CAUSES OF CORRUPTION CHIEFLY INTENTIONAL.
IV. Omission.
[We have now to consider the largest of all classes of corrupt
variations from the genuine Text[258]--the omission of words and clauses
and sentences,--a truly fertile province of inquiry. Omissions are much
in favour with a particular school of critics; though a habit of
admitting them whether in ancient or modern times cannot but be
symptomatic of a tendency to scepticism.]
§ 1.
Omissions are often treated as 'Various Readings.' Yet only by an
Hibernian licence can words omitted be so reckoned: for in truth the
very essence of the matter is that on such occasions nothing is read. It
is to the case of words omitted however that this chapter is to be
exclusively devoted. And it will be borne in mind that I speak now of
those words alone where the words are observed to exist in ninety-nine
MSS. out of a hundred, so to speak;--being away only from that hundredth
copy.
Now it becomes evident, as soon as attention has been called to the
circumstance, that such a phenomenon requires separate treatment. Words
so omitted labour _prima facie_ under a disadvantage which is all their
own. My meaning will be best illustrated if I may be allowed to adduce
and briefly discuss a few examples. And I will begin with a crucial
case;--the most conspicuous doubtless within the whole compass of the
New Testament. I mean the last twelve verses of St. Mark's Gospel; which
verses are either bracketed off, or else entirely severed from the rest
of the Gospel, by Tischendorf, Tregelles, Alford and others.
The warrant of those critics for dealing thus unceremoniously with a
portion of the sacred deposit is the fact that whereas Eusebius, for the
statement rests solely with him, declares that anciently many copies
were without the verses in question, our two oldest extant MSS. conspire
in omitting them. But, I reply, the latter circumstance does not conduct
to the inference that those verses are spurious. It only proves that the
statement of Eusebius was correct. The Father cited did not, as is
evident from his words[259], himself doubt the genuineness of the verses
in question; but admitted them to be genuine. [He quotes two
opinions;--the opinion of an advocate who questions their genuineness,
and an opposing opinion which he evidently considers the better of the
two, since he rests upon the latter and casts a slur upon the former as
being an off-hand expedient; besides that he quotes several words out of
the twelve verses, and argues at great length upon the second
hypothesis.
On the other hand, one and that the least faulty of the two MSS.
witnessing for the omission confesses mutely its error by leaving a
vacant space where the omitted verses should have come in; whilst the
other was apparently copied from an exemplar containing the verses[260].
And all the other copies insert them, except L and a few cursives which
propose a manifestly spurious substitute for the verses,--together with
all the versions, except one Old Latin (k), the Lewis Codex, two
Armenian MSS. and an Arabic Lectionary,--besides more than ninety
testimonies in their favour from more than 'forty-four' ancient
witnesses[261];--such is the evidence which weighs down the conflicting
testimony over and over and over again. Beyond all this, the cause of
the error is patent. Some scribe mistook the [Greek: Telos] occurring at
the end of an Ecclesiastical Lection at the close of chapter xvi. 8 for
the 'End' of St. Mark's Gospel[262].
That is the simple truth: and the question will now be asked by an
intelligent reader, 'If such is the balance of evidence, how is it that
learned critics still doubt the genuineness of those verses?'
To this question there can be but one answer, viz. 'Because those
critics are blinded by invincible prejudice in favour of two unsafe
guides, and on behalf of Omission.'
We have already seen enough of the character of those guides, and are
now anxious to learn what there can be in omissions which render them so
acceptable to minds of the present day. And we can imagine nothing
except the halo which has gathered round the detection of spurious
passages in modern times, and has extended to a supposed detection of
passages which in fact are not spurious. Some people appear to feel
delight if they can prove any charge against people who claim to be
orthodox; others without any such feeling delight in superior criticism;
and the flavour of scepticism especially commends itself to the taste of
many. To the votaries of such criticism, omissions of passages which
they style 'interpolations,' offer temptingly spacious hunting-fields.
Yet the experience of copyists would pronounce that Omission is the
besetting fault of transcribers. It is so easy under the influence of
the desire of accomplishing a task, or at least of anxiety for making
progress, to pass over a word, a line, or even more lines than one. As
has been explained before, the eye readily moves from one ending to a
similar ending with a surprising tendency to pursue the course which
would lighten labour instead of increasing it. The cumulative result of
such abridgement by omission on the part of successive scribes may be
easily imagined, and in fact is just what is presented in Codex B[263].
Besides these considerations, the passages which are omitted, and which
we claim to be genuine, bear in themselves the character belonging to
the rest of the Gospels, indeed--in Dr. Hort's expressive phrase--'have
the true ring of genuineness.' They are not like some which some critics
of the same school would fain force upon us[264]. But beyond all,--and
this is the real source and ground of attestation,--they enjoy superior
evidence from copies, generally beyond comparison with the opposing
testimony, from Versions, and from Fathers.]
§ 2.
The fact seems to be all but overlooked that a very much larger amount
of proof than usual is required at the hands of those who would persuade
us to cancel words which have been hitherto by all persons,--in all
ages,--in all countries,--regarded as inspired Scripture. They have (1)
to account for the fact of those words' existence: and next (2), to
demonstrate that they have no right to their place in the sacred page.
The discovery that from a few copies they are away, clearly has very
little to do with the question. We may be able to account for the
omission from those few copies: and the instant we have done this, the
negative evidence--the argument _e silentio_--has been effectually
disposed of. A very different task--a far graver responsibility--is
imposed upon the adverse party, as may be easily shewn. [They must
establish many modes of accounting for many classes and groups of
evidence. Broad and sweeping measures are now out of date. The burden of
proof lies with them.]
§ 3.
The force of what I am saying will be best understood if a few actual
specimens of omission may be adduced, and individually considered. And
first, let us take the case of an omitted word. In St. Luke vi. 1
[Greek: deuteroprôtô] is omitted from some MSS. Westcott and Hort and
the Revisers accordingly exhibit the text of that place as
follows:--[Greek: Egeneto de en sabbatô diaporeuesthai auton dia
sporimôn].
Now I desire to be informed how it is credible that so very difficult
and peculiar a word as this,--for indeed the expression has never yet
been satisfactorily explained,--should have found its way into every
known Evangelium except [Symbol: Aleph]BL and a few cursives, if it be
spurious? How it came to be here and there omitted, is intelligible
enough. (_a_) One has but to glance at the Cod. [Symbol: Aleph],
[Greek: TO EN SABBATÔ]
[Greek: DEUTEROPRÔTÔ]
in order to see that the like ending ([Greek: TÔ]) in the superior line,
fully accounts for the omission of the second line. (_b_) A proper
lesson begins at this place; which by itself would explain the
phenomenon. (_c_) Words which the copyists were at a loss to understand,
are often observed to be dropped: and there is no harder word in the
Gospels than [Greek: deuteroprôtos]. But I repeat,--will you tell us how
it is conceivable that [a word nowhere else found, and known to be a
_crux_ to commentators and others, should have crept into all the copies
except a small handful?]
In reply to all this, I shall of course be told that really I must yield
to what is after all the weight of external evidence: that Codd.
