excellent men (who are infinitely better than their theory) the
tribute of our sympathy and concern at the evident perplexity and
constant distress to which their own fatal major premiss has reduced
them. The Nemesis of Superstition and Idolatry is ever the same.
Doubt,—unbelief,—credulity,—general mistrust of _all_ evidence, is
the inevitable sequel and penalty. In 1870, Drs. Westcott and Hort
solemnly assured their brother Revisionists that “the prevalent
assumption, that throughout the N. T. the true text is to be found
_somewhere_ among recorded readings, _does not stand the test of
experience_;”[P. xxi.] and they are evidently still haunted by the
same spectral suspicion. They see a ghost to be exorcised in every
dark corner. “The Art of _Conjectural Emendation_” (says Dr. Hort)
“depends for its success so much on personal endowments, fertility
of resource in the first instance, and even more an appreciation of
language too delicate to acquiesce in merely plausible corrections,
that it is easy to forget its true character as a critical operation
founded on knowledge and method.”[_Introd._ p. 71.] Specimens of the
writer’s skill in this department abound. _One_ occurs at p. 135
(_App._) where, _in defiance of every known document_, he seeks to
evacuate S. Paul’s memorable injunction to Timothy (2 Tim. i. 13) of
all its significance. [A fuller exposure of Dr. Hort’s handling of
this important text will be found later in the present volume.] May
we be allowed to assure the accomplished writer that IN BIBLICAL
TEXTUAL CRITICISM, “CONJECTURAL EMENDATION” HAS NO PLACE?
71 Scrivener, _Introduction_, p. 453.—Stunica, it will be remembered,
was the chief editor of the Complutensian, or _first printed_
edition of the New Testament, (1514).
72 προσέφορον αὐτῷ,—S. Matt. ix. 2.
73 Scrivener, _Plain Introd_. p. 472.
74 The words omitted are therefore the following 22:—ἡμῶν, ὁ ἐν τοῖς
οὐρανοῖς ... γενηθήτω τὸ θελημά σου, ὡς ἐν οὐρανῷ, καὶ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς
... ἀλλὰ ῥῦσαι ἡμᾶς ἀπὸ τοῦ πονηροῦ.
_ 75 Companion to the Revised Version_, p. 61.
_ 76 The last Twelve Verses of the Gospel according to S. Mark,
vindicated against recent critical Objectors and established_, by
the Rev. J. W. Burgon,—pp. 334, published by Parker, Oxford, 1871.
77 As Dr. Jacobson and Dr. Chr. Wordsworth,—the learned Bishops of
Chester and Lincoln. It is right to state that Bp. Ellicott
“_considers the passage doubtful_.” (_On Revision_, p. 36.) Dr.
Scrivener (it is well known) differs entirely from Bp. Ellicott on
this important point.
_ 78 Lectures on Bible Revision_, pp. 119-20.
79 τὰς ἀληθεῖς ῥήσεις Πνεύματος τοῦ Ἁγίου.—Clemens Rom., c. 45.
_ 80 Should the Revised New Testament be authorized?_—p. 42.
_ 81 Revised Version of the first three Gospels, considered,_—by Canon
Cook,—pp. 221-2.
82 At p. 34 of his pamphlet in reply to the first two of the present
Articles.
_ 83 On Revision_, pp. 30 and 49.
_ 84 Words of the N. T._ p. 193.
_ 85 Companion to the Revised Version_, p. 63.
_ 86 Ibid._ p. 62.
87 Viz. Eusebius,—Macarius Magnes,—Aphraates,—Didymus,—the Syriac _Acts
of the App._,—Epiphanius,—Ambrose,—Chrysostom,—Jerome,—Augustine. It
happens that the disputation of Macarius Magnes (A.D. 300-350) with
a heathen philosopher, which has recently come to light, contains an
elaborate discussion of S. Mark xvi. 17, 18. Add the curious story
related by the author of the _Paschal Chronicle_ (A.D. 628)
concerning Leontius, Bishop of Antioch (A.D. 348),—p. 289. This has
been hitherto overlooked.
