and Syrian_,” as Critical expressions, are absolutely without
meaning, as well as without use to a student in this difficult
department of sacred Science. They supply no information. They are
never supported by a particle of intelligible evidence. They are
often demonstrably wrong, and _always_ unreasonable. They are
_Dictation_, not _Criticism_. When at last it is discovered that
they do but signify that certain words _are not found in codex_
B,—they are perceived to be the veriest _foolishness_ also.
Progress is impossible while this method is permitted to prevail. If
these distinguished Professors have enjoyed a Revelation as to what
the Evangelists actually wrote, they would do well to acquaint the
world with the fact at the earliest possible moment. If, on the
contrary, they are merely relying on their own inner consciousness
for the power of divining the truth of Scripture at a glance,—they
must be prepared to find their decrees treated with the contumely
which is due to imposture, of whatever kind.
345 Marcion (Epiph. i. 317);—Eusebius (Mai, iv. 266);—Epiphanius (i.
348);—Cyril (Mai, ii. 438);—John Thessal. (Galland. xiii. 188).
346 [The discussion of this text has been left very nearly as it
originally stood,—the rather, because the reading of 1 Tim. iii. 16
will be found fully discussed at the end of the present volume. See
_Index of Texts_.]
_ 347 Companion to the Revised Version_, &c., by Alex. Roberts, D.D. (2nd
edit.), pp. 66-8.
348 Of this, any one may convince himself by merely inspecting the 2
pages of codex A which are exposed to view at the British Museum.
349 For, of the 3 cursives usually cited for the same reading (17, 73,
181), the second proves (on enquiry at Upsala) to be merely an
abridgment of Œcumenius, who certainly read Θεός; and the last is
non-existent.
_ 350 Concilia_, ii. 217 c.
351 viii. 214 b.
352 A single quotation is better than many references. Among a multitude
of proofs that CHRIST is GOD, Gregory says:—Τιμοθέῳ δὲ διαῤῥήδῃν
βοᾷ; ὅτι ὁ Θεὸς ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί, ἐδικαιώθη ἐν πνεύματι. ii. 693.
353 Τοῦτο ἡμῖν τὸ μέγα μυστήριον ... ὁ ἐνανθρωπήσας δι᾽ ἡμᾶς καὶ
πτωχεύσας Θεός, ἵνα ἀναστήσῃ τὴν σάρκα. (i. 215 a.)—Τί τὸ μέγα
μυστήριον?... Θεὸς ἄνθρωπος γίνεται. (i. 685 b.)
_ 354 De Trin._ p. 83—where the testimony is express.
355 Θεὸς γὰρ ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί.—_Concilia_, i. 853 d.
356 Cramer’s _Cat. in Rom._ p. 124.
357 One quotation may suffice:—Τὸ δὲ Θεὸν ὄντα, ἄνθρωπον θελῆσαι
γενέσθαι καὶ ἀνεσχέσθαι καταβῆναι τοσοῦτον ... τοῦτό ἐστι τὸ
ἐκπλήξεως γέμον. ὂ δὴ καὶ Παῦλος θαυμάζων ἔλεγεν; καὶ ὁμολογουμένως
μέγα ἐστὶ τὸ τῆς εὐσεβείας μυστέριον; ποῖον μέγα; Θεὸς ἐφανερώθη ἐν
σαρκί; καὶ πάλιν ἀλλαχοῦ; οὐ γὰρ ἀγγέλων ἐπιλαμβάνεται ὁ Θεός,
κ.τ.λ. i. 497. = Galland. xiv. 141.
358 The following may suffice:—μέγα γὰρ τότε τῆς εὐσεβείας μυστήριον;
πεφανέρωται γὰρ ἐν σαρκὶ Θεὸς ὢν καὶ ὁ Λόγος; ἐδικαιώθη δὲ καὶ ἐν
πνεύματι. v. p. ii.; p. 154 c d.—In a newly-recovered treatise of
Cyril, 1 Tim. iii. 16 is quoted at length with Θεός, followed by a
remark on the ἐν ἀυτῷ φανερωθεὶς Θεός. This at least is decisive.
