_a single Greek codex_,—and that, the most depraved of all,—viz. Beza’s
D.(190) It should further be stated that the only allies discoverable for
D are a few copies of the old Latin. What we are saying will seem scarcely
credible: but it is a plain fact, of which any one may convince himself
who will be at the pains to inspect the critical apparatus at the foot of
the pages of Tischendorf’s last (8th) edition. Our Revisionists’ notion,
therefore, of what constitutes “weighty evidence” is now before the
Reader. If, in _his_ judgment, the testimony of _one single manuscript_,
(and _that_ manuscript the Codex Bezæ (D),)—does really invalidate that of
_all other Manuscripts and all other Versions_ in the world,—then of
course, the Greek Text of the Revisionists will in his judgment be a thing
to be rejoiced over. But what if he should be of opinion that such
testimony, in and by itself, is simply worthless? We shrewdly suspect that
the Revisionists’ view of what constitutes “weighty Evidence” will be
found to end where it began, viz. in the Jerusalem Chamber.
For, when we reach down codex D from the shelf, we are reminded that,
within the space of the three chapters of S. Luke’s Gospel now under
consideration, there are in all no less than 354 words omitted; _of
which_, 250 _are omitted by_ D _alone_. May we have it explained to us
why, of those 354 words, only 25 are singled out by Drs. Westcott and Hort
for permanent excision from the sacred Text? Within the same compass, no
less than 173 words have been _added by_ D to the commonly Received
Text,—146, _substituted_,—243, _transposed_. May we ask how it comes to
pass that of those 562 words _not one_ has been promoted to their margin
by the Revisionists?... Return we, however, to our list of the changes
which they actually _have_ effected.
(1) Now, that ecclesiastical usage and the parallel places would seriously
affect such precious words as are found in S. Luke xxii. 19, 20,—was to
have been expected. Yet has the type been preserved all along, from the
beginning, with singular exactness; except in one little handful of
singularly licentious documents, viz. in D a ff2 i l, which _leave all
out_;—in b e, which substitute verses 17 and 18;—and in “the singular and
sometimes rather wild Curetonian Syriac Version,”(191) which, retaining
the 10 words of ver. 19, substitutes verses 17, 18 for ver. 20. Enough for
the condemnation of D survives in
Justin,(192)—Basil,(193)—Epiphanius,(194)—Theodoret,(195)—Cyril,(196)—Maximus,(197)—Jerome.(198)
But why delay ourselves concerning a place vouched for _by every known
copy of the Gospels except_ D? Drs. Westcott and Hort entertain “_no moral
doubt_ that the [32] words [given at foot(199)] were absent from the
original text of S. Luke;” in which opinion, happily, _they stand alone_.
But why did our Revisionists suffer themselves to be led astray by such
blind guidance?
The next place is entitled to far graver attention, and may on no account
be lightly dismissed, seeing that these two verses contain the sole record
of that “Agony in the Garden” which the universal Church has almost
erected into an article of the Faith.
(2) That the incident of the ministering Angel, the Agony and bloody sweat
of the world’s Redeemer (S. Luke xxii. 43, 44), was anciently absent from
certain copies of the Gospels, is expressly recorded by Hilary,(200) by
Jerome,(201) and others. Only necessary is it to read the apologetic
remarks which Ambrose introduces when he reaches S. Luke xxii. 43,(202) to
understand what has evidently led to this serious mutilation of
Scripture,—traces of which survive at this day exclusively in _four_
codices, viz. A B R T. Singular to relate, in the Gospel which was read on
Maundy-Thursday these two verses of S. Luke’s Gospel are thrust in between
the 39th and the 40th verses of S. Matthew xxvi. Hence, 4 cursive copies,
viz. 13-69-124-346—(confessedly derived from a common ancient
archetype,(203) and therefore not four witnesses but only one),—actually
exhibit these two Verses in that place. But will any unprejudiced person
of sound mind entertain a doubt concerning the genuineness of these two
verses, witnessed to as they are by _the whole body of the Manuscripts_,
uncial as well as cursive, and _by every ancient Version_?... If such a
thing were possible, it is hoped that the following enumeration of ancient
Fathers, who distinctly recognize the place under discussion, must at
least be held to be decisive:—viz.
