212 See a eulogistic yet discriminating discussion upon Bengel in

_Bengel als Gelehrter, ein Bild für unsere Tage_, from the eminent

pen of Dr. Nestle, which has been courteously sent to the editor

through the Rev. H. J. White.

213 The opposition of Frey and his other adversaries delayed that _opus

magnum_ for twenty years (N. T., Proleg., vol. i. p. 218).

214 We here reckon separately, as we believe is both usual and

convenient, every distinct portion of the N. T. contained in a

manuscript. Thus Codd. C and 69 Evan. will each count for four.

215 Errors of Wetstein’s text will be found in John xi. 31; Acts i. 26;

xiii. 29 ἐτέλησαν, from the Oxford N. T. 1675, though Wetstein

himself remarks this. He corrects a few obvious misprints of Elzevir

1633, but his note shows that he does not _intend_ to read τῷ in

Mark vi. 29. The following seem to be deliberate variations from the

Elzevir text: Matt. xiii. 15; xxi. 41; Mark xiv. 54; Luke ii. 22;

xi. 12; xiii. 19; 1 Cor. i. 29; v. 11; xii. 23; xiv. 15; Phil. iii.

5; 1 Tim. iii. 2, 11 (yet not Tit. ii. 2); Philem. 7; 1 Pet. i. 3;

iii. 7. All these deliberate variations are found in Von Mastricht’s

edition of 1735, which seems to have been used by Wetstein as the

basis of his text; and in all of them (except Matt. xxi. 41; Luke

xi. 12, and Phil. iii. 5) Fell’s text agrees with Wetstein’s. In

Matt. xiii. 15; Mark xiv. 54; 1 Cor. i. 29; v. 11; xii. 23; xiv. 15;

Phil. iii. 5; 1 Pet. iii. 7, the Elzevir editions vary. (American

Additions and Corrections, p. 51.) He spells ναζαρέτ uniformly,

except in John i. 46, 47. Reuss (p. 183) adds nine changes made by

Wetstein in the text for critical reasons: Matt. viii. 28; Luke xi.

2; John vii. 53-viii. 11; Acts v. 36; xx. 28; 1 Tim. iii. 16 (δ);

Apoc. iii. 2; x. 4; xviii. 17.

216 One other specimen of Matthaei’s critical skill will suffice: he is

speaking of his Cod. H, which is our Evst. 50. “Hic Codex scriptus

est literis quadratis, estque eorum omnium, qui adhuc in Europa

innotuerunt et vetustissimus et praestantissimus. Insanus quidem

fuerit, qui cum hoc aut Cod. V [p. 144] comparare, aut aequiparare

voluerit Codd. Alexandr. Clar. Germ. Boern. Cant. [Evan. AD, Paul.

ADEG], qui sine ullo dubio pessimè ex scholiis et Versione Latinâ

Vulgatâ interpolati sunt” (N. T., Tom. ix. p. 254).

217 In using Matthaei’s N. T. the following index of manuscripts first

collated by him will be found useful: a = Evan. 259, Act. 98 (a 1),

Paul. 113 (a or a 2), Apost. 82 (a 3): B = Evst. 47: b = Apost. 13:

c = Act. 99, Paul. 114, Evst. 48: d = Evan. 237, Act. 100, Paul.

115: e = Evan. 238, Apost. 14: f = Act. 101, Paul. 116, Evst. 49: g

= Evan. 239, Act. 102, Paul. 117: H = Evst. 50: h = Act. 103, Paul.

118: i = Evan. 240, Paul. 119: k = Evan. 241, Act. 104, Paul. 120,

Apoc. 47: l = Evan. 242, Act. 105, Paul. 121, Apoc. 48: m = Evan.

243, Act. 106, Paul. 122: n = Evan. 244, Paul. 123: o = Evan. 245,

Apoc. 49: p = Evan. 246, Apoc. 50: q = Evan. 247, Paul. 124: r =

Evan. 248, also Apoc. 502, Apoc. 90: s = Evan. 249, Paul. 76: t =

Apoc. 32, Evst. 51: tz = Apost. 15: V = V: v = Evan. 250, Apost. 5:

x = Evan. 251, Act. 69, Paul. 74, Apoc. 30 (from Knittel); z = Evan.

252: 10 = Evan. 253: 11 = Evan. 254: 12 = Evan. 255: 14 = Evan. 256:

15 = O, 16 = Evst. 56, Apost. 20: 17 = Evan. 258: 18 = Evan. 99: 19

= Evst. 57: 20 = Evan. 89: ξ = Evst. 52, Apost. 16: χ = Evst. 53,

Apost. 17: ψ = Evst. 54, Apost. 18: ω = Evst. 55, Apost. 19: Frag.

Vet. = part of H: Gpaul. It should be noted, that in several of

these cases different MSS. are included under one letter: e.g. c =

Evst. 48 is a different MS. from c = Act. 99.

218 The copies of Chrysostom’s homilies on the Gospels freshly collated

by this editor are noted 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 13, α, β, γ, δ,

ε, ζ, η, θ, λ, μ, π, ρ, φ: those on St. Paul’s Epistles are noted 1,

2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, α, β.

219 Reuss (p. 207) calculates that, besides misprints, Matthaei’s second

and very inferior edition differs in text from his first in but

twenty-four places, none of them being in the Gospels.

220 “Textui ad Millianum expresso” says Reuss (p. 151), which is not

quite the same thing: _see_ p. 203, note 2.

221 “Conscius sum mihi, me omnem et diligentiam et intentionem

adhibuisse, ut haec editio quam emendatissima in manus eruditorum

perveniret, utque in hoc opere, in quo ingenio non fuit locus, curae

testimonium promererem; nulla tamen mihi est fiducia, me omnia, quae

exigi possint, peregisse. Vix enim potest esse ulla tam perpetua

legentis intentio, quae non obtutu continuo fatigetur, praesertim in

tali genere, quod tam multis, saepe parvis, observationibus

constat.” (Lecturis Editor, p. v. 1788.) Well could I testify to the

truth of these last words!

222 “Symbolae Criticae ad supplendas et corrigendas variarum N. T.

lectionum Collectiones. Accedit multorum N. T. Codicum Graecorum

descriptio et examen.”

223 Yet Tischendorf (N. T., Proleg., p. xcvii, 7th ed.) states that he

only added two readings (Mark vi. 2, 4) to those given by Wetstein

for Cod. C. From Cod. D too he seems to have taken only one reading,

and that erroneously, επηγειραν, Acts xiv. 2.

224 In the London edition of 1809 ἄλλοι is printed for the first οὗτοί,

Mark iv. 18. Griesbach also omits καί in 2 Pet. i. 15: no manuscript

except Cod. 182 (ascr) is known to do so.

225 “Dissertatio critica de Codicibus quatuor Evangeliorum Origenianis,”

Halae, 1771: “Curae in historiam textus Graeci epistolarum

Paulinarum,” Jenae, 1777.

226 “Commentarius Criticus in textum Gr. N. T.,” Part i. 1798; Part ii.

1811.

227 The following specimen of a reading, _possessing no internal

excellence_, preferred or favoured by Griesbach on the slightest

evidence, will serve to illustrate the dangerous tendency of his

system, had it been consistently acted upon throughout. In Matt.

xxvii. 4 for ἀθῶον he indicates the mere gloss δίκαιον as equal or

preferable (though in his _later_ manual edition of 1805 he marks it

as an inferior reading), on the authority of the _later_ margin of

Cod. B, of Cod. L, the Sahidic Armenian, and Latin versions and

Fathers, and Origen in four places (ἀθῶον once). He adds the Syriac,

but this is an error as regards the Peshitto or Harkleian; the

Jerusalem may countenance him; though in such a case the testimony

of versions is precarious on either side. Here, however, Griesbach

defends δίκαιον against all likelihood, because BL and Origen are

Alexandrian, the Latin versions Western.

228 Reuss (p. 198) calculates that in his second edition out of Reuss’

thousand chosen passages Griesbach stands with the Elzevir text in

648, sides with other editions in 293, has fifty-nine peculiar to

himself. The second differs from the first edition (1774-5) in about

fifty places only.

229 Laurence, in the Appendix to his “Remarks,” shows that while Cod. A

agrees with Origen against the received text in 154 places, and

disagrees with the two united in 140, it sides with the received

text against Origen in no less than 444 passages.

230 David Schulz published at Berlin, 1827, 8vo, a third and much

improved edition of his N. T., vol. i (Gospels), containing also

collations of certain additional manuscripts, unknown to Griesbach.

231 One of Porter’s examples is almost amusing. It was Scholz’s constant

habit to copy Griesbach’s lists of critical authorities (errors,

misprints, and all) without giving the reader any warning that they

were not the fruit of his own labours. The note he borrowed from

Griesbach on 1 Tim. iii. 16, contains the words “uti docuimus in

Symbolis Criticis:” this too Scholz appropriates (Tom. ii. p. 334,

col. 2) so as to claim the “Symbolae Criticae” of the Halle

Professor as his own! See also p. 217, Evan. 365; p. 253, Act. 86,

and Tischendorf’s notes on Acts xix. 25; 2 Pet. i. 15 (N. T., eighth

edition). His very text must have been set up by Griesbach’s. Thus,

since the latter, by a mere press error, omitted με in 2 Cor. ii.

13, Scholz not only follows him in the omission, but cites in his

note a few cursives in which he had met with με, a word really

absent from no known copy. In Heb. ix. 5 again, both editors in

error prefix τῆς to δόξης. Scholz’s inaccuracy in the description of

manuscripts which he must have had before him when he was writing is

most wearisome to those who have had to trace his steps, and to

verify, or rather to falsify, his statements. He has half filled our

catalogues with duplicates and codices which are not Greek or are

not Biblical at all. After correcting not a few of his

misrepresentations of books in the libraries at Florence, Burgon

breaks out at last: “What else but calamitous is it to any branch of

study that it should have been prosecuted by such an incorrigible

blunderer, a man so abominably careless as this?” (_Guardian_, Aug.

27, 1873.)

232 Some of these statements are discussed in Scrivener’s “Collation of

the Greek Manuscripts of the Holy Gospels,” Introd. pp. lxix-lxxi.

233 The following is the _whole_ of this notice, which we reprint after

Tregelles’ example: “De ratione et consilio hujus editionis loco

commodiore expositum est (Theol. Studien und Kritiken, 1830, pp.

817-845). Hic satis erit dixisse, editorem nusquam judicium suum,

sed consuetudinem antiquissimarum orientis ecclesiarum secutum esse.

Hanc quoties minus constantem fuisse animadvertit, quantum fieri

potuit quae Italorum et Afrorum consensu comprobarentur praetulit:

ubi pervagatam omnium auctorum discrepantiam deprehendit, partim

uncis partim in marginibus indicavit. Quo factum est ut vulgatae et

his proximis duobus saeculis _receptae lectionis_ ratio haberi non

posset. Haec diversitas hic in fine libri adjecta est, quoniam ea

res doctis judicibus necessaria esse videbatur.” Here we have one of

Lachmann’s leading peculiarities—his absolute disregard of the

received readings—hinted at in an incidental manner: the influence

he was disposed to accord to the Latin versions when his chief

authorities were at variance is pretty clearly indicated: but no one

would guess that by the “custom of the oldest Churches of the East”

he intends the few very ancient codices comprising Griesbach’s

Alexandrian class, and not the great mass of authorities, gathered

from the Churches of Syria, Asia Minor, and Constantinople, of which

that critic’s Byzantine family was made up.

234 These are _d_ for Cod. Bezae, _e_ for Cod. Laud. 35, _f_ being

Lachmann’s notation for Paul. Cod. D, as _ff_ is for Paul. Cod. E

(whose Latin translation is cited independently), _g_ for Paul. Cod.

G.

235 We must now except the seventh century corrector of Cod. א called by

Tischendorf Ca, who actually changes the original reading εκδ. into

ενδ., to be himself set right by a later hand Cb. This is one out of

many proofs of something more than an accidental connexion between

Codd. א and B at a remote period. _See_ vol. i. p. 96, and note.

236 In dedicating the third volume of his “Monumenta sacra inedita” in

1860 to the Theological Faculty at Leyden, Tischendorf states that

he took to these studies twenty-three years before, that is, at

about twenty-two years of age.

237 Tischendorf left almost no papers behind him. Hence the task of

writing Prolegomena to his eighth edition, gallantly undertaken by

two American scholars, Dr. Caspar René Gregory of Leipzig, and Dr.

Ezra Abbot of Cambridge, U. S., but for their own independent

researches, might seem to resemble that of making bricks without

straw.

238 Through his haste to publish Cod. E of the Acts, in which design he

feared to be forestalled by a certain Englishman, Tischendorf

postponed to it vols. vii and viii, which he did not live to resume.

Oscar von Gebhardt, now of Berlin, will complete vol. vii; Caspar

René Gregory hopes to do what is possible for vol. viii.

239 For further information respecting this indefatigable scholar and

his labours we may refer to a work published at Leipzig in 1862,

“Constantin Tischendorf in seiner fünfundzwanzigjährigen

schriftstellerischen wirksamkeit. Literar-historische skizze von Dr.

Joh. Ernst Volbeding.” I have also seen, by Dr. Ezra Abbot’s

courtesy, his paper in the _Unitarian Review_, March, 1875.

240 A pamphlet of thirty-six pages appeared late in 1860, “Additions to

the Fourth Volume of the Introduction to the Holy Scriptures,” &c.,

by S. P. T. Most of this industrious writer’s other publications are

not sufficiently connected with the subject of the present volume to

be noticed here, but as throwing light upon the literary history of

Scripture we may mention his edition of the “Canon Muratorianus,”

liberally printed for him in 1867 by the Delegates of the Oxford

University Press. Burgon, however, on comparing Tregelles’ book with

the document itself at Milan, cannot overmuch laud his minute

correctness (_Guardian_, Feb. 5, 1873). Isaac H. Hall made the same

comparison at Milan and confirms Burgon’s judgement. The custodian

of the Ambrosian Library at Milan, the famous Ceriani, had nothing

to do with the work or with the lithograph facsimile.

241 As a whole it may be pronounced very accurate as well as beautiful,

with the conspicuous drawback that the Greek accents are so ill

represented as to show either strange ignorance or utter

indifference about them on the part of the person who revised the

sheets for the press.

242 He gave the same assurance to A. Earle, D.D., Bishop of Marlborough,

assigning as his reason the results of the study of the Greek N. T.

243 Dr. Hort (Introd. p. 277) hardly goes so far as this: “Those,” he

says, “who propose remedies which cannot possibly avail are not

thereby shown to have been wrong in the supposition that remedies

were needed; and a few have been perhaps too quickly forgotten.”

244 I hope that the change made in the wording of the above sentence

from what stood in the first edition will satisfy my learned and

acute critic, Mr. Linwood (Remarks on Conjectural Emendations as

applied to the New Testament, 1873, p. 9, note); although I fear

that the difference between us is in substance as wide as ever. At

the same time I would hardly rest the main stress of the argument

where Dr. Roberts does when he says that “conjectural criticism is

entirely banished from the field, &c., simply because all sober

critics feel that there is no need for it” (Words of the N. T., p.

24). There are texts, no doubt, some of those for example which Dr.

Westcott and Dr. Hort have branded with a marginal [+] in their

edition; e.g. Acts vii. 46; xiii. 32; xix. 40; xxvi. 28; Rom. viii.

