Sahidio (Thebaic) Version, 23, 136.
Sangallensia Fragmenta (n), 137.
Sangermanensis I (g2), 137.
Scholz, 4.
Scrivener, Dr, Pref., 5, 32, 135, 227, 231, 233, 272.
Seniores apud Irenaeum, 99, 118.
Serapion, 100, 109, 119.
Sinaitic MS. _See_ א.
Slavonic Version, 136.
Stephen, Rob., 3.
Synodical Letter, 100, 119.
Synodus Antiochena, 100, 105, 113, 119, 130.
Synoptic problem, 146.
Syria, rapid spread of the Church in, 123-4.
Syriac Canons, 109, 254 note.
Syriac Sections, 291.
Syriac Versions, 49, 123-34.
“Syrian,” an audacious nick-name, 91-2.
Syrio-Low-Latin Text, 135-47, 225;
intercommunication between Syria and Italy, 145-6.
T.
T, Cod., 204 note.
Tatian, 97, 103, 110.
Tatian’s Diatessaron, 126, 132-4, 242, 302 note.
Taylor, Rev. Dr., 300.
Tertullian, 99, 104-15, 120.
Testament of Abraham, 99, 104, 119.
Tests of Truth, seven, 24, 40-67.
Textual Criticism, 1-5;
importance of, Pref., 6 note.
Textus Receptus, origin of the name, 3;
character of, 5, 15-16, 30;
imperfect, 5.
Theodoret (Cyrrhus), 133, 134.
Theodoras Heracleensis, 100, 107, 114, 119.
Theodotus, 10, 113, 114.
Theognotus, 100, 121, 148.
Theophilus Antiochenus, 99, 120.
Theophylact, 49 note 1.
Tischendorf, 4, 5 note, 7, 9, 49 note, 98, 99, 136, 158, 160 note 2;
curious reasoning, 169 and note 1, 225.
Titus of Bostra, 101, 104-15, 119.
Tradition, nature of, 196-9, 224.
Traditional Text, character of, 5, 196-9;
founded upon the vast majority of authorities, 13;
relation to the Canon, 13-14, 32, 172-3, 197;
variously attested, 29, 40-7; dates
back to the earliest time, 90-147;
settled first, 173;
finally, 173;
mode of settlement, 198;
continuity of, 224;
history of, 236-7;
incontrovertible as a fact, 236.
U.
Uncials, 24, 51.
Uncials, later, 196-223. _See_ Cursives.
V.
Valentinians, 10, 30, 113.
Valentinus, 260.
Variety, 49-53.
Vatican MS. _See_ B.
Vellum, 154-8, 174.
Vercellensis (a), 137.
Veronensis (b), 137.
Versions, 19, 22, 26, 50, 52;
value of, 56.
Victor of Antioch, 284.
Victorinus (Afer), 101, 105, 108, 113, 114, 120.
Victorinus (Pettau), 101, 108, 109, 119.
Viennensium et Lugdunensium Epistola, 99, 118.
Vincentius, 109.
Vindobonensis (i), 137.
Vulgate, 30, 31, and _passim_.
W.
Waller, Rev. Dr. C. H., Pref., App. VI. 292-7, App. VII. 302.
Weight, 53-8, 77, 226.
Westcott, Bp. of Durham, 4;
on the Canon, 92.
Westcott and Hort, 226, 232.
Western Text, 135-47. _See_ Syrio-Low-Latin.
Wetstein, 3.
White, Rev. H. J., 139, 142.
Wiseman, Cardinal, 135, 143.
Woods, Rev. F. H., 130.
Wright, Dr. W., 129 note 2.
X.
Ξ, Cod. Zacynthius, 204
Ximenes, Cardinal, 3, 236.
Z.
Z, Cod. Dublinensis, 204 note 1.
Zeno, 101, 107, 114, 120.
INDEX II. PASSAGES OF THE NEW TESTAMENT COMMENTED ON.
St. Matthew:
i. 2-16 180-2
16, 18, 19, 20, 24, 25 295
18 192-3, 288
25 103, 138, 149, 289
ii. 23 177
iii. 16 288
iv. 11 293
13 177
17-22 211-3
21 293
v. 12 293
22 290
32, 41 294
44 103, 138, 149, 290
47 293
vi. 1 290
6 290
13 104, 138, 149
13, 17, 19 297
vii. 13-4 104, 138, 149
viii. 5-13 219-20
ix. 13 104, 138, 149
x. 8 51-2
42 297
xi. 2 297
2-3 63-4
27 105, 138, 149
xii. 1-4 292
30 288
xiii. 6, 13, 33 297
36 34 n. 2
xiv. 13 297
19 168
xv. 35 168
xvii. 21 62-3, 105, 138, 149, 289
22 55
xviii. 11 106, 138, 149, 290
xix. 16-7 78, 106, 138, 149, 259, 288
xx. 22-3 209-11, 289
28 178
44 289
xxiii. 14 289
38 106, 138, 149
xxiv. 36 288
xxvi. 32 187
34 140
35 140
39 140
71 190-1
xxvii. 34 253-8
46 30
xxviii. 2 107, 138, 149
19 108, 138, 149, 213 n.
St. Mark:
i. 1 166, 279-86, 287
2 108, 138, 149
11 140
14-20 211-13
28 176
45-ii. 1 176
ii. 12 287
13 177
17 104
27-8 176
iii. 16 289
26 177-8
29 289
iv. 1 179-80
12 289
vi. 11 289
22 66
33 80
vii. 35 287
viii. 6 168
7 82 n.
ix. 24 287
29 289
44-6 289
49 289
x. 6 288
17-8 259-78
23-4 213-14
24 289
38 209-11
xi. 26 289
xiii. 32 288
xiv. 22-4 290
28 187
72 187
xv. 23 253-4
28 290
39 80, 290
43 190
46 187
47-xvi. 7 184
xvi. 3, 4, 6 187
xvi. 7 187
9-20 109, 138, 149, 288, 293, 298-307
ST. LUKE:
i. 26 187
28 109, 138, 149, 289
41 187
60 187
64 176-7
65, 70, 71 174, 185
ii. 2 188 n.
14 110, 138, 149
39 177
iii. 23-38 180-2
iv. 4 289
5 289
8 289
31 177
37 176
v. 1-11 211-13
3 186
14-15 176
27 177
vi. 1 293
10 176
vii. 18 64
35 177
ix. 55-6 289
x. 12 176
25 140
41-2 110, 138, 149
xi. 2 177
2-4 84, 290
4 166
xiv. 8-10 178
22 191
xvi. 9 215-6
xvii. 2 194-5
19 289
24 289
xviii. 14 189, 193-4
18-19 259-78
xix. 25 189
27 178
37 65
42 217-9
xxi. 25 140
xxii. 43-4 110, 138, 149, 290
44 80
64 290
xxiii. 34 111, 138, 149, 290
38 111, 138, 150, 290
42 288
45 112, 138, 150
xxiv. 3 287
13 66
40 112, 139, 150
41-3 239-52
42 112, 139, 150, 290
46 288
51 288
ST. JOHN:
i. 3-4 113, 139, 150
9 140
18 113-4, 139, 150
27 166
28 88, 166
43 87
iii. 6 297
13 114, 139, 150, 288
31 288
v. 3-4 80, 82, 289
15 290
vi. 47 287
51 289
69 287
viii. 35 288
38-9 170-1
59 288
ix. 35 288
36 191
x. 14 115, 139, 150
xiv. 14 287
xvi. 6 288
xvii. 24 115, 139, 150
xix. 20-1 290
25 85 n. 3
29 253-4
xxi. 5-13 241-4
23 287
25 115, 139, 150
ACTS:
xvi. 7 288
xx. 28 287
xxiv. 23 146
ROMANS:
xiv. 10 288
1 COR.:
xi. 2-4 290
xvi. 47 288
2 COR.:
iii. 3 65
GAL.:
iii. 1 166-7
EPH.:
i. 1 166
v. 20 227-8
COL.:
ii. 10 288
1 TIM.:
iii. 16 288
HEB.:
iv. 2 48-9
2 PET.:
i. 1 288
REV.:
i. 5 290
FOOTNOTES
1 See Jerome, Epist. 34 (Migne, xxii. p. 448). Cod. V. of Philo has
the following inscription:—Εὐζόϊος ἐπίσκοπος ἐν σωματίοις
ἀνενέωσατο, i.e. transcribed on vellum from papyrus. Leopold Cohn’s
edition of Philo, De Opiticiis Mundi, Vratislaw, 1889.
2 See my Guide to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament, pp.
7-37. George Bell and Sons, 1886.
3 For an estimate of Tischendorf’s great labour, see an article on
Tischendorf’s Greek Testament in the Quarterly Review for July,
1895.
4 Dr. Hort’s theory, which is generally held to supply the
philosophical explanation of the tenets maintained in the school of
critics who support B and א as pre-eminently the sources of the
correct text, may be studied in his Introduction. It is also
explained and controverted in my Textual Guide, pp. 38-59; and has
been powerfully criticized by Dean Burgon in The Revision Revised,
Article III, or in No. 306 of the Quarterly Review, without reply.
5 Quarterly Review, July 1895, “Tischendorf’s Greek Testament.”
6 See Preface.
7 It is remarkable, that in quarters where we should have looked for
more scientific procedure the importance of the Textual Criticism of
the New Testament is underrated, upon a plea that theological
doctrine may be established upon passages other than those of which
the text has been impugned by the destructive school. Yet (_a_) in
all cases consideration of the text of an author must perforce
precede consideration of inferences from the text—Lower Criticism
must be the groundwork of Higher Criticism; (_b_) confirmatory
passages cannot be thrown aside in face of attacks upon doctrine of
every possible character; (_c_) Holy Scripture is too unique and
precious to admit of the study of the several words of it being
interesting rather than important; (_d_) many of the passages which
Modern Criticism would erase or suspect—such as the last Twelve
Verses of St. Mark, the first Word from the Cross, and the thrilling
description of the depth of the Agony, besides numerous others—are
valuable in the extreme; and, (_e_) generally speaking, it is
impossible to pronounce, especially amidst the thought and life
seething everywhere round us, what part of Holy Scripture is not, or
may not prove to be, of the highest importance as well as
interest.—E. M.
8 See below, Vol. II. throughout, and a remarkable passage quoted from
Caius or Gaius by Dean Burgon in The Revision Revised (Quarterly
Review, No. 306), pp. 323-324.
9 St. John xiv. 26.
10 St. John xvi. 13.
11 Rev. John Oxlee’s sermon on Luke xxii. 28-30 (1821), p. 91 (Three
Sermons on the power, origin, and succession of the Christian
Hierarchy, and especially that of the Church of England).
12 Westcott and Hort, Introduction, p. 92.
13 Ibid. p. 142.
14 Scrivener, Plain Introduction, ed. 4, Vol. I. pp. 75-76.
15 Of course this trenchant passage refers only to the principles of
the school found to fail. A school may leave fruits of research of a
most valuable kind, and yet be utterly in error as to the inferences
involved in such and other facts. Dean Burgon amply admitted this.
The following extract from one of the many detached papers left by
the author is appended as possessing both illustrative and personal
interest:—
“Familiar as all such details as the present must of necessity prove
to those who have made Textual Criticism their study, they may on no
account be withheld. I am not addressing learned persons only. I
propose, before I lay down my pen, to make educated persons,
wherever they may be found, partakers of my own profound conviction
that for the most part certainty is attainable on this
subject-matter; but that the decrees of the popular school—at the
head of which stand many of the great critics of Christendom—are
utterly mistaken. Founded, as I venture to think, on entirely false
premisses, their conclusions almost invariably are altogether wrong.
And this I hold to be demonstrable; and I propose in the ensuing
pages to establish the fact. If I do not succeed, I shall pay the
penalty for my presumption and my folly. But if I succeed—and I wish
to have jurists and persons skilled in the law of evidence, or at
least thoughtful and unprejudiced persons, wherever they are to be
found, and no others, for my judges,—if I establish my position, I
say, let my father and my mother’s son be kindly remembered by the
Church of Christ when he has departed hence.”
16 There are, however, in existence, about 200 MSS. of the Iliad and
Odyssey of Homer, and about 150 of Virgil. But in the case of many
books the existing authorities are but scanty. Thus there are not
many more than thirty of Aeschylus, and they are all said by W.
Dindorf to be derived from one of the eleventh century: only a few
of Demosthenes, of which the oldest are of the tenth or eleventh
century: only one authority for the first six books of the Annals of
Tacitus (see also Madvig’s Introduction): only one of the
Clementines: only one of the Didachè, &c. See Gow’s Companion to
School Classics, Macmillan & Co. 1888.
17 “I had already assisted my friend Prebendary Scrivener in greatly
enlarging Scholz’s list. We had, in fact, raised the enumeration of
‘Evangelia’ [copies of Gospels] to 621: of ‘Acts and Catholic
Epistles’ to 239: of ‘Paul’ to 281: of ‘Apocalypse’ to 108: of
‘Evangelistaria’ [Lectionary copies of Gospels] to 299: of the book
called ‘Apostolos’ [Lectionary copies of Acts and Epistles] to
81—making a total of 1629. But at the end of a protracted and
somewhat laborious correspondence with the custodians of not a few
great continental libraries, I am able to state that our available
‘Evangelia’ amount to at least 739: our ‘Acts and Cath. Epp.’ to
261: our ‘Paul’ to 338: our ‘Apoc.’ to 122: our ‘Evst.’ to 415: our
copies of the ‘Apostolos’ to 128—making a total of 2003. This shews
an increase of three hundred and seventy-four.” Revision Revised, p.
521. But since the publication of Dr. Gregory’s Prolegomena, and of
the fourth edition of Dr. Scrivener’s Plain Introduction to the
Criticism of the New Testament, after Dean Burgon’s death, the list
has been largely increased. In the fourth edition of the
Introduction (Appendix F, p. 397) the total number under the six
classes of “Evangelia,” “Acts and Catholic Epistles,” “St. Paul,”
“Apocalypse,” “Evangelistaria,” and “Apostolos,” has reached (about)
3,829, and may be reckoned when all have come in at over 4,000. The
separate MSS. (some in the reckoning just given being counted more
than once) are already over 3,000.
18 Evan. 481 is dated A.D. 835; Evan. S. is dated A.D. 949.
19 Or, as some think, at the end of the second century.
20 ACΣ (Φ in St. Matt.) with fourteen other uncials, most cursives,
four Old Latin, Gothic, St. Irenaeus, &c. &c.
21 See Vol. II.
22 All such questions are best understood by observing an illustration.
In St. Matt. xiii. 36, the disciples say to our Lord, “Explain to us
(φράσον ἡμῖν) the parable of the tares.” The cursives (and late
uncials) are all agreed in this reading. Why then do Lachmann and
Tregelles (not Tischendorf) exhibit διασάφησον? Only because they
find διασάφησον in B. Had they known that the first reading of א
exhibited that reading also, they would have been more confident
than ever. But what pretence can there be for assuming that the
Traditional reading of all the copies is untrustworthy in this
place? The plea of antiquity at all events cannot be urged, for
Origen reads φράσον four times. The Versions do not help us. What
else is διασάφησον but a transparent Gloss? Διασάφησον (elucidate)
explains φράσον, but φράσον (tell) does not explain διασάφησον.
23 Plain Introduction, I. 277. 4th edition.
24 It is very remarkable that the sum of Eusebius’ own evidence is
largely against those uncials. Yet it seems most probable that he
had B and א executed from the ἀκριβῆ or “critical” copies of Origen.
See below, Chapter IX.
25 Viz. 996 verses out of 3,780.
26 Miller’s Scrivener (4th edition), Vol. I. Appendix F. p. 397. 1326 +
73 + 980 = 2379.
