{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_38960/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_38960","id":"gutenberg_38960","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/38960","summary":null,"tags":["Bible. Gospels -- Criticism, Textual","Bible. Gospels -- Criticism, interpretation, etc.","Bible. New Testament. Greek -- Versions -- Textus receptus","Category: Religion/Spirituality"],"text":"The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels\n\n                        Vindicated and Established\n\n                               By the Late\n\n                        John William Burgon, B.D.\n\n                            Dean of Chichester\n\n                    Arranged, Completed, and Edited by\n\n                           Edward Miller, M.A.\n\n    Late Rector of Bucknell, Oxon; Editor of the Fourth Edition of Dr.\n   Scrivener\u2019s \u201cPlain Introduction to the Textual Criticism of the New\n  Testament\u201d; and Author of \u201cA Guide to the Textual Criticism of the New\n                                Testament\u201d\n\n\u03a0\u1fb6\u03c3\u03b9 \u03a4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f09\u03b3\u03af\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u1ff7 \u1f38\u03b7\u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6\n\nPHIL. i. 1\n\n                                  London\n\n                           George Bell And Sons\n\n                    Cambridge: Deighton, Bell and Co.\n\n                                   1896\n\n\n\n\n\nCONTENTS\n\n\nPreface.\nIntroduction.\nChapter I. Preliminary Grounds.\nChapter II. Principles.\nChapter III. The Seven Notes Of Truth.\nChapter IV. The Vatican And Sinaitic Manuscripts.\nChapter V. The Antiquity of the Traditional Text. I. Witness of the Early\nFathers.\nChapter VI. The Antiquity Of The Traditional Text. II. Witness of the\nEarly Syriac Versions.\nChapter VII. The Antiquity Of The Traditional Text. III. Witness of the\nWestern or Syrio-Low-Latin Text.\nChapter VIII. Alexandria and Caesarea.\nChapter IX. The Old Uncials. The Influence Of Origen.\nChapter X. The Old Uncials. Codex D.\nChapter XI. The Later Uncials And The Cursives.\nChapter XII. Conclusion.\nAppendix I. Honeycomb\u2014\u1f00\u03c0\u1f78 \u03bc\u03b5\u03bb\u03b9\u03c3\u03c3\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 \u03ba\u03b7\u03c1\u03af\u03bf\u03c5.\nAppendix II. \u1f4c\u03be\u03bf\u03c2\u2014Vinegar.\nAppendix III. The Rich Young Man.\nAppendix IV. St. Mark i. 1.\nAppendix V. The Sceptical Character Of B And \u05d0.\nAppendix VI. The Peshitto And Curetonian.\nAppendix VII. The Last Twelve Verses Of St. Mark\u2019s Gospel.\nAppendix VIII. New Editions Of The Peshitto-Syriac And The\nHarkleian-Syriac Versions.\nGeneral Index.\nIndex II. Passages Of The New Testament Commented On.\nFootnotes\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\u201cTenet ecclesia nostra, tenuitque semper firmam illam et immotam\nTertulliani regulam \u2018Id verius quod prius, id prius quod ab initio.\u2019 Quo\npropius ad veritatis fontem accedimus, eo purior decurrit Catholicae\ndoctrinae rivus.\u201d\u2014CAVE\u2019S _Proleg._ p. xliv.\n\n\u201cInterrogate de semitis antiquis quae sit via bona, et ambulate in\ne\u00e2.\u201d\u2014Jerem. vi. 16.\n\n\u201cIn summa, si constat id verius quod prius, id prius quod ab initio, id ab\ninitio quod ab Apostolis; pariter utique constabit, id esse ab Apostolis\ntraditum, quod apud Ecclesias Apostolorum fuerit sacrosanctum.\u201d\u2014TERTULL.\n_adv. Marc._ l. iv. c. 5.\n\n\n\n\n\nPREFACE.\n\n\nThe death of Dean Burgon in 1888, lamented by a large number of people on\nthe other side of the Atlantic as well as on this, cut him off in the\nearly part of a task for which he had made preparations during more than\nthirty years. He laid the foundations of his system with much care and\ncaution, discussing it with his friends, such as the late Earl of Selborne\nto whom he inscribed The Last Twelve Verses, and the present Earl of\nCranbrook to whom he dedicated The Revision Revised, for the purpose of\nsounding the depths of the subject, and of being sure that he was resting\nupon firm rock. In order to enlarge the general basis of Sacred Textual\nCriticism, and to treat of the principles of it scientifically and\ncomprehensively, he examined manuscripts widely, making many discoveries\nat home and in foreign libraries; collated some himself and got many\ncollated by other scholars; encouraged new and critical editions of some\nof the chief Versions; and above all, he devised and superintended a\ncollection of quotations from the New Testament to be found in the works\nof the Fathers and in other ecclesiastical writings, going far beyond\nordinary indexes, which may be found in sixteen thick volumes amongst the\ntreasures of the British Museum. Various events led him during his\nlife-time to dip into and publish some of his stores, such as in his Last\nTwelve Verses of St. Mark, his famous Letters to Dr. Scrivener in the\n_Guardian_ Newspaper, and in The Revision Revised. But he sedulously\namassed materials for the greater treatise up to the time of his death.\n\nHe was then deeply impressed with the incomplete state of his documents;\nand gave positive instructions solely for the publication of his Text of\nthe Gospels as marked in the margin of one of Scrivener\u2019s editions of the\nNew Testament, of his disquisition on \u201choneycomb\u201d which as exhibiting a\nspecimen of his admirable method of criticism will be found in Appendix I\nof this volume, and perhaps of that on \u1f44\u03be\u03bf\u03c2 in Appendix II, leaving the\nentire question as to publishing the rest to his nephew, the Rev. W. F.\nRose, with the help of myself, if I would undertake the editing required,\nand of others.\n\nThe separate papers, which were committed to my charge in February, 1889,\nwere contained in forty portfolios, and according to my catalogue amounted\nto 2,383. They were grouped under various headings, and some were placed\nin one set as \u201cIntroductory Matter\u201d ready for the printer. Most had been\ncopied out in a clear hand, especially by \u201cM.W.\u201d mentioned in the Preface\nof the Revision Revised, to whom also I am greatly indebted for copying\nothers. The papers were of lengths varying from fourteen pages or more\ndown to a single sentence or a single reference. Some were almost\nduplicates, and a very few similarly triplicates.\n\nAfter cataloguing, I reported to Mr. Rose, suggesting a choice between\nthree plans, viz.,\n\n1. Publishing separately according to the Dean\u2019s instructions such papers\nas were judged to be fit for publication, and leaving the rest:\u2014\n\n2. To put together a Work on the Principles of Textual Criticism out of\nthe MSS., as far as they would go:\u2014\n\n3. To make up what was ready and fit into a Book, supplying from the rest\nof the materials and from elsewhere what was wanting besides filling up\ngaps as well as I could, and out of the rest (as well as from the Dean\u2019s\npublished works) to construct brief notes on the Text which we had to\npublish.\n\nThis report was sent to Dr. Scrivener, Dean Goulburn, Sir Edward Maunde\nThompson, and other distinguished scholars, and the unanimous opinion was\nexpressed that the third of these plans should be adopted.\n\nNot liking to encounter\n\n\n    Tot et tanta negotia solus,\n\n\nI invited at the opening of 1890 the Rev. G. H. Gwilliam, Fellow of\nHertford College, and the Rev. Dr. Waller, Principal of St. John\u2019s Hall,\nHighbury\u2014a man of mathematical accuracy\u2014to read over at my house the first\ndraft of a large portion of Volume I. To my loss, Dr. Waller has been too\nbusy since that time to afford me any help, except what may be found in\nhis valuable comparison of the texts of the Peshitto and Curetonian\nprinted in Appendix VI: but Mr. Gwilliam has been ready with advice and\nhelp all along which have been of the greatest advantage to me especially\non the Syriac part of the subject, and has looked through all the first\nproofs of this volume.\n\nIt was afterwards forced upon my mind that if possible the Indexes to the\nFathers ought to be included in the work. Indeed no book could adequately\nrepresent Dean Burgon\u2019s labours which did not include his _apparatus\ncriticus_ in that province of Textual Criticism, in which he has shewn\nhimself so _facile princeps_, that no one in England, or Germany, or\nelsewhere, has been as yet able to come near him. With Sir E. Maunde\nThompson\u2019s kind help, I have been able to get the part of the Indexes\nwhich relates to the Gospels copied in type-writing, and they will be\npublished in course of time, God willing, if the learned world evinces\nsufficient interest in the publication of them.\n\nUnfortunately, when in 1890 I had completed a first arrangement of Volume\nII, my health gave way; and after vainly endeavouring for a year to\ncombine this severe toil with the conduct of a living, I resigned the\nlatter, and moved into Oxford to devote myself exclusively to the\nimportant work of turning the unpublished results of the skilful\nfaithfulness and the indefatigable learning of that \u201cgrand scholar\u201d\u2014to use\nDr. Scrivener\u2019s phrase\u2014towards the settlement of the principles that\nshould regulate the ascertainment of the Divine Words constituting the New\nTestament.\n\nThe difficulty to be surmounted lay in the fact that after all was\ngathered out of the Dean\u2019s remains that was suitable for the purpose, and\nwhen gaps of smaller or greater size were filled, as has been done\nthroughout the series of unfinished and unconnected MSS., there was still\na large space to cover without the Master\u2019s help in covering it.\n\nTime and research and thought were alike necessary. Consequently, upon\nadvice, I accepted an offer to edit the fourth edition of Scrivener\u2019s\nPlain Introduction, and although that extremely laborious accomplishment\noccupied far more time than was anticipated, yet in the event it has\ngreatly helped the execution of my task. Never yet, before or since Dean\nBurgon\u2019s death, has there been such an opportunity as the present. The\ngeneral _apparatus criticus_ has been vastly increased; the field of\npalaeography has been greatly enlarged through the discoveries in Egypt;\nand there is a feeling abroad that we are on the brink of an improvement\nin systems and theories recently in vogue.\n\nOn returning to the work, I found that the key to the removal of the chief\ndifficulty in the way of such improvement lay in an inflow of light upon\nwhat may perhaps be termed as to this subject the Pre-manuscriptal\nPeriod,\u2014hitherto the dark age of Sacred Textualism, which precedes what\nwas once \u201cthe year one\u201d of Palaeography. Accordingly, I made a toilsome\nexamination for myself of the quotations occurring in the writings of the\nFathers before St. Chrysostom, or as I defined them in order to draw a\nself-acting line, of those who died before 400 A.D., with the result that\nthe Traditional Text is found to stand in the general proportion of 3:2\nagainst other variations, and in a much higher proportion upon thirty test\npassages. Afterwards, not being satisfied with resting the basis of my\nargument upon one scrutiny, I went again through the writings of the\nseventy-six Fathers concerned (with limitations explained in this book),\nbesides others who yielded no evidence, and I found that although several\nmore instances were consequently entered in my note-book, the general\nresults remained almost the same. I do not flatter myself that even now I\nhave recorded all the instances that could be adduced:\u2014any one who is\nreally acquainted with this work will know that such a feat is absolutely\nimpossible, because such perfection cannot be obtained except after many\nrepeated efforts. But I claim, not only that my attempts have been honest\nand fair even to self-abnegation, but that the general results which are\nmuch more than is required by my argument, as is explained in the body of\nthis work, abundantly establish the antiquity of the Traditional Text, by\nproving the superior acceptance of it during the period at stake to that\nof any other.\n\nIndeed, these examinations have seemed to me, not only to carry back the\nTraditional Text satisfactorily to the first age, but to lead also to\nsolutions of several difficult problems, which are now presented to our\nreaders. The wealth of MSS. to which the Fathers introduce us at\nsecond-hand can only be understood by those who may go through the\nwritings of many of them with this view; and outnumbers over and over\nagain before the year 1000 all the contemporaneous Greek MSS. which have\ncome down to us, not to speak of the years to which no MSS. that are now\nextant are in the opinion of all experts found to belong.\n\nIt is due both to Dean Burgon and to myself to say that we came together\nafter having worked on independent lines, though I am bound to acknowledge\nmy great debt to his writings. At first we did not agree thoroughly in\nopinion, but I found afterwards that he was right and I was wrong. It is a\nproof of the unifying power of our principles, that as to our system there\nis now absolutely no difference between us, though on minor points,\ngenerally outside of this immediate subject, we do not always exactly\nconcur. Though I have the Dean\u2019s example for altering his writings largely\neven when they were in type, as he never failed to do, yet in loyalty I\nhave delayed alterations as long as I could, and have only made them when\nI was certain that I was introducing some improvement, and more often than\nnot upon advice proffered to me by others.\n\nOur coincidence is perhaps explained by our having been born when\nEvangelical earnestness affected all religious life, by our having been\ntrained under the High Church movement, and at least in my case mellowed\nunder the more moderate widening caused by influences which prevailed in\nOxford for some years after 1848. Certainly, the comprehensiveness and\nexhaustiveness\u2014probably in imitation of German method\u2014which had before\ncharacterized Dr. Pusey\u2019s treatment of any subject, and found an\nexemplification in Professor Freeman\u2019s historical researches, and which\nwas as I think to be seen in the action of the best spirits of the Oxford\nof 1848-56\u2014to quote my own experience,\u2014lay at the root and constituted the\nlife of Burgon\u2019s system, and the maintenance of these principles so far as\nwe could at whatever cost formed the link between us. To cast away at\nleast nineteen-twentieths of the evidence on points and to draw\nconclusions from the petty remainder, seems to us to be necessarily not\nless even than a crime and a sin, not only by reason of the sacrilegious\ndestructiveness exercised thereby upon Holy Writ, but also because such a\nmethod is inconsistent with conscientious exhaustiveness and logical\nmethod. Perfectly familiar with all that can be and is advanced in favour\nof such procedure, must we not say that hardly any worse pattern than this\nin investigations and conclusions could be presented before young men at\nthe critical time when they are entering upon habits of forming judgements\nwhich are to carry them through life? Has the over-specialism which has\nbeen in vogue of late years promoted the acceptance of the theory before\nus, because it may have been under specializing influences forgotten, that\nthe really accomplished man should aim at knowing something of everything\nelse as well as knowing everything of the thing to which he is devoted,\nsince narrowness in investigation and neglect of all but a favourite\ntheory is likely to result from so exclusive an attitude?\n\nThe importance of the question at stake is often underrated. Dr. Philip\nSchaff in his well-known \u201cCompanion\u201d (p. 176),\u2014as Dr. E. Nestle of Ulm in\none of his brochures (\u201cEin ceterum censeo zur neutestamentlichen\nTextkritik\u201d) which he has kindly sent me, has pointed out,\u2014observes that\nwhereas Mill reckoned the variations to amount to 30,000, and Scrivener\nsupposed that they have since increased to four times as much, they\n\u201ccannot now fall much short of 150,000.\u201d This amount is appalling, and\nmost of them are of a petty character. But some involve highly important\npassages, and even Hort has reckoned (Introduction, p. 2) that the\ndisputed instances reach about one-eighth of the whole. Is it too strong\ntherefore to say, that we live over a volcano, with a crust of earth of\nnot too great a thickness lying between?\n\nThe first half of our case is now presented in this Volume, which is a\ncomplete treatise in itself. A second will I hope follow at an early date,\ncontaining a disquisition on the Causes of the Corruption of the\nTraditional Text; and, I am glad to say, will consist almost exclusively\nof Dean Burgon\u2019s own compositions. I ask from Critics who may not assent\nto all our conclusions a candid consideration of our case, which is rested\nsolely upon argument and reason throughout. This explanation made by the\nDean of his system in calmer times and in a more didactic form cannot, as\nI think, fail to remove much prejudice. If we seem at first sight anywhere\nto leap from reasoning to dogmatism, our readers will discover, I believe,\nupon renewed observation that at least from our point of view that is not\nso. If we appear to speak too positively, we have done this, not from\nconfidence in any private judgement, but because we are sure, at least in\nour own minds, that we express the verdict of all the ages and all the\ncountries.\n\nMay the great Head of the Church bless our effort on behalf of the\nintegrity of His Holy Word, if not according to our plan and purpose, yet\nin the way that seemeth Him best!\n\nEdward Miller.\n\n9 BRADMORE ROAD, OXFORD:\n\n_Epiphany 1896_.\n\n\n\n\n\nINTRODUCTION.\n\n\nA few remarks at the outset of this treatise, which was left imperfect by\nDean Burgon at his unexpected death, may make the object and scope of it\nmore intelligible to many readers.\n\nTextual Criticism of the New Testament is a close inquiry into what is the\ngenuine Greek\u2014the true text of the Holy Gospels, of the Acts of the\nApostles, of the Pauline and Apostolic Epistles, and the Revelation.\nInasmuch as it concerns the text alone, it is confined to the Lower\nCriticism according to German nomenclature, just as a critical examination\nof meaning, with all its attendant references and connexions, would\nconstitute the Higher Criticism. It is thus the necessary prelude of any\nscientific investigation of the language, the purport, and the teaching of\nthe various books of the New Testament, and ought itself to be conducted\nupon definite and scientific principles. The object of this treatise is to\nlead to a general settlement of those principles. For this purpose the\nDean has stripped the discussion of all adventitious disguise, and has\npursued it lucidly into manifold details, in order that no employment of\ndifficult terms or involved sentences may shed any mystification over the\nquestions discussed, and that all intelligent people who are interested in\nsuch questions\u2014and who is not?\u2014may understand the issues and the proofs of\nthem.\n\nIn the very earliest times much variation in the text of the New\nTestament, and particularly of the Holy Gospels\u2014for we shall treat mainly\nof these four books as constituting the most important province, and as\naffording a smaller area, and so being more convenient for the present\ninquiry:\u2014much diversity in words and expression, I say, arose in the\nChurch. In consequence, the school of scientific Theology at Alexandria,\nin the person of Origen, first found it necessary to take cognizance of\nthe matter. When Origen moved to Caesarea, he carried his manuscripts with\nhim, and they appear to have formed the foundation of the celebrated\nlibrary in that city, which was afterwards amplified by Pamphilus and\nEusebius, and also by Acacius and Euzoius(1), who were all successively\nbishops of the place. During the life of Eusebius, if not under his\ncontrolling care, the two oldest Uncial Manuscripts in existence as\nhitherto discovered, known as B and \u05d0, or the Vatican and Sinaitic, were\nexecuted in handsome form and exquisite calligraphy. But shortly after,\nabout the middle of the fourth century\u2014as both schools of Textual Critics\nagree\u2014a text differing from that of B and \u05d0 advanced in general\nacceptance; and, increasing till the eighth century in the predominance\nwon by the end of the fourth, became so prevalent in Christendom, that the\nsmall number of MSS. agreeing with B and \u05d0 forms no sort of comparison\nwith the many which vary from those two. Thus the problem of the fourth\ncentury anticipated the problem of the nineteenth. Are we for the genuine\ntext of the New Testament to go to the Vatican and the Sinaitic MSS. and\nthe few others which mainly agree with them, or are we to follow the main\nbody of New Testament MSS., which by the end of the century in which those\ntwo were produced entered into possession of the field of contention, and\nhave continued in occupation of it ever since? This is the problem which\nthe following treatise is intended to solve, that is to say, which of\nthese two texts or sets of readings is the better attested, and can be\ntraced back through the stronger evidence to the original autographs.\n\nA few words are now needed to describe and account for the present\nposition of the controversy.\n\nAfter the discovery of printing in Europe, Textual Criticism began to rise\nagain. The career of it may be divided into four stages, which may be\ntermed respectively, Infancy, Childhood, Youth, and Incipient Maturity(2).\n\nI. Erasmus in 1516 edited the New Testament from a very small number of\nmanuscripts, probably only five, in repute at the time; and six years\nafterwards appeared the Complutensian edition under Cardinal Ximenes,\nwhich had been printed two years before that of Erasmus. Robert Stephen,\nTheodore Beza, and the Elzevirs, also, as is well known, published\neditions of their own. In the latter edition of the Elzevirs, issued in\n1633, occurred for the first time the widely-used expression \u201cTextus\nReceptus.\u201d The sole object in this period was to adhere faithfully to the\ntext received everywhere.\n\nII. In the next, evidence from Manuscripts, Versions, and Fathers was\ncollected, chiefly by Mill and Wetstein. Bentley thought of going back to\nthe fourth century for decisive evidence. Bengel and Griesbach laid stress\nupon families and recensions of manuscripts, and led the way in departing\nfrom the received standard. Collation of manuscripts was carried on by\nthese two critics and by other able scholars, and largely by Scholz. There\nwas thus an amplification of materials, and a crop of theories. Much that\nwas vague and elemental was intermingled with a promise of a great deal\nthat would prove more satisfactory in the future.\n\nIII. The leader in the next advance was Lachmann, who began to discard the\nreadings of the Received Text, supposing it to be only two centuries old.\nAuthorities having already become inconveniently multitudinous, he limited\nhis attention to the few which agreed with the oldest Uncials, namely, L\nor the Regius at Paris, one or two other fragments of Uncials, a few\nCursives, the Old Latin Manuscripts, and a few of the oldest Fathers,\nmaking up generally some six or seven in all upon each separate reading.\nTischendorf, the discoverer of \u05d0, the twin-sister of B, and the collator\nof a large number of MSS.(3), followed him in the main, as did also\nTregelles. And Dr. Hort, who, with Bishop Westcott, began to theorize and\nwork when Lachmann\u2019s influence was at the highest, in a most ingenious and\nelaborate Introduction maintained the cause of the two oldest\nUncials\u2014especially B\u2014and their small band of followers. Admitting that the\nReceived Text dates back as far as the middle of the fourth century, Hort\nargued that it was divided by more than two centuries and a half from the\noriginal Autographs, and in fact took its rise at Antioch and should be\ncalled \u201cSyrian,\u201d notwithstanding the predominance which he acknowledged\nthat it has enjoyed since the end of the fourth century. He termed the\nreadings of which B and \u05d0 are the chief exponents \u201cthe Neutral Text,\u201d and\nheld that that text can be traced back to the genuine Autographs(4).\n\nIV. I have placed the tenets of the opposite school last as exhibiting\nsigns of Incipient Maturity in the Science, not because they are admitted\nto be so, that being not the case, but because of their intrinsic merits,\nwhich will be unfolded in this volume, and because of the immense addition\nrecently made of authorities to our store, as well as on account of the\nindirect influence exercised of late by discoveries pursued in other\nquarters(5). Indeed, it is sought to establish a wider stock of ruling\nauthorities, and a sounder method in the use of them. The leaders in the\nadvocacy of this system have been Dr. Scrivener in a modified degree, and\nespecially Dean Burgon. First, be it understood, that we do not advocate\nperfection in the Textus Receptus. We allow that here and there it\nrequires revision. In the Text left behind by Dean Burgon(6), about 150\ncorrections have been suggested by him in St. Matthew\u2019s Gospel alone. What\nwe maintain is the TRADITIONAL TEXT. And we trace it back to the earliest\nages of which there is any record. We trust to the fullest testimony and\nthe most enlightened view of all the evidence. In humble dependence upon\nGod the Holy Ghost, Who we hold has multiplied witnesses all down the ages\nof the Church, and Whose cause we believe we plead, we solemnly call upon\nthose many students of the Bible in these days who are earnest after truth\nto weigh without prejudice what we say, in the prayer that it may\ncontribute something towards the ascertainment of the true expressions\nemployed in the genuine Word of GOD.\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER I. PRELIMINARY GROUNDS.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 1.\n\n\nIn the ensuing pages I propose to discuss a problem of the highest dignity\nand importance(7): namely, On what principles the true text of the New\nTestament Scriptures is to be ascertained? My subject is the Greek text of\nthose Scriptures, particularly of the four Gospels; my object, the\nestablishment of that text on an intelligible and trustworthy basis.\n\nThat no fixed principles were known to exist before 1880 is proved by the\nfact that the most famous critics not only differed considerably from one\nanother, but also from themselves. Till then all was empiricism in this\ndepartment. A section, a chapter, an article, a pamphlet, a tentative\nessay\u2014all these indeed from time to time appeared: and some were excellent\nof their kind. But we require something a vast deal more methodical,\nargumentative, and complete, than is compatible with such narrow limits.\nEven where an account of the facts was extended to greater length and was\ngiven with much fullness and accuracy, there was an absence of scientific\nprinciple sufficient to guide students to a satisfactory and sound\ndetermination of difficult questions. Tischendorf\u2019s last two editions\ndiffer from one another in no less than 3,572 particulars. He reverses in\nevery page in 1872 what in 1859 he offered as the result of his deliberate\njudgement. Every one, to speak plainly, whether an expert or a mere\nbeginner, seemed to consider himself competent to pass sentence on any\nfresh reading which is presented to his notice. We were informed that\n\u201caccording to all principles of sound criticism\u201d this word is to be\nretained, that to be rejected: but till the appearance of the dissertation\nof Dr. Hort no one was so obliging as to tell us what the principles are\nto which reference is confidently made, and by the loyal application of\nwhich we might have arrived at the same result for ourselves. And Hort\u2019s\ntheory, as will be shewn further on, involves too much violation of\nprinciples generally received, and is too devoid of anything like proof,\never to win universal acceptance. As matters of fact easily verified, it\nstands in sharp antagonism to the judgement passed by the Church all down\nthe ages, and in many respects does not accord with the teaching of the\nmost celebrated critics of the century who preceded him.\n\nI trust I shall be forgiven, if in the prosecution of the present inquiry\nI venture to step out of the beaten track, and to lead my reader forward\nin a somewhat humbler style than has been customary with my predecessors.\nWhenever they have entered upon the consideration of principles, they have\nalways begun by laying down on their own authority a set of propositions,\nsome of which so far from being axiomatic are repugnant to our judgement\nand are found as they stand to be even false. True that I also shall have\nto begin by claiming assent to a few fundamental positions: but then I\nventure to promise that these shall all be self-evident. I am very much\nmistaken if they do not also conduct us to results differing greatly from\nthose which have been recently in favour with many of the most forward\nwriters and teachers.\n\nBeyond all things I claim at every thoughtful reader\u2019s hands that he will\nendeavour to approach this subject in an impartial frame of mind. To\nexpect that he will succeed in divesting himself of all preconceived\nnotions as to what is likely, what not, were unreasonable. But he is\ninvited at least to wear his prejudices as loose about him as he can; to\nbe prepared to cast them off if at any time he has been shewn that they\nare founded on misapprehension; to resolve on taking nothing for granted\nwhich admits of being proved to be either true or false. And, to meet an\nobjection which is sure to be urged against me, by proof of course I do\nbut mean the nearest approach to demonstration, which in the present\nsubject-matter is attainable.\n\nThus, I request that, apart from proof of some sort, it shall not be taken\nfor granted that a copy of the New Testament written in the fourth or\nfifth century will exhibit a more trustworthy text than one written in the\neleventh or twelfth. That indeed of two ancient documents the more ancient\nmight not unreasonably have been expected to prove the more trustworthy, I\nam not concerned to dispute, and will not here discuss such a question;\nbut the probabilities of the case at all events are not axiomatic. Nay, it\nwill be found, as I am bold enough to say, that in many instances a\nfourteenth-century copy of the Gospels may exhibit the truth of Scripture,\nwhile the fourth-century copy in all these instances proves to be the\ndepositary of a fabricated text. I have only to request that, until the\nsubject has been fully investigated, men will suspend their judgement on\nthis head: taking nothing for granted which admits of proof, and regarding\nnothing as certainly either true or false which has not been shewn to be\nso.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 2.\n\n\nThat which distinguishes Sacred Science from every other Science which can\nbe named is that it is Divine, and has to do with a Book which is\ninspired; that is, whose true Author is God. For we assume that the Bible\nis to be taken as inspired, and not regarded upon a level with the Books\nof the East, which are held by their votaries to be sacred. It is chiefly\nfrom inattention to this circumstance that misconception prevails in that\ndepartment of Sacred Science known as \u201cTextual Criticism.\u201d Aware that the\nNew Testament is like no other book in its origin, its contents, its\nhistory, many critics of the present day nevertheless permit themselves to\nreason concerning its Text, as if they entertained no suspicion that the\nwords and sentences of which it is composed were destined to experience an\nextraordinary fate also. They make no allowances for the fact that\ninfluences of an entirely different kind from any with which profane\nliterature is acquainted have made themselves felt in this department, and\ntherefore that even those principles of Textual Criticism which in the\ncase of profane authors are regarded as fundamental are often out of place\nhere.\n\nIt is impossible that all this can be too clearly apprehended. In fact,\nuntil those who make the words of the New Testament their study are\nconvinced that they move in a region like no other, where unique phenomena\nawait them at every step, and where seventeen hundred and fifty years ago\ndepraving causes unknown in every other department of learning were\nactively at work, progress cannot really be made in the present\ndiscussion. Men must by all means disabuse their minds of the prejudices\nwhich the study of profane literature inspires. Let me explain this matter\na little more particularly, and establish the reasonableness of what has\ngone before by a few plain considerations which must, I think, win assent.\nI am not about to offer opinions, but only to appeal to certain undeniable\nfacts. What I deprecate, is not any discriminating use of reverent\ncriticism, but a clumsy confusion of points essentially different.\n\nNo sooner was the work of Evangelists and Apostles recognized as the\nnecessary counterpart and complement of God\u2019s ancient Scriptures and\nbecame the \u201cNew Testament,\u201d than a reception was found to be awaiting it\nin the world closely resembling that which He experienced Who is the\nsubject of its pages. Calumny and misrepresentation, persecution and\nmurderous hate, assailed Him continually. And the Written Word in like\nmanner, in the earliest age of all, was shamefully handled by mankind. Not\nonly was it confused through human infirmity and misapprehension, but it\nbecame also the object of restless malice and unsparing assaults. Marcion,\nValentinus, Basilides, Heracleon, Menander, Asclepiades, Theodotus,\nHermophilus, Apollonides, and other heretics, adapted the Gospels to their\nown ideas. Tatian, and later on Ammonius, created confusion through\nattempts to combine the four Gospels either in a diatessaron or upon an\nintricate arrangement made by sections, under which as a further result\nthe words of one Gospel became assimilated to those of another(8). Want of\nfamiliarity with the sacred words in the first ages, carelessness of\nscribes, incompetent teaching, and ignorance of Greek in the West, led to\nfurther corruption of the Sacred Text. Then out of the fact that there\nexisted a vast number of corrupt copies arose at once the need of\nRecension, which was carried on by Origen and his school. This was a fatal\nnecessity to have made itself felt in an age when the first principles of\nthe Science were not understood; for \u201cto correct\u201d was too often in those\ndays another word for \u201cto corrupt.\u201d And this is the first thing to be\nbriefly explained and enforced: but more than a counterbalance was\nprovided under the overruling Providence of God.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 3.\n\n\nBefore our Lord ascended up to Heaven, He told His disciples that He would\nsend them the Holy Ghost, Who should supply His place and abide with His\nChurch for ever. He added a promise that it should be the office of that\ninspiring Spirit not only \u201cto bring to their remembrance all things\nwhatsoever He had told them(9),\u201d but also to \u201cguide\u201d His Church \u201cinto all\nthe Truth,\u201d or, \u201cthe whole Truth(10)\u201d (\u03c0\u1fb6\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f00\u03bb\u03ae\u03b8\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1\u03bd). Accordingly,\nthe earliest great achievement of those days was accomplished on giving to\nthe Church the Scriptures of the New Testament, in which authorized\nteaching was enshrined in written form. And first, out of those many\nGospels which incompetent persons had \u201ctaken in hand\u201d to write or to\ncompile out of much floating matter of an oral or written nature, He\nguided them to discern that four were wholly unlike the rest\u2014were the very\nWord of God.\n\nThere exists no reason for supposing that the Divine Agent, who in the\nfirst instance thus gave to mankind the Scriptures of Truth, straightway\nabdicated His office; took no further care of His work; abandoned those\nprecious writings to their fate. That a perpetual miracle was wrought for\ntheir preservation\u2014that copyists were protected against the risk of error,\nor evil men prevented from adulterating shamefully copies of the\nDeposit\u2014no one, it is presumed, is so weak as to suppose. But it is quite\na different thing to claim that all down the ages the sacred writings must\nneeds have been God\u2019s peculiar care; that the Church under Him has watched\nover them with intelligence and skill; has recognized which copies exhibit\na fabricated, which an honestly transcribed text; has generally sanctioned\nthe one, and generally disallowed the other. I am utterly disinclined to\nbelieve\u2014so grossly improbable does it seem\u2014that at the end of 1800 years\n995 copies out of every thousand, suppose, will prove untrustworthy; and\nthat the one, two, three, four or five which remain, whose contents were\ntill yesterday as good as unknown, will be found to have retained the\nsecret of what the Holy Spirit originally inspired. I am utterly unable to\nbelieve, in short, that God\u2019s promise has so entirely failed, that at the\nend of 1800 years much of the text of the Gospel had in point of fact to\nbe picked by a German critic out of a waste-paper basket in the convent of\nSt. Catherine; and that the entire text had to be remodelled after the\npattern set by a couple of copies which had remained in neglect during\nfifteen centuries, and had probably owed their survival to that neglect;\nwhilst hundreds of others had been thumbed to pieces, and had bequeathed\ntheir witness to copies made from them.\n\nI have addressed what goes before to persons who sympathize with me in my\nbelief. To others the argument would require to be put in a different way.\nLet it then be remembered, that a wealth of copies existed in early times;\nthat the need of zealous care of the Holy Scriptures was always felt in\nthe Church; that it is only from the Church that we have learnt which are\nthe books of the Bible and which are not; that in the age in which the\nCanon was settled, and which is presumed by many critics to have\nintroduced a corrupted text, most of the intellect of the Roman Empire was\nfound within the Church, and was directed upon disputed questions; that in\nthe succeeding ages the art of transcribing was brought to a high pitch of\nperfection; and that the verdict of all the several periods since the\nproduction of those two manuscripts has been given till a few years ago in\nfavour of the Text which has been handed down:\u2014let it be further borne in\nmind that the testimony is not only that of all the ages, but of all the\ncountries: and at the very least so strong a presumption will ensue on\nbehalf of the Traditional Text, that a powerful case indeed must be\nconstructed to upset it. It cannot be vanquished by theories grounded upon\ninternal considerations\u2014often only another name for personal tastes\u2014, or\nfor scholarly likes or dislikes, or upon fictitious recensions, or upon\nany arbitrary choice of favourite manuscripts, or upon a strained division\nof authorities into families or groups, or upon a warped application of\nthe principle of genealogy. In the ascertainment of the facts of the\nSacred Text, the laws of evidence must be strictly followed. In questions\nrelating to the inspired Word, mere speculation and unreason have no\nplace. In short, the Traditional Text, founded upon the vast majority of\nauthorities and upon the Rock of Christ\u2019s Church, will, if I mistake not,\nbe found upon examination to be out of all comparison superior to a text\nof the nineteenth century, whatever skill and ingenuity may have been\nexpended upon the production or the defence of it.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 4.\n\n\nFor due attention has never yet been paid to a circumstance which, rightly\napprehended, will be found to go a great way towards establishing the text\nof the New Testament Scriptures on a solid basis. I refer to the fact that\na certain exhibition of the Sacred Text\u2014that exhibition of it with which\nwe are all most familiar\u2014rests on ecclesiastical authority. Speaking\ngenerally, the Traditional Text of the New Testament Scriptures, equally\nwith the New Testament Canon, rests on the authority of the Church\nCatholic. \u201cWhether we like it, or dislike it\u201d (remarked a learned writer\nin the first quarter of the nineteenth century), \u201cthe present New\nTestament Canon is neither more nor less than the probat of the orthodox\nChristian bishops, and those not only of the first and second, but of the\nthird and fourth, and even subsequent centuries(11).\u201d In like manner,\nwhether men would or would not have it so, it is a plain fact that the\nTraditional Greek Text of the New Testament is neither more nor less than\nthe probat of the orthodox Greek Christian bishops, and those, if not as\nwe maintain of the first and second, or the third, yet unquestionably of\nthe fourth and fifth, and even subsequent centuries.\n\nFor happily, the matter of fact here is a point on which the disciples of\nthe most advanced of the modern school are entirely at one with us. Dr.\nHort declares that \u201cThe fundamental text of late extant Greek MSS.\ngenerally is, beyond all question, identical with the dominant Antiochian\nor Graeco-Syrian text of the second half of the fourth century.... The\nbulk of extant MSS. written from about three or four to ten or eleven\ncenturies later must have had in the greater number of extant variations a\ncommon original either contemporary with, or older than, our oldest\nMSS.(12)\u201d And again, \u201cBefore the close of the fourth century, as we have\nsaid, a Greek text, not materially differing from the almost universal\ntext of the ninth century and the Middle Ages, was dominant, probably by\nauthority, at Antioch, and exercised much influence elsewhere(13).\u201d The\nmention of \u201cAntioch\u201d is, characteristically of the writer, purely\narbitrary. One and the same Traditional Text, except in comparatively few\nparticulars, has prevailed in the Church from the beginning till now.\nEspecially deserving of attention is the admission that the Text in\nquestion is of the fourth century, to which same century the two oldest of\nour Sacred Codexes (B and \u05d0) belong. There is observed to exist in Church\nLectionaries precisely the same phenomenon. They have prevailed in\nunintermitted agreement in other respects from very early times, probably\nfrom the days of St. Chrysostom(14), and have kept in the main without\nchange the form of words in which they were originally cast in the\nunchangeable East.\n\nAnd really the problem comes before us (God be praised!) in a singularly\nconvenient, a singularly intelligible form. Since the sixteenth century\u2014we\nowe this also to the good Providence of God\u2014one and the same text of the\nNew Testament Scriptures has been generally received. I am not defending\nthe \u201cTextus Receptus\u201d; I am simply stating the fact of its existence. That\nit is without authority to bind, nay, that it calls for skilful revision\nin every part, is freely admitted. I do not believe it to be absolutely\nidentical with the true Traditional Text. Its existence, nevertheless, is\na fact from which there is no escaping. Happily, Western Christendom has\nbeen content to employ one and the same text for upwards of three hundred\nyears. If the objection be made, as it probably will be, \u201cDo you then mean\nto rest upon the five manuscripts used by Erasmus?\u201d I reply, that the\ncopies employed were selected because they were known to represent with\naccuracy the Sacred Word; that the descent of the text was evidently\nguarded with jealous care, just as the human genealogy of our Lord was\npreserved; that it rests mainly upon much the widest testimony; and that\nwhere any part of it conflicts with the fullest evidence attainable, there\nI believe that it calls for correction.\n\nThe question therefore which presents itself, and must needs be answered\nin the affirmative before a single syllable of the actual text is\ndisplaced, will always be one and the same, viz. this: Is it certain that\nthe evidence in favour of the proposed new reading is sufficient to\nwarrant the innovation? For I trust we shall all be agreed that in the\nabsence of an affirmative answer to this question, the text may on no\naccount be disturbed. Rightly or wrongly it has had the approval of\nWestern Christendom for three centuries, and is at this hour in possession\nof the field. Therefore the business before us might be stated somewhat as\nfollows: What considerations ought to determine our acceptance of any\nreading not found in the Received Text, or, to state it more generally and\nfundamentally, our preference of one reading before another? For until\nsome sort of understanding has been arrived at on this head, progress is\nimpossible. There can be no Science of Textual Criticism, I repeat\u2014and\ntherefore no security for the inspired Word\u2014so long as the subjective\njudgement, which may easily degenerate into individual caprice, is allowed\never to determine which readings shall be rejected, which retained.\n\nIn the next chapter I shall discuss the principles which must form the\ngroundwork of the Science. Meanwhile a few words are necessary to explain\nthe issue lying between myself and those critics with whom I am unable to\nagree. I must, if I can, come to some understanding with them; and I shall\nuse all clearness of speech in order that my meaning and my position may\nbe thoroughly apprehended.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 5.\n\n\nStrange as it may appear, it is undeniably true, that the whole of the\ncontroversy may be reduced to the following narrow issue: Does the truth\nof the Text of Scripture dwell with the vast multitude of copies, uncial\nand cursive, concerning which nothing is more remarkable than the\nmarvellous agreement which subsists between them? Or is it rather to be\nsupposed that the truth abides exclusively with a very little handful of\nmanuscripts, which at once differ from the great bulk of the witnesses,\nand\u2014strange to say\u2014also amongst themselves?\n\nThe advocates of the Traditional Text urge that the Consent without\nConcert of so many hundreds of copies, executed by different persons, at\ndiverse times, in widely sundered regions of the Church, is a presumptive\nproof of their trustworthiness, which nothing can invalidate but some sort\nof demonstration that they are untrustworthy guides after all.\n\nThe advocates of the old uncials\u2014for it is the text exhibited by one or\nmore of five Uncial Codexes known as AB\u05d0CD which is set up with so much\nconfidence\u2014are observed to claim that the truth must needs reside\nexclusively with the objects of their choice. They seem to base their\nclaim on \u201cantiquity\u201d; but the real confidence of many of them lies\nevidently in a claim to subtle divination, which enables them to recognize\na true reading or the true text when they see it. Strange, that it does\nnot seem to have struck such critics that they assume the very thing which\nhas to be proved. Be this as it may, as a matter of fact, readings\nexclusively found in Cod. B, or Cod. \u05d0, or Cod. D are sometimes adopted as\ncorrect. Neither Cod. A nor Cod. C are ever known to inspire similar\nconfidence. But the accession of both or either as a witness is always\nacceptable. Now it is remarkable that all the five Codexes just mentioned\nare never found, unless I am mistaken, exclusively in accord.\n\nThis question will be more fully discussed in the following treatise. Here\nit is only necessary further to insist upon the fact that, generally\nspeaking, compromise upon these issues is impossible. Most people in these\ndays are inclined to remark about any controversy that the truth resides\nbetween the two combatants, and most of us would like to meet our\nopponents half-way. The present contention unfortunately does not admit of\nsuch a decision. Real acquaintance with the numerous points at stake must\nreveal the impossibility of effecting a settlement like that. It depends,\nnot upon the attitude, or the temper, or the intellects of the opposing\nparties: but upon the stern and incongruous elements of the subject-matter\nof the struggle. Much as we may regret it, there is positively no other\nsolution.\n\nIndeed there exist but two rival schools of Textual Criticism. And these\nare irreconcilably opposed. In the end, one of them will have to give way:\nand, _vae victis!_ unconditional surrender will be its only resource. When\none has been admitted to be the right, there can no place be found for the\nother. It will have to be dismissed from attention as a thing utterly,\nhopelessly in the wrong(15).\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER II. PRINCIPLES.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 1.\n\n\nThe object of Textual Criticism, when applied to the Scriptures of the New\nTestament, is to determine what the Apostles and Evangelists of Christ\nactually wrote\u2014the precise words they employed, and the very order of\nthem. It is therefore one of the most important subjects which can be\nproposed for examination; and unless handled unskilfully, ought to prove\nby no means wanting in living interest. Moreover, it clearly takes\nprecedence, in synthetical order of thought, of every other department of\nSacred Science, so far as that rests upon the great pillar of Holy\nScripture.\n\nNow Textual Criticism occupies itself chiefly with two distinct branches\nof inquiry. (1) Its first object is to collect, investigate, and arrange\nthe evidence supplied by Manuscripts, Versions, Fathers. And this is an\ninglorious task, which demands prodigious labour, severe accuracy,\nunflagging attention, and can never be successfully conducted without a\nconsiderable amount of solid learning. (2) Its second object is to draw\ncritical inferences; in other words, to discover the truth of the text\u2014the\ngenuine words of Holy Writ. And this is altogether a loftier function, and\ncalls for the exercise of far higher gifts. Nothing can be successfully\naccomplished here without large and exact knowledge, freedom from bias and\nprejudice. Above all, there must be a clear and judicial understanding.\nThe logical faculty in perfection must energize continually: or the result\ncan only be mistakes, which may easily prove calamitous.\n\nMy next step is to declare what has been hitherto effected in either of\nthese departments, and to characterize the results. In the first-named\nbranch of the subject, till recently very little has been attempted: but\nthat little has been exceedingly well done. Many more results have been\nadded in the last thirteen years: a vast amount of additional evidence has\nbeen discovered, but only a small portion of it has been thoroughly\nexamined and collated. In the latter branch, a great deal has been\nattempted: but the result proves to be full of disappointment to those who\naugured much from it. The critics of this century have been in too great a\nhurry. They have rushed to conclusions, trusting to the evidence which was\nalready in their hands, forgetting that only those conclusions can be\nscientifically sound which are drawn from all the materials that exist.\nResearch of a wider kind ought to have preceded decision. Let me explain\nand establish what I have been saying.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 2.\n\n\nIt was only to have been anticipated that the Author of the Everlasting\nGospel\u2014that masterpiece of Divine Wisdom, that miracle of superhuman\nskill\u2014would shew Himself supremely careful for the protection and\npreservation of His own chiefest work. Every fresh discovery of the beauty\nand preciousness of the Deposit in its essential structure does but serve\nto deepen the conviction that a marvellous provision must needs have been\nmade in God\u2019s eternal counsels for the effectual conservation of the\ninspired Text.\n\nYet it is not too much to assert that nothing which man\u2019s inventive skill\ncould have devised nearly comes up to the actual truth of the matter. Let\nus take a slight but comprehensive view of what is found upon\ninvestigation, as I hold, to have been the Divine method in respect of the\nNew Testament Scriptures.\n\nI. From the very necessity of the case, copies of the Gospels and Epistles\nin the original Greek were multiplied to an extraordinary extent all down\nthe ages and in every part of the Christian Church. The result has been\nthat, although all the earliest have perished, there remains to this day a\nprodigious number of such transcripts; some of them of very high\nantiquity. On examining these with care, we discover that they must needs\nhave been (_a_) produced in different countries, (_b_) executed at\nintervals during the space of one thousand years, (_c_) copied from\noriginals no longer in existence. And thus a body of evidence has been\naccumulated as to what is the actual text of Scripture, such as is wholly\nunapproachable with respect to any other writings in the world(16). More\nthan two thousand manuscript copies are now (1888) known to exist(17).\n\nIt should be added that the practice of reading Scripture aloud before the\ncongregation\u2014a practice which is observed to have prevailed from the\nApostolic age\u2014has resulted in the increased security of the Deposit: for\n(1) it has led to the multiplication, by authority, of books containing\nthe Church Lessons; and (2) it has secured a living witness to the\n_ipsissima verba_ of the Spirit\u2014in all the Churches of Christendom. The\near once thoroughly familiarized with the words of Scripture is observed\nto resent the slightest departure from the established type. As for its\ntolerating important changes, that is plainly out of the question.\n\nII. Next, as the Gospel spread from land to land, it became translated\ninto the several languages of the ancient world. For, though Greek was\nwidely understood, the commerce and the intellectual predominance of the\nGreeks, and the conquests of Alexander having caused it to be spoken\nnearly all over the Roman Empire, Syriac and Latin Versions were also\nrequired for ordinary reading, probably even in the very age of the\nApostles. And thus those three languages in which \u201cthe title of His\naccusation\u201d was written above His cross\u2014not to insist upon any absolute\nidentity between the Syriac of the time with the then \u201cHebrew\u201d of\nJerusalem\u2014became from the earliest time the depositaries of the Gospel of\nthe World\u2019s Redeemer. Syriac was closely related to the vernacular Aramaic\nof Palestine and was spoken in the adjoining region: whilst Latin was the\nfamiliar idiom of all the Churches of the West.\n\nThus from the first in their public assemblies, orientals and occidentals\nalike habitually read aloud the writings of the Evangelists and Apostles.\nBefore the fourth and fifth centuries the Gospel had been further\ntranslated into the peculiar idioms of Lower and Upper Egypt, in what are\nnow called the Bohairic and the Sahidic Versions,\u2014of Ethiopia and of\nArmenia,\u2014of Gothland. The text thus embalmed in so many fresh languages\nwas clearly, to a great extent, protected against the risk of further\nchange; and these several translations remain to this day as witnesses of\nwhat was found in copies of the New Testament which have long since\nperished.\n\nIII. But the most singular provision for preserving the memory of what was\nanciently read as inspired Scriptures remains to be described. Sacred\nScience boasts of a literature without a parallel in any other department\nof human knowledge. The Fathers of the Church, the Bishops and Doctors of\nprimitive Christendom, were in some instances voluminous writers, whose\nworks have largely come down to our times. These men often comment upon,\nfreely quote, habitually refer to, the words of Inspiration: whereby it\ncomes to pass that a host of unsuspected witnesses to the truth of\nScripture are sometimes producible. The quotations of passages by the\nFathers are proofs of the readings which they found in the copies used by\nthem. They thus testify in ordinary quotations, though it be at second\nhand: and sometimes their testimony has more than usual value when they\nargue or comment upon the passage in question. Indeed, very often the\nmanuscripts in their hands, which so far live in their quotations, are\nolder\u2014perhaps centuries older\u2014than any copies that now survive. In this\nway, it will be perceived that a three-fold security has been provided for\nthe integrity of the Deposit:\u2014Copies,\u2014Versions,\u2014Fathers. On the relation\nof each of which heads to one another something particular has now to be\ndelivered.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 3.\n\n\nManuscript copies are commonly divided into Uncial, i.e. those which are\nwritten in capital letters, and Cursive or \u201cminuscule,\u201d i.e. those which\nare written in \u201crunning\u201d or small hand. This division though convenient is\nmisleading. The earliest of the \u201cCursives\u201d are more ancient than the\nlatest of the \u201cUncials\u201d by full one hundred years(18). The later body of\nthe Uncials belongs virtually, as will be proved, to the body of the\nCursives. There is no merit, so to speak, in a MS. being written in the\nuncial character. The number of the Uncials is largely inferior to that of\nthe Cursives, though they usually boast a much higher antiquity. It will\nbe shewn in a subsequent chapter that there is now, in the face of recent\ndiscoveries of Papyrus MSS. in Egypt, much reason for inferring that\nCursive MSS. were largely derived from MSS. on Papyrus, just as the\nUncials themselves were, and that the prevalence for some centuries of\nUncials took its rise from the local library of Caesarea. For a full\naccount of these several Codexes, and for many other particulars in Sacred\nTextual Criticism, the reader is referred to Scrivener\u2019s Introduction,\n1894.\n\nNow it is not so much an exaggerated, as an utterly mistaken estimate of\nthe importance of the Textual decrees of the five oldest of these Uncial\ncopies, which lies at the root of most of the criticism of the last fifty\nyears. We are constrained in consequence to bestow what will appear to\nsome a disproportionate amount of attention on those five Codexes: viz.\nthe Vatican Codex B, and the Sinaitic Codex \u05d0, which are supposed to be\nboth of the fourth century: the Alexandrian Codex A, and the fragmentary\nParisian Codex C, which are assigned to the fifth: and lastly D, the Codex\nBezae at Cambridge, which is supposed to have been written in the sixth.\nTo these may now be added, as far as St. Matthew and St. Mark are\nconcerned, the Codex Beratinus \u03a6, and the Rossanensian Codex \u03a3, both of\nwhich are of the early part of the sixth century or end of the fifth. But\nthese two witness generally against the two oldest, and have not yet\nreceived as much attention as they deserve. It will be found in the end\nthat we have been guilty of no exaggeration in characterizing B, \u05d0, and D\nat the outset, as three of the most corrupt copies in existence. Let not\nany one suppose that the age of these five MSS. places them upon a\npedestal higher than all others. They can be proved to be wrong time after\ntime by evidence of an earlier period than that which they can boast.\n\nIndeed, that copies of Scripture, as a class, are the most important\ninstruments of Textual Criticism is what no competent person will be found\nto deny. The chief reasons of this are their continuous text, their\ndesigned embodiment of the written Word, their number, and their variety.\nBut we make also such great account of MSS., because (1) they supply\nunbroken evidence to the text of Scripture from an early date throughout\nhistory until the invention of printing; (2) they are observed to be\ndotted over every century of the Church after the first three; (3) they\nare the united product of all the patriarchates in Christendom. There can\nhave been no collusion therefore in the preparation of this class of\nauthorities. The risk of erroneous transcription has been reduced to the\nlowest possible amount. The prevalence of fraud to a universal extent is\nsimply a thing impossible. Conjectural corrections of the text are pretty\nsure, in the long run, to have become effectually excluded. On the\ncontrary, the testimony of Fathers is fragmentary, undesigned, though\noften on that account the more valuable, and indeed, as has been already\nsaid, is often not to be found; yet occasionally it is very precious,\nwhether from eminent antiquity or the clearness of their verdict: while\nVersions, though on larger details they yield a most valuable collateral\nevidence, yet from their nature are incapable of rendering help upon many\nimportant points of detail. Indeed, in respect of the _ipsissima verba_ of\nScripture, the evidence of Versions in other languages must be precarious\nin a high degree.\n\nUndeniable it is, that as far as regards Primitiveness, certain of the\nVersions, and not a few of the Fathers, throw Manuscripts altogether in\nthe shade. We possess no actual copies of the New Testament so old as the\nSyriac and the Latin Versions by probably more than two hundred years.\nSomething similar is perhaps to be said of the Versions made into the\nlanguages of Lower and Upper Egypt, which may be of the third century(19).\nReasonable also it is to assume that in no instance was an ancient Version\nexecuted from a single Greek exemplar: consequently, Versions enjoyed both\nin their origin and in their acceptance more publicity than of necessity\nattached to any individual copy. And it is undeniable that on countless\noccasions the evidence of a translation, on account of the clearness of\nits testimony, is every bit as satisfactory as that of an actual copy of\nthe Greek.\n\nBut I would especially remind my readers of Bentley\u2019s golden precept, that\n\u201cThe real text of the sacred writers does not now, since the originals\nhave been so long lost, lie in any MS. or edition, but is dispersed in\nthem all.\u201d This truth, which was evident to the powerful intellect of that\ngreat scholar, lies at the root of all sound Textual Criticism. To abide\nby the verdict of the two, or five, or seven oldest Manuscripts, is at\nfirst sight plausible, and is the natural refuge of students who are\neither superficial, or who wish to make their task as easy and simple as\npossible. But to put aside inconvenient witnesses is contrary to all\nprinciples of justice and of science. The problem is more complex, and is\nnot to be solved so readily. Evidence of a strong and varied character may\nnot with safety be cast away, as if it were worthless.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 4.\n\n\nWe are constrained therefore to proceed to the consideration of the vast\nmass of testimony which lies ready to our hands. And we must just as\nevidently seek for principles to guide us in the employment of it. For it\nis the absence of any true chart of the ocean that has led people to steer\nto any barren island, which under a guise of superior antiquity might at\nfirst sight present the delusive appearance of being the only safe and\nsure harbour.\n\n1. We are all, I trust, agreed at least in this,\u2014That the thing which we\nare always in search of is the Text of Scripture as it actually proceeded\nfrom the inspired writers themselves. It is never, I mean, \u201cancient\nreadings\u201d which we propose as the ultimate object of our inquiries. It is\nalways the oldest Reading of all which we desire to ascertain; in other\nwords, the original Text, nothing else or less than the very words of the\nholy Evangelists and Apostles themselves.\n\nAnd axiomatic as this is, it requires to be clearly laid down. For\nsometimes critics appear to be engrossed with the one solicitude to\nestablish concerning the readings for which they contend, that at least\nthey must needs be very ancient. Now, since all readings must needs be\nvery ancient which are found in very ancient documents, nothing has really\nbeen achieved by proving that such and such readings existed in the second\ncentury of our era:\u2014unless it can also be proved that there are certain\nother attendant circumstances attaching to those readings, which\nconstitute a fair presumption, that they must needs be regarded as the\nonly genuine wording of the passage in question. The Holy Scriptures are\nnot an arena for the exercise or display of the ingenuity of critics.\n\n2. I trust it may further be laid down as a fundamental principle that of\ntwo possible ways of reading the Text, that way which is found on\nexamination to be the better attested and authenticated\u2014by which I mean,\nthe reading which proves on inquiry to be supported by the better\nevidence\u2014must in every instance be of necessity presumed to be the actual\nreading, and is to be accepted accordingly by all students.\n\n3. I will venture to make only one more postulate, viz. this: That\nhitherto we have become acquainted with no single authority which is\nentitled to dictate absolutely on all occasions, or even on any one\noccasion, as to what shall or shall not be regarded as the true Text of\nScripture. We have here no one infallible witness, I say, whose solitary\ndictum is competent to settle controversies. The problem now to be\ninvestigated, viz. what evidence is to be held to be \u201cthe best,\u201d may\ndoubtless be stated in many ways: but I suppose not more fairly than by\nproposing the following question,\u2014Can any rules be offered whereby in any\ncase of conflicting testimony it may be certainly ascertained which\nauthorities ought to be followed? The court is full of witnesses who\ncontradict one another. How are we to know which of them to believe?\nStrange to say, the witnesses are commonly, indeed almost invariably,\nobserved to divide themselves into two camps. Are there no rules\ndiscoverable by which it may be probably determined with which camp of the\ntwo the truth resides?\n\nI proceed to offer for the reader\u2019s consideration seven Tests of Truth,\nconcerning each of which I shall have something to say in the way of\nexplanation by-and-by. In the end I shall ask the reader to allow that\nwhere these seven tests are found to conspire, we may confidently assume\nthat the evidence is worthy of all acceptance, and is to be implicitly\nfollowed. A reading should be attested then by the seven following.\n\n\n    NOTES OF TRUTH.\n\n    1. Antiquity, or Primitiveness;\n    2. Consent of Witnesses, or Number;\n    3. Variety of Evidence, or Catholicity;\n    4. Respectability of Witnesses, or Weight;\n    5. Continuity, or Unbroken Tradition;\n    6. Evidence of the Entire Passage, or Context;\n    7. Internal Considerations, or Reasonableness.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 5.\n\n\nThe full consideration of these Tests of Truth must be postponed to the\nnext chapter. Meanwhile, three discussions of a more general character\ndemand immediate attention.\n\nI. Antiquity, in and by itself, will be found to avail nothing. A reading\nis to be adopted not because it is old, but because it is the best\nattested, and therefore the oldest. There may seem to be paradox on my\npart: but there is none. I have admitted, and indeed insist upon it, that\nthe oldest reading of all is the very thing we are in search of: for that\nmust of necessity be what proceeded from the pen of the sacred writer\nhimself. But, as a rule, fifty years, more or less, must be assumed to\nhave intervened between the production of the inspired autographs and the\nearliest written representation of them now extant. And precisely in that\nfirst age it was that men evinced themselves least careful or accurate in\nguarding the Deposit,\u2014least critically exact in their way of quoting\nit;\u2014whilst the enemy was most restless, most assiduous in procuring its\ndepravation. Strange as it may sound,\u2014distressing as the discovery must\nneeds prove when it is first distinctly realized,\u2014the earliest shreds and\nscraps\u2014for they are at first no more\u2014that come into our hands as\nquotations of the text of the New Testament Scriptures are not only\ndisappointing by reason of their inexactness, their fragmentary character,\ntheir vagueness; but they are often demonstrably inaccurate. I proceed to\ngive one example out of many.\n\n\u201cMy God, My God, wherefore hast thou forsaken me?\u201d \u03bc\u1f72 \u1f10\u03b3\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03ad\u03bb\u03b9\u03c0\u03b5\u03c2; So it\nis in St. Matt. xxvii. 46: so in St. Mark xv. 34. But because, in the\nlatter place, \u05d0B, one Old Latin, the Vulgate, and the Bohairic Versions,\nbesides Eusebius, followed by L and a few cursives, reverse the order of\nthe last two words, the editors are unanimous in doing the same thing.\nThey have yet older authority, however, for what they do. Justin M. (A.D.\n164) and the Valentinians (A.D. 150) are with them. As far therefore as\nantiquity goes, the evidence for reading \u1f10\u03b3\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03ad\u03bb\u03b9\u03c0\u03ad\u03c2 \u03bc\u03b5 is really wondrous\nstrong.\n\nAnd yet the evidence on the other side, when it is considered, is\nperceived to be overwhelming(20). Add the discovery that \u1f10\u03b3\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03ad\u03bb\u03b9\u03c0\u03ad\u03c2 \u03bc\u03b5 is\nthe established reading of the familiar Septuagint, and we have no\nhesitation whatever in retaining the commonly Received Text, because the\nsecret is out. \u05d0B were sure to follow the Septuagint, which was so dear to\nOrigen. Further discussion of the point is superfluous.\n\nI shall of course be asked,\u2014Are we then to understand that you condemn the\nwhole body of ancient authorities as untrustworthy? And if you do, to what\nother authorities would you have us resort?\n\nI answer:\u2014So far from regarding the whole body of ancient authorities as\nuntrustworthy, it is precisely \u201cthe whole body of ancient authorities\u201d to\nwhich I insist that we must invariably make our appeal, and to which we\nmust eventually defer. I regard them therefore with more than reverence. I\nsubmit to their decision unreservedly. Doubtless I refuse to regard any\none of those same most ancient manuscripts\u2014or even any two or three of\nthem\u2014as oracular. But why? Because I am able to demonstrate that every one\nof them singly is in a high degree corrupt, and is condemned upon evidence\nolder than itself. To pin my faith therefore to one, two, or three of\nthose eccentric exemplars, were indeed to insinuate that the whole body of\nancient authorities is unworthy of credit.\n\nIt is to Antiquity, I repeat, that I make my appeal: and further, I insist\nthat the ascertained verdict of Antiquity shall be accepted. But then,\ninasmuch as by \u201cAntiquity\u201d I do not even mean any one single ancient\nauthority, however ancient, to the exclusion of, and in preference to, all\nthe rest, but the whole collective body, it is precisely \u201cthe body of\nancient authorities\u201d which I propose as the arbiters. Thus, I do not mean\nby \u201cAntiquity\u201d either (1) the Peshitto Syriac: or (2) Cureton\u2019s Syriac: or\n(3) the Old Latin Versions: or (4) the Vulgate: or (5) the Egyptian, or\nindeed (6) any other of the ancient Versions:\u2014not (7) Origen, nor (8)\nEusebius, nor (9) Chrysostom, nor (10) Cyril,\u2014nor indeed (11) any other\nancient Father standing alone: neither (12) Cod. A,\u2014nor (13) Cod. B,\u2014nor\n(14) Cod. C,\u2014nor (15) Cod. D,\u2014nor (16) Cod. \u05d0,\u2014nor in fact (17) any other\nindividual Codex that can be named. I should as soon think of confounding\nthe cathedral hard by with one or two of the stones which compose it. By\nAntiquity I understand the whole body of documents which convey to me the\nmind of Antiquity,\u2014transport me back to the primitive age, and acquaint\nme, as far as is now possible, with what was its verdict.\n\nAnd by parity of reasoning, I altogether decline to accept as decisive the\nverdict of any two or three of these in defiance of the ascertained\nauthority of all, or a majority of the rest.\n\nIn short, I decline to accept a fragment of Antiquity, arbitrarily broken\noff, in lieu of the entire mass of ancient witnesses. And further than\nthis, I recognize other Notes of Truth, as I have stated already; and I\nshall prove this position in my next chapter.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 6.\n\n\nII. The term \u201cvarious readings\u201d conveys an entirely incorrect impression\nof the grave discrepancies discoverable between a little handful of\ndocuments\u2014of which Codexes B-\u05d0 of the fourth century, D of the sixth, L of\nthe eighth, are the most conspicuous samples\u2014and the Traditional Text of\nthe New Testament. The expression \u201cvarious readings\u201d belongs to secular\nliterature and refers to phenomena essentially different from those\nexhibited by the copies just mentioned. Not but what \u201cvarious readings,\u201d\nproperly so called, are as plentiful in sacred as in profane codexes. One\nhas but to inspect Scrivener\u2019s Full and Exact Collation of about Twenty\nGreek Manuscripts of the Gospels (1853) to be convinced of the fact. But\nwhen we study the New Testament by the light of such Codexes as B\u05d0DL, we\nfind ourselves in an entirely new region of experience; confronted by\nphenomena not only unique but even portentous. The text has undergone\napparently an habitual, if not systematic, depravation; has been\nmanipulated throughout in a wild way. Influences have been demonstrably at\nwork which altogether perplex the judgement. The result is simply\ncalamitous. There are evidences of persistent mutilation, not only of\nwords and clauses, but of entire sentences. The substitution of one\nexpression for another, and the arbitrary transposition of words, are\nphenomena of such perpetual occurrence, that it becomes evident at last\nthat what lies before us is not so much an ancient copy, as an ancient\nrecension of the Sacred Text. And yet not by any means a recension in the\nusual sense of the word as an authoritative revision: but only as the name\nmay be applied to the product of individual inaccuracy or caprice, or\ntasteless assiduity on the part of one or many, at a particular time or in\na long series of years. There are reasons for inferring, that we have\nalighted on five specimens of what the misguided piety of a primitive age\nis known to have been fruitful in producing. Of fraud, strictly speaking,\nthere may have been little or none. We should shrink from imputing an evil\nmotive where any matter will bear an honourable interpretation. But, as\nwill be seen later on, these Codexes abound with so much licentiousness or\ncarelessness as to suggest the inference, that they are in fact indebted\nfor their preservation to their hopeless character. Thus it would appear\nthat an evil reputation ensured their neglect in ancient times; and has\nprocured that they should survive to our own, long after multitudes which\nwere much better had perished in the Master\u2019s service. Let men think of\nthis matter as they will,\u2014whatever in fact may prove to be the history of\nthat peculiar Text which finds its chief exponents in Codd. B\u05d0DL, in some\ncopies of the Old Latin, and in the Curetonian Version, in Origen, and to\na lesser extent in the Bohairic and Sahidic Translations,\u2014all must admit,\nas a matter of fact, that it differs essentially from the Traditional\nText, and is no mere variation of it.\n\nBut why, it will be asked, may it not be the genuine article? Why may not\nthe \u201cTraditional Text\u201d be the fabrication?\n\n1. The burden of proof, we reply, rests with our opponents. The consent\nwithout concert of (suppose) 990 out of 1000 copies,\u2014of every date from\nthe fifth to the fourteenth century, and belonging to every region of\nancient Christendom,\u2014is a colossal fact not to be set aside by any amount\nof ingenuity. A predilection for two fourth-century manuscripts closely\nresembling one another, yet standing apart in every page so seriously that\nit is easier to find two consecutive verses in which they differ than two\nconsecutive verses in which they entirely agree:\u2014such a preference, I say,\napart from abundant or even definitely clear proof that it is well\nfounded, is surely not entitled to be accepted as conclusive.\n\n2. Next,\u2014Because,\u2014although for convenience we have hitherto spoken of\nCodexes B\u05d0DL as exhibiting a single text,\u2014it is in reality not one text\nbut fragments of many, which are to be met with in the little handful of\nauthorities enumerated above. Their witness does not agree together. The\nTraditional Text, on the contrary, is unmistakably one.\n\n3. Further,\u2014Because it is extremely improbable, if not impossible, that\nthe Traditional Text was or could have been derived from such a document\nas the archetype of B-\u05d0: whereas the converse operation is at once obvious\nand easy. There is no difficulty in producing a short text by omission of\nwords, or clauses, or verses, from a fuller text: but the fuller text\ncould not have been produced from the shorter by any development which\nwould be possible under the facts of the case(21). Glosses would account\nfor changes in the archetype of B-\u05d0, but not conversely(22).\n\n4. But the chief reason is,\u2014Because, on making our appeal unreservedly to\nAntiquity\u2014to Versions and Fathers as well as copies,\u2014the result is\nunequivocal. The Traditional Text becomes triumphantly established,\u2014the\neccentricities of B\u05d0D and their colleagues become one and all emphatically\ncondemned.\n\nAll these, in the mean time, are points concerning which something has\nbeen said already, and more will have to be said in the sequel. Returning\nnow to the phenomenon adverted to at the outset, we desire to explain that\nwhereas \u201cVarious Readings,\u201d properly so called, that is to say, the\nReadings which possess really strong attestation\u2014for more than\nnineteen-twentieths of the \u201cVarious Readings\u201d commonly quoted are only the\nvagaries of scribes, and ought not to be called \u201cReadings\u201d at all\u2014do not\nrequire classification into groups, as Griesbach and Hort have classified\nthem; \u201cCorrupt Readings,\u201d if they are to be intelligently handled, must by\nall means be distributed under distinct heads, as will be done in the\nSecond Part of this work.\n\nIII. \u201cIt is not at all our design\u201d (remarks Dr. Scrivener) \u201cto seek our\nreadings from the later uncials, supported as they usually are by the mass\nof cursive manuscripts; but to employ their confessedly secondary evidence\nin those numberless instances wherein their elder brethren are hopelessly\nat variance(23).\u201d From which it is plain that in this excellent writer\u2019s\nopinion, the truth of Scripture is to be sought in the first instance at\nthe hands of the older uncials: that only when these yield conflicting\ntestimony may we resort to the \u201cconfessedly secondary evidence\u201d of the\nlater uncials: and that only so may we proceed to inquire for the\ntestimony of the great mass of the cursive copies. It is not difficult to\nforesee what would be the result of such a method of procedure.\n\nI venture therefore respectfully but firmly to demur to the spirit of my\nlearned friend\u2019s remarks on the present, and on many similar occasions.\nHis language is calculated to countenance the popular belief (1) That the\nauthority of an uncial codex, because it is an uncial, is necessarily\ngreater than that of a codex written in the cursive character: an\nimagination which upon proof I hold to be groundless. Between the text of\nthe later uncials and the text of the cursive copies, I fail to detect any\nseparative difference: certainly no such difference as would induce me to\nassign the palm to the former. It will be shewn later on in this treatise,\nthat it is a pure assumption to take for granted, or to infer, that\ncursive copies were all descended from the uncials. New discoveries in\npalaeography have ruled that error to be out of court.\n\nBut (2) especially do I demur to the popular notion, to which I regret to\nfind that Dr. Scrivener lends his powerful sanction, that the text of\nScripture is to be sought in the first instance in the oldest of the\nuncials. I venture to express my astonishment that so learned and\nthoughtful a man should not have seen that before certain \u201celder brethren\u201d\nare erected into a supreme court of judicature, some other token of\nfitness besides that of age must be produced on their behalf. Whence, I\ncan but ask\u2014, whence is it that no one has yet been at the pains to\nestablish the contradictory of the following proposition, viz. that\nCodexes B\u05d0CD are the several depositaries of a fabricated and depraved\ntext: and that B\u05d0D, for C is a palimpsest, i.e., has had the works of\nEphraem the Syrian written over it as if it were of no use, are probably\nindebted for their very preservation solely to the fact that they were\nanciently recognized as untrustworthy documents? Do men indeed find it\nimpossible to realize the notion that there must have existed such things\nas refuse copies in the fourth, fifth, sixth, and seventh centuries as\nwell as in the eighth, ninth, tenth, and eleventh? and that the Codexes\nwhich we call B\u05d0CD may possibly, if not as I hold probably, have been of\nthat class(24)?\n\nNow I submit that it is a sufficient condemnation of Codd. B\u05d0CD as a\nsupreme court of judicature (1) That as a rule they are observed to be\ndiscordant in their judgements: (2) That when they thus differ among\nthemselves it is generally demonstrable by an appeal to antiquity that the\ntwo principal judges B and \u05d0 have delivered a mistaken judgement: (3) That\nwhen these two differ one from the other, the supreme judge B is often in\nthe wrong: and lastly (4) That it constantly happens that all four agree,\nand yet all four are in error.\n\nDoes any one then inquire,\u2014But why at all events may not resort be had in\nthe first instance to Codd. B\u05d0ACD?\u2014I answer,\u2014Because the inquiry is apt to\nprejudice the question, pretty sure to mislead the judgement, only too\nlikely to narrow the issue and render the Truth hopelessly difficult of\nattainment. For every reason, I am inclined to propose the directly\nopposite method of procedure, as at once the safer and the more reasonable\nmethod. When I learn that doubt exists, as to the reading of any\nparticular place, instead of inquiring what amount of discord on the\nsubject exists between Codexes AB\u05d0CD (for the chances are that they will\nbe all at loggerheads among themselves), I inquire for the verdict as it\nis given by the main body of the copies. This is generally unequivocal.\nBut if (which seldom happens) I find this a doubtful question, then indeed\nI begin to examine the separate witnesses. Yet even then it helps me\nlittle, or rather it helps me nothing, to find, as I commonly do, that A\nis on one side and B on the other,\u2014except by the way that wherever \u05d0B are\nseen together, or when D stands apart with only a few allies, the inferior\nreading is pretty sure to be found there also.\n\nSuppose however (as commonly happens) there is no serious division,\u2014of\ncourse, significance does not attach itself to any handful of eccentric\ncopies,\u2014but that there is a practical unanimity among the cursives and\nlater uncials: I cannot see that a veto can rest with such unstable and\ndiscordant authorities, however much they may singly add to the weight of\nthe vote already tendered. It is as a hundred to one that the uncial or\nuncials which are with the main body of the cursives are right, because\n(as will be shown) in their consentience they embody the virtual decision\nof the whole Church; and that the dissentients\u2014be they few or many\u2014are\nwrong. I inquire however,\u2014What say the Versions? and last but not\nleast,\u2014What say the Fathers?\n\nThe essential error in the proceeding I object to is best illustrated by\nan appeal to elementary facts. Only two of the \u201cfive old uncials\u201d are\ncomplete documents, B and \u05d0: and these being confessedly derived from one\nand the same exemplar, cannot be regarded as two. The rest of the \u201cold\nuncials\u201d are lamentably defective.\u2014From the Alexandrian Codex (A) the\nfirst twenty-four chapters of St. Matthew\u2019s Gospel are missing: that is,\nthe MS. lacks 870 verses out of 1,071. The same Codex is also without 126\nconsecutive verses of St. John\u2019s Gospel. More than one-fourth of the\ncontents of Cod. A are therefore lost(25).\u2014D is complete only in respect\nof St. Luke: wanting 119 verses of St. Matthew,\u20145 verses of St. Mark,\u2014166\nverses of St. John.\u2014On the other hand, Codex C is chiefly defective in\nrespect of St. Luke\u2019s and St. John\u2019s Gospel; from the former of which it\nomits 643 (out of 1,151) verses; from the latter, 513 (out of 880), or far\nmore than the half in either case. Codex C in fact can only be described\nas a collection of fragments: for it is also without 260 verses of St.\nMatthew, and without 116 of St. Mark.\n\nThe disastrous consequence of all this to the Textual Critic is manifest.\nHe is unable to compare \u201cthe five old uncials\u201d together except in respect\nof about one verse in three. Sometimes he finds himself reduced to the\ntestimony of A\u05d0B: for many pages together of St. John\u2019s Gospel, he is\nreduced to the testimony of \u05d0BD. Now, when the fatal and peculiar sympathy\nwhich subsists between these three documents is considered, it becomes\napparent that the Critic has in effect little more than two documents\nbefore him. And what is to be said when (as from St. Matt. vi. 20 to vii.\n4) he is reduced to the witness of two Codexes,\u2014and those, \u05d0B? Evident it\nis that whereas the Author of Scripture hath bountifully furnished His\nChurch with (speaking roughly) upwards of 2,300(26) copies of the Gospels,\nby a voluntary act of self-impoverishment, some Critics reduce themselves\nto the testimony of little more than one: and that one a witness whom many\njudges consider to be undeserving of confidence.\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER III. THE SEVEN NOTES OF TRUTH.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 1. Antiquity.\n\n\nThe more ancient testimony is probably the better testimony. That it is\nnot by any means always so is a familiar fact. To quote the known dictum\nof a competent judge: \u201cIt is no less true to fact than paradoxical in\nsound, that the worst corruptions to which the New Testament has ever been\nsubjected, originated within a hundred years after it was composed; that\nIrenaeus and the African Fathers and the whole Western, with a portion of\nthe Syriac Church, used far inferior manuscripts to those employed by\nStunica, or Erasmus, or Stephen, thirteen centuries after, when moulding\nthe Textus Receptus(27).\u201d Therefore Antiquity alone affords no security\nthat the manuscript in our hands is not infected with the corruption which\nsprang up largely in the first and second centuries. But it remains true,\nnotwithstanding, that until evidence has been produced to the contrary in\nany particular instance, the more ancient of two witnesses may reasonably\nbe presumed to be the better informed witness. Shew me for example that,\nwhereas a copy of the Gospels (suppose Cod. B) introduces the clause\n\u201cRaise the dead\u201d into our SAVIOUR\u2019S ministerial commission to His Apostles\n(St. Matt. x. 8),\u2014another Codex, but only of the fourteenth century\n(suppose Evan. 604 (Hoskier)), omits it;\u2014am I not bound to assume that our\nLORD did give this charge to His Apostles; did say to them, \u03bd\u03b5\u03ba\u03c1\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2\n\u1f10\u03b3\u03b5\u03af\u03c1\u03b5\u03c4\u03b5; and that the words in question have accidentally dropped out of\nthe sacred Text in that later copy? Show me besides that in three other of\nour oldest Codexes (\u05d0CD) the place in St. Matthew is exhibited in the same\nway as in Cod. B; and of what possible avail can it be that I should urge\nin reply that in three more MSS. of the thirteenth or fourteenth century\nthe text is exhibited in the same way as in Evan. 604?\n\nThere is of course a strong antecedent probability, that the testimony\nwhich comes nearest to the original autographs has more claim to be the\ntrue record than that which has been produced at a further distance from\nthem. It is most likely that the earlier is separated from the original by\nfewer links than the later:\u2014though we can affirm this with no absolute\ncertainty, because the present survival of Uncials of various dates of\nproduction shews that the existence of copies is measured by no span like\nthat of the life of men. Accordingly as a general rule, and a general rule\nonly, a single early Uncial possesses more authority than a single later\nUncial or Cursive, and a still earlier Version or Quotation by a Father\nmust be placed before the reading of the early Uncial.\n\nOnly let us clearly understand what principle is to guide us, in order\nthat we may know how we are to proceed. Is it to be assumed, for instance,\nthat Antiquity is to decide this matter? by which is meant only\nthis,\u2014That, of two or more conflicting readings, that shall be deemed the\ntrue reading which is observed to occur in the oldest known document. Is\nthat to be our fundamental principle? Are we, in other words, to put up\nwith the transparent fallacy that the oldest reading must of necessity be\nfound in the oldest document? Well, if we have made up our minds that such\nis to be our method, then let us proceed to construct our text chiefly by\nthe aid of the Old Latin and Peshitto Versions,\u2014the oldest authorities\nextant of a continuous text: and certainly, wherever these are observed to\nagree in respect of any given reading, let us hear nothing about the\nconflicting testimony of \u05d0 or B, which are of the fourth century; of D,\nwhich is of the sixth; of L, which is of the eighth.\n\nBut if our adversaries shift their ground, disliking to be \u201choist with\ntheir own petard,\u201d and if such a solution standing alone does not commend\nitself to our own taste, we must ask, What is meant by Antiquity?\n\nFor myself, if I must assign a definite period, I am disposed to say the\nfirst six or seven centuries of our era. But I observe that those who have\npreceded me in these inquiries draw the line at an earlier period.\nLachmann fixes A.D. 400: Tregelles (ever illogical) gives the beginning of\nthe seventh century: Westcott and Hort, before the close of the fourth\ncentury. In this absence of agreement, it is found to be both the safest\nand the wisest course to avoid drawing any hard and fast line, and in fact\nany line at all. Antiquity is a comparative term. What is ancient is not\nonly older than what is modern, but when constantly applied to the\ncontinuous lapse of ages includes considerations of what is more or less\nancient. Codex E is ancient compared with Codex L: Cod. A compared with\nCod. E: Cod. \u05d0 compared with Cod. A: Cod. B though in a much lesser degree\ncompared with Cod. \u05d0: the Old Latin and Peshitto Versions compared with\nCod. B: Clemens Romanus compared with either. If we had the copy of the\nGospels which belonged to Ignatius, I suppose we should by common consent\ninsist on following it almost implicitly. It certainly would be of\noverwhelming authority. Its decrees would be only not decisive. [This is,\nI think, too strong: there might be mistakes even in that.\u2014E. M.]\nTherefore by Antiquity as a principle involving more or less authority\nmust be meant the greater age of the earlier Copies, Versions, or Fathers.\nThat which is older will possess more authority than that which is more\nrecent: but age will not confer any exclusive, or indeed paramount, power\nof decision. Antiquity is one Note of Truth: but even if it is divorced\nfrom the arbitrary selection of Authorities which has regulated too much\nthe employment of it in Textual Criticism, it cannot be said to cover the\nwhole ground.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 2. Number.\n\n\nWe must proceed now to consider the other Notes, or Tests: and the next is\nNumber.\n\n1. That \u201cwitnesses are to be weighed\u2014not counted,\u201d\u2014is a maxim of which we\nhear constantly. It may be said to embody much fundamental fallacy.\n\n2. It assumes that the \u201cwitnesses\u201d we possess,\u2014meaning thereby every\nsingle Codex, Version, Father\u2014, (1) are capable of being weighed: and (2)\nthat every individual Critic is competent to weigh them: neither of which\npropositions is true.\n\n3. In the very form of the maxim,\u2014\u201c_Not_ to be counted\u2014_but_ to be\nweighed,\u201d\u2014the undeniable fact is overlooked that \u201cnumber\u201d is the most\nordinary ingredient of weight, and indeed in matters of human testimony,\nis an element which even cannot be cast away. Ask one of Her Majesty\u2019s\nJudges if it be not so. Ten witnesses (suppose) are called in to give\nevidence: of whom one resolutely contradicts what is solemnly deposed to\nby the other nine. Which of the two parties do we suppose the Judge will\nbe inclined to believe?\n\n4. But it may be urged\u2014would not the discovery of the one original\nautograph of the Gospels exceed in \u201cweight\u201d any \u201cnumber\u201d of copies which\ncan be named? No doubt it would, I answer. But only because it would be\nthe original document, and not \u201ca copy\u201d at all: not \u201ca witness\u201d to the\nfact, but the very fact itself. It would be as if in the midst of a\ntrial,\u2014turning, suppose, on the history of the will of some testator\u2014, the\ndead man himself were to step into Court, and proclaim what had actually\ntaken place. Yet the laws of Evidence would remain unchanged: and in the\nvery next trial which came on, if one or two witnesses out of as many\nhundred were to claim that their evidence should be held to outweigh that\nof all the rest, they would be required to establish the reasonableness of\ntheir claim to the satisfaction of the Judge: or they must submit to the\ninevitable consequence of being left in an inconsiderable minority.\n\n5. Number then constitutes Weight, or in other words,\u2014since I have used\n\u201cWeight\u201d here in a more general sense than usual,\u2014is a Note of Truth. Not\nof course absolutely, as being the sole Test, but _caeteris paribus_, and\nin its own place and proportion. And this, happily, our opponents freely\nadmit: so freely in fact, that my only wonder is that they do not discover\ntheir own inconsistency.\n\n6. But the axiom in question labours under the far graver defect of\ndisparaging the Divine method, under which in the multitude of evidence\npreserved all down the ages provision has been made as matter of hard\nfact, not by weight but by number, for the integrity of the Deposit. The\nprevalent use of the Holy Scriptures in the Church caused copies of them\nto abound everywhere. The demand enforced the supply. They were read in\nthe public Services of the Church. The constant quotation of them by\nEcclesiastical Writers from the first proves that they were a source to\nChristians of continual study, and that they were used as an ultimate\nappeal in the decision of knotty questions. They were cited copiously in\nSermons. They were employed in the conversion of the heathen, and as in\nthe case of St. Cyprian must have exercised a strong influence in bringing\npeople to believe.\n\nSuch an abundance of early copies must have ensured perforce the\nproduction of a resulting abundance of other copies made everywhere in\ncontinuous succession from them until the invention of printing.\nAccordingly, although countless numbers must have perished by age, use,\ndestruction in war, and by accident and other causes, nevertheless 63\nUncials, 737 Cursives, and 414 Lectionaries are known to survive of the\nGospels alone(28). Add the various Versions, and the mass of quotations by\nEcclesiastical Writers, and it will at once be evident what materials\nexist to constitute a Majority which shall outnumber by many times the\nMinority, and also that Number has been ordained to be a factor which\ncannot be left out of the calculation.\n\n7. Another circumstance however of much significance has yet to be stated.\nPractically the Axiom under consideration is discovered to be nothing else\nbut a plausible proposition of a general character intended to shelter the\nfollowing particular application of it:\u2014\u201cWe are able\u201d\u2014says Dr.\nTregelles\u2014\u201cto take the _few_ documents ... and safely discard ... the\n89/90 or whatever else their numerical proportion may be(29).\u201d Accordingly\nin his edition of the Gospels, the learned writer rejects the evidence of\nall the cursive Codexes extant but three. He is mainly followed by the\nrest of his school, including Westcott and Hort.\n\nNow again I ask,\u2014Is it likely, is it in any way credible, that we can be\nwarranted in rejecting the testimony of (suppose) 1490 ancient witnesses,\nin favour of the testimony borne by (suppose) ten? Granting freely that\ntwo of these ten are older by 50 or 100 years than any single MS. of the\n1490 I confidently repeat the question. The respective dates of the\nwitnesses before us may perhaps be thus stated. The ten MSS. so\nconfidently relied upon date as follows, speaking generally:\u2014\n\n\n    2 about A.D. 330-340.\n    1 about 550.\n    1 about 750.\n    6 (say) about 950 to A.D. 1350.\n\n\nThe 1490 MSS. which are constantly observed to bear consentient testimony\nagainst the ten, date somewhat thus:\u2014\n\n\n    1: A.D. 400.\n    1: 450.\n    2: 500.\n    16 (say): 650 to A.D. 850.\n    1470: 850 to A.D. 1350.\n\n\nAnd the question to which I invite the reader to render an answer is\nthis:\u2014By what process of reasoning, apart from an appeal to other\nauthorities, (which we are going to make by-and-by), can it be thought\ncredible that the few witnesses shall prove the trustworthy guides,\u2014and\nthe many witnesses the deceivers?