CHAPTER XII. CONCLUSION.

The Traditional Text has now been traced, from the earliest years of

Christianity of which any record of the New Testament remains, to the

period when it was enshrined in a large number of carefully-written

manuscripts in main accord with one another. Proof has been given from the

writings of the early Fathers, that the idea that the Traditional Text

arose in the middle of the fourth century is a mere hallucination,

prompted by only a partial acquaintance with those writings. And witness

to the existence and predominance of that form of Text has been found in

the Peshitto Version and in the best of the Latin Versions, which

themselves also have been followed back to the beginning of the second

century or the end of the first. We have also discovered the truth, that

the settlement of the Text, though mainly made in the fourth century, was

not finally accomplished till the eighth century at the earliest; and that

the later Uncials, not the oldest, together with the cursives express, not

singly, not in small batches or companies, but in their main agreement,

the decisions which had grown up in the Church. In so doing, attention has

been paid to all the existing evidence: none has been omitted. _Quod

semper, quod ubique, quod ab omnibus_, has been the underlying principle.

The foundations of the building have been laid as deeply and as broadly as

our power would allow. No other course would be in consonance with

scientific procedure. The seven notes of truth have been made as

comprehensive as possible. Antiquity, number, variety, weight, continuity,

context, and internal evidence, include all points of view and all methods

of examination which are really sound. The characters of the Vatican,

Sinaitic, and Bezan manuscripts have been shewn to be bad, and the streams

which led to their production from Syrio-Old-Latin and Alexandrian sources

to the temporary school of Caesarea have been traced and explained. It has

been also shewn to be probable that corruption began and took root even

before the Gospels were written. The general conclusion which has grown

upon our minds has been that the affections of Christians have not been

misdirected; that the strongest exercise of reason has proved their

instincts to have been sound and true; that the Text which we have used

and loved rests upon a vast and varied support; that the multiform record

of Manuscripts, Versions, and Fathers, is found to defend by large

majorities in almost all instances those precious words of Holy Writ,

which have been called in question during the latter half of this century.

We submit that it cannot be denied that we have presented a strong case,

and naturally we look to see what has been said against it, since except

in some features it has been before the World and the Church for some

years. We submit that it has not received due attention from opposing

critics. If indeed the opinions of the other School had been preceded by,

or grounded upon, a searching examination, such as we have made in the

case of B and א, of the vast mass of evidence upon which we rest,—if this

great body of testimony had been proved to be bad from overbalancing

testimony or otherwise,—we should have found reason for doubt, or even for

a reversal of our decisions. But Lachmann, Tregelles, and Tischendorf laid

down principles chiefly, if not exclusively, on the score of their

intrinsic probability. Westcott and Hort built up their own theory upon

reasoning internal to it, without clearing the ground first by any careful

and detailed scrutiny. Besides which, all of them constructed their

buildings before travellers by railways and steamships had placed within

their reach the larger part of the materials which are now ready for use.

We hear constantly the proclamation made in dogmatic tones that they are

right: no proof adequate to the strength of our contention has been worked

out to shew that we are wrong.

Nevertheless, it may be best to listen for a moment to such objections as

have been advanced against conclusions like these, and which it may be

presumed will be urged again.

1. “After all it cannot be denied that B and א are the oldest manuscripts

of the New Testament in existence, and that they must therefore be

entitled to the deference due to their age.” Now the earlier part of this

allegation is conceded by us entirely: _prima facie_ it constitutes a very

strong argument. But it is really found on examination to be superficial.

Fathers and Versions are virtually older, and, as has been demonstrated,

are dead against the claim set up on behalf of those ancient manuscripts,

that they are the possessors of the true text of the Gospels. Besides

which antiquity is not the sole note of truth any more than number is. So

much has been already said on this part of the subject, that it is

needless to enter into longer discussion here.

2. “The testimony of witnesses ought to be weighed before it is reckoned.”

Doubtless: this also is a truism, and allowance has been made for it in

the various “notes of truth.” But this argument, apparently so simple, is

really intended to carry a huge assumption involved in an elaborate

maintenance of the (supposed) excellent character of B and א and their

associates. After so much that has been brought to the charge of those two

MSS. in this treatise, it is unnecessary now to urge more than that they

appeared in strange times, when the Church was convulsed to her centre;

that, as has been demonstrated, their peculiar readings were in a very

decided minority in the period before them; and, as all admit, were

rejected in the ages that passed after the time of their date.

3. It is stated that the Traditional is a conflate text, i.e. that

passages have been put together from more than one other text, so that

they are composite in construction instead of being simple. We have

already treated this allegation, but we reply now that it has not been

established: the opinion of Canon Cooke who analysed all the examples

quoted by Hort(373), of Scrivener who said they proved nothing(374), and

of many other critics and scholars has been against it. The converse

position is maintained, that the text of B and א is clipped and mutilated.

Take the following passage, which is fairly typical of the large class in

question: “For we are members of His Body” (writes St. Paul(375)) “of His

flesh and of His bones” (ἐκ τῆς σαρκὸς αὐτοῦ καὶ ἐκ τῶν ὀστέων αἰτοῦ). But

those last 9 words are disallowed by recent editors, because they are

absent from B-א, A, 8, and 17, and the margin of 67, besides the Bohairic

version. Yet are the words genuine. They are found in DFGKLP and the whole

body of the cursives: in the Old Latin and Vulgate and the two Syriac

versions: in Irenaeus(376),—in Theodorus of Mopsuestia(377),—in

Nilus(378),—in Chrysostom(379) more than four times,—in

Severianus(380),—in Theodoret(381),—in Anastasius Sinaita(382),—and in

John Damascene(383). They were probably read by Origen(384) and by

Methodius(385). Many Latin Fathers, viz. Ambrose(386),—Pacian(387),—Esaias

abb.(388),—Victorinus(389),—Jerome(390),—Augustine(391)—and Leo P.(392)

recognise them.

Such ample and such varied attestation is not to be set aside by the vapid

and unsound dictum “Western and Syrian,”—or by the weak suggestion that

the words in dispute are an unauthorized gloss, fabricated from the LXX

version of Gen. ii. 23. That St. Paul’s allusion is to the oracular

utterance of our first father Adam, is true enough: but, as Alford after

Bengel well points out, it is incredible that any forger can have been at

work here.

Such questions however, as we must again and again insist, are not to be

determined by internal considerations: no,—nor by dictation, nor by

prejudice, nor by divination, nor by any subjective theory of conflation

on which experts and critics may be hopelessly at issue: but by the weight

of the definite evidence actually producible and produced on either side.

And when, as in the present instance, Antiquity, Variety of testimony,

Respectability of witnesses, and Number are overwhelmingly in favour of

the Traditional Text, what else is it but an outrage on the laws of

evidence to claim that the same little band of documents which have

already come before us so often, and always been found in error, even

though aided by speculative suppositions, shall be permitted to outweigh

all other testimony?

To build therefore upon a conflate or composite character in a set of

readings would be contrary to the evidence:—or at any rate, it would at

the best be to lay foundations upon ground which is approved by one school

of critics and disputed by the other in every case. The determination of

the text of Holy Scripture has not been handed over to a mere conflict of

opposite opinions, or to the uncertain sands of conjecture.

Besides, as has been already stated, no amount of conflation would supply

passages which the destructive school would wholly leave out. It is

impossible to “conflate” in places where Bא and their associates furnish

no materials for the supposed conflation. Bricks cannot be made without

clay. The materials actually existing are those of the Traditional Text

itself. But in fact these questions are not to be settled by the scholarly

taste or opinions of either school, even of that which we advocate. They

must rest upon the verdict found by the facts in evidence: and those facts

have been already placed in array.

4. Again, stress is laid upon Genealogy. Indeed, as Dean Burgon himself

goes on to say, so much has lately been written about “the principle” and

“the method” “of genealogy,” that it becomes in a high degree desirable

that we should ascertain precisely what those expressions lawfully mean.

No fair controversialist would willingly fail to assign its legitimate

place and value to any principle for which he observes an opponent eagerly

contending. But here is a “principle” and here is a “method” which are

declared to be of even paramount importance. “Documents ... are all

fragments, usually casual and scattered fragments, of a genealogical tree

of transmission, sometimes of vast extent and intricacy. The more exactly

we are able to trace the chief ramifications of the tree, and to determine

the places of the several documents among the branches, the more secure

will be the foundations laid for a criticism capable of distinguishing the

original text from its successive corruptions(393).”

The expression is metaphorical; belonging of right to families of men, but

transferred to Textual Science as indicative that similar phenomena attend

families of manuscripts. Unfortunately the phenomena attending

transmission,—of Natures on the one hand, of Texts on the other,—are

essentially dissimilar. A diminutive couple may give birth to a race of

giants. A genius has been known to beget a dunce. A brood of children

exhibiting extraordinary diversities of character, aspect, ability,

sometimes spring from the same pair. Nothing like this is possible in the

case of honestly-made copies of MSS. The analogy breaks down therefore in

respect of its most essential feature. And yet, there can be no objection

to the use of the term “Genealogy” in connexion with manuscripts, provided

always that nothing more is meant thereby than derivation by the process

of copying: nothing else claimed but that “Identity of reading implies

identity of origin(394).”

Only in this limited way are we able to avail ourselves of the principle

referred to. Of course if it were a well-ascertained fact concerning three

copies (XYZ), that Z was copied from Y, and Y from X, XYZ might reasonably

be spoken of as representing three descents in a pedigree; although the

interval between Z and Y were only six months,—the interval between Y and

X, six hundred years. Moreover, these would be not three independent

authorities, but only one. Such a case, however,—(the fact cannot be too

clearly apprehended),—is simply non-existent. What is known commonly lies

on the surface:—viz. that occasionally between two or more copies there

exists such an amount of peculiar textual affinity as to constrain us to

adopt the supposition that they have been derived from a common original.

These peculiarities of text, we tell ourselves, cannot be fortuitous.

Taking our stand on the true principle that “identity of reading implies

identity of origin,” we insist on reasoning from the known to the unknown:

and (at our humble distance) we are fully as confident of our scientific

fact as Adams and Le Verrier would have been of the existence of Neptune

had they never actually obtained sight of that planet.

So far are we therefore from denying the value and importance of the

principle under discussion that we are able to demonstrate its efficacy in

the resolution of some textual problems which have been given in this

work. Thus E, the uncial copy of St. Paul, is “nothing better,” says

Scrivener, “than a transcript of the Cod. Claromontanus” D. “The Greek is

manifestly worthless, and should long since have been removed from the

list of authorities(395).” Tischendorf nevertheless, not Tregelles, quotes

it on every page. He has no business to do so, Codexes D and E, to all

intents and purposes, being _strictly one Codex_. This case, like the two

next, happily does not admit of diversity of opinion. Next, F and G of St.

Paul’s Epistles, inasmuch as they are confessedly derived from one and the

same archetype, are not to be reckoned as two authorities, but as one.

Again, the correspondence between the nine MSS. of the Ferrar group—Evann.

13 at Paris, 69 at Leicester, 124 at Vienna, 346 at Milan, 556 in the

British Museum, 561 at Bank House, Wisbech,—and in a lesser degree, 348 at

Milan, 624 at Crypta Ferrata, 788 at Athens,—is so extraordinary as to

render it certain that these copies are in the main derived from one

common archetype(396). Hence, though one of them (788) is of the tenth

century, three (348, 561, 624) are of the eleventh, four (13, 124, 346,

556) of the twelfth, and one (69) of the fourteenth, their joint evidence

is held to be tantamount to the recovery of a lost uncial or papyrus of

very early date,—which uncial or papyrus, by the way, it would be

convenient to indicate by a new symbol, as Fr. standing for Ferrar, since

Φ which was once attributed to them is now appropriated to the Codex

Beratinus. If indicated numerically, the figures should at all events be

connected by a hyphen (13-69-124-346-&c.); not as if they were independent

witnesses, as Tischendorf quotes them. And lastly, B and א are undeniably,

more than any other two Codexes which can be named, the depositaries of

one and the same peculiar, all but unique, text.

I propose to apply the foregoing remarks to the solution of one of the

most important of Textual problems. That a controversy has raged around

the last twelve verses of St. Mark’s Gospel is known to all. Known also it

is that a laborious treatise was published on the subject in 1871, which,

in the opinion of competent judges, has had the effect of removing the

“Last Twelve Verses of St. Mark” beyond the reach of suspicion.

Notwithstanding this, at the end of ten years an attempt was made to

revive the old plea. The passage, say Drs. Westcott and Hort, “manifestly

cannot claim any Apostolic authority; but is doubtless founded on some

tradition of the Apostolic age,” of which the “precise date must remain

unknown.” It is “a very early interpolation” (pp. 51, 46). In a word, “the

last twelve verses” of St. Mark’s Gospel, according to Drs. Westcott and

Hort, are spurious. But what is their ground of confidence? for we claim

to be as competent to judge of testimony as they. It proves to be “the

unique criterion supplied by the concord of the independent attestations

of א and B” (p. 46).

“Independent attestations”! But when two copies of the Gospel are

confessedly derived from one and the same original, how can their

“attestations” be called “independent”? This is however greatly to

understate the case. The non-independence of B and א in respect of St.

Mark xvi. 9-20 is absolutely unique: for, strange to relate, it so happens

that the very leaf on which the end of St. Mark’s Gospel and the beginning

of St. Luke’s is written (St. Mark xvi. 2-Luke i. 56), is one of the six

leaves of Cod. א which are held to have been written by the scribe of Cod.

B. “The inference,” remarks Scrivener, “is simple and direct, that at

least in these leaves Codd. Bא make but one witness, not two(397).”

The principle of Genealogy admits of a more extended and a more important

application to this case, because B and א do not stand quite alone, but

are exclusively associated with three or four other manuscripts which may

be regarded as being descended from them. As far as we can judge, they may

be regarded as the founders, or at least as prominent members of a family,

whose descendants were few, because they were generally condemned by the

generations which came after them. Not they, but other families upon other

genealogical stems, were the more like to the patriarch whose progeny was

to equal the stars of heaven in multitude.

Least of all shall I be so simple as to pretend to fix the precise date

and assign a definite locality to the fontal source, or sources, of our

present perplexity and distress. But I suspect that in the little handful

of authorities which have acquired such a notoriety in the annals of

recent Textual Criticism, at the head of which stand Codexes B and א, are

to be recognized the characteristic features of a lost family of (once

well known) second or third-century documents, which owed their existence

to the misguided zeal of some well-intentioned but utterly incompetent

persons who devoted themselves to the task of correcting the Text of

Scripture; but were entirely unfit for the undertaking(398).

Yet I venture also to think that it was in a great measure at Alexandria

that the text in question was fabricated. My chief reasons for thinking so

are the following: (1) There is a marked resemblance between the peculiar

readings of Bא and the two Egyptian Versions,—the Bohairic or Version of

Lower Egypt especially. (2) No one can fail to have been struck by the

evident sympathy between Origen,—who at all events had passed more than

half his life at Alexandria,—and the text in question. (3) I notice that

Nonnus also, who lived in the Thebaid, exhibits considerable sympathy with

the text which I deem so corrupt. (4) I cannot overlook the fact that Cod.

א was discovered in a monastery under the sway of the patriarch of

Alexandria, though how it got there no evidence remains to point out. (5)

The licentious handling so characteristic of the Septuagint Version of the

O. T.,—the work of Alexandrian Jews,—points in the same direction, and

leads me to suspect that Alexandria was the final source of the text of

B-א. (6) I further observe that the sacred Text (κείμενον) in Cyril’s

Homilies on St. John is often similar to B-א; and this, I take for

granted, was the effect of the school of Alexandria,—not of the patriarch

himself. (7) Dionysius of Alexandria complains bitterly of the corrupt

Codexes of his day: and certainly (8) Clemens habitually employed copies

of a similar kind. He too was of Alexandria(399).

Such are the chief considerations which incline me to suspect that

Alexandria contributed largely to our Textual troubles.

The readings of B-א are the consequence of a junction of two or more

streams and then of derivation from a single archetype. This inference is

confirmed by the fact that the same general text which B exhibits is

exhibited also by the eighth-century Codex L, the work probably of an

Egyptian scribe(400): and by the tenth-century Codex 33: and by the

eleventh-century Codex 1: and to some extent by the twelfth-century Codex

69.

We have already been able to advance to another and a very important step.

There is nothing in the history of the earliest times of the Church to

prove that vellum manuscripts of the New Testament existed in any number

before the fourth century. No such documents have come down to us. But we

do know, as has been shewn above(401), that writings on papyrus were

transcribed on vellum in the library of Caesarea. What must we then

conclude? That, as has been already suggested, papyrus MSS. are mainly the

progenitors of the Uncials, and probably of the oldest Uncials. Besides

this inference, we have seen that it is also most probable that many of

the Cursives were transcribed directly from papyrus books or rolls. So

that the Genealogy of manuscripts of the New Testament includes a vast

number of descendants, and many lines of descent, which ramified from one

stem on the original start from the autograph of each book. The Vatican

and the Sinaitic do not stand pre-eminent because of any great line of

parentage passing through them to a multitudinous posterity inheriting the

earth, but they are members of a condemned family of which the issue has

been small. The rejected of the fourth century has been spurned by

succeeding centuries. And surely now also the fourth century, rich in a

roll of men conspicuous ever since for capacity and learning, may be

permitted to proclaim its real sentiments and to be judged from its own

decisions, without being disfranchised by critics of the nineteenth.

