{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_21112/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_21112","id":"gutenberg_21112","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/21112","summary":null,"tags":["Bible. Gospels -- Criticism, Textual","Category: History - Religious","Category: Religion/Spirituality"],"text":"Produced by Colin Bell, Daniel J. Mount, Dave Morgan, David\nKing, and the Online Distributed Proofreading Team at\nhttp://www.pgdp.net\n\n\n\n\n\nTHE\nCAUSES OF THE CORRUPTION\nOF THE\nTRADITIONAL TEXT\nOF THE\nHOLY GOSPELS\n\n\nBEING THE SEQUEL TO\n_THE TRADITIONAL TEXT OF THE HOLY GOSPELS_\n\n\nBY THE LATE\n\nJOHN WILLIAM BURGON, B. D.\n\nDEAN OF CHICHESTER\n\n\nARRANGED, COMPLETED, AND EDITED\nBY\n\nEDWARD MILLER, M. A.\n\nWYKEHAMICAL PREBENDARY OF CHICHESTER\n\n\nLONDON\nGEORGE BELL AND SONS\n\nCAMBRIDGE: DEIGHTON, BELL AND CO.\n\n1896.\n\n\n'Tenet ecclesia nostra, tenuitque semper firmam illam et immotam\nTertulliani regulam \"Id verius quod prius, id prius quod ab initio.\" Quo\npropius ad veritatis fontem accedimus, eo purior decurrit Catholicae\ndoctrinae rivus.'\n\nCave's _Proleg._ p. xliv.\n\n'Interrogate de semitis antiquis quae sit via bona, et ambulate in\nea.'--Jerem. vi. 16.\n\n'In summa, si constat id verius quod prius, id prius quod ab initio, id\nab initio quod ab Apostolis; pariter utique constabit, id esse ab\nApostolis traditum, quod apud Ecclesias Apostolorum fuerit\nsacrosanctum.'--Tertull. _adv. Marc._ l. iv. c. 5.\n\n\n\n\nPREFACE\n\n\nThe reception given by the learned world to the First Volume of this\nwork, as expressed hitherto in smaller reviews and notices, has on the\nwhole been decidedly far from discouraging. All have had some word of\nencomium on our efforts. Many have accorded praise and signified their\nagreement, sometimes with unquestionable ability. Some have pronounced\nadverse opinions with considerable candour and courtesy. Others in\nopposing have employed arguments so weak and even irrelevant to the real\nquestion at issue, as to suggest that there is not after all so much as\nI anticipated to advance against our case. Longer examinations of this\nimportant matter are doubtless impending, with all the interest\nattaching to them and the judgements involved: but I beg now to offer my\nacknowledgements for all the words of encouragement that have been\nuttered.\n\nSomething however must be said in reply to an attack made in the\n_Guardian_ newspaper on May 20, because it represents in the main the\nposition occupied by some members of an existing School. I do not linger\nover an offhand stricture upon my 'adhesion to the extravagant claim of\na second-century origin for the Peshitto,' because I am content with the\ncompanionship of some of the very first Syriac scholars, and with the\nteaching given in an unanswered article in the _Church Quarterly Review_\nfor April, 1895. Nor except in passing do I remark upon a fanciful\ncensure of my account of the use of papyrus in MSS. before the tenth\ncentury--as to which the reviewer is evidently not versed in information\nrecently collected, and described for example in Sir E. Maunde\nThompson's Greek and Latin Palaeography, or in Mr. F. G. Kenyon's Our\nBible and the Ancient Manuscripts, and in an article in the just\nmentioned Review which appeared in October, 1894. These observations and\na large number of inaccuracies shew that he was at the least not posted\nup to date. But what will be thought, when attention is drawn to the\nfact that in a question whether a singular set of quotations from the\nearly Fathers refer to a passage in St. Matthew or the parallel one in\nSt. Luke, the peculiar characteristic of St. Matthew--'them that\npersecute you'--is put out of sight, and both passages (taking the\nlengthened reading of St. Matthew) are represented as having equally\nonly four clauses? And again, when quotations going on to the succeeding\nverse in St. Matthew (v. 45) are stated dogmatically to have been\nwrongly referred by me to that Evangelist? But as to the details of this\npoint in dispute, I beg to refer our readers to pp. 144-153 of the\npresent volume. The reviewer appears also to be entirely unacquainted\nwith the history of the phrase [Greek: monogenes Theos] in St. John i.\n18, which, as may be read on pp. 215-218, was introduced by heretics and\nharmonized with Arian tenets, and was rejected on the other side. That\nsome orthodox churchmen fell into the trap, and like those who in these\ndays are not aware of the pedigree and use of the phrase, employed it\neven for good purposes, is only an instance of a strange phenomenon. We\nmust not be led only by first impressions as to what is to be taken for\nthe genuine words of the Gospels. Even if phrases or passages make for\northodoxy, to accept them if condemned by evidence and history is to\nalight upon the quicksands of conjecture.\n\nA curious instance of a fate like this has been supplied by a critic in\nthe _Athenaeum_, who, when contrasting Dean Burgon's style of writing\nwith mine to my discredit, quotes a passage of some length as the Dean's\nwhich was really written by me. Surely the principle upheld by our\nopponents, that much more importance than we allow should be attributed\nto the 'Internal evidence of Readings and Documents,' might have saved\nhim from error upon a piece of composition which characteristically\nproclaimed its own origin. At all events, after this undesigned support,\nI am the less inclined to retire from our vantage ground.\n\nBut it is gratifying on all accounts to say now, that such\ninterpolations as in the companion volume I was obliged frequently to\nsupply in order to fill up gaps in the several MSS. and in integral\nportions of the treatise, which through their very frequency would have\nthere made square brackets unpleasant to our readers, are not required\nso often in this part of the work. Accordingly, except in instances of\npure editing or in simple bringing up to date, my own additions or\ninsertions have been so marked off. It will doubtless afford great\nsatisfaction to others as well as the admirers of the Dean to know what\nwas really his own writing: and though some of the MSS., especially\ntowards the end of the volume, were not left as he would have prepared\nthem for the press if his life had been prolonged, yet much of the book\nwill afford, on what he regarded as the chief study of his life,\nexcellent examples of his style, so vigorously fresh and so happy in\nidiomatic and lucid expression.\n\nBut the Introduction, and Appendix II on 'Conflation' and the 'Neutral\nText,' have been necessarily contributed by me. I am anxious to invite\nattention particularly to the latter essay, because it has been composed\nupon request, and also because--unless it contains some extraordinary\nmistake--it exhibits to a degree which has amazed me the baselessness of\nDr. Hort's theory.\n\nThe manner in which the Dean prepared piecemeal for his book, and the\nlarge number of fragments in which he left his materials, as has been\ndetailed in the Preface to the former volume, have necessarily produced\nan amount of repetition which I deplore. To have avoided it entirely,\nsome of the MSS. must have been rewritten. But in one instance I\ndiscovered when it was too late that after searching for, and finding\nwith difficulty and treating, an example which had not been supplied, I\nhad forestalled a subsequent examination of the same passage from his\nabler hand. However I hope that in nearly all, if not all cases, each\ntreatment involves some new contribution to the question discussed; and\nthat our readers will kindly make allowance for the perplexity which\nsuch an assemblage of separate papers could not but entail.\n\nMy thanks are again due to the Rev. G. H. Gwilliam, B.D., Fellow of\nHertford College, for much advice and suggestion, which he is so capable\nof giving, and for his valuable care in looking through all the first\nproofs of this volume; to 'M. W.,' Dean Burgon's indefatigable\nsecretary, who in a pure labour of love copied out the text of the MSS.\nbefore and after his death; also to the zealous printers at the\nClarendon Press, for help in unravelling intricacies still remaining in\nthem.\n\nThis treatise is now commended to the fair and candid consideration of\nreaders and reviewers. The latter body of men should remember that there\nwas perhaps never a time when reviewers were themselves reviewed by many\nintelligent readers more than they are at present. I cannot hope that\nall that we have advanced will be finally adopted, though my opinion is\nunfaltering as resting in my belief upon the Rock; still less do I\nimagine that errors may not be discovered in our work. But I trust that\nunder Divine Blessing some not unimportant contribution has been made\ntowards the establishment upon sound principles of the reverent\ncriticism of the Text of the New Testament. And I am sure that, as to\nthe Dean's part in it, this trust will be ultimately justified.\n\nEDWARD MILLER.\n\n9 Bradmore Road, Oxford:\n\n_Sept._ 2, 1896.\n\n\n\n\nCONTENTS.\n\nINTRODUCTION.\n\nThe Traditional Text--established by evidence--especially before St.\nChrysostom--corruption--early rise of it--Galilee of the\nGentiles--Syrio-Low-Latin source--various causes and forms of\ncorruption. pp. 1-9\n\nCHAPTER I.\n\nGeneral Corruption.\n\nSec. 1. Modern re-editing--difference between the New Testament and other\nbooks--immense number of copies--ordinary causes of error--Doctrinal\ncauses. Sec. 2. Elimination of weakly attested readings--nature of inquiry.\nSec. 3. Smaller blemishes in MSS. unimportant except when constant. Sec. 4.\nMost mistakes arose from inadvertency: many from unfortunate design. pp.\n10-23\n\nCHAPTER II.\n\nAccidental Causes of Corruption. I. Pure Accident.\n\nSec. 1. St. John x. 29. Sec. 2. Smaller instances, and Acts xx. 24. Sec. 3. St.\nLuke ii. 14. Sec. 4. St. Mark xv. 6; vii. 4; vi. 22. Sec. 5. St. Mark viii. 1;\nvii. 14--St. John xiii. 37. pp. 24-35\n\nCHAPTER III.\n\nAccidental Causes of Corruption. II. Homoeoteleuton.\n\nSt. Luke ii. 15--St. John vi. 11; vi. 55--St. Matt. xxiii. 14; xix.\n9--St. Luke xvi. 21. pp. 36-41\n\nCHAPTER IV.\n\nAccidental Causes of Corruption. III. From Writing in Uncials.\n\nSec. 1. St. John iv. 35-36. Sec. 2. St. Luke xv. 17--St. John v. 44. Sec. 3. Acts\nxxvii. 14--St. John iv. 15--St. Luke xvii. 37--St. Matt. xxii. 23--and\nother passages. Sec. 4. St. John v. 4--St. Luke xxiii. 11--St. Matt. iv.\n23. Sec. 5. 2 St. Peter i. 31--Heb. vii. 1. Sec. 6. St. Matt. xxvii. 17. pp.\n42-55\n\nCHAPTER V.\n\nAccidental Causes of Corruption. IV. Itacism.\n\nSec. 1. Various passages--St. John xii. 1, 2; 41. Sec. 2. Rev. i. 5--Other\npassages--St. Mark vii. 19. Sec. 3. St. Mark iv. 8. Sec. 4. Titus ii. 5. pp.\n56-66\n\nCHAPTER VI.\n\nAccidental Causes of Corruption. V. Liturgical Influence.\n\nSec. 1. Lectionaries of the Church--Liturgical influence--Antiquity of the\nLectionary System. Sec. 2. St. John xiv. 1--Acts iii. 1--Last Twelve Verses\nof St. Mark. Sec. 3. St. Luke vii. 31; ix. 1--Other passages. Sec. 4. St. Mark\nxv. 28. Sec. 5. Acts iii. 1--St. Matt. xiii. 44; xvii. 23. Sec. 6. St. Matt\nvi. 13 (doxology in the Lord's Prayer). pp. 67-88\n\nCHAPTER VII.\n\nCauses of Corruption Chiefly Intentional. I. Harmonistic Influence.\n\nSec. 1. St. Mark xvi. 9. Sec. 2. St. Luke xxiv. 1--other examples. Sec. 3.\nChiefly intentional--Diatessarons--St. Matt. xvii. 25, 26--Harmonized\nnarratives--Other examples. pp. 89-99\n\nCHAPTER VIII.\n\nCauses of Corruption Chiefly Intentional. II. Assimilation.\n\nSec. 1. Transfer from one Gospel to another. Sec. 2. Not entirely\nintentional--Various passages. Sec. 3. St. John xvi. 16. Sec. 4. St. John\nxiii. 21-25. Sec. 5. St. Mark i. 1, 2--Other examples--St. Matt. xii. 10\n(St. Luke xiv. 3)--and others. Sec. 6. St. Mark vi. 11. Sec. 7. St. Mark xiv.\n70. pp. 100-122\n\nCHAPTER IX.\n\nCauses of Corruption Chiefly Intentional. III. Attraction.\n\nSec. 1. St. John vi. 71 and xiii. 26. Sec. 2. Acts xx. 24--2 Cor. iii. 3. pp.\n123-127\n\nCHAPTER X.\n\nCauses of Corruption Chiefly Intentional. IV. Omission.\n\nSec. 1. Omissions a class of their own--Exemplified from the Last Twelve\nVerses of St. Mark--Omission the besetting fault of transcribers. Sec. 2.\nThe _onus probandi_ rests upon omitters. Sec. 3. St Luke vi. 1; and other\nomissions. Sec. 4. St. Matt. xxi. 44. Sec. 5. St. Matt. xv. 8. Sec. 6. St. Matt.\nv. 44--Reply to the Reviewer in the _Guardian_. Sec. 7. Shorter Omissions.\npp. 128-156\n\nCHAPTER XI.\n\nCauses of Corruption Chiefly Intentional. V. Transposition.\n\nSec. 1. St. Mark i. 5; ii. 3--Other instances. Sec. 2. St. Luke xiii. 9; xxiv.\n7. Sec. 3. Other examples--St. John v. 27--Transpositions often petty, but\nfrequent.\n\nVI. Substitution.\n\nSec. 4. If taken with Modifications, a large class--Various instances. pp.\n164-165\n\nVII. Addition.\n\nSec. 5. The smallest of the four--St. Luke vi. 4--St. Matt. xx. 28. Sec. 6.\nSt. Matt. viii. 13; xxiv. 36--St. Mark iii. 16--Other examples. pp.\n166-171\n\nCHAPTER XII.\n\nCauses of Corruption Chiefly Intentional. VIII. Glosses.\n\nSec. 1. Not so numerous as has been supposed--St. Matt. xiii. 36--St. Mark\nvii. 3. Sec. 2. St. Luke ix. 23. Sec. 3. St. John vi. 15; xiii. 24; xx.\n18--St. Matt. xxiv. 31. Sec. 4. St. John xviii. 14--St. Mark vi. 11. Sec. 5.\nSt. Mark xiv. 41--St. John ix. 22. Sec. 6. St. John xii. 7. Sec. 7. St. John\nxvii. 4. Sec. 8. St. Luke i. 66. Sec. 9. St. Luke v. 7--Acts xx. 4. pp.\n172-190\n\nCHAPTER XIII.\n\nCauses of Corruption Chiefly Intentional. IX. Corruption by Heretics.\n\nSec. 1. This class very evident--Began in the earliest times--Appeal to\nwhat is earlier still--Condemned in all ages and countries. Sec. 2. The\nearliest depravers of the Text--Tatian's Diatessaron. Sec. 3. Gnostics--St.\nJohn i. 3-4. Sec. 4. St. John x. 14, 15. Sec. 5. Doctrinal--Matrimony--St.\nMatt i. 19. pp. 191-210\n\nCHAPTER XIV.\n\nCauses of Corruption Chiefly Intentional. X. Corruption by the Orthodox.\n\nSec. 1. St. Luke xix. 41; ii. 40. Sec. 2. St. John viii. 40; and i. 18. Sec. 3. 1\nCor. xv. 47. Sec. 4. St. John iii. 13. Sec. 5. St. Luke ix. 54-56. pp. 211-231\n\nAPPENDIX I.\n\nPericope de Adultera. pp. 233-265\n\nAPPENDIX II.\n\nDr. Hort's Theory of Conflation and the\nNeutral Text. pp. 266-286\n\nIndex of Subjects. pp. 287-288\n\nIndex of Passages of the New Testament Discussed. pp. 289-290\n\n\n\n\nTHE CAUSES OF THE\nCORRUPTION OF THE TRADITIONAL TEXT\nOF THE HOLY GOSPELS.\n\n\n\n\nINTRODUCTION.\n\n\nIn the companion volume to this, the Traditional Text, that is, the Text\nof the Gospels which is the resultant of all the evidence faithfully and\nexhaustively presented and estimated according to the best procedure of\nthe courts of law, has been traced back to the earliest ages in the\nexistence of those sacred writings. We have shewn, that on the one hand,\namidst the unprecedented advantages afforded by modern conditions of\nlife for collecting all the evidence bearing upon the subject, the\nTraditional Text must be found, not in a mere transcript, but in a\nlaborious revision of the Received Text; and that on the other hand it\nmust, as far as we can judge, differ but slightly from the Text now\ngenerally in vogue, which has been generally received during the last\ntwo and a half centuries.\n\nThe strength of the position of the Traditional Text lies in its being\nlogically deducible and to be deduced from all the varied evidence which\nthe case supplies, when it has been sifted, proved, passed, weighed,\ncompared, compounded, and contrasted with dissentient testimony. The\ncontrast is indeed great in almost all instances upon which controversy\nhas gathered. On one side the vast mass of authorities is assembled: on\nthe other stands a small group. Not inconsiderable is the advantage\npossessed by that group, as regards numerous students who do not look\nbeneath the surface, in the general witness in their favour borne by the\ntwo oldest MSS. of the Gospels in existence. That advantage however\nshrinks into nothing under the light of rigid examination. The claim for\nthe Text in them made at the Semiarian period was rejected when\nSemiarianism in all its phases fell into permanent disfavour. And the\nargument advanced by Dr. Hort that the Traditional Text was a new Text\nformed by successive recensions has been refuted upon examination of the\nverdict of the Fathers in the first four centuries, and of the early\nSyriac and Latin Versions. Besides all this, those two manuscripts have\nbeen traced to a local source in the library of Caesarea. And on the\nother hand a Catholic origin of the Traditional Text found on later\nvellum manuscripts has been discovered in the manuscripts of papyrus\nwhich existed all over the Roman Empire, unless it was in Asia, and were\nto some degree in use even as late as the ninth century; before and\nduring the employment of vellum in the Caesarean school, and in\nlocalities where it was used in imitation of the mode of writing books\nwhich was brought well-nigh to perfection in that city.\n\nIt is evident that the turning-point of the controversy between\nourselves and the Neologian school must lie in the centuries before St.\nChrysostom. If, as Dr. Hort maintains, the Traditional Text not only\ngained supremacy at that era but did not exist in the early ages, then\nour contention is vain. That Text can be Traditional only if it goes\nback without break or intermission to the original autographs, because\nif through break or intermission it ceased or failed to exist, it loses\nthe essential feature of genuine tradition. On the other hand, if it is\nproved to reach back in unbroken line to the time of the Evangelists, or\nto a period as near to them as surviving testimony can prove, then Dr.\nHort's theory of a 'Syrian' text formed by recension or otherwise just\nas evidently falls to the ground. Following mainly upon the lines drawn\nby Dean Burgon, though in a divergence of my own devising, I claim to\nhave proved Dr. Hort to have been conspicuously wrong, and our\nmaintenance of the Traditional Text in unbroken succession to be\neminently right. The school opposed to us must disprove our arguments,\nnot by discrediting the testimony of the Fathers to whom all Textual\nCritics have appealed including Dr. Hort, but by demonstrating if they\ncan that the Traditional Text is not recognized by them, or they must\nyield eventually to us[1].\n\nIn this volume, the other half of the subject will be discussed. Instead\nof exploring the genuine Text, we shall treat of the corruptions of it,\nand shall track error in its ten thousand forms to a few sources or\nheads. The origination of the pure Text in the inspired writings of the\nEvangelists will thus be vindicated anew by the evident paternity of\ndeflections from it discoverable in the natural defects or iniquities of\nmen. Corruption will the more shew itself in true colours:--\n\n  Quinquaginta atris immanis hiatibus hydra[2]:\n\nand it will not so readily be mistaken for genuineness, when the real\nhistory is unfolded, and the mistakes are accounted for. It seems clear\nthat corruption arose in the very earliest age. As soon as the Gospel\nwas preached, the incapacity of human nature for preserving accuracy\nuntil long years of intimate acquaintance have bred familiarity must\nhave asserted itself in constant distortion more or less of the sacred\nstories, as they were told and retold amongst Christians one to another\nwhether in writing or in oral transmission. Mistakes would inevitably\narise from the universal tendency to mix error with truth which Virgil\nhas so powerfully depicted in his description of 'Fame':--\n\n  Tam ficti pravique tenax, quam nuntia veri[3].\n\nAnd as soon as inaccuracy had done its baleful work, a spirit of\ninfidelity and of hostility either to the essentials or the details of\nthe new religion must have impelled such as were either imperfect\nChristians, or no Christians at all, to corrupt the sacred stories.\n\nThus it appears that errors crept in at the very first commencement of\nthe life of the Church. This is a matter so interesting and so important\nin the history of corruption, that I must venture to place it again\nbefore our readers.\n\nWhy was Galilee chosen before Judea and Jerusalem as the chief scene of\nour Lord's Life and Ministry, at least as regards the time spent there?\nPartly, no doubt, because the Galileans were more likely than the other\ninhabitants of Palestine to receive Him. But there was as I venture to\nthink also another very special reason.\n\n'Galilee of the nations' or 'the Gentiles,' not only had a mixed\npopulation[4] and a provincial dialect[5], but lay contiguous to the\nrest of Palestine on the one side, and on others to two districts in\nwhich Greek was largely spoken, namely, Decapolis and the parts of Tyre\nand Sidon, and also to the large country of Syria. Our Lord laid\nfoundations for a natural growth in these parts of the Christian\nreligion after His death almost independent as it seems of the centre of\nthe Church at Jerusalem. Hence His crossings of the lake, His miracles\non the other side, His retirement in that little understood episode in\nHis life when He shrank from persecution[6], and remained secretly in\nthe parts of Tyre and Sidon, about the coasts of Decapolis, on the\nshores of the lake, and in the towns of Caesarea Philippi, where the\ntraces of His footsteps are even now indicated by tradition[7]. His\nsuccess amongst these outlying populations is proved by the unique\nassemblage of the crowds of 5000 and 4000 men besides women and\nchildren. What wonder then if the Church sprang up at Damascus, and\nsuddenly as if without notice displayed such strength as to draw\npersecution upon it! In the same way the Words of life appear to have\npassed throughout Syria over congenial soil, and Antioch became the\nhaven whence the first great missionaries went out for the conversion of\nthe world. Such were not only St. Paul, St. Peter, and St. Barnabas, but\nalso as is not unreasonable to infer many of that assemblage of\nChristians at Rome whom St. Paul enumerates to our surprise in the last\nchapter of his Epistle to the Romans. Many no doubt were friends whom\nthe Apostle of the Gentiles had met in Greece and elsewhere: but there\nare reasons to shew that some at least of them, such as Andronicus and\nJunias or Junia[8] and Herodion, may probably have passed along the\nstream of commerce that flowed between Antioch and Rome[9], and that\nthis interconnexion between the queen city of the empire and the\nemporium of the East may in great measure account for the number of\nnames well known to the apostle, and for the then flourishing condition\nof the Church which they adorned.\n\nIt has been shewn in our first volume that, as is well known to all\nstudents of Textual Criticism, the chief amount of corruption is to be\nfound in what is termed the Western Text; and that the corruption of the\nWest is so closely akin to the corruption which is found in Syriac\nremains, that practically they are included under one head of\nclassification. What is the reason of this phenomenon? It is evidently\nderived from the close commercial alliance which subsisted between Syria\nand Italy. That is to say, the corruption produced in Syria made its way\nover into Italy, and there in many instances gathered fresh\ncontributions. For there is reason to suppose, that it first arose in\nSyria.\n\nWe have seen how the Church grew of itself there without regular\nteaching from Jerusalem in the first beginnings, or any regular\nsupervision exercised by the Apostles. In fact, as far as the Syrian\nbelievers in Christ at first consisted of Gentiles, they must perforce\nhave been regarded as being outside of the covenant of promise. Yet\nthere must have been many who revered the stories told about our Lord,\nand felt extreme interest and delight in them. The story of King Abgar\nillustrates the history: but amongst those who actually heard our Lord\npreach there must have been very many, probably a majority, who were\nuneducated. They would easily learn from the Jews, because the Aramaic\ndialects spoken by Hebrews and Syrians did not greatly differ the one\nfrom the other. What difference there was, would not so much hinder the\nspread of the stories, as tend to introduce alien forms of speech and\nsynonymous words, and so to hinder absolute accuracy from being\nmaintained. Much time must necessarily have elapsed, before such\nfamiliarity with the genuine accounts of our Lord's sayings and doings\ngrew up, as would prevent mistakes being made and disseminated in\ntelling or in writing.\n\nThe Gospels were certainly not written till some thirty years after the\nAscension. More careful examination seems to place them later rather\nthan earlier. For myself, I should suggest that the three first were not\npublished long before the year 70 A.D. at the earliest; and that St.\nMatthew's Gospel was written at Pella during the siege of Jerusalem\namidst Greek surroundings, and in face of the necessity caused by new\nconditions of life that Greek should become the ecclesiastical language.\nThe Gospels would thus be the authorized versions in their entirety of\nthe stories constituting the Life of our Lord; and corruption must have\ncome into existence, before the antidote was found in complete documents\naccepted and commissioned by the authorities in the Church.\n\nI must again remark with much emphasis that the foregoing suggestions\nare offered to account for what may now be regarded as a fact, viz., the\nconnexion between the Western Text, as it is called, and Syriac remains\nin regard to corruption in the text of the Gospels and of the Acts of\nthe Apostles. If that corruption arose at the very first spread of\nChristianity, before the record of our Lord's Life had assumed permanent\nshape in the Four Gospels, all is easy. Such corruption, inasmuch as it\nbeset the oral and written stories which were afterwards incorporated in\nthe Gospels, would creep into the authorized narrations, and would\nvitiate them till it was ultimately cast out towards the end of the\nfourth and in the succeeding centuries. Starting from the very\nbeginning, and gaining additions in the several ways described in this\nvolume by Dean Burgon, it would possess such vigour as to impress itself\non Low-Latin manuscripts and even on parts of the better Latin ones,\nperhaps on Tatian's Diatessaron, on the Curetonian and Lewis manuscripts\nof the fifth century, on the Codex Bezae of the sixth; also on the\nVatican and the Sinaitic of the fourth, on the Dublin Palimpsest of St.\nMatthew of the sixth, on the Codex Regius or L of the eighth, on the St.\nGall MS. of the ninth in St. Mark, on the Codex Zacynthius of the eighth\nin St. Luke, and a few others. We on our side admit that the corruption\nis old even though the manuscripts enshrining it do not date very far\nback, and cannot always prove their ancestry. And it is in this\nadmission that I venture to think there is an opening for a meeting of\nopinions which have been hitherto opposed.\n\nIn the following treatise, the causes of corruption are divided into (I)\nsuch as proceeded from Accident, and (II) those which were Intentional.\nUnder the former class we find (1) those which were involved in pure\nAccident, or (2) in what is termed Homoeoteleuton where lines or\nsentences ended with the same word or the same syllable, or (3) such as\narose in writing from Uncial letters, or (4) in the confusion of vowels\nand diphthongs which is called Itacism, or (5) in Liturgical Influence.\nThe remaining instances may be conveniently classed as Intentional, not\nbecause in all cases there was a settled determination to alter the\ntext, for such if any was often of the faintest character, but because\nsome sort of design was to a greater or less degree embedded in most of\nthem. Such causes were (1) Harmonistic Influence, (2) Assimilation, (3)\nAttraction; such instances too in their main character were (4)\nOmissions, (5) Transpositions, (6) Substitutions, (7) Additions, (8)\nGlosses, (9) Corruption by Heretics, (10) Corruption by Orthodox.\n\nThis dissection of the mass of corruption, or as perhaps it may be\nbetter termed, this classification made by Dean Burgon of the numerous\ncauses which are found to have been at work from time to time, appears\nto me to be most interesting to the inquirer into the hidden history of\nthe Text of the Gospels, because by revealing the influences which have\nbeen at work it sheds light upon the entire controversy, and often\nenables the student to see clearly how and why certain passages around\nwhich dispute has gathered are really corrupt. Indeed, the vast and\nmysterious ogre called corruption assumes shape and form under the acute\npenetration and the deft handling of the Dean, whose great knowledge of\nthe subject and orderly treatment of puzzling details is still more\ncommended by his interesting style of writing. As far as has been\npossible, I have let him in the sequel, except for such clerical\ncorrections as were required from time to time and have been much fewer\nthan his facile pen would have made, speak entirely for himself.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[1] It must be always borne in mind, that it is not enough for the\npurpose of the other side to shew that the Traditional Text was in a\nminority as regards attestation. They must prove that it was nowhere in\nthe earliest ages, if they are to establish their position that it was\nmade in the third and fourth centuries. Traditional Text of the Holy\nGospels, p. 95.\n\n[2]\n     'A hydra in her direful shape,\n    With fifty darkling throats agape.'--\n\nAltered from Conington's version, Aen. vi. 576.\n\n[3]\n    'How oft soe'er the truth she tell,\n    What's false and wrong she loves too well.'--\n\nAltered from Conington, Aen. iv. 188.\n\n[4] Strabo, xvi, enumerates amongst its inhabitants Egyptians, Arabians,\nand Phoenicians.\n\n[5] Studia Biblica, i. 50-55. Dr. Neubauer, On the Dialects spoken in\nPalestine in the time of Christ.\n\n[6] Isaac Williams, On the Study of the Gospels, 341-352.\n\n[7] My devoted Syrian friend, Miss Helanie Baroody, told me during her\nstay in England that a village is pointed out as having been traversed\nby our Lord on His way from Caesarea Philippi to Mount Hermon.\n\n[8] It is hardly improbable that these two eminent Christians were some\nof those whom St Paul found at Antioch when St. Barnabas brought him\nthere, and thus came to know intimately as fellow-workers ([Greek:\nepisemoi en tois apostolois, oi kai pro emou gegonasin en Christo]).\nMost of the names in Rom. xvi are either Greek or Hebrew.\n\n[9]\n    'Jam pridem Syrus in Tiberim defluxit Orontes\n    Et _linguam_ et mores ... vexit.'\n\n--Juv. Sat. iii. 62-3.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER I.\n\nGENERAL CORRUPTION.\n\n\nSec. 1.\n\nWe hear sometimes scholars complain, and with a certain show of reason,\nthat it is discreditable to us as a Church not to have long since put\nforth by authority a revised Greek Text of the New Testament. The chief\nwriters of antiquity, say they, have been of late years re-edited by the\naid of the best Manuscripts. Why should not the Scriptures enjoy the\nsame advantage? Men who so speak evidently misunderstand the question.\nThey assume that the case of the Scriptures and that of other ancient\nwritings are similar.\n\nSuch remonstrances are commonly followed up by statements like the\nfollowing:--That the received Text is that of Erasmus:--that it was\nconstructed in haste, and without skill:--that it is based on a very\nfew, and those bad Manuscripts:--that it belongs to an age when scarcely\nany of our present critical helps were available, and when the Science\nof Textual Criticism was unknown. To listen to these advocates for\nRevision, you would almost suppose that it fared with the Gospel at this\ninstant as it had fared with the original Copy of the Law for many years\nuntil the days of King Josiah[10].\n\nYielding to no one in my desire to see the Greek of the New Testament\njudiciously revised, I freely avow that recent events have convinced me,\nand I suppose they have convinced the public also, that we have not\namong us the men to conduct such an undertaking. Better a thousand times\nin my judgement to leave things as they are, than to risk having the\nstamp of authority set upon such an unfortunate production as that which\nappeared on the 17th May, 1881, and which claims at this instant to\nrepresent the combined learning of the Church, the chief Sects, and the\nSocinian[11] body.\n\nNow if the meaning of those who desire to see the commonly received text\nof the New Testament made absolutely faultless, were something of this\nkind:--That they are impatient for the collation of the copies which\nhave become known to us within the last two centuries, and which amount\nalready in all to upwards of three thousand: that they are bent on\nprocuring that the ancient Versions shall be re-edited;--and would hail\nwith delight the announcement that a band of scholars had combined to\nindex every place of Scripture quoted by any of the Fathers:--if this\nwere meant, we should all be entirely at one; especially if we could\nfurther gather from the programme that a fixed intention was cherished\nof abiding by the result of such an appeal to ancient evidence. But\nunfortunately something entirely different is in contemplation.\n\nNow I am bent on calling attention to certain features of the problem\nwhich have very generally escaped attention. It does not seem to be\nunderstood that the Scriptures of the New Testament stand on an entirely\ndifferent footing from every other ancient writing which can be named. A\nfew plain remarks ought to bring this fact, for a fact it is, home to\nevery thoughtful person. And the result will be that men will approach\nthe subject with more caution,--with doubts and misgivings,--with a\nfixed determination to be on their guard against any form of plausible\ninfluence. Their prejudices they will scatter to the winds. At every\nstep they will insist on proof.\n\nIn the first place, then, let it be observed that the New Testament\nScriptures are wholly without a parallel in respect of their having been\nso frequently multiplied from the very first. They are by consequence\ncontained at this day in an extravagantly large number of copies\n[probably, if reckoned under the six classes of Gospels, Acts and\nCatholic Epistles, Pauline Epistles, Apocalypse, Evangelistaries, and\nApostolos, exceeding the number of four thousand]. There is nothing like\nthis, or at all approaching to it, in the case of any profane writing\nthat can be named[12].\n\nAnd the very necessity for multiplying copies,--a necessity which has\nmade itself felt in every age and in every clime,--has perforce resulted\nin an immense number of variants. Words have been inevitably\ndropped,--vowels have been inadvertently confounded by copyists more or\nless competent:--and the meaning of Scripture in countless places has\nsuffered to a surprising degree in consequence. This first.\n\nBut then further, the Scriptures for the very reason because they were\nknown to be the Word of God became a mark for the shafts of Satan from\nthe beginning. They were by consequence as eagerly solicited by\nheretical teachers on the one hand, as they were hotly defended by the\northodox on the other. Alike from friends and from foes therefore, they\nare known to have experienced injury, and that in the earliest age of\nall. Nothing of the kind can be predicated of any other ancient\nwritings. This consideration alone should suggest a severe exercise of\njudicial impartiality, in the handling of ancient evidence of whatever\nsort.\n\nFor I request it may be observed that I have not said--and I certainly\ndo not mean--that the Scriptures themselves have been permanently\ncorrupted either by friend or foe. Error was fitful and uncertain, and\nwas contradicted by other error: besides that it sank eventually before\na manifold witness to the truth. Nevertheless, certain manuscripts\nbelonging to a few small groups--particular copies of a\nVersion--individual Fathers or Doctors of the Church,--these do, to the\npresent hour, bear traces incontestably of ancient mischief.\n\nBut what goes before is not nearly all. The fourfold structure of the\nGospel has lent itself to a certain kind of licentious handling--of\nwhich in other ancient writings we have no experience. One critical\nowner of a Codex considered himself at liberty to assimilate the\nnarratives: another to correct them in order to bring them into (what\nseemed to himself) greater harmony. Brevity is found to have been a\nparamount object with some, and Transposition to have amounted to a\npassion with others. Conjectural Criticism was evidently practised\nlargely: and almost with as little felicity as when Bentley held the\npen. Lastly, there can be no question that there was a certain school of\nCritics who considered themselves competent to improve the style of the\nHoly Ghost throughout. [And before the members of the Church had gained\na familiar acquaintance with the words of the New Testament, blunders\ncontinually crept into the text of more or less heinous importance.] All\nthis, which was chiefly done during the second and third centuries,\nintroduces an element of difficulty in the handling of ancient evidence\nwhich can never be safely neglected: and will make a thoughtful man\nsuspicious of every various reading which comes in his way, especially\nif it is attended with but slender attestation. [It has been already\nshewn in the companion volume] that the names of the Codexes chiefly\nvitiated in this sort prove to be B[Symbol: Aleph]CDL; of the\nVersions,--the two Coptic, the Curetonian, and certain specimens of the\nOld Latin; of the Fathers,--Origen, Clement of Alexandria, and to some\nextent Eusebius.\n\nAdd to all that goes before the peculiar subject-matter of the New\nTestament Scriptures, and it will become abundantly plain why they\nshould have been liable to a series of assaults which make it reasonable\nthat they should now at last be approached by ourselves as no other\nancient writings are, or can be. The nature of God,--His Being and\nAttributes:--the history of Man's Redemption:--the soul's eternal\ndestiny:--the mysteries of the unseen world:--concerning these and every\nother similar high doctrinal subject, the sacred writings alone speak\nwith a voice of absolute authority. And surely by this time enough has\nbeen said to explain why these Scriptures should have been made a\nbattle-field during some centuries, and especially in the fourth; and\nhaving thus been made the subject of strenuous contention, that copies\nof them should exhibit to this hour traces of those many adverse\ninfluences. I say it for the last time,--of all such causes of\ndepravation the Greek Poets, Tragedians, Philosophers, Historians,\nneither knew nor could know anything. And it thus plainly appears that\nthe Textual Criticism of the New Testament is to be handled by ourselves\nin an entirely different spirit from that of any other book.\n\n\nSec. 2.\n\nI wish now to investigate the causes of the corruption of the Text of\nthe New Testament. I do not entitle the present a discussion of 'Various\nReadings,' because I consider that expression to be incorrect and\nmisleading[13]. Freely allowing that the term 'variae lectiones,' for\nlack of a better, may be allowed to stand on the Critic's page, I yet\nthink it necessary even a second time to call attention to the\nimpropriety which attends its use. Thus Codex B differs from the\ncommonly received Text of Scripture in the Gospels alone in 7578 places;\nof which no less than 2877 are instances of omission. In fact omissions\nconstitute by far the larger number of what are commonly called 'Various\nReadings.' How then can those be called 'various readings' which are\nreally not readings at all? How, for example, can that be said to be a\n'various reading' of St. Mark xvi. 9-20, which consists in the\ncircumstance that the last 12 verses are left out by two MSS.?\nAgain,--How can it be called a 'various reading' of St. John xxi. 25, to\nbring the Gospel abruptly to a close, as Tischendorf does, at v. 24?\nThese are really nothing else but indications either of a mutilated or\nelse an interpolated text. And the question to be resolved is,--On which\nside does the corruption lie? and, How did it originate?\n\nWaiving this however, the term is objectionable on other grounds. It is\nto beg the whole question to assume that every irregularity in the text\nof Scripture is a 'various reading.' The very expression carries with it\nan assertion of importance; at least it implies a claim to\nconsideration. Even might it be thought that, because it is termed a\n'various reading,' therefore a critic is entitled to call in question\nthe commonly received text. Whereas, nine divergences out of ten are of\nno manner of significance and are entitled to no manner of\nconsideration, as every one must see at a glance who will attend to the\nmatter ever so little. 'Various readings' in fact is a term which\nbelongs of right to the criticism of the text of profane authors: and,\nlike many other notions which have been imported from the same region\ninto this department of inquiry, it only tends to confuse and perplex\nthe judgement.\n\nNo variety in the Text of Scripture can properly be called a 'various\nreading,' of which it may be safely declared that it never has been, and\nnever will be, read. In the case of profane authors, where the MSS. are\nfor the most part exceedingly few, almost every plausible substitution\nof one word for another, if really entitled to alteration, is looked\nupon as a various reading of the text. But in the Gospels, of which the\ncopies are so numerous as has been said, the case is far otherwise. We\nare there able to convince ourselves in a moment that the supposed\n'various reading' is nothing else but an instance of licentiousness or\ninattention on the part of a previous scribe or scribes, and we can\nafford to neglect it accordingly[14]. It follows therefore,--and this is\nthe point to which I desire to bring the reader and to urge upon his\nconsideration,--that the number of 'various readings' in the New\nTestament properly so called has been greatly exaggerated. They are, in\nreality, exceedingly few in number; and it is to be expected that, as\nsound (sacred) Criticism advances, and principles are established, and\nconclusions recognized, instead of becoming multiplied they will become\nfewer and fewer, and at last will entirely disappear. We cannot afford\nto go on disputing for ever; and what is declared by common consent to\nbe untenable ought to be no longer reckoned. That only in short, as I\nventure to think, deserves the name of a Various Reading which comes to\nus so respectably recommended as to be entitled to our sincere\nconsideration and respect; or, better still, which is of such a kind as\nto inspire some degree of reasonable suspicion that after all it may\nprove to be the true way of exhibiting the text.\n\nThe inquiry therefore on which we are about to engage, grows naturally\nout of the considerations which have been already offered. We propose to\nascertain, as far as is practicable at the end of so many hundred years,\nin what way these many strange corruptions of the text have arisen. Very\noften we shall only have to inquire how it has come to pass that the\ntext exhibits signs of perturbation at a certain place. Such\ndisquisitions as those which follow, let it never be forgotten, have no\nplace in reviewing any other text than that of the New Testament,\nbecause a few plain principles would suffice to solve every difficulty.\nThe less usual word mistaken for the word of more frequent\noccurrence;--clerical carelessness;--a gloss finding its way from the\nmargin into the text;--- such explanations as these would probably in\nother cases suffice to account for every ascertained corruption of the\ntext. But it is far otherwise here, as I propose to make fully apparent\nby and by. Various disturbing influences have been at work for a great\nmany years, of which secular productions know absolutely nothing, nor\nindeed can know.\n\nThe importance of such an inquiry will become apparent as we proceed;\nbut it may be convenient that I should call attention to the matter\nbriefly at the outset. It frequently happens that the one remaining plea\nof many critics for adopting readings of a certain kind, is the\ninexplicable nature of the phenomena which these readings exhibit. 'How\nwill you possibly account for such a reading as the present,' (say\nthey,) 'if it be not authentic?' Or they say nothing, but leave it to be\ninferred that the reading they adopt,--in spite of its intrinsic\nimprobability, in spite also of the slender amount of evidence on which\nit rests,--must needs be accepted as true. They lose sight of the\ncorrelative difficulty:--How comes it to pass that the rest of the\ncopies read the place otherwise? On all such occasions it is impossible\nto overestimate the importance of detecting the particular cause which\nhas brought about, or which at least will fully account for, this\ndepravation. When this has been done, it is hardly too much to say that\na case presents itself like as when a pasteboard mask has been torn\naway, and the ghost is discovered with a broad grin on his face behind\nit.\n\nThe discussion on which I now enter is then on the Causes of the various\nCorruptions of the Text. [The reader shall be shewn with illustrations\nto what particular source they are to be severally ascribed. When\nrepresentative passages have been thus labelled, and the causes are seen\nin operation, he will be able to pierce the mystery, and all the better\nto winnow the evil from among the good.]\n\n\nSec. 3.\n\nWhen I take into my hands an ancient copy of the Gospels, I expect that\nit will exhibit sundry inaccuracies and imperfections: and I am never\ndisappointed in my expectation. The discovery however creates no\nuneasiness, so long as the phenomena evolved are of a certain kind and\nrange within easily definable limits. Thus:--\n\n1. Whatever belongs to peculiarities of spelling or fashions of writing,\nI can afford to disregard. For example, it is clearly consistent with\nperfect good faith, that a scribe should spell [Greek: krabatton][15] in\nseveral different ways: that he should write [Greek: outo] for [Greek:\noutos], or the contrary: that he should add or omit what grammarians\ncall the [Greek: n ephelkystikon]. The questions really touched by\nirregularities such as these concern the date and country where the MS.\nwas produced; not by any means the honesty or animus of the copyist. The\nman fell into the method which was natural to him, or which he found\nprevailing around him; and that was all. 'Itacisms' therefore, as they\nare called, of whatever kind,--by which is meant the interchange of such\nvowels and diphthongs as [Greek: i-ei, ai-e, e-i, e-oi-u, o-o,\ne-ei],--need excite no uneasiness. It is true that these variations may\noccasionally result in very considerable inconvenience: for it will\nsometimes happen that a different reading is the consequence. But the\ncopyist may have done his work in perfect good faith for all that. It is\nnot he who is responsible for the perplexity he occasions me, but the\nlanguage and the imperfect customs amidst which he wrote.\n\n2. In like\nmanner the reduplication of syllables, words, clauses, sentences, is\nconsistent with entire sincerity of purpose on the part of the copyist.\nThis inaccuracy is often to be deplored; inasmuch as a reduplicated\nsyllable often really affects the sense. But for the most part nothing\nworse ensues than that the page is disfigured with errata.\n\n3. So, on the other hand,--the occasional omission of words, whether few\nor many,--especially that passing from one line to the corresponding\nplace in a subsequent line, which generally results from the proximity\nof a similar ending,--is a purely venial offence. It is an evidence of\ncarelessness, but it proves nothing worse.\n\n4. Then further,--slight inversions, especially of ordinary words; or\nthe adoption of some more obvious and familiar collocation of particles\nin a sentence; or again, the occasional substitution of one common word\nfor another, as [Greek: eipe] for [Greek: elege], [Greek: phonesan] for\n[Greek: kraxan], and the like;--need not provoke resentment. It is an\nindication, we are willing to hope, of nothing worse than slovenliness\non the part of the writer or the group or succession of writers.\n\n5. I will add that besides the substitution of one word for another,\ncases frequently occur, where even the introduction into the text of one\nor more words which cannot be thought to have stood in the original\nautograph of the Evangelist, need create no offence. It is often\npossible to account for their presence in a strictly legitimate way.\n\nBut it is high time to point out, that irregularities which fall under\nthese last heads are only tolerable within narrow limits, and always\nrequire careful watching; for they may easily become excessive or even\nbetray an animus; and in either case they pass at once into quite a\ndifferent category. From cases of excusable oscitancy they degenerate,\neither into instances of inexcusable licentiousness, or else into cases\nof downright fraud.\n\n6. Thus, if it be observed in the case of a Codex (_a_) that entire\nsentences or significant clauses are habitually omitted:--(_b_) that\nagain and again in the course of the same page the phraseology of the\nEvangelist has upon clear evidence been seriously tampered with: and\n(_c_) that interpolations here and there occur which will not admit of\nloyal interpretation:--we cannot but learn to regard with habitual\ndistrust the Codex in which all these notes are found combined. It is as\nwhen a witness, whom we suspected of nothing worse than a bad memory or\na random tongue or a lively imagination, has been at last convicted of\ndeliberate suppression of parts of his evidence, misrepresentation of\nfacts,--in fact, deliberate falsehood.\n\n7. But now suppose the case of a MS. in which words or clauses are\nclearly omitted with design; where expressions are withheld which are\nconfessedly harsh or critically difficult,--whole sentences or parts of\nthem which have a known controversial bearing;--Suppose further that the\nsame MS. abounds in worthless paraphrase, and contains apocryphal\nadditions throughout:--What are we to think of our guide then? There can\nbe but one opinion on the subject. From habitually trusting, we shall\nentertain inveterate distrust. We have ascertained his character. We\nthought he was a faithful witness, but we now find from experience of\nhis transgressions that we have fallen into bad company. His witness may\nbe false no less than true: confidence is at an end.\n\n\nSec. 4.\n\nIt may be regarded as certain that most of the aberrations discoverable\nin Codexes of the Sacred Text have arisen in the first instance from the\nmerest inadvertency of the scribes. That such was the case in a vast\nnumber of cases is in fact demonstrable. [Inaccuracy in the apprehension\nof the Divine Word, which in the earliest ages was imperfectly\nunderstood, and ignorance of Greek in primitive Latin translators, were\nprolific sources of error. The influence of Lectionaries, in which Holy\nScripture was cut up into separate Lections either with or without an\nintroduction, remained with habitual hearers, and led them off in\ncopying to paths which had become familiar. Acquaintance with\n'Harmonies' or Diatessarons caused copyists insensibly to assimilate one\nGospel to another. And doctrinal predilections, as in the case of those\nwho belonged to the Origenistic school, were the source of lapsing into\nexpressions which were not the _verba ipsissima_ of Holy Writ. In such\ncases, when the inadvertency was genuine and was unmingled with any\novert design, it is much to be noted that the error seldom propagated\nitself extensively.]\n\nBut next, well-meant endeavours must have been made at a very early\nperiod 'to rectify' ([Greek: diorthoun]) the text thus unintentionally\ncorrupted; and so, what began in inadvertence is sometimes found in the\nend to exhibit traces of design, and often becomes in a high degree\nperplexing. Thus, to cite a favourite example, it is clear to me that in\nthe earliest age of all (A.D. 100?) some copyist of St. Luke ii. 14\n(call him X) inadvertently omitted the second [Greek: en] in the Angelic\nHymn. Now if the persons (call them Y and Z) whose business it became in\nturn to reproduce the early copy thus inadvertently depraved, had but\nbeen content both of them to transcribe exactly what they saw before\nthem, the error of their immediate predecessor (X) must infallibly have\nspeedily been detected, remedied, and forgotten,--simply because, as\nevery one must have seen as well as Y and Z, it was impossible to\ntranslate the sentence which results,--[Greek: epi ges eirene anthropois\neudokia]. Reference would have been made to any other copy of the third\nGospel, and together with the omitted preposition ([Greek: en]) sense\nwould have been restored to the passage. But unhappily one of the two\nsupposed Copyists being a learned grammarian who had no other copy at\nhand to refer to, undertook, good man that he was, _proprio Marte_ to\nforce a meaning into the manifestly corrupted text of the copy before\nhim: and he did it by affixing to [Greek: eudokia] the sign of the\ngenitive case ([Greek: s]). Unhappy effort of misplaced skill! That copy\n[or those copies] became the immediate progenitor [or progenitors] of a\nlarge family,--from which all the Latin copies are descended; whereby it\ncomes to pass that Latin Christendom sings the Hymn 'Gloria in excelsis'\nincorrectly to the present hour, and may possibly sing it incorrectly to\nthe end of time. The error committed by that same venerable Copyist\nsurvives in the four oldest copies of the passage extant, B* and\n[Symbol: Aleph]*, A and D,--though happily in no others,--in the Old\nLatin, Vulgate, and Gothic, alone of Versions; in Irenaeus and Origen\n(who contradict themselves), and in the Latin Fathers. All the Greek\nauthorities, with the few exceptions just recorded, of which A and D are\nthe only consistent witnesses, unite in condemning the evident\nblunder[16].\n\nI once hoped that it might be possible to refer all the Corruptions of\nthe Text of Scripture to ordinary causes: as, careless transcription,--\ndivers accidents,--misplaced critical assiduity,--doctrinal\nanimus,--small acts of unpardonable licence.\n\nBut increased attention and enlarged acquaintance with the subject, have\nconvinced me that by far the larger number of the omissions of such\nCodexes as [Symbol: Aleph]BLD must needs be due to quite a different\ncause. These MSS. omit so many words, phrases, sentences, verses of\nScripture,--that it is altogether incredible that the proximity of like\nendings can have much to do with the matter. Inadvertency may be made to\nbear the blame of some omissions: it cannot bear the blame of shrewd and\nsignificant omissions of clauses, which invariably leave the sense\ncomplete. A systematic and perpetual mutilation of the inspired Text\nmust needs be the result of design, not of accident[17].\n\n[It will be seen therefore that the causes of the Corruptions of the\nText class themselves under two main heads, viz. (I.) Those which arose\nfrom Inadvertency, and (II.) Those which took their origin in Design.]\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[10] 2 Kings xxii. 8 = 2 Chron. xxxiv. 15.\n\n[11] [This name is used for want of a better. Churchmen are Unitarians\nas well as Trinitarians. The two names in combination express our Faith.\nWe dare not alienate either of them.]\n\n[12] See The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels (Burgon and Miller),\np. 21, note 1.\n\n[13] See Traditional Text, chapter ii, Sec. 6, p. 33.\n\n[14] [Perhaps this point may be cleared by dividing readings into two\nclasses, viz. (1) such as really have strong evidence for their support,\nand require examination before we can be certain that they are corrupt;\nand (2) those which afford no doubt as to their being destitute of\nfoundation, and are only interesting as specimens of the modes in which\nerror was sometimes introduced. Evidently, the latter class are not\n'various' at all.]\n\n[15] [I.e. generally [Greek: krabatton], or else [Greek: krabaton], or\neven [Greek: krabakton]; seldom found as [Greek: krabbatton], or spelt\nin the corrupt form [Greek: krabbaton].]\n\n[16] I am inclined to believe that in the age immediately succeeding\nthat of the Apostles, some person or persons of great influence and\nauthority executed a Revision of the N.T. and gave the world the result\nof such labours in a 'corrected Text.' The guiding principle seems to\nhave been to seek to _abridge_ the Text, to lop off whatever seemed\nredundant, or which might in any way be spared, and to eliminate from\none Gospel whatever expressions occurred elsewhere in another Gospel.\nClauses which slightly obscured the speaker's meaning; or which seemed\nto hang loose at the end of a sentence; or which introduced a\nconsideration of difficulty:--words which interfered with the easy flow\nof a sentence:--every thing of this kind such a personage seems to have\nheld himself free to discard. But what is more serious, passages which\noccasioned some difficulty, as the _pericope de adultera_; physical\nperplexity, as the troubling of the water; spiritual revulsion, as the\nagony in the garden:--all these the reviser or revisers seem to have\njudged it safest simply to eliminate. It is difficult to understand how\nany persons in their senses could have so acted by the sacred deposit;\nbut it does not seem improbable that at some very remote period there\nwere found some who did act in some such way. Let it be observed,\nhowever, that unlike some critics I do not base my real argument upon\nwhat appears to me to be a not unlikely supposition.\n\n[17] [Unless it be referred to the two converging streams of corruption,\nas described in The Traditional Text.]\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER II.\n\nACCIDENTAL CAUSES OF CORRUPTION.\n\nI. Pure Accident.\n\n[It often happens that more causes than one are combined in the origin\nof the corruption in any one passage. In the following history of a\nblunder and of the fatal consequences that ensued upon it, only the\nfirst step was accidental. But much instruction may be derived from the\ninitial blunder, and though the later stages in the history come under\nanother head, they nevertheless illustrate the effects of early\naccident, besides throwing light upon parts of the discussion which are\nyet to come.]\n\n\nSec. 1.\n\nWe are sometimes able to trace the origin and progress of accidental\ndepravations of the text: and the study is as instructive as it is\ninteresting. Let me invite attention to what is found in St. John x. 29;\nwhere,--instead of, 'My Father, who hath given them [viz. My sheep] to\nMe, is greater than all,'--Tischendorf, Tregelles, Alford, are for\nreading, 'That thing which My (_or_ the) Father hath given to Me is\ngreater (i.e. is a greater thing) than all.' A vastly different\nproposition, truly; and, whatever it may mean, wholly inadmissible here,\nas the context proves. It has been the result of sheer accident\nmoreover,--as I proceed to explain.\n\nSt. John certainly wrote the familiar words,--[Greek: ho pater mou]\n[Greek: os dedoke moi, meizon panton esti]. But, with the licentiousness\n[or inaccuracy] which prevailed in the earliest age, some remote copyist\nis found to have substituted for [Greek: hos dedoke], its grammatical\nequivalent [Greek: ho dedokos]. And this proved fatal; for it was only\nnecessary that another scribe should substitute [Greek: meizon] for\n[Greek: meizon] (after the example of such places as St. Matt. xii. 6,\n41, 42, &c.), and thus the door had been opened to at least four\ndistinct deflections from the evangelical verity,--which straightway\nfound their way into manuscripts:--(1) [Greek: o dedokos ... meizon]--of\nwhich reading at this day D is the sole representative: (2) [Greek: os\ndedoke ... meizon]--which survives only in AX: (3) [Greek: o dedoke ...\nmeizon]--which is only found in [Symbol: Aleph]L: (4) [Greek: o dedoke\n... meizon]--which is the peculiar property of B. The 1st and 2nd of\nthese sufficiently represent the Evangelist's meaning, though neither of\nthem is what he actually wrote; but the 3rd is untranslatable: while the\n4th is nothing else but a desperate attempt to force a meaning into the\n3rd, by writing [Greek: meizon] for [Greek: meizon]; treating [Greek: o]\nnot as the article but as the neuter of the relative [Greek: os].\n\nThis last exhibition of the text, which in fact scarcely yields an\nintelligible meaning and rests upon the minimum of manuscript evidence,\nwould long since have been forgotten, but that, calamitously for the\nWestern Church, its Version of the New Testament Scriptures was executed\nfrom MSS. of the same vicious type as Cod. B[18]. Accordingly, all the\nLatin copies, and therefore all the Latin Fathers[19], translate,--\n'Pater [meus] quod dedit mihi, majus omnibus est[20].' The Westerns\nresolutely extracted a meaning from whatever they presumed to be genuine\nScripture: and one can but admire the piety which insists on finding\nsound Divinity in what proves after all to be nothing else but a sorry\nblunder. What, asks Augustine, was 'the thing, greater than all,' which\nthe Father gave to the Son? To be the Word of the Father (he answers),\nHis only-begotten Son and the brightness of His glory[21]. The Greeks\nknew better. Basil[22], Chrysostom[23], Cyril on nine occasions[24],\nTheodoret[25]--as many as quote the place--invariably exhibit the\n_textus receptus_ [Greek: os ... meizon], which is obviously the true\nreading and may on no account suffer molestation.\n\n'But,'--I shall perhaps be asked,--'although Patristic and manuscript\nevidence are wanting for the reading [Greek: o dedoke moi ...\nmeizon],--is it not a significant circumstance that three translations\nof such high antiquity as the Latin, the Bohairic, and the Gothic,\nshould concur in supporting it? and does it not inspire extraordinary\nconfidence in B to find that B alone of MSS. agrees with them?' To which\nI answer,--It makes me, on the contrary, more and more distrustful of\nthe Latin, the Bohairic and the Gothic versions to find them exclusively\nsiding with Cod. B on such an occasion as the present. It is obviously\nnot more 'significant' that the Latin, the Bohairic, and the Gothic,\nshould here conspire with--than that the Syriac, the Sahidic, and the\nEthiopic, should here combine against B. On the other hand, how utterly\ninsignificant is the testimony of B when opposed to all the uncials, all\nthe cursives, and all the Greek fathers who quote the place. So far from\ninspiring me with confidence in B, the present indication of the fatal\nsympathy of that Codex with the corrupt copies from which confessedly\nmany of the Old Latin were executed, confirms me in my habitual distrust\nof it. About the true reading of St. John x. 29, there really exists no\nmanner of doubt. As for the 'old uncials' they are (as usual) hopelessly\nat variance on the subject. In an easy sentence of only 9 words,--which\nhowever Tischendorf exhibits in conformity with no known Codex, while\nTregelles and Alford blindly follow Cod. B,--they have contrived to\ninvent five 'various readings,' as may be seen at foot[26]. Shall we\nwonder more at the badness of the Codexes to which we are just now\ninvited to pin our faith; or at the infatuation of our guides?\n\n\nSec. 2.\n\nI do not find that sufficient attention has been paid to grave\ndisturbances of the Text which have resulted from a slight clerical\nerror. While we are enumerating the various causes of Textual depravity,\nwe may not fail to specify this. Once trace a serious Textual\ndisturbance back to (what for convenience may be called) a 'clerical\nerror,' and you are supplied with an effectual answer to a form of\ninquiry which else is sometimes very perplexing: viz. If the true\nmeaning of this passage be what you suppose, for what conceivable reason\nshould the scribe have misrepresented it in this strange way,--made\nnonsense, in short, of the place?... I will further remark, that it is\nalways interesting, sometimes instructive, after detecting the remote\norigin of an ancient blunder, to note what has been its subsequent\nhistory and progress.\n\nSome specimens of the thing referred to I have already given in another\nplace. The reader is invited to acquaint himself with the strange\nprocess by which the '276 souls' who suffered shipwreck with St. Paul\n(Acts xxvii. 37), have since dwindled down to 'about 76[27].'--He is\nfurther requested to note how 'a certain man' who in the time of St.\nPaul bore the name of 'Justus' (Acts xviii. 7), has been since\ntransformed into '_Titus_,' '_Titus Justus_,' and even '_Titius\nJustus_[28].'--But for a far sadder travestie of sacred words, the\nreader is referred to what has happened in St. Matt. xi. 23 and St. Luke\nx. 15,--where our Saviour is made to ask an unmeaning question--instead\nof being permitted to announce a solemn fact--concerning\nCapernaum[29].--The newly-discovered ancient name of the Island of\nMalta, _Melitene_[30], (for which geographers are indebted to the\nadventurous spirit of Westcott and Hort), may also be profitably\nconsidered in connexion with what is to be the subject of the present\nchapter. And now to break up fresh ground.\n\nAttention is therefore invited to a case of attraction in Acts xx. 24.\nIt is but the change of a single letter ([Greek: logoU] for [Greek:\nlogoN]), yet has that minute deflection from the truth led to a complete\nmangling of the most affecting perhaps of St. Paul's utterances. I refer\nto the famous words [Greek: all' oudenos logon poioumai, oude echo ten\npsuchen mou timian emauto, hos teleiosai ton dromon mou meta charas]:\nexcellently, because idiomatically, rendered by our Translators of\n1611,--'But none of these things move me, neither count I my life dear\nunto myself, so that I might finish my course with joy.'\n\nFor [Greek: oudenos loGON], (the accusative after [Greek: poioumai]),\nsome one having substituted [Greek: oudenos loGOU],--a reading which\nsurvives to this hour in B and C[31],--it became necessary to find\nsomething else for the verb to govern. [Greek: Ten psychen] was at hand,\nbut [Greek: oude echo] stood in the way. [Greek: Oude echo] must\ntherefore go[32]; and go it did,--as B, C, and [Symbol: Aleph] remain to\nattest. [Greek: Timian] should have gone also, if the sentence was to be\nmade translatable; but [Greek: timian] was left behind[33]. The authors\nof ancient embroilments of the text were sad bunglers. In the meantime,\nCod. [Symbol: Aleph] inadvertently retained St. Luke's word, [Greek:\nLOGON]; and because [Symbol: Aleph] here follows B in every other\nrespect, it exhibits a text which is simply unintelligible[34].\n\nNow the second clause of the sentence, viz. the words [Greek: oude echo\nten psychen mou timian emauto], may on no account be surrendered. It is\nindeed beyond the reach of suspicion, being found in Codd. A, D, E, H,\nL, P, 13, 31,--in fact in every known copy of the Acts, except the\ndiscordant [Symbol: Aleph]BC. The clause in question is further\nwitnessed to by the Vulgate[35],--by the Harkleian[36],--by\nBasil[37],--by Chrysostom[38],--by Cyril[39],--by Euthalius[40],--and by\nthe interpolator of Ignatius[41]. What are we to think of our guides\n(Tischendorf, Tregelles, Westcott and Hort, and the Revisers) who have\nnevertheless surrendered the Traditional Text and presented us instead\nwith what Dr. Field,--who is indeed a Master in Israel,--describes as\nthe impossible [Greek: all' oudenos logou poioumai ten psychen timian\nemauto][42]?\n\nThe words of the last-named eminent scholar on the reading just cited\nare so valuable in themselves, and are observed to be so often in point,\nthat they shall find place here:--'Modern Critics,' he says, 'in\ndeference to the authority of the older MSS., and to certain critical\ncanons which prescribe that preference should be given to the shorter\nand more difficult reading over the longer and easier one, have decided\nthat the T.R. in this passage is to be replaced by that which is\ncontained in those older MSS.\n\n'In regard to the difficulty of this reading, that term seems hardly\napplicable to the present case. A difficult reading is one which\npresents something apparently incongruous in the sense, or anomalous in\nthe construction, which an ignorant or half-learned copyist would\nendeavour, by the use of such critical faculty as he possessed, to\nremove; but which a true critic is able, by probable explanation, and a\ncomparison of similar cases, to defend against all such fancied\nimprovements. In the reading before us, [Greek: all' oudenos logou\npoioumai ten psychen timian emauto], it is the construction, and not the\nsense, which is in question; and this is not simply difficult, but\nimpossible. There is really no way of getting over it; it baffles\nnovices and experts alike[43].' When will men believe that a reading\nvouched for by only B[Symbol: Aleph]C is safe to be a fabrication[44]?\nBut at least when Copies and Fathers combine, as here they do, against\nthose three copies, what can justify critics in upholding a text which\ncarries on its face its own condemnation?\n\n\nSec. 3.\n\nWe now come to the inattention of those long-since-forgotten Ist or IInd\ncentury scribes who, beguiled by the similarity of the letters [Greek:\nEN] and [Greek: AN] (in the expression [Greek: ENANthropois eudokia],\nSt. Luke ii. 14), left out the preposition. An unintelligible clause was\nthe consequence, as has been explained above (p. 21): which some one\nnext sought to remedy by adding to [Greek: eudokia] the sign of the\ngenitive ([Greek: S]). Thus the Old Latin translations were made.\n\nThat this is the true history of a blunder which the latest Editors of\nthe New Testament have mistaken for genuine Gospel, is I submit\ncertain[45]. Most Latin copies (except 14[46]) exhibit 'pax hominibus\nbonae voluntatis,' as well as many Latin Fathers[47]. On the other hand,\nthe preposition [Greek: EN] is retained in every known Greek copy of St.\nLuke without exception, while the reading [Greek: eudokias] is\nabsolutely limited to the four uncials AB[Symbol: Aleph]D. The witness\nof antiquity on this head is thus overwhelming and decisive.\n\n\nSec. 4.\n\nIn other cases the source, the very progress of a blunder,--is\ndiscoverable. Thus whereas St. Mark (in xv. 6) certainly wrote [Greek:\nhena desmion], [Greek: ONPER etounto], the scribe of [Symbol: Delta],\nwho evidently derived his text from an earlier copy in uncial letters is\nfound to have divided the Evangelist's syllables wrongly, and to exhibit\nin this place [Greek: ON.PERETOUNTO]. The consequence might have been\npredicted. [Symbol: Aleph]AB transform this into [Greek: ON PARETOUNTO]:\nwhich accordingly is the reading adopted by Tischendorf and by Westcott\nand Hort.\n\nWhenever in fact the final syllable of one word can possibly be mistaken\nfor the first syllable of the next, or _vice versa_, it is safe sooner\nor later to have misled somebody. Thus, we are not at all surprised to\nfind St. Mark's [Greek: ha parelabon] (vii. 4) transformed into [Greek:\nhaper elabon], but only by B.\n\n[Another startling instance of the same phenomenon is supplied by the\nsubstitution in St. Mark vi. 22 of [Greek: tes thygatros autou\nHerodiados] for [Greek: tes thygatros autes tes Herodiados]. Here a\nfirst copyist left out [Greek: tes] as being a repetition of the last\nsyllable of [Greek: autes], and afterwards a second attempted to improve\nthe Greek by putting the masculine pronoun for the feminine ([Greek:\nAUTOU] for [Greek: AUTES]). The consequence was hardly to have been\nforeseen.]\n\nStrange to say it results in the following monstrous figment:--that the\nfruit of Herod's incestuous connexion with Herodias had been a daughter,\nwho was also named Herodias; and that she,--the King's own\ndaughter,--was the immodest one[48] who came in and danced before him,\n'his lords, high captains, and chief estates of Galilee,' as they sat at\nthe birthday banquet. Probability, natural feeling, the obvious\nrequirements of the narrative, History itself--, for Josephus expressly\ninforms us that 'Salome,' not 'Herodias,' was the name of Herodias'\ndaughter[49],--all reclaim loudly against such a perversion of the\ntruth. But what ought to be in itself conclusive, what in fact settles\nthe question, is the testimony of the MSS.,--of which only seven\n([Symbol: Aleph]BDL[Symbol: Delta] with two cursive copies) can be found\nto exhibit this strange mistake. Accordingly the reading [Greek: AUTOU]\nis rejected by Griesbach, Lachmann, Tregelles, Tischendorf and Alford.\nIt has nevertheless found favour with Dr. Hort; and it has even been\nthrust into the margin of the revised Text of our Authorized Version, as\na reading having some probability.\n\nThis is indeed an instructive instance of the effect of accidental\nerrors--another proof that [Symbol: Aleph]BDL cannot be trusted.\n\nSufficiently obvious are the steps whereby the present erroneous reading\nwas brought to perfection. The immediate proximity in MSS. of the\nselfsame combination of letters is observed invariably to result in a\nvarious reading. [Greek: AUTESTES] was safe to part with its second\n[Greek: TES] on the first opportunity, and the definitive article\n([Greek: tes]) once lost, the substitution of [Greek: AUTOU] for [Greek:\nAUTES] is just such a mistake as a copyist with ill-directed\nintelligence would be sure to fall into if he were bestowing sufficient\nattention on the subject to be aware that the person spoken of in verses\n20 and 21 is Herod the King.