Justin M.,(204)—Irenæus(205) in the IInd century:—
Hippolytus,(206)—Dionysius Alex.,(207)—ps. Tatian,(208) in the IIIrd.—
Arius,(209)—Eusebius,(210)—Athanasius,(211)—Ephraem
Syr.,(212)—Didymus,(213)—Gregory
Naz.,(214)—Epiphanius,(215)—Chrysostom,(216)—ps.-Dionysius Areop.,(217) in
the IVth:—
Julian the heretic,(218)—Theodoras Mops.,(219)—Nestorius,(220)—Cyril
Alex.,(221)—Paulus, bishop of
Emesa,(222)—Gennadius,(223)—Theodoret,(224)—and several Oriental Bishops
(A.D. 431),(225) in the Vth:—besides Ps.-Cæsarius,(226)—Theodosius
Alex.,(227)—John Damascene,(228)—Maximus,(229)—Theodorus
hæret.,(230)—Leontius Byz.,(231)—Anastasius Sin.,(232)—Photius:(233) and
of the Latins,
Hilary,(234)—Jerome,(235)—Augustine,(236)—Cassian,(237)—Paulinus,(238)—Facundus.(239)
It will be seen that we have been enumerating _upwards of forty famous
personages from every part of ancient Christendom_, who recognize these
verses as genuine; fourteen of them being as old,—some of them, a great
deal older,—than our oldest MSS.—_Why_ therefore Drs. Westcott and Hort
should insist on shutting up these 26 precious words—this article of the
Faith—in double brackets, in token that it is “morally certain” that
verses 43 and 44 are of spurious origin, we are at a loss to divine.(240)
We can but ejaculate (in the very words they proceed to
disallow),—“FATHER, forgive them; for they know not what they do.” But our
especial concern is with _our Revisionists_; and we do not exceed our
province when we come forward to reproach them sternly for having
succumbed to such evil counsels, and deliberately branded these Verses
with their own corporate expression of doubt. For unless _that_ be the
purpose of the marginal Note which they have set against these verses, we
fail to understand the Revisers’ language and are wholly at a loss to
divine what purpose that note of theirs can be meant to serve. It is
prefaced by a formula which, (as we learn from their own Preface,) offers
to the reader the “alternative” of _omitting_ the Verses in question:
implies that “_it would not be safe_” any longer to accept them,—as the
Church has hitherto done,—with undoubting confidence. In a word,—_it
brands them with suspicion_.... We have been so full on this subject,—(not
half of our references were known to Tischendorf,)—because of the
unspeakable preciousness of the record; and because we desire to see an
end at last to expressions of doubt and uncertainty on points which really
afford not a shadow of pretence for either. These two Verses were excised
through mistaken piety by certain of the orthodox,—jealous for the honour
of their LORD, and alarmed by the use which the impugners of His GODhead
freely made of them.(241) Hence Ephraem [_Carmina Nisibena_, p. 145] puts
the following words into the mouth of Satan, addressing the host of
Hell:—“One thing I witnessed in Him which especially comforts me. I saw
Him praying; and I rejoiced, for His countenance changed and He was
afraid. _His sweat was drops of blood_, for He had a presentiment that His
day had come. This was the fairest sight of all,—unless, to be sure, He
was practising deception on me. For verily if He hath deceived me, then it
is all over,—both with me, and with you, my servants!”
(4) Next in importance after the preceding, comes the Prayer which the
SAVIOUR of the World breathed from the Cross on behalf of His murderers
(S. Luke xxiii. 34). These twelve precious words,—(“Then said JESUS,
FATHER, forgive them; for they know not what they do,”)—like those
twenty-six words in S. Luke xxii. 43, 44 which we have been considering
already, Drs. Westcott and Hort enclose within double brackets in token of
the “moral certainty” they entertain that the words are spurious.(242) And
yet these words are found in _every known uncial_ and in _every known
cursive Copy_, except four; besides being found _in every ancient
Version_. And _what_,—(we ask the question with sincere
simplicity,)—_what_ amount of evidence is calculated to inspire undoubting
confidence in any existing Reading, if not such a concurrence of
Authorities as this?... We forbear to insist upon the probabilities of the
case. The Divine power and sweetness of the incident shall not be enlarged
upon. We introduce no considerations resulting from Internal Evidence.