2; 1 Cor. xii. 2 (where Eph. ii. 11 might suggest ὅτι ποτέ); 1 Tim.

vi. 7, and especially in the kindred Epistles, 2 Pet. iii. 10; 12;

Jude 5; 22, 23, wherein, whether from internal difficulties or from

the actual state of the external evidence, we should be very glad of

more light than our existing authorities will lend us. What I most

urge is the plain fact, that the conjectures, even of able and

accomplished men, have never been such as to approve themselves to

any but their authors, much less to commend themselves to the

judgement of scholars as intuitively true.

245 Bentley, the last great critic who paid much regard to conjectural

emendations, promised in his Prospectus of 1720 that “If the author

has anything to suggest towards a change of the text, not supported

by any copies now extant, he will offer it separate in his

Prolegomena.” It is really worth while to turn over Wm. Bowyer’s

“Critical Conjectures and Observations on the N. T.,” or the summary

of them contained in Knappe’s N. T. of 1797, if only to see the

utter fruitlessness of the attempt to illustrate Scripture by

ingenious exercise of the imagination. The best (_e.g._

συναλιζομένοις Acts i. 4; πορκείας for πορνείας _ibid._ xv. 20, 29),

no less than the most tasteless and stupid (_e.g._ νηνεμίαν for

νηστείαν Acts xxvii. 9), in the whole collection, are hopelessly

condemned by the deep silence of a host of authorities which have

since come to light. Nor are Mr. Linwood’s additions to the

over-copious list likely to fare much better. Who but himself will

think πρώτη in Luke ii. 2 corrupted through the intermediate πρώτει

from πρώτω ἔτει (_ubi supra_ p. 5); or that τὰ πολλά in Rom. xv. 22

ought to be ἐτη πολλά (p. 13)? Add to this, that he gives up

existing readings much too easily, even where his emendations are

more plausible than the foregoing, as when he would adopt ὅς ἄν for

ὅταν in John viii. 44 (p. 6); and this is perhaps his best attempt.

His worst surely is ΟΣ for _ΘΣ_ (θεός) Rom. ix. 5, which could not

be endured unless ἐστιν followed ὅς, as it does in the very passage

(Rom. i. 25) which he cites in illustration (p. 13).

246 “VII. Inter duas variantes lectiones, si quae est εὐφωνότερος aut

planior aut Graecantior, alteri non protinus praeferenda est, sed

contra saepius. VIII. Lectio exhibens locutionem minus usitatam, sed

alioqui subjectae materiae convenientem, praeferenda est alteri,

quae, cum aeque conveniens sit, tamen phrasim habet minus

insolentem, usuque magis tritam.” Wetstein’s whole tract,

“Animadversiones et Cautiones ad examen variarum lectionum N. T.

necessariae” (N. T., vol. ii. pp. 851-874) deserves attentive study.

See also the 43 Canones Critici and their Confirmatio in N. T. of G.

D. T. M. D.

247 So even Dr. Roberts, whose sympathies on the whole would not be the

same as the Bishop of Lincoln’s: “Of course occasions might occur on

which, from carelessness or oversight, a transcriber would render a

sentence obscure or ungrammatical which was clear and correct in his

exemplar; but it is manifest that, so far as intentional alteration

was concerned, the temptation all lay in the opposite direction”

(“Words of the New Testament,” p. 7). So again speaks E. G. Punchard

on James iii. 3 in Bp. Ellicott’s Commentary, “The supporters of

such curious corrections argue that the less likely is the more so;

and thus every slip of a copyist, either in grammar or spelling,

becomes more sacred in their eyes than is the Received text with

believers in verbal inspiration.” Sir Edmund Beckett (“Should the

Revised New Testament be Authorised?” 1882) writes in so scornful a

spirit as to neutralize the effects on a reader’s mind of his native

acuteness and common sense, but he deals well with the argument

“that an improbable reading is more likely right, because nobody

would have invented it.” “I suppose,” he rejoins, “an accidental

piece of carelessness can produce an improbable and absurd error in

copying as well as a probable one.” (p. 7.)

248 In his seventh edition, not in his eighth.

249 One other example to illustrate this rule, so difficult in its

practical use, may be added from Alford on Mark ii. 22, where the

reading καὶ ὁ οἶνος ἀπόλλυται καὶ οἱ ἀσκοί (whether the verse end or

not in these words) appears to have been the original form, since

“it fully explains all the others, either as emendations of

construction, or corrections from parallel places.” The reader may

apply this canon, if he pleases, to Aristotle, Ethic. iv. 9, in

selecting between the three different readings ὀκνηροί or νωθροί or

νοεροί to close the sentence οὐ μὴν ἠλίθιοί γε οἱ τοιοῦτοι δοκοῦσιν

εἶναι, ἀλλα μᾶλλον ... having careful reference to the context in

which it stands: or to the easier case of καίτοιγε and its

variations in Acts xvii. 27: or to Rom. viii. 24, where the first

hand of B and the margin of Cod. 47 (very expressly), by omitting τί

καί, appear to present the original text.

250 “Though the theory of explanatory interpolations of marginal glosses

into the text of the N. T. has been sometimes carried too far (e.g.

by _Wassenberg_ in ‘Valcken.’ Schol. in N. T., Tom. i), yet probably

this has been the most fertile source of error in some MSS. of the

Sacred Volume.” (Bp. Chr. Wordsworth, N. T., on 2 Cor. iii. 3.) Yes,

in _some_ MSS.

251 On this passage Canon Liddon justly says, “The question may still

perhaps be asked ... whether here, as elsewhere, the presumption

that copyists were always anxious to alter the text of the New

Testament in theological interests, is not pressed somewhat

excessively” (Bampton Lectures, 1866, p. 467, note).

252 Griesbach’s “etiam manifestò falsas” can allude only to 1 John v. 7,

8; yet it is a strong point against the authenticity of that passage

that it is _not_ cited by Greek writers, who did not find it in

their copies, but only by the Latins who did.

253 The clause might have been derived from Gen. ii. 23, yet the

evidence against it is strong and varied (אAB, 17, 67, Bohair.,

&c.).

254 Alford’s only _definite_ example (and that derived from Wetstein, N.

T., vol. ii. p. 11) is found but in a single cursive (4) in Rom.

xiv. 17, οὐ γάρ ἐστιν ἡ βασιλεία τοῦ Θεοῦ βρῶσις καὶ πόσις, ἀλλὰ

δικαιοσύνη _καὶ ἄσκησις_ καὶ εἰρήνη. Tregelles (An Account of

Printed Text, p. 222) adds 1 Cor. vii. 5; Act. x. 30; Rom. xii. 13

(!) More to their purpose, perhaps, if we desired to help them on,

would be the suspected addition of καὶ νηστείᾳ in Mark ix. 29, and

of the whole verse in the parallel place Matt. xvii. 21; the former

being brought into doubt on the very insufficient authority of Codd.

א (by the first hand) Β, of the beautiful Latin copy _k_ from

Bobbio, and by reason of the silence of Clement of Alexandria: the

latter on the evidence of the same Greek manuscripts (_k_ being

defective) with Cod. 33, both (?) Egyptian, the Curetonian and

Jerusalem Syriac, the Latin _e_ _ff_1, some forms of the Ethiopic

version, and from the absence of the Eusebian canon, which ought to

have referred us to the parallel place in St. Mark, whereas that

verse is assigned to the _tenth_ canon. In the face of such readings

of אΒ it is hard to understand the grounds of Mr. Darby’s vague

suspicion that they “bear the marks of having been in ecclesiastical

hands.” (N. T., Preface, p. 3.)

255 See (6), (7), (17), (18). The uncial characters most liable to be

confounded by scribes (p. 10) are ΑΔΛ, ΕΣ, ΟΘ, ΝΠ, and less probably

ΓΙΤ. An article in a foreign classical periodical, written by

Professor Cobet, the co-editor of the Leyden reprint of the N. T.

portion of Cod. B, unless regarded as a mere _jeu d’esprit_, would

serve to prove that the race of conjectural emendators is not so

completely extinct as (before Mr. Linwood’s pamphlet) I had

supposed. By a dexterous interchange of letters of nearly the same

form (Δ for Α, Ε for Σ, Ι for Τ, Σ for Ε, κ for ΙΣ, Τ for Ι) this

modern Bentley—and he well deserves the name—suggests for ΑΣΤΕΙΟΣ τῷ

θεῷ Act. vii. 20 [compare Heb. xi. 23] the common-place ΔΕΚΤΟΣ τῷ

θεῷ, from Act. x. 35. Each one of the _six_ necessary changes Cobet

profusely illustrates by examples, and even the reverse substitution

of δεκτός for ἀστεῖος from Alciphron: but in the absence of all

manuscript authority for the very smallest of these several

permutations in Act. vii. 20, he excites in us no other feeling than

a sort of grudging admiration of his misplaced ingenuity. In the

same spirit he suggests ΗΔΕΙΟΝΑ for ΠΛΕΙΟΝΑ, Heb. xi. 4; while in 1

Cor. ii. 4 for ἐν πειθοῖς σοφίας λόγοις he simply reads ἐν πειθοῖ

σοφίας, the σ which begins σοφίας having become accidentally doubled

and λόγοις subsequently added to explain πειθοῖς, which he holds to

be no Greek word at all: it seems indeed to be met with nowhere

else. Dr. Hort’s comment on this learned trifling is instructive:

“Though it cannot be said that recent attempts in Holland to revive

conjectural criticism for the N. T. have shown much felicity of

suggestion, they cannot be justly condemned on the ground of

principle” (Introd., p. 277).

256 Thus Canon I of this chapter includes (12), (19): Canon III includes

(2), (3), (4), (8), (9), (10); while (13) comes under Canon IV; (20)

under Canon VI.

257 “Canon Criticus” xxiv, N. T., by G. D. T. M. D., p. 12, 1735.

258 Dean Burgon cites (Revision Revised, pp. 359, 360) “no less than

thirty ancient witnesses.”

259 ’The precept, if we omit the phrase, is in striking harmony with the

at first sight sharp, extreme, almost paradoxical character of

various other precepts of the “Sermon on the Mount.” Milligan, Words

of the N. T., p. 111.

260 Very similar in point of moral feeling is the variation between

ὀλιγοπιστίαν, the gentler, intrinsically perhaps the more probable,

and ἀπιστίαν, the more emphatic term, in Matt. xvii. 20. Both must

have been current in the second century, the former having the

support of Codd. אB, 13, 22, 33, 124, 346 [_hiat_ 69], the

Curetonian Syriac (and that too against Cod. D), both Egyptian, the

Armenian and Ethiopic versions, Origen, Chrysostom (very expressly,

although his manuscripts vary), John Damascene, but of the Latins

Hilary alone. All the rest, including Codd. CD, the Peshitto Syriac,

and the Latins among first class witnesses, maintain ἀπιστίαν of the

common text.

261 Perhaps I may refer to my “Textual Guide,” p. 120. The utmost

caution should be employed in the use of this kind of evidence:

perhaps nowhere else do authorities differ so much.—ED.

262 E.g. Irenaeus, Contra Haereses, v. 30. 1, for which see below, p.

261: the early date renders this testimony most weighty.

263 In deference to Lardner and others, who have supposed that Ignatius

refers to the sacred autographs, we subjoin the sentence in dispute.

Ἐπεὶ ἤκουσά τινων λεγόντων, ὅτι ἐὰν μὴ ἐν τοῖς ἀρχαίοις εὕρω, ἐν τῷ

εὐαγγελίῳ οὐ πιστεύω; καὶ λέγοντός μου αὐτοῖς, ὅτι γέγραπται,

ἀπεκρίθησάν μοι, ὅτι πρόκειται. Ἐμοὶ δὲ ἀρχεῖά ἐστιν Ἰησοῦς Χριστός

κ.τ.λ. (Ad Philadelph. c. 8.) On account of ἀρχεῖα in the succeeding

clause, ἀρχείοις has been suggested as a substitute for the

manuscript reading ἀρχαίοις, and so the interpolators of the genuine

Epistle have actually written. But without denying that a play on

the words was designed between ἀρχαίοις and ἀρχεῖα, both copies of

the Old Latin version maintain the distinction made in the Medicean

Greek (“si non in veteribus invenio” and “Mihi autem principium est

Jesus Christus”), and any difficulty as to the sense lies not in

ἀρχαίοις but in πρόκειται. Chevallier’s translation of the passage

is perfectly intelligible, “Because I have heard some say, Unless I

find it in the ancient writings, I will not believe in the Gospel.

And when I said to them, ‘It is written [in the Gospel],’ they

answered me, ‘It is found written before [in the Law].’ ” Gainsayers

set the first covenant in opposition to the second and better one.

264 Thus Dr. Westcott understands the term, citing from Tertullian, De

Monogamia, xi: “sciamus planè non sic esse in Graeco authentico.”

Dean Burgon refers us to Routh’s “Opuscula,” vol. i. pp. 151 and

206.

265 Compare too Jerome’s expression “ipsa authentica” (Comment. in

Epist. ad Titum), when speaking of the autographs of Origen’s

Hexapla: below, p. 263.

266 The view I take is Coleridge’s (Table Talk, p. 89, 2nd ed.). “I beg

Tertullian’s pardon; but among his many _bravuras_, he says

something about St. Paul’s autograph. Origen expressly declares the

reverse;” referring, I suppose, to the passage cited below, p. 263.

Bp. Kaye, the very excellence of whose character almost unfitted him

for entering into the spirit of Tertullian, observes: “Since the

whole passage is evidently nothing more than a declamatory mode of

stating the weight which he attached to the authority of the

Apostolic Churches; to infer from it that the very chairs in which

the Apostles sat, or that the very Epistles which they wrote, then

actually existed at Corinth, Ephesus, Rome, &c., would be only to

betray a total ignorance of Tertullian’s style” (Kaye’s

“Ecclesiastical History ... illustrated from the writings of

Tertullian,” p. 313, 2nd ed.). Just so: the autographs were no more

in those cities than the chairs were: but it suited the purpose of

the moment to suppose that they were extant; and, _knowing nothing

to the contrary_, he boldly sends the reader in search of them.

267 I do not observe, as some have thought, that Eusebius (Hist. Eccl.

v. 10) intimates that the copy of St. Matthew’s Gospel in Hebrew

letters, left by St. Bartholomew in India, was the Evangelist’s

autograph; and the fancy that St. Mark wrote with his own hand the

Latin fragments now at Venice (_for._) is worthy of serious notice.

The statement twice made in the “Chronicon Paschale,” of Alexandria,

compiled in the seventh century, _but full of ancient fragments_,

that ὡσεὶ τριτὴ was the true reading of John xix. 14 “καθὼς τὰ

ἀκριβῆ βιβλία περιέχει, αὐτό τε τὸ ἰδιόχειρον τοῦ εὐαγγελιστοῦ ὅπερ

μέχρι τοῦ νῦν πεφύλακται χάριτι Θεοῦ ἐν τῇ ἐφεσίων ἁγιωτάτῃ ἐκκλησίᾳ

καὶ ὑπὸ τῶν πιστῶν ἐκεῖσε προσκυνεῖται” (Dindorf, Chron. Pasch., pp.

11 and 411), is simply incredible. Isaac Casaubon, however, a most

unimpeachable witness, says that this passage, and another which he

cites, were found by himself in a fine fragment of the Paschal

treatise of “Peter Bp. of Alexandria and martyr” [d. 311], which he

got from Andrew Damarius, a Greek merchant or calligrapher

(Pattison, Life of Is. Casaubon, p. 38). Casaubon adds to the

assertion of Peter “Hec ille. Ego non ignoro quid adversus hanc

sententiam possit disputari: de quo judicium esto eruditorum”

(Exercit. in Annal. Eccles. pp. 464, 670, London, 1614).