\n\n[This recurrence of identical or similar syllables near together was a\nfrequent source of error. Copying has always a tendency to become\nmechanical: and when the mind of the copyist sank to sleep in his\nmonotonous toil, as well as if it became too active, the sacred Text\nsuffered more or less, and so even a trifling mistake might be the seed\nof serious depravation.]\n\n\nSec. 5.\n\nAnother interesting and instructive instance of error originating in\nsheer accident, is supplied by the reading in certain MSS. of St. Mark\nviii. 1. That the Evangelist wrote [Greek: pampollou ochlou] 'the\nmultitude being very great,' is certain. This is the reading of all the\nuncials but eight, of all the cursives but fifteen. But instead of this,\nit has been proposed that we should read, 'when there was again a great\nmultitude,' the plain fact being that some ancient scribe mistook, as he\neasily might, the less usual compound word for what was to himself a far\nmore familiar expression: i.e. he mistook [Greek: PAMPOLLOU] for [Greek:\nPALIN POLLOU].\n\nThis blunder must date from the second century, for 'iterum' is met with\nin the Old Latin as well as in the Vulgate, the Gothic, the Bohairic,\nand some other versions. On the other hand, it is against 'every true\nprinciple of Textual Criticism' (as Dr. Tregelles would say), that the\nmore difficult expression should be abandoned for the easier, when\nforty-nine out of every fifty MSS. are observed to uphold it; when the\noldest version of all, the Syriac, is on the same side; when the source\nof the mistake is patent; and when the rarer word is observed to be in\nSt. Mark's peculiar manner. There could be in fact no hesitation on this\nsubject, if the opposition had not been headed by those notorious false\nwitnesses [Symbol: Aleph]BDL, which it is just now the fashion to uphold\nat all hazards. They happen to be supported on this occasion by\nGMN[Symbol: Delta] and fifteen cursives: while two other cursives look\nboth ways and exhibit [Greek: palin pampollou].\n\nIn St Mark vii. 14, [Greek: palin] was similarly misread by some\ncopyists for [Greek: panta], and has been preserved by [Symbol:\nAleph]BDL[Symbol: Delta] ([Greek: PALIN] for [Greek: PANTA]) against\nthirteen uncials, all the cursives, the Peshitto and Armenian.\n\nSo again in St. John xiii. 37. A reads [Greek: dynasai moi] by an\nevident slip of the pen for [Greek: dynamai soi]. And in xix. 31 [Greek:\nmegalE E Emera] has become [Greek: megale hemera] in [Symbol:\nAleph]AE[Symbol: Gamma] and some cursive copies.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[18] See the passages quoted in Scrivener's Introduction, II. 270-2, 4th\ned.\n\n[19] Tertull. (Prax. c. 22): Ambr. (ii. 576, 607, 689 _bis_): Hilary\n(930 _bis_, 1089): Jerome (v. 208): Augustin (iii^2. 615): Maximinus, an\nArian bishop (_ap_. Aug. viii. 651).\n\n[20] Pater (_or_ Pater meus) quod dedit mihi (_or_ mihi dedit), majus\nomnibus est (_or_ majus est omnibus: _or_ omnibus majus est).\n\n[21] iii^2. 615. He begins, '_Quid dedit Filio Pater majus omnibus? Ut\nipsi ille esset unigenitus Filius_.'\n\n[22] i. 236.\n\n[23] viii. 363 _bis_.\n\n[24] i. 188: ii. 567: iii. 792: iv. 666 (ed. Pusey): v^1. 326, 577, 578:\n_ap._ Mai ii. 13: iii. 336.\n\n[25] v. 1065 (=Dial^{Maced} _ap._ Athanas. ii. 555).\n\n[26] Viz. + [Greek: mou] ABD:--[Greek: mou] [Symbol: Aleph] | [Greek:\nos] A: [Greek: o] B[Symbol: Aleph]D | [Greek: dedoken] B[Symbol:\nAleph]A: [Greek: dedokos] | [Greek: meizon] [Symbol: Aleph]D: [Greek:\nmeizon] AB | [Greek: meiz. panton estin] A: [Greek: panton meiz. estin]\nB[Symbol: Aleph]D.\n\n[27] The Revision Revised, p. 51-3.\n\n[28] The Revision Revised, p. 53-4.\n\n[29] Ibid. p. 51-6.\n\n[30] Ibid. p. 177-8.\n\n[31] Also in Ammonius the presbyter, A.D. 458--see Cramer's Cat. p.\n334-5, _last line_. [Greek: Logou] is read besides in the cursives Act.\n36, 96, 105.\n\n[32] I look for an approving word from learned Dr. Field, who wrote in\n1875--'The real obstacle to our acquiescing in the reading of the T.R.\nis, that if the words [Greek: oude echo] had once formed a part of the\noriginal text, there is no possibility of accounting for the subsequent\nomission of them.' The same remark, but considerably toned down, is\nfound in his delightful Otium Norvicense, P. iii, p. 84.\n\n[33] B and C read--[Greek: all' oudenos logou poioumai ten psychen\nemauto]: which is exactly what Lucifer Calarit. represents,--'_sed pro\nnihilo aestimo animam meam caram esse mihi_' (Galland. vi. 241).\n\n[34] [Symbol: Aleph] reads--[Greek: all' oudenos logon poioumai ten\npsychen timian emauto hos teleioso ton dromon mou].\n\n[35] '_Sed nihil horum_ ([Greek: touton] is found in many Greek Codd.)\n_vereor, nee facio animam meam pretiosiorem quam me_.' So, the _Cod.\nAmiat._ It is evident then that when Ambrose (ii. 1040) writes '_nec\nfacio animam meam cariorem mihi_,' he is quoting the latter of these two\nclauses. Augustine (iii^{1}. 516), when he cites the place thus, '_Non\nenim facto animam meam preliosiorem quam me_'; and elsewhere (iv. 268)\n'_pretiosam mihi_'; also Origen (_interp._ iv. 628 c), '_sed ego non\nfacto cariorem animam meam mihi_'; and even the Coptic, '_sed anima mea,\ndico, non est pretiosa mihi in aliquo verbo_':--these evidently\nsummarize the place, by making a sentence out of what survives of the\nsecond clause. The Latin of D exhibits '_Sed nihil horum cura est mihi:\nneque habeo ipsam animam caram mihi_.'\n\n[36] Dr. Field says that it may be thus Graecized--[Greek: all' oudena\nlogon poioumai, oude lelogistai moi psyche ti timion].\n\n[37] ii. 296 e,--exactly as the T.R.\n\n[38] Exactly as the T.R., except that he writes [Greek: ten psychen]\nwithout [Greek: mou] (ix. 332). So again, further on (334 b), [Greek:\nouk echo timian ten emautou psychen]. This latter place is quoted in\nCramer's Cat. 334.\n\n[39] _Ap._ Mai ii. 336 [Greek: edei kai tes zoes kataphronein hyper tou\nteleiosai ton dromon, oude ten psychen ephe poieiosai timian heauto.]\n\n[40] [Greek: logon echo, oude poioumai ten psychen timian emauto, oste\nk.t.l.] (_ap._ Galland. x. 222).\n\n[41] [Greek: all' oudenos logon poioumai ton deinon, oude echo ten\npsychen timian emauto]. Epist. ad Tars. c. 1 (Dressel, p. 255).\n\n[42] The whole of Dr. Field's learned annotation deserves to be\ncarefully read and pondered. I speak of it especially in the shape in\nwhich it originally appeared, viz. in 1875.\n\n[43] Ibid. p. 2 and 3.\n\n[44] Surprising it is how largely the text of this place has suffered at\nthe hands of Copyists and Translators. In A and D, the words [Greek:\npoioumai] and [Greek: echo] have been made to change places. The latter\nCodex introduces [Greek: moi] after [Greek: echo],--for [Greek: emauto]\nwrites [Greek: emautou],--and exhibits [Greek: tou teleiosai] without\n[Greek: hos]. C writes [Greek: hos to teleiosai]. [Symbol: Aleph]B alone\nof Codexes present us with [Greek: teleioso] for [Greek: teleiosai], and\nare followed by Westcott and Hort _alone of Editors_. The Peshitto\n('_sed mihi nihili aestimatur anima mea_'), the Sahidic ('_sed non facto\nanimam meam in ulla re_'), and the Aethiopic ('_sed non reputo animam\nmeam nihil quidquam_'), get rid of [Greek: timian] as well as of [Greek:\noude echo]. So much diversity of text, and in such primitive witnesses,\nwhile it points to a remote period as the date of the blunder to which\nattention is called in the text, testifies eloquently to the utter\nperplexity which that blunder occasioned from the first.\n\n[45] Another example of the same phenomenon, (viz. the absorption of\n[Greek: EN] by the first syllable of [Greek: ANthropois]) is to be seen\nin Acts iv. 12,--where however the error has led to no mischievous\nresults.\n\n[46] For those which insert _in_ (14), and those which reject it (25),\nsee Wordsworth's edition of the Vulgate on this passage.\n\n[47] Of Fathers:--Ambrose i. 1298--Hieronymus i. 448^{2}, 693, 876: ii.\n213: iv. 34, 92: v. 147: vi. 638: vii. 241, 251, 283,--Augustine 34\ntimes,--Optatus (Galland. v. 472, 457),--Gaudentius Brix. (_ap._\nSabat.),--Chromatius Ag. (Gall. viii. 337),--Orosius (_ib._ ix. 134),\nMarius M. (_ib._ viii. 672), Maximus Taur. (_ib._ ix. 355),--Sedulius\n(_ib._ 575),--Leo M. (_ap._ Sabat.),--Mamertus Claudianus (Gall. x.\n431),--Vigilius Taps. (_ap._ Sabat.),--Zacchaeus (Gall. ix.\n241),--Caesarius Arel. (_ib._ xi. 11),--ps.-Ambros. ii. 394,\n396,--Hormisdas P. (Conc. iv. 1494, 1496),--52 Bps. at 8th Council of\nToledo (Conc. vi. 395), &c., &c.\n\n[48] See Wetstein on this place.\n\n[49] Antiqq. i. 99, xviii. 5. 4.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER III.\n\nACCIDENTAL CAUSES OF CORRUPTION.\n\nII. Homoeoteleuton.\n\n\nNo one who finds the syllable [Greek: OI] recurring six times over in\nabout as many words,--e.g. [Greek: kai egeneto, hos apelthon ... OI\nangelOI, kai OI anthropOI OI pOImenes eipon],--is surprised to learn\nthat MSS. of a certain type exhibit serious perturbation in that place.\nAccordingly, BL[Symbol: Xi] leave out the words [Greek: kai hoi\nanthropoi]; and in that mutilated form the modern critical editors are\ncontented to exhibit St. Luke ii. 15. One would have supposed that\nTischendorf's eyes would have been opened when he noticed that in his\nown Codex ([Symbol: Aleph]) one word more ([Greek: hoi]) is\ndropped,--whereby nonsense is made of the passage (viz. [Greek: hoi\nangeloi poimenes]). Self-evident it is that a line with a 'like ending'\nhas been omitted by the copyist of some very early codex of St. Luke's\nGospel; which either read,--\n\n[Greek: OI ANGELOI]           }         {[Greek: OI ANGELOI]\n[[Greek: KAI OI A[=NO]I OI]]  } or else {[[Greek: KAI OI A[=NO]I]]\n[Greek: POIMENES]             }         {[Greek: OI POIMENES]\n\nAnother such place is found in St. John vi. 11. The Evangelist certainly\ndescribed the act of our Saviour on a famous occasion in the well-known\nwords,--[Greek: kai eucharistesas]\n\n        [Greek: diedoke\ntois [mathetais,\noi de mathetai\ntois] anakeimenois.]\n\nThe one sufficient proof that St. John did so write, being the testimony\nof the MSS. Moreover, we are expressly assured by St. Matthew (xiv. 19),\nSt. Mark (vi. 41), and St. Luke (ix. 16), that our Saviour's act was\nperformed in this way. It is clear however that some scribe has suffered\nhis eye to wander from [Greek: tois] in l. 2 to [Greek: tois] in l.\n4,--whereby St. John is made to say that our Saviour himself distributed\nto the 5000. The blunder is a very ancient one; for it has crept into\nthe Syriac, Bohairic, and Gothic versions, besides many copies of the\nOld Latin; and has established itself in the Vulgate. Moreover some good\nFathers (beginning with Origen) so quote the place. But such evidence is\nunavailing to support [Symbol: Aleph]ABL[Symbol: Pi], the early reading\nof [Symbol: Aleph] being also contradicted by the fourth hand in the\nseventh century against the great cloud of witnesses,--beginning with D\nand including twelve other uncials, beside the body of the cursives, the\nEthiopic and two copies of the Old Latin, as well as Cyril Alex.\n\nIndeed, there does not exist a source of error which has proved more\nfatal to the transcribers of MSS. than the proximity of identical, or\nnearly identical, combinations of letters. And because these are\ngenerally met with in the final syllables of words, the error referred\nto is familiarly known by a Greek name which denotes 'likeness of\nending' (Homoeoteleuton). The eye of a scribe on reverting from his copy\nto the original before him is of necessity apt sometimes to alight on\nthe same word, or what looks like the same word, a little lower down.\nThe consequence is obvious. All that should have come in between gets\nomitted, or sometimes duplicated.\n\nIt is obvious, that however inconvenient it may prove to find oneself in\nthis way defrauded of five, ten, twenty, perhaps thirty words, no very\nserious consequence for the most part ensues. Nevertheless, the result\nis often sheer nonsense. When this is the case, it is loyally admitted\nby all. A single example may stand for a hundred. [In St. John vi. 55,\nthat most careless of careless transcripts, the Sinaitic [Symbol:\nAleph], omits on a most sacred subject seven words, and the result\nhardly admits of being characterized. Let the reader judge for himself.\nThe passage stands thus:--[Greek: he gar sarx mou alethos esti brosis,\nkai to haima mou alethos esti posis]. The transcriber of [Symbol: Aleph]\nby a very easy mistake let his eye pass from one [Greek: alethos] to\nanother, and characteristically enough the various correctors allowed\nthe error to remain till it was removed in the seventh century, though\nthe error issued in nothing less than 'My Flesh is drink indeed.' Could\nthat MS. have undergone the test of frequent use?]\n\nBut it requires very little familiarity with the subject to be aware\nthat occasions must inevitably be even of frequent occurrence when the\nresult is calamitous, and even perplexing, in the extreme. The writings\nof Apostles and Evangelists, the Discourses of our Divine Lord Himself,\nabound in short formulae; and the intervening matter on such occasions\nis constantly an integral sentence, which occasionally may be discovered\nfrom its context without evident injury to the general meaning of the\nplace. Thus [ver. 14 in St. Matt, xxiii. was omitted in an early age,\nowing to the recurrence of [Greek: ouai hymin] at the beginning, by some\ncopyists, and the error was repeated in the Old Latin versions. It\npassed to Egypt, as some of the Bohairic copies, the Sahidic, and Origen\ntestify. The Vulgate is not quite consistent: and of course [Symbol:\nAleph]BDLZ, a concord of bad witnesses especially in St. Matthew, follow\nsuit, in company with the Armenian, the Lewis, and five or more\ncursives, enough to make the more emphatic the condemnation by the main\nbody of them. Besides the verdict of the cursives, thirteen uncials (as\nagainst five) including [Symbol: Phi] and [Symbol: Sigma], the Peshitto,\nHarkleian, Ethiopic, Arabian, some MSS. of the Vulgate, with Origen\n(iii. 838 (only in Lat.)); Chrysostom (vii. 707 (_bis_); ix. 755); Opus\nImperf. 185 (_bis_); 186 (_bis_); John Damascene (ii. 517); Theophylact\n(i. 124); Hilary (89; 725); Jerome (iv. 276; v. 52; vi. 138: vii. 185)].\n\nWorst of all, it will sometimes of necessity happen that such an\nomission took place at an exceedingly remote period; (for there have\nbeen careless scribes in every age:) and in consequence the error is\npretty sure to have propagated itself widely. It is observed to exist\n(suppose) in several of the known copies; and if,--as very often is the\ncase,--it is discoverable in two or more of the 'old uncials,' all hope\nof its easy extirpation is at an end. Instead of being loyally\nrecognized as a blunder,--which it clearly is,--it is forthwith charged\nupon the Apostle or Evangelist as the case may be. In other words, it is\ntaken for granted that the clause in dispute can have had no place in\nthe sacred autograph. It is henceforth treated as an unauthorized\naccretion to the text. Quite idle henceforth becomes the appeal to the\nninety-nine copies out of a hundred which contain the missing words. I\nproceed to give an instance of my meaning.\n\nOur Saviour, having declared (St. Matt. xix. 9) that whosoever putteth\naway his wife [Greek: ei me epi porneia, kai gamese allen,\nmoichatai],--adds [Greek: kai ho apolelymenen gamesas moichatai]. Those\nfive words are not found in Codd. [Symbol: Aleph]DLS, nor in several\ncopies of the Old Latin nor in some copies of the Bohairic, and the\nSahidic. Tischendorf and Tregelles accordingly reject them.\n\nAnd yet it is perfectly certain that the words are genuine. Those\nthirty-one letters probably formed three lines in the oldest copies of\nall. Hence they are observed to exist in the Syriac (Peshitto, Harkleian\nand Jerusalem), the Vulgate, some copies of the Old Latin, the Armenian,\nand the Ethiopic, besides at least seventeen uncials (including\nB[Symbol: Phi][Symbol: Sigma]), and the vast majority of the cursives.\nSo that there can be no question of the genuineness of the clause.\n\nA somewhat graver instance of omission resulting from precisely the same\ncause meets us a little further on in the same Gospel. The threefold\nrecurrence of [Greek: ton] in the expression [Greek: TON psichion TON\npiptonTON] (St. Luke xvi. 21), has (naturally enough) resulted in the\ndropping of the words [Greek: psichion ton] out of some copies.\nUnhappily the sense is not destroyed by the omission. We are not\nsurprised therefore to discover that the words are wanting in--[Symbol:\nAleph]BL: or to find that [Symbol: Aleph]BL are supported here by copies\nof the Old Latin, and (as usual) by the Egyptian versions, nor by\nClemens Alex.[50] and the author of the Dialogus[51]. Jerome, on the\nother hand, condemns the Latin reading, and the Syriac Versions are\nobserved to approve of Jerome's verdict, as well as the Gothic. But what\nsettles the question is the fact that every known Greek MS., except\nthose three, witnesses against the omission: besides Ambrose[52],\nJerome[53], Eusebius[54] Alex., Gregory[55] Naz., Asterius[56],\nBasil[57], Ephraim[58] Syr., Chrysostom[59], and Cyril[60] of\nAlexandria. Perplexing it is notwithstanding to discover, and\ndistressing to have to record, that all the recent Editors of the\nGospels are more or less agreed in abolishing 'the crumbs which fell\nfrom the rich man's table.'\n\n[The foregoing instances afford specimens of the influence of accidental\ncauses upon the transmission from age to age of the Text of the Gospels.\nBefore the sense of the exact expressions of the Written Word was\nimpressed upon the mind of the Church,--when the Canon was not\ndefinitely acknowledged, and the halo of antiquity had not yet gathered\nround writings which had been recently composed,--severe accuracy was\nnot to be expected. Errors would be sure to arise, especially from\naccident, and early ancestors would be certain to have a numerous\nprogeny; besides that evil would increase, and slight deviations would\ngive rise in the course of natural development to serious and perplexing\ncorruptions.\n\nIn the next chapter, other kinds of accidental causes will come under\nconsideration.]\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[50] P. 232.\n\n[51] _Ap._ Orig. i. 827.\n\n[52] Ambrose i. 659, 1473, 1491:--places which shew how insecure would\nbe an inference drawn from i. 543 and 665.\n\n[53] Hieron. v. 966; vi. 969.\n\n[54] _Ap._ Mai ii. 516, 520.\n\n[55] i. 370.\n\n[56] P. 12.\n\n[57] ii. 169.\n\n[58] ii. 142.\n\n[59] i. 715, 720; ii. 662 (_bis_) 764; vii. 779.\n\n[60] v^{2}. 149 (luc. text, 524).\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IV.\n\nACCIDENTAL CAUSES OF CORRUPTION.\n\nIII. From Writing in Uncials.\n\n\nSec. 1.\n\nCorrupt readings have occasionally resulted from the ancient practice of\nwriting Scripture in the uncial character, without accents, punctuation,\nor indeed any division of the text. Especially are they found in places\nwhere there is something unusual in the structure of the sentence.\n\nSt. John iv. 35-6 ([Greek: leukai eisi pros therismon ede]) has suffered\nin this way,--owing to the unusual position of [Greek: ede]. Certain of\nthe scribes who imagined that [Greek: ede] might belong to ver. 36,\nrejected the [Greek: kai] as superfluous; though no Father is known to\nhave been guilty of such a solecism. Others, aware that [Greek: ede] can\nonly belong to ver. 35, were not unwilling to part with the copula at\nthe beginning of ver. 36. A few, considering both words of doubtful\nauthority, retained neither[61]. In this way it has come to pass that\nthere are four ways of exhibiting this place:--(_a_) [Greek: pros\ntherismon ede. Kai ho therizon]:--(_b_) [Greek: pros therismon. Ede ho\nth.]:--(_c_) [Greek: pros therismon ede. Ho therizon]:--(_d_) [Greek:\npros therismon. Ho therizon, k.t.l.]\n\nThe only point of importance however is the position of [Greek: ede]:\nwhich is claimed for ver. 35 by the great mass of the copies: as well as\nby Origen[62], Eusebius[63], Chrysostom[64], Cyril[65], the Vulgate,\nJerome of course, and the Syriac. The Italic copies are hopelessly\ndivided here[66]: and Codd. [Symbol: Aleph]BM[Symbol: Pi] do not help\nus. But [Greek: ede] is claimed for ver. 36 by CDEL, 33, and by the\nCuretonian and Lewis (= [Greek: kai ede ho therizon]): while Codex A is\nsingular in beginning ver. 36, [Greek: ede kai],--which shews that some\nearly copyist, with the correct text before him, adopted a vicious\npunctuation. For there can be no manner of doubt that the commonly\nreceived text and the usual punctuation is the true one: as, on a\ncareful review of the evidence, every unprejudiced reader will allow.\nBut recent critics are for leaving out [Greek: kai] (with [Symbol:\nAleph]BCDL): while Tischendorf, Westcott and Hort, Tregelles (_marg._),\nare for putting the full stop after [Greek: pros therismon] and (with\nACDL) making [Greek: ede] begin the next sentence,--which (as Alford\nfinds out) is clearly inadmissible.\n\n\nSec. 2.\n\nSometimes this affects the translation. Thus, the Revisers propose in\nthe parable of the prodigal son,--'And I perish _here_ with hunger!' But\nwhy '_here_?' Because I answer, whereas in the earliest copies of St.\nLuke the words stood thus,--[Greek: EGODELIMOAPOLLYMAI], some careless\nscribe after writing [Greek: EGODE], reduplicated the three last letters\n([Greek: ODE]): he mistook them for an independent word. Accordingly in\nthe Codex Bezae, in R and U and about ten cursives, we encounter [Greek:\nego de ode]. The inventive faculty having thus done its work it remained\nto superadd 'transposition,' as was done by [Symbol: Aleph]BL. From\n[Greek: ego de ode limo], the sentence has now developed into [Greek:\nego de limo ode]: which approves itself to Griesbach and Schultz, to\nLachmann and Tischendorf and Tregelles, to Alfoid and Westcott and Hort,\nand to the Revisers. A very ancient blunder, certainly, [Greek: ego de\node] is: for it is found in the Latin[67] and the Syriac translations.\nIt must therefore date from the second century. But it is a blunder\nnotwithstanding: a blunder against which 16 uncials and the whole body\nof the cursives bear emphatic witness[68]. Having detected its origin,\nwe have next to trace its progress.\n\nThe inventors of [Greek: ode] or other scribes quickly saw that this\nword requires a correlative in the earlier part of the sentence.\nAccordingly, the same primitive authorities which advocate 'here,' are\nobserved also to advocate, above, 'in my Father's house.' No extant\nGreek copy is known to contain the bracketed words in the sentence\n[Greek: [en to oiko] tou patros mou]: but such copies must have existed\nin the second century. The Peshitto, the Cureton and Lewis recognize the\nthree words in question; as well as copies of the Latin with which\nJerome[69], Augustine[70] and Cassian[71] were acquainted. The phrase\n'in domo patris mei' has accordingly established itself in the Vulgate.\nBut surely we of the Church of England who have been hitherto spared\nthis second blunder, may reasonably (at the end of 1700 years) refuse to\ntake the first downward step. Our Lord intended no contrast whatever\nbetween two localities--but between two parties. The comfortable estate\nof the hired servants He set against the abject misery of the Son: not\nthe house wherein the servants dwelt, and the spot where the poor\nprodigal was standing when he came to a better mind.--These are many\nwords; but I know not how to be briefer. And,--what is worthy of\ndiscussion, if not the utterances of 'the Word made flesh?'\n\nIf hesitation to accept the foregoing verdict lingers in any quarter, it\nought to be dispelled by a glance at the context in [Symbol: Aleph]BL.\nWhat else but the instinct of a trained understanding is it to survey\nthe neighbourhood of a place like the present? Accordingly, we discover\nthat in ver. 16, for [Greek: gemisai ten koilian autou apo], [Symbol:\nAleph]BDLR present us with [Greek: chortasthenai ek]: and in ver. 22,\nthe prodigal, on very nearly the same authority ([Symbol: Aleph]BDUX),\nis made to say to his father,--[Greek: Poieson me hos hena ton misthion\nsou]:\n\nWhich certainly he did not say[72]. Moreover, [Symbol: Aleph]BLX and the\nOld Latin are for thrusting in [Greek: tachy] (D [Greek: tacheos]) after\n[Greek: exenenkate]. Are not these one and all confessedly fabricated\nreadings? the infelicitous attempts of some well-meaning critic to\nimprove upon the inspired original?\n\nFrom the fact that three words in St. John v. 44 were in the oldest MSS.\nwritten thus,--[Greek: MONOUTHUOU] (i.e. [Greek: monou Theou ou]), the\nmiddle word ([Greek: theou]) got omitted from some very early copies;\nwhereby the sentence is made to run thus in English,--'And seek not the\nhonour which cometh from the only One.' It is so that Origen[73],\nEusebius[74], Didymus[75], besides the two best copies of the Old Latin,\nexhibit the place. As to Greek MSS., the error survives only in B at the\npresent day, the preserver of an Alexandrian error.\n\n\nSec. 3.\n\nSt. Luke explains (Acts xxvii. 14) that it was the 'typhonic wind called\nEuroclydon' which caused the ship in which St. Paul and he sailed past\nCrete to incur the 'harm and loss' so graphically described in the last\nchapter but one of the Acts. That wind is mentioned nowhere but in this\none place. Its name however is sufficiently intelligible; being\ncompounded of [Greek: Euros], the 'south-east wind,' and [Greek:\nklydon], 'a tempest:' a compound which happily survives intact in the\nPeshitto version. The Syriac translator, not knowing what the word\nmeant, copied what he saw,--'the blast' (he says) 'of the tempest[76],\nwhich [blast] is called Tophonikos Eurokl[=i]don.' Not so the licentious\nscribes of the West. They insisted on extracting out of the actual\n'Euroclydon,' the imaginary name 'Euro-aquilo,' which accordingly stands\nto this day in the Vulgate. (Not that Jerome himself so read the name of\nthe wind, or he would hardly have explained '_Eurielion_' or\n'_Euriclion_' to mean 'commiscens, sive deorsum ducens[77].') Of this\nfeat of theirs, Codexes [Symbol: Aleph] and A (in which [Greek:\nEUROKLUDON] has been perverted into [Greek: EURAKULON]) are at this day\n_the sole surviving Greek witnesses_. Well may the evidence for\n'Euro-aquilo' be scanty! The fabricated word collapses the instant it is\nexamined. Nautical men point out that it is 'inconsistent in its\nconstruction with the principles on which the names of the intermediate\nor compound winds are framed:'--\n\n'_Euronotus_ is so called as intervening immediately between _Eurus_ and\n_Notus_, and as partaking, as was thought, of the qualities of both. The\nsame holds true of _Libonotus_, as being interposed between _Libs_ and\n_Notus_. Both these compound winds lie in the same quarter or quadrant\nof the circle with the winds of which they are composed, and no other\nwind intervenes. But _Eurus_ and _Aquilo_ are at 90 deg. distance from one\nanother; or according to some writers, at 105 deg.; the former lying in the\nsouth-east quarter, and the latter in the north-east: and two winds, one\nof which is the East cardinal point, intervene, as Caecias and\nSubsolanus[78].'\n\nFurther, why should the wind be designated by an impossible _Latin_\nname? The ship was 'a ship of Alexandria' (ver. 6). The sailors were\nGreeks. What business has '_Aquilo_' here? Next, if the wind did bear\nthe name of 'Euro-aquilo,' why is it introduced in this marked way\n([Greek: anemos typhonikos, ho kaloumenos]) as if it were a kind of\ncuriosity? Such a name would utterly miss the point, which is the\nviolence of the wind as expressed in the term Euroclydon. But above all,\nif St. Luke wrote [Greek: EURAK]-, how has it come to pass that every\ncopyist but three has written [Greek: EUROK]-? The testimony of B is\nmemorable. The original scribe wrote [Greek: EURAKUDON][79]: the\n_secunda mantis_ has corrected this into [Greek: EURYKLUDON],--which is\nalso the reading of Euthalius[80]. The essential circumstance is, that\n_not_ [Greek: ULON] but [Greek: UDON] has all along been the last half\nof the word in Codex B[81].\n\nIn St. John iv. 15, on the authority of [Symbol: Aleph]B, Tischendorf\nadopts [Greek: dierchesthai] (in place of the uncompounded verb),\nassigning as his reason, that 'If St. John had written [Greek:\nerchesthai], no one would ever have substituted [Greek: dierchesthai]\nfor it.' But to construct the text of Scripture on such considerations,\nis to build a lighthouse on a quicksand. I could have referred the\nlearned Critic to plenty of places where the thing he speaks of as\nincredible has been done. The proof that St. John used the uncompounded\nverb is the fact that it is found in all the copies except our two\nuntrustworthy friends. The explanation of [Greek: DIerchomai] is\nsufficiently accounted for by the final syllable ([Greek: DE]) of\n[Greek: mede] which immediately precedes. Similarly but without the same\nexcuse,\n\nSt. Mark x. 16 [Greek: eulogei] has become [Greek: kateulogei]\n               ([Symbol: Aleph]BC).\n  \" xii. 17 [Greek: thaumasan] \" [Greek: ezethaumasan]\n               ([Symbol: Aleph]B).\n  \" xiv. 40 [Greek: bebaremenoi] \" [Greek: katabebaremenoi]\n               (A[Symbol: Aleph]B).\n\nIt is impossible to doubt that [Greek: kai] (in modern critical editions\nof St. Luke xvii. 37) is indebted for its existence to the same cause.\nIn the phrase [Greek: ekei synachthesontai hoi aetoi] it might have been\npredicted that the last syllable of [Greek: ekei] would some day be\nmistaken for the conjunction. And so it has actually come to pass.\n[Greek: KAI oi aetoi] is met with in many ancient authorities. But\n[Symbol: Aleph]LB also transposed the clauses, and substituted [Greek:\nepisynachthesontai] for [Greek: synachthesontai]. The self-same\ncasualty, viz. [Greek: kai] elicited out of the insertion of [Greek:\nekei] and the transposition of the clauses, is discoverable among the\nCursives at St. Matt. xxiv. 28,--the parallel place: where by the way\nthe old uncials distinguish themselves by yet graver eccentricities[82].\nHow can we as judicious critics ever think of disturbing the text of\nScripture on evidence so precarious as this?\n\nIt is proposed that we should henceforth read St. Matt. xxii. 23 as\nfollows:--'On that day there came to Him Sadducees _saying_ that there\nis no Resurrection.' A new incident would be in this way introduced into\nthe Gospel narrative: resulting from a novel reading of the passage.\nInstead of [Greek: hoi legontes], we are invited to read [Greek:\nlegontes], on the authority of [Symbol: Aleph]BDMSZP and several of the\nCursives, besides Origen, Methodius, Epiphanius. This is a respectable\narray. There is nevertheless a vast preponderance of numbers in favour\nof the usual reading, which is also found in the Old Latin copies and in\nthe Vulgate. But surely the discovery that in the parallel Gospels it\nis--\n\n[Greek: hoitines legousin anastasin me einai] (St. Mark xii. 18) and\n[Greek: hoi antilegontes anastasin me einai] (St. Luke xx. 27)\n\nmay be considered as decisive in a case like the present. Sure I am that\nit will be so regarded by any one who has paid close attention to the\nmethod of the Evangelists. Add that the origin of the mistake is seen,\nthe instant the words are inspected as they must have stood in an uncial\ncopy:\n\n[Greek: SADDOUKAIOIOILEGONTES]\n\nand really nothing more requires to be said. The second [Greek: OI] was\nsafe to be dropped in a collocation of letters like that. It might also\nhave been anticipated, that there would be found copyists to be confused\nby the antecedent [Greek: KAI]. Accordingly the Peshitto, Lewis, and\nCuretonian render the place 'et dicentes;' shewing that they mistook\n[Greek: KAI OI LEGONTES] for a separate phrase.\n\n\nSec. 4.\n\nThe termination [Greek: TO] (in certain tenses of the verb), when\nfollowed by the neuter article, naturally leads to confusion; sometimes\nto uncertainty. In St. John v. 4 for instance, where we read in our\ncopies [Greek: kai etarasse to hydor], but so many MSS. read [Greek:\netarasseto], that it becomes a perplexing question which reading to\nfollow. The sense in either case is excellent: the only difference being\nwhether the Evangelist actually says that the Angel 'troubled' the\nwater, or leaves it to be inferred from the circumstance that after the\nAngel had descended, straightway the water 'was troubled.'\n\nThe question becomes less difficult of decision when (as in St. Luke\nvii. 21) we have to decide between two expressions [Greek: echarisato\nblepein] (which is the reading of [Symbol: Aleph]*ABDEG and 11 other\nuncials) and [Greek: echarisato to blepein] which is only supported by\n[Symbol: Aleph]^{b}ELVA. The bulk of the Cursives faithfully maintain\nthe former reading, and merge the article in the verb.\n\nAkin to the foregoing are all those instances,--and they are literally\nwithout number--, where the proximity of a like ending has been the\nfruitful cause of error. Let me explain: for this is a matter which\ncannot be too thoroughly apprehended.\n\nSuch a collection of words as the following two instances exhibit will\nshew my meaning.\n\nIn the expression [Greek: estheta lampran anepempsen] (St. Luke xxiii.\n11), we are not surprised to find the first syllable of the verb\n([Greek: an]) absorbed by the last syllable of the immediately preceding\n[Greek: lampran]. Accordingly, [Symbol: Aleph]LR supported by one copy\nof the Old Latin and a single cursive MS. concur in displaying [Greek:\nepempsen] in this place.\n\nThe letters [Greek: NAIKONAIKAI] in the expression (St. Luke xxiii. 27)\n[Greek: gynaikon hai kai] were safe to produce confusion. The first of\nthese three words could of course take care of itself. (Though D, with\nsome of the Versions, make it into [Greek: gynaikes].) Not so however\nwhat follows. ABCDLX and the Old Latin (except c) drop the [Greek: kai]:\n[Symbol: Aleph] and C drop the [Greek: ai]. The truth rests with the\nfourteen remaining uncials and with the cursives.\n\nThus also the reading [Greek: en ole te Galilaia] (B) in St. Matt. iv.\n23, (adopted by Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Alford, Westcott and\nHort and the Revisers,) is due simply to the reduplication on the part\nof some inattentive scribe of the last two letters of the immediately\npreceding word,--[Greek: periegen]. The received reading of the place is\nthe correct one,--[Greek: kai periegen holen ten Galilaian ho Iesous],\nbecause the first five words are so exhibited in all the Copies except\nB[Symbol: Aleph]C; and those three MSS. are observed to differ as usual\nfrom one another,--which ought to be deemed fatal to their evidence.\nThus,\n\nB reads           [Greek: kai periegen en holei tei Galilaiai].\n[Symbol: Aleph] \" [Greek: kai periegen ho _is_ en tei Galilaiai].\nC \"               [Greek: kai periegen ho _is_ en hole tei Galilaiai].\n\nBut--(I shall be asked)--what about the position of the Sacred Name? How\ncomes it to pass that [Greek: ho Iesous], which comes after [Greek:\nGalilaian] in almost every other known copy, should come after [Greek:\nperiegen] in three of these venerable authorities (in D as well as in\n[Symbol: Aleph] and C), and in the Latin, Peshitto, Lewis, and\nHarkleian? Tischendorf, Alford, Westcott and Hort and the Revisers at\nall events (who simply follow B in leaving out [Greek: ho Iesous]\naltogether) will not ask me this question: but a thoughtful inquirer is\nsure to ask it.\n\nThe phrase (I reply) is derived by [Symbol: Aleph]CD from the twin place\nin St. Matthew (ix. 35) which in all the MSS. begins [Greek: kai\nperiegen ho _is_]. So familiar had this order of the words become, that\nthe scribe of [Symbol: Aleph], (a circumstance by the way of which\nTischendorf takes no notice,) has even introduced the expression into\nSt. Mark vi. 6,--the parallel place in the second Gospel,--where [Greek:\nho _is_] clearly has no business. I enter into these minute details\nbecause only in this way is the subject before us to be thoroughly\nunderstood. This is another instance where 'the Old Uncials' shew their\ntext to be corrupt; so for assurance in respect of accuracy of detail we\nmust resort to the Cursive Copies.\n\n\nSec. 5.\n\nThe introduction of [Greek: apo] in the place of [Greek: hagioi] made by\nthe 'Revisers' into the Greek Text of 2 Peter i. 21,--derives its origin\nfrom the same prolific source. (1) some very ancient scribe mistook the\nfirst four letters of [Greek: agioi] for [Greek: apo]. It was but the\nmistaking of [Greek: AGIO] for [Greek: APO]. At the end of 1700 years,\nthe only Copies which witness to this deformity are BP with four\ncursives,--in opposition to [Symbol: Aleph]AKL and the whole body of the\ncursives, the Vulgate[83] and the Harkleian. Euthalius knew nothing of\nit[84]. Obvious it was, next, for some one in perplexity,--(2) to\nintroduce both readings ([Greek: apo] and [Greek: hagioi]) into the\ntext. Accordingly [Greek: apo Theou hagioi] is found in C, two cursives,\nand Didymus[85]. Then, (3), another variant crops up, (viz. [Greek:\nhypo] for [Greek: apo]--but only because [Greek: hypo] went immediately\nbefore); of which fresh blunder ([Greek: hypo Theou hagioi]) Theophylact\nis the sole patron[86]. The consequence of all this might have been\nforeseen: (4) it came to pass that from a few Codexes, both [Greek: apo]\nand [Greek: agioi] were left out,--which accounts for the reading of\ncertain copies of the Old Latin[87]. Unaware how the blunder began,\nTischendorf and his followers claim '(2)', '(3)', and '(4)', as proofs\nthat '(1)' is the right reading: and, by consequence, instead of '_holy_\nmen of God spake,' require us to read 'men spake _from_ God,' which is\nwooden and vapid. Is it not clear that a reading attested by only BP and\nfour cursive copies must stand self-condemned?\n\nAnother excellent specimen of this class of error is furnished by Heb.\nvii. 1. Instead of [Greek: Ho synantesas Abraam]--said of\nMelchizedek,--[Symbol: Aleph]ABD exhibit [Greek: OS]. The whole body of\nthe copies, headed by CLP, are against them[88],--besides\nChrysostom[89], Theodoret[90], Damascene[91]. It is needless to do more\nthan state how this reading arose. The initial letter of [Greek:\nsynantesas] has been reduplicated through careless transcription:\n[Greek: OSSYN]--instead of [Greek: OSYN]--. That is all. But the\ninstructive feature of the case is that it is in the four oldest of the\nuncials that this palpable blunder is found.\n\n\nSec. 6.\n\nI have reserved for the last a specimen which is second to none in\nsuggestiveness. 'Whom will ye that I release unto you?' asked Pilate on\na memorable occasion[92]: and we all remember how his enquiry proceeds.\nBut the discovery is made that, in an early age there existed copies of\nthe Gospel which proceeded thus,--'Jesus [who is called[93]] Barabbas,\nor Jesus who is called Christ?' Origen so quotes the place, but 'In many\ncopies,' he proceeds, 'mention is not made that Barabbas was also called\nJesus: and those copies may perhaps be right,--else would the name of\nJesus belong to one of the wicked,--of which no instance occurs in any\npart of the Bible: nor is it fitting that the name of Jesus should like\nJudas have been borne by saint and sinner alike. I think,' Origen adds,\n'something of this sort must have been an interpolation of the\nheretics[94].' From this we are clearly intended to infer that 'Jesus\nBarabbas' was the prevailing reading of St. Matt. xxvii. 17 in the time\nof Origen, a circumstance which--besides that a multitude of copies\nexisted as well as those of Origen--for the best of reasons, we take\nleave to pronounce incredible[95].\n\nThe sum of the matter is probably this:--Some inattentive second century\ncopyist [probably a Western Translator into Syriac who was an\nindifferent Greek scholar] mistook the final syllable of '_unto you_'\n([Greek: UMIN]) for the word '_Jesus_' ([Greek: IN]): in other words,\ncarelessly reduplicated the last two letters of [Greek: UMIN],--from\nwhich, strange to say, results the form of inquiry noticed at the\noutset. Origen caught sight of the extravagance, and condemned it though\nhe fancied it to be prevalent, and the thing slept for 1500 years. Then\nabout just fifty years ago Drs. Lachmann, Tischendorf and Tregelles\nbegan to construct that 'fabric of Textual Criticism' which has been the\ncause of the present treatise [though indeed Tischendorf does not adopt\nthe suggestion of those few aberrant cursives which is supported by no\nsurviving uncial, and in fact advocates the very origin of the mischief\nwhich has been just described]. But, as every one must see, 'such things\nas these are not 'readings' at all, nor even the work of 'the heretics;'\nbut simply transcriptional mistakes. How Dr. Hort, admitting the\nblunder, yet pleads that 'this remarkable reading is attractive by the\nnew and interesting fact which it seems to attest, and by the antithetic\nforce which it seems to add to the question in ver. 17,' [is more than\nwe can understand. To us the expression seems most repulsive. No\n'antithetic force' can outweigh our dislike to the idea that Barabbas\nwas our Saviour's namesake! We prefer Origen's account, though he\nmistook the cause, to that of the modern critic.]\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[61] It is clearly unsafe to draw any inference from the mere omission\nof [Greek: ede] in ver. 35, by those Fathers who do not shew how they\nwould have began ver. 36--as Eusebius (see below, note 2), Theodoret (i.\n1398: ii. 233), and Hilary (78. 443. 941. 1041).\n\n[62] i. 219: iii. 158: iv. 248, 250 _bis_, 251 _bis_, 252, 253, 255\n_bis_, 256, 257. Also iv. 440 note, which = cat^{ox} iv. 21.\n\n[63] _dem._ 440. But not _in cs._ 426: _theoph._ 262, 275.\n\n[64] vii. 488, 662: ix. 32.\n\n[65] i. 397. 98. (Palladius) 611: iii. 57. So also in iv. 199, [Greek:\netoimos ede pros to pisteuein].\n\n[66] Ambrose, ii. 279, has '_Et qui metit_.' Iren.^{int} substitutes\n'_nam_' for '_et_,' and omits '_jam_.' Jerome 9 times introduces '_jam_'\nbefore '_albae sunt_.' So Aug. (iii.^2 417): but elsewhere (iv. 639: v.\n531) he omits the word altogether.\n\n[67] 'Hic' is not recognized in Ambrose. _Append._ ii. 367.\n\n[68] The Fathers render us very little help here. Ps.-Chrys. twice\n(viii. 34: x. 838) has [Greek: ego de ode]: once (viii. 153) not. John\nDamascene (ii. 579) is without the [Greek: ode].\n\n[69] i. 76: vi. 16 (_not_ vi. 484).\n\n[70] iii.^{2} 259 (_not_ v. 511).\n\n[71] p. 405.\n\n[72] [The prodigal was prepared to say this; but his father's kindness\nstopped him:--a feature in the account which the Codexes in question\nignore.]\n\n[73] iii. 687. But in i. 228 and 259 he recognizes [Greek: theou].\n\n[74] _Ap._ Mai vii. 135.\n\n[75] Praep. xiii. 6,--[Greek: monou tou henos] (vol. ii. 294).\n\n[76] Same word occurs in St. Mark iv. 37.\n\n[77] iii. 101.\n\n[78] Falconer's Dissertation on St. Paul's Voyage, pp. 16 and 12.\n\n[79] Let the learned Vercellone be heard on behalf of Codex B: 'Antequam\nmanum de tabula amoveamus, e re fore videtur, si, ipso codice Vaticano\ninspecto, duos injectos scrupulos eximamus. Cl. Tischendorfius in\nnuperrima sua editione scribit (Proleg. p. cclxxv), Maium ad Act. xxvii.\n14, codici Vaticano tribuisse a prima manu [Greek: euraklydon]; nos vero\n[Greek: eurakydon]; atque subjungit, \"_utrumque, ut videtur, male_.\" At,\nquidquid \"videri\" possit, certum nobis exploratumque est Vaticanum\ncodicem primo habuisse [Greek: eurakydon], prout expressum fuit tum in\ntabella qua Maius Birchianas lectiones notavit, tum in altera qua nos\nerrata corrigenda recensuimus.'--Praefatio to Mai's 2nd ed. of the Cod.\nVaticanus, 1859 (8vo), p. v. Sec. vi. [Any one may now see this in the\nphotographed copy.]\n\n[80] _Ap._ Galland. x. 225.\n\n[81] Remark that some vicious sections evidently owed their origin to\nthe copyist _knowing more of Latin than of Greek_.\n\nTrue, that the compounds euronotus euroauster exist in Latin. _That is\nthe reason why_ the Latin translator (not understanding the word)\nrendered it _Euroaquilo_: instead of writing _Euraquilo_.\n\nI have no doubt that it was some Latin copyist who began the mischief.\nLike the man who wrote [Greek: ep' auto to phoro] for [Greek: ep'\nautophoro].\n\n    Readings of Euroclydon\n\n    [Greek: EURAKYDON] B (sic)\n    [Greek: EURAKYLON] [Symbol: Aleph]A\n    [Greek: EURAKELON]\n    [Greek: EUTRAKELON]\n    [Greek: EURAKLEDON] Peshitto.\n    [Greek: EURAKYKLON]\n\n    Euroaquilo Vulg.\n\n    [Greek: EUROKLYDON] HLP\n    [Greek: EURAKLYDON] Syr. Harkl.\n    [Greek: EURYKLYDON] B^{2 man.}\n\n[82] [Greek: Opou] ([Greek: ou] [Symbol: Aleph]) [Greek: gar] (--[Greek:\ngar] [Symbol: Aleph]BDL) [Greek: ean] ([Greek: an] D) [Greek: to ptoma]\n([Greek: soma] [Symbol: Aleph]).\n\n[83] _Sancti Dei homines._\n\n[84] _Ap._ Galland. x. 236 a.\n\n[85] Trin. 234.\n\n[86] iii. 389.\n\n[87] '_Locuti sunt homines D_.'\n\n[88] Their only supporters seem to be K [i.e. Paul 117 (Matthaei's Sec.)],\n17, 59 [published in full by Cramer, vii. 202], 137 [Reiche, p. 60]. Why\ndoes Tischendorf quote besides E of Paul, which is nothing else but a\ncopy of D of Paul?\n\n[89] Chrys. xii. 120 b, 121 a.\n\n[90] Theodoret, iii. 584.\n\n[91] J. Damascene, ii. 240 c.\n\n[92] St. Matt. xxvii. 17.\n\n[93] Cf. [Greek: ho legomenos Barabbas]. St. Mark xv. 7.\n\n[94] _Int._ iii. 918 c d.\n\n[95] On the two other occasions when Origen quotes St. Matt. xxvii. 17\n(i. 316 a and ii. 245 a) nothing is said about 'Jesus Barabbas.'--\nAlluding to the place, he elsewhere (iii. 853 d) merely says that\n'_Secundum quosdam Barabbas dicebatur et Jesus._'--The author of a\nwell-known scholion, ascribed to Anastasius, Bp. of Antioch, but query,\nfor see Migne, vol. lxxxix. p. 1352 b c (= Galland. xii. 253 c), and\n1604 a, declares that he had found the same statement 'in very early\ncopies.' The scholion in question is first cited by Birch (Varr. Lectt.\np. 110) from the following MSS.:--S, 108, 129, 137, 138, 143, 146, 181,\n186, 195, 197, 199 or 200, 209, 210, 221, 222: to which Scholz adds 41,\n237, 238, 253, 259, 299: Tischendorf adds 1, 118. In Gallandius (Bibl.\nP. P. xiv. 81 d e, _Append._), the scholion may be seen more fully given\nthan by Birch,--from whom Tregelles and Tischendorf copy it. Theophylact\n(p. 156 a) must have seen the place as quoted by Gallandius. The only\nevidence, so far as I can find, for reading '_Jesus_ Barabbas' (in St.\nMatt. xxvii. 16, 17) are five disreputable Evangelia 1, 118, 209, 241,\n299,--the Armenian Version, the Jerusalem Syriac, [and the Sinai\nSyriac]; (see Adler, pp. 172-3).\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER V.\n\nACCIDENTAL CAUSES OF CORRUPTION.\n\nIV. Itacism.\n\n\n[It has been already shewn in the First Volume that the Art of\nTranscription on vellum did not reach perfection till after the lapse of\nmany centuries in the life of the Church. Even in the minute elements of\nwriting much uncertainty prevailed during a great number of successive\nages. It by no means followed that, if a scribe possessed a correct\nauricular knowledge of the Text, he would therefore exhibit it correctly\non parchment. Copies were largely disfigured with misspelt words. And\nvowels especially were interchanged; accordingly, such change became in\nmany instances the cause of corruption, and is known in Textual\nCriticism under the name 'Itacism.']\n\n\nSec. 1.\n\nIt may seem to a casual reader that in what follows undue attention is\nbeing paid to minute particulars. But it constantly happens,--and this\nis a sufficient answer to the supposed objection,--that, from\nexceedingly minute and seemingly trivial mistakes, there result\nsometimes considerable and indeed serious misrepresentations of the\nSpirit's meaning. New incidents:--unheard-of statements:--facts as yet\nunknown to readers of Scripture:--perversions of our Lord's Divine\nsayings:--such phenomena are observed to follow upon the omission of the\narticle,--the insertion of an expletive,--the change of a single letter.\nThus [Greek: palin], thrust in where it has no business, makes it appear\nthat our Saviour promised to return the ass on which He rode in triumph\ninto Jerusalem[96]. By writing [Greek: o] for [Greek: o], many critics\nhave transferred some words from the lips of Christ to those of His\nEvangelist, and made Him say what He never could have dreamed of\nsaying[97]. By subjoining [Greek: s] to a word in a place which it has\nno right to fill, the harmony of the heavenly choir has been marred\neffectually, and a sentence produced which defies translation[98]. By\nomitting [Greek: to] and [Greek: Kyrie], the repenting malefactor is\nmade to say, 'Jesus! remember me, when Thou comest in Thy kingdom[99].'\n\nSpeaking of our Saviour's triumphal entry into Jerusalem, which took\nplace 'the day after' 'they made Him a supper' and Lazarus 'which had\nbeen dead, whom He raised from the dead,' 'sat at the table with Him'\n(St. John xii. 1, 2), St. John says that 'the multitude which had been\nwith Him _when_ He called Lazarus out of the tomb and raised Him from\nthe dead bare testimony' (St. John xii. 17). The meaning of this is best\nunderstood by a reference to St. Luke xix. 37, 38, where it is explained\nthat it was the sight of so many acts of Divine Power, the chiefest of\nall being the raising of Lazarus, which moved the crowds to yield the\nmemorable testimony recorded by St. Luke in ver. 38,--by St. John in\nver. 13[100]. But Tischendorf and Lachmann, who on the authority of D\nand four later uncials read [Greek: hoti] instead of [Greek: hote],\nimport into the Gospel quite another meaning. According to their way of\nexhibiting the text, St. John is made to say that 'the multitude which\nwas with Jesus, testified _that_ He called Lazarus out of the tomb and\nraised him from the dead': which is not only an entirely different\nstatement, but also the introduction of a highly improbable\ncircumstance. That many copies of the Old Latin (not of the Vulgate)\nrecognize [Greek: hoti], besides the Peshitto and the two Egyptian\nversions, is not denied. This is in fact only one more proof of the\ninsufficiency of such collective testimony. [Symbol: Aleph]AB with the\nrest of the uncials and, what is of more importance, _the whole body of\nthe cursives_, exhibit [Greek: hote],--which, as every one must see, is\ncertainly what St. John wrote in this place. Tischendorf's assertion\nthat the prolixity of the expression [Greek: ephonesen ek tou mnemeiou\nkai egeiren auton ek nekron] is inconsistent with [Greek:\nhote][101],--may surprise, but will never convince any one who is even\nmoderately acquainted with St. John's peculiar manner.\n\nThe same mistake--of [Greek: hoti] for [Greek: hote]--is met with at\nver. 41 of the same chapter. 'These things said Isaiah _because_ he saw\nHis glory' (St. John xii. 41). And why not '_when_ he saw His glory'?\nwhich is what the Evangelist wrote according to the strongest\nattestation. True, that eleven manuscripts (beginning with [Symbol:\nAleph]ABL) and the Egyptian versions exhibit [Greek: hoti]: also Nonnus,\nwho lived in the Thebaid (A.D. 410): but all other MSS., the Latin,\nPeshitto, Gothic, Ethiopic, Georgian, and one Egyptian version:--\nOrigen[102],--Eusebius in four places[103],--Basil[104],--Gregory of\nNyssa twice[105],--Didymus three times[106],--Chrysostom twice[107],--\nSeverianus of Gabala[108];--these twelve Versions and Fathers constitute\na body of ancient evidence which is overwhelming. Cyril three times\nreads [Greek: hoti][109], three times [Greek: hote][110],--and once\n[Greek: henika][111], which proves at least how he understood the place.\n\n\nSec. 2.\n\n[A suggestive example[112] of the corruption introduced by a petty\nItacism may be found in Rev. i. 5, where the beautiful expression which\nhas found its way into so many tender passages relating to Christian\ndevotion, 'Who hath _washed_[113] us from our sins in His own blood'\n(A.V.), is replaced in many critical editions (R.V.) by, 'Who hath\n_loosed_[114] us from our sins by His blood.' In early times a purist\nscribe, who had a dislike of anything that savoured of provincial\nretention of Aeolian or Dorian pronunciations, wrote from unconscious\nbias [Greek: u] for [Greek: ou], transcribing [Greek: lusanti] for\n[Greek: lousanti] (unless he were not Greek scholar enough to understand\nthe difference): and he was followed by others, especially such as,\nwhether from their own prejudices or owing to sympathy with the scruples\nof other people, but at all events under the influence of a slavish\nliteralism, hesitated about a passage as to which they did not rise to\nthe spiritual height of the precious meaning really conveyed therein.\nAccordingly the three uncials, which of those that give the Apocalypse\ndate nearest to the period of corruption, adopt [Greek: u], followed by\nnine cursives, the Harkleian Syriac, and the Armenian versions. On the\nother side, two uncials--viz. B^{2} of the eighth century and P of the\nninth--the Vulgate, Bohairic, and Ethiopic, write [Greek: lousanti]\nand--what is most important--all the other cursives except the handful\njust mentioned, so far as examination has yet gone, form a barrier which\nforbids intrusion.]\n\n[An instance where an error from an Itacism has crept into the Textus\nReceptus may be seen in St. Luke xvi. 25. Some scribes needlessly\nchanged [Greek: hode] into [Greek: hode], misinterpreting the letter\nwhich served often for both the long and the short [Greek: o], and\nthereby cast out some illustrative meaning, since Abraham meant to lay\nstress upon the enjoyment 'in his bosom' of comfort by Lazarus. The\nunanimity of the uncials, a majority of the cursives, the witness of the\nversions, that of the Fathers quote the place being uncertain, are\nsufficient to prove that [Greek: hode] is the genuine word.]\n\n[Again, in St. John xiii. 25, [Greek: houtos] has dropped out of many\ncopies and so out of the Received Text because by an Itacism it was\nwritten [Greek: outos] in many manuscripts. Therefore [Greek: ekeinos\noutos] was thought to be a clear mistake, and the weaker word was\naccordingly omitted. No doubt Latins and others who did not understand\nGreek well considered also that [Greek: houtos] was redundant, and this\nwas the cause of its being omitted in the Vulgate. But really [Greek:\nhoutos], being sufficiently authenticated[115], is exactly in consonance\nwith Greek usage and St. John's style[116], and adds considerably to the\ngraphic character of the sacred narrative. St. John was reclining\n([Greek: anakeimenos]) on his left arm over the bosom of the robe\n([Greek: en toi kolpoi]) of the Saviour. When St. Peter beckoned to him\nhe turned his head for the moment and sank ([Greek: epipeson], not\n[Greek: anapeson] which has the testimony only of B and about\ntwenty-five uncials, [Symbol: Aleph] and C being divided against\nthemselves) on the breast of the Lord, being still in the general\nposture in which he was ([Greek: houtos][117]), and asked Him in a\nwhisper 'Lord, who is it?']\n\n[Another case of confusion between [Greek: o] and [Greek: o] may be seen\nin St. Luke xv. 24, 32, where [Greek: apololos] has gained so strong a\nhold that it is found in the Received Text for [Greek: apololos], which\nlast being the better attested appears to be the right reading[118]. But\nthe instance which requires the most attention is [Greek: katharizon] in\nSt. Mark vii. 19, and all the more because in _The Last Twelve Verses of\nSt. Mark_, the alteration into [Greek: katharizon] is advocated as being\n'no part of the Divine discourse, but the Evangelist's inspired comment\non the Saviour's words[119].' Such a question must be decided strictly\nby the testimony, not upon internal evidence--which in fact is in this\ncase absolutely decisive neither way, for people must not be led by the\nattractive view opened by [Greek: katharizon], and [Greek: katharizon]\nbears a very intelligible meaning. When we find that the uncial evidence\nis divided, there being eight against the change ([Symbol: Phi][Symbol:\nSigma]KMUV[Symbol: Gamma][Symbol: Pi]), and eleven for it ([Symbol:\nAleph]ABEFGHLSX[Symbol: Delta]);--that not much is advanced by the\nversions, though the Peshitto, the Lewis Codex, the Harkleian (?), the\nGothic, the Old Latin[120], the Vulgate, favour [Greek:\nkatharizon];--nor by the Fathers:--since Aphraates[121], Augustine\n(?)[122], and Novatian[123] are contradicted by Origen[124],\nTheophylact[125], and Gregory Thaumaturgus[126], we discover that we\nhave not so far made much way towards a satisfactory conclusion. The\nonly decided element of judgement, so far as present enquiries have\nreached, since suspicion is always aroused by the conjunction of\n[Symbol: Aleph]AB, is supplied by the cursives which with a large\nmajority witness to the received reading. It is not therefore safe to\nalter it till a much larger examination of existing evidence is made\nthan is now possible. If difficulty is felt in the meaning given by\n[Greek: katharizon],--and that there is such difficulty cannot candidly\nbe denied,--this is balanced by the grammatical difficulty introduced by\n[Greek: katharizon], which would be made to agree in the same clause\nwith a verb separated from it by thirty-five parenthetic words,\nincluding two interrogations and the closing sentence. Those people who\nform their judgement from the Revised Version should bear in mind that\nthe Revisers, in order to make intelligible sense, were obliged to\nintroduce three fresh English words that have nothing to correspond to\nthem in the Greek; being a repetition of what the mind of the reader\nwould hardly bear in memory. Let any reader who doubts this leave out\nthe words in italics and try the effect for himself. The fact is that to\nmake this reading satisfactory, another alteration is required. [Greek:\nKatharizon panta ta bromata] ought either to be transferred to the 20th\nverse or to the beginning of the 18th. Then all would be clear enough,\nthough destitute of a balance of authority: as it is now proposed to\nread, the passage would have absolutely no parallel in the simple and\ntransparent sentences of St. Mark. We must therefore be guided by the\nbalance of evidence, and that is turned by the cursive testimony.]\n\n\nSec. 3.\n\nAnother minute but interesting indication of the accuracy and fidelity\nwith which the cursive copies were made, is supplied by the constancy\nwith which they witness to the preposition [Greek: en] (_not the\nnumeral_ [Greek: hen]) in St. Mark iv. 8. Our Lord says that the seed\nwhich 'fell into the good ground' 'yielded by ([Greek: en]) thirty, and\nby ([Greek: en]) sixty, and by ([Greek: en]) an hundred.' Tischendorf\nnotes that besides all the uncials which are furnished with accents and\nbreathings (viz. EFGHKMUV[Symbol: Pi]) 'nearly 100 cursives' exhibit\n[Greek: en] here and in ver. 20. But this is to misrepresent the case.\nAll the cursives may be declared to exhibit [Greek: en], e.g. all\nMatthaei's and all Scrivener's. I have myself with this object examined\na large number of Evangelia, and found [Greek: en] in all. The Basle MS.\nfrom which Erasmus derived his text[127] exhibits [Greek: en],--though\nhe printed [Greek: hen] out of respect for the Vulgate. The\nComplutensian having [Greek: hen], the reading of the Textus Receptus\nfollows in consequence: but the Traditional reading has been shewn to be\n[Greek: en],--which is doubtless intended by [Greek: EN] in Cod. A.\n\nCodd. [Symbol: Aleph]C[Symbol: Delta] (two ever licentious and [Symbol:\nDelta] similarly so throughout St. Mark) substitute for the preposition\n[Greek: en] the preposition [Greek: eis],--(a sufficient proof to me\nthat they understand [Greek: EN] to represent [Greek: en], not [Greek:\nhen]): and are followed by Tischendorf, Tregelles, and the Revisers. As\nfor the chartered libertine B (and its servile henchman L), for the\nfirst [Greek: en] (but not for the second and third) it substitutes the\npreposition [Greek: EIS]: while, in ver. 20, it retains the first\n[Greek: en], but omits the other two. In all these vagaries Cod. B is\nfollowed by Westcott and Hort[128].\n\n\nSec. 4.\n\nSt. Paul[129] in his Epistle to Titus [ii. 5] directs that young women\nshall be 'keepers at home,' [Greek: oikourous]. So, (with five\nexceptions,) every known Codex[130], including the corrected [Symbol:\nAleph] and D,--HKLP; besides 17, 37, 47. So also Clemens Alex.[131]\n(A.D. 180),--Theodore of Mopsuestia[132],--Basil[133],--Chrysostom[134]--\nTheodoret[135],--Damascene[136]. So again the Old Latin (_domum\ncustodientes_[137]),--the Vulgate (_domus curam habentes_[138]),--and\nJerome (_habentes domus diligentiam_[139]): and so the Peshitto and the\nHarkleian versions,--besides the Bohairic. There evidently can be no\ndoubt whatever about such a reading so supported. To be [Greek:\noikouros] was held to be a woman's chiefest praise[140]: [Greek:\nkalliston ergon gyne oikouros], writes Clemens Alex.[141]; assigning to\nthe wife [Greek: oikouria] as her proper province[142]. On the contrary,\n'gadding about from house to house' is what the Apostle, writing to\nTimothy[143], expressly condemns. But of course the decisive\nconsideration is not the support derived from internal evidence; but the\nplain fact that antiquity, variety, respectability, numbers, continuity\nof attestation, are all in favour of the Traditional reading.\n\nNotwithstanding this, Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Westcott and\nHort, because they find [Greek: oikourgous] in [Symbol: Aleph]*ACD*F-G,\nare for thrusting that 'barbarous and scarcely intelligible' word, if it\nbe not even a non-existent[144], into Titus ii. 5. The Revised Version\nin consequence exhibits 'workers at home'--which Dr. Field may well call\nan 'unnecessary and most tasteless innovation.' But it is insufficiently\nattested as well, besides being a plain perversion of the Apostle's\nteaching. [And the error must have arisen from carelessness and\nignorance, probably in the West where Greek was not properly\nunderstood.]\n\nSo again, in the cry of the demoniacs, [Greek: ti hemin kai soi, Iesou,\nhuie tou Theou]; (St. Matt. viii. 29) the name [Greek: Iesou] is omitted\nby B[Symbol: Aleph].\n\nThe reason is plain the instant an ancient MS. is inspected:--[Greek:\nKAISOI_IU_UIETOU_THU_]:--the recurrence of the same letters caused too\ngreat a strain to scribes, and the omission of two of them was the\nresult of ordinary human infirmity.\n\nIndeed, to this same source are to be attributed an extraordinary number\nof so-called 'various readings'; but which in reality, as has already\nbeen shewn, are nothing else but a collection of mistakes,--the\nsurviving tokens that anciently, as now, copying clerks left out words;\nwhether misled by the fatal proximity of a like ending, or by the speedy\nrecurrence of the like letters, or by some other phenomenon with which\nmost men's acquaintance with books have long since made them familiar.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[96] St. Mark xi. 4. See Revision Revised, pp. 57-58.\n\n[97] St. Mark vii. 19, [Greek: katharizon] for [Greek: katharizon]. See\nbelow, pp. 61-3.\n\n[98] St. Luke ii. 14.\n\n[99] St. Luke xxiii. 42.\n\n[100] St. Matt. xx. 9. See also St. Mark xi. 9, 10.\n\n[101] 'Quae quidem orationis prolixitas non conveniens esset si [Greek:\nhote] legendum esset.'\n\n[102] iv. 577: 'quando.'\n\n[103] Dem. Ev. 310, 312, 454 _bis._\n\n[104] i. 301.\n\n[105] ii. 488, and _ap._ Gall. vi. 580.\n\n[106] Trin. 59, 99, 242.\n\n[107] viii. 406, 407. Also ps.-Chrysost. v. 613. Note, that\n'Apolinarius' in Cramer's Cat. 332 is Chrys. viii. 407.\n\n[108] _Ap._ Chrys. vi. 453.\n\n[109] iv. 505, 709, and _ap_. Mai iii. 85.\n\n[110] ii. 102: iv. 709, and _ap_. Mai iii. 118.\n\n[111] v^{1}. 642.\n\n[112] Unfortunately, though the Dean left several lists of instances of\nItacism, he worked out none, except the substitution of [Greek: hen] for\n[Greek: en] in St. Mark iv. 8, which as it is not strictly on all fours\nwith the rest I have reserved till last. He mentioned all that I have\nintroduced (besides a few others), on detached papers, some of them more\nthan once, and [Greek: lousanti] and [Greek: katharizon] even more than\nthe others. In the brief discussion of each instance which I have\nsupplied, I have endeavoured whenever it was practicable to include any\nslight expressions of the Dean's that I could find, and to develop all\nsurviving hints.\n\n[113] [Greek: lousanti].\n\n[114] [Greek: lusanti].\n\n[115]\n    [Greek: houtos]. BCEFGHLMX[Symbol: Delta]. Most cursives. Goth.\n    [Greek: outos]. KSU[Symbol: Gamma][Symbol: Lambda]. Ten cursives.\n    _Omit_ [Symbol: Aleph]AD[Pi]. Many cursives. Vulg. Pesh. Ethiop.\n      Armen. Georg. Slavon.\n    Bohair. Pers.\n\n[116] E.g. Thuc. vii. 15, St. John iv. 6.\n\n[117] See St. John iv. 6: Acts xx. 11, xxvii. 17. The beloved Apostle\nwas therefore called [Greek: ho epistethios]. See Suicer. s. v. Westcott\non St. John xiii. 25.\n\n[118]\n    24. [Greek: apololos.] [Symbol: Aleph]^{a}ABD &c.\n    [Greek: apololos]. [Symbol: Aleph]*GKMRSX[Symbol: Gamma][Symbol:\n    Pi]*. Most curs.\n\n    32. [Greek: apololos]. [Symbol: Aleph]*ABD &c.\n    [Greek: apololos]. [Symbol: Aleph]^{c}KMRSX[Symbol: Gamma][Symbol:\n    Pi]*. Most curs.\n\n[119] Pp. 179, 180. Since the Dean has not adopted [Greek: katharizon]\ninto his corrected text, and on account of other indications which\ncaused me to doubt whether he retained the opinion of his earlier years,\nI applied to the Rev. W. F. Rose, who answered as follows:--'I am\nthankful to say that I can resolve all doubt as to my uncle's later\nviews of St. Mark vii. 19. In his annotated copy of the _Twelve Verses_\nhe deletes the words in his note p. 179, \"This appears to be the true\nreading,\" and writes in the margin, \"The old reading is doubtless the\ntrue one,\" and in the margin of the paragraph referring to [Greek:\nkatharizon] on p. 180 he writes, \"Alter the wording of this.\" This\nentirely agrees with my own recollection of many conversations with him\non the subject. I think he felt that the weight of the cursive testimony\nto the old rending was conclusive,--at least that he was not justified\nin changing the text in spite of it.' These last words of Mr. Rose\nexpress exactly the inference that I had drawn.\n\n[120] 'The majority of the Old Latin MSS. have \"in secessum uadit (or\nexiit) purgans omnes escas\"; _i_ (Vindobonensis) and _r_ (Usserianus)\nhave \"et purgat\" for \"purgans\": and _a_ has a conflation \"in secessum\nexit purgans omnes escas et exit in rivum\"--so they all point the same\nway.'--(Kindly communicated by Mr. H. J. White.)\n\n[121] Dem. xv. (Graffin)--'Vadit enim esca in ventrem, unde purgatione\nin secessum emittitur.' (Lat.)\n\n[122] iii. 764. 'Et in secessum exit, purgans omnes escas.'\n\n[123] Galland. iii. 319. 'Cibis, quos Dominus dicit perire, et in\nsecessu naturali lege purgari.'\n\n[124] iii. 494. [Greek: elege tauta ho Soter, katharizon panta ta\nbromata.]\n\n[125] i. 206. [Greek: ekkatharizon panta ta bromata.]\n\n[126] Galland. iii. 400. [Greek: alla kai ho Soter, panta katharizon ta\nbromata.]\n\n[127] Evan. 2. See Hoskier, Collation of Cod. Evan. 604, App. F. p. 4.\n\n[128] [The following specimens taken from the first hand of B may\nillustrate the kakigraphy, if I may use the expression, which is\ncharacteristic of that MS. and also of [Symbol: Aleph]. The list might\nbe easily increased.\n\nI. _Proper Names._\n\n[Greek: Ioanes], generally: [Greek: Ioannes], Luke i. 13*, 60, 63; Acts\niii. 4; iv. 6, 13, 19; xii. 25; xiii. 5, 25; xv. 37; Rev. i. 1, 4, 9;\nxxii. 8.\n\n[Greek: Beezeboul], Matt. x. 25; xii. 24, 27; Mark iii. 22; Luke xi. 15,\n18, 19.\n\n[Greek: Nazaret], Matt. ii. 23; Luke i. 26; John i. 46, 47. [Greek:\nNazara], Matt. iv. 13. [Greek: Nazareth], Matt. xxi. 11; Luke ii. 51;\niv. 16.\n\n[Greek: Maria] for [Greek: Mariam], Matt. i. 20; Luke ii. 19. [Greek:\nMariam] for [Greek: Maria], Matt. xxvii. 61; Mark xx. 40; Luke x. 42;\nxi. 32; John xi. 2; xii. 3; xx. 16, 18. See Traditional Text, p. 86.\n\n[Greek: Koum], Mark v. 41. [Greek: Golgoth], Luke xix. 17.\n\n[Greek: Istraeleitai, Istraelitai, Israeleitai, Israelitai].\n\n[Greek: Eleisabet, Elisabet].\n\n[Greek: Moses, Mouses.]\n\n[Greek: Dalmanountha], Mark viii. 10.\n\n[Greek: Iose] (Joseph of Arimathea), Mark xv. 45. [Greek: Ioseph], Matt.\nxxvii. 57, 59; Mark xv. 42; Luke xxiii. 50; John xix. 38.\n\n\nII. _Mis-spelling of ordinary words._\n\n[Greek: kath' idian], Matt. xvii. 1, 19; xxi v. 3; Mark iv. 34; vi. 31,\n&c. [Greek: kat' idian], Matt. xiv. 13, 23; Mark vi. 32; vii. 33, &c.\n\n[Greek: genema], Matt. xxvi. 29; Mark xiv. 25; Luke xxii. 18. [Greek:\ngennema], Matt. iii. 7; xii. 34; xxiii. 33; Luke iii. 7 (the well-known\n[Greek: gennemata echidnon]).\n\nA similar confusion between [Greek: genesis] and [Greek: gennesis],\nMatt. i, and between [Greek: egenethen] and [Greek: egennethen], and\n[Greek: gegenemai] and [Greek: gegennemai]. See Kuenen and Cobet N. T.\nad fid. Cod. Vaticani lxxvii.\n\n\nIII. _Itacisms._\n\n[Greek: kreino], John xii. 48 ([Greek: kreinei]). [Greek: krino], Matt.\nvii. 1; xix. 28; Luke vi. 37; vii. 43; xii. 57, &c.\n\n[Greek: teimo, timo], Matt. xv. 4, 5, 8; xix. 19; xxvii. 9; Mark vii. 6,\n10, &c.\n\n[Greek: enebreimethe] (Matt. ix. 30) for [Greek: enebrimesato]. [Greek:\nanakleithenai] (Mark vi. 39) for [Greek: anaklinai. seitos] for [Greek:\nsitos] (Mark iv. 28).\n\n\nIV. _Bad Grammar._\n\n[Greek: toi oikodespotei epekalesan] for [Greek: ton oikodespoten ekal.]\n(Matt. x. 25). [Greek: katapatesousin] for [Greek:-sosin] (Matt. vii.\n6). [Greek: ho an aitesetai] (Matt. xiv. 7). [Greek: hotan de akouete]\n(Mark xiii. 7).\n\n\nV. _Impossible words._\n\n[Greek: emnesteumenen] (Luke i. 27). [Greek: ouranou] for [Greek:\nouraniou] (ii. 13). [Greek: anezetoun] (Luke ii. 44). [Greek: kopiousin]\n(Matt. vi. 28). [Greek: erotoun] (Matt. xv. 23). [Greek: kataskenoin]\n(Mark iv. 32). [Greek: hemeis] for [Greek: hymeis]. [Greek: hymeis] for\n[Greek: hemeis].]\n\n[129] This paper on Titus ii. 5 was marked by the Dean as being 'ready\nfor press.' It was evidently one of his later essays, and was left in\none of his later portfolios.\n\n[130] _All_ Matthaei's 16,--_all_ Rinck's 7,--_all_ Reiche's 6,--_all_\nScrivener's 13, &c., &c.\n\n[131] 622.\n\n[132] _Ed._ Swete, ii. 247 (_domos suas bene regentes_); 248 (_domus\nproprias optime regant_).\n\n[133] ii. (_Eth._) 291 a, 309 b.\n\n[134] xi. 750 a, 751 b c d--[Greek: he oikouros kai oikonomike.]\n\n[135] iii. 704.\n\n[136] ii. 271.\n\n[137] Cod. Clarom.\n\n[138] Cod. Amiat., and August. iii^{1}. 804.\n\n[139] vii. 716 c, 718 b (_Bene domum regere_, 718 c).\n\n[140] [Greek: kat' oikon oikourousin hoste parthenoi] (Soph. Oed. Col.\n343).--'[Greek: Oikouros] est quasi proprium vocabulum mulierum: [Greek:\noikourgos] est scribarum commentum,'--as Matthaei, whose note is worth\nreading, truly states. Wetstein's collections here should by all means\nbe consulted. See also Field's delightful Otium Norv., pp. 135-6.\n\n[141] P. 293, _lin._ 4 (see _lin._ 2).\n\n[142] P. 288, _lin._ 20.\n\n[143] 1 Tim. v. 13.\n\n[144] [Greek: oikourgein]--which occurs in Clemens Rom. (ad Cor. c.\n1)--is probably due to the scribe.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VI.\n\nACCIDENTAL CAUSES OF CORRUPTION.\n\nV. Liturgical Influence.\n\n\nSec. 1.\n\nThere is one distinct class of evidence provided by Almighty God for the\nconservation of the deposit in its integrity[145], which calls for\nspecial notice in this place. The Lectionaries of the ancient Church\nhave not yet nearly enjoyed the attention they deserve, or the laborious\nstudy which in order to render them practically available they\nabsolutely require. Scarcely any persons, in fact, except professed\ncritics, are at all acquainted with the contents of the very curious\ndocuments alluded to: while collations of any of them which have been\nhitherto effected are few indeed. I speak chiefly of the Books called\nEvangelistaria (or Evangeliaria), in other words, the proper lessons\ncollected out of the Gospels, and transcribed into a separate volume.\nLet me freely admit that I subjoin a few observations on this subject\nwith unfeigned diffidence; having had to teach myself throughout the\nlittle I know;--and discovering in the end how very insufficient for my\npurpose that little is. Properly handled, an adequate study of the\nLectionaries of the ancient Church would become the labour of a life. We\nrequire exact collations of at least 100 of them. From such a practical\nacquaintance with about a tenth of the extant copies some very\ninteresting results would infallibly be obtained[146].\n\nAs for the external appearance of these documents, it may be enough to\nsay that they range, like the mass of uncial and cursive copies, over a\nspace of about 700 years,--the oldest extant being of about the eighth\ncentury, and the latest dating in the fifteenth. Rarely are any so old\nas the former date,--or so recent as the last named. When they began to\nbe executed is not known; but much older copies than any which at\npresent exist must have perished through constant use: [for they are in\nperfect order when we first become acquainted with them, and as a whole\nthey are remarkably consistent with one another]. They are almost\ninvariably written in double columns, and not unfrequently are\nsplendidly executed. The use of Uncial letters is observed to have been\nretained in documents of this class to a later period than in the case\nof the Evangelia, viz. down to the eleventh century. For the most part\nthey are furnished with a kind of musical notation executed in\nvermilion; evidently intended to guide the reader in that peculiar\nrecitative which is still customary in the oriental Church.\n\nIn these books the Gospels always stand in the following order: St.\nJohn: St. Matthew: St. Luke: St. Mark. The lessons are brief,--\nresembling the Epistles and Gospels in our Book of Common Prayer.