A third class of errors of a more conscious or semi-conscious

description is due to the =substitution= of words or forms of similar

meaning. Thus, for λέγει we may have εἶπε or ἔφη or ἀπεκρίνατο, or the

simple form may be replaced by the compound or _vice versa_, or one

preposition may be substituted for another.[254] Separate words are very

frequently transposed without seriously affecting the sense. Thus, in

Acts iv. 12, we find nearly all the possible permutations of the three

words ονομα εστιν ετερον actually represented—viz., in addition to this

(2) ονομα ετερον εστιν; (3) ετερον ονομα εστιν; (4) εστιν ετερον ονομα;

(5) εστιν ονομα ετερον.[255] On Luke xvii. 10, Merx says (_Die vier

kanonischen Evangelien_, p. 246): “Let it be observed that the position

of ἀχρεῖοι fluctuates between (1) δοῦλοι ἀχρεῖοί ἐσμεν; (2) δοῦλοί ἐσμεν

ἀχρεῖοι D, and (3) ἀχρεῖοι δοῦλοί ἐσμεν. Such fluctuations are due to

the different arrangement of a word that did not originally belong to

the text, but was appended as a note and afterwards incorporated with

the text. Such fluctuations point to the interpolation of the

fluctuating word.” This judgment has to be accepted with caution. For

one thing, it is not at all clear which word it is that fluctuates. In

this particular case, one might say that δοῦλοι fluctuates as much as

ἀχρεῖοι, and the copula still more. Moreover such an interpolation

becomes at once an integral part of the text, and its insertion is no

longer visible. Only if several copies were made of that exemplar in

which the interpolation was first introduced could fluctuation of this

sort originate. Such transpositions are much more frequently of a

harmless order, as each one may perceive for himself. The writer’s

thoughts fly faster than his pen and anticipate a word that should not

come in till later. One of the most frequent cases of transposition is

that of Ἰησοῦς Χριστός and Χριστὸς Ἰησοῦς in the Pauline Epistles.

[Sidenote: Additions.]

(4) Akin to this last is a class of mistakes originating in the border

region between the unconscious and the conscious or intentional—viz.

that of =Additions=. One can readily understand how easy it was to

insert a κύριος or ὁ κύριος ἡμῶν, a μου after πατήρ on the lips of

Jesus, the subject at the beginning of a sentence, especially of the

first sentence of a pericope, or the object in the form of a pronoun.

Bengel proposed to omit the name of Jesus in some twenty-five places,

for which he was ridiculed by Wettstein, as may be learned from my work

on Bengel, p. 74. Now, everyone admits that Bengel was right. Under the

head of “Interpolationes breviores,” Wordsworth and White first give

examples “de nomine Jesus,” then of “Christus, Dominus, Deus,” and then

of “Pronomina.” It is evident that in this way the wrong word may be

supplied now and again. Perhaps one of the most interesting cases is

Luke i. 46. All our present Greek witnesses make Mary the composer of

the Magnificat, but Elisabeth’s name is attached to it in three Old

Latin manuscripts, in the Latin version of Irenæus, according to the

best manuscripts, and in some manuscripts known to Origen (or to his

translator, Jerome: the passage, unfortunately, is found as yet only in

the Latin).[256]

[Sidenote: Corrections.]

(5) To the category of conscious alterations belong first of all

=grammatical corrections=, then =assimilations= to parallel passages,

=liturgical changes= introduced from the Evangeliaria, as, _e.g._, the

addition at the close of a pericope of the words ὁ ἔχων ὦτα ἀκουέτω

which occurs in all sorts of manuscripts in the most diverse passages,

or indications of time, such as ἐν τῷ καιρῷ ἐκείνῳ at the beginning of a

pericope,[257] and lastly, alterations made for =dogmatic= reasons, if

any such can be established. It is impossible to deny that dogmatic

conceptions had some influence on the propagation of certain readings if

not on their origin—as, _e.g._, on the form assumed by the words in

Matt. xix. 17, τί με λέγεις ἀγαθόν, or on the omission of the words οὐδὲ

ὁ υἱός in Mark xiii. 22; compare also above, p. 106. On the whole,

however, there is no real ground for the scepticism that was for a time

entertained with respect to our texts in this connection. A sober

criticism will be able in most cases to restore the correct form. Its

conditions will be apparent from what has been said in the foregoing.

[Sidenote: Canons of Criticism.]

Gerhard von Maestricht laid down forty-three Critical Canons, and

Wettstein set forth in his New Testament his _Animadversiones et

Cautiones ad examen variarum lectionum Novi Testamenti necessariae_

(vol. ii. 851-874). In 1755 J. D. Michaelis added to his _Curae in

versionem Syriacam Act. Apost._ his _Consectaria critica de ... usu

versionis Syriacae tabularum Novi Foederis_.[258] Bengel reduced all the

rules to a single one. Quite recently Wordsworth and White comprehended

the rules they followed in the preparation of the text of their Latin

New Testament in four sentences. Of these the first two apply to a

version only, and therefore do not concern us here;[259] while the

fourth (_brevior lectio probabilior_) is but another form of Bengel’s

canon. The third alone may be regarded as new and deserving of

attention—viz., _vera lectio ad finem victoriam reportat_. That is to

say, if a phrase is repeated in several passages in the same or similar

terms, and displays variants in the earlier passages, the reading of the

later passage will, as a rule, be the correct one, the reason being that

copyists are apt to consider a certain reading to be an error the first

time it occurs, and therefore to alter it, but come in the end to admit

it as correct.

I would once more briefly emphasize the following propositions:—

(1) The text of our manuscripts must not be regarded as homogeneous,

but must be examined separately for each part of the New Testament.

A manuscript that exhibits a very good text in one book does not

necessarily do the same in the others. The same thing holds good of

versions and quotations.

(2) The text is preserved with less alteration in the versions than

in the manuscripts.[260]

(3) In the Gospels that reading is the more probable which differs

from that of the parallel passages.

(4) The influence of the ecclesiastical use of the Scriptures on the

text must be more carefully attended to than heretofore.

(5) One of the most valuable aids in estimating the importance of

the witnesses is the proper names, particularly those of less

frequent occurrence.

(6) “Proclivi scriptioni praestat ardua.”

[Sidenote: Proper names.]

Of these propositions only the last two need be illustrated further,

particularly the second last. For it is really remarkable to what extent

this consideration has been neglected hitherto. To the best of my

knowledge there is as yet no monograph in which the =proper names= are

treated from a critical point of view. And yet these are for the critic

frequently the only points of light in vast regions of darkness. They

are to him what the lighthouse is to the mariner or the fossil to the

geologist. This makes their neglect all the more strange. Had there been

a systematic examination of the proper names of the New Testament,

Lippelt’s important discovery with regard to the spellings Ἰωάνης and

Ἰωάννης might have been made long ere now (see above, p. 162 f.).

Weiss’s critical studies in Acts deserve honourable mention in this

connection. But Westcott and Hort, who have paid attention to these

things with their usual exactitude, were simply on the wrong tack in

this case when they asked whether the various persons who bore this name

might not have spelt it differently, as in the case of Smith, Smyth,

Smythe, etc. Similarly the genealogies give rise to a whole host of

problems of which no account has been taken hitherto. See above, p. 165,

for the reading Ζαρέ exhibited by B in Matt. i. 3; and compare Sela,

given by Syr^{sin} in verses 4 and 5, with Σαλά in Luke iii. 32.

Tischendorf omits the testimony in Matt. i. 5, while Baljon passes over

both the variants, though they are certainly of more importance than the

variation in the spelling of Βοές, Βοός, Βοόζ. In Luke iii. 27 the word

רֵאשָׁא is converted into a proper name Ῥησά. From this fact some very

interesting conclusions might be drawn with regard to the sources of

Luke’s Gospel, but this is a matter lying outside the scope of this

chapter. On the other hand, the fact that in the fourth Gospel the

traitor is called not Ἰσκαριώτης, or anything like it, but ἀπὸ Καρυώτου

by א in ch. vi. 71, where his name first occurs, and by D in every other

place in that Gospel (xii. 4; xiii. 2, 26; xiv. 22), raises a very

strong presumption in favour of these two manuscripts and indeed of the

fourth Gospel. On this see my _Philologica Sacra_, p. 14, and my notes,

with Chase’s unconvincing replies, in the _Expository Times_ for

December 1897, and January, February, and March 1898. I am very glad to

see that Zahn now inclines to the same view (_Einl._, ii. 561).

Considerable weight is given to it by the fact that these two

manuscripts seem to be the only ones that have preserved the correct

reading in the case of other names as well.

What is Apollos called in Acts? He is mentioned by D only in ch. xviii.

24, where he is called Ἀπολλώνιος. א* calls him Ἀπελλῆς in xviii. 24 and

xix. 1. This reading is supported in the former passage by the

minuscules 15 and 180, and in the latter by 180 alone. Wendt now agrees

with Blass in thinking it probable that the original form in Acts was

Ἀπελλῆς, which was altered in the main body of manuscripts in conformity

with 1 Corinthians, just as ἀπὸ Καρυώτου in John was accommodated to

Ἰσκαριώτης given by the Synoptics. But what about D? I must ask with

Salmon. Even Weiss says in this connection (_Codex D_, p. 18): “The most

that can be said for Ἀπολλώνιος is that this form, differing as it does

from that prevailing in the Pauline Epistles, has the presumption of

originality, seeing that there was always a temptation for the scribes

to accommodate it to the latter.”[261] In his earlier work on the text

(p. 9) he seems not to have considered this point.

I cannot understand how Weiss could at first explain Ἰωνάθας, which is

found in D (Acts iv. 6) in place of Ἰωάν(ν)ης read by the other

witnesses, as a “clerical error,” whereas now (_Cod. D_, p. 108) he

deems it more natural to suppose that a corrector inserted the name of

the son of Annas and the successor of Caiaphas mentioned by Josephus

(_Antiq._ xviii. 4, 3) in place of that of the entirely unknown John,

than that the name of Jonathan, even supposing it was unknown to the

copyist, which applies equally to that of Alexander mentioned along with

him, was replaced by John, which was a very common name, the name of the

Apostle so frequently mentioned before. It could, therefore, be only a

purely accidental clerical error. Headlam, in his article on John

(Hastings’ _Dictionary of the Bible_, ii. 676) seems to know nothing of

all this. But perhaps Weiss sees on the same page of the aforesaid book

that the mistake of Johanan and Jonathan occurred elsewhere also, and

remembering Bengel’s principle, considers that Ἰωνάθας is the _scriptio

ardua_, and, therefore, the _praestantior_.[262]

In 2 Peter ii. 15 the father of Balaam is called Βοσόρ, which is quite

peculiar. Westcott and Hort and Weiss, in their fondness for B, write

Βεώρ. But this is most certainly a correction which is combined with the

original to form βεωρσόρ in א. The only thorough discussion of the

passage that I know is in Zahn’s _Einleitung_, ii. 109. The only thing

that might be added to his data in the LXX. is that, according to

Holmes-Parsons, the Georgian version has υἱὸν τοῦ βοσόρ in Jos. xiii.

22. Σεπφώρ, as the name of Beor, has crept into various manuscripts in

several places from Jos. xxiv. 9—_e.g._ into the Armenian in Gen. xxxvi.

32, Codex 18 in Num. xxii. 5, Codex 53 in Num. xxiv. 15, where Cod. 75

has Σεβεώρ, and into Lucian in 1 Chr. i. 43. There seems to me to be a

confusion between Gen. xxxvi. 32 (= 1 Chr. i. 43) and the following

verse, in which Bosra occurs. In Gen. xxxvi. 33 one manuscript observes,

ἡ βοσὸρ πόλις τῆς Ἀραβίας ἡ νῦν καλουμένη βόσρα. Jerome also renders “ex

Bosor.”[263] Βοσόρ also occurs as the name of a place in Deut. iv. 43; 1

Sam. xxx. 9; 1 Macc. v. 26. On this last passage see _ZdPV._, 12, 51;

13, 41. For other interpretations (Hebrew pronunciation of the Aramaic

פתורה)[264] see Pole’s _Synopsis_ on 2 Peter ii. 15.

It is worth observing that minuscule 81 displays a close agreement with

B in other places as well as this.

On the names in the catalogue of the Apostles, see Zahn, _Einl._, ii.

263; on Ἱερουσαλήμ and Ἱεροσόλυμα, ii. 310; on Jesus Barabbas, ii. 294;

on Barachias in Matt. xxiii. 35, i. 454, ii. 308. On the confusion

between Isaiah and Asaph in Matt. xiii. 35, and between Jeremiah,

Zechariah, and Isaiah in other passages, compare Ambrosiaster’s note on

1 Cor. ii. 9 cited above, p. 148.

“He who seeks in the wild fir wood, will still find many a cudgel

good.”

[Sidenote: Textus brevior.]

The rule that the =shorter text= is the more original is a subdivision

of Bengel’s canon. It is specially the case when two longer forms are

opposed to it which are mutually exclusive and whose origin can be

explained from the shorter. As examples of this Zahn adduces, in

addition to the double conclusion of Mark’s Gospel, the following:—

John vi. 47: πιστεύων, א B L T, + “in God,” Syr^{cu. sin}, + εἰς ἐμέ A C

D Γ Δ Λ Π....

John vii. 39: πνεῦμα, א K T Π, + ἅγιον L X Γ Δ Λ, + δεδομένον it

vg^{cle}, + ἅγιον ἐπ’ αὐτοῖς, D f goth, + ἅγιον δεδομένον, B 254

Syr^{sin. hark}....

James v. 7: πρόϊμον, B 31, pr. ὑετὸν A K L P, pr. καρπὸν א 9 ff etc.

It is equally clear that a reading is incorrect which proves to be a

mixture of two others (=conflate readings=). The respective claims of

these others must be adjudged on other considerations. Thus we have—

Luke xxiv. 53: αἰνοῦντες, D a b e.

εὐλογοῦντες, א B C* L.

αἰνοῦντες καὶ εὐλογοῦντες, A C^2 X Γ Δ Λ Π.

εὐλογοῦντες καὶ αἰνοῦντες, Ethiop.

Acts vi. 8: πλήρης χάριτος, א A B D.

πλήρης πίστεως, H P.

πλήρης χάριτος καὶ πίστεως, E.

In general that reading will have the best claim to originality which

stands first in the combination. Further illustrations are unnecessary.

In order to fulfil the promise of the title of this chapter, the

foregoing exposition of the Theory of New Testament criticism should be

succeeded by a further part dealing with its Praxis. Such a part would

contain particular illustrations of the way in which the criticism of

the text has been handled by our authorities hitherto and the way in

which it must be treated in accordance with the foregoing principles.

