted, --(1) sometimes in the omission of words: [Greek:Deuteroprôton]. (2) Sometimes in substitution, as [Greek: pygmêi]. (3)Sometimes in the insertion of unauthorized matter: thus, [Greek: totelos], as above. 

[402] iii. 105: iv. 913. So also iv. 614. 

[403] vi. 283. 

[404] i. 307. 

[405] viii. 392. 

[406] iv. 696. 

[407] Cramer's Cat. _in loc. _

[408] 1063. 

[409] E. G. Ver. 1. All the three officiously insert [Greek: ho Iêsous], in order to prevent people from imagining that Lazarus raised Lazarusfrom the dead; ver. 4, D gives the gloss, [Greek: apo Karyôtou] for[Greek: Iskariôtês]; ver. 13, spells thus, --[Greek: hôssana]; besidesconstant inaccuracies, in which it is followed by none. [Symbol: Aleph]omits nineteen words in the first thirty-two verses of the chapter, besides adding eight and making other alterations. B is far from beingaccurate. 

[410] 'Let her alone, that she may keep it against the day of Myburying' (Alford). But how _could_ she keep it after she had poured itall out?--'Suffer her to have kept it against the day of My preparationunto burial' (M^{c}Clellan). But [Greek: hina têrêsê] could hardly meanthat: and the day of His [Greek: entaphiasmos] had not yet arrived. 

[411] Consider ii. 11 and xi. 40: St. Luke xiii. 17: Heb. I. 3. 

[412] Consider v. 36 and iv. 34. 

[413] Consider St. John xix. 30. Cf. St. Luke xxii. 37. 

[414] Lewis, 'and the work I have perfected': Harkleian, 'because thework, ' &c. , 'because' being obelized. 

[415] The Bohairic and Ethiopic are hostile. 

[416] i. 245 (= Constt. App. Viii. 1; _ap. _ Galland. Iii. 199). 

[417] P. 419. 

[418] Mcell p. 157. 

[419] i. 534. 

[420] ii. 196, 238: iii. 39. 

[421] v. 256: viii. 475 _bis_. 

[422] iii. 542: iv. 954: v^{1}. 599, 601, 614: v^{2}. 152. --In thefollowing places Cyril shews himself acquainted with the otherreading, --iv. 879: v^{1}. 167, 366: vi. 124. 

[423] Polyc. Frg. V (ed. Jacobson). 

[424] Ps. -Ignat. 328. 

[425] _Ap. _ Gall. Iii. 215. 

[426] P. 285. 

[427] ii. 545. 

[428] Pp. 510, 816, 1008. But _opere constummato_, pp. 812, 815. --Jeromealso once (iv. 563) has _opere completo. _

[429] _Ap. _ Gall. V. 135. 

[430] P. 367. 

[431] _Ap. _ Gall. Iii. 308. 

[432] _Ap. _ Aug. Viii. 622. 

[433] iii^{2}. 761: viii. 640. 

[434] v. 1166. 

[435] Ibid. 1165 g, 1166 a. 

[436] Though the Bohairic, Gothic, Vulgate, and Ethiopic versions aredisfigured in the same way, and the Lewis reads 'is. '

[437] Theoph. 216 note: [Greek: hôs kindyneuein auta bythisthênai]. 

[438] Cod. Amiat. 

[439] g, --at Stockholm. 

[440] Stephanus De Urbibus in voc. [Greek: Beroia]. 

CHAPTER XIII. 

CAUSES OF CORRUPTION CHIEFLY INTENTIONAL. 

IX. Corruption by Heretics. 

§ 1. 

The Corruptions of the Sacred Text which we have been hithertoconsidering, however diverse the causes from which they may haveresulted, have yet all agreed in this: viz. That they have all been of alawful nature. My meaning is, that apparently, at no stage of thebusiness has there been _mala fides_ in any quarter. We are prepared tomake the utmost allowance for careless, even for licentioustranscription; and we can invent excuses for the mistaken zeal, theofficiousness if men prefer to call it so, which has occasionally notscrupled to adopt conjectural emendations of the Text. To be brief, solong as an honest reason is discoverable for a corrupt reading, wegladly adopt the plea. It has been shewn with sufficient clearness, Itrust, in the course of the foregoing chapters, that the number ofdistinct causes to which various readings may reasonably be attributedis even extraordinary. 

But there remains after all an alarmingly large assortment of textualperturbations which absolutely refuse to fall under any of the heads ofclassification already enumerated. They are not to be accounted for onany ordinary principle. And this residuum of cases it is, whichoccasions our present embarrassment. They are in truth so exceedinglynumerous; they are often so very considerable; they are, as a rule, sovery licentious; they transgress to such an extent all regulations; theyusurp so persistently the office of truth and faithfulness, that wereally know not what to think about them. Sometimes we are presentedwith gross interpolations, --apocryphal stories: more often withsystematic lacerations of the text, or transformations as from an angelof light. 

We are constrained to inquire, How all this can possibly have comeabout? Have there even been persons who made it their business of setpurpose to corrupt the [sacred deposit of Holy Scripture entrusted tothe Church for the perpetual illumination of all ages till the Lordshould come?]

At this stage of the inquiry, we are reminded that it is even notoriousthat in the earliest age of all, the New Testament Scriptures weresubjected to such influences. In the age which immediately succeeded theApostolic there were heretical teachers not a few, who finding theirtenets refuted by the plain Word of God bent themselves against thewritten Word with all their power. From seeking to evacuate itsteaching, it was but a single step to seeking to falsify its testimony. Profane literature has never been exposed to such hostility. I make theremark in order also to remind the reader of one more point of[dissimilarity between the two classes of writings. The inestimablevalue of the New Testament entailed greater dangers, as well as securedsuperior safeguards. Strange, that a later age should try to discard thelatter]. 

It is found therefore that Satan could not even wait for the grave toclose over St. John. 'Many' there were already who taught that Christhad not come in the flesh. Gnosticism was in the world already. St. Pauldenounces it by name[441], and significantly condemns the wild fanciesof its professors, their dangerous speculations as well as their absurdfigments. Thus he predicts and condemns[442] their pestilential teachingin respect of meats and drinks and concerning matrimony. In his Epistleto Timothy[443] he relates that Hymeneus and Philetus taught that theResurrection was past already. What wonder if a flood of impiousteaching broke loose on the Church when the last of the Apostles hadbeen gathered in, and another generation of men had arisen, and the ageof Miracles was found to be departing if it had not already departed, and the loftiest boast which any could make was that they had knownthose who had [seen and heard the Apostles of the Lord]. 

The 'grievous wolves' whose assaults St. Paul predicted as imminent, andagainst which he warned the heads of the Ephesian Church[444], did notlong 'spare the flock. ' Already, while St. John was yet alive, had theNicolaitans developed their teaching at Ephesus[445] and in theneighbouring Church of Pergamos[446]. Our risen Lord in glory announcedto His servant John that in the latter city Satan had established hisdwelling-place[447]. Nay, while those awful words were being spoken tothe Seer of Patmos, the men were already born who first dared to laytheir impious hands on the Gospel of Christ. 

No sooner do we find ourselves out of Apostolic times and amongmonuments of the primitive age than we are made aware that the sacredtext must have been exposed at that very early period to disturbinginfluences which, on no ordinary principles, can be explained. JustinMartyr, Irenaeus, Origen, Clement of Alexandria, --among the Fathers:some Old Latin MSS. [448] the Bohairic and Sahidic, and coming later on, the Curetonian and Lewis, --among the Versions: of the copies Codd. B and[Symbol: Aleph]: and above all, coming later down still, Cod. D:--thesevenerable monuments of a primitive age occasionally present us withdeformities which it is worse than useless to extenuate, --quiteimpossible to overlook. Unauthorized appendixes, --tasteless and stupidamplifications, --plain perversions of the meaning of theEvangelists, --wholly gratuitous assimilations of one Gospel toanother, --the unprovoked omission of passages of profound interest andnot unfrequently of high doctrinal import:--How are such phenomena asthese to be accounted for? Again, in one quarter, we light upon asystematic mutilation of the text so extraordinary that it is as if someone had amused himself by running his pen through every clause which wasnot absolutely necessary to the intelligibleness of what remained. Inanother quarter we encounter the thrusting in of fabulous stories andapocryphal sayings which disfigure as well as encumber the text. --Howwill any one explain all this?

Let me however at the risk of repeating what has been already saiddispose at once of an uneasy suspicion which is pretty sure to suggestitself to a person of intelligence after reading what goes before. Ifthe most primitive witnesses to our hand are indeed discovered to bearfalse witness to the text of Scripture, --whither are we to betakeourselves for the Truth? And what security can we hope ever to enjoythat any given exhibition of the text of Scripture is the true one? Arewe then to be told that in this subject-matter the maxim '_id veriusquod prius_' does not hold? that the stream instead of getting purer aswe approach the fountain head, on the contrary grows more and morecorrupt?

Nothing of the sort, I answer. The direct reverse is the case. Ourappeal is always made to antiquity; and it is nothing else but a truismto assert that the oldest reading is also the best. A very few wordswill make this matter clear; because a very few words will suffice toexplain a circumstance already adverted to which it is necessary to keepalways before the eyes of the reader. 

The characteristic note, the one distinguishing feature, of all themonstrous and palpable perversions of the text of Scripture just nowunder consideration is this:--that they are never vouched for by theoldest documents generally, but only by a few of them, --two, three, ormore of the oldest documents being observed as a rule to yieldconflicting testimony, (which in this subject-matter is in factcontradictory). In this way the oldest witnesses nearly always refuteone another, and indeed dispose of one another's evidence almost asoften as that evidence is untrustworthy. And now I may resume andproceed. 

I say then that it is an adequate, as well as a singularly satisfactoryexplanation of the greater part of those gross depravations of Scripturewhich admit of no legitimate excuse, to attribute them, howeverremotely, to those licentious free-handlers of the text who are declaredby their contemporaries to have falsified, mutilated, interpolated, andin whatever other way to have corrupted the Gospel; whose blasphemousproductions of necessity must once have obtained a very widecirculation: and indeed will never want some to recommend and upholdthem. What with those who like Basilides and his followers invented aGospel of their own:--what with those who with the Ebionites and theValentinians interpolated and otherwise perverted one of the fourGospels until it suited their own purposes:--what with those who likeMarcion shamefully maimed and mutilated the inspired text:--there musthave been a large mass of corruption festering in the Church throughoutthe immediate post-Apostolic age. But even this is not all. There werethose who like Tatian constructed Diatessarons, or attempts to weave thefourfold narrative into one, --'Lives of Christ, ' so to speak;--andproductions of this class were multiplied to an extraordinary extent, and as we certainly know, not only found their way into the remotestcorners of the Church, but established themselves there. And will anyone affect surprise if occasionally a curious scholar of those days wasimposed upon by the confident assurance that by no means were those manysources of light to be indiscriminately rejected, but that there must besome truth in what they advanced? In a singularly uncritical age, theseductive simplicity of one reading, --the interesting fullness ofanother, --the plausibility of a thirds--was quite sure to recommend itsacceptance amongst those many eclectic recensions which were constructedby long since forgotten Critics, from which the most depraved andworthless of our existing texts and versions have been derived. Emphatically condemned by Ecclesiastical authority, and hopelesslyoutvoted by the universal voice of Christendom, buried under fifteencenturies, the corruptions I speak of survive at the present day chieflyin that little handful of copies which, calamitous to relate, the schoolof Lachmann and Tischendorf and Tregelles look upon as oracular: and inconformity with which many scholars are for refashioning the Evangelicaltext under the mistaken title of 'Old Readings. ' And now to proceed withmy argument. 

§ 2. 

Numerous as were the heresies of the first two or three centuries of theChristian era, they almost all agreed in this;--that they involved adenial of the eternal Godhead of the Son of Man: denied that He isessentially very and eternal God. This fundamental heresy found itselfhopelessly confuted by the whole tenor of the Gospel, which neverthelessit assailed with restless ingenuity: and many are the traces alike ofits impotence and of its malice which have survived to our own times. Itis a memorable circumstance that it is precisely those very texts whichrelate either to the eternal generation of the Son, --to HisIncarnation, --or to the circumstances of His Nativity, --which havesuffered most severely, and retain to this hour traces of having been invarious ways tampered with. I do not say that Heretics were the onlyoffenders here. I am inclined to suspect that the orthodox were as muchto blame as the impugners of the Truth. But it was at least with a piousmotive that the latter tampered with the Deposit. They did but imitatethe example set them by the assailing party. It is indeed the calamitousconsequence of extravagances in one direction that they are observedever to beget excesses in the opposite quarter. Accordingly the piety ofthe primitive age did not think it wrong to fortify the Truth by theinsertion, suppression, or substitution of a few words in any place fromwhich danger was apprehended. In this way, I am persuaded, many anunwarrantable 'reading' is to be explained. I do not mean that 'marginalglosses have frequently found their way into the text':--that points toa wholly improbable account of the matter. I mean, that expressionswhich seemed to countenance heretical notions, or at least which hadbeen made a bad use of by evil men, were deliberately falsified. But Imust not further anticipate the substance of the next chapter. 

The men who first systematically depraved the text of Scripture, were aswe now must know the heresiarchs Basilides (fl. 134), Valentinus (fl. 140), and Marcion (fl. 150): three names which Origen is observed almostinvariably to enumerate together. Basilides[449] and Valentinus[450] areeven said to have written Gospels of their own. Such a statement is notto be severely pressed: but the general fact is established by thenotices, and those are exceedingly abundant, which the writers againstHeresies have cited and left on record. All that is intended by suchstatements is that these old heretics retained, altered, transposed, just so much as they pleased of the fourfold Gospel: and further, thatthey imported whatever additional matter they saw fit:--not that theyrejected the inspired text entirely, and substituted something of theirown invention in its place[451]. And though, in the case of Valentinus, it has been contended, apparently with reason, that he probably did notindividually go to the same length as Basilides, --who, as well inrespect of St. Paul's Epistles as of the four Gospels, was evidently agrievous offender[452], --yet, since it is clear that his principalfollowers, who were also his contemporaries, put forth a compositionwhich they were pleased to style the 'Gospel of Truth[453], ' it is idleto dispute as to the limit of the rashness and impiety of the individualauthor of the heresy. Let it be further stated, as no slightconfirmation of the view already hazarded as to the probable contents ofthe (so-called) Gospels of Basilides and of Valentinus, that oneparticular Gospel is related to have been preferred before the rest andspecially adopted by certain schools of ancient Heretics. Thus, astrangely mutilated and depraved text of St. Matthew's Gospel is relatedto have found especial favour with the Ebionites[454], with whom theCorinthians are associated by Epiphanius: though Irenaeus seems to saythat it was St. Mark's Gospel which was adopted by the hereticalfollowers of Cerinthus. Marcion's deliberate choice of St. Luke's Gospelis sufficiently well known. The Valentinians appropriated to themselvesSt. John[455]. Heracleon, the most distinguished disciple of thisschool, is deliberately censured by Origen for having corrupted the textof the fourth Evangelist in many places[456]. A considerable portion ofhis Commentary on St. John has been preserved to us: and a very strangeproduction it is found to have been. 

Concerning Marcion, who is a far more conspicuous personage, it will benecessary to speak more particularly. He has left a mark on the text ofScripture of which traces are distinctly recognizable at the presentday[457]. A great deal more is known about him than about any otherindividual of his school. Justin Martyr and Irenaeus wrote against him:besides Origen and Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian in the West[458], and Epiphanius in the East, elaborately refuted his teaching, and giveus large information as to his method of handling Scripture. 

Another writer of this remote time who, as I am prone to think, musthave exercised sensible influence on the text of Scripture was Ammoniusof Alexandria. 

But Tatian beyond every other early writer of antiquity [appears to meto have caused alterations in the Sacred Text. ]

It is obviously no answer to anything that has gone before to insistthat the Evangelium of Marcion (for instance), so far as it isrecognizable by the notices of it given by Epiphanius, can very rarelyindeed be shewn to have resembled any extant MS. Of the Gospels. Let itbe even freely granted that many of the charges brought against it byEpiphanius with so much warmth, collapse when closely examined andseverely sifted. It is to be remembered that Marcion's Gospel was knownto be an heretical production: one of the many creations of the Gnosticage, --it must have been universally execrated and abhorred by faithfulmen. Besides this lacerated text of St. Luke's Gospel, there was anEbionite recension of St. Matthew: a Cerinthian exhibition of St. Mark:a Valentinian perversion of St. John. And we are but insisting that theeffect of so many corruptions of the Truth, industriously propagatedwithin far less than 100 years of the date of the inspired veritiesthemselves, must needs have made itself sensibly felt. Add the notoriousfact, that in the second and third centuries after the Christian era thetext of the Gospels is found to have been grossly corrupted even inorthodox quarters, --and that traces of these gross corruptions arediscoverable in certain circles to the present hour, --and it seemsimpossible not to connect the two phenomena together. The wonder ratheris that, at the end of so many centuries, we are able distinctly torecognize any evidence whatever. 

The proneness of these early Heretics severally to adopt one of the fourGospels for their own, explains why there is no consistency observablein the corruptions they introduced into the text. It also explains thebringing into one Gospel of things which of right clearly belong toanother--as in St. Mark iii. 14 [Greek: ous kai apostolous ônomasen]. 

I do not propose (as will presently appear) in this way to explain anyconsiderable number of the actual corruptions of the text: but in noother way is it possible to account for such systematic mutilations asare found in Cod. B, --such monstrous additions as are found in Cod. D, --such gross perturbations as are continually met with in one or more, but never in all, of the earliest Codexes extant, as well as in theoldest Versions and Fathers. 

The plan of Tatian's Diatessaron will account for a great deal. Heindulges in frigid glosses, as when about the wine at the feast of Canain Galilee he reads that the servants knew 'because they had drawn thewater'; or in tasteless and stupid amplifications, as in the going backof the Centurion to his house. I suspect that the [Greek: ti me erôtasperi tou agathou], 'Why do you ask me about that which is good?' is tobe referred to some of these tamperers with the Divine Word. 

§ 3. 

These professors of 'Gnosticism' held no consistent theory. The twoleading problems on which they exercised their perverse ingenuity arefound to have been (1) the origin of Matter, and (2) the origin of Evil. 

(1) They taught that the world's artificer ('the Word') was Himself acreature of 'the Father[459]. ' Encountered on the threshold of theGospel by the plain declaration that, 'In the beginning was the Word:and the Word was with God: and the Word was God': and presently, 'Allthings were made by Him';--they were much exercised. The expedients towhich they had recourse were certainly extraordinary. That 'Beginning'(said Valentinus) was the first thing which 'the Father' created: whichHe called 'Only begotten Son, ' and also 'God': and in whom he implantedthe germ of all things. Seminally, that is, whatsoever subsequently cameinto being was in Him. 'The Word' (he said) was a product of thisfirst-created thing. And 'All things were made by Him, ' because in 'theWord' was the entire essence of all the subsequent worlds (Aeons), towhich he assigned forms[460]. From which it is plain that, according toValentinus, 'the Word' was distinct from 'the Son'; who was not theworld's Creator. Both alike, however, he acknowledged to be 'God[461]':but only, as we have seen already, using the term in an inferior sense. 

Heracleon, commenting on St. John i. 3, insists that 'all things' canbut signify this perishable world and the things that are therein: notessences of a loftier nature. Accordingly, after the words 'and withoutHim was not anything made, ' he ventures to interpolate this clause, --'ofthe things that are in the world and in the creation[462]. ' True, thatthe Evangelist had declared with unmistakable emphasis, 'and without Himwas not anything' (literally, 'was not even one thing') 'made that wasmade. ' But instead of 'not even one thing, ' the Valentinian Gnosticsappear to have written 'nothing[463]'; and the concluding clause 'thatwas made, ' because he found it simply unmanageable, Valentinus boldlysevered from its context, making it the beginning of a fresh sentence. With the Gnostics, ver. 4 is found to have begun thus, --'What was madein Him was life. '

Of the change of [Greek: oude hen] into [Greek: ouden][464] tracessurvive in many of the Fathers[465]: but [Symbol: Aleph] and D are theonly Uncial MSS. Which are known to retain that corrupt reading. --Theuncouth sentence which follows ([Greek: ho gegonen en autô zôê ên]), singular to relate, was generally tolerated, became established in manyquarters, and meets us still at every step. It was evidently put forwardso perseveringly by the Gnostics, with whom it was a kind of article ofthe faith, that the orthodox at last became too familiar with it. Epiphanius, though he condemns it, once employs it[466]. Occurring firstin a fragment of Valentinus[467]: next, in the Commentary ofHeracleon[468]: after that, in the pages of Theodotus the Gnostic (A. D. 192)[469]: then, in an exposure by Hippolytus of the tenets of theNaäseni[470], (a subsection of the same school);--the baseness of itsorigin at least is undeniable. But inasmuch as the words may be made tobear a loyal interpretation, the heretical construction of St. John i. 3was endured by the Church for full 200 years. Clemens Alex, is observedthrice to adopt it[471]: Origen[472] and Eusebius[473] fall into itrepeatedly. It is found in Codd. [Symbol: Aleph]CD: apparently in Cod. A, where it fills one line exactly. Cyril comments largely on it[474]. But as fresh heresies arose which the depraved text seemed to favour, the Church bestirred herself and remonstrated. It suited the Arians andthe Macedonians[475], who insisted that the Holy Ghost is a creature. The former were refuted by Epiphanius, who points out that the sense isnot complete until you have read the words [Greek: ho gegonen]. A freshsentence (he says) begins at [Greek: En autô zôê ên][476]. Chrysostomdeals with the latter. 'Let us beware of putting the full stop' (hesays) 'at the words [Greek: oude hen], --as do the heretics. In order tomake out that the Spirit is a creature, they read [Greek: ho gegonen enautô zôê ên]: by which means the Evangelist's meaning becomesunintelligible[477]. '

But in the meantime, Valentinus, whose example was followed by Theodotusand by at least two of the Gnostic sects against whom Hippolytus wrote, had gone further. The better to conceal St. John's purpose, theheresiarch falsified the inspired text. In the place of, 'What was madein Him, was life, ' he substituted 'What was made in Him, _is_ life. 'Origen had seen copies so depraved, and judged the reading notaltogether improbable. Clement, on a single occasion, even adopted it. It was the approved reading of the Old Latin versions, --a memorableindication, by the way, of a quarter from which the Old Latin derivedtheir texts, --which explains why it is found in Cyprian, Hilary, andAugustine; and why Ambrose has so elaborately vindicated itssufficiency. It also appears in the Sahidic and in Cureton's Syriac; butnot in the Peshitto, nor in the Vulgate. [Nor in the Bohairic] In themeantime, the only Greek Codexes which retain this singular trace of theGnostic period at the present day, are Codexes [Symbol: Aleph] and D. 

§ 4. 

[We may now take some more instances to shew the effects of theoperations of Heretics. ]

The good Shepherd in a certain place (St. John x. 14, 15) saysconcerning Himself--'I know My sheep and am known of Mine, even as theFather knoweth Me and I know the Father': by which words He hints at amysterious knowledge as subsisting between Himself and those that areHis. And yet it is worth observing that whereas He describes theknowledge which subsists between the Father and the Son in languagewhich implies that it is strictly identical on either side, He iscareful to distinguish between the knowledge which subsists between thecreature and the Creator by slightly varying the expression, --thusleaving it to be inferred that it is not, neither indeed can be, oneither side the same. God knoweth us with a perfect knowledge. Ourso-called 'knowledge' of God is a thing different not only in degree, but in kind[478]. Hence the peculiar form which the sentenceassumes[479]:--[Greek: ginôskô ta ema, kai ginôskomai hypo tôn emôn]. And this delicate diversity of phrase has been faithfully retained alldown the ages, being witnessed to at this hour by every MS. In existenceexcept four now well known to us: viz. [Symbol: Aleph]BDL. The Syriacalso retains it, --as does Macarius[480], Gregory Naz. [481], Chrysostom[482], Cyril[483], Theodoret[484], Maximus[485]. It is a pointwhich really admits of no rational doubt: for does any one suppose thatif St. John had written 'Mine own know Me, ' 996 MSS. Out of 1000 at theend of 1, 800 years would exhibit, 'I am known of Mine'?