268 “I have no doubt,” says Tischendorf, “that in the very earliest ages

after our Holy Scriptures were written, and before the authority of

the Church protected them, wilful alterations, and especially

additions, were made in them,” English N. T., 1869, Introd. p. xv.

269 Caius (175-200) in Routh’s “Reliquiae,” ii. 125, quoted in Burgon’s

“Revision Revised,” p. 323.

270 “Necdum quoque Marcion Ponticus de Ponto emersisset, cujus magister

Cerdon sub Hygino tunc episcopo, qui in Urbe nonus fuit, Romam

venit: quem Marcion secutus...” Cyprian., Epist. 74. Cf. Euseb.,

Eccl. Hist., iv. 10, 11.

271 Dean Burgon attributes more importance to Marcion’s mutilations.

_See_ e.g. “The Revision Revised,” pp. 34-35.

272 In 1 Cor. x. 9 Marcion seems to uphold the true reading against the

judgement of Epiphanius: ὁ δὲ μαρκίων ἀντὶ τοῦ _κν_ _χν_ ἐποίησεν.

Consult also Bp. Lightfoot’s note (Epistle to the Colossians, p.

336, n. 1) on Heracleon’s variation of πέντε for ἓξ in John ii. 20.

“There is no reason to think,” he says, “that Heracleon falsified

the text here; he appears to have found this various reading already

in his copy.”

_ 273 See_ Chap. XI on Acts xxvii. 37.

274 Irenaeus’ anxiety that his own works should be kept free from

corruption, and the value attached by him to the labours of the

corrector, are plainly seen in a remarkable subscription preserved

by Eusebius (Eccl. Hist. v. 20), which illustrates what has been

said above, Ὁρκίζω σε τὸν μεταγραψόμενον τὸ βίβλιον τοῦτο, κατὰ τοῦ

κυρίου ἡμῶν ἰησοῦ χριστοῦ, καὶ κατὰ τῆς ἐνδόξου παρουσίας αὐτοῦ, ἧς

ἔρχεται κρῖναι ζῶντας καὶ νεκρούς, ἵνα ἀντιβάλλῃς ὃ μετεγράψω, καὶ

κατορθώσῃς αὐτὸ πρὸς τὸ ἀντίγραφον τοῦτο, ὅθεν μετεγράψω ἐπιμελῶς,

καὶ τὸν ὅρκον τοῦτον ὁμοίως μεταγράψῃς, καὶ θήσεις ἐν τῷ ἀντιγράφῳ.

Here the copyist (ὁ μεταγραφόμενος) is assumed to be the same person

as the reviser or corrector. Mr. Linwood also (_ubi supra_, p. 11)

illustrates from Martial (Lib. vii. Epigram. x) the reader’s natural

wish to possess an author’s original manuscript rather than a less

perfect copy: _Qui vis_ archetypas _habere nugas_. A still stronger

illustration of the passage in Irenaeus (v. 30) is Linwood’s

citation of a well-known passage in Aulus Gellius, a contemporary of

that Father, wherein he discusses with Higinus the corrupt variation

_amaro_ for _amaror_ in Virgil, Geor. ii. 247 (Noctes Atticae, Lib.

i. cap. 21).

275 Μακάριοι, φησίν, οἱ δεδιωγμένοι ἕνεκεν δικαιοσύνης, ὅτι αὐτοὶ υἱοὶ

Θεοῦ κληθήσονται; ἤ, ὥς τινες τῶν μετατιθέντων τὰ Εὐαγγέλια,

Μακάριοι, φησίν, οἱ δεδιωγμένοι ὑπὸ τῆς δικαιοσύνης, ὅτι αὐτοὶ

ἔσονται τέλειοι; καί, μακάριοι οἱ δεδιωγμένοι ἕνεκα ἐμοῦ, ὅτι ἔξουσι

τόπον ὅπου οὐ διωχθήσονται (Stromata, iv. 6). Tregelles (Horne, p.

39, note 2) pertinently remarks that Clement, in the very act of

censuring others, subjoins the close of Matt. v. 9 to v. 10, and

elsewhere himself ventures on liberties no less extravagant, as when

he thus quotes Matt. xix. 24 (or Luke xviii. 25): πειστέον οὖν πολλῷ

μᾶλλον τῇ γραφῇ λεγούσῃ, Θᾶττον κάμηλον διὰ τρυπήματος βελόνης

διελεύσεσθαι, ἢ πλούσιον φιλοσοφεῖν (Stromata, ii. 5).

276 In this place (contrary to what might have been inferred from the

language of Irenaeus, cited above, p. 262, note 2) the copyist

(γραφεύς) is clearly distinct from the corrector (διορθωτής), who

either alters the words that stand in the text, or adds to and

subtracts from them. In Cobet’s masterly Preface to his own and

Kuenen’s “N. T. ad fidem Cod. Vaticani,” Leyden, 1860, pp.

xxvii-xxxiv, will be found most of the passages we have used that

bear on the subject, with the following from classical writers,

“Nota est Strabonis querela xiii. p. 609 de bibliopolis, qui libros

edebant γραφεῦσι φαύλοις χρώμενοι, καὶ οὐκ ἀντιβάλλοντες... Sic in

Demosthenis Codice Monacensi ad finem Orationis xi annotatum est

Διωρθώθη πρὸς δύο Ἀττικιανά, id est, _correctus est_ (hic liber) _ex

duobus codicibus ab Attico_ (nobili calligrapho) _descriptis_.” Just

as at the end of each of Terence’s plays the manuscripts read

“Calliopius recensui.”

277 No doubt certain that are quite or almost peculiar to Cod. D would

deserve consideration if they were not destitute of adequate

support. Some may be inclined to think the words cited above in vol.

I. p. 8 not unworthy of Him to whom they are ascribed. The margin of

the Harkleian Syriac alone countenances D in that touching appendage

to Acts viii. 24, which every one must wish to be genuine, ος πολλα

κλαιων ου διελυ[ι]μπανεν. Several minute facts are also inserted by

D in the latter part of the same book, which are more likely to rest

on traditional knowledge than to be mere exercises of an idle fancy.

Such are απο ωρας ε εως δεκατης annexed to the end of Acts xix. 9:

και Μυρα to Acts xxi. 1; the former of which is also found in Cod.

137 and the Harkleian margin; the latter in the Sahidic and one or

two Latin copies.

278 Considering that Cod. D and the Latin manuscripts contain the

variation in Luke iii. 22, but not in Matt. iii. 17, we ought not to

doubt that Justin Martyr (p. 331 B, ed. Paris, 1636) and Clement (p.

113, ed. Potter) refer to the former. Hence Bp. Kaye (Account of the

Writings of Clement, p. 410) should not have produced this passage

among others to show (what in itself is quite true) that “Clement

frequently quotes from memory.”

279 This point is exceedingly well stated by Canon Cook (Revised Version

of the first three Gospels, p. 176): “I will not dwell upon

indications of Arian tendencies. They are not such as we should be

entitled to rely upon.... Eusebius was certainly above the suspicion

of consciously introducing false statements or of obliterating true

statements. As was the case with many supporters of the high Arian

party, which came nearest to the sound orthodox faith, Eusebius was

familiar with all scriptural texts which distinctly ascribe to our

Lord the divine attributes and the divine name, and was far more

likely to adopt an explanation which coincided with his own system,

than to incur the risk of exposure and disgrace by obliterating or

modifying them in manuscripts which would be always open to public

inspection.”

280 “This is possible, though there is no proof of it,” is Professor

Abbot’s comment (_ubi supra_, p. 190, but _see_ above, vol. i. p.

118, note 2).

281 In the “Notitia Editionis Cod. Sin.,” 1860. They are Matt. xxvii.

64-xxviii. 20; Mark i. 1-35; Luke xxiv. 24-53; John xxi. 1-25. Other

like calculations, with much the same result, are given in

Scrivener’s “Cod. Sin.,” Introd. pp. xlii, xliii.

282 And that too hardly to the credit of either of them. “Ought it not,”

asks Dean Burgon, “sensibly to detract from our opinion of the value

of their evidence to discover that _it is easier to find two

consecutive verses in which the two MSS. differ, the one from the

other, than two consecutive verses in which they entirely agree_?...

On every such occasion only one of them can possibly be speaking the

truth. Shall I be thought unreasonable if I confess that these

perpetual inconsistencies between Codd. B and 8—grave

inconsistencies, and occasionally even gross ones—altogether destroy

my confidence in either?” (Last Twelve Verses of St. Mark, pp.

77-8.)

283 Magnus siquidem hic in nostris codicibus error inolevit, dum quod in

eadem re alius Evangelista plus dixit, in alio, quia minus

putaverint, addiderunt. Vel dum eundem sensum alius aliter

expressit, ille qui unum e quatuor primum legerat, ad ejus exemplum

ceteros quoque existimaverit emendandos. _Unde accidit ut apud nos

mixta sint omnia_ (Praef. ad Damasum).

284 The precise references may be seen in Tischendorf’s, and for the

most part more exactly in Tregelles’ N. T. That on Matt. xxiv. 36 is

Tom. vii. p. 199, or vi. p. 54; on Galat. iii. 1 is Tom. vii. pp.

418, 487.

285 See our note on Luke xxii. 44 below in Chap. XI. This same writer

testifies to a practice already partially employed, of using

breathings, accents, and stops in copies of Holy Scripture. Ἐπειδὴ

δέ τινες κατὰ προσῳδίαν ἔστιζαν τὰς γραφὰς καὶ περὶ τῶν προσῳδῶν

τάδε: ὀξεῖα ᾽, δασεῖα ᾽, βαρεῖα ᾽, ψιλὴ ᾽, περισπωμένη ᾽, ἀπόστροφος

᾽, μακρὰ —, ὑφὲν ᾽, βραχεῖα ᾽, ὑποδιαστολή, Ὡσαύτως καὶ περὶ τῶν

λοιπῶν σημείων κ.τ.λ. (Epiphan., De Mensur., c. 2, Tom. iii. p. 237

Migne). This passage may tend to confirm the statements made above,

Vol. I. pp. 45-8, respecting the presence of such marks in very

ancient codices, though on the whole we may not quite vouch for Sir

F. Madden’s opinion as regards Cod. A.

286 “Evangelia quae falsavit Lucianus, apocrypha.” “Evangelia quae

falsavit Esitius [_alii_ Hesychius _vel_ Isicius], apocrypha,” occur

separately in the course of a long list of spurious books (such as

the Gospels of Thaddaeus, Matthias, Peter, James, that “nomine

Thomae quo utuntur Manichaei,” &c.) in Appendix iii to Gelasius’

works in Migne’s Patrologia, Tom. lix. p. 162 [A.D. 494]. But the

authenticity of those decrees is far from certain, and since we hear

of these falsified Gospels nowhere else, Gelasius’ knowledge of them

might have been derived from what he had read in Jerome’s “Praef. ad

Damasum.”

287 Griesbach rejoices to have Hug’s assent “in eo, in quo disputationis

de veteribus N. T. recensionibus cardo vertitur; nempe extitisse,

inde a secundo et tertio saeculo, plures sacri textûs recensiones,

quarum una, si Evangelia spectes, supersit in Codice D, altera in

Codd. BCL, alia in Codd. EFGHS et quae sunt reliqua” (Meletemata, p.

lxviii, prefixed to “Commentarius Criticus,” Pars ii, 1811). I

suppose that Tregelles must have overlooked this decisive passage

(probably the last its author wrote for the public eye) when he

states that Griesbach now “virtually gave up his system” as regards

the possibility of “drawing an actual line of distinction between

his Alexandrian and Western recensions” (An Account of the Printed

Text, p. 91). He certainly showed, throughout his “Commentarius

Criticus,” that Origen does not lend him the support he had once

anticipated; but he still held that the theory of a triple recension

was the very _hinge_ on which the whole question turned, and clung

to that theory as tenaciously as ever. THIRD EDITION. Dr. Hort (N.

T., Introd. p. 186) has since confirmed our opinion that Griesbach

was faithful to the last to the essential characteristics of his

theory, adding that “the Meletemata of 1811 ... reiterate

Griesbach’s familiar statements in precise language, while they show

a growing perception of mixture which might have led him to further

results if he had not died in the following spring.”

288 It should be also observed that ΦΣ containing SS. Matthew and Mark

are probably older than D.

289 E.g. Matt. i. 18; Acts viii. 37 for Irenaeus: Acts xiii. 33 for

Origen. It is rare indeed that the express testimony of a Father is

so fully confirmed by the oldest copies as in John i. 28, where

Βηθανίᾳ, said by Origen to be σχεδὸν ἐν πᾶσι τοῖς ἀντιγράφοις,

actually appears in א*ABC*.

290 This view is controverted in Burgon’s “Remains.”

291 Mr. A. A. Vansittart, Journal of Philology, vol. ii. No. 3, p. 35. I

suppose too that Mr. Hammond means much the same thing when he says,

“It seems almost superfluous to affirm that _every element of

evidence must be allowed its full weight_; but it is a principle

that must not be forgotten.” (Outlines of Textual Criticism, p. 93,

2nd edition.) Truly it is not superfluous to insist on this

principle when we so perpetually find the study of the cursive

manuscripts disparaged by the use of what we may venture to call the

Caliph Omar’s argument, that if they agree with the older

authorities their evidence is superfluous, if they contradict them,

it is necessarily false.

292 The evidence of Evan. R, which contains only the decisive letters

ΝΗΡΟΥ, is the more valuable, inasmuch as it has been alleged to

support the readings of documents of the other class (which no doubt

it often does) and thus to afford a confirmation of their authority;

it cannot help them much when its vote is against them. On analyzing

the 908 readings for which R is cited in Tischendorf’s eighth

edition, I find that it sides with A, the representative of the one

class, 356 times; with its better reputed rival B 157 times, where A

and B are at variance. It is with A alone of the great uncials 101

times, with B alone four, with א alone five, with C alone (but C is

lost in 473 places out of the 908) six; with D alone twenty-four.

Some of its other combinations are instructive. It is with AC

forty-two times and with ACL sixteen; with AD fifty-one and with ADL

eighteen; with אB eleven and with אBL twenty-nine; with אL nine

times; with AL nineteen; with BL fifteen; with CL never; with DL

twice. Cod. R stands unsupported by any of the preceding eighty-nine

times, seldom without some countenance (but see Luke xi. 24 ἐκ),

such as the Memphitic version, or later codices. In the places where

its fragments coincide with those of Cod. Ξ (which is much more

friendly to B) they agree 127 times, differ 105.

293 Dean Burgon avers that he is thoroughly convinced that “no reading

can be of real importance—I mean has a chance of being _true_—which

is witnessed to exclusively by a very few copies, whether uncial or

cursive.... Nothing else are such extraordinary readings, _wherever

they may happen to be found_, but fragments of primitive error,

repudiated by the Church (‘a witness and keeper of Holy Writ’) in

her corporate capacity.” (Letter in the _Guardian_, July 12, 1882.)

I cannot go quite so far as this. [Dean Burgon has left his reply.]

