739 In S. MATTH. i. 25,—the omission of “_her first-born_:”—in vi. 13,
the omission of the _Doxology_:—in xii. 47, the omission of _the
whole verse_:—in xvi. 2, 3, the omission of our LORD’S memorable
words concerning the _signs of the weather_:—in xvii. 21, the
omission of the mysterious statement, “_But this kind goeth not out
save by prayer and fasting_:”—in xviii. 11, the omission of the
precious words “_For the Son of man came to save that which was
lost_.”
In S. MARK xvi. 9-20, the omission of the “_last Twelve
Verses_,”—(“the contents of which are _not such as could have been
invented_ by any scribe or editor of the Gospel,”—W. and H. p. 57).
All admit that ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ is an impossible ending.
In S. LUKE vi. 1, the suppression of the unique δευτεροπρώτῳ; (“the
very obscurity of the expression attesting strongly to its
genuineness,”—Scrivener, p. 516, and so W. and H. p. 58):—ix. 54-56,
the omitted _rebuke to the_ “_disciples James and John_:”—in x. 41,
42, the omitted _words concerning Martha and Mary_:—in xxii. 43, 44,
the omission of the _Agony in the Garden_,—(which nevertheless, “_it
would be impossible to regard_ as a product of the inventiveness of
scribes,”—W. and H. p. 67):—in xxiii. 17, a memorable clause
omitted:—in xxiii. 34, the omission of our Lord’s _prayer for His
murderers_,—(concerning which Westcott and Hort remark that “_few
verses of the Gospels bear in themselves a surer witness to the
truth of what they record than this_”—p. 68):—in xxiii. 38, the
statement that the Inscription on the Cross was “_in letters of
Greek, and Latin, and Hebrew_:”—in xxiv. 12, _the visit of S. Peter
to the Sepulchre_. Bishop Lightfoot remarks concerning S. Luke ix.
56: xxii. 43, 44: and xxiii. 34,—“_It seems impossible to believe
that these incidents are other than authentic_,”—(p. 28.)
In S. JOHN iii. 13, the solemn clause “_which is in heaven_:”—in v.
3, 4, the omitted incident of _the troubling of the pool_:—in vii.
53 to viii. 11, _the narrative concerning the woman taken in
adultery_ omitted,—concerning which Drs. W. and H. remark that “_the
argument which has always told most in its favour in modern times is
its own internal character_. The story itself has justly seemed _to
vouch for its own substantial truth_, and the words in which it is
clothed to harmonize with those of other Gospel narratives”—(p. 87).
Bishop Lightfoot remarks that “_the narrative bears on its face the
highest credentials of authentic history_”—(p. 28).
740 To some extent, even the unlearned Reader may easily convince
himself of this, by examining the rejected “alternative” Readings in
the margin of the “Revised Version.” The “Many” and the “Some
ancient authorities,” there spoken of, _almost invariably
include_—sometimes _denote_—codd. B א, one or both of them. These
constitute the merest fraction of the entire amount of corrupt
readings exhibited by B א; but they will give English readers some
notion of the problem just now under consideration.
Besides the details already supplied [see above, pages 16 and 17:—30
and 31:—46 and 47:—75:—249:—262:—289:—316 to 319] concerning B and
א,—(the result of laborious collation,)—some particulars shall now
be added. The piercing of our SAVIOUR’S side, thrust in after Matt.
xxvii. 49:—the eclipse of the sun when the moon was full, in Lu.
xxiii. 45:—the monstrous figment concerning Herod’s daughter, thrust
into Mk. vi. 22:—the precious clauses omitted in Matt. i. 25 and
xviii. 11:—in Lu. ix. 54-6, and in Jo. iii. 13:—the wretched glosses
in Lu. vi. 48: x. 42: xv. 21: Jo. x. 14 and Mk. vi. 20:—the
substitution of οινον (for οξος) in Matt. xxvii. 34,—of Θεος (for
υιος) in Jo. i. 18,—of ανθρωπου (for Θεου) in ix. 35,—of οὑ (for ῷ)
in Rom. iv. 8:—the geographical blunder in Mk. vii. 31: in Lu. iv.
44:—the omission in Matt. xii. 47,—and of two important verses in
Matt. xvi. 2, 3:—of ιδια in Acts i. 19:—of εγειραι και in iii.