True, that “few verses of the Gospels bear in themselves a surer witness
to the Truth of what they record, than this.” (It is the admission of the
very man(243) who has nevertheless dared to brand it with suspicion.) But
we reject his loathsome patronage with indignation. “Internal
Evidence,”—“Transcriptional Probability,”—and all such “chaff and draff,”
with which he fills his pages _ad nauseam_, and mystifies nobody but
himself,—shall be allowed no place in the present discussion. Let this
verse of Scripture stand or fall as it meets with sufficient external
testimony, or is forsaken thereby. How then about the _Patristic_
evidence,—for this is all that remains unexplored?
Only a fraction of it was known to Tischendorf. We find our SAVIOUR’S
Prayer attested,—
In the IInd century by Hegesippus,(244)—and by Irenæus:(245)—
In the IIIrd, by Hippolytus,(246)—by Origen,(247)—by the _Apostolic
Constitutions_,(248)—by the _Clementine Homilies_,(249)—by
ps.-Tatian,(250)—and by the disputation of Archelaus with Manes:(251)—
In the IVth, by Eusebius,(252)—by Athanasius,(253)—by Gregory
Nyss.,(254)—by Theodoras Herac.,(255)—by Basil,(256)—by
Chrysostom,(257)—by Ephraem Syr.,(258)—by ps.-Ephraim,(259)—by
ps.-Dionysius Areop.,(260)—by the Apocryphal _Acta Pilati_,(261)—by the
_Acta Philippi_,(262)—and by the Syriac _Acts of the App._,(263)—by
ps.-Ignatius,(264)—and ps.-Justin:(265)—
In the Vth, by Theodoret,(266)—by Cyril,(267)—by Eutherius:(268)
In the VIth, by Anastasius Sin.,(269)—by Hesychius:(270)—
In the VIIth, by Antiochus mon.,(271)—by Maximus,(272)—by Andreas
Cret.:(273)—
In the VIIIth, by John Damascene,(274)—besides ps.-Chrysostom,(275)—ps.
Amphilochius,(276)—and the _Opus imperf._(277)
Add to this, (since Latin authorities have been brought to the
front),—Ambrose,(278)—Hilary,(279)—Jerome,(280)—Augustine,(281)—and other
earlier writers.(282)
We have thus again enumerated _upwards of forty_ ancient Fathers. And
again we ask, With what show of reason is the brand set upon these 12
words? Gravely to cite, as if there were anything in it, such
counter-evidence as the following, to the foregoing torrent of Testimony
from every part of ancient Christendom:—viz: “B D, 38, 435, a b d and one
Egyptian version”—might really have been mistaken for a _mauvaise
plaisanterie_, were it not that the gravity of the occasion effectually
precludes the supposition. How could our Revisionists _dare_ to insinuate
doubts into wavering hearts and unlearned heads, where (as here) they were
_bound_ to know, there exists _no manner of doubt at all_?
(5) The record of the same Evangelist (S. Luke xxiii. 38) that the
Inscription over our SAVIOUR’S Cross was “written ... in letters of Greek,
and Latin, and Hebrew,” _disappears entirely_ from our “Revised” version;
and this, for no other reason, but because the incident is omitted by B C
L, the corrupt Egyptian versions, and Cureton’s depraved Syriac: the text
of which (according to Bp. Ellicott(283)) “is of a very composite
nature,—_sometimes inclining to the shortness and simplicity of the
Vatican manuscript_” (B): _e.g._ on the present occasion. But surely the
negative testimony of this little band of disreputable witnesses is
entirely outweighed by the positive evidence of א A D Q R with 13 other
uncials,—the evidence of _the entire body of the cursives_,—the sanction
of the Latin,—the Peschito and Philoxenian Syriac,—the
Armenian,—Æthiopic,—and Georgian versions; besides Eusebius—whose
testimony (which is express) has been hitherto strangely
overlooked(284)—and Cyril.(285) Against the threefold plea of Antiquity,
Respectability of witnesses, Universality of testimony,—what have our
Revisionists to show? (_a_) They cannot pretend that there has been
Assimilation here; for the type of S. John xix. 20 is essentially
different, and has retained its distinctive character all down the ages.