294 Not that we can in any way assent to the notions of Canon T. R.

Birks (Essay on the right estimation of manuscript evidence in the

text of the N. T., 1878), whose proposition that “Constant increase

of error is no certain and inevitable result of repeated

transcription” (p. 33) is true enough in itself, though we cannot

follow him when he adds that “Errors, after they have found

entrance, may be removed as well as increased in later copies. A

careful scribe may not only make fewer mistakes of his own, but he

may correct manifest faults of the manuscript from which he copies,

and avail himself of the testimony of others, so as to revise and

improve the text of that on which he chiefly relies.” Only such a

scribe would no longer be a witness for the state of the text as

extant in his generation, but a critical editor, working on

principles of his own, whether good or bad alike unknown to us.

295 Very pertinent to this matter is a striking extract from J. G.

Reiche (a critic “remarkable for extent and accuracy of learning,

and for soundness and sobriety of judgement,” as Canon Cook vouches,

Revised Version, p. 4), given in Bloomfield’s “Critical Annotations

on the Sacred Text,” p. 5, note: “In multis sanè N. T. locis

lectionis variae, iisque gravissimi argumenti, de verâ scripturâ

judicium firmum et absolutum, quo acquiescere possis, ferri nequit,

nisi omnium subsidiorum nostrorum alicujus auctoritatis suffragia,

et interna veri falsique indicia, diligenter explorata, justâ lance

expendantur.... Quod in causâ est, ut re non satis omni ex parte

circumspectâ, non solum critici tantopere inter se dissentiant, sed

etiam singuli sententiam suam toties retractent atque commutent.” In

the same spirit Lagarde, speaking of the more recent manuscripts of

the Septuagint, thus protests: “Certum est eos non a somniis

monachorum undecimi vel alius cujusquam saeculi natos, sed ex

archetypis uncialibus aut ipsos aut intercedentibus aliis derivatos.

Unde elucet criticum acuto judicio et doctrinâ probabili instructum

codicibus recentioribus collectis effecturum esse (?) quid in

communi plurium aliquorum archetypo scriptum fuerit” (Genesis, p.

19). Compare also Canon Cook, Revised Version of the First Three

Gospels, p. 5.

296 “So extravagant a statement could scarcely be deemed worthy of the

elaborate confutation with which Dr. Scrivener has condescended to

honour it” (_Saturday Review_, Aug. 20, 1881). Yet this scheme of

“Comparative Criticism made easy” has obtained, for its childlike

simplicity, more acceptance than the reviewer could reasonably

suppose. Dr. Hort, of course, speaks very differently: “B must be

regarded as having preserved not only a very ancient text, but a

very pure line of very ancient text, and that with comparatively

small depravation either by scattered ancient corruptions otherwise

attested or by individualisms of the scribe himself. On the other

hand, to take it as the sole authority except where it contains

self-betraying errors, as some have done, is an unwarrantable

abandonment of criticism, and in our opinion inevitably leads to

erroneous results” (Introd. p. 250).

297 The textual labours of the Cambridge duumvirate have received all

the fuller consideration in the learned world by reason of their

authors having been members of the New Testament Revision Company,

in whose deliberations they had a real influence, though, as a

comparison of their text with that adopted by the Revisionists might

easily have shown, by no means a preponderating one. I have

carefully studied the chief criticisms which have been published on

the controversy, without materially adding to the acquaintance with

the subject which nearly eleven years of familiar conference with my

colleagues had necessarily brought to me. The formidable onslaught

on Dr. Hort’s and Bishop Westcott’s principles in three articles in

the _Quarterly Review_ [afterwards published together with additions

in “The Revision Revised”] especially in the number for April, 1882,

and Canon F. C. Cook’s “Revised Version of the First Three Gospels”

(1882), must be known to most scholars, and abound with materials

from which a final judgement may be formed. “The Ely Lectures on the

Revised Version of the N. T.” (1882), which my friend and benefactor

Canon Kennedy was pleased to inscribe to myself, are none the less

valuable for their attempt to hold the balance even between opposite

views of the questions at issue. The host of pamphlets and articles

in periodicals which the occasion has called forth could hardly be

enumerated in detail, but some of them have been used with due

acknowledgement in Chap. XII.

298 We are concerned not with names but with things, so that Dr. Hort

may give his _ignis fatuus_ what appellation he likes, only why he

calls it Syrian it is hard to determine. The notices connecting his

imaginary revision with Lucian of Antioch which we have given above

he feels to be insufficient, for he says no more than that “the

conjecture derives some little support from a passage of Jerome,

which is not itself discredited by the precariousness of the modern

theories which have been suggested by it” (Hort, p. 138).

_ 299 See_ Burgon’s “The Revision Revised,” pp. 271-288.

300 Other examples may be seen in our notes in Chap. XII on Luke ii. 14

for Methodius; Luke xxii. 43, 44 for Hippolytus again; Luke xxiii.

34 for Irenaeus and Origen. Add Luke x. 1 for Irenaeus (p. 546, note

1); xxiii. 45 (Hippolytus); John xiii. 24 (Clem. Alex.); 2 Cor. xii.

7 (Iren. Orig.); Mark xvi. 17, 18 (Hippol.). _See_ also Miller’s

“Textual Guide,” pp. 84, 85, where 165 passages on fifteen texts are

gathered from writers before St. Chrysostom.

301 For reasons which will be readily understood, we have quoted

sparingly from the trenchant article in the _Quarterly Review_,

April, 1882, but the following summary of the consequences of a too

exclusive devotion to Codd. אB seems no unfit comment on the facts

of the case: “Thus it would appear that the Truth of Scripture has

run a very narrow risk of being lost for ever to mankind. Dr. Hort

contends that it more than half lay _perdu_ on a forgotten shelf in

the Vatican Library;—Dr. Tischendorf that it had found its way into

a waste-paper basket in the convent of St. Catherine at the foot of

Mount Sinai—from which he rescued it on February 4, 1859:—neither,

we venture to think, a very likely supposition. We incline to

believe that the Author of Scripture hath not by any means shown

Himself so unmindful of the safety of the Deposit, as these learned

persons imagine” (p. 365). The Revision Revised, p. 343.

_ 302 See_ Appendix of passages at the end of this chapter. Yet while

refusing without hesitation the claim of the _monstra_ which follow

to be regarded as a part of the sacred text, we are by no means

insensible to the fact impressed upon us by the Dean of Llandaff,

that there are readings which conciliate favour the more we think

over them: it being the special privilege of Truth always to grow

upon candid minds. We subjoin his persuasive words: “It is deeply

interesting to take note of the process of thought and feeling which

attends in one’s own mind the presentation of some unfamiliar

reading. At first sight the suggestion is repelled as

unintelligible, startling, almost shocking. By degrees, light dawns

upon it—it finds its plea and its palliation. At last, in many

instances, it is accepted as adding force and beauty to the context,

and a conviction gradually forms itself that thus and not otherwise

was it written.” (Vaughan, Epistle to Romans, Preface to the third

edition, p. xxi.)

303 Thus far we are in agreement with the “Two Members of the N. T.

Company,” however widely we may differ from their general views:

“The great contribution of our own times to a mastery over materials

has been the clearer statement of the method of genealogy, and, by

means of it, the corrected distribution of the great mass of

documentary evidence” (p. 19). Only that arbitrary theories ought to

be kept as far as possible out of sight.

304 So that we may be sure what we should have found in Cod. D, and with

high probability in Cod. E, were they not defective, when in Acts

xxvii. 5 we observe δι᾽ ἡμερῶν δεκάπεντε inserted after

διαπλεύσαντες in 137, 184, and the Harkleian margin with an

asterisk; as also when we note in Acts xxviii. 16 ἔξω τῆς παρεμβολῆς

before σύν in the last two and in _demid._

305 E.g. Luke xxiv. 3 τοῦ κυρίου ἰησοῦ omitted by D, _a_ _b_ _e_ _ff_2

_l_; ver. 6 οὐκ ἔστιν ὦδε ἀλλὰ ἠγέρθη (comp. Mark xvi. 6), omitted

by the same; ver. 9 ἀπὸ τοῦ μνημείου by the same, by _c_ and the

Armenian; the whole of ver. 12, by the same (except _ff_2) with

_fuld._, but surely not by the Jerusalem Syriac, even according to

Tischendorf’s showing, or by Eusebius’ canon, for he knew the verse

well (comp. John xx. 5); ver. 36 καὶ λέγει αὐτοῖς, εἰρήνη ὑμῖν

omitted by D, _a_ _b_ _e_ _ff_2 _l_ as before (comp. John xx. 19,

26); the whole of ver. 40, omitted by the same and by Cureton’s

Syriac (comp. John xx. 20); ver. 51 καὶ ἀνεφέρετο εἰς τὸν οὐρανόν

and ver. 52 προσκυνήσαντες αὐτόν omitted by the same and by

Augustine, the important clause in ver. 51 by א* also, and

consequently by Tischendorf. Yet, as if to show how mixed the

evidence is, D deserts _a_ _b_ _ff_2 _l_ when, in company with a

host of authorities, both manuscripts and versions (_f_ _q_,

Vulgate, Bohairic, Syriac, and others), they annex καὶ ἀπὸ μελισσίου

κηρίου to the end of ver. 42. _See_ also Luke x. 41, 42; xxii. 19,

20, discussed in Chap. XII.

306 So of certain of the chief versions we sometimes hear it said that

they are less important in the rest of the N. T. than in the

Gospels; which means that in the former they side less with אB.

307 Canon Kennedy, whose “Ely Lectures” exhibit, to say the least, no

prejudice against the principles enunciated in Dr. Hort’s

Introduction, is good enough to commend the four rules here set

forth to the attention of his readers (p. 159, note). The first

three were stated in my first edition (1861), the fourth added in

the second edition (1874), and, while they will not satisfy the

advocates of extreme views on either side, suffice to intimate the

terms on which the respective claims of the uncial and cursive

manuscripts, of the earlier and the more recent authorities, may, in

my deliberate judgement, be equitably adjusted.

308 Dean Burgon held that too much deference is here paid to the mere

antiquity of those which happen to be the oldest MSS., but are not

the oldest authorities. He would therefore enlarge the grounds of

judgement.

309 The harmony subsisting between B and the Sahidic in characteristic

readings, for which they stand almost or quite alone, is well worth

notice: e.g. Acts xxvii. 37; Rom. xiii. 13; Col. iii. 6; Heb. iii.

2; 1 John ii. 14; 20.

310 “The intrinsic evidence seems immoveable against the insertion.”

Textual Criticism of the N. T., B. B. Warfield, D.D., p. 135.

311 Yet in Penn’s “Annotations to the Vatican Manuscripts” (1837) “The

restoration of this verse to its due place” is described as “the

most important circumstance of this [sc. his own] revision.” Its

omission is imputed to “the undue influence of a criticism of Origen

[ἤδη δὲ αὐτοῦ ἀποθανόντος], whom Jerome followed.”

312 “This gross perversion of the truth, alike of Scripture and of

history—a reading as preposterous as it is revolting,” is the

vigorous protest of Dean Burgon, The Revision Revised, p. 68, note.

313 “Post enim duodecim apostolos septuaginta alios Dominus noster ante

se misisse invenitur; septuaginta autem nec octonario numero neque

denario” (Irenaeus, p. 146, Massuet). Tertullian, just a little

later (re-echoed by the younger Cyril), compares the Apostles with

the twelve wells at Elim (Ex. xv. 27), the seventy with the

three-score and ten palm-trees there (Adv. Marc. iv. 24). So

Eusebius thrice, Basil and Ambrose. On the other hand in the

Recognitions of Clement, usually assigned to the second or third

century, the number adopted is seventy-two, “vel hoc modo recognitâ

imagine Moysis” and of his elders, traditionally set down at that

number. Compare Num. xi. 16. Epiphanius, Hilary (Scholz), and

Augustine are also with Cod. B.

314 To enable us to translate “a son, nay even an ox,” would require ἢ

καί, which none read. The argument, moreover, is one _a minori ad

majus_. Compare Ex. xxi. 33 with Ex. xxiii. 4; ch. xiii. 15.

315 Let me add _ex meo_ Codd. 22, 219, 492, 547, 549, 558, 559, 576,

582, 584, 594, 596, 597, 598, 601, being no doubt a large majority

of cursives. So Cod. 662, apparently after correction.

316 But not in the Beirût MS. discovered in 1877 by Dr. Is. H. Hall.

317 A more ludicrous blunder of Cod. B has been pointed out to me in the

Old Testament, Ps. xvii. 14 “they have children at their desire”:

ΕΧΟΡΤΑΣΘΗΣΑΝ ΫΙΩΝ Cod. A, but ΕΧΟΡΤΑΣΘΗΣΑΝ ΫΕΙΩΝ Cod. B. The London

papyrus has ΥΩΝ for ΥΙΩΝ.

318 Codex P is of far greater value than others of its own date. It is

frequently found in the company of B, sometimes alone, sometimes

with other chief authorities, especially in the Catholic Epistles,

e.g. James iv. 15; v. 4; 14; 2 Pet. i. 17 (partly); ii. 6; 1 John

ii. 20.

319 We note many small variations between the text of these critics as

communicated to the Revisers some years before, and that finally

published in 1881. The latter, of course, we have treated as their

standard.

320 This precious cursive forms one of a small class which in the

Catholic Epistles and sometimes in the Acts conspire with the best

uncials in upholding readings of the higher type: the other members

are 69, 137, 182, to which will sometimes be added the text or

margin of the Harkleian Syriac, Codd. 27, 29, the second hands of 57

and 66, 100, 180, 185, and particularly 221, which is of special

interest in these Epistles. The following passages, examined by

means of Tischendorf’s notes, will prove what is here alleged: 1

Pet. iii. 16; 2 Pet. i. 4; 21; ii. 6; 11; 1 John i. 5; 7; 8; ii. 19;

iii. 1; 19; 22; iv. 19; v. 5.

321 Notice especially those instances in the Catholic Epistles, wherein

the primary authorities are comparatively few, in which Cod. B

accords with the later copies against Codd. אA(C), and is also

supported by internal evidence: e.g. 1 Pet. iii. 18; iv. 14; v. 2; 2

Pet. ii. 20; 1 John ii. 10; iii. 23, &c. In 1 John iii. 21, where

the first ἡμῶν is omitted by A and others, the second by C almost

alone, B seems right in rejecting the word in both places. So in

other cases internal probabilities occasionally plead strongly in

favour of B, when it has little other support: as in Rom. viii. 24,

where τίς ἐλπίζει; as against τις, τί καὶ ἐλπίζει; though B and the

margin of Cod. 47 stand alone here, best accounts for the existence

of other variations (_see_ p. 248). In Eph. v. 22, B alone, with

Clement and Jerome, the latter very expressly, omits the verb in a

manner which can hardly fail to commend itself as representing the

true form of the passage. In Col. iii. 6, B, the Sahidic, the Roman

Ethiopic, Clement (twice), Cyprian, Ambrosiaster, and auct. de

singl. cler., are alone free from the clause interpolated from Eph.

v. 6.

322 Viz. Luke i. 1-4, some portion of the Gospel and most of the Acts:

excluding such cases as St. Stephen’s speech, Acts vii, and the

parts of his Gospel which resemble in style, and were derived from

the same sources as, those of SS. Matthew and Mark.

323 Dr. Hort (Introd., Notes, p. 141) confirms the foregoing statements,

which we have repeated unchanged from our former editions. “What

spellings are sufficiently probable to deserve inclusion among

alternative readings, is often difficult to determine. Although many

deviations from classical orthography are amply attested, many

others, which appear to be equally genuine, are found in one, two,

or three MSS. only, and that often with an irregularity which

suggests that all our MSS. have to a greater or less extent suffered

from the effacement of unclassical forms of words. It is no less

true on the other hand that a tendency in the opposite direction is

discernible in Western MSS.: the orthography of common life, which

to a certain extent was used by all the writers of the New

Testament, though in unequal degrees, would naturally be introduced

more freely in texts affected by an instinct of popular adaptation.”