6;—and of δευτεροπρωτω in Lu. vi. 1:—the two spurious clauses in Mk.
iii. 14, 16:—the obvious blunders in Jo. ix. 4 and 11:—in Acts xii.
25—besides the impossible reading in 1 Cor. xiii. 3,—make up a heavy
indictment against B and א jointly—which are here found in company
with just a very few disreputable allies. Add, the plain error at
Lu. ii. 14:—the gloss at Mk. v. 36:—the mere fabrication at Matt.
xix. 17:—the omissions at Matt. vi. 13: Jo. v. 3, 4.
B (in company with others, but apart from א) by exhibiting
βαπτισαντες in Matt. xxviii. 19:—ὡδε των in Mk. ix.
1:—“seventy-_two_,” in Lu. x. 1:—the blunder in Lu. xvi. 12:—and the
grievous omissions in Lu. xxii. 43, 44 (CHRIST’S Agony in the
Garden),—and xxiii. 34 (His prayer for His murderers),—enjoys
unenviable distinction.—B, singly, is remarkable for an obvious
blunder in Matt. xxi. 31:—Lu. xxi. 24:—Jo. xviii. 5:—Acts x. 19—and
xvii. 28:—xxvii. 37:—not to mention the insertion of δεδομενον in
Jo. vii. 39.
א (in company with others, but apart from B) is conspicuous for its
sorry interpolation of Matt. viii. 13:—its substitution of εστιν
(for ην) in S. John i. 4:—its geographical blunder in S. Luke xxiv.
13:—its textual blunder at 1 Pet. i. 23.—א, singly, is remarkable
for its sorry paraphrase in Jo. ii. 3:—its addition to i. 34:—its
omissions in Matt. xxiii. 35:—Mk. i. 1:—Jo. ix. 38:—its insertion of
Ησαιου in Matt. xiii. 35:—its geographical blunders in Mk. i.
28:—Lu. i. 26:—Acts viii. 5:—besides the blunders in Jo. vi. 51—and
xiii. 10:—1 Tim. iii. 16:—Acts xxv. 13:—and the clearly fabricated
narrative of Jo. xiii. 24. Add the fabricated text at Mk. xiv. 30,
68, 72; of which the object was “so far to assimilate the narrative
of Peter’s denials with those of the other Evangelists, as to
suppress the fact, vouched for by S. Mark only, that the cock crowed
twice.”
741 Characteristic, and fatal beyond anything that can be named are, (1)
The _exclusive_ omission by B and א of Mark xvi. 9-20:—(2) The
omission of εν Εφεσῳ, from Ephes. i. 1:—(3) The blunder,
αποσκιασματος, in James i. 17:—(4) The nonsensical συστρεφομενων in
Matt. xvii. 22:—(5) That “vile error,” (as Scrivener calls it,)
περιελοντες, in Acts xxviii. 13:—(6) The impossible order of words
in Lu. xxiii. 32; and (7) The extraordinary order in Acts i. 5:—(8)
The omission of the last clause of the LORD’S prayer, in Lu. xi. 4;
and (9) Of that solemn verse, Matt. xvii. 21; and (10) Of ισχυρον in
Matt. xiv. 30:—(11) The substitution of εργων (for τεκνων) in Matt.
xi. 29:—(12) Of ελιγμα (for μιγμα) in Jo. xix. 39,—and (13) of ην
τεθειμενος (for ετεθη) in John xix. 41. Then, (14) The thrusting of
Χριστος into Matt. xvi. 21,—and (15) Of ὁ Θεος into vi. 8:—besides
(16) So minute a peculiarity as Βεεζεβουλ in Matt. x. 35: xii. 24,
27: Lu. xi. 15, 18, 19. (17) Add, the gloss at Matt. xvii. 20, and
(18) The omissions at Matt. v. 22: xvii. 21.—It must be admitted
that such peculiar blemishes, taken collectively, constitute a proof
of affinity of origin,—community of descent from one and the same
disreputable ancestor. But space fails us.
The Reader will be interested to learn that although, in the
Gospels, B combines exclusively with A, but 11 times; and with C,
but 38 times: with D, it combines exclusively 141 times, and with א,
239 times: (viz. in Matt. 121,—in Mk. 26,—in Lu. 51,—in Jo. 41
times).