88 Scrivener’s _Introduction_, p. 515.
89 Tisch. specifies 7 Latin copies. Origen (iii. 946 _f._), Jerome
(vii. 282), and Leo (ap. Sabatier) are the only patristic quotations
discoverable.
90 i. 459
91 i. 374; ii. 714; iv. 15.
92 vii. 47; viii. 13.
_ 93 Dem. Ev._ pp. 163, 342.
94 i. 180, 385.
95 In loc. Also _in Luc._ xix. 29 (_Cat. Ox._ 141).
_ 96 De Trin._ p. 84; Cord. _Cat. in Ps._ ii. 450, 745.
97 i. 845,—which is reproduced in the _Paschal Chronicle_, p. 374.
98 P. 180; cf. p. 162.
99 i. 154, 1047.
100 i. 355, 696, 6; 97 iii. 346.
101 Gr. iii. 434.
102 Ap. Galland. ix. 754.
103 i. 587; ii. 453, 454; vi. 393; vii. 311, 674; viii. 85; xi. 347.
Also _Cat. in Ps._ iii. 139.
104 Ap. Chrys. vi. 424; cf. p. 417.
_ 105 In Luc._ pp. 12, 16, 502 ( = Mai, ii. 128). Also Mai, ii. 343,
_Hom. de Incarn._ p. 109. _Opp._ ii. 593; v.1 681, 30, 128, 380,
402, 154; vi. 398. Maii, iii.2 286.
106 i. 290, 1298; ii. 18; iii. 480.
107 Ap. Galland. ix. 446, 476. _Concil._ iii. 1001, 1023.
_ 108 Concil._ iii. 1002.
109 Ap. Galland. ix. 629.
_ 110 Concil._ iii. 1095.
_ 111 Concil._ iii. 829 = Cyr. _Opp._ vi. 159.
_ 112 Nov. Auctar._ i. 596.
113 Montf. ii. 152, 160, 247, 269.
_ 114 Hexaem._ ed. Migne, vol. 89, p. 899.
115 Ap. Galland. xii. 308.
116 Ed. Combefis, 14, 54; ap. Galland. xiii. 100, 123.
117 Ap. Galland. xiii. 235.
118 ii. 836.
119 Ap. Galland. xiii. 212.
_ 120 E.g._ Chrys. _Opp._ viii.; _Append._ 214.
121 P. 6 D.
122 Ap. Galland. iii. 809.
123 ii. 602.
124 ii. 101, 122, 407.
125 iii. 447.
126 ii. 298.
127 ii. 804; iii. 783; v. 638, 670, 788; viii. 214, 285; x. 754, 821.
128 Cord. _Cat. in Ps._ ii. 960.
129 Of the ninety-two places above quoted, Tischendorf knew of only
_eleven_, Tregelles adduces only _six_.—Neither critic seems to have
been aware that “Gregory Thaum.” is not the author of the citation
they ascribe to him. And why does Tischendorf quote as Basil’s what
_is known_ not to have been his?
130 But then, note that C is only available for comparison down to the
end of ver. 5. In the 9 verses which have been lost, who shall say
how many more eccentricities would have been discoverable?
_ 131 Companion to the Revised Version_, pp. 62, 63. _Words of the N. T._
p. 193.
_ 132 Words of the N. T._ p. 193.
133 Drs. Westcott and Hort (consistently enough) put them _on the
self-same footing_ with the evidently spurious ending found in L.
134 True, that a separate volume of Greek Text has been put forth,
showing every change which has been either actually accepted, or
else suggested for future possible acceptance. But (in the words of
the accomplished editor), “the _Revisers are not responsible for its
publication_.” Moreover, (and this is the chief point,) it is a
sealed book to all but Scholars.
It were unhandsome, however, to take leave of the learned labours of
Prebendary Scrivener and Archdeacon Palmer, without a few words of
sympathy and admiration. Their volumes (mentioned at the beginning
of the present Article) are all that was to have been expected from
the exquisite scholarship of their respective editors, and will be
of abiding interest and value. _Both_ volumes should be in the hands
of every scholar, for neither of them supersedes the other. Dr.
