_Ponderari debent testes_, 455
πονηροῦ, (ἀπὸ τοῦ), 214-6
Possession (Demoniacal), 206
Possession (right of), 199-206
Powles (Rev. R. Cowley), _Pref._ xxviii, 322
“Praxapostolus,” _see_ “Apostolus.”
“Pre-Syrian”, 357-8
“Pre-Syrian Non-Western”, 357
Preface of 1611, 187-91, 198-9
—— 1881, 189
Preponderating evidence, 411, 496
Prepositions, 170-5
“Present” (Greek), sometimes a Future, 163-4
—— sense of “perfect”, 163
Principle of translation, mistaken, 187-96
“Principles of Textual Criticism”, 125-6, 227, 349-50, 374-5, 411
Probability, 497
Proper names in S. Matt. i. 186
“Proud-in-the-imagination-of-their-hearts”, 172
Provision (GOD’s) for the safety of His Word, 8, 9, 338, 494
προέφθασεν, 146
Pronouns, 165
πρώτη, 180
Pulcheria, 465
Pusey (P. E.), 345, 382, 449, 468
Pyramus and Thisbe, 171
Pyramid poised on its apex, 342-5
“_Quarterly Review_”, _Pref._ ix-xiv
_Quia_, 448, 473
_Quod_ (in 1 Tim. iii. 16), 448
Quotations, _see_ “Fathers.”
Randell (Rev. T.), 481, 493
“Ravine”, 181
“Readings,” _see_ “Various.”
—— before “Renderings”, 106, 225
Received Text, _see_ “Textus.”
Recension (imaginary), 271-88
Reiche (J. G.), 380-1
Reiteration not Proof, 306-7
Rendering of the same word, 138, 152-4, 187-202
Result of acquaintance with documents, 337
Rettig (H. C. M.), 442
“Revised Version,” _see_ “Revision.”
Revisers exceeded their Instructions:—
(1) In respect of the English, 112, 127-30, 155-7, 225-6, 368, 400-3
(2) In respect of the Greek, 57-8, 97, 118-26, 224, 399, 403-6
Revising body (composition of), 504-5
Revision, original Resolution and Rules concerning, 3, 97, 114, 127, 130
—— of 1611, 167, 508-14
—— of 1881, how it was conducted, 37, 117-8, 369
—— unfair in its method, 116, 131-8
—— essentially different from that of 1611, 508-14
—— rests on a foundation of sand, 110, 516
—— incapable of being further revised, 107
—— its case hopeless, 226-7
—— characterized, 238
—— its probable fate, 508-14
—— unfavourable to Orthodoxy, 513
—— interesting specimens, 171, 401
Rhythm in translation, 188
Rieu (Dr.), 453
Right of possession, 199
“Ring of genuineness”, 307, 309-12
Roberts (Dr.), 36, 39-40, 48, 98, 230
Rocchi (Hieromonachus), 447-8, 474, 492, _see the_ APPENDIX.
Rogers, the poet, 162
Romans ix. 5, 210-4
Rome, (_See_ “Cozza Luzi,” “Escher”), 521
Rose, (Rev. W. F.), of Worle, Somersetshire, _Pref._ xxviii
Rouser (Professor), 306
Routh (President), 152, 211, 444, 452, 501
Sachau, 481
S. Andrews (Bp. of), _see_ “Wordsworth.”
Salisbury (Bp. of), _see_ “Moberly.”