The place has been hitherto overlooked.
359 i. 92; iii. 657; iv. 19, 23.
360 Apud Athanasium, _Opp._ ii. 33, where see Garnier’s prefatory note.
361 Καθ᾽ ὂ γὰρ ὑπῆρχε Θεὸς [sc. ὁ Χριστὸς] τοῦτον ᾔτει τὸν νομοθέτην
δοθῆναι πᾶσι τοῖς ἔθνεσι ... τοιγαροῦν καὶ δεξάμενα τὰ ἔθνη τὸν
νομοθέτην, τὸν ἐν σαρκὶ φανερωθέντα Θεόν. Cramer’s _Cat._ iii. 69.
The quotation is from the lost work of Severus against Julian of
Halicarnassus.
362 Galland. xii. 152 e, 153 e, with the notes both of Garnier and
Gallandius.
363 i. 313; ii. 263.
364 Ap. Athanas. i. 706.
365 iii. 401-2.
366 Ap. Phot. 230.
_ 367 Contra Hær. Noet._ c. 17.
368 Ap. Clem. Al. 973.
369 Cap. xii.
_ 370 Ad Eph._ c. 19, 7; _ad Magn._ c. 8.
371 See Scrivener’s _Plain Introd._ pp. 555-6, and Berriman’s
_Dissertation_, pp. 229-263. Also the end of this volume.
372 i. 887 c.
373 ii. 74 b.
374 See above, p. 98.
375 As, that stupid fabrication, Τί με ἐρωτᾷς περὶ τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ; (in S.
Matth. xix. 17):—the new incidents and sayings proposed for
adoption, as in S. Mark i. 27 (in the Synagogue of Capernaum): in S.
John xiii. 21-6 (at the last supper): in S. Luke xxiv. 17 (on the
way to Emmaus):—the many proposed omissions, as in S. Matth. vi. 13
(the Doxology): in xvi. 2, 3 (the signs of the weather): in S. Mark
ix. 44 & 46 (the words of woe): in S. John v. 3, 4 (the Angel
troubling the pool), &c. &c. &c.
376 It cannot be too plainly or too often stated that learned Prebendary
Scrivener is _wholly guiltless_ of the many spurious “Readings” with
which a majority of his co-Revisionists have corrupted the Word of
GOD. He pleaded faithfully,—but he pleaded in vain.—It is right also
to state that the scholarlike Bp. of S. Andrews (Dr. Charles
Wordsworth) has fully purged himself of the suspicion of complicity,
by his printed (not published) remonstrances with his
colleagues.—The excellent Bp. of Salisbury (Dr. Moberly) attended
only 121 of their 407 meetings; and that judicious scholar, the Abp.
of Dublin (Dr. Trench) only 63. The reader will find more on this
subject at the close of Art. II.,—pp. 228-30.
377 Eusebius,—Basil,—Chrysostom (_in loc._),—Jerome,—Juvencus,—omit the
words. P. E. Pusey found them in _no_ Syriac copy. But the
conclusive evidence is supplied by the Manuscripts; not more than 1
out of 20 of which contain this clause.
378 “Revised Text” of S. Luke vi. 48.
379 “Authorized Version,” supported by A C D and 12 other uncials, the
whole body of the cursives, the Syriac, Latin, and Gothic versions.
380 “Revised Text” of S. Luke v. 39.
381 “Authorized Version,” supported by A C and 14 other uncials, the
whole body of the cursives, and _all_ the versions except the
Peschito and the Coptic.
_ 382 Address at Lincoln Diocesan Conference_,—p. 16.
_ 383 On Revision_,—p. 99.
_ 384 Dial._ capp. 88 and 103 (pp. 306, 310, 352).
385 P. 113.
386 Ap. Galland. iii. 719, c d.
387 iv. 15 (ap. Gall. iv. 296 b).
388 42 b, 961 e, 1094 a.