Scrivener has (with rare ability and immense labour) set before the
Church, _for the first time, the Greek Text which was followed by
the Revisers of 1611_, viz. Beza’s N. T. of 1598, supplemented in
above 190 places from other sources; every one of which the editor
traces out in his _Appendix_, pp. 648-56. At the foot of each page,
he shows what changes have been introduced into the Text by the
Revisers of 1881.—Dr. Palmer, taking the _Text of Stephens_ (1550)
as his basis, presents us with the Readings adopted by the Revisers
of the “Authorized Version,” and relegates the displaced Readings
(of 1611) to the foot of each page.—We cordially congratulate them
both, and thank them for the good service they have rendered.
135 The number is not excessive. There were about 600 persons aboard the
ship in which Josephus traversed the same waters. (_Life_, c. III.)
136 ii. 61 and 83.
137 Isaiah xiv. 15.
138 S. Matthew xxi. 1-3. S. Mark xi. 1-6. S. Luke xix. 29-34.
139 א D L read—αὐτον ἀποστελλει ΠΑΛΙΝ ὡδε: C*,—αὐτον ΠΑΛΙΝ ἀποστελλει
ὡδε: B,—ἀποστελλει ΠΑΛΙΝ αὐτον ὡδε: Δ,—ἀποστελλει ΠΑΛΙΝ ὡδε:
yscr—αὐτον ἀποστελλει ΠΑΛΙΝ.
140 iii. 722, 740.
141 iii. 737, iv. 181.
142 S. Matt. xxi. 8.
143 Exod. x. 21-23.
144 S. Matth. xxvii. 45; S. Mark xv. 33; S. Lu. xxiii. 44.
145 Ap. Epiphan. i. 317 and 347.
_ 146 Intenebricatus est sol_—a: _obscuratus est sol_—b: _tenebricavit
sol_—c.
147 Ap. Routh, _Opusc._ i. 79.
148 i. 90, 913; ap. Epiph. i. 1006.
_ 149 Syr._ ii. 48. So also _Evan. Conc._ pp. 245, 256, 257.
150 Mai, _Scriptt. Vett._ vi. 64.
151 i. 305.
152 Ap. Mai, ii. 436; iii. 395. Also _Luc._ 722.
153 i. 288, 417.
154 P. 233.
155 Ed. by Wright, p. 16.
156 “Sol mediâ die _tenebricavit_.” _Adv. Jud._ c. xiii.
157 iii. 922-4. Read the whole of cap. 134. See also ap. Galland. xiv.
82, append., which by the way deserves to be compared with Chrys.
vii. 825 a.
158 ἀλλ᾽ ἦν σκότος θεοποίητον, διότι τὸν Κύριον συνέβη παθεῖν.—Routh,
ii. 298.
159 εἶτ᾽ ἐξαίφνης κατενεχθὲν ψηλαφητὸν σκότος, ἡλίου τὴν οἰκείαν αὐγὴν
ἀποκρύψαντος, p. 29.
160 ὅτι γὰρ οὐκ ἠν ἔκλειψις [sc. τὸ σκότος ἐκεῖνο] οὐκ ἐντεῦθεν μόνον
δῆλον ἦν, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἀπὸ τοῦ καιροῦ. τρεῖς γὰρ ὥρας παρέμεινιν; ἡ δὲ
ἔκλειψις ἐν μιᾷ καιροῦ γίνεται ῥοπῇ.—vii. 825 a.
161 i. 414, 415; iii. 56.
162 Ap. Mai, iv. 206. But further on he says: αὐτίκα γοῦν ἐπὶ τῷ πάθει
οὐχ ἥλιος μόνον ἐσκότασεν κ.τ.λ.—Cyril of Jerusalem (pp. 57, 146,
199, 201, 202) and Cosmas (ap. Montf. ii. 177 _bis_) were apparently
acquainted with the same reading, but neither of them actually
quotes Luke xxiii. 45.