324 E.g. Aeschylus, Persae, 411: κόρυμβ᾽, ἐπ᾽ ἄλλην δ᾽ ἄλλος ἴθυνεν

δόρυ, or Sophocles, Antigone, 219: τὸ μὴ πιχωρεῖν τοῖς ἀπιστοῦσιν

τάδε.

325 Cod. א, for instance, does not omit it above 208 times throughout

the N. T., out of which 134 occur with verbs (three so as to cause a

hiatus), 29 with nouns, 45 with adjectives (chiefly πᾶσι) or

participles (Scrivener, Collation, &c., p. liv). Its absence

produces the hiatus in B*C in 1 Pet. ii. 18 (ἐπιεικέσι), and not

seldom in B, e.g. 1 Pet. iv. 6, where we find κριθῶσι and ζῶσι,

which latter is countenanced by A, and both by אL.

326 Wake 12 (Evan. 492), of the eleventh century, may be taken for a

fair representative of its class and date. It retains ν with εἶπεν

thirty-three times in St. Matthew, thirteen in St. Mark, as often as

130 in St. Luke. With other words it mostly reserves ν to indicate

emphasis (e.g. Luke xxii. 14; xxiv. 30), or to stand before a break

in the sense.

327 The terminations which admit this moveable ν (including -ει of the

pluperfect) are enumerated by Donaldson (Gr. Gram. p. 53).

Tischendorf, however (N. T., Proleg. p. liv), demurs to εἴκοσιν,

even before a vowel.

328 With the remarkable exception of those six leaves of Cod. א which

Tischendorf assigns to the scribe who wrote Cod. B. In these leaves

of Cod. א Ἰωάνης occurs four times: Matt. xvi. 14; xvii. 1; 13; Luke

i. 13, in which last passage, however, B has the double _nu_.

329 These last might be supposed to have originated from the omission or

insertion of the faint line for ν over the preceding letter, which

(especially at the end of a line) we stated in Vol. I. p. 50 to be

found even in the oldest manuscripts. Sometimes the anomalous form

is much supported by junior as well as by ancient codices: e.g.

θυγατέραν, Luke xiii. 16 by KXΓ*Λ, 209, also by 69, and ten others

of Scrivener’s.

330 Thus Canon Selwyn cites from Lycophron κἀπὸ γῆς ἐσχάζοσαν, and Dr.

Moulton (Winer, p. 91, note 5), after Mullach, ἔσχοσαν from Scymnus

Chius.

331 Tregelles presses yet another argument: “If Alexandrian forms had

been introduced into the N. T. by Egyptian copyists, how comes it

that the classical MSS. written in that country are free from them?”

(An Account of the Printed Text, p. 178). But what classical MSS.

does he know of, written while Egypt was yet Greek or Christian, and

now extant for our inspection? I can only think of Cureton’s Homer

and Babington’s papyri.

332 “It is hard to make St. Paul responsible for vulgarisms or

provincialisms, which certainly his pen never wrote, and which there

can be no proof that his lips ever uttered” (Epistle to the Romans,

Preface to the third edition, p. xxi) is Dean Vaughan’s comment on

this “barbarism.” He regards the Apostle’s habit of dictating his

letters as a “sufficient reason for broken constructions, for

participles without verbs, for suspended nominatives, for sudden

digressions, for fresh starts.”

333 Dr. Hort, however, accepts the form ἐφ᾽ in this place, aspirating

ἐλπίδι, and in the same way favours but does not print οὐχ ὁλίγος

eight times in the Acts, adding that although ὁλίγος “has no lost

digamma to justify it, like some others, it may nevertheless have

been in use in the apostolic age: it occurs in good MSS. of the LXX”

(Introd., Notes, p. 143).

334 “A Treatise on the Grammar of New Testament Greek regarded as the

basis of N. T. Exegesis. By Dr. G. B. Winer. Translated from the

German with large additions and full indices by Rev. W. F. Moulton,

M. A., D. D.,” third edition revised, 8vo, Edinburgh, 1882. The

forthcoming “Prolegomena” to Tischendorf’s N. T. eighth edition (pp.

71-126), to which the kindness of Dr. Caspar René Gregory has given

me access, contain a store of fresh materials on this subject; and

Dr. Hort’s “Notes on Orthography” (Introd., Notes, pp. 143-173) will

afford invaluable aid to the student who is ever so little able to

accept some of his conclusions. See also on the more general subject

Dr. Neubauer’s Article in the first issue of the Oxford “Studia

Biblica” on “The Dialects of Palestine in the Time of Christ.” He

controverts Dr. Roberts’ opinion that “Christ spoke for the most

part in Greek, and only now and then in Aramaic.” And he

distinguishes between the Babylonian Aramaic, the Galilean Aramaic,

and the dialect spoken at Jerusalem, which had more of Hebrew.

335 In Acts ix. 34 Ἰησοῦς Χριστός, the article between them being

rejected, is read by Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Westcott and

Hort, on the adequate authority of אB*C, 13, 15, 18, 68, 111, 180,

and a catena (probably also Cod. 36), with one or two Fathers,

although against AEP, 31, 61, &c.

336 I know not why Tischendorf cites Cod. 71 (gscr) for the omission of

Ἰησοῦ. I have again consulted the MS. at Lambeth, and find _ἰῦ_ in

this place.

_ 337 See_ above, I. 130. The precise relation of the Latin Version of

Cod. D to the parallel Greek text is fully examined in Scrivener’s

“Codex Bezae,” Introduction, chap. iii.

338 Mr. E. B. Nicholson, Bodley’s Librarian, doubts the conclusiveness

of Irenaeus’ Latin here “because his copyist was in the habit of

altering him into accordance with the oldest Latin version; and

because his argument is just as strong if we read _Jesu Christi

autem_ as if we read _Christi_. The argument requires _Christi_, but

does not in the least require it as against _Jesu Christi_.”

339 “The clearly Western Τοῦ δὲ χριστοῦ,” as Dr. Hort admits, “is

intrinsically free from objection, ... yet it cannot be confidently

accepted. The attestation is unsatisfactory, for no other Western

omission of a solitary word in the Gospels has any high probability”

(N. T., Notes, p. 7). He retains ψευδόμενοι, Matt. v. 11.

340 Why should Gregory Nyssen (371) be classed among the opponents of

the clause, whereas Griesbach honestly states, “suam expositionem

his quidem verbis concludit: [ἀπὸ τοῦ πονηροῦ τοῦ ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ τούτῳ

τὴν ἰσχὺν κεκτημένου, οὗ ῥυσθείημεν] χάριτι [τοῦ] χριστοῦ, ὅτι αὐτοῦ

ἡ δύναμις καὶ ἡ δόξα ἅμα τῷ πατρὶ καὶ τῷ ἁγίῳ πνεύματι, νῦν καὶ ἀεὶ

καὶ εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων, ἀμήν”? Griesbach adds indeed, “sed

pro parte sacri textûs neutiquam haec habuisse videtur;” and justly:

they were rather a _loose paraphrase_ of the sentence before him.

_See_ Textual Guide, Edward Miller, App. V.

341 Canon Cook (Revised Version, p. 57) alleges as a probable cause of

the general omission of the doxology in early Latin Versions and

Fathers, that in all the Western liturgies it is separated from the

petitions preceding by an intercalated _Embolismus_. More weighty is

his observation that all the Greek Fathers, from Chrysostom onwards,

who deal with the interpretation of the Lord’s Prayer, “agree with

that great expositor in maintaining the important bearings [of the

doxology] upon the preceding petitions.”

342 “Quite a test-passage” Mr. Hammond calls it (Outlines of Text.

Crit., p. 76).

343 THIRD EDITION. I would fain side in this instance with my revered

friend and Revision colleague Dr. David Brown of Aberdeen, and all

my prepossessions are strongly in favour of the _textus receptus_

here. He is quite right in perceiving (Christian Opinion and

Revisionist, p. 435) that the key of his position lies in the

authenticity of ἀγαθέ ver. 16, which is undoubtedly found in Mark x.

17; Luke xviii. 18. If that word had abided unquestioned here, the

form of reply adopted in the other two Gospels would have inevitably

followed. As the case stands, there is not considerably less

evidence for omitting ἀγαθέ (אBDL, 1, 22, 479, Evst. 5 [_not_ “five

Evangelistaria”], _a_ _e_ _ff_1, Eth., Origen twice, Hilary) than

for Τί με ἐρωτᾷς κ.τ.λ., although Cureton’s and the Jerusalem

Syriac, the Bohairic, and the Vulgate with some other Latin copies,

change sides here. It is upon these recreant versions that Dr. Brown

must fix the charge of inconsistency. If ἀγαθέ be an interpolation,

surely τί ἀγαθὸν ποιήσω is pertinently answered by Τί με ἐρωτᾷς περὶ

τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ.

344 Canon Westcott (Smith’s “Dictionary of the Bible,” Vulgate Version)

adds Bodl. 857; Brit. Mus. Reg. I B. vii, and Reg. I. A. xviii in

part, also Addit. 24,142 by the second hand. Tischendorf also cites

_theotisc_.

345 No passage more favours Bp. Middleton’s deliberate conclusion

respecting the history of the Codex Bezae: “I believe that no fraud

was intended: but only that the critical possessor of the basis

filled its margin with glosses and readings chiefly from the Latin,

being a Christian of the Western Church; and that the whole

collection of Latin passages was translated into Greek, and

substituted in the text by some one who had a high opinion of their

value, and who was, as Wetstein describes him, ‘καλλιγραφίας quàm

vel Graecae vel Latinae linguae peritior.’ ” (Doctrine of the Greek

Article, Appendix I. p. 485, 3rd edition.)

346 I see no reasonable ground for imagining with Lachmann that Origen

who, as he truly observes, “non solet difficilia praeterire,” did

not find in his copy anything between πατρός; and Ἀμήν in ver. 31.

On the supposition that he read πρῶτος there was no difficulty to

slur over. Moreover, there is not a vestige of evidence for omitting

λέγει αὐτοῖς ὁ ἰησοῦς, the existence of which words Lachmann clearly

perceived to be fatal to his ingenious guess, although Dr. Hort will

only allow that it “weakens his suggestion,” adding in his quiet way

“This phrase might easily seem otiose if it followed immediately on

words of Christ, and might thus be thought to imply the intervention

of words spoken by others” (Notes, p. 17).

347 Jerome conceives that the Jews “intellegere quidem veritatem, sed

tergiversari, et nolle dicere quod sentiunt;” and so Canon G. F.

Goddard, Rector of Southfleet, believed that their wantonly false

answer brought on them the Lord’s stern rebuke. Hilary’s idea is

even more far-fetched: viz. that though the second son disobeyed, it

was because he _could_ not execute the command. “Non ait noluisse

sed non abisse. Res extra culpam infidelitatis est, quia in facti

erat difficultate ne fieret.”

348 His sole example is ὁδὸν ποιεῖν Mark ii. 23, which seems not at all

parallel. The phrase may as well signify to “clear away” as “make

their way.”

349 πολλὰ ἂ ἐποίει is the reading of Abbott’s four and of Codd. 28, 122,

541, 561, 572, Evst. 196.

350 Which is certainly its meaning in Lucian, Tom. ii. p. 705 (Salmur.

1619); I know no example like that in St. Mark.

351 I have ventured but slowly to vouch for Tischendorf’s notion, that

six leaves of Cod. א, _that containing_ Mark xvi. 2-Luke i. 56

_being one of them_, were written by the scribe of Cod. B. On mere

identity of handwriting and the peculiar shape of certain letters

who shall insist? Yet there are parts of the case which I know not

how to answer, and which have persuaded even Dr. Hort. Having now

arrived at this conclusion our inference is simple and direct, that

at least in these leaves, Codd. אB make but one witness, not two.

352 The cases of Nehemiah, Tobit, and Daniel, in the Old Testament

portion of Cod. B, are obviously in no wise parallel in regard to

their blank columns.

353 Of which supplement Dr. Hort says unexpectedly enough, “In style it

is unlike the ordinary narratives of the Evangelists, but comparable

to the four introductory verses of St. Luke’s Gospel” (Introduction,

p. 298).

354 We ought to add that some Armenian codices which contain the

paragraph have the subscription “Gospel after Mark” at the end of

ver. 8 as well as of ver. 20, as though their scribes, like Cod.

L’s, knew of a double ending to the Gospel.

355 Burgon (_Guardian_, July 12, 1882) speaks of seven manuscripts

(Codd. 538, 539 being among them) wherein these last twelve verses

begin on the right hand of the page. This would be more significant

if a space were left, as is not stated, at the foot of the preceding

page. In Cod. 550 the first letter α is small, but covers an

abnormally large space.

356 Of course no notice is to be taken of τέλος after ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ, as

the end of the ecclesiastical lesson is all that is intimated. The

grievous misstatements of preceding critics from Wetstein and Scholz

down to Tischendorf, have been corrected throughout by means of

Burgon’s laborious researches (Burgon, pp. 114-123).

357 The minute variations between these several codices are given by

Burgon (Appendix E, pp. 288-90). Cod. 255 contains a scholion

imputed to Eusebius, from which Griesbach had drawn inferences which

Burgon (Last Twelve Verses, &c., Postscript, pp. 319-23) has shown

to be unwarranted by the circumstances of the case.

358 Dr. C. Taylor, Master of St. John’s College, Cambridge, in _The

Expositor_ for July, 1893, quotes more evidence from Justin

Martyr—hinting that some also remains behind—proving that that

Father was familiar with these verses. Also he cites several

passages from the Epistle of Barnabas in which traces of them occur,

and from the Quartodeciman controversy, and from Clement of Rome.

The value of the evidence which Dr. Taylor’s acute vision has

discovered consists chiefly in its cumulative force. From

familiarity with the passage numerous traces of it arose; or as Dr.

Taylor takes the case reversely, from the fact of the occurrence of

numerous traces evident to a close observer, it is manifest that

there pre-existed in the minds of the writers a familiarity with the

language of the verses in question.

359 It is surprising that Dr. Hort, who lays very undue stress upon the

silence of certain early Christian writers that had no occasion for

quoting the twelve verses in their extant works, should say of Cyril

of Jerusalem, who lived about A.D. 349, that his “negative evidence

is peculiarly cogent” (Notes, p. 37). To our mind it is not at all

negative. Preaching on a Sunday, he reminds his hearers of a sermon

he had delivered the day before, and which he would have them keep

in their thoughts. One of the topics he briefly recalls is the

article of the Creed τὸν καθίσαντα ἐκ δεξιῶν τοῦ πατρός. He must

inevitably have used Mark xvi. 19 in his Saturday’s discourse.

360 Several of these references are derived from “The Revision Revised,”

p. 423.

361 Nor were these verses used in the Greek Church only. Vers. 9-20

comprised the Gospel for Easter Monday in the old Spanish or

Mozarabic Liturgy, for Easter Tuesday among the Syrian Jacobites,

for Ascension Day among the Armenians. Vers. 12-20 was the Gospel

for Ascension Day in the Coptic Liturgy (Malan, Original Documents,

iv. p. 63): vers. 16-20 in the old Latin _Comes_.