389 Ap. Galland. iv. 605 (ver. 365-6).
390 Ap. Aug. viii. 423 e.
391 “Vox illa Patris, quæ super baptizatum facta est _Ego hodie genui
te_,” (_Enchirid._ c. 49 [_Opp._ vi. 215 a]):—
“Illud vero quod nonnulli codices habent secundum Lucam, hoc illa
voce sonuisse quod in Psalmo scriptum est, _Filius meus es tu: ego
hodie genui te_, quanquam in antiquioribus codicibus Græcis non
inveniri perhibeatur, tamen si aliquibus fide dignis exemplaribus
confirmari possit, quid aliud quam utrumque intelligendum est
quolibet verborum ordine de cælo sonuisse?” (_De Cons. Ev._ ii. c.
14 [_Opp._ iii. P. ii. 46 d e]). Augustine seems to allude to what
is found to have existed in the _Ebionite Gospel_.
392 Epiphanius (i. 138 b) quotes the passage which contains the
statement.
393 Αὕτη ἡ βίβλος γενέσεως—οὐρανοῦ καὶ γῆς: also—ἀνθρώπων.
394 For my information on this subject, I am entirely indebted to one
who is always liberal in communicating the lore of which he is
perhaps the sole living depositary in England,—the Rev. Dr. S. C.
Malan. See his _Seven Chapters of the Revision of 1881, revised_,—p.
3. But especially should the reader be referred to Dr. Malan’s
learned dissertation on this very subject in his _Select Readings in
Westcott and Hort’s Gr. Text of S. Matth._,—pp. 1 to 22.
395 So Dr. Malan in his _Select Readings_ (see above note 1),—pp. 15,
17, 19.
396 “Liber _genituræ_ Jesu Christi filii David, filii Abraham” ...
“Gradatim ordo deducitur ad Christi _nativitatem_.”—_De Carne
Christi_, c. 22.
397 A friendly critic complains that we do not specify which editions of
the Fathers we quote. Our reply is—This [was] a Review, not a
Treatise. We are _constrained_ to omit such details. Briefly, we
always quote _the best Edition_. Critical readers can experience
_no_ difficulty in verifying our references. A few details shall
however be added: Justin (_Otto_): Irenæus (_Stieren_): Clemens Al.
(_Potter_): Tertullian (_Oehler_): Cyprian (_Baluze_): Eusebius
(_Gaisford_): Athanas. (1698): Greg. Nyss. (1638): Epiphan. (1622):
Didymus (1769): Ephraem Syr. (1732): Jerome (_Vallarsi_): Nilus
(1668-73): Chrysostom (_Montfaucon_): Cyril (_Aubert_): Isidorus
(1638): Theodoret (_Schulze_): Maximus (1675): John Damascene
(_Lequien_): Photius (1653). Most of the others (as Origen, Greg.
Nazianz., Basil, Cyril of Jer., Ambrose, Hilary, Augustine), are
quoted from the Benedictine editions. When we say “Mai,” we always
mean his _Nova Biblioth. PP._ 1852-71. By “Montfaucon,” we mean the
_Nov. Coll. PP._ 1707. It is necessity that makes us so brief.
_ 398 Concilia_, iii. 521 a to d.
399 i.2 340.
400 P. 889 line 37 (γένησιν).
401 i. 943 c.
402 i. 735.
403 v.1 363, 676.
_ 404 Concil._ iii. 325 ( = Cyril v.2 28 a).
405 vii. 48; viii. 314.
406 In Matth. ii. 16.
407 Ps.-Athanas. ii. 306 and 700: ps.-Chrysost. xii. 694.
408 P. 470.
409 Gall. ix. 215.
_ 410 Trin._ 188.
411 i. 250 b.
412 i. 426 a (γένησις).
413 Διαφέρει γένεσις καὶ γέννησις; γένεσις μὲν γάρ ἐστι παρὰ Θεοῦ πρώτη
πλάσις, γέννησις δὲ ἡ ἐκ καταδίκης τοῦ θανάτου διὰ τὴν παράβασιν ἐξ
ἀλλήλων διαδοχή.—Galland. xiv. _Append._ pp. 73, 74.