Contrast it with A:—which combines exclusively with D, 21 times:
with א 13 times: with B, 11 times: with C, 4 times.
742 The Reviewer speaks from actual inspection of both documents. They
are essentially dissimilar. The learned Ceriani assured the Reviewer
(in 1872) that whereas the Vatican Codex must certainly have been
written _in Italy_,—the birthplace of the Sinaitic was [_not_ Egypt,
but] _either Palestine or Syria_. Thus, considerations of time and
place effectually dispose of Tischendorf’s preposterous notion that
the Scribe of Codex B wrote _six leaves_ of א: an imagination which
solely resulted from the anxiety of the Critic to secure for his own
cod. א the same antiquity which is claimed for the vaunted cod. B.
This opinion of Dr. Tischendorf’s rests on the same fanciful basis
as his notion that _the last verse_ of S. John’s Gospel in א was not
written by the same hand which wrote the rest of the Gospel. There
is _no manner of difference_: though of course it is possible that
the scribe took a new pen, preliminary to writing that last verse,
and executing the curious and delicate ornament which follows.
Concerning S. Jo. xxi. 25, see above, pp. 23-4.
743 Tischendorf’s narrative of the discovery of the Sinaitic manuscript
(“_When were our Gospels written?_”), [1866,] p. 23.
744 “Papyrus Inédit de la Bibliothèque de M. Ambroise Firmin-Didot.
Nouveaux fragments d’Euripide et d’autres Poètes Grecs, publiés par
M. Henri Weil. (Extrait des _Monumens Grecs publiés par
l’Association pour l’encouragement des Etudes Grecques en France_.
Année 1879.)” Pp. 36.
745 The rest of the passage may not be without interest to classical
readers:—“Ce n’est pas à dire qu’elle soit tout à fait sans intérêt,
sans importance: pour la constitution du texte. Elle nous apprend
que, au vers 5, ἀρίστων, pour ἀριστέων (correction de Wakefield)
était déjà l’ancienne vulgate; et que les vers 11 et 12, s’ils sont
altérés, comme l’assurent quelques éditeurs d’Euripide, l’étaient
déjà dans l’antiquité.
“L’homme ... était aussi ignorant que négligent. Je le prends pour
un Egyptien n’ayant qu’une connoissance très imparfaite de la langue
grecque, et ne possédant aucune notion ni sur l’orthographe, ni sur
les règles les plus élémentaires du trimètre iambique. Le plus
singulier est qu’il commence sa copie au milieu d’un vers et qu’il
la finisse de même. Il oublie des lettres nécessaires, il en ajoute
de parasites, il les met les unes pour les autres, il tronque les
mots ou il les altère, au point de détruire quelquefois la suite de
la construction et le sens du passage.” A faithful copy of the
verses in minuscule characters is subjoined for the gratification of
Scholars. We have but divided the words and inserted capital
letters:—
“ανδρων αριστων οι δε πανχρυσον δερος
Πελεια μετηλθον ου γαρ τον δεσπονα εμην
Μηδια πυργους γης επλευσε Ειολκιας
ερωτι θυμωδ εγπλαγις Ιανοσονος
οτ αν κτανει πισας Πελειαδας κουρας
πατερα κατοικη τηνδε γην Κορινθιαν
συν ανδρι και τεκνοισιν ανδανοισα μεν
φυγη πολιτων ων αφηκετο χθονος.”
An excellent scholar (R. C. P.) remarks,—“The fragment must have
been written from dictation (of small parts, as it seems to me); and
by an illiterate scribe. It is just such a result as one might
expect from a half-educated reader enunciating Milton for a
half-educated writer.”
746 See p. 324 _note_ 1.—Photius [cod. 48] says that “Gaius” was a
presbyter of Rome, and ἐθνῶν ἐπίσκοπος. See Routh’s _Reliqq._ ii.
125.
747 Eusebius, _Hist. Ecol._ v. 28 (ap. Routh’s _Reliqq._ ii. 132-4).
748 Tregelles, Part ii. p. 2.
749 Scrivener’s prefatory _Introduction_,—p. xix.
_ 750 Ibid._ p. iii.