(_b_) Nor can they pretend that the condition of the Text hereabouts bears
traces of having been jealously guarded. We ask the Reader’s attention to
this matter just for a moment. There may be some of the occupants of the
Jerusalem Chamber even, to whom what we are about to offer may not be
altogether without the grace of novelty:—
That the Title on the Cross is diversely set down by each of the four
Evangelists,—all men are aware. But perhaps all are not aware that _S.
Luke’s record_ of the Title (in ch. xxiii. 38) is exhibited in _four
different ways_ by codices A B C D:—
A exhibits—ΟΥΤΟΣ ΕΣΤΙΝ Ο ΒΑΣΙΛΕΥΣ ΤΩΝ ΙΟΥΔΑΙΩΝ
B (with א L and a) exhibits—Ο ΒΑΣΙΛΕΥΣ ΤΩΝ ΙΟΥΔΑΙΩΝ ΟΥΤΟΣ
C exhibits—Ο ΒΑΣΙΛΕΥΣ ΤΩΝ ΙΟΥΔΑΙΩΝ (which is Mk. xv. 26).
D (with e and ff2) exhibits—Ο ΒΑΣΙΛΕΥΣ ΤΩΝ ΙΟΥΔΑΙΩΝ ΟΥΤΟΣ ΕΣΤΙΝ (which is
the words of the Evangelist transposed).
We propose to recur to the foregoing specimens of licentiousness
by-and-by.(286) For the moment, let it be added that codex X and the
Sahidic version conspire in a fifth variety, viz., ΟΥΤΟΣ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΙΗΣΟΥΣ Ο
ΒΑΣΙΛΕΥΣ ΤΩΝ ΙΟΥΔΑΙΩΝ (which is S. Matt. xxvii. 37); while Ambrose(287) is
found to have used a Latin copy which represented ΙΗΣΟΥΣ Ο ΝΑΖΩΡΑΙΟΣ Ο
ΒΑΣΙΛΕΥΣ ΤΩΝ ΙΟΥΔΑΙΩΝ (which is S. John xix. 18). We spare the reader any
remarks of our own on all this. He is competent to draw his own painful
inferences, and will not fail to make his own damaging reflections. He
shall only be further informed that 14 uncials and the whole body of the
cursive copies side with codex A in upholding the Traditional Text; that
the Vulgate,(288)—the Peschito,—Cureton’s Syriac,—the Philoxenian;—besides
the Coptic,—Armenian,—and Æthiopic versions—are all on the same side:
lastly, that Origen,(289)—Eusebius,—and Gregory of Nyssa(290) are in
addition consentient witnesses;—and we can hardly be mistaken if we
venture to anticipate (1st),—That the Reader will agree with us that the
Text with which we are best acquainted (as usual) is here deserving of all
confidence; and (2ndly),—That the Revisionists who assure us “that they
did not esteem it within their province to construct a continuous and
complete Greek Text;” (and who were never authorized to construct _a new
Greek Text at all_;) were not justified in the course they have pursued
with regard to S. Luke xxiii. 38. “THIS IS THE KING OF THE JEWS” is the
only idiomatic way of rendering into English the title according to S.
Luke, whether the reading of A or of B be adopted; but, in order to make
it plain that they _reject the Greek of_ A _in favour of_ B, the
Revisionists have gone out of their way. They have instructed the two
Editors of “_The Greek Testament with the __ Readings adopted by the
Revisers of the Authorized Version_”(291) to exhibit S. Luke xxiii. 38 _as
it stands in the mutilated recension of Drs. Westcott and Hort_.(292) And
if _this_ procedure, repeated many hundreds of times, be not constructing
a “new Greek Text” of the N. T., we have yet to learn what _is_.