27 Scrivener’s Introduction, Ed. iv (1894), Vol. II. pp. 264-265.
28 But see Miller’s edition of Scrivener’s Introduction, I. 397. App.
F, where the numbers as _now_ known are given as 73, 1326, 980
respectively.
29 Account of the Printed Text, p. 138.
30 This general position will be elucidated in Chapters IX and XI.
31 So also the Georgian and Sclavonic versions (the late Dr. Malan).
32 The Traditional view of the authorship of the Epistle to the Hebrews
is here maintained as superior both in authority and evidence to any
other.
33 א, 31, 41, 114.
34 Tischendorf wrongly adduces Irenaeus. Read to the end of III. c. 19,
§ 1.
35 Ap. Galland. vii. 178.
36 xii. 64 c, 65 b. Καὶ ὅρα τι θαυμαστῶς; οὐκ εἶπεν, οὐ συνεφώνησαν,
ἀλλ᾽, οὐ συνεκράθησαν. See by all means Cramer’s Cat. p. 451.
37 Ap. Cramer, Cat. p. 177. Οὐ γὰρ ἦσαν κατὰ τὴν πίστιν τοῖς
ἐπαγγελθεῖσι συνημμένοι; ὄθεν οὔτως ἀναγνωστέον, “μὴ
συγκεκερασμένους τῇ πίστει τοῖς ἀκουσθεῖσι.”
38 vi. 15 d. Ἄρα γὰρ ἔμελλον κατὰ τὸν ἴσον τρόπον συνανακιρνᾶσθαι τε
ἀλλήλοις, καθάπερ ἀμέλει καὶ οἶνος ὕδατι, κ.τ.λ. After this, it
becomes of little moment that the same Cyril should elsewhere (i.
394) read συγκεκραμένος ἐν πίστει τοῖς ἀκούσασι.
39 iii. 566. After quoting the place, Thdrt. proceeds, Τί γὰρ ὤνησεν ἡ
τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐπαγγελία τοὺς ... μὴ ... οἷον τοῖς τοῦ Θεοῦ λόγοις
ἀνακραθέντας.
40 ii. 234.
_ 41 Ap_. Oecum.
42 ii. 670.
43 From Dr. Malan, who informs me that the Bohairic and Ethiopic
exhibit “_their heart_ was not mixed with”: which represents the
same reading.
44 So Theophylactus (ii. 670), who (with all the more trustworthy
authorities) writes συγκεκραμένους. For this sense of the verb, see
Liddell and Scott’s Lex., and especially the instances in Wetstein.
45 Yet Tischendorf says, “Dubitare nequeo quin lectio Sinaitica hujus
loci mentem scriptoris recte reddat atque omnium sit verissima.”
46 See below, Chapter XI, where the character and authority of Cursive
Manuscripts are considered.
47 The evidence on the passage is as follows:—For the insertion:—
א* etc. BC*ΦΣDPΔ, 1, 13, 33, 108, 157, 346, and about ten more. Old
Latin (except f), Vulgate, Bohairic, Ethiopic, Hilary, Cyril Alex.
(2), Chrysostom (2).
Against:—
EFGKLMSUVXΓΠ. The rest of the Cursives, Peshitto (Pusey and Gwilliam
found it in no copies), Sahidic, Eusebius, Basil, Jerome,
Chrysostom, _in loc._, Juvencus. Compare Revision Revised, p. 108,
note.
48 By the Editor. See Miller’s Scrivener, Introduction (4th ed.), Vol.
I. p. 96, note 1, and below, Chapter IX.
49 Miller’s Scrivener, I. p. 176.
50 Ibid. p. 208.
51 Tregelles’ Printed Text, &c., p. 247.
52 Tischendorf, N. T., p. 322.
53 Tischendorf and Alford.
54 Burgon’s Last Twelve Verses, &c., pp. 38-69; also p. 267.
55 Ad Marinum. Ibid. p. 265.
56 Ibid. pp. 235-6.
57 Miller’s Scrivener, I. p. 181.
58 Ferrar and Abbott’s Collation of Four Important Manuscripts, Abbè
Martin, _Quatre MSS. importants_, J. Rendel Harris, On the Origin of
the Ferrar Group (C. J. Clay and Sons), 1893. Miller’s Scrivener, I.
p. 398, App. F.
59 See below, Chapter X. Also Mr. Rendel Harris’ “Study of Codex Bezae”
in the Cambridge Texts and Studies.
60 Last Twelve Verses of St. Mark, p. 21, &c.; Revision Revised, p.
297.
61 See more upon this point in Chapters V, XI. Compare St. Augustine’s
Canon: “Quod universa tenet Ecclesia nec conciliis institutum sed
semper retentum est, non nisi auctoritate Apostolica traditum
rectissime creditur.” C. Donatist. iv. 24.
62 See Revision Revised, pp. 91, 206, and below, Chapter V.
63 καθ᾽ ἰδίαν, ἐδυνήθημεν, τριημέρᾳ, ἀναστήσεται.
64 μετάβα ἔνθεν.
65 συστρεφομένων, ὀλιγοπιστίαν; omission of Ἰησοῦς, λέγει.
66 ὁ ἐρχόμενος, for which D absurdly substitutes ὁ ἐργαζόμενος, “he
that worketh.”
67 So, as it seems, the Lewis, but the column is defective.
68 Viz. Ver. 20, ἀπέστειλεν for ἀπέσταλκεν, אB; ἕτερον for ἄλλον,
אDLXΞ. Ver. 22, omit ὅτι, אBLXΞ; insert καὶ before κωφοί, אBDFΓΔ*Λ;
insert καὶ before πτωχοί, אFX. Ver. 23, ὂς ἂν for ὂς ἐάν, אD. Ver.
24, τοῖς ὄχλοις for πρὸς τοὺς ὄχλους, אD and eight others; ἐξήλθατε
for ἐξεληλύθατε, אABDLΞ. Ver. 25, ἐξήλθατε for ἐξεληλύθατε, אABDLΞ.
Ver. 26, ἐξήλθατε for ἐξεληλύθατε, אBDLΞ. Ver. 28, insert ἀμὴν
before λέγω, אLX; omit προφήτης, אBKLMX. Ver. 30, omit εἰς ἑαυτούς,
אD. Ver. 32, ἂ λέγει for λέγοντες, א*B. See Tischendorf, eighth
edition, _in loco_. The _Concordia discors_ will be noticed.
69 The explanation given by the majority of the Revisers has only their
English Translation to recommend it, “in tables that are hearts of
flesh” for ἐν πλαξὶ καρδίαις σαρκίναις. In the Traditional reading
(_a_) πλαξὶ σαρκίναις answers to πλαξὶ λιθίναις; and therefore
σαρκίναις would agree with πλαξὶ, not with καρδίαις. (_b_) The
opposition between λιθίναις and καρδίαις σαρκίναις would be weak
indeed, the latter being a mere appendage in apposition to πλαξί,
and would therefore be a blot in St. Paul’s nervous passage. (_c_)
The apposition is harsh, ill-balanced (contrast St. Mark viii. 8),
and unlike Greek: Dr. Hort is driven to suppose πλαξί to be a
“primitive interpolation.” The faultiness of a majority of the
Uncials is corrected by Cursives, Versions, Fathers.
70 “Inter plures unius loci lectiones ea pro suspecta merito habetur,
quae orthodoxorum dogmatibus manifeste prae ceteris favet.” N.T.
Prolegomena, I. p. lxvi.
71 See Hort’s Introduction, pp. 210-270.
72 I have retained this challenge though it has been rendered nugatory
by the Dean’s lamented death, in order to exhibit his absolute
sincerity and fearlessness.—E. M.
73 Here the Dean’s MS. ceases, and the Editor is responsible for what
follows. The MS. was marked in pencil, “Very rough—but worth
carrying on.”
74 See a passage from Caius quoted in The Revision Revised, p. 323.
Eusebius, Hist. Eccles. v. 28.
75 Hort, Introduction, p. 223.
76 See Appendix V, and below, Chapter IX.
77 As a specimen of how quickly a Cursive copy could be written by an
accomplished copyist, we may note the following entry from Dean
Burgon’s Letters in the Guardian to Dr. Scrivener, in a letter dated
Jan. 29, 1873. “Note further, that there is ... another copy of the
O.T. in one volume ... at the end of which is stated that Nicodemus
ὁ ξένος, the scribe, began his task on the 8th of June and finished
it on the 15th of July, A.D. 1334, working very hard—as he must have
done indeed.”
78 See below, Chapter VIII. § 2.
79 See Chapter VI.
80 See Chapter VII.
81 See next Chapter.
82 Another fragment found in the Dean’s papers is introduced here.
83 Here the fragment ends.
84 See Dr. Gwynn’s remarks which are quoted below, Appendix VII.
85 The Revision Revised, p. 423. Add a few more; see Appendix VII.
86 Dr. Gwynn, Appendix VII.
87 Another MS. comes in here.
88 The MS. ceases.
89 Hort, Introduction, pp. 95-99.
90 ו-צאו ללכת ארצה בנען ויבאו ארצה בנען׃
91 An instance is afforded in St. Mark viii. 7, where “the Five Old
Uncials” exhibit the passage thus:
A. και ταυτα ευλογησας ειπεν παρατεθηναι και αυτα.
א*. και ευλογησας αυτα παρεθηκεν.
א1. και ευλογησας ειπεν και ταυτα παρατιθεναι.
B. ευλογησας αυτα ειπεν και ταυτα παρατιθεναι.
C. και ευλογησας αυτα ειπεν και ταυτα παραθετε.
D. και ευχαριστησας ειπεν και αυτους εκελευσεν παρατιθεναι.
Lachmann, and Tischendorf (1859) follow A; Alford, and Tischendorf
(1869) follow א; Tregelles and Westcott, and Hort adopt B. They
happen to be all wrong, and the Textus Receptus right. The only word
they all agree in is the initial καί.
92 After this the MSS. recommence.
93 SΠ mark the place with asterisks, and Λ with an obelus.
94 In twelve, asterisks: in two, obeli.
95 The MS., which has not been perfect, here ceases.
96 In the Syriac _one_ form appears to be used for _all_ the _Marys_
([Syriac characters] Mar-yam, also sometimes, but not always, spelt
in the _Jerusalem Syriac_ [Syriaic characters] = Mar-yaam), also for
_Miriam_ in the O. T., for _Mariamne_ the wife of Herod, and others;
in fact, wherever it is intended to represent a Hebrew female name.
At Rom. xvi. 6, the Peshitto has [Syriaic characters] = Μαρία
obviously as a translation of the Greek form in the text which was
followed. (See Thesaurus Syriacus, Payne Smith, coll. 2225, 2226.)
In Syriac literature [Syriac characters] = Maria occurs from time to
time as the name of some Saint or Martyr—e.g. in a volume of Acta
Mart. described by Wright in Cat. Syr. MSS. in B. M. p. 1081, and
which appears to be a fifth-century MS.
On the hypothesis that Hebrew-Aramaic was spoken in Palestine
(_pace_ Drs. Abbot and Roberts), I do not doubt that _only one_ form
(cf. Pearson, Creed, Art. iii. and notes) of the name was in use,
“Maryam,” a vulgarized form of “Miriam”; but it may well be that
Greek Christians kept the Hebrew form Μαριαμ for the Virgin, while
they adopted a more Greek-looking word for the other women. This
fine distinction has been lost in the _corrupt_ Uncials, while
observed in the _correct_ Uncials and Cursives, which is all that
the Dean’s argument requires.—(G. H. G.)
97 The MSS. continue here.
98 LXX.
99 St. John xix. 25. As the passage is _syndeton_, the omission of the
καί which would be necessary if Μαρία ἡ τοῦ Κλωπᾶ were different
from ἡ ἀδελφὴ τῆς μητρὸς αἰτοῦ could not be justified. Compare,
e.g., the construction in the mention of four in St. Mark xiii. 3.
In disregarding the usage requiring exclusively either _syndeton_ or
_asyndeton_, even scholars are guided unconsciously by their
_English_ experience.—(ED.)
100 The genitive Μαρ᾽ας is used in the Textus Receptus in Matt. i. 16,
18; ii. 11; Mark vi. 3; Luke i. 41. Μαριάμ is used in the
Nominative, Matt. xiii. 55; Luke i. 27, 34, 39, 46, 56; ii. 5, 19.
In the Vocative, Luke i. 30. The Accusative, Matt. i. 20; Luke ii.
16. Dative, Luke ii. 5; Acts i. 14. Μαριάμ occurs for another Mary
in the Textus Receptus, Rom. xvi. 6.
101 Serapion, Bp. of Thmuis (on a mouth of the Nile) A.D. 340 (_ap._
Galland. v. 60 a).
102 Basil, i. 240 d.
103 Epiphanius, i. 435 c.
104 Chrysostom, iii. 120 d e; vii. 180 a, 547 e _quat._; viii. 112 a c
(nine times).
105 Asterius, p. 128 b.
106 Basil Opp. (i. Append.) i. 500 e (cf. p. 377 Monitum).
107 Cyril, iv. 131 c.
108 A gives Ιωνα; א, Ιωαννης; C and D are silent. Obvious it is that the
revised text of St. John i. 43 and of xxi. 15, 16, 17,—must stand or
fall together. In this latter place the Vulgate forsakes us, and אB
are joined by C and D. On the other hand, Cyril (iv. 1117),—Basil
(ii. 298),—Chrysostom (viii. 525 c d),—Theodoret (ii. 426),—Jo.
Damascene (ii. 510 e),—and Eulogius ([A.D. 580.] _ap._ Photium, p.
1612), come to our air. Not that we require it.
109 “_Araba_” (instead of “_abara_”) is a word which must have exercised
so powerful and seductive an influence over ancient Eastern
scribes,—(having been for _thirty-four centuries_ the established
designation of the sterile Wady, which extends from the Southern
extremity of the Dead Sea to the North of the Arabian Gulf)—that the
only wonder is it did not find its way into Evangelia. See Gesenius
on ערבה (Ἄραβα in the LXX of Deut. ii. 8, &c. So in the Revised O.
T.).
110 The MSS. have ceased.
111 See Appendix V.
112 See Preface.
113 This chapter and the next three have been supplied entirely by the
Editor.
114 See also Miller’s Textual Guide, chapter IV. No answer has been made
to the Dean’s strictures.
115 See Dr. Scrivener’s incisive criticism of Dr. Hort’s theory,
Introduction, edit. 4, ii. 284-296.
116 The Revision Revised, pp. 323-324, 334.
117 Yet Marcion and Tatian may fairly be adduced as witnesses upon
individual readings.
118 E.g. “Many of the verses which he [Origen] quotes in different
places shew discrepancies of text that cannot be accounted for
either by looseness of citation or by corruption of the MSS. of his
writings.” Hort, Introduction, p. 113. See also the whole passage,
pp. 113-4.
119 See Hort. Introduction, p. 160. The most useful part of Irenaeus’
works in this respect is found in the Latin Translation, which is of
the fourth century.
120 Or Magnus, or Major, which names were applied to him to distinguish
him from his brother who was called Alexandrinus, and to whom some
of his works have been sometimes attributed. Macarius Magnus or
Aegyptius was a considerable writer, as may be understood from the
fact that he occupies nearly 1000 pages in Migne’s Series. His
memory is still, I am informed, preserved in Egypt. But in some
fields of scholarship at the present day he has met with strange
neglect.
121 The names of many Fathers are omitted in this list, because I could
not find any witness on one side or the other in their writings.
Also Syriac writings are not here included.
122 See The Revision Revised, p. 123.
123 The Revision Revised, p. 92.
124 I have mentioned here only cases where the passage is quoted
professedly from St. Matthew. The passage as given in St. Mark x.
17-18, and in St. Luke xviii. 18-19, is frequently quoted without
reference to any one of the Gospels. Surely some of these quotations
must be meant for St. Matthew.