163 “In quibusdam exemplaribus non habetur _tenebræ factæ sunt, et
obscuratus est sol_: sed ita, _tenebræ factæ sunt super omnem
terram, sole deficiente_. Et forsitan ausus est aliquis quasi
manifestius aliquid dicere volens, pro, _et obscuratus est sol_,
ponere _deficiente sole_, existimans quod non aliter potuissent
fieri tenebræ, nisi sole deficiente. Puto autem magis quod
insidiatores ecclesiæ Christi mutaverunt hoc verbum, quoniam
_tenebræ factæ sunt sole deficiente_, ut verisimiliter evangelia
argui possint secundum adinventiones volentium arguere illa.” (iii.
923 f. a.)
164 vii. 235. “_Qui scripserunt contra Evangelia_, suspicantur deliquium
solis,” &c.
165 This rests on little more than conjecture. Tisch. _Cod. Ephr. Syr._
p. 327.
166 Ἐκλείποντος is only found besides in eleven lectionaries.
167 The Thebaic represents “the sun _setting_;” which, (like the mention
of “_eclipse_,”) is only another _interpretation_ of the
darkness,—derived from Jer. xv. 9 or Amos viii. 9 (“_occidit_ sol
meridie”). Compare Irenæus iv. 33. 12, (p. 273,) who says that these
two prophecies found fulfilment in “eum _occasum_ solis qui,
crucifixo eo, fuit ab horâ sextâ.” He alludes to the same places in
iv. 34. 3 (p. 275). So does Jerome (on Matt. xxvii. 45),—“Et hoc
factum reor, ut compleatur prophetia,” and then he quotes Amos and
Jeremiah; finely adding (from some ancient source),—“Videturque mihi
clarissimum lumen mundi, hoc est luminare majus, retraxisse radios
suos, ne aut pendentem videret Dominum; aut impii blasphemantes suâ
luce fruerentur.”
168 Our old friend of Halicarnassus (vii. 37), speaking of an eclipse
which happened B.C. 481, remarks: ὁ ἥλιος ἐκλιπὼν τὴν ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ
ἕδρην.
169 For it will be perceived that our Revisionists have adopted the
reading vouched for _only by codex_ B. What c* once read is as
uncertain as it is unimportant.
170 Bp. Ellicott’s pamphlet, p. 60.
_ 171 On the Revised Version_, p. 14.
172 πολλὰ κατὰ γνώμην αὐτοῦ διεπράττετο, as (probably) Victor of Antioch
(_Cat._ p. 128), explains the place. He cites some one else (p. 129)
who exhibits ἠπόρει; and who explains it of Herod’s difficulty
_about getting rid of Herodias_.
173 καὶ ἀκούσας αὐτοῦ πολλὰ ἂ ἐποίει, καὶ ἡδέως αὐτοῦ ἤκουεν, will have
been the reading of that lost venerable codex of the Gospels which
is chiefly represented at this day by Evann. 13-69-124-346,—as
explained by Professor Abbott in his Introduction to Prof. Ferrar’s
_Collation of four important MSS._, etc. (Dublin 1877). The same
reading is also found in Evann. 28 : 122 : 541 : 572, and Evst. 196.
Different must have been the reading of that other venerable
exemplar which supplied the Latin Church with its earliest Text. But
of this let the reader judge:—“_Et cum audisset illum multa facere,
libenter_,” &c. (c: also “Codex Aureus” and γ, both at Stockholm):
“_et audito eo quod multa faciebat, et libenter_,” &c. (g2 q): “_et
audiens illum quia multa faciebat, et libenter_,” &c. (b). The
Anglo-Saxon, (“_and he heard that he many wonders wrought, and he
gladly heard him_”) approaches nearest to the last two.