[Symbol: Aleph]BL are not ordinary MSS. but first-class authorities, of
sufficient importance to outweigh any number of the later cursive MSS.
My rejoinder is plain:--Not only am I of course willing to yield to
external evidence, but it is precisely 'external evidence' which makes
me insist on retaining [Greek: deuteroprôto--apo melissiou kêriou--haras
ton stauron--kai anephereto eis ton ouranon--hotan eklipête]--the 14th
verse of St. Matthew's xxiiird chapter--and the last twelve verses of
St. Mark's Gospel. For my own part, I entirely deny the cogency of the
proposed proof, and I have clearly already established the grounds of my
refusal. Who then is to be the daysman between us? We are driven back on
first principles, in order to ascertain if it may not be possible to
meet on some common ground, and by the application of ordinary logical
principles of reasoning to clear our view. [As to these we must refer
the reader to the first volume of this work. Various cases of omission
have been just quoted, and many have been discussed elsewhere.
Accordingly, it will not be necessary to exhibit this large class of
corruptions at the length which it would otherwise demand. But a few
more instances are required, in order that the reader may see in this
connexion that many passages at least which the opposing school
designate as Interpolations are really genuine, and that students may be
placed upon their guard against the source of error that we are
discussing.]
§ 4.
And first as to the rejection of an entire verse.
The 44th verse of St. Matt. xxi, consisting of the fifteen words printed
at foot[265], is marked as doubtful by Tregelles, Westcott and Hort, and
the Revisers:--by Tischendorf it is rejected as spurious. We insist
that, on the contrary, it is indubitably genuine; reasoning from the
antiquity, the variety, the respectability, the largeness, or rather,
the general unanimity of its attestation.
For the verse is found in the Old Latin, and in the Vulgate,--in the
Peshitto, Curetonian, and Harkleian Syriac,--besides in the Coptic,
Armenian, and Ethiopic versions. It is found also in Origen[266],--
ps.-Tatian[267]--Aphraates[268],--Chrysostom[269],--Cyril Alex.[270],--
the Opus Imperfectum[271],--Jerome[272],--Augustine[273]:--in Codexes
B[Symbol: Aleph]C[Symbol: Theta][Symbol: Sigma]XZ[Symbol: Delta][Symbol:
Pi]EFG HKLMSUV,--in short, it is attested by every known Codex except
two of bad character, viz.--D, 33; together with five copies of the Old
Latin, viz.--a b e ff^{1} ff^{2}. There have therefore been adduced for
the verse in dispute at least five witnesses of the second or third
century:--at least eight of the fourth:--at least seven if not eight of
the fifth: after which date the testimony in favour of this verse is
overwhelming. How could we be justified in opposing to such a mass of
first-rate testimony the solitary evidence of Cod. D (concerning which
see above, Vol. I. c. viii.) supported only by a single errant Cursive
and a little handful of copies of the Old Latin versions, [even although
the Lewis Codex has joined this petty band?]
But, says Tischendorf,--the verse is omitted by Origen and by
Eusebius,--by Irenaeus and by Lucifer of Cagliari,--as well as by Cyril
of Alexandria. I answer, this most insecure of arguments for mutilating
the traditional text is plainly inadmissible on the present occasion.
The critic refers to the fact that Irenaeus[274], Origen[275],
Eusebius[276] and Cyril[277] having quoted 'the parable of the wicked
husbandmen' _in extenso_ (viz. from verse 33 to verse 43), _leave off at
verse_ 43. Why may they not leave off where the parable leaves off? Why
should they quote any further? Verse 44 is nothing to their purpose. And
since the Gospel for Monday morning in Holy Week [verses 18-43], in
every known copy of the Lectionary actually ends at verse 43,--why
should not their quotation of it end at the same verse? But,
unfortunately for the critic, Origen and Cyril (as we have seen,--the
latter expressly,) elsewhere actually quote the verse in dispute. And
how can Tischendorf maintain that Lucifer yields adverse testimony[278]?
That Father quotes _nothing but_ verse 43, which is all he requires for
his purpose[279]. Why should he have also quoted verse 44, which he does
not require? As well might it be maintained that Macarius Egyptius[280]
and Philo of Carpasus[281] omit verse 44, because (like Lucifer) they
only quote verse 43.
I have elsewhere explained what I suspect occasioned the omission of St.
Matt. xxi. 44 from a few Western copies of the Gospels[282].
Tischendorf's opinion that this verse is a fabricated imitation of the
parallel verse in St. Luke's Gospel[283] (xx. 18) is clearly untenable.
Either place has its distinctive type, which either has maintained all
down the ages. The single fact that St. Matt. xxi. 44 in the Peshitto
version has a sectional number to itself[284] is far too weighty to be
set aside on nothing better than suspicion. If a verse so elaborately
attested as the present be not genuine, we must abandon all hope of ever
attaining to any certainty concerning the Text of Scripture.
In the meantime there emerges from the treatment which St. Matt. xxi. 44
has experienced at the hands of Tischendorf, the discovery that, in the
estimation of Tischendorf, Cod. D [is a document of so much importance
as occasionally to outweigh almost by itself the other copies of all
ages and countries in Christendom.]
§ 5.
I am guided to my next example, viz. the text of St. Matt. xv. 8, by the
choice deliberately made of that place by Dr. Tregelles in order to
establish the peculiar theory of Textual Revision which he advocates so
strenuously; and which, ever since the days of Griesbach, has it must be
confessed enjoyed the absolute confidence of most of the illustrious
editors of the New Testament. This is, in fact, the second example on
Tregelles' list. In approaching it, I take leave to point out that that
learned critic unintentionally hoodwinks his readers by not setting
before them in full the problem which he proposes to discuss. Thoroughly
to understand this matter, the student should be reminded that there is
found in St. Matt. xv. 8,--and parallel to it in St. Mark vii. 6,--
St. Matt.
'Ye hypocrites, well did Isaiah prophesy of you saying, "This people
draweth nigh unto Me with their mouth and honoureth me with their lips
([Greek: engizei moi ho laos houtos tô stomati autôn, kai tois cheilesi
me tima]), but their heart is far from Me."'
St. Mark.
'Well did Isaiah prophesy of you, hypocrites, as it is written, "This
people honoureth Me with their lips ([Greek: houtos ho laos tois
cheilesi me tima]), but their heart is far from Me."'
The place of Isaiah referred to, viz. ch. xxix. 13, reads as follows in
the ordinary editions of the LXX:--[Greek: kai eipe Kyrios, engizei moi
ho laos houtos en tô stomati autou, kai en tois cheilesin autôn timôsi
me].
Now, about the text of St. Mark in this place no question is raised.
Neither is there any various reading worth speaking of in ninety-nine
MSS. out of a hundred in respect of the text in St. Matthew. But when
reference is made to the two oldest copies in existence, B and [Symbol:
Aleph], we are presented with what, but for the parallel place in St.