125 For the reff. see below, Appendix II.
126 Compare The Revision Revised, pp. 162-3.
127 For reff. see Vol. II. viii. For Mark i. 1, Υἱοῦ τοῦ Θεοῦ, see
Appendix IV.
128 The Revision Revised, pp. 423-440. Last Twelve Verses, pp. 42-51.
The latitudinarian Eusebius on the same passage witnesses on both
sides.
129 The Revision Revised, pp. 420-1; Last Twelve Verses, pp. 42-3.
130 The Revision Revised, pp. 79-82. The Dean alleges more than forty
witnesses in all. What are quoted here, as in the other instances,
are only the Fathers before St. Chrysostom.
131 Ibid. pp. 82-5.
132 The Revision Revised, pp. 61-65.
133 Ibid. pp. 90-1.
134 See below, Appendix I.
135 Many of the Fathers quote only as far as οὐδὲ ἕν. But that was
evidently a convenient quotation of a stock character in
controversy, just as πάντα δι᾽ αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο was even more commonly.
St Epiphanius often quotes thus, but remarks (Haer. II. (lxix.) 56,
Ancor. lxxv.), that the passage goes on to ὁ γέγονεν.
136 See The Revision Revised, p. 133.
137 Ibid. pp. 220-1.
138 Tischendorf quotes these on the wrong side.
139 The Revision Revised, pp. 217-8.
140 Ibid. pp. 23-4. See also an article in Hermathena, Vol. VIII., No.
XIX., 1893, written by the Rev. Dr. Gwynn with his characteristic
acuteness and ingenuity.
141 Hort, Introduction, pp. 128, 127.
142 Ibid. p. 113.
143 It may perhaps be questioned whether Justin should be classed here:
but the character of his witness, as on Matt. v. 44, ix. 13, and
Luke xxii. 43-44, is more on the Traditional side, though the
numbers are against that.
144 Athanasius in his “Orationes IV contra Arianos” used Alexandrian
texts. See IV.
145 According to Pliny (N. II. v. 18), the towns of Decapolis were: 1.
Scythopolis the chief, not far from Tiberias (Joseph. B. J. III. ix.
7); 2. Philadelphia; 3. Raphanae; 4. Gadara; 5. Hippos; 6. Dios; 7.
Pella; 8. Gerasa; 9. Canatha (Otopos, Joseph.); 10. Damascus. This
area does not coincide with that which is sometimes now marked in
maps and is part of Galilee and Samaria. But the Gospel notion of
Decapolis, is of a country east of Galilee, lying near to the Lake,
starting from the south-east, and stretching on towards the
mountains into the north. It was different from Galilee (Matt. iv.
25), was mainly on the east of the sea of Tiberias (Mark v. 20,
Eusebius and Jerome OS2. pp. 251, 89—“around Pella and
Basanitis,”—Epiphanius Haer. i. 123), extended also to the west
(Mark vii. 31), was reckoned in Syria (Josephus, passim, “Decapolis
of Syria”), and was generally after the time of Pompey under the
jurisdiction of the Governor of Syria. The Encyclopaedia Britannica
describes it well as “situated, with the exception of a small
portion, on the eastern side of the Upper Jordan and the sea of
Tiberias.” Smith’s Dictionary of the Bible, to which I am indebted
for much of the evidence given above, is inconsistent. The
population was in a measure Greek.
146 Εἰς τὰς κώμας Καισαρείας τῆς Φιλίππου. What a condensed account of
His sojourn in various “towns”!
147 See Ancient Syriac Documents relative to the Earliest Establishment
of Christianity in Edessa and the neighbouring countries, &c. edited
by W. Cureton, D.D., with a Preface by the late Dr. Wright, 1864.
148 Cureton’s Preface to “An Antient Recension, &c.”
149 Philip E. Pusey held that there was a revision of the Peshitto in
the eighth century, but that it was confined to grammatical
peculiarities. This would on general grounds be not impossible,
because the art of copying was perfected by about that time.
150 See Appendix VI.
151 This position is demonstrated in full in an article in the Church
Quarterly Review for April, 1895, on “The Text of the Syriac
Gospels,” pp. 123-5.
152 The Text of the Syriac Gospels, pp. 113-4: also Church Times, Jan.
11, 1895. This position is established in both places.
153 Yet some people appear to think, that the worse a text is the more
reason there is to suppose that it was close to the Autograph
Original. Verily this is evolution run wild.
154 Encyclopaedia Britannica, 9th ed., “Syriac Literature,” by Dr. W.
Wright, now published separately under the same title.
155 Dr. Scrivener, Introduction (4th Edition), II. 7.
156 See also Miller’s Edition of Scrivener’s Introduction (4th), II. 12.
157 Another very ancient MS. of the Peshitto Gospels is the Cod.
Philipp. 1388, in the Royal Library, Berlin (in Miller’s Scrivener
the name is spelt PHILLIPPS). Dr. Sachau ascribes it to the fifth,
or the beginning of the sixth century, thus making it older than the
Vatican Tetraevangelicum, No. 3, in Miller’s Scrivener, II. 12. A
full description will be found in Sachau’s Catalogue of the Syr.
MSS. in the Berlin Library.
The second was collated by Drs. Guidi and Ugolini, the third, in St.
John, by Dr. Sachau. The readings of the second and third are in the
possession of Mr. Gwilliam, who informs me that all three support
the Peshitto text, and are free from all traces of any pre-Peshitto
text, such as according to Dr. Hort and Mr. Burkitt the Curetonian
and Lewis MSS. contain. Thus every fresh accession of evidence tends
always to establish the text of the Peshitto Version more securely
in the position it has always held until quite recent years.
The interesting feature of all the above-named MSS. is the
uniformity of their testimony to the text of the Peshitto. Take for
example the evidence of No. 10 in Miller’s Scrivener, II. 13, No. 3,
in Miller’s Scrivener, II. 12, and Cod. Philipp. 1388. The first was
collated by P. E. Pusey, and the results are published in Studia
Biblica, vol. i, “A fifth century MS.”
158 Dr. W. Wright’s article in Encyclopaedia Britannica. Dr. Hort could
not have been aware of this fact when he spoke of “the almost total
extinction of Old Syriac MSS.”: or else he lamented a disappearance
of what never appeared.
159 p. 107.
160 See Patrologia Syriaca, Graffin, P. I. vol. ii. Paris, 1895.
161 See in St. Matt. alone (out of many instances) v. 22 (the
translation of εἰκῆ), ix. 13 (of εἰς μετάνοιαν), xi. 23 (“which art
exalted”), xx. 16 (of πολλοὶ γάρ εἰσι κλητοί, ὀλίγοι δὲ ἐκλεκτοί),
xxvi. 42 (ποτήριον), 28 (καινῆς); besides St. Luke ii. 14 (εὐδοκία),
xxiii. 45 (ἐσκοτίσθη), John iii. 13 (though “from heaven”), xxi. 25
(the verse).
162 Doctrine of Addai, xxxv. 15-17.
163 H. E. iv. 29.
164 Haer. xlvi. 1.
165 Canons.
166 Haer. i. 20.
167 The Earliest Life of Christ, Appendix VIII.
168 The MS. is mutilated at the beginning of the other three Gospels.
169 It appears almost, if not quite, certain that this is the true
meaning. Payne Smith’s Thesaurus Syriacus, coll. 3303-4.
170 The Lewis Codex was in part destroyed, as not being worth keeping,
while the leaves which escaped that fate were used for other
writing. Perhaps others were treated in similar fashion, which would
help to account for the fact mentioned in note 2, p. 129.
171 Plain Introduction, II. 43-44.
172 Essays on Various Subjects, i. Two Letters on some parts of the
controversy concerning 1 John v. 7, pp. 23, &c. The arguments are
more ingenious than powerful. Africa, e.g., had no monopoly of
Low-Latin.
173 The numerator in these fractions denotes the number of times
throughout the Gospels when the text of the MS. in question agrees
in the selected passages with the Textus Receptus: the denominator,
when it witnesses to the Neologian Text.
174 Once in k by _comperire_ probably a slip for _corripere_. Old Latin
Texts, III. pp. xxiv-xxv.
175 “Tot sunt paene (exemplaria), quot codices,” Jerome, Epistola ad
Damascum. “Latinorum interpretum infinita varietas,” “interpretum
numerositas,” “nullo modo numerari possunt,” De Doctrina Christiana,
ii. 16, 21.
176 De Doctr. Christ. ii. 16.
177 Scrivener’s Plain Introduction, II. 44, note 1.
178 See Diez, Grammatik der Romanischen Sprachen, as well as
Introduction to the Grammar of the Romance Languages, translated by
C. B. Cayley. Also Abel Hovelacque, The Science of Language, English
Translation, pp. 227-9. “The Grammar of Frederick Diez, first
published some forty years ago, has once for all disposed of those
Iberian, Keltic, and other theories, which nevertheless crop up from
time to time.” Ibid. p. 229. Brachet, Grammar of the French
Language, pp. 3-5; Whitney, Language and the Study of Language, pp.
165, &c., &c.
179 “Syro-Latin” is doubtless an exact translation of “Syro-Latinus”:
but as we do not say “Syran” but “Syrian,” it is not idiomatic
English.
180 This is purely my own opinion. Dean Burgon followed Townson in
supposing that the Synoptic Evangelists in some cases saw one
another’s books.
181 Isaiah xxxv. 8, 9.
182 Introduction, pp. 127, &c.
183 Probably Alexandrian reading.
184 Probably Alexandrian reading.
185 Probably Alexandrian reading.
186 Probably Alexandrian reading.
187 Probably Alexandrian reading.
188 Probably Alexandrian reading.
189 Probably Alexandrian reading.
190 Probably Alexandrian reading.
191 Probably Alexandrian reading.
192 In Matt. xv. 14, quoted and translated by Dr. Bigg in his Bampton
Lectures on The Christian Platonists of Alexandria, p. 123.
193 Burgon, Last Twelve Verses, p. 236, and note z.
194 Above, p. 100.
195 Hort, Introduction, p. 143.
196 Eusebius suggested the Homoean theory, but his own position, so far
as he had a position, is best indicated as above.
197 Sir E. Maunde Thompson, Greek and Latin Palaeography, p. 35. Plin.
at. Hist. xiii. 11.
198 τὰ βιβλία, μάλιστα τὰς μεμβράνας, 2 Tim. iv. 13.
199 Palaeography, p. 36.
200 See above, p. 2.
201 Palaeography, pp. 27-34. Paper was first made in China by a man
named Ts’ai Lun, who lived about A.D. 90. He is said to have used
the bark of a tree; probably Broussonetia papyrifera, Vent. from
which a coarse kind of paper is still made in northern China. The
better kinds of modern Chinese paper are made from the bamboo, which
is soaked and pounded to a pulp. See Die Erfindung des Papiers in
China, von Friedrich Hirth. Published in Vol. I. of the _T’oung Pao_
(April, 1890). S. J. Brille: Leide. (Kindly communicated by Mr. H.
A. Giles, H. B. M. Consul at Ningpo, author of “A Chinese-English
Dictionary.” &c., through my friend Dr. Alexander Prior of Park
Terrace, N. W., and Halse House, near Taunton.)
202 ... “the science of palaeography, which now stands on quite a
different footing from what it had twenty, or even ten, years ago.
Instead of beginning practically in the fourth century of our era,
with the earliest of the great vellum codices of the Bible, it now
begins in the third century before Christ....” Church Quarterly
Review for October, 1894, p. 104.
203 ... “it is abundantly clear that the textual tradition at about the
beginning of the Christian era is substantially identical with that
of the tenth or eleventh century manuscripts, on which our present
texts of the classics are based. Setting minor differences aside,
the papyri, with a very few exceptions, represent the same texts as
the vellum manuscripts of a thousand years later.” Church Quarterly,
pp. 98, 99. What is here represented as unquestionably the case as
regards Classical manuscripts is indeed more than what I claim for
manuscripts of the New Testament. The Cursives were in great measure
successors of papyri.
204 Introduction, p. 16. He began it in the year 1853, and as it appears
chiefly upon Lachmann’s foundation.
205 By the Editor.
206 Tischendorf’s fourteen brief days’ work is a marvel of accuracy, but
must not be expected to be free from all errors. Thus he wrongly
gives Ευρακυλων instead of Ευρακυδων, as Vercellone pointed out in
his Preface to the octavo ed. of Mai in 1859, and as may be seen in
the photographic copy of B.
207 Cf. Scrivener’s Introduction, (4th ed.) II. 283.
208 See Kuenen and Cobet’s Edition of the Vatican B, Introduction.
209 Gregory’s Prolegomena to Tischendorf’s 8th Ed. of New Testament, (I)
p. 286.
210 See Appendix V.
211 Constantine died in 337, and Constantius II reigned till 360.
212 In his Last Twelve Verses of St. Mark, pp. 291-4, Dean Burgon argued
that a lapse of about half a century divided the date of א from that
of B. But it seems that afterwards he surrendered the opinion which
he embraced on the first appearance of א in favour of the conclusion
adopted by Tischendorf and Scrivener and other experts, in
consequence of their identifying the writing of the six conjugate
leaves of א with that of the scribe of B. See above, pp. 46, 52.
213 The Revision Revised, p. 292.
214 The above passage, including the last paragraph, is from the pen of
the Dean.
215 See above, Introduction, p. 2.
216 It is remarkable that Constantine in his Semi-Arian days applied to
Eusebius, whilst the orthodox Constans sent a similar order
afterwards to Athanasius. Apol. ad Const. § 4 (Montfaucon, Vita
Athan. p. xxxvii), _ap._ Wordsworth’s Church History, Vol. II. p.
45.
217 See Canon Cook’s ingenious argument. Those MSS. are handsome enough
for an imperial order. The objection of my friend, the late
Archdeacon Palmer (Scrivener’s Introduction, I. 119, note), which I
too hastily adopted on other grounds also in my Textual Guide, p.
82, note 1, will not stand, because σωματία cannot mean “collections
[of writings],” but simply, according to the frequent usage of the
word in the early ages of the Church, “vellum manuscripts.” The
difficulty in translating τρισσὰ καὶ τετρασσά “of three or four
columns in a page” is not insuperable.
218 Scrivener, Vol. II. 269 (4th ed.).
219 Scrivener, Vol. I. 55 (4th ed.).
220 The colophon is given in full by Wilhelm Bousset in a number of the
well-known “Texte und Untersuchungen,” edited by Oscar von Gebhardt
and Adolf Harnack, entitled “Textkritische Studien zum Neuen
Testament,” p. 45. II. Der Kodex Pamphili, 1894, to which my notice
was kindly drawn by Dr. Sanday.
221 Miller’s Scrivener, I. 183-4. By Euthalius, the Deacon, afterwards
Bp. of Sulci.
222 Introduction, p. 267. Dr. Hort controverts the notion that B and א
were written at Alexandria (not Caesarea), which no one now
maintains.
223 By the Dean.
224 See Appendix IV, and Revision Revised, p. 132. Origen, c. Celsum,
Praef. ii. 4; Comment. in John ix. Followed here only by א*.
225 See Last Twelve Verses, pp. 93-99. Also pp. 66, note, 85, 107, 235.
226 Migne, viii. 96 d. Ταῦτα ἐγένετο ἐν Βηθανίᾳ. ὅσα δὲ τῶν ἀντιγράφων
ἀκριβέστερον ἔχει, ἐν Βηθαβαρᾷ, φησιν; ἡ γὰρ Βηθανία οὐχὶ πέραν τοῦ
Ἰορδάνου, οὐδὲ ἐπὶ τῆς ἐπήμου ἦν; ἀλλ᾽ ἐγγύς που τῶν Ἱεροσολύμων.