The following notes do not and cannot claim to be a complete fulfilment

of this great task, more especially as in the preceding part we were

unable to arrive at a finished system of textual criticism. I have

therefore contented myself with bringing together a series of passages

of interest from a critical point of view. In doing so I have freely

drawn upon Zahn’s Introduction. For this I feel sure the reader will

thank me, while at the same time I trust that the author will pardon the

liberty I have taken. I have made use, as far as possible, of the

additional material afforded by editions later than those of Tischendorf

and Westcott and Hort, particularly of the Sinai-Syriac. This collection

may therefore serve in some degree to supplement our commentaries,

which, though their merits in other directions are to be freely

conceded, still leave much to be desired in the matter of textual

criticism. A purely critical commentary on the New Testament is a great

desideratum. The following notes are to be regarded not as the

commencement of such a work, but simply as a stimulus thereto. I myself

felt it to be a defect in the small Stuttgart edition of the New

Testament that want of space obliged me to omit all references to the

origin and significance of the various readings selected from

manuscripts. For many of these an Annotatio Critica in an Appendix like

that in the larger edition of v. Gebhardt would scarcely have been

sufficient. What information, _e.g._, would it have imparted to a reader

to have given the numbers of the two minuscules 346, 556 after the

reading in Matt. i. 16? What he needs is an Apparatus Criticus or a

Commentarius Criticus such as Bengel appended to his edition, or like

that which Burk published separately in his second issue. Ed. Miller has

promised to give us one for the Gospels, only it will proceed on

principles which very few of us will be able to accept.

Footnote 129:

I could desire no better motto for this third section than the words

of Augustine: Codicibus emendandis primitus debet invigilare sollertia

eorum qui scripturas nosse desiderant, ut emendatis non emendati

cedant (_De Doctrina Christiana_, ii. 14, 21, where the saying about

the interpretum numerositas, cited on page 108, is also found). Or if

not these words, then those of our Lord himself, γίνεσθε δόκιμοι

τραπεζῖται, which Origen applied to the verification of the canon, but

which, taken in the sense of 1 Thess. v. 21, are equally applicable to

the work of the “lower” criticism. Apollos, the pupil of Marcion, also

vindicated the right of Biblical criticism with these same words.

Epiphanius, _Haeres._, xliv. 2 (Zahn, GK., i. 175).

Footnote 130:

The fragment was edited by Tregelles with a facsimile in 1867. It is

given in Westcott’s _Canon of the N. T._, Appendix C, where also see

the section on the Muratorian Canon, Part i. c. ii. It will be found

also in Preuschen’s _Analecta, Kürzere Texte ..._ pp. 129-137 (the

eighth number of G. Krüger’s _Sammlung ausgewählter kirchen- und

dogmengeschichtlicher Quellenschriften_, Freib. and Leipzig, 1893).

Footnote 131:

Quoted in Westcott, _Canon_, part ii. c. ii. § 1, and in Zahn’s

_Einleitung_, ii. 179.

Footnote 132:

Given in Preuschen. In the manuscripts it is entitled “Indiculum

Veteris et Novi Testamenti et Caecili Cipriani.” It was first made

known from a MS. at Cheltenham in 1886. As it is mostly assigned to

the year 365 (see also Jülicher, _Einleitung_, p. 336) the words of

W.-W. may be repeated here: “S. Berger tamen aliter sentit, rationibus

commotus quarum una certe nobis satis vera videtur. Concordant enim

numeri in Veteri Testamento cum codicibus Hieronymianis, e.g. in

libris Regum quattuor, Esaiae, Jeremiae, et duodecim Prophetarum,

Tobiae, et Macchabeorum secundo. Indiculus tamen sine dubio antiquus

est” (p. 736).

Footnote 133:

Catalogus Claramontanus given in Westcott, _Canon_, Appendix D, p.

563.

Footnote 134:

Translated into French, _Prairies d’or_, i. 123: one volume into

English by Sprenger, 1841; Sayous, _Jésus Christ d’après Mohammed_, p.

34.

Footnote 135:

See Zahn, _Einl._, ii. 176; _GK._, ii. 364-375, 1014.

Footnote 136:

See _Addenda_, p. xvi.

Footnote 137:

The numbers are as follows:—

-ν- -νν-

Matthew, 2 24

John, 7 17

Luke, 27 1

Mark, 2 24

Acts, 21 2

See Blass, _Lucae ad Theophilum liber prior_, p. vi. f., _Philology of

the Gospels_, p. 75 f., where three of Lippelt’s numbers are corrected

with the help of Harris. See also _Expository Times_, Nov. 1897, p. 92

f. I cannot understand why Wendt, in the new edition of his Commentary

on the Acts, should take not the slightest notice of this far-reaching

discovery. On the spelling in the Latin manuscripts, see W.-W.,

_Epilogus_, 776.

Footnote 138:

_Der Schluss des Markus-Evangeliums, der Vier-Evangelien-Kanon, und

die kleinasiastischen Presbyter_ (Berlin, 1894).

Footnote 139:

_Expositor_, Dec. 1894.

Footnote 140:

_Einleitung_, ii. 221.

Footnote 141:

See Coxe’s _Catalogue of Greek MSS. in the Bodleian Library_, 1854.

Footnote 142:

On _cata_ or _kata_ in the subscriptions, titles, prefaces, etc., of

Latin manuscripts, see the index in W.-W., to which add the remarkable

phrase _cata tempus_, which codex e gives in John v. 4, in place of

_secundum tempus_ in the other manuscripts.

Footnote 143:

See Field, _Hexapla_, i. p. lxxii.

Footnote 144:

The order, πραεῖς ... πτωχοί ... πενθοῦντες, in Baljon is due to a

strange oversight which is not corrected in the Addenda et Corrigenda.

Footnote 145:

To the passages which may be adduced in support of the reading, add

Clement, _Hom._ η 32 (Lagarde, 92, 35), ια 32 (118, 31).

Footnote 146:

Codex D and Syr^{sin} also agree in omitting v. 30, but this is

probably no more than a remarkable coincidence.

Footnote 147:

See _Urt._, 55 ff., where works on this subject are cited.

Footnote 148:

See also Linwood, _Remarks on Conjectural Emendations as applied to

the New Testament_, 1873.

Footnote 149:

On the symbol m, see above, p. 114.

Footnote 150:

The converse occurs in Eusebius, _Eccl. Hist._, iv. 15, in the address

of Polycarp’s _Martyrium_. There the reading κατὰ Πόντον, which is

also found in the Syriac, should, according to Harnack’s _Chronologie

der altchristl. Lit._, i. 341, be replaced by κατὰ πάντα τόπον, or

rather by κατὰ τόπον which is found in 1 Macc. xii. 4; 2 Macc. xii. 2.

Compare also the variation found in the manuscripts in 2 Cor. x. 15

between κοποις, πονοις, and τοποις, and between ποτος and τοπος in

Judith vi. 21. See also Eusebius, _Eccl. Hist._, v. 15, 23.

Footnote 151:

The opposite view is expressed in Scrivener, ii. 244: “It is now

agreed among competent judges that Conjectural Emendation must never

be resorted to, even in passages of acknowledged difficulty”; and he

quotes from Roberts (_Words of the New Testament_): “conjectural

criticism is entirely banished from the field ... simply because there

is no need for it.” With this, however, he does not quite agree. He

admits that there are passages respecting which we cannot help framing

a shrewd suspicion that the original reading differed from any form in

which they are now presented to us. He notes as passages for which we

should be glad of more light, Acts vii. 46, xiii. 32, xix. 40, xxvi.

28; Rom. viii. 2; 1 Cor. xii. 2, where Ephes. ii. 11 might suggest ὅτι

ποτέ; 1 Tim. vi. 7; 2 Pet. iii. 10, 12; Jude 5, 22, 23. G. Krüger

expresses himself to the same effect. He would have no conjecture,

however well founded, received into the text. See his notice of

Koetschau’s Origen in the _L. Cbl._, No. 39, 1899. I find that Swete

has had no objection to adopt a conjecture of mine in his second

edition of the last volume of the Cambridge Septuagint (Enoch xiv. 3).

If such a thing is permissible in the case of Enoch, why should it not

be allowable in the New Testament? As clever suggestions maybe noted

ἐκολάφισαν for the hapax legomenon ἐκεφαλίωσαν, Mark xii. 4 (Linwood,

Van de Sande-Bakhuyzen) and λανθάνουσι for μανθάνουσι, 1 Tim. v. 13

(Hitzig). Lagrange (_Revue Biblique_, 1900, p. 206) cautions us

against “prêter de l’esprit à l’Esprit Saint.”

Footnote 152:

Compare my conjecture of מִפַתְרֹם for מִתְרַפֵם, Ps. lxviii. 31, and

see below, p. 236.

Footnote 153:

Meyer-Wendt^8, p. 51. For an example of Σ repeated by mistake, _cf._

ΕΙΣΣΤΕΛΟΣ in B, Mark xiii. 13. Its erroneous omission is quite common.

Footnote 154:

Bagster, London, 1887.

Footnote 155:

See Isaac Taylor’s _History of the Transmission of Ancient Books to

Modern Times_ (1827); and compare also the text-books on

Hermeneutics, _e.g._ in I. v. Müller’s _Handbuch der klassischen

Altertumswissenschaft_.

Footnote 156:

_Benedicti regula monachorum. Recensuit Ed. Wölfflin_, Lipsiae,

Teubner, 1895, pp. xv. 85, 8vo. See also his article on the Latinity

of Benedict in the _Arch. f. Lat. Lexikogr._ ix. 4, 1896, pp. 493-521.

Footnote 157:

_Textgeschichte der Regula S. Benedicti_ (_Abh. d. 3 Cl. d. k. Ak. d.

Wiss._, vol. xxi., Munich, 1898). Compare also _The Text of St.

Benedict’s Rule_ by Dom C. Butler, O.S.B. Reprinted from the _Downside

Review_, December 1899, 12 pp.

Footnote 158:

_TU._ xiv. 1, 1896.

Footnote 159:

Krüger’s _Sammlung_, Heft xi., Freiburg and Leipzig, 1895.

Footnote 160:

_TU._, New Series, i. 1, 1897.

Footnote 161:

Compare also the differences between the editions of Josephus,

published by Niese and Naber.

Footnote 162:

See, however, the two articles by Lake and Brightman, _On the Italian

Origin of Codex Bezae_ in the _Journal of Theological Studies_, i. 441

ff.

Footnote 163:

See below on John viii. 57, p. 289.

Footnote 164:

An instructive discussion of the relationship between D_{2} and E_{3}

is given in Hort’s _Introduction_, §§ 335-337. It is possible that one

copyist in Rom. xv. 31-33 took ἵνα ἡ διακονία μου ἡ εἰς Ἱερουσαλὴμ ...

διὰ θελήματος Θεοῦ, and the other καὶ ἡ δωροφορία μου ἡ ἐν Ἱερ ... διὰ

θελήματος Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ—_i.e._ two entirely different recensions.

Footnote 165:

Zahn very properly remarks (_Th. Lbl._, 1899, 16, 179): “One must not,

at least as regards the N. T., confound Eusebius with Pamphilus, or,

if I might say so, with the firm of Pamphilus and Eusebius. If the

fifty Bibles that Eusebius provided at the bidding of the Emperor for

the use of the churches of the capital had contained a text of the N.

T. prepared on the basis of the previous works and commentaries of

Origen, the entire subsequent history of the text of the N. T. in the

region of Constantinople, revealing as it does the extensive

propagation of the Antiochean text, would be perfectly

incomprehensible. As in the matter of the canon so also of the text of

the N. T., Eusebius emancipated himself from the school of Origen, and

attached himself to that of Antioch, at least in this particular

instance fraught with such important consequences for the history of

the Bible.”

Footnote 166:

See Hort, _Introduction_, §§ 188, 189.

Footnote 167:

Athanasius, writing to Constans, says in his first Apology: τῷ ἀδελφῷ

σου οὐκ ἔγραψα ἢ μόνον ὅτε ... καὶ ὅτε πυκτία τῶν θείων γραφῶν

κελεύσαντος αὐτοῦ μοι κατασκευάσαι, ταῦτα ποιήσας ἀπέστειλα.

Footnote 168:

It is given in Syriac in Abbé Martin’s _Introduction à la critique

textuelle du N. T._, Plate XX. No. 35 (1883), from the MS. de Paris,

27, f 88 b, and also in Lagarde’s _Bibliotheca Syriaca_, 259, 22-27.

From the Greek πυργίσκος, which becomes פרדוסקא in the Semitic, the

Syriac forms another diminutive פרדסקזנא, which is still omitted in

the _Thesaurus Syriacus_, 3240; _cf._ Bar Bahlul, 1606, 9 (App. p.

64). In place of πυργίσκῳ, Oikonomos would read the genitive πυργίσκου

(περι των ὀ ερμηνευτων, iv. 500).

Footnote 169:

Not only does the Old Testament promise to shed some light upon an

obscure problem in the New, but the converse may also be true—viz.

that the history of the text of the New Testament may contribute to a

better understanding of that of the Old. It was long observed that

many peculiarities of the Lucianic revision of the Septuagint occur

also in the witnesses to the Old Latin version (see especially Driver,

_Notes on Samuel_, p. li; _Urt._, 78). No proper explanation of this

phenomenon could be given so long as the Old Latin version of the Old

Testament was looked upon as homogeneous and of great antiquity. But

the New Testament, for which we have far more Old Latin manuscripts

than for the Old, shows that the Old Latin pre-Jeromic version had a

chequered history, and in particular that at a certain time a revision

was undertaken, the result of which is found especially in Codex

Brixianus (f, see p. 112), and which “non solum interpretationem

veterem stilo elegantiori emendabat, sed etiam lectiones novas

protulit. Notatu certe dignum est, in ista emendatione Itala eminere

lectiones quae in maiori parte codicum Graecorum apparent, _quas

Recensioni Syrae vel Antiochenae adiudicant Westcott et Hort_.” So say

Wordsworth and White, p. 654. If the same thing holds good of the Old

Testament, then the relationship between the Old Latin and Lucian at

once becomes evident, and the supposition is not so absurd that the

marginal glosses of Codex Legionensis (called Codex Gothicus in

Hastings’ _Bible Dictionary_, iii. p. 50_b_.) which are particularly

striking on this view of the case, may have been translated into Latin

from Lucian. These considerations, moreover, may possibly throw fresh

light on the question that I have raised elsewhere (_Urt._, p. 78),

whether Lucian may not also have used the Peshitto in his recension of

the Old Testament. I see that it has been taken up by J. Méritan, in

his little book, entitled, _La Version grecque des Livres de Samuel,

précédée d’une Introduction sur la critique textuelle_ (Paris, 1898).

On pp. 96-113 he discusses the same question—whether Lucian knew and

used the Peshitto. He answers the question in the affirmative: “It is

therefore probable that as regards certain passages of the Books of

Samuel, in his work of revision, or rather of correction, Lucian did

not follow the Hebrew text as his sole and infallible guide, but

availed himself of others also, and that one of those principal

authorities was the Syriac version.” We often enough find ὁ Σύρος

cited as an authority in the Greek Commentaries on the Old Testament.

Whether it is also mentioned for the New Testament is a point that

seems not yet to be looked into.

I may add that Bickel concludes his short article in the _Zeitschrift

für kath. Theol._, iii. 467-469, entitled, “Die Lucianische

Septuagintabearbeitung nachgewiesen,” by saying: “In establishing the

recensions of Lucian and Hesychius for the Septuagint, we may be held

as settling the question whether traces of these may not also be found

in the New Testament.”