But in fact it is discovered that these words of our Lord experienceddepravation at the hands of the Manichaean heretics. Besides invertingthe clauses, (and so making it appear that such knowledge begins on theside of Man. ) Manes (A. D. 261) obliterated the peculiarity aboveindicated. Quoting from his own fabricated Gospel, he acquaints us withthe form in which these words were exhibited in that mischievousproduction: viz. [Greek: ginôskei me ta ema, kai ginôskô ta ema]. Thiswe learn from Epiphanius and from Basil[486]. Cyril, in a paper where hemakes clear reference to the same heretical Gospel, insists that theorder of knowledge must needs be the reverse of what the hereticspretended[487]. --But then, it is found that certain of the orthodoxcontented themselves with merely reversing the clauses, and so restoringthe true order of the spiritual process discussed--regardless of theexquisite refinement of expression to which attention was called at theoutset. Copies must once have abounded which represented our Lord assaying, 'I know My own and My own know Me, even as the Father knoweth Meand I know the Father'; for it is the order of the Old Latin, Bohairic, Sahidic, Ethiopic, Lewis, Georgian, Slavonic, and Gothic, though not ofthe Peshitto, Harkleian, and Armenian; and Eusebius[488], Nonnus, andeven Basil[489] so read the place. But no token of this clearly corruptreading survives in any known copy of the Gospels, --except [Symbol:Aleph]BDL. Will it be believed that nevertheless all the recent Editorsof Scripture since Lachmann insist on obliterating this refinement oflanguage, and going back to the reading which the Church has long sincedeliberately rejected, --to the manifest injury of the deposit? 'Manywords about a trifle, '--some will be found to say. Yes, to deny God'struth is a very facile proceeding. Its rehabilitation always requiresmany words. I request only that the affinity between [Symbol: Aleph]BDLand the Latin copies which universally exhibit this disfigurement[490], may be carefully noted. [Strange to say, the true reading receives nonotice from Westcott and Hort, or the Revisers[491]]. 

§ 5. 

Doctrinal. 

The question of Matrimony was one of those on which the early hereticsfreely dogmatized. Saturninus[492] (A. D. 120) and his followers taughtthat marriage was a production of Hell. 

We are not surprised after this to find that those places in the Gospelwhich bear on the relation between man and wife exhibit traces ofperturbation. I am not asserting that the heretics themselves depravedthe text. I do but state two plain facts: viz. (1) That whereas in thesecond century certain heretical tenets on the subject of Marriageprevailed largely, and those who advocated as well as those who opposedsuch teaching relied chiefly on the Gospel for their proofs: (2) It isaccordingly found that not only does the phenomenon of 'variousreadings' prevail in those places of the Gospel which bear most nearlyon the disputed points, but the 'readings' are exactly of thatsuspicious kind which would naturally result from a tampering with thetext by men who had to maintain, or else to combat, opinions of acertain class. I proceed to establish what I have been saying by someactual examples[493]. 

 St. Matt. Xix. 29. [Greek: ê gynaika, ] --BD abc Orig. 

 St. Mark x. 29. [Greek: ê gynaika, ] --[Symbol: Aleph]BD[Symbol: Delta], abc, &c. 

 St. Luke xviii. 29. [Greek: ê gynaika], all allow it. 

[Greek: hotan de legê; hoti "pas hostis aphêke gynaika, " ou toutophêsin, hôste aplôs diaspasthai tous gamous, k. T. L. ] Chrys. Vii. 636 E. 

[Greek: Paradeigmatisai] (in St. Matt. I. 19) is another of theexpressions which have been disturbed by the same controversy. I suspectthat Origen is the author (see the heading of the Scholion in Cramer'sCatenae) of a certain uncritical note which Eusebius reproduces in his'quaestiones ad Stephanum[494]' on the difference between [Greek:deigmatisai] and [Greek: paradeigmatisai]; and that with him originatedthe substitution of the uncompounded for the compounded verb in thisplace. Be that as it may, Eusebius certainly read [Greek:paradeigmatisai] (Dem. 320), with all the uncials but two (BZ): all thecursives but one (I). Will it be believed that Lachmann, Tregelles, Tischendorf, Alford, Westcott and Hort, on such slender evidence as thatare prepared to reconstruct the text of St. Matthew's Gospel?

It sounds so like trifling with a reader's patience to invite hisattention to an elaborate discussion of most of the changes introducedinto the text by Tischendorf and his colleagues, that I knowingly passover many hundreds of instances where I am nevertheless perfectly wellaware of my own strength, --my opponent's weakness. Such discussions infact become unbearable when the points in dispute are confessedlytrivial. No one however will deny that when three consecutive words ofour Lord are challenged they are worth contending for. We are invitedthen to believe (St. Luke xxii. 67-8) that He did not utter thebracketed words in the following sentence, --'If I tell you, ye will notbelieve; and if I ask you, ye will not answer (Me, nor let Me go). ' Now, I invite the reader to inquire for the grounds of this assertion. Fifteen of the uncials (including AD), and every known cursive, besidesall the Latin and all the Syriac copies recognize the bracketed words. They are only missing in [Symbol: Aleph]BLT and their ally the Bohairic. Are we nevertheless to be assured that the words are to be regarded asspurious? Let the reader then be informed that Marcion left out sevenwords more (viz. All from, 'And if I ask you' to the end), and will hedoubt either that the words are genuine or that their disappearance fromfour copies of bad character, as proved by their constant evidence, andfrom one version is sufficiently explained?

FOOTNOTES:

[441] [Greek: pseudônymou gnôseôs] 1 Tim. Vi. 20. 

[442] 1 Tim. Iv. 1-3. 

[443] ii. 17. 

[444] Acts xx. 29. 

[445] Rev. Ii. 6. 

[446] Rev. Ii. 15. 

[447] Rev. Ii. 13. 

[448] Chiefly the Low Latin amongst them. Tradit. Text. Chap. Vii. P. 137. 

[449] 'Ausus fuit et Basilides scribere Evangelium, et suo illud nominetitulare. '--Orig. Opp. Iii. 933 c: Iren. I. 23: Clem. Al. 409, 426, 506, 509, 540, 545: Tertull. C. 46: Epiph. 24: Theodor. I. 4. 

[450] 'Evangelium habet etiam suum, praeter haec nostra' (DePraescript. , ad calcem). 

[451] Origen (commenting on St. Luke x. 25-28) says, --[Greek: tauta deeirêtai prôs tois apo Oualentinou, kai Basilidou, kai tous apoMarkiônos. Echousi gar kai autoi tas lexeis en tôi kath' heautouseuangeliôi]. Opp. Iii. 981 A. 

[452] 'Licet non sint digni fide, qui fidem primam irritam fecerunt, Marcionem loquor et Basilidem et omnes Haereticos qui vetus laniantTestamentum: tamen eos aliqua ex parte ferremus, si saltem in novocontinerent manus suas; et non auderent Christi (ut ipsi iactitant) boniDei Filii, vel Evangelistas violare, vel Apostolos. Nunc vero, quum etEvangelia eius dissipaverint; et Apostolorum epistolas, non ApostolorumChristi fecerunt esse, sed proprias; miror quomodo sibi Christianorumnomen audeant vindicare. Ut enim de caeteris Epistolis taceam, (dequibus quidquid contrarium suo dogmati viderant, evaserunt, nonnullasintegras repudiandas crediderunt); ad Timotheum videlicet utramque, adHebraeos, et ad Titum, quam nunc conamur exponere. ' Hieron. Praef. AdTitum. 

[453] 'Hi vero, qui sunt a Valentino, exsistentes extra omnem timorem, suas conscriptiones praeferentes, plura habere gloriantur, quam sintipsa Evangelia. Siquidem in tantum processerunt audaciae, uti quod abhis non olim conscriptum est, Veritatis Evangelium titulent. ' Iren. Iii. Xi. 9. 

[454] See, by all means, Epiphanius, Haer. Xxx. C. Xiii; also c. Iii. 

[455] 'Tanta est circa Evangelia haec firmitas, ut et ipsi haereticitestimonium reddant eis, et ex ipsis egrediens unusquisque eorum conetursuam confirmare doctrinam. Ebionaei etenim eo Evangelio quod estsecundum Matthaeum, solo utentes, ex illo ipso convincuntur, non rectepraesumentes de Domino. Marcion autem id quod est secundum Lucamcircumcidens, ex his quae adhuc servantur penes eum, blasphemus in solumexistentem Deum ostenditur. Qui autem Iesum separant a Christo, etimpassibilem perseverasse Christum, passum vero Iesum dicunt, id quodsecundum Marcum est praeferentes Evangelium; cum amore veritatislegentes illud, corrigi possunt. Hi autem qui a Valentino sunt, eo quodest secundum Joannem plenissime utentes, ' &c. Iren. Iii. Xi. 7. 

[456] [Greek: Hêrakleôn, ho tês Oualentinou scholês dokimôtatos]. Clem. Al. P. 595. Of Heracleon it is expressly related by Origen that hedepraved the text of the Gospel. Origen says (iv. 66) that Heracleon(regardless of the warning in Prov. Xxx. 6) added to the text of St. John i. 3 (vii. After the words [Greek: egeneto oude en]) the words[Greek: tôn en tô kosmôi, kai tê ktisei]. Heracleon clearly read [Greek:ho gegonen en autô zôê ên]. See Orig. Iv. 64. In St. John ii. 19, for[Greek: en trisi], he wrote [Greek: en tritê]. He also read (St. Johniv. 18) (for [Greek: pente]), [Greek: ex andras esches]. 

[457] Celsus having objected that believers had again and againfalsified the text of the Gospel, refashioning it, in order to meet theobjections of assailants, Origen replies: [Greek: Metacharaxantas de toeuangelion allous ouk oida, hê tous apo Markiônos, kai tous apoOualentinou, oimai de kai tous apo Loukanou. Touto de legomenon ou toulogou estin egklêma, alla tôn tolmêsantôn rhadiourgêsai ta euangelia]. Opp. I. 411 B. 

[458] De Praesc. Haer. C. 51. 

[459] [Greek: Outos de dêmiourgos kai poiêtês toude tou pantos kosmoukai tôn en autô ... Estai men katadeesteros tou teleiou Theou ... Ate dêkai gennêtos ôn, kai ouk agennêtos]. Ptolemaeus, ap. Epiph. P. 217. Heracleon saw in the nobleman of Capernaum an image of the Demiurge who, [Greek: basilikos ônomasthê hoionei mikros tis basileus, hypo katholikoubasileôs tetagmenos epi mikras basileias], p. 373. 

[460] [Greek: O Iôannês ... Boulomenos eipein tên tôn holôn genesin, kath' ên ta panta proebalen ho Patêr, archên tina hypotithetai, toprôton gennêthen hypo tou theou, hon dê kai huion Monogenê kai Theonkeklêken, en hô ta panta ho Patêr proebale spermatikôs. Hypo de toutouphêsi ton Logon probeblêsthai, kai en autô tên holên tôn Aiônôn ousian, ên autos hysteron emorphôsen ho Logos.... Panta di' autou egeneto, kaichôris autou egeneto oude hen; pasi gar tois met' auton Aiôsi morphêskai geneseôs aitios ho Logos egeneto]. 

[461] [Greek: En tô Patri kai ek tou Patros hê archê, kai ek tês archêsho Logos. Kalôs oun eipen; en archê ên ho Logos; ên gar en tô Huiô. Kaiho Logos ên pros ton Theon; kai gar hê 'Archê; kai Theos ên ho Logos, akolouthôs. To gar ek Theou gennêthen Theos estin]. --Ibid. P. 102. Compare the Excerpt. Theod. _ap_. Clem. Al. C. Vi. P. 968. 

[462] _Ap_. Orig. 938. 9. 

[463] So Theodotus (p. 980), and so Ptolemaeus (_ap. _ Epiph. I. 217), and so Heracleon (_ap. _ Orig. P. 954). Also Meletius the Semi-Arian(_ap. _ Epiph. I. 882). 

[464] See The Traditional Text, p. 113. 

[465] Clem. Al. Always has [Greek: oude hen] (viz. Pp. 134, 156, 273, 769, 787, 803, 812, 815, 820): but when he quotes the Gnostics (p. 838)he has [Greek: ouden]. Cyril, while writing his treatise De Trinitate, read [Greek: ouden] in his copy. Eusebius, for example, has [Greek: oudehen], fifteen times; [Greek: ouden] only twice, viz. Praep. 322: Esai. 529. 

[466] Opp. Ii. 74. 

[467] _Ap. _ Iren. 102. 

[468] Ibid. 940. 

[469] _Ap. _ Clem. Al. 968, 973. 

[470] Philosoph. 107. But not when he is refuting the tenets of thePeratae: [Greek: oude hen, ho gegonen. En autô zôê estin. En autô de, phêsin, hê Eua gegonen, hê Eua zôê]. Ibid. P. 134. 

[471] Opp. 114, 218, 1009. 

[472] 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: Haer. V. 151. 

[473] Psalm. 146, 235, 245: Marcell. 237. Not so in Ecl. 100: Praep. 322, 540. 

[474] [Greek: Anagkaiôs phêsin, "ho gegonen, eni autô zôê ên. " ou mononphêsi, "di autou ta panta egeneto, " alla kai ei ti gegonen ên en autô hêzôê. Tout' estin, ho monogenês tou Theo logos, hê pantôn archê, kaisystasis horatôn te kai aoratôn ... Autos gar hyparchôn hê kata physinzôê, to einai kai zên kai kineisthai polytropôs tois ousi charisetai]. Opp. Iv. 49 e. 

He understood the Evangelist to declare concerning the [Greek: Logos], that, [Greek: panta di' autou egeneto, kai ên en tois genomenois hôszôê]. Ibid. 60 c. 

[475] [Greek: Outoi de boulontai auto einai ktisma ktismatos. Phasi gar, hoti panto di' autou gegone, kai chôris autou egeneto oude hen. Ara, phasi, kai to Pneuma ek tôn poiêmatôn hyparchei, epeidê panta di' autougegone]. Opp. I. 741. Which is the teaching of Eusebius, Marcell. 333-4. The Macedonians were an offshoot of the Arians. 

[476] i. 778 D, 779 B. See also ii. 80. 

[477] Opp. Viii. 40. 

[478] Consider 1 John ii. 3, 4: and read Basil ii. 188 b, c. See p. 207, note 4. Consider also Gal. Iv. 9. So Cyril Al. [iv. 655 a], [Greek: kaiproegnô mallon hê egnôsthê par' hêmôn]. 

[479] Chrysostom alone seems to have noticed this:--[Greek: hina mê têsgnôseôs ison ton metron nomisêis, akouson pôs diorthoutai auto têiepagôgêi; ginôskô ta ema, phêsi, kai ginôskomai hypo tôn emôn. All' oukisê hê gnôsis, k. T. L. ] viii. 353 d. 

[480] P. 38. (Gall. Vii. 26. )

[481] i. 298, 613. 

[482] viii. 351, 353 d and e. 

[483] iv. 652 c, 653 a, 654 d. 

[484] i. 748: iv. 374, 550. 

[485] In Dionys. Ar. Ii. 192. 

[486] [Greek: Phêsi de ho autos Manês ... Ta ema probata ginôskei me, kai ginôskô ta ema probata]. (Epiphan. I. 697. )--Again, --[Greek:hêrpasen ho hairetikos pros tên idian kataskeuên tês blasphêmias. Idou, phêsin, eirêtai; hoti ginôasousi] (lower down, [Greek: ginôskei])[Greek: me ta ema, kai ginôskô ta ema]. (Basil ii. 188 a, b. )

[487] [Greek: En taxei tê oikeia kai prepôdestatê tôn pragmatôn ekastatitheis. Ou gar ephê, ginôskei me ta ema, kai ginôskô ta ema, all'heauton egnôkata proteron eispherei ta idia probata, eith' outôsgnôsthêsesthai phêsi par autôn ... Ouch hêmeis auton epegnôkamen prôtoi, epegnô de hêmas prôton autos ... Ouch hêmeis êrxametha tou pragmatos, all' ho ek Theou Theos monogenês]. --iv. 654 d, 655 a. (Note, that thispassage appears in a mutilated form, viz. 121 words are omitted, in theCatena of Corderius, p. 267, --where it is wrongly assigned toChrysostom: an instructive instance. )

[488] In Ps. 489: in Es. 509: Theoph. 185, 258, 260. 

[489] ii. 188 a:--which is the more remarkable, because Basil proceedsexquisitely to shew (1886) that man's 'knowledge' of God consists in hiskeeping of God's Commandments. (1 John ii. 3, 4. ) See p. 206, note 1. 

[490] So Jerome, iv. 484: vii. 455. Strange, that neither Ambrose norAugustine should quote the place. 

[491] See Revision Revised, p. 220. 

[492] Or Saturnilus--[Greek: to de gamein kai gennan apo tou Satanaphêsin einai]. P. 245, l. 38. So Marcion, 253. 

[493] [The MS. Breaks off here, with references to St. Mark x. 7, Eph. V. 31-2 (on which the Dean had accumulated a large array of references), St. Mark x. 29-30, with a few references, but no more. I have not hadyet time or strength to work out the subject. ]

[494] Mai, iv. 221. 

CHAPTER XIV. 

CAUSES OF CORRUPTION CHIEFLY INTENTIONAL. 

X. Corruption by the Orthodox. 

§ 1. 

Another cause why, in very early times, the Text of the Gospelsunderwent serious depravation, was mistaken solicitude on the part ofthe ancient orthodox for the purity of the Catholic faith. Thesepersons, like certain of the moderns, Beza for example, evidently didnot think it at all wrong to tamper with the inspired Text. If anyexpression seemed to them to have a dangerous tendency, they altered it, or transplanted it, or removed it bodily from the sacred page. About theuncritical nature of what they did, they entertained no suspicion: aboutthe immorality of the proceeding, they evidently did not troublethemselves at all. On the contrary, the piety of the motive seems tohave been held to constitute a sufficient excuse for any amount oflicence. The copies which had undergone this process of castigation wereeven styled 'corrected, '--and doubtless were popularly looked upon as'the correct copies' [like our 'critical texts']. An illustration ofthis is afforded by a circumstance mentioned by Epiphanius. 

He states (ii. 36) that the orthodox, out of jealousy for the Lord'sDivinity, eliminated from St. Luke xix. 41 the record that our Saviour'wept. ' We will not pause to inquire what this statement may be worth. But when the same Father adds, --'In the uncorrected copies ([Greek: entois adiorthôtois antigraphois]) is found "He wept, "' Epiphanius isinstructive. Perfectly well aware that the expression is genuine, hegoes on to state that 'Irenaeus quoted it in his work against Heresies, when he had to confute the error of the Docetae[495]. ' 'Nevertheless, 'Epiphanius adds, 'the orthodox through fear erased the record. '

So then, the process of 'correction' was a critical process conducted onutterly erroneous principles by men who knew nothing whatever aboutTextual Criticism. Such recensions of the Text proved simply fatal tothe Deposit. To 'correct' was in this and such like cases simply to'corrupt. '

Codexes B[Symbol: Aleph]D may be regarded as specimens of Codexes whichhave once and again passed through the hands of such a corrector or[Greek: diorthôtês]. 

St. Luke (ii. 40) records concerning the infant Saviour that 'the childgrew, and waxed strong in spirit. ' By repeating the selfsame expressionwhich already, --viz. In chap. I. 80, --had been applied to the Childhoodof the Forerunner[496], it was clearly the design of the Author ofScripture to teach that the Word 'made flesh' submitted to the same lawsof growth and increase as every other Son of Adam. The body 'grew, '--thespiritual part 'waxed strong. ' This statement was nevertheless laid holdof by the enemies of Christianity. How can it be pretended (they asked)that He was 'perfect God' ([Greek: teleios Theos]), of whom it isrelated in respect of His spirit that he 'waxed strong[497]'? Theconsequence might have been foreseen. Certain of the orthodox wereill-advised enough to erase the word [Greek: pneumati] from the copiesof St. Luke ii. 40; and lo, at the end of 1, 500 years, four 'corrected'copies, two Versions, one Greek Father, survive to bear witness to theancient fraud. No need to inquire which, what, and who these be. 

But because it is [Symbol: Aleph]BDL, Origen[498], and the Latin, theEgyptian and Lewis which are without the word [Greek: pneumati], Lachmann, Tregelles, Tischendorf, and the Revisers jump to theconclusion that [Greek: pneumati] is a spurious accretion to the Text. They ought to reverse their proceeding; and recognize in the evidenceone more indication of the untrustworthiness of the witnesses. For, --howthen is it supposed that the word ([Greek: pneumati]) ever obtained itsfooting in the Gospel? For all reply we are assured that it has beenimported hither from St. Luke i. 80. But, we rejoin, How does theexistence of the phrase [Greek: ekrataiouto pneumati] in i. 80 explainits existence in ii. 40, in every known copy of the Gospels except four, if in these 996 places, suppose, it be an interpolation? This is whathas to be explained. Is it credible that all the remaining uncials, andevery known cursive copy, besides all the lectionaries, should have beencorrupted in this way: and that the truth should survive exclusively atthis time only in the remaining four; viz. In B[Symbol: Aleph], --thesixth century Cod. D, --and the eighth century Cod. L?

When then, and where did the work of depravation take place? It musthave been before the sixth century, because Leontius of Cyprus[499]quotes it three times and discusses the expression at length:--beforethe fifth, because, besides Cod. A, Cyril[500] Theodoret[501] andps. -Caesarius[502] recognize the word:--before the fourth, becauseEpiphanius[503], Theodore of Mopsuestia[504], and the Gothic versionhave it:--before the third, before nearly all of the second century, because it is found in the Peshitto. What more plain than that we havebefore us one other instance of the injudicious zeal of the orthodox?one more sample of the infelicity of modern criticism?

§ 2. 

Theodotus and his followers fastened on the first part of St. John viii. 40, when they pretended to shew from Scripture that Christ is mereMan[505]. I am persuaded that the reading 'of My Father[506], '--withwhich Origen[507], Epiphanius[508], Athanasius[509], Chrysostom[510], Cyril Alex. [511], and Theodoret[512] prove to have been acquainted, --wassubstituted by some of the orthodox in this place, with the piousintention of providing a remedy for the heretical teaching of theiropponents. At the present day only six cursive copies are known toretain this trace of a corruption of Scripture which must date from thesecond century. 

We now reach a most remarkable instance. It will be remembered that St. John in his grand preface does not rise to the full height of hissublime argument until he reaches the eighteenth verse. He had said(ver. 14) that 'the Word was made flesh, ' &c. ; a statement whichValentinus was willing to admit. But, as we have seen, the heresiarchand his followers denied that 'the Word' is also 'the Son' of God. As ifin order to bar the door against this pretence, St. John announces (ver. 18) that 'the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, hehath declared him': thus establishing the identity of the Word and theOnly begotten Son. What else could the Valentinians do with so plain astatement, but seek to deprave it? Accordingly, the very first time St. John i. 18 is quoted by any of the ancients, it is accompanied by thestatement that the Valentinians in order to prove that the 'onlybegotten' is 'the Beginning, ' and is 'God, ' appeal to the words, --'theonly begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father[513], ' &c. Inasmuch, said they, as the Father willed to become known to the worlds, theSpirit of Gnosis produced the 'only begotten' 'Gnosis, ' and thereforegave birth to 'Gnosis, ' that is to 'the Son': in order that by 'the Son''the Father' might be made known. While then that 'only begotten Son'abode 'in the bosom of the Father, ' He caused that here upon earthshould be seen, alluding to ver. 14, one 'as the only begotten Son. ' Inwhich, by the way, the reader is requested to note that the author ofthe Excerpta Theodoti (a production of the second century) reads St. John i. 18 as we do. 