Samaria, (woman of), 407-8
Sanday, (Dr.), _Pref._ xvi
Saville (Prof.), 306
Scholium misunderstood, 467, 468
Scholz (Dr.), 246, 380, 445, 456
Scott (Sir Gilbert), 306
Scripture, God’s provision for its safety 8, 9, 338, 494
—— depraved by heretics, 336
Scrivener (Prebendary), 13, 30, 37, 49, 106, 108, 126, 231, 237-8, 243,
246, 317, 381, 405, 431, 474, 477, 493, 502-3, _see back of
Title._
Septuagint, 182, 183, 184, 228
“Sepulchre,” the Holy, 198
σημεῖον, 203-4
σικάριοι, 147
Sieber (M.), 493
σίκερα, 180
Sinaiticus, cod. (א), 11-17, 265, 286,,289, 291, 314-5, 325-6, 343-5
Sixteen places, 415-9
Smith (Dr. Vance), 174, 204-5, 503-8, 513, 515
Socinian gloss, 210-4
“_Solvere ambulando_”, 126, 228, xxxi
σπεκουλάτωρ, 147
Spelling of proper names, 186-7
σπλάγχνα, 153
σπυρίς, 171, 180
Stanley (Dean), 135, 507
Stillingfleet (Bp.), 500
στιβάς and στοιβάδες, 58-60
συντρίψασα, 185
συστρεφομένων, 176-7
Syndics of Cambridge Press, xxx-i
Syracuse, 494
Syriac Version, 9
“Syrian,” “Antiochian,” “Græco-Syrian,”—Dr. Hort’s designations of the
Traditional Greek Text 257-65, 269
—— its assumed origin, 272-88
—— and history, 290-1
—— characterized, 87, 288-290
τάφος, 298
Tatian (_see_ INDEX II.) 29, 336, 350
“Teaching”, 199
τέκνον, 153, 179
τέλος, 51
Tenses, 157-64, _see_ “Aorist,” “Imperfect,” “Perfect,” “Pluperfect,”
“Present.”
—— unidiomatically rendered, 402
Test-places (three), 47, 519
Text to be determined by external evidence, 19-20, 45
—— provision for its security, 10
—— (Received), _see_ “Textus Receptus” and “Syrian.”
Texts, _see_ INDEX I.
’Textus Receptus’, 12-3, 17-8, 107, 118
—— (Bp. Ellicott on), 388
—— needs correction 21, 107
—— _see_ “Syrian,” “Traditional.”
Theodore of Mopsuestia, 480, _see_ INDEX II.
Theodotus, the Gnostic, 323-4
Theophilus, Bp. of Antioch, 29
θεόπνευστος, 208-9
Θεός and ὅς in MSS., 99-105, 425-6
—— , not ὅς, to be read in 1 Tim. iii. 16, _Pref._ xxi-iv, 424-501
Thierry (M.), 493
Thirty changes in 38 words, 171
1 Timothy iii. 16. _See_ Θεός
Tischendorf (Dr.) 22-4, 45, 243-4, 246, 270-1, 370, 383, 437-8, 451, 467
Title on the Cross, 85-8
“Titus Justus”, 53-4
“Tomb”, 198
Tradition (Ecclesiastical), 495
Traditional Text departed from 6000 times, 107
—— _see_ “Syrian.”
—— meaning of S. Mark xiii. 32, 209-10
“Transcriptional probability”, 251-2
Translators of 1611, 187-91, 207
—— of 1881, mistaken principle of 138, 187-96
Transposition, 93-7
Tregelles (Dr.), 22, 45, 243, 246, 270, 370, 380, 383, 431, 451, 467, 498
Trench (Abp.), xlii, 106, 229
Trinitarian doctrine, 174-5
True Text, (only safe way of ascertaining), 339-42
Tusculum, 446
Tyndale (William), 167, 191, 192
Uncials (depravity of the old), 12-17, 30-5, 46-7, 75-6, 94-5
Uniformity of rendering, 166, 187
“Unitarian” Reviser, intolerable, 503-8
ὑπό and διά, 156
ὑποτύπωσις, 351
Uppström (Andr.), 452
Upsala, 444, _see_ “Belsheim.”
Ussher (Abp.), 432, 469, 500
Valckenaer, 228
Valentinus, 29
Various Readings, 49-50, 56, 65, 130-1
Vaticanus, codex (B), 11-17, 265, 273, 286, 289, 291, 314-5, 325, 342-5,
_see_ “B and א.”
Veludo (Sig.), 492
Vercellone (C.), 381
Verifying faculty, 95-6, 109, 253, 290-1, 307-8
Version (Authorized), 112-4
—— (old Latin), 9, 448
—— (Vulgate), 9, 419
—— (Peschito), 9, 449-50
—— (Harkleian), 450
—— (Coptic), 9, 451-2
—— (Sahidic), 9, 451-2
—— (Gothic), 9, 452-3
—— (Armenian), 9, 453
—— (Æthiopic), 9, 453
—— (Georgian), 454
—— (Arabic), 453-4
—— (Slavonian), 454
“Vials”, 200
Von Heinemann (Dr.), 493
Vulgate, _see_ “Version.”
W. (M.), _Pref._ xxviii
Walton (Bp. Brian), 432
Waterland (Dr.), 500
Way (only safe) of ascertaining the True Test, 339-42
Weber (M.), 437
Wescher (M.), 492
“Wesleyan Methodist” Revisers, 504-5
West the painter, 162
Westcott (Dr.), xlii, 124, _see_ “Hort.”