In his _Einleitung_, ii. 240, Zahn says: “Without a doubt many

readings which had a considerable circulation in the second and third

centuries, some of them being of no small importance and extent, were

gradually ousted from their place in the text from the fourth century

onwards, and some of them dropped out of the later tradition

altogether. And it is equally true that many interpolations were

current in these later centuries which were unknown in the second. But

whatever our judgment be in doubtful cases, we are still always in a

position to support it with extant documents.”

Footnote 170:

Rahlfs cannot, of course, assent to this supposition, seeing that he

regards Codex B as depending on the Festal Letter containing the Canon

of Athanasius, which was not written till the year 367.

Footnote 171:

See especially Lagarde, _Sept.-Studien_, 1892, and Moore’s _Commentary

on Judges_, 1895, p. xlvi.

Footnote 172:

See above under Λ, p. 72.

Footnote 173:

There is no need to discuss here the other expressions used by Jerome

in his letter of the year 403 to the Gothic priests Sunnia and

Fretela, seeing that these relate only to the Old Testament. But the

words themselves may be quoted: “Breviter admoneo ut sciatis, aliam

esse editionem, quam Origenes et Caesariensis Eusebius omnesque

Graeciae tractatores κοινήν, id est communem appellant, atque

vulgatam, et a plerisque nunc Λουκιανός dicitur, aliam septuaginta

interpretum quae in ἑξαπλοῖς codicibus reperitur, et a nobis in

latinum sermonem fideliter versa est, et Jerosolymae atque in orientis

ecclesiae (so Lagarde, _Librorum V. T. can. pars prior_, p. xiii. from

_Vallarsi_, i. 635?) decantatur ... κοινή autem ista, hoc est

communis, editio ipsa est quae et septuaginta, sed hoc interest inter

utramque quod κοινή pro locis et temporibus et pro voluntate

scriptorum vetus corrupta editio est, ea autem quae habetur in

ἑξαπλοῖς et quam nos vertimus, ipsa est quae in eruditorum libris

incorrupta et immaculata septuaginta interpretum translatio

reservatur” (_ibid._, 637). For Λουκιανός Oikonomos (iv. 499) would

read Λουκιανίς.

Footnote 174:

A. D. Loman would emend this passage by reading εἴτε ἀπὸ μοχθηρίας τῆς

διορθώσεως τῶν γραφομένων εἴτε καὶ ἀπὸ τόλμης τινῶν τῶν τὰ ἑαυτοῖς

δοκοῦντα (_Leiden. Theol. Tijdschr._, vii., 1873, 233).

Footnote 175:

What he says is (_Viri Illust._, c. 75): Pamphilus presbyter, Eusebii

Caesariensis episcopi necessarius, tanto bibliothecae divinae amore

flagravit, ut maximam partem Origenis voluminum sua manu descripserit,

quae usque hodie in Caesariensi bibliotheca habetur. Sed et in

duodecim prophetas vigintiquinque ἐξηγήσεων Origenis volumina manu

eius (_i.e._ Pamphili) exarata repperi, quae tanto amplector et servo

gaudio, ut Croesi opes habere me credam. Si enim laetitia est unam

epistulam habere martyris, quanto magis tot milia versuum, quae mihi

videntur suis sanguinis signasse vestigiis. The above is Richardson’s

text. Bernoulli (Krüger’s _Sammlung_, Heft xi. 1895) reads _habentur_,

_Sed in_, and _videtur_, and also omits _volumina_.

Footnote 176:

Προσφώνησις· κορωνίς εἰμι δογμάτων θείων διδάσκαλος· ἄν τινί με χρήσῃς

ἀντίβιβλον λάμβανε, οἱ γὰρ ἀποδόται κακοί· Ἀντίφρασις· θησαυρὸν ἔχων

σε πνευματικῶν ἀγαθῶν καὶ πᾶσιν ἀνθρώποις ποθητὸν ἁρμονίαις τε καὶ

ποικίλαις γραμμαῖς κεκοσμημένον—νὴ τὴν ἀλήθειαν—οὐ δώσω σε προχείρως

τινὶ οὐδ’ αὖ φθονέσω τῆς ὠφελείας, χρήσω δὲ τοῖς φίλοις ἀντίβιβλον

λαμβάνων. The last seven words, which are erased in H, are supplied by

the minuscule 93^{paul} and the Armenian version. On ἀντίβιβλον =

“borrowing-receipt” or “voucher,” see _ThLz._, 1895, 283, 407. See

also Robinson, _Euthaliana_, _Texts and Studies_, iii. 3.

Footnote 177:

To the literature referred to on p. 79 should be added the second

section of Bousset’s _Textkritische Studien_ (_TU._ xi. 4, 1894),

entitled, _Der Codex Pamphili_, pp. 45-73. Bousset affirms the close

connection between the Corrector of Sinaiticus indicated by

Tischendorf as ^c and Codex H. I have established the connection of

this corrector in the Psalter with Eusebius by means of the latter’s

Commentary on the Psalms (see above, p. 58). As yet no one appears to

have examined the New Testament quotations in Eusebius. _Cf._ however

Bousset, _ThLz._, 1900, 22, 611 ff.

Footnote 178:

It runs: Εἰσὶν ὅσα προτεταγμένον ἔχουσι τὸν ἀριθμὸν ὧδε, ὅσα Ὠριγένην

ἐπιγεγραμμένον ἔχει τούτῳ τῷ μονοσυλλάβῳ Ρ/Ω· εἰσὶ δὲ μάλιστα ἐν τῷ

Ἰώβ· ὅσα δὲ περὶ διαφωνίας ῥητῶν τινῶν τῶν ἐν τῷ ἐδαφίῳ ἢ ἐκδόσεών

ἐστιν σχόλια, ἅπερ καὶ κάτω νενευκυῖαν περιεστιγμένην ἔχει

προτεταγμένην, τῶν ἀντιβεβληκότων τὸ βιβλίον ἐστίν· ὅσα δὲ ἀμφιβόλως

ἔξω κείμενα ῥητὰ ἔξω νενευκυῖαν περιεστιγμένην ἔχει προτεταγμένην, διὰ

τὰ σχόλια προσετέθησαν κατ’ αὐτὰ τοῦ μεγάλου εἰρηκότος διδασκάλου ἵνα

μὴ δόξῃ κατὰ κενοῦ τὸ σχόλιον φέρεσθαι, ἐν πολλοῖς μὲν τῶν ἀντιγράφων

τῶν ῥητῶν οὕτως ἐχόντων, ἐν τούτῳ δὲ μὴ οὕτως κειμένων ἢ μηδ’ ὅλως

φερομένων καὶ διὰ τοῦτο προστεθέντων.

Footnote 179:

Περι των ὀ ερμηνευτων, iv. 904. Athens, 1844-1849.

Footnote 180:

_Texte und Untersuchungen_, xvii. (N. F. ii.) 4. See above, p. 90.

Footnote 181:

_Euthaliusstudien_, pp. 111-115; 115 ff.

Footnote 182:

_Neue Jahrbücher für deutsche Theologie_, ii. 3, 3 (1894), pp.

360-363. Compare also von Dobschütz, _lib. cit._, 111.

Footnote 183:

μάλιστα δὲ παρὰ τοὺς καθ’ ἡμᾶς πάντας διέπρεπε τῇ περὶ τὰ θεῖα λόγια

γνησιωτάτῃ σπουδῇ. Euseb., _Eccl. Hist._, viii. 11.

Footnote 184:

See above, p. 87 ff., on Evan. 473, Act. 246, 419, Evl. 286, and

compare Zahn, _ThLbl._, 1899, 181: Would that some one with the time

and opportunity to work in the Monasteries of Mount Athos applied

himself to the Codex written in the year 800 by the unhappy Empress

Maria (Lambros 129, S. Pauli 2). Since the above was written the

manuscript has been collated by Von der Goltz.

Footnote 185:

On κόφινον κοπρίων, see Chase, _Syro-Latin Text_, p. 135 f. It may be

observed in passing how variously καταργεῖ is rendered in the

different Latin manuscripts—viz. by _evacuat_ in b ff^2 l q, by

_detinet_ in ff^{2c} i r, by _intricat_ in e, and by _occupat_ in d

and the Vulgate.

Footnote 186:

The evidence of d in this passage cannot be had, unfortunately, as

eight leaves (a quaternio) containing the Greek of Matt. vi. 20-ix. 2,

and the Latin of vi. 8-viii. 27, have gone amissing.

Footnote 187:

Unfortunately h exhibits only the text of Matthew, otherwise I might

simply have referred to the list of variants on p. 120. I am not aware

if what Wordsworth and White (vol. i. p. xxxii) say of this manuscript

is still true: Codex hodie, ut fertur, in bibliotheca Vaticana

inveniri non potest.

Footnote 188:

See Index in Wordsworth and White, p. 751.

Footnote 189:

At the same time it must be pointed out here that not only in Luke and

Acts, but in all the books of the N. T., it is wrong in principle to

present the alternative “original or later alteration” or even

forgery. The dilemma can be wrongly stated. Blass was not the first to

express the opinion, “Lucam bis edidisse Actus.” De Dieu did so before

him, and by an examination of those passages of the Gospels in which

the original text has been preserved in purely “Western” witnesses

Hort (§ 241) was led to suppose that the Western and non-Western texts

may have “started respectively from a first and a second edition of

the Gospels, both conceivably apostolic.” Similarly Wordsworth and

White are unable to explain the origin and propagation of several

readings in the manuscripts of the Vulgate otherwise than by supposing

that the primitive document itself contained certain variants

(corrections) in the passages in question.

Footnote 190:

_Geschichte des neutestamentlichen Kanons_ (Erlangen): I. Band, _Das

N. T. vor Origenes_, 1 and 2 Hälfte, 1888-89; II. Band, _Urkunden und

Belege zum ersten und dritten Band_, 1890-92. It is to be hoped that

the third volume will not be long in making its appearance. Along with

this we must take his _Forschungen zur Geschichte des

neutestamentlichen Kanons und der altkirchlichen Literatur_, of which

six volumes have been published (1881-1900). Meanwhile Zahn’s

_Einleitung in das Neue Testament_ (Leipzig, I., 1898; II., 1899, 2nd

ed., 1900) cannot be too strongly recommended. It contains a great

deal of valuable material for the criticism of the text. Needless to

say, textual criticism is the basis on which all sound exegesis rests.

Footnote 191:

A small selection will be found in Preuschen, _Analecta_, pp. 152-157.

Footnote 192:

Here again, unfortunately, we have no collection of notices referring

to the history of the text as distinguished from that of the canon.

Footnote 193:

Jülicher, _loc. cit._, from Sozomen, _Hist. Eccl._, i. 11. On the

Latin form _grabattum_, see W.-W., Index, p. 756, σκίμπους occurs as

early as Clem. Al. _Paed._, 1, 2, 6. In the parallels to Mark ii. 6,

Matthew has κλίνη (ix. 6), and Luke κλινίδιον (v. 24). _Cf._ the

passage cited by Lagarde (_De Novo Test._, 20 = _Ges. Abh._, 118) from

Lucian’s _Philopseudes_, 11; ὁ Μίδας αὐτὸς ἀράμενος τὸν σκίμποδα ἐφ’

οὗ ἐκεκόμιστο ᾤχετο εἰς ἀγρὸν ἀπιών.

Footnote 194:

Τὴν σήμερον οὖν Κυριακὴν ἡμέραν διηγάγομεν, ἐν ᾗ ἀνέγνωμεν ὑμῶν τὴν

ἐπιστολήν· ἣν ἕξομεν ἀεί ποτε ἀναγινώσκοντες νουθετεῖσθαι, ὡς καὶ τὴν

προτέραν ἡμῖν διὰ Κλήμεντος γραφεῖσαν.

Footnote 195:

_Cf._ Matt. xiii. 27, δοῦλοι τοῦ οἰκοδεσπότου, and also the

superscriptions of the N. T. Epistles, particularly those of Paul,

where δοῦλος Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ is varied by ἀπόστολος Ἰ. Χ.

Footnote 196:

“is reserved”—Syr.

Footnote 197:

“but”—Syr.

Footnote 198:

This reading is confirmed by the Syriac as against ὑπ’ αὐτοῦ read by

Christophorson and Savil.

Footnote 199:

The passage is a conspicuous example of the importance of punctuation.

Bengel punctuates ἅγιον, κληθήσεται υἱὸς Θεοῦ, and Westcott and Hort

ἅγιον κληθήσεται, υἱὸς Θεοῦ. Weiss is accordingly not quite right in

citing Bengel along with Bleek and Hoffman as supporting the view of

Tertullian (see Bengel’s _Gnomon_). It will be difficult to prove that

Tertullian’s construction is impossible “on account of the position of

κληθήσεται.” Westcott and Hort surely know Greek, and Tertullian knew

it better than any of us.

Footnote 200:

It seems worth while to quote here Harnack’s words on these notices of

the earliest attempts at textual criticism. He says (_ibid._, p. 189):

“The charge preferred against the disciples of that erudite Tanner

(Theodotus) by the author of the Little Labyrinth is threefold. He

complains of their formal and grammatical exegesis of Scripture, of

their arbitrary system of textual criticism, and of the extent to

which they were engrossed in Logic, Mathematics, and empirical

Science. At the first glance, therefore, it would appear that these

people had no interest to spare for Theology. But the very opposite is

the case. The complainant himself has to confess that they employed

the method of grammatical exegesis ‘with the object of establishing

their godless conclusions,’ and textual criticism in order to correct

the manuscripts of the holy Scriptures. In place of the allegorical

method of exposition, the grammatical is the only right one, and we

have here an attempt to discover a text more nearly resembling the

original instead of simply accepting the traditional form. How

inimitable and charming really are these notices!... These scholars

had to be generals without an army, because their grammar and textual

criticism and logic might only discredit in the eyes of the churches

that christological method which long tradition had invested with

admiration and respect.... As ‘genuine’ scholars—this is an

exceedingly characteristic description that is given of them—they also

took a jealous care that none of them lost the credit of his

conjectures and emendations. No remnants have been preserved of the

works of these the first scholarly exegetes of the Christian Church

(the Syntagma knows of the existence of such; _cf._ Epiph. lv. c. 1).”

So writes Harnack. Nothing, however, is said in the text of Eusebius

of a jealous watch over the priority of the conjectures. In the

sentence which Harnack renders “for their disciples have with an

ambitious zeal recorded what each one has corrected as they call it,

that is corrupted (deleted?),” φιλοτίμως ἐγγεγράφθαι is to be

understood simply of a diligent record of “corrections” undertaken

solely out of an interest in their contents. According to the Syriac

ἠφανισμένα is not to be rendered by “deleted,” but as Harnack

translates it: _cf._ the various Syriac versions in Matthew vi. verse

16 (Syr^p), verses 19 and 20 (Syr^{pc}). On the validity of the charge

of inventing false Scriptures, see Zahn, _GK._ 1, 296 f.

Footnote 201:

Westcott, _Canon_, Pt. I. c. iv. § 8, p. 308 ff.

Footnote 202:

Westcott, _Canon_, Pt. I. c. iv. p. 310.

Footnote 203:

_Ibid._, p. 291.