I have gone into all these strange details, --derived, let it beremembered, from documents which carry us back to the former half of thesecond century, --because in no other way is the singular phenomenonwhich attends the text of St. John i. 18 to be explained and accountedfor. Sufficiently plain and easy of transmission as it is, this verse ofScripture is observed to exhibit perturbations which are evenextraordinary. Irenaeus once writes [Greek: ho] [?] [Greek: monogenêsuios]: once, [Greek: ho] [?] [Greek: monogenês uios Theos]: once, [Greek: ho monogenês uios Theou][514]: Clemens Alex. , [Greek: homonogenês uios Theos monos][515]; which must be very nearly the readingof the Codex from which the text of the Vercelli Copy of the Old Latinwas derived[516]. Eusebius four times writes [Greek: ho monogenêsuios][517]: twice, [Greek: monogenês Theos][518]: and on one occasiongives his reader the choice of either expression, explaining why bothmay stand[519]. Gregory Nyss. [520] and Basil[521], though they recognizethe usual reading of the place, are evidently vastly more familiar withthe reading [Greek: ho monogenês Theos][522]: for Basil adopts theexpression thrice[523], and Gregory nearly thirty-three times asoften[524]. This was also the reading of Cyril Alex. [525], whose usualphrase however is [Greek: ho monogenês tou Theou logos][526]. Didymushas only [? cp. Context] [Greek: ho monogenês Theos], --for which he oncewrites [Greek: ho monogenês Theos logos][527]. Cyril of Jer. Seems tohave read [Greek: ho monogenês monos][528]. 

[I have retained this valuable and suggestive passage in the form inwhich the Dean left it. It evidently has not the perfection that attendssome of his papers, and would have been amplified and improved if hislife had been spared. More passages than he noticed, though limited tothe ante-Chrysostom period, are referred to in the companionvolume[529]. The portentous number of mentions by Gregory of Nyssaescaped me, though I knew that there were several. Such repetitions of aphrase could only be admitted into my calculation in a restricted andrepresentative number. Indeed, I often quoted at least on our side lessthan the real number of such reiterations occurring in one passage, because in course of repetition they came to assume for such a purpose aparrot-like value. 

But the most important part of the Dean's paper is found in his accountof the origin of the expression. This inference is strongly confirmed bythe employment of it in the Arian controversy. Arius reads [Greek:Theos] (_ap. _ Epiph. 73--Tischendorf), whilst his opponents read [Greek:Huios]. So Faustinus seven times (I noted him only thrice), andVictorinus Afer six (10) times in reply to the Arian Candidus[530]. AlsoAthanasius and Hilary of Poictiers four times each, and Ambrose eight(add Epp. I. Xxii. 5). It is curious that with this history admirers ofB and [Symbol: Aleph] should extol their reading over the Traditionalreading on the score of orthodoxy. Heresy had and still retainsassociations which cannot be ignored: in this instance some of theorthodox weakly played into the hands of heretics[531]. None may readHoly Scripture just as the idea strikes them. ]

§ 3. 

All are familiar with the received text of 1 Cor. Xv. 47:--[Greek: hoprôtos anthrôpos ek gês choikos; ho deuteros anthrôpos ho Kyrios exouranou]. That this place was so read in the first age is certain: forso it stands in the Syriac. These early heretics however of whom St. John speaks, who denied that 'Jesus Christ had come in the flesh[532]'and who are known to have freely 'taken away from the words' ofScripture[533], are found to have made themselves busy here. If (theyargued) 'the second man' was indeed 'the Lord-from-Heaven, ' how can itbe pretended that Christ took upon Himself human flesh[534]? And tobring out this contention of theirs more plainly, they did not hesitateto remove as superfluous the word 'man' in the second clause of thesentence. There resulted, --'The first man [was] of the earth, earthy:[Greek: ho deuteros Kyrios ex ouranou][535]. ' It is thus thatMarcion[536] (A. D. 130) and his followers[537] read the place. But inthis subject-matter extravagance in one direction is ever observed tobeget extravagance in another. I suspect that it was in order tocounteract the ejection by the heretics of [Greek: anthrôpos] in ver. 47, that, early in the second century, the orthodox retaining [Greek:anthrôpos], judged it expedient to leave out the expression [Greek: hoKyrios], which had been so unfairly pressed against them; and werecontented to read, --'the second man [was] from heaven. ' A calamitousexchange, truly. For first, (I), The text thus maimed affordedcountenance to another form of misbelief. And next, (II), Itnecessitated a further change in 1 Cor. Xv. 47. 

(I) It furnished a pretext to those heretics who maintained that Christwas 'Man' _before_ He came into the World. This heresy came to a head inthe persons of Apolinarius[538] and Photinus; in contending with whom, Greg. Naz. [539] and Epiphanius[540] are observed to argue withdisadvantage from the mutilated text. Tertullian[541], and Cyprian[542]after him, knew no other reading but 'secundus homo de Caelo, '--which isin fact the way this place stands in the Old Latin. And thus, from thesecond century downwards, two readings (for the Marcionite text wasspeedily forgotten) became current in the Church:--(1) The inspiredlanguage of the Apostle, cited at the outset, --which is retained by allthe known copies, _except nine_; and is vouched for by Basil[543], Chrysostom[544], Theodotus[545], Eutherius[546], Theodorus Mops. [547], Damascene[548], Petrus Siculus[549], and Theophylact[550]: and (2) Thecorrected (i. E. The maimed) text of the orthodox;--[Greek: ho deuteros;anthrôpos ex ouranou]: with which, besides the two Gregories[551], Photinus[552] and Apolinarius the heretics were acquainted; but which atthis day is only known to survive in [Symbol: Aleph]*BCD*EFG and twocursive copies. Origen[553], and (long after him) Cyril, employed _both_readings[554]. 

(II) But then, (as all must see) such a maimed exhibition of the textwas intolerable. The balance of the sentence had been destroyed. Against[Greek: ho prôtos anthrôpos], St. Paul had set [Greek: ho deuterosanthrôpos]: against [Greek: ek gês]--[Greek: ex ouranou]: against [Greek:choikos]--[Greek: ho Kyrios]. Remove [Greek: ho Kyrios], and somesubstitute for it must be invented as a counterpoise to [Greek:choikos]. Taking a hint from what is found in ver. 48, some one(plausibly enough, ) suggested [Greek: epouranios]: and this gloss soeffectually recommended itself to Western Christendom, that having beenadopted by Ambrose[555], by Jerome[556] (and later by Augustine[557], )it established itself in the Vulgate[558], and is found in all the laterLatin writers[559]. Thus then, _a third_ rival reading enters thefield, --which because it has well-nigh disappeared from Greek MSS. , nolonger finds an advocate. Our choice lies therefore between the twoformer:--viz. (a) the received, which is the only well-attested readingof the place: and (b) the maimed text of the Old Latin, which Jeromedeliberately rejected (A. D. 380), and for which he substituted anothereven worse attested reading. (Note, that these two Western fabricationseffectually dispose of one another. ) It should be added thatAthanasius[560] lends his countenance to all the three readings. 

But now, let me ask, --Will any one be disposed, after a careful surveyof the premisses, to accept the verdict of Tischendorf, Tregelles andthe rest, who are for bringing the Church back to the maimed text ofwhich I began by giving the history and explaining the origin? Let it benoted that the one question is, --shall [Greek: ho Kyrios] be retained inthe second clause, or not? But there it stood within thirty years of thedeath of St. John: and there it stands, at the end of eighteen centuriesin every extant copy (including AKLP) except nine. It has beenexcellently witnessed to all down the ages, --viz. By Origen, Hippolytus, Athanasius, Basil, Chrysostom, Cyril, Theodotus, Eutherius, TheodoreMops. , Damascene and others. On what principle would you now rejectit?... With critics who assume that a reading found in [Symbol:Aleph]BCDEFG must needs be genuine, --it is vain to argue. And yet themost robust faith ought to be effectually shaken by the discovery thatfour, if not five ([Symbol: Aleph]ACFG) of these same MSS. , by reading'we shall all sleep; but we shall not all be changed, ' contradict St. Paul's solemn announcement in ver. 51: while a sixth (D) stands alone insubstituting 'we shall all rise; but we shall not all be changed. '--Inthis very verse, C is for introducing [Greek: Adam] into the firstclause of the sentence: FG, for subjoining [Greek: ho ouranios]. Whenwill men believe that guides like these are to be entertained withhabitual distrust? to be listened to with the greatest caution? to befollowed, for their own sakes, --never?

I have been the fuller on this place, because it affords an instructiveexample of what has occasionally befallen the words of Scripture. Veryseldom indeed are we able to handle a text in this way. Only when theheretics assailed, did the orthodox defend: whereby it came to pass thata record was preserved of how the text was read by the ancient Father. The attentive reader will note (_a_) That all the changes which we havebeen considering belong to the earliest age of all:--(_b_) That thecorrupt reading is retained by [Symbol: Aleph]BC and their following:the genuine text, in the great bulk of the copies:--(_c_) That the firstmention of the text is found in the writings of an early heretic:--(_d_)That [the orthodox introduced a change in the interests, as theyfancied, of truth, but from utter misapprehension of the nature andauthority of the Word of God:--and (_e_) that under the DivineProvidence that change was so effectually thrown out, that decisivewitness is found on the other side]. 

§ 4. 

Closely allied to the foregoing, and constantly referred to in connexionwith it by those Fathers who undertook to refute the heresy ofApolinarius, is our Lord's declaration to Nicodemus, --'No man hathascended up to heaven, but He that came down from heaven, even the Sonof Man which is in heaven' (St. John iii. 13). Christ 'came down fromheaven' when He became incarnate: and having become incarnate, is saidto have 'ascended up to Heaven, ' and 'to be in Heaven, ' because 'the Sonof Man, ' who was not in heaven before, by virtue of the hypostaticalunion was thenceforward evermore 'in heaven. ' But the Evangelist'slanguage was very differently taken by those heretics who systematically'maimed and misinterpreted that which belongeth to the human nature ofChrist. ' Apolinarius, who relied on the present place, is found to haveread it without the final clause ([Greek: ho ôn en tô ouranô]); andcertain of the orthodox (as Greg. Naz. , Greg. Nyssa, Epiphanius, whilecontending with him, ) shew themselves not unwilling to argue from thetext so mutilated. Origen and the author of the Dialogus once, Eusebiustwice, Cyril not fewer than nineteen times, also leave off at the words'even the Son of Man': from which it is insecurely gathered that thoseFathers disallowed the clause which follows. On the other hand, thirty-eight Fathers and ten Versions maintain the genuineness of thewords [Greek: ho ôn en tô ouranô][561]. But the decisive circumstance isthat, --besides the Syriac and the Latin copies which all witness to theexistence of the clause, --the whole body of the uncials, four onlyexcepted ([Symbol: Aleph]BLT^{b}), and every known cursive but one(33)--are for retaining it. 

No thoughtful reader will rise from a discussion like the foregoingwithout inferring from the facts which have emerged in the course of itthe exceeding antiquity of depravations of the inspired verity. For letme not be supposed to have asserted that the present depravation was thework of Apolinarius. Like the rest, it is probably older by at least 150years. Apolinarius, in whose person the heresy which bears his name cameto a head, did but inherit the tenets of his predecessors in error; andthese had already in various ways resulted in the corruption of thedeposit. 

§ 5[562]. 

The matter in hand will be conveniently illustrated by inviting thereader's attention to another famous place. There is a singular consentamong the Critics for eliminating from St. Luke ix. 54-6, twenty-fourwords which embody two memorable sayings of the Son of Man. The entirecontext is as follows:--'Lord, wilt thou that we command fire to comedown from heaven and consume them, (as Elias did)? But he turned, andrebuked them, (and said, Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of. )(For the Son of Man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to savethem. ) And they went to another village. ' The three bracketed clausescontain the twenty-four words in dispute. 

The first of these clauses ([Greek: hôs kai Hêlias epoiêse]), whichclaims to be part of the inquiry of St. John and St. James, Millrejected as an obvious interpolation. 'Res ipsa clamat. Quis enim sanustam insignia deleverit[563]?' Griesbach retained it as probablygenuine. --The second clause ([Greek: kai eipen, Ouk oidate hoioupneumatos este hymeis]) he obelized as probably not genuine:--the third([Greek: ho gar huios tou anthrôpou ouk êlthe psychas anthrôpônapolesai, alla sôsai]) he rejected entirely. Lachmann also retains thefirst clause, but rejects the other two. Alford, not without misgiving, does the same. Westcott and Hort, without any misgiving about the thirdclause, are 'morally certain' that the first and second clauses are aWestern interpolation. Tischendorf and Tregelles are thorough. Theyagree, and the Revisers of 1881, in rejecting unceremoniously all thethree clauses and exhibiting the place curtly, thus. --[Greek: Kyrie, theleis eipômen pyr katabênai apo tou ouranou, kai analôsai autous;strapheis de epetimêsen autois. Kai eporeuthêsan dêsan eis heterankômên]. 

Now it may as well be declared at once that Codd. [Symbol:Aleph]BL[Symbol: Xi] l g^{1} Cyr^{luc}[564], two MSS. Of the Bohairic (d3, d 2), the Lewis, and two cursives (71, 157) are literally the onlyauthority, ancient or modern, for so exhibiting the text [in all itsbare crudeness]. Against them are arrayed the whole body of MSS. Uncialand cursive, including ACD; every known lectionary; all the Latin, theSyriac (Cur. Om. Clause 1), and indeed every other known version:besides seven good Greek Fathers beginning with Clemens Alex. (A. D. 190), and five Latin Fathers beginning with Tertullian (A. D. 190):Cyprian's testimony being in fact the voice of the Fourth Council ofCarthage, A. D. 253. If on a survey of this body of evidence any one willgravely tell me that the preponderance of authority still seems to himto be in favour of the shorter reason, I can but suggest that the soonerhe communicates to the world the grounds for his opinion, the better. 

(1) In the meantime it becomes necessary to consider the disputedclauses separately, because ancient authorities, rivalling moderncritics, are unable to agree as to which they will reject, which theywill retain. I begin with the second. What persuades so many critics toomit the precious words [Greek: kai eipen, Ouk oidate hoiou pneumatoseste hymeis], is the discovery that these words are absent from manyuncial MSS. , --[Symbol: Aleph]ABC and nine others; besides, as might havebeen confidently anticipated from that fact, also from a fair proportionof the cursive copies. It is impossible to deny that _prima facie_ suchan amount of evidence against any words of Scripture is exceedinglyweighty. Pseudo-Basil (ii. 271) is found to have read the passage in thesame curt way. Cyril, on the other hand, seems to have read itdifferently. 

And yet, the entire aspect of the case becomes changed the instant it isperceived that this disputed clause is recognized by Clemens[565] (A. D. 190); as well as by the Old Latin, by the Peshitto, and by theCuretonian Syriac: for the fact is thus established that as well inEastern as in Western Christendom the words under discussion wereactually recognized as genuine full a hundred and fifty years before theoldest of the extant uncials came into existence. When it is furtherfound that (besides Ambrose, Jerome, Augustine, ) the Vulgate, the OldEgyptian, the Harkleian Syriac and the Gothic versions also contain thewords in question; and especially that Chrysostom in four places, Didymus, Epiphanius, Cyril and Theodoret, besides Antiochus, familiarlyquote them, it is evident that the testimony of antiquity in theirfavour is even overwhelming. Add that in eight uncial MSS. (beginningwith D) the words in dispute form part of the text of St. Luke, and thatthey are recognized by the great mass of the cursive copies, --(only sixout of the twenty which Scrivener has collated being without them, )--andit is plain that at least five tests of genuineness have been fullysatisfied. 

(2) The third clause ([Greek: ho gar huios tou anthrôpou ouk êlthepsychas anthrôpôn apolesai, alla sôsai]) rests on precisely the samesolid evidence as the second; except that the testimony of Clemens is nolonger available, --but only because his quotation does not extend sofar. Cod. D also omits this third clause; which on the other hand isupheld by Tertullian, Cyprian and Ambrose. Tischendorf suggests that ithas surreptitiously found its way into the text from St. Luke xix. 10, or St. Matt, xviii. 11. But this is impossible; simply because what isfound in those two places is essentially different: namely, --[Greek:êlthe gar ho huios tou anthrôpou zêtêsai kai][566] [Greek: sôsai toapolôlos]. 

(3) We are at liberty in the meantime to note how apt an illustration ishere afforded of the amount of consensus which subsists betweendocuments of the oldest class. This divergence becomes most conspicuouswhen we direct our attention to the grounds for omitting the foremostclause of the three, [Greek: hôs kai Êlias epoiêsen]: for here we makethe notable discovery that the evidence is not only less weighty, butalso different. Codexes B and [Symbol: Aleph] are now forsaken by alltheir former allies except L[Symbol: Xi] and a single cursive copy. True, they are supported by the Curetonian Syriac, the Vulgate and twocopies of the Old Latin. But this time they find themselves confrontedby Codexes ACD with thirteen other uncials and the whole body of thecursives; the Peshitto, Coptic, Gothic, and Harkleian versions; byClemens, Jerome, Chrysostom, Cyril and pseudo-Basil. In respect ofantiquity, variety, respectability, numbers, they are thereforehopelessly outvoted. 

Do any inquire, How then has all this contradiction and depravation ofCodexes [Symbol: Aleph]ABC(D) come about? I answer as follows:--

It was a favourite tenet with the Gnostic heretics that the Law and theGospel are at variance. In order to establish this, Marcion (in a workcalled Antitheses) set passages of the New Testament against passages ofthe Old; from the seeming disagreement between which his followers weretaught to infer that the Law and the Gospel cannot have proceeded fromone and the same author[567]. Now here was a place exactly suited to hispurpose. The God of the Old Testament had twice sent down fire fromheaven to consume fifty men. But 'the Son of Man, ' said our Saviour, when invited to do the like, 'came not to destroy men's lives but tosave them. ' Accordingly, Tertullian in his fourth book against Marcion, refuting this teaching, acquaints us that one of Marcion's 'Contrasts'was Elijah's severity in calling down fire from Heaven, --and thegentleness of Christ. 'I acknowledge the seventy of the judge, 'Tertullian replies; 'but I recognize the same severity on the part ofChrist towards His Disciples when they proposed to bring down a similarcalamity on a Samaritan village[568]. ' From all of which it is plainthat within seventy years of the time when the Gospel was published, thetext of St. Luke ix. 54-6 stood very much as at present. 

But then it is further discovered that at the same remote period (aboutA. D. 130) this place of Scripture was much fastened on by the enemies ofthe Gospel. The Manichaean heretics pressed believers with it[569]. Thedisciples' appeal to the example of Elijah, and the reproof theyincurred, became inconvenient facts. The consequence might be foreseen. With commendable solicitude for God's honour, but through mistakenpiety, certain of the orthodox (without suspicion of the evil they werecommitting) were so ill-advised as to erase from their copies thetwenty-four words which had been turned to mischievous account as wellas to cause copies to be made of the books so mutilated: and behold, atthe end of 1, 700 years, the calamitous result!

Of these three clauses then, which are closely interdependent, and asTischendorf admits[570] must all three stand or all three fall together, the first is found with ACD, the Old Latin, Peshitto, Clement, Chrysostom, Cyril, Jerome, --not with [Symbol: Aleph]B the Vulgate orCuretonian. The second and third clauses are found with Old Latin, Vulgate, Peshitto, Harkleian, six Greek and five Latin Fathers, --notwith [Symbol: Aleph]ABCD. 

While [Symbol: Aleph] and B are alone in refusing to recognize eitherfirst, second or third clause. And this is a fair sample of that'singular agreement' which is sometimes said to subsist between 'thelesser group of witnesses. ' Is it not plain on the contrary that at avery remote period there existed a fierce conflict, and consequenthopeless divergence of testimony about the present passage; of which1, 700 years[571] have failed to obliterate the traces? Had [Symbol:Aleph]B been our only ancient guides, it might of course have beencontended that there has been no act of spoliation committed: but seeingthat one half of the missing treasure is found with their allies, ACD, Clement Alex. , Chrysostom, Cyril, Jerome, --the other half with theirallies, Old Latin, Harkleian, Clement, Tertullian, Cyprian, Ambrose, Didymus, Epiphanius, Chrysostom, Cyril, Theodoret, Jerome, Augustine[572], --it is clear that no such pretence can any longer be setup. 

The endeavour to establish agreement among the witnesses by a skilfuldistribution or rather dislocation of their evidence, a favourite devicewith the Critics, involves a fallacy which in any other subject would bedenied a place. I trust that henceforth St. Luke ix. 54-6 will be leftin undisputed possession of its place in the sacred Text, --to which ithas an undoubted right. 

A thoughtful person may still inquire, Can it however be explainedfurther how it has come to pass that the evidence for omitting the firstclause and the two last is so unequally divided? I answer, the disparityis due to the influence of the Lectionaries. 

Let it be observed then that an ancient Ecclesiastical Lection whichused to begin either at St. Luke ix. 44, or else at verse 49 and toextend down to the end of verse 56[573], ended thus, --[Greek: hôs kaiÊlias epoiêse; strapheis de epetimêsen autois. Kai eporeuthêsan eishetepan kômên][574]. It was the Lection for Thursday in the fifth weekof the new year; and as the reader sees, it omitted the two last clausesexactly as Codd. [Symbol: Aleph]ABC do. Another Ecclesiastical Lectionbegan at verse 51 and extended down to verse 57, and is found to havecontained the two last clauses[575]. I wish therefore to inquire:--Mayit not fairly be presumed that it is the Lectionary practice of theprimitive age which has led to the irregularity in this perturbation ofthe sacred Text?

FOOTNOTES:

[495] [Greek: Pros tois dokêsei ton Christon pephênenai legontas]. 

[496] [Greek: To de paidion êuxane, kai ekrataiouto pneumati]. 

[497] It is the twenty-fourth and the thirtieth question in the firstDialogus of pseudo-Caesarius (Gall. Vi. 17, 20). 

[498] Opp. Iii. 953, 954, --with suspicious emphasis. 

[499] Ed. Migne, vol. 93, p. 1581 a, b (Novum Auct. I. 700). 

[500] When Cyril writes (Scholia, ed. Pusey, vol. Vi. 568), --"[Greek: Tode paidion êuxane kai ekrataiouto PNEUMATI, plêroumenon SOPHIA kaiCHARITI. " kaitoi kata physin panteleios estin hôs Theos kai ex idionplêrômatos dianemei tois agiois ta PNEUMATIKA, kai autos estin ê SOPHIA, kai tês CHARITOS ho dotêr], --it is clear that [Greek: pneumati] musthave stood in Cyril's text. The same is the reading of Cyril's Treatise, De Incarnatione (Mai, ii. 57): and of his Commentary on St. Luke (ibid. P. 136). One is surprised at Tischendorf's perverse inference concerningthe last-named place. Cyril had begun by quoting the whole of ver. 40 inexact conformity with the traditional text (Mai, ii. 136). At the closeof some remarks (found both in Mai and in Cramer's Catena), Cyrilproceeds as follows, according to the latter:--[Greek: ho Euangelistêsepsê "êuxane kai ekrataiouto" KAI TA EXÊS]. Surely this constitutes noground for supposing that he did not recognize the word [Greek:pneumati], but rather that he did. On the other hand, it is undeniablethat in V. P. Ii. 138 and 139 (= Concilia iii. 241 d, 244 a), fromPusey's account of what he found in the MSS. (vii. P. I. 277-8), theword [Greek: pneumati] must be suspected of being an unauthorizedaddition to the text of Cyril's treatise, De Rectâ fide ad Pulcheriam etEudociam. 