Westcott and Hort (Drs.), 24-9, 33, 49, 51, 72, 83, 91, 92, 94, 95, 97,
110, 114, 125, 134-5, 177, 239-41, 245, 247, 370, 380, 382,
499, 502, 518-9, _See reverse of Title-page, and Pref._ xi-iv,
xxvi-viii, xxxi
“Western,”, 357
—— readings, 271-2
—— and “Syrian”, 361
“Westminster Abbey scandal”, 507
Wetstein (J. J.), 246, 383, 426, 456, 467, 469, 480, 497
Wilberforce (Bp.), 229, 415, 505, 507
Woide (C. G.), 434-7
Wolfii _Anecd. Græca_, 458
Wood (C. F. B.), 183
Word, incarnate and written, 334-5, 390-1
Wordsworth (Dr. Charles), Bp. of S. Andrews, 106, 165, 229-30, 382
—— (Dr. Christopher), Bp. of Lincoln, 37, 112, 147, 184, 226, 368, 382,
400, 502, 505, 513, _Ded._ vi
Wotton (Henry), 433
Xenophon, 149
Young (Patrick), 432
—— (Dr.), of Glasgow, 477
ζώνη, 201
FOOTNOTES
1 Any one who desires to see this charge established, is invited to
read from page 399 to page 413 of what follows.
2 Dr. Newth. See pp. 37-9.
3 See pp. 24-9: 97, &c.
4 See below, pp. 1 to 110.
5 This will be found more fully explained from pp. 127 to 130: pp. 154
to 164: also pp. 400 to 403. See also the quotations on pp. 112 and
368.
6 See below, pp. 113 to 232.
7 See below, pp. 235 to 366.
_ 8 Gospel of the Resurrection_, p. viii.
9 Reference is made to a vulgar effusion in the “_Contemporary
Review_” for March 1882: from which it chiefly appears that Canon
(now Archdeacon) Farrar is unable to forgive S. Mark the Evangelist
for having written the 16th verse of his concluding chapter. The
Venerable writer is in consequence for ever denouncing those “_last
Twelve Verses_.” In March 1882, (pretending to review my Articles in
the “Quarterly,”) he says:—“In spite of Dean Burgon’s Essay on the
subject, the minds of most scholars are _quite unalterably made up_
on such questions as the authenticity of the last twelve verses of
S. Mark.” [_Contemporary Review_, vol. xli. p. 365.] And in the
ensuing October,—“If, among _positive results_, any one should set
down such facts as that ... Mark xvi. 9-20 ... _formed no part of
the original apostolic autograph_ ... He, I say, who should
enumerate these points as being _beyond the reach of serious
dispute_ ... would be expressing the views which are _regarded as
indisputable_ by the vast majority of such recent critics as have
established any claim to serious attention.” [_Expositor_, p. 173.]
It may not be without use to the Venerable writer that he should be
reminded that critical questions, instead of being disposed of by
such language as the foregoing, are not even touched thereby. One is
surprised to have to tell a “fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge,”
so obvious a truth as that by such writing he does but effectually
put himself out of court. By proclaiming that his mind is “_quite
unalterably made up_” that the end of S. Mark’s Gospel is not
authentic, he admits that he is impervious to argument and therefore
incapable of understanding proof. It is a mere waste of time to
reason with an unfortunate who announces that he is beyond the reach
of conviction.
10 No. xxviii., page 436. If any one cares to know what the teaching
was which the writer in the “Church Quarterly” was intending to
reproduce, he is invited to read from p. 296 to p. 300 of the
present volume.
_ 11 Contemporary Review_, (Dec. 1881),—p. 985 seq.
12 Q. R. (No. 304,) p. 313.—The passage referred to will be found below
(at p. 14),—slightly modified, in order to protect myself against
the risk of _future_ misconception. My Reviewer refers to four other
places. He will find that my only object in them all was to prove
that codices A B א C D _yield divergent testimony_; and therefore,
so habitually _contradict_ one another, as effectually to invalidate
their own evidence throughout. This has never been _proved_ before.
It can _only_ be proved, in fact, by one who has laboriously
collated the codices in question, and submitted to the drudgery of
exactly tabulating the result.