Footnote 204:

_Ibid._, p. 303 ff. Cf. _Texts and Studies_, vol. i. 4: _The Fragments

of Heracleon_, by A. E. Brooke, M.A.

Footnote 205:

On the literature of the subject, _cf._ Zahn, _GK._ i. 585-718, _Das

N. T. Marcions_; ii. 409-529, _Marcions N. T._ All other works are

superseded by this, but mention may still be made of A. Hahn, _Das

Evangelium Marcions in seiner ursprünglichen Gestalt_ (1823); Thilo,

_Codex Apocryphus Novi Testamenti_ (1832: for this work Hahn attempted

to restore the text of Marcion, pp. 401-486); A. Ritschl, _Das

Evangelium Marcions und das kanonische Evangelium des Lucas_ (1846);

Hilgenfeld, in the _Z. f. hist. Theol._, 1855, pp. 426-484; Sanday,

_The Gospels in the Second Century_, c. viii.

Footnote 206:

The proof passages will be found in Zahn, _GK._ i. 620, 626, 663:

machaera non stilo: erubescat spongia Marcionis (Tert., v. 4, p. 282.

Is it permissible to infer from this that minium was already used in

manuscripts of the Bible at that time?—_cf._ Augustine, _Con. Jul._,

iii. 13: ipsum libri tui argumentum erubescendo convertatur in

minium): non miror si syllabas subtrahit, quum paginas totas plerumque

subducet. Quis tam comesor mus Ponticus quam qui evangelia corrosit

(_con. Marc._, i. 1): tuum apostoli codicem licet sit undique

circumrosus (Adamantius).

Footnote 207:

See the passage from Tertullian (cotidie reformant illud (_sc._

evangelium), prout a nobis cotidie revincuntur), and from Adamantius

(_Pseudo-Origenes_, de la Rue, i. 887 = Lat. in _Caspari Anecdota_, i.

57) in Zahn, _GK._ i. 613.

Footnote 208:

_Cf._ also _GK._ p. 681.

Footnote 209:

_Cf._ Westcott, _Canon_, Pt. I. c. iv. § 9, Marcion: “Some of the

omissions can be explained at once by his peculiar doctrines, but

others are unlike arbitrary corrections, and must be considered as

various readings of the greatest interest, dating as they do to a time

anterior to all other authorities in our possession” (p. 315). See

also note at the end of the paragraph, where certain readings peculiar

to Marcion are cited.

Footnote 210:

_Cf._ also _ibid._, p. 684, and see below, p. 313.

Footnote 211:

_Cf._ also _ibid._, p. 682: “I repeat that readings which are proved

to be earlier than Marcion by their simultaneous occurrence in his

text and that of the several Catholic witnesses deserve greater

consideration both in the Gospels and Epistles than has generally been

accorded them. It is much more important to ascertain whether a

certain reading has the support of Marcion than to observe that it

occurs in this or that uncial manuscript. In spite of this, however,

the critical notes in our commentaries hardly ever refer to Marcion,

not to speak of their doing so systematically.”

Footnote 212:

Pp. 409-449, on the criticism of the sources; pp. 449-529, the

restoration of the text. On p. 449 f. he gives his verdict on the

earlier works of Hilgenfeld, Volkmar, and van Manen in this direction.

Footnote 213:

Zahn interjects “as yet.”

Footnote 214:

We have not yet discovered a manuscript containing exactly Marcion’s

text. The chances of our still doing so are very small in view of the

hatred with which Marcion was pursued. But when the libelli of certain

libellatici have been found, and also a great part of the Gospel of

Peter, we need not despair of finding other lost works as well. Codex

604 is interesting as exhibiting the Marcionite reading, ἐλθέτω τὸ

πνεῦμά σου ἐφ’ ἡμᾶς καὶ καθαρισάτω ἡμᾶς, in the Lord’s Prayer, Luke

xi. 2. The same manuscript omits με λέγετε εἶναι in Luke ix. 20, and

λέγουσα in verse 35. Compare also Jülicher, _Gleichnisreden Jesu_, ii.

5: “Marcion, who perhaps created the Roman text of Luke xxi. 30.”

Footnote 215:

On this passage W.-W. observe: “D ex Latinis forsan correctus.”

Footnote 216:

“Licet _suos_ adiectio sit haeretici.” Tertullian.

Footnote 217:

In the critical notes at the end of this chapter I have cited a number

of Marcion’s readings from Zahn’s work, with the hope that these will

now earn a fuller recognition in our theological commentaries. See

_e.g._ on Luke xviii. 20; xxiii. 2; xxiv. 37; 1 Cor. vi. 20; xiv. 19.

Footnote 218:

See Literature on p. 105 f., to which add Westcott, _Canon_, Part I.

c. iv. § 10.

Footnote 219:

Defending the plurality of the canonical Gospels against the

Marcionites, he says: τὸ ἀληθῶς διὰ τεσσάρων ἕν ἐστιν εὐαγγέλιον

(_Philocalia_, ed. Robinson, 47; Zahn, _GK._ i. 412; PRE^3, v. 654).

From what Origen says, _Contra Celsum_, vi. 51, it would seem that he

himself heard Tatian.

Footnote 220:

Euseb., _Hist. Eccl._, iv. 29, with reference to the Encratites:

Χρῶνται μὲν οὖν οὗτοι Νόμῳ καὶ Προφήταις καὶ Εὐαγγελίοις (Syriac has

אונגליון), ἰδίως ἑρμηνεύοντες τῶν ἱερῶν τὰ νοήματα γραφῶν ...

βλασφημοῦντες δὲ Παῦλον τὸν ἀπόστολον ἀθετοῦσιν αὐτοῦ τὰς Ἐπιστολὰς,

μηδὲ τὰς Πράξεις τῶν ἀποστόλων καταδεχόμενοι. ὁ μέντοι γε πρότερος

αὐτῶν ἀρχηγὸς ὁ Τατιανὸς συνάφειάν τινα καὶ συναγωγὴν οὐκ οἶδ’ ὅπως

τῶν Εὐαγγελίων συνθεὶς Τὸ Διὰ Τεσσάρων τοῦτο προσωνόμασεν· ὃ καὶ παρά

τισιν εἰσέτι φέρεται. Τοῦ δὲ Ἀποστόλου φασὶ τολμῆσαί τινας αὐτὸν

μεταφράσαι φωνὰς ὡς ἐπιδιορθούμενον αὐτῶν τὴν τῆς φράσεως σύνταξιν.

Καταλέλοιπε δὲ οὗτος πολύ τι πλῆθος γραμμάτων κ.τ.λ. In the Syriac

version it runs: But this Tatian, their first head, collected and

combined and framed a (_or_, the) אונגליון and called it דיטסרון, that

is “the combined,” which is in the possession of many till this day.

And it is said of him that he ventured to alter certain phrases of the

Apostle (the plural points in the Syriac are to be omitted) as with

the object of amending the composition of the phrases. And he has left

many writings, etc.

Footnote 221:

Epiphan., _Haeret._, 46, 1 (Pet. 391): λέγουσι δὲ τὸ διὰ τεσσάρων

Εὐαγγέλιον ὑπ’ αὐτοῦ γεγενῆσθαι, ὅπερ κατὰ Ἑβραίους τινὲς καλοῦσι.

Footnote 222:

Minuscule Evan. 72 (Harleianus 5647 of the eleventh century) on Matt.

xxvii. 48: ση[μείωσαι] ὅτι εἰς τὸ καθ’ ἱστορίαν εὐαγγέλιον Διοδώρου

καὶ Τατιανοῦ καὶ ἄλλων διαφόρων ἁγίων πατέρων τοῦτο προσκεῖται.

Instead of Διοδώρου, Harnack-Preuschen (i. 493), read Διαδώρου,

whether rightly or not I do not know. Nothing being known of the

historical Gospel of one Diodorus, it is natural enough to conjecture

(Zahn, _Forsch._, i. 28) that the reading should be διὰ δ’, but what

becomes then of ωρου καὶ? Harnack suggests διὰ δ’ Σύρου Τατιανοῦ, but

see Zahn, _Forsch._, ii. 298. The omission of the article before διὰ

δ’ is a difficulty.

Footnote 223:

In his Ἐπιτομὴ αἱρετικῆς κακομυθίας (i. 20; vol. iv. 312), written in

the year 453, he says at the end of the chapter on Tatian:—οὗτος καὶ

τὸ διὰ τεσσάρων καλούμενον συντέθεικεν εὐαγγέλιον, τάς τε γενεαλογίας

περικόψας καὶ τὰ ἄλλα ὅσα ἐκ σπέρματος Δαβὶδ κατὰ σάρκα γεγεννημένον

τὸν κύριον δείκνυσιν, ἐχρήσαντο δὲ τούτῳ οὐ μόνοι οἱ τῆς ἐκείνου

συμμορίας, ἀλλὰ καὶ οἱ τοῖς ἀποστολικοῖς ἑπόμενοι δόγμασι, τὴν τῆς

συνθήκης κακουργίαν οὐκ ἐγνωκότες, ἀλλ’ ἁπλούστερον ὡς συντόμῳ τῷ

βιβλίῳ χρησάμενοι. Εὗρον δὲ κἀγὼ πλείους ἢ διακοσίας βίβλους τοιαύτας

ἐν ταῖς παρ’ ἡμῖν ἐκκλησίαις τετιμημένας, καὶ πάσας συναγαγὼν ἀπεθέμην

καὶ τὰ τῶν τεττάρων εὐαγγελιστῶν ἀντεισήγαγον.

Footnote 224:

See Hamlyn Hill, _Earliest Life of Christ_, etc., p. 324; Hope W.

Hogg, Ante-Nicene Library, Additional Volume.

Footnote 225:

See _Die Ueberlieferung der griechischen Apologeten_, 1882, pp.

196-218, and, on the other side, Zahn, _Forschungen_, ii. 292 ff.

Footnote 226:

_The Diatessaron of Tatian: a Preliminary Study_, 1890.

Footnote 227:

See _ThLz._, 1891, col. 356.

Footnote 228:

It is not clear whether Harnack gives this as his own opinion or not.

For a reading of cod. W^d, akin to that of Tatian, see below on Mark

vii. 33, p. 264.

Footnote 229:

Ante-Nicene Christian Library, Additional Volume, p. 38.

Footnote 230:

See _Forschungen_, i. 130, 140, 216, 228 f., 237, 248, 263.

Footnote 231:

London, Macmillan, 1895.

Footnote 232:

_Forschungen_, i. 179.

Footnote 233:

This will be found most conveniently in Hogg’s translation—Ante-Nicene

Library, Additional Volume.

Footnote 234:

_Cf._ p. 393: “To judge from Ephraem’s Commentary, the Diatessaron

contains scarcely as much apocryphal matter as Codex Cantabrigiensis

of the Gospels and Acts.”

Footnote 235:

In his _N. T. um 200_, p. 108, Harnack treats Zahn’s interpretation of

the words of Eusebius as a bad blunder. The latter defends himself by

saying among other things that it is not quite clear whether Eusebius

himself was aware of the double meaning of the word _μεταφράσαι_ which

was employed in the tradition (he says _φασι_) reported to him. He

thinks that Rufinus might be said to have “paraphrased” certain

commentaries of Origen, correcting his thought and phraseology in many

places. True, but in Eusebius it is _φωνάς τινας τοῦ ἀποστόλου_, not

whole epistles, that Tatian is said to have “metaphrased.”

Footnote 236:

On the words of Jerome (_ad Tit. praef._, vii. 686), “Sed Tatianus

Encratitarum patriarches, qui et ipse nonnullas Pauli epistolas

repudiavit, hanc vel maxime, hoc est ad Titum, apostoli pronuntiandam

credidit, parvipendens Marcionis et aliorum qui cum eo in hac parte

consentiunt assertionem,” compare Zahn, _Forsch._, i. 6, _GK._ i. 426.

Footnote 237:

_Introd._, ii. § 170, p. 120. On all accounts the Western text claims

our attention first. The earliest readings which can be fixed

chronologically belong to it. As far as we can judge from extant

evidence, it was the most widely-spread text of Ante-Nicene times; and

sooner or later every version directly or indirectly felt its

influence. But any prepossessions in its favour that might be created

by this imposing early ascendancy are for the most part soon

dissipated by continuous study of its internal character. The

eccentric Whiston’s translation of the Gospels and Acts from the Codex

Bezae, and of the Pauline Epistles from the Codex Claromontanus, and

Bornemann’s edition of the Acts, in which the Codex Bezae was taken as

the standard authority, are probably the only attempts which have ever

been made in modern times to set up an exclusively, or even

predominantly, Western Greek text as the purest reproduction of what

the Apostles wrote. This all but universal rejection is doubtless

partly owing to the persistent influence of a whimsical theory of the

last century, which, ignoring all non-Latin Western documentary

evidence except the handful of extant bilingual uncials, maintained

that the Western Greek text owed its peculiarities to translation from

the Latin; partly to an imperfect apprehension of the antiquity and

extension of the Western text as revealed by Patristic quotations and

by versions. Yet even with the aid of a true perception of the facts

of Ante-Nicene textual history, it would have been strange if this

text, as a whole, had found much favour. A few scattered Western

readings have long been approved by good textual critics on

transcriptional and to a great extent insufficient grounds; and in

Tischendorf’s last edition their number has been augmented, owing to

the misinterpreted accession of the Sinai MS. to the attesting

documents. To one small and peculiar class of Western readings,

exclusively omissions, we shall ourselves have to call attention as

having exceptional claims to adoption.

§ 202 (p. 149). In spite of the prodigious amount of error which D

contains, these readings, in which it sustains and is sustained by

other documents derived from very ancient texts of other types, render

it often invaluable for the secure recovery of the true text; and,

apart from this direct applicability, no other single source of

evidence, except the quotations of Origen, surpasses it in value on

the equally important ground of historical or indirect

instructiveness. To what extent its unique readings are due to licence

on the part of the scribe rather than to faithful reproduction of an

antecedent text now otherwise lost, it is impossible to say; but it is

remarkable how frequently the discovery of fresh evidence, especially

Old-Latin evidence, supplies a second authority for readings in which

D had hitherto stood alone.

§ 240 (p. 175). On the other hand there remain, as has been before

intimated (§ 170), a few other Western readings of similar form, which

we cannot doubt to be genuine in spite of the exclusively Western

character of their attestation. They are all omissions, or, to speak

more correctly, non-interpolations of various length, that is to say,

the original record has here, to the best of our belief, suffered

interpolation in all the extant non-Western texts.... With a single

peculiar exception (Matt. xxvii. 49), in which the extraneous words

are omitted by the Syrian as well as by the Western text, the Western

non-interpolations are confined to the last three chapters of St.

Luke.

§ 241. These exceptional instances of the preservation of the original

text in exclusively Western readings are likely to have had an

exceptional origin.