[501] ii. 152: iv. 112: v. 120, 121 (four times). 

[502] [Greek: Ei teleios esti Theos ho Christos, pôs ho euangelistêslegei, to de paidion Iêsous êuxane kai ekrataiouto pneumati];--S. Caesarii, Dialogus I, Quaest. 24 (_ap. _ Galland. Vi. 17 c). And seeQuaest. 30. 

[503] ii. 36 d. 

[504] Fragmenta Syriaca, ed. Sachau, p. 53. --The only other GreekFathers who quote the place are Euthymius and Theophylact. 

[505] [Greek: Hên êkousa para tou Theou]. Epiph. I. 463. 

[506] Instead of [Greek: para tou Theou]. 

[507] i. 410: iv. 294, 534. Elsewhere he defends and employs it. 

[508] i. 260, 463: ii. 49. 

[509] i. 705. 

[510] viii. 365. 

[511] (Glaph. ) i. 18. 

[512] iv. 83, 430. But both Origen (i. 705: iv. 320, 402) and Cyril (iv. 554: v. 758) quote the traditional reading; and Cyril (iv. 549)distinctly says that the latter is right, and [Greek: para tou patros]wrong. 

[513] Excerpt. Theod. 968. --Heracleon's name is also connected by Origenwith this text. Valentinus (ap. Iren. 100) says, [Greek: on dê kai uionMonogenê kai Theon keklêken]. 

[514] Pp. 627, 630, 466. 

[515] P. 956. 

[516] 'Deum nemo vidit umquam: nisi unicus filius solus, sinum patrisipse enarravit. '--(Comp. Tertullian:--'Solus filius patrem novit etsinum patris ipse exposuit' (Prax. C. 8. Cp. C. 21): but he elsewhere(ibid. C. 15) exhibits the passage in the usual way. ) Clemenswrites, --[Greek: tote epopteuseis ton kolpon tou Patrus, hon homonoogenês huios Theos monos exêgêsato] (956), and in the Excerpt. Theod. We find [Greek: outos ton kolpon ton Patros exêgêsato ho Sôtêr](969). But this is unintelligible until it is remembered that our Lordis often spoken of by the Fathers as [Greek: hê dexia tou hypsistou ... Kolpos de tês dexias ho Patêr]. (Greg. Nyss. I. 192. )

[517] Ps. 440 (--[Greek: ho]): Marcell. 165, 179, 273. 

[518] Marcell. 334: Theoph. 14. 

[519] Marcell. 132. Read on to p. 134. 

[520] Opp. Ii. 466. 

[521] Opp. Iii. 23, 358. 

[522] Greg. Nyss. Opp. I. 192, 663 ([Greek: Theos pantôs ho monogenês, ho en tois kolpois ôn tou Patros, outôs eipontos tou Iôannou]). Also ii. 432, 447, 450, 470, 506: always [Greek: en tois kolpois]. Basil, Opp. Iii. 12. 

[523] Basil, Opp. Iii. 14, 16, 117: and so Eunomius (ibid. I. 623). 

[524] Contra Eunom. _I have noted_ ninety-eight places. 

[525] Cyril (iv. 104) paraphrases St. John i. 18 thus:--[Greek: autosgar Theos ôn ho monogenês, en kolpois ôn tou theou kai patros, tautênpros hêmas epoiêsato tên exêgêsin]. Presently (p. 105), he says that St. John [Greek: kai "monogenê theon" apokalei ton huion, kai "en kolpois"einai phêsi tou patros]. But on p. 107 he speaks quite plainly: [Greek:"ho monogenês, " phêsi, "Theos, ho ôn eis ton kolpon tou patros, ekeinosexêgêsato. " epeidê gar ephê "monogenê" kai "Theon, " tithêsin euthys, "hoôn en tois kolpois tou patros. "]--So v. 137, 768. And yet he reads[Greek: huios] in v. 365, 437: vi. 90. 

[526] He uses it seventeen times in his Comm. On Isaiah (ii. 4, 35, 122, &c. ), and actually so reads St. John i. 18 in one place (Opp. Vi. 187). Theodoret once adopts the phrase (Opp. V. 4). 

[527] De Trin. 76, 140, 37a:--27. 

[528] P. 117. 

[529] Traditional Text, p. 113, where the references are given. 

[530] Who quoted Arius' words:--'Subsistit ante tempora et aeones_plenus Deus, unigenitus, _ et immutabilis. ' But I cannot yet findTischendorf's reference. 

[531] The reading [Greek: Huios] is established by unanswerableevidence. 

[532] The Gnostics Basilides and Valentinus were the direct precursorsof Apolonius, Photinus, Nestorius, &c. , in assailing the Catholicdoctrine of the Incarnation. Their heresy must have been actively atwork when St. John wrote his first (iv. 1, 2, 3) and second (ver. 7)Epistles. 

[533] Rev. Xxii. 19. 

[534] [Greek: Epipêdôsin hêmin hoi hairetikoi legontes; idou ouk anelabesarka ho Christos; ho deut. Gar phêsin anthr. Ho k. Ex ouranou. ] Chrys. Iii. 114 b. 

[535] [Greek: Tên gar kata sarka gênnêsin tou Christou aneleinboulomenoi, enêllaxan to, ho deuteros anthrôpos; kai epoiêsan, hodeuteros Kyrios. ] Dial. [_ap. _ Orig. ] i. 868. --Marcion had in factalready substituted [Greek: Kyrios] for [Greek: anthrôpos] in ver. 45:('_the last Lord_ became a quickening spirit':) [Tertull. Ii. 304]--afabricated reading which is also found to have been upheld by Marcion'sfollowers:--[Greek: ho eschatos Kyrios eis pn. Zô. ] Dial. _ubi supra_. [Greek: edei gar autous, ei ge ta euangelia etimôn, mê peritemnein taeuangelia, mê merê tôn euangeliôn exyphelein, mê hetera prosthênai, mêtelogô, mête idia gnômê ta euangelia prosgraphein.... Prosgegraphêkasigoun hosa beboulêntai, kai exypheilanto hosa kekrikasi. ] Titus of Bostrac. Manichaeos (Galland. V. 328). 

[536] Tertull. Ii. 304, (_Primus homo de humo terrenus, secundus Dominusde Caelo_). 

[537] Dial [Orig. I. ] 868, ([Greek: ho deuteros Kyrios ex ouranou]). 

[538] [Greek: To de pantôn chalepôtaton en tais ekklêsiastikaissymphorais, hê tôn 'Apolinaristôn esti parrêsia. ] Greg. Naz. Ii. 167. 

[539] ii. 168, --a very interesting place. See also p. 87. 

[540] i. 831. 

[541] ii. 443, 531. 

[542] Pp. 180, 209, 260, 289, 307 (_primus homo de terrae limo_, &c. ). 

[543] iii. 40. 

[544] iii. 114 four times: x. 394, 395. Once (xi. 374) he has [Greek: hodeut. Anthr. Ouranios ex ouranou]. 

[545] iv. 1051. 

[546] _Ap. _ Thdt. V. 1135. 

[547] _Ap. _ Galland. Viii. 626, 627. 

[548] i. 222 (where for [Greek: anthr. ] he reads [Greek: Adam]), 563. Also ii. 120, 346. 

[549] 'Adversus Manichaeos, '--_ap. _ Mai, iv. 68, 69. 

[550] ii. 228:--[Greek: ouch hoti ho anthrôpos, êtoi to anthrôpinonproslêmma, ex ouranou ên, hôs ho aphrôn Apolinarios elêrei]. 

[551] Naz. Ii. 87 (=Thdt. Iv. 62), 168. --Nyss. Ii. 11. 

[552] _Ap. _ Epiphan. I. 830. 

[553] 559 (with the Text. Recept. ): iv. 302 not. 

[554] Hippolytus may not be cited in evidence, being read both ways. (Cp. Ed. Fabr. Ii. 30:--ed. Lagarde, 138. 15:--ed. Galland. Ii. 483. )--Neither may the expression [Greek: tou deuterou ex ouranouanthrôpou] in Pet. Alex. (ed. Routh, Rell. Sacr. Iv. 48) be safelypressed. 

[555] _Primus homo de terra, terrenus: secundus homo de caelocaelestis_. --i. 1168, 1363: ii. 265, 975. And so ps. -Ambr. Ii. 166, 437. 

[556] ii. 298: iv. 930: vii. 296. 

[557] The places are given by Sabatier _in loc_. 

[558] Only because it is the Vulgate reading, I am persuaded, does thisreading appear in Orig. _interp_. Ii. 84, 85: iii. 951: iv. 546. 

[559] As Philastrius (_ap. _ Galland. Vii. 492, 516). --Pacianus (ib. 275). --Marius Mercator (ib. Viii. 664). --Capreolus (ib. Ix. 493). Butsee the end of the next ensuing note. 

[560] Vol. I. P. 1275, --[Greek: ho deuteros anthr. Ho Kyrios ex ouranououranios]:--on which he remarks, (if indeed it be he), [Greek: idou garamphoterôthen ouranios anthrôpos onomazetai]. And lower down, --[Greek:Kyrios, dia tên mian hypostasin; deut. Men anthr. , kata tên henômenênanthrôpotêta. Ex ouranou de, kata tên theotêta]. --P. 448, --[Greek: hodeuteros anthr. Ex ouranou epouranios]. --_Ap. _ Montf. Ii. 13 (= Galland. V. 167), --[Greek: ho deut. Anthr. Ex ouranou]. --Note that Maximinus, anArian bishop, A. D. 427-8 (_ap. _ Augustin. Viii. 663) is found to havepossessed a text identical with the first of the preceding:--'Ait ipsePaulus, _Primus homo Adam de terra terrenus, secundus homo Dominus deCaelo caelestis_ advenit. '

[561] See Revision Revised, pp. 132-5: and The Traditional Text, p. 114. 

[562] This paper is marked as having been written at Chichester in 1877, and is therefore earlier than the Dean's later series. 

[563] Proleg. 418. 

[564] The text of St. Luke ix. 51-6 prefixed to Cyril's fifty-sixthSermon (p. 353) is the text of B and [Symbol: Aleph], --an importanttestimony to what I suppose may be regarded as the Alexandrine _TextusReceptus_ of this place in the fifth century. But then no one supposesthat Cyril is individually responsible for the headings of his Sermons. We therefore refer to the body of his discourse; and discover that theSyriac translator has rendered it (as usual) with exceeding licence. Hehas omitted to render some such words as the following which certainlystood in the original text:--[Greek: eidenai gar chrê, hoti hôs mêpô têsneas kekratêkotes charitos, all' eti tês proteras echomenoi synêtheias, touto eipon, pros Êlian aphorôntes ton pyri kataphlexanta dis touspentêkonta kai tous êgoumenous autôn], (Cramer's Cat. Ii. P. 81. Cf. Corderii, Cat. P. 263. Also Matthaei. N. T. _in loc. _, pp. 333-4. ) Nowthe man who wrote _that_, must surely have read St. Luke ix. 54, 55 aswe do. 

[565] See the fragment (and Potter's note), Opp. P. 1019: also Galland. Ii. 157. First in Hippolyt. , Opp. Ed. Fabric, ii. 71. 

[566] In St. Matt. Xviii. 11, the words [Greek: zêtêsai kai] do notoccur. 

[567] Bp. Kaye's Tertullian, p. 468. 'Agnosco iudicis severitatem. Econtrario Christi in eandem animadversionem destinantes discipulos superilium viculum Samaritarum. ' Marc. Iv. 23 (see ii. P. 221). Headds, --'Let Marcion also confess that by the same terribly severe judgeChrist's leniency was foretold;' and he cites in proof Is. Xlii. 2 and 1Kings xix. 12 ('sed in _spiritu_ miti'). 

[568] Augustine (viii. 111-150, 151-182) writes a book against him. Andhe discusses St. Luke ix. 54-5 on p. 139. 

Addas Adimantus (a disciple of Manes) was the author of a work of thesame kind. Augustine (viii. 606 c) says of it, --'ubi de utroqueTestamento velut inter se contraria testimonia proferuntur versipellidolositate, velut inde ostendatur utrumque ab uno Deo esse non posse, sed alterum ab altero. ' Cerdon was the first to promulgate thispestilential tenet (605 a). Then Marcion his pupil, then Apelles, andthen Patricius. 

[569] Titus Bostr. Adv. Manichaeos (_ap. _ Galland. V. 329 b), leavingothers to note the correspondences between the New and the OldTestament, proposes to handle the 'Contrasts': [Greek: pros autas tasantitheseis tôn logiôn chôrêsômen]. At pp. 339 e, 340 a, b, he confirmswhat Tertullian says about the calling down of fire from heaven. 

[570] Verba [Greek: hôs kai Ê. Epoiêse] cur quis addiderit, planum. Eidem interpolatori debentur quae verba [Greek: str. De epeti. Autois]excipiunt. Gravissimum est quod testium additamentum [Greek: ho garhuios], &c. Ab eadem manu derivandum est, nec per se solum pro spuriohaberi potest; cohaeret enim cum argumento tum auctoritate arctissimecum prioribus. (N. T. Ed. 1869, p. 544. )

[571] Secundo iam saeculo quin in codicibus omnis haec interpolatiocircumferri consueverit, dubitari nequit. (Ibid. )

[572] The following are the references left by the Dean. I have not hadtime or strength to search out those which are left unspecified in thisMS. And the last. 

Jerome. --Apostoli in Lege versati ... Ulcisci nituntur iniuriam, _etimitari Eliam_, &c. Dominus, qui non ad iudicandum _venerat_, sed _adsalvandum_, &c. ... Increpat eos _quod non meminerint doctrinae suae etbonitatis Evangelicae_, &c. (i. 857 b, c, d. )

Cyprian, Synodical Epistle. --'Filius hominis non venit animas hominumperdere, sed salvare. ' p. 98. A. D. 253. 

Tatian. --Veni, inquit, animam salvam facere. (Carn. C. 12 et 10: andAnim. C. 13. )

Augustine gives a long extract from the same letter and thus quotes thewords twice, --x. 76, 482. Cp. Ii. 593 a. 

[Greek: Kai ho Kyrios pros tous apostolous eipontas en pyri kolasai tousmê dexamenous autous kata ton Êlian; Ouk oidate phêsi poiou pneumatoseste]. (p. 1019. )

Theodoret, iii. 1119. ([Greek: poiou]. )

Epiph. Ii. 31. ([Greek: hoiou]. )

Basil, ii. 271 (Eth. ) quotes the whole place. 

Augustine. --Respondit eis Dominus, dicens eos nescire cuius spiritusfilii essent, et quod ipse liberare venisset, non perdere. Viii. 139 b. Cp. Iii. (2), 194 b. 

Cyril Al. --[Greek: Mêpô tês neas kekratêkotes charitos ... Touto eipon, ton Êlian aphorôntes ton pyri k. T. L. ] Cord. Cat. 263 = Cram. Cat. 81. Also iv. 1017. --By a strange slip of memory, Cyril sets down a reprooffound in St. Matthew: but this is enough to shew that he admits that_some_ reproof finds record in the Gospel. 

Chrys. Vii. 567 e: x. 305 d: vii. 346 a: ix. 677 c. 

Opus Imp. Ap. Chrys. Vi. 211, 219. 

Didymus. --[Greek: Ouk oidate oiou pneumatos estin ho huios touanthrôpou]. De Trin. P. 188. 

[573] Evst. 48 (Matthaei's c): Evst. 150 (Harl. 5598). 

[574] See Matthaei, N. T. 1786, vol. Ii. P. 17. 

[575] [I have been unable to discover this Lection. ]

APPENDIX I. 

PERICOPE DE ADULTERA. 

I have purposely reserved for the last the most difficult problem ofall: viz. Those twelve famous verses of St. John's Gospel (chap. Vii. 53to viii. 11) which contain the history of 'the woman taken inadultery, '--the _pericope de adultera_, as it is called. Altogetherindispensable is it that the reader should approach this portion of theGospel with the greatest amount of experience and the largestpreparation. Convenient would it be, no doubt, if he could furtherdivest himself of prejudice; but that is perhaps impossible. Let him atleast endeavour to weigh the evidence which shall now be laid before himin impartial scales. He must do so perforce, if he would judge rightly:for the matter to be discussed is confessedly very peculiar: in somerespects, even unique. Let me convince him at once of the truth of whathas been so far spoken. 

It is a singular circumstance that at the end of eighteen centuries twoinstances, and but two, should exist of a considerable portion ofScripture left to the mercy, so to speak, of 'Textual Criticism. ' Twelveconsecutive Verses in the second Gospel--as many consecutive Verses inthe fourth--are in this predicament. It is singular, I say, that theProvidence which has watched so marvellously over the fortunes of theDeposit, --the Divine Wisdom which has made such ample provision for itssecurity all down the ages, should have so ordered the matter, thatthese two co-extensive problems have survived to our times to be testsof human sagacity, --trials of human faithfulness and skill. They presentsome striking features of correspondence, but far more of contrast, --aswill presently appear. And yet the most important circumstance of allcannot be too soon mentioned: viz. That both alike have experienced thesame calamitous treatment at the hands of some critics. By commonconsent the most recent editors deny that either set of Verses can haveformed part of the Gospel as it proceeded from the hands of its inspiredauthor. How mistaken is this opinion of theirs in respect of the 'Lasttwelve verses of the Gospel according to St. Mark, ' has been alreadydemonstrated in a separate treatise. I must be content in this place todeal in a far less ceremonious manner with the hostile verdict of manycritics concerning St. John vii. 53-viii. 11. That I shall be able tosatisfy those persons who profess themselves unconvinced by what wasoffered concerning St. Mark's last twelve verses, I am not so simple asto expect. But I trust that I shall have with me all candid readers whoare capable of weighing evidence impartially, and understanding thenature of logical proof, when it is fully drawn out before them, --whichindeed is the very qualification that I require of them. 

And first, the case of the _pericope de adultera_ requires to be placedbefore the reader in its true bearings. For those who have hithertodiscussed it are observed to have ignored certain preliminaryconsiderations which, once clearly apprehended, are all but decisive ofthe point at issue. There is a fundamental obstacle, I mean, in the wayof any attempt to dislodge this portion of the sacred narrative from thecontext in which it stands, which they seem to have overlooked. Iproceed to explain. 

Sufficient prominence has never yet been given to the fact that in thepresent discussion the burden of proof rests entirely with those whochallenge the genuineness of the Pericope under review. In other words, the question before us is not by any means, --Shall these Twelve Versesbe admitted--or, Must they be refused admission--into the Sacred Text?That point has been settled long, long ago. St. John's Twelve verses arein possession. Let those eject them who can. They are known to haveoccupied their present position for full seventeen hundred years. Therenever was a time--as far as is known--- when they were not _where_, --andto all intents and purposes _what_--they now are. Is it not evident, that no merely ordinary method of proof, --no merely commonargument, --will avail to dislodge Twelve such Verses as these?

'Twelve such Verses, ' I say. For it is the extent of the subject-matterwhich makes the case so formidable. We have here to do with no dubiousclause, concerning which ancient testimony is divided; no seeming gloss, which is suspected to have overstepped its proper limits, and to havecrept in as from the margin; no importation from another Gospel; noverse of Scripture which has lost its way; no weak amplification of theEvangelical meaning; no tasteless appendix, which encumbers thenarrative and almost condemns itself. Nothing of the sort. If it weresome inconsiderable portion of Scripture which it was proposed to getrid of by shewing that it is disallowed by a vast amount of ancientevidence, the proceeding would be intelligible. But I take leave topoint out that a highly complex and very important incident--as relatedin twelve consecutive verses of the Gospel--cannot be so dealt with. Squatters on the waste are liable at any moment to be served with anotice of ejectment: but the owner of a mansion surrounded by broadacres which his ancestors are known to have owned before the Heptarchy, may on no account be dispossessed by any such summary process. This--tospeak without a figure--is a connected and very striking portion of thesacred narrative:--the description of a considerable incident, completein itself, full of serious teaching, and of a kind which no one wouldhave ever dared to invent. Those who would assail it successfully mustcome forward with weapons of a very different kind from those usuallyemployed in textual warfare. 

It shall be presently shewn that these Twelve Verses hold their actualplace by a more extraordinary right of tenure than any other twelveverses which can be named in the Gospel: but it would be premature toenter upon the proof of that circumstance now. I prefer to invite thereader's attention, next to the actual texture of the _pericope deadultera_, by which name (as already explained) the last verse of St. John vii. Together with verses 1-11 of ch. Viii. Are familiarlydesignated. Although external testimony supplies the sole proof ofgenuineness, it is nevertheless reasonable to inquire what the verses inquestion may have to say for themselves. Do they carry on their frontthe tokens of that baseness of origin which their impugners soconfidently seek to fasten upon them? Or do they, on the contrary, unmistakably bear the impress of Truth?

The first thing which strikes me in them is that the actual narrativeconcerning 'the woman taken in adultery' is entirely contained in thelast nine of these verses: being preceded by two short paragraphs of anentirely different character and complexion. Let these be first producedand studied:

 'and every man went to his own house: but Jesus went to the Mount of Olives. ' 'And again, very early in the morning, He presented Himself in the Temple; and all the people came unto Him: and He sat down and taught them. '

Now as every one must see, the former of these two paragraphs isunmistakably not the beginning but the end of a narrative. It purportsto be the conclusion of something which went before, not to introducesomething which comes after. Without any sort of doubt, it is St. John'saccount of what occurred at the close of the debate between certainmembers of the Sanhedrin which terminates his history of the last day ofthe Feast of Tabernacles. The verse in question marks the conclusion ofthe Feast, --implies in short that all is already finished. Remove it, and the antecedent narrative ends abruptly. Retain it, and all proceedsmethodically; while an affecting contrast is established, which isrecognized to be strictly in the manner of Scripture[576]. Each one hadgone to his home: but the homeless One had repaired to the Mount ofOlives. In other words, the paragraph under discussion is found to be anintegral part of the immediately antecedent narrative: proves to be afragment of what is universally admitted to be genuine Scripture. Byconsequence, itself must needs be genuine also[577]. 

It is vain for any one to remind us that these two verses are in thesame predicament as those which follow: are as ill supported by MS. Evidence as the other ten: and must therefore share the same fate as therest. The statement is incorrect, to begin with; as shall presently beshewn. But, what is even better deserving of attention, sinceconfessedly these twelve verses are either to stand or else to falltogether, it must be candidly admitted that whatever begets a suspicionthat certain of them, at all events, must needs be genuine, throws realdoubt on the justice of the sentence of condemnation which has beenpassed in a lump upon all the rest. 

I proceed to call attention to another inconvenient circumstance whichsome Critics in their eagerness have overlooked. 

The reader will bear in mind that--contending, as I do, that the entirePericope under discussion is genuine Scripture which has been forciblywrenched away from its lawful context, --I began by examining the upperextremity, with a view to ascertaining whether it bore any traces ofbeing a fractured edge. The result is just what might have beenanticipated. The first two of the verses which it is the fashion tobrand with ignominy were found to carry on their front clear evidencethat they are genuine Scripture. How then about the other extremity?

Note, that in the oracular Codexes B and [Symbol: Aleph] immediatetransition is made from the words 'out of Galilee ariseth no prophet, 'in ch. Vii. 5a, to the words 'Again therefore Jesus spake unto them, saying, ' in ch. Viii. 12. And we are invited by all the adverse Criticsalike to believe that so the place stood in the inspired autograph ofthe Evangelist. 