\n\nThey seem to me to fall into two classes: (_a_) Those which contain a\nlesson for every day in the year: (_b_) Those which only contain\n[lessons for fixed Festivals and] the Saturday-Sunday lessons ([Greek:\nsabbatokyriakai]). We are reminded by this peculiarity that it was not\ntill a very late period in her history that the Eastern Church was able\nto shake herself clear of the shadow of the old Jewish Sabbath[147]. [To\nthese Lectionaries Tables of the Lessons were often added, of a similar\ncharacter to those which we have in our Prayer-books. The Table of daily\nLessons went under the title of Synaxarion (or Eclogadion); and the\nTable of the Lessons of immovable Festivals and Saints' days was styled\nMenologion[148].]\n\nLiturgical use has proved a fruitful source of textual perturbation.\nNothing less was to have been expected,--as every one must admit who has\nexamined ancient Evangelia with any degree of attention. For a period\nbefore the custom arose of writing out the Ecclesiastical Lections in\nthe 'Evangelistaries,' and 'Apostolos,' it may be regarded as certain\nthat the practice generally prevailed of accommodating an ordinary copy,\nwhether of the Gospels or of the Epistles, to the requirements of the\nChurch. This continued to the last to be a favourite method with the\nancients[149]. Not only was it the invariable liturgical practice to\nintroduce an ecclesiastical lection with an ever-varying formula,--by\nwhich means the holy Name is often found in MSS. where it has no proper\nplace,--but notes of time, &c., ['like the unique and indubitably\ngenuine word [Greek: deuteroprotoi][150],' are omitted as carrying no\nmoral lesson, as well as longer passages like the case of the two verses\nrecounting the ministering Angel with the Agony and the Bloody\nSweat[151].\n\nThat Lessons from the New Testament were probably read in the assemblies\nof the faithful according to a definite scheme, and on an established\nsystem, at least as early as the fourth century, has been shewn to\nfollow from plain historical fact in the tenth chapter of the Twelve\nLast Verses of St. Mark's Gospel, to which the reader is referred for\nmore detailed information. Cyril, at Jerusalem,--and by implication, his\nnamesake at Alexandria,--Chrysostom, at Antioch and at Constantinople,--\nAugustine, in Africa,--all four expressly witness to the circumstance.\nIn other words, there is found to have been at least at that time fully\nestablished throughout the Churches of Christendom a Lectionary, which\nseems to have been essentially one and the same in the West and in the\nEast. That it must have been of even Apostolic antiquity may be inferred\nfrom several considerations[152]. For example, Marcion, in A.D. 140,\nwould hardly have constructed an Evangelistarium and Apostolicon of his\nown, as we learn from Epiphanius[153], if he had not been induced by the\nLectionary System prevailing around him to form a counterplan of\nteaching upon the same model.]\n\n\nSec. 2.\n\nIndeed, the high antiquity of the Church's Lectionary System is inferred\nwith certainty from many a textual phenomenon with which students of\nTextual Science are familiar.\n\nIt may be helpful to a beginner if I introduce to his notice the class\nof readings to be discussed in the present chapter, by inviting his\nattention to the first words of the Gospel for St. Philip and St. James'\nDay in our own English Book of Common Prayer,--'And Jesus said unto His\ndisciples.' Those words he sees at a glance are undeniably nothing else\nbut an Ecclesiastical accretion to the Gospel,--words which breed\noffence in no quarter, and occasion error to none. They have\nnevertheless stood prefixed to St. John xiv. 1 from an exceedingly\nremote period; for, besides establishing themselves in every Lectionary\nof the ancient Church[154], they are found in Cod. D[155],--in copies of\nthe Old Latin[156] as the Vercellensis, Corbeiensis, Aureus, Bezae,--and\nin copies of the Vulgate. They may be of the second or third, they must\nbe as old as the fourth century. It is evident that it wants but a very\nlittle for those words to have established their claim to a permanent\nplace in the Text. Readings just as slenderly supported have been\nactually adopted before now[157].\n\nI proceed to cite another instance; and here the success of an ordinary\ncase of Lectionary licence will be perceived to have been complete: for\nbesides recommending itself to Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, and\nWestcott and Hort, the blunder in question has established itself in the\npages of the Revised Version. Reference is made to an alteration of the\nText occurring in certain copies of Acts iii. 1, which will be further\ndiscussed below[158]. When it has been stated that these copies are\n[Symbol: Aleph]ABCG,--the Vulgate,--the two Egyptian versions,--besides\nthe Armenian,--and the Ethiopic,--it will be admitted that the\nEcclesiastical practice which has resulted in so widespread a reading,\nmust be primitive indeed. To some persons such a formidable array of\nevidence may seem conclusive in favour of any reading: but it can only\nseem so to those who do not realize the weight of counter-testimony.\n\nBut by far the most considerable injury which has resulted to the Gospel\nfrom this cause is the suspicion which has alighted in certain quarters\non the last twelve verses of the Gospel according to St. Mark. [Those\nverses made up by themselves a complete Lection. The preceding Lection,\nwhich was used on the Second Sunday after Easter, was closed with the\nLiturgical note 'The End,' or [Greek: TO TELOS], occurring after the\neighth verse. What more probable, nay, more certain result could there\nbe, than that some scribe should mistake the end of the Lection for the\nend of St. Mark's Gospel, if the last leaf should chance to have been\ntorn off, and should then transcribe no more[159]? How natural that St.\nMark should express himself in a more condensed and abrupt style than\nusual. This of course is only put forward as an explanation, which\nleaves the notion of another writer and a later date unnecessary. If it\ncan be improved upon, so much the better. Candid critics ought to study\nDean Burgon's elaborate chapter already referred to before rejecting\nit.]\n\n\nSec. 3.\n\nAnd there probably does not exist, in the whole compass of the Gospel, a\nmore interesting instance of this than is furnished by the words [Greek:\neipe de ho Kyrios], in St. Luke vii. 31. This is certainly derived from\nthe Lectionaries; being nothing else but the formula with which it was\ncustomary to introduce the lection that begins at this place.\nAccordingly, only one out of forty copies which have been consulted for\nthe purpose contains them. But the circumstance of interest remains to\nbe stated. When these four unauthorized words have been thus got rid of,\nthe important discovery is made that the two preceding verses (verses 28\nand 29) must needs form a part of our Lord's discourse,--which it is\nperceived flows on unbroken from v. 24 to v. 35. This has been seen\nalready by some[160], though denied by others. But the fact does not\nadmit of rational doubt; though it is certainly not as yet generally\nknown. It is not generally known, I mean, that the Church has recovered\na piece of knowledge with which she was once familiar[161], but which\nfor many centuries she has forgotten, viz. that thirty-two words which\nshe supposed to be those of the Evangelist are in reality those of her\nLord.\n\nIndeed, when the expressions are considered, it is perceived that this\naccount of them must needs be the true one. Thus, we learn from the 24th\nverse that our Saviour was at this time addressing 'the crowds' or\n'multitudes.' But the four classes specified in verses 29, 30, cannot\nreasonably be thought to be the Evangelist's analysis of those crowds.\nIn fact what is said of 'the Pharisees and Lawyers' in ver. 30 is\nclearly not a remark made by the Evangelist on the reception which our\nSaviour's words were receiving at the hands of his auditory; but our\nSaviour's own statement of the reception which His Forerunner's\npreaching had met with at the hands of the common people and the\npublicans on the one hand,--the Pharisees and the Scribes on the other.\nHence the inferential particle [Greek: oun] in the 31st verse; and the\nuse in ver. 35 of the same verb ([Greek: edikaiothe]) which the Divine\nSpeaker had employed in ver. 29: whereby He takes up His previous\nstatement while He applies and enforces it.\n\nAnother specimen of unauthorized accretion originating in the same way\nis found a little farther on. In St. Luke ix. 1 ('And having called\ntogether His twelve Disciples'), the words [Greek: mathetas autou] are\nconfessedly spurious: being condemned by nearly every known cursive and\nuncial. Their presence in the meantime is fully accounted for by the\nadjacent rubrical direction how the lesson is to be introduced: viz. 'At\nthat time Jesus having called together His twelve Disciples.'\nAccordingly we are not surprised to find the words [Greek: ho Iesous]\nalso thrust into a few of the MSS.: though we are hardly prepared to\ndiscover that the words of the Peshitto, besides the Latin and Cureton's\nSyriac, are disfigured in the same way. The admirers of 'the old\nuncials' will learn with interest that, instead of [Greek: mathetas\nautou], [Symbol: Aleph]C with LX[Symbol: Lambda][Symbol: Xi] and a\nchoice assortment of cursives exhibit [Greek: apostolous],--being\nsupported in this manifestly spurious reading by the best copies of the\nOld Latin, the Vulgate, Gothic, Harkleian, Bohairic, and a few other\ntranslations.\n\nIndeed, it is surprising what a fertile source of corruption Liturgical\nusage has proved. Every careful student of the Gospels remembers that\nSt. Matthew describes our Lord's first and second missionary journey in\nvery nearly the same words. The former place (iv. 23) ending [Greek: kai\npasan malakian en to lao] used to conclude the lesson for the second\nSunday after Pentecost,--the latter (ix. 35) ending [Greek: kai pasan\nmalakian] occupies the same position in the Gospel for the seventh\nSunday. It will not seem strange to any one who considers the matter,\nthat [Greek: en to lao] has in consequence not only found its way into\nix. 35, but has established itself there very firmly: and that from a\nvery early time. The spurious words are first met with in the Codex\nSinaiticus[162].\n\nBut sometimes corruptions of this class are really perplexing. Thus\n[Symbol: Aleph] testifies to the existence of a short additional clause\n([Greek: kai polloi ekolouthesan auto]) at the end, as some critics say,\nof the same 35th verse. Are we not rather to regard the words as the\nbeginning of ver. 36, and as being nothing else but the liturgical\nintroduction to the lection for the Twelve Apostles, which follows (ix.\n36-x. 8), and whose Festival falls on the 30th June? Whatever its\norigin, this confessedly spurious accretion to the Text, which exists\nbesides only in L and six cursive copies, must needs be of extraordinary\nantiquity, being found in the two oldest copies of the Old Latin:--a\nsufficient indication, by the way, of the utter insufficiency of such an\namount of evidence for the genuineness of any reading.\n\nThis is the reason why, in certain of the oldest documents accessible,\nsuch a strange amount of discrepancy is discoverable in the text of the\nfirst words of St. Luke x. 25 ([Greek: kai idou nomikos tis aneste,\nekpeirazon aiton, kai legon]). Many of the Latin copies preface this\nwith _et haec eo dicente_. Now, the established formula of the\nlectionaries here is,--[Greek: nomikos tis prosethen to I.], which\nexplains why the Curetonian, the Lewis, with 33, 'the queen of the\ncursives,' as their usual leader in aberrant readings is absurdly\nstyled, so read the place: while D, with one copy of the Old Latin,\nstands alone in exhibiting,--[Greek: aneste de tis nomikos]. Four\nCodexes ([Symbol: Aleph]BL[Symbol: Xi]) with the Curetonian omit the\nsecond [Greek: kai] which is illegible in the Lewis. To read this place\nin its purity you have to take up any ordinary cursive copy.\n\n\nSec. 4.\n\nTake another instance. St. Mark xv. 28 has been hitherto read in all\nChurches as follows:--'And the Scripture was fulfilled, which saith,\n\"And He was numbered with the transgressors.\"' In these last days\nhowever the discovery is announced that every word of this is an\nunauthorized addition to the inspired text. Griesbach indeed only marks\nthe verse as probably spurious; while Tregelles is content to enclose it\nin brackets. But Alford, Tischendorf, Westcott and Hort, and the\nRevisers eject the words [Greek: kai eplerothe he graphe he legousa, kai\nmeta anomon elogisthe] from the text altogether. What can be the reason\nfor so extraordinary a proceeding?\n\nLet us not be told by Schulz (Griesbach's latest editor) that 'the\nquotation is not in Mark's manner; that the formula which introduces it\nis John's: and that it seems to be a gloss taken from Luke xxii. 37.'\nThis is not criticism but dictation,--imagination, not argument. Men who\nso write forget that they are assuming the very point which they are\ncalled upon to prove.\n\nNow it happens that all the Uncials but six and an immense majority of\nthe Cursive copies contain the words before us:--that besides these, the\nOld Latin, the Syriac, the Vulgate, the Gothic and the Bohairic\nversions, all concur in exhibiting them:--that the same words are\nexpressly recognized by the Sectional System of Eusebius;--having a\nsection ([Greek: sis] / [Greek: e] i.e. 216/8) to themselves--which is\nthe weightiest sanction that Father had it in his power to give to words\nof Scripture. So are they also recognized by the Syriac sectional system\n(260/8), which is diverse from that of Eusebius and independent of it.\nWhat then is to be set against such a weight of ancient evidence? The\nfact that the following six Codexes are without this 28th verse,\n[Symbol: Aleph]ABCDX, together with the Sahidic and Lewis. The notorious\nCodex k (Bobiensis) is the only other ancient testimony producible; to\nwhich Tischendorf adds 'about forty-five cursive copies.' Will it be\nseriously pretended that this evidence for omitting ver. 28 from St.\nMark's Gospel can compete with the evidence for retaining it?\n\nLet it not be once more insinuated that we set numbers before antiquity.\nCodex D is of the sixth century; Cod. X not older than the ninth: and\nnot one of the four Codexes which remain is so old, within perhaps two\ncenturies, as either the Old Latin or the Peshitto versions. We have\nEusebius and Jerome's Vulgate as witnesses on the same side, besides the\nGothic version, which represents a Codex probably as old as either. To\nthese witnesses must be added Victor of Antioch, who commented on St.\nMark's Gospel before either A or C were written[163].\n\nIt will be not unreasonably asked by those who have learned to regard\nwhatever is found in B or [Symbol: Aleph] as oracular,--'But is it\ncredible that on a point like this such authorities as [Symbol:\nAleph]ABCD should all be in error?'\n\nIt is not only credible, I answer, but a circumstance of which we meet\nwith so many undeniable examples that it ceases to be even a matter of\nsurprise. On the other hand, what is to be thought of the credibility\nthat on a point like this all the ancient versions (except the Sahidic)\nshould have conspired to mislead mankind? And further, on what\nintelligible principle is the consent of all the other uncials, and the\nwhole mass of cursives, to be explained, if this verse of Scripture be\nindeed spurious?\n\nI know that the rejoinder will be as follows:--'Yes, but if the ten\nwords in dispute really are part of the inspired verity, how is their\nabsence from the earliest Codexes to be accounted for?' Now it happens\nthat for once I am able to assign the reason. But I do so under protest,\nfor I insist that to point out the source of the mistakes in our oldest\nCodexes is no part of a critic's business. It would not only prove an\nendless, but also a hopeless task. This time, however, I am able to\nexplain.\n\nIf the reader will take the trouble to inquire at the Bibliotheque at\nParis for a Greek Codex numbered '71,' an Evangelium will be put into\nhis hands which differs from any that I ever met with in giving\nsingularly minute and full rubrical directions. At the end of St. Mark\nxv. 27, he will read as follows:--'When thou readest the sixth Gospel of\nthe Passion,--also when thou readest the second Gospel of the Vigil of\nGood Friday,--stop here: skip verse 28: then go on at verse 29.' The\ninference from this is so obvious, that it would be to abuse the\nreader's patience if I were to enlarge upon it, or even to draw it out\nin detail. Very ancient indeed must the Lectionary practice in this\nparticular have been that it should leave so fatal a trace of its\noperation in our four oldest Codexes: but _it has left it_[164]. The\nexplanation is evident, the verse is plainly genuine, and the Codexes\nwhich leave it out are corrupt.\n\nOne word about the evidence of the cursive copies on this occasion.\nTischendorf says that 'about forty-five' of them are without this\nprecious verse of Scripture. I venture to say that the learned critic\nwould be puzzled to produce forty-five copies of the Gospels in which\nthis verse has no place. But in fact his very next statement (viz. that\nabout half of these are Lectionaries),--satisfactorily explains the\nmatter. Just so. From every Lectionary in the world, for the reason\nalready assigned, these words are away; as well as in every MS. which,\nlike B and [Symbol: Aleph], has been depraved by the influence of the\nLectionary practice.\n\nAnd now I venture to ask,--What is to be thought of that Revision of our\nAuthorized Version which omits ver. 28 altogether; with a marginal\nintimation that 'many ancient authorities insert it'? Would it not have\nbeen the course of ordinary reverence,--I was going to say of truth and\nfairness,--to leave the text unmolested: with a marginal memorandum that\njust 'a very few ancient authorities leave it out'?\n\n\nSec. 5.\n\nA gross depravation of the Text resulting from this cause, which\nnevertheless has imposed on several critics, as has been already said,\nis furnished by the first words of Acts iii. The most ancient witness\naccessible, namely the Peshitto, confirms the usual reading of the\nplace, which is also the text of the cursives: viz. [Greek: Epi to auto\nde Petros kai Ioannes k.t.l.] So the Harkleian and Bede. So Codex E.\n\nThe four oldest of the six available uncials conspire however in\nrepresenting the words which immediately precede in the following\nunintelligible fashion:--[Greek: ho de Kyrios prosetithei tous\nsozomenous kath' hemeran epi to auto. Petros de k.t.l.] How is it to be\nthought that this strange and vapid presentment of the passage had its\nbeginning? It results, I answer, from the ecclesiastical practice of\nbeginning a fresh lection at the name of 'Peter,' prefaced by the usual\nformula 'In those days.' It is accordingly usual to find the liturgical\nword [Greek: arche]--indicative of the beginning of a lection,--thrust\nin between [Greek: epi to auto de] and [Greek: Petros]. At a yet earlier\nperiod I suppose some more effectual severance of the text was made in\nthat place, which unhappily misled some early scribe[165]. And so it\ncame to pass that in the first instance the place stood thus: [Greek: ho\nde Kyrios prosetithei tous sozomenous kath' hemeran te ekklesia epi to\nauto],--which was plainly intolerable.\n\nWhat I am saying will commend itself to any unprejudiced reader when it\nhas been stated that Cod. D in this place actually reads as\nfollows:--[Greek: kathemeran epi to auto en te ekklesia. En de tais\nhemerais tautais Petros k.t.l.]: the scribe with simplicity both giving\nus the liturgical formula with which it was usual to introduce the\nGospel for the Friday after Easter, and permitting us to witness the\nperplexity with which the evident surplusage of [Greek: te ekklesia epi\nto auto] occasioned him. He inverts those two expressions and thrusts in\na preposition. How obvious it now was to solve the difficulty by getting\nrid of [Greek: te ekklesia].\n\nIt does not help the adverse case to shew that the Vulgate as well as\nthe copy of Cyril of Alexandria are disfigured with the same corrupt\nreading as [Symbol: Aleph]ABC. It does but prove how early and how\nwidespread is this depravation of the Text. But the indirect proof thus\nafforded that the actual Lectionary System must needs date from a period\nlong anterior to our oldest Codexes is a far more important as well as a\nmore interesting inference. In the meantime I suspect that it was in\nWestern Christendom that this corruption of the text had its beginning:\nfor proof is not wanting that the expression [Greek: epi to auto] seemed\nhard to the Latins[166].\n\nHence too the omission of [Greek: palin] from [Symbol: Aleph]BD (St.\nMatt, xiii. 43). A glance at the place in an actual Codex[167] will\nexplain the matter to a novice better than a whole page of writing:--\n\n  [Greek: akoueto. telos]\n  [Greek: palin. arche. eipen o Kurios ten parabolen tauten.]\n  [Greek: Omoia estin k.t.l.]\n\nThe word [Greek: palin], because it stands between the end ([Greek:\ntelos]) of the lesson for the sixth Thursday and the beginning ([Greek:\narche]) of the first Friday after Pentecost, got left out [though every\none acquainted with Gospel MSS. knows that [Greek: arche] and [Greek:\ntelos] were often inserted in the text]. The second of these two lessons\nbegins with [Greek: homoia] [because [Greek: palin] at the beginning of\na lesson is not wanted]. Here then is a singular token of the antiquity\nof the Lectionary System in the Churches of the East: as well as a proof\nof the untrustworthy character of Codd. [Symbol: Aleph]BD. The discovery\nthat they are supported this time by copies of the Old Latin (a c e\nff^{1.2} g^{1.2} k l), Vulgate, Curetonian, Bohairic, Ethiopic, does but\nfurther shew that such an amount of evidence in and by itself is wholly\ninsufficient to determine the text of Scripture.\n\nWhen therefore I see Tischendorf, in the immediately preceding verse\n(xiii. 43) on the sole authority of [Symbol: Aleph]B and a few Latin\ncopies, omitting the word [Greek: akouein],--and again in the present\nverse on very similar authority (viz. [Symbol: Aleph]D, Old Latin,\nVulgate, Peshitto, Curetonian, Lewis, Bohairic, together with five\ncursives of aberrant character) transposing the order of the words\n[Greek: panta hosa echei polei],--I can but reflect on the utterly\ninsecure basis on which the Revisers and the school which they follow\nwould remodel the inspired Text.\n\nIt is precisely in this way and for the selfsame reason, that the clause\n[Greek: kai elypethesan sphodra] (St. Matt. xvii. 23) comes to be\nomitted in K and several other copies. The previous lesson ends at\n[Greek: egerthesetai],--the next lesson begins at [Greek: proselthon].\n\n\nSec. 6.\n\nIndeed, the Ancient Liturgy of the Church has frequently exercised a\ncorrupting influence on the text of Scripture. Having elsewhere\nconsidered St. Luke's version of the Lord's Prayer[168], I will in this\nplace discuss the genuineness of the doxology with which the Lord's\nPrayer concludes in St. Matt. vi. 13[169],--[Greek: hoti sou estin he\nbasileia kai he dynamis kai he doxa eis tous aionas. amen],--words which\nfor 360 years have been rejected by critical writers as spurious,\nnotwithstanding St. Paul's unmistakable recognition of them in 2 Tim.\niv. 18,--which alone, one would have thought, should have sufficed to\npreserve them from molestation.\n\nThe essential note of primitive antiquity at all events these fifteen\nwords enjoy in perfection, being met with in all copies of the\nPeshitto:--and this is a far weightier consideration than the fact that\nthey are absent from most of the Latin copies. Even of these however\nfour (k f g^{1} q) recognize the doxology, which is also found in\nCureton's Syriac and the Sahidic version; the Gothic, the Ethiopic,\nArmenian, Georgian, Slavonic, Harkleian, Palestinian, Erpenius' Arabic,\nand the Persian of Tawos; as well as in the [Greek: Didache] (with\nvariations); Apostolical Constitutions (iii. 18-vii. 25 with\nvariations); in St. Ambrose (De Sacr. vi. 5. 24), Caesarius (Dial. i.\n29). Chrysostom comments on the words without suspicion, and often\nquotes them (In Orat. Dom., also see Hom. in Matt. xiv. 13): as does\nIsidore of Pelusium (Ep. iv. 24). See also Opus Imperfectum (Hom. in\nMatt. xiv), Theophylact on this place, and Euthymius Zigabenus (in Matt.\nvi. 13 and C. Massal. Anath. 7). And yet their true claim to be accepted\nas inspired is of course based on the consideration that they are found\nin ninety-nine out of a hundred of the Greek copies, including [Symbol:\nPhi] and [Symbol: Sigma] of the end of the fifth and beginning of the\nsixth centuries. What then is the nature of the adverse evidence with\nwhich they have to contend and which is supposed to be fatal to their\nclaims?\n\nFour uncial MSS. ([Symbol: Aleph]BDZ), supported by five cursives of bad\ncharacter (1, 17 which gives [Greek: amen], 118, 130, 209), and, as we\nhave seen, all the Latin copies but four, omit these words; which, it is\naccordingly assumed, must have found their way surreptitiously into the\ntext of all the other copies in existence. But let me ask,--Is it at all\nlikely, or rather is it any way credible, that in a matter like this,\nall the MSS. in the world but nine should have become corrupted? No\nhypothesis is needed to account for one more instance of omission in\ncopies which exhibit a mutilated text in every page. But how will men\npretend to explain an interpolation universal as the present; which may\nbe traced as far back as the second century; which has established\nitself without appreciable variety of reading in all the MSS.; which has\ntherefore found its way from the earliest time into every part of\nChristendom; is met with in all the Lectionaries, and in all the Greek\nLiturgies; and has so effectually won the Church's confidence that to\nthis hour it forms part of the public and private devotions of the\nfaithful all over the world?\n\nOne and the same reply has been rendered to this inquiry ever since the\ndays of Erasmus. A note in the Complutensian Polyglott (1514) expresses\nit with sufficient accuracy. 'In the Greek copies, after _And deliver us\nfrom evil_, follows _For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the\nglory, for ever_. But it is to be noted that in the Greek liturgy, after\nthe choir has said _And deliver us from evil_, it is the Priest who\nresponds as above: and those words, according to the Greeks, the priest\nalone may pronounce. This makes it probable that the words in question\nare no integral part of the Lord's Prayer: but that certain copyists\ninserted them in error, supposing, from their use in the liturgy, that\nthey formed part of the text.' In other words, they represent that men's\nears had grown so fatally familiar with this formula from its habitual\nuse in the liturgy, that at last they assumed it to be part and parcel\nof the Lord's Prayer. The same statement has been repeated ad nauseam by\nten generations of critics for 360 years. The words with which our\nSaviour closed His pattern prayer are accordingly rejected as an\ninterpolation resulting from the liturgical practice of the primitive\nChurch. And this slipshod account of the matter is universally\nacquiesced in by learned and unlearned readers alike at the present day.\n\nFrom an examination of above fifty ancient oriental liturgies, it is\nfound then that though the utmost variety prevails among them, yet that\n_not one_ of them exhibits the evangelical formula as it stands in St.\nMatt. vi. 13; while in some instances the divergences of expression are\neven extraordinary. Subjoined is what may perhaps be regarded as the\ntypical eucharistic formula, derived from the liturgy which passes as\nChrysostom's. Precisely the same form recurs in the office which is\ncalled after the name of Basil: and it is essentially reproduced by\nGregory of Nyssa, Cyril of Jerusalem, and pseudo-Caesarius; while\nsomething very like it is found to have been in use in more of the\nChurches of the East.\n\n'_For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory_, Father, Son\nand Holy Ghost, now and always and _for ever_ and ever. _Amen_.'\n\nBut as every one sees at a glance, such a formula as the\nforegoing,--with its ever-varying terminology of praise,--its constant\nreference to the blessed Trinity,--its habitual [Greek: nun kai\naei],--and its invariable [Greek: eis tous aionas ton aionon], (which\nmust needs be of very high antiquity, for it is mentioned by\nIrenaeus[170], and may be as old as 2 Tim. iv. 18 itself;)--the\ndoxology, I say, which formed part of the Church's liturgy, though\ntranscribed 10,000 times, could never by possibility have resulted in\nthe unvarying doxology found in MSS. of St. Matt. vi. 13,--'_For thine\nis the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen._'\n\nOn the other hand, the inference from a careful survey of so many\nOriental liturgies is inevitable. The universal prevalence of a doxology\nof some sort at the end of the Lord's Prayer; the general prefix 'for\nthine'; the prevailing mention therein of 'the kingdom and the power and\nthe glory'; the invariable reference to Eternity:--all this constitutes\na weighty corroboration of the genuineness of the form in St. Matthew.\nEked out with a confession of faith in the Trinity, and otherwise\namplified as piety or zeal for doctrinal purity suggested, every\nliturgical formula of the kind is clearly derivable from the form of\nwords in St. Matt. vi. 13. In no conceivable way, on the other hand,\ncould that briefer formula have resulted from the practice of the\nancient Church. The thing, I repeat, is simply impossible.\n\nWhat need to point out in conclusion that the Church's peculiar method\nof reciting the Lord's Prayer in the public liturgy does notwithstanding\nsupply the obvious and sufficient explanation of all the adverse\nphenomena of the case? It was the invariable practice from the earliest\ntime for the Choir to break off at the words 'But deliver us from evil.'\nThey never pronounced the doxology. The doxology must for that reason\nhave been omitted by the critical owner of the archetypal copy of St.\nMatthew from which nine extant Evangelia, Origen, and the Old Latin\nversion originally derived their text. This is the sum of the matter.\nThere can be no simpler solution of the alleged difficulty. That\nTertullian, Cyprian, Ambrose recognize no more of the Lord's Prayer than\nthey found in their Latin copies, cannot create surprise. The wonder\nwould have been if they did.\n\nMuch stress has been laid on the silence of certain of the Greek Fathers\nconcerning the doxology although they wrote expressly on the Lord's\nPrayer; as Origen, Gregory of Nyssa[171], Cyril of Jerusalem, Maximus.\nThose who have attended most to such subjects will however bear me most\nready witness, that it is never safe to draw inferences of the kind\nproposed from the silence of the ancients. What if they regarded a\ndoxology, wherever found, as hardly a fitting subject for exegetical\ncomment? But however their silence is to be explained, it is at least\nquite certain that the reason of it is not because their copies of St.\nMatthew were unfurnished with the doxology. Does any one seriously\nimagine that in A.D. 650, when Maximus wrote, Evangelia were, in this\nrespect, in a different state from what they are at present?\n\nThe sum of what has been offered may be thus briefly stated:--The\ntextual perturbation observable at St. Matt. vi. 13 is indeed due to a\nliturgical cause, as the critics suppose. But then it is found that not\nthe great bulk of the Evangelia, but only Codd. [Symbol: Aleph]BDZ, 1,\n17, 118, 130, 209, have been victims of the corrupting influence. As\nusual, I say, it is the few, not the many copies, which have been led\nastray. Let the doxology at the end of the Lord's Prayer be therefore\nallowed to retain its place in the text without further molestation. Let\nno profane hands be any more laid on these fifteen precious words of the\nLord Jesus Christ.\n\nThere yet remains something to be said on the same subject for the\nedification of studious readers; to whom the succeeding words are\nspecially commended. They are requested to keep their attention\nsustained, until they have read what immediately follows.\n\nThe history of the rejection of these words is in a high degree\ninstructive. It dates from 1514, when the Complutensian editors, whilst\nadmitting that the words were found in their Greek copies, banished them\nfrom the text solely in deference to the Latin version. In a marginal\nannotation they started the hypothesis that the doxology is a liturgical\ninterpolation. But how is that possible, seeing that the doxology is\ncommented on by Chrysostom? 'We presume,' they say, 'that this\ncorruption of the original text must date from an antecedent period.'\nThe same adverse sentence, supported by the same hypothesis, was\nreaffirmed by Erasmus, and on the same grounds; but in his edition of\nthe N.T. he suffered the doxology to stand. As the years have rolled\nout, and Codexes DBZ[Symbol: Aleph] have successively come to light,\ncritics have waxed bolder and bolder in giving their verdict. First,\nGrotius, Hammond, Walton; then Mill and Grabe; next Bengel, Wetstein,\nGriesbach; lastly Scholz, Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Alford,\nWestcott and Hort, and the Revisers have denounced the precious words as\nspurious.\n\nBut how does it appear that tract of time has strengthened the case\nagainst the doxology? Since 1514, scholars have become acquainted with\nthe Peshitto version; which by its emphatic verdict, effectually\ndisposes of the evidence borne by all but three of the Old Latin copies.\nThe [Greek: Didache] of the first or second century, the Sahidic version\nof the third century, the Apostolic Constitutions (2), follow on the\nsame side. Next, in the fourth century come Chrysostom, Ambrose,\nps.-Caesarius, the Gothic version. After that Isidore, the Ethiopic,\nCureton's Syriac. The Harkleian, Armenian, Georgian, and other versions,\nwith Chrysostom (2), the Opus Imperfectum, Theophylact, and Euthymius\n(2), bring up the rear[172]. Does any one really suppose that two\nCodexes of the fourth century (B[Symbol: Aleph]), which are even\nnotorious for their many omissions and general accuracy, are any\nadequate set-off against such an amount of ancient evidence? L and 33,\ngenerally the firm allies of BD and the Vulgate, forsake them at St.\nMatt. vi. 13: and dispose effectually of the adverse testimony of D and\nZ, which are also balanced by [Symbol: Phi] and [Symbol: Sigma]. But at\nthis juncture the case for rejecting the doxology breaks down: and when\nit is discovered that every other uncial and every other cursive in\nexistence may be appealed to in its support, and that the story of its\nliturgical origin proves to be a myth,--what must be the verdict of an\nimpartial mind on a survey of the entire evidence?\n\nThe whole matter may be conveniently restated thus:--Liturgical use has\nindeed been the cause of a depravation of the text at St. Matt. vi. 13;\nbut it proves on inquiry to be the very few MSS.,--not the very\nmany,--which have been depraved.\n\nNor is any one at liberty to appeal to a yet earlier period than is\nattainable by existing liturgical evidence; and to suggest that then the\ndoxology used by the priest may have been the same with that which is\nfound in the ordinary text of St. Matthew's Gospel. This may have been\nthe case or it may not. Meanwhile, the hypothesis, which fell to the\nground when the statement on which it rested was disproved, is not now\nto be built up again on a mere conjecture. But if the fact could be\nascertained,--and I am not at all concerned to deny that such a thing is\npossible,--I should regard it only as confirmatory of the genuineness of\nthe doxology. For why should the liturgical employment of the last\nfifteen words of the Lord's Prayer be thought to cast discredit on their\ngenuineness? In the meantime, the undoubted fact, that for an\nindefinitely remote period the Lord's Prayer was not publicly recited by\nthe people further than 'But deliver us from evil,'--a doxology of some\nsort being invariably added, but pronounced by the priest alone,--this\nclearly ascertained fact is fully sufficient to account for a phenomenon\nso ordinary [found indeed so commonly throughout St. Matthew, to say\nnothing of occurrences in the other Gospels] as really not to require\nparticular explanation, viz. the omission of the last half of St.\nMatthew vi. 13 from Codexes [Symbol: Aleph]BDZ.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[145] [I have retained this passage notwithstanding the objections made\nin some quarters against similar passages in the companion volume,\nbecause I think them neither valid, nor creditable to high intelligence,\nor to due reverence.]\n\n[146] [The Textual student will remember that besides the Lectionaries\nof the Gospels mentioned here, of which about 1000 are known, there are\nsome 300 more of the Acts and Epistles, called by the name Apostolos.]\n\n[147] ['It seems also a singular note of antiquity that the Sabbath and\nthe Sunday succeeding it do as it were cohere, and bear one appellation;\nso that the week takes its name--_not_ from the Sunday with which it\ncommences, but--from the Saturday-and-Sunday with which it concludes.'\nTwelve Verses, p. 194, where more particulars are given.]\n\n[148] [For the contents of these Tables, see Scrivener's Plain\nIntroduction, 4th edition, vol. i. pp. 80-89.]\n\n[149] See Scrivener's Plain Introduction, 4th edition, vol. i. pp.\n56-65.\n\n[150] Twelve Verses, p. 220. The MS. stops in the middle of a sentence.\n\n[151] St. Luke xxii. 43, 44.\n\n[152] In the absence of materials supplied by the Dean upon what was his\nown special subject, I have thought best to extract the above sentences\nfrom the Twelve Last Verses, p. 207. The next illustration is his own,\nthough in my words.\n\n[153] i. 311.\n\n[154] [Greek: eipen ho Kyrios tois heautou mathetais; me tarassestho.]\n\n[155] [Greek: kai eipen tois mathetais autou]. The same Codex (D) also\nprefixes to St. Luke xvi. 19 the Ecclesiastical formula--[Greek: eipen\nde kai eteran parabolen].\n\n[156] '_Et ait discipulis suis, non turbetur_.'\n\n[157] E.g. the words [Greek: kai legei autois; eirene hymin] have been\nomitted by Tisch, and rejected by W.-Hort from St. Luke xxiv. 36 _on the\nsole authority_ of D and five copies of the Old Latin. Again, on the\nsame sorry evidence, the words [Greek: proskynesantes auton] have been\nomitted or rejected by the same critics from St. Luke xxiv. 52. In both\ninstances the expressions are also branded with doubt in the R. V.\n\n[158] Pp. 78-80.\n\n[159] See Traditional Text, Appendix VII.\n\n[160] Bp. C. Wordsworth. But Alford, Westcott and Hort, doubt it.\n\n[161] Thus Codex [Symbol: Xi] actually interpolates at this place the\nwords--[Greek: ouketi ekeinois elegeto, alla tois mathetais.] Tisch. _ad\nloc_.\n\n[162] Cyril Alex, (four times) and the Verona Codex (b), besides L and a\nfew other copies, even append the same familiar words to [Greek: kai\npasan malakian] in St. Matt. x. 1.\n\n[163] Investigate Possinus, 345, 346, 348.\n\n[164] It is surprising to find so great an expert as Griesbach in the\nlast year of his life so entirely misunderstanding this subject. See his\nComment. Crit. Part ii. p. 190. 'Nec ulla ... debuerint.'\n\n[165] [Greek: tous sozomenous kathemeran en te ekklesia. epi to auto de\n(TE S' TES DIAKINESIMOU) Petros kai Ioannes, k.t.l.] Addit. 16,184, fol.\n152 _b_.\n\n[166] Bede, Retr. 111. D (add. [Greek: hoi en t. ekkl.]). Brit. Mus.\nAddit. 16, 184. fol. 152 _b._ Vulgate.\n\n[167] So the place stands in Evan. 64. The liturgical notes are printed\nin a smaller type, for distinction.\n\n[168] The Revision Revised, 34-6.\n\n[169] See The Traditional Text, p. 104.\n\n[170] [Greek: alla kai hemas epi tes Eucharistias legontas, 'eis tous\naionas ton aionon,' k.t.l.] Contra Haer. lib. i. c. 3.\n\n[171] But the words of Gregory of Nyssa are doubtful. See Scrivener,\nIntroduction, ii. p. 325, note 1.\n\n[172] See my Textual Guide, Appendix V. pp. 131-3 (G. Bell & Sons). I\nhave increased the Dean's list with a few additional authorities.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VII.\n\nCAUSES OF CORRUPTION CHIEFLY INTENTIONAL.\n\nI. Harmonistic Influence.\n\n\n[It must not be imagined that all the causes of the depravation of the\ntext of Holy Scripture were instinctive, and that mistakes arose solely\nbecause scribes were overcome by personal infirmity, or were\nunconsciously the victims of surrounding circumstances. There was often\nmore design and method in their error. They, or those who directed them,\nwished sometimes to correct and improve the copy or copies before them.\nAnd indeed occasionally they desired to make the Holy Scriptures witness\nto their own peculiar belief. Or they had their ideas of taste, and did\nnot scruple to alter passages to suit what they fancied was their\nenlightened judgement.\n\nThus we can trace a tendency to bring the Four Records into one\nharmonious narrative, or at least to excise or vary statements in one\nGospel which appeared to conflict with parallel statements in another.\nOr else, some Evangelical Diatessaron, or Harmony, or combined narrative\nnow forgotten, exercised an influence over them, and whether consciously\nor not,--since it is difficult always to keep designed and unintentional\nmistakes apart, and we must not be supposed to aim at scientific\nexactness in the arrangement adopted in this analysis,--induced them to\nadopt alterations of the pure Text.\n\nWe now advance to some instances which will severally and conjointly\nexplain themselves.]\n\n\nSec. 1.\n\nNothing can be more exquisitely precise than St. John's way of\ndescribing an incident to which St. Mark (xvi. 9) only refers; viz. our\nLord's appearance to Mary Magdalene,--the first of His appearances after\nHis Resurrection. The reason is discoverable for every word the\nEvangelist uses:--its form and collocation. Both St. Luke (xxiv. 3) and\npreviously St. Mark (xvi. 5) expressly stated that the women who visited\nthe Sepulchre on the first Easter morning, 'after they had entered in'\n([Greek: eiselthousai]), saw the Angels. St John explains that at that\ntime Mary was not with them. She had separated herself from their\ncompany;--had gone in quest of Simon Peter and 'the other disciple.'\nWhen the women, their visit ended, had in turn departed from the\nSepulchre, she was left in the garden alone. 'Mary was standing [with\nher face] _towards the sepulchre_ weeping,--_outside_[173].'\n\nAll this, singular to relate, was completely misunderstood by the\ncritics of the two first centuries. Not only did they identify the\nincident recorded in St. John xx. 11, 12 with St. Mark xv. 5 and St.\nLuke xxiv. 3, 4, from which, as we have seen, the first-named Evangelist\nis careful to distinguish it;--not only did they further identify both\nplaces with St. Matt, xxviii. 2, 3[174], from which they are clearly\nseparate;--but they considered themselves at liberty to tamper with the\ninspired text in order to bring it into harmony with their own\nconvictions. Some of them accordingly altered [Greek: pros to mnemeion]\ninto [Greek: pros to mnemeio] (which is just as ambiguous in Greek as\n'_at_ the sepulchre' in English[175]), and [Greek: exo] they boldly\nerased. It is thus that Codex A exhibits the text. But in fact this\ndepravation must have begun at a very remote period and prevailed to an\nextraordinary extent: for it disfigures the best copies of the Old\nLatin, (the Syriac being doubtful): a memorable circumstance truly, and\nin a high degree suggestive. Codex B, to be sure, reads [Greek:\nheistekei pros to mnemeio, exo klaiousa],--merely transposing (with many\nother authorities) the last two words. But then Codex B substitutes\n[Greek: elthousai] for [Greek: eiselthousai] in St. Mark xvi. 5, in\norder that the second Evangelist may not seem to contradict St. Matt,\nxxviii. 2, 3. So that, according to this view of the matter, the Angelic\nappearance was outside the sepulchre[176]. Codex [Symbol: Aleph], on the\ncontrary, is thorough. Not content with omitting [Greek: exo],--(as in\nthe next verse it leaves out [Greek: duo], in order to prevent St. John\nxx. 12 from seeming to contradict St. Matt. xxviii. 2, 3, and St. Mark\nxvi. 5),--it stands alone in reading [Greek: EN to mnemeio]. (C and D\nare lost here.) When will men learn that these 'old uncials' are _ignes\nfatui_,--not beacon lights; and admit that the texts which they exhibit\nare not only inconsistent but corrupt?\n\nThere is no reason for distrusting the received reading of the present\nplace in any particular. True, that most of the uncials and many of the\ncursives read [Greek: pros to mnemeio]: but so did neither\nChrysostom[177] nor Cyril[178] read the place. And if the Evangelist\nhimself had so written, is it credible that a majority of the copies\nwould have forsaken the easier and more obvious, in order to exhibit the\nless usual and even slightly difficult expression? Many, by writing\n[Greek: pros to mnemeio], betray themselves; for they retain a sure\ntoken that the accusative ought to end the sentence. I am not concerned\nhowever just now to discuss these matters of detail. I am only bent on\nillustrating how fatal to the purity of the Text of the Gospels has been\nthe desire of critics, who did not understand those divine compositions,\nto bring them into enforced agreement with one another. The sectional\nsystem of Eusebius, I suspect, is not so much the cause as the\nconsequence of the ancient and inveterate misapprehensions which\nprevailed in respect of the history of the Resurrection. It is time\nhowever to proceed.\n\n\nSec. 2.\n\nThose writers who overlook the corruptions which the text has actually\nexperienced through a mistaken solicitude on the part of ancient critics\nto reconcile what seemed to them the conflicting statements of different\nEvangelists, are frequently observed to attribute to this kind of\nofficiousness expressions which are unquestionably portions of the\ngenuine text. Thus, there is a general consensus amongst critics of the\ndestructive school to omit the words [Greek: kai tines syn autais] from\nSt. Luke xxiv. 1. Their only plea is the testimony of [Symbol: Aleph]BCL\nand certain of the Latin copies,--a conjunction of authorities which,\nwhen they stand alone, we have already observed to bear invariably false\nwitness. Indeed, before we proceed to examine the evidence, we discover\nthat those four words of St. Luke are even required in this place. For\nSt. Matthew (xxvii. 61), and St. Mark after him (xv. 47), had distinctly\nspecified two women as witnesses of how and where our Lord's body was\nlaid. Now they were the same women apparently who prepared the spices\nand ointment and hastened therewith at break of day to the sepulchre.\nHad we therefore only St. Matthew's Gospel we should have assumed that\n'the ointment-bearers,' for so the ancients called them, were but two\n(St. Matt. xxviii. 1). That they were at least three, even St. Mark\nshews by adding to their number Salome (xvi. 1). But in fact their\ncompany consisted of more than four; as St. Luke explains when he states\nthat it was the same little band of holy women who had accompanied our\nSaviour out of Galilee (xxiii. 55, cf. viii. 2). In anticipation\ntherefore of what he will have to relate in ver. 10, he says in ver. 1,\n'and certain with them.'\n\nBut how, I shall be asked, would you explain the omission of these words\nwhich to yourself seem necessary? And after insisting that one is never\nbound to explain how the text of any particular passage came to be\ncorrupted, I answer, that these words were originally ejected from the\ntext in order to bring St. Luke's statement into harmony with that of\nthe first Evangelist, who mentions none but Mary Magdalene and Mary the\nmother of James and Joses. The proof is that four of the same Latin\ncopies which are for the omission of [Greek: kai tines syn autais] are\nobserved to begin St. Luke xxiii. 55 as follows,--[Greek:\nkatakolouthesasai de DUO gynaikes]. The same fabricated reading is found\nin D. It exists also in the Codex which Eusebius employed when he wrote\nhis Demonstratio Evangelica. Instead therefore of wearying the reader\nwith the evidence, which is simply overwhelming, for letting the text\nalone, I shall content myself with inviting him to notice that the\ntables have been unexpectedly turned on our opponents. There is indeed\nfound to have been a corruption of the text hereabouts, and of the words\njust now under discussion; but it belongs to an exceedingly remote age;\nand happily the record of it survives at this day only in [Symbol:\nAleph]BCDL and certain of the Old Latin copies. Calamitous however it\nis, that what the Church has long since deliberately refused to part\nwith should, at the end of so many centuries, by Lachmann and Tregelles\nand Tischendorf, by Alford and Westcott and Hort, be resolutely thrust\nout of place; and indeed excluded from the Sacred Text by a majority of\nthe Revisers.\n\n[A very interesting instance of such Harmonistic Influence may be found\nin the substitution of 'wine' ([Greek: oinon]) for vinegar ([Greek:\noxos]), respecting which the details are given in the second Appendix to\nthe Traditional Text.]\n\n[Observe yet another instance of harmonizing propensities in the Ancient\nChurch.]\n\nIn St. Luke's Gospel iv. 1-13, no less than six copies of the Old Latin\nversions (b c f g^{1} l q) besides Ambrose (Com. St. Luke, 1340), are\nobserved to transpose the second and third temptations; introducing\nverses 9-12 between verses 4 and 5; in order to make the history of the\nTemptation as given by St. Luke correspond with the account given by St.\nMatthew.\n\nThe scribe of the Vercelli Codex (a) was about to do the same thing; but\nhe checked himself when he had got as far as 'the pinnacle of the\ntemple,'--which he seems to have thought as good a scene for the third\ntemptation as 'a high mountain,' and so left it.\n\n\nSec. 3.\n\nA favourite, and certainly a plausible, method of accounting for the\npresence of unauthorized matter in MSS. is to suggest that, in the first\ninstance, it probably existed only in the shape of a marginal gloss,\nwhich through the inadvertence of the scribes, in process of time, found\nits way into the sacred text. That in this way some depravations of\nScripture may possibly have arisen, would hardly I presume be doubted.\nBut I suspect that the hypothesis is generally a wholly mistaken one;\nhaving been imported into this subject-matter (like many other notions\nwhich are quite out of place here), from the region of the\nClassics,--where (as we know) the phenomenon is even common. Especially\nis this hypothesis resorted to (I believe) in order to explain those\ninstances of assimilation which are so frequently to be met with in\nCodd. B and [Symbol: Aleph].\n\nAnother favourite way of accounting for instances of assimilation, is by\ntaking for granted that the scribe was thinking of the parallel or the\ncognate place. And certainly (as before) there is no denying that just\nas the familiar language of a parallel place in another Gospel presents\nitself unbidden to the memory of a reader, so may it have struck a\ncopyist also with sufficient vividness to persuade him to write, not the\nwords which he saw before him, but the words which he remembered. All\nthis is certainly possible.\n\nBut I strongly incline to the suspicion that this is not by any means\nthe right way to explain the phenomena under discussion. I am of opinion\nthat such depravations of the text were in the first instance\nintentional. I do not mean that they were introduced with any sinister\nmotive. My meaning is that [there was a desire to remove obscurities, or\nto reconcile incongruous passages, or generally to improve the style of\nthe authors, and thus to add to the merits of the sacred writings,\ninstead of detracting from them. Such a mode of dealing with the holy\ndeposit evinced no doubt a failure in the part of those who adopted it\nto understand the nature of the trust committed to the Church, just as\nsimilar action at the present day does in the case of such as load the\nNew Testament with 'various readings,' and illustrate it as they imagine\nwith what are really insinuations of doubt, in the way that they prepare\nan edition of the classics for the purpose of enlarging and sharpening\nthe minds of youthful students. There was intention, and the intention\nwas good: but it was none the less productive of corruption.]\n\nI suspect that if we ever obtain access to a specimen of those connected\nGospel narratives called Diatessarons, which are known to have existed\nanciently in the Church, we shall be furnished with a clue to a problem\nwhich at present is shrouded in obscurity,--and concerning the solution\nof which, with such instruments of criticism as we at present possess,\nwe can do little else but conjecture. I allude to those many occasions\non which the oldest documents extant, in narrating some incident which\nreally presents no special difficulty, are observed to diverge into\nhopeless variety of expression. An example of the thing referred to will\nbest explain my meaning. Take then the incident of our Lord's paying\ntribute,--set down in St. Matt. xvii. 25, 26.\n\nThe received text exhibits,--'And when he [Peter] had entered ([Greek:\nhote eiselthen]) into the house, Jesus was beforehand with him, saying,\nWhat thinkest thou, Simon? Of whom do earthly kings take toll or\ntribute? of their sons or of strangers?' Here, for [Greek: hote\neiselthen], Codex B (but no other uncial) substitutes [Greek: elthonta]:\nCodex [Symbol: Aleph] (but no other) [Greek: eiselthonta]: Codex D (but\nno other) [Greek: eiselthonti]: Codex C (but no other) [Greek: hote\nelthon]: while a fifth lost copy certainly contained [Greek:\neiselthonton]; and a sixth, [Greek: elthonton auton]. A very fair\nspecimen this, be it remarked in passing, of the _concordia discors_\nwhich prevails in the most ancient uncial copies[179]. How is all this\ndiscrepancy to be accounted for?\n\nThe Evangelist proceeds,--'Peter saith unto Him ([Greek: Legei auto ho\nPetros]), Of strangers.' These four words C retains, but continues--'Now\nwhen he had said, Of strangers' ([Greek: Eipontos de autou, apo ton\nallotrion]);--which unauthorized clause, all but the word [Greek:\nautou], is found also in [Symbol: Aleph], but in no other uncial. On the\nother hand, for [Greek: Legei auto ho Petros], [Symbol: Aleph] (alone of\nuncials) substitutes [Greek: Ho de ephe]: and B (also alone of uncials)\nsubstitutes [Greek: Eipontos de],--and then proceeds exactly like the\nreceived text: while D merely omits [Greek: ho Petros]. Again I\nask,--How is all this discrepancy to be explained[180]?\n\nAs already hinted, I suspect that it was occasioned in the first\ninstance by the prevalence of harmonized Gospel narratives. In no more\nloyal way can I account for the perplexing phenomenon already described,\nwhich is of perpetual recurrence in such documents as Codexes B[Symbol:\nAleph]D, Cureton's Syriac, and copies of the Old Latin version. It is\nwell known that at a very remote period some eminent persons occupied\nthemselves in constructing such exhibitions of the Evangelical history:\nand further, that these productions enjoyed great favour, and were in\ngeneral use. As for their contents,--the notion we form to ourselves of\na Diatessaron, is that it aspired to be a weaving of the fourfold Gospel\ninto one continuous narrative: and we suspect that in accomplishing this\nobject, the writer was by no means scrupulous about retaining the\nprecise words of the inspired original. He held himself at liberty, on\nthe contrary, (_a_) to omit what seemed to himself superfluous clauses:\n(_b_) to introduce new incidents: (_c_) to supply picturesque details:\n(_d_) to give a new turn to the expression: (_e_) to vary the\nconstruction at pleasure: (_f_) even slightly to paraphrase. Compiled\nafter some such fashion as I have been describing, at a time too when\nthe preciousness of the inspired documents seems to have been but\nimperfectly apprehended,--the works I speak of, recommended by their\ngraphic interest, and sanctioned by a mighty name, must have imposed\nupon ordinary readers. Incautious owners of Codexes must have\ntransferred without scruple certain unauthorized readings to the margins\nof their own copies. A calamitous partiality for the fabricated document\nmay have prevailed with some for whom copies were executed. Above all,\nit is to be inferred that licentious and rash Editors of\nScripture,--among whom Origen may be regarded as a prime offender,--must\nhave deliberately introduced into their recensions many an unauthorized\ngloss, and so given it an extended circulation.\n\nNot that we would imply that permanent mischief has resulted to the\nDeposit from the vagaries of individuals in the earliest age. The Divine\nAuthor of Scripture hath abundantly provided for the safety of His Word\nwritten. In the multitude of copies,--in Lectionaries,--in Versions,--in\ncitations by the Fathers, a sufficient safeguard against error hath been\nerected. But then, of these multitudinous sources of protection we must\nnot be slow to avail ourselves impartially. The prejudice which would\nerect Codexes B and [Symbol: Aleph] into an authority for the text of\nthe New Testament from which there shall be no appeal:--the\nsuperstitious reverence which has grown up for one little cluster of\nauthorities, to the disparagement of all other evidence wheresoever\nfound; this, which is for ever landing critics in results which are\nsimply irrational and untenable, must be unconditionally abandoned, if\nany real progress is to be made in this department of inquiry. But when\nthis has been done, men will begin to open their eyes to the fact that\nthe little handful of documents recently so much in favour, are, on the\ncontrary, the only surviving witnesses to corruptions of the Text which\nthe Church in her corporate capacity has long since deliberately\nrejected. But to proceed.\n\n[From the Diatessaron of Tatian and similar attempts to harmonize the\nGospels, corruption of a serious nature has ensued in some well-known\nplaces, such as the transference of the piercing of the Lord's side from\nSt. John xix. 34 to St. Matt. xxvii. 49[181], and the omission of the\nwords 'and of an honeycomb' ([Greek: kai apo tou melissiou\nkeriou][182]).]\n\nHence also, in Cureton's Syriac[183], the _patch-work_ supplement to St.\nMatt. xxi. 9: viz.:--[Greek: polloi de] (St. Mark xi. 8) [Greek:\nexelthon eis hypantesin autou. kai] (St. John xii. 13) [Greek: erxanto\n... chairontes ainein ton Theon ... peri pason hon eidon] (St. Luke xix.\n37). This self-evident fabrication, 'if it be not a part of the original\nAramaic of St. Matthew,' remarks Dr. Cureton, 'would appear to have been\nsupplied from the parallel passages of Luke and John conjointly.' How is\nit that even a sense of humour did not preserve that eminent scholar\nfrom hazarding the conjecture, that such a self-evident deflection of\nhis corrupt Syriac Codex from the course all but universally pursued is\na recovery of one more genuine utterance of the Holy Ghost?\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[173] [Greek: Maria de heistekei pros to mnemeion klaiousa exo] (St.\nJohn xx. 11). Comp. the expression [Greek: pros to phos] in St. Luke\nxxii. 56. Note, that the above is not offered as a revised translation;\nbut only to shew unlearned readers what the words of the original\nexactly mean.\n\n[174] Note, that in the sectional system of Eusebius _according to the\nGreek_, the following places are brought together:--\n\n    (St. Matt. xxviii) (St. Mark xvi) (St. Luke xxiv) (St. John xx)\n          1-4.             2-5.             1-4.       1, 11, 12.\n                       _According to the Syriac_:--\n          3, 4.             5.            3, 4, 5(1/2).   11, 12.\n\n[175] Consider [Greek: ho de Petros heistekei pros te thyra exo] (St.\nJohn xviii. 16). Has not this place, by the way, exerted an assimilating\ninfluence over St. John xx. 11?\n\n[176] Hesychius, _qu._ 51 (apud Cotelerii Eccl. Gr. Mon. iii. 43),\nexplains St. Mark's phrase [Greek: en tois dexiois] as follows:--[Greek:\ndelonoti tou exoterou spelaiou].\n\n[177] viii. 513.\n\n[178] iv. 1079.\n\n[179] Traditional Text, pp. 81-8.\n\n[180] I am tempted to inquire,--By virtue of what verifying faculty do\nLachmann and Tregelles on the former occasion adopt the reading of\n[Symbol: Aleph]; Tischendorf, Alford, W. and Hort, the reading of B? On\nthe second occasion, I venture to ask,--What enabled the Revisers, with\nLachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Westcott and Hort, to recognize in a\nreading, which is the peculiar property of B, the genuine language of\nthe Holy Ghost? Is not a superstitious reverence for B and [Symbol:\nAleph] betraying for ever people into error?\n\n[181] Revision Revised, p. 33.\n\n[182] Traditional Text, Appendix I, pp. 244-252.\n\n[183] The Lewis MS. is defective here.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VIII.\n\nCAUSES OF CORRUPTION CHIEFLY INTENTIONAL.\n\nII. Assimilation.\n\n\nSec. 1.\n\nThere results inevitably from the fourfold structure of the\nGospel,--from the very fact that the story of Redemption is set forth in\nfour narratives, three of which often ran parallel,--this practical\ninconvenience: namely, that sometimes the expressions of one Evangelist\nget improperly transferred to another. This is a large and important\nsubject which calls for great attention, and requires to be separately\nhandled. The phenomena alluded to, which are similar to some of those\nwhich have been treated in the last chapter, may be comprised under the\nspecial head of Assimilation.\n\nIt will I think promote clearness in the ensuing discussion if we\ndetermine to consider separately those instances of Assimilation which\nmay rather be regarded as deliberate attempts to reconcile one Gospel\nwith another: indications of a fixed determination to establish harmony\nbetween place and place. I am saying that between ordinary cases of\nAssimilation such as occur in every page, and extraordinary instances\nwhere _per fas et nefas_ an enforced Harmony has been established,--\nwhich abound indeed, but are by no means common,--I am disposed to draw\na line.\n\nThis whole province is beset with difficulties: and the matter is in\nitself wondrously obscure. I do not suppose, in the absence of any\nevidence direct or indirect on the subject,--at all events I am not\naware--that at any time has there been one definite authoritative\nattempt made by the Universal Church in her corporate capacity to\nremodel or revise the Text of the Gospels. An attentive study of the\nphenomena leads me, on the contrary, to believe that the several\ncorruptions of the text were effected at different times, and took their\nbeginning in widely different ways. I suspect that Accident was the\nparent of many; and well meant critical assiduity of more. Zeal for the\nTruth is accountable for not a few depravations: and the Church's\nLiturgical and Lectionary practice must insensibly have produced others.\nSystematic villainy I am persuaded has had no part or lot in the matter.\nThe decrees of such an one as Origen, if there ever was another like\nhim, will account for a strange number of aberrations from the Truth:\nand if the Diatessaron of Tatian could be recovered[184], I suspect that\nwe should behold there the germs at least of as many more. But, I repeat\nmy conviction that, however they may have originated, the causes [are\nnot to be found in bad principle, but either in infirmities or\ninfluences which actuated scribes unconsciously, or in a want of\nunderstanding as to what is the Church's duty in the transmission from\ngeneration to generation of the sacred deposit committed to her\nenlightened care.]\n\n\nSec. 2.\n\n1. When we speak of Assimilation, we do not mean that a writer while\nengaged in transcribing one Gospel was so completely beguiled and\novermastered by his recollections of the parallel place in another\nGospel,--that, forsaking the expressions proper to the passage before\nhim, he unconsciously adopted the language which properly belongs to a\ndifferent Evangelist. That to a very limited extent this may have\noccasionally taken place, I am not concerned to deny: but it would argue\nincredible inattention to what he was professing to copy, on the one\nhand,--astonishing familiarity with what he was not professing to copy,\non the other,--that a scribe should have been capable of offending\nlargely in this way. But in fact a moderate acquaintance with the\nsubject is enough to convince any thoughtful person that the corruptions\nin MSS. which have resulted from accidental Assimilation must needs be\ninconsiderable in bulk, as well as few in number. At all events, the\nphenomenon referred to, when we speak of 'Assimilation,' is not to be so\naccounted for: it must needs be explained in some entirely different\nway. Let me make my meaning plain:\n\n(_a_) We shall probably be agreed that when the scribe of Cod. [Symbol:\nAleph], in place of [Greek: basanisai hemas] (in St. Matt. viii. 29),\nwrites [Greek: hemas apolesai],--it may have been his memory which\nmisled him. He may have been merely thinking of St. Mark i. 24, or of\nSt. Luke iv. 34.\n\n(_b_) Again, when in Codd. [Symbol: Aleph]B we find [Greek: tassomenos]\nthrust without warrant into St. Matt. viii. 9, we see that the word has\nlost its way from St. Luke vii. 8; and we are prone to suspect that only\nby accident has it crept into the parallel narrative of the earlier\nEvangelist.\n\n(_c_) In the same way I make no doubt that [Greek: potamo] (St. Matt.\niii. 6) is indebted for its place in [Symbol: Aleph]BC, &c., to the\ninfluence of the parallel place in St. Mark's Gospel (i. 5); and I am\nonly astonished that critics should have been beguiled into adopting so\nclear a corruption of the text as part of the genuine Gospel.\n\n(_d_) To be brief:--the insertion by [Symbol: Aleph] of [Greek: adelphe]\n(in St. Matt. vii. 4) is confessedly the result of the parallel passage\nin St. Luke vi. 42. The same scribe may be thought to have written\n[Greek: to anemo] instead of [Greek: tois anemois] in St. Matt. viii.\n26, only because he was so familiar with [Greek: to anemo] in St. Luke\nviii. 24 and in St. Mark iv. 39.--The author of the prototype of\n[Symbol: Aleph]BD (with whom by the way are some of the Latin versions)\nmay have written [Greek: echete] in St. Matt, xvi. 8, only because he\nwas thinking of the parallel place in St. Mark viii. 17.--[Greek:\nErxanto aganaktein] (St. Matt. xx. 24) can only have been introduced\ninto [Symbol: Aleph] from the parallel place in St. Mark x. 41, and\n_may_ have been supplied _memoriter_.--St. Luke xix. 21 is clearly not\nparallel to St. Matt. xxv. 24; yet it evidently furnished the scribe of\n[Symbol: Aleph] with the epithet [Greek: austeros] in place of [Greek:\nskleros].--The substitution by [Symbol: Aleph] of [Greek: hon\nparetounto] in St. Matt. xxvii. 15 for [Greek: hon ethelon] may seem to\nbe the result of inconvenient familiarity with the parallel place in St.\nMark xv. 6; where, as has been shewn[185], instead of [Greek: honper\neitounto], Symbol: [Aleph]AB viciously exhibit [Greek: hon paretounto],\nwhich Tischendorf besides Westcott and Hort mistake for the genuine\nGospel. Who will hesitate to admit that, when [Symbol: Aleph]L exhibit\nin St. Matt. xix. 16,--instead of the words [Greek: poieso hina echo\nzoen aionion],--the formula which is found in the parallel place of St.\nLuke xviii. 18, viz. [Greek: poiesas zoen aionion kleronomeso],--those\nunauthorized words must have been derived from this latter place? Every\nordinary reader will be further prone to assume that the scribe who\nfirst inserted them into St. Matthew's Gospel did so because, for\nwhatever reason, he was more familiar with the latter formula than with\nthe former.\n\n(_e_) But I should have been willing to go further. I might have been\ndisposed to admit that when [Symbol: Aleph]DL introduce into St. Matt.\nx. 12 the clause [Greek: legontes, eirene to oiko touto] (which last\nfour words confessedly belong exclusively to St. Luke x. 5), the author\nof the depraved original from which [Symbol: Aleph]DL were derived may\nhave been only yielding to the suggestions of an inconveniently good\nmemory:--may have succeeded in convincing himself from what follows in\nverse 13 that St. Matthew must have written, 'Peace be to this house;'\nthough he found no such words in St. Matthew's text. And so, with the\nbest intentions, he may most probably have inserted them.\n\n(_f_) Again. When [Symbol: Aleph] and Evan. 61 thrust into St. Matt. ix.\n34 (from the parallel place in St. Luke viii. 53) the clause [Greek:\neidotes hoti apethanen], it is of course conceivable that the authors of\nthose copies were merely the victims of excessive familiarity with the\nthird Gospel. But then,--although we are ready to make every allowance\nthat we possibly can for memories so singularly constituted, and to\nimagine a set of inattentive scribes open to inducements to recollect or\nimagine instead of copying, and possessed of an inconvenient familiarity\nwith one particular Gospel,--it is clear that our complaisance must stop\nsomewhere. Instances of this kind of licence at last breed suspicion.\nSystematic 'assimilation' cannot be the effect of accident. Considerable\ninterpolations must of course be intentional. The discovery that Cod. D,\nfor example, introduces at the end of St. Luke v. 14 thirty-two words\nfrom St. Mark's Gospel (i. 45--ii. 1, [Greek: ho de exelthon] down to\n[Greek: Kapharnaoum]), opens our eyes. This wholesale importation\nsuggests the inquiry,--How did it come about? We look further, and we\nfind that Cod. D abounds in instances of 'Assimilation' so unmistakably\nintentional, that this speedily becomes the only question, How may all\nthese depravations of the sacred text be most satisfactorily accounted\nfor? [And the answer is evidently found in the existence of extreme\nlicentiousness in the scribe or scribes responsible for Codex D, being\nthe product of ignorance and carelessness combined with such looseness\nof principle, as permitted the exercise of direct attempts to improve\nthe sacred Text by the introduction of passages from the three remaining\nGospels and by other alterations.]\n\n\nSec. 3.\n\nSometimes indeed the true Text bears witness to itself, as may be seen\nin the next example.\n\nThe little handful of well-known authorities ([Symbol: Aleph]BDL, with a\nfew copies of the Old Latin, and one of the Egyptian Versions[186]),\nconspire in omitting from St. John xvi. 16 the clause [Greek: hoti ego\nhypago pros ton Patera]: for which reason Tischendorf, Tregelles,\nAlford, Westcott and Hort omit those six words, and Lachmann puts them\ninto brackets. And yet, let the context be considered. Our Saviour had\nsaid (ver. 16),--'A little while, and ye shall not see Me: and again, a\nlittle while, and ye shall see Me, because I go to the Father.' It\nfollows (ver. 17),--'Then said some of His disciples among themselves,\nWhat is this that He saith unto us, A little while, and ye shall not see\nMe: and again, a little while, and ye shall see Me: and, _Because I go\nto the_ Father?'--Now, the context here,--the general sequence of words\nand ideas--in and by itself, creates a high degree of probability that\nthe clause is genuine. It must at all events be permitted to retain its\nplace in the Gospel, unless there is found to exist an overwhelming\namount of authority for its exclusion. What then are the facts? All the\nother uncials, headed by A and I^{b} (_both_ of the fourth\ncentury),--every known Cursive--all the Versions, (Latin, Syriac,\nGothic, Coptic, &c.)--are for retaining the clause. Add, that\nNonnus[187] (A.D. 400) recognizes it: that the texts of Chrysostom[188]\nand of Cyril[189] do the same; and that both those Fathers (to say\nnothing of Euthymius and Theophylact) in their Commentaries expressly\nbear witness to its genuineness:--and, With what shew of reason can it\nany longer be pretended that some Critics, including the Revisers, are\nwarranted in leaving out the words?... It were to trifle with the reader\nto pursue this subject further. But how did the words ever come to be\nomitted? Some early critic, I answer, who was unable to see the\nexquisite proprieties of the entire passage, thought it desirable to\nbring ver. 16 into conformity with ver. 19, where our Lord seems at\nfirst sight to resyllable the matter. That is all!\n\nLet it be observed--and then I will dismiss the matter--that the\nselfsame thing has happened in the next verse but one (ver. 18), as\nTischendorf candidly acknowledges. The [Greek: touto ti hestin] of the\nEvangelist has been tastelessly assimilated by BDLY to the [Greek: ti\nestin touto] which went immediately before.\n\n\nSec. 4.\n\nWere I invited to point to a beautifully described incident in the\nGospel, I should find it difficult to lay my finger on anything more apt\nfor my purpose than the transaction described in St. John xiii. 21-25.\nIt belongs to the closing scene of our Saviour's Ministry. 'Verily,\nverily, I say unto you,' (the words were spoken at the Last Supper),\n'one of you will betray Me. The disciples therefore looked one at\nanother, wondering of whom He spake. Now there was reclining in the\nbosom of Jesus ([Greek: en de anakeimenos en to kolpo tou 'I.]) one of\nHis disciples whom Jesus loved. To him therefore Simon Peter motioneth\nto inquire who it may be concerning whom He speaketh. He then, just\nsinking on the breast of Jesus ([Greek: epipeson de ekeinos houtos epi\nto stethos tou 'I.]) [i.e. otherwise keeping his position, see above, p.\n60], saith unto Him, Lord, who is it?'