In the edition of 1896, the surviving editor (Westcott) appends an

Additional Note which contains a further exceedingly valuable

admission in the same direction. It is as follows:—

Note to p. 121, § 170 (p. 328): “The Essays of Dr. Chase on _The

Syriac Element in Codex Bezae_, Cambridge, 1893, and _The Syro-Latin

Text of the Gospels_, Cambridge, 1895, are a most important

contribution to the solution of a fundamental problem in the history

of the text of the N.T. The discovery of the Sinaitic MS. of the Old

Syriac raises the question whether the combination of the oldest types

of the Syriac and Latin texts can outweigh the combination of the

primary Greek texts. A careful examination of the passages in which

Syr^{sin} and k are arrayed against א B, would point to the

conclusion.” [The proper title of Chase’s Essays is The Old Syriac,

under which shorter (outside) title Zahn also quotes them (_Einl._,

ii. 348).] This statement by Westcott sounds strange after the remark

made in the Preface. “For the rest,” he says there, “I may perhaps be

allowed to say that no arguments have been advanced against the

general principles maintained in the Introduction and illustrated in

the Notes since the publication of the First Edition, which were not

fully considered by Dr. Hort and myself in the long course of our

work, and in our judgment dealt with accurately.—Auckland Castle,

March 27, 1896. B. F. D.”

Footnote 238:

See my _Philologica Sacra_, p. 3, where I have cited this passage of

Lagarde. His book may not be very accessible to textual critics.

Footnote 239:

“Thou shalt worship no manuscripts” was one of the ten commandments

that Lehrs gave philologists.

Footnote 240:

This passage was the subject of a heated discussion between Severus

and Macedonius at Constantinople in the year 510. On this occasion the

superb copy of Matthew’s Gospel, which had been discovered in the

grave of Barnabas in the reign of the Emperor Zeno, was brought upon

the scene.

Footnote 241:

Compare what Westcott and Hort say of Whiston and Bornemann, cited

above, p. 222, and particularly the section on the twofold recension

of the Acts in Zahn’s _Einleitung_, ii. § 59, pp. 338-359. See also

Burkitt’s Introduction to Barnard’s _Biblical Text of Clement of

Alexandria_ (_Texts and Studies_, v. 5), especially p. xviii: “Let us

come out of the land of Egypt, which speaks, as Clement’s quotations

show, with such doubtful authority, and let us see whether the

agreement of East and West, of Edessa and Carthage, will not give us a

surer basis upon which to establish our text of the Gospels.”

Footnote 242:

Attention may be directed in passing to the interesting way in which

the witnesses are distributed. Thus we have in verse 51, for the

omission of καὶ ἀνεφερ. εἰς τ. οὐρ. א* D Syr^{sin} a b d e ff l*, Aug.

½; verse 52, omit προσκυν· αὐτόν, D Syr^{sin} a b d e ff l, Aug. 1/1;

verse 53, αἰνοῦντες for εὐλογοῦντες D a b d e ff l r (Aug.);

(Syr^{sin} here has מברכין, not משבחין which represents αἰνοῦντες in

Luke ii. 13, 20, xix. 37, and, therefore, must have read εὐλογοῦντες

in this passage). Now I ask, is it right to accept the testimony of D

and its associates in verse 52, only to reject it in verse 53? And

what amount of weight is added to the testimony of D by the addition

of that of א*? Schiller says in _Tell_: “The strong is mightiest

alone: united e’en the weak are strong”—how far are both these notions

true in textual criticism?

Footnote 243:

So Graefe, but it is not apparent whether the καὶ that belongs to this

reading is to be supplied before it or after. Evidently he intends to

read αἰν. καὶ εὐλογ. with the great majority of witnesses, and not

εὐλογ. καὶ αἰν. with the Ethiopic version. See _Th. St. Kr._, 1898, i.

136 f. The passage is regarded by Westcott and Hort as a good example

of “conflation,” § 146.

Footnote 244:

See now _Textkritik der vier Evangelien_, pp. 48, 181.

Footnote 245:

Αἰνεῖν is not given in Cremer’s _Dictionary_ among the synonyms of

εὐλογεῖν, and is only cited on p. 610 with the reading αἰνοῦντες καὶ

εὐλογοῦντες from this passage.

Footnote 246:

See Hilgenfeld, _Das Apostel-Concil nach seinem ursprünglichen

Wortlaute_ in the _ZfwTh._, 42 (1899), 1, 138-149.

Footnote 247:

Harnack, _Das Aposteldecret_ (Acta xv. 29) _und die Blass’sche

Hypothese_, Berlin, 1899. From the _Sitzungsberichte der preuss. Akad.

der Wiss._ Noticed in the _Expository Times_ for June 1899, p. 395 f.

See also the _Berliner philologische Wochenschrift_ of the 13th May

1899.

Footnote 248:

See critical note in the _Expositor’s Greek Testament_ (Knowling), _in

loco_.

Footnote 249:

_Cf._ the passage of Hermas cited above, p. 47.

Footnote 250:

A good example is seen in Ezek. xvi. 3. In the Sixtine edition of 1586

a new page (692) occurs in the middle of the sentence διαμαρτυρον τη

Ιερουσαλημ τας ανομιας αυτης ταδε λεγει κυριος τη Ιερουσαλημ, with the

result that the eight words from the first Ιερουσαλημ to the second

are printed twice by a recessive homoioteleuton, while in Codex 62

they have dropped out altogether owing to a forward error of the same

sort. The former mistake is tacitly corrected in all reprints, but the

latter could not be detected from the context alone without other

testimony. Compare also Mark ix. 10 in codex T of the Vulgate and ff

of the Old Latin. In the former the passage from _resurrexit_ to

_resurrexit_ is repeated, in the latter it is omitted.

Footnote 251:

I had a teacher once who invariably tried to get over any difficulty

in the Greek classics by saying that the text was corrupted by

homoioteleuton. We did not always agree with him; he was perhaps a

little too ready with this way out of a difficulty, but any one with

experience knows how very apt this mistake is to occur.

Footnote 252:

This applies to printed editions as well as to manuscripts. Van Ess’s

reprint of the Sixtine Septuagint (1824) is very carefully done, yet

five words have dropped out in Joel iii. 9. These are omitted in all

the later editions of 1835, 1855 (novis curis correcta), 1868, and

1879, and were only supplied by myself in 1887 on the occasion of the

third centenary of the Sixtine edition. They are omitted in

Tischendorf’s first edition of 1850, and also in the second of 1856.

Footnote 253:

In ancient times people always read aloud, even when reading by

themselves.

Footnote 254:

Scrivener would explain the “remarkable confusion” of the two

prepositions προ and προσ, when compounded with verbs, which we meet

_e.g._ in Matt. xxvi. 39; Mark xiv. 35; Acts xii. 6; xvii. 5, 26; xx.

5, 13; xxii. 25, by saying that the symbol [Symbol: an abbreviation

made of a rho character written on top of a block with three lines.]

is used indifferently for προ and προσ in the Herculanean rolls, and

here and there in Codex Sinaiticus. Seeing that it has become a bad

habit in Hebrew Grammars to speak of Aleph _prostheticum_ instead of

_protheticum_, and that the practice is still defended

(Gesenius-Kautzsch^{26}, p. 64, n. 3, “rightly so”) after my notice of

it (_Marginalien_, p. 67), I have given some little attention to this

confusion, and could cite dozens of examples. Others, of course, have

noticed it as well as myself. In his _N.T._, i. 20, B. Weiss says:

“The compounds with προ and προσ are interchanged quite heedlessly,”

and he cites in proof of this eight passages from the Acts. He writes

similarly in ii. 34. I shall instance only one or two cases in

connection with this same word πρόθεσις. Pitra on _Apost. Const._, 5,

17 (p. 325): πρόθεσιν restituimus cum Vatican. 2, 3, 4, 5, vulgo

πρόσθεσιν; Excerpta Περὶ Παθῶν, ed. R. Schneider (_Programme of

Duisburg_, 1895), where the manuscripts deviate in five passages, pp.

5, 14. 20; 6, 5; 13, 7. 13, and we read in § 10, ἀντίκειται δὲ

πρόσθεσις μὲν ἀφαιρέσει, etc., and in § 11, πρόσθεσις μὲν οὖν ἐστὶ

προσθήκη στοιχείου κατ’ ἀρχήν, οἷον σταφίς, ἀσταφίς καὶ ὀσταφίς. Both

times, of course, it should be πρόθεσις, as the better manuscripts

have it. Wherever mention is made of the “shewbread,” D invariably

turns it into “extra bread,” by reading προσθέσεως instead of

προθέσεως. Tischendorf first called attention to this in Luke vi. 4,

but it occurs also in Matt. xii. 4. I have no doubt myself that in the

case of verbal forms, the σ was inserted in order to avoid the hiatus

before the augment. Compare προσέθηκεν for προέθηκεν, Ex. xxiv. 23;

προσέθηκας, Ps. lxxxix. 8, Symmachus; προανεθέμην or προσανεθέμην,

Gal. i. 16. In Wisdom, vii. 27, the first hand of Sinaiticus even

writes προσφήτας for prophets. It is disputed whether the title of one

of Philo’s books is προπαιδεύματα or πρὸς [τὰ] παιδεύματα. Etc. etc.

_Sapienti sat._

Footnote 255:

We find all the possible permutations of the words αὐτοῖς ἐλάλησεν ὁ

Ἰησοῦς in John viii. 12. See my note on Codex Purpureus Petropolitanus

(N) in Hilgenfeld’s _Zeitschrift für wissenschaftliche Theologie_, 42

(1899), p. 623.

Footnote 256:

See Harnack, _Das Magnificat der Elisabeth_ (Lukas i. 46-55) in the

_Berliner Sitzungsberichte_ of the 17th May 1900, p. 538 ff. A good

example of how glosses may creep into the text is afforded by Philo

“Quod det.” 11 (Cohn, 1, 266).

Footnote 257:

On the influence of a system of pericopæ on the text of Codex D, see

Scrivener’s Introduction to his edition of the manuscript, p. li, and

Zahn, _Einl._, ii. 355.

Footnote 258:

See Semler’s edition of _J. J. Wetsteinii libelli ad crisin atque

interpretationem N.T._, Halae, 1766.

Footnote 259:

(1) Lectio quae in veteribus latinis non apparet probabilior est. (2)

Codices qui cum graecis א B L concordant plerumque textum

Hieronymianum ostendunt.

Footnote 260:

In view of the frequency with which the witnesses fluctuate between

ἡμῶν and ὑμῶν, ἡμῖν and ὑμῖν, etc., it is impossible to adjust their

claims on any mere arithmetical principle. Zahn (_Einl._, ii. 61)

calls attention to an important consideration in support of the

reading ὑμῖν in 2 Peter i. 4, which applies to other passages as

well—viz., “that when the New Testament epistles were read at divine

service, ἡμεῖς would very readily and very frequently be substituted

for ὑμεῖς, which excluded the reader or preacher.” Compare Acts iv.

12: ἐν ᾧ δεῖ σωθῆναι—, ἡμᾶς or ὑμᾶς?

It might be laid down as a second rule in this connection, that

particular importance attaches to those versions in which the

distinction of the persons does not depend simply on a single letter

but on a separate word (_nobis_: _vobis_, etc.). In versions of this

sort the original reading is preserved from the first; in the case of

the others, the change could be made at any point of the transmission,

especially when it was helped by the nature of the writing, which must

also, of course, be taken into account.

A glance over the verse enumeration in the margin of one of the modern

editions of the text will reveal, perhaps, most clearly how strong is

the tendency to interpolation. Of the verses into which Stephen

divided the Greek N.T. (1551), the Stuttgart edition omits entirely

the following from the Synoptic Gospels—viz., Matt. xviii. 11 (xxi.

44, Tischen.), xxiii. 14; Mark vii. 16; ix. 44, 46; xi. 26; xv. 28;

Luke xvii. 36 (xxi. 18, W-H margin); xxiii. 17 (xxiv. 12, 40, Tisch.).

Compare also Matt. xx. 28; xxvii. 35, 38, 49; Mark vi. 11; xiii. 2;

Luke vi. 5; ix. 55; xii. 21; xix. 45; xxi. 38; xxii. 19 f., 43 f., 47;

xxiii. 2, 5, 34, 48, 53; xxiv. 5, 36, 51, 52. In the case of several

verses this or that part had to be omitted. Luke xx. 30, _e.g._, is

reduced to the three words, καὶ ὁ δεύτερος, with the result that it

becomes the shortest verse in the N.T.

Footnote 261:

The best discussion of the form Ἀπελλῆς will again be found in Zahn,

_Einl._, i. 193.

Footnote 262:

See my note in the _Expository Times_ for July 1900, p. 478, where I

have brought forward a new witness for the reading Jonatha—viz.,

Jerome’s _Liber interpretationis Hebraicorum nominum_. He explains the

word as “_columba dans_ vel _columba veniens_.”

Footnote 263:

Volck has an article of four and a half pages on Balaam in the PRE^3,

iii. 227 ff., but he says not a syllable about the form βοσόρ, which

is too bad. In Hastings’ _Dictionary of the Bible_ it is at least

mentioned though not explained.

Footnote 264:

בער is explained as the Hebrew form of the Aramaic בעור by C. B.

Michaelis (_De Paronomasia_, § 30); Hiller, _Onomasticum_, 1706, p.

536; and Bernardus (in Marck, _In praecipuas quasdam partes

Pentateuchi Commentarius_, Leyden, 1713, 366). Marck himself makes it

the equivalent of פתור. M. M. Kalish, _Bible Studies_, i. _The

prophecies of Bileam_, London, 1877, contributes nothing to the

solution of the question.

CRITICAL NOTES ON VARIOUS PASSAGES OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.

THE GOSPEL.

Matthew.

With regard to the title, Westcott and Hort say (_Introduction_, §

423, p. 321): “In prefixing the name ΕΥΑΓΓΕΛΙΟΝ in the singular to the

quaternion of ‘the Gospels,’ we have wished to supply the antecedent

which alone gives an adequate sense to the preposition ΚΑΤΑ in the

several titles. The idea, if not the name, of a collective ‘Gospel’ is

implied throughout the well-known passage in the third book of

Irenæus, who doubtless received it from earlier generations. It

evidently preceded and produced the commoner usage by which the term

Gospel denotes a single written representation of the one fundamental

Gospel.” Compare Zahn, _GK._, i. 106 ff.; _Einleitung_, ii. 172 ff.,

178 f.: “Of recent editors, Westcott and Hort have most faithfully

interpreted the original idea by setting Εὐαγγέλιον on the fly-leaf,

and κατὰ Μαθθαῖον, etc., over the separate books.” I have followed the

same principle in the Table of Contents prefixed to the Stuttgart

edition of the New Testament. Compare above, pp. 164, 165. On the

spelling Μαθθαῖος, instead of Ματθαῖος, compare on the one hand the

LXX. manuscripts, which exhibit the forms Μαθανιά, Μαθθανιά, Ματθανιά;

Ματταθίας, Ματθαθίας, Μαθθαθίας (see Supplement I. to Hatch and

Redpath’s _Concordance to the Septuagint_), and on the other, Blass’s

_Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Griechisch_, § 3, 11 (English Trans.

by Thackeray, 1898, p. 11).

i. 16. There are three forms of the text here—

(1) Ἰωσὴφ τὸν ἄνδρα Μαρίας, ἐξ ἧς ἐγεννήθη Ἰησοῦς ὁ λεγόμενος Χριστός:

all our Greek uncials and almost all the minuscules.