But the thing is incredible. Look back at what is contained between ch. Vii. 37 and 5a, and note--(_a_) That two hostile parties crowded theTemple courts (ver. 40-42): (_b_) That some were for laying violenthands on our Lord (ver. 44): (_c_) That the Sanhedrin, being assembledin debate, were reproaching their servants for not having brought Himprisoner, and disputing one against another[578] (ver. 45-52). How canthe Evangelist have proceeded, --'Again therefore Jesus spake unto them, saying, I am the light of the world'? What is it supposed then that St. John meant when he wrote such words?

But on the contrary, survey the context in any ordinary copy of the NewTestament, and his meaning is perfectly clear. The last great day of theFeast of Tabernacles is ended. It is the morrow and 'very early in themorning. ' The Holy One has 'again presented Himself in the Temple' whereon the previous night He so narrowly escaped violence at the hands ofHis enemies, and He teaches the people. While thus engaged, --the time, the place, His own occupation suggesting thoughts of peace and holinessand love, --a rabble rout, headed by the Scribes and Pharisees, enter onthe foulest of errands; and we all remember with how little success. Such an interruption need not have occupied much time. The Woman'saccusers having departed, our Saviour resumes His discourse which hadbeen broken off. 'Again therefore' it is said in ver. 12, with clear andfrequent reference to what had preceded in ver. 2--'Jesus spake untothem, saying, I am the light of the world. ' And had not that saying ofHis reference as well to the thick cloud of moral darkness which Hiswords, a few moments before, had succeeded in dispelling, as to the orbof glory which already flooded the Temple Court with the effulgence ofits rising, --His own visible emblem and image in the Heavens?... Iprotest that with the incident of 'the woman taken in adultery, '--sointroduced, so dismissed, --all is lucid and coherent: without thoseconnecting links, the story is scarcely intelligible. These twelvedisputed verses, so far from 'fatally interrupting the course of St. John's Gospel, if retained in the text[579], ' prove to be even necessaryfor the logical coherency of the entire context in which they stand. 

But even that is not all. On close and careful inspection, themysterious texture of the narrative, no less than its 'edifying andeminently Christian' character, vindicates for the _Pericope deadultera_ a right to its place in the Gospel. Let me endeavour toexplain what seems to be its spiritual significancy: in other words, tointerpret the transaction. 

The Scribes and Pharisees bring a woman to our Saviour on a charge ofadultery. The sin prevailed to such an extent among the Jews that theDivine enactments concerning one so accused had long since fallen intopractical oblivion. On the present occasion our Lord is observed torevive His own ancient ordinance after a hitherto unheard of fashion. The trial by the bitter water, or water of conviction[580], was aspecies of ordeal, intended for the vindication of innocence, theconviction of guilt. But according to the traditional belief the testproved inefficacious, unless the husband was himself innocent of thecrime whereof he accused his wife. 

Let the provisions of the law, contained in Num. V. 16 to 24, be nowconsidered. The accused Woman having been brought near, and set beforethe Lord, the priest took 'holy water in an earthen vessel, ' and put 'ofthe dust of the floor of the tabernacle into the water. ' Then, with thebitter water that causeth the curse in his hand, he charged the woman byan oath. Next, he wrote the curses in a book and blotted them out withthe bitter water; causing the woman to drink the bitter water thatcauseth the curse. Whereupon if she were guilty, she fell under aterrible penalty, --her body testifying visibly to her sin. If she wasinnocent, nothing followed. 

And now, who sees not that the Holy One dealt with His hypocriticalassailants, as if they had been the accused parties? Into the presenceof incarnate Jehovah verily they had been brought: and perhaps when Hestooped down and wrote upon the ground, it was a bitter sentence againstthe adulterer and adulteress which He wrote. We have but to assume someconnexion between the curse which He thus traced 'in the dust of thefloor of the tabernacle' and the words which He uttered with His lips, and He may with truth be declared to have 'taken of the dust and put inon the water, ' and 'caused them to drink of the bitter water whichcauseth the curse. ' For when, by His Holy Spirit, our great High Priestin His human flesh addressed these adulterers, --what did He but presentthem with living water[581] 'in an earthen vessel[582]'? Did He notfurther charge them with an oath of cursing, saying, 'If ye have notgone aside to uncleanness, be ye free from this bitter water: but if yebe defiled'--On being presented with which alternative, did they not, self-convicted, go out one by one? And what else was this but their ownacquittal of the sinful woman, for whose condemnation they shewedthemselves so impatient? Surely it was 'the water of conviction'([Greek: to hydôr tou elegmou]) as it is six times called, which _they_had been compelled to drink; whereupon, 'convicted ([Greek:elegchomenoi]) by their own conscience, ' as St. John relates, they hadpronounced the other's acquittal. Finally, note that by Himselfdeclining to 'condemn' the accused woman, our Lord also did in effectblot out those curses which He had already written against her in thedust, --when He made the floor of the sanctuary His 'book. '

Whatever may be thought of the foregoing exposition--and I am notconcerned to defend it in every detail, --on turning to the oppositecontention, we are struck with the slender amount of actual proof withwhich the assailants of this passage seem to be furnished. Theirevidence is mostly negative--a proceeding which is constantly observedto attend a bad cause: and they are prone to make up for the feeblenessof their facts by the strength of their assertions. But my experience, as one who has given a considerable amount of attention to suchsubjects, tells me that the narrative before us carries on its front theimpress of Divine origin. I venture to think that it vindicates foritself a high, unearthly meaning. It seems to me that it cannot be thework of a fabricator. The more I study it, the more I am impressed withits Divinity. And in what goes before I have been trying to make thereader a partaker of my own conviction. 

To come now to particulars, we may readily see from its very texturethat it must needs have been woven in a heavenly loom. Only too obviousis the remark that the very subject-matter of the chief transactionrecorded in these twelve verses, would be sufficient in and by itself topreclude the suspicion that these twelve verses are a spurious additionto the genuine Gospel. And then we note how entirely in St. John'smanner is the little explanatory clause in ver. 6, --'This they said, tempting Him, that they might have to accuse Him[583]. ' We are struckbesides by the prominence given in verses 6 and 8 to the act ofwriting, --allusions to which, are met with in every work of the lastEvangelist[584]. It does not of course escape us how utterly beyond thereach of a Western interpolator would have been the insertion of thearticle so faithfully retained to this hour before [Greek: lithon] inver. 7. On completing our survey, as to the assertions that the_pericope de adultera_ 'has no right to a place in the text of the fourGospels, '--is 'clearly a Western interpolation, though not Western ofthe earliest type[585], ' (whatever _that_ may mean), and so forth, --wecan but suspect that the authors very imperfectly realize the difficultyof the problem with which they have to deal. Dr. Hort finally assures usthat 'no accompanying marks would prevent' this portion of Scripture'from fatally interrupting the course of St. John's Gospel if retainedin the text': and when they relegate it accordingly to a blank page atthe end of the Gospels within 'double brackets, ' in order 'to shew itsinferior authority';--we can but read and wonder at the want ofperception, not to speak of the coolness, which they display. _Quousquetandem?_

But it is time to turn from such considerations as the foregoing, and toinquire for the direct testimony, which is assumed by recent Editors andCritics to be fatal to these twelve verses. Tischendorf pronounces it'absolutely certain that this narrative was not written by St. John[586]. ' One, vastly his superior in judgement (Dr. Scrivener)declares that 'on all intelligent principles of mere Criticism, thepassage must needs be abandoned[587]. ' Tregelles is 'fully satisfiedthat this narrative is not a genuine part of St. John's Gospel[588]. 'Alford shuts it up in brackets, and like Tregelles puts it into hisfootnotes. Westcott and Hort, harsher than any of their predecessors, will not, as we have seen, allow it to appear even at the foot of thepage. To reproduce all that has been written in disparagement of thisprecious portion of God's written Word would be a joyless and anunprofitable task. According to Green, 'the genuineness of the passagecannot be maintained[589]. ' Hammond is of opinion that 'it would be moresatisfactory to separate it from its present context, and place it byitself as an appendix to the Gospel[590]. ' A yet more recent critic'sums up, ' that 'the external evidence must be held fatal to thegenuineness of the passage[591]. ' The opinions of Bishops Wordsworth, Ellicott, and Lightfoot, shall be respectfully commented upon by-and-by. In the meantime, I venture to join issue with every one of these learnedpersons. I contend that on all intelligent principles of sound Criticismthe passage before us must be maintained to be genuine Scripture; andthat without a particle of doubt I cannot even admit that 'it has beentransmitted to us under circumstances widely different from thoseconnected with any other passage of Scripture whatever[592]. ' I contendthat it has been transmitted in precisely the same way as all the restof Scripture, and therefore exhibits the same notes of genuineness asany other twelve verses of the same Gospel which can be named: but--likecountless other places--it is found for whatever reason to have givenoffence in certain quarters: and in consequence has experienced very illusage at the hands of the ancients and of the moderns also:--butespecially of the latter. In other words, these twelve verses exhibitthe required notes of genuineness _less conspicuously_ than any othertwelve consecutive verses in the same Gospel. But that is all. The oneonly question to be decided is the following:--On a review of the wholeof the evidence, --is it more reasonable to stigmatize these twelveverses as a spurious accretion to the Gospel? Or to admit that they mustneeds be accounted to be genuine?... I shall shew that they are at thishour supported by a weight of testimony which is absolutelyoverwhelming. I read with satisfaction that my own convictions wereshared by Mill, Matthaei, Adler, Scholz, Vercellone. I have also thelearned Ceriani on my side. I should have been just as confident had Istood alone:--such is the imperative strength of the evidence. 

To begin then. Tischendorf--(who may be taken as a fair sample of theassailants of this passage)--commences by stating roundly that thePericope is omitted by [Symbol: Aleph]ABCLTX[Symbol: Delta], and aboutseventy cursives. I will say at once, that no sincere inquirer aftertruth could so state the evidence. It is in fact not a true statement. Aand C are hereabout defective. No longer possible therefore is it toknow with certainty what they either did, or did not, contain. But thisis not merely all. I proceed to offer a few words concerning Cod. A. 

Woide, the learned and accurate[593] editor of the Codex Alexandrinus, remarked (in 1785)--'Historia adulterae _videtur_ in hoc codicedefuisse. ' But this modest inference of his, subsequent Critics haverepresented as an ascertained fact, Tischendorf announces it as'certissimum. ' Let me be allowed to investigate the problem for myself. Woide's calculation, --(which has passed unchallenged for nearly ahundred years, and on the strength of which it is now-a-days assumedthat Cod. A must have exactly resembled Codd. [Symbol: Aleph]B in_omitting_ the _pericope de adultera_, )--was far too roughly made to beof any critical use[594]. 

Two leaves of Cod. A have been here lost: viz. From the word [Greek:katabainôn] in vi. 50 to the word [Greek: legeis] in viii. 52: a_lacuna_ (as I find by counting the letters in a copy of the ordinarytext) of as nearly as possible 8, 805 letters, --allowing forcontractions, and of course not reckoning St. John vii. 53 to viii. 11. Now, in order to estimate fairly how many letters the two lost leavesactually contained, I have inquired for the sums of the letters on theleaf immediately preceding, and also on the leaf immediately succeedingthe hiatus; and I find them to be respectively 4, 337 and 4, 303:together, 8, 640 letters. But this, it will be seen, is insufficient by165 letters, or eight lines, for the assumed contents of these twomissing leaves. Are we then to suppose that one leaf exhibited somewherea blank space equivalent to eight lines? Impossible, I answer. Thereexisted, on the contrary, a considerable redundancy of matter in atleast the second of those two lost leaves. This is proved by thecircumstance that the first column on the next ensuing leaf exhibits theunique phenomenon of being encumbered, at its summit, by two very longlines (containing together fifty-eight letters), for which evidently noroom could be found on the page which immediately preceded. But whyshould there have been any redundancy of matter at all? Somethingextraordinary must have produced it. What if the _Pericope de adultera_, without being actually inserted in full, was recognized by Cod. A? Whatif the scribe had proceeded as far as the fourth word of St. John viii. 3, and then had suddenly checked himself? We cannot tell what appearanceSt. John vii. 53-viii. 11 presented in Codex A, simply because theentire leaf which should have contained it is lost. Enough however hasbeen said already to prove that it is incorrect and unfair to throw[Symbol: Aleph]AB into one and the same category, --with a'certissimum, '--as Tischendorf does. 

As for L and [Symbol: Delta], they exhibit a vacant space after St. Johnvii. 52, --which testifies to the consciousness of the copyists that theywere leaving out something. These are therefore witnesses _for_, --notwitnesses _against_, --the passage under discussion. --X being aCommentary on the Gospel as it was read in Church, of course leaves thepassage out. --The only uncial MSS. Therefore which _simply_ leave outthe pericope, are the three following--[Symbol: Aleph]BT: and the degreeof attention to which such an amount of evidence is entitled, has beenalready proved to be wondrous small. We cannot forget moreover that thetwo former of these copies enjoy the unenviable distinction of standingalone on a memorable occasion:--they _alone_ exhibit St. Mark's Gospelmutilated in respect of its twelve concluding verses. 

But I shall be reminded that about seventy MSS. Of later date arewithout the _pericope de adultera_: that the first Greek Father whoquotes the pericope is Euthymius in the twelfth century: thatTertullian, Origen, Chrysostom, Cyril, Nonnus, Cosmas, Theophylact, knewnothing of it: and that it is not contained in the Syriac, the Gothic, or the Egyptian versions. Concerning every one of which statements Iremark over again that no sincere lover of Truth, supposing him tounderstand the matter about which he is disputing, could so exhibit theevidence for this particular problem. First, because so to state it isto misrepresent the entire case. Next, because some of the articles ofindictment are only half true:--in fact are _untrue_. But chiefly, because in the foregoing enumeration certain considerations are actuallysuppressed which, had they been fairly stated, would have been found toreverse the issue. Let me now be permitted to conduct this inquiry in myown way. 

The first thing to be done is to enable the reader clearly to understandwhat the problem before him actually is. Twelve verses then, which, as amatter of fact, are found dovetailed into a certain context of St. John's Gospel, the Critics insist must now be dislodged. But do theCritics in question prove that they must? For unless they do, there isno help for it but the _pericope de adultera_ must be left where it is. I proceed to shew first, that it is impossible, on any rationalprinciple to dislodge these twelve verses from their actualcontext. --Next, I shall point out that the facts adduced in evidence andrelied on by the assailants of the passage, do not by any means provethe point they are intended to prove; but admit of a sufficient andsatisfactory explanation. --Thirdly, it shall be shewn that the saidexplanation carries with it, and implies, a weight of testimony insupport of the twelve verses in dispute, which is absolutelyoverwhelming. --Lastly, the positive evidence in favour of these twelveverses shall be proved to outweigh largely the negative evidence, whichis relied upon by those who contend for their removal. To some people Imay seem to express myself with too much confidence. Let it then be saidonce for all, that my confidence is inspired by the strength of thearguments which are now to be unfolded. When the Author of HolyScripture supplies such proofs of His intentions, I cannot do otherwisethan rest implicit confidence in them. 

Now I begin by establishing as my first proposition that, (1) _These twelve verses occupied precisely the same position which theynow occupy from the earliest period to which evidence concerning theGospels reaches. _

And this, because it is a mere matter of fact, is sufficientlyestablished by reference to the ancient Latin version of St. John'sGospel. We are thus carried back to the second century of our era:beyond which, testimony does not reach. The pericope is observed tostand _in situ_ in Codd. B c e ff^{2} g h j. Jerome (A. D. 385), after acareful survey of older Greek copies, did not hesitate to retain it inthe Vulgate. It is freely referred to and commented on by himself[595]in Palestine: while Ambrose at Milan (374) quotes it at least ninetimes[596]; as well as Augustine in North Africa (396) about twice asoften[597]. It is quoted besides by Pacian[598], in the north of Spain(370), --by Faustus[599] the African (400), --by Rufinus[600] at Aquileia(400), --by Chrysologus[601] at Ravenna (433), --by Sedulius[602] a Scot(434). The unknown authors of two famous treatises[603] written at thesame period, largely quote this portion of the narrative. It is referredto by Victorius or Victorinus (457), --by Vigilius of Tapsus[604] (484)in North Africa, --by Gelasius[605], bp. Of Rome (492), --byCassiodorus[606] in Southern Italy, --by Gregory the Great[607], and byother Fathers of the Western Church. 

To this it is idle to object that the authors cited all wrote in Latin. For the purpose in hand their evidence is every bit as conclusive as ifthey had written in Greek, --from which language no one doubts that theyderived their knowledge, through a translation. But in fact we are notleft to Latin authorities. [Out of thirty-eight copies of the Bohairicversion the _pericope de adultera_ is read in fifteen, but in threeforms which will be printed in the Oxford edition. In the remainingtwenty-three, it is left out. ] How is it intelligible that this passageis thus found in nearly half the copies--except on the hypothesis thatthey formed an integral part of the Memphitic version? They might havebeen easily omitted: but how could they have been inserted?

Once more. The Ethiopic version (fifth century), --the Palestinian Syriac(which is referred to the fifth century), --the Georgian (probably fifthor sixth century), --to say nothing of the Slavonic, Arabic and Persianversions, which are of later date, --all contain the portion of narrativein dispute. The Armenian version also (fourth-fifth century) originallycontained it; though it survives at present in only a few copies. Addthat it is found in Cod. D, and it will be seen that in all parts ofancient Christendom this portion of Scripture was familiarly known inearly times. 

But even this is not all. Jerome, who was familiar with Greek MSS. (andwho handled none of later date than B and [Symbol: Aleph]), expresslyrelates (380) that the _pericope de adultera_ 'is found in many copiesboth Greek and Latin[608]. ' He calls attention to the fact that what isrendered 'sine peccato' is [Greek: anamartêtos] in the Greek: and letsfall an exegetical remark which shews that he was familiar with copieswhich exhibited (in ver. 8) [Greek: egraphan enos ekastou autôn tasamartias], --a reading which survives to this day in one uncial (U) andat least eighteen cursive copies of the fourth Gospel[609]. Whence isit--let me ask in passing--that so many Critics fail to see that_positive_ testimony like the foregoing far outweighs the adverse_negative_ testimony of [Symbol: Aleph]BT, --aye, and of AC to boot ifthey were producible on this point? How comes it to pass that the twoCodexes, [Symbol: Aleph] and B, have obtained such a mastery--ratherexercise such a tyranny--over the imagination of many Critics as quiteto overpower their practical judgement? We have at all eventsestablished our first proposition: viz. That from the earliest period towhich testimony reaches, the incident of 'the woman taken in adultery'occupied its present place in St. John's Gospel. The Critics eagerlyremind us that in four cursive copies (13, 69, 124, 346), the verses inquestion are found tacked on to the end of St. Luke xxi. But have theythen forgotten that 'these four Codexes are derived from a commonarchetype, ' and therefore represent one and the same ancient and, I mayadd, corrupt copy? The same Critics are reminded that in the same fourCodexes [commonly called the Ferrar Group] 'the agony and bloody sweat'(St. Luke xxii. 43, 44) is found thrust into St. Matthew's Gospelbetween ch. Xxvi. 39 and 40. Such licentiousness on the part of asolitary exemplar of the Gospels no more affects the proper place ofthese or of those verses than the superfluous digits of a certain man ofGath avail to disturb the induction that to either hand of a human beingappertain but five fingers, and to either foot but five toes. 

It must be admitted then that as far back as testimony reaches thepassage under discussion stood where it now stands in St. John's Gospel. And this is my first position. But indeed, to be candid, hardly any onehas seriously called that fact in question. No, nor do any (except Dr. Hort[610]) doubt that the passage is also of the remotest antiquity. Adverse Critics do but insist that however ancient, it must needs be ofspurious origin: or else that it is an afterthought of theEvangelist:--concerning both which imaginations we shall have a fewwords to offer by-and-by. 

It clearly follows, --indeed it may be said with truth that it onlyremains, --to inquire what may have led to its so frequent exclusion fromthe sacred Text? For really the difficulty has already resolved itselfinto that. 

And on this head, it is idle to affect perplexity. In the earliest ageof all, --the age which was familiar with the universal decay of heathenvirtue, but which had not yet witnessed the power of the Gospel tofashion society afresh, and to build up domestic life on a new and moreenduring basis;--at a time when the greatest laxity of morals prevailed, and the enemies of the Gospel were known to be on the look out forgrounds of cavil against Christianity and its Author;--what wonder ifsome were found to remove the _pericope de adultera_ from their copies, lest it should be pleaded in extenuation of breaches of the seventhcommandment? The very subject-matter, I say, of St. John viii. 3-11would sufficiently account for the occasional omission of those nineverses. Moral considerations abundantly explain what is found to havehere and there happened. But in fact this is not a mere conjecture of myown. It is the reason assigned by Augustine for the erasure of thesetwelve verses from many copies of the Gospel[611]. Ambrose, a quarter ofa century earlier, had clearly intimated that danger was popularlyapprehended from this quarter[612]: while Nicon, five centuries later, states plainly that the mischievous tendency of the narrative was thecause why it had been expunged from the Armenian version[613]. Accordingly, just a few Greek copies are still to be found mutilated inrespect of those nine verses only. But in fact the indications are not afew that all the twelve verses under discussion did not by any meanslabour under the same degree of disrepute. The first three (as I shewedat the outset) clearly belong to a different category from the lastnine, --a circumstance which has been too much overlooked. 

The Church in the meantime for an obvious reason had made choice of St. John vii. 37-viii. 12--the greater part of which is clearly descriptiveof what happened at the Feast of Tabernacles--for her Pentecostallesson: and judged it expedient, besides omitting as inappropriate tothe occasion the incident of the woman taken in adultery, to ignore alsothe three preceding verses;--making the severance begin, in fact, as farback as the end of ch. Vii. 52. The reason for this is plain. In thisway the allusion to a certain departure at night, and return early nextmorning (St. John vii. 53: viii. 1), was avoided, which entirely marredthe effect of the lection as the history of a day of great and specialsolemnity, --'the great day of the Feast. ' And thus it happens that thegospel for the day of Pentecost was made to proceed directly from'Search and look: for out of Galilee ariseth no prophet, ' in ch. Vii. 52, --to 'Then spake Jesus unto them, saying, I am the light of theworld, ' in ch. Viii. 12; with which it ends. In other words, an omissionwhich owed its beginning to a moral scruple was eventually extended fora liturgical consideration; and resulted in severing twelve verses ofSt. John's Gospel--ch. Vii. 53 to viii. 11--from their lawful context. 

We may now proceed to the consideration of my second proposition, whichis

(2) _That by the very construction of her Lectionary, the Church in hercorporate capacity and official character has solemnly recognised thenarrative in question as an integral part of St. John's Gospel, and asstanding in its traditional place, from an exceedingly remote time_. 

Take into your hands at random the first MS. Copy of St. John's Gospelwhich presents itself, and turn to the place in question. Nay, I willinstance _all_ the four Evangelia which I call mine, --all the seventeenwhich belong to Lord Zouch, --all the thirty-nine which BaronessBurdett-Coutts imported from Epirus in 1870-2. Now all thesecopies--(and nearly each of them represents a different line ofancestry)--are found to contain the verses in question. How did theverses ever get there?