_ 751 On Revision_,—p. 47.
752 Singular to relate, S. Mark x. 17 to 31 _exactly_ fills two columns
of cod. א. (See Tischendorf’s reprint, 4to, p. 24*.)
753 Clemens Al. (ed. Potter),—pp. 937-8.... Note, how Clemens begins §
v. (p. 938, line 30). This will be found noticed below, viz. at p.
336, note 3.
754 “This Text” (say the Editors) “is _an attempt to reproduce at once
the autograph Text_.”—_Introduction_, p. xxviii.
755 Westcott and Hort’s _Introduction_, pp. 112-3.
756 Besides,—All but L. conspire 5 times.
All but T. 3 times.
All but Tr. 1 time.
Then,—T. Tr. WH. combine 2 times
T. WH. RT. 1 time
Tr. WH. RT. 1 time
L. Tr. WH. 1 time
Then,—L. T. stand by themselves 1 time
L. Tr. 1 time
T. WH. 1 time
Lastly,—L. stands alone 4 times.
Total: 21.
_ 757 Twice_ he agrees with all 5: viz. omitting ἄρας τὸν σταυρόν in ver.
21; and in omitting ῆ γυναῖκα (in ver. 29):—_Once_ he agrees with
only Lachmann: viz. in transposing ταῦτα πάντα (in ver. 20).
758 On the remaining 5 occasions (17 + 3 + 5 = 25), Clemens exhibits
peculiar readings of his own,—sides with _no one_.
_ 759 Q. R._ p. 360.
760 Article xx. § 1.
761 Εἰς πᾶσαν τὴν ἀλήθειαν.—S. John xvi. 13.
762 Theodoret, _Opp._ iv. 208.—Comp. Clinton, _F. R._ ii. _Appendix_, p.
473.
763 The reader is invited to enquire for Bp. Kaye (of Lincoln)’s
_Account of the writings of Clement of Alexandria_,—and to read the
vith and viiith chapters.
764 Ταῦτα μὲν ἐν τῷ κατὰ Μάρκον εὐαγγελίῳ γέγραπται. (§ v.),—p. 938.
765 Alford’s N. T. vol. i. proleg. p. 92.
766 See p. 197 (§ 269): and p. 201 (§ 275-9):—and p. 205 (§ 280).
_ 767 Preface_ (1870), p. xv.
768 See above, pp. 79 to 85.
769 Pp. 359-60.
770 P. 210 to p. 287. See the Contents, pp. xxiii.-xxviii.
771 Pp. 91-119 and pp. 133-146.
772 “I perceived _a large and wide basket_ full of old parchments; and
the librarian told me that two heaps like this had been already
_committed to the flames._ What was my surprise to find amid this
heap of papers,” &c.—(_Narrative of the discovery of the Sinaitic
Manuscript,_ p. 23.)
773 τὴν παρακαταθήκην.—1 Tim. vi. 20.
774 [While this sheet is passing through the press, I find among my
papers a note (written in 1876) by the learned, loved, and lamented
Editor of Cyril,—Philip E. Pusey,—with whom I used to be in constant
communication:—“It is not obvious to me, looking at the subject from
outside, why B C L, constituting a class of MSS. allied to each
other, and therefore nearly = 1-½ MSS., are to be held to be
superior to A. It is still less obvious to me why —— showing up (as
he does) very many grave faults of B, should yet consider B superior
in character to A.”]
_ 775 Introduction_, p. 567.
776 Let the following places be considered: S. Jo. i. 13; iii. 3, 5, 6,
7, 8; 1 Jo. ii. 29; iii. 9 _bis_, iv. 7; v. 1 _bis_, 4, 18 _bis_.
_Why_ is it to be supposed that on this last occasion THE ETERNAL
SON should be intended?
777 A*, B, 105.
778 The paraphrase is interesting. The Vulgate, Jerome [ii. 321, 691],
Cassian [p. 409],—“_Sed generatio Dei conservat eum_:” Chromatius
[Gall. viii. 347], and Vigilius Taps. [ap. Athanas. ii. 646],—“_Quia
(quoniam) nativitas Dei custodit (servat) illum._” In a letter of 5
Bishops to Innocentius I. (A.D. 410) [Galland. viii. 598 b], it
is,—“_Nativitas quæ ex Deo est._” Such a rendering (viz. “_his
having been born of_ GOD”) amounts to an _interpretation_ of the
place.