This speedily assumed the form of a _scholium_, as follows:—Χρὴ δὲ
γινώσκειν, ὅτι τὰ ἀκριβῆ τῶν ἀντιγράφων ἐν Βηθαβαρᾷ περιέχει; ἡ γὰρ
Βηθανία οὐχὶ πέραν τοῦ Ἰορδάνου, ἀλλ᾽ ἐγγύς που τῶν
Ἱεροσολύμων:—which is quoted by the learned Benedictine editor of
Origen in M. iv. 401 (at top of the left hand column),—evidently
from Coisl. 23, our Evan. 39,—since the words are found in Cramer,
Cat. ii. 191 (line 1-3).
227 Origen, i. 265; coll. 1. 227, 256.
228 Origen, Comment. in John vi.
229 The word is actually transliterated into Syriac letters in the
Peshitto.
230 See The Revision Revised, pp. 358-61.
231 vii. 52.
232 vii. 418.
233 A name by which Origen was known.
234 Imbecillitatem virium mearum sentiens, Origenis Commentarios sum
sequatus. Scripsit ille vir in epistolam Pauli ad Galatas quinque
proprie volumina, et decimum Stromatum suorum librum commatico super
explanatione ejus sermone complevit.—Praefatio, vii. 370.
235 iii. 509-10.
236 686-7.
237 vii. 117-20.
238 vii. 537 seq.
239 I endeavour in the text to make the matter in hand intelligible to
the English reader. But such things can scarcely be explained in
English without more words than the point is worth. Origen
says:—κἀκεῖ μὲν κελεύει τοὺς ὄχλους ἀνακλιθῆναι (Matt. xiv. 19), ἢ
ἀναπεσεῖν ἐπὶ τοῦ χόρτου. (καὶ γὰρ ὁ Λουκᾶς (ix. 14) κατακλίνατε
αὐτούς, ἀνέγραψε; καὶ ὁ Μάρκος (vi. 39), ἐπέταξε, φησίν, αὐτοῖς
πάντας ἀνακλῖναι;) ἐνθάδε δὲ οὐ κελεύει, ἀλλὰ παραγγέλλει τῷ ὄχλῳ
ἀνακλιθῆναι. iii. 509 f, 510 a.
240 The only other witnesses are from Evan. 1, 33, and the lost
archetype of 13, 124, 346. The Versions do not distinguish certainly
between κελεύω and παραγγέλλω. Chrysostom, the only Father who
quotes this place, exhibits ἐκέλευσε ... καὶ λαβών (vii. 539 c).
241 Lectio ab omni parte commendatur, et a correctore alienissima: βαψω
και δωσω ab usu est Johannis, sed elegantius videbatur βαψας επιδωσω
vel δωσω.
242 Luke iv. 8.
243 Πρὸς μὲν τὸν Πέτρον εἶπεν; ὕπαγε ὀπίσω μου, Σατανᾶ; πρὸς δὲ τὸν
διάβολον. ὕπαγε, Σατανᾶ, χώρις τῆς ὀπίσω μου προσθήκης; τὸ γὰρ ὀπίσω
τοῦ Ἰησοῦ εἶναι ἀγαθόν ἐστι. iii. 540. I believe that Origen is the
sole cause of the perplexity. Commenting on Matt. xvi. 23 υπαγε
οπισω μου Σατανα (the words addressed to Simon Peter), he explains
that they are a rebuke to the Apostle for having for a time at
Satan’s instigation _desisted from following Him_. Comp. (he says)
these words spoken to Peter (υπ. οπ. μου Σ.) with those addressed to
Satan at the temptation _without the_ οπισω μου “for to be _behind
Christ_ is a good thing.” ... I suppose he had before him a MS. of
St. Mat., _without_ the οπισω μου. This gloss is referred to by
Victor of Antioch (173 Cat. Poss., i. 348 Cramer). It is even
repeated by Jerome on Matt. vii. 21 d e: Non ut plerique putant
eâdem Satanas et Apostolus Petrus sententiâ condemnantur. Petro enim
dicitur, “_Vade retro me_, Satana;” id est “Sequere me, qui
contrarius es voluntati meae.” Hic vero audit, “_Vade Satana:_” et
non ei dicitur “_retro me_,” ut subaudiatur, “vade in ignem
aeternum.” _Vade Satana_ (Irenaeus, 775, also Hilary, 620 a). Peter
Alex, has υπαγε Σατανα, γεγραπται γαρ, ap. Routh, Reliqq. iv. 24 (on
p. 55). Audierat diabolus a Domino, _Recede Sathanas, scandalum mihi
es_. Scriptum est, _Dominum Deum tuum adorabis et illi soli
servies_, Tertullian, Scorp. c. 15. Οὐκ εἶπεν Ὕπαγε ὀπίσω μου; οὐ
γὰρ ὑποστρέψαι οἷός τε; ἀλλά; Ὕπαγε Σατανᾶ, ἐν οἶς ἐπελέξω.—Epist.
ad Philipp. c. xii. Ignat. Interpol. According to some Critics
(Tisch., Treg., W.-Hort) there is _no_ υπαγε οπισω μου Σ. in Lu. iv.
8, and _only_ υπαγε Σ. in Matt. iv. 10, so that υπαγε οπισω μου
Σατανα occurs in _neither_ accounts of the temptation. But I believe
υπαγε οπισω μου Σ. is the correct reading in _both_ places. Justin
M. Tryph. ii. 352. Origen interp. ii. 132 b (Vade retro), so
Ambrose, i. 671; so Jerome, vi. 809 e; redi retro S., Aug. iv. 47 e;
redi post me S., Aug. iii. 842 g. Theodoret, ii. 1608. So Maximus
Taur., Vigil. Tapa. Vade retro S. _ap._ Sabattier. “_Vade post me
Satana._ Et sine dubio ire post Deum servi est.” Et iterum quod ait
ad ilium, “_Dominum Deum tuum adorabis, et ipsi soli servies._”
Archelaus et Man. disput. (Routh, Reliqq. v. 120), A.D. 277. St.
Antony the monk, _apud_ Athanas. “_Vita Ant._” i. 824 c d (=
Galland. iv. 647 a). A.D. 300. _Retro vade Satana_, ps.-Tatian
(Lu.), 49. Athanasius, i. 272 d, 537 c, 589 f. Nestorius ap. Marium
Merc. (Galland. viii. 647 c) _Vade retro S._ but only _Vade S._
viii. 631 c. Idatius (A.D. 385) _apud_ Athanas. ii. 605 b. Chrys.
vii. 172 _bis_ (Matt.) J. Damascene, ii. 450. ps.-Chrys. x. 734,
737. Opus Imperf. ap. Chrys. vi. 48 _bis_. Apocryphal Acts, Tisch.
p. 250.
244 See ver. 44.
245 St. John viii. 40; xv. 15.
246 Orig., Euseb., Epiph., both Cyrils, Didymus, Basil, Chrysostom.
247 For the sceptical passages in B and א see Appendix V.
248 By the Editor.
249 Eusebius (Hist. Eccles. iii. 25) divides the writings of the Church
into three classes:—
1. The Received Books (ὁμολογούμενα), i.e. the Four Gospels, Acts,
the Fourteen Epistles of St. Paul, 1 Peter, 1 John, and the
Revelation (?).
2. Doubtful (ἀντιλεγόμενα), i.e. James, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, Jude
(cf. ii. 23 _fin._).
3. Spurious (νόθα), Acts of St. Paul, Shepherd of Hermas, Revelation
of St. Peter, Epistle of Barnabas, the so-called Διδαχαί, Revelation
of St. John (?).
This division appears to need confirmation, if it is to be taken as
representing the general opinion of the Church of the time.
250 See Westcott, Canon, &c. pp. 431-9.
251 See particularly Haddan’s Remains, pp. 258-294, Scots on the
Continent. The sacrifice of that capable scholar and excellent
churchman at a comparatively early age to the toil which was
unavoidable under want of encouragement of ability and genius has
entailed a loss upon sacred learning which can hardly be
over-estimated.
252 The reader is now in the Dean’s hands. See Mr. Rendel Harris’
ingenious and suggestive “Study of Codex Bezae” in the Cambridge
Texts and Studies, and Dr. Chase’s “The Old Syriac Element in the
Text of Codex Bezae.” But we must demur to the expression “Old
Syriac.”
253 Introduction, p. 149.
254 The same wholesale corruption of the deposit prevails in what
follows, viz. the healing of the paralytic borne of four (v. 17-26),
and the call of St. Matthew (27-34): as well as in respect of the
walk through the cornfields on the Sabbath day (vi. 1-5), and the
healing of the man with the withered hand (6-11). Indeed it is
continued to the end of the call of the Twelve (12-19). The
particulars are too many to insert here.
255 καθως ερεθη δια του προφητου, instead of ὅπως πληρωθῇ διὰ τῶν
προφητῶν.
256 Υμεις δε ζητειτε εκ μικρου αυξησαι, και εκ μειζονος ελαττον ειναι.
257 I.e. a b c d e ff1.2 g1.2 h m n.
258 Scrivener’s Introduction, I. 130 (4th ed.). The reader will
recollect the suggestion given above in Chapter VII that some of
these corruptions may have come from the earliest times before the
four Gospels were written. The interpolation just noticed may very
well have been such a survival.
259 The number of the generations in St. Luke’s Gospel is 18.
260 Num. xxxiii. coll. xxi. 18, 19 and Deut. x. 6, 7.
261 Note, that whereas the Ἰεχονίας of St. Matt. i. 11 is _Jehoiakim_,
and the Ἰεχονίας of ver. 12, _Jehoiachin_,—Cod. D writes them
respectively Ιωακειμ and Ιεχονιας.
262 Cureton’s Syriac is the only known copy of the Gospels in which the
three omitted kings are found in St. Matthew’s Gospel: which, I
suppose, explains why the learned editor of that document flattered
himself that he had therein discovered the lost original of St.
Matthew’s Gospel. Cureton (Pref., p. viii) shews that in other
quarters also (e.g. by Mar Yakub the Persian, usually known as
Aphraates) 63 generations were reckoned from Adam to JESUS
exclusive: _that_ number being obtained by adding 24 of St.
Matthew’s names and 33 of St. Luke’s to the 3 names common to both
Evangelists (viz. David, Salathiel, and Zorobabel); and to these,
adding the 3 omitted kings.
The testimony of MSS. is not altogether uniform in regard to the
number of names in the Genealogy. In the Textus Receptus (including
our SAVIOUR’S name and the name of the Divine AUTHOR of Adam’s
being) the number of the names is 77. So Basil made it; so Greg.
Naz. and his namesake of Nyssa; so Jerome and Augustine.
263 ἡ δὲ Μαρία (D—η) Μαγδαληνὴ καὶ Μαρία Ἰωσῆ (D Ιακωβου) ἐθεώρουν (D
εθεασαντο) ποῦ (D οπου) τίθεται (D τεθειται). Καὶ διαγενομένου τοῦ
σαββάτου, Μαρία ἡ Μαγδαληνὴ καὶ Μαρία ἡ τοῦ Ἰακώβου καὶ Σαλώμη (D
_omits the foregoing thirteen words_) (D + πορευθεισαι) ἠγόρασαν
ἀρώματα, ἵνα ἐλθοῦσαι (D—ελθουσαι) ἀλείψωσιν αὐτόν (D αυτ. αλειψ.)
καὶ (D + ερχορται) λίαν (D—λιαν) πρωῒ τῆς (D—της) μιᾶς σαββάτων (D
σαββατου) ἔρχονται (D _see above_) ἐπὶ τὸ μνημεῖον, ἀνατείλαντος (D
ανατελλοντος) τοῦ ἡλίου. καὶ ἕλεγον πρὸς ἑαυτὰς (D εαυτους), Τίς
ἀποκυλίσει ἡμῖν (D ημιον αποκ.) τὸν λίθον ἐκ (D απο) τῆς θύρας τοῦ
μνημείου? (D + ην γαρ μεγας σφοδρα). Καὶ ἀναβλέψασαι θεωροῦσιν (D
ερχονται και ευρισκουσιν) ὅτι ἀποκεκίλισται ὁ λίθος (D
αποκεκυλισμενον τον λιθον). ἦν γὰρ μέγας σφόδρα. (D _see above_.)
καὶ ... εἶδον νεανίσκον (D νεαν. ειδ.) καθήμενον.... καὶ
ἐξεθαμβήθησαν (D εθανβησαν). ὁ δὲ λέγει αὐταῖς (D και λεγει αυτοις)
(D + ο αγγελος). Μὴ ἐκθαμβεῖσθε (D φοβεισθαι) (D + τον) Ἰησοῦν
ζητεῖτε τὸν Ναζαρηνὸν (D—τον Ναζ.) ... ἴδε (D ειδετε) ὁ τόπος (D
εκει τοπον αυτον) ὅπου ἔθηκαν αὐτόν. ἀλλ᾽ (D αλλα) ὑπάγετε (D + και)
εἴπατε ... ὅτι (D + ιδου) προάγει (D προαγω) ὑμᾶς εἰς τὴν Γαλιλαίαν;
ἐκεῖ αὐτὸν (D μη) ὄψεοθε, καθὼς εἶπεν (D ειρηκα) ὑμῖν. St. Mark xv.
47-xvi. 7.
264 So for example at the end of the same passage in St. Luke, the
difficult αὕτη ἡ ἀπογραφὴ πρώτη ἐγένετο (ii. 2) becomes αυτη εγενετο
απογραφη πρωτη; ἐπλήσθησαν is changed into the simpler ετελεσθησαν;
φόβος μέγας (ii. 9) after ἐφοβήθησαν into σφοδρα; και (ii. 10) is
inserted before παντὶ τῷ λαῷ.
265 Yet not unfrequently the Greek is unique in its extravagance, e.g.
Acts v. 8; xiii. 14; xxi. 28, 29.
266 Cureton’s Syriac is closely allied to D, and the Lewis Codex less
so.
267 See b c e f ff2 i l q Vulg.
268 So b e g2 Curetonian, Lewis.
269 St. Chrysostom (vii. 84. d), Origen (iii. 902. d _int_.), Victor of
Antioch (335) insert the καί.
270 So too ἀνακειμένους (BCLΔ. 42) for συνανακειμένους (St. Mark vi.
26): omit δὲ (אBC*LΔ. six curs.) in καὶ ἄλλα δὲ πλοῖα (iv. 36):
ἐγείρουσιν (אB*C*ΔΠ. few curs.) for διεγείρουσιν (iv. 38): ἔθηκεν
(אBC2DL. few curs.) for κατέθηκεν (xv. 46): μέγαλα (א*etc 6BD*L) for
μεγαλεῖα (St. Luke i. 49): ἀναπεσών (אcBC*KLXΠ* few curs.) for
ἐπιπεσών (St. John xiii. 25): &c., &c.
271 Owing to differences of idiom in other languages, it is not
represented here in so much as a single ancient Version.
272 “_Est enim_ τοῦ ΓΑΡ _officium inchoare narrationem_.” Hoogeveen, De
Partic. Cf. Prom. Vinct. v. 666. See also St. Luke ix. 44.
273 Dem. Ev. 320 b.
274 ii. 597: 278.
275 i. 1040 b.
276 viii. 314 a: (Eclog.) xii. 694 d.
_ 277 Ap._ Cyril, v2. 28 a.
278 v1. 676 e.
279 30 b (=Gall. xiii. 109 d).
280 So, in Garnier’s MSS. of Basil ii. 278 a, note. Also in Cyril _apud_
Mai ii. 378.
281 So Mill, _Prolegg._ 1346 and 1363.—Beza says roundly, “_Quod
plerique Graeci codices scriptum habent_ ἢ γὰρ ἐκεινος, _sane non
intelligo; nisi dicam γάρ redundare._”
282 ἠπερ ἐκεῖνος is exhibited by the printed text of Basil ii. 278 a.