Mark, would have appeared to us a strangely abbreviated reading. Both
MSS. conspire in exhibiting St. Matt. xv. 8, as follows:--[Greek: ho
laos houtos tois cheilesi me tima]. So that six words ([Greek: engizei
moi] and [Greek: tô stomati autôn, kai]) are not recognized by them: in
which peculiarity they are countenanced by DLT^{c}, two cursive copies,
and the following versions:--Old Latin except f, Vulgate, Curetonian,
Lewis, Peshitto, and Bohairic, (Cod. A, the Sahidic and Gothic versions,
being imperfect here.) To this evidence, Tischendorf adds a phalanx of
Fathers:--Clemens Romanus (A.D. 70), Ptolemaeus the Gnostic (A.D. 150),
Clemens Alexandrinus (A.D. 190), Origen in three places (A.D. 210),
Eusebius (A.D. 325), Basil, Cyril of Alexandria, Chrysostom: and Alford
supplies also Justin Martyr (A.D. 150). The testimony of Didymus (A.D.
350), which has been hitherto overlooked, is express. Tertullian,
Cyprian, Hilary, are naturally found to follow the Latin copies. Such a
weight of evidence may not unreasonably inspire Dr. Tregelles with an
exceeding amount of confidence. Accordingly he declares 'that this one
passage might be relied upon as an important proof that it is the few
MSS. and not the many which accord with ancient testimony.' Availing
himself of Dr. Scrivener's admission of 'the possibility that the
disputed words in the great bulk of the MSS. were inserted from the
Septuagint of Isaiah xxix. 13[285],' Dr. Tregelles insists 'that on
every true principle of textual criticism, the words must be regarded as
an amplification borrowed from the Prophet. This naturally explains
their introduction,' (he adds); 'and when once they had gained a footing
in the text, it is certain that they would be multiplied by copyists,
who almost always preferred to make passages as full and complete as
possible' (p. 139). Dr. Tregelles therefore relies upon this one
passage,--not so much as a 'proof that it is the few MSS. and not the
many which accord with ancient testimony';--for one instance cannot
possibly prove that; and that is after all beside the real
question;--but, as a proof that we are to regard the text of Codd.
B[Symbol: Aleph] in this place as genuine, and the text of all the other
Codexes in the world as corrupt.
The reader has now the hypothesis fully before him by which from the
days of Griesbach it has been proposed to account for the discrepancy
between 'the few copies' on the one hand, and the whole torrent of
manuscript evidence on the other.
Now, as I am writing a book on the principles of Textual Criticism, I
must be allowed to set my reader on his guard against all such
unsupported dicta as the preceding, though enforced with emphasis and
recommended by a deservedly respected name. I venture to think that the
exact reverse will be found to be a vast deal nearer the truth: viz.
that undoubtedly spurious readings, although they may at one time or
other have succeeded in obtaining a footing in MSS., and to some extent
may be observed even to have propagated themselves, are yet discovered
to die out speedily; seldom indeed to leave any considerable number of
descendants. There has always in fact been a process of elimination
going on, as well as of self-propagation: a corrective force at work, as
well as one of deterioration. How else are we to account for the utter
disappearance of the many _monstra potius quam variae lectiones_ which
the ancients nevertheless insist were prevalent in their times? It is
enough to appeal to a single place in Jerome, in illustration of what I
have been saying[286]. To return however from this digression.
We are invited then to believe,--for it is well to know at the outset
exactly what is required of us,--that from the fifth century downwards
every _extant copy of the Gospels except five_ (DLT^{c}, 33, 124)
exhibits a text arbitrarily interpolated in order to bring it into
conformity with the Greek version of Isa. xxix. 13. On this wild
hypothesis I have the following observations to make:--
1. It is altogether unaccountable, if this be indeed a true account of
the matter, how it has come to pass that in no single MS. in the world,
so far as I am aware, has this conformity been successfully achieved:
for whereas the Septuagintal reading is [Greek: engizei moi ho laos
outos EN tô stomati AUTOU, kai EN tois cheilesin AUTÔN TIMÔSI me],--the
Evangelical Text is observed to differ therefrom in no less than six
particulars.
2. Further,--If there really did exist this strange determination on the
part of the ancients in general to assimilate the text of St. Matthew to
the text of Isaiah, how does it happen that not one of them ever
conceived the like design in respect of the parallel place in St. Mark?
3. It naturally follows to inquire,--Why are we to suspect the mass of
MSS. of having experienced such wholesale depravation in respect of the
text of St. Matthew in this place, while yet we recognize in them such a
marked constancy to their own peculiar type; which however, as already
explained, is _not_ the text of Isaiah?
4. Further,--I discover in this place a minute illustration of the
general fidelity of the ancient copyists: for whereas in St. Matthew it
is invariably [Greek: ho laos outos], I observe that in the copies of
St. Mark,--except to be sure in (_a_) Codd. B and D, (_b_) copies of the
Old Latin, (_c_) the Vulgate, and (_d_) the Peshitto (all of which are
confessedly corrupt in this particular,)--it is invariably [Greek: outos
ho laos]. But now,--Is it reasonable that the very copies which have
been in this way convicted of licentiousness in respect of St. Mark vii.
6 should be permitted to dictate to us against the great heap of copies
in respect of their exhibition of St. Matt. xv. 8?
And yet, if the discrepancy between Codd. B and [Symbol: Aleph] and the
great bulk of the copies in this place did not originate in the way
insisted on by the critics, how is it to be accounted for? Now, on
ordinary occasions, we do not feel ourselves called upon to institute
any such inquiry,--as indeed very seldom would it be practicable to do.
Unbounded licence of transcription, flagrant carelessness, arbitrary
interpolations, omissions without number, disfigure those two ancient
MSS. in every page. We seldom trouble ourselves to inquire into the
history of their obliquities. But the case is of course materially
changed when so many of the oldest of the Fathers and all the oldest
Versions seem to be at one with Codexes B and [Symbol: Aleph]. Let then
the student favour me with his undivided attention for a few moments,
and I will explain to him how the misapprehension of Griesbach,
Tischendorf, Tregelles and the rest, has arisen. About the MSS. and the
Versions these critics are sufficiently accurate: but they have fatally
misapprehended the import of the Patristic evidence; as I proceed to
explain.
The established Septuagintal rendering of Isa. xxix. 13 in the Apostolic
age proves to have been this,--[Greek: Engizei moi ho laos outos tois
cheilesin autôn timôsi me]: the words [Greek: en tô stomati autôn, kai
en] being omitted. This is certain. Justin Martyr[287] and Cyril of
Alexandria in two places[288] so quote the passage. Procopius Gazaeus in
his Commentary on Origen's Hexapla of Isaiah says expressly that the six
words in question were introduced into the text of the Septuagint by
Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion. Accordingly they are often observed
to be absent from MSS.[289] They are not found, for example, in the
Codex Alexandrinus.
But the asyndeton resulting from the suppression of these words was felt
to be intolerable. In fact, without a colon point between [Greek: outos]
and [Greek: tois], the result is without meaning. When once the
complementary words have been withdrawn, [Greek: engizei moi] at the
beginning of the sentence is worse than superfluous. It fatally
encumbers the sense. To drop those two words, after the example of the
parallel place in St. Mark's Gospel, became thus an obvious proceeding.