(6) From the first verse of the concluding chapter of S. Luke’s Gospel, is
excluded the familiar clause—“_and certain others with them_” (καί τινες
σὺν αὐταῖς). And pray, why? For no other reason but because א B C L, with
some Latin authorities, omit the clause;—and our Revisionists do the like,
on the plea that they have only been getting rid of a “harmonistic
insertion.”(293) But it is nothing of the sort, as we proceed to explain.
Ammonius, or some predecessor of his early in the IInd century, saw fit
(with perverse ingenuity) to seek to _force_ S. Luke xxiii. 55 into
agreement with S. Matt. xxvii. 61 and S. Mark xv. 47, by turning
κατακολουθήσασαι δὲ καὶ γυναῖκες,—into κατηκολούθησαν δὲ ΔΎΟ γυναῖκες.
This done, in order to produce “harmonistic” agreement and to be thorough,
the same misguided individual proceeded to run his pen through the words
“and certain with them” (καί τινες σὺν αὐταῖς) as inopportune; and his
work was ended. 1750 years have rolled by since then, and—What traces
remain of the man’s foolishness? Of his _first_ feat (we answer),
Eusebius,(294) D and Evan. 29, besides five copies of the old Latin (a b e
ff2 q), are the sole surviving Witnesses. Of his _second_ achievement, א B
C L, 33, 124, have preserved a record; besides seven copies of the old
Latin (a b c e ff2 g-1 1), together with the Vulgate, the Coptic, and
Eusebius in one place(295) though not in another.(296) The Reader is
therefore invited to notice that the tables have been unexpectedly turned
upon our opponents. S. Luke introduced the words “and certain with them,”
in order to prepare us for what he will have to say in xxiv. 10,—viz. “It
was Mary Magdalene, and Joanna, and Mary the mother of James, and _other
women with them_, which told these things unto the Apostles.” Some stupid
harmonizer in the IInd century omitted the words, because they were in his
way. Calamitous however it is that a clause which the Church has long
since deliberately reinstated should, in the year 1881, be as deliberately
banished for the second time from the sacred page by our Revisionists; who
under the plea of _amending our English Authorized Version_ have (with the
best intentions) _falsified the Greek Text_ of the Gospels in countless
places,—often, as here, without notice and without apology.
(10) We find it impossible to pass by in silence the treatment which S.
Luke xxiv. 12 has experienced at their hands. They have branded with doubt
S. Luke’s memorable account of S. Peter’s visit to the sepulchre. And why?
Let the evidence _for_ this precious portion of the narrative be first
rehearsed. Nineteen uncials then, with א A B at their head, supported by
_every known cursive_ copy,—all these vouch for the genuineness of the
verse in question. The Latin,—the Syriac,—and the Egyptian versions also
contain it. Eusebius,(297)—Gregory of
Nyssa,(298)—Cyril,(299)—Severus,(300)—Ammonius,(301) and others(302) refer
to it: while _no ancient writer_ is found to impugn it. Then, _why_ the
double brackets of Drs. Westcott and Hort? and _why_ the correlative
marginal note of our Revisionists?—Simply because D and 5 copies of the
old Latin (a b e l fu) leave these 22 words out.
(11) On the same sorry evidence—(viz. D and 5 copies of the old Latin)—it
is proposed henceforth to omit our SAVIOUR’S greeting to His disciples
when He appeared among them in the upper chamber on the evening of the
first Easter Day. And yet the precious words (“_and saith unto them, Peace
be unto you_” [Lu. xxiv. 36],) are vouched for by 18 uncials (with א A B
at their head), and _every known cursive copy_ of the Gospels: by all the
Versions: and (as before) by Eusebius,(303)—and Ambrose,(304)—by
Chrysostom,(305)—and Cyril,(306)—and Augustine.(307)
(12) The same remarks suggest themselves on a survey of the evidence for
S. Luke xxiv. 40:—“_And when He had thus spoken, He showed them His hands
and His feet._” The words are found in 18 uncials (beginning with א A B),
and in every known cursive: in the Latin,(308)—the Syriac,—the
Egyptian,—in short, _in all the ancient Versions_. Besides these,
ps.-Justin,(309)—Eusebius,(310)—Athanasius,(311)—Ambrose (in
Greek),(312)—Epiphanius,(313)—Chrysostom,(314)—Cyril,(315)—Theodoret,(316)—Ammonius,(317)—and
John Damascene(318)—quote them. What but the veriest trifling is it, in
the face of such a body of evidence, to bring forward the fact that D and
5 copies of the old Latin, with Cureton’s Syriac (of which we have had the
character already(319)), _omit_ the words in question?