283 ὑπὲρ αὐτόν is found in Basil ii. 160 b:—ὑπὲρ ἐκεῖνον, in Dorotheus
(A.D. 596) ap. Galland. xii. 403 d:—ὑπὲρ τὸν Φαρισαῖον, in
Chrysostom iv. 536 a; vi. 142 d—(where one of the Manuscripts
exhibits παρὰ τὸν Φαρισαῖον).—Nilus the Monk has the same reading
(ὑπὲρ τὸν Φαρισαῖον),—i. 280.
284 Accordingly, παρ᾽ ἐκεῖνον is found in Origen i. 490 b. So also reads
the author of the scholium in Cramer’s Cat. ii. 133,—which is the
same which Matthaei (_in loc._) quotes out of Evan. 256. And so
Cyril (_ap._ Mai, ii. 180),—παρ᾽ ἐκεῖνον τὸν Φαρισαῖον.—Euthymius
(A.D. 1116), commenting on the traditional text of Luke xviii. 14
(see Matthaei’s _Praefat._ i. 177), says ΓΑΡ ὅ ἐκεῖνος ἢγουν οὐκ
ἐκεῖνος.
285 The μᾶλλον is obviously added by way of interpretation, or to help
out the meaning. Thus, in Origen (iv. 124 d) we meet with μᾶλλον
αὐτοῦ:—in Chrysostom (i. 151 c), μᾶλλον ὑπὲρ τὸν Φαρισαῖον: and in
Basil Sel. (p. 184 c), μᾶλλον ἢ ὁ Φαρισαῖος.
286 It is found however in ps.-Chrysostom (viii. 119 c):—in Antiochus
Mon. (p. 1102 = ed. Migne, vol. 89, p. 1579 c): and in Theophylact
(i. 433 c). At p. 435 b, the last-named writes ἢ ἐκεῖνος, ἀντὶ τοῦ
ΠΑΡ᾽ ὃ ἐκεῖνος.
287 Introduction, p. 135.
288 For all this section except the early part of “4” the Editor is
responsible.
289 See above, p. 61, note.
290 481 of the Gospels: from St. Saba, now at St. Petersburg.
291 The Evangelistaria 118, 192. Scrivener, Introduction, I. pp. 335,
340.
292 Scrivener, I. App. F, p. 398*. Of these, 205 and 209 are probably
from the same original. Burgon, Letters in _Guardian_ to Dr.
Scrivener.
293 I am not of course asserting that any known cursive MS. is an exact
counterpart of one of the oldest extant Uncials. Nor even that every
reading however extraordinary, contained in Codd. BאD, is also to be
met with in one of the few Cursives already specified. But what
then? Neither do any of the oldest Uncials contain all the textual
avouchings discoverable in the same Cursives.
The thing asserted is only this: that, as a rule, every principal
reading discoverable in any of the five or seven oldest Uncials, is
also exhibited in one or more of the Cursives already cited or in
others of them; and that generally when there is consent among the
oldest of the Uncials, there is also consent among about as many of
the same Cursives. So that it is no exaggeration to say that we find
ourselves always concerned with the joint testimony of the same
little handful of Uncial and Cursive documents: and therefore, as
was stated at the outset, if the oldest of the Uncials had never
existed, the readings which they advocate would have been advocated
by MSS. of the eleventh, twelfth, thirteenth, and fourteenth
centuries.
_ 294 Manuscript Evangelia in foreign Libraries_, Letters in the
_Guardian_ from Dean Burgon to Dr. Scrivener, _Guardian_, Jan. 29,
1873. “You will not be dating it too early if you assign it to the
seventh century.”
295 The other uncials which have a tendency to consort with B and א are
of earlier date. Thus T (Codex Borgianus I) of St. Luke and St. John
is of the fourth or fifth century, R of St. Luke (Codex Nitriensis
in the British Museum) is of the end of the sixth, Z of St. Matthew
(Codex Dublinensis), a palimpsest, is of the sixth: Q and P,
fragments like the rest, are respectively of the fifth and sixth.
296 By the Editor.
297 Above, pp. 80-81.
298 Hort, Introduction, p. 135.
299 Chapters V, VI, VII.
300 Vercell.:—_Si scires tu, quamquam in hac tuâ die, quae ad pacem
tuam._ So Amiat. and Aur.:—_Si cognovisses et tu, et quidem in hâc
die tuâ, quae ad pacem tibi._
301 Mai, iv. 129.
302 Ibid., and H. E. iii. 7.
303 Montf. ii. 470.
304 Montf. i. 700.
305 iii. 321; _interp._ 977; iv. 180.
306 i. 220: also the _Vet. interp._, “Si cognovisses et tu.” And so _ap.
Epiph._ i. 254 b.
307 iii. 321, 977.
_ 308 Evan. Conc._ 184, 207.
309 In all 5 places.
_ 310 Mor._ ii. 272 b.
311 205.
_ 312 In Luc._ (Syr.) 686.
_ 313 Int._ iii. 977.
314 iv. 180.
_ 315 In Luc._ (Syr.) 607.
316 In their usual high-handed way, these editors _assume, without note
or comment_, that Bא are to be followed here. The “Revisers” of 1881
_do the same_. Is this to deal honestly with the evidence and with
the English reader?
317 Viz.—εἰ ἔγνως τὰ πρὸς εἰρήνην σου, καί γε ἐν τῇ ἡμέρᾳ σου ταύτῃ.
318 Viz.—εἰ καὶ ἐν τῇ ἡμέρᾳ ταύτῃ ἔγνως τὴν εἰρήνην σου.
319 It is omitted by Eus. iv. 129, Basil ii. 272, Cod. A, Evann. 71,
511, Evst. 222, 259. For the second σου still fewer authorities
exhibit σοι, while some few (as Irenaeus) omit it altogether.
320 “_Hanc diem tuam._ Si ergo dies ejus erat, quanto magis et tempus
ejus!” p. 184, and so 207.
321 “Having been wholly unsuccessful [in their fishing], two of them,
seated on the shore, were occupying their time in washing,—and two,
seated in their boat ... were mending—their nets.” (Farrar’s Life of
Christ, i. 241-2.) The footnote appended to this “attempt to combine
_as far as it is possible_ in one continuous narrative” the
“accounts of the Synoptists,” is quite a curiosity.
322 St. Luke v. 5.
323 Ibid., verses 1, 2.
324 St. Matt. iv. 18-St. Mark i. 16.
325 St. Luke v. 3.
326 As in St. Matt, xxvii. 2, 60; St. Luke v. 4; xiii. 16; St. John
xviii. 24; xxi. 15; Acts xii. 17; Heb. iv. 8, &c., &c.
_ 327 lavabant retia_, it. vulg. The one known exception is (1) the Cod.
Rehdigeranus [VII] (Tischendorf).
328 The same pair of authorities are _unique_ in substituting
βαπτίσαντες (for βαπτίζοντες) in St. Matt. xxviii. 19; i.e. the
Apostles were to baptize people first, and make them disciples
afterwards.
329 אC exhibit ἔπλυναν: A (by far the purest of the five “old uncials”)
retains the traditional text.
330 P. 938.
331 So does Aphraates, a contemporary of B and א, p. 392.
332 Gen. xxv. 8, 17; xxxv. 29; xlix. 33. Also Jer. xlii. 17, 22; Lament.
i. 20; Job xiii. 19; Ps. ciii. 30.
333 268, 661.
334 942, 953 (Lat Tr.).
335 162, 338 (Lat. Tr.), 666.
_ 336 ap._ Phot. 791.
337 i. 353.
338 iii. 120.
339 i. 861.
340 280.
341 i. 920; iii. 344; iv. 27; vi. 606.
342 vi. 520.
343 i. 859 b.
344 3. 772.
345 Mai, 2.
346 i. 517.
347 388.
348 In one place of the Syriac version of his Homilies on St. Luke (Luc.
110), the reading is plainly ἵνα ὅταν ἐκλίπητε: but when the Greek
of the same passage is exhibited by Mai (ii. 196, line 28-38) it is
observed to be destitute of the disputed clause. On the other hand,
at p. 512 of the Syriac, the reading is ἐκλίπῃ. But then the entire
quotation is absent from the Greek original (Mai, ii. 349, line 11
from bottom). In Mai, ii. 380, Cyril’s reading is certainly
ἐκλίπητε.
349 Eus.mare 330, -ps 251 (—πᾶσαν).
350 Cyrhr 270.
351 e, _inducet vobis veritatem omnem:_ m, _disseret vobis omnem
veritatem_.
_ 352 docebit vos omnem veritatem_ (ii. 301).
353 Cod. _am._ (which exhibits _docebit vos in omnem_, &c.) clearly
confuses two distinct types.
354 א om. πάσῃ.
355 Cyr. Alex. iv. 347; v. 369, 593.
356 D, ἐκεῖνος ὑμᾶς ὁδηγήσει ἐν τῇ ἀληθείᾳ πάσῃ.
357 So Cod. b, _deducet vos in veritate omni_. Cod. c, _docebit vos in
veritate omni_.
358 Did. 278, 446, 388 (προσ), 443 (—την).
359 Epiph. i. 898; ii. 78.
360 Bas. iii. 42 (προσ): and so Evan. 249. Codd. of Cyril Alex. (ἐπί).
361 Chrys. viii. 527: also 460, 461 (—την).
362 Theod.ant 541, _ap._ Wegn.
363 Cyr. Alex.txt iv. 923: v. 628.
364 Thdt. iii. 15 (ἐκεῖ. ος ὑμ. ὁδ.).
365 Tert. i. 762, 765, 884; ii. 11, 21. Hil. 805, 959. Jer. ii. 140.
141. There are many lesser variants:—“(diriget vos Tert. i. 884,
deducet vos Tert. ii. 21, Vercell. vos deducet; i. 762 vos ducet:
Hil. 805, vos diriget) in omnem veritatem.” Some few (as D, Tert. i.
762; ii. 21. Cod. a, Did. 388. Thdrt. iii. 15) prefix ἐκεῖνος.
366 Pet. Alex. _ap._ Routh, p. 9.
367 Did. 55.
368 Orig. i. 387, 388.
369 Cyr. Alex. iv. 925, 986.
370 εἰς τὴν ἁλήθ. πᾶσαν L., Tr., W.-H.: ἐν τῇ ἁληθ. πάσῃ T.
371 Introduction, p. 135. The rest of his judgement is unfounded in
fact. Constant and careful study combined with subtle appreciation
will not reveal “feebleness” or “impoverishment” either in “sense”
or “force.”
372 These are the Dean’s words to the end of the paragraph.
373 Revised Version, &c., pp. 205-218.
374 Introduction, i. 292-93.
375 Ephes. v. 30.
376 718 (Mass. 294), Gr. and Lat.
_ 377 In loc._ ed. Swete, Gr. and Lat.
378 i. 95, 267.
379 iii. 215 b, 216 a; viii. 272 c; xi. 147 a b c d.
_ 380 Ap._ Cramer, vi. 205, 208.
381 iii. 434.
382 (A.D. 560), 1004 a, 1007 a.
383 ii. 190 e.
384 Rufinus (iii. 61 c) translates,—“quia membra sumus corporis ejus,
_et reliqua_.” What else can this refer to but the very words in
dispute?
_ 385 Ap._ Galland. iii. 688 c:—ὅθεν ὁ Ἀπόστολος εὐθυβόλως εἰς Χριστὸν
ἀνηκόντισε τὰ κατὰ τὸν Ἀδάμ; οὕτως γὰρ ἂν μάλιστα ἐκ τῶν ὀστῶν αὐτοῦ
καὶ τῆς σαρκὸς τὴν ἐκκλησίαν συμφωνήσει γεγονέναι. And lower down
(e, and 689 a):—ὅπως αὐξηθῶσιν οἱ ἐν αὐτῷ οἰκοδομηθέντες ἅπαντες, οἱ
γεγεννημένοι διὰ τοῦ λουτροῦ, ἐκ τῶν ὀστῶν καὶ ἐκ τῆς σαρκός,
τουτέστιν ἐκ τῆς ἁγιωσύνης αὐτοῦ, καὶ ἐκ τῆς δόξης προσειληφότες;
ὀστᾶ γὰρ καὶ σάρκα Σοφίας ὁ λέγων εἶναι σύνεσιν καὶ ἀρετήν, ὀρθότατα
λέγει. From this it is plain that Methodius read Ephes. v. 30 as we
do; although he had before quoted it (iii. 614 b) _without_ the
clause in dispute. Those who give their minds to these studies are
soon made aware that it is never safe to infer from the silence of a
Father that he disallowed the words he omits,—especially if those
words are in their nature parenthetical, or supplementary, or not
absolutely required for the sense. Let a short clause be beside his
immediate purpose, and a Father is as likely as not to omit it. This
subject has been discussed elsewhere: but it is apt to the matter
now in hand that I should point out that Augustine _twice_ (iv. 297
c, 1438 c) closes his quotation of the present place abruptly:
“Apostolo dicente, _Quoniam membra sumus corporis ejus_.” And yet,
elsewhere (iii. 794), he gives the words in full.
It is idle therefore to urge on the opposite side, as if there were
anything in it, the anonymous commentator on St. Luke in Cramer’s
Cat. p. 88.
386 i. 1310 b. Also Ambrosiaster, ii. 248 d.
_ 387 Ap._ Galland. vii. 262 e (A.D. 372).
388 Ibid. 314 c.
389 Mai, iii. 140.
390 vii. 659 b.
391 See above, end of note 2.
392 Concil. iv. 50 b.
393 Hort, Introduction, p. 40.
394 Ibid. p. 46.
395 Miller’s Scrivener, Introduction, I. p. 177.
396 Introduction, I. Appendix F, p. 398*.
397 Introduction, II. 337, note 1. And for Dean Burgon’s latest opinion
on the date of א see above, pp. 46, 52, 162. The present MS., which
I have been obliged to abridge in order to avoid repetition of much
that has been already said, was one of the Dean’s latest
productions. See Appendix VII.
398 Since Dean Burgon’s death, there has been reason to identify this
set of readings with the Syrio-Low-Latin Text, the first origin of
which I have traced to the earliest times before the Gospels were
written—by St. Matthew, St. Mark, and St. Luke, and of course St.
John.
399 So with St. Athanasius in his earlier days. See above, p. 119, note
2.
400 Miller’s Scrivener, Introduction, I. 138.
401 pp. 2, 155.
402 Hort, Introduction, p. 2.
403 Hort, Introduction, p. 7.
404 Quarterly Review, No. 363, July, 1895.
405 St. John xxi. 9-13.
406 In Studia Biblica et Eccles. II. vi. (G. H. Gwilliam), published two
years after the Dean’s death, will be found a full description of
this form of sections.
407 As far as we know at present about Tatian’s Diatessaron, he kept
these occurrences distinct.—ED.
408 “Origenes, quum in caeteris libris omnes vicerit, in Cantico
Canticorum ipse se vicit.”—Hieron. Opp. iii. 499; i. 525.
409 After quoting Luke xxiv. 41, 42 _in extenso_, he proceeds,—βλέπεις
πῶς πεπλήρωται τό; Ἔφαγον ἄρτον μου μετὰ μέλιτος μου (p. 210 b): and
καὶ μετὰ τὴν ἀναστασιν ἕλεγεν, Ἔφαγον τὸν ἄρτον μετὰ μέλιτος μου.
ἔδωκαν γὰρ αὐτῷ ἀπὸ μελισσίου κηρίου (p. 341 a).
410 Ἄρτος γίνεται, οὐκέτι ἐπὶ πικρίδων ἐσθιόμενος ... ἀλλ᾽ ὄψον ἑαυτῷ τὸ
μέλι ποιούμενος. And, ὁ μετὰ τὴν ἀνάστασιν προφανεὶς τοῖς μαθηταῖς
ἄρτος ἐστί, τῷ κηρίῳ τοῦ μέλιτος ἡδυνόμενος,—i. 624 a b. See more
concerning this quotation below, p. 249 note.