13 “Damus tibi in manus Novum Testamentum _idem profecto_, quod ad
textum attinet, cum ed. Millianâ,”—are the well known opening words
of the “Monitum” prefixed to Lloyd’s N. T.—And Mill, according to
Scrivener, [_Introduction_, p. 399,] “only aims at reproducing
Stephens’ text of 1550, though in a few places he departs from it,
whether by accident or design.” Such places are found to amount in
all to _twenty-nine_.
14 See below, pp. 257-8: also p. 390.
_ 15 The Revisers and the Greek Text of the New Testament_,
&c.—Macmillan, pp. 79.
16 See below, pp. 369 to 520.
17 Pages 371-2.
_ 18 Pamphlet_, pp. 77: 39, 40, 41.
19 See below, p. 425.
20 Pages 424-501.
21 From January till June 1883.
_ 22 Pamphlet_, p. 76.
_ 23 E.g._ pages 252-268: 269-277: 305-308.
_ 24 E.g._ pages 302-306.
25 Page 354.
26 On that day appeared Dr. Hort’s “_Introduction and Appendix_” to the
N. T. as edited by himself and Dr. Westcott.
27 “_Charge_,” published in the _Guardian_, Dec. 20, 1882, p. 1813.
28 Preface to _History of the English Bible_ (p. ix.),—1868.
29 Preface to _Pastoral Epistles_ (p. xiv.),—1861.
_ 30 The Authorized Version of the N. T._ (p. 3),—1858.
_ 31 The New Testament of Our Lord and Saviour __JESUS CHRIST__
translated out of the Greek: being the Version set forth __A.D.__
1611, compared with the most ancient Authorities, and Revised
__A.D.__ 1881._ Printed for the Universities of Oxford and
Cambridge, 1881.
_ 32 The New Testament in the Original Greek, according to the Text
followed in the Authorized Version, together with the Variations
adopted in the Revised Version._ Edited for the Syndics of the
Cambridge University Press, by F. H. A. Scrivener, M.A., D.C.L.,
LL.D., Prebendary of Exeter and Vicar of Hendon. Cambridge, 1881.
Ἡ ΚΑΙΝΗ ΔΙΑΘΗΚΗ. _The Greek Testament, with the Readings adopted by
the Revisers of the Authorized Version._ [Edited by the Ven.
Archdeacon Palmer, D.D.] Oxford, 1881.
_ 33 On Revision_,—pp. 215-6.
34 Tertullian, _bis._
35 Hieron. _Opp._ ii. 177 c (see the note).
36 Apud Hieron. iii. 121.
37 iv. 617 c (ed. Pusey).
38 P. 272.
39 i. 548 c; viii. 207 a.
40 iv. 205.
41 A reference to the _Journal of Convocation_, for a twelvemonth after
the proposal for a Revision of the Authorized Version was seriously
entertained, will reveal more than it would be convenient in this
place even to allude to.
42 We derive our information from the learned Congregationalist, Dr.
Newth,—_Lectures on Bible Revision_ (1881), p. 116.
_ 43 On Revision_, pp. 26-7.
44 Dr. Scrivener’s _Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New
Testament_, 2nd edition, 1874 (pp. 607), may be confidently
recommended to any one who desires to master the outlines of Textual
Criticism under the guidance of a judicious, impartial, and
thoroughly competent guide. A new and revised edition of this
excellent treatise will appear shortly.
45 Studious readers are invited to enquire for Dr. Scrivener’s _Full
and exact Collation of about Twenty Greek Manuscripts of the Holy
Gospels (hitherto unexamined), deposited in the British Museum, the
Archiepiscopal Library at Lambeth, &c., with a Critical
Introduction_. (Pp. lxxiv. and 178.) 1853. The introductory matter
deserves very attentive perusal.—With equal confidence we beg to
recommend his _Exact Transcript of the Codex Augiensis, a
Græco-Latin Manuscript of S. Paul’s Epistles, deposited in the
Library of Trinity College, Cambridge; to which is added a full
Collation of Fifty Manuscripts, containing various portions of the
Greek New Testament, in the Libraries of Cambridge, Parham,
Leicester, Oxford, Lambeth, the British Museum, &c. With a Critical
Introduction_ (which must also be carefully studied). (Pp. lxxx. and
563.) 1859.—Learned readers can scarcely require to be told of the
same learned scholar’s _Novum Testamentum Textûs Stephanici,
__A.D.__ 1550. Accedunt variæ Lectiones Editionum Bezæ, Elzeviri,
Lachmanni, Tischendorfii, Tregellesii._ Curante F. H. A. Scrivener,
A.M., D.C.L., LL.D. [1860.] Editio auctior et emendatior.
