[down to] _assumptus est in gloriâ_. O magni doctoris affatum!
_Deus_, inquit, _manifestatus est in carne_,” &c.—_Concilia_, vii.
p. 618 e.
1053 Theodori Studitæ, _Epistt_. lib. ii. 36, and 156. (Sirmondi’s _Opera
Varia_, vol. v. pp. 349 e and 498 b,—Venet. 1728.)
1054 Paul 113, (Matthæi’s a) contains two Scholia which witness to Θεὸς
ἐφανερώθη:—Paul 115, (Matthæi’s d) also contains two Scholia.—Paul
118, (Matthæi’s h).—Paul 123, (Matthæi’s n). See Matthæi’s N. T.
vol. xi. _Præfat._ pp. xlii.-iii.
1055 ii. 228 a.
1056 ii. 569 e: 570 a.
_ 1057 Panoplia_,—Tergobyst, 1710, fol. ρκγ᾽. p. 2, col. 1.
1058 Σαββάτῳ πρὸ τῶν φώτων.
1059 But in Apost. 12 (Reg. 375) it is the lection for the 30th (λ᾽)
Saturday.—In Apost. 33 (Reg. 382), for the 31st (λα᾽).—In Apost. 26
(Reg. 320), the lection for the 34th Saturday begins at 1 Tim. vi.
11.—Apostt. 26 and 27 (Regg. 320-1) are said to have a peculiar
order of lessons.
1060 For convenience, many codices are reckoned under this head (viz. of
“Apostolus”) which are rather Ἀπόστολο-εὐαγγέλια. Many again which
are but fragmentary, or contain only a very few lessons from the
Epistles: such are Apostt. 97 to 103. See the APPENDIX.
1061 No. 21, 28, 31 are said to be Gospel lessons (“Evstt.”). No. 29, 35
and 36 are Euchologia; “the two latter probably Melchite, for the
codices exhibit some Arabic words” (Abbé Martin). No. 43 and 48 must
be erased. No. 70 and 81 are identical with 52 (B. M. _Addit._
32051).
1062 Viz. Apost. 1: 3: 6: 9 & 10 (which are Menologies with a few Gospel
lections): 15: 16: 17: 19: 20: 24: 26: 27: 32: 37: 39: 44: 47: 50:
53: 55: 56: 59: 60: 61: 63: 64: 66: 67: 68: 71: 72: 73: 75: 76: 78:
79: 80: 87: 88: 90.
1063 Viz. Apost. 4 at Florence: 8 at Copenhagen: 40, 41, 42 at Rome: 54
at St. Petersburg: 74 in America.
1064 Viz. Apost. 2 and 52 (Addit. 32051) in the B. Mus., also 69 (Addit.
29714 verified by Dr. C. R. Gregory): 5 at Gottingen: 7 at the
Propaganda (verified by Dr. Beyer): 11, 22, 23, 25, 30, 33 at Paris
(verified by Abbé Martin): 13, 14, 18 at Moscow: 38, 49 in the
Vatican (verified by Signor Cozza-Luzi): 45 at Glasgow (verified by
Dr. Young): 46 at Milan (verified by Dr. Ceriani): 51 at Besançon
(verified by M. Castan): 57 and 62 at Lambeth, also 65 B-C (all
three verified by Scrivener): 58 at Ch. Ch., Oxford: 77 at Moscow:
82 at Messina (verified by Papas Matranga): 84 and 89 at Crypta
Ferrata (verified by Hieromonachus Rocchi).
1065 Viz. Apost. 34 (Reg. 383), a XVth-century Codex. The Abbé Martin
assures me that this copy exhibits μυστήριον; | θῢ ἐφανερώθη. Note
however that the position of the point, as well as the accentuation,
proves that nothing else but θς was intended. This is very
instructive. What if the same slip of the pen had been found in Cod.
B?
1066 Viz. Apost 83 (Crypta Ferrata, A. β. iv.)
1067 Viz. Praxapost. 85 and 86 (Crypta Ferrata, A. β. vii. which exhibits
μυστήριον; ὅς ἐφα | νερώθη ἐν σαρκί; and A. β. viii., which exhibits
μυστίριον; ὅς ἐ ... νερώθη | ἐν σαρκύ. [_sic._]). Concerning these
codices, see above, pp. 446 to 448.