The history of the Traditional Text, on the contrary, is continuous and

complete under the view of Genealogy. The pedigree of it may be commended

to the examination of the Heralds’ College. It goes step by step in

unbroken succession regularly back to the earliest time. The present

printed editions may be compared for extreme accuracy with the text passed

by the Elzevirs or Beza as the text received by all of their time. Erasmus

followed his few MSS. because he knew them to be good representatives of

the mind of the Church which had been informed under the ceaseless and

loving care of mediaeval transcribers: and the text of Erasmus printed at

Basle agreed in but little variation with the text of the Complutensian

editors published in Spain, for which Cardinal Ximenes procured MSS. at

whatever cost he could. No one doubts the coincidence in all essential

points of the printed text with the text of the Cursives. Dr. Hort

certifies the Cursive Text as far back as the middle of the fourth

century. It depends upon various lines of descent, and rests on the

testimony supplied by numerous contemporary Fathers before the year 1000

A.D., when co-existing MSS. failed to bear witness in multitudes. The

acceptance of it by the Church of the fifth century, which saw the

settlement of the great doctrinal controversies either made or confirmed,

proves that the seal was set upon the validity of the earliest pedigrees

by the illustrious intellects and the sound faith of those days. And in

the fifth chapter of this work, contemporary witness is carried back to

the first days. There is thus a cluster of pedigrees, not in one line but

in many parallel courses of descent, not in one country but in several,

ranging over the whole Catholic Church where Greek was understood,

attested by Versions, and illustrated copiously by Fathers, along which

without break in the continuity the Traditional Text in its main features

has been transmitted. Doubtless something still remains for the Church to

do under the present extraordinary wealth of authorities in the

verification of some particulars issuing in a small number of alterations,

not in challenging or changing like the other school anything approaching

to one-eighth of the New Testament(402): for that we now possess in the

main the very Words of the Holy Gospels as they issued from their inspired

authors, we are taught under the principle of Genealogy that there is no

valid reason to doubt.

To conclude, the system which we advocate will be seen to contrast

strikingly with that which is upheld by the opposing school, in three

general ways:

I. We have with us width and depth against the narrowness on their side.

They are conspicuously contracted in the fewness of the witnesses which

they deem worthy of credence. They are restricted as to the period of

history which alone they consider to deserve attention. They are confined

with regard to the countries from which their testimony comes. They would

supply Christians with a shortened text, and educate them under a

cast-iron system. We on the contrary champion the many against the few: we

welcome all witnesses, and weigh all testimony: we uphold all the ages

against one or two, and all the countries against a narrow space. We

maintain the genuine and all-round Catholicism of real Christendom against

a discarded sectarianism exhumed from the fourth century. If we condemn,

it is because the evidence condemns. We cling to all the precious Words

that have come down to us, because they have been so preserved to our days

under verdicts depending upon overwhelming proof.

II. We oppose facts to their speculation. They exalt B and א and D because

in their own opinion those copies are the best. They weave ingenious webs,

and invent subtle theories, because their paradox of a few against the

many requires ingenuity and subtlety for its support. Dr. Hort revelled in

finespun theories and technical terms, such as “Intrinsic Probability,”

“Transcriptional Probability,” “Internal evidence of Readings,” “Internal

evidence of Documents,” which of course connote a certain amount of

evidence, but are weak pillars of a heavy structure. Even conjectural

emendation(403) and inconsistent decrees(404) are not rejected. They are

infected with the theorizing which spoils some of the best German work,

and with the idealism which is the bane of many academic minds, especially

at Oxford and Cambridge. In contrast with this sojourn in cloudland, we

are essentially of the earth though not earthy. We are nothing, if we are

not grounded in facts: our appeal is to facts, our test lies in facts, so

far as we can we build testimonies upon testimonies and pile facts on

facts. We imitate the procedure of the courts of justice in decisions

resulting from the converging product of all the evidence, when it has

been cross-examined and sifted. As men of business, not less than

students, we endeavour to pursue the studies of the library according to

the best methods of the world.

III. Our opponents are gradually getting out of date: the world is

drifting away from them. Thousands of manuscripts have been added to the

known stores since Tischendorf formed his system, and Hort began to

theorize, and their handful of favourite documents has become by

comparison less and less. Since the deaths of both of those eminent

critics, the treasures dug up in Egypt and elsewhere have put back the

date of the science of palaeography from the fourth century after the

Christian era to at least the third century before, and papyrus has sprung

up into unexpected prominence in the ancient and mediaeval history of

writing. It is discovered that there was no uncial period through which

the genealogy of cursives has necessarily passed. Old theories on those

points must generally be reconstructed if they are to tally with known

facts. But this accession of knowledge which puts our opponents in the

wrong, has no effect on us except to confirm our position with new proof.

Indeed, we welcome the unlocking of the all but boundless treasury of

ancient wealth, since our theory, being as open as possible, and resting

upon the visible and real, remains not only uninjured but strengthened. If

it were to require any re-arrangement, that would be only a re-ordering of

particulars, not of our principles which are capacious enough to admit of

any addition of materials of judgement. We trust to the Church of all the

ages as the keeper and witness of Holy Writ, we bow to the teaching of the

HOLY GHOST, as conveyed in all wisdom by facts and evidence: and we are

certain, that, following no preconceived notions of our own, but led under

such guidance, moved by principles so reasonable and comprehensive, and

observing rules and instructions appealing to us with such authority, we

are in all main respects

STANDING UPON THE ROCK.

APPENDIX I. HONEYCOMB—ἈΠῸ ΜΕΛΙΣΣΊΟΥ ΚΗΡΊΟΥ.

[The Dean left positive instructions for the publication of this

Dissertation, as being finished for Press.]

I propose next to call attention to the omission from St. Luke xxiv. 42 of

a precious incident in the history of our Lord’s Resurrection. It was in

order effectually to convince the Disciples that it was Himself, in His

human body, who stood before them in the upper chamber on the evening of

the first Easter Day, that He inquired, [ver. 41] “Have ye here any meat?

[ver. 42] and they gave Him a piece of a broiled fish, AND OF AN

HONEYCOMB.” But those four last words (καὶ ἀπὸ μελισσίου κηρίου) because

they are not found in six copies of the Gospel, are by Westcott and Hort

ejected from the text. Calamitous to relate, the Revisers of 1881 were by

those critics persuaded to exclude them also. How do men suppose that such

a clause as that established itself universally in the sacred text, if it

be spurious? “How do you suppose,” I shall be asked in reply, “if it be

genuine, that such a clause became omitted from any manuscript at all?”

I answer,—The omission is due to the prevalence in the earliest age of

fabricated exhibitions of the Gospel narrative; in which, singular to

relate, the incident recorded in St. Luke xxiv. 41-43 was identified with

that other mysterious repast which St. John describes in his last

chapter(405). It seems incredible, at first sight, that an attempt would

ever be made to establish an enforced harmony between incidents exhibiting

so many points of marked contrast: for St. Luke speaks of (1) “broiled

fish [ἰχθύος ὀπτοῦ] and honeycomb,” (2) which “_they_ gave _Him_,” (3)

“and _He_ did eat” (4) on the first Easter Day, (5) at evening, (6) in a

chamber, (7) at Jerusalem:—whereas St. John specifies (1) “_bread_, and

fish [ὀψάριον] likewise,” (2) which _He_ gave them, (3) and of which it is

not related that Himself partook. (4) The occasion was subsequent: (5) the

time, early morning: (6) the scene, the sea-shore: (7) the country,

Galilee.

Let it be candidly admitted on the other hand, in the way of excuse for

those ancient men, that “broiled fish” was common to both repasts; that

they both belong to the period subsequent to the Resurrection: that the

same parties, our LORD namely and His Apostles, were concerned in either

transaction; and that both are prefaced by similar words of inquiry.

Waiving this, it is a plain fact that Eusebius in his 9th Canon, makes the

two incidents parallel; numbering St. Luke (xxix. 41-3), § 341; and St.

John (xxi. 9, 10, 12, first half, and 13), severally §§ 221, 223, 225. The

Syriac sections which have hitherto escaped the attention of critical

scholars(406) are yet more precise. Let the intention of their venerable

compiler—whoever he may have been—be exhibited in full. It has never been

done before:—

“(ST. LUKE xxiv.) “(ST. JOHN xxi.)”

Ҥ 397. [Jesus] said unto them, Ҥ 255. Jesus saith unto them,

Have ye here any meat? (ver. 41.) Children, have ye any meat? They

answered Him, No. (ver. 5.)

“_Id._ ... “§ 259 ... As soon then as they

were come to land, they saw a fire

of coals there, and fish laid

thereon, and bread. (ver. 9.)

Ҥ 398. And they gave Him a piece Ҥ 264. Jesus then cometh and

of a broiled fish and of an taketh bread, and giveth them, and

honeycomb. (ver. 42.) fish likewise. (ver. 13.)

Ҥ 399. And He took it and did eat Ҥ 262. Jesus saith unto them, Come

before them. (ver. 43.)” and dine. (ver. 12.)”

The intention of all this is unmistakable. The places are deliberately

identified. But the mischief is of much older date than the Eusebian

Canons, and must have been derived in the first instance from a distinct

source. Eusebius, as he himself informs us, did but follow in the wake of

others. Should the Diatessaron cf Ammonius or that of Tatian ever be

recovered, a flood of light will for the first time be poured over a

department of evidence where at present we must be content to grope our

way(407).

But another element of confusion I suspect is derived from that lost

Commentary on the Song of Solomon in which Origen is said to have

surpassed himself(408). Certain of the ancients insist on discovering in

St. Luke xxiv. 42 the literal fulfilment of the Greek version of Cant. v.

1, “I ate my _bread_ with _honey_.” Cyril of Jerusalem remarks that those

words of the spouse “were fulfilled” when “they gave Him a piece of a

broiled fish and of an honeycomb(409)”: while Gregory Nyss. points out

(alluding to the same place) that “the true Bread,” when He appeared to

His Disciples, “was by honeycomb made sweet(410).” Little did those

Fathers imagine the perplexity which at the end of 15 centuries their

fervid and sometimes fanciful references to Scripture would occasion!

I proceed to shew how inveterately the ancients have confused these two

narratives, or rather these two distinct occasions. “Who knows not,” asks

Epiphanius, “that our SAVIOUR ate, after His Resurrection from the dead?

As the holy Gospels of Truth have it, ‘There was given unto Him’ [which is

a reference to St. Luke], ‘bread and part of a broiled fish.’ [but it is

St. John who mentions the bread];—‘and He took and ate’ [but only

according to St. Luke], ‘and gave to His disciples,’ [but only according

to St. John. And yet the reference must be to St. Luke’s narrative, for

Epiphanius straightway adds,] ‘as He _also_ did at the sea of Tiberias;

both eating,’ [although _no_ eating on His part is recorded concerning

_that_ meal,] ‘and distributing(411).’ ” Ephraem Syrus makes the same

mis-statement. “If He was not flesh,” he asks, “who was it, at the sea of

Tiberias, who ate(412)?” “While Peter is fishing,” says Hesychius(413),

(with plain reference to the narrative in St. John), “behold in the LORD’S

hands bread and honeycomb(414)”: where the “honeycomb” has clearly lost

its way, and has thrust out the “fish.” Epiphanius elsewhere even more

fatally confuses the two incidents. “JESUS” (he says) “on a second

occasion after His Resurrection ate both a piece of a broiled fish and

some honeycomb(415).” One would have set this down to sheer inadvertence,

but that Jerome circumstantially makes the self-same assertion:—“In John

we read that while the Apostles were fishing, He stood upon the shore, and

ate part of a broiled fish and honeycomb. At Jerusalem He is not related

to have done anything of the kind(416).” From whom can Jerome have derived

that wild statement(417)? It is certainly not his own. It occurs in his

letter to Hedibia where he is clearly a translator only(418). In another

place, Jerome says, “He sought fish broiled upon the coals, in order to

confirm the faith of His doubting Apostles, who were afraid to approach

Him, because they thought they saw a spirit,—not a solid body(419)”: which

is a mixing up of St. John’s narrative with that of St Luke. Clemens

Alex., in a passage which has hitherto escaped notice, deliberately

affirms that “the LORD blessed the loaves and the broiled fishes with

which He feasted His Disciples(420).” Where did he find that piece of

information?

One thing more in connexion with the “broiled fish _and honeycomb_.”

Athanasius—and Cyril Alex.(421) after him—rehearse the incident with

entire accuracy; but Athanasius adds the apocryphal statement that “He

took what remained over, and gave it unto them(422)”: which tasteless

appendix is found besides in Cureton’s Syriac [not in the Lewis],—in the

Bohairic, Harkleian, Armenian, and Ethiopic Versions; and must once have

prevailed to a formidable extent, for it has even established itself in

the Vulgate(423). It is witnessed to, besides, by two ninth-century

uncials (ΚΠ) and ten cursive copies(424). The thoughtful reader will say

to himself,—“Had only Cod. B joined itself to this formidable conspiracy

of primitive witnesses, we should have had this also thrust upon us by the

new school as indubitable Gospel: and remonstrances would have been in

vain!”

Now, as all must see, it is simply incredible that these many Fathers, had

they employed honestly-made copies of St. Luke’s and of St. John’s Gospel,

could have fallen into such frequent and such strange misrepresentations

of what those Evangelists actually say. From some fabricated Gospel—from

some “Diatessaron” or “Life of Christ,” once famous in the Church, long

since utterly forgotten,—from some unauthentic narrative of our Saviour’s

Death and Resurrection, I say, these several depravations of the sacred

story must needs have been imported into St. Luke’s Gospel. And lo, out of

all that farrago, the only manuscript traces which survive at this distant

day, are found in the notorious B-א, with A, D, L, and Π,—one copy each of

the Old Latin (e) and the Bohairic [and the Lewis],—which exclusively

enjoy the unenviable distinction of omitting the incident of the

“honeycomb”: while the confessedly spurious appendix, “He gave them what

remained over,” enjoys a far more ancient, more varied, and more

respectable attestation,—and yet has found favour with no single Editor of

the Sacred Text: no, nor have our Revisers seen fit by a marginal note to

apprize the ordinary English reader that “many uncial authorities” are

disfigured in this particular way. With this latter accretion to the

inspired verity, therefore, we need not delay ourselves: but that, so many

disturbing influences having resulted, at the end of seventeen centuries,

in the elimination of the clause καὶ ἀπὸ μελισσίου κηρίου from six corrupt

copies of St. Luke’s Gospel,—a fixed determination or a blundering

tendency should now be exhibited to mutilate the Evangelical narrative in

respect of the incident which those four words embody,—this may well

create anxiety. It makes critical inquiry an imperative duty: not indeed

for our own satisfaction, but for that of others.

Upon ourselves, the only effect produced by the sight of half a dozen

Evangelia,—whether written in the uncial or in the cursive character we

deem a matter of small account,—opposing themselves to the whole body of

the copies, uncial and cursive alike, is simply to make us suspicious of

those six Evangelia. Shew us that they have been repeatedly tried already

and as often have been condemned, and our suspicion becomes intense. Add

such evidence of the operation of a disturbing force as has been already

set before the reader; and further inquiry in our own minds we deem

superfluous. But we must answer those distinguished Critics who have ruled

that Codexes B-א, D, L, can hardly if ever err.

The silence of the Fathers is really not of much account. Some critics

quote Clemens Alexandrinus. But let that Father be allowed to speak for

himself. He is inveighing against gluttony. “Is not variety consistent

with simplicity of diet?” (he asks); and he enumerates olives, vegetables,

milk, cheese, &c. If it must be flesh, he proceeds, let the flesh be

merely broiled. “ ‘Have ye here any meat?’ said our Lord to His disciples

after His Resurrection. Whereupon, having been by Him taught frugality in

respect of diet, ‘they gave Him a piece of a broiled fish.’ ... Yet may

the fact not be overlooked that those who sup as The Word approves may

partake besides of ‘honeycomb.’ The fittest food, in a word, we consider

to be that which requires no cooking: next, as I began by explaining,

cheap and ordinary articles of diet(425).” Shall I be thought unreasonable

if I insist that so far from allowing that Clemens is “silent” concerning

the “honeycomb,” I even regard his testimony to the traditionary reading

of St. Luke xxiv. 42 as express? At the end of 1700 years, I am as sure

that “honeycomb” was found in his copy, as if I had seen it with my eyes.

Origen, who is next adduced, in one place remarks concerning our

SAVIOUR—“It is plain that after His Resurrection, He ate of a fish(426).”