\n\nNow those many MSS. were executed demonstrably at different times in\ndifferent countries. They bear signs in their many hundreds of\nrepresenting the entire area of the Church, except where versions were\nused instead of copies in the original Greek. Many of them were written in\nmonasteries where a special room was set aside for such copying. Those who\nwere in trust endeavoured with the utmost pains and jealousy to secure\naccuracy in the transcription. Copying was a sacred art. And yet, of\nmultitudes of them that survive, hardly any have been copied from any of\nthe rest. On the contrary, they are discovered to differ among themselves\nin countless unimportant particulars; and every here and there single\ncopies exhibit idiosyncrasies which are altogether startling and\nextraordinary. There has therefore demonstrably been no collusion\u2014no\nassimilation to an arbitrary standard,\u2014no wholesale fraud. It is certain\nthat every one of them represents a MS., or a pedigree of MSS., older than\nitself; and it is but fair to suppose that it exercises such\nrepresentation with tolerable accuracy. It can often be proved, when any\nof them exhibit marked extravagancy, that such extravagancy dates back as\nfar as the second or third century. I venture to think\u2014and shall assume\nuntil I find that I am mistaken\u2014that, besides the Uncials, all the cursive\ncopies in existence represent lost Codexes of great antiquity with at\nleast the same general fidelity as Ev. 1, 33, 69, which enjoy so much\nfavour in some quarters only because they represent lost MSS. demonstrably\nof the same general type as Codd. \u05d0BD(30).\n\nIt will be seen that the proofs in favour of Number being a recognized and\npowerful Note of Truth are so strong, that nothing but the interests of an\nabsorbing argument can prevent the acknowledgement of this position. It is\ndoubtless inconvenient to find some 1490 witnesses contravening some ten,\nor if you will, twenty favourites: but Truth is imperative and knows\nnothing of the inconvenience or convenience of Critics.\n\n8. When therefore the great bulk of the witnesses,\u2014in the proportion\nsuppose of a hundred or even fifty to one,\u2014yield unfaltering testimony to\na certain reading; and the remaining little handful of authorities, while\nadvocating a different reading, are yet observed to be unable to agree\namong themselves as to what that different reading shall precisely\nbe,\u2014then that other reading concerning which all that discrepancy of\ndetail is observed to exist, may be regarded as certainly false.\n\nI will now give an instance of the general need of the testimony of Number\nbeing added to Antiquity, in order to establish a Reading.\n\nThere is an obscure expression in the Epistle to the Hebrews,\u2014Alford\nspeaks of it as \u201calmost a _locus desperatus_\u201d\u2014which illustrates the matter\nin hand not unaptly. The received reading of Heb. iv. 2,\u2014\u201cnot being mixed\n[viz. the word preached] with faith in them that heard it,\u201d\u2014is supported\nby the united testimony of the Peshitto and of the Latin versions(31).\nAccordingly, the discovery that \u05d0 also exhibits \u03c3\u03c5\u03b3\u03ba\u03b5\u03ba\u03b5\u03c1\u03b1\u03c3\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 determined\nTischendorf, who however stands alone with Scholz, to retain in this place\nthe singular participle. And confessedly the note of Antiquity it enjoys\nin perfection; as well as yields a sufficiently intelligible sense. But\nthen unfortunately it proves to be incredible that St. Paul can have been\nthe author of the expression(32). All the known copies but four(33) read\nnot \u03c3\u03c5\u03b3\u03ba\u03b5\u03ba\u03c1\u03b1\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 but -\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2. So do all the Fathers who are known to\nquote the place(34):\u2014Macarius(35), Chrysostom(36), Theodorus of\nMopsuestia(37), Cyril(38), Theodoret(39), Damascene(40), Photius(41),\nTheophylactus(42), Oecumenius(43). The testimony of four of the older of\nthese is even express: and such an amount of evidence is decisive. But we\nare able to add that of the Harkleian, Bohairic, Ethiopic, and Armenian\nversions. However uncongenial therefore the effort may prove, there can be\nno doubt at all that we must henceforth read here,\u2014\u201cBut the word listened\nto did not profit them, because they were not united in respect of faith\nwith those who listened [and believed]\u201d: or words to that effect(44). Let\nthis then be remembered as a proof that, besides even the note of Variety\nto some extent super-added to that of Antiquity, it must further be shewn\non behalf of any reading which claims to be authentic, that it enjoys also\nthe support of a multitude of witnesses: in other words that it has the\nnote of Number as well(45).\n\nAnd let no one cherish a secret suspicion that because the Syriac and the\nLatin versions are such venerable documents they must be held to outweigh\nall the rest, and may be right in this matter after all. It will be found\nexplained elsewhere that in places like the present, those famous versions\nare often observed to interpret rather than to reproduce the inspired\nverity: to discharge the office of a Targum rather than of a translation.\nThe sympathy thus evinced between \u05d0 and the Latin should be observed: the\nsignificance of it will come under consideration afterwards.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 3. Variety.\n\n\nI must point out in the next place, that Evidence on any passage, which\nexhibits in perfection the first of the two foregoing characteristics\u2014that\nof Antiquity, may nevertheless so easily fall under suspicion, that it\nbecomes in the highest degree necessary to fortify it by other notes of\nTruth. And there cannot be a stronger ally than Variety.\n\nNo one can doubt, for it stands to reason, that Variety distinguishing\nwitnesses massed together must needs constitute a most powerful argument\nfor believing such Evidence to be true. Witnesses of different kinds; from\ndifferent countries; speaking different tongues:\u2014witnesses who can never\nhave met, and between whom it is incredible that there should exist\ncollusion of any kind:\u2014such witnesses deserve to be listened to most\nrespectfully. Indeed, when witnesses of so varied a sort agree in large\nnumbers, they must needs be accounted worthy of even implicit confidence.\nAccordingly, the essential feature of the proposed Test will be, that the\nEvidence of which \u201cVariety\u201d is to be predicated shall be derived from a\nvariety of sources. Readings which are witnessed to by MSS. only; or by\nancient Versions only: or by one or more of the Fathers only:\u2014whatever\nelse may be urged on their behalf, are at least without the full support\nof this note of Truth; unless there be in the case of MSS. a sufficient\nnote of Variety within their own circle. It needs only a slight\nacquaintance with the principles which regulate the value of evidence, and\na comparison with other cases enjoying it of one where there is actually\nno variety, to see the extreme importance of this third Test. When there\nis real variety, what may be called hole-and-corner\nwork,\u2014conspiracy,\u2014influence of sect or clique,\u2014are impossible. Variety it\nis which imparts virtue to mere Number, prevents the witness-box from\nbeing filled with packed deponents, ensures genuine testimony. False\nwitness is thus detected and condemned, because it agrees not with the\nrest. Variety is the consent of independent witnesses, and is therefore\neminently Catholic. Origen or the Vatican and the Sinaitic, often stand\nall but alone, because there are scarce any in the assembly who do not\nhail from other parts with testimony different from theirs, whilst their\nown evidence finds little or no verification.\n\nIt is precisely this consideration which constrains us to pay supreme\nattention to the combined testimony of the Uncials and of the whole body\nof the Cursive Copies. They are (_a_) dotted over at least 1000 years:\n(_b_) they evidently belong to so many divers countries,\u2014Greece,\nConstantinople, Asia Minor, Palestine, Syria, Alexandria, and other parts\nof Africa, not to say Sicily, Southern Italy, Gaul, England, and Ireland:\n(_c_) they exhibit so many strange characteristics and peculiar\nsympathies: (_d_) they so clearly represent countless families of MSS.,\nbeing in no single instance absolutely identical in their text, and\ncertainly not being copies of any other Codex in existence,\u2014that their\nunanimous decision I hold to be an absolutely irrefragable evidence of the\nTruth(46). If, again, only a few of these copies disagree with the main\nbody of them, I hold that the value of the verdict of the great majority\nis but slightly disturbed. Even then however the accession of another\nclass of confirmatory evidence is most valuable. Thus, when it is\nperceived that Codd. \u05d0BCD are the only uncials which contain the clause\n\u03bd\u03b5\u03ba\u03c1\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u1f10\u03b3\u03b5\u03af\u03c1\u03b5\u03c4\u03b5 in St. Matt. x. 8, already spoken of, and that the merest\nfraction of the cursives exhibit the same reading, the main body of the\ncursives and all the other uncials being for omitting it, it is felt at\nonce that the features of the problem have been very nearly reversed. On\nsuch occasions we inquire eagerly for the verdict of the most ancient of\nthe Versions: and when, as on the present occasion, they are divided,\u2014the\nLatin and the Ethiopic recognizing the clause, the Syriac and the Egyptian\ndisallowing it,\u2014an impartial student will eagerly inquire with one of old\ntime,\u2014\u201cIs there not here a prophet of the Lord besides, that we might\ninquire of him?\u201d He will wish to hear what the old Fathers have to say on\nthis subject. I take the liberty of adding that when he has once perceived\nthat the text employed by Origen corresponds usually to a surprising\nextent with the text represented by Codex B and some of the Old Latin\nVersions, he will learn to lay less stress on every fresh instance of such\ncorrespondence. He will desiderate greater variety of testimony,\u2014the\nutmost variety which is attainable. The verdict of various other Fathers\non this passage supplies what is wanted(47). Speaking generally, the\nconsentient testimony of two, four, six, or more witnesses, coming to us\nfrom widely sundered regions is weightier by far than the same number of\nwitnesses proceeding from one and the same locality, between whom there\nprobably exists some sort of sympathy, and possibly some degree of\ncollusion. Thus when it is found that the scribe of B wrote \u201csix conjugate\nleaves of Cod. \u05d0(48),\u201d it is impossible to regard their united testimony\nin the same light as we should have done, if one had been produced in\nPalestine and the other at Constantinople. So also of primitive Patristic\ntestimony. The combined testimony of Cyril, patriarch of\nAlexandria;\u2014Isidore of Pelusium, a city at the mouth of the Nile;\u2014and\nNonnus of Panopolis in the Thebaid, is not nearly so weighty as the\ntestimony of one of the same three writers in conjunction with Irenaeus,\nBishop of Lyons in Gaul, and with Chrysostom who passed the greater part\nof his life at Antioch. The same remark holds true of Versions. Thus, the\ntwo Egyptian Versions when they conspire in witnessing to the same\nsingular reading are entitled to far less attention than one of those same\nVersions in combination with the Syriac, or with the Latin, or with the\nGothic.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 4. Weight, or Respectability.\n\n\nWe must request our readers to observe, that the term \u201cweight\u201d may be\ntaken as regards Textual Evidence in two senses, the one general and the\nother special. In the general sense, Weight includes all the notes of\ntruth,\u2014it may relate to the entire mass of evidence;\u2014or else it may be\nemployed as concerning the value of an individual manuscript, or a single\nVersion, or a separate Father. Antiquity confers some amount of Weight: so\ndoes Number: and so does Variety also, as well as each of the other notes\nof truth. This distinction ought not to be allowed to go out of sight in\nthe discussion which is now about to occupy our attention.\n\nWe proceed then to consider Weight in the special sense and as attached to\nsingle Witnesses.\n\nUndeniable as it is, (_a_) that ancient documents do not admit of being\nplaced in scales and weighed; and (_b_) that if they did, the man does not\nexist who is capable of conducting the operation,\u2014there are yet, happily,\nprinciples of sound reason,\u2014considerations based on the common sense of\nmankind, learned and unlearned alike,\u2014by the aid of which something may be\neffected which is strictly analogous to the process of weighing solid\nbodies in an ordinary pair of scales. I proceed to explain.\n\n1. In the first place, the witnesses in favour of any given reading should\nbe respectable. \u201cRespectability\u201d is of course a relative term; but its use\nand applicability in this department of Science will be generally\nunderstood and admitted by scholars, although they may not be altogether\nagreed as to the classification of their authorities. Some critics will\nclaim, not respectability only, but absolute and oracular authority for a\ncertain set of ancient witnesses,\u2014which others will hold in suspicion. It\nis clear however that respectability cannot by itself confer pre-eminence,\nmuch less the privilege of oracular decision. We listen to any one whose\ncharacter has won our respect: but dogmatism as to things outside of\nactual experience or mathematical calculation is the prerogative only of\nRevelation or inspired utterance; and if assumed by men who have no\nauthority to dogmatize, is only accepted by weak minds who find a relief\nwhen they are able\n\n\n    \u201cjurare in verba magistri.\u201d\n    \u201cTo swear whate\u2019er the master says is true.\u201d\n\n\nAnd if on the contrary certain witnesses are found to range themselves\ncontinually on the side which is condemned by a large majority of others\nexhibiting other notes of truth entitling them to credence, those few\nwitnesses must inevitably lose in respectability according to the extent\nand frequency of such eccentric action.\n\n2. If one Codex (_z_) is demonstrably the mere transcript of another Codex\n(_f_), these may no longer be reckoned as two Codexes, but as one Codex.\nIt is hard therefore to understand how Tischendorf constantly adduces the\nevidence of \u201cE of Paul\u201d although he was perfectly well aware that E is \u201c_a\nmere transcript_ of the Cod. Claromontanus(49)\u201d or D of Paul. Or again,\nhow he quotes the cursive Evan. 102; because the readings of that unknown\nseventeenth-century copy of the Gospels are ascertained to have been\nderived from Cod. B itself(50).\n\n3. By strict parity of reasoning, when once it has been ascertained that,\nin any particular instance, Patristic testimony is not original but\nderived, each successive reproduction of the evidence must obviously be\nheld to add nothing at all to the weight of the original statement. Thus,\nit used to be the fashion to cite (in proof of the spuriousness of \u201cthe\nlast twelve verses\u201d of St. Mark\u2019s Gospel) the authority of \u201cEusebius,\nGregory of Nyssa, Victor of Antioch, Severus of Antioch, Jerome(51),\u201d\u2014to\nwhich were added \u201cEpiphanius and Caesarius(52),\u201d\u2014\u201cHesychius of Jerusalem\nand Euthymius(53).\u201d In this enumeration, the names of Gregory, Victor,\nSeverus, Epiphanius and Caesarius were introduced in error. There remains\nEusebius,\u2014whose exaggeration (_a_) Jerome translates, (_b_) Hesychius\n(sixth century) copies, and (_c_) Euthymius (A.D. 1116) refers to(54) and\nEusebius himself neutralizes(55). The evidence therefore (such as it is)\ncollapses hopelessly: being reducible probably to a random statement in\nthe lost treatise of Origen on St. Mark(56), which Eusebius repudiates,\neven while in his latitudinarian way he reproduces it. The weight of such\ntestimony is obviously slight indeed.\n\n4. Again, if two, three, or four Codexes are discovered by reason of the\npeculiarities of text which they exhibit to have been derived,\u2014nay,\nconfessedly are derived\u2014from one and the same archetype,\u2014those two, three,\nor four Codexes may no longer be spoken of as if they were so many.\nCodexes B and \u05d0, for example, being certainly the twin products of a lost\nexemplar, cannot in fairness be reckoned as = 2. Whether their combined\nevidence is to be estimated at = 1.75, 1.50, or 1.25, or as only 1.0,\u2014let\ndiviners decide. May I be allowed to suggest that whenever they agree in\nan extraordinary reading their combined evidence is to be reckoned at\nabout 1.50: when in an all but unique reading, at 1.25: when the reading\nthey contain is absolutely unique, as when they exhibit \u03c3\u03c5\u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u03b5\u03c6\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72\n\u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd in St. Matt. xvii. 22, they should be reckoned as a single Codex?\nNever, at all events, can they be jointly reckoned as absolutely two. I\nwould have them cited as B-\u05d0. Similar considerations should be attached to\nF and G of St. Paul, as being \u201cindependent transcripts of the same\nvenerable archetype(57),\u201d and to Evan. 13, 69, 124, 346, 556, 561, and\nperhaps 348, 624, 788(58), as being also the representatives of only one\nanterior manuscript of uncertain date.\n\n5. It requires further to be pointed out that when once a clear note of\naffinity has been ascertained to exist between a small set of documents,\ntheir exclusive joint consent is henceforward to be regarded with\nsuspicion: in other words, their evidential Weight becomes impaired. For\ninstance, the sympathy between D and some Old Latin copies is so marked,\nso constant, in fact so extraordinary, that it becomes perfectly evident\nthat D, though only of the sixth century, must represent a Greek or Latin\nCodex of the inaccurate class which prevailed in the earliest age of all,\na class from which some of the Latin translations were made(59).\n\n6. I suppose it may be laid down that an ancient Version outweighs any\nsingle Codex, ancient or modern, which can be named: the reason being,\nthat it is scarcely credible that a Version\u2014the Peshitto, for example, an\nEgyptian, or the Gothic\u2014can have been executed from a single exemplar. But\nindeed that is not all. The first of the above-named Versions and some of\nthe Latin are older,\u2014perhaps by two centuries\u2014than the oldest known copy.\nFrom this it will appear that if the only witnesses producible for a\ncertain reading were the Old Latin Versions and the Syriac Version on the\none hand,\u2014Codd. B-\u05d0 on the other,\u2014the united testimony of the first two\nwould very largely overbalance the combined testimony of the last. If B or\nif \u05d0 stood alone, neither of them singly would be any match for either the\nSyriac or the Old Latin Versions,\u2014still less for the two combined.\n\n7. The cogency of the considerations involved in the last paragraph\nbecomes even more apparent when Patristic testimony has to be considered.\n\nIt has been pointed out elsewhere(60) that, in and by itself, the\ntestimony of any first-rate Father, where it can be had, must be held to\noutweigh the solitary testimony of any single Codex which can be named.\nThe circumstance requires to be again insisted on here. How to represent\nthe amount of this preponderance by a formula, I know not: nor as I\nbelieve does any one else know. But the fact that it exists, remains, and\nis in truth undeniable. For instance, the origin and history of Codexes\nAB\u05d0C is wholly unknown: their dates and the places of their several\nproduction are matters of conjecture only. But when we are listening to\nthe articulate utterance of any of the ancient Fathers, we not only know\nwith more or less of precision the actual date of the testimony before us,\nbut we even know the very diocese of Christendom in which we are standing.\nTo such a deponent we can assign a definite amount of credibility, whereas\nin the estimate of the former class of evidence we have only inferences to\nguide us.\n\nIndividually, therefore, a Father\u2019s evidence, where it can be certainly\nobtained\u2014_caeteris paribus_, is considerably greater than that of any\nsingle known Codex. Collectively, however, the Copies, without question,\noutweigh either the Versions by themselves, or the Fathers by themselves.\nI have met\u2014very rarely I confess\u2014but I have met with cases where the\nVersions, as a body, were opposed in their testimony to the combined\nwitness of Copies and Fathers. Also, but very rarely, I have known the\nFathers, as a body, opposed to the evidence of Copies and Versions. But I\nhave never known a case where the Copies stood alone\u2014with the Versions and\nthe Fathers united against them.\n\nI consider that such illustrious Fathers as Irenaeus and\nHippolytus,\u2014Athanasius and Didymus,\u2014Epiphanius and Basil,\u2014the two\nGregories and Chrysostom,\u2014Cyril and Theodoret, among the\nGreeks,\u2014Tertullian and Cyprian,\u2014Hilary and Ambrose,\u2014Jerome and Augustine,\namong the Latins,\u2014are more respectable witnesses by far than the same\nnumber of Greek or Latin Codexes. Origen, Clemens Alexandrinus, and\nEusebius, though first-rate Authors, were so much addicted to Textual\nCriticism themselves, or else employed such inconsistent copies,\u2014that\ntheir testimony is that of indifferent witnesses or bad judges.\n\nAs to the Weight which belongs to separate Copies, that must be determined\nmainly by watching their evidence. If they go wrong continually, their\ncharacter must be low. They are governed in this respect by the rules\nwhich hold good in life. We shall treat afterwards of the character of\nCodex D, of \u05d0, and of B.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 5. Continuity.\n\n\nIn proposing Continuous Existence as another note of a genuine reading, I\nwish to provide against those cases where the Evidence is not only\nancient, but being derived from two different sources may seem to have a\nclaim to variety also. I am glad to have the opportunity thus early of\npointing out that the note of variety may not fairly be claimed for\nreadings which are not advocated by more than two distinct specimens of\nancient evidence. But just now my actual business is to insist that some\nsort of Continuousness is requisite as well as Antiquity, Number, Variety,\nand Weight.\n\nWe can of course only know the words of Holy Scripture according as they\nhave been handed down to us; and in ascertaining what those words actually\nwere, we are driven perforce to the Tradition of them as it has descended\nto us through the ages of the Church. But if that Tradition is broken in\nthe process of its descent, it cannot but be deprived of much of the\ncredit with which it would otherwise appeal for acceptance. A clear\ngroundwork of reasonableness lay underneath, and a distinct province was\nassigned, when _quod semper_ was added to _quod ubique et quod ab\nomnibus_. So there is a Catholicity of time, as well as of space and of\npeople: and all must be claimed in the ascertainment and support of Holy\nWrit.\n\nWhen therefore a reading is observed to leave traces of its existence and\nof its use all down the ages, it comes with an authority of a peculiarly\ncommanding nature. And on the contrary, when a chasm of greater or less\nbreadth of years yawns in the vast mass of evidence which is ready for\nemployment, or when a tradition is found to have died out, upon such a\nfact alone suspicion or grave doubt, or rejection must inevitably ensue.\n\nStill more, when upon the admission of the Advocates of the opinions which\nwe are opposing the chasm is no longer restricted but engulfs not less\nthan fifteen centuries in its hungry abyss, or else when the transmission\nceased after four centuries, it is evident that according to an essential\nNote of Truth, those opinions cannot fail to be self-destroyed as well as\nto labour under condemnation during more than three quarters of the\naccomplished life of Christendom.\n\nHow Churchmen of eminence and ability, who in other respects hold the\ntruths involved in Churchmanship, are able to maintain and propagate such\nopinions without surrendering their Churchmanship, we are unable to\nexplain. We would only hope and pray that they may be led to see the\ninconsistencies of their position. And to others who do not accept Church\ndoctrine we would urge that, inasmuch as internal evidence is so uncertain\nas often to face both ways, they really cannot rest upon anything else\nthan continuous teaching if they would mount above personal likings and\ndislikings to the possession of definite and unmistakable support. In fact\nall traditional teaching which is not continuous must be like the detached\npieces of a disunited chain.\n\nTo put the question in the most moderate form, my meaning is, that\nalthough it is possible that no trace may be discoverable in any later\ndocument of what is already attested by documents of the fourth century to\nbe the true reading of any given place of Scripture, yet it is a highly\nimprobable circumstance that the evidence should entirely disappear at\nsuch a very early period. It is reasonable to expect that if a reading\nadvocated by Codexes \u05d0 and B, for instance, and the Old Latin Versions,\nbesides one or two of the Fathers, were trustworthy, there ought to be\nfound at least a fair proportion of the later Uncial and the Cursive\nCopies to reproduce it. If, on the contrary, many of the Fathers knew\nnothing at all about the matter; if Jerome reverses the evidence borne by\nthe Old Latin; if the later Uncials, and if the main body of the Cursives\nare silent also:\u2014what can be said but that it is altogether unreasonable\nto demand acceptance for a reading which comes to us upon such a very\nslender claim to our confidence?\n\nThat is the most important inference: and it is difficult to see how in\nthe nature of the case it can be got over. But in other respects\nalso:\u2014when a smaller break occurs in the transmission, the evidence is\nproportionally injured. And the remark must be added, that in cases where\nthere is a transmission by several lines of descent which, having in other\nrespects traces of independence, coincide upon a certain point, it is but\nreasonable to conclude that those lines enjoy, perhaps, a silent, yet a\nparallel and unbroken tradition all down the ages till they emerge. This\nprinciple is often illustrated in the independent yet consentient\ntestimony of the whole body of the Cursives and later Uncials(61).\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 6. Context.\n\n\nA prevailing fallacy with some critical writers on the subject to which\nthe present volume is devoted, may be thus described. In the case of a\ndisputed reading, they seem to think that they do enough if they simply\nmarshal the authorities for and against, and deliver an oracular verdict.\nIn critical editions of the Greek text, such a summary method is perhaps\nunavoidable. But I take leave to point out that in Sacred Textual\nCriticism there are several other considerations which absolutely require\nattention besides, and that those considerations ought to find expression\nwhere the space permits. It is to some of these that I proceed now to\ninvite the reader\u2019s attention.\n\nA word,\u2014a phrase,\u2014a clause,\u2014or even a sentence or a paragraph,\u2014must have\nsome relation to the rest of the entire passage which precedes or comes\nafter it. Therefore it will often be necessary, in order to reach all the\nevidence that bears upon a disputed question, to examine both the meaning\nand the language lying on both sides of the point in dispute. We do not at\npresent lay so much stress upon the contextual meaning, because people are\ngenerally not unready to observe it, and it is often open to much\ndifference of opinion:\u2014we refrain especially, because we find from\nexperience that there is in the case of the New Testament always enough\nexternal evidence of whose existence no doubt can be entertained to settle\nany textual question that can arise.\n\nNevertheless, it may be as well to give a single instance. In 1 Cor. xiii.\n5, Codex B and Clement of Alexandria read \u03c4\u1f78 \u03bc\u1f74 \u1f11\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 instead of \u03c4\u1f70\n\u1f11\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2, i.e. \u201ccharity seeketh not what does not belong to her,\u201d instead of\n\u201cseeketh not her own.\u201d That is to say, we are invited, in the midst of\nthat magnificent passage which is full of lofty principles, to suppose\nthat a gross violation of the eighth commandment is forbidden, and to\ninsert a commonplace repudiation of gross dishonesty. We are to sink\nsuddenly from a grand atmosphere down to a vulgar level. In fact, the\nlight shed on the words in question from the context on either side of\ncourse utterly excludes such a supposition; consequently, the only result\nis that we are led to distrust the witnesses that have given evidence\nwhich is so palpably absurd.\n\nBut as regards the precise form of language employed, it will be found\nalso a salutary safeguard against error in every instance, to inspect with\nsevere critical exactness the entire context of the passage in dispute. If\nin certain Codexes that context shall prove to be confessedly in a very\ncorrupt state, then it becomes even self-evident that those Codexes can\nonly be admitted as witnesses with considerable suspicion and reserve.\n\nTake as an illustration of what I have been saying the exceedingly\nprecious verse, \u201cHowbeit, this kind goeth not out but by prayer and\nfasting\u201d (St. Matt. xvii. 21), which has met with rejection by the recent\nschool of critics. Here the evidence against the verse is confined to B\nand the first reading of \u05d0 amongst the Uncials, Evan. 33 alone of the\nCursives, e and ff1 of the Old Latin Versions, as well as the Curetonian\nand the Lewis, Jerusalem, Sahidic, a few Bohairic copies, a few Ethiopic,\nand the Greek of Eusebius\u2019 Canons:\u2014evidence of a slight and shifty\ncharacter, when contrasted with the witness of all the other Uncials and\nCursives, the rest of the Versions, and more than thirteen of the Fathers\nbeginning with Tertullian and Origen(62). It is plain that the stress of\nthe case for rejection, since \u05d0 being afterwards corrected speaks\nuncertainly, rests such as it is upon B; and that if the evidence of that\nMS. is found to be unworthy of credit in the whole passage, weak indeed\nmust be the contention which consists mainly of such support.\n\nNow if we inspect vv. 19, 20, 22, and 23, to go no farther, we shall\ndiscover that the entire passage in B is wrapped in a fog of error. It\ndiffers from the main body of the witnesses in ten places; in four of\nwhich its evidence is rejected by Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles,\nWestcott and Hort, and the Revisers(63); in two more by the Revisers(64);\nand of the remaining four, it is supported in two by only \u05d0 and severally\nby one or six Cursives, and in the other two by only \u05d0 and D with\nseverally four or five Cursive copies(65).\n\nInspection of the Context therefore adds here strong confirmation:\u2014though\nindeed in this instance to have recourse to such a weapon is to slay the\nalready slain.\n\nSt. Matthew (xi. 2, 3) relates that John Baptist \u201chaving heard in the\nprison the works of CHRIST, sent two of his Disciples\u201d (\u03b4\u03cd\u03bf \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03bc\u03b1\u03b8\u03b7\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd\n\u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6) with the inquiry, \u201cArt Thou He that should come(66), or are we to\nlook for another (\u1f15\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd)?\u201d So all the known copies but nine. So the\nVulgate, Bohairic, Ethiopic. So Origen. So Chrysostom. It is interesting\nto note with what differences of expression St. Luke reproduces this\nstatement. Having explained in ver. 18 that it was the Forerunner\u2019s\ndisciples who brought him tidings concerning CHRIST, St. Luke (vii. 19)\nadds that John \u201ccalled for certain two\u201d (\u03b4\u03cd\u03bf \u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u03ac\u03c2) of them, and \u201csent\nthem to JESUS\u201d: thus emphasizing, while he repeats, the record of the\nearlier Evangelist. Inasmuch however as \u1f15\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd means, in strictness, \u201cthe\nother _of two_,\u201d in order not to repeat himself, he substitutes \u1f04\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd for\nit. Now all this is hopelessly obscured by the oldest amongst our\nmanuscript authorities. It in no wise surprises us to find that \u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u03ac\u03c2 has\ndisappeared from D, the Peshitto, Latin, Bohairic, Gothic, and Ethiopic.\nThe word has disappeared from our English version also. But it offends us\ngreatly to discover that (1) \u05d0BLRX\u039e (with Cyril) obliterate \u1f04\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd from St.\nLuke vii. 19, and thrust \u1f15\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd into its place,\u2014as clear an instance of\nvicious assimilation as could anywhere be found: while (2) for \u03b4\u03cd\u03bf (in St.\nMatt. xi. 3) \u05d0BCDPZ\u0394 write \u03b4\u03b9\u03ac: which is acquiesced in by the Peshitto,\nHarkleian, Gothic and Armenian Versions. The Old Latin Versions\nprevaricate as usual: two read, _mittens duos ex discipulis suis_: all the\nrest,\u2014_mittens discipulos suos_,\u2014which is the reading of Cureton\u2019s Syriac\nand the Dialogus (p. 819), but of no known Greek MS.(67) Lastly (3) for\n\u1f38\u03b7\u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd in St. Luke, BLR\u039e substitute \u03ba\u03cd\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd. What would be thought of us if\nwe were freely imposed upon by readings so plainly corrupt as these three?\n\nBut light is thrown upon them by the context in St. Luke. In the thirteen\nverses which immediately follow, Tischendorf himself being the judge, the\ntext has experienced depravation in at least fourteen particulars(68).\nWith what reason can the same critic straightway insist on other readings\nwhich rest exclusively upon the same authorities which the fourteen\nreadings just mentioned claim for their support?\n\nThis Note of Truth has for its foundation the well-known law that mistakes\nhave a tendency to repeat themselves in the same or in other shapes. The\ncarelessness, or the vitiated atmosphere, that leads a copyist to\nmisrepresent one word is sure to lead him into error about another. The\nill-ordered assiduity which prompted one bad correction most probably did\nnot rest there. And the errors committed by a witness just before or just\nafter the testimony which is being sifted was given cannot but be held to\nbe closely germane to the inquiry.\n\nSo too on the other side. Clearness, correctness, self-collectedness, near\nto the moment in question, add to the authority of the evidence.\nConsequently, the witness of the Context cannot but be held to be\npositively or negatively, though perhaps more often negatively than\npositively, a very apposite Note of Truth.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 7. Internal Evidence.\n\n\nIt would be a serious omission indeed to close this enumeration of Tests\nof Truth without adverting to those Internal Considerations which will\nmake themselves heard, and are sometimes unanswerable.\n\nThus the reading of \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd (masculine or neuter) which is found in Cod. B\n(St. Luke xix. 37) we reject at once because of its grammatical\nimpossibility as agreeing with \u03b4\u03c5\u03bd\u03ac\u03bc\u03b5\u03c9\u03bd (feminine); and that of \u03ba\u03b1\u03c1\u03b4\u03af\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2\n(2 Cor. iii. 3) according to the witness of A\u05d0BCDEGLP on the score of its\nutter impossibility(69). Geographical reasons are sufficiently strong\nagainst reading with Codd. \u05d0IKN\u03a0 \u1f11\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f11\u03be\u03ae\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 in St. Luke xxiv. 13\n(i.e. a hundred and threescore furlongs), to make it of no manner of\nimportance that a few additional authorities, as Origen, Eusebius, and\nJerome, can be produced in support of the same manifestly corrupt reading.\nOn grounds of ordinary reasonableness we cannot hear of the sun being\neclipsed when the moon was full, or of our Lord being pierced before\ndeath. The truth of history, otherwise sufficiently attested both by St.\nMatthew and Josephus, absolutely forbids \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 (\u05d0BDL\u0394) to be read for\n\u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 (St. Mark vi. 22), and in consequence the wretched daughter of\nHerodias to be taken to have been the daughter of Herod.\n\nIn these and such-like instances, the Internal reasons are plain and\nstrong. But there is a manifest danger, when critics forsake those\nconsiderations which depend upon clear and definite points, and build\ntheir own inventions and theories into a system of strict canons which\nthey apply in the teeth of manifold evidence that has really everything to\nrecommend it. The extent to which some critics are ready to go may be seen\nin the monstrous Canon proposed by Griesbach, that where there are more\nreadings than one of any place, that reading which favours orthodoxy is an\nobject of suspicion(70). There is doubtless some reason in the Canon which\nasserts that \u201cThe harder the reading, the less likely it is to have been\ninvented, and the more likely it is to be genuine,\u201d under which\n\u03b4\u03b5\u03c5\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03c0\u03ce\u03c4\u1ff3 (St. Luke vi. 1) must receive additional justification. But\npeople are ordinarily so constituted, that when they have once constructed\na system of Canons they place no limits to their operation, and become\nslaves to them.\n\nAccordingly, the true reading of passages must be ascertained, with very\nslight exception indeed, from the preponderating weight of external\nevidence, judged according to its antiquity, to number, variety, relative\nvalue, continuousness, and with the help of the context. Internal\nconsiderations, unless in exceptional cases they are found in strong\nopposition to evident error, have only a subsidiary force. Often they are\nthe product of personal bias, or limited observation: and where one\nscholar approves, another dogmatically condemns. Circumstantial evidence\nis deservedly rated low in the courts of justice: and lawyers always\nproduce witnesses when they can. The Text of Holy Scripture does not vary\nwith the weathercock according to changing winds of individual or general\nopinion or caprice: it is decided by the Tradition of the Church as\ntestified by eye-witnesses and written in black and white and gold in all\ncountries of Christendom, and all down the ages since the New Testament\nwas composed.\n\nI desire to point out concerning the foregoing seven Notes of Truth in\nTextual Evidence that the student can never afford entirely to lose sight\nof any of them. The reason is because although no doubt it is conceivable\nthat any one of the seven might possibly in itself suffice to establish\nalmost any reading which can be named, practically this is never the case.\nAnd why? Because we never meet with any one of these Tests in the fullest\npossible measure. No Test ever attains to perfection, or indeed can\nattain. An approximation to the Test is all that can be expected, or even\ndesired. And sometimes we are obliged to put up with a very slight\napproximation indeed. Their strength resides in their co-operation.\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IV. THE VATICAN AND SINAITIC MANUSCRIPTS.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 1.\n\n\nNo progress is possible in the department of \u201cTextual Criticism\u201d until the\nsuperstition\u2014for we are persuaded that it is nothing less\u2014which at present\nprevails concerning certain of \u201cthe old uncials\u201d (as they are called) has\nbeen abandoned. By \u201cthe old uncials\u201d are generally meant, [1] The\n_Vatican_ Codex (B),\u2014and [2] the _Sinaitic_ Codex (\u05d0),\u2014which by common\nconsent are assigned to the fourth century: [3] the _Alexandrian_ (A), and\n[4] the _Cod. Ephraemi rescriptus_ (C),\u2014which are given to the fifth\ncentury: and [5] the _Codex Bezae_ (D),\u2014which is claimed for the sixth\ncentury: to which must now be added [6] the _Codex Beratinus_ (\u03a6), at the\nend of the fifth, and [7] the _Codex Rossanensis_ (\u03a3), at the beginning of\nthe sixth century. Five of these seven Codexes for some unexplained\nreason, although the latest of them (D) is sundered from the great bulk of\nthe copies, uncial and cursive, by about as many centuries as the earliest\nof them (B\u05d0) are sundered from the last of their group, have been invested\nwith oracular authority and are supposed to be the vehicles of imperial\ndecrees. It is pretended that what is found in either B or in \u05d0 or in D,\nalthough unsupported by any other manuscript, may reasonably be claimed to\nexhibit the truth of scripture, in defiance of the combined evidence of\nall other documents to the contrary. Let a reading be advocated by B and \u05d0\nin conjunction, and it is assumed as a matter of course that such evidence\nmust needs outweigh the combined evidence of all other MSS. which can be\nnamed. But when (as often happens) three or four of these \u201cold uncials\u201d\nare in accord,\u2014especially if (as is not unfrequently the case) they have\nthe support of a single ancient version (as the Bohairic),\u2014or a solitary\nearly Father (as Origen), it seems to be deemed axiomatic that such\nevidence must needs carry all before it(71).\n\nI maintain the contradictory proposition, and am prepared to prove it. I\ninsist that readings so supported are clearly untrustworthy and may be\ndismissed as certainly unauthentic.\n\nBut let us in this chapter seek to come to some understanding with one\nanother. My method shall be to ask a plain question which shall bring the\nmatter to a clear issue. I will then (1) invent the best answers I am able\nto that question: and then (2) to the best of my ability\u2014I will dispose of\nthese answers one by one. If the reader (1) is able to assign a better\nanswer,\u2014or (2) does not deem my refutation satisfactory,\u2014he has but to\ncall me publicly to account: and by the rejoinder I shall publicly render\neither he, or I, must be content to stand publicly discredited. If I knew\nof a fairer way of bringing this by no means recondite matter to a\ndefinite issue, the reader may be well assured I should now adopt\nit(72).\u2014My general question is,\u2014Why throughout the Gospels are B and \u05d0\naccounted so trustworthy, that all but the absolute disposal of every\ndisputed question about the Text is held to depend upon their evidence?\n\nAnd I begin by asking of a supposed Biblical Student,\u2014Why throughout the\nGospels should Codex B and \u05d0 be deemed more deserving of our confidence\nthan the other Codexes?\n\n_Biblical Student._ Because they are the most ancient of our Codexes.\n\n_Dean Burgon._ This answer evidently seems to you to convey an axiomatic\ntruth: but not to me. I must trouble you to explain to me why \u201cthe most\nancient of our Codexes\u201d must needs be the purest?\n\n_B. S._ I have not said that they \u201cmust needs be the purest\u201d: and I\nrequest you will not impute to me anything which I do not actually say.\n\n_The Dean._ Thank you for a most just reproof. Let us only proceed in the\nsame spirit to the end, and we shall arrive at important results. Kindly\nexplain yourself therefore in your own way.\n\n_B. S._ I meant to say that because it is a reasonable presumption that\nthe oldest Codexes will prove the purest, therefore B\u05d0\u2014being the oldest\nCodexes of the Gospels\u2014may reasonably be expected to be the best.\n\n_The Dean._ So far happily we are agreed. You mean, I presume, that\ninasmuch as it is an admitted principle that the stream is purest at its\nsource, the antiquity of B and \u05d0 creates a reasonable presumption in their\nfavour. Is that what you mean?\n\n_B. S._ Something of the kind, no doubt. You may go on.\n\n_The Dean._ Yes, but it would be a great satisfaction to me to know for\ncertain, whether you actually do, or actually do not mean what I\nsuppose:\u2014viz., to apply the principle, _id verum esse quod primum_, I take\nyou to mean that in B and \u05d0 we have the nearest approach to the autographs\nof the Evangelists, and that therefore in them we have the best evidence\nthat is at present within reach of what those autographs actually were. I\nwill now go on as you bid me. And I take leave to point out to you, that\nit is high time that we should have the facts of the case definitely\nbefore us, and that we should keep them steadily in view throughout our\nsubsequent discussion. Now all critics are agreed, that B and \u05d0 were not\nwritten earlier than about 340, or say before 330 A.D. You will admit\nthat, I suppose?\n\n_B. S._ I have no reason to doubt it.\n\n_The Dean._ There was therefore an interval of not far short of three\nhundred years between the writing of the original autographs and the\ncopying of the Gospels in B and \u05d0(73). Those two oldest Codexes, or the\nearliest of them, are thus found to be separated by nearly three centuries\nfrom the original writings,\u2014or to speak more accurately,\u2014by about two\ncenturies and three-quarters from three of the great autographs, and by\nabout 250 years from the fourth. Therefore these MSS. cannot be said to be\nso closely connected with the original autographs as to be entitled to\ndecide about disputed passages what they were or were not. Corruption\nlargely infected the several writings(74), as I shall shew at some length\nin some subsequent chapters, during the great interval to which I have\nalluded.\n\n_B. S._ But I am surprised to hear you say this. You must surely recollect\nthat B and \u05d0 were derived from one and the same archetype, and that that\narchetype was produced \u201cin the early part of the second century if not\nearlier(75),\u201d and was very close to the autographs, and that they must be\naccordingly accurate transcripts of the autographs, and\u2014\n\n_The Dean._ I must really pray you to pause:\u2014you have left facts far\nbehind, and have mounted into cloudland. I must beg you not to let slip\nfrom your mind, that we start with a fact, so far as it can be\nascertained, viz. the production of B and \u05d0, about the middle of the\nfourth century. You have advanced from that fact to what is only a\nprobable opinion, in which however I am agreed with you, viz. that B and \u05d0\nare derived from one and the same older manuscript. Together therefore, I\npray you will not forget, they only count nearly as one. But as to the age\nof that archetype\u2014forgive me for saying, that\u2014unintentionally no doubt but\nnone the less really\u2014you have taken a most audacious leap. May I ask,\nhowever, whether you can quote any ancient authority for the date which\nyou have affixed?\n\n_B. S._ I cannot recollect one at the present moment.\n\n_The Dean._ No, nor Dr. Hort either,\u2014for I perceive that you adopt his\nspeculation. And I utterly deny that there is any probability at all for\nsuch a suggestion:\u2014nay, the chances are greatly, if not decisively,\nagainst the original from which the lines of B and \u05d0 diverged, being\nanything like so old as the second century. These MSS. bear traces of the\nOrigenistic school, as I shall afterwards shew(76). They have too much\nmethod in their error for it to have arisen in the earliest age: its\nsystematic character proves it to have been the growth of time. They\nevince effects, as I shall demonstrate in due course, of heretical\nteaching, Lectionary practice, and regular editing, which no manuscript\ncould have contracted in the first ages of the Church.\n\n_B. S._ But surely the differences between B and \u05d0, which are many, prove\nthat they were not derived immediately from their common ancestor, but\nthat some generations elapsed between them. Do you deny that?\n\n_The Dean._ I grant you entirely that there are many differences between\nthem,\u2014so much the worse for the value of their evidence. But you must not\nsuffer yourself to be misled by the figure of genealogy upon points where\nit presents no parallel. There were in manuscripts no periods of infancy,\nchildhood, and youth, which must elapse before they could have a progeny.\nAs soon as a manuscript was completed, and was examined and passed, it\ncould be copied: and it could be copied, not only once a year, but as\noften as copyists could find time to write and complete their copies(77).\nYou must take also another circumstance into consideration. After the\ndestruction of manuscripts in the persecution of Diocletian, and when the\nlearned were pressing from all quarters into the Church, copies must have\nbeen multiplied with great rapidity. There was all the more room for\ncarelessness, inaccuracy, incompetency, and capricious recension. Several\ngenerations of manuscripts might have been given off in two or three\nyears.\u2014But indeed all this idea of fixing the date of the common ancestor\nof B and \u05d0 is based upon pure speculation\u2014Textual Science cannot rest her\nconclusions upon foundations of sand like that. I must bring you back to\nthe Rock: I must recall you to facts. B and \u05d0 were produced in the early\nmiddle, so to speak, of the fourth century. Further than this, we cannot\ngo, except to say\u2014and this especially is the point to which I must now\nrequest your attention,\u2014that we are in the possession of evidence older\nthan they are.\n\n_B. S._ But you do not surely mean to tell me that other Uncials have been\ndiscovered which are earlier than these?\n\n_The Dean._ No: not yet: though it is possible, and perhaps probable, that\nsuch MSS. may come to light, not in vellum but in papyrus; for as far as\nwe know, B and \u05d0 mark the emergence into prominence of the \u201cUncial\u201d class\nof great manuscripts(78). But though there are in our hands as yet no\nolder manuscripts, yet we have in the first place various Versions, viz.,\nthe Peshitto of the second century(79), the group of Latin Versions(80)\nwhich begin from about the same time, the Bohairic and the Thebaic of the\nthird century, not to speak of the Gothic which was about contemporary\nwith your friends the Vatican and Sinaitic MSS. Next, there are the\nnumerous Fathers who quoted passages in the earliest ages, and thus\nwitnessed to the MSS. which they used. To take an illustration, I have\ncited upon the last twelve verses of St. Mark\u2019s Gospel no less than twelve\nauthorities before the end of the third century, that is down to a date\nwhich is nearly half a century before B and \u05d0 appeared. The general mass\nof quotations found in the books of the early Fathers witnesses to what I\nsay(81). So that there is absolutely no reason to place these two MSS.\nupon a pedestal by themselves on the score of supreme antiquity. They are\neclipsed in this respect by many other authorities older than they are.\nSuch, I must beg you to observe, is the verdict, not of uncertain\nspeculation, but of stubborn facts.\n\n_B. S._ But if I am not permitted to plead the highest antiquity on behalf\nof the evidence of the two oldest Uncials,\u2014\n\n_The Dean._ Stop, I pray you. Do not imagine for a single instant that I\nwish to prevent your pleading anything at all that you may fairly plead.\nFacts, which refuse to be explained out of existence, not myself, bar your\nway. Forgive me, but you must not run your head against a brick wall.\n\n_B. S._ Well then(82), I will meet you at once by asking a question of my\nown. Do you deny that B and \u05d0 are the most precious monuments of their\nclass in existence?\n\n_The Dean._ So far from denying, I eagerly assert that they are. Were they\noffered for sale to-morrow, they would command a fabulous sum. They might\nfetch perhaps \u00a3100,000. For aught I know or care they may be worth it.\nMore than one cotton-spinner is worth\u2014or possibly several times as much.\n\n_B. S._ But I did not mean that. I spoke of their importance as\ninstruments of criticism.\n\n_The Dean._ Again we are happily agreed. Their importance is\nunquestionably first-rate. But to come to the point, will you state\nplainly, whether you mean to assert that their text is in your judgement\nof exceptional purity?\n\n_B. S._ I do.\n\n_The Dean._ At last there we understand one another. I on the contrary\ninsist, and am prepared to prove, that the text of these two Codexes is\nvery nearly the foulest in existence. On what, pray, do you rely for your\nopinion which proves to be diametrically the reverse of mine(83)?\n\n_B. S._ The best scholars tell me that their text, and especially the text\nof B, is of a purer character than any other: and indeed I myself, after\nreading B in Mai\u2019s edition, think that it deserves the high praise given\nto it.\n\n_The Dean._ My dear friend, I see that you have been taken in by Mai\u2019s\nedition, printed at Leipzig, and published in England by Williams &\nNorgate and D. Nutt. Let me tell you that it is a most faulty\nrepresentation of B. It mixes later hands with the first hand. It abounds\nin mistakes. It inserts perpetually passages which are nowhere found in\nthe copy. In short, people at the time fancied that in the text of the\nmysterious manuscript in the Vatican they would find the _verba ipsissima_\nof the Gospels: but when Cardinal Mai was set to gratify them, he found\nthat B would be unreadable unless it were edited with a plentiful\ncorrection of errors. So the world then received at least two recensions\nof B mixed up in this edition, whilst B itself remained behind. The world\nwas generally satisfied, and taken in. But I am sorry that you have shared\nin the delusion.\n\n_B. S._ Well, of course I may be wrong: but surely you will respect the\nopinion of the great scholars.\n\n_The Dean._ Of course I respect deeply the opinion of any great scholars:\nbut before I adopt it, I must know and approve the grounds of their\nopinion. Pray, what in this instance are they?\n\n_B. S._ They say that the text is better and purer than any other.\n\n_The Dean._ And I say that it is nearly the most corrupt known. If they\ngive no special grounds except the fact that they think so, it is a\nconflict of opinion. There is a balance between us. But from this deadlock\nI proceed to facts. Take for example, as before, the last twelve verses of\nSt. Mark. On the one side are alleged B and \u05d0,\u2014of which B by the\nexhibition of a blank space mutely confesses its omission, and \u05d0 betrays\nthat it is double-minded(84); one Old Latin MS. (_k_), two Armenian MSS.,\ntwo Ethiopic, and an Arabic Lectionary; an expression of Eusebius, who\nelsewhere quotes the passage, which was copied by Jerome and Severus of\nAntioch, saying that the verses were omitted in some copies. L of the\neighth century, and a few Cursives, give a brief, but impossible,\ntermination. On the other side I have referred to(85) six witnesses of the\nsecond century, six of the third, fifteen of the fourth, nine of the\nfifth, eight of the sixth and seventh, all the other Uncials, and all the\nother Cursives, including the universal and immemorial Liturgical use.\nHere, as you must see, B and \u05d0, in faltering tones, and with only an\ninsignificant following, are met by an array of authorities, which is\ntriumphantly superior, not only in antiquity, but also in number, variety,\nand continuousness. I claim also the superiority as to context, internal\nconsiderations, and in weight too.\n\n_B. S._ But surely weight is the ground of contention between us.\n\n_The Dean._ Certainly, and therefore I do not assume my claim till I\nsubstantiate it. But before I go on to do so, may I ask whether you can\ndispute the fact of the four first Notes of Truth being on my side?\n\n_B. S._ No: you are entitled to so much allowance.\n\n_The Dean._ That is a very candid admission, and just what I expected from\nyou. Now as to Weight. The passage just quoted is only one instance out of\nmany. More will abound later on in this book: and even then many more must\nof necessity remain behind. In point of hard and unmistakable fact, there\nis a continual conflict going on all through the Gospels between B and \u05d0\nand a few adherents of theirs on the one side, and the bulk of the\nAuthorities on the other, and the nature and weight of these two Codexes\nmay be inferred from it. They will be found to have been proved over and\nover again to be bad witnesses, who were left to survive in their handsome\ndresses whilst attention was hardly ever accorded to any services of\ntheirs. Fifteen centuries, in which the art of copying the Bible was\nbrought to perfection, and printing invented, have by unceasing rejection\nof their claims scaled for ever the condemnation of their character, and\nso detracted from their weight.\n\n_B. S._ Still, whilst I acknowledge the justice of much that you have\nsaid, I cannot quite understand how the text of later copies can be really\nolder than the text of earlier ones.\n\n_The Dean._ You should know that such a thing is quite possible. Copies\nmuch more numerous and much older than B and \u05d0 live in their surviving\ndescendants. The pedigree of the Queen is in no wise discredited because\nWilliam the Conqueror is not alive. But then further than this. The\ndifference between the text of B and \u05d0 on the one side and that which is\ngenerally represented by A and \u03a6 and \u03a3 on the other is not of a kind\ndepending upon date, but upon recension or dissemination of readings. No\namplification of B and \u05d0 could by any process of natural development have\nissued in the last twelve verses of St. Mark. But it was easy enough for\nthe scribe of B not to write, and the scribe of \u05d0 consciously(86) and\ndeliberately to omit, verses found in the copy before him, if it were\ndetermined that they should severally do so. So with respect to the 2,556\nomissions of B. The original text could without any difficulty have been\nspoilt by leaving out the words, clauses, and sentences thus omitted: but\nsomething much more than the shortened text of B was absolutely essential\nfor the production of the longer manuscripts. This is an important point,\nand I must say something more upon it.\n\nFirst then(87), Cod. B is discovered not to contain in the Gospels alone\n237 words, 452 clauses, 748 whole sentences, which the later copies are\nobserved to exhibit in the same places and in the same words. By what\npossible hypothesis will such a correspondence of the Copies be accounted\nfor, if these words, clauses, and sentences are indeed, as is pretended,\nnothing else but spurious accretions to the text?\n\nSecondly, the same Codex throughout the Gospels exhibits 394 times words\nin a certain order, which however is not the order advocated by the great\nbulk of the Copies. In consequence of what subtle influence will it be\npretended, that all over the world for a thousand years the scribes were\nuniversally induced to deflect from the authentic collocation of the same\ninspired words, and always to deflect in precisely the same way?\n\nBut Cod. B also contains 937 Gospel words, of which by common consent the\ngreat bulk of the Cursive Copies know nothing. Will it be pretended that\nin any part of the Church for seven hundred years copyists of Evangelia\nentered into a grand conspiracy to thrust out of every fresh copy of the\nGospel self-same words in the self-same places(88)?\n\nYou will see therefore that B, and so \u05d0, since the same arguments concern\none as the other, must have been derived from the Traditional Text, and\nnot the Traditional Text from those two Codexes.\n\n_B. S._ You forget that Recensions were made at Edessa or Nisibis and\nAntioch which issued in the Syrian Texts, and that that was the manner in\nwhich the change which you find so difficult to understand was brought\nabout.\n\n_The Dean._ Excuse me, I forget no such thing; and for a very good reason,\nbecause such Recensions never occurred. Why, there is not a trace of them\nin history: it is a mere dream of Dr. Hort: they must be \u201cphantom\nrecensions,\u201d as Dr. Scrivener terms them. The Church of the time was not\nso unconscious of such matters as Dr. Hort imagines. Supposing for a\nmoment that such Recensions, took place, they must have been either merely\nlocal occurrences, in which case after a controversy on which history is\nsilent they would have been inevitably rejected by the other Churches in\nChristendom; or they must have been general operations of the Universal\nChurch, and then inasmuch as they would have been sealed with the\nconcurrence of fifteen centuries, I can hardly conceive greater\ncondemnations of B and \u05d0. Besides, how could a text which has been in fact\nUniversal be \u201cSyrian\u201d? We are on _terra firma_, let me remind you, not in\nthe clouds. The undisputed action of fifteen centuries is not to be set\naside by a nickname.\n\n_B. S._ But there is another way of describing the process of change which\nmay have occurred in the reverse direction to that which you advocate.\nExpressions which had been introduced in different groups of readings were\ncombined by \u201cConflation\u201d into a more diffuse and weaker passage. Thus in\nSt. Mark vi. 33, the two clauses \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u1fc6\u03bb\u03b8\u03bf\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u03cd\u03c2, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u1fc6\u03bb\u03b8\u03bf\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6,\nare made into one conflate passage, of which the last clause is \u201cotiose\u201d\nafter \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03ad\u03b4\u03c1\u03b1\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd \u1f10\u03ba\u03b5\u1fd6 occurring immediately before(89).\n\n_The Dean._ Excuse me, but I entirely disagree with you. The whole passage\nappears to me to savour of the simplicity of early narratives. Take for\nexample the well-known words in Gen. xii. 5, \u201cand they went forth to go\ninto the land of Canaan; and into the land of Canaan they came(90).\u201d A\nclumsy criticism, bereft of any fine appreciation of times and habits\nunlike the present, might I suppose attempt to remove the latter clause\nfrom that place as being \u201cotiose.\u201d But besides, your explanation entirely\nbreaks down when it is applied to other instances. How could conflation,\nor mixture, account for occurrence of the last cry in St. Mark xv. 39, or\nof vv. 43-44 in St. Luke xxii describing the Agony and Bloody Sweat, or of\nthe first Word from the Cross in St. Luke xxiii. 34, or of the descending\nangel and the working of the cure in St. John v. 3-4, or of St. Peter\u2019s\nvisit to the sepulchre in St. Luke xxiv. 12, or what would be the foisting\nof verses or passages of different lengths into the numerous and similar\nplaces that I might easily adduce? If these were all transcribed from some\nprevious text into which they had been interpolated, they would only\nthrust the difficulty further back. How did they come there? The clipped\ntext of B and \u05d0\u2014so to call it\u2014could not have been the source of them. If\nthey were interpolated by scribes or revisers, the interpolations are so\ngood that, at least in many cases, they must have shared inspiration with\nthe Evangelists. Contrast, for example, the real interpolations of D and\nthe Curetonian. It is at the least demonstrated that that hypothesis\nrequires another source of the Traditional Text, and this is the argument\nnow insisted on. On the contrary, if you will discard your reverse\nprocess, and for \u201cConflation\u201d will substitute \u201cOmission\u201d through\ncarelessness, or ignorance of Greek, or misplaced assiduity, or heretical\nbias, or through some of the other causes which I shall explain later on,\nall will be as plain and easy as possible. Do you not see that? No\nexplanation can stand which does not account for all the instances\nexisting. Conflation or mixture is utterly incapable of meeting the larger\nnumber of cases. But you will find before this treatise is ended that\nvarious methods will be described herein with care, and traced in their\nactual operation, under which debased texts of various kinds were produced\nfrom the Traditional Text.\n\n_B. S._ I see that there is much probability in what you say: but I retain\nstill some lingering doubt.\n\n_The Dean._ That doubt, I think, will be removed by the next point which I\nwill now endeavour to elucidate. You must know that there is no agreement\namongst the allies, except so far as the denial of truth is concerned. As\nsoon as the battle is over, they at once turn their arms against one\nanother. Now it is a phenomenon full of suggestion, that such a _Concordia\ndiscors_ is conspicuous amongst B and \u05d0 and their associates. Indeed these\ntwo Codexes are individually at variance with themselves, since each of\nthem has undergone later correction, and in fact no less than eleven hands\nfrom first to last have been at work on \u05d0, which has been corrected and\nre-corrected backwards and forwards like the faulty document that it is.\nThis by the way, but as to the continual quarrels of these\ndissentients(91), which are patent when an attempt is made to ascertain\nhow far they agree amongst themselves, I must request your attention to a\nfew points and passages(92).\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 2. St. John v. 4.\n\n\nWhen it is abruptly stated that \u05d0BCD\u2014four out of \u201cthe five old\nuncials\u201d\u2014omit from the text of St. John\u2019s Gospel the account of the angel\ndescending into the pool and troubling the water,\u2014it is straightway\nsupposed that the genuineness of St. John v. 4 must be surrendered. But\nthis is not at all the way to settle questions of this kind. Let the\nwitnesses be called in afresh and examined.\n\nNow I submit that since these four witnesses omitting A, (besides a\nmultitude of lesser discrepancies,) are unable to agree among themselves\nwhether \u201cthere was at Jerusalem a sheep-_pool_\u201d (\u05d0), or \u201ca pool at the\nsheep-_gate_\u201d: whether it was \u201csurnamed\u201d (BC), or \u201cnamed\u201d (D), or neither\n(\u05d0):\u2014which appellation, out of thirty which have been proposed for this\npool, they will adopt,\u2014seeing that C is for \u201c_Bethesda_\u201d; B for\n\u201c_Bethsaida_\u201d; \u05d0 for \u201c_Bethzatha_\u201d; D for \u201c_Belzetha_\u201d:\u2014whether or no the\ncrowd was great, of which they all know nothing,\u2014and whether some were\n\u201cparalytics,\u201d\u2014a fact which was evidently revealed only to D:\u2014to say\nnothing of the vagaries of construction discoverable in verses 11 and\n12:\u2014when, you see, at last these four witnesses conspire to suppress the\nfact that an Angel went down into the pool to trouble the water;\u2014this\nconcord of theirs derives suggestive illustration from their conspicuous\ndiscord. Since, I say, there is so much discrepancy hereabouts in B and \u05d0\nand their two associates on this occasion, nothing short of unanimity in\nrespect of the thirty-two contested words\u2014five in verse 3, and\ntwenty-seven in verse 4\u2014would free their evidence from suspicion. But here\nwe make the notable discovery that only three of them omit all the words\nin question, and that the second Corrector of C replaces them in that\nmanuscript. D retains the first five, and surrenders the last\ntwenty-seven: in this step D is contradicted by another of the \u201cOld\nUncials,\u201d A, whose first reading retains the last twenty-seven, and\nsurrenders the first five. Even their satellite L forsakes them, except so\nfar as to follow the first hand of A. Only five Cursives have been led\nastray, and they exhibit strikingly this _Concordia discors_. One (157)\nfollows the extreme members of the loving company throughout. Two (18,\n314) imitate A and L: and two more (33, 134) have the advantage of D for\ntheir leader. When witnesses prevaricate so hopelessly, how far can you\nbelieve them?\n\nNow\u2014to turn for a moment to the other side\u2014this is a matter on which the\ntranslations and such Fathers as quote the passage are able to render just\nas good evidence as the Greek copies: and it is found that the Peshitto,\nmost of the Old Latin, as well as the Vulgate and the Jerusalem, with\nTertullian, Ammonius, Hilary, Ephraem the Syrian, Ambrose (two), Didymus,\nChrysostom (eight), Nilus (four), Jerome, Cyril of Alexandria (five),\nAugustine (two), and Theodorus Studita, besides the rest of the\nUncials(93), and the Cursives(94), with the slight exception already\nmentioned, are opposed to the Old Uncials(95).\n\nLet me next remind you of a remarkable instance of this inconsistency\nwhich I have already described in my book on The Revision Revised (pp.\n34-36). \u201cThe five Old Uncials\u201d (\u05d0ABCD) falsify the Lord\u2019s Prayer as given\nby St. Luke in no less than forty-five words. But so little do they agree\namong themselves, that they throw themselves into six different\ncombinations in their departures from the Traditional Text; and yet they\nare never able to agree among themselves as to one single various reading:\nwhile only once are more than two of them observed to stand together, and\ntheir grand point of union is no less than an omission of the article.\nSuch is their eccentric tendency, that in respect of thirty-two out of the\nwhole forty-five words they bear in turn solitary evidence.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 3.\n\n\nI should weary you, my dear student, if I were to take you through all the\nevidence which I could amass upon this disagreement with one another,\u2014this\n_Concordia discors_. But I would invite your attention for a moment to a\nfew points which being specimens may indicate the continued divisions upon\nOrthography which subsist between the Old Uncials and their frequent\nerrors. And first(96), how do they write the \u201cMary\u2019s\u201d of the Gospels, of\nwhom in strictness there are but three?\n\n\u201cThe Mother of JESUS(97),\u201d as most of us are aware, was not \u201cMary\u201d (\u039c\u03b1\u03c1\u03af\u03b1)\nat all; but \u201c_Mariam_\u201d (\u039c\u03b1\u03c1\u03b9\u03ac\u03bc),\u2014a name strictly identical with that of\nthe sister of Moses(98). We call her \u201cMary\u201d only because the Latins\n_invariably_ write her name \u201cMaria.\u201d So complete an obliteration of the\ndistinction between the name of the blessed Virgin\u2014and _that_ of (1) her\nsister, Mary the wife of Clopas(99), of (2) Mary Magdalene, and of (3)\nMary the sister of Lazarus, may be deplored, but it is too late to remedy\nthe mischief by full 1800 years. The question before us is not that; but\nonly\u2014how far the distinction between \u201c_Mariam_\u201d and \u201c_Maria_\u201d has been\nmaintained by the Greek copies?\n\nNow, as for the cursives, with the memorable exception of Evann. 1 and\n33,\u2014which latter, because it is disfigured by more serious blunders than\nany other copy written in the cursive character, Tregelles by a _mauvaise\nplaisanterie_ designates as \u201cthe queen of the cursives,\u201d\u2014it may be said at\nonce that they are admirably faithful. Judging from the practice of fifty\nor sixty which have been minutely examined with this view, the traces of\nirregularity are so rare that the phenomenon scarcely deserves notice. Not\nso the old uncials. Cod. B, on the first occasion where a blunder is\npossible(100) (viz. in St. Matt. i. 20), exhibits \u039c\u03b1\u03c1\u03af\u03b1 instead of\n\u039c\u03b1\u03c1\u03b9\u03ac\u03bc:\u2014so does Cod. C in xiii. 55,\u2014Cod. D in St. Luke i. 30, 39, 56: ii.\n5, 16, 34,\u2014Codd. CD in St. Luke by \u05d0BC, in St. Matt. i. 34, 38, 46,\u2014Codd.\nB\u05d0D, in ii. 19.\n\nOn the other hand, the Virgin\u2019s sister (\u039c\u03b1\u03c1\u03af\u03b1), is twice written \u039c\u03b1\u03c1\u03b9\u03cc\u03bc:\nviz. by C, in St. Matt xxvii. 56; and by \u05d0, in St. John xix. 25:\u2014while\nMary Magdalene is written \u039c\u03b1\u03c1\u03b9\u03ac\u03bc by \u201cthe five old uncials\u201d no less than\neleven times: viz. by C, in St. Matt. xxvii. 56,\u2014by \u05d0, in St. Luke xxiv.\n10, St. John xix. 25, xx. 11,\u2014by A, in St. Luke viii. 2,\u2014by \u05d0A, in St.\nJohn xx. 1,\u2014by \u05d0C, in St. Matt. xxviii. 1,\u2014by \u05d0B, in St. John xx. 16 and\n18,\u2014by BC, in St. Mark xv. 40,\u2014by \u05d0BC, in St. Matt. xxvii. 61.\n\nLastly, Mary (\u039c\u03b1\u03c1\u03af\u03b1) the sister of Lazarus, is called \u039c\u03b1\u03c1\u03b9\u03ac\u03bc by Cod. B in\nSt. Luke x. 42: St. John xi. 2: xii. 3;\u2014by BC, in St. Luke xi. 32;\u2014by \u05d0C,\nin St. Luke x. 39.\u2014I submit that such specimens of licentiousness or\ninattention are little calculated to conciliate confidence in Codd. B\u05d0CD.\nIt is found that B goes wrong nine times: D, ten (exclusively in respect\nof the Virgin Mary): C, eleven: \u05d0, twelve.\u2014Evan. 33 goes wrong thirteen\ntimes: 1, nineteen times.\u2014A, the least corrupt, goes wrong only twice.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 4.\n\n\nAnother specimen of a blunder in Codexes B\u05d0L33 is afforded by their\nhandling of our LORD\u2019S words,\u2014\u201cThou art Simon the son of Jona.\u201d That this\nis the true reading of St. John i. 43 is sufficiently established by the\nfact that it is the reading of all the Codexes, uncial and cursive\nalike,\u2014excepting always the four vicious specimens specified above. Add to\nthe main body of the Codexes the Vulgate, Peshitto and Harkleian Syriac,\nthe Armenian, Ethiopic, Georgian, and Slavonic versions:\u2014besides several\nof the Fathers, such as\nSerapion(101),\u2014Basil(102),\u2014Epiphanius(103),\u2014Chrysostom(104),\u2014Asterius(105),\u2014and\nanother (unknown) writer of the fourth century(106):\u2014with Cyril(107) of\nthe fifth,\u2014and a body of evidence has been adduced, which alike in respect\nof its antiquity, its number, its variety, and its respectability, casts\nsuch witnesses as B-\u05d0 entirely into the shade. When it is further\nremembered that we have preserved to us in St. Matt. xvi. 17 our Saviour\u2019s\ndesignation of Simon\u2019s patronymic in the vernacular of Palestine, \u201cSimon\nBar-jona,\u201d which no manuscript has ventured to disturb, what else but\nirrational is the contention of the modern School that for \u201cJona\u201d in St.\nJohn i. 42, we are to read \u201cJohn\u201d? The plain fact evidently is that some\nsecond-century critic supposed that \u201cJonah\u201d and \u201cJohn\u201d are identical: and\nof his weak imagination the only surviving witnesses at the end of 1700\nyears are three uncials and one cursive copy,\u2014a few copies of the Old\nLatin (which fluctuate between \u201cJohannis,\u201d \u201cJohanna,\u201d and \u201cJohna\u201d),\u2014the\nBohairic Version, and Nonnus. And yet, on the strength of this slender\nminority, the Revisers exhibit in their text, \u201cSimon the son of John,\u201d\u2014and\nin their margin volunteer the information that the Greek word is\n\u201cJoanes,\u201d\u2014which is simply not the fact: \u0399\u03c9\u03b1\u03bd\u03b7\u03c2 being the reading of _no_\nGreek manuscript in the world except Cod. B(108).\n\nAgain, in the margin of St. John i. 28 we are informed that instead of\nBethany\u2014the undoubted reading of the place,\u2014some ancient authorities read\n\u201cBetharabah.\u201d Why, there is not a single ancient Codex,\u2014not a single\nancient Father,\u2014not a single ancient Version,\u2014which so reads the\nplace(109).\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 5.\n\n\n_B. S._ But(110), while I grant you that this general disagreement between\nB and \u05d0 and the other old Uncials which for a time join in their dissent\nfrom the Traditional Text causes the gravest suspicion that they are in\nerror, yet it appears to me that these points of orthography are too small\nto be of any real importance.\n\n_The Dean._ If the instances just given were only exceptions, I should\nagree with you. On the contrary, they indicate the prevailing character of\nthe MSS. B and \u05d0 are covered all over with blots(111),\u2014\u05d0 even more so than\nB. How they could ever have gained the characters which have been given\nthem, is passing strange. But even great scholars are human, and have\ntheir prejudices and other weaknesses; and their disciples follow them\neverywhere as submissively as sheep. To say nothing of many great scholars\nwho have never explored this field, if men of ordinary acquirements in\nscholarship would only emancipate themselves and judge with their own\neyes, they would soon see the truth of what I say.\n\n_B. S._ I should assent to all that you have told me, if I could only have\nbefore me a sufficient number of instances to form a sound induction,\nalways provided that they agree with these which you have quoted. Those\nwhich you have just given are enough as specimens: but forgive me when I\nsay that, as a Biblical Student, I think I ought to form my opinions upon\nstrong, deep, and wide foundations of facts.\n\n_The Dean._ So far from requiring forgiveness from me, you deserve all\npraise. My leading principle is to build solely upon facts,\u2014upon real, not\nfancied facts,\u2014not upon a few favourite facts, but upon all that are\nconnected with the question under consideration. And if it had been\npermitted me to carry out in its integrity the plan which I laid down for\nmyself(112),\u2014that however has been withheld under the good Providence of\nAlmighty GOD.\u2014Nevertheless I think that you will discover in the sequel\nenough to justify amply all the words that I have used. You will, I\nperceive, agree with me in this,\u2014That whichever side of the contention is\nthe most comprehensive, and rests upon the soundest and widest induction\nof facts,\u2014that side, and that side alone, will stand.\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER V. THE ANTIQUITY OF THE TRADITIONAL TEXT(113). I. WITNESS OF THE\nEARLY FATHERS.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 1. Involuntary Evidence of Dr. Hort.\n\n\nOur readers will have observed, that the chief obstacle in the way of an\nunprejudiced and candid examination of the sound and comprehensive system\nconstructed by Dean Burgon is found in the theory of Dr. Hort. Of the\ninternal coherence and the singular ingenuity displayed in Dr. Hort\u2019s\ntreatise, no one can doubt: and I hasten to pay deserved and sincere\nrespect to the memory of the highly accomplished author whose loss the\nstudents of Holy Scripture are even now deploring. It is to his arguments\nsifted logically, to the judgement exercised by him upon texts and\nreadings, upon manuscripts and versions and Fathers, and to his collisions\nwith the record of history, that a higher duty than appreciation of a\nTheologian however learned and pious compels us to demur.\n\nBut no searching examination into the separate links and details of the\nargument in Dr. Hort\u2019s Introduction to his Edition of the New Testament\nwill be essayed now. Such a criticism has been already made by Dean Burgon\nin the 306th number of the Quarterly Review, and has been republished in\nThe Revision Revised(114). The object here pursued is only to remove the\ndifficulties which Dr. Hort interposes in the development of our own\ntreatise. Dr. Hort has done a valuable service to the cause of Textual\nCriticism by supplying the rationale of the attitude of the School of\nLachmann. We know what it really means, and against what principles we\nhave to contend. He has also displayed a contrast and a background to the\ntrue theory; and has shewn where the drawing and colouring are either\nill-made or are defective. More than all, he has virtually destroyed his\nown theory.\n\nThe parts of it to which I refer are in substance briefly the following:\n\n\u201cThe text found in the mass of existing MSS. does not date further back\nthan the middle of the fourth century. Before that text was made up, other\nforms of text were in vogue, which may be termed respectively Neutral,\nWestern, and Alexandrian. The text first mentioned arose in Syria and more\nparticularly at Antioch. Originally there had been in Syria an Old-Syriac,\nwhich after Cureton is to be identified with the Curetonian. In the third\ncentury, about 250 A.D., \u2018an authoritative revision, accepted by Syriac\nChristendom,\u2019 was made, of which the locality would be either Edessa or\nNisibis, or else Antioch itself. \u2018This revision was grounded probably upon\nan authoritative revision at Antioch\u2019 (p. 137) of the Greek texts which\ncalled for such a recension on account of their \u2018growing diversity and\nconfusion.\u2019 Besides these two, a second revision of the Greek texts, or a\nthird counting the Syriac revision, similarly authoritative, was completed\nat Antioch \u2018by 350 or thereabouts\u2019; but what was now \u2018the Vulgate Syriac\u2019\ntext, that is the Peshitto, did not again undergo any corresponding\nrevision. From the last Greek revision issued a text which was afterwards\ncarried to Constantinople\u2014\u2018Antioch being the true ecclesiastical parent of\nConstantinople\u2019\u2014and thenceforward became the Text dominant in Christendom\ntill the present century. Nevertheless, it is not the true Text, for that\nis the \u2018Neutral\u2019 text, and it may be called \u2018Syrian.\u2019 Accordingly, in\ninvestigations into the character and form of the true Text, \u2018Syrian\u2019\nreadings are to be \u2018rejected at once, as proved to have a relatively late\norigin.\u2019 \u201d\n\nA few words will make it evident to unprejudiced judges that Dr. Hort has\ngiven himself away in this part of his theory.\n\n1. The criticism of the Canon and language of the Books of the New\nTestament is but the discovery and the application of the record of\nTestimony borne in history to those books or to that language. For a proof\nof this position as regards the Canon, it is sufficient to refer to Bishop\nWestcott\u2019s admirable discussion upon the Canon of the New Testament. And\nas with the Books generally, so with the details of those Books\u2014their\nparagraphs, their sentences, their clauses, their phrases, and their\nwords. To put this dictum into other terms:\u2014The Church, all down the ages,\nsince the issue of the original autographs, has left in Copies or in\nVersions or in Fathers manifold witness to the books composed and to the\nwords written. Dr. Hort has had the unwisdom from his point of view to\npresent us with some fifteen centuries, and\u2014I must in duty say it\u2014the\naudacity to label those fifteen centuries of Church Life with the title\n\u201cSyrian,\u201d which as used by him I will not characterize, for he has made it\namongst his followers a password to contemptuous neglect. Yet those\nfifteen centuries involve everything. They commenced when the Church was\nfreeing herself from heresy and formulating her Faith. They advanced\namidst the most sedulous care of Holy Scripture. They implied a\nconsentient record from the first, except where ignorance, or inaccuracy,\nor carelessness, or heresy, prevailed. And was not Dr. Hort aware, and do\nnot his adherents at the present day know, that Church Life means nothing\narbitrary, but all that is soundest and wisest and most complete in\nevidence, and most large-minded in conclusions? Above all, did he fancy,\nand do his followers imagine, that the HOLY GHOST who inspired the New\nTestament could have let the true Text of it drop into obscurity during\nfifteen centuries of its life, and that a deep and wide and full\ninvestigation (which by their premisses they will not admit) must issue in\nthe proof that under His care the WORD of GOD has been preserved all\nthrough the ages in due integrity?\u2014This admission alone when stripped of\nits disguise, is plainly fatal to Dr. Hort\u2019s theory.\n\n2. Again, in order to prop up his contention, Dr. Hort is obliged to\nconjure up the shadows of two or three \u201cphantom revisions,\u201d of which no\nrecorded evidence exists(115). We must never forget that subjective theory\nor individual speculation are valueless, when they do not agree with\nfacts, except as failures leading to some better system. But Dr. Hort, as\nsoon as he found that he could not maintain his ground with history as it\nwas, instead of taking back his theory and altering it to square with\nfacts, tampered with historical facts in order to make them agree with his\ntheory. This is self-evident: no one has been able to adduce, during the\nquarter of a century that has elapsed since Dr. Hort published his book,\npassages to shew that Dr. Hort was right, and that his supposed revisions\nreally took place. The acute calculations of Adams and Leverrier would\nhave been very soon forgotten, if Neptune had not appeared to vindicate\ntheir correctness.\n\nBut I shall not leave matters here, though it is evident that Dr. Hort is\nconfuted out of his own mouth. The fifteen centuries of dominant evidence,\nwhich he admits to have been on our side, involve the other centuries that\nhad passed previously, because the Catholic Church of Christ is ever\nconsistent with itself, and are thus virtually decisive of the\ncontroversy; besides the collapse of his theory when superimposed upon the\nfacts of history and found not to coincide with them. I proceed to prove\nfrom the surviving records of the first three or four centuries, during\nthe long period that elapsed between the copying of the Vatican and\nSinaitic MSS. and the days of the Evangelists, that the evidence of\nVersions and Fathers is on our side.\n\nAnd first of the Fathers.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 2. Testimony of the Ante-Chrysostom Writers.\n\n\nNo one, I believe, has till now made a systematic examination of the\nquotations occurring in the writings of the Fathers who died before A.D.\n400 and in public documents written prior to that date. The consequence is\nthat many statements have been promulgated respecting them which are\ninconsistent with the facts of the case. Dr. Hort, as I shall shew, has\noffended more than once in this respect. The invaluable Indexes drawn up\nby Dean Burgon and those who assisted him, which are of the utmost avail\nin any exhaustive examination of Patristic evidence upon any given text,\nare in this respect of little use, the question here being, What is the\ntestimony of all the Fathers in the first four centuries, and of every\nseparate Father, as to the MSS. used by them or him, upon the controversy\nwaged between the maintainers of the Traditional Text on the one side, and\non the other the defenders of the Neologian Texts? The groundwork of such\nan examination evidently lies not in separate passages of the Gospels, but\nin the series of quotations from them found in the works of the collective\nor individual Fathers of the period under consideration.\n\nI must here guard myself. In order to examine the text of any separate\npassage, the treatment must be exhaustive, and no evidence if possible\nshould be left out. The present question is of a different kind. Dr. Hort\nstates that the Traditional Text, or as he calls it \u201cthe Syrian,\u201d does not\ngo back to the earliest times, that is as he says, not before the middle\nof the fourth century. In proving my position that it can be traced to the\nvery first, it would be amply sufficient if I could shew that the evidence\nis half on our side and half on the other. It is really found to be much\nmore favourable to us. We fully admit that corruption prevailed from the\nvery first(116): and so, we do not demand as much as our adversaries\nrequire for their justification. At all events the question is of a\ngeneral character, and does not depend upon a little more evidence or a\nlittle less. And the argument is secondary in its nature: it relates to\nthe principles of the evidence, not directly to the establishment of any\nparticular reading. It need not fail therefore if it is not entirely\nexhaustive, provided that it gives a just and fair representation of the\nwhole case. Nevertheless, I have endeavoured to make it exhaustive as far\nas my power would admit, having gone over the whole field a second time,\nand having employed all the care in either scrutiny that I could command.\n\nThe way in which my investigation has been accomplished is as follows:\u2014A\nstandard of reference being absolutely necessary, I have kept before me a\ncopy of Dr. Scrivener\u2019s Cambridge Greek Testament, A.D. 1887, in which the\ndisputed passages are printed in black type, although the Text there\npresented is the Textus Receptus from which the Traditional Text as\nrevised by Dean Burgon and hereafter to be published differs in many\npassages. It follows therefore that upon some of these the record, though\nnot unfavourable to us, has many times been included in our opponents\u2019\ncolumn. I have used copies of the Fathers in which the quotations were\nmarked, chiefly those in Migne\u2019s Series, though I have also employed other\neditions where I could find any of superior excellence as well as Migne.\nEach passage with its special reading was entered down in my note-book\nupon one column or the other. Successive citations thus fell on either\nside when they witnessed upon the disputed points so presented. But all\ndoubtful quotations (under which head were included all that were not\nabsolutely clear) were discarded as untrustworthy witnesses in the\ncomparison that was being made; and all instances too of mere spelling,\nbecause these latter might have been introduced into the text by copyists\nor editors through an adaptation to supposed orthography in the later ages\nwhen the text of the Father in question was copied or printed. The fact\nalso that deflections from the text more easily catch the eye than\nundeviating rejection of deflections was greatly to the advantage of the\nopposite side. And lastly, where any doubt arose I generally decided\nquestions against my own contention, and have omitted to record many\nsmaller instances favourable to us which I should have entered in the\nother column. From various reasons the large majority of passages proved\nto be irrelevant to this inquiry, because no variation of reading occurred\nin them, or none which has been adopted by modern editors. Such were\nfavourite passages quoted again and again as the two first verses of St.\nJohn\u2019s Gospel, \u201cI and My Father are one,\u201d \u201cI am the way, the truth, and\nthe life,\u201d \u201cNo man knoweth the Father but the Son,\u201d and many others. In\nLatin books, more quotations had to be rejected than in Greek, because the\nverdict of a version cannot be so close as the witness of the original\nlanguage.\n\nAn objection may perhaps be made, that the texts of the books of the\nFathers are sure to have been altered in order to coincide more accurately\nwith the Received Text. This is true of the Ethica, or Moralia, of Basil,\nand of the Regulae brevius Tractatae, which seem to have been read\nconstantly at meals, or were otherwise in continual use in Religious\nHouses. The monks of a later age would not be content to hear every day\nfamiliar passages of Holy Scripture couched in other terms than those to\nwhich they were accustomed, and which they regarded as correct. This fact\nwas perfectly evident upon examination, because these treatises were found\nto give evidence for the Textus Receptus in the proportion of about 6:1,\nwhereas the other books of St. Basil yielded according to a ratio of about\n8:3.\n\nFor the same reason I have not included Marcion\u2019s edition of St. Luke\u2019s\nGospel, or Tatian\u2019s Diatessaron, in the list of books and authors, because\nsuch representations of the Gospels having been in public use were sure to\nhave been revised from time to time, in order to accord with the judgement\nof those who read or heard them. Our readers will observe that these were\nself-denying ordinances, because by the inclusion of the works mentioned\nthe list on the Traditional side would have been greatly increased. Yet\nour foundations have been strengthened, and really the position of the\nTraditional Text rests so firmly upon what is undoubted, that it can\nafford to dispense with services which may be open to some suspicion(117).\nAnd the natural inference remains, that the difference between the witness\nof the Ethica and the Regulae brevius Tractatae on the one hand, and that\nof the other works of Basil on the other, suggests that too much\nvariation, and too much which is evidently characteristic variation, of\nreadings meets us in the works of the several Fathers, for the existence\nof any doubt that in most cases we have the words, though perhaps not the\nspelling, as they issued originally from the author\u2019s pen(118). Variant\nreadings of quotations occurring in different editions of the Fathers are\nfound, according to my experience, much less frequently than might have\nbeen supposed. Where I saw a difference between MSS. noted in the\nBenedictine or other editions or in copies from the Benedictine or other\nprints, of course I regarded the passage as doubtful and did not enter it.\nAcquaintance with this kind of testimony cannot but render its general\ntrustworthiness the more evident. The habit of quotation of authorities\nfrom the Fathers by Tischendorf and all Textual Critics shews that they\nhave always been taken to be in the main trustworthy. It is in order that\nwe may be on sure ground that I have rejected many passages on both sides,\nand a larger number of cases of pettier testimony on the Traditional side.\n\nIn the examination of the Greek Fathers, Latin Translations have generally\nbeen neglected (except in the case of St. Irenaeus(119)), because the\nwitness of a version is secondhand, and Latin translators often employed a\nrendering with which they were familiar in representing in Latin passages\ncited from the Gospels in Greek. And in the case even of Origen and\nespecially of the later Fathers before A.D. 400, it is not certain whether\nthe translation, such as that of Rufinus, comes within the limit of time\nprescribed. The evidence of the Father as to whether he used a Text or\nTexts of one class or another is of course much better exhibited in his\nown Greek writing, than where some one else has translated his words into\nLatin. Accordingly, in the case of the Latin Fathers, only the clearest\nevidence has been admitted. Some passages adduced by Tischendorf have been\nrejected, and later experience has convinced me that such rejections made\nin the earlier part of my work were right. In a secondary process like\nthis, if only the cup were borne even, no harm could result, and it is of\nthe greatest possible importance that the foundation of the building\nshould be sound.\n\nThe general results will appear in the annexed Table. The investigation\nwas confined to the Gospels. For want of a better term, I have uniformly\nhere applied the title \u201cNeologian\u201d to the Text opposed to ours.\n\n_Fathers._                                   _Traditional   _Neologian._\n                                             Text._\nPatres Apostolici and Didach\u00e8                11             4\nEpistle to Diognetus                         1              0\nPapias                                       1              0\nJustin Martyr                                17             20\nHeracleon                                    1              7\nGospel of Peter                              2              0\nSeniores apud Irenaeum                       2              0\nAthenagoras                                  3              1\nIrenaeus (Latin as well as Greek)            63             41\nHegesippus                                   2              0\nTheophilus Antiochenus                       2              4\nTestament of Abraham                         4              0\nEpistola Viennensium et Lugdunensium         1              0\nClement of Alexandria                        82             72\nTertullian                                   74             65\nClementines                                  18             7\nHippolytus                                   26             11\nCallixtus (Pope)                             1              0\nPontianus (Pope)                             0              2\nOrigen                                       460            491\nJulius Africanus                             1              1\nGregory Thaumaturgus                         11             3\nNovatian                                     6              4\nCornelius (Pope)                             4              1\nSynodical Letter                             1              2\nCyprian                                      100            96\nConcilia Carthaginiensia                     8              4\nDionysius of Alexandria                      12             5\nSynodus Antiochena                           3              1\nActa Pilati                                  5              1\nTheognostus                                  0              1\nArchelaus (Manes)                            11             2\nPamphilus                                    5              1\nMethodius                                    14             8\nPeter of Alexandria                          7              8\nAlexander Alexandrinus                       4              0\nLactantius                                   0              1\nJuvencus                                     1              2\nArius                                        2              1\nActa Philippi                                2              1\nApostolic Canons and Constitutions           61             28\nEusebius (Caesarea)                          315            214\nTheodorus Heracleensis                       2              0\nAthanasius                                   179            119\nFirmicus Maternus                            3              1\nJulius (Pope)                                1              2\nSerapion                                     5              1\nEustathius                                   7              2\nMacarius Aegyptius or Magnus(120)            36             17\nHilary (Poictiers)                           73             39\nCandidus Arianus                             0              1\nEunomius                                     1              0\nDidymus                                      81             36\nVictorinus of Pettau                         4              3\nFaustinus                                    4              0\nZeno                                         3              5\nBasil                                        272            105\nVictorinus Afer                              14             14\nLucifer of Cagliari                          17             20\nTitus of Bostra                              44             24\nCyril of Jerusalem                           54             32\nPacianus                                     2              2\nOptatus                                      10             3\nQuaestiones ex Utroque Test                  13             6\nGregory of Nyssa                             91             28\nPhilastrius                                  7              6\nGregory of Nazianzus                         18             4\nAmphilochius                                 27             10\nEpiphanius                                   123            78\nAmbrose                                      169            77\nMacarius Magnes                              11             5\nDiodorus of Tarsus                           1              0\nEvagrius Ponticus                            4              0\nEsaias Abbas                                 1              0\nNemesius                                     0              1\nPhilo of Carpasus(121)                       9              2\n\u2014\u2014\n                                             2630           1753\n\nThe testimony therefore of the Early Fathers is emphatically, according to\nthe issue of numbers, in favour of the Traditional Text, being about 3:2.