_ 1068 Concilia_, ii. 217 c ( = ed. Hard. i. 418 b).
1069 He wrote a history of the Council of Nicæa, in which he introduces
the discussions of the several Bishops present,—all the product (as
Cave thinks) of his own brain.
1070 viii. 214 b.
1071 Cited at the Council of CP. (A.D. 553). [_Concilia_, ed. Labbe et
Cossart, v. 447 b c = ed. Harduin, iii. 29 c and 82 e.]
_ 1072 Concilia_, Labbe, v. 449 a, and Harduin, iii. 84 d.
1073 Harduin, iii. 32 d.
1074 A Latin translation of the work of Leontius (_Contra Nestor. et
Eutych._), wherein it is stated that the present place was found in
_lib._ xiii., may be seen in Gallandius [xii. 660-99: the passage
under consideration being given at p. 694 c d]: but Mai (_Script.
Vett._ vi. 290-312), having discovered in the Vatican the original
text of the excerpts from Theod. Mops., published (from the xiith
book of Theod. _de Incarnatione_) the Greek of the passage [vi.
308]. From this source, Migne [_Patr. Gr._ vol. 66, col. 988] seems
to have obtained his quotation.
1075 Either as given by Mai, or as represented in the Latin translation
of Leontius (obtained from a different codex) by Canisius [_Antiquæ
Lectt._, 1601, vol. iv.], from whose work Gallandius simply
reprinted it in 1788.
_ 1076 Theodori Mops. Fragmenta Syriaca, vertit_ Ed. Sachau, Lips.
1869,—p. 53.—I am indebted for much zealous help in respect of these
Syriac quotations to the Rev. Thomas Randell of Oxford,—who, I
venture to predict, will some day make his mark in these studies.
_ 1077 Ibid._ p. 64. The context of the place (which is derived from
Lagarde’s _Analecta Syriaca_, p. 102, top,) is as follows: “Deitas
enim inhabitans hæc omnia gubernare incepit. Et in hac re etiam
gratia Spiritus Sancti adjuvabat ad hunc effectum, ut beatus quoque
Apostolus dixit: ‘_Vere grande ... in spiritu_;’ quoniam nos quoque
auxilium Spiritûs accepturi sumus ad perfectionem justitiæ.” A
further reference to 1 Tim. iii. 16 at page 69, does not help us.
1078 I owe this, and more help than I can express in a foot-note, to my
learned friend the Rev. Henry Deane, of S. John’s.
1079 Pages 437-43.
1080 See above, p. 444.
1081 See above, pp. 446-8; also the _Appendix_.
1082 See pp. 426-8.
1083 See pp. 480-2.
1084 N. T. 1806 ii. _ad calcem_, p. [25].
1085 Page 76.
1086 See above, pp. 376-8.
1087 Viz. from p. 431 to p. 478.
1088 See above, pp. 462-4.
1089 Viz. Acts iii. 12; 1 Tim. iv. 7, 8; vi. 3, 5, 6; 2 Tim. iii. 5; Tit.
i. 1; 2 Pet. i. 3, 6, 7; iii. 11.
1090 From the friend whose help is acknowledged at foot of pp. 450, 481.
1091 Scholz enumerates 8 of these copies: Coxe, 15. But there must exist
a vast many more; as, at M. Athos, in the convent of S. Catharine,
at Meteora, &c., &c.
1092 In explanation of this statement, the reader is invited to refer to
the APPENDIX at the end of the present volume. [Since the foregoing
words have been in print I have obtained from Rome tidings of about
34 more copies of S. Paul’s Epistles; raising the present total to
336. The known copies of the book called “_Apostolus_” now amount to
127.]
1093 Viz. Paul 61 (see Scrivener’s _Introduction_, 3rd ed. p. 251): and
Paul 181 (see above, at pp. 444-5).
