hereabouts may be, no reason has been shown as yet for suspecting that
_heretical_ depravation ever had anything to do with such phenomena.
_That_ (we answer) is only because the writings of the early depravers and
fabricators of Gospels have universally perished. From the slender relics
of their iniquitous performances which have survived to our time, we are
sometimes able to lay our finger on a foul blot and to say, “_This_ came
from Tatian’s Diatessaron; and _that_ from Marcion’s mutilated recension
of the Gospel according to S. Luke.” The piercing of our SAVIOUR’S side,
transplanted by codices א B C from S. John xix. 34 into S. Matt, xxvii.
49, is an instance of the former,—which it may reasonably create
astonishment to find that Drs. Westcott and Hort (_alone among Editors_)
have nevertheless admitted into their text, as equally trustworthy with
the last 12 verses of S. Mark’s Gospel. But it occasions a stronger
sentiment than surprise to discover that this, “the gravest interpolation
yet laid to the charge of B,”—this “sentence which neither they nor any
other competent scholar can possibly believe that the Evangelist ever
wrote,”(73)—has been actually foisted into the margin of _the Revised
Version_ of S. Matthew xxvii. 49. Were not the Revisionists aware that
such a disfigurement must prove fatal to their work? _For whose_ benefit
is the information volunteered that “many ancient authorities” are thus
grossly interpolated?
An instructive specimen of depravation follows, which can be traced to
Marcion’s mutilated recension of S. Luke’s Gospel. We venture to entreat
the favour of the reader’s sustained attention to the license with which
the LORD’S Prayer as given in S. Luke’s Gospel (xi. 2-4), is exhibited by
codices א A B C D. For every reason one would have expected that so
precious a formula would have been found enshrined in the “old uncials” in
peculiar safety; handled by copyists of the IVth, Vth, and VIth centuries
with peculiar reverence. Let us ascertain exactly what has befallen it:—
(_a_) D introduces the LORD’S Prayer by interpolating the following
paraphrase of S. Matt. vi. 7:—“_Use not vain repetitions as the rest: for
some suppose that they shall be heard by their much speaking. But when ye
pray_” ... After which portentous exordium,
(_b_) B א omit the 5 words, “_Our_” “_which art in heaven_,” Then,
(_c_) D omits the article (τό) before “name:” and supplements the first
petition with the words “upon us” (ἐφ᾽ ἡμᾶς). It must needs also transpose
the words “_Thy Kingdom_” (ἡ βασιλεία σου).
(_d_) B in turn omits the third petition,—“_Thy will be done, as in
heaven, also on the earth;_” which 11 words א retains, but adds “_so_”
before “_also_,” and omits the article (τῆς); finding for once an ally in
A C D.
(_e_) א D for δίδου write δός (from Matt.).
(_f_) א omits the article (τό) before “_day by day._” And,
(_g_) D, instead of the 3 last-named words, writes “_this day_” (from
Matt.): substitutes “_debts_” (τὰ ὀφειλήματα) for “_sins_” (τὰ
ἁμαρτήματα,—also from Matt.): and in place of “_for [we] ourselves_” (καὶ
γὰρ αὐτοί) writes “_as also we_” (ὡς καὶ ἡμεῖς, again from Matt.).—But,
(_h_) א shows its sympathy with D by accepting two-thirds of this last
blunder: exhibiting “_as also [we] ourselves_” (ὡς καὶ αὐτοί).
(_i_) D consistently reads “_our debtors_” (τοῖς ὀφειλέταις ἡμῶν) in place
of “_every one that is indebted to us_” (παντὶ ὀφείλοντι ἡμῖν).—Finally,
(_j_) B א omit the last petition,—“_but deliver us from evil_” (ἀλλὰ ῥῦσαι
ἡμᾶς ἀπὸ τοῦ πονηροῦ)—unsupported by A C or D. Of lesser discrepancies we
decline to take account.
So then, these five “first-class authorities” are found to throw
themselves into _six different combinations_ in their departures from S.
Luke’s way of exhibiting the LORD’S Prayer,—which, among them, they
contrive to falsify in respect of no less than 45 words; and yet _they are
never able to agree among themselves as to any single various reading:_
while _only once_ are more than two of them observed to stand
together,—viz. in the unauthorized omission of the article. In respect of
32 (out of the 45) words, _they bear in turn solitary evidence_. What need
to declare that it is _certainly false_ in every instance? Such however is
the infatuation of the Critics, that the vagaries of Bare all taken for
gospel. Besides omitting the 11 words which B omits jointly with א, Drs.