\n\nThe Greek is exquisite. At first, St. John has been simply 'reclining\n([Greek: anakeimenos]) in the bosom' of his Divine Master: that is, his\nplace at the Supper is the next adjoining His,--for the phrase really\nmeans little more. But the proximity is of course excessive, as the\nsequel shews. Understanding from St. Peter's gesture what is required of\nhim, St. John merely sinks back, and having thus let his head fall\n([Greek: epipeson]) on (or close to) His Master's chest ([Greek: epi to\nstethos]), he says softly,--'Lord, who is it?' ... The moment is perhaps\nthe most memorable in the Evangelist's life: the position, one of\nunutterable privilege. Time, place, posture, action,--all settle so deep\ninto his soul, that when, in his old age, he would identify himself, he\ndescribes himself as 'the disciple whom Jesus loved; who also at the\nSupper' (that memorable Supper!) 'lay ([Greek: anepesen][190]) on Jesus'\nbreast,' (literally, 'upon His chest,'--[Greek: epi to stethos autou]),\nand said, 'Lord, who is it that is to betray Thee?' (ch. xxi. 20)....\nYes, and the Church was not slow to take the beautiful hint. His\nlanguage so kindled her imagination that the early Fathers learned to\nspeak of St. John the Divine, as [Greek: ho epistethios],--'the\n(recliner) on the chest[191].'\n\nNow, every delicate discriminating touch in this sublime picture is\nfaithfully retained throughout by the cursive copies in the proportion\nof about eighty to one. The great bulk of the MSS., as usual, uncial and\ncursive alike, establish the undoubted text of the Evangelist, which is\nhere the Received Text. Thus, a vast majority of the MSS., with [Symbol:\nAleph]AD at their head, read [Greek: epipeson] in St. John xiii. 25.\nChrysostom[192] and probably Cyril[193] confirm the same reading. So\nalso Nonnus[194]. Not so B and C with four other uncials and about\ntwenty cursives (the vicious Evan. 33 being at their head), besides\nOrigen[195] in two places and apparently Theodorus of Mopsuestia[196].\nThese by mischievously assimilating the place in ch. xiii to the later\nplace in ch. xxi in which such affecting reference is made to it,\nhopelessly obscure the Evangelist's meaning. For they substitute [Greek:\nanapeson oun ekeinos k.t.l.] It is exactly as when children, by way of\nimproving the sketch of a great Master, go over his matchless outlines\nwith a clumsy pencil of their own.\n\nThat this is the true history of the substitution of [Greek: anapeson]\nin St. John xiii. 25 for the less obvious [Greek: epipeson] is certain.\nOrigen, who was probably the author of all the mischief, twice sets the\ntwo places side by side and elaborately compares them; in the course of\nwhich operation, by the way, he betrays the viciousness of the text\nwhich he himself employed. But what further helps to explain how easily\n[Greek: anapeson] might usurp the place of [Greek: epipeson][197], is\nthe discovery just noticed, that the ancients from the earliest period\nwere in the habit of identifying St. John, as St. John had identified\nhimself, by calling him '_the one that lay_ ([Greek: ho anapeson]) _upon\nthe Lord's chest_.' The expression, derived from St. John xxi. 20, is\nemployed by Irenaeus[198] (A.D. 178) and by Polycrates[199] (Bp. of\nEphesus A.D. 196); by Origen[200] and by Ephraim Syrus[201]: by\nEpiphanius[202] and by Palladius[203]: by Gregory of Nazianzus[204] and\nby his namesake of Nyssa[205]: by pseudo-Eusebius[206], by\npseudo-Caesarius[207], and by pseudo-Chrysostom[208]. The only wonder\nis, that in spite of such influences all the MSS. in the world except\nabout twenty-six have retained the true reading.\n\nInstructive in the meantime it is to note the fate which this word has\nexperienced at the hands of some Critics. Lachmann, Tischendorf,\nTregelles, Alford, Westcott and Hort, have all in turn bowed to the\nauthority of Cod. B and Origen. Bishop Lightfoot mistranslates[209] and\ncontends on the same side. Alford informs us that [Greek: epipeson] has\nsurreptitiously crept in 'from St. Luke xv. 20': (why should it? how\ncould it?) '[Greek: anapeson] not seeming appropriate.' Whereas, on the\ncontrary, [Greek: anapeson] is the invariable and obvious\nexpression,--[Greek: epipeson] the unusual, and, till it has been\nexplained, the unintelligible word. Tischendorf,--who had read [Greek:\nepipeson] in 1848 and [Greek: anapeson] in 1859,--in 1869 reverts to his\nfirst opinion; advocating with parental partiality what he had since met\nwith in Cod. [Symbol: Aleph]. Is then the truth of Scripture aptly\nrepresented by that fitful beacon-light somewhere on the French\ncoast,--now visible, now eclipsed, now visible again,--which benighted\ntravellers amuse themselves by watching from the deck of the Calais\npacket?\n\nIt would be time to pass on. But because in this department of study men\nare observed never to abandon a position until they are fairly shelled\nout and left without a pretext for remaining, I proceed to shew that\n[Greek: anapeson] (for [Greek: epipeson]) is only one corrupt reading\nout of many others hereabouts. The proof of this statement follows.\nMight it not have been expected that the old uncials' ([Symbol:\nAleph]ABCD) would exhibit the entire context of such a passage as the\npresent with tolerable accuracy? The reader is invited to attend to the\nresults of collation:--\n\n    xiii. 21.-[Greek: o] [Symbol: Aleph]B: [Greek: umin lego] _tr._\n    B.\n\n    xiii. 22.-[Greek: oun] BC: + [Greek: oi Ioudaioi] [Symbol:\n    Aleph]: [Greek: aporountei] D.\n\n    xiii. 23.-[Greek: de] B: + [Greek: ek] [Symbol:\n    Aleph]ABCD:-[Greek: o] B: + [Greek: kai] D.\n\n    xiii. 24. (_for_ [Greek: pythesthai tis an eie] + [Greek: outos]\n    D) [Greek: kai legei auto, eipe tis estin] BC: (_for_ [Greek:\n    legei]) [Greek: elegen] [Symbol: Aleph]: + [Greek: kai legei\n    auto eipe tis estin peri ou legei] [Symbol: Aleph].\n\n    xiii. 25. (_for_ [Greek: epipeson]) [Greek: anapeson] BC:-[Greek: de]\n    BC: (_for_ [Greek: de]) [Greek: oun] [Symbol: Aleph]D; -[Greek:\n    outos] [Symbol: Aleph]AD.\n\n    xiii. 26. + [Greek: oun] BC: + [Greek: auto] D:--[Greek: o] B: +\n    [Greek: kai legei] [Symbol: Aleph]BD: + [Greek: an] D: (_for_\n    [Greek: bapsas]) [Greek: embapsas] AD: [Greek: bapso ... kai\n    doso auto] BC: + [Greek: psomou] (_after_ [Greek: psomion]) C:\n    (_for_ [Greek: embapsas]) [Greek: bapsas] D: (_for_ [Greek: kai\n    embapsas]) [Greek: bapsas oun] [Symbol: Aleph]BC: -[Greek: to]\n    B: + [Greek: lambanei kai] BC: [Greek: Iskariotou] [Symbol:\n    Aleph]BC: [Greek: apo Karyotou] D.\n\n    xiii. 27.-[Greek: tote] [Symbol: Aleph]:-[Greek: meta to psomion\n    tote] D: (_for_ [Greek: legei oun]) [Greek: kai legei]\n    D:-[Greek: o] B.\n\nIn these seven verses therefore, (which present no special difficulty to\na transcriber,) the Codexes in question are found to exhibit at least\nthirty-five varieties,--for twenty-eight of which (jointly or singly) B\nis responsible: [Symbol: Aleph] for twenty-two: C for twenty-one: D for\nnineteen: A for three. It is found that twenty-three words have been\nadded to the text: fifteen substituted: fourteen taken away; and the\nconstruction has been four times changed. One case there has been of\nsenseless transposition. Simon, the father of Judas, (not Judas the\ntraitor), is declared by [Symbol: Aleph]BCD to have been called\n'Iscariot.' Even this is not all. What St. John relates concerning\nhimself is hopelessly obscured; and a speech is put into St. Peter's\nmouth which he certainly never uttered. It is not too much to say that\nevery delicate lineament has vanished from the picture. What are we to\nthink of guides like [Symbol: Aleph]BCD, which are proved to be utterly\nuntrustworthy?\n\n\nSec. 5.\n\nThe first two verses of St. Mark's Gospel have fared badly. Easy of\ntranscription and presenting no special difficulty, they ought to have\ncome down to us undisfigured by any serious variety of reading. On the\ncontrary. Owing to entirely different causes, either verse has\nexperienced calamitous treatment. I have elsewhere[210] proved that the\nclause [Greek: huiou tou Theou] in verse 1 is beyond suspicion. Its\nremoval from certain copies of the Gospel was originally due to\nheretical influence. But because Origen gave currency to the text so\nmutilated, it re-appears mechanically in several Fathers who are intent\nonly on reproducing a certain argument of Origen's against the Manichees\nin which the mutilated text occurs. The same Origen is responsible to\nsome extent, and in the same way, for the frequent introduction of\n'Isaiah's' name into verse 21--whereas 'in the prophets' is what St.\nMark certainly wrote; but the appearance of 'Isaiah' there in the first\ninstance was due to quite a different cause. In the meantime, it is\nwitnessed to by the Latin, Syriac[211], Gothic, and Egyptian versions,\nas well as by [Symbol: Aleph]BDL[Symbol: Delta], and (according to\nTischendorf) by nearly twenty-five cursives; besides the following\nancient writers: Irenaeus, Origen, Porphyry, Titus, Basil, Serapion,\nEpiphanius, Severianus, Victor, Eusebius, Victorinus, Jerome, Augustine.\nI proceed to shew that this imposing array of authorities for reading\n[Greek: en to Esaia to prophete] instead of [Greek: en tois prophetais]\nin St. Mark i. 2, which has certainly imposed upon every recent editor\nand critic[212],--has been either overestimated or else misunderstood.\n\n1. The testimony of the oldest versions, when attention is paid to their\ncontents, is discovered to be of inferior moment in minuter matters of\nthis nature. Thus, copies of the Old Latin version thrust Isaiah's name\ninto St. Matt. i. 22, and Zechariah's name into xxi. 4: as well as\nthrust out Jeremiah's name from xxvii. 9:--the first, with Curetonian,\nLewis, Harkleian, Palestinian, and D,--the second, with Chrysostom and\nHilary,--the third, with the Peshitto. The Latin and the Syriac further\nsubstitute [Greek: tou prophetou] for [Greek: ton propheton] in St.\nMatt. ii. 23,--through misapprehension of the Evangelist's meaning. What\nis to be thought of Cod. [Symbol: Aleph] for introducing the name of\n'Isaiah' into St. Matt. xiii. 35,--where it clearly cannot stand, the\nquotation being confessedly from Ps. lxxviii. 2; but where nevertheless\nPorphyry[213], Eusebius[214], and pseudo-Jerome[215] certainly found it\nin many ancient copies?\n\n2. Next, for the testimony of the Uncial Codexes [Symbol:\nAleph]BDL[Symbol: Delta]:--If any one will be at the pains to tabulate\nthe 900[216] new 'readings' adopted by Tischendorf in editing St. Mark's\nGospel, he will discover that for 450, or just half of them,--all the\n450, as I believe, being corruptions of the text,--[Symbol: Aleph]BL are\nresponsible: and further, that their responsibility is shared on about\n200 occasions by D: on about 265 by C: on about 350 by [Delta][217]. At\nsome very remote period therefore there must have grown up a vicious\ngeneral reading of this Gospel which remains in the few bad copies: but\nof which the largest traces (and very discreditable traces they are) at\npresent survive in [Symbol: Aleph]BCDL[Symbol: Delta]. After this\ndiscovery the avowal will not be thought extraordinary that I regard\nwith unmingled suspicion readings which are exclusively vouched for by\nfive of the same Codexes: e.g. by [Symbol: Aleph]BDL[Symbol: Delta].\n\n3. The cursive copies which exhibit 'Isaiah' in place of 'the prophet.'\nreckoned by Tischendorf at 'nearly twenty-five,' are probably less than\nfifteen[218], and those, almost all of suspicious character. High time\nit is that the inevitable consequence of an appeal to such evidence were\nbetter understood.\n\n4. From Tischendorf's list of thirteen Fathers, serious deductions have\nto be made. Irenaeus and Victor of Antioch are clearly with the Textus\nReceptus. Serapion, Titus, Basil do but borrow from Origen; and, with\nhis argument, reproduce his corrupt text of St. Mark i. 2. The\nlast-named Father however saves his reputation by leaving out the\nquotation from Malachi; so, passing directly from the mention of Isaiah\nto the actual words of that prophet. Epiphanius (and Jerome too on one\noccasion[219]) does the same thing. Victorinus and Augustine, being\nLatin writers, merely quote the Latin version ('sicut scriptum est in\nIsaia propheta'), which is without variety of reading. There remain\nOrigen (the faulty character of whose Codexes has been remarked upon\nalready), Porphyry[220] the heretic (who wrote a book to convict the\nEvangelists of mis-statements[221], and who is therefore scarcely a\ntrustworthy witness), Eusebius, Jerome and Severianus. Of these,\nEusebius[222] and Jerome[223] deliver it as their opinion that the name\nof 'Isaiah' had obtained admission into the text through the\ninadvertency of copyists. Is it reasonable, on the slender residuum of\nevidence, to insist that St. Mark has ascribed to Isaiah words\nconfessedly written by Malachi? 'The fact,' writes a recent editor in\nthe true spirit of modern criticism, 'will not fail to be observed by\nthe careful and honest student of the Gospels.' But what if 'the fact'\nshould prove to be 'a fiction' only? And (I venture to ask) would not\n'carefulness' be better employed in scrutinizing the adverse testimony?\n'honesty' in admitting that on grounds precarious as the present no\nindictment against an Evangelist can be seriously maintained? This\nproposal to revive a blunder which the Church in her corporate capacity\nhas from the first refused to sanction (for the Evangelistaria know\nnothing of it) carries in fact on its front its own sufficient\ncondemnation. Why, in the face of all the copies in the world (except a\nlittle handful of suspicious character), will men insist on imputing to\nan inspired writer a foolish mis-statement, instead of frankly admitting\nthat the text must needs have been corrupted in that little handful of\ncopies through the officiousness of incompetent criticism?\n\nAnd do any inquire,--How then did this perversion of the truth arise? In\nthe easiest way possible, I answer. Refer to the Eusebian tables, and\nnote that the foremost of his sectional parallels is as follows:--\n\n    St. Matt. [Greek: e] (i.e. iii. 3).\n    St. Mark. [Greek: b] (i.e. i. 3).\n    St. Luke. [Greek: z] (i.e. iii. 3-6).\n    St. John. [Greek: i] (i.e. i. 23)[224].\n\nNow, since the name of Isaiah occurs in the first, the third and the\nfourth of these places in connexion with the quotation from Is. xl. 3,\n_what_ more obvious than that some critic with harmonistic proclivities\nshould have insisted on supplying _the second also_, i.e. the parallel\nplace in St. Mark's Gospel, with the name of the evangelical prophet,\nelsewhere so familiarly connected with the passage quoted? This is\nnothing else in short but an ordinary instance of Assimilation, so\nunskilfully effected however as to betray itself. It might have been\npassed by with fewer words, for the fraud is indeed transparent, but\nthat it has so largely imposed upon learned men, and established itself\nso firmly in books. Let me hope that we shall not hear it advocated any\nmore.\n\nRegarded as an instrument of criticism, Assimilation requires to be very\ndelicately as well as very skilfully handled. If it is to be applied to\ndetermining the text of Scripture, it must be employed, I take leave to\nsay, in a very different spirit from what is met with in Dr.\nTischendorf's notes, or it will only mislead. Is a word--a clause--a\nsentence--omitted by his favourite authorities [Symbol: Aleph]BDL? It is\nenough if that learned critic finds nearly the same word,--a very\nsimilar clause,--a sentence of the same general import,--in an account\nof the same occurrence by another Evangelist, for him straightway to\ninsist that the sentence, the clause, the word, has been imported into\nthe commonly received Text from such parallel place; and to reject it\naccordingly.\n\nBut, as the thoughtful reader must see, this is not allowable, except\nunder peculiar circumstances. For first, whatever _a priori_\nimprobability might be supposed to attach to the existence of identical\nexpressions in two Evangelical records of the same transaction, is\neffectually disposed of by the discovery that very often identity of\nexpression actually does occur. And (2), the only condition which could\nwarrant the belief that there has been assimilation, is observed to be\ninvariably away from Dr. Tischendorf's instances.--viz. a sufficient\nnumber of respectable attesting witnesses: it being a fundamental\nprinciple in the law of Evidence, that the very few are rather to be\nsuspected than the many. But further (3), if there be some marked\ndiversity of expression discoverable in the two parallel places; and if\nthat diversity has been carefully maintained all down the ages in either\nplace;--then it may be regarded as certain, on the contrary, that there\nhas not been assimilation; but that this is only one more instance of\ntwo Evangelists saying similar things or the same thing in slightly\ndifferent language. Take for example the following case:--Whereas St.\nMatt. (xxiv. 15) speaks of 'the abomination of desolation [Greek: to\nrhethen DIA Daniel tou prophetou], standing ([Greek: hestos]) in the\nholy place'; St. Mark (xiii. 14) speaks of it as '[Greek: to rhethen UPO\nDaniel tou prophetou] standing ([Greek: hestos]) where it ought not.'\nNow, because [Symbol: Aleph]BDL with copies of the Italic, the Vulgate,\nand the Egyptian versions omit from St. Mark's Gospel the six words\nwritten above in Greek, Tischendorf and his school are for expunging\nthose six words from St. Mark's text, on the plea that they are probably\nan importation from St. Matthew. But the little note of variety which\nthe Holy Spirit has set on the place in the second Gospel (indicated\nabove in capital letters) suggests that these learned men are mistaken.\nAccordingly, the other fourteen uncials and all the cursives,--besides\nthe Peshitto, Harkleian, and copies of the Old Latin--a much more\nweighty body of evidence--are certainly right in retaining the words in\nSt. Mark xiii. 14.\n\nTake two more instances of misuse in criticism of Assimilation.\n\nSt. Matthew (xii. 10), and St. Luke in the parallel place of his Gospel\n(xiv. 3), describe our Lord as asking,--'Is it lawful to heal on the\nsabbath day?' Tischendorf finding that his favourite authorities in this\nlatter place continue the sentence with the words 'or _not_?' assumes\nthat those two words must have fallen out of the great bulk of the\ncopies of St. Luke, which, according to him, have here assimilated their\nphraseology to that of St. Matthew. But the hypothesis is clearly\ninadmissible,--though it is admitted by most modern critics. Do not\nthese learned persons see that the supposition is just as lawful, and\nthe probability infinitely greater, that it is on the contrary the few\ncopies which have here undergone the process of assimilation; and that\nthe type to which they have been conformed, is to be found in St. Matt.\nxxii. 17; St. Mark xii. 14; St. Luke xx. 22?\n\nIt is in fact surprising how often a familiar place of Scripture has\nexerted this kind of assimilating influence over a little handful of\ncopies. Thus, some critics are happily agreed in rejecting the proposal\nof [Symbol: Aleph]BDLR, (backed scantily by their usual retinue of\nevidence) to substitute for [Greek: gemisai ten koilian autou apo], in\nSt. Luke xv. 16, the words [Greek: chortasthenai ek]. But editors have\nomitted to point out that the words [Greek: epethymei chortasthenai],\nintroduced in defiance of the best authorities into the parable of\nLazarus (xvi. 20), have simply been transplanted thither out of the\nparable of the prodigal son.\n\nThe reader has now been presented with several examples of Assimilation.\nTischendorf, who habitually overlooks the phenomenon where it seems to\nbe sufficiently conspicuous, is observed constantly to discover cases of\nAssimilation where none exist. This is in fact his habitual way of\naccounting for not a few of the omissions in Cod. [Symbol: Aleph]. And\nbecause he has deservedly enjoyed a great reputation, it becomes the\nmore necessary to set the reader on his guard against receiving such\nstatements without a thorough examination of the evidence on which they\nrest.\n\n\nSec. 6.\n\nThe value--may I not say, the use?--of these delicate differences of\ndetail becomes apparent whenever the genuineness of the text is called\nin question. Take an example. The following fifteen words are\ndeliberately excluded from St. Mark's Gospel (vi. 11) by some critics on\nthe authority of [Symbol: Aleph]BCDL[Symbol: Delta],--a most suspicious\ncompany, and three cursives; besides a few copies of the Old Latin,\nincluding the Vulgate:--[Greek: amen lego hymin, anektoteron estai\nSodomois e Gomorrois en hemerai kriseos, he te polei ekeine]. It is\npretended that this is nothing else but an importation from the parallel\nplace of St. Matthew's Gospel (x. 15). But that is impossible: for, as\nthe reader sees at a glance, a delicate but decisive note of\ndiscrimination has been set on the two places. St. Mark writes, [Greek:\nSodomOIS E GomorrOIS]: St. Matthew, [Greek: GE SodomON KAI GomorrON].\nAnd this threefold, or rather fourfold, diversity of expression has\nexisted from the beginning; for it has been faithfully retained all down\nthe ages: it exists to this hour in every known copy of the Gospel,--\nexcept of course those nine which omit the sentence altogether. There\ncan be therefore no doubt about its genuineness. The critics of the\nmodern school (Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Alford, Westcott and\nHort) seek in vain to put upon us a mutilated text by omitting those\nfifteen words. The two places are clearly independent of each other.\n\nIt does but remain to point out that the exclusion of these fifteen\nwords from the text of St. Mark, has merely resulted from the influence\nof the parallel place in St. Luke's Gospel (ix. 5),--where nothing\nwhatever is found[225] corresponding with St. Matt. x. 5--St. Mark vi.\n11. The process of Assimilation therefore has been actively at work\nhere, although not in the way which some critics suppose. It has\nresulted, not in the insertion of the words in dispute in the case of\nthe very many copies; but on the contrary in their omission from the\nvery few. And thus, one more brand is set on [Symbol: Aleph]BCDL[Symbol:\nDelta] and their Latin allies,--which will be found _never_ to conspire\ntogether exclusively except to mislead.\n\n\nSec. 7.\n\nBecause a certain clause (e.g. [Greek: kai he lalia sou homoiazei] in\nSt. Mark xiv. 70) is absent from Codd. [Symbol: Aleph]BCDL, Lachmann,\nTischendorf, Tregelles, Alford, Westcott and Hort entirely eject these\nfive precious words from St. Mark's Gospel, Griesbach having already\nvoted them 'probably spurious.' When it has been added that many copies\nof the Old Latin also, together with the Vulgate and the Egyptian\nversions, besides Eusebius, ignore their existence, the present writer\nscarcely expects to be listened to if he insists that the words are\nperfectly genuine notwithstanding. The thing is certain however, and the\nRevisers are to blame for having surrendered five precious words of\ngenuine Scripture, as I am going to shew.\n\n1. Now, even if the whole of the case were already before the reader,\nalthough to some there might seem to exist a _prima facie_ probability\nthat the clause is spurious, yet even so,--it would not be difficult to\nconvince a thoughtful man that the reverse must be nearer the truth. For\nlet the parallel places in the first two Gospels be set down side by\nside:--\n\nSt. Matt. xxvi. 73.           St. Mark xiv. 70.\n\n(1) [Greek: Alethos kai su]  (1) [Greek: Alethos]\n(2) [Greek: ex auton ei.]    (2) [Greek: ex auton ei.]\n(3) [Greek: kai gar]         (3) [Greek: kai gar Galilaios ei,]\n(4) [Greek: he lalia sou delon se poiei]\n                             (4) [Greek: kai he lalia sou homoiazei.]\n\nWhat more clear than that the later Evangelist is explaining what his\npredecessor meant by 'thy speech bewrayeth thee' [or else is giving an\nindependent account of the same transaction derived from the common\nsource]? To St. Matthew,--a Jew addressing Jews,--it seemed superfluous\nto state that it was the peculiar accent of Galilee which betrayed Simon\nPeter. To St. Mark,--or rather to the readers whom St. Mark specially\naddressed,--the point was by no means so obvious. Accordingly, he\nparaphrases,--'for thou art a Galilean and thy speech correspondeth.'\nLet me be shewn that all down the ages, in ninety-nine copies out of\nevery hundred, this peculiar diversity of expression has been faithfully\nretained, and instead of assenting to the proposal to suppress St.\nMark's (fourth) explanatory clause with its unique verb [Greek:\nhomoiazei], I straightway betake myself to the far more pertinent\ninquiry,--What is the state of the text hereabouts? What, in fact, the\ncontext? This at least is not a matter of opinion, but a matter of fact.\n\n1. And first, I discover that Cod. D, in concert with several copies of\nthe Old Latin (a b c ff^{2} h q, &c.), only removes clause (4) from its\nproper place in St. Mark's Gospel, in order to thrust it into the\nparallel place in St. Matthew,--where it supplants the [Greek: he lalia\nsou delon se poiei] of the earlier Evangelist; and where it clearly has\nno business to be.\n\nIndeed the object of D is found to have been to assimilate St. Matthew's\nGospel to St. Mark,--for D also omits [Greek: kai su] in clause (1).\n\n2. The Ethiopic version, on the contrary, is for assimilating St. Mark\nto St. Matthew, for it transfers the same clause (4) as it stands in St.\nMatthew's Gospel ([Greek: kai he lalia sou delon se poiei]) to St. Mark.\n\n3. Evan. 33 (which, because it exhibits an ancient text of a type like\nB, has been styled [with grim irony] 'the Queen of the Cursives') is\nmore brilliant here than usual; exhibiting St. Mark's clause (4)\nthus,--[Greek: kai gar he lalia sou delon se homoiazei].\n\n4. In C (and the Harkleian) the process of Assimilation is as\nconspicuous as in D, for St. Mark's third clause (3) is imported bodily\ninto St. Matthew's Gospel. C further omits from St. Mark clause (4).\n\n5. In the Vercelli Codex (a) however, the converse process is\nconspicuous. St. Mark's Gospel has been assimilated to St. Matthew's by\nthe unauthorized insertion into clause (1) of [Greek: kai su] (which by\nthe way is also found in M), and (in concert with the Gothic and Evann.\n73, 131, 142*) by the entire suppression of clause (3).\n\n6. Cod. L goes beyond all. [True to the craze of omission], it further\nobliterates as well from St. Matthew's Gospel as from St. Mark's all\ntrace of clause (4).\n\n7. [Symbol: Aleph] and B alone of Codexes, though in agreement with the\nVulgate and the Egyptian version, do but eliminate the final clause (4)\nof St. Mark's Gospel. But note, lastly, that--\n\n8. Cod. A, together with the Syriac versions, the Gothic, and the whole\nbody of the cursives, recognizes none of these irregularities: but\nexhibits the commonly received text with entire fidelity.\n\nOn a survey of the premisses, will any candid person seriously contend\nthat [Greek: kai he lalia sou homiazei] is no part of the genuine text\nof St. Mark xiv. 70? The words are found in what are virtually the most\nancient authorities extant: the Syriac versions (besides the Gothic and\nCod. A), the Old Latin (besides Cod. D)--retain them;--those in their\nusual place,--these, in their unusual. Idle it clearly is in the face of\nsuch evidence to pretend that St. Mark cannot have written the words in\nquestion[226]. It is too late to insist that a man cannot have lost his\nwatch when his watch is proved to have been in his own pocket at eight\nin the morning, and is found in another man's pocket at nine. As for C\nand L, their handling of the Text hereabouts clearly disqualifies them\nfrom being cited in evidence. They are condemned under the note of\nContext. Adverse testimony is borne by B and [Symbol: Aleph]: and by\nthem only. They omit the words in dispute,--the ordinary habit of\ntheirs, and most easily accounted for. But how is the punctual insertion\nof the words in every other known copy to be explained? In the meantime,\nit remains to be stated,--and with this I shall take leave of the\ndiscussion,--that hereabouts 'we have a set of passages which bear clear\nmarks of wilful and critical correction, thoroughly carried out in Cod.\n[Symbol: Aleph], and only partially in Cod. B and some of its compeers;\nthe object being so far to assimilate the narrative of Peter's denials\nwith those of the other Evangelists, as to suppress the fact, vouched\nfor by St. Mark only, that the cock crowed twice[227].' _That_ incident\nshall be treated of separately. Can those principles stand, which in the\nface of the foregoing statement, and the evidence which preceded it,\njustify the disturbance of the text in St. Mark xiv. 70?\n\n[We now pass on to a kindred cause of adulteration of\nthe text of the New Testament.]\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[184] This paper bears the date 1877: but I have thought best to keep\nthe words with this caution to the reader.\n\n[185] Above, p. 32.\n\n[186] The alleged evidence of Origen (iv. 453) is _nil_; the sum of it\nbeing that he takes no notice whatever of the forty words between\n[Greek: opsesthe me] (in ver. 16), and [Greek: touto ti estin] (in ver.\n18).\n\n[187] Nonnus,--[Greek: hixomai eis gennetera].\n\n[188] viii. 465 a and c.\n\n[189] iv. 932 and 933 c.\n\n[190] = [Greek: ana-keimenos + epi-peson]. [Used not to suggest\nover-familiarity (?).]\n\n[191] Beginning with Anatolius Laodicenus, A.D. 270 (_ap._ Galland. iii.\n548). Cf. Routh, Rell. i. 42.\n\n[192] [Greek: Ouk anakeitai monon, alla kai to stethei epipiptei] (Opp.\nviii. 423 a).--[Greek: Ti de kai epipiptei to stethei] (ibid. d). Note\nthat the passage ascribed to 'Apolinarius' in Cord. Cat. p. 342 (which\nincludes the second of these two references) is in reality part of\nChrysostom's Commentary on St. John (ubi supra, c d).\n\n[193] Cord. Cat. p. 341. But it is only in the [Greek: keimenon] (or\ntext) that the verb is found,--Opp. iv. 735.\n\n[194] [Greek: ho de thrasys oxei palmo | stethesin achrantoisi peson\nperilemenos aner].\n\n[195] iv. 437 c: 440 d.\n\n[196] Ibid. p. 342.\n\n[197] Even Chrysostom, who certainly read the place as we do, is\nobserved twice to glide into the more ordinary expression, viz. xiii.\n423, line 13 from the bottom, and p. 424, line 18 from the top.\n\n[198] [Greek: ho epi to stethos autou anapeson] (iii. 1, Sec. 1).\n\n[199] [Greek: ho epi to stethos tou Kyriou anapeson] (_ap._ Euseb. iii.\n31).\n\n[200] [Greek: Ti dei peri tou anapesontos epi to stethos legein tou\n'Iesou] (ibid. vi. 25. Opp. iv. 95).\n\n[201] [Greek: ho epi to stethei tou phlogos anapeson] (Opp. ii. 49 a.\nCf. 133 c).\n\n[202] (As quoted by Polycrates): Opp. i. 1062: ii. 8.\n\n[203] [Greek: tou eis to tes sophias stethos pistos epanapesontos]\n(_ap._ Chrys, xiii. 55).\n\n[204] [Greek: ho epi to stethos tou Iesou anapauetai] (Opp. i. 591).\n\n[205] (As quoted by Polycrates): Opp. i. 488.\n\n[206] Wright's Apocryphal Acts (fourth century), translated from the\nSyriac, p. 3.\n\n[207] (Fourth or fifth century) _ap._ Galland. vi. 132.\n\n[208] _Ap._ Chrys. viii. 296.\n\n[209] On a fresh Revision, &c., p. 73.--'[Greek: Anapiptein], (which\noccurs eleven times in the N.T.), when said of guests ([Greek:\nanakeimenoi]) at a repast, denotes nothing whatever but the preliminary\nact of each in taking his place at the table; being the Greek equivalent\nfor our \"_sitting down_\" to dinner. So far only does it signify \"change\nof posture.\" The notion of \"falling _backward_\" quite disappears in the\nnotion of \"reclining\" or \"lying down.\"'--In St. John xxi. 20, the\nlanguage of the Evangelist is the very mirror of his thought; which\nevidently passed directly from the moment when he assumed his place at\nthe table ([Greek: anepesen]), to that later moment when ([Greek: epi to\nstethos autou]) he interrogated his Divine Master concerning Judas. It\nis a _general_ description of an incident,--for the details of which we\nhave to refer to the circumstantial and authoritative narrative which\nwent before.\n\n[210] Traditional Text, Appendix IV.\n\n[211] Pesh. and Harkl.: Cur. and Lew. are defective.\n\n[212] Thus Griesbach, Scholz, Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Alford,\nWordsworth, Green, Scrivener, M^{c}Clellan, Westcott and Hort, and the\nRevisers.\n\n[213] In pseudo-Jerome's Brev. in Psalm., Opp. vii. (ad calc.) 198.\n\n[214] Mont. i. 462.\n\n[215] Ubi supra.\n\n[216] Omitting trifling variants.\n\n[217] [Symbol: Aleph]BL are _exclusively_ responsible on 45 occasions:\n+C (i.e. [Symbol: Aleph]BCL), on 27: +D, on 35: +[Symbol: Delta], on 73:\n+CD, on 19: +C[Symbol: Delta], on 118: +D[Symbol: Delta] (i.e. [Symbol:\nAleph]BDL[Symbol: Delta]), on 42: +CD[Symbol: Delta], on 66.\n\n[218] In the text of Evan. 72 the reading in dispute is _not_ found:\n205, 206 are duplicates of 209: and 222, 255 are only fragments. There\nremain 1, 22, 33, 61, 63, 115, 131, 151, 152, 161, 184, 209, 253, 372,\n391:--of which the six at Rome require to be re-examined.\n\n[219] v. 10.\n\n[220] _Ap._ Hieron. vii. 17.\n\n[221] 'Evangelistas arguere falsitatis, hoc impiorum est, Celsi,\nPorphyrii, Juliani.' Hieron. i. 311.\n\n[222] [Greek: grapheos toinun esti sphalma]. Quoted (from the lost work\nof Eusebius ad Marinum) in Victor of Ant.'s Catena, ed. Cramer, p. 267.\n(See Simon, iii. 89; Mai, iv. 299; Matthaei's N.T. ii. 20, &c.)\n\n[223] 'Nos autem nomen Isaiae putamus _additum Scriptorum vitio_, quod\net in aliis locis probare possumus.' vii. 17 (I suspect he got it from\nEusebius).\n\n[224] See Studia Biblica, ii. p. 249. Syrian Form of Ammonian sections\nand Eusebian Canons by Rev. G. H. Gwilliam, B.D. Mr. Gwilliam gives St.\nLuke iii. 4-6, according to the Syrian form.\n\n[225] Compare St. Mark vi. 7-13 with St. Luke ix. 1-6.\n\n[226] Schulz,--'et [Greek: lalia] et [Greek: omoiazei] aliena a Marco.'\nTischendorf--'omnino e Matthaeo fluxit: ipsum [Greek: omoiazei]\nglossatoris est.' This is foolishness,--not criticism.\n\n[227] Scrivener's Full Collation of the Cod. Sin., &c., 2nd ed., p.\nxlvii.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IX.\n\nCAUSES OF CORRUPTION CHIEFLY INTENTIONAL.\n\nIII. Attraction.\n\n\nSec. 1.\n\nThere exist not a few corrupt Readings,--and they have imposed largely\non many critics,--which, strange to relate, have arisen from nothing\nelse but the proneness of words standing side by side in a sentence to\nbe attracted into a likeness of ending,--whether in respect of\ngrammatical form or of sound; whereby sometimes the sense is made to\nsuffer grievously,--sometimes entirely to disappear. Let this be called\nthe error of Attraction. The phenomena of 'Assimilation' are entirely\ndistinct. A somewhat gross instance, which however has imposed on\nlearned critics, is furnished by the Revised Text and Version of St.\nJohn vi. 71 and xiii. 26.\n\n'Judas Iscariot' is a combination of appellatives with which every\nChristian ear is even awfully familiar. The expression [Greek: Ioudas\nIskariotes] is found in St. Matt. x. 4 and xxvi. 14: in St. Mark iii. 19\nand xiv. 10: in St. Luke vi. 16, and in xxii. 31 with the express\nstatement added that Judas was so 'surnamed.' So far happily we are all\nagreed. St. John's invariable practice is to designate the traitor, whom\nhe names four times, as 'Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon;'--jealous\ndoubtless for the honour of his brother Apostle, 'Jude ([Greek: Ioudas])\nthe brother of James[228]': and resolved that there shall be no mistake\nabout the traitor's identity. Who does not at once recall the\nEvangelist's striking parenthesis in St. John xiv. 22,--'Judas (not\nIscariot)'? Accordingly, in St. John xiii. 2 the Revisers present us\nwith 'Judas Iscariot, Simon's son': and even in St. John xii. 4 they are\ncontent to read 'Judas Iscariot.' But in the two places of St. John's\nGospel which remain to be noticed, viz. vi. 71 and xiii. 26, instead of\n'Judas Iscariot the son of Simon' the Revisers require us henceforth to\nread, 'Judas the son of Simon Iscariot.' And _why_? Only, I answer,\nbecause--in place of [Greek: Ioudan Simonos IskarioTEN] (in vi. 71) and\n[Greek: Iouda Simonos IskarioTE] (in xiii. 26)--a little handful of\ncopies substitute on both occasions [Greek: IskarioTOU]. Need I go on?\nNothing else has evidently happened but that, through the oscitancy of\nsome very early scribe, the [Greek: IskarioTEN], [Greek: IskarioTE],\nhave been attracted into concord with the immediately preceding genitive\n[Greek: SImoNOS] ... So transparent a blunder would have scarcely\ndeserved a passing remark at our hands had it been suffered to\nremain,--where such _betises_ are the rule and not the exception,--viz.\nin the columns of Codexes B and [Symbol: Aleph]. But strange to say, not\nonly have the Revisers adopted this corrupt reading in the two passages\nalready mentioned, but they have not let so much as a hint fall that any\nalteration whatsoever has been made by them in the inspired Text.\n\n\nSec. 2.\n\nAnother and a far graver case of 'Attraction' is found in Acts xx. 24.\nSt. Paul, in his address to the elders of Ephesus, refers to the\ndiscouragements he has had to encounter. 'But none of these things move\nme,' he grandly exclaims, 'neither count I my life dear unto myself, so\nthat I might finish my course with joy.' The Greek for this begins\n[Greek: all' oudenos logon poioumai]: where some second or third century\ncopyist (misled by the preceding genitive) in place of [Greek: logoN]\nwrites [Greek: logoU]; with what calamitous consequence, has been found\nlargely explained elsewhere[229]. Happily, the error survives only in\nCodd. B and C: and their character is already known by the readers of\nthis book and the Companion Volume. So much has been elsewhere offered\non this subject that I shall say no more about it here: but proceed to\npresent my reader with another and more famous instance of attraction.\n\nSt. Paul in a certain place (2 Cor. iii. 3) tells the Corinthians, in\nallusion to the language of Exodus xxxi. 12, xxxiv. 1, that they are an\nepistle not written on '_stony tables_ ([Greek: en plaxi lithinais]),'\nbut on '_fleshy tables_ of the heart ([Greek: en plaxi kardias\nsarkinais]).' The one proper proof that this is what St. Paul actually\nwrote, is not only (1) That the Copies largely preponderate in favour of\nso exhibiting the place: but (2) That the Versions, with the single\nexception of 'that abject slave of manuscripts the Philoxenian [or\nHarkleian] Syriac,' are all on the same side: and lastly (3) That the\nFathers are as nearly as possible unanimous. Let the evidence for\n[Greek: kardias] (unknown to Tischendorf and the rest) be produced in\ndetail:--\n\nIn the second century, Irenaeus[230],--the Old Latin,--the Peshitto.\n\nIn the third century, Origen seven times[231],--the Coptic version.\n\nIn the fourth century, the\nDialogus[232],--Didymus[233],--Basil[234],--Gregory Nyss.[235],--Marcus\nthe Monk[236],--Chrysostom in two places[237],--Nilus[238],--the\nVulgate,--and the Gothic versions.\n\nIn the fifth century, Cyril[239],--Isidorus[240],--Theodoret[241],--the\nArmenian--and the Ethiopic versions.\n\nIn the seventh century, Victor, Bp. of Carthage addressing Theodorus\nP.[242]\n\nIn the eighth century, J. Damascene[243] ... Besides, of the Latins,\nHilary[244],--Ambrose[245],--Optatus[246],--Jerome[247],--\nTichonius[248],--Augustine thirteen times[249],--Fulgentius[250], and\nothers[251] ... If this be not overwhelming evidence, may I be told what\n_is_[252]?\n\nBut then it so happens that--attracted by the two datives between which\n[Greek: kardias] stands, and tempted by the consequent jingle, a\nsurprising number of copies are found to exhibit the 'perfectly absurd'\nand 'wholly unnatural reading[253],' [Greek: plaxi kardiAIS sarkinAIS].\nAnd because (as might have been expected from their character)\nA[254]B[Symbol: Aleph]CD[255] are all five of the number,--Lachmann,\nTischendorf, Tregelles, Alford, Westcott and Hort, one and all adopt and\nadvocate the awkward blunder[256]. [Greek: Kardiais] is also adopted by\nthe Revisers of 1881 without so much as a hint let fall in the margin\nthat the evidence is overwhelmingly against themselves and in favour of\nthe traditional Text of the Authorized Version[257].\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[228] St. Luke vi. 16; Acts i. 13; St. Jude 1.\n\n[229] Above, pp. 28-31.\n\n[230] 753 _int_.\n\n[231] ii. 843 c. Also _int_ ii. 96, 303; iv. 419, 489, 529, 558.\n\n[232] _Ap_. Orig. i. 866 a,--interesting and emphatic testimony.\n\n[233] Cord. Cat. in Ps. i. 272.\n\n[234] i. 161 e. Cord. Cat. in Ps. i. 844.\n\n[235] i. 682 ([Greek: ouk en plaxi lithinais ... all' en to tes kardias\npyxio]).\n\n[236] Galland. viii. 40 b.\n\n[237] vii. 2: x. 475.\n\n[238] i. 29.\n\n[239] i. 8: ii. 504: v^{2}. 65. (Aubert prints [Greek: kardias\nsarkines]. The published Concilia (iii. 140) exhibits [Greek: kardias\nsarkinais]. Pusey, finding in one of his MSS. [Greek: all' en plaxi\nkardias lithinais] (sic), prints [Greek: kardias sarkinais].) _Ap_. Mai,\niii. 89, 90.\n\n[240] 299.\n\n[241] iii. 302.\n\n[242] Concil. vi. 154.\n\n[243] ii. 129.\n\n[244] 344.\n\n[245] i. 762: ii. 668, 1380.\n\n[246] Galland. v. 505.\n\n[247] vi. 609.\n\n[248] Galland. viii. 742 dis.\n\n[249] i. 672: ii. 49: iii^{1}. 472, 560: iv. 1302: v. 743-4: viii. 311:\nx. 98, 101, 104, 107, 110.\n\n[250] Galland. xi. 248.\n\n[251] Ps.-Ambrose, ii. 176.\n\n[252] Yet strange to say, Tischendorf claims the support of Didymus and\nTheodoret for [Greek: kardiais], on the ground that in the course of\ntheir expository remarks they contrast [Greek: kardiai sarkinai] (or\n[Greek: logikai]) with [Greek: plakes lithinai]: as if it were not the\nword [Greek: plaxi] which alone occasions difficulty. Again, Tischendorf\nenumerates Cod. E (Paul) among his authorities. Had he then forgotten\nthat E is '_nothing better than a transcript of Cod. D_ (Claromontanus),\nmade by some ignorant person'? that 'the Greek _is manifestly\nworthless_, and that it should long since have been removed from the\nlist of authorities'? [Scrivener's Introd., 4th edit., i. 177. See also\nTraditional Text, p. 65, and note. Tischendorf is frequently inaccurate\nin his references to the fathers.]\n\n[253] Scrivener's Introd. ii. 254.\n\n[254] A in the Epistles differs from A in the Gospels.\n\n[255] Besides GLP and the following cursives,--29, 30, 44, 45, 46, 47,\n48, 55, 74, 104, 106, 109, 112, 113, 115, 137, 219, 221, 238, 252, 255,\n257, 262, 277.\n\n[256] That I may not be accused of suppressing what is to be said on the\nother side, let it be here added that the sum of the adverse evidence\n(besides the testimony of many MSS.) is the Harkleian version:--the\ndoubtful testimony of Eusebius (for, though Valerius reads [Greek:\nkardias], the MSS. largely preponderate which read [Greek: kardiais] in\nH. E. Mart. Pal. cxiii. Sec. 6. See Burton's ed. p. 637):--Cyril in one\nplace, as explained above:--and lastly, a quotation from Chrysostom on\nthe Maccabees, given in Cramer's Catena, vii. 595 ([Greek: en plaxi\nkardiais sarkinais]), which reappears at the end of eight lines without\nthe word [Greek: plaxi].\n\n[257] [The papers on Assimilation and Attraction were left by the Dean\nin the same portfolio. No doubt he would have separated them, if he had\nlived to complete his work, and amplified his treatment of the latter,\nfor the materials under that head were scanty.--For 2 Cor. iii. 3, see\nalso a note of my own to p. 65 of The Traditional Text.]\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER X.\n\nCAUSES OF CORRUPTION CHIEFLY INTENTIONAL.\n\nIV. Omission.\n\n\n[We have now to consider the largest of all classes of corrupt\nvariations from the genuine Text[258]--the omission of words and clauses\nand sentences,--a truly fertile province of inquiry. Omissions are much\nin favour with a particular school of critics; though a habit of\nadmitting them whether in ancient or modern times cannot but be\nsymptomatic of a tendency to scepticism.]\n\n\nSec. 1.\n\nOmissions are often treated as 'Various Readings.' Yet only by an\nHibernian licence can words omitted be so reckoned: for in truth the\nvery essence of the matter is that on such occasions nothing is read. It\nis to the case of words omitted however that this chapter is to be\nexclusively devoted. And it will be borne in mind that I speak now of\nthose words alone where the words are observed to exist in ninety-nine\nMSS. out of a hundred, so to speak;--being away only from that hundredth\ncopy.\n\nNow it becomes evident, as soon as attention has been called to the\ncircumstance, that such a phenomenon requires separate treatment. Words\nso omitted labour _prima facie_ under a disadvantage which is all their\nown. My meaning will be best illustrated if I may be allowed to adduce\nand briefly discuss a few examples. And I will begin with a crucial\ncase;--the most conspicuous doubtless within the whole compass of the\nNew Testament. I mean the last twelve verses of St. Mark's Gospel; which\nverses are either bracketed off, or else entirely severed from the rest\nof the Gospel, by Tischendorf, Tregelles, Alford and others.\n\nThe warrant of those critics for dealing thus unceremoniously with a\nportion of the sacred deposit is the fact that whereas Eusebius, for the\nstatement rests solely with him, declares that anciently many copies\nwere without the verses in question, our two oldest extant MSS. conspire\nin omitting them. But, I reply, the latter circumstance does not conduct\nto the inference that those verses are spurious. It only proves that the\nstatement of Eusebius was correct. The Father cited did not, as is\nevident from his words[259], himself doubt the genuineness of the verses\nin question; but admitted them to be genuine. [He quotes two\nopinions;--the opinion of an advocate who questions their genuineness,\nand an opposing opinion which he evidently considers the better of the\ntwo, since he rests upon the latter and casts a slur upon the former as\nbeing an off-hand expedient; besides that he quotes several words out of\nthe twelve verses, and argues at great length upon the second\nhypothesis.\n\nOn the other hand, one and that the least faulty of the two MSS.\nwitnessing for the omission confesses mutely its error by leaving a\nvacant space where the omitted verses should have come in; whilst the\nother was apparently copied from an exemplar containing the verses[260].\nAnd all the other copies insert them, except L and a few cursives which\npropose a manifestly spurious substitute for the verses,--together with\nall the versions, except one Old Latin (k), the Lewis Codex, two\nArmenian MSS. and an Arabic Lectionary,--besides more than ninety\ntestimonies in their favour from more than 'forty-four' ancient\nwitnesses[261];--such is the evidence which weighs down the conflicting\ntestimony over and over and over again. Beyond all this, the cause of\nthe error is patent. Some scribe mistook the [Greek: Telos] occurring at\nthe end of an Ecclesiastical Lection at the close of chapter xvi. 8 for\nthe 'End' of St. Mark's Gospel[262].\n\nThat is the simple truth: and the question will now be asked by an\nintelligent reader, 'If such is the balance of evidence, how is it that\nlearned critics still doubt the genuineness of those verses?'\n\nTo this question there can be but one answer, viz. 'Because those\ncritics are blinded by invincible prejudice in favour of two unsafe\nguides, and on behalf of Omission.'\n\nWe have already seen enough of the character of those guides, and are\nnow anxious to learn what there can be in omissions which render them so\nacceptable to minds of the present day. And we can imagine nothing\nexcept the halo which has gathered round the detection of spurious\npassages in modern times, and has extended to a supposed detection of\npassages which in fact are not spurious. Some people appear to feel\ndelight if they can prove any charge against people who claim to be\northodox; others without any such feeling delight in superior criticism;\nand the flavour of scepticism especially commends itself to the taste of\nmany. To the votaries of such criticism, omissions of passages which\nthey style 'interpolations,' offer temptingly spacious hunting-fields.\n\nYet the experience of copyists would pronounce that Omission is the\nbesetting fault of transcribers. It is so easy under the influence of\nthe desire of accomplishing a task, or at least of anxiety for making\nprogress, to pass over a word, a line, or even more lines than one. As\nhas been explained before, the eye readily moves from one ending to a\nsimilar ending with a surprising tendency to pursue the course which\nwould lighten labour instead of increasing it. The cumulative result of\nsuch abridgement by omission on the part of successive scribes may be\neasily imagined, and in fact is just what is presented in Codex B[263].\nBesides these considerations, the passages which are omitted, and which\nwe claim to be genuine, bear in themselves the character belonging to\nthe rest of the Gospels, indeed--in Dr. Hort's expressive phrase--'have\nthe true ring of genuineness.' They are not like some which some critics\nof the same school would fain force upon us[264]. But beyond all,--and\nthis is the real source and ground of attestation,--they enjoy superior\nevidence from copies, generally beyond comparison with the opposing\ntestimony, from Versions, and from Fathers.]\n\n\nSec. 2.\n\nThe fact seems to be all but overlooked that a very much larger amount\nof proof than usual is required at the hands of those who would persuade\nus to cancel words which have been hitherto by all persons,--in all\nages,--in all countries,--regarded as inspired Scripture. They have (1)\nto account for the fact of those words' existence: and next (2), to\ndemonstrate that they have no right to their place in the sacred page.\nThe discovery that from a few copies they are away, clearly has very\nlittle to do with the question. We may be able to account for the\nomission from those few copies: and the instant we have done this, the\nnegative evidence--the argument _e silentio_--has been effectually\ndisposed of. A very different task--a far graver responsibility--is\nimposed upon the adverse party, as may be easily shewn. [They must\nestablish many modes of accounting for many classes and groups of\nevidence. Broad and sweeping measures are now out of date. The burden of\nproof lies with them.]\n\n\nSec. 3.\n\nThe force of what I am saying will be best understood if a few actual\nspecimens of omission may be adduced, and individually considered. And\nfirst, let us take the case of an omitted word. In St. Luke vi. 1\n[Greek: deuteroproto] is omitted from some MSS. Westcott and Hort and\nthe Revisers accordingly exhibit the text of that place as\nfollows:--[Greek: Egeneto de en sabbato diaporeuesthai auton dia\nsporimon].\n\nNow I desire to be informed how it is credible that so very difficult\nand peculiar a word as this,--for indeed the expression has never yet\nbeen satisfactorily explained,--should have found its way into every\nknown Evangelium except [Symbol: Aleph]BL and a few cursives, if it be\nspurious? How it came to be here and there omitted, is intelligible\nenough. (_a_) One has but to glance at the Cod. [Symbol: Aleph],\n\n  [Greek: TO EN SABBATO]\n  [Greek: DEUTEROPROTO]\n\nin order to see that the like ending ([Greek: TO]) in the superior line,\nfully accounts for the omission of the second line. (_b_) A proper\nlesson begins at this place; which by itself would explain the\nphenomenon. (_c_) Words which the copyists were at a loss to understand,\nare often observed to be dropped: and there is no harder word in the\nGospels than [Greek: deuteroprotos]. But I repeat,--will you tell us how\nit is conceivable that [a word nowhere else found, and known to be a\n_crux_ to commentators and others, should have crept into all the copies\nexcept a small handful?]\n\nIn reply to all this, I shall of course be told that really I must yield\nto what is after all the weight of external evidence: that Codd.\n[Symbol: Aleph]BL are not ordinary MSS. but first-class authorities, of\nsufficient importance to outweigh any number of the later cursive MSS.\n\nMy rejoinder is plain:--Not only am I of course willing to yield to\nexternal evidence, but it is precisely 'external evidence' which makes\nme insist on retaining [Greek: deuteroproto--apo melissiou keriou--haras\nton stauron--kai anephereto eis ton ouranon--hotan eklipete]--the 14th\nverse of St. Matthew's xxiiird chapter--and the last twelve verses of\nSt. Mark's Gospel. For my own part, I entirely deny the cogency of the\nproposed proof, and I have clearly already established the grounds of my\nrefusal. Who then is to be the daysman between us? We are driven back on\nfirst principles, in order to ascertain if it may not be possible to\nmeet on some common ground, and by the application of ordinary logical\nprinciples of reasoning to clear our view. [As to these we must refer\nthe reader to the first volume of this work. Various cases of omission\nhave been just quoted, and many have been discussed elsewhere.\nAccordingly, it will not be necessary to exhibit this large class of\ncorruptions at the length which it would otherwise demand. But a few\nmore instances are required, in order that the reader may see in this\nconnexion that many passages at least which the opposing school\ndesignate as Interpolations are really genuine, and that students may be\nplaced upon their guard against the source of error that we are\ndiscussing.]\n\n\nSec. 4.\n\nAnd first as to the rejection of an entire verse.\n\nThe 44th verse of St. Matt. xxi, consisting of the fifteen words printed\nat foot[265], is marked as doubtful by Tregelles, Westcott and Hort, and\nthe Revisers:--by Tischendorf it is rejected as spurious. We insist\nthat, on the contrary, it is indubitably genuine; reasoning from the\nantiquity, the variety, the respectability, the largeness, or rather,\nthe general unanimity of its attestation.\n\nFor the verse is found in the Old Latin, and in the Vulgate,--in the\nPeshitto, Curetonian, and Harkleian Syriac,--besides in the Coptic,\nArmenian, and Ethiopic versions. It is found also in Origen[266],--\nps.-Tatian[267]--Aphraates[268],--Chrysostom[269],--Cyril Alex.[270],--\nthe Opus Imperfectum[271],--Jerome[272],--Augustine[273]:--in Codexes\nB[Symbol: Aleph]C[Symbol: Theta][Symbol: Sigma]XZ[Symbol: Delta][Symbol:\nPi]EFG HKLMSUV,--in short, it is attested by every known Codex except\ntwo of bad character, viz.--D, 33; together with five copies of the Old\nLatin, viz.--a b e ff^{1} ff^{2}. There have therefore been adduced for\nthe verse in dispute at least five witnesses of the second or third\ncentury:--at least eight of the fourth:--at least seven if not eight of\nthe fifth: after which date the testimony in favour of this verse is\noverwhelming. How could we be justified in opposing to such a mass of\nfirst-rate testimony the solitary evidence of Cod. D (concerning which\nsee above, Vol. I. c. viii.) supported only by a single errant Cursive\nand a little handful of copies of the Old Latin versions, [even although\nthe Lewis Codex has joined this petty band?]\n\nBut, says Tischendorf,--the verse is omitted by Origen and by\nEusebius,--by Irenaeus and by Lucifer of Cagliari,--as well as by Cyril\nof Alexandria. I answer, this most insecure of arguments for mutilating\nthe traditional text is plainly inadmissible on the present occasion.\nThe critic refers to the fact that Irenaeus[274], Origen[275],\nEusebius[276] and Cyril[277] having quoted 'the parable of the wicked\nhusbandmen' _in extenso_ (viz. from verse 33 to verse 43), _leave off at\nverse_ 43. Why may they not leave off where the parable leaves off? Why\nshould they quote any further? Verse 44 is nothing to their purpose. And\nsince the Gospel for Monday morning in Holy Week [verses 18-43], in\nevery known copy of the Lectionary actually ends at verse 43,--why\nshould not their quotation of it end at the same verse? But,\nunfortunately for the critic, Origen and Cyril (as we have seen,--the\nlatter expressly,) elsewhere actually quote the verse in dispute. And\nhow can Tischendorf maintain that Lucifer yields adverse testimony[278]?\nThat Father quotes _nothing but_ verse 43, which is all he requires for\nhis purpose[279]. Why should he have also quoted verse 44, which he does\nnot require? As well might it be maintained that Macarius Egyptius[280]\nand Philo of Carpasus[281] omit verse 44, because (like Lucifer) they\nonly quote verse 43.\n\nI have elsewhere explained what I suspect occasioned the omission of St.\nMatt. xxi. 44 from a few Western copies of the Gospels[282].\nTischendorf's opinion that this verse is a fabricated imitation of the\nparallel verse in St. Luke's Gospel[283] (xx. 18) is clearly untenable.\nEither place has its distinctive type, which either has maintained all\ndown the ages. The single fact that St. Matt. xxi. 44 in the Peshitto\nversion has a sectional number to itself[284] is far too weighty to be\nset aside on nothing better than suspicion. If a verse so elaborately\nattested as the present be not genuine, we must abandon all hope of ever\nattaining to any certainty concerning the Text of Scripture.\n\nIn the meantime there emerges from the treatment which St. Matt. xxi. 44\nhas experienced at the hands of Tischendorf, the discovery that, in the\nestimation of Tischendorf, Cod. D [is a document of so much importance\nas occasionally to outweigh almost by itself the other copies of all\nages and countries in Christendom.]\n\n\nSec. 5.\n\nI am guided to my next example, viz. the text of St. Matt. xv. 8, by the\nchoice deliberately made of that place by Dr. Tregelles in order to\nestablish the peculiar theory of Textual Revision which he advocates so\nstrenuously; and which, ever since the days of Griesbach, has it must be\nconfessed enjoyed the absolute confidence of most of the illustrious\neditors of the New Testament. This is, in fact, the second example on\nTregelles' list. In approaching it, I take leave to point out that that\nlearned critic unintentionally hoodwinks his readers by not setting\nbefore them in full the problem which he proposes to discuss. Thoroughly\nto understand this matter, the student should be reminded that there is\nfound in St. Matt. xv. 8,--and parallel to it in St. Mark vii. 6,--\n\nSt. Matt.\n\n'Ye hypocrites, well did Isaiah prophesy of you saying, \"This people\ndraweth nigh unto Me with their mouth and honoureth me with their lips\n([Greek: engizei moi ho laos houtos to stomati auton, kai tois cheilesi\nme tima]), but their heart is far from Me.\"'\n\nSt. Mark.\n\n'Well did Isaiah prophesy of you, hypocrites, as it is written, \"This\npeople honoureth Me with their lips ([Greek: houtos ho laos tois\ncheilesi me tima]), but their heart is far from Me.\"'\n\nThe place of Isaiah referred to, viz. ch. xxix. 13, reads as follows in\nthe ordinary editions of the LXX:--[Greek: kai eipe Kyrios, engizei moi\nho laos houtos en to stomati autou, kai en tois cheilesin auton timosi\nme].\n\nNow, about the text of St. Mark in this place no question is raised.\nNeither is there any various reading worth speaking of in ninety-nine\nMSS. out of a hundred in respect of the text in St. Matthew. But when\nreference is made to the two oldest copies in existence, B and [Symbol:\nAleph], we are presented with what, but for the parallel place in St.\nMark, would have appeared to us a strangely abbreviated reading. Both\nMSS. conspire in exhibiting St. Matt. xv. 8, as follows:--[Greek: ho\nlaos houtos tois cheilesi me tima]. So that six words ([Greek: engizei\nmoi] and [Greek: to stomati auton, kai]) are not recognized by them: in\nwhich peculiarity they are countenanced by DLT^{c}, two cursive copies,\nand the following versions:--Old Latin except f, Vulgate, Curetonian,\nLewis, Peshitto, and Bohairic, (Cod. A, the Sahidic and Gothic versions,\nbeing imperfect here.) To this evidence, Tischendorf adds a phalanx of\nFathers:--Clemens Romanus (A.D. 70), Ptolemaeus the Gnostic (A.D. 150),\nClemens Alexandrinus (A.D. 190), Origen in three places (A.D. 210),\nEusebius (A.D. 325), Basil, Cyril of Alexandria, Chrysostom: and Alford\nsupplies also Justin Martyr (A.D. 150). The testimony of Didymus (A.D.\n350), which has been hitherto overlooked, is express. Tertullian,\nCyprian, Hilary, are naturally found to follow the Latin copies. Such a\nweight of evidence may not unreasonably inspire Dr. Tregelles with an\nexceeding amount of confidence. Accordingly he declares 'that this one\npassage might be relied upon as an important proof that it is the few\nMSS. and not the many which accord with ancient testimony.' Availing\nhimself of Dr. Scrivener's admission of 'the possibility that the\ndisputed words in the great bulk of the MSS. were inserted from the\nSeptuagint of Isaiah xxix. 13[285],' Dr. Tregelles insists 'that on\nevery true principle of textual criticism, the words must be regarded as\nan amplification borrowed from the Prophet. This naturally explains\ntheir introduction,' (he adds); 'and when once they had gained a footing\nin the text, it is certain that they would be multiplied by copyists,\nwho almost always preferred to make passages as full and complete as\npossible' (p. 139). Dr. Tregelles therefore relies upon this one\npassage,--not so much as a 'proof that it is the few MSS. and not the\nmany which accord with ancient testimony';--for one instance cannot\npossibly prove that; and that is after all beside the real\nquestion;--but, as a proof that we are to regard the text of Codd.\nB[Symbol: Aleph] in this place as genuine, and the text of all the other\nCodexes in the world as corrupt.\n\nThe reader has now the hypothesis fully before him by which from the\ndays of Griesbach it has been proposed to account for the discrepancy\nbetween 'the few copies' on the one hand, and the whole torrent of\nmanuscript evidence on the other.\n\nNow, as I am writing a book on the principles of Textual Criticism, I\nmust be allowed to set my reader on his guard against all such\nunsupported dicta as the preceding, though enforced with emphasis and\nrecommended by a deservedly respected name. I venture to think that the\nexact reverse will be found to be a vast deal nearer the truth: viz.\nthat undoubtedly spurious readings, although they may at one time or\nother have succeeded in obtaining a footing in MSS., and to some extent\nmay be observed even to have propagated themselves, are yet discovered\nto die out speedily; seldom indeed to leave any considerable number of\ndescendants. There has always in fact been a process of elimination\ngoing on, as well as of self-propagation: a corrective force at work, as\nwell as one of deterioration. How else are we to account for the utter\ndisappearance of the many _monstra potius quam variae lectiones_ which\nthe ancients nevertheless insist were prevalent in their times? It is\nenough to appeal to a single place in Jerome, in illustration of what I\nhave been saying[286]. To return however from this digression.\n\nWe are invited then to believe,--for it is well to know at the outset\nexactly what is required of us,--that from the fifth century downwards\nevery _extant copy of the Gospels except five_ (DLT^{c}, 33, 124)\nexhibits a text arbitrarily interpolated in order to bring it into\nconformity with the Greek version of Isa. xxix. 13. On this wild\nhypothesis I have the following observations to make:--\n\n1. It is altogether unaccountable, if this be indeed a true account of\nthe matter, how it has come to pass that in no single MS. in the world,\nso far as I am aware, has this conformity been successfully achieved:\nfor whereas the Septuagintal reading is [Greek: engizei moi ho laos\noutos EN to stomati AUTOU, kai EN tois cheilesin AUTON TIMOSI me],--the\nEvangelical Text is observed to differ therefrom in no less than six\nparticulars.\n\n2. Further,--If there really did exist this strange determination on the\npart of the ancients in general to assimilate the text of St. Matthew to\nthe text of Isaiah, how does it happen that not one of them ever\nconceived the like design in respect of the parallel place in St. Mark?\n\n3. It naturally follows to inquire,--Why are we to suspect the mass of\nMSS. of having experienced such wholesale depravation in respect of the\ntext of St. Matthew in this place, while yet we recognize in them such a\nmarked constancy to their own peculiar type; which however, as already\nexplained, is _not_ the text of Isaiah?\n\n4. Further,--I discover in this place a minute illustration of the\ngeneral fidelity of the ancient copyists: for whereas in St. Matthew it\nis invariably [Greek: ho laos outos], I observe that in the copies of\nSt. Mark,--except to be sure in (_a_) Codd. B and D, (_b_) copies of the\nOld Latin, (_c_) the Vulgate, and (_d_) the Peshitto (all of which are\nconfessedly corrupt in this particular,)--it is invariably [Greek: outos\nho laos]. But now,--Is it reasonable that the very copies which have\nbeen in this way convicted of licentiousness in respect of St. Mark vii.\n6 should be permitted to dictate to us against the great heap of copies\nin respect of their exhibition of St. Matt. xv. 8?\n\nAnd yet, if the discrepancy between Codd. B and [Symbol: Aleph] and the\ngreat bulk of the copies in this place did not originate in the way\ninsisted on by the critics, how is it to be accounted for? Now, on\nordinary occasions, we do not feel ourselves called upon to institute\nany such inquiry,--as indeed very seldom would it be practicable to do.\nUnbounded licence of transcription, flagrant carelessness, arbitrary\ninterpolations, omissions without number, disfigure those two ancient\nMSS. in every page. We seldom trouble ourselves to inquire into the\nhistory of their obliquities. But the case is of course materially\nchanged when so many of the oldest of the Fathers and all the oldest\nVersions seem to be at one with Codexes B and [Symbol: Aleph]. Let then\nthe student favour me with his undivided attention for a few moments,\nand I will explain to him how the misapprehension of Griesbach,\nTischendorf, Tregelles and the rest, has arisen. About the MSS. and the\nVersions these critics are sufficiently accurate: but they have fatally\nmisapprehended the import of the Patristic evidence; as I proceed to\nexplain.\n\nThe established Septuagintal rendering of Isa. xxix. 13 in the Apostolic\nage proves to have been this,--[Greek: Engizei moi ho laos outos tois\ncheilesin auton timosi me]: the words [Greek: en to stomati auton, kai\nen] being omitted. This is certain. Justin Martyr[287] and Cyril of\nAlexandria in two places[288] so quote the passage. Procopius Gazaeus in\nhis Commentary on Origen's Hexapla of Isaiah says expressly that the six\nwords in question were introduced into the text of the Septuagint by\nAquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion. Accordingly they are often observed\nto be absent from MSS.[289] They are not found, for example, in the\nCodex Alexandrinus.\n\nBut the asyndeton resulting from the suppression of these words was felt\nto be intolerable. In fact, without a colon point between [Greek: outos]\nand [Greek: tois], the result is without meaning. When once the\ncomplementary words have been withdrawn, [Greek: engizei moi] at the\nbeginning of the sentence is worse than superfluous. It fatally\nencumbers the sense. To drop those two words, after the example of the\nparallel place in St. Mark's Gospel, became thus an obvious proceeding.\nAccordingly the author of the (so-called) second Epistle of Clemens\nRomanus (Sec. 3), professing to quote the place in the prophet Isaiah,\nexhibits it thus,--[Greek: Ho laos outos tois cheilesi me tima]. Clemens\nAlexandrinus certainly does the same thing on at least two\noccasions[290]. So does Chrysostom[291]. So does Theodoret[292].\n\nTwo facts have thus emerged, which entirely change the aspect of the\nproblem: the first, (_a_) That the words [Greek: en to stomati auton,\nkai en] were anciently absent from the Septuagintal rendering of Isaiah\nxxix. 13: the second, (_b_) that the place of Isaiah was freely quoted\nby the ancients without the initial words [Greek: engizei moi].\n\nAnd after this discovery will any one be so perverse as to deny that on\nthe contrary it must needs be Codexes B and [Symbol: Aleph], and not the\ngreat bulk of the MSS., which exhibit a text corrupted by the influence\nof the Septuagint rendering of Isaiah xxix. 13? The precise extent to\nwhich the assimilating influence of the parallel place in St. Mark's\nGospel has been felt by the copyists, I presume not to determine. The\nessential point is that the omission from St. Matthew xv. 8 of the words\n[Greek: To stomati auton, kai], is certainly due in the first instance\nto the ascertained Septuagint omission of those very words in Isaiah\nxxix. 13.\n\nBut that the text of St. Mark vii. 6 has exercised an assimilating\ninfluence on the quotation from Isaiah is demonstrable. For there can be\nno doubt that Isaiah's phrase (retained by St. Matthew) is [Greek: ho\nlaos outos],--St. Mark's [Greek: outos ho laos]. And yet, when Clemens\nRomanus quotes Isaiah, he begins--[Greek: outos ho laos][293]; and so\ntwice does Theodoret[294].\n\nThe reader is now in a position to judge how much attention is due to\nDr. Tregelles' dictum 'that this one passage may be relied upon' in\nsupport of the peculiar views he advocates: as well as to his confident\nclaim that the fuller text which is found in ninety-nine MSS. out of a\nhundred 'must be regarded as an amplification borrowed from the\nprophet.' It has been shewn in answer to the learned critic that in the\nancient Greek text of the prophet the 'amplification' he speaks of did\nnot exist: it was the abbreviated text which was found there. So that\nthe very converse of the phenomenon he supposes has taken place. Freely\naccepting his hypothesis that we have here a process of assimilation,\noccasioned by the Septuagintal text of Isaiah, we differ from him only\nas to the direction in which that process has manifested itself. He\nassumes that the bulk of the MSS. have been conformed to the generally\nreceived reading of Isaiah xxix. 13. But it has been shewn that, on the\ncontrary, it is the two oldest MSS. which have experienced assimilation.\nTheir prototypes were depraved in this way at an exceedingly remote\nperiod.\n\nTo state this matter somewhat differently.--In all the extant uncials\nbut five, and in almost every known cursive copy of the Gospels, the\nwords [Greek: to stomati auton, kai] are found to belong to St. Matt.\nxv. 8. How is the presence of those words to be accounted for? The reply\nis obvious:--By the fact that they must have existed in the original\nautograph of the Evangelist. Such however is not the reply of Griesbach\nand his followers. They insist that beyond all doubt those words must\nhave been imported into the Gospel from Isaiah xxix. But I have shewn\nthat this is impossible; because, at the time spoken of, the words in\nquestion had no place in the Greek text of the prophet. And this\ndiscovery exactly reverses the problem, and brings out the directly\nopposite result. For now we discover that we have rather to inquire how\nis the absence of the words in question from those few MSS. out of the\nmass to be accounted for? The two oldest Codexes are convicted of\nexhibiting a text which has been corrupted by the influence of the\noldest Septuagint reading of Isaiah xxix. 13.\n\nI freely admit that it is in a high degree remarkable that five ancient\nVersions, and all the following early writers,--Ptolemaeus[295], Clemens\nAlexandrinus[296], Origen[297], Didymus[298], Cyril[299], Chrysostom[300],\nand possibly three others of like antiquity[301],--should all quote St.\nMatthew in this place from a faulty text. But this does but prove at how\nextremely remote a period the corruption must have begun. It probably\ndates from the first century. Especially does it seem to shew how\ndistrustful we should be of our oldest authorities when, as here, they\nare plainly at variance with the whole torrent of manuscript authority.\nThis is indeed no ordinary case. There are elements of distrust here,\nsuch as are not commonly encountered.\n\n\nSec. 6.\n\nWhat I have been saying is aptly illustrated by a place in our Lord's\nSermon on the Mount: viz. St. Matt. v. 44; which in almost every MS. in\nexistence stands as follows:\n\n  (1) [Greek: agapate tous echthrous humon],\n  (2) [Greek: eulogeite tous kataromenous humas],\n  (3) [Greek: kalos poieite tois misousin[302] humas],\n  (4) [Greek: kai proseuchesthe huper ton epereazonton humas],\n  (5) [Greek: kai diokonton hymas][303].\n\nOn the other hand, it is not to be denied that there exists an\nappreciable body of evidence for exhibiting the passage in a shorter\nform. The fact that Origen six times[304] reads the place thus:\n\n  [Greek: agapate tous echthrous humon,\n  kai proseuchesthe huper ton diokonton humas].\n\n(which amounts to a rejection of the second, third, and fourth\nclauses;)--and that he is supported therein by B[Symbol: Aleph],\n(besides a few cursives) the Curetonian, the Lewis, several Old Latin\nMSS., and the Bohairic[305], seems to critics of a certain school a\ncircumstance fatal to the credit of those clauses. They are aware that\nCyprian[306], and they are welcome to the information that\nTertullian[307] once and Theodoret once[308] [besides Irenaeus[309],\nEusebius[310], and Gregory of Nyssa[311]] exhibit the place in the same\nway. So does the author of the Dialogus contra Marcionitas[312],--whom\nhowever I take to be Origen. Griesbach, on far slenderer evidence, was\nfor obelizing all the three clauses. But Lachmann, Tregelles,\nTischendorf and the Revisers reject them entirely. I am persuaded that\nthey are grievously mistaken in so doing, and that the received text\nrepresents what St. Matthew actually wrote. It is the text of all the\nuncials but two, of all the cursives but six or seven; and this alone\nought to be decisive. But it is besides the reading of the Peshitto, the\nHarkleian, and the Gothic; as well as of three copies of the Old Latin.