1877.—Those who merely wish for a short popular Introduction to the
subject may be grateful to be told of Dr. Scrivener’s Six _Lectures
on the Text of the N. T. and the Ancient MSS. which contain it,
chiefly addressed to those who do not read Greek_. 1875.
46 Scrivener’s _Plain Introduction_,—p. 118.
_ 47 Bezæ Codex Cantabrigiensis: being an exact Copy, in ordinary Type,
of the celebrated Uncial Græco-Latin Manuscript of the Four Gospels
and Acts of the Apostles, written early in the Sixth Century, and
presented to the University of Cambridge by Theodore Beza_, A.D.
1581. Edited, with a Critical Introduction, Annotations, and
Facsimiles, by Frederick H. Scrivener, M.A., Rector of S. Gerrans,
Cornwall. (Pp. lxiv. and 453.) Cambridge, 1864. No one who aspires
to a competent acquaintance with Textual Criticism can afford to be
without this book.
48 On the subject of codex א we beg (once for all) to refer scholars to
Scrivener’s _Full Collation of the Codex Sinaiticus with the
Received Text of the New Testament. To which is prefixed a Critical
Introduction._ [1863.] 2nd Edition, revised. (Pp. lxxii. and 163.)
1867.
49 Bishop Ellicott’s _Considerations on Revision_, &c. (1870), p. 40.
50 The epithet “_cursive_,” is used to denote manuscripts written in
“running-hand,” of which the oldest known specimens belong to the
IXth century. “_Uncial_” manuscripts are those which are written in
capital letters. A “_codex_” popularly signifies a _manuscript_. A
“version” is _a translation_. A “recension” is _a revision_. (We
have been requested to explain these terms.)
_ 51 Considerations on Revision_, p. 30.
52 Once for all, we request it may be clearly understood that we do
not, by any means, claim _perfection_ for the Received Text. We
entertain no extravagant notions on this subject. Again and again we
shall have occasion to point out (_e.g._ at page 107) that the
_Textus Receptus_ needs correction. We do but insist, (1) That it is
an incomparably better text than that which either Lachmann, or
Tischendorf, or Tregelles has produced: infinitely preferable to the
“New Greek Text” of the Revisionists. And, (2) That to be improved,
the _Textus Receptus_ will have to be revised on entirely different
“principles” from those which are just now in fashion. Men must
begin by unlearning the _German prejudices_ of the last fifty years;
and address themselves, instead, to the stern logic of _facts_.
53 Scrivener’s _Introduction_, pp. 342-4.
_ 54 Ut suprà_, p. 46. We prefer to quote the indictment against
Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, from the pages of Revisionists.
55 “Ex scriptoribus Græcis _tantisper Origene solo_ usi
sumus.”—_Præfatio_, p. xxi.
56 Scrivener’s _Plain Introd._ p. 397.
_ 57 Ut suprà_, p. 48.
_ 58 Ut suprà_, p. 47.
59 Prebendary Scrivener, _ibid._ (ed. 1874), p. 429.
_ 60 Ibid._ p. 470.
_ 61 Ibid._
_ 62 Concilia_, i. 852.
_ 63 Ut suprà_, p. 47.
_ 64 The New Testament in the Original Greek._ The Text revised by
Brooke Foss Westcott, D.D., and Fenton John Anthony Hort, D.D.
Cambridge and London, 1881.
65 From the Preface prefixed to the “limited and private issue” of
1870, p. vi.
_ 66 Ut suprà_, p. xv.
_ 67 Ibid._ p. xviii.
_ 68 Ibid._ p. xvi.
_ 69 Ibid._ pp. xviii., xix.
70 [_Note,—that I have thought it best, for many reasons, to retain the
ensuing note as it originally appeared; merely restoring [within
brackets] those printed portions of it for which there really was no
room. The third Article in the present volume will be found to
supply an ample exposure of the shallowness of Drs. Westcott and
Hort’s Textual Theory._]
While these sheets are passing through the press, a copy of the
long-expected volume reaches us. The theory of the respected authors
proves to be the shallowest imaginable. It is briefly
_this_:—Fastening on the two oldest codices extant (B and א, both of
the IVth century), they invent the following hypothesis:—“That the
ancestries of those two manuscripts _diverged from a point near the
autographs, and never came into contact subsequently_.” [No reason
is produced for this opinion.]