414 [dated 22 May A.D. 359] ap. Athan. i. 721 d.
415 i. 722 c.
416 P. 20 of the newly-recovered _Diatessaron_, translated from the
Armenian. The Exposition is claimed for Ephraem Syrus.
417 Dr. Malan, _Seven Chapters of the Revision, revised_, p. 7.
418 See below, note 13.
419 See p. 122, note 11.
420 i. 938, 952. Also ps.-Athan. ii. 409, excellently.
_ 421 Trin._ 349.
422 P. 116.
423 i. 392; ii. 599, 600.
424 ii. 229.
425 See p. 122, note 11.
426 i. 426, 1049 (5 times), 1052-3.
427 vii. 76.
428 Galland. ix. 636.
429 P. 6 (τὸν υἱὸν αὐτῆς: which is also the reading of Syrev and of the
Sahidic. The Memphitic version represents τὸν υἱόν.)
430 i. 276.
431 Gal. xiii. 662.
_ 432 In Cat._
433 ii. 462.
434 “_Ex hoc loco quidam perversissime suspicantur et alios filios
habuisse Mariam, dicentes primogenitum non dici nisi qui habeat et
fratres_” (vii. 14). He refers to his treatise against Helvidius,
ii. 210.
_ 435 Preface to Pastoral Epistles_,—more fully quoted facing p. 1.
436 The Preface (quoted above facing p. 1,) is dated 3rd Nov. 1868.
_ 437 Lectures on Biblical Revision_, (1881) pp. 116 seqq. See above, pp.
37-9.
_ 438 On Revision_, pp. 30 and 49.
_ 439 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.
_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.
_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.
440 Malan’s _Gospel of S. John translated from the Eleven oldest
Versions_.
441 Int. ii. 72; iv. 622 dis.
_ 442 C. Noet._ § 4.
443 i. 1275.
_ 444 Trin._ 363.
445 Ap. Gall. v. 67.
446 i. 282.
447 i. 486.
_ 448 Ep. ad Paul. Sam. Concil._ i. 872 e; 889 e.
449 Ap. Galland. iv. 563.
450 vii. 546; viii. 153, 154, 277.
451 iii. 570; iv. 226, 1049, 1153.
452 iv. 150 (text); vi. 30, 169. Mai, ii. 69.
_ 453 Concilia_, iii. 1102 d.
454 Quoted by Leontius (Gall. xii. 693).
_ 455 In Cat._ Cord. 96.
_ 456 Ibid._ p. 94.
_ 457 Cat. in Ps._ ii. 323 and 343.
458 Ap. Photium, p. 281.
459 Montf. ii. 286.
460 i. 288, 559, 567.
461 Ps.-Athan. ii. 464. Another, 625. Another, 630. Ps.-Epiphan. ii.
287.
462 i. 863, 903, 1428.
463 Gall. iii. 296.
464 32 dis.; 514; 1045 dis.
465 Gall. vi. 192.
466 iv. 679.
467 Ap. Athan. ii. 646.
468 Gall. v. 124.
_ 469 Ibid._ iii. 628, 675.
_ 470 Ibid._ ix. 367.
_ 471 Ibid._ ix. 493.
472 Let the Reader, with a map spread before him, survey the whereabouts
of the several VERSIONS above enumerated, and mentally assign each
FATHER to his own approximate locality: then let him bear in mind
that 995 out of 1000 of the extant MANUSCRIPTS agree with those
Fathers and Versions; and let him further recognize that those MSS.
(executed at different dates in different countries) must severally
represent independent remote originals, inasmuch as _no two of them
are found to be quite alike_.—Next, let him consider that, _in all
the Churches of the East_, these words from the earliest period were
read as _part of the Gospel for the Thursday in Easter week_.—This
done, let him decide whether it is reasonable that two worshippers
of codex B—A.D. 1881—should attempt to thrust all this mass of
ancient evidence clean out of sight by their peremptory sentence of
exclusion,—“WESTERN AND SYRIAN.”