\n\nLet us however inquire more curiously for the evidence of Versions and\nFathers on this subject; remembering that the point in dispute is\nnothing else but the genuineness of clauses 2, 3, 4. And here, at\nstarting, we make the notable discovery that Origen, whose practice was\nrelied on for retaining none but the first and the fifth\nclauses,--himself twice[313] quotes the first clause in connexion with\nthe fourth: while Theodoret, on two occasions[314], connects with clause\n1 what he evidently means for clause 2; and Tertullian once if not twice\nconnects closely clauses 1, 2; and once, clauses 1, 2, 5[315]. From\nwhich it is plain that neither Origen nor Theodoret, least of all\nTertullian, can be held to disallow the clauses in question. They\nrecognize them on the contrary, which is simply a fatal circumstance,\nand effectively disposes of their supposed hostile evidence.\n\nBut in fact the Western Church yields unfaltering testimony. Besides the\nthree copies of the Old Latin which exhibit all the five clauses, the\nVulgate retains the first, third, fifth and fourth. Augustine[316]\nquotes consecutively clauses 1, 3, 5: Ambrose[317] clauses 1, 3, 4,\n5--1, 4, 5: Hilary[318], clauses 1, 4, 5, and (apparently) 2, 4, 5:\nLucifer[319], clauses 1, 2, 3 (apparently), 5: pseudo-Epiphanius[320]\nconnects clauses 1, 3,--1, 3, 5: and Pacian[321], clauses 5, 2. Next we\nhave to ascertain what is the testimony of the Greek Fathers.\n\nAnd first we turn to Chrysostom[322] who (besides quoting the fourth\nclause from St. Matthew's Gospel by itself five times) quotes\nconsecutively clauses 1, 3--iii. 167; 1, 4--iv. 619; 2, 4--v. 436; 4,\n3--ii. 340, v. 56, xii. 654; 4, 5--ii. 258, iii. 341; 1, 2, 4--iv. 267;\n1, 3, 4, 5--xii. 425; thus recognizing them _all._\n\nGregory Nyss.[323] quotes connectedly clauses 3, 4, 5.\n\nEusebius[324], clauses 4, 5--2, 4, 5--1, 3, 4, 5.\n\nThe Apostolic Constitutions[325] (third century), clauses 1, 3, 4, 5\n(having immediately before quoted clause 2,)--also clauses 2, 4, 1.\n\nClemens Alex.[326] (A.D. 192), clauses 1, 2, 4.\n\nAthenagoras[327] (A.D. 177), clauses 1, 2, 5.\n\nTheophilus[328] (A.D. 168), clauses 1, 4.\n\nWhile Justin M.[329] (A.D. 140) having paraphrased clause 1, connects\ntherewith clauses 2 and 4.\n\nAnd Polycarp[330] (A.D. 108) apparently connects clauses 4 and 5.\n\nDidache[331] (A.D. 100?) quotes 2, 4, 5 and combines 1 and 3 (pp. 5, 6).\n\nIn the face of all this evidence, no one it is presumed will any more be\nfound to dispute the genuineness of the generally received reading in\nSt. Matt. v. 44. All must see that if the text familiarly known in the\nage immediately after that of the Apostles had been indeed the bald,\ncurt thing which the critics imagine, viz.\n\n  [Greek: agapate tous echthrous humon,\n  kai proseuchesthe huper ton diokonton humas,--]\n\nby no possibility could the men of that age in referring to St. Matt. v.\n44 have freely mentioned 'blessing those who curse,--doing good to those\nwho hate,--and praying for those who despitefully use.' Since there are\nbut two alternative readings of the passage,--one longer, one\nbriefer,--every clear acknowledgement of a single disputed clause in the\nlarger reading necessarily carries with it all the rest.\n\nThis result of 'comparative criticism' is therefore respectfully\nrecommended to the notice of the learned. If it be not decisive of the\npoint at issue to find such a torrent of primitive testimony at one with\nthe bulk of the Uncials and Cursives extant, it is clear that there can\nbe no Science of Textual Criticism. The Law of Evidence must be held to\nbe inoperative in this subject-matter. Nothing deserving of the name of\n'proof' will ever be attainable in this department of investigation.\n\nBut if men admit that the ordinarily received text of St. Matt. v. 44\nhas been clearly established, then let the legitimate results of the\nforegoing discussion be loyally recognized. The unique value of\nManuscripts in declaring the exact text of Scripture--the conspicuous\ninadequacy of Patristic evidence by themselves,--have been made\napparent: and yet it has been shewn that Patristic quotations are\nabundantly sufficient for their proper purpose,--which is, to enable us\nto decide between conflicting readings. One more indication has been\nobtained of the corruptness of the text which Origen employed,--\nconcerning which he is so strangely communicative,--and of which\nB[Symbol: Aleph] are the chief surviving examples; and the probability\nhas been strengthened that when these are the sole, or even the\nprincipal witnesses, for any particular reading, that reading will prove\nto be corrupt.\n\nMill was of opinion, (and of course his opinion finds favour with\nGriesbach, Tischendorf, and the rest,) that these three clauses have\nbeen imported hither from St. Luke vi. 27, 28. But, besides that this is\nmere unsupported conjecture, how comes it then to pass that the order of\nthe second and third clauses in St. Matthew's Gospel is the reverse of\nthe order in St. Luke's? No. I believe that there has been excision\nhere: for I hold with Griesbach that it cannot have been the result of\naccident[332].\n\n[I take this opportunity to reply to a reviewer in the _Guardian_\nnewspaper, who thought that he had reduced the authorities quoted from\nbefore A.D. 400 on page 103 of The Traditional Text to two on our side\nagainst seven, or rather six[333], on the other. Let me first say that\non this perilous field I am not surprised at being obliged to re-judge\nor withdraw some authorities. I admit that in the middle of a long\ncatena of passages, I did not lay sufficient stress, as I now find, upon\nthe parallel passage in St. Luke vi. 27, 28. After fresh examination, I\nwithdraw entirely Clemens Alex., Paed. i. 8,--Philo of Carpasus, I.\n7,--Ambrose, De Abrahamo ii. 30, Ps. cxviii. 12. 51, and the two\nreferred to Athanasius. Also I do not quote Origen, Cels. viii.\n41,--Eusebius in Ps. iii.,--Apost. Const. vii. 4,--Greg. Nyss., In S.\nStephanum, because they may be regarded as doubtful, although for\nreasons which I proceed to give they appear to witness in favour of our\ncontention. It is necessary to add some remarks before dealing with the\nrest of the passages.]\n\n[1. It must be borne in mind, that this is a question both negative and\npositive:--negative on the side of our opponents, with all the\ndifficulties involved in establishing a negative conclusion as to the\nnon-existence in St. Matthew's Gospel of clauses 2, 3, and 5,--and\npositive for us, in the establishment of those clauses as part of the\ngenuine text in the passage which we are considering. If we can so\nestablish the clauses, or indeed any one of them, the case against us\nfails: but unless we can establish all, we have not proved everything\nthat we seek to demonstrate. Our first object is to make the adverse\nposition untenable: when we have done that, we fortify our own.\nTherefore both the Dean and myself have drawn attention to the fact that\nour authorities are summoned as witnesses to the early existence in each\ncase of 'some of the clauses,' if they do not depose to all of them. We\nare quite aware of the reply: but we have with us the advantage of\npositive as against negative evidence. This advantage especially rules\nin such an instance as the present, because alien circumstances govern\nthe quotation, and regulate particularly the length of it. Such\nquotation is always liable to shortening, whether by leaving out\nintermediate clauses, or by sudden curtailment in the midst of the\npassage. Therefore, actual citation of separate clauses, being\nundesigned and fortuitous, is much more valuable than omission arising\nfrom what cause soever.]\n\n[2. The reviewer says that 'all four clauses are read by both texts,'\ni.e. in St. Matthew and St. Luke, and appears to have been unaware as\nregards the present purpose of the existence of the fifth clause, or\nhalf-clause, in St. Matthew. Yet the words--[Greek: huper ... ton\ndiokonton humas] are a very label, telling incontestibly the origin of\nmany of the quotations. Sentences so distinguished with St. Matthew's\nlabel cannot have come from St. Luke's Gospel. The reviewer has often\ngone wrong here. The [Greek: huper]--instead of the [Greek: peri] after\n[Symbol: Aleph]BL[Symbol: Xi] in St. Luke--should be to our opponents a\nsign betraying the origin, though when it stands by itself--as in\nEusebius, In Ps. iii.--I do not press the passage.]\n\n[3. Nor again does the reviewer seem to have noticed the effects of the\ncontext in shewing to which source a quotation is to be referred. It is\na common custom for Fathers to quote v. 45 in St. Matthew, which is\nhardly conceivable if they had St. Luke vi. 27, 28 before them, or even\nif they were quoting from memory. Other points in the context of greater\nor less importance are often found in the sentence or sentences\npreceding or following the words quoted, and are decisive of the\nreference.]\n\n[The references as corrected are given in the note[334]. It will be seen\nby any one who compares the verifications with the reviewer's list, how\nhis failure to observe the points just explained has led him astray. The\neffect upon the list given in The Traditional Text will be that before\nthe era of St. Chrysostom twenty-five testimonies are given in favour of\nthe Traditional Text of St. Matt. v. 44, and adding Tertullian from the\nDean nine against it. And the totals on page 102, lines 2 and 3 will be\n522 and 171 respectively.]\n\n\nSec. 7.\n\nEspecially have we need to be on our guard against conniving at the\nejection of short clauses consisting of from twelve to fourteen\nletters,--which proves to have been the exact length of a line in the\nearliest copies. When such omissions leave the sense manifestly\nimperfect, no evil consequence can result. Critics then either take no\nnotice of the circumstance, or simply remark in passing that the\nomission has been the result of accident. In this way, [[Greek: hoi\npateres auton], though it is omitted by Cod. B in St. Luke vi. 26, is\nretained by all the Editors: and the strange reading of Cod. [Symbol:\nAleph] in St. John vi. 55, omitting two lines, was corrected on the\nmanuscript in the seventh century, and has met with no assent in modern\ntimes].\n\n  [Greek: EGAR]\n  [Greek: SARXMOUALETHOS]\n  [[Greek: ESTIBROSISKAI]\n  [Greek: TOAIMAMOUALETHOS]]\n  [Greek: ESTIPOSIS]\n\nBut when, notwithstanding the omission of two or three words, the sense\nof the context remains unimpaired,--the clause being of independent\nsignification,--then great danger arises lest an attempt should be made\nthrough the officiousness of modern Criticism to defraud the Church of a\npart of her inheritance. Thus [[Greek: kai hoi syn auto] (St. Luke viii.\n45) is omitted by Westcott and Hort, and is placed in the margin by the\nRevisers and included in brackets by Tregelles as if the words were of\ndoubtful authority, solely because some scribe omitted a line and was\nfollowed by B, a few cursives, the Sahidic, Curetonian, Lewis, and\nJerusalem Versions].\n\nWhen indeed the omission dates from an exceedingly remote period; took\nplace, I mean, in the third, or more likely still in the second century;\nthen the fate of such omitted words may be predicted with certainty.\nTheir doom is sealed. Every copy made from that defective original of\nnecessity reproduced the defects of its prototype: and if (as often\nhappens) some of those copies have descended to our times, they become\nquoted henceforward as if they were independent witnesses[335]. Nor is\nthis all. Let the taint have been communicated to certain copies of the\nOld Latin, and we find ourselves confronted with formidable because very\nvenerable foes. And according to the recently approved method of editing\nthe New Testament, the clause is allowed no quarter. It is declared\nwithout hesitation to be a spurious accretion to the Text. Take, as an\ninstance of this, the following passage in St. Luke xii. 39. 'If' (says\nour Lord) 'the master of the house had known in what hour\n\n  [Greek: OKLEPTES]\n  [Greek: ERCHETAI] [[Greek: EGREGOR]\n  [Greek: ESENKAI]] [Greek: OUKANA]\n  [Greek: PHEKEN]\n\nhis house to be broken through.' Here, the clause within brackets, which\nhas fallen out for an obvious reason, does not appear in Codd. [Symbol:\nAleph] and D. But the omission did not begin with [Symbol: Aleph]. Two\ncopies of the Old Latin are also without the words [Greek: egregoresen\nkai],--which are wanting besides in Cureton's Syriac. Tischendorf\naccordingly omits them. And yet, who sees not that such an amount of\nevidence as this is wholly insufficient to warrant the ejection of the\nclause as spurious? What is the 'Science' worth which cannot preserve to\nthe body a healthy limb like this?\n\n[The instances of omission which have now been examined at some length\nmust by no means be regarded as the only specimens of this class of\ncorrupt passages[336]. Many more will occur to the minds of the readers\nof the present volume and of the earlier volume of this work. In fact,\nomissions are much more common than Additions, or Transpositions, or\nSubstitutions: and this fact, that omissions, or what seem to be\nomissions, are apparently so common,--to say nothing of the very strong\nevidence wherewith they are attested--when taken in conjunction with the\nnatural tendency of copyists to omit words and passages, cannot but\nconfirm the general soundness of the position. How indeed can it\npossibly be more true to the infirmities of copyists, to the verdict of\nevidence on the several passages, and to the origin of the New Testament\nin the infancy of the Church and amidst associations which were not\nliterary, to suppose that a terse production was first produced and\nafterwards was amplified in a later age with a view to 'lucidity and\ncompleteness[337],' rather than that words and clauses and sentences\nwere omitted upon definitely understood principles in a small class of\ndocuments by careless or ignorant or prejudiced scribes? The reply to\nthis question must now be left for candid and thoughtful students to\ndetermine.]\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[258] It will be observed that these are empirical, not logical,\nclasses. Omissions are found in many of the rest.\n\n[259] Last Twelve Verses of St. Mark's Gospel, chapter v. and Appendix\nB.\n\n[260] See Dr. Gwynn's remarks in Appendix VII of The Traditional Text,\npp. 298-301.\n\n[261] The Revision Revised, pp. 42-45, 422-424: Traditional Text, p.\n109, where thirty-eight testimonies are quoted before 400 A.D.\n\n[262] The expression of Jerome, that almost all the Greek MSS. omit this\npassage, is only a translation of Eusebius. It cannot express his own\nopinion, for he admitted the twelve verses into the Vulgate, and quoted\nparts of them twice, i.e. ver. 9, ii. 744-5, ver. 14, i. 327 c.\n\n[263] Dr. Dobbin has calculated 330 omissions in St. Matthew, 365 in St.\nMark, 439 in St Luke, 357 in St. John, 384 in the Acts, and 681 in the\nEpistles--3,556 in all as far as Heb. ix. 14, where it terminates.\nDublin University Magazine, 1859, p. 620.\n\n[264] Such as in Cod. D after St. Luke vi. 4. 'On the same day He beheld\na certain man working on the sabbath, and said unto him, \"Man, blessed\nart thou if thou knowest what thou doest; but if thou knowest not, thou\nart cursed and a transgressor of the law\"' (Scrivener's translation,\nIntroduction, p. 8). So also a longer interpolation from the Curetonian\nafter St. Matt. xx. 28. These are condemned by internal evidence as well\nas external.\n\n[265] [Greek: kai ho peson epi ton lithon touton synthlasthesetai; eph'\non d' an pese, likmesei auton].\n\n[266] iv. 25 d, 343 d.--What proves these two quotations to be from St.\nMatt. xxi. 44, and not from St. Luke xx. 18, is, that they alike exhibit\nexpressions which are peculiar to the earlier Gospel. The first is\nintroduced by the formula [Greek: oudepote anegnote] (ver. 42: comp.\nOrig. ii. 794 c), and both exhibit the expression [Greek: epi ton lithon\ntouton] (ver. 44), not [Greek: ep' ekeinon ton lithon]. Vainly is it\nurged on the opposite side, that [Greek: pas ho peson] belongs to St.\nLuke,--whereas [Greek: kai ho peson] is the phrase found in St.\nMatthew's Gospel. Chrysostom (vii. 672) writes [Greek: pas ho pipton]\nwhile professing to quote from St. Matthew; and the author of Cureton's\nSyriac, who had this reading in his original, does the same.\n\n[267] P. 193.\n\n[268] P. 11.\n\n[269] vii. 672 a [freely quoted as Greg. Naz. in the Catena of Nicetas,\np. 669] xii. 27 d.\n\n[270] _Ap_. Mai, ii. 401 dis.\n\n[271] _Ap_. Chrys. vi. 171 c.\n\n[272] vii. 171 d.\n\n[273] iii^{2}. 86, 245: v. 500 e, 598 d.\n\n[274] 682-3 (Massuet 277).\n\n[275] iii. 786.\n\n[276] Theoph. 235-6 (= Mai, iv. 122).\n\n[277] ii. 660 a, b, c.\n\n[278] 'Praeterit et Lucifer.'\n\n[279] _Ap._ Galland. vi. 191 d.\n\n[280] Ibid. vii. 20 c.\n\n[281] Ibid. ix. 768 a.\n\n[282] [I am unable to find any place in the Dean's writings where he has\nmade this explanation. The following note, however, is appended here]:--\n\nWith verse 43, the long lesson for the Monday in Holy-week (ver. 18-43)\ncomes to an end.\n\nVerse 44 has a number all to itself (in other words, is sect. 265) in\nthe fifth of the Syrian Canons,--which contains whatever is found\nexclusively in St. Matthew and St. Luke.\n\n[283] 'Omnino ex Lc. assumpta videntur.'\n\n[284] The section in St. Matthew is numbered 265,--in St. Luke, 274:\nboth being referred to Canon V, in which St. Matthew and St. Luke are\nexclusively compared.\n\n[285] Vol. i. 13.\n\n[286] Letter to Pope Damasus. See my book on St. Mark, p. 28.\n\n[287] Dial. Sec. 78, _ad fin._ (p. 272).\n\n[288] Opp. ii. 215 a: v. part ii. 118 c.\n\n[289] See Holmes and Parsons' ed. of the LXX,--vol. iv. _in loc._\n\n[290] Opp. pp. 143 and 206. P. 577 is allusive only.\n\n[291] Opp. vii. 158 c: ix. 638 b.\n\n[292] Opp. ii. 1345: iii. 763-4.\n\n[293] Sec. xv:--on which his learned editor (Bp. Jacobson) pertinently\nremarks,--'Hunc locum Prophetae Clemens exhibuisset sicut a Christo\nlaudatam, S. Marc. vii. 6, si pro [Greek: apestin] dedisset [Greek:\napechei].'\n\n[294] Opp. i. 1502: iii. 1114.\n\n[295] _Ap._ Epiphanium, Opp. i. 218 d.\n\n[296] Opp. p. 461.\n\n[297] Opp. iii. 492 (a remarkable place): ii. 723: iv. 121.\n\n[298] De Trinitate, p. 242.\n\n[299] Opp. ii. 413 b. [Observe how this evidence leads us to\nAlexandria.]\n\n[300] Opp. vii. 522 d. The other place, ix. 638 b, is uncertain.\n\n[301] It is uncertain whether Eusebius and Basil quote St. Matthew or\nIsaiah: but a contemporary of Chrysostom certainly quotes the\nGospel,--Chrys. Opp. vi. 425 d (cf. p. 417, line 10).\n\n[302] But Eus.^{Es 589} [Greek: tous m.]\n\n[303] I have numbered the clauses for convenience.--It will perhaps\nfacilitate the study of this place, if (on my own responsibility) I\nsubjoin a representation of the same words in Latin:--\n\n    (1) Diligite inimicos vestros,\n    (2) benedicite maledicentes vos,\n    (3) benefacite odientibus vos,\n    (4) et orate pro calumniantibus vos,\n    (5) et persequentibus vos.\n\n[304] Opp. iv. 324 _bis_, 329 _bis_, 351. Gall. xiv. App. 106.\n\n[305] 'A large majority, all but five, omit it. Some add it in the\nmargin.' Traditional Text, p. 149.\n\n[306] Opp. p. 79, cf. 146.\n\n[307] Scap. c. 1.\n\n[308] Opp. iv. 946.\n\n[309] Haer. III. xviii. 5.\n\n[310] Dem. Evan. xiii. 7.\n\n[311] In Bapt. Christ.\n\n[312] Orig. Opp. i. 812.\n\n[313] Opp. i. 768: iv. 353.\n\n[314] Opp. i. 827: ii. 399.\n\n[315] Spect. c. 16: (Anim. c. 35): Pat. c. 6.\n\n[316] [In Ep. Joh. IV. Tract, ix. 3 (1, 3 (ver. 45 &c.)); In Ps.\ncxxxviii. 37 (1, 3); Serm. XV. 8 (1, 3, 5); Serm. LXII. _in loc._ (1, 3,\n4, 5).]\n\n[317] In Ps. xxxviii. 2.\n\n[318] Opp. pp. 303, 297.\n\n[319] Pro S. Athanas. ii.\n\n[320] Ps. cxviii. 10. 16; 9. 9.\n\n[321] Ep. ii.\n\n[322] Opp. iii. 167: iv. 619: v. 436:--ii. 340: v. 56: xii. 654:--ii.\n258: iii. 41:--iv. 267: xii. 425.\n\n[323] Opp. iii. 379.\n\n[324] Praep. 654: Ps. 137, 699: Es. 589.\n\n[325] Pp. 3. 198.\n\n[326] Opp. p. 605 and 307.\n\n[327] Leg. pro Christian. 11.\n\n[328] Ad Autolycum, iii. 14.\n\n[329] Opp. i. 40.\n\n[330] Ad Philipp. c. 12.\n\n[331] Sec. 1.\n\n[332] Theodoret once (iv. 946) gives the verse as Tischendorf gives it:\nbut on two other occasions (i. 827: ii. 399) the same Theodoret exhibits\nthe second member of the sentence thus,--[Greek: eulogeite tous\ndiokontas humas] (so pseud.-Athan. ii. 95), which shews how little\nstress is to be laid on such evidence as the first-named place\nfurnishes.\n\nOrigen also (iv. 324 bis, 329 bis, 351) repeatedly gives the place as\nTischendorf gives it--but on one occasion, which it will be observed is\n_fatal_ to his evidence (i. 768), he gives the second member thus,--iv.\n353:\n\n[Greek: kai proseuchesthe huper ton epereazonton humas].... 1. 4.\n\nNext observe how Clemens Al. (605) handles the same place:--\n\n[Greek: agapate tous echthrous humon, eulogeite tous kataromenous humas,\nkai proseuchesthe huper ton epereazynton humin, kai ta homoia.]... 1, 2,\n4.--3, 5.\n\nJustin M. (i. 40) quoting the same place from memory (and with exceeding\nlicence), yet is observed to recognize in part _both_ the clauses which\nlabour under suspicion:... 1, 2, 4.--3, 5.\n\n[Greek: euchesthe huper ton echthron humon kai agapate tous misountas\nhumas], which roughly represents [Greek: kai eulogeite tous kataromenous\nhumin kai euchesthe huper ton epereazonton humas].\n\nThe clause which hitherto lacks support is that which regards [Greek:\ntous misountas humas]. But the required help is supplied by Irenaeus (i.\n521), who (loosely enough) quotes the place thus,--\n\n_Diligite inimicos vestros, et orate pro eis, qui vos oderunt._ ... 1\n(made up of 3, 4).--2, 5.\n\nAnd yet more by the most venerable witness of all, Polycarp, who\nwrites:--ad Philipp. c. 12:--\n\n_Orate pro persequentibus et odientibus vos._... 4, 5.--1, 2, 3.\n\nI have examined [Didache] _Justin_, _Irenaeus_, _Eusebius_,\n_Hippolytus_, _Cyril Al._, _Greg. Naz._, _Basil_, _Athan._, _Didymus_,\n_Cyril Hier._, _Chrys._, _Greg. Nyss._, _Epiph._, _Theod._, _Clemens._\n\nAnd the following are the results:--\n\nDidache. [Greek: Eulogeite tous kataromenous humin, kai proseuchesthe\nhuper ton echthron humon, nesteuete huper ton diokonton humas ... humeis\nde agapate tous misountas humas].... 2, 3, 4, 5.\n\nAphraates, Dem. ii. The Latin Translation runs:--Diligite inimicos\nvestros, benedicite ei qui vobis maledicit, orate pro eis qui vos vexunt\net persequuntur.\n\nEusebius Prae 654.... 2, 4, 5, omitting 1, 3.\n\nEusebius Ps 699.... 4, 5, omitting 1, 2, 3.\n\nEusebius Es 589.... 1, 3, 4, 5, omitting 2.\n\nClemens Al. 605.... 1, 2, 4, omitting 3, 5.\n\nGreg. Nyss. iii. 379.... 3, 4, 5, omitting 1, 2.\n\nVulg. Diligite inimicos vestros, benefacite his qui oderunt vos, et\norate pro persequentibus et calumniantibus vos.... 1, 3, 5, 4, omitting\n2.\n\nHilary, 297. Benedicite qui vos persequuntur, et orate pro\ncalumniantibus vos ac persequentibus vos.... 2, 4, 5, omitting the\n_first and third_.\n\nHilary, 303. Diligite inimicos vestros, et orate pro calumniantibus vos\nac persequentibus vos.... 1, 4, 5, omitting the _second and third_. Cf.\n128.\n\nCyprian, 79 (cf. 146). Diligite inimicos vestros, et orate pro his qui\nvos persequuntur.... 1, 5, omitting 2, 3, 4.\n\nTertullian. Diligite (enim) inimicos vestros, (inquit,) et orate pro\nmaledicentibus vos--which apparently is meant for a quotation of 1, 2.\n... 1, 2, omitting 3, 4, 5.\n\nTertullian. Diligite (enim) inimicos vestros, (inquit,) et\nmaledicentibus benedicite, et orate pro persecutoribus vestris--which is\na quotation of 1, 2, 5. ... 1, 2, 5, omitting 3, 4.\n\nTertullian. Diligere inimicos, et orare pro eis qui vos persequuntur.\n... 1, 5, omitting 2, 3, 4.\n\nTertullian. Inimicos diligi, maledicentes benedici.... 1, 2, omitting 3,\n4, 5.\n\nAmbrose. Diligite inimicos vestros benefacite iis qui oderunt vos: orate\npro calumniantibus et persequentibus vos.... 1, 3, 4, 5, omitting 2.\n\nAmbrose. Diligite inimicos vestros, orate pro calumniantibus et\npersequentibus vos.... 1, 4, 5, omitting 2, 3.\n\nAugustine. Diligite inimicos vestros benefacite his qui vos oderunt: et\norate pro eis qui vos persequuntur.... 1, 3, 5, omitting 2, 4.\n\n'Benedicite qui vos persequuntur, et orate pro calumniantibus vos ac\npersequentibus vos.' Hilary, 297.\n\nCyril Al. twice (i. 270: ii. 807) quotes the place thus,--\n\n[Greek: eu poieite tous echthrous humon, kai proseuchesthe huper ton\nepereazonton humas.]\n\nChrys. (iii. 355) says\n\n[Greek: autos gar eipen, euchesthe huper ton echthron] [[Greek: humon]]\n\nand repeats the quotation at iii. 340 and xii. 453.\n\nSo Tertull. (Apol. c. 31), pro inimicis deum orare, et _persecutoribus_\nnostris bone precari.... 1, 5.\n\nIf the lost Greek of Irenaeus (i. 521) were recovered, we should\nprobably find\n\n[Greek: agapate tous echthrous humon, kai proseuchesthe huper ton\nmisounton humas]:\n\nand of Polycarp (ad Philipp. c. 12),\n\n[Greek: proseuchesthe huper ton diokonton kai misounton humas].\n\n[333] _Dialogus Adamantii_ is not adducible within my limits, because\n'it is in all probability the production of a later age.' My number was\neight.\n\n[334] Observe that 5 = [Greek: huper ... ton diokonton].\n\nFor--\n\nDidache (Sec. 1), 2 (3), 3 (2), 4, 5.\n\nPolycarp (xii), 3 (2), 5.\n\nJustin Martyr, Apol. i. 15, 3 (2), 2 (3), 4 (4), 5? [Greek: huper ton\nechthron] (=[Greek: diokonton]?), but the passage more like St. Luke,\nthe context more like St. Matt., ver. 45.\n\nAthenagoras (Leg. pro Christian. 11), 1, 2 (3). 5. ver. 45.\n\nTertullian (De Patient, vi), 1, 2 (3), 5, pt. ver. 45. Add Apol. c. 31.\n1, 5.\n\nTheophilus Ant. (Ad Autolycum iii. 14), 1, 4 (4), [Greek: hyper] and\nver. 46.\n\nClemens Alex. (Strom, iv. 14), 1, 2 (3), 4 (4), pt. ver. 45; (Strom,\nvii. 14), favours St. Matt.\n\nOrigen (De Orat. i), 1, 4 (4), [Greek: huper] and in the middle of two\nquotations from St. Matthew; (Cels. viii. 45), 1, 4 (4) [Greek: huper]\nand all ver. 45.\n\nEusebius (Praep. Evan. xiii. 7), 2 (3), 4 (4), 5, all ver. 45; (Comment,\nin Is. 66), 1, 3 (2), 4 (4), 5, also ver. 45; (In Ps. cviii), 4, 5.\n\nApost. Const, (i. 2), 1, 3 (2), 4 (4), 5, [Greek: huper] and ver. 45.\n\nGreg. Naz. (Orat. iv. 124), 2 (3), 4 (4), 5, [Greek: hupereuchesthai].\n\nGreg. Nyss. (In Bapt. Christi), 3 (2), 4 (4), 5, [Greek: huper], ver.\n45.\n\nLucifer (Pro S. Athan. ii) omits 4 (4), but quotes ver. 44 ... end of\nchapter.\n\nPacianus (Epist. ii), 2 (3), 5.\n\nHilary (Tract, in Ps. cxviii. 9. 9), 2 (3), 4 (4), 5; (ibid. 10. 16), 1,\n4 (4), 5. (The reviewer omits 'ac persequentibus vos' in both cases.)\n\nAmbrose (In Ps. xxxviii. 2), 1, 3, 4, 5; (In Ps. xxxviii. 10), 1, 4 (4),\n5.\n\nAphraates (Dem. ii), 1, 2 (3), 4 (4), 5, [Greek: ethnikoi].\n\nApocryphal Acts of the Apostles (p. 89), 2 (3), 3 (2), 4 (4), ver. 45.\n\nNumber = 25.\n\n[335] See Traditional Text, p. 55.\n\n[336] For one of the two most important omissions in the New Testament,\nviz. the _Pericope de Adultera_, see Appendix I. See also Appendix II.\n\n[337] Westcott and Hort, Introduction, p. 134.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XI.\n\nCAUSES OF CORRUPTION CHIEFLY INTENTIONAL.\n\nV. Transposition, VI. Substitution, and VII. Addition.\n\n\nSec. 1.\n\nOne of the most prolific sources of Corrupt Readings, is Transposition,\nor the arbitrary inversion of the order of the sacred words,--generally\nin the subordinate clauses of a sentence. The extent to which this\nprevails in Codexes of the type of B[Symbol: Aleph]CD passes belief. It\nis not merely the occasional writing of [Greek: tauta panta] for [Greek:\npanta tauta],--or [Greek: ho laos outos] for [Greek: outos ho laos], to\nwhich allusion is now made: for if that were all, the phenomenon would\nadmit of loyal explanation and excuse. But what I speak of is a\nsystematic putting to wrong of the inspired words throughout the entire\nCodex; an operation which was evidently regarded in certain quarters as\na lawful exercise of critical ingenuity,--perhaps was looked upon as an\nelegant expedient to be adopted for improving the style of the original\nwithout materially interfering with the sense.\n\nLet me before going further lay before the reader a few specimens of\nTransposition.\n\nTake for example St. Mark i. 5,--[Greek: kai ebaptizonto pantes],--is\nunreasonably turned into [Greek: pantes kai ebaptizonto]; whereby the\nmeaning of the Evangelical record becomes changed, for [Greek: pantes]\nis now made to agree with [Greek: Hierosolumitai], and the Evangelist is\nrepresented as making the very strong assertion that _all_ the people of\nJerusalem came to St. John and were baptized. This is the private\nproperty of BDL[Symbol: Delta].\n\nAnd sometimes I find short clauses added which I prefer to ascribe to\nthe misplaced critical assiduity of ancient Critics. Confessedly\nspurious, these accretions to the genuine text often bear traces of\npious intelligence, and occasionally of considerable ability. I do not\nsuppose that they 'crept in' from the margin: but that they were\ninserted by men who entirely failed to realize the wrongness of what\nthey did,--the mischievous consequences which might possibly ensue from\ntheir well-meant endeavours to improve the work of the Holy Ghost.\n\n[Take again St. Mark ii. 3, in which the order in [Greek: pros auton\nparalytikon pherontes],--is changed by [Symbol: Aleph]BL into [Greek:\npherontes pros auton paralytikon]. A few words are needed to explain to\nthose who have not carefully examined the passage the effect of this\napparently slight alteration. Our Lord was in a house at Capernaum with\na thick crowd of people around Him: there was no room even at the door.\nWhilst He was there teaching, a company of people come to Him ([Greek:\nerchontai pros auton]), four of the party carrying a paralytic on a bed.\nWhen they arrive at the house, a few of the company, enough to represent\nthe whole, force their way in and reach Him: but on looking back they\nsee that the rest are unable to bring the paralytic near to Him ([Greek:\nprosengisai auto][338]). Upon which they all go out and uncover the\nroof, take up the sick man on his bed, and the rest of the familiar\nstory unfolds itself. Some officious scribe wished to remove all\nantiquity arising from the separation of [Greek: paralytikon] from\n[Greek: airomenon] which agrees with it, and transposed [Greek:\npherontes] to the verb it is attached to, thus clumsily excluding the\nexquisite hint, clear enough to those who can read between the lines,\nthat in the ineffectual attempt to bring in the paralytic only some of\nthe company reached our Lord's Presence. Of course the scribe in\nquestion found followers in [Symbol: Aleph]BL.]\n\nIt will be seen therefore that some cases of transposition are of a kind\nwhich is without excuse and inadmissible. Such transposition consists in\ndrawing back a word which occurs further on, but is thus introduced into\na new context, and gives a new sense. It seems to be assumed that since\nthe words are all there, so long as they be preserved, their exact\ncollocation is of no moment. Transpositions of that kind, to speak\nplainly, are important only as affording conclusive proof that such\ncopies as B[Symbol: Aleph]D preserve a text which has undergone a sort\nof critical treatment which is so obviously indefensible that the\nCodexes themselves, however interesting as monuments of a primitive\nage,--however valuable commercially and to be prized by learned and\nunlearned alike for their unique importance,--are yet to be prized\nchiefly as beacon-lights preserved by a watchful Providence to warn\nevery voyaging bark against making shipwreck on a shore already strewn\nwith wrecks[339].\n\nTransposition may sometimes be as conveniently illustrated in English as\nin Greek. St. Luke relates (Acts ii. 45, 46) that the first believers\nsold their goods 'and parted them to all men, as every man had need. And\nthey, continuing daily,' &c. For this, Cod. D reads, 'and parted them\ndaily to all men as every man had need. And they continued in the\ntemple.'\n\n\nSec. 2.\n\nIt is difficult to divine for what possible reason most of these\ntranspositions were made. On countless occasions they do not in the\nleast affect the sense. Often, they are incapable of being idiomatically\nrepresented, in English. Generally speaking, they are of no manner of\nimportance, except as tokens of the licence which was claimed by\ndisciples, as I suspect, of the Alexandrian school [or exercised\nunintentionally by careless or ignorant Western copyists]. But there\narise occasions when we cannot afford to be so trifled with. An\nimportant change in the meaning of a sentence is sometimes effected by\ntransposing its clauses; and on one occasion, as I venture to think, the\nprophetic intention of the Speaker is obscured in consequence. I allude\nto St. Luke xiii. 9, where under the figure of a barren fig-tree, our\nLord hints at what is to befall the Jewish people, because in the fourth\nyear of His Ministry it remained unfruitful. 'Lo, these three years,'\n(saith He to the dresser of His Vineyard), 'come I seeking fruit on this\nfig-tree, and find none; cut it down; why cumbereth it the ground?'\n'Spare it for this year also' (is the rejoinder), 'and if it bear\nfruit,--well: but if not, next year thou shalt cut it down.' But on the\nstrength of [Symbol: Aleph]BLT^{w}, some recent Critics would have us\nread,--'And if it bear fruit next year,--well: but if not, thou shalt\ncut it down':--which clearly would add a year to the season of the\nprobation of the Jewish race. The limit assigned in the genuine text is\nthe fourth year: in the corrupt text of [Symbol: Aleph]BLT^{w}, two bad\nCursives, and the two chief Egyptian versions, this period becomes\nextended to the fifth.\n\nTo reason about such transpositions of words, a wearisome proceeding at\nbest, soon degenerates into the veriest trifling. Sometimes, the order\nof the words is really immaterial to the sense. Even when a different\nshade of meaning is the result of a different collocation, that will\nseem the better order to one man which seems not to be so to another.\nThe best order of course is that which most accurately exhibits the\nAuthor's precise shade of meaning: but of this the Author is probably\nthe only competent judge. On our side, an appeal to actual evidence is\nobviously the only resource: since in no other way can we reasonably\nexpect to ascertain what was the order of the words in the original\ndocument. And surely such an appeal can be attended with only one\nresult: viz. the unconditional rejection of the peculiar and often\nvarying order advocated by the very few Codexes,--a cordial acceptance\nof the order exhibited by every document in the world besides.\n\nI will content myself with inviting attention to one or two samples of\nmy meaning. It has been made a question whether St. Luke (xxiv. 7)\nwrote,--[Greek: legon, Hoti dei ton huion tou anthropou paradothenai],\nas all the MSS. in the world but four, all the Versions, and all the\navailable Fathers'[340] evidence from A.D. 150 downwards attest: or\nwhether he wrote,--[Greek: legon ton huion tou anthropou hoti dei\nparadothenai], as [Symbol: Aleph]BCL,--and those four documents\nonly--would have us believe? [The point which first strikes a scholar is\nthat there is in this reading a familiar classicism which is alien to\nthe style of the Gospels, and which may be a symptom of an attempt on\nthe part of some early critic who was seeking to bring them into\nagreement with ancient Greek models.] But surely also it is even obvious\nthat the correspondence of those four Codexes in such a particular as\nthis must needs be the result of their having derived the reading from\none and the same original. On the contrary, the agreement of all the\nrest in a trifling matter of detail like the present can be accounted\nfor in only one way, viz., by presuming that they also have all been\nderived through various lines of descent from a single document: but\n_that_ document the autograph of the Evangelist. [For the great number\nand variety of them necessitates their having been derived through\nvarious lines of descent. Indeed, they must have the notes of number,\nvariety, as well as continuity, and weight also.]\n\n\nSec. 3.\n\nOn countless occasions doubtless, it is very difficult--perhaps\nimpossible--to determine, apart from external evidence, which\ncollocation of two or more words is the true one, whether e.g. [Greek:\nechei zoen] for instance or [Greek: zoen echei][341],--[Greek: egerthe\neutheos] or [Greek: eutheos egerthe][342],--[Greek: cholous,\ntyphlous]--or [Greek: typhlous, cholous][343],--shall be preferred. The\nburden of proof rests evidently with innovators on Traditional use.\n\nObvious at the same time is it to foresee that if a man sits down before\nthe Gospel with the deliberate intention of improving the style of the\nEvangelists by transposing their words on an average of seven (B), eight\n([Symbol: Aleph]), or twelve (D) times in every page, he is safe to\nconvict himself of folly in repeated instances, long before he has\nreached the end of his task. Thus, when the scribe of [Symbol: Aleph],\nin place of [Greek: exousian edoken auto kai krisin poiein][344],\npresents us with [Greek: kai krisin edoken auto exousian poiein], we\nhesitate not to say that he has written nonsense[345]. And when BD\ninstead of [Greek: eisi tines ton ode hestekoton] exhibit [Greek: eise\nton ode ton hestekoton], we cannot but conclude that the credit of those\ntwo MSS. must be so far lowered in the eyes of every one who with true\nappreciation of the niceties of Greek scholarship observes what has been\ndone.\n\n[This characteristic of the old uncials is now commended to the\nattention of students, who will find in the folios of those documents\nplenty of instances for examination. Most of the cases of Transposition\nare petty enough, whilst some, as the specimens already presented to the\nreader indicate, constitute blots not favourable to the general\nreputation of the copies on which they are found. Indeed, they are so\nfrequent that they have grown to be a very habit, and must have\npropagated themselves. For it is in this secondary character rather than\nin any first intention, so to speak, that Transpositions, together with\nOmissions and Substitutions and Additions, have become to some extent\nindependent causes of corruption. Originally produced by other forces,\nthey have acquired a power of extension in themselves.\n\nIt is hoped that the passages already quoted may be found sufficient to\nexhibit the character of the large class of instances in which the pure\nText of the original Autographs has been corrupted by Transposition.\nThat it has been so corrupted, is proved by the evidence which is\ngenerally overpowering in each case. There has clearly been much\nintentional perversion: carelessness also and ignorance of Greek\ncombined with inveterate inaccuracy, characteristics especially of\nWestern corruption as may be seen in Codex D and the Old Latin versions,\nmust have had their due share in the evil work. The result has been\nfound in constant slurs upon the sacred pages, lessening the beauty and\noften perverting the sense,--a source of sorrow to the keen scholar and\nreverent Christian, and reiterated indignity done in wantonness or\nheedlessness to the pure and easy flow of the Holy Books.]\n\n\nSec. 4.\n\n[All the Corruption in the Sacred Text may be classed under four heads,\nviz. Omission, Transposition, Substitution, and Addition. We are\nentirely aware that, in the arrangement adopted in this Volume for\npurposes of convenience, Scientific Method has been neglected. The\ninevitable result must be that passages are capable of being classed\nunder more heads than one. But Logical exactness is of less practical\nvalue than a complete and suitable treatment of the corrupted passages\nthat actually occur in the four Gospels.\n\nIt seems therefore needless to supply with a scrupulousness that might\nbore our readers a disquisition upon Substitution which has not forced\nitself into a place amongst Dean Burgon's papers, although it is found\nin a fragmentary plan of this part of the treatise. Substituted forms or\nwords or phrases, such as [Greek: OS] ([Greek: hos]) for [Greek: THS]\n([Greek: Theos])[346] [Greek: eporei] for [Greek: epoiei] (St. Mark vi.\n20), or [Greek: ouk oidate dokimazein] for [Greek: dokimazete] (St. Luke\nxii. 56), have their own special causes of substitution, and are\nnaturally and best considered under the cause which in each case gave\nthem birth.\n\nYet the class of Substitutions is a large one, if Modifications, as they\nwell may be, are added to it[347]. It will be readily concluded that\nsome substitutions are serious, some of less importance, and many\ntrivial. Of the more important class, the reading of [Greek:\nhamartematos] for [Greek: kriseos] (St. Mark iii. 29) which the Revisers\nhave adopted in compliance with [Symbol: Aleph]BL[Symbol: Delta] and\nthree Cursives, is a specimen. It is true that D reads [Greek:\nhamartias] supported by the first corrector of C, and three of the\nFerrar group (13, 69, 346): and that the change adopted is supported by\nthe Old Latin versions except f, the Vulgate, Bohairic, Armenian,\nGothic, Lewis, and Saxon. But the opposition which favours [Greek:\nkriseos] is made up of A, C under the first reading and the second\ncorrection, [Symbol: Phi][Symbol: Sigma] and eleven other Uncials, the\ngreat bulk of the Cursives, f, Peshitto, and Harkleian, and is superior\nin strength. The internal evidence is also in favour of the Traditional\nreading, both as regards the usage of [Greek: enochos], and the natural\nmeaning given by [Greek: kriseos]. [Greek: Hamartematos] has clearly\ncrept in from ver. 28. Other instances of Substitution may be found in\nthe well-known St. Luke xxiii. 45 ([Greek: tou heliou eklipontos]), St.\nMatt. xi. 27 ([Greek: bouletai apokalypsai]), St. Matt. xxvii. 34\n([Greek: oinon] for [Greek: oxos]), St. Mark i. 2 ([Greek: Hesaia] for\n[Greek: tois prophetais]), St. John i. 18 ([Greek: ho Monogenes Theos]\nbeing a substitution made by heretics for [Greek: ho Monogenes Huios]),\nSt. Mark vii. 31 ([Greek: dia Sidonos] for [Greek: kai Sidonos]). These\ninstances may perhaps suffice: many more may suggest themselves to\nintelligent readers. Though most are trivial, their cumulative force is\nextremely formidable. Many of these changes arose from various causes\nwhich are described in many other places in this book.]\n\n\nSec. 5.\n\n[The smallest of the four Classes, which upon a pure survey of the\noutward form divide among themselves the surface of the entire field of\nCorruption, is that of Additions[348]. And the reason of their smallness\nof number is discoverable at once. Whilst it is but too easy for scribes\nor those who have a love of criticism to omit words and passages under\nall circumstances, or even to vary the order, or to use another word or\nform instead of the right one, to insert anything into the sacred Text\nwhich does not proclaim too glaringly its own unfitness--in a word, to\ninvent happily--is plainly a matter of much greater difficulty.\nTherefore to increase the Class of Insertions or Additions or\nInterpolations, so that it should exceed the Class of Omissions, is to\ngo counter to the natural action of human forces. There is no difficulty\nin leaving out large numbers of the Sacred Words: but there is much\ndifficulty in placing in the midst of them human words, possessed of\nsuch a character and clothed in such an uniform, as not to betray to\nkeen observation their earthly origin.\n\nA few examples will set this truth in clearer light. It is remarkable\nthat efforts at interpolation occur most copiously amongst the books of\nthose who are least fitted to make them. We naturally look amongst the\nrepresentatives of the Western school where Greek was less understood\nthan in the East where Greek acumen was imperfectly represented by Latin\nactivity, and where translation into Latin and retranslation into Greek\nwas a prolific cause of corruption. Take then the following passage from\nthe Codex D (St. Luke vi. 4):--\n\n'On the same day He beheld a certain man working on the sabbath, and\nsaid to him, \"Man, blessed art thou if thou knowest what thou doest; but\nif thou knowest not, thou art cursed and a transgressor of the law.\"'\n\nAnd another from the Curetonian Syriac (St. Matt. xx. 28), which occurs\nunder a worse form in D.\n\n'But seek ye from little to become greater, and not from greater to\nbecome less. When ye are invited to supper in a house, sit not down in\nthe best place, lest some one come who is more honourable than thou, and\nthe lord of the supper say to thee, \"Go down below,\" and thou be ashamed\nin the presence of them that have sat down. But if thou sit down in the\nlower place, and one who is inferior to thee come in, the lord also of\nthe supper will say to thee, \"Come near, and come up, and sit down,\" and\nthou shalt have greater honour in the presence of them that have sat\ndown.'\n\nWho does not see that there is in these two passages no real 'ring of\ngenuineness'?\n\nTake next some instances of lesser insertions.]\n\n\nSec. 6.\n\nConspicuous beyond all things in the Centurion of Capernaum (St. Matt.\nviii. 13) was his faith. It occasioned wonder even in the Son of Man. Do\nwe not, in the significant statement, that when they who had been sent\nreturned to the house, 'they found the servant whole that had been\nsick[349],' recognize by implication the assurance that the Centurion,\nbecause he needed no such confirmation of his belief, went _not_ with\nthem; but enjoyed the twofold blessedness of remaining with Christ, and\nof believing without seeing? I think so. Be this however as it may,\n[Symbol: Aleph]CEMUX besides about fifty cursives, append to St. Matt.\nviii. 13 the clearly apocryphal statement, 'And the Centurion returning\nto his house in that same hour found the servant whole.' It does not\nimprove the matter to find that Eusebius[350], besides the Harkleian and\nthe Ethiopic versions, recognize the same appendix. We are thankful,\nthat no one yet has been found to advocate the adoption of this patent\naccretion to the inspired text. Its origin is not far to seek. I presume\nit was inserted in order to give a kind of finish to the story[351].\n\n[Another and that a most remarkable Addition may be found in St. Matt.\nxxiv. 36, into which the words [Greek: oude ho Huios], 'neither the Son'\nhave been transferred from St. Mark xiii. 32 in compliance with a wholly\ninsufficient body of authorities. Lachmann was the leader in this\nproceeding, and he has been followed by Tischendorf, Westcott and Hort,\nand the Revisers. The latter body add in their margin, 'Many\nauthorities, some ancient, omit _neither the Son_.' How inadequate to\nthe facts of the case this description is, will be seen when the\nauthorities are enumerated. But first of those who have been regarded by\nthe majority of the Revisers as the disposers of their decision,\naccording to the information supplied by Tischendorf.\n\nThey are (_a_) of Uncials [Symbol: Aleph] (in the first reading and as\nre-corrected in the seventh century) BD; (_b_) five Cursives (for a\npresent of 346 may be freely made to Tischendorf); (_c_) ten Old Latin\ncopies also the Aureus (Words.), some of the Vulgate (four according to\nWordsworth), the Palestinian, Ethiopic, Armenian; (_d_) Origen (Lat.\niii. 874), Hilary (733^{a}), Cyril Alex. (Mai Nova Pp. Bibliotheca,\n481), Ambrose (i. 1478^{f}). But Irenaeus (Lat. i. 386), Cyril (Zach.\n800), Chrysostom (ad locum) seem to quote from St. Mark. So too, as\nTischendorf admits, Amphilochius.\n\nOn the other hand we have, (_a_) the chief corrector of [Symbol:\nAleph](c^{a})[Symbol: Phi][Symbol: Sigma] with thirteen other Uncials\nand the Greek MSS. of Adamantius and Pierius mentioned by Jerome[352];\n(_b_) all the Cursives, as far as is known (except the aforenamed);\n(_c_) the Vulgate, with the Peshitto, Harkletan, Lewis, Bohairic, and\nthe Sahidic; (_d_) Jerome (in the place just now quoted), St. Basil who\ncontrasts the text of St. Matthew with that of St. Mark, Didymus, who is\nalso express in declaring that the three words in dispute are not found\nin St. Matthew (Trin. 195), St. John Damascene (ii. 346), Apollonius\nPhilosophus (Galland. ix. 247), Euthymius Zigabenus (in loc), Paulinus\n(iii. 12), St. Ambrose (ii. 656^{a}), and Anastasius Sinaita (Migne,\nlxxxix. 941).\n\nTheophylact (i. 133), Hesychius Presb. (Migne, lxiii. 142) Eusebius\n(Galland. ix. 580), Facundus Herm. (Galland. xi. 782), Athanasius (ii.\n660), quote the words as from the Gospel without reference, and may\ntherefore refer to St. Mark. Phoebadius (Galland. v. 251), though quoted\nagainst the Addition by Tischendorf, is doubtful.\n\nOn which side the balance of evidence inclines, our readers will judge.\nBut at least they cannot surely justify the assertion made by the\nmajority of the Revisers, that the Addition is opposed only by 'many\nauthorities, some ancient,' or at any rate that this is a fair and\nadequate description of the evidence opposed to their decision.\n\nAn instance occurs in St. Mark iii. 16 which illustrates the\ncarelessness and tastelessness of the handful of authorities to which it\npleases many critics to attribute ruling authority. In the fourteenth\nverse, it had been already stated that our Lord 'ordained twelve,'\n[Greek: kai epoiese dodeka]; but because [Symbol: Aleph]B[Symbol: Delta]\nand C (which was corrected in the ninth century with a MS. of the\nEthiopic) reiterate these words two verses further on, Tischendorf with\nWestcott and Hort assume that it is necessary to repeat what has been so\nrecently told. Meanwhile eighteen other uncials (including A[Symbol:\nPhi][Symbol: Sigma] and the third hand of C); nearly all the Cursives;\nthe Old Latin, Vulgate, Peshitto, Lewis, Harkleian, Gothic, Armenian,\nand the other MSS. of the Ethiopic omit them. It is plainly unnecessary\nto strengthen such an opposition by researches in the pages of the\nFathers.\n\nExplanation has been already given, how the introductions to Lections,\nand other Liturgical formulae, have been added by insertion to the Text\nin various places. Thus [Greek: ho Iesous] has often been inserted, and\nin some places remains wrongly (in the opinion of Dean Burgon) in the\npages of the Received Text. The three most important additions to the\nReceived Text occur, as Dean Burgon thought, in St. Matt. vi. 18, where\n[Greek: en to phanero] has crept in from v. 6 against the testimony of a\nlarge majority both of Uncial and of Cursive MSS.: in St. Matt. xxv. 13,\nwhere the clause [Greek: en he ho huios tou anthropou erchetai] seemed\nto him to be condemned by a superior weight of authority: and in St.\nMatt. xxvii. 35, where the quotation ([Greek: hina plerothe ... ebalon\nkleron]) must be taken for similar reasons to have been originally a\ngloss.]\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[338] [Greek: prosengisai] is transitive here, like [Greek: engizo] in\nGen. xlviii. 10, 13: 2 Kings iv. 6: Isaiah xlvi. 13.\n\n[339] The following are the numbers of Transpositions supplied by B,\n[Symbol: Aleph], and D in the Gospels:--B, 2,098: [Symbol: Aleph],\n2,299: D, 3,471. See Revision Revised, pp. 12, 13.\n\n[340] Marcion (Epiph. i. 317): Eusebius (Mai, iv. 266): Epiphanius (i.\n348): Cyril (Mai, ii. 438): John Thess. (Gall. xiii. 188).\n\n[341] St. John v. 26, in [Symbol: Aleph]\n\n[342] St. Mark ii. 12, in D.\n\n[343] St. Luke xiv. 13, in [Symbol: Aleph]B.\n\n[344] St. John v. 27.\n\n[345] 'Nec aliter' (says Tischendorf) 'Tertull.' (Prax. 21),--'_et\njudicium dedit illi facere in potestate_.' But this (begging the learned\ncritic's pardon) is quite a different thing.\n\n[346] See the very learned, ingenious, and satisfactory disquisition in\nThe Revision Revised, pp. 424-501.\n\n[347] The numbers are:--\n\n    B, substitutions, 935; modifications, 1,132; total, 2,067.\n    [Symbol: Aleph], \" 1,114; \" 1,265; \" 2,379.\n    D, \" 2,121; \" 1,772; \" 3,893.\n\nRevision Revised, pp. 12, 13.\n\n[348] B has 536 words added in the Gospels: [Symbol: Aleph], 839: D,\n2,213. Revision Revised, pp. 12, 13. The interpolations of D are\nnotorious.\n\n[349] St. Luke vii. 10.\n\n[350] Theoph. p. 212.\n\n[351] An opposite fate, strange to say, has attended a short clause in\nthe same narrative, which however is even worse authenticated. Instead\nof [Greek: oude en to Israel tosauten pistin euron] (St. Matt. viii.\n10), we are invited henceforth to read [Greek: par' oudeni tosauten\npistin en to Israel euron];--a tame and tasteless gloss, witnessed to by\nonly B, and five cursives,--but having no other effect, if it should\nchance to be inserted, than to mar and obscure the Divine utterance.\n\nFor when our Saviour declares 'Not even in Israel have I found so great\nfaith,' He is clearly contrasting this proficiency of an earnest Gentile\nagainst whatever of a like nature He had experienced in His dealing with\nthe Jewish people; and declaring the result. He is contrasting Jacob's\ndescendants, the heirs of so many lofty privileges, with this Gentile\nsoldier: their spiritual attainments with his; and assigning the palm to\nhim. Substitute 'With no one in Israel have I found so great faith,' and\nthe contrast disappears. Nothing else is predicated but a greater\nmeasure of faith in one man than in any other. The author of this feeble\nattempt to improve upon St. Matthew's Gospel is found to have also tried\nhis hand on the parallel place in St. Luke, but with even inferior\nsuccess: for there his misdirected efforts survive only in certain\ncopies of the Old Latin. Ambrose notices his officiousness, remarking\nthat it yields an intelligible sense; but that, 'juxta Graecos,' the\nplace is to be read differently (i. 1376.)\n\nIt is notorious that a few copies of the Old Latin (Augustine _once_\n(iv. 322), though he quotes the place nearly twenty times in the usual\nway) and the Egyptian versions exhibit the same depravation. Cyril\nhabitually employed an Evangelium which was disfigured in the same way\n(iii. 833, also Opp. v. 544, ed. Pusey.). But are we out of such\nmaterials as these to set about reconstructing the text of Scripture?\n\n[352] 'In quibusdam Latinis codicibus additum est, _neque Filius_: quum\nin Graecis, et maxime Adamantii et Pierii exemplaribus hoc non habeatur\nadscriptum. Sed quia in nonnullis legitur, disserendum videtur.' Hier.\nvii. 199 a. 'Gaudet Arius et Eunomius, quasi ignorantia magistri gloria\ndiscipulorum sit, et dicunt:--\"Non potest aequalis esse qui novit et qui\nignorat.\"' Ibid. 6.\n\nIn vi. 919, we may quote from St. Mark.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XII.\n\nCAUSES OF CORRUPTION CHIEFLY INTENTIONAL.\n\nVIII. Glosses.\n\n\nSec. 1.\n\n'Glosses,' properly so called, though they enjoy a conspicuous place in\nevery enumeration like the present, are probably by no means so numerous\nas is commonly supposed. For certainly _every_ unauthorized accretion to\nthe text of Scripture is not a 'gloss': but only those explanatory words\nor clauses which have surreptitiously insinuated themselves into the\ntext, and of which no more reasonable account can be rendered than that\nthey were probably in the first instance proposed by some ancient Critic\nin the way of useful comment, or necessary explanation, or lawful\nexpansion, or reasonable limitation of the actual utterance of the\nSpirit. Thus I do not call the clause [Greek: nekrous egeirete] in St.\nMatt. x. 8 'a gloss.' It is a gratuitous and unwarrantable\ninterpolation,--nothing else but a clumsy encumbrance of the text[353].\n\n[Glosses, or _scholia_, or comments, or interpretations, are of various\nkinds, but are generally confined to Additions or Substitutions, since\nof course we do not omit in order to explain, and transposition of words\nalready placed in lucid order, such as the sacred Text may be reasonably\nsupposed to have observed, would confuse rather than illustrate the\nmeaning. A clause, added in Hebrew fashion[354], which may perhaps\nappear to modern taste to be hardly wanted, must not therefore be taken\nto be a gloss.]\n\nSometimes a 'various reading' is nothing else but a gratuitous\ngloss;--the unauthorized substitution of a common for an uncommon word.\nThis phenomenon is of frequent occurrence, but only in Codexes of a\nremarkable type like B[Symbol: Aleph]CD. A few instances follow:--\n\n1. The disciples on a certain occasion (St. Matt. xiii. 36), requested\nour Lord to 'explain' to them ([Greek: PHRASON hemin], 'they said') the\nparable of the tares. So every known copy, except two: so, all the\nFathers who quote the place,--viz. Origen, five times[355],--\nBasil[356],--J. Damascene[357]. And so _all_ the Versions[358]. But\nbecause B-[Symbol: Aleph], instead of [Greek: phrason], exhibit [Greek:\nDIASAPHESON] ('make clear to us'),--which is also _once_ the reading of\nOrigen[359], who was but too well acquainted with Codexes of the same\ndepraved character as the archetype of B and [Symbol: Aleph],--Lachmann,\nTregelles (not Tischendorf), Westcott and Hort, and the Revisers of\n1881, assume that [Greek: diasapheson] (a palpable gloss) stood in the\ninspired autograph of the Evangelist. They therefore thrust out [Greek:\nphrason] and thrust in [Greek: diasapheson]. I am wholly unable to\ndiscern any connexion between the premisses of these critics and their\nconclusions[360].\n\n2. Take another instance. [Greek: Pygme],--the obscure expression\n([Symbol: Delta] leaves it out) which St. Mark employs in vii. 3 to\ndenote the strenuous frequency of the Pharisees' ceremonial\nwashings,--is exchanged by Cod. [Symbol: Aleph], but by no other known\ncopy of the Gospels, for [Greek: pykna], which last word is of course\nnothing else but a sorry gloss. Yet Tischendorf degrades [Greek: pygme]\nand promotes [Greek: pykna] to honour,--happily standing alone in his\ninfatuation. Strange, that the most industrious of modern accumulators\nof evidence should not have been aware that by such extravagances he\nmarred his pretension to critical discernment! Origen and\nEpiphanius--the only Fathers who quote the place--both read [Greek:\npygme]. It ought to be universally admitted that it is a mere waste of\ntime that we should argue out a point like this[361].\n\n\nSec. 2.\n\nA gloss little suspected, which--not without a pang of regret--I proceed\nto submit to hostile scrutiny, is the expression 'daily' ([Greek: kath'\nhemeran]) in St. Luke ix. 23. Found in the Peshitto and in Cureton's\nSyriac,--but only in some Copies of the Harkleian version[362]: found in\nmost Copies of the Vulgate,--but largely disallowed by copies of the Old\nLatin[363]: found also in Ephraem Syrus[364],--but clearly not\nrecognized by Origen[365]: found again in [Symbol: Aleph]AB and six\nother uncials,--but not found in CDE and ten others: the expression\nreferred to cannot, at all events, plead for its own retention in the\ntext higher antiquity than can be pleaded for its exclusion. Cyril, (if\nin such a matter the Syriac translation of his Commentary on St. Luke\nmay be trusted,) is clearly an authority for reading [Greek: kath'\nhemeran] in St. Luke ix. 23[366]; but then he elsewhere twice quotes St.\nLuke ix. 23 in Greek without it[367]. Timotheus of Antioch, of the fifth\ncentury, omits the phrase[368]. Jerome again, although he suffered\n'_quotidie_' to stand in the Vulgate, yet, when for his own purposes he\nquotes the place in St. Luke[369],--ignores the word. All this is\ncalculated to inspire grave distrust. On the other hand, [Greek: kath'\nhemeran] enjoys the support of the two Egyptian Versions,--of the\nGothic,--of the Armenian,--of the Ethiopic. And this, in the present\nstate of our knowledge, must be allowed to be a weighty piece of\nevidence in its favour.\n\nBut the case assumes an entirely different aspect the instant it is\ndiscovered that out of the cursive copies only eight are found to\ncontain [Greek: kath hemeran] in St. Luke ix. 23[370]. How is it to be\nexplained that nine manuscripts out of every ten in existence should\nhave forgotten how to transmit such a remarkable message, had it ever\nbeen really so committed to writing by the Evangelist? The omission\n(says Tischendorf) is explained by the parallel places[371]. Utterly\nincredible, I reply; as no one ought to have known better than\nTischendorf himself. We now scrutinize the problem more closely; and\ndiscover that the very _locus_ of the phrase is a matter of uncertainty.\nCyril once makes it part of St. Matt. x. 38[372]. Chrysostom twice\nconnects it with St. Matt. xvi. 24[373]. Jerome, evidently regarding the\nphrase as a curiosity, informs us that 'juxta antiqua exemplaria' it was\nmet with in St. Luke xiv. 27[374]. All this is in a high degree\nunsatisfactory. We suspect that we ourselves enjoy some slight\nfamiliarity with the 'antiqua exemplaria' referred to by the Critic; and\nwe freely avow that we have learned to reckon them among the least\nreputable of our acquaintance. Are they not represented by those\nEvangelia, of which several copies are extant, that profess to have been\n'transcribed from, and collated with, ancient copies at Jerusalem'?\nThese uniformly exhibit [Greek: kath hemeran] in St. Luke ix. 23[375].\nBut then, if the phrase be a gloss,--it is obvious to inquire,--how is\nits existence in so many quarters to be accounted for?\n\nIts origin is not far to seek. Chrysostom, in a certain place, after\nquoting our Lord's saying about taking up the cross and following Him,\nremarks that the words 'do not mean that we are actually to bear the\nwood upon our shoulders, but to keep the prospect of death steadily\nbefore us, and like St. Paul to \"die daily\"[376].' The same Father, in\nthe two other places already quoted from his writings, is observed\nsimilarly to connect the Saviour's mention of 'bearing the Cross' with\nthe Apostle's announcement--'I die daily.' Add, that Ephraem Syrus[377],\nand Jerome quoted already,--persistently connect the same two places\ntogether; the last named Father even citing them in immediate\nsuccession;--and the inference is unavoidable. The phrase in St. Luke\nix. 23 must needs be a very ancient as well as very interesting\nexpository gloss, imported into the Gospel from 1 Cor. xv. 31,--as\nMill[378] and Matthaei[379] long since suggested.\n\nSincerely regretting the necessity of parting with an expression with\nwhich one has been so long familiar, we cannot suffer the sentimental\nplea to weigh with us when the Truth of the Gospel is at stake. Certain\nit is that but for Erasmus, we should never have known the regret: for\nit was he that introduced [Greek: kath hemeran] into the Received Text.\nThe MS. from which he printed is without the expression: which is also\nnot found in the Complutensian. It is certainly a spurious accretion to\nthe inspired Text.\n\n[The attention of the reader is particularly invited to this last\nparagraph. The learned Dean has been sneered at for a supposed\nsentimental and effeminate attachment to the Textus Receptus. He was\nalways ready to reject words and phrases, which have not adequate\nsupport; but he denied the validity of the evidence brought against many\ntexts by the school of Westcott and Hort, and therefore he refused to\nfollow them in their surrender of the passages.]\n\n\nSec. 3.\n\nIndeed, a great many 'various readings,' so called, are nothing else but\nvery ancient interpretations,--fabricated readings therefore,--of which\nthe value may be estimated by the fact that almost every trace of them\nhas long since disappeared. Such is the substitution of [Greek: pheugei]\nfor [Greek: anechoresen] in St. John vi. 15;--which, by the way,\nTischendorf thrusts into his text on the sole authority of [Symbol:\nAleph], some Latin copies including the Vulgate, and Cureton's\nSyriac[380]: though Tregelles ignores its very existence. That our\nLord's 'withdrawal' to the mountain on that occasion was of the nature\nof 'flight,' or 'retreat' is obvious. Hence Chrysostom and Cyril remark\nthat He '_fled_ to the mountain.' And yet both Fathers (like Origen and\nEpiphanius before them) are found to have read [Greek: anechoresen].\n\nAlmost as reasonably in the beginning of the same verse might\nTischendorf (with [Symbol: Aleph]) have substituted [Greek:\nanadeiknynai] for [Greek: hina poiesosin auton], on the plea that\nCyril[381] says, [Greek: zetein auton anadeixai kai basilea]. We may on\nno account suffer ourselves to be imposed upon by such shallow pretences\nfor tampering with the text of Scripture: or the deposit will never be\nsafe. A patent gloss,--rather an interpretation,--acquires no claim to\nbe regarded as the genuine utterance of the Holy Spirit by being merely\nfound in two or three ancient documents. It is the little handful of\ndocuments which loses in reputation,--not the reading which gains in\nauthority on such occasions.\n\nIn this way we are sometimes presented with what in effect are new\nincidents. These are not unfrequently discovered to be introduced in\ndefiance of the reason of the case; as where (St. John xiii. 34) Simon\nPeter is represented (in the Vulgate) as _actually saying_ to St. John,\n'Who is it concerning whom He speaks?' Other copies of the Latin\nexhibit, 'Ask Him who it is,' &c.: while [Symbol: Aleph]BC (for on such\noccasions we are treated to any amount of apocryphal matter) would\npersuade us that St. Peter only required that the information should be\nfurnished him by St. John:--'Say who it is of whom He speaks.' Sometimes\na very little licence is sufficient to convert the _oratio obliqua_ into\nthe recta. Thus, by the change of a single letter (in [Symbol: Aleph]BX)\nMary Magdalene is made to say to the disciples 'I have seen the Lord'\n(St. John xx. 18). But then, as might have been anticipated, the new\ndoes not altogether agree with the old. Accordingly D and others\nparaphrase the remainder of the sentence thus,--'and she signified to\nthem what He had said unto her.' How obvious is it to foresee that on\nsuch occasions the spirit of officiousness will never know when to stop!\nIn the Vulgate and Sahidic versions the sentence proceeds, 'and He told\nthese things unto me.'\n\nTake another example. The Hebraism [Greek: meta salpingos phones\nmegales] (St. Matt. xxiv. 31) presents an uncongenial ambiguity to\nWestern readers, as our own incorrect A. V. sufficiently shews. Two\nmethods of escape from the difficulty suggested themselves to the\nancients:--(_a_) Since 'a trumpet of great sound' means nothing else but\n'a loud trumpet,' and since this can be as well expressed by [Greek:\nsalpingos megales], the scribes at a very remote period are found to\nhave omitted the word [Greek: phones]. The Peshitto and Lewis\n(interpreting rather than translating) so deal with the text.\nAccordingly, [Greek: phones] is not found in [Symbol: Aleph]L[Symbol:\nDelta] and five cursives. Eusebius[382], Cyril Jerus.[383],\nChrysostom[384], Theodoret[385], and even Cyprian[386] are also without\nthe word. (_b_) A less violent expedient was to interpolate [Greek: kai]\nbefore [Greek: phones]. This is accordingly the reading of the best\nItalic copies, of the Vulgate, and of D. So Hilary[387] and Jerome[388],\nSeverianus[389], Asterius[390], ps.-Caesarius[391], Damascene[392] and\nat least eleven cursive copies, so read the place.--There can be no\ndoubt at all that the commonly received text is right. It is found in\nthirteen uncials with B at their head: in Cosmas[393], Hesychius[394],\nTheophylact[395]. But the decisive consideration is that the great body\nof the cursives have faithfully retained the uncongenial Hebraism, and\naccordingly imply the transmission of it all down the ages: a phenomenon\nwhich will not escape the unprejudiced reader. Neither will he overlook\nthe fact that the three 'old uncials' (for A and C are not available\nhere) advocate as many different readings: the two wrong readings being\nrespectively countenanced by our two most ancient authorities, viz. the\nPeshitto version and the Italic. It only remains to point out that\nTischendorf blinded by his partiality for [Symbol: Aleph] contends here\nfor the mutilated text, and Westcott and Hort are disposed to do the\nsame.\n\n\nSec. 4.\n\nRecent Editors are agreed that we are henceforth to read in St. John\nxviii. 14 [Greek: apothanein] instead of [Greek: apolesthai]:--'Now\nCaiaphas was he who counselled the Jews that it was expedient that one\nman should _die_' (instead of '_perish_') 'for the people.' There is\ncertainly a considerable amount of ancient testimony in favour of this\nreading: for besides [Symbol: Aleph]BC, it is found in the Old Latin\ncopies, the Egyptian, and Peshitto versions, besides the Lewis MS., the\nChronicon, Cyril, Nonnus, Chrysostom. Yet may it be regarded as certain\nthat St. John wrote [Greek: apolesthai] in this place. The proper proof\nof the statement is the consentient voice of all the copies,--except\nabout nineteen of loose character:--we know their vagaries but too well,\nand decline to let them impose upon us. In real fact, nothing else is\n[Greek: apothanein] but a critical assimilation of St. John xviii. 14 to\nxi. 50,--somewhat as 'die' in our A. V. has been retained by King James'\ntranslators, though they certainly had [Greek: apolesthai] before them.\n\nMany of these glosses are rank, patent, palpable. Such is the\nsubstitution (St. Mark vi. 11) of [Greek: hos an topos me dexetai hymas]\nby [Symbol: Aleph]BL[Symbol: Delta] for [Greek: hosoi an me dexontai\nhymas],--which latter is the reading of the Old Latin and Peshitto, as\nwell as of the whole body of uncials and cursives alike. Some Critic\nevidently considered that the words which follow, 'when you go out\n_thence_,' imply that _place_, not _persons_, should have gone before.\nAccordingly, he substituted 'whatsoever place' for '_whosoever_[396]':\nanother has bequeathed to us in four uncial MSS. a lasting record of his\nrashness and incompetency. Since however he left behind the words\n[Greek: mede akousosin hymon], which immediately follow, who sees not\nthat the fabricator has betrayed himself? I am astonished that so patent\na fraud should have imposed upon Tischendorf, and Tregelles, and\nLachmann, and Alford, and Westcott and Hort. But in fact it does not\nstand alone. From the same copies [Symbol: Aleph]BL[Symbol: Delta] (with\ntwo others, CD) we find the woe denounced in the same verse on the\nunbelieving city erased ([Greek: amen lego hymin, anektoteron estai\nSodomois e Gomorrois en hemerai kriseos, e te polei ekeine]). Quite idle\nis it to pretend (with Tischendorf) that these words are an importation\nfrom the parallel place in St. Matthew. A memorable note of diversity\nhas been set on the two places, which in _all_ the copies is religiously\nmaintained, viz. [Greek: Sodomois e Gomorrois], in St. Mark: [Greek: ge\nSodomon kai Gomorron], in St. Matt. It is simply incredible that this\ncould have been done if the received text in this place had been of\nspurious origin.\n\n\nSec. 5.\n\nThe word [Greek: apechei] in St. Mark xiv. 41 has proved a\nstumbling-block. The most obvious explanation is probably the truest.\nAfter a brief pause[397], during which the Saviour has been content to\nsurvey in silence His sleeping disciples;--or perhaps, after telling\nthem that they will have time and opportunity enough for sleep and rest\nwhen He shall have been taken from them;--He announces the arrival of\n'the hour,' by exclaiming, [Greek: Apechei],--'It is enough;' or, 'It is\nsufficient;' i.e. _The season for repose is over._\n\nBut the 'Revisers' of the second century did not perceive that [Greek:\napechei] is here used impersonally[398]. They understood the word to\nmean 'is fully come'; and supplied the supposed nominative, viz. [Greek:\nto telos][399]. Other critics who rightly understood [Greek: apechei] to\nsignify 'sufficit,' still subjoined 'finis.' The Old Latin and the\nSyriac versions must have been executed from Greek copies which\nexhibited,--[Greek: apechei to telos]. This is abundantly proved by the\nrenderings _adest finis_ (f),--_consummatus est finis_ (a); from which\nthe change to [Greek: apechei to telos KAI he hora] (the reading of D)\nwas obvious: _sufficit finis et hora_ (d q); _adest enim consummatio;\net_ (ff^{2} _venit_) _hora_ (c); or, (as the Peshitto more fully gives\nit), _appropinquavit finis, et venit hora_[400]. Jerome put this matter\nstraight by simply writing _sufficit_. But it is a suggestive\ncircumstance, and an interesting proof how largely the reading [Greek:\napechei to telos] must once have prevailed, that it is frequently met\nwith in cursive copies of the Gospels to this hour[401]. Happily it is\nan 'old reading' which finds no favour at the present day. It need not\ntherefore occupy us any longer.\n\nAs another instance of ancient Glosses introduced to help out the sense,\nthe reading of St. John ix. 22 is confessedly [Greek: hina ean tis auton\nhomologesei Christon]. So all the MSS. but one, and so the Old Latin. So\nindeed all the ancient versions except the Egyptian. Cod. D alone adds\n[Greek: einai]: but [Greek: einai] must once have been a familiar gloss:\nfor Jerome retains it in the Vulgate: and indeed Cyril, whenever he\nquotes the place[402], exhibits [Greek: ton Christon einai]. Not so\nhowever Chrysostom[403] and Gregory of Nyssa[404].\n\n\nSec. 6.\n\nThere is scarcely to be found, amid the incidents immediately preceding\nour Saviour's Passion, one more affecting or more exquisite than the\nanointing of His feet at Bethany by Mary the sister of Lazarus, which\nreceived its unexpected interpretation from the lips of Christ Himself.\n'Let her alone. Against the day of My embalming hath she kept it.' (St.