\nBut it is also necessary to inform the readers of this treatise, that here\nquality confirms quantity. A list will now be given of thirty important\npassages in which evidence is borne on both sides, and it will be seen\nthat 530 testimonies are given in favour of the Traditional readings as\nagainst 170 on the other side. In other words, the Traditional Text beats\nits opponent in a general proportion of 3 to 1. This result supplies a\nfair idea of the two records. The Neologian record consists mainly of\nunimportant, or at any rate of smaller alterations, such as \u03b4\u03ad\u03b4\u03c9\u03ba\u03b1 for\n\u1f14\u03b4\u03c9\u03ba\u03b1, \u1f41 \u03bf\u1f50\u03c1\u03ac\u03bd\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 for \u1f41 \u03b5\u03bd \u03bf\u1f50\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2, \u03c6\u03bf\u03b2\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c3\u03b8\u03b5 for \u03c6\u03bf\u03b2\u03b7\u03b8\u1fc6\u03c4\u03b5,\ndisarrangements of the order of words, omissions of particles, besides of\ncourse greater omissions of more or less importance. In fact, a great deal\nof the variations suggest to us that they took their origin when the\nChurch had not become familiar with the true readings, the _verba\nipsissima_, of the Gospels, and when an atmosphere of much inaccuracy was\nspread around. It will be readily understood how easily the text of the\nHoly Gospels might have come to be corrupted in oral teaching whether from\nthe pulpit or otherwise, and how corruptions must have so embedded\nthemselves in the memories and in the copies of many Christians of the\nday, that it needed centuries before they could be cast out. That they\nwere thus rooted out to a large extent must have been due to the loving\nzeal and accuracy of the majority. Such was a great though by no means the\nsole cause of corruption. But before going further, it will be best to\nexhibit the testimony referred to as it is borne by thirty of the most\nimportant passages in dispute. They have been selected with care: several\nwhich were first chosen had to be replaced by others, because of their\nabsence from the quotations of the period under consideration. Of course,\nthe quotations are limited to that period. Quotations are made in this\nlist also from Syriac sources. Besides my own researches, The Last Twelve\nVerses, and The Revision Revised, of Dean Burgon have been most prolific\nof apposite passages. A reference here and there has been added from\nResch\u2019s Ausser-Canonische Paralleltexte zu den Evangelien, Leipzig,\n1894-5.\n\n1. St. Matt. i. 25. \u03a0\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03cc\u03c4\u03bf\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd.\n\nOn the Traditional side:\u2014\nTatian (Diatessaron).\nAthanasius (c. Apoll. i. 20; ii. 15).\nBasil (Adv. Eunom. iv. (291); in S. Xti. Gen. 5; i. 392; ii. 599, 600).\nDidymus (Trin. iii. 4).\nCyril Jerus. (Cat. vii. 9).\nGregory Nyss. (ii. 229).\nEphraem Syras (Commentary on Diatessaron).\nEpiphanius (Haer. II. li. 5; III. lxxxviii. 17, &c.\u20145 times).\nAmbrose (De Fid. I. xiv. 89)(122).\n\nAgainst:\u2014I can discover nothing.\n\n2. St. Matt. v. 44 (some of the clauses).\n\nTraditional:\u2014Separate clauses are quoted by\u2014\nDidach\u00e8 (\u00a7 I).\nPolycarp (x.).\nJustin M. (Apol. i. 15).\nAthenagoras (Leg. pro Christian. 11).\nTertullian (De Patient, vi.).\nTheophilus Ant. (Ad Autolycum).\nClemens Alex. (Paed. i. 8; Strom. iv. 14; vii. 14).\nOrigen (De Orat. i.; Cels. viii. 35; 41).\nEusebius (Praep. Ev. xiii. 7; Comment, in Isai. 66; Comment. in Ps. 3;\n            108).\nAthanasius (De Incarnat. c. Arian. 3; 13).\nApost. Const, (i. 1, all the clauses; vii. I).\nGregory Naz. (Orat. iv. 124).\nGregory Nyss. (In Bapt. Christ.; In S. Stephanum).\nLucifer (Pro S. Athan. ii.).\nPhilo of Carpasus (I. 7).\nPacianus (Epist. ii.).\nHilary (Tract. in Ps. cxviii. 9. 9; 10. 16).\nAmbrose (De Abrahamo ii. 30; In Ps. xxxviii. 10; In Ps. cxviii. 12. 51).\nAphraates (Dem. ii.).\nApocryphal Acts of the Gospels (p. 89).\n\nAgainst:\u2014\nCyprian (De Bono Patient, v.; De Zelo xv.; Test. ad Jud. iii. 49).\nIrenaeus (Haer. III. xviii. 5).\nOrigen (Comment. on St. John XX. xv.; xxvii.).\nEusebius (Dem. Evan. xiii. 7).\nGregory Nyss. (In Bapt. Christ.).\n\n3. St. Matt. vi. 13. Doxology.\n\nTraditional:\u2014\nDidach\u00e8 (viii, with variation).\nApostol. Const. (iii. 18; vii. 25, with variation).\nAmbrose (De Sacr. vi. 5. 24).\n\nAgainst (?), i.e. generally silent about it:\u2014\nTertullian (De Orat. 8).\nCyprian (De Orat. Dom. 27).\nOrigen (De Orat. 18).\nCyril Jerus. (Cat. xxiii., Myst. 5, 18).\nGregory Nyss. is doubtful (De Orat. Dom. end).\n\n4. St. Matt. vii. 13, 14. \u1f29 \u03c0\u03cd\u03bb\u03b7.\n\nTraditional:\u2014\nHippolytus (In Susannam v. 18).\nTestament of Abraham(5 times).\nOrigen (Select. in Ps. xvi.; Comment. in Matt. xii. 12).\nAmbrose (Epist. I. xxviii. 6).\nEsaias Abbas.\nPhilo of Carpasus (iii. 73).\n\nAgainst:\u2014\nHippolytus (Philosoph. v. 1. 1\u2014bis).\nOrigen (Cels. vi. 17; Select. in Ps. xlv. 2; cxvii.; c. Haeres. v. 8).\nCyprian (De Hab. Virg. xxi.; Test. ad Jud. iii. 6).\nEusebius (Eclog. Proph. iii. 4; Comment. in Ps. 3).\nClemens Alex. (Strom. IV. ii.; vi.; v. 5; Cohort. ad Gent. p. 79).\nBasil (Hom. in Ps. xxxiii. 4; xlv. 2).\nCyril Jerus. (Cat. iii. 7).\nGregory Nyss. (c. Fornicarios).\nAmbrose (Exposit. in Luc. iv. 37).\nPhilo of Carpasus (i. 7).\nMacarius Aegypt. (Hom. xxviii.).\nLucifer (De Athan. ii.; Moriendum esse).\n\n5. St. Matt. ix. 13. \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03ac\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\u03b1\u03bd. Mark ii. 17.\n\nTraditional:\u2014\nBarnabas (5).\nJustin M. (Apol. i. 15).\nIrenaeus (III. v. 2).\nOrigen (Comment. in Joh. xxviii. 16).\nEusebius (Comment. in Ps. cxlvi.).\nHilary (Comment. in Matt. ad loc.).\nBasil (De Poenitent. 3; Hom. in Ps. xlviii. 1; Epist. Class. I. xlvi. 6).\n\nAgainst:\u2014\nClemens Rom. (ii. 2).\nHilary (in Mark ii. 17).\n\n6. St. Matt. xi. 27. \u03b2\u03bf\u03cd\u03bb\u03b7\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03ba\u03ac\u03bb\u03c5\u03c8\u03b1\u03b9.\n\nTraditional:\u2014\nIrenaeus (c. Haeres. IV. vi. 1).\nArchelaus\u2014Manes (xxxvii.).\nClementines (Recog. ii. 47; Hom. xvii. 4; xviii. 4; 13).\nAthanasius (Matt. xi. 27\u2014commenting upon it; De Incarn. c. Arian. 7; 13;\n            47; 48; c. Arianos iii. 26; 49; c. Sabell. Greg. 4).\nDidymus (De Trin. iii. 36).\nBasil (Adv. Eunom. v. 314).\nVictorinus Afer (Adv. Arium i. 15).\nAmbrose (De Fide V. xvi. 201; De Spir. S. II. xi. 123).\nGregory Nyss. (c. Eunom. i.).\nHilary (Comment. in Matt. ad loc.; De Trin. ii. 10; vi. 26; ix. 50; Frag.\n            xv.).\nQuaestiones ex N. T. (124).\n\nAgainst:\u2014\nIrenaeus (c. Haeres. I. xx. 3; II. vi. I; IV. vi. 3).\nClemens Alex. (Cohort. ad Gent. i. end; Paed. i. 5; Strom. i. 28; v. 13;\n            vii. 10; 18; Quis Div. Salv. viii.).\nJustin M. (Apol. i. 63\u2014bis; Dial. c. Tryph. 100).\nOrigen (Cels. vi. 17; Comm. in Joh. i. 42).\nSynodus Antiochena.\nAthanasius (Hist. Arian. xii.; c. Arian. i. 12; 39; iv. 23; Serm. Maj. de\n            Fide, 28).\nDidymus (De Trin. ii. 16).\nEusebius (Eclog. Proph. i. 11; De Eccles. Theol. I. xv; xvi.).\nBasil (Adv. Eunom. v. 311).\nCyril Jerus. (Cat. vi. 6; x. 1).\nEpiphanius (Adv. Haeres. i. 34. 18; ii. 54. 4; iii. 65. 4; 76. 4; 29;\n            Ancor. 67).\n\n7. St. Matt. xvii. 21. The Verse.\n\nTraditional:\u2014\nClement Alex. \u1f18\u03ba\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f10\u03ba \u03c4. \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6 xv.\nOrigen (Comment. in Matt. xiii. 7; Hom. i.).\nAthanasius (De Virg. vii.).\nBasil (De Jejun. Hom. i. 9; Reg. fus. tract. xviii.; Hom, de Jejun. iii.).\nJuveneus (iii. vv. 381-2).\nAmbrose (In Ps. xlv. 9; Epist. Class. I. xlii. 11).\nHilary (Comment. in Matt. ad loc).\n\nAgainst:\u2014none, so far as I can find.\n\n8. St. Matt. xviii. 11. The Verse.\n\nTraditional:\u2014\nOrigen (ii. 147; Conc. v. 675). Tertullian (Pudic. 9; Resurr. 9).\nAmbrose (De Interpell. Dav. IV. ii. 4; Expos. in Luc. vii. 209; De Fid.\n            Res. II. 6)(123).\n\nAgainst:\u2014none, so far as I can find.\n\n9. St. Matt. xix. 16, 17. \u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03b8\u03ad, and \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03b8\u03bf\u1fe6.\n\nTraditional:\u2014\nClemens Alex. (Strom. v. 10).\nOrigen\u2014\u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03b8\u03ad (Comment. in Matt. xv. 10).\nEusebius (Praep. Evan. xi. 21).\nAthanasius (De Incarn. c. Arian. 7).\nCyril Jerus. (Cat. xviii. 30).\nGregory Naz. (i. 529).\nHilary (Comment. in Matt. ad loc.).\nEpiphanius (Adv. Haeres. I. iii. 34. 18).\nMacarius Magnes (i. 9)(124).\n\nAgainst:\u2014\nOrigen (Praep. Evan. xi. 19; Comment. in Matt. xv. 10.\u2014bis).\nEusebius (Praep. Evan. xi. 21).\nNovatian (De Trin. xxx.).\nHilary\u2014omits \u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03b8\u03ad (Comment. in loc.).\n\n10. St. Matt. xxiii. 38. \u1f14\u03c1\u03b7\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2. St. Luke xiii. 35.\n\nTraditional:\u2014\nCyprian (Test. ad Jud. i. 6).\nIrenaeus (c. Haeres. IV. xxxvi. 8; xxxvii. 5).\nClemens Alex. (Paed. i. 9).\nMethodius (Serm. de Simeone et Anna).\nOrigen (Hom. in Jerem. vii.\u2014 bis; X.; xiii.; Select. in Jeremiam xv.; in\n            Threnos iv. 6).\nApostol. Const. (vi. 5).\nEusebius (Dem. Evan. II. iv. (38)\u2014four times; IV. xvi. (189); VI. (291);\n            viii. (401); x. (481); Eclog. Proph. IV. i.; Comment. in Ps.\n            73\u2014bis; 77; 79; in Isaiam 7-8; De Theophan. vii.\u2014tris).\nBasil (Comment. in Isaiam i. 20).\nCyril Jerus. (Cat. xiii. 32).\nPhilo of Carpasus (iii. 83).\nAmbrose (In Ps. xliii. 69; In Cant. Cant. iv. 54).\n\nAgainst:\u2014\nDidymus (Expos. in Ps. 67).\nEpiphanius (Adv. Haeres. I. iii. 40).\nZeno (xiv. 2).\n\n11. St. Matt. xxvii. 34. \u1f4c\u03be\u03bf\u03c2 and \u03bf\u1f36\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd.\n\nTraditional:\u2014\nGospel of Peter (\u00a7 5).\nActa Philippi (\u00a7 26).\nBarnabas (\u00a7 7).\nIrenaeus.\nTertullian.\nCelsus.\nOrigen.\nEusebius of Emesa.\nTheodore of Heraclea.\nDidymus.\nGregory Naz.\nGregory Nyss.\nEphraem Syrus.\nTitus of Bostra.\n\nAgainst:\u2014\nApocryphal Acts of the Apostles.\nMacarius Magnes (ii. 12).\nGospel of Nicodemus(125).\n\n12. St. Matt. xxviii. 2. \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03b8\u03cd\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2.\n\nTraditional:\u2014\nGospel of Nicodemus.\nAeta Philippi.\nApocryphal Acts of the Apostles.\nEusebius (ad Marinum, ii. 4).\nGreg. Nyss. (De Christ. Resurr. I. 390, 398)(126)?\n\nCompare also Acta Pilati (\u1f00\u03c0\u1f78 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c3\u03c4\u03cc\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c3\u03c0\u03b7\u03bb\u03b1\u03af\u03bf\u03c5, and \u1f10\u03ba \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\n\u03bc\u03bd\u03b7\u03bc\u03b5\u03af\u03bf\u03c5), and Gospel of Peter (\u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03b8\u03cd\u03c1\u03b1\u03c3\u2014\u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03b8\u03cd\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2).\n\nAgainst:\u2014\nDionysius Alex. (Epist. Canon. ad Basilidem).\nOrigen (c. Celsum, ii. 70).\nApostol. Can. (vii. 1).\n\n13. St. Matt. xxviii. 19. \u03b2\u03b1\u03c0\u03c4\u03af\u03b6\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2.\n\nTraditional:\u2014\nIrenaeus (c. Haeres. III. xvii. 1).\nHippolytus (c. Haeres. Noet. 14).\nApostolic Canons (pp. 29; 43; 49 (Lagarde); Const. ii. 26; iv. 1; vii.\n            22).\nConcilia Carthaginiensia (vii.\u2014tris).\nPs. Justin (Expos. Rect. Fid. v.).\nTertullian (De Baptismo xiii.).\nCyprian (Epist. ad Jubaianum v.; xxv. 2 tingentes; lxiii. 18; ad\n            Novatianum Heret. iii.\u20143rd cent.; Testimon. II. xxvi.\n            tingentes).\nEusebius (c. Marcell. I. i.).\nAthanasius (Epist. Encycl. i.; Epist. ad Serap. i. 6; 28; ii. 6; iii. 6;\n            iv. 5; de Syn. 23; De Titulis Ps. 148).\nBasil (Adv. Eunom. v. 299; De Fide 4; De Bapt. I. 1; ii. 6; Epist. Class.\n            I. viii. 11; II. ccx. 3).\nDidymus (De Trin. i. 30; 36; ii. 5; iii. 23).\nCyril Jerus. (Cat. xvi. 4).\nHilary (Comment. in Matt. ad loc.; c. Auxentium 14; De Syn. xxix.; De\n            Trin. ii. 1).\nAmphilochius (Epist. Synod.).\nGregory Nyss. (c. Eunom. xi.; In Bapt. Christ.; In Christ. Resurr.\u2014bis;\n            Epist. v.; xxiv.).\nVictorinus of Pettau (In Apoc. i. 15).\nOptatus (De Schism. Don. v. 5).\nFirmicus Maternus (De Error. Profan. Relig. xxv.).\nAmbrose (De Joseph. xii. 71).\nVictorinus Afer (Adv. Arium iv. 18).\nEpiphanius (Adv. Haeres. iii. 73. 3; 74. 5; \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03ba\u03b5\u03c6\u03b1\u03bb\u03b1\u03af\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2, end).\n\nAgainst:\u2014none.\n\n14. St. Mark i. 2. \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u03ae\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2 ... \u0397\u03c3\u03b1\u0390\u1fb3.\n\nTraditional:\u2014\nTitus of Bostra.\nOrigen.\nPorphyry.\nIrenaeus (III. xvi. 3).\nEusebius.\nAmbrose(127).\n\nAgainst:\u2014\nIrenaeus (III. xi. 8).\nOrigen (Cels. ii. 4; Comment. in John i. 14).\nTitus of Bostra (Adv. Manich. iii. 4).\nEpiphanius.\nBasil (Adv. Eunom. ii. 15).\nEpiphanius (Adv. Haeres. II. i. 51).\nSerapion.\nVictorinus of Pettau (In Apoc. S. Joann.).\n\n15. St. Mark xvi. 9-20. Last Twelve Verses.\n\nTraditional:\u2014\nPapias (Eus. H. E. iii. 39).\nJustin Martyr (Tryph. 53; Apol. i. 45).\nIrenaeus (c. Haer. III. x. 6; iv. 56).\nTertullian (De Resurr. Carn. xxxvii.; Adv. Praxeam xxx.).\nClementines (Epit. 141).\nHippolytus (c. Haer. Noet. _ad fin._).\nVincentius (2nd Council of Carthage\u2014Routh, Rell. Sacr. iii. p. 124).\nActa Pilati (xiv. 2).\nApost. Can. and Const. (can. 1; v. 7; 19; vi. 15; 30; viii. 1).\nEusebius (Mai, Script. Vett. Nov. Collect. i. p. 1).\nCyril Jerus. (Cat. xiv. 27).\nSyriac Table of Canons.\nMacarius Magnes (iii. 16; 24).\nAphraates (Dem. i.\u2014bis).\nDidymus (Trin. ii. 12).\nSyriac Acts of the Apostles.\nEpiphanius (Adv. Haer. I. xliv. 6).\nGregory Nyss. (In Christ. Resurr. ii.).\nApocryphal Acts of the Gospel\u2014Wright (4; 17; 24).\nAmbrose (Hexameron vi. 38; De Interpell. ii. 5; Apol. proph. David II. iv.\n            26; Luc. vii. 81; De Poenit. I. viii. 35; De Spir. S. II.\n            xiii. 151).\n\nAgainst:\u2014\nEusebius (Mai, Script. Vett. Nov. Collect. i. p. 1)(128).\n\n16. St. Luke i. 28. \u03b5\u1f50\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03b7\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7, \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb.\n\nTraditional:\u2014\nTertullian (De Virg. Vel. vi.).\nEusebius (Dem. Evan. vii. 329).\nAphraates (Dem. ix.).\nAmbrose (Exposit. in loc.).\n\nAgainst:\u2014\nTitus of Bostra (Exposit. in loc.; Adv. Manich. iii.).\n\n17. St. Luke ii. 14. \u0395\u1f50\u03b4\u03bf\u03ba\u03af\u03b1.\n\nTraditional:\u2014\nIrenaeus (III. x. 4).\nOrigen (c. Celsum i. 60; Selecta in Ps. xlv.; Comment. in Matt. xvii.;\n            Comment. in Joh. i. 13).\nApostol. Const. (vii. 47; viii. 12).\nMethodius (Serm. de Simeon. et Anna).\nEusebius (Dem. Ev. iv. (163); vii. (342)).\nGregory Thaumaturgus (De Fid. Cap. 12).\nAphraates (Dem. ix.; xx.).\nTitus of Bostra (Expos. in Luc. ad loc).\nAthanasius (De Tit. Pss. Ps. cxlviii.).\nDidymus (De Trin. i. 27; Expos. in Ps. lxxxiv.).\nBasil (In S. Christ. Gen. 5).\nGregory Naz. (Or. xlv. i.).\nPhilo of Carpasus (iii. 167).\nEpiphanius (Haer. I. 30. 29; III. 78. 15).\nGregory Nyss. (In Ps. xiv.; In Cant. Cant. xv.; In Diem Nat. Christ. 1138;\n            De Occurs. Dom. 1156).\nEphraem Syr.(129) (Gr. iii. 434).\n\nAgainst:\u2014\nIrenaeus (III. x. 4).\nOptatus (De Schism. Don. iv. 4).\nCyril Jerus. (Cat. xii. 72).\nAmbrose (Exposit. in Luc. ad loc.).\nJuvencus (II. v. 174).\n\n18. St. Luke x. 41-2. \u1f48\u03bb\u03af\u03b3\u03c9\u03bd \u03c7\u03c1\u03b5\u03af\u03b1 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03af\u03bd, \u1f22 \u1f11\u03bd\u03cc\u03c2.\n\nTraditional:\u2014\nBasil (Const. Monast. i. 1).\nMacarius Aegypt. (De Orat.).\nEvagrius Ponticus.\n\nAgainst:\u2014\nTitus of Bostra (Exposit. in Luc. ad loc. But \u03bc\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03bc\u03bd\u1fb7\u03c2).\n\n19. St. Luke xxii. 43-4. Ministering Angel and Agony.\n\nTraditional:\u2014\nJustin M. (Tryph. 103).\nIrenaeus (Haer. III. xxii. 2; IV. xxxv. 3).\nTatian (Ciasca, 556).\nHippolytus (c. Haer. Noet. 5; 18).\nMarcion (ad loc.).\nDionysius Alex. (Hermen. in Luc. ad loc.).\nEusebius (Sect. 283).\nAthanasius (Expos. in Ps. lxviii.).\nEphraem Syrus (ap. Theodor. Mops.).\nGregory Naz. (xxx. 16).\nDidymus (Trin. iii. 21).\nTitus of Bostra (In Luc. ad loc.).\nEpiphanius (Haer. II. (2) lxix. 19; 59; Ancor. 31; 37).\nArius (Epiph. Haer. lxix. 19; 61)(130).\n\nAgainst:\u2014none.\n\n20. St. Luke xxiii. 34. Our Lord\u2019s Prayer for His murderers.\n\nTraditional:\u2014\nHegesippus (Eus. H. E. ii. 23).\nPs. Justin (Quaest. et Respons. 108\u2014bis).\nIrenaeus (c. Haer. III. xviii. 5).\nArchelaus (xliv.).\nMarcion (in loc.).\nHippolytus (c. Noet. 18).\nClementines (Recogn. vi. 5; Hom. xi. 20).\nApost. Const. (ii. 16; v. 14).\nAthanasius (De Tit. Pss., Ps. cv.).\nEusebius (canon x.).\nDidymus (Trin. iii. 21).\nAmphilochius (Orat. in d. Sabbati).\nHilary (De Trin. i. 32).\nAmbrose (De Joseph, xii. 69; De Interpell. III. ii. 6; In Ps. CXVIII. iii.\n            8; xiv. 28; Expos. Luc. v. 77; x. 62; Cant. Cant. i. 46).\nGregory Nyss. (De Perf. Christ. anim. forma\u2014bis).\nTitus of Bostra (Comment. Luc. ad loc.\u2014bis).\nActa Pilati (x. 5).\nBasil (Adv. Eunom. iv. 290).\nGregory Naz. (Orat. iv. 78).\nEphraem Syr. (ii. 321).\nActa Philippi (\u00a7 26).\nQuaestiones ex Utroque Test. (N.T. 67; Mixtae II. (1) 4).\nApocryphal Acts of the Gospels (Wright), 11; (16)(131).\n\nAgainst:\u2014none.\n\n21. St. Luke xxiii. 38. The Superscription.\n\nTraditional:\u2014\nMarcion (ad loc.).\nEusebius (Eclog. Proph. II. xiv.).\nGospel of Peter (i. 11).\nActa Pilati (x. 1).\nGregory Nyss. (In Cant. Cant. vii.).\nTitus of Bostra (In Luc. ad loc).\n\nAgainst:\u2014none.\n\n22. St. Luke xxiii. 45. \u1f10\u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03c4\u03af\u03c3\u03b8\u03b7.\n\nTraditional:\u2014\nMarcion (ad loc.).\nGospel of Peter (\u00a7 5).\nActa Pilati.\nAnaphora Pilati (\u00a7 7).\nHippolytus (c. Haer. Noet. 18).\nTertullian (Adv. Jud. xiii.).\nAthanasius (De Incarn. Verb. 49; ad Adelph. 3; ap. Epiph. i. 1006).\nCyril Jerus. (Cat. xiii. 24).\nMacarius Magnes (iii. 17).\nJulius Africanus (Chronicon, v. 1).\nApocryphal Acts of the Gospels (Wright, p. 16).\nEphraem Syrus (ii. 48).\n\nAgainst:\u2014\nOrigen (Cels. ii. 35).\nActa Pilati.\n\nEusebius mentions the reading \u1f10\u03ba\u03bb\u03b9\u03c0\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2, but appears afterwards to\ncondemn it(132).\n\n23. St. Luke xxiv. 40. The Verse.\n\nTraditional:\u2014\nMarcion (ad loc.).\nTertullian (De Carne Christi 5).\nAthanasius (ad Epictet. 7; quoted by Epiph. i. 1003).\nEusebius (ap. Mai, ii. 294).\nAmbrose (ap. Theodoret, iv. 141).\nEpiphanius (Haer. III. lxxvii. 9)(133).\n\nAgainst:\u2014none.\n\n24. St. Luke xxiv. 42. \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78 \u03bc\u03b5\u03bb\u03b9\u03c3\u03c3\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 \u03ba\u03b7\u03c1\u03af\u03bf\u03c5.\n\nTraditional:\u2014\nMarcion (ad loc.).\nJustin Martyr (bis).\nClemens Alex.\nTertullian.\nAthanasius (c. Arian. iv. 35).\nCyril Jerus. (bis).\nGregory Nyss.\nEpiphanius.\n\nAgainst:\u2014\nClemens Alex. Paed. i. 5(134).\n\n25. St. John i. 3-4. Full stop at the end of the Verse?\n\nTraditional:\u2014\nAthanasius (Serm. in Nativ. Christ. iii.).\nEusebius (Praep. Evan. xi. 19).\nDidymus (De Trin. I. xv.).\nGregory Nyss. (c. Eunom. i. p. 348\u2014bis; ii. p. 450; p. 461; p. 468; iv. p.\n            584; v. p. 591).\nEpiphanius (Haer. I. (xliii.) 1; II. (li.) 12; (lxv.) 3; (lxix.) 56;\n            Ancoratus lxxv.).\nAlexandrians and Egyptians (Ambrose In Ps. 36).\n\nAgainst:\u2014\nIrenaeus (I. viii. 5 (2); III. xi. 1).\nTheodotus (ap. Clem. Alex. vi.).\nHippolytus (Philosoph. V. i. 8; 17).\nClemens Alex. (Paed. ii. 9).\nValentinians (ap. Epiph. Haer. I. (xxxi.) 27).\nOrigen (c. Cels. vi. 5; Princip. II. ix. 4; IV. i. 30; In Joh. i. 22; 34;\n            ii. 6; 10; 12; 13\u2014bis; in Rom. iii. 10; 15; c. Haer. v. 151).\nEusebius (de Eccles. Theol. II. xiv.).\nBasil (c. Eunom. V. 303).\nGregory Nyss. (De Cant. Cant. Hom. ii.).\nCandidus Arianus (De Generat. Div.).\nVictorinus Afer (Adv. Arium I. iv. 33; 41).\nHilary (De Trin. i. 10).\nAmbrose (In Ps. xxxvi. 35 (4);\nDe Fide III. vi. 41-2\u2014tris)(135).\n\n26. St. John i. 18. \u1f49 \u039c\u03bf\u03bd\u03bf\u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7\u03c2 \u03a5\u1f31\u03cc\u03c2.\n\nTraditional:\u2014\nIrenaeus (c. Haeres. III. xi. 6; IV. xx. 6).\nTertullian (Adv. Praxean xv.).\nHippolytus (c. Haeres. Noeti 5).\nSynodus Antiochena.\nArchelaus (Manes) (xxxii.).\nOrigen (Comment. in Joh. vi. 2; c. Celsum ii. 71).\nEusebius (De Eccles. Theol. I. ix.; II. xi.; xxiii.).\nAlexander Alex. (Epist.).\nGregory Naz. (Orat. xxix. 17).\nCyril Jerus. (Cat. vii. 11).\nDidymus (In Ps. cix.).\nAthanasius (De Decr. Nic. Syn. xiii.; xxi.; c. Arianos ii. 62; iv. 26).\nTitus of Bostra (Adv. Manichaeos iii. 6).\nBasil (De Spir. S. xi.; Hom. in Ps. xxviii. 3; Epist. ccxxxiv.; Sermons\n            xv. 3).\nGregory Nyss. (c. Eunom. ii. p. 522).\nHilary (De Trin. iv. 8; 42; vi. 39; 40).\nAmbrose (De Interpell. I. x. 30; De Benedict, xi. 51; Expos. in Luc. i.\n            25\u2014bis; ii. 12; De Fide III. iii. 24; De Spir. S. I. i. 26).\nEustathius (De Engastr. 18).\nFaustinus (De Trin. ii. 5\u2014tris).\nQuaest. ex Utroque Test. (71; 91).\nVictorinus Afer (De Generat. Verb. xvi.; xx.; Adv. Arium i. 2\u2014bis; iv. 8;\n            32).\n\nAgainst:\u2014\nIrenaeus (IV. xx. 11).\nTheodotus (ap. Clem. vi.).\nClemens Alex. (Strom. v. 12).\nOrigen (Comment, in Joh. II. 29; XXXII. 13).\nEusebius (\u03a5\u1f31\u1f78\u03c2 or \u0398\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2, De Eccles. Theol. I. ix-x.).\nDidymus (De Trin. i. 15; ii. 5; 16).\nArius (ap. Epiph. 73\u2014Tisch.).\nBasil (De Spiritu Sanct. vi.; c. Eunom. i. p. 623).\nGregory Nyss. (c. Eunom. iii. p. 577\u2014bis; 581).\nEpiphanius (Adv. Haeres. II. (lxv.) 5; III. (lxx.) 7).\n\n27. St. John iii. 13. \u1f49 \u1f62\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7 \u039f\u1f50\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u1ff7.\n\nTraditional:\u2014\nHippolytus (c. Haer. Noet. 4).\nNovatian (De Trin. 13).\nAthanasius (i. 1275; Frag. p. 1222, apud Panopl. Euthym. Zyg.).\nOrigen (In Gen. Hom. iv. 5; In Rom. viii. 2\u2014bis).\nBasil (Adv. Eunom. iv. 2).\nAmphilochius (Sentent. et Excurs. xix.).\nDidymus (De Trin. III. ix.).\nTheodorus Heracleensis (In Is. liii. 5).\nLucifer (Pro S. Athan. ii.).\nEpiphanius (Haer. II. lvii. 7).\nEustathius (De Engastr. 18).\nZeno (xii. I).\nHilary (Tract. in Ps. ii. 11; cxxxviii. 22; De Trin. x. 16).\nAmbrose (In Ps. xxxix. 17; xliii. 39; Expos. in Luc. vii. 74).\nAphraates (Dem. viii.).\n\nAgainst:\u2014some Fathers quote as far as these words and then stop, so that\nit is impossible to know whether they stopped because the words were not\nin their copies, or because they did not wish to quote further. On some\noccasions at least it is evident that it was not to their purpose to quote\nfurther than they did, e.g. Greg. Naz. Ep. ci. Eusebius (Eclog. Proph.\nii.) is only less doubtful(136). See Revision Revised, p. 134, note.\n\n28. St. John X. 14. \u03b3\u03b9\u03bd\u03ce\u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03bc\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f51\u03c0\u1f78 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f10\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd.\n\nTraditional:\u2014\nMacarius Aegypt. (Hom. vi.).\nGregory Naz. (orat. xv. end; xxxiii. 15).\n\nAgainst:\u2014\nEusebius (Comment. in Isaiam 8).\nBasil (Hom. xxi.; xxiii.).\nEpiphanius (Comm. in Ps. lxvi.)(137).\n\n29. St. John xvii. 24. \u03bf\u1f55\u03c2 (or \u1f45).\n\nTraditional:\u2014\nIrenaeus (c. Haeres. IV. xiv. 1).\nCyprian (De Mortal, xxii.; Test. ad Jud. iii. 58)(138).\nClemens Alex. (Paed. i. 8).\nAthanasius (De Tit. Pss. Ps. iii.).\nEusebius (De Eccles. Theol. iii. 17\u2014bis; c. Marcell. p. 292).\nHilary (Tract. in Ps. lxiv. 5; De Trin. ix. 50).\nAmbrose (De Bon. Mort. xii. 54; De Fide V. vi. 86; De Spirit. S. II. viii.\n            76).\nQuaestiones ex N. T. (75)(139).\n\nAgainst:\u2014\nClemens Alex. (140\u2014Tisch.).\n\n30. St. John xxi. 25. The Verse.\n\nTraditional:\u2014\nOrigen (Princ. II. vi.; vol. ii. 1 = 81; In Matt. XIV. 12; In Luc. Hom.\n            xxvii; xxix; In Joh. I. 11; V. ap. Eus. H. E. VI. 25; XIII. 5;\n            XIX. 2; XX. 27; Cat. Corder. p. 474).\nPamphilus (Apol. pro Orig. Pref.; iii. ap. Gall. iv. pp. 9, 15).\nEusebius (Mai, iv. 297; Eus. H. E. vi. 25; Lat. iii. 964).\nGregory Nyss. (c. Eunom. xii.\u2014bis).\nGregory Naz. (Orat. xxviii. 20).\nAmbrose (Expos. Luc. I. 11).\nPhilastrius (Gall. vii. 499)(140).\n\nAgainst:\u2014none.\n\nAs far as the Fathers who died before 400 A.D. are concerned, the question\nmay now be put and answered. Do they witness to the Traditional Text as\nexisting from the first, or do they not? The results of the evidence, both\nas regards the quantity and the quality of the testimony, enable us to\nreply, not only that the Traditional Text was in existence, but that it\nwas predominant, during the period under review. Let any one who disputes\nthis conclusion make out for the Western Text, or the Alexandrian, or for\nthe Text of B and \u05d0, a case from the evidence of the Fathers which can\nequal or surpass that which has been now placed before the reader.\n\nAn objection may be raised by those who are not well acquainted with the\nquotations in the writings of the Fathers, that the materials of judgement\nhere produced are too scanty. But various characteristic features in their\nmode of dealing with quotations should be particularly noticed. As far as\ntextual criticism is concerned, the quotations of the Fathers are fitful\nand uncertain. They quote of course, not to hand down to future ages a\nrecord of readings, but for their own special purpose in view. They may\nquote an important passage in dispute, or they may leave it wholly\nunnoticed. They often quote just enough for their purpose, and no more.\nSome passages thus acquire a proverbial brevity. Again, they write down\nover and over again, with unwearied richness of citation, especially from\nSt. John\u2019s Gospel, words which are everywhere accepted: in fact, all\ncritics agree upon the most familiar places. Then again, the witness of\nthe Latin Fathers cannot always be accepted as being free from doubt, as\nhas been already explained. And the Greek Fathers themselves often work\nwords of the New Testament into the roll of their rhetorical sentences, so\nthat whilst evidence is given for the existence of a verse, or a longer\npassage, or a book, no certain conclusions can be drawn as to the words\nactually used or the order of them. This is particularly true of St.\nGregory of Nazianzus to the disappointment of the Textual Critic, and also\nof his namesake of Nyssa, as well as of St. Basil. Others, like St.\nEpiphanius, quote carelessly. Early quotation was usually loose and\ninaccurate. It may be mentioned here, that the same Father, as has been\nknown about Origen since the days of Griesbach, often used conflicting\nmanuscripts. As will be seen more at length below, corruption crept in\nfrom the very first.\n\nSome ideas have been entertained respecting separate Fathers which are not\nfounded in truth. Clement of Alexandria and Origen are described as being\nremarkable for the absence of Traditional readings in their works(141).\nWhereas besides his general testimony of 82 to 72 as we have seen, Clement\nwitnesses in the list just given 8 times for them to 14 against them;\nwhilst Origen is found 44 times on the Traditional aide to 27 on the\nNeologian. Clement as we shall see used mainly Alexandrian texts which\nmust have been growing up in his days, though he witnesses largely to\nTraditional readings, whilst Origen employed other texts too. Hilary of\nPoictiers is far from being against the Traditional Text, as has been\nfrequently said: though in his commentaries he did not use so Traditional\na text as in his De Trinitate and his other works. The texts of\nHippolytus, Methodius, Irenaeus, and even of Justin, are not of that\nexclusively Western character which Dr. Hort ascribes to them(142).\nTraditional readings occur almost equally with others in Justin\u2019s works,\nand predominate in the works of the other three.\n\nBut besides establishing the antiquity of the Traditional Text, the\nquotations in the early Fathers reveal the streams of corruption which\nprevailed in the first ages, till they were washed away by the vast\ncurrent of the transmission of the Text of the Gospels. Just as if we\nascended in a captive balloon over the Mississippi where the volume of the\nMissouri has not yet become intermingled with the waters of the sister\nriver, so we may mount up above those ages and trace by their colour the\ntexts, or rather clusters of readings, which for some time struggled with\none another for the superiority. But a caution is needed. We must be\ncareful not to press our designation too far. We have to deal, not with\ndistinct dialects, nor with editions which were separately composed, nor\nwith any general forms of expression which grew up independently, nor in\nfact with anything that would satisfy literally the full meaning of the\nword \u201ctexts,\u201d when we apply it as it has been used. What is properly meant\nis that, of the variant readings of the words of the Gospels which from\nwhatever cause grew up more or less all over the Christian Church, so far\nas we know, some have family likenesses of one kind or another, and may be\ntraced to a kindred source. It is only in this sense that we can use the\nterm Texts, and we must take care to be moderate in our conception and use\nof it.\n\nThe Early Fathers may be conveniently classed, according to the colour of\ntheir testimony, the locality where they flourished, and the age in which\nthey severally lived, under five heads, viz., Early Traditional, Later\nTraditional, Syrio-Low Latin, Alexandrian, and what we may perhaps call\nCaesarean.\n\nI. _Early Traditional._\n\n                                             _Traditional._   _Neologian._\nPatres Apostolici and Didach\u00e8                11               4\nEpistle to Diognetus                         1                0\nPapias                                       1                0\nEpistola Viennensium et Lugdunensium         1                0\nHegesippus                                   2                0\nSeniores apud Irenaeum                       2                0\nJustin(143)                                  17               20\nAthenagoras                                  3                1\nGospel of Peter                              2                0\nTestament of Abraham                         4                0\nIrenaeus                                     63               41\nClementines                                  18               7\nHippolytus                                   26               11\n                                             \u2014\u2014               \u2014\u2014\n                                             151              84\n\nII. _Later Traditional._\n\n                                             _Traditional._   _Neologian._\nGregory Thaumaturgus                         11               3\nCornelius                                    4                1\nSynodical Letter                             1                2\nArchelaus (Manes)                            11               2\nApostolic Constitutions and Canons           61               28\nSynodus Antiochena                           3                1\nConcilia Carthaginiensia                     8                4\nMethodius                                    14               8\nAlexander Alexandrinus                       4                0\nTheodorus Heracleensis                       2                0\nTitus of Bostra                              44               24\nAthanasius(\u2014except Contra Arianos)(144)122   63\nSerapion                                     5                1\nBasil                                        272              105\nEunomius                                     1                0\nCyril of Jerusalem                           54               32\nFirmicus Maternus                            3                1\nVictorinus of Pettau                         4                3\nGregory of Nazianzus                         18               4\nHilary of Poictiers                          73               39\nEustathius                                   7                2\nMacarius Aegyptius or Magnus                 36               17\nDidymus                                      81               36\nVictorinus Afer                              14               14\nGregory of Nyssa                             91               28\nFaustinus                                    4                0\nOptatus                                      10               3\nPacianus                                     2                2\nPhilastrius                                  7                6\nAmphilochius (Iconium)                       27               10\nAmbrose                                      169              77\nDiodorus of Tarsus                           1                0\nEpiphanius                                   123              78\nActa Pilati                                  5                1\nActa Philippi                                2                1\nMacarius Magnes                              11               5\nQuaestiones ex Utroque Testamento            13               6\nEvagrius Ponticus                            4                0\nEsaias Abbas                                 1                0\nPhilo of Carpasus                            9                2\n                                             \u2014\u2014               \u2014\u2014\n                                             1332             609\n\nIII. _Western or Syrio-Low Latin._\n\n                                             _Traditional._   _Neologian._\nTheophilus Antiochenus                       2                4\nCallixtus and Pontianus (Popes)              1                2\nTertullian                                   74               65\nNovatian                                     6                4\nCyprian                                      100              96\nZeno, Bishop of Verona                       3                5\nLucifer of Cagliari                          17               20\nLactantius                                   0                1\nJuvencus (Spain)                             1                2\nJulius (Pope)?                               1                2\nCandidus Arianus                             0                1\nNemesius (Emesa)                             0                1\n                                             \u2014\u2014               \u2014\u2014\n                                             205              203\n\nIV. _Alexandrian._\n\n                                             _Traditional._   _Neologian._\nHeracleon                                    1                7\nClement of Alexandria                        82               72\nDionysius of Alexandria                      12               5\nTheognostus                                  0                1\nPeter of Alexandria                          7                8\nArius                                        2                1\nAthanasius (Orat. c. Arianos)                57               56\n                                             \u2014\u2014               \u2014\u2014\n                                             161              150\n\nV. _Palestinian or Caesarean._\n\n                                             _Traditional._   _Neologian._\nJulius Africanus (Emmaus)                    1                1\nOrigen                                       460              491\nPamphilus of Caesarea                        5                1\nEusebius of Caesarea                         315              214\n                                             \u2014\u2014               \u2014\u2014\n                                             781              707\n\nThe lessons suggested by the groups of Fathers just assembled are now\nsufficiently clear.\n\nI. The original predominance of the Traditional Text is shewn in the list\ngiven of the earliest Fathers. Their record proves that in their writings,\nand so in the Church generally, corruption had made itself felt in the\nearliest times, but that the pure waters generally prevailed.\n\nII. The tradition is also carried on through the majority of the Fathers\nwho succeeded them. There is no break or interval: the witness is\ncontinuous. Again, not the slightest confirmation is given to Dr. Hort\u2019s\nnotion that a revision or recension was definitely accomplished at Antioch\nin the middle of the fourth century. There was a gradual improvement, as\nthe Traditional Text gradually established itself against the forward and\npersistent intrusion of corruption. But it is difficult, if not altogether\nimpossible, to discover a ripple on the surface betokening any movement in\nthe depths such as a revision or recension would necessitate.\n\nIII. A source of corruption is found in Low-Latin MSS. and especially in\nAfrica. The evidence of the Fathers shews that it does not appear to have\nbeen so general as the name \u201cWestern\u201d would suggest. But this will be a\nsubject of future investigation. There seems to have been a connexion\nbetween some parts of the West in this respect with Syria, or rather with\npart of Syria.\n\nIV. Another source of corruption is fixed at Alexandria. This, as in the\nlast case, is exactly what we should expect, and will demand more\nexamination.\n\nV. Syria and Egypt,\u2014Europe, Asia, and Africa,\u2014seem to meet in Palestine\nunder Origen.\n\nBut this points to a later time in the period under investigation. We must\nnow gather up the depositions of the earliest Versions.\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VI. THE ANTIQUITY OF THE TRADITIONAL TEXT. II. WITNESS OF THE\nEARLY SYRIAC VERSIONS.\n\n\nThe rise of Christianity and the spread of the Church in Syria was\nstartling in its rapidity. Damascus and Antioch shot up suddenly into\nprominence as centres of Christian zeal, as if they had grown whilst men\nslept.\n\nThe arrangement of places and events which occurred during our Lord\u2019s\nMinistry must have paved the way to this success, at least as regards\nprincipally the nearer of the two cities just mentioned. Galilee, the\nscene of the first year of His Ministry\u2014\u201cthe acceptable year of the\nLord\u201d\u2014through its vicinity to Syria was admirably calculated for laying\nthe foundation of such a development. The fame of His miracles and\nteaching extended far into the country. Much that He said and did happened\non the Syrian side of the Sea of Galilee. Especially was this the case\nwhen, after the death of John the Baptist had shed consternation in the\nranks of His followers, and the Galilean populace refused to accompany Him\nin His higher teaching, and the wiles of Herod were added as a source of\napprehension to the bitter opposition of Scribes and Pharisees, He spent\nsome months between the Passover and the Feast of Tabernacles in the north\nand north-east of Palestine. If Damascus was not one of the \u201cten\ncities(145),\u201d yet the report of His twice feeding thousands, and of His\nstay at Caesarea Philippi and in the neighbourhood(146) of Hermon, must\nhave reached that city. The seed must have been sown which afterwards\nsprang up men knew not how.\n\nBesides the evidence in the Acts of the Apostles, according to which\nAntioch following upon Damascus became a basis of missionary effort hardly\nsecond to Jerusalem, the records and legends of the Church in Syria leave\nbut little doubt that it soon spread over the region round about. The\nstories relating to Abgar king of Edessa, the fame of St. Addaeus or\nThaddaeus as witnessed particularly by his Liturgy and \u201cDoctrine,\u201d and\nvarious other Apocryphal Works(147), leave no doubt about the very early\nextension of the Church throughout Syria. As long as Aramaic was the chief\nvehicle of instruction, Syrian Christians most likely depended upon their\nneighbours in Palestine for oral and written teaching. But when\u2014probably\nabout the time of the investment of Jerusalem by Vespasian and Titus and\nthe temporary removal of the Church\u2019s centre to Pella\u2014through the care of\nSt. Matthew and the other Evangelists the Gospel was written in Greek,\nsome regular translation was needed and doubtless was made.\n\nSo far both Schools of Textual Criticism are agreed. The question between\nthem is, was this Translation the Peshitto, or was it the Curetonian? An\nexamination into the facts is required: neither School has any authority\nto issue decrees.\n\nThe arguments in favour of the Curetonian being the oldest form of the\nSyriac New Testament, and of the formation of the Peshitto in its present\ncondition from it, cannot be pronounced to be strong by any one who is\naccustomed to weigh disputation. Doubtless this weakness or instability\nmay with truth be traced to the nature of the case, which will not yield a\nbetter harvest even to the critical ingenuity of our opponents. May it not\nwith truth be said to be a symptom of a feeble cause?\n\nThose arguments are mainly concerned with the internal character of the\ntwo texts. It is asserted(148) (1) that the Curetonian was older than the\nPeshitto which was brought afterwards into closer proximity with the\nGreek. To this we may reply, that the truth of this plea depends upon the\nnature of the revision thus claimed(149). Dr. Hort was perfectly logical\nwhen he suggested, or rather asserted dogmatically, that such a drastic\nrevision as was necessary for turning the Curetonian into the Peshitto was\nmade in the third century at Edessa or Nisibis. The difficulty lay in his\nmanufacturing history to suit his purpose, instead of following it. The\nfact is, that the internal difference between the text of the Curetonian\nand the Peshitto is so great, that the former could only have arisen in\nvery queer times such as the earliest, when inaccuracy and looseness,\ninfidelity and perverseness, might have been answerable for anything. In\nfact, the Curetonian must have been an adulteration of the Peshitto, or it\nmust have been partly an independent translation helped from other\nsources: from the character of the text it could not have given rise to\nit(150).\n\nAgain, when (2) Cureton lays stress upon \u201ccertain peculiarities in the\noriginal Hebrew which are found in this text, but not in the Greek,\u201d he\nhas not found others to follow him, and (3) the supposed agreement with\nthe Apocryphal Gospel according to the Hebrews, as regards any results to\nbe deduced from it, is of a similarly slippery nature. It will be best to\ngive his last argument in his own words:\u2014\u201cIt is the internal evidence\nafforded by the fact that upon comparing this text with the Greek of St.\nMatthew and the parallel passages of St. Mark and St. Luke, they are found\nto exhibit the same phenomena which we should, _a priori_, expect\ncertainly to discover, had we the plainest and most incontrovertible\ntestimony that they are all in reality translations from such an Aramaic\noriginal as this.\u201d He seems here to be trying to establish his position\nthat the Curetonian was at least based on the Hebrew original of St.\nMatthew, to which he did not succeed in bringing over any scholars.\n\nThe reader will see that we need not linger upon these arguments. When\ninterpreted most favourably they carry us only a very short way towards\nthe dethronement of the great Peshitto, and the instalment of the little\nCuretonian upon the seat of judgement. But there is more in what other\nscholars have advanced. There are resemblances between the Curetonian,\nsome of the Old-Latin texts, the Codex Bezae, and perhaps Tatian\u2019s\nDiatessaron, which lead us to assign an early origin to many of the\npeculiar readings in this manuscript. Yet there is no reason, but all the\nreverse, for supposing that the Peshitto and the Curetonian were related\nto one another in line-descent. The age of one need have nothing to do\nwith the age of the other. The theory of the Peshitto being derived from\nthe Curetonian through a process of revision like that of Jerome\nconstituting a Vulgate rests upon a false parallel(151). There are, or\nwere, multitudes of Old-Latin Texts, which in their confusion called for\nsome recension: we only know of two in Syriac which could possibly have\ncome into consideration. Of these, the Curetonian is but a fragment: and\nthe Codex Lewisianus, though it includes the greater part of the Four\nGospels, yet reckons so many omissions in important parts, has been so\ndeterminedly mutilated, and above all is so utterly heretical(152), that\nit must be altogether rejected from the circle of purer texts of the\nGospels. The disappointment caused to the adherents of the Curetonian, by\nthe failure of the fresh MS. which had been looked for with ardent hopes\nto satisfy expectation, may be imagined. _Noscitur a sociis_: the\nCuretonian is admitted by all to be closely allied to it, and must share\nin the ignominy of its companion, at least to such an extent as to be\nexcluded from the progenitors of a Text so near to the Traditional Text as\nthe Peshitto must ever have been(153).\n\nBut what is the position which the Peshitto has occupied till the middle\nof the present century? What is the evidence of facts on which we must\nadjudicate its claim?\n\nTill the time of Cureton, it has been regarded as _the_ Syriac Version,\nadopted at the time when the translation of the New Testament was made\ninto that language, which must have been either the early part of the\nsecond century, or the end of the first,\u2014adopted too in the Unchangeable\nEast, and never deposed from its proud position. It can be traced by facts\nof history or by actual documents to the beginning of the golden period of\nSyriac Literature in the fifth century, when it is found to be firm in its\nsway, and it is far from being deserted by testimony sufficient to track\nit into the earlier ages of the Church.\n\nThe Peshitto in our own days is found in use amongst the Nestorians who\nhave always kept to it(154), by the Monophysites on the plains of Syria,\nthe Christians of St. Thomas in Malabar, and by \u201cthe Maronites on the\nmountain-terraces of Lebanon(155).\u201d Of these, the Maronites take us back\nto the beginning of the eighth century when they as Monothelites separated\nfrom the Eastern Church; the Monophysites to the middle of the fifth\ncentury; the Nestorians to an earlier date in the same century. Hostile as\nthe two latter were to one another, they would not have agreed in reading\nthe same Version of the New Testament if that had not been well\nestablished at the period of their separation. Nor would it have been thus\nfirmly established, if it had not by that time been generally received in\nthe country for a long series of years.\n\nBut the same conclusion is reached in the indubitable proof afforded by\nthe MSS. of the Peshitto Version which exist, dating from the fifth\ncentury or thereabouts. Mr. Gwilliam in the third volume of Studia Biblica\net Ecclesiastica(156) mentions two MSS. dating about 450 A.D., besides\nfour of the fifth or sixth century, one of the latter, and three which\nbear actual dates also of the sixth. These, with the exception of one in\nthe Vatican and one belonging to the Earl of Crawford, are from the\nBritish Museum alone(157). So that according to the manuscriptal evidence\nthe treasures of little more than one library in the world exhibit a very\n_apparatus criticus_ for the Peshitto, whilst the Curetonian can boast\nonly one manuscript and that in fragments, though of the fifth century.\nAnd it follows too from this statement, that whereas only seven uncials of\nany size can be produced from all parts of the world of the Greek Text of\nthe New Testament before the end of the sixth century, no less than eleven\nor rather twelve of the Peshitto can be produced already before the same\ndate. Doubtless the Greek Text can boast certainly two, perhaps three, of\nthe fourth century: but the fact cannot but be taken to be very\nremarkable, as proving, when compared with the universal Greek original,\nhow strongly the local Peshitto Version was established in the century in\nwhich \u201ccommences the native historical literature of Syria(158).\u201d\n\nThe commanding position thus occupied leads back virtually a long way.\nChanges are difficult to introduce in \u201cthe unchangeable East.\u201d\nAccordingly, the use of the Peshitto is attested in the fourth century by\nEphraem Syrus and Aphraates. Ephraem \u201cin the main used the Peshitto\ntext\u201d\u2014is the conclusion drawn by Mr. F. H. Woods in the third volume of\nStudia Biblica(159). And as far as I may judge from a comparison of\nreadings(160), Aphraates witnesses for the Traditional Text, with which\nthe Peshitto mainly agrees, twenty-four times as against four. The\nPeshitto thus reckons as its supporters the two earliest of the Syrian\nFathers.\n\nBut the course of the examination of all the primitive Fathers as\nexhibited in the last section of this work suggests also another and an\nearlier confirmation of the position here taken. It is well known that the\nPeshitto is mainly in agreement with the Traditional Text. What therefore\nproves one, virtually proves the other. If the text in the latter case is\ndominant, it must also be in the former. If, as Dr. Hort admits, the\nTraditional Text prevailed at Antioch from the middle of the fourth\ncentury, is it not more probable that it should have been the continuance\nof the text from the earliest times, than that a change should have been\nmade without a record in history, and that in a part of the world which\nhas been always alien to change? But besides the general traces of the\nTraditional Text left in patristic writings in other districts of the\nChurch, we are not without special proofs in the parts about Syria. Though\nthe proofs are slight, they occur in a period which in other respects was\nfor the present purpose almost \u201ca barren and dry land where no water is.\u201d\nMethodius, bishop of Tyre in the early part of the fourth century,\nArchelaus, bishop in Mesopotamia in the latter half of the third, the\nSynodus Antiochena in A.D. 265, at a greater distance Gregory Thaumaturgus\nof Neocaesarea in Pontus who flourished about 243 and passed some time at\nCaesarea in Palestine, are found to have used mainly Traditional MSS. in\nGreek, and consequently witness to the use of the daughter text in Syriac.\nAmongst those who employed different texts in nearly equal proportions\nwere Origen who passed his later years at Caesarea and Justin who issued\nfrom the site of Sychar. Nor is there reason, whatever has been said, to\nreject the reference made by Melito of Sardis about A.D. 170 in the words\n\u1f41 \u03a3\u03cd\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2. At the very least, the Peshitto falls more naturally into the\nlarger testimony borne by the quotations in the Fathers, than would a text\nof such a character as that which we find in the Curetonian or the Lewis\nCodex.\n\nBut indeed, is it not surprising that the petty Curetonian with its single\nfragmentary manuscript, and at the best its short history, even with so\ndiscreditable an ally as the Lewis Codex, should try conclusions with what\nwe may fairly term the colossal Peshitto? How is it possible that one or\ntwo such little rills should fill so great a channel?\n\nBut there is another solution of the difficulty which has been advocated\nby the adherents of the Curetonian in some quarters since the discovery\nmade by Mrs. Lewis. It is urged that there is an original Syriac Text\nwhich lies at the back of the Curetonian and the Codex Lewisianus, and\nthat this text possesses also the witness of the Diatessaron of\nTatian:\u2014that those MSS. themselves are later, but that the Text of which\nthey give similar yet independent specimens is the Old Syriac,\u2014the first\nVersion made from the Gospels in the earliest ages of the Church.\n\nThe evidence advanced in favour of this position is of a speculative and\nvague nature, and moreover is not always advanced with accuracy. It is not\n\u201cthe simple fact that no purely \u2018Antiochene\u2019 [i.e. Traditional] reading\noccurs in the Sinai Palimpsest(161).\u201d It is not true that \u201cin the\nDiatessaron Joseph and Mary are never spoken of as husband and wife,\u201d\nbecause in St. Matt. i. 19 Joseph is expressly called \u201cher husband,\u201d and\nin verse 24 it is said that Joseph \u201ctook unto him Mary his wife.\u201d It\nshould be observed that besides a resemblance between the three documents\nin question, there is much divergence. The Cerinthian heresy, which is\nspread much more widely over the Lewis Codex than its adherents like to\nacknowledge, is absent from the other two. The interpolations of the\nCuretonian are not adopted by the remaining members of the trio. The\nDiatessaron, as far as we can judge,\u2014for we possess no copy either in\nGreek or in Syriac, but are obliged to depend upon two Arabic Versions\nedited recently by Agostino Ciasca, a Latin Translation of a commentary on\nit by Ephraem Syrus, and quotations made by Aphraates or Jacobus\nNisibenus\u2014, differs very largely from either. That there is some\nresemblance between the three we admit: and that the two Codexes are more\nor less made up from very early readings, which we hold to be corrupt, we\ndo not deny. What we assert is, that it has never yet been proved that a\nregular Text in Syriac can be constructed out of these documents which\nwould pass muster as the genuine Text of the Gospels; and that, especially\nin the light shed by the strangely heretical character of one of the\nleading associates, such a text, if composed, cannot with any probability\nhave formed any stage in the transmission of the pure text of the original\nVersion in Syriac to the pages of the Peshitto. If corruption existed in\nthe earliest ages, so did purity. The Word of GOD could not have been\ndragged only through the mire.\n\nWe are thus driven to depend upon the leading historical facts of the\ncase. What we do know without question is this:\u2014About the year 170 A.D.,\nTatian who had sojourned for some time at Rome drew up his Diatessaron,\nwhich is found in the earlier half of the third century to have been read\nin Divine service at Edessa(162). This work was current in some parts of\nSyria in the time of Eusebius(163), to which assertion some evidence is\nadded by Epiphanius(164). Rabb\u016bla, bishop of Edessa, A.D. 412-435(165),\nordered the presbyters and deacons of his diocese to provide copies of the\ndistinct or _M\u0115pharr\u0115she_ Gospels. Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrrhus near the\nEuphrates(166), writes in 453 A.D., that he had turned out about two\nhundred copies of Tatian\u2019s Diatessaron from his churches, and had put the\nGospels of the four Evangelists in their place. These accounts are\nconfirmed by the testimony of many subsequent writers, whose words\ntogether with those to which reference has just been made may be seen in\nMr. Hamlyn Hill\u2019s book on the Diatessaron(167). It must be added, that in\nthe Curetonian we find \u201cThe _M\u0115pharr\u0115sha_ Gospel of Matthew(168),\u201d and the\nLewis Version is termed \u201cThe Gospel of the _M\u0115pharr\u0115she_ four books\u201d; and\nthat they were written in the fifth century.\n\nSuch are the chief facts: what is the evident corollary? Surely, that\nthese two Codexes, which were written at the very time when the\nDiatessaron of Tatian was cast out of the Syrian Churches, were written\npurposely, and possibly amongst many other MSS. made at the same time, to\nsupply the place of it\u2014copies of the _M\u0115pharr\u0115she_, i.e. Distinct or\nSeparate(169) Gospels, to replace the _M\u0115hall\u0115te_ or Gospel of the Mixed.\nWhen the sockets are found to have been prepared and marked, and the\npillars lie fitted and labelled, what else can we do than slip the pillars\ninto their own sockets? They were not very successful attempts, as might\nhave been expected, since the Peshitto, or in some places amongst the\nJacobites the Philoxenian or Harkleian, entirely supplanted them in future\nuse, and they lay hidden for centuries till sedulous inquiry unearthed\nthem, and the ingenuity of critics invested them with an importance not\ntheir own(170).\n\nWhat was the origin of the mass of floating readings, of which some were\ntransferred into the text of these two Codexes, will be considered in the\nnext section. Students should be cautioned against inferring that the\nDiatessaron was read in service throughout Syria. There is no evidence to\nwarrant such a conclusion. The mention of Edessa and Cyrrhus point to the\ncountry near the upper Euphrates; and the expression of Theodoret,\nrelating to the Diatessaron being used \u201cin churches of our parts,\u201d seems\nto hint at a circumscribed region. Plenty of room was left for a\npredominant use of the Peshitto, so far as we know: and no reason on that\nscore can be adduced to counterbalance the force of the arguments given in\nthis section in favour of the existence from the beginning of that great\nVersion.\n\nYet some critics endeavour to represent that the Peshitto was brought\nfirst into prominence upon the supersession of the Diatessaron, though it\nis never found under the special title of _M\u0115pharr\u0115sha_. What is this but\nto disregard the handposts of history in favour of a pet theory?\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VII. THE ANTIQUITY OF THE TRADITIONAL TEXT. III. WITNESS OF THE\nWESTERN OR SYRIO-LOW-LATIN TEXT.\n\n\nThere are problems in what is usually termed the Western Text of the New\nTestament, which have not yet, as I believe, received satisfactory\ntreatment. Critics, including even Dr. Scrivener(171), have too readily\naccepted Wiseman\u2019s conclusion(172), that the numerous Latin Texts all come\nfrom one stem, in fact that there was originally only one Old-Latin\nVersion, not several.\n\nThat this is at first sight the conclusion pressed upon the mind of the\ninquirer, I readily admit. The words and phrases, the general cast and\nflow of the sentences, are so similar in these texts, that it seems at the\noutset extremely difficult to resist the inference that all of them began\nfrom the same translation, and that the differences between them arose\nfrom the continued effect of various and peculiar circumstances upon them\nand from a long course of copying. But examination will reveal on better\nacquaintance certain obstinate features which will not allow us to be\nguided by first appearances. And before investigating these, we may note\nthat there are some considerations of a general character which take the\nedge off this phenomenon.\n\nSupposing that Old-Latin Texts had a multiform origin, they must have\ngravitated towards more uniformity of expression: intercourse between\nChristians who used different translations of a single original must, in\nunimportant points at least, have led them to greater agreement. Besides\nthis, the identity of the venerated original in all the cases, except\nwhere different readings had crept into the Greek, must have produced a\nconstant likeness to one another, in all translations made into the same\nlanguage and meant to be faithful. If on the other hand there were\nnumerous Versions, it is clear that in those which have descended to us\nthere must have been a survival of the fittest.\n\nBut it is now necessary to look closely into the evidence, for the answers\nto all problems must depend upon that, and upon nothing but that.\n\nThe first point that strikes us is that there is in this respect a generic\ndifference between the other Versions and the Old-Latin. The former are in\neach case one, with no suspicion of various origination. Gothic, Bohairic,\nSahidic, Armenian (though the joint work of Sahak and Mesrop and Eznik and\nothers), Ethiopic, Slavonic:\u2014each is one Version and came from one general\nsource without doubt or question. Codexes may differ: that is merely\nwithin the range of transcriptional accuracy, and has nothing to do with\nthe making of the Version. But there is no preeminent Version in the\nOld-Latin field. Various texts compete with difference enough to raise the\nquestion. Upon disputed readings they usually give discordant verdicts.\nAnd this discord is found, not as in Greek Codexes where the testifying\nMSS. generally divide into two hostile bodies, but in greater and more\nirregular discrepancy. Their varied character may be seen in the following\nTable including the Texts employed by Tischendorf, which has been\nconstructed from that scholar\u2019s notes upon the basis of the chief passages\nin dispute, as revealed in the text of the Revised Version throughout the\nGospels, the standard being the _Textus Receptus_:\u2014\n\nBrixianus, f                                         286/54(173) =\n                                                     about 16/3\nMonacensis, q                                        255/97 = 5/2 +\nClaromontanus, h (only in St. Matt.)                 46/26 = 5/3 +\nColbertinus, c                                       165/152 = about\n                                                     14/13\nFragm. Sangall. n                                    6/6 = 1\nVeronensis, b                                        124/184 = 2/3 +\nSangermanensis II, g2                                24/36 = 2/3\nCorbeiensis II, ff2                                  113/180 = 2/3 -\nSangermanensis I, g2                                 27/46 = 3/5 -\nRehdigeranus, I                                      104/164 = 5/8 +\nVindobonensis, i                                     37/72 = 1/2 +\nVercellensis, a                                      100/214 = 1/2 -\nCorbeiensis I, ff1                                   37/73 = 1/2 -\nSpeculum, m                                          8/18 = 1/2 -\nPalatinus, e                                         48/130 = 1/3 +\nFrag. Ambrosiana, s                                  2/6 = 1/3\nBobiensis, k                                         25/93 = 1/4 +\n\nLooking dispassionately at this Table, the reader will surely observe that\nthese MSS. shade off from one another by intervals of a somewhat similar\ncharacter. They do not fall readily into classes: so that if the threefold\ndivision of Dr. Hort is adopted, it must be employed as not meaning very\nmuch. The appearances are against all being derived from the extreme left\nor from the extreme right. And some current modes of thought must be\nguarded against, as for instance when a scholar recently laid down as an\naxiom which all critics would admit, that _k_ might be taken as the\nrepresentative of the Old-Latin Texts, which would be about as true as if\nMr. Labouchere at the present day were said to represent in opinion the\nMembers of the House of Commons.\n\nThe sporadic nature of these Texts may be further exhibited, if we take\nthe thirty passages which helped us in the second section of this chapter.\nThe attestation yielded by the Old-Latin MSS. will help still more in the\nexhibition of their character.\n\n               _Traditional._              _Neologian._\nSt. Matt.\ni. 25          f. ff1. g2. q.              b. c. g1. k.\nv. 44          (1) c. f. h.                a. b. ff1. g1.2. k. l.\n               (2) a. b. c. f. h.\nvi. 13         f. g1. q.                   a. b. c. ff1. g2. l.\nvii. 13        f. ff2. g1.2. q.            a. b. c. h. k. m.\nix. 13         c. g1.2.                    a. b. f. ff1. h. k. l. q.\nxi. 27         All.\nxvii. 21       \u201cMost\u201d a. b. c.             e. ff1. (?) g1.\nxviii. 11                                  e. ff1.\nxix. 17\n(1) \u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03b8\u03ad      b. c. f. ff2.               a. e. ff1. g1.2. h. q.\n(2) \u03c4\u03af \u03bc\u03b5      f. q.                       a. b. c. e. ff1.2. g1. h.\n\u1f10\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u1fb7\u03c2                                     l. (Vulg.)\n\u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb.\n(3) \u03b5\u1f36\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4.   f. g1. m. q.                b.c.ff1.2. g1. h. l.\n\u1f41 \u1f00\u03b3.                                      (Vulg.)\nxxiii. 38.     All\u2014except                  ff2.\n(Lk. xiii.\n35)\nxxvii. 34      c. f. h. q.                 a. b. ff1.2. g1.2. l.\n                                           (Vulg.)\nxxviii. 2      f. h.                       a. b. c. ff1.2. g1.2. l.\n                                           n.\n\"   19         All.\nSt. Mark\ni. 2                                       All.\nxvi. 9-20      All\u2014except                  k.\nSt. Luke\ni. 28          All.\nii. 14                                     All.\nx. 41-42       f. g1.2. q. (Vulg.)         a. b. c. e. ff2. i. l.\nxxii. 43-44    a. b. c. e. ff2. g1.2. i.   f.\n               l. q.\nxxiii. 34      c. e. f. ff2. l.            a. b. d.\n\"   38         All\u2014except                  a.\n\"   45         a. b. c. e. f. ff2. l. q.\nxxiv. 40       c. f. q.                    a. b. d. e. ff2. l.\n\"   42         a. b. f. ff2. l. q.         e.\nSt. John\ni. 3-4         c. (Vulg.)                  a. b. e. ff2. q.\n\"   18         a. b. c. e. f. ff2. l. q.\niii. 13        All.\nx. 14                                      All.\nxvii. 24       All (Vulg.)                 Vulg. MSS.\nxxi. 25        All.\n\nIt will be observed that in all of these thirty passages, Old-Latin MSS.\nwitness on both sides and in a sporadic way, except in three on the\nTraditional side and six on the Neologian side, making nine in all against\ntwenty-one. In this respect they stand in striking contrast with all the\nVersions in other languages as exhibiting a discordance in their witness\nwhich is at the very least far from suggesting a single source, if it be\nnot wholly inconsistent with such a supposition.\n\nAgain, the variety of synonyms found in these texts is so great that they\ncould not have arisen except from variety of origin. Copyists do not\ninsert _ad libitum_ different modes of expression. For example, Mr. White\nhas remarked that \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c4\u03b9\u03bc\u1fb7\u03bd is translated \u201cin no less than eleven different\nways,\u201d or adding _arguere_, in twelve, viz. by\n\nadmonere          emendare          minari            praecipere\ncomminari         imperare          obsecrare         prohibere\ncorripere(174)    increpare         objurgare         arguere (r).\n\nIt is true that some of these occur on the same MS., but the variety of\nexpression in parallel passages hardly agrees with descent from a single\nprototype. Greek MSS. differ in readings, but not in the same way.\nSimilarly \u03b4\u03bf\u03be\u03ac\u03b6\u03c9, which occurs, as he tells us, thirty-seven times in the\nGospels, is rendered by _clarifico_, _glorifico_, _honorem accipio_,\n_honorifico_, _honoro_, _magnifico_, some passages presenting four\nvariations. So again, it is impossible to understand how \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c7\u03ae in the\nphrase \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c7\u03ae \u1f10\u03b8\u03bd\u1ff6\u03bd (St. Luke xxi. 25) could have been translated by\ncompressio (Vercellensis, _a_), _occursus_ (Brixianus, _f_), _pressura_\n(others), _conflictio_ (Bezae, _d_), if they had a common descent. They\nrepresent evidently efforts made by independent translators to express the\nmeaning of a difficult word. When we meet with _possidebo_ and\n_haereditabo_ for \u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03ae\u03c3\u03c9 (St. Luke x. 25) _lumen_ and _lux_ for \u03c6\u1ff6\u03c2\n(St. John i. 9), _ante galli cantum_ and _antequam gallus cantet_ for \u03c0\u03c1\u1f76\u03bd\n\u1f00\u03bb\u03ad\u03ba\u03c4\u03bf\u03c1\u03b1 \u03c6\u03c9\u03bd\u1fc6\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9 (St. Matt. xxvi. 34), _locum_ and _praedium_ and _in\nagro_ for \u03c7\u03c9\u03c1\u03af\u03bf\u03bd (xxvi. 35), _transfer a me calicem istum_ and _transeat a\nme calix iste_ for \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b5\u03bb\u03b8\u03ad\u03c4\u03c9 \u1f00\u03c0\u1fbd \u1f10\u03bc\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03bf (xxvi. 39);\u2014when\nwe fall upon _vox venit de caelis_, _vox facta est de caelis_, _vox de\ncaelo facta est_, _vox de caelis_, and the like; or _qui mihi bene\ncomplacuisti_, _charissimus in te complacui_, _dilectus in quo bene\nplacuit mihi_, _dilectus in te bene sensi_ (St. Mark i. 11), or\n_adsumpsit_ (_autem_ ... _duodecim_), _adsumens_, _convocatis_ (St. Luke\nxviii. 31) it is clear that these and the instances of the same sort\noccurring everywhere in the Old-Latin Texts must be taken as finger-posts\npointing in many directions. Various readings in Greek Codexes present,\nnot a parallel, but a sharp contrast. No such profusion of synonyms can be\nproduced from them.\n\nThe arguments which the Old-Latin Texts supply internally about themselves\nare confirmed exactly by the direct evidence borne by St. Augustine and\nSt. Jerome. The well-known words of those two great men who must be held\nto be competent deponents as to what they found around them, even if they\nmight fall into error upon the events of previous ages, prove (1) that a\nvery large number of texts then existed, (2) that they differed greatly\nfrom one another, (3) that none had any special authority, and (4) that\ntranslators worked on their own independent lines(175). But there is the\nstrongest reason for inferring that Augustine was right when he said, that\n\u201cin the earliest days of the faith whenever any Greek codex fell into the\nhands of any one who thought that he had slight familiarity (_aliquantulum\nfacultatis_) with Greek and Latin, he was bold enough to attempt to make a\ntranslation(176).\u201d For what else could have happened than what St.\nAugustine says actually did take place? The extraordinary value and\ninfluence of the sacred Books of the New Testament became apparent soon\nafter their publication. They were most potent forces in converting\nunbelievers: they swayed the lives and informed the minds of Christians:\nthey were read in the services of the Church. But copies in any number, if\nat all, could not be ordered at Antioch, or Ephesus, or Rome, or\nAlexandria. And at first no doubt translations into Latin were not to be\nhad. Christianity grew almost of itself under the viewless action of the\nHOLY GHOST: there were no administrative means of making provision. But\nthe Roman Empire was to a great extent bilingual. Many men of Latin origin\nwere acquainted more or less with Greek. The army which furnished so many\nconverts must have reckoned in its ranks, whether as officers or as\nordinary soldiers, a large number who were accomplished Greek scholars.\nAll evangelists and teachers would have to explain the new Books to those\nwho did not understand Greek. The steps were but short from oral to\nwritten teaching, from answering questions and giving exposition to making\nregular translations in fragments or books and afterwards throughout the\nNew Testament. The resistless energy of the Christian faith must have\ndemanded such offices on behalf of the Latin-speaking members of the\nChurch, and must have produced hundreds of versions, fragmentary and\ncomplete. Given the two languages side by side, under the stress of the\nnecessity of learning and the eagerness to drink in the Words of Life, the\ninformation given by St. Augustine must have been amply verified. And the\nonly wonder is, that scholars have not paid more attention to the witness\nof that eminent Father, and have missed seeing how natural and true it\nwas.\n\nIt is instructive to trace how the error arose. It came chiefly, if I\nmistake not, from two ingenious letters of Cardinal Wiseman, then a young\nman, and from the familiarity which they displayed with early African\nLiterature. So Lachmann, Tischendorf, Davidson, Tregelles, Scrivener, and\nWestcott and Hort, followed him. Yet an error lies at the root of\nWiseman\u2019s argument which, if the thing had appeared now, scholars would\nnot have let pass unchallenged and uncorrected.\n\nBecause the Bobbian text agreed in the main with the texts of Tertullian,\nCyprian, Arnobius, and Primasius, Wiseman assumed that not only that text,\nbut also the dialectic forms involved in it, were peculiar to Africa and\ntook their rise there. But as Mr. White has pointed out(177), \u201cthat is\nbecause during this period we are dependent almost exclusively on Africa\nfor our Latin Literature.\u201d Moreover, as every accomplished Latin scholar\nwho is acquainted with the history of the language is aware, Low-Latin\ntook rise in Italy, when the provincial dialects of that Peninsula sprang\ninto prominence upon the commencement of the decay of the pure Latin race,\noccurring through civil and foreign wars and the sanguinary proscriptions,\nand from the consequent lapse in the predominance in literature of the\npure Latin Language. True, that the pure Latin and the Low-Latin continued\nside by side for a long time, the former in the best literature, and the\nlatter in ever increasing volume. What is most apposite to the question,\nthe Roman colonists in France, Spain, Portugal, Provence, and Walachia,\nconsisted mainly of Italian blood which was not pure Latin, as is shewn\nespecially in the veteran soldiers who from time to time received grants\nof land from their emperors or generals. The six Romance Languages are\nmainly descended from the provincial dialects of the Italian Peninsula. It\nwould be contrary to the action of forces in history that such and so\nstrong a change of language should have been effected in an outlying\nprovince, where the inhabitants mainly spoke another tongue altogether. It\nis in the highest degree improbable that a new form of Latin should have\ngrown up in Africa, and should have thence spread across the\nMediterranean, and have carried its forms of speech into parts of the\nextensive Roman Empire with which the country of its birth had no natural\ncommunication. Low-Latin was the early product of the natural races in\nnorth and central Italy, and from thence followed by well-known channels\ninto Africa and Gaul and elsewhere(178). We shall find in these truths\nmuch light, unless I am deceived, to dispel our darkness upon the Western\ntext.\n\nThe best part of Wiseman\u2019s letters occurs where he proves that St.\nAugustine used Italian MSS. belonging to what the great Bishop of Hippo\nterms the \u201cItala,\u201d and pronounces to be the best of the Latin Versions.\nEvidently the \u201cItala\u201d was the highest form of Latin Version\u2014highest, that\nis, in the character and elegance of the Latin used in it, and\nconsequently in the correctness of its rendering. So here we now see our\nway. Critics have always had some difficulty about Dr. Hort\u2019s \u201cEuropean\u201d\nclass, though there is doubtless a special character in _b_ and its\nfollowing. It appears now that there is no necessity for any embarrassment\nabout the intermediate MSS., because by unlocalizing the text supposed to\nbe African we have the Low-Latin Text prevailing over the less educated\nparts of Italy, over Africa, and over Gaul, and other places away from\nRome and Milan and the other chief centres.\n\nBeginning with the Itala, the other texts sink gradually downwards, till\nwe reach the lowest of all. There is thus no bar in the way of connecting\nthat most remarkable product of the Low-Latin Text, the Codex Bezae, with\nany others, because the Latin Version of it stands simply as one of the\nLow-Latin group.\n\nAnother difficulty is also removed. Amongst the most interesting and\nvaluable contributions to Sacred Textual Criticism that have come from the\nfertile conception and lucid argument of Mr. Rendel Harris, has been the\nproof of a closer connexion between the Low-Latin Text, as I must venture\nto call it, and the form of Syrian Text exhibited in the Curetonian\nVersion, which he has given in his treatment of the Ferrar Group of Greek\nMSS. Of course the general connexion between the two has been long known\nto scholars. The resemblance between the Curetonian and Tatian\u2019s\nDiatessaron, to which the Lewis Codex must now be added, on the one hand,\nand on the other the less perfect Old-Latin Texts is a commonplace in\nTextual Criticism. But Mr. Harris has also shewn that there was probably a\nSyriacization of the Codex Bezae, a view which has been strongly confirmed\non general points by Dr. Chase: and has further discovered evidence that\nthe text of the Ferrar Group of Cursives found its way into and out of\nSyriac and carried back, according to Mr. Harris\u2019 ingenious suggestion,\ntraces of its sojourn there. Dr. Chase has very recently shed more light\nupon the subject in his book called \u201cThe Syro-Latin Element of the\nGospels(179).\u201d So all these particulars exhibit in strong light the\nconnexion between the Old-Latin and the Syriac. If we are dealing, not so\nmuch with the entire body of Western Texts, but as I contend with the\nLow-Latin part of them in its wide circulation, there is no difficulty in\nunderstanding how such a connexion arose. The Church in Rome shot up as\nnoiselessly as the Churches of Damascus and Antioch. How and why? The key\nis given in the sixteenth chapter of St. Paul\u2019s Epistle to the Romans. How\ncould he have known intimately so many of the leading Roman Christians,\nunless they had carried his teaching along the road of commerce from\nAntioch to Rome? Such travellers, and they would by no means be confined\nto the days of St. Paul, would understand Syriac as well as Latin. The\nstories and books, told or written in Aramaic, must have gone through all\nSyria, recounting the thrilling history of redemption before the\nauthorized accounts were given in Greek. Accordingly, in the earliest\ntimes translations must have been made from Aramaic or Syriac into Latin,\nas afterwards from Greek. Thus a connexion between the Italian and Syrian\nChurches, and also between the teaching given in the two countries, must\nhave lain embedded in the foundations of their common Christianity, and\nmust have exercised an influence during very many years after.\n\nThis view of the interconnexion of the Syrian and Old-Latin readings leads\nus on to what must have been at first the chief origin of corruption. \u201cThe\nrulers derided Him\u201d: \u201cthe common people heard Him gladly.\u201d It does not, I\nthink, appear probable that the Gospels were written till after St. Paul\nleft Jerusalem for Rome. Literature of a high kind arose slowly in the\nChurch, and the great missionary Apostle was the pioneer. It is surely\nimpossible that the authors of the Synoptic Gospels should have seen one\nanother\u2019s writings, because in that case they would not have differed so\nmuch from one another(180). The effort of St. Luke (Pref.), made probably\nduring St. Paul\u2019s imprisonment at Caesarea (Acts xxiv. 23), though he may\nnot have completed his Gospel then, most likely stimulated St. Matthew.\nThus in time the authorized Gospels were issued, not only to supply\ncomplete and connected accounts, but to become accurate and standard\neditions of what had hitherto been spread abroad in shorter or longer\nnarratives, and with more or less correctness or error. Indeed, it is\nclear that before the Gospels were written many erroneous forms of the\nstories which made up the oral or written Gospel must have been in vogue,\nand that nowhere are these more likely to have prevailed than in Syria,\nwhere the Church took root so rapidly and easily. But the readings thus\npropagated, of which many found their way, especially in the West, into\nthe wording of the Gospels before St. Chrysostom, never could have entered\ninto the pure succession. Here and there they were interlopers and\nusurpers, and after the manner of such claimants, had to some extent the\nappearance of having sprung from the genuine stock. But they were ejected\nduring the period elapsing from the fourth to the eighth century, when the\nText of the New Testament was gradually purified.\n\nThis view is submitted to Textual students for verification.\n\n                  \u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\n\nWe have now traced back the Traditional Text to the earliest times. The\nwitness of the early Fathers has established the conclusion that there is\nnot the slightest uncertainty upon this point. To deny it is really a\npiece of pure assumption. It rests upon the record of facts. Nor is there\nany reason for hesitation in concluding that the career of the Peshitto\ndates back in like manner. The Latin Texts, like others, are of two kinds:\nboth the Traditional Text and the forms of corruption find a place in\nthem. So that the testimony of these great Versions, Syriac and Latin, is\nadded to the testimony of the Fathers. There are no grounds for doubting\nthat the causeway of the pure text of the Holy Gospels, and by consequence\nof the rest of the New Testament, has stood far above the marshes on\neither side ever since those sacred Books were written. What can be the\nattraction of those perilous quagmires, it is hard to understand. \u201cAn\nhighway shall be there, and a way\u201d; \u201cthe redeemed shall walk there\u201d; \u201cthe\nwayfaring men, though fools, shall not err therein(181).\u201d\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VIII. ALEXANDRIA AND CAESAREA.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 1. Alexandrian Readings, and the Alexandrian School.\n\n\nWhat is the real truth about the existence of an Alexandrian Text? Are\nthere, or are there not, sufficient elements of an Alexandrian character,\nand of Alexandrian or Egyptian origin, to constitute a Text of the Holy\nGospels to be designated by that name?\n\nSo thought Griesbach, who conceived Origen to be the standard of the\nAlexandrian text. Hort, who appears to have attributed to his Neutral text\nmuch of the native products of Alexandria(182), speaks more of readings\nthan of text. The question must be decided upon the evidence of the case,\nwhich shall now be in the main produced.\n\nThe Fathers or ancient writers who may be classed as Alexandrian in the\nperiod under consideration are the following:\u2014\n\n                                             _Traditional._   _Neologian._\nHeracleon                                    1                7\nClement of Alexandria                        82               72\nDionysius of Alexandria                      12               5\nTheognosius                                  0                1\nPeter of Alexandria                          7                8\nArius                                        2                1\nAthanasius (c. Arianos)                      57               56\n                                             \u2014\u2014               \u2014\u2014\n                                             161              150\n\nUnder the thirty places already examined, Clement, the most important of\nthese writers, witnesses 8 times for the Traditional reading and 14 times\nfor the Neologian. Origen, who in his earlier years was a leader of this\nschool, testifies 44 and 27 times respectively in the order stated.\n\nThe Version which was most closely connected with Lower Egypt was the\nBohairic, and under the same thirty passages gives the ensuing evidence:\u2014\n\n1. Matt. i. 25. Omits. One MS. says the Greek has \u201cher first-born son\u201d.\n2. \" v. 44. Large majority, all but 5, omit. Some add in the margin.\n3. \" vi. 13. Only 5 MSS. have the doxology.\n4. \" vii. 13. All have it.\n5. \" ix. 13. 9 have it, and 3 in margin: 12 omit, besides the 3 just\n            mentioned.\n6. \" xi. 27. All have \u03b2\u03bf\u03cd\u03bb\u03b7\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9.\n7. \" xvii. 21. Only 6 MSS. have it, besides 7 in margin or interlined: 11\n            omit wholly.\n8. \" xviii. 11. Only 4 have it.\n9. \" xix. 16. Only 7 have \u201cgood,\u201d besides a few corrections: 12 omit.\n\" \" 17. Only 1 has it.\n10. \" xxiii. 38. Only 6 have it.\n11. \" xxvii. 34. One corrected and one which copied the correction. All\n            the rest have \u03bf\u1f36\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd(183).\n12. \" xxviii. 2. All have it.\n13. \" \" 19. All have it.\n14. Mark i. 2. All (i.e. 25) give, \u1f28\u03c3\u03b1\u0390\u1fb3.\n15. \" xvi. 9-20. None wholly omit: 2 give the alternative ending.\n16. Luke  i. 28. Only 4 + 2 corrected have it: 12 omit.\n17. \"  ii. 14. All have \u03b5\u1f50\u03b4\u03bf\u03ba\u03af\u03b1.\n18. \"  x. 41-2. \u1f48\u03bb\u03af\u03b3\u03c9\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 (3 omit) \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u1f76 \u03c7\u03c1\u03b5\u03af\u03b1 \u1f22 \u1f11\u03bd\u03cc\u03c2: 1 omits \u1f22 \u1f11\u03bd\u03cc\u03c2. 2\n            corrected add \u201cof them.\u201d\n19. \" xxii. 43-4. Omitted by 18(184).\n20. \" xxiii. 34. All omit(185).\n21. Luke xxiii. 38. All omit except 5(186) (?).\n22. \" \" 45. All have \u1f10\u03ba\u03bb\u03b9\u03c0\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2(187).\n23. \" xxiv. 40. All have it.\n24. \" \" 42. All omit(188).\n25. John i. 3-4. All (except 1 which pauses at \u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u1f72 \u1f15\u03bd) have it. The\n            Sahidic is the other way.\n26. \" \" 18. All have \u0398\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2(189).\n27. \" iii. 13. Omitted by 9.\n28. \" x. 14. All have \u201cmine know me.\u201d The Bohairic has no passive: hence\n            the error(190).\n29. \" xvii. 24. The Bohairic could not express \u03bf\u1f55\u03c2: hence the error(191).\n30. \" xxi. 25. All have it.\n\nThe MSS. differ in number as to their witness in each place.\n\nNo manuscripts can be adduced as Alexandrian: and in fact we are\nconsidering the ante-manuscriptal period. All reference therefore to\nmanuscripts would be consequent upon, not a factor in, the present\ninvestigation.\n\nIt will be seen upon a review of this evidence, that the most striking\ncharacteristic is found in the instability of it. The Bohairic wabbles\nfrom side to side. Clement witnesses on both sides upon the thirty places\nbut mostly against the Traditional text, whilst his collected evidence in\nall cases yields a slight majority to the latter side of the contention.\nOrigen on the contrary by a large majority rejects the Neologian readings\non the thirty passages, but acknowledges them by a small one in his\nhabitual quotations. It is very remarkable, and yet characteristic of\nOrigen, who indeed changed his home from Alexandria to Caesarea, that his\nhabit was to adopt one of the most notable of Syrio-Low-Latin readings in\npreference to the Traditional reading prevalent at Alexandria. St. Ambrose\n(in Ps. xxxvi. 35) in defending the reading of St. John i. 3-4, \u201cwithout\nHim was not anything made: that which was made was life in Him,\u201d says that\nAlexandrians and Egyptians follow the reading which is now adopted\neverywhere except by Lachmann, Tregelles, and W.-Hort. It has been said\nthat Origen was in the habit of using MSS. of both kinds, and indeed no\none can examine his quotations without coming to that conclusion.\n\nTherefore we are led first of all to the school of Christian Philosophy\nwhich under the name of the Catechetical School has made Alexandria for\never celebrated in the early annals of the Christian Church. Indeed Origen\nwas a Textual Critic. He spent much time and toil upon the text of the New\nTestament, besides his great labours on the Old, because he found it\ndisfigured as he says by corruptions \u201csome arising from the carelessness\nof scribes, some from evil licence of emendation, some from arbitrary\nomissions and interpolations(192).\u201d Such a sitting in judgement, or as\nperhaps it should be said with more justice to Origen such a pursuit of\ninquiry, involved weighing of evidence on either side, of which there are\nmany indications in his works. The connexion of this school with the\nschool set up at Caesarea, to which place Origen appears to have brought\nhis manuscripts, and where he bequeathed his teaching and spirit to\nsympathetic successors, will be carried out and described more fully in\nthe next section. Origen was the most prominent personage by far in the\nAlexandrian School. His fame and influence in this province extended with\nthe reputation of his other writings long after his death. \u201cWhen a writer\nspeaks of the \u2018accurate copies,\u2019 what he actually means is the text of\nScripture which was employed or approved by Origen(193).\u201d Indeed it was an\nelemental, inchoate school, dealing in an academical and eclectic spirit\nwith evidence of various kinds, highly intellectual rather than original,\nas for example in the welcome given to the Syrio-Low-Latin variation of\nSt. Matt. xix. 16, 17, and addicted in some degree to alteration of\npassages. It would appear that besides this critical temper and habit\nthere was to some extent a growth of provincial readings at Alexandria or\nin the neighbourhood, and that modes of spelling which were rejected in\nlater ages took their rise there. Specimens of the former of these\npeculiarities may be seen in the table of readings just given from the\nBohairic Version. The chief effects of Alexandrian study occurred in the\nCaesarean school which now invites our consideration.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 2. Caesarean School.\n\n\nIn the year 231, as seems most probable, Origen finally left Alexandria.\nHis head-quarters thenceforward may be said to have been Caesarea in\nPalestine, though he travelled into Greece and Arabia and stayed at\nNeo-Caesarea in Cappadocia with his friend and pupil Gregory Thaumaturgus.\nHe had previously visited Rome: so that he must have been well qualified\nby his experience as well as probably by his knowledge and collection of\nMSS. to lay a broad foundation for the future settlement of the text. But\nunfortunately his whole career marks him out as a man of uncertain\njudgement. Like some others, he was a giant in learning, but ordinary in\nthe use of his learning. He was also closely connected with the\nphilosophical school of Alexandria, from which Arianism issued.\n\nThe leading figures in this remarkable School of Textual Criticism at\nCaesarea were Origen and Eusebius, besides Pamphilus who forms the link\nbetween the two. The ground-work of the School was the celebrated library\nin the city which was formed upon the foundation supplied by Origen, so\nfar as the books in it escaped the general destruction of MSS. that\noccurred in the persecution of Diocletian. It is remarkable, that although\nthere seems little doubt that the Vatican and Sinaitic MSS. were amongst\nthe fruits of this school, as will be shewn in the next chapter, the\nwitness of the writings of both Origen and Eusebius is so favourable as it\nis to the Traditional Text. In the case of Origen there is as already\nstated(194) not far from an equality between the totals on either side,\nbesides a majority of 44 to 27 on the thirty important texts: and the\nnumbers for Eusebius are respectively 315 to 214, and 41 to 11.\n\nPalestine was well suited from its geographical position to be the site of\nthe junction of all the streams. The very same circumstances which adapted\nit to be the arena of the great drama in the world\u2019s history drew to its\nshores the various elements in the representation in language of the most\ncharacteristic part of the Word of God. The Traditional Text would reach\nit by various routes: the Syrio-Low-Latin across the sea and from Syria:\nthe Alexandrian readings from the near neighbourhood. Origen in his\ntravels would help to assemble all. The various alien streams would thus\ncoalesce, and the text of B and \u05d0 would be the result. But the readings of\nMSS. recorded by Origen and especially by Eusebius prove that in this\nbroad school the Traditional Text gained at least a decided preponderance\naccording to the private choice of the latter scholar. Yet, as will be\nshewn, he was probably, not the writer of B and of the six conjugate\nleaves in \u05d0, yet as the executor of the order of Constantine the\nsuperintendent also in copying those celebrated MSS. Was he then\ninfluenced by the motives of a courtier in sending such texts as he\nthought would be most acceptable to the Emperor? Or is it not more in\nconsonance with the facts of the case\u2014especially as interpreted by the\nsubsequent spread in Constantinople of the Traditional Text(195)\u2014, that we\nshould infer that the fifty MSS. sent included a large proportion of Texts\nof another character? Eusebius, the Homoiousian or Semi-Arian, would thus\nbe the collector of copies to suit different tastes and opinions, and his\nscholar and successor Acacius, the Homoean, would more probably be the\nwriter of B and of the six conjugate leaves of \u05d0(196). The trimming\ncharacter of the latitudinarian, and the violent forwardness of the\npartisan, would appear to render such a supposition not unreasonable.\nEstimating the school according to principles of historical philosophy,\nand in consonance with both the existence of the Text denoted by B and \u05d0\nand also the subsequent results, it must appear to us to be transitional\nin character, including two distinct and incongruous solutions, of which\none was afterwards proved to be the right by the general acceptation in\nthe Church that even Dr. Hort acknowledges to have taken place.\n\nAn interesting inquiry is here suggested with respect to the two\ncelebrated MSS. just mentioned. How is it that we possess no MSS. of the\nNew Testament of any considerable size older than those, or at least no\nother such MSS. as old as they are? Besides the disastrous results of the\npersecution of Diocletian, there is much force in the reply of Dean\nBurgon, that being generally recognized as bad MSS. they were left\nstanding on the shelf in their handsome covers, whilst others which were\nmore correct were being thumbed to pieces in constant use. But the\ndiscoveries made since the Dean\u2019s death enables me to suggest another\nanswer which will also help to enlarge our view on these matters.\n\nThe habit of writing on vellum belongs to Asia. The first mention of it\nthat we meet with occurs in the 58th chapter of the 5th book of Herodotus,\nwhere the historian tells us that the Ionians wrote on the skins of sheep\nand goats because they could not get \u201cbyblus,\u201d or as we best know it,\npapyrus. Vellum remained in comparative obscurity till the time of Eumenes\nII, King of Pergamum. That intelligent potentate, wishing to enlarge his\nlibrary and being thwarted by the Ptolemies who refused out of jealousy to\nsupply him with papyrus, improved the skins of his country(197), and made\nthe \u201ccharta Pergamena,\u201d from whence the term parchment has descended to\nus. It will be remembered that St. Paul sent to Ephesus for \u201cthe books,\nespecially the parchments(198).\u201d There is evidence that vellum was used at\nRome: but the chief materials employed there appear to have been waxen\ntablets and papyrus. Martial, writing towards the end of the first\ncentury, speaks of vellum MSS. of Homer, Virgil, Cicero, and Ovid(199).\nBut if such MSS. had prevailed generally, more would have come down to us.\nThe emergence of vellum into general use is marked and heralded by the\nproducts of the library at Caesarea, which helped by the rising literary\nactivity in Asia and by the building of Constantinople, was probably the\nmeans of the introduction of an improved employment of vellum. It has been\nalready noticed(200), that Acacius and Euzoius, successively bishops of\nCaesarea after Eusebius, superintended the copying of papyrus manuscripts\nupon vellum. Greek uncials were not unlike in general form to the square\nHebrew letters used at Jerusalem after the Captivity. The activity in\nAsiatic Caesarea synchronized with the rise in the use of vellum. It would\nseem that in moving there Origen deserted papyrus for the more durable\nmaterial.