1094 Viz. Paul 248, at Strasburg.
1095 Viz. Paul 8 (see Scrivener’s _Introduction_): 15 (which is not in
the University library at Louvain): 50 and 51 (in Scrivener’s
_Introduction_): 209 and 210 (which, I find on repeated enquiry, are
no longer preserved in the Collegio Romano; nor, since the
suppression of the Jesuits, is any one able to tell what has become
of them).
1096 Viz. Paul 42: 53: 54: 58 (_Vat._ 165,—from Sig. Cozza-Luzi): 60: 64:
66: 76: 82: 89: 118: 119: 124: 127: 146: 147: 148: 152: 160: 161:
162: 163: 172: 187: 191: 202: 214: 225 (_Milan_ N. 272 _sup._,—from
Dr. Ceriani): 259: 263: 271: 275: 284 (_Modena_ II. A. 13,—from Sig.
Cappilli [Acts, 195—_see Appendix_]): 286 (_Milan_ E. 2 _inf._—from
Dr. Ceriani [_see Appendix_]): 287 (_Milan_ A. 241 _inf._—from Dr.
Ceriani [_see Appendix_]): 293 (_Crypta Ferrata_, A. β. vi.—from the
Hieromonachus A. Rocchi [_see Appendix_]): 302 (_Berlin, MS. Græc._
8vo. No. 9.—from Dr. C. de Boor [_see Appendix_]).
1097 Viz. Paul 254 (restored to CP., see Scrivener’s _Introduction_): and
Paul 261 (Muralt’s 8: Petrop. xi. 1. 2. 330).
1098 I found the reading of 150 copies of S. Paul’s Epistles at 1 Tim.
iii. 16, ascertained ready to my hand,—chiefly the result of the
labours of Mill, Kuster, Walker, Berriman, Birch, Matthæi, Scholz,
Reiche, and Scrivener. The following 102 I am enabled to contribute
to the number,—thanks to the many friendly helpers whose names
follow:—
In the VATICAN (Abbate Cozza-Luzi, keeper of the library, whose
friendly forwardness and enlightened zeal I cannot sufficiently
acknowledge. See the _Appendix_) No. 185, 186, 196, 204, 207, 294,
295, 296, 297.—PROPAGANDA (Dr. Beyer) No. 92.—CRYPTA FERRATA (the
Hieromonachus A. Rocchi. See the _Appendix_,) No. 290, 291,
292.—VENICE (Sig. Veludo) No. 215.—MILAN (Dr. Ceriani, the most
learned and helpful of friends,) No. 173, 174, 175, 176, 223, 288,
289.—FERRARA, (Sig. Gennari) No. 222.—MODENA (Sig. Cappilli) No.
285.—BOLOGNA (Sig. Gardiani) No. 105.—TURIN (Sig. Gorresio) No. 165,
168.—FLORENCE (Dr. Anziani) No. 182, 226, 239.—MESSINA (Papas
Filippo Matranga. See the _Appendix_,) No. 216, 283.—PALERMO (Sig.
Penerino) No. 217.—The ESCURIAL (S. Herbert Capper, Esq., of the
British Legation. He executed a difficult task with rare ability, at
the instance of his Excellency, Sir Robert Morier, who is requested
to accept this expression of my thanks,) No. 228, 229.—PARIS (M.
Wescher, who is as obliging as he is learned in this department,)
No. 16, 65, 136, 142, 150, 151, 154, 155, 156, 157, 164.—(L’Abbé
Martin. See the _Appendix_) No. 282. ARSENAL (M. Thierry) No.
130.—S. GENEVIEVE (M. Denis) No. 247.—POICTIERS (M. Dartige) No.
276.—BERLIN (Dr. C. de Boor) No. 220, 298, 299, 300, 301.—DRESDEN
(Dr. Forstemann) No. 237.—MUNICH (Dr. Laubmann) No. 55, 125, 126,
128.—GOTTINGEN (Dr. Lagarde) No. 243.—WOLFENBUTTEL (Dr. von
Heinemann) No. 74, 241.—BASLE (Mons. Sieber) No. 7.—UPSALA (Dr.
Belsheim) No. 273, 274.—LINCOPING (the same) No. 272.—ZURICH (Dr.