The same Father elsewhere interprets mystically the circumstance that the

Disciples “gave Him a piece of a broiled fish(427).” Eusebius in like

manner thrice mentions the fact that our LORD partook of “broiled

fish(428)” after His Resurrection. And because these writers do not also

mention “honeycomb,” it is assumed by Tischendorf and his school that the

words καὶ ἀπὸ μελισσίου κηρίου cannot have existed in their copies of St.

Luke(429). The proposed inference is plainly inadmissible. Cyril, after

quoting accurately St. Luke xxiv. 36 to 43 (“honeycomb” and all)(430),

proceeds to remark exclusively on the incident of the “fish”(431). Ambrose

and Augustine certainly recognized the incident of “the honeycomb”: yet

the latter merely remarks that “to eat fish with the LORD is better than

to eat lentiles with Esau(432);” while the former draws a mystical

inference from “the record in the Gospel that JESUS ate _broiled

fishes_(433).” Is it not obvious that the more conspicuous incident,—that

of the “broiled fish,”—being common to both repasts, stands for all that

was partaken of on either occasion? in other words, represents the entire

meal? It excludes neither the “honeycomb” of the upper chamber, nor the

“bread” which was eaten beside the Galilean lake. Tertullian(434),

intending no slight either to the “broiled fish” or to the “bread,” makes

mention only of our Lord’s having “eaten honeycomb” after His

Resurrection. And so Jerome, addressing John, bishop of Jerusalem,

exclaims—“Why did the Lord eat honeycomb? Not in order to give thee

licence to eat honey, but in order to demonstrate the truth of His

Resurrection(435).” To draw inferences from the rhetorical _silence_ of

the Fathers as if we were dealing with a mathematical problem or an Act of

Parliament, can only result in misconceptions of the meaning of those

ancient men.

As for Origen, there is nothing in either of the two places commonly cited

from his writings(436), where he only mentions the partaking of “fish,” to

preclude the belief that Origen knew of the “honeycomb” also in St. Luke

xxiv. 42. We have but fragments of his Commentary on St. Luke(437), and an

abridged translation of his famous Commentary on Canticles. Should these

works of his be hereafter recovered in their entirety, I strongly suspect

that a certain scholium in Cordier’s Catena on St. Luke(438), which

contains a very elaborate recognition of the “honeycomb,” will be found to

be nothing else but an excerpt from one or other of them. At foot the

learned reader will be gratified by the sight of the original Greek of the

scholium referred to(439), which Cordier so infelicitously exhibits in

Latin. He will at least be made aware that if it be not Origen who there

speaks to us, it is some other very ancient father, whose testimony to the

genuineness of the clause now under consideration is positive evidence in

its favour which greatly outweighs the negative evidence of the archetype

of B-א. But in fact as a specimen of mystical interpretation, the passage

in question is quite in Origen’s way(440)—has all his fervid wildness,—in

all probability is actually _his_.

The question however to be decided is clearly not whether certain ancient

copies of St. Luke were without the incident of the honeycomb; but only

whether it is reasonable to infer from the premisses that the Evangelist

made no mention of it. And I venture to anticipate that readers will

decide this question with me in the negative. That, from a period of the

remotest antiquity, certain disturbing forces have exercised a baneful

influence over this portion of Scripture is a plain fact: and that their

combined agency should have resulted in the elimination of the incident of

the “honeycomb” from a few copies of St. Luke xxiv. 42, need create no

surprise. On the other hand, this Evangelical incident is attested by the

following witnesses:—

In the second century, by Justin M.(441),—by Clemens Alexandrinus(442),—by

Tertullian(443),—by the Old-Latin,—and by the Peshitto Version:

In the third century, by Cureton’s Syriac,—and by the Bohairic:

In the fourth century, by Athanasius(444),—by Gregory of Nyssa(445),—by

Epiphanius(446),—by Cyril of Jerusalem(447),—by Jerome(448),—by

Augustine(449),—and by the Vulgate:

In the fifth century, by Cyril of Alexandria(450),—by Proclus(451),—by

Vigilius Tapsensis(452),—by the Armenian,—and Ethiopic Versions:

In the sixth century, by Hesychius and Cod. N(453):

In the seventh century, by the Harkleian Version.

Surely an Evangelical incident attested by so many, such respectable, and

such venerable witnesses as these, is clearly above suspicion. Besides its

recognition in the ancient scholium to which attention has been largely

invited already(454), we find the incident of the “honeycomb” recognized

by 13 ancient Fathers,—by 8 ancient Versions,—by the unfaltering Tradition

of the universal Church,—above all, by every copy of St. Luke’s Gospel in

existence (as far as is known), uncial as well as cursive—except _six_.

That it carries on its front the impress of its own genuineness, is what

no one will deny(455). Yet was Dr. Hort for dismissing it without

ceremony. “A singular interpolation evidently from an extraneous source,

written or oral,” he says. A singular hallucination, we venture to reply,

based on ideal grounds and “a system [of Textual Criticism] hopelessly

self-condemned(456);” seeing that that ingenious and learned critic has

nothing to urge except that the words in dispute are omitted by B-א,—by A

seldom found in the Gospels in such association,—by D of the sixth

century,—by L of the eighth,—by Π of the ninth.

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

I have been so diffuse on this place because I desire to exhibit an

instance shewing that certain perturbations of the sacred Text demand

laborious investigation,—have a singular history of their own,—may on no

account be disposed of in a high-handed way, by applying to them any cut

and dried treatment,—nay I must say, any arbitrary shibboleth. The clause

in dispute enjoys in perfection every note of a genuine reading: viz.

number, antiquity, variety, respectability of witnesses, besides

continuity of attestation: every one of which notes are away from that

exhibition of the text which is contended for by my opponents(457).

Tischendorf conjectures that the “honeycomb” may have been first brought

in from the “Gospel of the Hebrews.” What if, on the contrary, by the

Valentinian “Gospel of Truth,”—a composition of the second century,—the

“honeycomb” should have been first thrust out(458)? The plain statement of

Epiphanius (quoted above(459)) seems to establish the fact that his maimed

citation was derived from that suspicious source.

Let the foregoing be accepted as a specimen of the injury occasionally

sustained by the Evangelical text in a very remote age from the evil

influence of the fabricated narratives, or _Diatessarons_, which anciently

abounded. The genuineness of the clause καὶ ἀπὸ μελισσίου κηρίου, it is

hoped, will never more be seriously called in question. Surely it has been

demonstrated to be quite above suspicion(460).

APPENDIX II. ὌΞΟΣ—VINEGAR.

[The Dean thought this to be one of his most perfect papers.]

When He had reached the place called Golgotha, there were some who

_offered_ to the Son of Man (ἐδίδουν “were for giving” Him) a draught of

wine drugged with myrrh(461). He would not so much as taste it. Presently,

the soldiers gave Him while hanging on the Cross vinegar mingled with

gall(462). This He tasted, but declined to drink. At the end of six hours,

He cried, “I thirst”: whereupon one of the soldiers ran, filled a sponge

with vinegar, and gave Him to drink by offering the sponge up to His mouth

secured to the summit of the reed of aspersion: whereby (as St. John

significantly remarks) it covered the bunch of ceremonial hyssop which was

used for sprinkling the people(463). This time He drank; and exclaimed,

“It is finished.”

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

Now, the ancients, and indeed the moderns too, have hopelessly confused

this pathetic story by identifying the “vinegar and gall” of St. Matt.

xxvii. 34 with the “myrrhed wine” of St. Mark xv. 23; shewing therein a

want of critical perception which may reasonably excite astonishment; for

“wine” is not “vinegar,” neither is “myrrh” “gall.” And surely, the

instinct of humanity which sought to alleviate the torture of crucifixion

by administering to our Saviour a preliminary soporific draught, was

entirely distinct from the fiendish malice which afterwards with a

nauseous potion strove to aggravate the agony of dissolution. Least of all

is it reasonable to identify the leisurely act of the insolent soldiery at

the third hour(464), with what “one of them” (evidently appalled by the

darkness) “ran” to do at the ninth(465). Eusebius nevertheless, in his

clumsy sectional system, brackets(466) together these three places (St.

Matt. xxvii. 34, St. Mark xv. 23, St. John xix. 29): while moderns (as the

excellent Isaac Williams) and ancients (as Cyril of Jerusalem)(467) alike

strenuously contend that the two first must needs be identical. The

consequence might have been foreseen. Besides the substitution of “wine”

for “vinegar” (οἶνον for ὄξος) which survives to this day in nineteen

copies of St. Matt. xxvii. 34, the words “and gall” are found improperly

thrust into four or five copies of St. John xix. 29. As for Eusebius and

Macarius Magnes, they read St. John xix. 29 after such a monstrous fashion

of their own, that I propose to invite separate attention to it in another

place. Since however the attempt to assimilate the fourth Gospel to the

first (by exhibiting ὄξος μετὰ χολῆς in St. John xix. 29) is universally

admitted to be indefensible, it need not occupy us further.

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

I return to the proposed substitution of οἶνον for ὄξος in St. Matt.

xxvii. 34, and have only to point out that it is as plain an instance of

enforced harmony as can be produced. That it exists in many copies of the

Old-Latin, and lingers on in the Vulgate: is the reading of the Egyptian,

Ethiopic, and Armenian Versions and the Lewis Cod.; and survives in

BאDKLΠ, besides thirteen of the cursives(468);—all this will seem strange

to those only who have hitherto failed to recognize the undeniable fact

that Codd. B-א DL are among the foulest in existence. It does but prove

how inveterately, as well as from how remote a period, the error under

discussion has prevailed. And yet, the great and old Peshitto

Version,—Barnabas(469),—Irenaeus(470),—Tertullian(471),—Celsus(472),—Origen(473),—the

Sibylline verses in two places(474) (quoted by Lactantius),—and

ps.-Tatian(475),—are more ancient authorities than any of the preceding,

and they all yield adverse testimony.

Coming down to the fourth century, (to which B-א belong,) those two

Codexes find themselves contradicted by Athanasius(476) in two places,—by

another of the same name(477) who has been mistaken for the patriarch of

Alexandria,—by Eusebius of Emesa(478),—by Theodore of Heraclea(479),—by

Didymus(480),—by Gregory of Nyssa(481),—and by his namesake of

Nazianzus(482),—by Ephraem Syrus(483),—by Lactantius(484),—by

Jerome(485),—by Rufinus(486),—by Chrysostom(487),—by Severianus of

Gabala(488),—by Theodore of Mopsuestia(489),—by Cyril of

Alexandria(490),—and by Titus of Bostra(491). Now these are more

respectable contemporary witnesses to the text of Scripture by far than

Codexes B-א and D (who also have to reckon with A, Φ, and Σ—C being mute

at the place), as well as outnumber them in the proportion of 24 to 2. To

these (8 + 16 =) 24 are to be added the Apocryphal “Gospel of

Nicodemus(492),” which Tischendorf assigns to the third century; the “Acts

of Philip(493),” and the Apocryphal “Acts of the Apostles(494),” which Dr.

Wright claims for the fourth; besides Hesychius(495), Amphilochius(496),

ps.-Chrysostom(497), Maximus(498), Severus of Antioch(499), and John

Damascene(500),—nine names which far outweigh in antiquity and importance

the eighth and ninth-century Codexes KLΠ. Those critics in fact who would

substitute “wine” for “vinegar” in St. Matt. xxvii. 34 have clearly no

case. That, however, which is absolutely decisive of the question against

them is the fact that _every uncial and every cursive copy in existence_,

except the very few specimens already quoted, attest that the oldest known

reading of this place is the true reading. In fact, the Church has

affirmed in the plainest manner, from the first, that ὄξος (not οἶνον) is

to be read here. We are therefore astonished to find her deliberate decree

disregarded by Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Westcott and Hort, in an

attempt on their part to revive what is a manifest fabrication, which but

for the Vulgate would long since have passed out of the memory of

Christendom. Were they not aware that Jerome himself knew better? “Usque

hodie” (he says) “Judaei et omnes increduli Dominicae resurrectionis,

_aceto et felle_ potant Jesum; et dant ei _vinum myrrhatum_ ut eum

consopiant, et mala eorum non videat(501):”—whereby he both shews that he

read St. Matt. xxvii. 34 according to the traditional text (see also p.

233 c), and that he bracketed together two incidents which he yet

perceived were essentially distinct, and in marked contrast with one

another. But what most offends me is the deliberate attempt of the

Revisers in this place. Shall I be thought unreasonable if I avow that it

exceeds my comprehension how such a body of men can have persuaded

themselves that it is fair to eject the reading of an important place of

Scripture like the present, and to substitute for it a reading resting

upon so slight a testimony _without furnishing ordinary Christian readers

with at least a hint of what they had done_? They have considered the

evidence in favour of “_wine_” (in St. Matt. xxvii. 34) not only

“decidedly preponderating,” but the evidence in favour of “_vinegar_” so

slight as to render the word undeserving even of a place in the margin.

Will they find a sane jury in Great Britain to be of the same opinion? Is

this the candid and equitable action befitting those who were set to

represent the Church in this momentous business?

APPENDIX III. THE RICH YOUNG MAN.

The eternal Godhead of CHRIST was the mark at which, in the earliest age

of all, Satan persistently aimed his most envenomed shafts. St. John, in

many a well-known place, notices this; begins and ends his Gospel by

proclaiming our Saviour’s Eternal Godhead(502); denounces as “deceivers,”

“liars,” and “antichrists,” the heretical teachers of his own day who

denied this(503);—which shews that their malice was in full activity

before the end of the first century of our era; ere yet, in fact, the

echoes of the Divine Voice had entirely died out of the memory of very

ancient men. These Gnostics found something singularly apt for their

purpose in a famous place of the Gospel, where the blessed Speaker seems

to disclaim for Himself the attribute of “goodness,”—in fact seems to

distinguish between Himself and GOD. Allusion is made to an incident

recorded with remarkable sameness of expression by St. Matthew (xix. 16,

17), St. Mark (x. 17, 18) and St. Luke (xviii. 18, 19), concerning a

certain rich young Ruler. This man is declared by all three to have

approached our LORD with one and the same question,—to have prefaced it

with one and the same glozing address, “_Good_ Master!”—and to have been

checked by the object of his adulation with one and the same reproof;—“Why

dost thou [who takest me for an ordinary mortal like thyself(504)] call me

_good_? No one is good [essentially good(505)] save one,” that is “GOD.”

... See, said some old teachers, fastening blindly on the letter,—He

disclaims being good: ascribes goodness exclusively to the Father:

separates Himself from very and eternal God(506).... The place was

accordingly eagerly fastened on by the enemies of the Gospel(507): while,

to vindicate the Divine utterance against the purpose to which it was

freely perverted, and to establish its true meaning, is found to have been

the endeavour of each of the most illustrious of the Fathers in turn.

Their pious eloquence would fill a volume(508). Gregory of Nyssa devotes

to this subject the eleventh book of his treatise against Eunomius(509).

In order to emphasize this impious as well as shallow gloss the heretic

Valentinus (A.D. 120),—with his disciples, Heracleon and Ptolemaeus, the

Marcosians, the Naassenes, Marcion (A.D. 150), and the rest of the Gnostic

crew,—not only substituted “One is good” for “No one is good but one,”—but

evidently made it a great point besides to introduce the name of the

FATHER, either in place of, or else in addition to, the name of

“GOD(510).” So plausible a depravation of the text was unsuspiciously

adopted by not a few of the orthodox. It is found in Justin

Martyr(511),—in pseudo-Tatian(512),—in the Clementine homilies(513). And

many who, like Clemens Alex.,—Origen,—the Dialogus,—and pseudo-Tatian (in

five places), are careful to retain the Evangelical phrase “No one is good

but one [that is] GOD,”—even they are observed to conclude the sentence

with the heretical addition “THE FATHER(514).” I am not of course denying

that the expression is theologically correct: but only am requesting the

reader to note that, on the present occasion, it is clearly inadmissible;

seeing that it was no part of our Saviour’s purpose, as Didymus, Ambrose,

Chrysostom, Theodoret point out, to reveal Himself to such an one as the

rich young ruler in His own essential relation to the Eternal

Father(515),—to proclaim in short, in this chance way, the great mystery

of the Godhead: but only (as the ancients are fond of pointing out) to

reprove the man for his fulsomeness in addressing one of his fellows (as

he supposed) as “good(516).” In the meantime, the extent to which the

appendix under discussion prevails in the Patristic writings is a singular

illustration of the success with which, within 60 or 70 years of its

coming into being, the text of Scripture was assailed; and the calamitous

depravation to which it was liable. Surprising as well as grievous to

relate, in every recent critical recension of the Greek text of St.