362 To get rid of one apparent ἀντιφωνία, that arising from the

expression πρωῒ τῇ μιᾷ τοῦ σαββάτου (_sic_), ver. 9, compared with

ὀψὲ σαββάτων Matt. xxviii. 1, Eusebius proposes the plan of setting

a stop between Ἀναστὰς δέ and πρωΐ, so little was he satisfied with

rudely expunging the whole clause. Hence Cod. E puts a red cross

after δέ: Codd. 20, 22, 34, 72, 193, 196, 199, 271, 345, 405, 411,

456, have a colon: Codd. 332, 339, 340, 439, a comma (Burgon,

_Guardian_, Aug. 20, 1873).

363 The following peculiarities have been noticed in these verses:

ἐκεῖνος used absolutely, vers. 10, 11, 13; πορεύομαι vers. 10, 12,

15; τοῖς μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ γενομένοις ver. 10; θεάομαι vers. 11, 14;

ἀπιστέω vers. 11, 16; μετὰ ταῦτα ver. 12; ἕτερος ver. 12;

παρακολουθέω ver. 17; ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι ver. 17; κύριος for the Saviour,

vers. 19, 20; πανταχοῦ, συνεργοῦντος, βεβαιόω, ἐπακολουθέω ver. 20,

all of them as not found elsewhere in St. Mark. A very able and

really conclusive plea for the genuineness of the paragraph, as

coming from that Evangelist’s pen, appeared in the _Baptist

Quarterly_, Philadelphia, July, 1869, bearing the signature of

Professor J. A. Broadus, of South Carolina. Unfortunately, from the

nature of the case, it does not admit of abridgement. Burgon’s ninth

chapter (pp. 136-190) enters into full details, and amply justifies

his conclusion that the supposed adverse argument from phraseology

“breaks down hopelessly under severe analysis.”

364 “Can any one, who knows the character of the Lord and of His

ministry, conceive for an instant that we should be left with

nothing but a message baulked through the alarm of women” (Kelly,

Lectures Introductory to the Gospels, p. 258). Even Dr. Hort can

say: “it is incredible that the Evangelist deliberately concluded

either a paragraph with ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ, or the Gospel with a petty

detail of a secondary event, leaving his narrative hanging in the

air” (Notes, p. 46).

365 When Burgon ventures upon a surmise, one which is probability itself

by the side of those we have been speaking of, Professor Abbot (_ubi

supra_, p. 197) remarks upon it that “With Mr. Burgon a conjecture

seems to be a demonstration.” We will not be deterred by dread of

any such reproach from mentioning his method of accounting for the

absence of these verses from some very early copies, commending it

to the reader for what it may seem worth. After a learned and

exhaustive proof that the Church lessons, as we now have them,

existed from very early times (Twelve Verses, pp. 191-211), and

noting that an important lesson ended with Mark xvi. 8 (_see_

Calendar of Lessons); he supposes that τέλος, which would stand at

the end of such a lesson, misled some scribe who had before him an

_exemplar_ of the Gospels whose last leaf (containing Mark xvi.

9-20, or according to Codd. 20, 215, 300 only vers. 16-20) was lost,

as it might easily be in those older manuscripts wherein St. Mark

stood last.

366 The Codex lately discovered by Mrs. Lewis is said to omit the

verses. But what is that against a host of other codices? And when

the other MS. of the Curetonian includes the verses? Positive

testimony is worth more than negative.

367 Dr. Hort, however, while he admits the possibility of the leaf

containing vers. 9-20 having been lost in some very early copy,

which thus would become the parent of transcripts having a mutilated

text (Notes, p. 49), rather inconsistently arrives at the conclusion

that the passage in question “manifestly cannot claim any apostolic

authority; but it is doubtless founded on some tradition of the

apostolic age” (_ibid._ p. 51).

368 Dr. Hort will hardly find many friends for his division (Notes, p.

56),

Δόξα ἐν ὑψίστοις θεῷ καὶ ἐπὶ γῆς,

Εἰρήνη ἐν ἀνθρώποις εὐδοκίας.

369 I am loth to sully with a semblance of unseasonable levity a page

which is devoted to the vindication of the true form of the Angelic

Hymn, and must ask the student to refer for himself to the 470th

number of the _Spectator_, where what we will venture to call a

precisely parallel case exercises the delicate humour of Addison.

“So many ancient manuscripts,” he tells us, concur in this last

reading, “that I am very much in doubt whether it ought not to take

place. There are but two reasons which incline me to the reading as

I have published it: first, because the rhyme, and secondly, because

the sense, is preserved by it.”

370 This torrent of testimony includes ninety-two places, of which

“Tischendorf knew of only eleven, Tregelles adduces only six” (R.

R., p. 45, note).

371 Every word uttered by such a scholar as Dr. Field (d. 1885) is so

valuable that no apology can be needed for citing the following

critique from his charming “Otium Norvicense,” Part iii. p. 36, on

the reading εὐδοκίας and the rendering “among men in whom he is well

pleased.” “To which it may be briefly objected (1) _that it ruins

the stichometry_; (2) that it separates ἐν from εὐδοκία, the word

with which it is normally construed; (3) that ‘men of good pleasure’

(אנשי רצון) would be, according to Graeco-biblical usage, not

ἄνθρωποι εὐδοκίας, but ἄνδρες εὐδοκίας; (4) that the turn of the

sentence, ἐν ἀνθρώποις εὐδοκία, very much resembles the second

clause of Prov. xiv. 9: ובין ישרים רצון rendered by Symmachus καὶ

ἀναμέσον εὐθέων εὐδοκία.” But this is almost slaying the slain.

372 Κυριακὴ δευτεροπρώτη is cited by Sophocles in his Lexicon from

“Eustr. 2381 B” in the sense of _low Sunday_ (McClellan, N. T., p.

690). Canon Cook conjectures that it may mean the first sabbath in

the second month (_Iyar_), precisely the time when wheat would be

fully ripe (Revised Version, p. 69). [More probably it is “the first

sabbath after the second day of the Passover.”] On the other hand,

“If the word be a reality and originally in the text, its meaning,

since in that case it must have been borrowed from something in the

Jewish calendar, would have been traditionally known from the

first.” (Green, Course of Developed Criticism, p. 56.) But why would

it? The fancy that δευτεροπρώτῳ had its origin in numerals of

reference (B A) set in the margin will most commend itself to such

scholars as are under the self-imposed necessity of upholding Codd.

אB united against all other evidence, of whatever kind.

373 Just as Jerome, speaking of the latter part of 1 Cor. vii. 35, says,

“In Lat. Codd. OB TRANSLATIONIS DIFFICULTATEM hoc penitus non

invenitur.” (Vallars. ii. 261, as Burgon points out.)

374 Dr. Hort and the _Quarterly Reviewer_ (October, 1881, p. 348) almost

simultaneously called attention to the question put by Jerome to his

teacher Gregory of Nazianzus as to the meaning of this word. “Docebo

te super hac re in ecclesia” was the only reply he obtained; on

which Jerome’s comment is, _Eleganter lusit_ (Hier. _ad Nepotianum_,

Ep. 52). Neither of these great Fathers could explain a term which

neither doubted to be written by the Evangelist.

375 Cyril applies the whole passage to enforce the duty of exercising

with frugality the Christian duty of entertaining strangers: “And

this He did for our benefit, that He might fix a limit to

hospitality” (Dean Payne Smith’s Translation, pp. 317-20).

376 Praelectio in Scholis Cantabrigiensibus habita Februarii die decimo

quarto, MDCCCL, quâ ... Lucae pericopam (xxii. 17-20) multis ante

saeculis conturbatam vetustissimorum ope codicum in pristinam formam

restituebat, Cathedram Theologicam ambiens, J. W. Blakesley, S. T.

B., Coll. SS. Trinitatis nuper Socius (Cambridge, 1850).

377 “Intrinsically both readings are difficult, but in unequal degrees.

The difficulty of the shorter reading [that of pure omission in

vers. 19, 20] consists exclusively in the change of order, as to the

Bread and the Cup, which is illustrated by many phenomena of the

relation between the narratives of the third and of the first two

Gospels, and which finds an exact parallel in the change of order in

St. Luke’s account of the Temptation” (iv. 5-8; 9-12). Hort, Notes,

p. 64.

378 Adler says “in omnibus codicibus,” and _guelph. heidelb._ Dawkins

iii and xvii in Jones, and cod. Rich are specified. Lee sets the

verses in a parenthesis. But the Curetonian has them after ver. 19

in words but little differing from his or Schaaf’s.

379 “Si fides habenda A. F. Gorio ‘in Conspectu Quattuor Codicum

Evangeliorum Syriacorum mirae aetatis’ apud Blanchini Evangelium

Quadruplex p. DXL, et hi quattuor Codices cum Veronensi [_b_]

faciunt.” Blakesley, _Schema_ facing _Praelectio_, p. 20.

380 Especially mark his mode of dealing with ἐκχυννόμενον ver. 20, which

by a little violence (not quite unprecedented) is made to refer to

ποτήριον instead of to αἵματι: “Ex Matthaeo vel Marco accessit

clausula ista τὸ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν ἐκχυννόμενον, fraude tamen ita piâ

accessit, ut potius grammaticis legibus vim facere, quam vel

literulam demutare maluerit interpolator. Ita fit ut vel hodie male

assutus pannus centonem prodat. Postulat enim sermonis ratio, ut

cuivis patet, τῷ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν ἐκχυνομένω, non τὸ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν ἐκχυνόμενον,

quod tamen in Matthaeo Marcoque optime Graece dicebatur, cum

subjectum de quo praedicabatur non ἡ διαθήκη verum τὸ αἷμα esset”

(_Praelectio_, p. 22).

381 Very undue stress has been laid on Tischendorf’s statement, “Hos

versus A corrector uncis inclusit, partim etiam punctis notavit; C

vero puncta et uncos delevit,” and אa has sometimes been spoken of

as only a little less weighty than א itself. I had the satisfaction,

through Dean Burgon’s kindness, of showing some of our critics, Dr.

Hort included, a fine photograph of the whole page. The points are

nearly, if not quite, invisible, the unci are rude slight curves at

the beginning and end of the passage only, looking as likely to have

been scrawled fifty years since as fourteen hundred. Yet even now

Dr. Hort maintains that Tischendorf’s decision is probably right,

strangely adding, “but the point is of little consequence” (Notes,

p. 65).

382 Bp. Lightfoot’s Codd. 2, 4, 8, 9, 16, 17, 19, 22, 26 omit them

altogether: they are in the margin of 1, 20. They stand in the text

of 3, 14, 21, and so in 18 _primâ manu_, but in smaller characters.

383 Yet Dr. Hort contends that “The testimony of A is not affected by

the presence of Eusebian numerals, of necessity misplaced, which

manifestly presuppose the inclusion of vv. 43, 44: the discrepance

merely shows that the Biblical text and the Eusebian notation were

taken by the scribe from different sources, as they doubtless were

throughout” (Notes, p. 65). It is just this readiness to devise

expedients to meet emergencies as they arise which is at once the

strength and the weakness of Dr. Hort’s position as a textual

critic. These sections and canons illustrate the criticism of the

text in some other places: e.g. Matt. xvi. 2, 3; xvii. 21; ch.

xxiii. 34; hardly in Luke xxiv. 12.

384 Ἰστέον ὅτι τὰ περὶ τῶν θρόμβων τινὰ τῶν ἀντιγράφων οὐκ ἔχουσιν:

adding that the clause is cited by Dionysius the Areopagite,

Gennadius, Epiphanius, and other holy Fathers.

385 Thus in Evst. 253 we find John xiii. 3-17 inserted _uno tenore_

between Matt. xxvi. 20 and 21, as also Luke xxii. 43, 44 between

vers. 39 and 40, with no break whatever. So again in the same

manuscript with the mixed lessons for Good Friday.

386 “Upwards of forty famous personages from every part of ancient

Christendom recognize these verses as part of the Gospel; fourteen

of them being as old, some of them being a great deal older, than

our oldest manuscripts” (The Revision Revised, p. 81).

387 The reader will see that I have understood this passage, with

Grotius, as applying to an orthodox tampering with Luke xix. 41, not

with xxii. 43, 44. As the text of Epiphanius stands I cannot well do

otherwise, since Mill’s mode of punctuation (N. T., Proleg. § 797),

which wholly separates καὶ γενόμενος from the words immediately

preceding, cannot be endured, and leaves καὶ τὸ ἰσχυρότατον

unaccounted for. Yet I confess that there is no trace of any

meddling with ἔκλαυσε by any one, and I know not where Irenaeus

cites it.

388 Lightfoot’s Codd. 22, 26. The clause stands in the margin of 1, 20,

in the text of 2, 3, 8, 9, 14, 16, 17, 19, 21, 23.

389 Dean Burgon (Revision Revised, p. 83), who refers to upwards of

forty Fathers and more than 150 passages (_see_ also Miller’s

Textual Guide, App. II), burns with indignation as he sums up his

results: “And _what_ (we ask the question with sincere simplicity),

_what_ amount of evidence is calculated to inspire undoubted

confidence in any given reading, if not such a concurrence of

authorities as this? We forbear to insist upon the probabilities of

the case. The Divine power and sweetness of the incident shall not

be enlarged upon. We introduce no considerations resulting from

internal evidence. Let this verse of Scripture stand or fall as it

meets with sufficient external testimony, or is clearly forsaken

thereby.”

390 “Gospel according to St. John from eleven versions,” 1872, p. 8. Dr.

Malan also translates in the same way the Peshitto “the only Son of

God” and its satellite the Persic of the Polyglott as “the only one

of God.” With much deference to a profound scholar, I do not see how

such a rendering is possible in the Peshitto: it is precisely that

which he gives in ch. iii. 18, where the Syriac inserts ܒܪܚ ܕ (or ܕ

ܚܪܒ). Bp. Lightfoot judges θεός the more likely rendering of the

Bohairic, though θεοῦ is possible.

391 We are not likely to adopt Tischendorf’s latest reading and

punctuation in Col. ii. 2, τοῦ Θεοῦ, Χριστοῦ.

392 Hence we cannot think with Prebendary Sadler (Lost Gospel, p. 48)

that μονογενὴς θεός is very probably the original reading, and must

even take leave to doubt its orthodoxy. The received reading ὁ

μονογενὴς υἱός is upheld by Dr. Ezra Abbot in papers contributed to

the American _Bibliotheca Sacra_, Oct. 1861, and to the _Unitarian

Review_, June, 1875; it is attacked with characteristic vigour and

fullness of research by Dr. Hort in the first of his “Two

Dissertations” (pp. 1-72) written in 1876 as exercises for

Theological degrees at Cambridge.

393 The Revision Revised, p. 133. Also Miller’s “Textual Guide,” App.

VI.

394 To give but a very small part of the variations in ver. 4: δέ (_pro_

γάρ) L, _a_ _b_ _c_ _ff_, Vulg. -γάρ Evst. 51, Boh. + κυρίου (_post_

γὰρ) AKLΔ, 12, 13, 69, 507, 509, 511, 512, 570 and fifteen others:

at τοῦ θεοῦ 152, Evst. 53, 54.—κατὰ καιρὸν _a b ff_ ἐλούετο (_pro_

κατέβαινεν) A (K), 42, 507. Ethiop.—ἐν τῇ κολυμβήθρᾳ a b ff.

ἐταράσσετο τὸ ὕδωρ C3GHIMUVΛ*, 440, 509, 510, 512, 513, 515, 543,

570, 575, Evst. 150, 257, many others. + in piscinam (_post_ ἐμβάς)

_c_, Clementine Vulg. ἐγένετο FL, 69, at least fifteen others.