\n\nA word to explain my argument. If vellum had been in constant use over the\nRoman Empire during the first three centuries and a third which elapsed\nbefore B and \u05d0 were written, there ought to have been in existence some\nremains of a material so capable of resisting the tear and wear of use and\ntime. As there are no vellum MSS. at all except the merest fragments\ndating from before 330 A.D., we are perforce driven to infer that a\nmaterial for writing of a perishable nature was generally employed before\nthat period. Now not only had papyrus been for \u201clong the recognized\nmaterial for literary use,\u201d but we can trace its employment much later\nthan is usually supposed. It is true that the cultivation of the plant in\nEgypt began to wane after the capture of Alexandria by the Mahommedans in\n638 A.D., and the destruction of the famous libraries: but it continued in\nexistence during some centuries afterwards. It was grown also in Sicily\nand Italy. \u201cIn France papyrus was in common use in the sixth century.\u201d Sir\nE. Maunde Thompson enumerates books now found in European Libraries of\nParis, Genoa, Milan, Vienna, Munich, and elsewhere, as far down as the\ntenth century. The manufacture of it did not cease in Egypt till the tenth\ncentury. The use of papyrus did not lapse finally till paper was\nintroduced into Europe by the Moors and Arabs(201), upon which occurrence\nall writing was executed upon tougher substances, and the cursive hand\ndrove out uncial writing even from parchment.\n\nThe knowledge of the prevalence of papyrus, as to which any one may\nsatisfy himself by consulting Sir E. Maunde Thompson\u2019s admirable book, and\nof the employment of the cursive hand before Christ, must modify many of\nthe notions that have been widely entertained respecting the old Uncials.\n\n1. In the first place, it will be clear that all the Cursive MSS. are not\nby any means the descendants of the Uncials. If the employment of papyrus\nin the earliest ages of the Christian Church was prevalent over by far the\ngreater part of the Roman Empire, and that description is I believe less\nthan the facts would warrant\u2014then more than half of the stems of genealogy\nmust have originally consisted of papyrus manuscripts. And further, if the\nuse of papyrus continued long after the date of B and \u05d0, then it would not\nonly have occupied the earliest steps in the lines of descent, but much\nlater exemplars must have carried on the succession. But in consequence of\nthe perishable character of papyrus those exemplars have disappeared and\nlive only in their cursive posterity. This aspect alone of the case under\nconsideration invests the Cursives with much more interest and value than\nmany people would nowadays attribute to them.\n\n2. But beyond this conclusion, light is shed upon the subject by the fact\nnow established beyond question, that cursive handwriting existed in the\nworld some centuries before Christ(202). For square letters (of course in\nwriting interspersed with circular lines) we go to Palestine and Syria,\nand that may not impossibly be the reason why uncial Greek letters came\nout first, as far as the evidence of extant remains can guide us, in those\ncountries. The change from uncial to cursive letters about the tenth\ncentury is most remarkable. Must it not to a great extent have arisen from\nthe contemporary failure of papyrus which has been explained, and from the\ncursive writers on papyrus now trying their hand on vellum and introducing\ntheir more easy and rapid style of writing into that class of\nmanuscripts(203)? If so, the phenomenon shews itself, that by the very\nmanner in which they are written, Cursives mutely declare that they are\nnot solely the children of the Uncials. Speaking generally, they are the\nprogeny of a marriage between the two, and the papyrus MSS. would appear\nto have been the better half.\n\nSuch results as have been reached in this chapter and the last have issued\nfrom the advance made in discovery and research during the last ten years.\nBut these were not known to Tischendorf or Tregelles, and much less to\nLachmann. They could not have been embraced by Hort in his view of the\nentire subject when he constructed his clever but unsound theory some\nforty years ago(204). Surely our conclusion must be that the world is\nleaving that school gradually behind.\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IX. THE OLD UNCIALS. THE INFLUENCE OF ORIGEN.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 1(205).\n\n\nCodex B was early enthroned on something like speculation, and has been\nmaintained upon the throne by what has strangely amounted to a positive\nsuperstition. The text of this MS. was not accurately known till the\nedition of Tischendorf appeared in 1867(206): and yet long before that\ntime it was regarded by many critics as the Queen of the Uncials. The\ncollations of Bartolocci, of Mico, of Rulotta, and of Birch, were not\ntrustworthy, though they far surpassed Mai\u2019s two first editions. Yet the\nprejudice in favour of the mysterious authority that was expected to issue\ndecrees from the Vatican(207) did not wait till the clear light of\ncriticism was shed upon its eccentricities and its defalcations. The same\nspirit, biassed by sentiment not ruled by reason, has remained since more\nhas been disclosed of the real nature of this Codex(208).\n\nA similar course has been pursued with respect to Codex \u05d0. It was perhaps\nto be expected that human infirmity should have influenced Tischendorf in\nhis treatment of the treasure-trove by him: though his character for\njudgement could not but be seriously injured by the fact that in his\neighth edition he altered the mature conclusions of his seventh in no less\nthan 3,572(209) instances, chiefly on account of the readings in his\nbeloved Sinaitic guide.\n\nYet whatever may be advanced against B may be alleged even more strongly\nagainst \u05d0. It adds to the number of the blunders of its associate: it is\nconspicuous for habitual carelessness or licence: it often by itself\ndeviates into glaring errors(210). The elevation of the Sinaitic into the\nfirst place, which was effected by Tischendorf as far as his own practice\nwas concerned, has been applauded by only very few scholars: and it is\nhardly conceivable that they could maintain their opinion, if they would\ncritically and impartially examine this erratic copy throughout the New\nTestament for themselves.\n\nThe fact is that B and \u05d0 were the products of the school of philosophy and\nteaching which found its vent in Semi-Arian or Homoean opinions. The proof\nof this position is somewhat difficult to give, but when the nature of the\nquestion and the producible amount of evidence are taken into\nconsideration, is nevertheless quite satisfactory.\n\nIn the first place, according to the verdict of all critics the date of\nthese two MSS. coincides with the period when Semi-Arianism or some other\nform of Arianism were in the ascendant in the East, and to all outward\nappearance swayed the Universal Church. In the last years of his rule,\nConstantine was under the domination of the Arianizing faction; and the\nreign of Constantius II over all the provinces in the Roman Empire that\nspoke Greek, during which encouragement was given to the great heretical\nschools of the time, completed the two central decades of the fourth\ncentury(211). It is a circumstance that cannot fail to give rise to\nsuspicion that the Vatican and Sinaitic MSS. had their origin under a\npredominant influence of such evil fame. At the very least, careful\ninvestigation is necessary to see whether those copies were in fact free\nfrom that influence which has met with universal condemnation.\n\nNow as we proceed further we are struck with another most remarkable\ncoincidence, which also as has been before noticed is admitted on all\nhands, viz. that the period of the emergence of the Orthodox School from\noppression and the settlement in their favour of the great Nicene\ncontroversy was also the time when the text of B and \u05d0 sank into\ncondemnation. The Orthodox side under St. Chrysostom and others became\npermanently supreme: so did also the Traditional Text. Are we then to\nassume with our opponents that in the Church condemnation and acceptance\nwere inseparable companions? That at first heresy and the pure Text, and\nafterwards orthodoxy and textual corruption, went hand in hand? That such\nill-matched couples graced the history of the Church? That upon so\nfundamental a matter as the accuracy of the written standard of reference,\nthere was precision of text when heretics or those who dallied with heresy\nwere in power, but that the sacred Text was contaminated when the Orthodox\nhad things their own way? Is it indeed come to this, that for the pure and\nundefiled Word of GOD we must search, not amongst those great men who\nunder the guidance of the Holy Spirit ascertained and settled for ever the\nmain Articles of the Faith, and the Canon of Holy Scripture, but amidst\nthe relics of those who were unable to agree with one another, and whose\nfine-drawn subtleties in creed and policy have been the despair of the\nhistorians, and a puzzle to students of Theological Science? It is not too\nmuch to assert, that Theology and History know no such unscientific\nconclusions.\n\nIt is therefore a circumstance full of significance that Codexes B and \u05d0\nwere produced in such untoward times(212), and fell into neglect on the\nrevival of orthodoxy, when the Traditional Text was permanently received.\nBut the case in hand rests also upon evidence more direct than this.\n\nThe influence which the writings of Origen exercised on the ancient Church\nis indeed extraordinary. The fame of his learning added to the splendour\nof his genius, his vast Biblical achievements and his real insight into\nthe depth of Scripture, conciliated for him the admiration and regard of\nearly Christendom. Let him be freely allowed the highest praise for the\nprofundity of many of his utterances, the ingenuity of almost all. It must\nat the same time be admitted that he is bold in his speculations to the\nverge, and beyond the verge, of rashness; unwarrantedly confident in his\nassertions; deficient in sobriety; in his critical remarks even foolish. A\nprodigious reader as well as a prodigious writer, his words would have\nbeen of incalculable value, but that he seems to have been so saturated\nwith the strange speculations of the early heretics, that he sometimes\nadopts their wild method; and in fact has not been reckoned among the\northodox Fathers of the Church.\n\nBut (and this is the direction in which the foregoing remarks have tended)\nOrigen\u2019s ruling passion is found to have been textual criticism(213). This\nwas at once his forte and his foible. In the library of his friend\nPamphilus at Caesarea were found many Codexes that had belonged to him,\nand the autograph of his Hexapla, which was seen and used by St.\nJerome(214). In fact, the collection of books made by Pamphilus, in the\ngathering of which at the very least he was deeply indebted to Origen,\nbecame a centre from whence, after the destruction of copies in the\npersecution of Diocletian, authority as to the sacred Text radiated in\nvarious directions. Copying from papyrus on vellum was assiduously\nprosecuted there(215). Constantine applied to Eusebius for fifty handsome\ncopies(216), amongst which it is not improbable that the manuscripts\n(\u03c3\u03c9\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03af\u03b1) B and \u05d0 were to be actually found(217). But even if that is not\nso, the Emperor would not have selected Eusebius for the order, if that\nbishop had not been in the habit of providing copies: and Eusebius in fact\ncarried on the work which he had commenced under his friend Pamphilus, and\nin which the latter must have followed the path pursued by Origen. Again,\nJerome is known to have resorted to this quarter(218), and various entries\nin MSS. prove that others did the same(219). It is clear that the\ncelebrated library of Pamphilus exercised great influence in the province\nof Textual Criticism; and the spirit of Origen was powerful throughout the\noperations connected with it, at least till the Origenists got gradually\ninto disfavour and at length were finally condemned at the Fifth General\nCouncil in A.D. 553.\n\nBut in connecting B and \u05d0 with the Library at Caesarea we are not left\nonly to conjecture or inference. In a well-known colophon affixed to the\nend of the book of Esther in \u05d0 by the third corrector, it is stated that\nfrom the beginning of the book of Kings to the end of Esther the MS. was\ncompared with a copy \u201ccorrected by the hand of the holy martyr Pamphilus,\u201d\nwhich itself was written and corrected after the Hexapla of Origen(220).\nAnd a similar colophon may be found attached to the book of Ezra. It is\nadded that the Codex Sinaiticus (\u03c4\u03cc\u03b4\u03b5 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c4\u03b5\u1fe6\u03c7\u03bf\u03c2) and the Codex Pamphili\n(\u03c4\u1f78 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78 \u03c0\u03b1\u03bb\u03b1\u03b9\u03ce\u03c4\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03b2\u03b9\u03b2\u03bb\u03af\u03bf\u03bd) manifested great agreement with one another.\nThe probability that \u05d0 was thus at least in part copied from a manuscript\nexecuted by Pamphilus is established by the facts that a certain \u201cCodex\nMarchalianus\u201d is often mentioned which was due to Pamphilus and Eusebius;\nand that Origen\u2019s recension of the Old Testament, although he published no\nedition of the Text of the New, possessed a great reputation. On the books\nof Chronicles, St. Jerome mentions manuscripts executed by Origen with\ngreat care, which were published by Pamphilus and Eusebius. And in Codex H\nof St. Paul it is stated that that MS. was compared with a MS. in the\nlibrary of Caesarea \u201cwhich was written by the hand of the holy\nPamphilus(221).\u201d These notices added to the frequent reference by St.\nJerome and others to the critical (\u1f00\u03ba\u03c1\u03b9\u03b2\u1fc6) MSS., by which we are to\nunderstand those which were distinguished by the approval of Origen or\nwere in consonance with the spirit of Origen, shew evidently the position\nin criticism which the Library at Caesarea and its illustrious founder had\nwon in those days. And it is quite in keeping with that position that \u05d0\nshould have been sent forth from that \u201cschool of criticism.\u201d\n\nBut if \u05d0 was, then B must have been;\u2014at least, if the supposition\ncertified by Tischendorf and Scrivener be true, that the six conjugate\nleaves of \u05d0 were written by the scribe of B. So there is a chain of\nreference, fortified by the implied probability which has been furnished\nfor us from the actual facts of the case.\n\nYet Dr. Hort is \u201cinclined to surmise that B and \u05d0 were both written in the\nWest, probably at Rome; that the ancestors of B were wholly Western (in\nthe geographical, not the textual sense) up to a very early time indeed;\nand that the ancestors of \u05d0 were in great part Alexandrian, again in the\ngeographical, not the textual sense(222).\u201d For this opinion, in which Dr.\nHort stands alone amongst authorities, there is nothing but \u201csurmise\u201d\nfounded upon very dark hints. In contrast with the evidence just brought\nforward there is an absence of direct testimony: besides that the\nconnexion between the Western and Syrian Texts or Readings, which has been\nrecently confirmed in a very material degree, must weaken the force of\nsome of his arguments.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 2(223).\n\n\nThe points to which I am anxious rather to direct attention are (1) the\nextent to which the works of Origen were studied by the ancients: and (2)\nthe curious discovery that Codexes \u05d0B, and to some extent D, either belong\nto the same class as those with which Origen was chiefly familiar; or else\nhave been anciently manipulated into conformity with Origen\u2019s teaching.\nThe former seems to me the more natural supposition; but either inference\nequally satisfies my contention: viz. that Origen, and mainly B\u05d0D, are not\nto be regarded as wholly independent authorities, but constitute a class.\n\nThe proof of this position is to be found in various passages where the\ninfluence of Origen may be traced, such as in the omission of \u03a5\u1f31\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\n\u0398\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6\u2014\u201cThe Son of God\u201d\u2014in Mark i. 1(224); and of \u1f10\u03bd \u1f18\u03c6\u03ad\u03c3\u1ff3\u2014\u201cat Ephesus\u201d\u2014in\nEph. i. 1(225); in the substitution of Bethabara (St. John i. 28) for\nBethany(226); in the omission of the second part of the last petition the\nLord\u2019s Prayer in St. Luke(227), of \u1f14\u03bc\u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03b8\u03ad\u03bd \u03bc\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b3\u03ad\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd\u03b5\u03bd in John i.\n27(228).\n\nHe is also the cause why the important qualification \u03b5\u1f30\u03ba\u1fc6 (\u201cwithout a\ncause\u201d) is omitted by B\u05d0 from St. Matt. v. 22; and hence, in opposition to\nthe whole host of Copies, Versions(229), Fathers, has been banished from\nthe sacred Text by Lachmann, Tischendorf, W. Hort and the Revisers(230).\nTo the same influence, I am persuaded, is to be attributed the omission\nfrom a little handful of copies (viz. A, B-\u05d0, D*, F-G, and 17*) of the\nclause \u03c4\u1fc7 \u1f00\u03bb\u03b7\u03b8\u03b5\u03af\u1fb3 \u03bc\u1f74 \u03c0\u03b5\u03af\u03b8\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 (\u201cthat you should not obey the truth\u201d) Gal.\niii. 1. Jerome duly acknowledges those words while commenting on St.\nMatthew\u2019s Gospel(231); but when he comes to the place in Galatians(232),\nhe is observed, first to admit that the clause \u201cis found in some copies,\u201d\nand straightway to add that \u201cinasmuch as it is not found in the copies of\nAdamantius(233), he omits it.\u201d The clue to his omission is supplied by his\nown statement that in writing on the Galatians he had made Origen his\nguide(234). And yet the words stand in the Vulgate.\n\nFor:\u2014\n\nC Dc E K L P, 46 Cursives.\nVulg. Goth. Harkl. Arm. Ethiop.\nOrig. ii. 373.\nCyril Al. ii. 737.\nEphr. Syr. iii. 203.\nMacarius Magnes (or rather the heathen philosopher with whom he\n            disputed),\u2014128.\nps.-Athanas. ii. 454.\nTheodoret ii. 40.\nJ. Damascene ii. 163.\nTheodorus Studita,\u2014433, 1136.\nHieron. vii. 418. c. Legitur in quibusdam codicibus, \u201cQuis vos fascinavit\n            non credere veritati?\u201d Sed hoc, quia in exemplaribus Adamantii\n            non habetur, omisimus.\n\nAgainst:\u2014\n\n\u05d0ABD*FG 17*.\nd e f g\u2014fu.\nPeshitto, Bohairic.\nChrys.\nEuthal. cod.\nExemplaria Adamantii.\nCyril 429.\nTheodoret i. 658 (=Mai vii2 150).\nTheodorus Mops.\nHier. vii. 418. c.\n\nIn a certain place Origen indulges in a mystical exposition of our LORD\u2019S\ntwo miracles of feeding(235); drawing marvellous inferences, as his manner\nis, from the details of either miracle. We find that Hilary(236), that\nJerome(237), that Chrysostom(238), had Origen\u2019s remarks before them when\nthey in turn commented on the miraculous feeding of the 4000. At the\nfeeding of the 5000, Origen points out that our LORD \u201ccommands the\nmultitude to sit down\u201d (St. Matt. xiv. 19): but at the feeding of the\n4000, He does not \u201ccommand\u201d but only \u201cdirects\u201d them to sit down. (St.\nMatt. xv. 35(239)) ... From which it is plain that Origen did not read as\nwe do in St. Matt. xv. 35, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03ba\u03ad\u03bb\u03b5\u03c5\u03c3\u03b5 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f44\u03c7\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2\u2014but \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ae\u03bd\u03b3\u03b5\u03b9\u03bb\u03b5 \u03c4\u1ff7 \u1f44\u03c7\u03bb\u1ff3\n\u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03c0\u03b5\u03c3\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd; which is the reading of the parallel place in St. Mark (viii.\n6). We should of course have assumed a slip of memory on Origen\u2019s part;\nbut that \u05d0BD are found to exhibit the text of St. Matt. xv. 35 in\nconformity with Origen(240). He is reasoning therefore from a MS. which he\nhas before him; and remarking, as his unfortunate manner is, on what\nproves to be really nothing else but a palpable depravation of the text.\n\nSpeaking of St. John xiii. 26, Origen remarks,\u2014\u201cIt is not written \u2018He it\nis to whom I shall give the sop\u2019; but with the addition of \u2018I shall dip\u2019:\nfor it says, \u2018I shall dip the sop and give it.\u2019 \u201d This is the reading of\nBCL and is adopted accordingly by some Editors. But surely it is a\ndepravation of the text which may be ascribed with confidence to the\nofficiousness of Origen himself. _Who_, at all events, on such precarious\nevidence would surrender the established reading of the place, witnessed\nto as it is by every other known MS. and by several of the Fathers? The\ngrounds on which Tischendorf reads \u03b2\u03ac\u03c8\u03c9 \u03c4\u03bf \u03c8\u03c9\u03bc\u03af\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b4\u03ce\u03c3\u03c9 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff7, are\ncharacteristic, and in their way a curiosity(241).\n\nTake another instance of the same phenomenon. It is plain, from the\nconsent of (so to speak) all the copies, that our Saviour rejected the\nTemptation which stands second in St. Luke\u2019s Gospel with the words,\u2014\u201cGet\nthee behind Me, Satan(242).\u201d But Origen officiously points out that this\n(quoting the words) is precisely what our LORD did not say. He adds a\nreason,\u2014\u201cHe said to Peter, \u2018Get thee behind Me, Satan\u2019; but to the Devil,\n\u2018Get thee hence,\u2019 without the addition \u2018behind Me\u2019; for to be behind Jesus\nis a good thing(243).\u201d\n\nOur Saviour on a certain occasion (St. John viii. 38) thus addressed his\nwicked countrymen:\u2014\u201cI speak that which I have seen with My Father; and ye\nlikewise do that which you have seen with your father.\u201d He contrasts His\nown gracious doctrines with their murderous deeds; and refers them to\ntheir respective \u201cFathers,\u201d\u2014to \u201cMy Father,\u201d that is, GOD; and to \u201cyour\nfather,\u201d that is, the Devil(244). That this is the true sense of the place\nappears plainly enough from the context. \u201cSeen with\u201d and \u201cheard from(245)\u201d\nare the expressions employed on such occasions, because sight and hearing\nare the faculties which best acquaint a man with the nature of that\nwhereof he discourses.\n\nOrigen, misapprehending the matter, maintains that GOD is the \u201cFather\u201d\nspoken of on either side. He I suspect it was who, in order to support\nthis view, erased \u201cMy\u201d and \u201cyour\u201d; and in the second member of the\nsentence, for \u201cseen with,\u201d substituted \u201cheard from\u201d;\u2014as if a contrast had\nbeen intended between the manner of the Divine and of the human\nknowledge,\u2014which would be clearly out of place. In this way, what is in\nreality a revelation, becomes converted into a somewhat irrelevant\nprecept: \u201cI speak the things which I have seen with the Father.\u201d \u201cDo ye\nthe things which ye have heard from the Father,\u201d\u2014which is how Lachmann,\nTischendorf, Tregelles, Alford exhibit the place. Cyril Alex. employed a\ntext thus impaired. Origen also puts ver. 39 into the form of a precept\n(\u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03ad ... \u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c4\u03b5); but he has all the Fathers(246) (including\nhimself),\u2014all the Versions,\u2014all the copies against him, being supported\nonly by B.\n\nBut the evidence against \u201cthe restored reading\u201d to which Alford invites\nattention, (viz. omitting \u03bc\u03bf\u03c5 and substituting \u1f20\u03ba\u03bf\u03cd\u03c3\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u1f70 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03a0\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u03cc\u03c2\nfor \u1f11\u03c9\u03c1\u03ac\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u1f70 \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03a0\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u1f76 \u1f51\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd.) is overwhelming. Only five copies\n(BCLTX) omit \u03bc\u03bf\u03c5: only four (BLT, 13) omit \u1f51\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd: a very little handful are\nfor substituting \u1f20\u03ba\u03bf\u03cd\u03c3\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5 with the genitive for \u1f11\u03c9\u03c1\u03ac\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5. Chrys.,\nApolinaris, Cyril Jerus., Ammonius, as well as every ancient version of\ngood repute, protest against such an exhibition of the text. In ver. 39,\nonly five read \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03ad (\u05d0BDLT): while \u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c4\u03b5 is found only in Cod. B.\nAccordingly, some critics prefer the imperfect \u1f10\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c4\u03b5, which however is\nonly found in \u05d0DLT. \u201cThe reading is remarkable\u201d says Alford. Yes, and\nclearly fabricated. The ordinary text is right.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 3.\n\n\nBesides these passages, in which there is actual evidence of a connexion\nsubsisting between the readings which they contain and Origen, the\nsceptical character of the Vatican and Sinaitic manuscripts affords a\nstrong proof of the alliance between them and the Origenistic School. It\nmust be borne in mind that Origen was not answerable for all the tenets of\nthe School which bore his name, even perhaps less than Calvin was\nresponsible for all that Calvinists after him have held and taught.\nOrigenistic doctrines came from the blending of philosophy with\nChristianity in the schools of Alexandria where Origen was the most\neminent of the teachers engaged(247).\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER X. THE OLD UNCIALS. CODEX D.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 1(248).\n\n\nIt is specially remarkable that the Canon of Holy Scripture, which like\nthe Text had met with opposition, was being settled in the later part of\nthe century in which these two manuscripts were produced, or at the\nbeginning of the next. The two questions appear to have met together in\nEusebius. His latitudinarian proclivities seem to have led him in his\ncelebrated words(249) to lay undue stress upon the objections felt by some\npersons to a few of the Books of the New Testament; and cause us therefore\nnot to wonder that he should also have countenanced those who wished\nwithout reason to leave out portions of the Text. Now the first occasion,\nas is well known, when we find all the Books of the New Testament\nrecognized with authority occurred at the Council of Laodicea in 363 A.D.,\nif the passage is genuine(250), which is very doubtful; and the settlement\nof the Canon which was thus initiated, and was accomplished by about the\nend of the century, was followed, as was natural, by the settlement of the\nText. But inasmuch as the latter involved a large multitude of intricate\nquestions, and corruption had crept in and had acquired a very firm hold,\nit was long before universal acquiescence finally ensued upon the general\nacceptance effected in the time of St. Chrysostom. In fact, the Nature of\nthe Divine Word, and the character of the Written Word, were confirmed\nabout the same time:\u2014mainly, in the period when the Nicene Creed was\nre-asserted at the Council of Constantinople in 381 A.D.; for the Canon of\nHoly Scripture was fixed and the Orthodox Text gained a supremacy over the\nOrigenistic Text about the same time:\u2014and finally, after the Third Council\nof Constantinople in 680 A.D., at which the acknowledgement of the Natures\nof the Son of Man was placed in a position superior to all heresy; for it\nwas then that the Traditional Text began in nearly perfect form to be\nhanded down with scarce any opposition to future ages of the Church.\n\nBesides the multiplicity of points involved, three special causes delayed\nthe complete settlement of the Text, so far as the attainment was\nconcerned all over the Church of general accuracy throughout the Gospels,\nnot to speak of all the New Testament.\n\n1. Origenism, going beyond Origen, continued in force till it was\ncondemned by the Fifth General Council in 553 A.D., and could hardly have\nwholly ended in that year. Besides this, controversies upon fundamental\ntruths agitated the Church, and implied a sceptical and wayward spirit\nwhich would be ready to sustain alien variations in the written Word, till\nthe censure passed upon Monothelitism at the Sixth General Council in 680\nA.D.\n\n2. The Church was terribly tried by the overthrow of the Roman Empire, and\nthe irruption of hordes of Barbarians: and consequently Churchmen were\nobliged to retire into extreme borders, as they did into Ireland in the\nfifth century(251), and to spend their energies in issuing forth from\nthence to reconquer countries for the Kingdom of Christ. The resultant\nparalysis of Christian effort must have been deplorable. Libraries and\ntheir treasures, as at Caesarea and Alexandria under the hands of\nMahommedans in the seventh century, were utterly destroyed. Rest and\ncalmness, patient and frequent study and debate, books and other helps to\nresearch, must have been in those days hard to get, and were far from\nbeing in such readiness as to favour general improvement in a subject of\nwhich extreme accuracy is the very breath and life.\n\n3. The Art of Writing on Vellum had hardly passed its youth at the time\nwhen the Text advocated by B and \u05d0 fell finally into disuse. Punctuation\ndid but exist in the occasional use of the full stop: breathings or\naccents were perhaps hardly found: spelling, both as regards consonants\nand vowels, was uncertain and rudimental. So that the Art of transcribing\non vellum even so far as capital letters were concerned, did not arrive at\nanything like maturity till about the eighth century.\n\nBut it must not be imagined that manuscripts of substantial accuracy did\nnot exist during this period, though they have not descended to us. The\nlarge number of Uncials and Cursives of later ages must have had a goodly\nassemblage of accurate predecessors from which they were copied. It is\nprobable that the more handsome and less correct copies have come into our\nhands, since such would have been not so much used, and might have been in\nthe possession of the men of higher station whose heathen ancestry had\nbequeathed to them less orthodox tendencies, and the material of many\nothers must have been too perishable to last. Arianism prevailed during\nmuch of the sixth century in Italy, Africa, Burgundy, and Spain. Ruder and\ncoarser volumes, though more accurate, would be readily surrendered to\ndestruction, especially if they survived in more cultured descendants.\nThat a majority of such MSS. existed, whether of a rougher or more\npolished sort, both in vellum and papyrus, is proved by citations of\nScripture found in the Authors of the period. But those MSS. which have\nbeen preserved are not so perfect as the others which have come from the\neighth and following centuries.\n\nThus Codex A, though it exhibits a text more like the Traditional than\neither B or \u05d0, is far from being a sure guide. Codex C, which was written\nlater in the fifth century, is only a fragmentary palimpsest, i.e. it was\nthought to be of so little value that the books of Ephraem the Syrian were\nwritten over the Greek: it contains not more than two-thirds of the New\nTestament, and stands as to the character of its text between A and B.\nCodex Q, a fragment of 235 verses, and Codex I of 135, in the same\ncentury, are not large enough to be taken into consideration here. Codexes\n\u03a6 and \u03a3, recently discovered, being products of the end of the fifth or\nbeginning of the sixth, and containing St. Matthew and St. Mark nearly\ncomplete, are of a general character similar to A, and evince more\nadvancement in the Art. It is unfortunate indeed that only a fragment of\neither of them, though that fragment in either case is pretty complete as\nfar as it goes, has come into our hands. After them succeeds Codex D, or\nCodex Bezae, now in the Cambridge Library, having been bequeathed to the\nUniversity by Theodore Beza, whose name it bears. It ends at Acts xxii.\n29.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 2. Codex D(252).\n\n\nNo one can pretend fully to understand the character of this Codex who has\nnot been at the pains to collate every word of it with attention. Such an\none will discover that it omits in the Gospels alone no less than 3,704\nwords; adds to the genuine text 2,213; substitutes 2,121; transposes\n3,471, and modifies 1,772. By the time he has made this discovery his\nesteem for Cod. D will, it is presumed, have experienced serious\nmodification. The total of 13,281 deflections from the Received Text is a\nformidable objection to explain away. Even Dr. Hort speaks of \u201cthe\nprodigious amount of error which D contains(253).\u201d\n\nBut the intimate acquaintance with the Codex which he has thus acquired\nhas conducted him to certain other results, which it is of the utmost\nimportance that we should particularize and explain.\n\nI. And first, this proves to be a text which in one Gospel is often\nassimilated to the others. And in fact the assimilation is carried\nsometimes so far, that a passage from one Gospel is interpolated into the\nparallel passage in another. Indeed the extent to which in Cod. D\ninterpolations from St. Mark\u2019s Gospel are inserted into the Gospel\naccording to St. Luke is even astounding. Between verses 14 and 15 of St.\nLuke v. thirty-two words are interpolated from the parallel passage in St.\nMark i. 45-ii. 1: and in the 10th verse of the vith chapter twelve words\nare introduced from St. Mark ii. 27, 28. In St. Luke iv. 37, \u1f21 \u1f00\u03ba\u03bf\u03ae, \u201cthe\nreport,\u201d from St. Mark i. 28, is substituted for \u1f26\u03c7\u03bf\u03c2, \u201cthe sound,\u201d which\nis read in the other manuscripts. Besides the introduction into St. Luke\ni. 64 of \u1f10\u03bb\u03cd\u03b8\u03b7 from St. Mark vii. 35, which will be described below, in\nSt. Luke v. 27 seven words are brought from the parallel passage in St.\nMark ii. 14, and the entire passage is corrupted(254). In giving the\nLord\u2019s Prayer in St. Luke xi. 2, the scribe in fault must needs illustrate\nthe Lord\u2019s saying by interpolating an inaccurate transcription of the\nwarning against \u201cvain repetitions\u201d given by Him before in the Sermon on\nthe Mount. Again, as to interpolation from other sources, grossly enough,\nSt. Matt. ii. 23 is thrust in at the end of St. Luke ii. 39; that is to\nsay, the scribe of D, or of some manuscript from which D was copied,\neither directly or indirectly, thought fit to explain the carrying of the\nHoly Child to Nazareth by the explanation given by St. Matthew, but\nquoting from memory wrote \u201cby the prophet\u201d in the singular, instead of \u201cby\nthe prophets\u201d in the plural(255). Similarly, in St. Luke iv. 31 upon the\nmention of the name of Capernaum, D must needs insert from St. Matt. iv.\n13, \u201cwhich is upon the sea-coast within the borders of Zabulon and\nNephthalim\u201d (\u03c4\u03b7\u03bd \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03b8\u03b1\u03bb\u03b1\u03c3\u03c3\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd (_sic_) \u03b5\u03bd \u03bf\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u0396\u03b1\u03b2\u03bf\u03c5\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u039d\u03b5\u03c6\u03b8\u03b1\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03bc).\nIndeed, no adequate idea can be formed of the clumsiness, the coarseness\nof these operations, unless some instances are given: but a few more must\nsuffice.\n\n1. In St. Mark iii. 26, our LORD delivers the single statement, \u201cAnd if\nSatan is risen against himself (\u1f00\u03bd\u03ad\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5 \u1f10\u03c6\u1fbd \u1f11\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd) and is divided (\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n\u03bc\u03b5\u03bc\u03ad\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9) he cannot stand, but hath an end (\u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u1f70 \u03c4\u03ad\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f14\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9).\u201d Instead\nof this, D exhibits, \u201cAnd if Satan cast out Satan, he is divided against\nhimself: his kingdom cannot stand, but hath the end (\u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c4\u03ad\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f14\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9).\u201d\nNow this is clearly an imitation, not a copy, of the parallel place in St.\nMatt. xii. 26, where also a twofold statement is made, as every one may\nsee. But the reply is also a clumsy one to the question asked in St. Mark,\nbut not in St. Matthew, \u201cHow can Satan cast out Satan?\u201d Learned readers\nhowever will further note that it is St. Matthew\u2019s \u1f10\u03bc\u03b5\u03c1\u03af\u03c3\u03b8\u03b7, where St.\nMark wrote \u03bc\u03b5\u03bc\u03ad\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9, which makes the statement possible for him which is\nimpossible according to the representation given by D of St. Mark.\n\n2. At the end of the parable of the pounds, the scribe of D, or one of\nthose whom he followed, thinking that the idle servant was let off too\neasily, and confusing with this parable the other parable of the\ntalents,\u2014blind of course to the difference between the punishments\ninflicted by a \u201clord\u201d and those of a new-made king,\u2014inserts the 30th verse\nof St. Matt. xxv. at the end of St. Luke xix. 27.\n\n3. Again, after St. Matt. xx. 28, when the LORD had rebuked the spirit of\nambition in the two sons of Zebedee, and had directed His disciples not to\nseek precedence, enforcing the lesson from His own example as shewn in\ngiving His Life a ransom for many, D inserts the following tasteless\npassage: \u201cBut ye seek to increase from a little, and from the greater to\nbe something less(256).\u201d Nor is this enough:\u2014an addition is also made from\nSt. Luke xiv. 8-10, being the well-known passage about taking the lowest\nroom at feasts. But this additional interpolation is in style and language\nunlike the words of any Gospels, and ends with the vapid piece of\ninformation, \u201cand this shall be useful to thee.\u201d It is remarkable that,\nwhereas D was alone in former errors, here it becomes a follower in one\npart or other of the passage of twelve Old Latin manuscripts(257): and\nindeed the Greek in the passage in D is evidently a version of the\nSyrio-Low-Latin. The following words, or forms of words or phrases, are\nnot found in the rest of the N.T.: \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03b8\u03ad\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 (aor. part. _rogati_ or\n_vocati_), \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03ba\u03bb\u03af\u03bd\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b5 (_recumbite_), \u1f10\u03be\u03ad\u03c7\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2 (_eminentioribus_),\n\u03b4\u03b5\u03b9\u03c0\u03bd\u03bf\u03ba\u03bb\u03ae\u03c4\u03c9\u03c1 (_invitator caenae_), \u1f14\u03c4\u03b9 \u03ba\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9 \u03c7\u03ce\u03c1\u03b5\u03b9 (_adhuc infra accede_),\n\u1f25\u03c4\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd\u03b1 \u03c4\u03cc\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd (_loco inferiori_), \u1f25\u03c4\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd (_inferior_), \u03c3\u03cd\u03bd\u03b1\u03b3\u03b5 \u1f14\u03c4\u03b9 \u1f04\u03bd\u03c9\n(_collige adhuc superius_). These Latin expressions are taken from one or\nother of the twelve Old Latin MSS. Outside of the Latin, the Curetonian is\nthe sole ally, the Lewis being mutilated, of the flighty Old Uncial under\nconsideration.\n\nThese passages are surely enough to represent to the reader the\ninterpolations of Codex D, whether arising from assimilation or otherwise.\nThe description given by the very learned editor of this MS. is in the\nfollowing words:\u2014\u201cNo known manuscript contains so many bold and extensive\ninterpolations (six hundred, it is said, in the Acts alone), countenanced,\nwhere they are not absolutely unsupported, chiefly by the Old Latin and\nthe Curetonian version(258).\u201d\n\nII. There are also traces of extreme licentiousness in this copy of the\nGospels which call for distinct notice. Sometimes words or expressions are\nsubstituted: sometimes the sense is changed, and utter confusion\nintroduced: delicate terms or forms are ignored: and a general corruption\nensues.\n\nI mean for example such expressions as the following, which are all found\nin the course of a single verse (St. Mark iv. 1).\n\nSt. Mark relates that once when our SAVIOUR was teaching \u201cby the sea-side\u201d\n(\u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ac) there assembled so vast a concourse of persons that \u201cHe went into\nthe ship, and sat in the sea,\u201d all the multitude being \u201con the land,\ntowards the sea\u201d: i.e. with their faces turned in the direction of the\nship in which He was sitting. Was a plain story ever better told?\n\nBut according to D the facts of the case were quite different. First, it\nwas our SAVIOUR who was teaching \u201ctowards the sea\u201d (\u03c0\u03c1\u03cc\u03c2). Next, in\nconsequence of the crowd, He crossed over, and \u201csat on the other side of\nthe sea\u201d (\u03c0\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd). Lastly, the multitude\u2014followed Him, I suppose; for they\nalso\u2014\u201cwere on the other side of the sea\u201d (\u03c0\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd) ... Now I forgive the\nscribe for his two transpositions and his ungrammatical substitution of \u1f41\n\u03bb\u03b1\u03cc\u03c2 for \u1f44\u03c7\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2. But I insist that a MS. which circulates incidents after\nthis fashion cannot be regarded as trustworthy. Verse 2 begins in the same\nlicentious way. Instead of,\u2014\u201cAnd He taught them many things (\u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u03ac) in\nparables,\u201d we are informed that \u201cHe taught them in many parables\u201d\n(\u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2). Who will say that we are ever safe with such a guide?\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 3.\n\n\nAll are aware that the two Evangelical accounts of our LORD\u2019S human\ndescent exhibit certain distinctive features. St. Matthew distributes the\n42 names in \u201cthe book of the generations of JESUS CHRIST, the son of\nDavid, the son of Abraham,\u201d into three fourteens; and requires us to\nrecognize in the \u1f38\u03b5\u03c7\u03bf\u03bd\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 of ver. 11 a different person (viz. Jehoiakim)\nfrom the \u1f38\u03b5\u03c7\u03bf\u03bd\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 of ver. 12 (viz. Jehoiachin). Moreover, in order to\nproduce this symmetry of arrangement, he leaves out the names of 3\nkings,\u2014Ahaziah, Joash, Amaziah: and omits at least 9 generations of\nZorobabel\u2019s descendants(259). The mystical correspondence between the 42\nsteps in our SAVIOUR\u2019S human descent from Abraham, and the 42 stations of\nthe Israelites on their way to Canaan(260), has been often remarked upon.\nIt extends to the fact that the stations also were, historically, far more\nthan 42. And so much for what is contained in St. Matthew\u2019s Gospel.\n\nSt. Luke, who enumerates the 77 steps of his genealogy in backward order,\nderives the descent of \u201cJESUS, the son of Joseph\u201d from \u201cAdam, the son of\nGOD.\u201d He traces our LORD\u2019S descent from David and again from Zorobabel\nthrough a different line of ancestry from that adopted by St. Matthew. He\nintroduces a second \u201cCainan\u201d between Arphaxad and Sala (ver. 35, 36). The\nonly names which the two tables of descent have in common are these\nfive,\u2014David, Salathiel, Zorobabel, Joseph, JESUS.\n\nBut Cod. D\u2014(from which the first chapter of St. Matthew\u2019s Gospel has long\nsince disappeared)\u2014in St. Luke iii. exhibits a purely fabricated table of\ndescent. To put one name for another,\u2014as when A writes \u201cShem\u201d instead of\nSeth: to misspell a name until it ceases to be recognizable,\u2014as when \u05d0\nwrites \u201cBalls\u201d for Boaz: to turn one name into two by cutting it in\nhalf,\u2014as where \u05d0 writes \u201cAdmin\u201d _and_ \u201cAdam\u201d instead of Aminadab: or\nagain, in defiance of authority, to leave a name out,\u2014as when A omits\nMainan and Pharez; or to put a name in,\u2014as when Verona Lat. (b) inserts\n\u201cJoaram\u201d after Aram:\u2014with all such instances of licence the \u201cold Uncials\u201d\nhave made us abundantly familiar. But we are not prepared to find that in\nplace of the first 18 names which follow those of \u201cJESUS\u201d and \u201cJoseph\u201d in\nSt. Luke\u2019s genealogy (viz. Heli to Rhesa inclusive), D introduces the 9\nimmediate ancestors of Joseph (viz. Abiud to Jacob) as enumerated by St.\nMatthew,\u2014thus abbreviating St. Luke\u2019s genealogy by 9 names.\nNext,\u2014\u201cZorobabel\u201d and \u201cSalathiel\u201d being common to both genealogies,\u2014in\nplace of the 20 names found in St. Luke between Salathiel and David (viz.\nNeri to Nathan inclusive), Cod. D presents us with the 15 royal\ndescendants of David enumerated by St. Matthew (viz. Solomon to\nJehoiachin(261) inclusive);\u2014infelicitously inventing an imaginary\ngeneration, by styling Jehoiakim \u201cthe son of Eliakim,\u201d\u2014being not aware\nthat \u201cJehoiakim\u201d and \u201cEliakim\u201d are one and the same person: and, in\ndefiance of the first Evangelist, supplying the names of the 3 kings\nomitted by St. Matthew (i. 8), viz. Ahaziah, Joash, and Amaziah. Only 34\nnames follow in Cod. D; the second \u201cCainan\u201d being omitted. In this way,\nthe number of St. Luke\u2019s names is reduced from 77 to 66. A more flagrant\ninstance of that licentious handling of the deposit which was a common\nphenomenon in Western Christendom is seldom to be met with(262). This\nparticular fabrication is happily the peculiar property of Cod. D; and we\nare tempted to ask, whether it assists in recommending that singular\nmonument of injudicious and arbitrary textual revision to the favour of\none of the modern schools of Critics.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 4.\n\n\nWe repeat that the ill treatment which the deposit has experienced at the\nhands of those who fabricated the text of Cod. D is only to be understood\nby those who will be at the pains to study its readings throughout.\nConstantly to substitute the wrong word for the right one; or at all\nevents to introduce a less significant expression: on countless occasions\nto mar the details of some precious incident; and to obscure the purpose\nof the Evangelist by tastelessly and senselessly disturbing the inspired\ntext,\u2014_this_ will be found to be the rule with Cod. D throughout. As\nanother example added to those already cited:\u2014In St. Luke xxii, D omits\nverse 20, containing the Institution of the Cup, evidently from a wish to\ncorrect the sacred account by removing the second mention of the Cup from\nthe record of the third Evangelist.\n\nSt. Mark (xv. 43) informs us that, on the afternoon of the first Good\nFriday, Joseph of Arimathaea \u201ctaking courage _went in_ (\u03b5\u1f30\u03c3\u1fc6\u03bb\u03b8\u03b5) to Pilate\nand requested to have the _body_ (\u03c3\u1ff6\u03bc\u03b1) of Jesus\u201d: that \u201cPilate wondered\n(\u1f10\u03b8\u03b1\u03cd\u03bc\u03b1\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd) [at hearing] that He _was dead_ (\u03c4\u03ad\u03b8\u03bd\u03b7\u03ba\u03b5) already: and sending\nfor the centurion [who had presided at the Crucifixion] inquired of him if\n[JESUS] had been dead long?\u201d (\u03b5\u1f30 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bb\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f00\u03c0\u03ad\u03b8\u03b1\u03bd\u03b5.)\n\nBut the author of Cod. D, besides substituting \u201c_went_\u201d (\u1f26\u03bb\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd) for \u201cwent\n_in_,\u201d\u2014\u201c_corpse_\u201d (\u03c0\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bc\u03b1) for \u201cbody\u201d (which by the way he repeats in ver.\n45),\u2014and a sentiment of \u201ccontinuous wonder\u201d (\u1f10\u03b8\u03b1\u03cd\u03bc\u03b1\u03b6\u03b5\u03bd) for the fact of\nastonishment which Joseph\u2019s request inspired,\u2014having also substituted the\nprosaic \u03c4\u03b5\u03b8\u03bd\u03ae\u03ba\u03b5\u03b9 for the graphic \u03c4\u03ad\u03b8\u03bd\u03b7\u03ba\u03b5 of the Evangelist,\u2014represents\nPilate as inquiring of the centurion \u201cif [indeed JESUS] was dead already?\u201d\n(\u03b5\u1f30 \u1f24\u03b4\u03b7 \u03c4\u03b5\u03b8\u03bd\u03ae\u03ba\u03b5\u03b9; _si jam mortuus esset?_), whereby not only is all the\nrefinement of the original lost, but the facts of the case also are\nseriously misrepresented. For Pilate did not doubt Joseph\u2019s tidings. He\nonly wondered at them. And his inquiry was made not with a view to testing\nthe veracity of his informant, but for the satisfaction of his own\ncuriosity as to the time when his Victim had expired.\n\nNow it must not be supposed that I have fastened unfairly on an\nexceptional verse and a half (St. Mark xv. half of v. 43 and all v. 44) of\nthe second Gospel. The reader is requested to refer to the note(263),\nwhere he will find set down a collation of _eight consecutive verses_ in\nthe selfsame context: viz. St. Mark xv. 47 to xvi. 7 inclusive; after an\nattentive survey of which he will not be disposed to deny that only by\ncourtesy can such an exhibition of the original verity as Cod. D be called\n\u201ca copy\u201d at all. Had the genuine text been _copied_ over and over again\ntill the crack of doom, the result could never have been this. There are\nin fact but 117 words to be transcribed: and of these no less than 67\u2014much\nmore than half\u2014have been either omitted (21), or else added (11);\nsubstituted (10), or else transposed (11); depraved (12, as by writing\n\u03b1\u03bd\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 for \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5\u03af\u03bb\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2), or actually blundered (2, as by writing\n\u03b5\u03c1\u03c7\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b7\u03bc\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd for \u1f14\u03c1\u03c7\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f21\u03bc\u1fd6\u03bd). Three times the construction has been\naltered,\u2014once indeed very seriously, for the Angel at the sepulchre is\nmade to personate Christ. Lastly, five of the corrupt readings are the\nresult of Assimilation. Whereas the evangelist wrote \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03b2\u03bb\u03ad\u03c8\u03b1\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9\n\u03b8\u03b5\u03c9\u03c1\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u1f45\u03c4\u03b9 \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03ba\u03b5\u03ba\u03cd\u03bb\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f41 \u03bb\u03af\u03b8\u03bf\u03c2, what else but a licentious paraphrase\nis the following,\u2014\u03b5\u03c1\u03c7\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b5\u03c5\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03b1\u03c0\u03bf\u03ba\u03b5\u03ba\u03c5\u03bb\u03b9\u03c3\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03bb\u03b9\u03b8\u03bf\u03bd? This\nis in fact a fabricated, not an honestly transcribed text: and it cannot\nbe too clearly understood that such a text (more or less fabricated, I\nmean) is exhibited by Codexes B\u05d0D throughout.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 5.\n\n\nIt is remarkable that whenever the construction is somewhat harsh or\nobscure, D and the Latin copies are observed freely to transpose,\u2014to\nsupply,\u2014and even slightly to paraphrase,\u2014in order to bring out the\npresumed meaning of the original. An example is furnished by St. Luke i.\n65, where the Evangelist, having related that Zacharias wrote\u2014\u201cHis name is\nJohn,\u201d adds,\u2014\u201cand all wondered. And his mouth was opened immediately, and\nhis tongue, and he spake praising GOD.\u201d The meaning of course is that his\ntongue \u201cwas loosed.\u201d Accordingly D actually supplies \u1f10\u03bb\u03cd\u03b8\u03b7,\u2014the Latin\ncopies, \u201cresoluta est.\u201d But D does more. Presuming that what occasioned\nthe \u201cwonder\u201d was not so much what Zacharias wrote on the tablet as the\nrestored gift of speech, it puts that clause first,\u2014ingeniously\ntransposing the first two words (\u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03c7\u03c1\u03b7\u03bc\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9); the result of which is\nthe following sentence:\u2014\u201cAnd immediately his tongue was loosed; and all\nwondered. And his mouth was opened, and he spake praising GOD\u201d.... In the\nnext verse it is related that \u201cfear came upon all who dwelt round about\nthem.\u201d But the order of the words in the original being unusual (\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n\u1f10\u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c6\u03cc\u03b2\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u03cd\u03c2), D and the Latin\ncopies transpose them: (indeed the three Syriac do the same): but D b c\ngratuitously introduce an epithet,\u2014\u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b5\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf \u03c6\u03bf\u03b2\u03bf\u03c2 \u03bc\u03b5\u03b3\u03b1\u03c2 \u03b5\u03c0\u03b9 \u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2\n\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u03c5\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2 \u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd.... In ver. 70, the expression \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f00\u03c0\u1fbd \u03b1\u1f30\u1ff6\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u03b7\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd\n\u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 appearing harsh was (by transposing the words) altered into this,\nwhich is the easy and more obvious order: \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u03b7\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03b1\u03c0\u1fbd\n\u03b1\u03b9\u03c9\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2.... So again in ver. 71: the phrase \u03c3\u03c9\u03c4\u03b7\u03c1\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u1f10\u03be \u1f10\u03c7\u03b8\u03c1\u1ff6\u03bd seeming\nobscure, the words \u1f10\u03ba \u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u03cc\u03c2 (which follow) were by D substituted for \u1f10\u03be.\nThe result (\u03c3\u03c9\u03c4\u03b7\u03c1\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u1f10\u03ba \u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c7\u03b8\u03c1\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f21\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd [compare ver. 74], \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd\n\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03bc\u03b9\u03c3\u03bf\u03cd\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u1f21\u03bc\u1fb6\u03c2) is certainly easier reading: but\u2014like every other\nchange found in the same context\u2014it labours under the fatal condemnation\nof being an unauthorized human gloss.\n\nThe phenomenon however which perplexes me most in Cod. D is that it\nabounds in fabricated readings which have nothing whatever to recommend\nthem. Not contented with St. Luke\u2019s expression \u201cto thrust out _a little_\n(\u1f40\u03bb\u03af\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd) from the land\u201d (v. 3), the scribe writes \u03bf\u03c3\u03bf\u03bd \u03bf\u03c3\u03bf\u03bd. In ver. 5,\ninstead of \u201cI will let down the net\u201d (\u03c7\u03b1\u03bb\u03ac\u03c3\u03c9 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03b4\u03af\u03ba\u03c4\u03c5\u03bf\u03bd) he makes St.\nPeter reply, \u201cI will not neglect to obey\u201d (\u03bf\u03c5 \u03bc\u03b7 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03ba\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03bf\u03bc\u03b1\u03b9). So, for\n\u201cand when they had this done,\u201d he writes \u201cand when they had straightway\nlet down the nets\u201d: and immediately after, instead of \u03b4\u03b9\u03b5\u03c1\u03c1\u03ae\u03b3\u03bd\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c4\u1f78\n\u03b4\u03af\u03ba\u03c4\u03c5\u03bf\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd we are presented with \u03c9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5 \u03c4\u03b1 \u03b4\u03b9\u03ba\u03c4\u03c5\u03b1 \u03c1\u03b7\u03c3\u03c3\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9. It is very\ndifficult to account for this, except on an hypothesis which I confess\nrecommends itself to me more and more: viz. that there were in circulation\nin some places during the earliest ages of the Church Evangelical\nparaphrases, or at least free exhibitions of the chief Gospel\nincidents,\u2014to which the critics resorted; and from which the less\njudicious did not hesitate to borrow expressions and even occasionally to\nextract short passages. Such loose representations of passages must have\nprevailed both in Syria, and in the West where Greek was not so well\nunderstood, and where translators into the vernacular Latin expressed\nthemselves with less precision, whilst they attempted also to explain the\npassages translated.\n\nThis notion, viz. that it is within the province of a Copyist to interpret\nthe original before him, clearly lies at the root of many a so-called\n\u201cvarious reading.\u201d\n\nThus for the difficult \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03b2\u03b1\u03bb\u1f7c\u03bd \u1f14\u03ba\u03bb\u03b1\u03b9\u03b5 (in St. Mark xiv. 72), \u201cwhen he\nthought thereon\u201d (i.e. \u201cwhen in self-abandonment he flung himself upon the\nthought\u201d), \u201che wept,\u201d D exhibits \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f24\u03c1\u03be\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf \u03ba\u03bb\u03b1\u03af\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd, \u201cand he began to\nweep,\u201d a much easier and a very natural expression, only that it is not\nthe right one, and does not express all that the true words convey. Hence\nalso the transposition by D and some Old Latin MSS. of the clause \u1f26\u03bd \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1\n\u03bc\u03ad\u03b3\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c3\u03c6\u03cc\u03b4\u03c1\u03b1 \u201cfor it was very great\u201d from xvi. 4, where it seems to be out\nof place, to ver. 3 where it seems to be necessary. Eusebius is observed\nto have employed a MS. similarly corrupt.\n\nHence again the frequent unauthorized insertion of a nominative case to\ndetermine the sense: e.g. \u1f41 \u1f04\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 \u201cthe angel,\u201d xvi. 6, \u1f41 \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f38\u03c9\u03c3\u03ae\u03c6\n\u201cJoseph,\u201d xv. 46, or the substitution of the name intended for the\npronoun,\u2014as \u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 \u0395\u03bb\u03b9\u03c3\u03b1\u03b2\u03b5\u03b4 (sic) for \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 in St. Luke i. 41.\n\nHence in xvi. 7, instead of, \u201cHe goeth before you into Galilee, there\nshall ye see Him as He said unto you,\u201d\u2014D exhibits,\u2014\u201cBehold, I go before\nyou into Galilee, there shall ye see Me, as I told you.\u201d As if it had been\nthought allowable to recall in this place the fact that our SAVIOUR had\nonce (St. Matt. xxvi. 32, St. Mark xiv. 28) spoken these words in His own\nperson.\n\nAnd in no other way can I explain D\u2019s vapid substitution, made as if from\nhabit, of \u201ca Galilean city\u201d for \u201ca city of Galilee, named Nazareth\u201d in St.\nLuke i. 26.\n\nHence the frequent insertion of a wholly manufactured clause in order to\nimpart a little more clearness to the story\u2014as of the words \u03c4\u1f78 \u1f44\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03b1 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\n\u201chis name\u201d (after \u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03b8\u03ae\u03c3\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u201cshall be called\u201d)\u2014into St. Luke i. 60.\n\nThese passages afford expressions of a feature in this Manuscript to which\nwe must again invite particular attention. It reveals to close observation\nfrequent indications of an attempt, not to supply a faithful\nrepresentation of the very words of Holy Scripture and nothing more than\nthose words, but to interpret, to illustrate,\u2014in a word,\u2014to be a Targum.\nOf course, such a design or tendency is absolutely fatal to the accuracy\nof a transcriber. Yet the habit is too strongly marked upon the pages of\nCodex D to admit of any doubt whether it existed or not(264).\n\nIn speaking of the character of a MS. one is often constrained to\ndistinguish between the readings and the scribe. The readings may be\nclearly fabricated: but there may be evidence that the copyist was an\naccurate and painstaking person. On the other hand, obviously the scribe\nmay have been a considerable blunderer, and yet it may be clear that he\nwas furnished with an admirable archetype. In the case of D we are\npresented with the alarming concurrence of a fabricated archetype and\neither a blundering scribe, or a course of blundering scribes.\n\nBut then further,\u2014One is often obliged (if one would be accurate) to\ndistinguish between the penman who actually produced the MS., and the\ncritical reader for whom he toiled. It would really seem however as if the\nactual transcriber of D, or the transcribers of the ancestors of D, had\ninvented some of those monstrous readings as they went on. The Latin\nversion which is found in this MS. exactly reflects, as a rule, the Greek\non the opposite page: but sometimes it bears witness to the admitted truth\nof Scripture, while the Greek goes off _in alia omnia_(265).\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 6.\n\n\nIt will of course be asked,\u2014But why may not D be in every respect an exact\ncopy,\u2014line for line, word for word, letter for letter,\u2014of some earlier\narchetype? To establish the reverse of _this_, so as to put the result\nbeyond the reach of controversy, is impossible. The question depends upon\nreasons purely critical, and is not of primary importance. For all\npractical purposes, it is still Codex D of which we speak. When I name\n\u201cCodex D\u201d I mean of course nothing else but Codex D according to\nScrivener\u2019s reprint of the text. And if it be a true hypothesis that the\nactual Codex D is nothing else but the transcript of another Codex\nstrictly identical with itself, then it is clearly a matter of small\nimportance of which of the two I speak. When \u201cCodex D\u201d is cited, it is the\ncontents of Codex D which are meant, and no other thing.\n\nAnd upon this point it may be observed, that D is chiefly remarkable as\nbeing the only Greek Codex(266) which exhibits the highly corrupt text\nfound in some of the Old Latin manuscripts, and may be taken as a survival\nfrom the second century.\n\nThe genius of this family of copies is found to have been\u2014\n\n1. To substitute one expression for another, and generally to paraphrase.\n\n2. To remove difficulties, and where a difficult expression presented\nitself, to introduce a conjectural emendation of the text. For example,\nthe passage already noticed about the Publican going down to his house\n\u201cjustified rather than the other\u201d is altered into \u201cjustified more than\nthat Pharisee\u201d (\u03bc\u03b1\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u1fbd \u03b5\u03ba\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03a6\u03b1\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd. St. Luke xviii.\n14)(267).\n\n3. To omit what might seem to be superfluous. Thus the verse, \u201cLord, he\nhath ten pounds\u201d (St. Luke xix. 25) is simply left out(268).\n\nEnough has been surely said to prove amply that the text of Codex D is\nutterly untrustworthy. Indeed, the habit of interpolation found in it, the\nconstant tendency to explain rather than to report, the licentiousness\nexhibited throughout, and the isolation in which this MS. is found, except\nin cases where some of the Low-Latin Versions and Cureton\u2019s Syriac, and\nperhaps the Lewis, bear it company, render the text found in it the\nfoulest in existence. What then is to be thought of those critics who upon\nthe exclusive authority of this unstable offender and of a few of the\nItalic copies occasionally allied with it, endeavour to introduce changes\nin face of the opposition of all other authorities? And since their\nability is unquestioned, must we not seek for the causes of their singular\naction in the theory to which they are devoted?\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 7.\n\n\nBefore we take leave of the Old Uncials, it will be well to invite\nattention to a characteristic feature in them, which is just what the\nreader would expect who has attended to all that has been said, and which\nadds confirmation to the doctrine here propounded.\n\nThe clumsy and tasteless character of some at least of the Old Uncials has\ncome already under observation. This was in great measure produced by\nconstantly rubbing off delicate expressions which add both to the meaning\nand the symmetry of the Sacred Record. We proceed to give a few examples,\nnot to prove our position, since it must surely be evident enough to the\neyes of any accomplished scholar, but as specimens, and only specimens, of\nthe loss which the Inspired Word would sustain if the Old Uncials were to\nbe followed. Space will not admit of a full discussion of this matter.\n\nAn interesting refinement of expression, which has been hopelessly\nobscured through the proclivity of \u05d0BD to fall into error, is found in St.\nMatt. xxvi. 71. The Evangelist describing the second of St. Peter\u2019s\ndenials notes that the damsel who saw him said to the bystanders, \u201cThis\nman _too_ (\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76) was with Jesus of Nazareth.\u201d The three MSS. just mentioned\nomit the \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76. No other MS., Uncial or Cursive, follows them. They have\nonly the support of the unstable Sahidic(269). The loss inflicted is\npatent: comment is needless.\n\nAnother instance, where poverty of meaning would be the obvious result if\nthe acceptance by some critics of the lead of the same trio of Uncials\nwere endorsed, may be found in the description of what the shepherds did\nwhen they had seen the Holy Child in the manger. Instead of \u201cthey made\nknown abroad\u201d (\u03b4\u03b9\u03b5\u03b3\u03bd\u03ce\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd), we should simply have \u201cthey made known\u201d\n(\u1f10\u03b3\u03bd\u03ce\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd). We are inclined to say, \u201cWhy this clipping and pruning to the\nmanifest disadvantage of the sacred deposit.\u201d Only the satellite L and \u039e\nand six Cursives with a single passage from Eusebius are on the same side.\nThe rest in overwhelming majority condemn such rudeness(270).\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 8.\n\n\nThe undoubtedly genuine expression \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03af\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9, \u039a\u03c5\u03c1\u03b9\u03b5 (which is the\ntraditional reading of St. John ix. 36), loses its characteristic \u039a\u0391\u0399 in\nCod. \u05d0*AL,\u2014though it retains it in the rest of the uncials and in all the\ncursives. The \u03ba\u03b1\u03af is found in the Complutensian,\u2014because the editors\nfollowed their copies: it is not found in the Textus Receptus only because\nErasmus did not as in cases before mentioned follow his. The same\nrefinement of expression recurs in the Traditional Text of ch. xiv. 22\n(\u039a\u03cd\u03c1\u03b9\u03b5, \u039a\u0391\u1fda \u03c4\u03af \u03b3\u03ad\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd\u03b5\u03bd), and experienced precisely the same fate at the\nhands of the two earliest editors of the printed Greek Text. It is also\nagain faithfully upheld in its integrity by the whole body of the\ncursives,\u2014always excepting \u201c33\u201d. But (as before) in uncials of bad\ncharacter, as BDL (even by AEX) the \u03ba\u03b1\u03af is omitted,\u2014for which insufficient\nreason it has been omitted by the Revisers likewise,\u2014notwithstanding the\nfact that it is maintained in all the other uncials. As is manifest in\nmost of these instances, the Versions, being made into languages with\nother idioms than Greek, can bear no witness; and also that these delicate\nembellishments would be often brushed off in quotations, as well as by\nscribes and so-called correctors.\n\nWe have not far to look for other instances of this. St. Matthew (i. 18)\nbegins his narrative,\u2014\u03bc\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c5\u03b8\u03b5\u03af\u03c3\u03b7\u03c2 \u0393\u1fba\u03a1 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03bc\u03b7\u03c4\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u039c\u03b1\u03c1\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c4\u1ff7 \u1f38\u03c9\u03c3\u03ae\u03c6.\nNow, as readers of Greek are aware, the little untranslated (because\nuntranslateable) word exhibited in capitals(271) stands with peculiar\nidiomatic force and propriety immediately after the first word of such a\nsentence as the foregoing, being employed in compliance with strictly\nclassical usage(272): and though it might easily come to be omitted\nthrough the carelessness or the licentiousness of copyists, yet it could\nnot by any possibility have universally established itself in copies of\nthe Gospel\u2014as it has done\u2014had it been an unauthorized accretion to the\ntext. We find it recognized in St. Matt. i. 18 by Eusebius(273), by\nBasil(274), by Epiphanius(275), by Chrysostom(276), by Nestorius(277), by\nCyril(278), by Andreas Cret.(279): which is even extraordinary; for the\n\u03b3\u03ac\u03c1 is not at all required for purposes of quotation. But the essential\ncircumstance as usual is, that \u03b3\u03ac\u03c1 is found besides in the whole body of\nthe manuscripts. The only uncials in fact which omit the idiomatic\nparticle are four of older date, viz. B\u05d0C*Z.\n\nThis same particle (\u03b3\u03ac\u03c1) has led to an extraordinary amount of confusion\nin another place, where its idiomatic propriety has evidently been neither\nfelt nor understood,\u2014viz. in St. Luke xviii. 14. \u201cThis man\u201d (says our\nLORD) \u201cwent down to his house justified rather than\u201d (\u1f22 \u03b3\u03ac\u03c1) \u201cthe other.\u201d\nScholars recognize here an exquisitely idiomatic expression, which in fact\nobtains so universally in the Traditional Text that its genuineness is\naltogether above suspicion. It is vouched for by 16 uncials headed by A,\nand by the cursives in the proportion of 500 to 1. The Complutensian has\nit, of course: and so would the Textus Receptus have it, if Erasmus had\nfollowed his MS.: but \u201c_praefero_\u201d (he says) \u201c_quod est usitatius apud\nprobos autores_.\u201d Uncongenial as the expression is to the other languages\nof antiquity, \u1f22 \u03b3\u03ac\u03c1 is faithfully retained in the Gothic and in the\nHarkleian Version(280). Partly however, because it is of very rare\noccurrence and was therefore not understood(281), and partly because when\nwritten in uncials it easily got perverted into something else, the\nexpression has met with a strange fate. \u0397\u0393\u0391\u03a1 is found to have suggested,\nor else to have been mistaken for, both \u0397\u03c0\u0395\u03a1(282) and \u03a5\u03a0\u0395\u03a1(283). The\nprevailing expedient however was, to get rid of the \u0397\u2014to turn \u0393\u0391\u03a1 into\n\u03a0\u0391\u03a1,\u2014and, for \u1f10\u03ba\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 to write \u1f10\u03ba\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd(284). The uncials which exhibit\nthis strange corruption of the text are exclusively that quaternion which\nhave already come so often before us,\u2014viz. B\u05d0DL. But D improves upon the\nblunder of its predecessors by writing, like a Targum, \u03bc\u1fb6\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd \u0393\u0391\u03a1\u1fbd\n\u03b1\u1f30\u03ba\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd (sic), and by adding (with the Old Latin and the Peshitto) \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd\n\u03a6\u03b1\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03bd,\u2014an exhibition of the text which (it is needless to say) is\nperfectly unique(285).\n\nAnd how has the place fared at the hands of some Textual critics? Lachmann\nand Tregelles (forsaken by Tischendorf) of course follow Codd. B\u05d0DL. The\nRevisers (with Dr. Hort)\u2014not liking to follow B\u05d0DL, and unable to adopt\nthe Traditional Text, suffer the reading of the Textus Receptus (\u1f22\n\u1f10\u03ba\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2) to stand,\u2014though a solitary cursive (Evan. 1) is all the\nmanuscript authority that can be adduced in its favour. In effect, \u1f22\n\u1f10\u03ba\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 may be said to be without manuscript authority(286).\n\nThe point to be noticed in all this is, that the true reading of St. Luke\nxviii. 14 has been faithfully retained by the MSS. in all countries and\nall down the ages, not only by the whole body of the cursives, but by\nevery uncial in existence except four. And those four are B\u05d0DL.\n\nBut really the occasions are without number when minute words have dropped\nout of \u05d0B and their allies,\u2014and yet have been faithfully retained, all\nthrough the centuries, by the later Uncials and despised Cursive copies.\nIn St. John xvii. 2, for instance, we read\u2014\u03b4\u03cc\u03be\u03b1\u03c3\u03cc\u03bd \u03c3\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03c5\u1f31\u03cc\u03bd, \u1f35\u03bd\u03b1 \u039a\u0391\u1fda \u1f41\n\u03c5\u1f31\u03cc\u03c2 \u03a3\u039f\u03a5 \u03b4\u03bf\u03be\u03ac\u03c3\u1fc3 \u03c3\u03ad: where \u03ba\u03b1\u03af is omitted by \u05d0ABCD: and \u03c3\u03bf\u03c5 (after \u1f41 \u03c5\u1f31\u03cc\u03c2)\nby \u05d0BC. Some critics will of course insist that, on the contrary, both\nwords are spurious accretions to the text of the cursives; and they must\nsay so, if they will. But does it not sensibly impair their confidence in\n\u05d0 to find that it, and it only, exhibits \u03bb\u03b5\u03bb\u03ac\u03bb\u03b7\u03ba\u03b5\u03bd (for \u1f10\u03bb\u03ac\u03bb\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd) in ver.\n1,\u2014\u03b4\u03ce\u03c3\u03c9 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff7 (for \u03b4\u03ce\u03c3\u1fc3 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2) in ver. 2, while \u05d0B are peculiar in writing\n\u1f38\u03b7\u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c2 without the article in ver. 1?\n\nEnough has surely been said to exhibit and illustrate this rude\ncharacteristic of the few Old Copies which out of the vast number of their\ncontemporaries are all that we now possess. The existence of this\ncharacteristic is indubitable and undoubted: it is in a measure\nacknowledged by Dr. Hort in words on which we shall remark in the ensuing\nchapter(287). Our readers should observe that the \u201crubbing off\u201d process\nhas by no means been confined to particles like \u03ba\u03b1\u03af and \u03b3\u03ac\u03c1, but has\nextended to tenses, other forms of words, and in fact to all kinds of\ndelicacies of expression. The results have been found all through the\nGospels: sacred and refined meaning, such as accomplished scholars will\nappreciate in a moment, has been pared off and cast away. If people would\nonly examine B, \u05d0 and D in their bare unpresentableness, they would see\nthe loss which those MSS. have sustained, as compared with the Text\nsupported by the overwhelming mass of authorities: and they would refuse\nto put their trust any longer in such imperfect, rudimentary, and\nill-trained guides.\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XI. THE LATER UNCIALS AND THE CURSIVES.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 1(288).\n\n\nThe nature of Tradition is very imperfectly understood in many quarters;\nand mistakes respecting it lie close to the root, if they are not\nthemselves the root, of the chief errors in Textual Criticism. We must\ntherefore devote some space to a brief explanation of this important\nelement in our present inquiry.\n\nTradition is commonly likened to a stream which, as is taken for granted,\ncontracts pollution in its course the further it goes. Purity is supposed\nto be attainable only within the neighbourhood of the source: and it is\nassumed that distance from thence ensures proportionally either greater\npurity or more corruption.\n\nWithout doubt there is much truth in this comparison: only, as in the case\nof nearly all comparisons there are limits to the resemblance, and other\nfeatures and aspects are not therein connoted, which are essentially bound\nup with the subject believed to be illustrated on all points in this\nsimilitude.\n\nIn the first place, the traditional presentment of the New Testament is\nnot like a single stream, but resembles rather a great number of streams\nof which many have remained pure, but some have been corrupted. One\ncluster of bad streams was found in the West, and, as is most probable,\nthe source of very many of them was in Syria: another occurred in the East\nwith Alexandria and afterwards Caesarea as the centre, where it was joined\nby the currents from the West. A multitude in different parts of the\nChurch were kept wholly or mainly clear of these contaminants, and\npreserved the pure and precise utterance as it issued from the springs of\nthe Written Word.\n\nBut there is another pitfall hidden under that imperfect simile which is\ncontinually employed on this subject either by word of mouth or in\nwriting. The Tradition of the Church does not take shape after the model\nof a stream or streams rolling in mechanical movement and unvaried flow\nfrom the fountain down the valley and over the plain. Like most mundane\nthings, it has a career. It has passed through a stage when one manuscript\nwas copied as if mechanically from another that happened to be at hand.\nThus accuracy except under human infirmity produced accuracy; and error\nwas surely procreative of error. Afterwards came a period when both bad\nand good exemplars offered themselves in rivalry, and the power of\nrefusing the evil and choosing the good was in exercise, often with much\nwant of success. As soon as this stage was accomplished, which may be said\nroughly to have reached from Origen till the middle of the fourth century,\nanother period commenced, when a definite course was adopted, which was\nfollowed with increasing advantage till the whole career was fixed\nirrevocably in the right direction. The period of the two Gregories,\nBasil, Chrysostom, and others, was the time when the Catholic Church took\nstock of truth and corruption, and had in hand the duty of thoroughly\ncasting out error and cleansing her faith. The second part of the Creed\nwas thus permanently defined; the third part which, besides the Divinity\nof the Holy Ghost, relates to His action in the Church, to the Written\nWord, inclusive both of the several books generally and the text of those\nbooks, to the nature of the Sacraments, to the Ministry, to the character\nof the unity and government of the Church, was on many points delayed as\nto special definition by the ruin soon dealt upon the Roman Empire, and by\nthe ignorance of the nations which entered upon that vast domain: and\nindeed much of this part of the Faith remains still upon the battlefield\nof controversy.\n\nBut action was taken upon what may be perhaps termed the Canon of St.\nAugustine(289): \u201cWhat the Church of the time found prevailing throughout\nher length and breadth, not introduced by regulations of Councils, but\nhanded down in unbroken tradition, that she rightly concluded to have been\nderived from no other fount than Apostolic authority.\u201d To use other words,\nin the accomplishment of her general work, the Church quietly and without\nany public recension examined as to the written Word the various streams\nthat had come down from the Apostles, and followed the multitude that were\npurest, and by gradual filtration extruded out of these nearly all the\ncorruption that even the better lines of descent had contracted.\n\nWe have now arrived at the period, when from the general consentience of\nthe records, it is discovered that the form of the Text of the New\nTestament was mainly settled. The settlement was effected noiselessly, not\nby public debate or in decrees of general or provincial councils, yet none\nthe less completely and permanently. It was the Church\u2019s own operation,\ninstinctive, deliberate, and in the main universal. Only a few witnesses\nhere and there lifted up their voices against the prevalent decisions,\nthemselves to be condemned by the dominant sense of Christendom. Like the\nrepudiation of Arianism, it was a repentance from a partial and temporary\nencouragement of corruption, which was never to be repented of till it was\ncalled in question during the general disturbance of faith and doctrine in\nthe nineteenth century. Doubtless, the agreement thus introduced has not\nattained more than a general character. For the exceeding number of\nquestions involved forbids all expectation of an universal coincidence of\ntestimony extending to every single case.\n\nBut in the outset, as we enter upon the consideration of the later\nmanuscripts, our way must be cleared by the removal of some fallacies\nwhich are widely prevalent amongst students of Sacred Textual Criticism.\n\nIt is sometimes imagined (1) that Uncials and Cursives differ in kind; (2)\nthat all Cursives are alike; (3) that all Cursives are copies of Codex A,\nand are the results of a general Recension; and (4) that we owe our\nknowledge of the New Testament entirely to the existing Uncials. To these\nfour fallacies must be added an opinion which stands upon a higher footing\nthan the preceding, but which is no less a fallacy, and which we have to\ncombat in this chapter, viz. that the Text of the later Uncials and\nespecially the Text of the Cursives is a debased Text.\n\n1. The real difference between Uncials and Cursives is patent to all\npeople who have any knowledge of the subject. Uncials form a ruder kind of\nmanuscripts, written in capital letters with no space between them till\nthe later specimens are reached, and generally with an insufficient and\nill-marked array of stops. Cursives show a great advance in workmanship,\nbeing indited, as the name suggests, in running and more easily flowing\nletters, with \u201ca system of punctuation much the same as in printed books.\u201d\nAs contrasted with one another, Uncials as a class enjoy a great\nsuperiority, if antiquity is considered; and Cursives are just as much\nhigher than the sister class, if workmanship is to be the guiding\nprinciple of judgement. Their differences are on the surface, and are such\nthat whoso runs may read.\n\nBut Textual Science, like all Science, is concerned, not with the\nsuperficial, but with the real;\u2014not with the dress in which the text is\npresented, but with the text itself;\u2014not again with the bare fact of\nantiquity, since age alone is no sure test of excellence, but with the\ncharacter of the testimony which from the nature of the subject-matter is\nwithin reach. Judging then the later Uncials, and comparing them with the\nCursives, we make the discovery that the texts of both are mainly the\nsame. Indeed, they are divided by no strict boundary of time: they overlap\none another. The first Cursive is dated May 7, 835(290): the last Uncials,\nwhich are Lectionaries, are referred to the eleventh, and possibly to the\ntwelfth, century(291). One, Codex \u039b, is written partly in uncials, and\npartly in cursive letters, as it appears, by the same hand. So that in the\nninth, tenth, and eleventh centuries both uncials and cursives must have\nissued mainly and virtually from the same body of transcribers. It follows\nthat the difference lay in the outward investiture, whilst, as is found by\na comparison of one with another, there was a much more important\nsimilarity of character within.\n\n2. But when a leap is made from this position to another sweeping\nassertion that all cursives are alike, it is necessary to put a stop to so\nillicit a process. In the first place, there is the small handful of\ncursive copies which is associated with B and \u05d0. The notorious 1,\u2014handsome\noutwardly like its two leaders but corrupt in text,\u201433, 118, 131, 157,\n205, 209(292), and others;\u2014the Ferrar Group, containing 13, 69, 124, 346,\n556, 561, besides 348, 624, 788;\u2014these are frequently dissentients from\nthe rest of the Cursives. But indeed, when these and a few others have\nbeen subtracted from the rest and set apart in a class by themselves, any\ncareful examination of the evidence adduced on important passages will\nreveal the fact that whilst almost always there is a clear majority of\nCursives on one side, there are amply enough cases of dissentience more or\nless to prove that the Cursive MSS. are derived from a multiplicity of\narchetypes, and are endued almost severally with what may without\nextravagance be termed distinct and independent personality. Indeed, such\nis the necessity of the case. They are found in various countries all over\nthe Church. Collusion was not possible in earlier times when\nintercommunication between countries was extremely limited, and publicity\nwas all but confined to small areas. The genealogies of Cursive MSS., if\nwe knew them, would fill a volume. Their stems must have been extremely\nnumerous; and like Uncials, and often independently of Uncials, they must\nhave gone back to the vast body of early papyrus manuscripts.\n\n3. And as to the Cursives having been copies of Codex A, a moderate\nknowledge of the real character of that manuscript, and a just estimate of\nthe true value of it, would effectually remove such a hallucination. It is\nonly the love of reducing all knowledge of intricate questions to the\ncompass of the proverbial nutshell, and the glamour that hangs over a very\nold relic, which has led people, when they had dropped their grasp of B,\nto clutch at the ancient treasure in the British Museum. It is right to\nconcede all honour to such a survival of so early a period: but to lift\nthe pyramid from its ample base, and to rest it upon a point like A, is a\nproceeding which hardly requires argument for its condemnation. And next,\nwhen the notion of a Recension is brought forward, the answer is, What and\nwhen and how and where? In the absence of any sign or hint of such an\nevent in records of the past, it is impossible to accept such an\nexplanation of what is no difficulty at all. History rests upon research\ninto documents which have descended to us, not upon imagination or\nfiction. And the sooner people get such an idea out of their heads as that\nof piling up structures upon mere assumption, and betake themselves\ninstead to what is duly attested, the better it will be for a Science\nwhich must be reared upon well authenticated bases, and not upon phantom\ntheories.\n\n4. The case of the Cursives is in other respects strangely misunderstood,\nor at least is strangely misrepresented. The popular notion seems to be,\nthat we are indebted for our knowledge of the true text of Scripture to\nthe existing Uncials entirely; and that the essence of the secret dwells\nexclusively with the four or five oldest of those Uncials. By consequence,\nit is popularly supposed that since we are possessed of such Uncial\nCopies, we could afford to dispense with the testimony of the Cursives\naltogether. A more complete misconception of the facts of the case can\nhardly be imagined. For the plain truth is that all the phenomena\nexhibited by the Uncial MSS. are reproduced by the Cursive Copies. A small\nminority of the Cursives, just as a small minority of the Uncials, are\nprobably the depositaries of peculiar recensions.\n\nIt is at least as reasonable to assert that we can afford entirely to\ndisregard the testimony of the Uncials, as to pretend that we can afford\nentirely to disregard the testimony of the Cursives. In fact of the two,\nthe former assertion would be a vast deal nearer to the truth. Our\ninductions would in many cases be so fatally narrowed, if we might not\nlook beyond one little handful of Uncial Copies.\n\nBut the point to which the reader\u2019s attention is specially invited is\nthis:\u2014that so far from our being entirely dependent on Codexes B\u05d0CD, or on\nsome of them, for certain of the most approved corrections of the Received\nText, we should have been just as fully aware of every one of those\nreadings if neither B nor \u05d0, C nor D, had been in existence. Those\nreadings are every one to be found in one or more of the few Cursive\nCodexes which rank by themselves, viz. the two groups just mentioned and\nperhaps some others. If they are not, they may be safely disregarded; they\nare readings which have received no subsequent recognition(293).\n\nIndeed, the case of the Cursives presents an exact parallel with the case\nof the Uncials. Whenever we observe a formal consensus of the Cursives for\nany reading, there, almost invariably, is a grand consensus observable for\nthe same reading of the Uncials.\n\nThe era of greater perfection both in the outer presentment and in the\ninternal accuracy of the text of copies of the New Testament may be said,\nas far as the relics which have descended to us are concerned, to have\ncommenced with the Codex Basiliensis or E of the Gospels. This beautiful\nand generally accurate Codex must have been written in the seventh\ncentury(294). The rest of the later Uncials are ordinarily found together\nin a large or considerable majority: whilst there is enough dissent to\nprove that they are independent witnesses, and that error was condemned,\nnot ignored. Thus the Codex Regius (L, eighth century), preserved at\nParis, generally follows B and \u05d0: so does the Codex Sangallensis (\u0394, ninth\ncentury), the Irish relic of the monastery of St. Gall, in St. Mark alone:\nand the Codex Zacynthius (\u039e, an eighth century palimpsest) now in the\nLibrary of the Bible Society, in St. Luke(295). The isolation of these few\nfrom the rest of their own age is usually conspicuous. The verdict of the\nlater uncials is nearly always sustained by a large majority. In fact, as\na rule, every principal reading discoverable in any of the oldest Uncials\nis also exhibited in one, two, or three of the later Uncials, or in one or\nmore of the small handful of dissentient Cursives already enumerated.\nExcept indeed in very remarkable instances, as in the case of the last\ntwelve verses of St. Mark, such readings are generally represented: yet in\nthe later MSS. as compared with the oldest there is this additional\nfeature in the representation, that if evidence is evidence, and weight,\nnumber, and variety are taken into account, those readings are altogether\ncondemned.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 2(296).\n\n\nBut we are here confronted with the contention that the text of the\nCursives is of a debased character. Our opponents maintain that it is such\nthat it must have been compounded from other forms of text by a process of\nconflation so called, and that in itself it is a text of a character\ngreatly inferior to the text mainly represented by B and \u05d0.\n\nNow in combating this opinion, we are bound first to remark that the\nburden of proof rests with the opposite side. According to the laws which\nregulate scientific conclusions, all the elements of proof must be taken\ninto consideration. Nothing deserves the name of science in which the\ncalculation does not include all the phenomena. The base of the building\nmust be conterminous with the facts. This is so elementary a principle\nthat it seems needless to insist more upon it.\n\nBut then, this is exactly what we endeavour to accomplish, and our\nadversaries disregard. Of course they have their reasons for dismissing\nnineteen-twentieths of the evidence at hand: but\u2014this is the point\u2014it\nrests with them to prove that such dismissal is lawful and right. What\nthen are their arguments? Mainly three, viz. the supposed greater\nantiquity of their favourite text, the superiority which they claim for\nits character, and the evidence that the Traditional Text was as they\nmaintain formed by conflation from texts previously in existence.\n\nOf these three arguments, that from antiquity has been already disposed\nof, and illustration of what has been already advanced will also be at\nhand throughout the sequel of this work. As to conflation, a proof against\nits possible applicability to the Traditional Text was supplied as to\nparticles and other words in the last chapter, and will receive\nillustration from instances of words of a greater size in this. Conflation\nmight be possible, supposing for a moment that other conditions favoured\nit, and that the elements to be conflated were already in existence in\nother texts. But inasmuch as in the majority of instances such elements\nare found nowhere else than in the Traditional Text, conflation as\naccounting for the changes which upon this theory must have been made is\nsimply impossible. On the other hand, the Traditional Text might have been\nvery easily chipped and broken and corrupted, as will be shewn in the\nsecond part of this Treatise, into the form exhibited by B and \u05d0(297).\n\nUpon the third argument in the general contention, we undertake to say\nthat it is totally without foundation. On the contrary, the text of the\nCursives is greatly the superior of the two. The instances which we\nproceed to give as specimens, and as specimens only, will exhibit the\npropriety of language, and the taste of expression, in which it is\npre-eminent(298). Let our readers judge fairly and candidly, as we doubt\nnot that they will, and we do not fear the result.\n\nBut before entering upon the character of the later text, a few words are\nrequired to remind our readers of the effect of the general argument as\nhitherto stated upon this question. The text of the later Uncials is the\ntext to which witness is borne, not only by the majority of the Uncials,\nbut also by the Cursives and the Versions and the Fathers, each in greater\nnumbers. Again, the text of the Cursives enjoys unquestionably the support\nof by very far the largest number among themselves, and also of the\nUncials and Versions and Fathers. Accordingly, the text of which we are\nnow treating, which is that of the later Uncials and the Cursives\ncombined, is incomparably superior under all the external Notes of Truth.\nIt possesses in nearly all cases older attestation(299): there is no sort\nof question as to the greater number of witnesses that bear evidence to\nits claims: nor to their variety: and hardly ever to the explicit proof of\ntheir continuousness; which indeed is also generally\u2014nay,\nuniversally\u2014implied owing to the nature of the case: their weight is\ncertified upon strong grounds: and as a matter of fact, the context in\nnearly all instances testifies on their side. The course of doctrine\npursued in the history of the Universal Church is immeasurably in their\nfavour. We have now therefore only to consider whether their text, as\ncompared with that of B\u05d0D and their allies, commends itself on the score\nof intrinsic excellence. And as to this consideration, if as has been\nmanifested the text of B-\u05d0, and that of D, are bad, and have been shewn to\nbe the inferior, this must be the better. We may now proceed to some\nspecimen instances exhibiting the superiority of the Later Uncial and\nCursive text.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 3.\n\n\nOur SAVIOUR\u2019S lament over Jerusalem (\u201cIf thou hadst known, even thou, at\nleast in this thy day, the things which belong unto thy peace!\u201d) is just\none of those delicately articulated passages which are safe to suffer by\nthe process of transmission. Survey St. Luke\u2019s words (xix. 42), \u0395\u1f30 \u1f14\u03b3\u03bd\u03c9\u03c2\n\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c3\u03cd, \u03ba\u03b1\u03af \u03b3\u03b5 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc7 \u1f21\u03bc\u03b5\u03c1\u1fb3 \u03c3\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c4\u03b1\u03cd\u03c4\u1fc3, \u03c4\u1f70 \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c1\u03ae\u03bd\u03b7\u03bd \u03c3\u03bf\u03c5,\u2014and you will\nperceive at a glance that the vulnerable point in the sentence, so to\nspeak, is \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c3\u03cd, \u03ba\u03b1\u03af \u03b3\u03b5. In the meanwhile, attested as those words are by\nthe Old Latin(300) and by Eusebius(301), as well as witnessed to by the\nwhole body of the copies beginning with Cod. A and including the lost\noriginal of 13-69-124-346 &c.,\u2014the very _order_ of those words is a thing\nquite above suspicion. Even Tischendorf admits this. He retains the\ntraditional reading in every respect. Eusebius however twice writes \u03ba\u03b1\u03af \u03b3\u03b5\n\u03c3\u03cd(302); once, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c3\u03cd \u03b3\u03b5(303); and once he drops \u03ba\u03b1\u03af \u03b3\u03b5 entirely(304).