\nJohn xii. 7.) He assigns to her act a mysterious meaning of which the\nholy woman little dreamt. She had treasured up that precious unguent\nagainst the day,--(with the presentiment of true Love, she knew that it\ncould not be very far distant),--when His dead limbs would require\nembalming. But lo, she beholds Him reclining at supper in her sister's\nhouse: and yielding to a Divine impulse she brings forth her reserved\ncostly offering and bestows it on Him at once. Ah, she little knew,--she\ncould not in fact have known,--that it was the only anointing those\nsacred feet were destined ever to enjoy!... In the meantime through a\ndesire, as I suspect, to bring this incident into an impossible harmony\nwith what is recorded in St. Mark xvi. 1, with which obviously it has no\nmanner of connexion, a scribe is found at some exceedingly remote period\nto have improved our Lord's expression into this:--'Let her alone in\norder that against the day of My embalming she may keep it.' Such an\nexhibition of the Sacred Text is its own sufficient condemnation. What\nthat critic exactly meant, I fail to discover: but I am sure he has\nspoilt what he did not understand: and though it is quite true that\n[Symbol: Aleph]BD with five other Uncial MSS. and Nonnus, besides the\nLatin and Bohairic, Jerusalem, Armenian, and Ethiopic versions, besides\nfour errant cursives so exhibit the place, this instead of commending\nthe reading to our favour, only proves damaging to the witnesses by\nwhich it is upheld. We learn that no reliance is to be placed even in\nsuch a combination of authorities. This is one of the places which the\nFathers pass by almost in silence. Chrysostom[405] however, and\nevidently Cyril Alex.[406], as well as Ammonius[407] convey though\nroughly a better sense by quoting the verse with [Greek: epoiese] for\n[Greek: tetereken]. Antiochus[408] is express. [A and eleven other\nuncials, and the cursives (with the petty exception already noted),\ntogether with the Peshitto, Harkleian (which only notes the other\nreading in the margin), Lewis, Sahidic, and Gothic versions, form a body\nof authority against the palpable emasculation of the passage, which for\nnumber, variety, weight, and internal evidence is greatly superior to\nthe opposing body. Also, with reference to continuity and antiquity it\npreponderates plainly, if not so decisively; and the context of D is\nfull of blunders, besides that it omits the next verse, and B and\n[Symbol: Aleph] are also inaccurate hereabouts[409]. So that the\nTraditional text enjoys in this passage the support of all the Notes of\nTruth.]\n\nIn accordance with what has been said above, for [Greek: Aphes auten;\neis ten hemeran tou entaphiasmou mou tetereken auto] (St. John xii. 7),\nthe copies which it has recently become the fashion to adore, read\n[Greek: aphes auten hina ... terese auto]. This startling\ninnovation,--which destroys the sense of our Saviour's words, and\nfurnishes a sorry substitute which no one is able to explain[410],--is\naccepted by recent Editors and some Critics: yet is it clearly nothing\nelse but a stupid correction of the text,--introduced by some one who\ndid not understand the intention of the Divine Speaker. Our Saviour is\nhere discovering to us an exquisite circumstance,--revealing what until\nnow had been a profound and tender secret: viz. that Mary, convinced by\nmany a sad token that the Day of His departure could not be very far\ndistant, had some time before provided herself with this costly\nointment, and 'kept it' by her,--intending to reserve it against the\ndark day when it would be needed for the 'embalming' of the lifeless\nbody of her Lord. And now it wants only a week to Easter. She beholds\nHim (with Lazarus at His side) reclining in her sister's house at\nsupper, amid circumstances of mystery which fill her soul with awful\nanticipation. She divines, with love's true instinct, that this may\nprove her only opportunity. Accordingly, she '_anticipates_ to anoint'\n([Greek: proelabe myrisai], St. Mark xiv. 8) His Body: and, yielding to\nan overwhelming impulse, bestows upon Him all her costly offering at\nonce!... How does it happen that some professed critics have overlooked\nall this? Any one who has really studied the subject ought to know, from\na mere survey of the evidence, on which side the truth in respect of the\ntext of this passage must needs lie.\n\n\nSec. 7.\n\nOur Lord, in His great Eucharistic address to the eternal Father, thus\nspeaks:--'I have glorified Thee on the earth. I have perfected the work\nwhich Thou gavest Me to do' (St. John xvii. 4). Two things are stated:\nfirst, that the result of His Ministry had been the exhibition upon\nearth of the Father's 'glory[411]': next, that the work which the Father\nhad given the Son to do[412] was at last finished[413]. And that this is\nwhat St. John actually wrote is certain: not only because it is found in\nall the copies, except twelve of suspicious character (headed by\n[Symbol: Aleph]ABCL); but because it is vouched for by the Peshitto[414]\nand the Latin, the Gothic and the Armenian versions[415]: besides a\nwhole chorus of Fathers; viz. Hippolytus[416], Didymus[417],\nEusebius[418], Athanasius[419], Basil[420], Chrysostom[421], Cyril[422],\nps.-Polycarp[423], the interpolator of Ignatius[424], and the authors of\nthe Apostolic Constitutions[425]: together with the following among the\nLatins:--Cyprian[426], Ambrose[427], Hilary[428], Zeno[429],\nCassian[430], Novatian[431], certain Arians[432], Augustine[433].\n\nBut the asyndeton (so characteristic of the fourth Gospel) proving\nuncongenial to certain of old time, D inserted [Greek: kai]. A more\npopular device was to substitute the participle ([Greek: teleiosas]) for\n[Greek: eteleiosa]: whereby our Lord is made to say that He had\nglorified His Father's Name 'by perfecting' or 'completing'--'in that He\nhad finished'--the work which the Father had given Him to do; which\ndamages the sense by limiting it, and indeed introduces a new idea. A\nmore patent gloss it would be hard to find. Yet has it been adopted as\nthe genuine text by all the Editors and all the Critics. So general is\nthe delusion in favour of any reading supported by the combined evidence\nof [Symbol: Aleph]ABCL, that the Revisers here translate--'I glorified\nThee on the earth, _having accomplished_ ([Greek: teleiosas]) the work\nwhich Thou hast given Me to do:' without so much as vouchsafing a hint\nto the English reader that they have altered the text.\n\nWhen some came with the message 'Thy daughter is dead: why troublest\nthou the Master further?' the Evangelist relates that Jesus '_as soon as\nHe heard_ ([Greek: eutheos akousas]) what was being spoken, said to the\nruler of the synagogue, Fear not: only believe.' (St. Mark v. 36.) For\nthis, [Symbol: Aleph]BL[Symbol: Delta] substitute 'disregarding ([Greek:\nparakousas]) what was being spoken': which is nothing else but a sorry\ngloss, disowned by every other copy, including ACD, and all the\nversions. Yet does [Greek: parakousas] find favour with Teschendorf,\nTregelles, and others.\n\n\nSec. 8.\n\nIn this way it happened that in the earliest age the construction of St.\nLuke i. 66 became misapprehended. Some Western scribe evidently imagined\nthat the popular saying concerning John Baptist,--[Greek: ti apa to\npaidion touto estai], extended further, and comprised the Evangelist's\nrecord,--[Greek: kai cheir Kyriou en met' autou]. To support this\nstrange view, [Greek: kai] was altered into [Greek: kai gar], and\n[Greek: esti] was substituted for [Greek: en]. It is thus that the place\nstands in the Verona copy of the Old Latin (b). In other quarters the\nverb was omitted altogether: and that is how D, Evan. 59 with the\nVercelli (a) and two other copies of the Old Latin exhibit the place.\nAugustine[434] is found to have read indifferently--'manus enim Domini\ncum illo,' and 'cum illo est': but he insists that the combined clauses\nrepresent the popular utterance concerning the Baptist[435]. Unhappily,\nthere survives a notable trace of the same misapprehension in [Symbol:\nAleph]-BCL which, alone of MSS., read [Greek: kai gar ... en][436]. The\nconsequence might have been anticipated. All recent Editors adopt this\nreading, which however is clearly inadmissible. The received text,\nwitnessed to by the Peshitto, Harkleian, and Armenian versions, is\nobviously correct. Accordingly, A and all the uncials not already named,\ntogether with the whole body of the cursives, so read the place. With\nfatal infelicity the Revisers exhibit 'For indeed the hand of the Lord\nwas with him.' They clearly are to blame: for indeed the MS. evidence\nadmits of no uncertainty. It is much to be regretted that not a single\nvery ancient Greek Father (so far as I can discover) quotes the place.\n\n\nSec. 9.\n\nIt seems to have been anciently felt, in connexion with the first\nmiraculous draught of fishes, that St. Luke's statement (v. 7) that the\nships were so full that 'they were sinking' ([Greek: hoste bythizesthai\nauta]) requires some qualification. Accordingly C inserts [Greek: ede]\n(were 'just' sinking); and D, [Greek: para ti] ('within a little'):\nwhile the Peshitto the Lewis and the Vulgate, as well as many copies of\nthe Old Latin, exhibit 'ita ut _pene_.' These attempts to improve upon\nScripture, and these paraphrases, indicate laudable zeal for the\ntruthfulness of the Evangelist; but they betray an utterly mistaken view\nof the critic's office. The truth is, [Greek: bythizesthai], as the\nBohairic translators perceived and as most of us are aware, means 'were\nbeginning to sink.' There is no need of further qualifying the\nexpression by the insertion with Eusebius[437] of any additional word.\n\nI strongly suspect that the introduction of the name of 'Pyrrhus' into\nActs xx. 4 as the patronymic of 'Sopater of Beraea,' is to be accounted\nfor in this way. A very early gloss it certainly is, for it appears in\nthe Old Latin: yet, the Peshitto knows nothing of it, and the Harkleian\nrejects it from the text, though not from the margin. Origen and the\nBohairic recognize it, but not Chrysostom nor the Ethiopic. I suspect\nthat some foolish critic of the primitive age invented [Greek: Pyrou]\n(or [Greek: Pyrrou]) out of [Greek: Beroiaios] (or [Greek: Berroiaios])\nwhich follows. The Latin form of this was 'Pyrus[438],' 'Pyrrhus,' or\n'Pirrus[439].' In the Sahidic version he is called the 'son of Berus'\n([Greek: huios Berou]),--which confirms me in my conjecture. But indeed,\nif it was with some _Beraean_ that the gloss originated,--and what more\nlikely?--it becomes an interesting circumstance that the inhabitants of\nthat part of Macedonia are known to have confused the _p_ and _b_\nsounds[440].... This entire matter is unimportant in itself, but the\nletter of Scripture cannot be too carefully guarded: and let me invite\nthe reader to consider,--If St. Luke actually wrote [Greek: Sopatros\nPyrrou Beroiaios], why at the present day should five copies out of six\nrecord nothing of that second word?\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[353] See The Traditional Text, pp. 51-52.\n\n[354] St. Mark vi. 33. See The Traditional Text, p. 80.\n\n[355] iii. 3 e: 4 b and c: 442 a: 481 b. Note, that the [Greek: rhesis]\nin which the first three of these quotations occur seems to have been\nobtained by De la Rue from a Catena on St. Luke in the Mazarine Library\n(see his Monitum, iii. 1). A large portion of it (viz. from p. 3, line\n25, to p. 4, line 29) is ascribed to 'I. Geometra in Proverbia' in the\nCatena in Luc. of Corderius, p. 217.\n\n[356] ii. 345.\n\n[357] ii. 242.\n\n[358] The Latin is _edissere_ or _dissere_, _enarra_ or _narra_, both\nhere and in xv. 15.\n\n[359] iv. 254 a.\n\n[360] In St. Matthew xiii. 36 the Peshitto Syriac has [Syriac letters]\n'declare to us' and in St. Matthew xv. 15 the very same words, there\nbeing _no_ various reading in either of these two passages.\n\nThe inference is, that the translators had the same Greek word in each\nplace, especially considering that in the only other place where,\nbesides St. Matt. xiii. 36, v. 1., [Greek: diasaphein] occurs, viz. St.\nMatt. xviii. 31, they render [Greek: diesaphesan] by [Syriac\nletters]--they made known.\n\nSince [Greek: phrazein] only occurs in St. Matt. xiii. 36 and xv. 15, we\ncannot generalize about the Peshitto rendering of this verb. Conversely,\n[Syriac letters] is used as the rendering of other Greek words besides\n[Greek: phrazein], e.g.\n\n    of [Greek: epiluein], St. Mark iv. 34;\n    of [Greek: diermeneuein], St. Luke xxiv. 27;\n    of [Greek: dianoigein], St. Luke xxiv. 32 and Acts xvii. 3.\n\nOn the whole I have _no doubt_ (though it is not susceptible of _proof_)\nthat the Peshitto had, in both the places quoted above, [Greek:\nphrason].\n\n[361] In St. Mark vii. 3, the translators of the Peshitto render\nwhatever Greek they had before them by [Syriac letters], which means\n'eagerly,' 'sedulously'; cf. use of the word for [Greek: spoudaios], St.\nLuke vii. 4; [Greek: epimelos], St Luke xv. 8.\n\nThe Root means 'to cease'; thence 'to have leisure for a thing': it has\nnothing to do with 'Fist.' [Rev. G.H. Gwilliam.]\n\n[362] Harkl. Marg. _in loc._, and Adler, p. 115.\n\n[363] Viz. a b c e ff^{2} l q.\n\n[364] [Greek: 'Opheilei psyche, en to logo tou Kyriou katakolouthousa,\nton stauron autou kath' hemeran airein, hos gegraptai; tout' estin,\nhetoimos echousa hypomenein dia Christon pasan thlipsin kai peirasmon,\nk.t.l.] (ii. 326 e). In the same spirit, further on, he exhorts to\nconstancy and patience,--[Greek: ton epi tou Kyriou thanaton en\nepithymiai pantote pro ophthalmon echontes, kai (kathos eiretai hypo tou\nKyriou) kath' hemeran ton stauron airontes, ho esti thanatos] (ii. 332\ne). It is fair to assume that Ephraem's reference is to St. Luke ix. 23,\nseeing that he wrote not in Greek but in Syriac, and that in the\nPeshitto the clause is found only in that place.\n\n[365] [Greek: Akoue Louka legontos],--i. 281 f. Also, int. iii. 543.\n\n[366] Pp. 221 (text), 222, 227.\n\n[367] ii. 751 e, 774 e (in Es.)--the proof that these quotations are\nfrom St. Luke; that Cyril exhibits [Greek: arnesastho] instead of\n[Greek: aparn]. (see Tischendorf's note on St. Luke ix. 23). The\nquotation in i. 40 (Glaph.) _may_ be from St. Matt. xvi. 24.\n\n[368] Migne, vol. lxxxvi. pp. 256 and 257.\n\n[369] After quoting St. Mark viii. 34,--'aut juxta Lucam, _dicebat ad\ncunctos: Si quis vult post me venire, abneget semetipsum; et tollat\ncrucem suam, et sequetur me_.'--i. 852 c.\n\nThis is found in his solution of _XI Quaestiones_, 'ad Algasiam,'--free\ntranslations probably from the Greek of some earlier Father. Six lines\nlower down (after quoting words found nowhere in the Gospels), Jerome\nproceeds:--'_Quotidie_ credens in Christum _tollit crucem suam_, et\nnegat seipsum.'\n\n[370] This spurious clause adorned the lost archetype of Evann. 13, 69,\n124, 346 (Ferrar's four); and survives in certain other Evangelia which\nenjoy a similar repute,--as 1, 33, 72 (with a marginal note of\ndistrust), 131.\n\n[371] They are St. Matt. xvi. 24; St. Mark viii. 34.\n\n[372] i. 597 c (Adorat.)--elsewhere (viz. i. 21 d; 528 c; 580 b; iv.\n1058 a; v^(2). 83 c) Cyril quotes the place correctly. Note, that the\nquotation found in Mai, iii. 126, which Pusey edits (v. 418), in Ep. ad\nHebr., is nothing else but an excerpt from the treatise de Adorat. i.\n528 c.\n\n[373] In his Commentary on St. Matt. xvi. 24:--[Greek: Dia pantos tou\nbiou touto dei poiein. Dienekos gar, phesi, periphere ton thanaton\ntouton, kai kath hemeran hetoimos eso pros sphagen] (vii. 557 b). Again,\ncommenting on ch. xix. 21,--[Greek: Dei proegoumenos akolouthein to\nChristo toutesti, panta ta par autou keleuomena poiein, pros sphgas\neinai hetoimon, kai thanaton kathemerinin] (p. 629 e):--words which\nChrysostom immediately follows up by quoting ch. xvi. 24 (630 a).\n\n[374] i. 949 b,--'_Quotidie_ (inquit Apostolus) _morior propter vestram\nsalutem_. Et Dominus, juxta antiqua exemplaria, _Nisi quis tulerit\ncrucem suam quotidie, et sequntus fuerit me, non potest meus esse\ndiscipulus_'--Commenting on St. Matt. x. 38 (vol. vii. p. 65 b), Jerome\nremarks,--'in alio Evangelio scribitur,--_Qui non accipit crucem suam\nquotidie_': but the corresponding place to St. Matt. x. 38, in the\nsectional system of Eusebius (Greek and Syriac), is St. Luke xiv. 27.\n\n[375] Viz. Evan. 473 (2^{pe}).\n\n[376] ii. 66 c, d.\n\n[377] See above, p. 175, note 2.\n\n[378] Proleg. p. cxlvi.\n\n[379] N.T. (1803), i. 368.\n\n[380] Lewis here agrees with Peshitto.\n\n[381] iv. 745.\n\n[382] In Ps. 501.\n\n[383] 229 and 236.\n\n[384] vii. 736: xi. 478.\n\n[385] ii. 1209.\n\n[386] 269.\n\n[387] 577.\n\n[388] i. 881.\n\n[389] _Ap._ Chrys. vi. 460.\n\n[390] _Ap_. Greg. Nyss. ii. 258.\n\n[391] Galland. vi. 53.\n\n[392] ii. 346.\n\n[393] ii. 261, 324.\n\n[394] _Ap._ Greg. Nyss. iii. 429.\n\n[395] i. 132.\n\n[396] The attentive student of the Gospels will recognize with interest\nhow gracefully the third Evangelist St. Luke (ix. 5) has overcome this\ndifficulty.\n\n[397] Augustine, with his accustomed acuteness, points out that St.\nMark's narrative shews that after the words of 'Sleep on now and take\nyour rest,' our Lord must have been silent for a brief space in order to\nallow His disciples a slight prolongation of the refreshment which his\nwords had already permitted them to enjoy. Presently, He is heard to\nsay,--'It is enough'--(that is, 'Ye have now slept and rested enough');\nand adds, 'The hour is come. Behold, the Son of Man is betrayed into the\nhands of sinners.' 'Sed quia commemorata non est ipsa interpositio\nsilentii Domini, propterea coartat intellectum, ut in illis verbis alia\npronuntiatio requiratur.'--iii^{2}. 106 a, b. The passage in question\nruns thus:--[Greek: Katheidete to loipon kai anapauesthe. apechei;\nelthen he hora; idou, k.t.l.]\n\n[398] Those who saw this, explain the word amiss. Note the Scholion\n(Anon. Vat.) in Possinus, p. 321:--[Greek: apechei, toutesti,\npeplerotai, telos echei to kat' eme]. Last Twelve Verses, p. 226, note.\n\n[399] I retract unreservedly what I offered on this subject in a former\nwork (Last Twelve Verses, &c., pp. 225, 226). I was misled by one who\nseldom indeed misleads,--the learned editor of the Codex Bezae (_in\nloco_).\n\n[400] So Peshitto. Lewis, _venit hora, appropinquat finis_. Harkleian,\n_adest consummatio, venit hora._\n\n[401] [Greek: apechei]. Vg. _sufficit_. + [Greek: to telos], 13, 69,\n124, 2^{pe}, c^{scr}, 47, 54, 56, 61, 184, 346, 348, 439. d, q,\n_sufficit finis et hora_. f, _adest finis, venit hora_. c, ff^{2},\n_adest enim consummatio, et_ (ff^{2} venit) _hora_. a, _consummatus est\nfinis, advenit hora_. It is certain that one formidable source of danger\nto the sacred text has been its occasional obscurity. This has\nresulted,--(1) sometimes in the omission of words: [Greek:\nDeuteroproton]. (2) Sometimes in substitution, as [Greek: pygmei]. (3)\nSometimes in the insertion of unauthorized matter: thus, [Greek: to\ntelos], as above.\n\n[402] iii. 105: iv. 913. So also iv. 614.\n\n[403] vi. 283.\n\n[404] i. 307.\n\n[405] viii. 392.\n\n[406] iv. 696.\n\n[407] Cramer's Cat. _in loc._\n\n[408] 1063.\n\n[409] E.g. ver. 1. All the three officiously insert [Greek: ho Iesous],\nin order to prevent people from imagining that Lazarus raised Lazarus\nfrom the dead; ver. 4, D gives the gloss, [Greek: apo Karyotou] for\n[Greek: Iskariotes]; ver. 13, spells thus,--[Greek: hossana]; besides\nconstant inaccuracies, in which it is followed by none. [Symbol: Aleph]\nomits nineteen words in the first thirty-two verses of the chapter,\nbesides adding eight and making other alterations. B is far from being\naccurate.\n\n[410] 'Let her alone, that she may keep it against the day of My\nburying' (Alford). But how _could_ she keep it after she had poured it\nall out?--'Suffer her to have kept it against the day of My preparation\nunto burial' (M^{c}Clellan). But [Greek: hina terese] could hardly mean\nthat: and the day of His [Greek: entaphiasmos] had not yet arrived.\n\n[411] Consider ii. 11 and xi. 40: St. Luke xiii. 17: Heb. i. 3.\n\n[412] Consider v. 36 and iv. 34.\n\n[413] Consider St. John xix. 30. Cf. St. Luke xxii. 37.\n\n[414] Lewis, 'and the work I have perfected': Harkleian, 'because the\nwork,' &c., 'because' being obelized.\n\n[415] The Bohairic and Ethiopic are hostile.\n\n[416] i. 245 (= Constt. App. viii. 1; _ap._ Galland. iii. 199).\n\n[417] P. 419.\n\n[418] Mcell p. 157.\n\n[419] i. 534.\n\n[420] ii. 196, 238: iii. 39.\n\n[421] v. 256: viii. 475 _bis_.\n\n[422] iii. 542: iv. 954: v^{1}. 599, 601, 614: v^{2}. 152.--In the\nfollowing places Cyril shews himself acquainted with the other\nreading,--iv. 879: v^{1}. 167, 366: vi. 124.\n\n[423] Polyc. frg. v (ed. Jacobson).\n\n[424] Ps.-Ignat. 328.\n\n[425] _Ap._ Gall. iii. 215.\n\n[426] P. 285.\n\n[427] ii. 545.\n\n[428] Pp. 510, 816, 1008. But _opere constummato_, pp. 812, 815.--Jerome\nalso once (iv. 563) has _opere completo._\n\n[429] _Ap._ Gall. v. 135.\n\n[430] P. 367.\n\n[431] _Ap._ Gall. iii. 308.\n\n[432] _Ap._ Aug. viii. 622.\n\n[433] iii^{2}. 761: viii. 640.\n\n[434] v. 1166.\n\n[435] Ibid. 1165 g, 1166 a.\n\n[436] Though the Bohairic, Gothic, Vulgate, and Ethiopic versions are\ndisfigured in the same way, and the Lewis reads 'is.'\n\n[437] Theoph. 216 note: [Greek: hos kindyneuein auta bythisthenai].\n\n[438] Cod. Amiat.\n\n[439] g,--at Stockholm.\n\n[440] Stephanus De Urbibus in voc. [Greek: Beroia].\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XIII.\n\nCAUSES OF CORRUPTION CHIEFLY INTENTIONAL.\n\nIX. Corruption by Heretics.\n\n\nSec. 1.\n\nThe Corruptions of the Sacred Text which we have been hitherto\nconsidering, however diverse the causes from which they may have\nresulted, have yet all agreed in this: viz. that they have all been of a\nlawful nature. My meaning is, that apparently, at no stage of the\nbusiness has there been _mala fides_ in any quarter. We are prepared to\nmake the utmost allowance for careless, even for licentious\ntranscription; and we can invent excuses for the mistaken zeal, the\nofficiousness if men prefer to call it so, which has occasionally not\nscrupled to adopt conjectural emendations of the Text. To be brief, so\nlong as an honest reason is discoverable for a corrupt reading, we\ngladly adopt the plea. It has been shewn with sufficient clearness, I\ntrust, in the course of the foregoing chapters, that the number of\ndistinct causes to which various readings may reasonably be attributed\nis even extraordinary.\n\nBut there remains after all an alarmingly large assortment of textual\nperturbations which absolutely refuse to fall under any of the heads of\nclassification already enumerated. They are not to be accounted for on\nany ordinary principle. And this residuum of cases it is, which\noccasions our present embarrassment. They are in truth so exceedingly\nnumerous; they are often so very considerable; they are, as a rule, so\nvery licentious; they transgress to such an extent all regulations; they\nusurp so persistently the office of truth and faithfulness, that we\nreally know not what to think about them. Sometimes we are presented\nwith gross interpolations,--apocryphal stories: more often with\nsystematic lacerations of the text, or transformations as from an angel\nof light.\n\nWe are constrained to inquire, How all this can possibly have come\nabout? Have there even been persons who made it their business of set\npurpose to corrupt the [sacred deposit of Holy Scripture entrusted to\nthe Church for the perpetual illumination of all ages till the Lord\nshould come?]\n\nAt this stage of the inquiry, we are reminded that it is even notorious\nthat in the earliest age of all, the New Testament Scriptures were\nsubjected to such influences. In the age which immediately succeeded the\nApostolic there were heretical teachers not a few, who finding their\ntenets refuted by the plain Word of God bent themselves against the\nwritten Word with all their power. From seeking to evacuate its\nteaching, it was but a single step to seeking to falsify its testimony.\nProfane literature has never been exposed to such hostility. I make the\nremark in order also to remind the reader of one more point of\n[dissimilarity between the two classes of writings. The inestimable\nvalue of the New Testament entailed greater dangers, as well as secured\nsuperior safeguards. Strange, that a later age should try to discard the\nlatter].\n\nIt is found therefore that Satan could not even wait for the grave to\nclose over St. John. 'Many' there were already who taught that Christ\nhad not come in the flesh. Gnosticism was in the world already. St. Paul\ndenounces it by name[441], and significantly condemns the wild fancies\nof its professors, their dangerous speculations as well as their absurd\nfigments. Thus he predicts and condemns[442] their pestilential teaching\nin respect of meats and drinks and concerning matrimony. In his Epistle\nto Timothy[443] he relates that Hymeneus and Philetus taught that the\nResurrection was past already. What wonder if a flood of impious\nteaching broke loose on the Church when the last of the Apostles had\nbeen gathered in, and another generation of men had arisen, and the age\nof Miracles was found to be departing if it had not already departed,\nand the loftiest boast which any could make was that they had known\nthose who had [seen and heard the Apostles of the Lord].\n\nThe 'grievous wolves' whose assaults St. Paul predicted as imminent, and\nagainst which he warned the heads of the Ephesian Church[444], did not\nlong 'spare the flock.' Already, while St. John was yet alive, had the\nNicolaitans developed their teaching at Ephesus[445] and in the\nneighbouring Church of Pergamos[446]. Our risen Lord in glory announced\nto His servant John that in the latter city Satan had established his\ndwelling-place[447]. Nay, while those awful words were being spoken to\nthe Seer of Patmos, the men were already born who first dared to lay\ntheir impious hands on the Gospel of Christ.\n\nNo sooner do we find ourselves out of Apostolic times and among\nmonuments of the primitive age than we are made aware that the sacred\ntext must have been exposed at that very early period to disturbing\ninfluences which, on no ordinary principles, can be explained. Justin\nMartyr, Irenaeus, Origen, Clement of Alexandria,--among the Fathers:\nsome Old Latin MSS.[448] the Bohairic and Sahidic, and coming later on,\nthe Curetonian and Lewis,--among the Versions: of the copies Codd. B and\n[Symbol: Aleph]: and above all, coming later down still, Cod. D:--these\nvenerable monuments of a primitive age occasionally present us with\ndeformities which it is worse than useless to extenuate,--quite\nimpossible to overlook. Unauthorized appendixes,--tasteless and stupid\namplifications,--plain perversions of the meaning of the\nEvangelists,--wholly gratuitous assimilations of one Gospel to\nanother,--the unprovoked omission of passages of profound interest and\nnot unfrequently of high doctrinal import:--How are such phenomena as\nthese to be accounted for? Again, in one quarter, we light upon a\nsystematic mutilation of the text so extraordinary that it is as if some\none had amused himself by running his pen through every clause which was\nnot absolutely necessary to the intelligibleness of what remained. In\nanother quarter we encounter the thrusting in of fabulous stories and\napocryphal sayings which disfigure as well as encumber the text.--How\nwill any one explain all this?\n\nLet me however at the risk of repeating what has been already said\ndispose at once of an uneasy suspicion which is pretty sure to suggest\nitself to a person of intelligence after reading what goes before. If\nthe most primitive witnesses to our hand are indeed discovered to bear\nfalse witness to the text of Scripture,--whither are we to betake\nourselves for the Truth? And what security can we hope ever to enjoy\nthat any given exhibition of the text of Scripture is the true one? Are\nwe then to be told that in this subject-matter the maxim '_id verius\nquod prius_' does not hold? that the stream instead of getting purer as\nwe approach the fountain head, on the contrary grows more and more\ncorrupt?\n\nNothing of the sort, I answer. The direct reverse is the case. Our\nappeal is always made to antiquity; and it is nothing else but a truism\nto assert that the oldest reading is also the best. A very few words\nwill make this matter clear; because a very few words will suffice to\nexplain a circumstance already adverted to which it is necessary to keep\nalways before the eyes of the reader.\n\nThe characteristic note, the one distinguishing feature, of all the\nmonstrous and palpable perversions of the text of Scripture just now\nunder consideration is this:--that they are never vouched for by the\noldest documents generally, but only by a few of them,--two, three, or\nmore of the oldest documents being observed as a rule to yield\nconflicting testimony, (which in this subject-matter is in fact\ncontradictory). In this way the oldest witnesses nearly always refute\none another, and indeed dispose of one another's evidence almost as\noften as that evidence is untrustworthy. And now I may resume and\nproceed.\n\nI say then that it is an adequate, as well as a singularly satisfactory\nexplanation of the greater part of those gross depravations of Scripture\nwhich admit of no legitimate excuse, to attribute them, however\nremotely, to those licentious free-handlers of the text who are declared\nby their contemporaries to have falsified, mutilated, interpolated, and\nin whatever other way to have corrupted the Gospel; whose blasphemous\nproductions of necessity must once have obtained a very wide\ncirculation: and indeed will never want some to recommend and uphold\nthem. What with those who like Basilides and his followers invented a\nGospel of their own:--what with those who with the Ebionites and the\nValentinians interpolated and otherwise perverted one of the four\nGospels until it suited their own purposes:--what with those who like\nMarcion shamefully maimed and mutilated the inspired text:--there must\nhave been a large mass of corruption festering in the Church throughout\nthe immediate post-Apostolic age. But even this is not all. There were\nthose who like Tatian constructed Diatessarons, or attempts to weave the\nfourfold narrative into one,--'Lives of Christ,' so to speak;--and\nproductions of this class were multiplied to an extraordinary extent,\nand as we certainly know, not only found their way into the remotest\ncorners of the Church, but established themselves there. And will any\none affect surprise if occasionally a curious scholar of those days was\nimposed upon by the confident assurance that by no means were those many\nsources of light to be indiscriminately rejected, but that there must be\nsome truth in what they advanced? In a singularly uncritical age, the\nseductive simplicity of one reading,--the interesting fullness of\nanother,--the plausibility of a thirds--was quite sure to recommend its\nacceptance amongst those many eclectic recensions which were constructed\nby long since forgotten Critics, from which the most depraved and\nworthless of our existing texts and versions have been derived.\nEmphatically condemned by Ecclesiastical authority, and hopelessly\noutvoted by the universal voice of Christendom, buried under fifteen\ncenturies, the corruptions I speak of survive at the present day chiefly\nin that little handful of copies which, calamitous to relate, the school\nof Lachmann and Tischendorf and Tregelles look upon as oracular: and in\nconformity with which many scholars are for refashioning the Evangelical\ntext under the mistaken title of 'Old Readings.' And now to proceed with\nmy argument.\n\n\nSec. 2.\n\nNumerous as were the heresies of the first two or three centuries of the\nChristian era, they almost all agreed in this;--that they involved a\ndenial of the eternal Godhead of the Son of Man: denied that He is\nessentially very and eternal God. This fundamental heresy found itself\nhopelessly confuted by the whole tenor of the Gospel, which nevertheless\nit assailed with restless ingenuity: and many are the traces alike of\nits impotence and of its malice which have survived to our own times. It\nis a memorable circumstance that it is precisely those very texts which\nrelate either to the eternal generation of the Son,--to His\nIncarnation,--or to the circumstances of His Nativity,--which have\nsuffered most severely, and retain to this hour traces of having been in\nvarious ways tampered with. I do not say that Heretics were the only\noffenders here. I am inclined to suspect that the orthodox were as much\nto blame as the impugners of the Truth. But it was at least with a pious\nmotive that the latter tampered with the Deposit. They did but imitate\nthe example set them by the assailing party. It is indeed the calamitous\nconsequence of extravagances in one direction that they are observed\never to beget excesses in the opposite quarter. Accordingly the piety of\nthe primitive age did not think it wrong to fortify the Truth by the\ninsertion, suppression, or substitution of a few words in any place from\nwhich danger was apprehended. In this way, I am persuaded, many an\nunwarrantable 'reading' is to be explained. I do not mean that 'marginal\nglosses have frequently found their way into the text':--that points to\na wholly improbable account of the matter. I mean, that expressions\nwhich seemed to countenance heretical notions, or at least which had\nbeen made a bad use of by evil men, were deliberately falsified. But I\nmust not further anticipate the substance of the next chapter.\n\nThe men who first systematically depraved the text of Scripture, were as\nwe now must know the heresiarchs Basilides (fl. 134), Valentinus (fl.\n140), and Marcion (fl. 150): three names which Origen is observed almost\ninvariably to enumerate together. Basilides[449] and Valentinus[450] are\neven said to have written Gospels of their own. Such a statement is not\nto be severely pressed: but the general fact is established by the\nnotices, and those are exceedingly abundant, which the writers against\nHeresies have cited and left on record. All that is intended by such\nstatements is that these old heretics retained, altered, transposed,\njust so much as they pleased of the fourfold Gospel: and further, that\nthey imported whatever additional matter they saw fit:--not that they\nrejected the inspired text entirely, and substituted something of their\nown invention in its place[451]. And though, in the case of Valentinus,\nit has been contended, apparently with reason, that he probably did not\nindividually go to the same length as Basilides,--who, as well in\nrespect of St. Paul's Epistles as of the four Gospels, was evidently a\ngrievous offender[452],--yet, since it is clear that his principal\nfollowers, who were also his contemporaries, put forth a composition\nwhich they were pleased to style the 'Gospel of Truth[453],' it is idle\nto dispute as to the limit of the rashness and impiety of the individual\nauthor of the heresy. Let it be further stated, as no slight\nconfirmation of the view already hazarded as to the probable contents of\nthe (so-called) Gospels of Basilides and of Valentinus, that one\nparticular Gospel is related to have been preferred before the rest and\nspecially adopted by certain schools of ancient Heretics. Thus, a\nstrangely mutilated and depraved text of St. Matthew's Gospel is related\nto have found especial favour with the Ebionites[454], with whom the\nCorinthians are associated by Epiphanius: though Irenaeus seems to say\nthat it was St. Mark's Gospel which was adopted by the heretical\nfollowers of Cerinthus. Marcion's deliberate choice of St. Luke's Gospel\nis sufficiently well known. The Valentinians appropriated to themselves\nSt. John[455]. Heracleon, the most distinguished disciple of this\nschool, is deliberately censured by Origen for having corrupted the text\nof the fourth Evangelist in many places[456]. A considerable portion of\nhis Commentary on St. John has been preserved to us: and a very strange\nproduction it is found to have been.\n\nConcerning Marcion, who is a far more conspicuous personage, it will be\nnecessary to speak more particularly. He has left a mark on the text of\nScripture of which traces are distinctly recognizable at the present\nday[457]. A great deal more is known about him than about any other\nindividual of his school. Justin Martyr and Irenaeus wrote against him:\nbesides Origen and Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian in the West[458],\nand Epiphanius in the East, elaborately refuted his teaching, and give\nus large information as to his method of handling Scripture.\n\nAnother writer of this remote time who, as I am prone to think, must\nhave exercised sensible influence on the text of Scripture was Ammonius\nof Alexandria.\n\nBut Tatian beyond every other early writer of antiquity [appears to me\nto have caused alterations in the Sacred Text.]\n\nIt is obviously no answer to anything that has gone before to insist\nthat the Evangelium of Marcion (for instance), so far as it is\nrecognizable by the notices of it given by Epiphanius, can very rarely\nindeed be shewn to have resembled any extant MS. of the Gospels. Let it\nbe even freely granted that many of the charges brought against it by\nEpiphanius with so much warmth, collapse when closely examined and\nseverely sifted. It is to be remembered that Marcion's Gospel was known\nto be an heretical production: one of the many creations of the Gnostic\nage,--it must have been universally execrated and abhorred by faithful\nmen. Besides this lacerated text of St. Luke's Gospel, there was an\nEbionite recension of St. Matthew: a Cerinthian exhibition of St. Mark:\na Valentinian perversion of St. John. And we are but insisting that the\neffect of so many corruptions of the Truth, industriously propagated\nwithin far less than 100 years of the date of the inspired verities\nthemselves, must needs have made itself sensibly felt. Add the notorious\nfact, that in the second and third centuries after the Christian era the\ntext of the Gospels is found to have been grossly corrupted even in\northodox quarters,--and that traces of these gross corruptions are\ndiscoverable in certain circles to the present hour,--and it seems\nimpossible not to connect the two phenomena together. The wonder rather\nis that, at the end of so many centuries, we are able distinctly to\nrecognize any evidence whatever.\n\nThe proneness of these early Heretics severally to adopt one of the four\nGospels for their own, explains why there is no consistency observable\nin the corruptions they introduced into the text. It also explains the\nbringing into one Gospel of things which of right clearly belong to\nanother--as in St. Mark iii. 14 [Greek: ous kai apostolous onomasen].\n\nI do not propose (as will presently appear) in this way to explain any\nconsiderable number of the actual corruptions of the text: but in no\nother way is it possible to account for such systematic mutilations as\nare found in Cod. B,--such monstrous additions as are found in Cod.\nD,--such gross perturbations as are continually met with in one or more,\nbut never in all, of the earliest Codexes extant, as well as in the\noldest Versions and Fathers.\n\nThe plan of Tatian's Diatessaron will account for a great deal. He\nindulges in frigid glosses, as when about the wine at the feast of Cana\nin Galilee he reads that the servants knew 'because they had drawn the\nwater'; or in tasteless and stupid amplifications, as in the going back\nof the Centurion to his house. I suspect that the [Greek: ti me erotas\nperi tou agathou], 'Why do you ask me about that which is good?' is to\nbe referred to some of these tamperers with the Divine Word.\n\n\nSec. 3.\n\nThese professors of 'Gnosticism' held no consistent theory. The two\nleading problems on which they exercised their perverse ingenuity are\nfound to have been (1) the origin of Matter, and (2) the origin of Evil.\n\n(1) They taught that the world's artificer ('the Word') was Himself a\ncreature of 'the Father[459].' Encountered on the threshold of the\nGospel by the plain declaration that, 'In the beginning was the Word:\nand the Word was with God: and the Word was God': and presently, 'All\nthings were made by Him';--they were much exercised. The expedients to\nwhich they had recourse were certainly extraordinary. That 'Beginning'\n(said Valentinus) was the first thing which 'the Father' created: which\nHe called 'Only begotten Son,' and also 'God': and in whom he implanted\nthe germ of all things. Seminally, that is, whatsoever subsequently came\ninto being was in Him. 'The Word' (he said) was a product of this\nfirst-created thing. And 'All things were made by Him,' because in 'the\nWord' was the entire essence of all the subsequent worlds (Aeons), to\nwhich he assigned forms[460]. From which it is plain that, according to\nValentinus, 'the Word' was distinct from 'the Son'; who was not the\nworld's Creator. Both alike, however, he acknowledged to be 'God[461]':\nbut only, as we have seen already, using the term in an inferior sense.\n\nHeracleon, commenting on St. John i. 3, insists that 'all things' can\nbut signify this perishable world and the things that are therein: not\nessences of a loftier nature. Accordingly, after the words 'and without\nHim was not anything made,' he ventures to interpolate this clause,--'of\nthe things that are in the world and in the creation[462].' True, that\nthe Evangelist had declared with unmistakable emphasis, 'and without Him\nwas not anything' (literally, 'was not even one thing') 'made that was\nmade.' But instead of 'not even one thing,' the Valentinian Gnostics\nappear to have written 'nothing[463]'; and the concluding clause 'that\nwas made,' because he found it simply unmanageable, Valentinus boldly\nsevered from its context, making it the beginning of a fresh sentence.\nWith the Gnostics, ver. 4 is found to have begun thus,--'What was made\nin Him was life.'\n\nOf the change of [Greek: oude hen] into [Greek: ouden][464] traces\nsurvive in many of the Fathers[465]: but [Symbol: Aleph] and D are the\nonly Uncial MSS. which are known to retain that corrupt reading.--The\nuncouth sentence which follows ([Greek: ho gegonen en auto zoe en]),\nsingular to relate, was generally tolerated, became established in many\nquarters, and meets us still at every step. It was evidently put forward\nso perseveringly by the Gnostics, with whom it was a kind of article of\nthe faith, that the orthodox at last became too familiar with it.\nEpiphanius, though he condemns it, once employs it[466]. Occurring first\nin a fragment of Valentinus[467]: next, in the Commentary of\nHeracleon[468]: after that, in the pages of Theodotus the Gnostic (A.D.\n192)[469]: then, in an exposure by Hippolytus of the tenets of the\nNaaeseni[470], (a subsection of the same school);--the baseness of its\norigin at least is undeniable. But inasmuch as the words may be made to\nbear a loyal interpretation, the heretical construction of St. John i. 3\nwas endured by the Church for full 200 years. Clemens Alex, is observed\nthrice to adopt it[471]: Origen[472] and Eusebius[473] fall into it\nrepeatedly. It is found in Codd. [Symbol: Aleph]CD: apparently in Cod.\nA, where it fills one line exactly. Cyril comments largely on it[474].\nBut as fresh heresies arose which the depraved text seemed to favour,\nthe Church bestirred herself and remonstrated. It suited the Arians and\nthe Macedonians[475], who insisted that the Holy Ghost is a creature.\nThe former were refuted by Epiphanius, who points out that the sense is\nnot complete until you have read the words [Greek: ho gegonen]. A fresh\nsentence (he says) begins at [Greek: En auto zoe en][476]. Chrysostom\ndeals with the latter. 'Let us beware of putting the full stop' (he\nsays) 'at the words [Greek: oude hen],--as do the heretics. In order to\nmake out that the Spirit is a creature, they read [Greek: ho gegonen en\nauto zoe en]: by which means the Evangelist's meaning becomes\nunintelligible[477].'\n\nBut in the meantime, Valentinus, whose example was followed by Theodotus\nand by at least two of the Gnostic sects against whom Hippolytus wrote,\nhad gone further. The better to conceal St. John's purpose, the\nheresiarch falsified the inspired text. In the place of, 'What was made\nin Him, was life,' he substituted 'What was made in Him, _is_ life.'\nOrigen had seen copies so depraved, and judged the reading not\naltogether improbable. Clement, on a single occasion, even adopted it.\nIt was the approved reading of the Old Latin versions,--a memorable\nindication, by the way, of a quarter from which the Old Latin derived\ntheir texts,--which explains why it is found in Cyprian, Hilary, and\nAugustine; and why Ambrose has so elaborately vindicated its\nsufficiency. It also appears in the Sahidic and in Cureton's Syriac; but\nnot in the Peshitto, nor in the Vulgate. [Nor in the Bohairic] In the\nmeantime, the only Greek Codexes which retain this singular trace of the\nGnostic period at the present day, are Codexes [Symbol: Aleph] and D.\n\n\nSec. 4.\n\n[We may now take some more instances to shew the effects of the\noperations of Heretics.]\n\nThe good Shepherd in a certain place (St. John x. 14, 15) says\nconcerning Himself--'I know My sheep and am known of Mine, even as the\nFather knoweth Me and I know the Father': by which words He hints at a\nmysterious knowledge as subsisting between Himself and those that are\nHis. And yet it is worth observing that whereas He describes the\nknowledge which subsists between the Father and the Son in language\nwhich implies that it is strictly identical on either side, He is\ncareful to distinguish between the knowledge which subsists between the\ncreature and the Creator by slightly varying the expression,--thus\nleaving it to be inferred that it is not, neither indeed can be, on\neither side the same. God knoweth us with a perfect knowledge. Our\nso-called 'knowledge' of God is a thing different not only in degree,\nbut in kind[478]. Hence the peculiar form which the sentence\nassumes[479]:--[Greek: ginosko ta ema, kai ginoskomai hypo ton emon].\nAnd this delicate diversity of phrase has been faithfully retained all\ndown the ages, being witnessed to at this hour by every MS. in existence\nexcept four now well known to us: viz. [Symbol: Aleph]BDL. The Syriac\nalso retains it,--as does Macarius[480], Gregory Naz.[481],\nChrysostom[482], Cyril[483], Theodoret[484], Maximus[485]. It is a point\nwhich really admits of no rational doubt: for does any one suppose that\nif St. John had written 'Mine own know Me,' 996 MSS. out of 1000 at the\nend of 1,800 years would exhibit, 'I am known of Mine'?\n\nBut in fact it is discovered that these words of our Lord experienced\ndepravation at the hands of the Manichaean heretics. Besides inverting\nthe clauses, (and so making it appear that such knowledge begins on the\nside of Man.) Manes (A.D. 261) obliterated the peculiarity above\nindicated. Quoting from his own fabricated Gospel, he acquaints us with\nthe form in which these words were exhibited in that mischievous\nproduction: viz. [Greek: ginoskei me ta ema, kai ginosko ta ema]. This\nwe learn from Epiphanius and from Basil[486]. Cyril, in a paper where he\nmakes clear reference to the same heretical Gospel, insists that the\norder of knowledge must needs be the reverse of what the heretics\npretended[487].--But then, it is found that certain of the orthodox\ncontented themselves with merely reversing the clauses, and so restoring\nthe true order of the spiritual process discussed--regardless of the\nexquisite refinement of expression to which attention was called at the\noutset. Copies must once have abounded which represented our Lord as\nsaying, 'I know My own and My own know Me, even as the Father knoweth Me\nand I know the Father'; for it is the order of the Old Latin, Bohairic,\nSahidic, Ethiopic, Lewis, Georgian, Slavonic, and Gothic, though not of\nthe Peshitto, Harkleian, and Armenian; and Eusebius[488], Nonnus, and\neven Basil[489] so read the place. But no token of this clearly corrupt\nreading survives in any known copy of the Gospels,--except [Symbol:\nAleph]BDL. Will it be believed that nevertheless all the recent Editors\nof Scripture since Lachmann insist on obliterating this refinement of\nlanguage, and going back to the reading which the Church has long since\ndeliberately rejected,--to the manifest injury of the deposit? 'Many\nwords about a trifle,'--some will be found to say. Yes, to deny God's\ntruth is a very facile proceeding. Its rehabilitation always requires\nmany words. I request only that the affinity between [Symbol: Aleph]BDL\nand the Latin copies which universally exhibit this disfigurement[490],\nmay be carefully noted. [Strange to say, the true reading receives no\nnotice from Westcott and Hort, or the Revisers[491]].\n\n\nSec. 5.\n\nDoctrinal.\n\nThe question of Matrimony was one of those on which the early heretics\nfreely dogmatized. Saturninus[492] (A.D. 120) and his followers taught\nthat marriage was a production of Hell.\n\nWe are not surprised after this to find that those places in the Gospel\nwhich bear on the relation between man and wife exhibit traces of\nperturbation. I am not asserting that the heretics themselves depraved\nthe text. I do but state two plain facts: viz. (1) That whereas in the\nsecond century certain heretical tenets on the subject of Marriage\nprevailed largely, and those who advocated as well as those who opposed\nsuch teaching relied chiefly on the Gospel for their proofs: (2) It is\naccordingly found that not only does the phenomenon of 'various\nreadings' prevail in those places of the Gospel which bear most nearly\non the disputed points, but the 'readings' are exactly of that\nsuspicious kind which would naturally result from a tampering with the\ntext by men who had to maintain, or else to combat, opinions of a\ncertain class. I proceed to establish what I have been saying by some\nactual examples[493].\n\n  St. Matt. xix. 29.\n  [Greek: e gynaika,]\n  --BD abc Orig.\n\n  St. Mark x. 29.\n  [Greek: e gynaika,]\n  --[Symbol: Aleph]BD[Symbol: Delta], abc, &c.\n\n  St. Luke xviii. 29.\n  [Greek: e gynaika],\n  all allow it.\n\n[Greek: hotan de lege; hoti \"pas hostis apheke gynaika,\" ou touto\nphesin, hoste aplos diaspasthai tous gamous, k.t.l.] Chrys. vii. 636 E.\n\n[Greek: Paradeigmatisai] (in St. Matt. i. 19) is another of the\nexpressions which have been disturbed by the same controversy. I suspect\nthat Origen is the author (see the heading of the Scholion in Cramer's\nCatenae) of a certain uncritical note which Eusebius reproduces in his\n'quaestiones ad Stephanum[494]' on the difference between [Greek:\ndeigmatisai] and [Greek: paradeigmatisai]; and that with him originated\nthe substitution of the uncompounded for the compounded verb in this\nplace. Be that as it may, Eusebius certainly read [Greek:\nparadeigmatisai] (Dem. 320), with all the uncials but two (BZ): all the\ncursives but one (I). Will it be believed that Lachmann, Tregelles,\nTischendorf, Alford, Westcott and Hort, on such slender evidence as that\nare prepared to reconstruct the text of St. Matthew's Gospel?\n\nIt sounds so like trifling with a reader's patience to invite his\nattention to an elaborate discussion of most of the changes introduced\ninto the text by Tischendorf and his colleagues, that I knowingly pass\nover many hundreds of instances where I am nevertheless perfectly well\naware of my own strength,--my opponent's weakness. Such discussions in\nfact become unbearable when the points in dispute are confessedly\ntrivial. No one however will deny that when three consecutive words of\nour Lord are challenged they are worth contending for. We are invited\nthen to believe (St. Luke xxii. 67-8) that He did not utter the\nbracketed words in the following sentence,--'If I tell you, ye will not\nbelieve; and if I ask you, ye will not answer (Me, nor let Me go).' Now,\nI invite the reader to inquire for the grounds of this assertion.\nFifteen of the uncials (including AD), and every known cursive, besides\nall the Latin and all the Syriac copies recognize the bracketed words.\nThey are only missing in [Symbol: Aleph]BLT and their ally the Bohairic.\nAre we nevertheless to be assured that the words are to be regarded as\nspurious? Let the reader then be informed that Marcion left out seven\nwords more (viz. all from, 'And if I ask you' to the end), and will he\ndoubt either that the words are genuine or that their disappearance from\nfour copies of bad character, as proved by their constant evidence, and\nfrom one version is sufficiently explained?\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[441] [Greek: pseudonymou gnoseos] 1 Tim. vi. 20.\n\n[442] 1 Tim. iv. 1-3.\n\n[443] ii. 17.\n\n[444] Acts xx. 29.\n\n[445] Rev. ii. 6.\n\n[446] Rev. ii. 15.\n\n[447] Rev. ii. 13.\n\n[448] Chiefly the Low Latin amongst them. Tradit. Text. chap. vii. p.\n137.\n\n[449] 'Ausus fuit et Basilides scribere Evangelium, et suo illud nomine\ntitulare.'--Orig. Opp. iii. 933 c: Iren. i. 23: Clem. Al. 409, 426, 506,\n509, 540, 545: Tertull. c. 46: Epiph. 24: Theodor. i. 4.\n\n[450] 'Evangelium habet etiam suum, praeter haec nostra' (De\nPraescript., ad calcem).\n\n[451] Origen (commenting on St. Luke x. 25-28) says,--[Greek: tauta de\neiretai pros tois apo Oualentinou, kai Basilidou, kai tous apo\nMarkionos. echousi gar kai autoi tas lexeis en toi kath' heautous\neuangelioi]. Opp. iii. 981 A.\n\n[452] 'Licet non sint digni fide, qui fidem primam irritam fecerunt,\nMarcionem loquor et Basilidem et omnes Haereticos qui vetus laniant\nTestamentum: tamen eos aliqua ex parte ferremus, si saltem in novo\ncontinerent manus suas; et non auderent Christi (ut ipsi iactitant) boni\nDei Filii, vel Evangelistas violare, vel Apostolos. Nunc vero, quum et\nEvangelia eius dissipaverint; et Apostolorum epistolas, non Apostolorum\nChristi fecerunt esse, sed proprias; miror quomodo sibi Christianorum\nnomen audeant vindicare. Ut enim de caeteris Epistolis taceam, (de\nquibus quidquid contrarium suo dogmati viderant, evaserunt, nonnullas\nintegras repudiandas crediderunt); ad Timotheum videlicet utramque, ad\nHebraeos, et ad Titum, quam nunc conamur exponere.' Hieron. Praef. ad\nTitum.\n\n[453] 'Hi vero, qui sunt a Valentino, exsistentes extra omnem timorem,\nsuas conscriptiones praeferentes, plura habere gloriantur, quam sint\nipsa Evangelia. Siquidem in tantum processerunt audaciae, uti quod ab\nhis non olim conscriptum est, Veritatis Evangelium titulent.' Iren. iii.\nxi. 9.\n\n[454] See, by all means, Epiphanius, Haer. xxx. c. xiii; also c. iii.\n\n[455] 'Tanta est circa Evangelia haec firmitas, ut et ipsi haeretici\ntestimonium reddant eis, et ex ipsis egrediens unusquisque eorum conetur\nsuam confirmare doctrinam. Ebionaei etenim eo Evangelio quod est\nsecundum Matthaeum, solo utentes, ex illo ipso convincuntur, non recte\npraesumentes de Domino. Marcion autem id quod est secundum Lucam\ncircumcidens, ex his quae adhuc servantur penes eum, blasphemus in solum\nexistentem Deum ostenditur. Qui autem Iesum separant a Christo, et\nimpassibilem perseverasse Christum, passum vero Iesum dicunt, id quod\nsecundum Marcum est praeferentes Evangelium; cum amore veritatis\nlegentes illud, corrigi possunt. Hi autem qui a Valentino sunt, eo quod\nest secundum Joannem plenissime utentes,' &c. Iren. iii. xi. 7.\n\n[456] [Greek: Herakleon, ho tes Oualentinou scholes dokimotatos]. Clem.\nAl. p. 595. Of Heracleon it is expressly related by Origen that he\ndepraved the text of the Gospel. Origen says (iv. 66) that Heracleon\n(regardless of the warning in Prov. xxx. 6) added to the text of St.\nJohn i. 3 (vii. after the words [Greek: egeneto oude en]) the words\n[Greek: ton en to kosmoi, kai te ktisei]. Heracleon clearly read [Greek:\nho gegonen en auto zoe en]. See Orig. iv. 64. In St. John ii. 19, for\n[Greek: en trisi], he wrote [Greek: en trite]. He also read (St. John\niv. 18) (for [Greek: pente]), [Greek: ex andras esches].\n\n[457] Celsus having objected that believers had again and again\nfalsified the text of the Gospel, refashioning it, in order to meet the\nobjections of assailants, Origen replies: [Greek: Metacharaxantas de to\neuangelion allous ouk oida, he tous apo Markionos, kai tous apo\nOualentinou, oimai de kai tous apo Loukanou. touto de legomenon ou tou\nlogou estin egklema, alla ton tolmesanton rhadiourgesai ta euangelia].\nOpp. i. 411 B.\n\n[458] De Praesc. Haer. c. 51.\n\n[459] [Greek: Outos de demiourgos kai poietes toude tou pantos kosmou\nkai ton en auto ... estai men katadeesteros tou teleiou Theou ... ate de\nkai gennetos on, kai ouk agennetos]. Ptolemaeus, ap. Epiph. p. 217.\nHeracleon saw in the nobleman of Capernaum an image of the Demiurge who,\n[Greek: basilikos onomasthe hoionei mikros tis basileus, hypo katholikou\nbasileos tetagmenos epi mikras basileias], p. 373.\n\n[460] [Greek: O Ioannes ... boulomenos eipein ten ton holon genesin,\nkath' en ta panta proebalen ho Pater, archen tina hypotithetai, to\nproton gennethen hypo tou theou, hon de kai huion Monogene kai Theon\nkekleken, en ho ta panta ho Pater proebale spermatikos. Hypo de toutou\nphesi ton Logon probeblesthai, kai en auto ten holen ton Aionon ousian,\nen autos hysteron emorphosen ho Logos.... Panta di' autou egeneto, kai\nchoris autou egeneto oude hen; pasi gar tois met' auton Aiosi morphes\nkai geneseos aitios ho Logos egeneto].\n\n[461] [Greek: En to Patri kai ek tou Patros he arche, kai ek tes arches\nho Logos. Kalos oun eipen; en arche en ho Logos; en gar en to Huio. Kai\nho Logos en pros ton Theon; kai gar he 'Arche; kai Theos en ho Logos,\nakolouthos. To gar ek Theou gennethen Theos estin].--Ibid. p. 102.\nCompare the Excerpt. Theod. _ap_. Clem. Al. c. vi. p. 968.\n\n[462] _Ap_. Orig. 938. 9.\n\n[463] So Theodotus (p. 980), and so Ptolemaeus (_ap._ Epiph. i. 217),\nand so Heracleon (_ap._ Orig. p. 954). Also Meletius the Semi-Arian\n(_ap._ Epiph. i. 882).\n\n[464] See The Traditional Text, p. 113.\n\n[465] Clem. Al. always has [Greek: oude hen] (viz. pp. 134, 156, 273,\n769, 787, 803, 812, 815, 820): but when he quotes the Gnostics (p. 838)\nhe has [Greek: ouden]. Cyril, while writing his treatise De Trinitate,\nread [Greek: ouden] in his copy. Eusebius, for example, has [Greek: oude\nhen], fifteen times; [Greek: ouden] only twice, viz. Praep. 322: Esai.\n529.\n\n[466] Opp. ii. 74.\n\n[467] _Ap._ Iren. 102.\n\n[468] Ibid. 940.\n\n[469] _Ap._ Clem. Al. 968, 973.\n\n[470] Philosoph. 107. But not when he is refuting the tenets of the\nPeratae: [Greek: oude hen, ho gegonen. en auto zoe estin. en auto de,\nphesin, he Eua gegonen, he Eua zoe]. Ibid. p. 134.\n\n[471] Opp. 114, 218, 1009.\n\n[472] Cels. vi. 5: Princip. II. ix. 4: IV. i. 30: In Joh. i. 22, 34: ii.\n6, 10, 12, 13 _bis_: In Rom. iii. 10, 15: Haer. v. 151.\n\n[473] Psalm. 146, 235, 245: Marcell. 237. Not so in Ecl. 100: Praep.\n322, 540.\n\n[474] [Greek: Anagkaios phesin, \"ho gegonen, eni auto zoe en.\" ou monon\nphesi, \"di autou ta panta egeneto,\" alla kai ei ti gegonen en en auto he\nzoe. tout' estin, ho monogenes tou Theo logos, he panton arche, kai\nsystasis horaton te kai aoraton ... autos gar hyparchon he kata physin\nzoe, to einai kai zen kai kineisthai polytropos tois ousi charisetai].\nOpp. iv. 49 e.\n\nHe understood the Evangelist to declare concerning the [Greek: Logos],\nthat, [Greek: panta di' autou egeneto, kai en en tois genomenois hos\nzoe]. Ibid. 60 c.\n\n[475] [Greek: Outoi de boulontai auto einai ktisma ktismatos. phasi gar,\nhoti panto di' autou gegone, kai choris autou egeneto oude hen. ara,\nphasi, kai to Pneuma ek ton poiematon hyparchei, epeide panta di' autou\ngegone]. Opp. i. 741. Which is the teaching of Eusebius, Marcell. 333-4.\nThe Macedonians were an offshoot of the Arians.\n\n[476] i. 778 D, 779 B. See also ii. 80.\n\n[477] Opp. viii. 40.\n\n[478] Consider 1 John ii. 3, 4: and read Basil ii. 188 b, c. See p. 207,\nnote 4. Consider also Gal. iv. 9. So Cyril Al. [iv. 655 a], [Greek: kai\nproegno mallon he egnosthe par' hemon].\n\n[479] Chrysostom alone seems to have noticed this:--[Greek: hina me tes\ngnoseos ison ton metron nomiseis, akouson pos diorthoutai auto tei\nepagogei; ginosko ta ema, phesi, kai ginoskomai hypo ton emon. all' ouk\nise he gnosis, k.t.l.] viii. 353 d.\n\n[480] P. 38. (Gall. vii. 26.)\n\n[481] i. 298, 613.\n\n[482] viii. 351, 353 d and e.\n\n[483] iv. 652 c, 653 a, 654 d.\n\n[484] i. 748: iv. 374, 550.\n\n[485] In Dionys. Ar. ii. 192.\n\n[486] [Greek: Phesi de ho autos Manes ... ta ema probata ginoskei me,\nkai ginosko ta ema probata]. (Epiphan. i. 697.)--Again,--[Greek:\nherpasen ho hairetikos pros ten idian kataskeuen tes blasphemias. idou,\nphesin, eiretai; hoti ginoasousi] (lower down, [Greek: ginoskei])\n[Greek: me ta ema, kai ginosko ta ema]. (Basil ii. 188 a, b.)\n\n[487] [Greek: En taxei te oikeia kai prepodestate ton pragmaton ekasta\ntitheis. ou gar ephe, ginoskei me ta ema, kai ginosko ta ema, all'\nheauton egnokata proteron eispherei ta idia probata, eith' outos\ngnosthesesthai phesi par auton ... ouch hemeis auton epegnokamen protoi,\nepegno de hemas proton autos ... ouch hemeis erxametha tou pragmatos,\nall' ho ek Theou Theos monogenes].--iv. 654 d, 655 a. (Note, that this\npassage appears in a mutilated form, viz. 121 words are omitted, in the\nCatena of Corderius, p. 267,--where it is wrongly assigned to\nChrysostom: an instructive instance.)\n\n[488] In Ps. 489: in Es. 509: Theoph. 185, 258, 260.\n\n[489] ii. 188 a:--which is the more remarkable, because Basil proceeds\nexquisitely to shew (1886) that man's 'knowledge' of God consists in his\nkeeping of God's Commandments. (1 John ii. 3, 4.) See p. 206, note 1.\n\n[490] So Jerome, iv. 484: vii. 455. Strange, that neither Ambrose nor\nAugustine should quote the place.\n\n[491] See Revision Revised, p. 220.\n\n[492] Or Saturnilus--[Greek: to de gamein kai gennan apo tou Satana\nphesin einai]. p. 245, l. 38. So Marcion, 253.\n\n[493] [The MS. breaks off here, with references to St. Mark x. 7, Eph.\nv. 31-2 (on which the Dean had accumulated a large array of references),\nSt. Mark x. 29-30, with a few references, but no more. I have not had\nyet time or strength to work out the subject.]\n\n[494] Mai, iv. 221.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XIV.\n\nCAUSES OF CORRUPTION CHIEFLY INTENTIONAL.\n\nX. Corruption by the Orthodox.\n\n\nSec. 1.\n\nAnother cause why, in very early times, the Text of the Gospels\nunderwent serious depravation, was mistaken solicitude on the part of\nthe ancient orthodox for the purity of the Catholic faith. These\npersons, like certain of the moderns, Beza for example, evidently did\nnot think it at all wrong to tamper with the inspired Text. If any\nexpression seemed to them to have a dangerous tendency, they altered it,\nor transplanted it, or removed it bodily from the sacred page. About the\nuncritical nature of what they did, they entertained no suspicion: about\nthe immorality of the proceeding, they evidently did not trouble\nthemselves at all. On the contrary, the piety of the motive seems to\nhave been held to constitute a sufficient excuse for any amount of\nlicence. The copies which had undergone this process of castigation were\neven styled 'corrected,'--and doubtless were popularly looked upon as\n'the correct copies' [like our 'critical texts']. An illustration of\nthis is afforded by a circumstance mentioned by Epiphanius.\n\nHe states (ii. 36) that the orthodox, out of jealousy for the Lord's\nDivinity, eliminated from St. Luke xix. 41 the record that our Saviour\n'wept.' We will not pause to inquire what this statement may be worth.\nBut when the same Father adds,--'In the uncorrected copies ([Greek: en\ntois adiorthotois antigraphois]) is found \"He wept,\"' Epiphanius is\ninstructive. Perfectly well aware that the expression is genuine, he\ngoes on to state that 'Irenaeus quoted it in his work against Heresies,\nwhen he had to confute the error of the Docetae[495].' 'Nevertheless,'\nEpiphanius adds, 'the orthodox through fear erased the record.'\n\nSo then, the process of 'correction' was a critical process conducted on\nutterly erroneous principles by men who knew nothing whatever about\nTextual Criticism. Such recensions of the Text proved simply fatal to\nthe Deposit. To 'correct' was in this and such like cases simply to\n'corrupt.'\n\nCodexes B[Symbol: Aleph]D may be regarded as specimens of Codexes which\nhave once and again passed through the hands of such a corrector or\n[Greek: diorthotes].\n\nSt. Luke (ii. 40) records concerning the infant Saviour that 'the child\ngrew, and waxed strong in spirit.' By repeating the selfsame expression\nwhich already,--viz. in chap. i. 80,--had been applied to the Childhood\nof the Forerunner[496], it was clearly the design of the Author of\nScripture to teach that the Word 'made flesh' submitted to the same laws\nof growth and increase as every other Son of Adam. The body 'grew,'--the\nspiritual part 'waxed strong.' This statement was nevertheless laid hold\nof by the enemies of Christianity. How can it be pretended (they asked)\nthat He was 'perfect God' ([Greek: teleios Theos]), of whom it is\nrelated in respect of His spirit that he 'waxed strong[497]'? The\nconsequence might have been foreseen. Certain of the orthodox were\nill-advised enough to erase the word [Greek: pneumati] from the copies\nof St. Luke ii. 40; and lo, at the end of 1,500 years, four 'corrected'\ncopies, two Versions, one Greek Father, survive to bear witness to the\nancient fraud. No need to inquire which, what, and who these be.\n\nBut because it is [Symbol: Aleph]BDL, Origen[498], and the Latin, the\nEgyptian and Lewis which are without the word [Greek: pneumati],\nLachmann, Tregelles, Tischendorf, and the Revisers jump to the\nconclusion that [Greek: pneumati] is a spurious accretion to the Text.\nThey ought to reverse their proceeding; and recognize in the evidence\none more indication of the untrustworthiness of the witnesses. For,--how\nthen is it supposed that the word ([Greek: pneumati]) ever obtained its\nfooting in the Gospel? For all reply we are assured that it has been\nimported hither from St. Luke i. 80. But, we rejoin, How does the\nexistence of the phrase [Greek: ekrataiouto pneumati] in i. 80 explain\nits existence in ii. 40, in every known copy of the Gospels except four,\nif in these 996 places, suppose, it be an interpolation? This is what\nhas to be explained. Is it credible that all the remaining uncials, and\nevery known cursive copy, besides all the lectionaries, should have been\ncorrupted in this way: and that the truth should survive exclusively at\nthis time only in the remaining four; viz. in B[Symbol: Aleph],--the\nsixth century Cod. D,--and the eighth century Cod. L?\n\nWhen then, and where did the work of depravation take place? It must\nhave been before the sixth century, because Leontius of Cyprus[499]\nquotes it three times and discusses the expression at length:--before\nthe fifth, because, besides Cod. A, Cyril[500] Theodoret[501] and\nps.-Caesarius[502] recognize the word:--before the fourth, because\nEpiphanius[503], Theodore of Mopsuestia[504], and the Gothic version\nhave it:--before the third, before nearly all of the second century,\nbecause it is found in the Peshitto. What more plain than that we have\nbefore us one other instance of the injudicious zeal of the orthodox?\none more sample of the infelicity of modern criticism?\n\n\nSec. 2.\n\nTheodotus and his followers fastened on the first part of St. John viii.\n40, when they pretended to shew from Scripture that Christ is mere\nMan[505]. I am persuaded that the reading 'of My Father[506],'--with\nwhich Origen[507], Epiphanius[508], Athanasius[509], Chrysostom[510],\nCyril Alex.[511], and Theodoret[512] prove to have been acquainted,--was\nsubstituted by some of the orthodox in this place, with the pious\nintention of providing a remedy for the heretical teaching of their\nopponents. At the present day only six cursive copies are known to\nretain this trace of a corruption of Scripture which must date from the\nsecond century.\n\nWe now reach a most remarkable instance. It will be remembered that St.\nJohn in his grand preface does not rise to the full height of his\nsublime argument until he reaches the eighteenth verse. He had said\n(ver. 14) that 'the Word was made flesh,' &c.; a statement which\nValentinus was willing to admit. But, as we have seen, the heresiarch\nand his followers denied that 'the Word' is also 'the Son' of God. As if\nin order to bar the door against this pretence, St. John announces (ver.\n18) that 'the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he\nhath declared him': thus establishing the identity of the Word and the\nOnly begotten Son. What else could the Valentinians do with so plain a\nstatement, but seek to deprave it? Accordingly, the very first time St.\nJohn i. 18 is quoted by any of the ancients, it is accompanied by the\nstatement that the Valentinians in order to prove that the 'only\nbegotten' is 'the Beginning,' and is 'God,' appeal to the words,--'the\nonly begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father[513],' &c. Inasmuch,\nsaid they, as the Father willed to become known to the worlds, the\nSpirit of Gnosis produced the 'only begotten' 'Gnosis,' and therefore\ngave birth to 'Gnosis,' that is to 'the Son': in order that by 'the Son'\n'the Father' might be made known. While then that 'only begotten Son'\nabode 'in the bosom of the Father,' He caused that here upon earth\nshould be seen, alluding to ver. 14, one 'as the only begotten Son.' In\nwhich, by the way, the reader is requested to note that the author of\nthe Excerpta Theodoti (a production of the second century) reads St.\nJohn i. 18 as we do.\n\nI have gone into all these strange details,--derived, let it be\nremembered, from documents which carry us back to the former half of the\nsecond century,--because in no other way is the singular phenomenon\nwhich attends the text of St. John i. 18 to be explained and accounted\nfor. Sufficiently plain and easy of transmission as it is, this verse of\nScripture is observed to exhibit perturbations which are even\nextraordinary. Irenaeus once writes [Greek: ho] [?] [Greek: monogenes\nuios]: once, [Greek: ho] [?] [Greek: monogenes uios Theos]: once,\n[Greek: ho monogenes uios Theou][514]: Clemens Alex., [Greek: ho\nmonogenes uios Theos monos][515]; which must be very nearly the reading\nof the Codex from which the text of the Vercelli Copy of the Old Latin\nwas derived[516]. Eusebius four times writes [Greek: ho monogenes\nuios][517]: twice, [Greek: monogenes Theos][518]: and on one occasion\ngives his reader the choice of either expression, explaining why both\nmay stand[519]. Gregory Nyss.[520] and Basil[521], though they recognize\nthe usual reading of the place, are evidently vastly more familiar with\nthe reading [Greek: ho monogenes Theos][522]: for Basil adopts the\nexpression thrice[523], and Gregory nearly thirty-three times as\noften[524]. This was also the reading of Cyril Alex.[525], whose usual\nphrase however is [Greek: ho monogenes tou Theou logos][526]. Didymus\nhas only [? cp. context] [Greek: ho monogenes Theos],--for which he once\nwrites [Greek: ho monogenes Theos logos][527]. Cyril of Jer. seems to\nhave read [Greek: ho monogenes monos][528].\n\n[I have retained this valuable and suggestive passage in the form in\nwhich the Dean left it. It evidently has not the perfection that attends\nsome of his papers, and would have been amplified and improved if his\nlife had been spared. More passages than he noticed, though limited to\nthe ante-Chrysostom period, are referred to in the companion\nvolume[529]. The portentous number of mentions by Gregory of Nyssa\nescaped me, though I knew that there were several. Such repetitions of a\nphrase could only be admitted into my calculation in a restricted and\nrepresentative number. Indeed, I often quoted at least on our side less\nthan the real number of such reiterations occurring in one passage,\nbecause in course of repetition they came to assume for such a purpose a\nparrot-like value.\n\nBut the most important part of the Dean's paper is found in his account\nof the origin of the expression. This inference is strongly confirmed by\nthe employment of it in the Arian controversy. Arius reads [Greek:\nTheos] (_ap._ Epiph. 73--Tischendorf), whilst his opponents read [Greek:\nHuios]. So Faustinus seven times (I noted him only thrice), and\nVictorinus Afer six (10) times in reply to the Arian Candidus[530]. Also\nAthanasius and Hilary of Poictiers four times each, and Ambrose eight\n(add Epp. I. xxii. 5). It is curious that with this history admirers of\nB and [Symbol: Aleph] should extol their reading over the Traditional\nreading on the score of orthodoxy. Heresy had and still retains\nassociations which cannot be ignored: in this instance some of the\northodox weakly played into the hands of heretics[531]. None may read\nHoly Scripture just as the idea strikes them.]\n\n\nSec. 3.\n\nAll are familiar with the received text of 1 Cor. xv. 47:--[Greek: ho\nprotos anthropos ek ges choikos; ho deuteros anthropos ho Kyrios ex\nouranou]. That this place was so read in the first age is certain: for\nso it stands in the Syriac. These early heretics however of whom St.\nJohn speaks, who denied that 'Jesus Christ had come in the flesh[532]'\nand who are known to have freely 'taken away from the words' of\nScripture[533], are found to have made themselves busy here. If (they\nargued) 'the second man' was indeed 'the Lord-from-Heaven,' how can it\nbe pretended that Christ took upon Himself human flesh[534]? And to\nbring out this contention of theirs more plainly, they did not hesitate\nto remove as superfluous the word 'man' in the second clause of the\nsentence. There resulted,--'The first man [was] of the earth, earthy:\n[Greek: ho deuteros Kyrios ex ouranou][535].' It is thus that\nMarcion[536] (A.D. 130) and his followers[537] read the place. But in\nthis subject-matter extravagance in one direction is ever observed to\nbeget extravagance in another. I suspect that it was in order to\ncounteract the ejection by the heretics of [Greek: anthropos] in ver.