Accordingly the author of the (so-called) second Epistle of Clemens
Romanus (§ 3), professing to quote the place in the prophet Isaiah,
exhibits it thus,--[Greek: Ho laos outos tois cheilesi me tima]. Clemens
Alexandrinus certainly does the same thing on at least two
occasions[290]. So does Chrysostom[291]. So does Theodoret[292].
Two facts have thus emerged, which entirely change the aspect of the
problem: the first, (_a_) That the words [Greek: en tô stomati autôn,
kai en] were anciently absent from the Septuagintal rendering of Isaiah
xxix. 13: the second, (_b_) that the place of Isaiah was freely quoted
by the ancients without the initial words [Greek: engizei moi].
And after this discovery will any one be so perverse as to deny that on
the contrary it must needs be Codexes B and [Symbol: Aleph], and not the
great bulk of the MSS., which exhibit a text corrupted by the influence
of the Septuagint rendering of Isaiah xxix. 13? The precise extent to
which the assimilating influence of the parallel place in St. Mark's
Gospel has been felt by the copyists, I presume not to determine. The
essential point is that the omission from St. Matthew xv. 8 of the words
[Greek: Tô stomati autôn, kai], is certainly due in the first instance
to the ascertained Septuagint omission of those very words in Isaiah
xxix. 13.
But that the text of St. Mark vii. 6 has exercised an assimilating
influence on the quotation from Isaiah is demonstrable. For there can be
no doubt that Isaiah's phrase (retained by St. Matthew) is [Greek: ho
laos outos],--St. Mark's [Greek: outos ho laos]. And yet, when Clemens
Romanus quotes Isaiah, he begins--[Greek: outos ho laos][293]; and so
twice does Theodoret[294].
The reader is now in a position to judge how much attention is due to
Dr. Tregelles' dictum 'that this one passage may be relied upon' in
support of the peculiar views he advocates: as well as to his confident
claim that the fuller text which is found in ninety-nine MSS. out of a
hundred 'must be regarded as an amplification borrowed from the
prophet.' It has been shewn in answer to the learned critic that in the
ancient Greek text of the prophet the 'amplification' he speaks of did
not exist: it was the abbreviated text which was found there. So that
the very converse of the phenomenon he supposes has taken place. Freely
accepting his hypothesis that we have here a process of assimilation,
occasioned by the Septuagintal text of Isaiah, we differ from him only
as to the direction in which that process has manifested itself. He
assumes that the bulk of the MSS. have been conformed to the generally
received reading of Isaiah xxix. 13. But it has been shewn that, on the
contrary, it is the two oldest MSS. which have experienced assimilation.
Their prototypes were depraved in this way at an exceedingly remote
period.
To state this matter somewhat differently.--In all the extant uncials
but five, and in almost every known cursive copy of the Gospels, the
words [Greek: tô stomati autôn, kai] are found to belong to St. Matt.
xv. 8. How is the presence of those words to be accounted for? The reply
is obvious:--By the fact that they must have existed in the original
autograph of the Evangelist. Such however is not the reply of Griesbach
and his followers. They insist that beyond all doubt those words must
have been imported into the Gospel from Isaiah xxix. But I have shewn
that this is impossible; because, at the time spoken of, the words in
question had no place in the Greek text of the prophet. And this
discovery exactly reverses the problem, and brings out the directly
opposite result. For now we discover that we have rather to inquire how
is the absence of the words in question from those few MSS. out of the
mass to be accounted for? The two oldest Codexes are convicted of
exhibiting a text which has been corrupted by the influence of the
oldest Septuagint reading of Isaiah xxix. 13.
I freely admit that it is in a high degree remarkable that five ancient
Versions, and all the following early writers,--Ptolemaeus[295], Clemens
Alexandrinus[296], Origen[297], Didymus[298], Cyril[299], Chrysostom[300],
and possibly three others of like antiquity[301],--should all quote St.
Matthew in this place from a faulty text. But this does but prove at how
extremely remote a period the corruption must have begun. It probably
dates from the first century. Especially does it seem to shew how
distrustful we should be of our oldest authorities when, as here, they
are plainly at variance with the whole torrent of manuscript authority.
This is indeed no ordinary case. There are elements of distrust here,
such as are not commonly encountered.
§ 6.
What I have been saying is aptly illustrated by a place in our Lord's
Sermon on the Mount: viz. St. Matt. v. 44; which in almost every MS. in
existence stands as follows:
(1) [Greek: agapate tous echthrous humôn],
(2) [Greek: eulogeite tous katarômenous humas],
(3) [Greek: kalôs poieite tois misousin[302] humas],
(4) [Greek: kai proseuchesthe huper tôn epêreazontôn humas],
(5) [Greek: kai diôkontôn hymas][303].
On the other hand, it is not to be denied that there exists an
appreciable body of evidence for exhibiting the passage in a shorter
form. The fact that Origen six times[304] reads the place thus:
[Greek: agapate tous echthrous humôn,
kai proseuchesthe huper tôn diôkontôn humas].
(which amounts to a rejection of the second, third, and fourth
clauses;)--and that he is supported therein by B[Symbol: Aleph],
(besides a few cursives) the Curetonian, the Lewis, several Old Latin
MSS., and the Bohairic[305], seems to critics of a certain school a
circumstance fatal to the credit of those clauses. They are aware that
Cyprian[306], and they are welcome to the information that
Tertullian[307] once and Theodoret once[308] [besides Irenaeus[309],
Eusebius[310], and Gregory of Nyssa[311]] exhibit the place in the same
way. So does the author of the Dialogus contra Marcionitas[312],--whom
however I take to be Origen. Griesbach, on far slenderer evidence, was
for obelizing all the three clauses. But Lachmann, Tregelles,
Tischendorf and the Revisers reject them entirely. I am persuaded that
they are grievously mistaken in so doing, and that the received text
represents what St. Matthew actually wrote. It is the text of all the
uncials but two, of all the cursives but six or seven; and this alone
ought to be decisive. But it is besides the reading of the Peshitto, the
Harkleian, and the Gothic; as well as of three copies of the Old Latin.
Let us however inquire more curiously for the evidence of Versions and
Fathers on this subject; remembering that the point in dispute is
nothing else but the genuineness of clauses 2, 3, 4. And here, at
starting, we make the notable discovery that Origen, whose practice was
relied on for retaining none but the first and the fifth
clauses,--himself twice[313] quotes the first clause in connexion with
the fourth: while Theodoret, on two occasions[314], connects with clause
1 what he evidently means for clause 2; and Tertullian once if not twice
connects closely clauses 1, 2; and once, clauses 1, 2, 5[315]. From
which it is plain that neither Origen nor Theodoret, least of all
Tertullian, can be held to disallow the clauses in question. They
recognize them on the contrary, which is simply a fatal circumstance,
and effectively disposes of their supposed hostile evidence.