But the most extraordinary circumstance of the case is behind. Some outof the Evangelia referred to are observed to have been prepared forecclesiastical use: in other words, are so rubricated throughout as toshew where, every separate lection had its 'beginning' ([Greek: archê]), and where its 'end' ([Greek: telos]). And some of these lections aremade up of disjointed portions of the Gospel. Thus, the lection forWhitsunday is found to have extended from St. John vii. 37 to St. Johnviii. 12; beginning at the words [Greek: tê eschatê hêmera tê megalê], and ending--[Greek: to phôs tês zôês]: but _over-leaping_ the twelveverses now under discussion: viz. Vii. 53 to viii. 11. Accordingly, theword 'over-leap' ([Greek: hyperba]) is written in _all_ the copies aftervii. 52, --whereby the reader, having read on to the end of that verse, was directed to skip all that followed down to the words [Greek: kaimêketi hamartane] in ch. Viii. 11: after which he found himselfinstructed to 'recommence' ([Greek: arxai]). Again I ask (and this timedoes not the riddle admit of only one solution?), --When and how does thereader suppose that the narrative of 'the woman taken in adultery' firstfound its way into the _middle of the lesson for Pentecost_? I pause foran answer: I shall perforce be told that it never 'found its way' intothe lection at all: but having once crept into St. John's Gospel, however that may have been effected, and established itself there, itleft those ancient men who devised the Church's Lectionary withoutchoice. They could but direct its omission, and employ for that purposethe established liturgical formula in all similar cases. 

But first, --How is it that those who would reject the narrative are notstruck by the essential foolishness of supposing that twelve fabricatedverses, purporting to be an integral part of the fourth Gospel, can haveso firmly established themselves in every part of Christendom from thesecond century downwards, that they have long since become simplyineradicable? Did the Church then, _pro hac vice_, abdicate her functionof being 'a witness and a keeper of Holy Writ'? Was she all of a suddenforsaken by the inspiring Spirit, who, as she was promised, should'guide her into all Truth'? And has she been all down the ages guidedinto the grievous error of imputing to the disciple whom Jesus loved anarrative of which he knew nothing? For, as I remarked at the outset, this is not merely an assimilated expression, or an unauthorizednominative, or a weakly-supported clause, or any such trifling thing. Although be it remarked in passing, I am not aware of a single suchtrifling excrescence which we are not able at once to detect and toremove. In other words, this is not at all a question, like the rest, about the genuine text of a passage. Our inquiry is of an essentiallydifferent kind, viz. Are these twelve consecutive verses Scripture atall, or not? Divine or human? Which? They claim by their very structureand contents to be an integral part of the Gospel. And such a seriousaccession to the Deposit, I insist, can neither have 'crept into' theText, nor have 'crept out' of it. The thing is unexampled, --isunapproached, --is impossible. 

Above all, --(the reader is entreated to give the subject his sustainedattention), --Is it not perceived that the admission involved in thehypothesis before us is fatal to any rational pretence that the passageis of spurious origin? We have got back in thought at least to the thirdor fourth century of our era. We are among the Fathers and Doctors ofthe Eastern Church in conference assembled: and they are determiningwhat shall be the Gospel for the great Festival of Pentecost. 'It shallbegin' (say they) 'at the thirty-seventh verse of St. John vii, andconclude with the twelfth verse of St. John viii. But so much of it asrelates to the breaking up of the Sanhedrin, --to the withdrawal of ourLord to the Mount of Olives, --and to His return next morning to theTemple, --had better not be read. It disturbs the unity of the narrative. So also had the incident of the woman taken in adultery better not beread. It is inappropriate to the Pentecostal Festival. ' The Authors ofthe great Oriental Liturgy therefore admit that they find the disputedverses in their copies: and thus they vouch for their genuineness. Fornone will doubt that, had they regarded them as a spurious accretion tothe inspired page, they would have said so plainly. Nor can it be deniedthat if in their corporate capacity they had disallowed these twelveverses, such an authoritative condemnation would most certainly haveresulted in the perpetual exclusion from the Sacred Text of the part ofthese verses which was actually adopted as a Lection. What strongertestimony on the contrary can be imagined to the genuineness of anygiven portion of the everlasting Gospel than that it should have beencanonized or recognized as part of Inspired Scripture by the collectivewisdom of the Church in the third or fourth century?

And no one may regard it as a suspicious circumstance that the presentPentecostal lection has been thus maimed and mutilated in respect oftwelve of its verses. There is nothing at all extraordinary in thetreatment which St. John vii. 37-viii. 12 has here experienced. Thephenomenon is even of perpetual recurrence in the Lectionary of theEast, --as will be found explained below[614]. 

Permit me to suppose that, between the Treasury and Whitehall, theremote descendant of some Saxon thane occupied a small tenement andgarden which stood in the very middle of the ample highway. Supposefurther, the property thereabouts being Government property, that theroad on either side of this estate had been measured a hundred times, and jealously watched, ever since Westminster became Westminster. Well, an act of Parliament might no doubt compel the supposed proprietor ofthis singular estate to surrender his patrimony; but I submit that nogovernment lawyer would ever think of setting up the plea that the ownerof that peculiar strip of land was an impostor. The man might have notitle-deeds to produce, to be sure; but counsel for the defendant wouldplead that neither did he require any. 'This man's title' (counsel wouldsay) 'is--occupation for a thousand years. His evidences are--theallowance of the State throughout that long interval. Every processionto St. Stephen's--every procession to the Abbey--has swept bydefendant's property--on this side of it and on that, --since the days ofEdward the Confessor. And if my client refuses to quit the soil, I defyyou--except by violence--to get rid of him. '

In this way then it is that the testimony borne to these verses by theLectionary of the East proves to be of the most opportune and convincingcharacter. The careful provision made for passing by the twelve versesin dispute:--the minute directions which fence those twelve verses offon this side and on that, directions issued we may be sure by thehighest Ecclesiastical authority, because recognized in every part ofthe ancient Church, --not only establish them effectually in theirrightful place, but (what is at least of equal importance) fully explainthe adverse phenomena which are ostentatiously paraded by adversecritics; and which, until the clue has been supplied, are calculated tomislead the judgement. 

For now, for the first time, it becomes abundantly plain why Chrysostomand Cyril, in publicly commenting on St. John's Gospel, pass straightfrom ch. Vii. 52 to ch. Viii. 12. Of course they do. Why shouldthey, --how could they, --comment on what was not publicly read before thecongregation? The same thing is related (in a well-known 'scholium') tohave been done by Apolinarius and Theodore of Mopsuestia. Origen also, for aught I care, --though the adverse critics have no right to claimhim, seeing that his commentary on all that part of St. John's Gospel islost;--but Origen's name, as I was saying, for aught I care, may beadded to those who did the same thing. A triumphant refutation of theproposed inference from the silence of these many Fathers is furnishedby the single fact that Theophylact must also be added to their number. Theophylact, I say, ignores the _pericope de adultera_--passes it by, Imean, --exactly as do Chrysostom and Cyril. But will any one pretend thatTheophylact, --writing in A. D. 1077, --did not know of St. John vii. 53-viii. 11? Why, in nineteen out of every twenty copies within hisreach, the whole of those twelve verses must have been to be found. 

The proposed inference from the silence of certain of the Fathers istherefore invalid. The argument _e silentio_--always an insecureargument, --proves inapplicable in this particular case. When theantecedent facts have been once explained, all the subsequent phenomenabecome intelligible. But a more effectual and satisfactory reply to thedifficulty occasioned by the general silence of the Fathers, remains tobe offered. 

There underlies the appeal to Patristic authority an opinion, --notexpressed indeed, yet consciously entertained by us all, --which in factgives the appeal all its weight and cogency, and which must now by allmeans be brought to the front. The fact that the Fathers of the Churchwere not only her Doctors and Teachers, but also the living voices bywhich alone her mind could be proclaimed to the world, and by which herdecrees used to be authoritatively promulgated;--this fact, I say, it iswhich makes their words, whenever they deliver themselves, so veryimportant: their approval, if they approve, so weighty; theircondemnation, if they condemn, so fatal. But then, in the presentinstance, they do not condemn. They neither approve nor condemn. Theysimply say nothing. They are silent: and in what precedes, I haveexplained the reason why. We wish it had been otherwise. We would give agreat deal to persuade those ancient oracles to speak on the subject ofthese twelve verses: but they are all but inexorably silent. Nay, I amoverstating the case against myself. Two of the greatest Fathers(Augustine and Ambrose) actually do utter a few words; and they are tothe effect that the verses are undoubtedly genuine:--'Be it known to allmen' (they say) 'that this passage _is_ genuine: but the nature of itssubject-matter has at once procured its ejection from MSS. , and resultedin the silence of Commentators. ' The most learned of the Fathers inaddition practically endorses the passage; for Jerome not only leaves itstanding in the Vulgate where he found it in the Old Latin version, butrelates that it was supported by Greek as well as Latin authorities. 

To proceed however with what I was about to say. 

It is the authoritative sentence of the Church then on this difficultsubject that we desiderate. We resorted to the Fathers for that:intending to regard any quotations of theirs, however brief, as theirpractical endorsement of all the twelve verses: to infer from theirgeneral recognition of the passage, that the Church in her collectivecapacity accepted it likewise. As I have shewn, the Fathers decline, almost to a man, to return any answer. But, --Are we then without theChurch's authoritative guidance on this subject? For this, I repeat, isthe only thing of which we are in search. It was only in order to get atthis that we adopted the laborious expedient of watching for the casualutterances of any of the giants of old time. Are we, I say, left withoutthe Church's opinion?

Not so, I answer. The reverse is the truth. The great Eastern Churchspeaks out on this subject in a voice of thunder. In all herPatriarchates, as far back as the written records of her practicereach, --and they reach back to the time of those very Fathers whosesilence we felt to be embarrassing, --the Eastern Church has selectednine out of these twelve verses to be the special lesson for October 8. A more significant circumstance it would be impossible to adduce inevidence. Any pretence to fasten a charge of spuriousness on a portionof Scripture so singled out by the Church for honour, were nothing elsebut monstrous. It would be in fact to raise quite a distinct issue: viz. To inquire what amount of respect is due to the Church's authority indetermining the authenticity of Scripture? I appeal not to an opinion, but to _a fact_: and that fact is, that though the Fathers of the Churchfor a very sufficient reason are very nearly silent on the subject ofthese twelve verses, the Church herself has spoken with a voice ofauthority so loud that none can affect not to hear it: so plain, that itcannot possibly be misunderstood. And let me not be told that I amhereby setting up the Lectionary as the true standard of appeal for theText of the New Testament: still less let me be suspected of charging onthe collective body of the faithful whatever irregularities arediscoverable in the Codexes which were employed for the public readingof Scripture. Such a suspicion could only be entertained by one who hashitherto failed to apprehend the precise point just now underconsideration. We are not examining the text of St. John vii. 53-viii. 11. We are only discussing whether those twelve verses _en bloc_ are tobe regarded as an integral part of the fourth Gospel, or as a spuriousaccretion to it. And that is a point on which the Church in hercorporate character must needs be competent to pronounce; and in respectof which her verdict must needs be decisive. She delivered her verdictin favour of these twelve verses, remember, at a time when her copies ofthe Gospels were of papyrus as well as 'old uncials' on vellum. --Nay, before 'old uncials' on vellum were at least in any general use. True, that the transcribers of Lectionaries have proved themselves just asliable to error as the men who transcribed Evangelia. But then, it isincredible that those men forged the Gospel for St. Pelagia's day:impossible, if it were a forgery, that the Church should have adoptedit. And it is the significancy of the Church having adopted the_pericope de adultera_ as the lection for October 8, which has never yetbeen sufficiently attended to: and which I defy the Critics to accountfor on any hypothesis but one: viz. That the pericope was recognized bythe ancient Eastern Church as an integral part of the Gospel. 

Now when to this has been added what is implied in the rubricaldirection that a ceremonious respect should be shewn to the Festival ofPentecost by dropping the twelve verses, I submit that I have fullyestablished my second position, viz. That by the very construction ofher Lectionary the Church in her corporate capacity and officialcharacter has solemnly recognized the narrative in question, as anintegral part of St. John's Gospel, and as standing in its traditionalplace, from an exceedingly remote time. 

For, --(I entreat the candid reader's sustained attention), --thecircumstances of the present problem altogether refuse to accommodatethemselves to any hypothesis of a spurious original for these verses; asI proceed to shew. 

Repair in thought to any collection of MSS. You please; suppose to theBritish Museum. Request to be shewn their seventy-three copies of St. John's Gospel, and turn to the close of his seventh chapter. At thatparticular place you will find, in sixty-one of these copies, thesetwelve verses: and in thirty-five of them you will discover, after thewords [Greek: Prophêtês ek tês Galilaias ouk eg. ] a rubrical note to theeffect that 'on Whitsunday, these twelve verses are to be dropped; andthe reader is to go on at ch. Viii. 12. ' What can be the meaning of thisrespectful treatment of the Pericope in question? How can it ever havecome to pass that it has been thus ceremoniously handled all down theages? Surely on no possible view of the matter but one can thephenomenon just now described be accounted for. Else, will any onegravely pretend to tell me that at some indefinitely remote period, (1)These verses were fabricated: (2) Were thrust into the place they atpresent occupy in the sacred text: (3) Were unsuspectingly believed tobe genuine by the Church; and in consequence of which they were at oncepassed over by her direction on Whitsunday as incongruous, and appointedby the Church to be read on October 8, as appropriate to the occasion?

(3) But further. How is it proposed to explain why _one_ of St. John'safter-thoughts should have fared so badly at the Church'shands;--another, so well? I find it suggested that perhaps thesubject-matter may sufficiently account for all that has happened to the_pericope_ de adultera: And so it may, no doubt. But then, once admit_this_, and the hypothesis under consideration becomes simply nugatory:fails even to _touch_ the difficulty which it professes to remove. Forif men were capable of thinking scorn of these twelve verses when theyfound them in the 'second and improved edition of St. John's Gospel, 'why may they not have been just as irreverent in respect of the sameverses, when they appeared in the _first_ edition? How is it one whitmore probable that every Greek Father for a thousand years should havesystematically overlooked the twelve verses in dispute when theyappeared in the second edition of St. John's Gospel, than that the sameFathers should have done the same thing when they appeared in thefirst[615]?

(4) But the hypothesis is gratuitous and nugatory: for it has beeninvented in order to account for the phenomenon that whereas twelveverses of St. John's Gospel are found in the large majority of the laterCopies, --the same verses are observed to be absent from all but one ofthe five oldest Codexes. But how, (I wish to be informed, ) is thathypothesis supposed to square with these phenomena? It cannot be meantthat the 'second edition' of St. John did not come abroad until afterCodd. [Symbol: Aleph]ABCT were written? For we know that the old Italicversion (a document of the second century) contains all the threeportions of narrative which are claimed for the second edition. But ifthis is not meant, it is plain that some further hypothesis must beinvented in order to explain why certain Greek MSS. Of the fourth andfifth centuries are without the verses in dispute. And this freshhypothesis will render that under consideration (as I said) nugatory andshew that it was gratuitous. 

What chiefly offends me however in this extraordinary suggestion is its_irreverence_. It assumes that the Gospel according to St. John wascomposed like any ordinary modern book: capable therefore of beingimproved in the second edition, by recension, addition, omission, retractation, or what not. For we may not presume to limit the changeseffected in a second edition. And yet the true Author of the Gospel isconfessedly God the Holy Ghost: and I know of no reason for supposingthat His works are imperfect when they proceed forth from His Hands. 

The cogency of what precedes has in fact weighed so powerfully withthoughtful and learned Divines that they have felt themselvesconstrained, as their last resource, to cast about for some hypothesiswhich shall at once account for the absence of these verses from so manycopies of St. John's Gospel, and yet retain them for their rightfulowner and author, --St. John. Singular to relate, the assumption whichhas best approved itself to their judgement has been, that there musthave existed two editions of St. John's Gospel, --the earlier editionwithout, the later edition with, the incident under discussion. It is Ipresume, in order to conciliate favour to this singular hypothesis, thatit has been further proposed to regard St. John v. 3, 4 and the whole ofSt. John xxi, (besides St. John vii. 53-viii. 11), as after-thoughts ofthe Evangelist. 

1. But this is unreasonable: for nothing else but _the absence_ of St. John vii. 53-viii. 11, from so many copies of the Gospel has constrainedthe Critics to regard those verses with suspicion. Whereas, on thecontrary, there is not known to exist a copy in the world which omits somuch as a single verse of chap. Xxi. Why then are we to assume that thewhole of that chapter was away from the original draft of the Gospel?Where is the evidence for so extravagant an assumption?

2. So, concerning St. John v. 3, 4: to which there really attaches nomanner of doubt, as I have elsewhere shewn[616]. Thirty-two preciouswords in that place are indeed omitted by [Symbol: Aleph]BC:twenty-seven by D. But by this time the reader knows what degree ofimportance is to be attached to such an amount of evidence. On the otherhand, they are found in _all other copies_: are vouched for by theSyriac[617] and the Latin versions: in the Apostolic Constitutions, byChrysostom, Cyril, Didymus, and Ammonius, among the Greeks, --byTertullian, Ambrose, Jerome, Augustine among the Latins. Why a passageso attested is to be assumed to be an after-thought of the Evangelisthas never yet been explained: no, nor ever will be. 

(5) Assuming, however, just for a moment the hypothesis correct forargument's sake, viz. That in the second edition of St. John's Gospelthe history of the woman taken in adultery appeared for the first time. Invite the authors of that hypothesis to consider what follows. Thediscovery that five out of six of the oldest uncials extant (to reckonhere the fragment T) are without the verses in question; which yet arecontained in ninety-nine out of every hundred of the despisedcursives:--what other inference can be drawn from such premisses, butthat the cursives fortified by other evidence are by far the moretrustworthy witnesses of what St. John in his old age actually entrustedto the Church's keeping?

[The MS. Here leaves off, except that a few pencilled words are added inan incomplete form. I have been afraid to finish so clever andcharacteristic an essay. ]

FOOTNOTES:

[576] Compare 1 Sam. Xxiv. 22:--'And Saul went home: _but David and hismen gat them up into the hold_. ' 1 Kings xviii. 42:--'So Ahab went up toeat and to drink: _and Elijah went up to the top of Carmel, and he casthimself down upon the earth, and put his face between his knees_. 'Esther iii. 15:--'And the king and Haman sat down to drink; _but thecity of Shushan was perplexed_. ' Such are the idioms of the Bible. 

[577] Ammonius (Cord. Cat. P. 216), with evident reference to it, remarks that our Lord's words in verses 37 and 38 were intended as a_viaticum_ which all might take home with them, at the close of this, 'the last, the great day of the feast. '

[578] So Eusebius:--- [Greek: Ote kata to auto synachthentes hoi tônIoudaiôn ethnous archontes epi tês Hierousalêm, synedrion epoiêsanto kaiskepsin opôs auton apolesôsin en hô hoi men thanaton autoukatepsêphisanto; heteroi de antelegon, ôs ho Nikodêmos, k. T. L. ] (inPsalmos, p. 230 a). 

[579] Westcott and Hort's prefatory matter (1870) to their revised Textof the New Testament, p. Xxvii. 

[580] So in the LXX. See Num. V. 11-31. 

[581] Ver. 17. So the LXX. 

[582] 2 Cor. Iv. 7: v. 1. 

[583] Compare ch. Vi. 6, 71: vii. 39: xi. 13, 51: xii. 6, 33: xiii. 11, 28: xxi. 19. 

[584] Consider ch. Xix. 19, 20, 21, 22: xx. 30, 31: xxi. 24, 25. --1 Johni. 4: ii. 1, 7, 8, 12, 13, 14, 21, 26: v. 13. --2 John 5, 12. --3 John 9, 13. --Rev. _passim_, especially i. 11, 19: ii. 1, &c. : x. 4: xiv. 13:xvii. 8: xix. 9: xx. 12, 15: xxi. 5, 27: xxii. 18, 19. 

[585] Westcott and Hort, ibid. Pp. Xxvii, xxvi. 

[586] Novum Testamentum, 1869, p. 829. 

[587] Plain Introduction, 1894, ii. 364. 

[588] Printed Texts, 1854, p. 341. 

[589] Developed Criticism, p. 82. 

[590] Outlines, &c. , p. 103. 

[591] Nicholson's Gospel according to the Hebrews, p. 141. 

[592] Scrivener, ut supra, ii. 368. 

[593] I insert this epithet on sufficient authority. Mr. Edw. A. Guy, anintelligent young American, --himself a very accurate observer and acompetent judge, --collated a considerable part of Cod. A in 1875, andassured me that he scarcely ever found any discrepancy between the Codexand Woide's reprint. One instance of _italicism_ was in fact all thathad been overlooked in the course of many pages. 

[594] It is inaccurate also. His five lines contain eight mistakes. Praefat. P. Xxx, § 86. 

[595] ii. 630, addressing Rufinus, A. D. 403. Also ii. 748-9. 

[596] i. 291, 692, 707, 1367: ii. 668, 894, 1082: iii. 892-3, 896-7. 

[597] i. 30: ii. 527, 529-30: iii^{1}. 774: iii^{2}. 158, 183, 531-2(where he quotes the place largely and comments upon it): iv. 149, 466(largely quoted), 1120: v. 80, 1230 (largely quoted in both places): vi. 407, 413: viii. 377, 574. 

[598] Pacian (A. D. 372) refers the Novations to the narrative assomething which all men knew. 'Nolite in Evangelio legere quodpepercerit Dominus etiam adulterae confitenti, quam nemo damnarat?'Pacianus, Op. Epist. Iii. Contr. Novat. (A. D. 372). _Ap. _ Galland. Vii. 267. 

[599] _Ap. _ Augustin. Viii. 463. 

[600] In his translation of Eusebius. Nicholson, p. 53. 

[601] Chrysologus, A. D. 433, Abp. Of Ravenna. Venet. 1742. He mysticallyexplains the entire incident. Serm. Cxv. § 5. 

[602] Sedulius (A. D. 435) makes it the subject of a poem, and devotes awhole chapter to it. _Ap. _ Galland. Ix. 553 and 590. 

[603] 'Promiss. ' De Promissionibus dimid. Temp. (saec. Iv). Quotes viii. 4, 5, 9. P. 2, c. 22, col. 147 b. Ignot. Auct. , De Vocatione omniumGentium (circa, A. D. 440), _ap. _ Opp. Prosper. Aquit. (1782), i. P. 460-1:--'Adulteram ex legis constitutione lapidandam ... Liberavit ... Cum executores praecepti de conscientiis territi, trementem ream subillius iudicio reliquissent.... Et inclinatus, id est ad humana dimissus... "digito scribebat in terram, " ut legem mandatorum per gratiaedecreta vacuaret, ' &c. 

[604] Wrongly ascribed to Idacius. 

[605] Gelasius P. A. D. 492. Conc. Iv. 1235. Quotes viii. 3, 7, 10, 11. 

[606] Cassiodorus, A. D. 514. Venet. 1729. Quotes viii. 11. See ii. P. 96, 3, 5-180. 

[607] Dialogues, xiv. 15. 

[608] ii. 748:--In evangelio secundum Ioannem in multis et Graecis etLatinis codicibus invenitur de adultera muliere, quae accusata est apudDominum. 

[609] [Greek: henos hekastou autôn tas hamartias]. Ev. 95, 40, 48, 64, 73, 100, 122, 127, 142, 234, 264, 267, 274, 433, 115, 121, 604, 736. 

[610] Appendix, p. 88. 

[611] vi. 407:--Sed hoc videlicet infidelium sensus exhorret, ita utnonnulli modicae fidei vel potius inimici verae fidei, (credo metuentespeccandi impunitatem dari mulieribus suis), illud quod de adulteraeindulgentia Dominus fecit, auferrent de codicibus suis: quasipermissionem peccandi tribuerit qui dixit, 'Iam deinceps noli peccare;'aut ideo non debuerit mulier a medico Deo illius peccati remissionesanari, ne offenderentur insani. De coniug. Adult. Ii. Cap. 7. I. 707:--Fortasse non mediocrem scrupulum movere potuit imperitis Evangeliilectio, quae decursa est, in quo advertistis adulteram Christo oblatam, eamque sine damnatione dimissam. Nam profecto si quis en auribusaccipiat otiosis, incentivum erroris incurrit, cum leget quod Deuscensuerit adulterium non esse damnandum. 