Drs. Westcott and Hort inform us that “_the character of the
attestation_ marks” the clause (ὁ ὢν ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ), “as a WESTERN
GLOSS.” But the “attestation” for retaining that clause—(_a_) Comes
demonstrably from every quarter of ancient Christendom:—(_b_) Is
more ancient (by 200 years) than the evidence for omitting it:—(_c_)
Is more numerous, in the proportion of 99 to 1:—(_d_) In point of
respectability, stands absolutely alone. For since we have _proved_
that Origen and Didymus, Epiphanius and Cyril, Ambrose and Jerome,
_recognize_ the words in dispute, of what possible Textual
significancy can it be if presently (_because it is sufficient for
their purpose_) the same Fathers are observed to quote S. John iii.
13 _no further than down to the words _“Son of Man”? No person,
(least of all a professed Critic,) who adds to his learning a few
grains of common sense and a little candour, can be misled by such a
circumstance. Origen, Eusebius, Proclus, Ephraim Syrus, Jerome,
Marius, when they are only insisting on the doctrinal significancy
of the earlier words, naturally end their quotation at this place.
The two Gregories (Naz. [ii. 87, 168]: Nyss. [Galland. vi. 522]),
writing against the Apolinarian heresy, of course quoted the verse
no further than Apolinaris himself was accustomed (for his heresy)
to adduce it.... About the _internal_ evidence for the clause,
nothing has been said; but _this_ is simply overwhelming. We make
our appeal to _Catholic Antiquity_; and are content to rest our
cause on _External Evidence_;—on COPIES, on VERSIONS, on FATHERS.
473 Pp. 798, 799.
474 iii. 414.
_ 475 Ant._ c. 50; _Consum._ c. 28.
_ 476 Hist. Eccl._ v. 8.
477 Ἐμβατεῦσαι;—Ἐπιβῆναι τὰ ἔνδον ἐξερευνῆσαι ἣ σκοπῆσαι. Phavorinus,
quoted by Brüder.
478 Viz. S. Luke iv. 39: Acts x. 17: xi. 11: xxii. 20.
479 S. Luke ii. 9 (where “_came upon_” is better than “_stood by_ them,”
and should have been left): xxiv. 4: Acts xii. 7: xxii. 13: xxiii.
11.
480 S. Luke xx. 1: xxi. 34 (last Day): Acts iv. 1: vi. 12: xvii. 5
(“assault”): xxiii. 27: xxviii. 2 (a rain-storm,—which, by the way,
suggests for τὸν ἐφεστῶτα a different rendering from “_the
present_”).
481 S. Luke ii. 38.
482 S. Luke x. 40.
483 Cf. ch. xi. 20. So in Latin, _Illa plurima sacrificia_. (Cic. _De
Fin._ 2. 20. 63.)
484 “The context” (says learned Dr. Field) “is too strong for
philological quibbles.” The words “_can by no possibility bear any
other meaning_.”—_Otium Norvicense_, p. 40.
485 Στρατιώτης ὂς πρὸς τὸ φονεύειν τέτακται,—Theophylact, i. 201 e. Boys
quotes Seneca _De Irá_:—_Tunc centurio supplicio præpositus condere
gladium_ speculatorem _jussit_.
486 Trench, _Study of Words_, p. 106.
_ 487 Otium Norvicense_, pars tertia, 1881, pp. 155.
488 Compare Xenophon (_Cyrop._ vii. 6. 8), τοὺς Συριστὶ ἐπισταμένους.
The _plena locutio_ is found in Nehem. xiii. 24,—οἱ υἱοὶ αὐτῶν ἥμισυ
λαλοῦντες Ἁζωτιστί, καὶ οὐκ εἰσὶν ἐπιγινώσκοντες λαλεῖν Ἰουδαιστί
(quoted by Wetstein).