Westcott and Hort erase from the Book of Life those other 11 precious
words which are omitted by B only. And in this way it comes to pass that
the mutilated condition to which the scalpel of Marcion the heretic
reduced the LORD’S Prayer some 1730 years ago,(74) (for the mischief can
all be traced back to _him!_), is palmed off on the Church of England by
the Revisionists as the work of the HOLY GHOST!
(A) We may now proceed with our examination of their work, beginning—as
Dr. Roberts (one of the Revisionists) does, when explaining the method and
results of their labours—with what we hold to be the gravest blot of all,
viz. the marks of serious suspicion which we find set against the last
Twelve verses of S. Mark’s Gospel. Well may the learned Presbyterian
anticipate that—
“The reader will be struck by the appearance which this long
paragraph presents in the Revised Version. Although inserted, it
is marked off by a considerable space from the rest of the Gospel.
A note is also placed in the margin containing a brief explanation
of this.”(75)
A _very_ brief “explanation” certainly: for the note _explains_ nothing.
Allusion is made to the following words—
“The two oldest Greek manuscripts, and some other authorities,
omit from ver. 9 to the end. Some other authorities have a
different ending to the Gospel.”
But now,—For the use of _whom_ has this piece of information been
volunteered? Not for learned readers certainly: it being familiarly known
to all, that codices B and א _alone of manuscripts_ (to their own
effectual condemnation) omit these 12 verses. But then scholars know
something more about the matter. They also know that these 12 verses have
been made the subject of a separate treatise extending to upwards of 300
pages,—which treatise has now been before the world for a full decade of
years, and for the best of reasons has never yet been answered. Its
object, stated on its title-page, was to vindicate against recent critical
objectors, and to establish “the last Twelve Verses” of S. Mark’s
Gospel.(76) Moreover, competent judges at once admitted that the author
had succeeded in doing what he undertook to do.(77) _Can_ it then be right
(we respectfully enquire) still to insinuate into unlearned minds distrust
of twelve consecutive verses of the everlasting Gospel, which yet have
been demonstrated to be as trustworthy as any other verses which can be
named?
The question arises,—But how did it come to pass that such evil counsels
were allowed to prevail in the Jerusalem Chamber? Light has been thrown on
the subject by two of the New Test. company. And first by the learned
Congregationalist, Dr. Newth, who has been at the pains to describe the
method which was pursued on every occasion. The practice (he informs us)
was as follows. The Bishop of Gloucester and Bristol, as chairman, asks—
“Whether any _Textual_ Changes are proposed? The evidence for and
against is briefly stated, and the proposal considered. The duty
of stating this evidence is by tacit consent devolved upon (_sic_)
two members of the Company, who from their previous studies are
specially entitled to speak with authority upon such
questions,—Dr. Scrivener and _Dr. Hort_,—and who come prepared to
enumerate particularly the authorities on either side. Dr.
Scrivener opens up the matter by stating the facts of the case,
and by giving his judgment on the bearings of the evidence. Dr.
Hort follows, and mentions any additional matters that may call
for notice; and, if differing from Dr. Scrivener’s estimate of the
weight of the evidence, gives his reasons and states his own view.
After discussion, the vote of the Company is taken, and the
proposed Reading accepted or rejected. _The Text being thus
settled_, the Chairman asks for proposals on the Rendering.”(78)
And thus, the men who were appointed to improve _the English Translation_
are exhibited to us remodelling _the original Greek_. At a moment’s
notice, as if by intuition,—by an act which can only be described as the
exercise of instinct,—these eminent Divines undertake to decide which
shall be deemed the genuine utterances of the HOLY GHOST,(79)—which _not_.
Each is called upon to give his vote, and he gives it. “_The Text being
thus settled_” they proceed to do the only thing they were originally
appointed to do; viz. to try their hands at improving our Authorized
Version. But we venture respectfully to suggest, that by no such “rough
and ready” process is that most delicate and difficult of all critical
problems—the truth of Scripture—to be “settled.”
Sir Edmund Beckett remarks that if the description above given “of the
process by which the Revisionists ‘settled’ the Greek alterations, is not
a kind of joke, it is quite enough to ‘settle’ this Revised Greek
Testament in a very different sense.”(80) And so, in truth, it clearly
is.—“Such a proceeding appeared to me so strange,” (writes the learned and
judicious Editor of the _Speaker’s Commentary_,) “that I fully expected
that the account would be corrected, or that some explanation would be
given which might remove the very unpleasant impression.”(81) We have
since heard on the best authority, _that_ namely of Bishop Ellicott
himself,(82) that Dr. Newth’s account of the method of “settling” the text
of the N. T., pursued in the Jerusalem Chamber, is correct.