But in fact the Western Church yields unfaltering testimony. Besides the
three copies of the Old Latin which exhibit all the five clauses, the
Vulgate retains the first, third, fifth and fourth. Augustine[316]
quotes consecutively clauses 1, 3, 5: Ambrose[317] clauses 1, 3, 4,
5--1, 4, 5: Hilary[318], clauses 1, 4, 5, and (apparently) 2, 4, 5:
Lucifer[319], clauses 1, 2, 3 (apparently), 5: pseudo-Epiphanius[320]
connects clauses 1, 3,--1, 3, 5: and Pacian[321], clauses 5, 2. Next we
have to ascertain what is the testimony of the Greek Fathers.
And first we turn to Chrysostom[322] who (besides quoting the fourth
clause from St. Matthew's Gospel by itself five times) quotes
consecutively clauses 1, 3--iii. 167; 1, 4--iv. 619; 2, 4--v. 436; 4,
3--ii. 340, v. 56, xii. 654; 4, 5--ii. 258, iii. 341; 1, 2, 4--iv. 267;
1, 3, 4, 5--xii. 425; thus recognizing them _all._
Gregory Nyss.[323] quotes connectedly clauses 3, 4, 5.
Eusebius[324], clauses 4, 5--2, 4, 5--1, 3, 4, 5.
The Apostolic Constitutions[325] (third century), clauses 1, 3, 4, 5
(having immediately before quoted clause 2,)--also clauses 2, 4, 1.
Clemens Alex.[326] (A.D. 192), clauses 1, 2, 4.
Athenagoras[327] (A.D. 177), clauses 1, 2, 5.
Theophilus[328] (A.D. 168), clauses 1, 4.
While Justin M.[329] (A.D. 140) having paraphrased clause 1, connects
therewith clauses 2 and 4.
And Polycarp[330] (A.D. 108) apparently connects clauses 4 and 5.
Didache[331] (A.D. 100?) quotes 2, 4, 5 and combines 1 and 3 (pp. 5, 6).
In the face of all this evidence, no one it is presumed will any more be
found to dispute the genuineness of the generally received reading in
St. Matt. v. 44. All must see that if the text familiarly known in the
age immediately after that of the Apostles had been indeed the bald,
curt thing which the critics imagine, viz.
[Greek: agapate tous echthrous humôn,
kai proseuchesthe huper tôn diôkontôn humas,--]
by no possibility could the men of that age in referring to St. Matt. v.
44 have freely mentioned 'blessing those who curse,--doing good to those
who hate,--and praying for those who despitefully use.' Since there are
but two alternative readings of the passage,--one longer, one
briefer,--every clear acknowledgement of a single disputed clause in the
larger reading necessarily carries with it all the rest.
This result of 'comparative criticism' is therefore respectfully
recommended to the notice of the learned. If it be not decisive of the
point at issue to find such a torrent of primitive testimony at one with
the bulk of the Uncials and Cursives extant, it is clear that there can
be no Science of Textual Criticism. The Law of Evidence must be held to
be inoperative in this subject-matter. Nothing deserving of the name of
'proof' will ever be attainable in this department of investigation.
But if men admit that the ordinarily received text of St. Matt. v. 44
has been clearly established, then let the legitimate results of the
foregoing discussion be loyally recognized. The unique value of
Manuscripts in declaring the exact text of Scripture--the conspicuous
inadequacy of Patristic evidence by themselves,--have been made
apparent: and yet it has been shewn that Patristic quotations are
abundantly sufficient for their proper purpose,--which is, to enable us
to decide between conflicting readings. One more indication has been
obtained of the corruptness of the text which Origen employed,--
concerning which he is so strangely communicative,--and of which
B[Symbol: Aleph] are the chief surviving examples; and the probability
has been strengthened that when these are the sole, or even the
principal witnesses, for any particular reading, that reading will prove
to be corrupt.
Mill was of opinion, (and of course his opinion finds favour with
Griesbach, Tischendorf, and the rest,) that these three clauses have
been imported hither from St. Luke vi. 27, 28. But, besides that this is
mere unsupported conjecture, how comes it then to pass that the order of
the second and third clauses in St. Matthew's Gospel is the reverse of
the order in St. Luke's? No. I believe that there has been excision
here: for I hold with Griesbach that it cannot have been the result of
accident[332].
[I take this opportunity to reply to a reviewer in the _Guardian_
newspaper, who thought that he had reduced the authorities quoted from
before A.D. 400 on page 103 of The Traditional Text to two on our side
against seven, or rather six[333], on the other. Let me first say that
on this perilous field I am not surprised at being obliged to re-judge
or withdraw some authorities. I admit that in the middle of a long
catena of passages, I did not lay sufficient stress, as I now find, upon
the parallel passage in St. Luke vi. 27, 28. After fresh examination, I
withdraw entirely Clemens Alex., Paed. i. 8,--Philo of Carpasus, I.
7,--Ambrose, De Abrahamo ii. 30, Ps. cxviii. 12. 51, and the two
referred to Athanasius. Also I do not quote Origen, Cels. viii.
41,--Eusebius in Ps. iii.,--Apost. Const. vii. 4,--Greg. Nyss., In S.
Stephanum, because they may be regarded as doubtful, although for
reasons which I proceed to give they appear to witness in favour of our
contention. It is necessary to add some remarks before dealing with the
rest of the passages.]
[1. It must be borne in mind, that this is a question both negative and
positive:--negative on the side of our opponents, with all the
difficulties involved in establishing a negative conclusion as to the
non-existence in St. Matthew's Gospel of clauses 2, 3, and 5,--and
positive for us, in the establishment of those clauses as part of the
genuine text in the passage which we are considering. If we can so
establish the clauses, or indeed any one of them, the case against us
fails: but unless we can establish all, we have not proved everything
that we seek to demonstrate. Our first object is to make the adverse
position untenable: when we have done that, we fortify our own.
Therefore both the Dean and myself have drawn attention to the fact that
our authorities are summoned as witnesses to the early existence in each
case of 'some of the clauses,' if they do not depose to all of them. We
are quite aware of the reply: but we have with us the advantage of
positive as against negative evidence. This advantage especially rules
in such an instance as the present, because alien circumstances govern
the quotation, and regulate particularly the length of it. Such
quotation is always liable to shortening, whether by leaving out
intermediate clauses, or by sudden curtailment in the midst of the
passage. Therefore, actual citation of separate clauses, being
undesigned and fortuitous, is much more valuable than omission arising
from what cause soever.]
[2. The reviewer says that 'all four clauses are read by both texts,'
i.e. in St. Matthew and St. Luke, and appears to have been unaware as
regards the present purpose of the existence of the fifth clause, or
half-clause, in St. Matthew. Yet the words--[Greek: huper ... tôn
diôkontôn humas] are a very label, telling incontestibly the origin of
many of the quotations. Sentences so distinguished with St. Matthew's
label cannot have come from St. Luke's Gospel. The reviewer has often
gone wrong here. The [Greek: huper]--instead of the [Greek: peri] after
[Symbol: Aleph]BL[Symbol: Xi] in St. Luke--should be to our opponents a
sign betraying the origin, though when it stands by itself--as in
Eusebius, In Ps. iii.--I do not press the passage.]