Matthew’s Gospel, the first four words of the heretical gloss (εἶς ἐστιν ὁ

ἀγαθός) have been already substituted for the seven words before found

there (οὐδεὶς ἀγαθὸς εἰ μὴ εἶς, ὁ Θεός); and (more grievous still) now, at

the end of 1700 years, an effort is being made to establish this

unauthorized formula in our English Bibles also. This is done, be it

observed, in opposition to the following torrent of ancient

testimony:—viz., in the second century, the Peshitto Version,—Justin

Martyr(517),—ps.-Tatian (5 times)(518),—Clemens Alex. (twice)(519):—in the

third century, the Sahidic Version,—ps.-Dionysius Areopag.(520):—in the

fourth century, Eusebius (3 times)(521), Macarius Magnes (4

times)(522),—Basil(523),—Chrysostom(524):—Athanasius(525),—Gregory Nyss.

(3 times)(526),—and Didymus apparently (twice)(527):—in the fifth century,

Cod. C,—Augustine in many places(528),—Cyril Alex.(529),—and Theodoret (8

times)(530):—in the sixth century, Antiochus mon.(531),—the _Opus

imperf._(532)—with the Harkleian and the Ethiopic Version. ... When to

these 21 authorities have been added _all the known copies_, except six of

dissentients,—an amount of ancient evidence has been adduced which must be

held to be altogether decisive of a question like the present(533).

For what, after all, is the proper proof of the genuineness of any

reading, but the prevailing consent of Copies, Fathers, Versions? This

fundamental truth, strangely overlooked in these last days, remains

unshaken. For if the universal consent of Copies, when sustained by a free

appeal to antiquity, is not to be held definitive,—what in the world is?

Were the subject less solemn there would be something diverting in the

_naïveté_ of the marginal note of the revisers of 1881,—“Some ancient

authorities read ... ‘None is good save one [even] God.’ ” How many

“ancient authorities” did the Revisers suppose exhibit anything else?

But all this, however interesting and instructive, would have attracted

little attention were it not for the far more serious corruption of the

Sacred Text, which has next to be considered. The point to be attended to

is, that at the very remote period of which we are speaking, it appears

that certain of the Orthodox,—with the best intentions doubtless, but with

misguided zeal,—in order to counteract the pernicious teaching which the

enemies of Christianity elicited from this place of Scripture,

deliberately falsified the inspired record(534). Availing themselves of a

slight peculiarity in St. Matthew’s way of exhibiting the words of the

young Ruler,—(namely, “What _good thing_ shall I do,”)—they turned our

LORD’S reply, “Why callest thou me good?” in the first Gospel, into

this,—“_Why askest thou me concerning the good?_” The ensuing formula

which the heretics had devised,—“_One there is that is good_,” with some

words of appendix concerning God the Father, as already explained,—gave

them no offence, because it occasioned them no difficulty. It even suited

their purpose better than the words which they displaced. On the other

hand, they did not fail to perceive that the epithet “good,” “Good

Master,” if suffered to remain in the text, would witness inconveniently

against them, by suggesting our LORD’S actual reply,—viz. “Why callest

thou me good?” Accordingly, in an evil hour, they proceeded further to

erase the word ἀγαθέ from their copies. It is a significant circumstance

that the four uncial Codexes (BאDL) which exclusively exhibit τί με ἐρωτᾷς

περὶ τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ; are exclusively the four which omit the epithet ἀγαθέ.

The subsequent history of this growth of error might have been foreseen.

Scarcely had the passage been pieced together than it began to shew

symptoms of disintegration; and in the course of a few centuries, it had

so effectually disappeared, that tokens of it here and there are only to

be found in a few of the earliest documents. First, the epithet (ἀγαθέ)

was too firmly rooted to admit of a sentence of perpetual banishment from

the text. Besides retaining its place in every known copy of the Gospels

except eight(535), it survives to this hour in a vast majority of the most

ancient documents. Thus, ἀγαθέ is found in Justin Martyr(536) and in

ps.-Tatian(537):—in the remains of the Marcosian(538),—and of the

Naassene(539) Gnostics;—as well as in the Peshitto,—and in the Old Latin

versions:—in the Sahidic,—and the Bohairic version,—besides in the

Clementine Homilies(540), in Cureton and Lewis,—and in the Vulgate:—in

Origen(541),—in Athanasius(542),—and in Basil(543),—and in Cyril of

Jerusalem(544):—in Ephraem Syrus(545), and in Gregory of Nyssa(546): in

Macarius Magnes(547),—and in Chrysostom(548):—in

Juvencus(549),—Hilary(550),—Gaudentius(551),—Jerome(552),—and

Augustine(553);—lastly in Vigilius Tapsensis(554):—in Cyril Alex.(555),—in

Theodoret(556),—in Cod. C,—in the Harkleian Version,—and in the _Opus

imperfectum_(557). So that, at the end of 1700 years, 6 witnesses of the

second century,—3 of the third,—14 of the fourth,—4 of the fifth,—2 of the

sixth, come back from all parts of Christendom to denounce the liberty

taken by the ancients, and to witness to the genuineness of the

traditional text.

So much then,—(1) For the unauthorized omission of ἀγαθέ, and—(2) For the

heretical substitution of εἶς ἐστιν ὁ ἀγαθός in the room of οὐδεὶς ἀγαθὸς

εἰ μὴ εἶς ὁ Θεός. We have still to inquire after the fate of the most

conspicuous fabrication of the three: viz.—(3) The substitution of Τί με

ἐρωτᾷς περὶ τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ; for τί με λέγεις ἀγαθόν; What support do the

earliest witnesses lend to the inquiry,—“_Why askest thou me concerning

the good_?” ... That patent perversion of the obvious purport of our

Saviour’s address, I answer, is disallowed by Justin Martyr(558) (A.D.

140),—by the Marcosians(559),—and the Naassenes(560) (A.D. 150),—by the

Clementine homilies(561),—and ps.-Tatian(562) (third century);—by the

Peshitto and the Thebaic version;—by Macarius

Magnes(563),—Athanasius(564),—and Basil(565);—by Hilary(566),—Gregory of

Nyssa(567);—by Chrysostom(568),—by Cyril Alex.(569),—by Theodoret(570),—by

the _Opus imperfectum_(571),—by the Harkleian,—and the Armenian versions.

I have produced 18 witnesses,—4 belonging to the second century: 3 to the

third: 6 to the fourth: 5 to the fifth. Moreover they come from every part

of ancient Christendom. Such an amount of evidence, it must be again

declared, is absolutely decisive of a question of this nature. Whether men

care more for Antiquity or for Variety of testimony; whether

Respectability of witnesses or vastly preponderating Numbers, more

impresses the imagination,—they must needs admit that the door is here

closed against further debate. The traditional text of St. Matt. xix. 16,

17 is certainly genuine, and must be allowed to stand unmolested.

For it is high time to inquire,—What, after all, is the evidence

producible on the other side? The exhibition of the text, I answer, which

recommends itself so strongly to my opponents that they have thrust it

bodily into the Gospel, is found in its entirety only with that little

band of witnesses which have already so often come before us; and always

with false testimony. I am saying that Origen(572) in the third

century,—Codd. B-א in the fourth,—Cod. D in the fifth,—Cod. L in the

eighth,—besides a couple of cursive Codexes (Evann. 1 and 22),—are

literally the whole of the producible evidence for the Revisers’ text in

its entirety. Not that even these seven so-called consentient witnesses

are in complete accord among themselves. On the contrary. The discrepancy

between them is perpetual. A collation of them with the traditional text

follows:—

Και ιδου εις προσελθων ειπεν (D [_not_ Orig. BאL] λεγει) αυτω (Bא [_not_

Orig. DL] αυτω ειπε), Διδασκαλε αγαθε (Orig. BאDL—αγαθε) τι αγαθον ποιησω

(אL [_not_ Orig. BD] ποιησας) ινα εχω (Orig. BD [_not_ אL] σχω) ζωην

αιωνιον (Orig. 664b אL [_not_ Orig. 664a BD] ζωην αιωνιον κληρονομησω); ο

δε ειπεν αυτω, Τι με λεγεις αγαθον (Orig. 664-5 BאDL τι με ερωτας [Orig.

666b επερωτας] περι του (Orig. 664c D [_not_ Orig. 665c 666b BאL]—του)

αγαθου); ουδεις αγαθος ει μη εις ο Θεος (BאDL εις εστιν ο (D [_not_ Orig.

BאL]—ο) αγαθος).

Can it be possibly reasonable to avow that such an amount of discrepancy

between witnesses which claim to be consentient, inspires confidence

rather than distrust in every one of them?

The reader is next to be told that there survive, as might have been

expected, traces in sundry quarters of this threefold ancient fraud (as it

seems to be rather than blunder);—as in Justin(573), and the

Marcosian(574), and Naassene heretics(575); the Latin Versions(576); the

Bohairic(577); the Cureton and Lewis(578); pseudo-Dionysius(579), the

Clementine homilies(580) and Eusebius(581); Cyril Alex.(582) and Antiochus

the monk(583) (A.D. 614); Hilary(584), Jerome(585), and Augustine(586);

besides in Evann. 479 and 604, and Evst. 5. But the point to be attended

to is, that not one of the foregoing authorities sanctions the text which

Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, W.-Hort, and the Revisers of 1881

unanimously adopt. This first. And next, that no sooner are these sixteen

witnesses fairly confronted, than they set about hopelessly contradicting

one another: so that it fares with them as it fared with the Philistines

in the days of Saul:—“Behold, every man’s sword was against his fellow,

and there was a very great discomfiture(587).” This will become best

understood by the reader if he will allow “(I),” to represent the

_omission_ of the epithet ἀγαθέ:—“(II),” the _substitution_ of τί με

ἐρωτᾷς περὶ τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ:—and “(III),” the _substitution_ of εἶς ἐστιν ὁ

ἀγαθός with or without appendix. For it will appear that,—

(_a_) Evan. 479 and Evst. 5, though they witness _in favour of_ (I), yet

witness _against_ (II) and (III):—and that,

(_b_) The Latin and the Bohairic Versions, with Jerome and Evan. 604,

though they witness _in favour of_ (II) and (III), yet witness against

(I).

Note, that Cureton and Lewis do the same: but then the Cureton stultifies

itself by omitting from the introductory inquiry the underlined and

clearly indispensable word,—“What _good_ [thing] must I do?” The same

peculiarity is exhibited by the Thebaic Version and by Cyril of Jer.(588)

Now this is simply fatal to the testimony of Cureton’s Syr. concerning

“(II),”—seeing that, without it, the proposed reply cannot have been

spoken.—It appears further that,

(_c_) Augustine, though he witnesses in favour of (II), yet witnesses

against both (I) and (III):—and that,

(_d_) Hilary, though he witnesses in favour of (III), and yields uncertain

testimony concerning (I), yet witnesses against (II):—and that,

(_e_) Justin M. (in one place) and the Marcosian and Naassene heretics,

together with the Clementine homilies, though they witness in favour of

(III), yet witness against (I) and (II):—and that,

(_f_) ps.-Dionysius, Eusebius, and Antiochus mon. (A.D. 614), though they

witness in favour of (II), yet witness against (III).

(_g_) Cyril also, though he delivers uncertain testimony concerning (I)

and (II), yet witnesses against (III).

The plain fact is that the place before us exhibits every chief

characteristic of a clumsy fabrication. No sooner had it with perverse

ingenuity been pieced together, than the process of disintegration set in.

The spurious phrases τί με ἐρωτᾷς περὶ τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ, and εἶς ἐστιν ἀγαθός,

having no lawful dwelling-place of their own, strayed out of the first

Gospel into the third as soon as they were invented. Cureton in St. Luke

xviii. 19 has both phrases, Lewis neither,—Marcion, in his heretical

recension of St. Luke’s Gospel (A.D. 150), besides the followers of Arius,

adopt the latter(589). “The key of the whole position,” as Scrivener

points out, “is the epithet ‘_good_’ before ‘Master’ in ver. 16: for if

this be genuine, the only pertinent answer is contained in the Received

Text(590).” Precisely so: and it has been proved to be genuine by an

amount of continuous attestation which is absolutely overwhelming. We just

now analyzed the inconsistent testimony of sixteen ancient authorities;

and found that only the two cursive copies favour the omission of ἀγαθέ,

while nine of the oldest witnesses are for retaining it. Concerning the

expression τί με ἐρωτᾷς περὶ τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ, these inconsistent witnesses are

evenly divided,—seven being for it, seven against it. All, in fact, is

error, confusion, discord, the instant we get outside the traditional

text.

The reason of all this contrariety has been assigned already. Before

Christianity was a hundred years old, two opposite evil influences were at

work here: one, heretical—which resulted in (III): the other,

orthodox,—which resulted in (II) and (I). These influences, proceeding

from opposite camps, were the cause that copies got independently

propagated of two archetypes. But the Church, in her corporate capacity,

has declined to know anything of either. She has been careful all down the

ages that the genuine reading shall be rehearsed in every assembly of the

faithful on the 12th Sunday after Pentecost; and behold, at this hour it

is attested by every copy in the world—except that little handful of

fabricated documents, which it has been the craze of the last fifty years

to cry up as the only authentic witnesses to the truth of Scripture, viz.

Codd. BאDL and Origen. Now, as to the first two of these, Dr. Scrivener

has pronounced(591) that (Bא), “subsequent investigations have brought to

light so close a relation as to render it impossible to regard them as

independent witnesses;” while every page of the Gospel bears emphatic

witness to the fact that Codd. BאDL are, as has been said, the

depositaries of a hopelessly depraved text.

But how about Origen? He, in A.D. 250, commenting on the present place of

St. Matthew’s Gospel, has a great deal to say concerning the grievously

corrupt condition of the copies hereabouts. Now, the copies he speaks of

must have been older, by at least 100 years, than either Cod. B or Cod. א.

He makes this admission casually in the course of some remarks which

afford a fair sample of his critical method and therefore deserve

attention:—He infers from Rom. xiii. 9 that if the rich young ruler really

did “love his neighbour as himself,” which, according to the three

Evangelists, he virtually said he did(592), he was perfect(593)! Yet our

Saviour’s rejoinder to him is,—“_If_ thou wilt be perfect,” go and do such

and such things. Having thus invented a difficulty where none exists,

Origen proposes, as a way out of it, to regard the precept (in St. Matt.

xix. 20,—“Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself”) as an unauthorized

accretion to the Text,—the work of some tasteless scribe(594). The

reasonableness of suspecting its genuineness (he says) is heightened by

the fact that neither in St. Mark’s nor yet in St. Luke’s parallel

narrative, are the words found about “loving one’s neighbour as oneself.”

As if that were not rather a reason for presuming it to be genuine! To be

sure (proceeds Origen) it would be monstrous to regard these words, “Thou

shalt love thy neighbour as thyself,” as an interpolation, were it not for

the existence of so many other discrepancies hereabouts. The copies of St.

Matthew are in fact all at strife among themselves. And so are the copies

of the other Gospels. Vast indeed, and with this he concludes, is the

discrepancy in St. Matthew(595): whether it has proceeded from the

carelessness of the scribes;—or from criminal audacity on the part of

correctors of Scripture;—or whether, lastly, it has been the result of

licentiousness on the part of those who, pretending to “correct” the text,

have added or omitted according to their own individual caprice(596).

Now all this is very instructive. Here is the most famous Critic of

antiquity estimating the genuineness of a clause in the Gospel, not by the

amount of external attestation which it enjoys, but by his own

self-evolved fancies concerning it. As a matter of fact, no extant copy,

Father, or Version is without the clause under discussion. By proposing

therefore that it shall be regarded as spurious, Origen does but convict

himself of rashness and incompetency. But when this same Critic,—who, by

his own shewing, has had the evil hap to alight on a collection of

singularly corrupt documents,—proceeds to handle a text of Scripture which

has demonstrably had a calamitous history from the first days of the

Gospel until now;—two inconvenient questions force themselves on our

attention:—The first,—What confidence can be reposed in his judgement? The

second—What is there to conciliate our esteem for the particular Codex

from which he happens to quote? On the other hand, the reader has been

already shewn by a more open appeal to antiquity than has ever before been

attempted, that the reading of St. Matt. xix. 16, 17 which is exclusively

found in BאDL and the copy from which Origen quotes, is deficient in

external attestation.

Now, when it is considered that Bא confessedly represent one and the same

archetype, which may very well have been of the date of Origen

himself,—how is it possible to resist the conviction that these three are

not independent voices, but echoes of one and the same voice? And, What if

certain Codexes preserved in the library of Caesarea in

Palestine(597);—Codexes which were handled in turn by Origen, by Eusebius,

by Jerome, and which also furnished the archetype from which B and א were

derived;—what, I say, if it shall some day come to be generally admitted,

that those Caesarean Codexes are most probably the true _fons et origo_ of

much of our past perplexity and of our present trouble? Since “coincidence

of reading infallibly implies identity of ancestry(598),” are we not even

led by the hand to see that there must have existed in the famous library

of Caesarea a little nest of copies credited, and justly so, with

containing every “last new thing” in the way of Textual Criticism, to

which Critics of the type of Origen and Jerome, and perhaps Eusebius, must

have been only too fond of resorting? A few such critically corrected

copies would furnish a complete explanation of every peculiarity of

reading exhibited exclusively by Codexes B and א, and [fondled, perhaps

with some critical cynicism, by] those three Fathers.