The Peschito Syriac (which is without variety of reading here) in
strictness exhibits:—“_And many things he was hearing [from] him and
doing; and gladly he was hearing him._” But this, by competent
Syriac scholars, is considered to represent,—καὶ πολλὰ ἀκούων αὐτοῦ,
ἐποίει; καὶ ἡδέως ἤκουεν αὐτοῦ.—Cod. Δ is peculiar in exhibiting καὶ
ἀκούσας αὐτοῦ πολλά, ἡδέως αὐτοῦ ἤκουεν,—omitting ἐποίει, καί.—The
Coptic also renders, “_et audiebat multa ab eo, et anxio erat
corde_.” From all this, it becomes clear that the actual _intention_
of the blundering author of the text exhibited by א B L was, to
connect πολλά, _not_ with ἠπόρει, but with ἀκούσας. So the Arabian
version: but not the Gothic, Armenian, Sclavonic, or Georgian,—as
Dr. S. C. Malan informs the Reviewer.
174 Note, that tokens abound of a determination anciently to assimilate
the Gospels hereabouts. Thus, because the first half of Luke ix. 10
(ϟα / η) and the whole of Mk. vi. 30 (ξα / η) are bracketed together
by Eusebius, the former place in codex A is found brought into
conformity with the latter by the unauthorized insertion of the
clause καὶ ὅσα ἐδίδαξαν.—The parallelism of Mtt. xiv. 13 and Lu. ix.
10 is the reason why D exhibits in the latter place ἀν- (instead of
ὑπ)εχώρησε.—In like manner, in Lu. ix. 10, codex A exhibits εἰς
ἔρημον τόπον, instead of εἰς τόπον ἔρημον; only because ἔρημον τόπον
is the order of Mtt. xiv. 13 and Mk. vi. 32.—So again, codex א, in
the same verse of S. Luke, entirely omits the final clause πόλεως
καλουμένης Βηθσαῖδά, only in order to assimilate its text to that of
the two earlier Gospels.—But there is no need to look beyond the
limits of S. Mark vi. 14-16, for proofs of Assimilation. Instead of
ἐκ νεκρῶν ἠγέρθη (in ver. 14), B and א exhibit ἐγήγερται ἐκ
νεκρῶν—only because those words are found in Lu. ix. 7. A
substitutes ἀνέστη (for ἠγέρθη)—only because that word is found in
Lu. ix. 8. For ἠγέρθη ἐκ νεκρῶν, C substitutes ἠγέρθη ἀπὸ τῶν
νεκρῶν—only because S. Matth. so writes in ch. xiv. 2. D inserts καὶ
ἔβαλεν εἰς φυλακήν into ver. 17—only because of Mtt. xiv. 3 and Lu.
iii. 20. In א B L Δ, βαπτίζοντος (for βαπτιστοῦ) stands in ver.
24—only by Assimilation with ver. 14. (L is for assimilating ver. 25
likewise), Κ Δ Π, the Syr., and copies of the old Latin, transpose
ἐνεργοῦσιν αἱ δυνάμεις (in ver. 14)—only because those words are
transposed in Mtt. xiv. 2.... If facts like these do not open men’s
eyes to the danger of following the fashionable guides, it is to be
feared that nothing ever will. The foulest blot of all remains to be
noticed. Will it be believed that in ver. 22, codices א B D L Δ
conspire in representing the dancer (whose name is _known_ to have
been “Salome”) as _another _“Herodias”—_Herod’s own daughter_? This
gross perversion of the truth, alike of Scripture and of history—a
reading as preposterous as it is revolting, and therefore rejected
hitherto by _all_ the editors and _all_ the critics—finds undoubting
favour with Drs. Westcott and Hort. Calamitous to relate, _it also
disfigures the margin of our Revised Version of S. Mark_ vi. 22, _in
consequence_.
_ 175 i.e._ “_And_” is omitted by B L Δ: “_immediately_” by א C: “_with
tears_” by א A B C L Δ: “_Lord_” by א A B C D L.—In S. Mark vi.
16—(viz. “But when Herod heard thereof, he said [This is] John whom
I beheaded. He is risen [from the dead],”)—the five words in
brackets are omitted by our Revisers on the authority of א B (D) L
Δ. But א D further omit Ἰωάννην: C D omit ὁ: א B D L omit ὅτι. To
enumerate and explain the effects of all the barbarous Mutilations
which the Gospels alone have sustained at the hands of א, of B, and
of D—_would fill many volumes like the present_.