[3. Nor again does the reviewer seem to have noticed the effects of the
context in shewing to which source a quotation is to be referred. It is
a common custom for Fathers to quote v. 45 in St. Matthew, which is
hardly conceivable if they had St. Luke vi. 27, 28 before them, or even
if they were quoting from memory. Other points in the context of greater
or less importance are often found in the sentence or sentences
preceding or following the words quoted, and are decisive of the
reference.]
[The references as corrected are given in the note[334]. It will be seen
by any one who compares the verifications with the reviewer's list, how
his failure to observe the points just explained has led him astray. The
effect upon the list given in The Traditional Text will be that before
the era of St. Chrysostom twenty-five testimonies are given in favour of
the Traditional Text of St. Matt. v. 44, and adding Tertullian from the
Dean nine against it. And the totals on page 102, lines 2 and 3 will be
522 and 171 respectively.]
§ 7.
Especially have we need to be on our guard against conniving at the
ejection of short clauses consisting of from twelve to fourteen
letters,--which proves to have been the exact length of a line in the
earliest copies. When such omissions leave the sense manifestly
imperfect, no evil consequence can result. Critics then either take no
notice of the circumstance, or simply remark in passing that the
omission has been the result of accident. In this way, [[Greek: hoi
pateres autôn], though it is omitted by Cod. B in St. Luke vi. 26, is
retained by all the Editors: and the strange reading of Cod. [Symbol:
Aleph] in St. John vi. 55, omitting two lines, was corrected on the
manuscript in the seventh century, and has met with no assent in modern
times].
[Greek: ÊGAR]
[Greek: SARXMOUALÊTHÔS]
[[Greek: ESTIBRÔSISKAI]
[Greek: TOAIMAMOUALÊTHÔS]]
[Greek: ESTIPOSIS]
But when, notwithstanding the omission of two or three words, the sense
of the context remains unimpaired,--the clause being of independent
signification,--then great danger arises lest an attempt should be made
through the officiousness of modern Criticism to defraud the Church of a
part of her inheritance. Thus [[Greek: kai hoi syn autô] (St. Luke viii.
45) is omitted by Westcott and Hort, and is placed in the margin by the
Revisers and included in brackets by Tregelles as if the words were of
doubtful authority, solely because some scribe omitted a line and was
followed by B, a few cursives, the Sahidic, Curetonian, Lewis, and
Jerusalem Versions].
When indeed the omission dates from an exceedingly remote period; took
place, I mean, in the third, or more likely still in the second century;
then the fate of such omitted words may be predicted with certainty.
Their doom is sealed. Every copy made from that defective original of
necessity reproduced the defects of its prototype: and if (as often
happens) some of those copies have descended to our times, they become
quoted henceforward as if they were independent witnesses[335]. Nor is
this all. Let the taint have been communicated to certain copies of the
Old Latin, and we find ourselves confronted with formidable because very
venerable foes. And according to the recently approved method of editing
the New Testament, the clause is allowed no quarter. It is declared
without hesitation to be a spurious accretion to the Text. Take, as an
instance of this, the following passage in St. Luke xii. 39. 'If' (says
our Lord) 'the master of the house had known in what hour
[Greek: OKLEPTÊS]
[Greek: ERCHETAI] [[Greek: EGRÊGOR]
[Greek: ÊSENKAI]] [Greek: OUKANA]
[Greek: PHÊKEN]
his house to be broken through.' Here, the clause within brackets, which
has fallen out for an obvious reason, does not appear in Codd. [Symbol:
Aleph] and D. But the omission did not begin with [Symbol: Aleph]. Two
copies of the Old Latin are also without the words [Greek: egrêgorêsen
kai],--which are wanting besides in Cureton's Syriac. Tischendorf
accordingly omits them. And yet, who sees not that such an amount of
evidence as this is wholly insufficient to warrant the ejection of the
clause as spurious? What is the 'Science' worth which cannot preserve to
the body a healthy limb like this?
[The instances of omission which have now been examined at some length
must by no means be regarded as the only specimens of this class of
corrupt passages[336]. Many more will occur to the minds of the readers
of the present volume and of the earlier volume of this work. In fact,
omissions are much more common than Additions, or Transpositions, or
Substitutions: and this fact, that omissions, or what seem to be
omissions, are apparently so common,--to say nothing of the very strong
evidence wherewith they are attested--when taken in conjunction with the
natural tendency of copyists to omit words and passages, cannot but
confirm the general soundness of the position. How indeed can it
possibly be more true to the infirmities of copyists, to the verdict of
evidence on the several passages, and to the origin of the New Testament
in the infancy of the Church and amidst associations which were not
literary, to suppose that a terse production was first produced and
afterwards was amplified in a later age with a view to 'lucidity and
completeness[337],' rather than that words and clauses and sentences
were omitted upon definitely understood principles in a small class of
documents by careless or ignorant or prejudiced scribes? The reply to
this question must now be left for candid and thoughtful students to
determine.]
FOOTNOTES:
[258] It will be observed that these are empirical, not logical,
classes. Omissions are found in many of the rest.
[259] Last Twelve Verses of St. Mark's Gospel, chapter v. and Appendix
B.
[260] See Dr. Gwynn's remarks in Appendix VII of The Traditional Text,
pp. 298-301.
[261] The Revision Revised, pp. 42-45, 422-424: Traditional Text, p.
109, where thirty-eight testimonies are quoted before 400 A.D.
[262] The expression of Jerome, that almost all the Greek MSS. omit this
passage, is only a translation of Eusebius. It cannot express his own
opinion, for he admitted the twelve verses into the Vulgate, and quoted
parts of them twice, i.e. ver. 9, ii. 744-5, ver. 14, i. 327 c.
[263] Dr. Dobbin has calculated 330 omissions in St. Matthew, 365 in St.
Mark, 439 in St Luke, 357 in St. John, 384 in the Acts, and 681 in the
Epistles--3,556 in all as far as Heb. ix. 14, where it terminates.
Dublin University Magazine, 1859, p. 620.
[264] Such as in Cod. D after St. Luke vi. 4. 'On the same day He beheld
a certain man working on the sabbath, and said unto him, "Man, blessed
art thou if thou knowest what thou doest; but if thou knowest not, thou
art cursed and a transgressor of the law"' (Scrivener's translation,
Introduction, p. 8). So also a longer interpolation from the Curetonian
after St. Matt. xx. 28. These are condemned by internal evidence as well
as external.
[265] [Greek: kai ho pesôn epi ton lithon touton synthlasthêsetai; eph'
on d' an pesê, likmêsei auton].
[266] iv. 25 d, 343 d.--What proves these two quotations to be from St.
Matt. xxi. 44, and not from St. Luke xx. 18, is, that they alike exhibit
expressions which are peculiar to the earlier Gospel. The first is
introduced by the formula [Greek: oudepote anegnôte] (ver. 42: comp.
Orig. ii. 794 c), and both exhibit the expression [Greek: epi ton lithon
touton] (ver. 44), not [Greek: ep' ekeinon ton lithon]. Vainly is it
urged on the opposite side, that [Greek: pas ho pesôn] belongs to St.