\nOrigen drops it 3 times(305). Still, there is at least a general\n_consensus_ among Copies, Versions and Fathers for beginning the sentence\nwith the characteristic words, \u03b5\u1f30 \u1f14\u03b3\u03bd\u03c9\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c3\u03cd; the phrase being witnessed\nto by the Latin, the Bohairic, the Gothic, and the Harkleian Versions; by\nIrenaeus(306),\u2014by Origen(307),\u2014by ps.-Tatian(308),\u2014by Eusebius(309),\u2014by\nBasil the Great(310),\u2014by Basil of Seleucia(311),\u2014by Cyril(312).\n\nWhat then is found in the three remaining Uncials, for C is defective\nhere? D exhibits \u03b5\u03b9 \u03b5\u03b3\u03bd\u03c9\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c3\u03c5, \u03b5\u03bd \u03c4\u03b7 \u03b7\u03bc\u03b5\u03c1\u03b1 \u03c4\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03b7, \u03c4\u03b1 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u03b7\u03bd\u03b7\u03bd \u03c3\u03bf\u03b9:\nbeing supported only by the Latin of Origen in one place(313). Lachmann\nadopts this reading all the same. Nothing worse, it must be confessed, has\nhappened to it than the omission of \u03ba\u03b1\u03af \u03b3\u03b5, and of the former \u03c3\u03bf\u03c5. But\nwhen we turn to B\u05d0, we find that they and L, with Origen once(314), and\nthe Syriac heading prefixed to Cyril\u2019s homilies on St. Luke\u2019s Gospel(315),\nexclusively exhibit,\u2014\u03b5\u03b9 \u03b5\u03b3\u03bd\u03c9\u03c2 \u03b5\u03bd \u03c4\u03b7 \u03b7\u03bc\u03b5\u03c1\u03b1 \u03c4\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03b7 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c3\u03c5 \u03c4\u03b1 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u03b7\u03bd\u03b7\u03bd:\nthus, not only omitting \u03ba\u03b1\u03af \u03b3\u03b5, together with the first and second \u03c3\u03bf\u03c5,\nbut by transposing the words \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c3\u03cd\u2014\u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc7 \u1f21\u03bc\u03b5\u03c1\u1fb3 \u03c4\u03b1\u03cd\u03c4\u1fc3, obliterating from\nthe passage more than half its force and beauty. This maimed and mutilated\nexhibition of our LORD\u2019S words, only because it is found in B\u05d0, is adopted\nby W.-Hort, who are in turn followed by the Revisers(316). The Peshitto by\nthe way omits \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c3\u03cd, and transposes the two clauses which remain(317).\nThe Curetonian Syriac runs wild, as usual, and the Lewis too(318).\n\nAmid all this conflict and confusion, the reader\u2019s attention is invited to\nthe instructive fact that the whole body of cursive copies (and all the\nuncials but four) have retained in this passage all down the ages\nuninjured every exquisite lineament of the inspired archetype. The truth,\nI say, is to be found in the cursive copies, not in the licentious B\u05d0DL,\nwhich as usual stand apart from one another and from A. Only in respect of\nthe first \u03c3\u03bf\u03c5 is there a slight prevarication on the part of a very few\nwitnesses(319). Note however that it is overborne by the consent of the\nSyriac, the Old Latin and the Gothic, and further that the testimony of\nps.-Tatian is express on this head(320). There is therefore nothing to be\naltered in the traditional text of St. Luke xix. 42, which furnishes an\nexcellent instance of fidelity of transmission, and of an emphatic\ncondemnation of B-\u05d0.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 4.\n\n\nIt is the misfortune of inquiries like the present that they sometimes\nconstrain us to give prominence to minute details which it is difficult to\nmake entertaining. Let me however seek to interest my reader in the true\nreading of St. Matt. xx. 22, 23: from which verses recent critical Editors\nreject the words, \u201cand to be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized\nwith,\u201d \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03b2\u03ac\u03c0\u03c4\u03b9\u03c3\u03bc\u03b1 \u1f43 \u1f10\u03b3\u1f7c \u03b2\u03b1\u03c0\u03c4\u03af\u03b6\u03bf\u03bc\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b2\u03b1\u03c0\u03c4\u03b9\u03c3\u03b8\u1fc6\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9.\n\nAbout the right of the same words to a place in the corresponding part of\nSt. Mark\u2019s Gospel (x. 38), there is no difference of opinion: except that\nit is insisted that in St. Mark the clause should begin with \u1f24 instead of\n\u03ba\u03b1\u03af.\n\nNext, the reader is requested to attend to the following circumstance:\nthat, except of course the four (\u05d0BDL) and Z which omit the place\naltogether and one other (S), all the Uncials together with the bulk of\nthe Cursives, and the Peshitto and Harkleian and several Latin Versions,\nconcur in reading \u1f22 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03b2\u03ac\u03c0\u03c4\u03b9\u03c3\u03bc\u03b1 in St. Matthew: all the Uncials but eight\n(\u05d0BCDLW\u0394\u03a3), together with the bulk of the Cursives and the Peshitto, agree\nin reading \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03b2\u03ac\u03c0\u03c4\u03b9\u03c3\u03bc\u03b1 in St. Mark. This delicate distinction between\nthe first and the second Gospel, obliterated in the Received Text, is\nfaithfully maintained in nineteen out of twenty of the Cursive Copies.\n\nIn the meantime we are assured on the authority of \u05d0BDLZ\u2014with most of the\nLatin Copies, including of course Hilary and Jerome, the Cureton, the\nLewis, and the Bohairic, besides Epiphanius,\u2014that the clause in question\nhas no right to its place in St. Matthew\u2019s Gospel. So confidently is this\nopinion held, that the Revisers, following Griesbach, Lachmann,\nTischendorf, Tregelles, Alford, have ejected the words from the Text. But\nare they right? Certainly not, I answer. And I reason thus.\n\nIf this clause has been interpolated into St. Matthew\u2019s Gospel, how will\nyou possibly account for its presence in every MS. in the world except 7,\nviz. 5 uncials and 2 cursives? It is pretended that it crept in by\nassimilation from the parallel place in St. Mark. But I reply,\u2014\n\n1. Is this credible? Do you not see the glaring improbability of such an\nhypothesis? Why should the Gospel most in vogue have been assimilated in\nall the Copies but seven to the Gospel least familiarly known and read in\nthe Churches?\n\n2. And pray when is it pretended that this wholesale falsification of the\nMSS. took place? The Peshitto Syriac as usual sides with the bulk of the\nCursives: but it has been shewn to be of the second century. Some of the\nLatin Copies also have the clause. Codex C, Chrysostom and Basil of\nSeleucia also exhibit it. Surely the preponderance of the evidence is\noverwhelmingly one way. But then\n\n3. As a matter of fact the clause cannot have come in from St. Mark\u2019s\nGospel,\u2014for the very conclusive reason that the two places are delicately\ndiscriminated,\u2014as on the testimony of the Cursives and the Peshitto has\nbeen shewn already. And\n\n4. I take upon myself to declare without fear of contradiction on the part\nof any but the advocates of the popular theory that, on the contrary, it\nis St. Matthew\u2019s Gospel which has been corrupted from St. Mark\u2019s. A\nconclusive note of the assimilating process is discernible in St. Mark\u2019s\nGospel where \u1f22 has intruded,\u2014not in St. Matthew\u2019s.\n\n5. Why St. Matthew\u2019s Gospel was maimed in this place, I am not able to\nexplain. Demonstrable it is that the Text of the Gospels at that early\nperiod underwent a process of Revision at the hands of men who apparently\nwere as little aware of the foolishness as of the sinfulness of all they\ndid: and that Mutilation was their favourite method. And, what is very\nremarkable, the same kind of infatuation which is observed to attend the\ncommission of crime, and often leads to its detection, is largely\nrecognizable here. But the Eye which never sleeps has watched over the\nDeposit, and provided Himself with witnesses.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 5.\n\n\nSingular to relate, the circumstances under which Simon and Andrew, James\nand John were on the last occasion called to Apostleship (St. Matt. iv.\n17-22: St. Mark i. 14-20: St. Luke v. 1-11) have never yet been\nexplained(321). The facts were as follows.\n\nIt was morning on the Sea of Galilee. Two boats were moored to the shore.\nThe fishermen having \u201ctoiled all the night and taken nothing(322),\u2018\u2014\u2019were\ngone out of them and had washed out (\u1f00\u03c0\u03ad\u03c0\u03bb\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u03bd) their nets (\u03c4\u1f70\n\u03b4\u03af\u03ba\u03c4\u03c5\u03b1)(323).\u201d But though fishing in deep water had proved a failure, they\nknew that by wading into the shallows, they might even now employ a\ncasting-net with advantage. Accordingly it was thus that our SAVIOUR,\ncoming by at this very juncture, beheld Simon and Andrew employed\n(\u03b2\u03ac\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bc\u03c6\u03af\u03b2\u03bb\u03b7\u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd)(324). Thereupon, entering Simon\u2019s boat, \u201cHe\nprayed him that he would thrust out a little from the land(325).\u201d The rest\nrequires no explanation.\n\nNow, it is plain that the key which unlocks this interesting story is the\ngraphic precision of the compound verb employed, and the well-known usage\nof the language which gives to the aorist tense on such occasions as the\npresent a pluperfect signification(326). The Translators of 1611, not\nunderstanding the incident, were content, as Tyndale, following the\nVulgate(327), had been before them, to render \u1f00\u03c0\u03ad\u03c0\u03bb\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u03bd \u03c4\u1f70 \u03b4\u03af\u03ba\u03c4\u03c5\u03b1,\u2014\u201cwere\nwashing their nets.\u201d Of this rendering, so long as the Greek was let\nalone, no serious harm could come. The Revisers of 1881, however, by not\nonly retaining the incorrect translation \u201cwere washing their nets,\u201d but,\nby making the Greek tally with the English\u2014by substituting in short\n\u1f14\u03c0\u03bb\u03c5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd for \u1f00\u03c0\u03ad\u03c0\u03bb\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u03bd,\u2014have so effectually darkened the Truth as to make\nit simply irrecoverable by ordinary students. The only point in the\nmeantime to which the reader\u2019s attention is just now invited is this:\u2014that\nthe compound verb in the aorist tense (\u1f00\u03c0\u03ad\u03c0\u03bb\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u03bd) has been retained by the\nwhole body of the Cursives, as transmitted all down the ages: while the\nbarbarous \u1f14\u03c0\u03bb\u03c5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd is only found at this day in the two corrupt uncials\nBD(328) and a single cursive (Evan. 91)(329).\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 6.\n\n\n\u201cHow hardly shall they that _have riches_ enter into the Kingdom of\nHeaven,\u201d exclaimed our LORD on a memorable occasion. The disciples were\namazed. Replying to their thoughts,\u2014\u201cChildren,\u201d He added, \u201chow hard is it\nfor them that _trust in riches_ to enter into the Kingdom of GOD.\u201d (St.\nMark x. 23, 24). Those familiar words, vouched for by 16 uncials and all\nthe cursives, are quite above suspicion. But in fact all the Versions\nsupport them likewise. There is really no pretext for disturbing what is\nso well attested, not to say so precious. Yet Tischendorf and Westcott and\nHort eject \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03b8\u03cc\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03c7\u03c1\u03ae\u03bc\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd from the text, on the sole\nground that the clause in question is omitted by \u05d0B\u0394, one copy of the\nItalic (k), and one copy of the Bohairic. Aware that such a proceeding\nrequires an apology,\u2014\u201cI think it unsafe,\u201d says Tischendorf, \u201cto forsake in\nthis place the very ancient authorities which I am accustomed to follow\u201d:\ni.e. Codexes \u05d0 and B. But of what nature is this argument? Does the critic\nmean that he must stick to antiquity? If this be his meaning, then let him\nbe reminded that Clemens(330), a more ancient authority than \u05d0B by 150\nyears,\u2014not to say the Latin and the Syriac Versions, which are more\nancient still,\u2014recognizes the words in question(331). Does however the\nlearned critic mean no more than this,\u2014That it is with him a fundamental\nprinciple of Textual Criticism to uphold at all hazards the authority of B\nand \u05d0? He cannot mean that; as I proceed to explain.\n\nFor the strangest circumstance is behind. Immediately after he has thus\n(in ver. 24) proclaimed the supremacy of \u05d0B, Tischendorf is constrained to\nreject the combined evidence of \u05d0BC\u0394. In ver. 26 those 4 copies advocate\nthe absurd reading \u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u0391\u03a5\u03a4\u039f\u039d \u039a\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03af\u03c2 \u03b4\u03cd\u03bd\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c3\u03c9\u03b8\u1fc6\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9; whereas it\nwas evidently to themselves (\u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f11\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf\u03cd\u03c2) that the disciples said it.\nAware that this time the \u201cantiquissimae quas sequi solet auctoritates\u201d\nstand self-condemned, instead of ingenuously avowing the fact, Tischendorf\ngrounds his rejection of \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd on the consideration that \u201cMark never\nuses the expression \u03bb\u03b5\u03b3\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd.\u201d Just as if the text of one place\nin the Gospel is to be determined by the practice of the same Evangelist\nin another place,\u2014and not by its own proper evidence; which in the present\ninstance is (the reader may be sure) simply overwhelming!\n\nWestcott and Hort erroneously suppose that all the copies but four,\u2014all\nthe versions but one (the Bohairic),\u2014may be in error: but that B-\u05d0, C, and\nCod. \u0394 which is curious in St. Mark, must needs be in the right.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 7.\n\n\nThere are many occasions\u2014as I remarked before,\u2014where the very logic of the\ncase becomes a powerful argument. Worthless in and by themselves,\u2014in the\nface, I mean, of general testimony,\u2014considerations derived from the very\nreason of the thing sometimes vindicate their right to assist the\njudgement wherever the evidence is somewhat evenly balanced. But their\ncogency is felt to be altogether overwhelming when, after a careful survey\nof the evidence alone, we entertain no doubt whatever as to what must be\nthe right reading of a place. They seem then to sweep the field. Such an\noccasion is presented by St. Luke xvi. 9,\u2014where our LORD, having shewn\nwhat provision the dishonest steward made against the day when he would\nfind himself houseless,\u2014the Divine Speaker infers that something analogous\nshould be done by ourselves with our own money,\u2014\u201cin order\u201d (saith He)\n\u201cthat _when ye fail_, ye may be received into the everlasting\ntabernacles.\u201d The logical consistency of all this is as exact, as the\nchoice of terms in the Original is exquisite: the word employed to\ndesignate Man\u2019s departure out of this life (\u1f10\u03ba\u03bb\u03af\u03c0\u03b7\u03c4\u03b5), conveying the image\nof one fainting or failing at the end of his race. It is in fact the word\nused in the LXX to denote the peaceful end of Abraham, and of Ishmael, and\nof Isaac, and of Jacob(332).\n\nBut instead of this, \u05d0BDLR\u03a0 with AX present us with \u03b5\u03ba\u03bb\u03b9\u03c0\u03b7 or\n\u03b5\u03ba\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03c0\u03b7,\u2014shewing that the author of this reading imagined without\ndiscrimination, that what our LORD meant to say was that when at last our\nmoney \u201cfails\u201d us, we may not want a home. The rest of the Uncials to the\nnumber of twelve, together with two correctors of \u05d0, the bulk of the\nCursives, and the Old Latin copies, the Vulgate, Gothic, Harkleian, and\nEthiopic Versions, with Irenaeus(333), Clemens Alex.(334), Origen(335),\nMethodius(336), Basil(337), Ephraem Syrus(338), Gregory Naz.(339),\nDidymus(340), Chrysostom(341), Severianus(342), Jerome(343),\nAugustine(344), Eulogius(345), and Theodoret(346), also Aphraates (A.D.\n325)(347), support the reading \u1f10\u03ba\u03bb\u03af\u03c0\u03b7\u03c4\u03b5. Cyril appears to have known both\nreadings(348).\n\nHis testimony, such as it is, can only be divined from his fragmentary\nremains; and \u201cdivination\u201d is a faculty to which I make no pretence.\n\nIn p. 349, after \u03b4\u03b5\u1fd6 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03c0\u03b5\u03c3\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f30\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c0\u03b7\u03b4\u1ff6\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2\n\u03b8\u03b1\u03bd\u03ac\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u1fbd \u1f21\u03bc\u1fb3\u03c2 \u03c0\u03c1\u03b1\u03b3\u03bc\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u1f10\u03be\u03b5\u03bb\u03ba\u03cc\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2. \u1f00\u03b4\u03b9\u03ac\u03c6\u03c5\u03ba\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03ce\u03c0\u1ff3\n\u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u1f76 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b8\u03b1\u03bd\u03ac\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03bb\u03af\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd,\u2014Cyril is represented as saying (6 lines lower\ndown) \u1f45\u03c4\u03b1\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u1f41 \u1f10\u03c0\u03af\u03b3\u03b5\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f10\u03ba\u03bb\u03b5\u03af\u03c4\u1fc3 \u03a0\u039b\u039f\u03a5\u03a4\u039f\u03a3, with which corresponds the\nSyriac of Luc. 509. But when we encounter the same passage in Cramer\u2019s\nCatena (p. 122), besides the reference to death, \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03c0\u03b5\u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03c2 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2\n\u03bf\u1f30\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c0\u03b7\u03b4\u1ff6\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b8\u03b1\u03bd\u03ac\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 (lines 21-3), we are presented\nwith \u1f45\u03c4\u03b1\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u1f21 \u1f10\u03c0\u03af\u03b3\u03b5\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f10\u03ba\u03bb\u03b5\u03af\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9 \u0396\u03c9\u03ae, which clearly reverses the\ntestimony. If Cyril wrote _that_, he read (like every other Father)\n\u1f10\u03ba\u03bb\u03af\u03c0\u03b7\u03c4\u03b5. It is only right to add that \u1f10\u03ba\u03bb\u03af\u03c0\u1fc3 is found besides in pp. 525,\n526 (= Mai ii. 358) and 572 of Cyril\u2019s Syriac Homilies on St. Luke. This\nhowever (like the quotation in p. 506) may well be due to the Peshitto. I\nmust avow that amid so much conflicting evidence, my judgement concerning\nCyril\u2019s text is at fault.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 8.\n\n\nThere is hardly to be found a more precious declaration concerning the\nguiding and illuminating office of the Holy Ghost, than our Lord\u2019s promise\nthat \u201cwhen He, the Spirit of Truth shall come, He shall guide you into all\nthe Truth\u201d: \u1f41\u03b4\u03b7\u03b3\u03ae\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9 \u1f51\u03bc\u1fb6\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c0\u1fb6\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f00\u03bb\u03ae\u03b8\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1\u03bd (St. John xvi. 13). Now,\nthe six words just quoted are found to have experienced an extraordinary\namount of perturbation; far more than can be due to the fact that they\nhappen to be the concluding words of a lection. To be brief,\u2014every known\nvariety in reading this passage may be brought under one of three heads:\u2014\n\n1. With the first,\u2014which is in fact a gloss, not a reading (\u03b4\u03b9\u03b7\u03b3\u03ae\u03c3\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9\n\u1f51\u03bc\u1fd6\u03bd \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f00\u03bb\u03ae\u03b8\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1\u03bd \u03c0\u1fb6\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd),\u2014we need not delay ourselves. Eusebius in two\nplaces(349), Cyril Jer.(350), copies of the Old Latin(351), and\nJerome(352) in a certain place, so read the place. Unhappily the same\nreading is also found in the Vulgate(353). It meets with no favour\nhowever, and may be dismissed.\n\n2. The next, which even more fatally darkens our Lord\u2019s meaning, might\nhave been as unceremoniously dealt with, the reading namely of Cod. L\n(\u1f41\u03b4\u03b7\u03b3\u03ae\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9 \u1f51\u03bc\u1fb6\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc7 \u1f00\u03bb\u03b7\u03b8\u03b5\u03af\u1fb3 \u03c0\u03ac\u03c3\u1fc3), but that unhappily it has found favour\nwith Tischendorf,\u2014I suppose, because with the exception of \u03c0\u03ac\u03c3\u1fc3 it is the\nreading of his own Cod. \u05d0(354). It is thus that Cyril Alex.(355) thrice\nreads the place: and indeed the same thing practically is found in D(356);\nwhile so many copies of the Old Latin exhibit _in omni veritate_, or _in\nveritate omni_(357), that one is constrained to inquire, How is \u1f10\u03bd \u1f00\u03bb\u03b7\u03b8\u03b5\u03af\u1fb3\n\u03c0\u03b1\u03c3\u1fc3 to be accounted for?\n\nWe have not far to look. \u1f41\u03b4\u03b7\u03b3\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd followed by \u1f10\u03bd occurs in the LXX, chiefly\nin the Psalms, more than 16 times. Especially must the familiar expression\nin Ps. xxiv. 5 (\u1f41\u03b4\u03ae\u03b3\u03b7\u03c3\u03cc\u03bd \u03bc\u03b5 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc7 \u1f00\u03bb\u03b7\u03b8\u03b5\u03af\u1fb3 \u03c3\u03bf\u03c5, _Dirige me in veritate\ntua_), by inopportunely suggesting itself to the mind of some early\ncopyist, have influenced the text of St. John xvi. 13 in this fatal way.\nOne is only astonished that so acute a critic as Tischendorf should have\noverlooked so plain a circumstance. The constant use of the Psalm in\nDivine Service, and the entire familiarity with the Psalter resulting\ntherefrom, explains sufficiently how it came to pass, that in this as in\nother places its phraseology must have influenced the memory.\n\n3. The one true reading of the place (\u1f41\u03b4\u03b7\u03b3\u03ae\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9 \u1f51\u03bc\u1fb6\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c0\u1fb6\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd\n\u1f00\u03bb\u03ae\u03b8\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1\u03bd) is attested by 12 of the uncials (EGHIbKMSU\u0393\u0394\u039b\u03a0), the whole body\nof the cursives, and by the following Fathers,\u2014Didymus(358),\nEpiphanius(359), Basil(360), Chrysostom(361), Theodotus, Bp. of\nAntioch(362), Cyril Alex.(363), Theodoret(364); besides Tertullian in five\nplaces, Hilary and Jerome in two(365).\n\nBut because the words \u03c0\u1fb6\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f00\u03bb\u03ae\u03b8\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1\u03bd are found transposed in ABY alone\nof manuscripts, and because Peter Alex.(366), and Didymus(367) once,\nOrigen(368) and Cyril Alex.(369) in two places, are observed to sanction\nthe same infelicitous arrangement (viz. \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f00\u03bb\u03ae\u03b8\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1\u03bd \u03c0\u1fb6\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd),\u2014Lachmann,\nTregelles, Alford, Westcott and Hort, adopt without hesitation this order\nof the words(370). It cannot of course be maintained. The candid reader in\nthe meantime will not fail to note that as usual the truth has been\npreserved neither by A nor B nor D: least of all by \u05d0: but comes down to\nus unimpaired in the great mass of MS. authorities, uncial and cursive, as\nwell as in the oldest Versions and Fathers.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 9.\n\n\nIt may have been anticipated by the readers of these pages that the Divine\nAuthor of Scripture has planted here and there up and down the sacred\npage\u2014often in most improbable places and certainly in forms which we\nshould have least of all imagined\u2014tests of accuracy, by attending to which\nwe may form an unerring judgement concerning the faithfulness of a copy of\nthe sacred Text. This is a discovery which at first astonished me: but on\nmature reflection, I saw that it was to have been confidently anticipated.\nIs it indeed credible that Almighty Wisdom\u2014which is observed to have made\nsuch abundant provision for the safety of the humblest forms of animal\nlife, for the preservation of common seeds, often seeds of noxious\nplants,\u2014should yet have omitted to make provision for the life-giving seed\nof His own Everlasting Word?\n\nFor example, strange to relate, it is a plain fact (of which every one may\nconvince himself by opening a copy of the Gospels furnished with a\nsufficient critical apparatus), that although in relating the healing of\nthe centurion\u2019s servant (St. Matt. viii. 5-13) the Evangelist writes\n\u03b5\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c1\u03c7\u039f\u03a3 in verses 5 and 8, he writes \u03b5\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c1\u03c7\u0397 instead of -\u03a7\u03a9 in\nver. 13. This minute variety has been faithfully retained by uncials and\ncursives alike. _Only_ one uncial (viz. \u05d0) has ventured to assimilate the\ntwo places, writing \u03b5\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c1\u03c7\u03b7\u03c2 throughout. With the blindness\nproverbially ascribed to parental love, Tischendorf follows \u05d0, though the\ncarelessness that reigns over that MS. is visible to all who examine it.\n\nThe matter is a trifle confessedly. But so was the scrap of a ballad which\nidentified the murderer, another scrap of it being found with the bullet\nin the body of the murdered man.\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 10.\n\n\nThe instances which have been given in this chapter of the superiority of\nthe text exhibited in the later Uncials and the Cursives might have been\nincreased in number to almost any extent out of the papers left by Dean\nBurgon. The reader will find many more illustrations in the rest of these\ntwo volumes. Even Dr. Hort admits that the Traditional Text which is\nrepresented by them is \u201centirely blameless on either literary or religious\ngrounds as regards vulgarized or unworthy diction(371),\u201d while \u201crepeated\nand diligent study\u201d can only lead, if conducted with deep and wide\nresearch, to the discovery of beauties and meanings which have lain\nunrevealed to the student before.\n\nLet it be always borne in mind, that (_a_) the later Uncials and Cursives\nare the heirs in succession of numerous and varied lines of descent spread\nthroughout the Church; that (_b_) their verdict is nearly always decisive\nand clear; and that nevertheless (_c_) such unanimity or majority of\nwitnesses is not the testimony of mechanical or suborned testifiers, but\nis the coincidence, as facts unquestionably prove, except in certain\ninstances of independent deponents to the same story.\n\nLet me be allowed to declare(372) in conclusion that no person is\ncompetent to pronounce concerning the merits or demerits of cursive copies\nof the Gospels, who has not himself, in the first instance, collated with\ngreat exactness at least a few of them. He will be materially assisted, if\nit has ever fallen in his way to familiarize himself however partially\nwith the text of vast numbers. But nothing can supply the place of exact\ncollation of at least a few copies: of which labour, if a man has had no\nexperience at all, he must submit to be assured that he really has no\nright to express himself confidently in this subject-matter. He argues,\nnot from facts, but from his own imagination of what the facts of the case\nwill probably be. Those only who have minutely collated several copies,\nand examined with considerable attention a large proportion of all the\nSacred Codexes extant, are entitled to speak with authority here. Further,\nI venture to assert that no conviction will force itself so irresistibly\non the mind of him who submits to the labour of exactly collating a few\nCursive copies of the Gospels, as that the documents in question have been\nexecuted with even extraordinary diligence, fidelity, and skill. That\nhistory confirms this conviction, we have only to survey the elaborate\narrangements made in monasteries for carrying on the duty, and perfecting\nthe art, of copying the Holy Scriptures.\n\nIf therefore this body of Manuscripts be thus declared by the excellence\nof its text, by the evident pains bestowed upon its production, as well as\nby the consentience with it of other evidence, to possess high\ncharacteristics; if it represents the matured settlement of many delicate\nand difficult questions by the Church which after centuries of vacillation\nmore or less, and indeed less rather than more, was to last for a much\nlarger number of centuries; must it not require great deference indeed\nfrom all students of the New Testament? Let it always be remembered, that\nno single Cursive is here selected from the rest or advanced to any\nposition whatsoever which would invest its verdicts with any special\nauthority. It is the main body of the Cursives, agreeing as they generally\ndo with the exception of a few eccentric groups or individuals, which is\nentitled to such respect according to the measure of their agreement. And\nin point of fact, the Cursives which have been collated are so generally\nconsentient, as to leave no doubt that the multitude which needs collation\nwill agree similarly. Doubtless, the later Uncials and the Cursives are\nonly a class of the general evidence which is now before us: but it is\ndesirable that those Textual Students who have been disposed to undervalue\nthis class should weigh with candour and fairness the arguments existing\nin favour of it, which we have attempted to exhibit in this chapter.\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XII. CONCLUSION.\n\n\nThe Traditional Text has now been traced, from the earliest years of\nChristianity of which any record of the New Testament remains, to the\nperiod when it was enshrined in a large number of carefully-written\nmanuscripts in main accord with one another. Proof has been given from the\nwritings of the early Fathers, that the idea that the Traditional Text\narose in the middle of the fourth century is a mere hallucination,\nprompted by only a partial acquaintance with those writings. And witness\nto the existence and predominance of that form of Text has been found in\nthe Peshitto Version and in the best of the Latin Versions, which\nthemselves also have been followed back to the beginning of the second\ncentury or the end of the first. We have also discovered the truth, that\nthe settlement of the Text, though mainly made in the fourth century, was\nnot finally accomplished till the eighth century at the earliest; and that\nthe later Uncials, not the oldest, together with the cursives express, not\nsingly, not in small batches or companies, but in their main agreement,\nthe decisions which had grown up in the Church. In so doing, attention has\nbeen paid to all the existing evidence: none has been omitted. _Quod\nsemper, quod ubique, quod ab omnibus_, has been the underlying principle.\nThe foundations of the building have been laid as deeply and as broadly as\nour power would allow. No other course would be in consonance with\nscientific procedure. The seven notes of truth have been made as\ncomprehensive as possible. Antiquity, number, variety, weight, continuity,\ncontext, and internal evidence, include all points of view and all methods\nof examination which are really sound. The characters of the Vatican,\nSinaitic, and Bezan manuscripts have been shewn to be bad, and the streams\nwhich led to their production from Syrio-Old-Latin and Alexandrian sources\nto the temporary school of Caesarea have been traced and explained. It has\nbeen also shewn to be probable that corruption began and took root even\nbefore the Gospels were written. The general conclusion which has grown\nupon our minds has been that the affections of Christians have not been\nmisdirected; that the strongest exercise of reason has proved their\ninstincts to have been sound and true; that the Text which we have used\nand loved rests upon a vast and varied support; that the multiform record\nof Manuscripts, Versions, and Fathers, is found to defend by large\nmajorities in almost all instances those precious words of Holy Writ,\nwhich have been called in question during the latter half of this century.\n\nWe submit that it cannot be denied that we have presented a strong case,\nand naturally we look to see what has been said against it, since except\nin some features it has been before the World and the Church for some\nyears. We submit that it has not received due attention from opposing\ncritics. If indeed the opinions of the other School had been preceded by,\nor grounded upon, a searching examination, such as we have made in the\ncase of B and \u05d0, of the vast mass of evidence upon which we rest,\u2014if this\ngreat body of testimony had been proved to be bad from overbalancing\ntestimony or otherwise,\u2014we should have found reason for doubt, or even for\na reversal of our decisions. But Lachmann, Tregelles, and Tischendorf laid\ndown principles chiefly, if not exclusively, on the score of their\nintrinsic probability. Westcott and Hort built up their own theory upon\nreasoning internal to it, without clearing the ground first by any careful\nand detailed scrutiny. Besides which, all of them constructed their\nbuildings before travellers by railways and steamships had placed within\ntheir reach the larger part of the materials which are now ready for use.\nWe hear constantly the proclamation made in dogmatic tones that they are\nright: no proof adequate to the strength of our contention has been worked\nout to shew that we are wrong.\n\nNevertheless, it may be best to listen for a moment to such objections as\nhave been advanced against conclusions like these, and which it may be\npresumed will be urged again.\n\n1. \u201cAfter all it cannot be denied that B and \u05d0 are the oldest manuscripts\nof the New Testament in existence, and that they must therefore be\nentitled to the deference due to their age.\u201d Now the earlier part of this\nallegation is conceded by us entirely: _prima facie_ it constitutes a very\nstrong argument. But it is really found on examination to be superficial.\nFathers and Versions are virtually older, and, as has been demonstrated,\nare dead against the claim set up on behalf of those ancient manuscripts,\nthat they are the possessors of the true text of the Gospels. Besides\nwhich antiquity is not the sole note of truth any more than number is. So\nmuch has been already said on this part of the subject, that it is\nneedless to enter into longer discussion here.\n\n2. \u201cThe testimony of witnesses ought to be weighed before it is reckoned.\u201d\nDoubtless: this also is a truism, and allowance has been made for it in\nthe various \u201cnotes of truth.\u201d But this argument, apparently so simple, is\nreally intended to carry a huge assumption involved in an elaborate\nmaintenance of the (supposed) excellent character of B and \u05d0 and their\nassociates. After so much that has been brought to the charge of those two\nMSS. in this treatise, it is unnecessary now to urge more than that they\nappeared in strange times, when the Church was convulsed to her centre;\nthat, as has been demonstrated, their peculiar readings were in a very\ndecided minority in the period before them; and, as all admit, were\nrejected in the ages that passed after the time of their date.\n\n3. It is stated that the Traditional is a conflate text, i.e. that\npassages have been put together from more than one other text, so that\nthey are composite in construction instead of being simple. We have\nalready treated this allegation, but we reply now that it has not been\nestablished: the opinion of Canon Cooke who analysed all the examples\nquoted by Hort(373), of Scrivener who said they proved nothing(374), and\nof many other critics and scholars has been against it. The converse\nposition is maintained, that the text of B and \u05d0 is clipped and mutilated.\nTake the following passage, which is fairly typical of the large class in\nquestion: \u201cFor we are members of His Body\u201d (writes St. Paul(375)) \u201cof His\nflesh and of His bones\u201d (\u1f10\u03ba \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c3\u03b1\u03c1\u03ba\u1f78\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03ba \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f40\u03c3\u03c4\u03ad\u03c9\u03bd \u03b1\u1f30\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6). But\nthose last 9 words are disallowed by recent editors, because they are\nabsent from B-\u05d0, A, 8, and 17, and the margin of 67, besides the Bohairic\nversion. Yet are the words genuine. They are found in DFGKLP and the whole\nbody of the cursives: in the Old Latin and Vulgate and the two Syriac\nversions: in Irenaeus(376),\u2014in Theodorus of Mopsuestia(377),\u2014in\nNilus(378),\u2014in Chrysostom(379) more than four times,\u2014in\nSeverianus(380),\u2014in Theodoret(381),\u2014in Anastasius Sinaita(382),\u2014and in\nJohn Damascene(383). They were probably read by Origen(384) and by\nMethodius(385). Many Latin Fathers, viz. Ambrose(386),\u2014Pacian(387),\u2014Esaias\nabb.(388),\u2014Victorinus(389),\u2014Jerome(390),\u2014Augustine(391)\u2014and Leo P.(392)\nrecognise them.\n\nSuch ample and such varied attestation is not to be set aside by the vapid\nand unsound dictum \u201cWestern and Syrian,\u201d\u2014or by the weak suggestion that\nthe words in dispute are an unauthorized gloss, fabricated from the LXX\nversion of Gen. ii. 23. That St. Paul\u2019s allusion is to the oracular\nutterance of our first father Adam, is true enough: but, as Alford after\nBengel well points out, it is incredible that any forger can have been at\nwork here.\n\nSuch questions however, as we must again and again insist, are not to be\ndetermined by internal considerations: no,\u2014nor by dictation, nor by\nprejudice, nor by divination, nor by any subjective theory of conflation\non which experts and critics may be hopelessly at issue: but by the weight\nof the definite evidence actually producible and produced on either side.\nAnd when, as in the present instance, Antiquity, Variety of testimony,\nRespectability of witnesses, and Number are overwhelmingly in favour of\nthe Traditional Text, what else is it but an outrage on the laws of\nevidence to claim that the same little band of documents which have\nalready come before us so often, and always been found in error, even\nthough aided by speculative suppositions, shall be permitted to outweigh\nall other testimony?\n\nTo build therefore upon a conflate or composite character in a set of\nreadings would be contrary to the evidence:\u2014or at any rate, it would at\nthe best be to lay foundations upon ground which is approved by one school\nof critics and disputed by the other in every case. The determination of\nthe text of Holy Scripture has not been handed over to a mere conflict of\nopposite opinions, or to the uncertain sands of conjecture.\n\nBesides, as has been already stated, no amount of conflation would supply\npassages which the destructive school would wholly leave out. It is\nimpossible to \u201cconflate\u201d in places where B\u05d0 and their associates furnish\nno materials for the supposed conflation. Bricks cannot be made without\nclay. The materials actually existing are those of the Traditional Text\nitself. But in fact these questions are not to be settled by the scholarly\ntaste or opinions of either school, even of that which we advocate. They\nmust rest upon the verdict found by the facts in evidence: and those facts\nhave been already placed in array.\n\n4. Again, stress is laid upon Genealogy. Indeed, as Dean Burgon himself\ngoes on to say, so much has lately been written about \u201cthe principle\u201d and\n\u201cthe method\u201d \u201cof genealogy,\u201d that it becomes in a high degree desirable\nthat we should ascertain precisely what those expressions lawfully mean.\nNo fair controversialist would willingly fail to assign its legitimate\nplace and value to any principle for which he observes an opponent eagerly\ncontending. But here is a \u201cprinciple\u201d and here is a \u201cmethod\u201d which are\ndeclared to be of even paramount importance. \u201cDocuments ... are all\nfragments, usually casual and scattered fragments, of a genealogical tree\nof transmission, sometimes of vast extent and intricacy. The more exactly\nwe are able to trace the chief ramifications of the tree, and to determine\nthe places of the several documents among the branches, the more secure\nwill be the foundations laid for a criticism capable of distinguishing the\noriginal text from its successive corruptions(393).\u201d\n\nThe expression is metaphorical; belonging of right to families of men, but\ntransferred to Textual Science as indicative that similar phenomena attend\nfamilies of manuscripts. Unfortunately the phenomena attending\ntransmission,\u2014of Natures on the one hand, of Texts on the other,\u2014are\nessentially dissimilar. A diminutive couple may give birth to a race of\ngiants. A genius has been known to beget a dunce. A brood of children\nexhibiting extraordinary diversities of character, aspect, ability,\nsometimes spring from the same pair. Nothing like this is possible in the\ncase of honestly-made copies of MSS. The analogy breaks down therefore in\nrespect of its most essential feature. And yet, there can be no objection\nto the use of the term \u201cGenealogy\u201d in connexion with manuscripts, provided\nalways that nothing more is meant thereby than derivation by the process\nof copying: nothing else claimed but that \u201cIdentity of reading implies\nidentity of origin(394).\u201d\n\nOnly in this limited way are we able to avail ourselves of the principle\nreferred to. Of course if it were a well-ascertained fact concerning three\ncopies (XYZ), that Z was copied from Y, and Y from X, XYZ might reasonably\nbe spoken of as representing three descents in a pedigree; although the\ninterval between Z and Y were only six months,\u2014the interval between Y and\nX, six hundred years. Moreover, these would be not three independent\nauthorities, but only one. Such a case, however,\u2014(the fact cannot be too\nclearly apprehended),\u2014is simply non-existent. What is known commonly lies\non the surface:\u2014viz. that occasionally between two or more copies there\nexists such an amount of peculiar textual affinity as to constrain us to\nadopt the supposition that they have been derived from a common original.\nThese peculiarities of text, we tell ourselves, cannot be fortuitous.\nTaking our stand on the true principle that \u201cidentity of reading implies\nidentity of origin,\u201d we insist on reasoning from the known to the unknown:\nand (at our humble distance) we are fully as confident of our scientific\nfact as Adams and Le Verrier would have been of the existence of Neptune\nhad they never actually obtained sight of that planet.\n\nSo far are we therefore from denying the value and importance of the\nprinciple under discussion that we are able to demonstrate its efficacy in\nthe resolution of some textual problems which have been given in this\nwork. Thus E, the uncial copy of St. Paul, is \u201cnothing better,\u201d says\nScrivener, \u201cthan a transcript of the Cod. Claromontanus\u201d D. \u201cThe Greek is\nmanifestly worthless, and should long since have been removed from the\nlist of authorities(395).\u201d Tischendorf nevertheless, not Tregelles, quotes\nit on every page. He has no business to do so, Codexes D and E, to all\nintents and purposes, being _strictly one Codex_. This case, like the two\nnext, happily does not admit of diversity of opinion. Next, F and G of St.\nPaul\u2019s Epistles, inasmuch as they are confessedly derived from one and the\nsame archetype, are not to be reckoned as two authorities, but as one.\n\nAgain, the correspondence between the nine MSS. of the Ferrar group\u2014Evann.\n13 at Paris, 69 at Leicester, 124 at Vienna, 346 at Milan, 556 in the\nBritish Museum, 561 at Bank House, Wisbech,\u2014and in a lesser degree, 348 at\nMilan, 624 at Crypta Ferrata, 788 at Athens,\u2014is so extraordinary as to\nrender it certain that these copies are in the main derived from one\ncommon archetype(396). Hence, though one of them (788) is of the tenth\ncentury, three (348, 561, 624) are of the eleventh, four (13, 124, 346,\n556) of the twelfth, and one (69) of the fourteenth, their joint evidence\nis held to be tantamount to the recovery of a lost uncial or papyrus of\nvery early date,\u2014which uncial or papyrus, by the way, it would be\nconvenient to indicate by a new symbol, as Fr. standing for Ferrar, since\n\u03a6 which was once attributed to them is now appropriated to the Codex\nBeratinus. If indicated numerically, the figures should at all events be\nconnected by a hyphen (13-69-124-346-&c.); not as if they were independent\nwitnesses, as Tischendorf quotes them. And lastly, B and \u05d0 are undeniably,\nmore than any other two Codexes which can be named, the depositaries of\none and the same peculiar, all but unique, text.\n\nI propose to apply the foregoing remarks to the solution of one of the\nmost important of Textual problems. That a controversy has raged around\nthe last twelve verses of St. Mark\u2019s Gospel is known to all. Known also it\nis that a laborious treatise was published on the subject in 1871, which,\nin the opinion of competent judges, has had the effect of removing the\n\u201cLast Twelve Verses of St. Mark\u201d beyond the reach of suspicion.\nNotwithstanding this, at the end of ten years an attempt was made to\nrevive the old plea. The passage, say Drs. Westcott and Hort, \u201cmanifestly\ncannot claim any Apostolic authority; but is doubtless founded on some\ntradition of the Apostolic age,\u201d of which the \u201cprecise date must remain\nunknown.\u201d It is \u201ca very early interpolation\u201d (pp. 51, 46). In a word, \u201cthe\nlast twelve verses\u201d of St. Mark\u2019s Gospel, according to Drs. Westcott and\nHort, are spurious. But what is their ground of confidence? for we claim\nto be as competent to judge of testimony as they. It proves to be \u201cthe\nunique criterion supplied by the concord of the independent attestations\nof \u05d0 and B\u201d (p. 46).\n\n\u201cIndependent attestations\u201d! But when two copies of the Gospel are\nconfessedly derived from one and the same original, how can their\n\u201cattestations\u201d be called \u201cindependent\u201d? This is however greatly to\nunderstate the case. The non-independence of B and \u05d0 in respect of St.\nMark xvi. 9-20 is absolutely unique: for, strange to relate, it so happens\nthat the very leaf on which the end of St. Mark\u2019s Gospel and the beginning\nof St. Luke\u2019s is written (St. Mark xvi. 2-Luke i. 56), is one of the six\nleaves of Cod. \u05d0 which are held to have been written by the scribe of Cod.\nB. \u201cThe inference,\u201d remarks Scrivener, \u201cis simple and direct, that at\nleast in these leaves Codd. B\u05d0 make but one witness, not two(397).\u201d\n\nThe principle of Genealogy admits of a more extended and a more important\napplication to this case, because B and \u05d0 do not stand quite alone, but\nare exclusively associated with three or four other manuscripts which may\nbe regarded as being descended from them. As far as we can judge, they may\nbe regarded as the founders, or at least as prominent members of a family,\nwhose descendants were few, because they were generally condemned by the\ngenerations which came after them. Not they, but other families upon other\ngenealogical stems, were the more like to the patriarch whose progeny was\nto equal the stars of heaven in multitude.\n\nLeast of all shall I be so simple as to pretend to fix the precise date\nand assign a definite locality to the fontal source, or sources, of our\npresent perplexity and distress. But I suspect that in the little handful\nof authorities which have acquired such a notoriety in the annals of\nrecent Textual Criticism, at the head of which stand Codexes B and \u05d0, are\nto be recognized the characteristic features of a lost family of (once\nwell known) second or third-century documents, which owed their existence\nto the misguided zeal of some well-intentioned but utterly incompetent\npersons who devoted themselves to the task of correcting the Text of\nScripture; but were entirely unfit for the undertaking(398).\n\nYet I venture also to think that it was in a great measure at Alexandria\nthat the text in question was fabricated. My chief reasons for thinking so\nare the following: (1) There is a marked resemblance between the peculiar\nreadings of B\u05d0 and the two Egyptian Versions,\u2014the Bohairic or Version of\nLower Egypt especially. (2) No one can fail to have been struck by the\nevident sympathy between Origen,\u2014who at all events had passed more than\nhalf his life at Alexandria,\u2014and the text in question. (3) I notice that\nNonnus also, who lived in the Thebaid, exhibits considerable sympathy with\nthe text which I deem so corrupt. (4) I cannot overlook the fact that Cod.\n\u05d0 was discovered in a monastery under the sway of the patriarch of\nAlexandria, though how it got there no evidence remains to point out. (5)\nThe licentious handling so characteristic of the Septuagint Version of the\nO. T.,\u2014the work of Alexandrian Jews,\u2014points in the same direction, and\nleads me to suspect that Alexandria was the final source of the text of\nB-\u05d0. (6) I further observe that the sacred Text (\u03ba\u03b5\u03af\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd) in Cyril\u2019s\nHomilies on St. John is often similar to B-\u05d0; and this, I take for\ngranted, was the effect of the school of Alexandria,\u2014not of the patriarch\nhimself. (7) Dionysius of Alexandria complains bitterly of the corrupt\nCodexes of his day: and certainly (8) Clemens habitually employed copies\nof a similar kind. He too was of Alexandria(399).\n\nSuch are the chief considerations which incline me to suspect that\nAlexandria contributed largely to our Textual troubles.\n\nThe readings of B-\u05d0 are the consequence of a junction of two or more\nstreams and then of derivation from a single archetype. This inference is\nconfirmed by the fact that the same general text which B exhibits is\nexhibited also by the eighth-century Codex L, the work probably of an\nEgyptian scribe(400): and by the tenth-century Codex 33: and by the\neleventh-century Codex 1: and to some extent by the twelfth-century Codex\n69.\n\nWe have already been able to advance to another and a very important step.\nThere is nothing in the history of the earliest times of the Church to\nprove that vellum manuscripts of the New Testament existed in any number\nbefore the fourth century. No such documents have come down to us. But we\ndo know, as has been shewn above(401), that writings on papyrus were\ntranscribed on vellum in the library of Caesarea. What must we then\nconclude? That, as has been already suggested, papyrus MSS. are mainly the\nprogenitors of the Uncials, and probably of the oldest Uncials. Besides\nthis inference, we have seen that it is also most probable that many of\nthe Cursives were transcribed directly from papyrus books or rolls. So\nthat the Genealogy of manuscripts of the New Testament includes a vast\nnumber of descendants, and many lines of descent, which ramified from one\nstem on the original start from the autograph of each book. The Vatican\nand the Sinaitic do not stand pre-eminent because of any great line of\nparentage passing through them to a multitudinous posterity inheriting the\nearth, but they are members of a condemned family of which the issue has\nbeen small. The rejected of the fourth century has been spurned by\nsucceeding centuries. And surely now also the fourth century, rich in a\nroll of men conspicuous ever since for capacity and learning, may be\npermitted to proclaim its real sentiments and to be judged from its own\ndecisions, without being disfranchised by critics of the nineteenth.\n\nThe history of the Traditional Text, on the contrary, is continuous and\ncomplete under the view of Genealogy. The pedigree of it may be commended\nto the examination of the Heralds\u2019 College. It goes step by step in\nunbroken succession regularly back to the earliest time. The present\nprinted editions may be compared for extreme accuracy with the text passed\nby the Elzevirs or Beza as the text received by all of their time. Erasmus\nfollowed his few MSS. because he knew them to be good representatives of\nthe mind of the Church which had been informed under the ceaseless and\nloving care of mediaeval transcribers: and the text of Erasmus printed at\nBasle agreed in but little variation with the text of the Complutensian\neditors published in Spain, for which Cardinal Ximenes procured MSS. at\nwhatever cost he could. No one doubts the coincidence in all essential\npoints of the printed text with the text of the Cursives. Dr. Hort\ncertifies the Cursive Text as far back as the middle of the fourth\ncentury. It depends upon various lines of descent, and rests on the\ntestimony supplied by numerous contemporary Fathers before the year 1000\nA.D., when co-existing MSS. failed to bear witness in multitudes. The\nacceptance of it by the Church of the fifth century, which saw the\nsettlement of the great doctrinal controversies either made or confirmed,\nproves that the seal was set upon the validity of the earliest pedigrees\nby the illustrious intellects and the sound faith of those days. And in\nthe fifth chapter of this work, contemporary witness is carried back to\nthe first days. There is thus a cluster of pedigrees, not in one line but\nin many parallel courses of descent, not in one country but in several,\nranging over the whole Catholic Church where Greek was understood,\nattested by Versions, and illustrated copiously by Fathers, along which\nwithout break in the continuity the Traditional Text in its main features\nhas been transmitted. Doubtless something still remains for the Church to\ndo under the present extraordinary wealth of authorities in the\nverification of some particulars issuing in a small number of alterations,\nnot in challenging or changing like the other school anything approaching\nto one-eighth of the New Testament(402): for that we now possess in the\nmain the very Words of the Holy Gospels as they issued from their inspired\nauthors, we are taught under the principle of Genealogy that there is no\nvalid reason to doubt.\n\nTo conclude, the system which we advocate will be seen to contrast\nstrikingly with that which is upheld by the opposing school, in three\ngeneral ways:\n\nI. We have with us width and depth against the narrowness on their side.\nThey are conspicuously contracted in the fewness of the witnesses which\nthey deem worthy of credence. They are restricted as to the period of\nhistory which alone they consider to deserve attention. They are confined\nwith regard to the countries from which their testimony comes. They would\nsupply Christians with a shortened text, and educate them under a\ncast-iron system. We on the contrary champion the many against the few: we\nwelcome all witnesses, and weigh all testimony: we uphold all the ages\nagainst one or two, and all the countries against a narrow space. We\nmaintain the genuine and all-round Catholicism of real Christendom against\na discarded sectarianism exhumed from the fourth century. If we condemn,\nit is because the evidence condemns. We cling to all the precious Words\nthat have come down to us, because they have been so preserved to our days\nunder verdicts depending upon overwhelming proof.\n\nII. We oppose facts to their speculation. They exalt B and \u05d0 and D because\nin their own opinion those copies are the best. They weave ingenious webs,\nand invent subtle theories, because their paradox of a few against the\nmany requires ingenuity and subtlety for its support. Dr. Hort revelled in\nfinespun theories and technical terms, such as \u201cIntrinsic Probability,\u201d\n\u201cTranscriptional Probability,\u201d \u201cInternal evidence of Readings,\u201d \u201cInternal\nevidence of Documents,\u201d which of course connote a certain amount of\nevidence, but are weak pillars of a heavy structure. Even conjectural\nemendation(403) and inconsistent decrees(404) are not rejected. They are\ninfected with the theorizing which spoils some of the best German work,\nand with the idealism which is the bane of many academic minds, especially\nat Oxford and Cambridge. In contrast with this sojourn in cloudland, we\nare essentially of the earth though not earthy. We are nothing, if we are\nnot grounded in facts: our appeal is to facts, our test lies in facts, so\nfar as we can we build testimonies upon testimonies and pile facts on\nfacts. We imitate the procedure of the courts of justice in decisions\nresulting from the converging product of all the evidence, when it has\nbeen cross-examined and sifted. As men of business, not less than\nstudents, we endeavour to pursue the studies of the library according to\nthe best methods of the world.\n\nIII. Our opponents are gradually getting out of date: the world is\ndrifting away from them. Thousands of manuscripts have been added to the\nknown stores since Tischendorf formed his system, and Hort began to\ntheorize, and their handful of favourite documents has become by\ncomparison less and less. Since the deaths of both of those eminent\ncritics, the treasures dug up in Egypt and elsewhere have put back the\ndate of the science of palaeography from the fourth century after the\nChristian era to at least the third century before, and papyrus has sprung\nup into unexpected prominence in the ancient and mediaeval history of\nwriting. It is discovered that there was no uncial period through which\nthe genealogy of cursives has necessarily passed. Old theories on those\npoints must generally be reconstructed if they are to tally with known\nfacts. But this accession of knowledge which puts our opponents in the\nwrong, has no effect on us except to confirm our position with new proof.\nIndeed, we welcome the unlocking of the all but boundless treasury of\nancient wealth, since our theory, being as open as possible, and resting\nupon the visible and real, remains not only uninjured but strengthened. If\nit were to require any re-arrangement, that would be only a re-ordering of\nparticulars, not of our principles which are capacious enough to admit of\nany addition of materials of judgement. We trust to the Church of all the\nages as the keeper and witness of Holy Writ, we bow to the teaching of the\nHOLY GHOST, as conveyed in all wisdom by facts and evidence: and we are\ncertain, that, following no preconceived notions of our own, but led under\nsuch guidance, moved by principles so reasonable and comprehensive, and\nobserving rules and instructions appealing to us with such authority, we\nare in all main respects\n\n\n    STANDING UPON THE ROCK.\n\n\n\n\n\nAPPENDIX I. HONEYCOMB\u2014\u1f08\u03a0\u1ff8 \u039c\u0395\u039b\u0399\u03a3\u03a3\u038a\u039f\u03a5 \u039a\u0397\u03a1\u038a\u039f\u03a5.\n\n\n[The Dean left positive instructions for the publication of this\nDissertation, as being finished for Press.]\n\nI propose next to call attention to the omission from St. Luke xxiv. 42 of\na precious incident in the history of our Lord\u2019s Resurrection. It was in\norder effectually to convince the Disciples that it was Himself, in His\nhuman body, who stood before them in the upper chamber on the evening of\nthe first Easter Day, that He inquired, [ver. 41] \u201cHave ye here any meat?\n[ver. 42] and they gave Him a piece of a broiled fish, AND OF AN\nHONEYCOMB.\u201d But those four last words (\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78 \u03bc\u03b5\u03bb\u03b9\u03c3\u03c3\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 \u03ba\u03b7\u03c1\u03af\u03bf\u03c5) because\nthey are not found in six copies of the Gospel, are by Westcott and Hort\nejected from the text. Calamitous to relate, the Revisers of 1881 were by\nthose critics persuaded to exclude them also. How do men suppose that such\na clause as that established itself universally in the sacred text, if it\nbe spurious? \u201cHow do you suppose,\u201d I shall be asked in reply, \u201cif it be\ngenuine, that such a clause became omitted from any manuscript at all?\u201d\n\nI answer,\u2014The omission is due to the prevalence in the earliest age of\nfabricated exhibitions of the Gospel narrative; in which, singular to\nrelate, the incident recorded in St. Luke xxiv. 41-43 was identified with\nthat other mysterious repast which St. John describes in his last\nchapter(405). It seems incredible, at first sight, that an attempt would\never be made to establish an enforced harmony between incidents exhibiting\nso many points of marked contrast: for St. Luke speaks of (1) \u201cbroiled\nfish [\u1f30\u03c7\u03b8\u03cd\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f40\u03c0\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6] and honeycomb,\u201d (2) which \u201c_they_ gave _Him_,\u201d (3)\n\u201cand _He_ did eat\u201d (4) on the first Easter Day, (5) at evening, (6) in a\nchamber, (7) at Jerusalem:\u2014whereas St. John specifies (1) \u201c_bread_, and\nfish [\u1f40\u03c8\u03ac\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd] likewise,\u201d (2) which _He_ gave them, (3) and of which it is\nnot related that Himself partook. (4) The occasion was subsequent: (5) the\ntime, early morning: (6) the scene, the sea-shore: (7) the country,\nGalilee.\n\nLet it be candidly admitted on the other hand, in the way of excuse for\nthose ancient men, that \u201cbroiled fish\u201d was common to both repasts; that\nthey both belong to the period subsequent to the Resurrection: that the\nsame parties, our LORD namely and His Apostles, were concerned in either\ntransaction; and that both are prefaced by similar words of inquiry.\nWaiving this, it is a plain fact that Eusebius in his 9th Canon, makes the\ntwo incidents parallel; numbering St. Luke (xxix. 41-3), \u00a7 341; and St.\nJohn (xxi. 9, 10, 12, first half, and 13), severally \u00a7\u00a7 221, 223, 225. The\nSyriac sections which have hitherto escaped the attention of critical\nscholars(406) are yet more precise. Let the intention of their venerable\ncompiler\u2014whoever he may have been\u2014be exhibited in full. It has never been\ndone before:\u2014\n\n\u201c(ST. LUKE xxiv.)                     \u201c(ST. JOHN xxi.)\u201d\n\u201c\u00a7 397. [Jesus] said unto them,       \u201c\u00a7 255. Jesus saith unto them,\nHave ye here any meat? (ver. 41.)     Children, have ye any meat? They\n                                      answered Him, No. (ver. 5.)\n\u201c_Id._ ...                            \u201c\u00a7 259 ... As soon then as they\n                                      were come to land, they saw a fire\n                                      of coals there, and fish laid\n                                      thereon, and bread. (ver. 9.)\n\u201c\u00a7 398. And they gave Him a piece     \u201c\u00a7 264. Jesus then cometh and\nof a broiled fish and of an           taketh bread, and giveth them, and\nhoneycomb. (ver. 42.)                 fish likewise. (ver. 13.)\n\u201c\u00a7 399. And He took it and did eat    \u201c\u00a7 262. Jesus saith unto them, Come\nbefore them. (ver. 43.)\u201d              and dine. (ver. 12.)\u201d\n\nThe intention of all this is unmistakable. The places are deliberately\nidentified. But the mischief is of much older date than the Eusebian\nCanons, and must have been derived in the first instance from a distinct\nsource. Eusebius, as he himself informs us, did but follow in the wake of\nothers. Should the Diatessaron cf Ammonius or that of Tatian ever be\nrecovered, a flood of light will for the first time be poured over a\ndepartment of evidence where at present we must be content to grope our\nway(407).\n\nBut another element of confusion I suspect is derived from that lost\nCommentary on the Song of Solomon in which Origen is said to have\nsurpassed himself(408). Certain of the ancients insist on discovering in\nSt. Luke xxiv. 42 the literal fulfilment of the Greek version of Cant. v.\n1, \u201cI ate my _bread_ with _honey_.\u201d Cyril of Jerusalem remarks that those\nwords of the spouse \u201cwere fulfilled\u201d when \u201cthey gave Him a piece of a\nbroiled fish and of an honeycomb(409)\u201d: while Gregory Nyss. points out\n(alluding to the same place) that \u201cthe true Bread,\u201d when He appeared to\nHis Disciples, \u201cwas by honeycomb made sweet(410).\u201d Little did those\nFathers imagine the perplexity which at the end of 15 centuries their\nfervid and sometimes fanciful references to Scripture would occasion!\n\nI proceed to shew how inveterately the ancients have confused these two\nnarratives, or rather these two distinct occasions. \u201cWho knows not,\u201d asks\nEpiphanius, \u201cthat our SAVIOUR ate, after His Resurrection from the dead?\nAs the holy Gospels of Truth have it, \u2018There was given unto Him\u2019 [which is\na reference to St. Luke], \u2018bread and part of a broiled fish.\u2019 [but it is\nSt. John who mentions the bread];\u2014\u2018and He took and ate\u2019 [but only\naccording to St. Luke], \u2018and gave to His disciples,\u2019 [but only according\nto St. John. And yet the reference must be to St. Luke\u2019s narrative, for\nEpiphanius straightway adds,] \u2018as He _also_ did at the sea of Tiberias;\nboth eating,\u2019 [although _no_ eating on His part is recorded concerning\n_that_ meal,] \u2018and distributing(411).\u2019 \u201d Ephraem Syrus makes the same\nmis-statement. \u201cIf He was not flesh,\u201d he asks, \u201cwho was it, at the sea of\nTiberias, who ate(412)?\u201d \u201cWhile Peter is fishing,\u201d says Hesychius(413),\n(with plain reference to the narrative in St. John), \u201cbehold in the LORD\u2019S\nhands bread and honeycomb(414)\u201d: where the \u201choneycomb\u201d has clearly lost\nits way, and has thrust out the \u201cfish.\u201d Epiphanius elsewhere even more\nfatally confuses the two incidents. \u201cJESUS\u201d (he says) \u201con a second\noccasion after His Resurrection ate both a piece of a broiled fish and\nsome honeycomb(415).\u201d One would have set this down to sheer inadvertence,\nbut that Jerome circumstantially makes the self-same assertion:\u2014\u201cIn John\nwe read that while the Apostles were fishing, He stood upon the shore, and\nate part of a broiled fish and honeycomb. At Jerusalem He is not related\nto have done anything of the kind(416).\u201d From whom can Jerome have derived\nthat wild statement(417)? It is certainly not his own. It occurs in his\nletter to Hedibia where he is clearly a translator only(418). In another\nplace, Jerome says, \u201cHe sought fish broiled upon the coals, in order to\nconfirm the faith of His doubting Apostles, who were afraid to approach\nHim, because they thought they saw a spirit,\u2014not a solid body(419)\u201d: which\nis a mixing up of St. John\u2019s narrative with that of St Luke. Clemens\nAlex., in a passage which has hitherto escaped notice, deliberately\naffirms that \u201cthe LORD blessed the loaves and the broiled fishes with\nwhich He feasted His Disciples(420).\u201d Where did he find that piece of\ninformation?\n\nOne thing more in connexion with the \u201cbroiled fish _and honeycomb_.\u201d\nAthanasius\u2014and Cyril Alex.(421) after him\u2014rehearse the incident with\nentire accuracy; but Athanasius adds the apocryphal statement that \u201cHe\ntook what remained over, and gave it unto them(422)\u201d: which tasteless\nappendix is found besides in Cureton\u2019s Syriac [not in the Lewis],\u2014in the\nBohairic, Harkleian, Armenian, and Ethiopic Versions; and must once have\nprevailed to a formidable extent, for it has even established itself in\nthe Vulgate(423). It is witnessed to, besides, by two ninth-century\nuncials (\u039a\u03a0) and ten cursive copies(424). The thoughtful reader will say\nto himself,\u2014\u201cHad only Cod. B joined itself to this formidable conspiracy\nof primitive witnesses, we should have had this also thrust upon us by the\nnew school as indubitable Gospel: and remonstrances would have been in\nvain!\u201d\n\nNow, as all must see, it is simply incredible that these many Fathers, had\nthey employed honestly-made copies of St. Luke\u2019s and of St. John\u2019s Gospel,\ncould have fallen into such frequent and such strange misrepresentations\nof what those Evangelists actually say. From some fabricated Gospel\u2014from\nsome \u201cDiatessaron\u201d or \u201cLife of Christ,\u201d once famous in the Church, long\nsince utterly forgotten,\u2014from some unauthentic narrative of our Saviour\u2019s\nDeath and Resurrection, I say, these several depravations of the sacred\nstory must needs have been imported into St. Luke\u2019s Gospel. And lo, out of\nall that farrago, the only manuscript traces which survive at this distant\nday, are found in the notorious B-\u05d0, with A, D, L, and \u03a0,\u2014one copy each of\nthe Old Latin (e) and the Bohairic [and the Lewis],\u2014which exclusively\nenjoy the unenviable distinction of omitting the incident of the\n\u201choneycomb\u201d: while the confessedly spurious appendix, \u201cHe gave them what\nremained over,\u201d enjoys a far more ancient, more varied, and more\nrespectable attestation,\u2014and yet has found favour with no single Editor of\nthe Sacred Text: no, nor have our Revisers seen fit by a marginal note to\napprize the ordinary English reader that \u201cmany uncial authorities\u201d are\ndisfigured in this particular way. With this latter accretion to the\ninspired verity, therefore, we need not delay ourselves: but that, so many\ndisturbing influences having resulted, at the end of seventeen centuries,\nin the elimination of the clause \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78 \u03bc\u03b5\u03bb\u03b9\u03c3\u03c3\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 \u03ba\u03b7\u03c1\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 from six corrupt\ncopies of St. Luke\u2019s Gospel,\u2014a fixed determination or a blundering\ntendency should now be exhibited to mutilate the Evangelical narrative in\nrespect of the incident which those four words embody,\u2014this may well\ncreate anxiety. It makes critical inquiry an imperative duty: not indeed\nfor our own satisfaction, but for that of others.\n\nUpon ourselves, the only effect produced by the sight of half a dozen\nEvangelia,\u2014whether written in the uncial or in the cursive character we\ndeem a matter of small account,\u2014opposing themselves to the whole body of\nthe copies, uncial and cursive alike, is simply to make us suspicious of\nthose six Evangelia. Shew us that they have been repeatedly tried already\nand as often have been condemned, and our suspicion becomes intense. Add\nsuch evidence of the operation of a disturbing force as has been already\nset before the reader; and further inquiry in our own minds we deem\nsuperfluous. But we must answer those distinguished Critics who have ruled\nthat Codexes B-\u05d0, D, L, can hardly if ever err.\n\nThe silence of the Fathers is really not of much account. Some critics\nquote Clemens Alexandrinus. But let that Father be allowed to speak for\nhimself. He is inveighing against gluttony. \u201cIs not variety consistent\nwith simplicity of diet?\u201d (he asks); and he enumerates olives, vegetables,\nmilk, cheese, &c. If it must be flesh, he proceeds, let the flesh be\nmerely broiled. \u201c \u2018Have ye here any meat?\u2019 said our Lord to His disciples\nafter His Resurrection. Whereupon, having been by Him taught frugality in\nrespect of diet, \u2018they gave Him a piece of a broiled fish.\u2019 ... Yet may\nthe fact not be overlooked that those who sup as The Word approves may\npartake besides of \u2018honeycomb.\u2019 The fittest food, in a word, we consider\nto be that which requires no cooking: next, as I began by explaining,\ncheap and ordinary articles of diet(425).\u201d Shall I be thought unreasonable\nif I insist that so far from allowing that Clemens is \u201csilent\u201d concerning\nthe \u201choneycomb,\u201d I even regard his testimony to the traditionary reading\nof St. Luke xxiv. 42 as express? At the end of 1700 years, I am as sure\nthat \u201choneycomb\u201d was found in his copy, as if I had seen it with my eyes.\n\nOrigen, who is next adduced, in one place remarks concerning our\nSAVIOUR\u2014\u201cIt is plain that after His Resurrection, He ate of a fish(426).\u201d\nThe same Father elsewhere interprets mystically the circumstance that the\nDisciples \u201cgave Him a piece of a broiled fish(427).\u201d Eusebius in like\nmanner thrice mentions the fact that our LORD partook of \u201cbroiled\nfish(428)\u201d after His Resurrection. And because these writers do not also\nmention \u201choneycomb,\u201d it is assumed by Tischendorf and his school that the\nwords \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78 \u03bc\u03b5\u03bb\u03b9\u03c3\u03c3\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 \u03ba\u03b7\u03c1\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 cannot have existed in their copies of St.\nLuke(429). The proposed inference is plainly inadmissible. Cyril, after\nquoting accurately St. Luke xxiv. 36 to 43 (\u201choneycomb\u201d and all)(430),\nproceeds to remark exclusively on the incident of the \u201cfish\u201d(431). Ambrose\nand Augustine certainly recognized the incident of \u201cthe honeycomb\u201d: yet\nthe latter merely remarks that \u201cto eat fish with the LORD is better than\nto eat lentiles with Esau(432);\u201d while the former draws a mystical\ninference from \u201cthe record in the Gospel that JESUS ate _broiled\nfishes_(433).\u201d Is it not obvious that the more conspicuous incident,\u2014that\nof the \u201cbroiled fish,\u201d\u2014being common to both repasts, stands for all that\nwas partaken of on either occasion? in other words, represents the entire\nmeal? It excludes neither the \u201choneycomb\u201d of the upper chamber, nor the\n\u201cbread\u201d which was eaten beside the Galilean lake. Tertullian(434),\nintending no slight either to the \u201cbroiled fish\u201d or to the \u201cbread,\u201d makes\nmention only of our Lord\u2019s having \u201ceaten honeycomb\u201d after His\nResurrection. And so Jerome, addressing John, bishop of Jerusalem,\nexclaims\u2014\u201cWhy did the Lord eat honeycomb? Not in order to give thee\nlicence to eat honey, but in order to demonstrate the truth of His\nResurrection(435).\u201d To draw inferences from the rhetorical _silence_ of\nthe Fathers as if we were dealing with a mathematical problem or an Act of\nParliament, can only result in misconceptions of the meaning of those\nancient men.\n\nAs for Origen, there is nothing in either of the two places commonly cited\nfrom his writings(436), where he only mentions the partaking of \u201cfish,\u201d to\npreclude the belief that Origen knew of the \u201choneycomb\u201d also in St. Luke\nxxiv. 42. We have but fragments of his Commentary on St. Luke(437), and an\nabridged translation of his famous Commentary on Canticles. Should these\nworks of his be hereafter recovered in their entirety, I strongly suspect\nthat a certain scholium in Cordier\u2019s Catena on St. Luke(438), which\ncontains a very elaborate recognition of the \u201choneycomb,\u201d will be found to\nbe nothing else but an excerpt from one or other of them. At foot the\nlearned reader will be gratified by the sight of the original Greek of the\nscholium referred to(439), which Cordier so infelicitously exhibits in\nLatin. He will at least be made aware that if it be not Origen who there\nspeaks to us, it is some other very ancient father, whose testimony to the\ngenuineness of the clause now under consideration is positive evidence in\nits favour which greatly outweighs the negative evidence of the archetype\nof B-\u05d0. But in fact as a specimen of mystical interpretation, the passage\nin question is quite in Origen\u2019s way(440)\u2014has all his fervid wildness,\u2014in\nall probability is actually _his_.\n\nThe question however to be decided is clearly not whether certain ancient\ncopies of St. Luke were without the incident of the honeycomb; but only\nwhether it is reasonable to infer from the premisses that the Evangelist\nmade no mention of it. And I venture to anticipate that readers will\ndecide this question with me in the negative. That, from a period of the\nremotest antiquity, certain disturbing forces have exercised a baneful\ninfluence over this portion of Scripture is a plain fact: and that their\ncombined agency should have resulted in the elimination of the incident of\nthe \u201choneycomb\u201d from a few copies of St. Luke xxiv. 42, need create no\nsurprise. On the other hand, this Evangelical incident is attested by the\nfollowing witnesses:\u2014\n\nIn the second century, by Justin M.(441),\u2014by Clemens Alexandrinus(442),\u2014by\nTertullian(443),\u2014by the Old-Latin,\u2014and by the Peshitto Version:\n\nIn the third century, by Cureton\u2019s Syriac,\u2014and by the Bohairic:\n\nIn the fourth century, by Athanasius(444),\u2014by Gregory of Nyssa(445),\u2014by\nEpiphanius(446),\u2014by Cyril of Jerusalem(447),\u2014by Jerome(448),\u2014by\nAugustine(449),\u2014and by the Vulgate:\n\nIn the fifth century, by Cyril of Alexandria(450),\u2014by Proclus(451),\u2014by\nVigilius Tapsensis(452),\u2014by the Armenian,\u2014and Ethiopic Versions:\n\nIn the sixth century, by Hesychius and Cod. N(453):\n\nIn the seventh century, by the Harkleian Version.\n\nSurely an Evangelical incident attested by so many, such respectable, and\nsuch venerable witnesses as these, is clearly above suspicion. Besides its\nrecognition in the ancient scholium to which attention has been largely\ninvited already(454), we find the incident of the \u201choneycomb\u201d recognized\nby 13 ancient Fathers,\u2014by 8 ancient Versions,\u2014by the unfaltering Tradition\nof the universal Church,\u2014above all, by every copy of St. Luke\u2019s Gospel in\nexistence (as far as is known), uncial as well as cursive\u2014except _six_.\nThat it carries on its front the impress of its own genuineness, is what\nno one will deny(455). Yet was Dr. Hort for dismissing it without\nceremony. \u201cA singular interpolation evidently from an extraneous source,\nwritten or oral,\u201d he says. A singular hallucination, we venture to reply,\nbased on ideal grounds and \u201ca system [of Textual Criticism] hopelessly\nself-condemned(456);\u201d seeing that that ingenious and learned critic has\nnothing to urge except that the words in dispute are omitted by B-\u05d0,\u2014by A\nseldom found in the Gospels in such association,\u2014by D of the sixth\ncentury,\u2014by L of the eighth,\u2014by \u03a0 of the ninth.\n\n                  \u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\n\nI have been so diffuse on this place because I desire to exhibit an\ninstance shewing that certain perturbations of the sacred Text demand\nlaborious investigation,\u2014have a singular history of their own,\u2014may on no\naccount be disposed of in a high-handed way, by applying to them any cut\nand dried treatment,\u2014nay I must say, any arbitrary shibboleth. The clause\nin dispute enjoys in perfection every note of a genuine reading: viz.\nnumber, antiquity, variety, respectability of witnesses, besides\ncontinuity of attestation: every one of which notes are away from that\nexhibition of the text which is contended for by my opponents(457).\nTischendorf conjectures that the \u201choneycomb\u201d may have been first brought\nin from the \u201cGospel of the Hebrews.\u201d What if, on the contrary, by the\nValentinian \u201cGospel of Truth,\u201d\u2014a composition of the second century,\u2014the\n\u201choneycomb\u201d should have been first thrust out(458)? The plain statement of\nEpiphanius (quoted above(459)) seems to establish the fact that his maimed\ncitation was derived from that suspicious source.\n\nLet the foregoing be accepted as a specimen of the injury occasionally\nsustained by the Evangelical text in a very remote age from the evil\ninfluence of the fabricated narratives, or _Diatessarons_, which anciently\nabounded. The genuineness of the clause \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78 \u03bc\u03b5\u03bb\u03b9\u03c3\u03c3\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 \u03ba\u03b7\u03c1\u03af\u03bf\u03c5, it is\nhoped, will never more be seriously called in question. Surely it has been\ndemonstrated to be quite above suspicion(460).\n\n\n\n\n\nAPPENDIX II. \u1f4c\u039e\u039f\u03a3\u2014VINEGAR.\n\n\n[The Dean thought this to be one of his most perfect papers.]\n\nWhen He had reached the place called Golgotha, there were some who\n_offered_ to the Son of Man (\u1f10\u03b4\u03af\u03b4\u03bf\u03c5\u03bd \u201cwere for giving\u201d Him) a draught of\nwine drugged with myrrh(461). He would not so much as taste it. Presently,\nthe soldiers gave Him while hanging on the Cross vinegar mingled with\ngall(462). This He tasted, but declined to drink. At the end of six hours,\nHe cried, \u201cI thirst\u201d: whereupon one of the soldiers ran, filled a sponge\nwith vinegar, and gave Him to drink by offering the sponge up to His mouth\nsecured to the summit of the reed of aspersion: whereby (as St. John\nsignificantly remarks) it covered the bunch of ceremonial hyssop which was\nused for sprinkling the people(463). This time He drank; and exclaimed,\n\u201cIt is finished.\u201d\n\n                  \u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\n\nNow, the ancients, and indeed the moderns too, have hopelessly confused\nthis pathetic story by identifying the \u201cvinegar and gall\u201d of St. Matt.\nxxvii. 34 with the \u201cmyrrhed wine\u201d of St. Mark xv. 23; shewing therein a\nwant of critical perception which may reasonably excite astonishment; for\n\u201cwine\u201d is not \u201cvinegar,\u201d neither is \u201cmyrrh\u201d \u201cgall.\u201d And surely, the\ninstinct of humanity which sought to alleviate the torture of crucifixion\nby administering to our Saviour a preliminary soporific draught, was\nentirely distinct from the fiendish malice which afterwards with a\nnauseous potion strove to aggravate the agony of dissolution. Least of all\nis it reasonable to identify the leisurely act of the insolent soldiery at\nthe third hour(464), with what \u201cone of them\u201d (evidently appalled by the\ndarkness) \u201cran\u201d to do at the ninth(465). Eusebius nevertheless, in his\nclumsy sectional system, brackets(466) together these three places (St.\nMatt. xxvii. 34, St. Mark xv. 23, St. John xix. 29): while moderns (as the\nexcellent Isaac Williams) and ancients (as Cyril of Jerusalem)(467) alike\nstrenuously contend that the two first must needs be identical. The\nconsequence might have been foreseen. Besides the substitution of \u201cwine\u201d\nfor \u201cvinegar\u201d (\u03bf\u1f36\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd for \u1f44\u03be\u03bf\u03c2) which survives to this day in nineteen\ncopies of St. Matt. xxvii. 34, the words \u201cand gall\u201d are found improperly\nthrust into four or five copies of St. John xix. 29. As for Eusebius and\nMacarius Magnes, they read St. John xix. 29 after such a monstrous fashion\nof their own, that I propose to invite separate attention to it in another\nplace. Since however the attempt to assimilate the fourth Gospel to the\nfirst (by exhibiting \u1f44\u03be\u03bf\u03c2 \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c7\u03bf\u03bb\u1fc6\u03c2 in St. John xix. 29) is universally\nadmitted to be indefensible, it need not occupy us further.\n\n                  \u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\n\nI return to the proposed substitution of \u03bf\u1f36\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd for \u1f44\u03be\u03bf\u03c2 in St. Matt.\nxxvii. 34, and have only to point out that it is as plain an instance of\nenforced harmony as can be produced. That it exists in many copies of the\nOld-Latin, and lingers on in the Vulgate: is the reading of the Egyptian,\nEthiopic, and Armenian Versions and the Lewis Cod.; and survives in\nB\u05d0DKL\u03a0, besides thirteen of the cursives(468);\u2014all this will seem strange\nto those only who have hitherto failed to recognize the undeniable fact\nthat Codd. B-\u05d0 DL are among the foulest in existence. It does but prove\nhow inveterately, as well as from how remote a period, the error under\ndiscussion has prevailed. And yet, the great and old Peshitto\nVersion,\u2014Barnabas(469),\u2014Irenaeus(470),\u2014Tertullian(471),\u2014Celsus(472),\u2014Origen(473),\u2014the\nSibylline verses in two places(474) (quoted by Lactantius),\u2014and\nps.-Tatian(475),\u2014are more ancient authorities than any of the preceding,\nand they all yield adverse testimony.\n\nComing down to the fourth century, (to which B-\u05d0 belong,) those two\nCodexes find themselves contradicted by Athanasius(476) in two places,\u2014by\nanother of the same name(477) who has been mistaken for the patriarch of\nAlexandria,\u2014by Eusebius of Emesa(478),\u2014by Theodore of Heraclea(479),\u2014by\nDidymus(480),\u2014by Gregory of Nyssa(481),\u2014and by his namesake of\nNazianzus(482),\u2014by Ephraem Syrus(483),\u2014by Lactantius(484),\u2014by\nJerome(485),\u2014by Rufinus(486),\u2014by Chrysostom(487),\u2014by Severianus of\nGabala(488),\u2014by Theodore of Mopsuestia(489),\u2014by Cyril of\nAlexandria(490),\u2014and by Titus of Bostra(491). Now these are more\nrespectable contemporary witnesses to the text of Scripture by far than\nCodexes B-\u05d0 and D (who also have to reckon with A, \u03a6, and \u03a3\u2014C being mute\nat the place), as well as outnumber them in the proportion of 24 to 2. To\nthese (8 + 16 =) 24 are to be added the Apocryphal \u201cGospel of\nNicodemus(492),\u201d which Tischendorf assigns to the third century; the \u201cActs\nof Philip(493),\u201d and the Apocryphal \u201cActs of the Apostles(494),\u201d which Dr.\nWright claims for the fourth; besides Hesychius(495), Amphilochius(496),\nps.-Chrysostom(497), Maximus(498), Severus of Antioch(499), and John\nDamascene(500),\u2014nine names which far outweigh in antiquity and importance\nthe eighth and ninth-century Codexes KL\u03a0. Those critics in fact who would\nsubstitute \u201cwine\u201d for \u201cvinegar\u201d in St. Matt. xxvii. 34 have clearly no\ncase. That, however, which is absolutely decisive of the question against\nthem is the fact that _every uncial and every cursive copy in existence_,\nexcept the very few specimens already quoted, attest that the oldest known\nreading of this place is the true reading. In fact, the Church has\naffirmed in the plainest manner, from the first, that \u1f44\u03be\u03bf\u03c2 (not \u03bf\u1f36\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd) is\nto be read here. We are therefore astonished to find her deliberate decree\ndisregarded by Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Westcott and Hort, in an\nattempt on their part to revive what is a manifest fabrication, which but\nfor the Vulgate would long since have passed out of the memory of\nChristendom. Were they not aware that Jerome himself knew better? \u201cUsque\nhodie\u201d (he says) \u201cJudaei et omnes increduli Dominicae resurrectionis,\n_aceto et felle_ potant Jesum; et dant ei _vinum myrrhatum_ ut eum\nconsopiant, et mala eorum non videat(501):\u201d\u2014whereby he both shews that he\nread St. Matt. xxvii. 34 according to the traditional text (see also p.\n233 c), and that he bracketed together two incidents which he yet\nperceived were essentially distinct, and in marked contrast with one\nanother. But what most offends me is the deliberate attempt of the\nRevisers in this place. Shall I be thought unreasonable if I avow that it\nexceeds my comprehension how such a body of men can have persuaded\nthemselves that it is fair to eject the reading of an important place of\nScripture like the present, and to substitute for it a reading resting\nupon so slight a testimony _without furnishing ordinary Christian readers\nwith at least a hint of what they had done_? They have considered the\nevidence in favour of \u201c_wine_\u201d (in St. Matt. xxvii. 34) not only\n\u201cdecidedly preponderating,\u201d but the evidence in favour of \u201c_vinegar_\u201d so\nslight as to render the word undeserving even of a place in the margin.\nWill they find a sane jury in Great Britain to be of the same opinion? Is\nthis the candid and equitable action befitting those who were set to\nrepresent the Church in this momentous business?\n\n\n\n\n\nAPPENDIX III. THE RICH YOUNG MAN.\n\n\nThe eternal Godhead of CHRIST was the mark at which, in the earliest age\nof all, Satan persistently aimed his most envenomed shafts. St. John, in\nmany a well-known place, notices this; begins and ends his Gospel by\nproclaiming our Saviour\u2019s Eternal Godhead(502); denounces as \u201cdeceivers,\u201d\n\u201cliars,\u201d and \u201cantichrists,\u201d the heretical teachers of his own day who\ndenied this(503);\u2014which shews that their malice was in full activity\nbefore the end of the first century of our era; ere yet, in fact, the\nechoes of the Divine Voice had entirely died out of the memory of very\nancient men. These Gnostics found something singularly apt for their\npurpose in a famous place of the Gospel, where the blessed Speaker seems\nto disclaim for Himself the attribute of \u201cgoodness,\u201d\u2014in fact seems to\ndistinguish between Himself and GOD. Allusion is made to an incident\nrecorded with remarkable sameness of expression by St. Matthew (xix. 16,\n17), St. Mark (x. 17, 18) and St. Luke (xviii. 18, 19), concerning a\ncertain rich young Ruler. This man is declared by all three to have\napproached our LORD with one and the same question,\u2014to have prefaced it\nwith one and the same glozing address, \u201c_Good_ Master!\u201d\u2014and to have been\nchecked by the object of his adulation with one and the same reproof;\u2014\u201cWhy\ndost thou [who takest me for an ordinary mortal like thyself(504)] call me\n_good_? No one is good [essentially good(505)] save one,\u201d that is \u201cGOD.\u201d\n... See, said some old teachers, fastening blindly on the letter,\u2014He\ndisclaims being good: ascribes goodness exclusively to the Father:\nseparates Himself from very and eternal God(506).... The place was\naccordingly eagerly fastened on by the enemies of the Gospel(507): while,\nto vindicate the Divine utterance against the purpose to which it was\nfreely perverted, and to establish its true meaning, is found to have been\nthe endeavour of each of the most illustrious of the Fathers in turn.\nTheir pious eloquence would fill a volume(508). Gregory of Nyssa devotes\nto this subject the eleventh book of his treatise against Eunomius(509).\n\nIn order to emphasize this impious as well as shallow gloss the heretic\nValentinus (A.D. 120),\u2014with his disciples, Heracleon and Ptolemaeus, the\nMarcosians, the Naassenes, Marcion (A.D. 150), and the rest of the Gnostic\ncrew,\u2014not only substituted \u201cOne is good\u201d for \u201cNo one is good but one,\u201d\u2014but\nevidently made it a great point besides to introduce the name of the\nFATHER, either in place of, or else in addition to, the name of\n\u201cGOD(510).\u201d So plausible a depravation of the text was unsuspiciously\nadopted by not a few of the orthodox. It is found in Justin\nMartyr(511),\u2014in pseudo-Tatian(512),\u2014in the Clementine homilies(513). And\nmany who, like Clemens Alex.,\u2014Origen,\u2014the Dialogus,\u2014and pseudo-Tatian (in\nfive places), are careful to retain the Evangelical phrase \u201cNo one is good\nbut one [that is] GOD,\u201d\u2014even they are observed to conclude the sentence\nwith the heretical addition \u201cTHE FATHER(514).\u201d I am not of course denying\nthat the expression is theologically correct: but only am requesting the\nreader to note that, on the present occasion, it is clearly inadmissible;\nseeing that it was no part of our Saviour\u2019s purpose, as Didymus, Ambrose,\nChrysostom, Theodoret point out, to reveal Himself to such an one as the\nrich young ruler in His own essential relation to the Eternal\nFather(515),\u2014to proclaim in short, in this chance way, the great mystery\nof the Godhead: but only (as the ancients are fond of pointing out) to\nreprove the man for his fulsomeness in addressing one of his fellows (as\nhe supposed) as \u201cgood(516).\u201d In the meantime, the extent to which the\nappendix under discussion prevails in the Patristic writings is a singular\nillustration of the success with which, within 60 or 70 years of its\ncoming into being, the text of Scripture was assailed; and the calamitous\ndepravation to which it was liable. Surprising as well as grievous to\nrelate, in every recent critical recension of the Greek text of St.\nMatthew\u2019s Gospel, the first four words of the heretical gloss (\u03b5\u1f36\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd \u1f41\n\u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03b8\u03cc\u03c2) have been already substituted for the seven words before found\nthere (\u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u03b5\u1f76\u03c2 \u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03b8\u1f78\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f30 \u03bc\u1f74 \u03b5\u1f36\u03c2, \u1f41 \u0398\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2); and (more grievous still) now, at\nthe end of 1700 years, an effort is being made to establish this\nunauthorized formula in our English Bibles also. This is done, be it\nobserved, in opposition to the following torrent of ancient\ntestimony:\u2014viz., in the second century, the Peshitto Version,\u2014Justin\nMartyr(517),\u2014ps.-Tatian (5 times)(518),\u2014Clemens Alex. (twice)(519):\u2014in the\nthird century, the Sahidic Version,\u2014ps.-Dionysius Areopag.(520):\u2014in the\nfourth century, Eusebius (3 times)(521), Macarius Magnes (4\ntimes)(522),\u2014Basil(523),\u2014Chrysostom(524):\u2014Athanasius(525),\u2014Gregory Nyss.\n(3 times)(526),\u2014and Didymus apparently (twice)(527):\u2014in the fifth century,\nCod. C,\u2014Augustine in many places(528),\u2014Cyril Alex.(529),\u2014and Theodoret (8\ntimes)(530):\u2014in the sixth century, Antiochus mon.(531),\u2014the _Opus\nimperf._(532)\u2014with the Harkleian and the Ethiopic Version. ... When to\nthese 21 authorities have been added _all the known copies_, except six of\ndissentients,\u2014an amount of ancient evidence has been adduced which must be\nheld to be altogether decisive of a question like the present(533).\n\nFor what, after all, is the proper proof of the genuineness of any\nreading, but the prevailing consent of Copies, Fathers, Versions? This\nfundamental truth, strangely overlooked in these last days, remains\nunshaken. For if the universal consent of Copies, when sustained by a free\nappeal to antiquity, is not to be held definitive,\u2014what in the world is?\nWere the subject less solemn there would be something diverting in the\n_na\u00efvet\u00e9_ of the marginal note of the revisers of 1881,\u2014\u201cSome ancient\nauthorities read ... \u2018None is good save one [even] God.\u2019 \u201d How many\n\u201cancient authorities\u201d did the Revisers suppose exhibit anything else?\n\nBut all this, however interesting and instructive, would have attracted\nlittle attention were it not for the far more serious corruption of the\nSacred Text, which has next to be considered. The point to be attended to\nis, that at the very remote period of which we are speaking, it appears\nthat certain of the Orthodox,\u2014with the best intentions doubtless, but with\nmisguided zeal,\u2014in order to counteract the pernicious teaching which the\nenemies of Christianity elicited from this place of Scripture,\ndeliberately falsified the inspired record(534). Availing themselves of a\nslight peculiarity in St. Matthew\u2019s way of exhibiting the words of the\nyoung Ruler,\u2014(namely, \u201cWhat _good thing_ shall I do,\u201d)\u2014they turned our\nLORD\u2019S reply, \u201cWhy callest thou me good?\u201d in the first Gospel, into\nthis,\u2014\u201c_Why askest thou me concerning the good?_\u201d The ensuing formula\nwhich the heretics had devised,\u2014\u201c_One there is that is good_,\u201d with some\nwords of appendix concerning God the Father, as already explained,\u2014gave\nthem no offence, because it occasioned them no difficulty. It even suited\ntheir purpose better than the words which they displaced. On the other\nhand, they did not fail to perceive that the epithet \u201cgood,\u201d \u201cGood\nMaster,\u201d if suffered to remain in the text, would witness inconveniently\nagainst them, by suggesting our LORD\u2019S actual reply,\u2014viz. \u201cWhy callest\nthou me good?\u201d Accordingly, in an evil hour, they proceeded further to\nerase the word \u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03b8\u03ad from their copies. It is a significant circumstance\nthat the four uncial Codexes (B\u05d0DL) which exclusively exhibit \u03c4\u03af \u03bc\u03b5 \u1f10\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u1fb7\u03c2\n\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03b8\u03bf\u1fe6; are exclusively the four which omit the epithet \u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03b8\u03ad.