176 Chrysostom, vii. 825.
_ 177 On the Creed_, Art. iv. “Dead:” about half-way through.
178 The Coptic represents ὅτι ἐξέπνευσε.
179 Namely, of ἘΝ τῇ Βας. σου, which is the reading of _every known copy
but two_; besides Origen, Eusebius, Cyril Jer., Chrysostom, &c. Only
B L read ΕἸΣ,—which Westcott and Hort adopt.
180 i. 261.
181 i. 936, 1363.
182 i. 158.
183 P. 301.
184 Ap. Galland. vi. 53.
185 P. 396.
186 vii. 431.
187 “Ut ab additamenti ratione alienum est, ita cur omiserint in promptu
est.”
188 But then, 25 (out of 320) pages of D are lost: D’s omissions in the
Gospels may therefore be estimated at 4000. Codex A does not admit
of comparison, the first 24 chapters of S. Matthew having perished;
but, from examining the way it exhibits the other three Gospels, it
is found that 650 would about represent the number of words omitted
from its text.—The discrepancy between the texts of B א D, thus _for
the first time brought distinctly into notice_, let it be distinctly
borne in mind, is a matter wholly irrespective of the merits or
demerits of the Textus Receptus,—which, for convenience only, is
adopted as a standard: not, of course, of _Excellence_ but only of
_Comparison_.
189 Viz. the 1st, the 7th to 12th inclusive, and the 15th.
190 Concerning “the _singular codex_ D,”—as Bp. Ellicott phrases it,—see
back, pages 14 and 15.
191 Bp. Ellicott _On Revision_,—p. 42. Concerning the value of the
last-named authority, it is a satisfaction to enjoy the deliberate
testimony of the Chairman of the Revisionist body. See below, p. 85.
192 i. 156.
193 ii. 254.
194 i. 344
195 iv. 220, 1218.
_ 196 In Luc._ 664 (Mai, iv. 1105).
197 ii. 653.
198 “In Lucâ legimus _duos calices_, quibus discipulis propinavit,” vii.
216.
199 Τὸ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν διδόμενον; τοῦτο ποιεῖτε εἰς τὴν ἐμὴν ἀνάμνησιν.
ὡσαύτως καὶ τὸ ποτήριον μετὰ τὸ δειπνῆσαι, λέγων, Τοῦτο τὸ ποτήριον,
ἡ καινὴ διαθήκη ἐν τῷ αἵματί μου, τὸ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν ἐκχυνόμενον.
200 P. 1062.
201 ii. 747.
202 i. 1516. See below, p. 82.
203 Abbott’s _Collation of four important Manuscripts_, &c., 1877.
204 ii. 354.
205 Pp. 543 and 681 ( = ed. Mass. 219 and 277).
_ 206 Contra Noet._ c. 18; also ap. Theodoret iv. 132-3.
207 Ap. Galland. xix.; _Append._ 116, 117.
_ 208 Evan. Conc._ pp. 55, 235.
209 Ap. Epiph. i. 742, 785.
210 It is § 283 in his sectional system.
211 P. 1121.
212 ii. 43; v. 392; vi. 604. Also _Evan. Conc._ 235. And see below, p.
82.
213 Pp. 394, 402.
214 i. 551.
215 [i. 742, 785;] ii. 36, 42.
216 v. 263; vii. 791; viii. 377.
217 ii. 39.
218 Ap. Theod. Mops.
219 In loc. bis; ap. Galland. xii. 693; and Mai, _Scriptt. Vett._ vi.
306.
_ 220 Concilia_, iii. 327 a.
221 Ap. Mai, iii. 389.
_ 222 Concilia_, iii. 1101 d.
223 Schol. 34.
224 i. 692; iv. 271, 429; v. 23. _Conc._ iii. 907 e.
_ 225 Concilia_, iii. 740 d.
226 Ap. Galland. vi. 16, 17, 19.
227 Ap. Cosmam, ii. 331.
228 i. 544.
229 In Dionys. ii. 18, 30.
230 Ap. Galland. xii. 693.
_ 231 Ibid._ 688.