(2) Ἰωσήφ, ᾧ μνηστευθεῖσα παρθένος Μαρία ἐγέννησεν τὸν Ἰησοῦν (τὸν

λεγόμενον) Χριστόν: most of the Old Latin (a d g_{1} k q, with b c

similarly), Curetonian Syriac, Armenian, and four minuscules—viz., 346,

556, 624, 626, with slight divergencies.

(3) Ἰωσήφ· Ἰωσὴφ δὲ, ᾧ μνηστευθεῖσα (or μεμνηστευμένη?) ἦν παρθένος

Μαρία, ἐγέννησεν τὸν Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν: the form underlying the

newly-discovered Sinai-Syriac.[265]

These readings are discussed in the “Additional Note” to _Notes on

Select Readings_, Westcott and Hort, _Introduction_ (1896), p. 140 ff.

Reading (2) is dismissed on external grounds as displaying the

characteristic features of the “Western” type of text. Reading (3) is

regarded as independent of (2), neither confirming it nor confirmed by

it. Taken therefore on its own merits, it must yield to the received

text (1), as it is easier to suppose that (3) is derived from (1) than

_vice versa_.

Zahn goes fully into these various forms (_Einleitung_, ii. 291-293). He

begins by saying that it is impossible, except on a very loose view of

the facts, to conclude that the Sinai-Syriac here preserves the original

text, which was gradually displaced for dogmatic reasons by the modified

form presented in (2), and ultimately by that given in (1). On the

contrary, the Curetonian-Syriac preserves an early form of text, and one

that had a pretty wide circulation, so that it cannot be due to an

orthodox alteration of the Sinai-Syriac. “If it be the case that the

latter, like the former, is derived from a Greek original, and that

these two earliest versions of the ‘Distinct’ Gospel are not independent

of each other but are two recensions of a single version, then it

follows that the recension which agrees exactly with a demonstrably old

Greek text (in this case the Curetonian Syriac) preserves the original

form of the Syriac version; while, on the other hand, the one which

deviates from all the Greek, Latin, and other forms of the transmitted

text (in this case the Sinai-Syriac) is derived from the other by a

process of intentional alteration.” There would be nothing to object to

this reasoning were it not that, as it seems to me, there is a flaw in

the second of the premises stated above, which of course vitiates the

conclusion. In the main, it is true that the Sinai-Syriac and the

Curetonian are not independent, but two recensions of a single version,

but their common original was, as Zahn himself was the first to suggest,

Tatian’s Diatessaron, which did not contain the first chapter of

Matthew’s Gospel. So that the Sinai-Syriac may also go back to a Greek

text (such as has been discovered in the _Dialogue of Timothy and

Aquila_, see above, p. 99), and be earlier than the Curetonian.

Zahn concludes his examination of this passage by saying: “We may give

up all hope of finding in early manuscripts and versions any indication

that Joseph was regarded as the natural father of Jesus by the writers

of lost Gospels which may have been employed in the composition of the

canonical Matthew and Luke. A writer like Matthew, whose purpose was to

silence the calumnies raised against the miraculous birth of the

Messiah, and who knew how to utilise the smallest details of an

intractable genealogy to this end, cannot at the same time have accepted

in his narrative statements directly contradicting his view of that

occurrence. Any text of Matthew’s Gospel containing such features would

be pre-condemned as one that had been tampered with in a manner contrary

to the conception of the author.”

i. 18. The reading γένεσις is now supported by the newly-discovered

Oxyrhynchus Papyrus. It was adopted in the text by Vignon (Geneva,

1574). Origen knew no other reading than γέννησις, which is also

attested by L (Codex D is defective here). Westcott and Hort have

accordingly given it a place in their Appendix. Weiss explains it as an

alteration made in conformity with the verbal forms ἐγέννησε, ἐγεννήθη,

occurring in the previous part of the chapter. Zahn (_Einleitung_, ii.

270, 289) thinks it is probably original. The two oldest and the latest

Syriac have a different word here from that in i. 1. These agree with

Irenæus in the omission of Ἰησοῦ. Zahn thinks this is probably correct.

i. 25. On πρωτότοκον, see above, p. 166, and the _Oxford Debate_, p. 4

ff.

v. 25. On ἀντίδικος = בעלדינא, see Lagarde, _De Novo_, 20 (_Ges.

Abhdl._, 188); quem Matthaei locum quum imitaretur et rideret Lucianus

in Navigio 35, ἀντίδικος non ferebat: ἕως ἔτι καθ’ ὁδόν εἰσιν οἱ

πολέμιοι, ἐπιχειρῶμεν αὐτοῖς.

vi. 1. δικαιοσύνην, א* B D Syr^{sin}: ἐλεημοσύνην, most authorities:

δόσιν א^a: “your gifts,” Syr^{cu}. Zahn (_Einl._, ii. 311) asks whether

these variants may not go back to a time when the Aramaic Gospel was

interpreted orally in these different ways? The agreement exhibited

between א^a and Syr^{cu} is particularly strange.

vi. 13. There is a considerable amount of unanimity now with regard to

the doxology which used to be so much discussed. Among the witnesses

supporting its insertion are Syr^{cu}, which, however, omits καὶ ἡ

δύναμις, and the Sahidic, which omits καὶ ἡ δόξα. Syr^{sin} is

unfortunately lost here. In addition to the testimony previously known

for the insertion of the Doxology, there is now that of the _Teaching of

the Apostles_, one of the earliest Church writings. But the very fact

that the _Teaching_ is a Church work reveals the source of the

Doxology—viz. liturgical use. The Conclusion was early added in Church

worship from Old Testament analogies; in the First Gospel it is out of

place. The Greek manuscripts from which Jerome made his version knew

nothing of it, and accordingly the Catholic Church omits it to this day.

Luther also passed it over in his Catechism, in which the exposition of

the Conclusion is limited to the word “Amen,” and says, “it is added

that I may have the assurance that my prayer will be heard.” In the

Greek Church the Amen was explained as equivalent to γένοιτο, “so may it

be.”

viii. 7. Fritzsche (1826) took this verse as a question of surprise.

This view has been renewed by Zahn (_Einl._, ii. 307).

viii. 24. The words “erat enim ventus contrarius eis,” which are found

in one manuscript of the Vulgate in W-W after “mari,” and in four after

“fluctibus,” are an interpolation from Mark vi. 48. Tischendorf cites

two Greek minuscules in support of it. Lagarde’s Vienna Arabic

manuscript (see p. 143) mentions it as an addition of the “Roman”

version.

xi. 19. Schlottman and Lagarde explain the variation between ἔργα and

τέκνα as a confusion of the Aramaic עַבְדָּא (_servant_: παῖς) and

עְַבָדָא (_work_). See Zahn, _Einl._, ii. 311 f., and compare also

Salmon, _Some Thoughts etc._, p. 121 f. It is still to be shown,

however, that τέκνα is ever used as the equivalent of עַבְדָּא.

Hilgenfeld (_ZfwTh._, 42. 4, p. 629) refers to 4 Esdras vii. 64 (134),

where the Latin and the first Arabic version read “quasi suis

_operibus_,” the Ethiopic “quasi _filiis_ suis,” and the Syriac “quia

_servi_ eius sumus.”

xii. 36. See on xviii. 7.

xiii. 35. διὰ Ἠσαΐου τοῦ προφήτου is now attested only by א*, two

members of the Ferrar group, and some other minuscules, but Eusebius and

Jerome found it in several manuscripts, and it was used still earlier by

Porphyrius as a proof of Matthew’s ignorance. It is certainly,

therefore, genuine, although it is omitted by Syr^{sin}, Syr^{cu}, by

the “accurate” manuscripts according to Eusebius,[266] and by the

“vulgata editio” according to Jerome. The conjecture of the latter, that

Ἀσάφ was the original reading, which was changed to Ἠσαΐου by some

unintelligent copyist and then dropped as incorrect, only serves to show

what sort of ideas he had with regard to textual criticism. The

assertion of the _Breviarium in Psalmos_, p. 59 f., that all the old

manuscripts read “in Asaph propheta” is pure fiction. Compare Ἰερεμίου

in Matt. xxvii. 9, where one would expect Ζαχαρίου, and where we find

that Ἰερεμίου is omitted by some witnesses and replaced in others by

Ζαχαρίου or “Esaiam.” “Esaiam” has also crept into the Vulgate

manuscript rus (W-W’s R). On the insertion, omission, and interchange of

such names, see W-H’s discussion of this passage, and the “Supplementary

Note” by Burkitt on Syr^{sin} in the edition of 1896, p. 143. For an

interesting exchange of names (Jonah and Nahum), see Tobit, xiv. 8.

Asaph is called ὁ προφήτης in 2 Chron. xxix. 30. Compare Zahn, _Einl._,

ii. 313 f. Weiss^9 would omit the word on the ground of insufficient

testimony as being simply introduced from iii. 3, iv. 14, viii. 17, and

xii. 17.

xiv. 3. Zahn (_Einl._, ii. 309) thinks it extremely improbable that D

and certain important Latin witnesses should have removed the (wrong)

name, Philip, from this passage on the ground of their better knowledge,

while allowing it to stand without exception in Mark vi. 17. He believes

rather that they have preserved the original text, and that Φιλίππου is

here an interpolation from the passage in Mark. Weiss^9, on the other

hand, sees no reason why it should be either bracketed or omitted. The

possibility of its being inserted is shown by the fact that it also

crept into six or seven manuscripts of Jerome, collated by W-W. This is

one of the passages where Tischendorf in his seventh edition frankly

preferred Codex D to all the other Greek witnesses.

xv. 4_b_. For θανάτῳ τελευτάτω, Syr^{cu} has נתקטל, evidently in

accordance with Exod. xxi. 17. In the Arabic Diatessaron (§ 20, 23) the

second half of this verse seems to be replaced by Mark vii. 10_b_. After

“morte moriatur” in this passage, Ephraem adds “et qui blasphemat Deum

_crucifigatur_,” which Zahn (_Forsch._, i. 157) thinks he must have

found in his original. This apocryphal addition, which has no other

testimony than that of Ephraem, does not seem to Zahn like a passage

that had been afterwards removed from the text of the New Testament with

complete success (_Forsch._, i. 241). The correct explanation of the

words is given by Harris: they are the Peshitto rendering of Deut. xxi.

23. Compare Driver’s _Deuteronomy_ on the passage, and the reference

there made to Lightfoot’s _Galatians_ (Extended Note on iii. 13, ninth

edition, p. 152 f.). Symmachus also renders the words: “propter

blasphemiam Dei suspensus est,” while Onkelos says על דחב קרם יי אצטליב,

and Siphre מביגי שקלל את השם. This should be noted in connection with

Matt. xxvi. 65, and still more so with John xix. 7. The only passage

usually cited there is Levit. xxiv. 16, according to which Jesus should

have been _stoned_. Our commentators pass too hastily over the question

why the Jews insisted on crucifixion instead of stoning.

xvi. 18_b_, 19. So far as the criticism of the text is concerned, there

is no occasion for entering on the discussion whether this passage, like

the one resembling it in xviii. 15-18, is original or not. There may,

however, be cases in which one cannot overlook the fact that where the

“lower” criticism ends the “higher” begins. Compare, on the one side,

Zahn, _Forsch._, i. 244 ff., and on the other, Resch, _Logia_, p. 55;

_Paralleltexte_, ii. 187-196, 441.

xvi. 22. The peculiar reading, “compatiens,” which is found in the

Arabic Tatian (J. H. Hill, p. 137, § 23. 42: Zahn, _GK._, ii. 546), and

which Sellin has also traced in Ephraem, is now explained by the

Syr^{sin} of Mark viii. 32: see my note in Lewis, _Some Pages_, p. xiii.

The very same play upon the words חוס, “to pity,” and חס, “to be far

from,” is found as late as in the _Histoire de Mar-Jabalaha, de trois

autres patriarches_, ed. Bedjan, 1895, p. 407, line 14; p. 408, line 4.

For a moment I thought of ὀργισθεὶς and σπλαγχνισθείς in Mark i. 41.

xviii. 7. The Dictum Agraphum τὰ ἀγαθὰ ἐλθεῖν δεῖ, μακάριος δὲ δι’ οὗ

ἔρχεται, which, according to the _Clementine Homilies_ (xii. 29), ὁ τῆς

ἀληθείας προφήτης ἔφη, was known also to Ephraem (_cf._ Zahn, _Forsch._,

i. 241 f. on § 50. 4). An exact parallel to this “harmless expansion of

the canonical text” is seen in the form which Matt. xii. 36 assumed in

Codex C of the Palestinian Syriac Evangeliarium: that “for every _good_

word that men do _not_ speak they shall give account” (see Lewis, _In

the Shadow of Sinai_ (1898), pp. 256-261; and thereon, _ThLz._, 1899,

col. 177).

xviii. 20. On the form in which this saying is found in the Oxyrhynchus

Logia, compare Ephraem (Moesinger 165), “ubi unus est ibi et ego sum.”

Zahn believes that Ephraem found this in his text, but that Aphraates,

who also has it, arrived at it by way of a “spiritual interpretation” of

the canonical words. After quoting the comments of Aphraates on these

words, Zahn says: “It appears certain, therefore, that Aphraates did not

find in his text the apocryphal sentence given in Ephraem, but by way of

interpretation reached the same thought that Ephraem found in his text

as a word of comfort spoken by Jesus to the lonely. (Ephraem introduces

the saying with the words: ‘He comforted them in His saying.’) The

interpretation, which may not have been original in Aphraates, became

first a gloss and then part of the text of Tatian’s Harmony.” This

should be noticed in connection with the Oxyrhynchus Logion. See Burkitt

in the Introduction to Barnard’s _Biblical Text of Clement_ (_Texts and

Studies_, v. 5, p. xiv).

xx. 13. The peculiar form of the householder’s reply given in Syr^{cu},

μὴ ἀδίκει με (Baethgen, μή μοι κόπους πάρεχε) is ignored by Tischendorf.

Our commentators also err in not taking note of the variant συνεφώνησά

σοι for συνεφώνησάς μοι. Compare the similar variation in John viii. 57;

also Luke xviii. 20, τὰς ἐντολὰς οἶδα, read by the Marcionites instead

of οἶδας; and Ephes. v. 14, ἐπιψαύσεις τοῦ Χριστοῦ, derived through a

presupposed reading, ἐπιψαύσει σοι ὁ Χριστός. Συνεφώνησά σοι in Matt.

xx. 13 is also attested by Syr^{sin}, which agrees with the common text

in the first member of the verse. It is also found in the

newly-discovered purple manuscript in Paris. The Arabic Tatian agrees

with the usual text in both members. On the strange mixture of this

verse and Luke xvi. 25 in Petrus Siculus (ἑταῖρε, οὐκ ἀδικῶ σε· ἀπέλαβες

τὰ σὰ ἐν τῇ ζωῇ σου· νῦν ἆρον τὸ σὸν καὶ ὕπαγε) see Zahn, _GK._, ii.