\n\nThe subsequent history of this growth of error might have been foreseen.\nScarcely had the passage been pieced together than it began to shew\nsymptoms of disintegration; and in the course of a few centuries, it had\nso effectually disappeared, that tokens of it here and there are only to\nbe found in a few of the earliest documents. First, the epithet (\u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03b8\u03ad)\nwas too firmly rooted to admit of a sentence of perpetual banishment from\nthe text. Besides retaining its place in every known copy of the Gospels\nexcept eight(535), it survives to this hour in a vast majority of the most\nancient documents. Thus, \u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03b8\u03ad is found in Justin Martyr(536) and in\nps.-Tatian(537):\u2014in the remains of the Marcosian(538),\u2014and of the\nNaassene(539) Gnostics;\u2014as well as in the Peshitto,\u2014and in the Old Latin\nversions:\u2014in the Sahidic,\u2014and the Bohairic version,\u2014besides in the\nClementine Homilies(540), in Cureton and Lewis,\u2014and in the Vulgate:\u2014in\nOrigen(541),\u2014in Athanasius(542),\u2014and in Basil(543),\u2014and in Cyril of\nJerusalem(544):\u2014in Ephraem Syrus(545), and in Gregory of Nyssa(546): in\nMacarius Magnes(547),\u2014and in Chrysostom(548):\u2014in\nJuvencus(549),\u2014Hilary(550),\u2014Gaudentius(551),\u2014Jerome(552),\u2014and\nAugustine(553);\u2014lastly in Vigilius Tapsensis(554):\u2014in Cyril Alex.(555),\u2014in\nTheodoret(556),\u2014in Cod. C,\u2014in the Harkleian Version,\u2014and in the _Opus\nimperfectum_(557). So that, at the end of 1700 years, 6 witnesses of the\nsecond century,\u20143 of the third,\u201414 of the fourth,\u20144 of the fifth,\u20142 of the\nsixth, come back from all parts of Christendom to denounce the liberty\ntaken by the ancients, and to witness to the genuineness of the\ntraditional text.\n\nSo much then,\u2014(1) For the unauthorized omission of \u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03b8\u03ad, and\u2014(2) For the\nheretical substitution of \u03b5\u1f36\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd \u1f41 \u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03b8\u03cc\u03c2 in the room of \u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u03b5\u1f76\u03c2 \u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03b8\u1f78\u03c2\n\u03b5\u1f30 \u03bc\u1f74 \u03b5\u1f36\u03c2 \u1f41 \u0398\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2. We have still to inquire after the fate of the most\nconspicuous fabrication of the three: viz.\u2014(3) The substitution of \u03a4\u03af \u03bc\u03b5\n\u1f10\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u1fb7\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03b8\u03bf\u1fe6; for \u03c4\u03af \u03bc\u03b5 \u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03b8\u03cc\u03bd; What support do the\nearliest witnesses lend to the inquiry,\u2014\u201c_Why askest thou me concerning\nthe good_?\u201d ... That patent perversion of the obvious purport of our\nSaviour\u2019s address, I answer, is disallowed by Justin Martyr(558) (A.D.\n140),\u2014by the Marcosians(559),\u2014and the Naassenes(560) (A.D. 150),\u2014by the\nClementine homilies(561),\u2014and ps.-Tatian(562) (third century);\u2014by the\nPeshitto and the Thebaic version;\u2014by Macarius\nMagnes(563),\u2014Athanasius(564),\u2014and Basil(565);\u2014by Hilary(566),\u2014Gregory of\nNyssa(567);\u2014by Chrysostom(568),\u2014by Cyril Alex.(569),\u2014by Theodoret(570),\u2014by\nthe _Opus imperfectum_(571),\u2014by the Harkleian,\u2014and the Armenian versions.\nI have produced 18 witnesses,\u20144 belonging to the second century: 3 to the\nthird: 6 to the fourth: 5 to the fifth. Moreover they come from every part\nof ancient Christendom. Such an amount of evidence, it must be again\ndeclared, is absolutely decisive of a question of this nature. Whether men\ncare more for Antiquity or for Variety of testimony; whether\nRespectability of witnesses or vastly preponderating Numbers, more\nimpresses the imagination,\u2014they must needs admit that the door is here\nclosed against further debate. The traditional text of St. Matt. xix. 16,\n17 is certainly genuine, and must be allowed to stand unmolested.\n\nFor it is high time to inquire,\u2014What, after all, is the evidence\nproducible on the other side? The exhibition of the text, I answer, which\nrecommends itself so strongly to my opponents that they have thrust it\nbodily into the Gospel, is found in its entirety only with that little\nband of witnesses which have already so often come before us; and always\nwith false testimony. I am saying that Origen(572) in the third\ncentury,\u2014Codd. B-\u05d0 in the fourth,\u2014Cod. D in the fifth,\u2014Cod. L in the\neighth,\u2014besides a couple of cursive Codexes (Evann. 1 and 22),\u2014are\nliterally the whole of the producible evidence for the Revisers\u2019 text in\nits entirety. Not that even these seven so-called consentient witnesses\nare in complete accord among themselves. On the contrary. The discrepancy\nbetween them is perpetual. A collation of them with the traditional text\nfollows:\u2014\n\n\u039a\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b9\u03b4\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b5\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03b5\u03bb\u03b8\u03c9\u03bd \u03b5\u03b9\u03c0\u03b5\u03bd (D [_not_ Orig. B\u05d0L] \u03bb\u03b5\u03b3\u03b5\u03b9) \u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03c9 (B\u05d0 [_not_\nOrig. DL] \u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03c9 \u03b5\u03b9\u03c0\u03b5), \u0394\u03b9\u03b4\u03b1\u03c3\u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03b5 \u03b1\u03b3\u03b1\u03b8\u03b5 (Orig. B\u05d0DL\u2014\u03b1\u03b3\u03b1\u03b8\u03b5) \u03c4\u03b9 \u03b1\u03b3\u03b1\u03b8\u03bf\u03bd \u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03b7\u03c3\u03c9\n(\u05d0L [_not_ Orig. BD] \u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03b7\u03c3\u03b1\u03c2) \u03b9\u03bd\u03b1 \u03b5\u03c7\u03c9 (Orig. BD [_not_ \u05d0L] \u03c3\u03c7\u03c9) \u03b6\u03c9\u03b7\u03bd\n\u03b1\u03b9\u03c9\u03bd\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd (Orig. 664b \u05d0L [_not_ Orig. 664a BD] \u03b6\u03c9\u03b7\u03bd \u03b1\u03b9\u03c9\u03bd\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03b7\u03c3\u03c9); \u03bf\n\u03b4\u03b5 \u03b5\u03b9\u03c0\u03b5\u03bd \u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03c9, \u03a4\u03b9 \u03bc\u03b5 \u03bb\u03b5\u03b3\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2 \u03b1\u03b3\u03b1\u03b8\u03bf\u03bd (Orig. 664-5 B\u05d0DL \u03c4\u03b9 \u03bc\u03b5 \u03b5\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2 [Orig.\n666b \u03b5\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2] \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9 \u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 (Orig. 664c D [_not_ Orig. 665c 666b B\u05d0L]\u2014\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5)\n\u03b1\u03b3\u03b1\u03b8\u03bf\u03c5); \u03bf\u03c5\u03b4\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2 \u03b1\u03b3\u03b1\u03b8\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b5\u03b9 \u03bc\u03b7 \u03b5\u03b9\u03c2 \u03bf \u0398\u03b5\u03bf\u03c2 (B\u05d0DL \u03b5\u03b9\u03c2 \u03b5\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd \u03bf (D [_not_ Orig.\nB\u05d0L]\u2014\u03bf) \u03b1\u03b3\u03b1\u03b8\u03bf\u03c2).\n\nCan it be possibly reasonable to avow that such an amount of discrepancy\nbetween witnesses which claim to be consentient, inspires confidence\nrather than distrust in every one of them?\n\nThe reader is next to be told that there survive, as might have been\nexpected, traces in sundry quarters of this threefold ancient fraud (as it\nseems to be rather than blunder);\u2014as in Justin(573), and the\nMarcosian(574), and Naassene heretics(575); the Latin Versions(576); the\nBohairic(577); the Cureton and Lewis(578); pseudo-Dionysius(579), the\nClementine homilies(580) and Eusebius(581); Cyril Alex.(582) and Antiochus\nthe monk(583) (A.D. 614); Hilary(584), Jerome(585), and Augustine(586);\nbesides in Evann. 479 and 604, and Evst. 5. But the point to be attended\nto is, that not one of the foregoing authorities sanctions the text which\nLachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, W.-Hort, and the Revisers of 1881\nunanimously adopt. This first. And next, that no sooner are these sixteen\nwitnesses fairly confronted, than they set about hopelessly contradicting\none another: so that it fares with them as it fared with the Philistines\nin the days of Saul:\u2014\u201cBehold, every man\u2019s sword was against his fellow,\nand there was a very great discomfiture(587).\u201d This will become best\nunderstood by the reader if he will allow \u201c(I),\u201d to represent the\n_omission_ of the epithet \u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03b8\u03ad:\u2014\u201c(II),\u201d the _substitution_ of \u03c4\u03af \u03bc\u03b5\n\u1f10\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u1fb7\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03b8\u03bf\u1fe6:\u2014and \u201c(III),\u201d the _substitution_ of \u03b5\u1f36\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd \u1f41\n\u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03b8\u03cc\u03c2 with or without appendix. For it will appear that,\u2014\n\n(_a_) Evan. 479 and Evst. 5, though they witness _in favour of_ (I), yet\nwitness _against_ (II) and (III):\u2014and that,\n\n(_b_) The Latin and the Bohairic Versions, with Jerome and Evan. 604,\nthough they witness _in favour of_ (II) and (III), yet witness against\n(I).\n\nNote, that Cureton and Lewis do the same: but then the Cureton stultifies\nitself by omitting from the introductory inquiry the underlined and\nclearly indispensable word,\u2014\u201cWhat _good_ [thing] must I do?\u201d The same\npeculiarity is exhibited by the Thebaic Version and by Cyril of Jer.(588)\nNow this is simply fatal to the testimony of Cureton\u2019s Syr. concerning\n\u201c(II),\u201d\u2014seeing that, without it, the proposed reply cannot have been\nspoken.\u2014It appears further that,\n\n(_c_) Augustine, though he witnesses in favour of (II), yet witnesses\nagainst both (I) and (III):\u2014and that,\n\n(_d_) Hilary, though he witnesses in favour of (III), and yields uncertain\ntestimony concerning (I), yet witnesses against (II):\u2014and that,\n\n(_e_) Justin M. (in one place) and the Marcosian and Naassene heretics,\ntogether with the Clementine homilies, though they witness in favour of\n(III), yet witness against (I) and (II):\u2014and that,\n\n(_f_) ps.-Dionysius, Eusebius, and Antiochus mon. (A.D. 614), though they\nwitness in favour of (II), yet witness against (III).\n\n(_g_) Cyril also, though he delivers uncertain testimony concerning (I)\nand (II), yet witnesses against (III).\n\nThe plain fact is that the place before us exhibits every chief\ncharacteristic of a clumsy fabrication. No sooner had it with perverse\ningenuity been pieced together, than the process of disintegration set in.\nThe spurious phrases \u03c4\u03af \u03bc\u03b5 \u1f10\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u1fb7\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03b8\u03bf\u1fe6, and \u03b5\u1f36\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd \u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03b8\u03cc\u03c2,\nhaving no lawful dwelling-place of their own, strayed out of the first\nGospel into the third as soon as they were invented. Cureton in St. Luke\nxviii. 19 has both phrases, Lewis neither,\u2014Marcion, in his heretical\nrecension of St. Luke\u2019s Gospel (A.D. 150), besides the followers of Arius,\nadopt the latter(589). \u201cThe key of the whole position,\u201d as Scrivener\npoints out, \u201cis the epithet \u2018_good_\u2019 before \u2018Master\u2019 in ver. 16: for if\nthis be genuine, the only pertinent answer is contained in the Received\nText(590).\u201d Precisely so: and it has been proved to be genuine by an\namount of continuous attestation which is absolutely overwhelming. We just\nnow analyzed the inconsistent testimony of sixteen ancient authorities;\nand found that only the two cursive copies favour the omission of \u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03b8\u03ad,\nwhile nine of the oldest witnesses are for retaining it. Concerning the\nexpression \u03c4\u03af \u03bc\u03b5 \u1f10\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u1fb7\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03b8\u03bf\u1fe6, these inconsistent witnesses are\nevenly divided,\u2014seven being for it, seven against it. All, in fact, is\nerror, confusion, discord, the instant we get outside the traditional\ntext.\n\nThe reason of all this contrariety has been assigned already. Before\nChristianity was a hundred years old, two opposite evil influences were at\nwork here: one, heretical\u2014which resulted in (III): the other,\northodox,\u2014which resulted in (II) and (I). These influences, proceeding\nfrom opposite camps, were the cause that copies got independently\npropagated of two archetypes. But the Church, in her corporate capacity,\nhas declined to know anything of either. She has been careful all down the\nages that the genuine reading shall be rehearsed in every assembly of the\nfaithful on the 12th Sunday after Pentecost; and behold, at this hour it\nis attested by every copy in the world\u2014except that little handful of\nfabricated documents, which it has been the craze of the last fifty years\nto cry up as the only authentic witnesses to the truth of Scripture, viz.\nCodd. B\u05d0DL and Origen. Now, as to the first two of these, Dr. Scrivener\nhas pronounced(591) that (B\u05d0), \u201csubsequent investigations have brought to\nlight so close a relation as to render it impossible to regard them as\nindependent witnesses;\u201d while every page of the Gospel bears emphatic\nwitness to the fact that Codd. B\u05d0DL are, as has been said, the\ndepositaries of a hopelessly depraved text.\n\nBut how about Origen? He, in A.D. 250, commenting on the present place of\nSt. Matthew\u2019s Gospel, has a great deal to say concerning the grievously\ncorrupt condition of the copies hereabouts. Now, the copies he speaks of\nmust have been older, by at least 100 years, than either Cod. B or Cod. \u05d0.\nHe makes this admission casually in the course of some remarks which\nafford a fair sample of his critical method and therefore deserve\nattention:\u2014He infers from Rom. xiii. 9 that if the rich young ruler really\ndid \u201clove his neighbour as himself,\u201d which, according to the three\nEvangelists, he virtually said he did(592), he was perfect(593)! Yet our\nSaviour\u2019s rejoinder to him is,\u2014\u201c_If_ thou wilt be perfect,\u201d go and do such\nand such things. Having thus invented a difficulty where none exists,\nOrigen proposes, as a way out of it, to regard the precept (in St. Matt.\nxix. 20,\u2014\u201cThou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself\u201d) as an unauthorized\naccretion to the Text,\u2014the work of some tasteless scribe(594). The\nreasonableness of suspecting its genuineness (he says) is heightened by\nthe fact that neither in St. Mark\u2019s nor yet in St. Luke\u2019s parallel\nnarrative, are the words found about \u201cloving one\u2019s neighbour as oneself.\u201d\nAs if that were not rather a reason for presuming it to be genuine! To be\nsure (proceeds Origen) it would be monstrous to regard these words, \u201cThou\nshalt love thy neighbour as thyself,\u201d as an interpolation, were it not for\nthe existence of so many other discrepancies hereabouts. The copies of St.\nMatthew are in fact all at strife among themselves. And so are the copies\nof the other Gospels. Vast indeed, and with this he concludes, is the\ndiscrepancy in St. Matthew(595): whether it has proceeded from the\ncarelessness of the scribes;\u2014or from criminal audacity on the part of\ncorrectors of Scripture;\u2014or whether, lastly, it has been the result of\nlicentiousness on the part of those who, pretending to \u201ccorrect\u201d the text,\nhave added or omitted according to their own individual caprice(596).\n\nNow all this is very instructive.  Here is the most famous Critic of\nantiquity estimating the genuineness of a clause in the Gospel, not by the\namount of external attestation which it enjoys, but by his own\nself-evolved fancies concerning it. As a matter of fact, no extant copy,\nFather, or Version is without the clause under discussion. By proposing\ntherefore that it shall be regarded as spurious, Origen does but convict\nhimself of rashness and incompetency. But when this same Critic,\u2014who, by\nhis own shewing, has had the evil hap to alight on a collection of\nsingularly corrupt documents,\u2014proceeds to handle a text of Scripture which\nhas demonstrably had a calamitous history from the first days of the\nGospel until now;\u2014two inconvenient questions force themselves on our\nattention:\u2014The first,\u2014What confidence can be reposed in his judgement? The\nsecond\u2014What is there to conciliate our esteem for the particular Codex\nfrom which he happens to quote? On the other hand, the reader has been\nalready shewn by a more open appeal to antiquity than has ever before been\nattempted, that the reading of St. Matt. xix. 16, 17 which is exclusively\nfound in B\u05d0DL and the copy from which Origen quotes, is deficient in\nexternal attestation.\n\nNow, when it is considered that B\u05d0 confessedly represent one and the same\narchetype, which may very well have been of the date of Origen\nhimself,\u2014how is it possible to resist the conviction that these three are\nnot independent voices, but echoes of one and the same voice? And, What if\ncertain Codexes preserved in the library of Caesarea in\nPalestine(597);\u2014Codexes which were handled in turn by Origen, by Eusebius,\nby Jerome, and which also furnished the archetype from which B and \u05d0 were\nderived;\u2014what, I say, if it shall some day come to be generally admitted,\nthat those Caesarean Codexes are most probably the true _fons et origo_ of\nmuch of our past perplexity and of our present trouble? Since \u201ccoincidence\nof reading infallibly implies identity of ancestry(598),\u201d are we not even\nled by the hand to see that there must have existed in the famous library\nof Caesarea a little nest of copies credited, and justly so, with\ncontaining every \u201clast new thing\u201d in the way of Textual Criticism, to\nwhich Critics of the type of Origen and Jerome, and perhaps Eusebius, must\nhave been only too fond of resorting? A few such critically corrected\ncopies would furnish a complete explanation of every peculiarity of\nreading exhibited exclusively by Codexes B and \u05d0, and [fondled, perhaps\nwith some critical cynicism, by] those three Fathers.\n\nYet it is to be remembered, (with reference to the place before us,) that\n\u201cOrigen, Eusebius, and Jerome\u201d are not in accord here, except in reading\n\u03c4\u03af \u03bc\u03b5 \u1f10\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u1fb7\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03b8\u03bf\u1fe6?\u2014for Eusebius differs from Origen and Jerome\nin proceeding with the traditional text \u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u03b5\u1f76\u03c2 \u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03b8\u1f78\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f30 \u03bc\u1f74 \u03b5\u1f36\u03c2: while\nJerome and even Origen concur with the traditional text in recognizing the\nepithet \u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03b8\u03ad,\u2014a circumstance which, as already explained, may be regarded\nas fatal to the formula \u03c4\u03af \u03bc\u03b5 \u1f10\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u1fb7\u03c2 \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb. which follows.\n\nThis however by the way. That so ill-supported a fraud should have imposed\nupon Griesbach, Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Alford, Westcott and\nHort, and the Revisers of 1881, including Scrivener,\u2014is to me\nunintelligible. The substituted reading is an impossible one to begin\nwith, being inconsistent with its context. And although I hold the\nintroduction of intrinsic probability into these inquiries to be unlawful,\nuntil the truth has been established on grounds of external evidence; yet,\nwhen that has been accomplished, not only do internal considerations claim\na hearing, but their effect is often, as in the present case, entirely to\nsweep the field. It is impossible, so at least it seems to me, to survey\nthe narrative by the light of internal probability, without being overcome\nby the incoherence and essential foolishness of the reading before us.\nThis is a point which deserves attention.\n\n1. That our LORD actually _did_ remonstrate with the young ruler for\ncalling Him \u201cgood,\u201d is at least certain. Both St. Mark (x. 17, 18) and St.\nLuke (xviii. 18, 19) record that fact, and the text of neither is\ndisputed. How grossly improbable then is the statement that He also\nreproved the young man for inviting Him to a philosophical discussion\nconcerning \u03c4\u1f78 \u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03b8\u03cc\u03bd,\u2014which yet the young man clearly had not done.\nAccording to two out of the three Evangelists, if not to the third also,\nhis question had not been about the abstract quality; but concerning the\nconcrete thing, as a means to an end:\u2014\u201cWhat _good work must I do_ in order\nthat I may inherit eternal life?\u201d\u2014a purely practical question.  Moreover,\nthe pretended inquiry is not touched by the proposed rejoinder,\u2014\u201cOne there\nis who is good,\u201d\u2014or \u201cThere is none good but one, that is GOD.\u201d Does not\nthe very wording of that rejoinder shew that it must needs have been\npreceded by the inquiry, \u201cWhy callest thou Me good?\u201d The young man is told\nbesides that if he desires to \u201cinherit eternal life\u201d he must keep God\u2019s\ncommandments. The question and the answer in the genuine text are strictly\ncorrelative. In the fabricated text, they are at cross purposes and\ninconsistent with one another in a high degree.\n\n2. Let it however be supposed for an instant that our LORD\u2019S reply\nactually was,\u2014\u201cWhy askest thou Me concerning abstract goodness?\u201d Note what\nresults. Since it cannot be thought that such an interrogation is\nsubstantially equivalent to \u201cWhy callest thou Me good?\u201d the saying,\u2014if\nuttered at all,\u2014must have been spoken in addition. Was it then spoken to\nthe same man?\u2014\u201cYes,\u201d replies the author of Cureton\u2019s Syriac: \u201cthe\nrejoinder ran thus,\u2014\u2018Why callest thou Me good?\u2019 and, \u2018Why askest thou Me\nrespecting the good(599)?\u2019 \u201d\u2014\u201cNot exactly,\u201d remarks the author of Evan.\n251, \u201cThe second of those two inquiries was interposed after the word\n\u2018Which?\u2019 in ver. 18.\u201d\u2014\u201cNot so,\u201d cries the author of the Gospel to the\nHebrews. \u201cThe men who came to our Lord were two in number(600).\u201d There is\nreason for suspecting that certain of the early heretics were of the same\nopinion(601). Will not every candid reader admit that the more closely we\nlook into the perplexed tangle before us, the more intolerable it\nbecomes,\u2014the more convinced we feel of its essential foolishness? And\u2014Is\nit too much to hope that after this deliberate exposure of the\ninsufficiency of the evidence on which it rests, no further efforts will\nbe made to bolster up a reading so clearly indefensible?\n\nNothing more, I suppose, need be added. I have been so diffuse concerning\nthe present place of Scripture because I ardently desire to see certain of\nthe _vexatae quaestiones_ in Textual Criticism fairly threshed out and\nsettled. And this is a place which has been famous from the earliest\ntimes,\u2014a \u03b8\u03c1\u03c5\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03cd\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba\u03b5\u03c6\u03ac\u03bb\u03b1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd as Macarius Magnes (p. 12) calls it, in\nhis reply to the heathen philosopher who had proposed it as a subject for\ndiscussion. It is (in the opinion of modern critics) \u201cquite a test\npassage(602).\u201d Tischendorf made this the subject of a separate\ndissertation in 1840(603). Tregelles, who discusses it at great\nlength(604), informs us that he even \u201crelies on this one passage as\nsupplying an argument on the whole question\u201d which underlies his critical\nRecension of the Greek Text. It has caused all the Critics\u2014Griesbach,\nLachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Alford, W.-Hort, the Revisers, even\nScrivener(605), to go astray. Critics will spend their strength in vain if\nthey seek any further to establish on a rational basis alterations made on\nthe strength of testimony which is both restricted and is at variance with\nitself.\n\nLet it be noted that our persistent appeal concerning St. Matt. xix. 17,\n18 has been made to Antiquity. We reject the proposed innovation as\nundoubtedly spurious, because of the importance and overwhelming number of\nthe witnesses of the second, third, and fourth centuries which come\nforward to condemn it; as well as because of the plain insufficiency and\nwant of variety in the evidence which is adduced in its support. Whenever\na proposed correction of the Sacred Text is insufficiently attested, and\nespecially when that attestation is destitute of Variety,\u2014we claim that\nthe traditional reading shall stand.\n\n\n\n\n\nAPPENDIX IV. ST. MARK I. 1.\n\n\nSt. Mark\u2019s Gospel opens as follows:\u2014\u201cThe beginning of the Gospel of Jesus\nChrist, THE SON OF GOD.\u201d The significancy of the announcement is apparent\nwhen the opening of St. Matthew\u2019s Gospel is considered,\u2014\u201cThe book of the\ngeneration of Jesus Christ, the Son of David.\u201d Surely if there be a clause\nin the Gospel which carries on its front the evidence of its genuineness,\nit is this(606). But in fact the words are found in every known copy but\nthree (\u05d0, 28, 255); in all the Versions; in many Fathers. The evidence in\nits favour is therefore overwhelming. Yet it has of late become the\nfashion to call in question the clause\u2014\u03a5\u1f31\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u0398\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6. Westcott and Hort\nshut up the words in brackets. Tischendorf ejects them from the text. The\nRevisers brand them with suspicion. High time is it to ascertain how much\nof doubt really attaches to the clause which has been thus assailed.\n\nTischendorf relies on the testimony of ten ancient Fathers, whom he quotes\nin the following order,\u2014Irenaeus, Epiphanius, Origen, Basil, Titus,\nSerapion, Cyril of Jerusalem, Severianus, Victorinus, Jerome. But the\nlearned critic has to be reminded (1) that _pro hac vice_, Origen,\nSerapion, Titus, Basil, Victorinus and Cyril of Jerusalem are not six\nfathers, but only one. Next (2), that Epiphanius delivers no testimony\nwhatever on the point in dispute. Next (3), that Jerome(607) is rather to\nbe reckoned with the upholders, than the impugners, of the disputed\nclause: while (4) Irenaeus and Severianus bear emphatic witness in its\nfavour. All this quite changes the aspect of the Patristic testimony. The\nscanty residuum of hostile evidence proves to be Origen and three\nCodexes,\u2014of which two are cursives. I proceed to shew that the facts are\nas I have stated them.\n\nAs we might expect, the true author of all the mischief was Origen. At the\noutset of his commentary on St. John, he writes with reference to St. Mark\ni. 1,\u2014\u201cEither the entire Old Testament (represented by John Baptist) is\nhere spoken of as \u2018the beginning\u2019 of the New; or else, only the end of it\n(which John quotes) is so spoken of, on account of this linking on of the\nNew Testament to the Old. For Mark says,\u2014\u2018The beginning of the Gospel of\nJesus Christ, as it is written in Isaiah the prophet, Behold, I send my\nmessenger, &c. The voice of one, &c.\u2019 I can but wonder therefore at those\nheretics,\u201d\u2014he means the followers of Basilides, Valentinus, Cerdon,\nMarcion, and the rest of the Gnostic crew,\u2014\u201cwho attribute the two\nTestaments to two different Gods; seeing that this very place sufficiently\nrefutes them. For how can John be \u2018the beginning of the Gospel,\u2019 if, as\nthey pretend, he belongs to another God, and does not recognize the\ndivinity of the New Testament?\u201d Presently,\u2014\u201cIn illustration of the former\nway of taking the passage, viz. that John stands for the entire Old\nTestament, I will quote what is found in the Acts [viii. 35] \u2018Beginning at\nthe same Scripture of Isaiah, He was brought as a lamb, &c., Philip\npreached to the eunuch the Lord Jesus.\u2019 How could Philip, beginning at the\nprophet, preach unto him Jesus, unless Isaiah be some part of \u2018the\nbeginning of the Gospel(608)?\u2019 \u201d From the day that Origen wrote those\nmemorable words [A.D. 230], an appeal to St. Mark i. 1-3 became one of the\ncommonplaces of Theological controversy. St. Mark\u2019s assertion that the\nvoices of the ancient Prophets, were \u201cthe beginning of the Gospel\u201d\u2014of whom\nJohn Baptist was assumed to be the symbol,\u2014was habitually cast in the\nteeth of the Manichaeans.\n\nOn such occasions, not only Origen\u2019s reasoning, but often Origen\u2019s\nmutilated text was reproduced. The heretics in question, though they\nrejected the Law, professed to hold fast the Gospel. \u201cBut\u201d (says Serapion)\n\u201cthey do not understand the Gospel; for they do not receive the beginning\nof it:\u2014\u2018The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, as it is written in\nIsaiah the prophet(609).\u2019 \u201d What the author of this curt statement meant,\nis explained by Titus of Bostra, who exhibits the quotation word for word\nas Serapion, following Origen, had exhibited it before him; and adding\nthat St. Mark in this way \u201cconnects the Gospel with the Law; recognizing\nthe Law as the beginning of the Gospel(610).\u201d How does this prove that\neither Serapion or Titus disallowed the words \u03c5\u1f31\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u0398\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6? The simple\nfact is that they are both reproducing Origen: and besides availing\nthemselves of his argument, are content to adopt the method of quotation\nwith which he enforces it.\n\nNext, for the testimony of Basil. His words are,\u2014\u201cMark makes the preaching\nof John the beginning of the Gospel, saying, \u2018The beginning of the Gospel\nof Jesus Christ ... as it is written in Isaiah the prophet ... The voice\nof one crying in the wilderness(611).\u2019 \u201d This certainly shews that Basil\nwas treading in Origen\u2019s footsteps; but it no more proves that he\ndisallowed the three words in dispute in ver. 1, than that he disallowed\nthe sixteen words not in dispute in ver. 2.\u2014from which it is undeniable\nthat he omits them intentionally, knowing them to be there. As for\nVictorinus (A.D. 290), his manner of quoting the beginning of St. Mark\u2019s\nGospel is identical with Basil\u2019s(612), and suggests the same observation.\n\nIf proof be needed that what precedes is the true account of the\nphenomenon before us, it is supplied by Cyril of Jerusalem, with reference\nto this very passage. He points out that \u201cJohn was the end of the\nprophets, for \u2018All the prophets and the Law were until John;\u2019 but the\nbeginning of the Gospel dispensation, for it says, \u2018The beginning of the\nGospel of Jesus Christ,\u2019 and so forth. John was baptizing in the\nwilderness(613).\u201d Cyril has therefore passed straight from the middle of\nthe first verse of St. Mark i. to the beginning of ver. 4: not, of course,\nbecause he disallowed the eight and thirty words which come in between;\nbut only because it was no part of his purpose to quote them. Like\nSerapion and Titus, Basil and Cyril of Jerusalem are in fact reproducing\nOrigen: but unlike the former two, the two last-named quote the Gospel\nelliptically. The liberty indeed which the ancient Fathers freely\nexercised, when quoting Scripture for a purpose,\u2014of leaving out whatever\nwas irrelevant; of retaining just so much of the text as made for their\nargument,\u2014may never be let slip out of sight. Little did those ancient men\nimagine that at the end of some 1500 years a school of Critics would arise\nwho would insist on regarding every irregularity in such casual appeals to\nScripture, as a deliberate assertion concerning the state of the text 1500\nyears before. Sometimes, happily, they make it plain by what they\nthemselves let fall, that their citations of Scripture may not be so dealt\nwith. Thus, Severianus, bishop of Gabala, after appealing to the fact that\nSt. Mark begins his Gospel by styling our Saviour \u03a5\u1f31\u1f78\u03c2 \u0398\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6, straightway\nquotes ver. 1 without that record of Divine Sonship,\u2014a proceeding which\nwill only seem strange to those who omit to read his context. Severianus\nis calling attention to the considerate reserve of the Evangelists in\ndeclaring the eternal Generation of Jesus Christ. \u201cMark does indeed say\n\u2018Son of God\u2019; but straightway, in order to soothe his hearers, he checks\nhimself and cuts short that train of thought; bringing in at once about\nJohn the Baptist: saying,\u2014\u2018The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ ...\nas it is written in Isaiah the prophet, Behold,\u2019 &c. No sooner has the\nEvangelist displayed the torch of Truth, than he conceals it(614).\u201d How\ncould Severianus have made his testimony more emphatic?\n\n                  \u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\n\nAnd now the reader is in a position to understand what Epiphanius has\ndelivered. He is shewing that whereas St. Matthew begins his Gospel with\nthe history of the Nativity, \u201cthe holy Mark makes what happened at Jordan\nthe introduction of the Gospel: saying,\u2014The beginning of the Gospel ... as\nit is written in Isaiah the prophet ... The voice of one crying in the\nwilderness(615).\u201d This does not of course prove that Epiphanius read ver.\n1 differently from ourselves. He is but leaving out the one and twenty\nwords (5 in ver. 1: 16 in ver. 2) which are immaterial to his purpose. Our\nLord\u2019s glorious designation (\u201cJesus Christ, the Son of God,\u201d) and the\nquotation from Malachi which precedes the quotation from Isaiah, stand in\nthis writer\u2019s way: his one object being to reach \u201cthe voice of one crying\nin the wilderness.\u201d Epiphanius in fact is silent on the point in dispute.\n\n                  \u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\n\nBut the most illustrious name is behind. Irenaeus (A.D. 170)\nunquestionably read \u03a5\u1f31\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u0398\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6 in this place. He devotes a chapter of\nhis great work to the proof that Jesus is the Christ,\u2014very God as well as\nvery Man; and establishes the doctrine against the Gnostics, by citing the\nEvangelists in turn. St. Mark\u2019s testimony he introduces by an apt appeal\nto Rom. i. 1-4, ix. 5, and Gal. iv. 4, 5: adding,\u2014\u201cThe Son of God was made\nthe Son of Man, in order that by Him we might obtain the adoption: Man\ncarrying, and receiving, and enfolding the Son of God. Hence, Mark\nsays,\u2014\u2018The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, as it\nis written in the prophets(616).\u2019 \u201d Irenaeus had already, in an earlier\nchapter, proved by an appeal to the second and third Gospels that Jesus\nChrist is God. \u201cQuapropter et Marcus,\u201d (he says) \u201cinterpres et sectator\nPetri, initium Evangelicae conscriptionis fecit sic: \u2018Initium Evangelii\nJesu Christi Filii Dei, quemadmodum scriptum est in Prophetis,\u2019 &c.(617)\u201d\nThis at all events is decisive. The Latin of either place alone survives:\nyet not a shadow of doubt can be pretended as to how the man who wrote\nthese two passages read the first verse of St. Mark\u2019s Gospel(618).\n\nEven more interesting is the testimony of Victor of Antioch; for though he\nreproduces Origen\u2019s criticism, he makes it plain that he will have nothing\nto say to Origen\u2019s text(619). He paraphrases, speaking in the person of\nthe Evangelist, the two opening verses of St. Mark\u2019s Gospel, as\nfollows!\u2014\u201cI shall make \u2018the beginning of the Gospel\u2019 from John: of the\nGospel, I say \u2018of the Son of God:\u2019 for so \u2018it is written in the prophets,\u2019\nviz. that He is the Son of God.... Or, you may connect \u2018as it is written\nin the prophets\u2019 with \u2018Behold, I send my messenger\u2019: in which case, I\nshall make \u2018the beginning of the Gospel of the Son of God\u2019 that which was\nspoken by the prophets concerning John.\u201d And again,\u2014\u201cMark says that John,\nthe last of the prophets, is \u2018the beginning of the Gospel\u2019: adding, \u2018as it\nis written in the prophets, Behold,\u2019 &c., &c.(620)\u201d It is therefore clear\nhow Victor at least read the place.\n\nIt is time to close this discussion. That the Codexes which Origen\nhabitually employed were of the same type as Cod. \u05d0,\u2014and that from them\nthe words \u03a5\u1f31\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u0398\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6 were absent,\u2014is undeniable. But that is the sum of\nthe evidence for their omission. I have shewn that Serapion and Titus,\nBasil and Victorinus and Cyril of Jerusalem, do but reproduce the teaching\nof Origen: that Epiphanius delivers no testimony either way: while\nIrenaeus and Severianus bear emphatic witness to the genuineness of the\nclause in dispute. To these must be added Porphyry (A.D. 270)(621), Cyril\nof Alexandria(622), Victor of Antioch, ps.-Athanasius(623), and\nPhotius(624),\u2014with Ambrose (625), and Augustine(626) among the Latins. The\nclause is found besides in all the Versions, and in every known copy of\nthe Gospels but three; two of which are cursives. On what principle\nTischendorf would uphold the authority of \u05d0 and Origen against such a mass\nof evidence, has never been explained. In the meantime, the disappearance\nof the clause (\u03a5\u1f31\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u0398\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6) from certain of the earliest copies of St.\nMark\u2019s Gospel is only too easily accounted for. So obnoxious to certain\nprecursors of the Gnostic sect was the fundamental doctrine which it\nembodies, that St. John (xx. 31) declares it to have been the very purpose\nof his Gospel to establish \u201cthat Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God.\u201d\nWhat is more obvious than that the words at some very remote period should\nhave been fraudulently removed from certain copies of the Gospel?\n\n\n\n\n\nAPPENDIX V. THE SCEPTICAL CHARACTER OF B AND \u05d0.\n\n\nThe sceptical character of the Vatican and Sinaitic MSS. affords a strong\nproof of the alliance between them and the Origenistic school. Instances\nfound in these Codexes may be classed thus:\u2014\n\n\n    Note 1. The following instances are professedly taken from the\n    Gospels. Only a few are added from elsewhere.\n\n    Note 2. Other Uncials are also added, to indicate by specimens how\n    far these two MSS. receive countenance or not from other sources,\n    and also in part how far the same influence enter them.\n\n\nI. Passages detracting from the Scriptural acknowledgement of the Divinity\nof our Lord:\u2014\n\n\u03a5\u1f31\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u0398\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6 omitted\u2014St. Mark i. 1 (\u05d0*).\n\u1f49 \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f41 \u03a5\u1f31\u1f78\u03c2 ... \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b6\u1ff6\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 omitted\u2014St. John vi. 69 (\u05d0BC*DL).\n\u039a\u03cd\u03c1\u03b9\u03b5 omitted\u2014St. Mark ix. 24 (\u05d0ABC*DL).\n\u03a4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u039a\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 \u1f38\u03b7\u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6 omitted\u2014St. Luke xxiv. 3 (D).\n\u0398\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6 changed into \u039a\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u03bf\u03c5\u2014Acts xx. 28 (AC*DES).\nOmission of faith in CHRIST. \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bc\u03ad\u2014St. John vi. 47 (\u05d0BL\u0393).\nSlur on efficacy of prayer through CHRIST:\n  Insert \u03bc\u03ad\u2014St. John xiv. 14 (\u05d0BEHU\u0393\u0394).\n  Transfer \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7 \u1f40\u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03af \u03bc\u03bf\u03c5\u2014St. John xxi. 23 (\u05d0BC*LXV\u0394).\nOmission of \u03b5\u1f50\u03b8\u03ad\u03c9\u03c2 in the cure\u2014St. Mark vii. 35 (\u05d0BDLWd\u0394) Cf. St. Mark ii.\n            12.\nJudgement-seat of GOD instead of CHRIST\u2014Rom. xiv. 10 (\u05d0*ABC*D &c.).\n\u1f49 \u1f62\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03bf\u1f50\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u1ff7 omitted\u2014St. John iii. 13 (\u05d0BL\u0393b).\nOmission of \u039a\u03cd\u03c1\u03b9\u03b5 in penitent thief\u2019s prayer\u2014St. Luke xxiii. 42\n            (\u05d0BC*DLM*).\n    \"     \" the Ascension in St. Luke, \u1f00\u03bd\u03b5\u03c6\u03ad\u03c1\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03bf\u1f50\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u03cc\u03bd\u2014St. Luke\n                xxiv. 51 (\u05d0*D).\nInsertion of \u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u1f72 \u1f41 \u03a5\u1f31\u03cc\u03c2 from St. Mark xiii. 32 in St. Matt. xxiv. 36. Cf.\n            Basil to Amphilochius, iii. 360-2 (Revision Revised, p. 210,\n            note).\nOmission of \u0398\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2 in reference to the creation of man\u2014St. Mark x. 6\n            (\u05d0BCI\u0394). Cf. St. Matt. xii. 30 (BD).\n\"  \"  \u1f10\u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c9 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03af\u03bd\u2014St. John iii. 31 (\u05d0*D).\n\"  \"  \u1f41 \u03a5\u1f31\u03cc\u03c2 \u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03b1\u1f30\u1ff6\u03bd\u03b1\u2014St. John viii. 35 (\u05d0X\u0393).\n\"  \"  \u03b4\u03b9\u03b5\u03bb\u03b8\u1f7c\u03bd \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u03bc\u03ad\u03c3\u03bf\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u1fc6\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd \u03bf\u1f55\u03c4\u03c9\u03c2\u2014St. John viii. 59 (\u05d0BD).\n\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03a5\u1f31\u1f78\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03ce\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5 for \u03c4. \u03a5. \u03c4. \u0398\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6\u2014St. John ix. 35 (\u05d0BD).\n\u039a\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 for \u0398\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6\u20142 Pet. i. 1 (\u05d0).\nOmission of \u1f45\u03c4\u03b9 \u1f10\u03b3\u1f7c \u1f51\u03c0\u03ac\u03b3\u03c9 \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03a0\u03b1\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1\u2014St. John xvi. 6 (\u05d0BD).\n\"  \"  \u039a\u03cd\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2\u20141 Cor. xv. 47 (\u05d0*BCD*EFG).\n\u1f4d\u03c2 for \u0398\u03c3\u03c2\u20141 Tim. iii. 16 (\u05d0, Revision Revised, pp. 431-43).\n\u1f4d for \u1f4d\u03c2\u2014Col. ii. 10, making the Fulness of the GODHEAD the head of all\n            principality and power (BDEFG).\n\nII. Generally sceptical tendency:\u2014\n\nN.B.\u2014Omission is in itself sceptical.\n\n\u03a0\u03bd\u03b5\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b1 \u0398\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6 instead of \u03c4\u1f78 \u03a0\u03bd\u03b5\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b1 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u0398\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6\u2014Matt. iii. 16 (\u05d0B). Cf. Acts\n            xvi. 7, \u03c4\u1f78 \u03a0\u03bd\u03b5\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b1 \u0399\u03b7\u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6 for \u03c4\u1f78 \u03a0\u03bd\u03b5\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b1\u2014\u05d0ABC2DE2(627).\n\u0393\u03ad\u03bd\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 for \u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2, slurring the Divine Birth\u2014Matt. i. 18 (\u05d0BCPSZ\u0394).\nOmission of the title of \u201cgood\u201d applied to our LORD\u2014Matt. xix. 16, 17\n            (\u05d0BDL).\n\"  \"  the necessity of our LORD to suffer. \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bf\u1f55\u03c4\u03c9\u03c2 \u1f14\u03b4\u03b5\u03b9\u2014St. Luke xxiv.\n            46 (\u05d0BC*DL).\n\"  \"  last Twelve Verses of St. Mark (\u05d0B).\nOmission of passages relating to Everlasting Punishment (closely\n            Origenistic):\n\u03b1\u1f30\u03c9\u03bd\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 \u1f01\u03bc\u03b1\u03c1\u03c4\u03ae\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 for \u03b1\u1f30\u03c9\u03bd. \u03ba\u03c1\u03af\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2\u2014St. Mark iii. 29 (\u05d0BL\u0394).\n\u1f01\u03bc\u03b1\u03c1\u03c4\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 (D)\u2014ibid.\n\u1f45\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5 \u1f41 \u03c3\u03ba\u03ce\u03bb\u03b7\u03be \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03bf\u1f50 \u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03b5\u03c5\u03c4\u1fb7, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c0\u1fe6\u03c1 \u03bf\u1f50 \u03c3\u03b2\u03ad\u03bd\u03bd\u03c5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9\u2014St. Mark ix. 44,\n            46 (\u05d0BCL\u0394).\n\"  \"  the danger of rejecting our Lord\u2014St. Matt. xxi. 44 (D).\n\"  \"  \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u1fb6\u03c3\u03b1 \u03b8\u03c5\u03c3\u03af\u03b1 \u1f01\u03bb\u1f76 \u1f01\u03bb\u03b9\u03c3\u03b8\u03ae\u03c3\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9\u2014St. Mark ix. 49 (\u05d0BL\u0394).\n\"  \"  the condemnation of Pharisaic treatment of widows\u2014St. Matt. xxiii.\n            14 (\u05d0BDLZ).\n\"  \"  \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03b2\u03ac\u03c0\u03c4\u03b9\u03c3\u03bc\u03b1 \u1f42 \u1f10\u03b3\u1f7c \u03b2\u03b1\u03c0\u03c4\u03af\u03b6\u03bf\u03bc\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b2\u03b1\u03c0\u03c4\u03b9\u03c3\u03b8\u1fc6\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9\u2014St. Matt. xx. 22, 23\n            (\u05d0BDLZ).\n\"  \"  \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03c0\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03cc\u03c4\u03bf\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd\u2014St. Matt. i. 25 (\u05d0BZ).\n\"  \"  the verse about prayer and fasting\u2014St. Matt. xvii. 21 (\u05d0*B).\n\"  \"  the words giving authority to the Apostles to heal diseases\u2014St. Mark\n            iii. 15 (\u05d0BC*).\n\"  \"  the forgiveness of sins to those who turn\u2014St. Mark iv. 12 (\u05d0BCL).\n\"  \"  condemnation of cities and mention of the Day of Judgement\u2014St. Mark\n            vi. 11 (\u05d0BCDL\u0394).\n\"  \"  fasting\u2014St. Mark ix. 29 (\u05d0*B).\n\"  \"  taking up the Cross\u2014St. Mark x. 21 (\u05d0BCD\u0394).\n\"  \"  the danger of riches\u2014St. Mark x. 24 (\u05d0B\u0394).\n\"  \"  the danger of not forgiving others\u2014St. Mark xi. 26 (\u05d0BLS\u0394).\n\"  \"  \u03b5\u1f50\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03b7\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7 \u03c3\u1f7a \u1f10\u03bd \u03b3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9\u03be\u03af\u03bd\u2014St. Luke i. 28 (\u05d0BL).\n\"  \"  \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u1fbd \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u1f76 \u1fe5\u03ae\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9 \u0398\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6\u2014St. Luke iv. 4 (\u05d0BL).\n\"  \"  \u1f41 \u03b4\u03b9\u03ac\u03b2\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u1f44\u03c0\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f51\u03c8\u03b7\u03bb\u03cc\u03bd\u2014St. Luke iv. 5 (\u05d0BL).\n\"  \"  \u1f55\u03c0\u03b1\u03b3\u03b5 \u1f40\u03c0\u03af\u03c3\u03c9 \u03bc\u03bf\u03c5, \u03a3\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03bd\u1fb6\u2014St. Luke iv. 8 (\u05d0BDL\u039e).\n\"  \"  reference to Elijah\u2019s punishment, and the manner of spirit\u2014St. Luke\n            ix. 55, 56.\n\"  \"  the saving effect of faith\u2014St. Luke xvii. 19 (B).\n\"  \"  the day of the Son of Man\u2014St. Luke xvii. 24 (BD).\n\"  \"  the descent of the Angel into Bethesda\u2014St. John v. 3, 4 (\u05d0BC*D).\n\"  \"  \u1f22\u03bd \u1f10\u03b3\u1f7c \u03b4\u03ce\u03c3\u03c9\u2014St. John vi. 51 (\u05d0BCL\u0394).\n\nIII. Evincing a \u201cphilosophical\u201d obtuseness to tender passages:\u2014\n\nOmissions in the records of the Institution of the Holy Sacrament: thus\u2014\n  \u03a6\u03ac\u03b3\u03b5\u03c4\u03b5 ... \u03c4\u1f78 ... \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03bd\u1fc6\u03c2\u2014St. Mark xiv. 22-24 (\u05d0BCD).\n  \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03bd\u1fc6\u03c2\u2014St. Matt. xxvi. 27 (\u05d0B).\n  \u03bb\u03ac\u03b2\u03b5\u03c4\u03b5, \u03c6\u03ac\u03b3\u03b5\u03c4\u03b5 ... \u03ba\u03bb\u03ce\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd\u20141 Cor. xi. 2-4 (\u05d0ABC*).\nOmission of Agony in the Garden and strengthening Angel\u2014St. Luke xxii. 43,\n            44 (ABRT, first corrector).\n\"  \"  First Word from the Cross\u2014St. Luke xxiii. 34 (\u05d0aBD*).\nMutilation of the LORD\u2019S Prayer\u2014St. Luke xi. 2-4: i.e.\nOmission of \u1f21\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f41 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f50\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 (\u05d0BL).\n\"   \"  \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03b7\u03b8\u03ae\u03c4\u03c9 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03b8\u03ad\u03bb\u03b7\u03bc\u03ac \u03c3\u03bf\u03c5, \u1f61\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd \u03bf\u1f50\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u1ff7, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03b3\u1fc6\u03c2 (BL).\n\"   \"  \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u1f70 \u1fe5\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f21\u03bc\u1fb6\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c0\u03bf\u03bd\u03b7\u03c1\u03bf\u1fe6 (\u05d0*BL).\nOmission of \u03b5\u1f30\u03ba\u1fc6\u2014Matt. v. 22 (\u05d0B).\n\"   \"  the verse telling of our LORD\u2019S coming to save what was lost\u2014St.\n            Matt. xviii. 11 (\u05d0BL*).\n\"   \"  \u03b5\u1f50\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c4\u03b5 \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03c1\u03c9\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u1f51\u03bc\u1fb6\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u1ff6\u03c2 \u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c4\u03b5 \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03bc\u03b9\u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2\n            \u1f51\u03bc\u1fb6\u03c2\u2014St. Matt. v. 44 (\u05d0B).\n\"   \"  the prophecy of being numbered with the transgressors\u2014St. Mark xv.\n            28 (\u05d0ABCet 3DX).\n\"   \"  \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03c6\u03b1\u03bd\u03b5\u03c1\u1ff7\u2014St. Matt. vi. 6 (\u05d0BDZ).\n\"   \"  reference to the last cry\u2014St. Mark xv. 39 (\u05d0BL).\n\"   \"  striking on the face\u2014St. Luke xxii. 64 (\u05d0BLMT\u03a6).\n\"   \"  triple superscription (\u03b3\u03c1\u03ac\u03bc\u03bc. \u1f19\u03bb\u03bb\u03b7\u03bd. \u03ba. \u1fec\u03c9\u03bc. \u03ba. \u1f19\u03b2\u03c1\u03b1\u03ca\u03ba.)\u2014St. Luke\n            xxiii. 38 (BCL). So \u05d0* in St. John xix. 20-21.\n\"   \"  \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03bc\u03b5\u03bb\u03b9\u03c3\u03c3\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 \u03ba\u03b7\u03c1\u03af\u03bf\u03c5\u2014St. Luke xxiv. 42 (\u05d0ABDL\u03a6).\n\"   \"  \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03b6\u03ae\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03ba\u03c4\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9\u2014St. John v. 15 (\u05d0BCDL).\n\u03bb\u03cd\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9 for \u03bb\u03bf\u03cd\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9\u2014Rev. i. 5 (\u05d0AC).\n\u03b4\u03b9\u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c3\u03cd\u03bd\u03b7\u03bd for \u1f10\u03bb\u03b5\u03b7\u03bc\u03bf\u03c3\u03cd\u03bd\u03b7\u03bd\u2014Matt. vi. 1 (\u05d0*et bBD).\n\nIV. Shewing attempts to classicize New Testament Greek.\n\nThese attempts have left their traces, conspicuous especially for\nomissions, all over B and \u05d0 in a multiplicity of passages too numerous to\nquote. Their general character may be gathered in a perusal of Dr. Hort\u2019s\nIntroduction, pp. 223-227, from which passage we may understand how these\nMSS. may have commended themselves at periods of general advancement in\nlearning to eminent scholars like Origen and Dr. Hort. But unfortunately a\nThucydidean compactness, condensed and well-pruned according to the\nfastidious taste of the study, is exactly that which does not in the long\nrun take with people who are versed in the habits of ordinary life, or\nwith scholars who have been exercised in many fields, as was shewn by the\nfalling into disuse of Origen\u2019s critical manuscripts. The echoes of the\nfourth century have surely been heard in the nineteenth.\n\n\n\n\n\nAPPENDIX VI. THE PESHITTO AND CURETONIAN.\n\n\n[The Rev. C. H. WALLER, D.D., Principal of St. John\u2019s Hall, Highbury.]\n\nA careful collation of the Curetonian Syriac with the Peshitto would I\nthink leave no doubt on the mind of any one that the Curetonian as\nexhibited by Cureton himself is the later version. But in order to give\nfull effect to the argument it would be necessary to shew the entire\nCuretonian fragment side by side with the corresponding portions of the\nPeshitto. Otherwise it is scarcely possible to realize (1) how entirely\nthe one version is founded upon the other\u2014(2) how manifestly the\nCuretonian is an attempt to improve upon the other; or (3) how the\nCuretonian presupposes and demands an acquaintance with the Gospels in\ngeneral, or with views of Gospel history which belong to the Church rather\nthan to the sacred text.\n\nEven in those brief passages exhibited by Dr. Scrivener from both editions\nthis can be made out. And it is capable of still further illustration from\nalmost every page of Dr. Cureton\u2019s book.\n\nTo take the fragments exhibited by Dr. Scrivener first. (_a_) In St. Matt.\nxii. 1-4, where the Peshitto simply translates the Textus Receptus (not\naltered by our Revisers), saying that the disciples were hungry \u201cand began\nto pluck ears of corn and to eat,\u201d the Curetonian amends thus:\u2014\u201cand the\ndisciples were hungry and began to pluck ears of corn, and _break them in\ntheir hands_, and eat,\u201d introducing (as it frequently does, e.g. St. Matt.\niv. 11, \u201cfor a season\u201d; St. Matt. iv. 21, \u201claying his hand\u201d; St. Matt. v.\n12, \u201cyour fathers\u201d; St. Matt. v. 47, \u201cwhat thank have ye?\u201d) words borrowed\nfrom St. Luke vi. 1.\n\nBut in the next verse of the passage, where the words \u201con the Sabbath,\u201d\nare absolutely required in order to make the Pharisees\u2019 question\nintelligible to the first readers of St. Matthew, \u201cBehold, thy disciples\ndo what is not lawful to do on the Sabbath\u201d (Textus Receptus and Peshitto;\nnot altered by our Revisers), the Curetonian must needs draw on the common\nknowledge of educated readers by exhibiting the question thus, \u201cWhy are\nthy disciples doing what is not lawful to do?\u201d an abbreviated reading\nwhich leaves us ignorant _what_ the action objected to might be; whether\nto pluck ears in another man\u2019s field, or to rub the grain from them on the\nSabbath day? On what possible ground can such emendations as this have the\npreference of antiquity in their favour?\n\nAgain, the shewbread in ver. 4 of this passage is, not as we have it in\nthe Peshitto, \u201cthe bread of the table of the Lord,\u201d [Syriac letters], a\nsimple phrase which everyone can understand, but the Old Testament\nexpression, \u201cface-bread,\u201d [Syriac letters], which exhibits the\ntranslator\u2019s knowledge of the earlier Scriptures, as do his emendations of\nthe list of names in the first chapter of St. Matthew, and, if I mistake\nnot, his quotations also.\n\n(_b_) Or, to turn to St. Mark xvi. 17-20 (the other passage exhibited by\nDr. Scrivener). Both the Peshitto and Curetonian shew their agreement, by\nthe points in which they differ from our received text. \u201cThe Lord _Jesus_\nthen, after He had _commanded_ His disciples, _was exalted_ to heaven and\nsat on the right hand of GOD\u201d\u2014is the Curetonian phrase. The simpler\nPeshitto runs thus. \u201c_Jesus_ the Lord then, after He had _spoken with\nthem_, ascended to heaven, and sat on the right hand of GOD.\u201d Both alike\nintroduce the word \u201cJesus\u201d as do our Revisers: but the two slight touches\nof improvement in the Curetonian are evident, and belong to that aspect of\nthe matter which finds expression in the Creed, and in the obedience of\nthe Church. Who can doubt which phrase is the later of the two? A similar\nslight touch appears in the Curetonian addition to ver. 17 of \u201cthem that\nbelieve _on Me_\u201d instead of simply \u201cthem that believe.\u201d\n\nThe following points I have myself observed in the collation of a few\nchapters of St. Matthew from the two versions. Their minuteness itself\ntestifies to the _improved_ character of the Curetonian. In St. Matt. v.\n32 we have been accustomed to read, with our Text Received and Revised and\nwith all other authorities, \u201cWhosoever shall put away his wife, except for\nthe cause of _fornication_.\u201d So reads the Peshitto. But whence comes it\nthat the Curetonian Syriac substitutes here _adultery_ for fornication,\nand thereby sanctions,\u2014not the precept delivered by our Lord, but the\n_interpretation almost universally placed upon it?_ How is it possible to\ncontend that here the Curetonian Syriac has alone preserved the true\nreading? Yet either this must be the case, or else we have a deliberate\nalteration of a most distinct and precise kind, telling us, not what our\nLord said, but what He is commonly supposed to have _meant_.\n\nNot less curious is the addition in ver. 41, \u201cWhosoever shall compel thee\nto go a mile, go with him two _others_.\u201d Our Lord said \u201cgo with him\ntwain,\u201d as all Greek MSS. except D bear witness. The Curetonian and D and\nsome Latin copies say practically \u201cgo with him _three_.\u201d Is this again an\noriginal reading, or an improvement? It is no accidental change.\n\nBut by far the most striking \u2019improvements\u2019 introduced by the Curetonian\nMS. are to my mind, those which attest the perpetual virginity of our\nLord\u2019s Mother. The alterations of this kind in the first chapter form a\ngroup quite unique.  Beginning with ver. 18, we read as follows:\u2014\n\nIn the Peshitto and our _Greek_       In the Curetonian.\nText without any variation.\nVer. 16. \u201cJacob begat Joseph _the     \u201cJacob begat Joseph _to whom was\nhusband of Mary_ of whom was born     espoused_ Mary _the virgin_, which\nJesus, who is called Messiah.\u201d        bare Jesus _the Messiah_.\u201d\nVer. 18. \u201cNow the birth of Jesus      \u201cThe birth of _the Messiah_ was\nChrist was on this wise (Peshitto,    thus.\u201d\nand Textus Receptus: Revised also,\nbut with some uncertainty).\u201d\nVer. 19. \u201cJoseph _her husband_        Ver. 19. \u201c_Joseph_, because he was\nbeing a just man,\u201d &c.                a righteous man,\u201d &c. [there is no\n                                      Greek or Latin authority with Cn.\n                                      here].\nVer. 20. \u201cFear not to take unto       ... \u201cMary _thine espoused_\u201d (Cn.\nthee Mary _thy wife_.\u201d                seems to be alone here).\nVer. 24. \u201cJoseph ... did as the       ... \u201cand took _Mary_\u201d (Cn. seems\nAngel of the Lord had bidden him,     alone in omitting \u201chis wife\u201d).\nand took unto him _his wife_.\u201d\nVer. 25. \u201cAnd knew her not until      \u201cAnd purely dwelt with her until\nshe brought forth [her firstborn] a   she bare _the_ son\u201d (Cn. here is\nson.\u201d                                 not alone except in inserting the\n                                      article).\n\nThe absolute omission from the Curetonian Syriac of all mention of Joseph\nas Mary\u2019s _husband_, or of Mary as his _wife_ is very remarkable. The last\nverse of the chapter has suffered in other authorities by the loss of the\nword \u201cfirstborn,\u201d probably owing to a feeling of objection to the\ninference drawn from it by the Helvidians. It seems to have been forgotten\n(1) that the fact of our Lord\u2019s being a \u201cfirstborn\u201d in the Levitical sense\nis proved by St. Luke from the presentation in the temple (see Neh. x.\n36); and (2) that His being called a \u201cfirstborn\u201d in no way implies that\nhis mother had other children after him. But putting this entirely aside,\nthe feeling in favour of Mary\u2019s perpetual virginity on the mind of the\ntranslator of the Curetonian Syriac was so strong as to draw him to _four\ndistinct and separate omissions_, in which he stands unsupported by any\nauthority, of the word \u201chusband\u201d in two places, and in two others of the\nword \u201cwife.\u201d\n\nI do not see how any one can deny that here we have emendations of the\nmost deliberate and peculiar kind. Nor is there any family of earlier\nreadings which contains them, or to which they can be referred. The fact\nthat the Curetonian text has some readings in common with the so-called\n_western_ family of text (e.g. the transposition of the beatitudes in\nMatt. v. 4, 5) is not sufficient to justify us in accounting for such\nvagaries as this. It is indeed a \u201cWestern\u201d superstition which has exalted\nthe Virgin Mary into a sphere beyond the level of all that rejoice in God\nher Saviour. But the question here suggested is whether this way of\nregarding the matter is truly _ancient_; and whether the MS. of an ancient\nversion which exhibits such singular phenomena on its first page is worthy\nto be set above the common version which is palpably its basis. In the\nfirst sentence of the Preface Dr. Cureton states that it was obtained from\na Syrian Monastery _dedicated to St. Mary Deipara_. I cannot but wonder\nwhether it never occurred to him that the _cultus_ of the Deipara, and the\ntaste which it indicates, may partly explain why a MS. of a certain\ncharacter and bias was ultimately domiciled there. [See note at the end of\nthis Chapter.]\n\n                  \u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\n\nShall I be thought very disrespectful if I say that the study which I have\nbeen able to devote to Dr. Cureton\u2019s book has impressed me with a profound\ndistrust of his scholarship? \u201cShe shall _bare_ for thee a son,\u201d says he on\nthe first page of his translation;\u2014which is not merely bald and literal,\nbut absolutely un-English in many places.\n\n\n    In Matt. vi. in the first verse we have _alms_ and in the third\n    and fourth _righteousness_. An explanation.\n\n    In ver. 13 the Cn. has the _doxology_, but with _power omitted_,\n    the Peshitto _not_.\n\n    In ver. 17. Cn. _wash thy face_ and _anoint thy head_ instead of\n    our text.\n\n    In ver. 19. Cn. leaves out \u03b2\u03c1\u1ff6\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 \u201crust\u201d and puts in \u201cwhere\n    _falleth_ the moth.\u201d\n\n    In x. 42. The _discipleship_ instead of _disciple_.\n\n    In xi. 2. Of _Jesus_ instead of _Christ_.\n\n    In xiii. 6. Parable of Sower, a _Targum_-like alteration.\n\n    ver. 13 a _most important Targum_.\n\n    ver. 33 a _wise woman took and hid in meal_.\n\n    xiv. 13 leaves out \u201cby ship,\u201d and says \u201con foot,\u201d where the\n    Peshitto has \u201con dry land,\u201d an odd change, of an opposite kind to\n    some that I have mentioned.\n\n    In St. John iii. 6, Cn. has: \u201cThat which is born of the flesh is\n    flesh, _because of flesh it is born;_ and that which is born of\n    the Spirit is spirit, _because God is a spirit, and of God it is\n    born_.\u201d And in ver. 8: \u201cSo is every one that is born _of water\n    and_ of the Spirit.\u201d This is a _Targum_-like expansion: possibly\n    anti-Arian. See Tischendorf\u2019s Gr. Test. _in loco_. All the above\n    changes look like deliberate emendations of the text.\n\n\n[It is curious that the Lewis Codex and the Curetonian both break off from\nthe Traditional account of the Virgin-birth, but in opposite directions.\nThe Lewis Codex makes Joseph our Lord\u2019s actual Father: the Curetonian\ntreats the question as described above. That there were two streams of\nteaching on this subject, which specially characterized the fifth century,\nis well known: the one exaggerating the Nestorian division of the two\nNatures, the other tending in a Eutychian direction. That _two\nfifth-century MSS. should illustrate these deviations_ is but natural; and\ntheir survival not a little remarkable.]\n\n\n\n\n\nAPPENDIX VII. THE LAST TWELVE VERSES OF ST. MARK\u2019S GOSPEL.\n\n\nIt would be a manifest defect, if a book upon Textual Criticism passing\nunder the name of Dean Burgon were to go forth without some reference to\nthe present state of the controversy on the subject, which first made him\nfamous as a Textual critic.\n\nHis argument has been strengthened since he wrote in the following ways:\u2014\n\n1. It will be remembered that the omission of the verses has been rested\nmainly upon their being left out by B and \u05d0, of which circumstance the\nerror is mutely confessed in B by the occurrence of a blank space, amply\nsufficient to contain the verses, the column in question being the only\nvacant one in the whole manuscript. It has been generally taken for\ngranted, that there is nothing in \u05d0 to denote any consciousness on the\npart of the scribe that something was omitted. But a closer examination of\nthe facts will shew that the contrary is the truth. For\u2014\n\ni. The page of \u05d0 on which St. Mark ends is the _recto_ of leaf 29, being\nthe second of a pair of leaves (28 and 29), forming a single sheet\n(containing St. Mark xiv. 54-xvi. 8, St. Luke i. 1-56), which Tischendorf\nhas shewn to have been written not by the scribe of the body of the New\nTestament in this MS., but by one of his colleagues who wrote part of the\nOld Testament and acted as _diorthota_ or corrector of the New\nTestament\u2014and who is further identified by the same great authority as the\nscribe of B. This person appears to have cancelled the sheet originally\nwritten by the scribe of \u05d0, and to have substituted for it the sheet as we\nnow have it, written by himself. A correction so extensive and laborious\ncan only have been made for the purpose of introducing some important\ntextual change, too large to be effected by deletion, interlineation, or\nmarginal note. Thus we are led not only to infer that the testimony of \u05d0\nis here not independent of that of B, but to suspect that this sheet may\nhave been thus cancelled and rewritten in order to conform its contents to\nthose of the corresponding part of B.\n\nii. This suspicion becomes definite, and almost rises to a certainty, when\nwe look further into the contents of this sheet. Its second page (28\n_v__o_) exhibits four columns of St. Mark (xv. 16-xvi. 1); its third page\n(29 _r__o_), the two last columns of St. Mark (xvi. 2-8) and the first two\nof St. Luke (i. 1-18). But the writing of these six columns of St. Mark is\nso spread out that they contain less matter than they ought; whereas the\ncolumns of St. Luke that follow contain the normal amount. It follows,\ntherefore, that the change introduced by the _diorthota_ must have been an\nextensive excision from St. Mark:\u2014in other words, that these pages as\noriginally written must have contained a portion of St. Mark of\nconsiderable length which has been omitted from the pages as they now\nstand. If these six columns of St. Mark were written as closely as the\ncolumns of St. Luke which follow, there would be room in them for the\nomitted twelve verses.\u2014More particularly, the fifth column (the first of\npage 29 _r__o_) is so arranged as to contain only about five-sixths of the\nnormal quantity of matter, and the _diorthota_ is thus enabled to carry\nover four lines to begin a new column, the sixth, by which artifice he\nmanages to conclude St. Mark not with a blank column such as in B tells\nits own story, but with a column such as in this MS. is usual at the end\nof a book, exhibiting the closing words followed by an \u201carabesque\u201d pattern\nexecuted with the pen, and the subscription (the rest being left empty).\nBut, by the very pains he has thus taken to conform this final column to\nthe ordinary usage of the MS., his purpose of omission is betrayed even\nmore conclusively, though less obviously, than by the blank column of\nB(628).\n\niii. A further observation is to be noted, which not only confirms the\nabove, but serves to determine the place where the excision was made to\nhave been at the very _end_ of the Gospel. The last of the four lines of\nthe sixth and last column of St. Mark (the second column of leaf 29\n_r__o_) contains only the five letters \u03c4\u03bf \u03b3\u03b1\u03c1 ([\u1f10\u03c6\u03bf\u03b2\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd]\u03c4\u03bf \u03b3\u03b1\u03c1), and has\nthe rest of the space (more than half the width of the column) filled up\nwith a minute and elaborate ornament executed with the pen in ink and\nvermilion, the like of which is nowhere else found in the MS., or in the\nNew Testament part of B, such spaces being invariably left unfilled(629).\nAnd not only so, but underneath, the usual \u201carabesque\u201d above the\nsubscription, marking the conclusion of the text, has its horizontal arm\nextended all the way across the width of the column,\u2014and not, as always\nelsewhere, but halfway or less(630). It seems hardly possible to regard\nthese carefully executed works of the pen of the _diorthota_ otherwise\nthan as precautions to guard against the possible restoration, by a\nsubsequent reviser, of a portion of text deliberately omitted by him (the\n_diorthota_) from _the end_ of the Gospel. They are evidence therefore\nthat he knew of a conclusion to the Gospel which he designedly expunged,\nand endeavoured to make it difficult for any one else to reinsert.\n\nWe have, therefore, good reason to believe that the disputed Twelve Verses\nwere not only in an exemplar known to the scribe of B, but also in the\nexemplar used by the scribe of \u05d0; and that their omission (or, more\nproperly, disappearance) from these two MSS. is due to one and the same\nperson\u2014the scribe, namely, who wrote B and who revised \u05d0,\u2014or rather,\nperhaps, to an editor by whose directions he acted.\n\n2. Some early Patristic evidence has been added to the stores which the\nDean collected by Dr. Taylor, Master of St. John\u2019s College, Cambridge.\nThis evidence may be found in a book entitled \u201cThe Witness of Hermas\u201d to\nthe Four Gospels, published in 1892, of which \u00a7 12 in the Second Part is\ndevoted to \u201cThe ending of St. Mark\u2019s Gospel,\u201d and includes also quotations\nfrom Justin Martyr, and the Apology of Aristides. A fuller account is\ngiven in the Expositor of July 1893, and contains references to the\nfollowing passages:\u2014Irenaeus iii. 11. 6 (quoting xvi. 19); Justin Martyr,\nTrypho, \u00a7 138; Apol. i. 67; Trypho, \u00a7 85; Apol. i. 45; Barnabas, xv. 9;\nxvi. 7; Quarto-deciman Controversy (Polycarp)? and Clement of Rome, i. 42.\nThe passages from Hermas are, 1. (xvi. 12-13) Sim. ii. 1, Vis. i. 1, iii.\n1, iv. 1, and v. 4; 2. (xvi. 14) Sim. ix. 141 and 20. 4, Vis. iii. 8. 3,\niii. 7. 6; 3. (xvi. 15-16) Vis. iii, Sim. ix. 16, 25; 4. (xvi. 17-18) Vis.\niv, Mand. i, xii. 2. 2-3, Sim. ix. 1. 9, iii. 7, ix. 26, Mand. xii. 6. 2;\n5. (xvi. 19-20) Vis. iii. 1. Some of the references are not apparent at\nfirst sight, but Dr. Taylor\u2019s discussions in both places should be read\ncarefully.\n\n3. In my own list given above, p. 109, of the writers who died before A.D.\n400, I have added from my two examinations of the Ante-Chrysostom Fathers\nto the list in The Revision Revised, p. 421, the Clementines, four\nreferences from the Apostolic Canons and Constitutions, Cyril of\nJerusalem, Gregory of Nyssa, the Apocryphal Acts of the Apostles, and two\nreferences to the four of St. Ambrose mentioned in \u201cThe Last Twelve\nVerses,\u201d p. 27. To these Dr. Waller adds, Gospel of Peter, \u00a7 7 (\u03c0\u03b5\u03bd\u03b8\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2\n\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03ba\u03bb\u03b1\u03af\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2), and \u00a7 12 (\u1f10\u03ba\u03bb\u03b1\u03af\u03bf\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03bb\u03c5\u03c0\u03bf\u03cd\u03bc\u03b5\u03b8\u03b1), referring to the \u1f05\u03c0\u03b1\u03be\n\u03bb\u03b5\u03b3\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd, as regards the attitude of the Twelve at the time, in xvi. 10.\n\n4. On the other hand, the recently discovered Lewis Codex, as is well\nknown, omits the verses. The character of that Codex, which has been\nexplained above in the sixth chapter of this work, makes any alliance with\nit suspicious, and consequently it is of no real importance that its\ntestimony, unlike that of B and \u05d0, is claimed to be unswerving.\n\nFor that manuscript is disfigured by heretical blemishes of the grossest\nnature, and the obliteration of it for the purpose of covering the vellum\nwith other writing was attended with circumstances of considerable\nsignificance.\n\nIn the first chapter of St. Matthew, Joseph is treated as the father of\nour Lord (vers. 16, 21, 24) as far as His body was concerned, for as to\nHis soul even according to teaching of Gnostic origin He was treated as\nowing His nature to the Holy Ghost (ver. 20). Accordingly, the blessed\nVirgin is called in the second chapter of St. Luke Joseph\u2019s \u201cwife,\u201d\n\u03bc\u03b5\u03bc\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c5\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7 being left with no equivalent(631): and at His baptism, He\nis described as \u201c_being as He was called_ the son of Joseph\u201d (St. Luke\niii. 23). According to the heretical tenet that our Lord was chosen out of\nother men to be made the Son of God at the baptism, we read afterwards,\n\u201cThis is My Son, My chosen\u201d (St. Luke ix. 35), \u201cthe chosen of God\u201d (St.\nJohn i. 34), \u201cThou art My Son and My beloved\u201d (St. Matt. iii. 17), \u201cThis\nis My Son Who is beloved\u201d (St. Mark ix. 7); and we are told of the Holy\nGhost descending like a dove (St. Matt. iii. 16), that It \u201c_abode_ upon\nHim.\u201d Various smaller expressions are also found, but perhaps the most\nremarkable of those which have been left upon the manuscript occurs in St.\nMatt. xxvii. 50, \u201cAnd Jesus cried with a loud voice, and _His Spirit went\nup_.\u201d After this, can we be surprised because the scribe took the\nopportunity of leaving out the Last Twelve Verses of St. Mark which\ncontain the most detailed account of the Ascension in the Gospels, as well\nas the \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b5\u03c6\u03ad\u03c1\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03bf\u1f50\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u03cc\u03bd of St. Luke?\n\nAgain, at the time when the manuscript was put out of use, and as is\nprobable in the monastery of St. Catherine so early as the year 778 A.D.\n(Introduction by Mrs. Lewis, p. xv), the old volume was pulled to pieces,\ntwenty-two leaves were cast away, the rest used in no regular order, and\non one at least, as we are told, a knife was employed to eradicate the\nwriting. Five of the missing leaves must have been blank, according to\nMrs. Lewis: but the seventeen remaining leaves contained passages of\nsupreme importance as being expressive of doctrine, like St. John i. 1-24,\nSt. Luke i. 16-39, St. Mark i. 1-11, St. Matt. xxviii. 8-end, and others.\nReading the results of this paragraph in connexion with those of the last,\nmust we not conclude that this manuscript was used for a palimpsest, and\nsubmitted to unusual indignity in order to obliterate its bad record?\n\nIt will be seen therefore that a cause, which for unchallenged evidence\nrests solely upon such a witness, cannot be one that will commend itself\nto those who form their conclusions judicially. The genuineness of the\nverses, as part of the second Gospel, must, I hold, remain unshaken by\nsuch opposition.\n\n5. An ingenious suggestion has been contributed by Mr. F. C. Conybeare,\nthe eminent Armenian scholar, founded upon an entry which he discovered in\nan Armenian MS. of the Gospels, dated A.D. 986, where \u201cAriston Eritzou\u201d is\nwritten in minioned uncials at the head of the twelve verses. Mr.\nConybeare argues, in the Expositor for October, 1893, that \u201cAriston\nEritzou\u201d is not the copyist himself, who signs himself Johannes, or an\nArmenian translator, Ariston or Aristion being no Armenian name. He then\nattempts to identify it with Aristion who is mentioned by Papias in a\npassage quoted by Eusebius (H. E. iii. 39) as a disciple of the Lord. Both\nthe words \u201cAriston Eritzou\u201d are taken to be in the genitive, as \u201cEritzou\u201d\ncertainly is, and to signify \u201cOf or by Aristion the presbyter,\u201d this being\nthe meaning of the latter word. The suggestion is criticized by Dr. Ad.\nHarnack in the Theologische Literaturzeitung, 795, where Dr. Harnack\npronounces no opinion upon the soundness of it: but the impression left\nupon the mind after reading his article is that he is unable to accept it.\n\nIt is remarkable that the verses are found in no other Armenian MS. before\n1100. Mr. Conybeare traces the version of the passage to an old Syrian\nCodex about the year 500, but he has not very strong grounds for his\nreasoning; and even then for such an important piece of information the\nleap to the sub-Apostolic age is a great one. But there is another serious\ndifficulty in the interpretation of this fragmentary expression. Even\ngranting the strong demands that we may construe over the expression of\nPapias, \u1f08\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03af\u03c9\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f41 \u03c0\u03c1\u03b5\u03c3\u03b2\u03cd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f38\u03c9\u03ac\u03bd\u03bd\u03b7\u03c2, and take Aristion to have been\nmeant as a presbyter, and that according to the parallel of Aristion in\nEusebius\u2019 history having been transliterated in an Armenian version to\nAriston, Aristion \u201cthe disciple\u201d may be the man mentioned here, there is a\nformidable difficulty presented by the word \u201cArist\u014fn\u201d as it is written in\nthe place quoted. It ought at least to have had a long \u014d according to Dr.\nHarnack, and it is not in the genitive case as \u201cEritzou\u201d is. Altogether,\nthe expression is so elliptical, and occurs with such isolated mystery in\na retired district, and at such a distance of years from the event\nsupposed to be chronicled, that the wonder is, not that a diligent and\ningenious explorer should advocate a very curious idea that he has formed\nupon a very interesting piece of intelligence, but that other Critics\nshould have been led to welcome it as a key to a long-considered problem.\nAre we not forced to see in this incident an instance of a truth not\nunfrequently verified, that when people neglect a plain solution, they are\ninduced to welcome another which does not include a tenth part of the\nevidence in its support?\n\nOf course the real difficulty in the way of accepting these verses as the\ncomposition of St. Mark lies in the change of style found in them. That\nthis change is not nearly so great as it may appear at first sight, any\none may satisfy himself by studying Dean Burgon\u2019s analysis of the words\ngiven in the ninth chapter of his \u201cLast Twelve Verses of St. Mark.\u201d But it\nhas been the fashion in some quarters to confine ancient writers to a\nwondrously narrow form of style in each case, notwithstanding Horace\u2019s\nrough Satires and exquisitely polished Odes, and Cicero\u2019s Letters to his\nFriends and his Orations and Philosophical Treatises. Perhaps the recent\nflood of discoveries respecting early Literature may wash away some of the\nfilm from our sight. There seems to be no valid reason why St. Mark should\nnot have written all the Gospel that goes by his name, only under altered\ncircumstances. The true key seems to be, that at the end of verse 8 he\nlost the assistance of St. Peter. Before \u1f10\u03c6\u03bf\u03b2\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf \u03b3\u03ac\u03c1, he wrote out St.\nPeter\u2019s story: after it, he filled in the end from his own acquired\nknowledge, and composed in summary. This very volume may supply a\nparallel. Sometimes I have transcribed Dean Burgon\u2019s materials with only\nslight alteration, where necessary imitating as I was able his style. In\nother places, I have written solely as best I could.\n\nI add two suggestions, not as being proved to be true, because indeed\neither is destructive of the other, but such that one or other may\npossibly represent the facts that actually occurred. To meet the charge of\nimpossibility, it is enough to shew what is possible, though in the\nabsence of direct evidence it may not be open to any one to advocate any\nnarrative as being absolutely true.\n\nI. Taking the story of Papias and Clement of Alexandria, as given by\nEusebius (H. E. ii. 15), that St. Mark wrote his gospel at the request of\nRoman converts, and that St. Peter, as it seems, helped him in the\nwriting, I should suggest that the pause made in \u1f10\u03c6\u03bf\u03b2\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf \u03b3\u03ac\u03c1, so unlike\nthe close of any composition, of any paragraph or chapter, and still less\nof the end of a book, that I can recollect, indicates a sudden\ninterruption. What more likely than that St. Peter was apprehended at the\ntime, perhaps at the very moment when the MS. reached that place, and was\ncarried off to judgement and death? After all was over, and the\nopportunity of study returned, St. Mark would naturally write a\nconclusion. He would not alter a syllable that had fallen from St. Peter\u2019s\nlips. It would be the conclusion composed by one who had lost his literary\nilluminator, formal, brief, sententious, and comprehensive. The\ncrucifixion of the leading Apostle would thus impress an everlasting mark\nupon the Gospel which was virtually his. Here the Master\u2019s tongue ceased:\nhere the disciple took up his pen for himself.\n\nII. If we follow the account of Irenaeus (Eus. H. E. v. 8) that St. Mark\nwrote his Gospel\u2014and did not merely publish it\u2014after St. Peter\u2019s death,\nDr. Gwynn suggests to me that he used his notes made from St. Peter\u2019s\ndictation or composed with his help up to xvi. 8, leaving at the end what\nwere exactly St. Peter\u2019s words. After that, he added from his own stores,\nand indited the conclusion as I have already described.\n\nWhether either of these descriptions, or any other solution of the\ndifficulty, really tallies with the actual event, I submit that it is\nclear that St. Mark may very well have written the twelve verses himself;\nand that there is no reason for resorting to Aristion, or to any other\nperson for the authorship. I see that Mr. Conybeare expresses his\nindebtedness to Dean Burgon\u2019s monograph, and expresses his opinion that\n\u201cperhaps no one so well sums up the evidence for and against them\u201d as he\ndid (Expositor, viii. p. 241). I tender to him my thanks, and echo for\nmyself all that he has said.\n\n\n\n\n\nAPPENDIX VIII. NEW EDITIONS OF THE PESHITTO-SYRIAC AND THE\nHARKLEIAN-SYRIAC VERSIONS.\n\n\nA book representing Dean Burgon\u2019s labours in the province of Sacred\nTextual Criticism would be incomplete if notice were not taken in it of\nthe influence exercised by him upon the production of editions of the two\nchief Syriac Versions.\n\nThrough his introduction of the Rev. G. H. Gwilliam, B.D. to the late\nPhilip E. Pusey, a plan was formed for the joint production of an edition\nof the Peshitto New Testament by these two scholars. On the early and\nlamented death of Philip Pusey, which occurred in the following year, Mr.\nGwilliam succeeded to his labours, being greatly helped by the Dean\u2019s\nencouragement. He has written on the Syriac Canons of the Gospels; and the\nnature of his work upon the Peshitto Gospels, now in the press, may be\nseen on consulting his article on \u201cThe Materials for the Criticism of the\nPeshitto New Testament\u201d in the third volume of Studia Biblica et\nEcclesiastica, pp. 47-104, which indeed seems to be sufficient for the\nProlegomena of his edition. A list of his chief authorities was also\nkindly contributed by him to my Scrivener, and they are enumerated there,\nvol. II. pp. 12-13. The importance of this work, carried on successively\nby two such accomplished Syriacists, may be seen from and will illustrate\nthe sixth chapter of this work.\n\nIn connexion with the Dean, if not on his suggestion, the late Rev. Henry\nDeane, B.D., when Fellow of St. John\u2019s College, Oxford, began to collect\nmaterials for a new and critical edition of the Harkleian. His work was\ncarried on during many years, when ill-health and failing eyesight put a\nstop to all efforts, and led to his early death\u2014for on leaving New\nCollege, after having been Tutor there for five years, I examined him then\na boy at the top of Winchester College. Mr. Deane has left the results of\nhis work entered in an interleaved copy of Joseph White\u2019s \u201cSacrorum\nEvangeliorum Versio Syriaca Philoxeniana\u201d\u2014named, as my readers will\nobserve, from the translator Mar Xenaias or Philoxenus, not from Thomas of\nHarkel the subsequent editor. A list of the MSS. on which Mr. Deane based\nhis readings was sent by him to me, and inserted in my Scrivener, vol. II.\np. 29. Mr. Deane added (in a subsequent letter, dated April 16, 1894):\u2014\u201cMy\nlabours on the _Gospels_ shew that the H[arkleian] text is much the same\nin all MSS. The Acts of the Apostles must be worked up for a future\nedition by some one who knows the work.\u201d Since his lamented death, putting\na stop to any edition by him, his widow has placed his collation just\ndescribed in the Library of St. John\u2019s College, where by the permission of\nthe Librarian it may be seen, and also used by any one who is recognized\nas continuing the valuable work of that accomplished member of the\nCollege. Is there no capable and learned man who will come forward for the\npurpose?\n\n\n\n\n\nGENERAL INDEX.\n\n\nA.\n\nA or Alexandrian MS., 24, 31, 57, 76, 175, 201, 213 note 2.\n\n\u05d0 or Sinaitic MS., 2, 24, 31, 32, 49, 57, 174, 219, 235;\n  six conjugate leaves, 52, 165, 233;\n  value, B-\u05d0, 55, 68-9;\n  history and character, 153, 160 &c, 233-5;\n  sceptical character, App. V. 287.\n\nAcacius, 2, 155;\n  probably the scribe of B, 154.\n\nActa Philippi, 100-20.\n\nActa Pilati, 100-20.\n\nAdamantius, copies of, 167.\n  _See_ Origen.\n\nAlexander Alexandrinus, 100, 113, 119.\n\nAlexandria, school of, 2, 122, 234.\n\nAlexandrians and Egyptians, 113.\n\nAlford, 171.\n\nAmbrose, St., 101-20.\n\nAmmonius, 11, 242.\n\nAmphilochius, St., 101-20.\n\nAnaphora Pilati, 112.\n\nAntioch, early Church at, 123-4.\n\nAntiquity, 29-31.\n\nAphraates, 103-14, 213 note 4;\n  witnesses to Peshitto, 130.\n\nApocryphal Acts of the Gospels, 103-15, 132.\n\nApollonides, 10.\n\nApostolic Canons and Constitutions, 100, 103-15, 119.\n\nApostolic Fathers, 99, 118.\n\nArchelaus, 100, 105-13, 119, 130.\n\nArius, 110, 111, 114, 121.\n\nArmenian Version, 23, 49, 136.\n\nAsclepiades, 10.\n\nAthanasius, 100, 103-15, 119, 121, 148, 235\n  note 1, 244.\n\nAthenagoras, 99, 103, 115, 119.\n\nAugustine, St., on Old-Latin Texts, 140-3;\n  canon of, 61 note, 198.\n\nB.\n\nB or Vatican MS., 2, 24, 31, 32, 49, 57, 174;\n  number of omissions, 78;\n  history and character, 153, 160 &c., 233-5;\n  sceptical character of, App. V. 287;\n  B and \u05d0, their value, 55, 68-89.\n\nBarnabas, St., 104, 107.\n\nBartolocci, 157.\n\nBasil, St., 97, 101, 107-15, 117, 197, 281-2.\n\nBasilides, 3.\n\nBengel, 3.\n\nBeratinus, Codex (\u03a6), 25, 26, 175.\n\nBethabara or Bethany, 88.\n\nBeza, 3.\n\nBigg, Dr., 151.\n\nBirch, 157.\n\nBobiensis (k), 137.\n\nBohairic Version, 23, 30, 49, 136, 149-50, and _passim_.\n\nBrixianus (f), 137.\n\nBurgon, Dean, Indexes of, Preface, 94;\n  addition by, to Greek MSS., 21 note 2.\n\nBurkitt, Mr. F. C, 129 note 1.\n\nC.\n\nC or Parisian MS., 24, 31, 51, 57, 76, 175.\n\nCaesarea (Turris Stratonis), library of, 2, 152, 163-5, 225, 274.\n  _See_ B and \u05d0.\n\nCaesarea, School of, 121, 152-8.\n\nCaesarea Philippi, our Lord\u2019s stay at, 124.\n\nCallixtus, 99, 120.\n\nCandidus Arianus, 101, 113, 120.\n\nCanon of the N.T., 10, 13-14, 161, 172;\n  settlement of the Canon followed by that of the Text, 173.\n\nCelsus, 107.\n\nChase, Dr. F. H., 144. 176 note.\n\nChrysostom, St., 31, 161, 197.\n\nCiasca, Agostino, 132.\n\nClaromontanus (h), 137.\n\nClemens Alex., 58, 62, 99, 103-15, 117, 121, 148, 149, 150, 234, 241, 246.\n\nClemens Rom., 105.\n\nClementines, 99, 105, 109, 111, 119.\n\nColbertinus (c), 137.\n\nComplutensian edition, 3.\n\nConcilia Carthaginiensia, 100, 108, 119.\n\nConcordia discors, 17, 81-8.\n\nConflation, 80-1, 206-7, 227-9.\n\nConsent without Concert, 17.\n\nConstans, 163 note 3.\n\nConstantine I, 160, 163 note 3.\n\nConstantinople, Councils of, 173.\n\nConstantius II, 160, 161 note 1.\n\nContext, 61-5.\n\nContinuity, 58-61.\n\nConybeare, Mr. F. C., 304-5, 307.\n\nCook, Canon, 163 note 4, 227.\n\nCorbeiensis I, II, (ff1, ff2), 137.\n\nCornelius, 100, 119.\n\nCorruption, pre-Evangelistic, 146.\n\nCrawford, the Earl of, 129.\n\nCritical copies, 36 note.\n\nCuretonian Version, 31, 91;\n  date of, 123-34;\n  origin of text, 144 &c, 182 note 2;\n  218 note 11, and _passim_.\n\nCuretonian and Peshitto, App. VI. 292.\n\nCursive MSS., 24, 51, 156-8, 196-223;\n  in relation to later Uncials, 199-203;\n  main body of, not a single copy, 223;\n  copied in part from papyrus, 235;\n  the first extant, 200.\n\nCyprian, St., 100, 103-15, 120.\n\nCyril of Alexandria, St., 31, 119, 247.\n\nCyril of Jerusalem, St., 101, 103-15, 282.\n\nD.\n\nD or Cod. Bezae, 24, 31, 51, 76, 126, 144, 175-95;\n  sympathy with Old-Latin MSS., 56.\n\nD and E, Codd. of St. Paul, 54, 231.\n\n\u0394, Cod. Sangallensis, in St. Mark, 204.\n\nDamascus, Early Church at, 122-4.\n\nDeane, the late Rev. H., and Harkleian, App. VIII. 309.\n\nDecapolis, 123 note.\n\nDelicate expressions rubbed off in the old Uncials, 190.\n\nDiatessarons, formerly abounded 252.\n\nDidach\u00e8, 99, 103, 104.\n\nDidymus, 101, 103-15, 119, 120.\n\nDiez, Fried., 143 note.\n\nDiodorus (Tarsus), 101, 120.\n\nDiognetus, Epistle to, 99, 118.\n\nDionysius Alex., 100, 107, 110, 121, 148, 234.\n\nDoctrine and the Text of N.T., connexion between, 173.\n\nE.\n\nE, Cod. of Gospels. 203.\n\nE of Paul = D of Paul, 54, 231.\n\nEdessa, 134.\n\nEgyptian Versions, 31.\n\nElzevirs, 3.\n\nEphraem Syrus, St., 103, 107, 110, 112, 132, 243;\n  witnesses to Peshitto, 130.\n\nEpiphanius, St., 101, 103-15, 117, 120, 133, 243, 283-4.\n\nErasmus, 3, 15.\n\nEsaias Abbas, 101, 104. 120.\n\nEthiopic Version, 23, 49, 51, 136.\n\nEumenes II, 155.\n\nEunomius, 101.\n\nEusebian Canons, 242.\n\nEusebius (Caesarea), 2, 30, 31, 100, 103-15, 121, 133, 152, 162;\n  personally favoured the Traditional Text, 100, 121, 153;\n  probably not the scribe of B, 154;\n  latitudinarian, 154, 172;\n  on St. Mark xvi., 55, 58, 109, 242.\n\nEusebius (Emesa), 107.\n\nEustathius, 100, 114, 120.\n\nEuthalius (Sulci), 164 note 2.\n\nEvagrius Ponticus, 100, 110, 120.\n\nEvan., 102 = B, 54.\n\nF.\n\nF of St. Paul, like G, 56.\n\nFathers, 19, 23, 26, 50, 52;\n  value of quotations by, 57-8, 97-8;\n  early, witness of, 94-122;\n  indexes to quotations in, by Dean Burgon, Pref., 94-5.\n\nFaustinus, 101, 114, 120.\n\nFerrar group, 56, 114, 200, 235-6.\n\nFirmicus Maternus, 100, 108, 119.\n\nG.\n\nG of St. Paul, like F, 56.\n\nGenealogy, 229-37.\n\nGenealogy, the, in St. Luke iii., 181-2.\n\nGiles, Mr. H. A., 156 note.\n\nGothic Version, 23, 136.\n\nGregory, Dr. C. R., prolegomena, 160.\n\nGregory Nas., St., 101, 103-15, 117, 119, 197.\n\nGregory Nyss., St., 101, 103-15, 117, 120, 249 note, 260.\n\nGregory Thaumaturgus, St., 100, 110, 119, 130, 152.\n\nGriesbach, 3, 117, 148.\n\nGwilliam, Rev. G. H., Pref.;\n  in Studia Biblica, 128, 129 note 1, 241 note;\n  editor of Peshitto, App. VIII. 308.\n\nGwynn, Rev. Dr., App. VII. 298-301, 306.\n\nH.\n\nH of St. Paul, 164.\n\nHaddan, A. W., 174 note.\n\nHarkleian Version, 49, 133-4;\n  new ed., App VIII. 309.\n\nHarnack, Dr., 304-5.\n\nHarris, Mr. J. Rendel, 144 note 1, 176.\n\nHedybia, 244.\n\nHegesippus, 99, 111, 118.\n\nHeracleon. 10, 99, 121, 148.\n\nHermophilus, 10.\n\nHerodotus, 155.\n\nHesychius, 243.\n\nHilary, St. (Poictiers), 104-15, 117, 119, 169.\n\nHill, Rev. J. Hamlyn, 133.\n\nHippolytus, St., 99, 104-15, 117, 119.\n\nHort, Dr., 4, 7, 95, 158, 176, 251, 291, and _passim_;\n  admissions of, 14;\n  involuntary witness of, 90-4;\n  inaccurate upon the early Fathers, 117, 121;\n  fancies of, 129 note 2;\n  B and \u05d0 written at Rome, 165;\n  W.-Hort, 208 note 11;\n  on the Traditional Text, 221-2, 236;\n  on Genealogy, 230. _See_ Conflation.\n\nI.\n\nInternal Evidence, 65-7, 214-5.\n\nInterpolations, 81.\n\nIrenaeus, St., 98, 99, 103-15, 117, 119, 284.\n\nIsaias. _See_ Esaias.\n\nItala, 143.\n\n\u1f38\u03c9\u03ac\u03bd\u03bd\u03b7\u03c2 or \u1f38\u03c9\u03ac\u03bd\u03b7\u03c2, 87.\n\nJ.\n\nJacobites, 133.\n\nJacobus Nisibenus, 132.\n\nJerome, St., on Old-Latin Texts, 140-2, 244.\n\nJona and Jonah, 87.\n\nJulius (Pope), 100, 120.\n\nJulius Africanus, 100, 112, 121.\n\nJustin Martyr, St., 30, 99, 103-15, 117, 119;\n  ps. Justin, 108, 111.\n\nJuveneus, 100, 105, 110, 120.\n\nL.\n\nL or Regius, 4, 30, 32, 204.\n\nLachmann, 4, 90, 158, 225.\n\nLactantius, 100, 120.\n\nLaodicea, Council of, 172.\n\nLast Twelve Verses, i.e. of St. Mark, 55, 102, 232, App. VII. 298.\n\nLatin MSS., Old, 4, 30, 31, 49, 51, 64, 126;\n  do not fall strictly into three classes, 136-9;\n  Wiseman\u2019s theory of, false, 142;\n  did not come from one stem, 135-46;\n  influenced by Low-Latin dialects, 135-146;\n  derived much from Syrian pre-Evangelistic corruption, 144-6.\n\nLectionaries, 22 and note.\n\nLetters in _Guardian_, Dean Burgon\u2019s, 200 note 3.\n\nLewis Codex, 131-2, 134 note, 144, 302-3, and _passim_.\n\nLibraries, destruction of, 174.\n\nLibrary at Caesarea. _See_ Caesarea.\n\nLow-Latin MSS., 122. _See_ Latin MSS.\n\nLucifer (Cagliari), 101, 103, 104, 114, 120.\n\nM.\n\nMacarius Alexandrinus, 100 note.\n\nMacarius Magnes, 101, 106-12, 120.\n\nMacarius Magnus or Aegyptius, 100, 104, 110, 115, 120.\n\nMai, Cardinal, editions of B, 75, 159.\n\nManuscripts, multitude of, 24-7, 19, 21 and note 2;\n  six classes of, 22 note;\n  kinds of, 24;\n  value of,53-6;\n  in profane authors, 21 note 1.\n  _See_ Papyrus, Vellum, Uncial, Cursive.\n\nMarcion, 10, 97, 110, 111, 112.\n\nMariam and Mary, 84-6.\n\nMaries, the, in N. T., 84-6.\n\nMark, St. _See_ Last Twelve Verses.\n\nMaronite use of the Peshitto, 128.\n\nMaunde Thompson, Sir E., Pref., 155-6, 158.\n\nMelito, 131.\n\nMenander, 10.\n\nMethodius, 100, 106, 110, 117, 119, 131.\n\nMico, 137.\n\nMigne\u2019s edition of the Fathers, 96.\n\nMill, 3.\n\nMiller\u2019s Textual Guide, 3 note, 91 note.\n\nMiller\u2019s Scrivener (Plain Introduction, ed. 4), _passim_.\n\nMinistry, our Lord\u2019s, in the North and North-West, 123.\n\nMonacensis (9), 137.\n\nMonophysite use of the Peshitto, 128.\n\nMonothelitism, condemned in 680 A.D., 173.\n\nN.\n\nNemesius, 101, 120.\n\nNeologian Text, 99, 103.\n\nNestorian use of Peshitto, 128.\n\nNeutral Text (so-called), 4, 92.\n\nNicodemus, Gospel of, 107, 257.\n\nNotes of Truth, seven, 29, 40-67.\n\nNovatian, 100, 106, 114.\n\nO.\n\nOmissions, 81, 280-1, 291.\n\nOptatus, 100, 108, 110, 120.\n\nOrigen, 2, 10, 31, 50, 51, 58, 100, 104-15, 117, 121, 122, 130, 162, 169,\n            242, 247, 255 note 6, 272, 280-1, 291;\n  his great influence, 162;\n  a Textual Critic, 149-54;\n  founder of the Caesarean school, 152-3, 162-5;\n  character, 152;\n  fancies, 169 note 2;\n  critical copies, 274-5.\n\nOrigenism, condemned in 553 A.D., 173.\n\nOrthodox, the, 264.\n\nP.\n\n\u03a6. _See_ Beratinus.\n\nPacianus, 100, 103, 120.\n\nPalatinus (e), 137.\n\nPamphilus, 2, 100, 115, 121, 152, 163-4.\n\nPaper, first made in China, 156 note.\n\nPapias, 99, 109, 118.\n\nPapyrus MSS., 24, 154-8, 163, 201;\n  copying from, 2, 175, 235.\n\nParisian Codex. _See_ C.\n\nPaul, St., 145.\n\nPeshitto Version, 31, 91, 123;\n  antiquity of, 125-134, 210, 224;\n  Peshitto and Curetonian, texts of, App. VI. 292.\n\nPeter (Alexandria), 100, 121, 148.\n\nPeter, Gospel of, 99, 107, 111, 119.\n\nPeter, St., App. VII. 306.\n\nPhilastrius, 101, 103, 120.\n\nPhillips, Cod., 129 note.\n\nPhilo (Carpasus or Carpasia), 101, 103, 104, 107, 110, 120.\n\nPhiloxenian. _See_ Harkleian.\n\nPolycarp, 103.\n\nPontianus, 99, 120.\n\nPorphyry, 108.\n\nPrior, Dr. Alexander, 156 note.\n\nPusey, P. E., Pref. and 129.\n\nQ.\n\nQ, Cod., 175.