Luke,--whereas [Greek: kai ho pesôn] is the phrase found in St.
Matthew's Gospel. Chrysostom (vii. 672) writes [Greek: pas ho piptôn]
while professing to quote from St. Matthew; and the author of Cureton's
Syriac, who had this reading in his original, does the same.
[267] P. 193.
[268] P. 11.
[269] vii. 672 a [freely quoted as Greg. Naz. in the Catena of Nicetas,
p. 669] xii. 27 d.
[270] _Ap_. Mai, ii. 401 dis.
[271] _Ap_. Chrys. vi. 171 c.
[272] vii. 171 d.
[273] iii^{2}. 86, 245: v. 500 e, 598 d.
[274] 682-3 (Massuet 277).
[275] iii. 786.
[276] Theoph. 235-6 (= Mai, iv. 122).
[277] ii. 660 a, b, c.
[278] 'Praeterit et Lucifer.'
[279] _Ap._ Galland. vi. 191 d.
[280] Ibid. vii. 20 c.
[281] Ibid. ix. 768 a.
[282] [I am unable to find any place in the Dean's writings where he has
made this explanation. The following note, however, is appended here]:--
With verse 43, the long lesson for the Monday in Holy-week (ver. 18-43)
comes to an end.
Verse 44 has a number all to itself (in other words, is sect. 265) in
the fifth of the Syrian Canons,--which contains whatever is found
exclusively in St. Matthew and St. Luke.
[283] 'Omnino ex Lc. assumpta videntur.'
[284] The section in St. Matthew is numbered 265,--in St. Luke, 274:
both being referred to Canon V, in which St. Matthew and St. Luke are
exclusively compared.
[285] Vol. i. 13.
[286] Letter to Pope Damasus. See my book on St. Mark, p. 28.
[287] Dial. § 78, _ad fin._ (p. 272).
[288] Opp. ii. 215 a: v. part ii. 118 c.
[289] See Holmes and Parsons' ed. of the LXX,--vol. iv. _in loc._
[290] Opp. pp. 143 and 206. P. 577 is allusive only.
[291] Opp. vii. 158 c: ix. 638 b.
[292] Opp. ii. 1345: iii. 763-4.
[293] § xv:--on which his learned editor (Bp. Jacobson) pertinently
remarks,--'Hunc locum Prophetae Clemens exhibuisset sicut a Christo
laudatam, S. Marc. vii. 6, si pro [Greek: apestin] dedisset [Greek:
apechei].'
[294] Opp. i. 1502: iii. 1114.
[295] _Ap._ Epiphanium, Opp. i. 218 d.
[296] Opp. p. 461.
[297] Opp. iii. 492 (a remarkable place): ii. 723: iv. 121.
[298] De Trinitate, p. 242.
[299] Opp. ii. 413 b. [Observe how this evidence leads us to
Alexandria.]
[300] Opp. vii. 522 d. The other place, ix. 638 b, is uncertain.
[301] It is uncertain whether Eusebius and Basil quote St. Matthew or
Isaiah: but a contemporary of Chrysostom certainly quotes the
Gospel,--Chrys. Opp. vi. 425 d (cf. p. 417, line 10).
[302] But Eus.^{Es 589} [Greek: tous m.]
[303] I have numbered the clauses for convenience.--It will perhaps
facilitate the study of this place, if (on my own responsibility) I
subjoin a representation of the same words in Latin:--
(1) Diligite inimicos vestros,
(2) benedicite maledicentes vos,
(3) benefacite odientibus vos,
(4) et orate pro calumniantibus vos,
(5) et persequentibus vos.
[304] Opp. iv. 324 _bis_, 329 _bis_, 351. Gall. xiv. App. 106.
[305] 'A large majority, all but five, omit it. Some add it in the
margin.' Traditional Text, p. 149.
[306] Opp. p. 79, cf. 146.
[307] Scap. c. 1.
[308] Opp. iv. 946.
[309] Haer. III. xviii. 5.
[310] Dem. Evan. xiii. 7.
[311] In Bapt. Christ.
[312] Orig. Opp. i. 812.
[313] Opp. i. 768: iv. 353.
[314] Opp. i. 827: ii. 399.
[315] Spect. c. 16: (Anim. c. 35): Pat. c. 6.
[316] [In Ep. Joh. IV. Tract, ix. 3 (1, 3 (ver. 45 &c.)); In Ps.
cxxxviii. 37 (1, 3); Serm. XV. 8 (1, 3, 5); Serm. LXII. _in loc._ (1, 3,
4, 5).]
[317] In Ps. xxxviii. 2.
[318] Opp. pp. 303, 297.
[319] Pro S. Athanas. ii.
[320] Ps. cxviii. 10. 16; 9. 9.
[321] Ep. ii.
[322] Opp. iii. 167: iv. 619: v. 436:--ii. 340: v. 56: xii. 654:--ii.
258: iii. 41:--iv. 267: xii. 425.
[323] Opp. iii. 379.
[324] Praep. 654: Ps. 137, 699: Es. 589.
[325] Pp. 3. 198.
[326] Opp. p. 605 and 307.
[327] Leg. pro Christian. 11.
[328] Ad Autolycum, iii. 14.
[329] Opp. i. 40.
[330] Ad Philipp. c. 12.
[331] § 1.
[332] Theodoret once (iv. 946) gives the verse as Tischendorf gives it:
but on two other occasions (i. 827: ii. 399) the same Theodoret exhibits
the second member of the sentence thus,--[Greek: eulogeite tous
diôkontas humas] (so pseud.-Athan. ii. 95), which shews how little
stress is to be laid on such evidence as the first-named place
furnishes.
Origen also (iv. 324 bis, 329 bis, 351) repeatedly gives the place as
Tischendorf gives it--but on one occasion, which it will be observed is
_fatal_ to his evidence (i. 768), he gives the second member thus,--iv.
353:
[Greek: kai proseuchesthe huper tôn epêreazontôn humas]..·. 1. 4.
Next observe how Clemens Al. (605) handles the same place:--
[Greek: agapate tous echthrous humôn, eulogeite tous katarômenous humas,
kai proseuchesthe huper tôn epêreazyntôn humin, kai ta homoia.].·. 1, 2,
4.--3, 5.
Justin M. (i. 40) quoting the same place from memory (and with exceeding
licence), yet is observed to recognize in part _both_ the clauses which
labour under suspicion:.·. 1, 2, 4.--3, 5.
[Greek: euchesthe huper tôn echthrôn humôn kai agapate tous misountas
humas], which roughly represents [Greek: kai eulogeite tous katarômenous
humin kai euchesthe huper tôn epêreazontôn humas].
The clause which hitherto lacks support is that which regards [Greek:
tous misountas humas]. But the required help is supplied by Irenaeus (i.
521), who (loosely enough) quotes the place thus,--
_Diligite inimicos vestros, et orate pro eis, qui vos oderunt._ .·. 1
(made up of 3, 4).--2, 5.
And yet more by the most venerable witness of all, Polycarp, who
writes:--ad Philipp. c. 12:--
_Orate pro persequentibus et odientibus vos._.·. 4, 5.--1, 2, 3.