Yet it is to be remembered, (with reference to the place before us,) that

“Origen, Eusebius, and Jerome” are not in accord here, except in reading

τί με ἐρωτᾷς περὶ τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ?—for Eusebius differs from Origen and Jerome

in proceeding with the traditional text οὐδεὶς ἀγαθὸς εἰ μὴ εἶς: while

Jerome and even Origen concur with the traditional text in recognizing the

epithet ἀγαθέ,—a circumstance which, as already explained, may be regarded

as fatal to the formula τί με ἐρωτᾷς κ.τ.λ. which follows.

This however by the way. That so ill-supported a fraud should have imposed

upon Griesbach, Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Alford, Westcott and

Hort, and the Revisers of 1881, including Scrivener,—is to me

unintelligible. The substituted reading is an impossible one to begin

with, being inconsistent with its context. And although I hold the

introduction of intrinsic probability into these inquiries to be unlawful,

until the truth has been established on grounds of external evidence; yet,

when that has been accomplished, not only do internal considerations claim

a hearing, but their effect is often, as in the present case, entirely to

sweep the field. It is impossible, so at least it seems to me, to survey

the narrative by the light of internal probability, without being overcome

by the incoherence and essential foolishness of the reading before us.

This is a point which deserves attention.

1. That our LORD actually _did_ remonstrate with the young ruler for

calling Him “good,” is at least certain. Both St. Mark (x. 17, 18) and St.

Luke (xviii. 18, 19) record that fact, and the text of neither is

disputed. How grossly improbable then is the statement that He also

reproved the young man for inviting Him to a philosophical discussion

concerning τὸ ἀγαθόν,—which yet the young man clearly had not done.

According to two out of the three Evangelists, if not to the third also,

his question had not been about the abstract quality; but concerning the

concrete thing, as a means to an end:—“What _good work must I do_ in order

that I may inherit eternal life?”—a purely practical question. Moreover,

the pretended inquiry is not touched by the proposed rejoinder,—“One there

is who is good,”—or “There is none good but one, that is GOD.” Does not

the very wording of that rejoinder shew that it must needs have been

preceded by the inquiry, “Why callest thou Me good?” The young man is told

besides that if he desires to “inherit eternal life” he must keep God’s

commandments. The question and the answer in the genuine text are strictly

correlative. In the fabricated text, they are at cross purposes and

inconsistent with one another in a high degree.

2. Let it however be supposed for an instant that our LORD’S reply

actually was,—“Why askest thou Me concerning abstract goodness?” Note what

results. Since it cannot be thought that such an interrogation is

substantially equivalent to “Why callest thou Me good?” the saying,—if

uttered at all,—must have been spoken in addition. Was it then spoken to

the same man?—“Yes,” replies the author of Cureton’s Syriac: “the

rejoinder ran thus,—‘Why callest thou Me good?’ and, ‘Why askest thou Me

respecting the good(599)?’ ”—“Not exactly,” remarks the author of Evan.

251, “The second of those two inquiries was interposed after the word

‘Which?’ in ver. 18.”—“Not so,” cries the author of the Gospel to the

Hebrews. “The men who came to our Lord were two in number(600).” There is

reason for suspecting that certain of the early heretics were of the same

opinion(601). Will not every candid reader admit that the more closely we

look into the perplexed tangle before us, the more intolerable it

becomes,—the more convinced we feel of its essential foolishness? And—Is

it too much to hope that after this deliberate exposure of the

insufficiency of the evidence on which it rests, no further efforts will

be made to bolster up a reading so clearly indefensible?

Nothing more, I suppose, need be added. I have been so diffuse concerning

the present place of Scripture because I ardently desire to see certain of

the _vexatae quaestiones_ in Textual Criticism fairly threshed out and

settled. And this is a place which has been famous from the earliest

times,—a θρυλλούμενον κεφάλαιον as Macarius Magnes (p. 12) calls it, in

his reply to the heathen philosopher who had proposed it as a subject for

discussion. It is (in the opinion of modern critics) “quite a test

passage(602).” Tischendorf made this the subject of a separate

dissertation in 1840(603). Tregelles, who discusses it at great

length(604), informs us that he even “relies on this one passage as

supplying an argument on the whole question” which underlies his critical

Recension of the Greek Text. It has caused all the Critics—Griesbach,

Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Alford, W.-Hort, the Revisers, even

Scrivener(605), to go astray. Critics will spend their strength in vain if

they seek any further to establish on a rational basis alterations made on

the strength of testimony which is both restricted and is at variance with

itself.

Let it be noted that our persistent appeal concerning St. Matt. xix. 17,

18 has been made to Antiquity. We reject the proposed innovation as

undoubtedly spurious, because of the importance and overwhelming number of

the witnesses of the second, third, and fourth centuries which come

forward to condemn it; as well as because of the plain insufficiency and

want of variety in the evidence which is adduced in its support. Whenever

a proposed correction of the Sacred Text is insufficiently attested, and

especially when that attestation is destitute of Variety,—we claim that

the traditional reading shall stand.

APPENDIX IV. ST. MARK I. 1.

St. Mark’s Gospel opens as follows:—“The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus

Christ, THE SON OF GOD.” The significancy of the announcement is apparent

when the opening of St. Matthew’s Gospel is considered,—“The book of the

generation of Jesus Christ, the Son of David.” Surely if there be a clause

in the Gospel which carries on its front the evidence of its genuineness,

it is this(606). But in fact the words are found in every known copy but

three (א, 28, 255); in all the Versions; in many Fathers. The evidence in

its favour is therefore overwhelming. Yet it has of late become the

fashion to call in question the clause—Υἱοῦ τοῦ Θεοῦ. Westcott and Hort

shut up the words in brackets. Tischendorf ejects them from the text. The

Revisers brand them with suspicion. High time is it to ascertain how much

of doubt really attaches to the clause which has been thus assailed.

Tischendorf relies on the testimony of ten ancient Fathers, whom he quotes

in the following order,—Irenaeus, Epiphanius, Origen, Basil, Titus,

Serapion, Cyril of Jerusalem, Severianus, Victorinus, Jerome. But the

learned critic has to be reminded (1) that _pro hac vice_, Origen,

Serapion, Titus, Basil, Victorinus and Cyril of Jerusalem are not six

fathers, but only one. Next (2), that Epiphanius delivers no testimony

whatever on the point in dispute. Next (3), that Jerome(607) is rather to

be reckoned with the upholders, than the impugners, of the disputed

clause: while (4) Irenaeus and Severianus bear emphatic witness in its

favour. All this quite changes the aspect of the Patristic testimony. The

scanty residuum of hostile evidence proves to be Origen and three

Codexes,—of which two are cursives. I proceed to shew that the facts are

as I have stated them.

As we might expect, the true author of all the mischief was Origen. At the

outset of his commentary on St. John, he writes with reference to St. Mark

i. 1,—“Either the entire Old Testament (represented by John Baptist) is

here spoken of as ‘the beginning’ of the New; or else, only the end of it

(which John quotes) is so spoken of, on account of this linking on of the

New Testament to the Old. For Mark says,—‘The beginning of the Gospel of

Jesus Christ, as it is written in Isaiah the prophet, Behold, I send my

messenger, &c. The voice of one, &c.’ I can but wonder therefore at those

heretics,”—he means the followers of Basilides, Valentinus, Cerdon,

Marcion, and the rest of the Gnostic crew,—“who attribute the two

Testaments to two different Gods; seeing that this very place sufficiently

refutes them. For how can John be ‘the beginning of the Gospel,’ if, as

they pretend, he belongs to another God, and does not recognize the

divinity of the New Testament?” Presently,—“In illustration of the former

way of taking the passage, viz. that John stands for the entire Old

Testament, I will quote what is found in the Acts [viii. 35] ‘Beginning at

the same Scripture of Isaiah, He was brought as a lamb, &c., Philip

preached to the eunuch the Lord Jesus.’ How could Philip, beginning at the

prophet, preach unto him Jesus, unless Isaiah be some part of ‘the

beginning of the Gospel(608)?’ ” From the day that Origen wrote those

memorable words [A.D. 230], an appeal to St. Mark i. 1-3 became one of the

commonplaces of Theological controversy. St. Mark’s assertion that the

voices of the ancient Prophets, were “the beginning of the Gospel”—of whom

John Baptist was assumed to be the symbol,—was habitually cast in the

teeth of the Manichaeans.

On such occasions, not only Origen’s reasoning, but often Origen’s

mutilated text was reproduced. The heretics in question, though they

rejected the Law, professed to hold fast the Gospel. “But” (says Serapion)

“they do not understand the Gospel; for they do not receive the beginning

of it:—‘The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, as it is written in

Isaiah the prophet(609).’ ” What the author of this curt statement meant,

is explained by Titus of Bostra, who exhibits the quotation word for word

as Serapion, following Origen, had exhibited it before him; and adding

that St. Mark in this way “connects the Gospel with the Law; recognizing

the Law as the beginning of the Gospel(610).” How does this prove that

either Serapion or Titus disallowed the words υἱοῦ τοῦ Θεοῦ? The simple

fact is that they are both reproducing Origen: and besides availing

themselves of his argument, are content to adopt the method of quotation

with which he enforces it.

Next, for the testimony of Basil. His words are,—“Mark makes the preaching

of John the beginning of the Gospel, saying, ‘The beginning of the Gospel

of Jesus Christ ... as it is written in Isaiah the prophet ... The voice

of one crying in the wilderness(611).’ ” This certainly shews that Basil

was treading in Origen’s footsteps; but it no more proves that he

disallowed the three words in dispute in ver. 1, than that he disallowed

the sixteen words not in dispute in ver. 2.—from which it is undeniable

that he omits them intentionally, knowing them to be there. As for

Victorinus (A.D. 290), his manner of quoting the beginning of St. Mark’s

Gospel is identical with Basil’s(612), and suggests the same observation.

If proof be needed that what precedes is the true account of the

phenomenon before us, it is supplied by Cyril of Jerusalem, with reference

to this very passage. He points out that “John was the end of the

prophets, for ‘All the prophets and the Law were until John;’ but the

beginning of the Gospel dispensation, for it says, ‘The beginning of the

Gospel of Jesus Christ,’ and so forth. John was baptizing in the

wilderness(613).” Cyril has therefore passed straight from the middle of

the first verse of St. Mark i. to the beginning of ver. 4: not, of course,

because he disallowed the eight and thirty words which come in between;

but only because it was no part of his purpose to quote them. Like

Serapion and Titus, Basil and Cyril of Jerusalem are in fact reproducing

Origen: but unlike the former two, the two last-named quote the Gospel

elliptically. The liberty indeed which the ancient Fathers freely

exercised, when quoting Scripture for a purpose,—of leaving out whatever

was irrelevant; of retaining just so much of the text as made for their

argument,—may never be let slip out of sight. Little did those ancient men

imagine that at the end of some 1500 years a school of Critics would arise

who would insist on regarding every irregularity in such casual appeals to

Scripture, as a deliberate assertion concerning the state of the text 1500

years before. Sometimes, happily, they make it plain by what they

themselves let fall, that their citations of Scripture may not be so dealt

with. Thus, Severianus, bishop of Gabala, after appealing to the fact that

St. Mark begins his Gospel by styling our Saviour Υἱὸς Θεοῦ, straightway

quotes ver. 1 without that record of Divine Sonship,—a proceeding which

will only seem strange to those who omit to read his context. Severianus

is calling attention to the considerate reserve of the Evangelists in

declaring the eternal Generation of Jesus Christ. “Mark does indeed say

‘Son of God’; but straightway, in order to soothe his hearers, he checks

himself and cuts short that train of thought; bringing in at once about

John the Baptist: saying,—‘The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ ...

as it is written in Isaiah the prophet, Behold,’ &c. No sooner has the

Evangelist displayed the torch of Truth, than he conceals it(614).” How

could Severianus have made his testimony more emphatic?

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

And now the reader is in a position to understand what Epiphanius has

delivered. He is shewing that whereas St. Matthew begins his Gospel with

the history of the Nativity, “the holy Mark makes what happened at Jordan

the introduction of the Gospel: saying,—The beginning of the Gospel ... as

it is written in Isaiah the prophet ... The voice of one crying in the

wilderness(615).” This does not of course prove that Epiphanius read ver.

1 differently from ourselves. He is but leaving out the one and twenty

words (5 in ver. 1: 16 in ver. 2) which are immaterial to his purpose. Our

Lord’s glorious designation (“Jesus Christ, the Son of God,”) and the

quotation from Malachi which precedes the quotation from Isaiah, stand in

this writer’s way: his one object being to reach “the voice of one crying

in the wilderness.” Epiphanius in fact is silent on the point in dispute.

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

But the most illustrious name is behind. Irenaeus (A.D. 170)

unquestionably read Υἱοῦ τοῦ Θεοῦ in this place. He devotes a chapter of

his great work to the proof that Jesus is the Christ,—very God as well as

very Man; and establishes the doctrine against the Gnostics, by citing the

Evangelists in turn. St. Mark’s testimony he introduces by an apt appeal

to Rom. i. 1-4, ix. 5, and Gal. iv. 4, 5: adding,—“The Son of God was made

the Son of Man, in order that by Him we might obtain the adoption: Man

carrying, and receiving, and enfolding the Son of God. Hence, Mark

says,—‘The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, as it

is written in the prophets(616).’ ” Irenaeus had already, in an earlier

chapter, proved by an appeal to the second and third Gospels that Jesus

Christ is God. “Quapropter et Marcus,” (he says) “interpres et sectator

Petri, initium Evangelicae conscriptionis fecit sic: ‘Initium Evangelii

Jesu Christi Filii Dei, quemadmodum scriptum est in Prophetis,’ &c.(617)”

This at all events is decisive. The Latin of either place alone survives:

yet not a shadow of doubt can be pretended as to how the man who wrote

these two passages read the first verse of St. Mark’s Gospel(618).

Even more interesting is the testimony of Victor of Antioch; for though he

reproduces Origen’s criticism, he makes it plain that he will have nothing

to say to Origen’s text(619). He paraphrases, speaking in the person of

the Evangelist, the two opening verses of St. Mark’s Gospel, as

follows!—“I shall make ‘the beginning of the Gospel’ from John: of the

Gospel, I say ‘of the Son of God:’ for so ‘it is written in the prophets,’

viz. that He is the Son of God.... Or, you may connect ‘as it is written

in the prophets’ with ‘Behold, I send my messenger’: in which case, I

shall make ‘the beginning of the Gospel of the Son of God’ that which was

spoken by the prophets concerning John.” And again,—“Mark says that John,

the last of the prophets, is ‘the beginning of the Gospel’: adding, ‘as it

is written in the prophets, Behold,’ &c., &c.(620)” It is therefore clear

how Victor at least read the place.

It is time to close this discussion. That the Codexes which Origen

habitually employed were of the same type as Cod. א,—and that from them

the words Υἱοῦ τοῦ Θεοῦ were absent,—is undeniable. But that is the sum of

the evidence for their omission. I have shewn that Serapion and Titus,

Basil and Victorinus and Cyril of Jerusalem, do but reproduce the teaching

of Origen: that Epiphanius delivers no testimony either way: while

Irenaeus and Severianus bear emphatic witness to the genuineness of the

clause in dispute. To these must be added Porphyry (A.D. 270)(621), Cyril

of Alexandria(622), Victor of Antioch, ps.-Athanasius(623), and

Photius(624),—with Ambrose (625), and Augustine(626) among the Latins. The

clause is found besides in all the Versions, and in every known copy of

the Gospels but three; two of which are cursives. On what principle

Tischendorf would uphold the authority of א and Origen against such a mass

of evidence, has never been explained. In the meantime, the disappearance

of the clause (Υἱοῦ τοῦ Θεοῦ) from certain of the earliest copies of St.

Mark’s Gospel is only too easily accounted for. So obnoxious to certain

precursors of the Gnostic sect was the fundamental doctrine which it

embodies, that St. John (xx. 31) declares it to have been the very purpose

of his Gospel to establish “that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God.”

What is more obvious than that the words at some very remote period should

have been fraudulently removed from certain copies of the Gospel?

APPENDIX V. THE SCEPTICAL CHARACTER OF B AND א.

The sceptical character of the Vatican and Sinaitic MSS. affords a strong

proof of the alliance between them and the Origenistic school. Instances

found in these Codexes may be classed thus:—

Note 1. The following instances are professedly taken from the

Gospels. Only a few are added from elsewhere.

Note 2. Other Uncials are also added, to indicate by specimens how

far these two MSS. receive countenance or not from other sources,

and also in part how far the same influence enter them.

I. Passages detracting from the Scriptural acknowledgement of the Divinity

of our Lord:—

Υἱοῦ τοῦ Θεοῦ omitted—St. Mark i. 1 (א*).

Ὁ Χριστὸς ὁ Υἱὸς ... τοῦ ζῶντος omitted—St. John vi. 69 (אBC*DL).