445.

xx. 16. The concluding member of this verse is now rightly omitted with

א B L Z and the Egyptian versions. All the Syriac versions have it,

including the newly-discovered Syr^{sin}. It is worth observing that the

verse with this addition forms the close of a lection in Syr^{hier}.

xx. 28. Westcott and Hort devote one of their “Notes on Select Readings”

to the addition to this verse, and in the edition of 1896 Burkitt adds

that it cannot have stood in Syr^{sin}, because there was not room for

it on the leaf that is missing between Matt. xx. 24 and xxi. 20.

According to W-H the passage is Western, being attested by D Φ among the

Greek manuscripts and by the Latin and Syriac versions. “The first part

only, ὑμεῖς—εἶναι, is preserved in m, ger, and apparently Leo, who

quotes no more; the second part only, εἰσερχόμενοι—χρήσιμον, in ger_{2}

and apparently Hilary. The first part must come from an independent

source, written or oral; the second probably comes from the same, but it

is in substance identical with Luke xiv. 8-10.” Tischendorf states that

of the Old Latin, four (f g_{2} l q) omit the section, which, however,

is found in c d e ff_{1, 2} g_{1} h (m) n, two manuscripts of the

Vulgate (and. emm.), the Old German, and the Saxon. To these W-W add

also the Old Latin r, two manuscripts of the Vulgate not usually

employed by them, and, of those forming the basis of their edition,

H^{mg} Θ O—_i.e._ the Theodulfian Recension. A hand of the tenth century

has written on the margin of O, “mirum unde istud additum: cum Lucas

parabolam de invitatis ad nuptias et primos accubitus eligentibus decimo

canone, ubi M(atthaeu)s sua non communia dicit referat.” This resembles

the marginal note attached to the passage by Thomas of Heraclea (not

given by Jos. White, but by Adler, from _Cod. Assem._, 1): Haec quidem

in exemplis antiquis in Luca tantum leguntur capite 53: inveniuntur

autem in exemplis graecis[267] hoc loco: quapropter hic etiam a nobis

adiecta sunt.

The word δειπνοκλήτωρ, which Resch took from this passage into the text

of his _Logia Jesu_, for ὁ σὲ καὶ αὐτὸν καλέσας, found in Luke xiv. 9,

should itself have provoked investigation. The only Latin witnesses

which render it in a substantive form are d, which has _coenae

invitator_ both times, and m, which has _invitator_ the first time. The

others give it as a relative clause (_qui vocavit, invitavit_), so that

they may have read it in the form in which it stands in our present text

of Luke.[268] It is impossible not to believe that some connection

exists between these substantive expressions and the Syriac מרא אהשמיתא,

“master of the feast,” which is found in Syr^{cu} and Syr^{sin}, and is

also given by Aphraates, for τῷ κεκληκότι αὐτόν in Luke xiv. 12 (Aphr.

388, 12-19; Zahn, _Forsch._, i. 85, note). Syr^{cu} has it both times in

this passage of Matthew.[269]

Bengel, like our modern expositors, says nothing of the interpolation in

his _Gnomon_, and his view with respect to it has, therefore, to be

gathered from his apparatus. “Interjicit cod. Lat. vetustissimus Vos

autem, etc. ... Vid. Rich. Simon, _Obs. Nouv._, p. 31. Et sic fere Cant.

(_i.e._, D) cuius lectio passim exstat. Idem vero Codex Graeca sua ad

Latina haec, quae modo exscripsimus, confecit: Latina autem sua, sub

manu, vehementius interpolavit, magno argumento licentiae suae. Eandem

periocham legit Juvencus, Hilarius: habentque praeterea codd. Lat.

aliquot, et inde Sax. Ex. Luc. xiv. 8 f., interveniente forsan Evangelio

Nazaraeorum ... Priorem duntaxat partem, ‘Vos autem ... minui’ habet

alius cod. Lat. antiquiss. ut si Librarius, cum describere coepisset,

non scribendum agnosceret: eandemque Leo M. sic exhibet. Et tamen ...

porro ab hoc loco ad Luc. xxii. 28, verbum _crescendi_ protulit Cant.

_coenaeque invitator_ ei dicitur δειπνοκλήτωρ.”

The truth is, of course, the very opposite of this, as is shown by the

indicative _quaeritis_ and the imperative of the Syriac, which are both

derived from the ambiguous ζητεῖτε. There cannot be the slightest doubt

of this, seeing that the discovery of Codex Beratinus (Φ) has added a

second Greek witness in support of the interpolation. It reads ἐλάττων

(_cf._ _minor_, c), omits the καὶ before ἐπέλθῃ just as m does with

_et_, has ἄγε in place of σύναγε (_accede_: d, _collige_), and the

comparative χρησιμώτερον (_utilius_) for the positive read by D d. The

word δειπνοκλήτωρ also occurs in Φ.[270] It is not found in Bekker’s

_Pollux_ or in Schmid’s _Hesychius_, and the only instance that ancient

lexicons are able to cite for its usage is that of Athenæus, who

observes (4. 171 B) that Artemidorus calls the ἐλέατρος by that name.

The note appended in Hase-Dindorf’s _Stephanus_ was not correct at the

time of its publication: Quidam codices Matt. xx. 27, Hesych., Wakef.

Eust. _Od._, p. 1413, 3; nor the quotation from Ducange: Δ. in Lex. MS.

Cyrilli exp. ἑστιάτωρ. In the same work δειπνοκλητόριον is cited from

Eust., _Il._, 766, 58, and as an explanation of ἑστιατόριον from the

Lex. MS. Cyrilli. The word therefore belongs to the later popular

language. The question is whether it may not also belong to the

vocabulary of Tatian. Moreover, it reminds us of the equally rare word

κτήτωρ in Acts iv. 34.

On the occurrence of the passage in Tatian, see Zahn, _Forsch._, i. 85,

179. On the questions connected with its interpolation see Chase and p.

216 above.

xxii. 23. We have in this verse an illustration of the difference caused

by the insertion or omission of the article. If we read οἱ λέγοντες with

א^c E F G etc., then the words introduce the creed of the Sadducees

(“who say,” Weizsäcker: “members of that sect who deny the

resurrection,” Stage); if we omit οἱ with א* B D and Syr^{sin}, we have

then what they actually said to Jesus. But as this would be the only

place where Matthew gave an explanation of this sort regarding Jewish

affairs, the article should be omitted. See note _in loco_, _Expositor’s

Greek Testament_, and compare the margin of the Revised English Version.

xxiii. 35. א^1 omits υἱοῦ βαραχίου, which is replaced in the Gospels of

the Hebrews by “filium Joiadae.” Zahn (_Einl._, ii. 308) refers to the

view of Hug, adopted by Eichhorn and many others, that the author, or

redactor, or translator of Matthew made this Zechariah, who is rightly

called the son of Jehoiada in the Gospel of the Hebrews, the son of

Barachiah in order to identify him with the Zechariah, son of Baruch,

who was murdered by the Zealots (Josephus, _Bell._, iv. 5. 4). He points

out that this would involve a prediction on the part of Jesus, and that,

moreover, the scene of the murder is different in the two cases: that

the locality in Matt. points to 2 Chron. xxiv. 21, and that Matthew’s

mistake in calling him the son of Barachiah is due to a confusion with

the Zechariah mentioned in Isa. viii. 2, or that in Zech. i. 1. It

should be observed, however, that Lucian alone calls the murdered person

in Chronicles by the name of Zechariah; the LXX calls him Azariah.

xxv. 41. See on Luke xx. 35.

xxvi. 73. Ὁμοιάζει was formerly attested by D alone, but has now the

further support of Syr^{sin}. The clause καὶ ἡ λαλιά σου ὁμοιάζει has

crept into a great number of manuscripts, including even A, in Mark xiv.

70. There Tischendorf remarks, “Omnino e Mt. fluxit,” in which he is

quite right. But he is wrong when he says “ipsum ὁμοιάζει glossatoris

est.” Because the glossator must then have been earlier than Tatian

(Ciasca, p. 87), and the parent of all those manuscripts. The converse

is the truth—viz., that D alone preserves the original reading, and that

δῆλόν σε ποιεῖ is the voice of the διορθωτής.

xxvii. 9. The name of the prophet, which was omitted in some

manuscripts, according to Augustine, is now omitted only by a b and the

two minuscules 33 and 157. Augustine also observes that Matthew himself

would have noticed his mistake or had his attention called to it by

others. On this compare my notes on ἐβαρύνατε in Acts iii. 14, which I

have explained by supposing that the author read כברתם or כבדתם instead

of כפרתם (_Philologica Sacra_, p. 40; above, p. 170). Origen, Eusebius,

and Jerome evidently still found Ἰερεμίου in all the manuscripts.

Ζαχαρίου is supplied only by 22 and _Esaiam_ by 1. See on Matt. xiii.

35, and compare _Expository Times_, November 1900, p. 62.

xxvii. 16. Zahn (_Einl._, ii. 294) points out that Origen also found

_Jesus_ given as the prenomen of Barabbas “in very ancient manuscripts,”

but that in all probability Tatian did not have it, seeing that

Bar-Bahlul cites it expressly as the reading of the “Distinct” (_i.e._,

not harmonised) Gospel. Jerome says that in the Gospel of the Hebrews he

was called by a name meaning “filius magistri eorum,” so that he must

have been thinking not of _Bar-’abbam_ but of _Bar-rabbam_.

xxvii. 49. See above, p. 227, and compare Burkitt, _Texts and Studies_,

v. 5, p. xix.

xxviii. 18. Compare Dan. vii. 14_b_ (LXX), καὶ ἐδόθη αὐτῷ ἐξουσία, and

also Dan. vii. 13 (= Matt. xxvi. 64), vii. 14 f. (= Matt. xxviii. 18).

See the _English Revised Version with marginal References_ (Oxford,

1899).

According to the subscriptions found in various minuscules, the Hebrew

Matthew was translated into Greek “by John,” or “by James,” to which

some add “the Brother of the Lord,” or “by Bartholomew, the celebrated

Apostle (πανευφήμου), but as others say by John the Theologian, οἳ καὶ

ἀληθῶς εἰρήκασιν.” See Tischendorf, and Zahn, _Einl._, ii. 267.

Mark.

As if to enforce the desire to which I have given expression above (p.

246), there has come into my hands Blass’s _Textkritische Bemerkungen zu

Markus_. If the statements contained in the introductory remarks are

correct, and scarcely any other view is possible in the circumstances

described, then the textual criticism of the first and second Gospels is

a hopeless matter. “An evangelist or teacher who obtained possession of

the originally anonymous Commentarius could not feel bound to respect

the external form, but considered himself justified in correcting it if

it seemed to him to be defective, and even felt called to correct or

complete its subject matter.” Blass reminds us that we have whole

classes of documents, legends of saints _e.g._, which were treated with

the utmost possible freedom by the copyists, who in fact were in this

case editors and revisers. But he says that no one has treated Mark

quite so drastically as all this. His summing up of the matter is, that

the critic can often do no more than recognise and admit the early

multiplicity, and that in such a case it were best to print the text in

parallel columns. At the same time he is able to distinguish some of the

variants as later falsifications or corruptions. Universally trustworthy

authorities there are none; here one group is right, there another, and

we no sooner give them credence than they mislead us with some fresh

error.

We are far removed, truly, from the confidence displayed by Tischendorf

in the treatise he published shortly before his death in 1873 in answer

to the question, “Have we the genuine text of the Evangelical and

Apostolical writings?” All the more urgently, therefore, do we need

fresh studies in textual criticism, and their appearance in Germany is

the more gratifying on that account. The _Markus-Studien_ of Dr. H. P.

Chajes (Berlin, 1899), however, are quite beside the point. They are

purely imaginary, having neither substance nor method.

i. 1. On the title, see above; Zahn, _Einl._, ii. 220 ff., 235; Swete,

_in loco_; and on this last, S. D. F. Salmond, in the _Critical Review_,

April 1899, 206 f.: “We do not see, however, why Professor Swete should

regard the opening verses as probably not a part of the original work.

One might say the same of the whole paragraph with which the Gospel

opens, or, for that matter, the whole chapter. The documentary evidence

is substantially the same in each case, and the internal considerations

are much too indeterminate.” It may be pointed out, as remotely

analogous to this, that before Matt. i. 18 the margin of harl (Z in W-W)

contains a note in a hand of the ninth or tenth century to the effect,

“genealogia hucusque: incipit evangelium secundum Matthaeum,” while Y

has the words “incipit evangelium secundum Matthaeum” in the text, and

eight manuscripts begin verse 18 with capital or red letters. Compare

Scrivener, I. c. iii., on the divisions of the text in B and other

manuscripts.

For the way in which the opening sentences are to be construed,

reference must be made to the commentaries. It may be said here,

however, that parallels may be cited from the New Testament for each of

the three possible constructions. These are (1) Ἀρχὴ ..., καθὼς ...

αὐτοῦ, ἐγένετο; (2) Ἀρχὴ ... Καθὼς ... αὐτοῦ. Ἐγένετο; (3) Ἀρχὴ ...

Καθὼς ... αὐτοῦ, ἐγένετο. For (1) and (2) compare Luke iii. 1 ff., and

for (3) 1 Tim. i. 1 ff. Origen favours the first construction (_Contra

Celsum_, ii. 4; vol. i. p. 131). As regards the text it need only be

said that καὶ is read before ἐγένετο (v. 4) by א^1, and that δὲ is found

after it, not only in the Coptic, but also in Syr^{hier}.

i. 2. Origen here read ἐγὼ and ἔμπροσθέν σου (i. 131). But the former

should be omitted with B D etc., and the latter with all the good

authorities. It follows that Matt. xi. 10 is not taken from Mark i. 2

(Zahn, _Einl._, ii. 316, 332). One can see how important the so-called

“lower” criticism may be for the “higher.”

i. 11; ix. 7. See on “Punctuation” above, p. 52.

i. 29. “B here has ἐξελθὼν ἦλθεν, and D b c e q Pesh. have substantially

the same. This is not an improvement, because it excludes Peter and

Andrew. The reading of Syr^{sin} is peculiar, ‘and He went out of the

synagogue and came into the house of Simon Cephas (Andrew and James and

John were with him), and the mother-in-law etc.’” See Zahn, _Einl._, ii.

252, and below on ix. 14.

i. 41. The remarkable “Western reading” ὀργισθείς is dismissed by Swete

with a reference to W-H, who call it “a singular reading, perhaps

suggested by v. 43 (ἐμβριμησάμενος), perhaps derived from an extraneous

source.” In my _Philologica Sacra_, p. 26, I have expressed the opinion

that it is impossible to suppose a copyist altered σπλαγχνισθείς to

ὀργισθείς, even though ἐμβριμησάμενος does follow two verses further

down.[271] Either ὀργή, ὀργίζεσθαι has another meaning in Biblical

Greek, which is quite possible, or we have here an instance of a

difference in translation. The confusion of the gutturals, _e.g._, is

very common. Compare Ps. xii. 6, יפיח, Gr. יפיע; Ps. xiv. 6, עני = liii.

6, חנך; וישמח in Isa. xxxix. 2 for וישמע in 2 Kings xx. 13; Ps. xxii.