I have examined [Didaché] _Justin_, _Irenaeus_, _Eusebius_,
_Hippolytus_, _Cyril Al._, _Greg. Naz._, _Basil_, _Athan._, _Didymus_,
_Cyril Hier._, _Chrys._, _Greg. Nyss._, _Epiph._, _Theod._, _Clemens._
And the following are the results:--
Didaché. [Greek: Eulogeite tous katarômenous humin, kai proseuchesthe
huper tôn echthrôn humôn, nêsteuete huper tôn diôkontôn humas ... humeis
de agapate tous misountas humas]..·. 2, 3, 4, 5.
Aphraates, Dem. ii. The Latin Translation runs:--Diligite inimicos
vestros, benedicite ei qui vobis maledicit, orate pro eis qui vos vexunt
et persequuntur.
Eusebius Prae 654..·. 2, 4, 5, omitting 1, 3.
Eusebius Ps 699..·. 4, 5, omitting 1, 2, 3.
Eusebius Es 589..·. 1, 3, 4, 5, omitting 2.
Clemens Al. 605..·. 1, 2, 4, omitting 3, 5.
Greg. Nyss. iii. 379..·. 3, 4, 5, omitting 1, 2.
Vulg. Diligite inimicos vestros, benefacite his qui oderunt vos, et
orate pro persequentibus et calumniantibus vos..·. 1, 3, 5, 4, omitting
2.
Hilary, 297. Benedicite qui vos persequuntur, et orate pro
calumniantibus vos ac persequentibus vos..·. 2, 4, 5, omitting the
_first and third_.
Hilary, 303. Diligite inimicos vestros, et orate pro calumniantibus vos
ac persequentibus vos..·. 1, 4, 5, omitting the _second and third_. Cf.
128.
Cyprian, 79 (cf. 146). Diligite inimicos vestros, et orate pro his qui
vos persequuntur..·. 1, 5, omitting 2, 3, 4.
Tertullian. Diligite (enim) inimicos vestros, (inquit,) et orate pro
maledicentibus vos--which apparently is meant for a quotation of 1, 2.
.·. 1, 2, omitting 3, 4, 5.
Tertullian. Diligite (enim) inimicos vestros, (inquit,) et
maledicentibus benedicite, et orate pro persecutoribus vestris--which is
a quotation of 1, 2, 5. .·. 1, 2, 5, omitting 3, 4.
Tertullian. Diligere inimicos, et orare pro eis qui vos persequuntur.
.·. 1, 5, omitting 2, 3, 4.
Tertullian. Inimicos diligi, maledicentes benedici..·. 1, 2, omitting 3,
4, 5.
Ambrose. Diligite inimicos vestros benefacite iis qui oderunt vos: orate
pro calumniantibus et persequentibus vos..·. 1, 3, 4, 5, omitting 2.
Ambrose. Diligite inimicos vestros, orate pro calumniantibus et
persequentibus vos..·. 1, 4, 5, omitting 2, 3.
Augustine. Diligite inimicos vestros benefacite his qui vos oderunt: et
orate pro eis qui vos persequuntur..·. 1, 3, 5, omitting 2, 4.
'Benedicite qui vos persequuntur, et orate pro calumniantibus vos ac
persequentibus vos.' Hilary, 297.
Cyril Al. twice (i. 270: ii. 807) quotes the place thus,--
[Greek: eu poieite tous echthrous humôn, kai proseuchesthe huper tôn
epêreazontôn humas.]
Chrys. (iii. 355) says
[Greek: autos gar eipen, euchesthe huper tôn echthrôn] [[Greek: humôn]]
and repeats the quotation at iii. 340 and xii. 453.
So Tertull. (Apol. c. 31), pro inimicis deum orare, et _persecutoribus_
nostris bone precari..·. 1, 5.
If the lost Greek of Irenaeus (i. 521) were recovered, we should
probably find
[Greek: agapate tous echthrous humôn, kai proseuchesthe huper tôn
misountôn humas]:
and of Polycarp (ad Philipp. c. 12),
[Greek: proseuchesthe huper tôn diôkontôn kai misountôn humas].
[333] _Dialogus Adamantii_ is not adducible within my limits, because
'it is in all probability the production of a later age.' My number was
eight.
[334] Observe that 5 = [Greek: huper ... tôn diôkontôn].
For--
Didache (§ 1), 2 (3), 3 (2), 4, 5.
Polycarp (xii), 3 (2), 5.
Justin Martyr, Apol. i. 15, 3 (2), 2 (3), 4 (4), 5? [Greek: huper tôn
echthrôn] (=[Greek: diôkontôn]?), but the passage more like St. Luke,
the context more like St. Matt., ver. 45.
Athenagoras (Leg. pro Christian. 11), 1, 2 (3). 5. ver. 45.
Tertullian (De Patient, vi), 1, 2 (3), 5, pt. ver. 45. Add Apol. c. 31.
1, 5.
Theophilus Ant. (Ad Autolycum iii. 14), 1, 4 (4), [Greek: hyper] and
ver. 46.
Clemens Alex. (Strom, iv. 14), 1, 2 (3), 4 (4), pt. ver. 45; (Strom,
vii. 14), favours St. Matt.
Origen (De Orat. i), 1, 4 (4), [Greek: huper] and in the middle of two
quotations from St. Matthew; (Cels. viii. 45), 1, 4 (4) [Greek: huper]
and all ver. 45.
Eusebius (Praep. Evan. xiii. 7), 2 (3), 4 (4), 5, all ver. 45; (Comment,
in Is. 66), 1, 3 (2), 4 (4), 5, also ver. 45; (In Ps. cviii), 4, 5.
Apost. Const, (i. 2), 1, 3 (2), 4 (4), 5, [Greek: huper] and ver. 45.
Greg. Naz. (Orat. iv. 124), 2 (3), 4 (4), 5, [Greek: hupereuchesthai].
Greg. Nyss. (In Bapt. Christi), 3 (2), 4 (4), 5, [Greek: huper], ver.
45.
Lucifer (Pro S. Athan. ii) omits 4 (4), but quotes ver. 44 ... end of
chapter.
Pacianus (Epist. ii), 2 (3), 5.
Hilary (Tract, in Ps. cxviii. 9. 9), 2 (3), 4 (4), 5; (ibid. 10. 16), 1,
4 (4), 5. (The reviewer omits 'ac persequentibus vos' in both cases.)
Ambrose (In Ps. xxxviii. 2), 1, 3, 4, 5; (In Ps. xxxviii. 10), 1, 4 (4),
5.
Aphraates (Dem. ii), 1, 2 (3), 4 (4), 5, [Greek: ethnikoi].
Apocryphal Acts of the Apostles (p. 89), 2 (3), 3 (2), 4 (4), ver. 45.
Number = 25.
[335] See Traditional Text, p. 55.
[336] For one of the two most important omissions in the New Testament,
viz. the _Pericope de Adultera_, see Appendix I. See also Appendix II.
[337] Westcott and Hort, Introduction, p. 134.