489 Cf. Acts i. 23; xvii. 31. The Latin is “_statuerunt_” or
“_constituerunt_.” The Revisionists give “appointed” in the second
of these places, and “put forward” in the first. In both,—What
becomes of their uniformity?
490 P. 279.
491 καὶ τὸν δικαστὴν εἷλεν ὁ τέως κατάδικος εἶναι νομιζόμενος καὶ τὴν
νίκην αὐτὸς ὁ χειρωθεὶς ὁμολογεῖ λαμπρᾷ τῇ φωνῇ παρόντων ἁπάντων
λέγων, ἐν ὀλίγῳ κ.τ.λ. x. 307 b. (= xii. 433 a).
492 ἐν ὀλίγῳ; τουτέστι παρὰ μικρόν. ix. 391 a.
493 καὶ τὸν δικάζοντα μικροῦ μεταπεῖσαι, ὡς καὶ αὐτὸν ἐκεῖνον λέγειν, ἐν
ὀλίγῳ κ.τ.λ. ii. 516 d.
494 iii. 399 d.
495 v. 930 (παρ᾽ ὀλίγον).
496 MS. Note in his copy of the N. T.
497 And the Revisionists: for see Rom. xi. 4.
498 Yet even here they cannot abstain from putting in the margin the
peculiarly infelicitous alternative,—“_Why didst thou forsake Me?_”
499 As in Rom. vi. 2: ix. 13. 1 Cor. i. 27: vi. 20: ix. 11. Ephes. iv.
20, &c. &c.
500 Comp. S. Matth. viii. 1, 5, 23, 28; ix. 27, 28; xxi. 23.
501 Ἐὰν οὖν προσφέρῃς.
502 ii. 155.
503 Routh, _Rell_. iii. 226 _ad calc._
504 Ap. Mai, iv. 266.
505 ii. 1324.
506 ii. 380.
507 Ap. Greg. Nyss. iii. 403.
508 So also Heb. xi. 17, 28. And see the Revision of S. James i. 11.
509 Comp. ἀφίεμεν in S. Lu. xi. 4. In the case of certain Greek verbs,
the _preterite_ in form is invariably _present_ in signification.
See Dr. Field’s delightful _Otium Norvicense_, p. 65.
510 See above, pp. 98-106. Also _infra_, towards the end.
511 As in S. Matth. xi. 11 and 2 Tim. iv. 17, where δέ is rendered
“notwithstanding:”—Phil. i. 24 and Heb. xii. 11, where it is
“nevertheless.”
_ 512 Eight_ times in succession in 1 Cor. xii. 8-10, δέ is not
represented in the A. V. The ancients _felt_ so keenly what Tyndale,
Cranmer, the Geneva, the Rheims, and the A. V. ventured to exhibit,
that as often as not they leave out the δέ,—in which our
Revisionists twice follow them. The reader of taste is invited to
note the precious result of inserting “and,” as the Revisionists
have done six times, where according to the genius of the English
language it is not wanted at all.
513 38 times in the Genealogy, S. Matth. i.
514 Rom. xiv. 4: xv. 20.
515 Rom. ix. 22.
516 1 Cor. xii. 27.
517 Gal. ii. 4.
518 Act xxvii. 26.
519 Rom. iii. 22.
520 Ephes. iv. 1.
521 2 Cor. v. 8.
522 S. Mark xv. 31.
523 S. Mark vi. 29.
524 1 Cor. x. 1.
525 S. Matth. vi. 30.
526 S. John xx. 4.
527 2 Cor. i. 23.
528 2 Cor. vii. 13.
529 2 Cor. ii. 12.
530 2 Pet. iii. 13.
531 S. Matth. ii. 22.
532 1 Cor. xii. 20.
533 1 S. John i. 3.
534 S. Matth. xxv. 39.
535 Acts viii. 3.
536 Rom. xii. 6.
537 S. Matth. vi. 29.
538 As in S. Matth. vii. 9: xii. 29: xx. 15. Rom. iii. 29.
539 S. Matth. xx. 15: xxvi. 53. Rom. iii. 29: vi. 3: vii. 1.
540 S. John xvi. 32.
541 S. Luke xix. 23.
542 2 Cor. xiii. 1.