25, ענות, where Gr. has δέησις = תחנות; Ps. xcvii. 11, זרע, Gr.

ἀνέτειλεν = זרח; and especially Mark ix. 19 in the recently-published

Evangeliarium Hierosolymitanum of Lewis-Gibson, where Cod. B has מרחית

for מרעת found in A B. Compare also חד, Matt. vii. 11 (p. 68), and עד

(p. 135). A glance at the _Thesaurus Syriacus_ 3953 shows that רעם is

used, not only for βροντᾶν, but also for σπλαγχνίζεσθαι, στέργειν, and

συμπαθεῖν, while אתרעם stands for χαλεπαίνειν, ἀγανακτεῖν, and

γογγύζειν. Payne-Smith gives no instance of ὀργίζεσθαι. The usual Syriac

word for it even in Syr^{sin} and Syr^{hier} is רנז or אתחמת; both verbs

are found together in 1 Macc. vi. 59 for the simple ὠργίσθησαν (אתחמתו

ורגזו). It is worth noting that in Col. iii. 13, ὀργήν is read by F G,

where D* has μέμψιν, and the other authorities μομφήν.

On the reading in Mark i. 41, see Harris, _Fragments etc._ (1895), p. 6.

He shows that Ephraem had ὀργισθείς in his text alongside of

σπλαγχνισθείς. The Arabic Diatessaron, in which the pericope does not

come till § 22, follows the usual text, and so, too, does Syr^{sin}.

ii. 14. Zahn (_Einl._, ii. 263) holds that “Levi son of Alphaeus” is the

original reading here and not “James,” and that it was taken from Mark

into the Gospel of Peter. The reading “Jacobum” was also taken into the

first hand of the Vulgate manuscript G from D 13, 69, 124, a b c d e

ff_{2} r. In Koetschau’s new edition of Origen, the name is no longer

spelt Λεβής but Λευής (i. 113, 19; Cod. P: Λευίς).

iii. 17. Our expositors might tell us where Luther got his “Bnehargem,”

which is retained in the German Revised Version. On Daniel ii. 7 Jerome

has “Benereem.” I have looked in vain in Lyra, Pole’s _Synopsis_, Calov,

and Wolf.

iii. 31. We have here to choose between καλοῦντες (א B C L etc.),

φωνοῦντες (D etc.), and ζητοῦντες (A): Δ leaves a space. I am inclined

to think that φωνοῦντες is the original reading, which was improved by

the substitution of the more usual word καλοῦντες, just as οὐ φωνεῦντος

ἀκούω was altered to λαλέοντος in the Delphic Oracle in Herodotus i. 47.

Compare a similar variation in Heb. xi. 13, where the original reading

κομισάμενοι (א* P) was thought to be improved by the substitution of

λαβόντες (א^c D E K) or προσδεξάμενοι (A). Here, too, A stands alone.

Was it never copied?

vi. 16. There is a discrepancy in the Eusebian Canons in this verse

which has not been explained. Both Tischendorf and Wordsworth and White

number this verse 58/2. But according to the table in _TiGr._, p. 152,

W-W, p. 10, pericope 58 belongs to the _tenth_ Canon as being one that

is peculiar to Mark. As a matter of fact it is not so, unless Eusebius

meant ἀκούσας δέ at the beginning of the verse. It is remarkable that

Eusebius did not make the whole of verses 14-20 one pericope of the

second canon, but numbered 14, 15 as 57/2 and 17-20 as 59/2. He must

therefore have found something peculiar in verse 16 to make it 58.

vi. 20. This passage is very instructive from a textual point of view.

Most authorities read that “Herod had put John in prison, heard him and

did much,” or “heard much of what he did,” ἀκούσας αὐτοῦ πολλὰ (ἃ)

ἐποίει. But in place of this last word א B L and the Bohairic version

alone read ἠπόρει, “was much perplexed when he heard him.” The great

majority of expositors decide at once in favour of the latter reading,

setting aside ἐποίει as the _scriptio proclivior_. But in that case

should it not have been ἠπορεῖτο? In classical Greek it should

undoubtedly, but in Biblical Greek we find ἠπόρει in _Wisd._ xi. 5, 17,

for example, and what is specially worth noting, διηπόρει in the

parallel passage Luke ix. 7, for which D, it is true, has ἠπορεῖτο. The

passage may therefore be taken as showing that the correct reading has

been preserved in a very few witnesses. Strict logic, moreover, would

lead us to infer that not one of our 1300 manuscripts is derived from

any one of these three, but that א B L continued childless. Is that

likely? Field, it may be added, decides in favour of ἐποίει (_Otium

Norvicense_; see _Expository Times_, August 1899, p. 483), and so, too,

does Burkitt (_Texts and Studies_, v. 5, p. xix). In Philo, i. 264, line

8 (ed. Cohn), the manuscripts vary between μετεωροπολειν, —πορειν,

—ποιειν, and —λογειν.

vii. 33. Codex W^d, published by Harris in facsimile (1896), here

exhibits a very peculiar reading which Harnack (_ThLz._, 1891, p. 356)

thinks has affinity with Tatian. It reads: ἔπτυσεν εἰς τοὺς δακτύλους

αὐτοῦ καὶ ἔβαλεν εἰς τὰ ὦτα τοῦ κωφοῦ καὶ ἥψατο τῆς γλώσσης τοῦ

μογιλάλου. This gives us quite another view of the occurrence than most

of the authorities do. It seems much more natural certainly to moisten

the fingers before putting them in the ears than before touching the

tongue. It reads somewhat similarly in Syr^{sin}, which says that “he

put his fingers and spat in his ears, and touched his tongue.”[272] This

manuscript exhibits other noteworthy readings, which will be found most

conveniently in Swete.

ix. 14. The singular, ἐλθὼν ... εἶδεν, has the support of D, while

Syr^{sin} takes the side of the plural, ἐλθόντες ... εἶδον. Zahn decides

for the latter. He explains the plural by saying that the original

narrator was evidently one of the three disciples who were with Jesus on

the Mount, in all probability Peter, as tradition has it. Peter, of

course, in telling the story, used the first person and the plural

number, “When we came down from the mountain we saw, etc.” Mark,

reporting the words of Peter, turned the first person into the third,

retaining the plural number. Zahn explains in the same way the somewhat

peculiar expressions in Mark i. 29. Here Peter said, “_we_ (_i.e._

Jesus, Andrew, and himself) came into _our_ house with James and John.”

In reporting Peter’s words Mark paraphrases “we” and “our,” and says,

“they came into the house of Simon and Andrew with James and John.” See

Zahn, _Einl._, ii. 245 f.

x. 30. Neither Tischendorf nor Swete observes that in addition to the

readings διωγμῶν and διωγμόν the singular διωγμοῦ is exhibited by D. Has

the mysterious reading εἰς που in Clem. Alex. (_Quis Dives_) anything to

do with this? It is worth remarking that the Vienna Arabic manuscript

(Lagarde: Storr) has a note after “post persecutionem” to the effect

that this is the “Roman” reading.

xiv. 51. καὶ νεανίσκος τις, א B C L; νεανίσκος δέ τις, D; καὶ εἷς τις

νεανίσκος, A E etc. This last is rejected by Zahn on the ground that the

text has evidently been accommodated to verse 47, under the false

impression that another of the disciples is referred to. It is adopted,

however, by Tischendorf^8, and supported by Brandt, _Die Evangelische

Geschichte_ etc., Leipzig, 1893, p. 23 ff.

xiv. 65. ἔλαβον, א A B and most authorities: ἐλάμβανον, D G, 1, 13, 69,

2^{pe}, al^{10}: ἔβαλλον, H....: ἔβαλον, E M U etc. The simplest

explanation of this variety of readings is that ἐλάμβανον was first, and

that it was changed into the more common aorist ἔλαβον, which then

became ἔβαλον or ἔβαλλον. The converse is not so likely, viz. that

ἔβαλλον or ἔβαλον became first ἔλαβον and then ἐλάμβανον, or that ἔλαβον

gave rise directly both to ἐλάμβανον and ἔβαλον or ἔβαλλον. On these and

also on internal grounds the reading of D G is to be preferred: “they

began to spit upon him, and continued to buffet him.”

xv. 28. Syr^{sin} is now to be added to the authorities that omit the

interpolation. On the interesting names, Zoatham and Chammatha, Dysmas

and Gestas, Titus and Dumachus (_i.e._ Θεομάχος), see Berger in the

notice of Wordsworth, and White’s _Epilogus_ mentioned above, and also

J. R. Harris in the _Expositor_, March 1900, p. 162 ff., April, p. 304.

xv. 34. It is extraordinary that no reference is made in Swete’s edition

to the very singular reading of Codex D, ὠνίδισας instead of

ἐγκατέλιπες. In addition to the testimony of the Old Latin manuscripts c

(exprobrasti me), i (me in opprobrium dedisti), k* (maledixisti: see

Burkitt in the _Journal of Theological Studies_, i. p. 278), this

reading is attested in Greek by Macarius Magnes. No explanation of it

has yet been given that is in all respects satisfactory. See _Expository

Times_, August 1898, and February, March, and April 1900.

xvi. 9-20. The English Revisers had not the courage to omit the

conclusion. They print it quite like the rest of the text, only they

separate it from the foregoing by a somewhat wider space than usual, and

give a note in the margin to the following effect—viz. “The two oldest

Greek manuscripts and some other authorities omit from verse 9 to the

end. Some other authorities have a different ending to the Gospel.” The

German Revised Version has no remark to offer, which is easily accounted

for on the principles on which that version is made. The most careful

discussion of the passage is now that of Swete, pp. xcvi-cv. See also

Zahn, _Einl._, ii. 227-235, 237, 240, and compare the Appendix in

Chase’s _Old Syriac Element_, pp. 150-157, “Note on Mark xvi. 9-20,” and

Arthur Wright, _The Gospel according to St. Luke_, p. xv.

The subscription of several minuscules bears that Mark’s Gospel was

written at Rome ten years after the Ascension, and delivered to the

brethren there by Peter, the πρωτοκορυφαῖος of the Apostles. Others give

Egypt as the place of origin. It is of more importance to observe that Λ

20, 262, 300 contain the note: ἀντεβλήθη ὁμοίως ἐκ τῶν ἐσπουδασμένων.

This refers to the subscription to Matthew found in these manuscripts:

ἐγράφη καὶ ἀντεβλήθη ἐκ τῶν ἐν Ἱεροσολύμοις παλαιῶν ἀντιγράφων τῶν ἐν τῷ

ἁγίῳ ὄρει ἀποκειμένων. A similar subscription occurs in 2^{pe}, a

minuscule of considerable importance for Mark (473 in Scrivener; see

above, p. 151, n.).

Luke.

Apart altogether from the question how the numerous and decided

peculiarities of Codex D are to be explained, we find a great many

problems connected with the text of Luke’s Gospel.

On the supposed title see Zahn, _Einl._, ii. 383.

i. 26. In place of the definite indication of time, Blass follows

certain Latin authorities, especially the Latin Irenæus, in giving: in

ipso (or, eodem) autem tempore, ἐν αὐτῷ δὲ τῷ καιρῷ. Zahn points out

(_Einl._, ii. 354) that this is the customary formula for the beginning

of a pericope in the Lectionaries, and that while no doubt in the later

Greek system the pericope of the Annunciation began with verse 24, 26 is

the more appropriate beginning. He adds that in any case the origin of

this formula is evident, and that Cod. D, which here parts company with

the Latin witnesses, gives other indications besides this of the

influence of a pericope-system. See the Introduction to Scrivener’s

edition of the Codex, p. li.

i. 46. On the reading _Elisabeth_, see above, p. 238.

i. 63. The β text inserted the words ἐλύθη ἡ γλῶσσα αὐτοῦ before καὶ

ἐθαύμασαν πάντες, by way of explaining the astonishment of the people.

Zahn thinks this an absurd misplacement, seeing that the mention of

Zechariah’s speaking does not come till the following verse, and the

people could not know that his tongue was loosed till they heard him

speak. Syr^{sin} accordingly corrects this by putting the mention of the

astonishment after that of the speaking, in which it is followed by

Blass.

ii. 4, 5. In the β text Blass adopts the reading αὐτοὺς, and transposes

the clause διὰ τὸ εἶναι αὐτοὺς ἐξ οἴκου καὶ πατριᾶς Δαυείδ to the end of

verse 5. This arrangement is also exhibited by D. Syr^{sin} reads

“both.” One Old Latin manuscript has _essent_, but as it exhibits the

clause in the usual place, Zahn thinks that _essent_ is manifestly a

clerical error for _esset_. The Syriac, he points out, is derived from

Tatian. See _Einl._, ii. 355; _Forsch._, i. 118; _GK._, ii. 561; Vetter,

_Der dritte Korintherbrief_ (1894), 25.

ii. 7. One Latin manuscript (e) has _obvolverunt_ and _collocaverunt_,

which may be compared with _essent_ in verse 4. Zahn thinks that the

plural here is due to the reflection that the mother does not usually

herself attend to a new-born infant.

ii. 14. How does the Christmas song of the angels run exactly? Is it ἐν

ἀνθρώποις εὐδοκίας, or ἐν ἀνθ. εὐδοκία? The question belongs more to

exegesis than textual criticism. The whole matter turns upon a single

letter, but it divides Western Christendom in two parts. The Latin

Church reads it as in _hominibus bonae voluntatis_, “among men of

goodwill,” or, as modern critics understand it, “among men of God’s good

pleasure.” The second reading makes it “goodwill to men.” Which should

it be? The former reading, the genitive, is supported by א* A B* D, the

Latin, and the Gothic, whereas nearly all the other witnesses, including

the Bohairic, the three Syriac, and A itself in the Hymns at the end of

the Old Testament Psalter, have the nominative. One thing seems to me

decisive in favour of the nominative. Scarcely any part of the New

Testament is so steeped in the Hebrew spirit as the first two chapters

of Luke’s Gospel. As Field points out in the third part of his _Otium

Norvicense_, the Greek ἄνθρωποι corresponds to the Hebrew expression

“son of Adam,” which cannot take another genitive after it—“sons of Adam

of goodwill.” On the other hand, the word _goodwill_ in Hebrew is always

followed by the preposition corresponding to the Greek ἐν. So that, till

we have further testimony, I would retain the nominative and the

tripartite division, notwithstanding the authority of Tischendorf,

Westcott and Hort, Weizsäcker, Stage, and Blass, who, by the way,

mentions no variants in the β text.

ii. 40. D here reads ἐν αὐτῷ in place of ἐπ’ αὐτό. The difference is

slight, but not unimportant from a theological point of view. It is not

accidental, as is shown by the corresponding change of ἐπ’ into εἰς in

ch. iii. 22.

iii. 22. Zahn regards this as one of the passages wherein D and its

associates have preserved the original reading. They exhibit here ἐγὼ

σήμερον γεγέννηκά σε in place of ἐν σοὶ εὐδόκησα. He says, moreover,

that “those who hold the former as original need not lament its

disappearance from tradition subsequent to the year 300” (_Einl._, ii.

240, 356). See Burkitt in Barnard’s _Biblical Text of Clement_, pp.

xiii. 38.