But in fact, it proves to have been, from the very first, a definite part
of the Programme. The chairman of the Revisionist body, Bishop
Ellicott,—when he had “to consider the practical question,”—whether “(1),
to construct a critical Text first: or (2), to use preferentially, though
not exclusively, some current Text: or (3), _simply to proceed onward_
with the work of Revision, whether of Text or Translation, making the
current _Textus Receptus_ the standard, and departing from it only when
critical or grammatical considerations show that it is clearly
necessary,—in fact, _solvere ambulando_;” announces, at the end of 19
pages,—“We are driven then to the third alternative.”(83)
We naturally cast about for some evidence that the members of the New
Testament company possess that mastery of the subject which alone could
justify one of their number (Dr. Milligan) in asserting roundly that these
12 verses are “_not from the pen of S. Mark himself_;”(84) and another
(Dr. Roberts) in maintaining that “the passage is _not the immediate
production of S. Mark_.”(85) Dr. Roberts assures us that—
“Eusebius, Gregory of Nyssa, Victor of Antioch, Severus of
Antioch, Jerome, as well as other writers, especially Greeks,
testify that these verses were not written by S. Mark, or not
found in the best copies.”(86)
Will the learned writer permit us to assure him in return that he is
entirely mistaken? He is requested to believe that Gregory of Nyssa says
nothing of the sort—_says __ nothing at all_ concerning these verses: that
Victor of Antioch vouches emphatically for their _genuineness_: that
Severus does but copy, while Jerome does but translate, a few random
expressions of Eusebius: and that Eusebius himself _nowhere_ “testifies
that these verses were not written by S. Mark.” So far from it, Eusebius
actually _quotes the verses_, quotes them as _genuine_. Dr. Roberts is
further assured that there are _no_ “other writers” whether Greek or
Latin, who insinuate doubt concerning these verses. On the contrary,
besides _both_ the Latin and _all_ the Syriac—besides the Gothic and the
_two_ Egyptian versions—there exist four authorities of the IInd
century;—as many of the IIIrd;—five of the Vth;—four of the VIth;—as many
of the VIIth;—together with _at least ten_ of the IVth(87)
(_contemporaries therefore of codices_ B _and_ א);—which actually
_recognize_ the verses in question. Now, when to _every known Manuscript
but two_ of bad character, besides _every ancient Version, some
one-and-thirty Fathers_ have been added, 18 of whom must have used copies
at least as old as either B or א,—Dr. Roberts is assured that an amount of
external authority has been accumulated which is simply overwhelming in
discussions of this nature.
But the significance of a single feature of the Lectionary, of which up to
this point nothing has been said, is alone sufficient to determine the
controversy. We refer to the fact that _in every part of Eastern
Christendom_ these same 12 verses—neither more nor less—have been from the
earliest recorded period, and still are, a _proper lesson both for the
Easter season and for Ascension Day_.
We pass on.
(B) A more grievous perversion of the truth of Scripture is scarcely to be
found than occurs in the proposed revised exhibition of S. Luke ii. 14, in
the Greek and English alike; for indeed not only is the proposed Greek
text (ἐν ἀνθρώποις εὐδοκίας) impossible, but the English of the
Revisionists (“_peace among men in whom he is well pleased_”) “can be
arrived at” (as one of themselves has justly remarked) “only through some
process which would make any phrase bear almost any meaning the translator
might like to put upon it.”(88) More than that: the harmony of the
exquisite three-part hymn, which the Angels sang on the night of the
Nativity, becomes hopelessly marred, and its structural symmetry
destroyed, by the welding of the second and third members of the sentence
into one. Singular to relate, the addition of _a single final letter_ (ς)
has done all this mischief. Quite as singular is it that we should be able
at the end of upwards of 1700 years to discover what occasioned its
calamitous insertion. From the archetypal copy, by the aid of which the
old Latin translation was made, (for the Latin copies _all_ read “_pax
hominibus bonæ voluntatis_,”) the preposition ἐν was evidently
away,—absorbed apparently by the ἀν which immediately follows. In order
therefore to make a sentence of some sort out of words which, without ἐν,
are simply unintelligible, εὐδοκία was turned into εὐδοκίας. It is
accordingly a significant circumstance that, whereas there exists _no_
Greek copy of the Gospels which _omits_ the ἐν, there is scarcely a Latin
exhibition of the place to be found which contains it.(89) To return
however to the genuine clause,—“Good-will towards men” (ἐν ἀνθρώποις
εὐδοκία).