Κύριε omitted—St. Mark ix. 24 (אABC*DL).

Τοῦ Κυρίου Ἰησοῦ omitted—St. Luke xxiv. 3 (D).

Θεοῦ changed into Κυρίου—Acts xx. 28 (AC*DES).

Omission of faith in CHRIST. εἰς ἐμέ—St. John vi. 47 (אBLΓ).

Slur on efficacy of prayer through CHRIST:

Insert μέ—St. John xiv. 14 (אBEHUΓΔ).

Transfer ἐν τῷ ὀνόματί μου—St. John xxi. 23 (אBC*LXVΔ).

Omission of εὐθέως in the cure—St. Mark vii. 35 (אBDLWdΔ) Cf. St. Mark ii.

12.

Judgement-seat of GOD instead of CHRIST—Rom. xiv. 10 (א*ABC*D &c.).

Ὁ ὢν ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ omitted—St. John iii. 13 (אBLΓb).

Omission of Κύριε in penitent thief’s prayer—St. Luke xxiii. 42

(אBC*DLM*).

" " the Ascension in St. Luke, ἀνεφέρετο εἰς τὸν οὐρανόν—St. Luke

xxiv. 51 (א*D).

Insertion of οὐδὲ ὁ Υἱός from St. Mark xiii. 32 in St. Matt. xxiv. 36. Cf.

Basil to Amphilochius, iii. 360-2 (Revision Revised, p. 210,

note).

Omission of Θεός in reference to the creation of man—St. Mark x. 6

(אBCIΔ). Cf. St. Matt. xii. 30 (BD).

" " ἐπάνω πάντων ἐστίν—St. John iii. 31 (א*D).

" " ὁ Υἱός μένει εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα—St. John viii. 35 (אXΓ).

" " διελθὼν διὰ μέσον αὐτῶν, καὶ παρῆγεν οὕτως—St. John viii. 59 (אBD).

τὸν Υἱὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου for τ. Υ. τ. Θεοῦ—St. John ix. 35 (אBD).

Κυρίου for Θεοῦ—2 Pet. i. 1 (א).

Omission of ὅτι ἐγὼ ὑπάγω πρὸς τὸν Πατέρα—St. John xvi. 6 (אBD).

" " Κύριος—1 Cor. xv. 47 (א*BCD*EFG).

Ὅς for Θσς—1 Tim. iii. 16 (א, Revision Revised, pp. 431-43).

Ὅ for Ὅς—Col. ii. 10, making the Fulness of the GODHEAD the head of all

principality and power (BDEFG).

II. Generally sceptical tendency:—

N.B.—Omission is in itself sceptical.

Πνεῦμα Θεοῦ instead of τὸ Πνεῦμα τοῦ Θεοῦ—Matt. iii. 16 (אB). Cf. Acts

xvi. 7, τὸ Πνεῦμα Ιησοῦ for τὸ Πνεῦμα—אABC2DE2(627).

Γένεσις for γέννησις, slurring the Divine Birth—Matt. i. 18 (אBCPSZΔ).

Omission of the title of “good” applied to our LORD—Matt. xix. 16, 17

(אBDL).

" " the necessity of our LORD to suffer. καὶ οὕτως ἔδει—St. Luke xxiv.

46 (אBC*DL).

" " last Twelve Verses of St. Mark (אB).

Omission of passages relating to Everlasting Punishment (closely

Origenistic):

αἰωνίου ἁμαρτήματος for αἰων. κρίσεως—St. Mark iii. 29 (אBLΔ).

ἁμαρτίας (D)—ibid.

ὅπου ὁ σκώληξ αὐτῶν οὐ τελευτᾷ, καὶ τὸ πῦρ οὐ σβέννυται—St. Mark ix. 44,

46 (אBCLΔ).

" " the danger of rejecting our Lord—St. Matt. xxi. 44 (D).

" " καὶ πᾶσα θυσία ἁλὶ ἁλισθήσεται—St. Mark ix. 49 (אBLΔ).

" " the condemnation of Pharisaic treatment of widows—St. Matt. xxiii.

14 (אBDLZ).

" " καὶ τὸ βάπτισμα ὂ ἐγὼ βαπτίζομαι βαπτισθῆναι—St. Matt. xx. 22, 23

(אBDLZ).

" " αὐτῆς τὸν πρωτότοκον—St. Matt. i. 25 (אBZ).

" " the verse about prayer and fasting—St. Matt. xvii. 21 (א*B).

" " the words giving authority to the Apostles to heal diseases—St. Mark

iii. 15 (אBC*).

" " the forgiveness of sins to those who turn—St. Mark iv. 12 (אBCL).

" " condemnation of cities and mention of the Day of Judgement—St. Mark

vi. 11 (אBCDLΔ).

" " fasting—St. Mark ix. 29 (א*B).

" " taking up the Cross—St. Mark x. 21 (אBCDΔ).

" " the danger of riches—St. Mark x. 24 (אBΔ).

" " the danger of not forgiving others—St. Mark xi. 26 (אBLSΔ).

" " εὐλογημένη σὺ ἐν γυναιξίν—St. Luke i. 28 (אBL).

" " ἀλλ᾽ ἐπὶ παντὶ ῥήματι Θεοῦ—St. Luke iv. 4 (אBL).

" " ὁ διάβολος εἰς ὄπος ὑψηλόν—St. Luke iv. 5 (אBL).

" " ὕπαγε ὀπίσω μου, Σατανᾶ—St. Luke iv. 8 (אBDLΞ).

" " reference to Elijah’s punishment, and the manner of spirit—St. Luke

ix. 55, 56.

" " the saving effect of faith—St. Luke xvii. 19 (B).

" " the day of the Son of Man—St. Luke xvii. 24 (BD).

" " the descent of the Angel into Bethesda—St. John v. 3, 4 (אBC*D).

" " ἢν ἐγὼ δώσω—St. John vi. 51 (אBCLΔ).

III. Evincing a “philosophical” obtuseness to tender passages:—

Omissions in the records of the Institution of the Holy Sacrament: thus—

Φάγετε ... τὸ ... καινῆς—St. Mark xiv. 22-24 (אBCD).

καινῆς—St. Matt. xxvi. 27 (אB).

λάβετε, φάγετε ... κλώμενον—1 Cor. xi. 2-4 (אABC*).

Omission of Agony in the Garden and strengthening Angel—St. Luke xxii. 43,

44 (ABRT, first corrector).

" " First Word from the Cross—St. Luke xxiii. 34 (אaBD*).

Mutilation of the LORD’S Prayer—St. Luke xi. 2-4: i.e.

Omission of ἡμῶν ὁ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς (אBL).

" " γενηθήτω τὸ θέλημά σου, ὡς ἐν οὐρανῷ, καὶ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς (BL).

" " ἀλλὰ ῥῦσαι ἡμᾶς ἀπὸ τοῦ πονηροῦ (א*BL).

Omission of εἰκῆ—Matt. v. 22 (אB).

" " the verse telling of our LORD’S coming to save what was lost—St.

Matt. xviii. 11 (אBL*).

" " εὐλογεῖτε τοὺς καταρωμένους ὑμᾶς καλῶς ποιεῖτε τοὺς μισοῦντας

ὑμᾶς—St. Matt. v. 44 (אB).

" " the prophecy of being numbered with the transgressors—St. Mark xv.

28 (אABCet 3DX).

" " ἐν τῷ φανερῷ—St. Matt. vi. 6 (אBDZ).

" " reference to the last cry—St. Mark xv. 39 (אBL).

" " striking on the face—St. Luke xxii. 64 (אBLMTΦ).

" " triple superscription (γράμμ. Ἑλλην. κ. Ῥωμ. κ. Ἑβραϊκ.)—St. Luke

xxiii. 38 (BCL). So א* in St. John xix. 20-21.

" " καὶ ἀπὸ τοῦ μελισσίου κηρίου—St. Luke xxiv. 42 (אABDLΦ).

" " καὶ ἐζήτουν αὐτὸν ἀποκτεῖναι—St. John v. 15 (אBCDL).

λύσαντι for λούσαντι—Rev. i. 5 (אAC).

δικαιοσύνην for ἐλεημοσύνην—Matt. vi. 1 (א*et bBD).

IV. Shewing attempts to classicize New Testament Greek.

These attempts have left their traces, conspicuous especially for

omissions, all over B and א in a multiplicity of passages too numerous to

quote. Their general character may be gathered in a perusal of Dr. Hort’s

Introduction, pp. 223-227, from which passage we may understand how these

MSS. may have commended themselves at periods of general advancement in

learning to eminent scholars like Origen and Dr. Hort. But unfortunately a

Thucydidean compactness, condensed and well-pruned according to the

fastidious taste of the study, is exactly that which does not in the long

run take with people who are versed in the habits of ordinary life, or

with scholars who have been exercised in many fields, as was shewn by the

falling into disuse of Origen’s critical manuscripts. The echoes of the

fourth century have surely been heard in the nineteenth.

APPENDIX VI. THE PESHITTO AND CURETONIAN.

[The Rev. C. H. WALLER, D.D., Principal of St. John’s Hall, Highbury.]

A careful collation of the Curetonian Syriac with the Peshitto would I

think leave no doubt on the mind of any one that the Curetonian as

exhibited by Cureton himself is the later version. But in order to give

full effect to the argument it would be necessary to shew the entire

Curetonian fragment side by side with the corresponding portions of the

Peshitto. Otherwise it is scarcely possible to realize (1) how entirely

the one version is founded upon the other—(2) how manifestly the

Curetonian is an attempt to improve upon the other; or (3) how the

Curetonian presupposes and demands an acquaintance with the Gospels in

general, or with views of Gospel history which belong to the Church rather

than to the sacred text.

Even in those brief passages exhibited by Dr. Scrivener from both editions

this can be made out. And it is capable of still further illustration from

almost every page of Dr. Cureton’s book.

To take the fragments exhibited by Dr. Scrivener first. (_a_) In St. Matt.

xii. 1-4, where the Peshitto simply translates the Textus Receptus (not

altered by our Revisers), saying that the disciples were hungry “and began

to pluck ears of corn and to eat,” the Curetonian amends thus:—“and the

disciples were hungry and began to pluck ears of corn, and _break them in

their hands_, and eat,” introducing (as it frequently does, e.g. St. Matt.

iv. 11, “for a season”; St. Matt. iv. 21, “laying his hand”; St. Matt. v.

12, “your fathers”; St. Matt. v. 47, “what thank have ye?”) words borrowed

from St. Luke vi. 1.

But in the next verse of the passage, where the words “on the Sabbath,”

are absolutely required in order to make the Pharisees’ question

intelligible to the first readers of St. Matthew, “Behold, thy disciples

do what is not lawful to do on the Sabbath” (Textus Receptus and Peshitto;

not altered by our Revisers), the Curetonian must needs draw on the common

knowledge of educated readers by exhibiting the question thus, “Why are

thy disciples doing what is not lawful to do?” an abbreviated reading

which leaves us ignorant _what_ the action objected to might be; whether

to pluck ears in another man’s field, or to rub the grain from them on the

Sabbath day? On what possible ground can such emendations as this have the

preference of antiquity in their favour?

Again, the shewbread in ver. 4 of this passage is, not as we have it in

the Peshitto, “the bread of the table of the Lord,” [Syriac letters], a

simple phrase which everyone can understand, but the Old Testament

expression, “face-bread,” [Syriac letters], which exhibits the

translator’s knowledge of the earlier Scriptures, as do his emendations of

the list of names in the first chapter of St. Matthew, and, if I mistake

not, his quotations also.

(_b_) Or, to turn to St. Mark xvi. 17-20 (the other passage exhibited by

Dr. Scrivener). Both the Peshitto and Curetonian shew their agreement, by

the points in which they differ from our received text. “The Lord _Jesus_

then, after He had _commanded_ His disciples, _was exalted_ to heaven and

sat on the right hand of GOD”—is the Curetonian phrase. The simpler

Peshitto runs thus. “_Jesus_ the Lord then, after He had _spoken with

them_, ascended to heaven, and sat on the right hand of GOD.” Both alike

introduce the word “Jesus” as do our Revisers: but the two slight touches

of improvement in the Curetonian are evident, and belong to that aspect of

the matter which finds expression in the Creed, and in the obedience of

the Church. Who can doubt which phrase is the later of the two? A similar

slight touch appears in the Curetonian addition to ver. 17 of “them that

believe _on Me_” instead of simply “them that believe.”

The following points I have myself observed in the collation of a few

chapters of St. Matthew from the two versions. Their minuteness itself

testifies to the _improved_ character of the Curetonian. In St. Matt. v.

32 we have been accustomed to read, with our Text Received and Revised and

with all other authorities, “Whosoever shall put away his wife, except for

the cause of _fornication_.” So reads the Peshitto. But whence comes it

that the Curetonian Syriac substitutes here _adultery_ for fornication,

and thereby sanctions,—not the precept delivered by our Lord, but the

_interpretation almost universally placed upon it?_ How is it possible to

contend that here the Curetonian Syriac has alone preserved the true

reading? Yet either this must be the case, or else we have a deliberate

alteration of a most distinct and precise kind, telling us, not what our

Lord said, but what He is commonly supposed to have _meant_.

Not less curious is the addition in ver. 41, “Whosoever shall compel thee

to go a mile, go with him two _others_.” Our Lord said “go with him

twain,” as all Greek MSS. except D bear witness. The Curetonian and D and

some Latin copies say practically “go with him _three_.” Is this again an

original reading, or an improvement? It is no accidental change.

But by far the most striking ’improvements’ introduced by the Curetonian

MS. are to my mind, those which attest the perpetual virginity of our

Lord’s Mother. The alterations of this kind in the first chapter form a

group quite unique. Beginning with ver. 18, we read as follows:—

In the Peshitto and our _Greek_ In the Curetonian.

Text without any variation.

Ver. 16. “Jacob begat Joseph _the “Jacob begat Joseph _to whom was

husband of Mary_ of whom was born espoused_ Mary _the virgin_, which

Jesus, who is called Messiah.” bare Jesus _the Messiah_.”

Ver. 18. “Now the birth of Jesus “The birth of _the Messiah_ was

Christ was on this wise (Peshitto, thus.”

and Textus Receptus: Revised also,

but with some uncertainty).”

Ver. 19. “Joseph _her husband_ Ver. 19. “_Joseph_, because he was

being a just man,” &c. a righteous man,” &c. [there is no

Greek or Latin authority with Cn.

here].

Ver. 20. “Fear not to take unto ... “Mary _thine espoused_” (Cn.

thee Mary _thy wife_.” seems to be alone here).

Ver. 24. “Joseph ... did as the ... “and took _Mary_” (Cn. seems

Angel of the Lord had bidden him, alone in omitting “his wife”).

and took unto him _his wife_.”

Ver. 25. “And knew her not until “And purely dwelt with her until

she brought forth [her firstborn] a she bare _the_ son” (Cn. here is

son.” not alone except in inserting the

article).

The absolute omission from the Curetonian Syriac of all mention of Joseph

as Mary’s _husband_, or of Mary as his _wife_ is very remarkable. The last

verse of the chapter has suffered in other authorities by the loss of the

word “firstborn,” probably owing to a feeling of objection to the

inference drawn from it by the Helvidians. It seems to have been forgotten

(1) that the fact of our Lord’s being a “firstborn” in the Levitical sense

is proved by St. Luke from the presentation in the temple (see Neh. x.

36); and (2) that His being called a “firstborn” in no way implies that

his mother had other children after him. But putting this entirely aside,

the feeling in favour of Mary’s perpetual virginity on the mind of the

translator of the Curetonian Syriac was so strong as to draw him to _four

distinct and separate omissions_, in which he stands unsupported by any

authority, of the word “husband” in two places, and in two others of the

word “wife.”

I do not see how any one can deny that here we have emendations of the

most deliberate and peculiar kind. Nor is there any family of earlier

readings which contains them, or to which they can be referred. The fact

that the Curetonian text has some readings in common with the so-called

_western_ family of text (e.g. the transposition of the beatitudes in

Matt. v. 4, 5) is not sufficient to justify us in accounting for such

vagaries as this. It is indeed a “Western” superstition which has exalted

the Virgin Mary into a sphere beyond the level of all that rejoice in God

her Saviour. But the question here suggested is whether this way of

regarding the matter is truly _ancient_; and whether the MS. of an ancient

version which exhibits such singular phenomena on its first page is worthy

to be set above the common version which is palpably its basis. In the

first sentence of the Preface Dr. Cureton states that it was obtained from

a Syrian Monastery _dedicated to St. Mary Deipara_. I cannot but wonder

whether it never occurred to him that the _cultus_ of the Deipara, and the

taste which it indicates, may partly explain why a MS. of a certain

character and bias was ultimately domiciled there. [See note at the end of

this Chapter.]

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

Shall I be thought very disrespectful if I say that the study which I have

been able to devote to Dr. Cureton’s book has impressed me with a profound

distrust of his scholarship? “She shall _bare_ for thee a son,” says he on

the first page of his translation;—which is not merely bald and literal,

but absolutely un-English in many places.