\n\nQuaestiones ex Utroque Testamento, 101, 105-15, 120.\n\nR.\n\nR, Cod. of St. Luke (Cod. Nitriensis), 204 note.\n\nRabb\u016bla, 133.\n\nRecensions, phantom, 79, 91, 93, 121.\n\nRehdigeranus (1), 137.\n\nRespectability. _See_ Weight.\n\nRevision Revised, the, 91, 102, _passim_.\n\nRevisers, 208 note 11, 212, 245.\n\nRomance languages, origin of, 143.\n\nRossanensian Codex. _See_ \u03a3.\n\nRulotta, 157.\n\nS.\n\n\u03a3 (Rossanensian), Cod., 25, 76, 175.\n\nSachau, Dr., 129 note.\n\nSahidio (Thebaic) Version, 23, 136.\n\nSangallensia Fragmenta (n), 137.\n\nSangermanensis I (g2), 137.\n\nScholz, 4.\n\nScrivener, Dr, Pref., 5, 32, 135, 227, 231, 233, 272.\n\nSeniores apud Irenaeum, 99, 118.\n\nSerapion, 100, 109, 119.\n\nSinaitic MS. _See_ \u05d0.\n\nSlavonic Version, 136.\n\nStephen, Rob., 3.\n\nSynodical Letter, 100, 119.\n\nSynodus Antiochena, 100, 105, 113, 119, 130.\n\nSynoptic problem, 146.\n\nSyria, rapid spread of the Church in, 123-4.\n\nSyriac Canons, 109, 254 note.\n\nSyriac Sections, 291.\n\nSyriac Versions, 49, 123-34.\n\n\u201cSyrian,\u201d an audacious nick-name, 91-2.\n\nSyrio-Low-Latin Text, 135-47, 225;\n  intercommunication between Syria and Italy, 145-6.\n\nT.\n\nT, Cod., 204 note.\n\nTatian, 97, 103, 110.\n\nTatian\u2019s Diatessaron, 126, 132-4, 242, 302 note.\n\nTaylor, Rev. Dr., 300.\n\nTertullian, 99, 104-15, 120.\n\nTestament of Abraham, 99, 104, 119.\n\nTests of Truth, seven, 24, 40-67.\n\nTextual Criticism, 1-5;\n  importance of, Pref., 6 note.\n\nTextus Receptus, origin of the name, 3;\n  character of, 5, 15-16, 30;\n  imperfect, 5.\n\nTheodoret (Cyrrhus), 133, 134.\n\nTheodoras Heracleensis, 100, 107, 114, 119.\n\nTheodotus, 10, 113, 114.\n\nTheognotus, 100, 121, 148.\n\nTheophilus Antiochenus, 99, 120.\n\nTheophylact, 49 note 1.\n\nTischendorf, 4, 5 note, 7, 9, 49 note, 98, 99, 136, 158, 160 note 2;\n  curious reasoning, 169 and note 1, 225.\n\nTitus of Bostra, 101, 104-15, 119.\n\nTradition, nature of, 196-9, 224.\n\nTraditional Text, character of, 5, 196-9;\n  founded upon the vast majority of authorities, 13;\n  relation to the Canon, 13-14, 32, 172-3, 197;\n  variously attested, 29, 40-7; dates\n  back to the earliest time, 90-147;\n  settled first, 173;\n  finally, 173;\n  mode of settlement, 198;\n  continuity of, 224;\n  history of, 236-7;\n  incontrovertible as a fact, 236.\n\nU.\n\nUncials, 24, 51.\n\nUncials, later, 196-223. _See_ Cursives.\n\nV.\n\nValentinians, 10, 30, 113.\n\nValentinus, 260.\n\nVariety, 49-53.\n\nVatican MS. _See_ B.\n\nVellum, 154-8, 174.\n\nVercellensis (a), 137.\n\nVeronensis (b), 137.\n\nVersions, 19, 22, 26, 50, 52;\n  value of, 56.\n\nVictor of Antioch, 284.\n\nVictorinus (Afer), 101, 105, 108, 113, 114, 120.\n\nVictorinus (Pettau), 101, 108, 109, 119.\n\nViennensium et Lugdunensium Epistola, 99, 118.\n\nVincentius, 109.\n\nVindobonensis (i), 137.\n\nVulgate, 30, 31, and _passim_.\n\nW.\n\nWaller, Rev. Dr. C. H., Pref., App. VI. 292-7, App. VII. 302.\n\nWeight, 53-8, 77, 226.\n\nWestcott, Bp. of Durham, 4;\n  on the Canon, 92.\n\nWestcott and Hort, 226, 232.\n\nWestern Text, 135-47. _See_ Syrio-Low-Latin.\n\nWetstein, 3.\n\nWhite, Rev. H. J., 139, 142.\n\nWiseman, Cardinal, 135, 143.\n\nWoods, Rev. F. H., 130.\n\nWright, Dr. W., 129 note 2.\n\nX.\n\n\u039e, Cod. Zacynthius, 204\n\nXimenes, Cardinal, 3, 236.\n\nZ.\n\nZ, Cod. Dublinensis, 204 note 1.\n\nZeno, 101, 107, 114, 120.\n\n\n\n\n\nINDEX II. PASSAGES OF THE NEW TESTAMENT COMMENTED ON.\n\n\nSt. Matthew:\n\n     i. 2-16                      180-2\n        16, 18, 19, 20, 24, 25    295\n        18                        192-3, 288\n        25                        103, 138, 149, 289\n    ii. 23                        177\n   iii. 16                        288\n    iv. 11                        293\n        13                        177\n        17-22                     211-3\n        21                        293\n     v. 12                        293\n        22                        290\n        32, 41                    294\n        44                        103, 138, 149, 290\n        47                        293\n    vi. 1                         290\n        6                         290\n        13                        104, 138, 149\n        13, 17, 19                297\n   vii. 13-4                      104, 138, 149\n viii.  5-13                      219-20\n    ix. 13                        104, 138, 149\n    x.  8                         51-2\n        42                        297\n   xi.  2                         297\n        2-3                       63-4\n        27                        105, 138, 149\n  xii.  1-4                       292\n        30                        288\n xiii.  6, 13, 33                 297\n        36                        34 n. 2\n   xiv. 13                        297\n        19                        168\n    xv. 35                        168\n  xvii. 21                        62-3, 105, 138, 149, 289\n        22                        55\n xviii. 11                        106, 138, 149, 290\n   xix. 16-7                      78, 106, 138, 149, 259, 288\n    xx. 22-3                      209-11, 289\n        28                        178\n        44                        289\n xxiii. 14                        289\n        38                        106, 138, 149\n  xxiv. 36                        288\n  xxvi. 32                        187\n        34                        140\n        35                        140\n        39                        140\n        71                        190-1\n xxvii. 34                        253-8\n        46                        30\nxxviii. 2                         107, 138, 149\n        19                        108, 138, 149, 213 n.\n\nSt. Mark:\n\n     i. 1                         166, 279-86, 287\n        2                         108, 138, 149\n        11                        140\n        14-20                     211-13\n        28                        176\n        45-ii. 1                  176\n    ii. 12                        287\n        13                        177\n        17                        104\n        27-8                      176\n   iii. 16                        289\n        26                        177-8\n        29                        289\n    iv. 1                         179-80\n        12                        289\n    vi. 11                        289\n        22                        66\n        33                        80\n   vii. 35                        287\n  viii. 6                         168\n        7                         82 n.\n    ix. 24                        287\n        29                        289\n        44-6                      289\n        49                        289\n     x. 6                         288\n        17-8                      259-78\n        23-4                      213-14\n        24                        289\n        38                        209-11\n    xi. 26                        289\n  xiii. 32                        288\n   xiv. 22-4                      290\n        28                        187\n        72                        187\n    xv. 23                        253-4\n        28                        290\n        39                        80, 290\n        43                        190\n        46                        187\n        47-xvi. 7                 184\n   xvi. 3, 4, 6                   187\n  xvi. 7            187\n       9-20         109, 138, 149, 288, 293, 298-307\n\nST. LUKE:\n\n    i. 26           187\n       28           109, 138, 149, 289\n       41           187\n       60           187\n       64           176-7\n       65, 70, 71   174, 185\n   ii. 2            188 n.\n       14           110, 138, 149\n       39           177\n  iii. 23-38        180-2\n   iv. 4            289\n       5            289\n       8            289\n       31           177\n       37           176\n    v. 1-11         211-13\n       3            186\n       14-15        176\n       27           177\n   vi. 1            293\n       10           176\n  vii. 18           64\n       35           177\n   ix. 55-6         289\n    x. 12           176\n       25           140\n       41-2         110, 138, 149\n   xi. 2            177\n       2-4          84, 290\n       4            166\n  xiv. 8-10         178\n       22           191\n  xvi. 9            215-6\n xvii. 2            194-5\n       19           289\n       24           289\nxviii. 14           189, 193-4\n       18-19        259-78\n  xix. 25           189\n       27           178\n       37           65\n       42           217-9\n  xxi. 25           140\n xxii. 43-4         110, 138, 149, 290\n       44           80\n       64           290\nxxiii. 34           111, 138, 149, 290\n       38           111, 138, 150, 290\n       42           288\n       45           112, 138, 150\n xxiv. 3            287\n       13           66\n       40           112, 139, 150\n       41-3         239-52\n       42           112, 139, 150, 290\n       46           288\n       51           288\n\nST. JOHN:\n\n    i.  3-4         113, 139, 150\n        9           140\n       18           113-4, 139, 150\n       27           166\n       28            88, 166\n       43            87\n  iii.  6           297\n       13           114, 139, 150, 288\n       31           288\n    v.  3-4          80, 82, 289\n       15           290\n   vi. 47           287\n       51           289\n       69           287\n viii. 35           288\n       38-9         170-1\n       59           288\n   ix. 35           288\n       36           191\n    x. 14           115, 139, 150\n  xiv. 14           287\n  xvi.  6           288\n xvii. 24           115, 139, 150\n  xix. 20-1         290\n       25            85 n. 3\n       29           253-4\n xxi.   5-13        241-4\n       23           287\n       25           115, 139, 150\n\nACTS:\n\n  xvi.  7           288\n   xx. 28           287\n xxiv. 23           146\n\nROMANS:\n\n  xiv. 10           288\n\n1 COR.:\n\n   xi.  2-4         290\n  xvi. 47           288\n\n2 COR.:\n\n  iii.  3            65\n\nGAL.:\n\n  iii.  1           166-7\n\nEPH.:\n\n    i.  1           166\n    v. 20           227-8\n\nCOL.:\n\n   ii. 10           288\n\n1 TIM.:\n\n  iii. 16           288\n\nHEB.:\n\n   iv.  2            48-9\n\n2 PET.:\n\n    i.  1           288\n\nREV.:\n\n    i.  5           290\n\n\n\n\n\n\nFOOTNOTES\n\n\n    1 See Jerome, Epist. 34 (Migne, xxii. p. 448). Cod. V. of Philo has\n      the following inscription:\u2014\u0395\u1f50\u03b6\u03cc\u03ca\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c0\u03af\u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03c0\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c3\u03c9\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03af\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2\n      \u1f00\u03bd\u03b5\u03bd\u03ad\u03c9\u03c3\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf, i.e. transcribed on vellum from papyrus. Leopold Cohn\u2019s\n      edition of Philo, De Opiticiis Mundi, Vratislaw, 1889.\n\n    2 See my Guide to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament, pp.\n      7-37. George Bell and Sons, 1886.\n\n    3 For an estimate of Tischendorf\u2019s great labour, see an article on\n      Tischendorf\u2019s Greek Testament in the Quarterly Review for July,\n      1895.\n\n    4 Dr. Hort\u2019s theory, which is generally held to supply the\n      philosophical explanation of the tenets maintained in the school of\n      critics who support B and \u05d0 as pre-eminently the sources of the\n      correct text, may be studied in his Introduction. It is also\n      explained and controverted in my Textual Guide, pp. 38-59; and has\n      been powerfully criticized by Dean Burgon in The Revision Revised,\n      Article III, or in No. 306 of the Quarterly Review, without reply.\n\n    5 Quarterly Review, July 1895, \u201cTischendorf\u2019s Greek Testament.\u201d\n\n    6 See Preface.\n\n    7 It is remarkable, that in quarters where we should have looked for\n      more scientific procedure the importance of the Textual Criticism of\n      the New Testament is underrated, upon a plea that theological\n      doctrine may be established upon passages other than those of which\n      the text has been impugned by the destructive school. Yet (_a_) in\n      all cases consideration of the text of an author must perforce\n      precede consideration of inferences from the text\u2014Lower Criticism\n      must be the groundwork of Higher Criticism; (_b_) confirmatory\n      passages cannot be thrown aside in face of attacks upon doctrine of\n      every possible character; (_c_) Holy Scripture is too unique and\n      precious to admit of the study of the several words of it being\n      interesting rather than important; (_d_) many of the passages which\n      Modern Criticism would erase or suspect\u2014such as the last Twelve\n      Verses of St. Mark, the first Word from the Cross, and the thrilling\n      description of the depth of the Agony, besides numerous others\u2014are\n      valuable in the extreme; and, (_e_) generally speaking, it is\n      impossible to pronounce, especially amidst the thought and life\n      seething everywhere round us, what part of Holy Scripture is not, or\n      may not prove to be, of the highest importance as well as\n      interest.\u2014E. M.\n\n    8 See below, Vol. II. throughout, and a remarkable passage quoted from\n      Caius or Gaius by Dean Burgon in The Revision Revised (Quarterly\n      Review, No. 306), pp. 323-324.\n\n    9 St. John xiv. 26.\n\n   10 St. John xvi. 13.\n\n   11 Rev. John Oxlee\u2019s sermon on Luke xxii. 28-30 (1821), p. 91 (Three\n      Sermons on the power, origin, and succession of the Christian\n      Hierarchy, and especially that of the Church of England).\n\n   12 Westcott and Hort, Introduction, p. 92.\n\n   13 Ibid. p. 142.\n\n   14 Scrivener, Plain Introduction, ed. 4, Vol. I. pp. 75-76.\n\n   15 Of course this trenchant passage refers only to the principles of\n      the school found to fail. A school may leave fruits of research of a\n      most valuable kind, and yet be utterly in error as to the inferences\n      involved in such and other facts. Dean Burgon amply admitted this.\n      The following extract from one of the many detached papers left by\n      the author is appended as possessing both illustrative and personal\n      interest:\u2014\n\n      \u201cFamiliar as all such details as the present must of necessity prove\n      to those who have made Textual Criticism their study, they may on no\n      account be withheld. I am not addressing learned persons only. I\n      propose, before I lay down my pen, to make educated persons,\n      wherever they may be found, partakers of my own profound conviction\n      that for the most part certainty is attainable on this\n      subject-matter; but that the decrees of the popular school\u2014at the\n      head of which stand many of the great critics of Christendom\u2014are\n      utterly mistaken. Founded, as I venture to think, on entirely false\n      premisses, their conclusions almost invariably are altogether wrong.\n      And this I hold to be demonstrable; and I propose in the ensuing\n      pages to establish the fact. If I do not succeed, I shall pay the\n      penalty for my presumption and my folly. But if I succeed\u2014and I wish\n      to have jurists and persons skilled in the law of evidence, or at\n      least thoughtful and unprejudiced persons, wherever they are to be\n      found, and no others, for my judges,\u2014if I establish my position, I\n      say, let my father and my mother\u2019s son be kindly remembered by the\n      Church of Christ when he has departed hence.\u201d\n\n   16 There are, however, in existence, about 200 MSS. of the Iliad and\n      Odyssey of Homer, and about 150 of Virgil. But in the case of many\n      books the existing authorities are but scanty. Thus there are not\n      many more than thirty of Aeschylus, and they are all said by W.\n      Dindorf to be derived from one of the eleventh century: only a few\n      of Demosthenes, of which the oldest are of the tenth or eleventh\n      century: only one authority for the first six books of the Annals of\n      Tacitus (see also Madvig\u2019s Introduction): only one of the\n      Clementines: only one of the Didach\u00e8, &c. See Gow\u2019s Companion to\n      School Classics, Macmillan & Co. 1888.\n\n   17 \u201cI had already assisted my friend Prebendary Scrivener in greatly\n      enlarging Scholz\u2019s list. We had, in fact, raised the enumeration of\n      \u2018Evangelia\u2019 [copies of Gospels] to 621: of \u2018Acts and Catholic\n      Epistles\u2019 to 239: of \u2018Paul\u2019 to 281: of \u2018Apocalypse\u2019 to 108: of\n      \u2018Evangelistaria\u2019 [Lectionary copies of Gospels] to 299: of the book\n      called \u2018Apostolos\u2019 [Lectionary copies of Acts and Epistles] to\n      81\u2014making a total of 1629. But at the end of a protracted and\n      somewhat laborious correspondence with the custodians of not a few\n      great continental libraries, I am able to state that our available\n      \u2018Evangelia\u2019 amount to at least 739: our \u2018Acts and Cath. Epp.\u2019 to\n      261: our \u2018Paul\u2019 to 338: our \u2018Apoc.\u2019 to 122: our \u2018Evst.\u2019 to 415: our\n      copies of the \u2018Apostolos\u2019 to 128\u2014making a total of 2003. This shews\n      an increase of three hundred and seventy-four.\u201d Revision Revised, p.\n      521. But since the publication of Dr. Gregory\u2019s Prolegomena, and of\n      the fourth edition of Dr. Scrivener\u2019s Plain Introduction to the\n      Criticism of the New Testament, after Dean Burgon\u2019s death, the list\n      has been largely increased. In the fourth edition of the\n      Introduction (Appendix F, p. 397) the total number under the six\n      classes of \u201cEvangelia,\u201d \u201cActs and Catholic Epistles,\u201d \u201cSt. Paul,\u201d\n      \u201cApocalypse,\u201d \u201cEvangelistaria,\u201d and \u201cApostolos,\u201d has reached (about)\n      3,829, and may be reckoned when all have come in at over 4,000. The\n      separate MSS. (some in the reckoning just given being counted more\n      than once) are already over 3,000.\n\n   18 Evan. 481 is dated A.D. 835; Evan. S. is dated A.D. 949.\n\n   19 Or, as some think, at the end of the second century.\n\n   20 AC\u03a3 (\u03a6 in St. Matt.) with fourteen other uncials, most cursives,\n      four Old Latin, Gothic, St. Irenaeus, &c. &c.\n\n   21 See Vol. II.\n\n   22 All such questions are best understood by observing an illustration.\n      In St. Matt. xiii. 36, the disciples say to our Lord, \u201cExplain to us\n      (\u03c6\u03c1\u03ac\u03c3\u03bf\u03bd \u1f21\u03bc\u1fd6\u03bd) the parable of the tares.\u201d The cursives (and late\n      uncials) are all agreed in this reading. Why then do Lachmann and\n      Tregelles (not Tischendorf) exhibit \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03c3\u03ac\u03c6\u03b7\u03c3\u03bf\u03bd? Only because they\n      find \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03c3\u03ac\u03c6\u03b7\u03c3\u03bf\u03bd in B. Had they known that the first reading of \u05d0\n      exhibited that reading also, they would have been more confident\n      than ever. But what pretence can there be for assuming that the\n      Traditional reading of all the copies is untrustworthy in this\n      place? The plea of antiquity at all events cannot be urged, for\n      Origen reads \u03c6\u03c1\u03ac\u03c3\u03bf\u03bd four times. The Versions do not help us. What\n      else is \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03c3\u03ac\u03c6\u03b7\u03c3\u03bf\u03bd but a transparent Gloss? \u0394\u03b9\u03b1\u03c3\u03ac\u03c6\u03b7\u03c3\u03bf\u03bd (elucidate)\n      explains \u03c6\u03c1\u03ac\u03c3\u03bf\u03bd, but \u03c6\u03c1\u03ac\u03c3\u03bf\u03bd (tell) does not explain \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03c3\u03ac\u03c6\u03b7\u03c3\u03bf\u03bd.\n\n   23 Plain Introduction, I. 277. 4th edition.\n\n   24 It is very remarkable that the sum of Eusebius\u2019 own evidence is\n      largely against those uncials. Yet it seems most probable that he\n      had B and \u05d0 executed from the \u1f00\u03ba\u03c1\u03b9\u03b2\u1fc6 or \u201ccritical\u201d copies of Origen.\n      See below, Chapter IX.\n\n   25 Viz. 996 verses out of 3,780.\n\n   26 Miller\u2019s Scrivener (4th edition), Vol. I. Appendix F. p. 397. 1326 +\n      73 + 980 = 2379.\n\n   27 Scrivener\u2019s Introduction, Ed. iv (1894), Vol. II. pp. 264-265.\n\n   28 But see Miller\u2019s edition of Scrivener\u2019s Introduction, I. 397. App.\n      F, where the numbers as _now_ known are given as 73, 1326, 980\n      respectively.\n\n   29 Account of the Printed Text, p. 138.\n\n   30 This general position will be elucidated in Chapters IX and XI.\n\n   31 So also the Georgian and Sclavonic versions (the late Dr. Malan).\n\n   32 The Traditional view of the authorship of the Epistle to the Hebrews\n      is here maintained as superior both in authority and evidence to any\n      other.\n\n   33 \u05d0, 31, 41, 114.\n\n   34 Tischendorf wrongly adduces Irenaeus. Read to the end of III. c. 19,\n      \u00a7 1.\n\n   35 Ap. Galland. vii. 178.\n\n   36 xii. 64 c, 65 b. \u039a\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f45\u03c1\u03b1 \u03c4\u03b9 \u03b8\u03b1\u03c5\u03bc\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u1ff6\u03c2; \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u03b5\u1f36\u03c0\u03b5\u03bd, \u03bf\u1f50 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b5\u03c6\u03ce\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd,\n      \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u1fbd, \u03bf\u1f50 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b5\u03ba\u03c1\u03ac\u03b8\u03b7\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd. See by all means Cramer\u2019s Cat. p. 451.\n\n   37 Ap. Cramer, Cat. p. 177. \u039f\u1f50 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u1f26\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03c0\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2\n      \u1f10\u03c0\u03b1\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u03bb\u03b8\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c3\u03b9 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b7\u03bc\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9; \u1f44\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd \u03bf\u1f54\u03c4\u03c9\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03b3\u03bd\u03c9\u03c3\u03c4\u03ad\u03bf\u03bd, \u201c\u03bc\u1f74\n      \u03c3\u03c5\u03b3\u03ba\u03b5\u03ba\u03b5\u03c1\u03b1\u03c3\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03c4\u1fc7 \u03c0\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03b9 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f00\u03ba\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c3\u03b9.\u201d\n\n   38 vi. 15 d. \u1f0c\u03c1\u03b1 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u1f14\u03bc\u03b5\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f34\u03c3\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u03c1\u03cc\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u03bd\u03b1\u03ba\u03b9\u03c1\u03bd\u1fb6\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u03b5\n      \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u03ae\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2, \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03ac\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1 \u1f00\u03bc\u03ad\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bf\u1f36\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f55\u03b4\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9, \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb. After this, it\n      becomes of little moment that the same Cyril should elsewhere (i.\n      394) read \u03c3\u03c5\u03b3\u03ba\u03b5\u03ba\u03c1\u03b1\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c0\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03b9 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f00\u03ba\u03bf\u03cd\u03c3\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9.\n\n   39 iii. 566. After quoting the place, Thdrt. proceeds, \u03a4\u03af \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u1f64\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd \u1f21\n      \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u0398\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b1\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u03bb\u03af\u03b1 \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 ... \u03bc\u1f74 ... \u03bf\u1f37\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u0398\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2\n      \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03ba\u03c1\u03b1\u03b8\u03ad\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2.\n\n   40 ii. 234.\n\n_   41 Ap_. Oecum.\n\n   42 ii. 670.\n\n   43 From Dr. Malan, who informs me that the Bohairic and Ethiopic\n      exhibit \u201c_their heart_ was not mixed with\u201d: which represents the\n      same reading.\n\n   44 So Theophylactus (ii. 670), who (with all the more trustworthy\n      authorities) writes \u03c3\u03c5\u03b3\u03ba\u03b5\u03ba\u03c1\u03b1\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2. For this sense of the verb, see\n      Liddell and Scott\u2019s Lex., and especially the instances in Wetstein.\n\n   45 Yet Tischendorf says, \u201cDubitare nequeo quin lectio Sinaitica hujus\n      loci mentem scriptoris recte reddat atque omnium sit verissima.\u201d\n\n   46 See below, Chapter XI, where the character and authority of Cursive\n      Manuscripts are considered.\n\n   47 The evidence on the passage is as follows:\u2014For the insertion:\u2014\n\n      \u05d0* etc. BC*\u03a6\u03a3DP\u0394, 1, 13, 33, 108, 157, 346, and about ten more. Old\n      Latin (except f), Vulgate, Bohairic, Ethiopic, Hilary, Cyril Alex.\n      (2), Chrysostom (2).\n\n      Against:\u2014\n\n      EFGKLMSUVX\u0393\u03a0. The rest of the Cursives, Peshitto (Pusey and Gwilliam\n      found it in no copies), Sahidic, Eusebius, Basil, Jerome,\n      Chrysostom, _in loc._, Juvencus. Compare Revision Revised, p. 108,\n      note.\n\n   48 By the Editor. See Miller\u2019s Scrivener, Introduction (4th ed.), Vol.\n      I. p. 96, note 1, and below, Chapter IX.\n\n   49 Miller\u2019s Scrivener, I. p. 176.\n\n   50 Ibid. p. 208.\n\n   51 Tregelles\u2019 Printed Text, &c., p. 247.\n\n   52 Tischendorf, N. T., p. 322.\n\n   53 Tischendorf and Alford.\n\n   54 Burgon\u2019s Last Twelve Verses, &c., pp. 38-69; also p. 267.\n\n   55 Ad Marinum. Ibid. p. 265.\n\n   56 Ibid. pp. 235-6.\n\n   57 Miller\u2019s Scrivener, I. p. 181.\n\n   58 Ferrar and Abbott\u2019s Collation of Four Important Manuscripts, Abb\u00e8\n      Martin, _Quatre MSS. importants_, J. Rendel Harris, On the Origin of\n      the Ferrar Group (C. J. Clay and Sons), 1893. Miller\u2019s Scrivener, I.\n      p. 398, App. F.\n\n   59 See below, Chapter X. Also Mr. Rendel Harris\u2019 \u201cStudy of Codex Bezae\u201d\n      in the Cambridge Texts and Studies.\n\n   60 Last Twelve Verses of St. Mark, p. 21, &c.; Revision Revised, p.\n      297.\n\n   61 See more upon this point in Chapters V, XI. Compare St. Augustine\u2019s\n      Canon: \u201cQuod universa tenet Ecclesia nec conciliis institutum sed\n      semper retentum est, non nisi auctoritate Apostolica traditum\n      rectissime creditur.\u201d C. Donatist. iv. 24.\n\n   62 See Revision Revised, pp. 91, 206, and below, Chapter V.\n\n   63 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u1fbd \u1f30\u03b4\u03af\u03b1\u03bd, \u1f10\u03b4\u03c5\u03bd\u03ae\u03b8\u03b7\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd, \u03c4\u03c1\u03b9\u03b7\u03bc\u03ad\u03c1\u1fb3, \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03ae\u03c3\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9.\n\n   64 \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03ac\u03b2\u03b1 \u1f14\u03bd\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd.\n\n   65 \u03c3\u03c5\u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u03b5\u03c6\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd, \u1f40\u03bb\u03b9\u03b3\u03bf\u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03af\u03b1\u03bd; omission of \u1f38\u03b7\u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c2, \u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03b5\u03b9.\n\n   66 \u1f41 \u1f10\u03c1\u03c7\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2, for which D absurdly substitutes \u1f41 \u1f10\u03c1\u03b3\u03b1\u03b6\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2, \u201che\n      that worketh.\u201d\n\n   67 So, as it seems, the Lewis, but the column is defective.\n\n   68 Viz. Ver. 20, \u1f00\u03c0\u03ad\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03b9\u03bb\u03b5\u03bd for \u1f00\u03c0\u03ad\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03bb\u03ba\u03b5\u03bd, \u05d0B; \u1f15\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd for \u1f04\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd,\n      \u05d0DLX\u039e. Ver. 22, omit \u1f45\u03c4\u03b9, \u05d0BLX\u039e; insert \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 before \u03ba\u03c9\u03c6\u03bf\u03af, \u05d0BDF\u0393\u0394*\u039b;\n      insert \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 before \u03c0\u03c4\u03c9\u03c7\u03bf\u03af, \u05d0FX. Ver. 23, \u1f42\u03c2 \u1f02\u03bd for \u1f42\u03c2 \u1f10\u03ac\u03bd, \u05d0D. Ver.\n      24, \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f44\u03c7\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 for \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u1f44\u03c7\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2, \u05d0D and eight others; \u1f10\u03be\u03ae\u03bb\u03b8\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5\n      for \u1f10\u03be\u03b5\u03bb\u03b7\u03bb\u03cd\u03b8\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5, \u05d0ABDL\u039e. Ver. 25, \u1f10\u03be\u03ae\u03bb\u03b8\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5 for \u1f10\u03be\u03b5\u03bb\u03b7\u03bb\u03cd\u03b8\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5, \u05d0ABDL\u039e.\n      Ver. 26, \u1f10\u03be\u03ae\u03bb\u03b8\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5 for \u1f10\u03be\u03b5\u03bb\u03b7\u03bb\u03cd\u03b8\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5, \u05d0BDL\u039e. Ver. 28, insert \u1f00\u03bc\u1f74\u03bd\n      before \u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03c9, \u05d0LX; omit \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u03ae\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2, \u05d0BKLMX. Ver. 30, omit \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u1f11\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf\u03cd\u03c2,\n      \u05d0D. Ver. 32, \u1f02 \u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03b5\u03b9 for \u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2, \u05d0*B. See Tischendorf, eighth\n      edition, _in loco_. The _Concordia discors_ will be noticed.\n\n   69 The explanation given by the majority of the Revisers has only their\n      English Translation to recommend it, \u201cin tables that are hearts of\n      flesh\u201d for \u1f10\u03bd \u03c0\u03bb\u03b1\u03be\u1f76 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c1\u03b4\u03af\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c3\u03b1\u03c1\u03ba\u03af\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2. In the Traditional reading\n      (_a_) \u03c0\u03bb\u03b1\u03be\u1f76 \u03c3\u03b1\u03c1\u03ba\u03af\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2 answers to \u03c0\u03bb\u03b1\u03be\u1f76 \u03bb\u03b9\u03b8\u03af\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2; and therefore\n      \u03c3\u03b1\u03c1\u03ba\u03af\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2 would agree with \u03c0\u03bb\u03b1\u03be\u1f76, not with \u03ba\u03b1\u03c1\u03b4\u03af\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2. (_b_) The\n      opposition between \u03bb\u03b9\u03b8\u03af\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2 and \u03ba\u03b1\u03c1\u03b4\u03af\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c3\u03b1\u03c1\u03ba\u03af\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2 would be weak\n      indeed, the latter being a mere appendage in apposition to \u03c0\u03bb\u03b1\u03be\u03af,\n      and would therefore be a blot in St. Paul\u2019s nervous passage. (_c_)\n      The apposition is harsh, ill-balanced (contrast St. Mark viii. 8),\n      and unlike Greek: Dr. Hort is driven to suppose \u03c0\u03bb\u03b1\u03be\u03af to be a\n      \u201cprimitive interpolation.\u201d The faultiness of a majority of the\n      Uncials is corrected by Cursives, Versions, Fathers.\n\n   70 \u201cInter plures unius loci lectiones ea pro suspecta merito habetur,\n      quae orthodoxorum dogmatibus manifeste prae ceteris favet.\u201d N.T.\n      Prolegomena, I. p. lxvi.\n\n   71 See Hort\u2019s Introduction, pp. 210-270.\n\n   72 I have retained this challenge though it has been rendered nugatory\n      by the Dean\u2019s lamented death, in order to exhibit his absolute\n      sincerity and fearlessness.\u2014E. M.\n\n   73 Here the Dean\u2019s MS. ceases, and the Editor is responsible for what\n      follows. The MS. was marked in pencil, \u201cVery rough\u2014but worth\n      carrying on.\u201d\n\n   74 See a passage from Caius quoted in The Revision Revised, p. 323.\n      Eusebius, Hist. Eccles. v. 28.\n\n   75 Hort, Introduction, p. 223.\n\n   76 See Appendix V, and below, Chapter IX.\n\n   77 As a specimen of how quickly a Cursive copy could be written by an\n      accomplished copyist, we may note the following entry from Dean\n      Burgon\u2019s Letters in the Guardian to Dr. Scrivener, in a letter dated\n      Jan. 29, 1873. \u201cNote further, that there is ... another copy of the\n      O.T. in one volume ... at the end of which is stated that Nicodemus\n      \u1f41 \u03be\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2, the scribe, began his task on the 8th of June and finished\n      it on the 15th of July, A.D. 1334, working very hard\u2014as he must have\n      done indeed.\u201d\n\n   78 See below, Chapter VIII. \u00a7 2.\n\n   79 See Chapter VI.\n\n   80 See Chapter VII.\n\n   81 See next Chapter.\n\n   82 Another fragment found in the Dean\u2019s papers is introduced here.\n\n   83 Here the fragment ends.\n\n   84 See Dr. Gwynn\u2019s remarks which are quoted below, Appendix VII.\n\n   85 The Revision Revised, p. 423. Add a few more; see Appendix VII.\n\n   86 Dr. Gwynn, Appendix VII.\n\n   87 Another MS. comes in here.\n\n   88 The MS. ceases.\n\n   89 Hort, Introduction, pp. 95-99.\n\n   90 \u05d5-\u05e6\u05d0\u05d5 \u05dc\u05dc\u05db\u05ea \u05d0\u05e8\u05e6\u05d4 \u05d1\u05e0\u05e2\u05df \u05d5\u05d9\u05d1\u05d0\u05d5 \u05d0\u05e8\u05e6\u05d4 \u05d1\u05e0\u05e2\u05df\u05c3\n\n   91 An instance is afforded in St. Mark viii. 7, where \u201cthe Five Old\n      Uncials\u201d exhibit the passage thus:\n\n      A. \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03b1 \u03b5\u03c5\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03b7\u03c3\u03b1\u03c2 \u03b5\u03b9\u03c0\u03b5\u03bd \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5\u03b8\u03b7\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03b1.\n      \u05d0*. \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b5\u03c5\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03b7\u03c3\u03b1\u03c2 \u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b5\u03b8\u03b7\u03ba\u03b5\u03bd.\n      \u05d01. \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b5\u03c5\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03b7\u03c3\u03b1\u03c2 \u03b5\u03b9\u03c0\u03b5\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9.\n      B. \u03b5\u03c5\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03b7\u03c3\u03b1\u03c2 \u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03b1 \u03b5\u03b9\u03c0\u03b5\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9.\n      C. \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b5\u03c5\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03b7\u03c3\u03b1\u03c2 \u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03b1 \u03b5\u03b9\u03c0\u03b5\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03b8\u03b5\u03c4\u03b5.\n      D. \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b5\u03c5\u03c7\u03b1\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b7\u03c3\u03b1\u03c2 \u03b5\u03b9\u03c0\u03b5\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03b5\u03ba\u03b5\u03bb\u03b5\u03c5\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9.\n\n      Lachmann, and Tischendorf (1859) follow A; Alford, and Tischendorf\n      (1869) follow \u05d0; Tregelles and Westcott, and Hort adopt B. They\n      happen to be all wrong, and the Textus Receptus right. The only word\n      they all agree in is the initial \u03ba\u03b1\u03af.\n\n   92 After this the MSS. recommence.\n\n   93 S\u03a0 mark the place with asterisks, and \u039b with an obelus.\n\n   94 In twelve, asterisks: in two, obeli.\n\n   95 The MS., which has not been perfect, here ceases.\n\n   96 In the Syriac _one_ form appears to be used for _all_ the _Marys_\n      ([Syriac characters] Mar-yam, also sometimes, but not always, spelt\n      in the _Jerusalem Syriac_ [Syriaic characters] = Mar-yaam), also for\n      _Miriam_ in the O. T., for _Mariamne_ the wife of Herod, and others;\n      in fact, wherever it is intended to represent a Hebrew female name.\n      At Rom. xvi. 6, the Peshitto has [Syriaic characters] = \u039c\u03b1\u03c1\u03af\u03b1\n      obviously as a translation of the Greek form in the text which was\n      followed. (See Thesaurus Syriacus, Payne Smith, coll. 2225, 2226.)\n\n      In Syriac literature [Syriac characters] = Maria occurs from time to\n      time as the name of some Saint or Martyr\u2014e.g. in a volume of Acta\n      Mart. described by Wright in Cat. Syr. MSS. in B. M. p. 1081, and\n      which appears to be a fifth-century MS.\n\n      On the hypothesis that Hebrew-Aramaic was spoken in Palestine\n      (_pace_ Drs. Abbot and Roberts), I do not doubt that _only one_ form\n      (cf. Pearson, Creed, Art. iii. and notes) of the name was in use,\n      \u201cMaryam,\u201d a vulgarized form of \u201cMiriam\u201d; but it may well be that\n      Greek Christians kept the Hebrew form \u039c\u03b1\u03c1\u03b9\u03b1\u03bc for the Virgin, while\n      they adopted a more Greek-looking word for the other women. This\n      fine distinction has been lost in the _corrupt_ Uncials, while\n      observed in the _correct_ Uncials and Cursives, which is all that\n      the Dean\u2019s argument requires.\u2014(G. H. G.)\n\n   97 The MSS. continue here.\n\n   98 LXX.\n\n   99 St. John xix. 25. As the passage is _syndeton_, the omission of the\n      \u03ba\u03b1\u03af which would be necessary if \u039c\u03b1\u03c1\u03af\u03b1 \u1f21 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u039a\u03bb\u03c9\u03c0\u1fb6 were different\n      from \u1f21 \u1f00\u03b4\u03b5\u03bb\u03c6\u1f74 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03bc\u03b7\u03c4\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f30\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 could not be justified. Compare,\n      e.g., the construction in the mention of four in St. Mark xiii. 3.\n      In disregarding the usage requiring exclusively either _syndeton_ or\n      _asyndeton_, even scholars are guided unconsciously by their\n      _English_ experience.\u2014(ED.)\n\n  100 The genitive \u039c\u03b1\u03c1\u1fbd\u03b1\u03c2 is used in the Textus Receptus in Matt. i. 16,\n      18; ii. 11; Mark vi. 3; Luke i. 41. \u039c\u03b1\u03c1\u03b9\u03ac\u03bc is used in the\n      Nominative, Matt. xiii. 55; Luke i. 27, 34, 39, 46, 56; ii. 5, 19.\n      In the Vocative, Luke i. 30. The Accusative, Matt. i. 20; Luke ii.\n      16. Dative, Luke ii. 5; Acts i. 14. \u039c\u03b1\u03c1\u03b9\u03ac\u03bc occurs for another Mary\n      in the Textus Receptus, Rom. xvi. 6.\n\n  101 Serapion, Bp. of Thmuis (on a mouth of the Nile) A.D. 340 (_ap._\n      Galland. v. 60 a).\n\n  102 Basil, i. 240 d.\n\n  103 Epiphanius, i. 435 c.\n\n  104 Chrysostom, iii. 120 d e; vii. 180 a, 547 e _quat._; viii. 112 a c\n      (nine times).\n\n  105 Asterius, p. 128 b.\n\n  106 Basil Opp. (i. Append.) i. 500 e (cf. p. 377 Monitum).\n\n  107 Cyril, iv. 131 c.\n\n  108 A gives \u0399\u03c9\u03bd\u03b1; \u05d0, \u0399\u03c9\u03b1\u03bd\u03bd\u03b7\u03c2; C and D are silent. Obvious it is that the\n      revised text of St. John i. 43 and of xxi. 15, 16, 17,\u2014must stand or\n      fall together. In this latter place the Vulgate forsakes us, and \u05d0B\n      are joined by C and D. On the other hand, Cyril (iv. 1117),\u2014Basil\n      (ii. 298),\u2014Chrysostom (viii. 525 c d),\u2014Theodoret (ii. 426),\u2014Jo.\n      Damascene (ii. 510 e),\u2014and Eulogius ([A.D. 580.] _ap._ Photium, p.\n      1612), come to our air. Not that we require it.\n\n  109 \u201c_Araba_\u201d (instead of \u201c_abara_\u201d) is a word which must have exercised\n      so powerful and seductive an influence over ancient Eastern\n      scribes,\u2014(having been for _thirty-four centuries_ the established\n      designation of the sterile Wady, which extends from the Southern\n      extremity of the Dead Sea to the North of the Arabian Gulf)\u2014that the\n      only wonder is it did not find its way into Evangelia. See Gesenius\n      on \u05e2\u05e8\u05d1\u05d4 (\u1f0c\u03c1\u03b1\u03b2\u03b1 in the LXX of Deut. ii. 8, &c. So in the Revised O.\n      T.).\n\n  110 The MSS. have ceased.\n\n  111 See Appendix V.\n\n  112 See Preface.\n\n  113 This chapter and the next three have been supplied entirely by the\n      Editor.\n\n  114 See also Miller\u2019s Textual Guide, chapter IV. No answer has been made\n      to the Dean\u2019s strictures.\n\n  115 See Dr. Scrivener\u2019s incisive criticism of Dr. Hort\u2019s theory,\n      Introduction, edit. 4, ii. 284-296.\n\n  116 The Revision Revised, pp. 323-324, 334.\n\n  117 Yet Marcion and Tatian may fairly be adduced as witnesses upon\n      individual readings.\n\n  118 E.g. \u201cMany of the verses which he [Origen] quotes in different\n      places shew discrepancies of text that cannot be accounted for\n      either by looseness of citation or by corruption of the MSS. of his\n      writings.\u201d Hort, Introduction, p. 113. See also the whole passage,\n      pp. 113-4.\n\n  119 See Hort. Introduction, p. 160. The most useful part of Irenaeus\u2019\n      works in this respect is found in the Latin Translation, which is of\n      the fourth century.\n\n  120 Or Magnus, or Major, which names were applied to him to distinguish\n      him from his brother who was called Alexandrinus, and to whom some\n      of his works have been sometimes attributed. Macarius Magnus or\n      Aegyptius was a considerable writer, as may be understood from the\n      fact that he occupies nearly 1000 pages in Migne\u2019s Series. His\n      memory is still, I am informed, preserved in Egypt. But in some\n      fields of scholarship at the present day he has met with strange\n      neglect.\n\n  121 The names of many Fathers are omitted in this list, because I could\n      not find any witness on one side or the other in their writings.\n      Also Syriac writings are not here included.\n\n  122 See The Revision Revised, p. 123.\n\n  123 The Revision Revised, p. 92.\n\n  124 I have mentioned here only cases where the passage is quoted\n      professedly from St. Matthew. The passage as given in St. Mark x.\n      17-18, and in St. Luke xviii. 18-19, is frequently quoted without\n      reference to any one of the Gospels. Surely some of these quotations\n      must be meant for St. Matthew.\n\n  125 For the reff. see below, Appendix II.\n\n  126 Compare The Revision Revised, pp. 162-3.\n\n  127 For reff. see Vol. II. viii. For Mark i. 1, \u03a5\u1f31\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u0398\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6, see\n      Appendix IV.\n\n  128 The Revision Revised, pp. 423-440. Last Twelve Verses, pp. 42-51.\n      The latitudinarian Eusebius on the same passage witnesses on both\n      sides.\n\n  129 The Revision Revised, pp. 420-1; Last Twelve Verses, pp. 42-3.\n\n  130 The Revision Revised, pp. 79-82. The Dean alleges more than forty\n      witnesses in all. What are quoted here, as in the other instances,\n      are only the Fathers before St. Chrysostom.\n\n  131 Ibid. pp. 82-5.\n\n  132 The Revision Revised, pp. 61-65.\n\n  133 Ibid. pp. 90-1.\n\n  134 See below, Appendix I.\n\n  135 Many of the Fathers quote only as far as \u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u1f72 \u1f15\u03bd. But that was\n      evidently a convenient quotation of a stock character in\n      controversy, just as \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03b4\u03b9\u1fbd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f10\u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf was even more commonly.\n      St Epiphanius often quotes thus, but remarks (Haer. II. (lxix.) 56,\n      Ancor. lxxv.), that the passage goes on to \u1f41 \u03b3\u03ad\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd\u03b5\u03bd.\n\n  136 See The Revision Revised, p. 133.\n\n  137 Ibid. pp. 220-1.\n\n  138 Tischendorf quotes these on the wrong side.\n\n  139 The Revision Revised, pp. 217-8.\n\n  140 Ibid. pp. 23-4. See also an article in Hermathena, Vol. VIII., No.\n      XIX., 1893, written by the Rev. Dr. Gwynn with his characteristic\n      acuteness and ingenuity.\n\n  141 Hort, Introduction, pp. 128, 127.\n\n  142 Ibid. p. 113.\n\n  143 It may perhaps be questioned whether Justin should be classed here:\n      but the character of his witness, as on Matt. v. 44, ix. 13, and\n      Luke xxii. 43-44, is more on the Traditional side, though the\n      numbers are against that.\n\n  144 Athanasius in his \u201cOrationes IV contra Arianos\u201d used Alexandrian\n      texts. See IV.\n\n  145 According to Pliny (N. II. v. 18), the towns of Decapolis were: 1.\n      Scythopolis the chief, not far from Tiberias (Joseph. B. J. III. ix.\n      7); 2. Philadelphia; 3. Raphanae; 4. Gadara; 5. Hippos; 6. Dios; 7.\n      Pella; 8. Gerasa; 9. Canatha (Otopos, Joseph.); 10. Damascus. This\n      area does not coincide with that which is sometimes now marked in\n      maps and is part of Galilee and Samaria. But the Gospel notion of\n      Decapolis, is of a country east of Galilee, lying near to the Lake,\n      starting from the south-east, and stretching on towards the\n      mountains into the north. It was different from Galilee (Matt. iv.\n      25), was mainly on the east of the sea of Tiberias (Mark v. 20,\n      Eusebius and Jerome OS2. pp. 251, 89\u2014\u201caround Pella and\n      Basanitis,\u201d\u2014Epiphanius Haer. i. 123), extended also to the west\n      (Mark vii. 31), was reckoned in Syria (Josephus, passim, \u201cDecapolis\n      of Syria\u201d), and was generally after the time of Pompey under the\n      jurisdiction of the Governor of Syria. The Encyclopaedia Britannica\n      describes it well as \u201csituated, with the exception of a small\n      portion, on the eastern side of the Upper Jordan and the sea of\n      Tiberias.\u201d Smith\u2019s Dictionary of the Bible, to which I am indebted\n      for much of the evidence given above, is inconsistent. The\n      population was in a measure Greek.\n\n  146 \u0395\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u03ba\u03ce\u03bc\u03b1\u03c2 \u039a\u03b1\u03b9\u03c3\u03b1\u03c1\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03a6\u03b9\u03bb\u03af\u03c0\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5. What a condensed account of\n      His sojourn in various \u201ctowns\u201d!\n\n  147 See Ancient Syriac Documents relative to the Earliest Establishment\n      of Christianity in Edessa and the neighbouring countries, &c. edited\n      by W. Cureton, D.D., with a Preface by the late Dr. Wright, 1864.\n\n  148 Cureton\u2019s Preface to \u201cAn Antient Recension, &c.\u201d\n\n  149 Philip E. Pusey held that there was a revision of the Peshitto in\n      the eighth century, but that it was confined to grammatical\n      peculiarities. This would on general grounds be not impossible,\n      because the art of copying was perfected by about that time.\n\n  150 See Appendix VI.\n\n  151 This position is demonstrated in full in an article in the Church\n      Quarterly Review for April, 1895, on \u201cThe Text of the Syriac\n      Gospels,\u201d pp. 123-5.\n\n  152 The Text of the Syriac Gospels, pp. 113-4: also Church Times, Jan.\n      11, 1895. This position is established in both places.\n\n  153 Yet some people appear to think, that the worse a text is the more\n      reason there is to suppose that it was close to the Autograph\n      Original. Verily this is evolution run wild.\n\n  154 Encyclopaedia Britannica, 9th ed., \u201cSyriac Literature,\u201d by Dr. W.\n      Wright, now published separately under the same title.\n\n  155 Dr. Scrivener, Introduction (4th Edition), II. 7.\n\n  156 See also Miller\u2019s Edition of Scrivener\u2019s Introduction (4th), II. 12.\n\n  157 Another very ancient MS. of the Peshitto Gospels is the Cod.\n      Philipp. 1388, in the Royal Library, Berlin (in Miller\u2019s Scrivener\n      the name is spelt PHILLIPPS). Dr. Sachau ascribes it to the fifth,\n      or the beginning of the sixth century, thus making it older than the\n      Vatican Tetraevangelicum, No. 3, in Miller\u2019s Scrivener, II. 12. A\n      full description will be found in Sachau\u2019s Catalogue of the Syr.\n      MSS. in the Berlin Library.\n\n      The second was collated by Drs. Guidi and Ugolini, the third, in St.\n      John, by Dr. Sachau. The readings of the second and third are in the\n      possession of Mr. Gwilliam, who informs me that all three support\n      the Peshitto text, and are free from all traces of any pre-Peshitto\n      text, such as according to Dr. Hort and Mr. Burkitt the Curetonian\n      and Lewis MSS. contain. Thus every fresh accession of evidence tends\n      always to establish the text of the Peshitto Version more securely\n      in the position it has always held until quite recent years.\n\n      The interesting feature of all the above-named MSS. is the\n      uniformity of their testimony to the text of the Peshitto. Take for\n      example the evidence of No. 10 in Miller\u2019s Scrivener, II. 13, No. 3,\n      in Miller\u2019s Scrivener, II. 12, and Cod. Philipp. 1388. The first was\n      collated by P. E. Pusey, and the results are published in Studia\n      Biblica, vol. i, \u201cA fifth century MS.\u201d\n\n  158 Dr. W. Wright\u2019s article in Encyclopaedia Britannica. Dr. Hort could\n      not have been aware of this fact when he spoke of \u201cthe almost total\n      extinction of Old Syriac MSS.\u201d: or else he lamented a disappearance\n      of what never appeared.\n\n  159 p. 107.\n\n  160 See Patrologia Syriaca, Graffin, P. I. vol. ii. Paris, 1895.\n\n  161 See in St. Matt. alone (out of many instances) v. 22 (the\n      translation of \u03b5\u1f30\u03ba\u1fc6), ix. 13 (of \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03ac\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\u03b1\u03bd), xi. 23 (\u201cwhich art\n      exalted\u201d), xx. 16 (of \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u1f76 \u03b3\u03ac\u03c1 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c3\u03b9 \u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03af, \u1f40\u03bb\u03af\u03b3\u03bf\u03b9 \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f10\u03ba\u03bb\u03b5\u03ba\u03c4\u03bf\u03af),\n      xxvi. 42 (\u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd), 28 (\u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03bd\u1fc6\u03c2); besides St. Luke ii. 14 (\u03b5\u1f50\u03b4\u03bf\u03ba\u03af\u03b1),\n      xxiii. 45 (\u1f10\u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03c4\u03af\u03c3\u03b8\u03b7), John iii. 13 (though \u201cfrom heaven\u201d), xxi. 25\n      (the verse).\n\n  162 Doctrine of Addai, xxxv. 15-17.\n\n  163 H. E. iv. 29.\n\n  164 Haer. xlvi. 1.\n\n  165 Canons.\n\n  166 Haer. i. 20.\n\n  167 The Earliest Life of Christ, Appendix VIII.\n\n  168 The MS. is mutilated at the beginning of the other three Gospels.\n\n  169 It appears almost, if not quite, certain that this is the true\n      meaning. Payne Smith\u2019s Thesaurus Syriacus, coll. 3303-4.\n\n  170 The Lewis Codex was in part destroyed, as not being worth keeping,\n      while the leaves which escaped that fate were used for other\n      writing. Perhaps others were treated in similar fashion, which would\n      help to account for the fact mentioned in note 2, p. 129.\n\n  171 Plain Introduction, II. 43-44.\n\n  172 Essays on Various Subjects, i. Two Letters on some parts of the\n      controversy concerning 1 John v. 7, pp. 23, &c. The arguments are\n      more ingenious than powerful. Africa, e.g., had no monopoly of\n      Low-Latin.\n\n  173 The numerator in these fractions denotes the number of times\n      throughout the Gospels when the text of the MS. in question agrees\n      in the selected passages with the Textus Receptus: the denominator,\n      when it witnesses to the Neologian Text.\n\n  174 Once in k by _comperire_ probably a slip for _corripere_. Old Latin\n      Texts, III. pp. xxiv-xxv.\n\n  175 \u201cTot sunt paene (exemplaria), quot codices,\u201d Jerome, Epistola ad\n      Damascum. \u201cLatinorum interpretum infinita varietas,\u201d \u201cinterpretum\n      numerositas,\u201d \u201cnullo modo numerari possunt,\u201d De Doctrina Christiana,\n      ii. 16, 21.\n\n  176 De Doctr. Christ. ii. 16.\n\n  177 Scrivener\u2019s Plain Introduction, II. 44, note 1.\n\n  178 See Diez, Grammatik der Romanischen Sprachen, as well as\n      Introduction to the Grammar of the Romance Languages, translated by\n      C. B. Cayley. Also Abel Hovelacque, The Science of Language, English\n      Translation, pp. 227-9. \u201cThe Grammar of Frederick Diez, first\n      published some forty years ago, has once for all disposed of those\n      Iberian, Keltic, and other theories, which nevertheless crop up from\n      time to time.\u201d Ibid. p. 229. Brachet, Grammar of the French\n      Language, pp. 3-5; Whitney, Language and the Study of Language, pp.\n      165, &c., &c.\n\n  179 \u201cSyro-Latin\u201d is doubtless an exact translation of \u201cSyro-Latinus\u201d:\n      but as we do not say \u201cSyran\u201d but \u201cSyrian,\u201d it is not idiomatic\n      English.\n\n  180 This is purely my own opinion. Dean Burgon followed Townson in\n      supposing that the Synoptic Evangelists in some cases saw one\n      another\u2019s books.\n\n  181 Isaiah xxxv. 8, 9.\n\n  182 Introduction, pp. 127, &c.\n\n  183 Probably Alexandrian reading.\n\n  184 Probably Alexandrian reading.\n\n  185 Probably Alexandrian reading.\n\n  186 Probably Alexandrian reading.\n\n  187 Probably Alexandrian reading.\n\n  188 Probably Alexandrian reading.\n\n  189 Probably Alexandrian reading.\n\n  190 Probably Alexandrian reading.\n\n  191 Probably Alexandrian reading.\n\n  192 In Matt. xv. 14, quoted and translated by Dr. Bigg in his Bampton\n      Lectures on The Christian Platonists of Alexandria, p. 123.\n\n  193 Burgon, Last Twelve Verses, p. 236, and note z.\n\n  194 Above, p. 100.\n\n  195 Hort, Introduction, p. 143.\n\n  196 Eusebius suggested the Homoean theory, but his own position, so far\n      as he had a position, is best indicated as above.\n\n  197 Sir E. Maunde Thompson, Greek and Latin Palaeography, p. 35. Plin.\n      at. Hist. xiii. 11.\n\n  198 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03b2\u03b9\u03b2\u03bb\u03af\u03b1, \u03bc\u03ac\u03bb\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u03bc\u03b5\u03bc\u03b2\u03c1\u03ac\u03bd\u03b1\u03c2, 2 Tim. iv. 13.\n\n  199 Palaeography, p. 36.\n\n  200 See above, p. 2.\n\n  201 Palaeography, pp. 27-34. Paper was first made in China by a man\n      named Ts\u2019ai Lun, who lived about A.D. 90. He is said to have used\n      the bark of a tree; probably Broussonetia papyrifera, Vent. from\n      which a coarse kind of paper is still made in northern China. The\n      better kinds of modern Chinese paper are made from the bamboo, which\n      is soaked and pounded to a pulp. See Die Erfindung des Papiers in\n      China, von Friedrich Hirth. Published in Vol. I. of the _T\u2019oung Pao_\n      (April, 1890). S. J. Brille: Leide. (Kindly communicated by Mr. H.\n      A. Giles, H. B. M. Consul at Ningpo, author of \u201cA Chinese-English\n      Dictionary.\u201d &c., through my friend Dr. Alexander Prior of Park\n      Terrace, N. W., and Halse House, near Taunton.)\n\n  202 ... \u201cthe science of palaeography, which now stands on quite a\n      different footing from what it had twenty, or even ten, years ago.\n      Instead of beginning practically in the fourth century of our era,\n      with the earliest of the great vellum codices of the Bible, it now\n      begins in the third century before Christ....\u201d Church Quarterly\n      Review for October, 1894, p. 104.\n\n  203 ... \u201cit is abundantly clear that the textual tradition at about the\n      beginning of the Christian era is substantially identical with that\n      of the tenth or eleventh century manuscripts, on which our present\n      texts of the classics are based. Setting minor differences aside,\n      the papyri, with a very few exceptions, represent the same texts as\n      the vellum manuscripts of a thousand years later.\u201d Church Quarterly,\n      pp. 98, 99. What is here represented as unquestionably the case as\n      regards Classical manuscripts is indeed more than what I claim for\n      manuscripts of the New Testament. The Cursives were in great measure\n      successors of papyri.\n\n  204 Introduction, p. 16. He began it in the year 1853, and as it appears\n      chiefly upon Lachmann\u2019s foundation.\n\n  205 By the Editor.\n\n  206 Tischendorf\u2019s fourteen brief days\u2019 work is a marvel of accuracy, but\n      must not be expected to be free from all errors. Thus he wrongly\n      gives \u0395\u03c5\u03c1\u03b1\u03ba\u03c5\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd instead of \u0395\u03c5\u03c1\u03b1\u03ba\u03c5\u03b4\u03c9\u03bd, as Vercellone pointed out in\n      his Preface to the octavo ed. of Mai in 1859, and as may be seen in\n      the photographic copy of B.\n\n  207 Cf. Scrivener\u2019s Introduction, (4th ed.) II. 283.\n\n  208 See Kuenen and Cobet\u2019s Edition of the Vatican B, Introduction.\n\n  209 Gregory\u2019s Prolegomena to Tischendorf\u2019s 8th Ed. of New Testament, (I)\n      p. 286.\n\n  210 See Appendix V.\n\n  211 Constantine died in 337, and Constantius II reigned till 360.\n\n  212 In his Last Twelve Verses of St. Mark, pp. 291-4, Dean Burgon argued\n      that a lapse of about half a century divided the date of \u05d0 from that\n      of B. But it seems that afterwards he surrendered the opinion which\n      he embraced on the first appearance of \u05d0 in favour of the conclusion\n      adopted by Tischendorf and Scrivener and other experts, in\n      consequence of their identifying the writing of the six conjugate\n      leaves of \u05d0 with that of the scribe of B. See above, pp. 46, 52.\n\n  213 The Revision Revised, p. 292.\n\n  214 The above passage, including the last paragraph, is from the pen of\n      the Dean.\n\n  215 See above, Introduction, p. 2.\n\n  216 It is remarkable that Constantine in his Semi-Arian days applied to\n      Eusebius, whilst the orthodox Constans sent a similar order\n      afterwards to Athanasius. Apol. ad Const. \u00a7 4 (Montfaucon, Vita\n      Athan. p. xxxvii), _ap._ Wordsworth\u2019s Church History, Vol. II. p.\n      45.\n\n  217 See Canon Cook\u2019s ingenious argument. Those MSS. are handsome enough\n      for an imperial order. The objection of my friend, the late\n      Archdeacon Palmer (Scrivener\u2019s Introduction, I. 119, note), which I\n      too hastily adopted on other grounds also in my Textual Guide, p.\n      82, note 1, will not stand, because \u03c3\u03c9\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03af\u03b1 cannot mean \u201ccollections\n      [of writings],\u201d but simply, according to the frequent usage of the\n      word in the early ages of the Church, \u201cvellum manuscripts.\u201d The\n      difficulty in translating \u03c4\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c3\u1f70 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03b5\u03c4\u03c1\u03b1\u03c3\u03c3\u03ac \u201cof three or four\n      columns in a page\u201d is not insuperable.\n\n  218 Scrivener, Vol. II. 269 (4th ed.).\n\n  219 Scrivener, Vol. I. 55 (4th ed.).\n\n  220 The colophon is given in full by Wilhelm Bousset in a number of the\n      well-known \u201cTexte und Untersuchungen,\u201d edited by Oscar von Gebhardt\n      and Adolf Harnack, entitled \u201cTextkritische Studien zum Neuen\n      Testament,\u201d p. 45. II. Der Kodex Pamphili, 1894, to which my notice\n      was kindly drawn by Dr. Sanday.\n\n  221 Miller\u2019s Scrivener, I. 183-4. By Euthalius, the Deacon, afterwards\n      Bp. of Sulci.\n\n  222 Introduction, p. 267. Dr. Hort controverts the notion that B and \u05d0\n      were written at Alexandria (not Caesarea), which no one now\n      maintains.\n\n  223 By the Dean.\n\n  224 See Appendix IV, and Revision Revised, p. 132. Origen, c. Celsum,\n      Praef. ii. 4; Comment. in John ix. Followed here only by \u05d0*.\n\n  225 See Last Twelve Verses, pp. 93-99. Also pp. 66, note, 85, 107, 235.\n\n  226 Migne, viii. 96 d. \u03a4\u03b1\u1fe6\u03c4\u03b1 \u1f10\u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf \u1f10\u03bd \u0392\u03b7\u03b8\u03b1\u03bd\u03af\u1fb3. \u1f45\u03c3\u03b1 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9\u03b3\u03c1\u03ac\u03c6\u03c9\u03bd\n      \u1f00\u03ba\u03c1\u03b9\u03b2\u03ad\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd \u1f14\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9, \u1f10\u03bd \u0392\u03b7\u03b8\u03b1\u03b2\u03b1\u03c1\u1fb7, \u03c6\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd; \u1f21 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u0392\u03b7\u03b8\u03b1\u03bd\u03af\u03b1 \u03bf\u1f50\u03c7\u1f76 \u03c0\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\n      \u1f38\u03bf\u03c1\u03b4\u03ac\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5, \u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u1f72 \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c0\u03ae\u03bc\u03bf\u03c5 \u1f26\u03bd; \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u1fbd \u1f10\u03b3\u03b3\u03cd\u03c2 \u03c0\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f39\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03bf\u03bb\u03cd\u03bc\u03c9\u03bd.\n      This speedily assumed the form of a _scholium_, as follows:\u2014\u03a7\u03c1\u1f74 \u03b4\u1f72\n      \u03b3\u03b9\u03bd\u03ce\u03c3\u03ba\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd, \u1f45\u03c4\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f70 \u1f00\u03ba\u03c1\u03b9\u03b2\u1fc6 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9\u03b3\u03c1\u03ac\u03c6\u03c9\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd \u0392\u03b7\u03b8\u03b1\u03b2\u03b1\u03c1\u1fb7 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03ad\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9; \u1f21 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1\n      \u0392\u03b7\u03b8\u03b1\u03bd\u03af\u03b1 \u03bf\u1f50\u03c7\u1f76 \u03c0\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f38\u03bf\u03c1\u03b4\u03ac\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5, \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u1fbd \u1f10\u03b3\u03b3\u03cd\u03c2 \u03c0\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd\n      \u1f39\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03bf\u03bb\u03cd\u03bc\u03c9\u03bd:\u2014which is quoted by the learned Benedictine editor of\n      Origen in M. iv. 401 (at top of the left hand column),\u2014evidently\n      from Coisl. 23, our Evan. 39,\u2014since the words are found in Cramer,\n      Cat. ii. 191 (line 1-3).\n\n  227 Origen, i. 265; coll. 1. 227, 256.\n\n  228 Origen, Comment. in John vi.\n\n  229 The word is actually transliterated into Syriac letters in the\n      Peshitto.\n\n  230 See The Revision Revised, pp. 358-61.\n\n  231 vii. 52.\n\n  232 vii. 418.\n\n  233 A name by which Origen was known.\n\n  234 Imbecillitatem virium mearum sentiens, Origenis Commentarios sum\n      sequatus. Scripsit ille vir in epistolam Pauli ad Galatas quinque\n      proprie volumina, et decimum Stromatum suorum librum commatico super\n      explanatione ejus sermone complevit.\u2014Praefatio, vii. 370.\n\n  235 iii. 509-10.\n\n  236 686-7.\n\n  237 vii. 117-20.\n\n  238 vii. 537 seq.\n\n  239 I endeavour in the text to make the matter in hand intelligible to\n      the English reader. But such things can scarcely be explained in\n      English without more words than the point is worth. Origen\n      says:\u2014\u03ba\u1f00\u03ba\u03b5\u1fd6 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u03ba\u03b5\u03bb\u03b5\u03cd\u03b5\u03b9 \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u1f44\u03c7\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03ba\u03bb\u03b9\u03b8\u1fc6\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 (Matt. xiv. 19), \u1f22\n      \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03c0\u03b5\u03c3\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c7\u03cc\u03c1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5. (\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u1f41 \u039b\u03bf\u03c5\u03ba\u1fb6\u03c2 (ix. 14) \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03ba\u03bb\u03af\u03bd\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5\n      \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u03cd\u03c2, \u1f00\u03bd\u03ad\u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c8\u03b5; \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f41 \u039c\u03ac\u03c1\u03ba\u03bf\u03c2 (vi. 39), \u1f10\u03c0\u03ad\u03c4\u03b1\u03be\u03b5, \u03c6\u03b7\u03c3\u03af\u03bd, \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2\n      \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03ba\u03bb\u1fd6\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9;) \u1f10\u03bd\u03b8\u03ac\u03b4\u03b5 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03bf\u1f50 \u03ba\u03b5\u03bb\u03b5\u03cd\u03b5\u03b9, \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u1f70 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03b3\u03b3\u03ad\u03bb\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9 \u03c4\u1ff7 \u1f44\u03c7\u03bb\u1ff3\n      \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03ba\u03bb\u03b9\u03b8\u1fc6\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9. iii. 509 f, 510 a.\n\n  240 The only other witnesses are from Evan. 1, 33, and the lost\n      archetype of 13, 124, 346. The Versions do not distinguish certainly\n      between \u03ba\u03b5\u03bb\u03b5\u03cd\u03c9 and \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03b3\u03b3\u03ad\u03bb\u03bb\u03c9. Chrysostom, the only Father who\n      quotes this place, exhibits \u1f10\u03ba\u03ad\u03bb\u03b5\u03c5\u03c3\u03b5 ... \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bb\u03b1\u03b2\u03ce\u03bd (vii. 539 c).\n\n  241 Lectio ab omni parte commendatur, et a correctore alienissima: \u03b2\u03b1\u03c8\u03c9\n      \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b4\u03c9\u03c3\u03c9 ab usu est Johannis, sed elegantius videbatur \u03b2\u03b1\u03c8\u03b1\u03c2 \u03b5\u03c0\u03b9\u03b4\u03c9\u03c3\u03c9\n      vel \u03b4\u03c9\u03c3\u03c9.\n\n  242 Luke iv. 8.\n\n  243 \u03a0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03a0\u03ad\u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd \u03b5\u1f36\u03c0\u03b5\u03bd; \u1f55\u03c0\u03b1\u03b3\u03b5 \u1f40\u03c0\u03af\u03c3\u03c9 \u03bc\u03bf\u03c5, \u03a3\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03bd\u1fb6; \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd\n      \u03b4\u03b9\u03ac\u03b2\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd. \u1f55\u03c0\u03b1\u03b3\u03b5, \u03a3\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03bd\u1fb6, \u03c7\u03ce\u03c1\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f40\u03c0\u03af\u03c3\u03c9 \u03bc\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03b8\u03ae\u03ba\u03b7\u03c2; \u03c4\u1f78 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u1f40\u03c0\u03af\u03c3\u03c9\n      \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f38\u03b7\u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b5\u1f36\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03b8\u03cc\u03bd \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9. iii. 540. I believe that Origen is the\n      sole cause of the perplexity. Commenting on Matt. xvi. 23 \u03c5\u03c0\u03b1\u03b3\u03b5\n      \u03bf\u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c9 \u03bc\u03bf\u03c5 \u03a3\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03bd\u03b1 (the words addressed to Simon Peter), he explains\n      that they are a rebuke to the Apostle for having for a time at\n      Satan\u2019s instigation _desisted from following Him_. Comp. (he says)\n      these words spoken to Peter (\u03c5\u03c0. \u03bf\u03c0. \u03bc\u03bf\u03c5 \u03a3.) with those addressed to\n      Satan at the temptation _without the_ \u03bf\u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c9 \u03bc\u03bf\u03c5 \u201cfor to be _behind\n      Christ_ is a good thing.\u201d ... I suppose he had before him a MS. of\n      St. Mat., _without_ the \u03bf\u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c9 \u03bc\u03bf\u03c5. This gloss is referred to by\n      Victor of Antioch (173 Cat. Poss., i. 348 Cramer). It is even\n      repeated by Jerome on Matt. vii. 21 d e: Non ut plerique putant\n      e\u00e2dem Satanas et Apostolus Petrus sententi\u00e2 condemnantur. Petro enim\n      dicitur, \u201c_Vade retro me_, Satana;\u201d id est \u201cSequere me, qui\n      contrarius es voluntati meae.\u201d Hic vero audit, \u201c_Vade Satana:_\u201d et\n      non ei dicitur \u201c_retro me_,\u201d ut subaudiatur, \u201cvade in ignem\n      aeternum.\u201d _Vade Satana_ (Irenaeus, 775, also Hilary, 620 a). Peter\n      Alex, has \u03c5\u03c0\u03b1\u03b3\u03b5 \u03a3\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03bd\u03b1, \u03b3\u03b5\u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c0\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b3\u03b1\u03c1, ap. Routh, Reliqq. iv. 24 (on\n      p. 55). Audierat diabolus a Domino, _Recede Sathanas, scandalum mihi\n      es_. Scriptum est, _Dominum Deum tuum adorabis et illi soli\n      servies_, Tertullian, Scorp. c. 15. \u039f\u1f50\u03ba \u03b5\u1f36\u03c0\u03b5\u03bd \u1f5d\u03c0\u03b1\u03b3\u03b5 \u1f40\u03c0\u03af\u03c3\u03c9 \u03bc\u03bf\u03c5; \u03bf\u1f50\n      \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u1f51\u03c0\u03bf\u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u03ad\u03c8\u03b1\u03b9 \u03bf\u1f37\u03cc\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b5; \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u03ac; \u1f5d\u03c0\u03b1\u03b3\u03b5 \u03a3\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03bd\u1fb6, \u1f10\u03bd \u03bf\u1f36\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b5\u03bb\u03ad\u03be\u03c9.\u2014Epist.\n      ad Philipp. c. xii. Ignat. Interpol. According to some Critics\n      (Tisch., Treg., W.-Hort) there is _no_ \u03c5\u03c0\u03b1\u03b3\u03b5 \u03bf\u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c9 \u03bc\u03bf\u03c5 \u03a3. in Lu. iv.\n      8, and _only_ \u03c5\u03c0\u03b1\u03b3\u03b5 \u03a3. in Matt. iv. 10, so that \u03c5\u03c0\u03b1\u03b3\u03b5 \u03bf\u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c9 \u03bc\u03bf\u03c5\n      \u03a3\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03bd\u03b1 occurs in _neither_ accounts of the temptation. But I believe\n      \u03c5\u03c0\u03b1\u03b3\u03b5 \u03bf\u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c9 \u03bc\u03bf\u03c5 \u03a3. is the correct reading in _both_ places. Justin\n      M. Tryph. ii. 352. Origen interp. ii. 132 b (Vade retro), so\n      Ambrose, i. 671; so Jerome, vi. 809 e; redi retro S., Aug. iv. 47 e;\n      redi post me S., Aug. iii. 842 g. Theodoret, ii. 1608. So Maximus\n      Taur., Vigil. Tapa. Vade retro S. _ap._ Sabattier. \u201c_Vade post me\n      Satana._ Et sine dubio ire post Deum servi est.\u201d Et iterum quod ait\n      ad ilium, \u201c_Dominum Deum tuum adorabis, et ipsi soli servies._\u201d\n      Archelaus et Man. disput. (Routh, Reliqq. v. 120), A.D. 277. St.\n      Antony the monk, _apud_ Athanas. \u201c_Vita Ant._\u201d i. 824 c d (=\n      Galland. iv. 647 a). A.D. 300. _Retro vade Satana_, ps.-Tatian\n      (Lu.), 49. Athanasius, i. 272 d, 537 c, 589 f. Nestorius ap. Marium\n      Merc. (Galland. viii. 647 c) _Vade retro S._ but only _Vade S._\n      viii. 631 c. Idatius (A.D. 385) _apud_ Athanas. ii. 605 b. Chrys.\n      vii. 172 _bis_ (Matt.) J. Damascene, ii. 450. ps.-Chrys. x. 734,\n      737. Opus Imperf. ap. Chrys. vi. 48 _bis_. Apocryphal Acts, Tisch.\n      p. 250.\n\n  244 See ver. 44.\n\n  245 St. John viii. 40; xv. 15.\n\n  246 Orig., Euseb., Epiph., both Cyrils, Didymus, Basil, Chrysostom.\n\n  247 For the sceptical passages in B and \u05d0 see Appendix V.\n\n  248 By the Editor.\n\n  249 Eusebius (Hist. Eccles. iii. 25) divides the writings of the Church\n      into three classes:\u2014\n\n      1. The Received Books (\u1f41\u03bc\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03bf\u03cd\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03b1), i.e. the Four Gospels, Acts,\n      the Fourteen Epistles of St. Paul, 1 Peter, 1 John, and the\n      Revelation (?).\n\n      2. Doubtful (\u1f00\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9\u03bb\u03b5\u03b3\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03b1), i.e. James, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, Jude\n      (cf. ii. 23 _fin._).\n\n      3. Spurious (\u03bd\u03cc\u03b8\u03b1), Acts of St. Paul, Shepherd of Hermas, Revelation\n      of St. Peter, Epistle of Barnabas, the so-called \u0394\u03b9\u03b4\u03b1\u03c7\u03b1\u03af, Revelation\n      of St. John (?).\n\n      This division appears to need confirmation, if it is to be taken as\n      representing the general opinion of the Church of the time.\n\n  250 See Westcott, Canon, &c. pp. 431-9.\n\n  251 See particularly Haddan\u2019s Remains, pp. 258-294, Scots on the\n      Continent. The sacrifice of that capable scholar and excellent\n      churchman at a comparatively early age to the toil which was\n      unavoidable under want of encouragement of ability and genius has\n      entailed a loss upon sacred learning which can hardly be\n      over-estimated.\n\n  252 The reader is now in the Dean\u2019s hands. See Mr. Rendel Harris\u2019\n      ingenious and suggestive \u201cStudy of Codex Bezae\u201d in the Cambridge\n      Texts and Studies, and Dr. Chase\u2019s \u201cThe Old Syriac Element in the\n      Text of Codex Bezae.\u201d But we must demur to the expression \u201cOld\n      Syriac.\u201d\n\n  253 Introduction, p. 149.\n\n  254 The same wholesale corruption of the deposit prevails in what\n      follows, viz. the healing of the paralytic borne of four (v. 17-26),\n      and the call of St. Matthew (27-34): as well as in respect of the\n      walk through the cornfields on the Sabbath day (vi. 1-5), and the\n      healing of the man with the withered hand (6-11). Indeed it is\n      continued to the end of the call of the Twelve (12-19). The\n      particulars are too many to insert here.\n\n  255 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03c9\u03c2 \u03b5\u03c1\u03b5\u03b8\u03b7 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1 \u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5, instead of \u1f45\u03c0\u03c9\u03c2 \u03c0\u03bb\u03b7\u03c1\u03c9\u03b8\u1fc7 \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd\n      \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u03b7\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd.\n\n  256 \u03a5\u03bc\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2 \u03b4\u03b5 \u03b6\u03b7\u03c4\u03b5\u03b9\u03c4\u03b5 \u03b5\u03ba \u03bc\u03b9\u03ba\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b1\u03c5\u03be\u03b7\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9, \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b5\u03ba \u03bc\u03b5\u03b9\u03b6\u03bf\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b5\u03bb\u03b1\u03c4\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03b5\u03b9\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9.\n\n  257 I.e. a b c d e ff1.2 g1.2 h m n.\n\n  258 Scrivener\u2019s Introduction, I. 130 (4th ed.). The reader will\n      recollect the suggestion given above in Chapter VII that some of\n      these corruptions may have come from the earliest times before the\n      four Gospels were written. The interpolation just noticed may very\n      well have been such a survival.\n\n  259 The number of the generations in St. Luke\u2019s Gospel is 18.\n\n  260 Num. xxxiii. coll. xxi. 18, 19 and Deut. x. 6, 7.\n\n  261 Note, that whereas the \u1f38\u03b5\u03c7\u03bf\u03bd\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 of St. Matt. i. 11 is _Jehoiakim_,\n      and the \u1f38\u03b5\u03c7\u03bf\u03bd\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 of ver. 12, _Jehoiachin_,\u2014Cod. D writes them\n      respectively \u0399\u03c9\u03b1\u03ba\u03b5\u03b9\u03bc and \u0399\u03b5\u03c7\u03bf\u03bd\u03b9\u03b1\u03c2.\n\n  262 Cureton\u2019s Syriac is the only known copy of the Gospels in which the\n      three omitted kings are found in St. Matthew\u2019s Gospel: which, I\n      suppose, explains why the learned editor of that document flattered\n      himself that he had therein discovered the lost original of St.\n      Matthew\u2019s Gospel. Cureton (Pref., p. viii) shews that in other\n      quarters also (e.g. by Mar Yakub the Persian, usually known as\n      Aphraates) 63 generations were reckoned from Adam to JESUS\n      exclusive: _that_ number being obtained by adding 24 of St.\n      Matthew\u2019s names and 33 of St. Luke\u2019s to the 3 names common to both\n      Evangelists (viz. David, Salathiel, and Zorobabel); and to these,\n      adding the 3 omitted kings.\n\n      The testimony of MSS. is not altogether uniform in regard to the\n      number of names in the Genealogy. In the Textus Receptus (including\n      our SAVIOUR\u2019S name and the name of the Divine AUTHOR of Adam\u2019s\n      being) the number of the names is 77. So Basil made it; so Greg.\n      Naz. and his namesake of Nyssa; so Jerome and Augustine.\n\n  263 \u1f21 \u03b4\u1f72 \u039c\u03b1\u03c1\u03af\u03b1 (D\u2014\u03b7) \u039c\u03b1\u03b3\u03b4\u03b1\u03bb\u03b7\u03bd\u1f74 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u039c\u03b1\u03c1\u03af\u03b1 \u1f38\u03c9\u03c3\u1fc6 (D \u0399\u03b1\u03ba\u03c9\u03b2\u03bf\u03c5) \u1f10\u03b8\u03b5\u03ce\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5\u03bd (D\n      \u03b5\u03b8\u03b5\u03b1\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf) \u03c0\u03bf\u1fe6 (D \u03bf\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5) \u03c4\u03af\u03b8\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 (D \u03c4\u03b5\u03b8\u03b5\u03b9\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9). \u039a\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\n      \u03c3\u03b1\u03b2\u03b2\u03ac\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5, \u039c\u03b1\u03c1\u03af\u03b1 \u1f21 \u039c\u03b1\u03b3\u03b4\u03b1\u03bb\u03b7\u03bd\u1f74 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u039c\u03b1\u03c1\u03af\u03b1 \u1f21 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f38\u03b1\u03ba\u03ce\u03b2\u03bf\u03c5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03a3\u03b1\u03bb\u03ce\u03bc\u03b7 (D\n      _omits the foregoing thirteen words_) (D + \u03c0\u03bf\u03c1\u03b5\u03c5\u03b8\u03b5\u03b9\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9) \u1f20\u03b3\u03cc\u03c1\u03b1\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\n      \u1f00\u03c1\u03ce\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1, \u1f35\u03bd\u03b1 \u1f10\u03bb\u03b8\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9 (D\u2014\u03b5\u03bb\u03b8\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9) \u1f00\u03bb\u03b5\u03af\u03c8\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03cc\u03bd (D \u03b1\u03c5\u03c4. \u03b1\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03c8.)\n      \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 (D + \u03b5\u03c1\u03c7\u03bf\u03c1\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9) \u03bb\u03af\u03b1\u03bd (D\u2014\u03bb\u03b9\u03b1\u03bd) \u03c0\u03c1\u03c9\u1fd2 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 (D\u2014\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2) \u03bc\u03b9\u1fb6\u03c2 \u03c3\u03b1\u03b2\u03b2\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd (D\n      \u03c3\u03b1\u03b2\u03b2\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5) \u1f14\u03c1\u03c7\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 (D _see above_) \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03bc\u03bd\u03b7\u03bc\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bf\u03bd, \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5\u03af\u03bb\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 (D\n      \u03b1\u03bd\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2) \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f21\u03bb\u03af\u03bf\u03c5. \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f15\u03bb\u03b5\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f11\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 (D \u03b5\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2), \u03a4\u03af\u03c2\n      \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03ba\u03c5\u03bb\u03af\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9 \u1f21\u03bc\u1fd6\u03bd (D \u03b7\u03bc\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u03b1\u03c0\u03bf\u03ba.) \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03bb\u03af\u03b8\u03bf\u03bd \u1f10\u03ba (D \u03b1\u03c0\u03bf) \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03b8\u03cd\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\n      \u03bc\u03bd\u03b7\u03bc\u03b5\u03af\u03bf\u03c5? (D + \u03b7\u03bd \u03b3\u03b1\u03c1 \u03bc\u03b5\u03b3\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c3\u03c6\u03bf\u03b4\u03c1\u03b1). \u039a\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03b2\u03bb\u03ad\u03c8\u03b1\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b8\u03b5\u03c9\u03c1\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd (D\n      \u03b5\u03c1\u03c7\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b5\u03c5\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd) \u1f45\u03c4\u03b9 \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03ba\u03b5\u03ba\u03af\u03bb\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f41 \u03bb\u03af\u03b8\u03bf\u03c2 (D\n      \u03b1\u03c0\u03bf\u03ba\u03b5\u03ba\u03c5\u03bb\u03b9\u03c3\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03bb\u03b9\u03b8\u03bf\u03bd). \u1f26\u03bd \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03bc\u03ad\u03b3\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c3\u03c6\u03cc\u03b4\u03c1\u03b1. (D _see above_.)\n      \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 ... \u03b5\u1f36\u03b4\u03bf\u03bd \u03bd\u03b5\u03b1\u03bd\u03af\u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd (D \u03bd\u03b5\u03b1\u03bd. \u03b5\u03b9\u03b4.) \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03ae\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd.... \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n      \u1f10\u03be\u03b5\u03b8\u03b1\u03bc\u03b2\u03ae\u03b8\u03b7\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd (D \u03b5\u03b8\u03b1\u03bd\u03b2\u03b7\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd). \u1f41 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03b5\u03b9 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2 (D \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03bb\u03b5\u03b3\u03b5\u03b9 \u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2)\n      (D + \u03bf \u03b1\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2). \u039c\u1f74 \u1f10\u03ba\u03b8\u03b1\u03bc\u03b2\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c3\u03b8\u03b5 (D \u03c6\u03bf\u03b2\u03b5\u03b9\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9) (D + \u03c4\u03bf\u03bd) \u1f38\u03b7\u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\n      \u03b6\u03b7\u03c4\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c4\u03b5 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u039d\u03b1\u03b6\u03b1\u03c1\u03b7\u03bd\u1f78\u03bd (D\u2014\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u039d\u03b1\u03b6.) ... \u1f34\u03b4\u03b5 (D \u03b5\u03b9\u03b4\u03b5\u03c4\u03b5) \u1f41 \u03c4\u03cc\u03c0\u03bf\u03c2 (D\n      \u03b5\u03ba\u03b5\u03b9 \u03c4\u03bf\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd \u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd) \u1f45\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5 \u1f14\u03b8\u03b7\u03ba\u03b1\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03cc\u03bd. \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u1fbd (D \u03b1\u03bb\u03bb\u03b1) \u1f51\u03c0\u03ac\u03b3\u03b5\u03c4\u03b5 (D + \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9)\n      \u03b5\u1f34\u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5 ... \u1f45\u03c4\u03b9 (D + \u03b9\u03b4\u03bf\u03c5) \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03ac\u03b3\u03b5\u03b9 (D \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03b1\u03b3\u03c9) \u1f51\u03bc\u1fb6\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u0393\u03b1\u03bb\u03b9\u03bb\u03b1\u03af\u03b1\u03bd;\n      \u1f10\u03ba\u03b5\u1fd6 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd (D \u03bc\u03b7) \u1f44\u03c8\u03b5\u03bf\u03b8\u03b5, \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u1f7c\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f36\u03c0\u03b5\u03bd (D \u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u03b7\u03ba\u03b1) \u1f51\u03bc\u1fd6\u03bd. St. Mark xv.\n      47-xvi. 7.\n\n  264 So for example at the end of the same passage in St. Luke, the\n      difficult \u03b1\u1f55\u03c4\u03b7 \u1f21 \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c6\u1f74 \u03c0\u03c1\u03ce\u03c4\u03b7 \u1f10\u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf (ii. 2) becomes \u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03b7 \u03b5\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf\n      \u03b1\u03c0\u03bf\u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c6\u03b7 \u03c0\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03b7; \u1f10\u03c0\u03bb\u03ae\u03c3\u03b8\u03b7\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd is changed into the simpler \u03b5\u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b7\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd;\n      \u03c6\u03cc\u03b2\u03bf\u03c2 \u03bc\u03ad\u03b3\u03b1\u03c2 (ii. 9) after \u1f10\u03c6\u03bf\u03b2\u03ae\u03b8\u03b7\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd into \u03c3\u03c6\u03bf\u03b4\u03c1\u03b1; \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 (ii. 10) is\n      inserted before \u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u1f76 \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03bb\u03b1\u1ff7.\n\n  265 Yet not unfrequently the Greek is unique in its extravagance, e.g.\n      Acts v. 8; xiii. 14; xxi. 28, 29.\n\n  266 Cureton\u2019s Syriac is closely allied to D, and the Lewis Codex less\n      so.\n\n  267 See b c e f ff2 i l q Vulg.\n\n  268 So b e g2 Curetonian, Lewis.\n\n  269 St. Chrysostom (vii. 84. d), Origen (iii. 902. d _int_.), Victor of\n      Antioch (335) insert the \u03ba\u03b1\u03af.\n\n  270 So too \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03ba\u03b5\u03b9\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 (BCL\u0394. 42) for \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u03bd\u03b1\u03ba\u03b5\u03b9\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 (St. Mark vi.\n      26): omit \u03b4\u1f72 (\u05d0BC*L\u0394. six curs.) in \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f04\u03bb\u03bb\u03b1 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c0\u03bb\u03bf\u1fd6\u03b1 (iv. 36):\n      \u1f10\u03b3\u03b5\u03af\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd (\u05d0B*C*\u0394\u03a0. few curs.) for \u03b4\u03b9\u03b5\u03b3\u03b5\u03af\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd (iv. 38): \u1f14\u03b8\u03b7\u03ba\u03b5\u03bd\n      (\u05d0BC2DL. few curs.) for \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03ad\u03b8\u03b7\u03ba\u03b5\u03bd (xv. 46): \u03bc\u03ad\u03b3\u03b1\u03bb\u03b1 (\u05d0*etc 6BD*L) for\n      \u03bc\u03b5\u03b3\u03b1\u03bb\u03b5\u1fd6\u03b1 (St. Luke i. 49): \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03c0\u03b5\u03c3\u03ce\u03bd (\u05d0cBC*KLX\u03a0* few curs.) for\n      \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c0\u03b5\u03c3\u03ce\u03bd (St. John xiii. 25): &c., &c.\n\n  271 Owing to differences of idiom in other languages, it is not\n      represented here in so much as a single ancient Version.\n\n  272 \u201c_Est enim_ \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u0393\u0391\u03a1 _officium inchoare narrationem_.\u201d Hoogeveen, De\n      Partic. Cf. Prom. Vinct. v. 666. See also St. Luke ix. 44.\n\n  273 Dem. Ev. 320 b.\n\n  274 ii. 597: 278.\n\n  275 i. 1040 b.\n\n  276 viii. 314 a: (Eclog.) xii. 694 d.\n\n_  277 Ap._ Cyril, v2. 28 a.\n\n  278 v1. 676 e.\n\n  279 30 b (=Gall. xiii. 109 d).\n\n  280 So, in Garnier\u2019s MSS. of Basil ii. 278 a, note. Also in Cyril _apud_\n      Mai ii. 378.\n\n  281 So Mill, _Prolegg._ 1346 and 1363.\u2014Beza says roundly, \u201c_Quod\n      plerique Graeci codices scriptum habent_ \u1f22 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u1f10\u03ba\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2, _sane non\n      intelligo; nisi dicam \u03b3\u03ac\u03c1 redundare._\u201d\n\n  282 \u1f20\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1 \u1f10\u03ba\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 is exhibited by the printed text of Basil ii. 278 a.\n\n  283 \u1f51\u03c0\u1f72\u03c1 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03cc\u03bd is found in Basil ii. 160 b:\u2014\u1f51\u03c0\u1f72\u03c1 \u1f10\u03ba\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd, in Dorotheus\n      (A.D. 596) ap. Galland. xii. 403 d:\u2014\u1f51\u03c0\u1f72\u03c1 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03a6\u03b1\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03bd, in\n      Chrysostom iv. 536 a; vi. 142 d\u2014(where one of the Manuscripts\n      exhibits \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03a6\u03b1\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03bd).\u2014Nilus the Monk has the same reading\n      (\u1f51\u03c0\u1f72\u03c1 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03a6\u03b1\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03bd),\u2014i. 280.\n\n  284 Accordingly, \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u1fbd \u1f10\u03ba\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd is found in Origen i. 490 b. So also reads\n      the author of the scholium in Cramer\u2019s Cat. ii. 133,\u2014which is the\n      same which Matthaei (_in loc._) quotes out of Evan. 256. And so\n      Cyril (_ap._ Mai, ii. 180),\u2014\u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u1fbd \u1f10\u03ba\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03a6\u03b1\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03bd.\u2014Euthymius\n      (A.D. 1116), commenting on the traditional text of Luke xviii. 14\n      (see Matthaei\u2019s _Praefat._ i. 177), says \u0393\u0391\u03a1 \u1f45 \u1f10\u03ba\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f22\u03b3\u03bf\u03c5\u03bd \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba\n      \u1f10\u03ba\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2.\n\n  285 The \u03bc\u1fb6\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd is obviously added by way of interpretation, or to help\n      out the meaning. Thus, in Origen (iv. 124 d) we meet with \u03bc\u1fb6\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd\n      \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6:\u2014in Chrysostom (i. 151 c), \u03bc\u1fb6\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd \u1f51\u03c0\u1f72\u03c1 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03a6\u03b1\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03bd: and in\n      Basil Sel. (p. 184 c), \u03bc\u1fb6\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd \u1f22 \u1f41 \u03a6\u03b1\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03c2.\n\n  286 It is found however in ps.-Chrysostom (viii. 119 c):\u2014in Antiochus\n      Mon. (p. 1102 = ed. Migne, vol. 89, p. 1579 c): and in Theophylact\n      (i. 433 c). At p. 435 b, the last-named writes \u1f22 \u1f10\u03ba\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2, \u1f00\u03bd\u03c4\u1f76 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\n      \u03a0\u0391\u03a1\u1fbd \u1f43 \u1f10\u03ba\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2.\n\n  287 Introduction, p. 135.\n\n  288 For all this section except the early part of \u201c4\u201d the Editor is\n      responsible.\n\n  289 See above, p. 61, note.\n\n  290 481 of the Gospels: from St. Saba, now at St. Petersburg.\n\n  291 The Evangelistaria 118, 192. Scrivener, Introduction, I. pp. 335,\n      340.\n\n  292 Scrivener, I. App. F, p. 398*. Of these, 205 and 209 are probably\n      from the same original. Burgon, Letters in _Guardian_ to Dr.\n      Scrivener.\n\n  293 I am not of course asserting that any known cursive MS. is an exact\n      counterpart of one of the oldest extant Uncials. Nor even that every\n      reading however extraordinary, contained in Codd. B\u05d0D, is also to be\n      met with in one of the few Cursives already specified. But what\n      then? Neither do any of the oldest Uncials contain all the textual\n      avouchings discoverable in the same Cursives.\n\n      The thing asserted is only this: that, as a rule, every principal\n      reading discoverable in any of the five or seven oldest Uncials, is\n      also exhibited in one or more of the Cursives already cited or in\n      others of them; and that generally when there is consent among the\n      oldest of the Uncials, there is also consent among about as many of\n      the same Cursives. So that it is no exaggeration to say that we find\n      ourselves always concerned with the joint testimony of the same\n      little handful of Uncial and Cursive documents: and therefore, as\n      was stated at the outset, if the oldest of the Uncials had never\n      existed, the readings which they advocate would have been advocated\n      by MSS. of the eleventh, twelfth, thirteenth, and fourteenth\n      centuries.\n\n_  294 Manuscript Evangelia in foreign Libraries_, Letters in the\n      _Guardian_ from Dean Burgon to Dr. Scrivener, _Guardian_, Jan. 29,\n      1873. \u201cYou will not be dating it too early if you assign it to the\n      seventh century.\u201d\n\n  295 The other uncials which have a tendency to consort with B and \u05d0 are\n      of earlier date. Thus T (Codex Borgianus I) of St. Luke and St. John\n      is of the fourth or fifth century, R of St. Luke (Codex Nitriensis\n      in the British Museum) is of the end of the sixth, Z of St. Matthew\n      (Codex Dublinensis), a palimpsest, is of the sixth: Q and P,\n      fragments like the rest, are respectively of the fifth and sixth.\n\n  296 By the Editor.\n\n  297 Above, pp. 80-81.\n\n  298 Hort, Introduction, p. 135.\n\n  299 Chapters V, VI, VII.\n\n  300 Vercell.:\u2014_Si scires tu, quamquam in hac tu\u00e2 die, quae ad pacem\n      tuam._ So Amiat. and Aur.:\u2014_Si cognovisses et tu, et quidem in h\u00e2c\n      die tu\u00e2, quae ad pacem tibi._\n\n  301 Mai, iv. 129.\n\n  302 Ibid., and H. E. iii. 7.\n\n  303 Montf. ii. 470.\n\n  304 Montf. i. 700.\n\n  305 iii. 321; _interp._ 977; iv. 180.\n\n  306 i. 220: also the _Vet. interp._, \u201cSi cognovisses et tu.\u201d And so _ap.\n      Epiph._ i. 254 b.\n\n  307 iii. 321, 977.\n\n_  308 Evan. Conc._ 184, 207.\n\n  309 In all 5 places.\n\n_  310 Mor._ ii. 272 b.\n\n  311 205.\n\n_  312 In Luc._ (Syr.) 686.\n\n_  313 Int._ iii. 977.\n\n  314 iv. 180.\n\n_  315 In Luc._ (Syr.) 607.\n\n  316 In their usual high-handed way, these editors _assume, without note\n      or comment_, that B\u05d0 are to be followed here. The \u201cRevisers\u201d of 1881\n      _do the same_. Is this to deal honestly with the evidence and with\n      the English reader?\n\n  317 Viz.\u2014\u03b5\u1f30 \u1f14\u03b3\u03bd\u03c9\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c1\u03ae\u03bd\u03b7\u03bd \u03c3\u03bf\u03c5, \u03ba\u03b1\u03af \u03b3\u03b5 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc7 \u1f21\u03bc\u03ad\u03c1\u1fb3 \u03c3\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c4\u03b1\u03cd\u03c4\u1fc3.\n\n  318 Viz.\u2014\u03b5\u1f30 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc7 \u1f21\u03bc\u03ad\u03c1\u1fb3 \u03c4\u03b1\u03cd\u03c4\u1fc3 \u1f14\u03b3\u03bd\u03c9\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03b5\u1f30\u03c1\u03ae\u03bd\u03b7\u03bd \u03c3\u03bf\u03c5.\n\n  319 It is omitted by Eus. iv. 129, Basil ii. 272, Cod. A, Evann. 71,\n      511, Evst. 222, 259. For the second \u03c3\u03bf\u03c5 still fewer authorities\n      exhibit \u03c3\u03bf\u03b9, while some few (as Irenaeus) omit it altogether.\n\n  320 \u201c_Hanc diem tuam._ Si ergo dies ejus erat, quanto magis et tempus\n      ejus!\u201d p. 184, and so 207.\n\n  321 \u201cHaving been wholly unsuccessful [in their fishing], two of them,\n      seated on the shore, were occupying their time in washing,\u2014and two,\n      seated in their boat ... were mending\u2014their nets.