Absolutely decisive of the true reading of the passage—irrespectively of
internal considerations—ought to be the consideration that it is vouched
for _by every known copy_ of the Gospels of whatever sort, excepting only
א A B D: the first and third of which, however, were anciently corrected
and brought into conformity with the Received Text; while the second (A)
is observed to be so inconstant in its testimony, that in the primitive
“Morning-hymn” (given in another page of the same codex, and containing a
quotation of S. Luke ii. 14), the correct reading of the place is found.
D’s complicity in error is the less important, because of the ascertained
sympathy between that codex and the Latin. In the meantime the two Syriac
Versions are a full set-off against the Latin copies; while the hostile
evidence of the Gothic (which this time sides with the Latin) is more than
neutralized by the unexpected desertion of the Coptic version from the
opposite camp. The Armenian, Georgian, Æthiopic, Slavonic and Arabian
versions, are besides all with the Received Text. It therefore comes to
this:—We are invited to make our election between every other copy of the
Gospels,—every known Lectionary,—and (not least of all) the ascertained
ecclesiastical usage of the Eastern Church from the beginning,—on the one
hand: and the testimony of four Codices without a history or a character,
which concur in upholding a patent mistake, on the other. Will any one
hesitate as to which of these two parties has the stronger claim on his
allegiance?
Could doubt be supposed to be entertained in any quarter, it must at all
events be borne away by the torrent of Patristic authority which is
available on the present occasion:—
In the IInd century,—we have the testimony of (1) Irenæus.(90)
In the IIIrd,—that of (2) Origen(91) in 3 places,—and of (3) the
_Apostolical Constitutions_(92) in 2.
In the IVth,—(4) Eusebius,(93)—(5) Aphraates the Persian,(94)—(6) Titus of
Bostra,(95) each twice;—(7) Didymus(96) in 3 places;—(8) Gregory of
Nazianzus,(97)—(9) Cyril of Jerusalem,(98)—(10) Epiphanius(99) twice;—(11)
Gregory of Nyssa(100) 4 times,—(12) Ephraem Syrus,(101)—(13) Philo bishop
of Carpasus,(102)—(14) Chrysostom,(103) in 9 places,—and (15) a nameless
preacher at Antioch,(104)—all these, _contemporaries (be it remembered)
of_ B _and_ א, are found to bear concurrent testimony in favour of the
commonly received text.
In the Vth century,—(16) Cyril of Alexandria,(105) on no less than 14
occasions, vouches for it also;—(17) Theodoret(106) on 4;—(18) Theodotus
of Ancyra(107) on 5 (once(108) in a homily preached before the Council of
Ephesus on Christmas-day, A.D. 431);—(19) Proclus(109) archbishop of
Constantinople;—(20) Paulus(110) bishop of Emesa (in a sermon preached
before Cyril of Alexandria on Christmas-day, A.D. 431);—(21) the Eastern
bishops(111) at Ephesus collectively, A.D. 431 (an unusually weighty piece
of evidence);—and lastly, (22) Basil of Seleucia.(112) Now, let it be
remarked that _these were contemporaries of codex_ A.
In the VIth century,—the Patristic witnesses are (23) Cosmas, the
voyager,(113) 5 times,—(24) Anastasius Sinaita,(114)—(25) Eulogius(115)
archbishop of Alexandria: _contemporaries, be it remembered, of codex_ D.
In the VIIth,—(26) Andreas of Crete(116) twice.
And in the VIIIth,—(27) Cosmas(117) bishop of Maiuma near Gaza,—and his
pupil (28) John Damascene,(118)—and (29) Germanus(119) archbishop of
Constantinople.
To these 29 illustrious names are to be added unknown writers of uncertain
date, but _all_ of considerable antiquity; and some(120) are proved by
internal evidence to belong to the IVth or Vth century,—in short, to be of
the date of the Fathers whose names 16 of them severally bear, but among
whose genuine works their productions are probably _not_ to be reckoned.