[612] Epist. 58. Quid scribebat? nisi illud Propheticum (Jer. Xxii. 29-30), _Terra, terra, scribe hos vivos abdicatos_. 

[613] Constt. App. (Gen. In. 49). Nicon (Gen. Iii. 250). I am notcertain about these two references. 

[614] Two precious verses (viz. The forty-third and forty-fourth) usedto be omitted from the lection for Tuesday before Quinquagesima, --viz. St. Luke xxii. 39-xxiii. 1. 

The lection for the preceding Sabbath (viz. St. Luke xxi. 8-36)consisted of only the following verses, --ver. 8, 9, 25-27, 33-36. Allthe rest (viz. Verses 10-24 and 28-32) was omitted. 

On the ensuing Thursday, St. Luke xxiii was handled in a similar style:viz. Ver. 1-31, 33, 44-56 alone were read, --all the other verses beingleft out. 

On the first Sabbath after Pentecost (All Saints'), the lesson consistedof St. Matt. X. 32, 33, 37-38: xix. 27-30. 

On the fifteenth Sabbath after Pentecost, the lesson was St. Matt. Xxiv. 1-9, 13 (leaving out verses 10, 11, 12). 

On the sixteenth Sabbath after Pentecost, the lesson was St. Matt. Xxiv. 34-37, 42-44 (leaving out verses 38-41). 

On the sixth Sabbath of St. Luke, --the lesson was ch. Viii. 26-35followed by verses 38 and 39. 

[615] 'This celebrated paragraph ... Was probably not contained in thefirst edition of St. John's Gospel but added at the time when his lastchapter was annexed to what had once been the close of hisnarrative, --xx. 30, 31. ' Scrivener's Introduction to Cod. D, p. 50. 

[616] In an unpublished paper. 

[617] It is omitted in some MSS. Of the Peshitto. 

APPENDIX II. 

CONFLATION AND THE SO-CALLED NEUTRAL TEXT. 

Some of the most courteous of our critics, in reviewing the companionvolume to this, have expressed regret that we have not grappled moreclosely than we have done with Dr. Hort's theory. I have alreadyexpressed our reasons. Our object has been to describe and establishwhat we conceive to be the true principles of Sacred Textual Science. Weare concerned only in a secondary degree with opposing principles. Wherethey have come in our way, we have endeavoured to remove them. But ithas not entered within our design to pursue them into their fastnessesand domiciles. Nevertheless, in compliance with a request which is bothproper and candid, I will do what I can to examine with all the equitythat I can command an essential part of Dr. Hort's system, which appearsto exercise great influence with his followers. 

§ 1. 

CONFLATION. 

Dr. Hort's theory of 'Conflation' may be discovered on pp. 93-107. Thewant of an index to his Introduction, notwithstanding his ample'Contents, ' makes it difficult to collect illustrations of his meaningfrom the rest of his treatise. Nevertheless, the effect of Conflationappears to be well described in his words on p. 133:--'Now however thethree great lines were brought together, and made to contribute to atext different from all. ' In other words, by means of a combination ofthe Western, Alexandrian, and 'Neutral' Texts--'the great lines oftransmission ... To all appearance exclusively divergent, '--the 'Syrian'text was constructed in a form different from any one and all of theother three. Not that all these three were made to contribute on everyoccasion. We find (p. 93) Conflation, or Conflate Readings, introducedas proving the 'posteriority of Syrian to Western ... And other ... Readings. ' And in the analysis of eight passages, which is added, onlyin one case (St. Mark viii. 26) are more than two elements represented, and in that the third class consists of 'different conflations' of thefirst and second[618]. 

Perhaps I may present Dr. Hort's theory under the form of a diagram:--

Western Readings. Other Readings. | | --------------------- | Syrian Text. 

Our theory is the converse in main features to this. We utterlyrepudiate the term 'Syrian' as being a most inadequate and untrue titlefor the Text adopted and maintained by the Catholic Church with all herintelligence and learning, during nearly fifteen centuries according toDr. Hort's admission: and we claim from the evidence that theTraditional Text of the Gospels, under the true name, is that which camefresh from the pens of the Evangelists; and that all variations from it, however they have been entitled, are nothing else than corrupt forms ofthe original readings. Our diagram in rough presentation will thereforeassume this character:--

 Traditional Text. --|- |-Western Readings. |-w |-x |-y |-z |-etc. |-Alexandrian Readings. 

It should be added, that w, x, y, z, &c. , denote forms of corruption. Wedo not recognize the 'Neutral' at all, believing it to be a Caesareancombination or recension, made from previous texts or readings of acorrupt character. 

The question is, which is the true theory, Dr. Hort's or ours?

The general points that strike us with reference to Dr. Hort's theoryare:--

(1) That it is very vague and indeterminate in nature. Given threethings, of which X includes what is in Y and Z, upon the face of thetheory either X may have arisen by synthesis from Y and Z, or X and Zmay owe their origin by analysis to X. 

(2) Upon examination it is found that Dr. Hort's arguments for theposteriority of D are mainly of an internal character, and are loose andimaginative, depending largely upon personal or literary predilections. 

(3) That it is exceedingly improbable that the Church of the fourth andfifth centuries, which in a most able period had been occupied withdiscussions on verbal accuracy, should have made the gross mistake ofadopting (what was then) a modern concoction from the original text ofthe Gospels, which had been written less than three or four centuriesbefore; and that their error should have been acknowledged as truth, andperpetuated by the ages that succeeded them down to the present time. 

But we must draw nearer to Dr. Hort's argument. 

He founds it upon a detailed examination of eight passages, viz. St. Mark vi. 33; viii. 26; ix. 38; ix. 49; St. Luke ix. 10; xi. 54; xii. 18;xxiv. 53. 

1. Remark that eight is a round and divisible number. Did the authordecide upon it with a view of presenting two specimens from each Gospel?To be sure, he gives four from the first two, and four from the twolast, only that he confines the batches severally to St. Mark and St. Luke. Did the strong style of St. Matthew, with distinct meaning inevery word, yield no suitable example for treatment? Could no passage befound in St. John's Gospel, where not without parallel, but to aremarkable degree, extreme simplicity of language, even expressed inalternative clauses, clothes soaring thought and philosophicalacuteness? True, that he quotes St. John v. 37 as an instance ofConflation by the Codex Bezae which is anything but an embodiment of theTraditional or 'Syrian' Text, and xiii. 24 which is similarlyirrelevant. Neither of these instances therefore fill up the gap, andare accordingly not included in the selected eight. What can we inferfrom this presentment, but that 'Conflation' is probably not of frequentoccurrence as has been imagined, but may indeed be--to admit for amoment its existence--nothing more than an occasional incident? Forsurely, if specimens in St. Matthew and St. John had abounded to hishand, and accordingly 'Conflation' had been largely employed throughoutthe Gospels, Dr. Hort would not have exercised so restricted, and yet soround a choice. 

2. But we must advance a step further. Dean Burgon as we have seen hascalculated the differences between B and the Received Text at 7, 578, andthose which divide [Symbol: Aleph] and the Received Text as reaching8, 972. He divided these totals respectively under 2, 877 and 3, 455omissions, 556 and 839 additions, 2, 098 and 2, 299 transpositions, and2, 067 and 2, 379 substitutions and modifications combined. Of theseclasses, it is evident that Conflation has nothing to do with Additionsor Transpositions. Nor indeed with Substitutions, although one of Dr. Hort's instances appears to prove that it has. Conflation is thecombination of two (or more) different expressions into one. Iftherefore both expressions occur in one of the elements, the Conflationhas been made beforehand, and a substitution then occurs instead of aconflation. So in St. Luke xii. 18, B, &c, read [Greek: ton siton kai taagatha mou] which Dr. Hort[619] considers to be made by Conflation into[Greek: ta genêmata mou kai ta agatha mou], because [Greek: ta genêmatamou] is found in Western documents. The logic is strange, but as Dr. Hort has claimed it, we must perhaps allow him to have intended toinclude with this strange incongruity some though not many Substitutionsin his class of instances, only that we should like to know definitelywhat substitutions were to be comprised in this class. For I shrewdlysuspect that there were actually none. Omissions are now left to us, ofwhich the greater specimens can hardly have been produced by Conflation. How, for instance, could you get the last Twelve Verses of St. Mark'sGospel, or the Pericope de Adultera, or St. Luke xxii. 43-44, or any ofthe rest of the forty-five whole verses in the Gospels upon which a sluris cast by the Neologian school? Consequently, the area of Conflation isgreatly reduced. And I venture to think, that supposing for a moment thetheory to be sound, it could not account for any large number ofvariations, but would at the best only be a sign or symptom found everynow and then of the derivation attributed to the Received Text. 

3. But we must go on towards the heart of the question. And first toexamine Dr. Hort's eight instances. Unfortunately, the early patristicevidence on these verses is scanty. We have little evidence of a directcharacter to light up the dark sea of conjecture. 

(1) St. Mark (vi. 22) relates that on a certain occasion the multitude, when they beheld our Saviour and his disciples on their way in a shipcrossing to the other side of the lake, ran together ([Greek:synedramon]) from all their cities to the point which He was making for([Greek: ekei]), and arrived there before the Lord and His followers([Greek: proêlthon autous]), and on His approach came in a body to Him([Greek: synêlthon pros auton]). And on disembarking ([Greek: kaiexelthôn]), i. E. ([Greek: ek tou ploiou], ver. 32), &c. It should beobserved, that it was only the Apostles who knew that His ultimateobject was 'a desert place' (ver. 31, 30): the indiscriminate multitudecould only discern the bay or cape towards which the boat was going: andup to what I have described as the disembarkation (ver. 34), nothing hasbeen said of His movements, except that He was in the boat upon thelake. The account is pictorial. We see the little craft toiling on thelake, the people on the shores running all in one direction, and ontheir reaching the heights above the place of landing watching Hisapproach, and then descending together to Him to the point where He isgoing to land. There is nothing weak or superfluous in the description. Though condensed (what would a modern history have made of it?), it isall natural and in due place. 

Now for Dr. Hort. He observes that one clause ([Greek: kai proêlthonautous]) is attested by B[Symbol: Aleph] and their followers; another([Greek: kai synêlthon autou] or [Greek: êlthon autou], which is verydifferent from the 'Syrian' [Greek: synêlthon pros auton]) by someWestern documents; and he argues that the entire form in the ReceivedText, [Greek: kai proêlthon autous, kai synêlthon pros auton], wasformed by Conflation from the other two. I cannot help observing that itis a suspicious mark, that even in the case of the most favoured of hischosen examples he is obliged to take such a liberty with one of hiselements of Conflation as virtually to doctor it in order to bring itstrictly to the prescribed pattern. When we come to his arguments hecandidly admits, that 'it is evident that either [Symbol: delta] (theReceived Text) is conflate from [Symbol: alpha] (B[Symbol: Aleph]) and[Symbol: beta] (Western), or [Symbol: alpha] and [Symbol: beta] areindependent simplifications of [Symbol: delta]'; and that 'there isnothing in the sense of [Symbol: delta] that would tempt to alteration, 'and that 'accidental' omission of one or other clause would 'be easy. 'But he argues with an ingenuity that denotes a bad cause that thedifference between [Greek: autou] and [Greek: pros auton] is really inhis favour, chiefly because [Greek: autou] would very likely _if_ it hadpreviously existed been changed into [Greek: pros auton]--which no onecan doubt; and that '[Greek: synêlthon pros auton] is certainly otioseafter [Greek: synedramon ekei], ' which shews that he did not understandthe whole meaning of the passage. His argument upon what he terms'Intrinsic Probability' leads to a similar inference. For simply [Greek:exelthôn] cannot mean that 'He "came out" of His retirement in somesequestered nook to meet them, ' such a nook being not mentioned by St. Mark, whereas [Greek: ploion] is; nor can [Greek: ekei] denote 'thedesert region. ' Indeed the position of that region or nook was knownbefore it was reached solely to our Lord and His Apostles: the multitudewas guided only by what they saw, or at least by vague surmise. 

Accordingly, Dr. Hort's conclusion must be reversed. 'The balance ofInternal Evidence of Readings, alike from Transcriptional and fromIntrinsic Probability, is decidedly' _not_ 'in favour of [Symbol: delta]from [Symbol: alpha] and [Symbol: beta], ' _but_ 'of [Symbol: alpha] and[Symbol: beta] from [Symbol: delta]. ' The reading of the TraditionalText is the superior both as regards the meaning, and as to theprobability of its pre-existence. The derivation of the two others fromthat is explained by that besetting fault of transcribers which istermed Omission. Above all, the Traditional reading is proved by alargely over-balancing weight of evidence. 

(2) 'To examine other passages equally in detail would occupy too muchspace. ' So says Dr. Hort: but we must examine points that requireattention. 

St. Mark viii. 26. After curing the blind man outside Bethsaida, ourLord in that remarkable period of His career directed him, according tothe Traditional reading, ([Symbol: alpha]) neither to enter into thatplace, [Greek: mêde eis tên kômên eiselthês], nor ([Symbol: beta]) totell what had happened to any inhabitant of Bethsaida ([Greek: mêdeeipês tini en tê kômê]). Either some one who did not understand theGreek, or some matter-of-fact and officious scholar, or both, thought ormaintained that [Greek: tini en tê kômê] must mean some one who was atthe moment actually in the place. So the second clause got to be omittedfrom the text of B[Symbol: Aleph], who are followed only by one cursiveand a half (the first reading of 1 being afterwards corrected), and theBohairic version, and the Lewis MS. The Traditional reading is attestedby ACN[Symbol: Sigma] and thirteen other Uncials, all Cursives excepteight, of which six with [Symbol: Phi] read a consolidation of bothclauses, by several versions, and by Theophylact (i. 210) who is theonly Father that quotes the place. This evidence ought amply to ensurethe genuineness of this reading. 

But what says Dr. Hort? 'Here [Symbol: alpha] is simple and vigorous, and it is unique in the New Testament: the peculiar [Greek: Mêde] hasthe terse force of many sayings as given by St. Mark, but the softeninginto [Greek: Mê] by [Symbol: Aleph]* shews that it might troublescribes. ' It is surely not necessary to controvert this. It may be saidhowever that [Symbol: alpha] is bald as well as simple, and that thevery difficulty in [Symbol: beta] makes it probable that that clause wasnot invented. To take [Greek: tini en tê kômê] Hebraistically for[Greek: tini tôn en tê kômê], like the [Greek: tis en hymin] of St. James v. 19[620], need not trouble scholars, I think. Otherwise they canfollow Meyer, according to Winer's Grammar (II. 511), and translate thesecond [Greek: mêde] _nor even_. At all events, this is a poor pillar tosupport a great theory. 

(3) St. Mark ix. 38. 'Master, we saw one casting out devils in Thy name, ([Symbol: beta]) who doth not follow us, and we forbad him ([Symbol:alpha]) because he followeth not us. '

Here the authority for [Symbol: alpha] is [Symbol: Aleph]BCL[Symbol:Delta], four Cursives, f, Bohairic, Peshitto, Ethiopic, and the LewisMS. For [Symbol: beta] there are D, two Cursives, all the Old Latin butf and the Vulgate. For the Traditional Text, i. E. The whole passage, A[Symbol: Phi][Symbol: Sigma]N + eleven Uncials, all the Cursives butsix, the Harkleian (yet obelizes [Symbol: alpha]) and Gothic versions, Basil (ii. 252), Victor of Antioch (Cramer, Cat. I. 365), Theophylact(i. 219): and Augustine quotes separately both omissions ([Symbol:alpha] ix. 533, and [Symbol: beta] III. Ii. 153). No other Fathers, sofar as I can find, quote the passage. 

Dr. Hort appears to advance no special arguments on his side, relyingapparently upon the obvious repetition. In the first part of the verse, St. John describes the case of the man: in the second he reports for ourLord's judgement the grounds of the prohibition which the Apostles gavehim. Is it so certain that the original text of the passage containedonly the description, and omitted the reason of the prohibition as itwas given to the non-follower of our Lord? To me it seems that thesimplicity of St. Mark's style is best preserved by the inclusion ofboth. The Apostles did not curtly forbid the man: they treated him withreasonableness, and in the same spirit St. John reported to his Masterall that occurred. Besides this, the evidence on the Traditional side istoo strong to admit of it not being the genuine reading. 

(4) St. Mark ix. 49. 'For ([Symbol: alpha]) every one shall be saltedwith fire, ([Symbol: beta]) and every sacrifice shall be salted withsalt. ' The authorities are--

 [Symbol: alpha]. [Symbol: Aleph]BL[Symbol: Delta], fifteen Cursives, some MSS. Of the Bohairic, some of the Armenian, and the Lewis. 

 [Symbol: beta]. D, six copies of the Old Latin, three MSS. Of the Vulgate. Chromatius of Aquileia (Galland. Viii. 338). 

 Trad. Text. AC[Symbol: Phi][Symbol: Sigma]N and twelve more Uncials, all Cursives except fifteen, two Old Latin, Vulgate, Peshitto, Harkleian, some MSS. Of Ethiopic and Armenian, Gothic, Victor of Antioch (Cramer's Cat. I. 368), Theophylact (i. 221). 

This evidence must surely be conclusive of the genuineness of theTraditional reading. But now for Dr. Hort. 

'A reminiscence of Lev. Vii. 13 ... Has created [Symbol: beta] out of[Symbol: alpha]. ' But why should not the reminiscence have been ourLord's? The passage appears like a quotation, or an adaptation, of someauthoritative saying. He positively advances no other argument than theone just quoted, beyond stating two points in which the alteration mightbe easily effected. 

(5) St. Luke ix. 10. 'He took (His Apostles) and withdrew privately

 [Symbol: alpha]. Into a city called Bethsaida [Greek: (eis polin kaloumenên] B. ). 

 [Symbol: beta]. Into a desert place ([Greek: eis topon erêmon]), or Into a desert place called Bethsaida, or of Bethsaida. 

 Trad. Text. Into a desert place belonging to a city called Bethsaida. '

The evidence for these readings respectively is--

 [Symbol: alpha]. BLX[Symbol: Xi], with one correction of [Symbol: Aleph] (C^{a}), one Cursive, the Bohairic and Sahidic. D reads [Greek: kômên]. 

 [Symbol: beta]. The first and later readings (C^{b}) of [Symbol: Aleph], four Cursives?, Curetonian, some variant Old Latin ([Symbol: beta]^{2}), Peshitto also variant ([Symbol: beta]^{3}). 

 Trad. Text. A (with [Greek: erêmon topon]) C + twelve Uncials, all Cursives except three or five, Harkleian, Lewis (omits [Greek: erêmon]), Ethiopic, Armenian, Gothic, with Theophylact (i. 33). 

Remark the curious character of [Symbol: alpha] and [Symbol: beta]. InDr. Hort's Neutral Text, which he maintains to have been the originaltext of the Gospels, our Lord is represented here as having withdrawn inprivate ([Greek: kat' idian], which the Revisers shirking the difficultytranslate inaccurately 'apart') _into the city called Bethsaida_. Howcould there have been privacy of life _in_ a city in those days? Infact, [Greek: kat' idian] necessitates the adoption of [Greek: toponerêmon], as to which the Peshitto ([Symbol: beta]^{3}) is in substantialagreement with the Traditional Text. Bethsaida is represented as thecapital of a district, which included, at sufficient distance from thecity, a desert or retired spot. The group arranged under [Symbol: beta]is so weakly supported, and is evidently such a group of fragments, thatit can come into no sort of competition with the Traditional reading. Dr. Hort confines himself to shewing _how_ the process he advocatesmight have arisen, not _that_ it did actually arise. Indeed, thisposition can only be held by assuming the conclusion to be establishedthat it _did_ so arise. 

(6) St. Luke xi. 54. 'The Scribes and Pharisees began to urge Himvehemently and to provoke Him to speak of many things ([Greek:enedreuontes thêreusai]), [Symbol: alpha]. Laying wait for Him to catch something out of His mouth. 

 [Symbol: beta]. Seeking to get some opportunity ([Greek: aphormên tina]) for finding out how to accuse Him ([Greek: hina eurôsin katêgorêsai]); or, for accusing Him ([Greek: hina katêgorêsôsin autou]). 

 Trad. Text. Laying wait for Him, _and_ seeking to catch something ([Greek: zêtountes thêreusai ti]) out of His mouth, that they might accuse Him. '

The evidence is--

 [Symbol: alpha]. [Symbol: Aleph]BL, Bohairic, Ethiopic, Cyril Alex. (Mai, Nov. Pp. Bibliotheca, ii. 87, iii. 249, not accurately). 

 [Symbol: beta]. D, Old Latin except f, Curetonian. 

 Trad. Text. AC + twelve Uncials, all Cursives (except five which omit [Greek: zêtountes]), Peshitto, Lewis (with omission), Vulgate, Harkleian, Theophylact (i. 363). 

As to genuineness, the evidence is decisive. The reading [Symbol: Alpha]is Alexandrian, adopted by B[Symbol: Aleph], and is bad Greek into thebargain, [Greek: enedreuontes thêreusai] being very rough, and beingprobably due to incompetent acquaintance with the Greek language. If[Symbol: alpha] was the original, it is hard to see how [Symbol: beta]could have come from it. That the figurative language of [Symbol: alpha]was replaced in [Symbol: beta] by a simply descriptive paraphrase, asDr. Hort suggests, seems scarcely probable. On the other hand, thederivation of either [Symbol: alpha] or [Symbol: beta] from theTraditional Text is much easier. A scribe would without difficulty passover one of the participles lying contiguously with no connectingconjunction, and having a kind of Homoeoteleuton. And as to [Symbol:beta], the distinguishing [Greek: aphormên tina] would be a very naturalgloss, requiring for completeness of the phrase the accompanying [Greek:labein]. This is surely a more probable solution of the question of themutual relationship of the readings than the laboured account of Dr. Hort, which is too long to be produced here. 

(7) St. Luke xii. 18. 'I will pull down my barns, and build greater, andthere will I bestow all

 [Symbol: alpha]. My corn and my goods. 

 [Symbol: beta]. My crops ([Greek: ta genêmata mou]). My fruits ([Greek: tous karpous mou]). 

 Trad. Text. My crops ([Greek: ta genêmata mou]) and my goods. '

This is a faulty instance, because it is simply a substitution, as Dr. Hort admitted, in [Symbol: alpha] of the more comprehensive word [Greek:genêmata] for [Greek: siton], and a simple omission of [Greek: kai taagatha mou] in [Symbol: beta]. And the admission of it into the selectedeight shews the difficulty that Dr. Hort must have experienced inchoosing his examples. The evidence is--

 [Symbol: alpha]. BTLX and a correction of [Symbol: Aleph](a^{c}), eight Cursives, Peshitto, Bohairic, Sahidic, Armenian, Ethiopic. 

 [Symbol: beta]. [Symbol: Aleph]*D, three Cursives, b ff i q, Curetonian and Lewis, St. Ambrose (i. 573). 

 Trad. Text. AQ + thirteen Uncials. All Cursives except twelve, _f_, Vulgate, Harkleian, Cyril Alex. (Mai, ii. 294-5) _bis_, Theophylact (i. 370), Peter Chrysologus (Migne 52, 490-1) _bis_. 

No more need be said: substitutions and omissions are too common torequire justification. 

(8) St. Luke xxiv. 53. 'They were continually in the temple

 [Symbol: alpha]. Blessing God ([Greek: eulogountes]). 