Escher) No. 56.—Prebendary Scrivener verified for me Paul 252: 253:
255: 256: 257: 258: 260: 264: 265: 277.—Rev. T. Randell, has
verified No. 13.—Alex. Peckover, Esq., No. 278.—Personally, I have
inspected No. 24: 34: 62: 63: 224: 227: 234: 235: 236: 240: 242:
249: 250: 251: 262: 266: 267: 268: 269: 270: 279: 280: 281.
1099 Viz. Paul 37 (the _Codex Leicest._, 69 of the Gospels):—Paul 85
(Vat. 1136), observed by Abbate Cozza-Luzi:—Paul 93 (Naples 1. B.
12) which is 83 of the Acts,—noticed by Birch:—Paul 175 (Ambros. F.
125 _sup._) at Milan; as I learn from Dr. Ceriani. See above, p. 456
_note_ 1.
1100 Viz. Paul 282,—concerning which, see above, p. 474, note 1.
1101 The present locality of this codex (Evan. 421 = Acts 176 = Paul 218)
is unknown. The only Greek codices in the public library of the
“Seminario” at Syracuse are an “Evst.” and an “Apost.” (which I
number respectively 362 and 113). My authority for Θεός in Paul 218,
is Birch [_Proleg._ p. xcviii.], to whom Munter communicated his
collations.
1102 For the ensuing codices, see the APPENDIX.
1103 Vat. 2068 (Basil. 107),—which I number “Apost. 115” (see APPENDIX.)
1104 Viz. by 4 uncials (A, K, L, P), + (247 Paul + 31 Apost. = ) 278
cursive manuscripts reading Θεός: + 4 (Paul) reading ὁ Θεός: + 2 (1
Paul, 1 Apost.) reading ὅς Θεός: + 1 (Apost.) reading Θῢ = 289. (See
above, pp. 473-4: 478.)
1105 The Harkleian (see pp. 450, 489): the Georgian, and the Slavonic (p.
454).
1106 See above, pp. 487-490,—which is the summary of what will be found
more largely delivered from page 455 to page 476.
1107 See above, pp. 448-453: also p. 479.
1108 See above, pp. 479-480.
1109 See above, pp. 452-3.
1110 See above, pp. 482, 483.
1111 See above, page 436, and middle of page 439.
1112 See his long and singular note.
_ 1113 Fresh Revision_, p. 27.
_ 1114 Printed Text_, p. 231.
1115 P. 226.
1116 “_Forte_ μυστήριον; ὁ _χς_ ἐθανατώθη ἐν σαρκί ... ἐν πνεύματι, ὤφθη
ἀποστόλοις.”—Bentleii _Critica Sacra_, p. 67.
_ 1117 Developed Criticism_, p. 160.
1118 Thus Augustine (viii. 828 f.) paraphrases,—“_In carne manifestatus
est_ FILIUS DEI.”—And Marius Victorinus, A.D. 390 (ap. Galland.
viii. 161),—“_Hoc enim est magnum sacramentum, quod_ DEUS
_exanimavit semet ipsum cum esset in_ DEI _formá:_” “_fuit ergo
antequam esset in carne, sed manifestatum dixit in carne_.”—And
Fulgentius, A.D. 513, thus expands the text (ap. Galland. xi.
232):—“_quia scilicet Verbum quod in principio erat, et apud_ DEUM
_erat, et_ DEUS _erat, id est_ DEI _unigenitus Filius_, DEI _virtus
et sapientia, per quem et in quo facta sunt omnia, ... idem_ DEUS
_unigenitus_,” &c. &c.—And Ferrandus, A.D. 356 (_ibid._ p.
356):—“_ita pro redemtione humani generis humanam naturam credimus
suscepisse, ut ille qui Trinitate perfecta_ DEUS _unigenitus
permanebat ac permanet, ipse ex Maria fieret primogenitus in multis
fratribus_,” &c.
_ 1119 MS. note in his interleaved copy of the N. T._ He adds, “Hæc
addenda posui Notis ad S. Hippolytum contra Noetum p. 93, vol. i.
_Scriptor. Ecclesiast. Opusculorum._”
1120 Page 29.
1121 P. 29.
1122 P. 30.
_ 1123 Address_, on the Revised Version, p. 10.