411 Epiph. i. 143.
412 Ephr. Syr. ii. 48 e.
413 Or whoever else was the author of the first Homily of the
Resurrection, wrongly ascribed to Gregory Nyss. (iii. 382-99).
Hesychius was probably the author of the second Homily. (Last Twelve
Verses, &c., pp. 57-9.) Both are _compilations_ however, into which
precious passages of much older Fathers have been unscrupulously
interwoven,—to the infinite perplexity of every attentive reader.
_ 414 Apud_ Greg. Nyss. iii. 399 d.
415 Epiph. i. 652 d.
416 In Joanne legimus quod piscantibus Apostolis, in littore steterit,
et partem assi piscis, favumque comederit, quae verae resurrectionis
indicia sunt. In Jerusalem autem nihil horum fecisse
narratur.—Hieron. i. 825 a.
417 Not from Eusebius’ Qu. ad Marinum apparently. Compare however
Jerome, i. 824 d with Eusebius (_ap._ Mai), iv. 295 (cap. x).
418 See Last Twelve Verses, &c., pp. 51-6.
419 i. 444 b.
420 P. 172.
421 iv. 1108 c.
422 Athanas. i. 644: καὶ φαγὼν ἐνώπιον αὐτῶν, ΛΑΒΩΝ ΤΑ ΕΠΙΛΟΙΠΑ ἀπέδωκεν
αὐτοῖς. This passage reappears in the fragmentary Commentary
published by Mai (ii. 582), divested only of the words καὶ ἀπὸ μελ.
κηρ.—The characteristic words (in capitals) do not appear in
Epiphanius (i. 143 c), who merely says καὶ ἔδωκε τοῖς
μαθηταῖς,—confusing the place in St. Luke with the place in St.
John.
423 Aug. iii. P. 2, 143 (A.D. 400); viii. 472 (A.D. 404).
424 To the 9 specified by Tisch.—(Evann. 13, 42, 88 (τα περισσευματα),
130 (το επαναλειφθεν), 161, 300, 346, 400, 507),—add Evan. 33, in
which the words καὶ τὰ ἐπίλοιπα ἔδωκεν αὐτοῖς have been overlooked
by Tregelles.
425 Πρὸς τούτοις οὐδὲ τραγημάτων κηρίων ἀμοίρους περιορατέον τοὺς
δειπνοῦντας κατὰ Λόγον.—p. 174.
426 i. 384.
427 iii. 477.
_ 428 Apud_ Mai, iv. 294, 295 _bis_.
429 “Ibi τὸ κηρίον praeterire non poterat [_sc._ Origenes] si in
exemplis suis additamentum reperisset.” (From Tischendorf’s note on
Luke xxiv. 42.)
430 iv. 1108 b c.
431 Κατεδήδοκε γὰρ τὸ προκομισθὲν ἰχθύδιον, ἤτοι τὸ εξ αὐτοῦ
μέρος.—Ibid. d. Similarly in the fragments of Cyril’s Commentary on
St. Luke, he is observed to refer to the incident of the piece of
broiled fish exclusively. (Mai, ii. 442, 443, which reappears in P.
Smith, p. 730.)
432 iii. P. i. p. 51. For the honeycomb, see iii. P. ii. p. 143 a: viii.
472 d.
433 i. 215.
434 “_Favos_ post fella gustavit.”—De Coronâ, c. 14 (i. p. 455).
435 ii. 444 a.
436 i. 384; iii. 477.
437 Opp. iii. 932-85: with which comp. Galland. xiv. Append. 83-90 and
91-109.
438 Cat. (1628), p. 622. Cordier translates from “Venet. 494” (our
“Evan. 466”).
439 What follows is obtained (June 28, 1884) by favour of Sig. Veludo,
the learned librarian of St. Mark’s, from the Catena on St. Luke’s
Gospel at Venice (cod. 494 = our Evan. 466), which Cordier (in 1628)
translated into Latin. The Latin of this particular passage is to be
seen at p. 622 of his badly imagined and well-nigh useless work. The
first part of it (συνέφαγε ... ἐναπογράψονται) is occasionally found
as a scholium, e.g. in Cod. Marc. Venet. 27 (our Evan. 210), and is
already known to scholars from Matthaei’s N. T. (note on Luc. xxiv.
42). The rest of the passage (which now appears for the first time)
I exhibit for the reader’s convenience parallel with a passage of
Gregory of Nyssa’s Christian Homily on Canticles. If the author of
what is found in the second column is not quoting what is found in
the first, it is at least certain that both have resorted to, and
are here quoting from the same lost original:—
Συνέφαγεν δὲ καὶ τῷ ὀπτῷ ἰχθύῳ (sic) τὸ κηρίον τοῦ μέλιτος; δηλῶν ὡς
οἱ πυρωθέντες διὰ τῆς θείας ἐνανθρωπήσεως καὶ μετασχόντες αὐτοῦ τῆς
θεότητος, ὡς μέλι μετ᾽ ἐπιθυμίας τὰς ἐντολὰς αὐτοῦ παραδέξονται;
κηρῷ ὤσπερ τοὺς νόμους ἐναπογράψαντες; ὅτι ὁ μὲν τοῦ πάσχα
[Transcriber’s Note: The following two paragraphs were side-by-side
columns in the original.]
ἄρτος ἐπὶ πικρίδων ἠσθίετο καὶ ὁ νόμος διεκελεύτο;
πρὸς γὰρ τὸ παρὸν ἡ πικρία;
ὁ δὲ μετὰ τὴν ἀνάστασιν ἄρτος τῷ κηρίῳ τοῦ μέλιτος ἡδύνετο;
ὄψον γὰρ ἑαυτοῖς τὸ μέλι ποιησόμεθα, ὅταν ἐν τῷ ἰδίῳ κηρῷ ὁ καρπὸς
τῆς ἀρετῆς καταγλυκαίνει τὰ τῆς ψυχῆς αἰσθητήρια.
ANON. _apud Corderium_ (fol. 58): see above.
... ἄρτος ... οὐκέτι ἐπὶ πικρίδων ἐσθιόμενος, ὡς ὁ νόμος
διακελεύεται;
πρὸς γὰρ τὸ παρόν ἐστιν ἡ πικρίς;
(... ὁ μετὰ τὴν ἀνάστασιν τοῦ κυρίου προσφανεὶς τοῖς μαθηταῖς ἄρτος
ἐστί, τῷ κηρίῳ τοῦ μέλιτος ἡδυνόμενος.)
ἀλλ᾽ ὄψον ἑαυτῷ τὸ μέλι ποιούμενος, ὅταν ἐν τῷ ἰδίῳ καιρῷ ὁ καρπὸς
τῆς ἀρετῆς καταγλυκαίνῃ τὰ τῆς ψυχῆς αἰσθητήρια.
GREG. NYSS. in Cant. (Opp. i. a); the sentence in brackets being
transposed.
Quite evident is it that, besides Gregory of Nyssa, HESYCHIUS (or
whoever else was the author of the first Homily on the Resurrection)
had the same original before him when he wrote as follows:—ἀλλ᾽
ἐπειδὴ ὁ πρὸ τοῦ πάσχα σῖτος ὁ ἄζυμος, ὄψον τὴν πικρίδα ἔχει, ἴδωμεν
τίνι ἡδόσματι ὁ μετὰ τὴν ἀνάστασιν ἄρτος ἡδύνεται. ὁρᾶς τοῦ Πέτρου
ἁλιεύοντος ἐν ταῖς χεροὶ τοῦ κυρίου ἄρτον καὶ κηρίον μέλιτος νόησον
τί σοι ἡ πικρία τοῦ βίου κατασκευάζεται. οὐκοῦν ἀναστάντες καὶ ἡμεῖς
ἐκ τῆς τῶν λόγων ἀλείας, ἤδη τῷ ἄρτῳ προσδράμωμεν, ὂν καταγλυκαίνει
τὸ κηρίον τῆς ἀγαθῆς ἐλπίδος. (_ap_. Greg. Nyss. Opp. iii. 399 c d.)
440 So Matthaei: “Haec interpretatio sapit ingenium Origenis.” (N.T.
iii. 498.)
441 Καὶ ἔφαγε κηρίον καὶ ἰχθύν,—ii. 240. From the fragment De
Resurrectione preserved by John Damascene,—ii. 762a.
442 See above, note 1, p. 247.
443 See above, note 1, p. 248.
444 i. 644 (see above, p. 244, n. 7).
445 i. 624 (see above, p. 242, n. 3).
446 pp. 210, 431 (see above, p. 243).
447 i. 652 d (see above, p. 247).
448 i. 825 a; ii. 444 a.
449 See above, note 1, p. 245.
450 iv. 1108.
_ 451 Apud_ Galland. ix. 633.
452 Varim. i. 56.
_ 453 Apud_ Greg. Nyss. iii. 399.
454 See above, p. 248, note 6.
455 “The words could hardly have been an interpolation.” (Alford, _in
loc_).
456 Scrivener’s Introd. II. p. 358.
457 It is well known that Dean Burgon considered B, א, and D to be bad
manuscripts. When I wrote my Textual Guide, he was angry with me for
not following him in this. Before his death, the logic of facts
convinced me that he was right and I was wrong. We came together
upon independent investigation. I find that those MSS. in disputed
passages are almost always wrong—mainly, if not entirely, the
authors of our confusion. What worse could be said of them? And
nothing less will agree with the facts from our point of view.
Compromise on this point which might be amiable shrinks upon inquiry
before a vast array of facts.—E. M.
458 Compare Epiphanius (i. 143 c) _ut supra_ (Haer. xxx. c. 19) with
Irenaeus (iii. c. ii, § 9): “Hi vero qui sunt a Valentino ... in
tantum processerunt audaciae, uti quod ab his non olim conscriptum
est _Veritatis Evangelium_ titulent.”
459 See above, p. 243.
460 There is reason for thinking that the omission was an Alexandrian
reading. Egyptian asceticism would be alien to so sweet a food as
honeycomb. See above, p. 150. The Lewis Cod. omits the words. But it
may be remembered that it restricts St. John Baptist’s food to
locusts “and the honey of the mountain.”—E. M.
461 Ἐσμυρμισμένον οἶνον, Mark xv. 23.
462 Ὄξος μετὰ χολῆς μεμιγμένον, Matt. xxvii. 34 (= Luke xxiii. 37).
463 Πλήσαντες σπόγγον ὄξους, καὶ ὑσσώπῳ περιθέντες, John xix. 29.
464 Matt. xxvii. 34 (= Luke xxiii. 37).
465 Καὶ εἰθέως δραμὰν εἰς ἐξ αὐτῶν, Matt. xxvii. 48 (= Mark xv. 36).
466 Not so the author of the Syriac Canons. Like Eusebius, he identifies
(1) Matt. xxvii. 34 with Mark xv. 23; and (2) Matt. xxvii. 48 with
Mark xv. 36 and Luke xxiii. 36; but unlike Eusebius, he makes John
xix. 29 parallel with these last three.
467 The former,—pp. 286-7: the latter,—p. 197. The Cod. Fuld.
ingeniously—“Et dederunt ei vinum murratum bibere cum felle mixtum”
(Ranke, p. 154).
468 Evann. 1, 22, 33, 63, 69, 73, 114, 122, 209, 222, 253, 507, 513.
469 §7.
470 Pp. 526, 681 (Mass. 212, 277).
471 De Spect. written A.D. 198 (see Clinton, App. p. 413), c. xxx.-i. p.
62.
472 “ ‘Et dederunt ei bibero _acetum_ et fel.’ Pro eo quod dulci suo
vino eos laetificarat, _acetum_ ei porrexerunt; pro felle autem
magna ejus miseratio amaritudinem gentium dulcem fecit.” Evan. Conc.
p. 245.
473 Celsus τὸ ὄξος καὶ τὴν χολὴν ὀνειδίζει τῷ Ἰησοῦ,—writes Origen (i.
416 c d e), quoting the blasphemous language of his opponent and
refuting it, but accepting the reference to the Gospel record. This
he does twice, remarking on the second occasion (i. 703 b c) that
such as Celsus are for ever offering to JESUS “gall and _vinegar_.”
(These passages are unknown to many critics because they were
overlooked by Griesbach.)—Elsewhere Origen twice (iii. 920 d e, 921
b) recognizes the same incident, on the second occasion contrasting
the record in Matt. xxvii. 34 with that in Mark xv. 23 in a way
which shews that he accounted the places parallel:—“Et hoc
considera, quod secundum Matthaeum quidem Jesus accipiens _acetum
cum felle permixtum_ gustavit, et noluit bibere: secundum Marcum
autem, cum daretur et _myrrhatum vinum_, non accepit.”—iii. 921 b.
474 Lib. i. 374 and viii. 303 (assigned by Alexander to the age of
Antoninus Pius), _ap._ Galland. i. 346 a, 395 c. The line (εἰς δὲ τὸ
βρῶμα χολήν, καὶ εἰς δίψαν ὄξος ἔδωκαν) is also found in
Montfaucon’s Appendix (Palaeogr. 246). Sibyll. lib. i. 374, Gall. i.
346 a εἰς δὲ τὸ βρῶμα χολήν, καὶ εἰς πότον ὄξος ἄκρατον; ibid. viii.
303, 395 c ... πιεῖν ὄξος ἔδωκαν; quoted by Lactantius, lib. iv. c.
18, A.D. 320, Gall. iv. 300 a ... εἰς δίψαν ὄξος ἔδωκαν, which is
the way the line is quoted from the Sibyl in Montfaucon’s Appendix
(Pal. Graec. 246). Lactantius a little earlier (Gall. iv. 299 b) had
said,—“Dederunt ei cibum fellis, et miscuerunt ei aceti potionem.”
475 Referring to the miracle at Cana, where (viz. in p. 55) the
statement is repeated. Evan. Conc. p. 245. See above, note 5.
_ 476 Apud_ Montf. ii. 63; Corderii, Cat in Luc. p. 599.
477 The Tractatus [ii. 305 b] at the end of the Quaestt. ad Antiochum
(Ath. ii. 301-6), which is certainly of the date of Athanasius, and
which the editor pronounces to be not unworthy of him (Praefat. II.
viii-ix).
478 Opusc. ed. Augusti, p. 16.
479 Cord. Cat. in Ps. ii. 393.
480 Cord. Cat. in Ps. ii. 409.
481 Οὐ σπογγιὰ χολῇ τε καὶ ὄξει διάβροχος, οἵαν οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι τῷ εὐεργέτῃ
τὴν φιλοτησίαν ἐνδεικνύμενοι διὰ τοῦ καλάμου προτείνουσι.—i. 624 b
(where it should be noted that the contents of verses 34 and 48 (in
Matt. xxvii) are confused).
482 i. 481 a, 538 d, 675 b. More plainly in p. 612 e,—μιᾶς τῆς χολῆς,
ἑνὸς ὄξους, δι᾽ ὧν τὴν πικρὰν γεῦσιν ἐθεραπεύθημεν (= Cat. Nic. p.
788).
483 ii. 48 c, 284 a.
484 Lib. iv. c. 18. See above, last page, note 7.
485 vii. 236 c d, quoted next page.
486 “Refertur etiam quod aceto potatus sit, vel vino myrrhato, quod est
amarius felle.” Rufinus, in Symb. § 26.
487 vii. 819 a b (= Cat. Nic. p. 792). See also a remarkable passage
ascribed to Chrys. in the Catena of Nicetas, pp. 371-2.
488 “Jesus _de felle una cum aceto_ amaritudinis libavit.” (Hom.
translated by Aucher from the Armenian.—Venice. 1827, p. 435).
_ 489 Apud_ Mai, N. Bibl. PP. iii. 455.
_ 490 Apud_ Mai, ii. 66; iii. 42. Is this the same place which is quoted
in Cord. Cat. in Ps. ii. 410?