543 S. Luke xii. 2.
544 S. Luke xviii. 7.
545 S Luke xiv. 21.
546 1 S. John ii. 27.
547 1 S. John i. 2.
548 S. Mark ix. 39.
549 Acts xxiii. 3.
550 Consider S. Matth. iii. 16,—ἀνέβη ἀπὸ τοῦ ὕδατος: and ver.
6,—ἐβαπτίζοντο ἐν τῷ Ἰορδάνῃ.
551 ἐν τοῖς ἀνθρώποις συνανεστράφη.
552 Galland. iv. 6 b _bis_.
553 P. 279.
554 ix. 400.
555 ii. 707.
556 The circumstance is noticed and explained in the same way by Dr.
Field in his delightful _Otium Norvicense_.
_ 557 Concilia_, iv. 79 e.
558 Thus Cyril addresses one of his Epistles to Acacius Bp. of
Melitene,—_Concilia_, iii. 1111.
559 See Dr. Field’s delightful _Otium Norvicense_ (Pars tertia), 1881,
pp. 1-4 and 110, 111. This masterly contribution to Sacred Criticism
ought to be in the hands of every student of Scripture.
560 See Hesychius, and the notes on the place.
_ 561 Notes designed to illustrate some expressions in the Gk. Test. by a
reference to the_ LXX., &c. By C. F. B. Wood, Præcentor of
Llandaff,—Rivingtons, 1882, (pp. 21,)—p. 17:—an admirable
performance, only far too brief.
562 Μὴ ἀδυνατήσει παρὰ τῷ θεῷ ῥῆμα?
563 Οὐκ ἀδυνατήσει παρὰ τῷ θεῷ πᾶν ῥῆμα.
564 [Pointed out to me by Professor Gandell,—whose exquisite familiarity
with Scripture is only equalled by his readiness to communicate his
knowledge to others.]
565 μύρου νάρδου πιστικῆς and ἐνταφιασμός,—S. Mark xiv. 3 and 8: S. John
xii. 3 and 7. Hear Origen (apud Hieron. iii. 517):—“Non de nardo
propositum est nunc Spiritui Sancto dicere, neque de hoc quod oculis
intuemur, Evangelista scribit, unguento; sed _de nardo spirituali_.”
And so Jerome himself, vii. 212.
566 Ps. xxxiii. 18 (ἐγγὺς Κύριος τοῖς συντετριμμένοις τὴν καρδίαν): Is.
lvii. 15.
567 Consider Ignatius, _ad Ephes._ c. xvii. Also, the exquisite remark
of Theod. Heracl. in Cramer’s _Cat._
568 We prefer that readers should be reminded, by the varied form, of
the _Greek_ original. In the extreme case (Acts vii. 45: Hebr. iv.
8), is it not far more edifying that attention should be in this way
directed to the identity of the names “_Joshua_” and “_Jesus_,” than
that the latter word should be entirely obliterated by the
former;—and this, only for the sake of unmistakeably proclaiming,
(what yet must needs be perfectly manifest, viz.) that “_Joshua_” is
the personage spoken of?
569 So, in S. Luke xxiii. 25, and Acts iii. 14: xiii. 28,—still
following Tyndale.
570 Acts xii. 20.
571 Eph. iii. 13.
572 For, as the story plainly shows (2 Sam. vii. 2, 3; 1 Chron. xvii. 1,
2), it was only “_in his heart_” to build GOD an house (1 Kings
viii. 17, 18). Hence Cranmer’s “_he would fain_” have done so.
573 Acts xvi. 29.
574 Col. i. 9.
575 S. Matth. xiv. 15, 22, 23 (= S. Mark vi. 36, 45, [and note the
substitution of ἀποταξάμενος in ver. 46]: S. Luke ix. 12): and xv.
32, 39 (= S. Mark viii. 9).