1124 See above, pp. 37 to 39.
1125 Bp. Ellicott’s pamphlet, p. 34.
1126 P. 231.
1127 Fifth Rule of the Committee.
1128 Bp. Ellicott’s pamphlet, p. 30.
1129 No fair person will mistake the spirit in which the next ensuing
paragraphs (in the Text) are written. But I will add what shall
effectually protect me from being misunderstood.
Against the respectability and personal worth of any member of the
Revisionist body, let me not be supposed to breathe a syllable. All,
(for aught I know to the contrary,) may be men of ability and
attainment, as well as of high moral excellence. I will add that, in
early life, I numbered several professing Unitarians among my
friends. It were base in me to forget how wondrous kind I found
them: how much I loved them: how fondly I cherish their memory.
Further. That in order to come at the truth of Scripture, we are
bound to seek help at the hands of _any_ who are able to render
help,—_who_ ever doubted? If a worshipper of the false prophet,—if a
devotee of Buddha,—could contribute anything,—_who_ would hesitate
to sue to him for enlightenment? As for Abraham’s descendants,—they
are our very brethren.
But it is quite a different thing when Revisionists appointed by the
Convocation of the Southern Province, co-opt Separatists and even
Unitarians into their body, where they shall determine the sense of
Scripture and vote upon its translation on equal terms. Surely, when
the Lower House of Convocation accepted the 5th “Resolution” of the
Upper House,—viz., that the Revising body “shall be at liberty to
invite the co-operation of any eminent for scholarship, to whatever
nation or religious body they may belong;”—the Synod of Canterbury
did not suppose that it was pledging itself to sanction _such_
“co-operation” as is implied by actual _co-optation_!
It should be added that Bp. Wilberforce, (the actual framer of the
5th fundamental Resolution,) has himself informed us that “in
framing it, it never occurred to him that it would apply to the
admission of any member of the Socinian body.” _Chronicle of
Convocation_ (Feb. 1871,) p. 4.
“I am aware,” (says our learned and pious bishop of Lincoln,) “that
the ancient Church did not scruple to avail herself of the
translation of a renegade Jew, like Aquila; and of Ebionitish
heretics, like Symmachus and Theodotion; and that St. Augustine
profited by the expository rules of Tychonius the Donatist. But I
very much doubt whether the ancient Church would have looked for a
large outpouring of a blessing from GOD on a work of translating His
Word, where the workmen were not all joined together in a spirit of
Christian unity, and in the profession of the true Faith; and in
which the opinions of the several translators were to be counted and
not weighed; and where everything was to be decided by numerical
majorities; and where the votes of an Arius or a Nestorius were to
be reckoned as of equal value with those of an Athanasius or a
Cyril.” (_Address on the Revised Version_, 1881, pp. 38.)
_ 1130 The Bible and Popular Theology_, by G. Vance Smith, 1871.
_ 1131 An Unitarian Reviser of our Authorized Version, intolerable: an
earnest Remonstrance and Petition_,—addressed to yourself by your
present correspondent:—Oxford, Parker, 1872, pp. 8.
1132 See letter of “One of the Revisionists, G. V. S.” in _the Times_ of
July 11, 1870.
_ 1133 Protest against the Communion of an Unitarian in Westminster Abbey
on June_ 22nd, 1870:—Oxford, 1870, pp. 64.
1134 See the _Chronicle of Convocation_ (Feb. 1871), pp. 3-28,—when a
Resolution was moved and carried by the Bp. (Wilberforce) of
Winchester,—“That it is the judgment of this House that no person
who denies the Godhead of our LORD JESUS CHRIST ought to be invited
to join either company to which is committed the Revision of the
Authorized Version of Holy Scripture: and that it is further the
judgment of this House that any such person now on either Company
should cease to act therewith.
“And that this Resolution be communicated to the Lower House, and
their concurrence requested:”—which was done. See p. 143.