_ 491 Apud_ Galland. v. 332.
492 Or Acta Pilati, pp. 262, 286.
493 P. 85.
494 P. 16.
495 Cord. Cat. in Ps. ii. 410.
496 p. 87.
497 x. 829.
498 ii. 84, 178.
499 Cramer, Cat. i. 235.
500 i. 228, 549.
501 vii. 236 c d.
502 St. John i. 1-3, 14; xx. 31.
503 1 St. John ii. 18, 22, 23; iv. 1, 2, 3, 15; v. 10, 11, 12, 20; 2 St.
John ver. 7, 9, 10. So St. Jude ver. 4.
504 So Athanasius excellently:—ὁ θεὸς συναριθμήσας ἑαυτὸν μετὰ τῶν
ἀνθρώπων, κατὰ τὴν σάρκα αὐτοῦ τοῦτο εἶπε, καὶ πρὸς τὸν νοῦν τοῦ
προσελθόντος αὐτῷ; ἐκεῖνος γὰρ ἄνθρωπον αὐτὸν ἐνόμιζε μόνον καὶ οὐ
θεόν, καὶ τοῦτον ἔχει τὸν νοῦν ἡ ἀπόκρισις. Εἰ μὲν γὰρ ἄνθρωπον,
φησί νομίζεις με καὶ οὐ θεόν, μή με λέγε ἀγαθόν; οὐδεὶς γὰρ ἀγαθός;
οὐ γὰρ διαφέρει [is not an attribute or adornment of] ἀνθρωπίνη
φύσει τὸ ἀγαθόν, ἀλλὰ θεῷ.—i. 875 a. So Macarius Magnes, p. 13.—See
also below, note 2, p. 262.
505 So, excellently Cyril Alex. V. 310 d, Suicer’s Thesaurus; see
Pearson on the Creed, on St. Matt. xix. 17.
506 So Marcion (_ap._ Epiph.),—εἶπέ τισ πρὸς αὐτόν; διδάσκαλε ἀγαθέ, τί
ποιήσος ζωὴν αἰώνιον κληρονομήσω; ὁ δέ, μή με λέγετε ἀγαθόν, εἶς
ἐστιν ἀγαθός, ὁ Θεὸς ὁ Πατήρ [i. 339 a]. Note, that it was thus
Marcion exhibited St. Luke xviii. 18, 19. See Hippol. Phil. 254,—Τί
με λέγετε ἀγαθόν; εἶς ἐστιν ἀγαθός.
507 So Arius (_ap._ Epiphanium),—εἶτα πάλιν φησὶ ὁ μανιώδης Ἀρείος, πῶς
εἶπεν ὁ Κύριος, Τί με λέγεις ἀγαθόν; εἶς ἐστιν ἀγαθὸς ὁ Θεός. ὡς
αὐτοῦ ἀργουμένον τὴν ἀγαθότητα [i. 742 b].—From this, Arius inferred
a separate essence:—καὶ ἀφώρισεν ἑαυτὸν ἐντεῦθεν ἀπὸ τῆς τοῦ Πατρὸς
οὐσίας τε καὶ ὑποστάσεως. τὸ δὲ πᾶν ἐστι γελοιῶδες [i. 780 c].—Note,
that this shews how St. Luke’s Gospel was quoted by the Arians.
508 E.g. ps.-Tatian, Evan. Conc. 173, 174.—Ambrose, ii. 473 e-476
d.—Gregory Naz. i. 549.—Didymus, Trin. 50-3.—Basil, i. 291
c.—Epiphanius, i. 780-1.—Macarius Magnes, 12-14.—Theodoret, v.
930-2.—Augustine is very eloquent on the subject.
509 ii. 689. See the summary of contents at p. 281.
510 Thus, Valentinus (_ap._ Clem. Alex.),—εἶς δέ ἐστιν ἀγαθός, οὖ
παρουσία ἡ διὰ τοῦ υἱοῦ φανέρωσις ... ὁ μόνος ἀγαθὸς Πατήρ [Strom.
ii. 409].—Heracleon (_ap._ Orig.),—ὁ γὰρ πέμψας αὐτὸν Πατήρ, ...
οὗτος καὶ μόνος ἀγαθός, καὶ μείζων τοῦ πεμφθέντος [iv. 139
b].—Ptolemaeus to Flora (_ap._ Epiphanium),—καὶ εἰ ὁ τέλειος Θεὸς
ἀγαθός ἐστι κατὰ τὴν ἑαυτοῦ φύσιν, ὥσπερ καὶ ἔστιν; ἕνα γὰρ μόνον
εἴναι ἀγαθὸν Θεόν, τὸν ἑαυτοῦ Πατέρα, ὁ Σωτὴρ ἡμῶν ἀπεφῄνατο, ὂν
αὐτὸς ἐφανέρωσεν [i. 221 c].—The Marcosian gloss was,—εἶς ἐστὶν
ἀγαθός, ὁ Πατὴρ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς [_ap._ Irenaeum, p. 92].—The
Naassenes substituted,—εἶς ἐστὶν ἀγαθός, ὁ Πατήρ μου ὁ ἐν τοῖς
οὐρανοῖς, ὂς ἀνατελεῖ τὸν ἥλιον αὐτοῦ κ.τ.λ. [_ap._ Hippolyt.
Philosoph. 102].—Marcion introduced the same gloss even into St.
Luke’s Gospel,—εἶς ἐστὶν ἀγαθός, ὁ Θεὸς ὁ Πατήρ [_ap._ Epiphan. i.
339 d, and comp. 315 c].
511 Εἶς ἐστιν ἀγαθός, ὁ Πατήρ μου ὁ ἐν τοῖς ουρανοῖς—Tryph. c. 101 [vol.
ii. 344].
512 “_Unus tantum_” (ait) “_est bonus, Pater qui in coelis est_.”—Evan.
Conc. p. 173 and on p. 169,—“_Unus tantum_” (ait) “_est bonus_”: ast
post haec non tacuit, sed adjecit “_Pater_.”
513 Μή με λέγε ἀγαθόν; ὁ γὰρ ἀγαθὸς εἶς ἐστιν (_ap._ Galland. ii. 752
d). And so at p. 759 a and d, adding—ὁ Πατὴρ ὁ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς.
This reference will be found vindicated below: in note 8, p. 269.
514 For the places in Clemens Alex. see below, note 3, p. 263.—The
places in Origen are at least six:—Τί με λέγεις ἀγαθόν; οὐδεὶς
ἀγαθὸς εἰ μὴ εἶς, ὁ Θεός ὁ Πατήρ [i. 223 c, 279 a, 586 a; iv. 41 d:
and the last nine words, iv. 65 d, 147 a].—For the places in
ps.-Tatian, see below, note 2, p. 263.—The place in the _Dialogus_
is found _ap._ Orig. i. 804 b:—λέγοντος τοῦ Χριστοῦ; οὐδεὶς ἀγαθὸς
εἰ μὴ εἶς ὁ Πατήρ—words assigned to Megethius the heretic.
515 Didymus,—οὐκ εἶπεν μὲν οὐδεὶς ἀγαθὸς εἰ μὴ εἶς ὁ Πατήρ; ἀλλ᾽ οὐδεὶς
ἀγαθὸς εἰ μὴ εἶς ὁ Θεός [p. 51].—And Ambrose,—“Circumspectione
coelesti non dixit, _Nemo bonus nisi unus Pater_, sed _Nemo bonus
nisi unus Deus_” [ii. 474 b].—And Chrysostom,—ἐπήγαγεν, εἰ μὴ εἶς ὁ
Θεός. καὶ οὐκ εἶπεν, εἰ μὴ ὁ Πατήρ μου, ἵνα μάθῃς ὅτι οὐκ ἐξεκάλυψεν
ἑαυτὸν τῷ νεανίσκῳ [vii. 628 b: quoted by Victor, Ant. in Cat. p.
220].—And Theodoret (wrongly ascribed to Maximus, ii. 392, 396),—Οὐκ
εἴρηται, Οὐδεὶς ἀγαθός, εἰ μὴ εἶς, ὁ Πατήρ. ἀλλ᾽, Οὐδεὶς ἀγαθός, εἰ
μὴ εἶς, ὁ Θεός [v. p. 931]. Epiphanius [see the references above, in
note 1, p. 261] expressly mentions that this unauthorized addition
(to Luke xviii. 18) was the work of the heretic Marcion.
516 “Dicendo autem ‘_Quid me vocas bonum_,’ opinionem eius qui
interrogaverat suo responso refutavit, _quia iste putabat Christum
de hâc terrâ et sicut unum ex magistris Israelitarum
esse_,”—ps.-Tatian, Evan. Conc. p. 174.—“Dives per adulationem
honoravit Filium ... _sicut homines sociis suis grata nomina dare
volunt_.” Ibid. p. 168.
517 Apol. i. c. 16 [i. 42],—quoted below in note 2, p. 265.
518 “Cui respondit, ‘_Non est aliquis bonus_,’ ut tu putasti, ‘_nisi
tantum unus Deus Pater_’ ... ‘_Nemo_’ (sit) ‘_bonus, nisi tantum
unus, Pater qui est in coelis_’ [Evan. Conc. p. 169]. ‘_Non est
bonus, nisi tantum unus_’ [Ibid.]. ‘_Non est bonus, nisi tantum unus
qui est in coelis_’ [p. 170]. ‘_Non est bonus nisi tantum unus_’ ”
[p. 173].
519 Οὐ μὴν ἀλλὰ καὶ ὁπηνίκα διαρρήδην λέγει; Οὐδεὶς ἀγαθός, εἰ μὴ ὁ
Πατήρ μου, ὁ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς [p. 141]. And overleaf,—ἀλλὰ καὶ
οὐδεὶς ἀγαθός, εἰ μὴ ὁ Πατὴρ αὐτοῦ [p. 142]. Tischendorf admits the
reference.
520 i. 315 b. The quotation is given below, in note 7, p. 269.
521 Praep. Evan. 542 b; Ps. 426 d; _ap._ Mai, iv. 101.
522 Οὐδεὶς ἀγαθὸς εἰ μὴ εἶς, ὁ Θεός (p. 12).
523 ii. 242 e and 279 e. (See also i. 291 e and iii. 361 a.)
524 vii. 628 b,—οὐ γὰρ εἶπε, τί με λέγεις ἀγαθόν; οὐκ εἱμὶ ἀγαθός; ἀλλ᾽,
οὐδεὶς ἀγαθός ... εἰ μὴ εἶς ὁ θεός. See also vii. 329.
525 i. 875 a. The quotation is proved to be from St. Matt. xix. (17-21)
by all that follows.
526 ii. 691 d; 694 b c. See below, note 10, p. 267.
527 Trin. 50, 51.
528 “_Nemo bonus nisi unus Deus_”:—iv. 383 c; v. 488 b; viii. 770 d, 772
b.
529 v. P. i. 310 d, and 346 a (= 672 b).
530 v. 931-3. Note that Ambrose, Didymus, Chrysostom, Theodoret, all
four hang together in this place, which is plain from the remark
that is common to all four, quoted above in note 1, last page. There
is nothing to shew from which Gospel Nilus (ii. 362) quotes the
words οὐδεὶς ἀγαθός, εἰ μὴ εἶ; ὁ Θεός.
531 p. 1028, unequivocally.
_ 532 Ap._ Chrys. vi. 137 d, 138 b.
533 Besides these positive testimonies, the passage is quoted frequently
as it is given in St. Mark and St. Luke, _but with no special
reference_. Surely some of these must refer to St. Matthew?
534 For other instances of this indiscreet zeal, see Vol. II.
535 BאDL. 1, 22, 479, Evst. 5.
536 Καὶ προσελθόντος αὐτῷ τινος καὶ εἰπόντος; Διδάσκαλε ἀγαθέ,
ἀπεκρίνατο λέγων; Οὐδεὶς ἀγαθὸς εἰ μὴ μόνος ὁ Θεὸς ὁ ποιήσας τὰ
πάντα.—Apol. I. c. 16 [vol. i. p. 42]. And so in Tryph. c. 101 [vol.
ii. p. 344],—λέγοντος αὐτῷ τινος; Διδάσκαλε ἀγαθέ; κ.τ.λ.
537 “_Ad iudicem dives venit, donis dulcis linguae eum capturus._” (The
reference, therefore, is to St. Matthew’s Gospel: which is further
proved by the quotation lower down of the latter part of ver. 17:
also by the inquiry,—“_Quid adhuc mihi deest?_”) “Ille dives bonum
eum vocavit.”_ _“Dives Dominum ‘Magistrum bonum’ vocaverat sicut
unum ex bonis magistris.”—Evan. Conc. 168, 169.
_ 538 Ap._ Irenaeum,—p. 92. See below, note 2, p. 267.
_ 539 Ap._ Hippolytum, Philosoph. 102. See below, note 3, p. 267.
540 Μή με λέγε ἀγαθόν (_ap._ Galland. ii. 759 d: comp. 752 b). For the
reference, and its indication, see below, note 8, p. 269.
541 Comment. in Matt. xv. (in loc).
542 i. 875 a,—clearly a quotation from memory of St. Matt. xix. 17, 18,
19, 20, 21.
543 Adv. Eunom. i. 291 e,—ἀγαθὲ διδάσκαλε, ἀκούσας. Again in ii. 242 c,
and 279 e, expressly. See also iii. 361 a.
544 Καθὼς ἀπεκρίνατο τῷ προσελθόντι καὶ εἰπόντι, Διδάσκαλε ἀγαθέ, τί
ποιήσω ἵνα ζωὴν αἰώνιον ἔχω;—Catech. 299.
545 iii. 296 d (certainly from St. Matthew).
546 Προσῄει θωπεύων τῇ τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ προσηγορίᾳ τὸ Κύριον ... Διδάσκαλον
ἀγαθὸν ὀνομάζων.—Contr. Eunom. ii. 692 b. Also πρὸς τὸν νεάνισκον
ἀγαθὸν αὐτὸν προσαγορεύσαντα; Τί με λέγεις ἀγαθόν; (_ap._ Mai, iv.
12).
547 Ὁ νεανίσκος ἐκεῖνος ... προσελθὰν διελέγετο φάσκων; Διδάσκαλε
ἀγαθέ,—p. 12.
548 vii. 628 b.
549 lib. iii. 503.
550 994 c.
_ 551 Ap._ Sabatier.
552 vii. 147-8.
553 iii.1 761 d; iii.2 82 d [ibi enim et _bonum_ nominavit]; iv. 1279 g;
v. 196 g.
_ 554 Ap._ Sabatier.
555 v. P. i. 346 a (= 672 b),—προσέρχεταί τις ἐν τοῖς εὐανγελίοις, καὶ
φησί ... Διδάσκαλε ἀγαθέ.
556 Τί με λέγεις ἀγαθόν;—v. 931. See note 1, p. 262.
_ 557 Magister bone, quid boni faciam ut vitam aeternam
possideam?_—(_ap._ Chrysost. vi. 137 d, 138 b).
558 Λέγοντος αὐτῷ τινός, Διδάσκαλε ἀγαθέ, ἀπεκρίνατο; Τί με λέγεις
ἀγαθόν; εἶς ἐστιν ἀγαθός, ὁ Πατήρ μου ὁ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς [Tryph. c.
101, vol. ii. 344]. And see the place (Apol. i. 16) quoted above,
note 2, p. 265.
559 Marcosians (_ap._ Irenaeum),—Καὶ τῷ εἰπόντι αὐτῷ, Διδάσκαλέ ἀγαθέ,
τὸν ἀληθῶς ἀγαθὸν Θεὸν ὡμολογηκέναι εἰπόντα, Τί με λέγεις ἀγαθόν;
εἶς ἐστιν ἀγαθός, ὁ Πατὴρ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς [p. 92]. No one who
studies the question will affect to doubt that this quotation and
the next are from St. Matthew’s Gospel.