779 From the Rev. S. C. Malan, D.D.
780 iv. 326 b c.
781 Gall. viii. 347,—of which the Greek is to be seen in Cramer’s _Cat._
pp. 143-4. Many portions of the lost Text of this Father, (the
present passage included [p. 231]) are to be found in the Scholia
published by C. F. Matthæi [N. T. xi. 181 to 245-7].
782 i. 94, 97.
783 In _Cat._ p. 124, repeated p. 144.
784 iii. 433 c.
785 ii. 601 d.
786 By putting a small uncial Ε above the Α.
_ 787 Diocesan Progress_, Jan. 1882.—[pp. 20] p. 19.
_ 788 Introduction_, p. 283. _Notes_, pp. 3, 22, and _passim_.
789 Sermons, vol. i. 132,—(“_A form of sound words to be used by
Ministers._”)
790 Quoted by ps.-Ephraem _Evan. Conc._ p. 135 l. 2:—Nonnus:—Chrys.
viii. 248:—Cyril iv. 269 e, 270 a, 273:—Cramer’s _Cat._ p. 242 l. 25
(which is _not_ from Chrys.):—_Chron. Paschale_ 217 a
(_diserte_).—Recognized by Melito (A.D. 170):—Irenæus (A.D.
177):—Hippolytus (A.D. 190):—Origen:—Eusebius:—Apollinarius Laod.,
&c.
791 This is the _true_ reason of the eagerness which has been displayed
in certain quarters to find ὅς, (not Θεός) in 1 Tim. iii. 16:—just
as nothing else but a determination that CHRIST shall not be spoken
of as ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων Θεός, has occasioned the supposed doubt as to
the construction of Rom. ix. 5,—in which we rejoice to find that Dr.
Westcott refuses to concur with Dr. Hort.
792 See Dr. W. H. Mill’s _University Sermons_ (1845),—pp. 301-2 and
305:—a volume which should be found in every clergyman’s library.
793 Rev. xxii. 18, 19.
794 ἀφανισθήσονται.
795 This happens not unfrequently in codices of the type of א and B. A
famous instance occurs at Col. ii. 18, (ἂ μὴ ἑώρακεν
ἐμβατεύων,—“_prying into the things he hath not seen_”); where א* A
B D* and a little handful of suspicious documents leave out the
“_not_.” Our Editors, rather than recognize this blunder (so obvious
and ordinary!), are for conjecturing Α ΕΟΡΑΚΕΝ ΕΜΒΑΤΕΥΩΝ into ΑΕΡΑ
ΚΕΝΕΜΒΑΤΕΥΩΝ; which (if it means anything at all) may as well
mean,—“proceeding on an airy foundation to offer an empty
conjecture.” Dismissing that conjecture as worthless, we have to set
off the whole mass of the copies—against some 6 or 7:—Irenæus (i.
847), Theodoras Mops, (in _loc_.), Chrys. (xi. 372), Theodoret (iii.
489, 490), John Damascene (ii. 211)—against no Fathers at all (for
Origen once has μή [iv. 665]; once, has it not [iii. 63]; and once
is doubtful [i. 583]). Jerome and Augustine both take notice of the
diversity of reading, _but only to reject it_.—The Syriac versions,
the Vulgate, Gothic, Georgian, Sclavonic, Æthiopic, Arabic and
Armenian—(we owe the information, as usual, to Dr. Malan)—are to be
set against the suspicious Coptic. All these then are with the
Traditional Text: which cannot seriously be suspected of error.
796 εὑρεθήσεται.
797 Augustin, vii. 595.
798 ii. 467: iii. 865:—ii. 707: iii. 800:—ii. 901. _In Luc_. pp. 428,
654.
799 ii. 347.
800 Preface to “Provisional issue,” p. xxi.
_ 801 Introduction_, p. 210.
_ 802 Ibid_. p. 276.
803 Apud Mai, vi. 105.
_ 804 Opp._ vii. 543. Comp. 369.
805 Ap. Cramer, _Cat._ vi. 187.
806 So, Nilus, i. 270.
_ 807 Interp._ 595: 607.