 [Symbol: beta]. Praising God ([Greek: ainountes]). 

 Trad. Text. Praising and blessing God. '

The evidence is--

 [Symbol: alpha]. [Symbol: Aleph]BC*L, Bohairic, Palestinian, Lewis. 

 [Symbol: beta]. D, seven Old Latin. 

 Trad. Text. AC^{2} + twelve Uncials, all Cursives, c f q, Vulgate, Peshitto, Harkleian, Armenian, Ethiopic, Theophylact (i. 497). 

Dr. Hort adds no remarks. He seems to have thought, that because he hadgot an instance which outwardly met all the requirements laid down, therefore it would prove the conclusion it was intended to prove. Now itis evidently an instance of the omission of either of two words from thecomplete account by different witnesses. The Evangelist employed bothwords in order to emphasize the gratitude of the Apostles. The words arenot tautological. [Greek: Ainos] is the set praise of God, drawn out inmore or less length, properly as offered in addresses to Him[621]. [Greek: Eulogia] includes all speaking well of Him, especially whenuttered before other men. Thus the two expressions describe incombination the life of gratitude exhibited unceasingly by the expectantand the infant Church. Continually in the temple they praised Him indevotion, and told the people of His glorious works. 

4. Such are the eight weak pillars upon which Dr. Hort built his theorywhich was to account for the existence of his Neutral Text, and therelation of it towards other Texts or classes of readings. If his eightpicked examples can be thus demolished, then surely the theory ofConflation must be utterly unsound. Or if in the opinion of some of myreaders my contention goes too far, then at any rate they must admitthat it is far from being firm, if it does not actually reel and totter. The opposite theory of omission appears to be much more easy andnatural. 

But the curious phenomenon that Dr. Hort has rested his case upon sosmall an induction as is supplied by only eight examples--if they arenot in fact only seven--has not yet received due explanation. Why, heought to have referred to twenty-five or thirty at least. If Conflationis so common, he might have produced a large number of referenceswithout working out more than was enough for illustration as patterns. This question must be investigated further. And I do not know how tocarry out such an investigation better, than to examine some instanceswhich come naturally to hand from the earlier parts of each Gospel. 

It must be borne in mind, that for Conflation two differently-attestedphrases or words must be produced which are found in combination in somepassage of the Traditional Text. If there is only one which is omitted, it is clear that there can be no Conflation because there must be atleast two elements to conflate: accordingly our instances must be cases, not of single omission, but of double or alternative omission. If againthere is no Western reading, it is not a Conflation in Dr. Hort's sense. And finally, if the remaining reading is not a 'Neutral' one, it is notto Dr. Hort's liking. I do not say that my instances will conform withthese conditions. Indeed, after making a list of all the omissions inthe Gospels, except those which are of too petty a character such asleaving out a pronoun, and having searched the list with all the carethat I can command, I do not think that such instances can be found. Nevertheless, I shall take eight, starting from the beginning of St. Matthew, and choosing the most salient examples, being such also that, if Dr. Hort's theory be sound, they ought to conform to hisrequirements. Similarly, there will come then four from either of St. Mark and St. Luke, and eight from St. John. This course of proceedingwill extend operations from the eight which form Dr. Hort's total tothirty-two. 

A. In St. Matthew we have (1) i. 25, [Greek: autês ton prôtotokon] and[Greek: ton Huion]; (2) v. 22, [Greek: eikê] and [Greek: tô adelphôautou]; (3) ix. 13, [Greek: eis metanoian]; (4) x. 3, [Greek: Lebbaios]and [Greek: Thaddaios]; (5) xii. 22, [Greek: typhlon kai] and [Greek:kôphon]; (6) xv. 5, [Greek: ton patera autou] and [Greek: (hê) tênmêtera autou], (7) xviii. 35, [Greek: apo tôn kardiôn hymôn] and [Greek:ta paraptômata autôn]; and (8) xxvi. 3, [Greek: hoi presbyteroi (kai)hoi Grammateis]. I have had some difficulty in making up the number. Ofthose selected as well as I could, seven are cases of single omission orof one pure omission apiece, though their structure presents apossibility of two members for Conflation; whilst the Western elementcomes in sparsely or appears in favour of both the omission and theretention; and, thirdly, in some cases, as in (2) and (3), the supportis not only Western, but universal. Consequently, all but (4) areexcluded. Of (4) Dr. Hort remarks, (Notes on Select Readings, p. 11)that it is 'a case of Conflation of the true and the chief WesternTexts, ' and accordingly it does not come within the charmed circle. 

B. From St. Mark we get, (1) i. 1, [Greek: Huiou tou Theou] and [Greek:Iêsou Christou]; (2) i. 2, [Greek: emprosthen sou] and [Greek: proprosôpou sou] (cp. Ix. 38); (3) iii. 15, [Greek: therapeuein tas nosous(kai)] and [Greek: ekballein ta daimonia]; (4) xiii. 33, [Greek:agrypneite] and [Greek: (kai) proseuchesthe]. All these instances turnout to be cases of the omission of only one of the parallel expressions. The omission in the first is due mainly to Origen (_see_ TraditionalText, Appendix IV): in the three last there is Western evidence on bothsides. 

C. St. Luke yields us, (1) ii. 5, [Greek: gynaiki] and [Greek:memnêsteumenê]; (2) iv. 4, [Greek: epi panti rhêmati Theou], or [Greek:ep' artô monô]; (3) viii. 54, [Greek: ekbalôn exô pantas (kai)], or[Greek: kratêsas tês cheiros autês]; xi. 4, [Greek: (alla) rhysai hêmasapo tou ponêrou], or [Greek: mê eisenenkês hêmas eis peirasmon]. In allthese cases, examination discloses that they are examples of pureomission of only one of the alternatives. The only evidence against thisis the solitary rejection of [Greek: memnêsteumenê] by the Lewis Codex. 

D. We now come to St. John. See (1) iii. 15, [Greek: mê apolêtai], or[Greek: echê zôên aiônion]; (2) iv. 14, [Greek: ou mê dipsêsê eis tonaiôna], or [Greek: to hydôr ho dôsô autô genêsetai en autô pêgê hydatos, k. T. L. ]; (3) iv. 42, [Greek: ho Christos], or [Greek: ho sôtêr toukosmou]; (4) iv. 51, [Greek: kai apêngeilan] and [Greek: legontes]; (5)v. 16, [Greek: kai ezêtoun auton apokteinai] and [Greek: ediôkon auton];(6) vi. 51, [Greek: hên egô dôsô], or [Greek: hou egô dôsô]; (7) ix. 1, 25, [Greek: kai eipen] or [Greek: apekrithê]; (8) xiii. 31, 32, [Greek:ei ho Theos edoxasthê en autô], and [Greek: kai ho Theos edoxasthê enautô]. All these instances turn out to be single omissions:--a factwhich is the more remarkable, because St. John's style so readily lendsitself to parallel or antithetical expressions involving the same resultin meaning, that we should expect conflations to shew themselvesconstantly if the Traditional Text had so coalesced. 

How surprising a result:--almost too surprising. Does it not immenselystrengthen my contention that Dr. Hort took wrongly Conflation for thereverse process? That in the earliest ages, when the Church did notinclude in her ranks so much learning as it has possessed ever since, the wear and tear of time, aided by unfaith and carelessness, madeitself felt in many an instance of destructiveness which involved atemporary chipping of the Sacred Text all through the Holy Gospels? And, in fact, that Conflation at least as an extensive process, if notaltogether, did not really exist. 

§ 2. 

THE NEUTRAL TEXT. 

Here we are brought face to face with the question respecting theNeutral Text. What in fact is it, and does it deserve the name which Dr. Hort and his followers have attempted to confer permanently upon it?What is the relation that it bears to other so-called Texts?

So much has been already advanced upon this subject in the companionvolume and in the present, that great conciseness is here both possibleand expedient. But it may be useful to bring the sum or substance ofthose discussions into one focus. 

1. The so-called Neutral Text, as any reader of Dr. Hort's Introductionwill see, is the text of B and [Symbol: Aleph] and their smallfollowing. That following is made up of Z in St. Matthew, [Symbol:Delta] in St. Mark, the fragmentary [Symbol: Xi] in St. Luke, withfrequent agreement with them of D, and of the eighth century L; withoccasional support from some of the group of Cursives, consisting of 1, 33, 118, 131, 157, 205, 209, and from the Ferrar group, or now and thenfrom some others, as well as from the Latin k, and the Egyptian or otherversions. This perhaps appears to be a larger number than our readersmay have supposed, but rarely are more than ten MSS. Found together, andgenerally speaking less, and often much less than that. To all generalintents and purposes, the Neutral Text is the text of B-[Symbol: Aleph]. 

2. Following facts and avoiding speculation, the Neutral Text appearshardly in history except at the Semiarian period. It was almost disownedever after: and there is no certainty--nothing more than inference whichwe hold, and claim to have proved, to be imaginary and delusive, --that, except as represented in the corruption which it gathered out of thechaos of the earliest times, it made any appearance. 

3. Thus, as a matter of history acknowledged by Dr. Hort, it was mainlysuperseded before the end of the century of its emergence by theTraditional Text, which, except in the tenets of a school of critics inthe nineteenth century, has reigned supreme ever since. 

4. That it was not the original text of the Gospels, as maintained byDr. Hort, I claim to have established from an examination of thequotations from the Gospels made by the Fathers. It has been proved thatnot only in number, but still more conclusively in quality, theTraditional Text enjoyed a great superiority of attestation over all thekinds of corruption advocated by some critics which I have just nowmentioned[622]. This conclusion is strengthened by the verdict of theearly versions. 

5. The inferiority of the 'Neutral Text' is demonstrated by theoverwhelming weight of evidence which is marshalled against it onpassages under dispute. This glaring contrast is increased by thedisagreement among themselves of the supporters of that Text, or classof readings. As to antiquity, number, variety, weight, and continuity, that Text falls hopelessly behind: and by internal evidence also thetexts of B and [Symbol: Aleph], and still more the eccentric text of theWestern D, are proved to be manifestly inferior. 

6. It has been shewn also by evidence, direct as well as inferential, that B and [Symbol: Aleph] issued nearly together from the library orschool of Caesarea. The fact of their being the oldest MSS. Of the NewTestament in existence, which has naturally misled people and causedthem to be credited with extraordinary value, has been referred, asbeing mainly due, to their having been written on vellum according tothe fashion introduced in that school, instead of the ordinary papyrus. The fact of such preservation is really to their discredit, instead ofresounding to their honour, because if they had enjoyed generalapproval, they would probably have perished creditably many centuriesago in the constant use for which they were intended. 

Such are the main points in the indictment and in the history of theNeutral Text, or rather--to speak with more appropriate accuracy, avoiding the danger of drawing with too definite a form and too deep ashade--of the class of readings represented by B and [Symbol: Aleph]. Itis interesting to trace further, though very summarily, the connexionbetween this class of readings and the corruptions of the Original Textwhich existed previously to the early middle of the fourth century. Suchbrief tracing will lead us to a view of some causes of the developmentof Dr. Hort's theory. 

The analysis of Corruption supplied as to the various kinds of it byDean Burgon has taught us how they severally arose. This is fresh in themind of readers, and I will not spoil it by repetition. But the studiesof textual critics have led them to combine all kinds of corruptionchiefly under the two heads of the Western or Syrio-Low-Latin class, andin a less prominent province of the Alexandrian. Dr. Hort's Neutral isreally a combination of those two, with all the accuracy that thesephenomena admit. But of course, if the Neutral were indeed the originalText, it would not do for it to be too closely connected with one ofsuch bad reputation as the Western, which must be kept in the distanceat all hazards. Therefore he represented it--all unconsciously no doubtand with the best intention--as one of the sources of the Traditional, or as he called it the 'Syrian' Text. Hence this imputed connexionbetween the Western and the Traditional Text became the essential partof his framework of Conflation, which could not exist without it. Forany permanent purpose, all this handiwork was in vain. To say no more, D, which is the chief representative of the Western Text, is tooconstant a supporter of the peculiar readings of B and [Symbol: Aleph]not to prove its near relationship to them. The 'Neutral' Text derivesthe chief part of its support from Western sources. It is useless forDr. Hort to disown his leading constituents. And on the other hand, theSyrio-Low-Latin Text is too alien to the Traditional to be the chiefelement in any process, Conflate or other, out of which it could havebeen constructed. The occasional support of some of the Old Latin MSS. Is nothing to the point in such a proof. They are so fitful anduncertain, that some of them may witness to almost anything. If Dr. Hort's theory of Conflation had been sounder, there would have been nolack of examples. 

 'Naturam expellas furca: tamen usque recurret. '

He was tempted to the impossible task of driving water uphill. ThereforeI claim, not only to have refuted Dr. Hort, whose theory is proved to beeven more baseless than I ever imagined, but by excavating more deeplythan he did, to have discovered the cause of his error. 

No: the true theory is, that the Traditional Text--not in superhumanperfection, though under some superhuman Guidance--is the embodiment ofthe original Text of the New Testament. In the earliest times, just asfalse doctrines were widely spread, so corrupt readings prevailed inmany places. Later on, when Christianity was better understood, and theChurch reckoned amongst the learned and holy of her members the finestnatures and intellects of the world, and many clever men of inferiorcharacter endeavoured to vitiate Doctrine and lower Christian life, evilrose to the surface, and was in due time after a severe struggle removedby the sound and faithful of the day. So heresy was rampant for a while, and was then replaced by true and well-grounded belief. With greatability and with wise discretion, the Deposit whether of Faith or Wordwas verified and established. General Councils decided in those daysupon the Faith, and the Creed when accepted and approved by theuniversal voice was enacted for good and bequeathed to future ages. Soit was both as to the Canon and the Words of Holy Scripture, only thatall was done quietly. As to the latter, hardly a footfall was heard. Butnone the less, corruption after short-lived prominence sank into deepand still deeper obscurity, whilst the teaching of fifteen centuriesplaced the true Text upon a firm and lasting basis. 

And so I venture to hold, now that the question has been raised, boththe learned and the well-informed will come gradually to see, that noother course respecting the Words of the New Testament is so stronglyjustified by the evidence, none so sound and large-minded, none soreasonable in every way, none so consonant with intelligent faith, noneso productive of guidance and comfort and hope, as to maintain againstall the assaults of corruption

THE TRADITIONAL TEXT. 

FOOTNOTES:

[618] Dr. Hort has represented Neutral readings by [Symbol: alpha], Western by [Symbol: beta], as far as I can understand, 'other' by[Symbol: gamma], and 'Syrian' (=Traditional) by [Symbol: delta]. But henowhere gives an example of [Symbol: gamma]. 

[619] Introduction, p. 103. 

[620] Cp. St. Luke xviii. 2, 3. [Greek: Tis] is used with [Greek: ex], St. Luke xi. 15, xxiv. 24; St. John vi. 64, vii. 25, ix. 16, xi. 37, 46;Acts xi. 20, xiii. 1, &c. 

[621] Thus [Greek: epainos] is used for a public encomium, or panegyric. 

[622] An attempt in the _Guardian_ has been made in a review full oferrors to weaken the effect of my list by an examination of an uniqueset of details. A correction both of the reviewer's figures in oneinstance and of my own may be found above, pp. 144-153. There is novirtue in an exact proportion of 3: 2, or of 6: 1. A great majority willultimately be found on our side. 

GENERAL INDEX. 

A. 

[Symbol: Aleph] or Sinaitic MS. , 2, 196. 

Accident, 8; pure A. , 34-35. 

Addition, 166-7, 270. 

Ages, earliest, 2. 

Alexandrian error, 45; readings, App. II. 268, 284. 

Alford, _passim_. 

Ammonius, 200. 

Antiquity, our appeal always made to, 194-5. 

Apolinarius, or-is (or Apoll. ), 224, 257. 

Arians, 204, 218. 

Assimilation, 100-127; what it was, 101-2; must be delicately handled, 115

Attraction, 123-7. 

B. 

B or Vatican MS. , 2, 8, 196; kakigraphy of, 64 note: virtually with [Symbol: Aleph] the 'Neutral' text, 282. 

Basilides, 195, 197-9, 218 note 2. 

Blunder, history of a, 24-7. 

Bohairic Version, 249, and _passim_. 

C. 

Caesarea, library of, 284. 

Cerinthus, 201. 

Clement of Alexandria, 193. 

Conflation, 266-82. 

Correctors of MSS. , 21. 

Corruption, first origin of, 3-8; classes of 8-9, 23; general, 10-23; prevailed from the first, 12; the most corrupt authorities, 8, 14; in early Fathers, 193-4. 

Curetonian Version, _passim. See_ Traditional Text. 

Cursive MSS. , a group of eccentric, 283; Ferrar group, 282. 

D. 

D or Codex Bezae, 8. 

[Symbol: Delta], or Sangallensis, 8. 

Damascus, 5. 

Diatessarons, 89, 96-8, 101. _See_ Tatian. 

Doxology, in the Lord's Prayer, 81-8. 

E. 

Eclogadion, 69. 

Epiphanius, 305, 211-2. 

Erasmus, 10. 

Error, slight clerical, 37-31. 

Euroclydon, 46. 

Evangelistaria (the right name), 67. 

F. 

Falconer's St. Paul's voyage, 46-7. 

Fathers, _passim_; earliest, 193. 

Faustinus, 218. 

Ferrar group of Cursives, 282. 

Field, Dr. , 28 note 5, 30 and note 2. 

G. 

Galilee of the Gentiles, 4-5. 

Genealogy, 22. _See_ Traditional Text. 

Glosses, 94-5, 98, 172-90; described, 172. 

Gospels, the four, probable date of, 7. 

Guardian, review in, Pref. , 150-2, 283 note. 

Gwilliam, Rev. G. H. , 115 note. 

H. 

Harmonistic influence, 89-99. 

Heracleon, 190, 202, 204, 215 note 2. 

Heretics, corruptions by, 199-210; not always dishonest, 191; very numerous, 199 &c. 

Homoeoteleuton, 36-41; explained, 8

I. 

Inadvertency, 21, 23. 

Internal evidence, Pref. 

Interpolations, 166-7. 

Irenaeus, St. , 193. 

Itacism, 8, 56-86. 

J. 

Justin Martyr, St. , 193. 

L. 

L or Codex Regius, 8. 

Lachmann, _passim_. 

Last Twelve Verses, 72, 129-30. 

Latin MSS. , Old, _passim_; Low-Latin, 8. _See_ Traditional Text. 

Lectionaries, 67-81; ecclesiastical prefaces to, 71. 

Lewis MS. , _passim_, 194. 

Liturgical influence, 67-88. 

M. 

Macedonians, 204. 

Manes, 207. 

Manichaeans, 206. 

Manuscripts, six classes of, 12; existing number of, 12; frequent inaccuracies in, 12; more serious faults, 20-1; and _passim_. 

Marcion, 70, 195, 197, 199, 200, 219. 

Matrimony, 208. 

Menologion, 69. 

N. 

Naaseni, 204. 

'Neutral Text, ' 267, 282-6. 

O. 

Omissions, 128-156; the largest of all classes, 128; not 'various readings, ' 128; prejudice in favour of, 130-1; proof of, 131-2; natural cause of corruption, 270. 

Origen, 53-5, 98, 101, 111-3, 190, 193, 209. 

Orthodox, corruption by, 211-31, misguided, 211. 

P. 

Papyrus MSS. , 2. _See_ Traditional Text. 

Parallel passages, 95. 

Pella, 7. 

Pericope de Adultera, 232-65. 

Peshitto Version, _passim. See_ Traditional Text. 

Porphyry, 114. 

R. 

Revision, 10-13. 

Rose, Rev. W. F. , 61 note 3. 

S. 

[Greek: Sabbatokuriakai], 68. 

Sahidic Version, 194. 

Saturninue, or Saturnilus, 208 and note 3. 

Scrivener's Introduction (4th Ed. ), Miller's, _passim_. 

Semiarianism, 2. 

Substitution, 164-5, 270, 277. 

Synaxarion, 69. 

T. 

Tatian's Diatessaron, 8, 98, 101, 196, 200. 

Textualism of the Gospels, different from T. Of profane writings, 14. 

Theodotus, 205, 214. 

Tischendorf, 112-3, 176, 182, and _passim_; misuse of Assimilation, 118. 

Traditional Text, 1-4; not = Received Text, 1. _See_ Volume on it. 

Transcriptional Mistakes, 55. 

Transposition, 157-63; character of, 163, 270. 

Tregelles, 34, 136, 138. 

U. 

Uncials, 42-55. 

V. 

Valentinus, 197-9, 201, 202-5, 215, 218 note 2. 

Various readings, 14-16. 

Vellum, 2. 

Vercellone, 47 note. 

Versions, _passim_. 

Victorinus Afer, 218. 

W. 

Western Readings or Text, 6, 266-85. 

Z. 

Z or Dublin palimpsest, 8. 

INDEX II. 

PASSAGES OF THE NEW TESTAMENT DISCUSSED. 

St. Matthew: i. 19 209 iii. 6 102 16 170-1 iv. 23 51-2 v. 44 144-53 vi. 13 81-8 18 171 vii. 4 102 viii. 9 102 13 167-8 26 103 29 102 ix. 24 104 35 74 x. 12 103 xi. 23 27 xii. 10 117 xiii. 36 173 44 80-1 xv. 8 136-44 xvi. 8 103 xix. 9 39 16 103 xx. 24 103 28 175 xxi. 9 99 44 134-6 xxii. 23 49-50xxiii. 14 38 xxiv. 15 116 31 179-80 36 169-70 xxv. 13 171xxvii. 15 103 17 53-5 25-6 91 35 171

St. Mark: i. 2 111-5 5 157-8 ii. 3 158-9 iv. 6 63-4 v. 36 188 vi. 11 118-9, 181-2 32 32-3 33 271-3 vii. 14 35 19 61-3 31 73-3 viii. 1 34 26 273-4 ix. 38 271 49 275 x. 16 48 xii. 17 48 xiv. 40 48 41 182-3 70 119-22 xv. 6 32 28 75-8 xvi. 9-20 72, 129-30

St. Luke: i. 66 188-9 ii. 14 21-2, 31-2 15 36 iii. 14 201 29 165 iv. 1-13 94 v. 7 108 14 104 vi. 1 132-3 4 167 26 153 vii. 3 174 21 50 ix. 1 74 10 275-6 54-6 224-31 x. 15 28 25 75 xi. 54 276-7 xii. 18 277-8 39 155 xiii. 9 160-1 xiv. 3 117 xv. 16 117 17 43-5 24 61 32 61 xvi. 21 40 25 60 xvii. 37 48-9 xix. 21 103 41 212 xxii. 67-8 210xxiii. 11 50-1 27 51 42 57 xxiv. 1 92-4 7 161 53 278

St. John: i. 3-4 203 18 215-8, 165 ii. 40 212-4 iii. 13 223-4 iv. 15 48 v. 4 50 27 162 v. 44 45 vi. 11 37-8 15 38, 178 55 153-4 71 124 viii. 40 214-5 ix. 22 183 x. 14-15 206-8 29 24-7 xii. 1, 2 57-9 7 184-6 13 99 xiii. 21-5 106-11 24 179 25 60 26 124 37 35 xvi. 16 105 xvii. 4 186-8xviii. 14 180-1 xx. 11 90-2

Acts: ii. 45-6 159 iii. 1 78-80xviii. 6 27 xx. 4 190 24 28, 124-5xxvii. 14 46-7 37 27xxviii. 1 28

1 Cor. : xv. 47 219-23

2 Cor. : iii. 3 125-7

Titus: ii. 5 65-6

Heb. : vii. 1 53

2 Pet. : i. 21 52-3

Rev. I. 5 59-60

THE END.