In Matt. vi. in the first verse we have _alms_ and in the third

and fourth _righteousness_. An explanation.

In ver. 13 the Cn. has the _doxology_, but with _power omitted_,

the Peshitto _not_.

In ver. 17. Cn. _wash thy face_ and _anoint thy head_ instead of

our text.

In ver. 19. Cn. leaves out βρῶσις “rust” and puts in “where

_falleth_ the moth.”

In x. 42. The _discipleship_ instead of _disciple_.

In xi. 2. Of _Jesus_ instead of _Christ_.

In xiii. 6. Parable of Sower, a _Targum_-like alteration.

ver. 13 a _most important Targum_.

ver. 33 a _wise woman took and hid in meal_.

xiv. 13 leaves out “by ship,” and says “on foot,” where the

Peshitto has “on dry land,” an odd change, of an opposite kind to

some that I have mentioned.

In St. John iii. 6, Cn. has: “That which is born of the flesh is

flesh, _because of flesh it is born;_ and that which is born of

the Spirit is spirit, _because God is a spirit, and of God it is

born_.” And in ver. 8: “So is every one that is born _of water

and_ of the Spirit.” This is a _Targum_-like expansion: possibly

anti-Arian. See Tischendorf’s Gr. Test. _in loco_. All the above

changes look like deliberate emendations of the text.

[It is curious that the Lewis Codex and the Curetonian both break off from

the Traditional account of the Virgin-birth, but in opposite directions.

The Lewis Codex makes Joseph our Lord’s actual Father: the Curetonian

treats the question as described above. That there were two streams of

teaching on this subject, which specially characterized the fifth century,

is well known: the one exaggerating the Nestorian division of the two

Natures, the other tending in a Eutychian direction. That _two

fifth-century MSS. should illustrate these deviations_ is but natural; and

their survival not a little remarkable.]

APPENDIX VII. THE LAST TWELVE VERSES OF ST. MARK’S GOSPEL.

It would be a manifest defect, if a book upon Textual Criticism passing

under the name of Dean Burgon were to go forth without some reference to

the present state of the controversy on the subject, which first made him

famous as a Textual critic.

His argument has been strengthened since he wrote in the following ways:—

1. It will be remembered that the omission of the verses has been rested

mainly upon their being left out by B and א, of which circumstance the

error is mutely confessed in B by the occurrence of a blank space, amply

sufficient to contain the verses, the column in question being the only

vacant one in the whole manuscript. It has been generally taken for

granted, that there is nothing in א to denote any consciousness on the

part of the scribe that something was omitted. But a closer examination of

the facts will shew that the contrary is the truth. For—

i. The page of א on which St. Mark ends is the _recto_ of leaf 29, being

the second of a pair of leaves (28 and 29), forming a single sheet

(containing St. Mark xiv. 54-xvi. 8, St. Luke i. 1-56), which Tischendorf

has shewn to have been written not by the scribe of the body of the New

Testament in this MS., but by one of his colleagues who wrote part of the

Old Testament and acted as _diorthota_ or corrector of the New

Testament—and who is further identified by the same great authority as the

scribe of B. This person appears to have cancelled the sheet originally

written by the scribe of א, and to have substituted for it the sheet as we

now have it, written by himself. A correction so extensive and laborious

can only have been made for the purpose of introducing some important

textual change, too large to be effected by deletion, interlineation, or

marginal note. Thus we are led not only to infer that the testimony of א

is here not independent of that of B, but to suspect that this sheet may

have been thus cancelled and rewritten in order to conform its contents to

those of the corresponding part of B.

ii. This suspicion becomes definite, and almost rises to a certainty, when

we look further into the contents of this sheet. Its second page (28

_v__o_) exhibits four columns of St. Mark (xv. 16-xvi. 1); its third page

(29 _r__o_), the two last columns of St. Mark (xvi. 2-8) and the first two

of St. Luke (i. 1-18). But the writing of these six columns of St. Mark is

so spread out that they contain less matter than they ought; whereas the

columns of St. Luke that follow contain the normal amount. It follows,

therefore, that the change introduced by the _diorthota_ must have been an

extensive excision from St. Mark:—in other words, that these pages as

originally written must have contained a portion of St. Mark of

considerable length which has been omitted from the pages as they now

stand. If these six columns of St. Mark were written as closely as the

columns of St. Luke which follow, there would be room in them for the

omitted twelve verses.—More particularly, the fifth column (the first of

page 29 _r__o_) is so arranged as to contain only about five-sixths of the

normal quantity of matter, and the _diorthota_ is thus enabled to carry

over four lines to begin a new column, the sixth, by which artifice he

manages to conclude St. Mark not with a blank column such as in B tells

its own story, but with a column such as in this MS. is usual at the end

of a book, exhibiting the closing words followed by an “arabesque” pattern

executed with the pen, and the subscription (the rest being left empty).

But, by the very pains he has thus taken to conform this final column to

the ordinary usage of the MS., his purpose of omission is betrayed even

more conclusively, though less obviously, than by the blank column of

B(628).

iii. A further observation is to be noted, which not only confirms the

above, but serves to determine the place where the excision was made to

have been at the very _end_ of the Gospel. The last of the four lines of

the sixth and last column of St. Mark (the second column of leaf 29

_r__o_) contains only the five letters το γαρ ([ἐφοβοῦν]το γαρ), and has

the rest of the space (more than half the width of the column) filled up

with a minute and elaborate ornament executed with the pen in ink and

vermilion, the like of which is nowhere else found in the MS., or in the

New Testament part of B, such spaces being invariably left unfilled(629).

And not only so, but underneath, the usual “arabesque” above the

subscription, marking the conclusion of the text, has its horizontal arm

extended all the way across the width of the column,—and not, as always

elsewhere, but halfway or less(630). It seems hardly possible to regard

these carefully executed works of the pen of the _diorthota_ otherwise

than as precautions to guard against the possible restoration, by a

subsequent reviser, of a portion of text deliberately omitted by him (the

_diorthota_) from _the end_ of the Gospel. They are evidence therefore

that he knew of a conclusion to the Gospel which he designedly expunged,

and endeavoured to make it difficult for any one else to reinsert.

We have, therefore, good reason to believe that the disputed Twelve Verses

were not only in an exemplar known to the scribe of B, but also in the

exemplar used by the scribe of א; and that their omission (or, more

properly, disappearance) from these two MSS. is due to one and the same

person—the scribe, namely, who wrote B and who revised א,—or rather,

perhaps, to an editor by whose directions he acted.

2. Some early Patristic evidence has been added to the stores which the

Dean collected by Dr. Taylor, Master of St. John’s College, Cambridge.

This evidence may be found in a book entitled “The Witness of Hermas” to

the Four Gospels, published in 1892, of which § 12 in the Second Part is

devoted to “The ending of St. Mark’s Gospel,” and includes also quotations

from Justin Martyr, and the Apology of Aristides. A fuller account is

given in the Expositor of July 1893, and contains references to the

following passages:—Irenaeus iii. 11. 6 (quoting xvi. 19); Justin Martyr,

Trypho, § 138; Apol. i. 67; Trypho, § 85; Apol. i. 45; Barnabas, xv. 9;

xvi. 7; Quarto-deciman Controversy (Polycarp)? and Clement of Rome, i. 42.

The passages from Hermas are, 1. (xvi. 12-13) Sim. ii. 1, Vis. i. 1, iii.

1, iv. 1, and v. 4; 2. (xvi. 14) Sim. ix. 141 and 20. 4, Vis. iii. 8. 3,

iii. 7. 6; 3. (xvi. 15-16) Vis. iii, Sim. ix. 16, 25; 4. (xvi. 17-18) Vis.

iv, Mand. i, xii. 2. 2-3, Sim. ix. 1. 9, iii. 7, ix. 26, Mand. xii. 6. 2;

5. (xvi. 19-20) Vis. iii. 1. Some of the references are not apparent at

first sight, but Dr. Taylor’s discussions in both places should be read

carefully.

3. In my own list given above, p. 109, of the writers who died before A.D.

400, I have added from my two examinations of the Ante-Chrysostom Fathers

to the list in The Revision Revised, p. 421, the Clementines, four

references from the Apostolic Canons and Constitutions, Cyril of

Jerusalem, Gregory of Nyssa, the Apocryphal Acts of the Apostles, and two

references to the four of St. Ambrose mentioned in “The Last Twelve

Verses,” p. 27. To these Dr. Waller adds, Gospel of Peter, § 7 (πενθοῦντες

καὶ κλαίοντες), and § 12 (ἐκλαίομεν καὶ ἐλυπούμεθα), referring to the ἅπαξ

λεγόμενον, as regards the attitude of the Twelve at the time, in xvi. 10.

4. On the other hand, the recently discovered Lewis Codex, as is well

known, omits the verses. The character of that Codex, which has been

explained above in the sixth chapter of this work, makes any alliance with

it suspicious, and consequently it is of no real importance that its

testimony, unlike that of B and א, is claimed to be unswerving.

For that manuscript is disfigured by heretical blemishes of the grossest

nature, and the obliteration of it for the purpose of covering the vellum

with other writing was attended with circumstances of considerable

significance.

In the first chapter of St. Matthew, Joseph is treated as the father of

our Lord (vers. 16, 21, 24) as far as His body was concerned, for as to

His soul even according to teaching of Gnostic origin He was treated as

owing His nature to the Holy Ghost (ver. 20). Accordingly, the blessed

Virgin is called in the second chapter of St. Luke Joseph’s “wife,”

μεμνηστευμένη being left with no equivalent(631): and at His baptism, He

is described as “_being as He was called_ the son of Joseph” (St. Luke

iii. 23). According to the heretical tenet that our Lord was chosen out of

other men to be made the Son of God at the baptism, we read afterwards,

“This is My Son, My chosen” (St. Luke ix. 35), “the chosen of God” (St.

John i. 34), “Thou art My Son and My beloved” (St. Matt. iii. 17), “This

is My Son Who is beloved” (St. Mark ix. 7); and we are told of the Holy

Ghost descending like a dove (St. Matt. iii. 16), that It “_abode_ upon

Him.” Various smaller expressions are also found, but perhaps the most

remarkable of those which have been left upon the manuscript occurs in St.

Matt. xxvii. 50, “And Jesus cried with a loud voice, and _His Spirit went

up_.” After this, can we be surprised because the scribe took the

opportunity of leaving out the Last Twelve Verses of St. Mark which

contain the most detailed account of the Ascension in the Gospels, as well

as the καὶ ἀνεφέρετο εἰς τὸν οὐρανόν of St. Luke?

Again, at the time when the manuscript was put out of use, and as is

probable in the monastery of St. Catherine so early as the year 778 A.D.

(Introduction by Mrs. Lewis, p. xv), the old volume was pulled to pieces,

twenty-two leaves were cast away, the rest used in no regular order, and

on one at least, as we are told, a knife was employed to eradicate the

writing. Five of the missing leaves must have been blank, according to

Mrs. Lewis: but the seventeen remaining leaves contained passages of

supreme importance as being expressive of doctrine, like St. John i. 1-24,

St. Luke i. 16-39, St. Mark i. 1-11, St. Matt. xxviii. 8-end, and others.

Reading the results of this paragraph in connexion with those of the last,

must we not conclude that this manuscript was used for a palimpsest, and

submitted to unusual indignity in order to obliterate its bad record?

It will be seen therefore that a cause, which for unchallenged evidence

rests solely upon such a witness, cannot be one that will commend itself

to those who form their conclusions judicially. The genuineness of the

verses, as part of the second Gospel, must, I hold, remain unshaken by

such opposition.

5. An ingenious suggestion has been contributed by Mr. F. C. Conybeare,

the eminent Armenian scholar, founded upon an entry which he discovered in

an Armenian MS. of the Gospels, dated A.D. 986, where “Ariston Eritzou” is

written in minioned uncials at the head of the twelve verses. Mr.

Conybeare argues, in the Expositor for October, 1893, that “Ariston

Eritzou” is not the copyist himself, who signs himself Johannes, or an

Armenian translator, Ariston or Aristion being no Armenian name. He then

attempts to identify it with Aristion who is mentioned by Papias in a

passage quoted by Eusebius (H. E. iii. 39) as a disciple of the Lord. Both

the words “Ariston Eritzou” are taken to be in the genitive, as “Eritzou”

certainly is, and to signify “Of or by Aristion the presbyter,” this being

the meaning of the latter word. The suggestion is criticized by Dr. Ad.

Harnack in the Theologische Literaturzeitung, 795, where Dr. Harnack

pronounces no opinion upon the soundness of it: but the impression left

upon the mind after reading his article is that he is unable to accept it.

It is remarkable that the verses are found in no other Armenian MS. before

1100. Mr. Conybeare traces the version of the passage to an old Syrian

Codex about the year 500, but he has not very strong grounds for his

reasoning; and even then for such an important piece of information the

leap to the sub-Apostolic age is a great one. But there is another serious

difficulty in the interpretation of this fragmentary expression. Even

granting the strong demands that we may construe over the expression of

Papias, Ἀριστίων καὶ ὁ πρεσβύτερος Ἰωάννης, and take Aristion to have been

meant as a presbyter, and that according to the parallel of Aristion in

Eusebius’ history having been transliterated in an Armenian version to

Ariston, Aristion “the disciple” may be the man mentioned here, there is a

formidable difficulty presented by the word “Aristŏn” as it is written in

the place quoted. It ought at least to have had a long ō according to Dr.

Harnack, and it is not in the genitive case as “Eritzou” is. Altogether,

the expression is so elliptical, and occurs with such isolated mystery in

a retired district, and at such a distance of years from the event

supposed to be chronicled, that the wonder is, not that a diligent and

ingenious explorer should advocate a very curious idea that he has formed

upon a very interesting piece of intelligence, but that other Critics

should have been led to welcome it as a key to a long-considered problem.

Are we not forced to see in this incident an instance of a truth not

unfrequently verified, that when people neglect a plain solution, they are

induced to welcome another which does not include a tenth part of the

evidence in its support?

Of course the real difficulty in the way of accepting these verses as the

composition of St. Mark lies in the change of style found in them. That

this change is not nearly so great as it may appear at first sight, any

one may satisfy himself by studying Dean Burgon’s analysis of the words

given in the ninth chapter of his “Last Twelve Verses of St. Mark.” But it

has been the fashion in some quarters to confine ancient writers to a

wondrously narrow form of style in each case, notwithstanding Horace’s

rough Satires and exquisitely polished Odes, and Cicero’s Letters to his

Friends and his Orations and Philosophical Treatises. Perhaps the recent

flood of discoveries respecting early Literature may wash away some of the

film from our sight. There seems to be no valid reason why St. Mark should

not have written all the Gospel that goes by his name, only under altered

circumstances. The true key seems to be, that at the end of verse 8 he

lost the assistance of St. Peter. Before ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ, he wrote out St.

Peter’s story: after it, he filled in the end from his own acquired

knowledge, and composed in summary. This very volume may supply a

parallel. Sometimes I have transcribed Dean Burgon’s materials with only

slight alteration, where necessary imitating as I was able his style. In

other places, I have written solely as best I could.

I add two suggestions, not as being proved to be true, because indeed

either is destructive of the other, but such that one or other may

possibly represent the facts that actually occurred. To meet the charge of

impossibility, it is enough to shew what is possible, though in the

absence of direct evidence it may not be open to any one to advocate any

narrative as being absolutely true.

I. Taking the story of Papias and Clement of Alexandria, as given by

Eusebius (H. E. ii. 15), that St. Mark wrote his gospel at the request of

Roman converts, and that St. Peter, as it seems, helped him in the

writing, I should suggest that the pause made in ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ, so unlike

the close of any composition, of any paragraph or chapter, and still less

of the end of a book, that I can recollect, indicates a sudden

interruption. What more likely than that St. Peter was apprehended at the

time, perhaps at the very moment when the MS. reached that place, and was

carried off to judgement and death? After all was over, and the

opportunity of study returned, St. Mark would naturally write a

conclusion. He would not alter a syllable that had fallen from St. Peter’s

lips. It would be the conclusion composed by one who had lost his literary

illuminator, formal, brief, sententious, and comprehensive. The

crucifixion of the leading Apostle would thus impress an everlasting mark

upon the Gospel which was virtually his. Here the Master’s tongue ceased:

here the disciple took up his pen for himself.

II. If we follow the account of Irenaeus (Eus. H. E. v. 8) that St. Mark

wrote his Gospel—and did not merely publish it—after St. Peter’s death,

Dr. Gwynn suggests to me that he used his notes made from St. Peter’s

dictation or composed with his help up to xvi. 8, leaving at the end what

were exactly St. Peter’s words. After that, he added from his own stores,

and indited the conclusion as I have already described.