395 Either Dean Burgon or I have recently found the passage in Codd.

518, 524, 541, 560, 561, 573, 582, 594, 598, 599, 600, 602, 604,

622.

396 Of Lightfoot’s list of manuscripts, the passage is omitted in Codd.

2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 16, 17, 18, 19, 21, 23, 25, 26. It stands in the text

of 3, 9, 14, in the margin only of 1, 20.

397 “Both elements, the clause ἐκδεχομένων τὴν τῶν ὑδάτων (sic) κίνησιν,

and the scholium or explanatory note respecting the angel, are

unquestionably very ancient: but no good Greek document contains

both, while each of them separately is condemned by decisive

evidence” (Hort, Introd., p. 301).

398 Dean Burgon has left a long vindication of the whole passage amongst

his papers not yet published.

399 Add from Dr. Malan (_ubi supra_, p. 97), the Georgian, Slavonic

(text, not margin), Anglo-Saxon, and Persic. His Arabic (that of

Erpenius) agrees with the Peshitto Syriac. The Armenian version of

Ephraem’s Tatian also reads _non_.

400 Codd. AC are defective in this place, but by measuring the space we

have shown (p. 99, note 2) that A does not contain the twelve

verses, and the same method applies to C. The reckoning, as

McClellan remarks (N. T., p. 723), “does not preclude the

possibility of small gaps having existed in A and C to mark the

_place_ of the Section, as in L and Δ.”

401 Yet Burgon’s caution should be attended to. “It is to mislead—rather

it is to misrepresent the facts of the case—to say (with the

critics) that Codex X leaves out the ‘pericope de adulterâ.’ This

Codex is nothing else but a _commentary on the Gospel, as the Gospel

used to be read in public_. Of necessity, therefore, it leaves out

those parts of the Gospel which are observed _not_ to have been

publicly read” (_Guardian_, Sept. 10, 1873).

402 The kindred copies Codd. Λ, 215 (20 has an asterisk only against the

place), 262, &c., have the following scholium at ch. vii. 53: τὰ

ὠβελισμένα ἔν τισιν ἀντιγράφοις οὐ κεῖται, οὐδὲ Ἀπολ[λ]ιναρίῳ; ἐν δὲ

τοῖς ἀρχαίοις ὅλα κεῖ[ν]ται; μνημονεύουσιν τῆς περικοπῆς ταύτης καὶ

οἱ ἀπόστολοι, ἐν αἷς ἐξέθεντο διατάξεσιν εἰς οἰκοδομὴν τῆς

ἐκκλησίας. The reference is to the Apostolic Constitutions (ii. 24.

4), as Tischendorf perceives.

403 Yet so that the first hand of Cod. 207 recognizes it in the text,

setting in the margin τὸ δὲ λοιπὸν ζήτει εἰς τὸ τέλος τοῦ βιβλίου

(Burgon, _Guardian_, Oct. 1, 1873).

404 A learned friend suggests that, supposing the true place for this

supplemental history to be yet in doubt, there would be this reason

for the narrative to be set after Luke xxi, that a reader of the

Synoptic Gospels would be aware of no other occasion when the Lord

had to lodge outside the city: whereas with St. John’s narrative

before him, he would see that this was probably the usual lot of a

_late_ comer at the Feast of Tabernacles (ch. vii. 14). Mr. J.

Rendel Harris thinks that the true place for the _pericope_ is

between ch. v and ch. vi, as for other reasons which we cannot

depend upon, so from our illustrating the mention of the Mosaic Law

in ch. viii. 5 by ch. v. 45, 46.

405 Yet on the whole this paragraph is found in more of Bp. Lightfoot’s

copies than would have been anticipated: viz. in the text of 3, 8,

14, 16, 17, 18, 23, 24, in the margin of 1, and on a later leaf of

20. It is wanting in 2, 4, 5, 7, 9, 19, 21, 25, 26.

406 “Similiter Nicon ejectam esse vult narrationem ab Armenis, βλαβερὰν

εἶναι τοῖς πολλοῖς τὴν τοιαύτην ἀκρόασιν dicentibus.” Tischendorf

_ad loc._ Nicon lived in or about the tenth century, but Theophylact

in the eleventh does not use the paragraph.

407 Notice especially the reading of 48, 64, 604, 736 (_primâ manu_) in

ver. 8 ἔγραφεν εἰς τὴν γῆν ἑνὸς ἑκάστου αὐτῶν τὰς ἁμαρτίας.

408 We are not surprised in this instance at Dr. Hort’s verdict (Introd.

p. 299): “No interpolation is more clearly Western, though it is not

Western of the earliest type.” Dean Burgon has left amongst his

papers an elaborate vindication of this passage, from which however

the Editor cannot quote.

409 The form τὸν Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν, objected to by Michaelis, is vindicated

by Matt. i. 18, the reading of which cannot rightly be impugned.

_See_ above. Compare also ver. 12.

410 ὡς αὐτὸς ὁ εὐνοῦχος πεισθεὶς καὶ παραυτίκα ἀξιῶν βαπτισθῆναι, ἔλεγε,

Πιστεύω τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ θεοῦ εἶναι Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν. Harvey, vol. ii. p.

62.

411 Such are αὐτῷ with or without ὁ Φίλιππος in E, 100, 105, 163, 186,

221, the Harkleian with an asterisk: σου added after καρδίας in E,

100, 105, 163, 186, _tol._, the Harkleian with an asterisk, the

Armenian, Cyprian; but _ex toto corde_ the margin of _am._ and the

Clementine Vulgate: τόν omitted before Ἰησοῦν in 186, 221 and

others.

412 “Non reperi in graeco codice, quanquam arbitror omissum librariorum

incuria. Nam et haec in quodam codice graeco asscripta reperi, sed

in margine.” Erasmus, N. T., 1516.

413 They plead, besides the confessed preponderance of manuscript

evidence for Ἑλληνιστάς, that “A familiar word standing in an

obvious antithesis was not likely to be exchanged for a word so rare

that it is no longer extant, except in a totally different sense,

anywhere but in the Acts and two or three late Greek interpretations

of the Acts; more especially when the change introduced an apparent

difficulty” (Hort, Notes, p. 93). _Judicet lector._

414 Cambridge Paragraph Bible, Introduction, pp. lvi and lxxxii.

415 But with the same lack of accuracy which so often deforms this great

copy: ως ετροφοφορησεν σε _κς_ ο _θς_ σου ως ει τις τροποφορησει

_primâ manu_ (Vercellone).

416 Witness too Lucian’s ὑπερμεγέθη ναῦν καὶ πέρα τοῦ μέτρου, μίαν τῶν

ἀπ᾽ Αἰγύπτου εἰς Ἰταλίαν σιταγωγῶν (Navig. seu Vota, c. 1) which was

driven out of its course to the Piraeus. Mr. Smith, of Jordan Hill,

cannot bring its dimensions under 1,300 tons.

417 Dr. Field, however, says that “this is a mistake.” The Syriac is

ἔχωμεν and nothing else. For ἔχομεν this version (and all others)

would put ܐܬ ܥܢ (or ܢܥ ܬܐ): but “when the word is in the subjunctive

mood, since ܐܬ (or ܬܐ) is indeclinable, it is a peculiarity of the

Harkleian to prefix the corresponding mood of ܗܘܐ (or ܐܘܗ), here

ܢܗܘܐ (or ܐܘܗܢ)” (Otium Norvicense, iii. p. 93). For this strange

phrase he cites Rom. i. 13; 2 Cor. v. 12, and to such an authority I

have but _dare manus_.

418 It is simply impossible to translate with Jos. Agar Beet, in the

[Wesleyan] _London Quarterly_, April, 1878, either “Let us then,

justified by faith, have peace with God,” or “Let us then be

justified by faith and have peace with God.” Acts xv. 36 will help

him little: the other places he cites (Matt. ii. 13, &c.) not at

all.

419 Dr. Vaughan (Epistle to the Romans) has ἔχωμεν in his text, and

compares Heb. xii. 28, ἔχωμεν χάριν, “where there is the same

variety of reading.” B is lost in this last place, but ἔχομεν, which

is quite inadmissible, is found in Codd. אKP, the Latin of D, 31 and

many other cursives, the printed Vulgate, and its best manuscripts.

In Rom. xiv. 19 even Dr. Hort is driven by the versions and the

sense to adopt in his text διώκωμεν of CD and the mass of cursives,

rather than διώκομεν with אABFGLP, &c. The like confusion between ο

and ω appears in the text we shall examine next but one (1 Cor.

xiii. 3) and in the subjoined note (p. 384). See also φορέσομεν and

φορέσωμεν, 1 Cor. xv. 49. We must confess, however, that in some of

our oldest extant MSS. the interchange of ο and ω is but rare. In

Cod. Sarravianus it is found in but twenty-three places out of 1224

in which itacisms occur, 830 of them being the mutation of ει and ι.

On the other hand, ο stands for ω and _vice versâ_ very frequently

in that papyrus fragment of the Psalms in the British Museum which

Tischendorf, perhaps a little hastily, judged to be older than any

existing writing on vellum.

420 Dr. Hort (Notes, p. 116) observes that διαθρύπτω is specially used

in the Septuagint (Lev. ii. 6; Isa. lviii. 7) for the breaking of

bread.

421 Few things are too hard for Dr. Hort, yet one is almost surprised to

be told that “The text gives an excellent sense, for, as ver. 2

refers to a faith towards God which is unaccompanied by love, so

ver. 3 refers to acts which seem by their very nature to be acts of

love to men, but are really done in ostentation. First the

dissolving of the goods in almsgiving is mentioned, then, as a

climax, the yielding up of the very body; both alike being done for

the sake of glorying, and unaccompanied by love” (Notes, p. 117).

422 Tyler compares _shoushou_ also in 2 Cor. vii. 5, 9; Ps. v. 11 (12).

423 Neither Winer nor his careful translator, Professor Moulton, seems

disposed to yield to Lachmann’s authority in this matter. “In the

better class of writers,” says Winer, “such forms are probably due

to the transcribers (Lobeck on Phrynichus, p. 721), but in later

authors, especially the Scholiasts (as on Thucydides iii. 11 and

54), they cannot be set aside. In the N. T., however, there is very

little in favour of these conjunctives” (Moulton’s “Winer,” p. 89

and note 4, p. 361 and note 1). Yet Tregelles thinks “there would be

no difficulty about the case, had not one been made by grammatical

critics” (An Account of the Printed Text, p. 211, note †). But in

his own example, John xvii. 2, ἵνα ... δώσῃ is read by אcACGKMSX,

33, 511, 546, and (so far as I can find) by no other manuscript

whatever. On the other hand δώσει (read by Westcott and Hort; _see_

Introd., Notes, p. 172) is supported by BEHUYΓΔΛΠ (א has δωσω, D

εχη, L δωσ), and (as it would seem) by every other codex extant:

δώσῃ came into the common text from the second edition of Erasmus.

Out of the twenty-five collated by myself for this chapter, δώσει is

found in twenty-four (now including Wake 12 or Cod. 492 and Cod.

622), and the following others have been expressly cited for it: 1,

10, 11, 15, 22, 42, 45, 48, 53, 54, 55, 60, 61 (Dobbin), 63, 65, 66,

106, 118, 124, 127, 131, 142, 145, 157, 250, 262, Evst. 3, 22, 24,

36, and at least fifty others, indeed one might say all that have

been collated with any degree of minuteness: so too the

Complutensian and first edition of Erasmus. The constant confusion

of ει and η at the period when the uncials were written abundantly

accounts for the reading of the few, though AC are among them. In

later times such itacisms were far more rare in careful

transcription, and the mediaeval copyists knew their native language

too well to fall into the habit in this passage. In Pet. iii. 1 ἵνα

κερδηθήσονται is read by all the uncials (אABCKLP), nearly all

cursives, and the Complutensian edition, in the place of -σωνται of

Erasmus and the Received text; just as we have ἵνα γινώσκομεν in

אAB*LP, 98, 99, 101, 180, 184, 188, 190 in 1 John v. 20. The case

for ἀρκεσθησόμεθα 1 Tim. vi. 8 is but a shade less feeble.

424 Tischendorf, however, boldly interposes a comma between the words

(_see_ p. 359, note), and is followed by Westcott and Hort and by

Bp. Lightfoot, whose note on the passage (Coloss. p. 318) is very

elaborate. This mode of punctuation would set χριστοῦ in apposition

to μυστηρίου, in support of which construction ch. i. 27 (ὅ); 1 Tim.

iii. 16 (ὅς) are alleged. This, however, is not the sense favoured

by Hilary (_in agnitionem sacramenti dei Christi_, and again _Deus

Christus sacramentum est_), and would almost call for the article

before χριστοῦ. In meaning it would be equivalent to D*, &c., ὅ

ἐστιν _χσ_.

425 In Dr. Swete’s edition, vol. ii. p. 11, Theodore expounds thus in

the old Latin version: _sed facti sumus quieti in medio vestro_, hoc

est, “omni mediocritate et humilitate sumus abusi, nolentes graves

aliquibus videri.”

426 A like combination is seen in Cod. 37 in 1 Tim. vi. 19 τῆς αἰωνίου

ὄντως ζωῆς.

427 Dean Burgon has just presented me with the photographed page in Cod.

G, respecting whose evidence there can be no remaining doubt.

428 The true reading of the Codex Alexandrinus in 1 Tim. iii. 16 has

long been an interesting puzzle with Biblical students. The

manuscript, and especially the leaf containing this verse (fol.

145), now very thin and falling into holes, must have been in a

widely different condition from the present when it first came to

England. At that period Young, Huish, and the rest who collated or

referred to it, believed that _ΘΣ_ was written by the first hand.

Mill (N. T. _ad loc._) declares that he had first supposed the

primitive reading to be _ΟΣ_, seeing clearly that the line _over_

the letters had not been entirely made, but only thickened, by a

later hand, probably the same that traced the coarse, rude, recent,

horizontal diameter now running through the circle. On looking more

closely, however, he detected “ductus quosdam et vestigia satis

certa ... praesertim ad partem sinistram, qua peripheriam literae

pertingit,” evidently belonging to an earlier diameter, which the

thicker and later one had almost defaced. This old line was

afterwards seen by John Berriman and four other persons with him

(Gloucester Ridley, Gibson, Hewett, and Pilkington) by means of a

glass in the bright sunshine, when he was preparing his Lady Moyer’s

Lecture for 1737-8 (Critical Dissertation on 1 Tim. iii. 16, p.

156). Wetstein admitted the existence of such a transverse line, but

referred it to the tongue or _sagitta_ of Ε on the reverse of the

leaf, an explanation rejected by Woide, but admitted by Tregelles,

who states in opposition to Woide that “Part of the Ε on the other

side of the leaf _does_ intersect the Ο, as we have seen again and

again, and which others with us have seen also” (Horne, iv. p. 156).

This last assertion may be received as quite true, and yet not

relevant to the point at issue. In an Excursus appended to 1 Timothy

in his edition of “The Pastoral Epistles” (p. 100, 1856), Bp.

Ellicott declares, as the result of “minute personal inspection,”

that the original reading was “indisputably” ΟΣ. But the fact is,

that the page is much too far gone to admit of any present judgement

which would weigh against past judgements, as any one who examines

the passage can see for himself. Woide could see the line in 1765,

but not in 1785.

429 Yet how can it be _precarious_ in the face of such testimony as the

following (_Quarterly Review_, Oct. 1881, p. 363)? Τὸ δὲ θεὸν ὄντα

ἄνθρωπον θελῆσαι γενέσθαι καὶ ἀνασχέσθαι καταβῆναι τοσοῦτον ...