The foregoing enumeration of instances of Mutilation might be enlarged to
almost any extent. Take only three more short but striking specimens,
before we pass on:—
(_a_) Thus, the precious verse (S. Matthew xvii. 21) which declares that
“_this kind_ [of evil spirit] _goeth not out but by prayer and fasting_,”
is expunged by our Revisionists; although it is vouched for by every known
uncial _but two_ (B א), every known cursive _but one_ (Evan. 33); is
witnessed to by the Old Latin and the Vulgate,—the Syriac, Coptic,
Armenian, Georgian, Æthiopic, and Slavonic versions; by
Origen,(320)—Athanasius,(321)—Basil,(322)—Chrysostom,(323)—the _Opus
imperf._,(324)—the Syriac Clement,(325)—and John Damascene;(326)—by
Tertullian,—Ambrose,—Hilary,—Juvencus,—Augustine,—Maximus Taur.,—and by
the Syriac version of the _Canons of Eusebius_: above all by the Universal
East,—having been read in all the churches of Oriental Christendom on the
10th Sunday after Pentecost, from the earliest period. Why, in the world,
then (our readers will ask) have the Revisionists left those words out?...
For no other reason, we answer, but because Drs. Westcott and Hort place
them among the interpolations which they consider unworthy of being even
“exceptionally retained in association with the true Text.”(327) “Western
and Syrian” is their oracular sentence.(328)
(_b_) The blessed declaration, “_The Son of Man is come to save that which
was lost_,”—has in like manner been expunged by our Revisionists from S.
Matth. xviii. 11; although it is attested by every known uncial except B א
L, and every known cursive _except three_: by the old Latin and the
Vulgate: by the Peschito, Cureton’s and the Philoxenian Syriac: by the
Coptic, Armenian, Æthiopic, Georgian and Slavonic versions:(329)—by
Origen,(330)—Theodoras Heracl.,(331)—Chrysostom(332)—and Jovius(333) the
monk;—by Tertullian,(334)—Ambrose,(335)—Hilary,(336)—Jerome,(337)—pope
Damasus(338)—and Augustine:(339)—above all, by the Universal Eastern
Church,—for it has been read in all assemblies of the faithful on the
morrow of Pentecost, from the beginning. Why then (the reader will again
ask) have the Revisionists expunged this verse? We can only answer as
before,—because Drs. Westcott and Hort consign it to the _limbus_ of their
_Appendix_; class it among their “Rejected Readings” of the most hopeless
type.(340) As before, _all_ their sentence is “Western and Syrian.” They
add, “Interpolated either from Lu. xix. 10, or from an independent source,
written or oral.”(341)... Will the English Church suffer herself to be in
this way defrauded of her priceless inheritance,—through the irreverent
bungling of well-intentioned, but utterly misguided men?
(_c_) In the same way, our LORD’S important saying,—“_Ye know not what
manner of spirit ye are of: for the Son of man is not come to destroy
men’s lives, but to save them_” (S. Luke ix. 55, 56), has disappeared from
our “Revised” Version; although Manuscripts, Versions, Fathers from the
_second century_ downwards, (as Tischendorf admits,) witness eloquently in
its favour.
V. In conclusion, we propose to advert, just for a moment, to those five
several mis-representations of S. Luke’s “Title on the Cross,” which were
rehearsed above, viz. in page 86. At so gross an exhibition of
licentiousness, it is the mere instinct of Natural Piety to exclaim,—But
then, could not those men even set down so sacred a record as _that_,
correctly? They could, had they been so minded, no doubt, (we answer):
but, marvellous to relate, the TRANSPOSITION of words,—no matter how
significant, sacred, solemn;—of short clauses,—even of whole sentences of
Scripture;—was anciently accounted an allowable, even a graceful exercise
of the critical faculty.