Whether either of these descriptions, or any other solution of the

difficulty, really tallies with the actual event, I submit that it is

clear that St. Mark may very well have written the twelve verses himself;

and that there is no reason for resorting to Aristion, or to any other

person for the authorship. I see that Mr. Conybeare expresses his

indebtedness to Dean Burgon’s monograph, and expresses his opinion that

“perhaps no one so well sums up the evidence for and against them” as he

did (Expositor, viii. p. 241). I tender to him my thanks, and echo for

myself all that he has said.

APPENDIX VIII. NEW EDITIONS OF THE PESHITTO-SYRIAC AND THE

HARKLEIAN-SYRIAC VERSIONS.

A book representing Dean Burgon’s labours in the province of Sacred

Textual Criticism would be incomplete if notice were not taken in it of

the influence exercised by him upon the production of editions of the two

chief Syriac Versions.

Through his introduction of the Rev. G. H. Gwilliam, B.D. to the late

Philip E. Pusey, a plan was formed for the joint production of an edition

of the Peshitto New Testament by these two scholars. On the early and

lamented death of Philip Pusey, which occurred in the following year, Mr.

Gwilliam succeeded to his labours, being greatly helped by the Dean’s

encouragement. He has written on the Syriac Canons of the Gospels; and the

nature of his work upon the Peshitto Gospels, now in the press, may be

seen on consulting his article on “The Materials for the Criticism of the

Peshitto New Testament” in the third volume of Studia Biblica et

Ecclesiastica, pp. 47-104, which indeed seems to be sufficient for the

Prolegomena of his edition. A list of his chief authorities was also

kindly contributed by him to my Scrivener, and they are enumerated there,

vol. II. pp. 12-13. The importance of this work, carried on successively

by two such accomplished Syriacists, may be seen from and will illustrate

the sixth chapter of this work.

In connexion with the Dean, if not on his suggestion, the late Rev. Henry

Deane, B.D., when Fellow of St. John’s College, Oxford, began to collect

materials for a new and critical edition of the Harkleian. His work was

carried on during many years, when ill-health and failing eyesight put a

stop to all efforts, and led to his early death—for on leaving New

College, after having been Tutor there for five years, I examined him then

a boy at the top of Winchester College. Mr. Deane has left the results of

his work entered in an interleaved copy of Joseph White’s “Sacrorum

Evangeliorum Versio Syriaca Philoxeniana”—named, as my readers will

observe, from the translator Mar Xenaias or Philoxenus, not from Thomas of

Harkel the subsequent editor. A list of the MSS. on which Mr. Deane based

his readings was sent by him to me, and inserted in my Scrivener, vol. II.

p. 29. Mr. Deane added (in a subsequent letter, dated April 16, 1894):—“My

labours on the _Gospels_ shew that the H[arkleian] text is much the same

in all MSS. The Acts of the Apostles must be worked up for a future

edition by some one who knows the work.” Since his lamented death, putting

a stop to any edition by him, his widow has placed his collation just

described in the Library of St. John’s College, where by the permission of

the Librarian it may be seen, and also used by any one who is recognized

as continuing the valuable work of that accomplished member of the

College. Is there no capable and learned man who will come forward for the

purpose?

GENERAL INDEX.

A.

A or Alexandrian MS., 24, 31, 57, 76, 175, 201, 213 note 2.

א or Sinaitic MS., 2, 24, 31, 32, 49, 57, 174, 219, 235;

six conjugate leaves, 52, 165, 233;

value, B-א, 55, 68-9;

history and character, 153, 160 &c, 233-5;

sceptical character, App. V. 287.

Acacius, 2, 155;

probably the scribe of B, 154.

Acta Philippi, 100-20.

Acta Pilati, 100-20.

Adamantius, copies of, 167.

_See_ Origen.

Alexander Alexandrinus, 100, 113, 119.

Alexandria, school of, 2, 122, 234.

Alexandrians and Egyptians, 113.

Alford, 171.

Ambrose, St., 101-20.

Ammonius, 11, 242.

Amphilochius, St., 101-20.

Anaphora Pilati, 112.

Antioch, early Church at, 123-4.

Antiquity, 29-31.

Aphraates, 103-14, 213 note 4;

witnesses to Peshitto, 130.

Apocryphal Acts of the Gospels, 103-15, 132.

Apollonides, 10.

Apostolic Canons and Constitutions, 100, 103-15, 119.

Apostolic Fathers, 99, 118.

Archelaus, 100, 105-13, 119, 130.

Arius, 110, 111, 114, 121.

Armenian Version, 23, 49, 136.

Asclepiades, 10.

Athanasius, 100, 103-15, 119, 121, 148, 235

note 1, 244.

Athenagoras, 99, 103, 115, 119.

Augustine, St., on Old-Latin Texts, 140-3;

canon of, 61 note, 198.

B.

B or Vatican MS., 2, 24, 31, 32, 49, 57, 174;

number of omissions, 78;

history and character, 153, 160 &c., 233-5;

sceptical character of, App. V. 287;

B and א, their value, 55, 68-89.

Barnabas, St., 104, 107.

Bartolocci, 157.

Basil, St., 97, 101, 107-15, 117, 197, 281-2.

Basilides, 3.

Bengel, 3.

Beratinus, Codex (Φ), 25, 26, 175.

Bethabara or Bethany, 88.

Beza, 3.

Bigg, Dr., 151.

Birch, 157.

Bobiensis (k), 137.

Bohairic Version, 23, 30, 49, 136, 149-50, and _passim_.

Brixianus (f), 137.

Burgon, Dean, Indexes of, Preface, 94;

addition by, to Greek MSS., 21 note 2.

Burkitt, Mr. F. C, 129 note 1.

C.

C or Parisian MS., 24, 31, 51, 57, 76, 175.

Caesarea (Turris Stratonis), library of, 2, 152, 163-5, 225, 274.

_See_ B and א.

Caesarea, School of, 121, 152-8.

Caesarea Philippi, our Lord’s stay at, 124.

Callixtus, 99, 120.

Candidus Arianus, 101, 113, 120.

Canon of the N.T., 10, 13-14, 161, 172;

settlement of the Canon followed by that of the Text, 173.

Celsus, 107.

Chase, Dr. F. H., 144. 176 note.

Chrysostom, St., 31, 161, 197.

Ciasca, Agostino, 132.

Claromontanus (h), 137.

Clemens Alex., 58, 62, 99, 103-15, 117, 121, 148, 149, 150, 234, 241, 246.

Clemens Rom., 105.

Clementines, 99, 105, 109, 111, 119.

Colbertinus (c), 137.

Complutensian edition, 3.

Concilia Carthaginiensia, 100, 108, 119.

Concordia discors, 17, 81-8.

Conflation, 80-1, 206-7, 227-9.

Consent without Concert, 17.

Constans, 163 note 3.

Constantine I, 160, 163 note 3.

Constantinople, Councils of, 173.

Constantius II, 160, 161 note 1.

Context, 61-5.

Continuity, 58-61.

Conybeare, Mr. F. C., 304-5, 307.

Cook, Canon, 163 note 4, 227.

Corbeiensis I, II, (ff1, ff2), 137.

Cornelius, 100, 119.

Corruption, pre-Evangelistic, 146.

Crawford, the Earl of, 129.

Critical copies, 36 note.

Curetonian Version, 31, 91;

date of, 123-34;

origin of text, 144 &c, 182 note 2;

218 note 11, and _passim_.

Curetonian and Peshitto, App. VI. 292.

Cursive MSS., 24, 51, 156-8, 196-223;

in relation to later Uncials, 199-203;

main body of, not a single copy, 223;

copied in part from papyrus, 235;

the first extant, 200.

Cyprian, St., 100, 103-15, 120.

Cyril of Alexandria, St., 31, 119, 247.

Cyril of Jerusalem, St., 101, 103-15, 282.

D.

D or Cod. Bezae, 24, 31, 51, 76, 126, 144, 175-95;

sympathy with Old-Latin MSS., 56.

D and E, Codd. of St. Paul, 54, 231.

Δ, Cod. Sangallensis, in St. Mark, 204.

Damascus, Early Church at, 122-4.

Deane, the late Rev. H., and Harkleian, App. VIII. 309.

Decapolis, 123 note.

Delicate expressions rubbed off in the old Uncials, 190.

Diatessarons, formerly abounded 252.

Didachè, 99, 103, 104.

Didymus, 101, 103-15, 119, 120.

Diez, Fried., 143 note.

Diodorus (Tarsus), 101, 120.

Diognetus, Epistle to, 99, 118.

Dionysius Alex., 100, 107, 110, 121, 148, 234.

Doctrine and the Text of N.T., connexion between, 173.

E.

E, Cod. of Gospels. 203.

E of Paul = D of Paul, 54, 231.

Edessa, 134.

Egyptian Versions, 31.

Elzevirs, 3.

Ephraem Syrus, St., 103, 107, 110, 112, 132, 243;

witnesses to Peshitto, 130.

Epiphanius, St., 101, 103-15, 117, 120, 133, 243, 283-4.

Erasmus, 3, 15.

Esaias Abbas, 101, 104. 120.

Ethiopic Version, 23, 49, 51, 136.

Eumenes II, 155.

Eunomius, 101.

Eusebian Canons, 242.

Eusebius (Caesarea), 2, 30, 31, 100, 103-15, 121, 133, 152, 162;

personally favoured the Traditional Text, 100, 121, 153;

probably not the scribe of B, 154;

latitudinarian, 154, 172;

on St. Mark xvi., 55, 58, 109, 242.

Eusebius (Emesa), 107.

Eustathius, 100, 114, 120.

Euthalius (Sulci), 164 note 2.

Evagrius Ponticus, 100, 110, 120.

Evan., 102 = B, 54.

F.

F of St. Paul, like G, 56.

Fathers, 19, 23, 26, 50, 52;

value of quotations by, 57-8, 97-8;

early, witness of, 94-122;

indexes to quotations in, by Dean Burgon, Pref., 94-5.

Faustinus, 101, 114, 120.

Ferrar group, 56, 114, 200, 235-6.

Firmicus Maternus, 100, 108, 119.

G.

G of St. Paul, like F, 56.

Genealogy, 229-37.

Genealogy, the, in St. Luke iii., 181-2.

Giles, Mr. H. A., 156 note.

Gothic Version, 23, 136.

Gregory, Dr. C. R., prolegomena, 160.

Gregory Nas., St., 101, 103-15, 117, 119, 197.

Gregory Nyss., St., 101, 103-15, 117, 120, 249 note, 260.

Gregory Thaumaturgus, St., 100, 110, 119, 130, 152.

Griesbach, 3, 117, 148.

Gwilliam, Rev. G. H., Pref.;

in Studia Biblica, 128, 129 note 1, 241 note;

editor of Peshitto, App. VIII. 308.

Gwynn, Rev. Dr., App. VII. 298-301, 306.

H.

H of St. Paul, 164.

Haddan, A. W., 174 note.

Harkleian Version, 49, 133-4;

new ed., App VIII. 309.

Harnack, Dr., 304-5.

Harris, Mr. J. Rendel, 144 note 1, 176.

Hedybia, 244.

Hegesippus, 99, 111, 118.

Heracleon. 10, 99, 121, 148.

Hermophilus, 10.

Herodotus, 155.

Hesychius, 243.

Hilary, St. (Poictiers), 104-15, 117, 119, 169.

Hill, Rev. J. Hamlyn, 133.

Hippolytus, St., 99, 104-15, 117, 119.

Hort, Dr., 4, 7, 95, 158, 176, 251, 291, and _passim_;

admissions of, 14;

involuntary witness of, 90-4;

inaccurate upon the early Fathers, 117, 121;

fancies of, 129 note 2;

B and א written at Rome, 165;

W.-Hort, 208 note 11;

on the Traditional Text, 221-2, 236;

on Genealogy, 230. _See_ Conflation.

I.

Internal Evidence, 65-7, 214-5.

Interpolations, 81.

Irenaeus, St., 98, 99, 103-15, 117, 119, 284.

Isaias. _See_ Esaias.

Itala, 143.

Ἰωάννης or Ἰωάνης, 87.

J.

Jacobites, 133.

Jacobus Nisibenus, 132.

Jerome, St., on Old-Latin Texts, 140-2, 244.

Jona and Jonah, 87.

Julius (Pope), 100, 120.

Julius Africanus, 100, 112, 121.

Justin Martyr, St., 30, 99, 103-15, 117, 119;

ps. Justin, 108, 111.

Juveneus, 100, 105, 110, 120.

L.

L or Regius, 4, 30, 32, 204.

Lachmann, 4, 90, 158, 225.

Lactantius, 100, 120.

Laodicea, Council of, 172.

Last Twelve Verses, i.e. of St. Mark, 55, 102, 232, App. VII. 298.

Latin MSS., Old, 4, 30, 31, 49, 51, 64, 126;

do not fall strictly into three classes, 136-9;

Wiseman’s theory of, false, 142;

did not come from one stem, 135-46;

influenced by Low-Latin dialects, 135-146;

derived much from Syrian pre-Evangelistic corruption, 144-6.

Lectionaries, 22 and note.

Letters in _Guardian_, Dean Burgon’s, 200 note 3.

Lewis Codex, 131-2, 134 note, 144, 302-3, and _passim_.

Libraries, destruction of, 174.

Library at Caesarea. _See_ Caesarea.

Low-Latin MSS., 122. _See_ Latin MSS.

Lucifer (Cagliari), 101, 103, 104, 114, 120.

M.

Macarius Alexandrinus, 100 note.

Macarius Magnes, 101, 106-12, 120.

Macarius Magnus or Aegyptius, 100, 104, 110, 115, 120.

Mai, Cardinal, editions of B, 75, 159.

Manuscripts, multitude of, 24-7, 19, 21 and note 2;

six classes of, 22 note;

kinds of, 24;

value of,53-6;

in profane authors, 21 note 1.

_See_ Papyrus, Vellum, Uncial, Cursive.

Marcion, 10, 97, 110, 111, 112.

Mariam and Mary, 84-6.

Maries, the, in N. T., 84-6.

Mark, St. _See_ Last Twelve Verses.

Maronite use of the Peshitto, 128.

Maunde Thompson, Sir E., Pref., 155-6, 158.

Melito, 131.

Menander, 10.

Methodius, 100, 106, 110, 117, 119, 131.

Mico, 137.

Migne’s edition of the Fathers, 96.

Mill, 3.

Miller’s Textual Guide, 3 note, 91 note.

Miller’s Scrivener (Plain Introduction, ed. 4), _passim_.

Ministry, our Lord’s, in the North and North-West, 123.

Monacensis (9), 137.

Monophysite use of the Peshitto, 128.

Monothelitism, condemned in 680 A.D., 173.

N.

Nemesius, 101, 120.

Neologian Text, 99, 103.

Nestorian use of Peshitto, 128.

Neutral Text (so-called), 4, 92.

Nicodemus, Gospel of, 107, 257.

Notes of Truth, seven, 29, 40-67.

Novatian, 100, 106, 114.

O.

Omissions, 81, 280-1, 291.

Optatus, 100, 108, 110, 120.

Origen, 2, 10, 31, 50, 51, 58, 100, 104-15, 117, 121, 122, 130, 162, 169,

242, 247, 255 note 6, 272, 280-1, 291;

his great influence, 162;

a Textual Critic, 149-54;

founder of the Caesarean school, 152-3, 162-5;

character, 152;

fancies, 169 note 2;

critical copies, 274-5.

Origenism, condemned in 553 A.D., 173.

Orthodox, the, 264.

P.

Φ. _See_ Beratinus.

Pacianus, 100, 103, 120.

Palatinus (e), 137.

Pamphilus, 2, 100, 115, 121, 152, 163-4.

Paper, first made in China, 156 note.

Papias, 99, 109, 118.

Papyrus MSS., 24, 154-8, 163, 201;

copying from, 2, 175, 235.

Parisian Codex. _See_ C.

Paul, St., 145.

Peshitto Version, 31, 91, 123;

antiquity of, 125-134, 210, 224;

Peshitto and Curetonian, texts of, App. VI. 292.

Peter (Alexandria), 100, 121, 148.

Peter, Gospel of, 99, 107, 111, 119.

Peter, St., App. VII. 306.

Philastrius, 101, 103, 120.

Phillips, Cod., 129 note.

Philo (Carpasus or Carpasia), 101, 103, 104, 107, 110, 120.

Philoxenian. _See_ Harkleian.

Polycarp, 103.

Pontianus, 99, 120.

Porphyry, 108.

Prior, Dr. Alexander, 156 note.

Pusey, P. E., Pref. and 129.

Q.

Q, Cod., 175.

Quaestiones ex Utroque Testamento, 101, 105-15, 120.

R.

R, Cod. of St. Luke (Cod. Nitriensis), 204 note.

Rabbūla, 133.

Recensions, phantom, 79, 91, 93, 121.

Rehdigeranus (1), 137.

Respectability. _See_ Weight.

Revision Revised, the, 91, 102, _passim_.

Revisers, 208 note 11, 212, 245.

Romance languages, origin of, 143.

Rossanensian Codex. _See_ Σ.

Rulotta, 157.

S.

Σ (Rossanensian), Cod., 25, 76, 175.