Having thus secured two independent witnesses of what was in the
sacred autographs, the Editors claim that the _coincidence_ of א and
B must “mark those portions of text in which two primitive and
entirely separate lines of transmission had not come to differ from
each other through independent corruption:” and therefore that, “in
the absence of specially strong internal evidence to the contrary,”
“the readings of א and B combined _may safely be accepted as
genuine_.”
But what is to be done when the same two codices diverge _one from
the other_?—In all such cases (we are assured) the readings of any
“binary combination” of B are to be preferred; because “on the
closest scrutiny,” they generally “have the _ring of genuineness_;”
hardly ever “_look suspicious_ after full consideration.” “Even when
B stands quite alone, its readings must never be lightly rejected.”
[We are not told why.]
But, (rejoins the student who, after careful collation of codex B,
has arrived at a vastly different estimate of its character,)—What
is to be done when internal and external evidence alike condemn a
reading of B? How is “_mumpsimus_” for example to be
treated?—“_Mumpsimus_” (the Editors solemnly reply) as “the better
attested reading”—(by which they mean the reading attested by B,)—we
place in our margin. “_Sumpsimus_,” apparently the _right_ reading,
we place in the text within ††; in token that it is probably “_a
successful ancient conjecture_.”
We smile, and resume:—But how is the fact to be accounted for that
the text of Chrysostom and (in the main) of the rest of the
IVth-century Fathers, to whom we are so largely indebted for our
critical materials, and who must have employed codices fully as old
as B and א: how is it, we ask, that the text of all these, including
codex A, differs essentially from the text exhibited by codices B
and א?—The editors reply,—The text of Chrysostom and the rest, we
designate “Syrian,” and assume to have been the result of an
“editorial Revision,” which we conjecturally assign to the second
half of the IIIrd century. It is the “_Pre-Syrian_” text that we are
in search of; and we recognize the object of our search in codex B.
We stare, and smile again. But how then does it come to pass (we
rejoin) that the Peschito, or primitive _Syriac_, which is older by
full a century and a half than the last-named date, is practically
still the same text?—This fatal circumstance (not overlooked by the
learned Editors) they encounter with another conjectural assumption.
“_A Revision_” (say they) “of the Old Syriac version appears to have
taken place early in the IVth century, or sooner; and doubtless in
some connexion with the Syrian revision of the Greek text, the
readings being to a very great extent coincident.”
And pray, where _is_ “the _Old Syriac_ version” of which you
speak?—It is (reply the Editors) our way of designating the
fragmentary Syriac MS. commonly known as “Cureton’s.”—Your way (we
rejoin) of manipulating facts, and disposing of evidence is
certainly the most convenient, as it is the most extraordinary,
imaginable: yet is it altogether inadmissible in a grave enquiry
like the present. Syriac scholars are of a widely different opinion
from yourselves. Do you not perceive that you have been drawing upon
your imagination for every one of your facts?
We decline in short on the mere conjectural _ipse dixit_ of these
two respected scholars to admit either that the Peschito is a
Revision of Cureton’s Syriac Version;—or that it was executed about
A.D. 325;—or that the text of Chrysostom and the other principal
IVth-century Fathers is the result of an unrecorded “Antiochian
Revision” which took place about the year A.D. 275.
[But instead of troubling ourselves with removing the upper story of
the visionary structure before us,—which reminds us painfully of a
house which we once remember building with playing-cards,—we begin
by removing the basement-story, which brings the entire
superstructure in an instant to the ground.]
For we decline to admit that the texts exhibited by B א can have
“diverged from a point near the sacred autographs, and never come
into contact subsequently.” We are able to show, on the contrary,
that the readings they jointly embody afford the strongest
presumption that the MSS. which contain them are nothing else but
specimens of those “corrected,” _i.e._ _corrupted_ copies, which are
known to have abounded in the earliest ages of the Church. From the
prevalence of identical depravations in either, we infer that they
are, on the contrary, derived from the same not very remote depraved
original: and therefore, that their coincidence, when they differ
from all (or nearly all) other MSS., so far from marking “two
primitive and entirely separate lines of transmission” of the
inspired autographs, does but mark what was derived from the same
corrupt common ancestor; whereby the supposed two independent
witnesses to the Evangelic verity become resolved into _a single
witness to a fabricated text of the IIIrd century_.