One of these was anciently mistaken for (30) Gregory Thaumaturgus:(121) a
second, for (31) Methodius:(122) a third, for (32) Basil.(123) Three
others, with different degrees of reasonableness, have been supposed to be
(33, 34, 35) Athanasius.(124) One has passed for (36) Gregory of
Nyssa;(125) another for (37) Epiphanius;(126) while no less than eight (38
to 45) have been mistaken for Chrysostom,(127) some of them being
certainly his contemporaries. Add (46) one anonymous Father,(128) and (47)
the author of the apocryphal _Acta Pilati_,—and it will be perceived that
18 ancient authorities have been added to the list, every whit as
competent to witness what was the text of S. Luke ii. 14 at the time when
A B א D were written, as Basil or Athanasius, Epiphanius or Chrysostom
themselves.(129) _For our present purpose_ they are _Codices_ of the IVth,
Vth, and VIth centuries. In this way then, far more than _forty-seven_
ancient witnesses have come back to testify to the men of this generation
that the commonly received reading of S. Luke ii. 14 is _the true
reading_, and that the text which the Revisionists are seeking to palm off
upon us is _a fabrication and a blunder_. Will any one be found to
maintain that the authority of B and א is appreciable, when confronted by
the first 15 _contemporary Ecclesiastical Writers_ above enumerated? or
that A can stand against the 7 which follow?
This is not all however. Survey the preceding enumeration geographically,
and note that, besides 1 name from Gaul,—at least 2 stand for
Constantinople,—while 5 are dotted over Asia Minor:—10 at least represent
Antioch; and—6, other parts of Syria:—3 stand for Palestine, and 12 for
other Churches of the East:—at least 5 are Alexandrian,—2 are men of
Cyprus, and—1 is from Crete. If the articulate voices of so many
illustrious Bishops, coming back to us in this way from every part of
ancient Christendom and all delivering the same unfaltering message,—if
_this_ be not allowed to be decisive on a point of the kind just now
before us, then pray let us have it explained to us,—What amount of
evidence _will_ men accept as final? It is high time that this were
known.... The plain truth is, that a case has been established against א A
B D and the Latin version, which amounts to _proof_ that those documents,
even when they conspire to yield the self-same evidence, are not to be
depended on as witnesses to the text of Scripture. The history of the
reading advocated by the Revisionists is briefly this:—_It emerges into
notice in the IInd century; and in the Vth, disappears from sight
entirely._
Enough and to spare has now been offered concerning the true reading of S.
Luke ii. 14. But because we propose to ourselves that _no uncertainty
whatever_ shall remain on this subject, it will not be wasted labour if at
parting we pour into the ruined citadel just enough of shot and shell to
leave no dark corner standing for the ghost of a respectable doubt
hereafter to hide in. Now, it is confessedly nothing else but the high
estimate which Critics have conceived of the value of the testimony of the
old uncials (א A B C D), which has occasioned any doubt at all to exist in
this behalf. Let the learned Reader then ascertain for himself the
character of codices א A B C D hereabouts, by collating _the context in
which S. Luke ii. 14 is found_, viz. the 13 verses which precede and the
one verse (ver. 15) which immediately follows. If the old uncials are
observed all to sing in tune throughout, hereabouts, well and good: but if
on the contrary, their voices prove utterly discordant, _who_ sees not
that the last pretence has been taken away for placing _any confidence at
all_ in their testimony concerning the text of ver. 14, turning as it does
on the presence or absence of _a single letter_?... He will find, as the
result of his analysis, that within the space of those 14 verses, the old
uncials are responsible for 56 “various readings” (so-called): singly, for
41; in combination with one another, for 15. So diverse, however, is the
testimony they respectively render, that they are found severally to
differ from the Text of the cursives no less than 70 times. Among them,
besides twice varying the phrase,—they contrive to omit 19 words:—to add
4:—to substitute 17:—to alter 10:—to transpose 24.—Lastly, these five
codices are observed (within the same narrow limits) to fall into _ten_
different combinations: viz. B א, for 5 readings;—B D, for 2;—א C, א D, A
C, א B D, A א D, A B א D, B א C D, A B א C D, for 1 each. A therefore,
which stands alone _twice_, is found in combination 4 times;—C, which
stands alone _once_, is found in combination 4 times;(130)—B, which stands
alone 5 times, is found in combination 6 times;—א, which stands alone 11
times, is found in combination 8 times;—D, which stands alone 22 times, is
found in combination 7 times.... And now,—for the last time we ask the
question,—With what show of reason can the unintelligible εὐδοκίας (of א A
B D) be upheld as genuine, in defiance of _the whole body of Manuscripts_,
uncial and cursive,—the great bulk of the Versions,—and the mighty array
of (upwards of fifty) Fathers exhibited above?