_ 808 Dem. Evan._ p. 444.
809 P. 306.
_ 810 Epist. ad Zen._ iii. 1. 78. Note, that our learned Cave considered
this to be a _genuine_ work of Justin M. (A.D. 150).
_ 811 Cantic._ (an early work) _interp._ iii. 39,—though elsewhere (i.
112, 181 [?]: ii. 305 _int._ [but _not_ ii. 419]) he is for leaving
out εἰκῆ.
812 Gall. iii. 72 and 161.
813 ii. 89 b and e (partly quoted in the _Cat._ of Nicetas) _expressly_:
265.
814 i. 818 _expressly_.
815 ii. 312 (preserved in Jerome’s Latin translation, i. 240).
816 i. 132; iii. 442.
817 472, 634.
818 Ap. Chrys.
819 iii. 768: _apud Mai_, ii. 6 and iii. 268.
820 i. 48, 664; iv. 946.
821 Cramer’s _Cat._ viii. 12, line 14.
822 128, 625.
823 Gall. vi. 181.
824 Gall. x. 14.
825 Gall. vii. 509.
826 i. 27, written when he was 42; and ii. 733, 739, written when he was
84.
827 vii. 26,—“_Radendum est ergo_ sine causâ.” And so, at p. 636.
828 1064.
829 ii. 261.
830 ii. 592.
_ 831 Amphilochia_, (Athens, 1858,)—p. 317. Also in _Cat._
_ 832 Apophthegm. PP._ [ap. Cotel. _Eccl. Gr. Mon._ i. 622].
833 S. Matth. xv. 14.
_ 834 Gospel of the Resurrection_,—p. vii.
_ 835 Introduction_, pp. 300-2.
_ 836 Ibid._ p. 299.
_ 837 Appendix_, p. 66.
838 See Scrivener’s _Introduction_, p. 432.
_ 839 On Revision_,—p. 99.
_ 840 Speech in Convocation_, Feb. 1870, (p. 83.)
_ 841 On Revision_,—p. 205.
_ 842 Address to Lincoln Diocesan Conference_,—p. 25.
_ 843 Ibid._,—p. 27.
_ 844 Considerations on Revision_,—p. 44. The Preface is dated 23rd May,
1870. The Revisers met on the 22nd of June.
We learn from Dr. Newth’s _Lectures on Bible Revision_ (1881),
that,—“As the general Rules under which the Revision was to be
carried out had been carefully prepared, no need existed for any
lengthened discussion of preliminary arrangements, and the Company
upon its first meeting was able to enter at once upon its work” (p.
118) ... “The portion prescribed for the first session was Matt. i.
to iv.” (p. 119) ... “The question of the spelling of proper names
... being settled, the Company proceeded to the actual details of
the Revision, and in a surprisingly short time settled down to an
established method of procedure.”—“All proposals made at the first
Revision were decided by simple majorities” (p. 122) ... “_The
questions which concerned the Greek Text were decided for the most
part at the First Revision._” (Bp. Ellicott’s _Pamphlet_, p. 34.)
_ 845 The Revisers and the Greek Text of the New Testament, by two
Members of the New Testament Company_,—1882. Macmillan, pp. 79,
price two shillings and sixpence.
846 “To these two articles—so far, at least, as they are concerned with
the Greek Text adopted by the Revisers—our Essay is intended for an
answer.”—p. 79.
847 See above, pages 235 to 366.
848 Article III.,—see last note.
_ 849 Pamphlet_, p. 79.
_ 850 The Revised Version of the first three Gospels, considered in its
bearings upon the record of our __LORD’S__ Words and of incidents in
His Life_,—(1882. pp. 250. Murray,)—p. 232. Canon Cook’s temperate
and very interesting volume will be found simply unanswerable.
851 P. 40.
_ 852 Ibid._
853 As at p. 4, and p. 12, and p. 13, and p. 19, and p. 40.
854 See above, pp. 348-350.
855 P. 40.
856 P. 40.
857 P. 77.
858 P. 41, and so at p. 77.
859 P. 41.
860 P. 5.
861 P. 3.
862 P. 77.
_ 863 On Revision_, pp. 47-8.