1135 The Reader is invited to refer back to pp. 132-135.
1136 The Reader is requested to refer back to pp. 210-214.
1137 S. Mark x. 21.
1138 S. Luke xxii. 64.
1139 S. Luke xxiii. 38.
1140 S. Luke xxiv. 42.
1141 Εἰπεῖν is “_to command_” in S. Matth. (and S. Luke) iv. 3: in S.
Mark v. 43: viii. 7, and in many other places. On the other hand,
the Revisers have thrust “_command_” into S. Matth. xx. 21, where
“_grant_” had far better have been let alone: and have overlooked
other places (as S. Matth. xxii. 24, S. James ii. 11), where
“_command_” might perhaps have been introduced with advantage. (I
nothing doubt that when the Centurion of Capernaum said to our Lord
μόνον εἰπὲ λόγῳ [Mtt. viii. 8 = Lu. vii. 7], he entreated Him “only
to give _the word of command_.”)
We all see, of course, that it was because Δός is rendered “_grant_”
in the (very nearly) parallel place to S. Matth. xx. 21 (viz. S.
Mark x. 37), that the Revisers thought it incumbent on them to
represent Εἰπέ in the earlier Gospel differently; and so they
bethought themselves of “_command_.” (Infelicitously enough, as I
humbly think. “_Promise_” would evidently have been a preferable
substitute: the word in the original (εἰπεῖν) being one of that
large family of Greek verbs which vary their shade of signification
according to their context.) But it is plainly impracticable to
_level up_ after this rigid fashion,—to translate in this mechanical
way. Far more is lost than is gained by this straining after an
impossible closeness of rendering. The spirit becomes inevitably
sacrificed to the letter. All this has been largely remarked upon
above, at pp. 187-206.
Take the case before us in illustration. S. James and S. John with
their Mother, have evidently agreed together to “_ask a favour_” of
their LORD (cf. Mtt. xx. 20, Mk. x. 35). The Mother begins Εἰπέ,—the
sons begin, Δός. Why are we to assume that the request is made by
the Mother in _a different spirit_ from the sons? Why are we to
impose upon her language the imperious sentiment which the very
mention of “_command_” unavoidably suggests to an English ear?
A prior, and yet more fatal objection, remains in full force. The
Revisers, (I say it for the last time,) were clearly going beyond
their prescribed duty when they set about handling the Authorized
Version after this merciless fashion. Their business was to correct
“_plain and clear errors_,”—_not_ to produce a “New English
Version.”
1142 Take the following as a sample, which is one of the Author’s proofs
that the “Results of the Revision” are “unfavourable to
Orthodoxy:”—“The only instance in the N. T. in which the religious
worship or adoration of CHRIST was apparently implied, has been
_altered_ by the Revision: ‘_At_ the name of JESUS every knee shall
bow,’ [Philipp. ii. 10] is now to be read ‘_in_ the name.’ Moreover,
no alteration of text or of translation will be found anywhere to
make up for this loss; as indeed it is well understood that the N.
T. contains neither precept nor example which really sanctions the
religious worship of JESUS CHRIST.”—_Texts and Margins_,—p. 47.
_ 1143 Supra_, p. 424 to p. 501.
1144 See above, pp. 272-275, pp. 278-281.
1145 See above, p. 275.
1146 See above, pp. 276-7.
1147 See above, pp. 303-305.
1148 See above, p. 304.
1149 See above, pp. 339-42; also pp. 422, 423.
1150 See above, pp. 391-7.
1151 See above, pp. 36-40: 47-9: 422-4.
1152 See above, pp. 41-7: 420-2.
1153 See above, pp. 98-106: 424-501.
1154 Evan. 738 belongs to Oriel College, Oxford, [xii.], small 4to. of
130 foll. slightly _mut._ Evan. 739, Bodl. Greek Miscell. 323
[xiii.], 8vo. _membr._ foll. 183, _mut._ Brought from Ephesus, and
obtained for the Bodleian in 1883.
1155 Evst. 415 belongs to Lieut. Bate, [xiii.], _chart._ foll. 219,
mutilated throughout. He obtained it in 1878 from a Cyprus villager
at Kikos, near Mount Trovodos (_i.e._ Olympus.) It came from a
monastery on the mountain.
1156 Apost. 128 will be found described, for the first time, below, at p.
528.