560 The Naassenes (_ap._ Hippolytum),—Τὸ ὑπὸ τοῦ Σωτῆρος λεγόμενον; Τί
με λέγεις ἀγαθόν; εἶς ἐστιν ἀγαθος, ὁ Πατήρ μου ὁ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς,
ὄς ἀνατελεῖ τὸν ἥλιον αὐτοῦ ἐπὶ δικαίους καὶ ἀδίκους, καὶ βρἐχει ἐπὶ
ὁσίους καὶ ἀμαρτωλούς [Philosoph. 102]. See the remark in the former
note 5, p. 265.
561 See below, note 8, p. 269.
562 “_Cur vocas me bonum_, quum in eo quod a me discere vis, iustus
sim?”—Evan. Conc. p. 168. And so in pp. 173, 174. See above, note 3,
p. 265.
563 This is in fact a double testimony, for the difficulty had been
raised by the heathen philosopher whom Macarius is refuting. Τί με
λέγεις ἀγαθόν;—pp. 12 and 13 (ed. 1876). See above, note 6, p. 263.
564 i. 875 a. See last page, note 9.
565 ii. 279 e.
_ 566 Quid me vocas bonum?_—703.
567 ii. 692 d. Also _ap._ Mai, iv. 7, 12 (πρὸς τὸν νεάνισκον).
568 vii 628 b. The place is quoted in note 1, p. 262.
569 v.1 346 a (προσέρχεταί τις ἐν τοῖς εὐαγγελίοις κ.τ.λ.) = p. 672 b.
570 v. 931,—which clearly is a reproduction of the place of Chrysostom
(vii. 628 b) referred to in the last note but one. Read the whole
page.
_ 571 Ap._ Chrysost. vi. 137 d, 138 b.
572 Καὶ ἰδού, εἶς προσελθὼν εἶπεν αὐτῷ; Διδάσκαλε, τί ἀγαθὸν ποιήσω, ἵνα
σχῶ ζωὴν αἰώνιον (but at the end of eight lines, Origen exhibits
(like the five authorities specified in note 8, next page) ἵνα ζωὴν
αἰώνιον κληρονομήσω?) ... Τί με ἐρωτᾷς περὶ τοῦ (but τοῦ six lines
lower down) ἀγαθοῦ? εἶς ἐστιν ὁ ἀγαθός.—in Matt. iii. 664ab. And so
p. 665c. Cf. 666b.
573 See above, note 2, p. 261.
574 See above, note 2, p. 261.
575 See above, note 2, p. 261.
576 a e ff1 omit _bone_; b c f ff2 g1-2 h-q Vulg. insert it; a b c e
ff1. 2 g1 h l Vulg. write _de bono_, f q _bonum_; a b c ff1. 2 1
Vulg. write _unus_; f g1 h m q _nemo_.
577 See above, p. 149.
578 This wild performance is unique in its testimony (see below, p.
277). Cureton renders the text thus:—“Why askest thou me concerning
good? for One is good, GOD.” And Mrs. Lewis thus:—“Why askest thou
me concerning the good? for One is the good one.”
579 Τί με ἐρωτᾷς περὶ τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ? οὐδεὶς ἀγαθός, εἰ μὴ μόνος ὁ Θεός.—i.
315b.
580 Αὐτὸς ὁ διδάσκαλος ἡμῶν τῷ εἰπόντι Φαρισαίῳ, Τί ποιήσας ζωὴν αἰώνιον
κληρονομήσω? πρῶτον ἔφη, Μή με λέγε ἀγαθόν. ὁ γὰρ ἀγαθὸς εἶς ἐστιν,
ὁ Πατὴρ ὁ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς (_ap._ Galland. ii. 759 d e).—Note, the
reference is certainly to St. Matthew’s Gospel, as all that follows
proves: the inquiry in ver. 16 (by assimilation from Luke xviii. 18)
being similarly exhibited in א, L,—Irenaeus, Int. p. 241; Orig. iii.
664b; Cyril, Alex. v.1 310d; Basil, ii. 279e; and Chrysostom, iii.
182; vii. 627-8; viii. 234.
581 Eusebius—Τί με ἐρωτᾷς περὶ τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ? Οὐδεὶς ἀγαθός, εἰ μὴ εἶς ὁ
Θεός,—Praep. Evan. 542b.—The last seven words are also found in Ps.
(ed. Montf.) 426d; and _ap._ Mai, iv. 101.
582 Διδάσκαλε, τί ἀγαθὸν ποιήσας, ζωὴν αἰώνιον κληρονομήσω; ὁ δέ εἶπεν
αὐτῷ, Τί με ἐρωτᾷς περὶ τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ? οὐδεὶς ἀγαθὸς εἰ μὴ εἶς ὁ Θεός.
(Note, that all but the last seven words exactly = א, L, and Basil,
ii. 279e.)—V.1 310d.—But elsewhere (also quoting St. Matthew) Cyril
exhibits—διδάσκαλε ἀγαθέ ... τί με λέγεις ἀγαθόν; οὐδεὶς ἀγαθὸς εἰ
μὴ εἶς ὁ Θεός.—Ibid. p. 346a (= p. 672b).
583 Τί με ἐρωτᾷς περὶ τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ? οὐδεὶς ἀγαθός, εἰ μὴ εἶς ὁ Θεός.—p.
1028.
_ 584 Magister, quid boni faciam, ut habeam vitam aeternam_. _Cui
Dominus, Quid me vocas bonum_ (703):—_Unus enim bonus est, ait_
Dominus (489). But elsewhere, _Magister bone, quid boni faciam_
(994c).
_ 585 Magister bone, quid boni faciam ut habeam vitam aeternam? Qui dicit
ei, Quid me interrogas de bono? Unus est bonus Deus?_ .—vii. 147-8.
586 For “_bone_,” see above, note 12, p. 266: for “_nemo_,” &c, see note
12, p. 263.
587 1 Sam. xiv. 20.
588 p. 299.
589 Epiphanius [i. 339d], and Hippolytus [Phil. 254], shew that Marcion
so read Luke xviii. 19.—Epiphanius [i. 742 b] quotes Arius. See the
words above, in notes 3, 4, p. 260.
590 Six Lectures on the Text (1875),—p. 130.
591 Plain Introduction (ed. 4), II. p. 329.
592 Matt. xix. 20 = Mark x. 20 = Luke xviii. 21.
593 iii. 669 cd.
594 Πρόσχες οὖν εἰ δυνάμεθα πρὸς τὴν προκειμένην ζήτησιν ... οὕτως
ἀπαντῆσαι, ὅτι μήποτε τό; ἀγαπήσεις τὸν πλουσίον σου ὡς ἑαυτόν.
ὑπονοεῖσθαι δυναται, ὡς οὐχ ὑπὸ τοῦ Σωτῆρος ἐνταῦθα παρειλῆφθαι,
ἀλλ᾽ ὑπό τινος τὴν ἀκρίβειαν μὴ νοήσαντος τῶν λεγομένων,
προστεθεῖσθαι.—iii. 670 a b.
595 Καὶ εὶ μὲν μὴ καὶ περὶ ἄλλων πολλῶν διαφωνία ἦν πρὸς ἄλληλα τῶν
ἀντιγράφων ὤστε πάντα τὰ κατὰ Ματθαîον μὴ συνᾴδειν ἀλλήλοις, ὁμοίως
δὲ καὶ τὰ λοιπὰ εὐαγγέλια, κ.τ.λ.—iii. 671 b.
596 Νυνὶ δέ δηλονότι πολλὴ γέγονεν ἡ τῶν ἀντιγράφων διαφορά, εἴτε ἀπὸ
ῥᾳθυμίας τινῶν γραφέων, εἴτε ἀπὸ τόλμης τινῶν μοχθηρᾶς τῆς
διορθώσεως τῶν γραφομὲνων, εἴτε καὶ ἀπὸ τῶν τὰ ἑαυτοῖς δοκοῦντα ἐν
τῇ διορθώσει προστιθέντων ἢ ἀφαιρούντων.—iii. 671 c.
597 See above, pp. 152-4.
598 W.-Hort, p. 287.
599 So Cureton renders St. Luke xviii. 19.
600 “Scriptum est in evangelio quodam quod dicitur secundum Hebraeos,...
_Dixit ei alter divitum:_ Magister quid boni faciens vivam?”—(Orig.
Vet. Interp. iii. 670.) I suppose the mention of εἶς προσελθών, in
ver. 16, suggested this.
601 The Marcionite Gospel exhibited Μή με λέγετε ἀγαθόν (Hippol. Phil.
254; Epiph. i. 315 c).—Comp. the Clement. Hom. (_ap._ Galland. ii.
752 b, 759 a d).
602 Hammond, quoted approvingly by Scrivener,—I. 328 (cd. 4).
603 C. R. Gregory’s Prolegomena, p. 7.
604 Printed Text, pp. 133-8.
605 Introduction (1883),—pp. 573-6. [Also Vol. II. (1894), pp. 327-9. I
did not as Editor think myself entitled to alter Dr. Scrivener’s
expressed opinion. E. M.]
606 It is right to state that Tischendorf thought differently. “Videtur
illud huic quidem loco parum apte illatum.” He can only bring
himself to admit that the text had been “jam Irenaei tempore nobili
additamento auctum.” He insists that it is absurd, as well as at
variance with the entire history of the sacred text, to suppose that
the title “SON OF GOD” has here been removed by unscrupulous
Unbelief, rather than thrust in by officious Piety.
607 v. 10; vii. 17; and in the Vulgate. Twice however (viz. i. 311 and
vi. 969) Jerome _omits_ the clause.
608 In Joan. iv. 15, 16.—See also contra Cels. i. 389 d e f, where
Origen says the same thing more briefly. The other places are iv.
125 and 464.
609 Οὔτε ἐπιστήμην τοῦ εὐαγγελίου ἔχουσι, τὴν τῶν εὐαγγελίων ἀρχὴν μὴ
παραλαβόντες; ἀρχὴ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ. καθὼς γέγραπται ἐν
Ἠσαΐα τῷ προφήτῃ. _adv._ Manichaeos (_ap._ Galland. v. 61).
_ 610 ap._ Galland. v. 329.
611 i. 250.
_ 612 ap._ Galland. iv. 55.
613 p. 42.
614 A.D. 400. De Sigill. _ap._ Chrys. xii. 412:—ὁ μακάριος Μάρκος,
καθεὶς ἑαυτὸν εἶς τὸ εὐαγγέλιον, καὶ θαρσήσας τοῖς
προγεγυμνασμένοις, λέγει μὲν “υἱὸν Θεοῦ,” ἀλλ᾽ εὐθέως συνέστειλε τὸν
λόγον, καὶ ἐκολόβωσε τὴν ἔννοιαν, ἵνα μαλάξῃ τὸν ἀκροατήν. ἐπάγει
οὖν εὐθέως τὰ κατὰ τὸν Βαπτιστήν, λέγων, “ἀρχὴ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου Ἰησοῦ
Χριστοῦ, καθὼς γέγραπται ἐν Ἠσαίᾳ τῷ προφήτῃ ἰδου” κ.τ.λ. ἔδειξε τὴν
λαμπάδα τῆς ἀληθείας, καὶ εὐθέας ἀπέκρυψε.
615 i. 427:—ἀρχὴ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου ... ὡς γέγραπται ἐν Ἠσαΐᾳ τῷ προφήτῃ ...
φωνὴ βοῶντος ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ.
616 i. 506 (lib. iii. cap. xvi).
617 i. 461 (lib. iii. cap. x).
618 Midway between the two places cited above, Irenaeus shews how the
four Gospels may be severally identified with the four living
creatures described in the Apocalypse. He sees the lion in St. John,
who says: “_In the beginning was the Word: and ... all things were
made by him: and without him was not anything made:_” the flying
eagle in St. Mark, because he begins his gospel with an appeal to
“the prophetic spirit which comes down upon men from on high;
saying, ‘_The beginning of the Gospel ... as it is written in the
prophets._’ Hence the Evangelists’ concise and elliptical manner,
which is a characteristic of prophecy” (lib. iii. cap. xi. § 8, p.
470). Such quotations as these (18 words being omitted in one case,
5 in the other) do not help us. I derive the above notice from the
scholium in Evan. 238 (Matthaei’s e,—N. T. ii. 21); Curzon’s “73.
8.”
The lost Greek of the passage in Irenaeus was first supplied by
Grabe from a MS. of the Quaestiones of Anastasius Sinaita, in the
Bodleian (Barocc. 206, fol. πβ). It is the solution of the 144th
Quaestio. But it is to be found in many other places besides. In
Evan. 238, by the way, twelve more of the lost words of Irenaeus are
found: viz. Οὔτε πλείονα τὸν ἀριθμόν, οὔτε ἀλάττονα ἀνδέχεται εἶναι
τὰ εὐαγγέλια; ἐπεὶ γὰρ ... Germanus also (A.D. 715, ap. Gall. xiii.
215) quoting the place, confirms the reading ἐν τοῖς
προφήταις,—which must obviously have stood in the original.
619 Note, that he actually reads “The beginning of the Gospel of the Son
of God,”—omitting the words “JESUS CHRIST”: not, of course, as
disallowing them, but in order the more effectually to emphasize the
Divine Sonship of MESSIAH.
620 Ἐγώ φησι (_sc._ ὁ Μάρκος) τὴν ἀρχὴν τοῦ Εὐαγγελίου ἀπὸ Ἰωάννου
ποιήσομαι; Εὐαγγελίου δὲ τοῦ υἱοῦ Θεοῦ, οὕτω γὰρ ἐν τοῖς προφήταις
γέγραπται, ὅτι υἱός ἐστι Θεοῦ.... δύνασαι δὲ τό, ὡς γέγραπται ἐν
τοῖς προφήταις, συνάψαι τῷ, ἰδοὺ ἐγὼ ἀποστέλλω τὸν ἄγγελόν μου; ἵνα
τὴν ἀρχὴν ποιήσομαι τοῦ Εὐαγγελίου τοῦ υἱοῦ Θεοῦ τὸ τοῖς προφήταις
περὶ Ἰωάννου εἰρημένον. This is the first scholium in the Catena as
edited by Possinus,—p. 6. What follows is a well-known scholium of
the same Catena, (the first in Cramer’s ed.), which C. F. Matthaei
(N. T. ii. 20) prints from six of his MSS.:—Ἰωάννην οὖν τὸν
τελευταῖον τῶν προφητῶν ἀρχὴν εἶναι τοῦ Εὐαγγελίου φησὶν ὁ Μάρκος,
ἐπιφέρων “ὡς γέγραπται ἐν τοῖς προφήταις; Ἰδοὺ κ.τ.λ.”
_ 621 Ap._ Hieron. vii. 17.
622 vi. 330 _diserte_.
623 ii. 413.
624 A.D. 890. De objectionibus Manichaeorum, _ap._ Galland. xiii. 667.
625 i. 1529 d.
626 Cons. 39.
627 E2 of the Acts and Cath. Epp. (Laudianus) in the Bodleian Library at
Oxford, of the sixth century.
628 This observation is due to Dr. Salmon; see the Note appended to
Lecture IX of his Historical Introduction to the New Testament (5th
edition, p. 147).
629 This fact was first pointed out by Dr. Gwynn in a memorandum
communicated by him to Dr. Scrivener, who inserted it in his Plain
Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament (3rd edition, p.
xii; cp. 4th edition, vol. I, p. 94), and I am indebted to the same
source for this admirable amplification of part of that memorandum.
630 A sufficient facsimile of the page in question (29 _r__o_) is given
by Dean Burgon in his Last Twelve Verses, reproduced from a
photograph.
631 On the contrary, in Tatian’s Diatessaron γυναικί is left out and
μεμνηστευμένη is translated. For the Curetonian, see above, p. 295.