τοῦτό ἐστι τὸ ἐκπλήξεως γέμον. Ὅ δὴ καὶ Παῦλος θαυμάζων ἔλεγε; καὶ

ὁμολογουμένως μέγα ἐστὶ τὸ τῆς εὐσεβείας μυστήριον; ποῖον μέγα? θεὸς

ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί; καὶ πάλιν ἀλλαχοῦ; οὐ γὰρ ἀγγέλων ἐπιλαμβάνεται

ὁ θεός (Chrysostom, i. 497). It is necessary to study the context

well before we can understand the strength or weakness of Patristic

evidence.

430 Twenty-three times in all, as Ward (_see_ p. 394, note) observes,

adding that “nothing can be more express and unquestionable than his

reading.” The _Quarterly Reviewer_ speaks very well (_ubi supra_),

“A single quotation is better than many references. Among a

multitude of proofs that Christ is God, Gregory says: Τιμοθέῳ δὲ

διαρρήδην βοᾷ ὅτι ὁ θεὸς ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί, ἐδικαιώθη ἐν πνεύματι”

(ii. 693).

431 Bentleii Critica Sacra, p. 67, ’Σχόλια Photii MSS. (Bib. Pub. Cant.)

_ad loc_. ὁ ἐν ἁγίοις Κύριλλος ἐν τῷ _ιβ_ κεφαλαίῳ τῶν σχολίων

φησίν, ὃς ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί.’ Photius also quoted Gregory

Thaumaturgus (or Apollinarius) for θεός.

432 Dr. Swete, in his masterly edition of the Latin translation of

Theodore’s commentary on St. Paul’s Epistles, after citing the Latin

text as _qui manifestatus est in carne_, adds “Both our MSS. read

_qui_, here and [15 lines] below and use the masculine consistently

throughout the context.... Thus the present translation goes to

confirm the inference already drawn from the Greek fragment of

Theodore, de Incarn. xiii (Migne, P. G. 66, 987), that he read ὃς

ἐφανερώθη” (vol. ii. p. 135 n.): pertinently observing that if

Theodore used ὅς, he was in harmony with the Syriac versions.

433 “Conspectum lectionis hujus loci optime dedit in sermone vernaculo

William H. Ward, V. D. M. in Bibliotheca Sacrâ Americanâ, anni

1865,” Tregelles N. T. _ad loc_. For a copy of this work I am

indebted to the kindness of A. W. Tyler of New York. Mr. Ward

wonders that neither Tregelles nor I have noticed a certain pinhole

in Cod. A, which was pointed out to Sir F. Madden by J. Scott

Porter, made by some person at the extremity of the sagitta of the Ε

on the opposite page, and falling exactly on the supposed transverse

line of the Θ. I cannot perceive the pinhole, but the vellum is fast

crumbling away from the effects of time, certainly through no lack

of care on the part of those who keep the manuscript.

434 “As the Apostle here applies to _Christ_ language which in the Old

Testament is made use of with reference to Jehovah (_see_ Isa. viii.

13), he clearly suggests the supreme godhead of our Redeemer,” as

Dr. Roberts puts the matter (Words of the New Testament, p. 170).

Not, of course, that our critical judgement should be swayed one way

or the other by individual prepossessions; but that those who in the

course of these researches have sacrificed to truth much that they

have hitherto held dear, need not suppress their satisfaction when

truth is gain.

435 This translation of 2 Peter, 2, 3 John, and Jude, printed by Pococke

from Bodl. Orient. 119, well deserves careful study, being totally

different in style and character both from the Peshitto and the

Harkleian, somewhat free and periphrastic, yet, in our paucity of

good authorities just here, of great interest and full of valuable

readings. Thus, in this very verse it reads ἀδικούμενοι (“being

wronged as the hire of their wrong-doing”) with א*BP and the

Armenian, difficult as it may seem to receive that word as genuine:

in ver. 17 it omits εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα with אB and some other versions:

in ch. iii. 10 it sides with the Sahidic alone in receiving οὐχ

εὑρεθήσεται (apparently correctly) instead of εὑρεθήσεται of אBKP,

of the excellent cursives 27, 29, 66 _secundâ manu_, of the Armenian

and Harkleian margin, where the Received text follows the obvious

κατακαήσεται of AL and the rest, and C hits upon ἀφανισθήσονται in

pure despair.

436 Bp. Chr. Wordsworth speaks as though there were a _paronomasia_, a

play on the words ἀγάπη and ἀπάτη, comparing (after Windischmann) 2

Thess. ii. 10. “The false teachers called their meetings ἀγάπαι,

_love feasts_, but they were mere ἀπάται, _deceits_. Their _table_

was a _snare_” (Ps. lxix. 22). This view might be tenable if St.

Peter, with whom the _paronomasia_ must have taken its rise, were

not the earlier writer of the two, as the Bishop of Lincoln believes

he was, as firmly as we do. Perhaps Dr. Westcott’s notion that 2

Peter is a translation, not an original, at least in ch. ii, will

best account for the textual variations between it and St. Jude.

437 See the Cambridge Paragraph Bible, Introduction, pp. xxxv, xxxvii.

438 “Restitui in Grecis hoc membrum ex quatuor manuscr. codicum, veteris

Latini et Syri interpretis auctoritate. sic etiam assueto Johanne

istis oppositionibus contrariorum uti quam saepissimè.” Beza, N. T.,

1582.

439 Horne (Introduction, vol. ii. pt. ii. ch. iii. sect. 4), and after

his example Tregelles (Horne, iv. pp. 384-8), give a curious list of

more than fifty volumes, pamphlets, or critical notices on this

question. The following are the most worthy of perusal: Letters to

Edward Gibbon, Esq., by G. Travis, Archdeacon of Chester, 1785, 2nd

edit.; Letters to Mr. Archdeacon Travis, &c., by Richard Porson,

1790; Letters to Mr. Archdeacon Travis, &c., by Herbert Marsh

[afterwards Bp. of Peterborough], 1795; A Vindication of the

Literary Character of Professor Porson, by Crito Cantabrigiensis

[Thomas Turton, afterwards Bp. of Ely], 1827; Two Letters on some

parts of the Controversy concerning 1 John v. 7, by Nicolas Wiseman,

1835, for which _see_ Index. For Dr. Adam Clarke’s “Observations,”

&c., 1805, _see_ Evan. 61. Add F. A. Knittel on 1 John v. 7.

Professor Ezra Abbot’s edition of “Orme’s Memoir of the Controversy

on 1 John v. 7,” New York, 1866, has not fallen in my way. As

elaborate works, on the verses are “A new plea for the authenticity

of the Text of the Three Heavenly Witnesses, or Porson’s Letters to

Travis eclectically examined,” Cambridge, 1867, being the

performance of a literary veteran, the late Rev. Charles Forster,

whose arguments in vindication of the Pauline origin of the Epistle

to the Hebrews, published in 1838, modern Biblical writers have

found it easier to pass by than to refute; and “The Three Witnesses,

the disputed text in St. John, considerations new and old,” by the

Rev. H. T. Armfield, Bagster, 1883.

440 That the Codex Montfortianus was influenced by the Vulgate is

probably true, though it is a little hasty to infer the fact at once

from a single instance, namely, the substitution of χριστός after

that version and Uscan’s Armenian for the second πνεῦμα in verse 6:

“quae lectio Latina Graece in codicem 34 Dublinensem illum

Montfortianum recepta luculenter testatur versionem vulgatam ad cum

conficiendum valuisse” (Tischendorf _ad loc._).

441 It is really surprising how loosely persons who cannot help being

scholars, at least in some degree, will talk about codices

containing this clause. Dr. Edward Tatham, Rector of Lincoln

College, Oxford (1792-1834), writing in 1827, speaks of a manuscript

in his College Library which exhibited it, but is now missing, as

having been once seen by him and Dr. Parsons, Bishop of Peterborough

(Crito Cantabrigiensis, p. 334, note). Yet there can be no question

that he meant Act. 33, which does not give the verse, but has long

been known to have some connexion with the Codex Montfortianus,

which does (_see_ Act. 33).

442 Of the two Spanish MSS. one _leon._2 contains the passage only in

the margin, the other _leon._1 adds at the end of ver. 8, _in

__xpo__ __ihu_. Canon Westcott cites a manuscript in the British

Museum (Add. 11,852), of the ninth century, to the same effect,

observing that, like _m_ and _cav._, it contains the Epistle to the

Laodiceans. This MS. runs “quia tres sunt qui testimonium dant _sps_

et aqua et sanguis, et tres unum sunt. Sicut in caelo tres sunt

pater verbum et _sps_ et tres unum sunt.” Westcott’s manuscript is,

in fact, _ulm._, and had already been used by Porson (Letters, &c.,

p. 148).

443 Mr. Forster (_ubi supra_, pp. 200-209) believed that he had

discovered _Greek_ authority of the fourth century for this passage,

in an isolated Homily by an unknown author, in the Benedictine

edition of Chrysostom (Tom. xii. pp. 416-21), whose date Montfaucon

easily fixes by internal evidence at A.D. 381. As this discovery, if

real, is of the utmost importance in the controversy, it seems only

right to subjoin the words alleged by this learned divine, leaving

them to make their own way with the reader: (1) εἷς κέκληται ὁ Πατὴρ

καὶ ὁ Υἱὸς καὶ τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ Ἅγιον: (2) δεῖ γὰρ τῇ ἀποστολικῇ χορείᾳ

παραχωρῆσαι τὴν Ἁγίαν Τριάδα, ἢν ὁ Πατὴρ καταγγέλλει. Τριὰς

Ἀποστόλων, μάρτυς τῆς οὐρανίου Τριάδος.

444 The “Prologus Galeatus in vii Epistolas _Canonicas_,” in which the

author complains of the omission of ver. 7, “ab infidelibus

translatoribus,” is certainly not Jerome’s, and begins to appear in

codices of about the ninth century.

445 The writer of a manuscript note in the British Museum copy of

Travis’ “Letters to Gibbon,” 1785, p. 49, very well observes on the

second citation from Cyprian: “That three are one might be taken

from the eighth verse, as that was certainly understood of Father,

Son, and Holy Ghost, _especially when Baptism was the subject in

hand_” [Matt. xxviii. 19].

446 It will be seen upon examination of our collations on p. 402 that

the points of difference between Codex Montfortianus (34) and

Erasmus’ printed text are two, viz. that 34 omits καί after πνεῦμα

in ver. 8, and with the Complutensian leaves out its last clause

altogether; while, on the other hand, Erasmus and Cod. 34 agree

against the Complutensian in their barbarous neglect of the Greek

article in both verses. As regards the omission in Cod. 34 of the

last clause of ver. 8 (καὶ οἱ τρεῖς εἰς τὸ ἕν εἰσιν), it is obvious

to conjecture that the person, whosoever he was, that sent the

transcript of the passage to Erasmus, who never saw the MS. for

himself, might have broken off after copying the disputed words, and

neglected to note down the further variation that immediately

followed them. After the foregoing explanation we must leave the

matter as it stands, for there is no known mode of accounting for

the discrepancy, whereof Mr. Forster makes the very utmost in the

following note, which, as a specimen of his book, is annexed entire:

“Bishop Marsh labours hard to identify the Codex Britannicus used by

Erasmus, with the Codex Montfortianus. Erasmus’s own description of

the Codex Britannicus completely nullifies the attempt: ‘Postremo:

Quod Britannicum etiam in terrae testimonio addebat, καὶ οἱ τρεῖς

εἰς τὸ ἕν εἰσι, quod non addebatur hic duntaxat in editione

Hispaniensi.’ Now as this clause is also omitted in the Montfort

Codex, it cannot possibly be the same with the Codex Britannicus. In

this as yet undiscovered MS., therefore, we have a second and

independent Gr. MS. witness to the seventh verse. The zeal of the

adversaries to evade this fact only betrays their sense of its

importance” (p. 126). Alas! _Hi motus animorum._

447 I side with Porson against Travis on every important point at issue

between them, and yet I must say that if the former lost a legacy

(as has been reported) by publishing his “Letters,” he was entitled

to but slender sympathy. The prejudices of good men (especially when

a passage is concerned which they have long held to be a genuine

portion of Scripture, clearly teaching pure and right doctrine)

should be dealt with gently: not that the truth should be dissembled

or withheld, but when told it ought to be in a spirit of tenderness

and love. Now take one example out of fifty of the tone and temper

of Porson. The immediate question was a very subordinate one in the

controversy, namely, the evidence borne by the Acts of the Lateran

Council, A.D. 1215. “Though this,” rejoins Porson, “proves nothing

in favour of the verse, it proves two other points. That the clergy

then exercised dominion over the rights of mankind, and that able

tithe-lawyers often make sorry critics. _Which I desire some certain

gentlemen of my acquaintance to lay up in their hearts as a very

seasonable innuendo_” (Letters, p. 361, quoted from “A Tale of a

Tub” p. 151). As if it were a disgrace for an Archdeacon to know a

little about the laws which affect the clergy.

448 Gaussen (Theopneustia, pp. 115-7) has still spirit remaining to

press the masculine forms οἱ μαρτυροῦντες ver. 7 and οἱ τρεῖς ver. 8

as making in favour of the intervening clause: “Remove it, and the

grammar becomes incoherent:” a reason truly, but one not strong

enough to carry his point.

449 We are compelled to draw a sharp distinction between γεγεννημένος

and γεννηθείς in the same context, and, with all deference to the

_Quarterly Reviewer_ (April, 1882, p. 366), we do not think his view

of the matter more natural than that given in the text: “St. John,”

he suggests, “is distinguishing between the mere recipient of the

new birth (ὁ γεννηθεὶς ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ),—and the man who retains the

sanctifying influences of the Holy Spirit which he received when he

became regenerate (ὁ γεγεννημένος ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ).” [The distinction

given between the perfect and aorist, as I have altered it in the

text, is perfectly just, and explains the passage. The effects of

regeneration if continued are indefectible, but the mere fact of

regeneration entails constant watchfulness.]

450 So it certainly seems to me after careful inspection of Cod. A,

although it may be too bold to say, as some have, that there are in

it no corrections by later hands. Above in ver. 10 ἐν ἀυτῷ is

supported by ABKLP and a shower of cursives in the room of ἐν ἑαυτῷ

of א and the Received text, but here there is no difference of sense

between the two forms. Dr. Hort (Introd., Notes, p. 144) has an

exhaustive and cautious note on the breathing of αυτου, αυτῳ, &c.,

and ultimately declines to exclude the aspirate from the N. T.

451 The Revision Revised, pp. 247-8.

452 For a very full and clear account of a MS. of this class, the reader

may consult an article by Prof. Isaac H. Hall in the “Journal of the

American Oriental Society,” vol. xi, No. 2, 1885.

453 It is not meant that these terms occur as titles. _Apostolos_ (ܫܥܝܐ

or ܐܝܥܫ) as applied to a book means the fourteen Epp. of St. Paul.

_Evangeliom_, in the sense of _Evangelistary_ in a title, is quoted

in “Thesaurus Syriacus.”

But many liturgical terms were borrowed from the Greeks, especially

by the Maronites. For a succinct account of Greek and Latin Service

Books, _see_ Pelliccia’s “Polity” (tr. Bellett, 1883), pp. 183-8:

for the Syriac system, _see_ Etheridge’s “Syrian Churches,” pp.

112-6.