232 Pp. 108, 1028, 1048.
_ 233 Epist._ 138
234 P. 1061.
235 ii. 747.
236 iv. 901, 902, 1013, 1564.
237 P. 373.
238 Ap. Galland. ix. 40.
_ 239 Ibid._ xi. 693.
240 Let their own account of the matter be heard:—“The documentary
evidence clearly designates [these verses] as _an early Western
interpolation_, adopted in eclectic texts.”—“They can only be _a
fragment from the Traditions_, written or oral, which were for a
while at least _locally current_:”—an “evangelic Tradition,”
therefore, “_rescued from oblivion by the Scribes of the second
century_.”
241 Consider the places referred to in Epiphanius.
242 The Editors shall speak for themselves concerning this, the first of
the “Seven last Words:”—“We cannot doubt that _it comes from an
extraneous source_:”—“need not have belonged originally _to the book
in which it is now included_:”—is “_a Western interpolation_.”
Dr. Hort,—unconscious apparently that he is _at the bar_, not _on
the bench_,—passes sentence (in his usual imperial style)—“Text,
Western and Syrian” (p. 67).—But then, (1st) It happens that our
LORD’S intercession on behalf of His murderers is attested by
upwards of forty Patristic witnesses _from every part of ancient
Christendom_: while, (2ndly) On the contrary, the places in which it
is _not found_ are certain copies of the old Latin, and codex D,
which is supposed to be our great “Western” witness.
243 Dr. Hort’s _N. T._ vol. ii. _Note_, p. 68.
244 Ap. Eus. _Hist. Eccl._ ii. 23.
245 P. 521 and ... [Mass. 210 and 277.]
246 Ed. Lagarde, p. 65 _line_ 3.
247 ii. 188. _Hær._ iii. 18 p. 5.
248 Ap. Gall. iii. 38, 127.
_ 249 Ibid._ ii. 714. (_Hom._ xi. 20.)
_ 250 Evan. Conc._ 275.
251 Ap. Routh, v. 161.
252 He places the verses in _Can._ x.
253 i. 1120.
254 iii. 289.
_ 255 Cat. in Ps._ iii. 219.
256 i. 290.
257 15 times.
258 ii. 48, 321, 428; ii. (_syr._) 233.
_ 259 Evan. Conc._ 117, 256.
260 i. 607.
261 Pp. 232, 286.
262 P. 85.
263 Pp. 11, 16. Dr. Wright assigns them to the IVth century.
_ 264 Eph._ c. x.
265 ii. 166, 168, 226.
266 6 times.
267 Ap. Mai, ii. 197 ( = Cramer 52); iii. 392.—Dr. Hort’s strenuous
pleading for the authority of Cyril on this occasion (who however is
plainly against him) is amusing. So is his claim to have the cursive
“82” on his side. He is certainly reduced to terrible straits
throughout his ingenious volume. Yet are we scarcely prepared to
find an upright and honourable man contending so hotly, and almost
on any pretext, for the support of those very Fathers which, when
they are against him, (as, 99 times out of 100, they are,) he treats
with utter contumely. He is observed to put up with any ally,
however insignificant, who even _seems_ to be on his side.
268 Ap. Theod. v. 1152.
269 Pp. 423, 457.
_ 270 Cat. in Ps._ i. 768; ii. 663.
271 Pp. 1109, 1134.
272 i. 374.
273 P. 93.
274 ii. 67, 747.
275 i. 814; ii. 819; v. 735.
276 P. 88.
277 Ap. Chrys. vi. 191.
278 11 times.
279 P. 782 f.
280 12 times.
281 More than 60 times.
282 Ap. Cypr. (ed. Baluze), &c. &c.
_ 283 On Revision_,—p. 42 _note_. See above, p. 78 _note_.
_ 284 Eclog. Proph._ p. 89.
_ 285 In Luc._ 435 and 718.
286 See pages 93 to 97.
287 i. 1528.
288 So Sedulius Paschalis, ap. Galland. ix. 595.
289 iii. 2.