576 S. Matt. xiii. 36: and S. Mark iv. 36.
577 Acts xii. 13.
578 Acts xvi. 16.
579 Verses 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 30, 31.
580 Twice he calls it μνῆμα.
581 Ch. xxvii. 61, 64, 66; xxviii. 1.
582 Except in 2 Tim. iii. 16,—where πρὸς διδασκαλίαν is rendered _ad
docendum_.
583 Except in Rom. xii. 7,—where ἐν τῇ διδασκαλίᾳ is rendered “_on
teaching_.”
584 Except in Rom. xvi. 17, where they render it “_doctrine_.”
585 And yet, since upwards of 50 times we are molested with a marginal
note to inform us that διδάσκαλος means “_Teacher_”—διδασκαλία
(rather than διδαχή) might have claimed to be rendered “_teaching_.”
586 Viz. Rom. xii. 7: 1 Tim. iv. 13, 16: v. 17: 2 Tim. iii. 10, 16.—Rom.
xv. 4.
587 Eight times in Rev. xvi.
588 S. Matth. xxvi. 7. S. Mark xiv. 3. S. Luke vii. 37.
589 γλωσσόκομον. Consider the LXX. of 2 Chron. xxiv. 8, 10, 11.
590 ζώνας.
_ 591 E.g._ S. Matth. xxvi. 48. S. Luke ii. 12.
592 Δύναμις is rendered “miracle” in the R. V. about half-a-dozen times.
593 Acts iv. 16, 22.—On the other hand, “sign” was allowed to represent
σημεῖον repeatedly in the A. V., as in S. Matth. xii. 38, &c., and
the parallel places: S. Mark xvi. 17, 20: S. John xx. 30.
594 Canon Cook’s _Revised Version of the first three Gospels
considered_, &c.—p. 26: an admirable performance,—unanswered,
because _unanswerable_.
595 Dr. Vance Smith’s _Revised Texts and Margins_,—p. 45.
596 S. Matth. xvii. 15: S. Mk. ix. 18, 20, 22, 26: S. Lu. ix. 39, 42.
597 Consider our LORD’S solemn words in Mtt. xvii. 21,—“_But this kind
goeth not out save by prayer and fasting_,”—12 words left out by the
R. V., though witnessed to by _all the Copies but_ 3: by the Latin,
Syriac, Coptic, and Armenian Versions: and by the following
Fathers:—(1) Origen, (2) Tertullian, (3) the Syriac Clement, (4) the
Syriac _Canons of Eusebius_, (5) Athanasius, (6) Basil, (7) Ambrose,
(8) Juvencus, (9) Chrysostom, (10) _Opus imp._, (11) Hilary, (12)
Augustine, (13) J. Damascene, and others. Then (it will be asked),
why have the Revisionists left them out? Because (we answer) they
have been misled by B and א, Cureton’s Syriac and the Sahidic,—as
untrustworthy a quaternion of witnesses to the text of Scripture as
could be named.
598 The word is only not banished entirely from the N. T. It occurs
twice (viz. in Rom. i. 20, and Jude ver. 6), but only as the
rendering of ἀῖδιος.
599 S. Matth. xxv. 46.
600 Clemens Al. (p. 71) says:—τὰσ γραφὰς ὁ Ἀπόστολος Θεοπνεύστους καλεῖ,
ὠφελίμους οὔσας. Tertullian,—_Legimus omnem Scripturam ædificationi
habilem, divinitus inspirari._ Origen (ii. 443),—πᾶσα γραφὴ
θεόπνευστος οὖσα ὠφελιμός ἐστι. Gregory Nyss. (ii. 605),—πᾶσα γραφὴ
θεόπνευστος λέγεται. Dial. (ap. Orig. i. 808),—πᾶσα γραφὴ
θεόπνευστος λέγεται παρὰ τοῦ Ἀποστόλου. So Basil, Chrysostom, Cyril,
Theodoret, &c.
601 See Archdeacon Lee _on Inspiration_, pp. 261-3, reading his notes.
602 S. John xvi. 15.