\n47, that, early in the second century, the orthodox retaining [Greek:\nanthropos], judged it expedient to leave out the expression [Greek: ho\nKyrios], which had been so unfairly pressed against them; and were\ncontented to read,--'the second man [was] from heaven.' A calamitous\nexchange, truly. For first, (I), The text thus maimed afforded\ncountenance to another form of misbelief. And next, (II), It\nnecessitated a further change in 1 Cor. xv. 47.\n\n(I) It furnished a pretext to those heretics who maintained that Christ\nwas 'Man' _before_ He came into the World. This heresy came to a head in\nthe persons of Apolinarius[538] and Photinus; in contending with whom,\nGreg. Naz.[539] and Epiphanius[540] are observed to argue with\ndisadvantage from the mutilated text. Tertullian[541], and Cyprian[542]\nafter him, knew no other reading but 'secundus homo de Caelo,'--which is\nin fact the way this place stands in the Old Latin. And thus, from the\nsecond century downwards, two readings (for the Marcionite text was\nspeedily forgotten) became current in the Church:--(1) The inspired\nlanguage of the Apostle, cited at the outset,--which is retained by all\nthe known copies, _except nine_; and is vouched for by Basil[543],\nChrysostom[544], Theodotus[545], Eutherius[546], Theodorus Mops.[547],\nDamascene[548], Petrus Siculus[549], and Theophylact[550]: and (2) The\ncorrected (i.e. the maimed) text of the orthodox;--[Greek: ho deuteros;\nanthropos ex ouranou]: with which, besides the two Gregories[551],\nPhotinus[552] and Apolinarius the heretics were acquainted; but which at\nthis day is only known to survive in [Symbol: Aleph]*BCD*EFG and two\ncursive copies. Origen[553], and (long after him) Cyril, employed _both_\nreadings[554].\n\n(II) But then, (as all must see) such a maimed exhibition of the text\nwas intolerable. The balance of the sentence had been destroyed. Against\n[Greek: ho protos anthropos], St. Paul had set [Greek: ho deuteros\nanthropos]: against [Greek: ek ges]--[Greek: ex ouranou]: against [Greek:\nchoikos]--[Greek: ho Kyrios]. Remove [Greek: ho Kyrios], and some\nsubstitute for it must be invented as a counterpoise to [Greek:\nchoikos]. Taking a hint from what is found in ver. 48, some one\n(plausibly enough,) suggested [Greek: epouranios]: and this gloss so\neffectually recommended itself to Western Christendom, that having been\nadopted by Ambrose[555], by Jerome[556] (and later by Augustine[557],)\nit established itself in the Vulgate[558], and is found in all the later\nLatin writers[559]. Thus then, _a third_ rival reading enters the\nfield,--which because it has well-nigh disappeared from Greek MSS., no\nlonger finds an advocate. Our choice lies therefore between the two\nformer:--viz. (a) the received, which is the only well-attested reading\nof the place: and (b) the maimed text of the Old Latin, which Jerome\ndeliberately rejected (A.D. 380), and for which he substituted another\neven worse attested reading. (Note, that these two Western fabrications\neffectually dispose of one another.) It should be added that\nAthanasius[560] lends his countenance to all the three readings.\n\nBut now, let me ask,--Will any one be disposed, after a careful survey\nof the premisses, to accept the verdict of Tischendorf, Tregelles and\nthe rest, who are for bringing the Church back to the maimed text of\nwhich I began by giving the history and explaining the origin? Let it be\nnoted that the one question is,--shall [Greek: ho Kyrios] be retained in\nthe second clause, or not? But there it stood within thirty years of the\ndeath of St. John: and there it stands, at the end of eighteen centuries\nin every extant copy (including AKLP) except nine. It has been\nexcellently witnessed to all down the ages,--viz. By Origen, Hippolytus,\nAthanasius, Basil, Chrysostom, Cyril, Theodotus, Eutherius, Theodore\nMops., Damascene and others. On what principle would you now reject\nit?... With critics who assume that a reading found in [Symbol:\nAleph]BCDEFG must needs be genuine,--it is vain to argue. And yet the\nmost robust faith ought to be effectually shaken by the discovery that\nfour, if not five ([Symbol: Aleph]ACFG) of these same MSS., by reading\n'we shall all sleep; but we shall not all be changed,' contradict St.\nPaul's solemn announcement in ver. 51: while a sixth (D) stands alone in\nsubstituting 'we shall all rise; but we shall not all be changed.'--In\nthis very verse, C is for introducing [Greek: Adam] into the first\nclause of the sentence: FG, for subjoining [Greek: ho ouranios]. When\nwill men believe that guides like these are to be entertained with\nhabitual distrust? to be listened to with the greatest caution? to be\nfollowed, for their own sakes,--never?\n\nI have been the fuller on this place, because it affords an instructive\nexample of what has occasionally befallen the words of Scripture. Very\nseldom indeed are we able to handle a text in this way. Only when the\nheretics assailed, did the orthodox defend: whereby it came to pass that\na record was preserved of how the text was read by the ancient Father.\nThe attentive reader will note (_a_) That all the changes which we have\nbeen considering belong to the earliest age of all:--(_b_) That the\ncorrupt reading is retained by [Symbol: Aleph]BC and their following:\nthe genuine text, in the great bulk of the copies:--(_c_) That the first\nmention of the text is found in the writings of an early heretic:--(_d_)\nThat [the orthodox introduced a change in the interests, as they\nfancied, of truth, but from utter misapprehension of the nature and\nauthority of the Word of God:--and (_e_) that under the Divine\nProvidence that change was so effectually thrown out, that decisive\nwitness is found on the other side].\n\n\nSec. 4.\n\nClosely allied to the foregoing, and constantly referred to in connexion\nwith it by those Fathers who undertook to refute the heresy of\nApolinarius, is our Lord's declaration to Nicodemus,--'No man hath\nascended up to heaven, but He that came down from heaven, even the Son\nof Man which is in heaven' (St. John iii. 13). Christ 'came down from\nheaven' when He became incarnate: and having become incarnate, is said\nto have 'ascended up to Heaven,' and 'to be in Heaven,' because 'the Son\nof Man,' who was not in heaven before, by virtue of the hypostatical\nunion was thenceforward evermore 'in heaven.' But the Evangelist's\nlanguage was very differently taken by those heretics who systematically\n'maimed and misinterpreted that which belongeth to the human nature of\nChrist.' Apolinarius, who relied on the present place, is found to have\nread it without the final clause ([Greek: ho on en to ourano]); and\ncertain of the orthodox (as Greg. Naz., Greg. Nyssa, Epiphanius, while\ncontending with him,) shew themselves not unwilling to argue from the\ntext so mutilated. Origen and the author of the Dialogus once, Eusebius\ntwice, Cyril not fewer than nineteen times, also leave off at the words\n'even the Son of Man': from which it is insecurely gathered that those\nFathers disallowed the clause which follows. On the other hand,\nthirty-eight Fathers and ten Versions maintain the genuineness of the\nwords [Greek: ho on en to ourano][561]. But the decisive circumstance is\nthat,--besides the Syriac and the Latin copies which all witness to the\nexistence of the clause,--the whole body of the uncials, four only\nexcepted ([Symbol: Aleph]BLT^{b}), and every known cursive but one\n(33)--are for retaining it.\n\nNo thoughtful reader will rise from a discussion like the foregoing\nwithout inferring from the facts which have emerged in the course of it\nthe exceeding antiquity of depravations of the inspired verity. For let\nme not be supposed to have asserted that the present depravation was the\nwork of Apolinarius. Like the rest, it is probably older by at least 150\nyears. Apolinarius, in whose person the heresy which bears his name came\nto a head, did but inherit the tenets of his predecessors in error; and\nthese had already in various ways resulted in the corruption of the\ndeposit.\n\n\nSec. 5[562].\n\nThe matter in hand will be conveniently illustrated by inviting the\nreader's attention to another famous place. There is a singular consent\namong the Critics for eliminating from St. Luke ix. 54-6, twenty-four\nwords which embody two memorable sayings of the Son of Man. The entire\ncontext is as follows:--'Lord, wilt thou that we command fire to come\ndown from heaven and consume them, (as Elias did)? But he turned, and\nrebuked them, (and said, Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of.)\n(For the Son of Man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save\nthem.) And they went to another village.' The three bracketed clauses\ncontain the twenty-four words in dispute.\n\nThe first of these clauses ([Greek: hos kai Helias epoiese]), which\nclaims to be part of the inquiry of St. John and St. James, Mill\nrejected as an obvious interpolation. 'Res ipsa clamat. Quis enim sanus\ntam insignia deleverit[563]?' Griesbach retained it as probably\ngenuine.--The second clause ([Greek: kai eipen, Ouk oidate hoiou\npneumatos este hymeis]) he obelized as probably not genuine:--the third\n([Greek: ho gar huios tou anthropou ouk elthe psychas anthropon\napolesai, alla sosai]) he rejected entirely. Lachmann also retains the\nfirst clause, but rejects the other two. Alford, not without misgiving,\ndoes the same. Westcott and Hort, without any misgiving about the third\nclause, are 'morally certain' that the first and second clauses are a\nWestern interpolation. Tischendorf and Tregelles are thorough. They\nagree, and the Revisers of 1881, in rejecting unceremoniously all the\nthree clauses and exhibiting the place curtly, thus.--[Greek: Kyrie,\ntheleis eipomen pyr katabenai apo tou ouranou, kai analosai autous;\nstrapheis de epetimesen autois. kai eporeuthesan desan eis heteran\nkomen].\n\nNow it may as well be declared at once that Codd. [Symbol:\nAleph]BL[Symbol: Xi] l g^{1} Cyr^{luc}[564], two MSS. of the Bohairic (d\n3, d 2), the Lewis, and two cursives (71, 157) are literally the only\nauthority, ancient or modern, for so exhibiting the text [in all its\nbare crudeness]. Against them are arrayed the whole body of MSS. uncial\nand cursive, including ACD; every known lectionary; all the Latin, the\nSyriac (Cur. om. Clause 1), and indeed every other known version:\nbesides seven good Greek Fathers beginning with Clemens Alex. (A.D.\n190), and five Latin Fathers beginning with Tertullian (A.D. 190):\nCyprian's testimony being in fact the voice of the Fourth Council of\nCarthage, A.D. 253. If on a survey of this body of evidence any one will\ngravely tell me that the preponderance of authority still seems to him\nto be in favour of the shorter reason, I can but suggest that the sooner\nhe communicates to the world the grounds for his opinion, the better.\n\n(1) In the meantime it becomes necessary to consider the disputed\nclauses separately, because ancient authorities, rivalling modern\ncritics, are unable to agree as to which they will reject, which they\nwill retain. I begin with the second. What persuades so many critics to\nomit the precious words [Greek: kai eipen, Ouk oidate hoiou pneumatos\neste hymeis], is the discovery that these words are absent from many\nuncial MSS.,--[Symbol: Aleph]ABC and nine others; besides, as might have\nbeen confidently anticipated from that fact, also from a fair proportion\nof the cursive copies. It is impossible to deny that _prima facie_ such\nan amount of evidence against any words of Scripture is exceedingly\nweighty. Pseudo-Basil (ii. 271) is found to have read the passage in the\nsame curt way. Cyril, on the other hand, seems to have read it\ndifferently.\n\nAnd yet, the entire aspect of the case becomes changed the instant it is\nperceived that this disputed clause is recognized by Clemens[565] (A.D.\n190); as well as by the Old Latin, by the Peshitto, and by the\nCuretonian Syriac: for the fact is thus established that as well in\nEastern as in Western Christendom the words under discussion were\nactually recognized as genuine full a hundred and fifty years before the\noldest of the extant uncials came into existence. When it is further\nfound that (besides Ambrose, Jerome, Augustine,) the Vulgate, the Old\nEgyptian, the Harkleian Syriac and the Gothic versions also contain the\nwords in question; and especially that Chrysostom in four places,\nDidymus, Epiphanius, Cyril and Theodoret, besides Antiochus, familiarly\nquote them, it is evident that the testimony of antiquity in their\nfavour is even overwhelming. Add that in eight uncial MSS. (beginning\nwith D) the words in dispute form part of the text of St. Luke, and that\nthey are recognized by the great mass of the cursive copies,--(only six\nout of the twenty which Scrivener has collated being without them,)--and\nit is plain that at least five tests of genuineness have been fully\nsatisfied.\n\n(2) The third clause ([Greek: ho gar huios tou anthropou ouk elthe\npsychas anthropon apolesai, alla sosai]) rests on precisely the same\nsolid evidence as the second; except that the testimony of Clemens is no\nlonger available,--but only because his quotation does not extend so\nfar. Cod. D also omits this third clause; which on the other hand is\nupheld by Tertullian, Cyprian and Ambrose. Tischendorf suggests that it\nhas surreptitiously found its way into the text from St. Luke xix. 10,\nor St. Matt, xviii. 11. But this is impossible; simply because what is\nfound in those two places is essentially different: namely,--[Greek:\nelthe gar ho huios tou anthropou zetesai kai][566] [Greek: sosai to\napololos].\n\n(3) We are at liberty in the meantime to note how apt an illustration is\nhere afforded of the amount of consensus which subsists between\ndocuments of the oldest class. This divergence becomes most conspicuous\nwhen we direct our attention to the grounds for omitting the foremost\nclause of the three, [Greek: hos kai Elias epoiesen]: for here we make\nthe notable discovery that the evidence is not only less weighty, but\nalso different. Codexes B and [Symbol: Aleph] are now forsaken by all\ntheir former allies except L[Symbol: Xi] and a single cursive copy.\nTrue, they are supported by the Curetonian Syriac, the Vulgate and two\ncopies of the Old Latin. But this time they find themselves confronted\nby Codexes ACD with thirteen other uncials and the whole body of the\ncursives; the Peshitto, Coptic, Gothic, and Harkleian versions; by\nClemens, Jerome, Chrysostom, Cyril and pseudo-Basil. In respect of\nantiquity, variety, respectability, numbers, they are therefore\nhopelessly outvoted.\n\nDo any inquire, How then has all this contradiction and depravation of\nCodexes [Symbol: Aleph]ABC(D) come about? I answer as follows:--\n\nIt was a favourite tenet with the Gnostic heretics that the Law and the\nGospel are at variance. In order to establish this, Marcion (in a work\ncalled Antitheses) set passages of the New Testament against passages of\nthe Old; from the seeming disagreement between which his followers were\ntaught to infer that the Law and the Gospel cannot have proceeded from\none and the same author[567]. Now here was a place exactly suited to his\npurpose. The God of the Old Testament had twice sent down fire from\nheaven to consume fifty men. But 'the Son of Man,' said our Saviour,\nwhen invited to do the like, 'came not to destroy men's lives but to\nsave them.' Accordingly, Tertullian in his fourth book against Marcion,\nrefuting this teaching, acquaints us that one of Marcion's 'Contrasts'\nwas Elijah's severity in calling down fire from Heaven,--and the\ngentleness of Christ. 'I acknowledge the seventy of the judge,'\nTertullian replies; 'but I recognize the same severity on the part of\nChrist towards His Disciples when they proposed to bring down a similar\ncalamity on a Samaritan village[568].' From all of which it is plain\nthat within seventy years of the time when the Gospel was published, the\ntext of St. Luke ix. 54-6 stood very much as at present.\n\nBut then it is further discovered that at the same remote period (about\nA.D. 130) this place of Scripture was much fastened on by the enemies of\nthe Gospel. The Manichaean heretics pressed believers with it[569]. The\ndisciples' appeal to the example of Elijah, and the reproof they\nincurred, became inconvenient facts. The consequence might be foreseen.\nWith commendable solicitude for God's honour, but through mistaken\npiety, certain of the orthodox (without suspicion of the evil they were\ncommitting) were so ill-advised as to erase from their copies the\ntwenty-four words which had been turned to mischievous account as well\nas to cause copies to be made of the books so mutilated: and behold, at\nthe end of 1,700 years, the calamitous result!\n\nOf these three clauses then, which are closely interdependent, and as\nTischendorf admits[570] must all three stand or all three fall together,\nthe first is found with ACD, the Old Latin, Peshitto, Clement,\nChrysostom, Cyril, Jerome,--not with [Symbol: Aleph]B the Vulgate or\nCuretonian. The second and third clauses are found with Old Latin,\nVulgate, Peshitto, Harkleian, six Greek and five Latin Fathers,--not\nwith [Symbol: Aleph]ABCD.\n\nWhile [Symbol: Aleph] and B are alone in refusing to recognize either\nfirst, second or third clause. And this is a fair sample of that\n'singular agreement' which is sometimes said to subsist between 'the\nlesser group of witnesses.' Is it not plain on the contrary that at a\nvery remote period there existed a fierce conflict, and consequent\nhopeless divergence of testimony about the present passage; of which\n1,700 years[571] have failed to obliterate the traces? Had [Symbol:\nAleph]B been our only ancient guides, it might of course have been\ncontended that there has been no act of spoliation committed: but seeing\nthat one half of the missing treasure is found with their allies, ACD,\nClement Alex., Chrysostom, Cyril, Jerome,--the other half with their\nallies, Old Latin, Harkleian, Clement, Tertullian, Cyprian, Ambrose,\nDidymus, Epiphanius, Chrysostom, Cyril, Theodoret, Jerome,\nAugustine[572],--it is clear that no such pretence can any longer be set\nup.\n\nThe endeavour to establish agreement among the witnesses by a skilful\ndistribution or rather dislocation of their evidence, a favourite device\nwith the Critics, involves a fallacy which in any other subject would be\ndenied a place. I trust that henceforth St. Luke ix. 54-6 will be left\nin undisputed possession of its place in the sacred Text,--to which it\nhas an undoubted right.\n\nA thoughtful person may still inquire, Can it however be explained\nfurther how it has come to pass that the evidence for omitting the first\nclause and the two last is so unequally divided? I answer, the disparity\nis due to the influence of the Lectionaries.\n\nLet it be observed then that an ancient Ecclesiastical Lection which\nused to begin either at St. Luke ix. 44, or else at verse 49 and to\nextend down to the end of verse 56[573], ended thus,--[Greek: hos kai\nElias epoiese; strapheis de epetimesen autois. kai eporeuthesan eis\nhetepan komen][574]. It was the Lection for Thursday in the fifth week\nof the new year; and as the reader sees, it omitted the two last clauses\nexactly as Codd. [Symbol: Aleph]ABC do. Another Ecclesiastical Lection\nbegan at verse 51 and extended down to verse 57, and is found to have\ncontained the two last clauses[575]. I wish therefore to inquire:--May\nit not fairly be presumed that it is the Lectionary practice of the\nprimitive age which has led to the irregularity in this perturbation of\nthe sacred Text?\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[495] [Greek: Pros tois dokesei ton Christon pephenenai legontas].\n\n[496] [Greek: To de paidion euxane, kai ekrataiouto pneumati].\n\n[497] It is the twenty-fourth and the thirtieth question in the first\nDialogus of pseudo-Caesarius (Gall. vi. 17, 20).\n\n[498] Opp. iii. 953, 954,--with suspicious emphasis.\n\n[499] Ed. Migne, vol. 93, p. 1581 a, b (Novum Auct. i. 700).\n\n[500] When Cyril writes (Scholia, ed. Pusey, vol. vi. 568),--\"[Greek: To\nde paidion euxane kai ekrataiouto PNEUMATI, pleroumenon SOPHIA kai\nCHARITI.\" kaitoi kata physin panteleios estin hos Theos kai ex idion\npleromatos dianemei tois agiois ta PNEUMATIKA, kai autos estin e SOPHIA,\nkai tes CHARITOS ho doter],--it is clear that [Greek: pneumati] must\nhave stood in Cyril's text. The same is the reading of Cyril's Treatise,\nDe Incarnatione (Mai, ii. 57): and of his Commentary on St. Luke (ibid.\np. 136). One is surprised at Tischendorf's perverse inference concerning\nthe last-named place. Cyril had begun by quoting the whole of ver. 40 in\nexact conformity with the traditional text (Mai, ii. 136). At the close\nof some remarks (found both in Mai and in Cramer's Catena), Cyril\nproceeds as follows, according to the latter:--[Greek: ho Euangelistes\nepse \"euxane kai ekrataiouto\" KAI TA EXES]. Surely this constitutes no\nground for supposing that he did not recognize the word [Greek:\npneumati], but rather that he did. On the other hand, it is undeniable\nthat in V. P. ii. 138 and 139 (= Concilia iii. 241 d, 244 a), from\nPusey's account of what he found in the MSS. (vii. P. i. 277-8), the\nword [Greek: pneumati] must be suspected of being an unauthorized\naddition to the text of Cyril's treatise, De Recta fide ad Pulcheriam et\nEudociam.\n\n[501] ii. 152: iv. 112: v. 120, 121 (four times).\n\n[502] [Greek: Ei teleios esti Theos ho Christos, pos ho euangelistes\nlegei, to de paidion Iesous euxane kai ekrataiouto pneumati];--S.\nCaesarii, Dialogus I, Quaest. 24 (_ap._ Galland. vi. 17 c). And see\nQuaest. 30.\n\n[503] ii. 36 d.\n\n[504] Fragmenta Syriaca, ed. Sachau, p. 53.--The only other Greek\nFathers who quote the place are Euthymius and Theophylact.\n\n[505] [Greek: Hen ekousa para tou Theou]. Epiph. i. 463.\n\n[506] Instead of [Greek: para tou Theou].\n\n[507] i. 410: iv. 294, 534. Elsewhere he defends and employs it.\n\n[508] i. 260, 463: ii. 49.\n\n[509] i. 705.\n\n[510] viii. 365.\n\n[511] (Glaph.) i. 18.\n\n[512] iv. 83, 430. But both Origen (i. 705: iv. 320, 402) and Cyril (iv.\n554: v. 758) quote the traditional reading; and Cyril (iv. 549)\ndistinctly says that the latter is right, and [Greek: para tou patros]\nwrong.\n\n[513] Excerpt. Theod. 968.--Heracleon's name is also connected by Origen\nwith this text. Valentinus (ap. Iren. 100) says, [Greek: on de kai uion\nMonogene kai Theon kekleken].\n\n[514] Pp. 627, 630, 466.\n\n[515] P. 956.\n\n[516] 'Deum nemo vidit umquam: nisi unicus filius solus, sinum patris\nipse enarravit.'--(Comp. Tertullian:--'Solus filius patrem novit et\nsinum patris ipse exposuit' (Prax. c. 8. Cp. c. 21): but he elsewhere\n(ibid. c. 15) exhibits the passage in the usual way.) Clemens\nwrites,--[Greek: tote epopteuseis ton kolpon tou Patrus, hon ho\nmonoogenes huios Theos monos exegesato] (956), and in the Excerpt.\nTheod. we find [Greek: outos ton kolpon ton Patros exegesato ho Soter]\n(969). But this is unintelligible until it is remembered that our Lord\nis often spoken of by the Fathers as [Greek: he dexia tou hypsistou ...\nkolpos de tes dexias ho Pater]. (Greg. Nyss. i. 192.)\n\n[517] Ps. 440 (--[Greek: ho]): Marcell. 165, 179, 273.\n\n[518] Marcell. 334: Theoph. 14.\n\n[519] Marcell. 132. Read on to p. 134.\n\n[520] Opp. ii. 466.\n\n[521] Opp. iii. 23, 358.\n\n[522] Greg. Nyss. Opp. i. 192, 663 ([Greek: Theos pantos ho monogenes,\nho en tois kolpois on tou Patros, outos eipontos tou Ioannou]). Also ii.\n432, 447, 450, 470, 506: always [Greek: en tois kolpois]. Basil, Opp.\niii. 12.\n\n[523] Basil, Opp. iii. 14, 16, 117: and so Eunomius (ibid. i. 623).\n\n[524] Contra Eunom. _I have noted_ ninety-eight places.\n\n[525] Cyril (iv. 104) paraphrases St. John i. 18 thus:--[Greek: autos\ngar Theos on ho monogenes, en kolpois on tou theou kai patros, tauten\npros hemas epoiesato ten exegesin]. Presently (p. 105), he says that St.\nJohn [Greek: kai \"monogene theon\" apokalei ton huion, kai \"en kolpois\"\neinai phesi tou patros]. But on p. 107 he speaks quite plainly: [Greek:\n\"ho monogenes,\" phesi, \"Theos, ho on eis ton kolpon tou patros, ekeinos\nexegesato.\" epeide gar ephe \"monogene\" kai \"Theon,\" tithesin euthys, \"ho\non en tois kolpois tou patros.\"]--So v. 137, 768. And yet he reads\n[Greek: huios] in v. 365, 437: vi. 90.\n\n[526] He uses it seventeen times in his Comm. on Isaiah (ii. 4, 35, 122,\n&c.), and actually so reads St. John i. 18 in one place (Opp. vi. 187).\nTheodoret once adopts the phrase (Opp. v. 4).\n\n[527] De Trin. 76, 140, 37a:--27.\n\n[528] P. 117.\n\n[529] Traditional Text, p. 113, where the references are given.\n\n[530] Who quoted Arius' words:--'Subsistit ante tempora et aeones\n_plenus Deus, unigenitus,_ et immutabilis.' But I cannot yet find\nTischendorf's reference.\n\n[531] The reading [Greek: Huios] is established by unanswerable\nevidence.\n\n[532] The Gnostics Basilides and Valentinus were the direct precursors\nof Apolonius, Photinus, Nestorius, &c., in assailing the Catholic\ndoctrine of the Incarnation. Their heresy must have been actively at\nwork when St. John wrote his first (iv. 1, 2, 3) and second (ver. 7)\nEpistles.\n\n[533] Rev. xxii. 19.\n\n[534] [Greek: Epipedosin hemin hoi hairetikoi legontes; idou ouk anelabe\nsarka ho Christos; ho deut. gar phesin anthr. ho k. ex ouranou.] Chrys.\niii. 114 b.\n\n[535] [Greek: Ten gar kata sarka gennesin tou Christou anelein\nboulomenoi, enellaxan to, ho deuteros anthropos; kai epoiesan, ho\ndeuteros Kyrios.] Dial. [_ap._ Orig.] i. 868.--Marcion had in fact\nalready substituted [Greek: Kyrios] for [Greek: anthropos] in ver. 45:\n('_the last Lord_ became a quickening spirit':) [Tertull. ii. 304]--a\nfabricated reading which is also found to have been upheld by Marcion's\nfollowers:--[Greek: ho eschatos Kyrios eis pn. zo.] Dial. _ubi supra_.\n[Greek: edei gar autous, ei ge ta euangelia etimon, me peritemnein ta\neuangelia, me mere ton euangelion exyphelein, me hetera prosthenai, mete\nlogo, mete idia gnome ta euangelia prosgraphein.... prosgegraphekasi\ngoun hosa beboulentai, kai exypheilanto hosa kekrikasi.] Titus of Bostra\nc. Manichaeos (Galland. v. 328).\n\n[536] Tertull. ii. 304, (_Primus homo de humo terrenus, secundus Dominus\nde Caelo_).\n\n[537] Dial [Orig. i.] 868, ([Greek: ho deuteros Kyrios ex ouranou]).\n\n[538] [Greek: To de panton chalepotaton en tais ekklesiastikais\nsymphorais, he ton 'Apolinariston esti parresia.] Greg. Naz. ii. 167.\n\n[539] ii. 168,--a very interesting place. See also p. 87.\n\n[540] i. 831.\n\n[541] ii. 443, 531.\n\n[542] Pp. 180, 209, 260, 289, 307 (_primus homo de terrae limo_, &c.).\n\n[543] iii. 40.\n\n[544] iii. 114 four times: x. 394, 395. Once (xi. 374) he has [Greek: ho\ndeut. anthr. ouranios ex ouranou].\n\n[545] iv. 1051.\n\n[546] _Ap._ Thdt. v. 1135.\n\n[547] _Ap._ Galland. viii. 626, 627.\n\n[548] i. 222 (where for [Greek: anthr.] he reads [Greek: Adam]), 563.\nAlso ii. 120, 346.\n\n[549] 'Adversus Manichaeos,'--_ap._ Mai, iv. 68, 69.\n\n[550] ii. 228:--[Greek: ouch hoti ho anthropos, etoi to anthropinon\nproslemma, ex ouranou en, hos ho aphron Apolinarios elerei].\n\n[551] Naz. ii. 87 (=Thdt. iv. 62), 168.--Nyss. ii. 11.\n\n[552] _Ap._ Epiphan. i. 830.\n\n[553] 559 (with the Text. Recept.): iv. 302 not.\n\n[554] Hippolytus may not be cited in evidence, being read both ways.\n(Cp. ed. Fabr. ii. 30:--ed. Lagarde, 138. 15:--ed. Galland. ii.\n483.)--Neither may the expression [Greek: tou deuterou ex ouranou\nanthropou] in Pet. Alex. (ed. Routh, Rell. Sacr. iv. 48) be safely\npressed.\n\n[555] _Primus homo de terra, terrenus: secundus homo de caelo\ncaelestis_.--i. 1168, 1363: ii. 265, 975. And so ps.-Ambr. ii. 166, 437.\n\n[556] ii. 298: iv. 930: vii. 296.\n\n[557] The places are given by Sabatier _in loc_.\n\n[558] Only because it is the Vulgate reading, I am persuaded, does this\nreading appear in Orig. _interp_. ii. 84, 85: iii. 951: iv. 546.\n\n[559] As Philastrius (_ap._ Galland. vii. 492, 516).--Pacianus (ib.\n275).--Marius Mercator (ib. viii. 664).--Capreolus (ib. ix. 493). But\nsee the end of the next ensuing note.\n\n[560] Vol. i. p. 1275,--[Greek: ho deuteros anthr. ho Kyrios ex ouranou\nouranios]:--on which he remarks, (if indeed it be he), [Greek: idou gar\namphoterothen ouranios anthropos onomazetai]. And lower down,--[Greek:\nKyrios, dia ten mian hypostasin; deut. men anthr., kata ten henomenen\nanthropoteta. ex ouranou de, kata ten theoteta].--P. 448,--[Greek: ho\ndeuteros anthr. ex ouranou epouranios].--_Ap._ Montf. ii. 13 (= Galland.\nv. 167),--[Greek: ho deut. anthr. ex ouranou].--Note that Maximinus, an\nArian bishop, A.D. 427-8 (_ap._ Augustin. viii. 663) is found to have\npossessed a text identical with the first of the preceding:--'Ait ipse\nPaulus, _Primus homo Adam de terra terrenus, secundus homo Dominus de\nCaelo caelestis_ advenit.'\n\n[561] See Revision Revised, pp. 132-5: and The Traditional Text, p. 114.\n\n[562] This paper is marked as having been written at Chichester in 1877,\nand is therefore earlier than the Dean's later series.\n\n[563] Proleg. 418.\n\n[564] The text of St. Luke ix. 51-6 prefixed to Cyril's fifty-sixth\nSermon (p. 353) is the text of B and [Symbol: Aleph],--an important\ntestimony to what I suppose may be regarded as the Alexandrine _Textus\nReceptus_ of this place in the fifth century. But then no one supposes\nthat Cyril is individually responsible for the headings of his Sermons.\nWe therefore refer to the body of his discourse; and discover that the\nSyriac translator has rendered it (as usual) with exceeding licence. He\nhas omitted to render some such words as the following which certainly\nstood in the original text:--[Greek: eidenai gar chre, hoti hos mepo tes\nneas kekratekotes charitos, all' eti tes proteras echomenoi synetheias,\ntouto eipon, pros Elian aphorontes ton pyri kataphlexanta dis tous\npentekonta kai tous egoumenous auton], (Cramer's Cat. ii. p. 81. Cf.\nCorderii, Cat. p. 263. Also Matthaei. N. T. _in loc._, pp. 333-4.) Now\nthe man who wrote _that_, must surely have read St. Luke ix. 54, 55 as\nwe do.\n\n[565] See the fragment (and Potter's note), Opp. p. 1019: also Galland.\nii. 157. First in Hippolyt., Opp. ed. Fabric, ii. 71.\n\n[566] In St. Matt. xviii. 11, the words [Greek: zetesai kai] do not\noccur.\n\n[567] Bp. Kaye's Tertullian, p. 468. 'Agnosco iudicis severitatem. E\ncontrario Christi in eandem animadversionem destinantes discipulos super\nilium viculum Samaritarum.' Marc. iv. 23 (see ii. p. 221). He\nadds,--'Let Marcion also confess that by the same terribly severe judge\nChrist's leniency was foretold;' and he cites in proof Is. xlii. 2 and 1\nKings xix. 12 ('sed in _spiritu_ miti').\n\n[568] Augustine (viii. 111-150, 151-182) writes a book against him. And\nhe discusses St. Luke ix. 54-5 on p. 139.\n\nAddas Adimantus (a disciple of Manes) was the author of a work of the\nsame kind. Augustine (viii. 606 c) says of it,--'ubi de utroque\nTestamento velut inter se contraria testimonia proferuntur versipelli\ndolositate, velut inde ostendatur utrumque ab uno Deo esse non posse,\nsed alterum ab altero.' Cerdon was the first to promulgate this\npestilential tenet (605 a). Then Marcion his pupil, then Apelles, and\nthen Patricius.\n\n[569] Titus Bostr. adv. Manichaeos (_ap._ Galland. v. 329 b), leaving\nothers to note the correspondences between the New and the Old\nTestament, proposes to handle the 'Contrasts': [Greek: pros autas tas\nantitheseis ton logion choresomen]. At pp. 339 e, 340 a, b, he confirms\nwhat Tertullian says about the calling down of fire from heaven.\n\n[570] Verba [Greek: hos kai E. epoiese] cur quis addiderit, planum.\nEidem interpolatori debentur quae verba [Greek: str. de epeti. autois]\nexcipiunt. Gravissimum est quod testium additamentum [Greek: ho gar\nhuios], &c. ab eadem manu derivandum est, nec per se solum pro spurio\nhaberi potest; cohaeret enim cum argumento tum auctoritate arctissime\ncum prioribus. (N. T. ed. 1869, p. 544.)\n\n[571] Secundo iam saeculo quin in codicibus omnis haec interpolatio\ncircumferri consueverit, dubitari nequit. (Ibid.)\n\n[572] The following are the references left by the Dean. I have not had\ntime or strength to search out those which are left unspecified in this\nMS. and the last.\n\nJerome.--Apostoli in Lege versati ... ulcisci nituntur iniuriam, _et\nimitari Eliam_, &c. Dominus, qui non ad iudicandum _venerat_, sed _ad\nsalvandum_, &c. ... increpat eos _quod non meminerint doctrinae suae et\nbonitatis Evangelicae_, &c. (i. 857 b, c, d.)\n\nCyprian, Synodical Epistle.--'Filius hominis non venit animas hominum\nperdere, sed salvare.' p. 98. A.D. 253.\n\nTatian.--Veni, inquit, animam salvam facere. (Carn. c. 12 et 10: and\nAnim. c. 13.)\n\nAugustine gives a long extract from the same letter and thus quotes the\nwords twice,--x. 76, 482. Cp. ii. 593 a.\n\n[Greek: Kai ho Kyrios pros tous apostolous eipontas en pyri kolasai tous\nme dexamenous autous kata ton Elian; Ouk oidate phesi poiou pneumatos\neste]. (p. 1019.)\n\nTheodoret, iii. 1119. ([Greek: poiou].)\n\nEpiph. ii. 31. ([Greek: hoiou].)\n\nBasil, ii. 271 (Eth.) quotes the whole place.\n\nAugustine.--Respondit eis Dominus, dicens eos nescire cuius spiritus\nfilii essent, et quod ipse liberare venisset, non perdere. viii. 139 b.\nCp. iii. (2), 194 b.\n\nCyril Al.--[Greek: Mepo tes neas kekratekotes charitos ... touto eipon,\nton Elian aphorontes ton pyri k.t.l.] Cord. Cat. 263 = Cram. Cat. 81.\nAlso iv. 1017.--By a strange slip of memory, Cyril sets down a reproof\nfound in St. Matthew: but this is enough to shew that he admits that\n_some_ reproof finds record in the Gospel.\n\nChrys. vii. 567 e: x. 305 d: vii. 346 a: ix. 677 c.\n\nOpus Imp. ap. Chrys. vi. 211, 219.\n\nDidymus.--[Greek: Ouk oidate oiou pneumatos estin ho huios tou\nanthropou]. De Trin. p. 188.\n\n[573] Evst. 48 (Matthaei's c): Evst. 150 (Harl. 5598).\n\n[574] See Matthaei, N.T. 1786, vol. ii. p. 17.\n\n[575] [I have been unable to discover this Lection.]\n\n\n\n\nAPPENDIX I.\n\nPERICOPE DE ADULTERA.\n\n\nI have purposely reserved for the last the most difficult problem of\nall: viz. those twelve famous verses of St. John's Gospel (chap. vii. 53\nto viii. 11) which contain the history of 'the woman taken in\nadultery,'--the _pericope de adultera_, as it is called. Altogether\nindispensable is it that the reader should approach this portion of the\nGospel with the greatest amount of experience and the largest\npreparation. Convenient would it be, no doubt, if he could further\ndivest himself of prejudice; but that is perhaps impossible. Let him at\nleast endeavour to weigh the evidence which shall now be laid before him\nin impartial scales. He must do so perforce, if he would judge rightly:\nfor the matter to be discussed is confessedly very peculiar: in some\nrespects, even unique. Let me convince him at once of the truth of what\nhas been so far spoken.\n\nIt is a singular circumstance that at the end of eighteen centuries two\ninstances, and but two, should exist of a considerable portion of\nScripture left to the mercy, so to speak, of 'Textual Criticism.' Twelve\nconsecutive Verses in the second Gospel--as many consecutive Verses in\nthe fourth--are in this predicament. It is singular, I say, that the\nProvidence which has watched so marvellously over the fortunes of the\nDeposit,--the Divine Wisdom which has made such ample provision for its\nsecurity all down the ages, should have so ordered the matter, that\nthese two co-extensive problems have survived to our times to be tests\nof human sagacity,--trials of human faithfulness and skill. They present\nsome striking features of correspondence, but far more of contrast,--as\nwill presently appear. And yet the most important circumstance of all\ncannot be too soon mentioned: viz. that both alike have experienced the\nsame calamitous treatment at the hands of some critics. By common\nconsent the most recent editors deny that either set of Verses can have\nformed part of the Gospel as it proceeded from the hands of its inspired\nauthor. How mistaken is this opinion of theirs in respect of the 'Last\ntwelve verses of the Gospel according to St. Mark,' has been already\ndemonstrated in a separate treatise. I must be content in this place to\ndeal in a far less ceremonious manner with the hostile verdict of many\ncritics concerning St. John vii. 53-viii. 11. That I shall be able to\nsatisfy those persons who profess themselves unconvinced by what was\noffered concerning St. Mark's last twelve verses, I am not so simple as\nto expect. But I trust that I shall have with me all candid readers who\nare capable of weighing evidence impartially, and understanding the\nnature of logical proof, when it is fully drawn out before them,--which\nindeed is the very qualification that I require of them.\n\nAnd first, the case of the _pericope de adultera_ requires to be placed\nbefore the reader in its true bearings. For those who have hitherto\ndiscussed it are observed to have ignored certain preliminary\nconsiderations which, once clearly apprehended, are all but decisive of\nthe point at issue. There is a fundamental obstacle, I mean, in the way\nof any attempt to dislodge this portion of the sacred narrative from the\ncontext in which it stands, which they seem to have overlooked. I\nproceed to explain.\n\nSufficient prominence has never yet been given to the fact that in the\npresent discussion the burden of proof rests entirely with those who\nchallenge the genuineness of the Pericope under review. In other words,\nthe question before us is not by any means,--Shall these Twelve Verses\nbe admitted--or, Must they be refused admission--into the Sacred Text?\nThat point has been settled long, long ago. St. John's Twelve verses are\nin possession. Let those eject them who can. They are known to have\noccupied their present position for full seventeen hundred years. There\nnever was a time--as far as is known--- when they were not _where_,--and\nto all intents and purposes _what_--they now are. Is it not evident,\nthat no merely ordinary method of proof,--no merely common\nargument,--will avail to dislodge Twelve such Verses as these?\n\n'Twelve such Verses,' I say. For it is the extent of the subject-matter\nwhich makes the case so formidable. We have here to do with no dubious\nclause, concerning which ancient testimony is divided; no seeming gloss,\nwhich is suspected to have overstepped its proper limits, and to have\ncrept in as from the margin; no importation from another Gospel; no\nverse of Scripture which has lost its way; no weak amplification of the\nEvangelical meaning; no tasteless appendix, which encumbers the\nnarrative and almost condemns itself. Nothing of the sort. If it were\nsome inconsiderable portion of Scripture which it was proposed to get\nrid of by shewing that it is disallowed by a vast amount of ancient\nevidence, the proceeding would be intelligible. But I take leave to\npoint out that a highly complex and very important incident--as related\nin twelve consecutive verses of the Gospel--cannot be so dealt with.\nSquatters on the waste are liable at any moment to be served with a\nnotice of ejectment: but the owner of a mansion surrounded by broad\nacres which his ancestors are known to have owned before the Heptarchy,\nmay on no account be dispossessed by any such summary process. This--to\nspeak without a figure--is a connected and very striking portion of the\nsacred narrative:--the description of a considerable incident, complete\nin itself, full of serious teaching, and of a kind which no one would\nhave ever dared to invent. Those who would assail it successfully must\ncome forward with weapons of a very different kind from those usually\nemployed in textual warfare.\n\nIt shall be presently shewn that these Twelve Verses hold their actual\nplace by a more extraordinary right of tenure than any other twelve\nverses which can be named in the Gospel: but it would be premature to\nenter upon the proof of that circumstance now. I prefer to invite the\nreader's attention, next to the actual texture of the _pericope de\nadultera_, by which name (as already explained) the last verse of St.\nJohn vii. together with verses 1-11 of ch. viii. are familiarly\ndesignated. Although external testimony supplies the sole proof of\ngenuineness, it is nevertheless reasonable to inquire what the verses in\nquestion may have to say for themselves. Do they carry on their front\nthe tokens of that baseness of origin which their impugners so\nconfidently seek to fasten upon them? Or do they, on the contrary,\nunmistakably bear the impress of Truth?\n\nThe first thing which strikes me in them is that the actual narrative\nconcerning 'the woman taken in adultery' is entirely contained in the\nlast nine of these verses: being preceded by two short paragraphs of an\nentirely different character and complexion. Let these be first produced\nand studied:\n\n    'and every man went to his own house: but Jesus went to the\n    Mount of Olives.' 'And again, very early in the morning, He\n    presented Himself in the Temple; and all the people came unto\n    Him: and He sat down and taught them.'\n\nNow as every one must see, the former of these two paragraphs is\nunmistakably not the beginning but the end of a narrative. It purports\nto be the conclusion of something which went before, not to introduce\nsomething which comes after. Without any sort of doubt, it is St. John's\naccount of what occurred at the close of the debate between certain\nmembers of the Sanhedrin which terminates his history of the last day of\nthe Feast of Tabernacles. The verse in question marks the conclusion of\nthe Feast,--implies in short that all is already finished. Remove it,\nand the antecedent narrative ends abruptly. Retain it, and all proceeds\nmethodically; while an affecting contrast is established, which is\nrecognized to be strictly in the manner of Scripture[576]. Each one had\ngone to his home: but the homeless One had repaired to the Mount of\nOlives. In other words, the paragraph under discussion is found to be an\nintegral part of the immediately antecedent narrative: proves to be a\nfragment of what is universally admitted to be genuine Scripture. By\nconsequence, itself must needs be genuine also[577].\n\nIt is vain for any one to remind us that these two verses are in the\nsame predicament as those which follow: are as ill supported by MS.\nevidence as the other ten: and must therefore share the same fate as the\nrest. The statement is incorrect, to begin with; as shall presently be\nshewn. But, what is even better deserving of attention, since\nconfessedly these twelve verses are either to stand or else to fall\ntogether, it must be candidly admitted that whatever begets a suspicion\nthat certain of them, at all events, must needs be genuine, throws real\ndoubt on the justice of the sentence of condemnation which has been\npassed in a lump upon all the rest.\n\nI proceed to call attention to another inconvenient circumstance which\nsome Critics in their eagerness have overlooked.\n\nThe reader will bear in mind that--contending, as I do, that the entire\nPericope under discussion is genuine Scripture which has been forcibly\nwrenched away from its lawful context,--I began by examining the upper\nextremity, with a view to ascertaining whether it bore any traces of\nbeing a fractured edge. The result is just what might have been\nanticipated. The first two of the verses which it is the fashion to\nbrand with ignominy were found to carry on their front clear evidence\nthat they are genuine Scripture. How then about the other extremity?\n\nNote, that in the oracular Codexes B and [Symbol: Aleph] immediate\ntransition is made from the words 'out of Galilee ariseth no prophet,'\nin ch. vii. 5a, to the words 'Again therefore Jesus spake unto them,\nsaying,' in ch. viii. 12. And we are invited by all the adverse Critics\nalike to believe that so the place stood in the inspired autograph of\nthe Evangelist.\n\nBut the thing is incredible. Look back at what is contained between ch.\nvii. 37 and 5a, and note--(_a_) That two hostile parties crowded the\nTemple courts (ver. 40-42): (_b_) That some were for laying violent\nhands on our Lord (ver. 44): (_c_) That the Sanhedrin, being assembled\nin debate, were reproaching their servants for not having brought Him\nprisoner, and disputing one against another[578] (ver. 45-52). How can\nthe Evangelist have proceeded,--'Again therefore Jesus spake unto them,\nsaying, I am the light of the world'? What is it supposed then that St.\nJohn meant when he wrote such words?\n\nBut on the contrary, survey the context in any ordinary copy of the New\nTestament, and his meaning is perfectly clear. The last great day of the\nFeast of Tabernacles is ended. It is the morrow and 'very early in the\nmorning.' The Holy One has 'again presented Himself in the Temple' where\non the previous night He so narrowly escaped violence at the hands of\nHis enemies, and He teaches the people. While thus engaged,--the time,\nthe place, His own occupation suggesting thoughts of peace and holiness\nand love,--a rabble rout, headed by the Scribes and Pharisees, enter on\nthe foulest of errands; and we all remember with how little success.\nSuch an interruption need not have occupied much time. The Woman's\naccusers having departed, our Saviour resumes His discourse which had\nbeen broken off. 'Again therefore' it is said in ver. 12, with clear and\nfrequent reference to what had preceded in ver. 2--'Jesus spake unto\nthem, saying, I am the light of the world.' And had not that saying of\nHis reference as well to the thick cloud of moral darkness which His\nwords, a few moments before, had succeeded in dispelling, as to the orb\nof glory which already flooded the Temple Court with the effulgence of\nits rising,--His own visible emblem and image in the Heavens?... I\nprotest that with the incident of 'the woman taken in adultery,'--so\nintroduced, so dismissed,--all is lucid and coherent: without those\nconnecting links, the story is scarcely intelligible. These twelve\ndisputed verses, so far from 'fatally interrupting the course of St.\nJohn's Gospel, if retained in the text[579],' prove to be even necessary\nfor the logical coherency of the entire context in which they stand.\n\nBut even that is not all. On close and careful inspection, the\nmysterious texture of the narrative, no less than its 'edifying and\neminently Christian' character, vindicates for the _Pericope de\nadultera_ a right to its place in the Gospel. Let me endeavour to\nexplain what seems to be its spiritual significancy: in other words, to\ninterpret the transaction.\n\nThe Scribes and Pharisees bring a woman to our Saviour on a charge of\nadultery. The sin prevailed to such an extent among the Jews that the\nDivine enactments concerning one so accused had long since fallen into\npractical oblivion. On the present occasion our Lord is observed to\nrevive His own ancient ordinance after a hitherto unheard of fashion.\nThe trial by the bitter water, or water of conviction[580], was a\nspecies of ordeal, intended for the vindication of innocence, the\nconviction of guilt. But according to the traditional belief the test\nproved inefficacious, unless the husband was himself innocent of the\ncrime whereof he accused his wife.\n\nLet the provisions of the law, contained in Num. v. 16 to 24, be now\nconsidered. The accused Woman having been brought near, and set before\nthe Lord, the priest took 'holy water in an earthen vessel,' and put 'of\nthe dust of the floor of the tabernacle into the water.' Then, with the\nbitter water that causeth the curse in his hand, he charged the woman by\nan oath. Next, he wrote the curses in a book and blotted them out with\nthe bitter water; causing the woman to drink the bitter water that\ncauseth the curse. Whereupon if she were guilty, she fell under a\nterrible penalty,--her body testifying visibly to her sin. If she was\ninnocent, nothing followed.\n\nAnd now, who sees not that the Holy One dealt with His hypocritical\nassailants, as if they had been the accused parties? Into the presence\nof incarnate Jehovah verily they had been brought: and perhaps when He\nstooped down and wrote upon the ground, it was a bitter sentence against\nthe adulterer and adulteress which He wrote. We have but to assume some\nconnexion between the curse which He thus traced 'in the dust of the\nfloor of the tabernacle' and the words which He uttered with His lips,\nand He may with truth be declared to have 'taken of the dust and put in\non the water,' and 'caused them to drink of the bitter water which\ncauseth the curse.' For when, by His Holy Spirit, our great High Priest\nin His human flesh addressed these adulterers,--what did He but present\nthem with living water[581] 'in an earthen vessel[582]'? Did He not\nfurther charge them with an oath of cursing, saying, 'If ye have not\ngone aside to uncleanness, be ye free from this bitter water: but if ye\nbe defiled'--On being presented with which alternative, did they not,\nself-convicted, go out one by one? And what else was this but their own\nacquittal of the sinful woman, for whose condemnation they shewed\nthemselves so impatient? Surely it was 'the water of conviction'\n([Greek: to hydor tou elegmou]) as it is six times called, which _they_\nhad been compelled to drink; whereupon, 'convicted ([Greek:\nelegchomenoi]) by their own conscience,' as St. John relates, they had\npronounced the other's acquittal. Finally, note that by Himself\ndeclining to 'condemn' the accused woman, our Lord also did in effect\nblot out those curses which He had already written against her in the\ndust,--when He made the floor of the sanctuary His 'book.'\n\nWhatever may be thought of the foregoing exposition--and I am not\nconcerned to defend it in every detail,--on turning to the opposite\ncontention, we are struck with the slender amount of actual proof with\nwhich the assailants of this passage seem to be furnished. Their\nevidence is mostly negative--a proceeding which is constantly observed\nto attend a bad cause: and they are prone to make up for the feebleness\nof their facts by the strength of their assertions. But my experience,\nas one who has given a considerable amount of attention to such\nsubjects, tells me that the narrative before us carries on its front the\nimpress of Divine origin. I venture to think that it vindicates for\nitself a high, unearthly meaning. It seems to me that it cannot be the\nwork of a fabricator. The more I study it, the more I am impressed with\nits Divinity. And in what goes before I have been trying to make the\nreader a partaker of my own conviction.\n\nTo come now to particulars, we may readily see from its very texture\nthat it must needs have been woven in a heavenly loom. Only too obvious\nis the remark that the very subject-matter of the chief transaction\nrecorded in these twelve verses, would be sufficient in and by itself to\npreclude the suspicion that these twelve verses are a spurious addition\nto the genuine Gospel. And then we note how entirely in St. John's\nmanner is the little explanatory clause in ver. 6,--'This they said,\ntempting Him, that they might have to accuse Him[583].' We are struck\nbesides by the prominence given in verses 6 and 8 to the act of\nwriting,--allusions to which, are met with in every work of the last\nEvangelist[584]. It does not of course escape us how utterly beyond the\nreach of a Western interpolator would have been the insertion of the\narticle so faithfully retained to this hour before [Greek: lithon] in\nver. 7. On completing our survey, as to the assertions that the\n_pericope de adultera_ 'has no right to a place in the text of the four\nGospels,'--is 'clearly a Western interpolation, though not Western of\nthe earliest type[585],' (whatever _that_ may mean), and so forth,--we\ncan but suspect that the authors very imperfectly realize the difficulty\nof the problem with which they have to deal. Dr. Hort finally assures us\nthat 'no accompanying marks would prevent' this portion of Scripture\n'from fatally interrupting the course of St. John's Gospel if retained\nin the text': and when they relegate it accordingly to a blank page at\nthe end of the Gospels within 'double brackets,' in order 'to shew its\ninferior authority';--we can but read and wonder at the want of\nperception, not to speak of the coolness, which they display. _Quousque\ntandem?_\n\nBut it is time to turn from such considerations as the foregoing, and to\ninquire for the direct testimony, which is assumed by recent Editors and\nCritics to be fatal to these twelve verses. Tischendorf pronounces it\n'absolutely certain that this narrative was not written by St.\nJohn[586].' One, vastly his superior in judgement (Dr. Scrivener)\ndeclares that 'on all intelligent principles of mere Criticism, the\npassage must needs be abandoned[587].' Tregelles is 'fully satisfied\nthat this narrative is not a genuine part of St. John's Gospel[588].'\nAlford shuts it up in brackets, and like Tregelles puts it into his\nfootnotes. Westcott and Hort, harsher than any of their predecessors,\nwill not, as we have seen, allow it to appear even at the foot of the\npage. To reproduce all that has been written in disparagement of this\nprecious portion of God's written Word would be a joyless and an\nunprofitable task. According to Green, 'the genuineness of the passage\ncannot be maintained[589].' Hammond is of opinion that 'it would be more\nsatisfactory to separate it from its present context, and place it by\nitself as an appendix to the Gospel[590].' A yet more recent critic\n'sums up,' that 'the external evidence must be held fatal to the\ngenuineness of the passage[591].' The opinions of Bishops Wordsworth,\nEllicott, and Lightfoot, shall be respectfully commented upon by-and-by.\nIn the meantime, I venture to join issue with every one of these learned\npersons. I contend that on all intelligent principles of sound Criticism\nthe passage before us must be maintained to be genuine Scripture; and\nthat without a particle of doubt I cannot even admit that 'it has been\ntransmitted to us under circumstances widely different from those\nconnected with any other passage of Scripture whatever[592].' I contend\nthat it has been transmitted in precisely the same way as all the rest\nof Scripture, and therefore exhibits the same notes of genuineness as\nany other twelve verses of the same Gospel which can be named: but--like\ncountless other places--it is found for whatever reason to have given\noffence in certain quarters: and in consequence has experienced very ill\nusage at the hands of the ancients and of the moderns also:--but\nespecially of the latter. In other words, these twelve verses exhibit\nthe required notes of genuineness _less conspicuously_ than any other\ntwelve consecutive verses in the same Gospel. But that is all. The one\nonly question to be decided is the following:--On a review of the whole\nof the evidence,--is it more reasonable to stigmatize these twelve\nverses as a spurious accretion to the Gospel? Or to admit that they must\nneeds be accounted to be genuine?... I shall shew that they are at this\nhour supported by a weight of testimony which is absolutely\noverwhelming. I read with satisfaction that my own convictions were\nshared by Mill, Matthaei, Adler, Scholz, Vercellone. I have also the\nlearned Ceriani on my side. I should have been just as confident had I\nstood alone:--such is the imperative strength of the evidence.\n\nTo begin then. Tischendorf--(who may be taken as a fair sample of the\nassailants of this passage)--commences by stating roundly that the\nPericope is omitted by [Symbol: Aleph]ABCLTX[Symbol: Delta], and about\nseventy cursives. I will say at once, that no sincere inquirer after\ntruth could so state the evidence. It is in fact not a true statement. A\nand C are hereabout defective. No longer possible therefore is it to\nknow with certainty what they either did, or did not, contain. But this\nis not merely all. I proceed to offer a few words concerning Cod. A.\n\nWoide, the learned and accurate[593] editor of the Codex Alexandrinus,\nremarked (in 1785)--'Historia adulterae _videtur_ in hoc codice\ndefuisse.' But this modest inference of his, subsequent Critics have\nrepresented as an ascertained fact, Tischendorf announces it as\n'certissimum.' Let me be allowed to investigate the problem for myself.\nWoide's calculation,--(which has passed unchallenged for nearly a\nhundred years, and on the strength of which it is now-a-days assumed\nthat Cod. A must have exactly resembled Codd. [Symbol: Aleph]B in\n_omitting_ the _pericope de adultera_,)--was far too roughly made to be\nof any critical use[594].\n\nTwo leaves of Cod. A have been here lost: viz. from the word [Greek:\nkatabainon] in vi. 50 to the word [Greek: legeis] in viii. 52: a\n_lacuna_ (as I find by counting the letters in a copy of the ordinary\ntext) of as nearly as possible 8,805 letters,--allowing for\ncontractions, and of course not reckoning St. John vii. 53 to viii. 11.\nNow, in order to estimate fairly how many letters the two lost leaves\nactually contained, I have inquired for the sums of the letters on the\nleaf immediately preceding, and also on the leaf immediately succeeding\nthe hiatus; and I find them to be respectively 4,337 and 4,303:\ntogether, 8,640 letters. But this, it will be seen, is insufficient by\n165 letters, or eight lines, for the assumed contents of these two\nmissing leaves. Are we then to suppose that one leaf exhibited somewhere\na blank space equivalent to eight lines? Impossible, I answer. There\nexisted, on the contrary, a considerable redundancy of matter in at\nleast the second of those two lost leaves. This is proved by the\ncircumstance that the first column on the next ensuing leaf exhibits the\nunique phenomenon of being encumbered, at its summit, by two very long\nlines (containing together fifty-eight letters), for which evidently no\nroom could be found on the page which immediately preceded. But why\nshould there have been any redundancy of matter at all? Something\nextraordinary must have produced it. What if the _Pericope de adultera_,\nwithout being actually inserted in full, was recognized by Cod. A? What\nif the scribe had proceeded as far as the fourth word of St. John viii.\n3, and then had suddenly checked himself? We cannot tell what appearance\nSt. John vii. 53-viii. 11 presented in Codex A, simply because the\nentire leaf which should have contained it is lost. Enough however has\nbeen said already to prove that it is incorrect and unfair to throw\n[Symbol: Aleph]AB into one and the same category,--with a\n'certissimum,'--as Tischendorf does.\n\nAs for L and [Symbol: Delta], they exhibit a vacant space after St. John\nvii. 52,--which testifies to the consciousness of the copyists that they\nwere leaving out something. These are therefore witnesses _for_,--not\nwitnesses _against_,--the passage under discussion.--X being a\nCommentary on the Gospel as it was read in Church, of course leaves the\npassage out.--The only uncial MSS. therefore which _simply_ leave out\nthe pericope, are the three following--[Symbol: Aleph]BT: and the degree\nof attention to which such an amount of evidence is entitled, has been\nalready proved to be wondrous small. We cannot forget moreover that the\ntwo former of these copies enjoy the unenviable distinction of standing\nalone on a memorable occasion:--they _alone_ exhibit St. Mark's Gospel\nmutilated in respect of its twelve concluding verses.\n\nBut I shall be reminded that about seventy MSS. of later date are\nwithout the _pericope de adultera_: that the first Greek Father who\nquotes the pericope is Euthymius in the twelfth century: that\nTertullian, Origen, Chrysostom, Cyril, Nonnus, Cosmas, Theophylact, knew\nnothing of it: and that it is not contained in the Syriac, the Gothic,\nor the Egyptian versions. Concerning every one of which statements I\nremark over again that no sincere lover of Truth, supposing him to\nunderstand the matter about which he is disputing, could so exhibit the\nevidence for this particular problem. First, because so to state it is\nto misrepresent the entire case. Next, because some of the articles of\nindictment are only half true:--in fact are _untrue_. But chiefly,\nbecause in the foregoing enumeration certain considerations are actually\nsuppressed which, had they been fairly stated, would have been found to\nreverse the issue. Let me now be permitted to conduct this inquiry in my\nown way.\n\nThe first thing to be done is to enable the reader clearly to understand\nwhat the problem before him actually is. Twelve verses then, which, as a\nmatter of fact, are found dovetailed into a certain context of St.\nJohn's Gospel, the Critics insist must now be dislodged. But do the\nCritics in question prove that they must? For unless they do, there is\nno help for it but the _pericope de adultera_ must be left where it is.\nI proceed to shew first, that it is impossible, on any rational\nprinciple to dislodge these twelve verses from their actual\ncontext.--Next, I shall point out that the facts adduced in evidence and\nrelied on by the assailants of the passage, do not by any means prove\nthe point they are intended to prove; but admit of a sufficient and\nsatisfactory explanation.--Thirdly, it shall be shewn that the said\nexplanation carries with it, and implies, a weight of testimony in\nsupport of the twelve verses in dispute, which is absolutely\noverwhelming.--Lastly, the positive evidence in favour of these twelve\nverses shall be proved to outweigh largely the negative evidence, which\nis relied upon by those who contend for their removal. To some people I\nmay seem to express myself with too much confidence. Let it then be said\nonce for all, that my confidence is inspired by the strength of the\narguments which are now to be unfolded. When the Author of Holy\nScripture supplies such proofs of His intentions, I cannot do otherwise\nthan rest implicit confidence in them.\n\nNow I begin by establishing as my first proposition that,\n\n(1) _These twelve verses occupied precisely the same position which they\nnow occupy from the earliest period to which evidence concerning the\nGospels reaches._\n\nAnd this, because it is a mere matter of fact, is sufficiently\nestablished by reference to the ancient Latin version of St. John's\nGospel. We are thus carried back to the second century of our era:\nbeyond which, testimony does not reach. The pericope is observed to\nstand _in situ_ in Codd. b c e ff^{2} g h j. Jerome (A.D. 385), after a\ncareful survey of older Greek copies, did not hesitate to retain it in\nthe Vulgate. It is freely referred to and commented on by himself[595]\nin Palestine: while Ambrose at Milan (374) quotes it at least nine\ntimes[596]; as well as Augustine in North Africa (396) about twice as\noften[597]. It is quoted besides by Pacian[598], in the north of Spain\n(370),--by Faustus[599] the African (400),--by Rufinus[600] at Aquileia\n(400),--by Chrysologus[601] at Ravenna (433),--by Sedulius[602] a Scot\n(434). The unknown authors of two famous treatises[603] written at the\nsame period, largely quote this portion of the narrative. It is referred\nto by Victorius or Victorinus (457),--by Vigilius of Tapsus[604] (484)\nin North Africa,--by Gelasius[605], bp. of Rome (492),--by\nCassiodorus[606] in Southern Italy,--by Gregory the Great[607], and by\nother Fathers of the Western Church.\n\nTo this it is idle to object that the authors cited all wrote in Latin.\nFor the purpose in hand their evidence is every bit as conclusive as if\nthey had written in Greek,--from which language no one doubts that they\nderived their knowledge, through a translation. But in fact we are not\nleft to Latin authorities. [Out of thirty-eight copies of the Bohairic\nversion the _pericope de adultera_ is read in fifteen, but in three\nforms which will be printed in the Oxford edition. In the remaining\ntwenty-three, it is left out.] How is it intelligible that this passage\nis thus found in nearly half the copies--except on the hypothesis that\nthey formed an integral part of the Memphitic version? They might have\nbeen easily omitted: but how could they have been inserted?\n\nOnce more. The Ethiopic version (fifth century),--the Palestinian Syriac\n(which is referred to the fifth century),--the Georgian (probably fifth\nor sixth century),--to say nothing of the Slavonic, Arabic and Persian\nversions, which are of later date,--all contain the portion of narrative\nin dispute. The Armenian version also (fourth-fifth century) originally\ncontained it; though it survives at present in only a few copies. Add\nthat it is found in Cod. D, and it will be seen that in all parts of\nancient Christendom this portion of Scripture was familiarly known in\nearly times.\n\nBut even this is not all. Jerome, who was familiar with Greek MSS. (and\nwho handled none of later date than B and [Symbol: Aleph]), expressly\nrelates (380) that the _pericope de adultera_ 'is found in many copies\nboth Greek and Latin[608].' He calls attention to the fact that what is\nrendered 'sine peccato' is [Greek: anamartetos] in the Greek: and lets\nfall an exegetical remark which shews that he was familiar with copies\nwhich exhibited (in ver. 8) [Greek: egraphan enos ekastou auton tas\namartias],--a reading which survives to this day in one uncial (U) and\nat least eighteen cursive copies of the fourth Gospel[609]. Whence is\nit--let me ask in passing--that so many Critics fail to see that\n_positive_ testimony like the foregoing far outweighs the adverse\n_negative_ testimony of [Symbol: Aleph]BT,--aye, and of AC to boot if\nthey were producible on this point? How comes it to pass that the two\nCodexes, [Symbol: Aleph] and B, have obtained such a mastery--rather\nexercise such a tyranny--over the imagination of many Critics as quite\nto overpower their practical judgement? We have at all events\nestablished our first proposition: viz. that from the earliest period to\nwhich testimony reaches, the incident of 'the woman taken in adultery'\noccupied its present place in St. John's Gospel. The Critics eagerly\nremind us that in four cursive copies (13, 69, 124, 346), the verses in\nquestion are found tacked on to the end of St. Luke xxi. But have they\nthen forgotten that 'these four Codexes are derived from a common\narchetype,' and therefore represent one and the same ancient and, I may\nadd, corrupt copy? The same Critics are reminded that in the same four\nCodexes [commonly called the Ferrar Group] 'the agony and bloody sweat'\n(St. Luke xxii. 43, 44) is found thrust into St. Matthew's Gospel\nbetween ch. xxvi. 39 and 40. Such licentiousness on the part of a\nsolitary exemplar of the Gospels no more affects the proper place of\nthese or of those verses than the superfluous digits of a certain man of\nGath avail to disturb the induction that to either hand of a human being\nappertain but five fingers, and to either foot but five toes.\n\nIt must be admitted then that as far back as testimony reaches the\npassage under discussion stood where it now stands in St. John's Gospel.\nAnd this is my first position. But indeed, to be candid, hardly any one\nhas seriously called that fact in question. No, nor do any (except Dr.\nHort[610]) doubt that the passage is also of the remotest antiquity.\nAdverse Critics do but insist that however ancient, it must needs be of\nspurious origin: or else that it is an afterthought of the\nEvangelist:--concerning both which imaginations we shall have a few\nwords to offer by-and-by.\n\nIt clearly follows,--indeed it may be said with truth that it only\nremains,--to inquire what may have led to its so frequent exclusion from\nthe sacred Text? For really the difficulty has already resolved itself\ninto that.\n\nAnd on this head, it is idle to affect perplexity. In the earliest age\nof all,--the age which was familiar with the universal decay of heathen\nvirtue, but which had not yet witnessed the power of the Gospel to\nfashion society afresh, and to build up domestic life on a new and more\nenduring basis;--at a time when the greatest laxity of morals prevailed,\nand the enemies of the Gospel were known to be on the look out for\ngrounds of cavil against Christianity and its Author;--what wonder if\nsome were found to remove the _pericope de adultera_ from their copies,\nlest it should be pleaded in extenuation of breaches of the seventh\ncommandment? The very subject-matter, I say, of St. John viii. 3-11\nwould sufficiently account for the occasional omission of those nine\nverses. Moral considerations abundantly explain what is found to have\nhere and there happened. But in fact this is not a mere conjecture of my\nown. It is the reason assigned by Augustine for the erasure of these\ntwelve verses from many copies of the Gospel[611]. Ambrose, a quarter of\na century earlier, had clearly intimated that danger was popularly\napprehended from this quarter[612]: while Nicon, five centuries later,\nstates plainly that the mischievous tendency of the narrative was the\ncause why it had been expunged from the Armenian version[613].\nAccordingly, just a few Greek copies are still to be found mutilated in\nrespect of those nine verses only. But in fact the indications are not a\nfew that all the twelve verses under discussion did not by any means\nlabour under the same degree of disrepute. The first three (as I shewed\nat the outset) clearly belong to a different category from the last\nnine,--a circumstance which has been too much overlooked.\n\nThe Church in the meantime for an obvious reason had made choice of St.\nJohn vii. 37-viii. 12--the greater part of which is clearly descriptive\nof what happened at the Feast of Tabernacles--for her Pentecostal\nlesson: and judged it expedient, besides omitting as inappropriate to\nthe occasion the incident of the woman taken in adultery, to ignore also\nthe three preceding verses;--making the severance begin, in fact, as far\nback as the end of ch. vii. 52. The reason for this is plain. In this\nway the allusion to a certain departure at night, and return early next\nmorning (St. John vii. 53: viii. 1), was avoided, which entirely marred\nthe effect of the lection as the history of a day of great and special\nsolemnity,--'the great day of the Feast.' And thus it happens that the\ngospel for the day of Pentecost was made to proceed directly from\n'Search and look: for out of Galilee ariseth no prophet,' in ch. vii.\n52,--to 'Then spake Jesus unto them, saying, I am the light of the\nworld,' in ch. viii. 12; with which it ends. In other words, an omission\nwhich owed its beginning to a moral scruple was eventually extended for\na liturgical consideration; and resulted in severing twelve verses of\nSt. John's Gospel--ch. vii. 53 to viii. 11--from their lawful context.\n\nWe may now proceed to the consideration of my second proposition, which\nis\n\n(2) _That by the very construction of her Lectionary, the Church in her\ncorporate capacity and official character has solemnly recognised the\nnarrative in question as an integral part of St. John's Gospel, and as\nstanding in its traditional place, from an exceedingly remote time_.\n\nTake into your hands at random the first MS. copy of St. John's Gospel\nwhich presents itself, and turn to the place in question. Nay, I will\ninstance _all_ the four Evangelia which I call mine,--all the seventeen\nwhich belong to Lord Zouch,--all the thirty-nine which Baroness\nBurdett-Coutts imported from Epirus in 1870-2. Now all these\ncopies--(and nearly each of them represents a different line of\nancestry)--are found to contain the verses in question. How did the\nverses ever get there?\n\nBut the most extraordinary circumstance of the case is behind. Some out\nof the Evangelia referred to are observed to have been prepared for\necclesiastical use: in other words, are so rubricated throughout as to\nshew where, every separate lection had its 'beginning' ([Greek: arche]),\nand where its 'end' ([Greek: telos]). And some of these lections are\nmade up of disjointed portions of the Gospel. Thus, the lection for\nWhitsunday is found to have extended from St. John vii. 37 to St. John\nviii. 12; beginning at the words [Greek: te eschate hemera te megale],\nand ending--[Greek: to phos tes zoes]: but _over-leaping_ the twelve\nverses now under discussion: viz. vii. 53 to viii. 11. Accordingly, the\nword 'over-leap' ([Greek: hyperba]) is written in _all_ the copies after\nvii. 52,--whereby the reader, having read on to the end of that verse,\nwas directed to skip all that followed down to the words [Greek: kai\nmeketi hamartane] in ch. viii. 11: after which he found himself\ninstructed to 'recommence' ([Greek: arxai]). Again I ask (and this time\ndoes not the riddle admit of only one solution?),--When and how does the\nreader suppose that the narrative of 'the woman taken in adultery' first\nfound its way into the _middle of the lesson for Pentecost_? I pause for\nan answer: I shall perforce be told that it never 'found its way' into\nthe lection at all: but having once crept into St. John's Gospel,\nhowever that may have been effected, and established itself there, it\nleft those ancient men who devised the Church's Lectionary without\nchoice. They could but direct its omission, and employ for that purpose\nthe established liturgical formula in all similar cases.\n\nBut first,--How is it that those who would reject the narrative are not\nstruck by the essential foolishness of supposing that twelve fabricated\nverses, purporting to be an integral part of the fourth Gospel, can have\nso firmly established themselves in every part of Christendom from the\nsecond century downwards, that they have long since become simply\nineradicable? Did the Church then, _pro hac vice_, abdicate her function\nof being 'a witness and a keeper of Holy Writ'? Was she all of a sudden\nforsaken by the inspiring Spirit, who, as she was promised, should\n'guide her into all Truth'? And has she been all down the ages guided\ninto the grievous error of imputing to the disciple whom Jesus loved a\nnarrative of which he knew nothing? For, as I remarked at the outset,\nthis is not merely an assimilated expression, or an unauthorized\nnominative, or a weakly-supported clause, or any such trifling thing.