290 Euseb. _Ecl. Proph._ p. 89: Greg. Nyss. i. 570.—These last two
places have hitherto escaped observation.
291 See above, pp. 49-50, note 2.
292 Viz., thus:—ἦν δὲ καὶ ἐπιγραφὴ ἐπ᾽ αὐτῷ, Ὁ βασιλεὺς τῶν Ἰουδαίων
οὗτος.
293 Dean Alford, _in loc._
294 ὁ Λουκᾶς μιᾷ λέγει τῶν σαββάτων ὄρθρου βαθέος φέρειν ἀρώματα
γυναῖκας ΔΎΟ τὰς ἀκολουθησάσας ἀυτῷ, αἵ τινες ἦσαν ἀπὸ τῆς Γαλιλαίας
συνακολουθήσασαι, ὅτε ἔθαπτον αὐτὸν ἐλθοῦσαι ἐπὶ τὸ μνῆμα; αἵτινες
ΔΎΟ, κ.τ.λ.,—_ad Marinum_, ap. Mai, iv. 266.
295 Ps. i. 79.
_ 296 Dem._ 492.
297 Ap. Mai, iv. 287, 293.
298 i. 364.
299 Ap. Mai, ii. 439.
300 Ap. Galland. xi. 224.
_ 301 Cat. in Joann._ p. 453.
302 Ps.-Chrys. viii. 161-2. Johannes Thessal. ap. Galland. xiii. 189.
303 Ap. Mai, iv. 293 _bis_; 294 _diserte_.
304 i. 506, 1541.
305 iii. 91.
306 iv. 1108, and _Luc._ 728 ( = Mai, ii. 441).
307 iii.2 142; viii. 472.
308 So Tertullian:—“_Manus et pedes suos inspiciendos offert_” (_Carn._
c. 5). “_Inspectui eorum manus et pedes suos offert_” (_Marc._ iv.
c. 43). Also Jerome i. 712.
_ 309 De Resur._ 240 (quoted by J. Damascene, ii. 762).
310 Ap. Mai, iv. 294.
311 i. 906, quoted by Epiph. i. 1003.
312 Ap. Theodoret, iv. 141.
313 i. 49.
314 i. 510; ii. 408, 418; iii. 91.
315 iv. 1108; vi. 23 (_Trin._). Ap. Mai, ii. 442 _ter._
316 iv. 272.
_ 317 Cat. in Joan._ 462, 3.
318 i. 303.
319 See above, pp. 78 and 85.
320 iii. 579.
321 ii. 114 (ed. 1698).
322 ii. 9, 362, 622.
323 ii. 309; iv. 30; v. 531; vii. 581.
324 vi. 79.
_ 325 Ep._ i. (ap. Gall. i. p. xii.)
326 ii. 464.
_ 327 Text_, pp. 565 and 571.
_ 328 Append._ p. 14.
329 We depend for our Versions on Dr. S. C. Malan: pp. 31, 44.
330 ii. 147. _Conc._ v. 675.
331 Cord. _Cat._ i. 376.
332 vii. 599, 600 _diserte_.
333 Ap. Photium, p. 644.
334 Three times.
335 i. 663, 1461, ii. 1137.
336 Pp. 367, 699.
337 vii. 139.
338 Ap. Galland. vi. 324.
339 iii. P. i. 760.
_ 340 Text_, p. 572.
_ 341 Append._ p. 14.
342 ἔτι δὲ ἀπιστούντων αὐτῷ, καὶ θαυμαζόντων ἀπὸ τῆς χαρᾶς.
343 Viz. from ch. xix. 7 to xx. 46.
344 We take leave to point out that, however favourable the estimate
Drs. Westcott and Hort may have personally formed of the value and
importance of the Vatican Codex (B), nothing can excuse their
summary handling, not to say their contemptuous disregard, of all
evidence adverse to that of their own favourite guide. They _pass
by_ whatever makes against the reading they adopt, with the oracular
announcement that the rival reading is “_Syrian_,” “_Western_,”
“_Western and Syrian_,” as the case may be.