\u201d (Farrar\u2019s Life of\n      Christ, i. 241-2.) The footnote appended to this \u201cattempt to combine\n      _as far as it is possible_ in one continuous narrative\u201d the\n      \u201caccounts of the Synoptists,\u201d is quite a curiosity.\n\n  322 St. Luke v. 5.\n\n  323 Ibid., verses 1, 2.\n\n  324 St. Matt. iv. 18-St. Mark i. 16.\n\n  325 St. Luke v. 3.\n\n  326 As in St. Matt, xxvii. 2, 60; St. Luke v. 4; xiii. 16; St. John\n      xviii. 24; xxi. 15; Acts xii. 17; Heb. iv. 8, &c., &c.\n\n_  327 lavabant retia_, it. vulg. The one known exception is (1) the Cod.\n      Rehdigeranus [VII] (Tischendorf).\n\n  328 The same pair of authorities are _unique_ in substituting\n      \u03b2\u03b1\u03c0\u03c4\u03af\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 (for \u03b2\u03b1\u03c0\u03c4\u03af\u03b6\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2) in St. Matt. xxviii. 19; i.e. the\n      Apostles were to baptize people first, and make them disciples\n      afterwards.\n\n  329 \u05d0C exhibit \u1f14\u03c0\u03bb\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u03bd: A (by far the purest of the five \u201cold uncials\u201d)\n      retains the traditional text.\n\n  330 P. 938.\n\n  331 So does Aphraates, a contemporary of B and \u05d0, p. 392.\n\n  332 Gen. xxv. 8, 17; xxxv. 29; xlix. 33. Also Jer. xlii. 17, 22; Lament.\n      i. 20; Job xiii. 19; Ps. ciii. 30.\n\n  333 268, 661.\n\n  334 942, 953 (Lat Tr.).\n\n  335 162, 338 (Lat. Tr.), 666.\n\n_  336 ap._ Phot. 791.\n\n  337 i. 353.\n\n  338 iii. 120.\n\n  339 i. 861.\n\n  340 280.\n\n  341 i. 920; iii. 344; iv. 27; vi. 606.\n\n  342 vi. 520.\n\n  343 i. 859 b.\n\n  344 3. 772.\n\n  345 Mai, 2.\n\n  346 i. 517.\n\n  347 388.\n\n  348 In one place of the Syriac version of his Homilies on St. Luke (Luc.\n      110), the reading is plainly \u1f35\u03bd\u03b1 \u1f45\u03c4\u03b1\u03bd \u1f10\u03ba\u03bb\u03af\u03c0\u03b7\u03c4\u03b5: but when the Greek\n      of the same passage is exhibited by Mai (ii. 196, line 28-38) it is\n      observed to be destitute of the disputed clause. On the other hand,\n      at p. 512 of the Syriac, the reading is \u1f10\u03ba\u03bb\u03af\u03c0\u1fc3. But then the entire\n      quotation is absent from the Greek original (Mai, ii. 349, line 11\n      from bottom). In Mai, ii. 380, Cyril\u2019s reading is certainly\n      \u1f10\u03ba\u03bb\u03af\u03c0\u03b7\u03c4\u03b5.\n\n  349 Eus.mare 330, -ps 251 (\u2014\u03c0\u1fb6\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd).\n\n  350 Cyrhr 270.\n\n  351 e, _inducet vobis veritatem omnem:_ m, _disseret vobis omnem\n      veritatem_.\n\n_  352 docebit vos omnem veritatem_ (ii. 301).\n\n  353 Cod. _am._ (which exhibits _docebit vos in omnem_, &c.) clearly\n      confuses two distinct types.\n\n  354 \u05d0 om. \u03c0\u03ac\u03c3\u1fc3.\n\n  355 Cyr. Alex. iv. 347; v. 369, 593.\n\n  356 D, \u1f10\u03ba\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f51\u03bc\u1fb6\u03c2 \u1f41\u03b4\u03b7\u03b3\u03ae\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc7 \u1f00\u03bb\u03b7\u03b8\u03b5\u03af\u1fb3 \u03c0\u03ac\u03c3\u1fc3.\n\n  357 So Cod. b, _deducet vos in veritate omni_. Cod. c, _docebit vos in\n      veritate omni_.\n\n  358 Did. 278, 446, 388 (\u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3), 443 (\u2014\u03c4\u03b7\u03bd).\n\n  359 Epiph. i. 898; ii. 78.\n\n  360 Bas. iii. 42 (\u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3): and so Evan. 249. Codd. of Cyril Alex. (\u1f10\u03c0\u03af).\n\n  361 Chrys. viii. 527: also 460, 461 (\u2014\u03c4\u03b7\u03bd).\n\n  362 Theod.ant 541, _ap._ Wegn.\n\n  363 Cyr. Alex.txt iv. 923: v. 628.\n\n  364 Thdt. iii. 15 (\u1f10\u03ba\u03b5\u1fd6. \u03bf\u03c2 \u1f51\u03bc. \u1f41\u03b4.).\n\n  365 Tert. i. 762, 765, 884; ii. 11, 21. Hil. 805, 959. Jer. ii. 140.\n      141. There are many lesser variants:\u2014\u201c(diriget vos Tert. i. 884,\n      deducet vos Tert. ii. 21, Vercell. vos deducet; i. 762 vos ducet:\n      Hil. 805, vos diriget) in omnem veritatem.\u201d Some few (as D, Tert. i.\n      762; ii. 21. Cod. a, Did. 388. Thdrt. iii. 15) prefix \u1f10\u03ba\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2.\n\n  366 Pet. Alex. _ap._ Routh, p. 9.\n\n  367 Did. 55.\n\n  368 Orig. i. 387, 388.\n\n  369 Cyr. Alex. iv. 925, 986.\n\n  370 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f01\u03bb\u03ae\u03b8. \u03c0\u1fb6\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd L., Tr., W.-H.: \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc7 \u1f01\u03bb\u03b7\u03b8. \u03c0\u03ac\u03c3\u1fc3 T.\n\n  371 Introduction, p. 135. The rest of his judgement is unfounded in\n      fact. Constant and careful study combined with subtle appreciation\n      will not reveal \u201cfeebleness\u201d or \u201cimpoverishment\u201d either in \u201csense\u201d\n      or \u201cforce.\u201d\n\n  372 These are the Dean\u2019s words to the end of the paragraph.\n\n  373 Revised Version, &c., pp. 205-218.\n\n  374 Introduction, i. 292-93.\n\n  375 Ephes. v. 30.\n\n  376 718 (Mass. 294), Gr. and Lat.\n\n_  377 In loc._ ed. Swete, Gr. and Lat.\n\n  378 i. 95, 267.\n\n  379 iii. 215 b, 216 a; viii. 272 c; xi. 147 a b c d.\n\n_  380 Ap._ Cramer, vi. 205, 208.\n\n  381 iii. 434.\n\n  382 (A.D. 560), 1004 a, 1007 a.\n\n  383 ii. 190 e.\n\n  384 Rufinus (iii. 61 c) translates,\u2014\u201cquia membra sumus corporis ejus,\n      _et reliqua_.\u201d What else can this refer to but the very words in\n      dispute?\n\n_  385 Ap._ Galland. iii. 688 c:\u2014\u1f45\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd \u1f41 \u1f08\u03c0\u03cc\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f50\u03b8\u03c5\u03b2\u03cc\u03bb\u03c9\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd\n      \u1f00\u03bd\u03b7\u03ba\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9\u03c3\u03b5 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f08\u03b4\u03ac\u03bc; \u03bf\u1f55\u03c4\u03c9\u03c2 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u1f02\u03bd \u03bc\u03ac\u03bb\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1 \u1f10\u03ba \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f40\u03c3\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\n      \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c3\u03b1\u03c1\u03ba\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f10\u03ba\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c3\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u03c3\u03c5\u03bc\u03c6\u03c9\u03bd\u03ae\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9 \u03b3\u03b5\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd\u03ad\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9. And lower down\n      (e, and 689 a):\u2014\u1f45\u03c0\u03c9\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03be\u03b7\u03b8\u1ff6\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03bf\u1f31 \u1f10\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff7 \u03bf\u1f30\u03ba\u03bf\u03b4\u03bf\u03bc\u03b7\u03b8\u03ad\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u1f05\u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2, \u03bf\u1f31\n      \u03b3\u03b5\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bd\u03b7\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9 \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03bb\u03bf\u03c5\u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u1fe6, \u1f10\u03ba \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f40\u03c3\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03ba \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c3\u03b1\u03c1\u03ba\u03cc\u03c2,\n      \u03c4\u03bf\u03c5\u03c4\u03ad\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd \u1f10\u03ba \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f01\u03b3\u03b9\u03c9\u03c3\u03cd\u03bd\u03b7\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03ba \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03b4\u03cc\u03be\u03b7\u03c2 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9\u03bb\u03b7\u03c6\u03cc\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2;\n      \u1f40\u03c3\u03c4\u1fb6 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c3\u03ac\u03c1\u03ba\u03b1 \u03a3\u03bf\u03c6\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f41 \u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03c9\u03bd \u03b5\u1f36\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c3\u03cd\u03bd\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f00\u03c1\u03b5\u03c4\u03ae\u03bd, \u1f40\u03c1\u03b8\u03cc\u03c4\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\n      \u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03b5\u03b9. From this it is plain that Methodius read Ephes. v. 30 as we\n      do; although he had before quoted it (iii. 614 b) _without_ the\n      clause in dispute. Those who give their minds to these studies are\n      soon made aware that it is never safe to infer from the silence of a\n      Father that he disallowed the words he omits,\u2014especially if those\n      words are in their nature parenthetical, or supplementary, or not\n      absolutely required for the sense. Let a short clause be beside his\n      immediate purpose, and a Father is as likely as not to omit it. This\n      subject has been discussed elsewhere: but it is apt to the matter\n      now in hand that I should point out that Augustine _twice_ (iv. 297\n      c, 1438 c) closes his quotation of the present place abruptly:\n      \u201cApostolo dicente, _Quoniam membra sumus corporis ejus_.\u201d And yet,\n      elsewhere (iii. 794), he gives the words in full.\n\n      It is idle therefore to urge on the opposite side, as if there were\n      anything in it, the anonymous commentator on St. Luke in Cramer\u2019s\n      Cat. p. 88.\n\n  386 i. 1310 b. Also Ambrosiaster, ii. 248 d.\n\n_  387 Ap._ Galland. vii. 262 e (A.D. 372).\n\n  388 Ibid. 314 c.\n\n  389 Mai, iii. 140.\n\n  390 vii. 659 b.\n\n  391 See above, end of note 2.\n\n  392 Concil. iv. 50 b.\n\n  393 Hort, Introduction, p. 40.\n\n  394 Ibid. p. 46.\n\n  395 Miller\u2019s Scrivener, Introduction, I. p. 177.\n\n  396 Introduction, I. Appendix F, p. 398*.\n\n  397 Introduction, II. 337, note 1. And for Dean Burgon\u2019s latest opinion\n      on the date of \u05d0 see above, pp. 46, 52, 162. The present MS., which\n      I have been obliged to abridge in order to avoid repetition of much\n      that has been already said, was one of the Dean\u2019s latest\n      productions. See Appendix VII.\n\n  398 Since Dean Burgon\u2019s death, there has been reason to identify this\n      set of readings with the Syrio-Low-Latin Text, the first origin of\n      which I have traced to the earliest times before the Gospels were\n      written\u2014by St. Matthew, St. Mark, and St. Luke, and of course St.\n      John.\n\n  399 So with St. Athanasius in his earlier days. See above, p. 119, note\n      2.\n\n  400 Miller\u2019s Scrivener, Introduction, I. 138.\n\n  401 pp. 2, 155.\n\n  402 Hort, Introduction, p. 2.\n\n  403 Hort, Introduction, p. 7.\n\n  404 Quarterly Review, No. 363, July, 1895.\n\n  405 St. John xxi. 9-13.\n\n  406 In Studia Biblica et Eccles. II. vi. (G. H. Gwilliam), published two\n      years after the Dean\u2019s death, will be found a full description of\n      this form of sections.\n\n  407 As far as we know at present about Tatian\u2019s Diatessaron, he kept\n      these occurrences distinct.\u2014ED.\n\n  408 \u201cOrigenes, quum in caeteris libris omnes vicerit, in Cantico\n      Canticorum ipse se vicit.\u201d\u2014Hieron. Opp. iii. 499; i. 525.\n\n  409 After quoting Luke xxiv. 41, 42 _in extenso_, he proceeds,\u2014\u03b2\u03bb\u03ad\u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2\n      \u03c0\u1ff6\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c0\u03bb\u03ae\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u03cc; \u1f1c\u03c6\u03b1\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd \u1f04\u03c1\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03bc\u03bf\u03c5 \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u1f70 \u03bc\u03ad\u03bb\u03b9\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03bc\u03bf\u03c5 (p. 210 b): and\n      \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u1f15\u03bb\u03b5\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd, \u1f1c\u03c6\u03b1\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f04\u03c1\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u1f70 \u03bc\u03ad\u03bb\u03b9\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03bc\u03bf\u03c5.\n      \u1f14\u03b4\u03c9\u03ba\u03b1\u03bd \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff7 \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78 \u03bc\u03b5\u03bb\u03b9\u03c3\u03c3\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 \u03ba\u03b7\u03c1\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 (p. 341 a).\n\n  410 \u1f0c\u03c1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b3\u03af\u03bd\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9, \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba\u03ad\u03c4\u03b9 \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03c0\u03b9\u03ba\u03c1\u03af\u03b4\u03c9\u03bd \u1f10\u03c3\u03b8\u03b9\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 ... \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u1fbd \u1f44\u03c8\u03bf\u03bd \u1f11\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u1ff7 \u03c4\u1f78\n      \u03bc\u03ad\u03bb\u03b9 \u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03bf\u03cd\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2. And, \u1f41 \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u03ac\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u03b1\u03bd\u03b5\u1f76\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03bc\u03b1\u03b8\u03b7\u03c4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2\n      \u1f04\u03c1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03af, \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03ba\u03b7\u03c1\u03af\u1ff3 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03bc\u03ad\u03bb\u03b9\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f21\u03b4\u03c5\u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2,\u2014i. 624 a b. See more\n      concerning this quotation below, p. 249 note.\n\n  411 Epiph. i. 143.\n\n  412 Ephr. Syr. ii. 48 e.\n\n  413 Or whoever else was the author of the first Homily of the\n      Resurrection, wrongly ascribed to Gregory Nyss. (iii. 382-99).\n      Hesychius was probably the author of the second Homily. (Last Twelve\n      Verses, &c., pp. 57-9.) Both are _compilations_ however, into which\n      precious passages of much older Fathers have been unscrupulously\n      interwoven,\u2014to the infinite perplexity of every attentive reader.\n\n_  414 Apud_ Greg. Nyss. iii. 399 d.\n\n  415 Epiph. i. 652 d.\n\n  416 In Joanne legimus quod piscantibus Apostolis, in littore steterit,\n      et partem assi piscis, favumque comederit, quae verae resurrectionis\n      indicia sunt. In Jerusalem autem nihil horum fecisse\n      narratur.\u2014Hieron. i. 825 a.\n\n  417 Not from Eusebius\u2019 Qu. ad Marinum apparently. Compare however\n      Jerome, i. 824 d with Eusebius (_ap._ Mai), iv. 295 (cap. x).\n\n  418 See Last Twelve Verses, &c., pp. 51-6.\n\n  419 i. 444 b.\n\n  420 P. 172.\n\n  421 iv. 1108 c.\n\n  422 Athanas. i. 644: \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c6\u03b1\u03b3\u1f7c\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd\u03ce\u03c0\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd, \u039b\u0391\u0392\u03a9\u039d \u03a4\u0391 \u0395\u03a0\u0399\u039b\u039f\u0399\u03a0\u0391 \u1f00\u03c0\u03ad\u03b4\u03c9\u03ba\u03b5\u03bd\n      \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2. This passage reappears in the fragmentary Commentary\n      published by Mai (ii. 582), divested only of the words \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78 \u03bc\u03b5\u03bb.\n      \u03ba\u03b7\u03c1.\u2014The characteristic words (in capitals) do not appear in\n      Epiphanius (i. 143 c), who merely says \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f14\u03b4\u03c9\u03ba\u03b5 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2\n      \u03bc\u03b1\u03b8\u03b7\u03c4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2,\u2014confusing the place in St. Luke with the place in St.\n      John.\n\n  423 Aug. iii. P. 2, 143 (A.D. 400); viii. 472 (A.D. 404).\n\n  424 To the 9 specified by Tisch.\u2014(Evann. 13, 42, 88 (\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c3\u03b5\u03c5\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1),\n      130 (\u03c4\u03bf \u03b5\u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03b1\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03c6\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd), 161, 300, 346, 400, 507),\u2014add Evan. 33, in\n      which the words \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f70 \u1f10\u03c0\u03af\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9\u03c0\u03b1 \u1f14\u03b4\u03c9\u03ba\u03b5\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 have been overlooked\n      by Tregelles.\n\n  425 \u03a0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u03cd\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u1f72 \u03c4\u03c1\u03b1\u03b3\u03b7\u03bc\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03ba\u03b7\u03c1\u03af\u03c9\u03bd \u1f00\u03bc\u03bf\u03af\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c1\u03b1\u03c4\u03ad\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2\n      \u03b4\u03b5\u03b9\u03c0\u03bd\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u039b\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd.\u2014p. 174.\n\n  426 i. 384.\n\n  427 iii. 477.\n\n_  428 Apud_ Mai, iv. 294, 295 _bis_.\n\n  429 \u201cIbi \u03c4\u1f78 \u03ba\u03b7\u03c1\u03af\u03bf\u03bd praeterire non poterat [_sc._ Origenes] si in\n      exemplis suis additamentum reperisset.\u201d (From Tischendorf\u2019s note on\n      Luke xxiv. 42.)\n\n  430 iv. 1108 b c.\n\n  431 \u039a\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5\u03b4\u03ae\u03b4\u03bf\u03ba\u03b5 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03ba\u03bf\u03bc\u03b9\u03c3\u03b8\u1f72\u03bd \u1f30\u03c7\u03b8\u03cd\u03b4\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd, \u1f24\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03b5\u03be \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\n      \u03bc\u03ad\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2.\u2014Ibid. d. Similarly in the fragments of Cyril\u2019s Commentary on\n      St. Luke, he is observed to refer to the incident of the piece of\n      broiled fish exclusively. (Mai, ii. 442, 443, which reappears in P.\n      Smith, p. 730.)\n\n  432 iii. P. i. p. 51. For the honeycomb, see iii. P. ii. p. 143 a: viii.\n      472 d.\n\n  433 i. 215.\n\n  434 \u201c_Favos_ post fella gustavit.\u201d\u2014De Coron\u00e2, c. 14 (i. p. 455).\n\n  435 ii. 444 a.\n\n  436 i. 384; iii. 477.\n\n  437 Opp. iii. 932-85: with which comp. Galland. xiv. Append. 83-90 and\n      91-109.\n\n  438 Cat. (1628), p. 622. Cordier translates from \u201cVenet. 494\u201d (our\n      \u201cEvan. 466\u201d).\n\n  439 What follows is obtained (June 28, 1884) by favour of Sig. Veludo,\n      the learned librarian of St. Mark\u2019s, from the Catena on St. Luke\u2019s\n      Gospel at Venice (cod. 494 = our Evan. 466), which Cordier (in 1628)\n      translated into Latin. The Latin of this particular passage is to be\n      seen at p. 622 of his badly imagined and well-nigh useless work. The\n      first part of it (\u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03ad\u03c6\u03b1\u03b3\u03b5 ... \u1f10\u03bd\u03b1\u03c0\u03bf\u03b3\u03c1\u03ac\u03c8\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9) is occasionally found\n      as a scholium, e.g. in Cod. Marc. Venet. 27 (our Evan. 210), and is\n      already known to scholars from Matthaei\u2019s N. T. (note on Luc. xxiv.\n      42). The rest of the passage (which now appears for the first time)\n      I exhibit for the reader\u2019s convenience parallel with a passage of\n      Gregory of Nyssa\u2019s Christian Homily on Canticles. If the author of\n      what is found in the second column is not quoting what is found in\n      the first, it is at least certain that both have resorted to, and\n      are here quoting from the same lost original:\u2014\n\n      \u03a3\u03c5\u03bd\u03ad\u03c6\u03b1\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1ff7 \u1f40\u03c0\u03c4\u1ff7 \u1f30\u03c7\u03b8\u03cd\u1ff3 (sic) \u03c4\u1f78 \u03ba\u03b7\u03c1\u03af\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03bc\u03ad\u03bb\u03b9\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2; \u03b4\u03b7\u03bb\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f61\u03c2\n      \u03bf\u1f31 \u03c0\u03c5\u03c1\u03c9\u03b8\u03ad\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03b8\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd\u03b1\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03c9\u03c0\u03ae\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03c7\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2\n      \u03b8\u03b5\u03cc\u03c4\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2, \u1f61\u03c2 \u03bc\u03ad\u03bb\u03b9 \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u1fbd \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03b8\u03c5\u03bc\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03bb\u1f70\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03b4\u03ad\u03be\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9;\n      \u03ba\u03b7\u03c1\u1ff7 \u1f64\u03c3\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1 \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd\u03b1\u03c0\u03bf\u03b3\u03c1\u03ac\u03c8\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2; \u1f45\u03c4\u03b9 \u1f41 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c0\u03ac\u03c3\u03c7\u03b1\n\n      [Transcriber\u2019s Note: The following two paragraphs were side-by-side\n      columns in the original.]\n\n      \u1f04\u03c1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03c0\u03b9\u03ba\u03c1\u03af\u03b4\u03c9\u03bd \u1f20\u03c3\u03b8\u03af\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f41 \u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b5\u03ba\u03b5\u03bb\u03b5\u03cd\u03c4\u03bf;\n      \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u1f78\u03bd \u1f21 \u03c0\u03b9\u03ba\u03c1\u03af\u03b1;\n      \u1f41 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u03ac\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u1f04\u03c1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03ba\u03b7\u03c1\u03af\u1ff3 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03bc\u03ad\u03bb\u03b9\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f21\u03b4\u03cd\u03bd\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf;\n      \u1f44\u03c8\u03bf\u03bd \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u1f11\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03bc\u03ad\u03bb\u03b9 \u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03b7\u03c3\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03b8\u03b1, \u1f45\u03c4\u03b1\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7 \u1f30\u03b4\u03af\u1ff3 \u03ba\u03b7\u03c1\u1ff7 \u1f41 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c1\u03c0\u1f78\u03c2\n      \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c1\u03b5\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03b3\u03bb\u03c5\u03ba\u03b1\u03af\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f30\u03c3\u03b8\u03b7\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1\u03b9\u03b1.\n      ANON. _apud Corderium_ (fol. 58): see above.\n\n      ... \u1f04\u03c1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 ... \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba\u03ad\u03c4\u03b9 \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03c0\u03b9\u03ba\u03c1\u03af\u03b4\u03c9\u03bd \u1f10\u03c3\u03b8\u03b9\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2, \u1f61\u03c2 \u1f41 \u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2\n      \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03ba\u03b5\u03bb\u03b5\u03cd\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9;\n      \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03cc\u03bd \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd \u1f21 \u03c0\u03b9\u03ba\u03c1\u03af\u03c2;\n      (... \u1f41 \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u03ac\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03ba\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03c6\u03b1\u03bd\u03b5\u1f76\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03bc\u03b1\u03b8\u03b7\u03c4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f04\u03c1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2\n      \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03af, \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03ba\u03b7\u03c1\u03af\u1ff3 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03bc\u03ad\u03bb\u03b9\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f21\u03b4\u03c5\u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2.)\n      \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u1fbd \u1f44\u03c8\u03bf\u03bd \u1f11\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u1ff7 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03bc\u03ad\u03bb\u03b9 \u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03bf\u03cd\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2, \u1f45\u03c4\u03b1\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7 \u1f30\u03b4\u03af\u1ff3 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03c1\u1ff7 \u1f41 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c1\u03c0\u1f78\u03c2\n      \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c1\u03b5\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03b3\u03bb\u03c5\u03ba\u03b1\u03af\u03bd\u1fc3 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f30\u03c3\u03b8\u03b7\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1\u03b9\u03b1.\n      GREG. NYSS. in Cant. (Opp. i. a); the sentence in brackets being\n      transposed.\n\n      Quite evident is it that, besides Gregory of Nyssa, HESYCHIUS (or\n      whoever else was the author of the first Homily on the Resurrection)\n      had the same original before him when he wrote as follows:\u2014\u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u1fbd\n      \u1f10\u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03b4\u1f74 \u1f41 \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c0\u03ac\u03c3\u03c7\u03b1 \u03c3\u1fd6\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f41 \u1f04\u03b6\u03c5\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2, \u1f44\u03c8\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03c0\u03b9\u03ba\u03c1\u03af\u03b4\u03b1 \u1f14\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9, \u1f34\u03b4\u03c9\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\n      \u03c4\u03af\u03bd\u03b9 \u1f21\u03b4\u03cc\u03c3\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9 \u1f41 \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u03ac\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u1f04\u03c1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f21\u03b4\u03cd\u03bd\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9. \u1f41\u03c1\u1fb6\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03a0\u03ad\u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5\n      \u1f01\u03bb\u03b9\u03b5\u03cd\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03c7\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u1f76 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03ba\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 \u1f04\u03c1\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03ba\u03b7\u03c1\u03af\u03bf\u03bd \u03bc\u03ad\u03bb\u03b9\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03bd\u03cc\u03b7\u03c3\u03bf\u03bd\n      \u03c4\u03af \u03c3\u03bf\u03b9 \u1f21 \u03c0\u03b9\u03ba\u03c1\u03af\u03b1 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b2\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03ba\u03b5\u03c5\u03ac\u03b6\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9. \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f21\u03bc\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2\n      \u1f10\u03ba \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03c9\u03bd \u1f00\u03bb\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03c2, \u1f24\u03b4\u03b7 \u03c4\u1ff7 \u1f04\u03c1\u03c4\u1ff3 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03b4\u03c1\u03ac\u03bc\u03c9\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd, \u1f42\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03b3\u03bb\u03c5\u03ba\u03b1\u03af\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9\n      \u03c4\u1f78 \u03ba\u03b7\u03c1\u03af\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03b8\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bb\u03c0\u03af\u03b4\u03bf\u03c2. (_ap_. Greg. Nyss. Opp. iii. 399 c d.)\n\n  440 So Matthaei: \u201cHaec interpretatio sapit ingenium Origenis.\u201d (N.T.\n      iii. 498.)\n\n  441 \u039a\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f14\u03c6\u03b1\u03b3\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b7\u03c1\u03af\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f30\u03c7\u03b8\u03cd\u03bd,\u2014ii. 240. From the fragment De\n      Resurrectione preserved by John Damascene,\u2014ii. 762a.\n\n  442 See above, note 1, p. 247.\n\n  443 See above, note 1, p. 248.\n\n  444 i. 644 (see above, p. 244, n. 7).\n\n  445 i. 624 (see above, p. 242, n. 3).\n\n  446 pp. 210, 431 (see above, p. 243).\n\n  447 i. 652 d (see above, p. 247).\n\n  448 i. 825 a; ii. 444 a.\n\n  449 See above, note 1, p. 245.\n\n  450 iv. 1108.\n\n_  451 Apud_ Galland. ix. 633.\n\n  452 Varim. i. 56.\n\n_  453 Apud_ Greg. Nyss. iii. 399.\n\n  454 See above, p. 248, note 6.\n\n  455 \u201cThe words could hardly have been an interpolation.\u201d (Alford, _in\n      loc_).\n\n  456 Scrivener\u2019s Introd. II. p. 358.\n\n  457 It is well known that Dean Burgon considered B, \u05d0, and D to be bad\n      manuscripts. When I wrote my Textual Guide, he was angry with me for\n      not following him in this. Before his death, the logic of facts\n      convinced me that he was right and I was wrong. We came together\n      upon independent investigation. I find that those MSS. in disputed\n      passages are almost always wrong\u2014mainly, if not entirely, the\n      authors of our confusion. What worse could be said of them? And\n      nothing less will agree with the facts from our point of view.\n      Compromise on this point which might be amiable shrinks upon inquiry\n      before a vast array of facts.\u2014E. M.\n\n  458 Compare Epiphanius (i. 143 c) _ut supra_ (Haer. xxx. c. 19) with\n      Irenaeus (iii. c. ii, \u00a7 9): \u201cHi vero qui sunt a Valentino ... in\n      tantum processerunt audaciae, uti quod ab his non olim conscriptum\n      est _Veritatis Evangelium_ titulent.\u201d\n\n  459 See above, p. 243.\n\n  460 There is reason for thinking that the omission was an Alexandrian\n      reading. Egyptian asceticism would be alien to so sweet a food as\n      honeycomb. See above, p. 150. The Lewis Cod. omits the words. But it\n      may be remembered that it restricts St. John Baptist\u2019s food to\n      locusts \u201cand the honey of the mountain.\u201d\u2014E. M.\n\n  461 \u1f18\u03c3\u03bc\u03c5\u03c1\u03bc\u03b9\u03c3\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u03bf\u1f36\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd, Mark xv. 23.\n\n  462 \u1f4c\u03be\u03bf\u03c2 \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c7\u03bf\u03bb\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03bc\u03b5\u03bc\u03b9\u03b3\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd, Matt. xxvii. 34 (= Luke xxiii. 37).\n\n  463 \u03a0\u03bb\u03ae\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03c3\u03c0\u03cc\u03b3\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd \u1f44\u03be\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f51\u03c3\u03c3\u03ce\u03c0\u1ff3 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03b8\u03ad\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2, John xix. 29.\n\n  464 Matt. xxvii. 34 (= Luke xxiii. 37).\n\n  465 \u039a\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b5\u1f30\u03b8\u03ad\u03c9\u03c2 \u03b4\u03c1\u03b1\u03bc\u1f70\u03bd \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u1f10\u03be \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd, Matt. xxvii. 48 (= Mark xv. 36).\n\n  466 Not so the author of the Syriac Canons. Like Eusebius, he identifies\n      (1) Matt. xxvii. 34 with Mark xv. 23; and (2) Matt. xxvii. 48 with\n      Mark xv. 36 and Luke xxiii. 36; but unlike Eusebius, he makes John\n      xix. 29 parallel with these last three.\n\n  467 The former,\u2014pp. 286-7: the latter,\u2014p. 197. The Cod. Fuld.\n      ingeniously\u2014\u201cEt dederunt ei vinum murratum bibere cum felle mixtum\u201d\n      (Ranke, p. 154).\n\n  468 Evann. 1, 22, 33, 63, 69, 73, 114, 122, 209, 222, 253, 507, 513.\n\n  469 \u00a77.\n\n  470 Pp. 526, 681 (Mass. 212, 277).\n\n  471 De Spect. written A.D. 198 (see Clinton, App. p. 413), c. xxx.-i. p.\n      62.\n\n  472 \u201c \u2018Et dederunt ei bibero _acetum_ et fel.\u2019 Pro eo quod dulci suo\n      vino eos laetificarat, _acetum_ ei porrexerunt; pro felle autem\n      magna ejus miseratio amaritudinem gentium dulcem fecit.\u201d Evan. Conc.\n      p. 245.\n\n  473 Celsus \u03c4\u1f78 \u1f44\u03be\u03bf\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03c7\u03bf\u03bb\u1f74\u03bd \u1f40\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9\u03b4\u03af\u03b6\u03b5\u03b9 \u03c4\u1ff7 \u1f38\u03b7\u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6,\u2014writes Origen (i.\n      416 c d e), quoting the blasphemous language of his opponent and\n      refuting it, but accepting the reference to the Gospel record. This\n      he does twice, remarking on the second occasion (i. 703 b c) that\n      such as Celsus are for ever offering to JESUS \u201cgall and _vinegar_.\u201d\n      (These passages are unknown to many critics because they were\n      overlooked by Griesbach.)\u2014Elsewhere Origen twice (iii. 920 d e, 921\n      b) recognizes the same incident, on the second occasion contrasting\n      the record in Matt. xxvii. 34 with that in Mark xv. 23 in a way\n      which shews that he accounted the places parallel:\u2014\u201cEt hoc\n      considera, quod secundum Matthaeum quidem Jesus accipiens _acetum\n      cum felle permixtum_ gustavit, et noluit bibere: secundum Marcum\n      autem, cum daretur et _myrrhatum vinum_, non accepit.\u201d\u2014iii. 921 b.\n\n  474 Lib. i. 374 and viii. 303 (assigned by Alexander to the age of\n      Antoninus Pius), _ap._ Galland. i. 346 a, 395 c. The line (\u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c4\u1f78\n      \u03b2\u03c1\u1ff6\u03bc\u03b1 \u03c7\u03bf\u03bb\u03ae\u03bd, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03b4\u03af\u03c8\u03b1\u03bd \u1f44\u03be\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f14\u03b4\u03c9\u03ba\u03b1\u03bd) is also found in\n      Montfaucon\u2019s Appendix (Palaeogr. 246). Sibyll. lib. i. 374, Gall. i.\n      346 a \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03b2\u03c1\u1ff6\u03bc\u03b1 \u03c7\u03bf\u03bb\u03ae\u03bd, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c0\u03cc\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u1f44\u03be\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f04\u03ba\u03c1\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd; ibid. viii.\n      303, 395 c ... \u03c0\u03b9\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd \u1f44\u03be\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f14\u03b4\u03c9\u03ba\u03b1\u03bd; quoted by Lactantius, lib. iv. c.\n      18, A.D. 320, Gall. iv. 300 a ... \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03b4\u03af\u03c8\u03b1\u03bd \u1f44\u03be\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f14\u03b4\u03c9\u03ba\u03b1\u03bd, which is\n      the way the line is quoted from the Sibyl in Montfaucon\u2019s Appendix\n      (Pal. Graec. 246). Lactantius a little earlier (Gall. iv. 299 b) had\n      said,\u2014\u201cDederunt ei cibum fellis, et miscuerunt ei aceti potionem.\u201d\n\n  475 Referring to the miracle at Cana, where (viz. in p. 55) the\n      statement is repeated. Evan. Conc. p. 245. See above, note 5.\n\n_  476 Apud_ Montf. ii. 63; Corderii, Cat in Luc. p. 599.\n\n  477 The Tractatus [ii. 305 b] at the end of the Quaestt. ad Antiochum\n      (Ath. ii. 301-6), which is certainly of the date of Athanasius, and\n      which the editor pronounces to be not unworthy of him (Praefat. II.\n      viii-ix).\n\n  478 Opusc. ed. Augusti, p. 16.\n\n  479 Cord. Cat. in Ps. ii. 393.\n\n  480 Cord. Cat. in Ps. ii. 409.\n\n  481 \u039f\u1f50 \u03c3\u03c0\u03bf\u03b3\u03b3\u03b9\u1f70 \u03c7\u03bf\u03bb\u1fc7 \u03c4\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f44\u03be\u03b5\u03b9 \u03b4\u03b9\u03ac\u03b2\u03c1\u03bf\u03c7\u03bf\u03c2, \u03bf\u1f35\u03b1\u03bd \u03bf\u1f31 \u1f38\u03bf\u03c5\u03b4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03b9 \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03b5\u1f50\u03b5\u03c1\u03b3\u03ad\u03c4\u1fc3\n      \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03c6\u03b9\u03bb\u03bf\u03c4\u03b7\u03c3\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd\u03b4\u03b5\u03b9\u03ba\u03bd\u03cd\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9 \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03ac\u03bc\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c4\u03b5\u03af\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9.\u2014i. 624 b\n      (where it should be noted that the contents of verses 34 and 48 (in\n      Matt. xxvii) are confused).\n\n  482 i. 481 a, 538 d, 675 b. More plainly in p. 612 e,\u2014\u03bc\u03b9\u1fb6\u03c2 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c7\u03bf\u03bb\u1fc6\u03c2,\n      \u1f11\u03bd\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f44\u03be\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2, \u03b4\u03b9\u1fbd \u1f67\u03bd \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03c0\u03b9\u03ba\u03c1\u1f70\u03bd \u03b3\u03b5\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u1f10\u03b8\u03b5\u03c1\u03b1\u03c0\u03b5\u03cd\u03b8\u03b7\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd (= Cat. Nic. p.\n      788).\n\n  483 ii. 48 c, 284 a.\n\n  484 Lib. iv. c. 18. See above, last page, note 7.\n\n  485 vii. 236 c d, quoted next page.\n\n  486 \u201cRefertur etiam quod aceto potatus sit, vel vino myrrhato, quod est\n      amarius felle.\u201d Rufinus, in Symb. \u00a7 26.\n\n  487 vii. 819 a b (= Cat. Nic. p. 792). See also a remarkable passage\n      ascribed to Chrys. in the Catena of Nicetas, pp. 371-2.\n\n  488 \u201cJesus _de felle una cum aceto_ amaritudinis libavit.\u201d (Hom.\n      translated by Aucher from the Armenian.\u2014Venice. 1827, p. 435).\n\n_  489 Apud_ Mai, N. Bibl. PP. iii. 455.\n\n_  490 Apud_ Mai, ii. 66; iii. 42. Is this the same place which is quoted\n      in Cord. Cat. in Ps. ii. 410?\n\n_  491 Apud_ Galland. v. 332.\n\n  492 Or Acta Pilati, pp. 262, 286.\n\n  493 P. 85.\n\n  494 P. 16.\n\n  495 Cord. Cat. in Ps. ii. 410.\n\n  496 p. 87.\n\n  497 x. 829.\n\n  498 ii. 84, 178.\n\n  499 Cramer, Cat. i. 235.\n\n  500 i. 228, 549.\n\n  501 vii. 236 c d.\n\n  502 St. John i. 1-3, 14; xx. 31.\n\n  503 1 St. John ii. 18, 22, 23; iv. 1, 2, 3, 15; v. 10, 11, 12, 20; 2 St.\n      John ver. 7, 9, 10. So St. Jude ver. 4.\n\n  504 So Athanasius excellently:\u2014\u1f41 \u03b8\u03b5\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u03c1\u03b9\u03b8\u03bc\u03ae\u03c3\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f11\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd\n      \u1f00\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03ce\u03c0\u03c9\u03bd, \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03c3\u03ac\u03c1\u03ba\u03b1 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03bf \u03b5\u1f36\u03c0\u03b5, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03bd\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\n      \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03b5\u03bb\u03b8\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff7; \u1f10\u03ba\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u1f04\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03c9\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03b9\u03b6\u03b5 \u03bc\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bf\u1f50\n      \u03b8\u03b5\u03cc\u03bd, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u1f14\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03bd\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd \u1f21 \u1f00\u03c0\u03cc\u03ba\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2. \u0395\u1f30 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u1f04\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03c9\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd,\n      \u03c6\u03b7\u03c3\u03af \u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03af\u03b6\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2 \u03bc\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bf\u1f50 \u03b8\u03b5\u03cc\u03bd, \u03bc\u03ae \u03bc\u03b5 \u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03b5 \u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03b8\u03cc\u03bd; \u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u03b5\u1f76\u03c2 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03b8\u03cc\u03c2;\n      \u03bf\u1f50 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03c6\u03ad\u03c1\u03b5\u03b9 [is not an attribute or adornment of] \u1f00\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03c9\u03c0\u03af\u03bd\u03b7\n      \u03c6\u03cd\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f78 \u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03b8\u03cc\u03bd, \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u1f70 \u03b8\u03b5\u1ff7.\u2014i. 875 a. So Macarius Magnes, p. 13.\u2014See\n      also below, note 2, p. 262.\n\n  505 So, excellently Cyril Alex. V. 310 d, Suicer\u2019s Thesaurus; see\n      Pearson on the Creed, on St. Matt. xix. 17.\n\n  506 So Marcion (_ap._ Epiph.),\u2014\u03b5\u1f36\u03c0\u03ad \u03c4\u03b9\u03c3 \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03cc\u03bd; \u03b4\u03b9\u03b4\u03ac\u03c3\u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03b5 \u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03b8\u03ad, \u03c4\u03af\n      \u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03ae\u03c3\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b6\u03c9\u1f74\u03bd \u03b1\u1f30\u03ce\u03bd\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03ae\u03c3\u03c9; \u1f41 \u03b4\u03ad, \u03bc\u03ae \u03bc\u03b5 \u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03b5\u03c4\u03b5 \u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03b8\u03cc\u03bd, \u03b5\u1f36\u03c2\n      \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd \u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03b8\u03cc\u03c2, \u1f41 \u0398\u03b5\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f41 \u03a0\u03b1\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1 [i. 339 a]. Note, that it was thus\n      Marcion exhibited St. Luke xviii. 18, 19. See Hippol. Phil. 254,\u2014\u03a4\u03af\n      \u03bc\u03b5 \u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03b5\u03c4\u03b5 \u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03b8\u03cc\u03bd; \u03b5\u1f36\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd \u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03b8\u03cc\u03c2.\n\n  507 So Arius (_ap._ Epiphanium),\u2014\u03b5\u1f36\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bb\u03b9\u03bd \u03c6\u03b7\u03c3\u1f76 \u1f41 \u03bc\u03b1\u03bd\u03b9\u03ce\u03b4\u03b7\u03c2 \u1f08\u03c1\u03b5\u03af\u03bf\u03c2, \u03c0\u1ff6\u03c2\n      \u03b5\u1f36\u03c0\u03b5\u03bd \u1f41 \u039a\u03cd\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2, \u03a4\u03af \u03bc\u03b5 \u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03b8\u03cc\u03bd; \u03b5\u1f36\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd \u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03b8\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f41 \u0398\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2. \u1f61\u03c2\n      \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f00\u03c1\u03b3\u03bf\u03c5\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03b8\u03cc\u03c4\u03b7\u03c4\u03b1 [i. 742 b].\u2014From this, Arius inferred\n      a separate essence:\u2014\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f00\u03c6\u03ce\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd \u1f11\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u1fe6\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03a0\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2\n      \u03bf\u1f50\u03c3\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f51\u03c0\u03bf\u03c3\u03c4\u03ac\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2. \u03c4\u1f78 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c0\u1fb6\u03bd \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9 \u03b3\u03b5\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9\u1ff6\u03b4\u03b5\u03c2 [i. 780 c].\u2014Note,\n      that this shews how St. Luke\u2019s Gospel was quoted by the Arians.\n\n  508 E.g. ps.-Tatian, Evan. Conc. 173, 174.\u2014Ambrose, ii. 473 e-476\n      d.\u2014Gregory Naz. i. 549.\u2014Didymus, Trin. 50-3.\u2014Basil, i. 291\n      c.\u2014Epiphanius, i. 780-1.\u2014Macarius Magnes, 12-14.\u2014Theodoret, v.\n      930-2.\u2014Augustine is very eloquent on the subject.\n\n  509 ii. 689. See the summary of contents at p. 281.\n\n  510 Thus, Valentinus (_ap._ Clem. Alex.),\u2014\u03b5\u1f36\u03c2 \u03b4\u03ad \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd \u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03b8\u03cc\u03c2, \u03bf\u1f56\n      \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03af\u03b1 \u1f21 \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c5\u1f31\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c6\u03b1\u03bd\u03ad\u03c1\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 ... \u1f41 \u03bc\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03b8\u1f78\u03c2 \u03a0\u03b1\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1 [Strom.\n      ii. 409].\u2014Heracleon (_ap._ Orig.),\u2014\u1f41 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03c0\u03ad\u03bc\u03c8\u03b1\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03a0\u03b1\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1, ...\n      \u03bf\u1f57\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bc\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03b8\u03cc\u03c2, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bc\u03b5\u03af\u03b6\u03c9\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c0\u03b5\u03bc\u03c6\u03b8\u03ad\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 [iv. 139\n      b].\u2014Ptolemaeus to Flora (_ap._ Epiphanium),\u2014\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b5\u1f30 \u1f41 \u03c4\u03ad\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 \u0398\u03b5\u1f78\u03c2\n      \u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03b8\u03cc\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f11\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c6\u03cd\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd, \u1f65\u03c3\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f14\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd; \u1f15\u03bd\u03b1 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03bc\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd\n      \u03b5\u1f34\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03b8\u1f78\u03bd \u0398\u03b5\u03cc\u03bd, \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f11\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03a0\u03b1\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1, \u1f41 \u03a3\u03c9\u03c4\u1f74\u03c1 \u1f21\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f00\u03c0\u03b5\u03c6\u1fc4\u03bd\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf, \u1f42\u03bd\n      \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c6\u03b1\u03bd\u03ad\u03c1\u03c9\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd [i. 221 c].\u2014The Marcosian gloss was,\u2014\u03b5\u1f36\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u1f76\u03bd\n      \u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03b8\u03cc\u03c2, \u1f41 \u03a0\u03b1\u03c4\u1f74\u03c1 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f50\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 [_ap._ Irenaeum, p. 92].\u2014The\n      Naassenes substituted,\u2014\u03b5\u1f36\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u1f76\u03bd \u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03b8\u03cc\u03c2, \u1f41 \u03a0\u03b1\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1 \u03bc\u03bf\u03c5 \u1f41 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2\n      \u03bf\u1f50\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2, \u1f42\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03b5\u1fd6 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f25\u03bb\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb. [_ap._ Hippolyt.\n      Philosoph. 102].\u2014Marcion introduced the same gloss even into St.\n      Luke\u2019s Gospel,\u2014\u03b5\u1f36\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u1f76\u03bd \u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03b8\u03cc\u03c2, \u1f41 \u0398\u03b5\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f41 \u03a0\u03b1\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1 [_ap._ Epiphan. i.\n      339 d, and comp. 315 c].\n\n  511 \u0395\u1f36\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd \u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03b8\u03cc\u03c2, \u1f41 \u03a0\u03b1\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1 \u03bc\u03bf\u03c5 \u1f41 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03bf\u03c5\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2\u2014Tryph. c. 101 [vol.\n      ii. 344].\n\n  512 \u201c_Unus tantum_\u201d (ait) \u201c_est bonus, Pater qui in coelis est_.\u201d\u2014Evan.\n      Conc. p. 173 and on p. 169,\u2014\u201c_Unus tantum_\u201d (ait) \u201c_est bonus_\u201d: ast\n      post haec non tacuit, sed adjecit \u201c_Pater_.\u201d\n\n  513 \u039c\u03ae \u03bc\u03b5 \u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03b5 \u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03b8\u03cc\u03bd; \u1f41 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03b8\u1f78\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f36\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd (_ap._ Galland. ii. 752\n      d). And so at p. 759 a and d, adding\u2014\u1f41 \u03a0\u03b1\u03c4\u1f74\u03c1 \u1f41 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f50\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2.\n      This reference will be found vindicated below: in note 8, p. 269.\n\n  514 For the places in Clemens Alex. see below, note 3, p. 263.\u2014The\n      places in Origen are at least six:\u2014\u03a4\u03af \u03bc\u03b5 \u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03b8\u03cc\u03bd; \u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u03b5\u1f76\u03c2\n      \u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03b8\u1f78\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f30 \u03bc\u1f74 \u03b5\u1f36\u03c2, \u1f41 \u0398\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2 \u1f41 \u03a0\u03b1\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1 [i. 223 c, 279 a, 586 a; iv. 41 d:\n      and the last nine words, iv. 65 d, 147 a].\u2014For the places in\n      ps.-Tatian, see below, note 2, p. 263.\u2014The place in the _Dialogus_\n      is found _ap._ Orig. i. 804 b:\u2014\u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6; \u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u03b5\u1f76\u03c2 \u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03b8\u1f78\u03c2\n      \u03b5\u1f30 \u03bc\u1f74 \u03b5\u1f36\u03c2 \u1f41 \u03a0\u03b1\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1\u2014words assigned to Megethius the heretic.\n\n  515 Didymus,\u2014\u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u03b5\u1f36\u03c0\u03b5\u03bd \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u03b5\u1f76\u03c2 \u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03b8\u1f78\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f30 \u03bc\u1f74 \u03b5\u1f36\u03c2 \u1f41 \u03a0\u03b1\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1; \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u1fbd \u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u03b5\u1f76\u03c2\n      \u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03b8\u1f78\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f30 \u03bc\u1f74 \u03b5\u1f36\u03c2 \u1f41 \u0398\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2 [p. 51].\u2014And Ambrose,\u2014\u201cCircumspectione\n      coelesti non dixit, _Nemo bonus nisi unus Pater_, sed _Nemo bonus\n      nisi unus Deus_\u201d [ii. 474 b].\u2014And Chrysostom,\u2014\u1f10\u03c0\u03ae\u03b3\u03b1\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd, \u03b5\u1f30 \u03bc\u1f74 \u03b5\u1f36\u03c2 \u1f41\n      \u0398\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2. \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u03b5\u1f36\u03c0\u03b5\u03bd, \u03b5\u1f30 \u03bc\u1f74 \u1f41 \u03a0\u03b1\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1 \u03bc\u03bf\u03c5, \u1f35\u03bd\u03b1 \u03bc\u03ac\u03b8\u1fc3\u03c2 \u1f45\u03c4\u03b9 \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u1f10\u03be\u03b5\u03ba\u03ac\u03bb\u03c5\u03c8\u03b5\u03bd\n      \u1f11\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03bd\u03b5\u03b1\u03bd\u03af\u03c3\u03ba\u1ff3 [vii. 628 b: quoted by Victor, Ant. in Cat. p.\n      220].\u2014And Theodoret (wrongly ascribed to Maximus, ii. 392, 396),\u2014\u039f\u1f50\u03ba\n      \u03b5\u1f34\u03c1\u03b7\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9, \u039f\u1f50\u03b4\u03b5\u1f76\u03c2 \u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03b8\u03cc\u03c2, \u03b5\u1f30 \u03bc\u1f74 \u03b5\u1f36\u03c2, \u1f41 \u03a0\u03b1\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1. \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u1fbd, \u039f\u1f50\u03b4\u03b5\u1f76\u03c2 \u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03b8\u03cc\u03c2, \u03b5\u1f30\n      \u03bc\u1f74 \u03b5\u1f36\u03c2, \u1f41 \u0398\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2 [v. p. 931]. Epiphanius [see the references above, in\n      note 1, p. 261] expressly mentions that this unauthorized addition\n      (to Luke xviii. 18) was the work of the heretic Marcion.\n\n  516 \u201cDicendo autem \u2018_Quid me vocas bonum_,\u2019 opinionem eius qui\n      interrogaverat suo responso refutavit, _quia iste putabat Christum\n      de h\u00e2c terr\u00e2 et sicut unum ex magistris Israelitarum\n      esse_,\u201d\u2014ps.-Tatian, Evan. Conc. p. 174.\u2014\u201cDives per adulationem\n      honoravit Filium ... _sicut homines sociis suis grata nomina dare\n      volunt_.\u201d Ibid. p. 168.\n\n  517 Apol. i. c. 16 [i. 42],\u2014quoted below in note 2, p. 265.\n\n  518 \u201cCui respondit, \u2018_Non est aliquis bonus_,\u2019 ut tu putasti, \u2018_nisi\n      tantum unus Deus Pater_\u2019 ... \u2018_Nemo_\u2019 (sit) \u2018_bonus, nisi tantum\n      unus, Pater qui est in coelis_\u2019 [Evan. Conc. p. 169]. \u2018_Non est\n      bonus, nisi tantum unus_\u2019 [Ibid.]. \u2018_Non est bonus, nisi tantum unus\n      qui est in coelis_\u2019 [p. 170]. \u2018_Non est bonus nisi tantum unus_\u2019 \u201d\n      [p. 173].\n\n  519 \u039f\u1f50 \u03bc\u1f74\u03bd \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u1f70 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f41\u03c0\u03b7\u03bd\u03af\u03ba\u03b1 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03c1\u03c1\u03ae\u03b4\u03b7\u03bd \u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03b5\u03b9; \u039f\u1f50\u03b4\u03b5\u1f76\u03c2 \u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03b8\u03cc\u03c2, \u03b5\u1f30 \u03bc\u1f74 \u1f41\n      \u03a0\u03b1\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1 \u03bc\u03bf\u03c5, \u1f41 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f50\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 [p. 141]. And overleaf,\u2014\u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u1f70 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n      \u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u03b5\u1f76\u03c2 \u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03b8\u03cc\u03c2, \u03b5\u1f30 \u03bc\u1f74 \u1f41 \u03a0\u03b1\u03c4\u1f74\u03c1 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 [p. 142]. Tischendorf admits the\n      reference.\n\n  520 i. 315 b. The quotation is given below, in note 7, p. 269.\n\n  521 Praep. Evan. 542 b; Ps. 426 d; _ap._ Mai, iv. 101.\n\n  522 \u039f\u1f50\u03b4\u03b5\u1f76\u03c2 \u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03b8\u1f78\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f30 \u03bc\u1f74 \u03b5\u1f36\u03c2, \u1f41 \u0398\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2 (p. 12).\n\n  523 ii. 242 e and 279 e. (See also i. 291 e and iii. 361 a.)\n\n  524 vii. 628 b,\u2014\u03bf\u1f50 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03b5\u1f36\u03c0\u03b5, \u03c4\u03af \u03bc\u03b5 \u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03b8\u03cc\u03bd; \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u03b5\u1f31\u03bc\u1f76 \u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03b8\u03cc\u03c2; \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u1fbd,\n      \u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u03b5\u1f76\u03c2 \u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03b8\u03cc\u03c2 ... \u03b5\u1f30 \u03bc\u1f74 \u03b5\u1f36\u03c2 \u1f41 \u03b8\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2. See also vii. 329.\n\n  525 i. 875 a. The quotation is proved to be from St. Matt. xix. (17-21)\n      by all that follows.\n\n  526 ii. 691 d; 694 b c. See below, note 10, p. 267.\n\n  527 Trin. 50, 51.\n\n  528 \u201c_Nemo bonus nisi unus Deus_\u201d:\u2014iv. 383 c; v. 488 b; viii. 770 d, 772\n      b.\n\n  529 v. P. i. 310 d, and 346 a (= 672 b).\n\n  530 v. 931-3. Note that Ambrose, Didymus, Chrysostom, Theodoret, all\n      four hang together in this place, which is plain from the remark\n      that is common to all four, quoted above in note 1, last page. There\n      is nothing to shew from which Gospel Nilus (ii. 362) quotes the\n      words \u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u03b5\u1f76\u03c2 \u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03b8\u03cc\u03c2, \u03b5\u1f30 \u03bc\u1f74 \u03b5\u1f36; \u1f41 \u0398\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2.\n\n  531 p. 1028, unequivocally.\n\n_  532 Ap._ Chrys. vi. 137 d, 138 b.\n\n  533 Besides these positive testimonies, the passage is quoted frequently\n      as it is given in St. Mark and St. Luke, _but with no special\n      reference_. Surely some of these must refer to St. Matthew?\n\n  534 For other instances of this indiscreet zeal, see Vol. II.\n\n  535 B\u05d0DL. 1, 22, 479, Evst. 5.\n\n  536 \u039a\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03b5\u03bb\u03b8\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff7 \u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c0\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2; \u0394\u03b9\u03b4\u03ac\u03c3\u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03b5 \u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03b8\u03ad,\n      \u1f00\u03c0\u03b5\u03ba\u03c1\u03af\u03bd\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf \u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03c9\u03bd; \u039f\u1f50\u03b4\u03b5\u1f76\u03c2 \u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03b8\u1f78\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f30 \u03bc\u1f74 \u03bc\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f41 \u0398\u03b5\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f41 \u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03ae\u03c3\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f70\n      \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1.\u2014Apol. I. c. 16 [vol. i. p. 42]. And so in Tryph. c. 101 [vol.\n      ii. p. 344],\u2014\u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff7 \u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2; \u0394\u03b9\u03b4\u03ac\u03c3\u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03b5 \u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03b8\u03ad; \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb.\n\n  537 \u201c_Ad iudicem dives venit, donis dulcis linguae eum capturus._\u201d (The\n      reference, therefore, is to St. Matthew\u2019s Gospel: which is further\n      proved by the quotation lower down of the latter part of ver. 17:\n      also by the inquiry,\u2014\u201c_Quid adhuc mihi deest?_\u201d) \u201cIlle dives bonum\n      eum vocavit.\u201d_ _\u201cDives Dominum \u2018Magistrum bonum\u2019 vocaverat sicut\n      unum ex bonis magistris.\u201d\u2014Evan. Conc. 168, 169.\n\n_  538 Ap._ Irenaeum,\u2014p. 92. See below, note 2, p. 267.\n\n_  539 Ap._ Hippolytum, Philosoph. 102. See below, note 3, p. 267.\n\n  540 \u039c\u03ae \u03bc\u03b5 \u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03b5 \u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03b8\u03cc\u03bd (_ap._ Galland. ii. 759 d: comp. 752 b). For the\n      reference, and its indication, see below, note 8, p. 269.\n\n  541 Comment. in Matt. xv. (in loc).\n\n  542 i. 875 a,\u2014clearly a quotation from memory of St. Matt. xix. 17, 18,\n      19, 20, 21.\n\n  543 Adv. Eunom. i. 291 e,\u2014\u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03b8\u1f72 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b4\u03ac\u03c3\u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03b5, \u1f00\u03ba\u03bf\u03cd\u03c3\u03b1\u03c2. Again in ii. 242 c,\n      and 279 e, expressly. See also iii. 361 a.\n\n  544 \u039a\u03b1\u03b8\u1f7c\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c0\u03b5\u03ba\u03c1\u03af\u03bd\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03b5\u03bb\u03b8\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c0\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9, \u0394\u03b9\u03b4\u03ac\u03c3\u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03b5 \u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03b8\u03ad, \u03c4\u03af\n      \u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03ae\u03c3\u03c9 \u1f35\u03bd\u03b1 \u03b6\u03c9\u1f74\u03bd \u03b1\u1f30\u03ce\u03bd\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u1f14\u03c7\u03c9;\u2014Catech. 299.\n\n  545 iii. 296 d (certainly from St. Matthew).\n\n  546 \u03a0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u1fc4\u03b5\u03b9 \u03b8\u03c9\u03c0\u03b5\u03cd\u03c9\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc7 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03b8\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03b7\u03b3\u03bf\u03c1\u03af\u1fb3 \u03c4\u1f78 \u039a\u03cd\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd ... \u0394\u03b9\u03b4\u03ac\u03c3\u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd\n      \u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03b8\u1f78\u03bd \u1f40\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03ac\u03b6\u03c9\u03bd.\u2014Contr. Eunom. ii. 692 b. Also \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03bd\u03b5\u03ac\u03bd\u03b9\u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd\n      \u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03b8\u1f78\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03b1\u03b3\u03bf\u03c1\u03b5\u03cd\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1; \u03a4\u03af \u03bc\u03b5 \u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03b8\u03cc\u03bd; (_ap._ Mai, iv.\n      12).\n\n  547 \u1f49 \u03bd\u03b5\u03b1\u03bd\u03af\u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f10\u03ba\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 ... \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03b5\u03bb\u03b8\u1f70\u03bd \u03b4\u03b9\u03b5\u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf \u03c6\u03ac\u03c3\u03ba\u03c9\u03bd; \u0394\u03b9\u03b4\u03ac\u03c3\u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03b5\n      \u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03b8\u03ad,\u2014p. 12.\n\n  548 vii. 628 b.\n\n  549 lib. iii. 503.\n\n  550 994 c.\n\n_  551 Ap._ Sabatier.\n\n  552 vii. 147-8.\n\n  553 iii.1 761 d; iii.2 82 d [ibi enim et _bonum_ nominavit]; iv. 1279 g;\n      v. 196 g.\n\n_  554 Ap._ Sabatier.\n\n  555 v. P. i. 346 a (= 672 b),\u2014\u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03ad\u03c1\u03c7\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03af \u03c4\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f50\u03b1\u03bd\u03b3\u03b5\u03bb\u03af\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n      \u03c6\u03b7\u03c3\u03af ... \u0394\u03b9\u03b4\u03ac\u03c3\u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03b5 \u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03b8\u03ad.\n\n  556 \u03a4\u03af \u03bc\u03b5 \u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03b8\u03cc\u03bd;\u2014v. 931. See note 1, p. 262.\n\n_  557 Magister bone, quid boni faciam ut vitam aeternam\n      possideam?_\u2014(_ap._ Chrysost. vi. 137 d, 138 b).\n\n  558 \u039b\u03ad\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff7 \u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u03cc\u03c2, \u0394\u03b9\u03b4\u03ac\u03c3\u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03b5 \u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03b8\u03ad, \u1f00\u03c0\u03b5\u03ba\u03c1\u03af\u03bd\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf;  \u03a4\u03af \u03bc\u03b5 \u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2\n      \u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03b8\u03cc\u03bd; \u03b5\u1f36\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd \u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03b8\u03cc\u03c2, \u1f41 \u03a0\u03b1\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1 \u03bc\u03bf\u03c5 \u1f41 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f50\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2  [Tryph. c.\n      101, vol. ii. 344]. And see the place (Apol. i. 16) quoted above,\n      note 2, p. 265.\n\n  559 Marcosians (_ap._ Irenaeum),\u2014\u039a\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c0\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff7, \u0394\u03b9\u03b4\u03ac\u03c3\u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03ad \u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03b8\u03ad,\n      \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f00\u03bb\u03b7\u03b8\u1ff6\u03c2 \u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03b8\u1f78\u03bd \u0398\u03b5\u1f78\u03bd \u1f61\u03bc\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03b7\u03ba\u03ad\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c0\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1, \u03a4\u03af \u03bc\u03b5 \u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03b8\u03cc\u03bd;\n      \u03b5\u1f36\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd \u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03b8\u03cc\u03c2, \u1f41 \u03a0\u03b1\u03c4\u1f74\u03c1 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f50\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 [p. 92]. No one who\n      studies the question will affect to doubt that this quotation and\n      the next are from St. Matthew\u2019s Gospel.\n\n  560 The Naassenes (_ap._ Hippolytum),\u2014\u03a4\u1f78 \u1f51\u03c0\u1f78 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03a3\u03c9\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 \u03bb\u03b5\u03b3\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd; \u03a4\u03af\n      \u03bc\u03b5 \u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03b8\u03cc\u03bd; \u03b5\u1f36\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd \u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03b8\u03bf\u03c2, \u1f41 \u03a0\u03b1\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1 \u03bc\u03bf\u03c5 \u1f41 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f50\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2,\n      \u1f44\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03b5\u1fd6 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f25\u03bb\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03b4\u03b9\u03ba\u03b1\u03af\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f00\u03b4\u03af\u03ba\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b2\u03c1\u1f10\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9 \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76\n      \u1f41\u03c3\u03af\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f00\u03bc\u03b1\u03c1\u03c4\u03c9\u03bb\u03bf\u03cd\u03c2 [Philosoph. 102]. See the remark in the former\n      note 5, p. 265.\n\n  561 See below, note 8, p. 269.\n\n  562 \u201c_Cur vocas me bonum_, quum in eo quod a me discere vis, iustus\n      sim?\u201d\u2014Evan. Conc. p. 168. And so in pp. 173, 174. See above, note 3,\n      p. 265.\n\n  563 This is in fact a double testimony, for the difficulty had been\n      raised by the heathen philosopher whom Macarius is refuting. \u03a4\u03af \u03bc\u03b5\n      \u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03b8\u03cc\u03bd;\u2014pp. 12 and 13 (ed. 1876). See above, note 6, p. 263.\n\n  564 i. 875 a. See last page, note 9.\n\n  565 ii. 279 e.\n\n_  566 Quid me vocas bonum?_\u2014703.\n\n  567 ii. 692 d. Also _ap._ Mai, iv. 7, 12 (\u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03bd\u03b5\u03ac\u03bd\u03b9\u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd).\n\n  568 vii 628 b. The place is quoted in note 1, p. 262.\n\n  569 v.1 346 a (\u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03ad\u03c1\u03c7\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03af \u03c4\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f50\u03b1\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u03bb\u03af\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb.) = p. 672 b.\n\n  570 v. 931,\u2014which clearly is a reproduction of the place of Chrysostom\n      (vii. 628 b) referred to in the last note but one. Read the whole\n      page.\n\n_  571 Ap._ Chrysost. vi. 137 d, 138 b.\n\n  572 \u039a\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f30\u03b4\u03bf\u03cd, \u03b5\u1f36\u03c2 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03b5\u03bb\u03b8\u1f7c\u03bd \u03b5\u1f36\u03c0\u03b5\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff7; \u0394\u03b9\u03b4\u03ac\u03c3\u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03b5, \u03c4\u03af \u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03b8\u1f78\u03bd \u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03ae\u03c3\u03c9, \u1f35\u03bd\u03b1\n      \u03c3\u03c7\u1ff6 \u03b6\u03c9\u1f74\u03bd \u03b1\u1f30\u03ce\u03bd\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd (but at the end of eight lines, Origen exhibits\n      (like the five authorities specified in note 8, next page) \u1f35\u03bd\u03b1 \u03b6\u03c9\u1f74\u03bd\n      \u03b1\u1f30\u03ce\u03bd\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03ae\u03c3\u03c9?) ... \u03a4\u03af \u03bc\u03b5 \u1f10\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u1fb7\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 (but \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 six lines\n      lower down) \u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03b8\u03bf\u1fe6? \u03b5\u1f36\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd \u1f41 \u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03b8\u03cc\u03c2.\u2014in Matt. iii. 664ab. And so\n      p. 665c. Cf. 666b.\n\n  573 See above, note 2, p. 261.\n\n  574 See above, note 2, p. 261.\n\n  575 See above, note 2, p. 261.\n\n  576 a e ff1 omit _bone_; b c f ff2 g1-2 h-q Vulg. insert it; a b c e\n      ff1. 2 g1 h l Vulg. write _de bono_, f q _bonum_; a b c ff1. 2 1\n      Vulg. write _unus_; f g1 h m q _nemo_.\n\n  577 See above, p. 149.\n\n  578 This wild performance is unique in its testimony (see below, p.\n      277). Cureton renders the text thus:\u2014\u201cWhy askest thou me concerning\n      good? for One is good, GOD.\u201d And Mrs. Lewis thus:\u2014\u201cWhy askest thou\n      me concerning the good? for One is the good one.\u201d\n\n  579 \u03a4\u03af \u03bc\u03b5 \u1f10\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u1fb7\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03b8\u03bf\u1fe6? \u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u03b5\u1f76\u03c2 \u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03b8\u03cc\u03c2, \u03b5\u1f30 \u03bc\u1f74 \u03bc\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f41 \u0398\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2.\u2014i.\n      315b.\n\n  580 \u0391\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f41 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b4\u03ac\u03c3\u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f21\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c0\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9 \u03a6\u03b1\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03b1\u03af\u1ff3, \u03a4\u03af \u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03ae\u03c3\u03b1\u03c2 \u03b6\u03c9\u1f74\u03bd \u03b1\u1f30\u03ce\u03bd\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd\n      \u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03ae\u03c3\u03c9? \u03c0\u03c1\u1ff6\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u1f14\u03c6\u03b7, \u039c\u03ae \u03bc\u03b5 \u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03b5 \u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03b8\u03cc\u03bd. \u1f41 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03b8\u1f78\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f36\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd,\n      \u1f41 \u03a0\u03b1\u03c4\u1f74\u03c1 \u1f41 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f50\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 (_ap._ Galland. ii. 759 d e).\u2014Note, the\n      reference is certainly to St. Matthew\u2019s Gospel, as all that follows\n      proves: the inquiry in ver. 16 (by assimilation from Luke xviii. 18)\n      being similarly exhibited in \u05d0, L,\u2014Irenaeus, Int. p. 241; Orig. iii.\n      664b; Cyril, Alex. v.1 310d; Basil, ii. 279e; and Chrysostom, iii.\n      182; vii. 627-8; viii. 234.\n\n  581 Eusebius\u2014\u03a4\u03af \u03bc\u03b5 \u1f10\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u1fb7\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03b8\u03bf\u1fe6? \u039f\u1f50\u03b4\u03b5\u1f76\u03c2 \u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03b8\u03cc\u03c2, \u03b5\u1f30 \u03bc\u1f74 \u03b5\u1f36\u03c2 \u1f41\n      \u0398\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2,\u2014Praep. Evan. 542b.\u2014The last seven words are also found in Ps.\n      (ed. Montf.) 426d; and _ap._ Mai, iv. 101.\n\n  582 \u0394\u03b9\u03b4\u03ac\u03c3\u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03b5, \u03c4\u03af \u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03b8\u1f78\u03bd \u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03ae\u03c3\u03b1\u03c2, \u03b6\u03c9\u1f74\u03bd \u03b1\u1f30\u03ce\u03bd\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03ae\u03c3\u03c9; \u1f41 \u03b4\u03ad \u03b5\u1f36\u03c0\u03b5\u03bd\n      \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff7, \u03a4\u03af \u03bc\u03b5 \u1f10\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u1fb7\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03b8\u03bf\u1fe6? \u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u03b5\u1f76\u03c2 \u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03b8\u1f78\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f30 \u03bc\u1f74 \u03b5\u1f36\u03c2 \u1f41 \u0398\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2.\n      (Note, that all but the last seven words exactly = \u05d0, L, and Basil,\n      ii. 279e.)\u2014V.1 310d.\u2014But elsewhere (also quoting St. Matthew) Cyril\n      exhibits\u2014\u03b4\u03b9\u03b4\u03ac\u03c3\u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03b5 \u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03b8\u03ad ... \u03c4\u03af \u03bc\u03b5 \u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03b8\u03cc\u03bd; \u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u03b5\u1f76\u03c2 \u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03b8\u1f78\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f30\n      \u03bc\u1f74 \u03b5\u1f36\u03c2 \u1f41 \u0398\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2.\u2014Ibid. p. 346a (= p. 672b).\n\n  583 \u03a4\u03af \u03bc\u03b5 \u1f10\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u1fb7\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03b8\u03bf\u1fe6? \u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u03b5\u1f76\u03c2 \u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03b8\u03cc\u03c2, \u03b5\u1f30 \u03bc\u1f74 \u03b5\u1f36\u03c2 \u1f41 \u0398\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2.\u2014p.\n      1028.\n\n_  584 Magister, quid boni faciam, ut habeam vitam aeternam_. _Cui\n      Dominus, Quid me vocas bonum_ (703):\u2014_Unus enim bonus est, ait_\n      Dominus (489). But elsewhere, _Magister bone, quid boni faciam_\n      (994c).\n\n_  585 Magister bone, quid boni faciam ut habeam vitam aeternam? Qui dicit\n      ei, Quid me interrogas de bono? Unus est bonus Deus?_ .\u2014vii. 147-8.\n\n  586 For \u201c_bone_,\u201d see above, note 12, p. 266: for \u201c_nemo_,\u201d &c, see note\n      12, p. 263.\n\n  587 1 Sam. xiv. 20.\n\n  588 p. 299.\n\n  589 Epiphanius [i. 339d], and Hippolytus [Phil. 254], shew that Marcion\n      so read Luke xviii. 19.\u2014Epiphanius [i. 742 b] quotes Arius. See the\n      words above, in notes 3, 4, p. 260.\n\n  590 Six Lectures on the Text (1875),\u2014p. 130.\n\n  591 Plain Introduction (ed. 4), II. p. 329.\n\n  592 Matt. xix. 20 = Mark x. 20 = Luke xviii. 21.\n\n  593 iii. 669 cd.\n\n  594 \u03a0\u03c1\u03cc\u03c3\u03c7\u03b5\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f56\u03bd \u03b5\u1f30 \u03b4\u03c5\u03bd\u03ac\u03bc\u03b5\u03b8\u03b1 \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03ba\u03b5\u03b9\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7\u03bd \u03b6\u03ae\u03c4\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd ... \u03bf\u1f55\u03c4\u03c9\u03c2\n      \u1f00\u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9, \u1f45\u03c4\u03b9 \u03bc\u03ae\u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u03b5 \u03c4\u03cc; \u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03c0\u03ae\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03c0\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03af\u03bf\u03bd \u03c3\u03bf\u03c5 \u1f61\u03c2 \u1f11\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03cc\u03bd.\n      \u1f51\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd\u03bf\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b4\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9, \u1f61\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f50\u03c7 \u1f51\u03c0\u1f78 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03a3\u03c9\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u1fe6\u03b8\u03b1 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b5\u03b9\u03bb\u1fc6\u03c6\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9,\n      \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u1fbd \u1f51\u03c0\u03cc \u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f00\u03ba\u03c1\u03af\u03b2\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1\u03bd \u03bc\u1f74 \u03bd\u03bf\u03ae\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03bb\u03b5\u03b3\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd,\n      \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03b8\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9.\u2014iii. 670 a b.\n\n  595 \u039a\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b5\u1f76 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u03bc\u1f74 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u1f04\u03bb\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03c6\u03c9\u03bd\u03af\u03b1 \u1f26\u03bd \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f04\u03bb\u03bb\u03b7\u03bb\u03b1 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd\n      \u1f00\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9\u03b3\u03c1\u03ac\u03c6\u03c9\u03bd \u1f64\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u039c\u03b1\u03c4\u03b8\u03b1\u00ee\u03bf\u03bd \u03bc\u1f74 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u1fb4\u03b4\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u03ae\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2, \u1f41\u03bc\u03bf\u03af\u03c9\u03c2\n      \u03b4\u1f72 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03bb\u03bf\u03b9\u03c0\u1f70 \u03b5\u1f50\u03b1\u03b3\u03b3\u03ad\u03bb\u03b9\u03b1, \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb.\u2014iii. 671 b.\n\n  596 \u039d\u03c5\u03bd\u1f76 \u03b4\u03ad \u03b4\u03b7\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd\u03cc\u03c4\u03b9 \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u1f74 \u03b3\u03ad\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd\u03b5\u03bd \u1f21 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9\u03b3\u03c1\u03ac\u03c6\u03c9\u03bd \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03c6\u03bf\u03c1\u03ac, \u03b5\u1f34\u03c4\u03b5 \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78\n      \u1fe5\u1fb3\u03b8\u03c5\u03bc\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c6\u03ad\u03c9\u03bd, \u03b5\u1f34\u03c4\u03b5 \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78 \u03c4\u03cc\u03bb\u03bc\u03b7\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u1ff6\u03bd \u03bc\u03bf\u03c7\u03b8\u03b7\u03c1\u1fb6\u03c2 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2\n      \u03b4\u03b9\u03bf\u03c1\u03b8\u03ce\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c6\u03bf\u03bc\u1f72\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd, \u03b5\u1f34\u03c4\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c4\u1f70 \u1f11\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03b4\u03bf\u03ba\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u1f10\u03bd\n      \u03c4\u1fc7 \u03b4\u03b9\u03bf\u03c1\u03b8\u03ce\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03b8\u03ad\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u1f22 \u1f00\u03c6\u03b1\u03b9\u03c1\u03bf\u03cd\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd.\u2014iii. 671 c.\n\n  597 See above, pp. 152-4.\n\n  598 W.-Hort, p. 287.\n\n  599 So Cureton renders St. Luke xviii. 19.\n\n  600 \u201cScriptum est in evangelio quodam quod dicitur secundum Hebraeos,...\n      _Dixit ei alter divitum:_ Magister quid boni faciens vivam?\u201d\u2014(Orig.\n      Vet. Interp. iii. 670.) I suppose the mention of \u03b5\u1f36\u03c2 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03b5\u03bb\u03b8\u03ce\u03bd, in\n      ver. 16, suggested this.\n\n  601 The Marcionite Gospel exhibited \u039c\u03ae \u03bc\u03b5 \u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03b5\u03c4\u03b5 \u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03b8\u03cc\u03bd (Hippol. Phil.\n      254; Epiph. i. 315 c).\u2014Comp. the Clement. Hom. (_ap._ Galland. ii.\n      752 b, 759 a d).\n\n  602 Hammond, quoted approvingly by Scrivener,\u2014I. 328 (cd. 4).\n\n  603 C. R. Gregory\u2019s Prolegomena, p. 7.\n\n  604 Printed Text, pp. 133-8.\n\n  605 Introduction (1883),\u2014pp. 573-6. [Also Vol. II. (1894), pp. 327-9. I\n      did not as Editor think myself entitled to alter Dr. Scrivener\u2019s\n      expressed opinion. E. M.]\n\n  606 It is right to state that Tischendorf thought differently. \u201cVidetur\n      illud huic quidem loco parum apte illatum.\u201d He can only bring\n      himself to admit that the text had been \u201cjam Irenaei tempore nobili\n      additamento auctum.\u201d He insists that it is absurd, as well as at\n      variance with the entire history of the sacred text, to suppose that\n      the title \u201cSON OF GOD\u201d has here been removed by unscrupulous\n      Unbelief, rather than thrust in by officious Piety.\n\n  607 v. 10; vii. 17; and in the Vulgate. Twice however (viz. i. 311 and\n      vi. 969) Jerome _omits_ the clause.\n\n  608 In Joan. iv. 15, 16.\u2014See also contra Cels. i. 389 d e f, where\n      Origen says the same thing more briefly. The other places are iv.\n      125 and 464.\n\n  609 \u039f\u1f54\u03c4\u03b5 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03ae\u03bc\u03b7\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b5\u1f50\u03b1\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u03bb\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 \u1f14\u03c7\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9, \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b5\u1f50\u03b1\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u03bb\u03af\u03c9\u03bd \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u1f74\u03bd \u03bc\u1f74\n      \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03bb\u03b1\u03b2\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2; \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u1f74 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b5\u1f50\u03b1\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u03bb\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 \u1f38\u03b7\u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6. \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u1f7c\u03c2 \u03b3\u03ad\u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c0\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f10\u03bd\n      \u1f28\u03c3\u03b1\u0390\u03b1 \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u03ae\u03c4\u1fc3. _adv._ Manichaeos (_ap._ Galland. v. 61).\n\n_  610 ap._ Galland. v. 329.\n\n  611 i. 250.\n\n_  612 ap._ Galland. iv. 55.\n\n  613 p. 42.\n\n  614 A.D. 400. De Sigill. _ap._ Chrys. xii. 412:\u2014\u1f41 \u03bc\u03b1\u03ba\u03ac\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 \u039c\u03ac\u03c1\u03ba\u03bf\u03c2,\n      \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03b5\u1f76\u03c2 \u1f11\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03b5\u1f36\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03b5\u1f50\u03b1\u03b3\u03b3\u03ad\u03bb\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b8\u03b1\u03c1\u03c3\u03ae\u03c3\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2\n      \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03b3\u03b5\u03b3\u03c5\u03bc\u03bd\u03b1\u03c3\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2, \u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03b5\u03b9 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u201c\u03c5\u1f31\u1f78\u03bd \u0398\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6,\u201d \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u1fbd \u03b5\u1f50\u03b8\u03ad\u03c9\u03c2 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03ad\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03b9\u03bb\u03b5 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd\n      \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03ba\u03bf\u03bb\u03cc\u03b2\u03c9\u03c3\u03b5 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f14\u03bd\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\u03b1\u03bd, \u1f35\u03bd\u03b1 \u03bc\u03b1\u03bb\u03ac\u03be\u1fc3 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f00\u03ba\u03c1\u03bf\u03b1\u03c4\u03ae\u03bd. \u1f10\u03c0\u03ac\u03b3\u03b5\u03b9\n      \u03bf\u1f56\u03bd \u03b5\u1f50\u03b8\u03ad\u03c9\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u0392\u03b1\u03c0\u03c4\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03ae\u03bd, \u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03c9\u03bd, \u201c\u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u1f74 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b5\u1f50\u03b1\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u03bb\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 \u1f38\u03b7\u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6\n      \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6, \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u1f7c\u03c2 \u03b3\u03ad\u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c0\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f10\u03bd \u1f28\u03c3\u03b1\u03af\u1fb3 \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u03ae\u03c4\u1fc3 \u1f30\u03b4\u03bf\u03c5\u201d \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb. \u1f14\u03b4\u03b5\u03b9\u03be\u03b5 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd\n      \u03bb\u03b1\u03bc\u03c0\u03ac\u03b4\u03b1 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bb\u03b7\u03b8\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03c2, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b5\u1f50\u03b8\u03ad\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c0\u03ad\u03ba\u03c1\u03c5\u03c8\u03b5.\n\n  615 i. 427:\u2014\u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u1f74 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b5\u1f50\u03b1\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u03bb\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 ... \u1f61\u03c2 \u03b3\u03ad\u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c0\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f10\u03bd \u1f28\u03c3\u03b1\u0390\u1fb3 \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u03ae\u03c4\u1fc3 ...\n      \u03c6\u03c9\u03bd\u1f74 \u03b2\u03bf\u1ff6\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc7 \u1f10\u03c1\u03ae\u03bc\u1ff3.\n\n  616 i. 506 (lib. iii. cap. xvi).\n\n  617 i. 461 (lib. iii. cap. x).\n\n  618 Midway between the two places cited above, Irenaeus shews how the\n      four Gospels may be severally identified with the four living\n      creatures described in the Apocalypse. He sees the lion in St. John,\n      who says: \u201c_In the beginning was the Word: and ... all things were\n      made by him: and without him was not anything made:_\u201d the flying\n      eagle in St. Mark, because he begins his gospel with an appeal to\n      \u201cthe prophetic spirit which comes down upon men from on high;\n      saying, \u2018_The beginning of the Gospel ... as it is written in the\n      prophets._\u2019 Hence the Evangelists\u2019 concise and elliptical manner,\n      which is a characteristic of prophecy\u201d (lib. iii. cap. xi. \u00a7 8, p.\n      470). Such quotations as these (18 words being omitted in one case,\n      5 in the other) do not help us. I derive the above notice from the\n      scholium in Evan. 238 (Matthaei\u2019s e,\u2014N. T. ii. 21); Curzon\u2019s \u201c73.\n      8.\u201d\n\n      The lost Greek of the passage in Irenaeus was first supplied by\n      Grabe from a MS. of the Quaestiones of Anastasius Sinaita, in the\n      Bodleian (Barocc. 206, fol. \u03c0\u03b2). It is the solution of the 144th\n      Quaestio. But it is to be found in many other places besides. In\n      Evan. 238, by the way, twelve more of the lost words of Irenaeus are\n      found: viz. \u039f\u1f54\u03c4\u03b5 \u03c0\u03bb\u03b5\u03af\u03bf\u03bd\u03b1 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f00\u03c1\u03b9\u03b8\u03bc\u03cc\u03bd, \u03bf\u1f54\u03c4\u03b5 \u1f00\u03bb\u03ac\u03c4\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd\u03b1 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b4\u03ad\u03c7\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b5\u1f36\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9\n      \u03c4\u1f70 \u03b5\u1f50\u03b1\u03b3\u03b3\u03ad\u03bb\u03b9\u03b1; \u1f10\u03c0\u03b5\u1f76 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 ... Germanus also (A.D. 715, ap. Gall. xiii.\n      215) quoting the place, confirms the reading \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2\n      \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u03ae\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2,\u2014which must obviously have stood in the original.\n\n  619 Note, that he actually reads \u201cThe beginning of the Gospel of the Son\n      of God,\u201d\u2014omitting the words \u201cJESUS CHRIST\u201d: not, of course, as\n      disallowing them, but in order the more effectually to emphasize the\n      Divine Sonship of MESSIAH.\n\n  620 \u1f18\u03b3\u03ce \u03c6\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9 (_sc._ \u1f41 \u039c\u03ac\u03c1\u03ba\u03bf\u03c2) \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u1f74\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u0395\u1f50\u03b1\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u03bb\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78 \u1f38\u03c9\u03ac\u03bd\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5\n      \u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03ae\u03c3\u03bf\u03bc\u03b1\u03b9; \u0395\u1f50\u03b1\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u03bb\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c5\u1f31\u03bf\u1fe6 \u0398\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6, \u03bf\u1f55\u03c4\u03c9 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u03ae\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2\n      \u03b3\u03ad\u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c0\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9, \u1f45\u03c4\u03b9 \u03c5\u1f31\u03cc\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9 \u0398\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6.... \u03b4\u03cd\u03bd\u03b1\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c4\u03cc, \u1f61\u03c2 \u03b3\u03ad\u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c0\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f10\u03bd\n      \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u03ae\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2, \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03ac\u03c8\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u1ff7, \u1f30\u03b4\u03bf\u1f7a \u1f10\u03b3\u1f7c \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03c3\u03c4\u03ad\u03bb\u03bb\u03c9 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f04\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u03bb\u03cc\u03bd \u03bc\u03bf\u03c5; \u1f35\u03bd\u03b1\n      \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u1f74\u03bd \u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03ae\u03c3\u03bf\u03bc\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u0395\u1f50\u03b1\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u03bb\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c5\u1f31\u03bf\u1fe6 \u0398\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u03ae\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2\n      \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u1f38\u03c9\u03ac\u03bd\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c1\u03b7\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd. This is the first scholium in the Catena as\n      edited by Possinus,\u2014p. 6. What follows is a well-known scholium of\n      the same Catena, (the first in Cramer\u2019s ed.), which C. F. Matthaei\n      (N. T. ii. 20) prints from six of his MSS.:\u2014\u1f38\u03c9\u03ac\u03bd\u03bd\u03b7\u03bd \u03bf\u1f56\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd\n      \u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03b5\u03c5\u03c4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u03b7\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u1f74\u03bd \u03b5\u1f36\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u0395\u1f50\u03b1\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u03bb\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c6\u03b7\u03c3\u1f76\u03bd \u1f41 \u039c\u03ac\u03c1\u03ba\u03bf\u03c2,\n      \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c6\u03ad\u03c1\u03c9\u03bd \u201c\u1f61\u03c2 \u03b3\u03ad\u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c0\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u03ae\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2; \u1f38\u03b4\u03bf\u1f7a \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb.\u201d\n\n_  621 Ap._ Hieron. vii. 17.\n\n  622 vi. 330 _diserte_.\n\n  623 ii. 413.\n\n  624 A.D. 890. De objectionibus Manichaeorum, _ap._ Galland. xiii. 667.\n\n  625 i. 1529 d.\n\n  626 Cons. 39.\n\n  627 E2 of the Acts and Cath. Epp. (Laudianus) in the Bodleian Library at\n      Oxford, of the sixth century.\n\n  628 This observation is due to Dr. Salmon; see the Note appended to\n      Lecture IX of his Historical Introduction to the New Testament (5th\n      edition, p. 147).\n\n  629 This fact was first pointed out by Dr. Gwynn in a memorandum\n      communicated by him to Dr. Scrivener, who inserted it in his Plain\n      Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament (3rd edition, p.\n      xii; cp. 4th edition, vol. I, p. 94), and I am indebted to the same\n      source for this admirable amplification of part of that memorandum.\n\n  630 A sufficient facsimile of the page in question (29 _r__o_) is given\n      by Dean Burgon in his Last Twelve Verses, reproduced from a\n      photograph.\n\n  631 On the contrary, in Tatian\u2019s Diatessaron \u03b3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9\u03ba\u03af is left out and\n      \u03bc\u03b5\u03bc\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c5\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7 is translated. For the Curetonian, see above, p. 295.","title":"The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":104882}