\nAlthough be it remarked in passing, I am not aware of a single such\ntrifling excrescence which we are not able at once to detect and to\nremove. In other words, this is not at all a question, like the rest,\nabout the genuine text of a passage. Our inquiry is of an essentially\ndifferent kind, viz. Are these twelve consecutive verses Scripture at\nall, or not? Divine or human? Which? They claim by their very structure\nand contents to be an integral part of the Gospel. And such a serious\naccession to the Deposit, I insist, can neither have 'crept into' the\nText, nor have 'crept out' of it. The thing is unexampled,--is\nunapproached,--is impossible.\n\nAbove all,--(the reader is entreated to give the subject his sustained\nattention),--Is it not perceived that the admission involved in the\nhypothesis before us is fatal to any rational pretence that the passage\nis of spurious origin? We have got back in thought at least to the third\nor fourth century of our era. We are among the Fathers and Doctors of\nthe Eastern Church in conference assembled: and they are determining\nwhat shall be the Gospel for the great Festival of Pentecost. 'It shall\nbegin' (say they) 'at the thirty-seventh verse of St. John vii, and\nconclude with the twelfth verse of St. John viii. But so much of it as\nrelates to the breaking up of the Sanhedrin,--to the withdrawal of our\nLord to the Mount of Olives,--and to His return next morning to the\nTemple,--had better not be read. It disturbs the unity of the narrative.\nSo also had the incident of the woman taken in adultery better not be\nread. It is inappropriate to the Pentecostal Festival.' The Authors of\nthe great Oriental Liturgy therefore admit that they find the disputed\nverses in their copies: and thus they vouch for their genuineness. For\nnone will doubt that, had they regarded them as a spurious accretion to\nthe inspired page, they would have said so plainly. Nor can it be denied\nthat if in their corporate capacity they had disallowed these twelve\nverses, such an authoritative condemnation would most certainly have\nresulted in the perpetual exclusion from the Sacred Text of the part of\nthese verses which was actually adopted as a Lection. What stronger\ntestimony on the contrary can be imagined to the genuineness of any\ngiven portion of the everlasting Gospel than that it should have been\ncanonized or recognized as part of Inspired Scripture by the collective\nwisdom of the Church in the third or fourth century?\n\nAnd no one may regard it as a suspicious circumstance that the present\nPentecostal lection has been thus maimed and mutilated in respect of\ntwelve of its verses. There is nothing at all extraordinary in the\ntreatment which St. John vii. 37-viii. 12 has here experienced. The\nphenomenon is even of perpetual recurrence in the Lectionary of the\nEast,--as will be found explained below[614].\n\nPermit me to suppose that, between the Treasury and Whitehall, the\nremote descendant of some Saxon thane occupied a small tenement and\ngarden which stood in the very middle of the ample highway. Suppose\nfurther, the property thereabouts being Government property, that the\nroad on either side of this estate had been measured a hundred times,\nand jealously watched, ever since Westminster became Westminster. Well,\nan act of Parliament might no doubt compel the supposed proprietor of\nthis singular estate to surrender his patrimony; but I submit that no\ngovernment lawyer would ever think of setting up the plea that the owner\nof that peculiar strip of land was an impostor. The man might have no\ntitle-deeds to produce, to be sure; but counsel for the defendant would\nplead that neither did he require any. 'This man's title' (counsel would\nsay) 'is--occupation for a thousand years. His evidences are--the\nallowance of the State throughout that long interval. Every procession\nto St. Stephen's--every procession to the Abbey--has swept by\ndefendant's property--on this side of it and on that,--since the days of\nEdward the Confessor. And if my client refuses to quit the soil, I defy\nyou--except by violence--to get rid of him.'\n\nIn this way then it is that the testimony borne to these verses by the\nLectionary of the East proves to be of the most opportune and convincing\ncharacter. The careful provision made for passing by the twelve verses\nin dispute:--the minute directions which fence those twelve verses off\non this side and on that, directions issued we may be sure by the\nhighest Ecclesiastical authority, because recognized in every part of\nthe ancient Church,--not only establish them effectually in their\nrightful place, but (what is at least of equal importance) fully explain\nthe adverse phenomena which are ostentatiously paraded by adverse\ncritics; and which, until the clue has been supplied, are calculated to\nmislead the judgement.\n\nFor now, for the first time, it becomes abundantly plain why Chrysostom\nand Cyril, in publicly commenting on St. John's Gospel, pass straight\nfrom ch. vii. 52 to ch. viii. 12. Of course they do. Why should\nthey,--how could they,--comment on what was not publicly read before the\ncongregation? The same thing is related (in a well-known 'scholium') to\nhave been done by Apolinarius and Theodore of Mopsuestia. Origen also,\nfor aught I care,--though the adverse critics have no right to claim\nhim, seeing that his commentary on all that part of St. John's Gospel is\nlost;--but Origen's name, as I was saying, for aught I care, may be\nadded to those who did the same thing. A triumphant refutation of the\nproposed inference from the silence of these many Fathers is furnished\nby the single fact that Theophylact must also be added to their number.\nTheophylact, I say, ignores the _pericope de adultera_--passes it by, I\nmean,--exactly as do Chrysostom and Cyril. But will any one pretend that\nTheophylact,--writing in A.D. 1077,--did not know of St. John vii.\n53-viii. 11? Why, in nineteen out of every twenty copies within his\nreach, the whole of those twelve verses must have been to be found.\n\nThe proposed inference from the silence of certain of the Fathers is\ntherefore invalid. The argument _e silentio_--always an insecure\nargument,--proves inapplicable in this particular case. When the\nantecedent facts have been once explained, all the subsequent phenomena\nbecome intelligible. But a more effectual and satisfactory reply to the\ndifficulty occasioned by the general silence of the Fathers, remains to\nbe offered.\n\nThere underlies the appeal to Patristic authority an opinion,--not\nexpressed indeed, yet consciously entertained by us all,--which in fact\ngives the appeal all its weight and cogency, and which must now by all\nmeans be brought to the front. The fact that the Fathers of the Church\nwere not only her Doctors and Teachers, but also the living voices by\nwhich alone her mind could be proclaimed to the world, and by which her\ndecrees used to be authoritatively promulgated;--this fact, I say, it is\nwhich makes their words, whenever they deliver themselves, so very\nimportant: their approval, if they approve, so weighty; their\ncondemnation, if they condemn, so fatal. But then, in the present\ninstance, they do not condemn. They neither approve nor condemn. They\nsimply say nothing. They are silent: and in what precedes, I have\nexplained the reason why. We wish it had been otherwise. We would give a\ngreat deal to persuade those ancient oracles to speak on the subject of\nthese twelve verses: but they are all but inexorably silent. Nay, I am\noverstating the case against myself. Two of the greatest Fathers\n(Augustine and Ambrose) actually do utter a few words; and they are to\nthe effect that the verses are undoubtedly genuine:--'Be it known to all\nmen' (they say) 'that this passage _is_ genuine: but the nature of its\nsubject-matter has at once procured its ejection from MSS., and resulted\nin the silence of Commentators.' The most learned of the Fathers in\naddition practically endorses the passage; for Jerome not only leaves it\nstanding in the Vulgate where he found it in the Old Latin version, but\nrelates that it was supported by Greek as well as Latin authorities.\n\nTo proceed however with what I was about to say.\n\nIt is the authoritative sentence of the Church then on this difficult\nsubject that we desiderate. We resorted to the Fathers for that:\nintending to regard any quotations of theirs, however brief, as their\npractical endorsement of all the twelve verses: to infer from their\ngeneral recognition of the passage, that the Church in her collective\ncapacity accepted it likewise. As I have shewn, the Fathers decline,\nalmost to a man, to return any answer. But,--Are we then without the\nChurch's authoritative guidance on this subject? For this, I repeat, is\nthe only thing of which we are in search. It was only in order to get at\nthis that we adopted the laborious expedient of watching for the casual\nutterances of any of the giants of old time. Are we, I say, left without\nthe Church's opinion?\n\nNot so, I answer. The reverse is the truth. The great Eastern Church\nspeaks out on this subject in a voice of thunder. In all her\nPatriarchates, as far back as the written records of her practice\nreach,--and they reach back to the time of those very Fathers whose\nsilence we felt to be embarrassing,--the Eastern Church has selected\nnine out of these twelve verses to be the special lesson for October 8.\nA more significant circumstance it would be impossible to adduce in\nevidence. Any pretence to fasten a charge of spuriousness on a portion\nof Scripture so singled out by the Church for honour, were nothing else\nbut monstrous. It would be in fact to raise quite a distinct issue: viz.\nto inquire what amount of respect is due to the Church's authority in\ndetermining the authenticity of Scripture? I appeal not to an opinion,\nbut to _a fact_: and that fact is, that though the Fathers of the Church\nfor a very sufficient reason are very nearly silent on the subject of\nthese twelve verses, the Church herself has spoken with a voice of\nauthority so loud that none can affect not to hear it: so plain, that it\ncannot possibly be misunderstood. And let me not be told that I am\nhereby setting up the Lectionary as the true standard of appeal for the\nText of the New Testament: still less let me be suspected of charging on\nthe collective body of the faithful whatever irregularities are\ndiscoverable in the Codexes which were employed for the public reading\nof Scripture. Such a suspicion could only be entertained by one who has\nhitherto failed to apprehend the precise point just now under\nconsideration. We are not examining the text of St. John vii. 53-viii.\n11. We are only discussing whether those twelve verses _en bloc_ are to\nbe regarded as an integral part of the fourth Gospel, or as a spurious\naccretion to it. And that is a point on which the Church in her\ncorporate character must needs be competent to pronounce; and in respect\nof which her verdict must needs be decisive. She delivered her verdict\nin favour of these twelve verses, remember, at a time when her copies of\nthe Gospels were of papyrus as well as 'old uncials' on vellum.--Nay,\nbefore 'old uncials' on vellum were at least in any general use. True,\nthat the transcribers of Lectionaries have proved themselves just as\nliable to error as the men who transcribed Evangelia. But then, it is\nincredible that those men forged the Gospel for St. Pelagia's day:\nimpossible, if it were a forgery, that the Church should have adopted\nit. And it is the significancy of the Church having adopted the\n_pericope de adultera_ as the lection for October 8, which has never yet\nbeen sufficiently attended to: and which I defy the Critics to account\nfor on any hypothesis but one: viz. that the pericope was recognized by\nthe ancient Eastern Church as an integral part of the Gospel.\n\nNow when to this has been added what is implied in the rubrical\ndirection that a ceremonious respect should be shewn to the Festival of\nPentecost by dropping the twelve verses, I submit that I have fully\nestablished my second position, viz. That by the very construction of\nher Lectionary the Church in her corporate capacity and official\ncharacter has solemnly recognized the narrative in question, as an\nintegral part of St. John's Gospel, and as standing in its traditional\nplace, from an exceedingly remote time.\n\nFor,--(I entreat the candid reader's sustained attention),--the\ncircumstances of the present problem altogether refuse to accommodate\nthemselves to any hypothesis of a spurious original for these verses; as\nI proceed to shew.\n\nRepair in thought to any collection of MSS. you please; suppose to the\nBritish Museum. Request to be shewn their seventy-three copies of St.\nJohn's Gospel, and turn to the close of his seventh chapter. At that\nparticular place you will find, in sixty-one of these copies, these\ntwelve verses: and in thirty-five of them you will discover, after the\nwords [Greek: Prophetes ek tes Galilaias ouk eg.] a rubrical note to the\neffect that 'on Whitsunday, these twelve verses are to be dropped; and\nthe reader is to go on at ch. viii. 12.' What can be the meaning of this\nrespectful treatment of the Pericope in question? How can it ever have\ncome to pass that it has been thus ceremoniously handled all down the\nages? Surely on no possible view of the matter but one can the\nphenomenon just now described be accounted for. Else, will any one\ngravely pretend to tell me that at some indefinitely remote period, (1)\nThese verses were fabricated: (2) Were thrust into the place they at\npresent occupy in the sacred text: (3) Were unsuspectingly believed to\nbe genuine by the Church; and in consequence of which they were at once\npassed over by her direction on Whitsunday as incongruous, and appointed\nby the Church to be read on October 8, as appropriate to the occasion?\n\n(3) But further. How is it proposed to explain why _one_ of St. John's\nafter-thoughts should have fared so badly at the Church's\nhands;--another, so well? I find it suggested that perhaps the\nsubject-matter may sufficiently account for all that has happened to the\n_pericope_ de adultera: And so it may, no doubt. But then, once admit\n_this_, and the hypothesis under consideration becomes simply nugatory:\nfails even to _touch_ the difficulty which it professes to remove. For\nif men were capable of thinking scorn of these twelve verses when they\nfound them in the 'second and improved edition of St. John's Gospel,'\nwhy may they not have been just as irreverent in respect of the same\nverses, when they appeared in the _first_ edition? How is it one whit\nmore probable that every Greek Father for a thousand years should have\nsystematically overlooked the twelve verses in dispute when they\nappeared in the second edition of St. John's Gospel, than that the same\nFathers should have done the same thing when they appeared in the\nfirst[615]?\n\n(4) But the hypothesis is gratuitous and nugatory: for it has been\ninvented in order to account for the phenomenon that whereas twelve\nverses of St. John's Gospel are found in the large majority of the later\nCopies,--the same verses are observed to be absent from all but one of\nthe five oldest Codexes. But how, (I wish to be informed,) is that\nhypothesis supposed to square with these phenomena? It cannot be meant\nthat the 'second edition' of St. John did not come abroad until after\nCodd. [Symbol: Aleph]ABCT were written? For we know that the old Italic\nversion (a document of the second century) contains all the three\nportions of narrative which are claimed for the second edition. But if\nthis is not meant, it is plain that some further hypothesis must be\ninvented in order to explain why certain Greek MSS. of the fourth and\nfifth centuries are without the verses in dispute. And this fresh\nhypothesis will render that under consideration (as I said) nugatory and\nshew that it was gratuitous.\n\nWhat chiefly offends me however in this extraordinary suggestion is its\n_irreverence_. It assumes that the Gospel according to St. John was\ncomposed like any ordinary modern book: capable therefore of being\nimproved in the second edition, by recension, addition, omission,\nretractation, or what not. For we may not presume to limit the changes\neffected in a second edition. And yet the true Author of the Gospel is\nconfessedly God the Holy Ghost: and I know of no reason for supposing\nthat His works are imperfect when they proceed forth from His Hands.\n\nThe cogency of what precedes has in fact weighed so powerfully with\nthoughtful and learned Divines that they have felt themselves\nconstrained, as their last resource, to cast about for some hypothesis\nwhich shall at once account for the absence of these verses from so many\ncopies of St. John's Gospel, and yet retain them for their rightful\nowner and author,--St. John. Singular to relate, the assumption which\nhas best approved itself to their judgement has been, that there must\nhave existed two editions of St. John's Gospel,--the earlier edition\nwithout, the later edition with, the incident under discussion. It is I\npresume, in order to conciliate favour to this singular hypothesis, that\nit has been further proposed to regard St. John v. 3, 4 and the whole of\nSt. John xxi, (besides St. John vii. 53-viii. 11), as after-thoughts of\nthe Evangelist.\n\n1. But this is unreasonable: for nothing else but _the absence_ of St.\nJohn vii. 53-viii. 11, from so many copies of the Gospel has constrained\nthe Critics to regard those verses with suspicion. Whereas, on the\ncontrary, there is not known to exist a copy in the world which omits so\nmuch as a single verse of chap. xxi. Why then are we to assume that the\nwhole of that chapter was away from the original draft of the Gospel?\nWhere is the evidence for so extravagant an assumption?\n\n2. So, concerning St. John v. 3, 4: to which there really attaches no\nmanner of doubt, as I have elsewhere shewn[616]. Thirty-two precious\nwords in that place are indeed omitted by [Symbol: Aleph]BC:\ntwenty-seven by D. But by this time the reader knows what degree of\nimportance is to be attached to such an amount of evidence. On the other\nhand, they are found in _all other copies_: are vouched for by the\nSyriac[617] and the Latin versions: in the Apostolic Constitutions, by\nChrysostom, Cyril, Didymus, and Ammonius, among the Greeks,--by\nTertullian, Ambrose, Jerome, Augustine among the Latins. Why a passage\nso attested is to be assumed to be an after-thought of the Evangelist\nhas never yet been explained: no, nor ever will be.\n\n(5) Assuming, however, just for a moment the hypothesis correct for\nargument's sake, viz. that in the second edition of St. John's Gospel\nthe history of the woman taken in adultery appeared for the first time.\nInvite the authors of that hypothesis to consider what follows. The\ndiscovery that five out of six of the oldest uncials extant (to reckon\nhere the fragment T) are without the verses in question; which yet are\ncontained in ninety-nine out of every hundred of the despised\ncursives:--what other inference can be drawn from such premisses, but\nthat the cursives fortified by other evidence are by far the more\ntrustworthy witnesses of what St. John in his old age actually entrusted\nto the Church's keeping?\n\n[The MS. here leaves off, except that a few pencilled words are added in\nan incomplete form. I have been afraid to finish so clever and\ncharacteristic an essay.]\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[576] Compare 1 Sam. xxiv. 22:--'And Saul went home: _but David and his\nmen gat them up into the hold_.' 1 Kings xviii. 42:--'So Ahab went up to\neat and to drink: _and Elijah went up to the top of Carmel, and he cast\nhimself down upon the earth, and put his face between his knees_.'\nEsther iii. 15:--'And the king and Haman sat down to drink; _but the\ncity of Shushan was perplexed_.' Such are the idioms of the Bible.\n\n[577] Ammonius (Cord. Cat. p. 216), with evident reference to it,\nremarks that our Lord's words in verses 37 and 38 were intended as a\n_viaticum_ which all might take home with them, at the close of this,\n'the last, the great day of the feast.'\n\n[578] So Eusebius:--- [Greek: Ote kata to auto synachthentes hoi ton\nIoudaion ethnous archontes epi tes Hierousalem, synedrion epoiesanto kai\nskepsin opos auton apolesosin en ho hoi men thanaton autou\nkatepsephisanto; heteroi de antelegon, os ho Nikodemos, k.t.l.] (in\nPsalmos, p. 230 a).\n\n[579] Westcott and Hort's prefatory matter (1870) to their revised Text\nof the New Testament, p. xxvii.\n\n[580] So in the LXX. See Num. v. 11-31.\n\n[581] Ver. 17. So the LXX.\n\n[582] 2 Cor. iv. 7: v. 1.\n\n[583] Compare ch. vi. 6, 71: vii. 39: xi. 13, 51: xii. 6, 33: xiii. 11,\n28: xxi. 19.\n\n[584] Consider ch. xix. 19, 20, 21, 22: xx. 30, 31: xxi. 24, 25.--1 John\ni. 4: ii. 1, 7, 8, 12, 13, 14, 21, 26: v. 13.--2 John 5, 12.--3 John 9,\n13.--Rev. _passim_, especially i. 11, 19: ii. 1, &c.: x. 4: xiv. 13:\nxvii. 8: xix. 9: xx. 12, 15: xxi. 5, 27: xxii. 18, 19.\n\n[585] Westcott and Hort, ibid. pp. xxvii, xxvi.\n\n[586] Novum Testamentum, 1869, p. 829.\n\n[587] Plain Introduction, 1894, ii. 364.\n\n[588] Printed Texts, 1854, p. 341.\n\n[589] Developed Criticism, p. 82.\n\n[590] Outlines, &c., p. 103.\n\n[591] Nicholson's Gospel according to the Hebrews, p. 141.\n\n[592] Scrivener, ut supra, ii. 368.\n\n[593] I insert this epithet on sufficient authority. Mr. Edw. A. Guy, an\nintelligent young American,--himself a very accurate observer and a\ncompetent judge,--collated a considerable part of Cod. A in 1875, and\nassured me that he scarcely ever found any discrepancy between the Codex\nand Woide's reprint. One instance of _italicism_ was in fact all that\nhad been overlooked in the course of many pages.\n\n[594] It is inaccurate also. His five lines contain eight mistakes.\nPraefat. p. xxx, Sec. 86.\n\n[595] ii. 630, addressing Rufinus, A.D. 403. Also ii. 748-9.\n\n[596] i. 291, 692, 707, 1367: ii. 668, 894, 1082: iii. 892-3, 896-7.\n\n[597] i. 30: ii. 527, 529-30: iii^{1}. 774: iii^{2}. 158, 183, 531-2\n(where he quotes the place largely and comments upon it): iv. 149, 466\n(largely quoted), 1120: v. 80, 1230 (largely quoted in both places): vi.\n407, 413: viii. 377, 574.\n\n[598] Pacian (A.D. 372) refers the Novations to the narrative as\nsomething which all men knew. 'Nolite in Evangelio legere quod\npepercerit Dominus etiam adulterae confitenti, quam nemo damnarat?'\nPacianus, Op. Epist. iii. Contr. Novat. (A.D. 372). _Ap._ Galland. vii.\n267.\n\n[599] _Ap._ Augustin. viii. 463.\n\n[600] In his translation of Eusebius. Nicholson, p. 53.\n\n[601] Chrysologus, A.D. 433, Abp. of Ravenna. Venet. 1742. He mystically\nexplains the entire incident. Serm. cxv. Sec. 5.\n\n[602] Sedulius (A.D. 435) makes it the subject of a poem, and devotes a\nwhole chapter to it. _Ap._ Galland. ix. 553 and 590.\n\n[603] 'Promiss.' De Promissionibus dimid. temp. (saec. iv). Quotes viii.\n4, 5, 9. P. 2, c. 22, col. 147 b. Ignot. Auct., De Vocatione omnium\nGentium (circa, A.D. 440), _ap._ Opp. Prosper. Aquit. (1782), i. p.\n460-1:--'Adulteram ex legis constitutione lapidandam ... liberavit ...\ncum executores praecepti de conscientiis territi, trementem ream sub\nillius iudicio reliquissent.... Et inclinatus, id est ad humana dimissus\n... \"digito scribebat in terram,\" ut legem mandatorum per gratiae\ndecreta vacuaret,' &c.\n\n[604] Wrongly ascribed to Idacius.\n\n[605] Gelasius P. A.D. 492. Conc. iv. 1235. Quotes viii. 3, 7, 10, 11.\n\n[606] Cassiodorus, A.D. 514. Venet. 1729. Quotes viii. 11. See ii. p.\n96, 3, 5-180.\n\n[607] Dialogues, xiv. 15.\n\n[608] ii. 748:--In evangelio secundum Ioannem in multis et Graecis et\nLatinis codicibus invenitur de adultera muliere, quae accusata est apud\nDominum.\n\n[609] [Greek: henos hekastou auton tas hamartias]. Ev. 95, 40, 48, 64,\n73, 100, 122, 127, 142, 234, 264, 267, 274, 433, 115, 121, 604, 736.\n\n[610] Appendix, p. 88.\n\n[611] vi. 407:--Sed hoc videlicet infidelium sensus exhorret, ita ut\nnonnulli modicae fidei vel potius inimici verae fidei, (credo metuentes\npeccandi impunitatem dari mulieribus suis), illud quod de adulterae\nindulgentia Dominus fecit, auferrent de codicibus suis: quasi\npermissionem peccandi tribuerit qui dixit, 'Iam deinceps noli peccare;'\naut ideo non debuerit mulier a medico Deo illius peccati remissione\nsanari, ne offenderentur insani. De coniug. adult. ii. cap. 7. i.\n707:--Fortasse non mediocrem scrupulum movere potuit imperitis Evangelii\nlectio, quae decursa est, in quo advertistis adulteram Christo oblatam,\neamque sine damnatione dimissam. Nam profecto si quis en auribus\naccipiat otiosis, incentivum erroris incurrit, cum leget quod Deus\ncensuerit adulterium non esse damnandum.\n\n[612] Epist. 58. Quid scribebat? nisi illud Propheticum (Jer. xxii.\n29-30), _Terra, terra, scribe hos vivos abdicatos_.\n\n[613] Constt. App. (Gen. in. 49). Nicon (Gen. iii. 250). I am not\ncertain about these two references.\n\n[614] Two precious verses (viz. the forty-third and forty-fourth) used\nto be omitted from the lection for Tuesday before Quinquagesima,--viz.\nSt. Luke xxii. 39-xxiii. 1.\n\nThe lection for the preceding Sabbath (viz. St. Luke xxi. 8-36)\nconsisted of only the following verses,--ver. 8, 9, 25-27, 33-36. All\nthe rest (viz. verses 10-24 and 28-32) was omitted.\n\nOn the ensuing Thursday, St. Luke xxiii was handled in a similar style:\nviz. ver. 1-31, 33, 44-56 alone were read,--all the other verses being\nleft out.\n\nOn the first Sabbath after Pentecost (All Saints'), the lesson consisted\nof St. Matt. x. 32, 33, 37-38: xix. 27-30.\n\nOn the fifteenth Sabbath after Pentecost, the lesson was St. Matt. xxiv.\n1-9, 13 (leaving out verses 10, 11, 12).\n\nOn the sixteenth Sabbath after Pentecost, the lesson was St. Matt. xxiv.\n34-37, 42-44 (leaving out verses 38-41).\n\nOn the sixth Sabbath of St. Luke,--the lesson was ch. viii. 26-35\nfollowed by verses 38 and 39.\n\n[615] 'This celebrated paragraph ... was probably not contained in the\nfirst edition of St. John's Gospel but added at the time when his last\nchapter was annexed to what had once been the close of his\nnarrative,--xx. 30, 31.' Scrivener's Introduction to Cod. D, p. 50.\n\n[616] In an unpublished paper.\n\n[617] It is omitted in some MSS. of the Peshitto.\n\n\n\n\nAPPENDIX II.\n\nCONFLATION AND THE SO-CALLED NEUTRAL TEXT.\n\n\nSome of the most courteous of our critics, in reviewing the companion\nvolume to this, have expressed regret that we have not grappled more\nclosely than we have done with Dr. Hort's theory. I have already\nexpressed our reasons. Our object has been to describe and establish\nwhat we conceive to be the true principles of Sacred Textual Science. We\nare concerned only in a secondary degree with opposing principles. Where\nthey have come in our way, we have endeavoured to remove them. But it\nhas not entered within our design to pursue them into their fastnesses\nand domiciles. Nevertheless, in compliance with a request which is both\nproper and candid, I will do what I can to examine with all the equity\nthat I can command an essential part of Dr. Hort's system, which appears\nto exercise great influence with his followers.\n\n\nSec. 1.\n\nCONFLATION.\n\nDr. Hort's theory of 'Conflation' may be discovered on pp. 93-107. The\nwant of an index to his Introduction, notwithstanding his ample\n'Contents,' makes it difficult to collect illustrations of his meaning\nfrom the rest of his treatise. Nevertheless, the effect of Conflation\nappears to be well described in his words on p. 133:--'Now however the\nthree great lines were brought together, and made to contribute to a\ntext different from all.' In other words, by means of a combination of\nthe Western, Alexandrian, and 'Neutral' Texts--'the great lines of\ntransmission ... to all appearance exclusively divergent,'--the 'Syrian'\ntext was constructed in a form different from any one and all of the\nother three. Not that all these three were made to contribute on every\noccasion. We find (p. 93) Conflation, or Conflate Readings, introduced\nas proving the 'posteriority of Syrian to Western ... and other ...\nreadings.' And in the analysis of eight passages, which is added, only\nin one case (St. Mark viii. 26) are more than two elements represented,\nand in that the third class consists of 'different conflations' of the\nfirst and second[618].\n\nPerhaps I may present Dr. Hort's theory under the form of a diagram:--\n\nWestern Readings. Other Readings.\n    |                   |\n    ---------------------\n               |\n            Syrian Text.\n\nOur theory is the converse in main features to this. We utterly\nrepudiate the term 'Syrian' as being a most inadequate and untrue title\nfor the Text adopted and maintained by the Catholic Church with all her\nintelligence and learning, during nearly fifteen centuries according to\nDr. Hort's admission: and we claim from the evidence that the\nTraditional Text of the Gospels, under the true name, is that which came\nfresh from the pens of the Evangelists; and that all variations from it,\nhowever they have been entitled, are nothing else than corrupt forms of\nthe original readings. Our diagram in rough presentation will therefore\nassume this character:--\n\n    Traditional Text.--|-\n                       |-Western Readings.\n                       |-w\n                       |-x\n                       |-y\n                       |-z\n                       |-etc.\n                       |-Alexandrian Readings.\n\nIt should be added, that w, x, y, z, &c., denote forms of corruption. We\ndo not recognize the 'Neutral' at all, believing it to be a Caesarean\ncombination or recension, made from previous texts or readings of a\ncorrupt character.\n\nThe question is, which is the true theory, Dr. Hort's or ours?\n\nThe general points that strike us with reference to Dr. Hort's theory\nare:--\n\n(1) That it is very vague and indeterminate in nature. Given three\nthings, of which X includes what is in Y and Z, upon the face of the\ntheory either X may have arisen by synthesis from Y and Z, or X and Z\nmay owe their origin by analysis to X.\n\n(2) Upon examination it is found that Dr. Hort's arguments for the\nposteriority of D are mainly of an internal character, and are loose and\nimaginative, depending largely upon personal or literary predilections.\n\n(3) That it is exceedingly improbable that the Church of the fourth and\nfifth centuries, which in a most able period had been occupied with\ndiscussions on verbal accuracy, should have made the gross mistake of\nadopting (what was then) a modern concoction from the original text of\nthe Gospels, which had been written less than three or four centuries\nbefore; and that their error should have been acknowledged as truth, and\nperpetuated by the ages that succeeded them down to the present time.\n\nBut we must draw nearer to Dr. Hort's argument.\n\nHe founds it upon a detailed examination of eight passages, viz. St.\nMark vi. 33; viii. 26; ix. 38; ix. 49; St. Luke ix. 10; xi. 54; xii. 18;\nxxiv. 53.\n\n1. Remark that eight is a round and divisible number. Did the author\ndecide upon it with a view of presenting two specimens from each Gospel?\nTo be sure, he gives four from the first two, and four from the two\nlast, only that he confines the batches severally to St. Mark and St.\nLuke. Did the strong style of St. Matthew, with distinct meaning in\nevery word, yield no suitable example for treatment? Could no passage be\nfound in St. John's Gospel, where not without parallel, but to a\nremarkable degree, extreme simplicity of language, even expressed in\nalternative clauses, clothes soaring thought and philosophical\nacuteness? True, that he quotes St. John v. 37 as an instance of\nConflation by the Codex Bezae which is anything but an embodiment of the\nTraditional or 'Syrian' Text, and xiii. 24 which is similarly\nirrelevant. Neither of these instances therefore fill up the gap, and\nare accordingly not included in the selected eight. What can we infer\nfrom this presentment, but that 'Conflation' is probably not of frequent\noccurrence as has been imagined, but may indeed be--to admit for a\nmoment its existence--nothing more than an occasional incident? For\nsurely, if specimens in St. Matthew and St. John had abounded to his\nhand, and accordingly 'Conflation' had been largely employed throughout\nthe Gospels, Dr. Hort would not have exercised so restricted, and yet so\nround a choice.\n\n2. But we must advance a step further. Dean Burgon as we have seen has\ncalculated the differences between B and the Received Text at 7,578, and\nthose which divide [Symbol: Aleph] and the Received Text as reaching\n8,972. He divided these totals respectively under 2,877 and 3,455\nomissions, 556 and 839 additions, 2,098 and 2,299 transpositions, and\n2,067 and 2,379 substitutions and modifications combined. Of these\nclasses, it is evident that Conflation has nothing to do with Additions\nor Transpositions. Nor indeed with Substitutions, although one of Dr.\nHort's instances appears to prove that it has. Conflation is the\ncombination of two (or more) different expressions into one. If\ntherefore both expressions occur in one of the elements, the Conflation\nhas been made beforehand, and a substitution then occurs instead of a\nconflation. So in St. Luke xii. 18, B, &c, read [Greek: ton siton kai ta\nagatha mou] which Dr. Hort[619] considers to be made by Conflation into\n[Greek: ta genemata mou kai ta agatha mou], because [Greek: ta genemata\nmou] is found in Western documents. The logic is strange, but as Dr.\nHort has claimed it, we must perhaps allow him to have intended to\ninclude with this strange incongruity some though not many Substitutions\nin his class of instances, only that we should like to know definitely\nwhat substitutions were to be comprised in this class. For I shrewdly\nsuspect that there were actually none. Omissions are now left to us, of\nwhich the greater specimens can hardly have been produced by Conflation.\nHow, for instance, could you get the last Twelve Verses of St. Mark's\nGospel, or the Pericope de Adultera, or St. Luke xxii. 43-44, or any of\nthe rest of the forty-five whole verses in the Gospels upon which a slur\nis cast by the Neologian school? Consequently, the area of Conflation is\ngreatly reduced. And I venture to think, that supposing for a moment the\ntheory to be sound, it could not account for any large number of\nvariations, but would at the best only be a sign or symptom found every\nnow and then of the derivation attributed to the Received Text.\n\n3. But we must go on towards the heart of the question. And first to\nexamine Dr. Hort's eight instances. Unfortunately, the early patristic\nevidence on these verses is scanty. We have little evidence of a direct\ncharacter to light up the dark sea of conjecture.\n\n(1) St. Mark (vi. 22) relates that on a certain occasion the multitude,\nwhen they beheld our Saviour and his disciples on their way in a ship\ncrossing to the other side of the lake, ran together ([Greek:\nsynedramon]) from all their cities to the point which He was making for\n([Greek: ekei]), and arrived there before the Lord and His followers\n([Greek: proelthon autous]), and on His approach came in a body to Him\n([Greek: synelthon pros auton]). And on disembarking ([Greek: kai\nexelthon]), i.e. ([Greek: ek tou ploiou], ver. 32), &c. It should be\nobserved, that it was only the Apostles who knew that His ultimate\nobject was 'a desert place' (ver. 31, 30): the indiscriminate multitude\ncould only discern the bay or cape towards which the boat was going: and\nup to what I have described as the disembarkation (ver. 34), nothing has\nbeen said of His movements, except that He was in the boat upon the\nlake. The account is pictorial. We see the little craft toiling on the\nlake, the people on the shores running all in one direction, and on\ntheir reaching the heights above the place of landing watching His\napproach, and then descending together to Him to the point where He is\ngoing to land. There is nothing weak or superfluous in the description.\nThough condensed (what would a modern history have made of it?), it is\nall natural and in due place.\n\nNow for Dr. Hort. He observes that one clause ([Greek: kai proelthon\nautous]) is attested by B[Symbol: Aleph] and their followers; another\n([Greek: kai synelthon autou] or [Greek: elthon autou], which is very\ndifferent from the 'Syrian' [Greek: synelthon pros auton]) by some\nWestern documents; and he argues that the entire form in the Received\nText, [Greek: kai proelthon autous, kai synelthon pros auton], was\nformed by Conflation from the other two. I cannot help observing that it\nis a suspicious mark, that even in the case of the most favoured of his\nchosen examples he is obliged to take such a liberty with one of his\nelements of Conflation as virtually to doctor it in order to bring it\nstrictly to the prescribed pattern. When we come to his arguments he\ncandidly admits, that 'it is evident that either [Symbol: delta] (the\nReceived Text) is conflate from [Symbol: alpha] (B[Symbol: Aleph]) and\n[Symbol: beta] (Western), or [Symbol: alpha] and [Symbol: beta] are\nindependent simplifications of [Symbol: delta]'; and that 'there is\nnothing in the sense of [Symbol: delta] that would tempt to alteration,'\nand that 'accidental' omission of one or other clause would 'be easy.'\nBut he argues with an ingenuity that denotes a bad cause that the\ndifference between [Greek: autou] and [Greek: pros auton] is really in\nhis favour, chiefly because [Greek: autou] would very likely _if_ it had\npreviously existed been changed into [Greek: pros auton]--which no one\ncan doubt; and that '[Greek: synelthon pros auton] is certainly otiose\nafter [Greek: synedramon ekei],' which shews that he did not understand\nthe whole meaning of the passage. His argument upon what he terms\n'Intrinsic Probability' leads to a similar inference. For simply [Greek:\nexelthon] cannot mean that 'He \"came out\" of His retirement in some\nsequestered nook to meet them,' such a nook being not mentioned by St.\nMark, whereas [Greek: ploion] is; nor can [Greek: ekei] denote 'the\ndesert region.' Indeed the position of that region or nook was known\nbefore it was reached solely to our Lord and His Apostles: the multitude\nwas guided only by what they saw, or at least by vague surmise.\n\nAccordingly, Dr. Hort's conclusion must be reversed. 'The balance of\nInternal Evidence of Readings, alike from Transcriptional and from\nIntrinsic Probability, is decidedly' _not_ 'in favour of [Symbol: delta]\nfrom [Symbol: alpha] and [Symbol: beta],' _but_ 'of [Symbol: alpha] and\n[Symbol: beta] from [Symbol: delta].' The reading of the Traditional\nText is the superior both as regards the meaning, and as to the\nprobability of its pre-existence. The derivation of the two others from\nthat is explained by that besetting fault of transcribers which is\ntermed Omission. Above all, the Traditional reading is proved by a\nlargely over-balancing weight of evidence.\n\n(2) 'To examine other passages equally in detail would occupy too much\nspace.' So says Dr. Hort: but we must examine points that require\nattention.\n\nSt. Mark viii. 26. After curing the blind man outside Bethsaida, our\nLord in that remarkable period of His career directed him, according to\nthe Traditional reading, ([Symbol: alpha]) neither to enter into that\nplace, [Greek: mede eis ten komen eiselthes], nor ([Symbol: beta]) to\ntell what had happened to any inhabitant of Bethsaida ([Greek: mede\neipes tini en te kome]). Either some one who did not understand the\nGreek, or some matter-of-fact and officious scholar, or both, thought or\nmaintained that [Greek: tini en te kome] must mean some one who was at\nthe moment actually in the place. So the second clause got to be omitted\nfrom the text of B[Symbol: Aleph], who are followed only by one cursive\nand a half (the first reading of 1 being afterwards corrected), and the\nBohairic version, and the Lewis MS. The Traditional reading is attested\nby ACN[Symbol: Sigma] and thirteen other Uncials, all Cursives except\neight, of which six with [Symbol: Phi] read a consolidation of both\nclauses, by several versions, and by Theophylact (i. 210) who is the\nonly Father that quotes the place. This evidence ought amply to ensure\nthe genuineness of this reading.\n\nBut what says Dr. Hort? 'Here [Symbol: alpha] is simple and vigorous,\nand it is unique in the New Testament: the peculiar [Greek: Mede] has\nthe terse force of many sayings as given by St. Mark, but the softening\ninto [Greek: Me] by [Symbol: Aleph]* shews that it might trouble\nscribes.' It is surely not necessary to controvert this. It may be said\nhowever that [Symbol: alpha] is bald as well as simple, and that the\nvery difficulty in [Symbol: beta] makes it probable that that clause was\nnot invented. To take [Greek: tini en te kome] Hebraistically for\n[Greek: tini ton en te kome], like the [Greek: tis en hymin] of St.\nJames v. 19[620], need not trouble scholars, I think. Otherwise they can\nfollow Meyer, according to Winer's Grammar (II. 511), and translate the\nsecond [Greek: mede] _nor even_. At all events, this is a poor pillar to\nsupport a great theory.\n\n(3) St. Mark ix. 38. 'Master, we saw one casting out devils in Thy name,\n([Symbol: beta]) who doth not follow us, and we forbad him ([Symbol:\nalpha]) because he followeth not us.'\n\nHere the authority for [Symbol: alpha] is [Symbol: Aleph]BCL[Symbol:\nDelta], four Cursives, f, Bohairic, Peshitto, Ethiopic, and the Lewis\nMS. For [Symbol: beta] there are D, two Cursives, all the Old Latin but\nf and the Vulgate. For the Traditional Text, i.e. the whole passage,\nA[Symbol: Phi][Symbol: Sigma]N + eleven Uncials, all the Cursives but\nsix, the Harkleian (yet obelizes [Symbol: alpha]) and Gothic versions,\nBasil (ii. 252), Victor of Antioch (Cramer, Cat. i. 365), Theophylact\n(i. 219): and Augustine quotes separately both omissions ([Symbol:\nalpha] ix. 533, and [Symbol: beta] III. ii. 153). No other Fathers, so\nfar as I can find, quote the passage.\n\nDr. Hort appears to advance no special arguments on his side, relying\napparently upon the obvious repetition. In the first part of the verse,\nSt. John describes the case of the man: in the second he reports for our\nLord's judgement the grounds of the prohibition which the Apostles gave\nhim. Is it so certain that the original text of the passage contained\nonly the description, and omitted the reason of the prohibition as it\nwas given to the non-follower of our Lord? To me it seems that the\nsimplicity of St. Mark's style is best preserved by the inclusion of\nboth. The Apostles did not curtly forbid the man: they treated him with\nreasonableness, and in the same spirit St. John reported to his Master\nall that occurred. Besides this, the evidence on the Traditional side is\ntoo strong to admit of it not being the genuine reading.\n\n(4) St. Mark ix. 49. 'For ([Symbol: alpha]) every one shall be salted\nwith fire, ([Symbol: beta]) and every sacrifice shall be salted with\nsalt.' The authorities are--\n\n    [Symbol: alpha]. [Symbol: Aleph]BL[Symbol: Delta], fifteen\n    Cursives, some MSS. of the Bohairic, some of the Armenian, and\n    the Lewis.\n\n    [Symbol: beta]. D, six copies of the Old Latin, three MSS. of\n    the Vulgate. Chromatius of Aquileia (Galland. viii. 338).\n\n    Trad. Text. AC[Symbol: Phi][Symbol: Sigma]N and twelve more\n    Uncials, all Cursives except fifteen, two Old Latin, Vulgate,\n    Peshitto, Harkleian, some MSS. of Ethiopic and Armenian, Gothic,\n    Victor of Antioch (Cramer's Cat. i. 368), Theophylact (i. 221).\n\nThis evidence must surely be conclusive of the genuineness of the\nTraditional reading. But now for Dr. Hort.\n\n'A reminiscence of Lev. vii. 13 ... has created [Symbol: beta] out of\n[Symbol: alpha].' But why should not the reminiscence have been our\nLord's? The passage appears like a quotation, or an adaptation, of some\nauthoritative saying. He positively advances no other argument than the\none just quoted, beyond stating two points in which the alteration might\nbe easily effected.\n\n(5) St. Luke ix. 10. 'He took (His Apostles) and withdrew privately\n\n    [Symbol: alpha]. Into a city called Bethsaida [Greek: (eis polin\n    kaloumenen] B.).\n\n    [Symbol: beta]. Into a desert place ([Greek: eis topon eremon]),\n    or Into a desert place called Bethsaida, or of Bethsaida.\n\n    Trad. Text. Into a desert place belonging to a city called\n    Bethsaida.'\n\nThe evidence for these readings respectively is--\n\n    [Symbol: alpha]. BLX[Symbol: Xi], with one correction of\n    [Symbol: Aleph] (C^{a}), one Cursive, the Bohairic and Sahidic.\n    D reads [Greek: komen].\n\n    [Symbol: beta]. The first and later readings (C^{b}) of [Symbol:\n    Aleph], four Cursives?, Curetonian, some variant Old Latin\n    ([Symbol: beta]^{2}), Peshitto also variant ([Symbol:\n    beta]^{3}).\n\n    Trad. Text. A (with [Greek: eremon topon]) C + twelve Uncials,\n    all Cursives except three or five, Harkleian, Lewis (omits\n    [Greek: eremon]), Ethiopic, Armenian, Gothic, with Theophylact\n    (i. 33).\n\nRemark the curious character of [Symbol: alpha] and [Symbol: beta]. In\nDr. Hort's Neutral Text, which he maintains to have been the original\ntext of the Gospels, our Lord is represented here as having withdrawn in\nprivate ([Greek: kat' idian], which the Revisers shirking the difficulty\ntranslate inaccurately 'apart') _into the city called Bethsaida_. How\ncould there have been privacy of life _in_ a city in those days? In\nfact, [Greek: kat' idian] necessitates the adoption of [Greek: topon\neremon], as to which the Peshitto ([Symbol: beta]^{3}) is in substantial\nagreement with the Traditional Text. Bethsaida is represented as the\ncapital of a district, which included, at sufficient distance from the\ncity, a desert or retired spot. The group arranged under [Symbol: beta]\nis so weakly supported, and is evidently such a group of fragments, that\nit can come into no sort of competition with the Traditional reading.\nDr. Hort confines himself to shewing _how_ the process he advocates\nmight have arisen, not _that_ it did actually arise. Indeed, this\nposition can only be held by assuming the conclusion to be established\nthat it _did_ so arise.\n\n(6) St. Luke xi. 54. 'The Scribes and Pharisees began to urge Him\nvehemently and to provoke Him to speak of many things ([Greek:\nenedreuontes thereusai]),\n\n    [Symbol: alpha]. Laying wait for Him to catch something out of\n    His mouth.\n\n    [Symbol: beta]. Seeking to get some opportunity ([Greek:\n    aphormen tina]) for finding out how to accuse Him ([Greek: hina\n    eurosin kategoresai]); or, for accusing Him ([Greek: hina\n    kategoresosin autou]).\n\n    Trad. Text. Laying wait for Him, _and_ seeking to catch\n    something ([Greek: zetountes thereusai ti]) out of His mouth,\n    that they might accuse Him.'\n\nThe evidence is--\n\n    [Symbol: alpha]. [Symbol: Aleph]BL, Bohairic, Ethiopic, Cyril\n    Alex. (Mai, Nov. Pp. Bibliotheca, ii. 87, iii. 249, not\n    accurately).\n\n    [Symbol: beta]. D, Old Latin except f, Curetonian.\n\n    Trad. Text. AC + twelve Uncials, all Cursives (except five which\n    omit [Greek: zetountes]), Peshitto, Lewis (with omission),\n    Vulgate, Harkleian, Theophylact (i. 363).\n\nAs to genuineness, the evidence is decisive. The reading [Symbol: Alpha]\nis Alexandrian, adopted by B[Symbol: Aleph], and is bad Greek into the\nbargain, [Greek: enedreuontes thereusai] being very rough, and being\nprobably due to incompetent acquaintance with the Greek language. If\n[Symbol: alpha] was the original, it is hard to see how [Symbol: beta]\ncould have come from it. That the figurative language of [Symbol: alpha]\nwas replaced in [Symbol: beta] by a simply descriptive paraphrase, as\nDr. Hort suggests, seems scarcely probable. On the other hand, the\nderivation of either [Symbol: alpha] or [Symbol: beta] from the\nTraditional Text is much easier. A scribe would without difficulty pass\nover one of the participles lying contiguously with no connecting\nconjunction, and having a kind of Homoeoteleuton. And as to [Symbol:\nbeta], the distinguishing [Greek: aphormen tina] would be a very natural\ngloss, requiring for completeness of the phrase the accompanying [Greek:\nlabein]. This is surely a more probable solution of the question of the\nmutual relationship of the readings than the laboured account of Dr.\nHort, which is too long to be produced here.\n\n(7) St. Luke xii. 18. 'I will pull down my barns, and build greater, and\nthere will I bestow all\n\n    [Symbol: alpha]. My corn and my goods.\n\n    [Symbol: beta]. My crops ([Greek: ta genemata mou]). My fruits\n    ([Greek: tous karpous mou]).\n\n    Trad. Text. My crops ([Greek: ta genemata mou]) and my goods.'\n\nThis is a faulty instance, because it is simply a substitution, as Dr.\nHort admitted, in [Symbol: alpha] of the more comprehensive word [Greek:\ngenemata] for [Greek: siton], and a simple omission of [Greek: kai ta\nagatha mou] in [Symbol: beta]. And the admission of it into the selected\neight shews the difficulty that Dr. Hort must have experienced in\nchoosing his examples. The evidence is--\n\n    [Symbol: alpha]. BTLX and a correction of [Symbol:\n    Aleph](a^{c}), eight Cursives, Peshitto, Bohairic, Sahidic,\n    Armenian, Ethiopic.\n\n    [Symbol: beta]. [Symbol: Aleph]*D, three Cursives, b ff i q,\n    Curetonian and Lewis, St. Ambrose (i. 573).\n\n    Trad. Text. AQ + thirteen Uncials. All Cursives except twelve,\n    _f_, Vulgate, Harkleian, Cyril Alex. (Mai, ii. 294-5) _bis_,\n    Theophylact (i. 370), Peter Chrysologus (Migne 52, 490-1) _bis_.\n\nNo more need be said: substitutions and omissions are too common to\nrequire justification.\n\n(8) St. Luke xxiv. 53. 'They were continually in the temple\n\n    [Symbol: alpha]. Blessing God ([Greek: eulogountes]).\n\n    [Symbol: beta]. Praising God ([Greek: ainountes]).\n\n    Trad. Text. Praising and blessing God.'\n\nThe evidence is--\n\n    [Symbol: alpha]. [Symbol: Aleph]BC*L, Bohairic, Palestinian,\n    Lewis.\n\n    [Symbol: beta]. D, seven Old Latin.\n\n    Trad. Text. AC^{2} + twelve Uncials, all Cursives, c f q,\n    Vulgate, Peshitto, Harkleian, Armenian, Ethiopic, Theophylact\n    (i. 497).\n\nDr. Hort adds no remarks. He seems to have thought, that because he had\ngot an instance which outwardly met all the requirements laid down,\ntherefore it would prove the conclusion it was intended to prove. Now it\nis evidently an instance of the omission of either of two words from the\ncomplete account by different witnesses. The Evangelist employed both\nwords in order to emphasize the gratitude of the Apostles. The words are\nnot tautological. [Greek: Ainos] is the set praise of God, drawn out in\nmore or less length, properly as offered in addresses to Him[621].\n[Greek: Eulogia] includes all speaking well of Him, especially when\nuttered before other men. Thus the two expressions describe in\ncombination the life of gratitude exhibited unceasingly by the expectant\nand the infant Church. Continually in the temple they praised Him in\ndevotion, and told the people of His glorious works.\n\n4. Such are the eight weak pillars upon which Dr. Hort built his theory\nwhich was to account for the existence of his Neutral Text, and the\nrelation of it towards other Texts or classes of readings. If his eight\npicked examples can be thus demolished, then surely the theory of\nConflation must be utterly unsound. Or if in the opinion of some of my\nreaders my contention goes too far, then at any rate they must admit\nthat it is far from being firm, if it does not actually reel and totter.\nThe opposite theory of omission appears to be much more easy and\nnatural.\n\nBut the curious phenomenon that Dr. Hort has rested his case upon so\nsmall an induction as is supplied by only eight examples--if they are\nnot in fact only seven--has not yet received due explanation. Why, he\nought to have referred to twenty-five or thirty at least. If Conflation\nis so common, he might have produced a large number of references\nwithout working out more than was enough for illustration as patterns.\nThis question must be investigated further. And I do not know how to\ncarry out such an investigation better, than to examine some instances\nwhich come naturally to hand from the earlier parts of each Gospel.\n\nIt must be borne in mind, that for Conflation two differently-attested\nphrases or words must be produced which are found in combination in some\npassage of the Traditional Text. If there is only one which is omitted,\nit is clear that there can be no Conflation because there must be at\nleast two elements to conflate: accordingly our instances must be cases,\nnot of single omission, but of double or alternative omission. If again\nthere is no Western reading, it is not a Conflation in Dr. Hort's sense.\nAnd finally, if the remaining reading is not a 'Neutral' one, it is not\nto Dr. Hort's liking. I do not say that my instances will conform with\nthese conditions. Indeed, after making a list of all the omissions in\nthe Gospels, except those which are of too petty a character such as\nleaving out a pronoun, and having searched the list with all the care\nthat I can command, I do not think that such instances can be found.\nNevertheless, I shall take eight, starting from the beginning of St.\nMatthew, and choosing the most salient examples, being such also that,\nif Dr. Hort's theory be sound, they ought to conform to his\nrequirements. Similarly, there will come then four from either of St.\nMark and St. Luke, and eight from St. John. This course of proceeding\nwill extend operations from the eight which form Dr. Hort's total to\nthirty-two.\n\nA. In St. Matthew we have (1) i. 25, [Greek: autes ton prototokon] and\n[Greek: ton Huion]; (2) v. 22, [Greek: eike] and [Greek: to adelpho\nautou]; (3) ix. 13, [Greek: eis metanoian]; (4) x. 3, [Greek: Lebbaios]\nand [Greek: Thaddaios]; (5) xii. 22, [Greek: typhlon kai] and [Greek:\nkophon]; (6) xv. 5, [Greek: ton patera autou] and [Greek: (he) ten\nmetera autou], (7) xviii. 35, [Greek: apo ton kardion hymon] and [Greek:\nta paraptomata auton]; and (8) xxvi. 3, [Greek: hoi presbyteroi (kai)\nhoi Grammateis]. I have had some difficulty in making up the number. Of\nthose selected as well as I could, seven are cases of single omission or\nof one pure omission apiece, though their structure presents a\npossibility of two members for Conflation; whilst the Western element\ncomes in sparsely or appears in favour of both the omission and the\nretention; and, thirdly, in some cases, as in (2) and (3), the support\nis not only Western, but universal. Consequently, all but (4) are\nexcluded. Of (4) Dr. Hort remarks, (Notes on Select Readings, p. 11)\nthat it is 'a case of Conflation of the true and the chief Western\nTexts,' and accordingly it does not come within the charmed circle.\n\nB. From St. Mark we get, (1) i. 1, [Greek: Huiou tou Theou] and [Greek:\nIesou Christou]; (2) i. 2, [Greek: emprosthen sou] and [Greek: pro\nprosopou sou] (cp. ix. 38); (3) iii. 15, [Greek: therapeuein tas nosous\n(kai)] and [Greek: ekballein ta daimonia]; (4) xiii. 33, [Greek:\nagrypneite] and [Greek: (kai) proseuchesthe]. All these instances turn\nout to be cases of the omission of only one of the parallel expressions.\nThe omission in the first is due mainly to Origen (_see_ Traditional\nText, Appendix IV): in the three last there is Western evidence on both\nsides.\n\nC. St. Luke yields us, (1) ii. 5, [Greek: gynaiki] and [Greek:\nmemnesteumene]; (2) iv. 4, [Greek: epi panti rhemati Theou], or [Greek:\nep' arto mono]; (3) viii. 54, [Greek: ekbalon exo pantas (kai)], or\n[Greek: kratesas tes cheiros autes]; xi. 4, [Greek: (alla) rhysai hemas\napo tou ponerou], or [Greek: me eisenenkes hemas eis peirasmon]. In all\nthese cases, examination discloses that they are examples of pure\nomission of only one of the alternatives. The only evidence against this\nis the solitary rejection of [Greek: memnesteumene] by the Lewis Codex.\n\nD. We now come to St. John. See (1) iii. 15, [Greek: me apoletai], or\n[Greek: eche zoen aionion]; (2) iv. 14, [Greek: ou me dipsese eis ton\naiona], or [Greek: to hydor ho doso auto genesetai en auto pege hydatos,\nk.t.l.]; (3) iv. 42, [Greek: ho Christos], or [Greek: ho soter tou\nkosmou]; (4) iv. 51, [Greek: kai apengeilan] and [Greek: legontes]; (5)\nv. 16, [Greek: kai ezetoun auton apokteinai] and [Greek: ediokon auton];\n(6) vi. 51, [Greek: hen ego doso], or [Greek: hou ego doso]; (7) ix. 1,\n25, [Greek: kai eipen] or [Greek: apekrithe]; (8) xiii. 31, 32, [Greek:\nei ho Theos edoxasthe en auto], and [Greek: kai ho Theos edoxasthe en\nauto]. All these instances turn out to be single omissions:--a fact\nwhich is the more remarkable, because St. John's style so readily lends\nitself to parallel or antithetical expressions involving the same result\nin meaning, that we should expect conflations to shew themselves\nconstantly if the Traditional Text had so coalesced.\n\nHow surprising a result:--almost too surprising. Does it not immensely\nstrengthen my contention that Dr. Hort took wrongly Conflation for the\nreverse process? That in the earliest ages, when the Church did not\ninclude in her ranks so much learning as it has possessed ever since,\nthe wear and tear of time, aided by unfaith and carelessness, made\nitself felt in many an instance of destructiveness which involved a\ntemporary chipping of the Sacred Text all through the Holy Gospels? And,\nin fact, that Conflation at least as an extensive process, if not\naltogether, did not really exist.\n\n\nSec. 2.\n\nTHE NEUTRAL TEXT.\n\nHere we are brought face to face with the question respecting the\nNeutral Text. What in fact is it, and does it deserve the name which Dr.\nHort and his followers have attempted to confer permanently upon it?\nWhat is the relation that it bears to other so-called Texts?\n\nSo much has been already advanced upon this subject in the companion\nvolume and in the present, that great conciseness is here both possible\nand expedient. But it may be useful to bring the sum or substance of\nthose discussions into one focus.\n\n1. The so-called Neutral Text, as any reader of Dr. Hort's Introduction\nwill see, is the text of B and [Symbol: Aleph] and their small\nfollowing. That following is made up of Z in St. Matthew, [Symbol:\nDelta] in St. Mark, the fragmentary [Symbol: Xi] in St. Luke, with\nfrequent agreement with them of D, and of the eighth century L; with\noccasional support from some of the group of Cursives, consisting of 1,\n33, 118, 131, 157, 205, 209, and from the Ferrar group, or now and then\nfrom some others, as well as from the Latin k, and the Egyptian or other\nversions. This perhaps appears to be a larger number than our readers\nmay have supposed, but rarely are more than ten MSS. found together, and\ngenerally speaking less, and often much less than that. To all general\nintents and purposes, the Neutral Text is the text of B-[Symbol: Aleph].\n\n2. Following facts and avoiding speculation, the Neutral Text appears\nhardly in history except at the Semiarian period. It was almost disowned\never after: and there is no certainty--nothing more than inference which\nwe hold, and claim to have proved, to be imaginary and delusive,--that,\nexcept as represented in the corruption which it gathered out of the\nchaos of the earliest times, it made any appearance.\n\n3. Thus, as a matter of history acknowledged by Dr. Hort, it was mainly\nsuperseded before the end of the century of its emergence by the\nTraditional Text, which, except in the tenets of a school of critics in\nthe nineteenth century, has reigned supreme ever since.\n\n4. That it was not the original text of the Gospels, as maintained by\nDr. Hort, I claim to have established from an examination of the\nquotations from the Gospels made by the Fathers. It has been proved that\nnot only in number, but still more conclusively in quality, the\nTraditional Text enjoyed a great superiority of attestation over all the\nkinds of corruption advocated by some critics which I have just now\nmentioned[622]. This conclusion is strengthened by the verdict of the\nearly versions.\n\n5. The inferiority of the 'Neutral Text' is demonstrated by the\noverwhelming weight of evidence which is marshalled against it on\npassages under dispute. This glaring contrast is increased by the\ndisagreement among themselves of the supporters of that Text, or class\nof readings. As to antiquity, number, variety, weight, and continuity,\nthat Text falls hopelessly behind: and by internal evidence also the\ntexts of B and [Symbol: Aleph], and still more the eccentric text of the\nWestern D, are proved to be manifestly inferior.\n\n6. It has been shewn also by evidence, direct as well as inferential,\nthat B and [Symbol: Aleph] issued nearly together from the library or\nschool of Caesarea. The fact of their being the oldest MSS. of the New\nTestament in existence, which has naturally misled people and caused\nthem to be credited with extraordinary value, has been referred, as\nbeing mainly due, to their having been written on vellum according to\nthe fashion introduced in that school, instead of the ordinary papyrus.\nThe fact of such preservation is really to their discredit, instead of\nresounding to their honour, because if they had enjoyed general\napproval, they would probably have perished creditably many centuries\nago in the constant use for which they were intended.\n\nSuch are the main points in the indictment and in the history of the\nNeutral Text, or rather--to speak with more appropriate accuracy,\navoiding the danger of drawing with too definite a form and too deep a\nshade--of the class of readings represented by B and [Symbol: Aleph]. It\nis interesting to trace further, though very summarily, the connexion\nbetween this class of readings and the corruptions of the Original Text\nwhich existed previously to the early middle of the fourth century. Such\nbrief tracing will lead us to a view of some causes of the development\nof Dr. Hort's theory.\n\nThe analysis of Corruption supplied as to the various kinds of it by\nDean Burgon has taught us how they severally arose. This is fresh in the\nmind of readers, and I will not spoil it by repetition. But the studies\nof textual critics have led them to combine all kinds of corruption\nchiefly under the two heads of the Western or Syrio-Low-Latin class, and\nin a less prominent province of the Alexandrian. Dr. Hort's Neutral is\nreally a combination of those two, with all the accuracy that these\nphenomena admit. But of course, if the Neutral were indeed the original\nText, it would not do for it to be too closely connected with one of\nsuch bad reputation as the Western, which must be kept in the distance\nat all hazards. Therefore he represented it--all unconsciously no doubt\nand with the best intention--as one of the sources of the Traditional,\nor as he called it the 'Syrian' Text. Hence this imputed connexion\nbetween the Western and the Traditional Text became the essential part\nof his framework of Conflation, which could not exist without it. For\nany permanent purpose, all this handiwork was in vain. To say no more,\nD, which is the chief representative of the Western Text, is too\nconstant a supporter of the peculiar readings of B and [Symbol: Aleph]\nnot to prove its near relationship to them. The 'Neutral' Text derives\nthe chief part of its support from Western sources. It is useless for\nDr. Hort to disown his leading constituents. And on the other hand, the\nSyrio-Low-Latin Text is too alien to the Traditional to be the chief\nelement in any process, Conflate or other, out of which it could have\nbeen constructed. The occasional support of some of the Old Latin MSS.\nis nothing to the point in such a proof. They are so fitful and\nuncertain, that some of them may witness to almost anything. If Dr.\nHort's theory of Conflation had been sounder, there would have been no\nlack of examples.\n\n    'Naturam expellas furca: tamen usque recurret.'\n\nHe was tempted to the impossible task of driving water uphill. Therefore\nI claim, not only to have refuted Dr. Hort, whose theory is proved to be\neven more baseless than I ever imagined, but by excavating more deeply\nthan he did, to have discovered the cause of his error.\n\nNo: the true theory is, that the Traditional Text--not in superhuman\nperfection, though under some superhuman Guidance--is the embodiment of\nthe original Text of the New Testament. In the earliest times, just as\nfalse doctrines were widely spread, so corrupt readings prevailed in\nmany places. Later on, when Christianity was better understood, and the\nChurch reckoned amongst the learned and holy of her members the finest\nnatures and intellects of the world, and many clever men of inferior\ncharacter endeavoured to vitiate Doctrine and lower Christian life, evil\nrose to the surface, and was in due time after a severe struggle removed\nby the sound and faithful of the day. So heresy was rampant for a while,\nand was then replaced by true and well-grounded belief. With great\nability and with wise discretion, the Deposit whether of Faith or Word\nwas verified and established. General Councils decided in those days\nupon the Faith, and the Creed when accepted and approved by the\nuniversal voice was enacted for good and bequeathed to future ages. So\nit was both as to the Canon and the Words of Holy Scripture, only that\nall was done quietly. As to the latter, hardly a footfall was heard. But\nnone the less, corruption after short-lived prominence sank into deep\nand still deeper obscurity, whilst the teaching of fifteen centuries\nplaced the true Text upon a firm and lasting basis.\n\nAnd so I venture to hold, now that the question has been raised, both\nthe learned and the well-informed will come gradually to see, that no\nother course respecting the Words of the New Testament is so strongly\njustified by the evidence, none so sound and large-minded, none so\nreasonable in every way, none so consonant with intelligent faith, none\nso productive of guidance and comfort and hope, as to maintain against\nall the assaults of corruption\n\nTHE TRADITIONAL TEXT.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[618] Dr. Hort has represented Neutral readings by [Symbol: alpha],\nWestern by [Symbol: beta], as far as I can understand, 'other' by\n[Symbol: gamma], and 'Syrian' (=Traditional) by [Symbol: delta]. But he\nnowhere gives an example of [Symbol: gamma].\n\n[619] Introduction, p. 103.\n\n[620] Cp. St. Luke xviii. 2, 3. [Greek: Tis] is used with [Greek: ex],\nSt. Luke xi. 15, xxiv. 24; St. John vi. 64, vii. 25, ix. 16, xi. 37, 46;\nActs xi. 20, xiii. 1, &c.\n\n[621] Thus [Greek: epainos] is used for a public encomium, or panegyric.\n\n[622] An attempt in the _Guardian_ has been made in a review full of\nerrors to weaken the effect of my list by an examination of an unique\nset of details. A correction both of the reviewer's figures in one\ninstance and of my own may be found above, pp. 144-153. There is no\nvirtue in an exact proportion of 3: 2, or of 6: 1. A great majority will\nultimately be found on our side.\n\n\n\n\nGENERAL INDEX.\n\n\nA.\n\n[Symbol: Aleph] or Sinaitic MS., 2, 196.\n\nAccident, 8; pure A., 34-35.\n\nAddition, 166-7, 270.\n\nAges, earliest, 2.\n\nAlexandrian error, 45;\n  readings, App. II. 268, 284.\n\nAlford, _passim_.\n\nAmmonius, 200.\n\nAntiquity, our appeal always made to, 194-5.\n\nApolinarius, or-is (or Apoll.), 224, 257.\n\nArians, 204, 218.\n\nAssimilation, 100-127;\n  what it was, 101-2;\n  must be delicately handled, 115\n\nAttraction, 123-7.\n\n\nB.\n\nB or Vatican MS., 2, 8, 196;\n  kakigraphy of, 64 note:\n  virtually with [Symbol: Aleph] the 'Neutral' text, 282.\n\nBasilides, 195, 197-9, 218 note 2.\n\nBlunder, history of a, 24-7.\n\nBohairic Version, 249, and _passim_.\n\n\nC.\n\nCaesarea, library of, 284.\n\nCerinthus, 201.\n\nClement of Alexandria, 193.\n\nConflation, 266-82.\n\nCorrectors of MSS., 21.\n\nCorruption, first origin of, 3-8;\n  classes of 8-9, 23;\n  general, 10-23;\n  prevailed from the first, 12;\n  the most corrupt authorities, 8, 14;\n  in early Fathers, 193-4.\n\nCuretonian Version, _passim. See_ Traditional Text.\n\nCursive MSS., a group of eccentric, 283;\n  Ferrar group, 282.\n\n\nD.\n\nD or Codex Bezae, 8.\n\n[Symbol: Delta], or Sangallensis, 8.\n\nDamascus, 5.\n\nDiatessarons, 89, 96-8, 101. _See_ Tatian.\n\nDoxology, in the Lord's Prayer, 81-8.\n\n\nE.\n\nEclogadion, 69.\n\nEpiphanius, 305, 211-2.\n\nErasmus, 10.\n\nError, slight clerical, 37-31.\n\nEuroclydon, 46.\n\nEvangelistaria (the right name), 67.\n\n\nF.\n\nFalconer's St. Paul's voyage, 46-7.\n\nFathers, _passim_; earliest, 193.\n\nFaustinus, 218.\n\nFerrar group of Cursives, 282.\n\nField, Dr., 28 note 5, 30 and note 2.\n\n\nG.\n\nGalilee of the Gentiles, 4-5.\n\nGenealogy, 22. _See_ Traditional Text.\n\nGlosses, 94-5, 98, 172-90;\n  described, 172.\n\nGospels, the four, probable date of, 7.\n\nGuardian, review in, Pref., 150-2, 283 note.\n\nGwilliam, Rev. G. H., 115 note.\n\n\nH.\n\nHarmonistic influence, 89-99.\n\nHeracleon, 190, 202, 204, 215 note 2.\n\nHeretics, corruptions by, 199-210;\n  not always dishonest, 191;\n  very numerous, 199 &c.\n\nHomoeoteleuton, 36-41; explained, 8\n\nI.\n\nInadvertency, 21, 23.\n\nInternal evidence, Pref.\n\nInterpolations, 166-7.\n\nIrenaeus, St., 193.\n\nItacism, 8, 56-86.\n\n\nJ.\n\nJustin Martyr, St., 193.\n\n\nL.\n\nL or Codex Regius, 8.\n\nLachmann, _passim_.\n\nLast Twelve Verses, 72, 129-30.\n\nLatin MSS., Old, _passim_; Low-Latin, 8. _See_ Traditional Text.\n\nLectionaries, 67-81;\n  ecclesiastical prefaces to, 71.\n\nLewis MS., _passim_, 194.\n\nLiturgical influence, 67-88.\n\n\nM.\n\nMacedonians, 204.\n\nManes, 207.\n\nManichaeans, 206.\n\nManuscripts, six classes of, 12;\n  existing number of, 12;\n  frequent inaccuracies in, 12;\n  more serious faults, 20-1; and _passim_.\n\nMarcion, 70, 195, 197, 199, 200, 219.\n\nMatrimony, 208.\n\nMenologion, 69.\n\n\nN.\n\nNaaseni, 204.\n\n'Neutral Text,' 267, 282-6.\n\n\nO.\n\nOmissions, 128-156;\n  the largest of all classes, 128;\n  not 'various readings,' 128;\n  prejudice in favour of, 130-1;\n  proof of, 131-2;\n  natural cause of corruption, 270.\n\nOrigen, 53-5, 98, 101, 111-3, 190, 193, 209.\n\nOrthodox, corruption by, 211-31,\n  misguided, 211.\n\n\nP.\n\nPapyrus MSS., 2. _See_ Traditional Text.\n\nParallel passages, 95.\n\nPella, 7.\n\nPericope de Adultera, 232-65.\n\nPeshitto Version, _passim. See_ Traditional Text.\n\nPorphyry, 114.\n\n\nR.\n\nRevision, 10-13.\n\nRose, Rev. W. F., 61 note 3.\n\n\nS.\n\n[Greek: Sabbatokuriakai], 68.\n\nSahidic Version, 194.\n\nSaturninue, or Saturnilus, 208 and note 3.\n\nScrivener's Introduction (4th Ed.), Miller's, _passim_.\n\nSemiarianism, 2.\n\nSubstitution, 164-5, 270, 277.\n\nSynaxarion, 69.\n\n\nT.\n\nTatian's Diatessaron, 8, 98, 101, 196, 200.\n\nTextualism of the Gospels, different from T. of profane writings, 14.\n\nTheodotus, 205, 214.\n\nTischendorf, 112-3, 176, 182, and _passim_;\n  misuse of Assimilation, 118.\n\nTraditional Text, 1-4;\n  not = Received Text, 1. _See_ Volume on it.\n\nTranscriptional Mistakes, 55.\n\nTransposition, 157-63;\n  character of, 163, 270.\n\nTregelles, 34, 136, 138.\n\n\nU.\n\nUncials, 42-55.\n\n\nV.\n\nValentinus, 197-9, 201, 202-5, 215, 218 note 2.\n\nVarious readings, 14-16.\n\nVellum, 2.\n\nVercellone, 47 note.\n\nVersions, _passim_.\n\nVictorinus Afer, 218.\n\n\nW.\n\nWestern Readings or Text, 6, 266-85.\n\n\nZ.\n\nZ or Dublin palimpsest, 8.\n\n\n\n\nINDEX II.\n\nPASSAGES OF THE NEW TESTAMENT DISCUSSED.\n\n\nSt. Matthew:\n    i. 19 209\n  iii. 6 102\n       16 170-1\n   iv. 23 51-2\n    v. 44 144-53\n   vi. 13 81-8\n       18 171\n  vii. 4 102\n viii. 9 102\n       13 167-8\n       26 103\n       29 102\n   ix. 24 104\n       35 74\n    x. 12 103\n   xi. 23 27\n  xii. 10 117\n xiii. 36 173\n       44 80-1\n   xv. 8 136-44\n  xvi. 8 103\n  xix. 9 39\n       16 103\n   xx. 24 103\n       28 175\n  xxi. 9 99\n       44 134-6\n xxii. 23 49-50\nxxiii. 14 38\n xxiv. 15 116\n       31 179-80\n       36 169-70\n  xxv. 13 171\nxxvii. 15 103\n       17 53-5\n     25-6 91\n       35 171\n\nSt. Mark:\n    i. 2 111-5\n        5 157-8\n   ii. 3 158-9\n   iv. 6 63-4\n    v. 36 188\n   vi. 11 118-9, 181-2\n       32 32-3\n       33 271-3\n  vii. 14 35\n       19 61-3\n       31 73-3\n viii. 1 34\n       26 273-4\n   ix. 38 271\n       49 275\n    x. 16 48\n  xii. 17 48\n  xiv. 40 48\n       41 182-3\n       70 119-22\n   xv. 6 32\n       28 75-8\n  xvi. 9-20 72, 129-30\n\nSt. Luke:\n    i. 66 188-9\n   ii. 14 21-2, 31-2\n       15 36\n  iii. 14 201\n       29 165\n   iv. 1-13 94\n    v. 7 108\n       14 104\n   vi. 1 132-3\n        4 167\n       26 153\n  vii. 3 174\n       21 50\n   ix. 1 74\n       10 275-6\n     54-6 224-31\n    x. 15 28\n       25 75\n   xi. 54 276-7\n  xii. 18 277-8\n       39 155\n xiii. 9 160-1\n  xiv. 3 117\n   xv. 16 117\n       17 43-5\n       24 61\n       32 61\n  xvi. 21 40\n       25 60\n xvii. 37 48-9\n  xix. 21 103\n       41 212\n xxii. 67-8 210\nxxiii. 11 50-1\n       27 51\n       42 57\n xxiv. 1 92-4\n        7 161\n       53 278\n\nSt. John:\n    i. 3-4 203\n       18 215-8, 165\n   ii. 40 212-4\n  iii. 13 223-4\n   iv. 15 48\n    v. 4 50\n       27 162\n    v. 44 45\n   vi. 11 37-8\n       15 38, 178\n       55 153-4\n       71 124\n viii. 40 214-5\n   ix. 22 183\n    x. 14-15 206-8\n       29 24-7\n  xii. 1, 2 57-9\n        7 184-6\n       13 99\n xiii. 21-5 106-11\n       24 179\n       25 60\n       26 124\n       37 35\n  xvi. 16 105\n xvii. 4 186-8\nxviii. 14 180-1\n   xx. 11 90-2\n\nActs:\n   ii. 45-6 159\n  iii. 1 78-80\nxviii. 6 27\n   xx. 4 190\n       24 28, 124-5\nxxvii. 14 46-7\n       37 27\nxxviii. 1 28\n\n\n1 Cor.:\n   xv. 47 219-23\n\n2 Cor.:\n  iii. 3 125-7\n\nTitus:\n   ii. 5 65-6\n\nHeb.:\n  vii. 1 53\n\n2 Pet.:\n    i. 21 52-3\n\nRev.\n    i. 5 59-60\n\nTHE END.","title":"The Causes of the Corruption of the Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels: Being the Sequel to The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":97203}