864 Scrivener’s _Introduction_,—p. 423.
_ 865 Ibid._ p. 421.
866 “Non tantum totius Antiquitatis altum de tali opere suscepto
silentium,—sed etiam frequentes Patrum, usque ad quartum seculum
viventium, de textu N. T. liberius tractato, impuneque corrupto,
deque summâ Codicum dissonantiâ querelæ, nec non ipsæ corruptiones
inde a primis temporibus continuo propagatæ,—satis sunt documento,
neminem opus tam arduum, scrupulorum plenum, atque invidiæ et
calumniis obnoxium, aggressum fuisse; etiamsi doctiorum Patrum de
singulis locis disputationes ostendant, eos non prorsus rudes in
rebus criticis fuisse.”—_Codd. MSS. N. T. Græcorum &c. nova
descriptio, et cum textu vulgo recepto Collatio, &c._ 4to. Gottingæ,
1847. (p. 4.)
867 He proceeds:—“Hucusque nemini contigit, nec in posterum, puto,
continget, monumentorum nostrorum, tanquam totidem testium
singulorum, ingens agmen ad tres quatuorve, e quibus omnium
testimonium pendeat, testes referre; aut e testium grege innumero
aliquot duces auctoresque secernere, quorum testimonium tam plenum,
certum firmumque sit, ut sine damno ceterorum testimonio
careamus.”—_Ibid._ (p. 19.)
_ 868 Commentarius Criticus in N. T._ (in his Preface to the Ep. to the
Hebrews). We are indebted to Canon Cook for calling attention to
this. See by all means his _Revised Text of the first three
Gospels_,—pp. 4-8.
869 It requires to be stated, that, (as explained by the Abbé to the
present writer,) the “Post-scriptum” of his Fascic. IV., (viz. from
p. 234 to p. 236,) is a _jeu d’esprit_ only,—intended to enliven a
dry subject, and to entertain his pupils.
870 It seems to have escaped Bishop Ellicott’s notice, (and yet the fact
well deserves commemoration) that the claims of Tischendorf and
Tregelles on the Church’s gratitude, are not by any means founded on
_the Texts_ which they severally put forth. As in the case of Mill,
Wetstein and Birch, their merit is that they _patiently accumulated
evidence_. “Tischendorf’s reputation as a Biblical scholar rests
less on his critical editions of the N. T., than on the texts of the
chief uncial authorities which in rapid succession he gave to the
world.” (Scrivener’s _Introduction_,—p. 427.)
871 P. 12.
872 P. 13.
873 See above, pp. 12: 30-3: 34-5: 46-7: 75: 94-6: 249: 262: 289: 319.
874 P. 40.
875 P. 19.
876 P. 4.
877 Acts xix. 35.
_ 878 Suprà_, pp. 339-41.
879 P. 13.
880 Bp. Ellicott, _On Revision_, &c.—p. 30.
881 P. 15.
882 P. 16.
883 P. 17.
884 P. 18.
885 P. 19.
886 P. 19.
887 P. 20.
888 P. 21.
889 Pp. 23-4.
_ 890 Supra_, pp. 258-266.
891 Pp. 25-7.
892 See _Art._ III.,—viz. from p. 235 to p. 366.
893 You refer to such places as pp. 87-8 and 224, where see the Notes.
_ 894 Chronicle of Convocation_, Feb. 1870, p. 83.
895 See above, p. 368.
896 The clause (“and sayest thou, Who touched me?”) is witnessed to by A
C D P R X Γ Δ Λ Ξ Π and _every other known uncial except three of
bad character: by every known cursive but four_:—by the Old Latin
and Vulgate: by all the four Syriac: by the Gothic and the Æthiopic
Versions; as well as by ps.-Tatian (_Evan. Concord_, p. 77) and
Chrysostom (vii. 359 a). It cannot be pretended that the words are
derived from S. Mark’s Gospel (as Tischendorf coarsely
imagined);—for the sufficient reason that _the words are not found
there_. In S. Mark (v. 31) it is,—καὶ λέγεις, Τίς μου ἥψατο; in S.
Luke (viii. 45), καὶ λέγεις, Τίς ὁ ἁψάμενός μου. Moreover, this
delicate distinction has been maintained all down the ages.
897 Page 154 to p. 164.